Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mysterio wrote:
I received the following answer:
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The Campaign Card Deck is entirely separate and not duplicated in the book. That's because those cards are drawn and played by the players rather than triggered by events. The other decks are covered with tables, but the tables of course don't include the nice art or the feel of drawing them from a deck.

The other advantage of the card deck is that it can grow and change over time with promos or expansions.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Mysterio wrote:
I received the following answer:
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
The Campaign Card Deck is entirely separate and not duplicated in the book. That's because those cards are drawn and played by the players rather than triggered by events. The other decks are covered with tables, but the tables of course don't include the nice art or the feel of drawing them from a deck.

The other advantage of the card deck is that it can grow and change over time with promos or expansions.

Well, I'm definitely feeling some WRATH there. So, in other words, yes, the decks are required to play, no, you can't play without them, and yes, we plan on milking this like a fething Pokemon.

Sorry, but this will be the first 40k 'rpg' that I turn down. PASS.

I'm not getting that at all from the post you quoted. The other decks are included in the book as tables and the campaign deck sounds very optional in that you can just make your own motivations for the character each game instead of drawing them. I don't like the idea of their use in the rpg and the selling of videogame style day 1 DLC to core rules but they don't sound mandatory to me.I

Edit: Jeez, Android autocorrect is super derpy today.

 warboss wrote:

I'm not getting that at all from the post you quoted. The other decks are included in the book as tables and the campaign deck sounds very optional in that you can just make your own motivations for the character each game instead of drawing them. I don't like the idea of their use in the rpg of the selling of videogame style day 1 DLC to score rules but they don't sound mandatory to me.

"The other advantage of the card deck is that it can grow and change over time with promos or expansions."

Yeah, that still has nothing to do with what you said. The relevant decks are all in tables in the rulebook.

That still doesn't sound mandatory. Annoying and collectible...absolutely! ... But not mandatory IMO. YMMV.

Can I play without it? Yes.
It's not mandatory.
Just because it launches alongside the core game doesn't make it mandatory.
This is nothing like FFG and their damn dice.

Let me try this again, and just put up the words that should alarm you.

"promos or expansions"

Thus, they may not be mandatory 'yet'.

I have not been impressed with this game at all...40K does not work well as a "play whatever you want" and we will shove in a reason why an ork and a Space marine and chaos cultist are together.
the power levels of the various characters doesn't work either.
the cartoon describing a D&D-like dungeon crawl didn't help.

FFG did this right.

The Campaign Card Deck doesn't sound necessary at all.

In fact, it sounds rather unnecessary.

The only thing that's uncertain is if ALL the card decks will be eventually (maybe) be getting promos and/or expansions - it kind of sounds like it?

But again, none of them are mandatory and all but one are covered in the book.

Yeah sounds like even if they add more cards later on you're still losing absolutely nothing by ignoring them and sticking to the tables in the core books. I don't mind the idea of a 'complication' and crit deck, but I also doubt I'll buy any of them unless once I have my hands on the book I decide I really enjoy the game and play regularly.

tpryan01 wrote:
I have not been impressed with this game at all...40K does not work well as a "play whatever you want" and we will shove in a reason why an ork and a Space marine and chaos cultist are together.
the power levels of the various characters doesn't work either.
the cartoon describing a D&D-like dungeon crawl didn't help.

FFG did this right.

Honestly, that just means it's up to the GM to control the players. If you're running an inquisition campaign you tell them "No orks, chaos cultists, or space marines". Just because the rules for something are in the book it doesn't mean you have to use it, and you certainly don't have to accept anyone's character concept if you don't feel it suits the kind of game you want to run. Having the rules for everything in the core book actually gives you more flexibility to run the kind of campaign you want to run.

Not that I disagree with the way Black Industries and FFG did Dark Heresy and the associated collection of RPGS. That method worked well for White Wolf, and it goes a long way to setting the atmosphere of a game, as well as the expectations of players. However it comes with its fair share of drawbacks like varying levels of incompatibility between the settings, and re-buying a lot of rules and fluff you already own.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let me try this again, and just put up the words that should alarm you.

"promos or expansions"

Thus, they may not be mandatory 'yet'.

If they're not mandatory on release, then they can never become mandatory. Unless you think they'll be sneaking into your house to write new rules into your rulebook in crayon while you sleep.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let me try this again, and just put up the words that should alarm you.

"promos or expansions"

Thus, they may not be mandatory 'yet'.

If they're not mandatory on release, then they can never become mandatory. Unless you think they'll be sneaking into your house to write new rules into your rulebook in crayon while you sleep.

I took the use of 'mandatory' as meaning that in order to own all future official rules (expansions or otherwise), it would be required to buy cards as they won't be available in book format.

In other words in order to access content, you will need to buy decks (rather than say, a players handbook or bestiary containing the full rules).

Yes, no expansion is ever truly 'mandatory' to own, but that is a pedantic point on use of language deliberately missing the basis of his argument.

It would annoy me a LOT to buy the core book, only to find out at a later date that new official rules were only available via decks.

If I recall correctly, I understood the campaign deck was different for each campaign (with narrative turnaround tied to the general narrative).

The table for these can't be in the corebook, but maybe they are in the campaign books ?

 Grinshanks wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let me try this again, and just put up the words that should alarm you.

"promos or expansions"

Thus, they may not be mandatory 'yet'.

If they're not mandatory on release, then they can never become mandatory. Unless you think they'll be sneaking into your house to write new rules into your rulebook in crayon while you sleep.

I took the use of 'mandatory' as meaning that in order to own all future official rules (expansions or otherwise), it would be required to buy cards as they won't be available in book format.

In other words in order to access content, you will need to buy decks (rather than say, a players handbook or bestiary containing the full rules).

Yes, no expansion is ever truly 'mandatory' to own, but that is a pedantic point on use of language deliberately missing the basis of his argument.

It would annoy me a LOT to buy the core book, only to find out at a later date that new official rules were only available via decks.

Fair enough. I don't understand the irrational dislike of cards, but each to their own. It's no more annoying, IMO, than releasing sourcebooks down the line. And neither method bothers me, because I don't buy RPG supplements. They weren't necessary for Dark Heresy, nor for FFG's Star Wars RPG (although the card decks for that were useful IMO)

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Grinshanks wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let me try this again, and just put up the words that should alarm you.

"promos or expansions"

Thus, they may not be mandatory 'yet'.

If they're not mandatory on release, then they can never become mandatory. Unless you think they'll be sneaking into your house to write new rules into your rulebook in crayon while you sleep.

I took the use of 'mandatory' as meaning that in order to own all future official rules (expansions or otherwise), it would be required to buy cards as they won't be available in book format.

In other words in order to access content, you will need to buy decks (rather than say, a players handbook or bestiary containing the full rules).

Yes, no expansion is ever truly 'mandatory' to own, but that is a pedantic point on use of language deliberately missing the basis of his argument.

It would annoy me a LOT to buy the core book, only to find out at a later date that new official rules were only available via decks.

Fair enough. I don't understand the irrational dislike of cards, but each to their own. It's no more annoying, IMO, than releasing sourcebooks down the line. And neither method bothers me, because I don't buy RPG supplements. They weren't necessary for Dark Heresy, nor for FFG's Star Wars RPG (although the card decks for that were useful IMO)

I wouldn't say it is irrational.

Cards have disadvantages over books for RPGs. They wear easily if not sleeved, they require different storage solutions, they don't benefit from the organisation of an index/page numbering, and they don't contain the same amount of fluff/art.

Then again books for some are cumbersome, take up too much space both physically and with unused info, break at the spine if you photocopy, etc.

It comes down to personal preference. For me, I prefer my RPG rules to be in books and I am a bit of a completionist when it comes to rules expansions. I just find event decks to be better suited to more gamey experiences like board games (though that is purely my opinion, not an objective fact!).

So if I can ascertain if there will be future rules exclusively in card format, I will probably avoid getting into this.

All down to personal preference in the end.

My number 1 problem with cards is that they can't sit on my ever so carefully arranged bookshelves next to the actual RPG book!

Wow a lot of these complaints seem to be from people that have never played a real RPG before.

Cards? DnD has cards.. DnD has miniatures too and none of that matters because a RPG experience is dictated by the players + DM. Every single RPG contains a lot of extra rules that aren't used unless you want to. I personally find cards very useful for actually *playing* the game tho, as the fluff inside a book only matters when you're not playing.

Play any class you want regardless of story? What RPG do you play that has no story construct? Again, feels like a complaint from people that don't actually *play* a RPG. For decades in DnD you were ALWAYS technically allowed to play random jank such as Thricreen paladins allied with Halfling undead bards. The setting and DM determines what is allowed, the rulebook merely gives you options.

IMO people are coming at this from the typical angle of "we're used to only playing games based on how GW tells us to play them", which is not how RPGs work. I rather have options in a RPG then not.

 Kirasu wrote:
Wow a lot of these complaints seem to be from people that have never played a real RPG before.

And as we know, only true Scotsmen play real RPGs.

Given that no one knows for sure if the cards are mandatory, I'd say we can safely say that people will either acquire the game or not based on their preferences.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 schoon wrote:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

No one here has said they aren't, so who exactly are you arguing against?

But kirasu is right. This "how will mixed parties work"? Is something I have seen many times, but in a rpg it is not a legitimate complaint.

I have seen people that woukd have liked a more focused rpg to have more precise rules and fluff, and thats is more reasonable, but at the end it comes to personal tastes. I like this more, one big rulebook to roleplay whatever I want. Orks one campaing, Eldar other, etc...

 Kirasu wrote:
Wow a lot of these complaints seem to be from people that have never played a real RPG before.

Now that's demonstrability false.

 Kirasu wrote:

Cards? DnD has cards..

Sorry, I refused to bow down to Hazcash and Wizards of the Spliff when they abominated 4e into existence, and never looked back.;

 Galas wrote:
But kirasu is right. This "how will mixed parties work"? Is something I have seen many times, but in a rpg it is not a legitimate complaint.

I have seen people that woukd have liked a more focused rpg to have more precise rules and fluff, and thats is more reasonable, but at the end it comes to personal tastes. I like this more, one big rulebook to roleplay whatever I want. Orks one campaing, Eldar other, etc...

I think the concerns are less of a 'how would a mixed party work' and more of a 'they seem to be trying to cover every possibility in this core book, that worries me as it could very well mean the rules will be very simplified to accommodate it'.

 schoon wrote:
Given that no one knows for sure if the cards are mandatory, I'd say we can safely say that people will either acquire the game or not based on their preferences.

Er, don't we actually now know that none of the cards are mandatory?

 Mysterio wrote:

Er, don't we actually now know that none of the cards are mandatory?

Not till we actually see them. And if they put rules on them that are not in the book, then they 'become' mandatory, so there's always that. The issue is that there seems to be a certain level of 'you can play without them 'but'....'

That's only for the 'campaign deck' - and quite frankly what the campaign deck is and how it is used doesn't seems all that important, necessary or even useful.

Everything else - so we've been told (sort of) - can be found in the rule book.

Got my hands on the quickstart rules and Free RPG day scenario if anyone has any questions.

The first things that jump out to me are that like the FFG Star Wars games it has a lot of back and forth resource pools that at a first glance seem very confusing with all the bloody names (Dice roll either icons or exalted icons, exalted icons on the wrath dice give glory and extra exalted icons can be shifted, and shifts can become glory as well, which is different from wrath points which are again different to the wrath dice and if the wrath dice rolls a 1 it generates a complication which can be turned into a ruin....)
It also ties narrative elements to the dice rolls like FFG, between that and the roleplaying 'objectives' on character sheets I get the feeling they are writing the rules with a mindset that they need to mechanically encourage people to roleplay over roll play.

I need to sit down this weekend and actually play out the combats but the character sheets I have in front of me don't do anything yet to alleviate my worry that by including both marines and mortals in the same game they've had to dumb marines down. For example a lasgun appears to do 7+2d6 damage and a bolter 10+1d6, but the bolter has rapid fire (2) and brutal special rules so once actually in game that might make all the difference.

I played the Free RPG Day scenario at Origins Game Fair today. I played a priest, grouped with a Sister of Battle and an Interrogator (I think - maybe just an acolyte). Other options were a veteran Cadian guardsman, a White Scars Tactical Marine, or a Commisar.

Without seeing the character creation/advancement rules, I have a hard time seeing how this would work well with mixed tiers of play in a party. Mechanically it seemed to work fine (lower tier characters were advanced up), but thematically it was kind of a mess. A group can certainly agree to all operate on a lower tier or all as Inquistorial Acolytes, or whatever, but again without seeing character creation rules I don’t know how well the party would be able to diversify their characters so they aren’t all basically carbon copies. I was also disappointed in the adventure itself, but I don’t know how much of that was the GM.

So far I’ve seen nothing to make me think this is going to be better than FFG’s series, which I quite like.

Erren wrote:
I played the Free RPG Day scenario at Origins Game Fair today. I played a priest, grouped with a Sister of Battle and an Interrogator (I think - maybe just an acolyte). Other options were a veteran Cadian guardsman, a White Scars Tactical Marine, or a Commisar.

Without seeing the character creation/advancement rules, I have a hard time seeing how this would work well with mixed tiers of play in a party. Mechanically it seemed to work fine (lower tier characters were advanced up), but thematically it was kind of a mess. A group can certainly agree to all operate on a lower tier or all as Inquistorial Acolytes, or whatever, but again without seeing character creation rules I don’t know how well the party would be able to diversify their characters so they aren’t all basically carbon copies. I was also disappointed in the adventure itself, but I don’t know how much of that was the GM.

So far I’ve seen nothing to make me think this is going to be better than FFG’s series, which I quite like.

How did the combat feel? At the start of the booklet it promises it'll be brutal and ultra violent and whatever, but the rules for dying and the multiple layers of stuff you need to go though with hitting against defense, then damage against resilience, then soak, then shock being different to HP all reads kinda bloated and pillowfisted to me.