I'm sorry you had a difficult, and negative time. I have not run, nor played, the game yet, but I've read through the rules a few times and simulated some rolls.
A few things about your post struck me:
- It seems obvious to me that the proprietary dice are needed. How else can a single roll determine successes/challenges/boons/banes/comets/etc. I just don't see dice with numbered sides doing this, or at least doing this easily. You'd need a complicated look-up table to know which number of which kind of die meant what. I don't know that this was explained/conveyed properly to them.
- It's possible the cards did not help things. It just seems to me, especially for the demo, having players pass around a single rulebook to find out what their stuff does would be more of a hassle. <shrug> but that just could be me.
- A tap/un-tap is an interesting suggestion. Why did they prefer this over the recharge? Did they feel like they couldn't use their actions often enough?
- Allowing extra actions gives players much more versatility and options than v2 does ... since that restricts to only 2 half actions. Most other RPGs only let you do a 'single' action during a combat round. So, I'm confused why 3e, which lets you do any number of maneuvers (depending on the amount of fatigue you spend) in a single combat round seems like it penalizes player creativity or freedom.
- I agree, I think there might be a lack of dice at times ... but I'm not sure these starting PCs can ever roll more than the dice provided, unless the GM is applying a fistful of negatives or a player spends all 3 fortune points on a single roll while also gaining fortune dice from something else. None of the PCs have more than 3 stance in a direction, and the game comes with 4 green&4 red dice. None of the PCs have more than a 5 in a characteristic, and the game comes with 8 blue dice. No challenges should be over 4, and the game comes with 4 purple dice. No PC has more than a single skill point in a skill, and the game comes with 4 yellow dice. I suppose if a PC rolled the Righteous Hammer on the first die, got a second and rolled the R.Hammer on that one, and so one, getting 4 R.Hammers in a row he'd need to reroll a yellow die for the 5th roll. Then, the game comes with 6x fortune dice and 6x misfortune dice. I think it would be a rare occurance to have more than 6 of either die on a single roll. It could happen, but it shouldn't be the norm. So, I fail to see where the rerolls you had came from.
- The entire demo shouldn't take more than 1.5 hours. Knowing demos, that people show up late, that explaining new rules takes time, I've allocated 4 hours for each of my demos to be safe. I think if the combat took too long, I'm sorry but the problem lies in the GM. He is the arbitor of the game, and has the ability and responsibility to keep the game moving.
- The set has enough materials to run all 4 PCs, if not more. The *only* issue as far as materials are basic action cards. There are only 3 copies of each one. Personally, I'm making copies for my 4th player to make it easier, but players could also share without too much trouble. There are 5 stance tracks available and plenty of stance pieces. None of the PCs share any other actions or talents. I assume the basic action cards are what you meant when you said "Tactic" cards. (I don't mean to be rude, but if you read the rules and seriously attempted to GM the game, you really should know what to call them). This "issue" was easily identified on the forums here, so it was quite possible for you to be prepared (or even have just improvised), and run all 4 PCs.
- It tells you in the rulebook to just use a single wound card and add tokens for additional wound. Only add new cards for Criticals. You could also just use scratch paper and write stuff down like you would in any other RPG.
- $100 is enough materials to easily handle GM+3 players. It isn't meant as a single-player purchase like a player wanting to buy just a PHB (for example) to play D&D. Compare it to an entire game group (that has never played D&D before) collectively buying an entire set of D&D books and dice so their group can play. The cost is comparable.
Honestly, and I know this is going to sound bad, and I apologize ahead of time, but ... it sounds to me like
a) You were not really interested nor motivated to GM the game
b) You did not understand the rules
c) You did not explain the game to the players very well
d) You did not prepare for running the game
All my opinons, of course, and only from information gotten from reading your post. You admitted your memory of the rules was spotty ... which is a bad sign for a GM trying to run a game for strangers. It can work out if you're playing with friends or your regular gaming group, but in a time constrained store setting with strangers it does not usually make for a good experience (and also takes a lot longer as both GM and players fumble with how things are supposed to work). I have found that even GMing for my regular group it takes quite a bit of preparation to run a good game. It become even more so with rules I am familiar with, but an adventure I'm not (such as the Rogue Trader demo adventure that I ran a couple times). I read through the adventure a half-dozen times after I got it, making notes each time and finding additional information that I needed to know and identifying things that I thought the players would ask about. For this demo I've read the rules twice, and the demo 3 times, so far this week. I've made some test combat rolls and practiced running the Social Encounter for a few rounds. I expect I'll do all of the above again Friday night and Saturday morning before I run my first game. It's a new system, quite different from a lot that people have played before (including me). There is going to be a learning curve, and people are going to ask questions. It is my job and responsibility as the GM to attempt to know the rules as best as possible, and to expedite the learning of the players. By knowing the rules and adventure well, I can help the players learn the rules. Once the players get the hang of the rules, they can enjoy the adventure better. The purpose of any game is to have fun. I, as the GM, need to try my darndest to make sure my players have fun. If that means I spend a few days beforehand cramming and practicing a new ruleset so I barely need to think about it, then so be it. If I didn't, and the players don't have fun, then the fault is as much with me as the GM then it is with the game system I didn't even try signifcantly to learn. Unlike playing, GMing is a lot of work. You can rarely just flip through an unfamilar rulebook a few minutes ahead of time, then run it for a bunch of strangers in a public place, and find a satifying experience. In my experience anyway.
So, again, I am sorry that you and your players had a bad time of it. It's never fun to participate in an un-fun game. The players certainly had a few good questions/concerns, but I think they could have been adequately allayed. I would hope that you would either take some more time to reread the rules, practice a bit, and try it again ... or see if someone else is willing to try their hand at GMing and you can try from a player's perspective. I'm not saying that you will suddenly like WFRP 3e, or that WFRP is definitely a great game (not having actually played/GM'd it personally yet). I'm not saying this as a "fanboy", as I'm sure some people will think. But, I think from what you posted, that an awful lot of the problems and "un-fun" you encountered was not really due to the game itself.