Jump to content



Photo

Second Edition Announcement


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 Tim Huckelbery

Tim Huckelbery

    Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 16 April 2014 - 10:28 AM

Hi, just an FYI that the new edition has been announced:

http://www.fantasyfl...s.asp?eidn=4754

 

There is a new message board for it as well:

http://community.fan...second-edition/

 

The entire Dark Heresy team here at FFG would like to pass on a huge thanks to everyone who participated in the beta. Your feedback, comments, and especially playtesting reports were invaluable in developing the game, and we couldn't have done it without you.

 

-Tim


  • Magnus Grendel, Green Knight, ak-73 and 7 others like this

#2 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,192 posts

Posted 16 April 2014 - 10:48 AM

Will this beta forum be closing, and if so, can we get an ETA? There's a bunch of quality writeups here I'd like to save for future use.


  • Elior likes this

#3 Tim Huckelbery

Tim Huckelbery

    Member

  • Members
  • 104 posts

Posted 16 April 2014 - 11:04 AM

I'll check and let everyone know. We'll give plenty of notice if it does go down.

 

-Tim



#4 LuciusT

LuciusT

    Member

  • Members
  • 908 posts

Posted 16 April 2014 - 08:23 PM

Looks like the absolutely horrible Reinforcements rules seem to have survived and even worse, it sounds like the flawed and useless "threat ratings" made it in. I am very disappointed.


  • Tenebrae likes this

#5 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 812 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 11:02 AM

Looks like the absolutely horrible Reinforcements rules seem to have survived and even worse, it sounds like the flawed and useless "threat ratings" made it in. I am very disappointed.


Nice upbeat comment! How would you know these things are unchanged?

#6 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,192 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 11:17 AM

Well, FFG have had two fully completed betas so far (that I know of, anyway). Only War, and Edge of the Empire.

 

Both of these games received virtually no changes between the end of the beta and their full releases; there were spelling corrections, minor balance changes, and some very minor systems added (minor manifestations in OW were added post-beta, as far as I know).

 

If we go by FFG's past, chances are DH won't change much from what we've already seen and played.



#7 Gurkhal

Gurkhal

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,044 posts

Posted 17 April 2014 - 01:32 PM

Looks good. It will be very interesting to see what this heralds as I didn't take part in the beta.



#8 LuciusT

LuciusT

    Member

  • Members
  • 908 posts

Posted 18 April 2014 - 03:32 PM

 

Looks like the absolutely horrible Reinforcements rules seem to have survived and even worse, it sounds like the flawed and useless "threat ratings" made it in. I am very disappointed.


Nice upbeat comment! How would you know these things are unchanged?

 

 

I can read...

  • Reinforcement Characters allow players to call on the aid of powerful individuals in the Askellon Sector such as Deathwatch Space Marines, Sisters of Battle and Imperial Assassins.
  • Easy-to-use NPCs come with threat ratings so that Game Masters can build suitably challenging encounters.

  • Tenebrae likes this

#9 Felenis

Felenis

    Member

  • Members
  • 315 posts

Posted 20 April 2014 - 10:05 AM

Well, I'm quite happy to finally see the release confirmed, and I was generally pretty happy with the direction of the beta. Feel like we could have had two more testing sessions or so though, oh well. Hopefully you guys are changing a few more things based on suggestions from the forums (guardsmen bonus, accurate and called shots are things that spring to mind for me)

Anyways, excited to finally get the finished product in my hands, and hopefully see the birth of a great new line!
  • Elior likes this

#10 Magnus Grendel

Magnus Grendel

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,301 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 01:59 AM

Glad to see it finally made it out.

1) Do we have an expected release date?
2) Is there a collector's version planned?

#11 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 812 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 04:00 AM

 

 

Looks like the absolutely horrible Reinforcements rules seem to have survived and even worse, it sounds like the flawed and useless "threat ratings" made it in. I am very disappointed.


Nice upbeat comment! How would you know these things are unchanged?

 

 

I can read...

  • Reinforcement Characters allow players to call on the aid of powerful individuals in the Askellon Sector such as Deathwatch Space Marines, Sisters of Battle and Imperial Assassins.
  • Easy-to-use NPCs come with threat ratings so that Game Masters can build suitably challenging encounters.

 

But do you know that these things were not "tweaked"? My point was more about the tone of your comment. I understand that some are not happy with the first beta being essentially scrapped. But after all is said and done, you made your point about that! (Add nauseum!) How about trying to be a little more positive? 


  • Snowman0147 likes this

#12 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 783 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 06:51 AM

 

 

 

Looks like the absolutely horrible Reinforcements rules seem to have survived and even worse, it sounds like the flawed and useless "threat ratings" made it in. I am very disappointed.


Nice upbeat comment! How would you know these things are unchanged?

 

 

I can read...

  • Reinforcement Characters allow players to call on the aid of powerful individuals in the Askellon Sector such as Deathwatch Space Marines, Sisters of Battle and Imperial Assassins.
  • Easy-to-use NPCs come with threat ratings so that Game Masters can build suitably challenging encounters.

 

But do you know that these things were not "tweaked"? My point was more about the tone of your comment. I understand that some are not happy with the first beta being essentially scrapped. But after all is said and done, you made your point about that! (Add nauseum!) How about trying to be a little more positive? 

 

 

Not to speak for someone else, but going by FFG's previous two public betas (Only War and Edge of the Empire), there was very little in the way of substantive changes from the end of the beta to the game's release. Expecting those listed mechanics to be essentially what we've already seen is totally reasonable, given FFG's pattern.  Also, both of those things were in both the original beta and the OW-ish beta - the distaste for them has nothing to do with whether one is bitter about the original beta being rolled back.


  • LuciusT likes this

#13 LuciusT

LuciusT

    Member

  • Members
  • 908 posts

Posted 24 April 2014 - 03:47 PM

 

 

 

Looks like the absolutely horrible Reinforcements rules seem to have survived and even worse, it sounds like the flawed and useless "threat ratings" made it in. I am very disappointed.


Nice upbeat comment! How would you know these things are unchanged?

 

 

I can read...

  • Reinforcement Characters allow players to call on the aid of powerful individuals in the Askellon Sector such as Deathwatch Space Marines, Sisters of Battle and Imperial Assassins.
  • Easy-to-use NPCs come with threat ratings so that Game Masters can build suitably challenging encounters.

 

But do you know that these things were not "tweaked"? My point was more about the tone of your comment. I understand that some are not happy with the first beta being essentially scrapped. But after all is said and done, you made your point about that! (Add nauseum!) How about trying to be a little more positive? 

 

 

The concepts as seen in the Beta and described in those single sentence summaries are unredeemable. No amount of "tweaking" can save them. They both should have been thrown out or re-written whole cloth... and any worthwhile rewrites would not be described in the terms used.


  • Simsum likes this

#14 Karmeleon

Karmeleon

    Member

  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 09:13 AM

 

 

 

 

Looks like the absolutely horrible Reinforcements rules seem to have survived and even worse, it sounds like the flawed and useless "threat ratings" made it in. I am very disappointed.


Nice upbeat comment! How would you know these things are unchanged?

 

 

I can read...

  • Reinforcement Characters allow players to call on the aid of powerful individuals in the Askellon Sector such as Deathwatch Space Marines, Sisters of Battle and Imperial Assassins.
  • Easy-to-use NPCs come with threat ratings so that Game Masters can build suitably challenging encounters.

 

But do you know that these things were not "tweaked"? My point was more about the tone of your comment. I understand that some are not happy with the first beta being essentially scrapped. But after all is said and done, you made your point about that! (Add nauseum!) How about trying to be a little more positive? 

 

 

The concepts as seen in the Beta and described in those single sentence summaries are unredeemable. No amount of "tweaking" can save them. They both should have been thrown out or re-written whole cloth... and any worthwhile rewrites would not be described in the terms used.

 

 

This is weak tea.

 

Classic DH had all sorts of problems, but threat ratings never numbered among the serious ones. At worst they were *sometimes* be misleading, and that's more down to the ability of the writer to eyeball the enemy - something a GM is going to have to do anyway. More than that there aren't actually any actual 'threat ratings' in the beta as we have it, just the good rule of thumb that is Threat Threshold and the same Troop/Elite/Master rankings of enemies that we've had in Deathwatch, Black Crusade, and Only War before this. I doubt anyone who was clamoring so hard for DH 2.0 to be backward compatible is going to balk at their return.

 

Displeasure with reinforcements is marginally more understandable... but it's at the discretion of the GM. Acolytes are only supposed to use them in rare, special circumstances, and indeed this is mostly just following a precedent set down in the Daemonhunters expansion book in DH 1.0. If a GM doesn't want reinforcements to show up, they simply won't - as a best case scenario. As a worst case, the recommendations that the GM bring down the wrath of the Acolytes's Inquisitor comes into play...



#15 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 664 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 12:26 PM

Displeasure with reinforcements is marginally more understandable... but it's at the discretion of the GM. Acolytes are only supposed to use them in rare, special circumstances, and indeed this is mostly just following a precedent set down in the Daemonhunters expansion book in DH 1.0. If a GM doesn't want reinforcements to show up, they simply won't - as a best case scenario. As a worst case, the recommendations that the GM bring down the wrath of the Acolytes's Inquisitor comes into play...

 

I think LuciusT referred to the problem where you need reinforcements but you don't want to call in a Canoness/Space Marine just something small like a few Tempestus Scions or maybe an Arbites investigator team. Currently, you can't do this with the Reinforcements rule even though these options would be 1000x times more useable. The whole rule is kinda' like a waste of space in the rulebook... 


  • LuciusT likes this

#16 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 783 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 01:12 PM

 

Displeasure with reinforcements is marginally more understandable... but it's at the discretion of the GM. Acolytes are only supposed to use them in rare, special circumstances, and indeed this is mostly just following a precedent set down in the Daemonhunters expansion book in DH 1.0. If a GM doesn't want reinforcements to show up, they simply won't - as a best case scenario. As a worst case, the recommendations that the GM bring down the wrath of the Acolytes's Inquisitor comes into play...

 

I think LuciusT referred to the problem where you need reinforcements but you don't want to call in a Canoness/Space Marine just something small like a few Tempestus Scions or maybe an Arbites investigator team. Currently, you can't do this with the Reinforcements rule even though these options would be 1000x times more useable. The whole rule is kinda' like a waste of space in the rulebook... 

 

Not to defend the Reinforcements system, but you can use other characters than what's printed.  The rules say that if you don't want to use one of the options presented, all you need to do is just go through the regular character creation process but with "additional experience".

 

Yeah, the system is literally "you can play as the better, stronger, cooler character you went through the bother of creating, but only sometimes." 'Waste of space' is a pretty good descriptor.


  • LuciusT and Simsum like this

#17 LuciusT

LuciusT

    Member

  • Members
  • 908 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 01:16 PM

 

Classic DH had all sorts of problems, but threat ratings never numbered among the serious ones. At worst they were *sometimes* be misleading, and that's more down to the ability of the writer to eyeball the enemy - something a GM is going to have to do anyway. More than that there aren't actually any actual 'threat ratings' in the beta as we have it, just the good rule of thumb that is Threat Threshold and the same Troop/Elite/Master rankings of enemies that we've had in Deathwatch, Black Crusade, and Only War before this. I doubt anyone who was clamoring so hard for DH 2.0 to be backward compatible is going to balk at their return.

 

You are clearly misunderstanding or mis-remembering Threat Ratings from the Beta. In the Beta each adversary template was assigned a numeric value, representing it's Threat Rating and there was a lengthy section detailing what sum of numeric threat ratings represented an appropriately balanced encounter for a group of Acolytes with a given amount of Exp. Essentially DH 2.1 was trying to replicate the ( flawed) D&D concept of Challenge Rating. 

 

The problems with this are simply too many to fully enumerate... However, at the most central we have the assumption a Feral World Warrior who has invested 600 exp in Weapon Skill and combat related Talents can handle the same challenges, as defined by the these Threat Ratings, as a Hive World Sage who has invested 600 exp in Lore skills. The degree of "eyeballing" required by the GM in these circumstances alone is so great as to make the entire system a waste of pages which could be put to better use. 


Edited by LuciusT, 29 April 2014 - 01:16 PM.


#18 LuciusT

LuciusT

    Member

  • Members
  • 908 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 01:20 PM

 

 

Displeasure with reinforcements is marginally more understandable... but it's at the discretion of the GM. Acolytes are only supposed to use them in rare, special circumstances, and indeed this is mostly just following a precedent set down in the Daemonhunters expansion book in DH 1.0. If a GM doesn't want reinforcements to show up, they simply won't - as a best case scenario. As a worst case, the recommendations that the GM bring down the wrath of the Acolytes's Inquisitor comes into play...

 

I think LuciusT referred to the problem where you need reinforcements but you don't want to call in a Canoness/Space Marine just something small like a few Tempestus Scions or maybe an Arbites investigator team. Currently, you can't do this with the Reinforcements rule even though these options would be 1000x times more useable. The whole rule is kinda' like a waste of space in the rulebook... 

 

Not to defend the Reinforcements system, but you can use other characters than what's printed.  The rules say that if you don't want to use one of the options presented, all you need to do is just go through the regular character creation process but with "additional experience".

 

Yeah, the system is literally "you can play as the better, stronger, cooler character you went through the bother of creating, but only sometimes." 'Waste of space' is a pretty good descriptor.

 

 

It's literally saying to the players... nice job, now stand aside and let my super-powerful NPCs who are the Real Heroes save the day, but here I'll you play them for this scene. 



#19 cps

cps

    Member

  • Members
  • 783 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 01:45 PM

 

It's literally saying to the players... nice job, now stand aside and let my super-powerful NPCs who are the Real Heroes save the day, but here I'll you play them for this scene. 

 

 

Ouch. I read it as the players creating these backup characters, but the GM handing them out colors it in an especially unflattering light. What a failure of a rule...



#20 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 664 posts

Posted 30 April 2014 - 01:01 AM

Not to defend the Reinforcements system, but you can use other characters than what's printed.  The rules say that if you don't want to use one of the options presented, all you need to do is just go through the regular character creation process but with "additional experience".

 

 

Actually, you can't, because you can't calculate their Influence costs as the generation rules are completely broken and will result in hilarious things like a humble Tempestus Scion costing more than a Canoness.

 

I don't have problems with the idea of the Reinforcements rule though. Taking the super-inflexible classes into account, sometimes it is necessary to have a backup character for situations where my original character is useless. It is just... very unsophisticated in its current form. 






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS