Good thing is - those who loved the Beta can still use it. =D
But for now, I think we all need to wait and see what they actually deliver- as PhilofCalth mentions, they're not likely to drop everything and copy paste from OW. It'll most likely be a middle-ground approach, and we'll all go, "Ah! That's different"
For me this is a major bonus. I thought there was plenty of good ideas in the Beta but looked at hard a lot of them fell down to scrutiny. The AP while an interesting idea was poorly executed and did a poor job of balancing and modelling ranged combat. The wound system while sounding interesting badly mixed with the way the weapons worked in the game and compounded the already wonky AP/ROF mechanics to make the whole thing mesh poorly. Not to mention that they broke the basic resolution mechanic completely by allowing normal humans to go up to 85 in characteristics, how do you model something that is meant to be better than a human can possibly be (of which there is plenty of things in the 40k universe) in a system like that.
I had basically given up on DH 2nd Ed but if you look back at my earlier posts this is exactly what I was wanting and not expecting to happen. For those that say they don't see a need for an Only War like updated version I completely disagree. The actual mechanics of DH 1st Ed are awful, psykers are broken, the classes are atrociously balanced, the wordings on half of the rules are bad and the weapons are fairly inconsistent. A redo with the smoother working Black Crusade/Only War is exactly what DH needs.
The things I liked from the beta like some of the investigation mechanics and the improved character creation (FFG go further with this, make each option from each section have an effect on your skills/talents/gear and allow for a really flavorful character creation system) are staying. A few more mechanics I would like to make it over include the reworking of status effects such as burning.
I am very happy with this change.
Not to mention that they broke the basic resolution mechanic completely by allowing normal humans to go up to 85 in characteristics, how do you model something that is meant to be better than a human can possibly be (of which there is plenty of things in the 40k universe) in a system like that.
That wasn't an actual problem. Currently, a space marine and a human can both have 50 Strength and the Space marine gets unnatural strength, but it doesn't affect his actual strength rolls at all. So a space marine and a human have the exact same chance to pull themselves up on a ledge despite the fact that one is twice as strong as the other.
Also, a human can hit 85 Strength in Dark Heresy with the Ascension rules, which were baked into DH 2nd ed.
Edited by GorehammerIf people want to play OW ... well, they can play OW. That game already exists. Now FFG will dress it up in a black trench coat to sell as DH Second Edition? That's hardly good news for consumers. I mean, why bother having a super expensive core book for each aspect of the 40k franchise if the most important thing is that it all be cross compatible? If that's the ultimate goal then the criticisms from way back when RT came out are true: just make one core book and then have supplements for your DW game or RT game. This is truly awful news.
Howdy,
From what FFG has published in their memo, DH 2.0 will follow Black Crusade/Only War *mechanically*. It will be its own game. DW was similar to RT mechanically, but it is hardly RT "dressed in power armour". OW is similar to BC mechanically, but it is harldy BC dressed in fatigues. ALL of the W40K games are similar mechanically, but they have different flavour and play styles.
I would argue that DH 2.0 haveing similar mechanical changes to match BC/OW is simply a natural progression of the system over 6 years.
Cheers,
Ken
This is incredibly disappointing - I think it's the only news they could give that's even more disappointing than ending the beta.
FFG bows to peer pressure. When has something great ever been made that listened to the masses? I was worried when I saw the sweeping changes in update #1 that they were too willing to take feedback, but I didn't expect this level of... I can't think of a better word than "cowardice".
Welcome back to mediocrity.
Howdy,
Bowing to customer input and demands? I thought that that was smart business and marketing, not "cowardice".
They have received a LOT of feedback (boards, GenCon, etc). Welcome to the world of playtesting and good product development.
I don't know many people that would argue that DH 2.0 was offering something "great" (or even really much good), but I know a LOT of people who are pleased with the evolution of the W40K mechanics over BC and OW.
Cheers,
Ken
All, I can say, is: I'm thankful they're keeping DH compatible with all the other WH40KRPG products.
That's the only reason that I disliked the old beta. it was change with no real reason behind it. Like D&D 4th edition. They had to take a step backwards to get it going again with 5th. Even Shadowrun is returning to some previous editions parts (like Deckers anyone from 3rd?) with it's 5th edition.
Oh yeah, you know one game that has barely changed in the last um...oh 15 years? Rifts. Sure, they should change some things. (A revisit is always good.) But overall, it has worked for so long, they know better then to reboot it and turn away what made it work in the first place. Over-rated M.D.C. I jest. Or do I?
Sometimes people want everything to change (perhaps the gamers with ADHD, and who think PvP card games, are roleplaying games, I don't know.)...and then they regret it a few months later. Typical Humans. Some evolutions can be dead ends, after all. The current Warhammer 40K system is still evolving in the right direction. And that includes all of it's products in the line, not just DH. (Rogue Trader is still my favourite, and I include it in all my games. Kind of have to, if you're traveling.) This...genetic manipulation or sudden Frankenstein 'reboot', on FFG's part was not needed. Especially since it was not going affect the whole line-up of the 40K games.
All-in-all: Stupid is, as stupid does.
Luckily someone smart, kicked stupid in the groin before it had a chance to dilute the gaming gene pool.
Thank you FFG, for having the sense to not further divide your player-base and keep the products compatible, for the most part.(Introducing the original beta opened up a Pandora's box though). That's what really should matter: Keeping what works, and that includes the players and fans. Not just rules. For what little it's worth, you did make a good call in the end. Now stick to it, and let's play 40K, not just DH and everything else.
FFG bows to peer pressure. When has something great ever been made that listened to the masses? I was worried when I saw the sweeping changes in update #1 that they were too willing to take feedback, but I didn't expect this level of... I can't think of a better word than "cowardice".
Businesses listening to their customers is certainly an unfortunate development, and one that needs to be stomped out forthwith! Consumers prefer companies that sneer at them when they have a concern, this is just established fact.
Obviously, I am very pleased by this news. If they keep the character creation, Influence, nice mechanisms like Subtlety, and make designing encounters as intuitive, this product just moved from maybe-update-to-the-final-pdf to must-buy-hardcopy status.
This is a good thing. (personallly im hoping the wounds system goes away) but as a business strategy this actually makes alot of sense in that they can now appease the crosscompatable fan base and give some innovation as the posters who liked the beta wanted. its a 50/50 split now and i am happy with that but we will see what we get at the end of november.
If DH2 is going to be similar to Only War, why should anyone who owns DH1 and OW buy DH2 when they could just copy over the OW rules they like ?
The other 40k RPG titles justified it because they focused on different parts of the setting. The DH2 beta justified it because it was a different game.
Me, I'm happy to wait and see what comes out of this process. If DH2 isn't a different game to DH1, I'll just not buy it.
Edited by BilateralropeI'm noticing a lot of people are pointing out flaws in the specifics of the new systems, as if that's a good reason to throw them out.
Wouldn't it be better to refine those new systems rather than throw them out entirely? The end product would be far better than a system that's still muddied by its roots in a game published almost a decade ago (WHFRP 2e was 2005, people, isn't it time for a proper overhaul?)
I think my head just exploded.
I am flabbergasted that FFG and the development team has taken this decision. I never thought in a million years that they would do anything else but polish.
Regardless of DH 2.0 or the new old 1.5 I think it's really great to see that they listen and are prepared to re-think core parts of the game, pushing the schedule back (costing more money), based on feedback from the fans. This more than anything is what I take away from this announcement. I think it is an injustice to speak of cowardice or bowing to demand. Talking like that just make you look small (remember last week when the tables were turned?).
Now, personally I am saddened that we will likely see a return to wound chipping and I thought AP was really interesting. I very much hope they push forwards, not only updating OW. I'll wait and see what comes in december.
Glad to see they are ditching the horrible mess known as the new wound system in favor of the old wound system that had proven true. Beyond that this actually does suck.
AP was a interesting idea and it sucks to see it go. I don't like rate of fire in the new system, but that was the only thing hurting ap.
I fail to see why the skills need to be change. They are working just fine if you ask me.
Just most of all. Wow after all that you just flip the switch to make it OW. What the hell had we been doing then? Granted I hate the new wound system, but I at least tolerated to test it out. Now I feel all that testing was rendered useless now.
Glad they listened to a lot of feedback. I really loved a lot of the ideas they had, but in play, they just didn't work far too often. I talked at length about the beta and GenCon, and I am thrilled with this news, though I hope they keep some of the good ideas and just implement them better.
FFG bows to peer pressure. When has something great ever been made that listened to the masses? I was worried when I saw the sweeping changes in update #1 that they were too willing to take feedback, but I didn't expect this level of... I can't think of a better word than "cowardice".
Businesses listening to their customers is certainly an unfortunate development, and one that needs to be stomped out forthwith! Consumers prefer companies that sneer at them when they have a concern, this is just established fact.
In a word: yes.
If I hire a professional to do a job, I expect them to do it. I can criticize my electrician for installing all this fancy new wiring when all my old stuff was working fine, but I bloody well expect him to tell me what's right and what isn't, and not just lean over and do as I tell him to. If I don't like what he's doing, I can fire him.
I was worried about this when the first beta update came out. FFG were doing what we were suggesting almost verbatim. I was glad that they were listening to us, but worried that they were doing this with very little personal thought.
This is taking that problem to the limit.
I hire professionals because they know better than I do (at least I must assume that they do). If it turns out they didn't, I'll hire someone else. If I wanted something done my way, I'd do it myself.
Here's the real worry, whether you liked the beta or not: They now have two months to quickly cobble together something, practically from scratch. The budget is going to be smaller. The deadlines are going to be shorter. There won't be time for a (sufficient) internal playtest.
You thought this beta felt rushed (it did)? Oh boy.
If I hire a professional to do a job, I expect them to do it. I can criticize my electrician for installing all this fancy new wiring when all my old stuff was working fine, but I bloody well expect him to tell me what's right and what isn't, and not just lean over and do as I tell him to. If I don't like what he's doing, I can fire him.
False analogy. A better analogy would be that you hire an electrician to do something for you, and you are an amateur electrician, as are several friends of yours (you all dabble as a hobby, but none of you do it professionally), and during the job the electrician you've hired asks for you and your friends' feedback.
I'm glad that this means the existing DH books will work with the new system (with a bit of conversion work), rather than just being out-and-out invalidated.
BYE
Ok, this is quite surprising.
I liked the new system quite a bit and was never much a fan of the old one, so I was happy to see the changes, though I heard all the issues here in the forums and they were quite valid.
It is no use now start saying that the November revisions will suck, even if you did like the old beta. Might be they will suck and maybe they will not.
As for the decision per se, it would be bad IF FFG took it just when listening here. As we know, these forums are a good tool, but represent just a minor faction of the fans. However, the critics on the forums started from day 1 and it took this long for FFG to take a decision, namely they waited AFTER the major NA RPG conventions are done for.
It is reasonable to assume they collected a lot of negative feedback on the new edition at the conventions and that, paired with the forum reaction, made them change their mind... which is a GOOD thing, you surely do not want to piss off your fans.
So here is to remain optimist even when the changes do not seem to be to your liking
I'm noticing a lot of people are pointing out flaws in the specifics of the new systems, as if that's a good reason to throw them out.
Wouldn't it be better to refine those new systems rather than throw them out entirely? The end product would be far better than a system that's still muddied by its roots in a game published almost a decade ago (WHFRP 2e was 2005, people, isn't it time for a proper overhaul?)
No thanks.
WFRP 2 was overhauled and became the abomination that is WFRP 3. That decision to go in a totally new direction killed my favourite game stone dead for the sake of "change", despite WFRP 2 not being anywhere near polished (like Dark Heresy). If anything, you've hardened my resolve with that example. I'm glad FFG listened.
I'm glad that this means the existing DH books will work with the new system (with a bit of conversion work), rather than just being out-and-out invalidated.
It occurs to me that the major obstacle to compatibility is AP, not wounds. Converting a character to use the wound system is simple, just ignore it wound count and use the new system. It only gets tricky for the creatures where the critical charts for the previous games didn't apply.
Converting a weapon from a previous game to use the new AP system requires working out how many AP each attack requires. Though writing conversion rules doesn't seem too hard.
So when they say they are making the systems compatible, we can't be sure what they mean. Do they mean to switch back to the old system (in which case, why not just release the new sector as a supplement ?) or do they plan to keep the new system and provide conversion rules ?
All in all... I'm glad to see this change. But i genuinely hope they learned a few things from the beta and carry over the good ideas as mentionend several times already.
Backwards compatibility is for myself a game changer, already owning nearly every published book in all the "old lines", so the more compatible, the better.
Happy Happy face
FFG bows to peer pressure. When has something great ever been made that listened to the masses? I was worried when I saw the sweeping changes in update #1 that they were too willing to take feedback, but I didn't expect this level of... I can't think of a better word than "cowardice".
Businesses listening to their customers is certainly an unfortunate development, and one that needs to be stomped out forthwith! Consumers prefer companies that sneer at them when they have a concern, this is just established fact.
In a word: yes.
If I hire a professional to do a job, I expect them to do it. I can criticize my electrician for installing all this fancy new wiring when all my old stuff was working fine, but I bloody well expect him to tell me what's right and what isn't, and not just lean over and do as I tell him to. If I don't like what he's doing, I can fire him.
It's more like, you hire an electrician, see that he has moved all the power sockets around despite your house being setup to accommodate their current position, and moved the safety switchboard from the cellar to the attic - I don't care if it's a good setup or not, it's not the setup I want in my apartment, so he either changes it or loses a client. Simple and honest.
I was worried about this when the first beta update came out. FFG were doing what we were suggesting almost verbatim. I was glad that they were listening to us, but worried that they were doing this with very little personal thought.
This is taking that problem to the limit.
I hire professionals because they know better than I do (at least I must assume that they do). If it turns out they didn't, I'll hire someone else. If I wanted something done my way, I'd do it myself.
It was actually a major issue I've had with the first few updates as well. I think I actually liked the pre-update weapon and armor charts more, and I was very disappointed that 90% of the update consisted of making those stats more like in previous games.
Still, for me, it just highlights that the change itself wasn't that well thought through, and from this perspective, reverting to what both the authors and the fanbase knows and working up from there seems like a better choice than starting from scratch for the sake of starting from scratch.
Here's the real worry, whether you liked the beta or not: They now have two months to quickly cobble together something, practically from scratch. The budget is going to be smaller. The deadlines are going to be shorter. There won't be time for a (sufficient) internal playtest.
You thought this beta felt rushed (it did)? Oh boy.
This is largely compounded by reverting to the base system we know works. Admittedly, I am quite afraid that the backlash against the new system will make the devs too conservative in proposing tweaks and changes to the old system. Ideally, I'd want DH2 to be as major update for OW/BC rules as they themselves were for DH/RT/DW rules.
I'm noticing a lot of people are pointing out flaws in the specifics of the new systems, as if that's a good reason to throw them out.
Wouldn't it be better to refine those new systems rather than throw them out entirely? The end product would be far better than a system that's still muddied by its roots in a game published almost a decade ago (WHFRP 2e was 2005, people, isn't it time for a proper overhaul?)
First, for me at least, some of those specifics were fundamentally flawed in a way that prevented me from liking the new system at all. No matter how many revisions they'd make to wound charts, they'd still mean I'm supposed to check against the book each time anyone took a hit, and that's just something I'm not willing to do, as I know from experience it would break the flow of the game for me and my team.
Second, this system may have been around for ages, but it's been steadily improving with each incarnation. I've played that game since WFRP 1e, and I'm definitely seeing all the improvements made throughout the years.
Due to that, I see no inherent merit in scrapping it and starting from scratch. I could see it if the switch would guarantee taking care of all the problems inherent in the old system, but that's simply not how it works - designing RPG mechanics is more art than science, and there's no perfect formula for taking care of all the problems. If there was such, we wouldn't be needing erratas for any game for at least the past ten years.
Realistically, building a system from scratch simply means new problems will crop up, and then the process of fixing and improving starts anew. Unless the old system is deeply, fundamentally flawed (which I don't think is the case here), it's actually better to keep improving upon it.
It occurs to me that the major obstacle to compatibility is AP, not wounds. Converting a character to use the wound system is simple, just ignore it wound count and use the new system. It only gets tricky for the creatures where the critical charts for the previous games didn't apply.I'm glad that this means the existing DH books will work with the new system (with a bit of conversion work), rather than just being out-and-out invalidated.
Converting a weapon from a previous game to use the new AP system requires working out how many AP each attack requires. Though writing conversion rules doesn't seem too hard.
So when they say they are making the systems compatible, we can't be sure what they mean. Do they mean to switch back to the old system (in which case, why not just release the new sector as a supplement ?) or do they plan to keep the new system and provide conversion rules ?
So when they say they are making the systems compatible, we can't be sure what they mean. Do they mean to switch back to the old system (in which case, why not just release the new sector as a supplement ?) or do they plan to keep the new system and provide conversion rules ?
Because DH does need an update. Whether you liked FFG's first version of DH2.0 or not, DH still needs to be updated. I'd rather it be updated to make use of the improvements from the BC/OW lines, and it appears that most people did as well, hence the new update. So releasing a setting supplement wouldn't help much, because there are problems with (current) DH that do need fixing.
BYE
Ultimately, whether you personally agree with the change or not, FFG asked, listened and responded.
This is a good thing for a company who provide a product which is fundamentally entertainment value and ease of use.
I will hold off both praise and criticism until I see the rules, but:
well im a bit happy now, but lets see what they come out with.
one of the problems with DH is that all of us have different opinions about what DH should be and how the rules should be like
i for one want it to be like call of cthulhu i space and other want eisenhorn an others more like a fantasy sci/fi
and about the rules some want fast easy rules and some want balanced complex rules
The beta wound system admittedly does look terrible. The mechanic isn't simple enough, the logic of it has no ties to the real world to keep it intuitive, and realistically it requires every player has 9 pages worth of tables in hand for any combat encounter.
But personally I'd almost consider not houseruling it all away simply because it isn't hit points. because hit points is - in my very personal opinion that nobody is obliged to share - the worst idea RPG'ers have so far inflicted on each other. I loathe hp.
The same goes for wonky RoF's vs. the half-arsed actions system, though I can't claim to feel quite as strongly about it. Additionally fractions actually expressed as fractions strikes me as downright user-hostile to younger players, which I'm guessing there's a fair pile of.
My point being that as much as I agree the beta rules were screwy, I disagree far, faaar more that a return to the old ungainly ways is the right idea.
What I'd like are expanded personality, spy-craft, investigation, dynasty, economy, sanity & corruption mechanics, a total unification of combat mechanics on all scales, from a couple of wrestling gobbos to armadas of void ships, an alternative quick combat system for when the particulars isn't important, for the whole thing to be streamlined a lot more than the beta rules were, and for toughness damage soak to die in the fires of hell forever and ever and ever.
... Sorry, toughness soak kind of bugs me too, and has been for.. like.. 20 years or something. Please let this be the time it finally goes away and stays gone.
It's not hard to put combat crits into the current system. My group and I have done it for years. Just because the new system did that, doesn't mean they can't add something simpler (and better) into the old system. Here's how we go about it:
After taking away toughness an armour, any remaining damage which is suffered beyond your Toughness Bonus causes 1 level of cri from the appropriate chart. If you have 20+ wounds, this crit is halved. If you have 30+ wounds, you divide it by 3. 40+ wounds, divide by 4. Etc.
Try it.