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.

If the rules require GM fiat to function in even a half-way rational manner, that's a problem. Even FFG seems to recognize this, which is why the sniper rifle now has the Vengeful quality.

If the rules require GM fiat to function in even a half-way rational manner, that's a problem. Even FFG seems to recognize this, which is why the sniper rifle now has the Vengeful quality.

And I completely agree with the changes made to the sniper rifle. They make sense, they make it a much more useful gun, it's better balanced with everything else, and it still has a 0% chance of one shot killing anything above Elite rank that has not been previously wounded. Which is how it should be. The Vengeful quality is great, it makes it significantly more likely that a PC can play a sniper who is just popping off lower level bad guys. That's cool. What's less cool is designing it to one shot kill anything, which is what some people seem to want.

GM fiat isn't needed to make the sniper rifle function. GM fiat is needed if the PC's want to attempt to assassinate someone in an out of combat scenario. But as far as combat goes, it would be absurd to have one weapon that somehow is so much better than all the others. If you want the sniper rifle to function in a "half-way reasonable manner," then all the other weapons need to as well, and then combat becomes a matter of who rolls the highest initiative because everyone will be able to kill someone with their first shot.

Yeah, combat is primarily balanced to provide a fun combat experience. It isn't meant to accurately simulate every possible nuance of weapon use. One shot killing master enemies with any gun would be fairly lame, unless we're talking a lascannon or a rocket launcher.

Especially any gun in the core book. Not that the core book has to have weak weapons (and it doesn't, the weapons in it can be pretty deadly pretty quick), but we all know that there will be supplements later with more powerful weapons, just like in every other line. Putting a one-shot kill weapon in the core book kind of sets a high bar for any future additions.

I'm personally hoping we don't get any splatbook power creep this time around, but I s'pose that's fairly optimistic.

Sure! The Gm can Hand wave anything! And no, Not every shot should be insta-kill with any weapon! I guess for me.. The deal breaker is the lack of compatability. The more I argue about the minutia the more this becomes obvious to me. I'm just not interested if ffg is going to abandon everything that's come before. Yes, With the combat revisions it is possible to play the game. No, I probably will not buy the final release version unless they make it compatible. (And you have no idea how sad that makes me!) I don't mind tweaks! I DO mind an entirely new system that is under no circumstances an improvement from the original!

Especially any gun in the core book. Not that the core book has to have weak weapons (and it doesn't, the weapons in it can be pretty deadly pretty quick), but we all know that there will be supplements later with more powerful weapons, just like in every other line. Putting a one-shot kill weapon in the core book kind of sets a high bar for any future additions.

I would much prefer if they (DH2e devs) included every weapon Special Quality in the Core book, even if none of the weapons in the Core book possess some of those Qualities, rather than having new Qualities spread out through six or seven supplements. That, or forget the idea of introducing more weapons.

The first requires long-term vision. I'm hoping they have it this time around.

Sadly that's probably a little optimistic. A combination of a lack of foresight, combined with the fact that it's hard to justify pages that are 'useless' until said supplements come out. I doubt FFG have the capacity to predict everything they'll want to include, and if they don't, we'd just see the new stuff as the form of Special rules,

I'm personally hoping we don't get any splatbook power creep this time around, but I s'pose that's fairly optimistic.

Amen to that! I'm hoping that the new system for 'upgrading' weapons and armour will eliminate the niche for the unimaginative "It's a more powerful version of ___" crap that dominated the Armoury sections of later DH sourcebooks...

No, I probably will not buy the final release version unless they make it compatible. (And you have no idea how sad that makes me!) I don't mind tweaks! I DO mind an entirely new system that is under no circumstances an improvement from the original!

While I like the new system and don't mind the lack of compatibility, I can understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately for you, I strongly doubt FFG is going to change their minds about making 2.0 compatible with 1.0. They already made the decision and invested a lot of time and money in making this Beta, so for them the Beta process is more about making sure the rules work rather than making a complete overhaul to what's been written.

I also think it would be nice to have any new weapons and gear have new yet specific purposes and uses. Just adding numbers to Pen and damage is uninteresting and quickly makes older weapons obsolete. I'd rather have the new items give you new tactical options instead of just being flat out more powerful. I remember rolling my eyes when I saw some of the stats for Rak'Gol in one of the Rogue Trader books. Their weapons have enough pen and base damage to hurt a Space Marine. And these are Rogue Trader adversaries?

I also think it would be nice to have any new weapons and gear have new yet specific purposes and uses. Just adding numbers to Pen and damage is uninteresting and quickly makes older weapons obsolete. I'd rather have the new items give you new tactical options instead of just being flat out more powerful. I remember rolling my eyes when I saw some of the stats for Rak'Gol in one of the Rogue Trader books. Their weapons have enough pen and base damage to hurt a Space Marine. And these are Rogue Trader adversaries?

I agree with your points, but as for the last part, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The main gripe is the damage system. I dont feel it's working well as-is.

Apart from that I wish the beta had some more... flash. Some moar exciting new powers, talents, special abilities, whatever. Some more bling-bling.

So I go for 2.0 overall. Out with the old, in with the new.

Alex

I previously said I was leaning toward 1.5 instead of 2 , based in large part on my disgust with 2 's new weapon stats (A Boltgun is only AP 2? A Sniper Rifle can't 'snipe'?), and the fact that 2 is a substantial enough re-write that it undoubtedly contains nearly as many bugs as a brand-new system.

With the revisions from the first Update, I'd say I've been nudged closer to 50/50. It's a really good sign that FFG is responding to fan critiques rather than just ramming through the Beta as-is.

I think the deciding factor on which system I use for my next campaign is how much support 2 has for Ordo Xenos (the Odro I'll be using next time around)- if alien stats are slow in coming in 2 , I'll probably go 1.5 (where I can 'poach' xeno stats from any of the existing lines, with only minor tweaks); if 2 gives Ordo Xenos 'equal time' to Odro Hereticus, I may have to just grit my teeth at the irritating new Degrees of Success math and take the plunge with 2 .

If 2 's new Sector turns out to be in Ultima Segmentum ('nids! Tau!), that would probably seal the deal...

I also think it would be nice to have any new weapons and gear have new yet specific purposes and uses. Just adding numbers to Pen and damage is uninteresting and quickly makes older weapons obsolete. I'd rather have the new items give you new tactical options instead of just being flat out more powerful. I remember rolling my eyes when I saw some of the stats for Rak'Gol in one of the Rogue Trader books. Their weapons have enough pen and base damage to hurt a Space Marine. And these are Rogue Trader adversaries?

I agree with your points, but as for the last part, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

My only point there was that Rogue Trader had wandered into space marine territory in terms of damage output from adversaries. Obviously every line has some very deadly things in it, and it's not that Rogue Trader PC's couldn't handle a Rak'Gol, but the Rak'Gol felt much more like they were a fit for Deathwatch and not Rogue Trader. Which is a shame when you want to play PCs that are not that into combat (which I tend to do in RT). My missionary and void master I played in the last RT campaign I was in would have probably died in two hits at the most from one of those things. And, like I said, even a space marine would be hurt by one with their base damage.

Not the biggest complaint in the world, but I definitely think they were a sign of the power creep in RT.

My choice would have been 1.5.

Having read what they've produced, my choice is now 2.0.

I think this is a big improvement in ways that wouldn't have been possible if they'd tried to just do a refinement of the original. Not only is the core system better, but I can see how this will let them do a fresher and cleaner extension of the rules in all the supplements without my brain being crushed under everything the way it was with the first edition.

I really like what they've done.

Not the biggest complaint in the world, but I definitely think they were a sign of the power creep in RT.

Yeah but adversaries in the beginning tend to be geared towards low rank PCs and then later must grow as they players grow in power...

Alex

Typically that power growth is largely due to the options and gear in the later supplements being ridiculously powerful compared to core material. Just look at Lathe Worlds.

No, I probably will not buy the final release version unless they make it compatible. (And you have no idea how sad that makes me!) I don't mind tweaks! I DO mind an entirely new system that is under no circumstances an improvement from the original!

While I like the new system and don't mind the lack of compatibility, I can understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately for you, I strongly doubt FFG is going to change their minds about making 2.0 compatible with 1.0. They already made the decision and invested a lot of time and money in making this Beta, so for them the Beta process is more about making sure the rules work rather than making a complete overhaul to what's been written.

No, I probably will not buy the final release version unless they make it compatible. (And you have no idea how sad that makes me!) I don't mind tweaks! I DO mind an entirely new system that is under no circumstances an improvement from the original!

While I like the new system and don't mind the lack of compatibility, I can understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately for you, I strongly doubt FFG is going to change their minds about making 2.0 compatible with 1.0. They already made the decision and invested a lot of time and money in making this Beta, so for them the Beta process is more about making sure the rules work rather than making a complete overhaul to what's been written.

You are probably correct! Thus my sadness. My biggest gripe is the combat system! The rest is at least usable across the lines for the most part. And no, Since they haven't gone to publication yet; It would cost FFG exactly 0 to scrap this combat system and backfit OW's. You're probably right, It probably won't happen. But I can hope that FFG wants my money (And many others that have made the same complaint!)!

Actually, it would cost them money, effectively. They'd be throwing out content they've already payed someone to write.

Typically that power growth is largely due to the options and gear in the later supplements being ridiculously powerful compared to core material. Just look at Lathe Worlds.

Yeah, Lathe Worlds is a better example. Not only did it make the Tech Priest capable of filling almost every roll, it also made rank 1 PCs significantly more powerful with the right background options.

Actually, it would cost them money, effectively. They'd be throwing out content they've already payed someone to write.

Sorry, but having spent money as the only reason to approve something is bogus.

Accepting failure and going back to the drawing board is perfectly acceptable as long as the end result is a good product.

This doesn't mean there are no valid reasons to continue with DH2.0, but the money spent on it isn't one of them.

Actually, it would cost them money, effectively. They'd be throwing out content they've already payed someone to write.

Sorry, but having spent money as the only reason to approve something is bogus.

Accepting failure and going back to the drawing board is perfectly acceptable as long as the end result is a good product.

This doesn't mean there are no valid reasons to continue with DH2.0, but the money spent on it isn't one of them.

It's not a bogus reason. If I spend £4,000 on a car and then decide I actually want a different car, I don't suddenly and magically have £4,000 to spend all over again. I can't just throw away the first car and buy a new one. At that point, I've effectively paid twice for one car and that's no way to run a business. And this notion that it is the "only" reason to keep doing the game is entirely yours. The explanation that costs are already incurred was only brought about because you suggested that if they binned it now it wouldn't cost them money. No-one said that sunk-cost was the only reason to produce the game.

Also, I'll be honest, I think it is insanely judgemental to call DH2 "failure". Even if you don't like it (which I do), it's still in Beta and they are modifying it in response to our suggestions.

There is simply no way that FFG are going to cancel DH2 at all. So the most useful approach is to provide constructive suggestions on improving it whilst it is in Beta. DH1 wont go away for the people who prefer that.

Accepting failure and going back to the drawing board is perfectly acceptable as long as the end result is a good product.

Sorry, but having spent money as the only reason to approve something is bogus.

This doesn't mean there are no valid reasons to continue with DH2.0, but the money spent on it isn't one of them.

Well, it is a pretty valid reason for the company. I know next to nothing about the game industry, but it's not hard to imagine that the development stage is very expensive in its own right. It's not like a couple guys got together and wrote a 300+ page rulebook, playtested it, tweaked it based on playtests, formatted it and got it laid out with illustrations, and released it as a beta without getting paid somewhere along the way. If they were going to scrap any part of it they would have done so pre-beta.

Beta testing isn't done to create products or to meet the wishes of every potential customer, it's done to find the bugs in the product before its full release. Tweaking the armory for the first update was a relatively simple change that made a big difference in the game's functionality. Entirely scrapping the AP combat system and the wounds system is not a small change, and it's not going to happen. Unfortunate for those who don't like it, but don't blame FFG for not dumping their entire development budget on DH 2.0 down the drain.

Accepting failure and going back to the drawing board is perfectly acceptable as long as the end result is a good product.

Sorry, but having spent money as the only reason to approve something is bogus.

This doesn't mean there are no valid reasons to continue with DH2.0, but the money spent on it isn't one of them.

Well, it is a pretty valid reason for the company. I know next to nothing about the game industry, but it's not hard to imagine that the development stage is very expensive in its own right. It's not like a couple guys got together and wrote a 300+ page rulebook, playtested it, tweaked it based on playtests, formatted it and got it laid out with illustrations, and released it as a beta without getting paid somewhere along the way. If they were going to scrap any part of it they would have done so pre-beta.

Beta testing isn't done to create products or to meet the wishes of every potential customer, it's done to find the bugs in the product before its full release. Tweaking the armory for the first update was a relatively simple change that made a big difference in the game's functionality. Entirely scrapping the AP combat system and the wounds system is not a small change, and it's not going to happen. Unfortunate for those who don't like it, but don't blame FFG for not dumping their entire development budget on DH 2.0 down the drain.

Accepting failure and going back to the drawing board is perfectly acceptable as long as the end result is a good product.

Sorry, but having spent money as the only reason to approve something is bogus.

This doesn't mean there are no valid reasons to continue with DH2.0, but the money spent on it isn't one of them.

Well, it is a pretty valid reason for the company. I know next to nothing about the game industry, but it's not hard to imagine that the development stage is very expensive in its own right. It's not like a couple guys got together and wrote a 300+ page rulebook, playtested it, tweaked it based on playtests, formatted it and got it laid out with illustrations, and released it as a beta without getting paid somewhere along the way. If they were going to scrap any part of it they would have done so pre-beta.

Beta testing isn't done to create products or to meet the wishes of every potential customer, it's done to find the bugs in the product before its full release. Tweaking the armory for the first update was a relatively simple change that made a big difference in the game's functionality. Entirely scrapping the AP combat system and the wounds system is not a small change, and it's not going to happen. Unfortunate for those who don't like it, but don't blame FFG for not dumping their entire development budget on DH 2.0 down the drain.

I for one have not said that DH2 is a complete failure (It's to early to tell that!). I HAVE said that diverging to far from the existing system creates a high risk that it COULD happen. On a business level this is the difference between long view and short view. In the short view, it would be difficult to accept the loss of ditching the current combat system after the time, money and effort spent thus far. In the long view; The loss would be MUCH greater if the product fails to sell because they've alienated their customer base! This has not happened yet but judging from the forums and my own reaction it could! It HAS happened with other products (D&D 4th ed.) and this should serve as a dire warning to anyone running a business on the same model! I know from other posts that this concern was brought up by the playtesters in the alpha stage as well! The ONLY way this can work is if the "new" product is is vastly and obviously superior to it's predecessor (Again, 3rd ed. vs. 2nd ed. D&D!). Don't get me wrong... I LIKE the product line that ffg has been producing! I fear that change for change sake could end up tanking the whole thing! Oh, and BTW; Once DH2 is released, DH1 WILL go away! That's why one does a 2nd ed. after all; To replace the first!