Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

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."

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.

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

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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?

 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.

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 ...

 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.

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.

 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.

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!

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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

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.

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.

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?

 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.

 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?

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.