I find it really strange that people are advocating for a system where you can know an organization's darkest, most carefully hidden secrets (FL+20) but not know the basics of how it operates on a day to day basis (CL).

In those few cases where this applies after a revision; prerequisites. Also, this might not be as strange in many cases as you'd think. I may know military secrets (...and I actually do, to an extent) without knowing exactly how the military hierarchy is determined (...which I actually don't).

Also, I want to again mention how inappropriate of a name "Common Lore" is. It really should be "Mundane" lore, since "Common" implies that it is commonplace. The difference between Common Lore and Forbidden Lore is whether you can be shot for knowing what you know or not, not whether it's common knowledge or esoteric (even if it often works out that way).

Or speak the language (e.g. High Gothic) thats spoken there...

And "3.) Exchange the Lore Skills for Remembarance & Specialist Talents"

No no no. I wouldn't mind something like specialist, but not at the cost of the lores themselves. One of my least favorite parts of Beta 1

My opinion: kill the Lores with fire. If you really want some nice, bottomless sink where you can pour you hardly-earned experience points, then you can still take things like Specialist (Terran Cuisine) and live on as a productive member of your party.

And "3.) Exchange the Lore Skills for Remembarance & Specialist Talents"

No no no. I wouldn't mind something like specialist, but not at the cost of the lores themselves. One of my least favorite parts of Beta 1

My opinion: kill the Lores with fire. If you really want some nice, bottomless sink where you can pour you hardly-earned experience points, then you can still take things like Specialist (Terran Cuisine) and live on as a productive member of your party.

I really feel that the knowledge base of a character needs to be codified in the rules, simply because it is such an important part of the setting, what you are expected to know and not know. While a player might know all about the major Ordos of the Inquisition, it makes no sense that his guardsman character would, yet it would be hard to slap him down on it.

If you want to make lores entirely a matter of character fluff that needs to be settled beforehand between players, I can't help but to think about Old Man Henderson . And Remembrance as depicted in the rules of the original DH2 1.0 Beta was terrible and I have no idea why they even called it that.

1.) Opposed Evading !!!!!!!!!!

Agreed.

2.) Re-worked Fatigue system (more like Beta1)

I've never had a problem with the Fatigue system in DH1 , so I'm not really chomping at the bit to replace it. I should probably re-read the Fatigue rules from Beta1 before I vote on that, though...

3.) Exchange the Lore Skills for Remembarance & Specialist Talents

I feel that Rememberancer is too broad. In a universe where knowledge is selfishly guarded, no-one has the all-encompassing knowledge that Rememberancer allows. Plus, the word Rememberancer is a specific job in the 40Kverse, and not a skill .

4.) somehow buff Called Shots

The 'buff' is that you hit what area you want- that can be a big freakin' deal, and doesn't need a cherry on top.

5.) integrate some more narrative Psy Powers (especially Divination needs some love)

Agreed.

I also wouldn't mind giving Action Points a second look. The complaints about them all revolved around Beta1 's complicated RoF system; with that replaced with OW 's much simpler RoFs, I think APs might be a good addition to the game- if nothing else, they provide a way to dump the awkward term Half Action...

Reading through the forums, I tried to find issues that are shared througout a majority of players.

Issues that really should be adressed, as the general oppinion strongly drifts towards a certain solution.

If I am wrong, correct me, but many many people seem to want (or are at least not against):

1.) Opposed Evading !!!!!!!!!!

2.) Re-worked Fatigue system (more like Beta1)

3.) Exchange the Lore Skills for Remembarance & Specialist Talents

4.) somehow buff Called Shots

5.) integrate some more narrative Psy Powers (especially Divination needs some love)

THIS are the issues to work on, dear Devs, THIS.

NOT if 5 characteristic advances or 4, NOT if starting at +20 or +25, NOT if sages should have to wear funny hats or not.

THIS. THIS. THIS.

And guess what - that are all things that are easily made compatible to OW standards.

Gaunt, you tick my boxes

I really feel that the knowledge base of a character needs to be codified in the rules, simply because it is such an important part of the setting, what you are expected to know and not know.

And that's why we would have the Specialist talent. You are a specialist -> you know, you aren't a specialist -> you don't know.

Reading through the forums, I tried to find issues that are shared througout a majority of players.

Issues that really should be adressed, as the general oppinion strongly drifts towards a certain solution.

If I am wrong, correct me, but many many people seem to want (or are at least not against):

1.) Opposed Evading !!!!!!!!!!

2.) Re-worked Fatigue system (more like Beta1)

3.) Exchange the Lore Skills for Remembarance & Specialist Talents

4.) somehow buff Called Shots

5.) integrate some more narrative Psy Powers (especially Divination needs some love)

THIS are the issues to work on, dear Devs, THIS.

NOT if 5 characteristic advances or 4, NOT if starting at +20 or +25, NOT if sages should have to wear funny hats or not.

THIS. THIS. THIS.

And guess what - that are all things that are easily made compatible to OW standards.

1) I'm not crazy about this idea, but I won't cry if it's implemented.

2) I have no opinion.

3) I like the Lore Skills the way they are.

4) I agree that Called Shots need love. I've house-ruled that they inflict a 1d5 critical. It works for my group, but I'd hardly call it a playtest-proven implementation.

5) Yes. Also yes. I agree entirely and I'm composing an email about this right now. Honestly, if they can fix psychic powers before the end of the beta I'll be okay if they forget everything else. Except maybe the lame Adeptus Arbites special ability.

I find it really strange that people are advocating for a system where you can know an organization's darkest, most carefully hidden secrets (FL+20) but not know the basics of how it operates on a day to day basis (CL).

Easily possible, especially in real life.

Common Lore is what is commonly known by the populace about the organization.

If you're the underground bunker commander, you may never have had any interaction with that information.

I find it really strange that people are advocating for a system where you can know an organization's darkest, most carefully hidden secrets (FL+20) but not know the basics of how it operates on a day to day basis (CL).

Easily possible, especially in real life.

Common Lore is what is commonly known by the populace about the organization.

If you're the underground bunker commander, you may never have had any interaction with that information.

I think there needs to be a list of lore's that acolytes should have at trained/known when they start, like 'common law inquisition'. It would represent them knowing roughly what powers they had and their immediate hierarchy "We report to the man we know as Lucian Hekate, he passes that our information to our inquisitor. We don't know how because we don't need to know". I think there should also be the equivalent of 'secret signs: Inquisition' (maybe incorporated into the same lore talent) that would be common knowledge for acolytes required to leave info via dead-drops etc.

I'm also in favour of a 'basic weapon training' package that would allow all players to start with the ability to use las and solid projectile ballistic weapons, along with basic melee things like knives.

I find it really strange that people are advocating for a system where you can know an organization's darkest, most carefully hidden secrets (FL+20) but not know the basics of how it operates on a day to day basis (CL).

Easily possible, especially in real life.

Common Lore is what is commonly known by the populace about the organization.

If you're the underground bunker commander, you may never have had any interaction with that information.

I think there needs to be a list of lore's that acolytes should have at trained/known when they start, like 'common law inquisition'. It would represent them knowing roughly what powers they had and their immediate hierarchy "We report to the man we know as Lucian Hekate, he passes that our information to our inquisitor. We don't know how because we don't need to know". I think there should also be the equivalent of 'secret signs: Inquisition' (maybe incorporated into the same lore talent) that would be common knowledge for acolytes required to leave info via dead-drops etc.

I'm also in favour of a 'basic weapon training' package that would allow all players to start with the ability to use las and solid projectile ballistic weapons, along with basic melee things like knives.

Well that sort of specific thing doesn't really need to be a skill in most cases. Contact info for a single inquisitor is just that-- it might not apply to every inquisitor.

Acolytes don't really need to know much about the inquisition as a whole to work for it, other than what they might find in Common Lore (Imperium).

As the workings of the Inquisition itself internally are rather secret, it would probably tend to be a Forbidden Lore skill. (As it is in DH1.)

Although of course the Inquisition probably wouldn't be troubled much by you having that if you're working for them. Forbidden Lore (Inquisition) may be considered worthy of interrogation if you weren't, though.

For inquisitors that wish a measure of more secret communications, they may perhaps provide the Secret Tongue (name of the language).

So if you were a close associate of Eisenhorn, you might have Secret Tongue (Glossia).

I think there needs to be a list of lore's that acolytes should have at trained/known when they start, like 'common law inquisition'. It would represent them knowing roughly what powers they had and their immediate hierarchy "We report to the man we know as Lucian Hekate, he passes that our information to our inquisitor. We don't know how because we don't need to know". I think there should also be the equivalent of 'secret signs: Inquisition' (maybe incorporated into the same lore talent) that would be common knowledge for acolytes required to leave info via dead-drops etc.

I'm also in favour of a 'basic weapon training' package that would allow all players to start with the ability to use las and solid projectile ballistic weapons, along with basic melee things like knives.

That's exactly what remembrance + specialist talents call for, as I understood them. You need the Specialist: Administratum to being able to roll Remembrance to know something not so common of them. When a character learns "Specialist: Inquisitors", he is really "into" the Inquisition, not simply working without knowing what's going on.

Lores are fine .

still not sure what the big deal is with called shot. I would think most called shots would be "head". that's a huge buff in itself

Besides shooting the head is not much different from shooting a leg or an arm. Usually, everyone has the same armour everywhere, so there is no effect at all.

Just looking at NPC writeups in various books, it is not true at all that everybody, or even most, have the same armour everywhere.

Especially in Dark Heresy where you know wearing a helmet might actually be kind of unusual in most situations..

I agree with most of these, but I disliked Rememberance.

On the other hand, the number of Lores available in DH1 (and I will confess to not having delved deeply into the re-released Beta yet) were too much. My poor scholar, no matter what Lores he picked up, always remained staggeringly ignorant when it came to the rolls that were actually needed.

A decrease in Lore bloat is good - but a separation between common and forbidden lores must be maintained in some way. There must be a happy medium.

It's not like there's any real separation between common and forbidden lores as is, other than a superficial one. At least in the original beta they used different stats.

I find it really strange that people are advocating for a system where you can know an organization's darkest, most carefully hidden secrets (FL+20) but not know the basics of how it operates on a day to day basis (CL).

Why not just create a tier system for Lores. Common Lore would be required in order to reach Forgotten Lore.

Example:

Common Lore Imperium ----------> +10 -------> +20 -------> Forbidden Lore (Heresy) or FL (Xenos) or FL (Chaos)

Common Lore Imperial Creed----> +10 -------> +20 -------> Forbidden Lore (Heresy) or FL (Xenos) or FL (Chaos)

Ideally, I'd prefer a system where an Acolyte's Inquisitor governs what information he initially has access to. It makes sense that an Inquisitor's Ordo, Philosophy and Faction would have some influence over the kind of training his agents receive.

My characters don't normally go around wearing helmets in a hive or any uptown area. who would talk to a helmeted person , just weird

The same people who'd talk to someone wearing a suit of carapace armour, probably.

I know way enough people who do that. Especially if they decide to go low-subtlety anyway.

And against such people it would be nice to have good agility caps at armour and maybe a penalty to fel or to per (or both) because they wear a helmet.

I think it's probably a bit too tricky to harshly regulate things like wearing armour in social situations with mechanics. Best way to handle things would be to offer a lot of GM advice, but keep light on actual mechanical penalties. That sort of thing is much better reflected in the narrative than the rules.

Armour in general might be tricky. I guess carrying capacities and armour agility caps (that are low enough) are good enough to lmit the use of armour reasonable in general.

But why not give any (non-sensored) helmet a flat -10 on perception, and -10 on all social tests that are not in some kind of fitting situation.

Perception would work, but I feel like the social tests thing would be too easily ignored; just take the **** thing off.

IIRC in Deathwatch removing your helmet gives you a boost to command tests. That sounds like a pretty good idea.

Yes, Deathwatch has a good approach. But I think it wouldnt firt DH so much...

Maybe the per-penalty would already be enough, and every social penalty should be decided by the GM (as it is too complex).

But -10 on per is realistic if you have no sensors in the helmet.

It'd absolutely fit DH if Command was actually made useful. Which, really, it should be.

I think its more the Leadership aptitude that lacks potential at the moment.

Throw in 2-3 more Leadership-talents that are triggered by the command skill, and its fine.