Jump to content



Photo

The End?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#21 Sebashaw

Sebashaw

    Member

  • Members
  • 287 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:00 AM

I have FEAR to see Ascension as a core-book.



#22 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 778 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 04:44 PM

Adeptus-B said:

So, if there is a Second Edition, what changes are you hoping for? The two things that top my 'wish-list' are:

1) Reign in Psykers! I don't really have any suggestions about how to do that, but something needs to be done to bring them more in line with the other classes.

2) Do away with money! Agents of the Inquisition should be Purging the Unclean, not looking for stuff they can steal and sell; looting used armour from dead heretics to sell in town reeks of D&D, and shatters the game's 'suspension of disbelief'. Wealth should be abstracted to a statistic, to make it clear that accumulating Thrones is not the objective of the game.

Both of these things were actually done in later 'versions' of the game! I respectfully disagree about the Thrones thing though; I think at the level of "Acolytes" players are interacting with Imperial society at the "normal joe" level. Their Inquisitor is well beyond such concerns but the Acolytes are not! It is actually mentioned that some Acolytes take on the challenge af being a throne agent to enrich themselves! Selling 'loot' from ones adventures may seem somewhat pedestrian but than the Gm should allow for asset seizure and 'Bonus payments' for mission completion in the same vein. Additionally, The Cell's Inquisitor SHOULD be provideing the Acolytes with Specialist gear should he 'deem' that they need it!

BTW; Updating the rules for DH would be pretty simple since many of the classes have already been redone in OW includeing

Cleric; Guardsman (Multiple variants); Sanctioned Psyker; and Tech priest. All that are left are Adept (A Specialist); Scum (An 'average' citizen/rogue); Arbitrator and Assassin (Yet another specialist). (Plushy has done some fine work on this BTW! FFG take note!)

What remains is to rewrite the Core rules to Encompass all levels of Imperial play (DH, OW, RT and DW!) 



#23 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,750 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 05:00 PM

"Selling loot to get along" certainly doesn't sound very fitting when one thinks of Inquisitional operatives, yet I also agree that the concept of monetary management does have its place for a deep cover group. I think there is a compromise to be found somewhere in the middle, such as a combination of free basic equipment, whereas the agents need to manage an expenses account for anything else they might need, from local transportation and lodging all the way to saving up for customized gear. Certainly, this could be worked into the basic rules somehow. And while we're at it, we may as well get rid off the monthly salary that lets working for the Inquisition appear like some part-time job.

That being said, I also never quite understood why Black Industries opted for an Inquisitorial cell without an Inquisitor back then. Sure, it's one way to pull it off, but it doesn't exactly meet expectations when someone comes in having read about the Inquisition from all those other sources, does it? The "low start" always seemed a bit weird - it's like a game of Rogue Trader where the players start out as crewmen!

 

Adeptus-B said:

So, if there is a Second Edition, what changes are you hoping for?

Personally, I'd hope for a unified core rulebook that promulgates a single system for everything and everyone, allowing for maximum crossover-compatibility between the many forms of campaigns one could play. I realise that this would affect the various tweaks that the different 40k product lines of FFG have taken in order to focus to a unique style of narration, yet I always disliked that comparability had to be sacrificed along the way. In fact, this has been one of my biggest gripes. But it's just a matter of preferences, I suppose.

Needless to say, however, this would also include the necessity to "reign in" Space Marines, and I'm not sure they'd be willing to do that. "Inquisitor" has shown that the approach is possible, though.

Oh, and please, no actual "divine magic" in 40k … apesta


current 40k RPG character: Aura Vashaan, Astromancer Witch-Priestess
previous characters: Captain Elias (Celestial Lions Chapter), Comrade-Trooper Dasha Malenko (1207th Valhallan Ice Warriors), Sister Elana (Order of the Sacred Rose), Leftenant Darion Baylesworth (Rogue Trader Artemisia)

#24 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 778 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 08:28 PM

Lynata said:

Oh, and please, no actual "divine magic" in 40k … apesta

What about "Pure faith"?burla



#25 Sebashaw

Sebashaw

    Member

  • Members
  • 287 posts

Posted 25 May 2013 - 10:05 PM

Lynata said:

 

That being said, I also never quite understood why Black Industries opted for an Inquisitorial cell without an Inquisitor back then. Sure, it's one way to pull it off, but it doesn't exactly meet expectations when someone comes in having read about the Inquisition from all those other sources, does it? The "low start" always seemed a bit weird - it's like a game of Rogue Trader where the players start out as crewmen!

 

 

Probably because an inquisitor has too much political and financial power, he could even declare the destruction of an entire planet in less than an hour.

And I think that Dark Heresy, in the end, is the most clearly focused game of the line, the part written by the BI at least.

For example, I think that the archetypal character of Rogue Trader is Han Solo, a wrong choice to me, the tipical character of Rogue Trader should be Sir Francis Drake, a man who commanded many sailors, not a man with only an hairy friend!

And I think sometimes that FFG is too much bounded to the Codex, instead of Black Industries which were more "free".



#26 breez

breez

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts

Posted 26 May 2013 - 05:05 AM

There are a few things I would like changed if there was a DH v 2.0.

First: Righteous fury.  It is just way too easy to kill off the big bad with 1 hit. I like the OW mechanism.

Weapon dmages. Some weapons, (e.g. plasma pistols), feel very underpowered.

More experienced starting characters. Current, level 1 starting characters are very weak. Especially when it comes to knowledge skills. I would have the new  start at the equivelenet of level 3.

 

Economics: This is a major headache for me. (a) Players have different incomes, (b) the cost vs. salary scale is really off, © some items shuld not be on the common market, and should only be rare/very rare if you have a connection to a relevant instiution, (d) some rare/very rare items are very cheap, especially when you consider that they are in very short supply.

As an exampe for (b), a guardsman starting salary is 50 thrones, whereas a mid grade meal costs 5 thrones. He could only eat for 10 days!, never mind transport and hotels. He would not even be able to afford a common quality doctor (75 thrones).



#27 Gurkhal

Gurkhal

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,024 posts

Posted 26 May 2013 - 08:25 AM

To be honest I'm not sure what I would change if I wouldm make a second edition. One thing that I know however is that I would probably update the rules to BC and OW and probably introduce a new rule to when wounded; all hits in the head does double damage after AP for any helmet or cover has been removed. I introduce that into my game and suddenly it became alot deadlier, and in my mind more realistic, as hits to the head means bad business for the reciving part. Just like in real life. 

Otherwise I would probably focus more on the supplements that could be make for the game. Ideas for them could be the following. 

Ordo books

Ordo Xenos-including a xenos generator

Ordo Hereticus-including a cult generator

Ordo Malleus-including a daemon generator

Handbooks

Radical's Handbook

Puritan's Handbook

Classbooks, like Lathes World was a kind of classbook for the Tech-priests, Book of Judgment for the Arbitares etc.

Scum and the Calixis underworld

Arbitares and the Calixis law enforcement

Adepts - and the Calixis administration and rule

Psykers - and such stuff

Guardsmen - lots of stuff about war and violence in the Calixis Sector

Tech-priests and the Adeptus Mechanicus

Assassins and the death cults and murder guilds

Clerics and the Ecclesiarchy

Others

World of the Calixis Sector

Monster book (1-3)

Lots of other stuff…

 

 

 



#28 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,750 posts

Posted 26 May 2013 - 12:58 PM

Radwraith said:

What about "Pure faith"?burla
I guess I just prefer GW's take on the subject of these "miracles". Imho it's more grimdark, too. complice

 

Sebashaw said:

Probably because an inquisitor has too much political and financial power, he could even declare the destruction of an entire planet in less than an hour.
That's true, but I still don't see the problem. It's not like all Inquisitors go around killing off planets at random - if a player would do so, they'd find themselves being hunted by their Inquisitorial colleagues fairly soon. So, in the end it comes down to whether the players actually want to play an Inquisitor like s/he's supposed to be played, or just want to mess around. In this way, Inquisitors are even more "bound" than, say, Rogue Trader characters - as the former generally live in devotion to their duty, whereas the latter could just lean back and enjoy their privileges.

As an Acolyte, you can theoretically kill random people on fabricated grounds as well. In terms of gameplay style, what's the difference between one life and a billion when it comes to wanton murder?

Plus, look at Ascension - all that the designers ultimately did was "delaying" people's experience in actually getting to play the Inquisition as they might have imagined when hearing about the game first. Or was I really alone with these expectations? pensativo

Sebashaw said:

And I think sometimes that FFG is too much bounded to the Codex, instead of Black Industries which were more "free".
How so? I see a lot more deviations from GW's fluff in FFG's material than in BI's. Maybe it's just because they also published more, but I really don't think they're sticking close to the original material. Which is kinda sad for a fluffnut like me, but that's a matter of personal preferences. Some (a lot?) people like the new stuff more.


current 40k RPG character: Aura Vashaan, Astromancer Witch-Priestess
previous characters: Captain Elias (Celestial Lions Chapter), Comrade-Trooper Dasha Malenko (1207th Valhallan Ice Warriors), Sister Elana (Order of the Sacred Rose), Leftenant Darion Baylesworth (Rogue Trader Artemisia)

#29 Sebashaw

Sebashaw

    Member

  • Members
  • 287 posts

Posted 27 May 2013 - 08:04 AM

But iis it confirmed a second edition of DH?

Or is it just a rumor?



#30 Gurkhal

Gurkhal

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,024 posts

Posted 27 May 2013 - 08:01 PM

Sebashaw said:

But iis it confirmed a second edition of DH?

Or is it just a rumor?

 

As far as I can tell its just speculation by the fans. 



#31 Rictus

Rictus

    Member

  • Members
  • 81 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 01:29 AM

If there was to be a second, or revised, edition of DH I would like to see….

 

  1. The psychic disciplines revised to fit in with the wh40k rpg line RT, DH, etc.).
  2. The refinements made to combat implemented in BC/OW.
  3. Not to mention the handling of unnatural abilities and tech priest talents which were changed to implants.

I think thats it, though i may have missed other facets which were refined through the line.

 

 



#32 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,750 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 04:05 AM

Rictus said:

Not to mention the handling of unnatural abilities and tech priest talents which were changed to implants.
Best get rid of Unnaturals altogether, replacing them with a simple +20 or so.
Separating characteristic bonuses from tests were a bad idea, and whoever came up with it ought to feel bad. Either you are strong/tough/clever or you aren't, and assigning bonuses that are supposed to represent the same, yet circumvent the core characteristic mechanics are just a sign that you're attempting to cover up an imbalance in scaling. :P


current 40k RPG character: Aura Vashaan, Astromancer Witch-Priestess
previous characters: Captain Elias (Celestial Lions Chapter), Comrade-Trooper Dasha Malenko (1207th Valhallan Ice Warriors), Sister Elana (Order of the Sacred Rose), Leftenant Darion Baylesworth (Rogue Trader Artemisia)

#33 FieserMoep

FieserMoep

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 06:00 AM

They shoul make unnatural talents require at least a rating of 60-70 in said characteristic. The problem is that a d100 system has to fail the more character progress you allow. At some point you have a strenght characteristic of 80. To add 20 to that gives you an auto sucess. There is no way to keep a d100 line alive without capping potential or accepting that is HAS TO break.



#34 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,750 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 06:38 AM

Well, they kind of did cap potential with characters only being allowed to increase characteristicy by a set number of +5 steps. And what's wrong with auto success for menial tasks? More heroic characters will also face more heroic challenges of increasing difficulty, which in turn pushes down their chance of success to a level where the outcome once more may not be quite as certain.

Not that I think that any character should ever get a characteristic of 80, mind you. 51+ is already "Heroic" if you go by the benchmark in the original Dark Heresy rulebook, giving a Daemon's Willpower as example. Why should it be necessary to go to such heights - especially when you have to "cheat" in that the character isn't quite as powerful after all? It just feels like a redundant power up whose main impact on the game is that it clutters up an otherwise sound mechanic.


current 40k RPG character: Aura Vashaan, Astromancer Witch-Priestess
previous characters: Captain Elias (Celestial Lions Chapter), Comrade-Trooper Dasha Malenko (1207th Valhallan Ice Warriors), Sister Elana (Order of the Sacred Rose), Leftenant Darion Baylesworth (Rogue Trader Artemisia)

#35 FieserMoep

FieserMoep

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 07:17 AM

Well, the four +5 raises may look like a cap but for some careers it is not, even more if you later on allow ascention. Especialy for Tech-Priests there are lots of ways to go around this.

Also unnatural characteristics are not only multiplying your characteristic bonus, they mulitpy your degrees of sucess on an opposed roll. And with the Inquisitors Handbook they make every test one step easier, resulting in a +10% chance. In the end Unnatural Characteristics make you much better.

And the example sheet you are refering to… that thing is bad… just horrible bad.

Unnatural Characteristis are a decen way to give a huge bonus without making every test "menial". You do not even test for the most "menial" tests in this game. You test for tasks there is a chance of failure even for a professional though he may reduce the chances to fail. But an unmodiefied test aka challenging should not be an auto sucess…



#36 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,750 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 09:01 AM

I know that Unnaturals are not only multiplying the bonus, but all the other stuff is just as senseless. As I said, either you are that good - at which point you also ought to be better at succeeding the test itself - or you are not. I just cannot wrap my mind around the supposed logic behind this talent improving the effects of a success, yet having zero influence on the test itself. And it should be obvious that this lack of influence stems solely from the designer's (valid) concern that it would break the challenge.

Also, why should the example sheet be bad? It obviously got thrown overboard with later supplements, but at its time it was a handy and crystal-clear overview on which sort of characteristic would represent what.

 

FieserMoep said:

You do not even test for the most "menial" tests in this game. You test for tasks there is a chance of failure even for a professional though he may reduce the chances to fail. But an unmodiefied test aka challenging should not be an auto sucess…

Why not?

Characters progress and get better at what they do. To me, it is logical that the challenges they are presented with change accordingly. A character that starts with a characteristic of, say, 30 will treat a "Challenging" (+0) test differently than he would with a characteristic of 50 many levels later. In essence, to this character, the "Challenging" (+0) test has now become a "Routine" (+20) test, because his aptitude at solving such challenges has improved by +20 through character progression.

That crate you just lifted won't magically increase its weight to be just as heavy to lift in a couple years when your character gained more Strength.

And just like that, tests can become menial. If this is not intended, then the rules should simply not intend to let characters progress that far. I would not see a problem with that, either, as long as the rules do follow one of the two paths instead of attempting to patch the obvious issue with redundant talents that, let's be real, just do not make a lot of sense when you examine their effects:

The Space Marine is so strong, if he manages to lift that metal bar he will gain so many Degrees of Success that he can do so with his little finger! But of course all that Unnatural Strength apparently does nothing to actually help with the test because he "needs" to have a viable chance at failing everything? desconfiado

 

… oh well, it's just one of the small things that always bothered me, I guess.


current 40k RPG character: Aura Vashaan, Astromancer Witch-Priestess
previous characters: Captain Elias (Celestial Lions Chapter), Comrade-Trooper Dasha Malenko (1207th Valhallan Ice Warriors), Sister Elana (Order of the Sacred Rose), Leftenant Darion Baylesworth (Rogue Trader Artemisia)

#37 FieserMoep

FieserMoep

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 10:17 AM

Lynata said:

Also, why should the example sheet be bad? It obviously got thrown overboard with later supplements, but at its time it was a handy and crystal-clear overview on which sort of characteristic would represent what.

Normal Bounty Hunters are just as Agile as Orks are Strong? A Race that defines itself with its strenght? A Cult Fanatic is 6 points away from the Willpower of a Daemon? Even a PC can start with a Characteristic on 45 as long as he rolls lucky and is one raise away from beeing heroic… on level 1.

Lynata said:

The Space Marine is so strong, if he manages to lift that metal bar he will gain so many Degrees of Success that he can do so with his little finger! But of course all that Unnatural Strength apparently does nothing to actually help with the test because he "needs" to have a viable chance at failing everything? desconfiado

Does Deathwatch not have the Rule that every multiplyer of an Unnatural Characteristic makes a test on said characteristic one step easier just like dark heresy does with the Inquisitors Handbook?

 

Also please take another example, not a crate or anything with weight for exactly these test benefit the most from unnatural strenght for you may not even have to test for your carry/lift/push for you automaticaly suceed for weights as seen on the table, you need only to test if you want to push this limit further. For example someone with TB 8 and SB 8 because of an unnatural characteristic can lift a crate 1.350kg heavy without the need to test. Without he could only lift 112 kg. I would say pretty good.

And for other tests. As a GM I define a test as challenging +-0 no matter what character may try to suceed on it. So yes, for a character that has progressed his four advancements this test has become two steps easier though it is still challenging. He is someone realy good, indeed he is. But now this guy started with 35 on this characteristic, +20 and we have 55. Additionaly +20 from Skill mastery, +10 from some tool (there are tons of) +10 from an unnatural characteristic. He will test now on a 95 an it would not be dificult to push this even more for alot of tests. So something challenging is so easy, e does not even have to test for… unless he needs some degrees of sucess.

A d100 system will break, sooner or later. Well, it will at last if the company tries to sell further rulebooks that have to include more character progress to be interisting for the target audience. We could play with the dark heresy core book, everything would be limited, fine, but it could become booring very soon and wont generate profit for FFG.



#38 Cynr

Cynr

    Member

  • Members
  • 143 posts

Posted 30 May 2013 - 01:35 PM

So as I posted this with a question, there is still no answer. No actual writer, developer or insider has said what "may" be in the works… which is the same answer given at GenCon last year after Lathes was released. (Even if an announcement was made now, it would me no new product in at least a year.) There is nothing in the Upcoming, even under the In Development heading. It will be interesting to see if anything is announced in August this year.



#39 Lynata

Lynata

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,750 posts

Posted 31 May 2013 - 04:20 AM

FieserMoep said:

Normal Bounty Hunters are just as Agile as Orks are Strong? A Race that defines itself with its strenght? A Cult Fanatic is 6 points away from the Willpower of a Daemon? Even a PC can start with a Characteristic on 45 as long as he rolls lucky and is one raise away from beeing heroic… on level 1.

I don't really see a problem with any of this. The standard Ork in DH's "Creatures Anathema" supplement has a Strength rating of 46, and Fanatics are called fanatic for a reason. Also, that lucky 45 would apply only to a single characteristic dependent on one's homeworld. If his people are generally renowned for said characteristic (such as Catachans for their Strength), why should the player not be "close to heroic"? And are player characters in RPGs not heroes by default, anyways? complice

 

FieserMoep said:

Does Deathwatch not have the Rule that every multiplyer of an Unnatural Characteristic makes a test on said characteristic one step easier just like dark heresy does with the Inquisitors Handbook?

You are quite correct! Still, obviously this is not an accurate representation of the character's capabilities when they are counted as twice their number elsewhere. It just doesn't … "feel right" if it needs special rules that segregate one characteristic from the others instead of just giving them a +X.

 

FieserMoep said:

And for other tests. As a GM I define a test as challenging +-0 no matter what character may try to suceed on it. So yes, for a character that has progressed his four advancements this test has become two steps easier though it is still challenging. He is someone realy good, indeed he is. But now this guy started with 35 on this characteristic, +20 and we have 55. Additionaly +20 from Skill mastery, +10 from some tool (there are tons of) +10 from an unnatural characteristic. He will test now on a 95 an it would not be dificult to push this even more for alot of tests. So something challenging is so easy, e does not even have to test for… unless he needs some degrees of sucess.

So … you're agreeing with me? pensativo

 

FieserMoep said:

A d100 system will break, sooner or later. Well, it will at last if the company tries to sell further rulebooks that have to include more character progress to be interisting for the target audience.

Okay, there we are in agreement. I've certainly noticed the "power creep", too. Although I still believe that it wasn't necessary to prevent boredom. It's not like there were no other forms of character progress available, no?
To me it just feels as if they didn't really plan everything out from the start as perhaps they should have. Or maybe they did, but it has gotten lost when the license was transferred from Black Industries to FFG. Whatever the reason, I would hope that this gets adressed in a "2.0" version of the game - yet at the same time I know I shouldn't expect it, which makes me feel sort of indifferent about the whole thing. Too many divergent expectations, I guess.

 


current 40k RPG character: Aura Vashaan, Astromancer Witch-Priestess
previous characters: Captain Elias (Celestial Lions Chapter), Comrade-Trooper Dasha Malenko (1207th Valhallan Ice Warriors), Sister Elana (Order of the Sacred Rose), Leftenant Darion Baylesworth (Rogue Trader Artemisia)

#40 FieserMoep

FieserMoep

    Member

  • Members
  • 362 posts

Posted 31 May 2013 - 10:59 AM

Well, power creep is roughly never intentional, as last if it tends to harm a gameline. There are supplements that are not creeping on theirself but in the end the line is the sum of all its parts and there we have a conglomerate of synergies someone might not have forseen. But the damage is done.

 

The problem with a 2nd Version is that FFG has to make a descition: Start it vom Scrap or recycle the old supplements too.

A new beginning would allow aa new system, maybe even not d100 though I am a huge fan of the percentile die. But this solution would doom and end the line, the old supplements wont generate any profit or might not even amortise themself, I doubt FFG would do this. The other approach is to release a new core rulebook with updated rules that tend to be like BC/OW and to release a shittasticly huge Errata/FAQ/Appendix for the other supplements. And this is a monumental task I doubt the few authors are capable off.

This is the same experience I had in some of my jobs: Sometimes it is better so work with a damaged system you know the errors off that no start something anew.

But ATM with out highranking group we somehow reached a pretty bad level off power creep, even unintentional to some degree. But every fight is either narrativ because some enmies will never be able to even harm us or it is Unreal Tournament Insta-Gib Arena where everyone is onehittich each other.






© 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