My players and I are wondering about the core rules for roleplaying in the Warhammer 40,000 universe and how they seem not to get better as more books are being released.

Take for example the Unnatural Characteristic trait in Rogue Trader, which works differently/was changed from the one in Dark Heresy. Progressive insight and a finetuning of the rules system, one would say. But then in the third setting to come out, Deathwatch, we're back to the rules from Dark Heresy. Enter Black Crusade and we have yet another version of the rules for Unnatural Characteristics.

Take Awareness. Halfway in Dark Heresy the designers must have realized this skill was largely superfluous and not different enough from basic Perception ... and that anyone not having this skill tests at half Perc, per the RAW. An undesireable consequence, so they (FFG or Black Industries, dunno) came up with a clumsy fix in the Inquisitor's Handbook: with Awareness you can lower the difficulty of the Perc test. This works completey different than all other skills, a solution that is alien to the system. It should have been a Talent. Anyways, out comes Rogue Trader, and then Deathwatch, and Awareness appears with the quick fix from the Inquisitor's Handbook ignored again!

Autofire also works differently in Black Crusade from all the earlier games, which differed amongst each other in this rule too.

And I've never quite reconciled myself with the fact that Daemonettes, Orks, bolters and krak grenades in Deathwatch are different rules-wise than they are in for example Dark Heresy.

I know that some settings might require different rules and/or different emphasis. But that's not what seems to be the case here.

My point: is FFG really finetuning the core system of rules, combing out things that don't work and making well-thought out changes for the better, or is it just 'anything goes' with whatever new core book is released?

Hi Laughing God,

I think, FFG is really fine tuning, but they are inconsequent. While Deathwatch seems odd (based on your descriptions) I would simply ignore deathwatch. It mostly seems to be a game of superhuman combat. Everything ten times larger then live does not need finetuning anyway.



But FFG is not paying to much attention to continuity and it does not seem to be interested to get established flaws out of the system.

For example, I recently mentioned to the rules question section that a Plasma Rifle with S/2/- is not making to much sense if it has a "flat" recharge added to it ("1 shot and I need to spend the turn recharging... but 2 shots are alright") and pointed out that it would be better to make an official errate, turning the weapon the way RT handles them.

Offiicial answer by FFG goes along the lines "well, it is okay like DH handles it but you are free to use RT rules if you like". Maybe I am really just a square-head, but I think FFG is much to relaxed in regard to the sense of their rules.
Same thing about "drug prices". After the forum pointed out that Obscura with 285 thorns a dose is much to expensive to be "the common joes drug" they ERRATAed the price down to 28,5 thrones... and in "Book of Judgement" they had another "common low-hive drug" which had price-per-dose with three diggets.

Simply, they are not very focused in what they are doing and I greatly regret it. 40K does deserve better then this.

I couldn't agree more. There is a certain breeziness to the rules, that was started with the RAW by Black Industries, but it's being continued by FFG. I've been roleplaying for ages and never encountered a system with so many inconsistencies and unclarities. And then they rarely supply an index too.

I completely love these settings and consider myself a FFG fanboy for making roleplaying in the 40k universe possible, but they should really up their game!

Crunch-wise, the system is lacking. Maybe they are not clearing things up now because they are aiming for that inevitable second edition ....

The Laughing God said:

I don´t think that we will see a second edition of DarkHeresy. One of the problems FFG seems to face with DH is that their are areas of the background which they CANNOT develop due to GW mandate. Certain things about 40K have never ever been clear. For example, the exact positions of sanctioned Psykers, how they are handled outside of the military, if they are free to do their own business or if they are essentially slave or "slaves for a time". The other systems (DW, RT and BC) do not have this drawback. An RT is normally outside of imperial space, DW is centered on war and the Imperium at war is largely covered thanks to its TT-wargame heritage. And BC has its own little Eye of Chaos, so the developers are free to do as they please in regard to "larger society".

Besides that, have a look at the output. DH-things are not really on schedule and in regard to the new adventures for BC we have an inccident of a new product to be announced and released while "Only war..." is announced and...not heared of! The supposed "new/additional" game line of "Ascension" did not got any meaningful support. Yes, they add some "upgrades" for actual missions so that you can play them "Ascension-Level"... but does a game become Ascenions Level because the foes get a little harder? I do not think so or better: I do not hope so!

At the moment, I am wondering if FFG is actually not intending to get a second edition going (which will make the majority of us WHINE; BARK AND RAGE since we will have to buy all those books AGAIN!!) but expecting the players to have one or more or the other core books ANYWAY and "help themselves".

In regard to the GW backgroudn control, I could imagine the whole DH line to go silent in order to turn their energy onto fields they can actually develope.

How psykers are handled is a different case, IMHO. That's fluff. What strikes me most, is how the crunch (the rules, the technicalities of the system) is so shaky and so far never corrected.

Where did it every say that Ascension would have it's own micro-line of material? I think I missed that.

The rules in these games have always been VERY breezy. All the mechanics can be summed up as “how this rule works exactly is up to the GM”. The designers only want to do the fun stuff: the fluff, the background, the atmosphere. And they do this very well. But they seem uninterested in getting the crunch right.

I wouldn’t like to do the crunch part of game design either. But that’s why I pay for finished products made by professionals. And I would expect the professionals to do the unpleasant work of getting the mechanics right, because that’s part of the job too!

It annoys me that Black Crusade is in a sense the FOURTH edition of the core rules. And still they can’t hammer out the mistakes and turn it into a tight, coherent rules set. How many tries do they need??

Captain Erf said:

@ERF
Besides the new approach to multi-attack-talents, I think they did it quit right. Taking aside the "Minion"-Thing which is new and not "tried this once". Where do you see the problems with the BC-system?

@Laughing God & "Ascension-Support"
I expected it due to the fact that Ascension changes the whole scope of activity of the players. That is the main reason why the Influence trait was given. They are now completely able to send around their own cells of acolythes, "lend" platoons from the Imperial guard and urge planetary Governeurs to act more forcefull in regard of "this minor smuggling inccidents". But these will hardly be plot points in a regular DH game since regular acolythes are not able to pull any of this feats off.

Captain Erf said:

I think this is the wrong view to take. These are four distinct games that each play and feel quite uniqe, while using similar but purpose built differences in rules.

ItsUncertainWho said:

Not really. If Awareness needs a fix in DH, it will also need to be fixed if RT uses the same old in-need-of-a-fix rule.

One could argue, inconvincingly, that DW requires a different mechanic for Unnatural Characteristics than DH because of it's backdrop premise as a game of superhuman combat. But DW uses the rule from DH, while BC comes with a streamlined rule.

The Laughing God said:

The alteration of Unnatural characteristics in BC was to tone down marines and make them more playable with the super buff humans in BC. Personally, I find the Marines in BC to be a shadow, at best, of what an Astartes should be and the humans to be on the verge of superhero status in physical ability. Unfortunately this is needed to make the premise of BC, a mixed party of the worst, best of humanity, and the failures of the space marines coexist in a consistently fun for all game.

My original point was that BC is not the fourth edition of the rules, but the fourth evolution of them based on the need of the games. They are not perfect but each has a feel and play that fits the individual game. Yes, they all have flaws. I have yet, in nearly 30 years of gaming, seen a system that doesn't have issues, some have far more than all the 40K games combined. At least FFG has tried and released multiple errattas for each of the lines. That's something that can be said about very few companies.

You could, if you really felt the need, look at BC as the start of a second edition.

Maybe we should compile a big document on these sneaky little rules changes (anyone noticed how Parry has become a skill like Dodge ?), from autofire to Unnatural Characteristics to how psychic powers work.

Is someone already busy?

The Laughing God said:

seriously? u have a page number? dont have my book with me

The Laughing God said:

Pages 280 to 286 of the Black Crusade rulebook. It isn't a comprehensive list of changes, but it should be useful nonetheless.

Are they finetuning the rules? They sure are. They are also adapting the rules for specific games. RT for example needed rules that were not present in DH, Deathwatch needed rules where you play a combat monster without peril and feel like you are the king of the battlefield. BC, needed rules where you can play both high and low powered characters at the same time. They also introduced another character building tool that got rid of the level structure that was to be found in DH, RT and DW. Each and every system looks like its brethern but it is best not to mix them, because they are all different systems. But each system tries to improve upon flawed earlier rules.

I expect that we WILL see a 2nd edition of DH. One where all the lessons learned will be put into play. A thing that besides giving us an improved system also makes sense from the business model point of view. A new edition earns a lot more money then a reprint will.