Avoiding the highly toxic sidetrack this topic has taken...

I think it is more likely that GW didn't ask (demand?) them to include anything on the GK sorcery, which left FFG with the opportunity to ignore it. But again, that's just what I think, there's no way to know for sure.

That's probably it, yes. It may be as simple as depending on the individual editor who has oversight.

At other times, GW's IP guys intervene, either to direct the writers along a particular course, or to rule something out. The Dark Eldar, the Necrons, and the Grey Knights have all received treatment that brought newer material from the wargame into the RPG (it is no coincidence that the great heap of Dark Eldar material in Rogue Trader was written shortly after the new Dark Eldar codex came out). On the other side of things, details - sometimes large ones, sometimes tiny ones - have had to be changed on occasion because they venture into areas that GW didn't want FFG to go.

Regardless, everything gets checked over by GW. The same applies to the novels - even a brief glimpse of any of the authors' internet presence shows a collaborative approach. It doesn't necessarily hew to the idea of One True Canon, but common themes and elements are preserved, especially in the last seven or eight years.

FFG now finds itself in the very different role of catering to a bunch of fans who all have a different idea of how the setting "should" look like. It's pretty much a catch-22 because regardless of what they are going to write, the level of detail they strive to attain means that they will upset someone .

Case in point: In the first Only War beta, only the Triplex-pattern lasgun had a variable settings slider, which is actually in line with GW's original material (5E Guard Codex, Inquisitor rulebook) for once. However, a lot of fans, apparently utterly unaware of said material, lobbied for all lasguns getting this feature, because that's what it said in the Imperial Infantryman's Uplifting Primer - a Black Library book. And at some point, FFG caved in, someone said "feth this", and now any and all las weapons save cannons have it. In turn upsetting those who would rather stick with the original fluff, or who wanted more consistency between the different product lines (seeing as a charge slider was still described as a heretical modification in Black Crusade).

But this also illustrates the problems faced by games designers and writers (I distinguish the two because games design isn't entirely writing, and writing doesn't inherently include games design) working on established games and settings - both in terms of rules and background, there is a fine line to walk between breaking new ground, making something that works, and honouring what has come before. It's extremely difficult to navigate between "you changed it, now it's worse" and "you didn't change it enough, it's still awful", especially as every individual has their own sense of where those two points are (and how far apart they are). I tend to be fairly cautious when it comes to developing new background, even for my own use - I've always been careful to work from a foundation of existing material, and to make nods and gestures towards older stuff (I tried to work a Tonboyz reference into the Ork material in Edge of the Abyss - it wasn't allowed to stay)... but compared to some people I've encountered on the internet, I'm hideously progressive when it comes to incorporating new ideas and discarding old ones.

But we all know she'll die. Let's not kid ourselves. We like her too much for her to live.

G.R.R Martin's wife has said that if Arya dies, she'll divorce him. So by my reckon.. she'll probably die last.

Given how the story appeals to the baser human instincts, she'll probably lose her virginity first. In some nasty fetish way. And fans will love it.

You do realize these are entirely artificial constructs, right? Toys are only inherently one gender or the other because we've been told they are. There have been a lot of interesting articles lately about gender in marketing. Look up what happened with Toys'R'Us in the UK.

Don't confuse an honest conversation about the language we use with an artificial attempt to change it. The words we use affect others, whether we acknowledge so or not, and having open, honest discussion about it is anything but artificial.

Artificial constructs as in? The result of a marketing campaign? That would be artificial. But emergent conventions are not artificial at all. They are very natural as a parent generation passes on its traditions to the succeeding generation - which modifies it.

Do you dispute that there might be historic reasons underlying why boys might play with soldiers and girls with princesses? And speaking of GoT - these historically emergent stereotypes of prince (or khan) and princess (and wh*re, btw) are well alive and kicking. Nothing has changed about those. People are still fantasizing about these things long after the Dark Ages are gone.

As long as people who break out of the mold are accepted, it's all good.

I'm gonna call this progress.

And I am going to call this something that is to be expected.

These are anecdotes and in no way applicable to women as a whole. There are two women in my group, and one of them is very much interested in roleplaying and crunch. Outside my RP group I have another female friend who is very into (and very good at) highly analytical euro games. Still just anecdotes and not at all generalizable.

Not applicable to women as a whole? Seriously? Is that the level we're debating on? Next thing you tell me is that grass is green. Obviously, it doesn't apply to all women! I doubt anyone in here can claim to have anything more than anecdotal evidence.

We do have Lynata posting in this thread, right? She's obvious coutner-evidence.

The goal isn't to have women act like men. The goal is to create communities where all are welcome, which tabletop gaming is not at all.

Can't confirm from my experience that this has been a huge problem.

But let's make something clear: Warhammer 40K is at his heart, from its origins, a boy's fantasy about space adventure and heroism. It has been written by men and their fantasies predominantly appeal to other men. (I consciously avoided claiming that it was written for men.) It has not been designed to be particularly inviting to women.

And you will find that a number of boys are rather unwilling to make too many compromises about some of the fantasies that entertain them just to lure more women into gaming. A different segment of boys are much more accomodating.

Can't say either is wrong. It's a matter of taste (regarding setting).

Well, it is a form of conditioning. Indoctrination, even, if we want to make it sound evil (hint: it isn't, just misguided - not dissimilar to other traditions we as citizens of western culture would consider harmful).

Well, monkey see, monkey do. You can call it conditioning or indoctrination or misguided but it doesn't change that what you call conditioning is emergent and, unless we refer to modern marketing machinations, the result of history running its course.

People pass on their beliefs and traditions to their childrens. It's inevitable.

And yes, this tradition does have a large effect on how society perceives people who "break ouf of the mold". cps posted a great article earlier on how this harms men, too, in regards to the cultural ideal of "masculinity".

It'll be up to the coming generations to sort this mess out.

Don't try to change the mold, that's pointless. Instead create widespread awareness about why people would diss people who break out of the mold ("Sich auf Kosten von jemand anders profilieren" - you go and try to express that in English.).

I always held that there is such a thing as Coolism. Ridicule because someone breaks out of the mold is essentially discrimination, not really different from racism. The excuse I have heard in discussions then is that one can't change one's skin colour but one can choose to... "stick to the mold". And therefore such intolerance is allegedly is okay. I naturally disagree. Discrimination is discrimination.

That said, having a bit of a thick skin isn't all wrong.

Alex

I think we're just talking past each other at this point. I agree with some of what you're saying but not all of it.

40k is the very definition of a male power fantasy not designed with women in mind at all - on that you're right. I was taking a broader look. We're in an RPG forum, and a lot of RPG players play more than one system. I'd like to see the larger RPG and gamer community be more welcoming, even if 40k is and will always be an adolescent male power fantasy. Some people are just fine with the hobby being a boys club (not saying you're one).

Your feminization of Matt Ward to disparage him is entirely in keeping with my wholly negative perception of you, Fgdsdf.

And your continued attempts to pull threads off track and into social justice warrior territory is entirely in keeping with my wholly negative perception of you, cps. Only one such as you would count a pejorative "fangirl" as "feminization", and try to make it into an issue where previously there was none (I have to confess, I had to look through the text four times to even realize what you were referring to).

Never change, cps.

I'll bring it every time you call men women in an effort to undermine their credibility, mock them, or otherwise imply women are lesser and it goes unchallanged. Your attitude is one of the big reasons gaming (not just TT or RPGs) has trouble bringing in new people. You're toxic. And proud of it, somehow.

Do you really want to be the guy saying, "Yes, using sexist language is acceptable"?

For crying out loud. That is **** is a myth and you know it. Your just saying these things because you are a weak individual that wants to sound morally superior than everyone else. Guess what? There is no pillar for you to climb on. You can scream and shout all you want, but at the end of the day your just a fad. People decades from now will be looking back at this and go, "Hey you remember when people ***** about sexism in gaming? Yeah those people were as stupid as the people complained about violence in video games and satanism in role playing games."

I mean come on man. You are the person telling the mods to remove the cuss word blockers because we are all adults, but when you hear language you don't like you go into full ranting child mood. If any thing your blind hypocriticism is what killing your arguments.

You can make a counter post all you want, but at the end of the day it won't change my mind. It won't change anyone elses mind either. You can send all your bull links too and it will have the same effect. That effect of course is nothing. Just more of the same in which you scream and shout with no results at all. How does it feel that your trump card is useless?

So... how 'bout that 7th Edition...

I have to say, I'm actually really curious about your thoughts on this issue. I've never actually met anyone who conflates today's sexism with the moral panic of the 70s, effectively denying that it even exists (in the same way that there was no satanic threat from D&D).

I found a really funny TEDx talk about sexism in gaming, but you're not going to watch it and the guy swears a lot which the mods might not like, so whatever.

edit: this is to snowman. stupid page split.

So... how 'bout that 7th Edition...

Yeah sorry about that. Personally it feels like a cash in and I don't like it very much. Are the codexes for all the armies been release yet?

For 6th Edition? Nope. Yeah, that's probably the best indicator that it's too soon to release a new Edition, i.e. the fact that the previous Edition isn't complete yet.

For 6th Edition? Nope. Yeah, that's probably the best indicator that it's too soon to release a new Edition, i.e. the fact that the previous Edition isn't complete yet.

Have they ever 'completed' an edition before moving onto the next one? The last time I paid attention was around 3e/4e and I don't remember that being a thing. I know for WHFB the Wood Elf army went without a book for a very long time.

For 6th Edition? Nope. Yeah, that's probably the best indicator that it's too soon to release a new Edition, i.e. the fact that the previous Edition isn't complete yet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 6th Edition was also the edition that had a whole range of independent codices for the various Space Marine chapters and so on, too, no?

I know that it's been done before, but I was under the impression that they'd basically kicked it up a notch, more or less meaning that each major faction gets 1 book.. and the Space Marines gets like, 6.

So they are producing more codices, more specific codices, yet don't complete the whole range of army-specific codices before they start creaming out the next iteration of the overall ruleset. Unless I've misunderstood things.

For 6th Edition? Nope. Yeah, that's probably the best indicator that it's too soon to release a new Edition, i.e. the fact that the previous Edition isn't complete yet.

Have they ever 'completed' an edition before moving onto the next one? The last time I paid attention was around 3e/4e and I don't remember that being a thing. I know for WHFB the Wood Elf army went without a book for a very long time.

By comparison, 6th has been out two years yet the amount of material produced for it is considerable - most of the codices updated, plus numerous small codex supplements and game expansions (which require less miniatures support to produce - that's likely the only reason they haven't done the remaining codices (most of which were new when 6th was released)

For 6th Edition? Nope. Yeah, that's probably the best indicator that it's too soon to release a new Edition, i.e. the fact that the previous Edition isn't complete yet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 6th Edition was also the edition that had a whole range of independent codices for the various Space Marine chapters and so on, too, no?

I know that it's been done before, but I was under the impression that they'd basically kicked it up a notch, more or less meaning that each major faction gets 1 book.. and the Space Marines gets like, 6.

So they are producing more codices, more specific codices, yet don't complete the whole range of army-specific codices before they start creaming out the next iteration of the overall ruleset. Unless I've misunderstood things.

It is the one thing that strikes me as wierd. The rate of output of codexes has been impressive, and literally one more year would have put every codex into the same 6th edition standard - Orks, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Space Wolves and Grey Knights are the only ones not updated.

Even if you double down and rush them a bit, it just seems sensible to finish that update process first just so everything is to a standard before you change the core rules they bolt onto. Yes, there have been supplements come out, but they come out as well as standard codex releases rather than instead of.

Orks, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Space Wolves and Grey Knights are the only ones not updated.

Don't jinx it. You might get a crappy digital "book".

Orks, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Space Wolves and Grey Knights are the only ones not updated.

Necrons and Grey Knights were the last two codices of the previous edition, incorporating concepts that would be later introduced in full in the 6th edition rulebook, and written with it in mind. Dark Eldar isn't that much older.

A lot of the current thinking about 7th edition is that it and 6th are two parts of a larger change, with the psychic phase as the core example - 6th edition (and Codex: Grey Knights, just before 6th) introduces mastery levels to the modern game, and psychic disciplines in the core rulebook, but doesn't significantly change the underlying mechanics (Ld Test to cast). 7th takes that development and moves it further along, replacing the core mechanic now that the foundations of mastery levels and warp charge have been established.

In that light, 6th might be better described as a 5.5 edition, a half-way point between more significant editions. It's a costly way to go about it (both for customers, and for GW - full colour hardbacks on the scale needed for a rulebook release like this are a major expenditure, and GW have been spending a lot of money in the last ten years, updating manufacturing processes, bringing certain elements of manufacturing in-house - stuff that can pay off considerably once it's done, but which is costly to implement), but that's another side of the discussion.

My main objection to a lot of the criticism is that it assumes that all the rules changes are marketing based, rather than the result of games designers (who are geeks and gamers like the rest of us) going "hey, you know what I think would be cool?".

My main objection to a lot of the criticism is that it assumes that all the rules changes are marketing based, rather than the result of games designers (who are geeks and gamers like the rest of us) going "hey, you know what I think would be cool?".

I wouldn't go that far. But it's beyond doubt to me that at the basis of each new edition is the question: "Which minis can we push with the new edition?" and that this question impacts development heavily. This isn't an 80s-style hobbyists project, it's an international company with a business strategy.

Not to mention that a sound business strategy and a cool game design idea are not mutually exclusive. One can inform the other and vice versa.

Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining. I am merely enjoying trying to figure out the business significance of game design changes. And I want to keep people from becoming a marketing victim . If they see through a company's (or a politician's in politics) sales pitch and still consciously decide in favor of them, it's all good.

That said: my impressions from what limited I have seen of 7E isn't too bad. It's mostly an update of 6E. I don't think 6E is 5.5E, I suspect this with be more like 6.5E instead. 6E changed the competitive scene completely with mech armies going more or less out of style. I wanna see if 7E will change as much in the meta.

Alex

* The newcrons are, in my not so humble opinion, a lot more interesting than the old, especially from a painter's point of view. There is a tab bit more diversity, and a LOT more options for personalizing each army.

Yes, they do allow for a lot more variety for painters and modellers, but I liked the old versions thematically much better. As has been said, they were scarier, and felt much more like a implacable, unstoppable foe you could not negotiate with. They were also a bit more mysterious. Yes, they have essentially been the undead in space, but they felt more distinct from the WHFB undead before. Unfortunately that concept doesn't really deliver much variety, so it makes sense they changed it, and there was a bit of "The C'Tan did it" for everything interesting in the 40k universe. Maybe if they had retained more of the mystery of the 2nd edition Necrons it would have worked better.

And Epic: Armageddon was poorly-timed - it came at the time when the LoTR boom ended, which led to a major reduction in support for all Specialist Games. Like the other Specialist Games, the Epic rulebook was available as a free download, and it was an internal division of GW rather than an independently-run company like Forge World or Black Library, so sales figures for individual Specialist Games don't exist. It's reckoned, however, that the income from Specialist Games would have been sufficient to support any smaller games company. This downsizing also led to the closure of Black Industries almost immediately after the overwhelmingly successful release of Dark Heresy. Poor sales and quality are not inherently linked.

All that aside, it's also one of the best games GW has produced (alongside BFG, and the woefully overlooked LoTR) - but also a cautionary tale about how even great games can fail because of poor support.

I don't think it was just the timing that was an issue though. I think the fact that Epic had been out of circulation for several years certainly didn't help. If they had kept Epic: 40k going (even though it was apparently a flop), at least there would have been something for people to see in the shops and keep even a basic interest up. When Epic Armageddon came out the game had been out of circulation for a while, and basically had to try and compete as a new game, with barely any support from GW.

I have to say I do find its death a shame. Whenever I see the new larger models, huge armies etc, I just think "This is not what 40k is for. This is what epic is for. Why don't more people play epic?" Apocalypse, while I can understand part of the thrill ("Oh look, how many models can we get on the table") is just not a way to play a game at that scale. 1:1 ratio 28mm games can just barely handle company scale games, let alone massive walkers the size of buildings.

I think some support for smaller scale battles in 7th edition would be nice.

I hope someone at GW has noticed by now that their main competitors have very successful skirmish level gameplay. The buy in is lower, the learning curve is not as overwhelming and hooking people is easier. It also helps that battles play out faster, making more games possible...or just spending an afternoon at it rather than an all day affair.

Its completely against their "more minis, bigger armies" philosophy, but I still think it would be a positive development if it happened.

On a gameplay oriented note, whenever I have played WFB or WH40K (or watched my friends play it), the thing that always struck me was how non-interactive the gameplay was. Assuming you trusted your partner enough, you could actually just leave the table while he was taking his turn, because there was precious little you could do except be a witness. Obviously the social and chatting aspects are huge in this kind of game, but it has always struck me as problematic that each player takes turns being shackled.

More modern games like Dropzone Commander (if you're a fan of Epic btw, you owe it to yourself to at least check this game out) try to counter act this by switching unit activations within the turn, and using Command Cards. Suddenly it becomes important in what order you activate your units, because the enemy can and does react to you even within the turns. The game is gaining some traction locally, so I'm hoping I will get to do more than just read the rulebook and planning armies in my head.

I'm not saying that WH40K should completely reinvent themselves. But I do think the company would benefit long term from focusing on expanded and updated gameplay options, rather than codex creep and money fixation. They have become the industry standard for a reason, and that reason is the talents they employ and the passion they put into it. Going forward, I think GW needs to put their faith in that as opposed to miniature monopoly and price gouging.

I always thought it wouldn't take too much to change 40k to alternative unit activation (which is used by Epic Armageddon) while retaining many (but not all) of the same mechanics. Of course, GW isn't going to be quite as adventurous as to move their ageing game mechanics into the 90s.

As far as I understand it Warhammer Fantasy has a little more interactivity, due to the elements of choosing charge reactions, the interactivity in the magic phase etc. However, I haven't really played much, and your criticism certainly stands for 40k. Yet another reason I think large games are dumb for 40k, as it just increases the amount of time one player will be sitting twiddling their thumbs.

PS: I prefer Oldcrons, too. But that's just because this is how I've grown to know them, and I like them as unpersonal and mechanically cold automatons even up to their leaders. It did make them scarier, imho.

The new version is at the very least interesting (I like the concept of Tomb Kings in WHFB too, so ...), it just isn't what I'm used to. And I generally dislike change when it doesn't feel like a natural evolution (a la Battletech) but rather a Retcon.

Down with Change! You know it is all a Tzeentchian plot.

But, yes, I think the most irritating thing about the change was that it was a full up retcon. It is always a bit galling. It happens, but surprisingly rarely in 40k (though they do exist), where they just tend to change emphasis, or make clear they moved on. They haven't even officially ret-conned the Starchild and Sensei out of existence. There was just had a small bit of fluff in the 3rd edition rulebook which made clear that they wouldn't mention them anymore. It even left it open whether it was all a Tzeentchian plot and the Starchild was a lie, whether the Sensei had been exterminated, or whether they were still out there. It was a very Gw way of dealing with the problem of this bit of fluff that didn't really fit with where they were going.

A less drastic change, that could change the emphasis from the c'tan to the necrons, downplay the c'tan as the movers and shakers of everything, and allowed a little more diversity (and retained a bit more of the mystery of their 2nd edition origins), would have been fine. However, they flat out contradicted much of what came before, and severely changed the feeling of the Necrons in the process.

Orks, Dark Eldar, Necrons, Space Wolves and Grey Knights are the only ones not updated.

Blood Angels as well, but that's besides the point (and rumours suggest Blood Angels and Orks next, to tie into the next starter set, and hark back to the 2nd edition box).

I still would rather a single combined Space Marines codex (for all the chapters, even the divergent ones). Never have any of them shown enough difference to truly deserve more than a page or two of special rules. Ok, they would be hard pushed to include a lot of fluff on each chapter in such a book, unless it was a real monster, but rulewise I don't think the Chapters deserve their own codices. How much difference should there really be between an Ultramarines tactical Marine & a Space Wolf Tactical Marine (ok, Gray Hunter, but it is essentially the same thing), really? None really, at least on the scale the game plays at.

But then I guess I have also occasionally said a combined "Imperial" codex would be ideal, which could also handle non-chaotic rebel forces (who should form the majority of Imperial opposition), so I am not really the norm.

I still would rather a single combined Space Marines codex (for all the chapters, even the divergent ones). Never have any of them shown enough difference to truly deserve more than a page or two of special rules. Ok, they would be hard pushed to include a lot of fluff on each chapter in such a book, unless it was a real monster, but rulewise I don't think the Chapters deserve their own codices. How much difference should there really be between an Ultramarines tactical Marine & a Space Wolf Tactical Marine (ok, Gray Hunter, but it is essentially the same thing), really? None really, at least on the scale the game plays at.

If any 40k army deserves to have multiple codices, it ought to be the Imperial Guard, simply because the differences are way more drastic there than between blue Marines and red Marines. Chapter-specific fluff and characters or unique units could have found a good place in the new Codex supplements that GW has begun pushing out (perfect example: see here ).

But let's be realistic, we are talking about Space Marines, and Space Marines are the driving force of the franchise - a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that sees any other idea in the setting take a backseat as the studio lacks the faith to support and promote every army equally well. And I believe the hobby as a whole suffers from this intense focus, as it sacrifices diversity and the feeling of a greater, living universe that is about more than just "Astartes vs X".

To build a bridge to the post from N0-1_H3r3: this (coupled with the ridiculous price hikes, the evolution of White Dwarf's content, or how the license is currently being whored out for dozens of cheap video- and mobile games) is why so many people are convinced GW is largely after cash these days. It quite simply seems to be a sad law of the corporate world that the more successful you get, the bigger you become - and the bigger you become, the more the spirit and idealism of its original founders is eroded by lawyerism and the greed of investors, board members, and/or powerful consultants. The video game industry has a lot of big names that might qualify for such an evolution, too.

And this process doesn't even need to involve said founders themselves changing, either. They might just get swept away by their own company's evolution, ultimately finding themselves trapped between business demands and their own ideals, trying to defend "compromises" before their own conscience, as the only alternative would be to leave a hobby they themselves have put a lot of energy and many years of their prime time in life into.

... and yes, I wish they'd still make Epic.

Or any of the other old Specialist Games, really. 40k is one of the things I think I should've gotten into 10 years sooner, as I have that lingering feeling I missed out on something great.

But at least my office still has a Necromunda session every Monday.

That's capitalism for ya. GW's sole corporate responsibility is to provide profits to its shareholders. Making nerds happy doesn't factor into it. Like, at all.

Granted, they'd probably make a lot more money with their license if they stopped giving it to the lowest shovelware bidder and instead gave it to a company like DICE. Who doesn't want to play Battlefield 41,942?

That's capitalism for ya. GW's sole corporate responsibility is to provide profits to its shareholders. Making nerds happy doesn't factor into it. Like, at all.

Granted, they'd probably make a lot more money with their license if they stopped giving it to the lowest shovelware bidder and instead gave it to a company like DICE. Who doesn't want to play Battlefield 41,942?

That'd totally be a "shut up and take my money" title, if it was decently implemented, that is. Oh well, guess all we can do is watch and see how GW develops and how much fluff we'll have to ignore/rewrite in order to get a setting enjoyable for us. And, honestly, considering the amount of RP-ers on these Forums, I bet we could easily write some sort of homebrew for 40k-miniatures which actually appeals to the "Core-Gamers".

Heard a podcast about 7E by 40Kings (German ETC team) and, yeah, it is more a 6.5E regarding the core rules... but something like maelstrom missions is exactly what 40K needed. Psy phase could be good too. Bound to slow down the game a bit as you have to weigh options carefully but probably quite tactical.

All-in-all I am eager to give it a try.

Alex

Had you seen the bug ridden mess that is battlefield 3 and 4? They still hadn't fix the **** bugs. Given Game Workshop can find other companies, but DICE shouldn't be one of them. I go CD Redproject. Look at the Witcher series and don't tell me that couldn't be a Dark Heresy game.

Just what ever you do don't trust any thing with EA and any developer team owned by EA. They got two golden **** trophies for a reason.

Not to defend EA, but BF3+4 were fun as hell (Origin and their DLC practices made them decidedly less so). I think Bad Company 2 was better, but for all the bugs and weirdness they made a fun game. In my mind they're up there with Bethesda - the bugs are almost a feature. Other companies can't do **** like this on accident.

A CD Projeckt RED DH game would be ******* amazing if GW gave them free reign with the license.

But these are just pipe dreams. We'll get sh*tty tower defense games, boring old board game clones, and unoriginal clones of better games forever until GW folds.

Look at the Witcher series and don't tell me that couldn't be a Dark Heresy game.

With pin-up cards for every female Psyker and Battle Sister the male player character gets to lay with! GRIMDARK and EDGY

Haven't played BF4, but 1(942)-3 were fun. I actually think I like 2 the most, if only because I find a Chinese faction way more interesting than Russians yet again.

It will be interesting to see how Eternal Crusade will turn out - from what I've seen it's pretty much Planetside 40k?

Just what ever you do don't trust any thing with EA and any developer team owned by EA. They got two golden **** trophies for a reason.

A surprisingly huge number of customers preferring a happy ending over tasteful drama and epic tragedy?

Come to think of it, BioWare might be a good studio for a Dark Heresy CRPG - but I don't think they'd be available. Both because they seem to have their hands full already, and because GW has a reputation of reserving considerable rights for interference, regardless of whether they actually end up exerting them. Smaller and/or newer studios may still jump at the chance, but bigger names might consider it too much trouble.

Come to think of it, BioWare might be a good studio for a Dark Heresy CRPG - but I don't think they'd be available. Both because they seem to have their hands full already, and because GW has a reputation of reserving considerable rights for interference, regardless of whether they actually end up exerting them. Smaller and/or newer studios may still jump at the chance, but bigger names might consider it too much trouble.

Lynata, I have no idea what rock you've been hiding under, but Bioware has been EA for years now. These days they couldn't make a good RPG to save themselves from a paper bag, let alone do something suitably dark and with enough depth to do Dark Heresy and kind of justice.

If I had my pick, I'd say Obsidian would be a good choice... provided they'd be able to finish the game, which is questionable, with GW hanging over them. Obsidian never were good at holding deadlines and finishing their games.. Unfortunately. But they've gotten better. Honest!

Something I've always wanted is a game very much like Battlefield 1942, but depicting the Imperial Guard, deep down in the trenches. A couple of different regiments to choose from, different battlefields. No Space Marines, no Orks, no Necrons - at least not playable ones - just the Imperial Guard, perhaps pitted against Traitor Guards.

Enormous battlefields with players assigned squads. Could be amazing.

When it comes to 40k in general, I've always had this idea for a series of radically different movies, depicting various facets of the setting. You could have one movie be Film Noir. Another movie would be straight-up survival horror. A third one an adventure mystery. And then you'd take all of these movies and tie them together despite their differences into an overreaching plot or some greater on-going, gradually showing the overall facets to get a full picture.

And then it struck me - why not the same in games? Give us a Dark Heresy RPG á la Baldur's Gate & Dragon Age: Origins. And then a Deathwatch tactical game á la the Dawn of War 2 campaign(s). A Rogue Trader management/4X game with roleplaying elements. And so on. And then tie them all together into something overreaching, never having the actual player characters meet (for obvious reasons), just exploring different facets.

It would be a huge undertaking, and I don't consider it realistic. But it's nice to dream.

Lynata, I have no idea what rock you've been hiding under, but Bioware has been EA for years now.

That's why the name came up when Snowman mentioned EA.

They've already been EA when they made Dragon Age: Origins, and given how you're listing that one as a prime example for how a Dark Heresy CRPG should look like ... well!

Looks "suitably dark" to me. As for the depth, we'll have to see (especially after DA2), but given the Mass Effect series (which had quite a few dark aspects as well) it's easy to see how the studio still has potential.