Having just looked through the rulebook, cancel what I said above.

Do NOT use OW. Use DH.

OW is a great game, but the rulebook is a complete wreck of contradictory copy-pastes from other sources and is basically unplayable in as-written form. I can't believe they published this. It's unbelievable really. No quality control whatsoever, none.

Don't even bother buying the book unless you already have DH.

In fact, treat it as a supplement for DH.

bogi_khaosa said:

Don't over react just because fearless basically makes characters insanity immune. DH is far and away more broken both in junk rules and extremely overpowered abilities, not to mention extremely cluttered, compared to OW. OW characters at least function properly in their given role right out of the gate where as a starting DH character feels almost completely useless because of no gear on top of terrible stats.

Droma said:

I'm overreacting to my staggering inability to conceptualize that they actually copy-pasted material from the wrong books. In this case, the Fear chart from Black Crusade, which makes Guardsmen immune to combat-induced insanityy

Droma said:

I'm overreacting to my staggering inability to conceptualize that they actually copy-pasted material from the wrong books. In this case, the Fear chart from Black Crusade, which makes Guardsmen immune to combat-induced insanityy

bogi_khaosa said:

That's still a bit of an over reaction. That's easily fixed with a hand wave, and the rules are much more refined than DH. Mechanically, OW is the better system.

ok, wow, so I had a bunch of work to do over the last couple weeks and dropped off the radar for a bit, I didn't think to look back at this forum.

In response to ZombieLenin, in terms of setting stuff, I played DoW, so from that i have a little knowledge, and recently I started the tabletop game, but I only have a couple codexes, so my knowledge is limited. However. I also have a friend who is a 40k fanatic. He is honestly a walking 40k encyclopedia, I mentioned the Rogue Trader RPG, unaware that they were more than a title for a book, and he gave me a speech on who they were, what they did, and their history in the tabletop game. So I have access to the information if I need help with setting/story.

I did get OW, and partially because of the setting, I liked the idea that the players aren't super soldiers who can take down armies but regulars (as close to as possible in 40k) fighting in a horrifiic war. The second, probably more important reason was rules. I am a relatively new GM, and I was looking for a system that wasn't cluttered and bulky within the 40k universe, and from what most people around the forums said this system tended to be the most clean cut. This doesn't mean I don't plan to get any of the other books. On the contrary I do plan to get RT at the very least, the setting of that one is really appealing to me. Dark Heresy and Deathwatch I also am looking into, but right now I am a college student with a limited amount of funds, and at this time am only willing to put the money and time into one book.

What it really hindered on was as a new GM I wanted a rulebook that wasn't overly complicated, I tend to lose motivation to run a game if that happens. I've run a session of a RPG, very little experience, and OW fit the bill in terms of ease of use primarily. I also liked the characters/setting, maybe not as much as RT but still very interested in it. I definitely plan to get RT in the future, but for now I will start with OW.

Again I was suprised by the amount of replies after I had disappeared for awhile, but thanks everybody for the feedback! It answered all of my questions.

To add something informative to the topic, here is my list:

1. Black Crusade: The absolute winner. Good rules, good feel, you have the freedom, you have the stuff, and you can make OTT characters if you want (i love doing this ). If you don't like chaos, then you can easily change the system to represent anything you want (you can remove the gifts and rework the dedication system without problem).

2. Rogue Trader: Technically, it has all the advantages of Black Cursade, but its rules are a little bit more… shaggy. It desperately needs some streamlining (especially around the Skills) and some minor changes there and there (I'm looking at you career paths).

3. Only War: Now, this tough. Normally, I would say that OW is seconded only by BC (so RT would be the third), but then I look at all those "strange" things in the book (Comrades, vehicles, Specializations) and my smile turns into a frown. Not to mention that as I've found out, OW has a very short "burnout" time: this whole jumping from one warzone to another quickly grows boring especially since the characters are naturally capped when it comes to EPIK-ness.

4. Deathwatch: Just like Only War, but with worse rules. Nuff' said.

5. Dark Heresy: This poor fella aged very badly IMHO. Most of its rules feel outdated and its sister rulesets stole all its tricks. So yeah. Recently our gaming group tried to run a DH adventure, but it has just felt like an alpha-version BC game with 80% less Chaos .

AtoMaki said:

That's a shame as I think the game really has lots of potential.

I mean look at some of the more popular war themed genres out there that have longevity : M.A.S.H. lasted about 11 years, Tour of Duty hand three seasons, Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series has 11 books, speaking of Cornwell's series there is also Dan Abnett's Gaunt's Ghosts which has what? 16 titles…

With all the potential for role-playing with your comrades, other squads and regiments, along with R&R, romances, camp followers, being left gehind, caught behind enemy lines, ceremonial duty, and so on… I think the limit to any game is the one the group and storyteller place on it.

Darck Child said:

Yeah, it has potential , but the setup and the fluff kills most of the "generic war-time nice stuff". If the meat grinder is at maximum power (where it should be) then the characters will drop like flies unless they have some hard-core rationalization. And this always means minimalized Fellowship (you will need the points for Agility and Ballistic Skill), making all social interactions redunant and counterproductive. Of course, you can lower the difficulty, but then you don't play the Imperial Guard.

And you can't even say "no", because that isn't how it works. Like, you can't say "OMG, there is no way I will fight this Tyrannid horde without backup, I'm outta' here!" . No, you will take that heavy bolter, put your points to BS and AG, and fight till' you have ammo (and Wounds) left.

AtoMaki said:

You would have to take into consideration the game being played and the focus of that story. I could run a game based off of Black Adder Goes Fourth where the Players know in advance that the object of the story is to stop from going over the top for as long as possible. Or something like Jarhead where the characters are always close to combat but never really in it. Or like Ciaphas Cain where the character always looking for an out/ a safe place and ending up in the thick of it.

I can also run the game knowing full well that the Players are an import part of the story or I can treat them like cannon fodder.

Only War is the grittiest of the five games, and the Imperial Guard as you pointed out is fresh meat for the meat grinder. How fast you turn the grinder is completley in the control of the Storyteller barring unforseen actions Players take.

Also as part of a squad you're going to have a band of brother theme going - the comrades have their own opinions on things and by using comrades you can introduce lots of role-playing opportunities.

I am familiar on your opinions of comrades, and to a point you are right, they are cannon fodder. However comrades can add depth. From what I remember of some of your posts on the games you've played your group goes for over the top action - which is absolutely fine. From your posts your games seem closer to Rambo II,III,IV and Commando then say a Bridge Too Far. By the way, I not knocking your groups playstyle as it's refreshing to see a group make the game theirs.

I also have one character in my current game buiding towards the ultimate scrounger, you'd be right to say his combat skills are not up to par with the other characters but it has made for some interesting moments in the game so far. In the 20 hrs of gaming at my table the group has had 3 combat encounters with orks(gretchin) and really large orks (shoota boyz). My group has more problems from gender, and class structure in the squad then they have had from the orks on planet. I'm also making the periods between contact with the enemy long and boaring (giving the players a chance to explore the city their defending, encountering the local populace. This slow approach putting as much emphasis on squad, platoon, company and regiment has got my players jumping at the chance play again - even the combat specialists… But that's my style and that is what my group wanted.

Darck Child said:

Haha, yeah, but what you guys are usually missing is that we are playing Rambo without the unlimited ammo/invulnerability . And that makes a huuuge difference!

And it is kinda' interesting, because we play the same (relative) Nintendo Hard difficulty with the other systems too, and we could still have a blast with them without scrapping Fellowship.