Peacekeeper_b said:

I agree with pretty much all of this. I actually like the books you mentioned as well. Unfortunately in my eyes those minor successes are heavily outweighed by the utter failures that are Ascension and Rogue Trader. And with Deathwatch looking more and more like a Space Marine maketing ploy as well as a rollplaying game, I'm just not to into the idea of a new version of DH.

Peacekeeper_b


"Rogue Trader: Careers totally boring and unimaginative. I (as in me, not you or necessarily everyone or anyone else) cannot get excited about any character created in Rogue Trader. While some of the ideas are great (gaining skills at +10/+20 if you get the skill more then once during character generation before spending XP, getting the Talented talent to replace repeated starting talents, getting points to spend on characteristics, the origin path) overall none of the careers inspire me, fit the character I wanted to build or make me even want to play the game."

I'm not all that interested in Rogue Trader either to tell you the truth, and the only classes that pique my interest are Navigators and Explorators (and the latter only because I'm an AdMech fanatic). But your 'point' here is completely subjective. Your opinions here do not mean that the rules suck, it means you just don't like them. "I don't like it, therefore it is bad" is very different from "It is bad, therefore I don't like it". A fairly significant difference, actually.

And as I said, there's a line between criticism and constructive criticism. "I think they're boring" isn't constructive. Even explaining why you think they're boring isn't always going to be constructive. I look at it like I would look at any television show - if I don't like the show, I don't watch the show. What I don't do is continue to go on about how bad it is all the while still watching the show that I purport not to like.

Same applies to you having no interest in Rogue Trader - why do you care? If it doesn't interest you, what does it matter if other people do like it? Why even post about how it doesn't interest you? What's interesting about not being interested in something?

I don't play Rogue Trader, and unless someone can come up with an inspiring story for it (or we play through Lure, which does look interesting - to me at least), I probably won't play it. As a result, I don't post on the RT board. I have nothing positive to say, and nothing to add, so why would I waste my time and the time of the people who do want to actually discuss the game?

See where I'm coming from?


"Ascension: I wont even go into detail here, there are plenty of forums that already discuss how f'd that book it."

Subjective. I love the book. Doesn't mean that it's good, and I don't consider the book to be flawless by any means, and I acknowledge that it has balance issues, but you not liking it doesn't mean that it's bad.

Furthermore, as an aside that covers all these RPG products. These are RPGs - not tournament rules. It's not like you show up at your local FLGS with your character sheet and play pick up games (and if you do, get the E-mail of the GM, 'cause I'd like to know how he does it). Ensuring high levels of balance is not a core component of the rules because it's up to the players (and specifically the GM) to tell the story and take the players through the game.

So if something is unbalanced (like Primaris Psykers or Vindicares)... then change them. It's really not that difficult. The amount of sheer nonsense I've seen heaped on Ascension because it 'ruins' or 'unbalances' the game can only come from minds that are rigid and devoid of any imagination. I love Ascension not because of its rules but because of its concepts. From that book I can take and adapt/extrapolate many things, and it is a great springboard for ideas for other games. Yeah, the 'Temple Assassin' rules are OTT, and it makes it impossible to damage Vindicares. Big deal. Don't use it. Change the rule. There's no tournament judge to overrule you.


"Deathwatch: With each DD I get less excited."

Subjective. With each DD I get more excited. If the mechanics of the game don't work, then it will suck. If it doesn't interest me, it won't necessarily suck, it just won't interest me.

And now Atheosis:

"...the utter failures that are Ascension and Rogue Trader"

But they're not 'utter failures' - you just don't like them! Calling them 'utter failures' is needless hyperbole. No one is forcing you to use them, like them or even read them... so don't think about them. Just forget about them. Use the books you do like and pay no heed to that which doesn't interest you.

As I said above, I have no real interest in Rogue Trader beyond the fluff. The style of gameplay doesn't gel with me (I prefer Dark Heresy's close-knit party style than the Command Crew of the Enterprise style of RT), and as someone who is the natural story-teller of our group nothing grabs me that says 'You must play this game!'.

Does that mean the game fails or is a failure? F**k no!

It just means that I don't like that style of game.

Going back to my TV show analogy - I don't enjoy Supernatural or the Vampire Diaries, so I don't watch them. It'd be stupid if I did watch them only to ***** on forums how I wish they were more like House and Castle*. The same applies here.


"Deathwatch looking more and more like a Space Marine maketing ploy..."

I'm sorry... but based on what? This again comes back to 'criticism' vs 'constructive criticsm'. Here you've just made an unfounded accusation with nothing to support it. Is it opinion, or is there something more to the assertion that it's a Space Marine marketing ploy?

What about it makes it a 'marketing ploy'. You can't just drop that and walk away without an explanation.

BYE

*I actually don't watch House or Castle either, but that's beside the point.

HBMC... yea. I think you've just essentially said what a lot of people here have been saying in their heads for a while, at least it does in regards to me. Your post pretty much shows my view on it to 100% accuracy.

Having just aquired RT, I must say it looks pretty good, but I do have a massive issue with reprinted material that seems prevelent in RT.

What, in my mind would have been better is 1 core rulebook, and then Setting Expansions, such as DH/RT/DW, but unfortunately DH was already printed.

Maybe 3-4 years down the line when all 3 are out - this may be a plan, but I doubt it's currently on their mind.

As to FFG in general, I think their products BGs and RPGs are very good - excellent finished production at a good price. Perhaps better quality control in regards typos and errors, but that's part and parcel of rp printing it seems.

I think the point of Atheosis is "Each to their Own", and maybe his enjoyment of the game/setting is being marred by what he believes is sub-par supplements.

H.B.M.C. said:

What on earth are you talking about?

We post our opinions and then you tell us that our opinions are just opinions and not fact? Thanks for that. With that kind of logic what's the point in posting at all?

Then you go on about criticism vs constructive criticism, but these aren't works in progress that are going to be revised due to feedback. Rogue Trader isn't going to be reprinted due to my disdain for many of the decisions that were made during it's creation. What you are saying is the equivalent of the difference between telling a person they are stupid, and telling a person the exact reasons they are stupid and how they could've been less stupid if they hadn't been born with those particular traits. It's patently ridiculous.

As I said before it was never my intent to convince anyone of my opinions in the matter. I simply stated that I disliked FFG's design decisions with the line, and therefore did not want a new version of Dark Heresy. Then you started going off on this tangent regarding opinion vs fact and criticism vs constructive criticism which has nothing to do with my original post.

I'm sorry if you love FFG's design philosophy and therefore are offended because I dislike them, but the way you've gone about this is absurd and rather annoying. To put that in a constructive way: telling people their opinions are just opinions is something you should not do, unless they state that they are actually fact. Otherwise you may make yourself look like an ass.

Oh and your statement of how this is like going on a forum for a TV show and complaining that it isn't more like another TV show is completely off.

I'm on the Dark Heresy forums saying that I don't like RT and Ascension. I didn't say I didn't like Dark Heresy. I don't post on RT threads and I only occassionally comment on Ascension threads. Once again your point misses the mark.

Atheosis said:

Yes... it's everywhere else that you pronounce your distaste for Rogue Trader and Ascension. I think we get the idea by now.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

That's really not fair. I state my opinion on them when they come up in a discussion, but I'm not spamming every thread I post in. This topic is a great example. I made a very simple statement that I would rather not have a new version of DH because I don't like the way FFG has designed other game lines. Then I was attacked, which happens fairly often when I say such (unsurprisingly considering this is a FFG board), and so I elaborated on my opinions.

The fact of the matter is that I was around when FFG took over the license. I was a fan of Dark Heresy long before they came into the picture, from the initial announcement of the line, over a year before Dark Heresy was actually released. I am a Dark Heresy fan. I am not a FFG fan. While I know many think this isn't possible, it really is. When the release date was announced for Deathwatch was announced (something I've been looking forward to ever since the initial announcement of 40k Roleplay) I was excited. Since then I was reminded of how much I don't like the way FFG handles this license. I'm not going to be shy about it just because most here are happy with their products. If the topic comes up I'll speak my mind. That said, I'm perfectly happy to leave people alone with their enjoyment of said products. Unfortunately, when the topic comes up, others aren't quite so accepting of my views regarding FFG.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I've yet to see him say anything positive about the games as a whole tbh.

well, isn't it stated earlier in this thread (if not it's in another thread) that FFG won't be changing the DH system? either way the core needs to be updated which is nice and a good thing, meaning we don't have to look through pdfs to find some errata'ed rule. I see this as a good thing, and a golden opertunity for them to add some new content edit some rules, and update the armoury. I hear the psyker rules in RT are better balanced for high powered games, like acension, maybe they'll do something about that?

All in all let's try and remain positive and take what we get. Remember guys, if you don't like some rules change them. It's just a book of rules, not a holy text =P

Atheosis said:

You are just as entitled to your opinions as everyone else on these boards.I've been a fairly "negative nelly" on the WFRP3 side of the boards and I constantly get ripped a new one for it, so I know how you feel sometimes. WFRP3 is more of a boardgame (despite lack of said board) with RPG rules in place. I'm not a fan of the game despite wanting to like it terribly since I love the Warhammer Fantasy setting.

I love DH, RT and Ascension, but it's not a blind love. I know there are flaws, but I still love these games and the setting all the same.

I purchased the BL licensed products as day one purchases and remember the day FFG took over the license and made the general announcement to everyone. I don't remember being excited by the prospect since I was not a fan of ANY of their previous RPG materials, but I think Ross Watson has done a great job so far. Hopefully, his successor will do as well.

Just wanted to share there are others out there that feel your pain whether it's with this game or another.

I just hope that they dont make a new edition or something.

I just bought Dark Heresy (I'm Still reading it) and it would be somewaht frustrating,

An updated corebook would be awesome, since I got two BI versions I am itching for an excuse to buy the FFG one which has the corrected maps and better quality paper and ink.

As for production values being lower in the FFG produced books. The original game was designed by Green Ronin for BI and have the AMAZING Kate Flack doing the editing, now I cannot say this enough times, bring Kate back, she was the soul of BI on so many levels and that Mythic managed to ninja her for the (Ill fated) WAR online was a crying shame for us.

I think they're just doing one massive errata and finally bring out a new version with the updated texts (which is about time)

maybe even rearranging the character creation section (hopefully)

maybe they add one or two ideas (like an alternate currency system as in RT & AS or an alternative way of creating stats)

but that's probably it

With the inter-linked systems it makes no sense to change any of them other than tweaking existing rules.

Atheosis said:

Thats funny. Because he made rational arguments and you've done nothing but sling verbal garbage.

LegendofOld said:

No what's funny (or sad if you prefer) is a person interjecting a one sentence post that says absolutely nothing other than to disparage someone else's views. There's a certain irony in the use of the word 'garbage' in such a post.

Atheosis said:

Sadly, despite the irony, it doesn't stop him having a point. It just could have been made better, is all.

MILLANDSON said:

And what pray tell was the point? It seems to me that I'm simply being attacked because my view isn't in accord with the majority on these boards. Am I wrong?

at the end of the day money talks and bulls**t walks. BI is gone the way of the dinosaur and FFG is in full production of DH, RT and DW as well as several other licenses formerly published by BI. so whether you like BI or not - someone somewhere in the high, white towers of GW felt that closing BI and transferring licensing rights to FFG was a more lucrative and ultimately better way to go about things. you can shout "FFG suxnutz" all day but it doesn't change the fact that their product was superior enough to BI for GW to make the change.

as for a new edition of DH et al...i don't think it's necessary right now. errata tweaks in a re-pub works, but right now it wouldn't be a very smart move when they haven't even gotten everything out of the gate.

Atheosis said:

No, and this defensive attitude is part of the issue. It's got little to do with your opinions, and more to do with the frequency and manner in which you present them - every other post you make, it seems, is a scathing condemnation of someone or something.

Simply put: nobody cares that you apparently despise FFG and everything they stand for... but there really is no need to be quite so acerbic.

It would be nice if they did a 2nd print run with a full up to date errata. WOTC did this for Star Wars Saga edition, they didn't even announce it, people just suddenly became aware that any new core rulebooks bought from retailers were updated.

I would buy one like a shot and could be a quick way to make some money.

I don't think a full blown 2nd edition is warranted. I think they will do one eventually though, they fundamentally inherited a system for 40K roleplaying from BI and it may not be how they would have ideally liked things to play out, however it was early enough that they knew they could run with the system as set out by BI. The same cannot be said for WHFRP which they inherited very late in its life cycle.

Atheosis said:

And what pray tell was the point? It seems to me that I'm simply being attacked because my view isn't in accord with the majority on these boards. Am I wrong?

The point is that you sling garbage and call it your opinion and then you complain when someone calls you out on it.

H.B.M.C. did not attack you. He was trying to help you out by teaching you how to explain your view so it might be helpful to the community. If he said you were just a 12 year old whiner, then that would be an attack. Instead he took it upon himself (I suspect several of us had all thought about doing it) to teach you the difference between criticism verses constructive criticism. Until you and a few others learn this, your opinions will not be taken seriously and you won’t be helping the community.

You have problems with the game and you dislike how FFG is running it. Ok we know it. But instead of wasting our time, explain what those problems are and suggest how you would fix them. Read H.B.M.C.'s post again. Learn from it, for it is a very good post.

Ziek

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw 'Dark Heresy 1.5' about a year or two after DW. Basically the same game, but with some changes to bring it in line with RT and DW (such as the psychic system) and some tweaks to some of the careers and rules. Some of the options that were introduced in the IH might be incorporated into the core, such as some of the alternate ranks. There might be some new material, such as new careers. And you never know, they might add vehicle rules to the core, instead of a PDF.

macd21 said:

or a finance system equal to the other settings