Why on earth would the designer of a 40k game leave out detailed info on Chaos adversaries, Tau adversaires (there isn't even kroot or vespid in the book), never mind Orks or Eldar? That suggests a prospective player looking at DW and thinking "wouldn't it be cool to have a Kill Team infiltrate a Chaos stronghold to retrieve something while being shadowed by an inscrutable and possibly dangerous Eldar squad after the same item" is asking for something beyond what a 40k Space Marine rpg offers with the implication that such an idea is thus not in keeping with the setting. How does that make sense? Ok he can wing it, or create his own stats, but that's not the point.

A game should give the players all the tools they need to play the kind of adventures reasonably expected within the setting. That isn't the same at all as asking for EVERY creature/entity to be statted up either. It is completely contradictory to say, on one hand, here are the rules for playing space marines and kicking ass, then on the other 'do it all yourself'.

There are details of Chaos adversaries... which -to prove that there's no pleasing everyone- a lot of people complain about being there because the game is about Deathwatch: The militant chamber of the Ordo XENOS, and that Chaos is a side-act in the game. You want the Chaos vehicles in the MRB? So then you'll want the rules for them, and then if there were no Imperial vehicles that wouldn't be right either. So that's another 20+ pages and $2 of colour print we've immediately added to the game, on the whim of using Chaos vehicles. And then there'd be complains about the lack of Tau vehicles and Ork vehicles, and another 15 pages of stuff...

Running a game is all about making things up: Stories, stats, NPCs, piles of loot. Short of buying pre-planned adventures (2 of which are freely available, 3 more available in a hardback and one more in the GM screen), you'll have to spend time making stuff up anyway.

Have you looked at the Ork stats and Eldar stats linked off this forum yet? I don't think your argument about the lack of ork stats is particularly valid until you have at least done so.

Again: It's hard to see what would be pleasing you at this point. A game twice as thick and twice the price? Then why not half the price and spread it over two books. That way the people who don't want to spend over $100 on a game also get the choice of if they want the complete game, or of paying a reduced price if they don't mind making up some stats.

Can you give an example of an RPG on the market that does do all of what you want it to, and is as complete as you want it to be?

I've got to say, I do agree with SOS (more nicknames). Compared to the number of the entrys in the DH and RT books there aren't that many entries in DW. I could be that the amount of space given is the same but has extra rules, weapons and larger entries for each beasty but you would think it would be best served to include a fair selection to start out with.

The justification for the three armies faced in the way are simple: They had to be the type of enemy that would engage and large scale planet by planet fighting. This mean't the Eldar and Dark Eldar where out, the Orks could have been included but pressumable in defference to the people that already had the material from DH and RT which was significant (even a PC class).

Predjudice asside the Tau make a lot of sense for DW antogonists, as they are an Alien empire made of Alien races and they present unique RP aspects. Of course this is tempered by the fact that they didn't actually include stats for even the Kroot. Yes they are already stated in RT but I don't think anyones going to complain about them reprinting it where you would think it's important.

I dont expect them to cover the ENTIRE universe in one book. I expect them to give the relevant details appopriate coverage.

Now there seems to be another contradiction: Chaos shouldn't be in the DW book because the DW don't fight chaos. But that's a daft approach to take for a space marine game. Furthermore, and more relevantly, there's no info on creating aliens in the book. There's no guidance that i can see, no tips or tools. So again, wtf?

The problem is FFG are painting themselves into corners. They choose to do a space marine game, then say it's about DW so no chaos but then give no info on Xenos. They say there are no orks in the JR, but give characters the ability to choose what is then a pointless trait. Why on earth design the JR to be ork free in a 40k game? How is that logical compared to including a couple of orks in CA for acolytes to fight? There's no reason for that.

Could they not have designed a comprehensive monster manual earlier on and made it future proof so it's compatible with the power levels of each game? Could they not have engineered each game to be more compatible thus? I mean it's not rocket science is it. Space Marine players need enemies otherwise it's going to suck. So why stint on this stuff?

Stint? Have you seen the size and quality of the rules?

Again: What game gets it right, in your opinion?

signoftheserpent said:

None of that is true, though.

And you want them to have designed a monster manual three years ago for a game that came out 6 months ago? That's like asking WotC to print a 5e MM on the eve of the 4e launch. Be reasonable.

Siranui said:

How are other games not relevant? You need to have some basis in thinking that the information given in the core rulebook don’t give you enough information to create your own xenos, or even deamons. I personally think the information is there if you want to put the work into it, which it is becoming clear that you aren’t willing to do, that’s your problem not the systems.

What other games and their designers do is a matter for them and their customers. They have no bearing on what happens here.

Siranui said:

To be fair, I guess they could indeed have developed DW in a way that it would now be compatible with previous publications.

@signoftheserpent

FFG included Chaos into DW, even if it is a game about the ordo xenos. Chaos gets as much coverage as the other 2 races.

Honestly, I don't think many players see the lack of adversaries as much as a problem as you do. It has now repeatedly been pointed out that you can make your own enemies quite easily by tweaking the stats of existing ones or using them as a model to create completely new ones.

To demand a full and complete coverage of all the adversaries that can be found in W40K is really more than a little too much to ask (and unnecessary, because most players and GMs have no problem with creating their own foes). You could probably fill half a library with enemy descriptions and stats, how should FFG include all that in the core rulebook?

To demand full and complete coverage of chaos by arguing that chaos is THE enemy of the adeptus astartes is, in my opinion, totally unjustified because of the reasons mentioned in earlier posts (DW being ordo xenos and chaos therefore just one enemy among others with no special status).

signoftheserpent said:

Yes they are, because I'd like to know what standard you'd like DW to aspire to. At the moment you're stating (having seemingly not read the product, not played it, nor spent five minutes reading the free stuff linked from these boards, which would frankly solve your issue completely) that this isn't the product that you want, that it's missing crucial stuff and that it's inferior, but haven't offered a comparable 'good' product. You've made your mind up without experiencing the issue and are vocalising your issues, but haven't offered an example of what you'd like to see instead. Possibly the moon on a stick?!

If the 'monster manual' was set in stone 3 years ago, it would have required that FFG develop and test all three games back then too, putting back the release date and requiring them to employ more developers, and then to sit on finished products for three years. Business-wise that's firing a magnum into your own face. Furthermore, it would mean no wriggle-room or development. Critical mistakes in the tranche 1 product would be harder to revise in later ones if they had to remain fully compatable with the 'monster manual'. It would also frankly suck to have 20 pages devoted to 'here are monsters that your DH team can't even DREAM of killing, so are useless to you for three years, when we release a game where you have a chance of killing them.' That would be rather absurd and would have everyone up in arms. Not to mention that for three years, people would be saying 'So: What's this horde business? There's stats for hordes but no rules for them? You want me to wait three years for Deathwatch and the rules? Why are you wasting space in this product when you should be putting X in here instead?'

If the FFG approach was complete enough then why have people gone out of their way to create their own orks, necrons, eldar, dark eldar, whatever? Why would you need to recommend that I use that stuff if the game is complete? Clearly there is a demand for these things, and that cannot possibly come as a surprise to FFG nor can it be deemed unreasonable - these are intrinsic parts of the setting.

I never said the FFG approach was complete. It's modular. We either buy the supplements or make it up.

Yes: There is a demand for such things. That's why they're printed in another book. So you can choose to buy it or not, and so FFG can make enough money to keep running as a company. That's Capitalism. And if they'd have added ten pages of free Ork stats, then someone would be complaining that there's no Eldar stats, ad nausium.

Again: Please cite examples of games that are as complete as you want them to be, and have you read the Ork / Eldar stuff yet?

At the heart of your comments is 'I want Ork stats'. You've been informed that good stats are out there, but your lack of response in enquiries to if you've read them seems that you're not interested in a solution, and more interested in arguing about problem (that don't really exist). It almost seems that the subject isn't really 'I want Ork stats', but 'I want to complain about a game that I haven't read'. I'm happy to discuss the game with someone who is interested in solutions, but not with someone who just wants to troll/argue pointlessly.

As for the balancing aspect: Maybe it's because I only play with friends, but the balancing issue never was a problem in the 20+ years I am roleplaying. For us it's the creation of a cool story with maybe some good laughs and - concerning DW - being awesome. We even have players who sometimes create characters, who contribute only very little to the adventures skill-wise, but play their character for the fun of it.

If you have balancing problems in a group because of a character being able to do much more (or less) than the others, I think the GM should adjust the story to counter that (only if the players see this as a problem, of course...)

As for the balance between characters and npcs: When my players played Final Sanction, they plowed through the rebel hordes, but had to be careful with the genestealers. Those who they managed to kill before they reached them where no problem, but the first genestealer to reach the groups apothecary would have sliced him right open, would he not have burned a fate point.

Also I made time an issue in some situations. So the awesome SMs had to be even more awesome to kill the enemy heavy-stubber-nest as fast as possible to keep the morale of the troops up. And the scene in the gouvernor's mansion was a problem because of all the civilians.

I like DW a lot and to me fluff is much more important than any balancing issues. And as to what is included in the core rulebook: DW plays in a universe where is sooooo much fluff, that could be easily adjusted to the system. Even if you create some orks and in 6 months there are "official" orks, I don't see, why it should be a problem for the players, who played "your" version of orks. Why should all orks be the same?

I think the DW-rulebook is a very good rulebook with much fluff around SMs and the DW. A core rulebook is a core rulebook. Right?

Also: DW fills a great niche in our gaming group. It is something completely different to WH-Fantasy, Dark Heresy, Paranoia, Star Wars, Spirit of the Century, ...

You've missed the piont again.

This is not about whether other people or even myself can create their own efforts to fill in the blanks - and the fact that people have done so proves the demand is there. It's about the fact there are blanks to begin with.

No one is asking for the ENTIRE chaos army to be statted up from top to toe. No one is complaining they can't use the Eye of Terror because it's not in the Jericho Reach.

I am asking why a space marine game doesn't have more information for the gm with regard to enemies for those marines. Why buy the game at all if you are comfortable making stuff up? Save yourself the money, buy some fluff books or some wargame codexes and go that way.

Do you seriously think it's reasonable to expect an interested player to end up buying every 40k book going? It's hardly an efficient way to run a game anyway - cross referencing multiple books from across various lines. Never mind carrying them around to and from sessions.

Can you not see there must be a better way of doing things?

D&D players guide dm guide and monster manual cost £60

DH + CA (which is the game it was designed for) costs £70 (give or take) and even then only has limited info (including orks, for some reason).

Even following FFG's logic the execution is strange: why are orks in a book intended for inqusitorial games? Why not then Dark Eldar? Necrons? Tau? Kroot?Ethereals?

Buying books from DH or RT for DW just for a chapter's worth of info is wholly inefficient. Don't get me wrong, if money was no object i'd buy it all. But that's not the real world and these books, gorgeous though they are, are certainly not cheap.

We don't even know what is going to be in Mark of Xenos (except in broad terms). Do we get rules for creating our own chaos forces, or will it be like CA and provide very specific antagonists that, at best, we have to retrofit for variety (unless you want to fight the same daemons over and over), each with their own very specific rules to learn.

signoftheserpent said:

Every RPG system has blanks. You cannot blame FFG for that.

signoftheserpent said:

You have sufficient information, and there is a huge difference between tweaking some stats to create your own enemies or developing a complete RPG system from scratch. Be fair in your comparisons.

signoftheserpent said:

Buy the ones you want to buy. You can play the game with just one book (the core rules). Everything else is optional.

signoftheserpent said:

That is your personal and subjective opinion. Other players might be very happy with FFGs choice of adversaries. If you had played the game instead of just complaining about it you would know that the adventures were really entertaining.

signoftheserpent said:

Then perhaps we shouldn't judge it until it's released?

signoftheserpent said:

I'll be blunt this time. One has to be kind of mentally retarded to not be able to create enemies from the ones that already exist. Yes, it takes some minutes of your lifetime to do it and yes, you have to read the rules first. Is that really so unbearable?

No, I really can't see that there is a better way of doing things that would keep everyone happy. There are really only three or four approaches:

Produce the bare essential rules and annoy people who want more and keep happy those on a budget who are happy to put in some extra work to keep cost down.

Produce a MASSIVE book which costs twice as much, will STILL miss stuff out that people will whine about (WHY ARE THERE NO JOKERO STATS WHY??!), and will annoy players who don't need to read all the extra stuff, or don't want to be spoon-fed everything and be charged for it. And then have nothing to sell return customers and never make any money.

A modular approach where you buy what you want.

Produce basic release and then release more stuff for free over the internet in order to keep everyone happy. And then go bankrupt.

FFG and every other major player on the market goes for option three because it keeps the greatest number of people happy, means that products can be produced on a reasonable time-scale, and stops them from going bankrupt.

You are incensed because the bit you want is missing. That opinion only as valid that someone's who considers that Tau stats need to be present, or every founding Chapter be detailed, or that vehicle rules need going in the MRB, or that they need Warlord stats, or any one of the zillion things that are present in the 40k universe and which someone somewhere wants to see. How big do you think the rulebook would be to fit all that in? Would you pay $200 for a book that big, and would you be upset that there was 'useless' stuff for you in it? Would everyone think it was complete, or would there still be complaints that they didn't include details of [insert obscuria here]. Would everyone who has been loyal to the FFG40k line be overjoyed to buy three books for $200 each which mostly contain replicated information? And who do you think that FFG consider to be the most valuable customers and ones most important to cater for: Those who are return customers, or those who only want to ever buy one product?

Is D&D really your example of a complete game in one book...or...erm... three? You're condemning FFG for spreading data over a MRB and a MM-style book, and then citing 4e as complete, despite being in three books. That seems to make no sense at all. Your suggested solution is then 'Actually, spreading the essentials over three books (each one smaller than the current one) is absolutely fine, I just want it at half the price it currently is.'

FFG is a smallish company. WotC is by far and away the market leader, sells vastly more copies of D&D than FFG could ever dream of selling, is propped up by a vast corp, owns its own printing company, and can use all three core products as a loss-lead for the vast array of other products in the range if it desires. You can't compare the two for basic economic reasons. FFG cannot afford to produce massive full-colour print books for $30 each without making a loss. Ultimately companies are not going to drive themselves into the dirt to appease a minority, and ultimately what is good for them *is* good for us, because it keeps them afloat and publishing new games. It seems that you want the impossible: All three of the D&D core book's worth of stuff, and everything else you'll ever want to run the game, in one book, cheaply.

Cheap, All inclusive in one tome, Good quality. You can't get all three, and I can't think of a single company that offers that.

Ironically, I'd wager that over the last 25 years about ten thousand 40k fans *have* written and played their own version of a 40k RPG. We're all buying it because it's nice and glossy, because we've been waiting since the dawn of time for it, and to see how it stacks up with our versions!

Arkhan said:

I want a GM who doesn't want to spend half an hour preparing for a game, or five minutes following a link to some useful stats. That'd rock.

signoftheserpent said:

I don't know why we're all still trying to convince you it's a good game. You've got an idea in your head at what "should" be included in a book and it's clearly not what DW core or DW + RoB have in it. Regardless of right or wrong, the book doesn't have what you apparently want in it.

I think you're mistaken though, and I feel the core DW book has plenty of enemies in it- the 3 races offer plenty of variety to keep players going for quite some time. Supplements will only add to this, and you get to decide if the contents of those supplements justify their purchase. TEP and ROB both have additional enemies and enemy stats in them. Even the GM screen has new enemies.

Maybe though it's because I feel that pre-statted enemies are a 'bonus' for me and my players, and as a GM it's really my job to be able to create enemies in the world that the authors created. I do this in all the games I play, and even in a D&D setting where lots of enemies are provided I tend to customize them to give variety and to keep my players on their toes.

I won't disagree that the FFG books feel extra expensive in comparison to some other RPG lines, but everything 40k releated has always felt a bit over priced to me

Good luck to you.

so when is Mark of the Xenos actually released.

signoftheserpent said:

"Soon"? Not a good answer, but that's all we have. The sites says Spring 2011, and it's currently listed as "On a boat." For the DW Core book to go from boat to truck took something just over a month IIRC. You can see the status of upcoming FFG products here:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_upcoming.asp

On a boat really means just that. On a shipping vessel from China. Those things go maybe 10 knots. It takes a month to get from there to here.

While I think an adversary book should have come out sooner for Rogue Trader, let's wait for Mark of the Xenos and the Xeno Compendium to be out before we complain about holes in the system. I'm going to buy and enjoy both.

I would be surprised if Mark of the Xenos didn't have Orks in it. But I'm hardly demanding a lot of focus on them.

Personally, I like that we've been getting some of the minor races (IE: the ones without armies). Like the Yu'Vath and Lacrymole. Especially the Lacrymole, since they were mentioned way back in some fluff in the Inquisitor corebook.

Yes more aliens would be nice. The more Xenos the better! For an over-energic newbie it would also be nice with more traits and stuff that can be used when creating your own Xenos' races.

borithan said:

I disagree heartily. The latest Tau codex was fluffwise a bliss for the setting. It has actually made them more acceptable as prior to this they really annoyed me to no end. A bunch of goodytwoshoes in Gundams out there to get hyped and draw youngsters. It is the initial Tau version that missed the point of the entire setting!

And actually you are also morally presumptuous. I agree with what the Inquisition does as it it is necessary for humanity's survival. If it is necessary it is not 'wrong' persay just a bitter pill to swallow. Also speaking of good and wrong in the 40K universe is like going to the past and reprimanding people for their ethics in the day and age they lived in... which is a hypocrite and dangerous thing to do.

The point of 40K is... everyone is in trouble and only by supporting a cruel efficient machine do we have any hope of survival. When playing Imperials THAT should be made clear. You should clearly state why they were killed too. People can then make their own judgement.