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.

I've been watching a few recent discussion on YMDC and a lot of the disagreement seems to stem from differing understanding of the English language. For example -

"it has the advantage of always using the best available save" - some read this as it MUST take the best available (because of the word always) and others that it's optional because of the way it say "the advantage of always". (See http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/671255.page)

Another is the argument of whether "see" means literally what you see with your eyes, or whether it means to determine or establish. In the same thread, there's also an argument about what the word "underneath" means. (See http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/671136.page)

I don't want to discuss those specific points here, go to those threads for that.

But it seems to me that a number of the difficulties are with badly worded rules. The rules themselves aren't bad, just the way they're written.

I certainly don't have all the answers, but wanted to get a discussion going on how this can be improved. Clearer, less ambiguous writing would obviously help, but does 40k suffer from a lack of a clear style?

There are a few FFG games I've played (Blood Bowl: Team Manager, Netrunner and X-Wing) that all have nicely defined phases, sequences and icons/symbols defining how actions and rules happen. Is this something that could be moved into W40k, or is it too complex?

As a starter, a question I see over and over is "if IC X joins a unit, do they get rule Y?". Essentially, does a rule confer to a joined unit/IC. Normally you can find the answer by reading the relevant rule, but it can be hidden in a few paragraphs of text. Let's just always decorate those rules with a symbol (for ease here on Dakka, let's just use "C" for confers). Lot's of rules give a re-roll, so for those decorate the rule with "RR". That can then have a follow on symbol of "TH", "TW" or "SA" to say the re-roll applies to To Hit, To wound or Save rolls.

So then, taking Monster Hunter as an example, it would be decorated with "C, RR-TH". So the only 'wordy' part you need is that this only applies to Monstrous Creatures. Essentially the rule would be:

Monster Hunter
C, RR-TH: Against Monstrous Creatures

This gets rid of the word heavy "A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule..."


Then some others could be:

Counter-attack
C, Chd -> +1A: Unless locked in combat

Furious Charge
Ch -> +1S: Unless a disordered charge

(Where Ch is 'when charging', Chd is 'when charged' and the arrow signifies it gives that benefit).

I realise these don't answer the issues in the initial examples, but if this format is fully padded out, maybe it can.

There's plenty of scope for symbols for saves, range etc (e.g. the Kustom Force Field would be R6" -> Sa5++).

I'd love to seem some nice symbols/icons for these, instead of just letters, if that's anyone's forte!


TL;DR: Does W40k need symbols instead of words, to make rules more consise and less ambiguous?

I see no reason currently why this isn't a quality idea.

I think GWs problem is different writers are used at the same time. Someone picks up the rule writing monday morning after the other guy dropped it friday afternoon.

Symbols and icons aren't going to work when it has nothing to do with how the rule is written, and especially aren't going to work in a forum that is basically text-input.

There's also so many different things going on in 40K that you would need an entire alphabet of symbols to encompass everything,

A lightning bolt and an arrow could be used to represent a charge... though it could also be used to represent assault... or running. Or a Jump Infantry assault. Or a Deep Strike via Teleporter. Or any Deep Strike deployment.

However, nothing about the symbol, whatever it is decided it represents, tells us anything about the rule it is referencing.

So, assuming that we use this lightning bolt-and-arrow to represent a Charge... what does that mean? Well, ok, it means +1 S. But what if I'm mounted on a bike? Or a wolf? Or I'm a creature that gets a Hammer of Wrath attack on the charge? What if I charge through Difficult Terrain? Dangerous Terrain? Charge through cover? Assault a vehicle?

The rules for Charging have so many "If... Then..." and "Except... unless..." contingencies that using a hieroglyph to represent it is kind of pointless. It's the forty pages of explaining the action that needs work.

I don't think the 40k rules needs symbols - what they needs are consistency.

Games like MTG and Warmachinehave words with specific, in-game meaning. e.g. in MTG "Target" and "choose" are similar, but with important distinctions - namely that there are a lot of abilities that prevent a card being targeted. But, you could still 'choose' those cards with effects that use that term.

Likewise, Warmachine has stuff like "Gain" Focus being different to "Allocated" Focus. Allocated Focus is capped at 3, whilst Gained focus is not.

By using keywords in this manner, you can easily set up what units will be effected by which effects. e.g. in the MTG example you know that any effects that uses "target" won't be able to affects units with Shrouded, Protection and other effects that prevent targetting.

Another example would be movement - in Warmachine there are various types of movement such as "Advance", "Full Advance", "Pull", "Place" etc. These cover different movement from standard walking/running to being pulled by a spell or weapon, or even teleporting. So, different effects can specify specific movement types.

The upshot of all this is that it generally makes interaction between rules a lot easier - because the keywords used actually have well-defined, in-game meaning. You don't have to try and work out which definition the author was using.


Moreover, what the 40k rules need also is to be read by people who didn't write them and who actually care about their interpretation. The people who wrote them knew what they meant, so they don't see the other possible interpretations or conflicts. Likewise, an Editor checking grammar and spelling probably isn't giving much thought to the overall rules.

What you need is for proper playtesters to use the rules and point out any conflicts or questionable meanings. This could even be done after the rules had been released by means of prompt and regular faqs and errata.


One final thing (and something of a personal pet peeve) - unique abilities don't require snazzy names. If an ability is going to be used on several models in the same army, or even over multiple armies, then fine, give it a name. However, if a rule is only going to be present on one model in the entire game, please don't name it - just put the rule text on the model's page. It's just irritating.

What they need is more diagrams with examples and faqs covering the vague situations as soon as they come up in the community.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An other thing that would be nice is if they designed more stuff is such a way that they avoided duplications in the rules.
Having multiple versions of the same units or weapons in different codexes or FW publications is bad an will results in mismatching rules when they start to update things.
It should be avoid by proper referencing to a common core.

People have already done this and I know a lot who use a clean written version of the original rules to play with
Also some tournament FAQ's used in Germany are based original on the re-written 40k rules with clear wording.

Just to avoid problems like, unit and model is not the same but some special rules use them randomly.

Also you can cut of at least a third of the basic rules with a clear wording.


But the same problem with all community projects, people want to play with the original rules and won't accept rules from a different source no matter how good they are or if they only change minor details.

PS: We (me and other players from Germany) are trying to get a community based living rulebook running but good rules are not enough

A better definition of key words and the propper exactly ussage of these key words would improve the ruleset very much.

 _ghost_ wrote:
A better definition of key words and the propper exactly ussage of these key words would improve the ruleset very much.

Absolutely. 40K rules seem to avoid definitions wherever possible...

At least now they actually indicate the difference between rule and context fluff. It's something, I guess.

 vipoid wrote:
One final thing (and something of a personal pet peeve) - unique abilities don't require snazzy names. If an ability is going to be used on several models in the same army, or even over multiple armies, then fine, give it a name. However, if a rule is only going to be present on one model in the entire game, please don't name it - just put the rule text on the model's page. It's just irritating.

Because the end result is you get Maugen Ra with "Whirlwind of Death" and the Space Wolves' Black Death relic also with a "Whirlwind of Death" special rule, but both have completely different rules!

Maybe that was caused by this -

 eskimo wrote:
I think GWs problem is different writers are used at the same time. Someone picks up the rule writing monday morning after the other guy dropped it friday afternoon.

If I'm not mistaken, AoS works with keywords a lot

Clear writing, defined terms and above all else splitting the actual rule from the fluff describing it would be good places to start.

Issue however is a bit more fundamental, and I've seen it in other games, the people testing the rules and proof reading them already know the rules they read what they already know so any ambiguities tend to be missed.

What they need, ala evil overlord, is a total munchkin gamer, a tame one who is house trained and doesn't bite much, ideally a few of them to try and break the rules. Then when they find an exploit decide if its worth correcting, they won't all be.

Step one: shred current rules

Step two: rewrite everything using D10s to increase system granularity

Step one agree
(done that)

Step two, partly agree
rewrite everything (done that) and stay with D6

or play the 40k Mod of Starship Troopers (if you prefer D10)

 kodos wrote:
Step one agree
(done that)

Step two, partly agree
rewrite everything (done that) and stay with D6

or play the 40k Mod of Starship Troopers (if you prefer D10)

I can't imagine trying to make this game work with D6s. There's way too many units that need distinguished from each other.

Martel732 wrote:

I can't imagine trying to make this game work with D6s. There's way too many units that need distinguished from each other.

As long as you compare values a D6 is enough and you can increase profile values above 10 without a problem
And for ranged attacks and armour saves you still have the possibility to use 2D6.

But you also have to use the whole value from 1 to 10 sich means Marines need a profile of 5s instead of 4s

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
A better definition of key words and the propper exactly ussage of these key words would improve the ruleset very much.

Absolutely. 40K rules seem to avoid definitions wherever possible...

At least now they actually indicate the difference between rule and context fluff. It's something, I guess.

This is because 40k is inherently a casual game. The armies are unbalanced, scenarios can be one-sided, the fluff is more important than good rules, they sell the newest OP model rather than balance existing broken ones, and they stress the importance of the "Most Important Rule". Games with clear rules like MTG are highly competitive and I think they intentionally don't clarify verbiage in order to indicate the game is not meant to be taken so seriously. Some rules even seem to be deliberately kept vague from edition to edition so that you and your opponent can decide how you want it to read. When you can't decide... roll the 4+ as the rulebook encourages.

The only reason the rules exist at all is to convince addicts and power gamers to buy their latest OP model. Plenty of other guys buy models just to paint and display them but not enough to sustain the workshop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I can't imagine trying to make this game work with D6s. There's way too many units that need distinguished from each other.

As long as you compare values a D6 is enough and you can increase profile values above 10 without a problem
And for ranged attacks and armour saves you still have the possibility to use 2D6.

But you also have to use the whole value from 1 to 10 sich means Marines need a profile of 5s instead of 4s

Plus there's already an RPG system that works on D6s. Several in fact... but my favorite is the White Wolf books. Mage, Werewolf, Vampire, they all rely on spamming D6 rolls and checking for degrees of success or failure.

White wolf games used d10s.

GW needs to fire all the writers and the executives. Replace them by money hungry lawyers and write more op imba stuff to sell more models.

Heck they should even make rules where you legally get to bribe a T.O. judge to make the call in your favor.

WH40k is a pay to win game especially with fotm armies.

 eskimo wrote:
I see no reason currently why this isn't a quality idea.

I think GWs problem is different writers are used at the same time. Someone picks up the rule writing monday morning after the other guy dropped it friday afternoon.

Not the case with 7th. Cruddace wrote the rule book (or re-edited the 6th ed book, if you prefer).

Martel732 wrote:
White wolf games used d10s.

Cthulhu, BESM, GURPS, lots of other options too. The Arkham Horror series, Betrayal, pretty much anything by Avalon Hill.

And really there's no difference between the d10 and d6 systems, they're just different ways of calculating percentages. You can make complex rules to do so for even a 1-100 even chance roll using only d6s, it's just easier to do with d10s. Don't blame the dice, GW just isn't trying hard enough.

White Wolf runs on d10s, not d6s.

At least, it did in the 90s, not sure if they do now in whatever editions VTM, WWtA, MtA, and FtC are in now.

FASA's Shadowrun ran on a pile of d6s.

And vague rules support neither competitive games nor friendly casual games. Clear rules benefit everyone, because it permits you to get to the actual playing of the game the fastest without having to hash out how everything works. If you want a thematic game or a campaign, then you can make up some special rules for the scenario.

There are many ways to improve the clarity of the rules in 40k, the problem is that GW does not want to do it. They're happy to publish the equivalent of those "games" you get on the back of cereal boxes, and then throw up some nonsense about "forge the narrative" and "beer and pretzels" to make you think it's impossible to do any better. If you can fix the problem of incompetent authors fixing the clarity of the rules is pretty straightforward. You can use symbols, keywords, etc, as long as you make a conscious effort to check the strictest literal interpretation of everything and let the worst WAAC TFGs try (and fail) to break your rules before you print anything.

I would suggest, in the case of 40k, using a keyword system though, instead of icons or abbreviations. Icons might work in a simpler game with fewer things to keep track of, but in a game like 40k you'd end up with so many different icons or abbreviations that you'd inevitably start having confusion about them. It's a lot easier to keep track of a long list of keywords because they're words, not abstract symbols.

 Arkaine wrote:
This is because 40k is inherently a casual game.

No, it's because 40k is a bad game written by incompetent morons. Casual games can and should have rules that are perfectly clear.

"Casual" games don't require you to take out a mortgage to afford your army.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
"Casual" games don't require you to take out a mortgage to afford your army.

It's more of a model painting hobby than a game. Those tend to get expensive. If they actually cared about the game, they'd release a concise rulebook devoid of fluff and extraneous vocabulary, or package rules with the models in addition to being in the rulebook. Instead everything is designed to push models and hundreds of pages of pointless reading onto you. A dataslate contains a page of rules and then 49 pages of storytelling and pictures. Actual games like MTG sell you just the rulebook and then provide optional lore books to purchase separately. Even the cards themselves have at best a line of flavor text to go with the multitude of rules, yet every unit in my codex has its own page of fluff to go with the tiny block of rule text. If you want clear rules, the game needs to be treated like one. Instead its a well-established model collecting hobby with someone's afterbirth idea of mechanics.

A game that treats both the mechanics and the lore with a show of respect is something like D&D and even that gets to be overpowered gak sometimes.

Every time your Warhammer opponent starts complaining about the rules, introduce him to the GW mascot.

You work for GW, don't you?

It's more of a model painting hobby than a game

You do know that half the models in the game in the early years were pre-printed cardboard cut-outs affixed to thin plastic bases, right?

The collecting side of the hobby did not exist in any meaningful way, GW told you to use *whatever* you had to build scenery and models. We had deodorant-stick tanks and coke-can Titans, piles of foam block rubble and minis from a score of fantasy RPGs in the 80s standing in for Marines, Eldar, and Beastmen.

The "the hobby is buying GW products" used in the Chapterhouse Lawsuit is a complete fabrication, because GW does not perform market research or customer polls. They have absolutely no idea what use people put their products to.

Historically, fluff informed the game. Ideas were created on the "wouldn't it be cool if..." basis, and then rules written to support it. Virus bombs, Vortex grenades, Judge Dredds-in-Space, Biker Nuns With Guns in Space... until relatively recently, the fluff came first, and rules were more or less written around that fluff.

I'd say that almost every rule needs an example to assist in clarity.

 Psienesis wrote:
You do know that half the models in the game in the early years were pre-printed cardboard cut-outs affixed to thin plastic bases, right?

You do know back then their website had a Games button, right? It's been replaced with the Painting & Modeling button. Whatever they used to believe in, it's changed, get with the times. In fact, here's their own business model:

http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/

The very first statement:

"We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever."

In fact, there's almost no mention about the actual GAME in the entire business model. When it finally gets addressed, they have this to say:

"The games are a key part of both our Hobby and our business model. Our games are played between people present in a room (a Hobby centre, a club, a school), not with a screen. They are truly social and build a real sense of community and comradeship. This again makes good business sense. The more fun and enjoyable we make our games, the more customers we attract and retain, and the more miniatures our customers want to buy. This in turn allows us to reinvest in making more and more exciting miniatures and games, which creates a virtuous circle for all."

That's about as carebear casual as you can get short of implementing a rule on hugging your opponent before and after each game.

I have seen casual games. Non cost as much as an army for w40k. And there is more then a few casual games with clear and good rules, because nothing breaks up a casual gaming night then a 30min argument about what was GW thinking when writing rule X.

Makumba wrote:
I have seen casual games. Non cost as much as an army for w40k. And there is more then a few casual games with clear and good rules, because nothing breaks up a casual gaming night then a 30min argument about what was GW thinking when writing rule X.

Well on the matter of cost, highly competitive games like MTG and HeroClix will run you higher bills to play competitively than any 40k army. Not all casual games are clear on the outcomes either. Play the aforementioned White Wolf games and you'll be leaving it up to the GM's discretion almost constantly as he determines whether you have enough skill or successes to do what you want. Having a point in Fire magic means lighting a candle and having five points means burning down a city, so what's a 30-foot wall of fire cost? Fudging the rules is something D&D DMs are well known for because the rules themselves are NEVER written well enough to be fair or even clear out of the box. There's an entire forum on the Wizards' site for questions over D&D mechanics because the rules are unclear how certain things interact. Were it not for the inherent judge present in all campaigns, people would be complaining just as hard about how broken of a game it is and how lazy the developers making it are. GW isn't much different here and the game isn't either. You can even nominate a player as the DM and have him play the bad guy factions so you can hero it up as Space Marines.

Plus it's pretty clear here that the game isn't exactly the focus here... it's a quarter of the formula.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/the-games-workshop-hobby/

Collecting, Modelling, Painting, and Gaming. They actually distinguish the four as individual activities to be done with their models with no emphasis on the game aspect.

In all my time playing 40k, I have not once run into anyone at a game store or through casual acquaintance that purchases GW or FW minis just because they enjoy painting and modeling them but don't play the game.

I have a very good friend that is QUITE good at painting and modeling and does it out of pure enjoyment but even he actually PLAYS the games and enjoys doing so.

I mean, seriously, just how many figs can GW sell to people who don't bother playing the game?