One thing I have had a major problem with is the randomness that advesaries are added to supplements. For example if I want to creat a credible Eldar army I need to consult Creatures Anathema, Disciples of the Dark Gods, Purge the Unclean, Rogue Trader ect.. Can we just get a book of all the Xenos threats in one supplement, the Malleus in another and Heretics in a third? Im fine adding a few extra in the campaign books but I sometimes think the people that are publishing this stuff are not actually playing the game.

Nimon said:

Its marketin strategy and it works. The only reason I buy Deathwatch stuff is for stats to use in Dark Heresy. Rogue Trader stuff I buy for the critters and locations.

Its one of the few things that are really easily exported from one game to the other, other then the Psy systems being different.

I would expect to see books such as you suggested toward the end of FFgs licensing period. Similar to the Career Compedium they published as WFRP 2Es last gasp of breath.

You will probably see a bunch of quick releases at that point as well as they try to get the last profits off the license.

I would expect that in the next 5 years or so. Depending on if GW decides to take it back in house when the current deal expires.

Peacekeeper_b said:

That would be unfortunate as GW would most likely mishandle the game

andrewm9 said:

Considering the best bookis so far, IMHO, were released under the BI banner, Id have to disagree.

Peacekeeper_b said:

Yeah... thanks for that. It's nice to feel appreciated...

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Sorry N0-1_H3r3. Wasnt meant to be a personal attack or a statement of unsatisfactory skill or writing, but from an official rules point of view. Character careers, talents, weapons (and weapons damages), extended basic rules (Solo/Squad modes, endeavor points, profit factor).

And the books Disciples of the Dark Gods and The Inquisitor's Handbook are still the standard that I rate new productions by. While I enjoy parts of each new release (mainly the fluff, sometimes new rules) Rogue Trader Core, Ascension, Death Watch Core have been a bit disappointing. Into the Storm and Edge of the Abyss are definately the best of the FFG crop of books.

And a statement as Imade above isnt just (or even a) an insult targeting writers. It includes editors, designers, artists and so forth.

From they parts of the book Edge of the Abyss that I have read (a good chunk) the only issue I have is with some shoddy artwork and lack of some stats. Would have loved to seen some more ork entires instead of just the big bad of Undred Undred Teef. Sure we have ORK PC rules to use to make some orks, and we can loot Creature's Anathema. But after reading the ork section I wanted me some orks!

Same goes of the Rok'Gal (hats off to whoever created them) would have loved some Aberration stats or modifiers (like was given for the broodmaster).

So in short, you all are appreciated. An even envied. But it doesnt change the fact that (IMHO) BI produced/wrote/playtested/commissioned the best 40K RPG books thus far. Though Radicals and Abyss are fighting for a spot on that shelf.

Yeah, I like the Inquisitor's Handbook too. It has turned around Dark Heresy for me with the additional options, etc it gave. But then again the comparison isn't fair. It was much easier because the stuff was all new.

I like the RT core, haven't seen ItS in depth yet. DW has some great moments but falls flat on the role-playing front. And it having been a rush job (and/or a matter of squeezing content into available spaces) it has hurt a bit the image of FFG.

I mean... Alan Merrett makes a point in the foreword how long people have been waiting for this game. And then there are that many errors... com'on. The impression that it leaves is that the book hasn't been done with love, which may not be true. But it's the impression one gets. If Rites of Battle has that many errors and inconsistencies too, I think it will have a negative impact on the product line.

RoB might end up being the make-or-break supplement. I'd rather delay it a bit in order to make sure that it's a homerun.

Alex

Peacekeeper_b said:

I do see what you're saying, and while it might not have seemed that way, my previous post was at least slightly tongue-in-cheek. Personally, I'd have liked to be writing for the 40kRPGs back when Black Industries still existed, and I really enjoyed playtesting those early supplements... but there are still things that I perhaps might've done differently. Of the material currently available, I personally prefer Rogue Trader to the other two games, and am really glad to have been given the opportunity to work on so much of the range - a couple of the books I've worked on that aren't out yet and I'm really looking forward to you guys getting to see them - but I'm still fond of Dark Heresy and excited about the forthcoming releases and hope to see some good things from the Deathwatch range once that gets going.

I do think that you're perhaps a little biased by your preference for Dark Heresy and inclination to use the books from other ranges as sourcebooks; Into the Storm works far better as a resource for Rogue Trader, than as a resource for Dark Heresy, afterall.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Totally agree, I am biased. I just dont get excited by the prospect of running Rogue Trader. For two reasons.

1. I think their careers are even shoddier and less thought out then DH.

2. Im just not real interested in the "concept". I would play in it, I would run it as a side adventure. But not a campaign.

Peacekeeper_b said:

I honestly don't think Rogue Trader works as side adventures or one-shots, at least not as well as it could. Such games tend to be narrowly-focussed, and Rogue Trader would lose the scope for exploration which is a major part of the game's intended theme, while Dark Heresy is, IMO, much more suited to that sort of pick-up-and-play gaming. A campaign is, IMO, required to get the best from Rogue Trader, as it's in the freedom and scope for exploration that it shines.

It is, however, the most work-intensive to run, as any games with a tendancy towards freeform go-anywhere-do-anything are. Dark Heresy and Deathwatch, by comparison, are much more focussed, having the presence of higher authorities to direct and guide the exploits of the group. This makes them easier to run, and easier to see the underlying concept, but I don't personally find them quite as rewarding to run.

I don't think you're alone in not being enthralled by the concept. I think that's because it's not as easy to explain or describe as the concepts for DH or DW - certainly, until they'd played in the one-shot I ran, many of my players weren't sold on the idea of RT either...

As someone that only uses the materials as supplements, I tend to be more swayed to the FFG materials than the original BI ones. Certainly a quick flick through a copy of Inquisitors Handbook and Into the Storm has me reaching more for the latter than the former since it's more "40k" than the tightly-themed Dark Heresy (as someone noted above). Indeed, it's that scope that gravitates me more towards the supplements of Rogue Trader for the information even while I might necessarily find myself similarly attracted to the theme nor the way that it achieves some of its modelling of the 40k universe.

So, thumbs at a positive gradient to FFG for their books, even if you have to have all the books to play "40k."

Kage

Whoa, looks like I started a whole differant conversation. If we are compairing BI to FF I have to say I love Rogue Trader and Deathwatch(with the exception of changing the psychic powers on me I'm sure it made it easier for players to learn but having GMed DH and learning them that way I have had a hard time coming around) I am just really glad you guys picked up the product. The Squad Mode and Solo Mode features are very inovative for an RPG and having been a combat medic in Iraq for 15 months I can attest to it's added realism of a situation.