First all I see is hate for the new system, then as soon as they announce that they're changing to make it like the older system all I see is complaint about them getting rid of the stuff you complained about originally. Come on guys give them a break at least they're trying.

If that doesn't work you still have the beta and the updates they gave just use that and fix it yourself.

I'm just saying it's a little sad to see the way some of you guys are acting.

Actually, it's pretty predictable. Most of us who seriously disliked the Beta rules abandoned posting on these forums weeks ago. The folks who remained the most prolific posters were the ones who liked the new system to one degree or another, or had at least reconciled themselves to it. Now those folks are disappointed and are saying so. Those of us who like this new direction will start coming back in November when the Beta Mark II rules are released.

Until November, it's all over but the shouting.

I don't really think this is what's going on here right now.

The divide here is slightly more complex than "pro 2e/pro 1.5e". There are people who liked the direction of the proposed 2e but had serious misgivings about certain parts of the rules, there are people who liked some parts of the rules but hated others, there are people for whom the lack of compatibility was the killer but who wouldn't agree on how far the system can/should be changed while retaining token backwards compatibility, and so forth. In short, it was one happy mess of conflicting issues and interests. Likewise, in the face of drastic shift in development direction, there's a whole slew of issues and interests clashing.

Personally, I can't stress enough how happy I am with the decision made and how much I think it is for the betterment o the game.

At the same time, since the backlash against the new rules must have been truly massive to warrant such a radical shift in direction, I'm somewhat worried that FFG might be too conservative in introducing new ideas. Ideally, I'd like DH2 to be as much of an improvement over the Only War/Black Crusade rules as they were over the previous rules, or maybe even more. I much disliked the particular changes proposed in the beta, but I didn't dislike the very idea of introducing changes to the game, and I very much hope the devs will not let the change strangle their creativity.

I wasn't terribly keen on the new rules... but now that they are scaling back the changes significantly there is the question of whether a whole new edition is justified.

Of course several people were clamouring for a DH2 along the lines of Only War etc. Now myself, as I was never terribly keen on most of the changes even there, but it was certainly something that was called for.

I wasn't terribly keen on the new rules... but now that they are scaling back the changes significantly there is the question of whether a whole new edition is justified.

Of course several people were clamouring for a DH2 along the lines of Only War etc. Now myself, as I was never terribly keen on most of the changes even there, but it was certainly something that was called for.

As I look at venerable, rusty and clunky crutch in Dark Heresy compared to the newer itinerations (not neccessary just Only War, even as it is my favourite) of 40kRPG, I think a new edition is justified.

It could even fix misgivings about the Only War.

The divide here is slightly more complex than "pro 2e/pro 1.5e". There are people who liked the direction of the proposed 2e but had serious misgivings about certain parts of the rules, there are people who liked some parts of the rules but hated others, there are people for whom the lack of compatibility was the killer but who wouldn't agree on how far the system can/should be changed while retaining token backwards compatibility, and so forth. In short, it was one happy mess of conflicting issues and interests. Likewise, in the face of drastic shift in development direction, there's a whole slew of issues and interests clashing.

That would be the truth of the matter. Personally, I liked many of the aspects of 2nd Edition. I'll list them for everyone to keep things simple and understandable:

- Character Creation: Very interesting change up. Disagreed with Guardsman being relegated to a background thing as a knee-jerk reaction, but later came around to that bit. The 'Roles' did seem very DnDish to me though.

- Influence and Subtlety: Very nicely done and executed almost perfectly. The Whole Narrative section was a much needed chapter for a game that's supposed to focus on investigations (which it's predecessor did not have)

- Skill and Talent Trees: The concept of creating branching trees. The execution was very poor though, making the sound idea very horribly received.

Now the things I really had to grind my gears about:

- Combat Mechanics: Just the entire thing was incredibly clunky, tons of beans-counting and slow to jive with the pace Dark Heresy should be (imo). AP was a novel idea, but incredibly burdensome in the extreme. Ditching it is just awesomesauce on FFG's account.

- Thrones/Currency being removed: Perhaps an inevitable fate considering RT, DW, BC, and OW, but the abstract currency of Throne Gelt was always appealing to me to capture the 'Abnettverse' feel. Less angry about it's removal than other things, as it is a minor issue really.

- The Focus: The Game itself is largely focusing on well-to-do and able Acolytes-Inquisitors. Rather than build up a legacy through merit and deed, you essentially start at the apex level from the get go. Largely down to preference here, but not my cup of tea.

I think the big problem is: A OW conversion for DH already exists...

If the changes to OW are only minor...it will be hard to justify the price for a new Core rulebook...

Thats why I think it would be best to try compatibility as far as possible, but still go a bigger step into new mechanisms, like AP system and new wound/fatigue system.

The divide here is slightly more complex than "pro 2e/pro 1.5e". There are people who liked the direction of the proposed 2e but had serious misgivings about certain parts of the rules, there are people who liked some parts of the rules but hated others, there are people for whom the lack of compatibility was the killer but who wouldn't agree on how far the system can/should be changed while retaining token backwards compatibility, and so forth. In short, it was one happy mess of conflicting issues and interests. Likewise, in the face of drastic shift in development direction, there's a whole slew of issues and interests clashing.

This. We all expect different things from a game, and as I've mentioned in another post no one version will satisy everyone. All that the design team at FFG can do is pick the group they want to cater to, be it because that's the majority or because that's the one their own personal preferences mesh with. Most likely, it is a combination of factors, but either way someone will always feel "left behind".

As I look at venerable, rusty and clunky crutch in Dark Heresy compared to the newer itinerations (not neccessary just Only War, even as it is my favourite) of 40kRPG, I think a new edition is justified.

It could even fix misgivings about the Only War.

I cannot actually think about anything new introduced in any of the lines that I have been terribly pleased with. Yes, Dark Heresy needed and errata, and it needed some clarification of certain of the rules (not that FFG was very good about the latter in any of the lines). However, in terms of the new rules introduced in any of the games I cannot think of many I thought genuinely improved on DH.

RT introduced the wonky "roll entire damage again on a Righteous Fury". Ok, no one noticed it, so it just blew up in everyone's faces with DW. The vehicles rules... well, at least it got official vehicle rules, unlike DH, but I really don't like vehicles just being another form of character. Tanks dodging and vehicles having HPs really jar quite badly with me. Space ship rules... ok, I didn't have enough experience with them to judge but from what I have read they aren't too bad, so ok. Profit factor. At the scale of RT it really would have been daft to ask players to track Thrones. However, I don't like the idea of using the system for the smaller scale DH. Psychic powers... trying to unify the psychic power system into the normal resolution mechanic. Ok, fine. Some balance issues though, from what I remember, and it meant the death knell of minor psychic powers. Can't even remember any other changes.

DW. Seriously borked weapon stats. Everyone noticing the "roll entire damage again on a Righteous Fury" rule, and suddenly the Heavy Bolter regularly pops Hive tyrants in one go. Horde rules... which were just dull. Psychic powers followed on from RT, but with increasingly glaring balance issues. Squad modes... which I am still not 100% sure how they work. Otherwise the rules hadn't changed much from the core, at least as much as I could remember.

BC. Don't like the way they have changed full-auto and semi auto. Ideally the mechanic could have been improved, but I am not convinced of the change they went for. Don't like Swift and Lightning attack being merged into the same mechanic. Ok, the new righteous fury rule I could possibly get behind, but I haven't yet had enough experience with it to judge. Slimming down the skills I can understand, but I am still not convinced by. Guess it was necessary for the change to a freer points buy, which I have mixed feelings about (I like it makes it easier to expand character options, but I am not so keen on the "balancing" it forced due to ranks and careers no longer being blocks on acquiring something. I personally feel it will tend to lead to increasingly samey characters, and the career trees to me made thematic sense, ie, that in the Imperium people are set in some role). The dedication mechanic... adds a little more to track and faff around with. Nothing else I remember being terribly major in terms of change.

OW. Refinement of the BC system... nothing much I can remember really standing out for me as significant changes. Changes from dedication to "Aptitudes" just changed the faffy paper work surrounding points buy.

Ok, I will accept that the clarifications of rules (rather than changes) have been useful, and the updating of some talents have been good (some I don't like though, like the limitation put on Assassin Strike)., but that is not an element of the underlying rules.

Yeah - not a FFG one - but that makes it only cheaper ;D

Problem I have is:

Are we going to get kind of an DH1 big errata + a new sector ?

Thats nothing I really would need to see worth a new COre Rulebook.

A big eratta file with some pages and a sourcebook for the new sector would be sufficient. No need for a DH "Second Edition" Source book.

I would have loved to go full new approach and later on, if this is stable after some time, also think about putting RT, DW etc. onto that level.

First all I see is hate for the new system, then as soon as they announce that they're changing to make it like the older system all I see is complaint about them getting rid of the stuff you complained about originally. Come on guys give them a break at least they're trying.

If that doesn't work you still have the beta and the updates they gave just use that and fix it yourself.

I'm just saying it's a little sad to see the way some of you guys are acting.

The confusion? They're different "guys". Unhappy people complain loudly and repeatedly. Look at some of these threads where it can be kept going page after page in a ridiculous loop because one or maybe two people are unhappy.

This is exactly what I feared. Game Developers eager to please who don't appreciate that they are probably better game designers than the people complaining and have listened overmuch.

You DON'T just throw out your work and bow to the loudest. Especially with a tiny sample like this that is pre-selected from a small minority of those who are already the most keen DH players.

Now they get the pleasure of all of us who were pretty happy with what they'd offered us tearing strips off them for going back in their attempt to please the previous complainers. And given that a lot of what I saw from previous complainers was clearly motivated / along the lines of: 'don't like all this change - make it more like it was before', I don't think that's going to be nearly as a good a market to aim for.

I think I'm done here. I really liked what they had produced especially after the various small changes. I'm finished. I'm really disappointed to lose this. Disappointed enough that to continue to participate in this beta would just be bitter for me.

First all I see is hate for the new system, then as soon as they announce that they're changing to make it like the older system all I see is complaint about them getting rid of the stuff you complained about originally. Come on guys give them a break at least they're trying.

If that doesn't work you still have the beta and the updates they gave just use that and fix it yourself.

I'm just saying it's a little sad to see the way some of you guys are acting.

The confusion? They're different "guys". Unhappy people complain loudly and repeatedly. Look at some of these threads where it can be kept going page after page in a ridiculous loop because one or maybe two people are unhappy.

This is exactly what I feared. Game Developers eager to please who don't appreciate that they are probably better game designers than the people complaining and have listened overmuch.

You DON'T just throw out your work and bow to the loudest. Especially with a tiny sample like this that is pre-selected from a small minority of those who are already the most keen DH players.

I've explained that in other threads already, but: if that's how you imagine the process behind their decision, you have no idea.

In short, they wouldn't have done that unless the magnitude of negative feedback was sufficient to make them question the ability of the new game to turn profit. It wasn't decided based on who was loudest here on the boards.

Not to mention, if the latter were the case, it'd actually be a reason for them to stick with what they had, as most opponents of the new rules have gone really quiet about a week into the beta.

Problem I have is:

Are we going to get kind of an DH1 big errata + a new sector ?

Thats nothing I really would need to see worth a new COre Rulebook.

Since all of the previous WH40KRP games have included unique factors (Profit Factor in RT , Hordes in DW , Comrades on OW , etc), I'm pretty sure that a newly-compatible DH2 will continue that tradition. At least I hope so. I could see Action Points being 'hybrided' with the old DH 'two Half Actions and one Reaction' system, since the main problem with Action Points in the Beta was the way they work with Rate-of-Fire. I think measured changes like that could make DH2 more-or-less compatible with the other lines while still moving the system forward.

You DON'T just throw out your work and bow to the loudest. Especially with a tiny sample like this that is pre-selected from a small minority of those who are already the most keen DH players.

The loudest minority sample would actually be the pro-beta as-is group. Most people who disliked the changes left the discussions ages ago out of disgust or disinterest. Just saying'

You DON'T just throw out your work and bow to the loudest. Especially with a tiny sample like this that is pre-selected from a small minority of those who are already the most keen DH players.

The loudest minority sample would actually be the pro-beta as-is group. Most people who disliked the changes left the discussions ages ago out of disgust or disinterest. Just saying'

Not really. People complain more than they praise. Someone who is happy with something is unlikely to say anything, whereas someone who is mildly annoyed is likely to kick up a fuss. Hence what we're seeing now - a lot of people were complaining about 2, now a lot of people are complaining about 1.5. FFG probably got a lot of negative feedback about the Beta from people who wanted a revised DH, now they'll get a lot of negative feedback from people angry about the change. Which is why, as knasserll said, you don't just throw out your work and bow to the loudest.

You DON'T just throw out your work and bow to the loudest. Especially with a tiny sample like this that is pre-selected from a small minority of those who are already the most keen DH players.

The loudest minority sample would actually be the pro-beta as-is group. Most people who disliked the changes left the discussions ages ago out of disgust or disinterest. Just saying'

Not really. People complain more than they praise. Someone who is happy with something is unlikely to say anything, whereas someone who is mildly annoyed is likely to kick up a fuss. Hence what we're seeing now - a lot of people were complaining about 2, now a lot of people are complaining about 1.5. FFG probably got a lot of negative feedback about the Beta from people who wanted a revised DH, now they'll get a lot of negative feedback from people angry about the change. Which is why, as knasserll said, you don't just throw out your work and bow to the loudest.

Peruse the threads then. The majority of them are positive-minded, and/or in favor of the system (Beta). You have a few individuals who poke their heads here and there to voice against the quo, but those guys are fairly consistent since day 1 and have been adamant since then. Nonetheless, all the posts that shot up asking for polls or to keep this or that are just indicative of the group here that is extra-ordinarily pro-beta changes.

I suspect that further testing and revision revealed many major problems, particularly with the wounds system, that some of us were trying to report all along. I doubt the 2e team decided to throw away probably a years+ worth of work for no reason. That is what playtesting is for - to expose problems that aren't anticipated and can't even be predicted until exposed to hundreds of eyes and play experiences. In this case, everything hinging on a system where 10's hunting with auto-fire is more desirable than high amounts of damage, exploration of fixes might have revealed that the entire system needed alteration.

And LuciusT was spot on - a lot of us stopped participating in the forum and let those who enjoyed the 2e beta have their discussions without trolling them. What needed to be said was said early on, before a small but vocal group started insisting that there were no substantial problems, just people 'resisting change.' Clearly, on review, FFG agrees with the assessment of those who were disappointed with the new direction.

I left these forums right around the time of Update #1.

Have to say that I'm ecstatic about the change.

You DON'T just throw out your work and bow to the loudest. Especially with a tiny sample like this that is pre-selected from a small minority of those who are already the most keen DH players.

The loudest minority sample would actually be the pro-beta as-is group. Most people who disliked the changes left the discussions ages ago out of disgust or disinterest. Just saying'

Not really. People complain more than they praise. Someone who is happy with something is unlikely to say anything, whereas someone who is mildly annoyed is likely to kick up a fuss. Hence what we're seeing now - a lot of people were complaining about 2, now a lot of people are complaining about 1.5. FFG probably got a lot of negative feedback about the Beta from people who wanted a revised DH, now they'll get a lot of negative feedback from people angry about the change. Which is why, as knasserll said, you don't just throw out your work and bow to the loudest.

Peruse the threads then. The majority of them are positive-minded, and/or in favor of the system (Beta). You have a few individuals who poke their heads here and there to voice against the quo, but those guys are fairly consistent since day 1 and have been adamant since then. Nonetheless, all the posts that shot up asking for polls or to keep this or that are just indicative of the group here that is extra-ordinarily pro-beta changes.

FFG aren't limited to perusing the threads. They can see how many people complained who aren't posting anymore. Sure, there are some people now posting who are/were in favour of the Beta, but how many compared to the numbers who griped about it? Comared to the complaints they received, the angry fans they met at cons etc? It's a known factor that needs to be taken into account when determining feedback (but can be difficult to adjust for) - people complain more than they praise. Take myself - I liked the direction the Beta was going in, but couldn't be bothered posting just to say "hey guys, good work!" But I dislike this move, so I gripe. They'll be seeing a lot of that over the next few weeks and will try to compare the level of complaints compared to what they had before. It's a futile effort, however. What you need to do is ignore the complaints on forums, in emails, or from angry con-goers and perform some actual, controlled surveys that get you accurate data. I'm hoping (for their sake) FFG are actually doing that...

With confirmation bias, the proven factor that the human brain registers negatives more than it does positives, the fact that people who are unhappy are far more vocal than those who are content and the fact that the people participating in the beta are a self-selecting group of people very invested in the current edition, then the only way anyone can have an even reasonable picture of how many people feel what, is to do an actual survey. Which I never heard of.

Seriously, any one of those factors alone screws up the perception badly and there are several of them.

With confirmation bias, the proven factor that the human brain registers negatives more than it does positives, the fact that people who are unhappy are far more vocal than those who are content and the fact that the people participating in the beta are a self-selecting group of people very invested in the current edition, then the only way anyone can have an even reasonable picture of how many people feel what, is to do an actual survey. Which I never heard of.

Seriously, any one of those factors alone screws up the perception badly and there are several of them.

Once again, dude: FFG just made a decision that's going to cut their profit margin on DH2 (they now have to pay someone to rewrite large chunks of the book, and delay publishing the book, which means delaying the return of their investment).

They didn't make that decision lightly, and it's safe to assume it was about the last option they had under consideration.

You don't make that kind of decision unless you're pretty sure customer feedback spells doom for your product.

In other words, whatever feedback they got was deemed representative enough, and it wasn't due to low standards.

With confirmation bias, the proven factor that the human brain registers negatives more than it does positives, the fact that people who are unhappy are far more vocal than those who are content and the fact that the people participating in the beta are a self-selecting group of people very invested in the current edition, then the only way anyone can have an even reasonable picture of how many people feel what, is to do an actual survey. Which I never heard of.

Seriously, any one of those factors alone screws up the perception badly and there are several of them.

Once again, dude: FFG just made a decision that's going to cut their profit margin on DH2 (they now have to pay someone to rewrite large chunks of the book, and delay publishing the book, which means delaying the return of their investment).

They didn't make that decision lightly, and it's safe to assume it was about the last option they had under consideration.

You don't make that kind of decision unless you're pretty sure customer feedback spells doom for your product.

In other words, whatever feedback they got was deemed representative enough, and it wasn't due to low standards.

All of the factors I listed are legitimate and well-established problems. If you're suggesting that the game developers can skip past problems such selection bias without actually polling people then they must be psykers. D&D 4e had a shitstorm around it that makes this tiny yet it sold very well (unless you think it spawning one of the largest ever supplement lines is a sign of weak core sales) and the only reason it didn't sell even better is because the 3.5 rules had effectively been given away free to competitors who took it and ran with it. There's a huge amount of hysteria and hate about the XBox One yet I bet it sells staggering amounts.

All what you're saying is that DH2 must be unpopular because the developers have taken this decision. Well they're better placed than any of us but it's still just everyone's best guess and the factors I listed it make it extremely hard to accurately gauge how everybody thinks generally. It's a fact that negative voices are louder than positive ones and especially when people feel something is being taken away from them.

DH2 was a much better game, imo. The pros and conns od that argument can be debated in detail. But appeals to the majority in something like this are speculative, no more.

Seriously, any one of those factors alone screws up the perception badly and there are several of them.

I agree that "the Devs got spooked by reading the forums and threw out everything as a knee-jerk reaction" is certainly the 'worst-case scenario'. I don't know if we have any way to really know what the actual reason for doing this is, but I hope it's more along the lines of:

"Some flaws in the current system was pointed out that the developers agreed with, but it was realized that fixing them would require a system overhaul beyond the scope of the current beta, so they are going back to the drawing board to iron out the kinks."

Personally, I generally liked most of the ideas presented in the beta document, even if some of them were not terrible elegant and could do with some (a lot?) of additional refining. Fixing these things could have more far-reaching consequences than what could easily fit into an errata document.

I'm withholding judgement until I've had a chance to see what they end up with. I certainly want a 2e more than a 1.5e, so I hope they aren't completely back-pedalling on everything they've done so far, but honestly, the announcement doesn't really give me much of an impression of where they are going next, so I'll wait and see.

It's a fact that negative voices are louder than positive ones and especially when people feel something is being taken away from them.

Ah, such as all the voices on here complaining about how -well- the beta was and shouldn't be getting rewritten to support backwards compatibility?

Exactly ;D

FFG has managed to get themself into a really bad situation.

After showing a concept that quite some people liked, they take it away again.

Now they not only made the ones scream who wanted OW compatibility, but also the ones who got used to the beta as it was so far.

Good luck fixing that ;D