Jump to content



Photo

Dark Heresy 2nd Edition Beta Q&A


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 FFG Andy Fischer

FFG Andy Fischer

    Member

  • Members
  • 22 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:03 PM

Hi Dark Heresy beta testers!

 

Now that the Dark Heresy beta has been out for a week, we have posted a brief Q&A on the product site that addresses a couple of your general questions and discusses our plans for the weeks ahead.

 

http://www.fantasyfl...s.asp?eidn=4280

 

Keep on posting all the great feedback, and keep your eyes on the forum and project site for updates in the coming weeks.


  • svstrauser likes this

#2 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:06 PM

Updates to the armoury and wounds should solve a lot of issues, glad to hear it!


Edited by Tom Cruise, 31 July 2013 - 01:07 PM.

  • svstrauser likes this

#3 svstrauser

svstrauser

    Member

  • Members
  • 251 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:52 PM

Well, I for one am glad to see that they began by the two points that have us most worried.

I must say that I like very much to see this kind of feedback.

For the first time I'm hopeful for this new edition. Time to print some character sheets...
 


There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

 


#4 svstrauser

svstrauser

    Member

  • Members
  • 251 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 01:55 PM

By the way, as we have had our, so to speak, "beta Q&A" for the beta, I would like to leave a suggestion here: why not make a real time Q&A with the readers and players?

Unlike most forums, it seems to me that the vast majority of players here are reasonable people with interesting points to make, and this real time approach has worked very well for many companies recently.

Myself, I would mainly like to know if this new edition will be compatible with future games.


There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

 


#5 MILLANDSON

MILLANDSON

    Playtester

  • Members
  • 3,378 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 02:35 PM

Because real-time Q&As often result in many people's questions being missed. It's a much better idea to have to post up questions ahead of time, and have them write answers to them.


~Yea, Tho I Walk Through The Valley Of The Shadow Of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil~

 

Posts/views/opinions are in no way representative of FFG, and are entirely my own.


#6 Morangias

Morangias

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,606 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 02:41 PM

Looking forward to the beta update, and thanks for keeping us in the loop!


There is no truth in flesh, only betrayal.

There is no strenght in flesh, only weakness.
There is no constancy in flesh, only decay.
There is no certainty in flesh but death.


#7 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 936 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 04:50 PM

I might point out you don't actually answer the "Why are there thematic differences between Dark Heresy 1st Edition and 2nd?" question but instead give a lot of PR speak for 'we thought it needed changed and GW said that was OK.'.


  • Cobra Commander, Yupsate and Tagget like this

#8 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 31 July 2013 - 10:02 PM

It seemed pretty clear to me, actually. They wanted to craft a new sector more in line with GW fluff, and created rules to reflect that.



#9 Radwraith

Radwraith

    Member

  • Members
  • 943 posts

Posted 01 August 2013 - 12:09 AM

Glad to see an answer! This is an improvement from before. Not a complete answer mind you! but better than silence! I also have to echo svstrauser... I'm encouraged that they want to start with the areas that the forums flamed them about the most! At least they're listening!


  • svstrauser likes this

#10 MrHeresy

MrHeresy

    Member

  • Members
  • 19 posts

Posted 01 August 2013 - 06:53 AM

Excellent I am looking forward to see what revisions are made.



#11 Xupim

Xupim

    Member

  • Members
  • 6 posts

Posted 01 August 2013 - 11:07 AM

Aye, looking foward the revisions.

#12 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 936 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 08:51 AM

It seemed pretty clear to me, actually. They wanted to craft a new sector more in line with GW fluff, and created rules to reflect that.

 

 

You do realize that the idea of creating something that's 'in-line with fluff' in 40k is actually kind of laughable when you remember that GW's own policy is that there 'is no canon'.  Particularly since the previous game was actually written BY GW and FFG just took it over after GW suddenly decided it didn't want to produce RPGs after the first one Sold Out in record time...



#13 KommissarK

KommissarK

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,506 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 08:57 AM

 

It seemed pretty clear to me, actually. They wanted to craft a new sector more in line with GW fluff, and created rules to reflect that.

 

 

You do realize that the idea of creating something that's 'in-line with fluff' in 40k is actually kind of laughable when you remember that GW's own policy is that there 'is no canon'.  Particularly since the previous game was actually written BY GW and FFG just took it over after GW suddenly decided it didn't want to produce RPGs after the first one Sold Out in record time...

 

Perhaps they simply wanted a timeline thats closer in line to the actual state of the tabletop game (obviously theres no set date there either).

 

It was stupidly difficult (read: impossible) for me to get my players to accept that their characters were ignorant of Necrons during a playthrough of the Emperor Protects.



#14 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 09:19 AM

 

 

 

You do realize that the idea of creating something that's 'in-line with fluff' in 40k is actually kind of laughable when you remember that GW's own policy is that there 'is no canon'.  Particularly since the previous game was actually written BY GW and FFG just took it over after GW suddenly decided it didn't want to produce RPGs after the first one Sold Out in record time...

 

Yeah, GW's policy is 'there is no canon'. But they do have a fairly consistent (in a thematic, overarching way, not when you get into the minutate) representation of the setting in the content they themselves produce. The original DH was more in line with Abnett's view of the setting, considering his big role in the development. 

 

The choice of someone who's got writing credits on the 4E rulebook as well as many major codexes to write the new sector, the choice of updating the timeline, and the fact that FFG have said they're working closely with GW on this project seems to indicate that they want to get closer to the world portrayed in the tabletop, rather than Abnett's novels.



#15 Saldre

Saldre

    Member

  • Members
  • 594 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 09:23 AM

Which, in my opinion, is madness :P 

 

But that's neither here nor t here. 



#16 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 09:51 AM

I'm just glad I can include Tau in my campaigns. They're great material for Ordo Xenos games.



#17 Saldre

Saldre

    Member

  • Members
  • 594 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 09:57 AM

Out of curiosity, was it a timeline issue that prevented people from Adding the Tau, or just the Location?

 

In all honesty, I am not familiar enough with the Tau- or care enough about their integrity and consistence in the setting that I would have felt bad including them regardless of their place in the actual cannon.  

 

Though I haven't included the Tau, I don't think either option would have prevented me from having them drop by - particularly as, perhaps Embassadors for example aboard a rogue trader vessel, with a relevant hand-wave [The Warp did it :P].  

 

That's neither here nor there, and it shouldn't clog up the Topic- I will post it about in the Original DH forums. 


Edited by Saldre, 02 August 2013 - 10:03 AM.


#18 KommissarK

KommissarK

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,506 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 10:05 AM

Out of curiosity, was it a timeline issue that prevented people from Adding the Tau, or just the Location?

 

In all honesty, I am not familiar enough with the Tau- or care enough about their integrity and consistence in the setting that I would have felt bad including them regardless of their place in the actual cannon.  

 

Though I haven't included the Tau, I don't think either option would have prevented me from having them drop by - particularly as, perhaps Embassadors for example aboard a rogue trader vessel, with a relevant hand-wave [The Warp did it :P].  

Technically it was a location thing. DW added Tau, but it created this artifically out of place region just for that line. Its some interesting fluff, but don't get BaronIveagh started about the warp gate.



#19 Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts

Posted 02 August 2013 - 10:15 AM

Yeah, their way of implementing Tau was... questionable, to say the least. I'm assuming this setting will have its own excuse to have Tau if they aren't nearby; considering there's a Tau specialty in the corebook, it makes sense they'd be implemented in the game.



#20 bladerunner_35

bladerunner_35

    Member

  • Members
  • 441 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 12:58 AM

Great news! I am glad they are adressing issues which demonstrably seems the most problematic.
it takes only a small amount of charitable reading to make the internet dramatically more palatable.




© 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