[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.17358977 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

What are /tg/'s thoughts about Fantasy Flight?

>> No.17358987

I didn't realize how much I liked them.
But looking around at the boxes my group has, we really do.
Like Cosmic Encounters.

>> No.17358993

*looks at stack of Warhammer 40k RPGs on desk*

Yeah, they are pretty cool.

>> No.17358996

I like their games. I enjoy the complex systems they make

>> No.17359001

I FUCKING FUCKING FUCKING FUCKING FUCKING love them for making Ollanius Pius a Guardsman again.

Their games are pretty damn good, too.

>> No.17359003

I like what they publish, I just wish they spell checked their work a little harder. They're also good with their errata. Most problems I have had with a game is usually answered by one of their faqs or updates.

>> No.17359013

They've become a top tier presence in the gaming community over the last five years or so.

>> No.17359034

My old GM writes Deathwatch now. Shit was cash.

>> No.17359037

They murder TCGs but publish great card games.

>> No.17359106

>I like what they publish, I just wish they spell checked their work a little harder.
This, plus there've been a few QC lapses. Like, Dark Heresy: Ascension. That was a pretty poor book.

The DH/RT books can be a bit heavy on the 'Here is a very rough outline of a mysterious situation... BUT WHAT IS THE TRUTH?' stuff. It's useful, but the balance between DIY and provided mystery is a bit off, not least because if they actually revealed the 'truth' behind a few of these things they'd serve as a useful jumping-off point. Disciples of the Dark Gods was good for this, it had a variety of alternate truths for a bunch of the mysteries it introduced.

>> No.17359117

Have only had personal experience with Arkham Horror and Durr Hurresy, but I liked them both, even though DH had some issues (being a little too heavy on rules for one)


Probably safe to say /tg/ in general has a pretty good opinion of them.

>> No.17359118

Their board games are pretty damn good from a design standpoint. Their RPGs are generally not.

>> No.17359150

Game of Thrones is an amazing board game, their LotR stuff is fun, and Mansions of Madness legit got us freaked out when we played it during a power outage in the last hurricane

>> No.17359214

As far as employers, they definitely have their shit together, unfortunately they don't pay very much for card illustrations.

>> No.17359221

I like the living card games model so I own most of those and I am looking forward to the star wars card game after demoing it at Gen Con. I own a stack of 40k RPG books. I have several of their board games.

Does any one have any experience with the card protectors with the art on them they make? those look sweet.

>> No.17359262

Their games are pretty good. Lot of pieces in all the Cthulu games though.
Could definitely use some proofreading. Always seem to find a necessary rule somewhere obscure in the rulebook

>> No.17359263

They have massive /tg/ cred for letting /tg/ canon into official canon.

>> No.17359312


Did we play Dark Heresy together?

>> No.17359335

Fantasy Flight make a lot of good quality products.

BUT... I can never forgive them for what they did to WFRP.

At the very least they could have reprinted 2nd edition as well as doing their little D&D style boxset.

>> No.17359339 [DELETED] 

what is this referring to?

>> No.17359398

googled it, came up with
heh heh

>> No.17359414

I like their 40k RPGs. Have not had a chance to play anything else of theirs.

>> No.17359433

>asks /tg/ about Fantasy Flight Games
>doesn't realize that everybody on this board plays Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch.

You must be new...

>> No.17359457

>BUT... I can never forgive them for what they did to WFRP.
>At the very least they could have reprinted 2nd edition as well as doing their little D&D style boxset.
That would've been nice. WHFRP 3e is just... not practical to play. Having to keep track of 3 different physical/mental HP totals which interplayed with each other and were spent for some abilities, round-by-round cooldowns on half a dozen powers and so on is just too much of a faff. A shame, as the powers, positioning system and fancy dice are interesting, just something that needs a computer to manage automatically so you don't have to spend half the game shuffling tokens.

>> No.17359536

I like them, despite the typos, but as of late I've lost faith in the inherant quality of their 40k RPG stuff. There's a lot of chaff with the wheat, I feel.

>> No.17359822


That's exactly how I feel. If they'd kept the 2e wfrp books in print I've have no qualms with them. I like their roleplaying games and their boardgames. Civilization and Game of Thrones are especially good

>> No.17359949

I don't know, I think Black Crusade is pretty well made.

>> No.17359972


Black Crusade is their fourth take using the same system.

It had *better* be damn good.

>> No.17359975

>Fantasy Flight Thread
>No reference to the best board game ever

>> No.17359985


It's basically 3 editions of fiddling with the core system to come up with something that works. And BC has some issues still, but not insurmountable ones.

>> No.17360001

3rd, actually.
They were not responsible for Dark Heresy, the core problem was the result of GW's rpg wing.
Stuff like full auto being god tier, plasma weapons being shit, meltas being scarcely of use against armor, great weapons the only way to go for melee, none of those were FFG fault.
In fact, BC represents the first time they broke away from GWs base mechanics.

>> No.17360017

I think WFRP 3e has some really interesting mechanical innovations (the 'party slot' ability, the ability to swap party member's initiative) that help WFRP combat feel a lot less stagnant, and I didn't much mind the clipping back a little to a more typical fantasy party (after all, 1e was more like this) but it came with so much shit that it just bugged me to have to set up/pull out before play. With 2e you need two dice, that's it. WFRP 3e is also really difficult to play online, which is a huge issue for me.

>> No.17360029

I'm with most people here, it seems.

I love their board games, like, really love their board games. I'm a Miskatonic Horror away from having all the Arkham Horrors, got all the BSG games, both TI Expansions and play the CoC LCG as much as I can. Dark Heresy I can take or leave, but it's still pretty neat what they've done with it.

But I can't ever really trust them. Not after what they did to WFRP. I can only assume it was an experiment that failed, considering they've stuck with a modified 2nd Edition WFRP for all their 40k games. There were so many potential avenues they could have expanded and published books for, with 2nd Edition, but they just published a couple of poor books and then threw it all away and started again.

And I really can't understand why.

>> No.17360037

No, oh god no. This fucking game.
It is impossible if you're not good at negotiations, which I am awful at.
Fuck BSG forever.

>> No.17360040

>all the anusburn about WFRP3

Get over yourselves kids. If was an experiment, if its really a bad move it will not sell well and will be replaced with a WFRP4 that is closer to the 40k RPGS in functionality.

>> No.17360046

Their community acted like shitheads to me once. I certainly hope that wasn't the norm.

>> No.17360054

I certainly hope YOU aren't the norm.

>> No.17360062

Have you ever visited FFG's official forums?

Those guys are strange. They have a very weird view of balance. In an independent point, they also prefer incredibly low-powered games, bragging about "thrifty games" and "Rank 7s with Lasguns." They claim inane points like giving a weapon +1 damage is horrifically overpowered.

>> No.17360063

You just gotta be good at communication and leadership man.

>> No.17360067

They were stuck with the WFRP system due to not having created Dark Heresy, whereas they had less issues with revamping WFRP due to the gap in publication. FFG are primarily a board/card game company, I'm not sure why anyone was surprised where they went with it.

>> No.17360070


Very few people have a problem with 3e (me included), I think it looks interesting and worth a try, both by FF and the players. I just wish they'd kept the 2e books in print when they released 3e. It's a popular system, I don't see why they did it.

>> No.17360075

Every community eventually develops its own heuristics. You like huge, over-the-top things in your DH games - probably in your games generally - and that's cool. There's nothing really wrong with playing a low-power, tightly focused investigation game either.

>> No.17360078


I am pretty out there. If there was someone else like me, we'd be two wild and crazy guys.

Hip shake.

But seriously, they were acting up.

>> No.17360084


Sounds like my DH GM.

>> No.17360090

They weren't as big a presence in the RPG market before Dark Heresy made them like the third or fourth biggest in the business, so maybe they didn't have the space for it.

Or maybe they just wanted you to buy new things, because they are a business. Note that although this sounds negative, there isn't really anything wrong with it. RPG companies do have to make a profit too.

>> No.17360091


Correct. I've played in Low-power DH games, and had a blast. And I do find an aerial battle between a Manta Air Cadre and a Kill Team to be a good end to a night.

But those guys take it to a whole new level, claiming you're playing the game wrong if you don't do low-level, grimdark, kick the players when they're down type game.

>> No.17360092

>Very few people have a problem with 3e

Statistical fallacy. You have no proof of this, howeveer, the proof is on the paper that WFRP2 fans dislike that it is no longer supported for a pseudo board game format.

>> No.17360095

Dark Heresy is not about soldiers going out to kill the xenos. You are supposed to be detectives.
I've learned that giving out stronger weapons encourages a D&D mentality of bigger numbers = better results, rather than smart thinking and resource use. Gets even better when I start keeping track of the ammo counts.

>> No.17360104

>But those guys take it to a whole new level, claiming you're playing the game wrong if you don't do low-level, grimdark, kick the players when they're down type game.
Yeah, that's just being grognards.

Like this guy:
>Dark Heresy is not about soldiers going out to kill the xenos.
If you want it to be, it fucking is.

>> No.17360110

I have seen so many takes on making armor less useful and combat more lethal, I lost count.
Why should I make my players more likely to die?
Yeah, they leap up from street sweeping rather quickly, but denying progress and forcing them to creep on the ground for good is just not right in my eyes.
Sure, the system really needs a second edition to rebalance what a meal costs to what a gun costs, I don't see the point in changing everything to prevent people from getting a little spotlight.

>> No.17360116

I didn't buy 3e because it had a high start up cost and I couldn't easily play it online, but I didn't really have a problem with the rules changes. I thought it nicely promoted a sense of party cohesiveness and introduced a fluidity to combat that 2e was often lacking.

It eased up a bit on the 'life is shit for our heroes' vibe too. While I greatly enjoy the black comedy of WFRP when you really push that kind of thing, I don't mind paring it back to a marginally more hero-friendly setting. There are heroes in Warhammer, it is okay if you get to play them sometimes.

>> No.17360118

They seem to do 40k better than GW do these days, so I like 'em.

>> No.17360122

It could do with a Dark Heresy 2e by this point, I think. They've adjusted so many rules and tuned so many things up it'd be nice to get it all in one book and tighten up the other strange elements at the same time.

This is probably HERESY but I dare say by this point they've got a tight enough grasp on their personal realm of 40k to abandon the Inquisition elements and make it a true general 40k RPG, if they so wished.

>> No.17360124


Now how about playing Rogue Trader and making the players ration out ammo, threads on how to take away carapace armor because it invalidates lasguns, and how every enemy above Guardsman must instant-kill the party?

And Deathwatch is filled with nothing but rage.

Seriously, those guys want to turn EVERYTHING into low-power muckin' about.

>> No.17360139

i like them. picked up this game last week. Its quite entertaining.

>> No.17360140

I must admit there was one really terrible post on /tg/ a while back which was essentially a guy posting his fantasy rapefic where, as a DH PC, he successfully defeats two Death Cultists, mortally wounding them, and rapes them as they die. Or wait, only one of them and that's better because,

That terrible, terrible post has had the unfortunate side effect of conflating player success against tough foes in DH with guro rape fetish in my mind.

>> No.17360141


I would support that. Doubly so if they use something like the WFRP career system.

>> No.17360143

Great board games, decent card games, good p&p rpgs, overall great support for customers and fanbase. So, yeah, they are pretty cool

>> No.17360145

I really dig some of the models for that.

>> No.17360152

In what way?

>> No.17360172


You know, Shas, I've been to those forums and, well, you're exaggerating. A lot.

You must look into yourself and think: do I have a strong bias? Because at the moment, it seems that you do, as you have the typical response of one with such: you see more of what you dislike than is really there.

We all know your style of game, as you posted them on /tg/. However, that doesn't mean you should turn into a stop-liking-what-I-don't-like wierdo towards the opposite style.

>> No.17360174

That would be weird. I'm not saying it would be bad but in many ways I think DH's free-floating pool of abilities is a better way for characters to progress. The thing I would probably want is a removal of associated names, ranks and influence for the character tiers. I'd prefer to track that stuff separately a character's personal attributes and abilities. Like I don't think a Guardsman should have to be an X just because he's reaching the upper levels of his career's marksmanship. I think he can be an X if he wants, but it needn't be something that automatically happens.

>> No.17360178

I actually plan to have my campaign lead to a mission where the cell is thrown into a battle of planetary scale.
One of those worn-out conflicts that grow WWI-like, just with both sides rather exhausted after the decisive battle ended in a bloody draw.
So they enter the largest guerilla- war Calixis has seen in a long time, sniper ambushes and all.

I would recommend making it a basic system with general mechanics and additional books to determine the scope and flavor.
This way you could bring settings and armouries and bestiariums that work with any system without requiring you to adjust or buy a book for a small part in it that concerns you.

>> No.17360196

Yeah, it'd end up being more like WFRP operated I guess. You get your 40k RPG book, can play a range of games. If you want support for playing an Inquisition game, or a Space Marine game, or a ganger game in the Underhive, you buy the appropriate sourcebook.

>> No.17360205


The basic story is this. The LOTR card game came out and I played it solo for a while, coming to a realization that it seemed stacked against the solo player. (With a friend, he can help contribute resources and take enemy attacks, and most importantly, speed up location travel to a reasonable pace.) So I figured, well, let's try some edits to smooth it out a bit.

Now, you can debate the validity of whether or not a solo player should stick to the normal rules or go for a variant that's a bit more managable. That's understandable. But when I posted on the board, going "well, I think this is unbalanced so these are the rules variants I'm playing with", the response was overwhelmingly negative, suggesting I was some kind of cosmic asshole for even considering a variant. Some argued that the rules as set were basically perfect as is. My favorite line was from someone who went "the game was designed and playtested so surely the rules are perfect as they are", and that's...well, just not true.

Later on I go back and it seems many people now share my opinion that the solo games are stacked against you, though now there are scenarios trying to iron this out.

>> No.17360214

You know, on a semi-related note, someone asked what would happen if the players found a Titan a few months ago.

Rage. Hate. The players shouldn't get that. The Mechanicus will STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM. The players will instantly TPK because hidden assassins. The Mechanicus takes it back.

Even the less rage-fueled ones were "It's a plot device," a viewpoint I can understand. The semi-sensible ones pointed out Deathwatch Titan rules, which caused a shitstorm because someone said Deathwatch.

And all I could think of was my first Rogue Trader game, and its Titan battles.

Hell, they would probably self-destruct in rage if someone told them about Supa Dimenshun Stompa Mode, or Deffwotch in general.

>> No.17360225

That is pretty weird. I guess that particular community had a lot of fanboys, maybe just needed to mature over time. You get a lot of that sort of thing in RPG forums though. There are a few RPG communities out there that make me want to kill myself.

>> No.17360229

Only so much, tho.
In DH and RT, it works because you are following careers, things that you are taught and advance in, and each of the titles represent your equivalent in that hierarchy, something 40k is entirely about. The Imperium is all about classification, everyone fitting into their spot here or there, rigid control.
That's also why it makes total sense for BC to not have that, as they are not under the Imperium's hammer. You are trading out in setting stability and logic for personal preferences in gaming. You are honestly complaining about words, not their effect on you.

>> No.17360253

...I don't really think I am. I just don't see why a Class X has to eventually become Rank Y just because he's good at Thing Z. That's something that comes with the tier = rank/career designation thing. In a general 40k RPG, what we're discussing, I would definitely prefer that aspect be discontinued.

>> No.17360255

>Hell, they would probably self-destruct in rage if someone told them about Supa Dimenshun Stompa Mode, or Deffwotch in general.

You know what? You should. And then you should get back to us about how it went down.

I would giggle a bit.

>> No.17360261


I've played low-power games, and I've played high-power games. And there are a bunch of people on those forums that are rather chill. But there are a number of bigshots on those forums who enforce their beliefs, and the fanclubs that parrot them, that it's really not worth it.

I suppose those bigshots have tainted my views on it, and I cannot remain completely objective on the matter.

>> No.17360265

Probably. Honestly, I've never been one for being ultragrim, ultralethal with my PCs unless it's for comedic effect. Even punitive missions tend to be more about baiting the PCs into creating horrendous, farcical, three-stooges-but-with-the-murder-of-innocents kind of scenarios than actually killing anyone.

>> No.17360293

A couple weeks ago we did a 4-or-so-player game with base, Pegasus, and Exodus. The only cylon was the leader, and he had, "Join the Colonials." We didn't figure this out until nearly the end of the game.

>> No.17360306

FFG are struggling pretty hard to get away from naming the ranks.
And rightfully so.
You cannot cram anyone into a rigid system of formal ranks. Especially not the Inquisition.
Why should a twist enforcer from the underhive have access to same titles a regular Arbites gets?
And still they nominally do so.
Plus you have not the slightest in-game representation for those names of the ranks.
No authority, no right. You are with the Inquisition now, you are outside any formal ranking.

>> No.17360312

>I just don't see why a Class X has to eventually become Rank Y just because he's good at Thing Z.
Because it's the skill sets and experience that gets you ranked up.
Look at guardsmen. Rank 1 guardsmen are conscripts because they have the skills and experience of conscripts. You don't actually have the skills and experience of a guardsmen until local Rank 3, the approximation of the abilities of a guardsman that has seen battle and gained skill.
It does not mean every guardsman is exactly the same in capability, merely in aggregate skill. You can have a guardsman that is a genius with a longlas, but terrible in basic survival, another who is a inspiring leader but not a hand in combat, but each will have the skills and experience to be termed a "Guardsmen".
Again, you are replacing setting logic and stability for personal preference at the illusion of a loss of "freedom". The Imperium's schtick is that EVERYONE is codified, everyone is labeled, everyone fits into a neat box. No you don't have the "freedom" to declare yourself some different and special, get in your Emprah damned box.

>> No.17360332


>> No.17360343

>But there are a number of bigshots on those forums who enforce their beliefs, and the fanclubs that parrot them, that it's really not worth it.

See, there's that bias again. Because what you've just said could just as easily apply to you (the bigshot that enforces his beliefs), and the fanclubs that parrot them. On /tg/ which is, essentially, just another forum.

>> No.17360350

>FFG are struggling pretty hard to get away from naming the ranks.
Yeah, I'm glad about that. I more or less agree with your point completely. Put it on a separate track or whatever, make it customisable, give the representation if you want it, give the actual rank if you want it. Just don't make class tier = rank.

No offense man, but to me you're just making up some arbitrary setting bullshit to justify an arbitrary system. I mean, we're talking fluff? I played Inquisitor. Most of the hardasses, enforcers, Inquisitorial servants or whatever with clout in that weren't lieutenants, or stormtroopers, or crime lords or whatever. Some of them were at the absolute bottom of the heap, but they were personally talented.

>No you don't have the "freedom" to declare yourself some different and special, get in your Emprah damned box.
I have literally no idea how this is relevant to any part of this discussion.

>> No.17360379

>Why should a twist enforcer from the underhive have access to same titles a regular Arbites gets?
Because they are still a Arbitrator and ranks are approximations of abilities relative to other Arbites. Next you'll complain about everyone having different pay rates despite being in the Inquisition.
Maybe it's my own prejudice, but just about everyone I have ever seen complain about "classes" or ranks or whatever has been someone that allows the notion that yes, you too can have a label despite your speshul snowflake character get to them to this incredible degree that boggles my mind.
I can do both, enjoy the merits of both. Each offers a different challenge when making a character, roleplaying that character, gives inspiration. Why is the illusion of freedom (make no mistake, it's an illusion even if you don't see it) so important? Especially in 40k where the Imperium works on titles, grandstanding, ostentatious displays of lineage and the like? Why are you bringing your banner of "I DON'T WANT TO BE LABELED" to this, where it makes not a lick of goddamned sense?

>> No.17360404

What the fuck are you even talking about anymore, seriously?

I mean, fuck, the pay rate is an idiotic thing. It's a limiter on player power but it doesn't gel very well with the whole 'in the Inquisition' thing at all. I tend to play pretty fast and loose with that, and just give my players the ability to requisition equipment. I take a leaf from RT a lot of the time, success brings rewards.

But all this 'labeling' 'speshul snowflake' shit? What the fuck are you talking about? Who has said anything like that?

>> No.17360406

But there aren't any mini-mods here on /tg/ to enforce any particular clique's viewpoints. That's what I love about this place.

>> No.17360416


Yeah, 40k works better with abstract purchasing power, tbh. Whether it's PF, Requisition, or Infamy.

>> No.17360444

Let me guess, you're one of those faggots who think anything but low-rank DH with a TPK per session is badwrongfun?

>> No.17360476

While these terms are nice for guardsmen, they are less fitting the higher you rise and the more diversified things get.
Unlike Solid Snake, players don't fit boxes and you cannot make a cleric a bishop, just because the book says so.
They don't even come near that status and this is not the way a bishop is coming into his office.
It's bullshit to label stuff but it has no meaning, really.

It's not about being labelled, it's about you talking bullshit.
A twist local enforcer of the highest rank is still so far beneath an Arbites Proctor, he cannot even hope to polish his boots.
There are already so many options and sidelanes and backgrounds, you cannot even begin to construct a neat system of boxes to fit them all into.
They are "Those free to wander the stars", no longer bound to a workplace or function.
Trying to cram that into this exact position is idiotic.
This has nothing to do with Sueism but logic.
Guard does no longer pay you?
Why do you still get less than the cleric who is no longer financed by the Ministorum?
Those are remnants of GW's futile attempt of a general 40k RPG, no more.

>> No.17360508

>Those are remnants of GW's futile attempt of a general 40k RPG, no more.
Man, I could not have said it better. That is exactly the impression I get. Like they wanted a general system, but they weren't sure how to implement stuff like that. I think even if they did go general they'd still be better binning tier = rank though.

>> No.17360516


Of course not. I prefer higher-powered games.

You, however, are jumping to assumptions. Shame on you, anon.

>> No.17360533

You are aware about how you just confirmed what that guy just said?
So, at least you should clarify because this looks like you did not really read what he wrote.

>> No.17360591


>Let me guess, you're one of those faggots who think anything but low-rank DH with a TPK per session is badwrongfun?
>Of course not. I prefer higher-powered games.
>You are aware about how you just confirmed what that guy just said?

>> No.17360711

Wait, like what?

>> No.17360715

Grendel, LCB.

>> No.17360768


As stated, Grendel's in the Inquistor's handbook as far as I remember, there's a quote from a Vindicare named LIIVI shortly after a big picture of a Vindicare stalking a Farseer, the Lord of Change in Mark of the Xenos has "JUST AS PLANNED!" for its quote, and a bunch of other little nods here and there.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.