Here is my feed back on this new addition.

Things I liked: Evasion skill (Simple and makes sense), Psyker Powers (at least when compared to Dark Heresy 1st ed). Beginning Affiliations (I like the idea of maybe being an Adept working for the Adeptus Arbites and other possibilities.)

Things I do not like: Lack of Lore Skills (I liked having different Ordos with different specialties), AP System (totally did not expect a whole new system, was hoping it would just be closer to Only War or other 40k products. I mix them a lot and there is no way I am buying all of those books again once you start going into Rogue Trader 2nd ect, and I do not buy that you will not do that if people start to go for this new system it is inevitable) Generic Class Names (Mystic- Sounds like a Heretical Sorcerer to me, Warrior- Is this a Fantasy Game? 40k has some very unique and very Iconic characters and these did not fit the bill.)

Will I be buying this? No. I had hoped for more of a 1.5 than a 2.0 I guess. My suggestion, do not fix what isn't broken, focus on making Dark Heresy closer to Deathwatch, Rogue Trader, and later 40k RPG products and you would have my money...again.

Generic Class Names (Mystic- Sounds like a Heretical Sorcerer to me, Warrior- Is this a Fantasy Game? 40k has some very unique and very Iconic characters and these did not fit the bill.)

People keep making this argument, and I'm fairly sure they're totally missing the point. The reason the Role names are generic is because they're MEANT to be generic. They can't use the myriad of fancy names in the 40k universe because that goes against their purpose; to be unspecific, general descriptors of a role. A Warrior isn't a guardsman, he isn't a stormtrooper, he isn't an arbitrator. Naming Warrior any of those things would pigeonhole the role severely.

Will I be buying this?

My suggestion...focus on making Dark Heresy (2e) closer to Deathwatch, Rogue Trader, and later 40k RPG products and you would have my money...again.

I feel the same way. If DH2e were a 1.5 or 1.75 venture, I'd definitely make room for it in my budget.

As it appears at this time, all I'm interested in is the new "fluff", and $60+ is too steep a price for +/-60 pages of (personally) usable content.

Generic Class Names (Mystic- Sounds like a Heretical Sorcerer to me, Warrior- Is this a Fantasy Game? 40k has some very unique and very Iconic characters and these did not fit the bill.)

People keep making this argument, and I'm fairly sure they're totally missing the point.

Maybe people keep making the argument because FFG haven't thought to explain anything . They've explained nothing. Nothing. Not a single thing. How hard could it be?

A short sentence: "These are merely generic labels, and game masters and players alike are encouraged to choose their own personalized titles." That sentence doesn't even have to make it into the finished product. They could actually post that on this beta forum site.

Maybe people keep making the argument because FFG haven't thought to explain anything . They've explained nothing. Nothing. Not a single thing. How hard could it be?

A short sentence: "These are merely generic labels, and game masters and players alike are encouraged to choose their own personalized titles." That sentence doesn't even have to make it into the finished product. They could actually post that on this beta forum site.

Not to be rude, but have you read the character generation chapter?

That's exactly what is implied in the chapter.

Its worth noting that with the system presented in this book, we currently have a modular way of creating "fated" imperial citizens. Nothing about these characters necessarily make them members of the inquisition (that's reserved for the use of the subtly system).

Roles are explained to be these nebulous things that represent how a character advances, but have no bearing on their actual title or position.

I was thinking of expanding my own backgrounds to be honest. There are plenty of professions in the 40k universe to do so. I've already started compiling a list of possible ideas such as:

• Confessor
• Missionary
• Adepta Sororitas
• Enforcer
• Arbiter
• Storm Trooper
• Witch Hunter
• etc

It should help to spice things up ;-)

Maybe people keep making the argument because FFG haven't thought to explain anything . They've explained nothing. Nothing. Not a single thing. How hard could it be?

A short sentence: "These are merely generic labels, and game masters and players alike are encouraged to choose their own personalized titles." That sentence doesn't even have to make it into the finished product. They could actually post that on this beta forum site.

Not to be rude, but have you read the character generation chapter?

That's exactly what is implied in the chapter.

Its worth noting that with the system presented in this book, we currently have a modular way of creating "fated" imperial citizens. Nothing about these characters necessarily make them members of the inquisition (that's reserved for the use of the subtly system).

Roles are explained to be these nebulous things that represent how a character advances, but have no bearing on their actual title or position.

I second this. From page 17 of the beta rulebook: "[A character's role] broadly defines how he faces dangers, interacts with others, and seeks to resolve problems. His role also dictates what areas of expertise he excels at, and how he grows and learns with experience."

I was thinking of expanding my own backgrounds to be honest. There are plenty of professions in the 40k universe to do so. I've already started compiling a list of possible ideas such as:

• Confessor
• Missionary
• Adepta Sororitas
• Enforcer
• Arbiter
• Storm Trooper
• Witch Hunter
• etc

It should help to spice things up ;-)

These are all excellent character concepts that are deeply rooted in 40k lore. However, you don't have to pick an "Adepta Sororitas" role to play a Sororitas character, for example. If you make a female Shrine World Adeptus Ministorum Warrior, you can then choose talents and skills that make sense for a Sororitas (shooting and mental fortitude talents, appropriate Specialist skills, etc).

These are all excellent character concepts that are deeply rooted in 40k lore. However, you don't have to pick an "Adepta Sororitas" role to play a Sororitas character, for example. If you make a female Shrine World Adeptus Ministorum Warrior, you can then choose talents and skills that make sense for a Sororitas (shooting and mental fortitude talents, appropriate Specialist skills, etc).

Background, not Role. Having a Sororitas Role would kind of defeat the purpose of the Roles, but a Sororitas Background would be quite fitting, I think.

I've been thinking about adding some less glamorous Backgrounds, like Manufactorum Worker, Spire Servant & such. I'm mostly sold on DH2e at this point, but I'd like to dial the hero stuff back down to DH1e levels. At least to me, a large part of the appeal of the universe is that you play nobodies who're out of their depth who won't be missed.

Perhaps it would be a good starting point to have characters that are for instance in "academies" for their roles. Some other characters could also be normal factory workers or "scum". Perhaps even old friends that got back together in the hive one night when something went horribly wrong in which they witnessed it together. There might have been some sort of sacrifice and now they are on the run but nobody will help them so they must find a means to arm themselves and fight back for their own survival. Sounds pretty 40kish to me.

I know, random campaign idea that came to mind.