PDA

View Full Version : Rogue Trader Players



Shyvax
27-03-2011, 11:37
Hi guys,
Some of you are still playing with Rogue trader rules?
I just bought it and just started to read it. It seems more complex to play but it also feel like there is more flexibility in the way you can handle your troops and actions.
Is it worth trying to learn it or the latest version of 40K is way better by far?

AFnord
27-03-2011, 13:17
RT is a cool system, and it has a lot of fun things in it, but it also suffers from being needlessly complex in certain ares, without the added complexity actually adding anything to the game. And if you thought that Daemons of chaos were broken in 7th edition fantasy, wait until you see the beasts that can be built in RT.
RT is best played as an RPG/Wargame hybrid, with a GM to make sure that the games does not turn into a crazy virus bombing thing. It is also best played with scenarios, rather than straight up battles.
Is it better than the current edition? I would say no, but for all its flaws, it is still a fun game. I you want a more complex rule system that does not require a GM, and that is not overburdened with clumsy rules, you might want to check out Battletech.

Shyvax
27-03-2011, 13:35
Thanks aFnord, I'll have a look at Battletech.

andyg2006
27-03-2011, 13:42
Plus, you could easily have a good game of RT with only about 10-15 guys a side (feels a lot like Necromunda), whereas 40k now needs a lot more stuff.

Battletech is ace, too.

totgeboren
27-03-2011, 13:54
Though RT is great fun reading, 2:ed is basically the same, but much better and easier to play (though people today would probably give up after reading half of the rulebooks).

Still, I was making a 1500 pts 2:ed Chaos army, and got a grand total of 19 models. 1 vehicle.

I myself generally enjoy squad-level games more than hero-focused games, so I think 5:ed is better.

RT/2:ed is more like Mordheim really. Make a Hero/Villain, then pick some henchmen/redshirts to accompany him, and maybe a vehicle or two. That's your army.

AFnord
27-03-2011, 14:19
2nd edition streamlines the game quite a bit, and removes a large portion of the roleplaying aspect. The early warhammer games were marketed as "3D roleplaying games" rather than wargames.
RT does make for an interesting campaign game, and with only a little bit of work, you can craft a decent experience system for the game.

Archangel_Ruined
27-03-2011, 16:28
For in depth wargaming 2nd ed is better than the current edition and RT. It takes a long time to play and you can make some filthy combos and characters though. I always think that GW must know, deep down at least, that 2nd was pinnacle of 40k, it spawned Necromunda and Gorkamorka for a start.

Fugazi
27-03-2011, 16:32
RT is best played as an RPG/Wargame hybrid, with a GM to make sure that the games does not turn into a crazy virus bombing thing. It is also best played with scenarios, rather than straight up battles.


RT/2:ed is more like Mordheim really. Make a Hero/Villain, then pick some henchmen/redshirts to accompany him, and maybe a vehicle or two. That's your army.


RT does make for an interesting campaign game, and with only a little bit of work, you can craft a decent experience system for the game.

Ditto these sentiments. RT was designed more as a small skirmish campaign, so comparing it to 5th is really apples and oranges. You can enjoy both for entirely different reasons. I also think RT works best without vehicles, but that's me. The closest modern GW equivalent is probably Necromunda, and you could certainly take rules from RT and NM and bash them together for some fun.

Irisado
27-03-2011, 20:10
Is it worth trying to learn it or the latest version of 40K is way better by far?

There were several different versions of Rogue Trader, with various rules changes introduced over the years, so it's not a particularly neat set of rules to learn. It's probably best to stick to the basics, and treat it as a small skirmish game, which is basically what it was.

You can't compare it to the current game, because Rogue Trader was a product of its time. It was much more of a roleplay type game in many respects, whereas the current game revolves around armies.

If you can find anyone to play against using the Rogue Trader rules, then you might have quite a bit of fun with it, but the rules are not exactly user friendly in my view, so be prepared for your early games to take quite a bit of time, especially if you use some of the more advanced units and models.

AFnord
27-03-2011, 22:13
Stay away from robots, their rules are a nightmare!

DeviantApostle
28-03-2011, 02:12
I've always wanted to grab RT, Necromunda, Gorka Morka and Inquisitor and make a hybrid rules set that's a tiny bit easier to play but keeps the core gameplay intact.

GW's tried that style of game many times, created great games in their own right but never hit the nail on the head...

Angelwing
28-03-2011, 09:14
Stay away from robots, their rules are a nightmare!

All those little program orders counters!! :cries:I still have the WD with them all in..:cool:

AndrewGPaul
28-03-2011, 09:41
Nah, just use the rules as described in the rulebook, and don't bother with that nonsense. :)

If you're going to use Rogue Trader as a set of scenario-based skirmish rules, then you don't really need any of the supplements; they were all basically building the game up into a platoon-level battle game.

A lot of Rogue Trader's complexity comes about before the game - setting up a scenario, choosing forces, etc. Once you actually start rolling dice in anger, it's not too bad. Even the infamous robot programs; once you've designed the program, you just follow the steps each turn.

Shyvax
28-03-2011, 12:00
thanks guys, I like the idea of playing a kill team of a dozen guys around one strong leader. It remind me Necro. I would gladly use the Necro rules, but I always found the space marines and other non hive characters not working with the system. but that's an other discussion ^^
I think I'll stick with RT and try to make it work.

Archangel_Ruined
28-03-2011, 12:08
Necromunda and Gorkamorka both used 2nd ed. as the base mechanics, the only major differences being the gang member experience and injury rules. 2nd lets you tailor IC's to sickening levels, doesn't have massive armies, doesn't need a GM and can be used for straight wargaming or scenarios, it really does sound like the ruleset you want.

LonelyPath
28-03-2011, 13:07
RT is still great fun and I occasionally have a game of it now and then. Usually when I play it though it's to do with a old warbands campaign myself and some friends have been running for about a decade now (we have a couple of games a year when they are visiting home).

New Cult King
28-03-2011, 13:22
RT/2:ed is more like Mordheim really. Make a Hero/Villain, then pick some henchmen/redshirts to accompany him, and maybe a vehicle or two. That's your army.

Damn man, now you've got me thinking :D I loved 2nd Ed.


I've always wanted to grab RT, Necromunda, Gorka Morka and Inquisitor and make a hybrid rules set that's a tiny bit easier to play but keeps the core gameplay intact.

Necromunda, Gorka Morka and Inquisitor are available for free now online I believe.

battybattybats
28-03-2011, 14:31
Necromunda, Gorka Morka and Inquisitor are available for free now online I believe.

With Necromunda its missing a lot of stuff that was in the original books.

totgeboren
28-03-2011, 15:13
Damn man, now you've got me thinking :D I loved 2nd Ed.

So did I, and a friend of mine and me played a game yesterday.
It was great fun making armies, much more so than using the 5:Ed codexses.

We played Eldar vs Chaos, 1500 pts.

My Chaos army had some CSM, some cultists, a few beastmen, some daemons and a Dreadnought.

The Eldar army, had a Farseer, some firedragons, dire avengers, dark reapers, a warwalker and a Fire Prism.

After that, it went downhill. It took a really long time to play, even though we had around 800 pts each in current values.
Close combat was a chore, shooting was really odd, the psychic phase really was a game in itself, and also decided the entire battle, when I got "Force Drain" right when the Farseer was about to unload a huge amount of hurt, then the next phase I got "Daemonic Attack", which resulted in one dead Farseer.

The basic infantry couldn't really do much, except against other infantry, and a Hero in close combat meant an entire unit of dead troops.

We played 4 turns, then I won. And we came to the conclusion that it's better to remember it as awesome, but we both would rather play 5:ed, because, well, it's more fun to actually play the game.

However, GW should really take a look at the old codexses, they were alot more fun to use than the current ones. But then again, I am comparing the current CSM codex with the 2:ed Chaos codex. They represent two extremes.

AndrewGPaul
28-03-2011, 15:43
After that, it went downhill. It took a really long time to play, even though we had around 800 pts each in current values.
Close combat was a chore, shooting was really odd, the psychic phase really was a game in itself, and also decided the entire battle, when I got "Force Drain" right when the Farseer was about to unload a huge amount of hurt, then the next phase I got "Daemonic Attack", which resulted in one dead Farseer.

The basic infantry couldn't really do much, except against other infantry, and a Hero in close combat meant an entire unit of dead troops.

I think you're just out of practice. 2nd ed-style combat is a bit slower than the current style, but once you get the hang of it it goes pretty quickly, in my experience.

As for heroes wiping out squads, you're doing it wrong. :) Space the infantry out more and the hero won't be able to get into combat with more than one or two models. I've watched Abaddon the Despoiler waste a whole game chewing through an Imperial Guard squad one model at a time. :)

The other thing to bear in mind is just because you can take an army full of invincible killing machines doesn't mean you should. :)

Pretty much everything in the Eldar army should have been able to damage the Dreadnought, with the exception of the Dire Avengers, and they can chew up Space Marines like nobody's business.

totgeboren
28-03-2011, 15:52
I think you're just out of practice. 2nd ed-style combat is a bit slower than the current style, but once you get the hang of it it goes pretty quickly, in my experience.

As for heroes wiping out squads, you're doing it wrong. :) Space the infantry out more and the hero won't be able to get into combat with more than one or two models. I've watched Abaddon the Despoiler waste a whole game chewing through an Imperial Guard squad one model at a time. :)

The other thing to bear in mind is just because you can take an army full of invincible killing machines doesn't mean you should. :)

Pretty much everything in the Eldar army should have been able to damage the Dreadnought, with the exception of the Dire Avengers, and they can chew up Space Marines like nobody's business.

Yeah, it's true that it took longer because we were out of shape, but the game just didn't play right.
It's hard to pin down exactly what it was, but lot's of stuff was just needlessly complex. And when my Dread ploughed into his Firedragons. Hello, a Dread with WS7 and frenzy, meaning I got 6 attacks. It was almost impossible for him to even hit me.

And the modifiers! Ok, not hard to work out, but incredibly unbalanced. And lots of stuff were to the effect "roll a die, if you fail your Commander dies", kinda like JotWW, and I don't know anyone who enjoys facing stuff like that, and 2:ed was full of em.

No thanks, I think IŽll keep it as a rosy memory. However, that's not to say I think 5:ed is totally awesome. But I would rather add a bunch of house rules to 5:ed to make it more fun, than try and do the same to 2:ed. 5:ed requires much less work to make it ok.

Oakwolf
28-03-2011, 16:05
The close combat of 2nd edition and all spin-offs was so much more exciting for me than it is now.

That's why necromunda and gorka morka are so fun. Mordheim is based on fantasy, not 40k. 40k switched to use fantasy's close combat style by 3rd ed.

About your Dreadnought:

Frenzy doubled attacks, but remember there are fumbles (which add 1 to your enemy) so it was a double edged sword.

As for WS 7, it was great, but with numbers you would beat that easily, each fighter after the first would add +1Ws and +1A...so sure it'll kill a few, but it'll be overwhelmed if fighting a squad with any kind of AT weapons.

So this meant that the WS stat was actually meaningful in the game. You could be puny like an eldar or human, but if you were extremely skilled, you could avoid being hit even against the odds. Nowadays...brute strenght, toughness and attacks are all that matters.

They returned to a similar system with their Lord of the rings game, which is quite a good compromise between the warhammer system (current 40k as well) and the old 2nd ed 40k.

My top pick for the best wargame/rpg mix would be the first edition of Warzone (mutant chronicles).

Easy E
28-03-2011, 16:22
RT solves all problems in a simple and seamless way.

Whatever the Gamemaster says is law!

Two players disagree on the turn radius of X or Y? The GM decides.

One player wants to bring a filthy combo? The GM decides.

In that way, RT can be a very smootha nd simple game system, as long as you remember the vital role of a GM.

sigur
28-03-2011, 16:40
The close combat of 2nd edition and all spin-offs was so much more exciting for me than it is now.

That's why necromunda and gorka morka are so fun. Mordheim is based on fantasy, not 40k. 40k switched to use fantasy's close combat style by 3rd ed.
...

With the exception of kicking out all weapons except for "close combat weapon", "power fist" and "power weapon" (plus the occational Witchblade; talking about rulebook here, not any codices) more or less, removing every kind of modifier and combat results really just being about kills. 3rd edition truly was horrible and 5th edition's problem is that in its core, it's 3rd edition. There have been some neat things tucked on but the basic problems remain.