DH = Only PCs

RT + DW = Everyone

BC + OW = Alternate system (do a direct 1d5 crit instead of adding damage)

NPCs cannot RF in Rogue Trader and Deathwatch normally.

Because?

Because it says so on page 135 of the Deathwatch rulebook where it explains what Touched by the Fates does.

So...even harder to spot than the sidebar in DH?

Cummon, this is a game originally designed by GW and then expanded on by FFG. What else would you expect? No FFG game is complete without at least 3 different erratas, and GW is the world leader in loose wording for miniatures games.

FFG's products are generally not worse than that of other companies. But they do take the time to fix flaws and listen to poster's input.

Alex

I dunno. The only other game system I have lots of material for is the HERO system, and their editing in later editions seems practically obsessive.

FFG's products are generally not worse than that of other companies. But they do take the time to fix flaws and listen to poster's input.

Alex

My inner fanboy really wants that to be true, but it just isn't. Just about every book they release is missing somewhere between a minor table and a page, and the rules are generally disorganised and filled with flavour text.

I'm not saying they aren't getting better, but compared to things like GURPS4e and D&D4e, they're a mess. A gorgeously presented mess, but a mess all the same.

My inner fanboy really wants that to be true, but it just isn't. Just about every book they release is missing somewhere between a minor table and a page, and the rules are generally disorganised and filled with flavour text.

I'm not saying they aren't getting better, but compared to things like GURPS4e and D&D4e, they're a mess. A gorgeously presented mess, but a mess all the same.

It's not worse than previous editions of role-playing games though. GURPS and D&D have taken a long time to mature too. As did other games, like Shadowrun. They did mess up completely with the game I am running, Deathwatch. Weapon stats were quite off and the squad mode rules explanations are... arcane. I am okay with that for as long as they clarify via their website and bring out erratas. First of all, I will do house rules anyway. Secondly, if that process leads to listening closely to the fanbase and it influencing their direction - all the better.

It's annoying for missions though when maps and descriptions don't fit and some things aren't fully thought through (Genestealer hordes don't work well mechanically).

Alex

I'm friends with some of the guys who translate the RPG into German, and you don't want to hear what they have to say about the quality of what they receive, and what they do to "fix things".

That being said, I think it tends to be "good enough" to run a proper game*. Yes, sometimes stuff is missing or badly worded, but as a group you can easily work around it. I've seen worse. Plus, there's the Erratae. What is a problem, though, is that they keep copy-pasting certain errors right into the next book instead of at least fixing them after they've been pointed out by the community.

(*: barring certain rules stuff like the aforementioned 1st release weapons profiles - but this is balancing and has little to do with quality assurance, so I won't count it in this sector ... if we'd talk about balancing, that is a whooole new can of worms)

That being said, I think it tends to be "good enough" to run a proper game*. Yes, sometimes stuff is missing or badly worded, but as a group you can easily work around it. I've seen worse. Plus, there's the Erratae. What is a problem, though, is that they keep copy-pasting certain errors right into the next book instead of at least fixing them after they've been pointed out by the community.

(*: barring certain rules stuff like the aforementioned 1st release weapons profiles - but this is balancing and has little to do with quality assurance, so I won't count it in this sector ... if we'd talk about balancing, that is a whooole new can of worms)

Which brings me to my idea of wanting to find some longtime forum members here and start creating a 40K Roleplay blog. Best of FFG Forums, so-to-speak. Plus... exclusive content maybe. Such a blog could (if someone is willing to compile it) include such errors - which could form a source for reference by future authors. Instead of having to dig through forums.

Alex

FFG's products are generally not worse than that of other companies.

• Every product goes through 2 rounds of playtesting, more if needed - meaning that scenario-style publications tend to have 3 rounds of play testing.
• Authors and playtesters are contractually obliged to be up to date with every publication in the current edition .
• Most of the authors frequent the public forums, and answer questions if asked directly. As does the line editor.
• There is an errata document. It's kept up to date - I've seen it updated within 24 hours of emailing the line editor

But they do take the time to fix flaws and listen to poster's input.

Download the latest Errata document for Dark Heresy - Revision Date April 23rd, 2009. Most recent update text in red. Includes errata for Inquisitor's Handbook. Special Thanks to James Savage and Maxx Myers.

It's not like newer publications are flawless.

Things are a little better in some of the newer lines, maybe.

• RT had it's last errata update over a year ago (april 9th, 2013) - in the mean time they've release Faith and Coin, which is so buggy I've had to tell my players that it's an awesome book, but to ignore all rules therein, because just no.
• Deathwatch Living Errata v1.1.1 (pdf, 720 KB updated May 11th, 2011)

  This is a living document and will be updated periodically.

• BC recieved it's last errata April 6th, 2012, which I suppose is appropriate since the line has been largely ignored since about then.
• OW errata was last updated June 5 2013. Fairly recent, but doesn't really cover more than about half the published books.

I very much get the feeling that someone in FFG thinks they're producing software, and should Release early, release often , except that strategy works much better for software than for printed books, because you can't update the printed word as you go.

You can try, using errata documents, but even that barely happens (as shown above).

* as of this post

It's not worse than previous editions of role-playing games though. GURPS and D&D have taken a long time to mature too. As did other games, like Shadowrun.

They did mess up completely with the game I am running, Deathwatch. Weapon stats were quite off and the squad mode rules explanations are... arcane. I am okay with that for as long as they clarify via their website and bring out erratas.

I don't know, there might've been, but they don't read like it.

* I've run SR 3rd edition in recent years and it worked fine. Setting needed an update though.

FFG's products are generally not worse than that of other companies.

I beg your pardon? But ofcourse, I tend to compare to Ars Magica, where

Anecdotal evidence?

But they do take the time to fix flaws and listen to poster's input.

Excuse me?!

I have no time to point you to several points I raised on the forums which made it into the DW errata. Or even official publications.

"But they do take the time to fix flaws and listen to poster's input." It bears repeating. If you still doubt that, I'll simply refer you over to DH2 Beta, specifically v1.

The official errata document hasn't been updated in over 5 years !*

As with Microsoft, support for a product is evidently limited in time.

I very much get the feeling that someone in FFG thinks they're producing software, and should Release early, release often , except that strategy works much better for software than for printed books, because you can't update the printed word as you go.

You can try, using errata documents, but even that barely happens (as shown above).

The strategy seems to work quite well actually. Now the question is how it's going to work long run (in 5 or 10 years from now). I suspect every system is at some point thrown back to its core fanbase; the question is how FFG ig going to deal with it.

SR2 was released in 1992, 3 years after the first edition. Changes between 2nd and 3rd editions were minor enough that books were compatible. I'd argue it was essentially a mature system by then. Certainly good enough that Mark Rein 'dot' Hagen referenced them as inspiration in the VtM corebook - and I trust we all saw what the Storyteller system did to the industry? And these editions worked quite well, as well as being closer to a "modern" RPG than DH. Yes, there's a 4th edition (a 5th edition comming up IIRC), but these were required more by a change in Real Life ^TM than because the rules were broken.*

SR2 Core was a fairly disorganized document still. I remember vividly trying to remember where some arcane rule was placed while leafing through the book back then. On more than one occasion.

All-in-all, every 40K Roleplay system I have played had more solid rules (with erratas) than SR2, even DH1.

Alex

You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text

Anecdotal evidence?

Divided by which round of playtesting they were involved in.

But they do take the time to fix flaws and listen to poster's input.

Excuse me?!

I have no time to point you to several points I raised on the forums which made it into the DW errata. Or even official publications.

The remaining fora I do follow, and have been left with a very strong feeling of apathy and abandonment.

Your milage may vary ofcourse.

"But they do take the time to fix flaws and listen to poster's input." It bears repeating. If you still doubt that, I'll simply refer you over to DH2 Beta, specifically v1.

In the OW beta, there was ofcourse reactions on what was posted, but it was slow and often times clumsy in my experience.

But even so, that isn't really an argument that the fora are given attention on a ordinary basis - the beta was specifically designed (and in the case of the OW beta, redesigned) as an opportunity for fan input. I don't see how betas are relevant as examples of day-to-day attention.

The official errata document hasn't been updated in over 5 years !*

As with Microsoft, support for a product is evidently limited in time.

Microsoft comes out with a product and supports it with errata for years, despite have issued newer editions of the core product. Secondary product (the equivalent of sourcebooks, in this analogy) are given seperate errata and patches, supported seperately.

Whereas FFG have not issued any errata for any DH product in over 5 years (according to their own errata document), while issuing several new sourcebooks for DH in the same timespan.

Not exactly the opposite approach, but a much more attentive one at least.

Part 2:

I very much get the feeling that someone in FFG thinks they're producing software, and should Release early, release often , except that strategy works much better for software than for printed books, because you can't update the printed word as you go.
You can try, using errata documents, but even that barely happens (as shown above).

The strategy seems to work quite well actually. Now the question is how it's going to work long run (in 5 or 10 years from now). I suspect every system is at some point thrown back to its core fanbase; the question is how FFG ig going to deal with it.

SR2 Core was a fairly disorganized document still. I remember vividly trying to remember where some arcane rule was placed while leafing through the book back then. On more than one occasion.

All-in-all, every 40K Roleplay system I have played had more solid rules (with erratas) than SR2, even DH1.

And this relates to righteous fury?

Ouch. My apologies.

Back on topic it is.