So I read through the book completely over the last week. I can't say I am ready to GM a game yet, but that is my overall goal. The goal of this thread is to get a better understanding of one or two things that seem to have passed me by and give some light impressions rather than any solid feedback. I'd encourage others to do the same here. Please try to keep my thread free of flaming, and more of a Q&A session with some light opinions/asides.

So without further stalling:

Questions -

Signature psycological maladies and corruptions are mentioned in the character creation thread, but never again. What are their uses mechanically?

I keep hearing that which trait tree you can buy from is based on something in character creation. Can someone give me a page number and/or an example of this?

I do have more questions, but lets start with that.

Impressions -

This was a much bigger change than I was expecting, but I'm glad to see that it's still basically compatible (with some tweaking) with the old pre-published adventures. Other DH supplements will need more effort.

I was expecting the action points to be based on a characteristic (ie AB+1) but there is nothing wrong with the system as is. Really, when I heard it was action points based I envisioned a lot of changes that didn't appear such as getting rid of one attack action per round. But just because I made up this system in my head based on supposition, doesn't mean it's better.

Character creation seems smooth and, need I say it, fun. It gets away from a lot of the clutter/confusion that was in previous games. I would add a sidebar about buying/selling starting equipment, but it's not essential because the GM knows that it's his decission already.

There's a lot of ranting about talent trees, but I don't see it as such a bad thing. To the best of my understanding everyone should eventually have access to any talent they want. The problem people had with the old system was that they couldn't access talents they wanted, now they just have to undergo "talent tax".

I would rather if they weren't so deep, perhaps adding several root elements and widening the tree would help here. I often took advantage of suppressing fire in the old games, it vastly increased the survivability of the group, now I really have to struggle to buy it...

The increased amount of GM decides is a good thing as it minimises the amount of rule nazis and rummaging through the book.

A lot of the rules that used to be on the DM screen have been simplified to the point that I can remember them off by heart. Really, I think the only thing that will be essential in my DM notes will be the injuries charts and the skills uses list.

There are some typos, but I’m no man to comment on that and this IS a beta!

Signature traumas and malignancies are what happens if you roll double digits when acquiring a trauma or malignancy. Also, rolling one that you already have often makes it default to your signature.

What page is that on?

252 and 255.

Thank you!

Would I be right in saying that there are no range modifiers for ranged attack?

Yep, far as I can tell there's nothing, range is just a straight up maximum effective range for your weapon.

I'm not reading any differences between a best quality weapon and a poor quality one except it's availability and how lightly it is to break if it jams.

I'm not reading any differences between a best quality weapon and a poor quality one except it's availability and how lightly it is to break if it jams.

There wasn't any other difference in the original rules.

One of the updates (#3, I think?) added that a weapon can only have a number of modifications equal to its Status Level (Best = 3, as I recall). If a weapon is reduced to a lower status level than its current number of modifications, one random upgrade is broken.

There's still no difference for armour, unfortunately. Someone proposed modifying the Agility Cap, which I think was a good suggestion.

Ah that managed to slip by me. It was in update 2. It could do with being mentioned in the weapon quality section at the start of the armoury.

There's still no difference for armour, unfortunately. Someone proposed modifying the Agility Cap, which I think was a good suggestion.

That seems to make plenty of sense to me. I'd vote for that!

I'm not reading any differences between a best quality weapon and a poor quality one except it's availability and how lightly it is to break if it jams.

There wasn't any other difference in the original rules.One of the updates (#3, I think?) added that a weapon can only have a number of modifications equal to its Status Level (Best = 3, as I recall). If a weapon is reduced to a lower status level than its current number of modifications, one random upgrade is broken. There's still no difference for armour, unfortunately. Someone proposed modifying the Agility Cap, which I think was a good suggestion.

A really good proposal !

You should mail that to the devs - hurry hurry - last day to do so

Seriously - it is really a good concept.

Lets say a best quality allows 5 Agility more, poor quality 5 less.

Easy to apply, but making absolute sense.

It could also play a role, if later on, armour modifications come into the game...

Makes sense. I like the idea.

I also like the modification caps - although, as mentioned in another thread, some modifications shouldn't be possible to lose (compact, for example)

"I was expecting the action points to be based on a characteristic (ie AB+1) but there is nothing wrong with the system as is. Really, when I heard it was action points based I envisioned a lot of changes that didn't appear such as getting rid of one attack action per round. But just because I made up this system in my head based on supposition, doesn't mean it's better."

Ultimately, it just allows "quarter actions" by the old description, and for bursts of fire of varying length.

I'm not reading any differences between a best quality weapon and a poor quality one except it's availability and how lightly it is to break if it jams.

There wasn't any other difference in the original rules.

One of the updates (#3, I think?) added that a weapon can only have a number of modifications equal to its Status Level (Best = 3, as I recall). If a weapon is reduced to a lower status level than its current number of modifications, one random upgrade is broken.

There's still no difference for armour, unfortunately. Someone proposed modifying the Agility Cap, which I think was a good suggestion.

Are they even trying to stick to the idea that rules exist to support a narrative anymore? Because that's just.. seriously, what the hell? I don't even know what to say.

So if I fit a scope, an overcharge pack and an extended stock to my Lasgun, I can't stick a whisper-bolt discharger onto it? And if something happens to the gun, say, the firing mechanism goes slightly bad, reducing the quality from Best to Good, one of the attachments will magically break?

Wha..? That's just..

Goddammit, FFG.

If your scope was the upgrade that broke, it wasn't because your "firing mechanism went slightly bad". It was because a hit broke the scope off, or an internal explosion from a jam cracked the lens, or some other suitable explanation. You build the story around the mechanics, not the other way around. Otherwise nothing ever makes sense.

Admittedly, some of the limits to upgrades makes less sense than others. It's not impossible to explain away, though, and it makes for a decent gameplay mechanic.

If your scope was the upgrade that broke, it wasn't because your "firing mechanism went slightly bad". It was because a hit broke the scope off, or an internal explosion from a jam cracked the lens, or some other suitable explanation. You build the story around the mechanics, not the other way around. Otherwise nothing ever makes sense.

Admittedly, some of the limits to upgrades makes less sense than others. It's not impossible to explain away, though, and it makes for a decent gameplay mechanic.

That said, I strongly disagree that you should build the narrative around the mechanics. The mechanics are there to facilitate storytelling, not the other way around.

I'd love to hear a rationale for just as to how the limitation makes sense, though. Why can I not attach a whisper-bolt discharger to a lasgun with an overcharge pack, a scope, and a modified stock? What possible explanation can you come up with?

I can see your point about the number of fancy things you can add being independent of the weapon quality. It fits with the fictional idea of a jury-rigged crappy but favorite weapon, and a sleek top of the line weapon

The relationship between story and mechanics is VERY interesting. Because I can see it working both ways. The people who are big on the Old-School Renaissance can make a very good argument that very good, emergent story can come from mechanics.

All that being said, I get the idea of wear-and-tear causing malfunctions of add-ons.

If your scope was the upgrade that broke, it wasn't because your "firing mechanism went slightly bad". It was because a hit broke the scope off, or an internal explosion from a jam cracked the lens, or some other suitable explanation. You build the story around the mechanics, not the other way around. Otherwise nothing ever makes sense.

Admittedly, some of the limits to upgrades makes less sense than others. It's not impossible to explain away, though, and it makes for a decent gameplay mechanic.

I would accept a situation that would break the lense, but that's not what the mechanics are illustrating. The upgrade is broken when the quality of the weapon is reduced. If it was simply the scope (to stick with the comparison) that broke, the scope would be broken, and of course should be removed, but once removed, the weapon would still be "best"-quality.

Well, maybe part of the weapon broke, too. The chainsword that chopped off the scope also made a gash in the gun. The explosion that cracked the lens also fractured the gun.

This is yet another case of making the story fit the mechanics, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

That said, I strongly disagree that you should build the narrative around the mechanics. The mechanics are there to facilitate storytelling, not the other way around.

It goes both ways. Otherwise it'd be a novel, not a game.

Overall, of course the mechanics facilitate the story-telling. Story comes first in an RPG. Agreed.

But if you don't allow the mechanical aspects of the game - especially the random ones - to affect the story, why do you even have them? If you already have a story you want to tell, and you don't want to change it based on what happens, you're not playing an interactive game. You're just telling a story.

I'd love to hear a rationale for just as to how the limitation makes sense, though. Why can I not attach a whisper-bolt discharger to a lasgun with an overcharge pack, a scope, and a modified stock? What possible explanation can you come up with?

*Shrug* I guess I'd have to find out what a whisper-bolt discharger is, first.

Here's a general option, though: You've fitted the discharger and the overcharge pack. You're about to add the modified stock. You realize that the weapon's integrity won't hold up to your design. Or the component you bought doesn't fit with your gun, because part of your gun (where the upgrade would attach) is broken.

It's yet another case of making the story fit the mechanics. You don't have to say that the third component doesn't fit on because you already have two components on there - you can say the third component doesn't fit because the third component doesn't fit.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with this. I agree (and said so in my post) that this can be a bit wonky. It's not perfect - but you can make it work, and then it can work well .

Whisper-bolt dischargers are incompatible with overcharge packs. This is a direct result of the relatively delicate crystalline focus emitters and the limited charge cache being overloaded by the greater-than-spec energy release from an overcharge pack. This quickly burns out both upgrades while diminishing the energy transfer of the final discharge, rendering the upgrades dysfunctional at best and risking an explosive burn out of the entire weapon system.

There.

We have discussed in my campaign how a more sensible but also more detail oriented limitation would be something like one "sight" modification , one "action" modification and one "frame" modification so as to express something like my above explanation but not end up with the obvious counter example of having only three upgrades but have all three be sights or whatever (to be honest, three sights on a gun is not inconceivable, but for balance purposes I am okay with it).

Whisper-bolt dischargers are incompatible with overcharge packs. This is a direct result of the relatively delicate crystalline focus emitters and the limited charge cache being overloaded by the greater-than-spec energy release from an overcharge pack. This quickly burns out both upgrades while diminishing the energy transfer of the final discharge, rendering the upgrades dysfunctional at best and risking an explosive burn out of the entire weapon system.

There.

Will you come up with equally contrived and arbitrary explanations for each and every combination? If so, no combination is valid. What you just wrote is a great rationale as to why you would not be allowed to combine a whisper-bolt discharger and an overcharge pack specifically, but a terrible post-hoc explanation as to why there can't be 4 modifications to the weapon.

We have discussed in my campaign how a more sensible but also more detail oriented limitation would be something like one "sight" modification , one "action" modification and one "frame" modification so as to express something like my above explanation but not end up with the obvious counter example of having only three upgrades but have all three be sights or whatever (to be honest, three sights on a gun is not inconceivable, but for balance purposes I am okay with it).

Some things were mutually exclusive already in the original system, too, like the Exterminator Cartridge and the Aux. Grenade Launcher, or the Underslung Shotgun.

As for sights, I always thought the 1-sight-per-weapon was odd as hell in the original system. Saying "only one sight can be used as a time" would've made so much more sense.

I have to say, Fgsdfg, your posts in this thread have greatly amused me.

The limit on modifications to weapons is simply a balancing mechanic to make higher quality weapons better than lower quality. I think we can agree on this, even though I know you disagree on its validity, at least as implemented.

I have to say, Fgsdfg, your posts in this thread have greatly amused me.

The limit on modifications to weapons is simply a balancing mechanic to make higher quality weapons better than lower quality. I think we can agree on this, even though I know you disagree on its validity, at least as implemented.

But as usual, I argue that mechanics exists to support a narrative, not the other way around. A flat, arbitrary limitation on the number of upgrades a weapon can have is absolutely nonsensical.

I don't agree that it's a "balancing" mechanic (or that it should be), however. The differences between various qualities of weapons is very much a question of fluff. There's no "balance" to preserve or enforce, it's simply a matter of better-quality weaponry being (or should be) better than worse-quality weapons.

Which can be represented mechanically in any number of ways. Of which I think that this is quite possibly the worst one I've seen in any game ever, including not just roleplaying games, but.. all of them.

I meant that the reason FFG included it was to act as a balancing mechanic, a question of the intent of including the rule, not that you'd agree on the validity of including it. An answer to the question, "Why was this rule included?" Surely it's clear that the reason they included it was to act as a balancing mechanic to make better quality weapons better than lower ones.

I disagree with what you've said, though. I don't believe that fluff takes priority over mechanics, or that 'arbitrary' or 'non-sensical' rules are invalid.

Would everyone be happy if we called the limit an optional rule?

Would everyone be happy if we called the limit an optional rule?

Noting it down as optional would probably be a good idea, but then there's really no merit to the various degrees of craftsmanship anymore, which would be sad.

I think it is a good step to make at least ONE real difference between the qualities (it is also nice that it can be used to make things break if qualities go down).

But I also think there could be better ways to handle this and go in line with fluff.

At the moment I have not too much pain with it either way though - there are much more important battlefields to fight on atm