ak-73 said:

/Agree and asking them to use a spell checker is not unreasonable.

Darq said:

Without derailing this thread completely, let me just say this: none of this is the worst of DW. The worst is that the free scenarios, as well as the mission in the rulebooks as well as the mission in the GM Kit were fairly uninspired combat-heavy stuff. And the core rulebook adds to this.

Yes, page constaints. But more important than the complete SM armoury would have been more pages dedicated to social situations. DW has most in common with Ascension-level DH. In hindsight, the rulebook should have elaborated on Cardinals, Stormtrooper Captains, Lord-Militants, Planetary Governors, Imperial Commanders, Living Saints and Magii (plural of magos?).

But as we all know hindsight is perfect. DW doesn't work well as a roleplaying game (as opposed to a skirmish game, with or without miniatures) without more support for non-combat situations.

That said, I still like DW a lot. I see it as having a lot of potential which hasn't been tapped into yet. As a GM I absolutely love the challenge of trying to make it work as a rpg. It's like seeing a mountain you want to climb just because it doesn't seem easy.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Wasn't that mentioned in the pre-release discussions? If I remember correctly such comments, e.g. things like suggesting that with a minor bit of change the first free adventure could have immediately focused on the social RP, were fairly rapidly shot down by continually affirming that "military game =/= no roleplaying," or something along those lines.

Either way we come back to the idea that something didn't quite work, and in fact hasn't quite worked as it should vis-a-vis the proofreading (a thankless and difficult task at the best of times) from the get-go. So, how would FFG go about "fixing" the "problem?" (Quotation marks because I'm sure that someone is going to say that it doesn't need fixing or that there isn't a problem. )

I know that I suggested it above, but would it be possible for the playtesters (or qualified playtesters) to get pre-release PDF to comb through for these type of errors? They're already under an NDA, are presumably reasonably trusted and competent, and are perhaps subject to less "error blindness" than the paid proofreader might be. Is that something that FFG could or would do?

Kage

I hate this board's quote system:

Alex said: Squad mode abilities?

This is the area that needs the most clarification. It is also a new subsystem, so it probably was going to have trouble no matter how much time they spent on proof reading.

Alex said: Righteous Fury rules?

As far as I can tell, these haven't changed from RT. I personally prefer the re-roll of a single damage die from DH, so that is what I use in my game.

Alex said: Can psy powers be dodged?

Shouldn't this be a power by power question? Does the power fry your mind from the inside? No dodge. Does the power shoot a bolt of energy at you? Yes dodge. That seems like common sense to me, and would not have even thought of the question.

Alex said: Over-powered Bolters?

That was a design decision, so is unlikely to change. I have personally house-ruled them down closer to RT levels, but this isn't an error in the actual book.

Overall, if they get an errata file out within the first 6 months of the game's release, I will be a happy customer. FFG supplies FAQs and Errata for all their games, so I've always been a happy customer when it comes to their board games.

Edit: Since others posted since I started typing. I do agree that the free scenarios have been rather combat-heavy. I'm still waiting to see Emeperor Protects in person, but I have hopes. In general I have always felt it takes an RPG a few years to for really good scenarios to emerge. If White Dwarf (or some other magazine) started running short scenarios for the RPGs again I would subscribe again.

deinol said:

Well, having compiled all the official answers and clarifications from the Rules sub-forum and the FAQ/Errata thread for personal use, around 12 or so pages, single spaced, Font 12, TNR.

Alright guys, now look, I think that FFG took quite a leap with Deathwatch. They pushed the game engine (to borrow video game speak) to its limit and tried a whole bunch of new things to get across that feeling of playing a legendary Space Marine, and for the most part they've succeeded. My own GMing experience has been overall quite enjoyable and my players enjoyed it a lot as well, and remarked on how different it felt from DH or RT. FFG had tried game mechanics that to the best of my knowledge haven't been seen in any other RPG such as squad mode, let alone any other FFG game. It's a massive book, and as I said in my previous post speaking it is impossible to iron out all the content mistakes and all the spelling mistakes, especially if the book has multiple authors, multiple editors, and multiple playtesters, all working on (or from) multiple drafts! It is NOT as simple as running a spellcheck! And consider that FFG had to do it on a tight deadline due to printers (and ain't those guys a peach), shipping (books were printed in China), and the pressure to deliver advanced copies in time for Gencon! I feel the frustration, but cut them some slack! Trust me, publishing business looks easy from the outside, it is anything but on the inside. Same with playtesting, I've also had the same knee-jerk reaction as many people on this board: "I caught the mistake/ambiguous wording/weirdness in the rules in my first session, why didn't the playtesters!" but consider that this isn't a video game where everyone's playtesting the same level - it's an RPG and it's much more free-form and the possible scenarios are nearly limitless, and the rule issues frequently result from the imagination of the players, and I hardly think that anyone can reasonably claim that all players think alike.

I hear you, deinol, about the quote system. On the other hand I broke the quotation system on another site so that it now doesn't work at all, so... Heh.

Razorboy said:

That sounds like quite a lot to me, though one has to wonder whether of how it compares when formatted to Dark Heresy's BBoE (Bumper Book of Errata).

Razorboy said:

FFG certainly did create a game that pays special attention to the legend that surrounds the Space Marines.

Razorboy said:

Not to make any assumption about what software they're using, but one imagines that a modern piece of DTP software includes a spell checker. On the other hand, most of the "mistakes" that people seem to be referring to our referencing issues, rules that might need further clarification, grammatical errors and, all in all, the type of things that aren't going to show up in a spell check.

All that means is that something else is going to have to happen... But there we go.

Kage

Like i said in my previous post, it ultimately comes down to the fact that FFG's customer base has voiced their concern about certain aspects of the products they sell us. As someone who has purchased virtually all DH, RT and DW titles (apart from the the campaign/storybooks as i always craft my own games) i can confidently say i have not noticed an improvement in quantity of spelling mistakes and typos, rules examples that don't tie up with mechanics and badly explained or even entirely glossed over mechanics.

I'd like to once again point out that DH and the first few expansions for it were published by Black Industries originally and those seemed to contain fewer, or at least less noticable errors - if anything i've noticed a rise in issues with later publications.

In response to the comment about not venting on the forums and doing something productive, i have. I've communicated several times with FFG about my concerns over their titles, and also about their international distribution and marketing, not a single correspondance of which has alleviated my doubts about FFG's capability to continue the 40k RPG franchise successfully. I know for a fact that FFG don't bother to moderate or respond on their product specific forums, so i am not trying to get their feedback here. Nor am i trying to rabble-rouse or anything of the sort. This is an open community and this is a discussion about the quality of a product, a product i have spent my hard earnt money on and am not 100% satisfied with, so as a consumer i have a right to voice that opinion.

Trust me, i have my fingers crossed that FFG pull through with their upcoming releases, though mainly for DH as i find that is the more solid game line. Ultimately i think we won't see an end to all the errors and issues untill they pull the plug, do a reset and start on 2nd Edition. Let's just hope it doesn't go the way of WHFRP 3rd eh?

Kasatka said:

I don't know where you attained that "fact" then, since it's wrong. They have been known to respond on these forums, as you'd see if you looked around. They have also banned the most major trolls/flamers in the past (Surrealistik for one), so the "don't bother to moderate" comment is incorrect as well.

Just a little FYI.

Not seen anything in my time on the forums i'm afraid.

Kasatka said:

Its infrequent but occasionally a mod will post on the forums.

Not that that makes the forums any less horrible to use, read or put up with

Kasatka said:

Well, fair enough. The only reason that I suggested this is that it would get your commentary to individuals that not only may want to change things but also can change things. Beyond that it just tends to polarise the groups into "nay sayers" (those who believe that there is a problem that might be fixed) and "yay-sayers" (those that don't believe that there is a problem). "Evidence" such as this or that system has more errors is normally thrown out there, to be contrasted with this or that system has less, then countered with "it has more editions!" and so on and so forth ad nauseum . There is a group between those that acknowledge that proof reading and editing are hard (and thankless) tasks, that there does appear to be perhaps a few too many typographics and errors slipping through, and speculate as to whether there is any possibly way of solving it but... Well, yeah.

Thus my suggestion of taking it to FFG. Of course, with that said, I can definitely understand the desire to "rabble rouse" and get others fired up enough to join you in your emails of concern. It's just on the forums these seem to be taken as either "It's not a problem, FFG are doing fine" or "Oh, it's another whiner." I was just trying to save a little bit of frustration.

With regards to the commentary about FFG's capability to "continue the 40k RPG franchise successfully," I would point out that they have continued the franchise successfully. There are many that will go to great lengths to point out the sales figures of the game, and despite the flaws to said argument (normally in how they are recorded, by whom, and what is being recorded), they do indicate that the game is very "successful" in terms of being one of the top "sellers" for the past 1 or 2 years. In so doing they have acquired a significant and, in some cases, very, very , very loyal fanbase who want the materials and are likely to continue supporting the game to some success for a while to come.

I would also imagine the question would be asked as to whether the products are actually flawed beyond reasonable expectation, or just beyond your own expectation. It's an annoying question, but mostly because it's actually reasonable and thus often becomes the central red herring (or straw man) to the argument.

Anyway, good luck with your correspondence.

/Kage

Kage2020 said:

In my experience they're flawed according to personal expectations, not reasonable expectations. I just have such a hard time reconciling whiny threads about how unplayable and broken DH/RT/DW are on rpg.net or other rpg forums with my own experience. Those kinds of threads make me go: "Huh? Then how have I been running two campaigns for two years now and having so much fun?" Often enough people either don't get the rules, or they refuse to accept that FFG's version of 40k and the power level of the 40k RPGs is different from what they wanted. Heck, I could link a particularly idiotic post from another forum where the guy was arguing in full seriousness that in a true Space Marine RPG the characters should never die except when the player wants them to die, otherwise it won't be "epic enough". Do complaints like that mean that FFG is a crummy company, that the 40k RPGs suck, that they're broken beyond repair, and FFG should stop putting them out? No, in my mind it means that some people are less reasonable than others.

Razorboy said:

Perhaps my use of the term "flawed" was illadvised. In the very specific context of this thread it was a reference to the original posters commentary on typgraphics, editing, proof-reading and other related considerations. I was not referring in any manner, shape or form to the quality (or whatever) of the rules themselves. Sorry if I didn't make that clearer since the rest of your post addresses this issue rather passionately rather than the topic at hand. As those discussions rarely go in positive directions and are frequently the subject of misunderstanding, this is not a forum wherein such discussions lead anywhere productive.

/Kage

If anyone has more money than sense and actually wishes to pay a stack for this book (the DW CE) I noticed today that a copy is languishing in a display case in the Shaftesbury Avenue Forbidden Planet store in London, advertised for an eye-watering £200.

They also have a RT-CE in the same cabinet.

Kage2020 said:

I wasn't addressing your use of "flawed" at all, sorry if I gave that impression. Rather I was addressing the "annoying question" that you posed, that I found to be a much more interesting question than an annoying one. In my experience a lot of threads on FFG products start out with "what's with all the misprints and typos?" and end up with "the rules are broken" and I wanted to address that tendency.

Razorboy said:

Well, both issues are connected as both are related to the quality of a product. In particular I was raising both issues in connection to the foreword by Alan Merrrett where the term holy grail had been raised in connection to a space marine rpg. Lofty rhetoric, to be sure. And I don't think that DW is broken, I like the game. But the quality of the rulebook is hardly worthy of a holy grail of role-playing. It looks fantastic but has a long string of errors, inconsistencies, etc.

FFG did not push the book back 6 months, even if it meant financial loss, in order to try to make the quality live up to such lofty aspirations.

Alex

Razorboy said:

It is, however, a question that goes as much one way as another. Again, though, this is not a forum for discussion no matter how much one might be tempted into it.

/Kage

ak-73 said:

I'm not pretending that Deathwatch does not have serious flaws, far from it, in fact I would invite you to read my very long and exhaustive review of Deathwatch on rpg.net - http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15002.phtml I think that Deathwatch was probably rushed because of Gencon deadline and printer/transportation arrangements as I've said in an earlier post. I think that FFG could have sat on it longer and polished it some more, but it doesn't mean that all FFG products and the company itself is subpar as some people seem to suggest.

Just wanted to say thanks for posting the link to the review on rpg.net. It brought to my attention something that I had missed on "First Blush" which I think is rather cool, though I'm slightly biased because I've been working on something similar (visions of past "owners" of organs). I disagree with you on a number of points, but it thus far remains one of the most open, balanced, and useful reviews that I've read to date.

Oh, I also apologise since after reading through the past 17 pages of the rpg.net forums for all the 40k threads (which I didn't find as whiny as others might), I encountered the posting of AluminiumWolf who made similar suggestions to what you were talking about vis-a-vis PC Marine death.

Kage

Yes i saw the copy of that as well what i want to know is how they have a copy already and my order status on the shop still says pending?