Its not things like Solo modes and the like that cause the problem for me . The number 1 issue (though not the only one) is the weapons (and the issues that have arisen because of that). They do not fall on the same scale as the ones in the other games. The standard Marine bolter does 2d10+5... more than a heavy bolter. Firstly this is daft (not just because I don't actually like the whole concept of the "Astartes Bolter", but that is another issue entirely), and secondly this does not match with already established Space Marine bolters in the Dark Heresy line. Now, this has knock on effects elsewhere, such as the damage of other weapons (most obviously the Marine heavy bolter) and the write ups for adversaries. The original ones in the rulebook just didn't cut the mustard because of the daft weapon damages, and since then many creatures have been obviously beefed up in order to present some sort of challenge because of this (the prevalence of huge wound totals being one example, and the number of elites running around with TB of 18+ being another).

As you suggest you could use the Errata weapon damages (which I do when playing Deathwatch, and they are a big improvement), but this causes problems of its own. 1) Due to the fact these stats are "optional" the adversaries had to be built for the original weapon stats as well as the new ones. This means that many creatures that bolters should be able to hurt, but just not that much, are at a level where the only way the new damages can actually do anything is if they roll 10. This is an issue internal to Deathwatch so doesn't necessarily directly affect this discussion. 2) Many of the new weapon stats are very much "gamist" stats. I mean this in the sense that they are not designed with representing the effects of the weapons in the game system in mind, but to balance them (this is not unique to Deathwatch. Dark Heresy plasma weapons are similar, though consequently make them rubbish). Space Marine boltguns are capable of automatic fire, but with the errataed weapon stats they don't. Game balance wise this is understandable (it stops normal bolters slaughtering Hordes all on their own), but if you then put them alongside most Dark Heresy weapons they don't represent their capabilities very well.

These are not issues if you stay within Deathwatch, but trying to port across and they are.

Ok, I will admit the Parry issue is easy to solve, at least at the basic levels (just presume all careers start with Parry +0 and be done with it). It takes a little thought to think about when they should be able to get it on their career progression and the cost, but it wouldn't be too difficult. I do think the combining skills issue is more important though.

Career progression: The various lines are not balanced against each other. A Dark Heresy character of equal xp to a Rogue Trader character will almost always be superior. Ok, at the level RT characters start out they may out perform Dark Heresy characters in being jack-of-all-trades (due to higher stats), but Dark Heresy characters will almost certainly outperform them in their specialisation, and eventually they catch up at being jack-of-all trades as well.

Compatible and interchangeable are not the same thing.

I can buy a radiator hose at the auto parts store that is compatible with my car or I can buy an OEM part that is interchangeable. The compatible part works fine after making some adjustments. It is to be expected that a part from an outside source is going to need adjustment.

My view is that everything should be compatible. You cant bring a DW vehicle into DH because its completely off-scale. A Space Marine bolter is something else than an acolyte bolter. The DW Orks are much meaner than DH Orks. Every system has a different take on various rules aspects, mistakes corrected in one version come back in a later game.

It just feels like the designers don't care enough to present a streamlined, well-thought out system. Just launch another book and let the fanbase sort out all the difficulties.

borithan said:

It doesn't. According to the errated stats that 90% of people who are aware of them are using, an Astartes bolter does 1d10 + 9.

Saldre said:

They're compatible enough such that if each PC and NPC on the table followed explicitly the rules listed in the book that generated them (e.g. DH characters follow rules out of DH's core book, DW characters follow rules straight out of DW's book, etc.) then you can have near-seamless gameplay. A wound is a wound is a wound. Rolls provide "degrees of success". Fear is fear, etc.

Yes, talents are different across systems, but if using the talent from the system your character is from, you can act just fine. About the only thing that comes to mind is that different would be how to handle opposed tests with unnatural traits across BC and the other systems. And even then, the multiplier of DH/RT/DW is similar to the size bonus of BC's UTs.

Its not like trying to mix DH with D&D. I'm not trying to convert a DC into a % target. I'm not trying to take an AC value and convert it into a mix of dodging, parrying, and AP. Snafu is not a damage condition. I'm not adding an attribute and a skill to determine my dice pool. Characters have the same vocabulary for actions.

Now certainly, "balance" is an abstract thing across these systems (a 1k xp character in each system will have different strengths and weaknesses), but its not impossible to have a character from each system sit down, and act upon one another.

Psykers would just use the rules from the book they come from, and victims of psychic abilites would make rolls as requested by their attackers.

So yes, they are "compatible." Or at least, more so than DH is compatible with D&D, Shadowrun, or Paranoia.

Getting back to the title of this thread: put me in the column of being disappointed at the decision to make Only War a seperate game rather than a supplement to DH as it was originally announced. Both because it represents a withdrawl of support for DH , and because it seems cheesy to me to try to flood the market with a constant stream of 'new' games rather than focus on supporting a few good games...

from france

"Getting back to the title of this thread: put me in the column of being disappointed at the decision to make Only War a seperate game rather than a supplement to DH as it was originally announced. Both because it represents a withdrawl of support for DH, and because it seems cheesy to me to try to flood the market with a constant stream of 'new' games rather than focus on supporting a few good games."

feel the same, it s like a betrayal. plus a stand alone 60 dollars book it s not the same as a 30 dollars dh suplement. a lot of people expted this book because it was announced as suplement for dh in 2011, the nothin some expected delay but not a separate game.

that for me the second betrayal be taking for a fool ffg never comunicate with us a bout their desire to change plans. by us i mean all who commes on this forum not just the happy few. it s "a fait accompli" and like all "fait accompli" it give you a bitter taste.

will we have the same surprise with the mechanicus? i don't care if it is compatible or not. what matter to me is trust. and tha trust is broken.

does will still have a "book of judgement" like for the last class assassin, imperial guard, mechanicus, psyker......or now it wil be each time a stand alone?

like i said don't care about compatibility i care about trust

@The8Spider

I'd say that the announcement we got yesterday might be considered communication by some - after all, there's still half a year left until the game comes out, or 3/4 of a year until it's out where we live.

Yes, FFG changed plans. Were they supposed to ask you for permission?

@Compatibility

Apart from BC with its fused skills, I'd consider the games quite compatible, for the reasons H.B.M.C. mentioned.

from france

i do not say they need my permission but they could say a long time ago we had another idea about only war so don't expect it to be a suplement and we will talk about it latter. that way we could be prepared and not expected it for too long.

i can't remenber a time in the forum that my ego goes too high. as i say i don't like "fait accompli"

borithan said:

borithan said:

I think this a pretty ridiculous complaint.

Sure, FFG could have released OW as a supplement. But would you have really been better off? Yes, it would have been more compatible - you'll probably have to make a few adjustments to the new rules to use them with DH. But you'll also be getting a lot more material than you would have with a mere supplement. Remember that this is unlikely to be one book, but a core + supplements.You're trading some minor compatibility issues for much more material.

H.B.M.C. said:

Would I expect them to stick with the established rules? Yes (at least if they wanted things to be truely compatible). OK, I understand why the changes were made. The truth is that 2d10 damage is just very random (helped by Tearing, but still quite random). This 1) makes them sometimes unimpressive weapons and 2) didn't fit with the new horde rules. The Horde rules need reliable damage to work and properly speed up play. 2d10 just doesn't deliver that. Add +5 to that and suddenly you don't generally need to even bother rolling damage against hordes. Of course, this lead to the aforementioned problems. The change to 1d10+9 fixed this, giving reliable and good damage, but not too good (and preventing RF explosions occuring quite so often).

However, remember these are stated to be optional and do not actually replace the original values (and the reason given for the change - "too speed up play" - is just disingenuous. It's because the original stats are broken. If anything it slows down play as the enemies now actually have a chance). Now, they do seem to be leaning more heavily towards the errata stats (and they have obviously changed over completely for Black Crusade), but there are still various places since where they have been used. This means that the published adversaries have to work with both the old and new stats, which has resulted in certain ones (mostly Tyranid ones) which have inflated wound totals and TB. This only applies to some Master and Elite level enemies, but there are some who you should be just about able to take on with a bolter (not that it should be anywhere near an ideal weapon), but are just impractical to do so unless you use the original stats. Several vehicles also have inflated armour values so that they are immune to certain weapons using the original stats (the main culprit I can think of at the moment are the front and side armour of the Rhino).

Even if you do change to the new stats (which I have), as I said they are not really compatible. The damage code works fine, but the RoFs don't accurately reflect the capabilities of weapons when compared to stats outside Deathwatch (as I mentioned, the fact that Space Marine bolters are no longer having full-auto). If I was going to be really pedantic (which I guess I am going to be to demonstrate a point), I could point to the autogun, which under the errata rules has a Semi-Auto fire rate of 3, rather than a full-auto fire rate of 10. This makes perfect sense for Deathwatch, as it stops hordes with autoguns 1) randomly massacring PCs due to the sheer number of shots eventually coming up with the randomly huge damage totals hordes can get and 2) taking forever to resolve, often with little-to-no effect. However, it does not reflect their "in-universe" capabilities (they are called autoguns because they are automatic) and it doesn't fit with their stats in all the other game lines.

"It doesn't. According to the errated stats that 90% of people who are aware of them are using, an Astartes bolter does 1d10 + 9."

- Those stats are explicitly stated to be optional . Now I personally use them, but not everyone does (even those that know of the new stats), and even though much of the material since written has clearly been written with those as a basis, not everything is (see many of the weapons chaos adversaries use: Bolters doing 2d10+5 with RoF S/2/4. This is in the same books where they have relic bolters being clearly based on the new stats), and many of the scarier creatures (largely tyranids) are given massive wound totals and huge base TB (in excess of what they would really need to be as tough as they should be), almost certainly so that they can at least vaguely contend with the original weapon stats.

I'm not saying the errata is perfect (it misses things, and there are mistakes in the errata). Moreover it does some things that should not have been done (the Autogun is a good example) and fixes the balance of some weapons (Breaching Auger) whilst unbalancing other weapons terribly (Thunderhammer). The RoF thing on Bolters is a matter of opinion. I like that they don't have Full Auto. No Full Auto means there's a point to the Stalker Pattern (a problem the game wouldn't have if it had BC style combat rules, but that's a whole separate issue).

Finally them as 'optional' is really not all that important. They're the 'intended' replacements, as made obvious by the BC stats for Legion Bolt weapons. If this game ever got a 2.0, they'd all be 1d10+9 rather than 2d10+5. 2d10 gave more chances for RF, and RF was auto-confirmed against most of the opponents the DW face. That's (to me at least) one of the reasons why they were changed.

BYE

I am not complaining about the errata (though I do have a problem with FFG's attitude to the errata: if they could just make up their minds about which to use, rather than the halfway house we have at the moment). Yes, as you said, it's not perfect, but it is much better (the big glaring issue I can think of is the automatic shotgun, which if you use Penetrator rounds just becomes stupidly good compared to the bolter). And I don't have a problem with the bolter's RoF. From a game balance perspective is makes perfect sense (as you say it makes the Stalker viable against it, and as I have mentioned before it stops it chewing through hordes quite as fast). It just doesn't reflect the weapon's abilities from a simulationist point of view (not that 40k RPG is very simulationist in the first place, but full-auto weapons theoretically should have the ability to fire full-auto in the game), but that is ok as long as it it is not alongside other more simulationist write ups. That is why, unlike yourself, I see no problem with what happened to the autogun, at least within the context of Deathwatch . It does have consequences on the compatibility with other games though.

The fact the things are optional matters a great deal, Yes, if they re-wrote it they would be 1d10+9. Yes, in Black Crusade, they are 1d10+9 (though the RF problem of 2d10 would actually be generally toned down with the new Black Crusade system... The new Righteous Fury system is about the only part of the new system I generally like). However, FFG has not been consistent in using the new stats, so it causes the problems I have mentioned: often it is unclear what something is meant to be balanced against, the new or old stats. Weapons tend to look like it is the newer stats, but NPC write ups still use the older ones, and I genuinely feel that they have caused stat inflation in some of the adversaries. This also causes problems in the compatibility with other games.

The more I read about the Errata here the more I think they mess things up instead of clearing things up ...

Now we have several versions of stats of the same kind of gun. We nerf the boltgun for space marines, but their chaos space marine adversaries still use the older 2d10 stats. Some things are changed which should not have been changed.

And then there's new mistakes in the Errata? Come on! We''ll be needing Errata for the Errata!

Well clearly you'd use the altered Bolter stats with adversaries as well. That's just common sense.

BYE

Of course. It doesn't solve the problem that FFG aren't being consistent though.

Ahh, what to say about this issue, I mean really, there is only one thing to say...

Outrage....

Dissapointment.....

and

DRAMA!!!!!!!!!!

Cause Emperor-****, can we have one announcement around here without someone turning in to freaking Hamlet? Screaming to the heavens about how it's the worst thing ever.

Haven't you heard? Buying a single FFG product gives you the moral right and obligation to critisize every decision FFG does, duh!

/sarcasm.

but yeah, I'm getting tired of the whiners as well; that's why we can't have nice things

Braddoc said:

Blood Pact said:

Really? This is what you get out of the entire conversation? Whiners? I didn't say it was the worst thing ever- no one said it was the worst thing ever. What were complaining about is the feeling that MAYBE, just MAYBE, someone somewhere is screwing us over here. [i did say the outrage was melodramatic but the disappointment is not]

Not to mention- you buy one product: First off, buying one product should be more then enough to get the support for said product. FFG should stand behind EVERY product they sell- there's no quota of money your required to spend before you get good service.

IF there was quota- I hope I passed it a while ago, if not, man they have high standards- like others here, I like FFG and what they sell- and thats not limited to their 40k things, but board-games. I did not scream to the heavens when Elder Sign came out, complaining that it was yet another Arkham Horror game (all of which I've purchased! All of them!) because the games are truly separate. Elder Sign does not remove the possibility of a "museum" expansion to Arkham Horror.

This is not the case with Only War, which effectively implies a withdrawal of support from DH in favor of the churning out of a new core-rulebook.

We can easily have nice things- the whiners don't decide what nice things we get and we don't get: buying a single product from FFG gives you THEM the moral right and obligation to stand behind that product, support YOU the customer and not bleed you dry when you ask for a look in your direction or basic necessary fixes.

This is YOUR right. Now, we may be on opposite sides of the table about THIS product- but that's fine: I don't mind. Clearly we have different standards about when or how we feel we should voice our opinions when, as 8 spider said, there is a feeling of betrayal. As a customer, I am informing FFG of this issue- perhaps not in the best format, who knows if they even read the forums- but still, there should not be pressure and bashing from the other side of the coin.

HMBC had voiced his opinion for the other side and did not just say "Buy it because we never get nice things" Granted, the discussion broke down slightly- luckily, several others brought up my point better than me that's for sure.

This isn't about getting nice things or not- its about getting what was promised, talking to your customers, informing them about how things are going. 40k is already a NICHE table-top hobby. Its neither the most popular game out there, not the most widely known and not the best regarded. Every customer is here because they like 40k, they enjoy the lore and the world. Every customer that's playing this game is valuable. Its nice to want to get more players out there- but putting out more core-rule books is the hammer solution that destroys your previous player-base to add an every shrinking new layer on top of it until there's no one left.

Dok Martin said:

British does not have to mean slightly naff. We do Blackadder and The Office, but we also have James Bond, Jack Aubery, Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo, Judge Dredd, Nemesis the Warlock, Slaine, Commando War Stories in Pictures, Mark Cavendish, and bloody Space Marines.

Braddoc said:

Spending hundreds of dollars on WH40KRP products- during a recession!- starting with the Black Library edition of DH absolutely does give me the right to complain about FFG withdrawing support from my favorite game in the line. Tell me with a straight face you've never complained about your home sports team making a detrimental trade- is that whining, or being a concerned fan?

From what I've mostly seen from this thread and others in the OW board is

1-People breaking down as the supplement is in fact, a stand alone system. With all the stuff people wrote and asked to be in Only War, if you even thought everywthing would have been crammed in a 150 pages supplement, you're dreaming, or they'll write in 4 size letters, no pictures.

2-People who gives out heart-breaking text about how DH was like their wife/girlfriend/whatever, before turning into emotional blackmail going "Give me DarkHeresy and/or W40k RPG 2.0 of I'm leaving you and I'm taking my money with me'

3-The Eternal discussion about the Erratas. Reading some comments, it is to wonder if people can manage to get around a situation with their brains and wits if it's not written in a book or errata document.

It feel sometimes that I might be the last one that's using the corebook rules as is (DH Psychic system for DH! How outrageous! Astartes bolter doing Astartes strength damage rather than SPESS MAHRENS damage? Shocking!) with little interruption from the erratas. The moment I saw OW coming out, I saw that someone else started a thread to celebrate its arrival (I've been waiting for it a while, I was happy about the news of the release), followed by a few posts and threads talking about how horrible that was, it was a scam, an outrage, a disapointment, almost a crime worse than mass murder, followed by pleas to FFG to quickly cancel everything and out with the supplement they talked about months ago, or that 2.0 version of the game people seems to want for some (to me) shaky reason.

Like I wrote elsewhere, they could make a 300 apge supplement, then we'll be having a buzz about how it's too big for a supplement, the price is too high for a supplement, and they should have just made a corebook.

I got 15 years of customer service experience,from hadware to phone calls, to food, and now with hunting equipment. No company or millionaire got rich signing lots of checks. Service is given by a company, but it's a company: if I exchange every rifle that comes through my door because people are not taking care of it (therefore, not manufacturer's defect, so not covered) my boss would have shown me the door for not having judgement. Honest mistake or freak accident? Happened like a couple of weeks form the buy? We're not heartless. We appreciate your business. Dropping it form their stand in a tree 30 feet in the air and the stock broke when it hit the ground? Even then we'll try to get a price arranged for the replacement, but we won't do it for free.

Anyways, just to say that they ARE supporting Dark Heresy; hell anything they are making out for the line of W40k games IS support for EVERY GAME. Do youo need a sign saying "Do not touch stove- it is Hot" in the ktichen or will you touch that hot stove each and every time you get into the kitchen? It's all a matter of what you do with what you have.

I don't know alot of games you can mix and match with that much ease, short of another d100 game, Call of Cthulhu (even then it's less about the different game than the different edtions are all similar short of a few rules, if any, placement of images/tables/info sniplets and typo mistake fixed)

So yeah- maybe it's not about having nice things, it's about people actually stopping whining and enjoy the arrival of a new book rahter than turning it, again, to a whine fest and pointing out to FFG the billions of non existing mistake/business decision they did not make, and possibly (I'm not one of them), making all those testers and contributors feels 'meh'd' as their little project is basically lynched on the public square without any trial.

And Adeptus: I never went on the company/sport team/whatever's forums and whined at them directly, no.

Braddoc said:

1- Disciples of the Dark Gods, one of my favorite and likely in my opinion the BEST book out of the ENTIRE set [ALL of the games included] is 250 pages. That's, if you follow up on my page-counting of the core-rolebooks, more then enough for a supplement to fill up all of the new stuff in only War without tacking on another 150 pages of rules, classes, enemies, etc etc we've already seen before.

The book contains rules for new rituals, spells, chaos, stats for enemies, lore on factions, tables, ideas, plot seeds- new evil gear- both mechanical and Rp tools to help everybody from players to GMs. Its insane how good that book is. And its still 150 pages short of a Core-rule book. Keeping in mind its 10 dollars cheaper on FFG's website. The book makes up for it by being an extremely well developed resource that can be used across systems. Only War could have EASILY replicated that model instead of creating a "new/rehashed system" for itself.

2- Your right, real men don't complain: they just open up their wallets and suck up their losses. It shows you've worked in customer service- you must not have got a lot of calls.

I tell you what- I worked in customer service as well: and people let you know their opinions all the time. Sometimes you can't do anything about it, sometimes you can. Sometimes you can't justify their opinions, someone you can.

I am fairly certain I have the power to decide where and how I spend my money. I am not blackmailing FFG into changing their mind- the damage is done, the thing was announced: they didn't ask for our opinions earlier, companies, as you've pointed out, don't work that way. This isn't the issue here. I am telling this company that this latest decision was, in my opinion, a step too far. That, as a concerned customer, I hope it doesn't become a habit. I would like to be reassured that I will get the support I payed for with this product.

3- When you buy a finished product, you expect it to work. You expect it to run fine. Some of us don't have time to rewrite FFG's books for them. Some of us don't have the time or skill to rebalance an entire book's worth of guns. We do not have teams of play-testers to work out these things for us. Now, I am not talking about the lore or the ideas- I am talking about the raw mechanics of this game that I bought that I am expected to play with. More then half of my money went into the system itself- the lore exists on the internet- on the lexicanum, in books and novels, etc etc. FFG has the responsibility to ensure that the game IS working. I am neither getting payed, nor do I have the time to, fix up their mistakes for them. When, as a GM, I have a few hours to setup my game for my players, I do not have time to waste balancing guns, adjusting skills and talents- arguing WHY that robe doesn't cost 5k even though the book that I payed 30$ says it does.

It would surprise you know, and maybe you should down for this, that a lot of people play BY the rules. A lot of people payed money to get these rules to USE THEM. Not to constantly have to house-rule around them and run around in circles to find a solution to problems that should not exist in the first place. There is NOTHING wrong with my playing by the book. Telling people to suck it up and house-rule and change things up is delegating responsibility from FFG to the players who have already payed to get a product so they can sit down and spend every minute of their limited gaming time playing- not arguing about the validity of this house rule or the next. I find it funny that you use the Core-rule book without any problems. You must have really reasonable players- because even though my players are extremely reasonable, they don't take too kindly to the idea of rewriting most of the books because some of the things simply don't work.

DoTDG is 256 pages long, and no one has complained about that- even though its only 10 dollars cheaper then a core-rulebook. Why? Because its content is excellent. Why didn't they take it and make it into its own game instead of Black Crusade? Was it a bad decision not too? Who knows. It didn't matter- because the book was solid: it contained tons of lore, ideas, tables, stats, new spells and rules for rituals, artifacts- EVERYTHING.

Man, I had written more- but I accidentally deleted it, though I had managed to copy the previous part of the post. I don't want to bother typing the rest out again because its very draining- I might type out the rest at some later but for now, I am going to get something to eat.

I would like to say though, if you've never went to the forums of a company, sports team, whatever forum to complain or at the very least voice out your opinion (be it positive or negative), then you are neither a real fan nor involved enough to bother/care: voicing your opinion is not, and should never be labelled as "whining". As paying customers, we have a RIGHT to expect a certain service from the company. If you want to renounce that right, your free to do that if you'd like. But for those of us who actually care about the product were receiving and its future- I say keep posting, make yourself heard.

Edit- we've stressed out that the Lore and the writing have always been excellent in the 40k Rpg line. Its the other sections, the cut and pasted parts, that are bothering most people. The lack of support/communication too.

from france

"1-People breaking down as the supplement is in fact, a stand alone system. With all the stuff people wrote and asked to be in Only War, if you even thought everywthing would have been crammed in a 150 pages supplement, you're dreaming, or they'll write in 4 size letters, no pictures.

2-People who gives out heart-breaking text about how DH was like their wife/girlfriend/whatever, before turning into emotional blackmail going "Give me DarkHeresy and/or W40k RPG 2.0 of I'm leaving you and I'm taking my money with me'"

since when voiced one opinion is whinning? i played dh an rt so yes i choose to not play the other game. that's right no one forced me tp buy them.

i love blood of martyr, inquisitor handbook i said it . i hate the trilogies involving the eclesiarchy. i said it.

only war was sait to be print a t the end of 2011 as a dh suplements. if is was so good that need so much pages like the inquisitor handbook i wil have now problems with that as long as it is part of dh .

but instead ffg printed it as stand alone book witch means that a part of housse rulling for compatibility the guradsmen class won't be part of dh as like clerics.

again shall we expected the same for the mecanicus?

why ffg have to communicate when they have willing bully happy to shoot at people voicing their opinion. announcing new stuff is not the same as communicating. something they don't do.

your second point is insulting and patronizing. at least a girlfriend talk. happy talk with your five marylin