What would you have prefer?

DH 2.0: What we've got in the Beta. A reimagination of the central game mechanics and a very different game.

DH 1.5: Dark Heresy with Black Crusade/Only War's polish. Improved, less creaky and in line with all of the other 40k releases.

Personally, I'd prefer option 1.5.

I love 40k RP, but I'm not above sticking to an older edition. I bought every single WFRP 2nd edition book, and it was my favourite RPG. WFRP 3 killed my enthusiasm for that game by turning it into something else. I'm worried that this will do the same. Change for the sake of change and all that.

That's not to say 2.0 can't work, but I'm not particularly enthused by what I've seen so far. It's no WFRP 3 yet, though!

What would you have prefer?

DH 2.0: What we've got in the Beta. A reimagination of the central game mechanics and a very different game.

DH 1.5: Dark Heresy with Black Crusade/Only War's polish. Improved, less creaky and in line with all of the other 40k releases.

Personally, I'd prefer option 1.5.

Same here, though I've essentially done all of that work.

Anything FFG released would be redundant (to me) at this point.

All that said, I've intuited the design concept of the new version- DH 2nd Ed (for me) will be fairly easy to convert to the older game lines.

1.5. Only War rules work well. I think defining the DoS DoF as they have in 2.0 however was worth it. So while not a completely new ruleset, maybe 1.75??

The beta feels more like 1.5 than 2,0 to me. I guess I would have preferred more radical changes. I would call the difference between WFRP 2E and 3E radical and that's not what I'm seeing here at all. So I think FFG learned from that when it comes to existing RPGs and decided to do something less drastic. The WFRPH 3E stuff went into EotE instead.

That said, I do like the beta more than DH1E.

Please please please give us a 1.5

I can only go off my own experiences. We had a lot of fun playing DH2.0. We played lots of games over many weekends during the play-test period, and we had a blast. But at the end of all those great games I do have to ask if the change of rules had any real influence on how much fun we were having? Did we need a completely different method of working out combat to have fun? I don't think we did.

I also have to factor in my own bias: I'm a continuity nut, I like it when things are compatible with one another, I don't like change for the sake of change, I don't like adding needless complexity and items that create pointless busywork to achieve the same goals as before (like special dice, which I'm very thankful DH2.0 does not have) and I'm the kind of person who would go out of his way to make something old fit with something new unless that was impossible.

So yeah, we had a great time with DH2.0, but I think we would have had fun anyway. We've certainly never not had fun with the old rules.

BYE

"40k RPG 2nd Edition". Think the nWoD Corebook. Dark Heresy, Deathwatch, etc would then be new releases based off that same corebook rather than having to constantly repeat the lines every five years.

Failing that, 1.5. Dark Heresy was really showing its age, but slapping on an OW splash of paint would have been perfect. I don't dislike the changes (yet), I just don't think they're really necessary for anything but forcing players to learn new systems that worked fine before.

The removal of having to learnt Rank 1 of Skills makes it worthy of a purchase alone though.

I'd rather have had a 1.5. My group has already decided to ignore these rules and use V1, unless the real release is significantly better

2.0 would be my choice. I have found 1.0 to be a robust enough system with a few small House Rules as issues arise. Any RPG that wants to stand the test of time needs to reinvent itself and release new editions (as with DnD), so I'm delighted FFG have put the time and imagination into doing this for Dark Heresy.

The Beta looks very nice so far. I'm excited to try it out in some actual games.

2.0

I a really digging what I've read so far - especially the narrative tools - and while I'm not blind to issues raised by the community I don't see them as anywhere near game breaking. With polish this should be a really fun rules set.

I don't know why; maybe the gritty, lackluster and terse black and white layout, maybe something in the language, maybe the cover, but I really feel the desperation (the same I got when reading Sibellus Noir) in DH 2.0 in a way I didn't in 1.0.

1.5

1.5. While I am mainly interested in the fluff they'll produce (if they keep the creative juices flowing), i would much rather prefer a rules update that is somewhat compatible with the other rpg game sin the 40k series.

Needing a new edition just to keep sales flowing sounds a bit bogus to me. A rules update and exciting new campaigns and background info should do the trick well enough.

I'm in the 2.0 camp. While I really love the first ed and 1.5 rules (I even ran Deathwatch using the 1.5 rules for a while as I thought they were better than the stock rules), the 2.0 rules bring something fresh to the roleplay and a different challenge for the GMs and players to get stuck into.

I much prefer this approach rather than just feeling I'm playing Only War again with more investigation bolted on.

I'm kind of mixed and it is still too early to say.

It's still beta, and there are some minor stuff I see as potentially problematic with the game.

I have all these supplements for Dark Heresy 1! I get that FFG has to do this in order to reboot the series and give us new supplements for us to buy, but right now I'm pretty content with what I have. Maybe when the player handbook comes out it will tip the balance. Because alot of the supplements I have are crossover compatible (enemies, adventures, some weapon concepts can be adapted etc). But Inquisitors Handbook made DH1 for me and I kinda want that for DH2 as well.

It's new! I like new, I also like old but let's face it things have to change in order to become better. Just look at the rules for Only War compared to Dark Heresy. I'm just hoping Dark Heresy 2 doesn't start out like DH1 did but starts off well and just keeps getting better.

Also, more structured rules for investigatios I see as a hope because it's the strenght of dark heresy and the setting and premise lends itself to it very well. Keep doing that! Maybe give fellowship more rules, I know it sounds weird but my players seem to respond better to structured rules on how they can use it to achieve various things.

You cant really wait for that though, if nobody wants a 2.0 it has to come out now, before FFG really commits to it. I have major issues in every section of the new rules that could be fixed and if they were I think I'd be fine with it but if Im honest I'd rather have an Only War system which allows me to pull over stuff from all my other books.

So yeah I'm in the 1.5 camp.

I and my gaming group appear to be rather firmly in the 1.5 camp. My group accepts that original Dark Heresy has its flaws, but we don't want something that completely invalidates all the supporting material, supplements, splatbooks etc. that have since come out to gradually rectify such flaws over time through the inclusion of new stuff. We've quite frankly got a game that works and we don't want something that, to us, has not been thought out too well.

One guy in particular just sat there scratching his head before saying "why would I want to play this?"

So definitely 1.5 for us.

Edit: Something else I should point out is that it would actually require very little effort whatsoever on FFG's part to make a 1.5, and it's what a not-inconsiderable number of people seem to want. With 2.0, FFG are going for a more difficult, more effort-intensive option that is proving to be very contentious and will more or less rule out interplay with other systems. I personally can't help but wonder why.

Edit: Something else I should point out is that it would actually require very little effort whatsoever on FFG's part to make a 1.5, and it's what a not-inconsiderable number of people seem to want. With 2.0, FFG are going for a more difficult, more effort-intensive option that is proving to be very contentious and will more or less rule out interplay with other systems. I personally can't help but wonder why.

The way I look at it is that a new system therefore brings a lot of new ways to play the game. Aside from any argument about whether the new rules are better or worse, at least they're something different. In the system was just 1.5 again I'm sure there are a portion of players who would think, "I've played enough in that system, I'd rather play in something new" and wouldn't play a 1.5 Dark Heresy.

Also, although there is certainly a time investment involved, there are plenty of players here that have already moved dark heresy to a 1.5 system, showing it's possible to house rule it. House ruling a completely new take on the game however is rather more difficult.

2.0 is going to happen, they cant stop the train now.

Also it is a good idea to do 2.0 and most of the stuff is good.

There are some issues and we need to work on getting those fixed, but apart from that, bring on the 2.0 system!

Though I like some of the changes 2.0 brought us I think I prefer 1.5
Though the action points are very cool so I would truly like 1.75

I would prefer DH 1.5.

It seems the ship has sailed anyway, but...

40k RPG, starting with Dark Heresy, was a very good ruleset from the get go. It benefited directly from being preceded by two editions of WFRP, and it showed. It had it's rough parts and bumps that needed to be evened out, but it was perfectly workable, and FFG did a **** fine job at improving the system even more throughout the years.

What I'm seeing in 2e so far looks like change for the sake of change, or if someone prefers, fixing that which wasn't broken in the first place. I'm seeing a lot of improvements in the new rules, but most of them could have been introduced seamlessly into the old engine without unhinging it like they did. Then I'm seeing things like the new weapon stats, and they might work, but... so did the previous weapon stats, so was it really worth it to throw them out and take the whole thing back to formula?

I'm not as baffled at the scale of changes as some people are - they called it Second Edition, something they never did before despite altering a ton of things between original DH and OW, so I expected the change to be drastic. It's just that, big as they are, I don't see those changes as having the potential to drastically improve my play experience, and thus am hard pressed to justify the switch. For comparison's sake, I looked at the changes in BC and it took me literally five minutes of digesting them before I decided that yes, these are great and I'm using them in all my 40k games from now on. That's what I expected from DH 2e - being able to take a look at it, digest it for a few hours, and then think to myself, yes, I'm seeing how it can improve the game, and will therefore try using these rules from now on.

Sadly, that didn't happen. I'll give these rules a shot and will watch the beta updates closely, but unless something changes drastically (either in the rules or in my outlook on them, and again, fairness dictates that I admit I'm not really sure which of the two is wrong at the moment), I'm just not seeing the point of making the switch.

My current DH campaign has quite a bit of life left in it, so I won't have to choose which system to go with on the next campaign for a while yet. And I certainly won't make a final decision until I see the finished version of 2.0 (I haven't even read the whole Beta yet).

That said, I am leaning toward 1.5 right now. There are many things I actively dislike about what I've seen so far about 2.0 (weapon and armour stats first and foremost) , and nothing that really compels me to want to learn an entirely new system. I may cherry-pick some elements (creating a 1.75 version...?), but so far 2.0 isn't really grabbing me.

I agree with Adeptus on this particular note.

There a lot of VERY positive changes- but there are a lot of weird, negative things that clog down the system in my personal opinion.

Compatibility is big. I can understand things not being compatible because you want to take it in a new direction. But some of this stuff could have EASILY been made compatible. First and foremost would have just been the Damage on the weapons.

They are different enough that we can't use the old stuff- but ultimately speaking, they achieve the exact same results. They just go about it a brand new convoluted way. Had they just kept the old damage values, would that REALLY have ruined the wound system? I don't think so. But we'll give it a shot during my first play test session.

Even though my campaign is also going to go on for a long time, so I don't really need to change to these rules- I am going to wait and see how much they are going to listen to us in the Beta and how active they are in dealing with these issues.

If the product is already made and this just some sort of formality, you can count me out. If not, and there's true potential to CHANGE things. For example, just the Iron Will table. Then I am going to be satisfied. I know its superficial - but Dialogue is what matters here (Somethng FFG is notoriously bad with, unfortunately).

I really- really- want to shift my rules to 2.0. But if 2.0 doesn't deliver, its going to be one of the many [free] homebrewed 1.5/1.75 out there.

40k RPG, starting with Dark Heresy, was a very good ruleset from the get go.

I disagree. The further you got from starting acolytes the less well it worked.

Very much agree with ErikB. I think DH1E is pretty terrible and the subsequent iterations have marginally but increasingly improved it. BC or OW are the only 40k RPGs games I would be willing to play more of prior to this beta despite that I really prefer the setting and scale of DH and RT respectively.