I already addressed this in the main discussion thread:

This is a Beta. They asked us to test it an contribute our critiques. We did so. They compensated accordingly.

Last I checked, there were plenty of people who said they were unwilling to try DH2 because it wasn't using OW as a basis. Less than a week ago, people were being condescendingly reminded that,"Nobody is taking away your first edition books. Get over it." Now, all of the sudden, things have changed and the very same people who presented the supposed voice of reason on these boards are crying foul and complaining that FFG compromised themselves creatively and have ignored their true fans.

The hypocrisy around here is thick.

Instead of complaining, accusing and recriminating why don't you use your time to help guide the game in a direction we can all be happy with? If half of this community devolves into a squawking mob every time something changes, we all risk losing the signal in the noise. Back in the early days of the BI to FFG switch over, Alan Bligh and John French were two of the more talented writers for DH. They are part of the reason that the first few books were so awesome. But the hyperventilating wharrgabble of the Noisy Few drove them away. They actually quit because they couldn't take the constant abuse. Lucky for him, Alan Bligh is writing for Forge World now. But I'm seeing a lot of parallels here.

Thing is - there is no way to find a "common compromise that makes everyone happy".

Some want only very slight changes, some want medium changes, some want the whole package.

How do you want to find a "direction" in this ?

Thats why I say, it might have been a bad decision to run a beta on this.

If you plan to change a lot, dont try to discuss that too much, otherwise you WILL get stuck.

Everything besides slight balance changes to your initial concept just creates the impression, that you didnt plan very well ahead before.

So either show guts and believe in your ideas - balance them out and go the whole way through until the still buggy concept runs as it should, or, do not try it with such a concept at all, as this only costs a lot of ressources to start and stop it, and it also creates a lot of chaos and confusion inside the fan base if you show something and then burn it.

Let's face it, hybrids of systems suck. They usually end up half-assed in both departments. What's the point of a new edition when it really isn't "New"? Why not just release a supplement instead? Games can't stay the same forever especially when there are plenty of good ideas out there. I enjoyed the 1E but I also liked where 2E was going. I don't want to buy all new rulebooks just for a few new rules mechanics. Besides, I thought we were on the right track to hammering out some good rule refinements. Now all that work is basically for nothing.

I have a feeling most of the complainers exited the forum before we even got to some good ideas for refining the system. What kind of concerned fan ditches the forum just because they don't agree? Why wouldn't you want to stick around and at least try and make the game as good as possible?

I really feel like our ideas on refining the system ultimately got completely ignored in favor of remaking DH1 plus a few extras.

As I read some other threads, I notice a bunch of people returning to the forums just to rejoice. Where the heck were they when the rest of us were actually putting work into the refinement? This irritates me to no end.

You're right, there is no way to please everyone, but there's no harm in continuing constructive feedback to help mitigate any damage that you feel may have been caused by this change. Whose interest is served by threads full of histrionic bleating?

GauntZero: I agree that the Beta might have been a bad idea. Then again, the last few Betas that FFG has done seem to have been merely extended play tests with minor rules tweaks and some proof-reading. For once it actually feels as though FFG is listening and cares enough to actually scrap months of work to try something new. I seriously doubt they would have done so without giving it some serious thought. To me, it looks as though they saw a major problem with the release and they are now taking steps to fix it. There's no confusion on my part and I think I have more confidence in the developers now than I did at the beginning of the Beta.

As I read some other threads, I notice a bunch of people returning to the forums just to rejoice. Where the heck were they when the rest of us were actually putting work into the refinement? This irritates me to no end.

I felt that I had nothing to add. Everyone said what I wanted to say, only better. I snuck in a comment or two, here and there, but I felt like I wasn't really contributing anything helpful. I was content to watch the progress of the Beta and hope for an outcome that I could live with. The current upheaval, however, got me involved. I've been a forum lurker since the BI days, there's a lot of the same stuff going on here now. Unconstructive negative feedback can seriously damage good work, I'm hoping to help prevent that.

At this point, I kinda just want to see an actual update to the rules so that I know where to start on productive comments.

I have a feeling most of the complainers exited the forum before we even got to some good ideas for refining the system. What kind of concerned fan ditches the forum just because they don't agree? Why wouldn't you want to stick around and at least try and make the game as good as possible?

As I read some other threads, I notice a bunch of people returning to the forums just to rejoice. Where the heck were they when the rest of us were actually putting work into the refinement? This irritates me to no end.

I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself.

Since about day one, I decided the new system isn't for me, for various reasons I've covered extensively in several threads. I tried to psych myself up to at least give it a fair test run, but I literally couldn't push that past my gaming group. Thus, about a week into the beta, I was absolutely sure that I won't be playing this new system at all.

At the same time, after the initial bout of complaints and criticism, more and more voices arose speaking well of the beta rules and having deep conversations about the new rules and ways of improving them. At this point, my choices were pretty easy. I could either exile myself and let people who actually cared take the system in the direction that was of interest to them, or stay and... I don't know what exactly I'd be doing, seeing as I had no way to gather actual playtest data and no real interest in refining the rules that I had no interest in in the first place. But whatever I'd do wouldn't be very constructive, or helpful to the people who actually cared about those new rules.

Hence, I kept low. I watched the progress in idle hope of something rekindling my interest in the rules, occasionally voiced my opinion on the thing in appropriate threads, and once or twice even trying to contribute to the parts of new rules I actually liked.

Now, the game has changed (metaphorically and literally, it appears) and I'm interested in participating in the beta again. Hence, here I am, happy to have something to look forward to.

I really feel like our ideas on refining the system ultimately got completely ignored in favor of remaking DH1 plus a few extras.

You really must send me that early draft of the upcoming beta if you have info like that.

Sorry for the previous rant. I mean't nothing against those that were simply lurking or just wasn't interested. It just irritated me that there was a good many people that showed up and immediately heralded this a victory. It's not a victory. It's basically back to square one. We actually know even less now than we did when the beta rules first came out. I am happy to see people that have an honest renewed interest in helping the development out though.

Let's face it, hybrids of systems suck. They usually end up half-assed in both departments. What's the point of a new edition when it really isn't "New"? Why not just release a supplement instead? Games can't stay the same forever especially when there are plenty of good ideas out there. I enjoyed the 1E but I also liked where 2E was going. I don't want to buy all new rulebooks just for a few new rules mechanics. Besides, I thought we were on the right track to hammering out some good rule refinements. Now all that work is basically for nothing.

I have a feeling most of the complainers exited the forum before we even got to some good ideas for refining the system. What kind of concerned fan ditches the forum just because they don't agree? Why wouldn't you want to stick around and at least try and make the game as good as possible?

I really feel like our ideas on refining the system ultimately got completely ignored in favor of remaking DH1 plus a few extras.

Exactly.

Buying a slightly enhanced version + all new supplements that just bring me back stuff that I also had before, just in Version 1.1 is not worth being discussed.

Most new approaches where good, and my respect in this post for those devs who worked on them: Great work guys, really really great work. And I mean it. Having worked on various conversions myself, I really got a lot of inspiration from the work you've done with the beta so far.

If the sudden "turn-back" now just means to make slight changes to the beta to make it work a little better with previous lines - thats ok and just fair.

But it didnt sound like that.

It sounded like: We burn the book, copy OW, put an Inquisitor on the front page & add some soft chapters like Influence & Subtlety,

If thats the case, I take the beta so far, tweak it a little, and convert my old DH1 books to this rules.

Costs: 0 Fun: +++

It didn't sound anything like that. It sounds like they're building on the previous 40K RPGs, just like OW and BC did before it. Every new game presents improvements and refinements to the one before it. There's nothing in FFG's announcement that leads me to believe that they are opposed to using some of the better material from the original 2.0. If this week has taught us nothing else, it's that we have no idea what FFG will and won't be doing. Instead of baseless speculation, continue contributing to the discussion, it can only help.

To better illustrate my point:

When the Beta was first announced, I was disappointed. I really just wanted the next iteration of the existing rules set. I thought that this new departure was a terrible idea. I said nothing, I figured that there was no chance in hell that I'd get my way, so I figured that complaining would be just a bunch of fan boy whining. So I was patient, I read the forums, lamely attempted to contribute to a solution. And then, onTuesday, I was surprised.

Nobody knows what the new Beta is going to look like. The only slight certainty that we have is FFG is unlikely to scrap the new Beta in favor of the old one, so really we've got two options: grab a spanner and help fix this mess, or get out of the way.

Another factor that probably influenced FFG 's decision: fans of the current WH40KRP line have proven that they are willing to spend their hard-earned Thrones on product; the people who say they like the Beta because they refuse to play RPGs that include 'hit points' say they will buy it, but there is no proof that they will follow through- and even if they do, they make up less than 1% of the RPG audience (since the overwhelming majority of RPGs include some version of hit points), so how much potential profit is to be had from courting that narrow demographic? If it was my company, I'd probably 'play it safe' and continue to cater to my existing consumer base, rather than risk alienating proven customers to maybe (or maybe not) pick up a smaller new group.

At the same time though, FFG is interested in drawing in new players and as D&D 2E showed, staying with the same system too long not only degrades the player count but also overly inflates the amount of optional rules and supplements to the point of watering down the system.

What's the point of DH2 using a modified set of Only War rules when someone can just play Only War? It would be nice to eventually see a unified and crisp ruleset that spans across all of these different games but why not pave the way with a new and vastly improved system for DH2? That makes way more sense to me anyway. They have said that they aren't going to be doing this for other systems but if DH2 becomes a popular as they want it to be, there would be no reason not to upgrade the other games.

What's the point of DH2 using a modified set of Only War rules when someone can just play Only War? It would be nice to eventually see a unified and crisp ruleset that spans across all of these different games but why not pave the way with a new and vastly improved system for DH2? That makes way more sense to me anyway. They have said that they aren't going to be doing this for other systems but if DH2 becomes a popular as they want it to be, there would be no reason not to upgrade the other games.

Whats point of OW when it could be played with DH rules? What is point of BC when it is mix of RT and DW just with spikes? And so on. I feel that there is fault assumption that DH2.0 will be straight mod of OW rules to Inquisitor and Acolyte themed roleplaying. I seriously doubt that, but we will have to see till the new update.

I don't want to play Only War, I play Dark Heresy. I have no interest in making house rules or using someone's homebrewed system to use OW for Dark Heresy. What I do want to see is a new edition of DH using the rules refinements, concepts and innovations that have come from successive games.

At the same time though, FFG is interested in drawing in new players and as D&D 2E showed, staying with the same system too long not only degrades the player count but also overly inflates the amount of optional rules and supplements to the point of watering down the system.

This is exactly correct, which is why they're doing a second edition. Ascension illustrated this problem perfectly.
The new systems are just compatible enough for continuity sake, yet different enough that they're really their own thing. I never use PCs from cross systems, just adversaries. The games are balanced toward the character progression of their indigenous PCs, crossover is too much trouble .

I already addressed this in the main discussion thread:

This is a Beta. They asked us to test it an contribute our critiques. We did so. They compensated accordingly.

Last I checked, there were plenty of people who said they were unwilling to try DH2 because it wasn't using OW as a basis. Less than a week ago, people were being condescendingly reminded that,"Nobody is taking away your first edition books. Get over it." Now, all of the sudden, things have changed and the very same people who presented the supposed voice of reason on these boards are crying foul and complaining that FFG compromised themselves creatively and have ignored their true fans.

The hypocrisy around here is thick.

Firstly, as one of the people you're arguing with, I know that I have never said anything like "nobody is taking away your first edition books". Secondly, though obviously a lack of support is an issue, nobody is doing so. Whereas the 2nd edition I have tested and liked is being taken away. So a different scenario. FFG haven't released anything for DH for a year, I think?

What is hypocritical about my position? I liked the new version and said so, I don't like having it taken away and have said so. Where did I ever say that anyone else was wrong to like the old version or say they wanted the new version to be like the old one? And I'd extend that to other posters here who feel similarly to me as well - I don't think people have been saying this. Nor have I claimed that FFG have "ignored their true fans". I feel you're strawman'ing and this is hyperbole. Or if there really is someone who said such things, complain about them , not make general attacks on everyone who liked the new beta and is now upset that it is gone.

Let's face it, hybrids of systems suck. They usually end up half-assed in both departments. What's the point of a new edition when it really isn't "New"?.

Well normally, it can work fine because it gives you a chance to fix the ommissions and rough edges that got through the first time around. The difference here is that FFG have already had this iterative process four times with RT, DW, BC and OW. Though it might be fair to dismiss DW?

I think the principle you're stating is the Chasm Principle. Which is that when you reach a chasm, you either stay on this side or you jump far enough that you reach the other side. You avoid trying to find middle ground.

But that's an extreme position. They'll probably be able to integrate several good things from the new whilst keeping compatability with the old - influence and subtlety being the main things, I should think. But yes, imo, I think not as many good things as if they'd broken compatability.

I don't mind some backwards compatibility as long as that doesn't require keeping some of the issues with DH1 that need to go or are already broken.

My personal opinion

While I am aware there are problems with the current beta rules, for the most part I was happy with them. To me, they represent a good, robust framework with a lot of potential. Sure, there may be some balancing issues here and there, but nothing the beta and a bit of hard work on the designers' part couldn't overcome. Much of the rest of the "problems" come down to personal preference or a lack of clarity on FFG's part, and have nothing to do with the mechanics (ie. money vs. influence). The core rules are cleaner, more flexible and more open to future expansion.

I never saw a problem with the supposed lack of backwards compatibility, for two reasons. Firstly, the differences between the 1e rulesets (DH1 to OW) mean that they're not as compatible as FFG would have you believe. Sure, you can drop an Ascension inquisitor into Deathwatch, but it doesn't quite work. Not in a balanced way, anyway. This means that, even between the old rulesets I have to do some work to get things running smoothly. Secondly, to me, the most important things in the old books are still compatible - the ideas.

Now, when I heard that FFG were re-evaluating the entire beta ruleset, I was a little apprehensive. While I'm sure they could do a lot of good in the next two months, they could also make things a lot worse. After all, they're still fallible. I hope this decision wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to some comments made by the community and instead was a well-thought out decision with fiscal projections and board meetings and such. It would be a shame for the game to be worse off because FFG did cave to consumer pressure. While I agree that FFG should listen to the community, ultimately it is their product, which they are developing, and they should retain creative control at all times. Sure, some people won't be happy with the end result but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

I also was quite grumpy at the beginning about losing backward compatibility with all my bought stuff so far.

But over some time, I got to like the new rules so much that I didnt wanna get back.

Furthermore, it became obvious to me, that a backward compatibility to DH1 would not be possible in a smooth way anyway.

If OW is not really compatible to DH1, how should a further deviation be ?

And most of the DH1 rule stuff doesnt fit the more modern concept at all - alternate ranks, rank tables themselves...

And if you have to break with the old edition, which you cannot avoid anyway as otherwise it is no new edition at all, then do the real thing and try the new concepts that were developed out of years of experience, and dont go back as the first reaction might be hostile.

Make a stand - be a man - believe in what you do - and you will succeed.

As regarding the Influence/Subtlety introduction - I like this rules, but they are far from being a revolution.

It is a nice definition for a general mechanism, which is not too complicated. Nothing more, nothing less.

But definitely nothing to buy a new core rulebook for.

I assume they have other feedback channels than just the forum, and thus have made an informed decision with this change.

Two months is a very short time to invent something new, let alone test it, so I guess that we will see a combat system close to that of only war. When we get the new book we will certainly then have the option to voice an opinion on which system is the best. .-)

I actually liked the idea of talent trees and the specialization skill, but I may like the new system too. So I am not crying foul just yet. I honestly don't really care about the combat system, as long as it is balanced - i.e. there is a point of being a single shot shooter vs full-auto vs melee guy etc. (In other words I liked that evade counted against attackers DoS!).

The combat system was the one thing that changed most - with new wounds and AP and new weapons stats along with new weapon trait definitions.

So if you change that back to a near-OW state - what innovation is there to cheer upon ?

Horrible...just horrible.

I am happy for the ones who wanted it like that - I honestly am.

If they really are a majority, so be it, and they shall enjoy the game.

But for me, this is just a nightmare, which I hope to awake from.

But for me, this is just a nightmare, which I hope to awake from.

I honestly don't understand this sentiment. When I found early on that I was in disagreement with the decisions being made, I simply noted a disinterest in purchasing the tentative product at it's conclusion. Less a nightmare as a bit of disappointment. So they made a decision to post a vague description about rolling back some mechanics to be in line with the older editions, and many of the pro-beta-as-is group are claiming perils of the warp.

Does anyone actually believe they'll roll out OW with a thinly coated layer of Inquisitor? They hit strong points with character creation, Influence and Subtlety, and vast chunks of the book elsewhere. If anything, the release they have coming up will be more in-line with the beta than the BC/DW/OW ruleset. I'll bet on that certainty.

As far as I can read it, I see the combat mechanics being the chief target of roll backs. Swapping the thinly-veiled wound system in DH 2.0 with the evident wound system in DH1, ditching action points, so on and so on. We can still expect the rest of the book be largely reminiscent or outright the same.

Until those changes are made though, I think the fiercest voices on the forums could do with a bit of change themselves. Both sides seem to be particularly snippy at each other. In case anyone forgot, I'll remind them we are -all- fans of Dark Heresy (or the Warhammer 40,000 Role Play Game), and we came here to support FFG in their development process. We should act more mature with a lot more decorum than what has been cropping up lately (and I'll admit I've fallen victim to such antics myself in about two or three posts).