Cifer said:

No, you're not describing the situation right. The traditional approach remains the most sensical: publish a core rulebook, follow that up with sourcebooks that highlight different classes and creature sourcebooks for that system. FFG (GW?) has made out of sth that might as well have been a supplement (Deathwatch, Rogue Trader) a core rulebook and the only real justification I see for that is a business decision: to be able to include all the skills, talent, basic descriptions of rpging and the setting anew in order to justify the price for a core rulebook.

Instead of 3 seperate core rulebooks, they could have simply published a 40K Roleplay game and added Deathwatch as a seperate campaign branch via sourcebooks. They could have then published a Creatures Anathema I and II with creatures for the general setting.

But maybe I'm too old-fashioned and I'm overlooking sth here.

Alex

As has been stated numerous times, the reason they didn't do what you suggest is so that people who want to play Deathwatch don't have to buy Dark Heresy. It's so people don't have to spend as much money to play the game they want. The fact that you want to own all of them does not make FFG greedy.

ak-73 said:

They could have, and from a purely game mechanics standpoint it might've been easier... but it isn't just a matter of mechanics.

But each game has a distinct tone and a distinct focus, that draws from a variety of elements both background and mechanical, and because the 40k universe is huge, with a considerable number of differing interpretations and ways it can be depicted. A single book couldn't sufficiently cover all of it in one go, not in enough detail to be useful (at which point, everyone and their dog would be whining about how it contains no useful information), and would need to cover an extremely broad setting in very little detail due to constraints of space and focus. Instead, we have three games of narrower focus, each dealing with a distinct aspect of the setting in more detail than could be achieved in a generic book attempting to cover everything.

I've run all three games; the sum of Rogue Trader's parts produces something different to Dark Heresy, in spite of the same fundamental mechanics. So does Deathwatch.

I remember when Rogue Trader was released; there were comments on this forum to the tune of "finally, a 40kRP game as it should be", from people who didn't like the approach taken in Dark Heresy. It wasn't really a matter of rules, but of setting focus and tone...

On top of all that, there is cost. Generic + Supplements isn't, IMO, a better option. If you want only a particular side to the game (say, Deathwatch) and only the core material, then that's two books - one for the rules, and one for the specifics of the setting... and given that this hypothetical rulebook isn't likely to be of a different size to the ones we have now (meaning fewer careers overall, a smaller armoury, and less setting material), that's already an increase in cost. Only when it comes to people buying everything does it work out cheaper (and not by much), and I'm not convinced that we (because I will buy everything from all three ranges) are a particularly large group, though we may well be amongst the most visible and vocal on the forums.

They're distinct games. They're written as distinct games, and the supplements are designed with this in mind, because some people will prefer Space Marines to Inquisitorial Acolytes, and some people don't really like the concept of Rogue Traders and their crew as a group concept (the number of people who've come to the Rogue Trader forums going "why am I doing these things; surely I've got enough money and it's better just to delegate everything from somewhere safe" demonstrates this), some who think that Ascension is what Dark Heresy should've been all along, and some who haven't taken to the idea of playing Inquisitors and the like, and some people who don't think that roleplaying Space Marines sounds particularly enthralling and would rather play as ludicrously wealthy privateers or duty-bound investigators. A single 40kRP rulebook and a pile of indiscriminate supplements couldn't, IMO, effectively be everything to everyone. The rulebooks and distinct product lines as they are now can't be everything to everyone either, but in my estimation, they're significantly closer.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I'm unconvinced the different tone could not have been better given in sourcebooks based around one core rulebook, so rule repetition is cut down and there is less confusion about porting a SM into a RT campaign, or an IG campaign, or a Inquisition campaign, or whatever.

However, to be fair to FFG they are simply following GW's policy, not that it's a good one to follow mind you.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Which could be very well covered by a sourcebook. Many sourcebooks for many systems have proven such to be the case. GURPS has built a lasting business model on that.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I don't buy that given the amount of repetition in RT compared to DH. Cut out all the DH-specific stuff out of the DH core rulebook. You'll have a basic rulebook you can sell for, say, 40 dollars instead of 60. Put the DH-specific stuff into a sourcebook and sell that for 25 to 30.

Yep a small increase for those who buy both. Next you put out a RT specific sourcebook for another 25 to 30. It already has amortized for those who want to run both kind of games. And with every other campaign, it will have amortized further.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

I have played GURPS Cyberpunk, GURPS Babylon 5, GURPS Fantasy. They were pretty much distinct. What does have distinction to do with it?

N0-1_H3r3 said:

So why couldn't FFG sell a thinner generic 40K Roleplay core rulebook at reduced cost?

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Objection. Marketing speech. There is nothing in the RT rules that necessitates the game being published as a corebook as opposed to a supplement.

Another dilemma: say Ross Watson next really wants to publish a campaign about playing Eldar adventurers or Ork Warriors or (ab)human (non-RT) adventurers. They'll have to do it as a fourth game with its distinct rules. FFG has decreased modularity and the result is that 40K Roleplay for now is "stuck" on the three kinds of campaigns given.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

All of that choice and more would have been available if the stuff had been published as sourcebooks. It would have amortized for those people who want more than one type of campaign and it would not have favoured those who only wanted to run one type of campaign. These gamers are traditionally a minority unless a game sucks.

Are you trying to tell me that FFG doesn't believe in their products and that's why they have been selling DH, RT and DW as distinct games? Because I wouldn't buy that for a second. I won't buy for a second either that they did it out of concern for gamers. They did it for business reasons and every other explanation seems to be bogus. Marketing speech.

And that's okay because the strategy seems to work with people buying the "distinct games" nonetheless. But you'll have to live with me calling it for what it is: trying to make more profit. That's not a shame in modern society. But it will have to be called for what it is.

Alex

Adam France said:

Splitting a core book in two parts (generic mechanics and setting-specific stuff) makes sense if you expect most of your customers to go buy at least two of the game lines. It's nice for a fan of many parts of the 40k universe, but much less so for someone who cares only for a particular aspect and has to buy two books (which will be more expensive than one, especially in hardcover).

It would have been a valid choice, but it's one that BI didn't take. And remember: If FFG hadn't taken over the line, there would never have been RT or DW. We don't know how long the shutting down of BI was planned beforehand.

FFG is a company, the goal of a company is to make money, yes they do invite you to buy the other 2 system of you want a complete feel of the vehicles, starship and other big things.

You are not forced but it's akin to buying all the different supplement from other games.

The last part of the review is completely dumb IMO. Male vs Female thing is not to a reviewers choice but a customer's.

All in all a pretty lame typically biased review. The guy could not point out a single defect to the book which IMO means a bad review since nothign is perfect.

ak-73 said:

You can infer whatever you want from the situation. I've stated my opinion regarding it, and quite frankly have no time to argue about it beyond that statement of opinion.

FFG carried on the plan laid down by Black Industries. They've done very well with it. Yes, it could have been done another way, or any number of other ways... but the current method is one that is demonstrably working, and I'd rather not see that hurled aside now in favour of something rendered generic by attempting to be all-inclusive, nor do I find it worthwhile to hypothesise on what it might've or could've been like if a route had been taken from the start more akin to the method used by White Wolf for thier new World of Darkness books (generic core rulebook, rulebook-sized specific setting books; an approach I didn't like when White Wolf started doing it, though that's at least partially because I've got no fondness for anything White Wolf produce). If I wanted generic, I'd play GURPS.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Fair enough. Allow me to state though that it might be wiser to openly state that it has been a business decision rather than because of the customers. The latter isn't very believable.

And why shouldn't a business openly admit that it acts in its own interest first of all?

Anyway, I am carrying along because I hope a good deal of the money stays in the company as a war cache. If it helps 40K Roleplay attain some longevity I don't mind the extra euro.

Alex

H.B.M.C. said:

Why do you assume people would need to buy a sourcebook to run an Inquisition based campaign? Information on the Inquisition would be handy sure, but it's freely available online. A future sourcebook on the Inquisition would be a nice thing, but a fully rounded ruleset would allow people to start rolling straight away.

The 40K RPG corebook could have been released as a DH-rulebook thick set of rules that enabled GMs and players to play a broad range of games in the 40K setting, with later sourcebooks that provide added information on setting, more detailed suggestions on types of campaign, Imperial organisations, alien races, equipment, ships, etc etc.

Look, DH doesn't even really let you play just any Inquisition based game, it won't even allow you to run a campaign that replicates the style and content of Abentt's inquisition novels. It straightjackets you into playing games where the pcs are weaker than asthmatic ants carrying heavy shopping. Likewise DW (we're told) doesn't really allow you to choose what kind of SM campaign you want to use it for - you're playing DW marines. Full stop. In both cases the rules can be back-engineered I'd imagine - but you're paddling against the flow already simply by doing that.

The three game structure is a terrible idea imho, it is not only not good value for money (I don't care what you say - I've paid for duplicated material - I don't think that's bang for buck), more damning it actively limits and constricts how the 40K setting is used, rather than opening it up to be used how the GM likes.

I know this is an excercise now in futility, as it's a done deal, but don't try to tell me a single dedicated core rulebook would not have sold every bit as well as DH did/does. That I don't believe for a nano-second.

I liked the review, but that was because it gave me some details about the rules I will be buying anyway. Not sure how much it helps a person that is unaware of the 40k universe, nor why that person is stumbling upon a Deathwatch review without some prior knowledge.

As to the more recent discussion in this thread, I prefer the publication of the three different books. For me, it is very frustrating to purchase a fully priced generic rule set, really take to one aspect of it and then have to wait until they actually publish the materials to fully support it.

Adam France said:

The three game structure is fine, because not everyone wants to play all three games. If they just want to play Rogue Trader, Dark Heresy or Deathwatch, they buy that book, and have all that they need.

BYE

H.B.M.C. said:

I would find it odd if for Shadowrun a book about running as corporate agents or Lone Star cops was published as a stand-alone and not as a campaign book supplement.

Or consider Paranoia's Blues HIL Sector. Or Cthulhu's Delta Green. Or what if for Sengoku a core rulebook for playing Ninjas had been published?

But the best question actually is: why is there only one WFRP rulebook? Why does a different logic apply for 40K?

It's a business decision and it's okay. One should stand openly to such decisions.

Alex

One thing that springs to mind is the seemingly erroneous suggestion that if you took the few specific rules out of the 40k RPG system that you would in some way be left with a "generic" system. The 40k RPG system is far from generic, at least as I would apply the term. After all, how many rules actually changed between the games? How many of them are actually applicable to say, hard sci-fi as they are pulp fantasy, or are they all geared towards 40k?

That BI, and perhaps FFG, could have gone down a separate route is obvious, just as is the fact that they didn't go down this route. Would one have been more successful than the other? We'll never know, though I imagine that they did their market research and this indicated that single rulebooks were better sellers (or maximised their profit), either of which is perfectly fine.

On the other hand, as I looked through Deathwatch and Rogue Trader—skimmed, really—I could help but look at all the replicated information. Character generation (variations between the two, admittedly), skills, traits, rules, armoury, psyker systems (minor variations between the two), etc. The only really different bits were campaign advice (invaluable) and background (invaluable), or about 112(ish) pages of information in Dark Heresy anyway. Oh yes, and the Careers. I always forget about them.

Anyway, I look at the $60 price tag (caveat: you can get it cheaper from Amazon and other sources) and cannot help but wonder if my money could be better spent elsewhere. (Of course, if I want to buy them, obviously not.) That's $180, when optimistically I'm paying $60 for the first game, and then an additional $120 for what is to me $40-60 of additional information. Sure, I'm a punter which means that I have no real appreciation for the cost of producing these books, and dividing up the cost linearly like that is somewhat misleading (costs of development>>cost of production). On the other hand, as a punter, that's how I (and I presume at least some others) tend to see it, though, especially with these high price tag items. (On the other hand, cost:page estimations of "worth" are not something that I tend to think about as unit price decreases unless you're in silly territory of $1/page.)

The whole idea that three separate books with repeating information somehow serves the punter better also strikes me as a bit of a red herring, at least from a punter's perspective of "worth" again. Release Dark Heresy as a "core" with a "setting book" in a single package. Okay, non-punter perspective there's the problem of the set up cost of two separate books now, but you're going to defray that with the other games. Each game is relased with the same "core," a separate "setting" book, so you've got the "distinct games." It's just that you've got the option of breaking the plastic wrap and handing someone a copy of the setting book since they've already bought a "core" with RT... or DH... or DW. Maybe for a 30-50% of a "bound" set. You also get spare "cores" out there for people that want to buy it for themselves. So you now have the option.

You could even have a 40k RPG: CE with core and all three settings in one, plus additional guidelines on the "best way" (read: the developers advice) for integrating them.

Again, though, that's not the way they did things and bully for them. That they might have (probably did) the market research to show that the average consumer was more inclined to buy a single, full-colour hardback that had "everything" they needed to play the game is probably a given. I just think that it's a bit hard to suggest that having a "core" is producing a "generic game," nor that alternatives would have necessarily annoyed or otherwise put off punters.

Of course this is just my punters perspective as viewed through my own purchasing preferences. YMWLV and that's a good thing. Ah well, though. Not a lot of discussion to be had for something that is done-and-dusted.

Kage

Adam France said:

Nothing stopping you from starting your acolytes at Rank 4 or 6, where they're much more competent (and I disagree about starting Rank 1 acolytes being completely incompetent). And nothing stopping you from calling the players full-ranked inquisitors and interrigators either, you don't NEED Ascension. I've got a friend who played in a game where everyone started at Rank 5, and the groups Adept (with a few elite advances to make him a better combatant) was labeled the group's Inquisitor, and the rest of the party was his retinue.

And I don't see how DW stops you from playing an all [specific Astartes Chapter] game. You just just leave out the Deathwatch training ability and advancement tables, and have everyone use the same chapter as part of their origin.

@Kage

On the other hand, as I looked through Deathwatch and Rogue Trader—skimmed, really—I could help but look at all the replicated information. Character generation (variations between the two, admittedly), skills, traits, rules, armoury, psyker systems (minor variations between the two), etc. The only really different bits were campaign advice (invaluable) and background (invaluable), or about 112(ish) pages of information in Dark Heresy anyway. Oh yes, and the Careers. I always forget about them.

I'm not sure whether that skimming has been thorough enough, then, though I can only compare RT to DH right now. Apart from attribute allocation (which has different bonuses and different home worlds), character generation is entirely different. Skills and Traits I'll grant, though there's been a few new ones there as well - but perhaps the more generic ones could have been "extradited" to a generic book. The armoury has large differences as well, with RT focusing on the high end gear and DH giving a more roundabout version - you'd save half the chapter at most. The psyker systems are entirely different between DH and RT. Finally, there's the rules chapter, which, yes, could be put into a generic core book.
So right now, by a quick calculation using the DH core as a basis, it looks more like the generic rulebook would have somewhere around 100 pages in it, and that's when you're already putting in GMing stuff as well.

@ak

I would find it odd if for Shadowrun a book about running as corporate agents or Lone Star cops was published as a stand-alone and not as a campaign book supplement.

What if the publisher intended to make this Lone Star thingy as detailed as the "main" shadowrun campaign setting? You're ignoring that all three game lines have the same depth and amount of publications here. They are not single supplements to be used as one-off settings, they're entire games with a line of sourcebooks designed around each one. Now I don't know about you, but I could imagine there would be quite a few groups who could get behind the idea of playing futuristic cops - why is it better if they have to buy the Shadowrun core rules when they never intend to play with them? Not "why is it equally valid", but "why is it better"?

WFRP never had the same approach for the same reason the Shadowrun analogy falls apart: There was never such an overwhelming focus on any aspect of the game world that it would have been worth designing a second game around it. Theoretically, it would of course have been possible to create a second game which focuses on the dwarves and a third that has the players run Bretonnian knights a la Pendragon, with each kind of game receiving the same amount of source material as the main one did. In that case, I'd have considered it valid to include the core rules in each of these new games.

Cifer said:

I didn't want to get into an "argument" about this, but I think that the above takes minor variations and over-represents them. Most of what you're talking about are variations to the "core" system, the addition of additional lines on some tables, etc. Sure, something like the "History Track" from RT contains something very specific, but that just doesn't go in "core."

Again, though, I really don't want to get into an argument about that since I'm guessing that the truth is somewhere in between. Certainly not the "independent system" that is being suggested.

Cifer said:

That seems to be a somewhat strange point. The Lone Star sourcebook was around 120-odd pages. You bought it as an add-on expansion if you were interested in "playing futuristic cops." All that introducing the core rules would have meant is that you inflate that by the setting-specific information required, all the rules, etc. Thus instead of a 120-odd page book, you're talking about a 400-odd page book that costs just as much as the core and replicates much of the same material. Sure, there's a slightly different focus, maybe even some tweaks to character generation or access to paramilitary weaponry, but ultimately it's a ton of replicated material that a fan of the Shadowrun setting has to buy to play a game around "futuristic cops."

Or you spend $15-20 and get the modular expansion that you're after.

On the other hand, one thing that you do have going for a the single product is investment, i..e how invested in the product range is the individual. The supplement model works on the principle that someone has bought the "core," and then have become subsequently interested enough in the product range to explore other supplements. The "repeated system" model works (or seems to) on the idea that the consumer is only interested in a single line, so they'll buy the core there, maybe some supplements and that's it. When it comes to the 40k line, however, the chances of cross-filtering are commensurately higher (the established fan-base) so the distinct games become... less so.

On the other hand, if it is just futuristic cops that you're after (and not Shadowrun futuristic corporate cops), then perhaps Judge Dredd is more appealing? Or if you're just up for a futuristic cop-flavoured game, then maybe it's good enough as it is for conversion to another system and, well, thank god someone didn't

Cifer said:

What about, "Warhammer: Merchant Wars," or "Warhammer: Witch Hunter," or even "Warhammer: Knightly Orders?" Seems like there is as much justification in separate games there are in the 40k RPG line.

Again, though, I didn't want to get into an argument. As mentioned before, and to borrow from your own terms, it represents an "alternate, equally valid" method of writing/marketing, but that doesn't inherently mean that it is a "better one." Sure, it suits my tastes but that doesn't mean that those tastes reflect a better way of doing something. I just find it personally annoying to have so much repeated content given the "collector" mentality of many 40k fans, but then again I suppose that has dogged GW publications for even longer (GW Interviewer: "Do you know how to copy/paste text in various programs?" Interviewee: "Why, sure." GW Interviewer: "You're hired!").

On the other hand, for separate settings/licensed products? Repeating a core set of rules would make more sense (to me anyway) since the likelihood of someone buying "Warhammer: Merchant Princes" and "GURPS Sonic the Hedgehog" might not be as high. Someone buying "Warhammer: Merchant Princes" and wanting to spice it up with an epic war between countries? Well, the chances that they might not want to homebrew everything and buy "Warhammer: Knightly Orders" might increase somewhat. (After all, not writing itself yourself is a common justification why you might explore a certain supplement/system...)

Ah well, it's all good for someone.

Kage

One of these days people are going to realise that:

"I don't like the current way they are doing it, I'd prefer it this way" and "I don't like the current way they are doing it, therefore the current system is a failure" are two different things.

FFG's method of presenting the three 40K RPG's isn't a "failure", or a "waste" of money, or anything else that anyone has said here. It's just their chosen way of doing it, as they treat them like three separate games. Some people have argued for a 'module' approach, where there is a core set of basic rules, and then you'd have a different book that's specific for each type (so a Deathwatch book with Deathwatch Careers/Campaigns, a Rogue Trader book, and so on) and there's nothing inherently wrong with that idea. Both ideas on how to present the 40K RPGs are valid, but FFG have gone the 'they are different games' route rather than 'three styles of the same game' approach.

This means that there will be repetition but only if you're playing all three games. If someone only plays Rogue Trader, and has Into the Storm, the repetition of vehicle rules in Only War and Rites of Battle won't matter to them.

Others have commented that it's not worth the money just to get reprinted Skills/Talents/GM's Section/Basic rules all over again. This is personal preference though, not an inherent "failure" or flaw in the system. If I were play Dark Angels, Ultramarines and Blood Angels in 40K I'd find that there is a lot of repetition within their three separate Codices, and the differences are in the details (as is the case with DH/RT/DW). I don't complain about having to buy the Dark Angel book when the Tactical Squad rules in the Ultramarine Codex are the same.

So please folks, take a step back and try to stop confusing personal preference with actual inherent flaws. Also realise that as long as FFG has the mindset of the three 40K RPG's being separate games, this method will continue.

BYE

A couple of things:

Cifer said:

Excuse me but that is marketing speech. If we take the modular approach and the Shadowrun example, if they had published a Lone Star campaign book and it would have been a success with the customers, then they would of course had released further supplementals to sell to the fan base leading to just the same depth in publication that the individual product lines of DH, RT, DW will see.

And this exactly reminds me of the old TSR AD&D product lines, Dragonlance and all. I don't see that doing it that way led to less depth.

I called your words above marketing speech because there is no definable criteria according to which people can clearly decide when a set-up deserves a stand-alone game and when not. Everything can be branded as unique and deserving a game of its own. In fact I made up an idea off my cuffs above: SR cops. The only reliable criteria would be if someone published a campaign for a game and there was a public outcry by gamers who liked the supplemental campaign more than the original one in the rulebook. Then it would be clearly justified. Everything is arbitrary and a business decision.

H.B.M.C. said:

They won't be so stupid and try to change horses in the middle of the stream, agreed. That isn't my point here at all. (As I have said earlier I won't tell anyone else how to tun their business because I wouldn't let anyone tell me how run mine.)

I'd only like to see people stop kidding themselves. Their choice to publish it as individual games was made for business reasons and none other. I hope they won't defend that decision by telling people they did it please their customers because that would be marketing bs. I would like people to realize that they made that decision for FFG. And that this okay in a free market society. I just hope that plenty of that money gets reinvested and/or put aside as reserves, thuis increasing the longevity of 40K roleplay.

I would like to point this out though: what does a DW GM do if he wants to include an Inquisitor? Or what does a DH GM do if he wants to include the DW in an Ordo Xenos campaign? The fracturing of 40K Roleplay into 3 distinct games means also a fracturing of information. Will a DH-only GM buy Mark of the Xenos to get more xenos? Aren't Xenos a topic that is equally relevant to all product lines and shouldn't they be packaged in a supplement that is aimed at suppoprting all 3 of them at once.

Clearly FFG's business strategy is hoping that as many people as possible will like all 3 settings, will buy all 3 of them, and then of course the relevant sourcebooks in each product line. Plus, they are scattering information (about different xenos, for example) right now across different sourcebooks, product lines, campaign books.

Kage2020 said:

Paranoia's HIL Sector Blues.

Alex

H.B.M.C. said:

I concur. Having a 'core rule book' + setting specific books will force you to flip through several books at once just to get the game mechanics right for that setting. It's much handier to have the full setting+mechanics in one book, even if that means some shared material between different setting books.

@Kage

On the other hand, one thing that you do have going for a the single product is investment, i..e how invested in the product range is the individual. The supplement model works on the principle that someone has bought the "core," and then have become subsequently interested enough in the product range to explore other supplements. The "repeated system" model works (or seems to) on the idea that the consumer is only interested in a single line, so they'll buy the core there, maybe some supplements and that's it. When it comes to the 40k line, however, the chances of cross-filtering are commensurately higher (the established fan-base) so the distinct games become... less so.

I'm not quite sure about that one. When DH came out, there were a few people going "I want a 40k system only to play Space Marines - no need for this inquisition stuff". Of course, they are likely the more casual gamers and thus not equally represented on these forums.

H.B.M.C. said >>>

One of these days people are going to realise that:

"I don't like the current way they are doing it, I'd prefer it this way" and "I don't like the current way they are doing it, therefore the current system is a failure" are two different things.

And one of these people may read through the posts and see that such had been stated on numerous occasions. Funny, though, I noted that I didn't want to get into an "argubate" but, alas, I find myself drawn into it like some moth to the (soon-to-be-coming) flame. In short, it has been multiply recognised that BI, and FFG after them, have gone down a different route. The specific motivations behind that route is presumably based upon market research by one or other company, but regardless of that FFG have continued it and have their "formula" for publications. It has likewise been noted that, for some, despite this choice the high degree of repetition of information between the books seems wasteful or otherwise frustrating. From a "punters eye-view" the repetition of rules can be seen as "paying for what you've already got," with the relatively minor (arguable; cf. Cifer's post above) variations being poor justifications for new sections. From a developers view, again as noted above, the set up costs for two separate books might be considered too high (even though they'll be defraying across several "lines"), it might not be what the greater majority of the market is telling them, or any number of other reasons.

So, everyone seems to be on the same page, noting that it is buyer preference against marketing strategy (etc.). So let's not straw man that any more, shall we?

H.B.M.C. said >>>

This means that there will be repetition but only if you're playing all three games. If someone only plays Rogue Trader, and has Into the Storm, the repetition of vehicle rules in Only War and Rites of Battle won't matter to them.

You will note that this was also mentioned, but contrasted with the idea that a substantial portion of the punters are going to be invested in the setting and, therefore, are more likely to buy multiple books. This was quite clearly going to happen from the get-go given the well-known phenomenon of "collecting," or the idea that 40k fans have a tendency of buying book that are not necessarily within their direct interest band just for the "lore." I couldn't even be able to guess at the percentage contribution to the sales base that would provide, but I'm guessing that it is not minor. (I am in no way suggesting that they do not find the products worthy and are buying blind, just noting the tendency.)

At this juncture, it is interesting to note one of the (reviewers?) replies to a comment on the review itself:

http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=12683228

With the information spread throughout the product range, for those wanting the "official rules" and not wanting to homebrew everything themselves, there is an increased draw to buy cross-line outside of any established tendency for the punter to do so already because of investment in the setting (and the various games therein). Thus, "...we have rules for the factions..." is tempered by the fact that it is distributed between 7+ rich point-of-sale products.

Again, though, that's just the way things are and for whatever reason. Biased by my own purchase preferences, however, I just don't see the significant traction for the separate systems outside of an arbitrary (and possibly market-wise) decision.

H.B.M.C. said >>>

I don't complain about having to buy the Dark Angel book when the Tactical Squad rules in the Ultramarine Codex are the same.

And the same can be said for multiple editions of the same game, be it RPG or wargame. On the other hand, one has to wonder whether the sentiment would be the same if "WH40k 6e: Blood Angels" included a huge swathe of material that was exactly the same and charged you the rich point-of-sale price as the game itself.

...I must admit that to substantiate the thrust of the argument I checked out the cost of Codex Space Marines, which itself led me on to look at the cost of their other product range. I was quite horrified. One has to wonder whether people are less concerned by the repetition and cost because they have been programmed into it for years by GW...

Hmmn. Argument on slightly shakier ground now, but since it was predicated on purchaser preference in the first place and was merely an observation...? Less so.

H.B.M.C. said >>>

Also realise that as long as FFG has the mindset of the three 40K RPG's being separate games, this method will continue.

And everyone realises this, so there really is no need to "protect" FFG; sabers can be relinquished into the grasp of their scabbards, etc.

Meph said >>>

[snip]

First off, I laughed considerably when I read out loud "Meph said," so in all seriousness thanks for the chortle. On that basis alone you should "win the thread," insofar as any thread can truly be "won."

Meph said >>>

I concur. Having a 'core rule book' + setting specific books will force you to flip through several books at once just to get the game mechanics right for that setting. It's much handier to have the full setting+mechanics in one book, even if that means some shared material between different setting books.

Whereas now you have to do just the same amount of book flipping even within not only one product line, but three. Furthermore, I still find it slightly contentious that a "core" rules wouldn't be able to incorporate the rules of the game that would stop or otherwise moderate "rule flipping." I still think the suggestion of unique information in the allegedly repetitive sections is over-stated.

Meph said >>>

I'm not quite sure about that one. When DH came out, there were a few people going "I want a 40k system only to play Space Marines - no need for this inquisition stuff". Of course, they are likely the more casual gamers and thus not equally represented on these forums.

Now ask yourself how many people bought it anyway and used a fan supplement to play Space Marines? Just whether they were the same people who claimed that this was the "most anticipated game in two decades" because it allowed you to RP in the 40k universe without doing any substantial quantities of work is up for grabs.

Again, though, other than the sheer horror that I am in agreement with ak-73 (is that a blue moon I spy above me?), once again FFG are going to continue with their formula of releases and doing the things that they want to do. I just don't find the argument that "It's a different approach, but not better, but obviously the one they've taken is better/more usable" to be somewhat... strange.

Kage

Kage2020 said:

I suggest you stop that kind of talk.

Alex

H.B.M.C. said:

Their mindset is so clear there is an actual section in each book to allow cross book gaming! How odd.

And you are right, why on earth would I want to use Space marines around Dark Heresy characters, I mean fleshing out a story is so boring. I'll just make sure to never cross over and remove 2/3 of the universe (i.e. Space ship, the super warriors or the Inquisitors don't usually go together you are right.)

How odd that Harlock's module revolves around a Rogue Trader and they even hint maybe one off the Dh char should be part of the Harlock's family probably leading to a Rogue Trader campaign!

Why on earth would they then give the Rogue Traders this other option of having leased part of their ship to a space marine chapter or something like that... I wounder how many of us have tough how nice there could be a nice little DW dettachement in there!