I didn't like all the changed in DH2, but at least it was different, and the wound system was a hell of a lot better than the current 40k RPG one.

I'll never get that "at least it's different" sentiment. "Different", by itself, isn't a quality.

It also means [insert length of time here] of closed playtesting and then beta playtesting on top of that, to refine the system they'd written, was entirely pointless. If I thought that they were going to scrap the main changes (which I liked), I wouldn't have bothered, I'd have just played a proper campaign rather than building stuff intentionally to try to break the system.

On the other hand, it means all those long years of FFG refining the core engine inherited from BI, and all the feedback gathered on the subject through countless development cycles, isn't suddenly pointless.

I'm honestly not sure I can justify buying Dark Heresy with the OW rules in it. I already have Only War, and have already used it to run a unit of Inquisitorial Acolytes. Why would I need a new book for £40 for that? I would have spent that on a new set of rules that actually changed things, though.

........

Guess this is probably the end of me buying the 40k RPG core books, or at least a non-purchase of DH2e for me, which is a shame given I own every single 40k RPG book released up until now.

It seems to me that the argument that DH2 will now just be Only War with the Inquisition is like saying Rogue Trader was just DH with spaceships, or Deathwatch was just RT with Space Marines, or Black Crusade was just DW with Chaos, or Only War was just BC with Guardsmen. Each game system has apparently included enough new background and rules to justify your purchase of each of them; how is DH2 now the magical cut-off point?

It's likely a cut-off point because all of the things that were going to make Dark Heresy revolutionary and shiny have been chopped out of the system. An argument can very easily be made that Rogue Trader is more than Dark Heresy was because half of the book revolves around the excellent trade, mission setup, and starship rules. DH 2, on the other hand, no longer has anything of significance to contribute after every single core mechanic that was different from OW was axed. While I might buy the fluff books for the setting, there's no reason to buy Only War with a black cover. Unless you're going to point out that paragraph on subtlety. Because that's worth sixty dollars right there.

It's extremely frustrating as well because AP's were one methods I've seen for doing away with one of the oldest and least interesting mechanics in all of roleplaying: the "half action" system. It's been called a variety of things, but for as long as I can remember, characters have always essentially had two actions. One of them could be an attack and one or more of them could be a move. Action points allowed for in-betweens. Move less, fight more. Fight less, move more. Far more interesting and dynamic. For the first time, I felt like the mechanic -- even with its current problems -- more accurately reflected reality. You have a certain amount of time. Do whatever you like with it.

Talent trees may not have been perfect, but arbitrary class restrictions had been removed. Skills were meaningfully consolidated. Wounds -- while troublesome for non-human adversaries -- gave some interesting drama to normally dry combat.

And now we're stuck with vanilla 40k. I love the 40k RPGs but they are, and have been, at the bottom of the barrel in terms of interesting core game design ever since Black Industries opted to build that awkward as hell 8 rank class system back in the original Dark Heresy.

It's likely a cut-off point because all of the things that were going to make Dark Heresy revolutionary and shiny have been chopped out of the system. An argument can very easily be made that Rogue Trader is more than Dark Heresy was because half of the book revolves around the excellent trade, mission setup, and starship rules. DH 2, on the other hand, no longer has anything of significance to contribute after every single core mechanic that was different from OW was axed. While I might buy the fluff books for the setting, there's no reason to buy Only War with a black cover. Unless you're going to point out that paragraph on subtlety. Because that's worth sixty dollars right there.

It's extremely frustrating as well because AP's were one methods I've seen for doing away with one of the oldest and least interesting mechanics in all of roleplaying: the "half action" system. It's been called a variety of things, but for as long as I can remember, characters have always essentially had two actions. One of them could be an attack and one or more of them could be a move. Action points allowed for in-betweens. Move less, fight more. Fight less, move more. Far more interesting and dynamic. For the first time, I felt like the mechanic -- even with its current problems -- more accurately reflected reality. You have a certain amount of time. Do whatever you like with it.

Talent trees may not have been perfect, but arbitrary class restrictions had been removed. Skills were meaningfully consolidated. Wounds -- while troublesome for non-human adversaries -- gave some interesting drama to normally dry combat.

And now we're stuck with vanilla 40k. I love the 40k RPGs but they are, and have been, at the bottom of the barrel in terms of interesting core game design ever since Black Industries opted to build that awkward as hell 8 rank class system back in the original Dark Heresy.

Because DH2 is being made 'compatible' with the rest of the WH40KRP line, everything from the Beta has been axed? There will not be a single new element? Even though every single game in the WH40KRP line has introduced new mechanics? What are you basing that on?

There are plenty of elements from the Beta that can be added to an OW -base and still qualify as compatible. Wound Effects can easily be added the existing 'hit point'-style Wound system (applying minor effects whenever a character takes a hit in excess of his Toughness bonus, and a major effect if he takes a hit dealing more than twice his T bonus, for instance). And Action Points might be added to the mix. Characters in WH40KRP games currently receive the equivellant of 3 AP (two Half Actions and one Reaction, potentially modified by Talents); drop the Beta RoF rules, and changing over to Action Points wouldn't violate compatibility at all. Add Influence, Subtlety and the whole Narrative Tools section, plus some odd goodies like Challenge Ratings (something the system has sorely needed) and more detailed character creation, and I'm pretty optimistic about DH2 .

I tried to like the Beta ; I really did. But I just couldn't overcome the feeling that, as a new, experimental system, it was just trading the bugs from DH1 (caused by it being the first of its' line) for a whole new generation of bugs...

As Adeptus-B Stated earlier, What makes people think that EVERYTHING new or "revolutionary in DH2 has been scrapped? For the record (And as I have pointed out numerous times before!) AP are neither new nor revolutionary! I saw games that used them that were printed in the 70's for throne's sake! I see all these posters wailing and gnashing their teeth over their 'pet' project being killed when they don't even know what the product will look like! That's just dopey! Remember when you were telling me and other posters that we were simply 'entrenched' and 'resistant to change'? (You know who you are so don't bother denying it!) Look in the mirror!! At least we read the DH2 beta and gave an informed critique. Apparently, enough of us found significant enough faults with the new system that FFG chose to "Rethink" it. That does not mean they are going to copy/paste only war. It means they are going to try to make it fit with it. Not the same! If all any of you can offer is wailing and tantrums I've gotta say: Don't let the door hit ya on the way out! If you think there are elements from the current beta that should remain; that's fine! I do to! But let's see what they offer...

Am I the only one who is in no way interested in a catch-all 40k book? I like games having a narrow, specific focus, and I think trying to do too many things would just mean it'd end up doing a lot of things poorly instead of a few things very well.

Nope, I'm in the same boat. I don't mind games with one universal core book, I love nWoD, but then they all live and work in the same world and are of comparable power. However, I also like oWoD and the 40k line, because you can have stark differences in power level, without one set of universal rules getting in the way.

Am I the only one who is in no way interested in a catch-all 40k book? I like games having a narrow, specific focus, and I think trying to do too many things would just mean it'd end up doing a lot of things poorly instead of a few things very well.

The problem being that the seams start to tear when you're doing crossovers, which is a very, very, very likely thing that you'll be doing one way or another in the 40k universe.

The vast majority of the rules are already interchangeable. A unified ruleset would just exist as tear-prevention, so to speak.

Narrow focuses to accommodate the facets of the galaxy would be what all the supplemental Campaign Scenarios would be for.

Never once done a crossover with the 40k RPG, and no one I know IRL (well over 200 roleplayers, given I've been involved in the gaming societies of 3 different universities) has ever run crossover 40k games, and 40k games have always been equal to the number of DnD or Pathfinder games. The themes for each game just become diluted and bland with mixed with each other.

The question is, what do you understand under crossover? Using different characters of the different games in one group? Well, yes I guess that there are not that many groups doing this. This is just because of balancing reasons and because the character creation and progress system is unique in every setting, which is a good thing.

But importing content like npcs, adventures, settings, rule modules like the ship battles of rogue trader, weapons and other items - yes I do this a lot and there are many people out there doing this kind of "crossover" and it is just great to have the this rich content background which is compatible for your RPG!

This is also the reason why I am extremely happy about the new course of FFG to stick with the OW core mechanics and conserve compatibility and why me and my group is going to buy the DH 2.0 books and play them.

Compatibility is also the reason why people buy books from other lines for their system even if they don't play the core system - you can just use them with every other system with little to no need to convert the content.

And to be honest, I am of the opinion that the core mechanics for battles and skills work just create since the BC / OW edition of the game - really no need to change that just for the sake of it. We needed many years till the system evolved to the solid and well working state of today. Introducing a new incompatible system with its own new share of childhood diseases and of course a lack of content would just damage the community (splitting!) and sales (books of the lines which are still supported and reprints of DH 1.0 content.)

So, without having to spend costly development time for a new system FFG should stick to the already well working core and concentrate on the character creation & development, the setting and new setting specific rule modules for an inquisition setting. (like investigation, social interaction, agent asset networks etc.)

I would gladly make the effort to convert some NPC stats to a new system that worked rather than use the old 40k rules. In fact NPC stats were one of the areas where the flaws of the old system really showed - reducing the value of adventures and the like.

I think maybe folks need to look again at what has been said about the upcoming revision to the DH2 Beta

While the upcoming update will fully detail all of the changes to Dark Heresy Second Edition , a brief overview of some of the changes is outlined below:

• Weapons and Combat rules, as well as the Skills and Talents selection and usage will be made more consistent with Only War.
• NPCs will be rebuilt to become compatible and usable in other Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay games
• A new Reinforcements system which allows players to temporarily call-in and play as high-level characters will be added.

It is important to note that some of the popular elements from the current beta will be retained in this new direction, some of which are outlined below:

• The new sector, Askellon, will remain, giving your Acolytes a whole new sector full of heresy to eradicate.
• The character creation system will remain as well, along with Elite Advances, allowing you to play as a Psyker, Untouchable, or even Inquisitor.
• Rules for Subtlety, Influence, and Investigation will be retained.
• Integrated vehicle and vehicle combat rules will remain.

It seems to me that quite a few of the innovations we saw in the original Beta will be retained.

I would gladly make the effort to convert some NPC stats to a new system that worked rather than use the old 40k rules. In fact NPC stats were one of the areas where the flaws of the old system really showed - reducing the value of adventures and the like.

I totally agree.

Old stats were boring and very similar.

Weapons and armour mattered more than stats.

One thing worth noting is,

• Weapons and Combat rules, as well as the Skills and Talents selection and usage will be made more consistent with Only War.

Emphasis mine. "More consistent" != "identical".

I would gladly make the effort to convert some NPC stats to a new system that worked rather than use the old 40k rules. In fact NPC stats were one of the areas where the flaws of the old system really showed - reducing the value of adventures and the like.

I totally agree.

Old stats were boring and very similar.

Weapons and armour mattered more than stats.

Sorry I just can't follow that thought.

For example a Carnifex (MoX p.30), Eldar Harlequin (BC p.371) and a Civilian Voidfarer (RT p371) are essentially the same for you because they only differ in Weapons and Armour?

For me NPCs differ in Characteristics, Wounds, Talents, Traits, Gear, Special Rules (!) and how they behave and act fluff wise. (Civilian, Inquisitor, Alien, Daemon etc.. )

What is so great with the 40k rpg now is that we have a lot of the 40k content now available for the rpg - thinking about all the xenos races, chaos & imperial factions in regards of units, gear and in parts also spaceships. I can very easily work with this material when designing adventures for my group. With a completely new system just for the sake of change we would have to start from scratch with all that which would be an painful restriction for my rpg experience.

Or in other words: I would not buy the new stuff if I cant use my old material with it.

I would gladly make the effort to convert some NPC stats to a new system that worked rather than use the old 40k rules. In fact NPC stats were one of the areas where the flaws of the old system really showed - reducing the value of adventures and the like.

I totally agree.

Old stats were boring and very similar.

Weapons and armour mattered more than stats.

If anything, the beta made the NPCs more uniform and boring by reducing the number of Talents, Traits and other special rules. These are the things that really make fights interesting, not how much Strength the guy has.

I would gladly make the effort to convert some NPC stats to a new system that worked rather than use the old 40k rules. In fact NPC stats were one of the areas where the flaws of the old system really showed - reducing the value of adventures and the like.

The implication being that the 'old 40k rules' don't work? If so, how do you explain the WH40KRP system lasting for several years now, in a field where new games are lucky to last a year or two?

-And is it really a good business strategy to target people who hate your existing products over you proven consumers?

Old stats were boring and very similar.

Weapons and armour mattered more than stats.

-And yet the Beta uses most of the same stats, usually with less detail. This is just an example of blindly claiming new=good, old=bad, without paying attention to pesky things like 'facts'.

As Adeptus-B Stated earlier, What makes people think that EVERYTHING new or "revolutionary in DH2 has been scrapped? For the record (And as I have pointed out numerous times before!) AP are neither new nor revolutionary! I saw games that used them that were printed in the 70's for throne's sake! I see all these posters wailing and gnashing their teeth over their 'pet' project being killed when they don't even know what the product will look like! That's just dopey! Remember when you were telling me and other posters that we were simply 'entrenched' and 'resistant to change'? (You know who you are so don't bother denying it!) Look in the mirror!! At least we read the DH2 beta and gave an informed critique. Apparently, enough of us found significant enough faults with the new system that FFG chose to "Rethink" it. That does not mean they are going to copy/paste only war. It means they are going to try to make it fit with it. Not the same! If all any of you can offer is wailing and tantrums I've gotta say: Don't let the door hit ya on the way out! If you think there are elements from the current beta that should remain; that's fine! I do to! But let's see what they offer...

Tantrum? What tantrum? The only person calling people names, telling people to not let the door hit them on the way out, or making wild accusations in this conversation appears to be you. I never said that APs were new, I just said they are one of the methods I'VE ALREADY SEEN that makes a good replacement for the half action system. And don't know what the product will look like? Are you joking. What, exactly, do you think the phrase "more consistent" means?

It's likely a cut-off point because all of the things that were going to make Dark Heresy revolutionary and shiny have been chopped out of the system. An argument can very easily be made that Rogue Trader is more than Dark Heresy was because half of the book revolves around the excellent trade, mission setup, and starship rules. DH 2, on the other hand, no longer has anything of significance to contribute after every single core mechanic that was different from OW was axed. While I might buy the fluff books for the setting, there's no reason to buy Only War with a black cover. Unless you're going to point out that paragraph on subtlety. Because that's worth sixty dollars right there.

It's extremely frustrating as well because AP's were one methods I've seen for doing away with one of the oldest and least interesting mechanics in all of roleplaying: the "half action" system. It's been called a variety of things, but for as long as I can remember, characters have always essentially had two actions. One of them could be an attack and one or more of them could be a move. Action points allowed for in-betweens. Move less, fight more. Fight less, move more. Far more interesting and dynamic. For the first time, I felt like the mechanic -- even with its current problems -- more accurately reflected reality. You have a certain amount of time. Do whatever you like with it.

Talent trees may not have been perfect, but arbitrary class restrictions had been removed. Skills were meaningfully consolidated. Wounds -- while troublesome for non-human adversaries -- gave some interesting drama to normally dry combat.

And now we're stuck with vanilla 40k. I love the 40k RPGs but they are, and have been, at the bottom of the barrel in terms of interesting core game design ever since Black Industries opted to build that awkward as hell 8 rank class system back in the original Dark Heresy.

Because DH2 is being made 'compatible' with the rest of the WH40KRP line, everything from the Beta has been axed? There will not be a single new element? Even though every single game in the WH40KRP line has introduced new mechanics? What are you basing that on?

There are plenty of elements from the Beta that can be added to an OW -base and still qualify as compatible. Wound Effects can easily be added the existing 'hit point'-style Wound system (applying minor effects whenever a character takes a hit in excess of his Toughness bonus, and a major effect if he takes a hit dealing more than twice his T bonus, for instance). And Action Points might be added to the mix. Characters in WH40KRP games currently receive the equivellant of 3 AP (two Half Actions and one Reaction, potentially modified by Talents); drop the Beta RoF rules, and changing over to Action Points wouldn't violate compatibility at all. Add Influence, Subtlety and the whole Narrative Tools section, plus some odd goodies like Challenge Ratings (something the system has sorely needed) and more detailed character creation, and I'm pretty optimistic about DH2 .

I tried to like the Beta ; I really did. But I just couldn't overcome the feeling that, as a new, experimental system, it was just trading the bugs from DH1 (caused by it being the first of its' line) for a whole new generation of bugs...

I think maybe folks need to look again at what has been said about the upcoming revision to the DH2 Beta

While the upcoming update will fully detail all of the changes to Dark Heresy Second Edition , a brief overview of some of the changes is outlined below:

• Weapons and Combat rules, as well as the Skills and Talents selection and usage will be made more consistent with Only War.
• NPCs will be rebuilt to become compatible and usable in other Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay games
• A new Reinforcements system which allows players to temporarily call-in and play as high-level characters will be added.

After you change the skills, talents, new NPCs, and combat system to be "more consistent" with OW, what, exactly, do you have left that makes Dark Heresy stand out from Only War in terms of mechanics ?(the vast majority of the narrative tools are useful, if you've never run investigation centric adventures before, but none of those things are core mechanics, the part of the system that's the most significant. There's really only two mechanics in the NT section, and one of those is a refined version of a Dark Heresy 1 mechanic). Those were the meatiest new parts of the system. It surprises me that you think there will be some sort of middle ground between only war and the beta after seeing the sheer amount of bitching that occurred after the beta started. While I will concede that you could be correct, I highly doubt that you will be.

I would gladly make the effort to convert some NPC stats to a new system that worked rather than use the old 40k rules. In fact NPC stats were one of the areas where the flaws of the old system really showed - reducing the value of adventures and the like.

The implication being that the 'old 40k rules' don't work? If so, how do you explain the WH40KRP system lasting for several years now, in a field where new games are lucky to last a year or two?

-And is it really a good business strategy to target people who hate your existing products over you proven consumers?

They work, but in terms of core mechanics (the lack-luster character generation system, the bloated skill system, and the talent system that might as well have been eliminated and turned into a class ability list) the 40k RPGs have never been particularly interesting. The reason the 40k rpgs have done so well is because of the pre-existing 40k fanbase and because of the 40k setting itself. The rules aren't perfect, but they manage to capture the grim brutality of the future in which there is only war. Strip out the setting and fluff and replace it with something else, and I find it highly unlikely that the mechanics the BI developed and FFG elaborated upon could carry the game. You name the part of the system, and I can point to a better version of it somewhere out there in the industry.

And I wouldn't say they need to target the people that hate their products. However, they shouldn't sacrifice a new, interestig (and, in my opinion, superior) product in order to appease grognads. Don't think I'm knocking grognads. I have every WFRP 2 book in existence and I will see my eyes gouged out before I switch over to WFRP 3. I didn't expect and I don't expect FFG to bring their plans to expand WFRP 3 to a halt merely because there are a ton of people out there that preferred the old system to the new one. I want gaming systems to keep evolving, even if I don't personally enjoy them, because its good for games overall. Newness is important because that's how game design grows and develops.

...Newness is important because that's how game design grows and develops.

-Or hits a dead end and nearly tanks the franchise because they disregard the desires of the established fan base, like D&D4E ...

...Newness is important because that's how game design grows and develops.

-Or hits a dead end and nearly tanks the franchise because they disregard the desires of the established fan base, like D&D4E ...

No kidding and no ****. D&D4E should had been a wake up call to many people and thankfully Fantasy Flight knew that when they saw the results of their beta. Just cause it is new does not mean it is good. Hell it can be good, new, and still tank if people don't like it. I thought D&D4E was pretty good, but it still failed. It had to be scrapped so WotC can save themselves and arguably that maybe too late now. We won't know till we see D&D Next.

-Or hits a dead end and nearly tanks the franchise because they disregard the desires of the established fan base, like D&D4E ...

Let's establish three things:

1. Nobody wants FFG to fail.

2. We're the gamers, not the publisher.

3. This isn't the very first edition.

Keeping those in mind, a failed edition isn't exactly a bad thing. Obviously a successful one would be better, but we have an extensively supported edition to fall back on. All a failed edition does, is give future developers of future editions a much stronger feel for what do to.

I'm definitely not hoping DH2 fails - and considering the fanbase I'm doubting it actually can to anywhere near the degree D&D4e did - but even if it does, and fails so hard FFG has to let 40K RPG's go, it is hardly the end of the world. The RPG license is worth too much for GW to simply let it die.

- Like I said, though, I'm finding this sort of thing exceedingly unlikely. Just consider how successful the other 4 game lines have been despite the fact that a very, very large chunk of us customers have protested, pleaded, threatened & whatnot, over FFG exploding 1 system into 5 (so far) incompatible versions of itself. Despite all our noise, it's been profitable enough for them to do it not just the first time, but a second, a third and a fourth time.

And of course, there's no Pathfinder we can flee to. We either buy new stuff from FFG or we don't buy new stuff. I'm guessing practically none of us will do the latter, however we feel about the new stuff.

I'm honestly not sure I can justify buying Dark Heresy with the OW rules in it. I already have Only War, and have already used it to run a unit of Inquisitorial Acolytes. Why would I need a new book for £40 for that? I would have spent that on a new set of rules that actually changed things, though.

........

Guess this is probably the end of me buying the 40k RPG core books, or at least a non-purchase of DH2e for me, which is a shame given I own every single 40k RPG book released up until now.

It seems to me that the argument that DH2 will now just be Only War with the Inquisition is like saying Rogue Trader was just DH with spaceships, or Deathwatch was just RT with Space Marines, or Black Crusade was just DW with Chaos, or Only War was just BC with Guardsmen. Each game system has apparently included enough new background and rules to justify your purchase of each of them; how is DH2 now the magical cut-off point?

Because I already have the setting information I require for DH games in DH, and the rules in Only War, and have been using them that way for a while. I wanted to get DH2e because of the new systems in it that I liked and preferred to the old systems (wound system, AP system, etc). Without those, I might as well stick with using Only War with DH background, and save myself buying into a line without enough changes in it to justify the purchase.

Exactly.

I think it might bear even more economical risks to make it similar to OW than to risk new approaches and concepts.

Not sure how many would buy a core rulebook again, that only has the benefit if another sector being introduced.

And no, I am not counting things as an Influence characteristics or subtlety rules as innovation.

They are interesting ideas to write down, but not really what I would buy a rulebook for.

I'm honestly not sure I can justify buying Dark Heresy with the OW rules in it. I already have Only War, and have already used it to run a unit of Inquisitorial Acolytes. Why would I need a new book for £40 for that? I would have spent that on a new set of rules that actually changed things, though.

........

Guess this is probably the end of me buying the 40k RPG core books, or at least a non-purchase of DH2e for me, which is a shame given I own every single 40k RPG book released up until now.

It seems to me that the argument that DH2 will now just be Only War with the Inquisition is like saying Rogue Trader was just DH with spaceships, or Deathwatch was just RT with Space Marines, or Black Crusade was just DW with Chaos, or Only War was just BC with Guardsmen. Each game system has apparently included enough new background and rules to justify your purchase of each of them; how is DH2 now the magical cut-off point?

Because I already have the setting information I require for DH games in DH, and the rules in Only War, and have been using them that way for a while. I wanted to get DH2e because of the new systems in it that I liked and preferred to the old systems (wound system, AP system, etc). Without those, I might as well stick with using Only War with DH background, and save myself buying into a line without enough changes in it to justify the purchase.

So basically you want changes for the sake of change so you can justify to yourself buying the new system? Sorry, but.... ok. If FFG would follow this marketing tactic I would say that they are just ripping of people.

In addition: If you make the argument that the system does not sell because there aren't enough changes, I counter that people don't buy it because of the changes, making their already owned material useless and forcing them to spend money on books just to upgrade rules on content they already own.

I think going back to compatibility and careful system evolution is the right way within this market segment and keeping this compatibility is recognition of costumer loyality instead of a new system ripoff.

Further the core mechanics work quite well and I don't think that AP based systems are very popular if looking at leaders of this industry.

Bunch of grognards up in here. It's not change for the sake of change, so stop saying that's what the beta was. People buy new games because they have new things that older games don't - that's what the beta tried to do. Appeasing your own toxic fans instead of trying to get new players into the game is no way to grow your business.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed D&D3e when it was out but enjoyed 4e a heck of a lot more, and I think Pathfinder is a terribly designed, unfun game.

lol at 'industry leaders'

Bunch of grognards up in here. It's not change for the sake of change, so stop saying that's what the beta was. People buy new games because they have new things that older games don't - that's what the beta tried to do.

If I'm buying a new edition of a game I already own, I expect it to be unambiguously better than the old one. I don't care whether the devs achieve this by creating a new engine from scratch or polishing the old one.

The beta we were given was, for me at least, unambiguously worse than it's predecessor. If 1e DH looked like that, I don't think I'd ever be interested in 40k RPG because the engine perfectly managed to hit all the wrong tones for me and my group, lack of familiarity being the least of our concerns.

Watching how the beta unfolded, culminating in the decision to scrap the product altogether, I don't think even FFG had a clear idea of what they wanted to achieve with this new engine, as evidenced by them discarding their new weapon and armor tables whole cloth and making new ones suspiciously similar to the old system. Hence, I'm still very inclined to call it "change for the sake of change". To make sense, change must have a purpose, and be an improvement, and I saw neither purpose nor improvement in the new rules.

Appeasing your own toxic fans instead of trying to get new players into the game is no way to grow your business.

You're making a lot of assumptions here, assumptions that FFG's sales department doesn't seem to share.

Well, you can't please everyone.

I remember the Rage what went up inside fanbase when WotC released the 4th edition. Some found it to their liking, and some (including me and my gamegroup) not. Pathfinder was more to our liking so we just moved our campaing to there and continued with it.

Note we have played D&D since 1st edition, so we have seen the changes.

Same can be now said with FFG's attempt to make new version of DH. We have had nice time playing BC/OW as we like them over DH and RT and I have made my own ruleset base on BC for character development in DW as many of my group like playing Space Marines but didn't like the rank system of previous WH40K rpg.

We were quite taken back when we heard that FFG was going to make it Incompatible with previous material. So news that they were going back to the drawing board was quite suprise and it was nice to see that they weren't going to scrap whole thing but keep somethings and polish others.

So we shall wait and see how FFG manages to put up their new edition.

Bunch of grognards up in here. It's not change for the sake of change, so stop saying that's what the beta was.

I don't stop saying it because it is my opinion. Change for the sake of change because it changes mechanisms which work very satisfying after a long history of evolutionary improvements. And I don't say that the Beta was about that. The Beta was about testing what works and certain parts did not work out, so it is now turned back to the classic mechanic. So the Beta is for testing and evaluating what should be kept, changed or even dropped

People buy new games because they have new things that older games don't - that's what the beta tried to do.

If you think so I dont see the problem? DH 2.0 will have new things that older games don't. A new sector/setting, new char creation and development, improved rule system, new situational rules to support the setting etc.

Appeasing your own toxic fans instead of trying to get new players into the game is no way to grow your business.

Ok but annoying your loyal client and fan base in a not growing market like p&p rpgs with the faint hope to reach some kind of obscure, questionable market segment of new players is a way to grow your business? I mean do you really think that they are interested to reach a new, maybe young and unused group of players?

If they really would want to do this they would probably make a boardgame or and rpg/boardgame mixture like they did with WFRP 3rd edition. I think their target group are 40k grognards which just want an update of the oldest of the line which suffers from its fate of being the buginfested first born. So it is not a new game but an update. Because of that: 2.0

The first News about the 2.0 just told us that:

"Dark Heresy is a great game, and its rules system has been a terrific achievement which marked the beginning of the Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay line. However, as the oldest of the Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay games, Dark Heresy needed updating and refreshing to bring it in line with the gameplay of the more recent games. So, we have no plans to be launching new editions of the other existing games. In fact, we’re really pleased with the success and positive player feedback from the recently released Only War game and we hope to be supporting that edition for many years to come."

Source: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4265

Bunch of grognards up in here. It's not change for the sake of change, so stop saying that's what the beta was. People buy new games because they have new things that older games don't - that's what the beta tried to do. Appeasing your own toxic fans instead of trying to get new players into the game is no way to grow your business.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed D&D3e when it was out but enjoyed 4e a heck of a lot more, and I think Pathfinder is a terribly designed, unfun game.

lol at 'industry leaders'

• "Toxic Fans" would be an excellent band name for a trash/punk industrial metal band.
• Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me.
• Alienating your long-time fans is no way to grow your business. This has been proven time and time again. A businesses' success hinges on the customer base and the vast majority of new customers is based on word-of-mouth, particularly in niche markets that have limited economy and exposure; you won't be seeing WoWesque mass-marketing anytime soon.

40k is a pre-existing universe with a lot of assumptions and pre-set approaches that should work within a ruleset. The WH40kRP ruleset shouldn't be wholly adaptable; it exists to portray a pre-existing universe, and when people play WH40kRP, they do so because they want to RP in the WH40k universe.

The entire purpose of the ruleset is to support this one objective. Roleplaying in 40k.

That's why things will never be truly "balanced", for example; nevermind that balancing the players against the world they play in is a meaningless objective - because it's not set in a fair universe. This is also why balancing other species' will be a lesson in futility and it is why people are reacting to the new, ridiculous rules for untouchables - it's not meant to be fair. There is no way that a human scrub could ever even compare to an ork or eldar with a similar level of life experience.

Furthermore, there's no inherent merit in doing so.

I may be a grognard. But you, cbs, you are That Guy.

Bunch of grognards up in here. It's not change for the sake of change, so stop saying that's what the beta was. People buy new games because they have new things that older games don't - that's what the beta tried to do. Appeasing your own toxic fans instead of trying to get new players into the game is no way to grow your business. For what it's worth, I enjoyed D&D3e when it was out but enjoyed 4e a heck of a lot more, and I think Pathfinder is a terribly designed, unfun game. lol at 'industry leaders'

I surprisingly find myself agreeing and siding with you in this case.

Shocking...