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.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

I haven't played any of the others, but Shadowrun has never been lauded for its mechanics. In fact, 4th Edition was a nightmare of min/maxed overspecialzied characters rolling more dice than any reasonable game should need to be thundering across a tabletop.

Shadowrun used to be lauded for its mechanics but those days are indeed long gone and it hasn't kept up with the current streamlined industry trend in the core game (the spin off poorly edited slapdash Anarchy aside). That said... I don't think it's fair to tar an entire game with the same brush just because of extreme pornomancer builds.

Shadowrun had all kinds of problems, not just pornomancers. And I say that as somebody who played it beginning with 1st Ed and loves the game.

But its mechanics are a mess. I contemplated trying to figure out what other systems I could switch it to for a while, but never did the work. Getting rid of magic and metahumans (or at least, trolls) helped balance it out a bit and make it more playable, but without the metahumanity and magic, it's not really Shadowrun anymore, and instead just a cyberpunk game. Which isn't a bad thing, since cyberpunk is a great genre. But magic was clearly a measure/countermeasure system, and trolls broke the difficulty curve in the same way Dwarves could do in 1st Edition WHFRP, for example.

It was at its okayest in 3rd Edition.

I don't know what to think so far. I really love the existing 40k RPGs, being individually focused yet cross-compatible. We have played the freedom of Rogue Trader, the freedom of a different kind that is Black Crusade, the honestly pretty funny PC massacre that was Only War, the absolute carnage of Deathwatch and the intrigue-packed Dark Heresy stories, and I have always felt like the really granular D100 system was about as good as you can get for 40k RPGs.

At least in my opinion, RPGs don't have the same need to be simple enough to accomodate entire armies as the 40k game itself does. You can really get all that itty gritty detail on the character sheets and this is a good thing. Each time I see people talk about simpler systems I see 'the conscript and the Lictor punch each other, both roll a D6 with the lictor getting a +1 bonus and the winner getting the kill' and I am just like nooooooooooooooo

40k is full of insanity like gretchin having a 33% chance to parry the Wailing Doom with their nailed iron tube. We don't have to have that in our RPGs.

Please please I pray to the Dark Gods it will be so detailed I can just sit for hours writing up random things to add in (like how I added in the gravgun in deathwatch. S/2/-, ignoring armour on targets smaller than Massive and doing 1d10+target armour+5 damage. We all agreed that seemed right.)

Also, in before my hopes are dashed with another 40k style super abstract game.



'Don't worry, the CSM only rolled a 2 to wound'.

Even if I don't get my Matrix Eldar and BL Marines and all that lovely stuff I at least hope for a system granular enough to permit it.

 Melissia wrote:
Also looking forward to it, though a little disappointed by the delay.

This is their first announcement of any release date - how is that a "delay?"

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
For a long time, I've just found the best RPGs are the ones which build a place for the characters to inhabit that excites and challenges the players.

This is what makes the best RPGs. The world is there to be interacted with, and characters will only interact with things that are interesting to them. Players who have buttons to press and real options to take will always find it more rewarding than a Draugr bashing simulator.
Certainly 40k has this property, and has the possiblities and space for all sorts of things to happen. I liked the fact that each FFG 40k RPG was different because a space marine shouldn't have the same set of buttons to press as some peasant investigator.

Regarding the general mechanics, I'd like combat to be fast and brutal. I've GM'd sessions of combat that took hours to fight off a small quantity of bandits. ITs dull for everyone.
If this means having a fairly small selection of weapons avaliable to each player, so be it, the longest wait time was finding out how a particular snowflake weapon worked.
A boltgun to the unarmoured head should be lethal for all characters, whilst an armoured space marine should find lasgun shots fairly trivial.
I'd rather have 'cinematic' rather than realistic weapon ranges for ease of playing on a tabletop with models. 200m in 28mm scale is over 14m in real life, and this really restricts combat scenarios.

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
Nobody cares about having fifteen varieties of boltgun or a myriad ways to fiddle with them for optimum damage, but if the Orks sourcebook goes into the sort of detail on their society that used to be in Waargh! The Orks, for example, I'll grab that.

I disagree, I love the fact that there are lots of different boltgun types, the mauler (cinder crag bolt pistol), angelus, volg (spitfire) or gowyn de az. These kind of things really make the rpg come to life and the ffg stuff was packed full of character and coolz

In the background? sure, that's fine. Rules-wise? it doesn't matter to me. Plus or minus 5% here or there, or a slightly different range isn't relevant to the game.

+/- 5% is a +1 Sword in AD&D - and that can be a big deal indeed!

Maybe. I know some people get really invested in the gear their characters have, and like to fiddle with it. My group doesn't; choosing a boltgun over a lasgun is enough. We've run a Dark Heresy campaign for a year or more with just the core rulebook (just one core rulebook at that - in the hands of the GM).

Theres RPG that work more like a dungeon crawlers, and players that prefer those, where a great variety in equip is basically a necesity for the game to have variety and be fun.

More "interpretative/narrative" RPG's don't need that much.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

I haven't played any of the others, but Shadowrun has never been lauded for its mechanics. In fact, 4th Edition was a nightmare of min/maxed overspecialzied characters rolling more dice than any reasonable game should need to be thundering across a tabletop.

Sure it has, just not by you. Funny story bro: the devs tried to limit the dice thrown in 5E and took a beating from paying customers. If you don't like rolling a bunch of d6s that's fine, but...

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

For younger, less sophisticated players, maybe.

For a long time, I've just found the best RPGs are the ones which build a place for the characters to inhabit that excites and challenges the players.

Besides, look at a long-lived game like Call of Cthulhu. That's about as far from your idea of the "best" RPGs as it gets, and CoC is great.

Would you like some Grey Poupon with that opinion? It's not some mature, refined truth. It is just your belief.

And just as you don't like Shadowrun, I don't like CoC. It doesn't resemble the source material and results in a TPK more often than not. Then there's the problem of all the BRP games it inspired with its wonky long and linear randomizer. It probably inspired GW to make WFRP a percentile system...and no one lauded its mechanics.

From what little I've gathered about the mechanics so far is it's likely to be based on a variation of one of the old WEG game mechanics. The guy loved TORG and basically bought the rights to TORG and the WEG D6 system books.

Someone already mentioned target number 4. WEG's MASTERBOOK/HEROIC game HERCULES and later DC UNIVERSE games both were a variation of the D6 system that used used a target number and counted successes for task resolution.

....Speaking of WEG's DC UNIVERSE RPG.. having just dug out a copy to review... The WEG DC UNIVERSE RPG already has every mechanic required to make a comprehensive WH40K RPG. It scales from civilians, sidekicks, and all the way up to Justice League level heroes and villains, as wella s vehicles.

All they need to do is turn the super power and gear creation rules into premade bundles.

SPACE MARINES get the racial abilities/powers they have in the fluff + Power Armor + Weapon

IMPERIAL GUARDSMEN get no powers + Armor + Skills

Psykers get to pick from a list of pregenerated Psychic powers, etc...

Functional, good, core rules for this kind of stuff already exist. They just need to reskin it with a 40K flavor.

You can probably find a copy of the DC UNIVERSE on Ebay for cheap if you want to check it out.

Chairman Aeon wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

I haven't played any of the others, but Shadowrun has never been lauded for its mechanics. In fact, 4th Edition was a nightmare of min/maxed overspecialzied characters rolling more dice than any reasonable game should need to be thundering across a tabletop.

Sure it has, just not by you. Funny story bro: the devs tried to limit the dice thrown in 5E and took a beating from paying customers. If you don't like rolling a bunch of d6s that's fine, but...

Someone's always going to get snippy if you don't like the same things they do. But you can save the condescending "bro" comments. I'm not impressed, and Rule 1 is the only thing saving you, lol.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Inquisitor's Handbook was full of different types of weapons that all had the same rules - they just added flavour to the universe by fleshing out all the different places.

They didn't have the same rules, many were very similar with a few tweaks here and there, perhaps a lower weight and ammo capacity or shorter range and higher strength. In the abstracted rules for the tabletop game these things would be negligible

I agree that they add flavour, but I also love the fact that, even though some of the rules barely made a difference, they still made a difference in some small way

and some people like that, an aweful lot of RPGs manage to put out a "arms and equipment guide" people enjoy that type of stuff.

Hopefully we'll see Ulisses post Ross' seminar from RatCon in the next day or two...

 Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

I agree that they add flavour, but I also love the fact that, even though some of the rules barely made a difference, they still made a difference in some small way

I also like that they are little mementos of past events. I would much prefer to have a "Judgeslayer" handcannon looted from a Gang boss in the depth of hive Sibellius rather than a simple handcannon. Granted this is largely narrative but it is nice to have some kind of distinguishing in game feature.

While it's a bit of a stretch to call this RPG news, it's very interesting that GW is willing to explore some of the xenos background.

Given Ulisses' interest in looking deep into the 40K background, I'm sure some of this will come up.

Hey, shout out to the Rak'gol and the Slaught!

 schoon wrote:
While it's a bit of a stretch to call this RPG news, it's very interesting that GW is willing to explore some of the xenos background.

Given Ulisses' interest in looking deep into the 40K background, I'm sure some of this will come up.

Thank the greater good. I can't wait to see what they are cooking. I get the feeling it's new Xenos army time. Feels like a wonderful time. So much possibilities. My number one want for years now in 40k has been a new Xenos army, but if it's a major new army for an existing Xenos that will suffice. Also there are rumors from Lady Atia of a Tau release that is not part of the Empire. So I think we will see one xenos race get a mini-relese for Tau. However will it be a mini-release? Or will it be a full army release with major support over the years? Who can say at this point.

Also PLEASE give the Dark Eldar some new models even before Tau if necessary. Poor Dark Kin have such an excellent range but it could use some new stuff.

We've heard that 2018 is going to be the "year of the Xenos" if so it stands to reason GW is going to want a big flagship "new release" for 2018, much like how Primaris Marines and Death Guard are this years.

the most likely flagship there would be a new Xenos race the big question is "what?" one can, upon looking back see GW with the new actions have largely been hitting the obvious targets. admech, death watch, gene stealer cults, all where easily tops on the "what factions should GW bring in" listings.

If you forced me to make a GUESS as to a new Xenos race, I'd proably weight the odds towards GW giving us Hrud.

 adamsouza wrote:
From what little I've gathered about the mechanics so far is it's likely to be based on a variation of one of the old WEG game mechanics. The guy loved TORG and basically bought the rights to TORG and the WEG D6 system books.

Someone already mentioned target number 4. WEG's MASTERBOOK/HEROIC game HERCULES and later DC UNIVERSE games both were a variation of the D6 system that used used a target number and counted successes for task resolution.

I'm not sure how to feel about this. TORG was a wonderful setting marred by some of the worst sub systems I've ever seen. I do not get warm and fuzzies thinking about its system. Don't know about the other variations on it, maybe the core system worked I can just barely remember it.

BrianDavion wrote:
We've heard that 2018 is going to be the "year of the Xenos" if so it stands to reason GW is going to want a big flagship "new release" for 2018, much like how Primaris Marines and Death Guard are this years.

the most likely flagship there would be a new Xenos race the big question is "what?" one can, upon looking back see GW with the new actions have largely been hitting the obvious targets. admech, death watch, gene stealer cults, all where easily tops on the "what factions should GW bring in" listings.

If you forced me to make a GUESS as to a new Xenos race, I'd proably weight the odds towards GW giving us Hrud.

I think the number one candidate is a completely new Xenos from scratch so it would be impossible for us to speculate. If they do Demiurg as a separate faction as opposed to a Tau sub-faction that counts as well. Assuming it's not a completely new xenos but an existing one what do we think the prime candidates are?

I would personally like to see Rak Gol.

I can't imagine they'd just drop a brand new Xenos we'd never heard of, unless it's another tyranid "invading from beyond the rim" sorta deal. Then again, I'm not sure what if any of those races is really interesting enough to warrant an army. Maybe slaugh or however they were spelled? I remember those being big in the various ffg games actually. Or maybe one of my DMs just really liked them.

Slaugh would basically be Imperial guard with disguised giant maggot people as HQ elements (who would probably never actually be on the battlefield in the first place). Not very interesting but would require very little work from GW.

Rak Gol are 6 limbed reptile people covered in cybernetics, toting rad weaponry, with a complete disregard for their own lives and possibly being controlled by a long dead(?) alien race.

SilverAlien wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
From what little I've gathered about the mechanics so far is it's likely to be based on a variation of one of the old WEG game mechanics. The guy loved TORG and basically bought the rights to TORG and the WEG D6 system books.

Someone already mentioned target number 4. WEG's MASTERBOOK/HEROIC game HERCULES and later DC UNIVERSE games both were a variation of the D6 system that used used a target number and counted successes for task resolution.

I'm not sure how to feel about this. TORG was a wonderful setting marred by some of the worst sub systems I've ever seen. I do not get warm and fuzzies thinking about its system. Don't know about the other variations on it, maybe the core system worked I can just barely remember it.

The TORG game mechanics were inferior to the D6 system.

The D6 system was much more flexible.

BrianDavion wrote:
We've heard that 2018 is going to be the "year of the Xenos" if so it stands to reason GW is going to want a big flagship "new release" for 2018, much like how Primaris Marines and Death Guard are this years.

the most likely flagship there would be a new Xenos race the big question is "what?" one can, upon looking back see GW with the new actions have largely been hitting the obvious targets. admech, death watch, gene stealer cults, all where easily tops on the "what factions should GW bring in" listings.

If you forced me to make a GUESS as to a new Xenos race, I'd proably weight the odds towards GW giving us Hrud.

The year of xenos? Sounds like the summer of George.

 warboss wrote:
The year of xenos? Sounds like the summer of George.

And we know how that ended... Yikes!

Yeah, 2017 was Imperium vs Chaos (And yes, they have puss that pretty hard. Probably more Imperium than Chaos but... two Daemon Primarchs and two CSM Legions: TS and DG isn't bad either), so if the promised "year of the xenos" is like 2017 but for Eldar, Orks, Necrons and Tau... my wallet is terrified.

Would be neat if they bring in Rak'gol since it would be an alien faction made by FFG for the RPG. Much like the majority of the DW lore was done by them then used/adapted to release the DW.

Also totally calling it now but I think we'll see Deathwatch release next year to tie into this year of xenos.

Edit
My wallet is quivering in terror too Galas. Especially with my ton of projects I have. For the first time ever... I might have a backlog too big to ever hope to finish. Why must GW make so much excellent models. Imagine if almost every Xenos get's releases next year. I hope they all do and then we also get the new faction.