247
Post by: Phryxis
Anybody read this?
Jervis says he thinks that ulta-refined examination of cost benefit analysis in list building is overrated, and only worth a win or two in twenty games.
Anybody else find this a bit ridiculous for a game designer to be saying?
It's fine to not obsess over the nuances of list building as a player, but if you're in charge of writing the actual rules, shouldn't you be the sort of person who takes that stuff VERY seriously?
Does Jervis seriously think he can make the entire community "more laid back" just by smiling a lot, and taking Scouts in his Marines army?
123
Post by: Alpharius
The view from the Ivory Tower is rather distorted, I'm afraid...
Again, get ready for the return of JervisHammer 40K (i.e., 3rd edition).
1423
Post by: dienekes96
That's not actually what he said. It's very close. And he wasn't speaking as a designer...he was speaking as a player.
And FWIW, I'd argue a designer would want CBA list building to be overrated...it would mean he is doing his job. I don't necessarily agree with him. I think tourney play is a bad example, because it deals with experienced players, for whom the benefits are less substantial.
Statistically speaking, I don't buy his assumption without further evidence because, although he looked at lots of games, they were all within a pretty tightly controlled environment with primarily veteran players.
What he is actually stating is that experience is more valuable than list optimization, on average. And then he said that list nuts should continue to enjoy that part of the game. But they might be a bit misleading when telling the non-list nuts than list optimization is the most important part of the game.
752
Post by: Polonius
I hate to say it, but I actually might agree with Jervis' comments. I haven't read the article yet, so I'm not sure, but in my experience, most games come down to some combination of who is a better player, who knows their army better, and who can adapt better to missions and bad luck. Good players will bring good army lists, but if you look at who win tournaments, it's often the same guys, but rarely the same lists.
That all said, even if it's only a factor in 10% of games, that's a big factor.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Worth a win or two in twenty games means a 5-10% discrepency.
As a player this might be acceptible, but Jervis must speak as a designer, or at least a monkey who meddles with the design. The designer has an obligation to balance as closely as possible, its for the players to decide whether to accept an imblance as a community.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
It sounds like an unquantifiable statement to me. I wonder how many 'sub par' units are sold on the back of such statements that would not otherwise be sold, 5-10% more perhaps?
I hear that Falcons have a 16.6% chance of being damaged by multi-lasers. Now that's real maths!
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
That's a load of hooey.
When you make an army for competitive play, there are two things you have control over. How good a player you are by knowing the rules and how to apply them; and how good an army you have by bringing a competitive list. You don't have control over opponents or over terrain so I'd say that army selection matters somewhat more than 1-2 games in 20.
685
Post by: KiMonarrez
I think the point he's making is that unless you're making 100% DAFT choices, it's not going to matter much. I happen to agree.
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
Doesn't he have the longest losing streak in 40k Bat reps in WD in GW history?
1-2 games out of twenty would have let him win 1-2 times.
Perhaps he should have done it....
4893
Post by: Blackheart666
It'd be alot better if he just got it right out there and told all of the drooling tournament mongrels (you know.. all the special kids with their Dakkafexes and Falcon Eldar lists that screamed like sh-t flinging howler monkeys until the CSM were nerfed into the floor.) to get bent and go play Warmachine.
4588
Post by: Destrado
Because CSM killed Dakkafex and Falcon dead.
1898
Post by: cerebaton
I don't know how much anyone here loves or hates Magic the Gathering, but its designers seem to have an incredibly good grasp of the game's tournament and casual scenes. This means they're able to design sets of cards that will appeal to BOTH groups of players, without privileging or discriminating against one or the other. They’ve had problems in the past with printing cards that are ludicrously overpowered, but importantly they’ve LEARNED from their mistakes. It’s this level of playtesting that allows them to have a cash-prize pro tour - something I can't see gw ever pulling off
I don't understand how gw can get away with being so much less efficient.
26
Post by: carmachu
Phryxis wrote:Anybody read this?
Jervis says he thinks that ulta-refined examination of cost benefit analysis in list building is overrated, and only worth a win or two in twenty games.
Anybody else find this a bit ridiculous for a game designer to be saying?
It's fine to not obsess over the nuances of list building as a player, but if you're in charge of writing the actual rules, shouldn't you be the sort of person who takes that stuff VERY seriously?
Does Jervis seriously think he can make the entire community "more laid back" just by smiling a lot, and taking Scouts in his Marines army?
The man's changing the rules and army books becuase his stated reason is his kid has trouble knowing things and understanding different weapons.
The rules he and other other designers are full of errors and loopholes and such.
He's a moron.
4588
Post by: Destrado
I think it's rather daft to say that he's changing everything because his kid couldn't tell A from B.
Every game has errors, mistakes, etc.
What I hold at fault is the company's lack of concern with a product once it's out in printed form, like releasing FAQ's to address common misinterpretations.
That and seeing themselves as the grand company of miniature making, meaning most of their stuff comes out at a premium while hardly justifying it quality wise. The amount of products I've bought that desperately need GStuffing is simply amazing.
3236
Post by: EpilepticMoose
Another problem with this article is that Jervis says that his Space Marines haven't really changed that much over time, but that is a bad example to use because Space Marines have pretty much always been powerful. If he played with an army that has had its ups and downs (like CSM), he might be telling a different story...
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
carmachu wrote:Phryxis wrote:
Does Jervis seriously think he can make the entire community "more laid back" just by smiling a lot, and taking Scouts in his Marines army?
The man's changing the rules and army books becuase his stated reason is his kid has trouble knowing things and understanding different weapons.
As someone pointed out in another thread, that's not actually what he wrote. He said his kid had problems telling different weapons apart because there weren't proper pictures telling what's what.
5635
Post by: Blade4Hire
cerebaton wrote:I don't understand how gw can get away with being so much less efficient.
Because when you have a Zombie fan base that will buy pretty much anything you put out (even when you charge more for plastic models than some game companies charge for metal) you can do whatever you want, whenever you want.
206
Post by: Bignutter
Goodness you all whine so much :-p
If its that "easy" to write "balanced" rules without any loop holes and such, well- yeah- I challenge you too 
11
Post by: ph34r
Bignutter wrote:Goodness you all whine so much :-p
If its that "easy" to write "balanced" rules without any loop holes and such, well- yeah- I challenge you too
Some Dakkites have done just that.
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
Blade4Hire wrote:cerebaton wrote:I don't understand how gw can get away with being so much less efficient.
Because when you have a Zombie fan base that will buy pretty much anything you put out (even when you charge more for plastic models than some game companies charge for metal) you can do whatever you want, whenever you want.
Braaaains... brains... 
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
cerebaton wrote:I don't know how much anyone here loves or hates Magic the Gathering, but its designers seem to have an incredibly good grasp of the game's tournament and casual scenes. This means they're able to design sets of cards that will appeal to BOTH groups of players, without privileging or discriminating against one or the other. They’ve had problems in the past with printing cards that are ludicrously overpowered, but importantly they’ve LEARNED from their mistakes. It’s this level of playtesting that allows them to have a cash-prize pro tour - something I can't see gw ever pulling off
I don't understand how gw can get away with being so much less efficient.
I think it's a number of differences in the competitive and casual ideologies of the game, not to mention regional ideologies i.e. US vs. British. The attitude I get is that it's more about the game and laid back than about the win and defeating your opponent. I have the same belief as Patton when it comes to this, Americans like winners and don't like losing.
I agree with Destrado. If GW took their customers and business more seriously our game systems would hold up more to other skirmish/army games.
And they definately need actual dyed in the wool editors/proofreaders to review text before it goes to print.
459
Post by: Hellfury
cerebaton wrote:I don't know how much anyone here loves or hates Magic the Gathering, but its designers seem to have an incredibly good grasp of the game's tournament and casual scenes. This means they're able to design sets of cards that will appeal to BOTH groups of players, without privileging or discriminating against one or the other. They’ve had problems in the past with printing cards that are ludicrously overpowered, but importantly they’ve LEARNED from their mistakes. It’s this level of playtesting that allows them to have a cash-prize pro tour - something I can't see gw ever pulling off
I don't understand how gw can get away with being so much less efficient.
Completely agree.
While GW is a company that produces miniatures first, and rules are a distant secondary or tertiary concern, it makes no sense as to how they can get away with being so negligent with the games they produce.
Better rules and not solely pretty models sell more games. Privateer Press' example is why the above is correct.
Rackham is a very small company, and they have easily managed to not only learn from their own mistakes, but from the mistakes of others, and present to consumers a very fine ruleset for sci-fi squad based wargaming. With much smaller personnel and capitol than GW utilize I might add.
No, GW have no excuse for the current state that their games are in. Pure unadultered negligence along with a healthy dose of passing the blame to anything not related to themselves.
I havent read the standard bearer article in question in this thread, but it does seem to me like an easy excuse, suggesting people to accept lackadaisical rules design and playtesting.
The wargaming world is far more discriminating nowadays, and GW needs to get up to snuff. People just dont want to hear that kind of excuse anymore. More than that, they don't want to be patronized any longer.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:That's a load of hooey.
When you make an army for competitive play, there are two things you have control over. How good a player you are by knowing the rules and how to apply them; and how good an army you have by bringing a competitive list. You don't have control over opponents or over terrain so I'd say that army selection matters somewhat more than 1-2 games in 20.
Exactly. Discounting that is patronizing the older, more knowledgeable consumer.
Perhaps thats why GW are gearing their products towards children, because they are so easy to patronize. Most kids lack the capacity to be discerning regarding pure BS on matters they no little about, like rules mechanics.
[edit horrendous sloppy spelling]
1918
Post by: Scottywan82
I second the need of better editing! And not just GW. Though PP is about seven-hundred lightyears ahead of everyone else, can Rackham, at the very least, not have FRENCH WORDS in English products? I'm not lookign for perfect grammar here, people. Just English words.
Though at least Rackham has their own forum where you can post rules questions. GW is so scared of knowing what we really think of it, that they don't even have a forum anymore.
131
Post by: malfred
I can't speak to the rules, but I thought the Karman and
Templars books from Confrontation were pretty good. At
least, they're better than the horror show that was the
Cadwallon RPG guide.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote: I haven't read the article yet, so I'm not sure,
Perhaps some kind soul will provide a link to the text here?
cerebaton wrote:I don't know how much anyone here loves or hates Magic the Gathering, but its designers seem to have an incredibly good grasp of the game's tournament and casual scenes.
No, the MtG team has the advantage of literally printing money. Their profit ratios for cards are immense. If having MtG-level rules quality were important to you, would you be willing to spend $200-$500 per year on GW paper product that is nearly pure profit for GW (i.e. WD and rulebooks)? Because that's what MtG card spend looks like.
Not to mention that MtG development the luxury of being able to reset or tweak the game engine every 2 years, if need be, with new new base set being released. MtG is on 10th Edition, despite not being released until 1994. With a cycle time almost 3 times as fast as 40k, it's no doubt that MtG would be better.
And for reference, 4th Edition MtG was pretty much the low point of the game, coming on the heels of Fallen Empires and Homelands, with Ice Age and Mirage blocks being released prior to 5th Edition. 
After 5th came out, we were treated to the Tempest and Urza blocks, combining for an exceptionally powerful (i.e. "broken") playing environment. 
Hellfury wrote:While GW is a company that produces miniatures first, and rules are a distant secondary or tertiary concern, it makes no sense as to how they can get away with being so negligent with the games they produce.
Better rules and not solely pretty models sell more games.
Not so.
60% got in because of the minis. Only 15% care about the rules, which is about the same as the Fluff. GW knows it's about the minis, and the rules matter not at all, which is why 40k is in the state it's in.
Hellfury wrote:I havent read the standard bearer article in question in this thread,
And yet you're eminently self-qualified to discuss the topic? 
459
Post by: Hellfury
JohnHwangDD wrote:
cerebaton wrote:I don't know how much anyone here loves or hates Magic the Gathering, but its designers seem to have an incredibly good grasp of the game's tournament and casual scenes.
No, the MtG team has the advantage of literally printing money. Their profit ratios for cards are immense. If having MtG-level rules quality were important to you, would you be willing to spend $200-$500 per year on GW paper product that is nearly pure profit for GW (i.e. WD and rulebooks)? Because that's what MtG card spend looks like.
Not to mention that MtG development the luxury of being able to reset or tweak the game engine every 2 years, if need be, with new new base set being released. MtG is on 10th Edition, despite not being released until 1994. With a cycle time almost 3 times as fast as 40k, it's no doubt that MtG would be better.
And for reference, 4th Edition MtG was pretty much the low point of the game, coming on the heels of Fallen Empires and Homelands, with Ice Age and Mirage blocks being released prior to 5th Edition.
After 5th came out, we were treated to the Tempest and Urza blocks, combining for an exceptionally powerful (i.e. "broken") playing environment.
And yet they still learned from their mistakes and made a better game out of that experience. They produce new core editions for the sole purpose of making money, just like GW, but unlike GW, WotC seem to be able to make a sensible ruleset each edition.
Like I said earlier, other companies on far less funds than GW are able to pull this off, there is no reason for not GW to do the same and do it better.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Hellfury wrote:While GW is a company that produces miniatures first, and rules are a distant secondary or tertiary concern, it makes no sense as to how they can get away with being so negligent with the games they produce.
Better rules and not solely pretty models sell more games.
Not so.
60% got in because of the minis. Only 15% care about the rules, which is about the same as the Fluff. GW knows it's about the minis, and the rules matter not at all, which is why 40k is in the state it's in.
Ah yes. The 57 people who voted thus far in the poll. Yes, youre quite right. You cant argue with that portion of the 40K populace. A poll on a wargames forum is so concise. Thats a truly great reference to base a portion of an argument on there.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Hellfury wrote:I havent read the standard bearer article in question in this thread,
And yet you're eminently self-qualified to discuss the topic?
Its a good thing you didnt quote the whole sentence, because taking my sentence out of context makes you more right.
Having read the article after posting my comment, I still stand by what I posted.
So yes, I do feel "eminently qualified".
Why do you post here again? Ahh yes, so everyone can universally revile you as a forum troll.
247
Post by: Phryxis
That's not actually what he said. It's very close. And he wasn't speaking as a designer...he was speaking as a player.
I would argue that's a distinction without a difference. It's my feeling that somebody who is designing games should enjoy the microanalysis of list building. Both as a player and as a designer.
And FWIW, I'd argue a designer would want CBA list building to be overrated...it would mean he is doing his job.
That, I would totally agree with. But that goes back to my point. If Jervis thinks listbuilding is overrated, it means he thinks he (and his staff) are really knocking it out. It means he thinks they've built lists that are so internally and externally balanced, that it really isn't a big deal what you take.
they were all within a pretty tightly controlled environment with primarily veteran players.
I dunno, I have a lot of questions I'd like to have answered regarding his "statistics."
In fact, I find his use of those "statistics" without giving any insight into how he gathered them. I mean, what is he counting as a real powergamed list? And who is his sample set?
My inital reaction was to wonder if he's not just including in people who think they can just see a powergamed list on the internet, go to the next tournament and win with it. In that respect, he's absolutely right that experience is critical... But that's ALL it's about? First off, no, it's not. Second, as I've said, great attitude for a list designer.
Why does this guy think he can make his big floppy smile at us, and we'll just take his word for stuff? You'd think he'd ENJOY talking about the rules, the thought that goes into it, since he is doing it for a living. Doesn't EVERYONE in the world have a blog? Why doesn't he blog what's going on in his development process?
459
Post by: Hellfury
Phryxis wrote:Why doesn't he blog what's going on in his development process?
So other companies wont copy GW (or rather learn from their development mistakes).
GW Mantra for releasing rules:
"Keep it secret. Keep it safe." *
* along with self congratulatory pats on the back.
4893
Post by: Blackheart666
JohnHwangDD wrote:
And for reference, 4th Edition MtG was pretty much the low point of the game, coming on the heels of Fallen Empires and Homelands, with Ice Age and Mirage blocks being released prior to 5th Edition.
After 5th came out, we were treated to the Tempest and Urza blocks, combining for an exceptionally powerful (i.e. "broken") playing environment.
you know how I hate to correct you John... but Ice Age came out -before- Homelands.
there was no "Ice Age Block"... it was just "Ice Age"... then Homelands came out... and was sorta never officially attached to Ice Age... and then Alliances.. which was also kinda just there.
There were no real "blocks" until Mirage came out.
844
Post by: stonefox
So other companies wont copy GW (or rather learn from their development mistakes).
GW Mantra for releasing rules:
"Keep it secret. Keep it safe." *
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
Jervis is still a village idiot, now he is compounding on the fact.
After reading an article like that, it should be a fare warning to all that GW can make any unit, at any time worthless at the sake of making a buck.
Now he writes articles to justify it.
Partake of the Kool-aid......
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Blackheart666 wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
And for reference, 4th Edition MtG was pretty much the low point of the game, coming on the heels of Fallen Empires and Homelands, with Ice Age and Mirage blocks being released prior to 5th Edition.
After 5th came out, we were treated to the Tempest and Urza blocks, combining for an exceptionally powerful (i.e. "broken") playing environment.
you know how I hate to correct you John... but Ice Age came out -before- Homelands.
there was no "Ice Age Block"... it was just "Ice Age"... then Homelands came out... and was sorta never officially attached to Ice Age... and then Alliances.. which was also kinda just there.
There were no real "blocks" until Mirage came out.
Ice Age was retconned into a block, when the format was formalized. As I noted above, re-Revised was a time when Magic was poo.
And if IA predates HL, does it still not predate 5th? Right....
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Hellfury wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, the MtG team has the advantage of literally printing money. Their profit ratios for cards are immense. If having MtG-level rules quality were important to you, would you be willing to spend $200-$500 per year on GW paper product that is nearly pure profit for GW (i.e. WD and rulebooks)? Because that's what MtG card spend looks like.
Not to mention that MtG development the luxury of being able to reset or tweak the game engine every 2 years, if need be, with new new base set being released. MtG is on 10th Edition, despite not being released until 1994. With a cycle time almost 3 times as fast as 40k, it's no doubt that MtG would be better.
And for reference, 4th Edition MtG was pretty much the low point of the game, coming on the heels of Fallen Empires and Homelands, with Ice Age and Mirage blocks being released prior to 5th Edition.
After 5th came out, we were treated to the Tempest and Urza blocks, combining for an exceptionally powerful (i.e. "broken") playing environment.
And yet they still learned from their mistakes and made a better game out of that experience. They produce new core editions for the sole purpose of making money, just like GW, but unlike GW, WotC seem to be able to make a sensible ruleset each edition.
As I noted, WotC is on 10th edition, whereas 40k hasn't even seen 5th come out. When MtG was only 4 editions in, it was crap. What you are seeing is the advantage of WotC having shorter cycle and a better business model. All else being equal, 4th Edition Magic wasn't much relatively better than 4th Edition 40k.
Given that you speak only in generalities, I'm guessing you didn't play Magic back in the day, so you really don't know what you're talking about here. As is typical for a troll.
Hellfury wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Not so.
60% got in because of the minis. Only 15% care about the rules, which is about the same as the Fluff. GW knows it's about the minis, and the rules matter not at all, which is why 40k is in the state it's in.
Ah yes. The 57 people who voted thus far in the poll. Yes, youre quite right. You cant argue with that portion of the 40K populace. A poll on a wargames forum is so concise. Thats a truly great reference to base a portion of an argument on there.
So when the poll doesn't give the answer you like, we should draw a ridiculous and *completely* unsupported conclusion in the absence of data? Yeah, that makes even more sense.
Particularly when the poll merely confirms a mountain of anecdotal evidence? Tell us, Great Troll, where are these great hidden masses of rules mavenim who care so deeply about GW rules that they would fund new, advanced rulesets to come out every other year? A poll requires so very little effort, you'd think they'd come out of the woodwork to make their presence known. Assuming they existed, which appears not to be the case.
So, unless you've got something concrete to refute the poll or its conclusions, perhaps we ought to accept it at face value. If not, you're just Trolling and the onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise.
Hellfury wrote:Why do you post here again? Ahh yes, so everyone can universally revile you as a forum troll.
Given that I'm actually pointing off facts, and you're just spewing, I'm thinking when you point that finger of yours, you're forgetting that 3 of them point back at yourself. 
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
JohnHwangDD wrote:As I noted, WotC is on 10th edition, whereas 40k hasn't even seen 5th come out.
You don't really beleive that it's a lack of revisions that makes 40k so clunky do you? 10th edition 40k won't necessarily be better than 4th. RT was fundamentally better than 4th edition.
5376
Post by: two_heads_talking
carmachu wrote:
The man's changing the rules and army books becuase his stated reason is his kid has trouble knowing things and understanding different weapons.
The rules he and other other designers are full of errors and loopholes and such.
He's a moron.
Did jervis say that? Or did jervis say his kid had a hard time understanding the weapons (that veteran players take for granted) because there was a lack of proper pictures for the new kids to tell multi-melta from plasma gun, etc.? I believe it was the lack of proper pictures.
As for loopholes and errors, i am sure they could do a better job of tightening them up a bit. But you can't slap that on his son either..
stonefox wrote:
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred.
it just all depends on what's in the mind/fortress. If it's full of hot air, who cares if the gates are flung wide and unguarded.
26
Post by: carmachu
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Given that you speak only in generalities, I'm guessing you didn't play Magic back in the day, so you really don't know what you're talking about here. As is typical for a troll.
I did play magic back in the day, and he is correct. some of the card sets-4th, homlands, ice age and such were complete crap.
But, frankly, WotC stayed on the ball of the actual RULES. Problems arose and they took care of them with FAQ's and such. No matter what the set, they stayed on the ball.
GW doesnt.
So when the poll doesn't give the answer you like, we should draw a ridiculous and *completely* unsupported conclusion in the absence of data? Yeah, that makes even more sense.
Particularly when the poll merely confirms a mountain of anecdotal evidence? Tell us, Great Troll, where are these great hidden masses of rules mavenim who care so deeply about GW rules that they would fund new, advanced rulesets to come out every other year? A poll requires so very little effort, you'd think they'd come out of the woodwork to make their presence known. Assuming they existed, which appears not to be the case.
So, unless you've got something concrete to refute the poll or its conclusions, perhaps we ought to accept it at face value. If not, you're just Trolling and the onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise.
The poll is crap. 57 people for a conclusion, even anecdotal, doesnt help.
Internet polls, no matter what they say, dont help anyone's cause. Thats how it always is. I can get a poll now up and have it say more people play for the rules. Its really not that hard.
Hellfury wrote:Why do you post here again? Ahh yes, so everyone can universally revile you as a forum troll.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
George Spiggott wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:As I noted, WotC is on 10th edition, whereas 40k hasn't even seen 5th come out.
You don't really beleive that it's a lack of revisions that makes 40k so clunky do you? 10th edition 40k won't necessarily be better than 4th. RT was fundamentally better than 4th edition.
Even a blind squirrel eventually finds a nut. If we give GW 9 tries to get 40k right, by the 10th, I think they'll be quite good.
And FWIW, Alpha was fundamentally better than re-Revised.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
carmachu wrote:
The poll is crap. 57 people for a conclusion, even anecdotal, doesnt help.
Internet polls, no matter what they say, dont help anyone's cause. Thats how it always is. I can get a poll now up and have it say more people play for the rules. Its really not that hard.
OK, please do so.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
JohnHwangDD wrote:Even a blind squirrel eventually finds a nut. If we give GW 9 tries to get 40k right, by the 10th, I think they'll be quite good.
I'm going to come back to this thread in 20 years and laugh at you when you find out you're wrong. Deal?
4655
Post by: tegeus-Cromis
JHDD, the poll does not actually support your argument. It shows that the majority of GW fans (out of, uh, 50-odd people) got into the hobby because of the minis. It does not allow you to draw conclusions as to what sells miniature games in general, or what would allow GW to sell more product, because the people who did not get into the hobby are not represented there. It could well be that 99% (for example) of people who would consider playing a mini game consider rules more important, and only 1% consider models more important. Because you are surveying people who did, in fact, get into the game, you will still end up with a result which, to you, would seem to indicate that "models sell games, not rules."
4713
Post by: efarrer
JohnHwangDD wrote:Hellfury wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, the MtG team has the advantage of literally printing money. Their profit ratios for cards are immense. If having MtG-level rules quality were important to you, would you be willing to spend $200-$500 per year on GW paper product that is nearly pure profit for GW (i.e. WD and rulebooks)? Because that's what MtG card spend looks like.
Not to mention that MtG development the luxury of being able to reset or tweak the game engine every 2 years, if need be, with new new base set being released. MtG is on 10th Edition, despite not being released until 1994. With a cycle time almost 3 times as fast as 40k, it's no doubt that MtG would be better.
And for reference, 4th Edition MtG was pretty much the low point of the game, coming on the heels of Fallen Empires and Homelands, with Ice Age and Mirage blocks being released prior to 5th Edition.
I feel compelled to point out the following:
Even if an entire edition was in some way broken the total number of cards released for that entire edition of magic would equal as a % lower then the % problems GW has with balancing 120 (appr.) units. So in treating the products as similar you've got to be kidding. Basically even if 10% of magic cards had serious flaws they'd still be doing better then GW.
Where there have been serious problems in magic the company has been willing to issue errata and modifications as well as outright bannings in an open and forthright manner. GW has and continues to fail to do that.
The amount of money required to play magic at the local level is not in the range you have just mentioned. You can have fun for 10.99.
With LotR, GW had an intial cycle time of 1 year. But made few changes other than tweaks, although the game was already argueably the best GW tabletop game on a rules basis). LotR is in many ways an embarressment to GW because it proved they could write good rules, they just don't care enough to.
As well your editions arguement is bull. Pure and simple. With a CCG editions are required because of the collectible nature. A new edition doesn't equal substantial rules changes, just new cards and some changes to non core rules generally.
5462
Post by: adamsouza
Scottywan82 wrote: GW is so scared of knowing what we really think of it, that they don't even have a forum anymore.
The GW Forums were supposed to be a veniew for Pro- GW Propaganda and grass roots advertising.
Dakka, Warseer, and Bolter and Chainsword accomplish that at ZERO cost for GW, and save GW the embarrasment of their own forums being flooded with complaints about thier product.
844
Post by: stonefox
Dakka, Warseer, and Bolter and Chainsword accomplish that at ZERO cost for GW, and save GW the embarrasment of their own forums being flooded with complaints about thier product.
I just had to comment on this. The thing is, these sites are for people who have already gotten suckered into this hobby. A better example would be somethingawful.com's 40k thread in the GBS forum. I laugh at how many people have gotten suckered into the ( GW) hobby by that giant fustercluck of a megathread (in its 3rd iteration now).
edit: Just re-read the definition of grassroots, which != word-of-mouth.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
1) MtG is as different from what GW does as football is. Let's not use it as a comparison. Besides, it's way nerdier. It's like Pokemon
2) This is why I no longer argue about this on Dakka. People have decamped to their positions, and without fail, it affects their ability to process information. It's not quite as pointless as discussing football on a Redskins website or science fiction on a Star Wars website, but it's close enough.
3) GW gets plenty wrong, but I've yet to see an adequate rebuttal of the ACTUAL points JJ made during the column. Many Dakka members read it in a partisan manner, and commented as such. That doesn't lead to any sort of balanced discussion.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
George Spiggott wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Even a blind squirrel eventually finds a nut. If we give GW 9 tries to get 40k right, by the 10th, I think they'll be quite good.
I'm going to come back to this thread in 20 years and laugh at you when you find out you're wrong. Deal?
Deal!
In the mean time, I'm not worried. After all, it's not like the naysayers are leaving any room for things to actually get (gasp!) *worse*? 
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
tegeus-Cromis wrote:JHDD, the poll does not actually support your argument. It shows that the majority of GW fans (out of, uh, 50-odd people) got into the hobby because of the minis. It does not allow you to draw conclusions as to what sells miniature games in general,
Oh, I'm well aware of that.
However, when we look at the history of minis games, all I need to do is point at Void and VOR. At the time, people were raving about how good the rules were (yet largely silent about the minis). Yet they both plummeted into the dustbin of failed games within a short amount of time.
When we look at Rackham, people in the US were buying them, despite not speaking a word of French, purely on the strength of Rackham's paint team.
And Privateer? Nothing like $25 starters of something *different* to seed the fanbase. They get 4 stars for marketing, because their marketing guys are simply brilliant. They're growing beautifully, but they've not yet overtaken GW, even with the advantage of fresh gaming concepts and rules.
When I look at the various miniatures franchises, only 40k seems to have stuck around. And we know for a fact that rules-wise, 40k is no great shakes. So what other conclusion can one draw?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
efarrer wrote:I feel compelled to point out the following:
Even if an entire edition was in some way broken the total number of cards released for that entire edition of magic would equal as a % lower then the % problems GW has with balancing 120 (appr.) units. So in treating the products as similar you've got to be kidding. Basically even if 10% of magic cards had serious flaws they'd still be doing better then GW.
I'm guessing you never played with Necropotence or some of the other really degenerately broken stuff. Because if you had, you'd know that in Magic, even a single card or mechanic can hugely distort the format. This occurred as recently as Mirrodin with a number of real problem cards.
Where there have been serious problems in magic the company has been willing to issue errata and modifications as well as outright bannings in an open and forthright manner. GW has and continues to fail to do that.
You realise, that bannings are probably the worst thing that WotC can do, because it totally negates the value of the card that the player bought? Yes, WotC can do these things, but when the card no longer does what it says, or is no longer playable, that's a real problem.
The amount of money required to play magic at the local level is not in the range you have just mentioned. You can have fun for 10.99.
Sure you can. Single-deck and draft is loads of fun. So is shoebox. But Magic is designed to really want a critical mass from lots and lots of cards so you can do something more interesting with constructed play. And constructed play takes a lot of money.
Also I remember when Starters cost a lot less than that.
With LotR, GW had an intial cycle time of 1 year. But made few changes other than tweaks, although the game was already argueably the best GW tabletop game on a rules basis). LotR is in many ways an embarressment to GW because it proved they could write good rules, they just don't care enough to.
So was BFG and Epic Armageddon. *Great* rules. How are they selling today?
If these great rulesets only sell at a loss, but the systems with great models and crappy models generate massive profit, what message are we players sending GW?
As well your editions arguement is bull. Pure and simple. With a CCG editions are required because of the collectible nature. A new edition doesn't equal substantial rules changes, just new cards and some changes to non core rules generally.
I don't think you recall Interrupts and the whole early timing rules arcana for Magic.
3294
Post by: pombe
Jervis is a funny guy.
Is it really the models as much as it is the imagery and universe? I was suckered into 40K because of the universe. Heck...I'm still here because of the universe. There's just something about being one peon in giant universe where superhumans and giant arcane constructs fight to the death against all sorts of aliens in a gothic background with plenty of skulls. I've read all the Gaunt's Ghost novels, the Ian Watson trilogy, a lot of the other really bad crap that Dan Abnett didn't do, and now I'm in the middle of Horus Heresy series having reached about halfway through Legion.
To me, I don't care if the miniature is a recently sculpted Space Marine or one of the beakies I've had since Rogue Trader. A Space Marine is a Space Marine. I don't give two craps about the miniature, but I do care about what that miniature represents.
Same with why I love CBT so much. The universe is so vast with so much going on. The fact that I've stuck true and read some of those really bad Mechwarrior novels tells you that I'm less inclined to read good books than I am to reading books within established universes I love, regardless of their quality. And CBT has great rules to boot. Win/Win. Now if they could only hire Dan Abnett....
Also this is why I don't play MtG anymore. The game mechanics may be great now, but I never really got into the universe. Sure, I read Arena and all the other novels when they first appeared (never name a character Greensleeves...please), but something about the universe was just lacking. It was as if all the main characters got the Michael Stackpole treatment...if you know what I mean. (and if you don't, just imagine all the main characters being James Bond or some other badass...which also explains why Gav Thorpe should never write another Last Chancers book...or any other book...again...ever).
So the point I'm trying to make is that so long as GW puts out a good amount of background, I'll still be following, despite the rules. But until they fix the rules, I won't be spending money on their metal and plastic. Jervis, by saying in his experience 1-2 games out of twenty will only be affect by army list, is basically discrediting himself as a game designer. GW is not the only manufacturer in town. I know that there are other games to play. So, if they want to put out crap rules with the attitude that they will tell me how to play their games, I'll still spend money on their novels, but no money on their games. Sounds good to me. In fact...I think there are some Battlemechs I need to buy and some AT-43 Attachment Boxes I still need.
Sorry GW...if you don't tighten up your rules, then you won't be getting my money for your games (if you lose Dan Abnett, then you won't be getting any of my money at all). And sadly...you don't have another 5 editions to save yourself from financial trouble.
EDIT: Yes, I know...Michael Stackpole wrote many Battletech novels. Thank goodness he didn't write them all.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
dienekes96 wrote:1) MtG is as different from what GW does as football is. Let's not use it as a comparison. Besides, it's way nerdier. It's like Pokemon
2) This is why I no longer argue about this on Dakka. People have decamped to their positions, and without fail, it affects their ability to process information. It's not quite as pointless as discussing football on a Redskins website or science fiction on a Star Wars website, but it's close enough.
3) GW gets plenty wrong, but I've yet to see an adequate rebuttal of the ACTUAL points JJ made during the column. Many Dakka members read it in a partisan manner, and commented as such. That doesn't lead to any sort of balanced discussion.
(I played in the narrow window between "Revised" and shortly after 4th edition; I bought Dark cards, reveled in my Eater of the Dead, and actually found value in Fallen Empires; I liked Ice Age, and though Flanking was stupid, when it arrived in Homelands.)
As to point #3, one bit of anecdotal evidence: Dakka Detachment One went to Adepticon with pure Theoryhammer lists. We took Tau (which none of us had played under the current codex, and only 1 of us had played EVER), and we managed 5th out of a pool of 90 teams. Now, if we'd had experience with the army, we might have managed a 5-10% improvement, but list construction was fundamental to our success.
I don't care how much experience you've got playing the game, it's NOT going to make your Guard army of Warrior weapon-armed chem-inhaler assault foot squads successful.
171
Post by: Lorek
JohnHwangDD, how does this:
And yet you're eminently self-qualified to discuss the topic?
NOT fall under Dakka Rule #1?
It really looks like you went out of your way to antagonize Hellfury, and then got upset when he called you on it. It's not like the concept, which was enumerated earlier in the thread, was difficult to grasp. Not reading the article in question doesn't make Hellfury's statements less valid.
Please, be polite. We revel in the disagreements on Dakka, but when the tone gets nasty, the value is lost.
6446
Post by: 40k_slimez
George Spiggott wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:As I noted, WotC is on 10th edition, whereas 40k hasn't even seen 5th come out.
You don't really beleive that it's a lack of revisions that makes 40k so clunky do you? 10th edition 40k won't necessarily be better than 4th. RT was fundamentally better than 4th edition.
And it also means we might have to wait another 20 years for a "decent" version of 40k ...
Hmmm... I think I'll just play whats there... and I might just still be here in 20 years time.
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
Nah, Magic's ruleset hasn't changed significantly since 6th edition. We only have 4-8 years to go!
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
adamsouza wrote:The GW Forums were supposed to be a veniew for Pro-GW Propaganda and grass roots advertising.
Dakka, Warseer, and Bolter and Chainsword accomplish that at ZERO cost for GW, and save GW the embarrasment of their own forums being flooded with complaints about thier product.
Yes, the warm, fraternal atmosphere and cogent arguments employed here at Dakka must really help the games fly off the shelves. To Muggles, this place is an anti-advertisement, if anything.
131
Post by: malfred
Agamemnon2 wrote:adamsouza wrote:The GW Forums were supposed to be a veniew for Pro-GW Propaganda and grass roots advertising.
Dakka, Warseer, and Bolter and Chainsword accomplish that at ZERO cost for GW, and save GW the embarrasment of their own forums being flooded with complaints about thier product.
Yes, the warm, fraternal atmosphere and cogent arguments employed here at Dakka must really help the games fly off the shelves. To Muggles, this place is an anti-advertisement, if anything.
Not if they stick to the Modeling and P&M Blogs. YMDC, Discussions, and Army Lists are enough to scare anyone away. We're a visual culture, so images of painted minis have a strong appeal. I don't know if they have more appeal than rules you want to actually play, but all the rants and raves probably get lost in the wow factor of a really well painted army. It's not enough to make me play, but it's enough to make me paint. The big change for me is how much of my budget I've shifted from what used to be exclusively GW shopping to PP. I'm sure GW doesn't care as they see any extra buying I do from them as profit.
247
Post by: Phryxis
I've yet to see an adequate rebuttal of the ACTUAL points JJ made during the column.
I think people are letting it go without saying. List building doesn't matter, Jervis? Not only does it CLEARLY matter, to the point we don't need to even discuss it, but that's doubly ridiculous for the guy in charge of authoring the books to say.
That said, another part of the problem is that he doesn't make any real points to rebut, he simply portrays a casual, flippant regard for the significance of powergaming lists, and expects the reader to take his word on it.
For me, the lack of a structured point is just another indication of his total lack of qualification as a game designer. To assure everyone that he's looked at "statistics," but to not explain his methodology for doing so, belies a disinterest in the statistics themselves, and statistics are ultimately a very core concept of rules design.
This is a guy working in a very emperical portion of the gaming industry, who seems to have a total disdain for empiricism.
You'd think he'd have found this study to be interesting enough to recount it in at least some detail, were he the sort of mind that would be best qualified to build tabletop rules.
Instead, he spends his words in his emotional attachment to his army, his standard self-deprecating attempts at humor, and his praise for other members of the hobby.
It's formulaic and tiresome, and it's making it hard for me to enjoy the hobby. I WANT to like Jervis, because he seems like a friendly, enthusiastic guy, but if he's going to keep screwing up Codices, and then making his big dopey smile and cracking about how much he loses, as if that will buy my love, it's more than a little bit annoying.
Why is GW letting the cheerleaders call the plays?
Seriously, ready ANYTHING the guy writes in the next year. Anything of any real length. I promise you there will be at least one example of each of the following:
1) A self-depracting joke, generally about how bad his list choices are, or how he never wins.
2) A particularly British joke, about tea, bacon butties, or the loo.
3) Gushing praise about 40K as a game.
4) Specific praise of a hobbyist or GW employee who is totally awesome, often with mock anger and jealousy.
5) Recounting some fun memory from the hobby.
6) A polite reproach of the powergaming mindset, slightly tinged with bitterness, and accompanied by some sort of recognition that some will find it outrageous.
Not only do I guarantee that will be the formula for everything he writes for the next year, but I am willing to bet a buttered scone that he's got that exact list written out on a dog eared post it note, which he consults every 45 seconds to a minute while at work.
131
Post by: malfred
Phryxis wrote:
Not only do I guarantee that will be the formula for everything he writes for the next year, but I am willing to bet a buttered scone that he's got that exact list written out on a dog eared post it note, which he consults every 45 seconds to a minute while at work.
Sounds like a call for a caper. Those scones will be mine.
4655
Post by: tegeus-Cromis
JHDD: Oh, I'm well aware of that.
However, when we look at the history of minis games, all I need to do is point at Void and VOR. At the time, people were raving about how good the rules were (yet largely silent about the minis). Yet they both plummeted into the dustbin of failed games within a short amount of time.
When we look at Rackham, people in the US were buying them, despite not speaking a word of French, purely on the strength of Rackham's paint team.
And Privateer? Nothing like $25 starters of something *different* to seed the fanbase. They get 4 stars for marketing, because their marketing guys are simply brilliant. They're growing beautifully, but they've not yet overtaken GW, even with the advantage of fresh gaming concepts and rules.
VOR was very hit-and-miss, but I wouldn't say they had bad minis. Also, since you credit good marketing decisions for PP's success, it seems remiss not to consider that it may be bad marketing, not bad minis, that killed VOR and Void.
As for PP, I'm not convinced that you can put it all down to marketing. Marketing helps you sell stuff, but in the end, what you're selling is minis and rules. PP's minis at their best are no better than GW minis at their best, and when they're bad, they can get pretty damn bad. Yet PP is booming, so what is it they're sleling?
When I look at the various miniatures franchises, only 40k seems to have stuck around. And we know for a fact that rules-wise, 40k is no great shakes. So what other conclusion can one draw?
That it's complicated?
Anyway, all this is avoiding my main point, which is that you have continued to cite a poll which clearly has nothing to do with your argument. What's more, you now say that you're well aware that this is the case. Perhaps discussions would go a little more smoothly without such rhetorical duplicity?
1898
Post by: cerebaton
1) MtG is as different from what GW does as football is. Let's not use it as a comparison.
I completely agree. The reason I brought Magic up was to point out their developers' ability to cater new products to BOTH newbies/casual players AND vets/tournament players - GW seems only able to do the first, while Dakkaites seem only to want the second.
459
Post by: Hellfury
malfred wrote:Phryxis wrote:
Not only do I guarantee that will be the formula for everything he writes for the next year, but I am willing to bet a buttered scone that he's got that exact list written out on a dog eared post it note, which he consults every 45 seconds to a minute while at work.
Sounds like a call for a caper. Those scones will be mine.
This picture was taken while Malfred was bein a ninja in Jervis' backyard....
3974
Post by: Ilmarinen
I happen to agree with Jervis on many of his points. His space marine army has a broad selection of units without being extreme in any way ...and it has worked well under several versions of the game. What's wrong with that?
If you take a more extreme army selection then you should be well aware that future changes might go against your selection, and you'll have to change things around. I'm currently building my first white scars bike-heavy army, and I'm initially starting with ravenwing rules, but I was hoping to get a 'proper' list in the new codex. From the rumours it seems that it won't happen (no white scars character anyway) so I'll have to stick with counts-as ravenwing. So be it. I'm enjoying making and converting the bikes, and eventually I'll play a few games with them, under whatever rules are around at the time. And further in the future I'll probably have to change them round again, because they are not a standard list, which is fine.
I find it ridiculous that people who have spent lots of time and money converting and painting specialised armies then threaten to sell them on ebay or throw them in the river as soon as their list is downgraded a bit. If you are so immensely pleased with your army as it is, then continue to play under the current edition and codex, with your friends ...or use house rules ...or apocalypse. Or you could enjoy the fact that your army is heavily themed and converted and well painted, and play it with whatever current rules fit best.
About Jervis' point regarding tournament statistics - he's probably seen more tournaments than most and he's entitled to his professional opinion on what is more influential at tournaments. You can't seriously expect him to write a statistical thesis running to several pages of data, with pages more of detailed discussion, and numerous appendices, just to prove to you that his observations over several years are correct?! Yes, there are some army lists that are more powerful than others, but he's quite right in saying that experience is much more important. The less powerful things in the list are there for interest, for friendly/casual gamers, and for fluff reasons, so you wouldn't expect to see an experienced tournament player take them in preference to the better options.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I like what GW is doing with 40K. The models are getting better and better. The rumoured 5th edition rules look like they'll add some good things (eg: ramming, running, etc). The expansions are excellent - Apocalypse and Cities of Death have added a lot to the game, and I'm looking forward to the future ones.
The main grumble I have is the lack of updated PDFs - but that is hopefully in the pipeline. And if the basic tournament lists are more generic and less cheesefest, then so be it - the winner will have to use more tactics and less beardiness! *shock*
5468
Post by: temprus
cerebaton wrote:I completely agree. The reason I brought Magic up was to point out their developers' ability to cater new products to BOTH newbies/casual players AND vets/tournament players - GW seems only able to do the first, while Dakkaites seem only to want the second.
The problem is that GW is separating it as Tournament/Newbies and Casual/Vet players. Whereas your split would make more sense.
Also, it is common knowledge that the games fought for WD are "rigged" as they are played multiple times to get an outcome they are happy with. Notice how JJ even mentions that the studio army is not how he would have chosen his army but he went with it anyway. JJ (among others) win/loss ratio in WD is a sham.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Phryxis wrote:I think people are letting it go without saying. List building doesn't matter, Jervis? Not only does it CLEARLY matter, to the point we don't need to even discuss it, but that's doubly ridiculous for the guy in charge of authoring the books to say.
Yet again, we are at an impasse. Because he did NOT write what you are saying he did. You (and several others in this thread) are weaving what he did say into a different argument and ripping that apart.
Phryxis wrote:That said, another part of the problem is that he doesn't make any real points to rebut, he simply portrays a casual, flippant regard for the significance of powergaming lists, and expects the reader to take his word on it.
My first post in this very thread illustrated the points I think he made. And you are projecting a very specific bent to his words that isn't there, specifically in an effort to make him look bad. He doesn't "expect" anything. He presents his opinion, indicates it is his opinion, shares some basic anecdotal data (which he admits is anecdotal), encourages those that LOVE list-building to do so, and simply recommends to others to play the way they want to, with the army they want to. Anything else is reading into it.
Phryxis wrote:For me, the lack of a structured point is just another indication of his total lack of qualification as a game designer. To assure everyone that he's looked at "statistics," but to not explain his methodology for doing so, belies a disinterest in the statistics themselves, and statistics are ultimately a very core concept of rules design.
1) I don't think he used the word statistics. 2) Total lack of qualification? Hyperbole much? Epic Armageddon, Necromunda, and Blood Bowl would beg to differ. I may not like some of his choices in 40K (as I think he panders to powergamers too much, diluting some of the uniqueness of the game in the name of competitive balance), but he's certainly qualified. 3) He spent less than paragraph throwing up his anecdotal data, because he wasn't trying to "win an argument", just make a point.
Phryxis wrote:This is a guy working in a very emperical portion of the gaming industry, who seems to have a total disdain for empiricism.
And you are a psychologist as well. Projecting again.
Phryxis wrote:You'd think he'd have found this study to be interesting enough to recount it in at least some detail, were he the sort of mind that would be best qualified to build tabletop rules.
Maybe he has an actual job to do, something that pays for his home and food. Projecting again.
Phryxis wrote:Instead, he spends his words in his emotional attachment to his army, his standard self-deprecating attempts at humor, and his praise for other members of the hobby.
Actually, emotional wasn't a major point he was making.
Phryxis wrote:It's formulaic and tiresome, and it's making it hard for me to enjoy the hobby.
There is something we have in common. I too know something exceedingly formulaic and tiresome, making it hard for me to enjoy this aspect of the hobby. The hobby partisans will say this response is because I am a zombie (hurr) or a child (incapable of discerning thought) or that I don't like debate. I actually love debate. I ordinarily require objectivity however, and that appears in very short supply here. Without objectivity, it's not a discussion. It's just people talking at each other. Which is what this inevitably becomes.
But I get sick of the misrepresentation of what was written to take cheap potshots. I acknowledge it makes some Dakkaites feel better, more in tune, rebellious, what have you. Fair enough. I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't do it. By all means. I sometimes enjoy responding to it.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Games Workshop PROUDLY presents the game that is sweeping kindergarten classes across the world:
Jervishammer 40,000
(suitable for ages 2 and up. Comes with a free bolt pistol!)
[edit]
This was meant for Chuck by the way. Smile man! Damn you, smile!
4893
Post by: Blackheart666
Ilmarinen wrote:...or apocalypse.
Dear Jervis Jr,
Thank you for waiting for almost 3 full paragraphs before working in "but.. but.. but... APOCALYPSE!"
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Hellfury, I always smile for you and Jester! Humor goes a long way in acidic conversations.
Hey, there is plenty the company is screwing the pooch on. But constructive criticism is more tolerable on a website dedicated to 1 inch high science fiction aliens and super-soldiers than random bitter venting or people pretending GW wants to screw consumers. There is no malice...it just works out that way a LOT!
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Hellfury, some people are trying to have a serious discussion here and you keep making jokes. Knock it off and let them tear each other a new one!
*gets popcorn*
Ozymandias, King of Kings
459
Post by: Hellfury
Ozymandias wrote:Hellfury, some people are trying to have a serious discussion here and you keep making jokes. Knock it off and let them tear each other a new one!
*gets popcorn*
Yeah, it does get good sometimes doesn't it?
*snuggles next to ozzy*
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Hellfury wrote:Ozymandias wrote:Hellfury, some people are trying to have a serious discussion here and you keep making jokes. Knock it off and let them tear each other a new one!
*gets popcorn*
Yeah, it does get good sometimes doesn't it?
*snuggles next to ozzy*
It's why we all keep coming back. Like TNT.
*curls up at HF and Ozzy's Feets*
181
Post by: gorgon
I didn't read the article. Just curious -- after he says list building doesn't matter much, does he say that GW is putting the effort into game balance anyway? Or does he just leave it at "list building rarely matters"? There's a difference in attitude there.
IMO, list building is somewhat overrated. But that shouldn't be used as an excuse for the game's shortcomings.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Hellfury wrote:
Yeah, it does get good sometimes doesn't it?
*snuggles next to ozzy*
Whoa there HF. Getting kind of crowded here... need my space.... it's not you it's me....
Ozymandias, King of Kings
383
Post by: bigchris1313
Ooh, popcorn!
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Having checked out Jervis's list today in WD I see that it's mostly made up of 3rd ed Space Marines, so essentially he played it in 3rd edition then didn't change it in 4th edition, then wrote 5th edition and its SM codex (oddly no changes were needed to his army ). I'm not sure this constitutes weathering many changes, although I didn't get chance to read the article so it may indicate a longer history for his army.
I wouldn't have been able to use my 2nd edition Space Marine army in 3rd edition.
A more cynical man (if such a thing existed) would say he was purging all the changes Pete Haines made to 40k, although it seems to me he just wrote the new codex around his army - 'If I don't use traits nobody uses traits!'
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Platuan4th wrote:Hellfury wrote:Ozymandias wrote:Hellfury, some people are trying to have a serious discussion here and you keep making jokes. Knock it off and let them tear each other a new one!
*gets popcorn*
Yeah, it does get good sometimes doesn't it?
*snuggles next to ozzy*
It's why we all keep coming back. Like TNT.
*curls up at HF and Ozzy's Feets*
ewwwwwww!
ewwwwwww!
Just ew!
247
Post by: Phryxis
Because he did NOT write what you are saying he did.
Well, let me be more clear in what I read him saying.
First off, strictly in terms of wins and losses, he said building a powergamed list is overrated. Only worth a win in 20. That's where I see him saying that list building doesn't matter. If you don't like the phrase "doesn't matter" then fine, let me be more accurate: He's drastically underestimating the importance of list building in winning games.
Second, while he does pay some lip service to powergaming being fun for some players, I don't see this as him saying it matters. He's just saying "to each his own." But he's sticking with his point that it's not worth much in terms of wins and losses.
He presents his opinion, indicates it is his opinion, shares some basic anecdotal data (which he admits is anecdotal),
This doesn't work for me. I think you're being VERY kind even calling it "anecdotal data." It's just inane jabbering. It's sparse to the point of being dishonest. It's literally no better than saying "if you play the game like I do, you'll enjoy it 46.34% more than you do now!"
I mean, he says a "certain kind of list" is worth "no more than 1 win in 20 games." What is that supposed to be? What kind of list? In what context? What is his methodology? Without explaining that, he's just being disingenuous.
He doesn't want to bore me with the figures? No, the figures are the only thing he mentioned that DIDN'T bore me. I'm bored of his rah-rah act. I want him to say something that makes me think about game design, and then makes me say "wow, this guy is seeing things I missed, I look forward to what he comes up with."
And, this is important: I feel that he's speaking, at least in part, to people like myself, who have lost faith in his direction. He's answering criticism. He's addressing the issue of game balance by downplaying it, and trying to focus the reader on just having fun, and learning their army.
I find that condescending and dismissive.
I have to conclude that he thinks there is nothing wrong with his rules, and the problem is with those who don't love them as committedly as he does.
Plus, in addition to dismissing my view, he then goes on to speak in a way I find indicative of a poor mentality for his job. You seem to think you can dismiss this just by saying it's "reading into it." You really can't. Much can be gleaned from how people speak, how they structure arguments, how they live their lives, etc. etc.
If you go to an accountant, and they seem to be very disorganized, have a sloppy office, and then seem disinterested and slightly confused by math, you're not "reading into things" when you take your business elsewhere.
So, I don't think you can disallow me the option of examining his preferred throught processes. I might be wrong about Jervis. But you don't get to deny my conclusions categorically, just because they're not the exact things Jervis was attempting to say to me.
Maybe he has an actual job to do, something that pays for his home and food.
Isn't it his JOB to write Standard Bearer? Isn't it his JOB to do the work it takes to make the best rules possible?
This strikes me as a snarky, knee-jerk defense. It puts all your other defenses in a poor light.
But I get sick of the misrepresentation of what was written to take cheap potshots.
This you say after pre-emptively misrepresenting me? I haven't suggested you're a fanboi, nor did I have any intention to do so. You're presuming some sort of meta-debate here, presuming that I think you're not allowed to agree with Jervis due to some categorical ad-hominem you expect me to employ.
It's hard to know how to take this last section of your post. You just spent the whole thing telling me I'm not allowed to pick up on any of the obvious cues in Jervis' article, and then you proceed to fabricate views for me out of thin air, and give strong clues that you have a preformed opinion of what goes on in the heads of people who don't like what Jervis has done to the game of late.
You're really not doing your argument any favors with this...
The best I can do is give you some context...
I have steadily been losing faith in GW over the past two years or so. There was a time when I saw the naysayers as bitter, excessively negative, and irrational. Apparently as you see them now.
So, when the most recent change to the Blood Angels came out, I was very excited, and hopeful that it would be a fun list. At that point in time, despite some missteps (Dark Angels), I had a lot of faith in GW, and found myself siding with their decisions in a lot of cases.
The new BA rules put me over the edge.
It's an utterly terrible list. I'm not talking about the nerf (which was deserved). I'm talking about the total lack of internal balance in the list. Some choices are incredible (Veteran Assault Squads), some choices totally blow (Tactical Sqauds). A good codex should be full of choices, all of which you wish you could take. In that respect the BA is the most egregious failure I've seen them put out in years.
So it's not like I haven't given these guys a fair shake. It's not like I haven't defended them a great deal in the past. But they've been failing lately. And one of the names on these failures is Jervis Johnson. And when he comes out, dismisses and diminishes my views, exhibits a sloppy, confused outlook on his own job, and then makes a big smug smile at me, it's hard to not "read into" that negatively.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Phryxis wrote:Well, let me be more clear in what I read him saying.
First off, strictly in terms of wins and losses, he said building a powergamed list is overrated. Only worth a win in 20. That's where I see him saying that list building doesn't matter. If you don't like the phrase "doesn't matter" then fine, let me be more accurate: He's drastically underestimating the importance of list building in winning games.
I'd argue he is pointing out that list-tweaking to the nth degree (indicating there is only ONE right competitive list) isn't as useful as you could believe. He isn't talking about crafting a balanced list. He's talking about mathhammering it down into one list per army as effective. I'd argue that your clear emotional investment might be coloring your reading of some of what he is saying.
Phryxis wrote:Second, while he does pay some lip service to powergaming being fun for some players, I don't see this as him saying it matters. He's just saying "to each his own." But he's sticking with his point that it's not worth much in terms of wins and losses.
He is saying to each his own...so why do you let it stick in your craw, as you admit to later. There is a defacto defense in there. The presumption is the lists are all relatively balanced. I disagree with that, but I hardly froth at the mouth over the "condescension" you see so clearly in his article.
Phryxis wrote:This doesn't work for me. I think you're being VERY kind even calling it "anecdotal data." It's just inane jabbering. It's sparse to the point of being dishonest. It's literally no better than saying "if you play the game like I do, you'll enjoy it 46.34% more than you do now!"
I mean, he says a "certain kind of list" is worth "no more than 1 win in 20 games." What is that supposed to be? What kind of list? In what context? What is his methodology? Without explaining that, he's just being disingenuous.
But not intentionally so, and that is where we differ. Again, I think you see malice and deceit where none is intended. And of course it's anecdotal. What should it be called. When someone shares their opinion, but says it's supported by X & Y...that's anecdotal. There is literally nothing he could put in there that would raise it beyond there. But as there is nothing less than anecdotal, besides unsupported opinion, that's what it is. You are looking for mathematical analysis in a magazine that has never done anything like that in the TWENTY years I've been reading it. And acting like it's expected.
Phryxis wrote:He doesn't want to bore me with the figures? No, the figures are the only thing he mentioned that DIDN'T bore me. I'm bored of his rah-rah act. I want him to say something that makes me think about game design, and then makes me say "wow, this guy is seeing things I missed, I look forward to what he comes up with."
Well, his article is specifically a "rah-rah" act, and has been since the inception. It has been since the J Files, and even before that. They've never talked in detail about game design. It's always been fluff, with maybe a nugget or two thrown in. But nothing at length, and certaiunly nothihng to level for which you seemed to expect. Find me a Standard Bearer that isn't raving about GW as a place to work, a hobby, or a social network.
Phryxis wrote:And, this is important: I feel that he's speaking, at least in part, to people like myself, who have lost faith in his direction. He's answering criticism. He's addressing the issue of game balance by downplaying it, and trying to focus the reader on just having fun, and learning their army.
Projecting again. He's talking to anyone who purchases White Dwarf, occasionally bringing up hobby elements he sees differently. He isn't speaking to the "lost" fans. That's an assumption on your part.
Phryxis wrote:I find that condescending and dismissive.
I have to conclude that he thinks there is nothing wrong with his rules, and the problem is with those who don't love them as committedly as he does.
And this is why we fundamentally disagree on the direciton of his op-ed. Your top sentence is predicated on you believing the second is completely true. I don't He does conclude that the rules are balanced (he'd be the first to admit there are things wrong with the rules, but not to the extent you (and many other) see. You are absolutely reading the second element into it. Not once has this guy pointed the finger. Haines did that. He had that dismissive tone. But JJ has never had it. I've seen him stay upbeat answering the most slowed, knee-jerk moronic questions at Games Day seminars. And it's that second reading of his article I take issue with.
Phryxis wrote:Plus, in addition to dismissing my view, he then goes on to speak in a way I find indicative of a poor mentality for his job. You seem to think you can dismiss this just by saying it's "reading into it." You really can't. Much can be gleaned from how people speak, how they structure arguments, how they live their lives, etc. etc.
If you go to an accountant, and they seem to be very disorganized, have a sloppy office, and then seem disinterested and slightly confused by math, you're not "reading into things" when you take your business elsewhere.
Thanks again for the psychology, Phry. That would have been much use to me when I served as a military officer on submarines with some of the smartest sailors on the planet.
That you find him poorly suited to his job has nothing to do your later assessment of the BA rules? Just this article? Again, I am not poised to defend his ability to do his job, except to point out that he has built some of GW's most well-received game mechanics. I'll use that, plus his crap direction for his Codices, to judge him on his job. Not a Standard Bearer article, which is PR at best.
Phryxis wrote:So, I don't think you can disallow me the option of examining his preferred throught processes. I might be wrong about Jervis. But you don't get to deny my conclusions categorically, just because they're not the exact things Jervis was attempting to say to me.
I'm not denying them to you. I'm simply disputing your conclusions.
Phryxis wrote:Isn't it his JOB to write Standard Bearer? Isn't it his JOB to do the work it takes to make the best rules possible?
Yes to A. And he probably spends about two hours a month on it. Maybe three. As you already pointed out yourself, and agreed upon by myself, it's a rah-rah part of his job. He's hardly obligated to perform a stringent analysis to basically say "do what you like". As for B, his job is to write satisfactory rules that support GW's market share. You seem to think he does this for the betterment of all mankind. It's not the cure for cancer. GW wanted a tighter rule set, damn the consequences. He's trying to provide that. THAT IS HIS JOB.
Phryxis wrote:This strikes me as a snarky, knee-jerk defense. It puts all your other defenses in a poor light.
This you say after pre-emptively misrepresenting me? I haven't suggested you're a fanboi, nor did I have any intention to do so. You're presuming some sort of meta-debate here, presuming that I think you're not allowed to agree with Jervis due to some categorical ad-hominem you expect me to employ.
I don't care how it looks. I actually had something a bit sharper, but I toned it down. At this point, I expanded my aperture to deal with the broader negativity of Dakka. It doesn't change the objective issues I have with your post up until then. If I misrepresented you, my apologies. However, after reading your diatribe on your current hobby status, it merely reinforces my belief that you are projecting your anger onto the article.
Phryxis wrote:It's hard to know how to take this last section of your post. You just spent the whole thing telling me I'm not allowed to pick up on any of the obvious cues in Jervis' article, and then you proceed to fabricate views for me out of thin air, and give strong clues that you have a preformed opinion of what goes on in the heads of people who don't like what Jervis has done to the game of late.
*I* don't like what Jervis is doing to the game of late. You seem to skim that part again and again. I hardly fabricated. I wasn't even talking about you as an individual at that point. I was talking to bigger Dakka, and pre-emptively responding the most generic rebuttal of what I have said. And I never told you what you could or couldn't do. You seem to believe people are doing that a lot. I could care less what you personnaly believe. That is your choice. I was merely indicating the reading of the article from my standpoint does not yield the personal dismissal you so clearly see. Again, I am *disputing* your points. You continue to believe that I am saying you can't believe them.
Phryxis wrote:You're really not doing your argument any favors with this...
No, I am not doing your opinion of me any favors. My argument is doing just fine in my eyes.
Phryxis wrote:The best I can do is give you some context...
I have steadily been losing faith in GW over the past two years or so. There was a time when I saw the naysayers as bitter, excessively negative, and irrational. Apparently as you see them now.
So, when the most recent change to the Blood Angels came out, I was very excited, and hopeful that it would be a fun list. At that point in time, despite some missteps (Dark Angels), I had a lot of faith in GW, and found myself siding with their decisions in a lot of cases.
The new BA rules put me over the edge.
It's an utterly terrible list. I'm not talking about the nerf (which was deserved). I'm talking about the total lack of internal balance in the list. Some choices are incredible (Veteran Assault Squads), some choices totally blow (Tactical Sqauds). A good codex should be full of choices, all of which you wish you could take. In that respect the BA is the most egregious failure I've seen them put out in years.
And thus we get to the deeper issue, Phryxis. You feel a bit betrayed because they screwed the pooch on your list and didn't help the medicine go down with some decent models at least. And so you read into things a bit more bitterly than you used to.
Phryxis wrote:So it's not like I haven't given these guys a fair shake. It's not like I haven't defended them a great deal in the past. But they've been failing lately. And one of the names on these failures is Jervis Johnson.
And I would not dispute that.
Phryxis wrote:And when he comes out, dismisses and diminishes my views, exhibits a sloppy, confused outlook on his own job, and then makes a big smug smile at me, it's hard to not "read into" that negatively.
But I would this.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
I don't know about you guys, but I just find the notion that a tweaked out army list only accounts for 1 extra victory out of 20 games to be a bunch of crap.
Play against Nidzilla or Eldar controlled by someone who has a basic understanding of the game and you will see that certain things just don't work at that level anymore.
2175
Post by: Chaplain Pallantide
Wow...I am not sure I can add anything new to what has already been said by many of the posters here, but I guess I'll say this...
I just finished looking through my copy of the latest White Dwarf and I regret spending the 6 bucks and change! I really dislike where the company is going.
I am an old school player, I remember when and where I bought my copy of Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader, it was in a dank basement LGS called the Dragon's Den in VT. I was in middle school and I thought I had died and gone to heaven! My first army was Eldar, followed closely by Space Marines.
I loved the imagery, the feel it was narrative driven, unlike what it is today. You were encouraged to make your own tanks and it was very hobby oriented mainly due to lack of GW made vehicles.
After reading Jervis' words, I felt like taking all my GW stuff and dumping it in the garbage. It does seem like he is railing against forums such as these where people ask for army list advice and basically get told the same things, 6 man Las/Plas squads or guard squads consisting of x number of las/plas squads followed by or supported by x number of unit y shake well, or stir if you prefer.
It did seem to me that he was trying to justify the stuff, crap whatever you want to call it that GW has been dishing out lately. You can look at various books and wonder what they were thinking when they wrote whatever codex. Look at some of the threads on this board about the IG codex and what works and what sucks.
As has been stated before all this makes me want to do is give up, I am not whining I am just feeling hurt. I find myself lately looking to At 43 and Warmachine cause it seems like someone is doing something right. I love warmachine because it is well written and PP does a wonderful job keeping up with FAQ's and other rule issues and/or Questions.
I like AT 43 cause of the Pre-painted mini's, which happen to look a heck of a lot better than Wotc's crap they produce for D&D. The rule set seems to be quite decent from what I have both seen and heard.
Anyway I think that 4th edition 40k will be the last edition I play and the last of GW that I will be apart of. Kind of sad really seeing this from the perspective of one who has been playing over the last several incarnations of the game.
Thanks GW for squashing a part of my childhood, you rock!
Thanks,
Chappy P!
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, he is talking about a fun game where tweaking alist and math-hammering really doesn't matter. Fundamental I think this article and the replies shows the two distinct elements that are in this hobby. I paint where possible, play now and again with friends & never competitively (i.e comps). For me his article was actually quite accurate.
Coming across tweaked out lists with people who often had truely appalling people skills, sense of fair play and without the ability to lose without embedding a miniature in a wall almost killed this hobby for me.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Chaplain Pallantide wrote:Wow...I am not sure I can add anything new to what has already been said by many of the posters here, but I guess I'll say this...
I just finished looking through my copy of the latest White Dwarf and I regret spending the 6 bucks and change! I really dislike where the company is going.
I am an old school player, I remember when and where I bought my copy of Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader, it was in a dank basement LGS called the Dragon's Den in VT. I was in middle school and I thought I had died and gone to heaven! My first army was Eldar, followed closely by Space Marines.
I loved the imagery, the feel it was narrative driven, unlike what it is today. You were encouraged to make your own tanks and it was very hobby oriented mainly due to lack of GW made vehicles.
After reading Jervis' words, I felt like taking all my GW stuff and dumping it in the garbage. It does seem like he is railing against forums such as these where people ask for army list advice and basically get told the same things, 6 man Las/Plas squads or guard squads consisting of x number of las/plas squads followed by or supported by x number of unit y shake well, or stir if you prefer.
It did seem to me that he was trying to justify the stuff, crap whatever you want to call it that GW has been dishing out lately. You can look at various books and wonder what they were thinking when they wrote whatever codex. Look at some of the threads on this board about the IG codex and what works and what sucks.
As has been stated before all this makes me want to do is give up, I am not whining I am just feeling hurt. I find myself lately looking to At 43 and Warmachine cause it seems like someone is doing something right. I love warmachine because it is well written and PP does a wonderful job keeping up with FAQ's and other rule issues and/or Questions.
I like AT 43 cause of the Pre-painted mini's, which happen to look a heck of a lot better than Wotc's crap they produce for D&D. The rule set seems to be quite decent from what I have both seen and heard.
Anyway I think that 4th edition 40k will be the last edition I play and the last of GW that I will be apart of. Kind of sad really seeing this from the perspective of one who has been playing over the last several incarnations of the game.
Thanks GW for squashing a part of my childhood, you rock!
Thanks,
Chappy P!
Jesus Christ - not just to you but all the others who on the strength of one written article are deciding this is the point to thrown it all away. Instead of over-reacting I would really appreciate it if you all went to your doctors for some pharmecutical help.
GW squashing part of your childhood - my god, what is wrong with you. Get some perspective and stop being such a drama queen. By all means, leave the hobby and move on, I am bearly in it myself at times but please stop the excessive emotional complaining.
Sometimes coming to dakka is like stumbling across a bunch of rich EMO kids contemplating suicide because their life is just so hard.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I thought Dakka was the refuge of a noisy group of disenchanted believers or some such.
Now we're EMO kids?
Ugh!
The horror!
383
Post by: bigchris1313
dienekes96 wrote:As for B, his job is to write satisfactory rules that support GW's market share. You seem to think he does this for the betterment of all mankind.
And here I think you're reading into what Phyrxis is saying. I think everyone here is under the impression that JJ's rules writing is designed to sell models. It's just that he's not doing a very good job of that. GW wanted tighter rules? There's no good reason you can't have tight rules and decent writing. But we certainly don't. And there's no way that tight rules and bad writing are going to sell more models than tight rules and good writing.
In before false dichotomy: You can't possibly have both a tight rules set and good writing!!ONE11!
3806
Post by: Grot 6
I for one feel sorry for the poor thing.
Jervis is the new kid, filling in the " good guy, one of you chaps-types" that Gav the Noob filled for his rather tense stay at GW.
Gav did the new guy filling in with the big kids at the big kids table act, but it went the way of B.S.
Now we get to see DeJervisication in action, we all don't like it, and he's basicly telling us all that we can like it or lump it.
!@#$ this guy.
I started to write a whole essey about why this guy was a pratt, that he did the new guy act great back in the day, but we were already shot in the face too many times with the nine inch nail to give two !@#$'s for his idea of " fun". The game is getting filled full of crap from a crap designer. GW doesn't give a rats !@# if you like it or not, as long as you buy five boxes of 50.00 plastic terminators, a 35.00 half ass tank, and 1 25-30.00 commander.
"Rules... WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' RUUULLZZZ!!! WE have SPAZZ MARRRRIIINESS!!!
" THIS IS GW!!!!"
You guys are really going to get p.o.'ed when they sell you a half box full of templates, cards, and psychic power sets for 45 bucks and call it Dark Mallinium.
5th Edition is 2nd edition, 2.0.
I drink grape kool-aid, you need to stop putting the drugs in the red stuff, because the Bull s@#$% flag is thrown... 
383
Post by: bigchris1313
Grot 6 wrote:something
91
Post by: Hordini
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hellfury wrote:While GW is a company that produces miniatures first, and rules are a distant secondary or tertiary concern, it makes no sense as to how they can get away with being so negligent with the games they produce.
Better rules and not solely pretty models sell more games.
Not so.
60% got in because of the minis. Only 15% care about the rules, which is about the same as the Fluff. GW knows it's about the minis, and the rules matter not at all, which is why 40k is in the state it's in.
Besides Hellfury's comment that using a poll with under 100 people voting (78 as of this post) isn't a reliable source for this, I will say that this poll represents why people "got in" to the hobby, not who "care[s] about the rules." This simply means what got them hooked. Not only are you using a poor source, you are misinterpreting the information that source provides. I am not surprised that it is the miniatures - it is a miniatures game, and I vote for the miniatures as well. The miniatures are what got me started.
That said, while miniatures may get the most people in (and the poll aside, I believe they probably do), miniatures aren't always enough to keep experienced players around, and I think this is what we're talking about. Miniatures got me in, and miniatures are what keep my flicker of GW interest alive.
Good rules are what have got me playing games (and buying miniatures) from other companies like Battlefront and Privateer Press.
4917
Post by: Zathrithal
Hey guys, I've been away from these boards for a good long while now and I doubt many people remember me, but I've been getting a bit more hooked in, what with all the models I have laying around half built and friends bugging me to play with them. So I've been lurking around here and this thread caught my eye.
Let me make my point clear: People are mad at Jervis for one reason. His attitude in a variety of sources indicates that he thinks the rules are in a better state than most of us do. As hobbyists, that puts a fear into us. The fear is that he really believes his rules are good, and we all know they are vastly unbalanced. When you are talking about any designer for anything, they should be the absolutely most critical of their work. That's not what we get from Jervis. What we get is a smiling idiot who's "just like you" attitude makes us think that he's fine with the status quo and that he isn't working to change anything.
We all got hooked in this game for different reasons, but that's not what is important. What is important, especially to GW, is why we are still in this game. Why do we, the enigmatic consumer keep playing? Is it because of the new models? I know I get a little rush when I see a new model come out for my army. Is it for the rules? If you can't stand the rules of the game (which it's obvious that many of us can't), then you aren't going to keep playing. Period. Full Stop. Let's visit that again. If the rules suck, people won't play. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing for GW. They don't care if we play the game, they are here to sell us minis. That's where their money comes from. So, how many people here would honestly keep collecting miniatures and making an army if the game didn't exist. Not many.
Executive Summary: Jervis comes across as thinking the rules are OK. They aren't. Rules are important to sell minis, so it's in GW's interest to make good rules. Oh, and boring biographical stuff about the poster that no one cares about.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
bigchris1313 wrote:Grot 6 wrote:something
You got more out of it than I did then.
131
Post by: malfred
fullheadofhair wrote:
Jesus Christ - not just to you but all the others who on the strength of one written article are deciding this is the point to thrown it all away. Instead of over-reacting I would really appreciate it if you all went to your doctors for some pharmecutical help.
They're not basing it on one article. Obviously, they have
other reasons that they've posted here and elsewhere. A lot
of people are on the brink in the hobby, mostly because they
want a game that doesn't play the way 40k plays.
2175
Post by: Chaplain Pallantide
Wow, I must be one of the Oldest 34 year old Emo kids out there!
I am not trying to start a flame war, but it seems clear to me that Jervis and GW as a whole do not care about those who have been playing the game all along.
In the article he talks about how his one army can be used as several different ones, but I would honestly challenge that.
My nid army that I currently have now, would not have been legal with the last edition, nor would several of my other armies. How many times have we've seen over the last several years, if not months with the release of a new codex the tons of posters saying how their army is now no longer viable?
I'd like to see how many people complain if the New Space Marine codex comes out with no traits and with no special abilities to make their army workable! How many people will be throwing their apothecary Sergeant's away or those who made Dreadnought armies with Wisdom of the Ancients rule? And on and on it goes...
This is my main issue I have with GW, is with the seemingly constant fluctuation with the rules people's armies that they have spent quite a bit of money on suddenly become invalid with the release of either
A) A new ruleset or
B) A new Codex...
Let's see how long Zilla Nids are around when their codex is up for review next time and how many people will be put out then.
And yes as Malfred has pointed out, my opinion is based not only on one article, but years of this kind of crap. Plus working for the company for a short time didn't help my view of them either. GW should be going after the veterans as well as the newbies, but it seems like they just want to try and get new people to join and leave us old (Emo?) fogies in the dust!
Thanks,
Chappy P!
4588
Post by: Destrado
This looks like the Really Old People reminiscing about their favourite summer.
Bad news: you might not enjoy 40k as much as you did all those years ago.
News flash: nobody's forcing you to buy and play with the latest rules. I think that people react very negatively to rumours, especially when it's something that concerns Jervis.
The armies aren't invalidated, people are just "forced" to change and scream about how they dislike the changes. And then scream some more, and frankly I've seen the same people scream for some years now (and new ones too) and I still haven't seen them doing anything like quitting the hobby.
Plus, it grants us a slew of sly remarks directed at Jervis, J. Junior, each other, and GW. And "Spase Marienz! Hurr!".
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Destrado wrote:The armies aren't invalidated, people are just "forced" to change and scream about how they dislike the changes. And then scream some more, and frankly I've seen the same people scream for some years now (and new ones too) and I still haven't seen them doing anything like quitting the hobby.
I call Bull. Armies aren't invalidated? Tell that to the squat player that worked at our FLGS when 3rd came out, or to ANY LatD player, or to anyone that made a Storm of Chaos list(especially after it was said these lists would remain viable in WD). Hell, even Chaos Fantasy armies. Having made LatD, Cult of Pleasure, and Chaos mortal armies, I now don't have to just change, I now have to make a choice of either sell models or buy MORE just to make a legal army. I also have to decide WHAT army to build now(Dark Elves or Daemons) as one of my armies was built from the ground up for the list NOT "oh, I'll just add in some random units to make this new list" that GW seems to think people did.
But, yeah, you're right, NO lists are invalidated.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Having made LatD, Cult of Pleasure, and Chaos mortal armies, I now don't have to just change, I now have to make a choice of either sell models or buy MORE just to make a legal army
Had you no intention of ever buying any more models anyway then ? Ever.
Really ?
320
Post by: Platuan4th
I actually had no intention to buy more for my Dark Elves or Chaos, no. Now, if I wish to play either army, I'm required. Pity to go from 3k down to somewhere between 1 and 1.5k with (now) not enough Core choices.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Even if it did it’s still shoddy practice to invalidate a playable and fun list which people bought and built in part because GW explicitly said “these are not just campaign lists, this is a fully official expansion of the rules, and in fact is the third volume of to complete Hordes & Beasts of Chaos which we promised you.” (That’s a very close paraphrase of the first page in Storm of Chaos).
Personally I think I’m going to enjoy the new Warriors of Chaos list, but then, I really got into Chaos the last time it was divided this way, in the three Ravening Hordes lists when 6th ed first came out. But that’s not to say I won’t miss the ability to have a really mixed chaos warband. That’s really classic and central to the original chaos concept, and I (among others) really enjoy it.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
I think any reasonably experienced gamer should know that army lists will change. GW is never going to keep them constant, specifically because they are in it to sell models. That's a given.
All that means to the consumer is that you aren't buying the right to your specific army layout forever. You are buying it within a ruleset, but rulesets change. You can still play trhe old ruleset with the old army list, provided you find a willing opponent. That's the deal. It is a bit sketchy when GW tries to sell the "we aren't changing your army" when they so clearly are. But again, that's PR.
In short, buyer beware. I bought a ton of stuff for my 13th, which might or might not matter. I don't give a rat's behind which. It's my army and I'm sticking to it, whether GW does or not. I can always "counts as" if I need to.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Changing the army? Fine with me.
Claiming an army will be valid then taking it away all together? Not so fine.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
Yea, "buyer beware" is not really an ingratiating stance for a company to take. "We might be lying to you" generally does not build good will. This business with Hordes of Chaos changing in White Dwarf and other messiness is rather silly. If one is trying to pick up the game, it is a knife in the back to find out "Oh, this book I bought is invalidated in this magazine. Oh, but they still sell it without update." If your car company said "Oh, by the way, your breaks might not work in 2 years. Buyer beware!" you probably wouldn't be their customer.
GW is not a customer focused company, and that is just poor practice. Jervis' article gets under a lot of skins because he is essentially saying "Hey, it's fine. Stop worrying and just have fun," which sounds a lot like he is speaking directly to people who are saying "It isn't fine, please fix it." In other words it sounds a lot like they care about as much about customer feedback and concerns as they care about whether it will rain tomorrow. People have a lot invested in this game and company, from just sheer hours and dollars to a real affection for the universe and what goes on. Jervis' attitude, and indeed all of GW's attitude, seems to really repudiate the affection the fans have for the game, giving the impression that they don't care about us. For a little psychology fun, treat your wife like she was just another person for an afternoon. She will be similarly upset.
By the by Dienekes, to project does not mean what you think it does. To project is to ascribe to others flaws you feel you have yourself. In other words, thinking that everyone is trying to steal your stuff because you know you would try and steal theirs is projecting. Wanting someone to show an interest in something that you don't think they do is not necessarily. Just a heads up.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Got it, I was using the word "project" incorrectly. My apologies for that. My point continues to remain that I feel Phry was reading into what Jervis said, colored by his established frustrations.
By the by, wehr, comparing a luxury hobby to an automobile is to compare two very separate economic processes. There is no safety factor in Warhammer 40K. There is no societal need for your hobby. The customer base sizes are vastly different. Historical litigation is very different. The government doesn't mandate wargame requirements.
A better comparison would be a video game system. I purchased several games for the XBOX. The 360 came out, and it was a crapshoot whether I could play those games. If I wanted to play online with friends and they had sold their XBOXs, I was screwed. I could always get out the same old system and play it...as can wargamers. It's their choice. Feel free to make that choice as an educated consumer.
And again, you take it personally when you say they are lying. And they are profit focused, not customer focused. Like every other publically traded company out there. Their business model hasn't changed much in the past two decades.
Armies changed drastically from RT to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, 3rd to 4th, and again from 4th to 5th. It's a dynamic cycle. It will change again. Consider this a heads up.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
No, it is very much like a car. It has nothing to do with safety or necessity. It has to do with whether or not their customers are comfortable with their purchase and whether they will continue to purchase from them. The economic process is the same. "I want something to do X for me. I want it to have these certain features." There is no societal need for any particular car, and luxury cars have a fairly small customer base, much like wargames. Buy a Ferrarri or Lexus and see the kind of customer focus they display.
Every company is profit focused. But HOW they attempt to get their profits is the key to their focus. GW acts as though they are not a luxury item with competition. In other words, they act as though they don't need to care what the players think or want. A customer focused company generally attempts to give their customers what they want, and when complaints are raised attempt to address them.
Further "buyer beware" implies that the item might not be what it appears. It implies that any terms or statements given by the company are not supported, and can not be taken to be true with certainty. In other words, they might be lying to you. There is a good reason that most companies do not take that stance, instead accepting returns, guaranteeing a product under warrenty for x years or what not.
But let's take your video game system example. Remember how there were rumors of Xboxes catching on fire, and how fast Microsoft recalled a lot, or sent out cords? Think of how much systems compete on features, trying to offer more and more, even some that are tangentially related to gaming (DVD players built in, etc.)
Now, you have a good point that if you want to play the same game as your friends, you might have to fork out for a new system. But note that new system has better features, and costs less than a new army. If GW releases 6th edition with miniatures that are simply bases with holographic animated figures I can modify on my PC, I won't care at all if the rules don't allow my old plastics. However, if I have to buy new models for pretty much the same rules just to play the same game, I am going to get irritated.
Besides, to take your video game example even further, how often do you break out the old Nintendo or Genesis? Finding friends to play Excite Bike is probably fairly difficult. Finding people to play Xth edition so your codex still works is pretty darn hard too. I for one wouldn't turn someone down if they said "Hey, do you mind if I play my CSM with the last codex? I don't like the current one." I wouldn't be surprised if they walked into a tournament and were rejected for it though.
Thanks for the heads up, but I am well aware they do it. I am just saying it is foolish, and irritates a lot of people. They shouldn't be surprised that it irritates people, and honestly I am surprised that you don't seem to consider it a problem. It isn't some natural law that they need to run things the way they do. Plenty of companies make money by focusing on what the customers want. GW, for whatever reason, does not come across as one of them.
That isn't to say GW can't do whatever they want. I just think they can't do it and be as successful as they might be otherwise. Playing as though you are the only game in town is always a bad idea, and is particularly bad when you sell a luxury item at rather high prices.
3294
Post by: pombe
Hmm...going with the car analogy....
Would people be happy if GW initiated a "trade in" program, where you can trade in your used GW product towards credit for new GW product? That way, they would encourage people to stay in the hobby rather than sell off their armies and quitting.
That way, if your army got invalidated or nerfed, you could just trade it in towards a new army (since, as Yak pointed out, there needs to be constant changes to renew the game). Or you could just trade in specific units for credit. Or you could trade in those 2nd Edition Marines for 5th Edition ones, if you like the look more.
Also, this would be useful for GW to reduce the amount of secondary market stuff on eBay and Bartertown that are basically taking their profits away.
Thoughts?
3974
Post by: Ilmarinen
Had you intention of ever buying any more models anyway then ? Ever.
Really ?
This is a very good point. Especially considering it is the veterans who seem to be complaining most. How many veterans do you know who don't continue to buy more and more (and more...) models?!
If choices in the old list are no longer available, it really means they are no longer available at tournaments. Ok, so most of us prefer to play under the current rules rather than older ones, but if you've spent all that time and money and effort creating your ultimate variant list and you really really don't want to stop using it as is then I'm sure your friends will sympathise ...either by using 4th ed or by creating house rules (...and yes, there is always Apocalypse - there, I've said it again ...2nd paragraph this time! Woo!).
Come to think of it, if you have to buy a new unit or two to make your existing army legal under the new rules, it means that you have that much bigger an army, which means you can play Apoc more easily!!! Hahaha.
For those of us veterans who are looking forward to 5th ed (and liked the DA codex!) this is another opportunity to get more new stuff, expand our armies (again), and generally enjoy the changes. If you never want to buy a new model again then do what JJ has done and a minimally specialised list (or go one step further and take an all troop army) which will probably always be legal.
181
Post by: gorgon
Ilmarinen wrote:If choices in the old list are no longer available, it really means they are no longer available at tournaments. Ok, so most of us prefer to play under the current rules rather than older ones, but if you've spent all that time and money and effort creating your ultimate variant list and you really really don't want to stop using it as is then I'm sure your friends will sympathise ...either by using 4th ed or by creating house rules (...and yes, there is always Apocalypse - there, I've said it again ...2nd paragraph this time! Woo!).
...at tournaments or likely another other situation where you're playing against someone other than those in your circle of friends. While that may not make the invalid army worthless, you have to admit that means diminished useability and value than a fully legal army.
Oh, and don't bring the Apoc argument around here or I'll slap that b*tch outta bounds and give you the Dikembe Mutumbo finger wag.
4655
Post by: tegeus-Cromis
Ilmarinen, perhaps some vets would rather have had the choice of what exactly their purchases were going to be. Maybe Platuan4th wanted to branch out into Eldar, or Dwarfs, but now he has to go buy more of the same stuff he's already bought if he wants to make use of what he's already bought under the new rules. How does this not suck?
3974
Post by: Ilmarinen
Fair point. I'm just trying to point out that I am surprised at the attitude of some veterans, who seem to have had many years of enjoyment of 40K and seen many changes come and go, and yet they are now so upset that they are wanting to throw all their models away ...when there ARE options for them to keep playing their favourite army. Alright, some options are not as ideal as the status quo, but they do exist, and not all of them require new purchases.
It's hard to have this discussion when there are so many things being generalised. A lot depends on: the size of your circle of gaming friends; whether you are a tournament player; whether you play at your local store/club; how many unfinished projects you have going; how much cash you spend on the hobby; etc etc...
For example, I have a kroot merc army in bits, which is one of my many projects and hasn't even been started yet. They don't have great rules (almost total lack of anti-tank), their 4th ed list will soon be obsolete, and their main rules are now Apoc. I still like them. There is a decent homebrew codex for them if I wanted to use it, or I could just use their Apoc rules in 40K, or I could get some Tau, but truth be told (given the projects I'm already working on) I'll probably not get round to them until 7th ed! Doesn't mean I want to get rid of them though.
All in all, I'd sympathise a lot with the veteran who has only one army, that uses a soon-to-be-obsolete army list, and doesn't have enough friends who will play 4th ed/house rules with him/her any more, doesn't have enough interest in the army they've spent so much time on to adapt it, and doesn't have enough cash or time to try a different army. But I don't personally know anyone like this.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
I would be more concerned about the new player who just dropped 300$ in models to make a decent sized army, only to find out in a few months half their models won't work anymore.
GW probably should offer a model trade in when they release a new codex. Give a player a % of the original value in credit towards new models. It shouldn't be too difficult for them to make money on both ends of the deal, and it would go a long way towards assuaging frustration over codex's shooting armies in the foot.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Wehrkind wrote:No, it is very much like a car. It has nothing to do with safety or necessity. It has to do with whether or not their customers are comfortable with their purchase and whether they will continue to purchase from them. The economic process is the same. "I want something to do X for me. I want it to have these certain features." There is no societal need for any particular car, and luxury cars have a fairly small customer base, much like wargames. Buy a Ferrarri or Lexus and see the kind of customer focus they display.
Every company is profit focused. But HOW they attempt to get their profits is the key to their focus. GW acts as though they are not a luxury item with competition. In other words, they act as though they don't need to care what the players think or want. A customer focused company generally attempts to give their customers what they want, and when complaints are raised attempt to address them.
The validity of the car analogy notwithstanding, i think you're on to something here. GW is usually quoted as a luxury product, but often, buying it doesn't feel like you're getting a luxury item. The current backlog at FW is a good example. Waiting in line for 4-12 weeks for an item doesn't really give me that luxurious feeling, especially if I the seller doesn't give me information about the status of that order.
3974
Post by: Ilmarinen
And there's that warm and friendly Dakka reaction we all know and love.
"Jervis Junior" - the latest insult in the Dakka playground. Hahaha. I have a sneaky suspicion that I'm older than you are btw (32).
@Wehrkind - I agree, but at least most of the models will still be useful. What I completely disagree with is GW continuing to sell the 4th ed rulebook when they know a new one will be out in the very near future. A £30 rulebook for only 3 months use! Now that should have a discount/credit note attached to it ...or a warning label.
171
Post by: Lorek
Don't mind Blackheart666; he doesn't like anything.
4588
Post by: Destrado
Platuan4th wrote:
I call Bull. Armies aren't invalidated? Tell that to the squat player that worked at our FLGS when 3rd came out, or to ANY LatD player, or to anyone that made a Storm of Chaos list(especially after it was said these lists would remain viable in WD). Hell, even Chaos Fantasy armies. Having made LatD, Cult of Pleasure, and Chaos mortal armies, I now don't have to just change, I now have to make a choice of either sell models or buy MORE just to make a legal army. I also have to decide WHAT army to build now(Dark Elves or Daemons) as one of my armies was built from the ground up for the list NOT "oh, I'll just add in some random units to make this new list" that GW seems to think people did.
But, yeah, you're right, NO lists are invalidated.
LatD and Squats are still complained about despite the fact that no-one but a handful of people seemed to have miniatures. While I think that it's sad to see an army list go the way of the dodos, I can't think of a good reason not to use them as any other army - LatD mutants could be conscripts, Squats as Marines, etc.
I see lots of people bitching about the Space Dwarfs and LatD, and I'm betting none of these had the same number of players (or, at least, army size) as the Genestealer Cult, whose players fielded them as guard, then used the list in the Citadel Journal, then generally switched to using the guard codex again. And yet, I don't see anyone complaining about this once popular army.
But I do understand your point, you're absolutely right, what I meant was that someone using a Space Marine army, for example, didn't have to change his army that much. It was mostly people who fielded the four HS slots the Iron Warriors where entitled to, as another example. And I can't really say I feel bad about any player whose tactics revolved around list building in the Net Forums for the best combos with intricate math-hammer calculations for an über army. The fact that I can't field all my HS choices, or FA, all in one game, doesn't mean that I can't use them in the next one. It allows variety, a fact which some people are willing to ignore because they're afraid of losing games.
5376
Post by: two_heads_talking
Platuan4th wrote:Changing the army? Fine with me.
Claiming an army will be valid then taking it away all together? Not so fine.
I think the saying is Caviet Emptor. all other things are up to personal preferance.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
As noted, this is a luxury product, and most producers of luxury goods find that caveat emptor is antithetical to their customer service and sales strategy.
Another point that I haven't seen anyone really hit is the fact that one of GW's biggest selling points is its universality.
If I travel, or move my home, most likely I can find some people, and probbably even a club or store not too far from me where I can play GW games with other people. When you do that, the transferability of the rules, the compatibility of your rules and understanding thereof with those of your opponent are of paramount importance. The availability of organized play (leagues and tournaments) is also a huge draw. It's really the whole reason I'm in the game, for example.
This huge advantage they have (or had) over competitors is completely undercut when they invalidate army lists, and refuse to support their game with proper editing and FAQs. Given the disparity in model quality and variety (especially early), I think these failures on GW’s part have directly contributed to the success of Privateer Press.
My town used to have a dedicated independent GW specialist hobby and wargaming shop. Dakka Dakka, one of the best stores you’ve ever (or never) seen. Due in part to GW’s poor customer support, that store no longer exists, and the owner now plays Warmachine and Hordes. My local gaming club and group, which predated the store and outlasted it, has now switched to a Warmachine and Hordes league, instead of a 40k league and a WH league.
I still love Warhammer first, 40k second, and Warmachine third. But if GW supported their customers and products better, I strongly suspect I’d still have WH & 40k leagues in my home town, and I wouldn’t own $300+ worth of Privateer Press stuff. I’d have another GW army.
181
Post by: gorgon
Destrado wrote:I see lots of people bitching about the Space Dwarfs and LatD, and I'm betting none of these had the same number of players (or, at least, army size) as the Genestealer Cult, whose players fielded them as guard, then used the list in the Citadel Journal, then generally switched to using the guard codex again. And yet, I don't see anyone complaining about this once popular army.
That's because there are almost no GCult players left after 10 years without a real army list. I'm one. Wanna know what list I was using? LatD!
Mannahnin's point is a good one, and one I often fruitlessly try to make on Warseer. GW's greatest contribution to the hobby (and one of the reasons for its growth) may be the portability of its systems. That's why one of my biggest gripes with the design studio is their constant disregard for player attitudes regarding officiality, desire for FAQs, etc. GW bears a lot of responsibility for creating those attitudes and spreading them through their GTs and RTTs.
I think the designers should try playing at one of their own stores with an invalid army list and see what kind of reception they get. Better yet, they should bring non- GW miniatures and some self-made Apocalypse datasheets and try to use those too.
I think GW is unfairly pillorized for many things. But I agree with the critics that the organization can be characterized as having little sense of responsibility for its actions.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Absolutely. The luxury element of GW was never it's rules. It was the customisability of the hobby to what the customer wanted.
Want to paint?
Want to convert?
Want to find someone to play against?
GW still leads in those categories, 1 of which is far more important that tightness of rules (opponents).
The luxury is in the ease of the social aspect (finding opponents) and the quality and variety of models.
That said, I agree that they have allowed the rules to be a second sister far too long. By tightening those reasonably and intelligently, and supporting the existing gamer networks, they could have REALLY put a squeeze on opponents. I think their abject failure at FAQs and continued rules/army support has hindered them. While I understand they are a major company, and need to decide things that way, that approach has hurt customer relations.
1) They need to baseline and manage the rules. They really should create and support a living FAQ.
2) They need to utilize the White Dwarf, and use it to bring the "weirdness" back. Why not have quarterly WD army lists? That is the place for smaller niche armies that rely on other model ranges (Feral Orks, 13th, LatD). That would satisfy the veterans. And these get updated as editions get updated. A metal model release or two (specific to WD purchasers subscribers) might drive sales of WD, and therefore the hobby.
3) They screwed up bitz. It was working fine a few years back. They meddled with it. Without that, people are less likely to make "whim" conversion purchases. Furthermore, BWB illustrated another level they could take bitz to. They ignored it for the most part, and then took it away from US consumers.
Simple. Not easy to implement, but worth the pain. And of those three, FAQs are the priority. There are elements of GW policy I defend and understand, even if I disagree with them. But on those three, they've made terrible choices.
5376
Post by: two_heads_talking
Faq's that haven't been updated since 2007 is unexcusable. I will admit that ..
Hell we still have git players that want to argue about whether spouting flames is a fire attack. with no official list, you still have those rules lawyers that say, "show it to me in print, otherwise, it doesn't exist." and that's the stuff that drives me crazy.
I think 'Alessio has had plenty of time to put up a more current list and hell, if it's not 100% complete (which how could it be) he can always add to it. even if it is only one or two things.
I just don't understand the gap of little or no information. especially on FAQ's
181
Post by: gorgon
Dienekes, all good points. Why not create two tiers?
Tier 1: Codex armies -- fully legal for all gaming
Tier 2: WD lists -- tournament legal only at the organizer's discretion (and probably never at GTs and RTTs), but otherwise legal for friendly play
Tier 2 isn't as good as Tier 1, but it's something. Hey, if a Tier 2 army becomes popular, that might help them determine the next new codex army.
Alas, "contraction" would seem to be the buzzword at GW now. And that's a shame because part of what attracted me to 40K in particular was the galaxy they created, and what a weird, huge, colorful place it was. And lately I feel like that place is shrinking and not expanding. Writing tight rulesets was never their designers' strong point, but creativity always was. Lately it feels like that's getting squandered, and that's what really bothers me.
Back on point, I'm sure they'd prefer to keep the weirdness out of WD so as not to "confuse" the newbies that the magazine is mostly intended for now. But mixing newbie and veteran stuff is nothing new to the company. Half their problem with 40K is that they're trying to please very different markets with a single product and marketing approach.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
Absolutely. The luxury element of GW was never it's rules. It was the customisability of the hobby to what the customer wanted.
Want to paint?
Want to convert?
Want to find someone to play against?
GW still leads in those categories, 1 of which is far more important that tightness of rules (opponents).
That isn't the type of luxury I was talking. I was calling it a luxury in the sense that I don't need it, and if I stopped spending money on it, my wife would be pleased.
Besides, being able to find opponants is not a luxury feature for a game, it is a necessity. Glossy pages in a hard cover rule book is an example of a luxury.
Running with your points though, I have to disagree with all but the last one. I definitely agree that 40k and WHFB are easy to find opponants for, and that is the big draw of their rule systems. To that end, your points about their treatment of their own rule system are spot on.
With the other two though, I don't think GW has nearly the edge they might like to think. PP or Rackham have some great models, as do companies like Reaper. I have bought a mess of both simply because I like the models and think they will be interesting to paint.
Conversion wise, while the GW line is extensive and tends to work well with itself for conversions, their plastic parts are really their trump. I think that as other companies put out more and more plastics and offer a wider variety of miniatures in general, people will find that either other models are a better base for a conversion, or even that someone else made just the model they want.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
In terms of metal models, Rackham peaked, and has reduced it's metal production. I've seen very little from Reaper that approaches what GW puts out at it's top tier. So in terms of quantity combined with quality, GW is still top dog.
And then you disagreed with me on convertability...right before agreeing with me on it. Of course, their plastic production is their trump card. To have plastics at the level and quality GW puts out requires more capital than the other companies even have. So you might be waiting a while for comparable stuff.
So in short, you disagree with ONE point specifically, and believe the second gap is closing much faster than I do.
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
Wehrkind wrote:
With the other two though, I don't think GW has nearly the edge they might like to think. PP or Rackham have some great models, as do companies like Reaper. I have bought a mess of both simply because I like the models and think they will be interesting to paint.
I really do disagree with this, as I much as I wish it wasn't true. Yes I see people stop playing and move to other games, but those that truely move away from GW seem to be few and far between. Reaper I only buy to paint for fun, same with Heresey et al.
Most people I know and see in various shops have three or 4 GW armies but one one PP or FOW, a faction or two of Rackham. The majority of models are GW because of the quantity needed to play.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
gorgon wrote:Dienekes, all good points. Why not create two tiers?
Tier 1: Codex armies -- fully legal for all gaming
Tier 2: WD lists -- tournament legal only at the organizer's discretion (and probably never at GTs and RTTs), but otherwise legal for friendly play
Tier 2 isn't as good as Tier 1, but it's something. Hey, if a Tier 2 army becomes popular, that might help them determine the next new codex army.
Alas, "contraction" would seem to be the buzzword at GW now. And that's a shame because part of what attracted me to 40K in particular was the galaxy they created, and what a weird, huge, colorful place it was. And lately I feel like that place is shrinking and not expanding. Writing tight rulesets was never their designers' strong point, but creativity always was. Lately it feels like that's getting squandered, and that's what really bothers me.
Back on point, I'm sure they'd prefer to keep the weirdness out of WD so as not to "confuse" the newbies that the magazine is mostly intended for now. But mixing newbie and veteran stuff is nothing new to the company. Half their problem with 40K is that they're trying to please very different markets with a single product and marketing approach.
They did this in 3rd ed. It didn't really work.
And people still whined cause their list wasn't "legal". That's why GW said, "No more variant lists." If they release a list, it will be fully supported.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
181
Post by: gorgon
That's just not true. They never packaged WD lists in a systematic way like I described. For whatever reason, the studio has been reluctant to be the arbiters of "officialdom" for many years now. But regardless of what the designers think their role SHOULD be, or how we SHOULD be playing, the reality is that many players look to the studio for guidance.
If WD lists had received stamps of "fully legal for all normal gaming other than GW-sponsored tournaments" from the getgo, there would have been more interest in them and fewer questions about them.
Also note that some of the complaining isn't about WD armies, but armies that appeared in official GW codices.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Ilmarinen wrote:I happen to agree with Jervis on many of his points.
Same. I read it a couple times and didn't see any problem with it.
It's Jervis' opinion and he's entitled to call it like he sees it, in the same way that Dakka is entitled to disagree. The difference, of course, is that Jervis has the perogative to change the direction of the game. If people don't like it, perhaps they're in the wrong hobby, as ex- GW staffer Paul Sawyer famously said.
But so far, I don't see the problem. When you make a tweaked list, you take the risk that it goes away. That's too bad, but that's the price for having a list that is stronger in the current game, as opposed to something soft and Fluffy that remains average for a longer period of time.
181
Post by: gorgon
For the record, I didn't think the article was that bad either. Clearly there's an upkeep cost to this hobby. The first time it happens to you, you have a legit gripe. After that, not so much, provided the changes to your army are reasonable and not obviously contrived.
The elimination of whole armies is a different issue and speaks more to the studio's lack of a long range plan for most of its history. While it's good that Jervis is trying to change things with his "if it has a codex, it'll be supported forever" statement, I think we all know that's not really his call and can change in a minute based on business conditions. So does it even matter?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Exactly. I think for the first time, someone (i.e. Jervis) is trying to actually plan ahead, rather than just mucking about over what's hot at the moment or following some designer's whim.
Although GW could choose to change direction, I think this is less likely, and would require actual explanation behind any shift.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
cerebaton wrote:1) MtG is as different from what GW does as football is. Let's not use it as a comparison.
I completely agree. The reason I brought Magic up was to point out their developers' ability to cater new products to BOTH newbies/casual players AND vets/tournament players - GW seems only able to do the first, while Dakkaites seem only to want the second.
Actually, with Apocalypse / Legendary, GW is a lot closer to WotC than before.
WotC has 2 very different families of tournaments / games / rules for deck construction. MtG Type 1 formats (e.g. Type 1, Extended) generally allow for very large card pools, with true Type 1 dating all of the way back to Alpha and allowing nearly everything that has ever been published. Granted that Type 1 maintains a Banned and Restricted list, and that there is errata for the older cards. But the fundamental concept is that you can play pretty much anything.
MtG Type 2 formats (e.g. Draft, Block Constructed) are strictly limited to the current card pool being sold on the shelves. This results in having more than 90% of the cards that have been printed are ineligible for play in Type 2 formats. But the highly restricted card pool allows WotC to have better control on the power level and balance of the various cards.
And speaking of balance, WotC knows that absolute balance is neither possible, nor desirable. WotC knows that there will always be cards that are "better" and "worse", and this is what separates competitive from fun types.
So, getting back to GW, the analogy can be very much like this:
Apocalypse / Legendary is like Type 1 - you can pretty much play anything within some mutually-agreed upon limits.
40k 5th / WFB 7th is like Type 2 - restricted to things that have current Codices / Army Books. If you don't have a Codex or Army Book, you're stuck playing Apocalypse / Legendary.
Balance simply needs to be "close", as long as players can construct Fluff-bunny lists and have fun.
459
Post by: Hellfury
JohnHwangDD wrote:Although GW could choose to change direction, I think this is less likely, and would require actual explanation behind any shift.
You mean something flippant, as in the tyranids ate all of the squats?
In all seriousness though, I really want to believe that Jervis is attempting to not invalidate any lists. It is sad that LatD players have to reconcile themselves with an apocalypse formation datasheet, but I am a huge fan of continuing to use old codecies if GW seems to get a bit froggy about my army. ( LatD armies to me will always be 3rd ed chaos dex and the eye of terror dex)
Happened to me with my C/A elysian drop troops force. There was no way I was going to be able to use all of those shotguns I converted legally in a new a new codex. So I said " it" and keep using the old rules.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Hellfury, those are simply alternate-pattern Lasguns.
Much like my alternate-pattern Guardian Shuricats which look suspiciously like "Lasblasters", which look supsiciously like Lasguns...
This is why WYSIWYG doesn't really work for 40k in the way that GW originally thought it should.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
gorgon wrote:That's just not true. They never packaged WD lists in a systematic way like I described. For whatever reason, the studio has been reluctant to be the arbiters of "officialdom" for many years now. But regardless of what the designers think their role SHOULD be, or how we SHOULD be playing, the reality is that many players look to the studio for guidance.
If WD lists had received stamps of "fully legal for all normal gaming other than GW-sponsored tournaments" from the getgo, there would have been more interest in them and fewer questions about them.
Also note that some of the complaining isn't about WD armies, but armies that appeared in official GW codices.
It wasn't systematic, but they did release lists in WD and in other supplements. Even when saying, "This is a fun list, we aren't really going to support it," they still got b**ed at! Search for Zombie Pirates in any forum and I'm sure you'll find it.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
1898
Post by: cerebaton
40k 5th / WFB 7th is like Type 2 - restricted to things that have current Codices / Army Books.
As long as Jervis thinks that list-building only has a 5-10% effect on the outcome of a game, 40k will be NOTHING like Type 2.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
When GW gives Jervis the ability to invalidate 90% of the minis that have been produced, I think GW can have a very balanced game of 40k.
As for the 5-10% net effect, I am of the opinion that Jervis is generally correct, all else being equal (i.e. overall competitiveness desired). That is, if we're all building fluff-bunny lists, then the specific choices probably have less than 5% impact on the win-loss record. Similarly, if we're all building no-holds-barred WAAC lists, then the specific choices probably have less than 10% impact overall.
247
Post by: Phryxis
After that, not so much, provided the changes to your army are reasonable and not obviously contrived.
It seems like the complaints have gotten whittled down to "I can't use my army as I used to."
That's certainly an issue, but it's really not a primary issue for me personally, nor why I object to Jervis's article.
It's really his attitude, and the thought processes he displays. I've gone back and read the article since I started this thread, and every time I read it, it gets more annoying to me.
He's got a section where he mocks and hyperbolizes the views of the critics. "High Elves can't be beaten!" I'm sure some people are dumb enough to say that, but is that really an accurate paraphrasing of all of his critics? Or is it mostly just a mocking strawman argument?
I find that attitude frustrating. I'm sure he's a good natured guy, but it's clear that he thinks the critics are kinda silly.
It's also clear that he doesn't know as much about his own game as he ought to. If he thinks list building accounts for only a 5-10% swing in outcome, he's insane. There are people on this forum who have clearly thought out the implications of the rules, and have come to deeper and more comprehensive understanding than he has. And it's not even their job.
I'm not suggesting that 40K is so terrible. It's still pretty good. Could use more FAQs. Could use more playtesting. But it's ok. The issue isn't that I think the lists are TOTALLY out of balance. The issue is that they are a bit imbalanced at times, and yet he scoffs at the idea. He does so in a way that's patently ridiculous, and suggests he lacks the perspective to fix it, or even avoid worse issues in the future.
It's just frustrating, because he seems to refuse to be aware of the problems, and then justifies this using the exact sort of mentality that create the problems.
3974
Post by: Ilmarinen
@Phryxis - JohnHwangDD just summed up nicely what JJ was saying about the 5-10% issue but you seem to have missed it. If you look at the winning lists of tournament players (which JJ claims, and I believe he has) then you are looking at highly competitive players who are, as a baseline, experienced and have good lists. He's then saying that not all of these successful players have had to mathhammer/cheesefest their lists to do well, and the extreme end of list tweaking probably doesn't account for as big a difference as some people think.
If he thinks list building accounts for only a 5-10% swing in outcome, he's insane.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that the difference between a good list and an extreme list, in the hands of an experienced tournament player, is pretty small.
He's then trying to say that we therefore shouldn't worry so much about having the "perfect" list - everybody relax and stop getting so worked up. Take a list YOU like and get used to it. You think this is annoying - to me it's bloody sensible.
4655
Post by: tegeus-Cromis
Ilmarinen, utterances do not occur in a vacuum. They connote differently depending on who's making them. If you had written the article, fair enough. You would basically be telling everyone to chill and not make too big a deal out of faults in the system. I think we could all appreciate those points. When JJ writes it, however, it's a different thing, because he is trivialising faults in the system that are his and his team's doing.
If my dog gaks on your lawn, it is one thing for you to say, "Relax, it's no big deal" and quite another thing for me to say it to you.
1898
Post by: cerebaton
He's then trying to say that we therefore shouldn't worry so much about having the "perfect" list - everybody relax and stop getting so worked up. Take a list YOU like and get used to it. You think this is annoying - to me it's bloody sensible
The point everyone seems to be missing is that yes, for your average wargamer playing 40k with their friends in their living room or at a store, list building is a secondary consideration when it comes to having a fun and competitive game. HOWEVER if GW want to have a thriving and successful tournament scene they must accept that serious tournament entrants SHOULD worry about having the "perfect" list, as the point of entering a tournament IS to win. If GW gave up on holding GTs etc. then Jervis's comments would be perfectly reasonable, but while they insist on having both a casual environment for players who just want to have fun, and a tournament scene where the point of playing is to win, his comments just come across as hypocritical and ignorant.
I hate to jump on such a complain-a-thon of a bandwagon, especially when so much has been said on the subject already, but I'm just sick of people arguing the wrong point.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
cerebaton wrote:If GW gave up on holding GTs etc. then Jervis's comments would be perfectly reasonable, but while they insist on having both a casual environment for players who just want to have fun, and a tournament scene where the point of playing is to win, his comments just come across as hypocritical and ignorant.
GW's tournament scene is designed to highlight the hobby...not just the game. They continue to tout the fact that the purpose of the game is FUN. Not just winning. I think that divergence in thought processes leads to five pages of this argument. It's weird to them that some people take winning so seriously they devote hours to mathhammer and list refinement. Which I get to some extent. It's weird to me too. I play to have fun. That's not to say you shouldn't cogently put together an army list with an eye to tabletop tactics. But to take it to extremes smacks of desperation and patheticness.
Being able to tell the girls in the bar I just kicked @ SS at a GW tourney isn't where it's at.
4655
Post by: tegeus-Cromis
I was not aware that deciding that a portion of one's customers are merely being weird and silly was something profit-maximising companies were inclined to do.
5394
Post by: reds8n
dienekes96 wrote:cerebaton wrote:
Being able to tell the girls in the bar I just kicked @SS at a GW tourney isn't where it's at.
What are these "girls" of which you speak and where can I buy them ? Or are they Apocalypse only ? I cannot find them in the online store.
You'd be amazed/die a little inside at some of the truly terrible attempts made by gamers to try and chat up some of the staff at WW during tournies. I spent a horrifed 10 minutes one time watching some guy try and impress the barmaid with how "awezome" his raptors had been in the last game. I couldn't help but feel that if he wasn't wearing a Red Dwarf " Let's get out there and gakker it" T-shirt covered in dried egg he might have had a better chance.
And if it was dark.
And she was blind.
And she was on a bet.
And he was the last guy on... ah, you see where I'm going with this.
181
Post by: gorgon
Phryxis wrote:He's got a section where he mocks and hyperbolizes the views of the critics. "High Elves can't be beaten!" I'm sure some people are dumb enough to say that, but is that really an accurate paraphrasing of all of his critics? Or is it mostly just a mocking strawman argument?
I find that attitude frustrating. I'm sure he's a good natured guy, but it's clear that he thinks the critics are kinda silly.
Yeah, the High Elf thing is a massive distortion of the arguments that raged over ASF, etc.
I think GW has never really understood how to participate in or even treat internet forums, and it's affected the way they interact with fans. Paul Sawyer leaving Dakka in a huff is pretty much the prime example. While I think he was disrespected, he should have been savvy enough to know the poster getting under his skin was a kid, IIRC.
Their experience with forums and fans has mostly shown them a lot of nonsensical noise and prickly criticisms. And keep in mind that plenty of creatives are thin-skinned. So they said "ouch, that fire is hot," and decided to rarely go back. Along the way they developed a bit of a bunker mentality, and I think they lost a little (not all, but some) of their capacity to really listen to their customers in an open way.
Those of you that are younger probably don't get this. But remember that Jervis is a little older and goes back well before the Web era. Just think about what he reads now on the internet compared to when the only conversations he had with fans was at Games Days, etc. It's understandable (but a shame, don't get me wrong) how he'd ignore even the good advice and valid issues raised by customers.
459
Post by: Hellfury
gorgon wrote:I think GW has never really understood how to participate in or even treat internet forums. Paul Sawyer leaving Dakka in a huff is pretty much the prime example. While I think he was disrespected, he should have been savvy enough to know the poster getting under his skin was a kid, IIRC.
I think it was a prime example actually.
He came here to pontificate from on high, like some sort of Gamer God. He was called on it by a kid (at that time Penguin dude was about 13-14 I think) and he left indignant, huffing about how dare anyone question him.
This was to be the beginning of the end of GW's forum posting (and one of the reasons why GW calls Dakka a "shark pit" ), even though reps do pop in from time to time. (Jeff hall, Dave taylor, Dirty steve, etc)
That said, I feel pretty confident that GW designers etc. do peruse forums, they just choose not to interact with them for the most part, at least not directly.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Paul Sawyer posted on Dakka ? What happened then ? Enquiring minds etc .
844
Post by: stonefox
reds8n wrote:
You'd be amazed/die a little inside at some of the truly terrible attempts made by gamers to try and chat up some of the staff at WW during tournies. I spent a horrifed 10 minutes one time watching some guy try and impress the barmaid with how "awezome" his raptors had been in the last game. I couldn't help but feel that if he wasn't wearing a Red Dwarf " Let's get out there and gakker it" T-shirt covered in dried egg he might have had a better chance.
So are you saying this is what NOT to do? That guy seems like he has solid game.
dienekes96 wrote:GW's tournament scene is designed to highlight the hobby...not just the game. They continue to tout the fact that the purpose of the game is FUN. Not just winning. I think that divergence in thought processes leads to five pages of this argument. It's weird to them that some people take winning so seriously they devote hours to mathhammer and list refinement. Which I get to some extent. It's weird to me too. I play to have fun. That's not to say you shouldn't cogently put together an army list with an eye to tabletop tactics. But to take it to extremes smacks of desperation and patheticness.
While I agree with you when this relates to GTs, and especially GD tournies, remember that GW also sponsors the 'Ard Boyz events.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Well, it wasn't the end of anything significant, Hellfury. It wasn't like they often posted before that. My recollection is that PD was a douchebag, Sawyer was a douchebag, and it was pretty embarassing to the forum as a whole. Not because it was Paul Sawyer being snarked at, but because it was ANYBODY.
Were I a designer, I'd rather my customer interactions were more formal than a message board as well. Why bother? There is no investment on the part of the message board members. People are much more measured and responsible when their own names/faces are attached to criticism. Some might say it's less direct and honest. I'd say it's more honest...when you have to stand by what you are saying (not as Dienekes96, douchebag extraordinaire with 4528 posts since 2001), you tend to regulate and focus on actual issues.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
stonefox wrote:While I agree with you when this relates to GTs, and especially GD tournies, remember that GW also sponsors the 'Ard Boyz events.
Very true. But the 'Ard Boyz are designed to be bloodbaths, and they should be. I like the variety. I'd never play in a AB tourney, but I think it was very smart of GW to do it. It's all about the tone and the expectations.
459
Post by: Hellfury
dienekes96 wrote:Well, it wasn't the end of anything significant, Hellfury. It wasn't like they often posted before that. My recollection is that PD was a douchebag, Sawyer was a douchebag, and it was pretty embarassing to the forum as a whole. Not because it was Paul Sawyer being snarked at, but because it was ANYBODY.
Were I a designer, I'd rather my customer interactions were more formal than a message board as well. Why bother? There is no investment on the part of the message board members. People are much more measured and responsible when their own names/faces are attached to criticism. Some might say it's less direct and honest. I'd say it's more honest...when you have to stand by what you are saying (not as Dienekes96, douchebag extraordinaire with 4528 posts since 2001), you tend to regulate and focus on actual issues.
PD was a kid. Acting like kids do.
Sawyer was an old fat bastard who should know better than act the way he did.
But on the whole, I agree with your whole post.
131
Post by: malfred
Hellfury wrote:dienekes96 wrote:Well, it wasn't the end of anything significant, Hellfury. It wasn't like they often posted before that. My recollection is that PD was a douchebag, Sawyer was a douchebag, and it was pretty embarassing to the forum as a whole. Not because it was Paul Sawyer being snarked at, but because it was ANYBODY.
Were I a designer, I'd rather my customer interactions were more formal than a message board as well. Why bother? There is no investment on the part of the message board members. People are much more measured and responsible when their own names/faces are attached to criticism. Some might say it's less direct and honest. I'd say it's more honest...when you have to stand by what you are saying (not as Dienekes96, douchebag extraordinaire with 4528 posts since 2001), you tend to regulate and focus on actual issues.
PD was a kid. Acting like a libertarian kid with a future in drinking does.
Sawyer was an old fat bastard who should know better than act the way he did.
But on the whole, I agree with your whole post.
Fixed various typos, Hellfury.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Hellfury wrote:dienekes96 wrote:Dienekes96, douchebag extraordinaire
But on the whole, I agree with your whole post.
Oh, I am sure you do 
459
Post by: Hellfury
dienekes96 wrote:Hellfury wrote:dienekes96 wrote:Dienekes96, douchebag extraordinaire
But on the whole, I agree with your whole post.
Oh, I am sure you do
Well, not that, chuck. Just your point in general.
though the doctor pepper song, with a feminine hygenic replacement for the word "pepper" does come to mind.
181
Post by: gorgon
I guess what I was getting at wasn't about designers actively posting, per se. It was more about the interactions they've had and how -- for instance -- they've gotten Dakka labeled as a shark pit and thus deserving of being ignored even when someone has a good idea or valid comment.
I think the designers endure ridiculous amounts of dumb criticism and unwarranted venom. But I do think a bit of an ivory tower -- we can leave the height of it open for debate -- went up at the studio at some point too.
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
dienekes: Yea... I don't know how I managed to unmake my entire point, but you are right... I REALLY did
What I meant to say is that other than the plastic thing, which is super nice, there are lots of good conversions to be made using other companies minis. There are also lots of really cool minis to paint. So many of both, that one doesn't need to be limited to GW products to have cool things to work with.
GW makes it easier in some cases, and harder in others. I want some light marauder cav that doesn't look like they eat nothing but steroids meant for their horses, but GW can't help me.
There is a lot of cool stuff out there, as my frequent trips to the War Store's sight show, and while GW makes a lot of cool stuff, they are no longer the only game in town. I hope they start to learn that lesson, because I really do like a lot of the things they make and want them to succeed.
131
Post by: malfred
gorgon wrote: But I do think a bit of an ivory tower -- we can leave the height of it open for debate -- went up at the studio at some point too.
But without the tower of Hoeth we couldn't have Teclis and Swordmasters!
752
Post by: Polonius
You know, I just had an idea for how GW could communicate with gamers a little better (or at all....): moderated chats!
ESPN.com does them all the time. You get a person at a computer, and a moderator or screener picks questions sent either before hand or in real time and the VIP answers them in real time. It gives everybody a feeling of connection and immediacy, while it doesn't expose GW to embarrasing questions.
of course, given that GW hasn't shown a ton of interest in answering any of our questions, real time or no, I don't see it happening.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
gorgon wrote:I guess what I was getting at wasn't about designers actively posting, per se. It was more about the interactions they've had and how -- for instance -- they've gotten Dakka labeled as a shark pit and thus deserving of being ignored even when someone has a good idea or valid comment.
I think the designers endure ridiculous amounts of dumb criticism and unwarranted venom. But I do think a bit of an ivory tower -- we can leave the height of it open for debate -- went up at the studio at some point too.
I understand and agree with all of that. Including the Ivory Tower bit. That's a painful part of the transition from being a friendly fun company making cool stuff to having a board of directors and stock options. There is good in that...see the significant improvements in plastics. But there is bad in that...losing touch with the niche element that drives the hobby.
Based on the white noise nonsense they were hearing, they simply overfiltered. So they are missing constructive and useful concerns as well as the "u suk, you faild at lyf, y dnt you kil yrslf" gems that spew forth alongside the requests to makes Orks I7 and give Skaven Meks and so on and so forth. Perhaps they need to adjust a bit.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Double.
3294
Post by: pombe
JohnHwangDD wrote:As for the 5-10% net effect, I am of the opinion that Jervis is generally correct, all else being equal (i.e. overall competitiveness desired). That is, if we're all building fluff-bunny lists, then the specific choices probably have less than 5% impact on the win-loss record. Similarly, if we're all building no-holds-barred WAAC lists, then the specific choices probably have less than 10% impact overall.
Are we talking about competitive players building 'casual' lists or are we talking about casual players building 'casual' lists? If you are implying what I think you are, you are basically saying that the 5-10% difference comes from a competitive player with a competitive list vs a competitive player with a 'less competitive' list in a competitive environment. That would suggest that a competitive player with a competitive list would utterly blow away a casual player with a 'casual' list at a frequency greater than 10%, regardless if they are equal in skill. That does not equate to game balance to me.
A truly balanced game would be one where any army list can be generated truly at random and pitted against another army list (from the same or different codex) that was also generated at random, and the game played by equally skilled opponents using randomized missions, and over the course of a statistically significant sample of games played (where the army lists were randomized each time), their win/loss ratios would be exactly 50/50. Thus, it is truly up to the skill of the player to achieve a win/loss ratio greater than 50%.
While I understand that is impossible in application (chess is about as close as you are going to get), I do feel that playtesting a new Codex 30-40 times (which I believe has been admitted by GW staffers in the past) is far too inadequate to determine balance...especially if there are predetermined notions of how a unit 'should work' already in place. What we need is a way to playtest new Codexes (and new rules for the new edition) in an unbiased manner with a very large sample size. If they need to outsource the playtesting, I don't think there would be a shortage of volunteers.
I'm not calling for a game that is as bland as chess in terms of story and background. But I don't see creating a game as balanced as chess within the universe of 40K with the special rules for all the different armies and units as impossible. I just don't think they are trying hard enough.
And while some people see Jervis' article as a good explanation, I see it as an excuse.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
pombe brings up something I've long believed would be a wise pursuit. I think in the generation of points values for units (which should be the best balancing element of a friendly and tourney game), there should be more rigorous statistical analysis. Not with playtesting, but with modeling. It would take a small start-up cost to generate a representative and capable computer model to simulate various games of WHFB and 40K. Using some basic responses and customer feedback, you could establish sets of action phases to represent player decisions (assault, fall back, shoot, use psychic powers, etc), even randomizing them for better statistical representation.
Once you get the basic game and attributes right, you could plug in various rules/units/weapons/+1's to attributes and run THOUSANDS of simulations to determine the overall impact of that SINGLE CHANGE on the results. That would allow point balancing to be quite a bit tighter, which would enable playtesting to focus less on point values, instead looking at inter-relationships and fun factor.
I think this could also speed up that part of the process to weeks from months. Plenty of companies do this already, with customers ranging from video games to military systems/tactics.
It'll never be perfect, but it could be tighter.
3294
Post by: pombe
dienekes96 wrote:Not with playtesting, but with modeling. It would take a small start-up cost to generate a representative and capable computer model to simulate various games of WHFB and 40K. Using some basic responses and customer feedback, you could establish sets of action phases to represent player decisions (assault, fall back, shoot, use psychic powers, etc), even randomizing them for better statistical representation.
Once you get the basic game and attributes right, you could plug in various rules/units/weapons/+1's to attributes and run THOUSANDS of simulations to determine the overall impact of that SINGLE CHANGE on the results. That would allow point balancing to be quite a bit tighter, which would enable playtesting to focus less on point values, instead looking at inter-relationships and fun factor.
That would require GW to hire people with math degrees who are experts in probability and statistics, who have taken courses in Game Theory, and have some computational acumen. That would seem to violate GW's hiring policies.
As it stands, GW is content with promoting people from within, like say, their sales managers and camera people, to the point where they write the rules and the background.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
I don't think it actually would. They don't need to have a huge staff to understand the computer model. They just need it built, and then they need an easy to use interface allowing a regular designer to make a change, ensuring the model is correctly representing the special rule (or new attribute set, or both). I do not possess a math degree, nor am I a stats guy (though I can understand a general overview), and I utilize this stuff in my analysis. That said, I have access to computer weenies when I need a harder question answered. Only the designer needs to fundamentally understand the model.
Believe it or not, the GW game systems aren't nearly as complex a model as some of the things that use this process I bet they could make it designer-friendly.
3294
Post by: pombe
dienekes96 wrote:I don't think it actually would. They don't need to have a huge staff to understand the computer model.
Believe it or not, the GW game systems aren't nearly as complex a model as some of the things that use this process I bet they could make it designer-friendly.
Oh...I was being facetious.
That and I was taking a shot at GW's policy of only hiring/promoting those who 'fit well' or 'think like they do', rather than hiring someone who would critically take stock of what was needed and actually make changes for the better, rather than simply go with the status quo.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
cerebaton wrote:The point everyone seems to be missing is that yes, for your average wargamer playing 40k with their friends in their living room or at a store, list building is a secondary consideration when it comes to having a fun and competitive game. HOWEVER if GW want to have a thriving and successful tournament scene they must accept that serious tournament entrants SHOULD worry about having the "perfect" list, as the point of entering a tournament IS to win.
That presumes that GW believes that Tournaments should be about "winning" as opposed to having a fun and competitive game.
I think that is a fundamentally flawed starting point.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210881.page
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
pombe wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:As for the 5-10% net effect, I am of the opinion that Jervis is generally correct, all else being equal (i.e. overall competitiveness desired). That is, if we're all building fluff-bunny lists, then the specific choices probably have less than 5% impact on the win-loss record. Similarly, if we're all building no-holds-barred WAAC lists, then the specific choices probably have less than 10% impact overall.
Are we talking about competitive players building 'casual' lists or are we talking about casual players building 'casual' lists? If you are implying what I think you are, you are basically saying that the 5-10% difference comes from a competitive player with a competitive list vs a competitive player with a 'less competitive' list in a competitive environment.
Correct. All else being equal, and that means to balance for competitiveness of the player and the environment.
That would suggest that a competitive player with a competitive list would utterly blow away a casual player with a 'casual' list at a frequency greater than 10%, regardless if they are equal in skill. That does not equate to game balance to me.
40k shouldn't be a coin flip. A competitive player *should* be able to crush a casual player by more than 10%. But he should also have the skill to keep the game interesting and fun, rather than going for a Turn 2 Massacre.
A truly balanced game would be one where any army list can be generated truly at random and pitted against another army list (from the same or different codex) that was also generated at random, and the game played by equally skilled opponents using randomized missions, and over the course of a statistically significant sample of games played (where the army lists were randomized each time), their win/loss ratios would be exactly 50/50.
That presumes that it is possible and desirable to achieve absolute balance among all options and combinations of options. 40k doesn't do that, because 40k tries to have some background Fluff that emphasizes some units and options more than others. If, by Fluff, Terminators, Veterans, and Scouts should probably be somewhat less efficient and versatile than Tactical Squads, then in the model, those armies that unbalanced to have an excess of those units should do worse in the overall analysis.
And that penalty should approach 5 to 10%, if the balancing has been done properly, so that players can take them, will be slightly penalized, but not to the extent that they're unplayable, or more attractive than preferred units.
Thus, it is truly up to the skill of the player to achieve a win/loss ratio greater than 50%.
Except you have assumed that the luck will average out uniformly. And that isn't strictly true. Flip 10 sets of coins 10 times, and tell me how many come up exactly 5 heads and 5 tails.
While I understand that is impossible in application (chess is about as close as you are going to get), I do feel that playtesting a new Codex 30-40 times (which I believe has been admitted by GW staffers in the past) is far too inadequate to determine balance...especially if there are predetermined notions of how a unit 'should work' already in place. What we need is a way to playtest new Codexes (and new rules for the new edition) in an unbiased manner with a very large sample size. If they need to outsource the playtesting, I don't think there would be a shortage of volunteers.
That presumes GW would get sufficient Feedback of a usable quality to justify the effort. Which is demonstrated as unlikely, given that GW abandoned external playtesting. Because these are incremental changes to an existing Codex, 30-40 times is probably OK. Especially when GW is shrinking the list options down to something that is more easily playtested internally.
I'm not calling for a game that is as bland as chess in terms of story and background. But I don't see creating a game as balanced as chess within the universe of 40K with the special rules for all the different armies and units as impossible. I just don't think they are trying hard enough.
You know, Chess isn't balanced, right? White always having the first turn is a huge, game-determining advantage.
3294
Post by: pombe
JohnHwangDD wrote:Correct. All else being equal, and that means to balance for competitiveness of the player and the environment.
Okay, we are on the same page.
40k shouldn't be a coin flip. A competitive player *should* be able to crush a casual player by more than 10%.
I agree that it shouldn't be a coin flip. However, I say further down that it should be about skill, not lists. And as it stands, two equally skilled players, where one brings a Hard Boyz list vs one who brings a list generated by chosing units using the 'dart board' method would not be an interesting game. What I am arguing for is a game where the Army Lists are completely irrelevant and are chosen by the players because they thinks the minis are cool or they like the background...not because they are considered effective units or not.
That presumes that it is possible and desirable to achieve absolute balance among all options and combinations of options. 40k doesn't do that, because 40k tries to have some background Fluff that emphasizes some units and options more than others. If, by Fluff, Terminators, Veterans, and Scouts should probably be somewhat less efficient and versatile than Tactical Squads, then in the model, those armies that unbalanced to have an excess of those units should do worse in the overall analysis.
Fluff can only go so far. Gameplay still needs to be balanced. Otherwise, my Deathwatch Squad alone should be able to handle your 3000 point Apocalypse Tyranid army (with some losses, of course).
Except you have assumed that the luck will average out uniformly. And that isn't strictly true. Flip 10 sets of coins 10 times, and tell me how many come up exactly 5 heads and 5 tails.
Try 100 times. 10 is not statistically significant.
I understand that most 40K gamers will only get a handful of games a year. However, as a game designer, they have to take into account the larger overall picture of the population and not deal with potential individual outliers.
That presumes GW would get sufficient Feedback of a usable quality to justify the effort. Which is demonstrated as unlikely, given that GW abandoned external playtesting. Because these are incremental changes to an existing Codex, 30-40 times is probably OK. Especially when GW is shrinking the list options down to something that is more easily playtested internally.
That is not the gamer's problem. That is GW's problem. Rather than ignore it, perhaps they should figure out another way to do it that is worthwhile.
You know, Chess isn't balanced, right? White always having the first turn is a huge, game-determining advantage.
I know this.
And First Turn is also a problem in 40K. Which also can be addressed by computational modeling/playtesting/rewriting the rules. But GW seems to ignore this as well.
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
Ozymandias wrote:If they release a list, it will be fully supported.
And we know this is true because GW has told us it is true. What possible reason (other than reassuring potential customers who just saw their friends' Alpha Legion and LatD armies get invalidated) would GW have to lie?
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Did you just ignore what I wrote. They also wrote a Squats list 20 years ago. If they release a list, it will be fully supported. That's in the future tense, they are saying they aren't going to do any more AL or LatD if they don't plan on fully supporting it forever. And since they said that, every release has been pretty much fully supported in the sense that each release has had new plastics and other new models released for it. How many models were released for LatD again?
Ozymandias, King of Kings
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Ozy, assuming by "list", you mean "printed Codex or Army Book", then that's correct.
The only glaring problem is the fact that Dogs of War had a printed Army Book for WFB 5th edition. Technically, DoW should be supported for WFB7, but they've been pulled from the GW GTs.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Again, does no one read my posts? They aren't applying it retroactively. Going forward, all lists will be supported. They also aren't supporting Chaos Dwarves, who haven't had a list since 4th or 5th if I remember.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
IIRC, the Chaos Dwarves never had an Army Book.
The CD merely had a WD Presents... as a compilation of their WD articles. This is no different in status as DoW being in Chronicles or Ravening Hordes.
Or Kroot Mercs in WD / CA or Harlies in CJ.
4713
Post by: efarrer
JohnHwangDD wrote:IIRC, the Chaos Dwarves never had an Army Book.
The CD merely had a WD Presents... as a compilation of their WD articles. This is no different in status as DoW being in Chronicles or Ravening Hordes.
Or Kroot Mercs in WD / CA or Harlies in CJ.
Except it was a fulll size book which compiled the articles which were a fully realized army already into a single text, added banners, which was the same size as a full sized codex and IRC the same price. Rather different indeed from the Kroot and harlies. The DoW as well had a full sized army book (which I own and still love).
Ozymandias wrote:
Again, does no one read my posts? They aren't applying it retroactively. Going forward, all lists will be supported. They also aren't supporting Chaos Dwarves, who haven't had a list since 4th or 5th if I remember..
...Well being correct would help.
Chaos Dwarves have had a list since Ravening Hordes was released at the beginning of 6th edition. That GW has yet to revist the list in the form of an army book doesn't eliminate the list.
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
And we know this is true because GW has told us it is true. What possible reason (other than reassuring potential customers who just saw their friends' Alpha Legion and LatD armies get invalidated) would GW have to lie?..
Sic semper negotium? (thus it is always with business)
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
efarrer wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:IIRC, the Chaos Dwarves never had an Army Book.
The CD merely had a WD Presents... as a compilation of their WD articles. This is no different in status as DoW being in Chronicles or Ravening Hordes.
Or Kroot Mercs in WD / CA or Harlies in CJ.
Except it was a fulll size book which compiled the articles which were a fully realized army already into a single text, added banners, which was the same size as a full sized codex and IRC the same price. Rather different indeed from the Kroot and harlies. The DoW as well had a full sized army book (which I own and still love).
All true, but still *not* an Army Book.
For reference, all of the DoW articles were reprinted in the last Chronicles, DoW still get new releases, but DoW still aren't counted as an army book today.
Bastards.
4713
Post by: efarrer
JohnHwangDD wrote:Except it was a fulll size book which compiled the articles which were a fully realized army already into a single text, added banners, which was the same size as a full sized codex and IRC the same price. Rather different indeed from the Kroot and harlies. The DoW as well had a full sized army book (which I own and still love).
All true, but still *not* an Army Book.
For reference, all of the DoW articles were reprinted in the last Chronicles, DoW still get new releases, but DoW still aren't counted as an army book today.
Bastards.
However, with regards to the DoW army book it was an actual 5th edition army book not simply a chronicles compilation.
And I don't think anyone at GW has ever tried to claim the Chaos Dwarf army book was not an actual army book.
edited to eliminate quote chain
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
You may remember that when the articles were published in White Dwarf they were useless by themselves, they were always intended to be a single publication. 'Not an armybook' is a meaningless division between products. Chaos Dwarves were as fully supported as any other army in 4th/5th edition and to suggest that Chaos Dwarf players had it coming by buying into an army that didn't have a 'proper' armybook is simply untrue, or more likely fanboy retconning.
All armies currently available being fully supported in the future relies upon GW keeping to their word, something which historically they have been poor at. It's not surprising that people will judge GW by their actions rather than their words. The FAQ's are coming soon spiel looks like it will turn out to be another of their less than truths. The (supposedly) upcoming 5th edition documents will be patches not FAQ's.
247
Post by: Phryxis
If you look at the winning lists of tournament players (which JJ claims, and I believe he has) then you are looking at highly competitive players who are, as a baseline, experienced and have good lists.
Believe me, I've tried to think of ways that his article isn't ridiculous, but I just don't see one that works.
For one thing, he didn't explain his methodology. He didn't say what you're guessing he meant. Sure, it's a good guess, a few people have said the same, but he didn't say it. You're just trying to figure out WTF he was talking about.
Even then, if we assume you're right, and he was talking about tournament lists, what on earth did he prove? He proved that some powergamed lists are 5-10% more potent than other, less powergamed lists? How totally useless is that?
You think this is annoying - to me it's bloody sensible.
I'm not suggesting that learning a list, and being comfortable with it isn't important. It's a perfectly valid point of view. It's just not a great view for the guy in charge of the rules to hold.
If he's laid back about the rules, thinks they'll just work out if everyone just tries to have fun, hey, great mentality. Love to play against a guy like that. Don't want him writing the rules.
I wish I could say it more clearly... I've been getting the impression that Jervis is a good natured doof, who lacks the focus and statistical awareness to write rules. This article really drives it home. Fluff? Great. Rules? No.
HOWEVER if GW want to have a thriving and successful tournament scene they must accept that serious tournament entrants SHOULD worry about having the "perfect" list, as the point of entering a tournament IS to win.
Exactly.
That's why Jervis is a problem. See, if you write a set of really balanced, clean rules, the hardcore powergamers will enjoy it, and less demanding, laid back guys can still have fun too. If the Jervises write the rules, then they're only useful to Jervises.
I think GW has never really understood how to participate in or even treat internet forums.
Nope, clearly they don't...
I don't necessarily think (or expect) that they should come here and defend their rules in debate. I'd agree that's probably a bad idea. But there are people on this forum (and others), who have thought through the rules to a level that Jervis clearly hasn't. I'm sure they'd be more than willing to explain things to him, like numbers, odds, etc.
It would take a small start-up cost to generate a representative and capable computer model to simulate various games of WHFB and 40K.
I agree. You don't necessarily have to even simulate the games, just come up with a list of situations (shooting at 6", shooting at 12", shooting at 18", against marines, guards, moving, not moving), determine the strength of the model or unit in various situations, and then their costs.
It's the sort of first pass that can spot something like a Dakkafex.
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
Ozymandias wrote:Again, does no one read my posts? They aren't applying it retroactively. Going forward, all lists will be supported.
Did you not read my post? What I'm saying is I don't care what GW say they're going to do. I'm more concerned about what they have done and what they will do.
"Going forward, all lists will be supported." Do you really expect me to believe that, given their track record? How long do you think they'll keep Jervis' little promise? Seriously? If you answered anything other than "as long as it suits them" then you're a fool. As a wise man once said - fool me once, shame on... you. Fool me twice... ya can't get fooled again.
221
Post by: Frazzled
JohnHwangDD wrote:cerebaton wrote:The point everyone seems to be missing is that yes, for your average wargamer playing 40k with their friends in their living room or at a store, list building is a secondary consideration when it comes to having a fun and competitive game. HOWEVER if GW want to have a thriving and successful tournament scene they must accept that serious tournament entrants SHOULD worry about having the "perfect" list, as the point of entering a tournament IS to win.
That presumes that GW believes that Tournaments should be about "winning" as opposed to having a fun and competitive game.
I think that is a fundamentally flawed starting point.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/210881.page
Yes it is a fundamentally flawed concept that anything with the moniker "tournament" should not be about winning. Thats the point of a competition. When my rugrat goes to band and tennis competitions, its not about hop skipping about. Its about competiting.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
When your band and tennis competitions score sportsmanship and costuming, perhaps you'll understand the difference between apples and oranges.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
Phryxis:
You would be correct if JJ was writing an academic piece where he was attempting to delineate and prove, in a statistical manner, his contentions.
He's a guy explaining his reasoning process in a casual format, referencing that he looked into something, found X, and it was convincing to him.
It is inappropriate to critique him for not meeting the standards and guidelines required by a totally different kind of presentation.
If he was in a formal debate setting, attempting to prove something to a panel, sure. But it's not.
Longtime lurker. Posting here because of dieneke66's post on bias, and the fact it opened up conversation.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
First off, that's insulting his intelligence JHDD and looks suspiciously like a flame. Secondly, you totally missed the point.
Yes, technically they are not the same because you can't win a tennis match by having a nicer outfit. What if he'd said figure skating, where technical competence is rated alongside artistic interpretation and musical selection? The point he was making is that it is a TOURNAMENT which dictionary.com describes as a noun meaning "a trial of skill in some game, in which competitors play a series of contests." This of course means that there are winners and losers.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
Yes it does.
GW tournaments are designed as competitions for title "master of the hobby," not merely "mastery of gameplay."
The hobby, as they define it and as they've introduced their tournament system, is intended to rank overall hobbyists, by comparing skill in all levels of the hobby. Ergo, soft scores.
JHDD was correct in pointing it out. Claiming it's about competition is an oversimplification, when the implicatiion is that it should only and ever be concerned with the winner on the gameboard. GW doesn't run its events that way.
181
Post by: gorgon
Phryxis wrote:I'm not suggesting that learning a list, and being comfortable with it isn't important. It's a perfectly valid point of view. It's just not a great view for the guy in charge of the rules to hold.
If he's laid back about the rules, thinks they'll just work out if everyone just tries to have fun, hey, great mentality. Love to play against a guy like that. Don't want him writing the rules.
I wish I could say it more clearly... I've been getting the impression that Jervis is a good natured doof, who lacks the focus and statistical awareness to write rules. This article really drives it home. Fluff? Great. Rules? No.
Jervis is a smarter guy than he lets on. Maybe he enjoys playing up the Bean thing, I dunno. IMO, the thing to keep in mind is that he's really only the mouthpiece for the studio, and in many ways the entire company as far as gamers are concerned.
GW is kind of one big contradiction. They're called Games Workshop, but they're really a miniatures company. HOWEVER, their customers mostly *experience* the company as a games company. So we rail against the designers, but are they even to blame for many of our issues? GW's been saying for years that they're a miniatures company that uses the games to sell miniatures. If that's the case, then the particulars of manufacturing and selling miniatures must dictate a helluva lot to the *games* designers. And I wouldn't be surprised if the designers are being told what to do now more than ever.
I'm a creative professional, and I know I sure wouldn't want Jervis's job. One of the best things about being a creative is that you aren't in front of the public. Jervis and his team probably get a lot of stuff dictated to them, then have to stand up and answer for the things that they were told to do.
I'm not excusing all design decisions, typos, etc., mind you. I'm just saying our frustrations with the design team may be almost a symptom of the problem instead of the problem itself. Maybe the business folks have told them that good enough is good enough. Maybe they don't want a lot of designer time invested in FAQs, thorough playtesting, etc. Maybe they want 40K targeted to 12 year olds and couldn't give two $hits about us vets.
I dunno. I guess I'm inclined to think that with some changes in the business end, the creative team might straighten itself out a bit.
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:When your band and tennis competitions score sportsmanship and costuming, perhaps you'll understand the difference between apples and oranges.
Sports like Figure Skating are judged based on both technical and artistic merits, and people don't have a problem seeing them as a competition. Ski Jumping, IIRC is both measured by how long of a jump, and by the form of the jumper. Nearly every sport has a way of regulating player behavior, most notably foul shots in basketball. Even beauty pageants include multiple categories (aesthetics, talent, congeniality, lack of nude pictures on the internet) and determine a winner. Based on the reactions from the losers, it doesn't appear that the main goal is for everybody to have a good time, there is also the business of crowning a winner.
Nobody is going to confuse 40k with a purely competitive bloodsport, but just because you've decided to "fight no more forever" doesn't mean that there isn't a competitive structure behind a 40k tournament. There are rules, there's a champion, there are often prizes, and the winner is often the player with the best combination of objective performace (wins/losses), judged performance (paint/comp), and the fewest fouls for dirty play (sports).
Arguing that 40k tournaments are for fun is a cop out, because nearly all competitions are about fun. A game of beer pong is fun, but there can be some serious competition.
GW, (like pretty much everybody else), knows that tournaments need to be about having fun and competing, otherwise all but one participant goes home feeling like crap. On the other hand, aspiring to win, working to win, and playing to win can all be fun. Taking the desire to win out of tournaments removes the competition, and turns what is inherently fun (a bunch of grown men seeing whose selection of toy soldiers is the best by rolling dice and crushing your opponent) into something that is inherently lame (a bunch of grown man trying to decide who is nicest, who brought the prettiest toy soldiers, whose toy soldiers best match the little stories Big Important Men put in our books, and only then seeing who actually won any games).
I'm not trying to diminish the role of painting, comp, and fair play in a tournament. I just think that trying to get people to not play to win is a losing proposition.
221
Post by: Frazzled
JohnHwangDD wrote:When your band and tennis competitions score sportsmanship and costuming, perhaps you'll understand the difference between apples and oranges.
Understanding the difference between apples and oranges? The hostility does not become you.
Both require minimum sportsmanship requirements.
Both require minimum costuming.
In fact, every tournament I am aware of is similar. More artistic competitions utilize those aspects as additional competitive factors.
So whats your point?
221
Post by: Frazzled
BrainFireBob wrote:Yes it does.
GW tournaments are designed as competitions for title "master of the hobby," not merely "mastery of gameplay."
The hobby, as they define it and as they've introduced their tournament system, is intended to rank overall hobbyists, by comparing skill in all levels of the hobby. Ergo, soft scores.
JHDD was correct in pointing it out. Claiming it's about competition is an oversimplification, when the implicatiion is that it should only and ever be concerned with the winner on the gameboard. GW doesn't run its events that way.
Thats incorrect on its face. Its a competition -"comparing skill in all levels of the hobby." Thats a competition. It just has three aspects. Battlepoints, painting, and whether you brought cupcakes for your opponent. They are all worth points. Those points are tallied. The winner is the one with the most points.
Its a tournament.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
It's still a COMPETITION. Sure they judge painting and theme as part of the overall "Master of the Hobby" experience, but it is still to determine a "winner." If it was all about fun, it would just be a bunch of guys getting together in a room to play a some games.
hence, the "Best General" and "Best Painted" and "Best Overall" awards. Best mean of the highest quality, excellence, or standing. Indicating, again, a winner.
I actually like that GW went over to the Conflict style to denote a more laid-back gaming day, and things like the 'Ard Boyz tournaments to indicate a no-holds barred event. Now players looking for either experience can find what they want.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
I'd argue that claiming tournaments are about winning first and foremost, in GW's POV, with the implied restriction of utterly crushing your opponent on the tabletop, misses the point.
Try this: The Objective is to be the tournament winner. The Goal is to have a good time, play some new armies, in a challenging and fun-filled environment.
I heard a story online once, a guy entered a tournament, and ruthlessly crushed his opponent, a young teen, making the opponent cry. When confronted on his churlish behavior, he responded "What? I'm not here for his fun, I'm here for mine." This is missing the point, because this is the tournament being about winning.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:First off, that's insulting his intelligence JHDD and looks suspiciously like a flame. Secondly, you totally missed the point.
Yes, technically they are not the same because you can't win a tennis match by having a nicer outfit. What if he'd said figure skating, where technical competence is rated alongside artistic interpretation and musical selection? The point he was making is that it is a TOURNAMENT which dictionary.com describes as a noun meaning "a trial of skill in some game, in which competitors play a series of contests." This of course means that there are winners and losers.
No, *he* missed the point.
He's making an apples and oranges comparision. He's comparing apples (pure win-loss contests) against oranges (multi-factor activities that also include win-loss as a component).
A GW "tournament" is about more than merely winning out. That's why they score more than just the won-loss record. If GW Tournaments only scored Battle, then yeah, he'd be correct.
But to claim that GW tournaments should reduced to Battle only, when they have NEVER been scored or promoted this way, is incorrect. Particularly when GW has gone out of their way to either blend Comp in to "Best General", or do away with the award altogether.
And as for Dictionary.com, while it talks about contests, it is silent as to the mechanism for scoring. That mechanism is up to the TO to define. But note that the 40k Rulebook itself defines The Most Important Rule, and it ain't focused on winning out.
221
Post by: Frazzled
JohnHwangDD wrote:Sgt_Scruffy wrote:First off, that's insulting his intelligence JHDD and looks suspiciously like a flame. Secondly, you totally missed the point.
Yes, technically they are not the same because you can't win a tennis match by having a nicer outfit. What if he'd said figure skating, where technical competence is rated alongside artistic interpretation and musical selection? The point he was making is that it is a TOURNAMENT which dictionary.com describes as a noun meaning "a trial of skill in some game, in which competitors play a series of contests." This of course means that there are winners and losers.
No, *he* missed the point.
He's making an apples and oranges comparision. He's comparing apples (pure win-loss contests) against oranges (multi-factor activities that also include win-loss as a component).
A GW "tournament" is about more than merely winning out. That's why they score more than just the won-loss record. If GW Tournaments only scored Battle, then yeah, he'd be correct.
But to claim that GW tournaments should reduced to Battle only, when they have NEVER been scored or promoted this way, is incorrect. Particularly when GW has gone out of their way to either blend Comp in to "Best General", or do away with the award altogether.
And as for Dictionary.com, while it talks about contests, it is silent as to the mechanism for scoring. That mechanism is up to the TO to define. But note that the 40k Rulebook itself defines The Most Important Rule, and it ain't focused on winning out.
And again do they score comp? Do they score sportmanship? Do they score painting? Its still a competition, there is just more than one aspect to it. I thought you would have figured that out by now
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
Again, going back to the def. of tournament: a contest of skill indicates that those who will be attending intend to win. I would argue that because those players intend to win, it makes the tournament fun and challenging.
Now, there are varying levels of competitiveness in the different players attending, I'll grant you that.
As for your online story, I fail to see it's bearing on the subject. The teen didn't have the emotional maturity to handle losing a miniatures game, even if it was to a jerk. Also, you're implying that the guy did something wrong by competing and attempting to play to the best of his ability.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:When your band and tennis competitions score sportsmanship and costuming, perhaps you'll understand the difference between apples and oranges.
Sports like Figure Skating are judged based on both technical and artistic merits, and people don't have a problem seeing them as a competition. Ski Jumping, IIRC is both measured by how long of a jump, and by the form of the jumper. Nearly every sport has a way of regulating player behavior, most notably foul shots in basketball. Even beauty pageants include multiple categories (aesthetics, talent, congeniality, lack of nude pictures on the internet) and determine a winner. Based on the reactions from the losers, it doesn't appear that the main goal is for everybody to have a good time, there is also the business of crowning a winner.
And this is why Figure Skating isn't based entirely on jumping ability, Ski Jumping isn't purely distance, and Beauty Pageant is more than the swimsuit. So when we look at things, these "contests" are a lot closer to GW than things like tennis.
The basketball analogy falls down a bit, because GW treats penalty as rare exception, rather than tactical or strategic. Though it would be nice to see GW eject problem entrants from their GTs, monies paid or not.
Polonius wrote:GW, (like pretty much everybody else), knows that tournaments need to be about having fun and competing, otherwise all but one participant goes home feeling like crap.
I'm not trying to diminish the role of painting, comp, and fair play in a tournament. I just think that trying to get people to not play to win is a losing proposition.
I don't think I've ever advocated the consideration of soft scores to the point of exclusion of Battle entirely. I've advocated making Battle a much smaller component of the scoring, but that is simply a personal proposal.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
Which means that you're simply being sloppy and not recognizing an important distinction, because there's winning the tournament and winning all your games. Two different applications of the word "winning."
EDIT: Regarding the story:
It's not what was done, it's how and what it revealed of intent.
The kid cried because the guy was consistently an ass to him. Yes, that was immature of the child. The attitude that the jerk's fun could only come by provoking that kind of reaction is inherently defended by the position that "if you take the attitude it's about winning, it's ok."
No, because it's not solely about winning- or more specifically, treating the tabletop like it's solely about winning, and not a social hobby with a guy across from you, will lose you the tournament.
Because the criteria to win a tournament is not to be a WAAC jackass. Ergo, advocating a position that inherently- intentionally or not- promotes, protects, or otherwise is in line with WAAC jackassery is inherently against the model GW uses for its tournaments.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
For some reason, the quote and edit buttons aren't working... hence the multi-posts
@JHDD: At the end of the tournament, they lump all those scores together and publish a list starting with overall 1st place all the way through 100 or however many players there are. This is true of ALL tournaments. Think of the Best General and Best Painted as your MVP and Best Rookie prizes.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
Well, you did not say that the older guy was consistently an ass. Secondly, most sports have rules regarding un-sportsmant-like behavior such as ejections, suspensions, fines, and penalties. GW enforces it by making it some percentage of the total points scored in a tournament.
I think we're arguing two different things here, BFB. You're saying that GW says it's tournaments are about fun and the hobby which I totally agree with. However, many gamers (I won't say most since I have no hard data) treat tournaments as a contest of skills to arrive at a winner. Despite what GW says, they reinforce this with prizes for the top performers and a ranking system of scoring. The game of Warhammer 40k enforces this since it inherently has a winner and a loser.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
again, sorry for the multi-posts. My New Topic button won't work either. I think it's because I'm in Iraq and the network doesn't exactly have technical support on standby.
I just wanted to say that this is what makes Dakka such a great forum. A bunch of adults having a (mostly) respectful debate while not falling all over each other to cushion the other guy's feelings.
471
Post by: davetaylor
Hi guys
It seems that you might be stuck on the wonderful somantics merry-go round. Both "sides" of the Winning vs Fun/hobby debate seem to be unable to bring both concepts together. Not sure if this will help, but here goes...
For the rest of this post I'm only talking about the Tournaments I'm involved in organizing, the US Games Day Tournaments and the US Grand Tournaments.
Here's a quote from our GT website:
"The original intent for our Grand Tournaments was both to provide a reason to gather gamers together for a nerd weekend and to reward the “champions of the hobby”. The Overall award went to the person that was best able to demonstrate all facets of the hobby; gaming, painting/converting, and sportsmanship, based on the criteria we provided.
We have taken a long, hard look at how we approached this in 2007 and we believe our 2008 approach will hit closer to the ideals of our early events. While your gaming results are a major part of the Overall scoring, we also value good sportsmanship and effort in the artistic side of things. It could be said that our Grand Tournaments are really Grand Pageants too."
The Tournaments I'm involved in organizing are first and foremost about having fun. It is important that ALL attendees have as much fun as possible.
Secondarily, we are really excited to award prizes to those that excel in the competition that occurs at the events. We feel the skills shown by these players should be applauded.
When you get 300 people attending an event and you hand out 30 trophies, that's 270 people that walk away without a trophy. If everyone had fun then that's great! Perhaps you even got to play against the toughest General, nicest guy (the Miss Congeniality as it were), or the dude with the "mad hobby skills". I would hope those games would make for an added bonus story that you'll be telling for years, because you had fun being challenged on the tabletop or shared a few jokes or picked up a few painting tips.
By all means we'd like every one to come with the hope of winning a prize, but not necessarily the expectation. If everyone comes with the aim of having fun and ensuring their opponents (or anyone else they meet at the event) have fun, then everyone wins. Not everyone gets their photo online, but everyone wins.
This may ring true for some of you and sound like hippy BS for others, but it is where we stand with the six events I'm involved in organizing here in the US.
Yes, it's about determining a winner and a sensible system will do that. Most importantly, however, having fun should be high on everyone's agenda.
I hope this helps.
Cheers
Dave Taylor
GW US Community Development Manager
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Thanks, Dave - well put.
5743
Post by: Lord Cyrus
and the lord said amen
221
Post by: Frazzled
And having fun is competing. Frankly I like the concept of breakouts thats starting to occur with Gladiator style tourneys vs. a more laid back tourney. Unfortunately the laid back tourneys are still a mish mash.
I never had a problem with tourney competitions. I always seemed to have a problem with drawing THAT GUY and having the whole thing ruined. Thats why I don't generally play tourneys, not that everyone brings the uber list of doom. As noted I'd be fine if everyone had to bring the exact same list.
5394
Post by: reds8n
Given that Jervis is based in Nottingham UK, and given his presence at the last few GTs in various capacities I suspect it likely that he really only looked at the UK results which, generally do not score points for painting, sportsmanship etc. Your finishing place is decided entirely on win/loss/draw and VPs scored in your games.
You can lose points for not having painted models or being an arsehole to your opponents or being penalised by a Ref but that's it.
689
Post by: Salvation122
Zathrithal wrote:Let me make my point clear: People are mad at Jervis for one reason. His attitude in a variety of sources indicates that he thinks the rules are in a better state than most of us do.
The rules /are/ in a better state than most of you believe they are. The vast majority of the questions in INAT and YMTC are exceptionally small, nitpicky questions at issue only for exceptionally competitive players, many of whom are attempting to exploit rules which really aren't all that vague for a competitive advantage. I would submit that this game is not for you, and that if such an overwhelmingly tight rules set is your primary interest, you're better off playing Magic or one of its derivatives.
270
Post by: winterman
I would submit that this game is not for you, and that if such an overwhelmingly tight rules set is your primary interest, you're better off playing Magic or one of its derivatives.
These kinds of comments are total BS. There's two fallacies in the above:
1) That miniature games cannot have tight rules. Wrong. It is entirely possible, with a little work on the editing and the desire to put out a regular FAQ/errata it is perfectly doable. I think PP has shown this to be true, others may not agree.
2) The other comment is that one should play Magic if they want tight rules set. This is dumb, because many of us have never and will never play a CCG. I am one such person. I like painting miniatures. I enjoy building terrain. I like the visual component of a miniatures game versus the abstract rules in a CCG. I hate collectbale games in general. So that means I should not speak my mind about GWs shoddy rules system? Rediculous.
Now, I am lucky that I play with a flexible and reasonable group of players. I have only once ran into a rules dispute that sucked the fun out of a game. So I don't come here day after day and moan about how crappy the rules are, like many others do. But the rules do have problems and they should have been corrected before 5ed was released. Not supporting their rules-set, is in my opinion one of the biggest problems GW has as a game company. Jervis being so non-chalant about it kinda irks me, to be honest.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Additionally, look to EPIC. The rules system, while still having glitches, is much more elegant. Of course the lists are reviewed and playtested by the players themselves at this point, which improves balance quite a bit.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
davetaylor wrote:Lots of Hippy BS
Sounds like some carefully crafted Hippy BS.
Thanks, Mr. Taylor.
3294
Post by: pombe
First, I'd like to thank Dave Taylor for showing that GW cares enough to participate in fan discussions. We understand that you work very hard at what you do, and are not always appreciated for your efforts, especially when online forums tend to be an outlet for criticism rather than praise. Also, we understand that sometimes you are forced to toe the party line even when you feel conflicted over a given topic.
The discussion at hand, however, is not about how tournaments are broken, but rather how the game is broken and why the head game designer is making up excuses for not having a tighter ruleset and telling the players how they should play the game.
181
Post by: gorgon
Salvation122 wrote:The rules /are/ in a better state than most of you believe they are. The vast majority of the questions in INAT and YMTC are exceptionally small, nitpicky questions at issue only for exceptionally competitive players, many of whom are attempting to exploit rules which really aren't all that vague for a competitive advantage. I would submit that this game is not for you, and that if such an overwhelmingly tight rules set is your primary interest, you're better off playing Magic or one of its derivatives.
Like the Shoota Nob/power klaw issue? It's a pretty obvious and common question about the most basic upgrade for the basic unit for an army. This question isn't just coming from nitpicky competitive types seeking an advantage.
Sometimes people all but invent an issue just so they can complain about it. But I think it's delusional to suggest GW doesn't have a LOT of room for improvement.
181
Post by: gorgon
pombe wrote:The discussion at hand, however, is not about how tournaments are broken, but rather how the game is broken and why the head game designer is making up excuses for not having a tighter ruleset and telling the players how they should play the game.
That's really the issue for me. I don't think anyone would describe me as a cutthroat player, but the designers need to freakin' let go a little and stop obsessing about how the customers are playing the game. That stuff drives me nuts. They've been preaching this stuff for years, and where has it gotten them? At some point you just have to build the thing to the best of your ability and let the players take it where they want to. The design team gets so wrapped up trying to "fix" their personal issues with the game that they overlook the little things that would really help.
If a designer has certain intents, those intents should be built into the rules. So we're not playing with enough Troops choices? Then why did you mandate a minimum of just two choices at any points level?
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
winterman wrote:I would submit that this game is not for you, and that if such an overwhelmingly tight rules set is your primary interest, you're better off playing Magic or one of its derivatives.
These kinds of comments are total BS. There's two fallacies in the above:
1) That miniature games cannot have tight rules. Wrong. It is entirely possible, with a little work on the editing and the desire to put out a regular FAQ/errata it is perfectly doable. I think PP has shown this to be true, others may not agree.
2) The other comment is that one should play Magic if they want tight rules set. This is dumb, because many of us have never and will never play a CCG. I am one such person. I like painting miniatures. I enjoy building terrain. I like the visual component of a miniatures game versus the abstract rules in a CCG. I hate collectbale games in general. So that means I should not speak my mind about GWs shoddy rules system? Rediculous.
Now, I am lucky that I play with a flexible and reasonable group of players. I have only once ran into a rules dispute that sucked the fun out of a game. So I don't come here day after day and moan about how crappy the rules are, like many others do. But the rules do have problems and they should have been corrected before 5ed was released. Not supporting their rules-set, is in my opinion one of the biggest problems GW has as a game company. Jervis being so non-chalant about it kinda irks me, to be honest.
You entirely misinterpreted what he said. Those fallacies are in your mind.
This game's rules-set was never intended to be that tight.
Ergo, there is no "there's no reason wargames can't be that tight."
That's true. There's a reason this one won't be, and that is that it has never been, nor is it, nor will it likely ever be intended to have that tight of a rules-set or intended to be so ruthlessly competitive that such is necessitated. That reason is, that's not the kind of game it is.
You don't enter a thoroughbred horse in a NASCAR race and then gripe that you lost, and that it's all the horse's fault. The horse would do fine if you used it in the appropriate manner- a horse race.
You get a car if you want to participate in NASCAR. GW's games aren't intended as a car.
Magic is one example of a game intended from early on for that level of ruthlessness, and was designed with it in mind. The comment was not a literalistic point toward Magic, but pointing to that if you want to race in NASCAR, get a damned car. Don't gripe that the horse isn't one.
Making GW games that competitive is large square peg in small round hole.
3294
Post by: pombe
BrainFireBob wrote:
This game's rules-set was never intended to be that tight.
Answer this question for me:
How would it be bad for the game and the gamers if 40K had a very tight rule set?
221
Post by: Frazzled
pombe wrote:BrainFireBob wrote:
This game's rules-set was never intended to be that tight.
Answer this question for me:
How would it be bad for the game and the gamers if 40K had a very tight rule set?
A quiet settled across the field. Not an insect stirred in trepidation of the reply. In the distance, the Pan Fo were reviled.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
It isn't just about being competitive. It's about having rules that work and are supported. GW's mentality of simply saying "D6 for it" is just not fair to a person that shells out (quite alot) of money for the various rules and expansions necessary to play this game on top of all the miniatures. If I wanted to make up rules, I wouldn't buy the game and I'd be playing Scruffyhammer 40,000.
There's absolutely no reason why a rules-set can't be tight and still be fun. It isn't about being competitive. Look at BFG and Epic. BFG has one of the best rule sets GW has ever put out, and while I haven't played Epic since it was called 1st edition, other gamers tell me that it is a very nice rules set.
I don't play uber-armies of doom. My last three armies have been Salamanders from Armageddon codex, Thousand Sons from Chaos 3.5 and Ravenwing. I simply want tight rules because I hate winning or losing a game because a ruling that was ambiguous had to be d6 for.
Since "the most important rule" has already been invoked on this thread, I'll submit that one of the best ways to do that is give gamers the BEST rule set they can with fully supported FAQs and timely updates to older armies (gotta love all that DH wargear that reduces Daemonic stability... oh wait)
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
pombe wrote:BrainFireBob wrote:
This game's rules-set was never intended to be that tight.
Answer this question for me:
How would it be bad for the game and the gamers if 40K had a very tight rule set?
To make things that tight, and still have the game function- say, all armies remaining viable- we'd have exactly what many of you (not necessarily personal) have wailed about with the Chaos codex- incredibly strict control over what players are allowed to take to a game.
I prefer having fun stuff in. I'll accept a small reduction as a practical matter, to reign in the worst abuses (which is what we've been getting), versus the severe form that would take.
We'd end up with the equivalent of Magic's restricted and banned cards. Rules turnover would need to surpass (due to the greater number of factions) what PP does, meaning it would become a highly intensive hobby to keep up with.
That's how it would be bad.
The minority, who seems to want that kind of game, would be pleased. Most of the rest of us would leave, and they'd wonder why we didn't want to play their wonderful game. Then they'd join whatever game the rest of us moved to and start agitating for the same change, not understanding they advocate the tyranny of the minority over the majority.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Why?
For example, there is athread currently concerning the IG codex. There is no reason that can't be made "tight" while modifying costs and abilities to maintain the doctrine system. GW just doesn't view it as profitable so don't care.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
I'm posting a second time, because I'm sure there will be a response to my post before I'm done.
Sgt. Scruffy: Roll a d6 isn't how they advocate solving rules questions, it's how they advocate solving rules disputes.
You say "I've always played it this way," the other guy says "Well, I've always done it differently," rather than get into a fight, simply toss a die and see how you do it that given game. It's a friendly, casual, low-stress way of resolving the situation.
Instead, with typical strawman integrity, it's become a "JJ's kid" argument. His son didn't have the benefit of years of background and introducing units, as evidenced by his question, "which one's the meltagun?" This led JJ to realize that the material was becoming a tad unapproachable for the new gamer. Not that the rules must be written for retards.
EDIT: You answered your own question with BFG and Epic, btw.
Look how popular they are.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
BrainFireBob wrote:pombe wrote:BrainFireBob wrote:
This game's rules-set was never intended to be that tight.
Answer this question for me: How would it be bad for the game and the gamers if 40K had a very tight rule set?
To make things that tight, and still have the game function- say, all armies remaining viable- we'd have exactly what many of you (not necessarily personal) have wailed about with the Chaos codex- incredibly strict control over what players are allowed to take to a game. I prefer having fun stuff in. I'll accept a small reduction as a practical matter, to reign in the worst abuses (which is what we've been getting), versus the severe form that would take. We'd end up with the equivalent of Magic's restricted and banned cards. Rules turnover would need to surpass (due to the greater number of factions) what PP does, meaning it would become a highly intensive hobby to keep up with.
It would be worth it. Achieving unambiguousness and clarity would be worth having the occasional army invalidated. BrainFireBob wrote:EDIT: You answered your own question with BFG and Epic, btw.
Look how popular they are.
And if their popularity were determined exclusively by the quality of their rules system, you'd have a point. Tough luck.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
jfrazell wrote:Why?
For example, there is athread currently concerning the IG codex. There is no reason that can't be made "tight" while modifying costs and abilities to maintain the doctrine system. GW just doesn't view it as profitable so don't care.
The lie is the bit at the end.
To do it properly, you would need massive playtesting of all potential permutations.
This would be incredibly time-prohibitive, and moreover, the result would be an extremely restricted list (If A, then B and only ever B, never C. Ever. If not A, then C and sometimes B is D but only if Q). Sure, it's doable.
It's not necessary for the level of competitiveness the game is designed for, and its elimination allows them to remove one of the systems that leads to rampant abuse of the game (The concept in general, not necessarily doctrines in specific)- since by inclusion to the "most common" doctrines, the absolute smallest number will be disenfranchised (since very few model doctrines properly).
It's not that they don't care.
But then again, it's not like they're your best friend. They're a business trying to provide us with a product we want. Affection isn't part of that relationship unless the consumer deludes him or her-self. GW isn't an entity with its own awareness and feelings that sits around saying "Those gamers are sooooo dreamy? *ring ring* Hello? Rackham-poo? Whatcha doing? Want to go to the mall later?"
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
BrainFireBob wrote:
To do it properly, you would need massive playtesting of all potential permutations.
This would be incredibly time-prohibitive, and moreover, the result would be an extremely restricted list (If A, then B and only ever B, never C. Ever. If not A, then C and sometimes B is D but only if Q). Sure, it's doable.
It's not necessary for the level of competitiveness the game is designed for, and its elimination allows them to remove one of the systems that leads to rampant abuse of the game (The concept in general, not necessarily doctrines in specific)- since by inclusion to the "most common" doctrines, the absolute smallest number will be disenfranchised (since very few model doctrines properly).
It's not that they don't want to write better rules, it's that they're incapable? Works for me.
On the other hand, if the current crop really is the best that the finest minds in the Nottingham office can come up with.... weeeell, it might be time for us rats to abandon ship.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
Agamemnon2 wrote:BrainFireBob wrote:pombe wrote:BrainFireBob wrote:
This game's rules-set was never intended to be that tight.
Answer this question for me:
How would it be bad for the game and the gamers if 40K had a very tight rule set?
To make things that tight, and still have the game function- say, all armies remaining viable- we'd have exactly what many of you (not necessarily personal) have wailed about with the Chaos codex- incredibly strict control over what players are allowed to take to a game.
I prefer having fun stuff in. I'll accept a small reduction as a practical matter, to reign in the worst abuses (which is what we've been getting), versus the severe form that would take.
We'd end up with the equivalent of Magic's restricted and banned cards. Rules turnover would need to surpass (due to the greater number of factions) what PP does, meaning it would become a highly intensive hobby to keep up with.
It would be worth it. Achieving unambiguousness and clarity would be worth having the occasional army invalidated.
Well, you're the minority opinion, apparently, because look at the wailing by the same critics of GW demanding a tighter rules-set over the "loss" of "Legion armies."
They're not compatible positions.
Agamemnon2 wrote:BrainFireBob wrote:EDIT: You answered your own question with BFG and Epic, btw.
Look how popular they are.
And if their popularity were determined exclusively by the quality of their rules system, you'd have a point. Tough luck.
Then you agree that the argument that quality of rules system (where quality is defined as tightness, availability of FAQs, etc.) is the reason GW isn't doing well recently is total BS? Because that's my position, and you seem to think you're disagreeing with it.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
Agamemnon2 wrote:BrainFireBob wrote:
To do it properly, you would need massive playtesting of all potential permutations.
This would be incredibly time-prohibitive, and moreover, the result would be an extremely restricted list (If A, then B and only ever B, never C. Ever. If not A, then C and sometimes B is D but only if Q). Sure, it's doable.
It's not necessary for the level of competitiveness the game is designed for, and its elimination allows them to remove one of the systems that leads to rampant abuse of the game (The concept in general, not necessarily doctrines in specific)- since by inclusion to the "most common" doctrines, the absolute smallest number will be disenfranchised (since very few model doctrines properly).
It's not that they don't want to write better rules, it's that they're incapable? Works for me.
No, it's that that tighter rules-set isn't what the majority of the buying public wants from GW, nor does it fit their game paradigm (in terms of competitiveness).
And you've switched to "better" from "tighter." Invalid switch. "Better" is a POV thing, absolutely subjective- I prefer having fun units accessible in game.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Agamemnon2 wrote:BrainFireBob wrote:EDIT: You answered your own question with BFG and Epic, btw.
Look how popular they are.
And if their popularity were determined exclusively by the quality of their rules system, you'd have a point. Tough luck.
Then you agree that the argument that quality of rules system (where quality is defined as tightness, availability of FAQs, etc.) is the reason GW isn't doing well recently is total BS? Because that's my position, and you seem to think you're disagreeing with it.
I'm sorry for not expressing myself clearly. What I meant to say is, you appeared to be inferring that the reason for Epic's and BFG's failures as products had something to do with their "tight" rule systems, to which I responded/tried to respond, that they failed because of numerous factors, including and not limited to planned obsolescence, the decision to cease Specialist Game development, low visibility, the unappealing nature of their scale/miniatures line to players, and so on and so forth. The two games were supported in a very different manner as, say, 40k, and played fundamentally differently, so they're ineligible to be used as yardsticks to measure whether "tight" or "loose" systems sell better.
I do hope that elucidation of my humble/arrogant/flat-out mistaken point of view/opinion serves to remove any inconsistency/inaccuracy from the specific strand of debate/discussion.
BrainFireBob wrote:
Well, you're the minority opinion, apparently, because look at the wailing by the same critics of GW demanding a tighter rules-set over the "loss" of "Legion armies."
They're not compatible positions.
Those people's hypocrisy/lack of foresight is not my concern.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
Initially they had very high visibility- if either game had taken off in popularity, they would not have received the "Specialist Games Treatment." I disagree with the concept of planned obsolesence in terms of games on the whole with GW- sufficient popularity and they will carry a line, although they will probably undergo the rules-set iterations we are all familiar with.
They did not.
Part if the minis being unappealing- although I contend this applies far, far more to Epic than BFG.
The lack of support for Specialist Games came later, as well. Same problem.
I do contend that early on they had far better support, and that they did not take off does leave some room for the contention.
To be clear about my personal opinion: Tighter rules can work, but require sacrifice of some units, combinations, and possibly even entire factions. You can't have it both ways- either GW removes these things, and gives tighter rules, or they do not and we keep them.
They prefer the fun of having the range of things. So do I, so I like their games. Do realize, though, that one comes with the other.
3294
Post by: pombe
I don't believe that Tight Rules and Flexibility are mutually exclusive. In fact, I daresay that I believe we can maintain 40K's current flexibility (or hell, even the flexibility of Rogue Trader...yeah, I went there) while upping the 'tightness' of 40K to the level of classic games like Chess, Checkers, Backgammen, Mancala, etc..
I agree that in order to raise the tightness of the rules, more work and resources must be put into developing the rules.
I don't agree that it is not a worthwhile endeavor. And I believe that if the game designers were smart about it, it could be done in an economically feasible manner.
So no, I don't see anything bad at all about a tighter ruleset.
Let's be honest. Playtesting a Codex 40 times before going to press is not adequate enough to develop a set of rules for a game where somebody wins and the other person loses. Whether or not playing the game is about winning or losing is irrelevant.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
BrainFireBob wrote:Do realize, though, that one comes with the other.
Your points are all conceded and I hereby recant.
443
Post by: skyth
Tighter rule set has nothing to do with balancing the codexes. It has to do with making the rules clearer and publishing FAQs more often.
Balance is another animal entirely.
471
Post by: davetaylor
pombe wrote:First, I'd like to thank Dave Taylor for showing that GW cares enough to participate in fan discussions. We understand that you work very hard at what you do, and are not always appreciated for your efforts, especially when online forums tend to be an outlet for criticism rather than praise. Also, we understand that sometimes you are forced to toe the party line even when you feel conflicted over a given topic.
The discussion at hand, however, is not about how tournaments are broken, but rather how the game is broken and why the head game designer is making up excuses for not having a tighter ruleset and telling the players how they should play the game.
Hi pombe and Dakka
Thanks for your thanks. We ( GW) do care to participate in fan discussions because we are fans ourselves. The unfortunate thing is that in some cases it puts our staff in strange situations. I can only speak with authority in areas that are under my purview (like the US GTs for example). If I comment on areas that are outside my authority (writing rules, designing miniatures etc) what I present as my opinion becomes taken as "a promise from GW" or "the GW word". We are often between a rock and a hard place when participating in fan discussions online, I hope you all can appreciate that.
On to the topic of this thread. Sometimes there are threads that are interwoven with multiple topics being explored by multiple groups. My post addressed topics raised by other members (JohnHwangDD, Sgt_Scruffy, BrainFireBob) on or around page 6 and 7, rather than your "the game is broken" topic that the thread is now very focused on.
Just wanted to make sure we were clear about why I posted.
For my personal opinion on your topic of focus, I love playing games of 40K 4th Edition as it is. I like the look of a lot of the rumors I've seen regarding 5th Edition so I'm sure I'll have fun playing games of that too, just as I did playing 1st through 3rd ed (except perhaps for that game against the Sensei Warband). Could there be fewer typos or transcription errors? Or more rules that are wordsmithed more carefully? Sure. But these guys are human and mistakes will happen. Fortunately these mistakes won't kill people.
Keep the faith BrainFireBob, very accurate writing.
Cheers
Dave
221
Post by: Frazzled
Open it up to Beta testing (as in Epic) and lots of the balance/ incoherency problems go away.
270
Post by: winterman
Tighter rule set has nothing to do with balancing the codexes. It has to do with making the rules clearer and publishing FAQs more often.
Balance is another animal entirely.
Exactly. I was not commenting on balance above, which I have no doubt will never occur completely in any wargame, GW, PP or otherwise. Some stuff will be better or worse and there's always going to be mismatches and overpowerdness in some form or another. I've made my peace with that
However making 4ed rulesmore tight would not have been that hard. As I said, PP have a tighter ruleset, not becuase their rules are better written (in many cases they are), or becuase of less flexibility but because they take the time to publish a fix when there's an issue. This goes a long way to securing my interest in the game and the company and I know guys that are no fans of WM/Hordes that still respect PP for this.
Whenever I talk to someone about GW games that is new, I always have to let them know there's rules issues from the outset. It shouldn't have been that way for this long.
6902
Post by: skrulnik
Hello, first post on this latest incarnation of Dakka.
Has a stat inclined person worked out the number of playtests needed for one army (with a set list) against all possible opposing lists?
As it is, you have what, 14 games just to hit each opposing army once. To get a statistically valid sample would take a very long time.
Granted there are permutations you can ignore, but without even getting into terrain and deployment, vs a set list for one army, you need a lot of games.
I would think that the playtests would be ridiculously high given the number of variables.
Even assuming averages for all dice rolls, there are still all of the possible placement variables for each unit.
One inch here or there for an assault unit placement could alter the results of a playtest.
I think they could get tighter rules if they hired someone with a background in computer games.
Since a program needs a hard yes/no to function properly (from my meager understanding), there is no room for slop.
For Dawn of War, I read one of the patches made StormTroopers shooting at least as powerful as Marines just for game balance.
That kind of thinking would benefit 40k on the Tabletop greatly.
270
Post by: winterman
But these guys are human and mistakes will happen. Fortunately these mistakes won't kill people.
Thanks Dave. I do appreciate your taking part in this thread and am 100% behind your posts here. The current GT rules packet is going to be a nice standard to run tournaments by and I hope to get to a GT in the near future.
I'm commenting on this part though only because I can relate to this very well. I am a software QA and requirements reviewer. I know that people make mistakes; my salary and subsequent purchases of GW products depend on it.
The studio is going to make mistakes, I don't have any issue with that. What I have never understood is that it takes so long to both acknowledge and/or rectify these mistakes. We had heard that Alessio was working on FAQ updates for some time, but we never saw any real result from this.
I do enjoy 4ed immensly, both in fun pickup games, GW sponsored mega-battles or competitive play. I just wish some stuff had been cleared up before 5ed comes along (and hope that 5ed is a bit better edited and supported with FAQs and errata).
Take Care.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
pombe wrote:BrainFireBob wrote:
This game's rules-set was never intended to be that tight.
Answer this question for me:
How would it be bad for the game and the gamers if 40K had a very tight rule set?
40k ruleset already tightens a bit more every edition.
The thing is, the sheer volume of the 40k rules makes this difficult. The more rules you have, the more unforeseen interactions that are possible (e.g. increasing base size vs. Blast templates), and the more mistakes / unforeseen things that might crop up (e.g. Lash).
When you look at games like Checkers and Chess, their rules are very tight. But many Chess players are ignorant of En Passant. So how much further should 40k streamline rules to make them tight?
So if the objective is to get to a very tight ruleset, how is that done? Tighten the Rulebook and each Codex, one by one. That's a year-long project right there, to the exclusion of Fantasy and LotR, not to mention side games and events.
So trying to get 40k to a bulletproof ironclad version is admirable. But the process of getting there makes it nearly impossible from a practical standpoint.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
no one expects them to be perfect, JHDD. Everyone realizes that they can't playtest every possible rules question with every possible army out there before going to press, but once mistakes are found, why does it take SO long to correct them.
I really don't see what the resistance is to tighter, well supported rules.
Dave, absolutely enjoy 40,000. I only play table top games set in the 40k universe and have played 40k since 2nd edition. I like 4th edition too, and look forward to 5th edition. I think that (most) of the people clamoring for better rules are just passionate gamers who want to see their game improved and made more fun.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Tighten the Rulebook and each Codex, one by one. That's a year-long project right there, to the exclusion of Fantasy and LotR, not to mention side games and events.
It's a long process...if you chain yourself to "backwards compatibility." I'm not a fan of their attempts to keep old codices/army books valid across the boundaries of game editions. Doing so leads to ambiguities and complications which are otherwise avoidable.
So, scrap backwards-compatibility. Release fluff/art/modeling books for each army, but keep their rules in lock-step with the current edition of the game.
Next, take the good idea of "Universal Special Rules" and run with it. Each of those should be easy to express in 2-3 sentences, and should be absolutely clear.
Develop and use a consistent terminology. Use "Move" (with a capital "M") to refer to the specific action of moving a model in the Movement phase; avoid using the defined terms (or close variants) elsewhere.
Develop a uniform points system - this is probably the longest part of the proess. Begin with a default statline/weapon setup, assign it a points value.
Use MATH (gasp) to establish a baseline for how much variation in the default stats adjusts the value of the model (e.g., WS4 vs the default WS3 on a S3, T3, I3, A1, 5+ save human will result in hitting 1/6 more often, resulting in 1/12 more wounds, and 1/18 more deaths; maybe we should increase the cost by 1/18?).
TEST the mathematical assumptions under a variety of conditions (e.g., all phases of the game, a variety of opposing statlines, a variety of scenarios). The testing will likely result in some modifications (e.g., WS enhancement is only useful in close combat, so at best 2/3 of the game turns, where T enhancement is good across both shooting and close combat, every game turn; maybe the WS enhancement should be cheaper, and the T enhancement more expensive; maybe WS6 isn't so much better than WS3 as to be three times as expensive as the upgrade from WS3 to WS4).
Army playtesting comes in once the mathematical modeling is done. Testing an army should involve (at minimum) testing maximum numbers of a particular unit (to note synergistic effects), testing maximum numbers of units, and the hypothetical "balanced" list. You should probably leave dice out - check with "average" results, and then check at significantly above and below average (to spot odd cases).
Finally, when making special rules, DON'T BREAK THE FUNDAMENTAL GAME RULES. GW does this all the time, and it's where a goodly chunk of the problematic rules interactions are from. If the rule doesn't apply to everyone, don't make it a general rule FOR everyone, and then make an exception in a different rule.
Yes, it's work. But it's a far cry from impossible, and the result is a game that's easy to understand, balanced, easy to add new units/rules to, and lacks the rules disputes that cause discussions like this one.
3294
Post by: pombe
JohnHwangDD wrote:
40k ruleset already tightens a bit more every edition.
The thing is, the sheer volume of the 40k rules makes this difficult. The more rules you have, the more unforeseen interactions that are possible (e.g. increasing base size vs. Blast templates), and the more mistakes / unforeseen things that might crop up (e.g. Lash).
When you look at games like Checkers and Chess, their rules are very tight. But many Chess players are ignorant of En Passant. So how much further should 40k streamline rules to make them tight?
So if the objective is to get to a very tight ruleset, how is that done? Tighten the Rulebook and each Codex, one by one. That's a year-long project right there, to the exclusion of Fantasy and LotR, not to mention side games and events.
So trying to get 40k to a bulletproof ironclad version is admirable. But the process of getting there makes it nearly impossible from a practical standpoint.
I agree that 40K gets more tight and balanced through each edition. We've gone from the Random Rolls/Displacer Fields within Coversion Fields within Refractor Fields of Rogue Trader to the Herohammer 40K/Overwatch burdened/Virus Outbreaks of Doom of 2nd Edition to the Rhino Rush/Starcannon/Wraithlord/Death Companies of 3rd Edition to the Nidzilla/Flying Circuses of 4th. Each progressive edition had their problems, but I admit that each edition addressed issues in the previous one.
What worries me is that this has taken over 20 years to achieve, and that each edition is basically counting upon the Tournament Circuit to playtest each edition and to essentially find current bugs to be removed from the next. What I want is a way to speed up the process, so we can get 20th Edition tightness and balance by 6th Edition. Whether this is achieved through more playtesting or computational models, I don't really care. I don't want to wait another 20 years to play the game I wanted to play when I was in college, is what I'm trying to say.
I know I'm taking a hardline stance. But what got me riled up was (in my opinion) the rather flippant attitude Jervis had in his article. Maybe I read it the wrong way, but I don't know him in person. Being told that, yes, there are faults in the rules but don't worry about them (because Jervis doesn't), and that we should all play the way he plays (which is to say: DON'T CARE ABOUT WINNING) really annoyed me.
I will be the first to admit that I don't play much anymore, but when I did play frequently, I lost more than I won, and I still loved the game. I was never a powergamer, and that is why I am such a proponent for a tight and balanced game. I want to be able to take a very fluffy army and play against the most competitive player in the world and still have our armies be equally matched based on army lists, and let the game be decided by skill. I don't seewhy that is such a bad thing.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Janthkin, from a business economics standpoint, what you propose probably doesn't make sense for GW. GW deliberately tries to flatten the income stream over time, to minimize swinginess.
If the Codices were purely Art / Fluff, there's no resale value. So the Codices probably need to be $50 each. One shot, and that's it.
The Rulebook would basically have to be like the 40k3 with rules and lists combined. That would be doable, and is a workable model. Especially if the rules focus was taken to rigorously streamline the rules to prevent or avoid problem interactions. But I'm pretty sure people wouldn't be happy with "losing" their armies' special rules this way. This makes for a very large investment for a big pump of money, then nothing. Most likely, the rulebook would be $100 each, to account for the lost Codex sales.
Basically, it probably makes it difficult for GW to track interest and expenditures.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
I'm curious what GW's margin is on a codex - 100+ pages, bound, some in color, retailing at $20 (wholesale used to be 55%, so $11 wholesale) - it can't be a large part of their business plan. Hell, one of their assertions is that they don't make money on the rules.
Each army can still be chock full o' special rules - care just has to be taken at the initial design point to account for which in-game actions are immutable (e.g., no unit will ever act in the opposing player's shooting phase), and which have room for variation (e.g., this gun uses the new 6-pointed-star template).
The best possible distinction would be between mechanics and rules. One or more mechanics are combined to define a rule; no rule should ever break a basic mechanic. For example: imagine a psychic power requiring an enemy unit to pass a leadership test or flee. Such a power might be made up of the Psychic Power mechanic (how to take a psychic power test), the Targeting mechanic (who is a valid target for shooting-like actions, the Leadership Test mechanic (how to take a leadership test), and the Fleeing mechanic (what happens when a unit falls back).
Modular rule construction! Tremendous variety available, and every individual mechanic is small enough to be easy proofread. As a bonus, if you expose the mechanics to your players (hint: "advanced" rule book, for more $$), they can construct their own rules without breaking the game.
26
Post by: carmachu
BrainFireBob wrote:
EDIT: You answered your own question with BFG and Epic, btw.
Look how popular they are.
Red Herring.
Both are still, despite the lack of ability to buy the models and have support, popular.
How popular would 40k be if they only produced new models twice a year, didnt sell the models in the store, and you could ONLY get them in GW's online store, and recieved close to ZERO support?
As dead as Vor I'd bet. Those two games survive DEPSITE GW's bungling. Because they are tight and well written.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
With a maximum profit of $10 USD per Codex, GW clearly doesn't make money on rules. And strategically, that is the correct approach. Codices are sold once per army per edition, so it's not sigificant if it's not Space Marines.
Most likely, after considering development costs and Tom Kirby's skim, GW Codices are sold at a net profit of 10-20% (C: SM being the big exception). GW might as well encourage actual sales with a lower price point to keep print volumes up. So the actual profit might be more like $2 USD per Codex.
Miniatures, OTOH, are where GW makes real money. That box of plastics is mass-produced in a lights-out facility running 24x7. GW retails the typical box for $35 USD (though $22 Daemons are a real surprise), and their wholesale cost is more like $20 USD. These are plastics so materials and shipping costs are relatively low. Net profit on a squad box might be as high as $10 USD. But even if net profit is "only" 20%, that's still $4 USD.
So the profit on a single squad box easily dwarfs Codex potential profit. And GW sells a *lot* more squad boxes than Codices, 5 or 10 times as many for a typical army.
That is why I was guestimating that rules costs would have to double to cover the reduced miniatures sales.
131
Post by: malfred
If GW were a smaller company and could afford to get by
on fewer sales, then maybe BFG and Epic could last. But
didn't both games hit a static-state that meant that there
wasn't much reason to buy anything new?
459
Post by: Hellfury
carmachu wrote:Those two games [BFG & Epic] survive DESPITE GW's bungling. Because they are tight and well written.
Agreed.
BFG in particular.
Adepticon held its second annual BFG tournament, despite the minimal to nearly non existent support that GW gives it.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
When I go into the Bunker, the overwhelming majority of players play 40k. Less than 10% of all games are Epic. And I didn't see a single BFG game being played the last time I was there.
Now if Epic or BFG had caught on more, GW would definitely sell more. Epic Armageddon was a pretty decent relaunch. Same with Necromunda Underhive. But they just didn't take off.
But the problem is that Epic and BFG rulesets and systems just don't encourage or support the same kind of mass model buying that applies to 40k and/or WFB. And that is what kills the game.
459
Post by: Hellfury
malfred wrote:If GW were a smaller company and could afford to get by
on fewer sales, then maybe BFG and Epic could last. But
didn't both games hit a static-state that meant that there
wasn't much reason to buy anything new?
Only due, again, to lack of support.
Players once they get a couple thousand points don't have much reason to continue buying, unless they choose a different race, but its one of those games that IF GW still sold it openly, and not direct sales only, you would get more sales due to new players seeing a good solid game being played.
131
Post by: malfred
GW could go evil empire and sell "random crew upgrades"
via CCG
5470
Post by: sebster
pombe wrote:I'm not calling for a game that is as bland as chess in terms of story and background. But I don't see creating a game as balanced as chess within the universe of 40K with the special rules for all the different armies and units as impossible. I just don't think they are trying hard enough.
And while some people see Jervis' article as a good explanation, I see it as an excuse.
Actually, at the top level there's a huge advantage to going first, white wins around 60% of games between grand masters. Which is a far bigger advantage than you find between most top tier lists.
5470
Post by: sebster
gorgon wrote:If a designer has certain intents, those intents should be built into the rules. So we're not playing with enough Troops choices? Then why did you mandate a minimum of just two choices at any points level?
Because setting a mandatory number of troops just establishes different negative behaviour. Make it four troop choices and you still end up with people taking six man las plas devastator light teams, or five man scout teams designed to hide at the back and not get in the way of the elite and heavy units doing all the actual work.
On the other hand, reworking the rules to give troops unique advantages (instead of just being slightly crappier heavy/elite options) and you start encouraging a little natural diversity in lists.
247
Post by: Phryxis
It is inappropriate to critique him for not meeting the standards and guidelines required by a totally different kind of presentation.
You're correct that he's not writing in a scientific journal, and so I have no right to judge him on guidelines he wasn't trying to address.
But, again, I stick to my previous statements.
The issues remain his style of thought, and the obvious stupidity of his methodology even based on the small insight he gives.
I think that a game system/rules designer should be a very emperical, statistics minded person. I further think that sort of person would feel uncomfortable making vague, imprecise statements about statistical support. This is exactly what Jervis does, and it suggests to me he's uncomfortable with statistics, with structured thought, and thus with the core competencies for his job.
Additionally, while he certainly isn't applying for certification of a statistical paper, and thus isn't required to prove his statistics beyond question, what little he does say is idiotic. He found a 5-10% edge was provided by certain lists, based on GT results? Maybe I'm wrong, but it just sounds like he's clueless. He's comparing top level lists to other top level lists, and thinks that's legitimate?
I'm really beating this horse, and I should stop. If you don't see/like what I'm saying by now, I'm not going to say it any better next time.
IMO, the thing to keep in mind is that he's really only the mouthpiece for the studio, and in many ways the entire company as far as gamers are concerned.
Is he? I'll eat my words if this is the case, but I get the impression he's writing rules. Yes, I also see him mouthpiecing, and to some extent I think that's fine. Being positive and peacemaking is a decent thing to try to do. That said, I think he's being snarky at people who don't agree with him, and he's saying things that don't help his cause.
So, bottom line, if he's truly just the mouthpiece, then I'm mistaken, and his lack of statistical thinking isn't an issue. But even then, the mouthpiece doesn't need to be arguing with strawman critics. He's being paid to put up with our crap, and we're the ones paying.
As I've said, he seems like a nice guy, and an enthusiastic guy. He just needs to stick with that.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the designers are being told what to do now more than ever.
Maybe... But then how come Phil Kelly writes consistently better stuff than the others? I'm not saying he's perfect, but I feel like his stuff is a tier above anything with Jervis' name on it.
Also, even if there's a push to sell certain models, or promote a certain style of rules, there's still no excuse to not test more, to not learn from the observations of the community, etc. etc.
I think it's because I'm in Iraq and the network doesn't exactly have technical support on standby.
Welcome to 2008, when soldiers in combat theaters post on miniature wargame forums. What a strange world.
This game's rules-set was never intended to be that tight.
Well, then that's lame. I think the reason he presumes it was meant to be tight, and the reason I presume it, is because we hope the designers don't just puke up some stuff that mostly works and call it a day. Even if they intend the rules as a vehicle to sell models, they still have to know the rules can help sell models. They have to know that millions of games will be played on their rules, and a few hours (or even dozens of hours) of effort up front will improve millions of hours to follow. They have to know that getting them as tight as possible is only to their benefit.
So, honestly, by assuming the rules are meant to be tight, we're giving them the benefit of the doubt. I know it's hard to write perfectly tight rules. I can forgive some mistakes in this. I can't forgive a decision to not even bother.
To make things that tight, and still have the game function- say, all armies remaining viable- we'd have exactly what many of you (not necessarily personal) have wailed about with the Chaos codex- incredibly strict control over what players are allowed to take to a game.
This is a falsehood.
You're mistaking difficulty of writing a tight ruleset with impossibility. Yes, if you make the rules looser, it easier to have more zany combinations. That doesn't mean you can't have zany combinations and tight rules. It just means it's harder.
But you know what? I don't care. These guys are the ones writing the rules. They're getting PAID to do it right.
It's hard to write a computer operating system. It's hard to design a car. It's hard to do a lot of things. But if I'm paying for it, I expect it to work right. Otherwise, step aside and let somebody better do the job.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
I think it's because I'm in Iraq and the network doesn't exactly have technical support on standby.
Welcome to 2008, when soldiers in combat theaters post on miniature wargame forums. What a strange world.
OT alert!
Dude, you're telling me. There's an 8 player Call of Duty 4 LAN party going on down the hall as I write this. When most soldiers in theater are under the age of 30 and have disposable income, stuff like that happens.
The funny thing is, I'm actually on call right now - being a medevac pilot means you have lots of free time (if you don't, alot of people are dying).
Oh, and I really shouldn't have gone with the rank specific screen name.
247
Post by: Phryxis
There's an 8 player Call of Duty 4 LAN party going on down the hall as I write this.
Let's take a break from war with... War...
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
Phryxis wrote:
The issues remain his style of thought, and the obvious stupidity of his methodology even based on the small insight he gives.
This is incorrect as a conclusion because it's based on
Phryxis wrote:
I further think that sort of person would feel uncomfortable making vague, imprecise statements about statistical support. This is exactly what Jervis does, and it suggests to me he's uncomfortable with statistics, with structured thought, and thus with the core competencies for his job.
which is a series of false assumptions, at least based on my experience as a physicist (admittedly not a statistician, but I interact with plenty of mathematicians and statisticians).
Mathematicians tend to be extremely vague, and only demonstrate an urge to precision if you respond showing lack of proper comprehension. ie, they make vague statements, and if you respond in a manner revealing you didn't understand what was said, then the precision comes.
Actually, I'm somewhat offended at the stereotyping you're doing here, feeling enough in common with mathematicians and statisticians due to being a physicist.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Yeah, I totally *love* how Maths guys do that whole hand-wave thing right when stuff gets actually interesting / complicated.
IMO, the real numbers guys are the accounting types.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
It's much like watching a cooking show.
"So you bound the equation here, instead, and there you go, the end of life on Earth."
*Pause*
"Well, I don't see how to make it any clearer. Stuff happens, everybody dies?"
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
malfred wrote:If GW were a smaller company and could afford to get by
on fewer sales, then maybe BFG and Epic could last. But
didn't both games hit a static-state that meant that there
wasn't much reason to buy anything new?
BFG more than Epic, really. The latter has holes in the model range, and potential to include a lot of more armies that already have rules written for them. Chaos warmachines, for example. Scratchbuilding Defilers in 6mm scale is not everyone's idea of a pleasant time.
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:IMO, the real numbers guys are the accounting types.
It ain't us either, we've got ‘materiality’.
4987
Post by: dominusrex
Hey. Long time reader but not much of a poster. I just want to add a comment or two.
Its difficult not to be somewhat focused on list building in a game where some units work more effectively than others. Jervis talked some about using his Marine Scouts and his love for them, but I and many others have been playing Marines for years and Scouts just arent' as effective as other units. Why take them if you can field units that are more likely to kill your opponent. Whe take missle launchers when you can field Lascannons? You will be more effective and win.
Remember a year or two ago when the Tyranid codex came out and how synapse creatures were immune to instant death. And then GW did the faq where they would be immune only to strength 8 weapon instand death and not strength 9 or better. There was holy !@#$ raised on forums and they backpedaled and changed their minds. Part of that is that in most games, people will take a strength 9 las over a strength 8 missle or rokkit launcher. It's just what people fielded in most games. I know there are most players who love fluff armies but they are not as effective as players who play test and list build.
Also he raised the issue of experience counting more than list building. I have to disagree in part because some armies were just more effective, regardless of your experience. The Iron warriors list, in its glory days, with the template pain had me beating guys with a lot more experience. I was not there at this one particular local tournament, but I was related the story of how the Dwarf Slayer army at a tourney wiped everyone off the map and was fielded by a player that had never played Fantasy before until that day. Orks in their previous incarnation could very rarely eek out a victory against people with previous marine incarnations. And why not play the better units and list build if its going to help you win? No one likes to have their butt handed to them over and over again in "friendly" or "just for fun" games. Eventually you will play lists and units that will guarantee you victory more often than not.
181
Post by: gorgon
sebster wrote:Because setting a mandatory number of troops just establishes different negative behaviour. Make it four troop choices and you still end up with people taking six man las plas devastator light teams, or five man scout teams designed to hide at the back and not get in the way of the elite and heavy units doing all the actual work.
On the other hand, reworking the rules to give troops unique advantages (instead of just being slightly crappier heavy/elite options) and you start encouraging a little natural diversity in lists.
Then the problem also lies with the rules for Tactical squads in the SM codex.
The issue with creating blanket benefits for all Troops units is that certain units will be able to better take advantage of those benefits than others. Troops in one army <> Troops in another. Tactical Marines are fundamentally different from Gaunts, which are fundamentally different than Guardsmen.
Issues with army composition need to be fixed via the org chart and codices. How is that not obvious? Doing otherwise is like the old joke about hitting someone in the knee with a hammer to "relieve" their headache. I recognize that GW's business model doesn't allow this to happen. But when their business model won't allow them to fix the product properly, that's a real issue.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
gorgon wrote:The issue with creating blanket benefits for all Troops units is that certain units will be able to better take advantage of those benefits than others. Troops in one army <> Troops in another. Tactical Marines are fundamentally different from Gaunts, which are fundamentally different than Guardsmen.
And that is why Tacticals have a different cost structure compared to Guardians, Gaunts and Guardsmen.
Besides, it's not like all Heavy or all Fast choices are equal across armies, so why should anyone expect the same of Troops?
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
But I do think a bit of an ivory tower -- we can leave the height of it open for debate -- went up at the studio at some point too.
Is that height measured limp or hard? Is it measured from the base of the balls? LOL...
Capt K
1406
Post by: Janthkin
And that is why Tacticals have a different cost structure compared to Guardians, Gaunts and Guardsmen.
Besides, it's not like all Heavy or all Fast choices are equal across armies, so why should anyone expect the same of Troops?
The problem is when the rules attempt to treat all Troops as equal (i.e., only Troops are scoring).
Marines lose less by taking maximum numbers of troops, as Tac squads (particularly with the Combat Squads rule) can fill a variety of roles on the battlefield.
But a non-marine army NEEDS to use those other slots to achieve the same versatility (e.g., Tau cannot get AT fire in their Troops slots, and therefore must use a different Org slot to get the same sort of variety Marines have in Troops slots alone).
As such, Marines can invest more heavily in Troops, without degrading their game performance. A non-Marine army will have to choose between a balanced composition (right tools for the job), and the benefits provided by Troops selection.
Nevermind, of course, that none of this is accounted for by the current points system (as only Marines will have a new codex which might have taken these factors into account, come 5th).
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
While Tacticals are flexible, they're relatively limp for the points you spend. At 250+ pts per FOC slot, SM could spend all of their points on 10-man Tacticals with Transports. I'm not at all convinced that is a winning army.
SM might go, say 60% or even 70% Troops where other armies might be 40-50% Troops.
Though on the face of it, Ork Boyz, CSM of any stripe, IG Platoons, Eldar Jetbikes, and Necron Warriors are all decent Troops picks.
They're all different, and that's the point, no?
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
It's measured arse to elbow
1406
Post by: Janthkin
JohnHwangDD wrote:While Tacticals are flexible, they're relatively limp for the points you spend. At 250+ pts per FOC slot, SM could spend all of their points on 10-man Tacticals with Transports. I'm not at all convinced that is a winning army.
SM might go, say 60% or even 70% Troops where other armies might be 40-50% Troops.
Though on the face of it, Ork Boyz, CSM of any stripe, IG Platoons, Eldar Jetbikes, and Necron Warriors are all decent Troops picks.
They're all different, and that's the point, no?
Leaving aside the rest (though I don't agree with you), your last statement is the heart of the problem:
Every army has different Troops. Attempting to apply a one-size-fits-all advantage to Troops slots ignores those differences. And this is why the Force Org chart is a mistake, one which they really will need to simply discard at some point - it applies a uniform template to army structures which vary dramatically.
The IG codecies (both v3 flavors) actually used a mechanic that they could use if they want to limit how often a particular unit appears - before you can take an Armored Fist, you must take a Platoon. Extend that across some of the "problem" lists - before you can take a Carnifex, you must take a Troops choice (of some sort); 6 'fex lists would be rather constrained.
Alternatively, the WHFB approach isn't bad either; it scales with available points (something the Force Org chart doesn't do).
181
Post by: gorgon
JohnHwangDD wrote:And that is why Tacticals have a different cost structure compared to Guardians, Gaunts and Guardsmen.
Besides, it's not like all Heavy or all Fast choices are equal across armies, so why should anyone expect the same of Troops?
To your first point, that cost structure was determined based on their effectiveness before these new benefits applied. They could adjust the cost structure, of course. But wait...they can't because they're more locked into the existing codices than they are the main rules. It's a strange situation.
To your second point, it wouldn't matter if there weren't a rule that apply to Troops across armies. But that's what we're getting, so that's why Troop to Troop comparisons have some validity.
I'm not saying "the studio sucks." They may be doing the best they can given their (many) constraints. But when you take a step back, it's a silly game of Tetris the company is playing with codices and main rulesets. I don't think it's sustainable, I think it's going to catch up with them (if it already hasn't), and I think GW needs to really re-examine a business plan built around very slow codex/army book releases.
@Janthkin: A scaling org chart makes so much more sense, and the idea of a distinct org chart for each army does too. Of course, then we're back to GW's inability to implement something like that.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
Thing is, variations in Troops- and what they're good at- is one of the major factors determining factions, in addition to their fluff an aesthetic differences.
It'll result in a mission-specific situation. Some armies will benefit where shooty troops do better, others from assaulty. The way the players cope will determine the game.
In fact, the Marine disadvantage should finally come into play- decent at everything, but great at nothing. Right now, that limitation only really applies to Tac squads.
Actually, the designers might already be tied into 5th Ed, and therefore appear more invested in codices, because we're getting those first.
3294
Post by: pombe
BrainFireBob wrote:
In fact, the Marine disadvantage should finally come into play- decent at everything, but great at nothing. Right now, that limitation only really applies to Tac squads.
I agree wholeheartedly. Not only is the stat line already great for Marines, the fact that they have specialist squads means that they are able to be great at everything. And in some cases, entire chapters have a specialty (I'm looking at you Space Vampires and Knights Templar) where they wholly excel in one aspect of the game while maintaining the Marine stat line. This is one example of how the game lacks balance.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
BrainFireBob wrote:Thing is, variations in Troops- and what they're good at- is one of the major factors determining factions, in addition to their fluff an aesthetic differences.
It'll result in a mission-specific situation. Some armies will benefit where shooty troops do better, others from assaulty. The way the players cope will determine the game.
In fact, the Marine disadvantage should finally come into play- decent at everything, but great at nothing. Right now, that limitation only really applies to Tac squads.
Actually, the designers might already be tied into 5th Ed, and therefore appear more invested in codices, because we're getting those first.
Don't misinterpret me - I like diversity in factions. I like that marines have solid, versatile troops, while Tau Troops choices have a very limited battlefield role. That's great.
But the problem arises where previously-implemented constraints (and it'd be very hard to argue that any codex pre-Orks had anything to do with 5th ed) assume a new significance under an altered ruleset. In this scenario, any army whose Troops selections are both useful and versatile is at a distinct advantage over any special-purpose Troops army, and it's an advantage that the points assigned to a particular army obviously do not account for, as it's an advantage that didn't exist when the points were set.
Who has "useful and versatile" Troops? Marines of various flavors. They can get anti-infantry, anti-tank, and counter-assault out of their Troops choices, with mobility available via various transports (some with bonus firepower). Add in Combat Squads, for those flavors that have them, and they gain additional utility. (Orks aren't in bad shape here, either...but they are the newest Codex on the block, and the DECREASE in the cost of the Ork Boy seems a nod in the direction of this issue.)
But consider some of the other armies:
- IG get shooting out of their Troops choices, period. Any counter-assault comes from the FA or Elites section.
-Tau get anti-infantry shooting out of their Troops choices, and what passes for Tau counter-assault (Kroot). Any AT firepower is in the Heavy or Elite section.
-Tyranids get assault out of their Troops; AT shooting lives in Heavy or HQ, and anti-infantry shooting lives in Heavy, Elite, or HQ.
Would you care to honestly argue that "only Troops can achieve objectives" was a factor in determining the cost of a Fire Warrior, or a Carnifex? (If so, I'll refer you to the Tyranid codex, on "Monstrous Creatures claiming objectives.")
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Janthkin wrote:Every army has different Troops. Attempting to apply a one-size-fits-all advantage to Troops slots ignores those differences.
And this is why the Force Org chart is a mistake, one which they really will need to simply discard at some point - it applies a uniform template to army structures which vary dramatically.
The IG codecies (both v3 flavors) actually used a mechanic that they could use if they want to limit how often a particular unit appears - before you can take an Armored Fist, you must take a Platoon.
Alternatively, the WHFB approach isn't bad either; it scales with available points (something the Force Org chart doesn't do).
The differences between Troops are echoed with differences between non-Troops. That is what makes armies play differently. Quite frankly, I don't see any evidence that imperfect, non-absolute balance would be any sort of problem moving forward.
The FOC is what works for 40k, because it represents how armies are structured. GW experimented with variable / army-specific FOCs, and boy, wasn't quadruple pie great?!?
As an IG player, I will tell you that the "must take Platoon" rule did more to hamstring IG playability than anything else. Utter crap. That's why 5th Edition Codices do away with the 0-1 / must take restrictions.
The WFB approach sounds good, but is meaningless because the overwhelming majority of games are played at 2000 pts. Most players just won't want to play at 1999 points because they give up their Lords and Character slots.
Having specific FOCs for smaller games, and doing away with it for larger games is easier and more fun.
gorgon wrote:
To your first point, that cost structure was determined based on their effectiveness before these new benefits applied.
To your second point, it wouldn't matter if there weren't a rule that apply to Troops across armies. But that's what we're getting, so that's why Troop to Troop comparisons have some validity.
I think GW needs to really re-examine a business plan built around very slow codex/army book releases.
That is debatable. Given that these Codices were developed while 5th Edition was being developed, the idea that costing isn't thinking about 5th doesn't make sense. The problem items are the OLD Codices that predate 4th Edition.
I agree Troop to Troop comparisions have some validity, but I don't think that they will be the sole determinant to the exclusion of other choices, player skill, and the luck of the dice.
As for the GW release model, I agree that they have a problem because they're trying to support 3 (OK, 2-and-a-half, but they have their summer event and some major rules thingy) major lines on a monthly cycle. It's not that things are slow, but that perhaps GW simply has too much too do each year. Having to share the calendar means 40k is limited to 4+ things per year. If GW could get back up to 6+ 40k things per year, that would be nice.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Janthkin wrote:Who has "useful and versatile" Troops? Marines of various flavors.
But consider some of the other armies:
-IG get shooting out of their Troops choices, period.
-Tau get anti-infantry shooting out of their Troops choices, and what passes for Tau counter-assault (Kroot).
-Tyranids get assault out of their Troops.
Nice selection of choices to prove a point. Note that IG are a 3.5 book and Tyranids are an early 4.0 book. Tau Empire is also a 4.x book that doesn't really follow 5.x themes.
Now look the other choices:
- Eldar: 4 very different flavors of Troops for a variety of roles. Fast and Tough Jetbikes. Stealth Rangers. Horde Guardians. Invulnerable Avengers. Slow and Tough Wraithguard, if desired. Not a bad mix, though there should be more Aspects here...
- Chaos Marines: versatile Troops with a HtH flavor, supplemented by 4 flavors of specialists and generic assault Troops. Min-Max counter-charge shooty Noise Marines. Super-tough Plague Marines. Inexpensive CSM and Daemons.
Having distinctly varied Troops options does a lot to cover the flexibility of a single Troops option.
1635
Post by: Savnock
And only two of those Troops choices are very viable for claiming objectives, John. Bikes can't claim objectives anymore, Rangers can't move and shoot and the WG are ridiculously expensive (they're better than before with Run!, though).
CSM is a good example, though.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Janthkin wrote:Every army has different Troops. Attempting to apply a one-size-fits-all advantage to Troops slots ignores those differences. And this is why the Force Org chart is a mistake, one which they really will need to simply discard at some point - it applies a uniform template to army structures which vary dramatically.
Amen brother. Tell it on the mountain.
I am glad to see someone else agrees.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Savnock wrote:And only two of those Troops choices are very viable for claiming objectives, John. Bikes can't claim objectives anymore, Rangers can't move and shoot and the WG are ridiculously expensive (they're better than before with Run!, though).
CSM is a good example, though.
The Eldar Jetbikes will depend on exactly how the rule is worded. Rangers could Infiltrate near the edge, and then Fleet into cover late in the game. Wraithguard are expensive, but tough. Really, though, I'm hoping for more of a Biel-Tan-flavored 5th Edition Codex revamp. If GW does like CSM and makes Scorpions, Banshees, and Dragons Troops (Rangers become Elites), that would pretty much take care of the problem entirely.
I'm assuming "Non-Vehicle units from Troops section", which allows for Ravenwing Bikers, Eldar Jetbikes, Blood Angel Assault Squads, and so on.
If it is as narrow as Troops Infantry, then that would be more disappointing.
1635
Post by: Savnock
Uh, the rule, according to all rumors so far, is worded "Troops that are infantry". That's how it is in the .pdf, isn't it? I'm disappointed by that too. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised, but recent GW codex/rules releases have been light on the pleasant surprises vs. ugly oversights.
That means no bikes. At least we're getting screwed less than the poor Ravenwing. Because bike armies were so overpowered, you know.
As for Rangers Fleeting into cover... yeah, once in a blue moon. Then they'll get slaughtered in CC by any enemy troops also claiming the same objective.
WG aren't tough enough for their points. PFs, MCs, and Rending make them go poof. I know those things are all getting nerfed, but not enough to make the WG a decent investment. I have 25 of the little blighters. Even one Troops unit of them is about 25% of an army's points. For that 400 points, most opponents could get several armies that could slaughter WGs, at range, in CC, or both.
And a codex revamp is way, way off. Let's live for the now, dude. Personally, I'm learning to do my best with DAs. Looks like they're the Eldar's best bet for actually holding on to objectives.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
JohnHwangDD wrote:1 The differences between Troops are echoed with differences between non-Troops. That is what makes armies play differently. Quite frankly, I don't see any evidence that imperfect, non-absolute balance would be any sort of problem moving forward.
2 The FOC is what works for 40k, because it represents how armies are structured. GW experimented with variable / army-specific FOCs, and boy, wasn't quadruple pie great?!?
3 As an IG player, I will tell you that the "must take Platoon" rule did more to hamstring IG playability than anything else. Utter crap. That's why 5th Edition Codices do away with the 0-1 / must take restrictions.
4The WFB approach sounds good, but is meaningless because the overwhelming majority of games are played at 2000 pts. Most players just won't want to play at 1999 points because they give up their Lords and Character slots.
5Having specific FOCs for smaller games, and doing away with it for larger games is easier and more fun.
1) Yes, armies are different. I'm still okay with that. BUT providing a game-wide advantage that doesn't affect all armies in at least an approximately equivalent manner (i.e., making Troops essential to victory conditions) doesn't play into the "different armies have different strengths" category - it's a "if your army's Troops are inferior, you will be playing at a disadvantage" scenario. It's simple: IF you play Marines, THEN you will have an easier time completing objectives. Period, full stop.
2) The "experiments" in alternative FOC were not exactly extensive - Iron Warriors and Biel-Tan Eldar. The former would have been as easily solved by a reevaluation of what units Chaos should have (hint: Defiler indirect-nerfage and 4th ed ordnance rules would have sufficed), while the latter was only useful under 3rd ed's "Assault from fast-moving transports" rules. And more to the point, the FOC has nothing to do with any sort of army organization, unless you believe the intent really is to take 2 min-sized units of ripper swarms and 8 TMCs.
3) I am, before everything else, an IG player, and have been since 2nd ed. The platoon requirement doesn't bother me - those grunts tote along their lascannons, sparing me the need to try and fit AT in other places. Codex: Armageddon, and later doctrines, made it even better - full mechanized Guard is a lot of fun. The only place it really hurt is with fully Mech Guard at < 1500 pts (when your "minimum" Troops investment ate up most of your army). Now, the 0-1 restrictions are a different story - it's an artificial constraint placed on army construction either to limit "too much of a good thing" (and hence hide bad balancing), or to apply a fluff-based rarity to a unit. I don't mind the latter so much, though I find that such a limit typically reflects a bit of the former as well.
4) Non-starter of an argument; I see a fair amount of tournament support at the 1500 pt level, as well as 2k, 2250, and the odd 3k+ tournament. More to the point, there's nothing wrong with the 2k level - you get 1 Lord (so no 2x Hive Tyrants), MUST take 4 Core (so no 2 min-sized ripper swarm selections, and CANNOT take more than 2 Rare (max out at 2 heavy 'fexes). It does what it is supposed to - limits the impact characters & Rare choices have on the game. (Well, it did until VC came out, but that's not the Org Chart's fault.)
5) In your opinion? You're certainly entitled to one. I disagree, as I prefer a system where I don't have to discard portions of the rules as I scale up or down.
6> That is debatable. Given that these Codices were developed while 5th Edition was being developed, the idea that costing isn't thinking about 5th doesn't make sense. The problem items are the OLD Codices that predate 4th Edition.
7 I agree Troop to Troop comparisions have some validity, but I don't think that they will be the sole determinant to the exclusion of other choices, player skill, and the luck of the dice.
8 As for the GW release model, I agree that they have a problem because they're trying to support 3 (OK, 2-and-a-half, but they have their summer event and some major rules thingy) major lines on a monthly cycle. It's not that things are slow, but that perhaps GW simply has too much too do each year. Having to share the calendar means 40k is limited to 4+ things per year. If GW could get back up to 6+ 40k things per year, that would be nice.
6) While I try to remain optimistic, I seriously doubt that this factor was a design consideration for any new 'dex. Marines will still be 15 points, and will likely gain some grenades to boot.
7) Strawman. No one is saying that this is the only factor. But if everything else is equal (skill, luck, etc.), this certainly will be A factor.
8) Absolutely agree - less time between releases would let them discard obsolete 'dexes faster.
9 Nice selection of choices to prove a point. Note that IG are a 3.5 book and Tyranids are an early 4.0 book. Tau Empire is also a 4.x book that doesn't really follow 5.x themes.
Now look the other choices:
10 - Eldar: 4 very different flavors of Troops for a variety of roles. Fast and Tough Jetbikes. Stealth Rangers. Horde Guardians. Invulnerable Avengers. Slow and Tough Wraithguard, if desired. Not a bad mix, though there should be more Aspects here...
11 - Chaos Marines: versatile Troops with a HtH flavor, supplemented by 4 flavors of specialists and generic assault Troops. Min-Max counter-charge shooty Noise Marines. Super-tough Plague Marines. Inexpensive CSM and Daemons.
Having distinctly varied Troops options does a lot to cover the flexibility of a single Troops option
9) Absolutely intentional. We've got recent history to show that it's unlikely every army will be revisited during a given edition; the Tyranids and Tau are likely stuck with those 'dexes for all of 5th edition.
10) See Savnock on Eldar troops. Also, I have no clue what would make Avengers "invulnerable" - T3, 4+ save isn't anything special (ask Tau about Fire Warrior survival rates).
11) Please don't read my use of "Marines" to equate with "Imperial Marines" - spikey marines have (most) of the same advantages.
I would love to be surprised. I would love it if the 5th ed FAQs came out, and applied "scoring" to various units across the Org charts of different armies, to take into account the different playstyles of each. I would love it if the Ork and Marine 'dexes provide a baseline, around which each new 'dex is carefully balanced, with proper discounts given for non-scoring (but useful) units, while versatile/powerful Troops selections paid a bit of a premium.
I'm just not that optimistic.
131
Post by: malfred
Janthkin wrote:
The IG codecies (both v3 flavors) actually used a mechanic that they could use if they want to limit how often a particular unit appears - before you can take an Armored Fist, you must take a Platoon. Extend that across some of the "problem" lists - before you can take a Carnifex, you must take a Troops choice (of some sort); 6 'fex lists would be rather constrained.
Alternatively, the WHFB approach isn't bad either; it scales with available points (something the Force Org chart doesn't do).
Not to take this too off-topic, but AT-43 attempts to do that with their
army build. The idea is that you can fill the "force org" rather quickly and
that each sub-list has its own requirements as to what gets filled first.
Items are *, **, or ***.
To fill a platoon, you have to have x number of each type.
Therefore you can't have a heavy vehicle kit unless your sub-list allows for
it, and you can't have all infantry unless your army allows for it. It's an
interesting system, but I'm not sure how it works out in practice.
1635
Post by: Savnock
Janthkin wrote:
10) See Savnock on Eldar troops. Also, I have no clue what would make Avengers "invulnerable" - T3, 4+ save isn't anything special (ask Tau about Fire Warrior survival rates).
He might be referring to the 5+ inv save in CC from a shimmershield, which with Fortune makes the DAs tough little buggers in CC. Well, for Eldar. We take what we can get.
On a more general note, our pervasive pessimism about 5th is obviously a defense mechanism. We're going to pick the rumors apart until we expect the worst, and then be secretly delighted about the stuff that doesn't suck. Not that we'll stop kvetching.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Savnock wrote:Uh, the rule, according to all rumors so far, is worded "Troops that are infantry". That's how it is in the .pdf, isn't it?
As for Rangers Fleeting into cover...
WG aren't tough enough for their points. PFs, MCs, and Rending make them go poof.
And a codex revamp is way, way off. Let's live for the now, dude. Personally, I'm learning to do my best with DAs. Looks like they're the Eldar's best bet for actually holding on to objectives.
According to my copy:
An army’s scoring units are all the units that come from its Troops allowance, except if:
- it is falling back at the end of the game
- it is a vehicle
- it has a special rule specifying it never counts as scoring.
I read that as closer to "non-Vehicle Troops" rather than "Infantry Troops".
Agree Rangers and WG aren't the best choices, which is why it's unfortunate that I've got piles of both. I like Jetbikes and DAs, too.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Janthkin wrote:1) Yes, armies are different. I'm still okay with that. BUT providing a game-wide advantage that doesn't affect all armies in at least an approximately equivalent manner
2) The "experiments" in alternative FOC were not exactly extensive - Iron Warriors and Biel-Tan Eldar.
And more to the point, the FOC has nothing to do with any sort of army organization, unless you believe the intent really is to take 2 min-sized units of ripper swarms and 8 TMCs.
3) I am, before everything else, an IG player, and have been since 2nd ed.
Now, the 0-1 restrictions are a different story - it's an artificial constraint
4) Non-starter of an argument; I see a fair amount of tournament support at the 1500 pt level, as well as 2k, 2250, and the odd 3k+ tournament. More to the point, there's nothing wrong with the 2k level
5) In your opinion? You're certainly entitled to one. I disagree, as I prefer a system where I don't have to discard portions of the rules as I scale up or down.
6) While I try to remain optimistic, I seriously doubt that this factor was a design consideration for any new 'dex.
7) Strawman. No one is saying that this is the only factor. But if everything else is equal (skill, luck, etc.), this certainly will be A factor.
8) Absolutely agree - less time between releases would let them discard obsolete 'dexes faster.
9) Absolutely intentional. We've got recent history to show that it's unlikely every army will be revisited during a given edition; the Tyranids and Tau are likely stuck with those 'dexes for all of 5th edition.
10) See Savnock on Eldar troops. Also, I have no clue what would make Avengers "invulnerable" - T3, 4+ save isn't anything special (ask Tau about Fire Warrior survival rates).
11) Please don't read my use of "Marines" to equate with "Imperial Marines" - spikey marines have (most) of the same advantages.
I'm just not that optimistic.
1. Given that armies had uneven Troops before to meet the 2+ / max 6 bit, I don't care one way or another. The Troops were uneven before, so of course any change would be uneven. So what? There aren't any newer Codices that would be unduly penalized and your only counter examples are from obsolete Codices that are already underappear relative to other armies.
2. Actually, IIRC, the other example would be Alaitoc Ranger, with bonus Rangers. Along with Night Lords with a bonus FA. But those didn't matter because extra Pie was clearly better.
With the only Scoring Units coming from Troops, I doubt any Nid player would field 8 TMCs and 2 Rippers.
3. Glad to hear it, Guardsman!
IMO, those 0-1s are bad constraints that weaken flavor. None of the restricted units are powerful en masse, although Veterans really do make Storms look even worse. I'll be glad to see these removed.
4. I don't see other than 2k tournaments in my area. Everybody locally pushes for 2k. I'd rather see 1999.
But throwing away the FOC at this point would be destructive, because you basically reset all the Codices. With 4 or 5 50k releases per year, and over a dozen Codices needed, how can this work?
5. Meh. You realise that a limited FOC is the same as a scalable FOC going down? And again, nothing in Apocalypse says you can't add structure or require FOCs if both sides agree.
6. It's what Jervis and the team will tell you when you ask them, so it *must* be true.
7. If we merely disagree as the the extent of the impact of Troops = Scoring, eh, no biggie. I think it'll be trivial. You seem to think it will be defining. We'll find out as games actually start to be played.
8. Yeah, it'd be nice to have GW address the older Codices that actually see play. Like Guard.
9. Intentional, but completely unfair. SM, Chaos, Orks, along with Eldar can all be said to be 5th-flavored. Those represent the vast majority of armies that actually see play. Necrons are unlikely to be harmed in any significant way, as Phase-Out already requires a lot of Troops. Nids should do OK. Only Guard is the odd man out, but with the Baneblade and Planetstrike, the writing's pretty clear.
10. Shimmersheild, as Sav noted. It makes Avengers viable.
11. OK. I'll grant that MSU CSM trades fairly well against Combat Squads.
As I've stated elsewhere, I'm not worried. With 4+ Armies, and lots of choices with variable configurations for each, I'm sure one of them will come out on top. I'd like to see Guard dominate 5th when their new Codex comes out, but that's asking a bit much.
459
Post by: Hellfury
JohnHwangDD wrote:I read that as closer to "non-Vehicle Troops" rather than "Infantry Troops".
The latest rumours concerning this is that only infantry models from the Troops selection may be counted as scoring units.
They may well be false. But then again, so may the leaked PDF stating that non vehicular troops are scoring. Who knows?
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
I hope its false. I was really hoping to put together a Ravenwing force. *sniff*
Ozymandias, King of Kings
459
Post by: Hellfury
Ozymandias wrote:I hope its false.
You and pretty much anyone else who plays 40K.
I don't see why GW would do that, it makes little sense balance wise. From a economical standpoint on GW's side, its nearly stupid.
Just say that "All "Infantry" models count as scoring" and be done with it.
Then give certain armies that are obviously specialized, like ravenwing the special ability to break that rule. You know, like, "Raven wing bikes and landspeeders count as scoring units" or some such.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Hellfury wrote:Just say that "All "Infantry" models count as scoring" and be done with it.
Funny, I think that it's simpler and better to say that All non-Vehicle Troops count as scoring is a better rule. I think this promotes more diversity of play (e.g. Saim-Hann, Ravenwing, Blood Angels) while not rewarding min-max Devastator Combat Squads / Death Company / HQs. Non-Troops have their advantages of Special Rules, extra / better weapons, and better stats. Let that be enough of a benefit without further blessing them with Scoring for the cherry on top. Oh, yeah - economically, it makes a lot of sense for GW to push Troops. Troops tend to be much less points dense than Non-Troops, so it will take more models in the army. Which means that players spend more.
1099
Post by: Railguns
Sorry, but with that attitude, it sounds like your saying having my trombone taken away would promote musical diversity by forcing me to play something else I suck at. Maybe I misinterpreted you?
Your right about troops being a good sell economically. But why can't you just make certain things more expensive points wise to compensate for being better and scoring, rather than forcing people to buy things they don't want to use simply to be able to win at all? Thats what the point system is FOR, isn't it? Why cant things people take as troops ACT as troops? If Ravenwing pays out the nose for a speeders and bikes to be in troops, as they are supposedly specialized in this form of combat, why should they not be able to take objectives? You are already paying for the advantage anyway.
5470
Post by: sebster
gorgon wrote:Then the problem also lies with the rules for Tactical squads in the SM codex.
The issue with creating blanket benefits for all Troops units is that certain units will be able to better take advantage of those benefits than others. Troops in one army <> Troops in another. Tactical Marines are fundamentally different from Gaunts, which are fundamentally different than Guardsmen.
Issues with army composition need to be fixed via the org chart and codices. How is that not obvious? Doing otherwise is like the old joke about hitting someone in the knee with a hammer to "relieve" their headache. I recognize that GW's business model doesn't allow this to happen. But when their business model won't allow them to fix the product properly, that's a real issue.
But they in turn have different points costs, different minimum and maximum squad sizes and different support units. But right now every unit in the game is defined by it’s ability to kill stuff, with the only variation being what it’s particularly good at killing ( AT, anti- MEQ, anti- GEQ) and whether it does it at range or up close. That’s it, that’s the entirety of the tactical considerations of 95% of games of 40K.
There is never going to be perfect balance in the game, under any model. If there was perfect balance you’d still get people complaining about space marines. Ultimately perfect balance isn’t the holy grail of game design, what you want is the right combination of unique units, manoeuvre and positioning. Even if one player has come onto the field with an advantage, there’s enough of a difference in the skill of playing that it won’t be as noticeable. Look at the chess example quoted earlier, I pointed out that white was in fact at a significant advantage… yet chess remains one of the great games because of it’s strategic depth.
Manoeuvre was improved in 4th ed massively, as were the benefits of cover. Suddenly the game moved from two armies standing in their deployment zones blasting away to a game superior manoeuvre and use of terrain could allow an inferior player to triumph. But ultimately every unit held the same role, its ability to kill the other guy’s stuff. So even with the 4th ed changes list design still resolved around finding something in your list that was pretty good and taking lot of it. There’s no reason to balance your list, because there’s only one thing that units have to do.
The 5th ed change gives troops a unique role, and suddenly army design has some degree of nuance… how many troops do I take before I’m impacting my firepower, and how many points do I dedicate to killing the enemy before I’m sacrificing my ability to hold objectives.
And yeah, this will result in some balancing issues, but the game is hardly balanced right now anyway.
That’s not to say I’m completely in love with the new options. GW missed the boat in making tanks genuinely unique (mobile firepower dammit! It isn’t that hard GW!), and running only succeeds returning to the inane 2nd situation of troops either running as fast as they can or standing still and shooting, you won’t see troops advancing as they fire anymore. But in making one option in the list unique in an important way, at least GW is looking in the right direction.
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
BrainFireBob wrote:Mathematicians tend to be extremely vague, and only demonstrate an urge to precision if you respond showing lack of proper comprehension. ie, they make vague statements, and if you respond in a manner revealing you didn't understand what was said, then the precision comes.
That's because mathematics is built up in steps - definition upon definition, lemma upon lemma, theorem upon theorem. Oftentimes the only way to really explain something with anything approaching rigor is to start at the very beginning. Otherwise you have no frame of reference. You're like a child, who wanders into a movie, and wants to know...
And also mathematicians tend to be vague because they are smarter than you and don't think you'll understand otherwise. Somehow I really doubt this is the issue in the case of Jervis.
247
Post by: Phryxis
Actually, I'm somewhat offended at the stereotyping you're doing here, feeling enough in common with mathematicians and statisticians due to being a physicist.
I'm sorry you're offended by the idea that people working in technical, emperical fields would prefer to think in a technical, emperical manner.
Clearly I'm stupid, in addition to being offensive, for thinking such a ridiculous thing.
Enough sarcasm.
Why would you prickle at MY stereotyping, then proceed to correct it with your own, "better" stereotyping?
Kinda strange.
Anyway, I'm not talking about physicists and mathematicians. I'm talking about statisticians, students of game theory, systems designers. I don't have a ton of experience with physicists and mathematicians, so perhaps you're making an accurate stereotype. But I don't think the skills of a physicist or mathematician would be particularly well suited to game design. Not that such a person couldn't be a great game designer... Just that their professional skills wouldn't be particularly applicable.
All of that aside, I think it's a pretty reasonable suggestion, to the point of being obvious, that people tend to think in a fashion that meshes with their profession.
Perhaps we don't have to speculate though. Dave Taylor has posted serveral times in this thread. Dave, if you're reading, please pass the message along to Jervis: I (and I'm sure others) are very interested in his examination of GT lists and results. I'd love to see him go into deep detail on his findings.
3294
Post by: pombe
Phryxis wrote:
Perhaps we don't have to speculate though. Dave Taylor has posted serveral times in this thread. Dave, if you're reading, please pass the message along to Jervis: I (and I'm sure others) are very interested in his examination of GT lists and results. I'd love to see him go into deep detail on his findings.
I would be interested in this also. I may not own stock in GW, but I am a paying customer. Is it wrong for me to want to hold the ones in charge of a company whose products I purchase accountable for some of their decisions?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Railguns wrote:Sorry, but with that attitude, it sounds like your saying having my trombone taken away would promote musical diversity by forcing me to play something else I suck at. Maybe I misinterpreted you?
Your right about troops being a good sell economically. But why can't you just make certain things more expensive points wise to compensate for being better and scoring, rather than forcing people to buy things they don't want to use simply to be able to win at all? Thats what the point system is FOR, isn't it? Why cant things people take as troops ACT as troops? If Ravenwing pays out the nose for a speeders and bikes to be in troops, as they are supposedly specialized in this form of combat, why should they not be able to take objectives? You are already paying for the advantage anyway.
I'm assuming you're replying to me.
If we're talking about musical instruments, consider an orchestra. Typically, an orchestra has several sections: strings, woodwinds, brass, and percussion. But if you don't have enough string players, the string section gets drowned out by the sound from the band elements (woodwinds, brass & percussion). That's bad if you're trying to play a sophisticated piece of music requires a full orchestra. GW is saying, enough of this band-dominated stuff, let's have 2 large sections of violins, backed by a bunch of violas and celloes and basses to have a robust string section so that the band section doesn't excessively dominate the music. But as the total performing area can only seat so many musicians, to do this, yeah, we're going to have fewer trombones. If you want to continue to play in orchestra, I suggest you learn to play a stringed instrument.
(for the musically dense, strings = Troops, band = non-Troops)
As for depending entirely upon points, I suppose GW could do that, but it seems that they've chosen to do attack the Troops thing from all sides: lower points (e.g. Ork Boyz), better stats / equipment (e.g. CSM with B& BP& CCW), *and* Troops = Scoring to the last man / minimal KPs for killing ALL models. Plus, they're cheapening Transports and restoring the taxi rule to improve effectiveness, while making Defensive weapons S4 or less to help Troops and Transports survive.
Realistically, there isn't much more GW could possibly have done to beat Troops = Good into players heads.
5470
Post by: sebster
JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm assuming you're replying to me.
If we're talking about musical instruments, consider an orchestra. Typically, an orchestra has several sections: strings, woodwinds, brass, and percussion. But if you don't have enough string players, the string section gets drowned out by the sound from the band elements (woodwinds, brass & percussion). That's bad if you're trying to play a sophisticated piece of music requires a full orchestra. GW is saying, enough of this band-dominated stuff, let's have 2 large sections of violins, backed by a bunch of violas and celloes and basses to have a robust string section so that the band section doesn't excessively dominate the music. But as the total performing area can only seat so many musicians, to do this, yeah, we're going to have fewer trombones. If you want to continue to play in orchestra, I suggest you learn to play a stringed instrument.
(for the musically dense, strings = Troops, band = non-Troops)
The problem is they’ve previously tried to model the orchestra on one stat, noise. People could just build the biggest orchestra possible by finding out what produced the biggest noise and taking multiples of that. You can modify noise volumes again and again but ultimately something is going to be the best buy and it’s going to get spammed. Now GW has said there’s two stats, noise and… err… objective taking.
It isn’t perfect but it should mean players are required one or two instruments again and again.
6888
Post by: BrainFireBob
Phryxis wrote:Actually, I'm somewhat offended at the stereotyping you're doing here, feeling enough in common with mathematicians and statisticians due to being a physicist.
I'm sorry you're offended by the idea that people working in technical, emperical fields would prefer to think in a technical, emperical manner.
There it is again.
If you are clinical and precise in your head, and/or there's only one possible correct arrangement of all the information, it is unnecessary to be nitpicky in speech- you should be understood.
ie, "As a statistician, I performed an analysis, and found this correlation."
"What do you mean, "analysis?""
*PAUSE*
"I mean I'm a statistician and performed a statisical analysis. I'm rather confused by the question."
That is quite vague, but not vague- if you're a statistician.
Why would you prickle at MY stereotyping, then proceed to correct it with your own, "better" stereotyping?
Kinda strange.
So, rather than discuss what was said, you'd rather use an implied credibility attack?
Because your stereotyping was based on assumption.
My generalization was based on my experience of the breed.
There's a definitive qualitative difference of assessment involved.
Anyway, I'm not talking about physicists and mathematicians. I'm talking about statisticians, students of game theory, systems designers. I don't have a ton of experience with physicists and mathematicians, so perhaps you're making an accurate stereotype. But I don't think the skills of a physicist or mathematician would be particularly well suited to game design. Not that such a person couldn't be a great game designer... Just that their professional skills wouldn't be particularly applicable.
Statisticians are a subset of mathematicians. It's all applied mathematics.
Y'know what physics boils down to? Mainly, modelling idealized forms of situations. That's pretty damned identical to creating abstracted mechanics.
All of that aside, I think it's a pretty reasonable suggestion, to the point of being obvious, that people tend to think in a fashion that meshes with their profession.
There you go again, equating thinking with speaking in a manner that doesn't correlate.
Precision isn't about words or laying out sequences you understand so well they're not even worth considering.
Precision in thought's largely about very specifically defined meanings and concepts.
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
BrainFireBob wrote:That is quite vague, but not vague- if you're a statistician.
Jervis is not a statistician.
123
Post by: Alpharius
BrainFireBob wrote:Phryxis wrote:
*edit*
Clearly, neither of you is Jervis' son...
1099
Post by: Railguns
If we're talking about musical instruments, consider an orchestra. Typically, an orchestra has several sections: strings, woodwinds, brass, and percussion. But if you don't have enough string players, the string section gets drowned out by the sound from the band elements (woodwinds, brass & percussion). That's bad if you're trying to play a sophisticated piece of music requires a full orchestra. GW is saying, enough of this band-dominated stuff, let's have 2 large sections of violins, backed by a bunch of violas and celloes and basses to have a robust string section so that the band section doesn't excessively dominate the music. But as the total performing area can only seat so many musicians, to do this, yeah, we're going to have fewer trombones. If you want to continue to play in orchestra, I suggest you learn to play a stringed instrument.
(for the musically dense, strings = Troops, band = non-Troops)
As for depending entirely upon points, I suppose GW could do that, but it seems that they've chosen to do attack the Troops thing from all sides: lower points (e.g. Ork Boyz), better stats / equipment (e.g. CSM with B& BP& CCW), *and* Troops = Scoring to the last man / minimal KPs for killing ALL models. Plus, they're cheapening Transports and restoring the taxi rule to improve effectiveness, while making Defensive weapons S4 or less to help Troops and Transports survive.
Realistically, there isn't much more GW could possibly have done to beat Troops = Good into players heads.
Yeah, but you are assuming that everyone wants an orchestra. Thats the point. I don't want to be forced to be in an orchestra.(have you ever been in one? Brass players wait for an hour, play 2 bars, then wait another hour. ) I want to have a jazzband, a funk group, a rock band... you get the idea. Not everyone wants to play the same sort of force. They are removing a significant amount of choice in the game. I'm all for making troops more powerful, I really am, why why should it be at the expense of everything else?
247
Post by: Phryxis
That is quite vague, but not vague- if you're a statistician.
First, let's just review your argument: People that work in a technical, emperical field, though they may think in a technical, emperical manner, will consistently NOT SPEAK in that manner. And that's reality, and I'm a dolt for not knowing it.
On to the quote...
A statistician "performs an analysis" and that's not vague if you're a statistician? Yes it is. It's vague to a layman and a statistician. Another statistician hearing that would say "what kind of analysis? And how did you account for this and that?"
Perhaps if you view the person as being highly credible, it's enough to know they did an analysis they deem sufficient. I don't view Jervis as being beyond question. And I don't see any circumstance where vagueness isn't vagueness. It's either something you trust or you don't. You're confusing accepting a vauge statement with the statement not being vague.
But, that aside, you're a physicist and you know lots of mathematicians and they all fit a certain stereotype that supports your argument. Let's just assume you're correct about this and your stereotype is right.
In order for this to be of any merit to the actual situation, we have to presume that Jervis is behaving as he does because he's just like the brilliant mathematicians you supposedly know. Because he's got such a deep understanding, he's not going to go into it, without solicitation, thinking it's just over our heads.
So since you think we need to presume all that, pray tell: how many of your mathematicians say things like "I ran some numbers, and boy, there were lots! Thousands of numbers!"
How many say that? Let me guess, based on your past behavior: ALL OF THEM. All your mathematician friends say EXACTLY that, all the time. Some even have it on t-shirts.
Since you're obviously too convinced that I'm an idiot to not immediately disagre with anything I'm saying, then take Abadabadoobaddon's word for it: Jervis isn't a mathematician.
So, rather than discuss what was said, you'd rather use an implied credibility attack?
Look, I don't want to get into a meta-debate about who's being more honest, or sporting in their debate, or whatever... But you keep attacking my credibility, and I can't just ignore it, because you have a real issue with doing the exact things you're demonizing me for.
Is it just your standard policy to include at least one ironic, self-defeating argument per post?
For example:
Because your stereotyping was based on assumption.
You ASSUME that. See, I didn't tell you what I do for a living. I could ALSO be a physicist. How would you know? You assume I'm not. Now, I've since said I'm not, but you didn't know that when you ASSUMED my stereotype was based on assumption. You ASSUMED it wasn't based on "experience of the breed" before you had any way of knowing.
We're all making assumptions. The difference is that I know it and am comofortable with it, and you don't know it, and think you can use it as club whenever it suits you.
But whatever to all that... Let's not waste our time in meta-debate, and credibility squabbles. I'm responding to your attacks, and I'll gladly stop as soon as you stop trying them.
To the real issue:
As it so happens, I'm a software engineer. Software engineers, systems analysts, and software games designers are exactly the sort of people I'm talking about, when I speak of the sorts of people best qualified to design games systems.
When I talk to a software engineer who speaks in vagaries, I assume he's no good. And that tends to be right.
So I was talking about systems designers, statistics experts, game theory experts. You stretched it over to mean "physicists and mathematicians" as if that really has very much to do with games design at all. Then you assumed I didn't know any of those people, who you arbitrarily decided are the very DEFINITION of emperical, technical minded people.
Can you see why I'm not putting much stock in your arguments? It's just layers of wrong.
1) You've confidently made a very strange generalization about mathematicians...
2) But nobody is talking about mathematicians...
3) And even if we were, Jervis isn't one.
Statisticians are a subset of mathematicians. It's all applied mathematics.
And it's also a pretty huge distinction. The level of statistical wisdom required to examine a dice based game isn't very high. It's not cutting edge science. While it certainly employs math, it only vaguely corellates to mathematicians. It's like suggesting and auto repairman is roughly the same thing as a metallurgical chemist.
See #2 above.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Railguns wrote:
If we're talking about musical instruments, consider an orchestra. ...
GW is saying, enough of this band-dominated stuff, let's have 2 large sections of violins, backed by a bunch of violas and celloes and basses to have a robust string section so that the band section doesn't excessively dominate the music. ... If you want to continue to play in orchestra, I suggest you learn to play a stringed instrument.
Yeah, but you are assuming that everyone wants an orchestra. Thats the point. I don't want to be forced to be in an orchestra. (have you ever been in one? Brass players wait for an hour, play 2 bars, then wait another hour. ) I want to have a jazzband, a funk group, a rock band... you get the idea. Not everyone wants to play the same sort of force. They are removing a significant amount of choice in the game. I'm all for making troops more powerful, I really am, why why should it be at the expense of everything else?
I'm making no assumption, I'm simply noting that * GW* wants an orchestra, or some facsimile thereof that can play a more varied set of music, rather than just focusing on sheer volume.
And yes, I played in orchestra for a few years, but didn't really have much talent for it. I played 2nd or 3rd violin, which is more active, but also more boring.
GW isn't saying that you can't play music, GW is saying that if you're set up as a jazz band, then you won't play the new stuff as well as an orchestra might, because they're switching the music format from big band sound over to classical music featuring string quartets.
443
Post by: skyth
Good analogy-You can't play the music that is fun any more, but only the boring stuff...
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Just because you lack the refinement to be able to appreciate classical music doesn't mean it isn't fun. It simply means that you're ignorant of other kinds of music.
1099
Post by: Railguns
Well, if its GW that wants everyone to have an orchestra, and goes about it by discouraging every other divergent force or army organization, then I question the reasoning. Why create rules for things that you will simply discourage people from using? They are still discouraging variety, however we put it. Who decided that one, and only one, sort of force should benefit from the new rules? Why should everyone else have to just suck it up and take things they don't want? (against the very reason they bought into a different theme altogether). I say that this is a bad idea. Monumentally, well, time will tell.
And just because someone doesn't enjoy Orchestra doesn't make them ignorant. I enjoy some Shastakovitch, among others, but as a brass player I hate the interminable 245+ measures of rest involved. Differing taste does not always equate to ignorance. (though many times they are concurrent.) End Global Warming, Become a Pirate!!
443
Post by: skyth
JohnHwangDD wrote:Just because you lack the refinement to be able to appreciate classical music doesn't mean it isn't fun. It simply means that you're ignorant of other kinds of music.
Nice way to resort to personal attacks when your argument is disproved.
And actually, I was in several bands. I enjoy Jazz and Swing a lot. I didn't enjoy playing or listening to the classical music as much. In fact I typically find it boring. Give me a big brass band and I tend to enjoy it more.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Good lord, you're taking the analogy as a personal attack? :S
I could care less whether you've personally played band, orchestra or anything else because it doesn't matter with respect to the analogy.
The point is that *GW* has decided to change the game.
If you can't handle a simple extended analogy, then perhaps Dakka isn't the place for you.
131
Post by: malfred
JohnHwangDD wrote:Good lord, you're taking the analogy as a personal attack? :S
We know it wasn't a personal attack. It was just a random insult tied to
an analogy.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
Malfred, what is your obsession with not allowing your text to wrap? After all these years, I still don't understand.
And it irks the Hell outta' me.
4588
Post by: Destrado
Can I does
it too?
383
Post by: bigchris1313
Destrado wrote:Can I does
it too?
I hates you.
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Well Malfred's posts always remind me of poetry.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
320
Post by: Platuan4th
bigchris1313 wrote:Destrado wrote:Can I does
it too?
I hates you.
Blame Malfred.
4588
Post by: Destrado
Bbigchris1313 wrote:I hates you.
[insert Beavis And Butthead style retort followed by random note of empathy and approval for the glory of the dish]
Ozymandias wrote:Well Malfred's posts always remind me of poetry.
Comparable to "toilet" haikus,
in that they're both nice to read.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Railguns wrote:Well, if its GW that wants everyone to have an orchestra, and goes about it by discouraging every other divergent force or army organization, then I question the reasoning. Why create rules for things that you will simply discourage people from using? They are still discouraging variety, however we put it. Who decided that one, and only one, sort of force should benefit from the new rules? Why should everyone else have to just suck it up and take things they don't want? (against the very reason they bought into a different theme altogether). I say that this is a bad idea. Monumentally, well, time will tell.
Man, with people interpreting the analogy so badly, I'm not sure I should continue here... [disclaimer] It isn't personal - it's a freakin' analogy! I will try to explain it more clearly, even though, now it looks like I'm writing for elementary-schoolers....[/disclaimer] There are a wide variety of instruments (i.e. units) out there. But finding a good balance among them within the seating space of the stage (i.e. FOC and points limit) is a challenge for any group of musicians (i.e. players). GW failed to give strong guidance as to what sort of mix they preferred (i.e. Troops-based), and their pop sensibilities (i.e. GTs and Heats) led players towards sheer volume of noise (i.e. killing for VPs). GW now "encourages" change with new music (i.e. Objectives missions) and there is resistance (i.e. whining & disagreement). But by no means are the old style bands (i.e. min-max Shooty armies with 2 Troops) illegal - they just don't sound as good (i.e. win as much). Be thankful that you can always add new instruments (i.e. models) to create a nice new orchestra (i.e. army with more Troops). and with that, the analogy ends.
|
|
