Well, the way I would do it is have weapons in three categories [which already exist]

Light, Medium and Heavy. {pistol, basic & heavy}

Light and Pistols would require 1 action point Per hit.

Medium & Basic would require 2 action points per hit.

Heavy would require 3 action points per hit. [so you can move and attack with it.]

Light melee weapons would get reliable, and heavy melee weapons would get unreliable. These, on melee weapons, would grant fatigue on a jam.

And then I would use all of the armory from all of the previous games as is, replacing the old dark heresy with Only war, as I believe all of the weapons in that core-book are in the other one [but updated].

Alternate ranks that grant special abilities or talents would become elite advances which would grant cheaper access to talents and some specialities.

And... I would use Psychic powers from Original DH, as I've always prefered that system and they are a lot more diverse. But, likely with the tables from the Beta, with some consideration to the sorcerer which would add more on that table.

Thats juts off the top of my head

Alienating you loyal and repeat customers is never a good idea in ANY business!

I alone have sunk well over £1500 into FFG 40k books not including the digital versions of some books I also own and between my gaming group its probably over £3000 (especially since I am lowballing my own collection). The only book I don't own is Slaanesh book for BC but that is because it is only now out in the UK and I haven't been out to get it yet. Across the systems that means I own 49 books and 5 GM screens from my count and I'm not sure if I included everything. These are the type of fans you risk alienating, ones that will be spending thousands of £££s and $$$s to support your lines and who will keep doing so if they are given a reason.

I have to admit I could get behind the new system if it was well done. The backwards compatibility thing is an issue for me and my group but its not a dealbreaker in terms of buying the books. What is a deal breaker for me is the sheer number of shockingly bad design decisions littered through the rules as is and so far no words from the Devs to address the criticism. This could easily be a dialogue between the devs and the people in the Beta but FFG has taken its usual baffling aloof approach to these thing and has let the bad feeling build up in their absence.

I think people who want the change just assume that everyone who heard changed rules was instantly pessimistic about this but its not the case. In fact when I told the OP about 2nd ed here was his response,

ThatGrumpyScotsman: \o/

ThatGrumpyScotsman: Woohoo

Kaihlik: Not compatible with 1st ed from what I can tell

Kaihlik: am downloading the beta atm

ThatGrumpyScotsman: I'm really excited about this, haha.

(copied from skype, all I did was remove some non related chat and chaange the names).

I'm just saying its not because its changed from 1st ed that we are complaining, its because its bad.

One of my friends mentioned what may have been the problem behind this whole thing:

And the funny thing, even though I would have been one to buy it....

Generally speaking, why someone buy a Dark Heresy 1.5?

A lot of people have already converted Dark Heresy to Only War and Vice Versa and all of that and their versions (Seem to) work great (though I've personally never tried them, I tend to shy away from homebrew in favor of official material)

The idea is that its a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach.

On the one hand, I am constantly berating FFG for republishing previous and copy pasted content. Which btw they did in this book, what with the inclusion of the word "Fettered" despite that not existing int he rules.

On the other, were asking them to copy paste and charge us 60$ for it.

Ultimately though, I am sorry to say, production costs on this book, if copy pasted, are likely not to be even CLOSE to 60$- especially with ALL of the art being reused.

If the 'DH1.5' rules were updated to the OW system, and some of the better thing from DH2b added (I haven't read through the new Investigation and other non-combat rules, but I hear that they are pretty cool), and a new setting (ideally in Ultima Segmentum- hel- lo , Hive Fleets!), I would definitely shell out $60 for it...

One of my friends mentioned what may have been the problem behind this whole thing:

And the funny thing, even though I would have been one to buy it....

Generally speaking, why someone buy a Dark Heresy 1.5?

A lot of people have already converted Dark Heresy to Only War and Vice Versa and all of that and their versions (Seem to) work great (though I've personally never tried them, I tend to shy away from homebrew in favor of official material)

The idea is that its a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach.

On the one hand, I am constantly berating FFG for republishing previous and copy pasted content. Which btw they did in this book, what with the inclusion of the word "Fettered" despite that not existing int he rules.

On the other, were asking them to copy paste and charge us 60$ for it.

Ultimately though, I am sorry to say, production costs on this book, if copy pasted, are likely not to be even CLOSE to 60$- especially with ALL of the art being reused.

If the 'DH1.5' rules were updated to the OW system, and some of the better thing from DH2b added (I haven't read through the new Investigation and other non-combat rules, but I hear that they are pretty cool), and a new setting (ideally in Ultima Segmentum- hel- lo , Hive Fleets!), I would definitely shell out $60 for it...

I absolutely agree with this! The entire Narrative tools section is IMHO very well put together! The character generation system is at the very least interesting and very flexible. The CONCEPT of a no wound point combat system is interesting but it's execution is woefully broken! AP is something that was discarded in the early 80's as clunky feeling (Even if isn't in actuality!). As I've said before; I did not and do not want DH2 to fail per se! It just needs a lot of work before it goes primetime. definately 1.5 for me!

Alienating you loyal and repeat customers is never a good idea in ANY business!

I alone have sunk well over £1500 into FFG 40k books not including the digital versions of some books I also own and between my gaming group its probably over £3000 (especially since I am lowballing my own collection). The only book I don't own is Slaanesh book for BC but that is because it is only now out in the UK and I haven't been out to get it yet. Across the systems that means I own 49 books and 5 GM screens from my count and I'm not sure if I included everything. These are the type of fans you risk alienating, ones that will be spending thousands of £££s and $$$s to support your lines and who will keep doing so if they are given a reason.

I have to admit I could get behind the new system if it was well done. The backwards compatibility thing is an issue for me and my group but its not a dealbreaker in terms of buying the books. What is a deal breaker for me is the sheer number of shockingly bad design decisions littered through the rules as is and so far no words from the Devs to address the criticism. This could easily be a dialogue between the devs and the people in the Beta but FFG has taken its usual baffling aloof approach to these thing and has let the bad feeling build up in their absence.

I think people who want the change just assume that everyone who heard changed rules was instantly pessimistic about this but its not the case. In fact when I told the OP about 2nd ed here was his response,

ThatGrumpyScotsman: \o/

ThatGrumpyScotsman: Woohoo

Kaihlik: Not compatible with 1st ed from what I can tell

Kaihlik: am downloading the beta atm

ThatGrumpyScotsman: I'm really excited about this, haha.

(copied from skype, all I did was remove some non related chat and chaange the names).

I'm just saying its not because its changed from 1st ed that we are complaining, its because its bad.

Firstly, remember that "bad" and "not to my taste" are distinct, though overlapping, concepts, and ones easily confused.

Secondly, remember that, for the most part, every 40kRP game that FFG has produced has simultaneously brought in new players and alienated existing ones. There are many people who felt insulted that Rogue Trader - intended to be a distinct game from the very first press release by Black Industries - wasn't just a supplement for Dark Heresy. There was extensive wailing and gnashing of teeth when Deathwatch had the audacity to seem incompatible with Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader (the incompatibility was more thematic and perceptual than mechanical, in my opinion). The very notion of Black Crusade's existence, instead of a refreshed and redesigned Dark Heresy, was questioned. The furore caused by the announcement that Only War was going to be a stand-alone game rather than a Dark Heresy supplement was considerable...

My point is that each and every new rulebook has - and will - alienate some portion of the existing customer base. They also bring in new customers - remember that 40kRP is a niche within a niche, so the number of people not playing 40kRP games (but who might in future if properly enticed - remembering that every one of them will have different tastes, and while some may be unreachable, others will not be) outnumbers the number of people currently playing.

One of my friends mentioned what may have been the problem behind this whole thing:

And the funny thing, even though I would have been one to buy it....

Generally speaking, why someone buy a Dark Heresy 1.5?

A lot of people have already converted Dark Heresy to Only War and Vice Versa and all of that and their versions (Seem to) work great (though I've personally never tried them, I tend to shy away from homebrew in favor of official material)

The idea is that its a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach.

On the one hand, I am constantly berating FFG for republishing previous and copy pasted content. Which btw they did in this book, what with the inclusion of the word "Fettered" despite that not existing int he rules.

On the other, were asking them to copy paste and charge us 60$ for it.

Ultimately though, I am sorry to say, production costs on this book, if copy pasted, are likely not to be even CLOSE to 60$- especially with ALL of the art being reused.

If the 'DH1.5' rules were updated to the OW system, and some of the better thing from DH2b added (I haven't read through the new Investigation and other non-combat rules, but I hear that they are pretty cool), and a new setting (ideally in Ultima Segmentum- hel- lo , Hive Fleets!), I would definitely shell out $60 for it...

I absolutely agree with this! The entire Narrative tools section is IMHO very well put together! The character generation system is at the very least interesting and very flexible. The CONCEPT of a no wound point combat system is interesting but it's execution is woefully broken! AP is something that was discarded in the early 80's as clunky feeling (Even if isn't in actuality!). As I've said before; I did not and do not want DH2 to fail per se! It just needs a lot of work before it goes primetime. definately 1.5 for me!

If you like the concepts but feel the execution is lacking, then playtest it - at this stage in the game's development, refining the execution exactly the sort of thing that playtesters should be doing.

With regards to the updated rules and breaks in inter-game compatibility... FFG have been pushing to break out from the DH1rules for years. Black Crusade's development was full of good ideas that couldn't be implemented because they'd push the game too far from DH. The thought was always to leave the big changes until Dark Heresy 2nd edition (a hypothetical at the time) and use that opportunity for a clean break.

Perhaps.

In which case why didn't they make a completely clean break and go for a core mechanic that better meets the needs of a 40K RPG?

Secondly, remember that, for the most part, every 40kRP game that FFG has produced has simultaneously brought in new players and alienated existing ones. There are many people who felt insulted that Rogue Trader - intended to be a distinct game from the very first press release by Black Industries - wasn't just a supplement for Dark Heresy. There was extensive wailing and gnashing of teeth when Deathwatch had the audacity to seem incompatible with Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader (the incompatibility was more thematic and perceptual than mechanical, in my opinion). The very notion of Black Crusade's existence, instead of a refreshed and redesigned Dark Heresy, was questioned. The furore caused by the announcement that Only War was going to be a stand-alone game rather than a Dark Heresy supplement was considerable...

My point is that each and every new rulebook has - and will - alienate some portion of the existing customer base. They also bring in new customers - remember that 40kRP is a niche within a niche, so the number of people not playing 40kRP games (but who might in future if properly enticed - remembering that every one of them will have different tastes, and while some may be unreachable, others will not be) outnumbers the number of people currently playing.

Well... I don't remember much of a fuss about Rogue Trader myself (as you say, it had always been announced as a seperate book), but it wouldn't surprise me. Deathwatch... yes, there was, including from myself. Not from the original idea of the game, but when it was finally released. The incompatibility goes beyond the perceptual. It just doesn't work with the earlier games, and is built to a different scale. However, the incompatibility feels more like it is one that happened accidentally, rather than deliberate (really it lies in the damage mechanics, rather than the core game system, and even then, the mechanics are identical... just they have gone all crazy in Deathwatch, and didn't fit with the other game lines).

Black Crusade... well, it was distinct enough that it felt it could deserve its own game, even though I will say that it seemed odd at the time that they were starting another line, and the subject matter really didn't appeal to me. It was something that didn't fit within any of the other lines, and while it could have been released as a supplement, it would have been an odd one (firstly, which of the games do you choose. Secondly, it is catering to a completely different style of game to the other existing games). The core rules had been changed noticeably (in certain ways I didn't like), and I would certainly not call the game compatible with the earlier lines, which feels a shame, but it was justifiable.

Only War... well, yes I think this is the one where it really irritated some people (myself included). This had been announced for Dark Heresy, and it was addressing something that was missing from the Dark Heresy line. It was also expected to include things like the official vehicle rules. Then it was announced as a whole new game. I personally feel that can justify some irritation, especially as it (apparently correctly) fed fears that original Dark Heresy was no longer going to be supported.

Now, with 2nd edition... well some have been calling for it for a while, though mostly looking for OW/BC style mechanics, so yes, there does seem to have been a market, but yes, any new edition is going to irritate some of the existing players. Especially as there were still things to be done for Dark Heresy (it is now obvious there will never be any official vehicle rules, for example. More stuff for some of the other careers). I am undecided, as I haven't yet had a chance to play it. Probably won't before the beta ends. It certainly has some interesting ideas (the wounding mechanic being the main one... even if it sounds like it is a long way from working satisfactorily), but I am unconvinced, and I am not sure how workable a product will result (Deathwatch fell apart, as it broke the system. Ok, one admittedly that they had been obliged to keep by their agreement with GW, but WFRP 3rd is similar. It works fine to a point, then starts to just get a bit wonky, as it was full of interesting, but rather unpolished ideas).

I have to say though I have been less keen on the direction FFG has been taking the game for a while anyway, in style, and increasingly it sounds like in mechanics.

Firstly, remember that "bad" and "not to my taste" are distinct, though overlapping, concepts, and ones easily confused

Ok I feel insulted by that but whatever. I already said I can get behind the game and I agree with some of the ideas behind some of the changes but the implementation has been shocking to say the least. So shocking that I wonder if anyone at FFG actually looked at the numbers they had written down before they released it to the public to be tested.

By section.

Character Creation - Nice idea to split it up like they did but then made bland by the execution. Instead of spreading the skills, talents and gear across your starting choices to make for 336 different combinations of characters you have 7 meaningful ones stripping the neat idea of a lot of value. Depatmento Munitorum scribe should not have the same skills, talents and gear as a foot soldier or a commissar.

Characteristic advances - The rank system is strange to me in this and serves no real purpose other than to clutter up a free buying mechanic, just return this to previous system of up to however many additional characteristic advances. Also by allowing someone to potentially gain +50 to a stat they make writing convincing enemy stat blocks difficult when they are enemies that should exceed human potential. You have to design them in a way that means they can not ever fail at certain things because they need to beat humans who can go to 95.

Skills - I don't have much of a problem with skills, I think that some uses though should have skill level prerequisites and those should generally be outlined to prevent pressure on the GM to just allow attempts on things that characters shouldn't be able to do.

Talents - Trees are interesting idea but I don't think they are necessary. I would definitely flatten and expand the trees to make sure people aren't ending up learning things they don't want to use especially when it comes to the melee and ballistic trees. There should be multiple entry points to each tree. At the very least I like that it groups related talents.

Traits - I have not looked at this section much other than to skim it. Changes to fear are interesting and I kind of like them, I think the removal of unnatural characteristics is a mistake in the long run. You may not be including Marines now but you will be eventually and more importantly GMs will add them in regardless.

Weapons - Wow, just wow. Did anyone read this section. It has been covered multiple times but it is at the moment a train wreck. If they are going to make armour pen that useless just scrap it but I would prefer they make it work properly, RoA is just screwy which is the reason there has been several threads about, to see how strange it can get look at my Eviscerator thread (credit for noticing that goes to one of my group not me). They seem to have kept the damages fairly close to 1st ed but completely rewrote the combat system so it just doesn't work. At the moment the weapons and the combat system just do not mesh together.

Armour - The ag bonus restricting aspect is nice but I honestly don't get why they "flattened" the armour values other than to make the new weapon pens make more sense. I see no reason not to restore most of the armours to their previous values, the damages have not changed that much to warrant a different approach here and it restricts what can be done in future as there isn't the space to have different types of armour. Carapace and Flak armour have very similar armour points but Carapace is more restrictive, heavier and harder to obtain giving it little advantage.

Fields - This is a matter of preference but at the moment I really don't feel they fit the background YMMV.

Gear - I haven't really read this so I won't make any comments

Vehicles - Ditto, haven't looked at it, more interested in the core game-play experience at this point, if they fix that I'll start worrying about vehicles.

Psychic Powers - I personally don't like the different Perils tables but only because it means that you have to write a new one if you want to add in your own discipline to cater for the ones not provided such as chaos ones. Not looked hard enough at it again.

Combat - I don't mind the idea of action points but at the moment it does not add up. I think they should give players 6 for more flexibility and start from scratch to make the values work but at the moment its a terrible mess. If there is an advantage to the AP system over the current one they have done nothing to convince me of it. Anything good about the combat system has simply been tighter wording and rules on some things that could easily have been done in the current system. The problems with it are highly linked to the problems with how attacks and RoA combine together but I think the lack of distinction between single/semi/full is going to make it impossible to balance the weapons to make single shot weapons work as they are supposed to.

Wounds - I already have a direct to crit table damage system, its a lot easier to work with than this is although I like how they have changed some conditions. Work done by one player doesn't reward them. This new system is also going to make accommodating bigger foes very difficult without some really clunky mechanics. Other problems I don't have time right now to type out.

I am not finished but I don't have time right now to continue but the thing that I want to note is that all of the things I like about the changes could easily have been incorporated into the current rules, all of the problems come with the major changes being terribly implemented.

Alienating you loyal and repeat customers is never a good idea in ANY business!

I alone have sunk well over £1500 into FFG 40k books not including the digital versions of some books I also own and between my gaming group its probably over £3000 (especially since I am lowballing my own collection). The only book I don't own is Slaanesh book for BC but that is because it is only now out in the UK and I haven't been out to get it yet. Across the systems that means I own 49 books and 5 GM screens from my count and I'm not sure if I included everything. These are the type of fans you risk alienating, ones that will be spending thousands of £££s and $$$s to support your lines and who will keep doing so if they are given a reason.

I have to admit I could get behind the new system if it was well done. The backwards compatibility thing is an issue for me and my group but its not a dealbreaker in terms of buying the books. What is a deal breaker for me is the sheer number of shockingly bad design decisions littered through the rules as is and so far no words from the Devs to address the criticism. This could easily be a dialogue between the devs and the people in the Beta but FFG has taken its usual baffling aloof approach to these thing and has let the bad feeling build up in their absence.

I think people who want the change just assume that everyone who heard changed rules was instantly pessimistic about this but its not the case. In fact when I told the OP about 2nd ed here was his response,

ThatGrumpyScotsman: \o/

ThatGrumpyScotsman: Woohoo

Kaihlik: Not compatible with 1st ed from what I can tell

Kaihlik: am downloading the beta atm

ThatGrumpyScotsman: I'm really excited about this, haha.

(copied from skype, all I did was remove some non related chat and chaange the names).

I'm just saying its not because its changed from 1st ed that we are complaining, its because its bad.

Firstly, remember that "bad" and "not to my taste" are distinct, though overlapping, concepts, and ones easily confused.

Secondly, remember that, for the most part, every 40kRP game that FFG has produced has simultaneously brought in new players and alienated existing ones. There are many people who felt insulted that Rogue Trader - intended to be a distinct game from the very first press release by Black Industries - wasn't just a supplement for Dark Heresy. There was extensive wailing and gnashing of teeth when Deathwatch had the audacity to seem incompatible with Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader (the incompatibility was more thematic and perceptual than mechanical, in my opinion). The very notion of Black Crusade's existence, instead of a refreshed and redesigned Dark Heresy, was questioned. The furore caused by the announcement that Only War was going to be a stand-alone game rather than a Dark Heresy supplement was considerable...

My point is that each and every new rulebook has - and will - alienate some portion of the existing customer base. They also bring in new customers - remember that 40kRP is a niche within a niche, so the number of people not playing 40kRP games (but who might in future if properly enticed - remembering that every one of them will have different tastes, and while some may be unreachable, others will not be) outnumbers the number of people currently playing.

One of my friends mentioned what may have been the problem behind this whole thing:

And the funny thing, even though I would have been one to buy it....

Generally speaking, why someone buy a Dark Heresy 1.5?

A lot of people have already converted Dark Heresy to Only War and Vice Versa and all of that and their versions (Seem to) work great (though I've personally never tried them, I tend to shy away from homebrew in favor of official material)

The idea is that its a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach.

On the one hand, I am constantly berating FFG for republishing previous and copy pasted content. Which btw they did in this book, what with the inclusion of the word "Fettered" despite that not existing int he rules.

On the other, were asking them to copy paste and charge us 60$ for it.

Ultimately though, I am sorry to say, production costs on this book, if copy pasted, are likely not to be even CLOSE to 60$- especially with ALL of the art being reused.

If the 'DH1.5' rules were updated to the OW system, and some of the better thing from DH2b added (I haven't read through the new Investigation and other non-combat rules, but I hear that they are pretty cool), and a new setting (ideally in Ultima Segmentum- hel- lo , Hive Fleets!), I would definitely shell out $60 for it...

I absolutely agree with this! The entire Narrative tools section is IMHO very well put together! The character generation system is at the very least interesting and very flexible. The CONCEPT of a no wound point combat system is interesting but it's execution is woefully broken! AP is something that was discarded in the early 80's as clunky feeling (Even if isn't in actuality!). As I've said before; I did not and do not want DH2 to fail per se! It just needs a lot of work before it goes primetime. definately 1.5 for me!

If you like the concepts but feel the execution is lacking, then playtest it - at this stage in the game's development, refining the execution exactly the sort of thing that playtesters should be doing.

Each new product has had it's share of naysayers and I will say up until now I have not been among them. All of the previous examples pretty much stuck with enough consistency that you could relate one system to another. Would a Deathwatch Marine flat smoke a DH guardsman or arbitrator? Absolutely! Without even breaking stride! My answer to that at the time was duh! Go figure! That's what should happen if a lone guardsman tries to challenge a "god of war". According to the fluff that is exactly what should happen 99.9% of the time! But the system mechanics didn't inherently change! Nor did the Armoury although it was scaled up to reflect the Astartes. Later products tweeked and generally improved the system until by OW we had a pretty good working mechanic. Why then would FFG change that lacking anything notably superior? I don't need to playtest it to see that the system has already gone off the rails as written and is very nearly unplayable! I am also extremely surprised and disappointed that the Alpha stage developers did not see this! Maybe they did and were given their marching orders anyway! I don't know. My fix is simple: Ditch the 'revised' combat system and return to BC/OW standard. It would hardly take much effort! If the designers want to include a woundless based combat system then the mechanism can still be incorporated into the OW mechanic (Other players on this forum have already done so!) If FFG is interested in ways of doing this I offer the following:

If going woundless; Apply a 5 point buffer after defence and have any additional damage apply to original (OW) Critical tables. No Additional damage for being previously hit since Critical damage would still "stack" by the existing rules. (Although now it would stack by location.) This would give a sort of CoD feel since characters would recover from lesser criticals (Stunning and things like that) between encounters. This also would allow the OW critical system to be potentially more lethal due to the shorter scaling of the original tables. Snipers and such would also be Lethal again due to Accuracy giving a much better chance of a Lethal conclusion. (Note that this is largely what the current system does but this maintains compatibility with other products and IMO and mathmatically actually works better!)

AP or no AP. After pouring through the system my thought is really that this has more to do with the abyssmally poor rewrite of the Armoury section than the AP themselves. I don't personally care for AP (for reasons I have stated previously) but there inclusion is a matter of taste I guess. BTW; to fix old armoury tables to AP is simple: Fire single shot; 1AP; Semi auto: 2AP; Full auto; 3AP. Any questions?

" I don't need to playtest it to see that the system has already gone off the rails as written and is very nearly unplayable! "

I'm sorry, but that is a really, really poor mentality to have. Until you've actually seen something in motion, saying it's near unplayable based purely on evaluating rules in a vacuum just seems really presumptuous. The system would have to be MUCH more broken than it is now for that kind of assumption to be reasonable.

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!

I just find that it's a bit extreme to be calling a system near unplayable when you haven't, well, played it. And honestly, for as many people I've seen saying playtests went poorly, I've seen just as many saying it went great, and was less complex than expected.

Also, I'm being picky here, but really that isn't empirical data. Empirical data involves observation and experimentation, which would pretty much mandate putting things into practice.

I can tell by looking at the new wounds system that things are going to get clunky, slow down even more, and utlimatly less fun for my table. People of my table are not with math and they honestly should had taken the time to streamlined this. I understand they wanted narration base damage, but this is NOT the way to go. I seen other game systems handle narration damage and frankly they done it far better than this. If I was head of Fantasy Flight I wouldn't even allow this in beta because I know there are going to be people stumbling through this.

So yeah 1.5 for the damage system. Nothing wrong with it in the first place if you ask me.

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?

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.

That's not really any better than a system where a character can survive a sniper rifle to the head rolling max damage them 4 bullets to the chest and just explode when someone glances their leg with a punch. I don't much like wounds being a pool against all adverse affects which is why I have a house rules that fixes that. It doesn't make the new system any better or make any more sense than the old one. It also neglects that wounds have their place as a thing to allow larger enemies to take more damage overall without merely making them immune to attacks by increasing their defences.

You don't need to playtest something in order to form an opinion about it. I've played a lot of RPGs in my time - as I am sure most people here have - and as such I've built up a bedrock of my own unique experiences with rules concepts and their implementation. I don't think anyone in this thread is suggesting that you never have to playtest anything, but it is bizarre to suggest that you can only make an opinion on a rule if you've playtested it. We've all got cognitive reasoning, after all.

Besides that, many flaws can only be found through number crunching and theorising. Playtesting isn't THAT extensive on a personal level and some problems (such as "How does this system scale with high powered enemies?") go beyond what is in the beta but are still as open to criticism and consideration as anything else. Moreover, basic numerical problems such as the Eviscerator's inability to attack on the same turn you do anything else, such as move (meaning you can't swing an eviscerator against an opponent who doesn't want to be hit by one), don't require playtesting. You can see that they are demonstrably problematic after just 10 seconds of number crunching.

Oh, I definitely agree that you can only realise certain problems through critical analysis of the crunch. But judgements like "unplayable" are the kinds of judgements that pretty much NEED playtesting. The system would have to be horribly written for a read through to show that kind of thing, and this system is nowhere near that bad.

Oh, I definitely agree that you can only realise certain problems through critical analysis of the crunch. But judgements like "unplayable" are the kinds of judgements that pretty much NEED playtesting. The system would have to be horribly written for a read through to show that kind of thing, and this system is nowhere near that bad.

I agree.

The only caveat I have is that "unplayable" in this context generally means "I won't play this" or "I can't enjoy this", rather than the literal. I hope so, anyway! Either way, I get what you're saying.

Oh, I definitely agree that you can only realise certain problems through critical analysis of the crunch. But judgements like "unplayable" are the kinds of judgements that pretty much NEED playtesting. The system would have to be horribly written for a read through to show that kind of thing, and this system is nowhere near that bad.

I agree.

The only caveat I have is that "unplayable" in this context generally means "I won't play this" or "I can't enjoy this", rather than the literal. I hope so, anyway! Either way, I get what you're saying.

Ok; Since you're still going on about my comment I would like to point a couple things out...I said, "Very nearly unplayable" not just unplayable. Secondly; You are taking one statement out of what? Two Paragraphs? Including some suggestions for some fixes! As pointed out earlier by the Scotsman, I am capable of cognitive reasoning! I can see where there will be problems and even you have admitted that the things I (And others) have brought up are in fact true! Score one for empirical data! I observe, Analyse, Experiment and draw some initial conclusions. I compare these to other anecdotes among my pears to see if this is a shared experience. Empirical data simply means factual as in; these are facts. Like others on this board, I have a long time playing RPG's and have some fairly clear opinions on what has worked and what has not in the past. Massive breaks with a previous edition while that edition is still in print is generally not a great decision in the gaming world. We bring up these concerns because we don't want our beloved RPG to go the way of the Dodo because of poor decision making. I did not say that I would not give DH2 a try. I certainly will! But the system as it stands needs a LOT of work and was IMO not really ready for Beta. A lot of the problems could be easily fixed by moving back towards the OW/BC system. Not necessarily completely but not as far as we are now! Want to play a completely different set of mechanics? Try Star Wars! But with four other product lines in print diverging too far from the "accepted practice" is not a good idea.

Ok; Enough of my rant now!

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.

It's barely less compatible with the older stuff than Only War is, though.

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?

It's barely less compatible with the older stuff than Only War is, though.

Uh, nope.

Well, let's look at DH1e, considering that's logically what most people will want to port things from. What out of that can be directly ported over to Only War without some effort? Barely anything. Gear, maybe, but even that needs work due to changed weapon qualities, adjustments to the system, and to be balanced with the rest of the stuff in the book.

This is really the same. Tweak values, apply action point costs. Replace the qualities with their modern equivalents. Done.

Well, let's look at DH1e, considering that's logically what most people will want to port things from. What out of that can be directly ported over to Only War without some effort? Barely anything. Gear, maybe, but even that needs work due to changed weapon qualities, adjustments to the system, and to be balanced with the rest of the stuff in the book.

It's inherently balanced by virtue of operating on exactly the same scale. A gun that was good in DH will be good in OW, and a gun that was bad in DH will be bad in OW.

Unique Talents either work right off the bat or were broken to begin with. DH psychic powers aren't really worth bothering with between BC and OW. Other Talents are probably already there in OW, or perhaps in BC.

I'm currently playing in a game that uses BC rules for combat with DH career tables. My Guardsman shoots an Assault Lasgun taken from RT's Into the Storm and a great weapon with pattern adjustments from Hammer of the Emperor. Our Psyker switches between the Archaotech Laspistol from RT Core with the variable setting rule added and Doombolt power from BC while taking other psychic powers from OW. It works just fine, and we didn't even take time to write it all down, it's so easy to keep track of. It helps that we never treated 40k RPGs as distinct games, but rather further improvements on the same ruleset - the only exception being Deathwatch, but this game is bothersome to deal with on it's own, let alone in crossovers.

This is really the same. Tweak values, apply action point costs. Replace the qualities with their modern equivalents. Done.

Either I suck at rules for not seeing the easiness here, or you suck at rules for not grasping the complexity of changes involved. My bet's on you