I agree about that - though one could say this is an issue we already have right now .

This might be something that could be solved via bonuses, though. I'd say failing 2/3 of the time is quite okay if the character is attempting something they just don't know a lot about, or if we are talking about a quick succession of tests in a stressful situation (-> combat) - for everything else, we have Skills and Talents, which may raise one type of character above all others according to their specialty ... such as, say, a Tech-Priest getting a huge bonus to working with technology.

"There are no particular special abilities associated with agents of the Adeptus Mechanicus, although all such characters receive +20% to any checks relating to using or disabling machinery, locks, etc."

- Inquisitor : Tech-Priests

I could even think about certain types of knowledge checks being an auto-success for the relevant classes, representing stuff they, by all rights, should know for sure - whereas others would have to roll on whether or not they could've picked up something about that topic. I feel this would further serve to differentiate character types and backgrounds from one another and diversify the game.

Again, though, that violates the core assumption of the rules that objective reality determines bonuses, and a character's intrinsic ability is entirely related to the the initial target number. Do you get my meaning? Character's starting skills and characteristics are meant to determine their basic difficulties, and the external world gives them modifiers. You'd be adding more exceptions to the system by trying to account for all of these differences.

The tech-use example is also interesting because it is again based on a human ability metric, but not all humans can even use technology, so it's more difficulty to gauge difficulty modifiers because then you are basing them on the select subset who can use technology, a subset that is already more skilled than average, meaning that the difficulty is being artificially inflated by the extra layer of expertise needed to do the task.

I think allowing automatic successes on things could be interesting in a system that isn't so granular. Suddenly, the tech-priest no longer has to increase his skill in tech-use because he automatically succeeds at it. You also get the issue of players being encouraged to have no overlap whatsoever because then they can automatically succeed at every task. Limiting the automatic success to only characters with a certain level of the skill begets the question of why the skill should increase the percent chance of success in the first place, as opposed to just unlocking increasing automatic successes.

Basically, like you said, this is a problem that already exists with the d100, but it is one that makes it particularly awful for any kind of scaling. d100 works well enough in Call of Cthulhu when you assume that the horrors don't need any stats and that they just DO things which the characters react to by surviving against their own abilities rather than testing themselves against the monsters. That would work fine for 40k were it not for the fact that the characters have bolt pistols and armies regularly blowing up Cthulhian horrors.

I would just like to drag this thread back to its original purpose: a discussion about a unified 40k system, NOT a critique of the d100 system. If you wish to discuss that, I would direct you to the thread you began on the subject (if I recall correctly) elsewhere Nimsim.

I am just worried about this veering off topic.

I would just like to drag this thread back to its original purpose: a discussion about a unified 40k system, NOT a critique of the d100 system. If you wish to discuss that, I would direct you to the thread you began on the subject (if I recall correctly) elsewhere Nimsim.

I am just worried about this veering off topic.

I'm saying that the system itself does not support unifying the lines, which is within the scope of the thread. The other critiques about it are my reactions to the attempts to "fix" the system to allow for greater ability to be unified. In my opinion, a new system would have to be created and used that allows for unification, or the current d100 system would need to be very heavily modified.

I would just like to drag this thread back to its original purpose: a discussion about a unified 40k system, NOT a critique of the d100 system. If you wish to discuss that, I would direct you to the thread you began on the subject (if I recall correctly) elsewhere Nimsim.

I am just worried about this veering off topic.

Agreed!

Dare I say I'm neglecting my own topics to follow this because it is something that actually matters a lot to me. If FFG started with Dark Heresy Beta as the core rulebook then just added supplements for it, and all the other game systems, it would be a strong motivation for me to jump on the Beta like Karanak on Titan ( the moon not the Mechanicus machine ).

I would just like to drag this thread back to its original purpose: a discussion about a unified 40k system, NOT a critique of the d100 system. If you wish to discuss that, I would direct you to the thread you began on the subject (if I recall correctly) elsewhere Nimsim.

I am just worried about this veering off topic.

I'm saying that the system itself does not support unifying the lines, which is within the scope of the thread. The other critiques about it are my reactions to the attempts to "fix" the system to allow for greater ability to be unified. In my opinion, a new system would have to be created and used that allows for unification, or the current d100 system would need to be very heavily modified.

I do not disagree that the system would need significant alteration/complete overhaul, only that that discussion belongs in its own thread due to the complexity.

I would just like to drag this thread back to its original purpose: a discussion about a unified 40k system, NOT a critique of the d100 system. If you wish to discuss that, I would direct you to the thread you began on the subject (if I recall correctly) elsewhere Nimsim.

I am just worried about this veering off topic.

Agreed!

Dare I say I'm neglecting my own topics to follow this because it is something that actually matters a lot to me. If FFG started with Dark Heresy Beta as the core rulebook then just added supplements for it, and all the other game systems, it would be a strong motivation for me to jump on the Beta like Karanak on Titan ( the moon not the Mechanicus machine ).

Agreed too, this is possibly the most important question being asked and it would be nice to have an official response. In the mean time, I'm happy to continue to plan and suggest things to those watching in the hope some of it rubs off

"Wouldn't it be nice if..." is not planning.

A unified 40k system is a pipe dream for a lot of reasons, unviability of the system the least of them. On top of that, this thread is totally off topic for the DH2 beta forum. We should be discussing the PDF that was given to us. Leave the nerd 'ultimate game' dreaming at the door.

Yeah, I know I've posted some pipe-dreamish stuff (my suggested rules for psychic powers, for one), but I tried to at least include some critique and criticism of the existing system within those. If you don't want this thread to be about what it would take to make a unified system work, it essentially amounts to "hey FFG make a different product than the one you're making now that admittedly will take an entirely new system to work with, with a level of core rule change that you have pointedly decided not to take the system in given the drawback on every major change of the first beta ruleset." I hate to **** on the parade, but this topic isn't really going to do a lot of help on the beta forum.

"Wouldn't it be nice if..." is not planning.

A unified 40k system is a pipe dream for a lot of reasons, unviability of the system the least of them. On top of that, this thread is totally off topic for the DH2 beta forum. We should be discussing the PDF that was given to us. Leave the nerd 'ultimate game' dreaming at the door.

I never claimed that "wouldn't it be nice" was planning. This thread is mere hours old and I haven't had the time, thus far, to put any serious effort into to organizing some sort of suggestion document.

I also refute your claim that this is off topic. This is a thread on a board for a game in development that the devs have already showed a willingness to radically alter, it is not beyond conception of man that with appropriate ideas and community support that they should change it again to the betterment of all. And if not here, then where? There is no unified wh40krpg board as far as I'm aware, certainly not one so relevant or presumably looked at by the powers that be. So where would you suggest I put such a thread?

Yeah, I know I've posted some pipe-dreamish stuff (my suggested rules for psychic powers, for one), but I tried to at least include some critique and criticism of the existing system within those. If you don't want this thread to be about what it would take to make a unified system work, it essentially amounts to "hey FFG make a different product than the one you're making now that admittedly will take an entirely new system to work with, with a level of core rule change that you have pointedly decided not to take the system in given the drawback on every major change of the first beta ruleset." I hate to **** on the parade, but this topic isn't really going to do a lot of help on the beta forum.

I think rather than asking them to make a whole new product, I'm asking them to make an effort to make a better product for the betterment of everyone involved, including themselves. Yes, perhaps I was too hasty to dismiss your posts in this thread and for that I wholeheartedly apologize, but it was more aimed towards having a full and proper discussion about what you're bringing to the table in its own thread where it can be explored fully rather than saying be quiet and go away. I fully appreciate your thoughts and efforts, don't misread.

Would a unified system require a major mechanical overhaul? Of course it would, I don't believe anybody is denying that. Would it be worth it for the end result and having a far more mechanically resilient game regardless of how players and GM's wanted to play it? I think so. Would it improve senseless repetition and (differing) duplications of NPC's, creatures and equipment? Of course it would. It would allow the writers and creators to delve far deeper into races and story and the being of the setting rather than wasting time repeating themselves in slightly different fashions.

In the grim darkness of the 41st millenium, there is only Ctrl-V.

FFG has gotten a LOT of feedback from players asking them to try out something different. Unfortunately for the possibility of getting a newer and better system, FFG apparently got enough feedback for them to scrap nearly every new idea they had for the system itself and go back to what they did with Only War. The only significant change to the system itself has been the one to DoS; every other change has just been different talents/character creation or a subsystem for investigation. Given that FFG is pretty notorious for copy-pasting mechanics, it bodes poorly that in their first big attempt to not do that, fan reaction was so negative that they've literally copy-pasted huge swathes of rules from a previous game, including older sections of the game that were corrected by that game's errata.

Also, if FFG creates a new unified system, they would be enacting the Osborne Effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect . The reason they specifically announced that there would be no new editions for the other 40K lines is so that their sales do not become cannibalized before they can get out the Deathwatch Supplement for 40K Unified System.

Here's the issue that FFG has to deal with. They created their own new RPG system in WFRP3 and continued it with EotE. People abhorred the WFRP3 product, at least in part due to the nature of the system, but also largely because of its incompatibility with older product. People apparently abhorred DH2.0 for its incompatibility, in spite of it not being a particularly large departure beyond weapon statistics and combat (which I am starting to realize is what the majority of vocal 40K players and GMs most care about in the system). People will abhor a unified system for being incompatible. Not only would it invalidate all of their DH books, but it would also invalidate all of their RT, DW, BC, and OW books as well! In addition, FFG would not be able to sell as well in those lines which it still wanted to support with supplements.

Basically, a unified edition is not going to happen from FFG due to its requirements for a drastically different system, the inevitable grognard reaction to that, and the effect of sales on existing product and 40k lines. If you want a unified system, go for a fan project. I emailed Tom Cruise about the possibility of doing something using the WFRP3E dice, but I know that it wouldn't really be appropriate for this forum. I'm betting lots of people on RPG.net would be interested in this, however, as they have much more general focus threads.

Hack 40K to work with Fate or Savage Worlds. Hack it to use the WFRP dice. Hell, use GURPS if you really love crunch to death. FFG isn't going to be the one to make a universal 40K system given reality.

Given the intrest when I started a thead on this I think this is something alot of us want.

Well, the forums are not exactly representative of the consumer base. And Nimsim has a point in that a lot of people would dislike such a system on the simple basis of being "too different". I myself disliked what I saw of the first Beta because it was simultaneously too different whilst at the same time not going far enough .

To accurately gauge the interest of the playerbase is nigh impossible at this point, although I would say that, ironically, what I consider the framework of a unified system is actually closer to what we already have, than DH2 Beta 1, simply because I didn't come up with stuff like action points etc. So you could say the first version of the Beta was double-bad because it didn't actually introduce what a lot of people were hoping for, whilst simultaneously introducing new elements that nobody was asking for.

Either way, I do agree on all of this being wishful thinking. Not because FFG was looking at "what people want", but because they have shown zero interest in the past to deviate from this "one corebook per game type" pattern. They believe it to be a successful and working system, and as much as some of us might disagree, it does come down to personal preferences.

To be fair, they'd easily be able to sell just as much material under a unified system. White Wolf manage it.

Which is why White Wolf slowly made fewer books until CCP essentially shut them down due to money troubles, and now White Wolf as a company no longer exists, right?

Another company (made up of former WW writers) bought up the rights to make the White Wolf RPGs, but White Wolf as a company died a while ago, and is no where close to as popular or making as much money as they were in the mid-late 2000s.

Now here we disagree. If Dark Heresy can be converted to OW format I don't see why RT or DW couldn't be! (BC already is!) Both could benefit from the more open advancement system. That's why I say we may be seeing the beginnings of the unified system now! Now whether or not they do a single "unified" book is up to them but I doubt it. Lynata is right about that. Separate core rulebooks is a proven method that seems to be working for them both in 40k and in Star Wars!

Now here we disagree. If Dark Heresy can be converted to OW format I don't see why RT or DW couldn't be! (BC already is!) Both could benefit from the more open advancement system. That's why I say we may be seeing the beginnings of the unified system now! Now whether or not they do a single "unified" book is up to them but I doubt it. Lynata is right about that. Separate core rulebooks is a proven method that seems to be working for them both in 40k and in Star Wars!

Although I strongly believe that we as consumers and players would be better served with a unified core rules book and different setting sourcebooks, I still support the idea of rebuilding all of the other WH settings with OW rules, as long as they all work together.

EDIT: this is just to say that I agree with you. =)

The best thing about a truly unified system is it would stop rules stagnation due to lazy GMs wanting easy cross-compatibility.

I suspect it is just a business decision by FFG. It is always the rule books that make the money for any game, so if you can print five different rule books for the same setting, more profit. Settings and scenarios are not as profitable because they are either onlly usable by the GM or of no interest to the players.

Now here we disagree. If Dark Heresy can be converted to OW format I don't see why RT or DW couldn't be! (BC already is!) Both could benefit from the more open advancement system. That's why I say we may be seeing the beginnings of the unified system now! Now whether or not they do a single "unified" book is up to them but I doubt it. Lynata is right about that. Separate core rulebooks is a proven method that seems to be working for them both in 40k and in Star Wars!

Although I strongly believe that we as consumers and players would be better served with a unified core rules book and different setting sourcebooks, I still support the idea of rebuilding all of the other WH settings with OW rules, as long as they all work together.

EDIT: this is just to say that I agree with you. =)

I agree with Radwraith here too, as he does present an alternative to the "one rulebook for all" approach. Just bring the other games in line with Only War, if that is a game system/ruleset which proves popular among players. I'd still like "one supplement for each race" as that would save having to get several books for just one race.

Picking on my old friends the Tyranids, I need the Deathwatch rulebook AND Mark of Xenos ( which has a surprising amount of Chaos of a Xenos book ) AND Jericho Reach. With a new Codex coming, I'm actually hoping for an Only War Tyranid supplement with everything from the lowliest Ripper to the mightiest Heirphant.

The best thing about a truly unified system is it would stop rules stagnation due to lazy GMs wanting easy cross-compatibility.

Yeah. I'm a GM who enjoys creating strong stories, exciting missions and interesting characters. But when it comes to the main bulk of NPC's and Adversaries I would just like to turn the page and say "I want that one".

I don't mind being lazy.....sometimes

Now here we disagree. If Dark Heresy can be converted to OW format I don't see why RT or DW couldn't be! (BC already is!) Both could benefit from the more open advancement system. That's why I say we may be seeing the beginnings of the unified system now! Now whether or not they do a single "unified" book is up to them but I doubt it. Lynata is right about that. Separate core rulebooks is a proven method that seems to be working for them both in 40k and in Star Wars!

Although I strongly believe that we as consumers and players would be better served with a unified core rules book and different setting sourcebooks, I still support the idea of rebuilding all of the other WH settings with OW rules, as long as they all work together.

EDIT: this is just to say that I agree with you. =)

I agree with Radwraith here too, as he does present an alternative to the "one rulebook for all" approach. Just bring the other games in line with Only War, if that is a game system/ruleset which proves popular among players. I'd still like "one supplement for each race" as that would save having to get several books for just one race.

Picking on my old friends the Tyranids, I need the Deathwatch rulebook AND Mark of Xenos ( which has a surprising amount of Chaos of a Xenos book ) AND Jericho Reach. With a new Codex coming, I'm actually hoping for an Only War Tyranid supplement with everything from the lowliest Ripper to the mightiest Heirphant.

The best thing about a truly unified system is it would stop rules stagnation due to lazy GMs wanting easy cross-compatibility.

Yeah. I'm a GM who enjoys creating strong stories, exciting missions and interesting characters. But when it comes to the main bulk of NPC's and Adversaries I would just like to turn the page and say "I want that one".

I don't mind being lazy.....sometimes

I don't think anyone who's read my writings on these forums would accuse me of being a lazy GM. But I still like a relatively consistent ruleset. Especially when it deals with the same setting! I cannot understand the people who are incessantly whining about wanting a whole "new" game! To what end? The game system is workable in it's current format. Far better (To my mind at least) to bring the other lines into compliance (reference was intentional ) with the most successful version of said rules rather than going for a whole new ruleset that throws everything out of whack! I also agree with TKG that I would rather spend my time generating my story and the settings therein rather than trying to convert everything before I even start!

I'm not saying that they should be completely incompatible, I'm just saying that chucking any innovation out the window because it doesn't match up with Only War is not the way to go. The original beta had so many wonderful rules that just got dropped because it wasn't part of the "unified system", well maybe the unified system should be following those rules! Maybe instead of reining whatever's new back we should be pushing what's old forward.

I don't think anyone who's read my writings on these forums would accuse me of being a lazy GM. But I still like a relatively consistent ruleset. Especially when it deals with the same setting! I cannot understand the people who are incessantly whining about wanting a whole "new" game! To what end? The game system is workable in it's current format. Far better (To my mind at least) to bring the other lines into compliance (reference was intentional ) with the most successful version of said rules rather than going for a whole new ruleset that throws everything out of whack! I also agree with TKG that I would rather spend my time generating my story and the settings therein rather than trying to convert everything before I even start!

"most successful version of said rules rather than going for a whole new ruleset"

Yes indeed!

One rule for one type of adversary that stays the same across the board.

I'm not saying that they should be completely incompatible, I'm just saying that chucking any innovation out the window because it doesn't match up with Only War is not the way to go. The original beta had so many wonderful rules that just got dropped because it wasn't part of the "unified system", well maybe the unified system should be following those rules! Maybe instead of reining whatever's new back we should be pushing what's old forward.

This is a Straw man argument Raven. The only rules that got completely "Dropped" from DH2 were action points and Narrative damage. Everything else has just been refitted into the current system. Those two aspects were dropped because after extensive testing they were thought to be too broken to fix easily! As I posted many times during the original beta; There was nothing "new" about AP. That Idea has been around in RPG's since the early 80's (They made an appearance in one of the early Traveller supplements and were none too popular then either!). I will freely admit that the Narrative damage system was intriguing but it wasn't ready for prime time. Everything else is there. Perhaps slightly modified but there still. Talent trees were just another way of expressing what aptitudes already do better. The Narrative tools and character classes are essentially unchanged (As they should be!)

And now back to our regularly scheduled topic...

I would prefer a unified system. Currently, I buy pretty much everything for Rogue Trader because the concept appeals to me most. I largely ignore the other lines because I have no desire to learn slightly different rules for each one, and keep them straight in my head. Nor do I care to hack the systems together or adjudicate discrepancies on the spot.

Bottom line, if every game used the same core system I would likely be purchasing every 40K book, rather than just Rogue Trader books.

This is a Straw man argument Raven. The only rules that got completely "Dropped" from DH2 were action points and Narrative damage. Everything else has just been refitted into the current system.

Umm, what? Did we read the same PDF? There are several threads asking FFG to bring back thing X that was in the original beta that got dropped.

This is a Straw man argument Raven. The only rules that got completely "Dropped" from DH2 were action points and Narrative damage. Everything else has just been refitted into the current system.

Umm, what? Did we read the same PDF? There are several threads asking FFG to bring back thing X that was in the original beta that got dropped.

Indeed there are. I'm not debating that! A also know you and I have been on opposite sides of this debate historically. I'm not going to continue it on this thread. I was simply stating what I believe to be self evident by FFG's decision on what to change.