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.

LOL! That's a great representation of Ross.

...and a good overview of the system. Fun!

Loving the art

Reminds me of the guy that drew all the Primarchs years back...

The idea of a guardsman, commissar, tech priest and a Marine scout going on an adventure fills me with trepidation.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
The idea of a guardsman, commissar, tech priest and a Marine scout going on an adventure fills me with trepidation.

Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.

Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.

Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.

Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.

Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.

Easy - They are the survivors of an enemy attack. In fact there is a BL novel with the guardsman and Raven Guard marine where exactly this happens.

The two Guard are going to look to the Astartes for orders, The Ad Mech thinks its logical t stick together and the RG sees them as useful but likely ultimately disposable assets.

Inquisition makes it much easier - but even then they could be in contact with the Inquisitor via the Ad Mech for instance.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.

Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.

Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.

Or an orbital assault goes wrong, with the comissar and the guardsman as the only survivors from their unit who then meet up with the ad mech magos, who was hiding and hoarding tech to save and then find the scout who is performing recon for his chapter.

Just takes a bit more imagination than "You are all from this chapter/regiment/etc." but gives you a much more fun game due to the inter-character conflicts and perspectives it introduces.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.

Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.

Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.

Or an orbital assault goes wrong, with the comissar and the guardsman as the only survivors from their unit who then meet up with the ad mech magos, who was hiding and hoarding tech to save and then find the scout who is performing recon for his chapter.

Just takes a bit more imagination than "You are all from this chapter/regiment/etc." but gives you a much more fun game due to the inter-character conflicts and perspectives it introduces.

THIS.

Another option would be that these guys are some of the survivors at a rally point. I have been in that situation more then I care to count. They'd drop you in, you have a set time to get to the rally point, and if not, you just link up at the closest one you landed near. Another would be to link up in a trenchline/ bunker, and you move forward with who you have, picking up stragglers along the way, as you get an Ad Hoc squad/ team together of whoever is left in the area. Crash site/ Drop point/ defensive line, etc...

Those works okay for one off scenarios, sure.

Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.

Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.

Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.

Easy - They are the survivors of an enemy attack. In fact there is a BL novel with the guardsman and Raven Guard marine where exactly this happens.

The two Guard are going to look to the Astartes for orders, The Ad Mech thinks its logical t stick together and the RG sees them as useful but likely ultimately disposable assets.

Inquisition makes it much easier - but even then they could be in contact with the Inquisitor via the Ad Mech for instance.

Not bad, but I don't think RG are one of the "reg humans are disposable" chapters. I think they're closer to Spave Wolf/Salamander thinking there.

Maybe you were thinking of the Marines Malevolent!

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Those works okay for one off scenarios, sure.

Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.

Oh jesus.
No, YOU do it. That's the point after all, to use your imagination. It's easy to do, you just need to not approach the task like it's impossible just because you don't like how its viewed in the fluff.
I guarantee you can, if you actually try. Took me half a minute.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Those works okay for one off scenarios, sure.

Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.

You just team up? I mean, my D&D party is also disfunctional like heck, but at the end of the day, what we want is to have fun together.

A "fluffy" way, would be to use the "Inquisition" card: You 4 performed so well with the first task, Inquisitor X of the Ordo Y decided he wanted you as Acolytes, so now you have a "boss" NPC for a long campaign.

Also, I'm LOVING the art and how they explain the core concepts of the game!

 adamsouza wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Just a heads up...if the system is predominantly based around 4+, with special 6+ results you could use the Betrayal at Calth dice which are cheap on eBay

Nice catch. I have 2 sets of these myself that was just going to sit around unused. Now at least I have a use for them.

Yeah, I had two sets laying around myself, so I ordered another 40 for like $10 on eBay (far cheaper than any custom dice anywhere else). Just seems a good fit for leftover dice that no one is using.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Those works okay for one off scenarios, sure.

Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.

After this rag-tag team of misfits manage to break through from enemy territory/take out orbital defence cannon/blow up the enemy fuel refinery/etc. they catch the attention of an Inquisitor, who approaches them with the suggestion that it would be to their mutual benefit if they were to do something for them....

This kind of thing even has a precedent in the lore, with Ciaphas Cain and Jurgen working alongside Space Marines, Admech and Inquisition at multiple points throughout their career. In fact I am sure there is one book where they are working with Inquisitor Vail and their admech friend to find a chaos artifact on a planet.

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Those works okay for one off scenarios, sure.

Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.

If the marine is the bugbear you're worried about, the Deathwatch Kill Marine solves that problem.

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Deathwatch_Kill-marine

I don't see a bunch of "normal" humans with an admech hanger on for lulz hanging out together being the issue.

The theaters of war in 40K have a lot of different groups in them.

It is almost too easy to imagine and justify just about any group of characters getting together and then staying together.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.

Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.

Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.

Wow, honestly? The 40k setting allows one to justify nearly anything if one is willing to exercise some imagination, and justifying such a motley team is actually a lot easier to do than some of the other things that have actually canonically occurred within the setting.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Just takes a bit more imagination...

Neronoxx wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Those works okay for one off scenarios, sure.

Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.

Oh jesus.
No, YOU do it. That's the point after all, to use your imagination. It's easy to do, you just need to not approach the task like it's impossible just because you don't like how its viewed in the fluff.
I guarantee you can, if you actually try. Took me half a minute.

Oh don't start this nonsense. If you're just going to completely abandon the core themes & tone of the setting on a continual basis, why are you using a setting-specific ruleset or even playing in that setting at all? That's what the eleventy-billion nonspecific RPG systems out there are for and a lot of those are free.

The FFG RPG's worked because they found conceits to allow for varied parties having varied adventures within the existing conventions of the setting. They assumed that the default state for any given group was going to be "I want to roleplay in the 40K setting" and set things up to make that as easy as possible, trusting that if players wanted to go outside those existing conventions here & there(and for most groups it *would* be an occasional thing, because again they're there to RP in 40K) they'd resort to "imagination". Constructing the core experience to best serve the majority of usage scenarios and relying on the playerbase to modify the system when they want to do their own thing is the rational way to do things.

"You can just make everything up from scratch yourself, stop being so laaaaazy" is a daft argument, because the entire basis of the transaction with an RPG in an established setting is that you're paying the company money to do all the setup work for you, and if you want something more freeform that you have to work on yourself there are countless generic systems out there, again many totally free, that will let you be even more "imaginative".

 Alpharius wrote:
The theaters of war in 40K have a lot of different groups in them.

It is almost too easy to imagine and justify just about any group of characters getting together and then staying together.

Not, again, if you're sticking to the conventions of the setting. 99.9999999% of Guardsmen(or whatever else) in 99.9999999% of situations don't have the required level of agency in 40K to just "stay together". I can come up with a thousand odd edge-case scenarios for situational team-ups, but the only way to preserve those team-ups beyond the immediate scenario is to give them a patron who *does* have the required agency, and that pretty much means Inquisitors and Rogue Traders unless you want a storyline with a fairly specific focus in which case you get a couple more.

So in the end, all this "freedom" and "imaginative possibility" is illusory if you're planning to actually play in the 40K setting.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.

Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.

Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.

Is the master's duty to give a proper explanation to why those characters are working together. If he can't, then he should just make a more thematic campaing restricting some backgrounds/characters.




Why do you jump to absolutes and exagerations? This is a Warhammer 40k basic and generic roleplay core system with indications on how to roleplay in the setting of warhammer 40k. It comes down to the master to, inside the boundaries of the setting, make his "party" and his "adventure". Do you prefer a more specific and focused RPG system like the old ones, ok, we get it. Thats a absolutely reasonable and legitimate way to prefer things and you are in your right to express that you prefer it to be that way.
But don't say that because things aren't as you wish they where, everyone is just using the "Make everything yourself" argument to defend this "new" system, because thats isn't the case. This is a Warhammer 40k Roleplaying game to roleplay in the Warhammer 40k setting. Is not a "generic RPG game". People aren't abandoning the core themes of the setting because the rulebook expect from them to select the kind of game they want to play inside the indications of the rulebook.
Its not cool to gatekeep other people from what is proper "Warhammer40k". Is not the first time you accuse other people of enjoying the Warhammer40k setting the wrong way.

Easiest reason is.. Cadia has blown up, the Imperium is torn in two by a massive warp rift, everything going to gak, survive.

Unless you're against the recent advancements in the plot.

You've done nothing to disprove what I said was true, just merely argued at me in an extremely volatile and infantile method.
It's the GM's job to come up with a campaign, and detail everything that is allowed within that setting. If you don't want guardsmen beside marines beside Skitarii, fine, then set those standards. But it's not impossible, and to say that to construct such a campaign is utterly existent on abandoning " the core themes & tone of the setting on a continual basis" is to foolishly wave a bright red flag in the air that screams 'I have no ability to interpret and innovate within existing lore and themes, and am a slave to the creative influence of others' through a fething megaphone.
Inventing a series of specific events that would necessitate the creation of such a varied group amongst GW's background is not only stupidly easy to do, there are literally text-book examples provided in many, many of the Black Library books. So much for abandoning the core themes, eh Yodel?
FFG's system was great, but even in their system, they allowed for mixed play between their core rulebooks, and Black Crusade was built upon the very premise. Now again, the weight of the creative bulk in that system was still resting upon the GM's shoulders. Both FFG and Wrath and Glory do the necessary legwork of handing players a system, stating out obvious foes and giving players and GM's the reigns. But they do not pretend to serve as replacements for campaign construction. That's why Pathfinder has a million published adventure paths.

Is it intellectually easier to just pick a faction, tell everyone to play within that and be happy? Yeah, sure. I loved Deathwatch. But don't go around aggressively promoting the notion that anything past this is some kind of travesty to the lore and fiction, because it's blatantly false and about as factually sound as the Flat Earth movement.
I loved the art snippet, and am glad to see that the design team seems to have an open mind when it comes to these designs; If I decide I want to run an all Custodes campaign, well that'll probably be simple.
The goal is to have fun, for gygax's sake.

 BrookM wrote:
Easiest reason is.. Cadia has blown up, the Imperium is torn in two by a massive warp rift, everything going to gak, survive.

Unless you're against the recent advancements in the plot.

Right?

Plus when you read just about any BL book, well, there's a fair amount of mixing and matching going on.

Never mind the fact - meta though it may be - that if you're all sitting down to play an RPG, it isn't hard at all to 'justify' doing stuff like was shown in the preview comic.

 Galas wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Why? Seems like it would be a fun game where each character would have different perspectives and approaches to events.

Because it's really hard to justify within the setting.

Essentially, the Inquisitorial theme from FFG's first take on the system is the only one that could possibly hold a group like that together and even that would be a massive stretch.

Is the master's duty to give a proper explanation to why those characters are working together. If he can't, then he should just make a more thematic campaing restricting some backgrounds/characters.

Spoiler:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Just takes a bit more imagination...

Neronoxx wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Those works okay for one off scenarios, sure.

Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.

Oh jesus.
No, YOU do it. That's the point after all, to use your imagination. It's easy to do, you just need to not approach the task like it's impossible just because you don't like how its viewed in the fluff.
I guarantee you can, if you actually try. Took me half a minute.

Oh don't start this nonsense. If you're just going to completely abandon the core themes & tone of the setting on a continual basis, why are you using a setting-specific ruleset or even playing in that setting at all? That's what the eleventy-billion nonspecific RPG systems out there are for and a lot of those are free.

The FFG RPG's worked because they found conceits to allow for varied parties having varied adventures within the existing conventions of the setting. They assumed that the default state for any given group was going to be "I want to roleplay in the 40K setting" and set things up to make that as easy as possible, trusting that if players wanted to go outside those existing conventions here & there(and for most groups it *would* be an occasional thing, because again they're there to RP in 40K) they'd resort to "imagination". Constructing the core experience to best serve the majority of usage scenarios and relying on the playerbase to modify the system when they want to do their own thing is the rational way to do things.

"You can just make everything up from scratch yourself, stop being so laaaaazy" is a daft argument, because the entire basis of the transaction with an RPG in an established setting is that you're paying the company money to do all the setup work for you, and if you want something more freeform that you have to work on yourself there are countless generic systems out there, again many totally free, that will let you be even more "imaginative".

Why do you jump to absolutes and exagerations? This is a Warhammer 40k basic and generic roleplay core system with indications on how to roleplay in the setting of warhammer 40k. It comes down to the master to inside the boundaries of the setting to make his "party" and his "adventure". Do you prefer a more specific and focused RPG system like the old ones, ok, we get it.
But don't say that because things aren't as you wish they where, everyone is just using the "Make everything yourself" argument because thats isn't the case. This is a Warhammer 40k Roleplaying game to roleplay in the Warhammer 40k setting. Is not a "generic RPG game". People aren't abandoning the core themes of the setting because the rulebook expect form them to select the kind of game they want to play inside the indications of the rulebook.
You should stop with your gatekeeping of what is proper "Warhammer40k". Is not the first time you accuse other people of enjoying the Warhammer40k setting the wrong way.

It's not "gatekeeping" to grasp the basic premise of the setting, and congratulations on completely missing the point, which I will now belabour for your benefit:

I was not accusing this game of being "generic", I was saying that what this game purports to do would be better served with a generic - and thus even more "free" and "imaginative" - ruleset.

I'm not great with analogies, but lets try this:

A 40K novel that I just buy and read is a pre-built bit of furniture. I order it, I get what I paid for.

The FFG RPGs are Ikea flatpacks. I know what it is I'm buying, but I have to put in the work to realise the final product.

A generic RPG system is a bundle of tools and some raw materials, I have to design and build the whole project myself, but I get exactly what I want in the end.

So where does Wrath & Glory fit? People are claiming it's option three, toolbox & raw materials, but if it is then there are better sets of tools out there to work with, tools that let me work without any constraints at all if that's what I want. But if it's supposed to be option two, then it's a flatpack without any instructions - I'm still constrained in-practice by what I'm given, but I'm expected to figure out what the final product should be on my own.

Or put another way - on the spectrum with total freedom of imagination at one end and a completely preset narrative at the other, the prior 40K RPGs already were the "middle ground" compromise position, and I can't see the point in going a little bit further towards the freedom of imagination end when in the vast majority of cases I'd just be expending needless effort to re-establish the premise of the prior systems, and in the tiny handful of cases where I would want to go beyond that premise where I wouldn't mind putting in the extra effort(because it's for a special occasion not every adventure I run) I'd rather go all the way and either rework the existing systems entirely to my own taste or build completely from the ground up in a generic system.

EDIT: Infantile eh? Guess that whole "Rule 1" thing goes out the window when the mods agree with your position.

More specific rebuttals will come later after my lunch, and I'll do you the courtesy or replying to your points rather than engaging in petty ad homs.

 Alpharius wrote:
Right?

Plus when you read just about any BL book, well, there's a fair amount of mixing and matching going on.

Never mind the fact - meta though it may be - that if you're all sitting down to play an RPG, it isn't hard at all to 'justify' doing stuff like was shown in the preview comic.

Apparently, for some it is. But then there are always people who feel slaved to established works, that these things are infallible concepts with 0 interior mutability that are unyielding under any premise.
Those people are not the ones that get invited back to gaming sessions in my experience, and I know this because once upon a time, I was one of them. Confessions of a fluff-supremacist.

Edit: This isn't directed at anyone specifically, but rather is a general obersvation I think I can safely say all 'nerds, geeks, etc' will make at some point upon extended interaction with fanbases.
We, for the most part, all know or meet people like this, and the oustanding consensus is that they simply have not learned to relax.
Again, not directed at Yodhrin, or whoever. Just an observation.

Neronoxx wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Those works okay for one off scenarios, sure.

Now come up with a setup that can accommodate varied campaigns that are more than simple dungeon crawls and I might concede the point.

Oh jesus.
No, YOU do it. That's the point after all, to use your imagination. It's easy to do, you just need to not approach the task like it's impossible just because you don't like how its viewed in the fluff.
I guarantee you can, if you actually try. Took me half a minute.

I can come up with an infinite number of exception to the rules of the setting that would allow for that specific set of characters to co-exist for a limited amount of time within a storyline.

A system that calls for constant exceptions is not something I'm interested in. I like organic design and I'd rather put my imagination towards having fun within said organic design over fixing a hole in the product.

And yes, I realize you may feel differently. But please, spare me the condescension.

Neronoxx wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Right?

Plus when you read just about any BL book, well, there's a fair amount of mixing and matching going on.

Never mind the fact - meta though it may be - that if you're all sitting down to play an RPG, it isn't hard at all to 'justify' doing stuff like was shown in the preview comic.

Apparently, for some it is. But then there are always people who feel slaved to established works, that these things are infallible concepts with 0 interior mutability that are unyielding under any premise.
Those people are not the ones that get invited back to gaming sessions in my experience, and I know this because once upon a time, I was one of them. Confessions of a fluff-supremacist.

I lied, I can't respond politely to this kind of sneering, so I won't bother.

 Yodhrin wrote:


Not, again, if you're sticking to the conventions of the setting. 99.9999999% of Guardsmen(or whatever else) in 99.9999999% of situations don't have the required level of agency in 40K to just "stay together". I can come up with a thousand odd edge-case scenarios for situational team-ups, but the only way to preserve those team-ups beyond the immediate scenario is to give them a patron who *does* have the required agency, and that pretty much means Inquisitors and Rogue Traders unless you want a storyline with a fairly specific focus in which case you get a couple more.

So in the end, all this "freedom" and "imaginative possibility" is illusory if you're planning to actually play in the 40K setting.

Our heroes, at the end of their bloody campaign to liberate Aproximus Naminius from the clutches of a chaos tainted colonial governor after being stranded deep behind enemy lines, finally manage to assassinate the governor and escape the planet in his personal ship. As they make their way to rendezvous with the rest of the Imperium forces who are still fighting to crush the chaos-crazed PDF, a huge Warp disturbance engulfs their ship and, before they are hurtled headlong into the warp, they see an enormous, ancient, black battlecruiser materialise above the planet.

Suddenly, alarms ring out over the bridge, indicating a gellar field failure in the cargo bay. The magos is tasked with fixing the field generator whilst the pragmatic Commissar, raw Space Marine Scout and grizzled veteran Guardsman head to hold off the waves of demons pouring into the ship.

It is a hard fight, many of the intrepid troupe are wounded but they finally seal the field breach and finish off the warpspawn. They regroup on the bridge and consult the star charts to determine their location, only to find they have been flung to the far side of the galaxy, beyond Imperium space and that the breach of the gellar field has damaged their warp drive. With horror they realise they are within Ork-held territory and that they have no alternative but to land on the nearest habitable planet in order to restock what meagre supplies survived the warp incursion if they are to have any hope of making it back to Imperium space....

There you go, a perfectly valid according to in-universe lore example of how to keep the characters together which doesn't rely on them becoming the lackeys of an inquisitor or rogue trader. It also provides for a change of enemy (Cultists to Orks), new challenges to overcome (keeping the ship running) and provides an entrance for lots of cool new set pieces (Mad Max Fury Road chase sequence when they steal a trukk of promethium from an Ork refinery, anyone?) and even potentially new PC's (Ork Mek PC who helps them "keep deir ship runnin' da orky way", for example).

Just because 99.9999999% of the time the scenario wouldn't happen, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen in the game. You are playing the 0.0000001% of the time that it does.

This is going to blow some minds...

If you don't like the Commissar/Guardsman/Scout/Magos team up....don't fething play it? It's a damn RPG - play whatever characters make you happy, but stop coming in here and whinging about other people playing a game you'll never be part of.

If somebody half the world away is playing a game in a fashion you don't approve of...who cares?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


Not, again, if you're sticking to the conventions of the setting. 99.9999999% of Guardsmen(or whatever else) in 99.9999999% of situations don't have the required level of agency in 40K to just "stay together". I can come up with a thousand odd edge-case scenarios for situational team-ups, but the only way to preserve those team-ups beyond the immediate scenario is to give them a patron who *does* have the required agency, and that pretty much means Inquisitors and Rogue Traders unless you want a storyline with a fairly specific focus in which case you get a couple more.

So in the end, all this "freedom" and "imaginative possibility" is illusory if you're planning to actually play in the 40K setting.

Our heroes, at the end of their bloody campaign to liberate Aproximus Naminius from the clutches of a chaos tainted colonial governor after being stranded deep behind enemy lines, finally manage to assassinate the governor and escape the planet in his personal ship. As they make their way to rendezvous with the rest of the Imperium forces who are still fighting to crush the chaos-crazed PDF, a huge Warp disturbance engulfs their ship and, before they are hurtled headlong into the warp, they see an enormous, ancient battlecruiser materialise above the planet.

Suddenly, alarms ring out over the bridge, indicating a gellar field failure in the cargo bay. The magos is tasked with fixing the field generator whilst the pragmatic Commissar, raw Space Marine Scout and grizzled veteran Guardsman head to hold off the waves of demons pouring into the ship.

It is a hard fight, many of the intrepid troupe are wounded but they finally seal the field breach and finish off the warpspawn. They regroup on the bridge and consult the star charts to determine their location, only to find they have been flung to the far side of the galaxy, beyond Imperium space and that the breach of the gellar field has disabled their warp drive. With horror they realise they are within Ork-held territory and that they have no alternative but to land on the nearest habitable planet in order to restock what meagre supplies survived the warp incursion if they are to have any hope of making it back to Imperium space....

Where they would immediately either be executed for some Kafkaesque(or Pythonesque depending on tone) reason, or co-opted by one of the aforementioned powerful people/groups.

As I said, there are countless situational scenarios you can come up with, but they were either already possible or so out-there they're better accomplished using a ruleset with total creative freedom or your own for-that-purpose modifications to the existing one.

EDIT: Right, whatever. Evidently some folk here are determined to take criticism of a product as a personal and vicious assault, so once again I find myself questioning what the point of a discussion forum is when people don't actually want to discuss anything, just affirm to each other that they all indeed agree. You all have fun with that.