Quote from: Marleycat;560102I like their games but the setup is just like the OWoD and I give up on that after awhile also. So I agree with your sentiment about being far too spread out for no good reason. It breaks my cardinal rule, Marley's rule of 5.

If FFG could publish a nWoD-esque corebook, and supplements to that, it would be ace... but with a setting with the conceptual scope of 40k, choosing what to go in that book is the huge problem.

Nice avatar. Looks familiar, but I just can't place her.

QuoteNice avatar. Looks familiar, but I just can't place her.

Lilly Collins the girl in Mirror, Mirror as Snow White. I like the preversity of it.

A NWoD setup would be awesome sauce.

Quote from: Marleycat;560121Lilly Collins the girl in Mirror, Mirror as Snow White. I like the preversity of it.

A NWoD setup would be awesome sauce.

Ah. I don't know any of those things; the first thing that came to mind was Karen Gillan (Amy Pond, from Doctor Who), but some of the details are wrong.

Quote from: Marleycat;560102I like their games but the setup is just like the OWoD and I give up on that after awhile also. So I agree with your sentiment about being far too spread out for no good reason. It breaks my cardinal rule, Marley's rule of 5.

Actually there's a good reason it's spread out like that.

Quote from: Blackhand;560188Actually there's a good reason it's spread out like that.

Tell me then. If it's logical I can accept it easily.

Quote from: Marleycat;560202Tell me then. If it's logical I can accept it easily.

I've already explained that many times, and at least once in this thread.

Basically, it works like this:  if you play the wargame, you will enjoy the 40kRP line.  It will fill in gaps, and you'll find there's a lot of overlap.  You'll find you appreciate the integration of games, and the information given in the RPG books is actually a little more than we're used to from the wargames books.  It's icing on the cake.  

On the other hand, if you do not, FFG's efforts seem subpar.  Incomplete for some reason you can't put your finger on.  Everyone has different reasons, but everyone has at least one.  This is because the games were designed with wargamers in mind.  

Therefore:

01 If (You = Warhammer 40,000 Rulebooks + Minis) Then (Enjoy 40KRPG).
02 If (You = No Warhammer 40,000 Rulebooks + Minis) Then (Dislike 40KRPG).
03 Stop

There seems to be little deviation from this formula.  Note that novels are not in the program.  That's GW HQ breakin' all the roolz with their funny eldar stories.

FFG does have to run everything past GW licensing.  However, in their little sectors they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don't violate some sacred cows.  Leave that to GW HQ.

Quote from: Blackhand;560300Basically, it works like this:  if you play the wargame, you will enjoy the 40kRP line.  It will fill in gaps, and you'll find there's a lot of overlap.  You'll find you appreciate the integration of games, and the information given in the RPG books is actually a little more than we're used to from the wargames books.  It's icing on the cake.  

Actually, I think you're wrong. The RPG exists for the RPG market, not the tabletop market; note how GW don't actually sell the RPG books themselves anywhere. There's certainly stuff there that a tabletop player would love - Deathwatch, for example, is a love letter to the Space Marines, and Only War probably will be the same for the Guard - but it's not the main market. If GW wanted books in that level of detail for the wargamers, they'd write and publish them themselves (They've done Space Marine fluff books, for example, outside of the novels or codex series).

The 40k games have to be structured as they are because the conceptual scope of the universe is so huge; there's simply too much for a "generic" book like to cover. There are multiple "hooks" to base a game line around, because the game universe was always designed as a huge, mad thing rather than a focussed setting. Contrast to, say, Shadowrun, which has been designed as a playground for groups of corporate mercenaries. A generic 40k book would have to cover the same sort of ground as, say, any Shadowrun corebook (A little bit of everything, with a paragraph telling you that a full book on that thing is possible) but on a scale from hive ganger through Rogue Trader. It's a huge power disparity; the project would simply fall apart due to it's own conceptual weight, and be a disorganised mess.

If you look at 40k as four (Five...) separate game lines, it's not too bad; it's if you want a single, cohesive 40k system that problems creep in, because that isn't what FFG, or Black Library before them, were planning on making.

Quote from: Blackhand;560300I've already explained that many times, and at least once in this thread.

Basically, it works like this:  if you play the wargame, you will enjoy the 40kRP line.  It will fill in gaps, and you'll find there's a lot of overlap.  You'll find you appreciate the integration of games, and the information given in the RPG books is actually a little more than we're used to from the wargames books.  It's icing on the cake.  

On the other hand, if you do not, FFG's efforts seem subpar.  Incomplete for some reason you can't put your finger on.  Everyone has different reasons, but everyone has at least one.  This is because the games were designed with wargamers in mind.  

Therefore:

01 If (You = Warhammer 40,000 Rulebooks + Minis) Then (Enjoy 40KRPG).
02 If (You = No Warhammer 40,000 Rulebooks + Minis) Then (Dislike 40KRPG).
03 Stop

There seems to be little deviation from this formula.  Note that novels are not in the program.  That's GW HQ breakin' all the roolz with their funny eldar stories.

FFG does have to run everything past GW licensing.  However, in their little sectors they can do pretty much whatever they want as long as they don't violate some sacred cows.  Leave that to GW HQ.

Interesting theory I think you're wrong given they target different demographics and a plan like that is bassakwards but whatever.

A far more sensible setup would have to do a NWoD setup ...
1. Base line fully intregrated into .....
2. 4-5 main specific lines with...
3. One offs and custom stuff (Eldar et al.) In shortlines 5 books or less in total run UNLESS sales say print more like CtL for example.

Quote from: Ladybird;560303Actually, I think you're wrong. The RPG exists for the RPG market, not the tabletop market; note how GW don't actually sell the RPG books themselves anywhere.

My local Games Workshop does sell the 40k RPG books, but not the WFRP box sets.

Quote from: Blackhand;560300Incomplete for some reason you can't put your finger on.  Everyone has different reasons, but everyone has at least one.  This is because the games were designed with wargamers in mind.  

I have put my finger on it many times. In response you act like a rabid dog.

The game wasn't designed with wargamers in mind any more than any other game. It might have been designed to appeal to the people that already play the wargame, but that's just obvious marketing. The game system isn't even really the issue (though it's not especially sleek). It's how FFG handle their business. Their continued inexplicable inability to do their job as publishers and editors has nothing to do with the wargame.

Quote from: jadrax;560327My local Games Workshop does sell the 40k RPG books, but not the WFRP box sets.

They aren't on the website, or in our local store. I suspect it's on the discretion of the store manager.

But if you happened to feel like asking him/her about it, I'm sure people would like to know the answer!

Quote from: Ladybird;560303If you look at 40k as four (Five...) separate game lines, it's not too bad; it's if you want a single, cohesive 40k system that problems creep in, because that isn't what FFG, or Black Library before them, were planning on making.

I don't mind them doing separate game lines so long as they are coimpletely cross compatible (which they should be) and that material useful to all (such as vehicle rules) is presented appropriately.

I've been part of three different FFG 40k rpg groups (2 Dark Heresy, 1 Rogue Trader). In all three groups, ranging from 5-12 players, there have been people who played 40k, and people who didn't. In every group, every player who didn't play 40k didn't like the system, every player who did play 40k either liked the system or at least thought it was ok. I think Blackhand is onto something with his theory.

I am not entirely an objective judge, based on my metric ton of 40k figs, or my pretend grognard status (I once owned, but never got to play, the Dark Millenium box set...).

On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure I can understand someone who wants to complain about the setting. I mean, you either know the setting and like it, or you understand that there is about 30 years of history to the setting that you are barely touching the tip of the iceberg on and either enjoy it anyway, or skip it as not worth your time.

Like: I don't really like Judge Dredd, see? So, if I pick up the Mongoose Judge Dredd RPG, I'm not about to go around bitching that the setting is shit.

That's not the fault of the RPG, and after thirty odd years of comics and two shitty movies, its probably not the fault of the setting either.


I think plenty of non-40k fans could enjoy the various RPGs, but they have to be introduced to it, not dropped in among rabid fanbois shouting WWAAGGHH! and shit.  FFG could probably make a stronger statement about being inherently humanocentric as well, but frankly its not terribly important.