Jump to content



Photo

Your only wish for Only War


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#41 Braddoc

Braddoc

    Member

  • Members
  • 752 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:28 AM

I have learned to improvise and think on my feet, rather than utilise what's between both cover of a book and nothing behond those limits.  Of course the books are flawed, they were made by humans, not nigh-perfect Gods. 

The pages are staying still, the covers are stong, the printing quality is good and everything works well.  I run and play games, we house rule as we go if we judged it to be nesessary, and we have fun.  I have nothing to gain doing complaints that are founded in my own personnal view of how FFG should do their own products and run their own company.  You can always make your own RPG and release it; who knows you may amke a fortune, or get a forum full of people complaining months before your product is even out in stores for people to see.

 

Also, I find your deductions about me to be flawed.


My 40k Campaigns page

http://Dark-heresy.wikispaces.com


#42 Gaire

Gaire

    Member

  • Members
  • 348 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:31 AM

 While I definitely disagree with how he's saying it, Sign makes a decent point. The editorial work on FFG's 40K products leaves something to be desired. I'll admit, I'm a bit anal about it, and being in the process of getting my Master's in English isn't helping the case, but some of the spelling and grammatical mistakes made in these books are just painful.



#43 Bassemandrh

Bassemandrh

    Member

  • Members
  • 188 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:34 AM

You must admit that Signoftheserpent brings up some interesting points, even if they seem to be overly harsh towards the wrong people.

The books are flawed in most cases, either with missing rules or spelling mistakes. And the Errata took a long time to come out (and isn't updated for DH atleast). Afterall we are paying for a complete product and we are getting something that is working and playable, but not complete without house ruling. Now if you house rule because you disagree with the established rules thats different.

Personally i dont think FFG have crossed the line yet, i can easily work around the problems i run into and even if there are spelling mistakes here and there, i still understand the context. To me the worst mistake i have seen was made by Black Industries (i think) in my copy of The Tome of Corruption where an entire reward was copy pasted from a different god, but i could work with it and it turned out to be more funny than a problem.

To end this i think someone should open a new thread about this subject, so this one can continue to focus on Our wishes for OW.



#44 Kahadras

Kahadras

    Member

  • Members
  • 99 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 01:17 PM

My only wish for Only War is for the party to treat the campaign as if they were Colonial Marines. I'm just hoping that somebody runs a session or two so I can play Hudson...

 

"I'm ready, man, check it out. I am the ultimate badass! State of the badass art! You do NOT wanna f**k with me. Check it out! Hey Commissar, don't worry. Me and my squad of ultimate badasses will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting plasma cannon array. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got Lazcannon, plasma guns, missile launchers, we got frag grenades! We got Deathstrike missiles, we got knives, sharp sticks..."

 

It will be a thing of beauty. Especialy when things go south and I can start freaking out.



#45 H.B.M.C.

H.B.M.C.

    Freelance Writer/Play-Tester

  • Members
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:09 PM

Time for a bit of a role reversal...

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Please, continue. I do so enjoy being insulted by people who have never met me.

I respect your right to voice an opinion and provide criticism. I don't have to respect, or even tolerate, verbal attacks of this nature. If you can't find a polite way of expressing your opinion, you're not trying hard enough.



Nathan - walk away from this one. There's no victory to be had here...

BYE


Matt Eustace. Contributing Author Credits: Church of the Damned, The Lathe Worlds, The Lathe Worlds - The Lost Dataslate, Only War Core Rulebook, Hammer of the Emperor, Shield of Humanity, Tome of Fate, Tome of Blood, Tome of Excess and Tome of Decay.

The views expressed in this post are my own. I do not speak for or on behalf of Fantasy Flight Games.


#46 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 861 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:13 PM

Braddoc said:

I have learned to improvise and think on my feet, rather than utilise what's between both cover of a book and nothing behond those limits.  Of course the books are flawed, they were made by humans, not nigh-perfect Gods. 

The pages are staying still, the covers are stong, the printing quality is good and everything works well.  I run and play games, we house rule as we go if we judged it to be nesessary, and we have fun.  I have nothing to gain doing complaints that are founded in my own personnal view of how FFG should do their own products and run their own company.  You can always make your own RPG and release it; who knows you may amke a fortune, or get a forum full of people complaining months before your product is even out in stores for people to see.

 

Also, I find your deductions about me to be flawed.

What does improvisation have to do with it? Mistakes should be rectified immediately and the proudcuers should learn from the mistakes not to repeat them. FFG seems incapable of either: the reason being they don't bother to proofread. Your comment is just assinine trolling, if they are incapable ot correct playtesting editing and proofreading which are the most BASIC functions of a print publisher then they are in the wrong business. The solutions do not require omnipotency nor and they are obvious: playtest and edit your work correctly. What good will Only War be when it comes out with the same mistakes, cut and pasted (which is part of the problem) from previous books? What use will the errata be when it comes out 6 months later because the lazy writers couldn't bt bothered to respect their fans - the people paying their wages - and get the job done in time. A basic errata file is the work, at best, of a week if not a couple of days. This isn't debugging computer code or remoulding hardware. Until FFG wakes up and realises it puts out too much product than it can handle these peoblems will persist, and their ignorance toward their fans is disgraceful. This is a niche hobby with expensive books and these people need to learn some humility and respect for those of us paying their wages.



#47 H.B.M.C.

H.B.M.C.

    Freelance Writer/Play-Tester

  • Members
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:43 PM

Is this the point where you provide a string of examples rather than hostile generalisations?

I'm not saying the books are free from mistakes - and my God have I spent a long time going through them to specifically find them, more than you'll ever know - but there comes a point where the meaningless bluster about "paying their wages" has to give way to actual examples.

BYE


Matt Eustace. Contributing Author Credits: Church of the Damned, The Lathe Worlds, The Lathe Worlds - The Lost Dataslate, Only War Core Rulebook, Hammer of the Emperor, Shield of Humanity, Tome of Fate, Tome of Blood, Tome of Excess and Tome of Decay.

The views expressed in this post are my own. I do not speak for or on behalf of Fantasy Flight Games.


#48 SwornEagleFeather

SwornEagleFeather

    Member

  • Members
  • 23 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 10:43 PM

H.B.M.C. said:

 

Is this the point where you provide a string of examples rather than hostile generalisations?

I'm not saying the books are free from mistakes - and my God have I spent a long time going through them to specifically find them, more than you'll ever know - but there comes a point where the meaningless bluster about "paying their wages" has to give way to actual examples.

BYE

 

 

 

Well, I don't generally post on these forums, however I felt the need to weigh in here (both on topic and off topic).

 

First Off Topic: The people who buy the roleplaying games are only a small percentage of where Fantasy Flight Games makes its cash, which means that no individual who purchases the roleplaying games is at all responsible for any thing in such a significant manner as to warrant the statements made by Sign. The overall allowance from FFG is covered by every item they sell, the events they hold, and the licenses on their unique products which means that the RPG community is at best a minority that could if FFG wanted be completely ignored and the company wouldn't notice even a small mosquito bite due to their dozens of other products on the market and other formats of money gain.

 

Now back to the topic......The only thing I'd like from the Only War book is that it be true to the concept of the Imperial Guard. I don't think a form of game play as free as Black Crusade would be accurate since Guardsmen are set at a specific task in their regiment with hardly any leeway in choice, and though, you'd also need some way to cross the formats since Guardsmen do tend to change tasks later at some point such as a heavy trooper becoming a sergeant or higher eventually. The background task of Rogue Trader would be good, but as a background to the character with homeworld being left out of the choice of the players since it is hardly common for Regiments to pull from different worlds, except in the case of replacements like how the Verghastite forces were added to the Tanith First and Only or when the Tanith/Verghast forces were added to the Belladon. Other than that, I wouldn't mind the previously mentioned method of pulling the experience spending method from Deathwatch with the multiple advancement tables to pull from.



#49 H.B.M.C.

H.B.M.C.

    Freelance Writer/Play-Tester

  • Members
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 11:49 PM

SwornEagleFeather said:

The people who buy the roleplaying games are only a small percentage of where Fantasy Flight Games makes its cash, which means that no individual who purchases the roleplaying games is at all responsible for any thing in such a significant manner as to warrant the statements made by Sign.


Which is why I called it meaningless bluster.

I still am genuinely interested in hearing some actual examples from him, because these games do have mistakes in them, mistakes I am all too familiar with, and I want to know what Sign has seen that's caused him to get so (IMO needlessly) riled up.

BYE


Matt Eustace. Contributing Author Credits: Church of the Damned, The Lathe Worlds, The Lathe Worlds - The Lost Dataslate, Only War Core Rulebook, Hammer of the Emperor, Shield of Humanity, Tome of Fate, Tome of Blood, Tome of Excess and Tome of Decay.

The views expressed in this post are my own. I do not speak for or on behalf of Fantasy Flight Games.


#50 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 861 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:36 AM

H.B.M.C. said:

Is this the point where you provide a string of examples rather than hostile generalisations?

I'm not saying the books are free from mistakes - and my God have I spent a long time going through them to specifically find them, more than you'll ever know - but there comes a point where the meaningless bluster about "paying their wages" has to give way to actual examples.

BYE

Are you serious? You want me to provide examples of things you previously agree exist anyway?

It's taken FFG SIX MONTHS to put out an incomplete errata for Black Crusade, and you have the temerity to ask me to justify my position? They announced Only War before they put out that errata? Good god, you can't be that blind surely?



#51 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 861 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 02:41 AM

H.B.M.C. said:

SwornEagleFeather said:

The people who buy the roleplaying games are only a small percentage of where Fantasy Flight Games makes its cash, which means that no individual who purchases the roleplaying games is at all responsible for any thing in such a significant manner as to warrant the statements made by Sign.



Which is why I called it meaningless bluster.

I still am genuinely interested in hearing some actual examples from him, because these games do have mistakes in them, mistakes I am all too familiar with, and I want to know what Sign has seen that's caused him to get so (IMO needlessly) riled up.

BYE

 

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.



#52 H.B.M.C.

H.B.M.C.

    Freelance Writer/Play-Tester

  • Members
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 03:05 AM

Ok, and once you've stopped being so openly hostile and needlessly inflammatory, step back for a moment, take a breath, calm down, and put some thought into some examples rather than just venting generally.

BYE

P.S. And what does announcing Only War have to do with an errata for Black Crusade? Don't answer that question. The answer is 'Nothing'.


Matt Eustace. Contributing Author Credits: Church of the Damned, The Lathe Worlds, The Lathe Worlds - The Lost Dataslate, Only War Core Rulebook, Hammer of the Emperor, Shield of Humanity, Tome of Fate, Tome of Blood, Tome of Excess and Tome of Decay.

The views expressed in this post are my own. I do not speak for or on behalf of Fantasy Flight Games.


#53 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 861 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 03:18 AM

H.B.M.C. said:

Ok, and once you've stopped being so openly hostile and needlessly inflammatory, step back for a moment, take a breath, calm down, and put some thought into some examples rather than just venting generally.

BYE

P.S. And what does announcing Only War have to do with an errata for Black Crusade? Don't answer that question. The answer is 'Nothing'.

I find your traducing of my opinions offensive. You have chosen to take offence, you chose to jump in front of the bullet. I gave youe xamples, examples of things you yourself agree exist. Anything else is you trolling. FFG have a lot to make up for. Only War was announced before the errata was completed (and still it's not complete). This shows how sekewed FFG's priorities are.



#54 H.B.M.C.

H.B.M.C.

    Freelance Writer/Play-Tester

  • Members
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:34 AM

signoftheserpent said:

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.

BYE



*** That particular one did get brought up in the errata thankfully, but it is funny nonetheless.


Matt Eustace. Contributing Author Credits: Church of the Damned, The Lathe Worlds, The Lathe Worlds - The Lost Dataslate, Only War Core Rulebook, Hammer of the Emperor, Shield of Humanity, Tome of Fate, Tome of Blood, Tome of Excess and Tome of Decay.

The views expressed in this post are my own. I do not speak for or on behalf of Fantasy Flight Games.


#55 H.B.M.C.

H.B.M.C.

    Freelance Writer/Play-Tester

  • Members
  • 1,503 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:37 AM

signoftheserpent said:

I find your traducing of my opinions offensive. You have chosen to take offence, you chose to jump in front of the bullet. I gave youe xamples, examples of things you yourself agree exist. Anything else is you trolling. FFG have a lot to make up for. Only War was announced before the errata was completed (and still it's not complete). This shows how sekewed FFG's priorities are.


Traducing? Not a word you hear every day. Trolling, specifically, is the action of posting on a forum for the specific intent of riling someone up, or getting a reaction. I assure you I am doing no such thing. I still don't see what announcing Only War and releasing an errata have to do with one another. You're going to have to break it down for us. And really, all your own posts have shown is how little knowledge you have of what goes into making one of these RPGs. If I'm wrong please correct me, but do try to be specific. Generality isn't helpful.

BYE


Matt Eustace. Contributing Author Credits: Church of the Damned, The Lathe Worlds, The Lathe Worlds - The Lost Dataslate, Only War Core Rulebook, Hammer of the Emperor, Shield of Humanity, Tome of Fate, Tome of Blood, Tome of Excess and Tome of Decay.

The views expressed in this post are my own. I do not speak for or on behalf of Fantasy Flight Games.


#56 borithan

borithan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,279 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 05:17 AM

 

signoftheserpent said:

 

 

What does improvisation have to do with it? Mistakes should be rectified immediately and the proudcuers should learn from the mistakes not to repeat them. FFG seems incapable of either: the reason being they don't bother to proofread. Your comment is just assinine trolling, if they are incapable ot correct playtesting editing and proofreading which are the most BASIC functions of a print publisher then they are in the wrong business. The solutions do not require omnipotency nor and they are obvious: playtest and edit your work correctly. What good will Only War be when it comes out with the same mistakes, cut and pasted (which is part of the problem) from previous books? What use will the errata be when it comes out 6 months later because the lazy writers couldn't bt bothered to respect their fans - the people paying their wages - and get the job done in time. A basic errata file is the work, at best, of a week if not a couple of days. This isn't debugging computer code or remoulding hardware. Until FFG wakes up and realises it puts out too much product than it can handle these peoblems will persist, and their ignorance toward their fans is disgraceful. This is a niche hobby with expensive books and these people need to learn some humility and respect for those of us paying their wages.

 

Now, I shouldn't join in on this, but I can't help myself.

 

Ignoring the possible attempt at irony by accusing others of trolling: Mistakes cannot be rectified immediately. As soon as possible, yes, but things need to be checked over (to make sure they are mistakes, what implication fixing those "mistakes" might have), someone needs to make the document up (and decide how they should be explained... a poorly worded errata is as confusing as a poorly worked original rule), and FFG has clearly decided that they want to deal with many issues at once (and give the errata itself quite high production values). Could FFG have put something out sooner. Yes, probably. However, it would have been much less thorough than this one it (yes, there are still other issues remaining). FFG obviously prefers putting out official errata's out in chunks, not just having a single file or document which is being constantly updated. For one, this allows them to go "There is now an updated errata", rather than just relying on people checking up every... well, whenever they feel there might be some small update. And until the point a new errata comes out there is always the option of contacting FFG directly and see what they are say (though if you take the same tone in your Rules Questions as you do here, I could maybe understand why you may have had a problem getting responses from them).

Proofreading? Yes, it is something that still puzzles me (though these are BIG books), but I don't see how you can get so riled up about it. There have been very few unrecoverable elements due to the proofreading problem. The intention can usually be quite easily worked out. I can't actually think of anything that drastic in Black Crusade (not that there haven't been problems, but nothing that needed to be fixed NOW!). Truthfully I don't think some of the slightly confused rules have been because FFG "doesn't respect their fans", but because some elements were self evident to them and they couldn't see the need for clarification, and only realised the problem after release (Deathwatch's Squad Mode rules are what I would regard as the best example of that, and I remember that being sorted fairly quickly).

As far as as your later post: All the books have had mistakes, yes, some unfortunately due to copy-paste errors. Lacking balance? How? I can only think of two books that I have felt lacked balance: Ascension and Deathwatch (and in the latter case it is pretty much down Assault Marine and the weapon stats). Ascension was an interesting idea... which hit many of the limits of the system, and consequently broke down. How did you make a character even more badass than a Rank 8 Dark Heresy character? Getting even higher stats can only go so far. Why not give them special abilities? And Unnatural Stats? We can now see why in the end result, but it was an interesting idea, some elements of which fell down. Deathwatch? Some of the same elements.40k RPG essentially has a class system, and there are only so many ways you can differentiate between Marines, so it made sense to hive off some of the melee abilities to the Assault Marine... but then it caused problems of balance with the other classes. The weapons were clearly an attempt to make sure they could 1) reliably hurt Hordes and 2) have a decent chance of hurting others like themselves. It achieved those objectives, it just had other unfortunate side effects.

Dark Eldar character not being Into the Storm: Because it wasn't ready yet? It probably hadn't even had work started on it at that point. Heck it might not even been decided to create a Dark Eldar PC class yet. Its not like it was an essential character option either. Why should it have been in Into the Storm?

The adversary section of every book lacking? Dark Heresy has quite a lot, just most are human and they have very little description aside from a title and a sentence. Yes, RT is limited, as is Deathwatch, but 1) by that point FFG had decided not to produce lots of stat write ups for lots of similar things and instead just provide one base element and give suggestions for altering it and 2) 40k RPG isn't really a game where you just drop pre-genned things in front of your players. You should build your own adversaries, using the ones provided as a guideline (and it really isn't that hard). The only exception I would say is for Deathwatch, because of the much more varied and specific opponents they are facing (namely the tyranids and tau), but even then they provide many of the basics. Its not as if most games provide an exhaustive adversaries selection in the core book anyway. They either provide none (expecting you to create your own or buy another book), or they provide a selection which is meant to keep you going and/or give some kind of guideline to making you own.

Not sure I get your point about the vehicle rules. Yes, they have only been available in separate books, but then I don't regard them as being that essential (and where would they fit the vehicle rules plus the stats for vehicles? The books are already quite large). Even without the specific rules you can easily still find uses for the skills. As far as Only War goes, it is the book I most expect to have the vehicle rules included in the core book, as it is the one where combat rules for vehicles will matter the most. You can't criticise them of not including them there until we see whether they have.

 

Character Creation includes skills that don't fit with certain talents? Not understanding that at all.

 

Why was the game not playtested: Well, I think they probably were.



#57 Dok Martin

Dok Martin

    Member

  • Members
  • 133 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 06:23 AM

signoftheserpent said:

H.B.M.C. said:

 

SwornEagleFeather said:

The people who buy the roleplaying games are only a small percentage of where Fantasy Flight Games makes its cash, which means that no individual who purchases the roleplaying games is at all responsible for any thing in such a significant manner as to warrant the statements made by Sign.



Which is why I called it meaningless bluster.

I still am genuinely interested in hearing some actual examples from him, because these games do have mistakes in them, mistakes I am all too familiar with, and I want to know what Sign has seen that's caused him to get so (IMO needlessly) riled up.

BYE

 

 

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.

Sorry mate, but I think you lost your perspective a bit.

There are mistakes in these games. They are still great games, far better than most IMHO. There's no need to use heavy weaponry. It makes you sound quite obsessed.



#58 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 861 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 06:26 AM

H.B.M.C. said:
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 - 

 

 

 

With an attitude like this, it isn't surprising that mistakes are made.

 

H.B.M.C. said:

 

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.

 

So we come to it at last: professional pride.

Mistakes aren't quite normal. I can assure you that if you worked as a proofreader for bigger press products, like a harry potter novel, you wouldn't last five minutes with that attitude. Just because these are 'roleplaying games' is no excuse at all. In fact that's an appalling comment to make: they aren't just roleplaying games when I pay top dollar for my copy, how dare you be so brazen.

Finding everything is not impossible. You have computers and you have eyes. I spotted the mistakes with the character creation rules in BC instantly as I read them. They are not hard to find, yet it took 6 months to address them and whoever edited that book couldn't see them when being paid to spot the mistakes. That's extraordinary, but then I must be exceptionally perceptive I suppose.

Noone is going to lose their lunch over the odd inconsequential typo either. But we are not talking about a few mistakes amid a background of  clearly laid out rules. We are talking about routine errors casued by a slapdash approach based around piss poor copy and pasting. It shows a total lack of respect for the customer and to the product. It is absolutely inexcusable. Blood of Marytyrs is rife with spelling mistakes, stat blocks are routinely wrong, as are numbers here and there. There is no excuse for there even being a need for errata: the books list a ton of playtesters. What were they doing? Playtesting isn't a free ride, it's a job and a responsbility. If these people aren't doing their job properly then find better playtesters and tell them what they are there for. Balance by its nature is not subjective, and a major part of the problem is adopting a rules system that is simply too clunky. It is serviceable and that's all.

H.B.M.C. said:


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.

 

 

Why were these rules not included in ItS? Why not put out a dedicated book for Xeno characters, for example? You cannot tell me that an adventure book is the best fit for rules like these? This is not a trivial inclusion: in fact it smacks of desperation, of trying to convince players to buy the book they woudln't otherwise without the DE rules. This makes no sense at all, and this slapdash haphazard approach tells me that FFG's line managers are not thinking their job through properly at all. For instance, if I want to use spaceships in a BC game, I need to bring my copy of RT and Battlefleet Koronus, and possible INto the Storm, to a game session and cross reference 3+ different and big books. If that is something FFG think is efficient then they are living on another planet - quite apart from having to lug 4 pretty heavy books around to and from sessions. These are important factors routinely ignored by FFG.

H.B.M.C. said:


3. Why wasn't this in Into the Storm?

 

Because it hadn't been written is the most likely explanation.

 

Why not? Dark Eldar were part of the setting at the time the book was written, as were Kroot and Orks. Who is making these crazy decisions? Why weren't Eldar, the best fit for that role, considered?

A complete lack of foresight that could possibly be foregiven if the game wasn't based on an already well established and incredibly well defined setting. All the info is already there!

H.B.M.C. said:


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.

 

 

So why didn't ItS include Eldar or even Tau? Why just Kroot and Ork of all things? Why resort to sticking the DE rules into an adventure book? How is that efficient? Clearly they are there to sell Dark Reaver as a product that FFG is admitting won't sell otherwise.

H.B.M.C. said:


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).

 

BC has three dark eldar. Three. That's it. No wytches, hellions, haemonculi, or archons or anything else from their well established canon. I don't expect EVERYTHING to be put into the corebook. I expect more than three. Not enough space? Simple, cut the adventure. It serves no purpose. It doesn't work as an introductory adventure for newbies, these adventures never do. Anyone knew to the hobby will have given up on the rules long before the adventure and besides there is Broken chains. Either that or put it on the web as a pdf. Problem solved.

 

The adversary sections of Rogue Trader and Deathwatch are a complete joke. What exactly are people meant to do? Fight an Eldar Corsair every game? Yippee! Give us more adversaries or give us toolkits to make them ourselves.

H.B.M.C. said:


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.

 

Into the Storm and Rites of Battle are the only sources for vehicle info for ANY of these games. The latter are vehicles for SM characters so aren't always compatible. For a BC character (who can get anything he wants remember because that's what Infamy is for - want a vehcile? Make a roll and hope the stats are available) that's not much use. Even then it means having to cross reference more books from a not very compatible series of books during the game. This is crazy.

 

I don't own frozen reaches and citadel of skulls; i am not interested in buying adventures. Tome of Corruption is an exception because I wanted the necrons. This is the problem: forcing me to buy those books for a small portion of information that is the only part of th ebook that's going to be useful is stupid. It doesn't make me feel FFG respect me as a player or a customer, no matter how much I spend on their books.

There should have been vehicle rules in EVERY core book. There are characters in my game that have the Operate Vehcile skills. What is the point of them if they can't be used? That's appalling game design.

H.B.M.C. said:

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.

 

The Heretek can choose one of two talents, armouer and a similar one for guns, each has prerequisites that can't be met during character creation. This is stupid.

 

H.B.M.C. said:


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?

 

The playtesters are not doing their job. At all.

 

H.B.M.C. said:


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.

*** That particular one did get brought up in the errata thankfully, but it is funny nonetheless.

 

Rules mistakes are not a subjective thing. If you can't see why that is then you are in the wrong job. Those examples you provide are exactly that/ You might find them funny, I don't. I find it ridiculous when they are ignored for 6 months without explanation by the company making money from the sale of those rules. That's disgraceful, as is your continued traducing of these issues as 'it's just a game'. That is absolutely appalling.

 



#59 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 861 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 06:29 AM

Dok Martin said:

 

Sorry mate, but I think you lost your perspective a bit.

There are mistakes in these games. They are still great games, far better than most IMHO. There's no need to use heavy weaponry. It makes you sound quite obsessed.

Fine, then tell me how to resolve a BC heretic acquiring a ground vehicle using Infamy,



#60 Bassemandrh

Bassemandrh

    Member

  • Members
  • 188 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 07:13 AM

give him an unstatted vehicle he can drive around in, or in case of war vehicles resolve it cinematicly.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS