Played for near on a year and half weekly. Most combats were done using miniatures (not all, I will admit).

We used them with a map, with squares or hexes. Worked fine. It is a bit odd that the miniatures are actually too small (the map scale is 1" = 1 metres, when the miniatures are on a scale where 1" = roughly 2 metres), but other than that I never had any serious issue with it.

For Deathwatch we did on occasion use different scales (1 space represents 2-5 metres) as longer range fights were more common. Thruthfully at this point it was a bit fiddly and didn't work that well, but then we weren't playing it as RAW (and Deathwatch had more rules which simply didn't work with miniatures, like hordes).

I am not actually sure what you mean the "distances are a complete and utter mess on the tabletop"? Do you mean the extremely long ranges? Then I can agree that you couldn't do long range fights mapped, but then long range gunfights shouldn't really be mapped. Anything past about 50 metres is not worth mapping. It only really matters at short distances anyway.

I am not sure why the fact it was in metres makes any difference? The difference between "3 feet" and "1 metre" are so not worth bothering with on a game of this scale that the two are functionally identical (though the metres figures are easier to work with, though I guess you could just translate into yards). I never saw any problem occuring because things were measured in metres rather than feet. Maybe it's just because we use both in Britain that the issue never even crossed my mind.

As part of a group who has played out all our major combat encounters on the tabletop using terrain & miniatures for the last few years now, I can't help but wonder...

Have any of you "it was designed with minis in mind" people actually tried playing it using minis?

The range thing is especially baffling to me. DH1e distances are a complete and utter mess on the tabletop. Only a very few RAW distances are usable as-is on the tabletop, and there is no universal way to translate the rest to something that plays sensibly on the tabletop.

As for the metre thing, if the point was to be miniature friendly, the measures would surely have been feet or inches. Citadel minis and the 28mm scale in general is based on using inches as the measure on the tabletop. Using metres in the rules is not a huge problem, but it - I really hope obviously - is never going to be ideal.

This is true- my players love using our Hex grid- but... as a DM.... I think its the devil!

We've only got 25*25 squares to work with.

Thats tiny. Most fights end up as melee very quickly

I am not sure why the fact it was in metres makes any difference? The difference between "3 feet" and "1 metre" are so not worth bothering with on a game of this scale that the two are functionally identical (though the metres figures are easier to work with, though I guess you could just translate into yards). I never saw any problem occuring because things were measured in metres rather than feet. Maybe it's just because we use both in Britain that the issue never even crossed my mind.

Well as a Continental European I was quite happy with that choice.

Played for near on a year and half weekly. Most combats were done using miniatures (not all, I will admit).

We used them with a map, with squares or hexes. Worked fine. It is a bit odd that the miniatures are actually too small (the map scale is 1" = 1 metres, when the miniatures are on a scale where 1" = roughly 2 metres), but other than that I never had any serious issue with it.

For Deathwatch we did on occasion use different scales (1 space represents 2-5 metres) as longer range fights were more common. Thruthfully at this point it was a bit fiddly and didn't work that well, but then we weren't playing it as RAW (and Deathwatch had more rules which simply didn't work with miniatures, like hordes).

I am not actually sure what you mean the "distances are a complete and utter mess on the tabletop"? Do you mean the extremely long ranges? Then I can agree that you couldn't do long range fights mapped, but then long range gunfights shouldn't really be mapped. Anything past about 50 metres is not worth mapping. It only really matters at short distances anyway.

I am not sure why the fact it was in metres makes any difference? The difference between "3 feet" and "1 metre" are so not worth bothering with on a game of this scale that the two are functionally identical (though the metres figures are easier to work with, though I guess you could just translate into yards). I never saw any problem occuring because things were measured in metres rather than feet. Maybe it's just because we use both in Britain that the issue never even crossed my mind.

You brought up the use of the metric system. I simply pointed out that if it is supposed to be a tabletop concession it's a really, really odd choice. Personally I'm indifferent about the type of unit, as long as it either provides tabletop friendly values or can easily and consistently be converted.

DH1e don't and can't. For example, using a simple metre to inch conversion, actors move like race cars on the tabletop. Another example, firearms uniformly have waaaaay too great ranges, and there's no consistent way of nerfing them down to something more tabletop friendly (dividing by 10 & then converting metres to inches isn't a universal fix, nor is dividing by 5 or 20 or whatever).

DH1e distances requires football-field sized gaming tables, or all combat becomes melee combat. And neither offers a solution to that problem, nor makes any simple solution possible. You pretty much have to house-rule every single distance value individually for tabletop playability.

But if you'll forgive a bit of bitterness, that's kind of the WFRP2e system's stick: a collection of neat but undeveloped ideas that you can fairly easily create a functional RPG system from - if you have the time & energy to sit your ass down to playtest and write a core rulebook (pro-tip: this is not what I pay for, dear game designers. If I wanted to house-rule everything, I wouldn't be a customer at all).

I don't see how the metric distance is an odd choice. Especially for a game originally designed in the UK. Anyone younger than about 40 was taught in the metric system. People younger than that probably use imperial measurements for certain things, like the height of a person (no Brit I know would talk about being 164 cm tall), but they are taught metric at school, and mostly pick up imperial measurements as a generational cross over, so its use is inconsistent.

Wargames are actually one of the few places you will still tend to find distances commonly measured in imperial measurements, but that is probably because 1) a lot of them are designed by older people, who still commonly use imperial measurements and 2) inches are a handy size of measurement, particularly when using the ever popular heroic 28mm scale. Even then, I would say while tabletop measurements are often in feet and inches, scale distances will usually be done in metres (1" = 25 metres, for example).

Dark Heresy 1st explicitly states 1" = 1 metre as the suggested scale. And it works fine. Yes, people can move large distances if they want to charge or run (if they want to do anything else at the same time? Less so). And yes, ranges are impractical for fighting pitched battles in fields. So? Dark Heresy is not a tabletop battle system. It is a roleplaying game, aimed at small groups of investigators, who will usually end up in fights in close quarters. If there does end up being a long range fight, then mapping it out is a bit difficult, but then I don't know any roleplaying system where this would be practical... The only possible contenders are ones where they unrealistically limit the ranges of weapons for balance purposes. Even Dark Heresy ranges are a bit limited, but then it can be presumed to be "effective" ranges, rather than maximums.

Also, for long range fights, the specific placements of characters tend to become less important. At that distance all that matters is 1) how long will it take me to reach that place I am running to? 2) Is there LoS between me and the enemy? 3) What range bracket am I at? and 4) Do I, or my target, have any cover. Mapping that out... would just be a fairly pointless exercise, and it is simple enough that keeping track of it in the GM and players' heads should be enough (maybe with a scratch map to give rough locations). Mapping out should only be used at closer distances where 1) it becomes more important about the specifics of where people are and 2) it becomes more practical. I cannot think of any RPG where they work well with being mapped out for long range fights.

D&D 4th, which is a system designed solely for mapped out combat (and maybe the only one I can think of) gets round this by 1) being medieval fantasy RPG where ranges tend to be more limited, but even then tends to undersell ranged weapon ranges and 2) being explicitly designed around relatively limited size encounters.

D&D 4th, which is a system designed solely for mapped out combat (and maybe the only one I can think of) gets round this by 1) being medieval fantasy RPG where ranges tend to be more limited, but even then tends to undersell ranged weapon ranges and 2) being explicitly designed around relatively limited size encounters.

Moreover, D&D gets over the issue of long ranges by using dungeons . It doesn't matter that someone can toss a fireball 500 ft. (100 inches/squares) if the longest LoS available is 50 ft. The same is often true in most Wh40k rpgs, where fights happen in relatively confined spaces (which is why there is a ridiculous importance on melee combat in an age where man portable weaponry can easily outpace man portable armor). In the event that you are sniping someone from a distance, the exact positioning doesn't matter until they get relatively close to melee range, where positioning between individuals becomes somewhat more important, possibly enough to use miniatures.

I would love Thrones to make a return, personally. I think having Influence and Thrones in place would be nice, there's nothing wrong with providing options. I'm the kind of GM who likes to track ammo and money, I want my players to feel the pinch of having to manage every round and every penny. You don't get that with acquisition rolls.

I would love Thrones to make a return, personally. I think having Influence and Thrones in place would be nice, there's nothing wrong with providing options. I'm the kind of GM who likes to track ammo and money, I want my players to feel the pinch of having to manage every round and every penny. You don't get that with acquisition rolls.

More than that, unless you are pulling your Inquisition rep all the time, there is no way an Acolyte should be able to get a lot of the stuff without "losing" some "money". As written, influence allows endless acquisitions without a real cost behind it; you aren't a full blown inquisitor, or a RT, you can't just keep on buying stuff without caring. You just don't have the cash to buy it all, or the influence to get everything for free.

I've heard people say similar things about the original DH. I look forward to finding out whether the sentiment is just as inapplicable here.

Where does the original DH imply you'd be using miniatures? Or any of the later corebooks?

On any of the pages that show a diagram of a tank's facing sitting in the middle of a field of squares. That's where. Where there is a need for such a diagram at all, it distinctly suggests some people are not capable of "complex visualization", which implies the use of miniatures. Did they absolutely need to clearly define the facings of a tank by using a grid? No.

On any of the pages that show a diagram of a tank's facing sitting in the middle of a field of squares. That's where. Where there is a need for such a diagram at all, it distinctly suggests some people are not capable of "complex visualization", which implies the use of miniatures. Did they absolutely need to clearly define the facings of a tank by using a grid? No.

I think that like in RT for the fore/port/starboard weapons, they wanted to precise what the different angles covered. Without precising it, it could have been assumed that weapons had a 180 degree aiming area from the center of the side. It's a matter of establishing standard rules for everything.

I've heard people say similar things about the original DH. I look forward to finding out whether the sentiment is just as inapplicable here.

Where does the original DH imply you'd be using miniatures? Or any of the later corebooks?

On any of the pages that show a diagram of a tank's facing sitting in the middle of a field of squares. That's where. Where there is a need for such a diagram at all, it distinctly suggests some people are not capable of "complex visualization", which implies the use of miniatures. Did they absolutely need to clearly define the facings of a tank by using a grid? No.

That is just to more accurately show exactly how the different facings work, not to suggest you use miniatures.

Are there any actual parts of the rules that imply using miniatures is standard?

One of my wishes for 2nd ed. relates to this debate about minis: I wish that new DH modules and supplements would include maps of every tactical location. The scarcity of tactical maps in WH40KRP products really biases me against buying published adventures. If I'm going to have to perform a lot of prepwork to make an adventure playable, then why not just create one from scratch? If a GM doesn't use maps/miniatures, that's fine- you don't have to use it (-but I suspect that even GMs who rely exclusively on verbal descriptions to run combats would still benefit from a map to reference while making those descriptions), but there's no advantage to not including them.

One of my wishes for 2nd ed. relates to this debate about minis: I wish that new DH modules and supplements would include maps of every tactical location. The scarcity of tactical maps in WH40KRP products really biases me against buying published adventures. If I'm going to have to perform a lot of prepwork to make an adventure playable, then why not just create one from scratch? [...]

Ohhh, yes, I fully agree with that! I enjoy most of the sourcebooks (in spite of the fact that I find them very crunch-heavy and sometimes pretty bland/generic as far als background ideas are concerned), but the FFG's general concept for adventures merits a major reworking much more than the rules. I'm neither a proponent of heavy railroading nor of dungeon crawls, but for a system concerned very much with micro-management and tactical play the 40k RPG seems very "hand-wavey" and vague as far as the adventures are concerned. Reading "Edge of the Abyss" it was really grating to constantly find statements like "this has been deliberately left for the GM to decide". FFG, why don't you provide me with actual material and let me decide whether to use or change it, instead of providing nothing and *forcing* me do it myself (instead of 'deciding')?

As it stands now, I don't even consider the adventures worth buying as cheap drivethrurpg downloads. Yesterday I got Ark of Lost Souls (cheap off amazon), thinking "Well, a sourcebook about frigging Space Hulks will hopefully present at least a few central or generic elements in detail, but after a cursory look: Nothing. At. All." As it stands now, the 40k RPGs are in a rather weird place between 80's crunchiness in their rules and 90's 'storytelling-sandboxing' in their background and adventures.

Maybe it's because I'm a rather visual person, but adventures and background pieces offering only stock paintings of GW terrain kits instead of specific artwork and/or floor plans offers fail to provide any sense of location. I know the 40k background is supposed to be ambiguous and contradictory, but this should apply to the major themes of the setting, not to the nuts and bolts of a gaming session. When I spent money on a publication I don't expect to simply get a neat framework and do all the heavy lifting by myself. Cool ideas are a dime a dozen, the fleshing out should be provided by the writers.

*Whew, that felt good!*

OK, gloves off wishlist (bearing no relation to reality!)

1. A different game engine. Something for more scalable to the various aspects of the 40k universe so that i can play a game with that adequately encompasses hive scum, and daemon princes in a functioning system. This is not a pipe dream. there are systems out there that will do this just fine.

2. An integrated action system (linked to the above). I want rules that allow me to fly a Thunderhawk through a hail of lascannon fire, hard land on a flyer pad, bundle into a Chimera, race through a cluttered war-torn street after the bad guys in a civilian omnibus, exchanging fire as we go, shred their vehicle then swing the Chimera to a halt, leap out and start laying down bolter fire as the survivors scatter into cover to return fire with their autoguns. That's the sort of action a 40k RP DEMANDS in my opinion. DH1 couldn't go anywhere near something like that. DH2 should.

3. The icons are made meaningful. Bolter should be the weapon of choice. Headtubes should have some effect. Wearing spikes and skulls all over you should have some effect. Etc. This is 40k.

4. Doomed heroism should be encouraged and rewarded. While fun, skulking about in a sewer ain't exactly 40k is it? We should be commissars manning the parapet against an incoming tide of filth, valiant faithful Frateris Militia making last stands against a cult that's overrun a shring world etc. - and we should be rewarded for it.

Two references:

a. In the early days of Space Hulk when the terminators were first created there was a little fluff vignette. Essentially a terminator was holding a door against genestealers. Being overrun he sealed the door and was last seen being pinned down by a bunch of genestealers - it looked like it was all over for him and it probably was. HOWEVER, gnawing on his helmet the 'stealers blocked his vision, so the last thing he said was (something like) 'somebody give me their visual feed, i don't want any of these monsters to get away'.

****!! That's heroic. Thats what 40k Roleplaying should be...shouldn't it?

b. The excellent Pendragon rules. You play knights in King Arthur's time and there's a massive 'Glory (i.e. xp)' bonus for your next PC if you die a 'Heroic Death'.

5. Functioning and detailed background information. What is the Imperial Creed. In detail. What is it like to be an 'average Imperial citizen'. In detail. What is the Lex Imperialis? In detail. Etc.

6. A return to earlier 40k roots where racism isn't so overt. We've seen this somewhat in RT, with 'xenos PCs' as an option. Also abhumans.

7. A games structure on traditional lines, rather than this 'theme' approach that means core rules are spread across multiple books. I want a Core Rulebook that covers off all the basics. Supplements that detail specific aspects, provided expanded but optional rules.

Core Rulebook

Planet sof the Imperium supplement

AdMech supplement

Ministorum supplement

Administratum supplement

Psyker supplement

Imperial Guard supplement

Imperial fleet supplement

'Smugglers and raiders' supplement

Orks supplement

Etc. etc.

8. No minatures rules. This is an RPG. If i want minatures i'll play the tabletop game thanks.

9. Um...

FFG really, really don't like mapped combats, as can be seen from their sneery attitude towards them in WFRP 3rd and EotE (everything they write about mapped combat shows they consider it to be a burden, and that GMs should feel grateful for removing them from them). It is also demonstrated by the various rules they introduced that were map-unfriendly (hordes for one).

I really wish they got over this tone. Yes, a game can be designed so not to need any mapping, and that is fine (though I know some have had... issues with the very abstract nature of distance etc in combat), but don't get all superior about it. It is just different, not better. I personally use either depending on how what the situation demands.

I remember one adventure (Jurisdiction in Book of Judgement, I think) referred thoroughly to a map that didn't exist. That was really **** annoying. FFG and maps don't seem to mix.

OK, gloves off wishlist (bearing no relation to reality!)

1. A different game engine. Something for more scalable to the various aspects of the 40k universe so that i can play a game with that adequately encompasses hive scum, and daemon princes in a functioning system. This is not a pipe dream. there are systems out there that will do this just fine.

2. An integrated action system (linked to the above). I want rules that allow me to fly a Thunderhawk through a hail of lascannon fire, hard land on a flyer pad, bundle into a Chimera, race through a cluttered war-torn street after the bad guys in a civilian omnibus, exchanging fire as we go, shred their vehicle then swing the Chimera to a halt, leap out and start laying down bolter fire as the survivors scatter into cover to return fire with their autoguns. That's the sort of action a 40k RP DEMANDS in my opinion. DH1 couldn't go anywhere near something like that. DH2 should.

3. The icons are made meaningful. Bolter should be the weapon of choice. Headtubes should have some effect. Wearing spikes and skulls all over you should have some effect. Etc. This is 40k.

4. Doomed heroism should be encouraged and rewarded. While fun, skulking about in a sewer ain't exactly 40k is it? We should be commissars manning the parapet against an incoming tide of filth, valiant faithful Frateris Militia making last stands against a cult that's overrun a shring world etc. - and we should be rewarded for it.

Two references:

a. In the early days of Space Hulk when the terminators were first created there was a little fluff vignette. Essentially a terminator was holding a door against genestealers. Being overrun he sealed the door and was last seen being pinned down by a bunch of genestealers - it looked like it was all over for him and it probably was. HOWEVER, gnawing on his helmet the 'stealers blocked his vision, so the last thing he said was (something like) 'somebody give me their visual feed, i don't want any of these monsters to get away'.

****!! That's heroic. Thats what 40k Roleplaying should be...shouldn't it?

b. The excellent Pendragon rules. You play knights in King Arthur's time and there's a massive 'Glory (i.e. xp)' bonus for your next PC if you die a 'Heroic Death'.

5. Functioning and detailed background information. What is the Imperial Creed. In detail. What is it like to be an 'average Imperial citizen'. In detail. What is the Lex Imperialis? In detail. Etc.

6. A return to earlier 40k roots where racism isn't so overt. We've seen this somewhat in RT, with 'xenos PCs' as an option. Also abhumans.

7. A games structure on traditional lines, rather than this 'theme' approach that means core rules are spread across multiple books. I want a Core Rulebook that covers off all the basics. Supplements that detail specific aspects, provided expanded but optional rules.

Core Rulebook

Planet sof the Imperium supplement

AdMech supplement

Ministorum supplement

Administratum supplement

Psyker supplement

Imperial Guard supplement

Imperial fleet supplement

'Smugglers and raiders' supplement

Orks supplement

Etc. etc.

8. No minatures rules. This is an RPG. If i want minatures i'll play the tabletop game thanks.

9. Um...

1. Probably don't feel they could do this (and obvioualy isn't going to happen, with the work they have put into 2), as there is an established market with the original core system.

2. Not sure what you mean by an "integrated action system". However the situation you described is not what a typical DH is likely to be. That is a very specific and very narrow portrayal of 40k.

3. Bolter's shouldn't be the weapon of choice. They should be rare, respected pieces of wargear... and they should be bloody hard to keep running for anything but the best connected acolyte. There is a reason why autoguns and lasguns are so much more common.

4. Again, a very narrow portrayal of the 40k setting. Not the kind that is likely to feature in a Dark Heresy game. Certainly not one I am terribly interested in. That's what the tabletop game is for.

6. Totally outside FFG's control. GW has moved away from the tolerance of some aliens (though even in RT the mere suggestion of aliens was meant to turn the reluctant conscripts of the then Imperial Army into committed fanatics to the cause of the Imperium).

7. All games make a base presumption on the kind of game you are going to play (ok, you get some generic systems, but most are need a lot of work to specialise, or are flat out unsuitable, and a game intended for 40k isn't going to be generic anyway). I am not even sure what a rulebook that would be a base for every kind of play in the 40k setting, yet actually allowed you to play a game out of the corebook, would actually look like. The core mechanics have to come from some underlying principles. What would the core underlying principle of a corebook 40k RPG be?

8. Rather exclusive that. Some people will want to play with mapped combats. Some will not. A system that caters for both would be the ideal. If you were really going back to the drawing board I would recommend a system that uses real world measurements, so they you can work out how to map if you want to, but doesn't get anal about whether you are 1 metre more an action than someone else and whether you are 1 or 2 metres away from someone.

OK, gloves off wishlist (bearing no relation to reality!)

1. A different game engine. Something for more scalable to the various aspects of the 40k universe so that i can play a game with that adequately encompasses hive scum, and daemon princes in a functioning system. This is not a pipe dream. there are systems out there that will do this just fine.

2. An integrated action system (linked to the above). I want rules that allow me to fly a Thunderhawk through a hail of lascannon fire, hard land on a flyer pad, bundle into a Chimera, race through a cluttered war-torn street after the bad guys in a civilian omnibus, exchanging fire as we go, shred their vehicle then swing the Chimera to a halt, leap out and start laying down bolter fire as the survivors scatter into cover to return fire with their autoguns. That's the sort of action a 40k RP DEMANDS in my opinion. DH1 couldn't go anywhere near something like that. DH2 should.

3. The icons are made meaningful. Bolter should be the weapon of choice. Headtubes should have some effect. Wearing spikes and skulls all over you should have some effect. Etc. This is 40k.

4. Doomed heroism should be encouraged and rewarded. While fun, skulking about in a sewer ain't exactly 40k is it? We should be commissars manning the parapet against an incoming tide of filth, valiant faithful Frateris Militia making last stands against a cult that's overrun a shring world etc. - and we should be rewarded for it.

Two references:

a. In the early days of Space Hulk when the terminators were first created there was a little fluff vignette. Essentially a terminator was holding a door against genestealers. Being overrun he sealed the door and was last seen being pinned down by a bunch of genestealers - it looked like it was all over for him and it probably was. HOWEVER, gnawing on his helmet the 'stealers blocked his vision, so the last thing he said was (something like) 'somebody give me their visual feed, i don't want any of these monsters to get away'.

****!! That's heroic. Thats what 40k Roleplaying should be...shouldn't it?

b. The excellent Pendragon rules. You play knights in King Arthur's time and there's a massive 'Glory (i.e. xp)' bonus for your next PC if you die a 'Heroic Death'.

5. Functioning and detailed background information. What is the Imperial Creed. In detail. What is it like to be an 'average Imperial citizen'. In detail. What is the Lex Imperialis? In detail. Etc.

6. A return to earlier 40k roots where racism isn't so overt. We've seen this somewhat in RT, with 'xenos PCs' as an option. Also abhumans.

7. A games structure on traditional lines, rather than this 'theme' approach that means core rules are spread across multiple books. I want a Core Rulebook that covers off all the basics. Supplements that detail specific aspects, provided expanded but optional rules.

Core Rulebook

Planet sof the Imperium supplement

AdMech supplement

Ministorum supplement

Administratum supplement

Psyker supplement

Imperial Guard supplement

Imperial fleet supplement

'Smugglers and raiders' supplement

Orks supplement

Etc. etc.

8. No minatures rules. This is an RPG. If i want minatures i'll play the tabletop game thanks.

9. Um...

1. Probably don't feel they could do this (and obvioualy isn't going to happen, with the work they have put into 2), as there is an established market with the original core system.

2. Not sure what you mean by an "integrated action system". However the situation you described is not what a typical DH is likely to be. That is a very specific and very narrow portrayal of 40k.

3. Bolter's shouldn't be the weapon of choice. They should be rare, respected pieces of wargear... and they should be bloody hard to keep running for anything but the best connected acolyte. There is a reason why autoguns and lasguns are so much more common.

4. Again, a very narrow portrayal of the 40k setting. Not the kind that is likely to feature in a Dark Heresy game. Certainly not one I am terribly interested in. That's what the tabletop game is for.

6. Totally outside FFG's control. GW has moved away from the tolerance of some aliens (though even in RT the mere suggestion of aliens was meant to turn the reluctant conscripts of the then Imperial Army into committed fanatics to the cause of the Imperium).

7. All games make a base presumption on the kind of game you are going to play (ok, you get some generic systems, but most are need a lot of work to specialise, or are flat out unsuitable, and a game intended for 40k isn't going to be generic anyway). I am not even sure what a rulebook that would be a base for every kind of play in the 40k setting, yet actually allowed you to play a game out of the corebook, would actually look like. The core mechanics have to come from some underlying principles. What would the core underlying principle of a corebook 40k RPG be?

8. Rather exclusive that. Some people will want to play with mapped combats. Some will not. A system that caters for both would be the ideal. If you were really going back to the drawing board I would recommend a system that uses real world measurements, so they you can work out how to map if you want to, but doesn't get anal about whether you are 1 metre more an action than someone else and whether you are 1 or 2 metres away from someone.

OK...

So...

You read the very first thing i said right?

'OK, gloves off wishlist (bearing no relation to reality!)'

This is a 'wish list'. I fully expect those iwshes not to come true as i'm well aware of the current situation. You seem therefore to have missed the point of my comments somewhat. This is my wishlist .

That said, i'll respond point for point.

1. I know.

2. I think i described quite well in the example. An integrated action system allows me to go from piloting a starship or cargo hauler, to a ground vehicle to fighting on foot, all using the same basic system - without me having to have 8 different books open and bowl to catch my brain as it melts out of my ears trying to figure out how to do it. As to this:

However the situation you described is not what a typical DH is likely to be. That is a very specific and very narrow portrayal of 40k.

It's my wishlist remember? OF course its one possible interpretation. 'Specific and narrow portrayal of 40k'? You're kidding right? IT's mainstream to 40k. Find my a picture of 40k that isn't high-octabe, all-action, over-the-top, grimdark to the max! Surely a 40k RP (not the 'specific and narrow' slice of DH) should allow you to do these bonkers, covered-in-skulls, things? Or grub about in the dirt looking for clues too.

3. 'Bolter's shouldn't be the weapon of choice.' *Falls of chair* Everyone in the Imperium has a las pistol or auto pistol. And everyone wants a bolt pistol. The bolt pistol should rule all other pistols. Sure, most people will never see one (except in the stained glass down at the local chaple) but its the ICON weapon of the setting. Everyone should want one. And its rules should reflect that fact.

4. I'm happy for you that you're not interested in the things on my wishlist that interest me. I'd suggest that the 40k 'universe' is large enough for both my and your preferences.

5. ...

6. No doubt. Any interpretation i run, tends to take a '1st edition' approach, with alien mercenaries a common sight across the Imperium. I find it more fun that way.

7. The core principles of a core 40k book would be a set of functional rules that are consistence, scalable, and would allow each gaming group a stable mechanical platform to play in the 40k universe the way they see it. There are many sets of rules out there that take this approach. a 40k RPG could do. It hasn't because a 'narrow slice' thematic approach to design has been taken. My wishlist wishes they'd made different design choices.

8. Rather exclusive? Very exclusive i'd say. I dn't use minatures and in my wishlist the rules wouldn't include such options. I'd port that out into a supplement called '40K Miniatures: how to turn your RPG into a skirmish wargame'.

Less poorly balanced addon books, more disciples of the dark gods / creatures anethema. Also radicals handbook, which contains interesting enemies and cool Pc options.

I always felt DH1 did good with the bolters. They were really strong, probably the strongest regular weapons. But the ammo was so ridiculously expensive they were hard to use extensively.

Less poorly balanced addon books, more disciples of the dark gods / creatures anethema. Also radicals handbook, which contains interesting enemies and cool Pc options.

I always felt DH1 did good with the bolters. They were really strong, probably the strongest regular weapons. But the ammo was so ridiculously expensive they were hard to use extensively.

Absolutely agree with this! Well, the first part, anyway. I think bolters should be a bit better than they are depicted in DH1 . The addition of Tearing in the Errata helped, but still...

I remember one adventure (Jurisdiction in Book of Judgement, I think) referred thoroughly to a map that didn't exist. That was really **** annoying. FFG and maps don't seem to mix.

I recently ran Damned Cities . Trying to avoid spoilers: the encounter described as the major tactical engagement of the scenario takes place in what is described as a maze-like location. That's it. That's all the information the GM has to go by...

Jurisdiction actually gives map locations, though. Like, it has a list of locations with letter assignments, intended so that you can look at the map, see say, room C, and refer to the description of room C in the text.

There was no map. It made the adventure annoying to run because it was CLEARLY intended to have a map so I had to make one up myself.

Jurisdiction actually gives map locations, though. Like, it has a list of locations with letter assignments, intended so that you can look at the map, see say, room C, and refer to the description of room C in the text.

There was no map. It made the adventure annoying to run because it was CLEARLY intended to have a map so I had to make one up myself.

Yikes!

Man, The amount of maps I have to create for this game- and I hate creating maps with a passion. Its, probably, [without wanting to toot my own horn], my biggest weakness as a DM [followed by exploration sections.]

I... HATE... drawing and creating maps.... I don't have the creative juices for it. I Don't mind up setting up complex conspiracies and plots on the fly, but when it comes to which square of this map needs to have a cover and which one doesn't and does this item make sense for it to be here to block this square or what have you...

Laboratories, Vaults, Offices, Streets... Most of my maps end up looking like each other, and require a LOT of abstraction. So more maps would be freaking great. A random map generator would be best

A random map generator would be best

From your lips to the Emperor's ears...