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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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

 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.

 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.

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.

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 ...

 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).

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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."

 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.

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.