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.

That's.... what.... the.... word.... means.


Well, no, no one is saying game design is easy.

What people are saying is that GW doesn't write terribly good rules (compared to much of its competition) and produces errata at a glacial pace, and then produces errata of... similar quality. My sister-in-law has a master's in English, teaches it, and has several years' experience as a technical writer. Her emails are better proofed than GW's rules. With the size of GW, are you saying it's unreasonable to have (or, at least, a competent) professional writer skilled in writing precise English text proofread the rules? Hell, WotC produces better rules in D&D and gives away the core components and still manages to turn a profit in the whole deal.

It is, of course, just a part of the whole Warhammer (or 40k, or whatnot) product. We're involved with the product, and generally rather pleased with it. The rules, however, are a component of the whole product that is rather shoddy.

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Insaniak: Every time you say every you mean 100%?

Pardon?

When I write a post, I type what I mean, yes. If what I've written isn't actually what I meant, then the post is just a waste of time.

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Or do you understand that often times people use every in a general sense to mean a majority? I think you do, but keep going along here, I'm certain we'll both grow as people because of this petty bickering. Also, I don't see the need to be condescending. It doesn't help your point. What we have is a miscommunication, they happen all the time,

I wasn't being condescending, I merely pointed out that you were being inconsistent, and then responded to your cranky-sounding post about 'RAW nuts'

You're the one who typed something that they apparently didn't actually mean, and then responded with abuse when corrected.

And frankly, yes, if someone says 'every person' I take that to mean 'every person'

If you mean 'some people' then you should say 'some people'.

Otherwise, 'miscommunications' happen, and people start calling other people names.

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Game design isn't as easy as people think it is, primarily because when you write and test rules, you cannot even begine to fathom how 200,000 players will interperet and abuse them. The fact that they even issue FAQs is enough to say that they are trying, but it seems that gamers in particular, and this extends from board games to video games, are harder to please than anyone else on the planet.

Nobody's claiming that games design is easy. Building a car isn't easy, either... but we generally expect that the people who do it professionally will do the job properly.

You don't expect to pay for a car that has parts missing, and have the manufacturer replace only half of those missing parts two years later...

I don't recall being abusive. Unless you find RAW nut to be offensive. I't wasn't an insult but if you took it that way, sorry.

However, I think that hyperbole has been lost on you. I can say with confidence that you have many times in your life said every when it isn't 100%. People do it all the time. I figured that people here, many of whom I consider to be fairly smart, would be able to figure it out.

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:39 PM
I don't recall being abusive. Unless you find RAW nut to be offensive. I't wasn't an insult but if you took it that way, sorry.

The name itself isn't particularly offensive... rather innacurate in my case though.

The statement as a whole was borderline offensive, as it seemed to be nothing more than trolling for an argument, suggesting that only someone who was obsessed with RAW would bother correcting your poor use of language.

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:39 PM
However, I think that hyperbole has been lost on you. I can say with confidence that you have many times in your life said every when it isn't 100%.

I can say with confidence that at any time I have made an exaggerated claim, I most certainly didn't take offense when corrected...

I wasn't offended, and I tried to come across as such. No wonder we're still going on here. As far as I am concerned, BSing on dakka is as innocuous as can be. Well I'm glad that's over with.

re-re-rail: People may not say in so many words that game design is easy, but when they are being so critical and insulting towards a game company, I just get the impression that that's how they feel. Yes a company of GWs experience should be able to get things right by now, but I have the feeling that the corporation itself puts the kind of pressure on the designers that prevents them from making an airtight ruleset, which would be harder to get into in their eyes. And a harder game to get into is fewer sales. I personally think that it's backwards logic on their part, if it is indeed what they think.

More Mouth Breathing Stupidity Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:39 PM
I don't recall being abusive. Unless you find RAW nut to be offensive. I't wasn't an insult but if you took it that way, sorry.

However, I think that hyperbole has been lost on you. I can say with confidence that you have many times in your life said every when it isn't 100%. People do it all the time. I figured that people here, many of whom I consider to be fairly smart, would be able to figure it out.

Great, another knuckle dragging mouth breathing GW sock puppet that, when called on their obvious and frequently inconsistent bullcrap, start back peddling, hurling insults and screeching "you don't understane meeeee". Right buddy.

But your not insulting people here:

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 12:19 AM

Leave it to the RAW nuts to take things as literally as possible.
<snip>
But whatever guys, GW is evil and the average Joe is a saint right?

Or here:

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Every time you say every you mean 100%? Or do you understand that often times people use every in a general sense to mean a majority? I think you do, but keep going along here, I'm certain we'll both grow as people because of this petty bickering. Also, I don't see the need to be condescending. It doesn't help your point. What we have is a miscommunication, they happen all the time, even more so over the internet where facial expression, body language, tone, and inflection are lost. I find it's best to try to read and reread someones posts a few times just to make sure of an understanding before outright refuting someone. That or ask a question for clarification.

Not only are you back peddling, what the hell exactly are you trying to say? That you always talk in duplicitous hyperbole that is both exaggerated and not actually what you meant? On top of that retardation, not only do you whine about Insaniak (of all people) being condescending, you are then considerably more condesending than he. So what if all of the visual and audio cues are removed from written communication, it hasn't stopped people from clearly communicating their thoughts. Or is your capacity to discern the written word and it's nuances trapped at some elementary level?

Lastly is this brown beauty:

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 12:19 AM

Forgive me if I come across as angry, it's just really tiring to see people constantly give a company a hard time for being a company. It makes me wonder if people on auto forums complain about auto prices and things like that to the same degree.

Which Syr previously mentioned people do, in fact, complain about auto prices & such, and do so to a vastly, vastly greater degree. If you don't like it, go away. I'm sure the Bolter & Chainsword GW circle jerk would love to have another back patter. Here we like to tell it as it is, and that includes the bad.

That's quite a personality you have there. How does it work out for you?

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
 Game design isn't as easy as people think it is,.....

 

Neither is automotive engineering, but I expect my car to start and be safe no matter how hard the designers whine it is.

And when they do correct a known issue, I expect them to actually correct it all of them when they recall my car, not fix two things and then take something not broken and replace it with a bad part.

I can sum up all you GW apologists in one phrase: Lowered Expectations. You think GW makes a good product because, for whatever reason, you don't need a better product or can't use a better product. If you never need it, fantastic, but shame on you all for being so dense you can't imagine why anyone else would.

We're all screaming we need anti-lock breaks that work on our car, and you're screaming that we should shut up, who needs them, it's hard work to design ones that work, and who cares because you ride a bike to work anyway?

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 4:37 PM

That's quite a personality you have there. How does it work out for you?

Around here it's going to work out alot better than yours.

 

Yeah, apologizing to someone when they said that they had been insulted by you and trying to get an understanding out of people is bad around here huh?

Once again, what the hell is with calling anyone who has anything non-negative to say about GW being an apologist? Oh heaven forbid you try and take a rational and mature aproach to forming your opinion about something. Why is it that only criticism is respected?

I never once said that GW is perfect. Nor did I say that no one had any true complaints. If you had bothered to read my post I had even agreed with most of you about how unproffesional it was of them to make such a contradiction on the same page of their own FAQ.

Maybe you just need someone to yell at so you can feel better about yourself? No, I wont take such a negative view of you right off the bat, it wouldn't be fair. Maybe you just got so worked up when missreading my post, maybe in a rush to defend what you thought was an attack on one of your friends here, that you rushed to post.

What I am saying about GW is that many complaints lodged (not about rules because christ they can be a mess at times) are about price just sound so immature. I dont waaaannnnnaaaa pay money for a product! Grow up. Things cost money. They cost a lot of money. If you don't think they are worth that money, don't spend it. Speak with your wallets.

Also, yeah you do expect cars to be safe, and to function properly for at least a few years. But those of us who have owned a car, and I assume that most of you have, know that they break down, they don't always work as intended. You have to take the care in, or fix it yourself, and rarely does the warranty cover it.

Now Mauleed, I've seen you post plenty around here, and I know how critical you are of the rules. But I don't hold that against you, because I have the feeling that you are critical of the rules because you like the game. I try to be understanding of people before comming down on them for one reason or another, and I guess it's far too much to ask that people do the same for me.

Honestly, I've always liked Dakka because I thought that the maturity level was higher, and the atmosphere, even in RAW debates, was more relaxed. I guess I was wrong about that, because tempers have certainly flared, and what I thought was respected around here isn't. Now I feel all wierd for even bothering to say this much over some foolish debate on the internet, but I guess it really bothers me that I have effected such a negative reaction over what I thought was harmless.

"Once again, what the hell is with calling anyone who has anything non-negative to say about GW being an apologist?"

I find the word 'apologist' carries with it nasty connotations. I wouldn't use it personally. I think it's just a perception that you're blindly uncritical of GW. Since you've been playing devil's advocate in this thread, it's somewhat understandable.

I like GW games. I still enjoy playing and painting. I don't buy models any more since the prices have shot up - but I still play with what I have, look for the occasional deal (on eBay or 40% off sales at gaming stores) and participate by playing and introducing new people to the game.

Despite enjoying the game, I realize that the rules are flawed in quite a few places. Rather than just saying "Thems the breaks.", I'd rather point them out and complain. This means that there's some chance of the rule being fixed. If it's fixed, it makes the game more fun for me.

People do the same thing with RPG companies all the time. The same is true of text book authors and newspapers. When an error occurs, the author fixes in the next printing and includes a mea culpa and gives thanks to the person who corrected it. A little humility never hurts.

It's not the fact that there's errors that bothers me. It's GW's arrogant attitude that people will sort them out for themselves so they don't even need to bother.

Nyarly! You said I was the only brown beauty! You skeezy soulless
thing of the Deep...

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 4:37 PM

That's quite a personality you have there. How does it work out for you?

It's working out great!

Posted By malfred on 12/26/2006 7:46 PM
Nyarly! You said I was the only brown beauty! You skeezy soulless
thing of the Deep...

Aw, but your *my* only brown beauty!

Wayfarer…

 

You say that games development isn’t easy.  I don’t think anyone here will disagree with you.  That being said, the majority of the problems that “RAW nuts” point out have nothing to do with games development.  They have everything to do with proper written communication and completeness of the product released. 

 

Take a look at the GW rulebooks (of all kinds) from the perspective of someone who has never played any tabletop war game and isn’t learning from someone who hasn’t played.  You can’t pick up the rulebook and, with a proper understanding of English, play the game “correctly”.  Why?  It’s because not even all of the basic rules are included in the books.  GW seems to have the mentality that close is good enough.  They seem to believe that people should correct their mistakes simply because they’re too lazy, or too incompetent, to do it themselves.  Trying to use the excuse of deadlines, etc, doesn’t cut it.  Almost everything one does has a deadline.  You have to meet the expectation whether you’re ready to do it or not.  Tell me this; if you pay 90% of your rent/mortgage, will your landlord/bank just let the rest slide because it’s close enough?  I think not.

 

That seems to be all that people expect from GW, and that’s just in their main rulebooks.  It seems like their customers want even less in terms of things like balance.  Heck, the fact that “comp” exists in tournaments is another issue.  Models are supposed to have points values based on their power in the game.  That’s the whole point of the points system.  If you have to have additional restrictions to make a tournament, or any game, fair that’s a problem with games development.  The fact that they refuse to make decisions about specific circumstances that come up is a problem with games development.  The fact that many of these issues have been around for multiple versions of the game is a problem with games development.  Poor wording on rules and missing sections of rules has nothing to do with games development.

 

Do I think I could do a better job than Games Workshop at developing games?  Possibly, but I know I could write rules much better, more completely, and more concisely than they do, while effectively communicating what I mean to the reader.  That’s the whole point of written communication.  A rulebook is a manual for playing a game.  It is a technical manual, not a work of prose.  Now, that’s not to say that the codices and rulebooks shouldn’t have background materiel.  That’s the only real draw left, for me, to GW products.  The background materiel, however, shouldn’t be a part of the rules themselves.  If you want to see what a good layout for a rulebook should look like, in my not so humble opinion, pick up a WARMACHINE or HORDES rulebook.  There is background materiel for each unit on one page and on the adjacent page there are rules for that unit.

 

Now, I’m not saying that Privateer Press is perfect, or that they make perfect rules.  Their games, however, are much better balanced, their rules make a lot more sense, and they’re willing to answer questions that people have about their games in a timely manner.  That, and with each expansion they improve the clarity of the rules, the options that players have, and they maintain the balance between the factions while doing it.

 

Playing these games should be about pitting the tactical skills of the players against each other while interacting socially.  It shouldn’t matter whether or not you’re a “tournament player”, a “RAW nut”, a “social gamer”, or a “Noob.”  Everyone should expect the products they buy from ANY company, including GW, to be complete and to work correctly.  For some reason, many of “you” seem to be content with a product that’s incomplete and just good enough.  I don’t understand that, and I’m not content with a product that’s “good enough.”  That’s why I haven’t bought anything from Games Workshop in over 3 years, and that’s why I play, and promote, games from Privateer Press.

 

Knight

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 5:19 PM

Things cost money. They cost a lot of money. If you don't think they are worth that money, don't spend it. Speak with your wallets.

I do speak with my wallet.  I also speak with my mouth.  And sometimes I even like to type with my fingers.  I was under the impression that such behavior was acceptable, even expected, ON AN INTERNET FORUM.

Are you pretending to miss the point?

Because I believe that in the context it's pretty clear. Complaining on an internet forum to your peers wont change anything, but refusing to buy product will. Is that clear enough for you?

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/27/2006 12:09 AM
Are you pretending to miss the point?

Because I believe that in the context it's pretty clear. Complaining on an internet forum to your peers wont change anything, but refusing to buy product will. Is that clear enough for you?

Who says the purpose of complaining on an internet forum is to change anything?  I refuse to buy product to effect change.  The complaining is just to make myself feel better.

Just venting your frustrations out then? In that case vent away.

My wallet...it haunts my dreams!

Nobody's claiming that games design is easy. Building a car isn't easy, either... but we generally expect that the people who do it professionally will do the job properly.

You don't expect to pay for a car that has parts missing, and have the manufacturer replace only half of those missing parts two years later...

However, it would be easy. They have complete access to the gaming community for FAQs.  The list of questions can easily be sifted through, with a beta test put out their for comment, then a final one completed. Lets get real here this is painfully easy.  Yakface and others on similar boards has practically done their job for them.  There is absolutely no justification for not taking advantage of this .

The Shrine Of Errata is an attempt to organise FAQs but the content is poor.

This is one hot topic kids!
The second this thread gets locked let's start it up again!
I could read this stuff for weeks.

I see alot of people hanging in the majority of a lot of threads, but rarely more than a single person ever defending a single side.

12 say yes.
1 says no.
12 become exassperated at 1 being so stubborn.
1 remains stubborn, but becomes pinned.

Odd.

Posted By Hellfury on 12/28/2006 12:33 PM
1 remains stubborn, but becomes pinned.

Odd.

Nonsense, no one fails the requisite morale check to become pinned*.


* may not apply to Imperial Guard.  Next time, play something in power armor.

Don't forget about that one fearless unit that only lost a wound because it was outnumbered.

And at the end of the day...Wayfarer gains a clue!

Level up!

By the same token, I think I'll have to start a Nyarly fan club, because his mouth breathing sock puppet line was just too classic.

Exalt!

Posted By carmachu on 12/20/2006 11:10 AM

but I beg to doubt that a Cygnar army with Stryker is a different faction than a Cygnar army with Epic Stryker

you would of course, be wrong.

First, epics require 750pts, regular as little as 350-500pts. SO at the start, epics have at least 250pts more to play with.

Second, epics give bonuses to certain units(stormguard in this case I believe) to their stats.

Third, both the feats and spell lists are different.

So yes, they do play differently.

Wait, are you trying to say that epic stryker is a different faction, because he has more points?????

WTF?  I am all for hating GW when they do something wrong, but this crap is uttlerly crazy.  This is why GW fanboys are so standoffish with PP fanboys.

Based on this flawed logic, the Chaos Space Marines Codex is 54 factions at least.  Each specific power, plus the the non marked ones.

Then you have the 500 point quick game faction, the 1500 tournet faction, plus the 2000 epic faction.

The dark angels have 9.

Raven Wing, Death Wing, plus regular marines, once again, in 500, 1500 and 2000+ variety.

Its worse actually, if WM gets a different faction according to what warcaster, plus ow many points you are using, 40K has about 1 million factions.  You can design your won leader, use the pregenerated ones, plus different point values.

This login is a joke.  Just say that you hate GW.  That works for me.

No matter what Cygnar you use, they all use the same jacks and troops.  Changing the caster and point values just doesn't give you a new faction, all it does is gives you a longer game that takes longer to play.

Posted By Slave on 01/01/2007 3:26 PM

Posted By carmachu on 12/20/2006 11:10 AM

but I beg to doubt that a Cygnar army with Stryker is a different faction than a Cygnar army with Epic Stryker

you would of course, be wrong.

First, epics require 750pts, regular as little as 350-500pts. SO at the start, epics have at least 250pts more to play with.

Second, epics give bonuses to certain units(stormguard in this case I believe) to their stats.

Third, both the feats and spell lists are different.

So yes, they do play differently.

Wait, are you trying to say that epic stryker is a different faction, because he has more points?????

WTF?  I am all for hating GW when they do something wrong, but this crap is uttlerly crazy.  This is why GW fanboys are so standoffish with PP fanboys.

Based on this flawed logic, the Chaos Space Marines Codex is 54 factions at least.  Each specific power, plus the the non marked ones.

Then you have the 500 point quick game faction, the 1500 tournet faction, plus the 2000 epic faction.

The dark angels have 9.

Raven Wing, Death Wing, plus regular marines, once again, in 500, 1500 and 2000+ variety.

Its worse actually, if WM gets a different faction according to what warcaster, plus ow many points you are using, 40K has about 1 million factions.  You can design your won leader, use the pregenerated ones, plus different point values.

This login is a joke.  Just say that you hate GW.  That works for me.

No matter what Cygnar you use, they all use the same jacks and troops.  Changing the caster and point values just doesn't give you a new faction, all it does is gives you a longer game that takes longer to play.

Relax.

We're explaining why we feel like we get "more" out of WM than out of
40k, even though the games are smaller and you don't customize units.

Perhaps the biggest thing is that the scale of the game means that whenever
you change anything in Warmachine you're changing the way that you play.
Warcasters specifically have abilities that have a wider range of effects
so that Stryker and epic Stryker are far more different than choosing between
a Farseer or an Autarch.

Also, models often have more options than move, fire, assault. This is just
a requirement of the inherited 3rd edition changes that streamlined things
so that effects had to be streamlined, but a lot of warmachine players love
the fact that they can chain a series of effects together to alter the course
of battle. Though rolling two handfuls of dice is fun, too...

I am relaxed.

The same things you posted apply to both games.  you change ANYTHING in 40K, you change the way you play, just the same as in WARMACHINE.

If you are playing Chaos, you can go all heavy, or mostly  HQ, maybe mostly daemon.  All assult.

Same thing.  Change a few models, you change the way you play.

The complexity of t he rules must cover all of them, and in WM, you have far less variety, thats a FACT.  The Warcasters are standard, the Warjacks are standard, the troops are configured in just a couple ways.

in 40K, you can tool a dreadnaught out in 20 different configuratiuons.  Even basic troops have a laundry list of options.  Hell, with IG, you can get 2-4 different SQUADS, and each squad about 10 different configurations, and thats just a single troops choice.

Like I said, hate GW if ya like.  They make it easy.  Call them lazy on them rules.  You can never ever say that WM gives you MORE choice in army creation, has more factions, or even attempt to spout the crap that GW has LESS variety to try and balance.  Thats simply bulls***.  If you attempt to argue that point, you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

That doesn't sound very relaxed.

The 20 different configurations of a dreadnought all lead to the same kinds of
game play. Stand and shoot. Move x inches (I forget the exact rules) and shoot.
Assault a heavy target and tear it to shreds. The different configurations modify
the statistics up or down.

The warcasters are standardized, but that doesn't mean the gameplay (this has
been the comparison all along at least in my head where no man dare tread
except the underwear rummaging Jester) is standard. Abilities/spell lists/ weapons
have different effects on the table, which is why the game is sometimes compared
more to CCGs than 40k. A "standard" warcaster has more options available to them
in terms of gameplay than just "shoot, assault, hold leadership." Their spells
enhance their own effectiveness or the effectiveness of others. Their feats often
have game altering effects. I think the closest thing that 40k has to that is the
farseer. And the thing that people like best is that you can change a warcaster
and suddenly your army, without changing a figure, will play very differently.

A part of this bias toward WM might be the prevalence and effectiveness of the
meq in 40k. The popularity of marines and certain game effects (3+ armor saves,
access to good general units) leads to less of a variety in terms of effectiveness
(see the composition argument for more details, lol). So our perception is a bit
skewed. Maybe a good comparison is the scariness that is Sorscha.

To sum up:

40k has more guns and weapons. On the table, they alter your range, and
effectiveness but your options remain the same. Shoot, advance, etc.

WM has no customizable units at all, but units on the table have more effects
they can use in game that go beyond weapon strength.

I've come to enjoy the latter more than the former, and see it as a form of
more variety to play with that goes beyond list building. I prefer the variety
in gameplay over the variety in equipment options.

You don't have to agree. But you also don't have to get so angry. I'm not trying
to turn this into GW vs. PP at all, but an analysis of why I see a certain game
the way I do and maybe ry to convince you to see why I see things that way.