The issue for a lot of people not thrilled about the newest PDF, I think, is that it's not a new game; it's a revision of a game we've been playing. I wanted a new, different game and this PDF looks a lot like a cleaner version of a game I already have.

Nobody's right - it's down to preference - and the gloating over whose side won is pointless. But don't expect people not to voice their disappointment with this decision.

I realize that, but to many of us, the iterative, evolutionary approach is nothing new, because we're used to it ever since Dark Heresy 1st Ed. Some even longer than that (what with WHFRP). To us, change for the sake of change - i.e. "wanting something new" - doesn't hold any intrinsic appeal.

Like you say, much of this just comes down to preference. The last thing I want to do is to start over on a new system and start polishing it from scratch again.

Yawn... Guys you have spent the last several weeks making it abundantly clear that you didn't like the direction the Beta was headed. We get it. We got it... long since.

Many moons ago, you guys told all of us you hated the original Beta to suck it up and stop complaining. It was the way things were going and we could get with the program or shut up and move along. It is soooo very tempting to say the same things to you right now... but I'm going to struggle to resist that temptation. If you have honest, solid criticisms of this new Beta... beyond "waaaw, it's not the old Beta" ... make them. Make a case for your position, founded in a solid reasons. Demonstrate why the old way was better. 'Cause, that's what we, who hated the old Beta, did and it worked.

I tried to do just that earlier in the thread (post 3 or 4 I think). I can elaborate further but each bullet point has some reasoning in it.

Fgdsfg is right. Why fix a sink that isn't broken? Sure you can update it, but for the most part it works.

stuff

Don't go putting words in my mouth or anything. I never claimed the first beta was good, or that it was good because it was new and different. It had some good ideas that didn't work well in practice.

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with this guy. You really need to read the massive host of .... stuff..... down below.

People will always be more vocal about the things they dislike than the things they enjoy. That's why I am here tonight, after all. They had complaints, and parts of the system did not work terribly well. That doesn't mean they need to reprint OW.

The issue for a lot of people is that it's a revision of a game we've been playing.

Revision is putting it nicely.

Yawn... Guys you have spent the last several weeks making it abundantly clear that you didn't like the direction the Beta was headed. We get it. We got it... long since.

Many moons ago, you guys told all of us you hated the original Beta to suck it up and stop complaining. It was the way things were going and we could get with the program or shut up and move along. It is soooo very tempting to say the same things to you right now... but I'm going to struggle to resist that temptation. If you have honest, solid criticisms of this new Beta... beyond "waaaw, it's not the old Beta" ... make them. Make a case for your position, founded in a solid reasons. Demonstrate why the old way was better. 'Cause, that's what we, who hated the old Beta, did and it worked.

I tried to do just that earlier in the thread (post 3 or 4 I think). I can elaborate further but each bullet point has some reasoning in it.

Personally, I thought your feedback was very good.

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with this guy. You really need to read the massive host of .... stuff..... down below.

People will always be more vocal about the things they dislike than the things they enjoy. That's why I am here tonight, after all. They had complaints, and parts of the system did not work terribly well. That doesn't mean they need to reprint OW.

The issue for a lot of people is that it's a revision of a game we've been playing.

Revision is putting it nicely.

Actually, it does mean they need to reprint Only War, at least if they want to listen to their beta testers. The vast majority of testers hated the new system and wanted to see Only War with a coat of black paint. While I personally loved the old beta, I am in the minority, it seems, and there's no sense stirring up a bunch of crap over something we can't change.

Personally, I thought your feedback was very good.

Thank ye. I'm sure I'll take issue with the insanity/mental health/fear stuff too when I find time to read it. Have they made any changes to it and/or Corruption?

Actually, it does mean they need to reprint Only War, at least if they want to listen to their beta testers. The vast majority of testers hated the new system and wanted to see Only War with a coat of black paint. While I personally loved the beta, I am in the minority, it seems, and there's no sense stirring up a bunch of crap over something we can't change.

I firmly belonged to the minority as well. However, I'd like to think that their willingness to change due to feedback means that maybe they will again. Long shot? Perhaps. Still worth a try though, in my opinion.

Look, it's very simple why 'some of us; (The vocal ones who initiated the change) wanted it.

All of these changes were only going to be put into Dark Heresy. That meant every other game which is part of this fantastic setting and can already be played interchangeably (Rogue Traders, Guardsman, Deathwatch with the Inquisition and so forth) would NOT be compatible anymore.

FFG had specifically said there would be no new editions of the other games (Only War, Black Crusade, Deathwatch and Rogue Trader) to keep them all in one rational set of rules without having to do Algebraic conversion homebrews. if they hadn't specifically said that, then things would be different. It's just logical to not want a single game to be COMPLETELY different then the ones that came after, and are still ongoing.

So, we got what 'we' (The vocal ones) wanted. I'm glad for that. Now let's focus on getting this back into the Dark Hersey that is still a liveable and inter-changeable part of the Warhammer 40K RPG universe.

The vast majority of testers hated the new system and wanted to see Only War with a coat of black paint.

I think you meant the cast majority of vocal testers. The group I am running the Beta with have had no trouble with the system, and are taking to it quite well. As such, we haven't jumped on this forum and shouted at FFG yet. I would wager I am far from the only one who dislikes the approach of walking backward to appease a vocal crowd who is resistant to change.

That meant every other game which is part of this fantastic setting and can already be played interchangeably (Rogue Traders, Guardsman, Deathwatch with the Inquisition and so forth) would NOT be compatible anymore.

How the hell is that supposed to work exactly? You want to be a Rogue Trader by day, and an acolyte by night? If that is seriously the problem you had with the Beta, your issues with the setting go far deeper than the rules in a book.

Or were you having trouble making Rogue Traders to interact with your party? No idea how to introduce a Space Marine without a stat sheet provided to you? That's a you problem, not a system problem.

I am disappointed on how much it has gone towards the Only War rules. I like that it is more backwards compatible now, but a lot of the things I liked (and intented to bring to my Only War games) are now gone.

I liked the rules in the first Beta about Bleeding and being on Fire now they are back to the same rules since DH1. I have never had a character or NPC bleed out on me once (and I remember one of them bleeding for 6 rounds before he was killed).

Now you're just being dense. Even the current systems aren't particularly compatible. And characters from the different game lines interacting happens all the time in the novels. Hell, there are plenty of Rogue Traders just in the published Dark Heresy 1 adventures. Wanting to have reliable rule systems behind them isn't really all that outrageous.

I think you need to go cuddle up on your couch with a thumb drive containing the original beta and think some happy thoughts for a while

How the hell is that supposed to work exactly? You want to be a Rogue Trader by day, and an acolyte by night? If that is seriously the problem you had with the Beta, your issues with the setting go far deeper than the rules in a book.

Or were you having trouble making Rogue Traders to interact with your party? No idea how to introduce a Space Marine without a stat sheet provided to you? That's a you problem, not a system problem.

How the hell is that supposed to work exactly? You want to be a Rogue Trader by day, and an acolyte by night? If that is seriously the problem you had with the Beta, your issues with the setting go far deeper than the rules in a book.

Or were you having trouble making Rogue Traders to interact with your party? No idea how to introduce a Space Marine without a stat sheet provided to you? That's a you problem, not a system problem.

I feel like there are two camps of players/gms (groups). Those who have no problems seeing something and saying, "that's cool, but I think it would work better this way, lets do that" and those who play "by the rules". Neither group is qualitatively better, but they have different tastes for sure. Those who dislike house rules want a unified system of mechanics for all their games within universe. Those who mostly use the books for "inspiration" don't much care and want new, unique, intuitive rules to have the chance to loot for their own orky rules.

Personally, I belong to the house rule group, but I think its important to remember that other people have different tastes without necessarily being "wrong". In any case, the best way forward is to somehow find a compromise between these two philosophies and make a system of rules that translate easily while still being new, smoother, and more "authentic" feeling.

Hell, there are plenty of Rogue Traders just in the published Dark Heresy 1 adventures.

And how do different rules preclude this from happening? The only possible explanations for how this might be difficult to manage is if you lack comprehension of the stats in the system, or cannot come up with the creativity to create a character archetype that is not shoved into your face. Either way, I don't see how either of these is a problem with the system itself.

As you said, the systems are already different enough that you cannot have a PC which makes sense in two different settings. You shouldn't be able to, because that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. So why is reverse compatibility a big enough issue that it warrants never changing the rules of sister games?

Crossover content.

So you what, wanted your Dark Heresy characters to run a Rogue Trader mission? If you do not understand how the goals of RTs and acolytes differ, that again sounds like a you problem, not a system problem. The differences between motivations, aims, and feasible scenarios between the settings should be enough to tell you that a "cross-over" is basically impossible.

I suppose I understand a little bit better now, though. I guess there were not enough pre-scripted stories for GMs. I can't think of a way to lead a group other than by reading from a page. How in the world can we play a game without scripted events and railroaded plot. If only we had someone to come up with interesting situations to put players into!

Any scenario you could run in DH 1.0 (or DH OW.0) you can run in DH 2.0. There is nothing stopping you. Unless you cannot come up with NPCs and related stats on your own. Which, again, is not a problem with the system. You can use the exact same source material, all of the same books, all of the same page-written plots. You just actually have to put some work into it, rather than having everything spoon-fed to you.

Outstanding. I've been checking back for this periodically, will have to take some time to peruse this now.

Reading through the comments (well, the ones that actually had something constructive to say, whether pro or con) it sounds like most of the issues I had have been fixed. I heard they got quite a bit of an earful at GenCon, and it sounds like that must have had a major impact!

Unfortunately, I won't be able to test this with my group until the 6 week window is over, so I'll have to see what I can manage solo.

Happy testing!

Sooooo if we can step away from whatever ongoing *****-storm you lot have been invovled in for the last X months, what's the general consensus (ho ho) about the talent trees? Personally I really miss them, as a player, GM and graphic designer I'm actually surprised they removed them as they made it so much easier to parse visually and find what you were after.

Sooooo if we can step away from whatever ongoing *****-storm you lot have been invovled in for the last X months, what's the general consensus (ho ho) about the talent trees? Personally I really miss them, as a player, GM and graphic designer I'm actually surprised they removed them as they made it so much easier to parse visually and find what you were after.

The trees as a graphical implementation were fine. However, they heavily restricted talent purchase via prerequisites that weren't always the best. As it stands now the prerequisite problem looks fixed (haven't thoroughly read everything). However, most of the talents are simply copy pasted from Only War. That said, I really like some of the specifically Dark Heresy ones (coordinated interrogation, face in the crowd, etc.).

As much as I understand the desire for backwards compatibility, I don't see any reason why these characters/equipment/talents can't be refitted into a ruleset by a GM who understands the system well enough. It's not like the system directly prevents you from rebuilding your characters within the system either- it just requires using a different tool set to construct these elements. I can't say I understand the desire for 1:1 backwards compatibility, so I won't comment on it.

I can't say I'm sold on these new rules. Looking at this, I'm reminded by how much I dislike Only War.

• Aptitudes feel like an unnecessary addition to the system, added at the behest of the community, although I do like how Backgrounds influence that.
• The Removal of Talent Trees into the morass of Tiered Talents saddens me as well. I felt like simply cleaning up the trees and providing characters the ability to skip over parts of the tree (at an XP penalty) they don't want would have been ideal.
• At first I thought they removed Wounds entirely, using only the Critical Effect Charts, and I was pleased by that. The return of Wounds, as it was, doesn't make me incredibly excited.
• I echo the sentiments of the Untouchable Elite Advance
• Skills didn't need to be what they were in Only War, the depth of Skills provided in DH2b1 allowed for a number of different skills that couldn't be covered with the basic skill set.
• The Reinforcement system feels like an incredibly missed opportunity. It could have given players the ability to play an Intrigue-Investigation character, as well as a Combat character, without needing the GM to entertain each of the players specialties during a session. It could have created a very different style of play, calling into necessity the interaction between different factions of the Imperium. Furthermore, the statistics of these entities are not high enough to make them a considerable choice for Player Characters to call in, especially at the expenditure of those precious Influence Points. While it does provide GMs with more opportunities to provide resolution to situations (you fail in discovering the location of the Planetary Governer's Communications Tower, and now have to contend with his personal army storming the destination you needed to protect), it would take a very competent GM to pull this off, but I think it could be done.
• The Combat system seems to be a matter of personal opinion, but I really enjoy the AP system. (For whatever that's worth)
• The scaling back of Characteristics also seems to be a matter of taste, but I feel like there was much more that could have been explored with the previous system.

I've been against this from the get-go, and this was why. I've got my DH2b1 campaign going, and it's running fine, with the house rules I've made. I'll probably check back in after the first week of updates, but I don't think they'll be able to get an update done in a week. I'd imagine that the Dark Heresy team is absolutely burnt out, and I don't blame them. For what it's worth, I loved the DH2b1 rules from the beginning, and they are more than worth my $20. Thank you, DH2b1 team, I got the new edition that I wanted.

I'll check back in with you guys once the ****storm has died down.

Many moons ago, you guys told all of us you hated the original Beta to suck it up and stop complaining. It was the way things were going and we could get with the program or shut up and move along. It is soooo very tempting to say the same things to you right now... but I'm going to struggle to resist that temptation. If you have honest, solid criticisms of this new Beta... beyond "waaaw, it's not the old Beta" ... make them. Make a case for your position, founded in a solid reasons. Demonstrate why the old way was better. 'Cause, that's what we, who hated the old Beta, did and it worked.

Pretty much this.

As I said at the time:

FFG asked for feedback.

FFG received feedback.

FFG acted on that feedback.

That's pretty much what a beta is for, and it's hard to criticise them for doing exactly what they set out to do.

BYE

FFG asked for feedback.

FFG received feedback.

FFG acted on that feedback.

It's a fair point, and I wish I had spoken up sooner. All I can do now is hope that it's not too late for the quiet testers to be heard.

I've only had a brief check, but am i right in that the only way to be a sanctified psyker is to take the AAT background again?

Yes you are right. Though this time around unsanctioned psykers don't eat up corruption points and get some psychic benefit.