MILLANDSON said:

That isn't quite what I said.

I said there was more for DH relative to this point in the development cycle.

signoftheserpent said:

Only because Black Industries rushed out The Inquisitor's Handbook several months earlier than planned, allowing in a several significant errors that only appeared after the playtest was completed.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Well we go back to the original point: RT has been out for about 8 months if not more and there's been only one supplement (I dont' really count the GM Screen as it's not the same sort of thing). In so doing, FFG obviously felt that a book like Lure was more relevant and important than anything else.

I want to like RT - I want to play it - but it needs more. To omit any real information on anatagonists has to be, by any stretch of the imagination, a pretty hefty thing. Yet 8 months on the prospective GM either has to wait for whatever is being produced (if indeed anything relevant) to release or make it up themselves based on whatever they can crib together from other books/40k source material and the game system.

Now I realise there are plenty of people who enjoy doing that - great, good luck to you. But that shouldn't be assumed as the norm (otherwise why bother writing and publishing a game in the first place).

I think my greatest concern about FFG's 40K products is that they are not actually purely 40K roleplaying games: they are FFG's writers' 40K campaigns. This is evidenced by the way information is being released (such as the few realluy useful pages of Eldar stuff in Lure, which isn't a book abotu Eldar or Xenos) and by the fact that the campaign settings, which are objectively very good, themselves dictate the flow of information. For example, if FFG decided that Kornous has no Orks - then RT players get no rules for Orks. The campaign settings are being used a little too much, IMHO, as the criteria for releasing information that, again IMHO, really should be available to any prosective 40K gm (because it's part of the setting).

Taken on face value the books seem great (I haven't fully read RT yet; I read slowly). The art is great and the quality seems excellent, but nonetheless this approach is not the way I would have done things. Fair enough, releasing three books covering the 40k player experience (at least from the perspective of playing humans) is fine - that was FFG's stated plan and people who don't like it are at least aware of it. But it's not really apparent just how much influence their created worlds within the 40K universe (ie Calixis, Kornous and Jericho Reach) have. I mean if you have information on the Eldar, in the 40k game system, then release it as an Eldar book or part of a larger book on Xenos; since this information exists (part of Createures Anathema and Lure) then this is clearly something that could have been done.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Granted. Still, 400 is not a hard and fast absolute maximum that's my point. Yes expecting 150 more pages on top would I agree be rather hopeful, I do think in the case of RT there could happily have been an extra 20-30 pages that would have ironed out some of the points people always tend to raise; no torpedo rules, too few ships, and more info needed on a couple of specific locations such as Port Wander for example.

I don't see 20-30 pages sky-rocketting the price, but it would have saved a lot of moaning for FFG on it's boards and please a lot of fans.

signoftheserpent said:

A point to remember is one of flexibility - defined sandboxes within the 40k universe like the Calixis Sector, Koronus Expanse and Jericho Reach allow FFG and the writers working for them (myself included) greater freedom to develop ideas without conflicting with things GW would rather we not touch. Detailing a setting where there are many toes on which to tread is not easy in and of itself, so the 40kRP regions, which are set aside specifically for RPG development, allow us to do more than we might do otherwise, in terms of locations, adversaries, conspiracies and similar details. It's far easier to define (and get approval for) the details of a single flotilla of Eldar Corsairs, than it is to make sweeping statements about all Eldar, for example. It's also a lot more satisfying than simply providing page after page of profiles and rules for things converted across from the wargames and reiterating/paraphrasing background that's been published before.

Now, you might just want the same old Orks, Eldar and Chaos Marines that appear everywhere else, but in a lot of cases, that wouldn't allow for the same degree of depth or examination. Just as pertinently, the diversity of RPG-unique threats (Yu'vath, Slaugth, Rak'Gol Marauders, Stryxis and the various human cults and conspiracies beyond them) provides something that the 'big name' forces lack - mystery. For people already well-versed in the 40k universe - which I would speculate make up a notable proportion of 40kRP players - the Eldar, the Orks, and everything else that appears in the wargame are known quantities. The Slaugth, and the Rak'Gol, and the Stryxis, and the ruins of the long-departed Yu'vath civilisation are all unknowns to even the most veteran 40k player, and that's valuable. Nothing keeps a player interested, in my experience, more than mystery and uncertainty about the nature of a foe.

Wilfred Owen said:

Off topic, but cheers I hope for a good one today and many more in future.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

This is exactly what lured me into Rogue Trader. I like the freedom inherent in the Koronus Expanse. So much of it is unexplored and unknown. I don't have to worry about keeping to as much 40k Canon as I would in other parts of the galaxy. We try to stick to canon as much as possible, but there are people in my group that aren't as well-versed in the 40k setting. When our player who has a whole library of 40k books gets after a player whose only exposure to 40k is RT for having his character do something you probably couldn't get away with in the heart of the Imperium, it's nice to be able to say "well that's okay, we're out in the Koronus Expanse where there's a little less Imperial supervision".

And It's nice to be able to deal with the less known xenos. While we're involving Eldar in our campaign, the fact that it is just an Outcast group of Eldar Corsairs allows them to do things that you might not see the whole of the Eldar race doing. But aside from the Eldar, I'm having a lot of fun dealing with unknown Xenos.

Yes, more supplements would be nice, and I eagerly await whatever FFG puts out, but I really like the opportunity we have with RT to have the freedom of open space to explore, while still being able to draw from the rich lore of the 40k universe.

I don't think the provision of rules for the Eldar, for exmple, would prevent you, the GM, from involving them as you see fit. We are talking about the groundwork, the rules to allow you to do exactly what you want. Don't forget that, when it comes to freedom, FFG are still bound by the rules GW sets down. FFG will never be able to officially provide you with what you want if that strays from what GW say the Eldar are. So these are things that are not quntifiable under rules. I'm talking about the basics: numbers and rules. Once those are in place you can interpret the Eldar, or indeed anyone, as you see fit. Unfortunately until such rules exist, you will also have to create those numbers and rules. YMMV, but for me that's not why I bought RT.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I agree on all points. In fact, I would say that Dark Heresy was all about starting with something extremely familiar (i.e. the Inquisition) with enough of a unique spin that there's appeal to 40k veterans and neophytes alike. The Calixis Sector, while designed by some very veteran 40k property developers, has a number of quirky interpretations of seemingly standard 40k ideas. They call their Skitarii "Secutors," Commissars are "Chaliced Commissars," and so on. Then you get the Slaugth conspiracies and other little Calixis-only Xeno threats. Sure they'll be cleansed and purified, but that's not the point. They're a novelty in an otherwise familiar setting.

Rogue Trader is like the deep end to Dark Heresy's kiddie pool. I say that without rancor, because one of the things that helped me GMing Dark Heresy was my familiarity with 40k fluff. Dark Heresy is where everyone gets their feet wet, Rogue Trader is where the cannonballs and Marco Polo come in (possibly literally, in both cases). In Dark Heresy the players actions are always bound within the strictures of the Inquisition and, whether or not the group's patron Inquisitor is a nice guy, he's still telling them what to do. Rogue Traders cast off from the familiar warp-lanes of the Calixis Sector and venture into the comparatively unexplored Koronus Expanse and Jericho Reach. Open-ended exploration replaces door-kicking investigations.

Having wandered a bit off topic, I'll still say that I sure would like a guide to more ships and vehicles, and possibly a word about fleet actions. If I, an intrepid Rogue Trader captain, happen to capture another Imperial ship as a prize, how will I delegate the duty of piloting and crewing the prize ship, and defending it from attacks? Can Extended Actions extend to adjacent ships? During a battle, can the Rogue Trader shout over the vox to his Lieutenant on the prize ship "You're doing great, son! Try not to blow up so much, though!" and give a morale boost?

CthonicProteus said:

No they don't

Secutors are different to Skitarii, in that Secutors are the Tech-Priests that are skilled and trained in the arts of war, where as Skitarii are the AdMech version of the Imperial Guard/Stormtroopers, and generally don't consist of Tech-Priests. Similarly, Chaliced Commissars are political soldiers/officers established by Lord Sector Hax as his own personal enforcement group, to ensure that all local Imperial Guard and PDF units stay loyal to Hax. They don't really have any authority though, as demonstrated on Tranch where the real Commissariat had all the Chaliced Commissars on the planet shot for murder of His most glorious soldiers (the Chaliced Commissars had been executing Imperial Guard troops as punishment for infractions) and for passing themselves off, through their 'powers', as real Commissars, when they had no authority other than Hax's word to do so, which does not apply to the Imperial Guard.

So yea... Secutors and Chaliced Commissars are different to Skitarii and the real Commissariat.

To those who say that CA is compatible with RT, can you point to me where in the RT rulebook it gives me the rules for some of the powers used by the chaos entities. I can't find the relevant psychic powers. Does this mean I have to buy DH in order to play RT?

All,

FFG does not announce our releases until we know when they can be released, and until we can speak intelligently about what will go in them.

The fear that FFG will not be supporting RT is unfounded, we have several books in the works and we have full time staff working every day to bring those products to you.

The Emperor Protects.

cP
FFG

signoftheserpent said:

No, it means CA, which is a DH SB, works best when one already has the DH MRB. If you don't want to buy DH, you can always try to put some work into it and houserule those psychic powers. Or you can wait for a RT creature SB to be published and buy it then. Or you can create your own creatures (it's easy and fun).

The point is, you can't have everything you want, when you want it and without putting any effort into it. Boy, I'm a tired of reading you complaining.

The Spaniard said:

Kyorou said:

'I can't have everything you want'? What on earth is that supposed to mean?

I bought CA because I was told, by many people and not just here, that it was compatible wtih RT. It isn't. So address the point please.

I don't have the DH rulebook, I wasn't aware that I would have to buy the DH rulebook (which I can't afford). Do you get the point?

Round One ... FIGHT !

Really, these boards become more and more annoying and a pain to read ...

@TheSpaniard: Thanks for the heads-up ! Much appreciated.

signoftheserpent said:

All Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader products are mostly compatible with one another... but they are still separate games, with different purposes, so there will be differences in content. Where the systems differ - psychic powers system, careers, the origin path and starship rules in Rogue Trader, the dark pacts in the Dark Heresy book, a few skills and talents in each book, and so forth - is where compatibility issues exist.

The majority of the content in Creatures Anathema or any Dark Heresy sourcebook can be used in Rogue Trader without modification or complication. A relative minority of elements, such as those involving psychic powers, may cause issues and cannot be used in a Rogue Trader game as easily.

Compatibility is not a binary notion in this regard.

The chaos entities are not compatible.

It's a bit of a strawman to say a minority of stuff is incompatible.

The fact is the books are not completely compatible and assuming that I should know this by virtue of just buying it when people go to great pains to talk up the shared system of both game lines (which i was given to believe was the whole point of the three book idea) is unreasonable.

I can't use the chaos stuff in CA with RT as written...at all.

You seem to be operating on a different definition of the word compatible then many of the rest of us. Compatible doesn't, and never has meant completely seamless. If they were, they’d be the same system, and they’re not, they’re separate but compatible systems. Microsoft Word Documents for Windows are compatible with Microsoft Word for Mac, doesn’t mean everything is going to open perfectly, but it does mean it can open it and get most of it mostly right.

You see the same thing used all over the gaming industry. Vampire is compatible with Werewolf, D20 modern is compatible with D&D 3rd ed. In no case does this mean that it’s seamless. In addition, your talking about a compatible game’s supplemental material, such as trying to use D20 Modern’s Firearm Compendium with only the D&D rulebook. It seems odd to me that you’d even expect it to work without the Dark Heresy book. This doesn’t mean you need the Dark Heresy book to play Rogue Trader just that you need the Dark Heresy book to use the stuff in a Dark Heresy supplement without modifying it.

I understand where your coming from, and I know I'd be pissed if I did the same thing, but I don't think bitching about them not actualy being compatable is the factualy correct or the best way to go about venting. Starting a 'compatability guide' thread or simmilar to note what kinds of information would need to be invented/corrected in order to effectivly use these supplements might be a good idea, if for no other reason then to prevent someone else from making the same error.

But we dirgress from the original topic, RT's release schedule.

signoftheserpent said:

If you can't use the Juggernaut, Flesh Hound, Lady of the Voids, Daemonic Ammo of the Eye of the Abyss, Nurglings, Praedatoris of the Starry Order, or the Ruination of Imperfect Beauty in Rogue Trader, I am left with no other conclusion than you do not understand the rules.

Hell, the Lady of the Voids has no rules that are unique to Dark Heresy, save those presented in her profile, and she's a threat to ship even when their Geller Field is up. That's practically made for Rogue Trader, right there.

Wow. Just...wow.

Noone is ranting. I am simply stating a fact. I don't really see the relevance or use of talking about what is the exact and precise definition of the word. It's fairly clear what I mean. CA requires the rules within DH. The rules within RT are not completely compatible with the systems that CA uses, thus it's not...compatible. Some stuff within might be, but that's not the same as saying that I can use CA with RT because that implies both RT and DH use the same systems. They don't. I have no idea why, but they don't. They might share a lot of stuff, but again that isn't the same thing.

The Vampire comparison isn't really accurate either because you are referring to the systems that separate the two games: ie vampires and werewolves have different abilites and thus different systems accordingly. That would be like saying that psykers and navigators should have the exact same powers. But the two games have two different systems for psychic powers. So there wont' be compatibility referencing RT for rules that call for DH in CA, for example.

So it's not accurate to say that DH books are compatible with RT or that both games are compatible.

They should be. I'm not sure what's going to happen when DW comes out with potentially a third fragmentation of the core systems. You woudl think having one set of rules between each game would be the smart way forward - 1 set of psychic rules for instance. But that's not what seems to be happening. Consequently support for each game wil necessarily be separate. (And that doesn't factor in the scaling between XP and costs for each type of character that plenty of others have commented on).

signoftheserpent said:

46 creatures in Creatures Anathema, after a rough count. 7 creatures in that book that require the use of, or otherwise refer to, rules - specifically the Psychic Power rules - not found in Rogue Trader, four of which are daemons (the others are the Phyrr Cat, the Fenksworld Pit Thing and the Enslaver). That's about 15% of the book which is somewhat incompatible, meaning the other 85% or so is perfectly fine to use with the Rogue Trader rulebook...

What is your point exactly?

This thread has started down a tangent it seems. Whether or not the Creatures Anathema is strictly compatible or not doesn't really matter. What does matter is the fact that the Creatures Anathema is a useful book for Rogue Trader players, and even if I lacked Dark Heresy I would still purchase it.

Once again I would like to say thanks to those involved in the production of the game for stopping by and giving us what information you are allowed to pass on. It is always great to see you all involved in the community.

Signoftheserpent, I don't wish to offend.... but you are becoming a bit of a one man band, and the music isn't that good.... I understand your want for information (I certainly share it!), but sometimes you just need to be patient.

signoftheserpent said:

I think the point is that you are engaged in hyperbolic rhetoric that is demonstrably false, simply by pointing out that 85% of a book that you claim is incompatible is, in fact, compatible.

This rhetoric has destroyed any credibility you had in complaining about the release schedule. Any legitimate points you might have made have been buried under your other arguments when essentially parse to myself and many (perhaps even all) of the other posters in this thread as, "The releases have not been exactly what I wanted or would have done, so they are objectively the wrong path for FFG to proceed with!" (If this is not what you were trying to convey, go back and reread them. Try to figure out why they parse that way, then take some time off to letter the matter cool down and try again later.)

Worse, this hyperbolic rhetoric has led to a derailment of the thread and also undermines the complaints about the information blackouts that other posters are trying to make. You are not only hurting your own purpose in complaining about the release schedule, you are hurting everyone else's as well, by association.