Jackal_Strain said:

Gawd why can't people seem to pick up on the simple fact that when you step back and look at the way a Slaanesh worshipper acts, and the way the Dark Eldar act, there's actually very little difference, after you strip away all religious ritual and trappings. They've both sense adicts, who need to reach extreme heights of emotion and sensation to truly feel anything, it's just that the Dark Eldar are actually, literally nourished by it.

It's just a whole lot less typing the way I TRIED to say it the first time.

The Dark Eldar are ALSO very mercenary by nature, and would fit in more easily with a Chaos Warband (for the promise of plunder and slaves, of course), as their goals line up rather nicely as well, though the Dark Eldar seek temporal power, rather than elevation to daemonhood (as if the prospect of inter-party conflict was never going to come up with an all-chaos party?).

If you'd go back and read the Codex, the Dark Eldar don't really care about the Chaos Gods. Like, at all. Slaanesh is trying to eat their souls of course, but they've got a system for handling that, their entire culture is built around it (and amassing personal power). That's why huge arenas exist in Commorragh, where the Wyches slaughter hundreds every night. They've got this whole Thirst thing under their thumb, because they're arrogant enough to believe they do.

Dark Eldar are no more seperate within a group of chaos than Orks with RT's. What do Orks - really - have in common with an RT? Plunder and adventure are pretty flimsy since there's little stopping them from seeking that on their own (or with other Orks), an Ork is essentially a rhinoceros crossed with a soccer hooligan, it's dumb and incredibly strong. It's not that they couldn't it's plainly that you just can't wrap your heads around it, otherwise you would see that a Dark Eldar character isn't going to be seeking the favour of the ruinous powers, and thus won't be seeking gifts either. It's as simple as that.

So yes, they mesh just fine.

I could imagine Dark Eldar getting a supplement for BC. After all, they fit as good or as bad into it as Orks and Kroot into a RT group. I doubt Eldar getting their own core book, as they are too much Elves in SPAAAACE!!!!!111 and thus are sort of bland and too D&Dish for 40K.

On the other hand I could imagine a core book called "The Greater Good" featuring playable Tau (all castes), Vespid, Demiurg, Nicassar, Gue'vesa etc. fighting for the Greater Good (against the Lawful Evil Imperium and its Sith...erm...well...) and focussed on either the Tau Empire or even the area within the Jericho Reach as sort of an opposition to Deahwatch (in a way that BC is the opposition to DH (and maybe RT)). Could be funny and rich in variety regarding the many different races (which is lacking for good reasons in the other FFG core books). Just an idea...

See, an Ork Freebooter is basically an Orky version of a Rogue Trader - he wants to see the stars, crack skulls and gather mountains of loot for his own amusement, and flying with a human Rogue Trader delivers in spades. Sure, he's an unstable bully, but one that respects strength and cuning, so it's relatively easy for a powerful and cunning figure like a RT to establish a mutually satisfactory relationship. And when the Ork's already a part of the crew, it's in his best interest to do his best for the dynasty, because stronger dynasty attracts stronger enemies, meaning more fun and loot for him. Also, Freebooters are kinda mad by Ork standards, so it's not always possible for them to gather a proper Orky crew. The only real tension such a character generates for a RT team is due to the Imperium hating all Xenos.

Now, the Dark Eldar are conniving, untrustworthy Space Elf Vampires who either don't care about Chaos at all or hate it. Further, they absolutely despise humans and never consider them equals. While many alliances heretics can form are tenuous at best, with a Dark Eldar it is certain he'll try to betray the rest at an opportune moment. Furthermore, his goals are only superficially aligned with those of the heretics, as he wouldn't be concerned with any kind of long-term goals the heretics have. Ascension? Nah. Forming a Black Crusade? You kidding? Converting people to Chaos worship? Any such convertite is one person the DE won't be taking home as a slave, unless he really managed to screw the heretics over on the deal. Attacking the Empire? Only as long as there are slaves in it for him. Gathering rare artifacts and tomes of occult knowledge? He doesn't need those, and couldn't even take most of them home. So how about gaining immortality? Oops, already got that, thank you very much.

Then, again, are the mechanical issues. Alignment-based advancement costs don't work for Dark Eldar, nor does the Corruption track. Infamy, one could gain, but wouldn't be much concerned by it, because it doesn't improve his standing in Commoragh, and whatever he wants from heretics, he can take by force. As such, there is little incentive for him to enter Compacts - it might even be directly harmful to him, if we model the Thirst and withering of soul using the Corruption track. Not gaining Gifts or Rewards closes off an important venue of character growth and may leave the character quite weak in comparison to human heretics. All in all, he'd be the guy playing by entirely different rules, and unconcerned by all the motivators that pro the heretics towards a common cause - so, he'd be a willful minion at best, and prime That Guy material at worst.

@Morangias

Are you really saying that an Ork is more capable of weighing long-term benefits versus short-term gains than a Dark Eldar?

As for the DE's goals... of course he's not interested in the Ascension of the other Heretics. Neither is anyone else - Ascension is every Heretic for himself, with the only motivation for helping others actually achieve it being hope that they'll remember it and reward their aides.

When it comes to Infamy, occult lore and artifacts, though, I really don't think the DE wouldn't be motivated. Artifacts mean personal power, power that is not dependant upon fickle DE allies. In the same way, Infamy represents power over people the DE can bully and control more easily than other DE. How is that not helpful?
And finally, of course the DE has a motivation to help Chaos to destabilise an Imperial sector, the least being that he can inform (and receive benefits from) a high-ranking DE when the Navy will be too busy fighting the Chaos invasion to thwart a series of slave raids.

Cifer said:

I'm saying the long-term benefits of an Ork joining up with a Rogue Trader are clear enough even a thick-headed bully can see them, and the rest is about throwing enough fight at the Ork that he doesn't get bored - again, pretty easy to arrange for an enterprising RT.

Cifer said:

And even that shred of motivation is lost on a DE character, for whom an ascended Daemon Prince is a threat at worst, lost asset at best. And Gods forbid he helps ascend a Slaaneshi Prince.

Cifer said:

Warp-based artifacts are more of a nuisance than a boon to a Dark Eldar, and occult lore would only concern him if it gave him an edge against daemons, a foe that the Dark Eldar prefer to avoid.

As for Infamy, it's still a representation of: a) your standing among slaves and food, and b) how much attention you get from the Ruinous Powers... including Slaanesh. All in all, you risk losing your standing in Commoragh for spending too much time with the cattle and losing your soul to She Who Thirsts and her host.

Cifer said:

So, again, a completely different goal that just kinda crisscrosses with those of the heretics. And, again, since Infamy is meaningless to him and Corruption directly harmful, he has no reason to join them in on the Compact, and thus no reason to actually care about the rest of the group, and thus inclined to screw them over the second he sees a better opening.

Well, let's look at this with what we know and logic.

We know: FFG (Or at least an employee) made a very public flameout of sorts at Gen Con and said there would never be an aliens game because they are too alien. This can be seen three ways:

1: Truth, undiplomatic though the delivery was. But an indicator it isn't going to happen.

2: Obfuscation, an attempt to buy some time and deflect speculation from the next game being based on aliens.

3: Just one guy who shouldn't have said anything either way.

We Know: So far FFG has kept to the pattern. Black Crusade was a big surprise in its way. There were some hints in hindsight though. This can lead to a conjecture that there will be a fifth game.

We Know: FFG hasn't touched Eldar as PCs yet. Why? Given how well they'd have worked in Rogue Trader, and their popularity, is a bit odd, and makes me wonder if an Eldar game really is in planning. More importantly, of all the races they fit the mostly splat based system better than anything (Seriously, Space Marines, Humans? The splats don't really reflect the fluff reality well at all... Space Marine training has people advancing through all the types, just to name one reason).

But the Aspects and Paths alone could make for some awesome gaming. Especially coupled with rules to leave the path and dabble in multiple ones. Or to get lost on them. In this respect it would make some sense it has taken a while to get to them - more experience designing things to move onto a good handling of all the vagaries with their corebook. They really would fit the system amazingly. So an upcoming Eldar game MIGHT be a good answer to why they haven't been touched yet.

We Know: First Founding will have some info on the old Traitor Legions as well. Games Workshop seems to be really impressed with FFG's handling of the IP to let them detail all these legions (Loyal and Traitor) in more detail than GW has in most cases (Even if it is a GW employee doing a lot of the writing on them, fluff wise)! This could lead to some speculation of a Horus Heresy game being possible as well. It would certainly fit the "Not doing aliens" model. As well as lend some weight to things said in podcasts such as evasive answers regarding the HH era being dealt with. The HH books and era are also VERY popular, so if they get permission I wouldn't blame FFG for covering it at all! Either as a robust Deathwatch Expansion/sourcebook, or a line all its own. Focus on playing one legion.

We Know: We the people want a Unified book! This might mean nothing.

We Know: There has yet to be a lot of coverage on the Mechanicus, though it is touched on in all lines so far. Nor has there been a Mechanicus books announced as a supplement for any line yet. Again, this could mean nothing. Especially since they haven't done a Knowledge Is Power yet this year (Can't say I blame them, half the books announced last year still haven't hit the streets, or even Previews in some cases! i.e. The Imperial Guard book!). This could also point to the possibility of a Mechanicus book.

We Know: No Knowledge is Power previews. Other books not appearing. This could just mean things are delayed, indeed, probably the most likely anyways. But something to consider as a possible indication of a big change if the other books aren't done.

We Know: FFG has the Star Wars License. They may well leave 40k alone and not do a new game in it to focus on doing a Star Wars book for next Gen Con. Wouldn't blame them, Star Wars is one of the few licenses with potential to be bigger than 40k. Related to this, in their call for Freelancers a couple months back they made very close mention of both 40k and Star Wars. It's pure conjecture and probably reading too much between the lines, but it wouldn't be the first time a company used an existing game line's rules and tweaked it for a new license. So my final possibility is 40k RP system based Star Wars game.

Yeah! RPG game during Great Crusade most awesome idea, Sir!

Other than, in my interview with Sam Stewart + Ross Watson about a year or so ago, they said that they weren't allowed to deal with substantial events or persons in the general 40k setting, which was why there wasn't anything relating to Ravenor or Eisenhorn in Dark Heresy, etc. Those interviews can be found at Dark Reign.

The chances of a Horus Heresy game are slim to none, from what we've heard from the devs themselves, especially now we already have a game about Chaos in our hands.

MILLANDSON said:

That would be pertinent. Except now they get to deal with the history of Founding Legions in depth. Likely creating more Background for the White Scars, Raven Guard, Salamanders, and Iron Hands than has ever existed in every previous publication combined (Doesn't take much).

And then they get to touch the Traitor Legions too. Admittedly, it is a GW insider doing that so might change something.

And really, all those were just possibilities based on info we know. We'll no doubt see! Frankly I think the Star Wars RPG taking resources from 40k and being the next Gen Con game is probably the most likely (and that it will be its own system)

I'd agree that I'd imagine that Star Wars will take a lot of resources, but given that the 40k RPGs are in the top 5 RPG games sales numbers, I can't imagine them not continuing to develop it. I'm just not sure if that'll include a core book in the next year.

MILLANDSON said:

Oh! Definitely not stopping the existing lines. I just meant not developing a Core Book - which has got to take a ton more work than supplements, and MAYBE a slight slowing down of the current release schedule.

Y'know, there's a possibility that I hadn't even considered until just awhile ago--Titan Legions. An rpg where the pc's are the pilot/crew of Titans could be interesting (and would continue the upward power curve nicely). Initially I didn't think such a game could be done, but there have been more than a few Mecha type games out there--and this would be similar, just with that 40k grim gothic-futurey thing added.

Hell, I could even cook up a starting adventure with the PC's taking Knight armors out into the wreckage-clustered wilds of a war world that has seen millennia of conflict and has wreckage reefs and junk mounds hundreds of meters high, whole plains of "bone-flats" covered with the dust of millions of skeletons accumulated over endless surge and counter surges, etc. , looking for the remains of a fabled lost Titan clues to whose location have recently emerged from some previously forgotten tome. While on their search, they encounter a sudden resurgence of Orks and have to fight and stealth their way through, find the buried Titan, repair it enough to get it up and moving again--all just in time for them to trade up and take their new ride out to battle a Gargant constructed by the Waaughity Orkish ones.

That could be fun.

Mind you, I'd prefer an Eldar game or a Necromunda style hive-ganger game, or even an expansion of the Ork pc rules from RT, but I'd buy a Titan mecha for the Emperor type game. Surely would! In a heartbeat.

New line? No thank you.

What I want is a unified WH40K RPG system.

I'll probably keep on buying RT & DH regardless of whether a unified rules system materialises. But I'll never buy any other WH40K RPG line from FFG, if I don't get a unified rules system. Though I might bribe some FFG dev's local Starbuck's chick to spit in his morning coffee until I get it.

Seriously, sweet FFG, how ******* annoying do you have to be? If I wanted to play a homebrew system, I wouldn't be a customer, so really. Cut it out already.

Oh, and while you're about fixing up your systemic ***********, let's have some proper massed combat, vehicle, spaceship, planetary and government generation rules. GW does massed combat, in the seemingly certain case you hadn't noticed, and Traveller should provide you some solid ideas on how to do the rest.

/RAEG

Do you want to chill a bit? No need to be so angry about a game

Chances are that FFG aren't allowed to do a "unified rulebook", given that GW have to authorise absolutely anything and everything that is released for anything licensed from their IP, which means they have the power to disallow anything - doing something like a unified rulebook might be one of those things.

Forget 'not allowed' . How about 'don't want to' . They're intentionally designed as different games, so why should the four them be amalgamated?

BYE

H.B.M.C. said:

Remember that Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, and Deathwatch preceded FFG having the license in conception (and DH preceded FFG having the license). They probably had to buy the three lines, and possibly even Black Crusade (Just it wasn't announced). So what MILLANDSON says is a definite possibility. I find it more likely FFG would rather one game. Frankly, I think they're doing a pretty decent job working within the constraints they have.

I'm not saying he's wrong - I completely agree that it was likely a stipulation of the original agreement that they make the three planned games as Black Industries originally intended (although I'd guess that Black Crusade didn't exist back then). I'm just saying that even free of such a license agreement I wouldn't want to see the games shoved into one book.

All the games are completely different from each other in feel and theme. Dark Heresy is an investigation game, Rogue Trader an exploration game, Deathwatch a heroic game and Black Crusade fits somewhere in the centre of all three. This means that the main mechanics of each individual games need to be separate (Renown/Requisition mechanics don’t work in Dark Heresy, Starship Combat mechanics don’t have a place in Deathwatch, Infamy/Corruption wouldn’t fit in Rogue Trader, and so on), and to put them into one game would muddle the purpose. Now, there's certainly something to be said about having the basic core game mechanics in one place, so that all the games drink from the same well (rather than 4 very similar wells), but that book would be a very dry book. Just rules and... more rules. No classes, no weapons, no psychic powers, no nothing. Just the basic mechanics of combat, injury, skills, talents, traits and the GM/playing the game sections that go over basic things like carry weight, climbing, skill tests and so on. You'd still need to buy another book to get character classes and things specific to a setting, so you'd just be buying more books. Worse, there are system-specific Talents that would either have to be put into the ‘core’ book, where few people would get use from them, or in the ‘setting’ book, meaning you’re looking in two books to find Talents, and that’s annoying! No one wants to flip between two books to make a basic character.

I think that the way each game system is kept in a vacuum (for the most part) is a good thing. If you buy the Deathwatch rulebook you can play a game of Deathwatch. You don’t need anything else. I'm a firm believer in the concept of not needing to buy anything from another game system to play the one game you want to play. There's no reason why a Rogue Trader player should have to buy anything from the other games. That player could want to buy something from another game, but they should never have to. To illustrate this, imagine the following hypothetical:

Say for a moment that the Rogue Trader setting (the Koronus Expanse) included Tyranids. I know, I know, wrong side of the galaxy, but humour me. Say that Tyranids played a big role in Rogue Trader as a major threat. Now say that the only Tyranid ship and creature profiles were in a Deathwatch book. That would be bad. But because Tyranids aren't part of the RT's specific setting, a RT player will never need the Tyranid rules as long as they are playing within the game’s defined setting. They may want the Tyranid rules, but they do not require them to play the game within the setting FFG/GW have created.

And that's the other thing - they cater to settings. We have only ever played within the confines of the Calixis Sector twice (when my group played through The Chaos Commandment during testing). All our other DH games have been done in our own homebrew setting. Conversely, we have only ever played Deathwatch within the Jericho Reach. Tyranids, Eldar and Orks play a big role in our Dark Heresy setting, but aside from a few profiles here and there, there really aren’t all that many profiles for the three of them in Dark Heresy. There are heaps of Tyranid profiles in Deathwatch though, so I choose to buy it for those rules. The only reason I ‘need’ the book is because of something I have imposed upon myself (a homebrew setting). Were I still playing in the Calixis Sector, I would never need them. On the flipside, the Book of Judgement contains loads of Calixis-specific information on the Adeptus Arbites. It’s interesting, but as we don’t play in the Calixis Sector it’s of no real use to me. I don’t blame the book for that though – the book is giving information for its game’s chosen setting – and the only reason it’s not useful to me is because I’ve built my own sandbox rather than playing in theirs. I like the fact that all the 40K RPG’s are grounded in a setting, even when I don’t really have any interest in that particular setting. Furthermore the games can’t cater to any possibility, which is why they have settings in the first place. If Deathwatch had no specific setting, then it would need to include Ork/Eldar/Tyranids/Tau/Chaos/Dark Eldar/Necron/Squat/Klingon/Xenomorph/Wookie profiles for everything. Instead they have a specific setting that includes three major types of enemies (and a few Orks thrown in ‘cause Orks are everywhere), and they stick with that. It’s why I can’t stand DW players whining about not having Eldar stats – Eldar aren’t part of Deathwatch, so why should they be included?

I hope I’m making sense.

BYE

Oh, I agree HBMC

Honestly, I think a lot of the problem is trying to shoehorn all the games into one because they share a core mechanic. Honestly, it's a very similar issue to those that the Old World of Darkness had. And even the new one to some extent (Though it is much easier to crossover).

Now, honestly I think Black Crusade is probably the best Roleplaying Game of the bunch. Mostly because I hate classes. Though each is quite good on their own merit for what they are.

That said, I would love a classless 2nd edition that set the groundwork for redoing it all! Though unless we get no corebook next year, I doubt it. If we don't get a fifth core, I give slightly better odds of that happening in 2013.

Shoehorn is a strong word. It is incredibly easy to merge the rules of the different games, mostly because each one is an iteration on the next.

And, as I said, what would that give you:

1. A book that is just core mechanic rules. Dry and boring, no setting, and you end up having to buy more books (the 'Rogue Trader' expansion with all its careers, or the 'Deathwatch' expansion with all the Chapters).
2. Or a muddled book that includes everything from the 4 RPG's and has no clear focus.

It is true to say that each game is a new version of the previous rules, with everything learnt from the last book incorporated into the next. However, they are still four separate games , and should remain so.

BYE

H.B.M.C. said:

H.B.M.C, you make some very good points about playing them as separate games. Having worked in the gaming industry, there is a reason for game balance & I know it's difficult sometimes for players to 'see' the balance. They look at one game & see how Full Auto works & they wonder why it doesn't work the same across all the games.

At this point, honestly, I wish someone on the FFG designer team would pipe in. Give their opinion moving forward on how the four games interaction, especially in regards to the basic combat & skills/talents of the system. Did they anticipate players using the changes to combat as each new corebook cames out? Or do they think most players will stick to each setting separately?

Kinda on topic - that is one thing i find a little unfortunate about FFG; they don't read the forums. I never see them address anything here unless it really gets out of control/negative/etc. I would LOVE a designer to address the differences between the four books & in their opinion what we should or can do moving forward. I honestly am not a fan of 'house rules' either- I like to use my time to write & run sessions instead of compiling my own jury-rigged rules system.

SO FFG folks, please take a minute or two & give us your insight. How do YOU play your four settings? Do you incorporate rules like weapon stats & combat action from newer settings into older ones? SHOULD we as GMs do the same thing?

-Jefferson

darklament said:

Speaking purely for myself, and of my own experiences, I've found minimal problems in retro-fitting my Dark Heresy and Deathwatch campaigns (the latter currently on hiatus as I'm running Black Crusade for that group instead) with the Black Crusade combat actions, weapon qualities and talent descriptions (less so with skills, as that requires more work to refit career paths, etc). In regards to player options, I prefer to keep things limited to a single game at a time, for both thematic and mechanical reasons, but I trust my own judgement and ability to be able to improvise or translate things like enemies between games where necessary.

From a writing perspective, each game I've worked on (which is, to date, everything but Dark Heresy) has required a different approach and mindset - things that are appropriate to the tone and themes of Black Crusade don't necessarily work in Deathwatch or Rogue Trader, for example - combined with a degree of evolution (finding out what worked and what didn't, and adjusting accordingly down the line). I like to write rules as an extension of the background, so an acknowledgement of the tone and themes of the game I'm working with is significant to that process.

Either way, I regard the four 40kRP games as four separate entities with overlapping borders, rather than four branches of the same tree (so to speak). Whether or not the other writers share this viewpoint, I couldn't say.

darklament said:

As far as I'm aware, the guys at FFG do read the forums, at least when time permits... they just don't post all that frequently. They are, afterall, busy actually producing the books being discussed. There is also a great deal that isn't allowed to be said, or can only be said at particular times through particular channels (such as designer diaries)

Thank you very much for your response, N0-1_H3r3. I found it quite insightful & helpful. It's good to see one of the 'creators' POV to a topic.

-Jefferson

darklament said:

@HBMC

Designer Dairies are about the only time us lowly freelancers get to jump in and talk about what's been revealed.

Is a designer dairy the time when you can milk a writer for information?