Jump to content



Photo

Hate Ratlings?


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#101 Dracurian

Dracurian

    Member

  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:10 PM

An epiphany of sorts has happened after the first chapter of 'Dead men walking by Steve Lyons'. This forum has made me want to read my Guard novels again.

 

Anyway back to the epiphany; The use of Ratlings etc would come down more to Regiment culture.

 

Cadians would use anything available to the Guard.

 

Catachans definitely use abhumans, being very useful in jungle fighting; Commissars & Psykers tend to suffer mildly fatal 'incidents'. Enginseers, few vehicles, no need.

 

Elysians & Tallarn, if you can not jump/ride your useless. No Ratlings here.

 

Krieg: "Are those mutants?" bang-bang.. Bye bye abhumans & psykers.

Commisars as liasons & little need for Enginseers as Siege not mechanised. Priest most likely here.

 

Vostroyans: "Are those servitors?" Abhumans unlikely. Close ties to Mechanicus mean Engineseer are the most likely over any other. More Omnissiah than god-Emperor.

 

Maccabians: Bang-bang Ratlings; Ogryns; Psykers; & heathen Engineseers. Commissars why need them. Priest every where.

 

Also, I reckon the problem with the Ratlings applies to the Krieg. How do you play a soldier who has no asperations but soldiering, no name, & no face (only rebreathers).

 

So love your Ratling friends, just do not 'love' your Ratling friend :wub:

 

 

 

 

 

8-)


P.S: Dictionaries ar efor poeple eho can't spel. Obviously I am not one of thym. :P

"Some subjects are so serious that one can only joke about them." -Niels Bohr

 


#102 ramza82

ramza82

    Member

  • Members
  • 80 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:38 PM

You guys are forgetting this is a game, and the golden rule of any game is that everyone has fun. Forget what is cannon or established fluff, no one is going to buy a game where everyone plays an identical solider, and has no voice or personalty.  And really GW is hardly a company known for it's continuity, so to say OW does not accurately represent IG is a silly notion in my opinion.

 

First and foremost it has to sell, and be profitable, and a lot of the rules or fluff that people are upset about FFG not adhering to were invented for the sole purpose of a tabletop game, some of it doesn't even make sense for a military/tactical perspective.   

I think we all need to calm down and realize that FFG did a great job with fleshing out a lot of previously obscure themes, and have provided us with a fun product.


  • Terraneaux likes this

#103 Robomummy

Robomummy

    Member

  • Members
  • 270 posts

Posted 17 July 2013 - 02:56 PM

 Forget what is cannon or established fluff, no one is going to buy a game where everyone plays an identical solider, and has no voice or personalty.  And really GW is hardly a company known for it's continuity, so to say OW does not accurately represent IG is a silly notion in my opinion.

 

Now that would defeat the purpose, canon and fluff is why I enjoy warhammer 40k. This is the reason I play, If I wanted to play a game where that didn't matter I wouldn't be playing Only War. and yes we all know that the established fluff has changed over the years but it is mostly minor stuff and many things have stayed the same (especially in the case of Ratlings and Ogryns).

 

Now you may like the game for different reasons then the background but those of us who choose to play because we like the background aren't just going to ignore it.


Edited by Robomummy, 17 July 2013 - 02:58 PM.

Check out my podcast Buckets Of Dice where myself and a friend review how to start various different kinds of tabletop, roleplaying, and CCG games. http://bucketsofdice.podomatic.com/ Each episode focuses on a new game, we discuss a little about the game's backround, rules, how to start/ what to buy, and a little about the company.  


#104 Dracurian

Dracurian

    Member

  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 12:45 AM

There is no fluff....there is only the argument...

 

 

 

 

 

Only Argument...A warhammer 40000 rpg

 

 

 

:rolleyes:


P.S: Dictionaries ar efor poeple eho can't spel. Obviously I am not one of thym. :P

"Some subjects are so serious that one can only joke about them." -Niels Bohr

 


#105 Terraneaux

Terraneaux

    Member

  • Members
  • 268 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 02:33 PM

Now you may like the game for different reasons then the background but those of us who choose to play because we like the background aren't just going to ignore it.

 

 

You're choosing a very selective interpretation of the background to begin with.  Other people have other interpretations, or have played 40k long enough that they remember the lighthearted days.  

 

If all you care about is the fluff, and not the viability of Only War as a roleplaying game, then just go write fanfiction and leave the gaming to us.



#106 Robomummy

Robomummy

    Member

  • Members
  • 270 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 04:16 PM

 

Now you may like the game for different reasons then the background but those of us who choose to play because we like the background aren't just going to ignore it.

 

 

You're choosing a very selective interpretation of the background to begin with.  Other people have other interpretations, or have played 40k long enough that they remember the lighthearted days.  

 

If all you care about is the fluff, and not the viability of Only War as a roleplaying game, then just go write fanfiction and leave the gaming to us.

 

What I am trying to say is that story matters a lot in an RPG game, background plays a big role for my games. If that's not the way you play then fine, not my problem, but the way I play the game is no concern of yours. I choose to follow the established background that has stayed consistent from rogue trader, the argument that I have presented on why I dislike Ratlings and Ogryns has been stated.

 

If you don't like the way I think the game should be played then fine, play it the way you think it should be played but I am tired of arguing with you over our opinions. the way I choose to play and interpret the fluff is no concern of yours and the way you choose play and interpret the fluff is no concern of mine. Lets leave it at that before this thread devolves any further.


Check out my podcast Buckets Of Dice where myself and a friend review how to start various different kinds of tabletop, roleplaying, and CCG games. http://bucketsofdice.podomatic.com/ Each episode focuses on a new game, we discuss a little about the game's backround, rules, how to start/ what to buy, and a little about the company.  


#107 Terraneaux

Terraneaux

    Member

  • Members
  • 268 posts

Posted 18 July 2013 - 10:30 PM

If you don't like the way I think the game should be played then fine, play it the way you think it should be played but I am tired of arguing with you over our opinions. the way I choose to play and interpret the fluff is no concern of yours and the way you choose play and interpret the fluff is no concern of mine. Lets leave it at that before this thread devolves any further.

 

 

My point is just that if all you care about is the backstory of the game and not the main characters of the (interactive, unplanned) story, maybe you should just write fanfiction.  Furthermore, you have actively stated that you don't think that any way to play except yours (which is basically ungameable) should be supported by the game.  I don't care what kind of bastard game you play at your table, but actively telling me that running enjoyable games with exciting characters that, surprise surprise, doesn't go against established fluff because the pool we're drawing form is so damn broad, is 'badwrongfun' is going to get me explaining to you that  you're wrong and why.  



#108 Robomummy

Robomummy

    Member

  • Members
  • 270 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 07:23 AM

 

If you don't like the way I think the game should be played then fine, play it the way you think it should be played but I am tired of arguing with you over our opinions. the way I choose to play and interpret the fluff is no concern of yours and the way you choose play and interpret the fluff is no concern of mine. Lets leave it at that before this thread devolves any further.

 

 

My point is just that if all you care about is the backstory of the game and not the main characters of the (interactive, unplanned) story, maybe you should just write fanfiction.  Furthermore, you have actively stated that you don't think that any way to play except yours (which is basically ungameable) should be supported by the game.  I don't care what kind of bastard game you play at your table, but actively telling me that running enjoyable games with exciting characters that, surprise surprise, doesn't go against established fluff because the pool we're drawing form is so damn broad, is 'badwrongfun' is going to get me explaining to you that  you're wrong and why.  

 

I never once said that my way was superior, I only said that I like it better, I care about the backstory being intrinsic to the game (example: dumb Ogryns, humans looking down on abhumans, etc.). I like the game the way It is, I just modify it so it fits with my group's view of what we think the game should be.

 

You seem to be under the impression that I want players to play as faceless soldiers with no character/drive/motive/etc.. This is incorrect, even faceless guardsmen have personalities, backstories, hopes, and dreams. This Is what we focus on, the story that evolves from soldiers who their superiors don't even know they exist. The back and forth between soldiers waiting for the enemy to charge at them on a battlefield, the kind of thing you see in the movies all the time.

 

Playing a different way isn't bad, it is just not how I or my group is interested in playing, If they were then I may make a campaign based on elite squad level combat but for now playing as the ordinary men and women of the guard is what is fun for us.

 

If you don't like my way then fine, but that doesn't make me wrong. You seem to be under the impression that people have to play the game the way FFG wrote it, trying something different isn't a bad thing. I am done posting in this thread as there is nothing left for me to say that hasn't already been said extensively on the topic.


Check out my podcast Buckets Of Dice where myself and a friend review how to start various different kinds of tabletop, roleplaying, and CCG games. http://bucketsofdice.podomatic.com/ Each episode focuses on a new game, we discuss a little about the game's backround, rules, how to start/ what to buy, and a little about the company.  


#109 Deinos

Deinos

    Member

  • Members
  • 252 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 01:13 PM

I sort of resent Ratlings, in that they took one of the most popular archetypes (Sniper) and bottlenecked it under Ratlings (which are decidedly unpopular), so you can either play a space halfling sniper, or a substandard human sniper. This doesn't make me hate them or their inclusion or people that plays them, but it is a bit of a letdown.

 

But that's okay. My rule of 40k roleplay is "Always play a psyker." and it hasn't disappointed yet. Except in the Black Crusade game in which after 6 months I didn't gain any infamy.



#110 Robomummy

Robomummy

    Member

  • Members
  • 270 posts

Posted 26 July 2013 - 08:22 PM

I sort of resent Ratlings, in that they took one of the most popular archetypes (Sniper) and bottlenecked it under Ratlings (which are decidedly unpopular), so you can either play a space halfling sniper, or a substandard human sniper. This doesn't make me hate them or their inclusion or people that plays them, but it is a bit of a letdown.

Not really, you can easily give a weapon specialist a long las or sniper rifle and use their XP to buy upgrades to BS and abilities that would help a sniper character.


Check out my podcast Buckets Of Dice where myself and a friend review how to start various different kinds of tabletop, roleplaying, and CCG games. http://bucketsofdice.podomatic.com/ Each episode focuses on a new game, we discuss a little about the game's backround, rules, how to start/ what to buy, and a little about the company.  





© 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