AluminiumWolf said:

I'm all about complaining, trust me, I just don't understand why someone that is so offended by a company's design decisions would then go and shell out their hard earned cash on something they claim they don't like.

Your views of the game I can at least understand and feel empathy towards, even if I don't agree.

Blood Pact said:

Are you suggesting that it's better to split this material into three books, at greater expense, which are then publishes separately over a long period of time?

Charmander said:

I don't really think it's your place to tell me that I'm being snippy when i've made it clear that I wasn't and that i showed the person in question nothing but respect. In fact I think that's pretty rude.

It doesn't incense me. I'm not enraged or offended by it. I'm just trying to understand how FFG are handling their license and the reasons behind their decisions. I'm also well aware they may not wish to make that known, which is entirely their choice.

Like all things i weighed up the pros and cons of buying this game and decided it was worth giving it a go on balance. Whether that works out will remain to be seen, but that's my choice. It doesn't mean those cons don't exist or that they aren't worth discussing or even trying to remedy.

I have also noticed there is a very defensive attitude regarding these games, perhaps due to the fact this is the only (and there will likley never be another) 40k rpg project that's official. Consequently fans want to believe it beyond its faults more than is perhaps practical, reasonable or even wise.

OK, let me just point out, I've been in, and observed, many conversations where one person thought they were being perfectly nice and civil, but someone else thought they were being snippy, short, or otherwise rude. Not saying you or they are wrong, just a limit of any conversation process

And I don't think at think point that it's people being defensive over a beloved product so much as over the course of 104 (mine included) posts, people have offered you several suggestions and solutions, to which all you ever said is no, that you want this (not in so many words) to be Burger King: The RPG -- You want it your way, and don't care about the company needing to make it most appealing to the broadest base so they can, as is the ultimate goal of the RPG called Corporate Business, make a profit, pay the assumed stockholders, and stay in business to publish more books.

That said, part of the problem is, from what I've read, you want the stats for the enemies all in one book, and every solution given doesn't suit you. Your main point of contention of late is price. All I can suggest anymore on this would be go to the local Office Depot or Staples with the files of the various enemies that are available as free downloads, print them out there at a very reasonable cost, and put them inside the main book's cover. Then you have stats for all the enemies in 1 book, no need to buy any others.

I apologise for the probable rudeness of this post, but I just woke up, and am about to get ready for work, no coffee as didn't know we were out when shopping... Oops... Thank whomever you want for Dunkin' Donuts...

And one last thing, for those who celebrate it. Happy Easter. For everyone else, Happy whatever other holiday is next...

I'm not insulting people for being defensive. I'm just stating that people can easily overlook what others can't because of it.

If noone cared about this game or the license as an rpg then we wouldn't be having these discussions from either side. If I didn't care about a good 40k game then I wouldn't even be heere at all.

signoftheserpent said:

A single book would be thicker than a **** phonebook, since there's still a lot of ground to cover even without something getting reprinted. And as others have said there are big differences between the game lines. Now, it has nothing to do with the whole theme of the games, or any of that bull. Dark Heresy isn't 'realistic' while Deathwatch is 'heroic', like some people around here continually go on about. But Hive Tyrants, Wraithlords, and other big nasty monsters aren't the sort of thing that an Inquisitor's Acolytes go charging toward.

Furthermore with the need to detail abso-*******-lutely everything, because as it's become painfully clear if they left any of the major races out (and then, the major units of that race) you'd still be here bitching and moaning, they wouldn't be able to cram the book full of cool unique antagonists like the ones seen in the Mark of Xenos previews so far. Oh yeah, and since there's Black Crusade, the book would need all kinds of Imperial antagonists too.

Oh, and then there's the simple fact that just making a single, larger book, isn't going to do anything but marginally reduce the price.

You're not going to save any money by theoretically squeezing it all in to one obscenely oversized book, knuckle-head. You're just too **** stubborn and shortsighted to realise that you can just buy Creatures Anathema, or my personal preference... shut the hell up and wait for Mark of the Xenos.

signoftheserpent said:

I don't really need FFG to provide me the official stats for all the creatures that exist in 40K TT. With the statlines we already have and the traits, it's easy for me to come up with stats on my own in a matter of a few minutes if I have the matching 40K stats before me. I am more interested in 40K denizens (coming from the background setting) that do not have tabletop rules already.

As you can see, different people have different desires.

Alex

Blood Pact said:

It wouldn't be thicker than a phonebook at all, as i've explained. There are only 6 factions in the setting other than Chaos and the Imperium, you could easily give 40 pages to each faction and come out with a 240p supplement. If FFG want to do fuerther books with their own aliens then that's fine. But the core races of the setting are not infinite or number in the thousands. Printing this one book would be cheaper than printing three, slightly smaller, books as is currenlty the case. Imperial antagonists, if they need to be covered, can exist in another 40 pages, if necessary - that's still only 280 pages.

Instead of being unpleasant and rude, you could respond to what i've said, not invent your own version of what I said. 240 pages is entirely doable; we don't need EVERYTHING, nor do we need the entire history of every single race. 40 pages is plenty, in fact less is probably more realistic.

signoftheserpent said:

The upcoming Mark of the Xenos release will feature almost all prominent W40K foes plus some additional less known ones. From what you write, this is what you want, right?.

But I thought you didn't want to buy more than one book? You said yourself that you need about 280 pages to cover the most popular enemies in a detailed way, do you expect that to be added to the core rules? That wouldn't be possible without either erasing other content like the description of the Jericho Reach sector (which is much more useful than enemies, because it would take much more time for a GM to make THAT up), or by increasing the price.

signoftheserpent said:

WE are perfectly happy with the creature anathema and the upcoming mark of the xenos as adversary supplements. So far it's only YOU who is so absolutely non-content with the way things are.

signoftheserpent said:

Is this forum populated with aggressive trolls that don't know how to behave, or is it perhaps YOUR behaviour that upsets an otherwise very friendly and helpful community?

I'd buy all the books if money wasn't an issue. It's not a case of dont want (beyond simple practical concerns of cross referncing multiple books and lugging them to and from game sessions), it's a case of can't afford. If Mark has everything, then great. But that has yet to be confirmed.

Of course people are happy with what's been released, because that's all there is.

and the quality of the books isn't in question.

And I did not say the forum was filled with aggressive trolls at all. Those are your words, and unpleasant they are too. Not cool!

signoftheserpent said:

Maybe that's not your intention, but it's the way you come across.

signoftheserpent said:

Most of us don't see this as a con. Most of us are willing to go out and use our own creativity to come up with creatures and adversaries ourselves using the core rules as a guide. DW gives us some shooty enemies, some hand do hand enemies, and some warp based enemies. While I agree with some I wish the enemies section had been a little larger, it provides you with the framework with which to build more stuff. Then you have things like a community where you can borrow other ideas or present your own.

Exactly what RPG are you coming from that deals with their world and system the way you want FFG to do? What market considerations do you propose would make your prefered development cycle work?

signoftheserpent said:

Well, that's because you're on FFG's forums. If you keep reading you'll find a healthy share of criticism.

And FWIW, saying "Consequently fans want to believe it beyond its faults more than is perhaps practical, reasonable or even wise" is being snippy, or generally antagonistic.

signoftheserpent said:

I'd say it's because most of us realize that FFG runs a business and has to make money. A decent number, dare I say majority of us, feel that they've given us enough to get our games going and we fill in the rest. When supplements come out we'll judge the supplements contents and then make a purchase decision.

Arkhan said:

Well, I wouldn't say that I am perfectly happy with those. Fortunately I am not dependent as a GM on either supplement. Part of the reason is that a lot of creatures have been given stats by folks on this forum already.

Alex

Charmander said:

No it isn't. It's an objective statement of fact. All people tend to be more forgiving of the faults of a thing if they are predisposed toward it as a whole.

I don't think that you make general judgements like that. Your "facts" are just subjective claims without any proof whatsoever.

Now, don't bother posting links to scientific studies or stuff, that wouldn't convince me either. Why? Because I'm now reading and posting on these forums for some time, and I know how many discussions we had about almost every aspect of DW and FFG releases. So I know that noone is being illogically "defensive" towards a product.

These are, believe it or not, opinions that have been formed through hours and hours of practical gaming experience (using said products) and not pure fanboyism. That's how we evaluate things. We try it out and THEN form an opinion. How long you said you tested the DW rulebook? Nothing at all? Hm, interesting.

Now you'll say "I don't need testing, I can judge the facts". Well, believe me, evaluating a product from a purely theoretical perspective is always inferior to theoretical and practical expertise.

For instance, when I got my hands in DW, I was furious about all the errors in the rulebook, the unclear formulations, the confusing layout, the balancing issues. I thought "how could FFG screw up so badly!" My group had similar attitudes.

But then, we just swallowed our anger for a second and began to play. And what do you know, it wasn't nearly as bad as we thought. It was actually quite fun. All the points of criticism turned out to be just minor issues, which could be left out or houseruled with no trouble at all.

And regarding the adversaries. Yes, I still think FFG could have developed DW to be compatible with DH and the CA, so that I don't have to rebalance some of the adversaries described there. But that's also something that does not take much time, and I can accept the fact that this is MY personal opinion and FFG chose to do it differently.

Every system has one or two flaws, where you think "they could have done this and that a little bit better", but that's hardly something that prevents me from buying an otherwise good product.

So perhaps, instead of discussing things that cannot be changed anymore, you should go and try out DW, form an opinion and then come back to tell about it, and to discuss what can be made better in the future . Because that we can maybe influence in some way.

Arkhan said:

This. A thousand times this.

Our 2 demo sessions with Final Sanction before the release of the rulebook were... okayish. It was a for-free demo mission and it was mindless shooting fun.

Then the rulebook came out and I played Oblivion's Edge. The first 2 sessions were disappointing. Hardly any role-playing, the players didn't get into character, too much mindless combat.

Only with these 2 sessions under my belt, I came to the conclusion of having to add material to the free mission to make it work for me and my players.

So only in the 5th session, I started to get a hang of it as a GM and get my players into the spirit.

Alex

signoftheserpent said:

While I agree that sentence is a largely true statement, adding on to it that those people that happen to like 40k are impractical, unreasonable, or unwise comes across as inflammatory. Simply because we don't mind coming up with our own monster stats doesn't force us into any of those descriptions. If you read more of this forum, I think you'll find plenty of criticism towards the product line

ak-73 said:

+1, or is it +2 at this point? Perceptions without experience is tough to get right.

signoftheserpent said:

Eh? No: There are dozens. There are perhaps 6 major ones, but many, many more are mentioned in canon. Once more you're demanding a product based purely on what you want, and not really thinking too much about what everyone else wants. I'd be livid *not* to get a bunch of racial backgrounds because stats are the easy bit to write. Are you now seriously suggesting that FFG produce two monster books... one that fits exactly what you want, and one for all the information that other people want but you don't?

As to us being overly defensive of the game... well, we wouldn't be here if we didn't like it at least a bit. But I think that the main cause has been your own... unreasonableness. We're not defending the game, we're defending a common-sense approach to game publishing and our ideas about how games should be produced in the face of a potential customer who seems to want it *his* way, with no consideration for how other gamers might like the game produced, or financial reality. We're defending smaller games companies not bankrupting themselves, and we are defending the fact that it's not very fair to start judging a game without reading or playing it, or to want a company to produce their game precisely on your terms, to your specification, at half the price that they can print it for.

Blood Pact said:

Man; I waited twenty years for this game... 6 months is a snip!

Siranui said:

Just look at the core TT rules, at least earlier editions... The one illustration talking about Xenos, wish I still had the book so I could quote edition and page... Anyway, the illustration showed in along with the Eldar and Orks Necron Warriors before the Necrons were brought in (also assisting with the point in other posts about the Necrons that they were around just not widely known in the time of DW) and a big shaggy "wild Wookie" looking thing that as far as I know hasn't been named yet.. The game is always advancing, always growing... So also then, FFG publishes a book detailing all the known Xenos, then GW puts out another race suddenly... Does FFG have to put out a new edition of the Xenos Codex (or whatever they call it) to avoid complaints of "Why aren't the newest critters in there?" On the same note, if FFG makes a new race for the game, would you expect GW to create that race for TT? And make a Codex for it so it's usable on TT?

Siranui said:

As I mentioned earlier, the Burger King effect. And I think Siranui just nailed the problem. You think we're defending the game when we're defending FFG's right to publish the game in a way that allows them to make money and stay in business to continue making games and books.