I would make a roll of 96+ an auto-fail (if it is not already ?). This should make even values of 100+ ok.

But opposed rolls compare degrees of success, right?

I haven't thought this through, honestly, but I think I'm with bileteralrope on this. And I'm excited by that, because it might just make Astartes possible without stupid Unnatural characteristics.

Am I being naive?

I would make a roll of 96+ an auto-fail (if it is not already ?). This should make even values of 100+ ok.

Having a fixed chance to fail that you can't do anything to reduce is horrible enough in most systems. It's worse in the 40k RPGs because of fate points. With the 96+ auto-fail you propose, NPCs would have a 5% chance to fail. Players would usually have a 0.25% failure chance because they will fate point the test if the auto-fail range is the only reason they failed.

The rule in the book (auto fail on 100, auto succeed on 1) means a 1% chance for an NPC to fail, a 0.01% chance for a PC to fail.

Which is why I say that if they could pass the test even if they rolled a 100, then they don't need to roll. With a possible exception if the DOS matters.

Suppose you have someone with a Strength of 100 and another someone (or more likely some thing ) with a Strength of 200. They both make an Opposed Roll both succeed, yet one is an elephant and the other a large guy. It usually crops up in one form or another in percentile-based games. For example, Eclipse Phase has the Elephant vs. Man problem I just gave.

The best the 100 strength guy could do is rolling a 1-9, which gets 10 DOS. The worst the 200 strength guy could do is rolling a 100. Which gets him 10 DOS.

That works out to a 0.09% chance of getting the same number of DOS. In which case the higher characteristic still wins.

For any other roll, the 200 strength guy gets more DOS. So he wins in all cases, the only difference is how well he won.

I would make a roll of 96+ an auto-fail (if it is not already ?). This should make even values of 100+ ok.

Having a fixed chance to fail that you can't do anything to reduce is horrible enough in most systems. It's worse in the 40k RPGs because of fate points. With the 96+ auto-fail you propose, NPCs would have a 5% chance to fail. Players would usually have a 0.25% failure chance because they will fate point the test if the auto-fail range is the only reason they failed.

The rule in the book (auto fail on 100, auto succeed on 1) means a 1% chance for an NPC to fail, a 0.01% chance for a PC to fail.

Which is why I say that if they could pass the test even if they rolled a 100, then they don't need to roll. With a possible exception if the DOS matters.

Suppose you have someone with a Strength of 100 and another someone (or more likely some thing ) with a Strength of 200. They both make an Opposed Roll both succeed, yet one is an elephant and the other a large guy. It usually crops up in one form or another in percentile-based games. For example, Eclipse Phase has the Elephant vs. Man problem I just gave.

The best the 100 strength guy could do is rolling a 1-9, which gets 10 DOS. The worst the 200 strength guy could do is rolling a 100. Which gets him 10 DOS.

That works out to a 0.09% chance of getting the same number of DOS. In which case the higher characteristic still wins.

For any other roll, the 200 strength guy gets more DOS. So he wins in all cases, the only difference is how well he won.

True. As you'll note in my post I was answering the general question of how this is a problem in most percentile games. Actually, the ability to have more than a hundred does actually make this workable, I think. And I agree with MagnusPhil - this does actually start to make Astartes playable without Unnatural Characteristics. Although you'll have to be fine with them auto-passing any none challenging test based on those characteristics. Which is probably what Space Marines should do, I guess.

You are right - a value above 100 just means that the character is "immune" to certain tests and auto-passes them, as this kind of test is no problem for him at all.

It is like comparing me lifting a pen to a space marine lifting an average human.

We both dont really need to make a test for this.

And if a Nurgle daemon has Toughness 117, this indirectly means that he is immune against quite a lot of stuff, which is also realistic, but needs to be kept in mind when designing NPCs.

Fgdsfg,

TC was saying that if you'd read LoO's post, you'd have seen that he only has experience with DH and RT, so your question of "Have you SEEN OW?" kind-of answered itself.

Ergo: "Reading comprehension helps."

But I wasn't asking if he's played Only War. I've never played Only War either (well, 30 minutes mid-session, once), but I'm still familiar with it and it's rules and it's rulebooks.

Reading comprehension sure does help.

But I wasn't asking if he's played Only War. I've never played Only War either (well, 30 minutes mid-session, once), but I'm still familiar with it and it's rules and it's rulebooks.

Reading comprehension sure does help.

Which systems did you actually play or run or use their rules (i.e. DH on OW or BC)? Did you play/run DH2? I assume you read DH2 rule set. I'm asking because quite often something looks good on the paper but it doesn't play well and vice versa. Something looks iffy in the book but when you actually play it it turns out to be a good concept.

The best example in my case would be APs in DH2. When I read it I wasn't sure about them. Then I run some sample combats and a quick session in DH2 and APs turned out to be:

- flexible in use

- intuitive and easy to grasp by players

- added flavour, action and tactical aspect to the combat

Hence I'm trying to restrain myself from judging concepts that I haven't tried "in anger". I run DH1 on DH1, then on RT, I skipped DW, but incorporated BC and then OW into my GMing effectively moving from one rule set to another. Every time I had to put some work into it. That's right. They aren't compatible. Despite what some people state on the forum. With DH2 I'll have to do some work to port some of the stuff but I was already prepared for it the moment I've heard a new system comes out. I didn't have to read how different it's going to be. I knew there will be some differences and that's ok. Change is good, stagnation is bad.

As to the very topic of this thread I would like to point that the best example that "They do read" is Update#3 and change in starting fate points. There was a discussion about number of starting fate points and the fact there is not enough for some and it's too random. They read, they've changed it and it's awesome now IMHO.

Thanks for the great work FFG Team.

[...]

The best example in my case would be APs in DH2. When I read it I wasn't sure about them. Then I run some sample combats and a quick session in DH2 and APs turned out to be:

- flexible in use

- intuitive and easy to grasp by players

- added flavour, action and tactical aspect to the combat

Hence I'm trying to restrain myself from judging concepts that I haven't tried "in anger". I run DH1 on DH1, then on RT, I skipped DW, but incorporated BC and then OW into my GMing effectively moving from one rule set to another. Every time I had to put some work into it. That's right. They aren't compatible. Despite what some people state on the forum. With DH2 I'll have to do some work to port some of the stuff but I was already prepared for it the moment I've heard a new system comes out. I didn't have to read how different it's going to be. I knew there will be some differences and that's ok.

[...]

Action Points is perhaps the only concrete change in Dark Heresy 2nd Ed. that I would label potentially good, and that I'd perhaps like to see incorporated into overall better systems. I'm working on my own unified WH40k system (since it's now obvious that FFG will never create one, sadly), and if there's anything I'll take from Dark Heresy 2nd Ed, it's Action Points.

Comparing compatibilities and saying that the original systems aren't compatible in the same way the original systems are now not compatible with DH2 is greatly disingenuous, though. Between the original systems, at best, you needed to do minor tweaking or adjustments, but the basic fundamentals were always rock-solidly the same.

DH2 is completely different, and the only thing the previous rulebooks are useful for is inspiration for homebrewing. Nothing is portable straight over or require only minor tweaks to use effectively.

[...]

Change is good, stagnation is bad.

[...]

Change for the sake of change isn't good. What you're describing is false dichotomy.

I feel the influence of Tzeentch here...heretic !

Action Points is perhaps the only concrete change in Dark Heresy 2nd Ed. that I would label potentially good, and that I'd perhaps like to see incorporated into overall better systems. I'm working on my own unified WH40k system (since it's now obvious that FFG will never create one, sadly), and if there's anything I'll take from Dark Heresy 2nd Ed, it's Action Points.

APs mechanic is a big change. If you bring that in your unified rules will be incompatible with the other systems. APs require changes in combat and in talents as well as in use of equipment.

Comparing compatibilities and saying that the original systems aren't compatible in the same way the original systems are now not compatible with DH2 is greatly disingenuous, though. Between the original systems, at best, you needed to do minor tweaking or adjustments, but the basic fundamentals were always rock-solidly the same.

DH2 is completely different, and the only thing the previous rulebooks are useful for is inspiration for homebrewing. Nothing is portable straight over or require only minor tweaks to use effectively.

Nowhere in my post I said they are incompatible on the same level. DH2 brings more changes. Of course it's more incompatible.

As I mentioned before, I actually did transformations from one system to the other. I'll allow myself to disagree with the sentence about minor tweaks or adjustments. I won't go into details as there is a separate topic for this.

I strongly advise you to play test all the system you like to unify. Being familiar with the rules and actually checking how the rules work in real gameplay are two different things. I would also advise to play-test DH2. I'm not sure if you have or have not as you didn't answer any of my questions. Once you play/run the system you may find more concepts worth your attention.

[...]

Change is good, stagnation is bad.

[...]

Change for the sake of change isn't good. What you're describing is false dichotomy.

Are you reffering just to my sentence ignoring the context of the whole comment or are you reffering to DH2 in general?

If it's the first then I don't have anything more to say to you.

If it's the second then I feel you are unfair towards developers who put a tremendous amount of work into the system. I don't believe that their main goal was to just change DH to something incompatible and force fans to spend more money. Fans have all the other systems and they are not obliged to switch to the new incarnation of the system anyway. It's not table top war game.

I feel the influence of Tzeentch here...heretic !

I have to work harder on my Subtlety .

Dont push yourself to hard for it.

It is just my Keen Intuition that lead me on your trail.

APs mechanic is a big change. If you bring that in your unified rules will be incompatible with the other systems. APs require changes in combat and in talents as well as in use of equipment.

I.. wah.. I'm not sure how to respond to this. What part of 'unified ruleset' was misunderstood? There won't be any "other systems" .

Edit: Except arguably Deathwatch and a parenthesis-sized part of Rogue Trader , because I won't be incorporating SM/CSM/Xenos rules, for a variety of reasons. I'll still rip basically everything out, though, content-wise. /edit

Nowhere in my post I said they are incompatible on the same level. DH2 brings more changes. Of course it's more incompatible.

As I mentioned before, I actually did transformations from one system to the other. I'll allow myself to disagree with the sentence about minor tweaks or adjustments. I won't go into details as there is a separate topic for this.

You equated the switch between other systems within the same general ruleset before, to that of a switch between the previous ruleset and Dark Heresy 2nd Edition, saying that "there will be some differences".

This is what is greatly disingenuous. The compatibilities of the previous system and the various Core Rulebooks were minor, and at worts, it required tweaks, but they were all operating under the same ruleset, with the same base assumptions - whereas Dark Heresy 2nd Ed. is a completely different system, with completely different assumptions and values, sharing only superficial characteristics and terminology.

I strongly advise you to play test all the system you like to unify. Being familiar with the rules and actually checking how the rules work in real gameplay are two different things. I would also advise to play-test DH2. I'm not sure if you have or have not as you didn't answer any of my questions. Once you play/run the system you may find more concepts worth your attention.

I'm intimately familiar with all the rules of the previous system, and obviously, there'll be playtests. It's a pretty big and daunting project, so it's not likely it'll be finished anytime soon, unfortunately. I expect it to be revised every time something crops up and every time someone mentions a relevant homebrew, it'll get updated like a living Errata.

I would play-test DH2 too, but every time we discuss it in the group, it usually ends up with people burying their faces in their hands as they look upon the rules and starts repeating "This is dumb. This is so dumb. Oh god, the dumb, it burns." Figuratively, of course. Or something to that effect.

The sheer amount of issues with Dark Heresy 2nd Edition and the complete lack of backward compatibility really breaks it. The system may play nicely - I hear good things about the combat - but it doesn't help if everything else is an immersion-breaking mess of arbitrary nonsense.

Are you reffering just to my sentence ignoring the context of the whole comment or are you reffering to DH2 in general?

Referring to the sentence in context , as well as a jab at Dark Heresy 2nd Ed. in general.

If it's the second then I feel you are unfair towards developers who put a tremendous amount of work into the system. I don't believe that their main goal was to just change DH to something incompatible and force fans to spend more money. Fans have all the other systems and they are not obliged to switch to the new incarnation of the system anyway. It's not table top war game.

Now, I'm willing to give people a certain amount of leeway and the benefit of the doubt, but to me (and seemingly to a great many others), much of DH2 (but not all, I never said all) appears to be just that; change for the sake of change.

It seems and feels purposefully made to completely invalidate the previous system, with many changes appearing needless or without real thought behind it.

While the oft-mentioned cop-out "You don't need to switch" has a modicum of truth to it, it flagrantly disregards the issue for all those fans of the original system, which is that this is not what they wanted, it was never what they asked for, and that support for their system of choice will cease completely. What they, we, want is obviously that the old system continues, with new supplements and gets much-needed updates.

Unless you want to argue that FFG is about to become the first company to ever support two editions of the same overall line at the same time in history.

I agree that is is more of a revolution than a simple evolution.

It is like a whole new start in many areas.

But in my oppinion it is to the better. I did not like the previous system that much- many of the issues I didnt like were adressed now.

I agree that is is more of a revolution than a simple evolution.

It is like a whole new start in many areas.

But in my oppinion it is to the better. I did not like the previous system that much- many of the issues I didnt like were adressed now.

Nothing to add. Totally agree.

I agree that is is more of a revolution than a simple evolution.

It is like a whole new start in many areas.

This. It's very true, and it's at least honest, and it's more or less what FFG themselves said in the announcement.

I don't see why so many feel like they have to downplay the compatibility aspect, or act like it doesn't matter, or compare it to the minor changes (i.e. iterations, evolution , if you will) between the Core Rulebooks of the original system.

It simply doesn't compare, and the new system is purposely incompatible with the original rulesets. Now, whether that's good or bad, that's of course debatable.

But in my oppinion it is to the better.

See, that's where our opinions differ, and where the potential for a healthy exchange of ideas begin. I don't think most people that are questioning the new kid on the block would be as adamant if they could just understand why the entirely new direction is inherently better, or exactly what it is that this new system does that was impossible to achieve with the previous one (or rather, an evolution thereof).

I did not like the previous system that much- many of the issues I didnt like were adressed now.

...I was going to apologize for going a bit off-topic, but honestly I'm not sure this thread really had a viable topic to begin with.

But I just have to ask, and please afford me the benefit of the doubt, I'm not trying to be conceited, obtuse or otherwise bumptious, but if only for the conversation's sake, might I inquire just as to what you didn't like about the original system? And how was it addressed in DH2?

Genuinely curious and just trying to make some friendly conversation.

...I was going to apologize for going a bit off-topic, but honestly I'm not sure this thread really had a viable topic to begin with.

Not sure if that's an insult or not, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope it's not.

I didn't make the thread in hopes of asking your guys' opinion on what I stated. It was a statement after all, and not a question.

As Adam Jensen said, "I didn't ask for this."

But I just have to ask, and please afford me the benefit of the doubt, I'm not trying to be conceited, obtuse or otherwise bumptious, but if only for the conversation's sake, might I inquire just as to what you didn't like about the original system? And how was it addressed in DH2?

Genuinely curious and just trying to make some friendly conversation.

...I was going to apologize for going a bit off-topic, but honestly I'm not sure this thread really had a viable topic to begin with.

Not sure if that's an insult or not, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope it's not.

I didn't make the thread in hopes of asking your guys' opinion on what I stated. It was a statement after all, and not a question.

As Adam Jensen said, "I didn't ask for this."

Nah, nah, it wasn't intended as an insult at all. It's just that on a discussion forum, threads tend to be intended to have a topic to be discussed, and like you said, it was simply a statement and then the thread just sorta.. took off into.. stuff. And things.

Off the top of my head:

Careers shoe-horned players into a premade concept. The whole salary thing never made sense, either. The DH2 system is very flexible (although it does have a few issues to work out, still).

Combat Actions were a mess. I had players thinking for ages about what to do.

The AP system means that many combat actions can be removed entirely (no reason to have All Out Attack, Semi Auto, Full Auto, Defensive Stance, etc.). It also allows for very customizable turns.

That being said, experiences obviously differ depending on group and individual. Your point is entirely fair, and the Action Point system introduced in DH2 does seem to have concrete merit that I have yet to see anyone refute.

Skills in DH1 were terrible. There were 3 skills just for different ground vehicles, and even if you were a master in one of them, you couldn't even attempt any of the others. I had some real difficulty telling my players that no, they can't just try and drive that car.

The new skill system is both much leaner and more flexible. The switch to let any skill use any characteristic affords the GM some really neat options while the fewer number of skills makes each one more attractive for players.

The talent trees offer what I think is a good compromise between the structured advancement of DH1 and the free-form advancement of BC/OW. It's not impossible for new players to get a feel for what they want to go for, but it still allows for very flexible character concepts.

The psychic power system in DH1 being completely separate from everything else in the game was clumsy, although workable. It's become much easier to grasp now, especially with AP being used to sustain powers.

As for being "completely separate from everything else in the game", I'm not entirely sure what you mean. I realized this as I was double-checking rulebooks, and honestly, if you could explain what you mean, and how DH2 doesn't do the same, I'd be very happy.

Combat always dragged in DH1. I've never really had fun with that system. People always got confused with the math (DoS got much, much easier in the heat of the moment with DH2), they couldn't figure out which modifiers they could get (much easier, now that most of them are gone) and evasion rolls were frustrating as hell (opposed evasion rolls is probably the single best feature in DH2).

The loss of modifiers is in my book hardly a pro, considering that it detracts from the myriad of possible combat circumstances that might arise. Furthermore, I have no idea how anyone could have problems figuring it out, considering that either the GM flat-out tells them what modifier they have based on the circumstances, or they simply consult the cheat-sheet ("Combat Difficulty Summary).

As an added point, though, neither the change to how Degrees of Success work nor Opposed Dodge Checks would've necessitated throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I see no reason it couldn't be part of another iteration of the original system, if necessary.

Edit: The forum broke formatting, and I don't have time to fix it now. I'll look at it later. Goddammit.

DH2 has done a lot of cleaning up here. The new Wound system has my players on edge the entire time. There's still some slowdown (though that's mostly because they're still trying to apply DH1 rules), but overall things are moving much faster and more cinematically.

Fatigue was insane in DH1. Get 1 point of it and you were terribad, but nothing else happens until you pass out. The new system is much, much better.

DH2 have alleviated the issue of the lacklusterness, though, but.. that doesn't seem to have been your issue with it from the beginning, either way. That being said, realistically speaking, the new rules haven't really made Fatigue a lot more relevant, which means that the changes really add up to more bookkeeping and not much more.

In general, there were a TON of ambiguous rules in DH1 that FFG never cleared up. It was getting bad enough that a new book was necessary - an errata couldn't fix this.

The number of add-ons that DH1 had was reaching critical mass. The power creep was crazy, the armoury was impossible to keep track of, and similar items started working in completely different ways for very odd results (shields, for instance).

On the flip side, DH2 seems very flexible for future additions. Adding new home worlds, careers, backgrounds, talent trees and psychic disciplines is very straight-forward, because everything is so modular. I'm excited for the opportunities for homemade supplements, too.

DH1 just seemed like a jumbled mess. There were a bunch of moving parts, and most of the time they were moving in different directions.

I think that DH2 is making a great effort to keep everything in a single, unified system. There's a bunch of different, interchangeable parts, and all of them interact in an intuitive way. I don't feel like I need to house-rule anything - I feel like I can add stuff on there without breaking the core. I never felt like that with any of the older systems.

I can only speak for myself of course, but things I really had my problems with which I feel now are better are for example:

> the % chance of regular tests (especially non-combat) were very poorly adjusted. A average character had an average characteristic value of around 30% +X% if he increased it (max. 4 times, the costs rising extremely fast). This leads to a regular average value of maybe 35-40. And that is not a characters weakness but his average.

I hate it to make all tests "easy" with +20 to only have a chance that characters might somehow sometimes pass them.

It is a little better with skills, but as the skills were so scatterd into many subskills, it is hard to always have the right skill. ANd not having the right skill gives even a penalty

--> this leads in my eyes to a very unsatifying % system where players tend to fail too often

--> other systems already tried to adress this issue and improved it, but I feel that just now this development reached a quite good level

--> now, at least the characters start at a slightly higher level (+5) and there are much less skills, so that you usually can avoid the no-skill penalty. Finally, you have cheaper and more regular characteristic increases, which will lift the average level fairly higher. Players will now have more realistic chances of succeding and "Easy" tests will really be easey, "difficult" ones still be difficult from a % point of view

> a lot of weapons were nearly impossible to really wound a character who had the not so unusual armour 4 + ToughB 4 = 8

AN average weapon did 1d10+3 damage, so it dealt 1 wound...

--> in DH2, if a weapon deals 1 wound, it effectively deals 5 for the next hit, which means, even weaker weapons still are a certain threat. I like it, when even "simple" weapons like regular SP- or Laser-weapons at least have a small threat-factor still.

> the AP brings more tactical possibilities, as it gives 4 parts to a turn instead of 2

--> I am a friend of tactical finesse, so this is an improvement which allows for better scaling of actions. If this is used to its best extend is another question, but it has at least the potential

> the character creation (at least in DH1 & RT) was very restricted, especially due to the trees

--> now you have much more freedom to design the character of your choice and development accourding to your taste

> cybernetics are limited now. This might be a small thing, but something that was needed

> as mentioned before, skills are more compact now - thats way better than the early systems

> the talent trees are to be improved yet, but in general are an interesting concept, as long as it makes sense

> also a smaller but very good change: armour now limits Agility use

> fatgue was a strange thing in DH1, now it is quite cool

Just a few issues which I quite like about the DH2 mechanics.

What I ceretainly dislike is, that I now can throw away my old DH1 books, which were quite pricey

I think THIS is one of the main issue many people have with the revolution in DH2.

It is not so much about bad changes, but more about that you lose the possibility to still use existing material which people got to like very much and invested heavily in.

Thats also the only issue I really have.

Besides losing a lot of options which were formerly given (schola progenium, a lot of weapon choices, faith talents...), which I now am to re-buy with future DH2-publications

That.definitely.is.bad

And it is a de-motivating issue.

I will never the less change towards DH2, as I think it has a lot of great potential, BUT I would appreciate it VERY MUCH to get some conversions to old DH1 books for use, so I can still easily play in the calixis sector even with the new rules.

Not everything would be needed to convert, but some stuff at least would be very nice to get as an official re-worked document, which I could print out and put into my matching DH1 book to update it (as the fluff is still valid).

I am afraid though this is not gonna be happening - in that case I might find some guys to make a adaption with together for the existing rulebooks.

ENough written for now - otherwise noone will read this book I wrote.

Cybernetics are limited now? Or do you just mean more difficult to get/install?

The number of allowed cybernetics is limited by Toughness bonus.

A good rule in general, though I would make a spdcial ability that enhances this for AdMech Characters.

I agree with many of your points, GauntZero, even though some are more issues with Dark Heresy, rather than the overall system that was significantly improved as time went on, and could definitely have been improved yet again, rather than necessitating a full change.

The only thing that I really reacted to was your opinion that Rogue Trader was limited in character creation, whereas I think that Rogue Trader is extremely good when it comes to character creation, as long as you don't follow the Origin Path limitations (which I've never been in a group that did, it was always free picks as long as it fitted your character and made sense).

My main gripe with the original Dark Heresy, the single biggest one, was always the shallow character creation, but I love the one in Rogue Trader. What Rogue Trader *was* limited in (imho), however, was character progression. This was alleviated in both Black Crusade and Only War, though, arguably at the expense of slightly tighter character creation (a definite con, but c'est la vie).

I will take the points on AP, Fatigue, limitation of cybernetics (although I'd like to work Willpower in there, too, though, somehow - and the limitation should be at least doubled for those with Cyber-Mantle and Potentia Coil), and perhaps Agility limitation on gear - although that might be a bit ardous, having to revise every single piece of armour so far, but on the other hand I'll have to look it all over anyway, once I've punched it all into tables - to heart.

Thanks.

I do know how you feel - at first I was also sceptical with some of the changes.

In the meantime I appreciate a lot of their benefits and I am trying to help to fill the gaps the system still has.

Regarding RT - you are right that the origin path was a great thing, which I wish they would return in a similar way into DH2 with 1 or 2 additional steps in the character creation.

What I liked less about RT was the class ar archetypes, which did not meet so much my personal taste. But thats simply a matter of taste.

Maybe FFG can add a small version of the origin path with "your way into the inquisition" and "your ordo of service" with a handfull options for each and a small bonus for each...one still may dream