Ah, here we go, clarification at last.

Ah, here we go, clarification at last.

I hope instead of that they remake Necromunda.
 
Please.
 
Pleaaaaase.

I definitely see the majority of the changes made as a big improvement. There's a few issues in the minutae, but overall it's a solid system I look forward to running and playing.

The fact each hit did something other than tick down a counter on his character sheet is a change for the better, I think. The DH2 system is far from perfect but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Well, let's look at DH1e, considering that's logically what most people will want to port things from. What out of that can be directly ported over to Only War without some effort? Barely anything. Gear, maybe, but even that needs work due to changed weapon qualities, adjustments to the system, and to be balanced with the rest of the stuff in the book.
 
This is really the same. Tweak values, apply action point costs. Replace the qualities with their modern equivalents. Done.

Considering Eisenhorn was basically written as marketing for the system that preceded Dark Heresy, that's an... interesting perspective you've got there.

 

Plus, a lot of aimless vitriol without an actual point or argument does nothing but make you look petulant. It's not telling FFG what to fix, it's not giving us a point to discuss. It's just being whiny. 

Just because it's always been canon doesn't mean people have to agree with it. Plus, it's been canon primarily in the tabletop, which is a very different environment to your common Dark Heresy game. Specifically, it's a warzone, where the term makes sense.

The idea of a playable Daemonhost is definitely interesting, and they can be major parts of a radical's retinue. But I kind of feel they're not a great fit for PCs. I don't really like the idea of a character whose constant desire will be to undermine the party, even if they can't exactly act on those impulses.

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

I totally agree. They need a damage boost, that's probably the best way to handle things. Other people have suggested adding a weapon quality which causes RF to trigger on rolls below ten (say, on a roll of seven or higher, righteous fury triggers), which could also solve things well. I prefer the raw damage though.
 
One thing worth considering is that any weapon can be accurate now, with aid of a simple red dot sight. I can't see this breaking things too much, but maybe mandate that accurate shots only get extra damage if fired once a turn, instead of multiple times?

Yeah, I'm in the same boat honestly. It's not like the backwards compatability is that hugely lacking anyway, it always took effort to transfer stuff from DH to the more modern systems, it's just takes marginally more effort now. Much less effort than should ever phase a GM who isn't ridiculously lazy.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat honestly. It's not like the backwards compatability is that hugely lacking anyway, it always took effort to transfer stuff from DH to the more modern systems, it's just takes marginally more effort now. Much less effort than should ever phase a GM who isn't ridiculously lazy.

Can you really blame them for trying to draw in new customers? DH in its previous form is fairly exhausted, there's almost 20 books in the line (hell, maybe even more, I just don't care to count right now), and it's cross compatible with three other, extensively fleshed out lines.
 
There's nowhere to go with Dark Heresy in its current form, an update to draw in new players is going to be a hell of a lot more profitable and reasonable than sticking with what's worked previously.=

While I love the system we have in place now, I feel characters under this system don't quite stand out as well as they could. Role has very little mechanical impact on a character when they've just started, so a lot of samey characters can easily be produced by this system, even if the overarching concept is very different.
 
I think a good way to fix this would be to introduce an extra layer to character creation, and I'm clearly not alone in this sentiment; several other people on these forums have said the same thing, in various threads. I just thought I'd make this thread to focus the discussion, instead of letting it take place in random threads.
 
Personally, I think the best option for another layer would be something to describe how your character found their way into The Inquisition. After all, this is a pretty large step in a character's life; The Inquisition doesn't take average joes, they take exceptional people, or people who've seen exceptional things (and avoided dying in the process). So, representing the nature of the events or circumstances that lead to this would be a great part of character generation.
Any other ideas? Feel free to shoot down the idea of further complicating character creation too, if you want, just try to keep things constructive.

While I love the system we have in place now, I feel characters under this system don't quite stand out as well as they could. Role has very little mechanical impact on a character when they've just started, so a lot of samey characters can easily be produced by this system, even if the overarching concept is very different.
 
I think a good way to fix this would be to introduce an extra layer to character creation, and I'm clearly not alone in this sentiment; several other people on these forums have said the same thing, in various threads. I just thought I'd make this thread to focus the discussion, instead of letting it take place in random threads.
 
Personally, I think the best option for another layer would be something to describe how your character found their way into The Inquisition. After all, this is a pretty large step in a character's life; The Inquisition doesn't take average joes, they take exceptional people, or people who've seen exceptional things (and avoided dying in the process). So, representing the nature of the events or circumstances that lead to this would be a great part of character generation.
Any other ideas? Feel free to shoot down the idea of further complicating character creation too, if you want, just try to keep things constructive.

If we're strictly following RAW here, I'd go with saying it uses the strength bonus of the character using the mechadendrite. But that really makes no sense, I think this needs to be changed. Go back to giving the arm its own strength rating, just base it on quality. 

I can understand disliking this update, but one important question begs to be asked. Would anyone really care enough to buy an updated version of Dark Heresy when countless people on these very forums have already done all the work for you, for free? People who are probably better at proofreading and internal consistency than FFG are.

I can understand disliking this update, but one important question begs to be asked. Would anyone really care enough to buy an updated version of Dark Heresy when countless people on these very forums have already done all the work for you, for free? People who are probably better at proofreading and internal consistency than FFG are.

Considering Eisenhorn was basically written as marketing for the system that preceded Dark Heresy, that's an... interesting perspective you've got there.

 

The Imperium of Man is a **** lot less limiting than people seem to imply. The huge variance in worlds and how they run things can lead to a huge plethora of characters that aren't really explored in most of the fluff.
 
For example, which of the rigid classes in Dark Heresy 1e would I use to play a swordsman from a Feudal World? Sure, Guardsman is a fit statistically, but fluff wise it doesn't really work spectacularly. The generic titles for roles all but eliminates issues like that,

I've noticed more than a couple of people complaining about the bland names for roles. There's a pretty obvious reason for this, though. They ARE generic roles. They're not intended to represent a specific profession, they're intended to be broad categories. Keeping things unspecific gives players a lot more free reign to interpret things in ways that work for their character concept. 

Warband has been the term for a while in the fluff and TT though, whereas I believe the term Acolyte Cell has its origins in Dark Heresy.
 
I prefer cell as well, but I can understand the change.

Consensus I'm seeing across this thread and some sporadic posts elsewhere is that Accurate really needs to go back to granting a significant bit of extra damage, otherwise single shots will remain totally unappealing in the face of burst fire. I find it hard to disagree.
 
Radwraith's suggestion has potential, it may just need to be scaled back a little. It's hard to judge these things in a vacuum, thought.