In Black Crusade it has Toxic (4).

In Only War it apparently lowers that to 2.

Which is correct? If they are meant to be different, what guide will there be for converting the additional DE stuff from OW into BC?

Both. Different games, different rules.

As for converting, that's gonna be entirely at your own discretion.

This really is my biggest problem with FFG. I get that the pc's in each game are of different power levels, but this is not the way to deal with it in my opinion. It means that, if i want to use stuff from other games (such as the extended DE bestiary in OW), I have to take into account those power levels and guestimate a fix.

Even though they dare claim that they are perfectly mergeable. I have decided that I transfer only the monsters AND EVEN THEN WITH HIGH CAUTION!

although I haven't yet GM'd my first FFG game.

Split the difference and call it Toxic (3). Problem solved.

Do whatever feels appropriate. If you like your raiders extra-poisonous, take the Toxic (4). If you'd like to swarm your group with a couple more of them without them keeling over from the first two darts, take Toxic (2). Then pray that the Rules Police doesn't notice.

Problem solved?

Personally Toxic (4) is too high given that other than this a Kabalite warrior is by and large on a par with a starting heretic. I deliberately didn't have them use their rifles for that reason when I ran them. They nearly got to fire them, but their crappy luck and the pc's chainsword did for them.

But again the answer to these problems isn't houserules.

Yes I get that people like to house rule games. I don't, unless it is absolutely essential. I don't buy games so I can change the rules. If I wanted to do that, I would just write my own game in the first place! YMMV, but the solution to a rules issue shouldn't be 'ignore it', which really is what you are saying. What should happen is that the developers should adress or explain the issue. Sadly FFG don't.

What should happen is that the developers should adress or explain the issue. Sadly FFG don't.

So I take it you already pushed that "Rules Questions" button at the very bottom of the site two or three weeks ago, actually asked them about the issue and didn't receive a response?

signoftheserpent said:

FFG may have thought the Splinter in BC was too strong and reduced its strength for OW. I have no idea why they wouldn't just put that in the errata though.

I would go with poison 2 myself the 4 is so high it makes it pointless to even bother making the check for most creatures. and really they are splinter rifles a very common weapon in the dark eldar army if they are all poison 4 then space marines better go back to traveling around in 100,000 man legions in case so dark eldar show up.

DJSunhammer said:

I assumed the change from 4 to 2 was for precisely this reason. Toxic 4 is ridiculous.

Cifer said:

This is a development team that took 6 months to produce an errata that still doesn't fix everything. That doesn't suggest to me they care or are on the ball. I wish that were different, but…

signoftheserpent said:

Is it really a waste of time to copy and paste what you wrote in the opening post of the thread and send it to FFG? By not sending it in, you're pretty much guaranteed not to get an official response.

But there's the off-chance that FFG sends an answer, perhaps even an intelligent one - and if that was the case, one couldn't in good conscience continue moping. And let's be honest: Wailing about the pitiful customer service of FFG (which one never asked about this topic) is much better than having an answer to a mostly irrelevant question.

Isn't it possible to both ask questions here and on their not particularly good customer service form? I've sent off the question.

Wouldn't they be better off just reading the forums they created specifically for the purpose of asking rules questions? After all if they aren't going to bother with questions asked there, what's the point of that forum? Who else will be able to provide an answer; us players can only guess.

~sigh~ it's just so frustrating. It could all be so awesome, but for a lack of attention to detail.

Cifer said:

Is that language you're using helpful do you think, or deliberately confrontational?

Telling people they are just 'moping' or 'wailing' is ridiculous.

Different Kabals can have different poison masters, and thus load their guns with poison of different quality. Use whatever value fits the most at the moment.

There. Problem solved, verisimilitude is preserved, and it took me two minutes to come up with that answer.

40k has some inconsistent rulings between the lines that never get updated. This one is not a problem at all unless you're hell-bent on making it a problem. Which isn't really helpful for anyone.

@signoftheserpent

Wouldn't they be better off just reading the forums they created specifically for the purpose of asking rules questions? After all if they aren't going to bother with questions asked there, what's the point of that forum? Who else will be able to provide an answer; us players can only guess.

That would depend on the question. There are quite a few that can be answered by "Look at page 234, there's a box that covers that case". Many other questions can be adequately answered by "I have no idea what FFG meant when they wrote that, but here's what I think you could do in that situation - maybe it helps your group."

As for having someone from FFG read the forums… sure. Are you going to pay him for the time he scans the forums, reads the questions, tries to remember who invented that rule, asks that person what he meant, makes sure there's no conflict between his answer and other published stuff and finally types it? Or would you be upset at yet another price raise?

Is that language you're using helpful do you think, or deliberately confrontational?

There are many posters on this forum that I respect and some that I admire. Since I have read your posts in the past (cf. the OW beta forum), you fall in neither category. I do not believe you are looking for a solution to a problem you have, because there were multiple solutions provided in this very thread. You want to criticize. You want to find a problem and express your anger about it. I really have no idea to what end you want to do that, but frankly, since you're not looking for help, I don't see a need to be helpful.

Cifer said:

I'm not going to pay them, but then I dont pay the person that answers the email questions either which is basically the exact same thing.

signoftheserpent said:

Not quite. There is a significant number of rules questions that we, the community, can answer for ourselves (like all the ones where pointing out the page reference suffices, or where a consensus on the ruling is quickly reached, meaning there's no need for an officially sanctioned ruling), and then for those questions we can't answer this way, there is the official channel. Thus, the community acts as a natural filter.

If an FFG employee was obliged to answer any and all questions posted in the Rules Questions section of the board, the filter would be gone, and the development team would waste enormous amounts of time citing page numbers for people who can't find a rule in a book right in front of them, and clarifying things a great number of unaffiliated posters could answer to the complete satisfaction of the person asking.

You know, the time they could be spending answering those questions that we can't, ones that point out deeper, systemic flaws in the rules that may require errata.

For the record, being the guy who owns and plays all 40k games, I understand the problems that arise from FFG's development policy regarding the "older" games. But I also understand the benefits of this model. For example, if 40k was a unified rulebook with different "splatbooks" for various campaign models (i.e. what is now handled by different core games), I strongly doubt we'd get all the neat core rules updates that BC brought about, because that'd require publishing a new edition of the corebook, and people hate that.

Anyway, it seems that you really hate the 40k game as envisioned by FFG. Have you considered running 40k on a different system? I've heard Savage Worlds works quite admirably for that.

Morangias said:

There seems to be a huge problem with discussing roleplaying games on the internet. This kind of statement is just absurd. Of course I don't really hate the games. If I did, I wouldn't buy them or play them! If we're going to go down this level of debate then we are going to get nowhere.

There's no such thing as a purely black or purely white view, just like life in general. There's good and bad in this system and ignoring the bad just seems entirely defensive and insecure.

According to FFG, the Splinter Rifle entries are both true. Ok, I get why - each game has different power levels - but it doesn't make for an efficient decision because it sets a lack of compatibility as a principle across these games. That isn't a good thing, surely?

Of course we can answer each other's questions in the Rules Forum, and where possible we should. That is only ever a good thing, but all I'm saying is that instead of having multiple routes to the same end, wouldn't it just be more efficient to have rules questions dealt with in a single place. If i get an answer, such as this, from FFG I then have to post it here for those that are interested when FFG could just answer it here directly.

signoftheserpent said:

Right, because in the setting where humanity has a thousand different lasgun patterns, the idea that two Splinter rifles can be loaded with toxins of different potency makes the games incompatible with each other.

Man, if that's a problem you can't solve on your own, no amount of designer feedback from FFG could help you run a game.

Morangias said:

Yes it's quite likely that splinter rifles made by/for different kabals would have different strengths of poison. But for the purpose of rules convenience we give them the same stat.

The point you are missing isn't that it's difficult: it's about the compatibility of stuff across the games. If the Dark Eldar, for example, within Only War are different from Black Crusade what happens if I use the stats from the former and find that, because they are statted for weaker characters, they present no challegne at all to the heretics in my game?

I realise this isn't a discussion concering issues of world shattering import or life and death, but the compatibility is an issue and it warrants discussion. Being insulted and ridiculed for it is not becoming to a sensible discussion forum, at all. I've just brought Koronus Bestiary; what happens if I want to use that info for heretics exploring the Koronus Bestiary, which is fully a game option that should be supported, and find that again it's scaled differently?

Now, I'm the first one to admit the 40k line has issues.

But the notion that all of the games need to be compatible, or that them being compatible is a good thing is… well, not really true.

Sure, it would allow for a far larger use of the books across the lines. But, at the same time, it necessitates that the designers think not only whether what they're building is balanced for the game they're making it for, but also all the other games. It means that the lascannon meant to be used against Deathwatch Space Marines must also be built to be fair against Black Crusade ones, Rogue Trader Arch-militants and Dark Heresy acolytes.

Which is not a good thing when those games have completely different goals, themes and feels in mind. In Dark Heresy, death is cheap and your life is worthless. In Rogue Trader, you're a swashbuckling hero, who might die but it's unlikely. And in Deathwatch you're a **** near unstoppable killing machine.

Designing mechanics that worked for all of that, all the time, would be a ******* nightmare.

So, instead, they focus on delivering what works for what they intend it to work with. And hey, if you want to buy other games lines for inspiration, go nuts. Just be ready to look at it, think about it and adjust appropriately. Hacking and tweaking our systems is a time honored tradition in this hobby.

And while I agree that a game's own mechanics should be solid, sound and work on their own without adjustments (BC sometimes fails in this regard) I think the assumption that all games should be compatible without any adjustment both unreasonable and unfair.

I mean, do you think White Wolf is unfair because Exalted and World of Darkness aren't 100% compatible without adjustment? For a while, they were the same world.

Oh, and if you do wish to complain about how it's unbalanced, toxic ratings on Splinter Rifles are nothing. Look at Book of Judgment, where the +30 to willpower tests drug exists. Pretty neat in that game, but in the hands of a BC style Psyker? DAAAAAAMN!

Because we aren't talking about the setting, we are talking about the rules used to represent it. Think how ridiculous it would be if the book included a thousand different lasgun stats?

You mean like all the patterns they introduced in Inquisitor's Handbook, and later additions in other books for DH and RT? Even OW Beta has quite a few different stats for lasguns.

And that's perfectly normal, because both in setting and in rules, lasgun != lasgun.

Yes it's quite likely that splinter rifles made by/for different kabals would have different strengths of poison. But for the purpose of rules convenience we give them the same stat.

1. Clearly, we don't, as evidenced by the existence of this thread.

2. Explain to me how is having two possible variables for the same rule in a weapon with an otherwise identical stat block inconvenient?

The point you are missing isn't that it's difficult: it's about the compatibility of stuff across the games. If the Dark Eldar, for example, within Only War are different from Black Crusade what happens if I use the stats from the former and find that, because they are statted for weaker characters, they present no challegne at all to the heretics in my game?

What happens is your players and their characters learn that not all Dark Eldar are identical.

Do you perhaps play D&D 3.x or Pathfinder?

I realise this isn't a discussion concering issues of world shattering import or life and death, but the compatibility is an issue and it warrants discussion. Being insulted and ridiculed for it is not becoming to a sensible discussion forum, at all. I've just brought Koronus Bestiary; what happens if I want to use that info for heretics exploring the Koronus Bestiary, which is fully a game option that should be supported, and find that again it's scaled differently?

Can you deal with the fact that an Inquisitor and a Lord of Change are both Master level in BC, yet one is way more powerful than the other? Or the fact that both Necron Warriors and Necron Immortals are elites despite the latter being strictly nothing more than a more powerful version of the former?

That's how you deal with all other inconsistencies of this nature. 40k galaxy is vast and varied, and nothing should be taken for granted.

Now, if in one book the Splinter Rifle poisoned the target and in the other turned them into teddy bears, we'd have a real problem.