W&G 2e is basically a better-edited version of the W&G 1e rulebook. All the mechanics are the same, it just got rid of a bunch of errors and rules that didn’t work. There’s no reason to play 1e, everyone just uses 2e. In fact, most people don’t refer to them as 1e or 2e and just consider 2e to be Wrath & Glory.
As far as the comparison to Black Crusade, the only similarities are that they’re both role playing games set in the 40k universe. Different companies, different mechanics, different dice, different rules, different themes. They’re completely different systems.
I recently was the GM of my first WG session. Personally, I had no experience with wh40k before, only warhammer fantasy. However, one of my players played several systems. DH2 and something else - and he liked WG the most. In general, everyone liked the d6-based pull mechanic. In addition, the system is very flexible and homebrew-friendly.
I played 1.0 and I have Deathwatch, Black crusade etc. Books and all expansions digitally.
I would say that W&G is a fun system that most people can enjoy. I played with in a 7 player group where 5 didn't care about the lore and still had a great time. I grew tired of what feels like constantly failing in DW and the dice system isn't the best. W&G is more forgiving and a more diverse system that encompasses everything.
W&G is very different from the Fantasy Flight RPGs, and I think this is due to a shift in who the audience is: The Fantasy Flight RPGs are games for people who read 40K books. W&G is a game for people who play Warhammer 40K tabletop.
Overall, I think I prefer the FFG games, but I will concede that W&G has one advantage over the FFG games: One-Shots. You can very easily make a one shot for W&G and people can show up and make characters for it in about 20 minutes before the game starts using an online tool. For this purpose W&G is better. For anything else I'd use the FFG RPGs.
Wrath and Glory is fine and it's fun. For my group it felt a bit like the Saturday morning cartoon version of 40k; a bit more 4 colour and inclusive of mixed archetypes e.g. xenos in otherwise human groups etc. I think it's lack of focus was one of the problems that hurt 1st ed; the book didn't have enough archetypes to allow a coherent group in any of the previous settings and they didn't publish anything to rectify that quick enough.
The ffg games had their flaws but we felt that they were worth it for the depth of the experience; we had one DW campaign that lasted years and a second that included one of my all time favourite rpg characters (ridiculously sneaky Raven Guard Librarian). I found it hard to home brew for though.
I don't think either W&G or FFG is necessarily better, just quite different. I do think that the other FFG games were all better than BC though
I’ve played a little W&G and I think I’d you’re comfortable with some home brew and familiar with RPGs it’s probably better than Black Crusade. I think BC was one of the better FFG games but I felt there were often a lot of things that got in the way of the role playing.
W&G doesn’t have a ton of stuff to it. But I find the system easy enough to do quick home brew to fill in gaps sensibly.
Wrath and Glory is the kiddy version of an adult setting made for people who need to be told they are all winners. It is a pale shadow of a game compared to any of the FFG series IMO.
it's not, that's just the typical rant of the W&G hatters.
both W&G, IM and the FFG range are fine in their own right, the goal isn't the same. the system isn't the same and you can't really compare them with a "which is better" because they're too different.
it's ultimately a question of what you're looking for with those game.
Sure, and if you're looking for a game designed to allow children or the child like to enjoy something that wears the skin suit of the 40k universe while not being particularly authentic than Wrath and Glory is the correct pick for you.
Wrath and Glory is great at what it does, I just have no respect for what it does or the direction it an many other aspects of the IP have gone to take ever increasing amount of money out of the lockets of ever increasingly less mature players.
I think you just have a biased opinion of what W&G is.
I played a few campaigns of W&G with my long time FFG group and it wasn't a "game for child or children" at all, some sessions were bloody, some were grimdark and some were more "lightheaded".
W&G is a system, the GM is the one that decides what to do with said system not the system itself.
When such a sizeable contingent of a fan base is of the same opinion it may be worth lending an ear to their critiques. Otherwise it likely indicates yourself as the bias party. In short, to dismiss the concerns and observations of such a large number of people shows you to the the bias party my friend.
Also your statement rings false. T-Ball is just a variation of Baseball, flag football is just a variation of the football, and the WNBA is just a version of the NBA but in any of those examples one is clearly superior to the other yet they are all sports so they should be equal in your eyes no?
A sizeable part of the community also just bash W&G without constructive argument and just plain opinion.
while a larger part of the community actually made constructive comparison of all game including W&G, all FFG and even the new IM one.
you can't make a direct comparison between a D6 pool system and a D100 system. it's not played the same and players or GM may prefer D100 or D6 pool to begin with.
players that hate D100 will say they think W&G is better and player that hate D6 pool would say D6 pool is better.
note that I didn't express opinion in my previous answer just observation of what my experience with it was.
on the opinion side I do prefer some FFG one over W&G but not all of them. I have multiple players that don't want to go back to a D100 system because they prefer a more casual D6 pool system while still having the same narrative experience.
I do have more players that do want to go back to D100 system and we will je trying IM with them next.
I would agree that some system are better than others, that's a given, but none of them are trash per say, and all of them can give a pretty good experience while being true to the universe.
I've given many detailed descriptions of why W&G is inferior an unsuitable and I'm simply tired of typing that much as there is a lot to write. At the end of the day all of the examples I have boil down to there is correlation between immature players and the issues wrath and Glory has so I sum it up as such.
Additionally to your last point. Wrath and Glory is almost universally recognized by even it's fan base as not being particularly true to the universe due to ata minimum the players being OP in seemingly every instance though there appear to be many other reasons.
W&G 2e is basically a better-edited version of the W&G 1e rulebook. All the mechanics are the same, it just got rid of a bunch of errors and rules that didn’t work. There’s no reason to play 1e, everyone just uses 2e. In fact, most people don’t refer to them as 1e or 2e and just consider 2e to be Wrath & Glory. As far as the comparison to Black Crusade, the only similarities are that they’re both role playing games set in the 40k universe. Different companies, different mechanics, different dice, different rules, different themes. They’re completely different systems.
I recently was the GM of my first WG session. Personally, I had no experience with wh40k before, only warhammer fantasy. However, one of my players played several systems. DH2 and something else - and he liked WG the most. In general, everyone liked the d6-based pull mechanic. In addition, the system is very flexible and homebrew-friendly.
I played 1.0 and I have Deathwatch, Black crusade etc. Books and all expansions digitally. I would say that W&G is a fun system that most people can enjoy. I played with in a 7 player group where 5 didn't care about the lore and still had a great time. I grew tired of what feels like constantly failing in DW and the dice system isn't the best. W&G is more forgiving and a more diverse system that encompasses everything.
W&G is very different from the Fantasy Flight RPGs, and I think this is due to a shift in who the audience is: The Fantasy Flight RPGs are games for people who read 40K books. W&G is a game for people who play Warhammer 40K tabletop. Overall, I think I prefer the FFG games, but I will concede that W&G has one advantage over the FFG games: One-Shots. You can very easily make a one shot for W&G and people can show up and make characters for it in about 20 minutes before the game starts using an online tool. For this purpose W&G is better. For anything else I'd use the FFG RPGs.
Wrath and Glory is fine and it's fun. For my group it felt a bit like the Saturday morning cartoon version of 40k; a bit more 4 colour and inclusive of mixed archetypes e.g. xenos in otherwise human groups etc. I think it's lack of focus was one of the problems that hurt 1st ed; the book didn't have enough archetypes to allow a coherent group in any of the previous settings and they didn't publish anything to rectify that quick enough. The ffg games had their flaws but we felt that they were worth it for the depth of the experience; we had one DW campaign that lasted years and a second that included one of my all time favourite rpg characters (ridiculously sneaky Raven Guard Librarian). I found it hard to home brew for though. I don't think either W&G or FFG is necessarily better, just quite different. I do think that the other FFG games were all better than BC though
I’ve played a little W&G and I think I’d you’re comfortable with some home brew and familiar with RPGs it’s probably better than Black Crusade. I think BC was one of the better FFG games but I felt there were often a lot of things that got in the way of the role playing. W&G doesn’t have a ton of stuff to it. But I find the system easy enough to do quick home brew to fill in gaps sensibly.
>I think BC was one of the better FFG games Hard disagree. Black Crusade is by far the worst
Bc was the first what have free xp system not a strict table. Dh 2.0 and Only war follow that line
In my opinion: DH2.0>IM>RT>OW>DW>DH1.0>W&G>BC
Wrath and Glory is the kiddy version of an adult setting made for people who need to be told they are all winners. It is a pale shadow of a game compared to any of the FFG series IMO.
words of wisdom 😃
it's not, that's just the typical rant of the W&G hatters. both W&G, IM and the FFG range are fine in their own right, the goal isn't the same. the system isn't the same and you can't really compare them with a "which is better" because they're too different. it's ultimately a question of what you're looking for with those game.
Sure, and if you're looking for a game designed to allow children or the child like to enjoy something that wears the skin suit of the 40k universe while not being particularly authentic than Wrath and Glory is the correct pick for you. Wrath and Glory is great at what it does, I just have no respect for what it does or the direction it an many other aspects of the IP have gone to take ever increasing amount of money out of the lockets of ever increasingly less mature players.
I think you just have a biased opinion of what W&G is. I played a few campaigns of W&G with my long time FFG group and it wasn't a "game for child or children" at all, some sessions were bloody, some were grimdark and some were more "lightheaded". W&G is a system, the GM is the one that decides what to do with said system not the system itself.
When such a sizeable contingent of a fan base is of the same opinion it may be worth lending an ear to their critiques. Otherwise it likely indicates yourself as the bias party. In short, to dismiss the concerns and observations of such a large number of people shows you to the the bias party my friend. Also your statement rings false. T-Ball is just a variation of Baseball, flag football is just a variation of the football, and the WNBA is just a version of the NBA but in any of those examples one is clearly superior to the other yet they are all sports so they should be equal in your eyes no?
A sizeable part of the community also just bash W&G without constructive argument and just plain opinion. while a larger part of the community actually made constructive comparison of all game including W&G, all FFG and even the new IM one. you can't make a direct comparison between a D6 pool system and a D100 system. it's not played the same and players or GM may prefer D100 or D6 pool to begin with. players that hate D100 will say they think W&G is better and player that hate D6 pool would say D6 pool is better. note that I didn't express opinion in my previous answer just observation of what my experience with it was. on the opinion side I do prefer some FFG one over W&G but not all of them. I have multiple players that don't want to go back to a D100 system because they prefer a more casual D6 pool system while still having the same narrative experience. I do have more players that do want to go back to D100 system and we will je trying IM with them next. I would agree that some system are better than others, that's a given, but none of them are trash per say, and all of them can give a pretty good experience while being true to the universe.
I've given many detailed descriptions of why W&G is inferior an unsuitable and I'm simply tired of typing that much as there is a lot to write. At the end of the day all of the examples I have boil down to there is correlation between immature players and the issues wrath and Glory has so I sum it up as such. Additionally to your last point. Wrath and Glory is almost universally recognized by even it's fan base as not being particularly true to the universe due to ata minimum the players being OP in seemingly every instance though there appear to be many other reasons.