Uhm. Disappointing. I'll have to come back to my "You receive 4 wounds, apply crit number 4 also" houserule I had for Dark Heresy first edition. Lethal, but players seemed to like it (And the guises who sell cybernetics are becoming rich men).

I would add that, given past FFG betas, not a lot of change can be expected to this system beyond adjusting numbers. This is disappointing for people who took issue with some of the actual mechanics of Only War, since they are unlikely to be changed. Toughness bonus and those **** pages and pages of crit tables are probably going to survive well into the actual 41st millennium when people will be arguing about how unrealistic they are because their buddy fought an Ork once and how THEY couldn't get fire to charge their lasgun and blah blah blah.

Regardless of what people thought of the old beta, having such a heavy copy paste of the Only War rules, which are now intended to be the skeleton, muscles, and skin, with the beta only being able to change the haircut or add a tattoo bodes poorly for the chance to address the mechanical issues that has existed with the game since the system was created (terrible at scaling, wonky combat things, poorly balanced psychic powers, etc.).

Also, I cannt believe they undid the great changes to the skill system. That was my single favorite change to the game.

Also, I cannt believe they undid the great changes to the skill system. That was my single favorite change to the game.

This. They really threw the baby out with the bathwater on this one.

I haven't had a chance to read the update yet (should we be calling it the Gamma ?), but philosophically I don't think it's valid to complain that the new version is exactly what the title promises: DARK HERESY, 2nd EDITION . If you wanted a brand new game system, shouldn't you look for it in a game that is not advertised as a sequel to an established game?

I haven't had a chance to read the update yet (should we be calling it the Gamma ?), but philosophically I don't think it's valid to complain that the new version is exactly what the title promises: DARK HERESY, 2nd EDITION . If you wanted a brand new game system, shouldn't you look for it in a game that is not advertised as a sequel to an established game?

You know, I honestly thought you were arguing for my preference up until the very last bit.

"If the title promises a 2nd edition, shouldn't you expect more than an incremental update?"

I haven't had a chance to read the update yet (should we be calling it the Gamma ?), but philosophically I don't think it's valid to complain that the new version is exactly what the title promises: DARK HERESY, 2nd EDITION . If you wanted a brand new game system, shouldn't you look for it in a game that is not advertised as a sequel to an established game?

You know, I honestly thought you were arguing for my preference up until the very last bit.

"If the title promises a 2nd edition, shouldn't you expect more than an incremental update?"

Well it depends. If you view it as a second edition of the 40k RPG system , I think it might be reasonable to say it doesn't do enough to differentiate itself from the most recent iteration (Only War). If you view it as a second edition of Dark Heresy as it is actually written, holy **** does it ever qualify as a sufficiently large update to be a second edition.

/\/\/\ Now that's splitting hairs!

I haven't had a chance to read the update yet (should we be calling it the Gamma ?), but philosophically I don't think it's valid to complain that the new version is exactly what the title promises: DARK HERESY, 2nd EDITION . If you wanted a brand new game system, shouldn't you look for it in a game that is not advertised as a sequel to an established game?

You know, I honestly thought you were arguing for my preference up until the very last bit.

"If the title promises a 2nd edition, shouldn't you expect more than an incremental update?"

You mean that they just give us a carbon-copy and we should do the work to make suggestions ? Is that what I pay for ?

Thats ridiculous. Not one more cent from me. No way I pay others for my work (I already wasted enough of my time discussing & testing for the old beta).

That Beta2.0 is a punch in the face - especially after they took 2 months for it !

@CPS: apology accepted. Even if we do not share much more than righteous hate for each other ;D regarding this whole thing here - we kind of feel the same

You know, I honestly thought you were arguing for my preference up until the very last bit.

"If the title promises a 2nd edition, shouldn't you expect more than an incremental update?"

This. It's like the 4e/Pathfinder split. The old rules were broken so they started basically from scratch and made 4e, a solid game. Pathfinder went the other way and just continued on with the weaknesses of the 3.5 system.

There is a clear difference though. 4E was designed with a very clear idea of what the flaws in the previous system were, and it approached the redesign with a rigorous focus on the system math. The original iteration of the DH 2.0 beta did not do a good job articulating why it was changing the aspects of the system it was, and clearly wasn't designed with an overarching goal of what the system math was supposed to be doing. I'd be in favor of a 4E-style approach to a new version of the 40k RPG, but the original beta document was no such thing. In its absence, I'll gladly take an updated version of a game my group still plays that can benefit from 5 games worth of iterative improvements to the system.

/\/\/\ Now that's splitting hairs!

It really isn't though. The 40k RPG system has evolved tremendously from its original iteration in DH, to the point where everyone one this forum would be freaking out about what a ridiculously amazing improvement this new version of DH is if they hadn't seen the evolution of the ruleset over the preceeding games. DH is a cool game, but it badly shows its age if you've tried to run it (or had it run for you) by someone who isn't doing an absurd amount of houseruling. A new version, with a new setting, is absolutely a worthy project, even if the rules are only an incremental evolution from the most recent game in the 40k RPG gameline.

It really isn't though. The 40k RPG system has evolved tremendously from its original iteration in DH, to the point where everyone one this forum would be freaking out about what a ridiculously amazing improvement this new version of DH is if they hadn't seen the evolution of the ruleset over the preceeding games. DH is a cool game, but it badly shows its age if you've tried to run it (or had it run for you) by someone who isn't doing an absurd amount of houseruling. A new version, with a new setting, is absolutely a worthy project, even if the rules are only an incremental evolution from the most recent game in the 40k RPG gameline.

This.

I don't understand how some people can say that the entire line of games is just the same game over and over again. Compare Dark Heresy to Only War. There's a huge difference, and yet it's all under the same overreaching ruleset and a result of an iterative, evolutionary approach to content expansion and supplements.

I never did get a response from the guy that said he had both Dark Heresy and Only War, so why pay for another game that was just the same. If it's all the same, why did he get Only War when he already had Dark Heresy?

It boggles the mind.

/\/\/\ Now that's splitting hairs!

I haven't had a chance to read the update yet (should we be calling it the Gamma ?), but philosophically I don't think it's valid to complain that the new version is exactly what the title promises: DARK HERESY, 2nd EDITION . If you wanted a brand new game system, shouldn't you look for it in a game that is not advertised as a sequel to an established game?

You know, I honestly thought you were arguing for my preference up until the very last bit.

"If the title promises a 2nd edition, shouldn't you expect more than an incremental update?"

This. It's like the 4e/Pathfinder split. The old rules were broken so they started basically from scratch and made 4e, a solid game. Pathfinder went the other way and just continued on with the weaknesses of the 3.5 system.

Guess which one won? Now there are things I love about 4th edition and things I love about 3.5 edition. It still doesn't change the fact that 4th edition was a massive drastic change that not everyone like. One would say the vast majority of DnD players did not like which is why they moved to Pathfinder. When you piss off most of your customers they will move. 4th Edition to this day still gets hate even after it died.

Food for thought though. With 4th edition dead and the old beta for Dark Heresy 2.0 dead as well do you think you might be wrong cps? That it might not be a system thing, but instead a customer service thing. If these new changes were suppose to get new customers, then it certainly had failed. Not only once, but twice. It might have to do with the fact that system doesn't attract people, but the setting certainly does.

/\/\/\ Now that's splitting hairs!

This. It's like the 4e/Pathfinder split. The old rules were broken so they started basically from scratch and made 4e, a solid game. Pathfinder went the other way and just continued on with the weaknesses of the 3.5 system.

Guess which one won? Now there are things I love about 4th edition and things I love about 3.5 edition. It still doesn't change the fact that 4th edition was a massive drastic change that not everyone like. One would say the vast majority of DnD players did not like which is why they moved to Pathfinder. When you piss off most of your customers they will move. 4th Edition to this day still gets hate even after it died.

Food for thought though. With 4th edition dead and the old beta for Dark Heresy 2.0 dead as well do you think you might be wrong cps? That it might not be a system thing, but instead a customer service thing. If these new changes were suppose to get new customers, then it certainly had failed. Not only once, but twice. It might have to do with the fact that system doesn't attract people, but the setting certainly does.

I'd take issue with that characterization of how the edition war played out, but I'm a dyed-in-the-wool 4venger so of course I would say that*. I think the point that ongoing support and customer service and other non-rule things (like marketing for example!) probably affect how well a game does more than rock-solid mechanics do is well taken though. I just find solid mechanics appealing to myself personally, and I think that they're something inherently worth pursuing. I also think that the 4E/Pathfinder comparison has potential to be misleading as this game is a more niche product that is taking advantage of a tie-in to a setting a lot of people find appealing and it doesn't have the same multi-decade history/"well-it-was-this-way-when-I-was-13"/accumulation of insufferable grognards/assorted other issues and circumstances that D&D has.

*(Incidentally, this is part of the reason why I find the notion that people who didn't like the first iteration of the beta rules are inherently opposed to any change to their precious system hilarious . I love novel mechanics and new systems to play with.)

You keep ascribing some love of the original beta to me. I wasn't in love with it. It had a few good ideas and some pretty significant problems. I wish they had been a little more adventurous in what they tried to do with it.

It's not about winning or losing or being right or wrong. My space wizard elf simulator preferences are just that: preferences. The 'vast majority' of Pathfinder players enjoy a game I do not (and yes, I have played it. The same could not be said of them and 4e).

As a current 4e player, the game isn't dead. Games don't die - people still play the version released in the 70s. I know you like to think you were on the winning side of the D&D war but I can't help but think of that Mitchell and Webb skit about sports fans.

There's this perception that poor book sales meant 4E failed, when really most of their revenue would have been coming from their online services (an approach other companies really need to get onto offering).

DnD Next coming so soon could be seen as a reason for the 'failure' too, but I just see that as Wizards of the Coast making the process of milking an edition for all it's worth extremely efficient. Now they're refocusing on the jaded grognard market to try to win back some players.

For that matter it isn't like a 6 years gap is some incredibly fast turn around between editions. But please, lets not rehash the D&D edition war in this thread. I don't think it'll get us anywhere productive.

Guess which one won? Now there are things I love about 4th edition and things I love about 3.5 edition. It still doesn't change the fact that 4th edition was a massive drastic change that not everyone like. One would say the vast majority of DnD players did not like which is why they moved to Pathfinder. When you piss off most of your customers they will move. 4th Edition to this day still gets hate even after it died.

Food for thought though. With 4th edition dead and the old beta for Dark Heresy 2.0 dead as well do you think you might be wrong cps? That it might not be a system thing, but instead a customer service thing. If these new changes were suppose to get new customers, then it certainly had failed. Not only once, but twice. It might have to do with the fact that system doesn't attract people, but the setting certainly does.

To expand on this, DH2 was 'greenlit' because DH1 was a popular, reliable seller with a dedicated fanbase, despite its 'first one out of the chute' weaknesses. In order for DH2 to be a financial success, FFG has to keep the majority of that fanbase. But ' Beta1 ' almost seemed calculated to be off-putting to the established fans, and many (if not most) of the proponents of Beta1 on these Forums said that they hate DH1 - meaning that they are not a demographic that FFG has reliable sales tracking numbers on, unlike the established DH1 fans. That made Beta1 a high-risk, questionable-reward proposition, and FFG clearly feared that they had another D&D4E on their hands.

It's easy to say that a company should take risks when you think the results might end up being to your liking and you have nothing personally at stake, but when it's your livelihood on the line, it's much easier to see the appeal of 'playing it safe'...

That made Beta1 a high-risk, questionable-reward proposition, and FFG clearly feared that they had another D&D4E on their hands.

Right, I certainly can't fault FFG for their business sense. If anything, if they can push through a OW reboot and you all will buy it, more power to them. I kinda admire the fact, really. I wish I could find a customer base like that.

I'm here, now, because I don't like this direction of DH.OW. I'm just here to add my voice. I don't agree with people who like the reboot version, but I cannot say they are wrong quantitatively. I just hope that those of us who want a new and innovative system can speak up, because I, for one, am not excited about all of this nonsense.

BeanCounters posts make me really wish FFG had just given a version number to each PDF. Call it 2.2, then when the first week of changes come out it's 2.2.1. It clunky not having a concise way to refer to the different versions.

BeanCounters posts make me really wish FFG had just given a version number to each PDF. Call it 2.2, then when the first week of changes come out it's 2.2.1. It clunky not having a concise way to refer to the different versions.

Sorry, should it be OW.DH? Hard to tell the proper classification.

I have one question in relation to this stance, which I have seen repeated several times.

• If you have Dark Heresy, why do you also have Only War?

With your current stance in mind, could you please illustrate or describe the rationale for the above?

Actually quite simple. We started off playing Rogue Trader. Our GM decided that the ship had both an Inquisitorial Team and a battalion of ships troops on board, so we also play Dark Heresy and Only War with different personel from the ship. It was the GM's decision but it seems to work.

Actually quite simple. We started off playing Rogue Trader. Our GM decided that the ship had both an Inquisitorial Team and a battalion of ships troops on board, so we also play Dark Heresy and Only War with different personel from the ship. It was the GM's decision but it seems to work.

But by your own argument, these two are the same game. If this is true, why would you need the Only War rulebook?

I never did get a response from the guy that said he had both Dark Heresy and Only War, so why pay for another game that was just the same. If it's all the same, why did he get Only War when he already had Dark Heresy?

It boggles the mind.

Give me a chance. The reply is above. Some of us have jobs to do.

Health bars, stale combat, and the same leveling system as D&D 1.0 are super original. Good things we're still working off that system over here too!

Eh? Ok, I can give you HP, but not nearly on the same scale as D&D, and the combat, maybe (though the two don't feel the same to me at all), but the "leveling" system is nothing alike. 40-k RPG doesn't have levels ala d&d, which are random arbitrary points where everything a character does suddenly gets better. You buy things with xp as you go along. Yes, there is an aspect of levelling in the first 3 games where you had Rank, but you don't have the "Tada! I suddenly get better and spontaneously develop random new abilities" of a true "level-based" system. DH 1 was class based, but it wasn't level based.

For me this includes:-

*Dodge is back to being a flat check instead of opposed, which means the game at high levels will still degrade into strip the dodges/whose got the most attacks, not the quality of those attacks.

*Add to this fields are back to the same system (no choosing dodge or field) again making high levels just take double the time as everyone has fields at 50%.

I personally never had a problem with the old dodge system (ridiculousness like Ascension Assasins aside). I didn't like the change to opposed checks for it, as it messed with the way the system was designed to work. High levels were meant to be about how many attacks you had (which is why every class in DH 1 has access to multiple attacks). Combat classes were meant to have about one more attack than the number of reactions of a similar level character. Fields? Well, that's only a problem if the players have the resources and contacts to access them... of course with the Influence system they are just a random dice roll away! I will agree I was never terribly pleased with the way fields were done anyway. However, the bizarreness of a force field giving no benefit if you tried to dodge was not fantastic.

Negative changes:

- Don't like Aptitudes at all. I liked 1.0's list of Characteristic and Skills costs listed by Role, and being multiplied by skill rank or characteristic bonus. Working out their costs based off Aptitudes isn't too difficult, but still annoying. Aptitudes were the biggest problem my group had with Only War over the previous games.

- For the same reason above, I miss the Talent Trees. While not as flexible or granting as much freedom as the Aptitude system, it neatly catagorised the talents into themes, had no restrictions on which trees you wanted to start purchasing from, and the XP costs were all listed on 1 page (including a basic summary), instead of flipping between the costs by Tier, the Tier list, and then to the Talent section to see what it does.

EDIT: Skills also reverting to 1-characteristic tests 'unless GM says otherwise'. Allowing multiple characteristics for different uses of a skill was good.

Glad it didn't change, or change much:

- Subtlety. And this is compatible with nearly any 'investigation'-type game ever, and might work for Rogue Trader as well (although their Subtlety would probably start and have a 'resting point' of about 10)

- Character creation. I liked this 3-step process, but that might be because my group likes Rogue Trader the most.

EDIT: Threat ratings for enemies. Makes making encounters a little easier.

Aptitudes are not great... make xp spending a whole mangled mess ("XP spending! It's spreadsheet time!). I personally prefer DH 1 style tables, but they are a bit inflexible for adding new abilities in new books. This is one area where the beta was a better compromise.

Talent trees I wouldn't have minded seeing, but they were a bit narrow and sometimes arbitrary (why does everybody need to have the equivalent of the old Chem Geld if they want to be strong willed?). truthfully they were very hard to work into the old Talent system... if they have gone back to the old Talent system then trees don't work very well.

The whole multiple characteristics for tests thing wasn't exactly revolutionary. It was possible to do right from the start. Ok, it was never officially sanctioned anywhere in the rules, but it wasn't a hard leap to make.

I don't know about the DH2 system, but the previous attempts FFG have made to make a threat rating system was terrible. I don't think I have ever seen a system like that which has been perfect, but none had been as dumb as the one in DW onwards. It wasn't really useful as it didn't save any thinking on the GM, and could actually be a hindrance as it could persuade the GM something was "balanced" when it really wasn't. A system which rates a random general dude and a Sqiggoth as the same is not a useful system. What was needed was just GM experience, and even then the system is so deadly that even something that shouldn't be a challenge could suddenly become one with a lucky shot. Also DH is not a system where you should be thinking "What is a level appropriate challenge?" but "What makes sense for these guys to have?" and then let the players deal with it. If they run into a combat that is over their head? Tough, they have to deal with it. Is it a total walk over? Well, sometimes some guys are not equipped to deal with an Inquisitor's Acolyte team, and that is why such teams exist, to stamp them out of existence.

I personally never had a problem with the old dodge system (ridiculousness like Ascension Assasins aside). I didn't like the change to opposed checks for it, as it messed with the way the system was designed to work. High levels were meant to be about how many attacks you had (which is why every class in DH 1 has access to multiple attacks). Combat classes were meant to have about one more attack than the number of reactions of a similar level character.

And you don't question this at all? It's a pretty ******* ridiculous, absurdly limiting system, that promotes one style of combat and one style only. Changing the way the system is designed to work isn't a bad thing , if it's done well. Which it really was in terms of Evasions, honestly.

Actually quite simple. We started off playing Rogue Trader. Our GM decided that the ship had both an Inquisitorial Team and a battalion of ships troops on board, so we also play Dark Heresy and Only War with different personel from the ship. It was the GM's decision but it seems to work.

But by your own argument, these two are the same game. If this is true, why would you need the Only War rulebook?

As I said it was the GM's decision. I didn't say I agreed with it. It isn't broken enough to split the group over. 1st edition Dark Heresy is different enough from Only War and from Rogue Trader for the GM to want to play the different rules. However the new Beta of Dark heresy is essentially Only War with Inquisitors. The old Beta wasn't, understand now.