Jump to content



Photo

The Baron Reviews Hammer of the Emperor on Dark Reign


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#1 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 895 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 01:45 PM

Latest review is up.

 

http://www.darkreign.org/node/313



#2 Droma

Droma

    Member

  • Members
  • 194 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 05:43 PM

This seems to be in stark contrast to the general consesus of these forums. I'll withhold judgement until I actually have a copy.



#3 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 673 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:44 PM

It is actualyl a pretty accurate review, its only problem is that it puts too much emphasis on the flaws of the book. Otherwise, I must agree with it, except on one point:

I don't get why the Tank Ace is OP. Like, because he can kill vehicles? Really? There is finally someone who can kill vehicles and thrawt the armoured dominance and *bang* he is OP? LOLWUT? Please, the Sharpshooter is a bazillion times more powerful with his "Everything is Accurate because I said so!" things. 



#4 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 789 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 10:14 PM

So the points it raises are accurate?

If that's true this is one book I won't buy and probably a step away from me buying further FFG product. 

It's one thing to do things differently to how I'd want them; it's quite another to screw up your own products by not supporting what you've already established, to leave out things that should have been included, or to make such egregious errors as ruining your own regiment creation rules and ignoring them to create canon regiments. This is appalling design.

The price point isn't an issue for me, nor is the size. The book is listed, here, as costing the same as similar sized books, and a book only need be as long as it needs to be.

This seems to indicate, along with the seeming death of Black Crusade, that FFG are struggling. Why this is I don't know; is the license expiring? Are GW exercising crazy demands, or, as seems more likely, are FFG not up to the task, perhaps undertaking too much to support 5 40k games. This is not helped by what is clearly poor editing and writing. 



#5 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 673 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:04 AM

signoftheserpent said:

So the points it raises are accurate?

Not accurate, just real. They are a little bit exaggerated IMHO, the book is otherwise pretty awesome. 



#6 Santiago

Santiago

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,527 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:06 AM

Hi,

By now I've read the book cover to cover. Yes, there is a certain power creep but not as bad as they portray it.

I did some math on the Operator/Tank Hunter and while its true they can one-shot a chimera or most light vehicles while attacking the frontal armour.
With a specialised 5k xp cahracter it is possible within reason to squeze 5d10+12 I, Pen 30 out of the Vanquisher Cannon.
But we are talking about a dedicated tankhunter squad, so yeah, not that strange


The Sharp Shooter could also perform deal (at a single target) devastation but a Weapon Specialist with a Long Las could already do that. 
What is the problem, a designated marksman should be able to take out high priority target. I can still remember nagging on the old DH forum with subjects such as, I can't one shot my target with a sniper rifle. Well, now you can. And seriously, 3d10+5, Pen 3 on 5 Dos with a Long Las vs 5 times 1d10+8, Pen 5, Tearing with 5 DoS on the Heavy Bolter, I don't see a problem, both half action, they both do what they are supposed to do.

The two things that are truly overpowered is a Pushing Pyronmancer with Sunburst or that walking tank called a Tech Priest with the right talents.

So in short.
- Yes, we would have loved to have more vehicles
- Yes, we would have loved to have more Advanced Specialties for the Support Specialists 
- Yes, we would have loved to have seen [insert your favourite regiment here]
- And Yes, I would have loved if they would excluded Psykers and Techpriests from this game, its a game about soldiers, not (techno) wizards…

Santiago…

 



#7 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 789 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:22 AM

AtoMaki said:

signoftheserpent said:

 

So the points it raises are accurate?

 

 

Not accurate, just real. They are a little bit exaggerated IMHO, the book is otherwise pretty awesome. 

Well, either the review is accurate or not.

 



#8 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,892 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:24 AM

My only real complaints were:

1) There are some Regiment options that conflict with other legal options. If you have two doctrines that alter your Main Weapon and/or armour, do you just pick which one you want?

2) The cavalry rules didn't also include bike rules. I know that they exist in BC (from the same author IIRC), but there's no excuse to have to go cross lines to get the info.

3) The editing is terrible. Too many spelling and grammatical errors along with references to non-existing materials.

There are a few other things that don't make much sense - like Guerrilla being a Regiment type rather than a Training Doctrine (primarily intended for Light Infantry).


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#9 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,892 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:27 AM

signoftheserpent said:

AtoMaki said:

 

signoftheserpent said:

 

So the points it raises are accurate?

 

 

Not accurate, just real. They are a little bit exaggerated IMHO, the book is otherwise pretty awesome. 

 

 

Well, either the review is accurate or not.

If I say something looks like ****, is that the same as saying it's brown? Accuracy is not quite so fixed as you would suggest.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#10 Darck Child

Darck Child

    Member

  • Members
  • 164 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:36 AM

The book is fine, I think it's AWESOME!

 

Price wise nothng to complain about. It's inflation and it is less expensive than print on demand (from my personal experience).

 

The comparison to other similar books in other gamelines is a moot point and has nothing to do with the Only War gameline.

 

It's nice to have material from other books reprinted as it saves those from having to buy those books and it's nice to have less books at the table.

 

It delivers what it promises.  It adds more  regiment options to the game from new home world, new doctrines, and new drawbacks.  It gives us more iconic units from the 40k universe with more pages dedicated to each unit.  Heck Armageddon Steel Legion legion doesn't even technically exist in the time frame established by the core rules.

 

It gives more options for the Imperial Guard and NOT for the Suppport Specialists.  The average guard gain from new talents and new advances which gives those playing a "standard guard" game based around a squad a lot more options and ideas.

 

True there are no new vehicles but it does offer Rough Riders and mounts.  

 

There is a lot a value in this book and $40 (Canadian) is more than a fair price.

 

 



#11 AtoMaki

AtoMaki

    Member

  • Members
  • 673 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 01:20 AM

Santiago said:

- And Yes, I would have loved if they would excluded Psykers and Techpriests from this game, its a game about soldiers, not (techno) wizards…

Doh! Do you even 40k :D

Also, I find it interesting that nobody complains about the complete lack of social stuff in HotE. Like, even the Fellowship based advancements are combat based for crying out loud! 



#12 Santiago

Santiago

    Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,527 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 02:06 AM

AtoMaki said:

Santiago said:

 

- And Yes, I would have loved if they would excluded Psykers and Techpriests from this game, its a game about soldiers, not (techno) wizards…

 

 

Doh! Do you even 40k :D

Also, I find it interesting that nobody complains about the complete lack of social stuff in HotE. Like, even the Fellowship based advancements are combat based for crying out loud! 



I think you are trying to ask if I like 40k. The answer is yes, but I hate the abusive way Techpriests are played, I would love to see them played as the mystique and eldritch techno shamans they are and not as mobile artilery tanks. So giving them more options to armour up (again) I find annoying. 

Also this is a Guardsman based game, so play a guardsman,..



#13 Arbitrator

Arbitrator

    Member

  • Members
  • 73 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:10 AM


signoftheserpent said:



 


AtoMaki said:



 


signoftheserpent said:



 


So the points it raises are accurate?


 


 


Not accurate, just real. They are a little bit exaggerated IMHO, the book is otherwise pretty awesome. 


 


 


Well, either the review is accurate or not.


 


 


 


It does make it sound awfully negative, and despite actually quite liking the book, I would say it is pretty accurate.


 


 



AtoMaki said:


Also this is a Guardsman based game, so play a guardsman,..


 



 It is a pet peeve of mine when we go to play Only War, a game about Guardsmen, and almost all of the group pick specialists and we have one poor sod acting as a Weapon Specialist whilst surrounded by wannabe snowflakes.


 



#14 BaronIveagh

BaronIveagh

    Member

  • Members
  • 895 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:42 AM

AtoMaki said:

 

Not accurate, just real. They are a little bit exaggerated IMHO, the book is otherwise pretty awesome. 

 

 

This is sort of the response you'll get around here among the more honest fans.  'Yes, there are problems with this book but 40k is awesome so we ignore/downplay them'. 

I'll also admit that my reviews are harsh.  Getting a Good review from me is not easy, as I hold FFG to the same high standards I hold Paizo, WotC, WW, etc, and I call them out on crap just like I call out anyone else. 

However, FFG has achived Good reviews in the past. 

While individually the issues with this book are tiny, they are many, and they are irritating to a GM.  Quite a few things will have to be FAQ'd, and that should not be the case.

 

 

From my own experiances with GW, FFG may be having trouble with the whole GW crazy demands thing.  However, the actual process that FFG goes through is covered under ND, so none of the people involved can comment on how it's done.

 

I will say that I have noticed a general decline since Sam and Ross got pulled from being in charge of the 40k lines. 



#15 venkelos

venkelos

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,194 posts

Posted 18 May 2013 - 05:38 AM

I certainly can't claim to be any expert, but having flipped through the book, I do like what I saw.

First, I can't imagine a game of IG without the other guys/girls that make the soldiers succeed. Certainly, the implementation of Ogryns, Psykers, and Tech-Priests could require some extra attention from the GM, but if they just weren't there, the game would blow; I don't roleplay to play the blandest guy I can make. That isn't to say that playing a run-of-the-mill Guardsman couldn't be fun and rewarding (I could enjoy the Cadian Sergeant or HG), but if I am not restricted, I'd be playing the Cadian Psyker, because I like Psykers, and some of the plot/interaction opportunities that could bring (if I played DW, I'd likely be a Librarian, or Techmarine, just the same, and that's a game that suffers, in my opinion, for ONLY letting you play Space Marines; sad when that's a bad thing, huh?). I'd also try for a Guardsman build who spent his points on the Untouchable option from Navis Primer, just to get that in there, but that'sa bit more twinking. Also, while some of the additions for these Specialists might be a bit much (I still don't know why Pyromancer + Sun is here, since it is main book, and all this book gave them, that I saw, was Hoods and alternate Force Weapons. Must be the copy/paste +5 WP thing?), if the book had had none in it, that's around half of your potential players you are completely alienating, which isn't a good marketing standpoint. And dislike Machine and the Servo Arm, but I was saddened when the TP lacked both, again (like in DH). As long as Power Armor is absent, and that is what all Tech-Priest Enginseers usually wear, for cover, the strength boost, and as an homage to the Omnissiah, I don't think that the extra armor points will be too bad. As long as they don't run away with their cybernetics, and between long missions, short downtime, and cost, this seems unlikely, the amount isn't so bad, and makes them the durable a cyborg should be. (My opinion)

Im not a big fan of most IG regiments, outside this game even; I tend to find one I like, and ignore the rest. I've always liked Cadians, and been unimpressed with the Rambo-knockoff redneck Catachans, while the others were rarely represented in the minis range. Gas masks and fur hats don't do much for me either, and the Elysians have often been my only other fan-regiment. So, for the book to give me three new options, that was unexpected. I always sort of thought that the Kasrkin were just Cadia's Storm Troopers, but I am very happy to see them here, and the Last Chancers and Tanith F&O are also ones I have liked off and on over the years.

I liked most of the extra guns. The Ripper Pistol is one of my favorite guns, and I am glad to see Marbo's sidearm included. Missing vehicles, predominantly bikes (I HATE Rough Riders, and no amount of logical arguements will get past my narrow, ignorant view that a force with tanks, jeeps, and stuff like that would wave off mortal horses, when fuel is rarely an issue, and bikes can be fixed. It might have something to do with d-bag GMs in other games taking special joy in murdering mounts, when you HAD to leave them somewhere. Some of the other Elysian vehicles could have been cool, too, as they rarely use tanks, and I am still missing the Valkyrie write-up.

I liked the Advanced Specs, though my own play style doesn't see most of them as likely to be used by me. Commander is my favorite, and I'm pretty sure it isn't even for the right reasons. Also not sure if it is a dumb choice for Sergeant (getting to Lieutenant?), rather than more a good way for the other Guardsmen to get some leadership experience. Brawler is good because I always whined that IG lacked Assault Troops. The others I might like but went meh, and am still not sure how frequent real vehicle use, and battle, are to your average team of Guardsmen, sorry Tank Ace. I'll hold out for the Specialist book, which might give Primaris, and whatever is below Magos. I don't need something on level of Ascension, but I do like when stuff focused on my character is one of the books selling points.

So anyway, I was rather pleased with it, for all that it matters. I would desperately love if these books had a second or third editor/proofreader go through them, but I have sadly grown to expect that in these books.



#16 Braddoc

Braddoc

    Member

  • Members
  • 716 posts

Posted 20 May 2013 - 04:42 AM

For bikes, they is a listing for a bike pattern from the GM kit, and a bike IS a vehicle, which rules are in the main book..don't see why you'd think a bike is like a horse and act similar to a beast just because you go all Indiana Jones and the last Crusade and ride with a lance.

 

For Refence:

https://www.youtube....RxsCHViPk#t=88s

 

 



#17 venkelos

venkelos

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,194 posts

Posted 20 May 2013 - 06:25 AM

Braddoc said:

For bikes, they is a listing for a bike pattern from the GM kit, and a bike IS a vehicle, which rules are in the main book..don't see why you'd think a bike is like a horse and act similar to a beast just because you go all Indiana Jones and the last Crusade and ride with a lance.

 

For Refence:

https://www.youtube....RxsCHViPk#t=88s

 

 

I didn't get the GM kit, so I was unaware. I could probably use something like the bike in Rites of Battle from DW. As to the similarity, I mostly just meant that a bike, unlike some of the other vehicles, might have some riding talents/special actions. You drive a truck, or a tank, but you ride a bike. Much like the horses, you lean, and steer with your body. Certainly, they are different, and vehicles, but I see them in a slightly different light then jeeps, tanks and sentinels.



#18 Kharol

Kharol

    Member

  • Members
  • 25 posts

Posted 21 May 2013 - 04:03 AM

venkelos said:

Braddoc said:

 

For bikes, they is a listing for a bike pattern from the GM kit, and a bike IS a vehicle, which rules are in the main book..don't see why you'd think a bike is like a horse and act similar to a beast just because you go all Indiana Jones and the last Crusade and ride with a lance.

 

For Refence:

https://www.youtube....RxsCHViPk#t=88s

 

 

 

 

I didn't get the GM kit, so I was unaware. I could probably use something like the bike in Rites of Battle from DW. As to the similarity, I mostly just meant that a bike, unlike some of the other vehicles, might have some riding talents/special actions. You drive a truck, or a tank, but you ride a bike. Much like the horses, you lean, and steer with your body. Certainly, they are different, and vehicles, but I see them in a slightly different light then jeeps, tanks and sentinels.

 

It might also be worth noting that there's an Ork bike in the back of the Only War core that you could use as a baseline for other bike designs.



#19 venkelos

venkelos

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,194 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 07:17 AM

Kharol said:

It might also be worth noting that there's an Ork bike in the back of the Only War core that you could use as a baseline for other bike designs.

Upon referencing the book, p.370 does, in fact, have them. Thanks very much. I might try to "model" them more off the SM designs, but using more low-tech stats, like the Ork bikes, would feel more fitting. On this note, since the TT IG refrain from getting bikers, in favor of Rough Rider horses with one-use lance weapons, I can't use what they already have. WOuld it be good to mount a gun on the fron of their bikes, like the bolters SMs use, or the Orks Dakkaguns, or assume that the drivers can use their own weapons, like WWII nazi bikers (think Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)? They might be equipped with small arms to shoot, while driving, or be carrying their lasguns, or autoguns, or attach twin-linked autopistols, or something, to the front. Regardless, I could also see ripping off the Space Marines, and adding the side car, to mount an assault or heavy weapon, in order to have the mobile firepower, but that would be the optional upgrade sort of thing.

Thanks for the direct to the Ork Bikes.



#20 SilverAlen

SilverAlen

    Member

  • Members
  • 13 posts

Posted 26 May 2013 - 08:05 AM

Yeah, this review is completely accurate in my opinion. Glad I split the cost of the pdf between me and some friends. Though I've got one complaint to add. 

The example regiments and regiment creation rules bother me for another reason. You see,  I don't mind messed up rules, typos etc it happens. But if they had bother to acutally follow their own rules when making the example regiments, the flaws would be immeaditely noticeable. In fact, it is quite possible they did, fixed them for the example regiments without making note, and left the actual creation rules for a FAQ.

Look at tanith first, didn't even mention how their equipment is impossible to get with standard rules. To the point where, even allowing a fair trade off on equipment they gave up from the guerilla regiment, they clock in with roughly twice the amount of extra gear. That could be in part because guerilla regiments don't get any armor whatsoever. We also have the karskins, who completely ignore the grenadiers’ equipment block entirely, probably because it has such gems as everyone in the squad getting a aux grenade launcher yet thye have nothing but a laspistol to put it on, in favor of a set of equipment which actually makes sense. 






© 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