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.

Yeah... having a guardsman next to a marine felt weird.

I can see maybe having like, an Inquisitor and some Marines in a party, that would be fine.

But so far I don't like what I'm reading.

Sorry if this has already been spoken about, but I must be getting this wrong.

Enemies can't seem to hurt the pre-rolled characters due to their resilience being higher than the enemies' possible dmg. Am I missing something?

Edit: I can see with strength added to melee dmg, that melee weapons can hurt people, but guns seem useless. An auto pistol cannot hurt even the priest in robes?

If you're talking about Blessings Unheralded then yeah the difficulty is set to 'pathetically low'.
I think the best bet to hurt them is for the poxwalkers to group up and fish for as many extra damage dice they can get by all making a combined attack against a single target.

 jonolikespie wrote:
If you're talking about Blessings Unheralded then yeah the difficulty is set to 'pathetically low'.
I think the best bet to hurt them is for the poxwalkers to group up and fish for as many extra damage dice they can get by all making a combined attack against a single target.

That sounds appropriate for the in-universe equivalent of a zombie horde. Is there a "horde" mechanic like in the old FFG games with W&G where groups of low level enemies combine attacks?

Yeah I think it was something simple like for every 2 mooks roll an extra dice on the 'to hit' roll, which gives better chances to roll up the 6s you need to turn into extra damage. Then, IIRC, killing them was as simple as every 2 successes above the 'to hit' number you make attacking a horde is an extra mook hit, and mooks are just 1 HP guys.

The Horde mechanics actually seemed fairly streamlined (in a good way).

The thing is though, a guardsmen cannot be hurt by an autogun. A horde of zombies hurting them is cool, but ranged weapons seem unusable, even for players fighting anyone with any kind of armour. Even a Bolter can only just start hurting things.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
The thing is though, a guardsmen cannot be hurt by an autogun. A horde of zombies hurting them is cool, but ranged weapons seem unusable, even for players fighting anyone with any kind of armour. Even a Bolter can only just start hurting things.

That does seem odd. I really need to read through the rules in that intro adventure instead of just looking at the character sheet file. Do you maybe add some other attribute (like a dex equivalent) to ranged attacks for damage to simulate better aiming similar to strength and melee weapons?

 warboss wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
The thing is though, a guardsmen cannot be hurt by an autogun. A horde of zombies hurting them is cool, but ranged weapons seem unusable, even for players fighting anyone with any kind of armour. Even a Bolter can only just start hurting things.

That does seem odd. I really need to read through the rules in that intro adventure instead of just looking at the character sheet file. Do you maybe add some other attribute (like a dex equivalent) to ranged attacks for damage to simulate better aiming similar to strength and melee weapons?

Going on this intro adventure, some ranged weapons get a Rapid Fire trait, which gives them +X Extra Dmg Dice if they're within close range which helps, though I feel like rapid fire should give them extra attacks or something, based on the name. Even then, a las gun can only just start hurting another guardsmen. But ranged attacks don't seem to add another attribute or skill, unlike melee which adds strength.

Also, another small thing; why is there both Wrath points and Glory points to achieve what fate points normally do but split up into 2 separate pools? I feel like it was a gimmick for the name of the game, but why not make it Glory points given to players and Wrath points given to GMs, instead of GMs getting another pool called Ruin points? Anyone who's played the game, is this annoying or does it work better than it seems?

And having Defence, Resilience and Soak all for a person's different defence stats seems like 3 layers of unnecessary to me.

Anyway, I think I'm being slightly salty haha, apologies.

 Tiberius501 wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
The thing is though, a guardsmen cannot be hurt by an autogun. A horde of zombies hurting them is cool, but ranged weapons seem unusable, even for players fighting anyone with any kind of armour. Even a Bolter can only just start hurting things.

That does seem odd. I really need to read through the rules in that intro adventure instead of just looking at the character sheet file. Do you maybe add some other attribute (like a dex equivalent) to ranged attacks for damage to simulate better aiming similar to strength and melee weapons?

Going on this intro adventure, some ranged weapons get a Rapid Fire trait, which gives them +X Extra Dmg Dice if they're within close range which helps, though I feel like rapid fire should give them extra attacks or something, based on the name. Even then, a las gun can only just start hurting another guardsmen. But ranged attacks don't seem to add another attribute or skill, unlike melee which adds strength.

Also, another small thing; why is there both Wrath points and Glory points to achieve what fate points normally do but split up into 2 separate pools? I feel like it was a gimmick for the name of the game, but why not make it Glory points given to players and Wrath points given to GMs, instead of GMs getting another pool called Ruin points? Anyone who's played the game, is this annoying or does it work better than it seems?

And having Defence, Resilience and Soak all for a person's different defence stats seems like 3 layers of unnecessary to me.

Anyway, I think I'm being slightly salty haha, apologies.

Yeah, having two separate resources for the players seems unnecessary. Just drop Glory and change the name of the game to 40k Wrath and Ruin.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
The thing is though, a guardsmen cannot be hurt by an autogun. A horde of zombies hurting them is cool, but ranged weapons seem unusable, even for players fighting anyone with any kind of armour. Even a Bolter can only just start hurting things.

Don't look at base damage for actual damage. Most of it seems to come from rolling high from your 'to hit' dice then converting excess successes into extra damage dice.

I couldn't be bothered getting the actual character sheets from the other room so I'll fudge the numbers but basically it goes like this:
Guardsman has a defense of 3 and resilience of 8*
Autoguner has an attack roll of 6 dice and the gun does a damage of 7+1D

Autogunner aims and uses a resource to add 2 to his dice pool.
Autogunner rolls (well) and gets 5,6,2,3,5,5,1,6.
Those three 5s are the three successes he needs to hit the Guardsman's defense, then both 6s (extra successes) can be converted into extra damage.
So now his gun does 7+3D of damage.
He rolls those 3 dice and gets 6,3,4
So the gun does 7+2+1 damage, totaling 10, which does 2 damage to the guardsman**


*I assume the really high resilience the guardsman has is because he's ascended to tier 3, a base guardsman should not be that tough.
**The guardsman can also use soak*** to avoid the hits.
***Soak does seem utterly bloated and makes PCs feel too hard to hurt when used, but is basically never used, except for when plaguabearers get it against ever single attack and so can't be hurt... I don't like it.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
Anyway, I think I'm being slightly salty haha, apologies.

Honestly I think all of us in this thread have been down this spiral of "Oh sweet a new 40k RPG!' to "Oh, these rules seem odd" to "But.. why?" and finally ending in "Why the hell would I want this when I have the old FFG ones "

 jonolikespie wrote:
Honestly I think all of us in this thread have been down this spiral of "Oh sweet a new 40k RPG!' to "Oh, these rules seem odd" to "But.. why?" and finally ending in "Why the hell would I want this when I have the old FFG ones "

Yeah, I really wanted to be optimistic here, I truly did.

At this point, I'd just have rather seen the FFG RPG's get some updates for the current period and the like and carry on with them.

I did originally have the impression that Wrath & Glory was to be essentially a 'toolkit' for WH40k Role-Playing, a book that could be picked up so that a group could play anything from Alpha Legion Headhunters during the Heresy, to a Deathwatch Kill-Team with Primaris Marines, a group of Arbites for investigation missions, or even a Xenos or Heretic party. The only thing I would have wanted was solid mechanics, a good balance of 'easy to learn' and 'depth of capability' in equal measure, combat that was quick and sensible... and while it seems wild and insane- a means to convert a 40k model's stat line to an NPC/Enemy.

I'm not what I consider a long-time veteran and expert with RPG's- though I have spent quite a bit of time playing them. Had I been given the tools to create what I wanted... I could have very well considered this a product that I could use a lot, and would use for many years. But hey, it's that whole idea that's similar to a 'magic pill that you take one time and it cures any terminal illness'. No money in one singular product that does everything you need, and it's a business so I understand (but I could perhaps understand having several variations of the 'toolkit books' depending on your interests). With any luck, over time we'll have books that I can take and find what I need in them to create the ideal RPG campaign I want.

But for now, I'm getting that bad feeling that this game was developed by people who listened to too many people crying about the old 40k RPG's being 'too hard'. And those were only 'too hard' if you and your group tried to play it like cliche' D&D missions. There was certainly no shortage of GM's that just swapped 'Dungeon' for 'Space Hulk' and 'Boss Monster' for 'Chaos Lord' and wondered why the entire group was staring slack-jawed and wide eyed at dead characters in the first encounter. The FFG RPG's weren't hard, they just weren't games where you can go running into a room with 10 guys, swing your sword, and come out unscathed. And many GM's didn't have enough sense to visualize combat encounters and plan things like cover, or set it up so that the PC's could create an ambush or other things to give them an advantage. A lot of GM's would just treat combat encounters like plopping tokens on a map and call it a day.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Honestly I think all of us in this thread have been down this spiral of "Oh sweet a new 40k RPG!' to "Oh, these rules seem odd" to "But.. why?" and finally ending in "Why the hell would I want this when I have the old FFG ones "

Hi! OP here. *raises hand*

You can see that initial enthusiasm in the fact that I jumped to start this thread. I've been super-enthusiastic about the 40K RPGs ever since they first announced Dark Heresy, and the idea that the legacy of those games would be continued by one of the biggest forces writing the originals, the man who got me involved in writing the 40K RPGs, that was even better.

And now here we are. I... have zero interest in buying the core rule book. Part of that is "edition wars", but most of it is a big case of "Why?". Why start again? The 40K RPGs cover everything I could ever want, and we haven't even had the time to play Rogue Trader yet. We've spent more time playing Deathwatch than I think any game outside of 40K-proper (and Oldcromunda), and honestly Dark Heresy might be my second fav 40K game (after Necromunda).

So... why would I want a new D6 system that attempts to shove everything from the other games into 'tiers' and tries to be all things to all people?

Weirder, when this game was first talked about, they talked about how they weren't taking the FFG approach and that it would be open gaming to all races (not all at launch, obviously) where you could play anywhere... and yet the core rulebook has its own setting, like the Calixis Sector, like the Kornus Expanse, the Jericho Reach, the Screaming Vortex, the Spinward Front and the Askellon sector. Got quite invested in some of those settings (even wrote a bunch of the fluff for a couple of them).

I don't want to start again.

GW would probably have been better off just hiring some people to make a 40k FATE supplement. It would seem to accomplish all the things this one is trying to do.

D6 system? Check, and you only need 4 dice each.

Character aspects which encourage and/or guide roleplaying for rewards? Check, in the Aspect system where you pick X aspects at character generation which represent parts of your character and can be invoked for both positive and negative effects through the spending of the Fate resource.

Resource that can be spent for in game bonuses? Check, in the form of the titular fate points, which can be spent by players and the GM in order to invoke aspects of characters and the environment for mechanical and narrative effects. The number of fate points you have is determined by the refresh rate of the game, which is set by the players and GM at character creation and increases as major milestones in the story are reached.

Mix of character power levels whilst still maintaining balance? Check, in the form of more powerful characters requiring to spend more of their refresh in order to access their equipment and abilities. This means they have less fate points during gameplay and less refresh to spend on abilities in addition to their base class abilities. So lets say you have a game with a refresh level of 8. In order to play a space marine you have to buy the "Implanted Organs" ability for 2 refresh, the "Power Armour" ability for 3 refresh and the "Know No Fear" ability for 1 refresh, leaving the Space Marine player with 2 refresh points. He is required to have at least 1 refresh remaining so he can buy one other 1 refresh cost ability if he wants. On the other hand the player making the Hive Scum character doesn't have any required abilities for their character archetype and so can spend their refresh on whatever they want from the abilities available to them, or not buy anything and instead have the maximum fate points to spend during the game.

Mechanically simple? Check, every roll is the same. You say what action you want to take and what skill you will use to carry it out, GM tells you the target number to reach and you then roll your 4 dice. Add successes (5 or 6) to your skill level, subtract failures (1 or 2) and then compare. You can also spend fate points by invoking relevant aspects in order to either get +2 to your score or to re-roll the dice and can spend as many fate points on a roll as you wish as long as there are enough relevant aspects to invoke (cannot repeatedly invoke most aspects, though there are some exceptions). So, your guardswoman sniper is trying to pick off a sentry with their long-las, using her Shooting skill of 4. She rolls her dice and gets 2 successes, one blank and a failure. Her total for the test is currently at 5 and the difficulty of the shot is 5, so she will hit and deal damage equal to the weapon damage plus how ever many points she exceeded the target value by. She wants to take out the sentry in one shot and so invokes her character aspects "One Shot, One Kill" ("I aim for his head") and "Never Tell Me The Odds" ("It's a very long shot and no other human would even attempt to make it") in order to get +4 to her skill, which gives her +4 damage. The sentry's head explodes as the las shot hits him right in the eye and he dies without being able to make a sound.

Haven't watched it yet but apparently WANG (I saw that acronym on 4chan and absolutely love it) content starts at the 19 minute mark.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Honestly I think all of us in this thread have been down this spiral of "Oh sweet a new 40k RPG!' to "Oh, these rules seem odd" to "But.. why?" and finally ending in "Why the hell would I want this when I have the old FFG ones "

Hi! OP here. *raises hand*

You can see that initial enthusiasm in the fact that I jumped to start this thread. I've been super-enthusiastic about the 40K RPGs ever since they first announced Dark Heresy, and the idea that the legacy of those games would be continued by one of the biggest forces writing the originals, the man who got me involved in writing the 40K RPGs, that was even better.

And now here we are. I... have zero interest in buying the core rule book. Part of that is "edition wars", but most of it is a big case of "Why?". Why start again? The 40K RPGs cover everything I could ever want, and we haven't even had the time to play Rogue Trader yet. We've spent more time playing Deathwatch than I think any game outside of 40K-proper (and Oldcromunda), and honestly Dark Heresy might be my second fav 40K game (after Necromunda).

So... why would I want a new D6 system that attempts to shove everything from the other games into 'tiers' and tries to be all things to all people?

Weirder, when this game was first talked about, they talked about how they weren't taking the FFG approach and that it would be open gaming to all races (not all at launch, obviously) where you could play anywhere... and yet the core rulebook has its own setting, like the Calixis Sector, like the Kornus Expanse, the Jericho Reach, the Screaming Vortex, the Spinward Front and the Askellon sector. Got quite invested in some of those settings (even wrote a bunch of the fluff for a couple of them).

I don't want to start again.

Sadly I think you're right, in that the 'talk' about the game before it came out is far, far from what has shown so far (although I'm not overly surprised as a lot of it sounded like something a publisher wouldn't fancy as it would have been hard to sell), now they might get there eventually but at the moment I'd guess its at least 5 years of successful releases away

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

So... why would I want a new D6 system that attempts to shove everything from the other games into 'tiers' and tries to be all things to all people?

Because they dropped the ball and should have done things using the "D&D Bundle Method"- A rulebook for players with options for the races and classes available to them, a Game Master's guide, and a Monster Manual'. Support this with campaign-specific books with background fluff for a specific region and the pre-made quests for that area. Later books can add expanded classes, more gear, etc. That'd make me happy- just give me the tools in the appropriate books, throw me some Campaign Setting and Adventure Packs and stuff here and there, and I'll make the rest happen.

Because very rarely has 'one book for the whole game' ever been anything other than a watered-down bare-bones 'teaser of the basics' that eventually requires dozens more books to get expanded content to last the group for more than a dozen or so gaming sessions. Eventually you need more and more books over months at a time. Sorry, guys, all the next gaming sessions will basically be filler stuff until I can get information on the next area and give us something different to deal with for a change. This is the kinda thing that ends up with the book going right back on the shelf, and by the time new stuff comes along- everyone's lost interest.

At least with a 'bundle' of several books, some of your players can go get the "Player" book and learn the rules on their own, and make an informed decision about what they want to play. Nothing sucks worse than agreeing to play an RPG with someone, and you sit down with the guy and he's got the ONE BOOK IS ALL YOU NEED for a game you've never played... and he's like "OK so what do you want to be?" At that point, you're just making an impulse decision with little to go on, and it usually turns out not to be any fun at all.

Also, just based on what little I can glean from this new RPG... it's starting to look more and more like the intent was to dumb it down to a point where it could be a game played with 40k miniatures and a bit of dialogue with some hokey voice-acting involved. "Wow, hey guys check out the new 40k RPG! Oh, look at that it uses D6's and what better way to play than with dice for your faction [insert link to GW Webstore]. You can play as a PRIMARIS SPACE MARINE [insert link to GW Webstore], a Prefectus Commissar [insert link to GW Webstore], Tempestus Scions [insert link to GW Webstore] and more! If you can play it, we have the appropriate miniature for you! And while you're there, check out KILL-TEAM, a perfect way to use your new miniatures- and it's ideal for Roleplayers (somehow?)"

Cue Sisters of Battle whinging and gnashing of teeth.

Anyway, I've been known to go full tinfoil hat and gloom and doom, so if I'm wrong- I'll actually be happy. I'll be too happy to care if I have to eat my words and admit I was wrong.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Because very rarely has 'one book for the whole game' ever been anything other than a watered-down bare-bones 'teaser of the basics' that eventually requires dozens more books to get expanded content to last the group for more than a dozen or so gaming sessions. Eventually you need more and more books over months at a time. Sorry, guys, all the next gaming sessions will basically be filler stuff until I can get information on the next area and give us something different to deal with for a change. This is the kinda thing that ends up with the book going right back on the shelf, and by the time new stuff comes along- everyone's lost interest.

So there's an element of 'be careful what you wish for', with this as well.

For years I watched people go "There should be a central 40K RPG that covers everything!". Ok, here it is, and it seems to be as wide as an ocean, and as deep as a paddling pool.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
At least with a 'bundle' of several books, some of your players can go get the "Player" book and learn the rules on their own, and make an informed decision about what they want to play. Nothing sucks worse than agreeing to play an RPG with someone, and you sit down with the guy and he's got the ONE BOOK IS ALL YOU NEED for a game you've never played... and he's like "OK so what do you want to be?" At that point, you're just making an impulse decision with little to go on, and it usually turns out not to be any fun at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by the above. I'd have preferred a simultaneous D&D style trio release myself as well (or at most staggered one month apart) instead of one book to rule them all but having a single book usually makes it more likely that your players won't make an impulse decision but rather will put a modicum of thought into their character as compared with having multiple books that they may not have or have access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

For years I watched people go "There should be a central 40K RPG that covers everything!". Ok, here it is, and it seems to be as wide as an ocean, and as deep as a paddling pool.

I can't speak for others but when I expressed that interest I was referring to the core setting of an imperial campaign. I didn't want xenos added in immediately or chaos either but rather as a supplement down the line (but within the first year for sure). They're different enough that they deserve their own books and I think the intial release would have been better fleshed out if it had an initial imperial focus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Haven't watched it yet but apparently WANG (I saw that acronym on 4chan and absolutely love it) content starts at the 19 minute mark.

Thanks for the link; I'll be watching tonight. And, yes, that acronym is golden (if a bit clunky).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
For years I watched people go "There should be a central 40K RPG that covers everything!". Ok, here it is, and it seems to be as wide as an ocean, and as deep as a paddling pool.

Not the example I'd use, but I see where you're going. The comparison I'd make is like trying to fit all of your models from multiple armies into one box, and they certainly aren't going to fit- so you decide to start picking and choosing certain ones that you could maybe not bring... and when you arrive at the gaming table, you end up with some of the most basic stuff for several armies, but none of the really fun stuff to make any of them more interesting... and also you realize you forgot Chapter Approved, your measuring tape, and you're gonna have to make do with 10 dice.

 warboss wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by the above. I'd have preferred a simultaneous D&D style trio release myself as well (or at most staggered one month apart) instead of one book to rule them all but having a single book usually makes it more likely that your players won't make an impulse decision but rather will put a modicum of thought into their character as compared with having multiple books that they may not have or have access to.

I haven't played D&D in a long time, but I can tell you that quite a few of us had our own 'Player's Handbook' to help us make our decision, and spent significant time using it. If not, we were able to borrow the GM's copy of the book- because he didn't really need it when planning out his campaigns. With a 'ONE BOOK DOES IT ALL', he needs that one specific book. And so do you. So... yeah, it's kind of inconvenient.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I haven't played D&D in a long time, but I can tell you that quite a few of us had our own 'Player's Handbook' to help us make our decision, and spent significant time using it. If not, we were able to borrow the GM's copy of the book- because he didn't really need it when planning out his campaigns. With a 'ONE BOOK DOES IT ALL', he needs that one specific book. And so do you. So... yeah, it's kind of inconvenient.

Are you referring to the price? In both cases, the player is likely to pick up one book if any. I could see an argument being made that a higher price of the book with a bigger page count could diminish the sales potential though.

 warboss wrote:
Are you referring to the price? In both cases, the player is likely to pick up one book if any. I could see an argument being made that a higher price of the book with a bigger page count could diminish the sales potential though.

I've not seen the size of this book, nor am I sure of its price tag- but I can tell you with the ONE BOOK ALL YOU NEED method- you're just going to have either a smaller page count with less content for a smaller price, or a bigger book with a bit more content for a better price.

But, while it'll never be a perfect example, but... take your typical 'three book pack' for D&D. Now do the same comparison with the Pathfinder RPG core book- pretty much both EXTREMELY similar (for obvious reasons)... but you'll find a LOT more to use in the three-book pack from D&D. Because cramming it all into one core book, something's gotta get left out and come 'later'.

I dig the idea of all of it in one place, but rather than it being a small taste of each flavor... I'd prefer a bigger bowl for that particular dish without it having to share space with other food, if I'm making sense.

I'll admit the 'paddling pool' thing is an exaggeration, but it does seem that by attempting to cover so much ground you inherently lose a lot of depth.

I mean, why include Chaos characters at all? That seems like a real stretch to try and make Chaos, a topic so broad and rich that it takes book after book to cover it in any depth, and shoe-horned them into the basic character creation system.

Something that came up in that Q&A was that there were meant to be 32 classes promised and only 31 in the book. The devs clarified there are 32, chaos space marines are in there. You just use the standard marine class....

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I mean, why include Chaos characters at all? That seems like a real stretch to try and make Chaos, a topic so broad and rich that it takes book after book to cover it in any depth, and shoe-horned them into the basic character creation system.

I mean, the D&D books, if I remember correctly, had the Monster Manual with examples of how to make certain monster types as characters- I could imagine doing that with like, Daemons if one were inclined to roll that.

'Human' covers a good chunk of player options as a racial template, with Astartes being a second, then your various Xenos types. I would imagine it wouldn't be hard to get nearly all of the player races and classes into one reasonably-sized book. I don't think you could get LITERALLY EVERYTHING EVER from 40k into the books for Player Characters, but you could do most of what was well within reason.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:Because very rarely has 'one book for the whole game' ever been anything other than a watered-down bare-bones 'teaser of the basics' that eventually requires dozens more books to get expanded content to last the group for more than a dozen or so gaming sessions.

H.B.M.C. wrote:For years I watched people go "There should be a central 40K RPG that covers everything!". Ok, here it is, and it seems to be as wide as an ocean, and as deep as a paddling pool.

There's a whole lot of RPGs that do just fine with a single book, you know. For a great example of complex games with depth that works very well out of the core (or cores) without needing a single additional purchase (but for what you actually want them, because they're great), you just need to go take a look at Runequest 6th edition, WFRP 1st edition, Eclipse Phase, Star Wars 1st edition, L5R (basically any edition), Mutant Chronicles, Conan, CP2020 and a whole lot other games.

Or hell, there's GURPS or Hero, if you prefer not to need a single extra rule forever and ever.

The WANG situation is not derived from any real or perceived fault of the "one core" model. The editorial line? Well, that's another thing altogether.

 jonolikespie wrote:
The devs clarified there are 32, chaos space marines are in there. You just use the standard marine class....

That strikes me as something of a problem.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

But for now, I'm getting that bad feeling that this game was developed by people who listened to too many people crying about the old 40k RPG's being 'too hard'. And those were only 'too hard' if you and your group tried to play it like cliche' D&D missions. There was certainly no shortage of GM's that just swapped 'Dungeon' for 'Space Hulk' and 'Boss Monster' for 'Chaos Lord' and wondered why the entire group was staring slack-jawed and wide eyed at dead characters in the first encounter.

That sure wasn't true for Deathwatch, where the Marines were essentially unkillable by standard fare opponents. It was "too hard" because the game was poorly play-tested, unplayable mess. Some kind of reset was necessary.

I feel like the main mistake was the broad selection of such specific classes to choose from. I mean, besides the odd rules choices as well, to be broad, why didn't they do races and backgrounds rather than classes? Being specifically a Scion or Primaris Marine is constrictive in a book that is meant to be inclusive. I want to be smuggler with a rogue trader, but I have to pick a guardsmen. So they did broad sort of wrong, but maybe I'm getting it wrong and you can branch more.
It just seems odd the way they did it, and sort of feels way too much like they're trying HARD to make it tabletop roleplay, and not roleplaying as characters from the 40k universe.

But also, what is with some of the rules choices? I love that it's simpler, it's what made me really excited for this game, DH/BC/RT, they're all awesome and super flavourful games, but they can be pretty harsh to get going if you're starting a new game, especially for players like me and my group, who don't do well with rules crunch. So we were pumped for this. But this doesn't have nearly the same flavour or 40k feeling.

 Tiberius501 wrote:
I feel like the main mistake was the broad selection of such specific classes to choose from. I mean, besides the odd rules choices as well, to be broad, why didn't they do races and backgrounds rather than classes? Being specifically a Scion or Primaris Marine is constrictive in a book that is meant to be inclusive. I want to be smuggler with a rogue trader, but I have to pick a guardsmen. So they did broad sort of wrong, but maybe I'm getting it wrong and you can branch more.

You might have it wrong. The "scum" selection of characters iirc go from tiers 1-3 so you could play a scavvy smuggler at tier 2 along with your friends tier 2 rogue trader (although the tier on that one is another ball of wax.. see the discussion last page). Or you could ask your friend to level up to tier 3 and you could play a desperado smuggler aka Han Solo.