Frankie said:

Well, since they built the 'flex' in from the beginning by saying that the rules should be adjusted to fit the needs of GM and group (that's in the book, so it's not a houserule), I'm not sure how this would be seen as a failure. No fixed system is going to give infinite versatilty, so they allowed for wiggle room outside the lines. That's not a cop-out in my eyes; that's being realistic about the limitations of a fixed menu system.

Frankie said:

I call bull, not even gonna try to be polite on that point.

I play humans all the time too (plus the occasional tiefling or super-human), when it comes to fantasy games and such, but I still like the idea of playing all of the above in Only War.

Secondly, Ratlings and Ogryns have ONLY EVER showed up in the Imperial Guard Codex, so why they shouldn't be included in the Imperial Guard wargame is going to require a lot of explaining from you. While the three (I notice you don't include Storm Troopers there, even though they're technically the same) remaining have been showing up in IG codices since 2nd edition (well, maybe not tech-priests), not to mention fiction and so on. So the idea that they're auxiliary personel attached to a regiment (or raised with it in some cases) isn't wildly off fluff, like at all.

Speaking of the Codices, I'm reminded of the Doctrines rules from the 4th ed Guard Codex (we're still using the 5th ed book, so it's relevant). How a created regiment could only ever have 5… and then they filled four pages with famous regiments from throughout the Imperium, and their Doctrines, 5 out of the 12 have more doctrines than the codex allows.

That's reason 1 why I don't care about the Renowned Regiments in Hammer of the Emperor not conforming perfectly to the regiment design rules. The next being Rule #1 of roleplaying, that you can change whatever the **** you want (the addemdum of course being that noone else is required to like your changes, but I digress) from how it is in the printed material. Which they did.

Frankly, I'd be more annoyed to find that they crippled a regiment that was supposed to be one of the greatest, and has a long and storied history of proving that fact, simply because it goes over the amount of points that are reccomended by the core book.

Frankie said:

Tell me how you give a system enough flex that it can be used to make a Regiment that has 10-20 years of heavy combat experience, like the Tanish, or a more ordinary run-of-the-mill regiment, like the kind you read about being decimated by some alien horror somewhere in the fluff, or even a fresh and green one, full of new draftees, without running in to problems with the system-as-is?

Set different point limits for different levels of experience/fame for a regiment? Because that's hardly a fix to you're complaint, it's just writing down what they've already told you that you can do. Which is not comply to the default number of regiment creation points, if more or less would suit your purposes better.

Well, I don't have HotE so can't comment on that, but I think part of the problem with FFG products is that a) they break the rules without saying so and b) this appears to be done out of carelessness, not out of intent. It is the latter that is offensive. That is, not that the rules are broken per se, but that they are broken purely because of lack of quality control, by accident.

Blood Pact said:

Minor nitpick - Ogryn were in the 2e Ork Codex, including a powerful Ogryn character type.

bogi_khaosa said:

And I'm used to sitting back and watching these threads turn in to overblown rants about how awful the book is.

Often these points are based on exagerations or misunderstandings of what's in the book.

But that doesn't stop people from going off on a stupid rant and declaring that they're never going to buy another FFG book ever again (every ******* thread about a new released book).

To the point where the criticism goes past being constructive, and really just comes off as bitching.

Which is why I've avoided these threads since the Mechanicum book came out, since complaints about that book were often quite silly and unfounded (the accusations that the Tech-Assassin was way OP, and stomped all over existing specialties, being the best example).

(and I think I'll go back to avoiding them now, as nothing has changed, based on my obvservations)

Blood Pact said:

I get pretty much every FFG 40K book, so it hasn't stopped me. The game in general is great and the fluff writing is magnificent.

But this is an issue in FFG products; it is known to all, like the sky being blue.

HappyDaze said:

All game systems can be houseruled, so it doesn't really change anything. Plenty of RPGs talk about Rule Zero and how you shouldn't be dogmatic about the rules, but modify them to fit the desires of your group. Part of the point of game design is to make a solid system. It's like saying D&D 3.5E isn't unbalanced just because you can make houserules concerning Wizards, so that makes it okay that Wizards are OP RAW. And, infinite versatility? Who says anything about infinite versatility?

If you're making a regiment creation system, then you should really make mold it around the fact you can make the canon regiments, rather than making a generic system, realizing they can't be made RAW and then cheating. Hell, I haven't yet given the book a solid read yet, but just looking at Steel Legion, DKOK & Attilans? FFG wouldn't completely break the system by somehow including those unique traits in it.

Blood Pact, I don't think I'm exaggerating or saying I'm never going to buy another book again. That doesn't change the fact they clearly didn't have an editor look through the book long enough and some things are unbalanced or referenced in the book but not even there.

Frankie said:

Then I wish a lot more people would complain about that. Instead of pre-generated regiments being over standard point totals, like it's the worst thing in gaming history.

It's not the worst thing in gaming history. It's just indicative of a larger pattern.

To be honest, I don't think I could play Only War as intended if I did not already have Dark Heresy etc. (hey, there's a marketing strategy for you… ); I would not see the obvious confusion over the meaning over "degrees of success," for instance, or the obvious Fear system flub. Both of which are the results of copy-pasting from older material and not checking it. What someone who didn't have DH would make of this material I can only imagine.

Anyway, as I said this is known to everyone, so there's no point in chattering about it. So I will cease doing so.

bogi_khaosa said:

No, it's really nothing. But you and others can't let that go.

And that's the worst part.

Because most people who want to play Gaunts Ghosts (or whatever famous regiment) in Only War don't care one bit if it's over the standard (recommended, SUGGESTED!) point totals in the core book for regiment creation. And as I said last post, they would be sorely dissapointed that they did not live up to expectations, especially if it was just because they ran out of points.

The only reason anyone seems to be picking this specific scab is they didn't anounce that they were ignoring that detail.

My main issue with the book is that, like the Inquisitor's Handbook, it's almost all crunch, and has very little of the awesome background that FFG are so good at. Admittedly, the Inquisitor's Handbook managed to squeeze a lot of fluff into the descriptions of its oh-so-many-guns and alternate career ranks. The Hammer of the Emperor tells us very little that we didn't already know. Catachans make good Scouts? Thanks, that was useful.

The Calixis Sector and Jericho Reach are fantastic, the Spinward Front needs more work.

Blood Pact said:

They NEVER announce they are ignoring a detail. That's because they aren't ignoring it; it's because they didn't notice it. That is why, for instance, the NPC damage calculations in the write-ups practically never mathematically add up.

I repeat: this game would simply be unplayable as written for somebody who did not have Dark Heresy or Rogue Trader (actually I think it was after that point that they really started going to Hell on this issue). Because the rules contradict each other, and not rarely, but constantly. This is because they are copy-pasted from different books with different, similar, but actually incompatible, rules systems, and nobody went in to make them coherent. Which would not have been very hard. Just do a search on "degrees of success" and add the word "extra" when needed. It would have taken an hour.

bogi_khaosa said:

I'm still not picturing what you seem to be complaining about specifically… I understand most peoples arguments against Hammer of the Emperor and can't say I agree with them but I can see the point others are making… I understand you feel it didn't get edited properly and can't argue with that but the claim that it is developed from imcompatable systems is nonsense, practically every section of the books is wraped up by saying "In all situations the GM should use his own judgement" So basically if you need expressly written rules to follow things that aren't expressly written then it seems to me you shouldn't be GM'ing in the first place.

I mean I'm very sorry this book wasn't exactly what you wanted but at only $20 bucks for the PDF download it's one of the best supplements I've been willing to purchase. I kind of tend to agree with Blood Pact on most of this, and personally feel the ambiguity in the system is an advantage to be utilized by both players and the GM not a detriment… For example the Ambiguity allows for both rapid and easy NPC construction, "Oh my character just punched a random civilian in the face, well human stats are thirty across the board but let's say this guy works in a manufactorum so I''l just take five out of both perception and intelligence and add five to both strength and toughness" It's literally that easy… Like I said before if you can't think your way around the neglible examples of a "generally poor system" you've given then maybe you shouldn't play this game or buy FFG products but don't try to trash the company because you are inflexible and unimaginative.

I love HotE but my only real complaints of the book is it's size and I would have liked to see more regiments in, examples of Agri, Feral, Forge and Mining also some more local regiments say from Malfi or Fenksworld.

If you like HoE and are happy to ignore glaring faults then why would you be bothered if they had taken time to edit it properly?

I just got the book today and overall based on a quick skim through it's a nice book. My only complaint so far is that the call out text boxes are more of a grey then the traditional black.