Hello Dark Heresy community

I've been perusing these topics for quite some time now, especially since the word of the DH beta came out. I never considered it to be an viable option for myself to get involved into discussion nor do I see myself as having capability to contribute in any meaningful way ruleswise. However in the light of these new events (I'm talking of course about this de facto reboot of the DH beta) I thought I could give you a bystander's perspective of the atmosphere/mood on these forums.

There have been some really great suggestions on how to tweak and modify the existing systems as presented by the developers, some of which addressed the burning issues with the beta and produced meaningful, interesting and above all functional alternatives. The thing is, some of the individuals here, wanting to assert the validity of their arguments began flaunting with the word "majority" or consciously/subconsciously used other methods of swaying people to see things their way. That is understandable, a natural behavior when you are passionate or enthusiastic about something and you want others to see the awesomeness of it.

So what exactly do I keep blathering about here anyway? Well, I propose to make a poll. I have seen people here create extensive and verbose topics on how the rules should work in order to get noticed by other people, especially FFG staff. I believe that the poll mechanics should solve these endeavors once and for all. Have a topic which you think is a game changer and would like to see how the community breathes? Make a poll. Want to get noticed? Make a poll. Want to catch the eye of the developers and get heard? Make a poll.

I don't know whether this forum's architecture supports one such feature, but I honestly believe it would once and for all resolve the issue on where the majority train of thought is headed, which in turn could be of great help to the powers that be.

Thank you.

A poll isn't going to be of much use here. For one thing the sample size compared to the community would be tiny. Most people who are going to play the game or even test it aren't posting on these forums. For another people on this forum are pretty much either people who liked the new system a lot and those who hated it and from what I can tell a good portion of the people who hated it had stopped posting/paying attention to this board when they felt that FFG were going to stick with the new system (me included on that). Now that doesn't actually mean that a poll wouldn't be representative but whatever it showed the other side would not accept anyway as the methodology would be pretty poor.

I expect that it was the direct email response to FFG which is what has caused this. From what I can tell this board had been getting more positive as time went on and the haters stopped posting so I can't see a reason for FFG to have done it based on the attitude of the board. Most of this discussion was had in the first 2 weeks so unless we made a particularly strong case that FFG has reevaluated I would assume that they have been getting a steady stream of negative emails/other communication that has convinced them that this is not the way to go.

A poll isn't going to be of much use here. For one thing the sample size compared to the community would be tiny. Most people who are going to play the game or even test it aren't posting on these forums. For another people on this forum are pretty much either people who liked the new system a lot and those who hated it and from what I can tell a good portion of the people who hated it had stopped posting/paying attention to this board when they felt that FFG were going to stick with the new system (me included on that). Now that doesn't actually mean that a poll wouldn't be representative but whatever it showed the other side would not accept anyway as the methodology would be pretty poor.

I expect that it was the direct email response to FFG which is what has caused this. From what I can tell this board had been getting more positive as time went on and the haters stopped posting so I can't see a reason for FFG to have done it based on the attitude of the board. Most of this discussion was had in the first 2 weeks so unless we made a particularly strong case that FFG has reevaluated I would assume that they have been getting a steady stream of negative emails/other communication that has convinced them that this is not the way to go.

Howdy,

A few of us gave them an earful at GenCon, but who knows if the crew that we spoke to had any influence.

Cheers,

Ken

PS I am *ecstatic* that DH 2.0 is following BC/OW mechanically.

A lot of people who didn't care for the system aren't here anymore. If I didn't check back semi-weekly for Updates I wouldn't have known about this change myself.

I've made sure to do my part in spreading the news of this new development, though. When the news circulates a bit more, I suppose we'll see some of those faces again. As of right now, the main people who would vote in the poll would be the folks who actually liked the beta and continued posting here regularly.

Forum poll < all the feedback the devs got through this board and the special email address.

Trust me, they didn't make a decision like that lightly. It wasn't because a few people have been complaining here on the boards, or because any one of the complainers was that much more convincing than the supporters of the new system. Remember, what they actually did here was practically scrapping an entire book they already paid people to write, and devote time and money to write it anew. If they made a decision like that, it means it must have been painfully clear throughout the bulk of the gathered feedback that reverting to the old system is what the majority of beta participants want.

I suppose you are right.

Thanks for the reply, everyone.

A lot of people who didn't care for the system aren't here anymore. If I didn't check back semi-weekly for Updates I wouldn't have known about this change myself.

2nd

I've started a poll on Dark Reign to gauge everyone's thoughts on the subject.

http://www.darkreign.org/node/1451

I have a feeling that FFG considered the flaws in the system and didn't have much of an easy fix for them hence reworking the whole system.

I have a feeling that FFG considered the flaws in the system and didn't have much of an easy fix for them hence reworking the whole system.

I'm someone who believes there were definite flaws with the Dark Heresy Beta, but nothing insurmountable to fix. The question wasn't whether it was 'broken' (that's the point of the beta release), but rather answering whether they wanted a new or improved system.

Staying in line with the current lines = Improved

Creating a new system = New

Either way, the point of poll is just for fun and to get an idea of the current community. =D

I like the idea of staying in line with current systems except I would rather they improve upon them rather than pumping out essentially the same exact product as Only War with the same flaws, just a different setting. If that is going to be the case, what is the justification for buying both Only War books and Dark Heresy 2.0 books. The only difference would be fluff and a few extra rules regarding investigation.

I'm someone who believes there were definite flaws with the Dark Heresy Beta, but nothing insurmountable to fix...

The exact same thing can be said of DH1 ...

I like the idea of staying in line with current systems except I would rather they improve upon them rather than pumping out essentially the same exact product as Only War with the same flaws, just a different setting...

That's been the case with every WH40KRP game so far, so I have no doubt that a OW -compatible DH2 will continue the tradition of honing and improving the rule system.

Because democracy is terrible.

I'm not even joking.

Polling, votes, referendums; terrible, worthless, inefficient, catering to the lowest common denominators, ensuring that no matter what, nothing will be concretely resolved.

Because democracy is terrible.

I'm not even joking.

Polling, votes, referendums; terrible, worthless, inefficient, catering to the lowest common denominators, ensuring that no matter what, nothing will be concretely resolved.

Yeah, it is the worst system. Except for all the others...

Because democracy is terrible.

I'm not even joking.

Polling, votes, referendums; terrible, worthless, inefficient, catering to the lowest common denominators, ensuring that no matter what, nothing will be concretely resolved.

Yeah, it is the worst system. Except for all the others...

Well said!

Because democracy is terrible.

I'm not even joking.

Polling, votes, referendums; terrible, worthless, inefficient, catering to the lowest common denominators, ensuring that no matter what, nothing will be concretely resolved.

Yeah, it is the worst system. Except for all the others...

Generally, perhaps. When you want a specific thing done that requires a degree of professional knowledge, democracy is just plain the worst.

To be fair, polls on the Internet are basically the worst thing unless you get a kick out of trolling the pollster.

Because democracy is terrible.

I'm not even joking.

Polling, votes, referendums; terrible, worthless, inefficient, catering to the lowest common denominators, ensuring that no matter what, nothing will be concretely resolved.

Yeah, it is the worst system. Except for all the others...

Generally, perhaps. When you want a specific thing done that requires a degree of professional knowledge, democracy is just plain the worst.

-Unless the specific thing you want done is 'Not be a dictatorship'...

Because democracy is terrible.

I'm not even joking.

Polling, votes, referendums; terrible, worthless, inefficient, catering to the lowest common denominators, ensuring that no matter what, nothing will be concretely resolved.

Yeah, it is the worst system. Except for all the others...

Generally, perhaps. When you want a specific thing done that requires a degree of professional knowledge, democracy is just plain the worst.

In that case, you use a meritocracy instead, a much better system.

Yeah, it is the worst system. Except for all the others...

Cop-out without substance or meaning, thrown around by democrats that doesn't question the current political paradigm, but merely accepts it as the best of all worlds.

-Unless the specific thing you want done is 'Not be a dictatorship'...

This underlines the basic assumption of the politically illiterate; that if it's "not democracy", it's a dictatorship . Which is just plain ridiculous.

There are many alternatives to democracy that aren't dictatorships. Even so, oppression is no more inherent to dictatorship than freedom is to a democracy. Democracy is merely a political system; the absence of democracy does not imply an absence of rights, such as free speech, just as democracy in no way acts as a guarantee for said rights either, as anyone living in modernist society should be able to attest, with a very limited number of exceptions.

In that case, you use a meritocracy instead, a much better system.

Hear, hear!

Now, to be fair though, exactly what a meritocracy is is a matter of some debate. A lot of systems would argue that they are meritocratic, although it's arguably possible to poke a hole in most of them, save perhaps corporativism, but if you go that route, people yell "Dictatorship! Dictatorship! Naziracistdeathsquadfascist!" until they're blue in the face, whether it's true or not.

But yes, meritocracy and technocracy ( "technocratic councils appointed by state on a project basis" -technocracy and "emphasis on rational thought and technological advancement" -technocracy both ) please.

To be fair, polls on the Internet are basically the worst thing unless you get a kick out of trolling the pollster.

It caters to the lowest amongst us, and people will base their opinions on available knowledge, something people is clearly either unable or unwilling to review. There's no rational thought or weighing of pros and cons, or discussion as to an optimal solution; the overwhelming majority will make a judgement call and vote or poll based on their perception of the issues, no matter their tunnel vision or lack of data.

Just take any poll on "Best video-game ever"; out of all the available video games in the world and throughout history, any voter is unlikely to have more than but a fraction of the whole - meaning that they will vote on something they know, rather than something they don't know. This makes perfect sense, after all, but it is a terrible way to decide... anything, really. Anything at all. It's the reason wide-coverage modern games top those polls instead of older games, which obviously had a smaller audience.

The same naturally applies to any kind of vote. People don't know jack about how terrible wind energy is, they just know that it's green, and green is good, right? You don't want to be a climate-bandit, do you? Go wind, boo nuclear power!

I hate people .

I'm all for making a poll if it distracts everyone from more political debate!

This is not the appropriate forum for political commentary. Take it somewhere else.

Well, considering FFG have made it very apparent that they place their reader's wallets above solid, progressive gameplay, I think a polling system would be fantastic for having a collected list of statistics. If they wanted to, they could find some way to incorporate it into the pdf in order to make it a very organic Beta experience.

Sorry, I'm not too excited about the rules revisions.

Well, considering FFG have made it very apparent that they place their reader's wallets above solid, progressive gameplay, I think a polling system would be fantastic for having a collected list of statistics. If they wanted to, they could find some way to incorporate it into the pdf in order to make it a very organic Beta experience.

Sorry, I'm not too excited about the rules revisions.

That's actually not necessarily true. While FFG is a business, they did pull the entirety of the beta in order to rework the system, based on feedback.

Hopefully we'll get back on track for the whole line, with revisions and iterations rather than complete resets.

I'm a lurker and not a poster. But I am looking forward to reading the new revised DH 2.0. I did not purchase the DH revised beta as I did not think there was enough new material that I would need to buy DH again. My impression was that it would just be DH with errata. Then I came across this message board a while ago and learned it was trying to take the game too far away from all the existing products. Now I have read that it will not be such am ambitious change, that makes me excited to see some re-working of the rule-set to both refreshen the line but still be fairly compatible with the existing line.