Well, there is a fundamental change in the probability model brought about by different scaling of characteristics and roll modifiers - also something I'm not really fond of, having had some very bad experiences with high level WFRP 2e play.

For that matter, new Fatigue is also awful - so many extra things to keep track of for so little gain.

Still, it's the wounds and AP that kills these rules for me, and not because of any particulars of how they were introduced, but because I find the very concepts inherently unworkable.

I think the characteristic scaling effect is not that bad.

If you keep in mind, that OW soldiers start at a similar level in the beginning.

There are only 2 differences:

> the Beta allows 1 increase per rank

> the costs are not the same (having a lower progression)

As to the first issue, I think this is not so much a problem.

Reason why I think this is, that on the one hand people will also lose characteristic points due to permanent wound effects, and on the other hand, you will reach the higher ranks only at a later time in the game. It could be seen that the first 4-5 ranks show classic acoylte ranks, the others more going into Ascension way of play.

The second issue is one easy to solve - change the costs to be more approprioate.

With the new fatigue I do not agree at all. It was awfull and useless before - now it has sense, depth and a tactical use.

As for AP and new wound system - I think thats an issue where we just have diffrerent oppinions.

Those are in my oppinion the main strengths and a great development towards a more tactical and more living game.

I think the characteristic scaling effect is not that bad.

If you keep in mind, that OW soldiers start at a similar level in the beginning.

There are only 2 differences:

> the Beta allows 1 increase per rank

> the costs are not the same (having a lower progression)

As to the first issue, I think this is not so much a problem.

Reason why I think this is, that on the one hand people will also lose characteristic points due to permanent wound effects, and on the other hand, you will reach the higher ranks only at a later time in the game. It could be seen that the first 4-5 ranks show classic acoylte ranks, the others more going into Ascension way of play.

The second issue is one easy to solve - change the costs to be more approprioate.

Yeah, now that you mention it - I hate permanent characteristic damage with a fiery passion. One more bastion of godawful AD&D "rules are there to screw players over" mentality that I positively loathe, and I was seriously nonplussed to see it become more prevalent in the new rules.

With the new fatigue I do not agree at all. It was awfull and useless before - now it has sense, depth and a tactical use.

As for AP and new wound system - I think thats an issue where we just have diffrerent oppinions.

Those are in my oppinion the main strengths and a great development towards a more tactical and more living game.

Yeah, what you call "tactical and living game", I call "dumb minutiae that bog down the flow of game by introducing more pointless accounting".

Guess it is a lot about the groups focus, if something tends to be tactical plus or useless burden.

I like the permanent damages - makes decisions and choices more important and violence somnething to be considered carefully.

Guess it is a lot about the groups focus, if something tends to be tactical plus or useless burden.

I like the permanent damages - makes decisions and choices more important and violence somnething to be considered carefully.

Heres a problem I have, why (for any reason) would you not bump up your 3 cheap stats every level?

The only answer I can come up with is 'your not use that stat' which means your generally going against what your class is good at. So explain to me why a character, building to the strengths of their character, is not going to mindless buy their 3 cheap stats every level.

Guess it is a lot about the groups focus, if something tends to be tactical plus or useless burden.

I like the permanent damages - makes decisions and choices more important and violence somnething to be considered carefully.

Heres a problem I have, why (for any reason) would you not bump up your 3 cheap stats every level?

The only answer I can come up with is 'your not use that stat' which means your generally going against what your class is good at. So explain to me why a character, building to the strengths of their character, is not going to mindless buy their 3 cheap stats every level.

Because there are a tonne of things to spend your XP on and because even your cheap stats become expensive as they get higher. I did a rank 5 party for a test combat with the beta and the "cheap" stats I had maxed on one character, but not on the other (both were Imperial Guard characters with the Warrior role). Rank 5 is actually pretty high. I'm not sure where the Ascension level equivalents kick in (keep in mind you can actually play an Inquisitor in the beta), but even maxed out, it's still reasonable. The IG who was maxing out stats had a BS of 71. Pretty awesome, but they're a rank 5 character who has really focused on shooting. And they were noticeably weaker in other areas. Their BS wasn't game breaking at all. They were simply a very good shot. But they could have been all sorts of other things for the same price.

. because low stats are a weak point. When I ran my Shadowrun game I had several players who ran moderately balanced characters and then someone who min-maxed a troll archer. After a few sessions of this PC causing them bother in various situations (social disasters, general stupidity), even the other players got sick of babying someone who was essentially a

DnD just isn't supposed to have a rival in the RPG industry, especially not in the generic-fantasy genre.

DnD doesn't do generic-fantasy. It does DnD fantasy. As a system it is terrible for representing anything other than itself. It is a perfectly enjoyable game, so that is fine, but I can never understand the obsession there seemed to be for having a d20 version of everything. Just a personal RPG bugbear of mine.

Off-hand I can't think of an example of a traditional HP mechanic like Wounds in DH1e in RPGs on or off the tabletop, that is either kind of logically consistent with the overall system it is used with. Wounds in DH1e, for example, are neither consistent with the logic of the meta or the the way the meta generally ties into the fiction. It's basically an absurdity.

Which is why I tried, but evidently failed, to make it very, very clear that I'd rather use the now old beta's wound mechanic that go back to DH1e's HP-by-another-name. And why I kind of really hate HP and wish nobody'd ever thought of the concept.

I don't think DH ever tried to pretend it didn't use HP. Maybe it called them wounds instead, but there was never any pretence going on there. Ok, the last 6-10 had some funky special effects, but that was it. It was DH2 which tried to hide its HP, not DH1. I also don't know what you mean by "inconsistent with the logic of the meta". While I agree that HP are unrealistic, I don't see how they are inconsistent with the rest of the game.

Guess it is a lot about the groups focus, if something tends to be tactical plus or useless burden.

When I want to get tactical, I play Fallout Tactics. Not something I want to introduce to my games without a computer hammering out all the boring math in the background.

I like the permanent damages - makes decisions and choices more important and violence somnething to be considered carefully.

There are much better ways to do that than the system going, what's that, boy? You want to play a strong, burly warrior? Not after I cut your strength and toughness in half! Now you're playing a wimp, deal with it!

Also, I'm inclined to question the logic of making violence a matter of careful consideration in a game that's supposed to emulate a setting having "There Is Only War" as it's iconic catchphrase.

Also, I'm inclined to question the logic of making violence a matter of careful consideration in a game that's supposed to emulate a setting having "There Is Only War" as it's iconic catchphrase.

The conceit of DH (at least the first edition) is that the PCs are basically just normal people, not space marines fighting an endless war. Intrigue, subtlety, and knowledge as weapons is heavily emphasized. Given these, open, deadly violence is a much more serious consideration than implied by the tabletop game, and has lasting, serious consequences.

I'm not arguing for or against attribute damage, but in DH1 combat was dangerous and best avoided unless victory is swift and assured, and I'd like to see the same approach taken with DH2.

As I understand things, the difference between the 2 camps is that one wants to have a fast & fun game, and the other wants to have a realistic, tactical (& thus fun) game. The original 2e concept could have made the latter with some updates, and I really dont like that they threw away their work and made another clone of the previous systems.

They should have finished 2e with the original concept, and give out a big errata for the lovers of 1e. I feel like they are trying to make a game which is perfect for everybody, but the case is that humans are very different from each other, and it is not possible to please everyone.

But the idea to throw out the great amount of time and money invested in the original 2e is simply stupid, because the whole concept was really great. With a little modification the game system could have been changed not to use cumulative wounds, (see this post) and the RoF and other problems could have been repaired too.

I too think an extended "repair" of the 2.0 Beta, which also has the focus to bring a few things better in line with the previous systems would be much better than to try and make an OW1.1 Clone for DH...

So:

YES - compromises should be made, to make the change smoother

NO - good new components, which were developed by good DEV-Boyz in dark cellars should NOT be just skipped

Regarding the voices against characteristics losses:

Its not so, that you lose half of a characteristic at once.

You might lose 1d5 or 1d10, maybe even a little more, but that will not occur every game (if you dont force your luck or your GM hates you). Furthermore, it will not always happen to the same characteristic.

So the direct effect on 1 characteristic still seems ok to me so far. It just hurts a little - and thats how it should be like if you force into combat too much.

About the costs:

I also thought at the beginning, that the costs were a little low for characteristic advances. In the same turn I think, talent costs are a little high...maybe shifting costs a little can help to balance this issue.

I really dont like that they threw away their work and made another clone of the previous systems.

I'd like to point out, they haven't actually made anything at this moment.

I'd really love it if people could keep that in mind and wait to see the merchandise before ripping it to shreds, would that be cool with you?

Waiting till the merchandise is too late to change something.

I'd prefer to use the beta to make sure I do not have to rip it afterwards.

Welp, I'm out of here.

I really enjoyed the Beta test so far and am sad to see it take this direction. Frankly, this is all far too much drama for me to deal with and I really don't care anymore.

I'm already set up to start a campaign this Saturday using the Beta rules, and I guess I'll just continue using them. They're certainly my favorite iteration of the rules yet and the best suited to the type of game I want to run, which is really what all this "rules preference" boils down to.

Also, bummed to not see an update for yesterday- I wish that they could've given it to those of us who liked the Beta.

But somehow, I'm sure it would have created drama in the fan community. Really, this is why you shouldn't do Open Betas for games that aren't in their first edition- everyone has their own style of gameplay and everybody wants something different out of a revision. Catering to everyone is impossible because their wishes typically run contradictory to each other (as far as execution is concerned, mostly everyone wants a "cleaner system"). So then it's just a matter of time before the devs either release the best game they can with mitigated input from the community, or they listen to the fan community and the game implodes under its own weight.

Just look at D&D Next.

Either option runs contradictory to the idea of a "Beta Test". Which, really, when did people decide Open Betas were a good idea? Really, up front, they're just publicity stunts.

I feel like we almost had a great game if we would've let FFG be on their merry way.

Because, frankly, I really don't want any of you editing my game. I can do that, and they're called house rules.

I'll see you guys when this book hits shelves, whenever that may be.

Welp, I'm out of here.

I really enjoyed the Beta test so far and am sad to see it take this direction. Frankly, this is all far too much drama for me to deal with and I really don't care anymore.

I'm already set up to start a campaign this Saturday using the Beta rules, and I guess I'll just continue using them. They're certainly my favorite iteration of the rules yet and the best suited to the type of game I want to run, which is really what all this "rules preference" boils down to.

Also, bummed to not see an update for yesterday- I wish that they could've given it to those of us who liked the Beta.

But somehow, I'm sure it would have created drama in the fan community. Really, this is why you shouldn't do Open Betas for games that aren't in their first edition- everyone has their own style which they enjoy to play their game and want something different out of a revision. Catering to everyone is impossible because their wishes typically run contradictory to each other (as far as execution is concerned, mostly everyone wants a "cleaner system"). So then it's just a matter of time before the devs either release the best game they can with mitigated input from the community, or they listen to the fan community and the game implodes under its own weight.

Just look at D&D Next.

Either option runs contradictory to the idea of a "Beta Test". Which, really, when did people decide Open Betas were a good idea? Really, up front, they're just publicity stunts.

I feel like we almost had a great game if we would've let FFG be on their merry way.

Because, frankly, I really don't want any of you editing my game. I can do that, and they're called house rules.

I'll see you guys when this book hits shelves, whenever that may be.

*nods like a whise old man*

It might be no one got an update because FFG didn't have one to give.

Also, bummed to not see an update for yesterday-

There is just as much about the DH2e Beta that I like as which I dislike. Still, I feel dropping out of constructive discussion and input on the DH2e Beta is a knee-jerk decision. There is an opportunity here to make Dark Heresy a great RPG. Aspects from 1e and 2e do have synergy. Old and new mechanics can be refined. Personally, I've gone from being absolutely opposed to DH2e to straddling the fence. All I needed was a phenomenal finished product to win me over. Some are pleased this beta is in limbo (though they act like its completely dead), others are quite disappointed. From my perspective, I still straddle the dividing line, and I'm left wondering "What could have been?"

I am one who is really disappointed by the latest news, bu has not yet accepted to let this good concept die.

I decided to fight for the small hope thats left and I hope that some will join me on this new crusade.

In the grim informational darkness of the beta...there is only war.

In the grim informational darkness of the beta...there is only war.

Let's hope not

Actually, I think I'm just going to start putting out fan content for the Beta, as it exists in its current state. I've already pretty much got a rough conversion for some of the Home Worlds/Backgrounds from Inquisitors Handbook, as well as a nearly completed Sorcery Talent Tree that I haven't wanted to release until we had the final Beta update.

Since this edition isn't going any further, why not?

This is an interesting idea indeed.

Would be nice to have a finished beta along to the new concepts.

My target would be though to de-bug and balance the current beta a little further before other parts are integrated from other source books.

If anyone would like to start a working group in the spirit of improving and enhancing the current beta, please write me a pm and we can see if we find some common ground we can work on together.

Does anyone else feel they just hit the 4e split? Something so radically different it will most likely create a new niche of gaming that the vast majority will not like. Splitting and fragmenting the community horribly? I feel there will be only war in the grim future of the 40k rpg fans.

It feels like a breeze of istvaan...

I would rather view this as an opportunity to carry forward. Who plays DH1e without any House Rules? Not even one? Why can't the beta as-is be completed by a collaboration of forumites? For that matter, we could combine the best of both editions. There doesn't have to be a schism that pits some 40K RPG players against others.

There are plenty of contributing members I agree whole-heartedly with, and others not so much, but that doesn't mean we can't work together to create alternate versions. Seriously speaking: how many people expected to use DH2e without a single House Rule? Even if it was the best game ever designed, I'm sure someone somewhere was going to suggest an alternative mechanic that someone else somewhere else would prefer over what might be published. Let us all get down from our soap boxes and high horses and work together. We can take what we want, and leave the rest for others.

You have my ear, brother orpheo.

So what is it exactly that you are suggesting ?

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?)

Howdy,

Even "refined", some of the new systems are problematic. Change for the sake of change is NOT a good model for any business. If the new DH 2.0 system offered a compelling mechanics or an infrastructure that modeled the genre or source material better, then change is certainly warrented. Ditching compatibility and a supportive customer base for mediocrity (at best) is never a good idea...

The system *has* evolved from DH through OW. Just because it still bears resemblance to the WFRP engine from 8 years ago is NOT a compelling reason for change. Heck, FFG drank the Cool Aid of D&D 4th Edition and gave the Warhammer Fantasy crowd WFRP 3rd Edition, which was a clear misstep....

Cheers,

Ken

A lot of people have been characterizing the beta as "change for the sake of change", which I believe is a mischaracterization. While the progression from DH to OW has been an improvement, there's only so much you can do with the core system. DH2 was an attempt to create a new system with a resemblance to the original. I think the fact that they attempted it shows that FFG has at least acknowledged that the base 40k mechanics are not as smooth or maintainable as they'd like. I'm sure that DH2 will be better than OW, mechanically, but how much refinement can there be before you have to start from scratch?

D&D 4E is a result of the same - the core mechanics of the game were fundamentally flawed and WotC revamped them from the ground up. This is not change for its own sake, but change in pursuit of a more fun, more balanced game.

I can't speak to WHFRP3E as I haven't played it, but the ideas are at least interesting and prevent the line from being a fantasy flavored version of what we have in the 40k games (which is good from a product diversity standpoint). Haven't they used the same mechanics in their new Star Wars game?

Howdy,

...And why do they have to start from scratch? The system is popular, and it does reflect the genre and flavour of the source material it is modeling. DH 2.0 was a mess, and really didn't offer anything new mechanically or really *better* as far as system modeling.

D&D 4th was an attempt to draw MMO and non-RPG tabletop gamers into the game (as well as sell WotC figures). It was a failure on all fronts. D&D 3.5 had NUMEROUS flaws, but it was HUGE and VERY well supported not only by WoTC, but by NUMEROUS third-party companies. All of that went away. Pathfinder (basically D&D 3.75 - still flawed) trounced D&D, and WotC stopped support of 4th almost 2 years ago - nothing until D&D Next at GenCon 2014. THAT said, WotC is still flogging new printings of D&D 1st and 2nd Editions, as they have to show SOME revenue stream to their Hasbro masters.... or else.

FFG tried something new with their props and dice mechanic for WFRP 3rd, but again the previous edition STILL outshines it in popularity. With both D&D 4th and WFRP 3rd, the changes were attempts to draw NEW audiences into the fold (and both failed in varying degrees).

What was the purpose with DH 2.0? Nothing innovative or prop-driven to appeal to new crowds. Nothing new or superior as far as mechanics. It *does* seem like it was change-for-change's sake. And we won't even get into compatibility issues and marketing...

Cheers,

Ken