Saldre said:

Regarding the bolded part: No. FFG does not decide when a game is dead. That decision is made by the customers and the distributors (ok, GW can also pull the licence, but that doesn't seem to be an issue yet). FFG will keep on printing DH supplements as long as enough customers keep buying them. The number of releases a year is determined by sales - the more people are buying the books the more the distributors will order more the more FFG will put on their schedule.

But, inevitably with every RPG, sales go down with time. A game dies when sales drop to a certain point - after which the company can't make it any more. And no, a new supplement will not 'revive' the game. No supplement ever has. The only way to revive a game at that point is to release a new edition - an option I suspect FFG can't take at this time.

FFG had clearly intended to release OW as a supplement. But in all likelihood they realised that the orders from the distributors weren't going to be enough to justify it. Or at best the margin on it would be tiny. But I think you need to get used to the fact that DH probably doesn't have much material in its future.

Adeptus-B said:

FFG benefits from constructive criticism, not people ranting and raving, and generally making asses of themselves by throwing baseless accusations and just plain vitriol at the company.

And that's the makeup of the vast majority of the complaints around here, and you **** well know it.

Again, that was completely uncalled for.

We've so far presented our arguments- and have had several well thought out replies that both support Only War or share the opinion that, it, specifically- is one book too many because it encroaches on the other lines.

This is constructive as its the point of view of several posters- who are customers as well. Whose decision to buy or not this book was influenced directly when the new product was announced as a core-book instead of a supplement.

Were neither throwing "baseless accusations" - Were only pointing out how things look from out point of view. Not to mention, all of our posts have had praise to both FFG's writers and several of its books, which we were hoping to have Only War emulate [Which leads directly into our disappointment].

So you'll have to excuse me If I don't agree as to the makeup of "vast majority of the complaints here"- but instead encourage people to talk out their opinions on this development, no matter how much you may or may not disagree with them [cause you know, that's cool too].

This is still a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation.

They release a core rulebook, and people complain about having to buy the Skills/Talents/Weapons/Adversaries again. If they'd released the book without those, people would complain that they're releasing an incomplete product and 'forcing' everyone to buy one of the other core rulebooks.

Core Rulebooks, unsurprisingly, need the core rules for the game. Not including them would be madness.

BYE

It's not really that much of a "damned if you do damned if you don't." If, as they had announced, this was going to be released as a supplement for Dark Heresy there probably would have been little complaint (I won't say no complaint, as there are always going to be some who are not pleased with the eventual content).

Yes, a Core Rulebook needs the core rules. It also needs enemies, and the setting information etc. However, the question is really "Why does this need to be core rulebook?" No one was expecting core rulebook (those involved in working on it aside). There had been no hints that one would be released, there was no obvious missing gap in the line (at least on the Imperial side). I doubt many would have gone "Why is there no core rulebook for playing as Imperial Guard?" if Only War had been released as a Dark Heresy supplement. People wouldn't miss something they never had an expectation would exist (though, yes, there would be an outcry if it was now withdrawn as a separate game). However, this announcement has taken something away from Dark Heresy: a supplement for martial characters and campaigns. No matter how good this book may be (and I hope it is) it won't be fully compatible with Dark Heresy, it will not provide the character options for Dark Heresy characters that people were expecting, and (depending on what the setting is) probably won't provide the Calixis Sector background and organisations that people were expecting. Now, some parts of it may be usable as a source for Dark Heresy, and any general advice on running a military campaign may be useful (though of course at this point you may just as well run it as a separate game), but there is still now something missing in the Dark Heresy line: a sourcebook for martial characters and organisations in the Calixis Sector (and for those who are using Only War as a Dark Heresy sourcebook, they will be paying extra for stuff they don't need).

Added to this is now the question mark this has left over Dark Heresy as there are now no announced planned releases. Maybe FFG totally intend to continue to produce material for Dark Heresy, but that isn't clear. Even if they do, are they still going to produce a martial sourcebook? Here they are in a "damned if you don't, damned if you do" dilemma, as if they don't but continue with the career related sourcebooks, people wanting martial characters may feel left out. If they do produce another distinct supplement, then they may face accusations of basically producing two products out of one.

borithan said:

The problem with this line of argument is that it assumes that people always know what they want. That assumption doesn't allow for the fact that something new - that they don't know about and thus don't know that they might want it - could come along and sate their particular desires.

If you only ever give people the things they say they want, then they only ever get things that imitate the stuff they like but already have... which results in boredom because they suddenly find themselves without anything new. It's similar to the kind of thinking that results in endless sequels to movies that didn't need them and remakes of TV shows that were perfectly fine in the first place.

I am not saying that FFG shouldn't do something new. I am just pointing out that the... disappointment this announcement has caused would not have existed if it had remained as it was. The problem isn't that FFG have made something new, but that they have replaced something that was expected with something else entirely. There would not have been the same reaction if they had announced a Eldar roleplaying game, for example. Now, of course there would have been critics and doubters ("Ah, but Eldar are too alien to play properly." "I don't think they will do the Eldar justice" etc), but no one would have felt... well robbed almost, by the announcement. DH would still have its supplement and there would still be something new.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

The problem with THAT argument is that the people[on this board] have made it rather clear what they wanted [and as a business, FFG should give people what they want, at least until they stop buying it]- with the constant "Where's Only War" and "Any Announcements for the line" and the Ordo Xenos or Mechanicus book that people have been clamoring for for ages now. Not to mention that "Only War" is nothing new. People have been expecting it for a while and were looking forward to the information inside.

Generally, that would be true- but in this particular case, Only War resembles a spin-off of a movie instead of the sequel we were looking forward to [Not ALL sequels are bad, especially since that particular aspect of DH hadn't gotten stale in that it hasn't even been explored as others!]

Only War turned out better than I could have ever hoped for. I was expecting something lite like the Book Of Judgement and didn't really have high expectations.

Then BLAM a whole new core book to do the Imperial Guard justice. It brought a tear of joy to my eye. Finally another core book besides Dark Heresy that I find remotely interesting. Time to get down and dirty in the trenches.

I've been playing DH pretty much weekly since it was taken over by FFG, and I love every minute of playing it. We've never had a problem with DH that we couldn't solve by applying a little common sense. We've been playing Ascension lately and it's a blast. I guess that I'm a minority player in the fact that I'm having a ton of fun with every aspect of DH.

Only War only serves to expand our current DH game, we might find our throne agents in a war zone in the near future in charge of a unit or two of Imperial Guard. Being a throne agent has it's perks.

Saldre said:

Hold up.

Only War is 'nothing new' ? Quite a bold statement. And contradictory, given that you were looking forward to the 'information inside' (in this context, I'd assume, information on the Imperial Guard, yes?). And it being a Core Rulebook as opposed to a supplement stops it from having the same 'information inside' does it? If so... how?

And what unexplored aspect of DH would Only War be looking at? Full-scale war with the Imperial Guard. That doesn't sound like an aspect of DH to me at all.

Now, you're probably thinking "Ok, what if OW had stayed a supplement, would you say it doesn't fit with DH?". The answer to that is probably yes - Grey Knights don't really fit with DH either and I'm ok with them. When I saw OW in that preview document it was the one I wanted most. And now that it's a core book I want it just as much as I wanted it then. I wanted a Guard book, and that's exactly what we're getting. The specific form that Guard book takes is unimportant to me, because it's subject is the Guard, a subject second in my heart only to the Ordo Xenos and the Adeptus Mechanicus.


BYE

Catachan said:

Unfortunately, your likely not going to get THOSE rules in there now that its no longer a supplement. I will be happy if there`s a blurb mentioned the Inquisition`s relationship with the guard, but an actual mechanical way to get a DH character lead an Imperial Guard regiment, or even join in, is likely going to require as much conversion and messing around as getting a Death Watch marine or Rogue Trader to join up. But as this is an aspect that`s not yet revealed or discussed in detail, I will refrain from commenting on that particular aspect or the specific rules described in the book with relation to DH. We can only be certain that game doesn`t have the Inquisition in mind because, like HBMC would say, why should it? Its its own game now. Its contribution to a DH game is likely to be on the same level as Death Watch, Rogue Trader or Black Crusade [Connected fluff-wise, but minimal setting and virtually no rule.]

I wish I knew how to quote two people in the same post- but this next part is in response to HBMC:

Let me rephrase- the Idea of Only War is nothing new. As Borithan was nice enough to point out in his post. And no, I wasn't looking for "Information on the Imperial guard"- for that, I can pick up an Imperial Guards codex. I am looking for Information on the imperial guard in the Calixis Sector- for information on War Worlds there, important NPCs in the setting [that won't cause the ones I make up to contradict lore when FFG decides to pull it out an interesting campaign set in one of those worlds], for information on tools of the guards [tanks, better plasma/melta?] and alternate ranks and backgrounds for my players.

Thats the stuff I was looking for. And Yes, being a core-rulebook keeps it from having this information by forcing it to devote previous pages instead to describe the rules- because a corebook would any rules would be madness.

FFG didn't used to agree with you on that point: check out the corerule book for the "Only War" paragraph, the description of War Worlds, the Inquisitor's handbook "War zones", disciples of the Dark Gods' Pale Throng. The multitude of background packages for Guardsmen. The Guardsman class itself.

War is an integral part of 40k- You can even field an inquisition Army in the table-top game. Heck, you can even field a Sisters of Battle Army. I don't quite understand why "War" ISNT an aspect of Dark Heresy.

I was also looking forward to Only War as a book on the Imperial Guard. The difference between the both of us seem simple to me now: you wanted one about the guards, thats it thats all- and thats what your getting. I wanted one about the guards in Calixis, and I am likely not going to get that anymore- simply because making a corebook floods reduces the amount of pages that can be devoted to expanding that aspect as much as I would have liked.

Edit- And please, let's not say "you don't know whats in the book, it could very well be set in the calixis sector" because even if it is, then I am paying for 400 pages worth of contents of which I am likely going to use less than a quarter of it. You get back to the whole "Paying for things you already have problem".

Saldre said:

And the problem with THAT argument is that a handful of complaints on this board isn't a good way to judge what the customers want. It is, in fact, one of the worst ways to do customer research.

FFG more than likely had a pretty good idea as to what the level of interest in OW as a supplement was. Clearly they decided that going with a new corebook was a better option, indicating that the level of interest was probably pretty low.

As an old Exalted player I recall the forum opinions on the Sidereal splatbook. Which were later.. addressed in the 2nd Edition book, royally screwing it up. Even their new 2.5 mechanics leave them a little nerfed.

So yeah, go forum opinions!

Your going to have to expand on exactly what changes the forums influenced, because I've never played exalted and have no idea what your talking about. However, just like that and please correct me if I am wrong, it seems the aspect that the players influenced and likely screwed is mechanical. That's not surprising- like I said, I am terrible at creating new mechanics and balancing them out. I wouldn't want anyone to listen to me about that- unless I had a massive group of play-testers to back it up.

It was negative critique, extremely negative, and it was not based on mechanics but largely people's personal biases against the Sidereal splat. There were calls for mechanical weakening, and fluff re-writes. The public had spoken, and White Wolf decided to listen, in regards to the first half anyway. And it was a big mistake.

Point being, relying on feedback from the forums is not a magical always-get-it-right business strategy.

After some careful consideration, I for one have decided that Only War would have been a very shoe-horned in supplement for Dark Heresy. Your acolytes don't need to know how to plan whole military campaigns, or directs entire divisions in the field. When they're on the field with an army, they tend to have a very specific objective that can have absolutely nothing to do with their current objective (like banish the Daemon Prince, or stop the evil cult ritual). I don't need a book to tell me how to describe a battle going on in the background of my party's adventure. Not to mention that it's kinda their job to keep things from getting to the point where it's open warfare.

Well this is just alot of back and forth tomfoolery...

Ok I can see the dissapointment that OW is no longer the supplment for DH as it was originally announced as way back when. The reason for dissapointment is because it was expected and it expanded on a some careers like the guardsmen and possibly the asassin. Kinda like they did for the Arbitrator and Scum with book of judgement and the Cleric with the blood of martyrs and to a lesser standpoint. I think for the people who are dissapointed wanted supplements that expanded the core books' careers.

Though at the same time a good chunk of people who are looking forward to OW being its own line is that we get to work with the Imperial guard in its entirety. Lets behonest here people fitting the entire Imperial Guard in a supplement would not work. That is why I am gonna go out on a limb and say that while this was originally intended to be a supplment, they stumble upon the idea of making this its own system to garner more attention.

Also I think "Only War" would of been mistaken title for a DH supplement. When I think of Only War, I think of a mass of infantry charging and screaming into battle, tank squadrons clunking away while letting loose with massive guns to support squishy soldiers, commanders barking orders over vox comms to tell their men to hold the line. While DH is more about political intrigue, investigation and weeding out the heretics and the like from the faithful.

All that said I think people just need to look at not only the rule changes but the theme of what the core rules represent in its line.

For me, ya I'm dissapointed that I don't have a DH supplement that would of give me career options, cell directives and new weapons, But hey I get new line of books that focus on the Imperial guard. That is sure as hell is a improvement from a simple 250 some odd page splat book.

Now for the compatibility issue people are getting at..

Admittedly yes there are quite a few minor mechinical changes such as the merging and editing mechinics of how certain things work and could potentially cause problems when trying to use other books. An example being DH mixed with BC. I personally feel that the problem is not only the mechanical changes and quirks here and there, but also how the GM uses and interprets the rules. Sure it doesn't make sense to change one of the careers in DH accordingly to the changes in BC's talents...thats just rediculous. The RoF mechanical modifiers though can be easily transplanted. As well as the psychic mechanics can be tweaked for use in either of the core rule books. It just takes alittle effort on the part of the GM and his players.

Now on the other hand I can see the benefit to a reworked combined 40k rpg core rules with supplements expanding on the different themes (like Alien codexes and such). You worry less about other lines dying out, its easy to update it and easy to support it.

My final words are that FFG are the ones incharge of these products and its up to them if they wish to change the way they pursue the products evolution, while it is our resposibility as the consumers to make responsible and informed descions on if we want said product or not. While me and the company don't see eye to eye on some things i still love the books and keep coming back to them. That there folks is my cents worht anyway

Blood Pact said:

It is, in fact, a really really bad business strategy. Forum feed-back is an extremely inaccurate and misleading way to judge customer opinion on a product.

The best thing a business can do with regards to customer opinion on a forum is to ignore it.

macd21 said:

Really?

I admit that forum feedback is hardly a perfect representation of customer opinion, but it does show general trends. If you ignore it completely, then a business' only other source of market research is spending thousands of dollars hiring Market Research firms to conduct questionaires. And if a business decides not to conduct any market research, they are left with blind guesswork to anticipate customer opinions- which doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me...

Adeptus-B said:

That's the thing - it doesn't show general trends. It's impossible to say whether a thread (or even a group of threads) on a forum represents a real issue or just a number of irate customers unrepresentative of the majority.

There are a number of problems with using forums for customer research, but probably the biggest is that people complain more than they praise. If someone sees a new product and thinks "hey, cool" he's less likely to post to that effect on a forum than someone who sees it and thinks "this sucks!". As a result negative feedback on forums tends to be much greater than positive. For every poster complaining about product X you'll generally have Y number of customers who are perfectly happy with it, but don't feel inclined to post - only there's no way to tell what Y is.

As a result companies who've used forums as a source of feedback have gotten horrendously mistaken impressions of the customer base reaction to their products and then end up trying to fix something that isn't broken, often making things worse.

There are much better ways to get customer feedback (and they aren't limited to using MR firms and questionaires). Forums just aren't an effective method of research.

It's absolutely true that people are more likely to complain than praise- and companies take that ratio into consideration whenever they conduct any kind of customer survey. I know- thanks to the miserable economy, I've been stuck working retail for the last few years. The company I work for uses those on-line opinion surveys that you see printed on reciepts, and take the fact that people who are dissatisfied are far more likelt to reply that those who are satisfied into account when analyzing the results, to determine general trends.

Another problem with forums is that they tend to be very unrepresentative of the customer base. Each forum tends to attract like-minded people while driving away others. In the gaming world one forum may become a haven for 'hatorz' of a game, where people complain about every new supplement or development. Anyone who praises the game gets flamed. On another forum any criticism of the game will be pounced upon, leaving only fanboyz.

And - again - it's pretty much impossible to determine which way your forum tends to lean. If a product gets a lot of praise is it due to being an awesome product or because your forum discourages criticism and rewards fandom? Does the lack of criticism mean its a good product, or does it mean you need to look elsewhere? And likewise if your latest product is described as Father Nurgle's droppings mean that you need to change your publication strategy or does it mean that the forum is filled with people who hate your game?