H.B.M.C. said:

Do you see that complaint in the Warhammer Fantasy Battle or Warhammer 40K war-game lines?  No.  Do you see it with NWoD?  No.  The system was widely praised for the amalgamation of rules that allowed all elements of the game to be pulled together, not burnt for having a core book and then the setting / template book of choice.  These arguments are fallacies and prejudicial when history elsewhere in the industry indicates the opposite is true.  And one more lesson from history:

TSR struggled because it competed with itself.  There was an element to them that they existed in a vacuum, yet still had the largest player base in RPG history.  Instead of focusing on this, they released to many settings and to many supplements for their lines, pumping up productions costs in writing time, print, distribution and storage for books that were all going to the same audience yet had to make choices as to what they were going to buy.  If the audience (the 40K audience) is going to buy, why release so many products and push your overheads up for what will essentially be a similar return?  Cannibalising your own customer base is the first step of wandering off of the mark, and there's no way that at five game releases in FFG aren't doing this by now.  

White Wolf:  To many books, to many game lines, so many settings in the same vacuum.  Company on its knees.  

What do I know?  I'm just a Grognard that was there at the beginning and watched TSR, ICE, GDW, SPI, Task Force Games, Gamelords, Pacesetter, West End Games, Creations Unlimited, Hogshead Publishing, Phage Press, Last Unicorn Games, Holistic Design, Imperium Games, Guardians of Order, Green Knight Publishing, New Infinities Productions and more go out of business over the years.  

Instead of taking these comments as 'Don't buy it then' or 'You haven't seen it yet' or 'Hating' or 'FFG bashing' these are severe lessons from history that are repeating themselves.  I love FFG products, but I know when I see bad business practice and bad business practice is to OUR DETRIMENT IN THE FUTURE if bad things like customer base cannibalisation and everything else that's been mentioned in multiple other posts begin happening.  This is my last word on this, the topic has become tiresome to me.  Fanboys please carry on.  FFG, you know what's written here has happened before multiple times and it's NEVER worked in the history of RPG's.  FFG is lucky in that it has other lines and board games aside from this part of its business.  It's their cash-flow leakage, not mine, but I care enough to point it out - that's not a negative thing, it's a constructive and positive thing, but I'm sure I'll be contradicted on that point.  

Coincidentally I just watched this:

http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx►x=dnd/4ll/20120416

Skip to 43:20. Supporting so many game lines has always been a bad thing, and it was the death of TSR, the gaming giant that started it all. Even Wizards of the Coast recognise the lesson are are seeking to fix the publishing model in the way already pointed out so many times over. This is no longer a hobby anywhere near its peak, and as much as fans of the material may hate to admit it to themselves, this is a business that has a bottom line and targets to hit. The current method is bad for FFG and bad for us as customers. Take a rational look at what is happening and has happened across the industry since 1974 and take a look at the trends that have affected RPG''s such as CCG''s, the new rise of board games, DVD, computer / console games etc. Each one is vying for our leisure time and we all have a limited amount of time.

Where we spend money for that time is key.

Making people choose which game line to play and then supporting five different lines rather than having a single game line with different facets is the worst choice in a world of financial squeeze, limited consumer time and competition that doesn''t even include other RPG''s - the competition is actually how we spend our leisure time and THEN which RPG we choose to play. 

This isn''t a clear cut "I''ll buy it" or "don''t buy it you''re a hater" debate - it''s a serious issue that affects a product line (and it is exactly that - make no mistake, it''s a product line with a bottom line return) that many people have enjoyed for a very long time. It should be talked about, looked at, dissected and openly discussed. Being an ostrich with a head in the ground while your own products eat your income, the competition forges ahead and releases products that fix the problems / model you''re suffering from and ignoring the changing climate and attitudes towards where leisure money is being spent is an act of wilful ignorance. 

I have no doubt a second edition is coming, I can''t see either GW or FFG maintaining this for even another 12 months. 

For my sins I restructure businesses for a living. Agree with me or not, brute economic force will dictate the outcome, not my opinion or anyone else''s. 

 Unfortunately, FFG really does not read these boards, so your plee is unlikely to reach them.

H.B.M.C. said:

I might quibble a little bit with this. It seems that the Black Crusade corebook is necessary to update the (broken) combat rules from Deathwatch.

I don''t disagree with that actually. There are a lot of things that I''d take from Black Crusade (and, by extension, Only War) and apply to the other three games, especially Deathwatch, where getting 100 or lower To Hit (or even better) isn''t hard.

BYE

 People need to quit saying "Buying the same rules over and over" because they''re not the same rules. Black Crusade as has been mentioned numerous times throughout the FFG forums is the evolutionary descendant of Dark Heresy (Which in itself is an evolutionary descendant of the Specialist Game "Inquisitor" which is an evolutionary descendant of WarHammer Fantasy Roleplay). Yes they are very similar but if people are stripping the rules out of Black Crusade to slap into other games as is wildly popular then it''s not really a verbatim copy of prior games.

In response to the "two book" issue here''s my perspective. Having a single core rulebook that has supplements works fine. It works for Dungeons and Dragons, it works for WFRP, it works for many other games. The difference, however, between that concept and the concept of the 40k ruleset is that is Core book of these games is a self-contained game. Yes it contains all the rules but it also contains enough material to actually play the game without the need for any other book. As I mentioned earlier you could play Dungeons and Dragons with just the Player''s Handbook, sure you lack premade monsters and some of the more flavorful items and classes, but it has everything you need to actually play the game and honestly play any flavor of the game.

If this 40k series was to follow such an example then the same condition would need to apply, that you could play the game with only the core rulebook. But what would you decide to be representation of the core rulebook► Dark Heresy certainly seems to be the top pick as it was the first, but what if people don''t want to bother at all with playing Throne Agents and would rather jump right ahead into playing big and powerful Space Marines► Because the games have a distinctive design philosophy and play style it really makes the idea of a "Player''s Handbook" awkward unless you would include all the pieces needed to make all those playstyles. You certainly could include all the classes, races, and specialties into this core book, but what about when Eldar or whatever are release and people want to play a game revolving around them► You would need to buy two books. H2SO4 hit the nail on the head, it would require FFG to plan everything out ahead of time. Sure I figure WotC does that but their product base is lot more focused in development and they have Hasbro''s coin to spend.

The reason it works so well for games like D&D and WHFP is that the races can easily be mixed and accomodate what the group wants to do. But with this the distinct playstyles interfere with the effectiveness of a unified core rulebook.

Also, I really don''t want to throw out the "stop being poor bastards" argument but given the rate these books are released it''s hardly a burden of investment. At its highest these books are $60 and released every few months► I spend a whole lot more on other games and publishers than that. But again that''s not really a "point" I''m claiming, because I know it''s a bad argument, I''m just saying it''s not breaking my wallet.

Why is it people will by "Mass effect 3" (Which is a great game by the way!) or Call of duty modern warfare 3, each costing $60.00 (New) and not bitch but when FFG produces OW which is arguably the setting the player base has wanted from the beginning, These people will accuse them of some "scam" to "rob" people of their cherished dough► Most Xbox or PS3 games these days are simply reskins of older games! It''s the same software coding with a few adjustments that the designers thought might work better! Sound familiar► I have no problem with FFG''s business model! I often wish the stuff would come out faster! BTW: That doesn''t make me an FFG fanboy (Read ass-kisser) it simply means that I have enjoyed their product thus far and am looking forward to the newest addition!

Why is it people will by "Mass effect 3" (Which is a great game by the way!) or Call of duty modern warfare 3, each costing $60.00 (New) and not bitch but when FFG produces OW which is arguably the setting the player base has wanted from the beginning, These people will accuse them of some "scam" to "rob" people of their cherished dough► Most Xbox or PS3 games these days are simply reskins of older games! It''s the same software coding with a few adjustments that the designers thought might work better! Sound familiar► I have no problem with FFG''s business model! I often wish the stuff would come out faster! BTW: That doesn''t make me an FFG fanboy (Read ass-kisser) it simply means that I have enjoyed their product thus far and am looking forward to the newest addition!

I see some folks saying "Don't like it, Don't buy it." That's a valid point. To the cost concerns, I see some folks countering (Radwraith above me even) with the cost of video games. "I'm buying the same rules over and over" has been responded to by pointing out that in each subsequent setting, those rules have been revised and improved upon. All interesting points and counterpoints.

The part that grinds my gears, (To borrow a segment from Peter Griffin) is that this setting/offering doesn't appear to be significantly different enough from previous offerings to warrant the attention it is receiving. To clarify further, (or muddle things up with another analogy even) what I'm saying is that this book seems like a bit more of the same, painting over the fence in a new color, or reskinning the game as opposed to building more fence or growing the brand as it were.

I'd like to have seen the writers, developers, playtesters, etc… focus their energies/monies/time on bringing to life more of the galaxy at large and less of the Imperium, re-hashed. Does that mean I want to see a tyranid or necron book, no I think they make better bad guys. However, the Orks and the Tau (and yes, maybe even the eldar to you pointy-eared space-elf freaks out there) could be fleshed out and expanded upon more. I think an all ork system would be huge amounts of fun. Replace Infamy with TEEF and everyone's ballistic skill is crap, but, you could have weird boys and minders and grots and herders and meks and if beggars were horses, something about wishes.

I understand that the Only War system is a separate entity from DH, RT, DW and BC. I understand that it is where FFG and GW chose to spend that R&D money. Does that mean I have to be happy about it? Of course not, and this being the internet, I'm here to tell all of you guys how sad it makes me and Eeyore to be offered another Imperium-centric game. =( There, I said it.

To the folks who're looking forward to this game, grats, I hope you like it. To FFG, here's hoping this game's a success for you and that sometime in the future you'll be writing the "Greater Good", or "Bashin' Fings" books I'd like to see.

bmaynard said:

It looks like you're referring to setting in a geographical sense. I'm not talking Jericho reach, etc. Perhaps I'm using the wrong word for it, but I'm referring to the socio-political setting. (i.e. the Imperium.)

So yes, I do know what that setting is. Did you even read the rest of my post, or did you just decide, "ah ha, another ignorant hater, I shall shout him down with my brilliant rhetoric!"

From the product announcement:

"players take on the roles of soldiers in the Imperial Guard, the galaxy-spanning armies of the God-Emperor. Fully compatible with FFG’s other Warhammer 40,000 Roleplay titles, this comprehensive game system explores a previously unseen side of life in the Imperium of Man."

As I pointed out in the paragraph following the one you quoted, I'm getting tired of the imperium-centric 40k systems. I'd like to see something from the xenos view, wherein the humans are in the monstrous creatures book.

To answer your number 2 point, THAT is the difference I am seeking. Less Imperium, more rest of the galaxy. Hell, gimme a game with the demiurg or the hrud as the primary focus, I just don't want to see the humans at center stage in this, the fifth offering from the 40k IP. A rich and varied IP full of numerous races, not just humans.

I posted, not to piss and moan about the game. Hell, I own the core book for each of the others and will most likely pick this one up as well. In a thread of people with complaints regarding the game, I wanted to voice mine as I hadn't seen it in the vain hopes that someone at FFG reads these forums and maybe somewhere Ork: The RPG is being discussed as having at least one or two people interested in playing it.

the tl;dr version of all of that:

If this was a Star Trek RPG and FFG had put out a book for the original series, one for Next Gen, one for Voyager and one for Deep Space 9, and were just announcing the upcoming Enterprise system, I'd be the guy asking, "When do I get the Klingon Empire game?"

I think the one corebook and supps to augment is a great ideal, but it has been done and IMO it failed. Example NWOD although I love the game, it was hard to convence a new player to buy the core book and the supp to go with it.  NWod corebook 25, vampire book 40 so this comes out to be 65 which would mean it would cost more for a new player to get started. In my experince demoing both games I have seen more people get up from the table and buy a 40k corebook then I ever have seen them buy a core/supp set. The point is, when I start a game with a new player and he/she startes to like it, they don't have to feel like they are getting taken to the cleaners to get started, one book one price your done. Lets face it, it's a business and busness is about growth and getting a bigger customer base and I have seen this work better with this method of publishing. FFG is catering to new players not to us hardcore games, they want more people playing. There are people out there that may not like the other lines so this way they can pick there favorite flavor start with and not feel like they are being taken. I wonder if the 60 dollar price tag is set to mirror that of a video game?

On another note, I was disapointed it was IG, I really wanted an ORK book 

I'm really looking forward to Only War and will definitely be getting it.  If it were just a supplement for one of the existing games there'd be much less chance of me buying it.  it's going to need a completely different vibe to it from the other 40K games and I don't think a supplement would do it justice. 

There's no reason to assume that playing Xeno's isn't going to happen. Only War was the next book because it was scheduled to be the next supplement to Dark Heresy. Who know's what they were actually planning after that.