Having read all the comments here I would like to cast my vote for a 1.5 version rather than something based on the current beta.

Especially the comments about combat being slower and requiring more book keeping had made an impression on me.

Combat should be simple, fun and fast rather than providing a lot of gory details. If anything, a new version should make combat much simpler.

Also the lack of compatibility with the other current lines is IMHO a bad move.

I want to comment on this because I do agree what this man is saying. You want combat to be resolved quickly and have it streamlined. What you don't want is to keep track ever single hit and effect. I been that road before and it sucks.

There's something intrisically wrong with the concept of hit points or any equivalent in all systems they're used in, if you ask me. Just look at any RPG rulebook where no less than several paragraphs of page space are used up trying to justify the fact that characters can magically soak a huge number of flesh wounds with no adverse effects, but then suddenly all the pain hits them once they're wounded.

A system where every hit DOES something is much more reasonable, and definitely suits the deadly gritty tone DH tries to establish. I agree it needs some tweaking, but the system as a whole is hardly all that awful. I guess I've never been the type to be bothered by looking things up in the book. I mean, is it hard to tab the few pages you'll need? Or, really, ask the GM, who will doubtless have every table right in front of him on his screen?

How about you treat wounds (1.5 wounds that is) as near misses? As in the melta did in fact burn out portions of the armor, but the space marine manage to move out of the way enough before it can cause real damage. The bolter shots by the chaos space marine nearly hit the battle nun in the head as the rounds fly pass her. Mechanically it is still wound damage, but narration wise it is describe as a near miss. You only describe it as a direct hit when it gets to crit damage, but till then it is near misses. That is how I always treated HP and other things that fill that mechanic roll.

Yeah, there's a handful of fairly valid explanation for how HP systems work (wearing down endurance, glancing hits, etc), but at the end of the day the fact they need such shaky justifications is something I'd argue speaks volumes about why the systems should be replaced wholesale.

Yeah, there's a handful of fairly valid explanation for how HP systems work (wearing down endurance, glancing hits, etc), but at the end of the day the fact they need such shaky justifications is something I'd argue speaks volumes about why the systems should be replaced wholesale.

What exactly do you find shaky about those?

I really don't think they're any more shaky than explaining how a guy took three bolter round to the chest and survived (albeit in bad shape), but then a thrown rock caused his head to explode in a shower of gore.

Yeah, there's a handful of fairly valid explanation for how HP systems work (wearing down endurance, glancing hits, etc), but at the end of the day the fact they need such shaky justifications is something I'd argue speaks volumes about why the systems should be replaced wholesale.

What exactly do you find shaky about those?

I really don't think they're any more shaky than explaining how a guy took three bolter round to the chest and survived (albeit in bad shape), but then a thrown rock caused his head to explode in a shower of gore.

If any thing Morangias it is more shaky. Took three direct hits by bolter rounds that are design to make things go boom on impact and yet the guy is still whole. WTF? A thrown rock finally made him blow up. More WTF? Sure you can try to justify it by saying maybe the rock got the bolter rounds to explode, but your stretching it.

Now getting nearly hit by three bolter rounds and then having said thrown rock striking you down by a frustrated chaos marine makes more sense. Chaos marine clearly could not get a direct hit with his bolter and he toss his gun down to pick up a rock to fling it in a fit of rage.

The fact each hit did something other than tick down a counter on his character sheet is a change for the better, I think. The DH2 system is far from perfect but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Unless your running a whole group who can't keep track of things. Then it becomes a headache. A GM with a headache is worst than you as a player bitching about HP any day of the week.

That's entirely a fair point. I know some players don't tend to book-keep well, and the issue would only be exacerbated under the new wounds system. Personally though, in terms of my group and myself, I'm a big fan. A sidebar presenting something more similar to the traditional rules might be a good idea for groups who prefer something a bit faster and more practical.

I always loved WH40k and especially the Dark Heresy Setting.

With DH1 though I always had the problem of intensive house ruling with some issues.

With the Beta of 2.0 I can see many of my previous problems solved, partially in a quite creative way.

So you can count me to the 2.0 Camp.

Anyway, I would highly wish for:

a.) A pdf file with conversions of all Weapons, Armour & Equipment from previous DH1-books to DH2

b.) keep the Throne proices also in DH2.0 - even if its just for information. There comes the time when cash is more subtle than Influence during a mission (maybe also add a conversion rule for Influence into thrones)

The fact each hit did something other than tick down a counter on his character sheet is a change for the better, I think. The DH2 system is far from perfect but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

You'd be surprised how often people take hits with little to no effect in real life combat situations.

Sure, but we're talking 40k here, not real life. In 40k, guns firing superheated energy are common. Guns firing explosive bullets are common. Getting torn into with chainsaws is common. That's something that needs to be felt. A hit that does nothing is simply one that doesn't surpass armour and TB.

Sure, but we're talking 40k here, not real life. In 40k, guns firing superheated energy are common. Guns firing explosive bullets are common. Getting torn into with chainsaws is common. That's something that needs to be felt. A hit that does nothing is simply one that doesn't surpass armour and TB.

You mean like those first effects on the new table that do nothing but make the next hit hurt more?

This is true the wounds of 1 to 6 basicly do say nothing really happens to you. That is each location and damage type as well.

Tom: It is not a presumption. It is Empirical data based on the mathmatics of the system and supported by the experiences of other playtesters on the forum. I am still trying to convince my own group to even try this based on what they've seen! I'm not saying I would not validate my thought with playtesting time. I simply stated that I can foresee a number of problems and these predictions are backed up already existing experience! In case you hadn't noticed; I also offered solutions that were economically feasible and mathmatically workable. As a response you accuse me of being "presumptuous"? Really? I'm trying to help here!

Speaking AS someone who's been doing a lot of playtesting lately, I have to say I like DH2 a lot. Ok, sometimes it gets silly and cartoonish, but despite WH40k's grimderpitude, it IS a comic and cartoonish universe, which is why I like it, the contrast. Yes, there are glaring balance issues. Yes, possibly a '1.75' system might work/sell better (I know for a fact that I'm working on one for Only War, simply because I like these new tables so much). But so far all you seem to be saying is that because you feel that it doesn't work, and that's how you've read other people's reports, you think that this is somehow mathematical proof of what you're saying. Could you please point to the empirical data you refer to, so that your argument has the evidence necessary to back it up?

Statistical proof in the form of a number of reports indicating a median norm of sub par performance is mathmatical proof! It is not absolute but it is valid!

As to Empirical data, Here is the definition per Wiki:

Empirical evidence (also empirical data , sense experience , empirical knowledge , or the a posteriori ) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation . ^[1] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions . ^[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory , and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect. ^[2]

Additionally, Here is the link if you want to read the rest of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

So, That being said:

1.) DH2 departs radically from the rest of the 40k line, especially in combat and gear. (Observation)

2.) The wound system does reflect weapon damage in the same way as other products (Observation through posts and in reading the rules) Test roles (Experimentation) bear this out.

3.) The overwhelming consensus on these forums about the combat/gear/wounds system is negative. This is an observation on my part but experimentation of those whom I mention. It is thus empirically relevant.

4.) FFG has essentially admitted these rules are broken and in need of overhaul! I take this as a "Proof of thesis"

@Alpharius: I understand you want the system to work because you like parts of it. That doesn't give you the right to treat me or others with derision because we disagree with you! I want the new rules to work too! I was one of the people advocating for a DH2 on these forums (Go look it up!)! Unfortunately, IMO these are too radical a departure from the old ruleset and have serious challenges in being a playable game! This has even been echoed by some of the people I know to be (Or have been) playtesters/writers for ffg on these forums! For the record (Again!), I did not say the system is completely unplayable! I said that parts of it (Combat/Armoury rules) need a lot of work. I even posted on the positives thread on what I thought they got right!

The weird thing is that you didn't really need to change the entire system in order to get 'mini crits'. My own group use a really simple house rule with DH1 (and WFRP 2, OW, BC, DW and RT) to achieve that result. I won't restate what our house rule is - but some sort of 1.5 edition could've easily taken the concept of every hit potentially inflicting a crit on board.

Yeah, there's a handful of fairly valid explanation for how HP systems work (wearing down endurance, glancing hits, etc), but at the end of the day the fact they need such shaky justifications is something I'd argue speaks volumes about why the systems should be replaced wholesale.

But HP's are fast and very playable!

Who cares about realism? Warhammer 40k is not a realistic universe anyway.

Pure D20 is IMHO an example of a fast and playable HP combat system.

If you want an example of an (almost) HP-less system, that is fast, fun and very playable I would say Savage Worlds .

Tom: It is not a presumption. It is Empirical data based on the mathmatics of the system and supported by the experiences of other playtesters on the forum. I am still trying to convince my own group to even try this based on what they've seen! I'm not saying I would not validate my thought with playtesting time. I simply stated that I can foresee a number of problems and these predictions are backed up already existing experience! In case you hadn't noticed; I also offered solutions that were economically feasible and mathmatically workable. As a response you accuse me of being "presumptuous"? Really? I'm trying to help here!

Speaking AS someone who's been doing a lot of playtesting lately, I have to say I like DH2 a lot. Ok, sometimes it gets silly and cartoonish, but despite WH40k's grimderpitude, it IS a comic and cartoonish universe, which is why I like it, the contrast. Yes, there are glaring balance issues. Yes, possibly a '1.75' system might work/sell better (I know for a fact that I'm working on one for Only War, simply because I like these new tables so much). But so far all you seem to be saying is that because you feel that it doesn't work, and that's how you've read other people's reports, you think that this is somehow mathematical proof of what you're saying. Could you please point to the empirical data you refer to, so that your argument has the evidence necessary to back it up?

Statistical proof in the form of a number of reports indicating a median norm of sub par performance is mathmatical proof! It is not absolute but it is valid!

As to Empirical data, Here is the definition per Wiki:

Empirical evidence (also empirical data , sense experience , empirical knowledge , or the a posteriori ) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation . ^[1] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions . ^[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. Although other sources of evidence, such as memory , and the testimony of others ultimately trace back to some sensory experience, they are considered to be secondary, or indirect. ^[2]

Additionally, Here is the link if you want to read the rest of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

So, That being said:

1.) DH2 departs radically from the rest of the 40k line, especially in combat and gear. (Observation)

2.) The wound system does reflect weapon damage in the same way as other products (Observation through posts and in reading the rules) Test roles (Experimentation) bear this out.

3.) The overwhelming consensus on these forums about the combat/gear/wounds system is negative. This is an observation on my part but experimentation of those whom I mention. It is thus empirically relevant.

4.) FFG has essentially admitted these rules are broken and in need of overhaul! I take this as a "Proof of thesis"

@Alpharius: I understand you want the system to work because you like parts of it. That doesn't give you the right to treat me or others with derision because we disagree with you! I want the new rules to work too! I was one of the people advocating for a DH2 on these forums (Go look it up!)! Unfortunately, IMO these are too radical a departure from the old ruleset and have serious challenges in being a playable game! This has even been echoed by some of the people I know to be (Or have been) playtesters/writers for ffg on these forums! For the record (Again!), I did not say the system is completely unplayable! I said that parts of it (Combat/Armoury rules) need a lot of work. I even posted on the positives thread on what I thought they got right!

I'm NOT trying to deride you. I'm trying to get you to make your argument more coherent and less ranty, which you've done. Now, to take it apart.

The weapon system reflects weapon damage differently to other 40kRPGs, yes. Some of them APPEAR ridiculous if you envisage a bolt shell hitting someone full in the chest and them shaking it off due to a poor damage roll. But is that any less ridiculous than an HP system, where this is even more the case, but simply not highlighted? It is, I think, partly up to the GM and players to look at what damage has been rolled and describe a situation where it occurred.

Of course, there are still faults with the system. I'm not saying that someone just getting a bruise from an auto-pistol is sensible, nor the incredible armoured robes. The stats DO need work, no-one's saying that they don't. But the base rules themselves ARE actual eminently playable, as could be tested by you PLAYING THEM.

All I was objecting to was you attempting to judge them in a vacuum. You can't judge a book by its cover, nor can you judge something's playability till you played it.

Then again, I have a high tolerance for weird playability, so maybe I'm wrong and it is an unplayable mess.

I don't really have a problem with the CONCEPT of a no Hp system. There are plenty of people who have been involved in firefights, been grazed by bullets or shrapnel and suffered no ill effects. That's what a low damage roll is in any system; A grazing wound. I DO have a problem with how damage works on the upper end! Rolling a ten on your damage roll only gives you a bonus to the NEXT wound inflicted! That's idiotic! If I'm using a Knife (1d10-2 no sb) and I strike an unarmored average opponent with an 01 and roll a 10 for damage do you know what happens? NOTHING (Assuming a 2 or less TB)! Really! You consider that playable? I'm sorry! Certainly not all knife wounds are lethal but some are! The old system would have actually worked MUCH better! Said opponent, Even in flack armor an opponent would have taken a critical hit that would, at the least even with a horrible crit roll have done SOMETHING! (Most likely something that would have temporarily disabled my opponent in some way.)

This means that the new system is significantly flawed without even getting into it's incompatibility with the existing product line (Don't even get me started on that!). I could probably come up with any number of similar examples but it would be a waste of time! As to less Ranty: I have sighted a number of specifics in my posts (Go look!). What I get frustrated with is when a large number of long time players of the 40k rpg are saying the same thing than they probably have a point! Having people come on fawning over the new 'shiny' and then essentially accuse those of us who aren't of ranting or just being resistant to change...Yeah, That's annoying and derisive!

Actually, if you strike an average opponent and roll a 10, they die. Only master NPCs or players will ever see the effects of that +10. And that's because they're purpose designed NOT to go down in one hit.

Actually, if you strike an average opponent and roll a 10, they die. Only master NPCs or players will ever see the effects of that +10. And that's because they're purpose designed NOT to go down in one hit.

Bigger issue = if you DON'T roll a 10, they don't die. Worst case scenario is it takes 7 hits to kill someone, where even doing 1 point of damage will have a Wound Effect 31 (since the +5 doesn't apply until the next hit). Now, if you're using a high RoF weapon 7 hits might not be much, but if your characters are using slower weapons it can really drag even at 1 hit consistently per round.

In the 1 fight I playtested I gave up after 4 wounds on the Elite because it was just taking too long and he was fairly unimpaired, taking only a 16 Wound Effect on hit #4 (Energy, limb). Was 3 acolytes in a fight versus 2 Novices and 1 Elite, but nary a Righteous Fury was to be seen! Except the poor psyker, who had rolled doubles and managed to critically Assail himself early on in the fight.

The weird thing is that you didn't really need to change the entire system in order to get 'mini crits'. My own group use a really simple house rule with DH1 (and WFRP 2, OW, BC, DW and RT) to achieve that result. I won't restate what our house rule is - but some sort of 1.5 edition could've easily taken the concept of every hit potentially inflicting a crit on board.

I think part of the reason they have done it the way they have is that they wanted to ensure that a player couldn't die to a random bullet shot in the first attack. By having this weird +5 thing for wounds, and with the damages for weapons, no PC can be killed in the first attack that hits them, either by sheer weight of fire (full-auto burst from an autogun in the old system) or just randomly high damage (Righteous Fury or, if you have a HP-less system with the old tables, any high dice roll if the target is unarmoured).

This system as it stands, which I am not keen on for various reasons (for a while I thought I didn't like HP systems... I realise now that I don't like systems with squillions of hit points), seems to be explicitly designed to make it hard to kill players.

I have to say this new damage system has encouraged me to think more about a HP less system I would approve of...

Actually, if you strike an average opponent and roll a 10, they die. Only master NPCs or players will ever see the effects of that +10. And that's because they're purpose designed NOT to go down in one hit.

That's sort of my point! In a game like 40k I WANT my players to be afraid of that "magic bullet"! In practice, Even with the old exploding damage dice, I don't remember it ever happening to a PC! (Although a few of my high-level NPC's learned to fear the assassin!) I did read the rules! In this case I am more concerned about my player's Sage character wading into combat because he "knows" he's not going down in the first round no matter what! Heretics employ assassins as well you know! And what about the PC assassin? He's not particularly interested if he can insta-gib the guard at the door! He's lining up his Sniper rifle on the Master level leader in the back of the room. He aims, Exhales slowly and BLAM! He manages to stun his opponent (?) Oh come on!!! My players will start throwing the books at me! And this is after the update! *Sigh* We're in trouble here guys! If FFG cannot get this fixed I fear this game is going the way of the Dodo! BTW: For those who say I am not being specific or fair...This is based on the player rolling pair of 9's or 10's against the opponent for damage! Of course Righteous fury applies... NEXT ROUND! WTF! In games I have run in the past the assassin would be handing me either all his fate points or just his character sheet as all hell decends upon him! Mission fail! Bad guy runs away and my players quit playing because the game is ridiculous! Yeah! That works really well!

My Point is this: If the player is smart enough to set up the situation and does well on the die rolls he should be rewarded for it. Old system would have given a damage potential of 34 points of damage without any special ammo! That is Giblet time for almost any human target! Even that Chaos Space marine champion with his helmet off is in for a VERY bad day! My players don't care that they can Insta-gib an average opponent. Any idiot with a weapon and a lucky roll can do that! They want their Assassins to be, well, Assassins!

My Point is this: If the player is smart enough to set up the situation and does well on the die rolls he should be rewarded for it. Old system would have given a damage potential of 34 points of damage without any special ammo! ...My players don't care that they can Insta-gib an average opponent. Any idiot with a weapon and a lucky roll can do that! They want their Assassins to be, well, Assassins!

If a PC's plan revolves around rolling three righteous furies it's not a good plan. An average roll, even with the Accurate bonus, would be 18 damage. That is easily survivable for anyone considered to be a Big Bad, even if they're not wearing armor.

Using the sniper rifle in a carefully co-ordinated plan to take out the top leadership of the cult in one shot is a great idea if the Acolytes can pull it off. But it's a narrative solution, not a combat solution. If the PC's set up their plan well and roll well (to hit), then there's nothing stopping the GM from saying the Big Bad's head explodes like a watermelon. Conversely, if the GM wants this person to live, then there's nothing stopping him from having the Big Bad dodge, or have a force field, or have a loyal body guard take the hit. These are all narrative elements completely under the GM's control. The basic rules don't have to make a weapon that is an absolute-guaranteed-one-hit-kill for this scenario to take place. If you start doing that, why then should it be limited to the sniper rifle? Maybe my Assassin likes rocket launchers. A frag missile to the face could end up doing a whopping 2 damage if you roll snake eyes. That's not realistic. But that doesn't mean they need to make the frag missile a guaranteed kill. Or maybe I'm a death cult assassin and like the up close kill...even if I get every possible degree of success on my stealth roll and sneak right up behind the cult leader, I can't slit his throat and kill him instantly with the knife. All the arguments I keep seeing for the sniper rifle, or bolters, or melta, or anything else can all be applied to any other weapon under the right circumstances. But it would be a short, silly, brutal game if everything were that lethal, because if it's that lethal in the hands of a PC it's just as lethal in the hands of an NPC. I think I would be rightly pissed if I failed a dodge roll and burned a fate point from full health because some hired gun shot me from 400m away.

So looking at the changes being made to Dark Heresy with the second edition and a shift away from being very backwards compatible with all of the other systems gives me some worry. Is this going to be a continuous trend for the rest of the systems thus rendering all the currently owned books obsolete?

Looking at how GW does business with updating codexes (codexi?) where they are updated in stages leaving some armies behind by several editions while other ones are always up to date.

I would almost rather see all of the systems get released at one with compatible books.

But I'm in favor of doing a 1.5 DH instead of a completely new mechanics and a different game. As far as I can tell the current set of up to date mechanics works pretty well (Only War style).

So looking at the changes being made to Dark Heresy with the second edition and a shift away from being very backwards compatible with all of the other systems gives me some worry. Is this going to be a continuous trend for the rest of the systems thus rendering all the currently owned books obsolete?

Looking at how GW does business with updating codexes (codexi?) where they are updated in stages leaving some armies behind by several editions while other ones are always up to date.

I would almost rather see all of the systems get released at one with compatible books.

But I'm in favor of doing a 1.5 DH instead of a completely new mechanics and a different game. As far as I can tell the current set of up to date mechanics works pretty well (Only War style).

FFG has very specifically stated that only Dark Heresy will get a second version. The other four lines will not be updated as per the original statement.