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.

Hesitant to post this as the fun police will no doubt shriek about it, but the next panel of the comic is being drawn live right now.

https://www.twitch.tv/peachpunk

So, don't be a jerk.

Do people really play warhammer campaings like a DnD group of heroes? Just like the wargame, our campaings then to be about a mayor confluct where our group is part of it. Like, an active warzone with the campament has "rest hub". Using npcs with our group is normal. Those can die en masse to give the game more athmosphere.
Two marine scouts, 10 guardsmen, a officer and the support mech enginner for their transport where 1 sm and 9 guardsmen are npc, is a normal kind of group for example.
If you want a more exploration/adventure kind of theme, with more freedom, you have rogue traders or inquisitor or rogue group kind of campaings.

BlueGrassGamer wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I mean, you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons, but if you care about the fluff that is not possible.

A simple translation of the above: "You're enjoying 40K in the wrong way! Stop having fun!" It's the same argument that H.B.M.C. and His Master's Voice have been making. And honestly? If you aren't willing to bend fluff or use a willing suspension of disbelief to continue having fun with your chosen group of roleplayers/gaming buddies/whatever, that's on you and no one else.

No, that's not what they said. They simply said that it's going to strain the 40K universe as previously established to have very mixed characters stay together long term. They also said "you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons". I mean, if you're going to paraphrase someone's argument to make it easier to get mad at, then don't quote the bit where they say they're doing what you're accusing them of not doing.

I assume that most groups will either have a firm premise for the game they want to run ("You're all Guardsmen/women in the XIII'th Redshirts."), or will just throw canon to the four winds and have an Ork, Dark Eldar, Wulfen and Navigator running around fighting crime. So long as everyone's getting what they want, there's no problem. My only real worry is that you're inevitably going to get That One Guy who insists that no really, your noir-ish game of Inquisitorial acolytes delving into corruption in the depths of a hive city would benefit from his Slaaneshi Noise Marine (and if you were a GOOD GM you could fit Fulcius Lewdtentacle in, why are you stifling my creativity?). But that sort of player always finds a way to cause trouble.

 Galas wrote:
Do people really play warhammer campaings like a DnD group of heroes? Just like the wargame, our campaings then to be about a mayor confluct where our group is part of it. Like, an active warzone with the campament has "rest hub". Using npcs with our group is normal. Those can die en masse to give the game more athmosphere.
Two marine scouts, 10 guardsmen, a officer and the support mech enginner for their transport where 1 sm and 9 guardsmen are npc, is a normal kind of group for example.
If you want a more exploration/adventure kind of theme, with more freedom, you have rogue traders or inquisitor or rogue group kind of campaings.

That's what we did in our Only War campaigns, the first one was a result of having to escape via drop pod, the other, we had some support for major battle, but little side missions (like the above building killing one) were mostly our group, perhaps with extra materiel, like a spare Taurox or autocannons for our Ogryn players.

 Elemental wrote:
No, that's not what they said. They simply said that it's going to strain the 40K universe as previously established to have very mixed characters stay together long term. They also said "you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons". I mean, if you're going to paraphrase someone's argument to make it easier to get mad at, then don't quote the bit where they say they're doing what you're accusing them of not doing..

Dude, that's literally the argument they're making. Just read Iron_Captain's quote again.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I mean, you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons, but if you care about the fluff that is not possible.

See that bit I've put in bold? It's a perfect example of why I find arguments in favor of fluff orthodoxy - especially when you're talking about role-playing games - to be so repetitive and boring. That section in bold makes the entire thing come across as "If you're doing something that breaks established cannon, you're enjoying 40K the wrong way". The only canon that matters in a role-playing game is the one that the players and GM establish around the table and for themselves.

 Elemental wrote:
My only real worry is that you're inevitably going to get That One Guy who insists that no really, your noir-ish game of Inquisitorial acolytes delving into corruption in the depths of a hive city would benefit from his Slaaneshi Noise Marine (and if you were a GOOD GM you could fit Fulcius Lewdtentacle in, why are you stifling my creativity?). But that sort of player always finds a way to cause trouble.

So tell him to join in properly or get lost. Simple.

BlueGrassGamer wrote:
Aren’t you and H.B.M.C. arguing that the folks who wouldn’t mind running and/or playing in mixed groups of Imperials and xenos characters - ahem - “like 40k the wrong way”? Oh, the irony...

Not once have I told anyone in this thread how they should be playing their games. Go tilt at some other windmill.

BlueGrassGamer wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

I mean, you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons, but if you care about the fluff that is not possible.

A simple translation of the above: "You're enjoying 40K in the wrong way! Stop having fun!" It's the same argument that H.B.M.C. and His Master's Voice have been making. And honestly? If you aren't willing to bend fluff or use a willing suspension of disbelief to continue having fun with your chosen group of roleplayers/gaming buddies/whatever, that's on you and no one else.

It seems you did not read what I wrote.
I did not say stop having fun, in fact I said exactly the opposite. If you are having fun you can handwave the fluff. The fluff is there to provide fun. It should never be an impediment to having fun.
But there are people that get their fun from being as true to the fluff as possible, who like to really immerse themselves in the 40k universe. If you are one of those people then handwaving it would not be possible because that would actually damage the fun you are having. So for people like H.B.M.C. and His Master's Voice and others the best option is to limit party compositions to something that feels more natural in the 40k universe. There is nothing wrong with either approach. Everyone should do which is most fun to them and their group. With a roleplaying game, there simply can not be a wrong way to enjoy it.

It's the grim dark far future,

you don't need an inquisitor, you just need a superior officer in the characters chain of command to order them to

'meet up with X, Y and Z and work with them to perform mission REDACTED in the Emperors name, when I have further orders for you you will be contacted by servo-skull 01234Plotdevice'

all good imperial characters will obay,

you can run your main plot, quite possibly the characters are not senior enough to know why they're doing anything, baffling orders are no doubt a common thing in 40k

allow other adventures to develop along the way as the character try to figure out what the heck is going on, complete the mission and serve the emperor

and whenever needed throw in some further orders to one or more of the party, they've been ordered to stick together so they'll all go along

simples

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
It's the grim dark far future,

you don't need an inquisitor, you just need a superior officer in the characters chain of command to order them to

'meet up with X, Y and Z and work with them to perform mission REDACTED in the Emperors name, when I have further orders for you you will be contacted by servo-skull 01234Plotdevice'

all good imperial characters will obay,

you can run your main plot, quite possibly the characters are not senior enough to know why they're doing anything, baffling orders are no doubt a common thing in 40k

allow other adventures to develop along the way as the character try to figure out what the heck is going on, complete the mission and serve the emperor

and whenever needed throw in some further orders to one or more of the party, they've been ordered to stick together so they'll all go along

simples

That works only if the superior officer is the same for all characters. When you are playing a Space Marine, a Magos and an Imperial Guardsman, the only 'officer' that would have the authority to order all three around would be an Inquisitor, a Custodes, a Primarch or the Emperor Himself. And when the fourth player in the group is an Ork... well... To issue orders to a party like that would require a Space Marine Captain, a senior Imperial Guard officer, a high-ranking Magos and an Ork Warboss to be coordinating something. But realistically, if they wanted to get something done, each of them would just send a group of his own guys.
So yeah, to keep such a party togetherit in a fluffy way is going to take an Inquisitor. Not that I see anything wrong with that. Inquisitors are like the most perfectly convenient plot device ever for a GM. If my group wants to run a mixed party, that is definitely how I will be going to handle it.

Seriously, people are thinking about this too hard.

The point of an RPG is to explore the possibilities that a setting offers, not to adhere to a strict code that doesn't deviate from the cannon.

People play Drow in D&D and Jedi in Star Wars every day.

Player Characters are EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS bound only by the decisions and whims of the Player and not the expectations of the normal behavior for the nonplayer characters.

The game is there to provide us mechanics and setting. The game master and the enjoyment of the group should decide party composition.

Im personally more of the kind of "the orc has hit you with his axe. You are half death" roleplayer. The one that prefers systems without progresion where the experience agaisnt dangerous situation is your only tool of survival, and where a fight is an undesirable consequence with hard consequences even winning. But i can understand that warhammer is build into exceptions and overpowered characters.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
It's the grim dark far future,

you don't need an inquisitor, you just need a superior officer in the characters chain of command to order them to

'meet up with X, Y and Z and work with them to perform mission REDACTED in the Emperors name, when I have further orders for you you will be contacted by servo-skull 01234Plotdevice'

all good imperial characters will obay,

you can run your main plot, quite possibly the characters are not senior enough to know why they're doing anything, baffling orders are no doubt a common thing in 40k

allow other adventures to develop along the way as the character try to figure out what the heck is going on, complete the mission and serve the emperor

and whenever needed throw in some further orders to one or more of the party, they've been ordered to stick together so they'll all go along

simples

That works only if the superior officer is the same for all characters. When you are playing a Space Marine, a Magos and an Imperial Guardsman, the only 'officer' that would have the authority to order all three around would be an Inquisitor, a Custodes, a Primarch or the Emperor Himself. And when the fourth player in the group is an Ork... well... To issue orders to a party like that would require a Space Marine Captain, a senior Imperial Guard officer, a high-ranking Magos and an Ork Warboss to be coordinating something. But realistically, if they wanted to get something done, each of them would just send a group of his own guys.
So yeah, to keep such a party togetherit in a fluffy way is going to take an Inquisitor. Not that I see anything wrong with that. Inquisitors are like the most perfectly convenient plot device ever for a GM. If my group wants to run a mixed party, that is definitely how I will be going to handle it.

each character can (and probably would) have a different superior, all the superiors would give the same basic order (they might actually know what super secret mission is going on, they might just have received orders from their own higher ups), 'hang around with those other wierdos you would normal avoid/never see/purge etc, and serve the Emperor'

 Irbis wrote:

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

Naaah, these were really ugly compared to this comic. The artist is actually 'ascended fan' type of deal, promoted from drawing popular 40K fan webcomic to making actual 40K promo art...

You sure we're talking about the same guy?

Because these not only look good:



but they look a lot like the W&G comic too!

Anyway, looking forward to the new comic here!

New comic should be up tomorrow or Monday, it's still being worked on right now.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Then 40K isn't the setting for you(...)

Yes, I'm sure I like 40k the wrong way.

Rather, your interpretation of the setting does not match up with the established lore.

Look buddy, you're welcome to buy into whatever headcanon you want- it's a free country. But your (and Yodrin's) grievances with the game are predicated on the premise that the scenarios offered by the game rules don't support the game setting. That is a false premise.

Point blank: anyone who thinks that a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and Guardsman roaming around like a Dungeons and Dragons adventuring group is subversive of the setting simply hasn't read enough fluff.

 Alpharius wrote:
You sure we're talking about the same guy?

I kinda think you're talking about different guys. While beautiful, the Primarchs were drawn by Nicolás R. Giacondino. And they aren't listed as contributors to Eagle Ordinary.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Then 40K isn't the setting for you(...)

Yes, I'm sure I like 40k the wrong way.

Rather, your interpretation of the setting does not match up with the established lore.

Look buddy, you're welcome to buy into whatever headcanon you want- it's a free country. But your (and Yodrin's) grievances with the game are predicated on the premise that the scenarios offered by the game rules don't support the game setting. That is a false premise.

Point blank: anyone who thinks that a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and Guardsman roaming around like a Dungeons and Dragons adventuring group is subversive of the setting simply hasn't read enough fluff.

Uh... I am not sure how to respond to this. D&D and 40k are fundamentally different settings. While there are plenty possible reasons that could bring a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and a Guardsman together, they'd not be roaming around like a D&D group of 'adventurers'. If you think that, you simply have not read enough fluff. Unlike characters in D&D, these characters would not be free to roam around the galaxy as they please, they'd all be part of a command structure. They are not independent adventurers, they are a part of larger organisations that exercise control over them. As a party of these characters, you would receive and try to fulfill missions for your superiors, not go out into the galaxy to look for quests and loot.
You could very well play a D&D-like party in 40k, but you would not be able to play a Commissar, Space Marine, Guardsman or Tech-priest unless you either ignore the fluff or they are renegades that abandoned their Chapter/Regiment/Forge World.

 Galas wrote:
Do people really play warhammer campaings like a DnD group of heroes?

Depends on which game you're playing. Each of them offered a different method of interfacing (so to speak) with the background. Only War was, like you described, a way of playing a group of soldiers involved in a larger conflict. Rogue Traded lent itself towards the 'choose your own (highly profitable) adventure'. Death Watch was mission based. Dark Heresy was almost a 'group of heroes' in style. Black Crusade could take elements of all of them. On top of that they all had specific and fleshed out settings.

BlueGrassGamer wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
You sure we're talking about the same guy?

I kinda think you're talking about different guys. While beautiful, the Primarchs were drawn by Nicolás R. Giacondino. And they aren't listed as contributors to Eagle Ordinary.

Heh - wrong interpretation!

I said that guy (Nicolas) reminded me of whoever is doing this stuff.

Then ITT, someone said 'that guy's stuff was awful' when it really isn't, and also looks a lot like this stuff!

Anyway, it's all good!

Roll on Monday!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Then 40K isn't the setting for you(...)

Yes, I'm sure I like 40k the wrong way.

Rather, your interpretation of the setting does not match up with the established lore.

Look buddy, you're welcome to buy into whatever headcanon you want- it's a free country. But your (and Yodrin's) grievances with the game are predicated on the premise that the scenarios offered by the game rules don't support the game setting. That is a false premise.

Point blank: anyone who thinks that a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and Guardsman roaming around like a Dungeons and Dragons adventuring group is subversive of the setting simply hasn't read enough fluff.

Uh... I am not sure how to respond to this. D&D and 40k are fundamentally different settings. While there are plenty possible reasons that could bring a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and a Guardsman together, they'd not be roaming around like a D&D group of 'adventurers'. If you think that, you simply have not read enough fluff. Unlike characters in D&D, these characters would not be free to roam around the galaxy as they please, they'd all be part of a command structure. They are not independent adventurers, they are a part of larger organisations that exercise control over them. As a party of these characters, you would receive and try to fulfill missions for your superiors, not go out into the galaxy to look for quests and loot.
You could very well play a D&D-like party in 40k, but you would not be able to play a Commissar, Space Marine, Guardsman or Tech-priest unless you either ignore the fluff or they are renegades that abandoned their Chapter/Regiment/Forge World.

If you look up you'll see the point.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Then 40K isn't the setting for you(...)

Yes, I'm sure I like 40k the wrong way.

Rather, your interpretation of the setting does not match up with the established lore.

Look buddy, you're welcome to buy into whatever headcanon you want- it's a free country. But your (and Yodrin's) grievances with the game are predicated on the premise that the scenarios offered by the game rules don't support the game setting. That is a false premise.

Point blank: anyone who thinks that a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and Guardsman roaming around like a Dungeons and Dragons adventuring group is subversive of the setting simply hasn't read enough fluff.

Uh... I am not sure how to respond to this. D&D and 40k are fundamentally different settings. While there are plenty possible reasons that could bring a Commissar, Space Marine, Tech-Priest and a Guardsman together, they'd not be roaming around like a D&D group of 'adventurers'. If you think that, you simply have not read enough fluff. Unlike characters in D&D, these characters would not be free to roam around the galaxy as they please, they'd all be part of a command structure. They are not independent adventurers, they are a part of larger organisations that exercise control over them. As a party of these characters, you would receive and try to fulfill missions for your superiors, not go out into the galaxy to look for quests and loot.
You could very well play a D&D-like party in 40k, but you would not be able to play a Commissar, Space Marine, Guardsman or Tech-priest unless you either ignore the fluff or they are renegades that abandoned their Chapter/Regiment/Forge World.

It is, literally too easy to make a campaign based on a free roam group if that's what the players wanted. Whenever you come up to a logical block you just need to find away around it, within the fluff. If you need to take them out of their normal command structure, just do it. Make them all prisoners of a Necron collector where they have too work together to escape. Make them some of the few stragglers of a war torn battlefield world over run by a Nid fleet. Make them all test subjects in a mechanicus maze. You, the user, are the limiting factor in any game system based on such a diverse universe.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Make them all prisoners of a Necron collector where they have too work together to escape.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Make them some of the few stragglers of a war torn battlefield world over run by a Nid fleet.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Make them all test subjects in a mechanicus maze.

And again you just described three one-shot adventures that sound like they'd be a lot of fun to play, but they're nothing sustainable unless this same group of people keeps stumbling into new and crazier adventures, something that just doesn't ring true of 40K.

 Elemental wrote:
My only real worry is that you're inevitably going to get That One Guy who insists that no really, your noir-ish game of Inquisitorial acolytes delving into corruption in the depths of a hive city would benefit from his Slaaneshi Noise Marine (and if you were a GOOD GM you could fit Fulcius Lewdtentacle in, why are you stifling my creativity?). But that sort of player always finds a way to cause trouble.

This is easily resolved in the same way I resolve every RPG issue. And I've had the gamut of them.

A guy wants a super-murder-cyborg in a cyberpunk investigation RPG. Some dude wants to be the Grey Knight in a Deathwatch Campaign. Dude wants to be black-ops super-Soldier in Delta Green. This guy wants to be an uber-vampire wizard-warlock in a Superhero game....

You tell them, "Nope, this is what we're doing and if you don't like it- go play with someone else".

But while we're fretting on 'lore accuracy' with this new game, let me tell you- my last 40k RPG was Black Crusade. We played a group of heretic Astartes whose sole purpose was to be an obnoxious group of jerks and cause mayhem in the most absurd ways possible.

We solved our disagreements in-character by having flexing contests. We drew dicks on loyalist Razorbacks. We taught a tribe of humans on a recruiting world to be racist because the Chaplain of the Space Marine chapter was dark of skin. We chain-smoked lho-sticks. We burst into hysterical laughter when someone said 'taint' because we recently found out the other meaning of the word. We had absurd character flaws ('perfect hindsight', 'lies about the wrong things', 'yells whenever he speaks', 'uses profanity way too much'). My character was an Alpha Legionnaire who convinced a group of Arbites that he was a loyalist of the 'Triple Bitey-Snakes' Chapter.

We threw the 'seriousness' out the window and had a damned blast. I look forward to doing the same thing with this, and I think we're going to be Deathwatch Marines this time.

BlueGrassGamer wrote:

 Elemental wrote:
No, that's not what they said. They simply said that it's going to strain the 40K universe as previously established to have very mixed characters stay together long term. They also said "you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons". I mean, if you're going to paraphrase someone's argument to make it easier to get mad at, then don't quote the bit where they say they're doing what you're accusing them of not doing..

Dude, that's literally the argument they're making. Just read Iron_Captain's quote again.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I mean, you could handwave it in the name of fun and just have them stay together because reasons, but if you care about the fluff that is not possible.

See that bit I've put in bold?.

Yes, I can see that "IF" very clearly. Can you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

We threw the 'seriousness' out the window and had a damned blast. I look forward to doing the same thing with this, and I think we're going to be Deathwatch Marines this time.

Agreed. So long as there's some solid support for themed parties as well as the wackier stuff, I'll be happy. The Iron Kingdoms RPG had a good optional system of templates for parties, where the characters had to meet some criteria, and got some minor benefits in exchange. It was a good way to instantly convey "these are the sorts of in-setting groups that could work as PC's"

And part of me does hope they have Obi-Wan Sherlock Clouseau as the character creation example.

TIER 6 SH*T RIGHT HERE!

Rogue Traders and their followers, roaming Inquisitors and their followers, or Corsairs (human or xenos) is IMO the best option for free roaming parties. They are not bound or only loosely bound to any other organizations, and they have a starship to travel around in.

 BrookM wrote:


TIER 6 SH*T RIGHT HERE!

and how about the half-eldar ultramarine? tier 7?

Illiyan Nastase is tier 5, the Eldar genes are keeping it down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trawling through the comments of their official site, I saw the following answers to some of the questions asked, probably old news, sorry if so.

We haven’t given our official release date, but we’re aiming for late summer, timed around a particular gaming event that happens during that part of the year…

We won’t have public testing, but there will be a quick start this year, which should be a couple months before release. More information later.

The timing for that is very tricky. Without giving too much away, I will say that the initial release of the Quick Start is using a method that does not permit us to offer the information anywhere else until July. (Industry-savvy folks may be able to figure out what I’m talking about.)

From what I understand, the first wave and most of the second wave are already set, so it would have to be later in the line. In general, though, Ross has to maintain pretty close control over the direction of products in accordance with our licencing.

OK.

At this point, let's all agree to disagree on certain things, and keep this thread about News and Rumors for this upcoming RPG.

Anyone is, of course, free to start a thread about what is and is not 'right and true' about a 40K RPG...somewhere else on Dakka Dakka.