The books have a CONTINUED history, one after the other, of making msitakes, lacking balance, lacking compatibility. We have Dark Reaver forthcoming for RT which, inexplicably, includes rules for a Dark Eldar character creation. Why wasn't this in Into the Storm? Did the Dark Eldar get invented in the meantime? Why are the adversary sections of EVERY rulebook so lacking? Why are there no vehicle rules outside of Into the Storm (and only for the vehicles within)? What use is having the Operate skill in Black Crusade (or indeed ONly War) if there are no rules available within for vehciles? Why does character creation include skill choices that don't fit with certain talents, and still without explanation? Why are these games not playtested? Why are there so many basic and stupid mistakes?
I don't care what percentage the rpg market comprises of FFG's sales, these are rpg books and they should work properly. if that isn't possible from the date of release then get them working IMMEDIATELY. Don't take 6 months. Your first and only priority should be to rectify that situation, which takes at best 1 week.
This company needs to get its finger out and stop fobbing people off with hype.
Thank you for replying with more examples of what you have issues with, however general those examples may be. You are still being incredibly hostile for no real reason - we are just talking about a role-playing game after all - but I will endeavour to answer you as calmly as I can. I'll go through point by point:
1. The books have a CONTINUED history, one after the other, of making msitakes, lacking balance, lacking compatibility.
Mistakes are quite normal. You expect everyone to catch everything? I've proof-read two books for FFG (and more unofficially) and there are still things that I've missed, and I'm obsessive about mistakes. Finding everything is impossible. Balance is a more difficult side issue as it can often be so subjective. There are some items that are not balanced, and some that are overbalanced. I wouldn't call it a systemic issue however, and certain not one that's large enough to get so up in arms about. Incompatibility is a question of degree. All five RPG's are written with the same rules base, in that the rules are largely the same. Where they differ is in the details, as each of the five games have different core mechanics. They are all compatible with one another, and although the latter two (BC/OW) do require a little more work given that the changes to the combat mechanics underwent a larger revision, saying that they lack compatibility is patently false.
2. We have Dark Reaver forthcoming for RT which, inexplicably, includes rules for a Dark Eldar character creation.
Why exactly is the DE career's inclusion inexplicable? The book is about the Dark Eldar, therefore the inclusion of the Dark Eldar career is not only completely explicable, it's also in context.
3. Why wasn't this in Into the Storm?
Because it hadn't been written is the most likely explanation.
4. Did the Dark Eldar get invented in the meantime?
Well... in a manner of speaking yes, the revision for the Dark Eldar in which the entire race got re-written into something similar to the old version yet completely new hadn't been written yet. But that's not what you meant of course. Your connotation or implication is "What? Were the Dark Eldar not around to include back then?". This is an odd question, because the obvious answer is "Well yes, of course the DE existed before Into the Storm came out", but what does that matter exactly? Chaplains existed in 40K before Rites of Battle came out. Vindicares existed before Ascension came out. So what exactly is the point you're tying to get at? That because it existed that it should have been written already? Do you think that perhaps the Dark Eldar career was written back when Into the Storm was created yet was for some reason held back? Is that it? I think Nathan, who wrote the DE career, might be able to contradict that. So tell us, what is your actual point here? I'm struggling to understand, and it's difficult getting past the bile.
5. Why are the adversary sections of EVERY rulebook so lacking?
I'm going to assume that when you say 'rulebook' you mean core rulebook, and not every release put out. Operating under that assumption all I can really say is that rulebooks take up a lot of space, and there is a limit to what can go in them. Each core rulebook also has to provide a wide cross-section of the various enemies that are relevant to the game's specific setting, enough that the players can use them, but not so much that other areas have to sacrifice important rules (needed to play the game) or setting information (needed for anyone unfamiliar with the 40K universe/anyone wishing to use the game's dedicated setting).
Using Deathwatch as a specific example, I'm sure that given the chance they would have included more adversaries than what were already there, but due to space restrictions could only include what you might call the essential adversaries for the three main enemy types relevant to the Jericho Reach, those being Chaos, Tau and the Tyranids. And thus an HQ, Elite and two troops were included for each (HQ: Crisis Commander/Hive Tyrant/Daemon Prince; Elite: Stealth Suit/Tyranid Warrior/Chaos Marine; Troop: Fire Warriors & Gun Drones/Hormagaunts & Termagants/Traitors & Cultists).
6. Why are there no vehicle rules outside of Into the Storm (and only for the vehicles within)?
I presume that you are talking specifically about the Rogue Trader product line and not all five RPG's in general, yes? Assuming that is correct then I would point out that both The Frozen Reaches and Citadel of Skulls contain several vehicle profiles. Additionally given the introduction of Soul Reaver we can make the logical assumption that it could contain vehicles as well (we won't know until it comes out of course, so this is just speculation).
And I hope that my assumption - that you are talking about the RT line and no other - is correct, because it wouldn't make much sense to have included any vehicle profiles in any existing Black Crusade or Dark Heresy supplements as neither game has any vehicle rules. Sure, you can use the vehicle rules from Into the Storm and/or Rites of Battle in
those games, but there aren't any official vehicle rules yet for those two lines.
7. What use is having the Operate skill in Black Crusade (or indeed ONly War) if there are no rules available within for vehciles?
The core rules have to be "future proof", in a sense. What I mean by that is that they have to (or should) include rules that while not immediately useful will or might become useful later down the line. In this particular example, the Operate Skill is in Black Crusade should they ever decide to introduce rules for things that you are required to drive and pilot. I would have thought this obvious, but clear not. As for your comment on Only War, you don't know what Skills are in it, or what rules for that matter. I do, but you don't. So please don't make wild accusations about a rule set you've never read. It might look a little foolish.
8. Why does character creation include skill choices that don't fit with certain talents, and still without explanation?
I'm going to have to hold up my hands here in defeat; I have no idea what you're talking about. Here you will need to be specific, with at least one example that not only shows your point, but explains exactly what you mean by this.
9. Why are these games not playtested?
Please avoid false statements. These games are play-tested, and the names of those that play-test them are included in every book. Play-testers spent a lot of time with each new book, and testing can sometimes take a long time. If you feel that play-testing is inadequate, for whatever reason, then perhaps you should volunteer your own services. To put it another way - put your money where your mouth is. If you can do it better, then show
you can do it better. Wouldn't everyone benefit from that?
10. Why are there so many basic and stupid mistakes?
I do so like ending lists on even numbers. It's a bit of an obsessive compulsive thing, but thank you for making ten points I could break up into a list like this.
'Basic' and 'stupid' mistakes are again somewhat of a subjective thing. I've found mistakes whilst skim reading that make me roll my eyes (look at the adversary profiles in Book of Judgement, or the daemon profiles in Daemon Hunter if you want good examples of that), whereas other things aren't as immediately obvious. Some mistakes are kinda funny - like the critical result in Black Crusade that asks you to make a Toughness Test, but doesn't tell you why you are making a Toughness Test nor what happens should you fail the Test***. But again, simply saying something is "stupid" doesn't really cut to the heart of the issue and just makes it seem as if you are complaining.
I've brought up three examples - profiles in BoJ, profiles in DH, and a critical result in BC. There's also the movement rate of the Death Leaper in The Achilus Assault, or many others I could bring up off the top of my head. I won't though, because I would like you to. Please do yourself a favour and write a reply that encapsulates specific problems, rather than spitting torrents of bile and unnecessarily angry words. This is a game after all, and we're all just trying to have fun with this part of the wargaming and RPG hobby.
Lastly fixing all the problems that exist wouldn't take at most a week. In thinking that you betray ignorance, and we don't want that.
Thank you for your time.
*** That particular one did get brought up in the errata thankfully, but it is funny nonetheless.