Compatibility?

By Nerdmeister, in Only War Rules Questions

The following is paraphrased from memory:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only War Rulebook :

Full Automatic Burst:

Action: half

Effect: Do a full automatic attack with a weapon capable of such. BS gets a -10 modifier and you hit one target for every degree of success, to a maximum of rounds fired.

Semi-automatic Burst:

Action: half

Effect: Do a semi-automatic attack with a weapon capable of such. BS gets a +0 modifier and you hit one target for you initial success plus one extra target for each two additional degrees of success, to a maximum of rounds fired.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rogue Trader Rulebook:

Full Automatic Burst:

Action: Full

Effect: Do a full automatic attack with a weapon capable of such. BS gets a +20 modifier and you hit one target for every degree of success, to a maximum of rounds fired.

Semi-automatic Burst:

Action: Full

Effect: Do a semi-automatic attack with a weapon capable of such. BS gets a +10 modifier and you hit one target for you initial success plus one extra target for each two additional degrees of success, to a maximum of rounds fired.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My friends and I have recently been looking into purchasing some of the products from the 40k line of roleplaying by FFG.

The assumption has been that the systems are interchangeable; At least to a degree where you can read just one core book and then with relative ease play the rest of the 40k line without problem and without having to look up specific stuff (like the one mentioned above) every time we play.

We have only been looking at it shortly but have not been able to find any of these errataed anywhere and it really does rub some of us the wrong way in such a way that we might give up on it altogether.

The reason: Why in the name of all that is holy (that would be the god-emperor) would FFG make several systems in the same universe with very similar mechanics in the lines of characteristics, skills, talents etc and then go on to differentiate on something like this?

It was almost by coincidence that we stumbled upon this and it makes us wonder: how many places in the rules have FFG made similar hiccups and is there a purpose behind it?

This is not to be overly difficult as a customer. We did expect there to be some differences between the different core books in regards to flavor-like rules. But something like a regular combat action is just such a huge thing to the core of most games of this nature. If we decided (for reasons of our own) to intermix rogue trader and only war, we´d have to, as things stand now, apply two different sets of rules to the players.

So before our group goes any further with this we´d like to hear what the community has to say on it.

Have we missed an errata?

Is there a logical reason for this?

Are there any more blatant errors (and yes I consider it an error) like this that are being talked about?

Have any of the rules been discarded by player groups?

End rant

Goto top

Edited by Nerdmeister

Each iteration of the rules incorporate changes and refinements. It wouldn't be unreasonable to consider Only War the "5th edition" of rules set which Dark Heresy originated. IMO, most of these changes represent improvements with the Only War rules set being overall the most refined.

In general, the rules between the different lines are compatible with minor conversions. Many of these can be found on pages 310-312 of the Only War core rulebook.

So far only the Dark Heresy 2nd ed beta test rules represent such a radical departure from the core mechanics as to be functionally incompatible with the other lines.

I can certainly relate to the concept of each new version refining the rules, which has also been part of my considerations.

But if that is the intent why doesn´t the newest Rogue Trader FAQ reflect those changes?

Are players supposed to buy each new version instead of getting an update for their product?

That is what I am curious about.

It's done intentionally because the combat actions were inherently broken. Full auto was flat out better then anything else, exept singelshot with accurate weapons. It was very noticable in Dark Heresy where full auto could get close to doubling the ballistic skill of a lowly acolyte from the getgo.

My advice is this: Use the combat rules from BC/Only War and use the other core systems as is.

There's often a few other differences, like how Rightous Fury works and in BC infamy points (fate points) are radically different. But you can read the core rulebook of any given 40k rpg and easily pick up any of the others are start playing after reading up on the new mechancis of the gameline. Like ships in Rogue Trader, formations and requistion in Deathwatch, comrades in Only War etc.

The reason it isn't in the errata is this: Errata is there to fix problems, misspelling, remove confusing language etc. It's not meant to update the game based on later iterations of the rules.

Edited by Ghaundan

It's done intentionally because the combat actions were inherently broken. Full auto was flat out better then anything else, exept singelshot with accurate weapons. It was very noticable in Dark Heresy where full auto could get close to doubling the ballistic skill of a lowly acolyte from the getgo.

My advice is this: Use the combat rules from BC/Only War and use the other core systems as is.

There's often a few other differences, like how Rightous Fury works and in BC infamy points (fate points) are radically different. But you can read the core rulebook of any given 40k rpg and easily pick up any of the others are start playing after reading up on the new mechancis of the gameline. Like ships in Rogue Trader, formations and requistion in Deathwatch, comrades in Only War etc.

The reason it isn't in the errata is this: Errata is there to fix problems, misspelling, remove confusing language etc. It's not meant to update the game based on later iterations of the rules.

Thank you for clarifying some of the points I had here.

I still do not agree with it not being errataed. If FFG consider the rules to be broken they ought to correct it for the people only interested in one (or some) of the earlier 40k products. Instead they have to buy each new core 40k product that hits the shelves to stay on top of rules changes?

Edited by Nerdmeister

I'm not sure FFG do consider them broken, players will however and FFG has refined the rules to reflect this.

Not really, you're perfectly able to use RT combat rules in RT. And if you wanted to play Black Crusade or Only War you'd still have to buy the core books in order to get the stuff needed to play those lines.

Just look at other game lines, Dungeons and Dragons isn't errated to include the next edition combat changes, for better or worse. FFG does the same with the core books for its various game lines. They're similar enough however to do crossovers, apart from Dark Heresy 2nd edition which is very different.

Major differences:

1) Small rules changes are indeed implemented in D&D FAQ

2) An edition of D&D has had a life expectancy of 10+ years. 40k is a new edition each year by that comparison

1) Can you give examples? FFG's errata's mostly deal with misprinted or misunderstood rules, or simply oversight on part of the developer. More of a patch then an update.
2) My first edition of D&D is from the 80's. Thirty years later we're on 4th edition with a few half editions along the way. So they do last less then 10 years, unless they keep realsing old when the new one is out. And D&D might have been a bad comparison as Only War isn't a sequel to Dark Heresy or Rogue trader. They're all seperate game lines, living aloneside one another.

I'm not trying to defend FFG's position, but I do understand that they don't errata Rogue Trader (dark heresy has second edition in beta so that speaks for itself) with rules from Only War or Black Crusade. Afterall that's part of what you're paying for.

DH is 5 years old, RT is 4 years old. They're not getting updates from games made today, that's just doesn't make sense. Heck, the fans are doing it for them!

1) I cannot point you to a specific link. Wizards of the Coast had a rules update site/forum for 3/3.5th edition. Which has been taken down now due to 4th edition. I did frequent those sites back in the day.

2) I´ll concede that I might have overdone it with D&D. As you say though: it isn´t the best comparison

I do get the feeling that this is one of those issues where we might be better off to agree to disagree.

I see your points and while they ring true to me some of the way, I cannot help but feel it would be a relative easy thing for FFG to have implemented such changes in the FAQ.

I suspect you have a similar, if reversed, feeling for your PoV.

NB: I´m not seing that this would keep me from investing in Only War. Will be running some tests with the introductory scenario "Eleventh Hour" in my group and we´ll probably decide from there based on that experience

Edited by Nerdmeister

I see both sides of it. I'd love it if RT got a 1.5 update with OW/BC rules. But I also understand why FFG isn't doing it in the errata, it's alot of work that fans are already doing and it's free work that undercuts a potential income source.