I had the chance to talk with Tim Huckleberry and Jim Fisher (I think those are their names so I'm really sorry if they're incorrect.) at Gencon, and I just wanted to say that they're great guys who are actually trying to listen to us. They just stay under the radar. Felt like I should mention it at least.

Of course they read. The question is if they listen.

Because if they'd listened from the beginning, this entire debacle could've been avoided.

Actually yeah, I asked them about certain decisions they made. Lot of the update was feedback based.

Of course they read. The question is if they listen.

Because if they'd listened from the beginning, this entire debacle could've been avoided.

I feel like people like you would be complaining if they'd just used the only war rules and wondering why FFG couldn't try something different.

I wouldnt call it a debacle at all.

This is yet the best pair of WH40k RPG rules I saw so far.

Still a lot of bugs to work on, but a LOT better than all the rules before.

I really like their new approach and I really hope they listen well to the great guys here, who put a lot of effort into a something they love and want to further improve.

Actually yeah, I asked them about certain decisions they made. Lot of the update was feedback based.

Did you happen to ask them why they chose to make the new rules deliberately incompatible with the rest of the set?

Well...if you change something on a bigger scale, that tends to out-date old stuff a little more than slight changes.

Anyway, I really appreciate the changes which are being made.

It would be great though to get a weapon and armour conversion table to be able to still use DH1-stuff in DH2.

Maybe they can provide this as a support file to make it easier to switch to DH2.0

Well...if you change something on a bigger scale, that tends to out-date old stuff a little more than slight changes.

Only Partly true. When they went from DH1 system to RT to BC/OW it was easy to see where these were improvements but were essentially backwards compatible. Most people I know running WH 40k RPG's currently use the OW combat mechanics and kind of "Fit" the rest in around it. Don't get me wrong, I do like the Idea of the narrative based combat! I just wish it had been written to support the old system better!

To be fair, the only change that really breaks compatibility with a lot of weapons and the like is AP, and it's pretty **** hard to NOT make changing the action economy break previous items.

It's also painfully easy to tweak the stats of old 40kRPG gear to fit the new system, have you actually tried it?

To be fair, the only change that really breaks compatibility with a lot of weapons and the like is AP, and it's pretty **** hard to NOT make changing the action economy break previous items.

It's also painfully easy to tweak the stats of old 40kRPG gear to fit the new system, have you actually tried it?

I have looked at it. With the update it is admittedly less painful than it was. Knasseril's combat comparison gave me some interesting food for thought. As such I have been focusing on trying to suggest "Tweaks" that would give the combat more of a flavor that I could support (You were part of that discussion if I remember ). While I am not especially fond of AP based systems I am trying to consider it objectively and see if it can be made "workable" (In my admittedly sometimes "Overly judgmental" way.) You are right about the change to AP of course. It does make things very different. But only because they have tied ROF to AP which I'm not sure was a great idea! Further testing is in order there!

I think tying RoF to AP is fairly fine, it's just the actual numbers need a little tweaking. Namely, most things that are 1/2 should just be 1, with the single shot quality. Makes a hell of a lot more sense and doesn't make them overpowered by any means.

I disagree since, as I understand it, you can fire a semi-auto accurately at a rate of 40-60 rpm. Which would mean up to 5 shots per round. Which is also why I like the concept of ROF for melee attack: more than one attack per 5 seconds.

Alex

I highly doubt they're going for total realism here, and really, comparing modern firearms to 40k firearms is a pretty iffy concept.

Yeah, I don't think we should go for selective realism, if we go for total realism 40k breaks down in 0.2 seconds.

Go for a decent mix of the fluff and gamebalance.

It is fine that they don't respond often on the forum.

I prefer that they take the feed back and spend their time on working it in to the product without doing any knee-jerk changes that will just ruin what is otherwise a great product.

I highly doubt they're going for total realism here, and really, comparing modern firearms to 40k firearms is a pretty iffy concept.

I was just pointing out that up to 5 shots per turn is realistic. Doing the math of 4 AP times .5 ROF I arrive at 2 shots in 5 seconds. That's not too much. On the contrary it seems more odd if I can hit an enemy only once in 5 seconds.

So I dont have any problems with the ROF mechanic, it's good. Though it's more dice because more hits that need to be resolved seperately.

Alex

Actually yeah, I asked them about certain decisions they made. Lot of the update was feedback based.

Did you happen to ask them why they chose to make the new rules deliberately incompatible with the rest of the set?

They wanted to make the game work the way they wanted to not just have an iteration of rules they got when they took over the line. At least that's what I extrapolated, I didn't ask them explicitly.

Of course they read. The question is if they listen.

Because if they'd listened from the beginning, this entire debacle could've been avoided.

I feel like people like you would be complaining if they'd just used the only war rules and wondering why FFG couldn't try something different.

Of course I would. Why the hell would they just have used the Only War rules? That wouldn't warrant a new Edition.

I think your post is a thinly veiled strawman.

Given that the majority of people calling the beta a debacle or rejecting the whole thing out of hand are complaining that the system lacks compatibility and that they wish it just used the Only War rules, I assumed that's what you meant by FFG listening from the beginning. My apologies for not asking you to elaborate upon your useless statement and instead assuming you're just whining for the sake of it. I'll try to be more receptive to unhelpful complaining in the future.

My apologies for not asking you to elaborate upon your useless statement and instead assuming you're just whining for the sake of it. I'll try to be more receptive to unhelpful complaining in the future.

Not all comments can be as constructive as this one, I suppose.

At any rate, I'm glad to hear they are listening to the community - Update #1 was definitely a step in the right direction. I still don't think I'll be making the switch, but I am interested to see what direction they take this thing. There are aspects of it I really like.

Given that the majority of people calling the beta a debacle or rejecting the whole thing out of hand are complaining that the system lacks compatibility and that they wish it just used the Only War rules, I assumed that's what you meant by FFG listening from the beginning. My apologies for not asking you to elaborate upon your useless statement and instead assuming you're just whining for the sake of it. I'll try to be more receptive to unhelpful complaining in the future.

I've heard literally no-one say that all they wish is that FFG would've used the Only War rules and nothing else. Another strawman, followed by a bunch of low-grade trolling. Yawn.

Given that the majority of people calling the beta a debacle or rejecting the whole thing out of hand are complaining that the system lacks compatibility and that they wish it just used the Only War rules, I assumed that's what you meant by FFG listening from the beginning. My apologies for not asking you to elaborate upon your useless statement and instead assuming you're just whining for the sake of it. I'll try to be more receptive to unhelpful complaining in the future.

I've heard literally no-one say that all they wish is that FFG would've used the Only War rules and nothing else. Another strawman, followed by a bunch of low-grade trolling. Yawn.

Actually, quite a few people have essentially said that they wish they'd just updated DH to use the Only War rules (or DH 1.5 as some call it).

Given that the majority of people calling the beta a debacle or rejecting the whole thing out of hand are complaining that the system lacks compatibility and that they wish it just used the Only War rules, I assumed that's what you meant by FFG listening from the beginning. My apologies for not asking you to elaborate upon your useless statement and instead assuming you're just whining for the sake of it. I'll try to be more receptive to unhelpful complaining in the future.

I've heard literally no-one say that all they wish is that FFG would've used the Only War rules and nothing else. Another strawman, followed by a bunch of low-grade trolling. Yawn.

Actually, quite a few people have essentially said that they wish they'd just updated DH to use the Only War rules (or DH 1.5 as some call it).

No, I've seen quite a few people expressing a wish that they would've preferred a new edition of Dark Heresy that was based around the same general ruleset as Only War. That's a far cry from saying "the Only War rules and nothing else".

Obviously, the rules should've been worked on, again, just like they've been for every iteration.

No, I've seen quite a few people expressing a wish that they would've preferred a new edition of Dark Heresy that was based around the same general ruleset as Only War. That's a far cry from saying "the Only War rules and nothing else".

Obviously, the rules should've been worked on, again, just like they've been for every iteration.

Not to be rude, but I think you're being a bit pedantic about what was being said initially.

The point was more that you struck the poster as someone who would complain even if they had used the [insert most popular idea for rules update here]. With an implied notion that any change/new edition would not be sufficient for you.

Given your hostile tone, its hard not to side with them.

No, I've seen quite a few people expressing a wish that they would've preferred a new edition of Dark Heresy that was based around the same general ruleset as Only War. That's a far cry from saying "the Only War rules and nothing else".

Obviously, the rules should've been worked on, again, just like they've been for every iteration.

Not to be rude, but I think you're being a bit pedantic about what was being said initially.

The point was more that you struck the poster as someone who would complain even if they had used the [insert most popular idea for rules update here]. With an implied notion that any change/new edition would not be sufficient for you.

Given your hostile tone, its hard not to side with them.

I fail to see what*s so hostile in:

"Of course they read. The question is if they listen.

Because if they'd listened from the beginning, this entire debacle could've been avoided."

(Note: I don't feel like the beta is a debacle. There's aspects that make me go and aspects that make me go .)

In contrast to the response to it, it wasn't a personal attack though.

And let me add: with every new game, we not only have the nay-sayers, we also have the hopeless aye-sayers.

(As a quick reminder: "No, Heavy Bolters in the DW rulebook are not overpowered, an errata is completely

unnecessary, I like them the way they are." )

Alex