I'm just waiting for another opus like Haarlock's Legacy. I can't stress how many hours I've donated to that series and that man/monster. What a masterpiece.
I also really liked the old format of bringing in a new world with campaign. This gives you these rich worlds like Sinophia, Solomon, and Quaddis.
One could argue they brought in Thaur this way, but I really didn't care for Thaur that much. To me it was just 'ending punishment crazy religion world' for my FG group.
I ran book one for my group and everyone involved agreed it was a boring railroad. The plot was actually kind of interesting but the execution was boring. Are books 2 and 3 any better?
You have to see what they actually created. Haarlock is a profoundly fantastic 40k villain. It sounds like you ran 'Tattered Fates'. TF puts a lot of work in the GM's hands and the villains are really good, if you develop them. The best modules are 'House of Dust and Ash', which is basically the 40k version of 'Murder on the Orient Express' and Damned Cities, which is a solid Arbite murder mystery. They aren't beginner modules. You really have to read ahead and have a solid plan before you start GM-ing those adventures. You also can't GM them for a group of munchkins asking 'when is the next battle ?'
Edited by fog1234