If you don't like the Commissar/Guardsman/Scout/Magos team up....don't fething play it? It's a damn RPG - play whatever characters make you happy, but stop coming in here and whinging about other people playing a game you'll never be part of.
If somebody half the world away is playing a game in a fashion you don't approve of...who cares?
You. I like you.
As a player and sometimes GM in many RPGs over the years, I would prefer everyone be on a similar/same power level. A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
But I wouldn't call out another group if that dynamic works for them. You be you, man.
Elbows wrote: If somebody half the world away is playing a game in a fashion you don't approve of...who cares?
I don't care how people play their sessions out.
I care, as a prospective customer, about the framework of the product I'm looking to purchase. I'm not sure why my concerns seems to be taken on such a personal level here.
Where they would immediately either be executed for some Kafkaesque(or Pythonesque depending on tone) reason, or co-opted by one of the aforementioned powerful people/groups.
As I said, there are countless situational scenarios you can come up with, but they were either already possible or so out-there they're better accomplished using a ruleset with total creative freedom or your own for-that-purpose modifications to the existing one.
EDIT: Right, whatever. Evidently some folk here are determined to take criticism of a product as a personal and vicious assault, so once again I find myself questioning what the point of a discussion forum is when people don't actually want to discuss anything, just affirm to each other that they all indeed agree. You all have fun with that.
Why do you think the game has to actually have them get back to the Imperium? The entire game could be spent with the poor sods being bounced all around the galaxy having crazy adventures, meeting cool characters and leaving their own mark on countless planets but never managing to get home (which serves to highlight the hopelessness of the 40k setting but in a more personal way).
In fact, the player characters could realise that they will be killed if they return to the Imperium and instead decide to become eternal wanderers, just trying to keep out of the way of the Imperium but constantly being pulled into conflicts on the periphery, building their fame (or infamy) until it reaches the ear of an inquisitor who sets out to catch them. There are lots of stories you can tell in the 40k universe which don't rely on the PCs to be following someone's orders. Inquisitors can be villains as much as benefactors.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kronk wrote: A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
EDIT: Right, whatever. Evidently some folk here are determined to take criticism of a product as a personal and vicious assault, so once again I find myself questioning what the point of a discussion forum is when people don't actually want to discuss anything, just affirm to each other that they all indeed agree. You all have fun with that.
Discussion means differing opinions. A vocal portion of this DISCUSSION forum disagrees with your opinion. We're now discussing it. That's what a discussion forum does. If you can't handle people disagreeing with your opinion, maybe the problem isn't the forum.
A Town Called Malus wrote: There you go, a perfectly valid according to in-universe lore example of how to keep the characters together which doesn't rely on them becoming the lackeys of an inquisitor or rogue trader
You do realize you could have done the exact same setup in Dark Heresy, right? You'd need to build some extra rules systems, but I've ran Space Marine PCs in mixed parties, full Marine squads, full xeno parties and chaos cult groups using nothing but the core rules of DH, so if a dumb jock like me could do that, you could do as well.
Now explain to me how having a well developed, organic, setting abiding party system in an RPG game detracts from your ability to modify, ignore or invent rules and setups for your characters.
A Town Called Malus wrote: There you go, a perfectly valid according to in-universe lore example of how to keep the characters together which doesn't rely on them becoming the lackeys of an inquisitor or rogue trader
You do realize you could have done the exact same setup in Dark Heresy, right? You'd need to build some extra rules systems, but I've ran Space Marine PCs in mixed parties, full Marine squads, full xeno parties and chaos cult groups using nothing but the core rules of DH, so if a dumb jock like me could do that, you could do as well.
Now explain to me how having a well developed, organic, setting abiding party system in an RPG game detracts from your ability to modify, ignore or invent rules and setups for your characters.
How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.
Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.
Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.
Is the master's duty to give a proper explanation to why those characters are working together. If he can't, then he should just make a more thematic campaing restricting some backgrounds/characters.
Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.
Oh jesus.
No, YOU do it. That's the point after all, to use your imagination. It's easy to do, you just need to not approach the task like it's impossible just because you don't like how its viewed in the fluff.
I guarantee you can, if you actually try. Took me half a minute.
Oh don't start this nonsense. If you're just going to completely abandon the core themes & tone of the setting on a continual basis, why are you using a setting-specific ruleset or even playing in that setting at all? That's what the eleventy-billion nonspecific RPG systems out there are for and a lot of those are free.
The FFGRPG's worked because they found conceits to allow for varied parties having varied adventures within the existing conventions of the setting. They assumed that the default state for any given group was going to be "I want to roleplay in the 40K setting" and set things up to make that as easy as possible, trusting that if players wanted to go outside those existing conventions here & there(and for most groups it *would* be an occasional thing, because again they're there to RP in 40K) they'd resort to "imagination". Constructing the core experience to best serve the majority of usage scenarios and relying on the playerbase to modify the system when they want to do their own thing is the rational way to do things.
"You can just make everything up from scratch yourself, stop being so laaaaazy" is a daft argument, because the entire basis of the transaction with an RPG in an established setting is that you're paying the company money to do all the setup work for you, and if you want something more freeform that you have to work on yourself there are countless generic systems out there, again many totally free, that will let you be even more "imaginative".
Why do you jump to absolutes and exagerations? This is a Warhammer 40k basic and generic roleplay core system with indications on how to roleplay in the setting of warhammer 40k. It comes down to the master to inside the boundaries of the setting to make his "party" and his "adventure". Do you prefer a more specific and focused RPG system like the old ones, ok, we get it.
But don't say that because things aren't as you wish they where, everyone is just using the "Make everything yourself" argument because thats isn't the case. This is a Warhammer 40k Roleplaying game to roleplay in the Warhammer 40k setting. Is not a "generic RPG game". People aren't abandoning the core themes of the setting because the rulebook expect form them to select the kind of game they want to play inside the indications of the rulebook.
You should stop with your gatekeeping of what is proper "Warhammer40k". Is not the first time you accuse other people of enjoying the Warhammer40k setting the wrong way.
It's not "gatekeeping" to grasp the basic premise of the setting, and congratulations on completely missing the point, which I will now belabour for your benefit:
I was not accusing this game of being "generic", I was saying that what this game purports to do would be better served with a generic - and thus even more "free" and "imaginative" - ruleset.
I'm not great with analogies, but lets try this:
A 40K novel that I just buy and read is a pre-built bit of furniture. I order it, I get what I paid for.
The FFGRPGs are Ikea flatpacks. I know what it is I'm buying, but I have to put in the work to realise the final product.
A generic RPG system is a bundle of tools and some raw materials, I have to design and build the whole project myself, but I get exactly what I want in the end.
So where does Wrath & Glory fit? People are claiming it's option three, toolbox & raw materials, but if it is then there are better sets of tools out there to work with, tools that let me work without any constraints at all if that's what I want. But if it's supposed to be option two, then it's a flatpack without any instructions - I'm still constrained in-practice by what I'm given, but I'm expected to figure out what the final product should be on my own.
Or put another way - on the spectrum with total freedom of imagination at one end and a completely preset narrative at the other, the prior 40KRPGsalready were the "middle ground" compromise position, and I can't see the point in going a little bit further towards the freedom of imagination end when in the vast majority of cases I'd just be expending needless effort to re-establish the premise of the prior systems, and in the tiny handful of cases where I would want to go beyond that premise where I wouldn't mind putting in the extra effort(because it's for a special occasion not every adventure I run) I'd rather go all the way and either rework the existing systems entirely to my own taste or build completely from the ground up in a generic system.
EDIT: Infantile eh? Guess that whole "Rule 1" thing goes out the window when the mods agree with your position.
More specific rebuttals will come later after my lunch, and I'll do you the courtesy or replying to your points rather than engaging in petty ad homs.
Sorry where have I called you infantile? And I have edited the message you quoted before your response because it was more aggresive that I wanted it to be. I apologize.
The system could be robust enough to allow characters to be of similar "power level" or you could potentially play an "all guardsman power level party".
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
It's literally one and the same argument. If the rules for creating player parties go against the setting, there's a problem with the rules.
I like this system so far. Now a party consisting of a space marine, magos, IG soldier and a commissar would be extremely difficult to keep together in a fluffy way (especially the Space Marine, who is obligated to return to and serve with his Chapter, Space Marines are not exactly the kind of people who mingle with others beyond single missions), but the beauty of an RPG is that you can adjust the kind of characters players are allowed to choose to fit with the kind of campaign your group wants to run. With a system like this, you could run pretty much every kind of party you could want to, from the very thematic 'you are a squad of Space Marines of the X Chapter' to the totally ridiculous 'An Ork, a Farseer and a Space Marine team up' as in Dawn of War Last Stand. I like it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
But not every session has to start that way. There is nothing that stops your group from choosing a party that makes sense sticking together. You can play a group of Inquisitorial Acolytes just as much as in Dark Heresy, or an Imperial Guard squad or whatever strikes your group's fancy. The rules only go against the setting if you let them.
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
It's literally one and the same argument. If the rules for creating player parties go against the setting, there's a problem with the rules.
In your opinion, the rules go against the setting. In my opinion, I'm going to run mixed parties without any explanation whatsoever, and my players, I suspect, will love it. Hell, I'll throw Orks and Eldar in there, because there are canon examples of them working with the Imperium. It'll be daft, and over-the-top, and fun as hell.
Feel free to not enjoy this game, if deliberately not enjoying things is your bag. I, for one, plan to enjoy it to the hilt.
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
It's literally one and the same argument. If the rules for creating player parties go against the setting, there's a problem with the rules.
In your opinion, the rules go against the setting. In my opinion, I'm going to run mixed parties without any explanation whatsoever, and my players, I suspect, will love it. Hell, I'll throw Orks and Eldar in there, because there are canon examples of them working with the Imperium. It'll be daft, and over-the-top, and fun as hell.
Feel free to not enjoy this game, if deliberately not enjoying things is your bag. I, for one, plan to enjoy it to the hilt.
I like your idea because it sounds more appealing AND it offers up more role playing chances when confronted with the bigger faction aspects of a players character.
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
It's literally one and the same argument. If the rules for creating player parties go against the setting, there's a problem with the rules.
In your opinion, the rules go against the setting. In my opinion, I'm going to run mixed parties without any explanation whatsoever, and my players, I suspect, will love it. Hell, I'll throw Orks and Eldar in there, because there are canon examples of them working with the Imperium. It'll be daft, and over-the-top, and fun as hell.
Feel free to not enjoy this game, if deliberately not enjoying things is your bag. I, for one, plan to enjoy it to the hilt.
Agreed! Personally, I find that mixed parties provide the most potential for some really interesting party interaction and dynamics. If a particular GM or group feels that this goes against the setting, there is nothing stopping them from enforcing a more rigid and restricted party composition. However, creating rules that allows people who are actually interested in putting together mixed parties in situations that can make sense within the setting lets them play the way they want without having to create house rules to make it work. Creating rules that provides such freedom is a strength in my opinion, not a problem. Guess it really is just a case of 'to each his own.'
Why do I get the feeling that some people arguing against the rules are basically just shouting “Stop having fun, guys! You’re having fun wrong!” over and over again? And it shouldn’t be *that* hard to come up with a reason for why a party is adventuring together. Me? I usually wait for my players to make the character, then give them a brief rundown of the situation (“Listening post Epsilon-Gamma 99 has fallen silent. You’ve been sent to investigate.”) and the ask them how they know at least two other players at the table.
Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.
Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.
Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.
Is the master's duty to give a proper explanation to why those characters are working together. If he can't, then he should just make a more thematic campaing restricting some backgrounds/characters.
Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.
Oh jesus.
No, YOU do it. That's the point after all, to use your imagination. It's easy to do, you just need to not approach the task like it's impossible just because you don't like how its viewed in the fluff.
I guarantee you can, if you actually try. Took me half a minute.
Oh don't start this nonsense. If you're just going to completely abandon the core themes & tone of the setting on a continual basis, why are you using a setting-specific ruleset or even playing in that setting at all? That's what the eleventy-billion nonspecific RPG systems out there are for and a lot of those are free.
The FFGRPG's worked because they found conceits to allow for varied parties having varied adventures within the existing conventions of the setting. They assumed that the default state for any given group was going to be "I want to roleplay in the 40K setting" and set things up to make that as easy as possible, trusting that if players wanted to go outside those existing conventions here & there(and for most groups it *would* be an occasional thing, because again they're there to RP in 40K) they'd resort to "imagination". Constructing the core experience to best serve the majority of usage scenarios and relying on the playerbase to modify the system when they want to do their own thing is the rational way to do things.
"You can just make everything up from scratch yourself, stop being so laaaaazy" is a daft argument, because the entire basis of the transaction with an RPG in an established setting is that you're paying the company money to do all the setup work for you, and if you want something more freeform that you have to work on yourself there are countless generic systems out there, again many totally free, that will let you be even more "imaginative".
Why do you jump to absolutes and exagerations? This is a Warhammer 40k basic and generic roleplay core system with indications on how to roleplay in the setting of warhammer 40k. It comes down to the master to inside the boundaries of the setting to make his "party" and his "adventure". Do you prefer a more specific and focused RPG system like the old ones, ok, we get it.
But don't say that because things aren't as you wish they where, everyone is just using the "Make everything yourself" argument because thats isn't the case. This is a Warhammer 40k Roleplaying game to roleplay in the Warhammer 40k setting. Is not a "generic RPG game". People aren't abandoning the core themes of the setting because the rulebook expect form them to select the kind of game they want to play inside the indications of the rulebook.
You should stop with your gatekeeping of what is proper "Warhammer40k". Is not the first time you accuse other people of enjoying the Warhammer40k setting the wrong way.
It's not "gatekeeping" to grasp the basic premise of the setting, and congratulations on completely missing the point, which I will now belabour for your benefit:
I was not accusing this game of being "generic", I was saying that what this game purports to do would be better served with a generic - and thus even more "free" and "imaginative" - ruleset.
I'm not great with analogies, but lets try this:
A 40K novel that I just buy and read is a pre-built bit of furniture. I order it, I get what I paid for.
The FFGRPGs are Ikea flatpacks. I know what it is I'm buying, but I have to put in the work to realise the final product.
A generic RPG system is a bundle of tools and some raw materials, I have to design and build the whole project myself, but I get exactly what I want in the end.
So where does Wrath & Glory fit? People are claiming it's option three, toolbox & raw materials, but if it is then there are better sets of tools out there to work with, tools that let me work without any constraints at all if that's what I want. But if it's supposed to be option two, then it's a flatpack without any instructions - I'm still constrained in-practice by what I'm given, but I'm expected to figure out what the final product should be on my own.
Or put another way - on the spectrum with total freedom of imagination at one end and a completely preset narrative at the other, the prior 40KRPGsalready were the "middle ground" compromise position, and I can't see the point in going a little bit further towards the freedom of imagination end when in the vast majority of cases I'd just be expending needless effort to re-establish the premise of the prior systems, and in the tiny handful of cases where I would want to go beyond that premise where I wouldn't mind putting in the extra effort(because it's for a special occasion not every adventure I run) I'd rather go all the way and either rework the existing systems entirely to my own taste or build completely from the ground up in a generic system.
EDIT: Infantile eh? Guess that whole "Rule 1" thing goes out the window when the mods agree with your position.
More specific rebuttals will come later after my lunch, and I'll do you the courtesy or replying to your points rather than engaging in petty ad homs.
Sorry where have I called you infantile? And I have edited the message you quoted before your response because it was more aggresive that I wanted it to be. I apologize.
You didn't.
I said the way he approached my opinion was infantile. He took it personally.
kronk wrote: A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
Unless said Guardsman has a meltagun
Or is a Tempestus Scion.
Wonder what tier they are...
kronk wrote: The system could be robust enough to allow characters to be of similar "power level" or you could potentially play an "all guardsman power level party".
A Town Called Malus wrote: How does the rule system having that ability to accommodate varied party members built into it at the core level detract from your ability to play a more rigid party?
I feel that, if every session has to start with an explanation as to why and how you're not getting executed for desertion, the rules are not in sync with the setting.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Also, your argument has shifted from "hard to justify within the setting" into some weird argument based on gameplay and system mechanics.
It's literally one and the same argument. If the rules for creating player parties go against the setting, there's a problem with the rules.
Getting tired moving those goal posts? They look heavy.
kronk wrote: A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
Unless said Guardsman has a meltagun
Or is a Tempestus Scion.
Wonder what tier they are...
Top tier obv.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Neronoxx wrote: You didn't.
I said the way he approached my opinion was infantile. He took it personally.
It's best to just keep this in mind when dealing with the old boy:
Oh, so just yet another person who seems to have forgotten that this is a discussion forum for discussing things, and not the inside of their own head.
If you(plural, nonspecific) can't deal with people making comments that are perfectly within the rules of the forum that you personally disagree with, I would suggest that forums aren't for you and that there are plenty of lovely happy-clappy facebook groups where the admins will instaban anyone who doesn't post like they're an NPC in We Happy Few. Or you(plural, nonspecific) could just skip straight to using the ignore feature without this tiresome tendency to let people know exactly why they don't meet your own rarified standard of positivity.
kronk wrote: A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
Unless said Guardsman has a meltagun
Or is a Tempestus Scion.
Wonder what tier they are...
Top tier obv.
Will I did kill a building, a good thirty Nobs and Boys (and hostages, but they were a secondary objective, and acceptable losses) with my Stormtrooper in Only War, so I guess that's Knight level kind of power, right?
kronk wrote: A Space Marine is going to outshine a Guardsman team mate in combat, as an example.
Unless said Guardsman has a meltagun
Or is a Tempestus Scion.
Wonder what tier they are...
Top tier obv.
Will I did kill a building, a good thirty Nobs and Boys (and hostages, but they were a secondary objective, and acceptable losses) with my Stormtrooper in Only War, so I guess that's Knight level kind of power, right?
You've ascended Knight tier with such a display of power.
BlueGrassGamer wrote: Why do I get the feeling that some people arguing against the rules are basically just shouting “Stop having fun, guys! You’re having fun wrong!” over and over again? And it shouldn’t be *that* hard to come up with a reason for why a party is adventuring together. Me? I usually wait for my players to make the character, then give them a brief rundown of the situation (“Listening post Epsilon-Gamma 99 has fallen silent. You’ve been sent to investigate.”) and the ask them how they know at least two other players at the table.
My best friend has exactly the same approach as you. When I run a game, we usually have a pre-game session in which we create a party concept, the characters and talk about what kind of game we want to play. Then between the pre-game session and the first real session I create a scenario based on that. Basically, we establish a background for the story of the game and the characters first. It takes a lot more time before you get to actually play, but I find that it really pays off in terms of story hooks and party dynamics. I tend to run more thematic, narrative campaigns than my friend, who tends to run mostly free-form dungeon-crawling campaigns. I think from what we have seen of this system so far, that it could be used for both, so that is great!
I don't really understand what people can have against more freedom. If there is something you do not like in an RPG, it is much easier to restrict that than it is to include something you do like but which is not possible in an RPG. Restrictive house rules are much quicker to make than house rules which add new elements.
Personally (underlining it so it will hopefully be seen as a personal opinion and not group mandate ) I prefer D6 pools with a simple 4+ to succeed, 6+ for double success effects mechanics.
Neronoxx wrote: Getting tired moving those goal posts? They look heavy.
Let's see.
I said I find a certain combination of 40k archetypes problematic. My reasoning was that it would be hard to justify that specific group existing within a broad spectrum of narratives without resorting to exceptional circumstances. It is my opinion that a system promoting natural, setting abiding formation of player character groups is better than one that forces the GM to resort to said exceptional circumstances. It is also my belief that having a system in place (like the one in Dark Heresy) that the player can ignore (like I did many times with my group of players) is better than not having a system in the first place if only because it puts a workload on the user of the system that the designers should have take up.
Iron_Captain wrote: My best friend has exactly the same approach as you. When I run a game, we usually have a pre-game session in which we create a party concept, the characters and talk about what kind of game we want to play. Then between the pre-game session and the first real session I create a scenario based on that. Basically, we establish a background for the story of the game and the characters first. It takes a lot more time before you get to actually play, but I find that it really pays off in terms of story hooks and party dynamics. I tend to run more thematic, narrative campaigns than my friend, who tends to run mostly free-form dungeon-crawling campaigns. I think from what we have seen of this system so far, that it could be used for both, so that is great!
Well, that's not to say I'm giving any kind of guidance or input to my players... At the outset of a campaign, I'll try to set aside at lest one session for character creation and/or explanation of the game's setting. I usually offer some bonus XP for players that bang out at least a paragraph of backstory. Once the characters are created, then it's moving on to the players detailing how they know each other. If there's time left after character creation, I try and start the game. I've ended up with a lot of diverse groups this way. In a pirate game,Player A's character backstory said that she came from a family of renowned mapmakers and Player B used that as a connection point. Player B was a pirate captain who had purchased maps from Player A's family. In a supernatural noir campaign, I had a player who created a brothel madam. The other players ended up being one of her employees, the drunk PI who hung around the brothel way too much, the undead mobster running a protection racket on the brothel madam, and the undead mobster's slow-witted brother. The game kicked off with a murder at the brothel, which lead to the madam demanding that the PI solve the murder to settle his tab and then pointedly asking the undead mobster exactly why she was paying him protection when he hadn't been able to stop the murder...
I said I find a certain combination of 40k archetypes problematic. My reasoning was that it would be hard to justify that specific group existing within a broad spectrum of narratives without resorting to exceptional circumstances. It is my opinion that a system promoting natural, setting abiding formation of player character groups is better than one that forces the GM to resort to said exceptional circumstances. It is also my belief that having a system in place (like the one in Dark Heresy) that the player can ignore (like I did many times with my group of players) is better than not having a system in the first place if only because it puts a workload on the user of the system that the designers should have take up.
So then why is having a system in place that players and GM's can ignore if they feel it goes against the setting a problem? No one is forcing the GM into anything. Creating rules that allows mixed parties provides groups that are interested in doing so a system they can use instead of having the workload placed on them to make it fit together. Rules that force the GM and players to stay within strict party restrictions would lead to the exact situation that you said is less ideal for those groups that are interested in playing with mixed parties.
ikeulhu wrote: So then why is having a system in place that players and GM's can ignore if they feel it goes against the setting a problem?
It's not a problem. It's a problem as far as my idea of what is an enjoyable rpg design is concerned. Just like, my opinion, man.
I like when rules support the setting. A party system that pairs up a commissar and a Space Marine like nothing happened does not do that. In my opinion, man.
ikeulhu wrote: So then why is having a system in place that players and GM's can ignore if they feel it goes against the setting a problem?
It's not a problem. It's a problem as far as my idea of what is an enjoyable rpg design is concerned. Just like, my opinion, man.
I like when rules support the setting. A party system that pairs up a commissar and a Space Marine like nothing happened does not do that. In my opinion, man.
Fair enough, I can and do respect your opinion. I also can see how having a tighter rule set focused on specific groups instead of having to try and balance mixed groups can lead to a better and more balanced system. I was however surprised when you mentioned that you would prefer to have a system in place that one can ignore as opposed to having no system in place, as that seems in opposition to having strict party requirements.
Also, I think it is unfair to say that the system teams mixed members up like nothing happened when there is actually an ascension system in place to reflect and tell the story of how a lower tier character is able to rise into a higher tier of play. See http://www.ulisses-us.com/wrath-glory-designer-diary-february-2018/
Granted, we won't know how well the system does this until we see more of the rules, but it does sound like they are attempting to mix parties in a way that has some support from the setting without leaving it completely up to the GM to justify it. I honestly understand some of your concerns, but it seems to me that you are making an early judgement that does not give enough credit to the potential for variety within the setting of 40k. I am also willing to admit that my opinion could very well turn out to be too hopeful, but only time will tell.
The designers have stated from the get-go that the varied party was one of their biggest features.
It could always turn out to be sucky, but this is an established studio.
Doom and gloom at this point just seems silly. Especially considering if you don't like their approach, you can simply revert back to FFG's system.
Vector Strike wrote: I, for one, really like the idea of mixed groups.
After all, Black Crusade was the the most fun of all FFG40k books for me!
if only Black Crusade had some inkling of the idea of balance, and that the final book wasn't a mashup of Undivided and Nurgle meant to get it out quick before the 40k license went away. (Same for only war!)
His Master's Voice wrote: It's not a problem. It's a problem as far as my idea of what is an enjoyable rpg design is concerned. Just like, my opinion, man.
I like when rules support the setting. A party system that pairs up a commissar and a Space Marine like nothing happened does not do that. In my opinion, man.
What about a party with a techpriest, an inquisitor, a Sister of Battle and a wych.
Chairman Aeon wrote: What about a party with a techpriest, an inquisitor, a Sister of Battle and a wych.
That would work with a proper back story, simply because pretty much any combination of "former occupation X" works as long as there's an Inqusitor involved.
In contrast, how many possible distinct situations could one come up with that involve a Sister of Battle in active service and a standing member of a Wych Cult cooperating?
It's one of the reasons I kinda hope those career paths we've been shown so far are more general ideas on what the background of a character could be, rather than actual active occupations.
It's going to be hard to justify these groups coming together without some sort of higher-up cohesion (Dark Heresy provided that with virtually unlimited Inquisitorial remit), but it's not as if a Commissar, a Guardsman, a Tech-Priest and a Space Marine are going to walk into the same bar looking for 'adventure'.
It's going to get even harder to justify when you start throwing Xenos into the mix.
I'm still amazed Rogue Trader went with the ability to take a Dark Eldar.. Not just the normal standard ones, but a friggen Haemuncolous on board a rogue trader ship.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I'm still amazed Rogue Trader went with the ability to take a Dark Eldar.. Not just the normal standard ones, but a friggen Haemuncolous on board a rogue trader ship.
Whats strange about that? Dark Eldars have normally deals with humans. Normally with shaddy corrupted humans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's going to be hard to justify these groups coming together without some sort of higher-up cohesion (Dark Heresy provided that with virtually unlimited Inquisitorial remit), but it's not as if a Commissar, a Guardsman, a Tech-Priest and a Space Marine are going to walk into the same bar looking for 'adventure'.
It's going to get even harder to justify when you start throwing Xenos into the mix.
Change the space marine for a Ogryn and you have a totally functional party.
That's true, but it's a weird standard when you have a fleshshaper on board who has to cause suffering to your crew to feed daily as a permanent party member.
You'd think that'd cause a bit of morale loss to the crew, aside from a measure of "This is the stick you get tortured with for speaking out"
A system that calls for constant exceptions is not something I'm interested in.
Then 40K isn't the setting for you, as it's calling card is "this galaxy is so big and there's so much stuff going on at one time that nothing is the same everywhere."
Xenos and Imperials are sworn enemies! Except they aren't because Rogue Traders ally with Xenos all time time.
Chaos and the Imperium would never be allies! Not true, the most prominent Inquisitor in all of the lore has a Daemon-Host in his retinue. He spent literally years conversing with a heretic soas to fight against another heretic.
Space Marines and Guardsmen don't fight alongside one another! ...seriously?
And nothing I've stated here is even made up fanon. It's all straight from official sources. Combine with that the fact that this RPG is designed to mostly take place within the Dark Imperium, literally a hellhole even by Imperial standards where the light of the Astronomicon barely even exists and I have to ask why someone who is so desperate for consistency would even be a 40K fan in the first place.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's going to be hard to justify these groups coming together without some sort of higher-up cohesion (Dark Heresy provided that with virtually unlimited Inquisitorial remit), but it's not as if a Commissar, a Guardsman, a Tech-Priest and a Space Marine are going to walk into the same bar looking for 'adventure'.
It's going to get even harder to justify when you start throwing Xenos into the mix.
GM: "Listening Post Gamma-Epsilon 79 has fallen silent. You've been sent investigate. Why?"
Commissar: "The listening post is vital to the securing the Allarus Salient against attack, Segmentum Command has sent me to investigate."
Guardsman (Deadpan): "...The commissar ordered --"
Commissar: "ASKED!"
Guardsman (Deadpan): "Asked me to go with her.... (stage whisper) and we all know what happens when you say no Commissars..."
Tech-Priest: "Hmm, whatever has affected the listening post has likely angered the facility's machine spirits. They will need a proper blessing by the Ominissiah's chosen to resume functioning."
Space Marine: "During the Second Founding, my chapter swore to protect the worlds of this sector from any threat. I shall fulfill those ancient oaths and safeguard the honor of my Chapter by volunteering to aid in this investigation..."
Ork Freeboota: "Da hummie wit' the big hat paid me lots o' teef ta go see what was goin' on, sayz there might be somethin' tha' needs a good crumpin'!"
Alderi Ranger: "My craftworld's Farseers determined the craftworld's survival is dependent on the success of the mon-keigh's war... And so the loss of the listening post does more than threaten the outcome of the mon-keigh's war, it threatens my craftworld."
I'm reading I Am Slaughter right now (Beast Arises series) and about half of the main plot is dedicated to an Imperial Fist, Guardsman captain and tech Magos surviving in a tunnel network as Orks bombard the planet. Hmmmm...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Those are some great one-shot adventures you guys have described.
To be fair, many of the great campaigns start with a really solid one-shot. All a GM needs is a solid reason to get the players together - keeping them together is much easier in a setting where travel is restricted as much as it is in 40k. After your solid one-shot, the groups basically at the mercy of fate in getting around. Unless they find their own ride, but then they're unlikely to go return if duties are unfulfilled, items left unclaimed, etc etc.
Also, having real solidly generated characters with a need for cooperation helps a great deal. The John French Ahriman book reminds me of this, or even Eater of Worlds with the medic-girl just trying to frikking survive around the world eaters.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Those are some great one-shot adventures you guys have described.
Please refer to my previous posts for an example of a way to seamlessly flow from one adventure to the next in a way that is organic and completely lore friendly without even needing to invoke a higher power (such as an Inquisitor or Rogue Trader).
Our heroes, at the end of their bloody campaign to liberate Aproximus Naminius from the clutches of a chaos tainted colonial governor after being stranded deep behind enemy lines, finally manage to assassinate the governor and escape the planet in his personal ship. As they make their way to rendezvous with the rest of the Imperium forces who are still fighting to crush the chaos-crazed PDF, a huge Warp disturbance engulfs their ship and, before they are hurtled headlong into the warp, they see an enormous, ancient, black battlecruiser materialise above the planet.
Suddenly, alarms ring out over the bridge, indicating a gellar field failure in the cargo bay. The magos is tasked with fixing the field generator whilst the pragmatic Commissar, raw Space Marine Scout and grizzled veteran Guardsman head to hold off the waves of demons pouring into the ship.
It is a hard fight, many of the intrepid troupe are wounded but they finally seal the field breach and finish off the warpspawn. They regroup on the bridge and consult the star charts to determine their location, only to find they have been flung to the far side of the galaxy, beyond Imperium space and that the breach of the gellar field has damaged their warp drive. With horror they realise they are within Ork-held territory and that they have no alternative but to land on the nearest habitable planet in order to restock what meagre supplies survived the warp incursion if they are to have any hope of making it back to Imperium space....
There you go, a perfectly valid according to in-universe lore example of how to keep the characters together which doesn't rely on them becoming the lackeys of an inquisitor or rogue trader. It also provides for a change of enemy (Cultists to Orks), new challenges to overcome (keeping the ship running) and provides an entrance for lots of cool new set pieces (Mad Max Fury Road chase sequence with shades of gorkamorka when they steal a trukk of promethium from an Ork refinery, anyone?) and even potentially new PC's (Ork Mek PC who helps them "keep deir ship runnin' da orky way", for example).
Just because 99.9999999% of the time the scenario wouldn't happen, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen in the game. You are playing the 0.0000001% of the time that it does.
For how to cap that ork section of the campaign off:
They could feel the manic throb of the engine throughout the ship, coupled with the mad cries of Werner Von Brork as he was plugged into the warp drive. Messalina looked across to Magos Khris, strapped into the chair, struggling wildly to break free, screaming about insults to the Machine God.
"Is there no way to shut her off? Just put her into sleep mode or something?" snarked Willem, subconciously clutching his lasgun close for comfort.
"Let's keep ourselves focused on the mission" cut in Stratus.
"The frakking plan is crazy though! We'll all be killed!"
At that moment, they came into view of the Ork Waagh fleet. Thousands upon thousands of Ork ships, some seeming impossible that they could even be capable of flight appeared from round the back of the moon.
Messalina straightened her ragged cap, set her face in a grim expression and flipped the external transmission system on.
"This is the Imperial ship Suicidal Desperation. You are ordered to surrender your ships and to prepare for extermination"
As their message reached the Ork ships they could almost feel the eyes of the Waagh turn onto them, as Brorks cries suddenly ceased.
All at once the engines of the ork armada flared into life and the whole might of the waagh raced towards them. As the ships thundered closer, Brorks cries returned, though this time they were tinged with wild exultation over the pain. The psychic energy of millions of minds was focused completely on their ship and that energy was pouring into the warp drive. They flew wildly through the vacuum, erratically veering to evade the missiles and shells fired by the Ork ships but all the while the massed throng of green flesh closed in on them.
Suddenly the stars out the bridge window began to smear and ripple. The sounds of the Orks coming over the comms shot upwards in pitch, quickly reaching frequencies they couldn't hear but which shattered Messalinas synthohol glass.
All at once, the stars winked out and were briefly replaced by a huge eye, wreathed in flame staring directly into the backs of their skulls. But then it was gone and instead they faced normal space. Inky blackness dotted with pinpricks of light. Silence filled the ship.
"okay," sighed Messalina, "where the frak are we now?"
H.B.M.C. wrote: Those are some great one-shot adventures you guys have described.
You know that if FFG was enough for you, you can start all your campaings with you group being an inquisitor/rogue trader's retinue. Then you dont need one shot justifications.
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's going to be hard to justify these groups coming together without some sort of higher-up cohesion (Dark Heresy provided that with virtually unlimited Inquisitorial remit), but it's not as if a Commissar, a Guardsman, a Tech-Priest and a Space Marine are going to walk into the same bar looking for 'adventure'.
It's going to get even harder to justify when you start throwing Xenos into the mix.
I think the idea that the party needs to basically get together before the adventure starts is a major problem to good stories. There is nothing wrong with having your party meet up slowly during the adventure and naturally falling into working together due to their individual goals having mutual benefits.
So in my aforementioned "crash land on cultist controlled planet deep behind enemy lines" adventure, you could have the guardsman and commissar be the sole survivors from their own crashed troopship. Meanwhile the space marine scout, looking for somewhere to patch up his wounds after the firefight which got the rest of his forward observer squad killed, heads towards a hidden bunker which, as far as he is aware, is only known of by the Astartes. He is surprised, then, to find that an admech magos had found it already and is using it to store technological artifacts prior to transporting them offworld.
Then, have the IG SOS message be picked up by a comms set in the bunker, leading to the unification of the two parties. The IG want to get off world and rendezvous with their unit (preferably just in time to avoid the frontline fighting), the Space Marine wants to get to a communications system capable of getting a message to his chapter about some secret of the planet which is vitally important to the war effort and the magos wants to get their artifacts off world. So all of them agree to head to the nearest star port, as it is the most likely place to have all of those things and they stand a much better chance of getting there together.
As for a xenos, the Eldar were operating to tilt the outcome of the events to their favour, which required our characters to complete their goals. The Tau was part of a water caste diplomatic mission gone wrong and want to report back to their command with disturbing news about the nature of the planet. The Ork could be a mercenary (though it would be easier in my two scenarios for an ork character to join during the second adventure arc) etc.
The appearance of the Cicatrix Maledictum makes for strange bedfellows.
Envoys of various organizations trapped beyond support; struggling Imperial systems desperate for aid no matter the source; Puritans and Radicals forced together out of desperate need. You get the idea.
It makes some odd PC mixes more plausible. Not all, but certainly more...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of course that is dependent on the GM to have a campaign where such non-combat aspects came into play regularly enough (and where the space marine couldn't just bulldoze past with brawn).
Absolutely but I'd say that is more of a general disclaimer for rpg campaigns rather than an issue with mixed power tiers.
The system can help or hinder it. If combat is so complex that even a minor skirmish takes two hours to resolve (and if your character can't contribute, that's two hours of looking at your phone or building dice sculptures) while non-combat problems are dealt with in a single dice roll, that's pushing players towards combat characters.
Aren’t you and H.B.M.C. arguing that the folks who wouldn’t mind running and/or playing in mixed groups of Imperials and xenos characters - ahem - “like 40kthe wrong way”? Oh, the irony...
H.B.M.C. wrote:Those are some great one-shot adventures you guys have described.
Hm. Not entirely sure if this an example of moving the goal post or not. I provided an example of how a a GM might bring a group of Imperial and Xenos characters together. In the example of the listening post, each hypothetical player was able to give a good in-character reason as to why they were investigating it. And the listening post isn’t necessarily a one shot: there is a reason it fell silent, and the GM hasn’t disclosed it yet. Was it heretical subversion, a raid by Heretic Astartes, or the influence of a GSC? If only there was a massive and shadowy organization with factions specially tailored to each of those threats.... Works great for just about everyone. The Alderi Ranger could receive word from his Farseer that one of the player characters has some impact on his Craftworld - although the details are murky - and they need to be observed. The humie in the big hat - a radical Inquisitor or Rogue Trader? - continues paying the Ork in teef as long as the Ork keeps doing what the Inquisitor says (and reminds the Ork that working for the Inquisition leads to the biggest and best fights around).
Ultimately? It comes down to each individual GM to create and run a Wrath and Glory campaign that his or her players enjoy. Which includes, at the outset, saying what characters or concepts are disallowed. It is, after all, considered bad form to inform a player that they can’t play the Ork they *just* spent an hour creating...
Just like it’s bad form to tell players and GMs who enjoy the idea of mixed Imperial and Xenos groups that they “like 40kthe wrong way”. Because all you’re really saying is “Stop having fun, guys! You’re having fun in the wrong way!”
Alpharius wrote: Reminds me of the guy that drew all the Primarchs years back...
Naaah, these were really ugly compared to this comic. The artist is actually 'ascended fan' type of deal, promoted from drawing popular 40K fan webcomic to making actual 40K promo art...
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's going to be hard to justify these groups coming together without some sort of higher-up cohesion (Dark Heresy provided that with virtually unlimited Inquisitorial remit), but it's not as if a Commissar, a Guardsman, a Tech-Priest and a Space Marine are going to walk into the same bar looking for 'adventure'.
It's going to get even harder to justify when you start throwing Xenos into the mix.
You realize this is the plot of at least three Ciaphas Cain books? Say, Emperor's Finest, with Cain (comissar) exploring Space Hulk backed by Jurgen (IG), the Reclaimers SM squad, and AM allies?
There, case closed, anyone has complains for things that didn't actually happened in lots of books already?
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's going to be hard to justify these groups coming together without some sort of higher-up cohesion (Dark Heresy provided that with virtually unlimited Inquisitorial remit), but it's not as if a Commissar, a Guardsman, a Tech-Priest and a Space Marine are going to walk into the same bar looking for 'adventure'.
It's going to get even harder to justify when you start throwing Xenos into the mix.
I think the idea that the party needs to basically get together before the adventure starts is a major problem to good stories. There is nothing wrong with having your party meet up slowly during the adventure and naturally falling into working together due to their individual goals having mutual benefits.
So in my aforementioned "crash land on cultist controlled planet deep behind enemy lines" adventure, you could have the guardsman and commissar be the sole survivors from their own crashed troopship. Meanwhile the space marine scout, looking for somewhere to patch up his wounds after the firefight which got the rest of his forward observer squad killed, heads towards a hidden bunker which, as far as he is aware, is only known of by the Astartes. He is surprised, then, to find that an admech magos had found it already and is using it to store technological artifacts prior to transporting them offworld.
Then, have the IG SOS message be picked up by a comms set in the bunker, leading to the unification of the two parties. The IG want to get off world and rendezvous with their unit (preferably just in time to avoid the frontline fighting), the Space Marine wants to get to a communications system capable of getting a message to his chapter about some secret of the planet which is vitally important to the war effort and the magos wants to get their artifacts off world. So all of them agree to head to the nearest star port, as it is the most likely place to have all of those things and they stand a much better chance of getting there together.
As for a xenos, the Eldar were operating to tilt the outcome of the events to their favour, which required our characters to complete their goals. The Tau was part of a water caste diplomatic mission gone wrong and want to report back to their command with disturbing news about the nature of the planet. The Ork could be a mercenary (though it would be easier in my two scenarios for an ork character to join during the second adventure arc) etc.
That works great for a single scenario/campaign. But what if the players succeed in leaving the planet and want to keep playing after that? The Marine will have to return to his Chapter. The Commissar and trooper need to return to their regiment. The Magos will likely want to go back to hoarding tech. Justifying strange mixes of characters working together on a temporary basis is not difficult. But keeping such a party together for a longer campaign is much harder to do without grossly violating the fluff. The fluff has plenty examples of really different Imperial factions working together and even some where they cooperate with Xenos (or even Chaos). But every single one of these examples was on a very temporary basis. There are no examples of these groups staying with each other after the initial event that brought them together has been resolved, as is common in RPGs like D&D. They always go their own separate ways again. The only reason I can think of for these 4 characters to stick together is if they were all conscripted by an Inquisitor. I mean, you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons, but if you care about the fluff that is not possible.
I mean, you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons, but if you care about the fluff that is not possible.
A simple translation of the above: "You're enjoying 40Kin the wrong way! Stop having fun!" It's the same argument that H.B.M.C. and His Master's Voice have been making. And honestly? If you aren't willing to bend fluff or use a willing suspension of disbelief to continue having fun with your chosen group of roleplayers/gaming buddies/whatever, that's on you and no one else.
Do people really play warhammer campaings like a DnD group of heroes? Just like the wargame, our campaings then to be about a mayor confluct where our group is part of it. Like, an active warzone with the campament has "rest hub". Using npcs with our group is normal. Those can die en masse to give the game more athmosphere.
Two marine scouts, 10 guardsmen, a officer and the support mech enginner for their transport where 1 sm and 9 guardsmen are npc, is a normal kind of group for example.
If you want a more exploration/adventure kind of theme, with more freedom, you have rogue traders or inquisitor or rogue group kind of campaings.
I mean, you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons, but if you care about the fluff that is not possible.
A simple translation of the above: "You're enjoying 40Kin the wrong way! Stop having fun!" It's the same argument that H.B.M.C. and His Master's Voice have been making. And honestly? If you aren't willing to bend fluff or use a willing suspension of disbelief to continue having fun with your chosen group of roleplayers/gaming buddies/whatever, that's on you and no one else.
No, that's not what they said. They simply said that it's going to strain the 40K universe as previously established to have very mixed characters stay together long term. They also said "you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons". I mean, if you're going to paraphrase someone's argument to make it easier to get mad at, then don't quote the bit where they say they're doing what you're accusing them of not doing.
I assume that most groups will either have a firm premise for the game they want to run ("You're all Guardsmen/women in the XIII'th Redshirts."), or will just throw canon to the four winds and have an Ork, Dark Eldar, Wulfen and Navigator running around fighting crime. So long as everyone's getting what they want, there's no problem. My only real worry is that you're inevitably going to get That One Guy who insists that no really, your noir-ish game of Inquisitorial acolytes delving into corruption in the depths of a hive city would benefit from his Slaaneshi Noise Marine (and if you were a GOOD GM you could fit Fulcius Lewdtentacle in, why are you stifling my creativity?). But that sort of player always finds a way to cause trouble.
Galas wrote: Do people really play warhammer campaings like a DnD group of heroes? Just like the wargame, our campaings then to be about a mayor confluct where our group is part of it. Like, an active warzone with the campament has "rest hub". Using npcs with our group is normal. Those can die en masse to give the game more athmosphere.
Two marine scouts, 10 guardsmen, a officer and the support mech enginner for their transport where 1 sm and 9 guardsmen are npc, is a normal kind of group for example.
If you want a more exploration/adventure kind of theme, with more freedom, you have rogue traders or inquisitor or rogue group kind of campaings.
That's what we did in our Only War campaigns, the first one was a result of having to escape via drop pod, the other, we had some support for major battle, but little side missions (like the above building killing one) were mostly our group, perhaps with extra materiel, like a spare Taurox or autocannons for our Ogryn players.
Elemental wrote: No, that's not what they said. They simply said that it's going to strain the 40K universe as previously established to have very mixed characters stay together long term. They also said "you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons". I mean, if you're going to paraphrase someone's argument to make it easier to get mad at, then don't quote the bit where they say they're doing what you're accusing them of not doing..
Dude, that's literally the argument they're making. Just read Iron_Captain's quote again.
Iron_Captain wrote: I mean, you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons, but if you care about the fluff that is not possible.
See that bit I've put in bold? It's a perfect example of why I find arguments in favor of fluff orthodoxy - especially when you're talking about role-playing games - to be so repetitive and boring. That section in bold makes the entire thing come across as "If you're doing something that breaks established cannon, you're enjoying 40K the wrong way". The only canon that matters in a role-playing game is the one that the players and GM establish around the table and for themselves.
Elemental wrote: My only real worry is that you're inevitably going to get That One Guy who insists that no really, your noir-ish game of Inquisitorial acolytes delving into corruption in the depths of a hive city would benefit from his Slaaneshi Noise Marine (and if you were a GOOD GM you could fit Fulcius Lewdtentacle in, why are you stifling my creativity?). But that sort of player always finds a way to cause trouble.
So tell him to join in properly or get lost. Simple.
BlueGrassGamer wrote: Aren’t you and H.B.M.C. arguing that the folks who wouldn’t mind running and/or playing in mixed groups of Imperials and xenos characters - ahem - “like 40kthe wrong way”? Oh, the irony...
Not once have I told anyone in this thread how they should be playing their games. Go tilt at some other windmill.
I mean, you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons, but if you care about the fluff that is not possible.
A simple translation of the above: "You're enjoying 40Kin the wrong way! Stop having fun!" It's the same argument that H.B.M.C. and His Master's Voice have been making. And honestly? If you aren't willing to bend fluff or use a willing suspension of disbelief to continue having fun with your chosen group of roleplayers/gaming buddies/whatever, that's on you and no one else.
It seems you did not read what I wrote. I did not say stop having fun, in fact I said exactly the opposite. If you are having fun you can handwave the fluff. The fluff is there to provide fun. It should never be an impediment to having fun. But there are people that get their fun from being as true to the fluff as possible, who like to really immerse themselves in the 40k universe. If you are one of those people then handwaving it would not be possible because that would actually damage the fun you are having. So for people like H.B.M.C. and His Master's Voice and others the best option is to limit party compositions to something that feels more natural in the 40k universe. There is nothing wrong with either approach. Everyone should do which is most fun to them and their group. With a roleplaying game, there simply can not be a wrong way to enjoy it.
you don't need an inquisitor, you just need a superior officer in the characters chain of command to order them to
'meet up with X, Y and Z and work with them to perform mission REDACTED in the Emperors name, when I have further orders for you you will be contacted by servo-skull 01234Plotdevice'
all good imperial characters will obay,
you can run your main plot, quite possibly the characters are not senior enough to know why they're doing anything, baffling orders are no doubt a common thing in 40k
allow other adventures to develop along the way as the character try to figure out what the heck is going on, complete the mission and serve the emperor
and whenever needed throw in some further orders to one or more of the party, they've been ordered to stick together so they'll all go along
you don't need an inquisitor, you just need a superior officer in the characters chain of command to order them to
'meet up with X, Y and Z and work with them to perform mission REDACTED in the Emperors name, when I have further orders for you you will be contacted by servo-skull 01234Plotdevice'
all good imperial characters will obay,
you can run your main plot, quite possibly the characters are not senior enough to know why they're doing anything, baffling orders are no doubt a common thing in 40k
allow other adventures to develop along the way as the character try to figure out what the heck is going on, complete the mission and serve the emperor
and whenever needed throw in some further orders to one or more of the party, they've been ordered to stick together so they'll all go along
simples
That works only if the superior officer is the same for all characters. When you are playing a Space Marine, a Magos and an Imperial Guardsman, the only 'officer' that would have the authority to order all three around would be an Inquisitor, a Custodes, a Primarch or the Emperor Himself. And when the fourth player in the group is an Ork... well... To issue orders to a party like that would require a Space Marine Captain, a senior Imperial Guard officer, a high-ranking Magos and an Ork Warboss to be coordinating something. But realistically, if they wanted to get something done, each of them would just send a group of his own guys.
So yeah, to keep such a party togetherit in a fluffy way is going to take an Inquisitor. Not that I see anything wrong with that. Inquisitors are like the most perfectly convenient plot device ever for a GM. If my group wants to run a mixed party, that is definitely how I will be going to handle it.
Seriously, people are thinking about this too hard.
The point of an RPG is to explore the possibilities that a setting offers, not to adhere to a strict code that doesn't deviate from the cannon.
People play Drow in D&D and Jedi in Star Wars every day.
Player Characters are EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS bound only by the decisions and whims of the Player and not the expectations of the normal behavior for the nonplayer characters.
The game is there to provide us mechanics and setting. The game master and the enjoyment of the group should decide party composition.
Im personally more of the kind of "the orc has hit you with his axe. You are half death" roleplayer. The one that prefers systems without progresion where the experience agaisnt dangerous situation is your only tool of survival, and where a fight is an undesirable consequence with hard consequences even winning. But i can understand that warhammer is build into exceptions and overpowered characters.
you don't need an inquisitor, you just need a superior officer in the characters chain of command to order them to
'meet up with X, Y and Z and work with them to perform mission REDACTED in the Emperors name, when I have further orders for you you will be contacted by servo-skull 01234Plotdevice'
all good imperial characters will obay,
you can run your main plot, quite possibly the characters are not senior enough to know why they're doing anything, baffling orders are no doubt a common thing in 40k
allow other adventures to develop along the way as the character try to figure out what the heck is going on, complete the mission and serve the emperor
and whenever needed throw in some further orders to one or more of the party, they've been ordered to stick together so they'll all go along
simples
That works only if the superior officer is the same for all characters. When you are playing a Space Marine, a Magos and an Imperial Guardsman, the only 'officer' that would have the authority to order all three around would be an Inquisitor, a Custodes, a Primarch or the Emperor Himself. And when the fourth player in the group is an Ork... well... To issue orders to a party like that would require a Space Marine Captain, a senior Imperial Guard officer, a high-ranking Magos and an Ork Warboss to be coordinating something. But realistically, if they wanted to get something done, each of them would just send a group of his own guys.
So yeah, to keep such a party togetherit in a fluffy way is going to take an Inquisitor. Not that I see anything wrong with that. Inquisitors are like the most perfectly convenient plot device ever for a GM. If my group wants to run a mixed party, that is definitely how I will be going to handle it.
each character can (and probably would) have a different superior, all the superiors would give the same basic order (they might actually know what super secret mission is going on, they might just have received orders from their own higher ups), 'hang around with those other wierdos you would normal avoid/never see/purge etc, and serve the Emperor'
Alpharius wrote: Reminds me of the guy that drew all the Primarchs years back...
Naaah, these were really ugly compared to this comic. The artist is actually 'ascended fan' type of deal, promoted from drawing popular 40K fan webcomic to making actual 40K promo art...
Rather, your interpretation of the setting does not match up with the established lore.
Look buddy, you're welcome to buy into whatever headcanon you want- it's a free country. But your (and Yodrin's) grievances with the game are predicated on the premise that the scenarios offered by the game rules don't support the game setting. That is a false premise.
Point blank: anyone who thinks that a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and Guardsman roaming around like a Dungeons and Dragons adventuring group is subversive of the setting simply hasn't read enough fluff.
I kinda think you're talking about different guys. While beautiful, the Primarchs were drawn by Nicolás R. Giacondino. And they aren't listed as contributors to Eagle Ordinary.
Rather, your interpretation of the setting does not match up with the established lore.
Look buddy, you're welcome to buy into whatever headcanon you want- it's a free country. But your (and Yodrin's) grievances with the game are predicated on the premise that the scenarios offered by the game rules don't support the game setting. That is a false premise.
Point blank: anyone who thinks that a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and Guardsman roaming around like a Dungeons and Dragons adventuring group is subversive of the setting simply hasn't read enough fluff.
Uh... I am not sure how to respond to this. D&D and 40k are fundamentally different settings. While there are plenty possible reasons that could bring a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and a Guardsman together, they'd not be roaming around like a D&D group of 'adventurers'. If you think that, you simply have not read enough fluff. Unlike characters in D&D, these characters would not be free to roam around the galaxy as they please, they'd all be part of a command structure. They are not independent adventurers, they are a part of larger organisations that exercise control over them. As a party of these characters, you would receive and try to fulfill missions for your superiors, not go out into the galaxy to look for quests and loot.
You could very well play a D&D-like party in 40k, but you would not be able to play a Commissar, Space Marine, Guardsman or Tech-priest unless you either ignore the fluff or they are renegades that abandoned their Chapter/Regiment/Forge World.
Galas wrote: Do people really play warhammer campaings like a DnD group of heroes?
Depends on which game you're playing. Each of them offered a different method of interfacing (so to speak) with the background. Only War was, like you described, a way of playing a group of soldiers involved in a larger conflict. Rogue Traded lent itself towards the 'choose your own (highly profitable) adventure'. Death Watch was mission based. Dark Heresy was almost a 'group of heroes' in style. Black Crusade could take elements of all of them. On top of that they all had specific and fleshed out settings.
I kinda think you're talking about different guys. While beautiful, the Primarchs were drawn by Nicolás R. Giacondino. And they aren't listed as contributors to Eagle Ordinary.
Heh - wrong interpretation!
I said that guy (Nicolas) reminded me of whoever is doing this stuff.
Then ITT, someone said 'that guy's stuff was awful' when it really isn't, and also looks a lot like this stuff!
Rather, your interpretation of the setting does not match up with the established lore.
Look buddy, you're welcome to buy into whatever headcanon you want- it's a free country. But your (and Yodrin's) grievances with the game are predicated on the premise that the scenarios offered by the game rules don't support the game setting. That is a false premise.
Point blank: anyone who thinks that a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and Guardsman roaming around like a Dungeons and Dragons adventuring group is subversive of the setting simply hasn't read enough fluff.
Uh... I am not sure how to respond to this. D&D and 40k are fundamentally different settings. While there are plenty possible reasons that could bring a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and a Guardsman together, they'd not be roaming around like a D&D group of 'adventurers'. If you think that, you simply have not read enough fluff. Unlike characters in D&D, these characters would not be free to roam around the galaxy as they please, they'd all be part of a command structure. They are not independent adventurers, they are a part of larger organisations that exercise control over them. As a party of these characters, you would receive and try to fulfill missions for your superiors, not go out into the galaxy to look for quests and loot.
You could very well play a D&D-like party in 40k, but you would not be able to play a Commissar, Space Marine, Guardsman or Tech-priest unless you either ignore the fluff or they are renegades that abandoned their Chapter/Regiment/Forge World.
Rather, your interpretation of the setting does not match up with the established lore.
Look buddy, you're welcome to buy into whatever headcanon you want- it's a free country. But your (and Yodrin's) grievances with the game are predicated on the premise that the scenarios offered by the game rules don't support the game setting. That is a false premise.
Point blank: anyone who thinks that a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and Guardsman roaming around like a Dungeons and Dragons adventuring group is subversive of the setting simply hasn't read enough fluff.
Uh... I am not sure how to respond to this. D&D and 40k are fundamentally different settings. While there are plenty possible reasons that could bring a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and a Guardsman together, they'd not be roaming around like a D&D group of 'adventurers'. If you think that, you simply have not read enough fluff. Unlike characters in D&D, these characters would not be free to roam around the galaxy as they please, they'd all be part of a command structure. They are not independent adventurers, they are a part of larger organisations that exercise control over them. As a party of these characters, you would receive and try to fulfill missions for your superiors, not go out into the galaxy to look for quests and loot.
You could very well play a D&D-like party in 40k, but you would not be able to play a Commissar, Space Marine, Guardsman or Tech-priest unless you either ignore the fluff or they are renegades that abandoned their Chapter/Regiment/Forge World.
It is, literally too easy to make a campaign based on a free roam group if that's what the players wanted. Whenever you come up to a logical block you just need to find away around it, within the fluff. If you need to take them out of their normal command structure, just do it. Make them all prisoners of a Necron collector where they have too work together to escape. Make them some of the few stragglers of a war torn battlefield world over run by a Nid fleet. Make them all test subjects in a mechanicus maze. You, the user, are the limiting factor in any game system based on such a diverse universe.
And again you just described three one-shot adventures that sound like they'd be a lot of fun to play, but they're nothing sustainable unless this same group of people keeps stumbling into new and crazier adventures, something that just doesn't ring true of 40K.
Elemental wrote: My only real worry is that you're inevitably going to get That One Guy who insists that no really, your noir-ish game of Inquisitorial acolytes delving into corruption in the depths of a hive city would benefit from his Slaaneshi Noise Marine (and if you were a GOOD GM you could fit Fulcius Lewdtentacle in, why are you stifling my creativity?). But that sort of player always finds a way to cause trouble.
This is easily resolved in the same way I resolve every RPG issue. And I've had the gamut of them.
A guy wants a super-murder-cyborg in a cyberpunk investigation RPG. Some dude wants to be the Grey Knight in a Deathwatch Campaign. Dude wants to be black-ops super-Soldier in Delta Green. This guy wants to be an uber-vampire wizard-warlock in a Superhero game....
You tell them, "Nope, this is what we're doing and if you don't like it- go play with someone else".
But while we're fretting on 'lore accuracy' with this new game, let me tell you- my last 40kRPG was Black Crusade. We played a group of heretic Astartes whose sole purpose was to be an obnoxious group of jerks and cause mayhem in the most absurd ways possible.
We solved our disagreements in-character by having flexing contests. We drew dicks on loyalist Razorbacks. We taught a tribe of humans on a recruiting world to be racist because the Chaplain of the Space Marine chapter was dark of skin. We chain-smoked lho-sticks. We burst into hysterical laughter when someone said 'taint' because we recently found out the other meaning of the word. We had absurd character flaws ('perfect hindsight', 'lies about the wrong things', 'yells whenever he speaks', 'uses profanity way too much'). My character was an Alpha Legionnaire who convinced a group of Arbites that he was a loyalist of the 'Triple Bitey-Snakes' Chapter.
We threw the 'seriousness' out the window and had a damned blast. I look forward to doing the same thing with this, and I think we're going to be Deathwatch Marines this time.
Elemental wrote: No, that's not what they said. They simply said that it's going to strain the 40K universe as previously established to have very mixed characters stay together long term. They also said "you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons". I mean, if you're going to paraphrase someone's argument to make it easier to get mad at, then don't quote the bit where they say they're doing what you're accusing them of not doing..
Dude, that's literally the argument they're making. Just read Iron_Captain's quote again.
Iron_Captain wrote: I mean, you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons, but if you care about the fluff that is not possible.
We threw the 'seriousness' out the window and had a damned blast. I look forward to doing the same thing with this, and I think we're going to be Deathwatch Marines this time.
Agreed. So long as there's some solid support for themed parties as well as the wackier stuff, I'll be happy. The Iron Kingdoms RPG had a good optional system of templates for parties, where the characters had to meet some criteria, and got some minor benefits in exchange. It was a good way to instantly convey "these are the sorts of in-setting groups that could work as PC's"
And part of me does hope they have Obi-Wan Sherlock Clouseau as the character creation example.
Rogue Traders and their followers, roaming Inquisitors and their followers, or Corsairs (human or xenos) is IMO the best option for free roaming parties. They are not bound or only loosely bound to any other organizations, and they have a starship to travel around in.
Illiyan Nastase is tier 5, the Eldar genes are keeping it down.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Trawling through the comments of their official site, I saw the following answers to some of the questions asked, probably old news, sorry if so.
We haven’t given our official release date, but we’re aiming for late summer, timed around a particular gaming event that happens during that part of the year…
We won’t have public testing, but there will be a quick start this year, which should be a couple months before release. More information later.
The timing for that is very tricky. Without giving too much away, I will say that the initial release of the Quick Start is using a method that does not permit us to offer the information anywhere else until July. (Industry-savvy folks may be able to figure out what I’m talking about.)
From what I understand, the first wave and most of the second wave are already set, so it would have to be later in the line. In general, though, Ross has to maintain pretty close control over the direction of products in accordance with our licencing.
Haha Alpharius swooping in like 'El Nombre' to save the day I had to go back 5 pages just to find the comic again!
It seems like the new system gives a decent chance of success for an action, my frustration with the Warhammer Fantasy RPG at the moment is that you have about a 40% chance of success for any given action with a starting character. This means you fail a lot which isn't terribly fun...
Kroem wrote: Haha Alpharius swooping in like 'El Nombre' to save the day I had to go back 5 pages just to find the comic again!
It seems like the new system gives a decent chance of success for an action, my frustration with the Warhammer Fantasy RPG at the moment is that you have about a 40% chance of success for any given action with a starting character. This means you fail a lot which isn't terribly fun...
Which edition are you playing? Technically you should get a bonus on most non combat actions as they will be considered easy?
As for the new system, after reading through the design diaries, I like the idea of it being simple dice pools with a decent chance of succeeding at 4+, though the notion that botching a roll doesn't immediately grind the session to a halt isn't half bad either.
The addition of a Wrath die that can influence the outcome regardless of what you roll seems like a fun mechanic on top of things.
"You aced your melee roll but sadly your Wrath die came up as a complication, so while you managed to disembowel the traitor the moment was ruined by you slipping in his freshly unleashed bowels. The people you were meant to inspire are not impressed."
I'm not sure I like the bucket of 6 siders on a 4+ mechanics personally but I'm reserving judgement until I see it in action myself. I like a bit more granularity in roleplaying games than that as opposed to mass battle miniatures games.
warboss wrote: I'm not sure I like the bucket of 6 siders on a 4+ mechanics personally but I'm reserving judgement until I see it in action myself. I like a bit more granularity in roleplaying games than that as opposed to mass battle miniatures games.
warboss wrote: I'm not sure I like the bucket of 6 siders on a 4+ mechanics personally but I'm reserving judgement until I see it in action myself. I like a bit more granularity in roleplaying games than that as opposed to mass battle miniatures games.
Sounds like Shadowrun 4th ed....? Not too bad I guess, be good if you can influence rolls with mods or get re-rolls vai some sort of drama point mechanism. Lots of dice is not too bad at the table - when you are sitting on the sofa its less helpful.
warboss wrote: I'm not sure I like the bucket of 6 siders on a 4+ mechanics personally but I'm reserving judgement until I see it in action myself. I like a bit more granularity in roleplaying games than that as opposed to mass battle miniatures games.
Sounds like Shadowrun 4th ed....? Not too bad I guess, be good if you can influence rolls with mods or get re-rolls vai some sort of drama point mechanism. Lots of dice is not too bad at the table - when you are sitting on the sofa its less helpful.
The Wrath dice sounds interesting.
I'm a fan of shadowrun but a large part of that is nostalgia for me personally. The bucket o dice aspect of the game tended to be unpopular with various folks I've tried to get into the game over the decades between 2nd to 4th edition.
BrookM wrote:"Bucket" is a bit of an overreaction.
Maybe... but we don't know yet. The easiest way to add granularity in that kind of a system is typically to just add more dice. Shadowrun is firmly a bucket o dice rpg as pointed out above but simple best case scenario examples in that game also don't illustrate what actual moderately minmaxing players end up throwing either. I totally admit its conjecture at this point but it's a concern nontheless.
Kroem wrote: Haha Alpharius swooping in like 'El Nombre' to save the day I had to go back 5 pages just to find the comic again!
It seems like the new system gives a decent chance of success for an action, my frustration with the Warhammer Fantasy RPG at the moment is that you have about a 40% chance of success for any given action with a starting character. This means you fail a lot which isn't terribly fun...
Which edition are you playing? Technically you should get a bonus on most non combat actions as they will be considered easy?
I'm not the DM so I'm not really sure... it is only a minor gripe though, otherwise I'm having a great time piloting my Estalian Diestro!
The wrath die sounds like the jokers in the Space Kings system, I'm loving the sort of chaotic fun that it causes on the Pretend Friends podcast!
A few games use a similar system, the first few editions of the world of darkness games used a bucket O' dice method that created a dice pool using an attribute plus a skill. Traveler 2300, cyberpunk , it can be a solid dice method.
Insurgency Walker wrote: A few games use a similar system, the first few editions of the world of darkness games used a bucket O' dice method that created a dice pool using an attribute plus a skill. Traveler 2300, cyberpunk , it can be a solid dice method.
I think the issue here is what people's threshold for a "bucket" is.
Those White Wolf games frequently capped at 10 dice between attribute and skill. Most of the WEG D6 Games you'll have fewer than 10 dice unless you are legendary.
When I think "bucket of dice" I'm thinking situations that come up in 40K, where my 30 Termagants are rolling 90 dice in the shooting phase.
But just like Cadia being blown up and ceasing to be, Cadians are still around, so I'm sure a few of those cone-headed elf dolls have survived as well.
This eldar is way better than the previous art, I like it a lot.
Even if I'm not particulary interested in this RPG (I am still buying and playing the "old" ones), it is going to be quite interesting to explore the "new" background. 40k is clearly lacking on this point so at least we have Wrath and Glory now.
That's honestly the best way to handle any RPG. Some scenarios work great with Theatre of the Mind, but you should always be able to use minis for the encounters where positioning and cover are important.
It's official! Wrath & Glory will be part of this year's Free RPG Day! And yes, this will be a Quickstart product.
Go ask your local game store to participate![/size]
Probably something along the lines of a commissar, guardsman, Space Marine Scout and Skitarii ranger, as have been showcased in both the comic and the preview document. Mind, this is speculation on my end.
It would be really ace if the content ties into the campaign of the main book, as some of the previous FFG stuff did.
It's going to be fun being able to play a mixed group of 40k heroes. Always kinda sad jumping between Only War, Dark Heresy, and Deathwatch so everyone could play what they really like.
I find Rogue Trader bosses to be much more interesting than Inquisitor ones. Glad to see this is something the system supports in its base.
Also, the girl-ssar is quite nice. Probably fresh from the Schola?
I know that, guys... In fact, they are much more interesting to me than the shoot-before-ask types (played Commissars twice with the FFG line).
But the stereotype certainly isn't that level-headed
Vector Strike wrote: I know that, guys... In fact, they are much more interesting to me than the shoot-before-ask types (played Commissars twice with the FFG line).
But the stereotype certainly isn't that level-headed
The stereotype also has a high rate of death due to "multiple gunshots to back" and "grenade went off in tent"
Vector Strike wrote: I know that, guys... In fact, they are much more interesting to me than the shoot-before-ask types (played Commissars twice with the FFG line).
But the stereotype certainly isn't that level-headed
The stereotype also has a high rate of death due to "multiple gunshots to back" and "grenade went off in tent"
Plus not a little “accidentally fell into anti-lictor pit trap before the warning marks were put up.”
Besides, a “fresh from the scholam” commissar is called a “storm trooper” – you don’t get the big hat until you’ve served/survived a tour or two.
That bit of fluff has been changed, while at the Schola Progenium kids are sorted out to the best of their abilities.
Commissars are now trained from a young age, including a special teaching moment where they are handed a loaded gun and told to shoot their best friend, just to teach them that after shooting such a good person, shooting traitors and shirkers of duty isn't hard at all.
This is also backed up by the Gaunts Ghosts and Ciaphas Cain novels, where both main characters become cadet commissars and not stormtroopers upon leaving the Progenium.
BrookM wrote: That bit of fluff has been changed, while at the Schola Progenium kids are sorted out to the best of their abilities.
Commissars are now trained from a young age, including a special teaching moment where they are handed a loaded gun and told to shoot their best friend, just to teach them that after shooting such a good person, shooting traitors and shirkers of duty isn't hard at all.
That's quite fethed up!
But wait - what if your best friend is another Cader Commissar?
Yes, basically they shoot a fellow cadet, more often than not one they have a good understanding with. This is a test of character and a reminder of what their duties are as an Officio Prefectus officer. Why hesitate shooting a coward or deserter when you already have the blood on your hands of a better person than they'll ever be.
And yes, this is from the codex, both in the fluff and the short story segment.
Just to throw some general info out: I know that Ulisses NA is planning on hosting events and/or running games at Origins Game Fair (June 13 - 17 in Columbus, Ohio) and Gen Con (August 2 - 5 in Indianapolis, Indiana). They are also taking in part in Free RPG Day on June 16 and will be releasing a Quickstart packet for the event. Apologies if this has been mentioned before.
BrookM wrote: Yes, basically they shoot a fellow cadet, more often than not one they have a good understanding with. This is a test of character and a reminder of what their duties are as an Officio Prefectus officer. Why hesitate shooting a coward or deserter when you already have the blood on your hands of a better person than they'll ever be.
Wow! No wonder the Imperium is so poorly managed. Lose half your Cadets in a blind show of faith that favours the worst cadets.One can se why Chaos and gene stealer cults are so widespread.
Dunno about that, they also produce scribes, munitorum officers, Sororitas and Inquisitors, so it may just be the Prefectus and Militarum Tempestus who are off the rails during training.
In order to pass you must execute the other cadet.
In all seriousness though, this is just another horribly edgy bit of writing on part of the GW design studio.
Is it effectively a duel between the two or is the other cadet just an unwitting pawn/target in the test? I suppose that's added incentive to not score in the bottom 50% percentile by graduation in the Schola....
BrookM wrote: Dunno about that, they also produce scribes, munitorum officers, Sororitas and Inquisitors, so it may just be the Prefectus and Militarum Tempestus who are off the rails during training.
Yes, sorry, I meant primarily the Tempestus section.
In order to pass you must execute the other cadet.
In all seriousness though, this is just another horribly edgy bit of writing on part of the GW design studio.
It actually really fits in with the atmosphere of 40k. Commissars are one of the grimdarker bits of Imperium fluff.
Besides, it makes sense. A commissar can't always afford compassion and mercy, so you need to teach them that. When the time comes, a commissar needs to do his/her duty without hesitating because of compassion. And losing half your cadets is no problem when you have as much people as the Imperium does. Life is expendable.
BrookM wrote: Which I have said so, twice, in other posts now.
No, you said it is "horribly edgy" when in fact it fits in seamlessly with the general tone of 40k as a whole. It is not edgy if it does not stand out from the rest.
BrookM wrote: Which I have said so, twice, in other posts now.
No, you said it is "horribly edgy" when in fact it fits in seamlessly with the general tone of 40k as a whole. It is not edgy if it does not stand out from the rest.
No, it really is horribly edgy. It doesn't make Comissars any more terrifying, it just makes them incredibly one dimensional. It makes them people who kill on command regardless of their own intuition. Shooting their fellow cadets, regardless of that cadets performance or any reason, is idiotic and any commissar who actually follows that line of thought through in battle will be killed or allowed to be killed by their own soldiers. This method of training pretty much guarantees that only the most psychopathic survive and they are the least fit to actually lead men in an effective way.
There's a reason that the most famous and celebrated Commissars (Gaunt, Cain, Yarrick) in 40K are those who led through example, intelligence and inspiration rather than fear (even if one of them achieved that purely by accident and then had to appear to live up to that to continue to survive).
BrookM wrote: Which I have said so, twice, in other posts now.
No, you said it is "horribly edgy" when in fact it fits in seamlessly with the general tone of 40k as a whole. It is not edgy if it does not stand out from the rest.
No, it really is horribly edgy. It doesn't make Comissars any more terrifying, it just makes them incredibly one dimensional. It makes them people who kill on command regardless of their own intuition. Shooting their fellow cadets, regardless of that cadets performance or any reason, is idiotic and any commissar who actually follows that line of thought through in battle will be killed or allowed to be killed by their own soldiers. This method of training pretty much guarantees that only the most psychopathic survive and they are the least fit to actually lead men in an effective way.
There's a reason that the most famous and celebrated Commissars (Gaunt, Cain, Yarrick) in 40K are those who led through example, intelligence and inspiration rather than fear (even if one of them achieved that purely by accident and then had to appear to live up to that to continue to survive).
A Commissar does have to kill on command. Commissars are supposed to inspire their men, but when words are not enough they must not even have the slightest hesitation about shooting them to force them onwards. A good commissar is one that is more feared by his own men than the enemy is. The very best commissars do not need fear at all, but not everyone can be one of the very best. That is why commissars must be able to kill their comrades without hesitation. That is their duty. Commissars must be psychopaths. The ability to shoot their friends in the back without hesitation is their whole raison d'être.
BrookM wrote: Which I have said so, twice, in other posts now.
No, you said it is "horribly edgy" when in fact it fits in seamlessly with the general tone of 40k as a whole. It is not edgy if it does not stand out from the rest.
No, it really is horribly edgy. It doesn't make Comissars any more terrifying, it just makes them incredibly one dimensional. It makes them people who kill on command regardless of their own intuition. Shooting their fellow cadets, regardless of that cadets performance or any reason, is idiotic and any commissar who actually follows that line of thought through in battle will be killed or allowed to be killed by their own soldiers. This method of training pretty much guarantees that only the most psychopathic survive and they are the least fit to actually lead men in an effective way.
There's a reason that the most famous and celebrated Commissars (Gaunt, Cain, Yarrick) in 40K are those who led through example, intelligence and inspiration rather than fear (even if one of them achieved that purely by accident and then had to appear to live up to that to continue to survive).
And yet this is the same Imperial Guard that has Chenkov continue to exist, and continue making medals sacrificing millions of guardsmen upon the battlefield.
No, you said it is "horribly edgy" when in fact it fits in seamlessly with the general tone of 40k as a whole. It is not edgy if it does not stand out from the rest.
An indoctrination programme coupled with intensive chem therapy that would make the Commissars unable to form emotional attachments to other human beings would fit with the general tone of 40k. Executing your best friend is the kind of stuff one expects from a dystopian YA novel.
No, you said it is "horribly edgy" when in fact it fits in seamlessly with the general tone of 40k as a whole. It is not edgy if it does not stand out from the rest.
An indoctrination programme coupled with intensive chem therapy that would make the Commissars unable to form emotional attachments to other human beings would fit with the general tone of 40k. Executing your best friend is the kind of stuff one expects from a dystopian YA novel.
Yeah, it's more than a little over the top and certainly ridiculous. I am surprised it is in the latest codex.
Still, we'll be free to ignore that in our RPG setting, if we want!
No, you said it is "horribly edgy" when in fact it fits in seamlessly with the general tone of 40k as a whole. It is not edgy if it does not stand out from the rest.
An indoctrination programme coupled with intensive chem therapy that would make the Commissars unable to form emotional attachments to other human beings would fit with the general tone of 40k. Executing your best friend is the kind of stuff one expects from a dystopian YA novel.
Is not that it is not proper 40k. It is. The problem is with how gratuituous its throw away in the Codex fluff. Is like... the author didn't even care to think about something with a bit more thought put into it. He went for the easy way. Its a meh at best, all the Tempestus Scions 7th Codex's Fluff.
I will watch for a Gen Con announcement and/or discussion panel to attend
Not too long ago, Kaiser did a livestream while they drew the third intro comic for Wrath & Glory. There was a Ulisses NA rep in chilling in the chat box as well. The UNA rep rather cagily mentioned that they'd have some kind Wrath & Glory announcement at Origins. My wild speculations are that either Wrath & Glory will go on pre-sale at Origins with an option to pick up it up at Gen Con or Ulisses NA will have their Free RPG Day Quickstart available at their booth during Origins. That's last bit of wild speculation is based on the fact June 17 is both Free RPG Day and the last day of Origins.
As for Gen Con... It's pretty much guaranteed that Ulisses NA will be running demo games. There's also a good chance your GM could be a fellow Dakkaite.
EnTyme wrote: That's honestly the best way to handle any RPG. Some scenarios work great with Theatre of the Mind, but you should always be able to use minis for the encounters where positioning and cover are important.
Only if you've got a table handy. I've played 3rd ed D&D and the IKRPG 2nd edition without miniatures with no issues. In fact, using miniatures with the IKRPG was worse because we were all crowded round a coffee table.
EnTyme wrote: That's honestly the best way to handle any RPG. Some scenarios work great with Theatre of the Mind, but you should always be able to use minis for the encounters where positioning and cover are important.
Only if you've got a table handy. I've played 3rd ed D&D and the IKRPG 2nd edition without miniatures with no issues. In fact, using miniatures with the IKRPG was worse because we were all crowded round a coffee table.
Whiteboards are also a great way to let people know is going on, though they're somewhat less common unless you're a student group who meets up to play in an empty classroom.
With regards the comic, we used a somewhat similar system in our house-ruled FATEcore/Accelerated Dresden Files game. Big difference is we could nominate our other fellow PCs to act after us rather than enemies. First person was decided by the narrative and/or peoples skills and powers (the super fast inhuman abilities of fey and vampire characters were highly useful here). The last person to act in a round would nominate the person to start the next round (inhumanly fast people could seize the initiative, however, if they were faster than the person being nominated).
So you could go with all the PCs one after the other for a massive alpha strike but then be left with all the remaining enemies free to act together and then nominate themselves to start the next round. Or you could stagger the PC activations. It sped up simple encounters as we could basically instantly blitz them (not many normal human mooks can stand up to a fey unicorn pegasus with a carriage, black ops part spider monster thing, friendly neighbourhood pawnbroker magician who once blew up Montserrat, Scion of Thor complete with Mjolnir to act as his magical focus of his lightning based smiting, vampire hunter descended from Van Helsing and a drunken Irish terrorist with divine powers), but the harder fights were still a challenge as the supernatural creatures had the abilities and powers to steal the initiative at the beginnings of rounds or were suitably tough to withstand our attacks and leave us high and dry with no option to counter them if we tried to alpha strike them.
Don't forget the news at the bottom of the final comic page..
Eager to try Wrath & Glory for yourself? Look for your first opportunities in June of 2018!
A Quickstart will be available through Free RPG Day! Make sure your local game store is participating!
And the very first public demo sessions will be at Origins Game Fair in Columbus, Ohio! Play with the designers and hang out with the team!
Keep watching this website for more details!
I was worried at first, but the more I read about it and talk to friends about it, I think the simplicty of this new system is a really great thing. the FFRPGs could be a bit daunting at times for my friends, who like the setting but aren't diehard 40k fans. They want to play 40kRPGs, but just couldn't get into the rules. This looks alot more user friendly, and I think thats gonna attract alot of people to playing this game. I'm excited!
This looks like exactly what I want from any RPG. It seems simple, fresh and modern. If it had Fate style keyword tagging as well I'd be ecstatic. I love the FFG40kRPGs for their in depth background but the system was frankly terrible.
Looking forward to finding out more about character creation.
In order to pass you must execute the other cadet.
Yes, morally speaking these are your worst cadets.
The whole of 40K wreaks of edgelordism that appeals to 13 year old boys of all ages and genders. Even I am not immune to its lure, but some of it is bordering on Paranoia/Dredd parody rather than grimdark. Would be fine as commentary, but I think the current studio actually believes in it. Heaven knows the *chans do.
In order to pass you must execute the other cadet.
Yes, morally speaking these are your worst cadets.
The whole of 40K wreaks of edgelordism that appeals to 13 year old boys of all ages and genders. Even I am not immune to its lure, but some of it is bordering on Paranoia/Dredd parody rather than grimdark. Would be fine as commentary, but I think the current studio actually believes in it. Heaven knows the *chans do.
Sweeping generalizations aside.
I tend to ignore that part of the Schola, it could simply be just a few of the Scholas that function that way. We know they (GW) have a history of saying something is one way everywhere and then giving examples of how that isnt the case later on down the road. It's your free pass to ignore what you dont like.
I'm starting to feel the system may be TOO simple, even when compared to 5E, but I'm quite excited to try it out to figure it out for myself if I like it or not.
Oh, and this comic is absolutely fantastic to show how a system works <3
In order to pass you must execute the other cadet.
Yes, morally speaking these are your worst cadets.
The whole of 40K wreaks of edgelordism that appeals to 13 year old boys of all ages and genders. Even I am not immune to its lure, but some of it is bordering on Paranoia/Dredd parody rather than grimdark. Would be fine as commentary, but I think the current studio actually believes in it. Heaven knows the *chans do.
Sweeping generalizations aside.
I tend to ignore that part of the Schola, it could simply be just a few of the Scholas that function that way. We know they (GW) have a history of saying something is one way everywhere and then giving examples of how that isnt the case later on down the road. It's your free pass to ignore what you dont like.
Indeed the Cain novels Schola was much more interesting to me - mostly typical British public school but with live firing on prisoners and interrogation classes. Just as dark but a bit more subtle.
They may adjust it - All Commissars used to have to be men - not now, same with the newer version of the Imperial Knights - that's gone.
Chairman Aeon wrote: The whole of 40K wreaks of edgelordism that appeals to 13 year old boys of all ages and genders. Even I am not immune to its lure, but some of it is bordering on Paranoia/Dredd parody rather than grimdark. Would be fine as commentary, but I think the current studio actually believes in it. Heaven knows the *chans do.
Not sure you're familiar with Warhammer 40k, but it kind of is a parody. That kind of is exactly what it was intended to be from the start. You know, right about the time another parody called Judge Dredd was coming to be. GW actually made the miniatures for the Judge Dredd miniatures game.
Also, the 'Chans' don't believe it. But they are keenly aware that certain God-Emperor memes send certain people into a flying, screeching rage and that, for some reason, is humorous to them. No one actually 'believes' in this stuff. It's just a gag. Might wanna step it back a bit and take a chill pill.
On to the matter at hand, I'm starting to worry that the character 'class' options may become too simplified. I was genuinely hoping for a game that let players choose to be a squad of Primaris Marines, or perhaps a Deathwatch Kill-Team, maybe even a group of Heretics with both traitor Astartes and human heretics. I was even hoping for the ability to play a Heresy-Era campaign.
Mr Morden wrote: Indeed the Cain novels Schola was much more interesting to me - mostly typical British public school but with live firing on prisoners and interrogation classes. Just as dark but a bit more subtle.
They may adjust it - All Commissars used to have to be men - not now, same with the newer version of the Imperial Knights - that's gone.
As I understood, you didn't have to 'kill' every other Cadet. There was just a brief story in the Tempestus Scions book where a guy was told to take a laspistol and shoot his friend in the school. The results of that aren't stated- for all we know, the pistol could have not fired. It was also implied that the two were getting far too close, something they don't want Commissars doing.
And I'm not sure where Commissars being all men came from, it might be true- but it did seem like they tried to put as many women as possible in the Sororitas
EnTyme wrote: That's honestly the best way to handle any RPG. Some scenarios work great with Theatre of the Mind, but you should always be able to use minis for the encounters where positioning and cover are important.
Only if you've got a table handy. I've played 3rd ed D&D and the IKRPG 2nd edition without miniatures with no issues. In fact, using miniatures with the IKRPG was worse because we were all crowded round a coffee table.
I don't mean that it should be required, just that their should be rules to support either method of representing combat.
Mr Morden wrote: Indeed the Cain novels Schola was much more interesting to me - mostly typical British public school but with live firing on prisoners and interrogation classes. Just as dark but a bit more subtle.
They may adjust it - All Commissars used to have to be men - not now, same with the newer version of the Imperial Knights - that's gone.
As I understood, you didn't have to 'kill' every other Cadet. There was just a brief story in the Tempestus Scions book where a guy was told to take a laspistol and shoot his friend in the school. The results of that aren't stated- for all we know, the pistol could have not fired. It was also implied that the two were getting far too close, something they don't want Commissars doing.
And I'm not sure where Commissars being all men came from, it might be true- but it did seem like they tried to put as many women as possible in the Sororitas
Older fluff - it used to state that (IIRC) Men from a Schola could be Inquisitors, Navy officers, Commissars etc. Women could only be Inquisitors or join the Adepta Sororitas.
More recent codexes tend to be more like BL novels and ignore that.
Be interesting to see what the RPG says - I seriously doubt it will have any gender restrictions except with regard to the Astartes and the Sororitas / Sisters of Silence, maybe Custodes - that's not clear but seems to be only male?
Every other Imperial organisation broadly does nt care although it can mean some headaches for say Commissars sorting out interpersonal relationships etc.
The commissar in that comic is a woman (at least, it looks like that's the case?) so the RPG's already (hopefully/thankfully) ignoring that part of the codex.
Not saying that they are bad, but they don't seem to be particuliarly original either. Must say that I really like the comic though
When they said they were going to do a full d6 based system this is pretty close to what I imagined. I was thinking vampire masquerade style and it seems to be extremely close especially with the wrath die and all. However that isn't a bad thing. I think the thing that will make or break the game for me will be character creation and classes.
Iron_Captain wrote: And losing half your cadets is no problem when you have as much people as the Imperium does. Life is expendable.
Actually, no, it is a problem because Commissars are prime human material. The best of the best. You're not talking about shooting some recruit from Bumfuck, Nowhere, type of manpower Imperium has excess of, you're talking about shooting a SAS/SBS/SEAL officer. Which is why that part of the new fluff is ridiculously stupid and grimderp to the point of grimdumb. Someone achieving 96% score needed to be a Commissar would still be perfect Tempestus leader, IG officer, of PDF commander. Throwing such men away - for no reason whatsoever - would make you dumber than the Nazis, because when they wasted their best recruits for comically stupid ideological reasons, at least it was in combat, not doing the enemy's work for them.
Iron_Captain wrote: No, you said it is "horribly edgy" when in fact it fits in seamlessly with the general tone of 40k as a whole. It is not edgy if it does not stand out from the rest.
It does though. Do you see Space Marines (well, at least the sane Chapters) wasting half of their geneseed by telling two scouts to murder each other? Do you see Custodes halving their numbers by having Initiates duel to the death? Sisters of Battle? Sisters of Silence? All other elite branches? No, they all want to keep as much potential recruit pool as possible alive, because prime human material that meets their standards is rare. New Commissar fluff is the odd one out, which is why it's so jarring and actually doesn't fit the Imperium. There is difference between spending lives, which Imperium does, and pointlessly trashing them for no gain...
His Master's Voice wrote: An indoctrination programme coupled with intensive chem therapy that would make the Commissars unable to form emotional attachments to other human beings would fit with the general tone of 40k. Executing your best friend is the kind of stuff one expects from a dystopian YA novel.
Maybe in Mechanicus. Or Krieg, at best. In normal IG, a 'morale officer' who doesn't understand their charges, and can't relate to them, is a liability. Not an asset. Cain repeats that million times in his diaries, and even then, he means someone callous and willing to shoot without thinking, not a literal automaton who doesn't 'get' other humans at all, which would be much worse.
Even then, Krieg uses people deemed not worth of being in the Guard as the enemy, sure they'll kill a few Kriegsmen in training, but its not cutting Krieg's output of soldiers in half.
Not saying that they are bad, but they don't seem to be particuliarly original either. Must say that I really like the comic though
Prefer ones that work to ones that are original - hopefully it will be the former.
Actually I think that’s the perfect thing for an RPG; bland, simple, functional core rules that enable you to get on with a wild-ass story. It’s one of the things I really like about DND 5ed., instead of having to trawl through the books or debate about whether the random action someone just thought of is a +2 or +4, you can just say “gives you advantage” and crack on. The excitement should come from the story and the players, not the rules.
Not saying that they are bad, but they don't seem to be particuliarly original either. Must say that I really like the comic though
Prefer ones that work to ones that are original - hopefully it will be the former.
Actually I think that’s the perfect thing for an RPG; bland, simple, functional core rules that enable you to get on with a wild-ass story. It’s one of the things I really like about DND 5ed., instead of having to trawl through the books or debate about whether the random action someone just thought of is a +2 or +4, you can just say “gives you advantage” and crack on. The excitement should come from the story and the players, not the rules.
This. Overly complex rules can absolutely ruin the flow and excitement of the game.
I can remember reading a blog post a while ago about an Aliens RPG with a very complex combat system. The devs tried to show it off by recreating the "eat this!" moment from the film, what should be a quick and awesome moment. It took ages to resolve and ended up not even recreating that moment.
EDIT: Found the game system. It was the Aliens Adventure Game. Apparently a combat encounter between 2 PCs and 5 to 6 aliens could take 5 hours to resolve where you had to resolve each round fired individually, which required at least 5 charts, and the guns typically fired in ten round bursts.
Apparently a combat encounter between 2 PCs and 5 to 6 aliens could take 5 hours to resolve where you had to resolve each round fired individually, which required at least 5 charts, and the guns typically fired in ten round bursts.
Utter insanity, the simpler the rule system the better imo. The more time spent having fun and the less time studying the rules bumf the better! It also creates more room in the book for background material which is much more inspiring.
Apparently a combat encounter between 2 PCs and 5 to 6 aliens could take 5 hours to resolve where you had to resolve each round fired individually, which required at least 5 charts, and the guns typically fired in ten round bursts.
Utter insanity, the simpler the rule system the better imo. The more time spent having fun and the less time studying the rules bumf the better! It also creates more room in the book for background material which is much more inspiring.
Personally I agree - especially now I am getting old and can't be bothered but I do recall in younger days we did in fact have the time and sometimes it was quite fun. Also some people do really enjoy "crunch" - Rolemaster ad their ilk
Irbis wrote: Actually, no, it is a problem because Commissars are prime human material. The best of the best. You're not talking about shooting some recruit from Bumfuck, Nowhere, type of manpower Imperium has excess of, you're talking about shooting a SAS/SBS/SEAL officer. Which is why that part of the new fluff is ridiculously stupid and grimderp to the point of grimdumb. Someone achieving 96% score needed to be a Commissar would still be perfect Tempestus leader, IG officer, of PDF commander. Throwing such men away - for no reason whatsoever - would make you dumber than the Nazis, because when they wasted their best recruits for comically stupid ideological reasons, at least it was in combat, not doing the enemy's work for them.
You also forget, the Commissars in question that I recall were implied to be forming bonds with other students, and you can't have that. I would chance it to say every now and then, it's perfectly understandable if they want to make sure the guy who could be responsible for ensuring the loyalty, morale, and discipline of thousands of men on a crucial planet has no bonds. If that means he's gotta pop his playmate in the skull with a stubber behind study hall, then so be it.
It's also implied that every Schola is different in some ways. And it never said this was the norm in all the schools. Hell, you have drill Abbots that will smash your skull in with a hammer for disobedience. I'm pretty sure they have a standard of 'acceptable casualties'.
Also, while we're pretending 'kill your buddy' is the worst possible thing in 40k, there's that whole thing about Crimson Guard in Star Wars. And in IDW's earlier run on GI Joe, Cobra Vipers were trained in squads of 5-7, and 'success' meant one came back alive from their live-fire exercise. Oh, and Spetsnaz used to lose like 30% of their guys in training all the time. This isn't exclusive to 40k.
Calling out other stupid fictional “training” programmes doesn’t make this particular one less stupid.
Also, a man with no attachments is one that will run at the first sign of trouble because why does he care if the mission is a success?
Mr_Rose wrote: Calling out other stupid fictional “training” programmes doesn’t make this particular one less stupid.
Also, a man with no attachments is one that will run at the first sign of trouble because why does he care if the mission is a success?
But Commissars *do* have attachments. Or an attachment, rather: The Imperium. Theyre supposed to be fanatically loyal to the cause, not the people. Theyre supposed to make sure that everyone does as theyre told, no matter what.
Irbis wrote: Actually, no, it is a problem because Commissars are prime human material. The best of the best. You're not talking about shooting some recruit from Bumfuck, Nowhere, type of manpower Imperium has excess of, you're talking about shooting a SAS/SBS/SEAL officer. Which is why that part of the new fluff is ridiculously stupid and grimderp to the point of grimdumb. Someone achieving 96% score needed to be a Commissar would still be perfect Tempestus leader, IG officer, of PDF commander. Throwing such men away - for no reason whatsoever - would make you dumber than the Nazis, because when they wasted their best recruits for comically stupid ideological reasons, at least it was in combat, not doing the enemy's work for them.
You also forget, the Commissars in question that I recall were implied to be forming bonds with other students, and you can't have that. I would chance it to say every now and then, it's perfectly understandable if they want to make sure the guy who could be responsible for ensuring the loyalty, morale, and discipline of thousands of men on a crucial planet has no bonds. If that means he's gotta pop his playmate in the skull with a stubber behind study hall, then so be it.
It's also implied that every Schola is different in some ways. And it never said this was the norm in all the schools. Hell, you have drill Abbots that will smash your skull in with a hammer for disobedience. I'm pretty sure they have a standard of 'acceptable casualties'.
Also, while we're pretending 'kill your buddy' is the worst possible thing in 40k, there's that whole thing about Crimson Guard in Star Wars. And in IDW's earlier run on GI Joe, Cobra Vipers were trained in squads of 5-7, and 'success' meant one came back alive from their live-fire exercise. Oh, and Spetsnaz used to lose like 30% of their guys in training all the time. This isn't exclusive to 40k.
Thanks for the clarifcation - if its the usual - well this bit of the Imperium does it this way but tis not the norm thats all good for me.
Galas wrote: The best depiction of Eldar armour for me is the Cinematic Trailer of DoW 3. I love how the armour of the banshee look.
But yeah, nice artwork.
Agreed. No one else captures the alien bone craft like that trailer did. But yes still a sweet concept
Mr_Rose wrote: Also, a man with no attachments is one that will run at the first sign of trouble because why does he care if the mission is a success?
We used to have a saying, "A Marine on duty has no friends". Attachments for a Commissar cloud their judgement. He must learn that he cannot bond with someone, it could make him vulnerable. Don't like the fluff? Ignore it and drive on.
Mr_Rose wrote: Also, a man with no attachments is one that will run at the first sign of trouble because why does he care if the mission is a success?
We used to have a saying, "A Marine on duty has no friends". Attachments for a Commissar cloud their judgement. He must learn that he cannot bond with someone, it could make him vulnerable. Don't like the fluff? Ignore it and drive on.
Except that is patently not the case. The bonds forged by Cain, Yarrick and Gaunt were what made them so successful as leaders and what made the men under their command so willing to fight, and die, for them.
Mr_Rose wrote: Also, a man with no attachments is one that will run at the first sign of trouble because why does he care if the mission is a success?
We used to have a saying, "A Marine on duty has no friends". Attachments for a Commissar cloud their judgement. He must learn that he cannot bond with someone, it could make him vulnerable. Don't like the fluff? Ignore it and drive on.
Except that is patently not the case. The bonds forged by Cain, Yarrick and Gaunt were what made them so successful as leaders and what made the men under their command so willing to fight, and die, for them.
Mr_Rose wrote: Also, a man with no attachments is one that will run at the first sign of trouble because why does he care if the mission is a success?
We used to have a saying, "A Marine on duty has no friends". Attachments for a Commissar cloud their judgement. He must learn that he cannot bond with someone, it could make him vulnerable. Don't like the fluff? Ignore it and drive on.
Except that is patently not the case. The bonds forged by Cain, Yarrick and Gaunt were what made them so successful as leaders and what made the men under their command so willing to fight, and die, for them.
Stephan Rhodes is our guest as we discuss the upcoming brand new Warhammer 40KRPG – Wrath & Glory from Ulisses –US. You can find out more via the home page here:
That sterile, white background really takes away from that picture. I guess that they're trying to maintain consistency, but they should have put that picture on a darker background.
Where are you guys getting this art from? I can't find it anywhere on the site?
I agree that simpler systems are better from a narrative and engagement perspective. The bits within systems can always be tweaked to change things up or make them more interesting. Imagine if this combat had happened in a functioning promethium refinery with hot slag all over the place? Or perhaps the heroes will be affected by the cold if the battle takes too long? My point really is that you can always add complexity, it's much more difficult to take it away in my experience.
This looks real interesting but I think the most difficult part will be finding people to play with! This is niche of the niche.
EnTyme wrote: That sterile, white background really takes away from that picture. I guess that they're trying to maintain consistency, but they should have put that picture on a darker background.
They probably don't have backgrounds so they can be fit into the layout of the book. In print, they'll have whatever background treatment the chapter they're in uses, and may have text wrapped around the contours, so they won't be on a big rectangular field of white.
BrookM wrote: The proportions are a bit off on the marine.
Quite off.
It has a very action figure feel to it. I imagine this is to help the games image by toning down its gonzo over-the-top background. Make it more playable to the few who have no idea what this setting is.
EnTyme wrote: That sterile, white background really takes away from that picture. I guess that they're trying to maintain consistency, but they should have put that picture on a darker background.
They probably don't have backgrounds so they can be fit into the layout of the book. In print, they'll have whatever background treatment the chapter they're in uses, and may have text wrapped around the contours, so they won't be on a big rectangular field of white.
Oh, I know that. There actually seem to be a few digital seams around the boots on this picture. I'm assuming these are the digital art files they're using for promo work, but they'll be superimposed on the page in the books. I just mean they aren't doing themselves any favors with the white backgrounds, and it really shows on this piece since the marine is wearing white armor. For promo images, they could put this on any background they choose, and it probably would have been better to use a darker background with some sort of subtle texture.
Yeah I’m not so keen on that space marine. It seems the artists are copying the models a little too much without applying much of their own creativity, like a lot of the good 40k art has in it. Still nicely executed but has a little less personality than it could
Some more news released in a podcast here with writer Stephen Rhodes.
Pertinent information - some is repeating what we already know:
- Steohen is core rulebook writer - mostly mechanics - adventuring, combat, investigations
- System is Dice Pool (Equipment, Skills, Attribute) vs Difficulty Rating including Wrath Die
- 4 or 5 are success and 6 is two successes. 6 on the Wrath Die is special good. 1 on Wrath Die is special complication
- 6s can also be transferred to effects if beyond what's needed for success
- Investigation Elements (Judge; Clues/Evidence; Cues/Rumors; Locations; Frauds)
- Cue leads to a Location, where you find a Clue to prove your case to a the Judge
- Frauds lead the PCs astray
- Tiers set campaign difficulty
- Tier 1 - SM Neophyte, Ork Boy, Eldar Guardian, Imperial Guardsman
- Tier 2 - Ork Kommando
- Tier 3 - Space Marines, Eldar Warlock, Ork Nob or Wierdboy
- Tier 4 - Primaris Marine, SM Librarian
- Tier 5 - Lords
- Characters have keywords - much like the tabletop game
- Allows PCs to affect certain things, and not others
- Also gives common rules framework
- Vehicle rules exist
- Psychic powers exist
- Quick-start booklet will be at Free PRG Day
- Game releases at GenCon 2018
I agree that simpler systems are better from a narrative and engagement perspective. The bits within systems can always be tweaked to change things up or make them more interesting. Imagine if this combat had happened in a functioning promethium refinery with hot slag all over the place? Or perhaps the heroes will be affected by the cold if the battle takes too long? My point really is that you can always add complexity, it's much more difficult to take it away in my experience.
Agreed, but you need rules to give some weight to that complexity. If too few things have ready mechanical support, then I'm going to get annoyed because it feels like the game's making me do all the work, and it's nice when there's a tangible difference between different options (weapons, psychic powers, etc) that let characters feel different from each other.
Though I agree in general, I've come to strongly prefer simple and elegant systems. I think a recent Pathfinder game was what tipped the balance, where the rules-savvy players had optimised Fighter2 / Monk3 / Paladin1 / Prestige Class 4 / Magical Girl 3 / Caped Crusader 1 characters that could solo a lot of encounters, while others just ended up looking bored because they couldn't compete. A big chunk of the sessions were wasted flipping through books to find out the exact wording on one out of hundreds of spells, and a climactic boss fight turned into a joke because the DM mistook one rule for another. I'm not a teenager any more, and memorising and mastering complex systems lost its geeky charm a while ago.
Designer Diary - Mixed Groups
Greetings readers, this month’s Wrath & Glory designer diary continues to focus on character generation—specifically, about how the Dark Imperium shapes what kinds of characters adventure together amongst these bloodstained stars.
The galaxy has been rent asunder by a massive warp storm known as the Cicatrix Maledictum—the Great Rift. This raging split in space and time has rent the Imperium of Man in two. On one side lies the Imperium Sanctus, home of Holy Terra, a region of space where the Imperium is mostly able to function as it has endured for the last 10,000 years. On the other side lies the Imperium Nihilus, the Dark Imperium, and it is here that worlds lie under the greatest threat. In the Dark Imperium, the Astronomican that guides ships through the Warp is only glimpsed like a campfire through a shadowy forest. Astropathic messages are unreliable, and passage across the Great Rift from one side to the other is all but impossible.
Entire sectors of space are cut off and isolated from one another. Interstellar travel is unreliable at best, and far more dangerous than before. Systems of worlds close to the Great Rift must fend for themselves against the encroachment of madness, the predations of opportunistic alien species, and the foul schemes of the Ruinous Powers of Chaos.
Thus, the Dark Imperium is a place that is in dire need of heroes. Some are the last survivors of their military forces, others are those who became separated by ill-fortune. Still more arrive from those voidships that somehow manage to reach their destination.
These are desperate times in the Dark Imperium—individuals that would ordinarily return at once to their original organization have little choice but to remain. Attempting to journey beyond the Great Rift is tantamount to throwing one’s life away. Thus, unusual alliances and strange bedfellows are the norm in the Imperium Nihilus, for many worlds have no one else to rely on.
Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay: Wrath & Glory is set in the Dark Imperium, and thus, we have embraced this opportunity to present a setting in which players can take on nearly any of the iconic Warhammer 40,000 roles in their adventures. Each group of players and the game master must first decide their Framework—the context for who the heroes are, what they are doing, and why.
In the Imperium Nihilus, the default context is that the player characters work together because they are all these worlds can call on for aid against dire threats. Thus, a Tactical Space Marine of the White Scars Chapter fights alongside a Sister of Battle from the Order of the Sanctified Shield. An Astra Militarum Commissar watches the back of her Adeptus Mechanicus Skitarius companion. A Ministorum priest helps an Imperial Guardsman overcome the challenges that lie ahead.
This is not an unusual group of heroes for the Dark Imperium, nor is it the only combination possible. Wrath & Glory contains rules to play as many different frameworks. Some examples include: a group of underhive scum, Chaos-tainted cultists, Ork mercenaries, or Eldar wanderers. The character creation rules, as I’ve gone over during the last few months, offer a wide variety of options for players and a great deal of freedom in the types of characters—plus their skills and abilities—that the players want.
Keep an eye right here on www.ulissesnorthamerica.com for more news about Wrath & Glory coming soon!
schoon wrote: - Tiers set campaign difficulty
- Tier 1 - SM Neophyte, Ork Boy, Eldar Guardian, Imperial Guardsman
- Tier 2 - Ork Kommando
- Tier 3 - Space Marines, Eldar Warlock, Ork Nob or Wierdboy
- Tier 4 - Primaris Marine, SM Librarian
- Tier 5 - Lords
- Quick-start booklet will be at Free PRG Day
Loving all the mentions of Orks. Will hopefully be able to get a group together to play as the meenist and greenist.
Will the quick start booklet be available online or is it a hard-copy, event thing only?
Elemental wrote: Agreed, but you need rules to give some weight to that complexity. If too few things have ready mechanical support, then I'm going to get annoyed because it feels like the game's making me do all the work, and it's nice when there's a tangible difference between different options (weapons, psychic powers, etc) that let characters feel different from each other.
Though I agree in general, I've come to strongly prefer simple and elegant systems. I think a recent Pathfinder game was what tipped the balance, where the rules-savvy players had optimised Fighter2 / Monk3 / Paladin1 / Prestige Class 4 / Magical Girl 3 / Caped Crusader 1 characters that could solo a lot of encounters, while others just ended up looking bored because they couldn't compete. A big chunk of the sessions were wasted flipping through books to find out the exact wording on one out of hundreds of spells, and a climactic boss fight turned into a joke because the DM mistook one rule for another. I'm not a teenager any more, and memorising and mastering complex systems lost its geeky charm a while ago.
Yea there's a balance to be had for sure but for me I always find it easier to add complexity rather than take it away. It's probably my group. There's nothing I hate more than the dreaded flicking through a book while you're supposed to be tensely fighting for your life against the big bad. We put a timer on player turns because combat just became tedious, lol.
Another update on the game - this time from Episode 93 of the Grim Dark podcast.
Pertinent information:
- W&G will have a Free RPG Day offering (June 16th)
Ulisses will demo the game at Origins 2018 (June 13-17)
- The dice pool system scales better than the old percentile system
- Corruption & Insanity has been integrated into the mechanics and will be subtle
- Basic guideline for new players - 4+ is good; 6 is best
- Characters are well balanced against each other - you can play almost anything in the 40K background
- 4 species and 32 character archetypes in the core book, and many more on the way
- Corsair, Warlock, and Ranger art has been released - and one would guess these are archetypes
- You can play any of the old FFG themes with the new system from Gritty to Deathwatch
- PCs can move through Tiers as they progress - new Keyword, more Influence, special gear, and life event that put him there
- The Tier System
- - - Balances characters
- - - Provides appropriate threats
- - - Limits dice pools - higher Tiers throw more dice
- There will be "quickstart packages" that allow you to play quickly if you prefer to start right away, or you can do everything yourself
- Investigation system is in book
- Influence system for asserting authority and acquiring gear is in the book
- Wargear detail in core book is at "Boltgun" level as opposed to "XX Pattern Boltgun"
- No tracking each bullet, just generalized reloads
- Imperial psykers, Rogue psykers, Eldar Warlocks are in game
- "Perils of the Warp" make psychic powers potentially dangerous
- NPCs operate on somewhat different, but very similar, rules
- There are Mobs as NPCs - a group of mooks - that makes mass opponents easier to run
- Imperium Nihilus (Dark Imperium) and Imperium Sanctis are the two sides of the Great Rift
- Operating in the new background means the universe is much more threatening
- W&G will have its own area of space, the Gilead System, which will have its own campaign
- Further campaigns will have their own areas of space, but may start/link to Gilead
- The meta-plot will not overshadow PC actions - connected, but PCs choice will be most important aspect
- Ulisses is coordinating closely with GW on background and events as GW advances the meta
- Ulisses will introduce new things particular to their sandbox as well as those established by GW - Ross will be at Origins & GenCon, as well as a few local cons
- Imperium Nihilus sourcebook will be in 2018
- Wargear detail in core book is at "Boltgun" level as opposed to "XX Pattern Boltgun"
Really? So far the comic has the lasgun described as a Kantrael Pattern Lasgun. Perhaps its to help differentiate it further from the hotshot/longlas weapons, but I doubt it. Or perhaps its just in the name.
- Wargear detail in core book is at "Boltgun" level as opposed to "XX Pattern Boltgun"
Really? So far the comic has the lasgun described as a Kantrael Pattern Lasgun. Perhaps its to help differentiate it further from the hotshot/longlas weapons, but I doubt it. Or perhaps its just in the name.
Might just be flavour text with no actual in game effect. So if you want your character to have a particular pattern of boltgun/lasgun/whatever as part of their characterisation (maybe they use an antique pattern of lasgun which is no longer produced as the forge world which made it was lost), you can do.
Pertinent new or reinforced info:
- Tier 3 is the default power level (Space Marines, Eldar Warlock, Ork Nob or Wierdboy)
- You can - of course - play any Tier you want
- Character Archetypes help with character creation, but are loose guides as opposed to strict "classes"
- Orks, Eldar, and Humans will be 3 of the 4 species
- Archetypes include Scavvy for mutant characters
- Imperium Nihilus book (in 2018) will have more races and archetypes, including Dark Mechanicus
- The Wrath Die allows for Crits (6) and Complications (1)
- Wrath is aplayer resource; Glory is a group resource
- Wrath & Glory (the resources, not the game title) can be used for extra dice, re-rolls, narrative declarations, and more
- Campaign Cards are like 40K-driven special events that change the feel of the scene and give all PCs a Wrath point
- Dark Tides will be an initial adventure anthology based on an ocean world
- The Beginners Box will have special dice, an adventure, and the CRB
- Doom of the Eldar, the 2nd campaign book will have Eldar archetypes, Craftworld Eldar, Exodites, the Black Library, etc.[/list]
That all sounds good to me. I'm particularly liking the way they seem to be breaking out a bit from beyond the areas developed by the earlier roleplaying and wargames.
Of course the 40K setting has water worlds, but I don't think we've seen much action on any of them in published stuff. Similarly, Exodites are established but have not been developed more.
... in fact, if we're going to see Exodites for the rpg, might that imply that they're on the table for the wargame once the established factions all have their codices?
Is that a female priest? Wheren't priest all male? (I'm asking here, not because I'm opposed to the idea of female priest, quite the contrary, I love it)
Galas wrote: Is that a female priest? Wheren't priest all male? (I'm asking here, not because I'm opposed to the idea of female priest, quite the contrary, I love it)
AFAIK only Marines (and stuff like it i.e. Custodes) and Sisters of Battle/Silence are one-gender only. Everything else in the Imperium gets people from any gender
Vector Strike wrote: AFAIK only Marines (and stuff like it i.e. Custodes) and Sisters of Battle/Silence are one-gender only. Everything else in the Imperium gets people from any gender
Yes, that...from the beginning. It's why GW publicly stated last year they were going to try to rebalance the gender inequality going forward with minis. Hence Van Saar gang.
Galas wrote: Is that a female priest? Wheren't priest all male? (I'm asking here, not because I'm opposed to the idea of female priest, quite the contrary, I love it)
In the Commissar Cain novels, there is a female tech priest who ultimately becomes a Magos in one of the later books. As for decidedly feminine features in art or on a model, we're talking about a cult where they lop off almost everything organic so there isn't really anything stopping the generic non-humaniod priests/magos' from being female. There's even a term for high ranking female tech priests, Magos Domina.
Galas wrote: Sorry warboss I was talking about a normal priest of the Imperial Cult, not a adeptus mechanicus priest, I know those can be female!
My mistake. I looked at the pic on my phone and saw a red robed priest and incorrectly assumed the pic (and your subsequent question) was referring to a mechanicus priest.
What’s interesting to me is that doesn’t look anything like any official GW model that I am aware of. The past few years, all GW art and most third party licensed stuff I’ve seen has had to very closely follow official products. Hint of something new?
No. All the previous RPG books had plenty of art not based on miniatures. Dark Heresy is full of unique aliens, chaos entities and Imperial agents such as Adeptus Arbites. Even Deathwatch made up things like Deathwatch chaplains, techmarines, etc.
It’s kinda weird; she’s in red like a cogboy but has no obvious cybernetics, she has a staff like a sanctioned witch but no obvious Warp-halo, and she’s covered in sacred text like some kinda daemonhost but is clearly wandering free… I really want to know what she’s supposed to be.
Mr_Rose wrote: It’s kinda weird; she’s in red like a cogboy but has no obvious cybernetics, she has a staff like a sanctioned witch but no obvious Warp-halo, and she’s covered in sacred text like some kinda daemonhost but is clearly wandering free… I really want to know what she’s supposed to be.
She looks like a priest to me. I mean, she doesn't even have a staff, it's the assistant that's carrying it like a banner and the whole thing covered in sacred text... uh, even space marines are covered with that, I think that should be pretty standard in 40k.
Chairman Aeon wrote: It's why GW publicly stated last year they were going to try to rebalance the gender inequality going forward with minis. Hence Van Saar gang.
A single model?
Balance achieved!
*snicker*
And this isn't GW. The 40KRPG's have always shown off women in every single Imperial role (except the Space Marines, for obvious reasons).
AndrewGPaul wrote: No. All the previous RPG books had plenty of art not based on miniatures. Dark Heresy is full of unique aliens, chaos entities and Imperial agents such as Adeptus Arbites. Even Deathwatch made up things like Deathwatch chaplains, techmarines, etc.
Yes, but that’s before the recent embargo. All of the codices used to have cool artwork of non-model stuff too, but no longer.
John Stephenson at Imagine Better Worlds has posted a sneak peek at maps that he has been working on for Wrath & Glory. These are part of the Starter Set.
What do you suppose is going on here?
And here's what the creator has to say on this all:
Ork Workshop for Ulisses US -
Warhammer 40k Wrath & Glory starter set
I recently completed several maps for Ulisses. They were for Warhammer 40k, which was a very cool thing to work on, as I used to draw wh40k stuff back when I was a teenager. I always wanted a subscription to White Dwarf.
Now, these are not for Games Workshop, but they did have to be approved by them, which was cool in its own right, as I never thought, back when i was that teenager, that I’d be doing anything for Warhammer. Big long circles - that’s what life is. What a wonderful journey.
I’ll have some more crops from the other maps over the next few weeks. The full maps will have to wait till after it is published, and I’m not yet sure what the date is. You can follow the progress of Wrath & Glory over at their website and maybe sign up for the newsletter.
http://www.ulisses-us.com/games/warhammer-40000-roleplay/
For those unfamiliar, that grid is 2 meters x 2 meters, not the standard DnD 5 foot square.
Mr_Rose wrote: It’s kinda weird; she’s in red like a cogboy but has no obvious cybernetics, she has a staff like a sanctioned witch but no obvious Warp-halo, and she’s covered in sacred text like some kinda daemonhost but is clearly wandering free… I really want to know what she’s supposed to be.
If you look at some of the non-Battle Sisters ministorum models, you can see she follows that line of design. In fact, go and look up the 3rd edition Codex: Witch Hunters - you'll see something very similar on the cover there. Lots of models are red - because it's a colour that the eye is drawn to - not just Mechanicus (as it happens, originally the colour for Mechanicus adepts was [I]white], which FW's Horus Heresy books hint at).
Colours and shading are horrible on those maps. I’d really like some nice ones for the game. Would have liked something more like the room tiles from the late 80s.
This month will likely be the last month you'll have to wait before we have information to give you about our pre-sale! We've been working on that extensively behind the scenes, but we can't reveal our plans quite yet. We should have some details for you in the May newsletter.
The one big piece of news we have this month is that Ross Watson will be at Chupacabracon in Austin during the first weekend of May. If you're not able to make it to that convention, don't worry! Ross will be running an actual play of Wrath & Glory with the Bell of Lost Souls crew, which they will be airing live on their Twitch channel! Watch our social media for more information about how you can tune in for that!
If you happen to be at PAX East this weekend, be sure to say hi to Stephen Rhodes! He's just attending the convention, but he's always eager to chat about Wrath & Glory. Follow him on Twitter to see where he'll be throughout the show.
And if you see a Wrath & Glory shirt at C2E2 in Chicago this weekend, that's me (Eric)! I'm also happy to chat about the game, though I'm not one of the writers, so I don't know as much as Stephen does.
With all that, let's get to the Diary!
Designer Diary - Initiative When designing combat rules for Wrath & Glory, something that I knew I wanted was an initiative system that would encourage teamwork. We experimented with several different approaches, but the one that satisfied our design goals was an initiative system that promoted a back-and-forth flow between the players and the Game Master.
Here’s how it works: The players and NPCs controlled by the GM take turns, one at a time, until every character involved in the combat has taken a turn. The players choose one from their side, then GM chooses one from his side, and so on.
However, it is not entirely that simple! Both the GM and the players have resources they can spend to alter this setup. For the Game Master, he can spend his GM-resource—called Ruin—to act first instead of the players. And for the players, there’s a group resource called Glory that they can spend to Seize the Initiative.
When you Seize the Initiative, your side can have another character act before the GM’s forces’ turn. So, if the players choose to have Michael act first, they can then spend Glory at the end of his turn to nominate another player—in this case, Wendy—who can then take her character’s turn. You can only Seize the Initiative once before the other side gets to take a turn.
This ensures that there’s a flow to a combat scene, a back-and-forth where both sides get to take actions in rough proximity to one another. This also allows for that teamwork I was talking about earlier! If the warband was facing a tough opponent, for example, Michael could use his character’s turn to make an Interaction attack and render the opponent vulnerable, lowering its Defence. This sets up Wendy to take advantage and land a solid hit, potentially shifting more dice into the damage roll!
If there’s ever any doubt about who acts first, the characters simply roll their Initiative attribute and compare icons, with the highest number of icons acting first. In the case of a tie, player characters win over NPCs, and if the tie is between two players or two NPCs, the players choose who goes first (or the GM does, in the case of the NPCs).
This initiative system comes in handy when the GM is controlling several opponents during the combat. Sometimes, enemies who are individually weak—called Troops—can form a single group that acts at the same time. This is called a mob, and mobs act and attack much like a single character. The GM doesn’t roll ten individual attacks for a mob of ten orks, for example. Instead, he makes a single roll, and the orks gain a number of bonus dice equal to half their size (so in this case, +5d). Mobs can also split their attacks if they’re fighting multiple opponents, and the GM can, if they wish, split up a mob on their turn so that there are more than one group of enemies acting in the combat.
Now you have an idea about how initiative works in Wrath & Glory—plus some info about mobs, which are quite fun to fight (although they can be dangerous in large numbers!). Stay tuned to the Ulisses North America website as we reveal more about Wrath & Glory, Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay!
-Ross Watson, Product Line Manager
Automatically Appended Next Post: Some more articles while we're at it!
Y'all know me. I own just about every D&D map and tile-set produced over the the past 15 years, almost every GF9 D&D map, almost every Paizo flip-mat, dozens of Armoured Cartographer/Christopher West maps, multiples of every BattleTech map sheet ever produced, multiple copies of Space Hulk, it's expansions, Tyranid attack, the DOOM board game, Warhammer Quest (all versions), Zombicide tiles (multiples of each edition), and just recently almost 10 Gamemat.eu neoprene mats. I even own the Star Ship Trooper RPG map set, FFS!
So the idea of more maps is something that excites me. It's not something I take lightly.
Maps look fine to me - the comic book drawn style is reminiscent of the old floor plans from yester-year. Don't know what you mean about not looking 40k - 40k can be anything.
MarkNorfolk wrote: Maps look fine to me - the comic book drawn style is reminiscent of the old floor plans from yester-year. Don't know what you mean about not looking 40k - 40k can be anything.
Yes, anything can be 40k but that doesn't mean it's going to be good. These look like a knock off version of 40k. Just in general these maps are just bad, in style. I would expect something vastly different for these maps than the world of 40k...maybe the world of He-Man skirmish game is more fitting for the style.
Actually, I would dig these maps if they were for a He-Man skirmish game. That would be a lot of fun!
I wonder what some good ideas for the lead in to the adventure could be... do we all bump into each other in a space tavern?
Hopefully they give you some ideas in the rule book.
You always have the standard Inquisitor Oceans 11.
I like the idea of a transport ship being shot down and you grab the nearest escape pod with the other characters.
Maybe you all have experience fighting a newly discovered Xenos race and have been called in for interviews by a Magos Biologus. Then you hear an explosion in the facility...
Perhaps you start out as prisoners on a DE slave boat who slip their bonds and take out their anger on their erstwhile masters
The core book goes with "TODAY'S TOP STORY: GIANT TEAR IN REALITY, IT'S RAINING DAEMONS AND CULTS ARE COMING OUT OF THE WOODWORK."
Deniers aside, the Dark Imperium schism has happened and it is the best and easiest way to throw people together into some ad-hoc task force or investigative party out to do what they can during those dark days.
Yea I'm not denying the new setting, and I think the 'isolated stragglers in a warzone' starting point is all good too I was merely thinking a bit more specifically.
I came up with another one, maybe during a slow night during the Indomitus Crusade our heroes have independently sought out a quiet side chapel for prayer and reflection, when a battered and bloodied robed figure bursts through the door...
I really hope that the system proves flexible enough to have a character start out as a jobbing level 4 space bureaucrat with a pen knife and over the course of their adventures become Lord Commander Severus Steelheart, Master of 1000 Worlds, Conquer of the Violet Citadel, Savior of the Oscan organ fields, Ravisher of the Convent of St Brannicus etc. etc.
Well those maps look very situational so I bet they play a part of the introductory adventure. I think I would have preferred some generic maps such as 'Rogue trader bridge, Imperial Shrine, or Gormorks Plunder dome'. Somehow I don't see white dwarf having a monthly map of mystery. Sad, because I remember when White Dwarf was a serious game magazine.
) I prefer 
