Valhallan42nd wrote:
Heaven forfend that a company gives us additional background and rules options for play.

 Manchu wrote:
Aside from Tome of Excess and a presumptive Nurgle book, is Black Crusade going anywhere? So far, it's my favorite of the 40k RPGs.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
There are bike rules in Tome of Blood, but that's as close as it gets right now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Aside from Tome of Excess and a presumptive Nurgle book, is Black Crusade going anywhere? So far, it's my favorite of the 40k RPGs.

Define "going anywhere" please.

 Manchu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Aside from Tome of Excess and a presumptive Nurgle book, is Black Crusade going anywhere? So far, it's my favorite of the 40k RPGs.

Define "going anywhere" please.

I mean, getting supported with more books.

 Manchu wrote:
You were trying to be funny?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
BTW: as far as copypasta rules, to get the bike rules from ToB just take the mount rules from OW and add the word Bike to it every now and then, and remove any mention of the mount using any actions. Other than that, the mount rules in Hammer of the Emperor are almost (there are a few extras and a few rewordings to make them for live mounts only instead of for live mounts and bikes) entirely ripped from the bike rules in ToB.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
What he was asking was are there any new books that are not already announced in the works. To which your response is 'No Comment'.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You don't have to buy anything. There aren't any vehicle rules for Black Crusade. If you want to adapt vehicle rules from a different RPG line, then that's up to you.

 Manchu wrote:
The new books we're talking about are part of a series ... in which there can be only four books. So all defensiveness aside, I think what I mean remains pretty obvious.

 ChocolateGork wrote:
True, i could. But its a bit cheap that such a huge thing has been left out.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

The Tome of Malevolence for Malal or whatever his name is?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

The Tome of Malevolence for Malal or whatever his name is?

Tome of Spite for Malal. Not that GW would ever allow it.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

The Tome of Malevolence for Malal or whatever his name is?

Tome of Spite for Malal. Not that GW would ever allow it.

IIRC GW does not actually own Malal. A shame really. If they were smart they'd roll out Nalal or something.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Malice is a terrible name for a Chaos God. Might as well call the others Blood, Change, Disease and Excess.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How would you flesh out the system?



And yes Kan, I know what Malice is. It's just a terrible name.

 Ehsteve wrote:
Let's see what this system lacks: an actual fleshed out vehicle system

 Ehsteve wrote:
an economy (technology, and other 'items' which I will not go into in this forum, which can be used for bonuses to trade)

 Ehsteve wrote:
more freedom and depth about the dark Mechanicum

 Ehsteve wrote:
and the ability to customize and do whatever you wish with your weapons (make deals with chaos gods, enslave daemons into your weapons)

 Ehsteve wrote:
the ability to transition characters from regular humans to CSM (in full colour detail)

 Ehsteve wrote:
more depth on undivided legions rather than simply going for the devoted legions

 Ehsteve wrote:
more in depth packages about classes such as corrupt arbites and noblemen

 Ehsteve wrote:
how to establish cults on planets and subvert the Imperium

 Ehsteve wrote:
and many more little things which bug me about this system.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ok, from the top:

 Ehsteve wrote:
Let's see what this system lacks: an actual fleshed out vehicle system

Given the style of game it is, I ask why it would need a vehicle system? Not saying it wouldn't be good to have one, but I'm not sure it's a necessity.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
an economy (technology, and other 'items' which I will not go into in this forum, which can be used for bonuses to trade)

‘Cause nothing says Black Crusade like “trading RPG”.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
more freedom and depth about the dark Mechanicum

The concept of the “Dark Mechanicum” is far looser and less cohesive than you might imagine.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
and the ability to customize and do whatever you wish with your weapons (make deals with chaos gods, enslave daemons into your weapons)

You’ve been able to create Daemon Weapons since the Core Rulebook came out. As each book has come out the options here have increased. The Legacy weapon rules add even more to that, allowing your weapon to grow with your character.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
the ability to transition characters from regular humans to CSM (in full colour detail)

I very much doubt such a thing would be possible within the scope of the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
more depth on undivided legions rather than simply going for the devoted legions

Simply going for the devoted legions? What does that mean?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
more in depth packages about classes such as corrupt arbites and noblemen

That’s different. That’s not really expanding the scope of the game. That’s just wanting more Archetypes (which is fine, but it’s just ‘adding stuff’).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
how to establish cults on planets and subvert the Imperium

Surely some of that is situational and up to the GM to determine? Besides this new book has a lot of rules for social interacting and influencing people.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
and many more little things which bug me about this system.

Go on. This is fun.

 Ehsteve wrote:
Are you telling me that whilst other systems enjoy dedicated vehicle rules that suddenly BC is incapable or unfit for vehicle rules? Seem like more of a cop-out than a valid argument.

 Ehsteve wrote:
A single roll should not determine something with so many factors beyond its rarity. Give them even as a suggestion to the GM or as an alternate system. Put in a table of determinants such as planet, economy, size of black market, depth of chaos influence and other factors to make it a bit more involved than the DM tossing the players a roll every now and then which is so very, very binary. Players should be far more involved like adding elements of intimidation or bargaining rather than 'oh hey, I know that guy, here, have a bolter' (simplified, yes and I know you will try to break this example down but it's no more over the top than your usual rhetoric).

 Ehsteve wrote:
It does not mean it cannot be quantified, put in depth or otherwise explained. Give examples of either lone or collaborative Dark Mechanicum systems and the kinds they might encounter, what they might want (see: economy) and create actual interaction beyond another single, utterly bland roll.

 Ehsteve wrote:
I would very much disagree with you here. It will give some players something to work and allow GMs the ability to work in legion/warband relations for a more immersive experience. More options to work with, less work for the GM, more power to the player, more ideas and content. It would at least be a very interesting work through of the process.

 Ehsteve wrote:
The focus upon god-specific abilities and daemons rather than attempting to really define or get even a broad concept of undivided chaos. What it means to be undivided, the reasoning behind this decision rather than going in depth about devotion to the main 4.

 Ehsteve wrote:
More options, more ideas, less work for the GM and more power to the player in terms of selecting content. Suddenly you have this broad range of choices rather than pigeon-holing all of your starting skills and talents into the main archetypes (which I still to this day begrudge due to their lack of initial starting freedom regardless of how much you can fluff around later).

 Ehsteve wrote:
It would be impossible to throw this in even as a tag-on to a campaign? We need to look at big picture for later on and flow on effect rather than what the player can do to individuals. Let's say there are rules for targeting different sectors (underclass, nobility) how you would go about doing so, establishing secrecy and remaining inconspicuous whilst doing so, how it will grow, what effect it will have, chance of it being discovered, what happens if it is discovered (moles, all out civil war, gang warfare, exterminates etc)

 Ehsteve wrote:
Chaos Marines and humans do not create a balanced party (it's not a symbiotic relationship, marines fail at interaction, humans fail at combat, and in any case where you have an encounter which focuses on either with any sort of actual challenge then most of the time the humans will wipe leaving the CSM to clean up.

 Ehsteve wrote:
- Chaos I Marines lack so much more depth compared to humans (hence why a human to CSM transition would give them so much more depth).

 Ehsteve wrote:
- Confusion of ambiguity with freedom, give players a goal to obtain in game rather than simply leaving them to wallow in a system which pigeon-holes you initially then expects you to simply go from there.

 Ehsteve wrote:
The process of creation in Rogue Trader has far more depth in both creation and an actual end goal (PROFIT!) which is far more to say than Black Crusade.

 Ehsteve wrote:
- The fact that you have to roll 1d10 then ANOTHER 1d10 to get a d100 result! (dw for the rest of you, in-joke)

 Ehsteve wrote:
- The lack of levels makes it more difficult to set encounter levels, then imagine if you have a mixed human/CSM party and you begin to see the ambiguity here.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Don't apologise for walls of text. These sorts of conversations are interesting (well, they're interesting to me at least).

 Ehsteve wrote:
Are you telling me that whilst other systems enjoy dedicated vehicle rules that suddenly BC is incapable or unfit for vehicle rules? Seem like more of a cop-out than a valid argument.

I never said BC was “incapable” or “unfit” for vehicle rules, only that I don’t see it as a necessity. Vehicle rules are a “nice to have” for all the RPG systems except for Only War where they are obviously core.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
A single roll should not determine something with so many factors beyond its rarity. Give them even as a suggestion to the GM or as an alternate system. Put in a table of determinants such as planet, economy, size of black market, depth of chaos influence and other factors to make it a bit more involved than the DM tossing the players a roll every now and then which is so very, very binary. Players should be far more involved like adding elements of intimidation or bargaining rather than 'oh hey, I know that guy, here, have a bolter' (simplified, yes and I know you will try to break this example down but it's no more over the top than your usual rhetoric).

Except that a single roll determines this in basically all the other 40K RPGs, so why does BC specifically annoy you here?
Besides, there’s nothing stopping you from using bartering/commerce abilities or other interaction skills.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
It does not mean it cannot be quantified, put in depth or otherwise explained. Give examples of either lone or collaborative Dark Mechanicum systems and the kinds they might encounter, what they might want (see: economy) and create actual interaction beyond another single, utterly bland roll.

But this is GW fluff. It revels in how vague it can be. The only way the Dark Mechanicum would ever be quantified is if GW decided to make an army out of them (ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease!). Now that might sound like a cop-out, but it is the reality of the situation.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
I would very much disagree with you here. It will give some players something to work and allow GMs the ability to work in legion/warband relations for a more immersive experience. More options to work with, less work for the GM, more power to the player, more ideas and content. It would at least be a very interesting work through of the process.

Do you want players’ end goals to be “Become a Marine!”? The goal of Black Crusade is to achieve apotheosis and avoid spawndom. Those are pretty lofty goals. I wouldn’t be opposed to a book that shifted the focus to people becoming Chaos Marines, but that’s an expansion, something that’d be cool to have, but I wouldn’t want the game’s main focus to be that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
The focus upon god-specific abilities and daemons rather than attempting to really define or get even a broad concept of undivided chaos. What it means to be undivided, the reasoning behind this decision rather than going in depth about devotion to the main 4.

I should say that all the books so far contain archetypes (even CSM ones) that begin the game unaligned.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
More options, more ideas, less work for the GM and more power to the player in terms of selecting content. Suddenly you have this broad range of choices rather than pigeon-holing all of your starting skills and talents into the main archetypes (which I still to this day begrudge due to their lack of initial starting freedom regardless of how much you can fluff around later).

Ok, there are, what, 8 archetypes in the main book, 4 in ToF, 4 in ToB and 4 in ToE. That’s 20 different archetypes so far. So really they’re already doing what you’re asking here, they just haven’t make the ones that you personally want (corrupt Arbite, etc.).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
It would be impossible to throw this in even as a tag-on to a campaign? We need to look at big picture for later on and flow on effect rather than what the player can do to individuals. Let's say there are rules for targeting different sectors (underclass, nobility) how you would go about doing so, establishing secrecy and remaining inconspicuous whilst doing so, how it will grow, what effect it will have, chance of it being discovered, what happens if it is discovered (moles, all out civil war, gang warfare, exterminates etc)

Fair enough, but you also have to remember the scope of the game. The game isn’t about galactic conquest. It’s about building a power base high enough to the point where you can lead a Black Crusade. It’s *tries to think of an example* Smallville! It’s all the stuff that happens before the big events we know about from history. The stuff that shapes the would-be warlord or daemon prince.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
Chaos Marines and humans do not create a balanced party (it's not a symbiotic relationship, marines fail at interaction, humans fail at combat, and in any case where you have an encounter which focuses on either with any sort of actual challenge then most of the time the humans will wipe leaving the CSM to clean up.

I don’t agree here, and I don’t believe we’ve played enough BC (too much time spent play-testing Deathwatch!) to come to that conclusion. Of course, me being me, I’ve looked for a consensus on this topic to formulate a starting point, and really people seem evenly divided on this matter (Chaos Undivided, even ).
All I can say is that from my experience the minion system helps overcome any perceived or actual imbalance.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
- Chaos I Marines lack so much more depth compared to humans (hence why a human to CSM transition would give them so much more depth).

I disagree vehemently here. It’s just like the arguments that there’s no role-playing in Deathwatch. It’s an RPG, you get out what you put in. If your approach is that CSM’s have no depth then they’ll have no depth.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
- Confusion of ambiguity with freedom, give players a goal to obtain in game rather than simply leaving them to wallow in a system which pigeon-holes you initially then expects you to simply go from there.

Two points here:
1. Isn’t the ‘goal’ up the GM?
2. It’s interesting you keep referring to BC characters as being “pigeon holed”, which is weird as BC has the most open character creation system of any of the games (even OC is more restrictive, and it’s an “open plan” style system similar to BC’s). It’s hard to argue that BC characters are pigeon holed into a role when they can pretty much take any advance from the get go. The three games prior were far more restrictive in what you could take (You are an X, you can only take from table A, you are a Y, you can only take from table B, and so on).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:
The process of creation in Rogue Trader has far more depth in both creation and an actual end goal (PROFIT!) which is far more to say than Black Crusade.

You want to codify and crunch-i-fy a cahracter’s goals and motivations? Again, isn’t this something that the player should be deciding, not some chart? I’m a fan of the origin path system for Rogue Trader, but that’s the path that fits with that game. I like how every game has a different method of character creation, and BC’s is the most open as it allows you to “come to Chaos”, so to speak, via basically any means. This is why the game doesn’t have “classes” or “careers” but simply archetypes.

 Ehsteve wrote:

Let's see what this system lacks: an actual fleshed out vehicle system,

 Ehsteve wrote:

...more freedom and depth about the dark mechanicum...

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ehsteve wrote:

Let's see what this system lacks: an actual fleshed out vehicle system,

I blame HBMC. LOL

 Ehsteve wrote:

...more freedom and depth about the dark mechanicum...

Based on my own experiences and interviews with several writers, this will not happen. Games Workshop automatically vetoes anything they have not addressed in the 'Core' 40k that might effect the 'Core' 40k if FFG writes soemthing (Due to the fact this potentially muddles up the copyrights to it [more so than already]). This is why there is so much 'Calyxis Only' stuff in, for example, The Lathe Worlds and why none of the DkoK regimens were at Vraks, which gets only gets a passing mention in the DKoK info (they were all mysteriously diverted from there to the Spinward Front), despite being, by Imperial standards, right next door.

However, it works both ways: Scarus sector, which boarders Calyxis, is currently in turmoil, according to the fluff for Imperial Armour Volume 5 (most particularly the Seige of Vraks, but other turmoil is broadly mentioned in GW vague fashion), but none of this spills over, despite Scarus being one of the stable routes into and out of the Eye of Terror. (Yes, this means that whatever is going on in the spinward front is more important to the Imperium than securing one of the stable gates into the Eye of Terror.)

So, no, getting more detail on anything that FFG deliberately leaves vague is probably not going to happen, as it's more than likely that the decision wasn't made by them, but as part of the GW approval process.

 tinfoil wrote:
Just as a general comment, I can certainly understand why GW wants and needs to keep control over the "foundation" IP, and set boundaries around what FFG can and cannot undertake...

But it's a real shame. FFG has been assembling a highly evocative narrative setting, IMO -- wild and weird and well fleshed out. Their stuff feels both arcane and credible, and authentically dystopian: crawling with horrors and occasional opportunities for heroism.

Whereas GW's efforts along these lines have really faltered. The company no longer includes much if anything in the way of narrative background or development in White Dwarf. It no longer sponsors or bothers trying to run campaigns that nurture the sense of meta-narrative in the gaming community. GW does include cool narrative offerings in its codexes, but these have grown prohibitively expensive to buy (at least for me) for armies that I don't play.

Black Library is less and less appealing as a source, what with its fascination with grotesquely priced "limited edition" novellas and the like. I feel as though they are trying to string me along, seeing how much I'll pay. And I'm not interested being strung along.

And Forge World is, similarly, priced at levels I just can't participate in.

Sometimes I kind of wish GW would cede over some genuine authorship to FFG. I'd love to see them sink their teeth into a project such as scheming up a narrative history/ecology/geography for something along the lines Dark Mechanicum, for example.

As it is, FFG is sustaining my narrative participation in the Grim Distance of the Dark Future. And that even though I rarely play FFG's games! (I'm not much of an RPG player.)

*sigh

Iracundus wrote:

Incidentally I have always viewed the mention of Ork infestation in Scarus to be a nod to Scarus being overrun by the Green Kroosade during the Eye of Terror campaign.

Iracundus wrote:
As in, how many more secret organizations or threats with access to secret labs, estates, space stations, and other major assets can there be?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Iracundus wrote:

Incidentally I have always viewed the mention of Ork infestation in Scarus to be a nod to Scarus being overrun by the Green Kroosade during the Eye of Terror campaign.

Eh. I don't like to think about the Eye of Terror Campaign. Like Empire in Flames it got retconned to hard and so frequently that The Doctor must be on staff at GW. IN had it's BFG wins counted two and three times on different pages in the results so that Chaos lost. In reality, Chaos won both in space and on the ground.

Which, for obvious reasons, could not be allowed.

That and while Cadia was supposed to fall, a few months later a new Guard codex with those new plastic Cadians would be released. Not much use promoting the Cadians when their planet has fallen completely to Chaos.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the stakes were too high: If the Imperium won Space Marine legions would be reinstated. If Chaos won Terra would be in danger.

FFG wrote:Indulge Yourself
The Tome of Excess, a Black Crusade Supplement, Is Now Available



“Find pleasure in every moment, indulge in every whim. Let lesser races feel the burden of their crude lives. We are beyond such concerns or worries. Every power is ours to use, every sensation ours to experience. We are truly masters of the galaxy, and all others exist only to satisfy our curiosities. We have earned our position of power. Let us forever taste the fruits of such achievement. Time itself is ours to command. We are eternal."
–Translated Eldar glyphs found amidst the ruins of the Shrine of Celestial Grandeur

All beings require sensation to know their surroundings, but the truly aware realize that life without sensation is worse than death. For those who exist for sensation, the normal limits of life become meaningless in the pursuit of greater and greater stimuli. As excesses are breached, nothing can sate these heavier appetites for long, however, and soon nothing exists except the quest for further sensation. Lives such as these are bound, either knowingly or unknowingly, in the service of the Chaos God Slaanesh. He offers the limitless bliss of endless passions and insatiable appetites to his legions of depraved followers. Will you give in to your desires and swear allegiance to him?

The Tome of Excess, a sinfully indulgent supplement for Black Crusade, is now available at your local retailer and on our webstore! This powerful tribute to Slaanesh introduces four new Heretic Archetypes, along with cruel weapons, rules for empowering minions, new Daemon Engines, and more to amplify the rapacious hordes of the Dark Prince.



Rules for expanded interactions and social combat allow players of all alignments to seduce their foes into becoming devoted lackeys. Players also gain new ways to use their growing Infamy, plus new dark rituals to curse and entrap enemies. Discover secrets of the Screaming Vortex, such as the Demons of Contrition, the xenos guardians of the Forbidden Portal, Malignia’s deadly jungles, and more. And in the included adventure, Heretics must best a Pirate Prince of the Ragged Helix in their bid to launch their own Black Crusade!


The Personification of Excess

Slaanesh is the personification of excess. In his name, hosts degrade entire worlds with unspeakable rites and warlords seduce systems with honeyed promises of unimaginable essences. His own appearance is beyond limits, existing as both male and female, always the epitome of impossible beauty and desire no matter who gazes upon his form. His followers exist only to seek out new perfections of sensation, and to make themselves perfect to better achieve such sensations. The more perfect the artist, the better he can fully admire unnatural colors that cause eyes to boil and shrivel.

Only the finest of assassins can appreciate the tortured gasps of a betrayed noble as the knife slowly twists. None but a devoted master of the blade knows the bliss as flesh slices apart under his exquisite riposte. All these and more are mere steps along a path that requires more and more with each sensory attainment. To know ultimates is to realize there are no ultimates, only increasing tiers of perception and the search of perfection to fully appreciate them. Their frantic journeys can have no end except for that which lays waiting them within the Warp: Slaanesh.


A Word from the Developer

Lead Developer Tim Huckelbery took a moment to share his insights on The Tome of Excess:

This Tome, our third tome devoted to the Chaos powers, was one we’ve been looking forward to for some time, as Slaanesh offers such wonderfully twisted opportunities for roleplaying. He is the god of pleasure, to be sure, but he is really the god of extremes in all things. As such, this book is devoted to wild excesses in behavior, addictive personalities, obsessive natures, and more. His followers are always dialed to 11 (as Nigel would say) though most also tear off the volume knob as well. Here personal desires are paramount and so we introduce many new paths to selfish power. There are no limits, and even the weapons are wonderfully warped.



As mere violence is so passé, however, many Heretics of Slaanesh prefer cutting with words instead; to that end, the new rules for Social Combat allows players to use their wits as weapons. Words have power, especially using the new Curses you’ll find here. Rules for Seduction can also sway enemies to your side—including fellow players!—to ensure their acquiescence. The new Glorifying Acts are also great fun as players can release their selfish desires for power, ignoring possible consequences to the rest of the group in order to gain greater Infamy!

The art has surpassed expectations in illuminating the words into wonderfully disturbing images filled with disconcerting beauty. Inside you’ll find such excessive insanities such as void bridges made from flayed faces, flesh shaping in action, the spider-ships of Samech, and the degradations of the Hall of Gluttony and the Den of Surrender.

In all, both the writers and artists (especially the art director, Andy Christensen) really came through to create something that I think is as enjoyable to read and look at as it is to use in game play. After all, as Slaanesh would say, satisfaction is everything!

Thanks, Tim! Look for The Tome of Excess on store shelves today!

"Those who dwell within the grace of the God-Emperor need never fear the dark. His grace and guidance shines a perpetual light upon them.”
Nadine Aleynikov, disciple of St. Cognatius

Fantasy Flight Games is excited to announce Faith and Coin, the latest Rogue Trader supplement! It is a Rogue Trader’s duty to assist in spreading the Imperial Creed across the stars, helping missionaries as they wander from world to forgotten world. In turn, Rogue Traders reap the profits from the seeds that missionaries sow. In this guide, for players and GMs, the complex relationships between missionaries and Rogue Traders come to life, with new Endeavors to complete and new worlds to convert. Find sacred relics, smite vile heretics, or embark on new Alternate Career Paths with the grace of the God-Emperor guiding you every step of the way.

A Word From the Developer
Lead developer Max Brooke gives a taste of what is to come in the upcoming Faith and Coin:

The Koronus Expanse is a realm of unlimited opportunity and incalculable risk. It teems with life, from deadly alien beasts to incomprehensible xenos species to human populations rendered utterly strange by aeons of isolation. To prepare these lost human populations for their return to the dominion of the Imperium, Rogue Traders are required to give passage to missionaries, wandering priests who carry the Emperor's Light into the darkness of the fringes. These representatives of the Imperium work to introduce their faith on these far-flung worlds, subverting local faiths by weaving elements of the Imperial Creed into local religions and mythologies. Of course, different missionaries use extremely different methods. Some bring the Emperor's light with zeal and fire, burning down the old edifices to glorify the Emperor, while others wander alone in the darkness, quietly sowing seed of faith that their successors can reap in centuries or even millennia to come.



The relationship between these representatives of the Imperial Creed and those who carry a Warrant of Trade is one of mutual necessity, punctuated by both conspiracy and conflict. Many Rogue Traders rely on itinerant priests to maintain the spiritual health of their crews and to open inroads upon new worlds they can exploit. Missionaries, for their part, often benefit from the unique resources a Rogue Trader can provide above and beyond transit between the stars. The vast material wealth of a Rogue Trader, the keen mind and expansive knowledge of a seneschal, or the raw might of a warship can all accelerate the conversion of a given world tremendously. Not all Rogue Traders are willing to put piety before profit, however, and such alliances of convenience can shatter at the drop of a coin.

Faith and Coin is a supplement for players and Game Masters that explores the role the Imperial Creed in Rogue Trader through the tales of four different missionaries who set out into the Koronus Expanse and sought an ancient secret—the lost tomb of Saint Cognatius, which is said to contain priceless relics and miraculous archeotechnology alike. The book uses the framework of their stories to delve into the ways the Imperial faith can be a powerful tool for many characters in Rogue Trader. It offers new options not only for Missionaries, but for any Explorers who interact with the Imperial Creed in the Koronus Expanse—or at least turn a profit by it. This volume includes new Endeavours that crews can undertake as they use the Imperial faith to build the fortune of their dynasty, Alternate Career Ranks Explorers can use to gain powerful new knowledge and abilities, and a host of weapons, armour, equipment, and powerful relics of past holy warriors for smiting heretics in the Koronus Expanse. Finally, it contains an adventure, The Sacred Heart, which allows the Explorers to follow in the footsteps of their predecessors in seeking the legendary tomb of Saint Cognatius.



Faith and Coin is full of new options and stories for both players and Game Masters to pursue, and I'm looking forward to hearing how readers use it to expand their characters and campaigns!

Thanks Max! Look for Faith and Coin coming later this year. Meanwhile, keep checking here for more news and previews about the upcoming Faith and Coin supplement for Rogue Trader.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
FFG is unlikely to come out with, for example, IG tank stats for RT and OW.)

 BaronIveagh wrote:
We already HAVE a good book for the setting on the Imperial Creed and it's whys and wherefores.

 Manchu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
FFG is unlikely to come out with, for example, IG tank stats for RT and OW.)

If they did, I imagine you'd post something along the lines of:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
We already HAVE a good book for the setting on the Imperial Creed and it's whys and wherefores.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
While I understand that Navigators got a book so Missionaries will get one too... We already HAVE a good book for the setting on the Imperial Creed and it's whys and wherefores.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I should probably put it this way: RT does not need a fluff heavy missionary book (which this is looking like)

 BaronIveagh wrote:
they need a crunch heavy missionary book (with some fluff on missionary activities)...

 BaronIveagh wrote:
and a crunch heavy gear book (with some fluff on manufaturers and ship salvage, maybe)

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I just avoid Black Crusade and Deathwatch.

Because feth Space Marines. I have enough munchkinism to contain with psykers and power armor and bolters, I don't need ten foot tall psykers in power armor with sacred bolters and force halberds.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Says who? You?

 SickSix wrote:
So it just must be cool to hate on anyone that does anything that is officially related to 40k.

I dont have my FFG books yet (first one should be here tomorrow), but it is ironic that in GW hate threads people prop up FFG as doing 40k fluff right. Then I come in here and all I see is walls of text tearing down FFG.

FFG wrote:The Path of the Traitor
A Preview of Enemies of the Imperium, an Only War Supplement



“Captain, this factory cannot fall. It is more important than you, your troops, or the population of this planet. Expend every available resource to keep it from the enemy.”
–Planetary Overgovernor Worthington Derrymore

Enemies of the Imperium, the upcoming supplement for Only War, takes a closer look at the myriad threats to the Imperium that must be rooted out and destroyed by the Imperial Guard. Throughout the Spinward Front, terrible foes like Ork Squiggoths, the Dark Eldar, and the dreaded Chaos Space Marines aim to destroy the Imperium. It is the task of the Imperial Guard to stand firm against these, and all enemies, and with new rules for Formations in this supplement, Guardsmen have new options for squad-level combat. However, the Enemies of the Imperium are numerous, and the threats to mankind must be constantly warded off. In the following Designer Diary, contributing writer John Dunn discusses the traitorous Duke Severus the Thirteenth, leader of the Severan Dominate in the Spinward Front:

Enemies of the Imperium is divided into different sections that focus upon the different threats to Imperial security located throughout the Spinward Front. Some of the foes are clearly monsters, unrepentant enemies who can only be dealt with via the massed weapons of the Imperial Guard. I was fortunate enough to work on the Severan Dominate, an organisation whose motivations and actions are more relatable for the Player Characters. Put simply, this is because the Severan Dominate has fallen prey to the same foibles of Imperial infrastructure and callous politics that often hurl the Player Characters into desperate or seemingly hopeless situations.


A Traitor's Domain

I thought that it was important to focus a portion of the attention on Duke Severus the Thirteenth himself. His domain faces insurmountable challenges, but these issues were present and recognisable at the time he began his secession. It is easy to believe that the only reason the Severan Dominate exists is because Duke Severus is a deluded megalomaniac. After all, he absolutely fits that mould. In spite of his pride and unfaltering belief in his right to an empire, however, he has demonstrated unexpected competency. His forces are simultaneously fighting two wars, even as the Duke maintains a fledgling domain, negotiates treaties with treacherous xenos, and keeps his population deluded about the core reasons for their secession. This would be a nearly unbelievable feat of political savvy for a person who had a firmer grasp upon reality. That the troubled Duke to has managed all of these crises indicates that he is either truly talented or amazingly lucky.



Explaining how this luck or skill interacted with his plans and his particular areas of expertise became a central focus of this section of the book. The Severan Dominate's existence is based upon the philosophical beliefs that Duke Severus the Thirteenth put into place. In order to launch the secession, he had to rely upon deception, and to sustain it, his lies have had to become ever more grandiose. At the same time, very practical matters such as equipping and supplying a competent fighting force, maintaining adequate supplies to keep his people fed, and satisfying the needs of a population who remain loyal to the Emperor—though not His servants—are ongoing concerns. Every time one element falters, it risks toppling the others. The Duke has had to constantly maintain a careful balancing act so that the population remain satisfied without exposing his lies.



The section I wrote explores worlds of the Severan Dominate, as well as the people who inhabit them. Throughout these materials, the issues of how the different worlds interact, and how the Duke must maintain his delicate balance remain a central theme. It is clear that as things stand, the centre cannot hold indefinitely. However, if the Duke can somehow turn his enemies against one another, then it is possible that he could stave off the inevitable for a very long time. He has already proven his willingness to strike dark bargains to undermine his foes, and who can say what measures the Duke will undertake to maintain his grip upon the realm he has sacrificed so much to forge.

Thanks, John! Prepare to wage war against new threats to the Imperium in this upcoming supplement for Only War. In the meantime, take a sneak peek inside the supplement with the following pages (pdf, 565 KB), excerpted from Enemies of the Imperium, coming in the third quarter. Then, get ready for the fight of your life!

 Manchu wrote:
I was told this past weekend that the archetypes in the "Tome of ___" for Black Crusade were substantially more powerful than those found in the Core Book.

Is this true and, if so, what is the purpose?

 Manchu wrote:
I was told this past weekend that the archetypes in the "Tome of ___" for Black Crusade were substantially more powerful than those found in the Core Book.

Is this true and, if so, what is the purpose?

 Alfndrate wrote:
I would think for the most part, that these archetypes are the (from my experience) the equivilant of starting a campaign at a higher starting point. If you as the GM state, "here is what is allowed" and these archetypes aren't allowed, then so be it, but if you say, "Hey, Chaos Space Marines will start with 3600 experience points, and human disciples will start with 4600 points." At that point your players could ask, "Hey can I take this Archetype from Tome of ____?" Since now they could create a character within the limits you as the GM set. But I've never played these types of games, which leads me to this:

If I was interested in starting out with this RPG sytem, where should I start? Is there a system that is more "beginner" friendly than another?

 Manchu wrote:
It's a problem because Tome of ___ archetypes inflate power levels for no reason.

As you note (by way of sidestepping the issue), archetypes are not merely example builds. There are archetype-specific features. If one PC wants to access them, every other PC suddenly gets +3600/4600 XP just because.

That's sloppy work.

Also, I already explained how this uneven design creates an obstacle to using the book. To reiterate my question, what is the benefit justifying this obstacle?

 Alfndrate wrote:

If I was interested in starting out with this RPG sytem, where should I start? Is there a system that is more "beginner" friendly than another?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ideally, supplements should be balanced against the core book options, unless it's specifically a 'high level' book.

FFG wrote:Excess Awaits the Followers of Slaanesh
The Tome of Excess, a Black Crusade Supplement, Is Available Via Download





“You ask if it is enough? It is never enough!"
- Beneus III

All beings require sensation to know their surroundings, but the truly aware realize that life without sensation is worse than death. For those who exist for sensation, the normal limits of life become meaningless in the pursuit of greater and greater stimuli. As excesses are breached, nothing can sate these heavier appetites for long, however, and soon nothing exists except the quest for further sensation. Lives such as these are bound, either knowingly or unknowingly, in the service of the Chaos God Slaanesh. He offers the limitless bliss of endless passions and insatiable appetites to his legions of depraved followers. Will you give in to your desires and swear allegiance to him?

The Tome of Excess, a sinfully indulgent supplement for Black Crusade, is now available for download at drivethrurpg.com and rpgnow.com! This powerful tribute to Slaanesh introduces four new Heretic Archetypes, along with cruel weapons, rules for empowering minions, new Daemon Engines, and more to amplify the rapacious hordes of the Dark Prince.



Rules for expanded interactions and social combat allow players of all alignments to seduce their foes into becoming devoted lackeys. Players also gain new ways to use their growing Infamy, plus new dark rituals to curse and entrap enemies. Discover secrets of the Screaming Vortex, such as the Demons of Contrition, the xenos guardians of the Forbidden Portal, Malignia’s deadly jungles, and more. And in the included adventure, Heretics must best a Pirate Prince of the Ragged Helix in their bid to launch their own Black Crusade!


Excess in All Things

Slaanesh is the personification of excess. In his name, hosts degrade entire worlds with unspeakable rites and warlords seduce systems with honeyed promises of unimaginable essences. His own appearance is beyond limits, existing as both male and female, always the epitome of impossible beauty and desire no matter who gazes upon his form. His followers exist only to seek out new perfections of sensation, and to make themselves perfect to better achieve such sensations. The more perfect the artist, the better he can fully admire unnatural colors that cause eyes to boil and shrivel.

Only the finest of assassins can appreciate the tortured gasps of a betrayed noble as the knife slowly twists. None but a devoted master of the blade knows the bliss as flesh slices apart under his exquisite riposte. All these and more are mere steps along a path that requires more and more with each sensory attainment. To know ultimates is to realize there are no ultimates, only increasing tiers of perception and the search of perfection to fully appreciate them. Their frantic journeys can have no end except for that which lays waiting them within the Warp: Slaanesh.


A Word from the Developer

Lead Developer Tim Huckelbery took a moment to share his insights on The Tome of Excess:

This Tome, our third tome devoted to the Chaos powers, was one we’ve been looking forward to for some time, as Slaanesh offers such wonderfully twisted opportunities for roleplaying. He is the god of pleasure, to be sure, but he is really the god of extremes in all things. As such, this book is devoted to wild excesses in behavior, addictive personalities, obsessive natures, and more. His followers are always dialed to 11 (as Nigel would say) though most also tear off the volume knob as well. Here personal desires are paramount and so we introduce many new paths to selfish power. There are no limits, and even the weapons are wonderfully warped.



As mere violence is so passé, however, many Heretics of Slaanesh prefer cutting with words instead; to that end, the new rules for Social Combat allows players to use their wits as weapons. Words have power, especially using the new Curses you’ll find here. Rules for Seduction can also sway enemies to your side—including fellow players!—to ensure their acquiescence. The new Glorifying Acts are also great fun as players can release their selfish desires for power, ignoring possible consequences to the rest of the group in order to gain greater Infamy!

The art has surpassed expectations in illuminating the words into wonderfully disturbing images filled with disconcerting beauty. Inside you’ll find such excessive insanities such as void bridges made from flayed faces, flesh shaping in action, the spider-ships of Samech, and the degradations of the Hall of Gluttony and the Den of Surrender.

In all, both the writers and artists (especially the art director, Andy Christensen) really came through to create something that I think is as enjoyable to read and look at as it is to use in game play. After all, as Slaanesh would say, satisfaction is everything!

Thanks, Tim! Download The Tome of Excess on drivethrurpg.com and rpgnow.com today!

 Manchu wrote:
What's useful about it?

FFG wrote:Crafting a Legacy
A Preview of The Emperor's Chosen, an Upcoming Supplement for Deathwatch



“The Battle-Brothers of the Adeptus Astartes are the finest warriors in the galaxy, indeed, the finest in the history of Mankind. We are strength, zeal, and wrath made flesh. Those who stand against us shall only know fear and utter annihilation.”
–Brother-Captain Belshazar of the Black Templars

Among those few brave Space Marines who are singled out and seconded to the Deathwatch, fewer still rise to become Deathwatch veterans. Most Space Marines who are given the honor to fight for the Emperor in the Deathwatch serve their time, and then return to their chapters with all of the glory and admiration that being a member of the Deathwatch carries. The Emperor’s Chosen, an upcoming supplement for Deathwatch, explores the select few who ascend to veteran status.




A Brotherhood Apart

Those Deathwatch Space Marines who, for whatever reason, elect not to return to their chapters after their secondment, may find that despite the different backgrounds of the Battle-brothers in their Kill-team, the Deathwatch is home. The bonds between the brethren of a Deathwatch Kill-team are forged from arduous battles endured together, and countless heroic and dangerous exploits that are all part of the job description of a Deathwatch Space Marine. To become a true veteran, acts of tremendous valor and glory must be performed in the name of the Emperor. Deeds carried out by one bring honor to the Kill-team. Secret knowledge is revealed, and long and lonely trips to the Outer Reach may shake the foundation of what the Space Marine, and his Battle-brothers, thought they knew. This new understanding of the galaxy and the weight of duty to the Emperor may be why some Space Marines take their oaths again and again with the Deathwatch, as they become veterans, and heroes.



The Emperor’s Chosen details just a few of the legendary veterans of the Deathwatch in the Jericho Reach. Those who ascended to such heights inspire great deeds and heroism on the battlefield for those who follow in their footsteps. The following pages (pdf, 766 KB) excerpted from Chapter II of The Emperor’s Chosen provide a sneak peek at the lives and deeds of the mighty few who came before.


Legacy of a Hero

Even rarer than a Deathwatch veteran is an entire Kill-team composed of those who have become veterans together. Through the horrors of innumerable battles, to leaving behind Chapter and identity to form a highly skilled and deadly unit, veteran Kill-teams become the ultimate weapon of the Emperor. Their skills are highly prized by the Watch Commanders, as well as the Chamber of Vigilance. Even the Inquisition may reach out to such stalwart units and ask for their help directly. The deeds and reputations of such teams will often precede them, becoming the stuff of legend to spur on the fledgling Kill-teams that will come after.



The Emperor’s Chosen provides new rules for creating Heroic Legacies for veteran Battle-Brothers of the Jericho reach. Kill-teams may jointly purchase these Legacies, to access combat roles, manoeuvres, and more, that an experienced Kill-team can use to better crush their enemies in the name of the Emperor. The following pages (pdf, 860 KB), excerpted from Chapter III of The Emperor’s Chosen, set the stage for the acquisition and use of Heroic Legacies in this supplement for Deathwatch.

Gather your Battle-Brothers and become legendary. With the ability to assume Heroic Legacies, and an adventure which puts players in the footsteps of their predecessors, The Emperor’s Chosen is an epic foray into the history of those who came before, as players work to become the legends of the future. Keep checking back for more news and previews of the upcoming Deathwatch supplement, The Emperor’s Chosen!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's got a lot of rules for special training/medals and other things for fighting specific foes.

 Manchu wrote:
Medals? How does that work?

 Manchu wrote:
Emperor's Chosen looks to follow in the path of Ascension. Would you say that's accurate?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Have you read the Only War rulebook?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Emperor's Chosen looks to follow in the path of Ascension. Would you say that's accurate?

Not from what I've read of it.

 Manchu wrote:
No, I'm still digesting the Black Crusade books as you might have guessed from my latent realization that Tome of ___ archetypes are more advanced than core archetypes.

 Manchu wrote:
So what does it mean to be a DW Veteran? i just figured it was a more powerful DW Marine ... kind of like how Throne Agents are more powerful Acolytes.

 BrookM wrote:
And idiotic. It's Imperial Guard themed, why would you put playable alien races in a Guard themed RPG?

 Manchu wrote:
Medals? How does that work?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And that would be better served with a whole new game. Only War is about the Guard.

 BrookM wrote:
And wait a second, Rogue Trader is already catering to this group with Dark Eldar, Orks and Kroot PC's, but I guess it's not good enough now is it?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And that would be better served with a whole new game. Only War is about the Guard.

 BrookM wrote:
I for one am happy because I only collect Rogue Trader books and do not bother with Dark Heresy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Rogue Trader has no such book. And yes, they are separate product lines it does matter.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
you guys presented the exact opposite argument when I complained about the ministorum book for RT

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Then again, these may be balanced by a steep requirement like the Commissar medal, which requires you to shoot dead three (IIRC) PCs or Companions for cowardice in a single battle. Personal opinion, as a commissar player, rather steep for a +10 to intimidate.

 Manchu wrote:
Dang. It seems like the goal of this particular mechanic is to encourage PvP, which I'm not sure is a good idea -- but I guess you could also look at it as encouraging the guy playing a Commissar not to merely play the good guy hero Commissars of BL fiction. That said, I agree the reward does not tempt considering the cost.

 Manchu wrote:

Faith and Coin makes a lot more sense than that, especially considering one of the core archetypes is a missionary.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't have a sense of how different the Guardsmen loyal to Severan are from actually loyal Guardsmen.

 BrookM wrote:
There's also Dark Heresy, or Black Crusade if you want to play the Traitor variant.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
There's also Dark Heresy, or Black Crusade if you want to play the Traitor variant.

I play the traitor in 40k, time to serve the imperium! So there are rules in Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy to be a member of the Imperial Guard (basic equipment, advancement tracks, etc...), but Only War is about being an Imperial Guardsman, and advancing in rank, getting honorifics, being shot by the local commissar?

 BrookM wrote:
And wait a second, Rogue Trader is already catering to this group with Dark Eldar, Orks and Kroot PC's, but I guess it's not good enough now is it?

 Alfndrate wrote:

I play the traitor in 40k, time to serve the imperium! So there are rules in Rogue Trader and Dark Heresy to be a member of the Imperial Guard (basic equipment, advancement tracks, etc...), but Only War is about being an Imperial Guardsman, and advancing in rank, getting honorifics, being shot by the local commissar?

 Manchu wrote:
But DH is not about being a soldier, it's about being an operative.

Also, more options is not always better. It's a good way to dilute theme.

 Manchu wrote:
Also, more options is not always better. It's a good way to dilute theme.

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Also, more options is not always better. It's a good way to dilute theme.

This doesn't dilute the theme at all.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
My point was that they has just argued that RT needed those things because it was a separate Game, despite the DH book having sections pertaining to Port Wander and the religious maneuverings surrounding the Maw, but that OW specifically did not need those things, because they already existed in another game.

FFG wrote:New Adversaries Have Arrived
Enemies of the Imperium, a Supplement for Only War, is On Sale Now



“There are powers in the galaxy that do not know virtue, mercy, or honest worth. They would tear down the Emperor’s light if they could, for no other reason than to see it go out. Men of the Guard! Remember that the Emperor’s light will never falter. Remember that no power in the galaxy rivals Him on Earth! Do not fear the threats and taunts of those marauders, for they utter them knowing the true fear that is the Emperor’s Wrath! No force can take this fortress whi-!”
- Final words of Colonel Frederic Yorke of the 199th Argosi Heavy Infantry, at the Agony of Ironwall Garrison

Steel your nerves, guardsmen, because Enemies of the Imperium, an Only War supplement, is now available at your local retailer and through our webstore! A guide to the deadly adversaries of the Spinward Front, Enemies of the Imperium contains terrible new evils to vanquish in the name of the Emperor.


Foes, Formations, and More

Battle for the fate of the Imperium across the Spinward Front, and face off against terrible enemies like the Ork Meganobz and the dreadful Chaos Space Marines. The rebels of the Severan Dominate are stirring up trouble, while the Orks of Waaagh! Grimtoof are determined to crush all in their path.

Enemies of the Imperium also contains rules for Formations, so GMs can run streamlined combats on a squad scale. Plus, Veteran Talents, Kill Markers, and new Medals provide bonuses and abilities for the tough and stalwart guardsmen who have completed worthy deeds on the battlefield.

New information about factions, battlefields, and the politics of war in the Spinward Front will give GMs the necessary details to enhance Only War campaigns and create detailed encounters for players.




A Word from the Developer

Lead developer Max Brooke shares some insight on Enemies of the Imperium:

The Imperial Guard is defined by both the stalwart valor of its soldiers and the terrible odds these troopers face whenever they take the field. From xenos monstrosities to the horrors that humans make of themselves to things more chilling still, the Spinward Front is filled savage enemies who can test the bodies and wills of even the most renowned and stubborn soldiers of the Imperial Guard.

Enemies of the Imperium is a primer for Game Masters that covers the brutal foes Imperial Guardsmen struggle against in the Spinward Front. This volume contains deadly enemies ranging from scornful Dark Eldar Incubi to fearsome Ork Squiggoths to Chaos Space Marines, the forsaken champions of the Dark Gods. In addition to the profiles for these and many other dreadful foes, Enemies of the Imperium includes tactics for deploying each of these threats against your Player Characters to create challenging and memorable combat encounters.

Beyond these tactical matters, Enemies of the Imperium also focuses on the strategic position of each faction of foes in the Spinward Front. The Severan Dominate struggles desperately to maintain its position even as the Orks of Waaagh! Grimtoof barrel heedlessly down upon it (and anyone else they happen to encounter). Meanwhile, the Children of Thorns Kabal pursues its secretive agendas while stoking the fires of conflict for reasons unknown. Other factions have also flocked to the fertile war-ground that is the Spinward Front. Kroot mercenaries stalk the worlds of this realm, taking their pay from anyone who offers it or hunting worthy prey, and Chaos warbands carry out their vile depredations upon targets left vulnerable by the turmoil, seeking plunder, corrupted relics, or merely to venerate their Dark Gods through bloodshed. Each of these groups has its own objectives, strategies, and methods, and Enemies of the Imperium sheds light upon their actions in the Spinward Front and the violent battles they fight—with the Imperial Guard and with each other.



Enemies of the Imperium is full of resources to help Game Masters tell new stories and wage new wars in the Spinward Front, and I'm looking forward to hearing about the desperate ingenuity and bitter victories of Player Characters standing against the foes and challenges this volume provides.

Thanks, Max! Purchase your copy of Enemies of the Imperium at your local retailer or on our webstore today, and prepare for the fight of your life!

BrookM wrote:And idiotic. It's Imperial Guard themed, why would you put playable alien races in a Guard themed RPG?

BrookM wrote:And wait a second, Rogue Trader is already catering to this group with Dark Eldar, Orks and Kroot PC's, but I guess it's not good enough now is it?

 Kroothawk wrote:

And adding them to IG special forces makes more sense than making them lead a crew of 15-30k humans in Rogue Trader.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
We're saying that the alien thing is from another game, and not something that fits with OW. Not that you can just take the RT rules and put them into OW.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I'll point out further that the interaction between kroot and guardsmen would not only be interesting, but the 'threat of xenos contamination', as the Inq loves to put it, is pretty common excuse to purge a regiment.

 Manchu wrote:
A RPG about playing any 40k xenos would be better suited as its own product.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Kroot, Orks and Dark Eldar leading a ship of 15-30k humans is not very fitting at all.
But FFG could start something new when making an Ork-only or Eldar-only RPG setting.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Dark Heresy is the lowest of the low. Space Marines are so far and above them that I wonder why you'd ever let someone play a Marine when everyone else is akin to a 40K window-washer in power level.

I had a Marine accompany my players in our Dark Heresy campaign. I went out of my way to put a leash on the Marine, having him either tied to a heavily wounded Marine that he would not leave, or having him specifically defend certain areas and not follow the players around. Anything more and it would have been too much, as his Bolter was exceptionally dangerous and better than anything the players had.

FFG wrote:Destroy Heresy Wherever You Find It
Join the Beta for the Upcoming Second Edition of Dark Heresy
Dark Heresy Second Edition Beta



“In an hour of Darkness, a blind man is the best guide. In an age of Insanity, look to the madman to show the way.”
–Anon

In 2008, Games Workshop delivered Dark Heresy to wild success, introducing a game in which players take on roles as Acolytes of an Inquisitor, standing at the front line of a great and secret war to root out threats that imperil all of humanity. Soon after, Fantasy Flight Games acquired the game license, and since then has continued the line with Rogue Trader, Deathwatch, Black Crusade, and Only War.

Now, Fantasy Flight Games is proud to announce Dark Heresy Second Edition, with updated rules, character options, and game play...and you’re invited to participate in the beta! As Acolytes (or even as Inquisitors), the Player Characters in Dark Heresy Second Edition will bring the light of the Emperor to the far reaches of the galaxy. Download the beta from drivethrurpg.com or rpgnow.com today!

Why is FFG developing a second edition of Dark Heresy?

With the significant experience we’ve acquired in developing the Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay games, and by listening to thousands of active Dark Heresy players over the years, we’re proud to have crafted a new edition which updates and builds on the original game experience. In this beta, veteran Dark Heresy players will discover a familiar core system that still uses percentile dice to resolve tests, but with updated rules, including:

Streamlined skills that can be used with more than a single characteristic.

Fast and fun character creation, with exciting variety through combinations of home worlds, backgrounds, and roles for almost endless roleplaying possibilities.

The ability to play as an Inquisitor!

New rules for psychic powers, with each discipline gaining its own unique psychic phenomena table.

Talent trees that visually help players plan their character’s progression.

Combat mechanics that give more tactical flexibility and control over performing actions.

Damage and wound rules that make a character’s health something more than just a number, plus lots of great (and gory!) wound effect tables.

Vehicles and vehicle combat as an integral part of the core game.

Easier-to-use NPCs, each with a threat rating so that Game Masters can build suitably challenging encounters.

And much more!

Find Answers To Your Questions

Click the links below to visit our description page, where you'll find answers to the following questions and more:

Why is FFG developing a second edition of Dark Heresy?
Does this mean the other Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay games will soon receive new editions?
Will Dark Heresy Second Edition be compatible with the first edition core rulebook and its supplements?
How do I join the beta?
Why is there a cost to participate?

Does this mean the other Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay games will soon receive new editions?

No. Dark Heresy is a great game, and its rules system has been a terrific achievement which marked the beginning of the Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay line. However, as the oldest of the Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay games, Dark Heresy needed updating and refreshing to bring it in line with the gameplay of the more recent games. So, we have no plans to be launching new editions of the other existing games. In fact, we’re really pleased with the success and positive player feedback from the recently released Only War game and we hope to be supporting that edition for many years to come.


Presenting the Askellon Sector

This new edition also allows us to create a new setting: the Askellon Sector. Askellon is an ancient region, pre-dating the Imperium itself, and its history is filled with secrets and lies that have stained every generation. As if to compound its woes, the sector is cursed with a seemingly unending Warp storm known as the Pandaemonium that waxes and wanes across the millennia. With each passing century it grows ever more intense and dangerous, raging like a hungry beast that seeks to devour the entire sector.

Within Askellon, it is the prophesied Time of Ending, close to the culmination of the 41st millennium. On its many worlds, from lordly Juno to the lawless asteroids of Port Aquila, from devout Thaur to the red forges of Cerix Magnus, all watch in fear as the Pandaemonium’s rising ferocity heralds the sector’s fall. It will take the mightiest deeds of the Acolytes to forestall this terrible doom, if only for one day.

Askellon is a major part of this new edition, as it lets us explore entire new cultures and peoples, and also introduce new adversaries. Within the sector, players will see a host of new characters, organisations, cults, and more to ensure their Acolytes have no shortage of heresies to investigate and eradicate.

What About the Calixis Sector?

Many veteran Dark Heresy players conducted their investigations in the Calixis Sector, the setting for the original game. While the Askellon Sector is the locale for the new edition, the Calixis Sector is still a vital part of Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay. All Calixis Sector material can still be used to generate new adventures using the second edition rules.

The addition of the Askellon Sector in Dark Heresy Second Edition does not invalidate the Calixis Sector material, but rather expands options for GMs and players. Whether exploring the brand new Askellon Sector, or using existing Calixis Sector material to inform game play, Dark Heresy Second Edition provides even more opportunities to discover and eradicate heresy across the Imperium.

Downloading the Beta and Submitting Feedback

Exclusively available via download through drivethrurpg.com and rpgnow.com, the Dark Heresy Second Edition beta provides an abridged, electronic version of the upcoming core rulebook. This 337-page greyscale pdf document retains the core experience of Dark Heresy Second Edition, but excludes certain thematic content that will be present in the final game. As part of the beta test, you’ll provide valuable information for the Inquisition as you help us to ensure the best possible product. As an added benefit, anyone who downloads the Dark Heresy Second Edition beta from drivethrurpg.com or rpgnow.com will receive a $20 discount on the pdf version of the Dark Heresy Second Edition Core Rulebook when it becomes available later in the year.

Once you’ve joined the beta by downloading Dark Heresy Second Edition, there are two main methods for you to submit your feedback. First, we have created a special section on the FFG website for the beta (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/darkheresybeta) that will be updated weekly with the latest news and game updates from the development team. It contains a public forum where you can discuss the beta test with fellow players, post questions and feedback, and read news updates from the development team.

Second, you can submit any specific reports or feedback directly to the team at the beta test e-mail address (darkheresybeta@fantasyflightgames.com). When submitting your feedback via e-mail, please consolidate multiple questions and comments into a single message, rather than sending a separate e-mail for each question or comment. When submitting feedback, keep in mind that we’re looking for comments on specific issues that come up during your playtest sessions.

We would like to extend our sincerest thanks for your enthusiasm and diligence during this beta test. Your feedback is incredibly valuable to us and we thank you for helping us in making this game the best it can possibly be.



We recently received the finished cover art for the Dark Heresy Second Edition Core Rulebook, and couldn’t be more excited! We wanted to share a sneak preview of the art with you, and as an added bonus, we’ve made it available on our support page as a downloadable desktop. Check out this amazing art piece, and download it for your desktop! Plus, keep checking the support page for more downloadable content, like player sheets and pdf supplements!

Learn more about the beta process at our Dark Heresy Second Edition beta test description page, then head to drivethrurpg.com or rpgnow.com today and prepare to root out heresies in the name of the Emperor!

Dark Heresy Second Edition is an upcoming addition to Fantasy Flight Game’s line of Warhammer 40,000 roleplaying games, and it features more flexible skills, action point-based combat, vehicle rules, and more! In Dark Heresy Second Edition, players take on the roles of Acolytes (or even Inquisitors), standing at the front line of a great and secret war to root out threats that imperil all of humanity. Should they fail, entire worlds, systems, and sectors may fall to endless night.

The Dark Heresy Second Edition beta provides an abridged, electronic version of the full book. This 337-page pdf document retains the core mechanics of Dark Heresy Second Edition, but excludes the thematic content and art that will appear in the final, printed edition. For information on participating in the beta process, visit our description page.

Reply by: brassangel - click to view full reply 

1544

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/24 20:41:41

Post by: brassangel

 Jive Professor wrote:
In terms of a xenos-only RPG, I think all Orks in RT would work as a great comedy campaign. I also have been toying with the idea of running an Eldar game set during the Fall, just because it sounds like a fascinating setting and so very different from the 40k status quo.

I think the Ork one sounds awful, actually. I wouldn't be able to stand listening to gamers comedy-up the race (despite them having a more brutish, dark, and cunning ability than people let on), while also hearing endless (and bad) Ork impressions.

Simply having an expansion to the core game where people can play as an Eldar, or an Ork, or whatever, would suffice. People could then just make a party of said characters. The reason the focus is on the Imperium, however, is because we can best relate to that (as humans ourselves), and it's easily the most popular narrative.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/24 21:05:13

Post by: Manchu

DH2E??? Count me in! This is great news!

Reply by: TiamatRoar - click to view full reply 

73675

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/24 21:06:54

Post by: TiamatRoar

An Ork campaign has been done by /tg already. They called it Deffwotch, and it centers around a bunch of orks taking advantage of the Imperium's ignorance to pose as Deathwatch Marines so they have an excuse to go around smacking xenos. Your mileage may vary regarding it's story or feasibility of course.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/24 21:28:48

Post by: H.B.M.C.

 Manchu wrote:
DH2E??? Count me in! This is great news!

Not if you like any of the previous books it's not.

But I'll leave my full opinion of 2nd Ed alone until people have had a chance to read it.

Reply by: BrookM - click to view full reply 

7375

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/24 21:36:05

Post by: BrookM

I'm guessing its more along the lines of Only War then, I'm more interested in the new sector fluff, but that's left sadly.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/24 21:42:50

Post by: H.B.M.C.

 BrookM wrote:
I'm guessing its more along the lines of Only War then...

It's not. Basically nothing in DH2.0 is compatible with any previous 40K RPG product. Outside of a few very basic things (tests are still taken on a d100, there are still things called "Talents" and "Skills"), it is a completely different set of rules. I'm not saying it's bad, but what I am saying is that no existing 40K RPG product works with Dark Heresy 2.0.

You need to think of this transition as less 40K 5th Ed to 6th Ed and more 40K 2nd Ed to 3rd Ed. That's the type of difference we're talking about.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/24 22:00:17

Post by: Manchu

I'm okay with this not being the unifying moment that ... well, it basically could never be. Onward and upward! At least I hope so.

Reply by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured - click to view full reply 

60720

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/24 22:02:58

Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured

Well it'll either be a brave step forward, and generate a mass of extra revenue from folk re-buying supplements revised for 2nd Ed

or a step too far as folk go no! it's a GW style money grab and walk away en-mass

but I guess if all they did was minor tinkering you'd see even more complaints along those lines

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/24 22:08:43

Post by: H.B.M.C.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well it'll either be a brave step forward, and generate a mass of extra revenue from folk re-buying supplements revised for 2nd Ed

or a step too far as folk go no! it's a GW style money grab and walk away en-mass

I doubt the decision to invalidate 17 products is taken lightly. It's likely a case of them being reasonably sure that they will gain more sales overall than they'll lose in players who reject the new edition.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/24 22:13:51

Post by: Manchu

I've been ready for a new edition of DH for a long while now. I just hope this is the one I've been ready for ...

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/24 23:50:36

Post by: BaronIveagh

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's likely a case of them being reasonably sure that they will gain more sales overall than they'll lose in players who reject the new edition.

Or it could have to do with their evolving relationship with Games Sweatshop. I know the the 'old' Sector has migrated into the 'official' game setting (which we all know means nothing will ever happen there again). Under the terms of their agreement (as it has been told to me) that means that they have to do something new, because they can't alter anything in the 'main' 40k universe.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 00:10:30

Post by: H.B.M.C.

It's nice to have something new for Baron to complain about.

Reply by: Alpharius - click to view full reply 

123

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 00:25:01

Post by: Alpharius

We're pretty much on point!

H.B.M.C. is a little off his game as he appears to actually be somewhat critical of this move, at least initially. Hopefully he rights the ship quickly and returns to the Positive Approach per usual.

The good Baron is in good form though!

Reply by: Ehsteve - click to view full reply 

21462

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 00:32:24

Post by: Ehsteve

As one of the guys who has played DH 2.0, I have to say it is very different, but also just as fun. It certainly takes getting used to in terms of the changes, but the changes weren't all unwelcome. Never really using expansion books I'm also not as invested in the old edition so the loss isn't as big for me, but in terms of an objective assessment of the system in and of itself it is quite sound, the biggest surprise was how enemy stats changed and how it is now much easier to calculate encounters (much in the same way D&D uses EL) and all in all it feels a lot cleaner, with less clutter in the background, with less stress being put on the GM and more emphasis on the players taking over character administration/general busywork.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 01:26:23

Post by: H.B.M.C.

It also means that we can tell the tale of Arbite Detective Sigismund Holt without breaking our NDA's.

To sum up that particular game, using the words of our exasperated GM:

"You successfully electrocute the child, convincing him that you are a psyker."

That was a fething amazing session.

Reply by: Kroothawk - click to view full reply 

24567

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 01:32:01

Post by: Kroothawk

Hmm, another ruleset where I can play a human psyker, assassin, guardsman and cleric.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 01:33:32

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Alpharius wrote:
We're pretty much on point!

H.B.M.C. is a little off his game as he appears to actually be somewhat critical of this move, at least initially. Hopefully he rights the ship quickly and returns to the Positive Approach per usual.

The good Baron is in good form though!

Don't worry too much, we'll switch it up soon. Some projects are going that I'm sure I'll adore and HBMC will be critical of.

Reply by: Ehsteve - click to view full reply 

21462

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 02:25:37

Post by: Ehsteve

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It also means that we can tell the tale of Arbite Detective Sigismund Holt without breaking our NDA's.

To sum up that particular game, using the words of our exasperated GM:

"You successfully electrocute the child, convincing him that you are a psyker."

That was a fething amazing session.

You forgot shutting down an entire city sector with a tainted food scare (a lie that he fabricated) before blaming it on a local hero (by planting evidence in his cache) before then blaming the planted evidence on the bad guys. He also did this so he could then confiscate the food to give it to a charity but not before flooring the orphanage owner with a backhand (a kindly old priest).

Be warned, social skills are totally OP in this new edition

Also you forgot to mention that the child was also a psyker, so he managed to convince a psyker he was also by BENDING REALITY WITH HIS LIES! Then he tazered him to prove it. Don't ask me how it worked but it did.

Reply by: Azazelx - click to view full reply 

115

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 02:44:48

Post by: Azazelx

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Well it'll either be a brave step forward, and generate a mass of extra revenue from folk re-buying supplements revised for 2nd Ed

or a step too far as folk go no! it's a GW style money grab and walk away en-mass

I doubt the decision to invalidate 17 products is taken lightly. It's likely a case of them being reasonably sure that they will gain more sales overall than they'll lose in players who reject the new edition.

Hm, that sounds pretty fethed up. As someone who's close to starting a RT campaign, and has been buying all the rulebooks and selected supplements from the other ranges as well to add depth to my game (and for potential future campaigns), do you have any recommendations of DH Books I might want to grab while they're still available? At this point, I've only got the RT Rulebook and Book of Judgement so far. Ordered the Creatures Anathema yesterday.

Inquisitor's Handbook? Blood of Martyrs? Disciples of the Dark Gods?

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 03:15:11

Post by: H.B.M.C.

 Azazelx wrote:
At this point, I've only got the RT Rulebook and Book of Judgement so far. Ordered the Creatures Anathema yesterday.

Inquisitor's Handbook? Blood of Martyrs? Disciples of the Dark Gods?

The Lathe Worlds because it's full of Ad-Mech-y goodness (/huge amounts of bias).

I'd get Blood of Martyrs (a lot of Ministorum stuff) as well. Keep in mind that the Blood of Martyrs stuff won't have a lot of Missionaries Galaxia stuff in it; for that you'll have to wait for the next RT book, Faith & Coin (at least I presume Faith & Coin will focus more on the missionary side of the Ecclesiarchy - I haven't read the book so I couldn't tell you for certain, but it's a solid guess). If you intend to do a lot of stuff in the Calixis Sector then Disciples is a good bet as well. Creatures is a good general book as it has a wide spread of bad guys (Koronus Bestiary is a better book though, IMO). Daemon Hunter is good if you want to take your players into some Warp-infested areas, and it has a full set of rules for generating and creating Daemons of all types. It also has full rules for playing Grey Knights, which can make a nice distraction or one-shot adventure.

You can skip the adventures unless you want to adapt them for a RT crew, but that might not be worth it.

But I'd focus on getting some of the RT supplements as well.

 Ehsteve wrote:
You forgot shutting down an entire city sector with a tainted food scare (a lie that he fabricated) before blaming it on a local hero (by planting evidence in his cache) before then blaming the planted evidence on the bad guys. He also did this so he could then confiscate the food to give it to a charity but not before flooring the orphanage owner with a backhand (a kindly old priest).

Be warned, social skills are totally OP in this new edition

Also you forgot to mention that the child was also a psyker, so he managed to convince a psyker he was also by BENDING REALITY WITH HIS LIES! Then he tazered him to prove it. Don't ask me how it worked but it did.

We stole that food for the orphans. We also kidnapped that old lady to... save the orphans. Or something. The details are sketchy in my mind.

And Holt didn't bend reality, he just coated his hands with hallucinogens and used them to trick people into thinking he was a psyker.


And then there's the tale of Galt Galt, the feral world Arbite Medic. My friend didn't roll the most sociable of characters, and weirdly rolled "Galt" for both his first and last names. We didn't reroll as we felt the harsh sounding name fit him very well. He kept us alive, mostly. And then there was my Psy-Detective (we played a lot of Arbites for some reason). He was great. He could set you on fire with his mind. Combat against him was very annoying. I'd either be throwing smoke bombs or turning people into infernos.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 04:58:07

Post by: BaronIveagh

Eh. Still does not quite beat the Hell Party's glorious charge to save their Inquisitor from the ravening hoards of the tyranids.

"General, we need a favor, but before you say *No*, let me show you my credentials." Interrogator Malleum Tempus

"mi'lady, it might be wise to fire that from INSIDE the tank, rather than standing ON it."
"You have your armor, guardswoman, I have mine" - Exchange between the guard and battle sister PCs as the Vulcan Macharius 'Exercitum Falce" began it's attack to punch through to the Cenotaph of Saint Farah.



The priest tried to inspire two platoons of guardsmen to follow them in the attack. He failed. The underhive ganger then gave it a try and rolled three degrees of success, enough that an extra platoon followed them in

"You get to be the one to explain to Inquisitor Smythe why we're putting lo sticks, beer, and strippers enough for half a Guard company on an Inquisitorial expense account."

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 15:18:15

Post by: Manchu

Alright so I've had a wee bit of time to sit down with DH2E and hash it out on FFG's forum.

I'm liking what I see here!

For example ... let's talking about injuries. In the first edition, getting hurt was a matter of subtracting damage from your HP bank until you started losing body parts and/or died. That's a tried and true method ... but what's the difference between a character with 1 HP left and a character with 20HP left? A lot of ink and electrons have been spent attacking and justifying the so-called HP bubble but suffice it to say DH2E goes a different direction:

Whenever you get hit, you determine the hit location and subtract that location's Defence Value (armor + Toughness bonus) from the damage. The result is the basis for that hit's Wound Effect value. There are a bunch of Wound Effect tables based on the nexus of location and damage type. You look up your Wound Effect value on the table to see what happens to you: do you get scraped or stunned or is your vision impaired, etc, etc, etc.?

And instead of taking points of damage (what were called "wounds" in DH1E) you now keep track of how many Wounds (attacks that did damage) you've already taken when determining the severity of further Wounds. You add +5 for each normal Wound you've already taken to the damage that got through on a hit when determining the Wound Effect of that hit.

In a traditional HP system, you don't lose HP faster depending on how much you've already lost. Your character is basically as resilient at 1 HP as s/he was at full HP. In DH2E, you get hurt worse on a hit depending on how hurt you already are -- in addition to suffering from ongoing effects. I like this because I think it allows characters to feel tough and vulnerable at the same time and I think that accurately simulates the setting.

Reply by: BrookM - click to view full reply 

7375

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 15:25:51

Post by: BrookM

This will be some getting used to, especially the action points. Interesting what they're going for, we'll see how it unfolds.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 15:38:38

Post by: Manchu

I like Action Points, too.

The key to understanding them is that they are units of structured time. Some have already complained that a Dark Eldar Wych should have more Action Points than, say, an overweight juve. I disagree: they both have the same amount of time to do things -- the difference lies in what each of them can do with that time.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 15:48:41

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
I like Action Points, too.

The key to understanding them is that they are units of structured time. Some have already complained that a Dark Eldar Wych should have more Action Points than, say, an overweight juve. I disagree: they both have the same amount of time to do things -- the difference lies in what each of them can do with that time.

Except that ignores the already existing system of structured time the game already has, making action points exactly that, the number of actions you can take in that unit of structured time. Which means that, yes, the Wych should have the same number of AP... if shes tied up, drugged out of her mind, and being held in a stasis field.


I hate to say it, but this smells of '4th ed' to me. It will most likely prove unpopular and be replaced or phased out in record time.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 16:00:18

Post by: Manchu

Not sure how it "ignores the already existing system" ... actually, it improves it. The anatomy of structured time in DH1E is unnecessarily complex. AP is a flat currency; there are the same amount of seconds in a turn for both the DE wych and the fat juve. Talents allow the wych to spend that currency much more effectively than the juve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It will most likely prove unpopular and be replaced or phased out in record time.

Haters gonna hate.

Reply by: BrookM - click to view full reply 

7375

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 16:21:31

Post by: BrookM

feth it, just because he says it with such absolute certainty born of a hater, I'm going to love it even more.

I did notice from my reading thus far that there's no new art included as of yet, it's all old art from previous rulebooks, codex books and Inquisitor. Not that I'm complaining, goes to show that GW has great art style, just a bit surprised.

Also, I'm glad that we're still using the D100 system and not the Star Wars / WHFRP dice mechanics.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 16:35:25

Post by: Manchu

I have yet to play either WFRP3E or SW:EotE (that may change this weekend) but I do love the idea of narrative dice. So I was a bit sad not to see them in DH2E. OTOH, one thing I really like about Dark Heresy is that it really is a 40k-flavored Call of Cthulhu.

After meditating on it for about it for a year, I think I figured out why CoC uses the d100 system -- failing or succeeding by a hair's breadth is important to simulate the genre in question. That's because the genre is about character vulnerability. By contrast, a more "heroic" genre, like PF-style fantasy, emphasizes the characters' power; so your heroes take the world in blithe 5% steps. CoC Investigators, meanwhile, creep along cautiously (and more often then not blindly) 1% at a time.

DH is like CoC in that you're ultimately in over your head. But unlike CoC Investigators, the Acolytes are presumptively hard-boiled. Keeping the d100, however, reminds them that they're walking the knife's edge all the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrookM wrote:
I did notice from my reading thus far that there's no new art included as of yet

I would actually like to see all new art and of better quality than some of the recent books, too. The EotE Core Rulebook is full of gorgeous new art, after all.

Reply by: BrookM - click to view full reply 

7375

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 17:34:48

Post by: BrookM

True that, I've seen my share of rolls fail because it was one or two percent off.

Also, it might be like CoC, but in Dark Heresy at the very least the PC's have some means of fighting back at the abominations instead of falling to the ground ripping their hair out in clumps.

I'm looking forward to your findings on the EoTE mechanics, I am a bit skeptical myself, but then again I'm not that hardcore a roleplayer nor as veteran as some folks around here.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 17:59:22

Post by: Manchu

 BrookM wrote:
but in Dark Heresy at the very least the PC's have some means of fighting back at the abominations instead of falling to the ground ripping their hair out in clumps

The difference between CoC and DH is that in DH humanity itself has a fighting chance -- maybe even a slight advantage in some respects -- whereas in CoC human hope is merely transitory in the short view and totally ephemeral in the long view. Where they are similar is at the level of individual characters: although the Imperium does pretty well at large, its agents themselves have a very high chance of getting mutilated or going one shade or another of insane before retiring to ... what? Ever heard of a retired Inquisitor?

 BrookM wrote:
I'm looking forward to your findings on the EoTE mechanics, I am a bit skeptical myself

I'll post up my thoughts in the Board Games, et al., sub-forum if I get to play it this weekend. One thing about the narrative dice is that ... and this may sound cheesy ... it's cool to have components that get you further into the game. If I was going to really get into DH, I would have to track down some red & black gothic-scripted d10s.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 18:17:22

Post by: BaronIveagh

 BrookM wrote:
feth it, just because he says it with such absolute certainty born of a hater, I'm going to love it even more.

Sadly, no. I say with the absolute certainty of someone who's already seen this movie. (I might point out that I've very rarely had anything bad to say about DH or it's supplements.)

There's a definite formula to creating a successful new edition of an existing pencil and paper rpg, and this is not following it, in the same way 4th ed D&D tried not to follow it. I warned Scott Rouse, the D&D brand manager for Hasbro at the time (and a man I do, in fact, hate with the heat of a thousand exploding suns), that it was a bad idea, and they bulldozed ahead with the train wreck that became 4th ed anyway. Now I'm seeing FFG making all the same mistakes that Wizards did, and, to my near infinite amusement, I'm seeing HBMC struggling in a similar position to what I was.

Will there be new players/die hard fanboys/girls?

Sure. It will probably even make money.

But compared to if you follow the formula, it's a drop in the bucket, as you don't alienate nearly as many old players.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 18:26:04

Post by: Manchu

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I say with the absolute certainty of someone who's already seen this movie

I have to assume your industry insight boils down to a hater hating until you give some actual account of what WotC did wrong with 4E and how FFG is doing the same. As it stands, you're not even referencing mechanics. Weak stuff.

Also, I can't believe I missed this:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It also means that we can tell the tale of Arbite Detective Sigismund Holt without breaking our NDA's.

SIGISMUND HOLT!

 Ehsteve wrote:
Be warned, social skills are totally OP in this new edition

I have heard it is not Book of Excess-style "social combat" -- I don't yet have my copy of BoE (ordered it with Wave 3 X-Wing releases) but I'm not seeing anything in the beta indicating social skills are comparatively OP. Can you explain more?

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 22:18:58

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I say with the absolute certainty of someone who's already seen this movie

I have to assume your industry insight boils down to a hater hating until you give some actual account of what WotC did wrong with 4E and how FFG is doing the same. As it stands, you're not even referencing mechanics. Weak stuff.

Fair enough:

What WotC did wrong in a nutshell to keep this from becoming a WotC/4e thread:

1) Launching brand new settings and/or heavily altering previous settings at the same time as a new edition launch.

2) Heavily altering game mechanics in a single edition change.

3) Kill Dragon Magazine. (This particular one is unlikely to happen in this particular situation, but by itself cost WotC a significant market share).

4) Mishandle tester and public concerns during testing, (You can blame this particular one for my disregarding the opinions (and mental capacity) of anyone who calls me a 'hater' when I post in the negative about a system or company practice without bothering to produce a sensible rebuttal to my points).

5) Abandon support for. and/or force an end to publication of, associated game lines.


Now, mind you, they did not do all these things on the same day, it was a cumulative thing leading up to the release.


FFG is doing:

1) According to their press release and what HBMC said earlier,they are doing exactly this.

2) We already know they're doing this one as well.

3) They really can't do, as they have no control over WD (and I'll be honest, if they did it would be a mercy at this point anyway).

4) We really have not gotten here yet. A lot of players have not yet seen this, and public testing is really really just starting. We'll see where it goes. Testing like they are can absolutely backfire on them in a spectacular manner and lead to an inability to shape customer perception of their product in the information age, particularly if the testers and players feel their input is being disregarded. Then it turns into a PR bomb.

5) This is an unknown, but a major concern on FFG's forums atm as they have not been announcing much in the way of new material for many of their games. How they handle this concern, and if they do drop production of other games, will be telling.


How other RPGs have handled changing editions without dealing causing massive fan uproar.

D&D the jump to 3rd edition was rocky, for reasons already mentioned, but the jump between 3.0 and 3.5 was generally well received, as it did correct problems with the 3.0 system (polymorph anyone?) but was still largely compatible with previous 3.-0 material. FASA/Wizkids/Fanpro/Catalyst/whoever owns it now have generally handled the mechanis changes between editions to Shadowrun gradually, and where possible used fluff to explain changes in mechanics. This approach has been generally well received by the Shadowrun fanbase. (The only real confusion I can recall from this method was the change in how successes and botches were handled). GURPS *generally* I'm told has handled it the same way. (I don't play GURPS myself, so I have ot take my fellow grognard's word for it).


The game itself, mechanics-wise, has little to nothing to do with this. The comics industry has the same problem, existing fans don't like changes, and the more extreme the change, the bigger the backlash.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 22:28:53

Post by: Manchu

Thanks for laying it out with detail.

(1) DH2E takes place in a different sector of the Imperium. To me, that makes more sense for consumers: new rules but the same fluff? Not as worth it -- especially to folks like me who have faithfully bought these books more for the fluff than the rules.

(2) D&D Third Edition is the most radical change in rules in D&D history and it sold phenomenally well. A 40k RPG is not 40k. Sweeping changes are not necessarily anti-consumer. Again, listening to the many and loud (and false) complaints about FFG making us buy the same rules over and over again, I'd say this should actually come off as pro-consumer.

(3) This has no place in the discussion of FFG.

(4) There were complaints when they did this for OW and EotE. Don't hear much negative about those betas now.

(5) DH1E, i.e.., the Calixis Sector, will not get any more support. That is known. But I don't think it's a bad thing. As for RT, DW, BC, and OW -- we know they are getting new stuff soon. Will they get stuff forever and ever? Nope. But that has nothing to do with DH2E.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
D&D the jump to 3rd edition was rocky, for reasons already mentioned, but the jump between 3.0 and 3.5 was generally well received

You will actually find that edition wars go back as far as new editions. I'd recommend reading some of the old letters published in Dragon magazine. I myself can remember people bitching about 3.5 and refusing to buy it and saying they were boycotting WotC for wasting their money with a half-step edition. So much for that.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The comics industry has the same problem, existing fans don't like changes, and the more extreme the change, the bigger the backlash.

On that we can agree. I just don't think fan backlash is that big of deal. It comes and it goes. A lot of it boils down to people thinking they are a lot more knowledgable than they actually are and convincing others of the same. On the FFG forum right now, there are about a dozen crusades against aspects of DH2E that are going to RUIN EVERYTHING and people who are actually reading the rules are gradually explaining that the folks loudly prophesying doom and gloom ... have not read or have misunderstood the rules they are critiquing ...

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 23:14:30

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
(1) DH2E takes place in a different sector of the Imperium. To me, that makes more sense for consumers: new rules but the same fluff? Not as worth it -- especially to folks like me who have faithfully bought these books more for the fluff than the rules.

Doesn't matter t hte market demographics this product targets (unless thier target is people who have never heard of it before). To alienate the minimum number of existing customers, the best approach it to have the least possible change. By changing everything all at once you get greater pushback.

 Manchu wrote:
(2) D&D Third Edition is the most radical change in rules in D&D history and it sold phenomenally well. A 40k RPG is not 40k. Sweeping changes are not necessarily anti-consumer. Again, listening to the many and loud (and false) complaints about FFG making us buy the same rules over and over again, I'd say this should actually come off as pro-consumer.

That's been the subject of some debate since the release of 4e. Point for point dealing with only mechanics, yes, 3e had more individual changes to the games mechanics. However, this is a false comparison. 'Changed how a hit is rolled' is not, after all, equal to 'removed a class' or 'removed an alignment'.

Further, 3e did very little to the fluff of any of the settings. 4e's changes required such extensive overhauls that one review quipped that 'Elminster looked like Joan Rivers'.

 Manchu wrote:

(3) This has no place in the discussion of FFG.

You asked what mistakes WotC made. That was a big one.

 Manchu wrote:

(4) There were complaints when they did this for OW and EotE. Don't hear much negative about those betas now.

Can't say about EotE. OW I can't say I've heard much of anything about anything. After the beta test the forums for it have been pretty dead. I suspect that the people angry about it voted with thier wallets, but can't be sure for obvious reasons,.

I DID however like how several threads were highjacked in the weeks leading up to the announcement of DH 2e by 'people' asking for an updated edition to DH developed in house by FFG, different from the current rules and setting. Nice touch guys, but it was a bit heavy handed when you didn't check to see the dates of the last posts.

 Manchu wrote:

(5) DH1E, i.e.., the Calixis Sector, will not get any more support. That is known. But I don't think it's a bad thing. As for RT, DW, BC, and OW -- we know they are getting new stuff soon. Will they get stuff forever and ever? Nope. But that has nothing to do with DH2E.

Let's go back to the part we explored a few pages back where not everyone buys every game line. And actually it will have an impact on DH 2e.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/25 23:58:43

Post by: Manchu

I think we've reached the end of usefulness when it comes to WotC comparison because I don't think you grasp the shape of D&D's development. Suffice it to say that there was a much wider gap mechanically between AD&D 2E Revised and Third Edition than changing how a hit is rolled. Regarding 4E's struggle, you've also failed to talk about the OGL and Paizo. There is nothing like PF that DH2E need struggle against. The closest is homebrew OW conversions of DH1E and those are unlikely to go further than the homes in which they're brewed.

Your real thesis here is that companies should not change the rules too much between editions. I think there's a lot to be said for that when it comes to 40k, which has to drag a train of codices across several editions at a time. I don't think your thesis holds water with RPGs generally or FFG's 40k RPGs particularly, however.

The reason I zoom in like that is because ... this has been predicted before regarding these products. When folks realized RT and subsequent iterations were going to do different things, there was a lot of backlash. We can probably dig some of it up here on Dakka. FFG is now taking a further step so it's hardly surprising to see the same "experts" come out of the woodwork to announce the end is nigh ... again.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 00:35:11

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
I think we've reached the end of usefulness when it comes to WotC comparison because I don't think you grasp the shape of D&D's development. Suffice it to say that there was a much wider gap mechanically between AD&D 2E Revised and Third Edition than changing how a hit is rolled.

Do you really want me to list every single change between the editions? Because no matter which one of us is right, no one is gonna want to read that wall of text. And, yes, I do follow the scope of D&D's development since 1974. All I have to do is turn my head slightly to the left and I can see every last bit of it on the shelf. And, yes, at it's most fundamental, the biggest change in 3e was the move to the D20 system. Perhaps you didn't play with Players Option like I did. Dunno.

 Manchu wrote:

Regarding 4E's struggle, you've also failed to talk about the OGL and Paizo.

Actually I made a direct reference to it, but then you said:

 Manchu wrote:

(3) This has no place in the discussion of FFG.

While, no, at this time there is no direct competition for 40k specific rpgs, the grimdark and sci-fi rpg field is bustling.

 Manchu wrote:

There is nothing like PF that DH2E need struggle against. The closest is homebrew OW conversions of DH1E and those are unlikely to go further than the homes in which they're brewed.

As the author of some of the most widely circulated ones on the web, I'll just nod and smile.

 Manchu wrote:

Your real thesis here is that companies should not change the rules too much between editions. I think there's a lot to be said for that when it comes to 40k, which has to drag a train of codices across several editions at a time. I don't think your thesis holds water with RPGs generally or FFG's 40k RPGs particularly, however.

It holds just as true for RPGs as it does for 40k. More so, in fact, as a collection of splatbooks can easily rival a 40k army in cost. I mean, granted, this is 40k were talking about here and GW could release a literal turd with some skulls on it and at least a handful of idiots would buy it (look at Finecast). But those guys are hardly enough to keep a product line afloat.

 Manchu wrote:

The reason I zoom in like that is because ... this has been predicted before regarding these products. When folks realized RT and subsequent iterations were going to do different things, there was a lot of backlash. We can probably dig some of it up here on Dakka. FFG is now taking a further step so it's hardly surprising to see the same "experts" come out of the woodwork to announce the end is nigh ... again.

I don't know if you've noticed this, but the fanbase for the RPGs *is* shrinking. I have toons in most 40k communities online, and frankly the level of interest is definitely waning. The number of posts even on the official forums has been steadily declining, and a lot of threads that remain are discussing errata. The admins of Dark Reign have unanimously agreed to drop 40k as our primary thrust and start looking at both developing our own IP (I've been approving art all week) and expanding the community to include other rpgs.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 01:10:22

Post by: Manchu

No, you didn't make a direct reference to either the OGL or Paizo's development of Pathfinder. Instead, you brought up something about Dragon magazine, which has no point of correspondence in the discussion about FFG. Remember, I asked what WotC did wrong and how FFG is doing the same. Again, Dragon magazine is not relevant.

And what's the red herring about the grimdark field being bustling? LOL no. We're talking 40k not gritty scifi generally. If you want to see how well off brand 40k RPGs sell take a look at Necropolis 2350 ... for which no books have been printed since 2010.

As far as D&D goes, now you're being incoherent. You can't dismiss the huge changes between AD&D 2E and Third as "switching to d20." That's like saying communication technology is the same as in the 40s, we just "switched to cell phones and internet."

And no, the situation with 40k is not like the situation with RPGs. If you have collection of splat from last edition, no problem -- play that edition. There is no tournament scene or pick up game situation with RPGs where you need to keep up. And there is no RPG character playing in this edition that is made from last (or further back) edition's rules, unlike say a Black Templar army right now ...

Finally, a shrinking online community of 40k RPGers can mean a lot of things. One of those things is that customers are tired of buying this-edition product.

Can't fault you for wanting to expand your website to non-GW topics. That is an excellent idea!

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 02:20:24

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
No, you didn't make a direct reference to either the OGL or Paizo's development of Pathfinder. Instead, you brought up something about Dragon magazine, which has no point of correspondence in the discussion about FFG.

Dragon was relevant as it lead to Pathfinder. Quite directly, as you might recall. Hell, my old Dragon Lifetime Sub was honored by Paizo for Pathfinder. By canning Dragon they made a ready made audience for Pathfinder and Paizo was quick to act on that. I grant that Pathfinder was a serious blow to 4e, and that there is no direct equivalent to FFG's situation, but you wanted to know what the mistakes were and how FFG was making the same ones. As I pointed out, this was one mistake they couldn't actually make.

 Manchu wrote:

As far as D&D goes, now you're being incoherent. You can't dismiss the huge changes between AD&D 2E and Third as "switching to d20." That's like saying communication technology is the same as in the 40s, we just "switched to cell phones and internet."

...Three are so many things wrong with that statement that again, I'd be writing a wall of text and so, no, not gonna take the bait.

 Manchu wrote:

And no, the situation with 40k is not like the situation with RPGs. If you have collection of splat from last edition, no problem -- play that edition. There is no tournament scene or pick up game situation with RPGs where you need to keep up.

And what if the players don't all have that edition? And, by the way, there is, and you do, actually. DR's busiest forums are the online role play forums, and bluntly, in other game's, this is a rather common problem.

 Manchu wrote:
And there is no RPG character playing in this edition that is made from last (or further back) edition's rules, unlike say a Black Templar army right now ...

Sisters of Battle for DH are actually very much this depending on whether you play the Inq Handbook version or the BoM version.

 Manchu wrote:

Finally, a shrinking online community of 40k RPGers can mean a lot of things. One of those things is that customers are tired of buying this-edition product.

If it was only in forums where they talk about purchasing stuff or the 'official' forums, I'd go along with that reasoning, but it's even in the role play forums and the skype groups. It's not just they're tired of buying it, they're tired of playing it.

 Manchu wrote:

Can't fault you for wanting to expand your website to non-GW topics. That is an excellent idea!

Eventually we'll be expanding into all sorts of 'non GW' products now that the ruling is in on Chapterhouse. However, it's inaccurate to call it 'My' website. I don't actually run it, I just own it. It really belongs to the DR community.. My staff does a marvelous job though and I'd like to take a moment to tank them for working diligently and keeping the DR community happy.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 03:12:41

Post by: H.B.M.C.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Doesn't matter t hte market demographics this product targets (unless thier target is people who have never heard of it before). To alienate the minimum number of existing customers, the best approach it to have the least possible change. By changing everything all at once you get greater pushback.

I don't know if I said this here or on the official forums, but it's not about making the least amount of changes. It's about gain vs loss.

Say the amount of players alienated by a drastic new edition (as this one is) can be represented via a single value (Y). Also say that the amount of new players gained via a new edition can be represented by a different value (X). If X is greater than Y, then a new edition is viable. If Y is greater than X, then it is not.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 04:36:01

Post by: BaronIveagh

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


I don't know if I said this here or on the official forums, but it's not about making the least amount of changes. It's about gain vs loss.

Say the amount of players alienated by a drastic new edition (as this one is) can be represented via a single value (Y). Also say that the amount of new players gained via a new edition can be represented by a different value (X). If X is greater than Y, then a new edition is viable. If Y is greater than X, then it is not.

The problem is that X is an unknown, so the safest approach (from a publishing standpoint) is to minimize Y. That's why changing the fluff AND the crunch at the same time is bad, as it yields the maximum value of Y. You can get away with minor changes in one or the other fairly easily, or changes to crunch that can be explained in terms of fluff (Shadowrun 4e's addition of Technomancers, who had a radically different hacking mechanic than deckers do, for example) but the sort of large scale alterations I'm hearing (need to get the pdf myself) do not bode well.

You can easily spin changes to fluff or crunch, but both at once is just asking for trouble.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 05:41:12

Post by: Manchu

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It's not just they're tired of buying it, they're tired of playing it.

I can certainly agree with that, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
players alienated by a drastic new edition (as this one is)

I think folks are being more than a little precious about this. It's only drastic if you're really committed to the style of development between BC and OW. When it comes to RPGs generally, this is actually pretty mild. I'd use "drastic" to describe something like the change between Second and Third Edition (A)D&D or WFRP. The meaningful changes going on with this beta are frankly not overwhelming the general tone and structure of the previous 40k RPGs taken as a whole. But if one is zoomed way into this ... yeah, I can see why it might seem like the sky is falling.

Reply by: Yodhrin - click to view full reply 

47181

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 07:50:22

Post by: Yodhrin

Honestly, not sure how to feel about this. I mostly got the books for fluff, I've only managed to actually play one solitary game of DH, but I'd become fond of the Calixis sector as a setting.

I suppose one bright note is that this gives HBMC an opportunity to badger FFG to release another AdMech book

Reply by: Valhallan42nd - click to view full reply 

6292

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 13:48:40

Post by: Valhallan42nd

DH1 I played for the setting, not necessarily the system, which is mired in the 80's/90's chart driven overly clunky fiddly of the past.

I'm interested to see what innovative mechanics come out of DH2E. I prefer a more social game, with combat as a last resort, and it seems this system will increase the viability of that option.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 15:39:54

Post by: Manchu

I think that will depend on the GM. There are a lot of them that don't realize combat is just one of the things that can happen in a session. After all, this is a game about combat (like so many RPGs) just going by what has the most rules.

Like DH1E, most of the rules support for narrative development boil down to skills. One bright spot here is Corruption: gone are innocuous mutations, replaced by one really scary Malignancy table. There are, however, some pretty cool rules for Disposition that you might like.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 17:50:47

Post by: BaronIveagh

Achem: if you guys want to see some real HATE on this beta (with full explanations surprisingly), RPG Codex has a thread on this that made ME feel like a total fanboy.

THis one caught my eye

Darth Roxor wrote:
BUT NOW you roll damage, reduce tuffness/armour and then consult a TABLE to see what you did. You gotta strictly keep track of what damage type is used and what body part is hit. Then you gotta look for the right table among a gazillion. Each time you do 'damage' this way, you assign 1 wound to target location. Next hits will get +5 to the wound table shtick per each wound.

I have to ask, since i do not have this yet: Is this idiotic bs true? I read that mega moronic skill combining such as tech use in OW has been made the order of the day. The piloting skill now allows everything from skate boards to battlecruisers all on the exact same skill??? Psykers are no longer taken to Terra and subjected to horrors to be sanctioned???? WTF?

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 17:58:39

Post by: Manchu

 BaronIveagh wrote:
RPG Codex has a thread on this

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I have to ask, since i do not have this yet: Is this idiotic bs true?

LOL I posted about this last page. Despite all the opinions flying in this thread, I'm still the only person to actually post about the mechanics ...

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Psykers are no longer taken to Terra and subjected to horrors to be sanctioned???? WTF?

Careful there. We don't need a meltadown at the nuclear overreactor. Save that for the RPG Codex. Sanctioned comes from the AAT background but any one can buy Psker as an Elite Advance. Seems that if you don't have Sanctioned and take Psyker, you will receive a Malignancy (even at chargen). So sure, you can do this. But it could be very rough on you. I think that's 100% true to the background.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 18:02:32

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

Yeah, laugh it up, but is this gak true?

Edit: I see that yes it is. And now I see why HBMC is so concerned.


BTW: I'm starting to see names of people who used to call me to task for being too negative gaking on this sucker. Is this gonna be one it'd better to save my $20 for something more enjoyable? A root canal perhaps?

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 18:06:39

Post by: Manchu

Read this thread to find out!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Is this gonna be one it'd better to save my $20 for something more enjoyable? A root canal perhaps?

I only know you through Dakka but you seem to enjoy complaining more than anything else -- but since you're going to complain about DH2E no matter what I'm not sure that $20 is actually buying you anything.

Reply by: BrookM - click to view full reply 

7375

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 18:24:14

Post by: BrookM

Okay, so we're back to bitching about the little things and blowing them up to such a degree that it must mean that this is DOOMED TO FAIL.

I like what I'm reading thus far though, it'll be a bitch to properly get a grip on though, I'm not that die-hard a player, nor am I the fastest with picking new rulesets up.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 18:28:37

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
but since you're going to complain about DH2E no matter what I'm not sure that $20 is actually buying you anything.

A popular misconception but untrue. As has been grudgingly pointed out in the past, I have actually given FFG products in the DH and RT lines generally favorable reviews in the past.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 18:34:30

Post by: Manchu

Dude, you've spend the last 2 pages predicting "with absolute certainty" that a rule set you admit to not even reading is going to be awful and fail.

Reply by: CadianXV - click to view full reply 

18567

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 18:47:16

Post by: CadianXV

Not a frequent enough player to buy into the closed Beta, but I'm definitely interested in this.

Manchu, without undermining your investment, can you say if the ruleset appears (relatively) easy to pick up, and has the lethality of the setting been preserved?

As far as my experiences tell me, the emphasis on skill vs. combat, and what those skills allowed you to do, very much comes down to the GM.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 19:00:08

Post by: Manchu

Well, this is definitely a beta and needs some cleaning up. I wouldn't advise you to get it unless you are actively interested in learning about and discussing prospective developments.

But as far as the main concepts go, I like DH2E better than the original. TBH, I thought the original was terrible. I was super excited to play a 40k RPG when DH first came out (from FFG, I didn't have the BL version) but after playing it a few times ... the mechanics just weren't that fun for me compared to the complexity. I don't think folks who are actively playing other RPGs (other than FFG's other 40k games, I mean) can say DH1E is a great system. For all its complexity, DH1E doesn't give much back.

DH2E is still pretty baroque but it seems to reward players for dealing with the complexity. Action Points are a great example. Gone is the steep learning curve associated with DH1E's time anatomy. Now everything costs a given amount of AP. I mean, that's still complicated but it's comparatively easy to digest and get to playing.

The wound tables are another example of complexity that (hypothetically) pays off. I have not played this beta but I love games that involve tables. I used to hate this idea, back before I tried it, on the premise that it would just slow everything to a crawl. IME it actually helps combat rise above arithmetic.

Using the tables shouldn't be that hard, either: any attack that hits and does damage gives you a wound, the severity of which depends on how many wounds you've already taken. Getting shot in the arm with a lasgun is different than getting smashed in the chest with a shock maul. It's not just -X HP every time the baddies connect.

Some gamers have tablephobia. Like any other phobia, it's not a rational position.

DH1E asked a lot out of its players compared to the rules lite games I prefer. So does DH2E. The difference is that stuff like the wound mechanic gives me a reason to invest the time learning it. DH1E was just a lot of complicated ways to do the same old stuff with a 40k wrapper.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 19:35:26

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
Dude, you've spend the last 2 pages predicting "with absolute certainty" that a rule set you admit to not even reading is going to be awful and fail.

Yes. Because it doesn't matter how good or bad the game is. HBMC explained it pretty succinctly, but I'll do it again to make it as plain as possible: by going about this in the way they have, they're stacking the deck against themselves.

It's very simple, you have a unknown that can be estimated and one that can't.

X is the number of new players the new edition attracts.

Y is the number of old players the new edition alienates.

If X<Y then the product fails. X is an unknown, as is Y, but Y is an unknown who's value increases proportionately to the number and extremity of the changes to both fluff and crunch a new edition brings. Given that 40k rpgs are a niche market and that a sizable minority if not a majority of the pool of potential customers already play the original or one of it's derivatives, and the largest demographic in those players, 40k players, tend to be change adverse, this creates a situation where X is at a minimal value while Y is at a maximum one,>


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CadianXV wrote:

can you say if the ruleset appears (relatively) easy to pick up, and has the lethality of the setting been preserved?

Take with a grain of salt, as I'm just repeating what I've read or been told.

One shot kills appear to be by and large no longer possible, aside from a meltagun at point blank range to the head. Plasma guns pen no longer beats flak. Hilariously the new 'noise' mechanic seems a bit off, hopefully this will be corrected in the beta. STR bonus no longer applies to most melee weapons. Toughness still beats armor.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 20:13:50

Post by: Manchu

I've already explained that I disagree with your thesis that change is presumptively bad. A better rule of thumb is change makes the internet angry.

It's true that your PC will not likely die to one shot ... which seems like a good thing. Novice and Elite enemies can be one-shotted on a critical wound. Sb applies to over 50% of melee weapons.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 20:42:57

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
I've already explained that I disagree with your thesis that change is presumptively bad. A better rule of thumb is change makes the internet angry.

It's true that your PC will not likely die to one shot ... which seems like a good thing. Novice and Elite enemies can be one-shotted on a critical wound. Sb applies to over 50% of melee weapons.

You still misunderstand. Change is not bad. It's manipulating the reaction to change and minimizing risk that's important.


And in effect, the answer to his question then is no, they didn't keep the lethality.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 20:50:42

Post by: Manchu

Is one-shotting PCs something that regularly occurs in DH1E? I had no idea it was as bad as that.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 21:05:43

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
Is one-shotting PCs something that regularly occurs in DH1E? I had no idea it was as bad as that.

It's actually a bit CoC like in that,

And as is one shoting enemies and having your psyker explode. That's why one shot weapons are useful. As I understand this, even a lascannon would struggle to kill a player in one shot under the new rules.

From what I'm reading, a called shot to the (unarmored) head with a sniper rifle or bolt pistol may not result in a kill on any given enemy even on a hit.

I have noticed a definite general trend in posting that people who actually played the original on a regular basis seem at best lukewarm to the new one, where as people who out and out hated the original are generally in favor of the new one. Again, that's not reassuring, particularly when I see people who previously posted how great DH was and how FFG could do no wrong are now hating on this.



Most hilarious errors yet found: the common ground car has better armor and handling than the Chimera. This has already been declared an error, but I think it shows just how badly this is being handled.

Reply by: SpaceRatCatcher - click to view full reply 

57117

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 21:16:13

Post by: SpaceRatCatcher

 Manchu wrote:
Is one-shotting PCs something that regularly occurs in DH1E? I had no idea it was as bad as that.

Not with any regularity, in my experience. It is possible with the Righteous Fury exploding damage dice, of course, and certain powerful weapons.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 21:24:38

Post by: BaronIveagh

SpaceRatCatcher wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Is one-shotting PCs something that regularly occurs in DH1E? I had no idea it was as bad as that.

Not with any regularity, in my experience. It is possible with the Righteous Fury exploding damage dice, of course, and certain powerful weapons.

See, every time we played, and every group I've talked to, has had low level characters go down like ten pins in combat. And not just against heavy bolters and stubbers.



Ok, this is silly: a bolter is pen 2, and robes are armor 3.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 21:43:35

Post by: Manchu

I don't think OTT grimdark 40k PCs should be quite as soft as CoC characters.

Yep, if an enemy shoots an average PC's unarmored head with a sniper rife and rolls maximum damage the PC will neither die nor even be likely to die if hit the same way the next turn (barring taking other wounds before that). There are only a few (personal) weapons that can kill an unarmored, unwounded PC in one attack: heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, and autocannons.

OTOH, no PC is surviving more than five or six hits (or less if any are critical), no matter how little damage they each do, factoring in the subsequent attack caveat. So while you will only very rarely die to one attack combat lethality is still pretty high. As I mentioned, you are tough and vulnerable at the same time in this game.

Put it another way, the game encourages tactical combat and discourages cheap shots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Most hilarious errors yet found: the common ground car has better armor and handling than the Chimera. This has already been declared an error, but I think it shows just how badly this is being handled.

Tim Hucklebery wrote:Hi all, quick reply on this bit. There is indeed a layout error in the movement/armour blocks for those two vehicles. As many guessed, they should be swapped so the chimera has the higher values and the hectin the lower ones. The weapon stats should be as per their regular armoury entries as well.

We'll add this into the first errata update as well for those that might miss it here. Thanks again for the feedback everyone!

A layout error in the beta PDF. Truly, they are monsters ...

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 23:23:11

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
IA layout error in the beta PDF. Truly, they are monsters ...

It shows that they're not even bothering to do the most basic proofreading, because this was a glaring error. When something goes to beta, it usually means that the majority of the work is done on it, and they're looking for balance checking and any weird rules interactions they missed.

The weapons and armor seem to be wildly out of synch with each other in particular. A sack cloth robe should probably not be giving much by way of protection from a rocket propelled armor piercing explosive round. Yet robe is again armor 3, the bolter AP 2.

So, again, we're back to the old days when the heavy bolter was the most hated weapon in DH. Genius.

It's one thing to say 'they should not be as squishy as CoC characters'. It's another to make them tougher than space marines. To make an example: To execute someone a commissar would have to shoot the guardsman several times with the bolt pistol, in the head, to kill them, because of the way the system (supposedly) works. A sniper cannot Aim and Make a Called shot in the same round, because that would take 5 AP to also shoot the sniper rifle (if I read this right).

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/26 23:48:53

Post by: Manchu

I think a lot of the armory issues are down to the system being limited to d10s. Aside from that, the best way I can explain it is the combat system assumes everyone is trying to not be hit. The other thing is, combat is not just an issue of damage anymore. Like I said, 7 hits that do one damage each will kill any PC of any rank (all other things being equal). You're definitely tougher than a CoC Investigator ... but this isn't like being a SM.

I don't think the combat system is trying to simulate things like a Commissar executing a Guardsman. That would just be handled via narrative.

You're right about the Sniper Rifle scenario -- it takes 3 AP to fire the thing and both of Called Shot and Aim cost 1 AP. I think the issue there is you need to think about what you're trying to accomplish.

Outside of narrative, you're not going to kill a Master NPC with only one shot. And neither of Called Shot or Aim is going to guarantee you a Critical Wound that could one shot a Novice or Elite NPC. So when you pick between Called Shot or Aim, you're really picking between forcing an enemy to take a worse Wound Effect or having a better chance to inflict a wound.

That you can't do both doesn't make the Sniper Rifle underpowered. It means you have a tactical decision to make. The problem is assuming the combat system should be set up to deal one shots when it is actually set up to (mostly) avoid those.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 01:09:53

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
I think a lot of the armory issues are down to the system being limited to d10s. Aside from that, the best way I can explain it is the combat system assumes everyone is trying to not be hit.

This explanation fails flat with the fact that even frag grenade (something that your are not going to 'dodge') will one shot an unarmored human.

 Manchu wrote:

The other thing is, combat is not just an issue of damage anymore. Like I said, 7 hits that do one damage each will kill any PC of any rank (all other things being equal). You're definitely tougher than a CoC Investigator ... but this isn't like being a SM.

No, SM die when you shoot them in the face with a lascannon,

The reason that the weapons cited are so powerful is automatic fire rather than their ability to do actual damage, due to the way cumulative hits work.

Which is idiotic as it makes the heavy stubber on the tank more powerful than the lascannon in it''s hull.

 Manchu wrote:

You're right about the Sniper Rifle scenario -- it takes 3 AP to fire the thing and both of Called Shot and Aim cost 1 AP. I think the issue there is you need to think about what you're trying to accomplish.

Outside of narrative, you're not going to kill a Master NPC with only one shot. And neither of Called Shot or Aim is going to guarantee you a Critical Wound that could one shot a Novice or Elite NPC. So when you pick between Called Shot or Aim, you're really picking between forcing an enemy to take a worse Wound Effect or having a better chance to inflict a wound.

'Narrative' seems to cover a great many sins for you.

And this is again where this whole thing falls down. Bolters can pierce power armor, but not a cloth robe. A krak missile can kill a tank, but not a man. The testers wrote in that it was needlessly complicated and did not work very well, and it went to beta anyway.

 Manchu wrote:

That you can't do both doesn't make the Sniper Rifle underpowered. It means you have a tactical decision to make. The problem is assuming the combat system should be set up to deal one shots when it is actually set up to (mostly) avoid those.

The problem is the degree to which it avoids it makes it laughable rather than good and leads to situations where weapons that would not actually be that powerful are grotesquely imbalanced.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 01:24:11

Post by: H.B.M.C.

 Manchu wrote:
Dude, you've spend the last 2 pages predicting "with absolute certainty" that a rule set you admit to not even reading is going to be awful and fail.

And you've spent the same two pages dismissing any and all criticism. Worse, you're belittling and ridiculing those that don't agree with you.

The eviscerator cuts both ways.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 01:41:09

Post by: BaronIveagh

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Dude, you've spend the last 2 pages predicting "with absolute certainty" that a rule set you admit to not even reading is going to be awful and fail.

And you've spent the same two pages dismissing any and all criticism. Worse, you're belittling and ridiculing those that don't agree with you.

The eviscerator cuts both ways.

But sadly does not cut carapace armor (IIRC) in the new rules.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 02:42:50

Post by: H.B.M.C.

That's why you hide behind cover, which appears to be tougher than star-ship hulls.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 03:08:55

Post by: Manchu

BaronIveagh:

The trouble with your posts is that you're speaking authoritatively about something even you admit to knowing nothing about first hand.

- You keep mentioning lascannons. Where are the stats for those again? And why are we talking about SM?
- You say bolters can pierce PA but not robes. It's actually the other way around, you know, just as you'd expect.
- I'm not sure what you mean by "cumulative hits" but it sounds like you just read the OP in a thread on FFG's forum ... which was mistaken.
- You say a PC can't evade a grenade blast. Which page is that on?

And about narrative ... Why would you use the combat rules to run a scene where a Commissar executes a Guardsman? The combat rules are for situations in which the outcome is uncertain. That's why dice are involved.

I have confirmed your second hand opinions where they actually reflect the rules. But you're quoting more than rules you've read other people post on forums. You're also spreading other people's conclusions, cherry-picking the vitriolically negative remarks -- seemingly because those are the ones you already agree with. Truth is, you've posted a lot more hyperbolic rhetoric than accurate information.

HBMC:

I'd be happy to discuss the rules with you since you've actually read them and there is no NDA keeping you from talking about the open beta. I know you call this a drastic change but the truth is DH2E has a lot more in common with DH1E than many subsequent editions of RPGs have with previous ones. Just in terms of FFG, I know you have WFRP 2E and 3E in mind.

Streamlining skills, ditching HP in favor of wounds, using numerical- rather than keyword-based time units ... these are all significant changes to be sure. IIRC, your group still had fun with DH2E even if you were ultimately neutral about what role the changes ultimately played in generating that fun. It's different enough to be called Second Edition. But it is still recognizably Dark Heresy.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 03:19:40

Post by: BaronIveagh

Yes, because as all men know, adamantium is a cheap second to the miraculous flakboard asteroids, which can only be mined with captured gauss flayers.

It's interesting that wreckage of a chimera is more durable and provides better protection than an intact one.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 03:42:15

Post by: Manchu

There are a couple of things about DH2E that puzzle me. Taking Sb away from some melee weapons only makes sense to me because there are more weapons than variations on d10 damage rolls. I also don't know why FFG went with Talent Trees.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 03:54:51

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:


The trouble with your posts is that you're speaking authoritatively about something even you admit to knowing nothing about first hand.

Let me put it this way: I have not yet played hte game. However, on the areas on which I have spoken 'authoritativly, I don't have to have played the game, or even read the rules. This is game publishing 101 stuff.

 Manchu wrote:

- You keep mentioning lascannons. Where are the stats for those again? And why are we talking about SM?

None that I know of yet. However:

The meltagun and autocannons are. So, unless lascannons are going to be really supercharged compared with their usual stats relative to those two....

 Manchu wrote:

- You say bolters can pierce PA but not robes. It's actually the other way around, you know, just as you'd expect.

I was comparing the mechanics of DH 2nd Ed to the mechanics of, well, everything else ever written about them, pretty much.

Bolters are AP 2. Robes are armor 3. Light PA is Armor 6 for the chest and 5 for the arms. This means that a bolter does not ignore the armor value of cotton or sack cloth robes.

 Manchu wrote:

- I'm not sure what you mean by "cumulative hits" but it sounds like you just read the OP in a thread on FFG's forum ... which was mistaken.

[page 207] To determine the wound effect, the character takes the total damage dealt by the hit (damage value minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each wound he was suffering from prior to the attack:

Wound +5

Critical wound +10

My understanding of it is each hit is worked out separately, in turn, but full auto inflicts multiple hits.

 Manchu wrote:

- You say a PC can't evade a grenade blast. Which page is that on?

You claimed it made sense because everyone was 'trying to avoid being hit'. This logic does not apply to grenades, which are AoE. You can't 'avoid' grenade fragments other than by getting behind cover.

 Manchu wrote:
The combat rules are for situations in which the outcome is uncertain. That's why dice are involved.

Because at these horrid pens and damage ratings, there would be uncertainty involved. You'd be surprised how often men survive being shot in the head with a pistol. Even a very powerful one.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 04:03:25

Post by: Manchu

Page 207 also says that you ad the "modifiers for each wound he was suffering from prior to the attack." I personally have explained this several times on FFG's forum and I know I am not the only one. It especially came up in the thread criticizing full auto.

As far as I can tell, PCs can indeed attempt to Evade some but not all grenades. Evading is an active defense, however. I was speaking of something passive -- just an assumption underlying the rules that even characters who are not (or cannot) actively Evade are still "in combat" (trying not to get hit) instead of mindlessly standing around ... like being flat-footed in the sense of D&D 3.5.

The Commissar example still makes no sense. What is the point of the scene? You're going to have to give an actual hypothetical. Are you playing a Commissar who wants to execute a passive Guardsman? I don't think DH covers that kind of situation since it's not about serving in an IG regiment.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 04:10:29

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
Page 207 also says that you ad the "modifiers for each wound he was suffering from [i]prior to the attack." I personally have explained this several times on FFG's forum and I know I am not the only one. It especially came up in the thread criticizing full auto.

Which was in the quote I just quoted. However, the rules seem to be treating each 'hit' as a separate attack, based on the fact that each shot consumes X fractions of an action point. Therefore, without errata, RAW would seem to bare out that each hit resolves as a separate attack, and thus the +5s per wound are cumulative.

 Manchu wrote:

The Commissar example still makes no sense. What is the point of the scene? You're going to have to give an actual hypothetical. Are you playing a Commissar who wants to execute a passive Guardsman? I don't think DH covers that kind of situation since it's not about serving in an IG regiment.

Much as you complained that many of the people failed ot grasp what action points represented, you seem to fail to grasp that a combat system represents an abstraction of how a real or semi-real combat scenario plays out. The commissar was an example of one of the simplest possible scenarios shooting a relatively defenseless target in the head.

Think of it like the cutting test of a katana. If it can't do this relatively simple thing and have the logical outcome happen, then it's no good.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 04:13:12

Post by: Manchu

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Therefore, without errata, RAW would seem to bare out that each hit resolves as a separate attack, and thus the +5s per wound are cumulative.

No: Each hit in an attack results in a separate wound but those separate wounds only count for modifying the wound effect result on hits in subsequent attacks.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's why you hide behind cover, which appears to be tougher than star-ship hulls.

The front-facing armor on a Chimera is 30. That is the same amour value on the cover example table as voidship bulkheads.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
you seem to fail to grasp that a combat system represents an abstraction of how a real or semi-real combat scenario plays out

Executing someone is not an example of combat.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 04:20:01

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
No: Each hit in an attack results in a separate wound but those separate wounds only count for modifying the wound effect result on hits in subsequent attacks.

Please show me where then, I'm not seeing that. What I' reading here makes it look like they used 'attack' as a synonym for 'hit' in this case.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 04:24:30

Post by: Manchu

Hit is not a synonym for Attack. This is another case where understanding AP is critical. An attack is an action that can be performed by spending AP. An attack can result in one or more hits. Hits that make it through Defence Value become Wounds.

Again, the relevant language (again, with emphasis) is: "To determine the wound effect, the character takes the total damage dealt by a hit (damage minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each wounds [sic] he was suffering from prior to the attack."

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 04:25:44

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
Executing someone is not an example of combat.

Dear Emperor give me strength.

Think of it as target practice against a live target. The point being that the combat system cannot reproduce the most basic sort of shot against a target, then it's worthless for approximating combat.


And ROF spends AP. So each 'Shot' is spending a fraction of an AP. And is therefor an attack, if the criteria is that it spends AP. Remember that you cannot use a weapons full ROF without enough AP, meaning each shot is a separate attack.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 04:35:25

Post by: Manchu

Is torturing a prisoner also an attack? Emperor give me strength.

Again, no -- p 197: dual-wielding aside "[a] character can only perform one attack action per turn." RoF describes how much AP it costs to perform an Attack with a given weapon.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 04:55:55

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
Is torturing a prisoner also an attack? Emperor give me strength.

Strawman much? Again, this is a simple shot against exactly the target you would be shooting at in combat, and yet the combat system does not correctly model this.

 Manchu wrote:

Again, no -- p 197: dual-wielding aside "[a] character can only perform one attack action per turn." RoF describes how much AP it costs to perform an Attack with a given weapon.

My understanding of thti s that the attack action costs less by using less than the full ROF. However, that said:


I found the actual solution: according to this all the wounds from a given attack action resolve simultaneously. So there is no 'previous'. This does raise the rather bizarre situation where a target hit by 5 shots from a heavy bolter might live, but hit by four shot and then a single shot would be killed.

Reply by: Yodhrin - click to view full reply 

47181

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 05:08:25

Post by: Yodhrin

 Manchu wrote:
Is torturing a prisoner also an attack? Emperor give me strength.

Again, no -- p 197: dual-wielding aside "[a] character can only perform one attack action per turn." RoF describes how much AP it costs to perform an Attack with a given weapon.

If the DH2.0 system is supposed to represent characters as being difficult to hit because they're zig-zagging and ducking all over the joint, that should be dealt with in the phase where you determine whether or not they are hit, not by making it possible to survive being shot in the face by an anti-tank laser(and they have been shot in the face, because the combat system has already established that the shot was fired and that it hit them). There simply isn't an argument here, and the fact that you are struggling desperately to summon one from the aether in the face of simple elementary logic(C follows B, follows A) makes your earlier protestations of objectivity in the face of Baron & HBMC's supposed "hate" all the more laughable.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 05:15:33

Post by: Manchu

It isn't a strawman. Not every instance of violence qualifies for combat in this game.

You cannot spend fractions of an AP: p 132-33 "these weapons [with fractional RoF] cannot be fired unless the action being used to attack multiplies their RoF above 1 [...] If the character does not spend enough AP to get the RoA of an attack action over 1, the attack fails."

I am not conflating attack and attack action. They simply aren't separate terms as far as the combat rules go.

Attacks that inflict multiple wounds do make subsequent attacks on the same target more lethal. I never said otherwise.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 05:26:00

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
It isn't a strawman. Not every instance of violence qualifies for combat in this game.

You asked me if torture was combat. That's a strawman. And insulting.

You still don't seem to be grasping the point. This is the most basic sort of ranged shot. If it can't perform this really basic function, then there's something fundamentally flawed with the combat system.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 05:26:46

Post by: Manchu

@Yohdrin: The wound effect table actually clears this up. When you get hit in the head (or anywhere else), the amount of damage from that hit modified by whatever wounds you have already taken. The resulting number is the entry you use look up on the table. Each table has about 20 entries running from about 1 to 30. Any time the wound effect result is 30 or higher (and sometimes lower), you die. Before that point something bad but less than death occurs.

For example: getting shot with an energy weapon in the head to the tune of 12 results in "The target tries desperately to shields [sic] his eyes an instant before the shot strikes him in the forehead, knocking him off balance and temporarily blinding him." A result of 27 on the same table by contrast yields "With a sickening series of pops, the target's eyes burst and his flesh boils as an inferno fully envelops his face." (Every result yields certain conditions, too, but I won't bother posting them unless you want.)

I think the problem a lot of folks are having conceptualizing this is that they keep thinking of damage in terms of HP. Damage in this game is about wounds instead. You take wounds until you are so badly hurt -- by an accumulation of wounds and/or by a devastating blow -- that you die. In the meantime, you're getting maimed.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It isn't a strawman. Not every instance of violence qualifies for combat in this game.

You asked me if torture was combat. That's a strawman. And insulting.

You still don't seem to be grasping the point. This is the most basic sort of ranged shot. If it can't perform this really basic function, then there's something fundamentally flawed with the combat system.

It's not a strawman. Again, not every instance of violence qualifies as combat. Even you own example, target practice, is not combat. Shooting a passive target may be a basic shot but its not combat.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 05:47:34

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
It's not a strawman. Again, not every instance of violence qualifies as combat. Even you own example, target practice, is not combat. Shooting a passive target may be a basic shot but its not combat.

Yes, it is a straw-man, as it's misrepresenting my position to refute or dismiss it. It's the very definition of a straw-man.

If that's the case, then why do sniper rifles use the combat system? As we just were discussing earlier,the sniper rifle cannot one shot kill targets in the combat system (save through a crit). It can ONLY do so in narrative. Which is sort of completely at odds with the entire purpose of a sniper rifle, which is, as they say, one shot, one kill.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 05:56:14

Post by: Manchu

I am not misrepresenting your position. I am disagreeing with it. Executing someone is no more a combat than torturing a prisoner. You can use any of the weapons in the book in combat, including the Sniper rifle. But the rules no more intend to simulate a one-shot sniper kill (at least not with this particular sniper rifle) than an execution.

EDIT: I'm talking about one-shot kills against PCs and Master-level NPCs. It is possible to one-shot Novice- and Elite-level NPCs with any weapon provided you inflict a critical wound.

Reply by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured - click to view full reply 

60720

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 11:36:59

Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured

I do love critical hit tables (right back to ICEs Rolemaster),

they make combat so much more interesting than just subtracting X until you hit 0

so I'm glad to see them coming in here

Skill trees could be good or not, depending on how broad/narrow your choices are (I'd imagine they've come in as they are so ubiquitous in MMORPGs and FFG is trying to please players who are familiar with them)

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 12:19:42

Post by: H.B.M.C.

 Yodhrin wrote:
HBMC's supposed "hate" all the more laughable.

I've hardly said anything, and you're immediately labelling my words as 'hate'.

Grow up.

Reply by: Yodhrin - click to view full reply 

47181

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 13:02:46

Post by: Yodhrin

 Manchu wrote:


I think the problem a lot of folks are having conceptualizing this is that they keep thinking of damage in terms of HP. Damage in this game is about wounds instead. You take wounds until you are so badly hurt -- by an accumulation of wounds and/or by a devastating blow -- that you die. In the meantime, you're getting maimed.

There's no problem here, we grok the idea just fine, the issue is some weapons simply shouldn't be "maiming" anyone if they shoot them in the face. If a bolt round hits an unarmoured head, please explain how that person survives, without resorting to some ludicrous 1 in a million scenario. Please do the same for melta weapons, lascannons, large-calibre sniper weapons, etc etc etc. I don't mean in terms of mechanics, I mean explain to me how it's remotely plausible for characters to be running around getting shot in the head multiple times before they drop.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
HBMC's supposed "hate" all the more laughable.

I've hardly said anything, and you're immediately labelling my words as 'hate'.

Grow up.

Righto chief, take a deep breath, go back, and read that post again. Perhaps the second or third time through, you'll notice that the context of the remark was meant to imply that your "hate" was nothing of the sort.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 14:25:24

Post by: Manchu

 Yodhrin wrote:
I mean explain to me how it's remotely plausible for characters to be running around getting shot in the head multiple times before they drop.

I tried to, by quoting the wound effects. A lot of the lower entries for the head describe near misses rather than hits. Like I said, I assume the idea is that everyone is trying to not get hit in combat. Even in a HP system with called shots, getting shot in the head does not necessarily result in instakill.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've hardly said anything, and you're immediately labelling my words as 'hate'.

He was saying that I am calling your posts hate, which is inaccurate. You read the rules and ran the game. If you don't like it, at least you have knowledge to back it up.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 14:48:19

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:

EDIT: I'm talking about one-shot kills against PCs and Master-level NPCs. It is possible to one-shot Novice- and Elite-level NPCs with any weapon provided you inflict a critical wound.

The problem is that without that critical wound, you can't even head shot kill a low level mook with anything short of a melta at point blank range. To use the bolt pistol example, as you pointed out elsewhere, the absolute max the commissar shooting him in the head can do is stun him.

 Manchu wrote:
You read the rules and ran the game.

Considering by your own admission you have not really done one of those, yet are quite loud in your proclamations of how superior it is, there's a just a bit of hypocrisy in this statement?

Reply by: PrimarchX - click to view full reply 

38900

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 15:14:45

Post by: PrimarchX

I'm not happy with the wound mechanic at this time. 1st Ed has a wonderfully lethal aspect to their weapons where a single hit had the potential of killing an Acolyte. This makes players cautious and fearful, which fits the genre.

In 2nd Ed even Novice NPCs take two hits (wounds) to kill. This means using a bolt pistol against a rat will require two shots of rare and hard to replace ammo to dispatch. The wound mechanic is intriguing but it needs to be more lethally scaled in my opinion.

As a GM, after running Shadowrun for a while, I have a rule that if a PC in their pajamas isn't afraid of a mook with a gun, there's a problem.

Reply by: BrookM - click to view full reply 

7375

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 15:28:59

Post by: BrookM

I think a good GM can always wave the amount of wounds for low level mooks and critters, not everything has to be followed so strictly by the book.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 15:50:25

Post by: Manchu

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The problem is that without that critical wound, you can't even head shot kill a low level mook with anything short of a melta at point blank range. To use the bolt pistol example, as you pointed out elsewhere, the absolute max the commissar shooting him in the head can do is stun him.

Yep. I don't see that as a problem. Again, the combat rules are clearly not supposed to simulate an execution. As per the FFG forum thread, the sniper rifle is a much better example -- and just like I said there:

I don't think the rules for the sniper rifle itself should be changed. The way I think about is, just giving someone a sniper rifle doesn't make them a sniper. It's the person that matters not the gun. One shot/one kill levels of accuracy takes specific training. And the DH2E beta admittedly currently does not support mechanics simulating that -- a couple of people have posted good reasons why that might be. It's not hard to imagine a Vindicare-like talent tree showing up later.

 PrimarchX wrote:
In 2nd Ed even Novice NPCs take two hits (wounds) to kill. This means using a bolt pistol against a rat will require two shots of rare and hard to replace ammo to dispatch. [...] I have a rule that if a PC in their pajamas isn't afraid of a mook with a gun, there's a problem.

So should mooks be easier to kill or harder to kill? You seem to be saying both.

 BrookM wrote:
I think a good GM can always wave the amount of wounds for low level mooks and critters, not everything has to be followed so strictly by the book.

That's an excellent point.

Reply by: PrimarchX - click to view full reply 

38900

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 16:14:10

Post by: PrimarchX

 Manchu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The problem is that without that critical wound, you can't even head shot kill a low level mook with anything short of a melta at point blank range. To use the bolt pistol example, as you pointed out elsewhere, the absolute max the commissar shooting him in the head can do is stun him.

Yep. I don't see that as a problem. Again, the combat rules are clearly not supposed to simulate an execution. As per the FFG forum thread, the sniper rifle is a much better example -- and just like I said there:

I don't think the rules for the sniper rifle itself should be changed. The way I think about is, just giving someone a sniper rifle doesn't make them a sniper. It's the person that matters not the gun. One shot/one kill levels of accuracy takes specific training. And the DH2E beta admittedly currently does not support mechanics simulating that -- a couple of people have posted good reasons why that might be. It's not hard to imagine a Vindicare-like talent tree showing up later.

 PrimarchX wrote:
In 2nd Ed even Novice NPCs take two hits (wounds) to kill. This means using a bolt pistol against a rat will require two shots of rare and hard to replace ammo to dispatch. [...] I have a rule that if a PC in their pajamas isn't afraid of a mook with a gun, there's a problem.

So should mooks be easier to kill or harder to kill? You seem to be saying both.

 BrookM wrote:
I think a good GM can always wave the amount of wounds for low level mooks and critters, not everything has to be followed so strictly by the book.

That's an excellent point.

Manchu - Mooks should be easy to kill and not take a lot of book keeping to track their status. Players and major NPCs should have a healthy fear of being killed from common weaponry but have formidable abilities that usually protects them from such things.

BrookM - As a GM I prefer a system that doesn't require my intervention to take care of common issues the game engine should easily handle. I could write a whole gamut of house rules and NPCs with special exceptions. That takes time and often annoys players who get confused when things start to deviate from the published rules set they're accustomed to.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 16:17:26

Post by: Manchu

In DH2E, mooks die on at most two hits no matter how little the damage. Weapons are lethal to PCs as well, just not (mostly) on a one-shot basis.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 16:22:23

Post by: BaronIveagh

 BrookM wrote:
I think a good GM can always wave the amount of wounds for low level mooks and critters, not everything has to be followed so strictly by the book.

Yes, but saying that GM fiat can make the issue go away doesn't actually address the issue.

Saying that is like saying 'Well, you don't HAVE to play the game." It's like Manchu's 'well, they're not snipers' cop out. It avoids the issue rather than addressing it.

And sniper rifles are just one example.

Shooting someone in the face with a shotgun or bolt pistol at point blank range has the same issues. These are wounds that should be automatically fatal to an unarmored normal human mook (and extremely serious to even the biggest baddest PC) in any working combat system. The excuse 'well, they're evading' ignores the fact that moving around and using cover has already been dealt with in determining if the hit took place to begin with. (and evading a shotgun blast to the face... after it's already been determined to hit... REALLY?).

Reply by: SpaceRatCatcher - click to view full reply 

57117

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 16:26:27

Post by: SpaceRatCatcher

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
I think a good GM can always wave the amount of wounds for low level mooks and critters, not everything has to be followed so strictly by the book.

Yes, but saying that GM fiat can make the issue go away doesn't actually address the issue.

Saying that is like saying 'Well, you don't HAVE to play the game." It's like Manchu's 'well, they're not snipers' cop out. It avoids the issue rather than addressing it.

And sniper rifles are just one example.

Shooting someone in the face with a shotgun or bolt pistol at point blank range has the same issues. These are wounds that should be automatically fatal to an unarmored normal human mook (and extremely serious to even the biggest baddest PC) in any working combat system. The excuse 'well, they're evading' ignores the fact that moving around and using cover has already been dealt with in determining if the hit took place to begin with. (and evading a shotgun blast to the face... after it's already been determined to hit... REALLY?).

By that definition, none of the existing 40kRP lines have a working combat system.

Reply by: Yodhrin - click to view full reply 

47181

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 16:35:43

Post by: Yodhrin

 Manchu wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
I mean explain to me how it's remotely plausible for characters to be running around getting shot in the head multiple times before they drop.

I tried to, by quoting the wound effects. A lot of the lower entries for the head describe near misses rather than hits. Like I said, I assume the idea is that everyone is trying to not get hit in combat. Even in a HP system with called shots, getting shot in the head does not necessarily result in instakill.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've hardly said anything, and you're immediately labelling my words as 'hate'.

He was saying that I am calling your posts hate, which is inaccurate. You read the rules and ran the game. If you don't like it, at least you have knowledge to back it up.

And like I said, that's a stupid system - you determine whether something hits or not first, then you determine what damage is done. Again, and this time don't just cut out a single sentence, answer the question; give me a plausible and not one-in-a-million scenario in which a person who has been shot in the head with a bolt round does not die. I'm not interested in what the game does, because I think what it does is fundamentally flawed, I'm interested in seeing if you can actually justify the game system without referring back to the game system in a gigantic circular argument - ignore that we are discussing DH2.0, pretend you're in the background forum, someone has described a scenario in which an ordinary human has been hit in the face with a bolt round, they want you to engage in plausible speculation as to how said human could survive. No "he dodges it", he HAS been hit.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 16:36:04

Post by: Manchu

@BaronIveagh: Hmm, not to be flippant but I think I have a pretty good argument: just picking up a sniper rifle doesn't make you a sniper. I'm not saying there shouldn't be one-shot sniper kills. I just think it should be a talent -- i.e., have to do with the person wielding the gun rather than the gun itself.

@Yodhrin: "Hit" does not mean killed. "Hit" encompasses everything from "grazed" to "devastated." Again, even in a HP system you can shoot someone in the face without killing them. And it can happen a lot. Let's be clear, we're not talking about a one-in-a-million scenario here, in "real life" or in games. In games, it's simulated as a matter of rolling 1 (or some small amount of) damage. In DH2E, doing so is more dangerous than in a HP system because even though you don't get a bad wound from that particular low damage hit to the face it still counts as a wound and will modify further hits to be more serious. So you mostly give up lucky/cheap one shots to make all shots more dangerous. I'm pleased with that trade-off.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 16:39:50

Post by: H.B.M.C.

 BrookM wrote:
I think a good GM can always wave the amount of wounds for low level mooks and critters, not everything has to be followed so strictly by the book.

But if you're ignoring rules to get around a problem, it means there's a problem!

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 16:44:33

Post by: BaronIveagh

SpaceRatCatcher wrote:

By that definition, none of the existing 40kRP lines have a working combat system.

Burning a fate point has always been a bit odd to me, but it works as a mechanic to avoid instant death. Because previously characters with a handful of wounds getting shot someplace unarmored with a shotgun was a pretty quick way to die, particularly at low levels. It didn't always work with characters with max TB, and i know a lot of people did not enforce the hitpoint limits, but...

Reply by: SpaceRatCatcher - click to view full reply 

57117

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 16:49:42

Post by: SpaceRatCatcher

 BaronIveagh wrote:

SpaceRatCatcher wrote:

By that definition, none of the existing 40kRP lines have a working combat system.

Burning a fate point has always been a bit odd to me, but it works as a mechanic to avoid instant death. Because previously characters with a handful of wounds getting shot someplace unarmored with a shotgun was a pretty quick way to die, particularly at low levels. It didn't always work with characters with max TB, and i know a lot of people did not enforce the hitpoint limits, but...

I wasn't talking about Fate Points, since the question was about killing mooks, who don't have Fate Points. There's a difference between "a quick way to die" and "automatically fatal," which is what you previously specified. Assuming 10 Wounds and TB 3, it will require Righteous Fury to kill a mook in one hit, or else the Scatter quality and several DoS, neither of which is assured by any means.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 16:52:08

Post by: Manchu

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
I think a good GM can always wave the amount of wounds for low level mooks and critters, not everything has to be followed so strictly by the book.

But if you're ignoring rules to get around a problem, it means there's a problem!

Sure but not every group has the same problems with rules. Some will homebrew X, some will homebrew Y, some will play it as-is, some will not play it all. Unlike video games, you don't just have to "take what you get."

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 17:00:59

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
@BaronIveagh: Hmm, not to be flippant but I think I have a pretty good argument: just picking up a sniper rifle doesn't make you a sniper. I'm not saying there shouldn't be one-shot sniper skills. I just think it should be a talent -- i.e., have to do with the person wielding the gun rather than the gun itself.

No, just picking up a rifle doesn't make you a sniper. But being hit by that rifle, in the head, as an example, is no more or less dangerous if done by a pro sniper then if done by someone with experience with firearms (look at Charles Whitman).

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 17:03:03

Post by: Manchu

Again, a hit can be a graze or a melon-exploder or somewhere in between.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 17:07:50

Post by: BaronIveagh

SpaceRatCatcher wrote:
Assuming 10 Wounds and TB 3, it will require Righteous Fury to kill a mook in one hit, or else the Scatter quality and several DoS, neither of which is assured by any means.

No, it's not 100%. but it's significantly higher than the apparent 'never' in the new edition, aside from rolling RF.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Again, a hit can be a graze or a melon-exploder or somewhere in between.

yes, but but the point is the first shot with a bolt pistol can only ever be a graze if shooting at flak or better.

Reply by: SpaceRatCatcher - click to view full reply 

57117

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 17:15:37

Post by: SpaceRatCatcher

 BaronIveagh wrote:

SpaceRatCatcher wrote:
Assuming 10 Wounds and TB 3, it will require Righteous Fury to kill a mook in one hit, or else the Scatter quality and several DoS, neither of which is assured by any means.

No, it's not 100%. but it's significantly higher than the apparent 'never' in the new edition.

As I explained on the FFG boards, that's simply not true. In fact, since there is no roll to confirm Righteous Fury, it's actually more likely to happen.

Manchu, you're gonna tell me, with total seriousness, that with, as an example, six degrees of success, at point blank range, I'm only grazing him?

Which is exactly what happened with a low damage roll in first edition.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 17:16:14

Post by: Manchu

 BaronIveagh wrote:
yes, but but the point is the first shot with a bolt pistol can only ever be a graze if shooting at flak or better.

Depends on how good the shot is. IN DH2E, your BS test only tells you how many times you hit. How well you did is a matter of rolling damage ... and ultimately the wound effect tables.

SpaceRatCatcher wrote:

Manchu, you're gonna tell me, with total seriousness, that with, as an example, six degrees of success, at point blank range, I'm only grazing him?

Which is exactly what happened with a low damage roll in first edition.

Also, the six degrees of success have nothing to do with damage. DoS = how many hits you get in an attack. The range issue, as I mentioned on FFG's boards, might be what is really twisting you up. The combat rules don't account for shooting someone in the face at point blank range. I guess that's not part of their vision of combat in this game.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 17:50:58

Post by: BaronIveagh

SpaceRatCatcher wrote:

Which is exactly what happened with a low damage roll in first edition.

And that matters how? I'm not defending the old edition (something a few of you seem to be struggling to grasp) I'm pointing out that this is a serious flaw in this edition.

Manchu, if range isn't part of their 'vision' of how a combat system with firearms deals with damage, I don't even know what to say to that. It's one of the most idiotic things I've heard in this yet, though sadly, may in fact be correct.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 18:51:34

Post by: Manchu

Hold up, B. It's not that range isn't involved at all. You can take penalties for BS checks beyond your weapon's range, etc. It's just that you don't take damage penalties for being at long range -- or damage bonuses for being at point blank, so far as I can tell.

Also, DoS can matter on the wound effect table. For example, you can immobilize your target on a leg shot with an energy-based weapon rolling as low as 7, so long as you get DoS higher than the target's WPb.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 19:53:06

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
It's just that you don't take damage penalties for being at long range -- or damage bonuses for being at point blank, so far as I can tell..

Or for aiming for a weak spot. Here's the thing: the way the wound tables are set up, they determine how you hit certain parts of the body more or less regardless of your actual ballistics roll. Basically it goes back and says 'Yes, we know you rolled BS well enough to hit a dime at 2 kicks, but the wound tables says you just gazed his head at 20 feet'.

The wound tables as written create a disjunction between what would logically happen and what happens in game,

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 20:11:01

Post by: Manchu

No, you still don't get the rules.

Your BS check initially only tells you two things:

- Did your attack hit at all? (Pass/Fail)
- How many hits did you get? (DoS up to RoA)

It does not tell you how much more accurately you shot than necessary as a function of increasing damage output.

Next you roll damage based on the weapon, not the BS check result. At this point, DoS on the BS check don't matter. The target's Defence Value is subtracted from the damage and modified by +5/+10 for wounds the target took on prior attacks.

You use that number to look up what your hits do to the target. At that point, DoS can impact how good of a hit you got in terms of applying conditions to the target.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 20:26:09

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
No, you still don't get the rules.

Your BS check initially only tells you two things:

- Did your attack hit at all? (Pass/Fail)
- How many hits did you get? (DoS up to RoA)

It does not tell you how much more accurately you shot than necessary as a function of increasing damage output.

No, I understand the RAW. I'm just telling you that the way it works is illogical.

It's called 'Ballistic Skill' and it's description states it's how skilled you are at accurately firing ranged weapons.

 Manchu wrote:

Next you roll damage based on the weapon, not the BS check result. At this point, DoS on the BS check don't matter. The target's Defence Value is subtracted from the damage and modified by +5/+10 for wounds the target took on prior attacks.

You use that number to look up what your hits do to the target. At that point, DoS can impact how good of a hit you got, in terms of applying conditions to the target.

Manchu, I got that. What I'm saying is, like your insistence about Medicae being Agility based, is that this is pants on head mentally impaired game design. Let me summarize: Aiming the gun only counts up until the moment you hit a (most likely) man sized target,but what you hit has nothing to do with your ability to aim at a target, but rather random chance. In fact, regardless of your stat that dictates how well you can aim a gun, you may in fact functionally miss, but the next time you fire and hit the same body part, the magic damage fairy will waive her wand and you'll score a better hit, again, regardless of your ability to aim.

So, tell me how that makes sense, Manchu? How's that good game design, or in the least bit logical?

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 20:44:56

Post by: Manchu

The BS check determines whether you hit a target in combat with a ranged attack. Your BS skill describes how likely that is to happen. The DoS on the check determines how many hits you made with that attack and sometimes whether any of those hits apply conditions to the target.

I don't see how you've demonstrated that these are illogical mechanics.

There are two ways to aim in DH2E. You can concentrate on improving your chances to hit your target generally with Aim or you can concentrate on trying to hit a specific part of your target with Called Shot.

There is no magic damage fairy. The wound mechanic simulates a target being worse off when he has already taken hits. This actually addresses a big problem with HP bubble games, where a guy with 1 HP is just as good as a guy with full HP: "I'm fine I'm fine I'm fine I'm dead."

Ugh. DH1E did a bunch of stuff that other games already did but in a needlessly complicated way. The HP bubble issue is a great example. DH2E is by no means "elegant" (except as compared to FFG's previous 40k RPGs) but at least it does something differently.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 21:05:45

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
The BS check determines how often you can hit a target in combat with a ranged attack. The DoS on the check determines how many hits you made with that attack and sometimes whether any of those hits apply conditions to the target.

I don't see how you've demonstrated that these are illogical mechanics.

Because as anyone who has ever shot at a living, moving target will tell you, you are not aiming at 'the man' you are aiming the gun at a specific part of their body, whatever that part might be. That's why 'Called Shot' makes no sense as a separate action as it's part of what someone does when they aim at a target. Because you don't aim at 'a man' you aim at his torso, or his head, etc. The only time you just point the gun in their general direction is with a shotgun, or when doing a 'spray and pray'.

Since the game system makes it very clear that your ability to hit a target is your BS, having it have no impact on if you connect solidly with the target or just wing it makes no sense. Because shot placement is part and parcel with your ability to aim at a target.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 21:20:38

Post by: Manchu

I'm not going to get into a "but in real life" argument over a 40k game.

Back to the rules, the BS check when making an attack determines whether you HIT the target. That's what it's for. If you think it's for something else or more then you need to read the rules more closely.

A hit can be solid or it can be a graze. Those are both kinds of hits. As I have explained, the BS check can circle back in to also help determine how good of a shot you got -- it's just not as a matter of the BS check itself. Instead, it's a matter of DoS compared against one of the target's stats, such as WPb.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 21:35:02

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
I'm not going to get into a "but in real life" argument over a 40k game.

Well,if you want to get in a 40k argument over a 40k game I can do that too. How about those changes to blanks in this?

 Manchu wrote:

Back to the rules, the BS check when making an attack determines whether you HIT the target. That's what it's for. If you think it's for something else or more then you need to read the rules more closely.

Manchu, the Lord once said that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. You keep going back to what the rules say, and not what they're supposed to do. A combat system is supposed to create an abstraction of combat that at least follows some sort of logic.

Not allowing the stat that dictates how good a shot you are determine how solidly you hit a target, thus dealing damage, makes no sense.

It's doesn't even make 40k sense.

Reply by: CadianXV - click to view full reply 

18567

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 21:40:42

Post by: CadianXV

I've got to say Baron- reading both sides of this carefully, I'm with Manchu.

These mechanics seem to portray ranged combat well. You can either hit generally, or use called shot to show how much of a marksman you are by aiming for a specific part.
In my OTC training, we generally just aimed for the torso, as its the biggest bit. A general hit was sufficient in this regard, and I think these mechanics seem to represent that.

Damage being then calculated on the weapon also seems to be intelligent game design. A rifle is a rifle after all. You want to do more damage by aiming your weapon at a weak spot? Use Called Shot to aim at where the Defense Value is lowest.

More importantly, this system seems easy to pick up and play- IMO vital for ensuring a games success.

Now I may be reading it incorrectly, and I bow to heads wiser than mine, but I personally don't see the problem.

Reply by: Alpharius - click to view full reply 

123

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 21:53:27

Post by: Alpharius

Same here.

The Baron seems determined to find fault with everything, and seems to really just want to argue, no matter what.

Reply by: Yodhrin - click to view full reply 

47181

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 22:03:28

Post by: Yodhrin

 Alpharius wrote:
Same here.

The Baron seems determined to find fault with everything, and seems to really just want to argue, no matter what.

You guys can keep pretending that if you like, but it comes off as base denial when there are evidently other people who agree with some or all of his points.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/27 23:06:56

Post by: BaronIveagh

 CadianXV wrote:

Damage being then calculated on the weapon also seems to be intelligent game design. A rifle is a rifle after all. You want to do more damage by aiming your weapon at a weak spot? Use Called Shot to aim at where the Defense Value is lowest.

As pointed out earlier, you cannot Aim, and called shot, and fire a rifle. That costs 5 action points. You only get 4. There are things I do like about this system, but combat is not one of them.

 Alpharius wrote:

The Baron seems determined to find fault with everything, and seems to really just want to argue, no matter what.

Fair enough. I want you though to just stop,and consider one thing:

Many of you have watched the little dance we do around here, with me taking the role of Mr Negative and HBMC taking the role of Mr Positive.

Generally I have a good time needling him. I don't see it as trolling, per se, because I have a point, from my point of view, but he takes defending it so seriously that I enjoy the fight.

I'm not enjoying this.

Do you know why?

*holds up arms in an expansive gesture. Out in the distance there are only crickets*

He has not had much to say about this new edition, and frankly what he has had to say was pretty negative. He's been playing it for (IIRC) almost a year now, and that is far more telling to me than even manchu's most impassioned defense of it. Because I know that he really believes in these products that he helps write and playtest. He's a good writer, despite our disagreements on how granular a rule system should be, probably better than FFG deserves.

So I know when he says says he's not convinced that this is good, and argues that there are problems with it, I know I can take that to the bank.

And that makes me angry.

Because I look around and I see just how many of you are willing to just accept whatever they give you like it's manna from heaven.

You sit here and get gak on by GW, and FFG, and whoever else gets a WHFB/40k License and never DO anything about it, no matter how many Gotos and Wards and Finecasts they spew. Some idiots will even get up and try and defend it, even if all they can say it's 'Well, it's 40k!' like it explains every idiotic design decision, legal abuse, ultra price hike, and gak product they choose to inflict on you, because they know you'll buy it regardless of how gak it is, and insist that anyone who tries to stop you or point out the faults with this is just a 'hater'.

So you can call me 'hater', because I've had enough. I've had enough of gak products. I've had enough of absurd price hikes. I've had enough of pay 'beta' products being released by companies looking to give players the illusion of involvement without it's substance, all while padding their wallets. I'm tired of companies declaring they own the copyright on little plastic men and armor throughout history, because they think they can be that arrogant and get away with it.

And until more players start looking critically at GW, FFG, and their products, and not just buying every piece of crap that comes along, there never will be improvement.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:

You guys can keep pretending that if you like, but it comes off as base denial when there are evidently other people who agree with some or all of his points.

Quite a few of them to read through most RPG sites and the official forums atm. However, that does not make me right. It just means that there are a lot of people who share my reservations about this.

Reply by: Alpharius - click to view full reply 

123

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/28 01:19:56

Post by: Alpharius

I do hear you on that one Baron - and it does make me a bit nervous seeing H.B.M.C. not so optimistic and...


...agreeing with you!

All kidding aside - yes, troubling.

I'll reserve judgement until the final product, but it is not off to the greatest start!

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/28 02:07:15

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Alpharius wrote:
I do hear you on that one Baron - and it does make me a bit nervous seeing H.B.M.C. not so optimistic and...


...agreeing with you!

All kidding aside - yes, troubling.

I'll reserve judgement until the final product, but it is not off to the greatest start!

Might want to start checking for those Horsemen riding through the sky.


Objectively, HBMC and I agree because we both feel that if there is going to be change, that change needs to be a clear improvement that most players new and old can get behind. The new character generation system for example is quite good and well done, though there are a few things I don't like about it on the whole, it's solid. I'm not a fan of skill trees, but that's not a major issue for me. The problem I have is change for change sake. The old combat system for DH is not perfect by any means. It needed a drastic overhaul. However, this 'entire' replacement for it was, as some of the playtesters reported, unneeded and unwelcome. More than any other factor, the addition of action points and the radically different combat system make this incompatible with previous material, and seems to be the thing that is universally being complained about on every single RPG forum.

In language even I think is pretty harsh.

The general consensus is that, while the change to righteous fury is welcome, the rest has generally caused more problems than it solved, the biggest complaint aside from the sniper rifle/one shot issue is GMs tracking all the different conditions and wounds. While Manchu may hate the HP bubble, it is very easy to keep track of. The removal of strength bonuses from some melee weapons and the fundamental changes to weapon AP and armor ratings have also raised a lot of eyebrows.

From our perspective, all this change, needed or otherwise, plus moving to an largely new setting is asking for trouble, as it maximizes risk while minimizing reward, from a publishing standpoint. Someone mentioned earlier they felt this was a very easy game to pick up and that would carry it. Under normal circumstances, or with a new game, this would be correct. However, this game is a new edition to an older game, and has a very small target demographic compared to a lot of RPGs to draw on. Further, the way FFG's release schedule works, it's quite possibly going to be competing with itself for gamer dollars, as it's other 40k properties, unless it intends to drop them totally, will be directly competing with DH2E.

This is why Manchu's assertions about not being a D&D 4e situation are not entirely accurate, as games like OW, etc are filling the 'Pathfinder' role, ie offering the better portions of the previous version.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/28 07:22:38

Post by: Manchu

First of all, we all of us need to let HBMC speak or not speak for himself.

As to reviewing this beta, or reviewing anything in general, a key mistake is to evaluate something other than what is actually at issue.

As a simple example, I have been discussing the First Aid check under the Medicae skill in the beta. The check is based on Agility. Some have argued it should be based on Intelligence because "in real life" EMTs and nurses rely not on manual dexterity but on knowledge. My counterpoint is that a skill check has a rank component that represents such knowledge. The Agility component, as far as I can tell, is meant to simulate the need to work effectively with speed and precision under non-ideal circumstances, i.e., the mere seconds a PC has to apply the skill in combat. I am not arguing that Agility is the best or only characteristic that anyone could think of in designing a First Aid check in a RPG. I don't think that is at all the issue.

The designers could have chosen otherwise but did not. My appraisal is not of what they could have and didn't choose but rather of what they did. Does an Agility-based First Aid check make sense given how it fits into the greater context of the rules? Yes, it does: the check is obviously intended to be made on a PC's turn during combat. It makes sense to me that clumsier PCs would have a tougher time succeeding in this delicate task under fire. Seeing that this is reasonable, that it does not unbalance any other portion of the rule set, and that it achieves the apparent goal of the designers, I can only conclude that this mechanic is not a problem -- and therefore does not need to be fixed. All talk about what characteristic is "more realistic," from whatever perspective, strikes me as academic; an exercise not in reviewing the beta as a customer but rather in desiring to change it as a designer.

I don't feel the need to read this beta from the viewpoint of square one, as if the beta did not even exist and the real question is "what product would I make if I worked for FFG as a designer?" My questions are "what are these mechanics trying to do and do they succeed?" Perhaps this explains why I have bought the beta, read it, and made an effort to understand it and communicate that understanding -- instead of doing none of that, preemptively declaring it a failure, and cherry-picking other people's vitriolically negative (and sometimes simply incorrect) conclusions to rebroadcast as "the consensus." As a costumer, rather than a game designer, I only expect to be able analyze whether this product is what it claims to be. That is the point of all my posts on this topic.

On that note, I think there is some very sincere but also very mistaken sentiment about what this beta test is meant to be. On the FFG forum, a lot of posters are stressing out over whether FFG will "listen to them" when they suggest scrapping important portions of the rule set, dropping the edition altogether, and/or doing something completely different. It seems to me that those could not possibly be the answers to the question FFG is actually asking. And I'm sure that misunderstanding has already generated and will continue to generate hard feelings among some customers. This is unfortunately a risk any company takes in releasing a beta version, especially an open beta. (I've seen very similar confusion among people who make Kickstarter pledges, a.k.a., risky preorders, viewing themselves as "investors".) I understand that beta tests are often imagined to amount to personal insults; I just don't sympathize at all with that view.

Getting back to the beta combat rules, it strikes me as illegitimate to claim "BS stands for X and should do Y" when that is not at all supported by what the rules actually say. As a matter of fact, BS does not stand for X and it is not meant to do Y. It does not matter what BS was in DH1E. It does not matter what it is in BC or OW. It does not matter what you think it should be. If you want to know what BS does stand for and what it is meant to do in this beta then read the beta for what it is: a new rule system that needs to be evaluated on its terms. In this beta, a BS check is made to determine (1) if you hit, (2) how many times you hit, and (3) what kind of conditions,if any, the resulting wound inflicts on the target. The relevant questions are: does BS do this and is it a reasonable design choice given the apparent intentions of the designers? The relevant questions are not: what do I think BS should do, what would I prefer mechanically, and what kind of design choices would I make instead? Well, to be fair, those could be the relevant questions -- but at that point one has left the realm of reviewing a game and has set out to design one's own homebrew system.

BrookM made a very, very good point last page that merits some reflection: "not everything has to be followed so strictly by the book." It is obvious that not every design decision in a RPG will appeal to every single one of its potential customers. If most of them don't appeal to a certain customer, s/he (if reasonable) will doubtlessly not bother with the product or maybe will buy the product to read the fluff but not to play the game. But even for those who do buy and play the game, there will be sticking points. Because this is a table top RPG, rather than a computer game, every single customer is free to house rule whatever they want. For example, if you prefer that First Aid checks be Intelligence- rather than Agility-based -- you can house rule that. Some design decisions are so central, however, that the house rule would end up swallowing the system. In that case, it important to remember that this is not a matter of the rule set being some completely illogical, poorly designed money grab inflicted upon innocent fans by a cruel and idiotic corporation that clearly does not understand they are simply dooming themselves to ruin.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
While Manchu may hate the HP bubble, it is very easy to keep track of.

Point of clarification, I do not hate the HP bubble and I agree that it very easy to keep track of. I think it is entirely appropriate in D&D 3.5/Pathfinder. PCs in those games are heroic (arguably super-powered) high fantasy adventurers and it makes sense to me that they are as good at full HP as at 1 HP. The HP bubble mechanic suits the designers' intentions.

By contrast, I think the HP Bubble is not appropriate for Call of Cthulhu -- even taking into account that Investigators don't have or ever get much HP and that successful attacks do a lot of damage -- because the PCs are ordinary people. In that sense, what does HP even represent? (This is why the term "HP bubble" exists; so far as I understand, because people liken it to a bubble wrapping that surrounds and insulates the PC's actual physical well being.) How can an ordinary person lose 75% of their HP from a gun shot and yet move, fight, and in all manners act with no penalty?*

In Dark Heresy, the designers do not intend that you play an ordinary person but they do intend that you face challenges that even an exceptional person would find extremely dangerous. So, like in CoC, I don't think the HP bubble is appropriate. At the same time, your PC should be pretty hard precisely because s/he is an Inquisitorial Acolyte. I think the beta wound system does a nice job of taking both goals into consideration. You can probably take a few hits, including some fairly bad ones, but they will cumulatively hinder you and there are only so many hits (at very, very most seven) anyone can take before dying.

*In all fairness to CoC, it is not truly a "modern" game even in its Sixth Edition. Unlike modern games, "old school" games often left a lot up to the GM (or in this case, Keeper) so it could have been designed with the assumption that Keepers would judiciously apply penalties to checks in light of physical injuries on their own initiative.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/28 14:37:49

Post by: BaronIveagh

Manchu, let me counter that:

The same check is made outside combat, where your explanation of Agility makes no sense. Further, to say 'The rules are fine because they work for my play style and achieve the designers goals as I interpret them'. Is actually pretty self centered there, even by my standards. 'It doesn't effect my codex, so it's fine. Working as intended.' I see nothing wrong with saying 'This is how I would do it to achieve X, Y, and Z, and I think it would work better than how they're doing it here.'

I've seen your dismissive routine in several forums now, and am unimpressed. Particularly with how you do that when people suggest viable alternatives to a given rule that make more sense than RAW. (and not just mine, either, from what I've seen. Pretty much anyone who suggests the game would be better with out action points seems fair game),


As far as what the beta is meant to be: any beta test is meant to find and correct the following: balance, unforeseen rule interactions, unclear wording, things that confuse the players. As far as them not listening: of course not. Aside from the obvious, they didn't listen to the playtesters on this, why would they listen to the beta players, or anyone else for that matter?

And, again, saying that 'Well, you don't have to follow the rules' is not a viable response to concerns about the rules. Telling people 'well, go house rule it' as HBMC pointed out earlier, does not address the issue. Designers are not gods, nor do they have a patent on good ideas, and occasionally have produced some really bad mechanics. I've seen other ones where the mechanic worked, but dragged the game out and was generally unpopular, even though it did exactly what the designers wanted it to do . Betas, done by other companies, where fan suggestions for rules were embraced, have generally worked out pretty well, but I doubt we'll see that here.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/28 15:52:46

Post by: Manchu

House ruling is not so much about sidestepping broken mechanics as it is about tailoring a game to your group's or your own idiosyncratic preferences. The lesson is, just because you don't like a rule or might like some other rule better doesn't make a published rule broken or illogical. This is as true of inconsequential matters, like which characteristic you use to make a First Aid check (which by the way, the rule text describes as a quick attempt whether in or outside of combat), as it is for more important ones, like how a system handles combat. As I already mentioned, if you feel the need to house rule the published game away entirely, that game is probably not for you. Fair play -- but don't say the system is crap because it doesn't do what you want, as if what you want is synonymous with good design. I'm sure the folks at FFG know how to sift one kind of criticism from the other.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I've seen your dismissive routine in several forums now, and am unimpressed.

As you well know, I have also seen your posts on the FFG forum. I find them even more misleading than what you post here. For example, after declaring here that the beta combat rules are terrible because they do not simulate a Commissar executing a Guardsman, you started a thread on the FFG forum about the same topic. There you claimed:

when we tested this, the number of guard fatalities was surprisingly low

Yet here you admit to neither reading the rule set nor even having a copy. One wonders how you were able to playtest rules you have not read. Granted, you may have relied on second-hand sources for your test. But then, how could you be sure those sources reported the rules accurately or completely enough to establish a valid test? Clearly, your alleged test was not valid. After explaining the attack and wound rules to you here several times, and discussing them to an even greater extent on the FFG forum with other posters who have read the rules, I demonstrated in your "Headshot Test" thread that testing the scenario you described would not result in "a surprisingly low" fatality rate; it could not result in a fatality at all.

And before you protest that you merely started that thread to see if you had tested the rules correctly, I'll note that a closed beta playtester responded to you:

I'd like to point out that such an action wouldn't use the combat system - or at least any sensible GM I know wouldn't use the combat system for a coup-de-grace like that.

Your response?

That's not the point though. The point is to distill the system down to the very most basic act you can do with it and see if it behaves in a logical manner.

That's the same agenda you were pushing here. So when someone who has playtested the rules throughout closed beta told you that's not what the rules are for, i.e., yes, you are in fact doing it wrong, you dismissed him with the same declaration you made before starting a thread to ask people who were playtesting the rules whether you were doing it right.

Yes I dismiss this kind of bluster from you. It is the only rational response -- aside from simply not responding. And I think that latter option is the more rational. Therefore, I'll gladly answer any questions you have about the beta and correct any further errors you post that might similarly mislead other posters. But I think the conversation has otherwise run its course because I have now answered all your points numerous times and at length and because there don't seem to be any new ones forthcoming.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/28 16:38:49

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
Yet here you admit to neither reading the rule set nor even having a copy.

Because between point A and point B that changed. BTW: Did you know that it's possible to hit 60+ corruption in two combat encounters with the blood lust malignancy and power sword with the whirlwind action?

 Manchu wrote:
I demonstrated in your "Headshot Test" thread that testing the scenario you described would not result in "a surprisingly low" fatality rate; it could not result in a fatality at all.

Yes it can. Remember that Righteous Fury auto-kills Novice NPCs under the spectacular demise rule.

 Manchu wrote:

I'll note that a closed beta playtester responded to you:

I'd like to point out that such an action wouldn't use the combat system - or at least any sensible GM I know wouldn't use the combat system for a coup-de-grace like that.

Page 263 states that narrative actions are resolved before combat begins. This also derails your assertion about narrative actions like sniper rifles. Effectively, Millandson was advising RAI over RAW. Which he's right, is sensible. But not the point.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/28 16:48:57

Post by: Manchu

The Fury thing was pointed out to you after you started the thread. Before it was pointed out to you, you yourself posted:

Shooting a mook in the head and rolling max damage only stuns them.

In your example, the only way to roll max damage is to get Righteous Fury. It stands to reason you were therefore not talking about Fury when you noted a "surprisingly low" fatality rate. As to the technical error I made in my post to you just now, I entirely concede the point; it is possible to one shot kill the Guardsman if you assume he is a Novice- or Elite-level NPC.

My point about the Guardsman example is that it is not an example of combat. Therefore p 263 does not apply. I have already conceded that the sniper example is trickier and could be better addressed in a combat scenario. To quote my latest, and I think clearest, post on this issue:

Actions can be used by any character. Similarly, a given weapon can be used by any character.

Trying to address this at either of those points would therefore allow any character with a high BS to reliably make one-shot sniper kills. I don't think high having a high BS in this game is supposed to allow a character to do that. For one thing, being a good shot generally is not the same as having the training, experience, and aptitude to make one-shot sniper kills.

i agree that running a sniper is a valid playstyle. I think the best way to simulate this given the other rules in the beta is to create a sniper elite advance or talent tree. I would not be surprised if something like that didn't make it into the core rulebook -- but I would be grateful if it did.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/28 17:09:52

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
As to the technical error I made in my post to you just now, I entirely concede the point; it is possible to one shot kill the Guardsman if you assume he is a Novice- or Elite-level NPC.

You might also pay attention to the fact that I said 'I' came up with the test and 'we' tested it. The test was done by the Hell Party, without yours truly present, using The Kender's copy. I hadn't finished reading my copy yet when I got the results. Another example was posted in the Mechanics feedback section involving an unaware ratling being shot in the head three times at point blank range without any armor at all. They finally house-ruled that he died.

 Manchu wrote:

My point about the Guardsman example is that it is not an example of combat. Therefore p 263 does not apply. I have already conceded that the sniper example is trickier and could be better addressed in a combat scenario. To quote my latest, and I think clearest, post on this issue:

If we assume that this is taking place in a vacuum yes, but if it's in the middle of combat, no. That's why the particular example was selected is that it's something that happens in combat, in 40k, not just outside it.

Reply by: ThouShallNotHeal - click to view full reply 

76338

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/28 17:25:41

Post by: ThouShallNotHeal

Anyone have a link to where I can purchase it?

Reply by: BrookM - click to view full reply 

7375

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/28 17:27:05

Post by: BrookM

 ThouShallNotHeal wrote:
Anyone have a link to where I can purchase it?

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/115837/Dark-Heresy-2nd-Edition-Beta&affiliate_id=210075

Reply by: ThouShallNotHeal - click to view full reply 

76338

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/28 17:29:18

Post by: ThouShallNotHeal

Cheers BrookM.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/29 16:29:28

Post by: BaronIveagh

Ran this last night. Here's an example of wound table run amok:

4 wounds and then the adept get's stabbed in the foot with a knife by a prone and nearly dead (1 wound) mook. The mook rolled 4 past defense (no effect) but previous wounds made it a 24 taking off the adepts leg.

Previous hits had only bruised him.

Really?

Reply by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured - click to view full reply 

60720

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/29 16:55:09

Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured

Given a sharp knife even a small wound to the leg could debilitate it (and result in death)

A lucky stab severed the major artery & nerves (http://www.innerbody.com/anatomy/nervous/leg-foot take your pick) supplying the leg rendering it useless in the time frame of the combat

later surgical intervention determined the safest course of action was to remove the limb (the GM could always throw in infection/tainted knife/incompetent medic if the PC complains)

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/29 17:03:14

Post by: BaronIveagh

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Given a sharp knife even a small wound to the leg could debilitate it (and result in death)

A lucky stab severed the major artery & nerves (http://www.innerbody.com/anatomy/nervous/leg-foot take your pick) supplying the leg rendering it useless in the time frame of the combat

later surgical intervention determined the safest course of action was to remove the limb (the GM could always throw in infection/tainted knife/incompetent medic if the PC complains)

Normally I'd agree with that, but the wound table is pretty clear:

"The attack severs the last segment of the limb, leaving the target staring in agonised wonderment at the red river flowing from his bloody stump. The target is Stunned for 1d5 rounds and suffers Blood Loss (6). Further, the target suffers the Lost Limb condition."

The effect you describe is broadly covered by rolls 16-21 on the wound table, to varying degrees of severity. Unfortunately, rolling any of those but 21 is impossible, because the way the wound table works, it was an automatic +20 to the roll to determine the nature of the wound.



Mind you, to get it to make even this much sense, we had to fudge some things. Originally the mook had managed somehow to stab the adept (who was standing) in the head , without ever leaving the prone position, on the floor, at his feet. with a knife, that he did not throw. That got rerolled.

Reply by: Valhallan42nd - click to view full reply 

6292

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/29 17:25:50

Post by: Valhallan42nd

Baron, you're describing an outlier situation to call a rule bad. A good game master will take that fluff and adjust the rule to match the situation. GMs and rules sets are flexible, and to consider them set in stone is foolish at best.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/29 17:34:50

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Valhallan42nd wrote:
Baron, you're describing an outlier situation to call a rule bad. A good game master will take that fluff and adjust the rule to match the situation. GMs and rules sets are flexible, and to consider them set in stone is foolish at best.

Except it's not. The way the wound system works it's actually pretty common, because ANY successful wound gets a +X bonus to the table, regardless of the actual severity of previous wounds, the strength of the wielder, or even the size of the weapon.

Every barehanded combat is like Fist of the North Star, as long as your punches beat their defense even by a single point (which just leaves a bruise) that sixth or seventh punch explodes their skull like a grenade.

Firearms tend to administer a lot of tiny wounds but not necessarily kill, but no matter WHAT hits them the next turn, it goes through like a landraider. You can hose them down with a bolter, and might only bruise them, but hit them over the head with a lamp the next turn and you'll stave their skulls in.


Saying 'Well the GM has to house rule it'. If I have to house rule a working combat system that makes sense, what's the point of buying a book?

Reply by: BrookM - click to view full reply 

7375

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/29 18:00:21

Post by: BrookM

fething hell, am I glad I do not have to deal with you in a gaming group if you're being a pain about everything.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/29 18:08:20

Post by: BaronIveagh

 BrookM wrote:
fething hell, am I glad I do not have to deal with you in a gaming group if you're being a pain about everything.

As a GM I expect to get a combat system that doesn't leave my players rolling on the floor laughing about how bad it is when I shell out money. It reached the point where they started yelling things like 'FATALITY!' when we tested the idea of just going bare handed.

Did we have fun? Yes, but for entirely the wrong reasons.

BTW: if I was going to complain about an outlier I'd complain about the chain reaction of exploding PCs and NPCs that resulted in an eventual TPK, due to the way the wound system works.

Reply by: CadianXV - click to view full reply 

18567

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/29 22:26:12

Post by: CadianXV

So I just read on Bols that the Income and item Rarity system has been scrapped in favour for a simple "roll and you get it". Now I recognise that it is a minor subsystem, that many may have just handwaved away, but I really liked it.

I felt it gave an air of realism to the setting- showing that you were very much a minor cog in the machine, and that supplies for the most potent weapons were in short supply.. It called to mind a wonderful passage in the =][= War trilogy of scrounging amongst religious relic market traders for bolt shells- most were duds, expended, or fake, but one or two were real. A shame.

Reply by: ph34r - click to view full reply 

11

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/29 23:08:32

Post by: ph34r

 CadianXV wrote:
So I just read on Bols that the Income and item Rarity system has been scrapped in favour for a simple "roll and you get it". Now I recognise that it is a minor subsystem, that many may have just handwaved away, but I really liked it.

I felt it gave an air of realism to the setting- showing that you were very much a minor cog in the machine, and that supplies for the most potent weapons were in short supply.. It called to mind a wonderful passage in the =][= War trilogy of scrounging amongst religious relic market traders for bolt shells- most were duds, expended, or fake, but one or two were real. A shame.

Hm, so no more money at all? I must admit the old income system was a little but cumbersome, particularly when the majority of it was "GM's discretion how many months of pay you get after the mission/at the intermission/etc". The item rarity system however was even more cumbersome and I'm not really sad to see it go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ran this last night. Here's an example of wound table run amok:

4 wounds and then the adept get's stabbed in the foot with a knife by a prone and nearly dead (1 wound) mook. The mook rolled 4 past defense (no effect) but previous wounds made it a 24 taking off the adepts leg.

Previous hits had only bruised him.

Really?

That does sound a bit silly. Do things really stack up that badly? Were the previous wounds "near death" or some such? I've been reading through the new systems slowly.

Reply by: Ehsteve - click to view full reply 

21462

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/29 23:47:10

Post by: Ehsteve

 ph34r wrote:

 CadianXV wrote:
So I just read on Bols that the Income and item Rarity system has been scrapped in favour for a simple "roll and you get it". Now I recognise that it is a minor subsystem, that many may have just handwaved away, but I really liked it.

I felt it gave an air of realism to the setting- showing that you were very much a minor cog in the machine, and that supplies for the most potent weapons were in short supply.. It called to mind a wonderful passage in the =][= War trilogy of scrounging amongst religious relic market traders for bolt shells- most were duds, expended, or fake, but one or two were real. A shame.

Hm, so no more money at all? I must admit the old income system was a little but cumbersome, particularly when the majority of it was "GM's discretion how many months of pay you get after the mission/at the intermission/etc". The item rarity system however was even more cumbersome and I'm not really sad to see it go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ran this last night. Here's an example of wound table run amok:

4 wounds and then the adept get's stabbed in the foot with a knife by a prone and nearly dead (1 wound) mook. The mook rolled 4 past defense (no effect) but previous wounds made it a 24 taking off the adepts leg.

Previous hits had only bruised him.

Really?

That does sound a bit silly. Do things really stack up that badly? Were the previous wounds "near death" or some such? I've been reading through the new systems slowly.

In regards to wounds: if you were already wounded in the leg that many times or was damaged by an attack enough to get a 24 then it's a case of your leg being essentially shredded before the attack was made. As you do not roll on the chart, those 4 wounds dealt must have been at a +20 from an existing critical wound hence it is no surprise it did that much damage.

Unless you are utilizing the wound system wrongly (applying a single wound to all areas) then he had already taken a massive hit to that leg or otherwise had already taken multiple wound.

Yes the system does stack up quite badly, but only if you are hit in the exact same location, bypassing defence multiple times or by a single large damaging attack which is more than a single multiple of your defence.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 00:43:15

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Ehsteve wrote:

In regards to wounds: if you were already wounded in the leg that many times or was damaged by an attack enough to get a 24 then it's a case of your leg being essentially shredded before the attack was made. As you do not roll on the chart, those 4 wounds dealt must have been at a +20 from an existing critical wound hence it is no surprise it did that much damage.

Unless you are utilizing the wound system wrongly (applying a single wound to all areas) then he had already taken a massive hit to that leg or otherwise had already taken multiple wound.

Yes the system does stack up quite badly, but only if you are hit in the exact same location, bypassing defence multiple times or by a single large damaging attack which is more than a single multiple of your defence.

Page 207 "Whenever a character receives a new wound, he also suffers one or more effects from that wound. To determine the wound effect, the character takes the total damage dealt by the hit (damage value minus defence value) and adds modifiers for each wound he was suffering from prior to the attack:
• Wound: +5
• Critical Wound: +10

The target then compares this value to the appropriate wound effect table based on the affected body location (Head, Body, or Limb) and the damage type of the attack (Energy, Impact, or Rending). He then suffers any effects listed on the appropriate entry of the table."

It's not each wound he was suffering from in that location, it's each wound he was suffering from total. In the example with the Adept, the previous 4 wounds were to the torso, and only ever rolled 4-6 past defense, which according to the wound table is just a bruise. The next attack also rolled a 4 past defense, but due to the fact that this is a new attack, the previous 4 wounds count as a +20 bonus to the roll, even though they were insignificant themselves.

Reply by: Chrysis - click to view full reply 

31285

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 00:46:22

Post by: Chrysis

Given it was the 5th Wound Effect that lopped his foot off, the wound before that (the 4th effect) would have at minimum done enough damage to temporarily cripple the limb, while the previous ones would be inflicting Blood Loss and slowing. So I'm not surprised that getting his leg hacked at for the fifth time finally removed part of it.

"Wounds represent physical trauma to a character’s body.
They are primarily caused by damage inflicted from weapons
or environmental effect. They are tracked based on the hit
location to which they are inflicted, have varying severities,
and can cause additional effects based on their nature."

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 00:55:56

Post by: BaronIveagh

Chrysis wrote:
Given it was the 5th Wound Effect that lopped his foot off, the wound before that (the 4th effect) would have at minimum done enough damage to temporarily cripple the limb, while the previous ones would be inflicting Blood Loss and slowing. So I'm not surprised that getting his leg hacked at for the fifth time finally removed part of it.

"Wounds represent physical trauma to a character’s body.
They are primarily caused by damage inflicted from weapons
or environmental effect. They are tracked based on the hit
location to which they are inflicted, have varying severities,
and can cause additional effects based on their nature."

Yes, wounds are tracked that way, but when determining wound effects it checks them against all wounds the character has received. Notice when you check the wound table it is not "each wound he was suffering from in that location prior to the attack" it is instead "each wound he was suffering from prior to the attack"


Remember: "All wound effects are tracked separate from the wound that caused them" The system treats the Wound and the Wound Effect as two totally separate things.

Reply by: ph34r - click to view full reply 

11

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 03:34:50

Post by: ph34r

Do you think that is an unintentional difference in rules language? Or is it meant that a man with a severely crippled leg will head explode if pistol whipped?

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 03:44:37

Post by: Manchu

 ph34r wrote:
Or is it meant that a man with a severely crippled leg will head explode if pistol whipped?

This could happen. If you take an attack that does 6 hits, all at one location or spread over many locations, the first hit from the next attack will kill you. So let's say you took all those hits from the first attack in the left leg and the first hit from the next attack in the head. Even if all of those first six hits gave you mere bruises, the last one will decapitate you.

Reply by: Chrysis - click to view full reply 

31285

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 06:35:52

Post by: Chrysis

Yes, that is the problem with how the rules are written. And Baron is right on that, while the wounds are tracked by location it's ultimately irrelevant as location isn't considered for the "bonus" wound effect. Of course, I can't imagine that's what they had in mind (even though the example acknowledges the RAW) otherwise there'd be no reason to track wounds by location.

Of course the other problem is the one that's being pointed out. A 4 round burst is less deadly than 4 one round bursts due to being applied simultaneously and so not stacking wound mods. If wounds are being taken into account by location it doesn't matter so much, as it's unlikely two wounds in a burst will end up hitting the same location. But under the current system four single shots are better than one four round burst.

Reply by: Yodhrin - click to view full reply 

47181

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 06:40:34

Post by: Yodhrin

 Manchu wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
Or is it meant that a man with a severely crippled leg will head explode if pistol whipped?

This could happen. If you take an attack that does 6 hits, all at one location or spread over many locations, the first hit from the next attack will kill you. So let's say you took all those hits from the first attack in the left leg and the first hit from the next attack in the head. Even if all of those first six hits gave you mere bruises, the last one will decapitate you.

See, that's an idiotic, broken system. So, not only is a point-blank bolter round to the head incredibly unlikely to kill any of the characters, but it's entirely possible that they could fight off an entire hoard of enemy mooks with nothing more than a couple of bruises, and still have their head blow apart like a melon struck by a sledgehammer because the very last of those mooks gives them a light slap across the chops? What is this, the Three Stooges?

Reply by: Kingsley - click to view full reply 

3933

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 07:56:11

Post by: Kingsley

It seems like these complaints are largely based on obviously-silly rules interpretations. Regardless of whether the RAW indicates that being punched several times means the next hit will FINISH HIM or whatever, I think there are a lot of things that might be better to focus on.

For instance, old Dark Heresy's completely ridiculous armor system has been fixed. That alone improves the combat to a huge extent, regardless of whether the values for wounds/additional damage need to be tweaked.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 09:52:04

Post by: Manchu

It's not six bruises that do you in. It's getting decapitated.

In the rule book for the D&D retroclone Lamentations of the Flame Princes, James Raggi writes:

Defeating enemies is a minor way of gaining experience. This is not a game about combat or slaying foes; these activities are simply frequent necessities in the harsh reality of the game. Characters who prefer to fight when it is unnecessary are lunatics, possibly psychotic, and not likely to survive long in game run by a competent Referee.

When the beta first went up, there were complaints that getting killed was way too hard, especially circling around the alleged rarity of one-shot kills. Perhaps it's beginning to sink in that combat is actually extremely dangerous. How ironic that this, too, is a matter of one-shot kills. Like many games, DH2E has random critical hits (Righteous Fury) but it goes further by adding "inevitable" critical hits. To wit, one of the many purposes of the wound table mechanic is to count down to such a critical hit. The icing on the cake is, this brand of critical hit is always fatal.

Anyone can understand as a matter of reason that likelihood of death by injury is directly proportional, generally speaking, to time spent undertaking a potentially fatal activity. We can define lethality as a measurement of how quickly that likelihood approaches 100%. In DH2E, minimum lethality is seven turns at 1 hit per turn for all characters of all ranks, except Novice- and Elite-level NPCs. In other words, if your character has been bruised six times then you know he's about to be decapitated or similar.

Narratively speaking, previous wounds may have everything or nothing (or somewhere in between) to do with the death blow. Like in most RPGs, that's up to the GM and, to paraphrase a recent comment by BrookM ITT, some folks are better at this than others. DH2E is not even unique in that PCs have a clear sense of how much more they can take. Indeed, (unlike in DH2E) PCs always go from merely bruised to dead in HP bubble games.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 13:02:38

Post by: H.B.M.C.

 Kingsley wrote:
It seems like these complaints are largely based on obviously-silly rules interpretations.

They're not, and maybe when you've played the game you'll realise that.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 15:48:38

Post by: Manchu

Well, if he's talking about the bruise-to-kill interpretation then he's right -- that is obviously silly.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 16:56:26

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
The icing on the cake is, this brand of critical hit is always fatal.

Quote possibly fatal to everyone in a 1d10 meter radius from the fact that people explode like a half strength frag grenade on death, but only if they use the wound table.

 Manchu wrote:
In other words, if your character has been bruised six times then you know he's about to be decapitated or similar.

Yes, because being punched by a unarmed juvie who did not roll RF and just beat your def by a single point is going to smash your head like a melon. Probably killing himself in the process from your skull shrapnel.

 Manchu wrote:

Narratively speaking, previous wounds may have everything or nothing (or somewhere in between) to do with the death blow. Like in most RPGs, that's up to the GM and, to paraphrase a recent comment by BrookM ITT, some folks are better at this than others. DH2E is not even unique in that PCs have a clear sense of how much more they can take. Indeed, (unlike in DH2E) PCs always go from merely bruised to dead in HP bubble games.

Well, first of all, again resorting to GM fiat to hand-waive away combat results that are either broken or nonsensical should be a rarity, not something that has to be done almost every combat. Second, to cast aspirations on a GMs skill without ever having sat at a table with them is the height of arrogance, and, despite the fact that I'm sure HBMC, at least, would ROFL at what I'd LIKE to post in response to that, I know that Dakka would ban me for being rude to a mod, no matter how hilarious the take down would be.

So let me put it this way. I had Gary Gygax sit down at MY table and have a good time. The community came astonishingly close to reading MY name in an official GW product. There are FFG writers and playtesters who come to ME for advice (and for a sympathetic ear on occasion). And despite my rather rant-y style of reviews, my taking over DR was not only approved of by the community, and it's admins, and the playtesters (mostly) but anointed by Sam Stewart and Ross Watson.

So, by all means, imply that I suck as a GM (we're all entitled to our opinions). Just don't expect me or anyone who's ever sat at my table to take you seriously.

I don't know if HBMC, who seems to be agreeing with me, or any of the other posters who have, are the GM, but I would suggest that if he is, I would assume that he's a good one, for obvious reasons.

As far as complaining about this a lot, I am bitchy about this. Because I'm fething furious. This isn't a beta. It's barely an alpha, and that sad part is that this is after months of playtesting and fixing, and it's STILL this broken. I told Andy Fisher that his hands off, 'let the GM's fix it', approach was not a good idea back when he and I were discussing re-balancing the Defiant Class for RT in the errata by giving it the str 2 lbs, since that had to be errata'd anyway due to a misprint. Here we see the grim fruits of that approach (coupled most likely with the fact they're distracted by Star Wars).

And as far as that 'always' at the end goes, I suggest you might check out the little known games Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and Only War, since, no, you don't actually just 'die' when your wounds run out.

Reply by: TiamatRoar - click to view full reply 

73675

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 18:24:18

Post by: TiamatRoar

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalExistenceFailure


Critical Existence Failure is necessary for videogames, but IMHO comes off as just STRANGE and breaking suspension of belief in a roleplaying (non-video)game.

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 18:58:33

Post by: BaronIveagh

In this case it's more of a http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhyAmITicking

The way the tables work, there's a fair chance of a crit or just enough wounds not only killing the target but causing splash damage measured in meters. Which, if it 'explodes' another PC/NPC can cause a rather messy chain reaction, as each of these 'attacks' is resolved separately, granting each exploding PC/NPC detonation that same +5 per previous wound.

Reply by: H.B.M.C. - click to view full reply 

494

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/30 22:37:49

Post by: H.B.M.C.

I think it's funny how people set on fire will inevitably explode. In the grim darkness of the 41st Millennium, blood is a highly explosive material!

Anyway, stepping away from Beta news and onto more Rogue Trader-y and Deathwatch-y things:

FFG wrote:In His Name
A Designer Diary For Rogue Trader: Faith and Coin by John Dunn



"You may have the power to force my actions, but only the God-Emperor has the authority to do so. If you continue on this course, you shall know His justice."
–Jollus Marquette

As Rogue Traders venture across the Koronus Expanse, and beyond, they often travel in the company of missionaries. Faith and Coin, an upcoming supplement for Rogue Trader, explores the complex relationships between Rogue Traders and Missionaries, as both parties work to further their own ends—and of course, carry out the will of the Emperor. In today’s Designer Diary, contributing writer John Dunn introduces Saint Cognatius, and sets the stage for The Sacred Heart, an adventure included in Faith and Coin.


Traders and Missionaries

The activities and agents of the Missionarus Galaxia within the Koronus Expanse offered a great opportunity to explore some of the region's ancient secrets and sacred legends. As Rogue Traders journey the vast expanse of the galaxy beyond the Imperium of Man, they often encounter lost splinters of humanity. Many of these lost children of Terra do not know the grace of the God-Emperor, nor do they recognise the authority of the Imperium—and both of these facts must change if the Imperium is to prosper and reclaim its rightful domain amidst the stars of the Koronus Expanse. Missionaries, in the service of the Adeptus Ministorum, exist to address such problems. These able stalwarts eagerly accept berths aboard Rogue Trader vessels in the hopes that they can serve His cause by converting some of these benighted souls to accepting their faith in the God-Emperor. These devoted souls embrace their responsibility to reunite the long lost relatives with the Imperium of Man, so that they might know salvation in His light—and so that the Imperium can dominate these worlds much more easily once it reclaims the Koronus Expanse.

In spite of the vast reach of the Imperium of Man, there remain huge numbers of worlds beyond its reach. Countless among these have been colonised by descendants of Terra. Within the unknowable environments of these alien worlds humanity has developed in a huge number of different ways—both physically and culturally. Many of these colonies have succumbed to corruption in some form, whether it be in the form of uncontrolled psykers dominating the population or wicked pacts with things beyond reality. However, even among those populations that have not fallen to the temptations of the Warp or other malign influences, only a very few are immediately ready for the Imperium of Man to arrive demanding tithes.



For the vast majority that are unprepared for the Imperium’s return, Missionaries work to ready the populations to accept the Imperium’s dominion centuries or even millennia before the Imperium truly reaches these worlds. This requires a concerted effort to subvert the local faiths to fit within the grand and varied tapestry of the Imperial Creed while purging elements that cannot be tolerated. Of course, different missionaries have very different approaches to fulfilling these duties, and even radically varied definitions of what can be tolerated and what must be destroyed.

Rogue Traders and their subordinates play a critical role in the work of missionaries. Beyond merely ferrying missionaries from world to uncharted world, Rogue Traders often become involved in the task missionaries strive to fulfill—though whether their support comes from genuine piety, raw avarice, or something in between depends on the individual Rogue Trader. A Rogue Trader and his crew can stand to make a great deal of money by backing the right missionary at the right time, and the skills that a Rogue Trader and especially his Seneschal can bring to the missionary’s effort can be invaluable.

The Ways of St. Cognatius

Many missionaries have worked among the human-held worlds of the Koronus Expanse over its history. Some among them are linked by the legend of an ancient figure, a fierce devotee of the God-Emperor remembered as St. Cognatius. As one of the very few saints recognised by the Ecclesiarchy and associated with the Koronus Expanse, many have sought out his patronage while they travelled through this region. Dozens of devotees have undertaken missions of conversion and faith with the legends of St. Cognatius at the forefront of their minds. Many missionaries have hoped to emulate the success he enjoyed in the region, millennia ago. Others hope that they might find his final resting place, so that they can discover the miraculous archeotechnology and ancient relics that legends associate with his triumphs.



The first chapter of Faith and Coin focuses on the legends of four different missionaries, who all served within the Koronus Expanse. Each encountered a range of different challenges, but each also followed a distinct methodology as part of his or her mission. All were loyal and true servants of the Ecclesiarchy, but each chose to follow a distinctive means to convert worlds unknown. St. Cognatius and his legend served as the one additional link that each of these missionaries shared. All sought to uncover his legend, in the hopes that they might gather further glory for the Imperium by recovering his sacred Tomb.

The broad range of different approaches serves to illustrate both the differing philosophies that are active within the Ecclesiarchy, but also some of the variety of responses possible to those beliefs. As the missionaries interacted with the various worlds of the Koronus Expanse, they faced a number of different challenges—both from the dangers implicit on the worlds and from the agents of the Imperium who sought to destroy them rather than offer them support. Their stories can be part inspiration and cautionary tale to a missionary operating in the Koronus Expanse in their wake. Now, centuries later, the organisations and relics they left behind for their successors provide resources for those with the drive to seek them. And some whisper that these legends, logs, and clues even contain the secret location of the final resting place of St. Cognatius and his relic ship, the Sacred Heart...

Thanks, John!

Check out the following pages (pdf, 5.5 MB), excerpted from Faith and Coin, for more on this upcoming supplement. Then, keep checking back for more news about Rogue Trader: Faith and Coin!

Hmm... did anyone tell John that 'Sacred Heart' was the name of the hospital from Scrubs? I will now view this ship as the 40K version of that place, where Lord-Surgeon Perry Coxius stalks the halls, using his various medical mechadendrites to belittle his Medicae students.

Anyway, looking forward to this book. I always like books where they focus on something that's never really dealt with in 40K-proper (Tech-Priests, Navigators, Astropaths, and now Missionaries).

FFG wrote:How Will You Be Remembered?
A Designer Diary for Deathwatch: The Emperor's Chosen by Jason Marker



Recently, we announced The Emperor’s Chosen, a supplement for Deathwatch. In an earlier preview, the legacies of Deathwatch veterans, and their legendary kill-teams were explored. The Emperor’s Chosen allows dedicated and elite members of the Deathwatch to ascend to Deathwatch veteran. Kill-teams may follow in the footsteps of the heroic veteran squads that came before them with the Heroic Legacies included in The Emperor’s Chosen.

Those few Space Marines who have served the Emperor with distinction and honor in the Deathwatch, and their masterful Kill-teams serve to inspire those who would follow in their footsteps. Aspire to honor the Emperor and the memories of your predecessor with Heroic Legacies. In this upcoming supplement for Deathwatch, you’ll find Heroic Legacies that are modeled after the greatest veteran kill-teams ever to fight for the Imperium in the Jericho Reach Deathwatch. Contributing writer Jason Marker discusses the role of Heroic Legacies in The Emperor’s Chosen. Read what he has to say below, as you prepare to advance yourself and your Battle-Brothers into the next phase of glory with The Emperor’s Chosen!


A Kill-team of Legendary Prowess

In The Emperor's Chosen, I had the pleasure of writing Chapter II: Figures of Legend. The Battle-Brothers of the Adeptus Astartes are already larger than life heroes, mythic warrior-monks in power armor who journey across the galaxy in His service tackling threats too large or too horrific for other, lesser branches of the Imperial war machine. The goal of my assignment for this project was to discuss those Space Marines who had risen not only to the top of their home chapters, but to the the top of the Jericho Reach Deathwatch as well. These are the stories of Battle-Brothers who had faced the worst that the various xenos races could throw at them and come out not only alive, but covered in laurels.



To start, I wrote about Heroic Legacies. Kill-teams who have worked long together and distinguished themselves both in and out of battle can use their pooled experience points to buy a Historic Legacy. A Heroic Legacy is similar to a kill-team's squad abilities, but is something acquired by the Kill-team themselves and tailored to their experience and manner of working together. The core of the Heroic Legacy package is purchased by the players and provides several options for customization. The specifics are designed by the players and the Game Master, offering numerous options in offensive and defensive formations as well as special manoeuvres that allow a Kill-Team to shape their Heroic Legacy to their own particular combat style. So, a Kill-Team specializing in surgical strikes or stealth can build a powerful legacy around their particular form of warfare, enhancing their abilities and making them truly a power to be reckoned with on the battlefield.

In all, I really enjoyed working on this project and I hope that you, the players, enjoy the fruits of our labor. So go spend your XP, collect your laurels, and go knock some xenos’ heads together. Who knows, perhaps you and your Battle-Brothers will go down in Imperial histories, and your names will be whispered in the halls of the Deathwatch for millennia to come.

Thanks, Jason!

Check out the following pages (pdf, 688 KB), excerpted from The Emperor’s Chosen, for an example of a Heroic Legacy package, and a sample of Heroic Legacies to aspire to in this upcoming supplement. Then, gather your Battle-Brothers and prepare to fight for your place in the annals of history with The Emperor’s Chosen.

Yep. It's a Deathwatch book. Ain't gonna say a single word more about this one.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/31 06:32:20

Post by: Manchu

 BaronIveagh wrote:
As far as complaining about this a lot, I am bitchy about this.

Fair play. No game is going to suit everyone's tastes.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Critical Existence Failure is necessary for videogames, but IMHO comes off as just STRANGE and breaking suspension of belief in a roleplaying (non-video)game.

I agree. That's why it's important -- in any table top RPG -- for the referee to exercise judgment in narrating the results of mechanics. Using D&D as an example, there is no such thing as HP in the world in which the story unfolds; it is up to the DM to narrate in story-terms what happens when your PC loses enough HP to die. DH1E tried to give GMs a little help with this narration by padding out the PC's "health bubble" with 10 more HP that, unlike the rest of your HP, referenced a series of critical hit charts differentiated by hit location and damage type. DH2E reworked this to cover all hits rather than just the last 10 HP's worth and also ditched HP at the same time. What remains, as always, is the need for the GM's good judgment in narrating something appropriate to the scene. Only a poor GM would insist on interpreting the rules so that the scene makes as little sense as possible. "Critical Existence Failure," for example, is not a part of the rules for either DH1E or DH2E. If that's what happens in your game, it's because the GM is not doing her/his job properly.

As I tried to explain above, what does happen in the DH2E mechanics (but not necessarily in the story) is a kind of countdown to taking a fatal hit. I think what's causing the cognitive dissonance with this mechanic is that what the beta refers to as "damage" is not really damage in the traditional sense. The best way I can explain it so far is, your odds of taking a fatal hit increase as you take more wounds in combat. This is not necessarily because those wounds logically lead to the next more severe wound. That's the bruised-to-death GM interpretation that I have characterized as obviously silly. In terms of the rules, you don't get killed on a seventh bruise. But if you take six bruises from one attack, you can be certain that the first hit on the next attack will not be a further bruise. It will be something like getting decapitated.

Reply by: Yodhrin - click to view full reply 

47181

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/31 08:19:44

Post by: Yodhrin

 Manchu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
As far as complaining about this a lot, I am bitchy about this.

Fair play. No game is going to suit everyone's tastes.

TiamatRoar wrote:
Critical Existence Failure is necessary for videogames, but IMHO comes off as just STRANGE and breaking suspension of belief in a roleplaying (non-video)game.

I agree. That's why it's important -- in any table top RPG -- for the referee to exercise judgment in narrating the results of mechanics. Using D&D as an example, there is no such thing as HP in the world in which the story unfolds; it is up to the DM to narrate in story-terms what happens when your PC loses enough HP to die. DH1E tried to give GMs a little help with this narration by padding out the PC's "health bubble" with 10 more HP that, unlike the rest of your HP, referenced a series of critical hit charts differentiated by hit location and damage type. DH2E reworked this to cover all hits rather than just the last 10 HP's worth and also ditched HP at the same time. What remains, as always, is the need for the GM's good judgment in narrating something appropriate to the scene. Only a poor GM would insist on interpreting the rules so that the scene makes as little sense as possible. "Critical Existence Failure," for example, is not a part of the rules for either DH1E or DH2E. If that's what happens in your game, it's because the GM is not doing her/his job properly.

As I tried to explain above, what does happen in the DH2E mechanics (but not necessarily in the story) is a kind of countdown to taking a fatal hit. I think what's causing the cognitive dissonance with this mechanic is that what the beta refers to as "damage" is not really damage in the traditional sense. The best way I can explain it so far is, your odds of taking a fatal hit increase as you take more wounds in combat. This is not necessarily because those wounds logically lead to the next more severe wound. That's the bruised-to-death GM interpretation that I have characterized as obviously silly. In terms of the rules, you don't get killed on a seventh bruise. But if you take six bruises from one attack, you can be certain that the first hit on the next attack will not be a further bruise. It will be something like getting decapitated.

I'm actually surprised that you can use the words "cognitive dissonance" in a post where you handwave away the rules as they are presented as "silly interpretation", then present a scenario in which a person takes less punishment than an Olympic rules boxer(ie, padded to hell and back) and then suddenly has their head explode from a basic, unarmed HtH attack as perfectly reasonable and rational, without suffering an irony overload.

And honestly, the way you keep insisting that any flaw in the rules is only a problem for GMs with a terminal lack of imagination is bordering on just insulting anyone who disagrees with you's intelligence.

The rules are supposed to be a tool to help the GM shepard the story, not an obstacle they have to overcome in order to force the story to make some vague kind of rational sense.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/31 08:40:38

Post by: Manchu

You seem to still think the bruises are related to the decapitation as a matter of story. Again, the rules don't say that; it's a GM's call. Every tabletop RPG I can think of requires the GM to interpret mechanics into narrative. A GM who interprets the rules so that the narrative does not make sense is doing a bad job. Sorry but I can't phrase this any more simply.

Reply by: Alpharius - click to view full reply 

123

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/31 12:14:31

Post by: Alpharius

 BaronIveagh wrote:


So let me put it this way. I had Gary Gygax sit down at MY table and have a good time. The community came astonishingly close to reading MY name in an official GW product. There are FFG writers and playtesters who come to ME for advice (and for a sympathetic ear on occasion). And despite my rather rant-y style of reviews, my taking over DR was not only approved of by the community, and it's admins, and the playtesters (mostly) but anointed by Sam Stewart and Ross Watson.

Whoa there - that sounds a lot like a "Do you know who I am?!?" kind of post!

All kidding aside, as a huge fan of 1E AD&D (who still plays it today - with my daughter too! ) I'd love to hear about your experiences with Gary!

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/31 12:15:33

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
You seem to still think the bruises are related to the decapitation as a matter of story. Again, the rules don't say that; it's a GM's call. Every tabletop RPG I can think of requires the GM to interpret mechanics into narrative. A GM who interprets the rules so that the narrative does not make sense is doing a bad job. Sorry but I can't phrase this any more simply.

Manchu, please then explain to me how I am to hand-waive away the fact that anyone set on fire, who is not extinguished, explodes. Quite literally and with enough force to deal splash damage for up to 30 feet. 'In the grim darkness of the far future underwear is sewn with detcord"? That's a hard one to get around, because it happens to every single target you set on fire.

There's a point where in this case a 'good' GM gives it up as a bad job and hourserules the existing wound tables away, because explaining away how a 90 pound asthmatic Latvian grandma just stove an orks skull in with a table lamp in one blow gets a bit old on the tenth or twelfth time around, because no one is going to believe that there are that many daemonhosts and cybered up little old ladies running around (unless it's a forgeworld or it's the entire plot of the story that someone is mass producing damonhosts).

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/31 17:06:10

Post by: Manchu

 BaronIveagh wrote:
please then explain to me how I am to hand-waive away the fact that anyone set on fire, who is not extinguished, explodes

I can explain to you that this is not what the rules say.

The Burning condition is always associated with some number X. At the start of every turn that a PC is afflicted with the Burning condition, he takes a hit of X damage on the appropriate Energy Weapons wound effect table. The death result on the table for head hits is the only one of the three that results in an explosion. For limb and body hits, the target is just severely burnt.

I can also explain to you that it is the GM's job in any RPG, including DH2E, to make judgment calls.

I understand your problem as a GM with narrating that a PC's head explodes because they have burnt to death via the head hit table. Rather than dying from burns, the death entry on this table is clearly meant to reflect being shot with an energy weapon in the skull. That is where you as the GM have a choice: (1) keep the explosion mechanic from the entry but change the flavor text to better reflect what's going on at your table; or (2) ignore the explosion mechanic from the entry and make up a result that better reflects what's going on at your table.

The GM's job is to adjudicate rules. That's GMing 101. DH2E even reminds the players of that on p 12 under the heading "Rule Zero."

 BaronIveagh wrote:
a 90 pound asthmatic Latvian grandma

Why are you talking about Latvian grandmas?

Reply by: Yodhrin - click to view full reply 

47181

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/31 18:42:27

Post by: Yodhrin

 Manchu wrote:
You seem to still think the bruises are related to the decapitation as a matter of story. Again, the rules don't say that; it's a GM's call. Every tabletop RPG I can think of requires the GM to interpret mechanics into narrative. A GM who interprets the rules so that the narrative does not make sense is doing a bad job. Sorry but I can't phrase this any more simply.

And rules which require the GM to reinterpret every aspect of their function so they make basic logical sense have failed spectacularly, as far as I'm concerned. You know, for a mod, you're really invested in this condescending attitude.

Reply by: Manchu - click to view full reply 

16387

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/31 19:05:13

Post by: Manchu

You seem to be confused on a very basic level so I am trying to be as clear as possible. RPG rules require interpretation; that's why there is a GM to begin with.

Reply by: TiamatRoar - click to view full reply 

73675

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/31 22:19:54

Post by: TiamatRoar

Just from an outsider's perspective here, some of these rules sound more akin to "throw away entirely" rather than "interpret".

Reply by: BaronIveagh - click to view full reply 

15571

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/07/31 22:38:34

Post by: BaronIveagh

 Manchu wrote:
For limb and body hits, the target is just severely burnt.

Incorrect. On the limb hit, assuming that the target does not die, he gains + 1d10+5 burning. Which guarantees, on the next turn, if the hit is to the torso, he explodes, inflicting burning on everyone who does not evade AND a fear test. Head, same result.

 Manchu wrote:
You seem to be confused on a very basic level so I am trying to be as clear as possible. RPG rules require interpretation; that's why there is a GM to begin with.

Gary Gygax wrote: The dedicated GM is not only an impartial judge of events, but at the same time he is an active force championing the cause of both the preservation of PCs not bent on self-destruction and the continued satisfaction of players who do not seek to see the campaign ruined.

Manchu, while it is true that a gamemaster should be willing to bend, or even ignore, rules to see the party remains entertained and engaged, he must also select a system. One of the key elements of this selection is 'does the player get from point A to Point B in a fair and logical manner'? Another is 'does the risk to the player scale logically with the rewards'? What a system should never do is require a GM to see the future, or require him to change more than 30% of a given system. Both of these are true for this system. In addition, while it comports itself as being a good choice for a combat oriented campaign, it is not.

Further, this is a beta of a system. It is, effectively, to test to see if the game behaves in a logical manner and one consistent with the tenants of good role playing and the internal logic of the setting. If, out of the box, it requires extensive alterations (more than 30%) to make sense, then there are some serious, fundamental flaws in it. The basic fact is that the combat system in this game ONLY works correctly if someone only takes a single wound per turn. Saying that it's the GM's fault not only misses the point of testing out a new system, but shows a very poor understanding of GMing.

The GM is there to design and arbitrate, and to help the party succeed, so long as they act in a rational and non-suicidal manner, and to step in in the rare instance that rules collide in some way that goes against them for mechanical rather than narrative purposes. The RARE instance. A system is poorly designed if the GM has to jump through hoops to explain everything, or a single class or skill is so powerful that all the players want that. In this system the combat requires constant GM 'intervention' to explain away results that should be instantly fatal or could not possibly result in the injuries sustained, and the Defense Tree is practically a no-brainer that Everyone wants, with Agility a clear God stat. Saying that having Rule Zero printed in it as a reminder that the GM can and should do these things does not excuse that they need doing in the first place.

 Alpharius wrote:

Whoa there - that sounds a lot like a "Do you know who I am?!?" kind of post!

LOL HBMC read a 'Do you know who I am?' post from me once and wanted to know why my posts HERE weren't more like it.

Reply by: Yodhrin - click to view full reply 

47181

[40K RPG] Combined news thread (UPDATE 30/01/16 Enemies Beyond is out!!!) @ 2013/08/01 07:12:57

Post by: Yodhrin

 Manchu wrote:
You seem to be confused on a very basic level so I am trying to be as clear as possible. RPG rules require interpretation; that's why there is a GM to begin with.

There it is again. Fine, I'll respond in kind;

Me no not understandy. Me understandy fine. Me no think same as you.

I simply can't dumb down such a basic concept as "I disagree" any more than that. RPG rules should require interpretation when the characters are in an extraordinary situation, not when they're doing something completely ordinary within the setting and which the rules are supposedly written to handle. These situations are NOT extraordinary, they will arise as a matter of course while playing an average game, because the combat rules are so idiotically put together that 40K characters apparently have liquid Semtex for blood and engage in hand-to-hand combat like they're playing Mortal Kombat. You've gone from indignance, to equivocation, to simple condescension, and now you're just flat-out insulting the intelligence and/or ability of anyone who doesn't accept your mental gymnastics.

◄ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ► Pg# Go to page...