H.B.M.C. said:

I don't care what percentage the rpg market comprises of FFG's sales, these are rpg books and they should work properly. if that isn't possible from the date of release then get them working IMMEDIATELY. Don't take 6 months. Your first and only priority should be to rectify that situation, which takes at best 1 week.

This company needs to get its finger out and stop fobbing people off with hype.

Ok, and once you've stopped being so openly hostile and needlessly inflammatory, step back for a moment, take a breath, calm down, and put some thought into some examples rather than just venting generally.

BYE

P.S. And what does announcing Only War have to do with an errata for Black Crusade? Don't answer that question. The answer is 'Nothing'.

H.B.M.C. said:

signoftheserpent said:

signoftheserpent said:

signoftheserpent said:

Now, I shouldn't join in on this, but I can't help myself.

Ignoring the possible attempt at irony by accusing others of trolling: Mistakes cannot be rectified immediately. As soon as possible, yes, but things need to be checked over (to make sure they are mistakes, what implication fixing those "mistakes" might have), someone needs to make the document up (and decide how they should be explained... a poorly worded errata is as confusing as a poorly worked original rule), and FFG has clearly decided that they want to deal with many issues at once (and give the errata itself quite high production values). Could FFG have put something out sooner. Yes, probably. However, it would have been much less thorough than this one it (yes, there are still other issues remaining). FFG obviously prefers putting out official errata's out in chunks, not just having a single file or document which is being constantly updated. For one, this allows them to go "There is now an updated errata", rather than just relying on people checking up every... well, whenever they feel there might be some small update. And until the point a new errata comes out there is always the option of contacting FFG directly and see what they are say (though if you take the same tone in your Rules Questions as you do here, I could maybe understand why you may have had a problem getting responses from them).

Proofreading? Yes, it is something that still puzzles me (though these are BIG books), but I don't see how you can get so riled up about it. There have been very few unrecoverable elements due to the proofreading problem. The intention can usually be quite easily worked out. I can't actually think of anything that drastic in Black Crusade (not that there haven't been problems, but nothing that needed to be fixed NOW!). Truthfully I don't think some of the slightly confused rules have been because FFG "doesn't respect their fans", but because some elements were self evident to them and they couldn't see the need for clarification, and only realised the problem after release (Deathwatch's Squad Mode rules are what I would regard as the best example of that, and I remember that being sorted fairly quickly).

As far as as your later post: All the books have had mistakes, yes, some unfortunately due to copy-paste errors. Lacking balance? How? I can only think of two books that I have felt lacked balance: Ascension and Deathwatch (and in the latter case it is pretty much down Assault Marine and the weapon stats). Ascension was an interesting idea... which hit many of the limits of the system, and consequently broke down. How did you make a character even more badass than a Rank 8 Dark Heresy character? Getting even higher stats can only go so far. Why not give them special abilities? And Unnatural Stats? We can now see why in the end result, but it was an interesting idea, some elements of which fell down. Deathwatch? Some of the same elements.40k RPG essentially has a class system, and there are only so many ways you can differentiate between Marines, so it made sense to hive off some of the melee abilities to the Assault Marine... but then it caused problems of balance with the other classes. The weapons were clearly an attempt to make sure they could 1) reliably hurt Hordes and 2) have a decent chance of hurting others like themselves. It achieved those objectives, it just had other unfortunate side effects.

Dark Eldar character not being Into the Storm: Because it wasn't ready yet? It probably hadn't even had work started on it at that point. Heck it might not even been decided to create a Dark Eldar PC class yet. Its not like it was an essential character option either. Why should it have been in Into the Storm?

The adversary section of every book lacking? Dark Heresy has quite a lot, just most are human and they have very little description aside from a title and a sentence. Yes, RT is limited, as is Deathwatch, but 1) by that point FFG had decided not to produce lots of stat write ups for lots of similar things and instead just provide one base element and give suggestions for altering it and 2) 40k RPG isn't really a game where you just drop pre-genned things in front of your players. You should build your own adversaries, using the ones provided as a guideline (and it really isn't that hard). The only exception I would say is for Deathwatch, because of the much more varied and specific opponents they are facing (namely the tyranids and tau), but even then they provide many of the basics. Its not as if most games provide an exhaustive adversaries selection in the core book anyway. They either provide none (expecting you to create your own or buy another book), or they provide a selection which is meant to keep you going and/or give some kind of guideline to making you own.

Not sure I get your point about the vehicle rules. Yes, they have only been available in separate books, but then I don't regard them as being that essential (and where would they fit the vehicle rules plus the stats for vehicles? The books are already quite large). Even without the specific rules you can easily still find uses for the skills. As far as Only War goes, it is the book I most expect to have the vehicle rules included in the core book, as it is the one where combat rules for vehicles will matter the most. You can't criticise them of not including them there until we see whether they have.

Character Creation includes skills that don't fit with certain talents? Not understanding that at all.

Why was the game not playtested: Well, I think they probably were.

signoftheserpent said:

Sorry mate, but I think you lost your perspective a bit.

There are mistakes in these games. They are still great games, far better than most IMHO. There's no need to use heavy weaponry. It makes you sound quite obsessed.

With an attitude like this, it isn't surprising that mistakes are made.

H.B.M.C. said:

So we come to it at last: professional pride.

Mistakes aren't quite normal. I can assure you that if you worked as a proofreader for bigger press products, like a harry potter novel, you wouldn't last five minutes with that attitude. Just because these are 'roleplaying games' is no excuse at all. In fact that's an appalling comment to make: they aren't just roleplaying games when I pay top dollar for my copy, how dare you be so brazen.

Finding everything is not impossible. You have computers and you have eyes. I spotted the mistakes with the character creation rules in BC instantly as I read them. They are not hard to find, yet it took 6 months to address them and whoever edited that book couldn't see them when being paid to spot the mistakes. That's extraordinary, but then I must be exceptionally perceptive I suppose.

Noone is going to lose their lunch over the odd inconsequential typo either. But we are not talking about a few mistakes amid a background of clearly laid out rules. We are talking about routine errors casued by a slapdash approach based around piss poor copy and pasting. It shows a total lack of respect for the customer and to the product. It is absolutely inexcusable. Blood of Marytyrs is rife with spelling mistakes, stat blocks are routinely wrong, as are numbers here and there. There is no excuse for there even being a need for errata: the books list a ton of playtesters. What were they doing? Playtesting isn't a free ride, it's a job and a responsbility. If these people aren't doing their job properly then find better playtesters and tell them what they are there for. Balance by its nature is not subjective, and a major part of the problem is adopting a rules system that is simply too clunky. It is serviceable and that's all.

H.B.M.C. said:

Why were these rules not included in ItS? Why not put out a dedicated book for Xeno characters, for example? You cannot tell me that an adventure book is the best fit for rules like these? This is not a trivial inclusion: in fact it smacks of desperation, of trying to convince players to buy the book they woudln't otherwise without the DE rules. This makes no sense at all, and this slapdash haphazard approach tells me that FFG's line managers are not thinking their job through properly at all. For instance, if I want to use spaceships in a BC game, I need to bring my copy of RT and Battlefleet Koronus, and possible INto the Storm, to a game session and cross reference 3+ different and big books. If that is something FFG think is efficient then they are living on another planet - quite apart from having to lug 4 pretty heavy books around to and from sessions. These are important factors routinely ignored by FFG.

H.B.M.C. said:

Why not? Dark Eldar were part of the setting at the time the book was written, as were Kroot and Orks. Who is making these crazy decisions? Why weren't Eldar, the best fit for that role, considered?

A complete lack of foresight that could possibly be foregiven if the game wasn't based on an already well established and incredibly well defined setting. All the info is already there!

H.B.M.C. said:

So why didn't ItS include Eldar or even Tau? Why just Kroot and Ork of all things? Why resort to sticking the DE rules into an adventure book? How is that efficient? Clearly they are there to sell Dark Reaver as a product that FFG is admitting won't sell otherwise.

H.B.M.C. said:

BC has three dark eldar. Three. That's it. No wytches, hellions, haemonculi, or archons or anything else from their well established canon. I don't expect EVERYTHING to be put into the corebook. I expect more than three. Not enough space? Simple, cut the adventure. It serves no purpose. It doesn't work as an introductory adventure for newbies, these adventures never do. Anyone knew to the hobby will have given up on the rules long before the adventure and besides there is Broken chains. Either that or put it on the web as a pdf. Problem solved.

The adversary sections of Rogue Trader and Deathwatch are a complete joke. What exactly are people meant to do? Fight an Eldar Corsair every game? Yippee! Give us more adversaries or give us toolkits to make them ourselves.

H.B.M.C. said:

Into the Storm and Rites of Battle are the only sources for vehicle info for ANY of these games. The latter are vehicles for SM characters so aren't always compatible. For a BC character (who can get anything he wants remember because that's what Infamy is for - want a vehcile? Make a roll and hope the stats are available) that's not much use. Even then it means having to cross reference more books from a not very compatible series of books during the game. This is crazy.

I don't own frozen reaches and citadel of skulls; i am not interested in buying adventures. Tome of Corruption is an exception because I wanted the necrons. This is the problem: forcing me to buy those books for a small portion of information that is the only part of th ebook that's going to be useful is stupid. It doesn't make me feel FFG respect me as a player or a customer, no matter how much I spend on their books.

There should have been vehicle rules in EVERY core book. There are characters in my game that have the Operate Vehcile skills. What is the point of them if they can't be used? That's appalling game design.

H.B.M.C. said:

The Heretek can choose one of two talents, armouer and a similar one for guns, each has prerequisites that can't be met during character creation. This is stupid.

H.B.M.C. said:

The playtesters are not doing their job. At all.

H.B.M.C. said:

Rules mistakes are not a subjective thing. If you can't see why that is then you are in the wrong job. Those examples you provide are exactly that/ You might find them funny, I don't. I find it ridiculous when they are ignored for 6 months without explanation by the company making money from the sale of those rules. That's disgraceful, as is your continued traducing of these issues as 'it's just a game'. That is absolutely appalling.

Dok Martin said:

give him an unstatted vehicle he can drive around in, or in case of war vehicles resolve it cinematicly.

signoftheserpent said:

So... asking for politeness and rationality rather than vitriol, insults and aggression is "an attitude".

It is entirely possible to provide criticism and voice your opinion without hurling insults. Personally, I have little willingness to pay any attention to your opinions if all you're going to do is spew abuse. Your tone is not one I would regard as conducive to reasoned debate, afterall.

signoftheserpent said:

Have you seen the kind of typos that end up in the average novel?

Attempt to take the moral high ground all you want, but don't spout lies to try and support your argument.

There is such a thing as human error. With the best will in the world, anyone can miss something that should be corrected, and restrictive deadlines exacerbate this further.

signoftheserpent said:

You are aware that those six months aren't just spent jotting down the answers on the back of an envelope. Each Errata document goes through several iterations behind closed doors and requires approvals once ready for publication, which takes time. Sure, it might take very little time to put together a draft of the errata... but going from that draft to something that can be released is not a swift process.

signoftheserpent said:

Actually, it is. Game balance is a matter defined heavily by context and individual perception, and influenced by matters of deliberate abstraction within game mechanics

signoftheserpent said:

A few reasons, the main one being that they hadn't been written until a few months ago, while Into the Storm was written more than two years ago. Another one being that dealing with Dark Eldar was, at the time Into the Storm was being developed, something of a shaky issue given that the Dark Eldar themselves were being redeveloped by GW at the time, and would have been a nightmare to get approvals for.

signoftheserpent said:

It's clear that you feel comfortable accusing people you've never met of incompetence.

As it stands, having worked on Soul Reaver, I can tell you that it's the best place to include these rules. You may not accept it, nor do I require you to, because I'm only stating my opinion here. The adventure provides a lot of information about Dark Eldar, and contains circumstances that are ideal for introducing a Dark Eldar player character into the game... so rules for Dark Eldar player characters are included so that groups can follow through on that opportunity.

signoftheserpent said:

And, taken out of context, that's bad.

In context, that bestiary also includes twelve kinds of daemon, six kinds of mortal heretic, seven common types of Imperial adversary, five varieties of Necron (and associated construct) and two entries for Harlequins.

Everybody has their own preferences for what is and what isn't important within a given book or product line. None of them are automatically right, and a balance must be struck between a variety of possible viewpoints.

signoftheserpent said:

I fail to see how the full list of talents, traits, skills and a knowledge of what the characteristics mean isn't a toolkit in some sense. Certainly, it works well enough for me, and I'm clearly an incompetent hack who knows nothing about how to write rules.

signoftheserpent said:

Fun fact - Rogue Trader was going to have vehicle rules in the core rulebook. They were removed for lack of space. The bestiary and starships sections in the Rogue Trader core rulebook were also originally larger, and were also reduced for space reasons.

Demonstrably, there was insufficient space to include everything that the designers wanted to include within the book.

Beyond that, as with proofreaders, the work that playtesters do is done under time constraints and inevitably less effective than the first week after publication for spotting errors - more people will look at a new book in the first week after publication than saw its contents at every stage during development.

And it's the same everywhere - the computer games industry is a valid comparison here - when doing internal testing on a new computer game (an old housemate of mine used to work for EA), far more errors are logged and reported than it is possible to fix before the next deadline, so the major problems are prioritised over the minor ones.

You can't see the problems that were fixed, because they've been fixed. You can't see the errors that were caught and corrected, because they were caught and corrected. Sometimes, new errors crop up later, after the proofreaders and playtesters have done their jobs (The Inquisitor's Handbook had a number of errors in the final version that didn't exist in the playtest manuscript).

signoftheserpent said:

Thing is, it is just a game. It's a niche hobby product, not a religious or legal text that will define lives. If anything, HMBC and I have more invested in these books than you do, because we've actually been involved in their development. In my case, it's a second job (because it's nigh-impossible to earn enough money to live through RPG writing as a freelancer), so this is a chance to earn some extra money doing something I enjoy and am demonstrably good at (because if I wasn't any good at it, I wouldn't keep being asked to work on new books).

That's all I have to say on the matter. I will, however, make one further request: take this diatribe to another thread, because you're derailing this one.

Once again I don't know how to multi-quote with this board software, so I'm afraid I'll have to do the numbered list/italics thing. Apologies for the formatting.


1. With an attitude like this, it isn't surprising that mistakes are made.

I have been nothing but civil with you yet you continue to make comments such as these. Please refrain from doing so.

2. So we come to it at last: professional pride.

That has nothing to do with what I was saying.


3. Mistakes aren't quite normal. I can assure you that if you worked as a proofreader for bigger press products, like a harry potter novel, you wouldn't last five minutes with that attitude. Just because these are 'roleplaying games' is no excuse at all. In fact that's an appalling comment to make: they aren't just roleplaying games when I pay top dollar for my copy, how dare you be so brazen.

People make mistakes all the time. Editors and proof-readers do what they can to find as many as they can. People are not infallible though.


4. Finding everything is not impossible. You have computers and you have eyes. I spotted the mistakes with the character creation rules in BC instantly as I read them. They are not hard to find, yet it took 6 months to address them and whoever edited that book couldn't see them when being paid to spot the mistakes. That's extraordinary, but then I must be exceptionally perceptive I suppose.

You ever heard the phrase 'can't see the woods for the trees'. I've written things that I've read over three, four, five times in a row. Read them out loud even, and sometimes you read what you think is there or what you meant to write, even if what's there is incorrect. Humans. Are. Fallible. And yes, I've found mistakes in the works of others within seconds of putting them to my eyes. Some mistakes make you scratch your head as to how anyone couldn't notice it, others are small (like writing Dodge +20 (Ag) rather than Dodge (Ag) +20) and don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

And none of them - none of them - are worth the pure fury you seem to be pouring into your posts. Get some perspective, please.


5. Noone is going to lose their lunch over the odd inconsequential typo either. But we are not talking about a few mistakes amid a background of clearly laid out rules. We are talking about routine errors casued by a slapdash approach based around piss poor copy and pasting. It shows a total lack of respect for the customer and to the product. It is absolutely inexcusable. Blood of Marytyrs is rife with spelling mistakes, stat blocks are routinely wrong, as are numbers here and there. There is no excuse for there even being a need for errata: the books list a ton of playtesters. What were they doing? Playtesting isn't a free ride, it's a job and a responsbility. If these people aren't doing their job properly then find better playtesters and tell them what they are there for. Balance by its nature is not subjective, and a major part of the problem is adopting a rules system that is simply too clunky. It is serviceable and that's all.

You're acting as if errata are something that FFG and FFG alone puts out. I can't think of a game that doesn't have ambiguous rules, errata, Q&A's and all sorts of things that come afterwards. And it's not even limited to games like these. Computer games are another thing - patches for errors in code, for features that don't work or break down. Why are you acting so ignorant of the real world?

6. Why were these rules not included in ItS?

As others have said, probably not even written or conceived yet. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? You might as well say "Why didn't they put out Deathwatch when Dark Heresy came out?". Because it wasn't written yet, wasn't part of a product plan, because they didn't have the resources... or just didn't want to yet? What does it matter? Not everything comes out at once, and they don't always have the same ideas or opportunities at the same time.


7. Why not put out a dedicated book for Xeno characters, for example?

Why not [insert literally any product type you can think of here]? Because they haven't yet, or are about to, or decided not to, or will, or won't... or who cares? I want a book all about tanks. I want a book all about Genestealer Cults. I want a book all about the Ordo Xenos. Will they do this? Beats me. Do they have to do them? No. Should they? Well... maybe? Again, what they put out is probably based upon what's interesting, what's fun, and what will sell. Clearly they think that a book dedicated to the Dark Eldar is worth making, so they made it.


8. You cannot tell me that an adventure book is the best fit for rules like these? This is not a trivial inclusion: in fact it smacks of desperation, of trying to convince players to buy the book they woudln't otherwise without the DE rules.

I can't tell you what your personal opinion should be. If you don't like adventure books than that's your choice, not mine. Me personally? I don't use adventure books. I tend to raid them for unit profiles and whatnot, but the actual adventures I've not run myself. Having read Soul Reaver I can say that - in my opinion - it feels like a 'race expansion' for RT, like sort of a 'package deal' product with an aventure, DE rules, and a DE career. A one-stop-shop if you like for all your DE needs, meaning anyone who wants DE can buy it all in one book, and any one who doesn't therefore doesn't have to. I think it's quite a novel way of introducing new races to the game's setting, and I could see them doing it with, for example, Orks in Deathwatch.


9. This makes no sense at all, and this slapdash haphazard approach tells me that FFG's line managers are not thinking their job through properly at all.

Again I must insist that you stop making baseless and out-and-out false statements, and to calm the **** down.


10. For instance, if I want to use spaceships in a BC game, I need to bring my copy of RT and Battlefleet Koronus, and possible INto the Storm, to a game session and cross reference 3+ different and big books. If that is something FFG think is efficient then they are living on another planet - quite apart from having to lug 4 pretty heavy books around to and from sessions. These are important factors routinely ignored by FFG.

Ah! And we reach the crux of your ire: "If I want to use spaceships in a BC game...".

Black Crusade has no rules for space ships. It may in the future - who knows, I certainly don't - but as it stands the only rules for space ships are contained within the Rogue Trader line, a line that is separate to Black Crusade. Battlefleet Koronus and Into the Storm are expansions for Rogue Trader, not Black Crusade, therefore they service the line they are part of - they are made to mix with the Rogue Trader Core Rulebook.

The quicker you learn that we are talking about five different games , the better.

11. Why not? Dark Eldar were part of the setting at the time the book was written, as were Kroot and Orks. Who is making these crazy decisions? Why weren't Eldar, the best fit for that role, considered?

Have you ever considered that maybe they didn't want to? Maybe they weren't allowed to (due to GW being in the stages of re-working the entire DE concept from the ground up)? That they didn't have room? That they didn't think, at the time, that it fit with the game? And the 'best fit' is an opinion, and opinion many share (I was expecting Ork Freeboota and Eldar Ranger/Corsair, not a Kroot Merc, but I was wrong about that). Doesn't make it right, and not everyone shares the same opinions.


12. A complete lack of foresight that could possibly be foregiven if the game wasn't based on an already well established and incredibly well defined setting. All the info is already there!

You're acting as if they didn't know the Eldar exist. Come on Sign... as the others have been saying, get some perspective.

13. So why didn't ItS include Eldar or even Tau? Why just Kroot and Ork of all things? Why resort to sticking the DE rules into an adventure book? How is that efficient? Clearly they are there to sell Dark Reaver as a product that FFG is admitting won't sell otherwise.

Tau aren't part of Rogue Trader's setting, which is the Koronus Expanse. Tau have no presence in that part of the galaxy - they're all the way off in the Eastern Fringe - so what would the Tau (let alone a Tau career !) be doing in a Rogue Trader book? And to answer your 'why' question about the Kroot and Ork... why not ? Sorry but your logic fails here. You're saying why a Kroot and an Ork but not an Eldar. Ok, say they had done an Eldar and a Squat. Couldn't you just as easily turn around and say "Why and Eldar and a Squat of all things? Why not an Ork or a Kroot?" . It's fine that you want an Eldar career - I really want an Eldar Ranger career in that book just like I really want a Callidus Assassin career for Ascension, but these are just our opinions. Them not making the things that we individually may want doesn't mean they are making mistakes.

14. BC has three dark eldar. Three. That's it. No wytches, hellions, haemonculi, or archons or anything else from their well established canon. I don't expect EVERYTHING to be put into the corebook. I expect more than three.

Did you not listen to a word I just said? The core rulebook has to cover a lot of bases. It had to introduce likely Chaotic opponents and Daemons, as well as Dark Eldar, Necrons and Imperial foes. That's a lot of ground to cover. It chose to cover a few basic enemies. It has to use its resources (page count) as best it can to cover as much as it can to get a good base-line of adversaries from each respective adversary/allied group.


15. Not enough space? Simple, cut the adventure. It serves no purpose. It doesn't work as an introductory adventure for newbies, these adventures never do. Anyone knew to the hobby will have given up on the rules long before the adventure and besides there is Broken chains. Either that or put it on the web as a pdf. Problem solved.

In your opinion it serves no purpose. In others it might be the first thing they play through.


16. The adversary sections of Rogue Trader and Deathwatch are a complete joke. What exactly are people meant to do? Fight an Eldar Corsair every game? Yippee! Give us more adversaries or give us toolkits to make them ourselves.

Translation: "I want everything and I want it right now!!!"

Be reasonable Sign. They can't include everything, and they can't release profiles for everything instantly and simult

17. Into the Storm and Rites of Battle are the only sources for vehicle info for ANY of these games. The latter are vehicles for SM characters so aren't always compatible. For a BC character (who can get anything he wants remember because that's what Infamy is for - want a vehcile? Make a roll and hope the stats are available) that's not much use. Even then it means having to cross reference more books from a not very compatible series of books during the game. This is crazy.

ItS and RoB contain vehicle rules for their respective games, Rogue Trader and Deathwatch. If you're using them in Black Crusade then that's a choice you've made.


18. I don't own frozen reaches and citadel of skulls; i am not interested in buying adventures.

Then, I'm sorry, but that's your own **** problem. You can't complain about other books not having vehicles and then say "Not interested" when specifically pointed to other books that do have vehicles. Sheesh...


19. Tome of Corruption is an exception because I wanted the necrons.

Heading dangerously close to pot:kettle:black territory here Sign. Careful now.


20. This is the problem: forcing me to buy those books for a small portion of information that is the only part of th ebook that's going to be useful is stupid. It doesn't make me feel FFG respect me as a player or a customer, no matter how much I spend on their books.

OMG? You were forced to buy a book? Who forced you? Did you contact the police? People shouldn't be able to... wait... no... you weren't forced to do anything. You chose to do something. No one made you do anything.


21. There should have been vehicle rules in EVERY core book. There are characters in my game that have the Operate Vehcile skills. What is the point of them if they can't be used? That's appalling game design.

Again, did you listen to anything I just said? The games are designed to be future-proof, so that when expansions come along the ground-work has already been put down. And why should vehicle rules be part of the core rules in every book? What about space ship rules? Should they be part of every core rulebook as well? What about sorcery? What about investigation rules? Where we draw the line and what should and shouldn't be in core rules?

22. The Heretek can choose one of two talents, armouer and a similar one for guns, each has prerequisites that can't be met during character creation. This is stupid.

I can't really disagree here. Thank you for providing an example.

23. The playtesters are not doing their job. At all.

And, once again, stop making false statements. You don't know what play-testers do, so please don't comment on something you have not even a basic understanding of.


24. Rules mistakes are not a subjective thing. If you can't see why that is then you are in the wrong job. Those examples you provide are exactly that/ You might find them funny, I don't. I find it ridiculous when they are ignored for 6 months without explanation by the company making money from the sale of those rules. That's disgraceful, as is your continued traducing of these issues as 'it's just a game'. That is absolutely appalling.

I never said they were. What I said was that a rule mistake being 'basic' or 'stupid' is a matter of opinion and perspective. How severe a mistake is is a matter of interpretation and degree. As I mentioned a few paragraphs ago, I've seen mistakes where someone has written Dodge +20 (Ag) rather than standard format Dodge (Ag) +20. I wouldn't call this mistake 'stupid'. It's just a mistake. It doesn't really affect anything, and hopefully someone cognisant with the standard way skill listings are formatted will catch it before it goes to print. If it's something like that skill/talent prerequisite thing you mentioned above, then yeah, I would probably consider that a 'basic' mistake, one you might fine on your first check through. But it's there now, and we deal with it and we move on.

What we don't do is jump up and down like a crazy person and start making some really angry and hateful posts on the internet. How's that sound?


25. Fine, then tell me how to resolve a BC heretic acquiring a ground vehicle using Infamy.

Seriously? Make it up yourself. Or write your own house rules - haven't you ever done that? I sent my players to a world filled with dangerous lizards, so I had to make up all the profiles. I made them fight Genestealer cults, so I had to make up rules for that. I didn't scream and yell and ball about FFG not writing some Genestealer or big lizard rules for me.

You're acting like the rules are a straight jacket. Get over that.

And **** it... you made me finish on an odd number. Now I'm sad.

BYE

Bassemandrh said:

What does resolve it cinematically even mean?

You can determine what you think is a reasonable rarity for the vehicle in question and then apply the penalty that goes with it. The skills he's got can then be used in situations that are out of the ordinary, Fx driving in heavy rain and wind, or when using the vehicle in terrain it isn't supposed to.

When you talk about War Vehicles you describe the effects of the weapons, fx a leman russ tank battle cannon is probably gonna kill that normal heretic/guardsman.

You can resolve everything by the standard combat rules, except for dmg. Roll BS to shoot the tank, Drive skills to maneuvre it if needed. Enemies may get a chance to dodge the shots if you please.

H.B.M.C. said:

I will decide what I post. Your attitude speaks volumes: you demonstrate a very laissez faire approach to a serious responsibility. I have no idea what books you've proofread or how, but if you think that 'just because they are rpg's' is any kind of excuse you are very wrong.

H.B.M.C. said:

I have just rinished reading the first Eisenhorn novel and Hammer and Anvil, which is 400 pages long. I don't recal either book having the kinds of mistakes FFG routinely let slip. I have already made it clear that the odd inconsequential typo isn't an issue. However there is a very very big difference between that level of human error and the kind of sloppy work FFG sign off on. Whoever is responsible for this needs to look very closely at their job description and FFG as a whole should be taking stock of their product lines and working to improve things. I haveno problem with an IG rpg, but I have absolutely no faith it won't turn out like everything else they've puiblished thus far, worse because this will be even more work and that's the point. They obviously cannot manage 4 game lines so the last thing they need, however wonderful Only War sounds, is another. This is the wrong decision at the wrong time and I see nothing from FFG to convince me to change my mind, but then I won't see anything from them because they don't care. At all. People on here might care, but that's a **** site more than you can expect from FFG.

H.B.M.C. said:

So proofreading isn't an easy job, neither is editing. Well that's obvious. Noone said it was. Noone has ever suggested that FFG should just hire some random person to do the job. As any professional publisher will tell you, you hire someone that can do the job. You are making excuses. I spotted the msitakes in BC within minutes of reading them. Yet somehow a professional editor has a honking great blind spot? People ont hese forums spot the broken stat blocks for npcs and monsters time and again, yet, inexplicabnly, FFG's own staff seem incapable of this?

And please stop patronising me. You haven't seen fury from me. You'll know it when you do, you can be sure of that. This talk of 'perspective' is just more condescension the same as 'it's just an rpg'. Stop fobbing us off with excuses.

H.B.M.C. said:

So now because other companies release broken products it's ok for FFG to do the same? Since when did the standards slip? Since when did mediocrity become the norm? Every company should strive to put out the best work they can, if others fail to do so then it's no excuse for FFG to do the same. This is grasping!

H.B.M.C. said:

Obviously they weren't written. But that isn't the point is it. Why were rules for Xeno/non human character types likle this not handled earlier? Are you seriously trying to suggest that scattering such rules in a sourcebook here and an adventure book there, really the best way? Why not do a single Xeno book, for instance? The information is already there, it's from the wargame all pre written and defined. All FFG has to do is translate the mechanics over. How on earth is that a problem? But they couldn't conceive, until now, that someone might want to play as a Dark eldar, or an Eldar, or a Tau, or whatever? Good grief, if they are that out of touch then god help us all. Are they really the best people that could have been awarded this license? It's beginning to seem not. Thats very sad.

So when do we get Eldar rules? when Black Crusade gets an Eldar based storybook? Honestly, if this is the best FFG can do to plan a game line then ffs hire some new staff.

H.B.M.C. said:

But 40k is defined. The setting is established. FFG should know what people want and what to write. Yet they aren't doing this, or if they are they are scattering information to the four winds. Xeno races are hardly an insignificant part of the setting they can prioritise low. How on earth you can't see this I dont know. You are being deliberately disingenuous.

H.B.M.C. said:

In what way was that baseless? Do you seriously believe that releasing material as they have is ordered and sensible?

H.B.M.C. said:

This isn't the crux of anything. You need to stop assuming you know what I'm saying and actually read what I write. BC has rules that can feasibly allow the players to own a starship. That's the point of the infamy rules. They could even end up with one from Broken Chains. They can have a skill that lets them command a starship. They are heretics working toward the power level that lets them be Abaddon, yet spaceships are...verboten until FFG says so? And this is good game design how?

And yes having to cross reference 3, potentially 4, books to use ships in BC is unwieldy and awkward. At the very best.

H.B.M.C. said:

If they didn't want to then they are absolutely the wrong people for this job. End of.

H.B.M.C. said:

No, FFG are acting as if they didn't know Eldar exist. You've gotten it the wrtong way round.

H.B.M.C. said:

This is now a circular argument and is pointless to continue if you cannot see that.

H.B.M.C. said:

And as I explained the corebook could easily cover these things. Very easily.

H.B.M.C. said:

But it won't be. You're. Not. Listening. Just saying 'in your opinion' isn't an argument. I gave you plenty of alternatives and you've ignored them.

The corebook adventures are not written for beginners. FFG might think that's their purpose. But a newbie gamer, picking up this game for his first rpg coming from 40k is going to be hopelessly lost before he even gets that far. If FFG want to reach out to non gamers then they need to massively step up their game.

H.B.M.C. said:

This is the most ridiculous response i've ever heard. Of course they can include everything. They've had FOUR YEARS to work on a setting that's already finite and complete (retcons aside, which aren't an issue anyway since we all know that GW has the final say in that regard) and there are stil huge gaps in the coverage of that setting. This also has nothing to do with 'tau not being in the koronus expanse' either. That's a red herring and a non- answer. If i want tau in there, by god they'll be in there. The whole draw of a 40k rpg is precisely to encompass that setting, lock stock and barrel. To traduce my point in such a way just beggars belief! Of course they can include everything - it's their job to do so! What do you think writing a 40k rpg entails?

H.B.M.C. said:

are you deliberately missing the point now? Thopse are the ONLY sources for bvehicles in any of the games, what else am i meant to use?

H.B.M.C. said:

And AGAIN you miss the point. THis is just ridiculous. I shouldn't have to buy an entire adventure book just to get 2 pages of vehicle stats. If you can't understand that then god help you.

H.B.M.C. said:

Why? it's my choice. I can't afford to buy every book for every game, nor should i have to. You'll be explaing how that invalidates my point then, yes?

H.B.M.C. said:

The way to make them future proof (which they certainly aren't) would have been to release the core rules in a basic standalone book, and everything else as supplemental, just as White Wolf's world of darkness does. This could have been done even in spite of Dark Heresy originally being published by someone else. FFG chose not to, that's their mistake. Reprinting all the rules in every book every time (copy pasting them, which is where a lot of the problems come in) is not future proofing anything. Especially when the rules have changed, as they have in BC.

H.B.M.C. said:

I know they aren't playtesting the game properly because there are lots of mistakes. Simples.

H.B.M.C. said:

And you have not only spectacularly missed the point, but defeated your own argument. Telling people to make up their own rules in order to make up for your shortcomkings as a publisher is the most lazy dishonest and disrespectful attitude. Why not make up my own game? Why bother with FFG at all? If we took that attitude where would you be then? Ludicrous.

Oh come on, could we please stop the bashing here. It serves no purpose.
This thread was about wishes, not complaints.

Though I do agree that better test reading is desired, it is not the end of the world.

I do have a question however, do the writers do their own test reading, if so, it is easy to overlook the mistakes you made.
A few months ago I wrote a LARP Setting/Rule book for my own LARP, I thought I picked out all the mistakes. Then a friend of mine read it, he founds dozens.
So never do your own test reading, have someone else do it.

GrtZ,

Santiago...

ps. stop the b&*%$ing please...

The only thing that really pisses me off is that signoftheserpent pretends to speak for anyone but himself. I for my part do not support a single one of his points. I kinda feel sorry for FFG, having to read this nonsense.

Yes, Wish list:

- Titan Rules (vehicles rules in general) +1
- Ogryn (This is the perfect setting for them_
- Dynamic system for teamwork and heroism (I find the Cohesion system somewhat to heavy)
- Multiple types of Las Rifles (Standard, Carbine, Long, Pistol)
- More, updated, weapon add ons (Scope, Red Dot, Reflex, etc.)
- Trench weapons
- Nice mission in the back of the book

What I believe will be in the core book:
- 12 careers
- Skills & Talents
- An even more fine tuned version of the system
- Weapons
- Some vehicles (Chimera, Basic Russ, Walker, Basilisk and a few Ork vehicles)
- Teamwork system
- Antagonists (few different types of Orks, maybe a heretic or two and perhaps even some tyranid)
- A mission
- The writers blood & sweat (though I hope not literally)

GrtZ,

S.

I wish the basic premise is that the PC's are members of a Storm Trooper squad.

The careers are specialties or attachments to the squad.

And that I can recreate the missions from WW2 based computer games. (like Call of Duty and Medal of Honour)

tygre said:

If that is what you want, make it your premise. Tabletop RPGs have an element of creativity and freedom that video games and movies don't allow. You want it, make it.

tygre said:

I have begun to speculate that the group in OW will be part of a small elite stormtrooper kind of unit, instead of your "regular" guardsman.

So id like to add to my wish list that the characters will be among the usual guardsmen in the trenches as i dont want to see a "Deathwatch" of the guard game.

Why would one preclude the other?

BYE

I would love to see multiple levels of play...

Is a Storm Trooper really another 'level' of play though? I just see him as filling a different role to a Tech-Priest or an Officer or whatever.

BYE