Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
andrewm9

Blood of Martyrs question

Recommended Posts

andrewm9 said:

Anybody know if Blood of Martyrs will have Ascension level career options since it covers how to play Ecclesiarchy style campaigns (as I understand it)?

 

Anyone who would know that would be a developer/writer on the project or one of the play testers; neither of which are likely to talk about it anytime soon for various reasons.

-=Brother Praetus=-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a word, yes.

In ascension, if you are just starting a new game with a new group (or old group but still a new game with new characters) each player goes through and creates a rank 9 character. So they would be able to pick up the rank 1-8 features in Blood of Martyrs.

As to whether anything in the book will be specifically for Rank 9+, I am not sure, but I would hope not personally. I like to believe that Ascension exists to let Dark Heresy work alongside Rogue Trader and Deathwatch and not as its own stand alone game. Though I have a feeling I may be wrong in that notion.

But anything in Blood of Martyrs should have no problem being used in Ascension, it is, afterall, the same overall game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why it can't include things specifically for Rank 9+. Additionally, I don't see how doing so would peg Ascension as a 'stand alone game' (something FFG have stated repeatedly that it is not). If anything, including Rank 9- and Rank 9+ options would further bring Ascension and Dark Heresy together, not separate them.

The book could quite easily include a few new Ecclesiarchy-centric transition packages, as well as including alternate career ranks that are only available above rank 9 (ie. Required Rank - 12, Career - Hierophant, Storm Trooper). And it could still have just as many non-Ascension extras as well. And, if they're smart, they'll include a whole new Ascension career for the Sisters of Battle, who were kinda forgotten about in Ascension.

I think FFG would be missing a golden opportunity if this book didn't contain options for both 'levels' of play.

BYE

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering the same thing.  Quite frankly, I was disappointed in the lack of options for Ascension for Sororitas.  Most of the careers seem to have one that was SPECIFICALLY built for them, except for the Sisters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baradiel said:

I was wondering the same thing.  Quite frankly, I was disappointed in the lack of options for Ascension for Sororitas.  Most of the careers seem to have one that was SPECIFICALLY built for them, except for the Sisters.

Agreed.  And the whole DH Sororitas Career path looked like something cobbled together by an Ork Mekboy!  gran_risa.gif

Here's to hoping they correct that in Blood of Martyrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, other people are correct in that those of us who would know about such things (myself included) can't comment on it until Ross/Sam/Mack say we can. As you've seen in the past, as soon as I'm given the OK to start talking about these books, I will gran_risa.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree H.B.M.C.

I , overall, think that nothing really good has been released for any of the games since the Radicals Handbook. Im only partly interested in Deathwatch (the overall theme and some of the rules Ive seen dont really inspire me) and Ascension was a let down and I even think Into the Storm was a bit meh.

I will pick up Blood of Martyrs but after that book FFG is going to have to be pretty crafty to get my attention any longer. I would much rather have Ogryn or Ratling stats/rules then put up with more Sisters of Battle stuff (the two parts of the 40K universe I like the least, Space Marines and Sisters of Battle).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @HBMC

If that's true then it's (another) wasted opportunity.

How so? As Peacekeeper noted, anything from below Ascension level can be used for creating Ascension characters. Additionally, I don't think FFG would leave Ascension completely out in the rain - it seems a lot less tacked-on than for example D&D's Epic Level Handbook.

 

@Baradiel

I was wondering the same thing. Quite frankly, I was disappointed in the lack of options for Ascension for Sororitas. Most of the careers seem to have one that was SPECIFICALLY built for them, except for the Sisters.

Let's see... holy warrior, protector of the Ecclesiarchy? How about the Crusader? Or, for less warlike Sororitas, the Hierophant, who draws heavily on the Living Saint for inspiration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cifer said:

 @HBMC

If that's true then it's (another) wasted opportunity.

How so? As Peacekeeper noted, anything from below Ascension level can be used for creating Ascension characters. Additionally, I don't think FFG would leave Ascension completely out in the rain - it seems a lot less tacked-on than for example D&D's Epic Level Handbook.

 

@Baradiel

I was wondering the same thing. Quite frankly, I was disappointed in the lack of options for Ascension for Sororitas. Most of the careers seem to have one that was SPECIFICALLY built for them, except for the Sisters.

Let's see... holy warrior, protector of the Ecclesiarchy? How about the Crusader? Or, for less warlike Sororitas, the Hierophant, who draws heavily on the Living Saint for inspiration?

The Crusader is a terrible tack on for Sisters. The fluff behind that is recuitment by Crusader houses the serve the Ordos. It doesn't really add to the themes of the Sisters on any level. So my high level officer Sororitas is reduced to being a bodyguard? I think not. It just doesn't fit. Fro one it focuses on melee combat. I suppose it could be decent for the Celestian bodyguard of the Canoness or Palatine.

The Hierophant on the other hand seems particularly appropriate. Its the holy inspirational leader type. That seems good for the Canoness of any order. It lacks in some skill options however that are appropriate. Its also less combative for the Militant branch.

Sage could work for the Dialogous and Famulous.

That being said I think better options should exist for the Sororitas. The Ecclesiacrhy game screams for the type of things Acension should be good at. namely wielding power and influence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

andrewm9 said:

The Ecclesiacrhy game screams for the type of things Acension should be good at. namely wielding power and influence

Well, in Ascensions defense, it wasn't actually good for much at all. The Sisters being overlooked is just a part of that badness of that book.

Though I suppose what would be best for Sisters is Interrogator or Inquisitor. And remember, just because the "fluff" says one thing (such as The Crusader and the Crusader Houses <WTF>) doesnt mean that is its only possible use. Though I hate some of the "40K Theme" specific terms used, the careers cover so much more then just the archtype mentioned or spoken of. Any soldier or mercenary or muslce thug is classified as a "Guardsman" while any rogue, con-man, gambler, thief is considered a "scum", any dedicated troop against the forces of chaos and evil is considered a "crusader".

Ascension, to me, was an extension of Dark Heresy's biggest flaw, that of the Career and Rank system. While I think The Inquisitor's Handbook (with its alternate career ranks and elite packages and background packages) and Tattered Fates (with its campaign elite packages) went a long way to help improve that flaw, I think Ascension just flung it back and didnt improve, but in fact made worse that structure.

Which is why I hope Blood of Martyrs and other future releases ignore Ascension or give it very little attention when it does mention it.

Since Dark Heresy was released in January of 2008 I have been trying to revamp the stagnant career system, but with the versions in Rogue Trader and Ascension adding to the problem its been hard.

But that is for another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

andrewm9 said:

 

That being said I think better options should exist for the Sororitas. The Ecclesiacrhy game screams for the type of things Acension should be good at. namely wielding power and influence

 

 

For what it's worth, andrewm9, I agree completely.  The options so far have, at the least, contradicted their own fluff.  At the most, they just don't present relevant Ascension-level options for Sororitas, IMO.  serio.gif

On the other hand, I do recognize and understand the frustration with the whole hype, on these forums, for Sororitas and Space Marines.  Many DH gamers would rather have their gums scraped than play either of those.  gran_risa.gif  And while I don't share their vehemence, I can understand it.

To them, Sororitas and Space Marines represent the antithesis of what they expect from DH ... the horror of the Grim Dark Future.  gui%C3%B1o.gif  This, as always, is just my opinion, and if I have misconstrued the underlying motivation of someone, then I apologize, and would love to hear your actual arguments.

EDIT:  Stupid quote function!  lengua.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@andrewm9

I haven't got my Ascension with me at the moment so I can't really comment on the mechanics of the Crusader career (apart from the fact that it appears to be the only ascended career with neither lots and lots of social talents nor unnatural abilities).
The fluff, however... yeah, forget the "Crusader Houses", but the rest is quite fitting - the SoB are the militant arm of the Ecclesiarchy and the witch hunters. If a sister doesn't rise above her normal status (and becomes a Hierophant or an Inquisitor) when ascending, she'll continue in the role of her order: Protecting her ward from anything that threatens it. For an example of such a sister, take a look at the adventure in the back of the book: the Venerable Cal's bodyguard sisters and their leader don't seem too "weak" to me.

It's a fact not everyone in the higher echelons of the Inquisition is adept at playing the intrigue games. There are still some whose main task remains hurting people and breaking stuff - and conversely those who make sure people are unhurt and stuff stays unbroken, especially when one of those people is the Inquisitor who may not be that warlike at all. The crusader fits in among those just like the Death Cultist, the Vindicare and the Stormtrooper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peacekeeper_b said:

I agree H.B.M.C.

 

I , overall, think that nothing really good has been released for any of the games since the Radicals Handbook. Im only partly interested in Deathwatch (the overall theme and some of the rules Ive seen dont really inspire me) and Ascension was a let down and I even think Into the Storm was a bit meh.

I will pick up Blood of Martyrs but after that book FFG is going to have to be pretty crafty to get my attention any longer. I would much rather have Ogryn or Ratling stats/rules then put up with more Sisters of Battle stuff (the two parts of the 40K universe I like the least, Space Marines and Sisters of Battle).

 


Look, Blood of Martyrs doesn't really excite me all that much. I'm looking forward to a more detailed explanation of the Ecclesiarchy, but that's about it. I'm more looking forward to Daemonhunter and Only War (where you'll get your Orgryn). That said, I haven't had a problem with any FFG books of late. There are elements of Ascension I don't like, specifically how the Sisters were basically left out in the cold, and I think one of their recent releases (Lure of the Expanse) is quite a solid book, but I'm willing to wait for the good stuff.

At the end of the day not every book is going to be to everyone's tastes - I don't own the Haarlock Trilogy as they don't interest me. Doesn't make them bad, and I make no judgements about their content, I just don't see the appeal.

BYE
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H.B.M.C. said:


Look, Blood of Martyrs doesn't really excite me all that much. I'm looking forward to a more detailed explanation of the Ecclesiarchy, but that's about it. I'm more looking forward to Daemonhunter and Only War (where you'll get your Orgryn). That said, I haven't had a problem with any FFG books of late. There are elements of Ascension I don't like, specifically how the Sisters were basically left out in the cold, and I think one of their recent releases (Lure of the Expanse) is quite a solid book, but I'm willing to wait for the good stuff.

At the end of the day not every book is going to be to everyone's tastes - I don't own the Haarlock Trilogy as they don't interest me. Doesn't make them bad, and I make no judgements about their content, I just don't see the appeal.

BYE
 

Yes we may get Ogryns as PCs in Only War, or we may not. We may only get them as stats for encounters or NPCs. Even so, that is over a year away, if FFG keeps it on schedule.

I do agree, not every book is going to be everyone's tast and not every book is going to be great. You make no judgement on the Haarlock Legacy books, which is good as you dont have them (unless you have read them). I have them, and i will make judgements on things I have read. That being said, every book so far has had its useful stuff, interesting stuff and fun stuff in them. But many are lacking in the good department.

As you said, be it the lack of information on Sisters or the complate lack of fluff and background for the AdMech, the lack of IG to Calixis specific info and so forth. Or the too many books to shift through to find this package, that career rank, this doo-dad, that psy power, this creature, this homeworld and so forth.

For example: A character from Gunmetal City (Inquisitor's Handbook), who is a Guardsmen (Core Book), Untouchable (Disciples of the Dark Gods or Radicals Handbook) with Penal Legionaire as an alternate rank 1 career rank (Radicals Handbook).

I will praise good work where i see it (Inquisitor's Handbook, Disciples of the Dark Gods, Creature's Anthema, Radical's Handbook, Lure of the Expanse, Purge the Unclean are all excellent complete works), acknowledge decent supplements/adventures (Haarlocks Lagacy trilogy is ok, some of the rules for campaign advances in the first book are excellent and I wish the Maccabean Jannisaries got a background package or alternate career rank for PCs and Into the Storm was decent, but not excellent) and some of the books are lacking (the core rulebooks for Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader, the GMs kits as well).

Each book will have its pros and cons, and each con or pro will be different based on the reader, his or her experience with the setting/game, how they see/know the fluff and what they want/expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gathrawny said:

 I know someone who got to take a look at the current copy of the book and he says that he only saw stuff for Clerics and SoB.

I'm sure FFG would like to know who, since everything to do with unreleased books is covered by NDAs, which means either he broke his NDA, or someone else broke their NDA in showing him the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they have NDA's here?

I mean, where I work, we have NDA's because a lot of it is to do with marketing - marketing affects the share price, so NDA's are required so no one who finds out can be accused of Insider Trading and whatnot, but also to stop competitors getting their hands on our stuff. I remember when we did the launch of the iPhone it was under NDA for months, not because the iPhone was a secret, but because how we were launching it was.

There are no other companies making a book about the Ecclesiarchy, so why exactly do they specifically need an NDA? What are they protecting specifically?

I'm not complaining mind you, I'm asking an honest question - I would genuinely like to know.

BYE

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

H.B.M.C. said:

Why do they have NDA's here?

I mean, where I work, we have NDA's because a lot of it is to do with marketing - marketing affects the share price, so NDA's are required so no one who finds out can be accused of Insider Trading and whatnot, but also to stop competitors getting their hands on our stuff. I remember when we did the launch of the iPhone it was under NDA for months, not because the iPhone was a secret, but because how we were launching it was.

There are no other companies making a book about the Ecclesiarchy, so why exactly do they specifically need an NDA? What are they protecting specifically?

I'm not complaining mind you, I'm asking an honest question - I would genuinely like to know.

BYE

 

I am not sure why. I would assume mainly to not give out free stuff/information like "hey they have a new background packaged for the sisters, its the French Maid option, you get a bullet proof apron, anime eyes and the Corouse and Charm skills both at +10". I dont see why they wouldnt want info about the book to get out other then the fact that some of the info might be cut and not make the final edit.

"So I hear the bew book is going to have Commissars as PCs in it." "Yeah thats true, I play tested them, pretty cool rules."

Two months later holding the book...

"Wait a minute, where is the commissar?"

Personally, however, I wish the NDA stated you couldnt mention you were a play tester or signed a NDA as I get kind of annoyed at reading "oh yeah, Im a play tester, cool stuff coming up but i cant tell you about it" posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peacekeeper_b said:

Personally, however, I wish the NDA stated you couldnt mention you were a play tester or signed a NDA as I get kind of annoyed at reading "oh yeah, Im a play tester, cool stuff coming up but i cant tell you about it" posts.

Do you realise how frustrating that'd be once information is revealed, though? Yeah, it's annoying for everyone - those of us under NDAs included - to not be able to talk about the things we've seen/worked on until we've been given the OK from the powers that be, but it'd be far, far more frustrating to not be allowed to talk about it at all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Peacekeeper_b said:

Personally, however, I wish the NDA stated you couldnt mention you were a play tester or signed a NDA as I get kind of annoyed at reading "oh yeah, Im a play tester, cool stuff coming up but i cant tell you about it" posts.

 

Do you realise how frustrating that'd be once information is revealed, though? Yeah, it's annoying for everyone - those of us under NDAs included - to not be able to talk about the things we've seen/worked on until we've been given the OK from the powers that be, but it'd be far, far more frustrating to not be allowed to talk about it at all...

Well maybe frustrating for the play testers, but this is the only board/forum where I see people all the time talking about playtesting something. It sems a day doesnt go by that Millandson doesnt say "oh Im playtesting this, its cool. You'll see" and so forth or another play tester.

Yes we know playtesters are out there. But seriously, do you have to mention it all the time. I mean seriously, if you cant talk about it, dont.

I think its cool and helpful when you all get to open your threads on "ok, its open, ask us questions" but sometimes the general "Im play testing this and know whats in it but cant tell you about it" comes of as a bit smug and arrogant.

And trust me, I know smug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peacekeeper_b said:

I think its cool and helpful when you all get to open your threads on "ok, its open, ask us questions" but sometimes the general "Im play testing this and know whats in it but cant tell you about it" comes of as a bit smug and arrogant.

While I understand - and share - your frustration, Peacekeeper_b, I have to side with the playtesters here ... and in case anyone is wondering, NO, I'm not one (sadly).  To my mind, we have a group of people here who are willing to share with the community of their fellow game-players about the games they - and presumably, we - love.  Yeah, so they get excited about being able to share.  And maybe they semi-spoiler us more often than we would like.  But ... can you imagine the frustration of knowing exactly what's coming, but not being able to share that with the complainers and nay-sayers?  Or even, being able to confirm the positive, and potentially cool things about what's coming?

I can't imagine being under that kind of psychological pressure ... to not talk about something you love, in its defense, or in acclimation.

And to their credit, at least these playtesters ... in particular, MILLANDSON ... are willing to share with the online community.  Personally, I think we should be thanking them at every opportunity, rather than giving them a hard time.

I guess my primary point here is, consider their frustration ... seeing their fellow gamers metaphorically dying for info on the latest release ... while they are prohibited from giving any details.  That would make me crazy.  Okay, it would make me even more crazy.  lengua.gif

So my first reaction to them is ... THANK YOU!  Thank you very much, for putting up with your impatient, and sometimes grating, fellow gamers.  happy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sister Cat said:

Peacekeeper_b said:

 

I think its cool and helpful when you all get to open your threads on "ok, its open, ask us questions" but sometimes the general "Im play testing this and know whats in it but cant tell you about it" comes of as a bit smug and arrogant.

 

 

While I understand - and share - your frustration, Peacekeeper_b, I have to side with the playtesters here ... and in case anyone is wondering, NO, I'm not one (sadly).  To my mind, we have a group of people here who are willing to share with the community of their fellow game-players about the games they - and presumably, we - love.  Yeah, so they get excited about being able to share.  And maybe they semi-spoiler us more often than we would like.  But ... can you imagine the frustration of knowing exactly what's coming, but not being able to share that with the complainers and nay-sayers?  Or even, being able to confirm the positive, and potentially cool things about what's coming?

I can't imagine being under that kind of psychological pressure ... to not talk about something you love, in its defense, or in acclimation.

And to their credit, at least these playtesters ... in particular, MILLANDSON ... are willing to share with the online community.  Personally, I think we should be thanking them at every opportunity, rather than giving them a hard time.

I guess my primary point here is, consider their frustration ... seeing their fellow gamers metaphorically dying for info on the latest release ... while they are prohibited from giving any details.  That would make me crazy.  Okay, it would make me even more crazy.  lengua.gif

So my first reaction to them is ... THANK YOU!  Thank you very much, for putting up with your impatient, and sometimes grating, fellow gamers.  happy.gif

Oh I appreciate everything they do do. They do great work. But honestly, them saying "its great stuff you will like it" is not really talking about it.

I understand NDAs but maybe its frustrating for them to not be able to talk about it, but its more frustrating to have them mention to us that they know whats in it, but then tell us that they cant tell us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peacekeeper_b said:

Oh I appreciate everything they do do. They do great work. But honestly, them saying "its great stuff you will like it" is not really talking about it.

But with any book that's been announced, that does change; as more information is released, we - playtesters and contributors alike - can discuss more and more about it.

I've never seen there being a problem with developer interaction with the community; for as long as I can remember, I've sought it out wherever possible at games conventions and on the internet. Now that I'm on the other side of that, I find it occasionally disappointing how parts of the community I still consider myself part of would rather I not be a part of it (to varying extents) just because I have knowledge that I can't freely share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...