Ok; I just did my first readthrough of the beta and I have one MAJOR concern: The system is VERY inconsistent with it's predecessors! (I will address specifics in the other threads). FASA games went out of business shortly after producing mechwarrior 3rd edition and Wizards of the coast lost a massive amount of their marketshare (To the point where they are ALREADY investing in yet ANOTHER edition) when they produced D&D 4th edition. While neither company will (or would have) admitted it the commonality is this: The products were SO different from their parent products as to be unrecognizable and therefore unpalatable with previous versions of their product! I personally have refused to have anything to do with 4th edition for this reason. (And I had bought virtually ALL of the previous 3rd and 3.5 ed material and 2nd ed. before that!) Dark Heresy desperately needed an update but this may have been a bit too far! Remember that unlike many other RPG's DH does NOT exist in a vaccuum! OW and BC tweeked and refined the system to a point where it was playable and relatively consistent! It was even possible to play crossover characters with just a little work from all 5 game lines! I believe the player community was looking for Dark heresy to be brought up to the excellent standard set by these two games but still be playable in a "Crossover" mode! Now, I am not saying that the entire system is unworkable but there may be a need to "dial back" some of the major changes in the finished product!

Anyone else?

I don't think they've changed enough to alienate people, and frankly bringing things up to Only War standards wouldn't justify the purchase of a new rulebook. Anyone can make that conversion if they open up the DH and OW core books and sit down with them for fifteen minutes. The changes they've made are worthwhile. they just need a **** lot of polish before the system is fully playable.

I wouldn't compare this to the shift between Dnd 3.5 and 4. And really, as far as I know 4e has only shown WotC a **** lot of profits. Got a source on these supposed losses?

No, The Action Points Isn't the problem: that they tied it with the weapons, and changed of all the weapons, is what makes this incompatible with all of those things for example.

This is a change that was a unnecessary- and I believe my MAJOR issue with the system.

No, The Action Points Isn't the problem: that they tied it with the weapons, and changed of all the weapons, is what makes this incompatible with all of those things for example.

This is a change that was a unnecessary- and I believe my MAJOR issue with the system.

The thing is, everything except the combat is compatible, or nearly so. Even the wound system is largely compatible with a few tweaks (it would have to be reworked to make lots of small hits less strong, especially if high RoF weapons from previous lines are used on full auto). The only thing that is incompatible are the weapon profiles and the wonky AP costs of attacks (especially melee ones), which, currently, are probably also the most glaring issue internally .

I wouldn't compare this to the shift between Dnd 3.5 and 4. And really, as far as I know 4e has only shown WotC a **** lot of profits. Got a source on these supposed losses?

He's not the first nor likely the last to make that comparison actually.

As far as showing a loss it's unclear on that, at least in Hasbro's earnings reports. What is clear is they failed to meet thier initial projected sales, and where those lost sales went. Pathfinder. Which does sort of underline the point that backwards compatibility sells.

He's not the first nor likely the last to make that comparison actually.

As far as showing a loss it's unclear on that, at least in Hasbro's earnings reports. What is clear is they failed to meet thier initial projected sales, and where those lost sales went. Pathfinder. Which does sort of underline the point that backwards compatibility sells.

The thing is, what is clear is that they are abandoning the system they built up for 4th ed, and returning to a 2e/3e style system. They changed things around a lot, probably too much, and now feel internally that the old was better. The thing is, people who wanted more 3e went to PF, those that like the old editions stayed with them or went to retroclones, and the 4e population doesn't really want to go back to 3e (they switched for a reason). The feedback on the beta for D&D Next among multi-edition veterans has been almost universally negative, and we don't want FFG to make the same kind of mistake. You don't want to split your user base and divide them in edition wars by making your new products completely incompatible with the old stuff. WFRP 3e worked somewhat, but then again, a lot of old WFRP 1e and 2e players (like myself) did not make the switch, and I think that a lot of the sales came from players new to WFRP, which is a population that isn't nearly as large for Wh40kRP because the line has been in constant production for years. There has not been a product drought that makes the new product distinct and fresh and new in the RPG community.

As to myself, I find all these histrionics unhelpful. The point of this beta is to try to suggest changes that can improve the system that FFG has been working on for months and already done significant work to develop. Do you really believe they're going to outright cancel the product and try again? We have a workable system to deal with, and one that few of us have actually subjected to playtesting yet. There are things that stand out as potential issues but most of them can likely be smoothed over. This isn't like the shift from 3e to 4e or whatever, this is more like going from 3e to 3.5. It would be better to settle down a bit and try to critique the rules we have, to find ways to improve them. I'm sure FFG has logged the complaint that this isn't backwards compatible by now, so I'm not certain making it over and over will be productive.

I understand you point, but a lot of this stuff could be made backwards compatible with relatively little effort (the combat is really the only thing that even needs work, and even than, it wouldn't be too difficult), and they would only benefit from making it so by, thereby enticing people new to DH2 to look at the other lines or the DH1 stuff which has some relevancy, and enticing people who still want to play the other lines to look at DH2 for systems to take into the other games.

He's not the first nor likely the last to make that comparison actually.

As far as showing a loss it's unclear on that, at least in Hasbro's earnings reports. What is clear is they failed to meet thier initial projected sales, and where those lost sales went. Pathfinder. Which does sort of underline the point that backwards compatibility sells.

The thing is, what is clear is that they are abandoning the system they built up for 4th ed, and returning to a 2e/3e style system. They changed things around a lot, probably too much, and now feel internally that the old was better. The thing is, people who wanted more 3e went to PF, those that like the old editions stayed with them or went to retroclones, and the 4e population doesn't really want to go back to 3e (they switched for a reason). The feedback on the beta for D&D Next among multi-edition veterans has been almost universally negative, and we don't want FFG to make the same kind of mistake. You don't want to split your user base and divide them in edition wars by making your new products completely incompatible with the old stuff. WFRP 3e worked somewhat, but then again, a lot of old WFRP 1e and 2e players (like myself) did not make the switch, and I think that a lot of the sales came from players new to WFRP, which is a population that isn't nearly as large for Wh40kRP because the line has been in constant production for years. There has not been a product drought that makes the new product distinct and fresh and new in the RPG community.

This is exactly my point! Backwards compatability DOES sell (As referenced for pathfinder) and many people don't want to completely revamp "Their" beloved game! Is it possible? Sure! But will it sell? And yes, my major problem is with the "new" combat system. It's not that it doesn't work in a stand alone environment (Although it does need work!), it's that it's VERY different from the "current" mechanics as given in OW and BC! Combat is probably the singular most defining aspect of any RPG system! Changing that system drastically creates major incompatability issues with other product lines and risks the exact kind of "edition wars" divisions we are all talking about!

As to myself, I find all these histrionics unhelpful. The point of this beta is to try to suggest changes that can improve the system that FFG has been working on for months and already done significant work to develop. Do you really believe they're going to outright cancel the product and try again? We have a workable system to deal with, and one that few of us have actually subjected to playtesting yet. There are things that stand out as potential issues but most of them can likely be smoothed over. This isn't like the shift from 3e to 4e or whatever, this is more like going from 3e to 3.5. It would be better to settle down a bit and try to critique the rules we have, to find ways to improve them. I'm sure FFG has logged the complaint that this isn't backwards compatible by now, so I'm not certain making it over and over will be productive.

Well... here's what we have;

The players generally like

the new character gen system, with a few caveats. This seems to be quite popular and very flexible.

Some of the social and investigating stuff. This clarifies a lot of issues DH had.

The players generally dislike:

The new combat system. On every forum, this is the thing that almost everyone has complained about. It's a huge step backward as far as 'streamlining' combat goes, and confuses players more than it helps. Further, it does not deal with the issues that DH had, but instead creates a whole slew of new ones. Particulalry the paper keeping for sozens of potential wound locations and effects.

Solution: Dispose of it. Even the old one is better than this. And stop with the **** rolling on fifty random tables garbage. This approach was abandoned by most pencil and paper game designers in the late 80's, and for good reason.

Some of the skills that have been folded into each other, and hte stat assigned ot them, do not make a lot of sense.

The reality: The players might a well scream about it, if anything the last several betas have shown, it's that FFG rarely acts on serious issues with a game that get found in beta, unless they're absolutely game breaking, and generally ignores the player base concerns. All these are is a way to squeeze a few extra bucks out of us while giving us the illusion of taking part in the process without it's substance.

As to myself, I find all these histrionics unhelpful. The point of this beta is to try to suggest changes that can improve the system that FFG has been working on for months and already done significant work to develop. Do you really believe they're going to outright cancel the product and try again? We have a workable system to deal with, and one that few of us have actually subjected to playtesting yet. There are things that stand out as potential issues but most of them can likely be smoothed over. This isn't like the shift from 3e to 4e or whatever, this is more like going from 3e to 3.5. It would be better to settle down a bit and try to critique the rules we have, to find ways to improve them. I'm sure FFG has logged the complaint that this isn't backwards compatible by now, so I'm not certain making it over and over will be productive.

Just for the record: I was not trying being Hysterical! Just concerned! I don't believe for a minute that FFG will or even should dump the project and try again! As stated by others; The combat system is the only thing that is truly incompatible with previous products. This does not need to be! I understand and find the concept of a hit pointless combat interesting! Using prior edition weapon stats (And qualities) would help immensely! If you actually read my post I said "dial back", not drop! I also have not thrown insults at those trying to defend the new system or at FFG for showcasing it! I find ad hominem attacks of a personal nature to be extremely "unhelpful"!

Put your mind at ease. The D&D4E example is totally inapplicable. There is no OGL here. There is no Paizo (a company that suddenly found itself with nothing to do but compete with WotC). The better comparison is with WFRP3E and that should not give you much cause for concern. WFRP3E was a truly radical change from WFRP2E. While DH2E is significantly different from DH1E and BC/OW, the changes are nowhere near so dramatic.

Put your mind at ease. The D&D4E example is totally inapplicable. There is no OGL here. There is no Paizo (a company that suddenly found itself with nothing to do but compete with WotC).

Your assumption is that the only competition for our RPG dollars is other 40k based games. This is not true. While 4e suffered from having very direct competition, the fact was that it was WotC's bungling of shaping public perception of the product and dealing with concerns and pushback about the radical changes between editions that crippled 4e.

BTW: since I can actually post a wall of text here without getting banned, the changes between AD&D and 3e vs the CHanges between 3e and 4e you brought up before.

AD&D to 3E

• The game system converted to the d20 System, which standardized task resolution to a roll of a 20-sided die ("d20"), adding or subtracting relevant modifiers, and then comparing the result to a "Difficulty Class" (DC) in order to determine the outcome.
• THAC0 is replaced by a bonus to attack rolls. Armor Class (AC) operates as the Difficulty Class for attack rolls, and therefore increases (rather than decreases, as in 2nd edition) as defensive capabilities increase.
• Ability scores follow a single table and give standardized bonuses. Ability scores are no longer capped at 25.
• Saving Throws are reduced from five categories (based on forms of attack) to three (based on type of defense): fortitude (constitution-based), reflex (dexterity-based), and will (wisdom-based), and also go up instead of down.
• "Non-weapon proficiencies" are replaced by skills, and become a fundamental part of the game rather than an optional one, with class abilities such as thieving skills being translated directly into skills. All characters are given a pool of points to spend on a wide range of specific skills to further define a character.
• Special abilities known as feats allow greater customization of characters. Fighters are no longer differentiated simply by weapons, roleplay and equipment selection, but rather by the number of feats they possess relative to other characters.
• Barbarians, monks, and half-orcs return to the Player's Handbook as basic character types.
• Class groups are removed. "Mage" is renamed to "wizard", with "specialist wizards" being simply wizards that specialize in one school of magic, and "thief" is renamed to "rogue." The bard class is no longer considered a type of rogue.
• "Priests of a specific mythos", also known as specialist priest classes, are eliminated (except druid), though some make their return in the form of prestige classes or through other options such as feats.
• The sorcerer class is added to the game as an arcane caster that uses magic naturally, instead of through study.
• Multi-classing and dual-classing as per previous editions is removed. In the new multi-classing system, multi-classing functioned similar to dual-classing had previously, except that a character could gain a level of any character class upon gaining a level instead of only gaining levels in the second class, and with experience needed to reach the next level calculated on the sum of the level of all classes instead of the latest class. Multi-classing is made available to all races, although easier for humans and half-elves, and characters with multiple classes of differing levels are penalized.
• Prestige classes are added, representing special training or membership in an organization outside the generic scope of core classes. Entry into prestige classes requires characters to meet certain prerequisites. Assassins make their return here, as well as blackguards (fallen paladins) and several others.
• Any combination of race and class is now permitted, with the exception of some prestige classes.
• Priest spell spheres are removed from the game; each spellcasting class now has its own specific spell list (although wizard and sorcerer share a list). Instead, clerics gain domains that allow them to use bonus spells and abilities based on their deity's area of influence, as well as the ability to swap out prepared spells for curative spells.
• Initiative is changed to a cyclic system where the order of resolving actions is determined once per encounter and then repeated, and actions are resolved on the players turn. In previous editions the order is redetermined each round and many actions do not resolve on the player's turn but at the end of the round.
• Diagonal movement and range are simplified. Each square of diagonal distance is equivalent to 1.5 squares of orthogonal distance, rounded down.
• The system for multiple attacks is changed so that, when making multiple attacks in the same round, later attacks are generally less accurate than earlier attacks.

3e to 4e:

• The alignment system was reduced from nine alignments to five (lawful good, good, unaligned, evil and chaotic evil); eliminating lawful neutral, lawful evil, chaotic good, and chaotic neutral.
• Revision of saving throws and defense values. Fortitude, Reflex and Will are now static defense values which the attacker rolls against in the same way physical attacks roll against Armor Class. "Saving throw" now refers to rolls made at the end of one's turn in order to end certain ongoing detrimental effects; saving throw rolls generally have no bonus and a DC of 10.
• Changes in spells and other per-encounter resourcing, giving all classes a similar number of at-will, per-encounter and per-day powers . Powers have a wide range of effects including inflicting status effects, creating zones (such as a stinking cloud ), and forced movement, making combat very tactical for all classes but essentially requiring use of miniatures. Powers are typically used with particular types of equipment; for example, powers for the fighter class receive bonuses for certain types of weapons, while rogue powers usually require rogue weapons such as daggers and crossbows, and more magical classes can use implements (such as wands) with their powers to add their enhancement bonuses in the same way weapons do for weapon powers.
• In the first Player's Handbook , the warlock and warlord are included, while the barbarian, bard, druid, sorcerer and monk are not present.
• Characters at 11th level choose a "paragon path", a specialty often (but not always) based on their class, which defines some of their new powers through 20th level. At level 21, an "epic destiny" is chosen in a similar manner. In many respects, the paragon path and the epic destiny replace the prestige class system of v3.5.
• Core rules extend to level 30 rather than level 20
• The multi-classing system is revised. Rather than splitting levels between multiple classes, characters properly belong to only one class but may choose feats to gain abilities from other classes. Hybrid characters combine selected features from two classes. Eleventh level characters with sufficient multi-class feats can use "paragon multi-classing" to gain additional powers from another class in lieu of picking a "paragon path".
• Standardized level-based bonus increases. Attack rolls, skill checks and defense values all get a bonus equal to one-half level, rounded down, rather than increasing at different rates depending on class or skill point investment. This bonus also applies to ability-score checks (such as strength checks).
• Revision of the healing system. Each character has a number of daily "healing surges" based on their class and Constitution score. Spending a healing surge usually heals a character for slightly under one-fourth of a character's maximum hit points. Generally, characters can only spend a healing surge during combat by using a special once-per-encounter "second wind" action; however, certain powers allow additional surges to be spent (by the character using it or another character), and characters can spend any number of their healing surges while taking a five minute "short rest" outside of combat. Finally, players recover full hit points after a (once daily) six hour "extended rest".
• Elimination of skill points. Each skill is either trained (providing a fixed bonus on skill checks, and sometimes allowing more exotic uses for the skills) or untrained, but in either case all characters also receive a bonus to all skill rolls based on level.
• Many non-combat spells (such as Knock , Raise Dead , Tenser's Floating Disc , and Water Breathing ) are replaced by rituals, which are not class-specific but require a feat (given to certain classes for free) and a skill check to perform. All rituals have a financial cost in the form of material components, such as herbs and alchemical reagents. Item creation feats are also replaced by rituals.
• Elves are split into three races (excluding half-elves) rather than numerous subraces. All three elven races are considered fey. Gnomes are also considered fey.
• The Dungeon Master's Guide officially supports leveling monsters down and up to allow for easier encounter design and flexibility. Many monsters have their mechanics redesigned to help differentiate them from others. Some monsters are designed to work well in group fights whereas others can be used as a solo monster versus the players' party.
• Distances previously measured in feet are now measured in five-foot squares; a diagonally adjacent square is considered to be one square away, so effect areas are generally square rather than circular or cone-shaped. The five-foot step, usually taken to avoid attacks of opportunity, is replaced with a type of movement called shifting. Normally a character can shift one square as a move action, but some powers can allow shifting a greater distance or as part of another action.

I thin it safe to say while both systems had a lot of changes, no, 4e was the most severe.

The big question here is: is DH2.0 intended for existing or new customers?

I have all (I think) of WHFRP 2.0 but didn't buy anything in 3.0 because of the radical change.

I am very much interested in any new creative content they'll release for DH2.0, as long as the changes aren't so radical I can't use it with my other 40krpg books.

@baroniveagh

You need a sense of scale to go with the eye for detail. D&D4E followed through with the core principles of 3E, just explicitly laying out a lot of the game mastery elements of 3.5. For example, it's not that distances in 3.5 weren't measured in 5' squares as far as the design was actually concerned; it's just that the books didn't say "squares." WotC invented the core principles of 3E with only superficial reference to the mechanical structure of AD&D2E. In fact, there was not even a "core mechanic" until 3E.

But that's pretty OT. Thing is, DH2E is not a generic scifantasy game. It doesn't have significant competitors outside of the rest of the FFG 40k line. There is no OGL to allow another company, which in the case of Paizo was positioned perfectly to compete with WotC, to continue on where FFG is leaving off on DH1E. That's why whatever happened with D&D4E, you won't learn anything for it to apply here.

Thing is, DH2E is not a generic scifantasy game. It doesn't have significant competitors outside of the rest of the FFG 40k line. There is no OGL to allow another company, which in the case of Paizo was positioned perfectly to compete with WotC, to continue on where FFG is leaving off on DH1E. That's why whatever happened with D&D4E, you won't learn anything for it to apply here.

I really hate to let you know this, but there are other rpgs, and even other genres out there for dissatisfied customers to go to.

While there will always be a certain number of hard core 40k or DIE! fans, the reality is that most people who play the RPG are not the rabidly compulsive players of the 40k TT war-game and if they're not enjoying the game, will just pack it in and go someplace else.

But that's pretty OT. Thing is, DH2E is not a generic scifantasy game. It doesn't have significant competitors outside of the rest of the FFG 40k line. There is no OGL to allow another company, which in the case of Paizo was positioned perfectly to compete with WotC, to continue on where FFG is leaving off on DH1E. That's why whatever happened with D&D4E, you won't learn anything for it to apply here.

Well, not exactly: DH2 is not a "generic" science-fantasy game either! It exists alongside of 4 other game lines all of which are at least somewhat compatible. In this instance FFG may be setting the stage to be competing with itself and ultimately lose out in the process. In other words: If the new product is incompatible it may fail because players do not want to deal with the divergence! OW is about the same power level and BC allows you to very credibly develop Nemesis characters even if you don't play BC specifically.

Put your mind at ease. The D&D4E example is totally inapplicable. There is no OGL here. There is no Paizo (a company that suddenly found itself with nothing to do but compete with WotC). The better comparison is with WFRP3E and that should not give you much cause for concern. WFRP3E was a truly radical change from WFRP2E. While DH2E is significantly different from DH1E and BC/OW, the changes are nowhere near so dramatic.

Like I said above, due to the publishing cycle of the 40k rpg, they are in direct competition with the new DH2. This was not the case for WHFRP, where the 2e was for all intents and purposes dead, and had been for a while, so it was not competing with 3e when it came out. Moreover, as it came out a few years after 2e was largely discontinued, some WFRP 2e players had already moved on, and where willing to come back to a new, supported WFRP. This is not the same situation here, where the DH2 stuff, being somewhat incompatible with the rest of the systems, isn't very attractive for people who mostly play one of the other WH40k systems because it's difficult to make use of it as anything but the basis of a similar in purpose, but mechanically different, system in the old WH40k system, unlike the current situation where any new splatbook can be interesting for players of any of the lines because they are easily compatible with a few tweaks, especially in the wake of the improvements and general standardization that came with BC and OW.

Point of Information:

FASA didn't "go out of business" . The owners shut the company down by choice as they didn't see any future in the gaming industry. They were, of course, completely wrong, but the didn't go out of business due to mistakes they made with releases.

BYE

The players generally dislike:

The new combat system. On every forum, this is the thing that almost everyone has complained about. It's a huge step backward as far as 'streamlining' combat goes, and confuses players more than it helps. Further, it does not deal with the issues that DH had, but instead creates a whole slew of new ones. Particulalry the paper keeping for sozens of potential wound locations and effects.

Solution: Dispose of it. Even the old one is better than this. And stop with the **** rolling on fifty random tables garbage. This approach was abandoned by most pencil and paper game designers in the late 80's, and for good reason.

Some of the skills that have been folded into each other, and hte stat assigned ot them, do not make a lot of sense.

The new combat system is not a step backwards. A step sideways, maybe, but not backwards. I really like the new Wound System and the revamped critical tables. Yeah, are the Action Points a little wonky? Sure. I would like to be an optimist here and believe that FFG will tweak this. It's a new direction and I would imagine that the final product will see some changes. And dude, there are not fifty tables. They actually cut down on the number of critical tables. You keep acting like a PC is going to experience 50 million wounds per combat. Stop over-exaggerating.

The reality: The players might a well scream about it, if anything the last several betas have shown, it's that FFG rarely acts on serious issues with a game that get found in beta, unless they're absolutely game breaking, and generally ignores the player base concerns. All these are is a way to squeeze a few extra bucks out of us while giving us the illusion of taking part in the process without it's substance.

Serious question: why are you even posting here? If you truly believe this, that FFG won't listen to a single bit of advice or comment on the Beta and are only out for more money from 40K fans, why are you even posting here? All you're doing is acting hysterical, like its the end of RPG 40K games. It's the same crap that came out when 4E D&D was released. And you know what? A lot of people actually liked it. So get over your hysterical-ness, grow up, and actually contribute to the discussions here. I know Plushy is very critical of a lot of FFG products, but at least he contributes a great deal to the discussions on these forums.

The new combat system is not a step backwards. A step sideways, maybe, but not backwards. I really like the new Wound System and the revamped critical tables. Yeah, are the Action Points a little wonky? Sure. I would like to be an optimist here and believe that FFG will tweak this. It's a new direction and I would imagine that the final product will see some changes. And dude, there are not fifty tables. They actually cut down on the number of critical tables. You keep acting like a PC is going to experience 50 million wounds per combat. Stop over-exaggerating.

I think what he means by referencing 50 tables is the frequency of the reference, as well as the fact that characters have to track potentially multiple wounds across 3 or 4 tables, and although they might not get 50 million, you almost need 5-6 wounds to kill someone. With all the high level ones giving permanent (or nearly so) conditions, tracking them all may become difficult, especially across a character's relatively long existence compared to the average NPC that gets murdered by said character.

Also, the removal of the Explosive damage is odd; it filled an important place in between energy and impact for stuff that actually explodes, like grenade and bolt rounds, both of which are iconic items. Someone who gets shot by a bolter (or steps on a mine, or gets an earthshaker round to the face) is going to get gibed, someone who gets shot by an autogun has a hole in his body. An autocannon might rip his arm off, but it won't blast it off. Honestly, explosive damage was good because you got the best of both energy (the people burning, the explosions, the vaporisations) and bullets (the meaty impacts, the blood, the damage to the environment) all in one neat package of extra critical deadliness.

The new combat system is not a step backwards. A step sideways, maybe, but not backwards. I really like the new Wound System and the revamped critical tables. Yeah, are the Action Points a little wonky? Sure. I would like to be an optimist here and believe that FFG will tweak this. It's a new direction and I would imagine that the final product will see some changes. And dude, there are not fifty tables. They actually cut down on the number of critical tables. You keep acting like a PC is going to experience 50 million wounds per combat. Stop over-exaggerating.

Serious question: why are you even posting here? If you truly believe this, that FFG won't listen to a single bit of advice or comment on the Beta and are only out for more money from 40K fans, why are you even posting here? All you're doing is acting hysterical, like its the end of RPG 40K games. It's the same crap that came out when 4E D&D was released. And you know what? A lot of people actually liked it. So get over your hysterical-ness, grow up, and actually contribute to the discussions here. I know Plushy is very critical of a lot of FFG products, but at least he contributes a great deal to the discussions on these forums.

I am BaronIveagh, oh transient thing of flesh. Lord of the Hell Party and Reviewer of Games. Bow before the Dark Majesty of the Daemon Prince of Cynics, and know Despair!

I posting here because I have been posting here for a very long time, and have been an FFG customer longer than any of the stars have burned in the sky.. And I post because I grow tired of 40k products which are Crap because Warhammer 40k players seem to be willing to buy a literal turd from GW and it's licensees, as long as it is encrusted with skulls and a 40k logo.

This is a beta, worm. The entire point is to find problems, and break the game system, so that issues are corrected before the game goes Gold. And many are the playtests so far which are reporting that the combat drags due to keeping track of the numerous conditions and Wonky Action Points, so I am not alone in naming this 'an issue'.

From my throne, I see out across the web and behold many are the angry posts in many role play forums and high is heaped the hate, far more than even one such as I deem needed.

This is unacceptable, and it's root seems to be universally the combat system. If this is, indeed so, it would well behoove FFG to consider other options, lest they alienate many who would otherwise purchase their products.

The Master of the Dark Reign does find your mention of 4e amusing, for while many did enjoy 4th edition, none did so more than the makers of Pathfinder. Among those who did not, the employees of Wizards of the Coast were numbered.

The irony should be apparent to you.

Plushy, my servant, your gaze upon these realms with a cautious and cynical eye pleases your Master, but for this occasion I intend to descend and employ my dread power upon this, lest this edition be soft and weak. A broken and pathetic Dark Heresy will not be allowed.

I sorta agree with Baron, though not really his.... extremist approach (Though I did like the post!)

There's a nagging voice in the back of my head that says they aren't going to listen.

But I refuse to listen to it.

I post, I contribute, I argue and I try to defend my position in order to shape the future of this game and make it everything into something (virtually) everyone can appreciate it.

I have hope that the creators, the developers and everyone involved is reading our ideas and not thinking "This is stupid seeing as we didn't think of it" - but be actually open to the ideas of the public: and not just our ideas, but our suggestions as well.

I would love to see something that has been posted on these forums adapted into the game (And Iam not talking about the typo fixes). And I would love it a billion times more if it was something that we all wanted to see, or we all contributed at creating.

My main priorities right now are a) Character background Generation, as discussed in detail in the various threads & b) Sanctioned and Unsanctioned psykers [and untouchables, seeing as the space to fix the former needs to come from some place.]

Once thats finished, we move to the Wound system [slightly] and Malignancies. Following that, the armory and "Rate of Attack". And then we should be good to go.

There's a nagging voice in the back of my head that says they aren't going to listen.

But I refuse to listen to it.

I post, I contribute, I argue and I try to defend my position in order to shape the future of this game and make it everything into something (virtually) everyone can appreciate it.

I hope so too... I'm very open to enhancements and streamlining. But if a game becomes incompatible with a previous edition, and people liked the previous edition, that's usually an indication things are going in the wrong direction. I'm not really interested in a product that abandons a game system I like, and I'm speaking here as someone who liked aspects of WFRP 3e and D&D 4e, systems which were met with a great deal of criticism, and in the case of D&D 4e have already been abandoned. You just can't change a system too far from what people already liked about it.

I had assumed incompatible meant dissolution of the previous career system structure, and incorporation of BC/OW style improvements and refinements. Not abandoning those improvements to try something new, out of nowhere, that no one had been requesting.

I hope this beta is a real beta, where feedback will be incorporated into actual improvements, and not just a playtest document.

My main priorities right now are a) Character background Generation, as discussed in detail in the various threads & b) Sanctioned and Unsanctioned psykers [and untouchables, seeing as the space to fix the former needs to come from some place.]

Once thats finished, we move to the Wound system [slightly] and Malignancies. Following that, the armory and "Rate of Attack". And then we should be good to go.

You realise thats almost everything that they have changed for the new system. The only thing that people kinda want to keep seems to be Action Points (and even then I feel they don't work as is, being so closely linked with the broken RoF) and people are split over the talent trees. Almost everything that isn't really that contentious is stuff that is almost identical to previous iterations.

I am not optimistic they are going to make enough changes to make this work. Its probably going to be the end of me buying the 40k books if they go ahead with this which is really annoying to me because I have bought all of them up to now.