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.

IIRC I think they mentioned October as an estimate.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Are the books in stores?

Not yet AFAIK; the print run is done, but the only physical books sold were the ones at Gen Con.

Not to put too fine a point on it but has interest in this product line fallen off of a cliff? Granted dakka doesn't get much RPG talk traffic on average but it is a 40k discussion haven and I'm not seeing much here (in this thread or outside) nor frankly much talk out on other sites. Even posting this gave me the thread necro warning and I'm just trying to find out if I'm missing a shift in the discussion or new announcements.

I think until it hits retail there's just not much to say.

For what it's worth the book is now in stores

Thanks for the update. I'm pretty much lost all interest myself but I can't really comment for anyone else. Still, good to know that it finally made it.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
For what it's worth the book is now in stores

I can tell you what it's not worth- the price tag slapped on it.

Sitting down and reviewing this book, its system is 'okay' but it's otherwise a collection of the most generic options for players. Well, everyone wanted 'a book to be anything' but now we got the result- a book with the most generic versions of anything you could be in 40k, with all the flavor of a communion wafer.

Got a link to the review? I'd be interested in reading it. One thing I will say is that the "everything including the kitchen sink" approach was taken a bit too far in my perusal of the contents months ago. If they were going that broad, I think they'd have been better off with a classless system instead of so many similar but not archtypes. People wanted to play marines with normal humans in the core book... not necessarily scout marines, tactical marines, and primaris marines with humans and multiple variants of eldar and orks in the core book. YMMV but I think they shouldn't have spread the content butter so thin over the 40k universe toast. I'd have preferred having those extra variations in supplements with the rest of the core book focusing on making the core system a better foundation for the expansions.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
For what it's worth the book is now in stores

Already told you what I think on FB.

And if you missed it, then, well, Doritos sums it up nicely:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
... everyone wanted 'a book to be anything' but now we got the result- a book with the most generic versions of anything you could be in 40k, with all the flavor of a communion wafer.

How is it they can continually feth up their roleplay games.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
For what it's worth the book is now in stores

I can tell you what it's not worth- the price tag slapped on it.

Sitting down and reviewing this book, its system is 'okay' but it's otherwise a collection of the most generic options for players. Well, everyone wanted 'a book to be anything' but now we got the result- a book with the most generic versions of anything you could be in 40k, with all the flavor of a communion wafer.

Imagine my shock.

FFG's will still do for me.

No amount of flavour would save this book since the combat math doesn't work

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
How is it they can continually feth up their roleplay games.

FFG 40k RPG's were just fine for what they are, but Wrath & Glory's system just seems to me like they tried to appease people that probably should have been ignored.

People whined because the old 40k RPG's were 'too hard'. Well, if the only RPG you've ever played is D&D, it's gonna be hard. You can't just stand in the middle of a room and have a shootout with six enemies, even if you're an Astartes. You use cover, you use grenades, and you get clever- because the entire game system revolved around leveraging advantages to help your odds of success. You also didn't want to go around kicking in doors and just barging into rooms in a hostile area, because that's how you get killed. People want to treat RPG's like little skirmish games and can't think of it as an RPG because D&D's system is simple.

And all those people wanted only one book with everything, and I'm not sure why anyone would think 'one RPG book with every option' would work for 40k's setting.

The worst defense I've seen for this is, "Well, if you want to be a specific chapter or type of guardsman, you need to get with your GM and create rules that best represent that". Yeah, at that point I may as well just start writing my own RPG. How something as simple as rules for Chapters got ignored is beyond me.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 warboss wrote:
Got a link to the review?

I didn't post the review elsewhere. But I had typed one up. Let me summarize it for you.

"This book isn't worth the effort of tugging it off the shelf. Go play the older RPG's."

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


FFG 40k RPG's were just fine for what they are, but Wrath & Glory's system just seems to me like they tried to appease people that probably should have been ignored.

People whined because the old 40k RPG's were 'too hard'.

Dakka, just keep on being Dakka.

The FFG 40K games weren't too hard, they were just bad games. They weren't fun as WFRP 1E, which I played back in the day. Any one who thinks WFRP-based 40K RPGs are 'fine' really probably can't tell what a good game is. But go ahead and yell TRADITION if it makes you feel good, FFG 40Ks still sucked regardless of the new game.

Just a gentle reminder that opinions will always differ, so if you disagree with someone, please remember to play nice with the other children.

For the record I may pick this up as I am a roleplaying fan. I also enjoyed the FFG games. I think Rogue Trader was amazingly handled. I also remember that Dark Heracy was not a FFG game. My copy says Black Industries and that whole launche was a cluster. The way this game seems to have dribbled along and the way it looked like it was designed to dribble out future content plus it's all in price just comes across as crazy. It seems like they have taken design cues from the drug manufacturers, rather then marketing strategies from drug dealers which given the fact that plastic crack is the staple of their business I find surprising.

 Chairman Aeon wrote:

Dakka, just keep on being Dakka.

The FFG 40K games weren't too hard, they were just bad games. They weren't fun as WFRP 1E, which I played back in the day. Any one who thinks WFRP-based 40K RPGs are 'fine' really probably can't tell what a good game is. But go ahead and yell TRADITION if it makes you feel good, FFG 40Ks still sucked regardless of the new game.

There's a joke in here somewhere.

By all means, feel free to tell me what a 'good game' is. You know, since I don't know what one is.

"I liked this one because it's more fun" is about is valid as saying "I like corn dogs so hamburgers are just garbage and people who eat hamburgers don't know what good food is".

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

And all those people wanted only one book with everything, and I'm not sure why anyone would think 'one RPG book with every option' would work for 40k's setting.

The worst defense I've seen for this is, "Well, if you want to be a specific chapter or type of guardsman, you need to get with your GM and create rules that best represent that". Yeah, at that point I may as well just start writing my own RPG. How something as simple as rules for Chapters got ignored is beyond me.

They do have rules for first a select group of core (typically first founding) chapters in the core book. It's not much but it's there.

 warboss wrote:
They do have rules for first a select group of core (typically first founding) chapters in the core book. It's not much but it's there.

Yeah, I see it now. It's just the first founding. And it's... nothing really. You got more than that out of a demeanor or something in the older games.

What a sad little excuse for a 40k RPG, man...

I've know someone who thinks they can "objectively prove" that the FFG RPGs were bad games. That always amused me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've know someone who thinks they can "objectively prove" that the FFG RPGs were bad games. That always amused me.

Well... FFG's 40k RPGs work, and so far are quite more flavorful than the new one. OTOH, they give for granted a certain amount of assumptions (like the "+0 bonus is for 'in combat conditions', anything less strenous should give bonuses" that is assumed the GM will be using, which very rarely happens in real life or the NPC statlines with loads of Talents tha you have to go check at the Talents section) that make the game quite a bit more complex than it should or needs to be.

They are not fun games to GM in my experience, though, and I've found that porting them to other system usually doesn't break them, either.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've know someone who thinks they can "objectively prove" that the FFG RPGs were bad games. That always amused me.

It's a matter of preference, but the most common reason I hear for why they're 'bad' is because people tried to play Dark Heresy like they were playing D&D. Uh, you don't do that... you don't even play Deathwatch or a Chaos Marine like you would play a D&D Character.

D&D is a simple combat system that's been adjusted a bit through the years and had RPG mechanics stapled to that framework. You can honestly package its combat system alone and use it as a skirmish game system, because that's what it was originally designed for. It wasn't designed for a roleplaying game, the roleplaying game was transplanted onto it. I'm not saying that it's a bad game for that, in fact that's a pretty good quality. It just does what it does, as a different game. Sort of like Infinity does what it does compared to Kill-Team.

The FFG RPG's were developed as one RPG system. Combat and all. Roleplaying is very much a part of the combat system, in a way, and some people simply don't get that at all. A lot of gamers rage about it because their initial experience is to play "D&D with 40k stuff", and that fails catastrophically. "I want to shoot at that guy" works in D&D, but in the FFG RPG's... that's usually the last decision you make for a character in a lot of circumstances. It's just not made to work that way, it's made so that you leverage advantages.

Even playing badass Space Marines, you have to roleplay your combat smart. You don't barge into a room, you listen outside the doorway. You don't stand there and shoot, you take cover and brace yourself behind a fallen pillar, and use it to stabilize yourself and take a shot- all of these things can start tacking advantages on to your action, and that's what a lot of people missed...it's all a matter of convincing the GM that what you're doing should realistically make it easier for you to achieve the results you want. You have to do a bit more than play a slightly more complicated skirmish game, you have to immerse yourself and actually roleplay.

Another massive gripe about the FFG RPG's is that the adventures weren't like D&D adventures. Look, hey, I get that a beginner GM is gonna struggle with that- but the overall complaint is that "The FFG RPG's don't layout a specific map with every little detail of every room we go into and have a script and encounter table for the whole mission". Oh, heaven forbid that a Game Master has to do more than read aloud from a book and doodle a room layout on a dry erase mat. That might be asking him to actually be creative and come up with things on the fly, or plan things out ahead of time.

I will, without any shame whatsoever, admit that the FFG RPG's require an experienced GM. And a lot of GM's do neglect to convey to the players the importance of leveraging advantages in their favor as they play and reminding them that this is not D&D with a 40k Costume. In my experience, people who've had absolutely no experience playing D&D or similar games do a lot better- even people who've played WoD games tend to do much better and enjoy the FFG RPG's. It's one of those things that if anyone were to ever want to start playing, I'd suggest finding someone who already has played it and is very familiar with it... otherwise, it'll just be one more group of people on the internet saying it sucks and repeating the "You Died, the 40k RPG" meme.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've know someone who thinks they can "objectively prove" that the FFG RPGs were bad games. That always amused me.

I wouldn't worry about it. Personal preference masquerading as fact is an internet tradition dating back decades and not just "dakka being dakka". It had its flaws but I had fun both playing and running campaigns for years. I've yet to find the universal "perfect" rpg system to rule them all that one poster here seems to have found.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albertorius wrote:

They are not fun games to GM in my experience, though, and I've found that porting them to other system usually doesn't break them, either.

Out of curiosity, what didn't you like from a GM perspective? (Given that it's obviously not a "narrative" system of course) From a GM perspective, I had trouble finding specific rules when I needed them on the fly initially and, from a personal preference angle, wasn't a fan of the Palladium style pages and pages of random tables. I'll admit though that my animosity towards Palladium may have colored my views on that last part as my much younger players with no experience with that had no issues with them. YMMV.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've know someone who thinks they can "objectively prove" that the FFG RPGs were bad games. That always amused me.

It's a matter of preference, but the most common reason I hear for why they're 'bad' is because people tried to play Dark Heresy like they were playing D&D. Uh, you don't do that... you don't even play Deathwatch or a Chaos Marine like you would play a D&D Character.

D&D is a simple combat system that's been adjusted a bit through the years and had RPG mechanics stapled to that framework. You can honestly package its combat system alone and use it as a skirmish game system, because that's what it was originally designed for. It wasn't designed for a roleplaying game, the roleplaying game was transplanted onto it. I'm not saying that it's a bad game for that, in fact that's a pretty good quality. It just does what it does, as a different game. Sort of like Infinity does what it does compared to Kill-Team.

The FFG RPG's were developed as one RPG system. Combat and all. Roleplaying is very much a part of the combat system, in a way, and some people simply don't get that at all. A lot of gamers rage about it because their initial experience is to play "D&D with 40k stuff", and that fails catastrophically. "I want to shoot at that guy" works in D&D, but in the FFG RPG's... that's usually the last decision you make for a character in a lot of circumstances. It's just not made to work that way, it's made so that you leverage advantages.

Even playing badass Space Marines, you have to roleplay your combat smart. You don't barge into a room, you listen outside the doorway. You don't stand there and shoot, you take cover and brace yourself behind a fallen pillar, and use it to stabilize yourself and take a shot- all of these things can start tacking advantages on to your action, and that's what a lot of people missed...it's all a matter of convincing the GM that what you're doing should realistically make it easier for you to achieve the results you want. You have to do a bit more than play a slightly more complicated skirmish game, you have to immerse yourself and actually roleplay.

Another massive gripe about the FFG RPG's is that the adventures weren't like D&D adventures. Look, hey, I get that a beginner GM is gonna struggle with that- but the overall complaint is that "The FFG RPG's don't layout a specific map with every little detail of every room we go into and have a script and encounter table for the whole mission". Oh, heaven forbid that a Game Master has to do more than read aloud from a book and doodle a room layout on a dry erase mat. That might be asking him to actually be creative and come up with things on the fly, or plan things out ahead of time.

I will, without any shame whatsoever, admit that the FFG RPG's require an experienced GM. And a lot of GM's do neglect to convey to the players the importance of leveraging advantages in their favor as they play and reminding them that this is not D&D with a 40k Costume. In my experience, people who've had absolutely no experience playing D&D or similar games do a lot better- even people who've played WoD games tend to do much better and enjoy the FFG RPG's. It's one of those things that if anyone were to ever want to start playing, I'd suggest finding someone who already has played it and is very familiar with it... otherwise, it'll just be one more group of people on the internet saying it sucks and repeating the "You Died, the 40k RPG" meme.

Sounds like it needed a really good starter adventure, with a proper map and an annoying Servoskull belonging to an ex-Drill Abbot set to Tactical Enhancement mode "Consider thee, the strength of this remaining pillar amidst the ruins and how it echos the unyielding spirit of mankind. Did not Saint Perciles of Idomacia himself once say 'a Man without Faith readies his Lasgun upon Sand, yet Man standing firm behind a Bullwark of Faith, will find the Emperor steadies his aim and will get them right between the fething eyes seven times out of ten'?"

"Ah, I see I might have overestimated your current tactical acumen...readjusting instructional psalms to pre-novitiate levels...'let us start with the Book of Munitionum 1:01 Only the Fool and the Heretic truly glimpse the Emperor's wrath - under no circumstances look into the bit the bullets come out of whilst holding your gun.'"

Tastyfish wrote:

Sounds like it needed a really good starter adventure, with a proper map and an annoying Servoskull belonging to an ex-Drill Abbot set to Tactical Enhancement mode "Consider thee, the strength of this remaining pillar amidst the ruins and how it echos the unyielding spirit of mankind. Did not Saint Perciles of Idomacia himself once say 'a Man without Faith readies his Lasgun upon Sand, yet Man standing firm behind a Bullwark of Faith, will find the Emperor steadies his aim and will get them right between the fething eyes seven times out of ten'?"

"Ah, I see I might have overestimated your current tactical acumen...readjusting instructional psalms to pre-novitiate levels...'let us start with the Book of Munitionum 1:01 Only the Fool and the Heretic truly glimpse the Emperor's wrath - under no circumstances look into the bit the bullets come out of whilst holding your gun.'"

I'd say it was faulty in not making it clear that your 'adventure' was basically a story and some stats and characters and such, and the GM still needed to do sit down and do the map work.

However, we usually used 40k models and terrain, making it significantly easier and more immersive.

Chairman Aeon wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:


FFG 40k RPG's were just fine for what they are, but Wrath & Glory's system just seems to me like they tried to appease people that probably should have been ignored.

People whined because the old 40k RPG's were 'too hard'.

Dakka, just keep on being Dakka.

Dakka actually is strangely silent on the matter.

What we do have here though is a lot of different people with...different opinions.

For example:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
... everyone wanted 'a book to be anything' but now we got the result- a book with the most generic versions of anything you could be in 40k, with all the flavor of a communion wafer.

Now, he may be right about the 'everything too generic' thing, but clearly not 'everyone' wanted...this.

Yeah, hyperbole for effect and all that, but still, just one user's opinion!

Was hoping this version of the RPG would be pretty good, most reviews are...not being kind to it though.

Do people think the inevitable Space Marine/Inquisition/Whatever books will flesh things out sufficiently?

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Do people think the inevitable Space Marine/Inquisition/Whatever books will flesh things out sufficiently?

I took a cursory look over their site and I'm not seeing these things in development. Granted, I didn't dig too hard elsewhere.

So, as far as 'fleshing things out' goes, it might. But it all depends on what they decide to prioritize.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Do people think the inevitable Space Marine/Inquisition/Whatever books will flesh things out sufficiently?

Considering how long it took to get to store shelves after the premiere at gencon (and the paucity of discussion in the interim here at least), I'd say that it might be "too little, too late" and that's assuming that they actually get those books. YMMV.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've know someone who thinks they can "objectively prove" that the FFG RPGs were bad games. That always amused me.

It's a matter of preference, but the most common reason I hear for why they're 'bad' is because people tried to play Dark Heresy like they were playing D&D. Uh, you don't do that... you don't even play Deathwatch or a Chaos Marine like you would play a D&D Character.

D&D is a simple combat system that's been adjusted a bit through the years and had RPG mechanics stapled to that framework. You can honestly package its combat system alone and use it as a skirmish game system, because that's what it was originally designed for. It wasn't designed for a roleplaying game, the roleplaying game was transplanted onto it. I'm not saying that it's a bad game for that, in fact that's a pretty good quality. It just does what it does, as a different game. Sort of like Infinity does what it does compared to Kill-Team.

The FFG RPG's were developed as one RPG system. Combat and all. Roleplaying is very much a part of the combat system, in a way, and some people simply don't get that at all. A lot of gamers rage about it because their initial experience is to play "D&D with 40k stuff", and that fails catastrophically. "I want to shoot at that guy" works in D&D, but in the FFG RPG's... that's usually the last decision you make for a character in a lot of circumstances. It's just not made to work that way, it's made so that you leverage advantages.

Even playing badass Space Marines, you have to roleplay your combat smart. You don't barge into a room, you listen outside the doorway. You don't stand there and shoot, you take cover and brace yourself behind a fallen pillar, and use it to stabilize yourself and take a shot- all of these things can start tacking advantages on to your action, and that's what a lot of people missed...it's all a matter of convincing the GM that what you're doing should realistically make it easier for you to achieve the results you want. You have to do a bit more than play a slightly more complicated skirmish game, you have to immerse yourself and actually roleplay.

Another massive gripe about the FFG RPG's is that the adventures weren't like D&D adventures. Look, hey, I get that a beginner GM is gonna struggle with that- but the overall complaint is that "The FFG RPG's don't layout a specific map with every little detail of every room we go into and have a script and encounter table for the whole mission". Oh, heaven forbid that a Game Master has to do more than read aloud from a book and doodle a room layout on a dry erase mat. That might be asking him to actually be creative and come up with things on the fly, or plan things out ahead of time.

I will, without any shame whatsoever, admit that the FFG RPG's require an experienced GM. And a lot of GM's do neglect to convey to the players the importance of leveraging advantages in their favor as they play and reminding them that this is not D&D with a 40k Costume. In my experience, people who've had absolutely no experience playing D&D or similar games do a lot better- even people who've played WoD games tend to do much better and enjoy the FFG RPG's. It's one of those things that if anyone were to ever want to start playing, I'd suggest finding someone who already has played it and is very familiar with it... otherwise, it'll just be one more group of people on the internet saying it sucks and repeating the "You Died, the 40k RPG" meme.

None of that makes them bad games. It just makes them different. I think any system which encourages the players to actually roleplay is a good thing.

For what its worth, I do think their RPGs are better when you are not playing as space marines. Space Marines are very tough to roleplay in interesting ways, and the Deathwatch portion of the RPGs was fairly stale in terms of content. It was really just different flavors of "You are going to deal with X threat of the week with this string of combat encounters..." and not much in the way of non-combat roleplay stuff. The "Only War" portion is similar in that it revolves around soldiers and nothing but soldiers. A little more potential for roleplay stuff, but its still a little constricted. I immensely prefer Rogue Trader or Dark Heresy, its a much more traditional RPG in terms of player freedom as well as being a good mix of combat and non-combat. Black Crusade as well has a similar potential, even with Space Marines being involved still, because being the Bad guys is a cool twist and Chaos Space Marines have more potential for individuality.

It is unfortunate that FFG didn't get more premade adventure modules for their games, because that would I think have helped a lot. Thats not really a mark against the system, its just a lack of pregen stuff that a GM can cut their teeth with. Every RPG starts out that way. Even DnD once had very few modules to run through.