Brother Praetus said:

That's what I'm thinking. I mean, why would the map contain dozens and dozens of extra planets (that we could make up just as easily as they could put them on the map) that are not strategically viable for the Crusade forces? Just having the map contain those important planets that are the objectives of the Crusade, as well as those planets that have Watchstations on, makes perfect sense to me, otherwise it'd end up being way too cluttered to make much sense of anything.

Adam France said:

Did I ever state, or even imply that?

I didn't intend for you to get that impression. "Not showing all the planets" does not inherently mean "it should show the same number of worlds as the Calixis Sector"... and we know the Calixis Sector map isn't showing everything (the Rogue Trader rulebook has a sidebar about Rogue Traders exploring the dark, unexplored corners of the Calixis Sector).

More than that, the number of inhabited/inhabitable, strategically significant worlds in a region is, as many have stated, dependant on the total number of worlds in a region. Ancient the Jericho Sector may have been... but nobody ever claimed that it was densely populated with worlds. We don't know whether or not it's supposed to be, but assuming that it should be strikes me more as looking for excuses to complain rather than anything else.

Complain all you want, but I'd prefer it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth while complaining...

More than that, the number of inhabited/inhabitable, strategically significant worlds in a region is, as many have stated, dependant on the total number of worlds in a region. Ancient the Jericho Sector may have been... but nobody ever claimed that it was densely populated with worlds. We don't know whether or not it's supposed to be, but assuming that it should be strikes me more as looking for excuses to complain rather than anything else.

Even if it was densely populated once, the Imperium's habit of having worlds rely on each other for basic necessities will have killed a great number of them when the sector's private dark age set in. Hive and Forge worlds without food and raw materials, agriworlds without a supply of technology and defense forces... the luckier worlds will have devolved to feudal status, the unluckier ones probably had shredded their environment too much for even basic farming for planetary subsistence to be an option.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Okay. Let's see if we can try to nail down some specifics.

You may not have implied or stated that there aren't as many as the Calixis Sector, you did imply or state there are many more worlds than shown. Now as we agree there are also worlds not shown on the Calixis Sector map, it seems not a huge jump, more a small step, to assume that the ratio of shown to unshown worlds is the same (or more or less the same) for both maps. Do you agree (broadly speaking) with this statement?

If so, then we have an ancient sector, that has had plenty of time to expand and settle worlds, that is (more or less / broadly speaking) half the size of the not particularly big (by previous canonical standards) Calixis Sector.

Hence my original point. Which really wasn't that contentious, or infamatory. 'Not many planets on the map for a sector.'

MILLANDSON said:

Why have the map at all? I could (and have) made my own sector maps before. Why map anything? Why publish any books?

I can, if I have to, do all the work myself. I'd rather pay someone else too.

We're only talking about planets having names (and a broad 'type') here. It makes sense to do at least that to give GMs and players a broad sense of how big (numerically speaking) an area the crusade is raging across. Surely? A world might not be considered strategically important, but might become so. If we don't know those worlds even exist, that ain't gonna happen.

Not to give any idea (hence even people here who like having no firm data are in disagreement - some say the map is broadly representative of a tiny sector, others that it's a normal sized sector, but only the more important systems are shown), is only going to confuse matters. I can only assume the ratio of shown to unshown is roughly equivalent to what we've seen before, and that means this is a very small sector ... back to my original point.

Brother Praetus said:

No, I've noticed that. I accept even the 150+ worlds on the Calixis map aren't all the worlds in the Calixis Sector too.

That both maps have unshown worlds is accepted by all parties.

Cifer said:

Sure, I accept that. However there still seems a bit too few worlds shown. I think aiming for a similar number to Calixis (at least) shown would have been preferable (and let's face it ... wouldn't have been hard to do), especially bearing in mind the idea of having 3 seperate salients going across this sector. The map doesn't really suggest a big enough region to justify three entirely seperate salients.

Check out the map and canon on the Sabbat Worlds Crusade, that's way bigger than this number of systems wise. Now, yes, before anyone tries to leap on that. Of course, there are naturally smaller crusades on the go across the Imperium, and this could be one of the small ones. (Jeesh I wish I didn't have to preface posts like this!) However, wouldn't it be better for this to be a reasonably big crusade? I thought that was the point of having the three salients. That it was so large, that there are three diverse and seperate fronts on the go. I'm not sure I buy that for the scale of sector shown (just by this map).

Adam France said:

Right, but while the area of an Imperial sector has been defined in sources (a cube of space roughly 200ly to each side) stellar density will differ in each region of the galaxy. And even if you have a sector with hundreds of stars, not every star is going to have habitable worlds, or even any worlds for that matter. There are going to be significant differences within each sector in that regard, otherwise you wind up with things feeling more artificial and fabricated then organic.

But, maybe that's just how I'm seeing it.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Or maybe this is an in-universe map rather then the map of every rock that exists.

Seeing as this is a Crusade into a part of the galaxy that hasn't been in the Imperium for a long time and the Imperium's map there sucks.

It's hilarious to watch when you're not involved in the "discussion," as much as it ever is, and I do not intend to become so mired but... Perhaps this can be taken as little more than an indication that alternate methods of than "the smarties/M&M's and apply a pretty background and border" might be considered for future publications? As it stands, while pretty it...

Meh, anything that I say will just be shot down. Guess if I were in charge of the cartography I would be asking just what people were trying to achieve with the map that couldn't be achieved in a simple list. It's empty enough that it could almost be turned into a "Here be Dragons!" a bit of DaVinci-esque scroll-work, some geometry and, well, you've got a pretty map that is all medieval (and thus thematically appropriate). On the other hand, if you wanted it to be a bit more informative and "science-y," then it's not hard to do that on a 2d map (even more if you create a 3d interactive one).

Number of worlds? Don't care. The number of systems in a "standard" Imperial sector can be phenomenal. Even with fairly low stellar density you can end up with thousands, even tens of thousands, of systems. Indeed:

Douglas Adams in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy wrote >>>

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

The Anargo Sector Project, which admittedly abortively and in its third attempt to drag itself back into production, aimed to produce an "average" Imperial sector. I think at the last count it had close to 100 "mainworlds" within systems that were themselves populated in some regard (mining, research, whatever). That's about one inhabited system per 215 non-inhabited or otherwise non-detailed world. Hell, even the "detailed" worlds were viewed as the "base minimum information" to which we wanted to (intend to?) create a site with organic groups that are geared towards expanding the information on the worlds as different people/GMs use it.

Anyway, I digress. As much as anyone really cares, I guess this means that I'm saying that notionally I agree with those that are saying that it's not really possible to detail every world:

Norman MacCaig in Celtic Cross wrote >>>

Only men’s minds could ever have unmapped
Into abstraction such a territory.

The job, therefore, would seem to produce evocative worlds that inspire people to their own creations.

Again, that seems to be a case of arguing against Adam France. On the other hand, purely from the map itself—perhaps dosed with a certain amount of cynicism—the imagery is not particularly inspirational and that, perhaps, identifying alternate methods might be applicable for the company. Noise maps, Photoshop, gradient maps on arrows on a bit of colour might not really work, or might not communicate the depth of the created game? Perhaps alternatives could be found? Maybe even the "shallow" 2d map is only the tip of an iceberg for a "living sector" that is maintained online and is the focus of the materials contributed by fans and authors alike? Not the rather uninspired one on the 'oel Black Library site, but something that is more... Something that the Anargo Sector Project was meant to be a start at but never really got around to achieving at the time.

Perhaps all this does is identify that there is a desire for more. It's not laziness, or a desire to have everyone else do "your" work for you (as a GM/player). It's not that you're a bad roleplayer or gamesmaster because you want more. You're just a selfish customers that wants more for less and, further, you want it right now not later. It's the modern world of downloads, previews, online community and conflict, and all at the click of a mouse button (or tap of a finger, pen, or whatever).

With all that said? Take it how you will. I'm fairly sure I know how the replies are going to go, but I continue to remain hopeful...

Kage

Adam France said:

I'd not said you complain about the lack of content, but you must admit, your name has become a bit of a byword for a whiner on the forums, look at the amount of times people have said "Adam, shut up about the game all you do is complain", heck they even said it in the first few posts of this thread before you'd even posted, and thats happened a few times (some one mentions you and like a bad episode of buffy where the kids invoke a daemon you appear).

if you'd like proof off that then look at the last few threads you've posted to, where you post, some one then invariably says "shut up stop complaining abut a game thats not yet been released".

As for retraction? well as i've not made a personal attack, only said (as so many others have) "shut up complaining about a game thats not yet been released" there will be no such as requested.

As for the edit ,crying "troll" is apparently a sign as well when you're being persecuted to shift the focus from your initial response.

Adam France said:

Would you fight an epic campaign just to liberate Dreah, the planet of dullness? Only strategically/tactically/historically significant planets are marked on that map.

If so, then we have an ancient sector, that has had plenty of time to expand and settle worlds, that is (more or less / broadly speaking) half the size of the not particularly big (by previous canonical standards) Calixis Sector.

Idaan said:

Actually, we've never seen the whole Scarus sector - the maps in the Ravenor novels only depict "four subsectors of the Scarus Sector", and that map doesn't depict Vraks or the Kerak subsector that surrounds it.

I rather like the new map. It's clear that there are going to be three "themed" salients/fronts within the wider crusade , one front against the Tyranids, one against Chaotic forces and one against the Tau. Plenty of opportunity for conflict, then, without the sort of slightly confused reasoning that created the "Fall of Medusa" campaign for the TT game. All of this conflict makes perfect sense within the context of the Eastern Fringe.

And it means, of course, that all the players who've been complaining about an absense of Tau will at last get what they want, too.

Personally I'm intrigued to see how FFG will handle the behind-the scenes machinations of a huge Imperial Crusade: the higher-level command intrigues seem to me to be ripe for an Ascension-level DH/RT/DW mixed campaign...

Lightbringer said:

That says you like he setup, not necessarily the map. (You might also like the map, but just pointing this out...)

Kage

Kage2020 said:

True, true. To some extent I agree with Adam that the map itself seems a little sparse compared to the Calixis Sector map, but as numerous people here have pointed out, this need not mean that the Jericho Reach as a setting would be any less rich or interesting.

It seems to me that each of the three setting maps is attempting to achieve a different purpose:

-the Calixis Sector map aims to set out a relatively exhaustive guide to an Imperial Sector;

- the Koronus Expanse map aims to provide a detailed guide to the "Ports" on the edge of the expanse, a few interesting worlds buried deep within, and enough space to let players and GMs fill it with whatever they want;

-and the Jericho Reach map is designed to provide a context-appropriate explanation for a number of different military conflicts in which the players can become involved.

Given that each game has a different style, it seems appropriate that each map should be different in purpose. I'm sure that the Jericho Reach map is probably a bit closer to the Koronus Sector map in purpose in that it has no doubt been designed with quite a lot of "wriggle room" in mind for players and GMs to their own worlds.

However, I should point out that I don't regard Adam as a "moaner" or "whiner" for voicing reservations about this approach. I hope I'm not misrepresenting his concerns, but he always strikes me as having a very clear primary interest in the background and the setting, and if that's what you're into then I can understand why it might be galling to be presented with what appears to be a relatively sparse map. Like Adam, I primarily approach the FFG games from the perspective of someone who loves the setting, and what draws me in most is "fluff," especially innovative and interesting new fluff.

Personally, though, I'm not worried about FFG's approach, because I trust them to produce a genuinely innovative approach to the underlying military concept. At the risk of gushing in an irritatingly Pollyanna-ish fashion, I think that both the Jericho Reach concept/structure/setup and the actual map look promising, and I'm excited to see what the final game will look like!

Wonderful reply and... Well, fair enough.

To ensure that my commentary is clear, I was talking less about the intent of the map in terms of the structure of the game setting and more about the production values that went into the map. Further, I was advocating a return to the "living sector" premise, just done slightly better than it was before. I think that this would be a valuable resource to the burgeoning community of 40k RPG'ers and the kind of thing that Adam France might appreciate. Or not. I wouldn't want to speak for him.

Also, before anyone lays into me for not being suitably impressed by the map, I would reiterate that I do not consider the sparsity of worlds to be a terribly significant issue. Again, it's just a "meh" moment for the map itself, not the campaign setting.

As to the quality (or quantity) of the setting? I'll wait until I get a hold of the Deathwatch book before commenting on that.

Kage

Cifer said:

On a completely different note, has anyone noticed the "Hadex anomaly" in the middle?

I found that a nice touch, as it's also on the 5th edition rulebook's galaxy map, which goes into a bit more detail. A nice touch, and tells us where the Jericho systems are on a galactic scale...

Thoughts?

Ugolino said:

Ah, nice catch. Here I was thinking it was nothing more than a small warp anomaly. Evidently it's something else entirely. Intriguing...

This would probably be on a sector per sector basis too.

Some more developed sectors will have a much more interlaced economy where frontier sectors will have much more self reliable planets.

Alto I still believe it is important to say, as he said that agriworld feed forgeworld and mining the raw resources for the forgeworld is critical. The few forgeworld of this sector must be kept running at all cost if the reclamation is to go underway.

The millions of Imperial Guard will need food, weapons and tanks to conquer back the expense.

Also Deathwatch marine use equipement produced by those forgeworlds if the tide of reousrces should stop the cogs of the Imperium would stop.

You know, on reviewing my earlier comments about the new map, I think I'm actually being unfair in describing the map as "sparse." On a swift count, its got around 93 worlds in it, which would place it (in my view) within the acceptable range for a small(ish) Imperial Sector. I think that viewing it on my iphone gave me a misleading impression! And of course this still leaves room for uncharted worlds lost to the knowledge of the Imperium during the long dark age of the region.

It has also got a lot of interesting detail in it, which gives hints about the progress of the Imperial Crusade. The Imperial forces are clearly emerging from within the warp gate, and have fortified their position using a number of "fortress worlds" that abut the warp gate region. There are a very large number of Deathwatch fortresses in and around the central region, south of the Hadex anomaly: I would speculate that these predate the crusade based upon the progress of the crusade forces as marked by the broad arrows. Which begs the question "what have the Deathwatch been watching over in this region?"

The Hadex anomaly is also interesting as it's ringed by fortress worlds. But whose? If one assumes that the Hadex anomaly is a chaos vortex (a big assumption on my part) then these fortress worlds are either Imperial worlds like Cadia, or they are Chaos-held fortress worlds like Balhaut in the Sabbat Worlds crusade that need to be cracked open during the Crusade. I suspect the latter, as the "progress arrows" of the crusade haven't reached them yet.

There are suprisingly few "war worlds" for a crusade setting, something I can't really account for...

The Tau are encroaching from the Black Reef region in the South of the Map, and appear to control four worlds. There is also a hint that they have a substantial fleet in the region. The limited encroachment of the Tau ties in with what we understand about their space travel methods: they lack Navigators and as such are unable to leap vast distances between regions. The Tau also appear to be embroiled in conflict with Tyranids on the world of Zurcon and may also be embroiled in conflict with the Imperium in the Greyhell Front region, though the lack of war worlds within the Greyhell front is a perplexing anomaly.

Speaking of Tyranids, they are widespread throughout the region, particularly North of the Slinnar Drift Star Cluster. They appear to be emerging from a single Hive fleet, described as "Dagon." 20+ of the 93-odd worlds in the region appear infested and/or in conflict with with Tyranids, making them one of the major threats in the region. The widespread nature of the threat suggests that they are highly mobile in the region, probably even more mobile than the Tau. The fact that they are so widespread, even cutting into "behind the lines" planets in Imperial controlled space like the Hive World Castobel suggests that perhaps there are a very large number of Genestealer cults operating within the region.

The progress of the crusade is also interesting: progressing along three broad fronts, two of the fronts appear to be progressing well (the Orpheus and Canis Salients) while the third (the Acheros Salient) does not appear to have progressed so far. The Acheros salient is pushing towards the Hadex anomaly and may have stalled against the edge of the fortress worlds that appear to ring it.

In fact, the entire approach of the Imperial Crusade suggests an encircling advance, with the three salients intending to regroup in a region south of the Hadex Anomaly, in the midst of the region dotted with Deathwatch fortresses. Whcih again begs the questions: "what's going on in this region? Are the Deathwatch watching over something? Is the whole crusade a front to ensure that whatever is in this region is not disturbed?"

All this fervid speculation from just one map...so it's really not "sparse" at all!

Intresting but quiete disturbing information on Hadex Anomaly from WH40k 5th Edition Rulebook: "Imperial Savants speculate that Hadex is sentient."

Lightbringer said:

Forget the claims of sparsity and wonder at the artwork that your average gamer geek can Photoshop/GIMP together in an hour or less.

As to the Hadrex thing: Care to enlighten people who don't have the money to waste on wargame books?

Kage

Kage2020 said:

Me neither, my friend who is knee-deep in ichor of his Tyranid army borrowed, me the rulebook after it came ut for fluff study.

IIRC Hadex was only mentioned in small text on the galactic map. It was located on galactic south-wast of Ultima Segmentum in the proximity of Grendl Stars (inhabited by hyper-violent xeno race Barghesi, which is protected by Imperium becouse of policy of not allowing Tyranids to get their genetic potential), Tau Empire and Realm of Ultramar (well, it´s a bit further but still quite close on galactic scale). On Hadex itself, it was written that it is most probably rift in space similar to the Eye and Maelstrom, but that it is suspected to sentient somehow. No further informations were given.

Hope that helps a bit.