The chaos entities are not compatible. It's a bit of a strawman to say a minority of stuff is incompatible. The fact is the books are not completely compatible and assuming that I should know this by virtue of just buying it when people go to great pains to talk up the shared system of both game lines (which i was given to believe was the whole point of the three book idea) is unreasonable. I can't use the chaos stuff in CA with RT as written...at all.

Kyorou said: signoftheserpent said: To those who say that CA is compatible with RT, can you point to me where in the RT rulebook it gives me the rules for some of the powers used by the chaos entities. I can't find the relevant psychic powers. Does this mean I have to buy DH in order to play RT? No, it means CA, which is a DH SB, works best when one already has the DH MRB. If you don't want to buy DH, you can always try to put some work into it and houserule those psychic powers. Or you can wait for a RT creature SB to be published and buy it then. Or you can create your own creatures (it's easy and fun). The point is, you can't have everything you want, when you want it and without putting any effort into it. Boy, I'm a tired of reading you complaining. 'I can't have everything you want'? What on earth is that supposed to mean? I bought CA because I was told, by many people and not just here, that it was compatible wtih RT. It isn't. So address the point please. I don't have the DH rulebook, I wasn't aware that I would have to buy the DH rulebook (which I can't afford). Do you get the point?

The Spaniard said: All, FFG does not announce our releases until we know when they can be released, and until we can speak intelligently about what will go in them. The fear that FFG will not be supporting RT is unfounded, we have several books in the works and we have full time staff working every day to bring those products to you. The Emperor Protects. cP FFG What are these books? You've already said you're working on them, so saying what they are about can't be much more of a reveal.

To those who say that CA is compatible with RT, can you point to me where in the RT rulebook it gives me the rules for some of the powers used by the chaos entities. I can't find the relevant psychic powers. Does this mean I have to buy DH in order to play RT?

I don't think the provision of rules for the Eldar, for exmple, would prevent you, the GM, from involving them as you see fit. We are talking about the groundwork, the rules to allow you to do exactly what you want. Don't forget that, when it comes to freedom, FFG are still bound by the rules GW sets down. FFG will never be able to officially provide you with what you want if that strays from what GW say the Eldar are. So these are things that are not quntifiable under rules. I'm talking about the basics: numbers and rules. Once those are in place you can interpret the Eldar, or indeed anyone, as you see fit. Unfortunately until such rules exist, you will also have to create those numbers and rules. YMMV, but for me that's not why I bought RT.

N0-1_H3r3 said: signoftheserpent said: I said there was more for DH relative to this point in the development cycle. Only because Black Industries rushed out The Inquisitor's Handbook several months earlier than planned, allowing in a several significant errors that only appeared after the playtest was completed. Well we go back to the original point: RT has been out for about 8 months if not more and there's been only one supplement (I dont' really count the GM Screen as it's not the same sort of thing). In so doing, FFG obviously felt that a book like Lure was more relevant and important than anything else. I want to like RT - I want to play it - but it needs more. To omit any real information on anatagonists has to be, by any stretch of the imagination, a pretty hefty thing. Yet 8 months on the prospective GM either has to wait for whatever is being produced (if indeed anything relevant) to release or make it up themselves based on whatever they can crib together from other books/40k source material and the game system. Now I realise there are plenty of people who enjoy doing that - great, good luck to you. But that shouldn't be assumed as the norm (otherwise why bother writing and publishing a game in the first place). I think my greatest concern about FFG's 40K products is that they are not actually purely 40K roleplaying games: they are FFG's writers' 40K campaigns. This is evidenced by the way information is being released (such as the few realluy useful pages of Eldar stuff in Lure, which isn't a book abotu Eldar or Xenos) and by the fact that the campaign settings, which are objectively very good, themselves dictate the flow of information. For example, if FFG decided that Kornous has no Orks - then RT players get no rules for Orks. The campaign settings are being used a little too much, IMHO, as the criteria for releasing information that, again IMHO, really should be available to any prosective 40K gm (because it's part of the setting). Taken on face value the books seem great (I haven't fully read RT yet; I read slowly). The art is great and the quality seems excellent, but nonetheless this approach is not the way I would have done things. Fair enough, releasing three books covering the 40k player experience (at least from the perspective of playing humans) is fine - that was FFG's stated plan and people who don't like it are at least aware of it. But it's not really apparent just how much influence their created worlds within the 40K universe (ie Calixis, Kornous and Jericho Reach) have. I mean if you have information on the Eldar, in the 40k game system, then release it as an Eldar book or part of a larger book on Xenos; since this information exists (part of Createures Anathema and Lure) then this is clearly something that could have been done.

MILLANDSON said: Nope. Dark Heresy was released in the following order: Core Book GM Screen Purge The Unclean (book of three adventures) And given that Purge the Unclean is a poor book compared to Lure of the Expanse, I would say that the development up to now, compared to Dark Heresy in the same position, is better. That isn't quite what I said. I said there was more for DH relative to this point in the development cycle.

MILLANDSON said: signoftheserpent said: I'm not sure what this tells us. Sure some people prefer published scenarios to creating their own, and that's entirely fine. But if that's the approach FFG are working with then they haven't given those players much love either. Given it's the same approach at was taken with Dark Heresy, it's not that surprising. Plus, the majority of RPGs lines I've ever seen have always brought out a pre-written campaign as the first supplement. It's fairly standard practice, so I wouldn't have a go at FFG when the majority of RPG development companies do exactly the same thing. I think i'm right in saying that, at the equivalent point in its development cycle, DH had more besides a screen and a book of 3 adventures.

Nojo509 said: Jenk said: So in closing.... I understand the need to stay "Mom" sometimes... but I also reeeally want to see what is coming up next..... Sometimes you even have to stay "Dad." BTW, to those who question the release of an early adventure, I do not. Many GMs ONLY use published adventures. Those GM's won't consider starting a campaign without some adventures ready to go. Other GMs mix their own adventures with published ones and mod the published adventures to fit their group. They are more likely to start a campaign with some adventures out there. Some GMs never use published adventures. I don't know the breakdown, but I've played in many RPG campaigns since 1975 (yes, laugh at the old guy), and very few (10%?) were 100% GM designed adventures. I, myself, am a Mix & Mod GM. I'm just starting Rogue Trader in late May / early June, now that I've digested Lure. I'm not sure what this tells us. Sure some people prefer published scenarios to creating their own, and that's entirely fine. But if that's the approach FFG are working with then they haven't given those players much love either.

I'm aware of the arguments, but room could have been found easily. Other people may well want the adventure and that's entirely fine, but it is by any objective measurement not a priority over rules. If nothing else it coudl have been made available as a downloadable pdf for free to accompany (and possible encourage sales) the game. This argument gets made a lot about core rulebooks and in almost all cases it really doesn't hold water. Room could easily have been found. However, regardless of what could have been, it's been 8 months since release and there isn't even a whiff of any such support coming out while at the same time a trio of adventures, with the odd smattering of background details (as relates to the adventures and not in general) has. With respect, I would question the FFG's wisdom in this.

6Kilgs said: I would hazard a guess that Rogue Trader is going to see more attention than Dark Heresy. Ross Watson, a main DH writer, is tied up in Deathwatch after Ascension although it's clear they were written at roughly the same time. In addition, we know Stewart is the guiding hand on Rogue Trader and head of the "team" for the game. I don't have a clue who is in charge of the Dark Heresy "team"... and we can guess Watson is on Deathwatch. So I would expect more products for Rogue Trader than Dark Heresy. That maybe true since there isn't much more I guess that can be done for DH - or perhaps needs to be done. It's had a decent enough line up of supplemental material and that's fair enough.

Yes 40k is big. No you don't need a million pages to cover enough to get people started. You give them the basics, you give them at least the foundation in a corebook. 4 individual npc's isn't the foundation. Do I want individual stats for every single Xeno plus a complex treatise on their society and culture? Of course not. Do I want more than 4 npc's and a couple of ships? Yes. If FFG don't understand this, then they need to rethink their processes. RT is about interacting in space with alien races - if nothing else. Unfortunately the game doesn't give me the tools to do this without a huge amount of me fudging it. That's not what I paid for. There aren't that many alien races in 40k. YOu don't actually need to devote space to a huge amount of stuff (I would gladly forfeit the adventure to include this stuff as i think it more relevant and put the adventure in a gm screen package). Eldar, Orks, Dark Eldar, Chaos, Necrons Tyranids and Tau. Well the Tau aren't hugely relevant at this point IMO. Orks don't need much at all since they are basically all about one thing. Necrons I personally would have included but you don't need much given they would likely overpower a RT crew. Tyranids you only need a couple of stats for genestealers since they will only really see use in Space Hulk fashion. That leaves Eldar, Dark Eldar and Chaos. Again you don't need much more than a few key npc templates and ship templates. Xeno gear/guns can be covered in the armoury section since it's not unlikely that RT's will wield such stuff given they can and are beyond the law, effectively. Then you release a supplement giving more detail to the basic skeleton you provide in the core book. The Rak'Gol, the Yu'vath, the Stryxis: well i'm sure they are great but those are races (IIRC) that are FFG inventions so they don't take priority over core 40k ideas. By all means put them in a book later. Thing is, the longer it takes to get stuff out or even announce something the less succesful it will be. If a sourcebook comes out a year after RT is released - at the same time as DW - then a very bad decision has been made.

Kyorou said: signoftheserpent said: Thing is RT is going to be the odd one out and as such (financial climate and all) it's just going to get very little if any support. Why? Well Dark Heresy came first and has had support already (maybe all it will ever need). Deathwatch will be the new game and will get all the attention there - plus it's the game where you get to be Space Marines!!! Excuse me for not peeing myself from joy here. Who wants to roleplay freaking space marines ? Oh, well... Well FFG better hope that people do I would estimate the main draw for a 40k game is going to be Space Marines, shortly followed by Inquisitors - if only because they have had the most attention from GW in their working of the 40k universe since it stopped being called Rogue Trader. Besides which FFG are certainly not going to release DW and then switch to RT in order to release a bunch of supplements are they. The focus will be on DW as it should have been on RT. That release window surely ist the most important time, yet it really does seem to have passed RT by which is sad.

Psychopomp said: Yeah, I'll say outright that Lure of the Expanse was by no means a 'wasted release'. It's not so much a set of adventures as it is a gazzeteer of interesting places with a discription of an overarching event happening amongst them. Very different from Purge the Unclean. Also, there's a ton of pre-made rogue trader adversaries, their ships, stats for Eldar (including their psykers!) and stats for the Aconite frigate and Eldar components. It's just as much a supplement book as an adventure book, and it seems to have learned in every way from (what I consider to have been) the mistake of releasing Purge the Unclean first for Dark Heresy. MILLANDSON said: Aye, they seem to be between a rock and a hard place at present, as no matter what they do (be that give a release schedule, or not) people will complain. Add that with the NDAs imposed on the devs and playtesters by the management (remember, whilst Ross and Sam are important when it comes to the development, they have nothing to do with the management or legal sides of the company), and there's little anyone can do without FFG's management changing their policy, assuming, of course, that it's a policy FFG can change, rather than a policy imposed on them by GW. You know how much GW love to protect their intellectual property... and that's what the entire 40k RPG line is, their IP, not FFG's. Hopefully it'll change in future, and they'll be allowed to tell us more. I'd love for them to do that, as it then means I don't have to watch every single tiny little thing I ever type on these forums or on Dark Reign, but that's the way it works at the moment, and there's not much any of us (customers, playtesters, developers) can do rather than wait and see what FFG's management and GW will let slip. The problem is that one way produces complaints, and the other produces complaints only from those who stay interested enough to stick around. Without something to anticipate, it's hard to keep the word-of-mouth going. Also, those of us here at the initial source of Rogue Trader news are angry and frustrated - those who are more passive in their news finding are rapidly slipping into "out of sight, out of mind." My FLGS owner asked me if Rogue Trader had been canceled the other day, because while FFG is sending him all kinds of emails about board and card games, he's not hearing anything about 40K RPG anymore. First point: LoE isn't the sort of thing i'd buy. If i had unlimited funds I'd buy it without a second thought. But I don't. Is that fair? Probably not, but that's the way of the world. We can't all buy what we want. I am interested in the background stuff it contains (Eldar ship bits etc), but that comprises only a few pages out of a large book and it's just not worth it. I personally don't think that's the way game information should be handled. That info could have been put in the core book or compiled into a greater sourcbook for starships/alien races which is the one thing the game really needs, as i've said. Second point: people sticking around. This is precisely the point - now RT will be competing against DW not only for resources from FFG but from fans' dollars. It's way more likely that support will be dropped as time goes on (yes i know that's rather doom laden, but you take my point) in favour of the new game as people are more lilely to play a) a Space Marine game of smiting the Emperor's foes and b) the newer product and c) the newer product is always perceived to get the support.

N0-1_H3r3 said: signoftheserpent said: I'd go so far as to say that it's questionable policy to prioritise a simple (in relative terms) book of adventures over other, more important, things. How do you define 'more important'? Criteria for importance vary from individual to individual. First things first, releases to date, Rogue Trader is following the pattern established by Dark Heresy - first release post-rulebook is the GM's Toolkit (relatively quick and easy to produce in terms of written content), followed by a multi-adventure book (useful for many people, even if you and I happen to not be amongst them). Secondly, Lure of the Expanse provided a little of everything in its content - a few adversaries (Eldar, including a starship; several rival Rogue Traders), examples of how to use the Endeavours system to its fullest (something that I've heard a lot of call for in places other than this forum) including a number of endeavours that can be detached from the main plot and used stand-alone with little difficulty, and detailed information on nearly half a dozen locations within the Koronus Expanse. It isn't as if the book can only be used as a single short campaign... I'd define more important as the stuff that expands the rules in the corebook that are the most lacking. Starships are important to RT and are covered all too briefly, the same for antagonists. In a game of space exploration based in 40k there are only 4 npc stats for aliens and no guidance as to how to create your own warp daemons, or Dark Eldar pirates, or Tyranid monsters lurking on an abandoned treasure ship...etcNow i'm not criticising LoE at all; i've gone to great pains to avoid that. I'm sure, as i've already said, the book per se is great quality. But it's just (for the greater part) three adventures. I'm sure that's useful to some people and good luck to them, but it doesn't address what's missing or what's given reltively short shrift in the corebook. I don't mind how many such books FFG release, just so long as they don't do so at the expense of what is needed. I don't believe it's fair to publish a print rpg and then leave out considerable and intrinsic difference on the belief that it's entirely part of the gaming experience to have to make it all up. Some people enjoy doing that, but not I - not to that extent. Isn't it a bit odd to have created a setting and then do nothing with it? In fact i had assumed, for the greatest time, that LoE was a gazetter and not at all a book of adventures (and i'd probably bought it if that were the case).

I'd go so far as to say that it's questionable policy to prioritise a simple (in relative terms) book of adventures over other, more important, things. That said book is all we've seen and, regardless of what people in the know might say, all we are going to see for teh foreseeable future is IMO weak. I hate to say it, I'm not down on the book by any means, but it's not even a guide to the Koronus Expanse (which i actually thougth it was), it's just some adventures.

That's really just emotive. I dont know the people posting here from Adam so i have no way to verify if there really is anything coming out when if they are working on stuff they will be under NDA anyway. Until FFG release more information about what is happening with this line then I'm not really prepared to place real stock in the assurances of people I don't know. That's an unreasonable expectation. I have respect for everyone's opinions, but it's really down to FFG to let us, the players, know where we stand and I think they need to be a little bit more forthcoming, and I don't think that is too much to ask - not after 8 months. After all is Lure of the Expanse really the best they can manage. I'm sure it's very good, but it's not at all what I would consider a priority.

Psychopomp said: Yes, but with nothing announced in the release schedule at all after only one supplement five months after the core release, it would be really nice (and reassuring) if we could have something more than "I really wish I could tell you what's coming up, but it'll be awesome!" With weekly updates about Deathwatch and zero news on Rogue Trader, I'm starting to get concerned that the former is being released too soon. Rogue Trader hasn't had time to build up a stock of releases (as Dark Heresy did) before they push on into another line. I'd feel better if they'd just say, "Here's three books coming out next, with vague descriptions about what's in them. We hope to get them out over the next year, maybe a little longer." I mean, we've gone five months with just the GM screen and a(n admittedly awesome) adventure book. And now, nothing but hints that there are other books? Note, not hints about what will be in further books, just hints (and not even confirmations) that there will be other books at all. We need to be told something. I can't plan and budget to buy secrets. This is going to sound very negative, but... Thing is RT is going to be the odd one out and as such (financial climate and all) it's just going to get very little if any support. Why? Well Dark Heresy came first and has had support already (maybe all it will ever need). Deathwatch will be the new game and will get all the attention there - plus it's the game where you get to be Space Marines!!! Sure Rogue Trader allows you to do cool stuff, but it's the space marines (and probably also the inquisitors) that are the big draw. As i say DH came first so on that basis it beasts RT. Consequently RT gets left out. Who knows whether that's right, only time will tell. But is it really unreasonable to expect FFG to say what they have planned, even if they have to caveat that with respect to printing and publishing issues? Noone expects them to say 'we have a spaceship book coming out' and then scream at them because it's not out RIGHT NOW. But it's been 8 months since release and only 4 till the projhected release of DW (whose release date they don't mind mentioning i notice). It wouldn't bother me so much, but the game needs support otherwise forget about it. We need more information on starships and definitely more covering alien races and how to create/introduce them in a game about space exploration! But there's no word at all except on Deathwatch (and Ascension). Do they think people have the money to buy Deathwatch, Ascension and whatever might come out for RT? Or is it more likely that, with DW on the horizon, that will be the only release for a considerable while. Is it likely they will suddenly release or announce and release significatn support for RT in the same sales window as DW?

The sections may be separate but it seems that FFG don't have the resources to produce 3 effectively separate game lines equally. If Ascension is 9 months overdue that's a pretty hefty delay and it will only be exacerbated when Deathwatch is released. Of course it's unreasonable to expect them to announce the exact time and day of release of product and hold them to that to the point of rage. That's ridiculous, but it's a clear overreaction on their part to say absolutely nothing. It wouldn't matter if RT was compelte enough, but it's not. Whatever you might say about it's size and how well it's made there are key things, imo, that are lacking that really should take greater priority than a book of adventures or even a screen. The game desperately needs info on starships and other races/antagonists (especially their starships). Or at least the tools to create such. Supplements shouldn't be things you need, they should be bonus material to add to what's there. When you then have to wait 9 months for a book that makes the game continue to be playable (because your pc's have maxed out their rank as servants of the inquisition, for example), then there's a problem. I wonder if FFG have bitten off more than they can chew with three game lines, each requiring the same high standards of production.

Dvil said: signoftheserpent said: But doesn't this just highlight the problem? The player obviously wants a combat character and has, it seems, played by the rules to create one. You can't them force the character into situiations where he will fail all the time becuase that will just upset the player. I'm afraid I disagree with this point here. Combat isn't really the main focus of Rogue Trader, it's commerce, bartering, and trade (albeit on an interstellar scale). If you're going to create a character who's awful at bartering, scares most businessmen and is generally no good at negotiating, you can't complain that he's no good at a game with 'trader' in the name. And I would disagree with this. The focus of RT is exploration. Those things are part of the game but there are not, nor are they even itnended to be, part of every character - not every PC will be a trader just as not every pc will be a navigator. This is 40k we are talking about combat is a very large part of it and so it should be. If the whole group comprised of combat only characters then you may have a point - though if that's the game a group wants to play then that's entirely fine and the game should support it. There are probably plenty of RT crews who are nothing more than imperialistic pirates plundering where they can and thinking nothing of lesser foes other than what they can take - by force if necessary. After all they come from a society where anything that isn't human (and these guyesa re the peak of human society) is inferior, corrupting and generally unpleasant.

Argus Van Het said: Signoftheserpent, there are some facts of life: First, no matter how perfect a game is, unless the players don't have a choice in the mechanical aspects of their characters (for example, the original Zelda for NES, or the SNES one...) there will be always possibilities of min/maxing characters into peaks of concrete parts of the game, because there will always be an "optimal build for...". Now, why does a munchkin break a game completely? Because if you have five players and a GM, all six of them have the same right ot enjoy the game. That means if one of them has enough combat capacity to make the other four players completely irrelevant, of those four the ones who made combat characters will see themselves redundat and useless. And if the GM scales up the encounters to the munchkin character, the other characters will simply see themselves unable to do anything against those enemies. Thus, a munchkin forces the whole group to play the way he plays... and when he suddenly realizes he is, again, on par with everybody, he'll try to regain his "advantage"... or leave the game, because "it's boring". Strangely enough, most muchkins are centered around direct combat in the physical variant. Meanwhile, social munchkins can make things... very very nastier (the players remembering well played Setites in the old World of Darkness should see my point easily... the true power, as the chaos sorcerers like to say, is not to lead a company of chaos space marines. Is to pull the strings of the leader of that company...). As I said before, if he is the only figting character, then by all means, he is welcome. But you know, if your group is made by three social and/or mental specialists, and a bodyguard with spying capacities, making yourself a character only able to fight will mean you will act only in 1/5 (that is 20%) of the game sessions. And most of your "play" will consist on rolling dices. So if you want the spot and to be a big badass, go play some single-player shooter, because (without trying to offend) you will enjoy it much more. PD: Edit: just left to the date of the post is the "edit" option, signoftheserpent. Please avoid double posts, they are confusing ^^. I just don't believe there are people who deliberately set out to break a game and/or spoil everyone else's fun. There may be people who look at the mechanical processes involved in the game and seek to use them to best advantage - ie to create the best Explorator. But to single them out by use of the term munchkin, while they may present a problem to the rest of the group, is disingenuous and unfair. If the rules allow someone to create a character that's overpowered then the answer isn't to say the player is working against the spirit of the game (assuming the GM hasn't laid down any ground rules as to what's allowed and not allwed and given good reasons for doing so), but to address why the rules exist that way in the first place. Anything else is just confrontational. You can't have the GM then respond by setting the player's character up to fail because that's unfair to the player. You could come out and say the character is overpowered, but then you would have to admit the rules are somewhat to blame for allowing the possibility. As much a part of the rpg equation as roleplaying there is roll playing - there are rules and dice rolls because it's a game as well as a drama. I think some people tend to forget this. What do the designers think about these issues? Are they deliberate? Are they unfortunate and unforeseen (playtesting should include precisely these sorts of characters as a means to test the system to breaking point). Maybe this sort of character is entirely acceptable.

Casamyr said: I've had the same problem with one of my players (brute + all xp going into Str and To for ridiculous stats). The way I've dealt with it is that he is usually the first thing attacked as he is see as the greatest threat, massive slabs of muscle wandering around with massive guns, or if he is around people tend to be a minuses due to his mutations and I can imagine that things will slowly get worse for the mutant. He is finally, i think, getting the idea that his character attracts the wrong king of attention, just by being around I can't beleive the correct response to this character is so adversarial. It's not a fight between players and GM and if a system can't enforce anti-munchkinism (unless the player is deliberately being obnoxious, you can't really blame them for playing the game) then attacking the player this way (ie trying to get his character dead) seems equally as foolish as creating the character (or allowing it).

Ikkaan said: Looks like this character is focused on combat alone, nothing else. So whats wrong with him being so powerful ? He won´t typically be useful in interactions anyway, intimidating everything in sight to the point where politely asking/bartering for something is a pointless exercise. I know it all depends on playing style, but its not a well rounded character. Its possible to make killer chars in every rpg....well, i don´t really see the problem ? Hes exceptional at what he does, but won´t ever get to the inner workings and reasons of adventure progression. But doesn't this just highlight the problem? The player obviously wants a combat character and has, it seems, played by the rules to create one. You can't them force the character into situiations where he will fail all the time becuase that will just upset the player. Sure this guy might be terrible in social situations - but that's not the point of the character. The player obviously wants to play a more combat oriented game; allowing him to create a combat monster and then forcing him to play through political scenarios is bait and switch of the worst kind. The fault must like with a system that allows people to create overpowered characters - combat or otherwise. It cannot be right that the solution must be to force the player to endure interactions he knows his character will fail miserably at. At least not to the extent that is necessary to mitigate the problem. It woudl be boring if characters were good at everything (or indeed bad at e verything) and so there must be some areas where the character is challenged, but this seems to be pure imbalance.

Great, thanks for that.

Ok this has me completely confused. in the character creation overview it says you can spend this starting xp (4500), then later in the relevant step it says this is the value of the accumulated stats/skills thus far (except it can't be if you've been using random characteristic generation for obvious reasons) and that you have another 500xp so that starting characters are meant to be worth 5000. I don't get this at all. What am i meant to do with xp?