I'm now hoping for another printing of the other games that will give these rules changes a little more publicity.

jareddm said:

I think it'd be difficult to reprint three entire game lines to follow the same ruleset, especially as each one has brought new variations of those rules, and they would still require adaption to the class-tree progression systems that Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader and Deathwatch all have. Black Crusade has some very interesting rules in place that I'm liking the look of, but just because these rules seem, in my opinion, better doesn't make the older editions defunct or any less playable or enjoyable for it.

Black Crusade will be a big departure from the other three, as it needs to be given the drastic change in tone, but I'll still enjoy playing the Rogue Trader rules as given, and if I feel an overwhelming need to then I'm sure it won't be a great hardship on my part to cut and paste a few of these new rules into the games I run, but I don't expect FFG to make such a massive overhaul of the old game systems just to bring them into line with this one; a core rule compendium that covers all three perhaps, but if they're going to refresh the line I'd expect them to go all out on the second edition rather than just a reprint with a few rules amendments.

Dan_of_Hats said:

This is more of what I was referring to, as opposed to the reprint that was done when the switch was made from BI to FFG.

Standard Attack gives a +10 even without the Half-Action Aim? That seems kind of... odd. Why not just increase everybody's BS and WS by 10?

bogi_khaosa said:

I think it's to balance the new rules they have for Semi/Full Auto and Swift Attack; it seems to imply that thrashing around with your sword/emptying a clip of ammo makes it difficult to land every blow on target, where as a single attack has the advantage of having your full attention and control behind it. I've not heard how Aim actions factor into these rules, but I imagine it'll have much the same effect as it currently does.

I only have a hunch with this, but I have a feeling that there will be new rules for parrying/dodging that apply themselves differently to single attacks and multiple ones. In the case of multiple attacks, each success on the parry/dodge will reduce the number of successes the opponent rolled to hit you, but in the case of a single attack I think it might be that you'll have to beat their successes on the attack roll in order to parry, rather than just to roll under your own Weapon Skill. You could wind up with scenarios in the other games where it never paid to make a single attack unless someone else had already stripped an opponent of their reactions, because if they were a competent melee combatant, they'd block you no matter how amazing an attack you made, which could feel a little cheap against opponents with multiple reactions.

Besides, raising everyones WS/BS by +10 means everyone is that much better in ALL circumstances requiring that skill, rather than just the one. Giving a +10 to certain actions or a -10 to others means that some people will at least be able to defend themselves a little better, albeit with only a single attack, where as combat machines will be able to churn out loads of carnage despite the penalty and demonstrate their superior skill appropriately

Might they be using this as a testing ground for these rules? I wouldn't be shocked to see a revised edition of Dark Heresy in a year or two featuring changes from all the later lines.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Since our Friendly Neighborhood Author is still bound by the chains of NDA, I'll just point out that all of those actions are now Half Actions.

ddunkelmeister said:

Interesting.  If the rules for Aim remains the same, this will make for a rather interesting choice when it comes to a move and shoot or an aim and full-auto.

ddunkelmeister said:

That's... I can't properly express how overjoyed I am. Ever since the first player in my first DH campaign got his hands on an autopistol, I haven't seen a single fight in my game that didn't look like two firing squads duking it out, with taking cover as only kind of tactical thinking. It worked the same way in RT and DW as well - ranged combatants just stood where they were or took one turn to run for cover, while melee combatants either ran or charged, and then everyone stood in place performing full attack routines.

With the new rules, I'm hoping to actually see some tactical movement, and generally greater diversification of performed actions.

- I will also point out that Semi-Auto Burst and Full-auto Burst are now listed as half-actions, meaning you can move+semi/full auto or aim+semi/full auto in a round.

- Swimming and Climbing got combined into an "Athletics" skill

- Concealment and Silent Move got combined into a "Stealth" skill

- SM/CSM Bolters got changed from 2d10+5 to 1d10+9 (and tearing, of course)

there were a couple other changes that I spotted, but I can't think of them right now...

Personally, I like the changes.

These sound like great changes, I love the idea of truncating the list of skills. 

Honestly, separate skills for Concealment and Silent Move was a rubbish idea.

No:12 said:

I don't think the old system was a problem myself. Part of learning to use a weapon is learning to use it defensively, so it made sense that as you became generally better at hitting stuff you became better at defending yourself as well. Yes, it did mean a dodge monkey could surpass parries, but getting balanced or defensive weapons can restore some of the comparability quite easily. There is also the fact that improving dodge didn't have any other knock on benefits, unlike improving weapon skill which improved both attack and defence.

I do worry what turning it into a skill will do. Ok, it seems basic attacks will get a +10 which will make them more likely to hit, but Parry, when maxed out, will be much higher in comparison (+30 for Mastery, +10 for balanced) meaning it seems likely that combats could get extremely... frustrating. Its not like you couldn't get a decent parry score in the first place.

I wouldn't say seperate Silent Move and Concealment was a rubbish idea. That are two entirely different things that require different skills. It possibly didn't make the greatest sense from a game design perspective as it did mean that a "stealth" archetype character had to buy both (Shadowing as well, truthfully)., but there are reasonable reasons for it being seen as a different skill.

borithan said:

Perhaps DoS in the Attack can become penalties for Dodge or Parry tests? I always thought that one should affect the other somehow. This would prevent endless fights between two "Champions" whilst simultaneously allowing a seasoned hero to "wtfpwn" some weak mook with his incredibly superior WS.

Either that or we could maybe get some special attacks that make the WS Test more difficult, but apply penalties to the opponent's defense as well. Either as talents or as weapon-dependent default options (similar to the 3 ranged attack modes).

Dan_of_Hats said:

It just causes a small problem by being such a drastic departure in that a lot of people were planning on getting the game as much to make villains for the other three as anything else, indeed, I see far more people outside this MB (And even some on the other games boards here) who it was the only reason they intended to get it for.

So it will be interesting, I'm actually worried that for all this might be the best mechanically of the 4 so far, it could well end up being even less popular than Rogue Trader, and that means less sourcebooks!

Well, despite different mechanics for leveling and combat, I do believe that it would still be easy to "translate" something from one game into the other. The game will still be based on d100s and d10s, it will still use the same characteristics, and combat still involves armour, toughness and penetration values in addition to the normal damage and wounds.

Even if many people may only get these books to make villains for the other games (which I find hard to believe - it'd be a sad thing if it were true!), I don't think they would be disappointed.

I wouldn't even be surprised if Black Crusade came with rough conversion rules for DH/RT/DW characters just for advertising the opportunity to play a corrupted version of one's old character as a feature! The three existing games already have glaring compatibility issues due to differences in both scope as well as mechanics, yet almost all their books hold some value for each. Black Crusade will be no different, you may just have a bit more work with importing/exporting stuff.

The most important change still seems to be classless leveling, and character progression is completely irrelevant for NPCs.

Keep the faith!

(... though I still hope for a uniform "2nd Edition" 40k RPG ruleset for everyone and everything ... some day, maybe ...)