157
Post by: mauleed
I'm convinced that GW views their rules and FAQs like term papers, and not products. They figure if you get 90% right, that's an 'A', and it's a job well done, just like a term paper. The rest of us view these as products, where 10% wrong means utter garbage. This would explain why they continue to think they're doing a great job and we continue to think their a pack of incompetent baffoons. Somehow, GW manangement needs to make them realize that their own self imposed measure of success isn't working. Thoughts?
1235
Post by: logan007
I think that's a nice analogy.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
As long as they are the most successful miniature wargames company in the world, GW Mgt won't think they are wrong.
157
Post by: mauleed
The bubba gump shrimp company was number one as well, but that didn't make Forrest any less slowed.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
True, but if we want to bring about change, it has to be through the revolutionary power of not buying the products. It's the only language people like GW understand.
1426
Post by: Voodoo Boyz
From what I can tell, they don't really care.
In the designers mind, these games are fun little things that are meant to be played in a beer & pretzels type scenario.
Fixing things such as broken or overpowered units, tactics, whatever isn't a totally top priority because if you're playing the game in the above mentality, it's not a real problem since you won't do it.
Because we the gamers take these games and apply them to a mentality that is much more binary than the rules are written for, we encounter a lot of problems. GW exacerbates this problem by running tournaments where the kind of ultra competitiveness-letter-of-the-law-says-so kind of way of playing the game rules the day.
Because the Designers are stuck in a "Beer & Pretzels" mentality and us fans are demanding a much tighter ruleset, we're going to constantly have problems like this.
339
Post by: ender502
Every second that GW spends on a product (whether rules or minis) increases the cost of the product and negatively effects profit. It is not all that odd to find them short changing the consumer IF they can get away with it. Your sig says it all. If we want a better game we have to be able to walk away. Though I would recommend the B5 game. ender502
226
Post by: blue loki
You're spot on about how they view the main rules, but I think their FAQ viewpoint is slightly different.
GW FAQs are more like extra credit.
They're optional.
If you don't do it, you don't suffer.
If you do do it, the outcome can only be positive.
No matter what grade you get on it, you should be applauded for attempting it.
I've never understood the old phrase, "You get an 'A' for effort."
Shouldn't it be, "You get an 'E'..."
1270
Post by: Osbad
I can't find it now, but I'm sure there's a quote from Kirby or someone saying that they reckon there's no point attempting to take the games beyond a "good enough" level. i.e. they aren't striving for excellence in their games, but rather producing games that are "just good enough" to persuade people to keep spending on miniatures.
Never saw the sense in that really, but...
Dang. I wish I could find that quote!
827
Post by: Cruentus
But its only not working for the 0.0001% of game players who actually frequent and post on forums like Dakka. The smallest percentage of players decry the rules, the FAQ's, and bash GW every which way, while a large percentage of players have no problems playing in their FLGS, GW store, or in their homes. Its this desire for the unattainable holy grail of 'tight rules' that sets the bar at an impossible height. As someone mentioned, their rules started as a 'beer and pretzels' kind of game, some structure to push around their miniatures. Now, they're expected to churn out a balanced, well edited, and tournament-tight ruleset with all the bells and whistles. Ain't happening, no matter what other game you pick up instead, or how much bashing and whining is done on forums. I'm not an apologist for GW, but I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. I also wouldn't want a game I play 'for fun' to turn into an Physics textbook to try to close every loophole, fix every error, and make it a perfect game. There is enough drama going on everywhere else, I don't need it in my hobby...
131
Post by: malfred
If it's a beer and pretzels environment, then stop producing for the
tournament crowd. Isn't it the tourney crowds who buy the latest
things and convert them buying bitz and kit bashing? That was always
my impression.
827
Post by: Cruentus
The Tournament crowd used to be the Beer and Pretzels crowd. Now the Tournament crowd is all about IW, Seer Villages (till recently), loopholes, and no-comp.
Sure, tourney-goers buy bitz, convert, etc.(at least they used to, I've been singularly unimpressed by what I've seen at larger tourneys lately) , but the 'tourny crowd' I would argue, is also a vast minority of the dollars spent by all hobbyists.
226
Post by: blue loki
I think you're playing that down a bit too much.
If it's only the 0.0001% of gamers that have a problem, then why is it that large groups like Adepticon and many smaller local gaming clubs have had to resort to creating their own homebrew FAQs?
Many online gaming forums have constructed their own FAQs as well. And while there are plenty of folks who crossover between forums, there are just as many who just stick with their favorite and ignore the rest.
If this really was just a problem for the smallest number of troublesome players, so many different attempts at fixing the problems would not exist as it would not be necessary.
1795
Post by: keezus
I think Malfred has hit it right on the head. If it was a more "beer and pretzels" environment, there would be more league scenarios published, league play would be promoted, there would be more Gamesdays than GTs. However, we all know this to be the opposite.
As for being the best, as a product:
Models: Consistently good models on average (arguably). However, I don't think they can claim the title of the "best" anymore. Too many of the new models are either static, recycled or are suffering from the "Emperor's Bling Explosion".
Rules: Well. We all know that GW is less than the best here.
Value: Privateer's army-building model offers more value through the interchangable caster system. Mongoose Publishing is much cheaper / model. FOW while also requiring decent starting capital, you don't have to worry about a Tiger Tank being worse than a Sherman in the next edition.
Support: This is a mixed bag. Hobby and sales support is unparalleled. Rules support is so terrible it can be said to be non-existent.
Hardly No. 1 anymore.
339
Post by: ender502
Posted By Cruentus on 12/20/2006 6:03 AM Its this desire for the unattainable holy grail of 'tight rules' that sets the bar at an impossible height. As someone mentioned, their rules started as a 'beer and pretzels' kind of game, some structure to push around their miniatures. Now, they're expected to churn out a balanced, well edited, and tournament-tight ruleset with all the bells and whistles. Ain't happening, no matter what other game you pick up instead, or how much bashing and whining is done on forums.
You seem to suggest that a "tight rule" set is an "unattainable holy grail." If that is the case I would suggest annoiting yourself with sacred oils and making a pilgrimage to wherever it is they made the B5, warmachine and flames of war rules sets. Apparently they are having daily grail showings. Further, I don't see how it is too much to ask for a "balanced, well edited and tournament-tight ruleset." That's like saying that it is too much to ask for a dictionary to have the words defined correctly. A solid rules set is not hard. Decent editing is not hard. ender502
1795
Post by: keezus
Posted By Cruentus on 12/20/2006 6:03 AM Its this desire for the unattainable holy grail of 'tight rules' that sets the bar at an impossible height.
Redshirt: "Hello, are you familiar with our games? They are a tabletop strategy game, kind of like Chess, or Risk". Strangely enough, Chess and Risk have tight rules. There's no question if that Rook can take your Knight. Granted, Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are much more complex with more varied pieces and rules, however, the rulesets are still much too vague, especially when compared with Warmachine/Hordes and Flames of War. However, this vaugeness in the ruleset is a black mark against GW, since one of GW's biggest strengths is the penetration of their product. I can go from one town to another and pick-up a game of 40k. What I don't need is an arguement as to whether Fear of the Darkness needs LOS or not. This should be clearly laid out in the codex. While I agree on principle that it is impossible to write a 100% tight ruleset, they can do better than the 75% tight ruleset they have now.
2693
Post by: Saber
DBM (De Bellis Multitudinis) is the most popular set of historical rules in the world, at least for the ancient, classical and medieval period. The rules are extremely tight, and almost unreadable (though I don't know if one necessarily follows the other). The rules are very popular for tournament play; in fact, tournament play seems to be the primary purpose of the rules.
Warhammer Ancient Battles is another popular set of rules for ancient, classical and medival battles, and it is also very popular for tournament use. However, it is written in a more friendly, "beer and pretzels" style; it may be even more casual than Warhammer Fantasy.
I cannot say that I have had more fun playing in DBM tournaments than in WAB tournaments, despite the superior clarity of the former's rules. While WAB (and WFB, and 40k) require some compromise between opponents to solve the grey areas in the rules, I do not think this detracts from the game. In fact, I think the grey areas add to the game - they are a necessary evil, if you will - since they are for the most part a symptom of the looser, more flexible Warhammer rules set.
If GW's FAQs are not precise, then part of that is because of the laziness of the rules writers, while part of it is because of the nature of the Warhammer rules.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
My theory is that GW's theory is that a tightly written ruleset with definitions of terms, a proper index, and appendices would actually frighten away the core market who are 13 yr-old boys.
26
Post by: carmachu
To put bluntly:
THey dont care much about the ruless, because their not trying to sell rules. THey only want to sell models. Thats where the effort is.
827
Post by: Cruentus
Warhammer Ancients is a lot smoother than Warhammer Fantasy for one simple reason: less complexity. Everyone is human, battlefield capability is based on 'historical' approximations of ability. No magic, no flying creatures, monsters, or magic items. In the same vein, WFB and 40k have over a dozen army books each, with a dizzying array of options, magics, psychics, powers and abilities. There is no way to balance all of that. Sure, you can write some basic mechanics that are tight, but to give everyone their 'unique' army, with unique play style, and all the extra doo-dads that people will scream for, then its going to be 75% tight. There is no way around it.
Sure, editing can be improved, language can be streamlined across books, but the basic fact is that there is such variety, that it becomes almost impossible to balance it all. I mean, games designers don't have all day to sit around and come up with loopholes and abuses, like we do. They have their next codex to put out, next army book to write, etc on a deadline. We're the ones with too much free time, apparently.
I would argue that the 3rd ed 'back of the book' 40k armies were fairly fun and balanced. The game had a lot of movement, some tactical challenges were raised, and a bright lance was a lascannon, and a fusion gun was a melta. Lots of 'acts as' weapons, which was fine for me. However, that's not good enough for everyone else, including the 13yos. So GW puts out new books, comes up with all kinds of exceptions to exceptions to rules, and there you go - too much complexity.
And PP has how many factions? And FOW is based on 'historical' capability - if their shermans were beating up Tiger IIs 1 on 1, there'd be an outcry and it'd be fixed - there is an obvious 'balance' that has to be maintained...
26
Post by: carmachu
There is no way to balance all of that. Sure, you can write some basic mechanics that are tight, but to give everyone their 'unique' army, with unique play style, and all the extra doo-dads that people will scream for, then its going to be 75% tight. There is no way around it. Excuse mongering. Hordes/Warmachine have MORE interchangable parts, hell its two different games that work togther, and somehow they can make it work, and work right. Thats just an excuse of the matter....
157
Post by: mauleed
People really buy into that "you just can't make good, unambiguous rules" crap? I guess I underestimated the stupidity of my fellow gamers. Other companies are doing it. They're putting out tighter and more complex rules and literally stealing market share from this bloated, self congratulating dinosaur.
465
Post by: Redbeard
I think they would do well to take a look at the changes that WotC made to M:TG, I'm guessing around 1999.
Pre-1999 - Similar to GW now. Text on cards was written in English, and sometimes a bit ambiguous. Play was defined ok for beer&pretzel play, but had issues.
Post 1999 - The biggest change they made was simply to standardize wording. Anything that was a cost came before a :, anything that was an effect came after the : They clearly defined a set of words that had very precise meanings, and those were the rules that they used from then on. And, they clearly defined the timing rules - but in such a way that if you only played the beer&pretzels version of the game, you probably didn't notice.
These things may have had a one-time hit in terms of development costs. But, once they had them established, they reduced development times for all subsequent releases, because they had narrowed the scope of how they were writing.
Does this mean they never had game balance issues? Of course not. Does it make them perfect? No, not that either. But, the designer's intent was no longer in question. Maybe their judgement, sometimes, but not their intent. Everything was well defined, even in the cases where they screwed up the balance a bit.
1795
Post by: keezus
Posted By Cruentus on 12/20/2006 7:35 AM
And PP has how many factions? And FOW is based on 'historical' capability - if their shermans were beating up Tiger IIs 1 on 1, there'd be an outcry and it'd be fixed - there is an obvious 'balance' that has to be maintained...
PP has 9 factions. However, each core Warmachine faction has 6 regular casters and 3 epic casters for a total of 9 sublists. The Mercenaries have 4 regular casters and 1 epic caster. Hordes has 4 factions with 3 warlocks each for a total of 12 sublists. So I guess with as few as 53 different "caster/warlocks" for your army, you can say that Privateer's system is a lot less complex than Warhammer/Warhammer40k.
And as for "obvious balance"... As GW provides a fantasy setting, statistics are clearly infinitely maleable, considering that Wraithlords went from invincible to being easily eaten by powerfists, Librarians went from never-before-seen on the field of battle to being in every army and rhinos (the most common STC in the galaxy) are about as common as Ogryn on the battlefield. It's a good thing that GW is on the ball.
3179
Post by: ninjajuicer
I agree.
As I see it the present rules set is solid, but needs lots of cleaning.
The rules, as they stand now, are not so complex that they couldn't be tightened considerably. It wouldn't require a new edition, just "Rulebook 4.2" If we were still playing second ed, I'd be telling people to stop whining because there was no way (short of a 1200 page rulebook) that those rules were going to be tightened.
When I really look at the rules questions that come up in my games, the real problem is at the codex level. Unfortunately, the new Eldar Codex has a format that is absolutely terrible. That's a shame, because overall balence of the game has improved considerably over the years, with more "top tier" and strong tourney armies too choose from.
2nd ed.-
Eldar and Space Wolves
3rd ed-
Biel Tan Eldar (Falcon + Serpent Rush), Rhino rush [Space Wolves/Templar Rush, Various chaos], Dark Eldar (Darklance or raider heavy), Iron Warriors
4rth ed-
Mech Eldar, Demon bomb, Iron Warriors, SAFH marines, 'Pod marines, Dark Eldar
I would also put 'Crons, Mech Tau and Farsight Tau, and Speed Freaks on the outside of this. Strong, but in no way broken.
Ulthwe Eldar (Gone with new codex)
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Posted By keezus on 12/20/2006 8:10 AM Posted By Cruentus on 12/20/2006 7:35 AM
And PP has how many factions?...
PP has 9 factions.
Ten, actually.
1795
Post by: keezus
Posted By Stu-Rat on 12/20/2006 8:18 AM Posted By keezus on 12/20/2006 8:10 AM Posted By Cruentus on 12/20/2006 7:35 AM
And PP has how many factions?...
PP has 9 factions.
Ten, actually.
IIRC, minions isn't playable presently due to the lack of a Warlock... or am I wrong...
226
Post by: blue loki
No, you're right.
Minions don't have a Warlock, and might not ever if you trust the rumor mill.
So it's 9 factions....
....unless you count Magnus + Skorne as a 10th...
26
Post by: carmachu
PP has 9 factions. However, each core Warmachine faction has 6 regular casters and 3 epic casters for a total of 9 sublists. The Mercenaries have 4 regular casters and 1 epic caster. Hordes has 4 factions with 3 warlocks each for a total of 12 sublists. So I guess with as few as 53 different "caster/warlocks" for your army, you can say that Privateer's system is a lot less complex than Warhammer/Warhammer40k. More than that. Depends on whether you play 500, 1000, or even 1500pt games. YOu can have 1, 2, even 3 casters in the mix. PLus you can have an epic merc with Hordes.... I noticed you didnt include how many 40K has. Because It sure isnt 53 in 40k. YOu have the big 5 for marines(standard, BA, DA, SW, BT), 2 eldar books, tau, IG, ork, necron, WH, DH, Tyranid. Did I miss any? 14 army books. I'd say the combination is a bit smaller for 40k. And fantasy.(what 15 different armies?) And considering hordes and warmachine cant play against each other.....while fntasy and 40k cant, I'd say your blowing smoke out your rear.
1122
Post by: fellblade
I don't quite buy the 53 factions. 53 possible builds, maybe, 53 different lists... but I beg to doubt that a Cygnar army with Stryker is a different faction than a Cygnar army with Epic Stryker, any more than a Dark Elf army led by a Highborn is a faction than a DE army led by Morathi.
Which is entirely beside the point.
Having just read the new FAQ, I am actually angry at GW for bothering to post it. They went to the trouble and expense (our expense, actually) to release a 7th edition of the rules, which when you get to the actual changes, should have been rules v6.2. They specifically simplified a lot of the rules for charging and pursuit. Now, in the first FAQ, they are confusing the issues again. In the main rules it clearly states that you must maximize the number of models in combat, but in the FAQ they say, basically, 'you don't have to after all, unless you really want to.' It is _BOGUS_. What, now the roolzboyz are writing the FAQ?
1795
Post by: keezus
Carmanchu> I think I forgot to turn on the "sarcasm" tags. But the point is moot, since GWs ruleswriting team and FAQ writing team could stand some improvement.
827
Post by: Cruentus
Posted By carmachu on 12/20/2006 9:44 AM
More than that. Depends on whether you play 500, 1000, or even 1500pt games. YOu can have 1, 2, even 3 casters in the mix.
PLus you can have an epic merc with Hordes....
I noticed you didnt include how many 40K has. Because It sure isnt 53 in 40k. YOu have the big 5 for marines(standard, BA, DA, SW, BT), 2 eldar books, tau, IG, ork, necron, WH, DH, Tyranid.
Did I miss any? 14 army books. I'd say the combination is a bit smaller for 40k. And fantasy.(what 15 different armies?)
And considering hordes and warmachine cant play against each other.....while fntasy and 40k cant, I'd say your blowing smoke out your rear.
Sure, then I can count all the possible combinations of Traits in the Marine Dex as 'armies' or 'varients'. I think that's more than 53. Not including Armaggedon lists, Chapter Approved (some of which are still 'official'), back of codex/army book variants, etc. Or, I could argue that just using a Librarian rather than a Commander as a HQ makes my army 'different'.
Nope, no smoke, just an opinion, but its obvious I'm just wrong because I disagree. 
26
Post by: carmachu
Carmanchu> I think I forgot to turn on the "sarcasm" tags. But the point is moot, since GWs ruleswriting team and FAQ writing team could stand some improvement. well then, my bad....
26
Post by: carmachu
but I beg to doubt that a Cygnar army with Stryker is a different faction than a Cygnar army with Epic Stryker you would of course, be wrong. First, epics require 750pts, regular as little as 350-500pts. SO at the start, epics have at least 250pts more to play with. Second, epics give bonuses to certain units(stormguard in this case I believe) to their stats. Third, both the feats and spell lists are different. So yes, they do play differently.
1795
Post by: keezus
Cruentus: Well, the two systems can not be directly comparable, since PPs system is fully designed around having a mandatory HQs who have fairly different (battle affecting) skillsets. One may be a beatstick and another may be a support character. Nothing in 40k has this kind of continuous in-game effect. The closest analogies are: Farsight Enclave (different force org, and perfered enemy orks) and the trait/doctrine system. While 40k has more variant lists based off the sheer number of permutations available due to Traits, Doctrines, Chaos Legions, Campaign sub-lists... this is no justification for having a rules package written as loosely as it is now. A few things jump out immediately: 1. Wounding with ordinance.
2. LOS for fury of the ancients. - This is just assinine, it either does, or it doesn't. All it takes is a single sentence in the codex to fix it.
3. Tau pathfinders and scout. None of these needed to be ambigious. These should not require a FAQ to fix, unlike bizzaro rules issues like: Are warlocks taken as a seperate HQ choice. Finally, would it kill GW to not keep issuing updated books without version numbers? The Chaos codex is a notable example, with AV13-12-10 predators, T1 thrall wizards, multiple versions of doom-siren etc. Its one thing to produce a book full of errors, but another thing altogether to issue an update on the sly. Don't get me wrong, GW does lots of things right. Rules aren't one of them.
459
Post by: Hellfury
Posted By carmachu on 12/20/2006 7:30 AM
To put bluntly:
THey dont care much about the ruless, because their not trying to sell rules. THey only want to sell models. Thats where the effort is.
I beleive a GW higher up once said something very very similar to this. Something akin to: "We dont make models for the rules, we make rules for the models". or something quite close to that. That has been over 5 years ago this was said and it shows in the rules we have today. I love the game, I hate the rules. I wont stop playing but I have stopped buying. Quite recemtly my models have not been citadel in purchase, but things alot better looking and more vlaue. I too am turning over to the warmachine fold. After visiting their forums, they take an active, organized role in their support of their games. the models arent the best, but there are plenty of companies that have great models to stand in for the rules. I am very glad that I am making the change. A painless transition, becuase GW basically forced my hand to do so.
1122
Post by: fellblade
Posted By carmachu on 12/20/2006 11:10 AM but I beg to doubt that a Cygnar army with Stryker is a different faction than a Cygnar army with Epic Stryker you would of course, be wrong. First, epics require 750pts, regular as little as 350-500pts. SO at the start, epics have at least 250pts more to play with. Second, epics give bonuses to certain units(stormguard in this case I believe) to their stats. Third, both the feats and spell lists are different. So yes, they do play differently.
Play differently, yes. Does that make them a different faction? 500 points of Empire plays a lot differently than 2250 points. Ultramarines led by Marneus play a lot differently than Ultramarines led by a force commander. They are still Ultramarines. Cygnar is still Cygnar. Menoth is Menoth.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Posted By blue loki on 12/20/2006 8:36 AM
No, you're right.
Minions don't have a Warlock, and might not ever if you trust the rumor mill.
So it's 9 factions....
....unless you count Magnus + Skorne as a 10th...
Nope, it's ten. Four Warmachine factions, four Hordes factions, two Mercenary factions.
26
Post by: carmachu
Nope, it's ten. Four Warmachine factions, four Hordes factions, two Mercenary factions. Technically there are more than 2 mercenary ones: 5 star, Highborn, Seaforge and Magnus.....each one plays differently.
23
Post by: djones520
The internet has several locations where online petitions can be put together.
Has anyone here ever thought about doing something like that? Putting one of those together, and just hitting all the forums with it, getting all of the gamers to sign it. You'd probably come up with a good couple thousand signatures pretty easily. If this where forwarded up to GW, I bet it would possibly raise a few eye brows.
Address certain things like the wanton raising of prices. The total lack of support for rule fixes. The anger about Marine after Marine after Marine release.
Of course, it might not get a single thing accomplished, but it's certainly better then sitting here flailing at your keyboard accomplishing absolutely nothing.
1795
Post by: keezus
Petitions are useless because we are not GW's core market. 
226
Post by: blue loki
Changing the Warcaster/Warlock of a faction provides a comparible amount of diversity to the different sub-codexes in 40k. You get different rules and skills that provide a different playstyle when using the same models
These obvoiusly don't compare one for one, but as an example:
Cygnar w/Haley -> Codex Marines
Cygnar w/Striker -> DA
Cygnar w/Darius -> BA
etc...
So basically you're left with:
1. Marines, SM variants, and =I= MEQs
2. IG and =I= non-MEQs
3. Tyranids
4. Necrons
5. Eldar
6. Tau
7. Chaos
8. Orks
VS
1. Cygnar
2. Khador
3. Menoth
4. Cryx
5. Mercs
6. Circle
7. Trollbloods
8. Legion
9. Skorne
Looks pretty even to me.
23
Post by: djones520
http://www.petitiononline.com/petition.html If someone wants to set it up, I'll sign it, but I'm not "disgruntled" enough (ie. I'm one of those beer and nuts players), to go about and do it myself. But sitting back and saying it'll be worthless only shows that your never going to take any stance to try to get GW to change it's policy. You could post this here, Librarium, Warseer, and any other forums you all know about, and hundreds to thousands of people will sign it. If that doesn't cover the "Core group" then nothing will.
99
Post by: insaniak
Posted By djones520 on 12/20/2006 12:31 PM
But sitting back and saying it'll be worthless only shows that your never going to take any stance to try to get GW to change it's policy.
...or simply that you've seen these petitions crop up countless times over the last 15 years, and they have never actually amounted to anything. Companies don't tend to pay a great deal of attention to online petitions. They're too easy to set up, and don't cover a particularly thorough cross-section of the market. With a company like GW, who has shown repeatedly that they have very little interest in the opinion of the internet community, an internet petition is going to get far less of a result than writing actual letters... which would also get an extremely limited response (usually just a form-letter saying 'Thanks for your feedback. Hey, did you know that we have new Empire models out?' There are ways to make a point (stop buying, being the most effective) but internet petitions are most definitely not one of them.
3899
Post by: IGfan
Posted By blue loki on 12/20/2006 12:27 PM
Changing the Warcaster/Warlock of a faction provides a comparible amount of diversity to the different sub-codexes in 40k. You get different rules and skills that provide a different playstyle when using the same models
These obvoiusly don't compare one for one, but as an example:
Cygnar w/Haley -> Codex Marines
Cygnar w/Striker -> DA
Cygnar w/Darius -> BA
etc...
So basically you're left with:
1. Marines, SM variants, and =I= MEQs
2. IG and =I= non-MEQs
3. Tyranids
4. Necrons
5. Eldar
6. Tau
7. Chaos
8. Orks
VS
1. Cygnar
2. Khador
3. Menoth
4. Cryx
5. Mercs
6. Circle
7. Trollbloods
8. Legion
9. Skorne
Looks pretty even to me.
Good job contracting the 40k factions there, I mean SoB and GK play exactly like marines, don't they? While you're at it, why don't you put chaos and necrons with the marines? They have similar stats. And then put all the other factions together into non-marines. Then you're left with two factions for 40k and 9 for WM, trully displaying its awesomness....
1795
Post by: keezus
djones: I've bought at least $1.5k for Warmachine/Hordes in the last year, with 300-1700+ points in 5 factions, four of them playable at 500 point tournament size. I've spent about $50 on GW product - and only because the old stormtroopers are out of production. If that isn't taking a stand against GW, I don't know what is. Disclaimer: 5000+ of Eldar, 3000+ of Chaos, 1000+ of Tau, 2000+ of Space Marines, 1000+ of Dark Eldar, 1000+ of Sisters of Battle, 2000+ of Empire.
1795
Post by: keezus
Posted By IGfan on 12/20/2006 12:59 PM
Good job contracting the 40k factions there, I mean SoB and GK play exactly like marines, don't they? While you're at it, why don't you put chaos and necrons with the marines? They have similar stats. And then put all the other factions together into non-marines. Then you're left with two factions for 40k and 9 for WM, trully displaying its awesomness....
Not that it has any bearing on FAQ writing, but... IGFan: Here, I fixed your post for you: Games Workshop Factions MEQ
non MEQ
Fantasy
BLOODBOWL
Necromunda
Battlefleet Gothic
Inquisitor
MAN O WAR Privateer Press Factions Warmachine
Hordes OMGWTFBBQ! GW wins! (In before lock).
752
Post by: Polonius
Is anyone even suprised anymore? After the debacle with the 40k FAQs, I know a few of the WFB players were thinking, "at least we have better rules." It now appears that limited attention to rules is a company policy, not merely a 40k aberation.
I see two possible courses for gamers to go through:
1) boycott GW, and stop buying their models. Hit them where it hurts. Play other games, coast along with the armies you have, buy second hand, etc.
2) Do what GW wants, and simply come up with a list of house rules. Use these for Stores, home play, RTTs, indy GTs, etc. It's what's effectivly happening anyway. Tweak the rules so the game is fun, challenging, and tight, and then run with it. People will say we're doing GW's job for it, and I'll agree. But it's the only way to play a tight game of warhammer.
1088
Post by: rryannn
what's going to happen if in protest, everyone stops buying GW, and then they kick the bucket?
I think we'd all feel pretty bad...
226
Post by: blue loki
Posted By IGfan on 12/20/2006 12:59 PM
Good job contracting the 40k factions there, I mean SoB and GK play exactly like marines, don't they? While you're at it, why don't you put chaos and necrons with the marines? They have similar stats. And then put all the other factions together into non-marines. Then you're left with two factions for 40k and 9 for WM, trully displaying its awesomness....
Didn't pay attention to the rest of the thread did you?
Reread my post and the ones before it. The point is that while GK, DA, BA, SW, and C:SM all play very differently, they are pretty much made up of the same units with different special rules thrown into the mix. Warmachine/Hordes is constructed very similarly. When you switch out the Warcaster/Warlock in a faction most of the models remain the same, but just about EVERYTHING else changes. Circle with Kaya and Circle with Krueger play extremely differently and yet they are made up of primarily the same models, just like DA and BA.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
what's going to happen if in protest, everyone stops buying GW, and then they kick the bucket?
I think we'd all feel pretty bad... Actually we'd be hoping for someone more competent to buy the licenses. GW may die, but the IP is too much of a cash cow to disappear.
112
Post by: Smatticus
I always wondered if the rules aren't tightened for the sole purpose of giving you a reason to buy the next edition ruleset. I mean if GW put out a perfect ruleset than you wouldn't need to make a new version of the game every few years. New versions build hype for new models, etc.
Just a little conspiracy theory.
40
Post by: nyarlathotep667
GW's FAQ mentality is really but an outgrowth of their ridiculous corporate culture that revolves around excessive arrogance based on their overrated sense of self worth, contempt for their customers and general laziness and apathy.
In particular, it seems obvious to me that they have decided their target audience is 12 year olds who only care about Kewl Toyz, SPace MariNez and Big GUnz!!!! LOL! and couldn't care less about the rules. This is borne out in everything they do: an ever decreasing quality in miniatures, rules that are poorly written and any errata being applied in as flippant a manner as possible, and generally alienating anyone old enough to know better (and likely to be paying for this on their own dime, instead of mommy & daddy's.
The older market? What do they care, they have your money (at least that's what they think), and they keep on trucking. This lets them get lazier every year with the rest of their "customer support" (which has turned to utter gak the past few years, mail order/product replacement excepted, and that is just standard). The company is rotten at the core and anyone who stood up to Kirby & co has long since been fired, left, shuttled to the side or bought out (ie: Jervis's pathetic comments in WD).
And guess what, it's showing! Sales have been dropping like a rock for the last two years and yet they continue with this mad path they are on! I can't wait until the end of January (or is it early February?) when the mid-year financials come out. I'm positive they are going to be bad. My great hope for 2007 is that the stock holders will finally get rid of Kirby & co, put competent people in place and get the company turned around. But I doubt it will happen and we'll see GW either get snapped up by Hasbro (or similar) or turn into a complete caricature of itself as a kiddie game toy company.
861
Post by: Gotchaye
Perhaps I'm just being optimistic, but I do think that this is a problem that will solve itself. I've stopped buying, as have many people I know. A general culture of disrespect for GW seems to result in a lot less company loyalty - I hear more and more about people only buying models secondhand and just pirating the rules online. The stock is still doing miserably, and there's nothing like the prospect of another LotR boost again. GW will change or die, and, if it dies, the IP is going to someone who will be better able to deal with it. While econ isn't my field, what I've gathered from others on this board is that Kirby's even gathering stock with the likely intention of guaranteeing a nice golden parachute, which would imply that the company will be sold soon (or that Kirby thinks that the stock is about to go way up, which would indicate good things by itself).
And, of course, there's the increased pressure from games like Warmachine. I'd guess that, within a few years, GW will have major competition.
844
Post by: stonefox
Anyone who complains about the impossibility of a tight ruleset made for a tournament game either hasn't played Magic TCG, any worthwhile PC game (and you'll hear a lot more whining, with bonus technical jargon, from intertron nerds on the Blizz forums), or is one of those sophomoric students who just got out of phil class and can't distinguish between optimal and practical theories. what's going to happen if in protest, everyone stops buying GW, and then they kick the bucket?
I think we'd all feel pretty bad... Hasbro Golden Age, Hasbro Golden Age, Hasbro Golden Age, no whammy no whammy no whammy!
131
Post by: malfred
Posted By rryannn on 12/20/2006 1:12 PM
what's going to happen if in protest, everyone stops buying GW, and then they kick the bucket?
I think we'd all feel pretty bad...
I don't think the people who stopped buying would feel bad. I think that the company would change long before it kicked the bucket, though.
161
Post by: syr8766
I think we've got a couple of different issues here, at least vis-a-vis GW:
1. Quality of publications (e.g. editing, proofreading)
2. Quality of intellectual product (rules)
3. Goals/Outcome (are they a game company or a miniature company?)
The quality thing is something that, seemingly, all the big companies are suffering from. Look at WOTC/Hasbro. The core D&D books are pretty tight, but get into the supplements (the 'complete' series, for example) and you find horrendous typos and print errors, contradictory special rules with the same name, unclear special rules, etc.). To Wizard's credit, they do try to fix things and get FAQs out in a timely manner, and do let a certain amount of grumbling on their boards.
The Goals piece is what's more troubling. It suggests that the rules are, like White Dwarf, really just an advertisement for the minis. If that's the case, they might be better off licensing the games out and letting a dedicated team really work on the rules in a coherent fashion.
As for the boycott: dude, that get's proposed about once a year, and while many vets are, in fact, no longer buying GW products (at least on the boards), there are plenty more who can't kick it.
2693
Post by: Saber
I don't get it. Why do so many people get so angry at Games Workshop for writing rules that are imperfect? It is still a fun game, and it is not like an imperfect FAQ should somehow ruin your day unless you are a fool. Then again, maybe I am a fool for contributing to this "discussion".
Hordes and Warmachine have just as many problems as the Warhammer games, what with certain casters and units being grossly overpowered (e.g. Sorscha, Bane Knights) and others being grossly underpowered (e.g. Nemo, the Devil Dogs). And just because the rules for Warmachine are clear, it doesn't make them great.
P.S. I wouldn't say that Warhammer Ancient Battles is less complicated than WFB. The rules for drilled movement, Byzantine cavalry, Roman Maniples, Fall Back In Good Order, and Chinese Ruses to name a few, are just as complicated as anything in WFB. And since most of the rules involve manuvering, I think they add more complexity to the game than simply another magic item or a unit with killing blow.
752
Post by: Polonius
I think peopel are angry over imperfect rules because the amount of investment we have in our armies. When you consider the time, energy, money, and emotion that go into building and playing an army, it's easy to get upset when the company seems less than interested in making sure you have a good time.
And it's not like the demands peole have are ridiculous. It would cost very little to put out good FAQs.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
People are angry because lots of rules problems would be fixed or avoided if GW would
1. Define their terms. (Like player turn/game turn/turn)
2. Avoid ambiguity.
3. Give clear explanations with step-through examples which worked. (Wounding with mixed armour/toughness models inclkuding multiple wound models.)
4. Use a bit of clear thinking to ensure new units and powers fitted properly into the existing structure. (Tau Piranha drones.)
That would still leave the problems of overlapping special powers and stuff but it would solve the major everyday issues immediately. It would not be hard to do.
99
Post by: insaniak
Posted By Saber on 12/21/2006 8:47 AM
I don't get it. Why do so many people get so angry at Games Workshop for writing rules that are imperfect?
Most of them don't. The majority of people are quite happy to accept that mistakes happen. What people get angry about is the almost complete lack of interest GW show towards fixing their mistakes. Where other companies take feedback through their forums, put out FAQs as quickly as they can get them written, and use each successive edition of their games to tighten up their rules, GW just keep on coasting along telling us to figure it out for ourselves.
2695
Post by: beef
Maybe they think we are adult enough to figure it out ourselves?
40
Post by: nyarlathotep667
Right. A games company that is oriented towards 12 year olds yet also puts an international tourney system thinks we're "adult" enough to fix their glaring rules mistakes...  The funny thing is games definitely aimed at adults, like Flames of War, Command Decision, Warmachine and countless others, all provide some sort of rules support, be it faqs and errata that aren't flippant or condescending, online forums where everyman joe can interact and conversate with the game designers & figure sculptors, and/or some other interactive level of customer support for their rules product. GW does none of this.
1795
Post by: keezus
Simplistic system marketed towards kids
Rules as written targetted towards casual players
Events run for hardcore gamers
Price affordable to those with full time employment Fantastic business model if I've ever seen one myself... Kids may be confused by the loosely written rules, and can't afford the product themselves... Hardcore gamers are unhappy with the high price tag to maintain performance in the shifting seas of codex creep and the ambigious ruleset... GW should just pick their market and stay in it instead of trying to be everything to everyone and failing miserably.
99
Post by: insaniak
Posted By beef on 12/21/2006 1:15 PM
Maybe they think we are adult enough to figure it out ourselves?
Ah. Ok. So if you buy a TV, and it's missing the volume control, you would be ok with the TV manufacturer telling you to just 'fix it yourself'? I think not. Likewise, if a company sells an $80 rulebook, and it's missing entire sections of rules, it hardly seems unreasonable to expect them to fix the problem. Nor does it seem unreasonable to think that releasing a $30 supplement 18 months later with some of those missing rules, and an incomplete FAQ six months after that is not exactly an acceptable response to the problem. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
1235
Post by: logan007
Umm, I think beef was being sarcastic...
When you can make out the words that he's typing, he sounds like a pretty smart guy -- give him some credit!
3170
Post by: Squirreli
It seems to me that the ambiguity in the rules is good for business, and here's why: Added ambiguity makes for added conversation (like this our most enjoyable specimen here) which makes for added exposure which makes for all those nifty ideas of the next great army project. Now, in the long run this will of course cost players (and thus: money) but I can definitely see advantages in this for GW. A workmate of mine got me back into 40k eight months back, and since then I've spent more money on the product than in the three or so years before that. Having a lot of time to kill while at work and a few splendid forums are to blame for my continued exposure/addiction. Having rules to explore and debate about are thus an added bonus for every active gamer! Now, why would GW want to lose all these advantages for no gain? ... And no, im being not completely serious
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It is fun arguing about the rules.
However, the ambiguity isn't there as a policy, it's there because GW are incompetent at writing and editing copy.
383
Post by: bigchris1313
Posted By logan007 on 12/21/2006 5:14 PM
Umm, I think beef was being sarcastic...
When you can make out the words that he's typing, he sounds like a pretty smart guy -- give him some credit!
What if I can't ever make out the words that he's typing?
1523
Post by: Saldiven
I've really enjoyed this thread; it's been kind of interesting. I think one quote I have to take umbridge with is that we set an "impossibly high" level of expectation if we expect "perfect" rules. Avalon hill produced exquisitely tight rules sets for decades before video games and miniature games drove the board game company to sell out. GW just needs to get it through their head that fluff and rules should never be side by side, and paragraph format rules sets for wargames really aren't that efficient in explaining rules. That format is easier to read for the eye, but harder to nail down the rule you're looking for. Most of AH's rule sets were in outline format. I've played AH games for 20+ years and never had a rules argument, even with ASL. So, no, it isn't an "impossibly high" standard to expect tight rules. All it would take is for GW to hire a couple of technical writers (the kind that write instruction manuals for VCR's) to translate the rules as expressed by the designers into a written format. They would catch the inconsistencies as they were written in. ( BTW, I have a degree in English and studied technical writing briefly, so GW, if you're reading this, call me! On a second note, one post mentioned that the game developers don't have the time we do to come up with rules loop holes, etc. Um....developers get paid to do nothing but design rules 8 hours a day, five days a week. I sure don't have that much time to devote to examining the rules. The Dev team should be the absolute experts on all aspects of every codex and rule set GW has printed. I mean, on Monday, they could do nothing but read all the codexices before spending Tue through Fri working on the next project, keeping what they read on Monday in mind. Then, the next week, they could repeat. I mean, seriously, the JOB of the Dev team is to write the rules; it just seems apparent to me that they don't have any pride in their product. Sal.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
Another issue that has not been brought up has been the continuality of the franchize.
There has to have had to have been about eight to ten different people working on the issues of development of the races and factions of just 40K itself. There has been no conversation of how the developers hand off thier work to the next one who takes over the project of the race.
Nevermind that the same sort of issue is as well happening with the rules, and the development of the general gaming direction of 40K. I know that the developer has carte blanch with the project, because it shows in the evolution of each one of the races. Space marines seem like a training ground, then they evolve on to other more hearty projects.
I feel that they know exactly what they are doing, but the poor things get overwhelmed by thier task, and don't really know that thier decisions have such of a dire effect on the game in general. Every once in awhile you can see the issue come up with the whole game and generally whenever there is a personnel turnaround.
If you really want to know how it works behind the scenes, go ask Andy Chambers what he thinks about it. Im sure Mike Mcvey could give you an earful as well.
Incompetent is a word that you can throw at them, but come on...
The buisiness end of this company is a publicly traded entity. bottom line is the name of the game on that level. They don't give rat drop about rules, quality, etc. Bucks powers that train, and as long as theire are 10-15 year olds with kings coin of the realm, theres going to be a GW to be paid.
There issue with upper management isn't something to go into with FAQ's, but it is a symptom of the curse.
The FAQ's come out as a band-aid. They suck so bad because they are written up as a temporary fix, and are not thought out and written with alot or research or followup.
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Grot 6 on 12/22/2006 11:26 AM
The FAQ's come out as a band-aid. They suck so bad because they are written up as a temporary fix, and are not thought out and written with alot or research or followup.
Then why do the original rules suck so badly?
They both suck for the same reason: incompetence at the managerial level.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
Um....developers get paid to do nothing but design rules 8 hours a day, five days a week. I'm not sure. They do a lot of promotion work too. I have no idea what the actual ratio of time spent is though.
287
Post by: Zubbiefish
That's an unfair question. We all know that the rules suck so that we buy more minis.
221
Post by: Frazzled
If its too annoying to be workable, quit. If not, play the game. It really is just a game.
99
Post by: insaniak
Posted By jfrazell on 12/23/2006 11:15 AM
If its too annoying to be workable, quit. If not, play the game. It really is just a game.
It doesn't matter what it is. It's a product like any other. Consumers have every right to complain about a faulty product. Quitting is an option, sure. But returning to my TV analogy from before, if your new TV doesn't work the way it should, are you seriously just going to toss it into a cupboard and say 'Really, it's just a TV...'? Or are you going to complain a little? 40K, as it stands, is playable. It can even still be fun, if you're playing with the right people. That doesn't make it any less a faulty product. Nor does it make it any less aggravating that GW seem completely uninterested in fixing that faulty product. People can be annoyed at the shoddy rules, and at GW's failure to address their mistakes, without necessarily feeling the need to stop playing.
40
Post by: nyarlathotep667
Posted By insaniak on 12/23/2006 2:31 PM
It doesn't matter what it is. It's a product like any other. Consumers have every right to complain about a faulty product.
Quitting is an option, sure. But returning to my TV analogy from before, if your new TV doesn't work the way it should, are you seriously just going to toss it into a cupboard and say 'Really, it's just a TV...'? Or are you going to complain a little?
40K, as it stands, is playable. It can even still be fun, if you're playing with the right people.
That doesn't make it any less a faulty product. Nor does it make it any less aggravating that GW seem completely uninterested in fixing that faulty product.
People can be annoyed at the shoddy rules, and at GW's failure to address their mistakes, without necessarily feeling the need to stop playing.
This is one of your best analogies Insaniak. Even with the TV, all one is out is the money they spent on the thing. With GW's craptacular product, you're also robbed of the many hours spent building, converting and painting the figures, aquiring suitable terrain (including making the entire set up yourself if there are no suitable LFGS around), and all of the other hobby things one has to do. And this doesn't even approach when they decide to make whole ranges of figures obsolete just to get people to buy the latest. That'd be like one day going to turn your tv on only to get a message that it is now obsolete, and to watch TV again you'll need to get another TV.
844
Post by: stonefox
But Nyar, it's perfectly reasonable! I can no longer (practically) use my grandparents' 1950s TV for today's hit TV shows. Damn those vile Sony salesmen who tell me I have to "upgrade" to something new. Also, who needs cable TV anyway? My TV works fine with the local channels. I don't need it to work with some foreign networks to get my fix. Them's networks are evil, I tell you. Those lieberals and their evil national news shows. I don't need none of that. (SA is down but if it weren't that new emoticon with its arms crossed goes here.)
221
Post by: Frazzled
I stand by my statement. GW pays scant attention to FAQs. They do not view FAQ's as part of their product. Thats a fact. Griping about it is not going to change it. Its like WD. WD is has taken craptacular to a whole new level recently. I would get very annoyed about that, about spending money for nothing but a catalog, which I should be getting for free, because all discernible non-marketing content has been removed. But once I didn't renew my subscription I was remarkably ok about the whole thing. They can do what they want, but I don't have to support it. I've even gone back to playing an occasional 40K recently. Its the same for the FAQs. If the FAQ's are such a factor of annoyance that they make the game un-enjoyable, then sell your stuff and move on. Life is too short to be annoyed by this (CENSORED). If its just a minor blurb then ok, just vent on occasion buut play the game until something better coems along for you.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The thing is, if GW is a figure company that only does rules to encourage sales of its figures, why do the rules cost £42? (A player needs at least the BGB plus a codex.)
Infinity The Game gives its rules and lists away.
1002
Post by: Wayfarer
Because they are a company first and foremost and will attempt to turn as high a profit as possible just like any other business, just like every individual tries to get a high paying job as possible.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/25/2006 11:52 AM
Because they are a compant first and foremost and will attempt to turn as high a profit as possible just like any other business, just like every individual tries to get a high paying job as possible.
Well, they actually don't. On an individual level, people frequently take lower-paying jobs and work in less lucrative careers because their give other factors higher priority.
A publically-traded company, on the other hand, is legally beholden to its shareholders to maximize profits, and its officers can actually be sued by the shareholders for failing to do so.
1002
Post by: Wayfarer
I'd say you have about as much right to say there aren't people who try to have well-paying careers as I do to say that there are. However it looks like you agree with me that it is acceptable and expected for GW to charge as much as they can get away with for their product.
99
Post by: insaniak
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/25/2006 10:57 PM
I'd say you have about as much right to say there aren't people who try to have well-paying careers as I do to say that there are.
But that's not what either of you said. You didn't say that 'there are people who try to have well paying jobs'... you said that every person will try to get the highest paying job possible. Which, as Mannahnin said, is simply not true. Many people choose jobs based on other factors than how much it pays.
1002
Post by: Wayfarer
Leave it to the RAW nuts to take things as literally as possible. People ideally get jobs they like, but considering that that is much more rare than I wish it was, people usually go for the most money they can get. Honestly I've never heard anyone say they wanted to be a poor bum.
But whatever guys, GW is evil and the average Joe is a saint right? Forgive me if I come across as angry, it's just really tiring to see people constantly give a company a hard time for being a company. It makes me wonder if people on auto forums complain about auto prices and things like that to the same degree. Just be glad you have a disposable income to begin with. We are all so fortunate to be in wealthy countries with oportunities to live very comfortable lives, and it seems ridiculous to me to get upset over the cost of an optional and indulgent purchase.
161
Post by: syr8766
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 12:19 AM Forgive me if I come across as angry, it's just really tiring to see people constantly give a company a hard time for being a company. It makes me wonder if people on auto forums complain about auto prices and things like that to the same degree.
Actually, yes. That's why we have car reviews, Consumer Reports reviews, and the like. People complain about products they see as being priced outside their value (i.e. their quality vis-a-vis their cost), and eventually buy that which they see as being of value (this goes both ways; people will go to the discount big-box stores for some things and the boutiques for others, all based on value). I am glad that I have a disposable income and am more thankful for the roof over my head and the food in my belly and the ability to do something meaningful with my time. Having said that, if I'm going to spend my hard-earned dollar, it better be of appropriate value, both in terms of cost and quality.
131
Post by: malfred
GW is evil incarnate. I cannot count the number of times I have glued my fingers together
assembling their models (mostly because my fingers were glued together)...
99
Post by: insaniak
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 12:19 AM Leave it to the RAW nuts to take things as literally as possible.
Well excuse me for assuming that what you said was what you meant. For the record, I can't recall ever claiming that GW is evil. I've also never complained about their prices. In fact, not so very long ago, I was working in a games store and generally defending their business practices. I don't much like their half-assed rules writing, but have no problems whatsoever with the way they do business in general. I do, however, tend to assume that what someone says is what they mean. That's how communication works. If you say one thing, and then claim that you said something else entirely, it really shouldn't be any surprise that people call you on it.
1002
Post by: Wayfarer
Insaniak: Every time you say every you mean 100%? Or do you understand that often times people use every in a general sense to mean a majority? I think you do, but keep going along here, I'm certain we'll both grow as people because of this petty bickering. Also, I don't see the need to be condescending. It doesn't help your point. What we have is a miscommunication, they happen all the time, even more so over the internet where facial expression, body language, tone, and inflection are lost. I find it's best to try to read and reread someones posts a few times just to make sure of an understanding before outright refuting someone. That or ask a question for clarification.
Also, when I speak of two things in the same post, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are intertwined, nor does it mean that they are directed at the same individual, if they are even directed at anyone in particular at all.
To re-rail this thread: The contradiction on GW's part is unprofessional and amature, and considering that they have so much experience I expect better of them. I wont condemn them over one aspect of the FAQ though. Game design isn't as easy as people think it is, primarily because when you write and test rules, you cannot even begine to fathom how 200,000 players will interperet and abuse them. The fact that they even issue FAQs is enough to say that they are trying, but it seems that gamers in particular, and this extends from board games to video games, are harder to please than anyone else on the planet. I'm glad I'm not in GWs shoes, because I'd get sick of hearing how much everything sucks.
99
Post by: insaniak
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Insaniak: Every time you say every you mean 100%?
Pardon? When I write a post, I type what I mean, yes. If what I've written isn't actually what I meant, then the post is just a waste of time. Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Or do you understand that often times people use every in a general sense to mean a majority? I think you do, but keep going along here, I'm certain we'll both grow as people because of this petty bickering. Also, I don't see the need to be condescending. It doesn't help your point. What we have is a miscommunication, they happen all the time,
I wasn't being condescending, I merely pointed out that you were being inconsistent, and then responded to your cranky-sounding post about ' RAW nuts' You're the one who typed something that they apparently didn't actually mean, and then responded with abuse when corrected. And frankly, yes, if someone says 'every person' I take that to mean 'every person' If you mean 'some people' then you should say 'some people'. Otherwise, 'miscommunications' happen, and people start calling other people names.
621
Post by: Lowinor
Every time you say every you mean 100%? That's.... what.... the.... word.... means. The contradiction on GW's part is unprofessional and amature, and considering that they have so much experience I expect better of them. I wont condemn them over one aspect of the FAQ though. Game design isn't as easy as people think it is, primarily because when you write and test rules, you cannot even begine to fathom how 200,000 players will interperet and abuse them. The fact that they even issue FAQs is enough to say that they are trying, but it seems that gamers in particular, and this extends from board games to video games, are harder to please than anyone else on the planet. I'm glad I'm not in GWs shoes, because I'd get sick of hearing how much everything sucks. Well, no, no one is saying game design is easy. What people are saying is that GW doesn't write terribly good rules (compared to much of its competition) and produces errata at a glacial pace, and then produces errata of... similar quality. My sister-in-law has a master's in English, teaches it, and has several years' experience as a technical writer. Her emails are better proofed than GW's rules. With the size of GW, are you saying it's unreasonable to have (or, at least, a competent) professional writer skilled in writing precise English text proofread the rules? Hell, WotC produces better rules in D&D and gives away the core components and still manages to turn a profit in the whole deal. It is, of course, just a part of the whole Warhammer (or 40k, or whatnot) product. We're involved with the product, and generally rather pleased with it. The rules, however, are a component of the whole product that is rather shoddy.
99
Post by: insaniak
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Insaniak: Every time you say every you mean 100%?
Pardon? When I write a post, I type what I mean, yes. If what I've written isn't actually what I meant, then the post is just a waste of time. Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Or do you understand that often times people use every in a general sense to mean a majority? I think you do, but keep going along here, I'm certain we'll both grow as people because of this petty bickering. Also, I don't see the need to be condescending. It doesn't help your point. What we have is a miscommunication, they happen all the time,
I wasn't being condescending, I merely pointed out that you were being inconsistent, and then responded to your cranky-sounding post about ' RAW nuts' You're the one who typed something that they apparently didn't actually mean, and then responded with abuse when corrected. And frankly, yes, if someone says 'every person' I take that to mean 'every person' If you mean 'some people' then you should say 'some people'. Otherwise, 'miscommunications' happen, and people start calling other people names. Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Game design isn't as easy as people think it is, primarily because when you write and test rules, you cannot even begine to fathom how 200,000 players will interperet and abuse them. The fact that they even issue FAQs is enough to say that they are trying, but it seems that gamers in particular, and this extends from board games to video games, are harder to please than anyone else on the planet.
Nobody's claiming that games design is easy. Building a car isn't easy, either... but we generally expect that the people who do it professionally will do the job properly. You don't expect to pay for a car that has parts missing, and have the manufacturer replace only half of those missing parts two years later...
1002
Post by: Wayfarer
I don't recall being abusive. Unless you find RAW nut to be offensive. I't wasn't an insult but if you took it that way, sorry.
However, I think that hyperbole has been lost on you. I can say with confidence that you have many times in your life said every when it isn't 100%. People do it all the time. I figured that people here, many of whom I consider to be fairly smart, would be able to figure it out.
99
Post by: insaniak
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:39 PM
I don't recall being abusive. Unless you find RAW nut to be offensive. I't wasn't an insult but if you took it that way, sorry.
The name itself isn't particularly offensive... rather innacurate in my case though. The statement as a whole was borderline offensive, as it seemed to be nothing more than trolling for an argument, suggesting that only someone who was obsessed with RAW would bother correcting your poor use of language. Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:39 PM
However, I think that hyperbole has been lost on you. I can say with confidence that you have many times in your life said every when it isn't 100%.
I can say with confidence that at any time I have made an exaggerated claim, I most certainly didn't take offense when corrected...
1002
Post by: Wayfarer
I wasn't offended, and I tried to come across as such. No wonder we're still going on here. As far as I am concerned, BSing on dakka is as innocuous as can be. Well I'm glad that's over with.
re-re-rail: People may not say in so many words that game design is easy, but when they are being so critical and insulting towards a game company, I just get the impression that that's how they feel. Yes a company of GWs experience should be able to get things right by now, but I have the feeling that the corporation itself puts the kind of pressure on the designers that prevents them from making an airtight ruleset, which would be harder to get into in their eyes. And a harder game to get into is fewer sales. I personally think that it's backwards logic on their part, if it is indeed what they think.
40
Post by: nyarlathotep667
More Mouth Breathing Stupidity Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:39 PM
I don't recall being abusive. Unless you find RAW nut to be offensive. I't wasn't an insult but if you took it that way, sorry.
However, I think that hyperbole has been lost on you. I can say with confidence that you have many times in your life said every when it isn't 100%. People do it all the time. I figured that people here, many of whom I consider to be fairly smart, would be able to figure it out.
Great, another knuckle dragging mouth breathing GW sock puppet that, when called on their obvious and frequently inconsistent bullcrap, start back peddling, hurling insults and screeching "you don't understane meeeee". Right buddy. But your not insulting people here: Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 12:19 AM Leave it to the RAW nuts to take things as literally as possible.
<snip>
But whatever guys, GW is evil and the average Joe is a saint right?
Or here: Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Every time you say every you mean 100%? Or do you understand that often times people use every in a general sense to mean a majority? I think you do, but keep going along here, I'm certain we'll both grow as people because of this petty bickering. Also, I don't see the need to be condescending. It doesn't help your point. What we have is a miscommunication, they happen all the time, even more so over the internet where facial expression, body language, tone, and inflection are lost. I find it's best to try to read and reread someones posts a few times just to make sure of an understanding before outright refuting someone. That or ask a question for clarification.
Not only are you back peddling, what the hell exactly are you trying to say? That you always talk in duplicitous hyperbole that is both exaggerated and not actually what you meant? On top of that retardation, not only do you whine about Insaniak (of all people) being condescending, you are then considerably more condesending than he. So what if all of the visual and audio cues are removed from written communication, it hasn't stopped people from clearly communicating their thoughts. Or is your capacity to discern the written word and it's nuances trapped at some elementary level? Lastly is this brown beauty: Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 12:19 AM Forgive me if I come across as angry, it's just really tiring to see people constantly give a company a hard time for being a company. It makes me wonder if people on auto forums complain about auto prices and things like that to the same degree.
Which Syr previously mentioned people do, in fact, complain about auto prices & such, and do so to a vastly, vastly greater degree. If you don't like it, go away. I'm sure the Bolter & Chainsword GW circle jerk would love to have another back patter. Here we like to tell it as it is, and that includes the bad. 
1002
Post by: Wayfarer
That's quite a personality you have there. How does it work out for you?
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Game design isn't as easy as people think it is,.....
Neither is automotive engineering, but I expect my car to start and be safe no matter how hard the designers whine it is. And when they do correct a known issue, I expect them to actually correct it all of them when they recall my car, not fix two things and then take something not broken and replace it with a bad part. I can sum up all you GW apologists in one phrase: Lowered Expectations. You think GW makes a good product because, for whatever reason, you don't need a better product or can't use a better product. If you never need it, fantastic, but shame on you all for being so dense you can't imagine why anyone else would. We're all screaming we need anti-lock breaks that work on our car, and you're screaming that we should shut up, who needs them, it's hard work to design ones that work, and who cares because you ride a bike to work anyway?
157
Post by: mauleed
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 4:37 PM That's quite a personality you have there. How does it work out for you?
Around here it's going to work out alot better than yours.
1002
Post by: Wayfarer
Yeah, apologizing to someone when they said that they had been insulted by you and trying to get an understanding out of people is bad around here huh?
Once again, what the hell is with calling anyone who has anything non-negative to say about GW being an apologist? Oh heaven forbid you try and take a rational and mature aproach to forming your opinion about something. Why is it that only criticism is respected?
I never once said that GW is perfect. Nor did I say that no one had any true complaints. If you had bothered to read my post I had even agreed with most of you about how unproffesional it was of them to make such a contradiction on the same page of their own FAQ.
Maybe you just need someone to yell at so you can feel better about yourself? No, I wont take such a negative view of you right off the bat, it wouldn't be fair. Maybe you just got so worked up when missreading my post, maybe in a rush to defend what you thought was an attack on one of your friends here, that you rushed to post.
What I am saying about GW is that many complaints lodged (not about rules because christ they can be a mess at times) are about price just sound so immature. I dont waaaannnnnaaaa pay money for a product! Grow up. Things cost money. They cost a lot of money. If you don't think they are worth that money, don't spend it. Speak with your wallets.
Also, yeah you do expect cars to be safe, and to function properly for at least a few years. But those of us who have owned a car, and I assume that most of you have, know that they break down, they don't always work as intended. You have to take the care in, or fix it yourself, and rarely does the warranty cover it.
Now Mauleed, I've seen you post plenty around here, and I know how critical you are of the rules. But I don't hold that against you, because I have the feeling that you are critical of the rules because you like the game. I try to be understanding of people before comming down on them for one reason or another, and I guess it's far too much to ask that people do the same for me. Honestly, I've always liked Dakka because I thought that the maturity level was higher, and the atmosphere, even in RAW debates, was more relaxed. I guess I was wrong about that, because tempers have certainly flared, and what I thought was respected around here isn't. Now I feel all wierd for even bothering to say this much over some foolish debate on the internet, but I guess it really bothers me that I have effected such a negative reaction over what I thought was harmless.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
"Once again, what the hell is with calling anyone who has anything non-negative to say about GW being an apologist?"
I find the word 'apologist' carries with it nasty connotations. I wouldn't use it personally. I think it's just a perception that you're blindly uncritical of GW. Since you've been playing devil's advocate in this thread, it's somewhat understandable.
I like GW games. I still enjoy playing and painting. I don't buy models any more since the prices have shot up - but I still play with what I have, look for the occasional deal (on eBay or 40% off sales at gaming stores) and participate by playing and introducing new people to the game.
Despite enjoying the game, I realize that the rules are flawed in quite a few places. Rather than just saying "Thems the breaks.", I'd rather point them out and complain. This means that there's some chance of the rule being fixed. If it's fixed, it makes the game more fun for me.
People do the same thing with RPG companies all the time. The same is true of text book authors and newspapers. When an error occurs, the author fixes in the next printing and includes a mea culpa and gives thanks to the person who corrected it. A little humility never hurts.
It's not the fact that there's errors that bothers me. It's GW's arrogant attitude that people will sort them out for themselves so they don't even need to bother.
131
Post by: malfred
Nyarly! You said I was the only brown beauty! You skeezy soulless
thing of the Deep...
40
Post by: nyarlathotep667
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 4:37 PM That's quite a personality you have there. How does it work out for you?
It's working out great!  Posted By malfred on 12/26/2006 7:46 PM
Nyarly! You said I was the only brown beauty! You skeezy soulless
thing of the Deep...
Aw, but your *my* only brown beauty! 
984
Post by: KnightoNi1894
Wayfarer… You say that games development isn’t easy. I don’t think anyone here will disagree with you. That being said, the majority of the problems that “RAW nuts” point out have nothing to do with games development. They have everything to do with proper written communication and completeness of the product released. Take a look at the GW rulebooks (of all kinds) from the perspective of someone who has never played any tabletop war game and isn’t learning from someone who hasn’t played. You can’t pick up the rulebook and, with a proper understanding of English, play the game “correctly”. Why? It’s because not even all of the basic rules are included in the books. GW seems to have the mentality that close is good enough. They seem to believe that people should correct their mistakes simply because they’re too lazy, or too incompetent, to do it themselves. Trying to use the excuse of deadlines, etc, doesn’t cut it. Almost everything one does has a deadline. You have to meet the expectation whether you’re ready to do it or not. Tell me this; if you pay 90% of your rent/mortgage, will your landlord/bank just let the rest slide because it’s close enough? I think not. That seems to be all that people expect from GW, and that’s just in their main rulebooks. It seems like their customers want even less in terms of things like balance. Heck, the fact that “comp” exists in tournaments is another issue. Models are supposed to have points values based on their power in the game. That’s the whole point of the points system. If you have to have additional restrictions to make a tournament, or any game, fair that’s a problem with games development. The fact that they refuse to make decisions about specific circumstances that come up is a problem with games development. The fact that many of these issues have been around for multiple versions of the game is a problem with games development. Poor wording on rules and missing sections of rules has nothing to do with games development. Do I think I could do a better job than Games Workshop at developing games? Possibly, but I know I could write rules much better, more completely, and more concisely than they do, while effectively communicating what I mean to the reader. That’s the whole point of written communication. A rulebook is a manual for playing a game. It is a technical manual, not a work of prose. Now, that’s not to say that the codices and rulebooks shouldn’t have background materiel. That’s the only real draw left, for me, to GW products. The background materiel, however, shouldn’t be a part of the rules themselves. If you want to see what a good layout for a rulebook should look like, in my not so humble opinion, pick up a WARMACHINE or HORDES rulebook. There is background materiel for each unit on one page and on the adjacent page there are rules for that unit. Now, I’m not saying that Privateer Press is perfect, or that they make perfect rules. Their games, however, are much better balanced, their rules make a lot more sense, and they’re willing to answer questions that people have about their games in a timely manner. That, and with each expansion they improve the clarity of the rules, the options that players have, and they maintain the balance between the factions while doing it. Playing these games should be about pitting the tactical skills of the players against each other while interacting socially. It shouldn’t matter whether or not you’re a “tournament player”, a “RAW nut”, a “social gamer”, or a “Noob.” Everyone should expect the products they buy from ANY company, including GW, to be complete and to work correctly. For some reason, many of “you” seem to be content with a product that’s incomplete and just good enough. I don’t understand that, and I’m not content with a product that’s “good enough.” That’s why I haven’t bought anything from Games Workshop in over 3 years, and that’s why I play, and promote, games from Privateer Press. Knight
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 5:19 PM Things cost money. They cost a lot of money. If you don't think they are worth that money, don't spend it. Speak with your wallets.
I do speak with my wallet. I also speak with my mouth. And sometimes I even like to type with my fingers. I was under the impression that such behavior was acceptable, even expected, ON AN INTERNET FORUM.
1002
Post by: Wayfarer
Are you pretending to miss the point?
Because I believe that in the context it's pretty clear. Complaining on an internet forum to your peers wont change anything, but refusing to buy product will. Is that clear enough for you?
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
Posted By Wayfarer on 12/27/2006 12:09 AM
Are you pretending to miss the point?
Because I believe that in the context it's pretty clear. Complaining on an internet forum to your peers wont change anything, but refusing to buy product will. Is that clear enough for you?
Who says the purpose of complaining on an internet forum is to change anything? I refuse to buy product to effect change. The complaining is just to make myself feel better.
1002
Post by: Wayfarer
Just venting your frustrations out then? In that case vent away.
131
Post by: malfred
 My wallet...it haunts my dreams!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Nobody's claiming that games design is easy. Building a car isn't easy, either... but we generally expect that the people who do it professionally will do the job properly.
You don't expect to pay for a car that has parts missing, and have the manufacturer replace only half of those missing parts two years later...
However, it would be easy. They have complete access to the gaming community for FAQs. The list of questions can easily be sifted through, with a beta test put out their for comment, then a final one completed. Lets get real here this is painfully easy. Yakface and others on similar boards has practically done their job for them. There is absolutely no justification for not taking advantage of this .
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The Shrine Of Errata is an attempt to organise FAQs but the content is poor.
287
Post by: Zubbiefish
This is one hot topic kids! The second this thread gets locked let's start it up again! I could read this stuff for weeks. 
459
Post by: Hellfury
I see alot of people hanging in the majority of a lot of threads, but rarely more than a single person ever defending a single side.
12 say yes.
1 says no.
12 become exassperated at 1 being so stubborn.
1 remains stubborn, but becomes pinned.
Odd.
621
Post by: Lowinor
Posted By Hellfury on 12/28/2006 12:33 PM
1 remains stubborn, but becomes pinned.
Odd.
Nonsense, no one fails the requisite morale check to become pinned*. * may not apply to Imperial Guard. Next time, play something in power armor.
1002
Post by: Wayfarer
Don't forget about that one fearless unit that only lost a wound because it was outnumbered.
411
Post by: whitedragon
And at the end of the day...Wayfarer gains a clue!
Level up!
By the same token, I think I'll have to start a Nyarly fan club, because his mouth breathing sock puppet line was just too classic.
Exalt!
1615
Post by: Slave
Posted By carmachu on 12/20/2006 11:10 AM but I beg to doubt that a Cygnar army with Stryker is a different faction than a Cygnar army with Epic Stryker you would of course, be wrong. First, epics require 750pts, regular as little as 350-500pts. SO at the start, epics have at least 250pts more to play with. Second, epics give bonuses to certain units(stormguard in this case I believe) to their stats. Third, both the feats and spell lists are different. So yes, they do play differently.
Wait, are you trying to say that epic stryker is a different faction, because he has more points????? WTF? I am all for hating GW when they do something wrong, but this crap is uttlerly crazy. This is why GW fanboys are so standoffish with PP fanboys. Based on this flawed logic, the Chaos Space Marines Codex is 54 factions at least. Each specific power, plus the the non marked ones. Then you have the 500 point quick game faction, the 1500 tournet faction, plus the 2000 epic faction. The dark angels have 9. Raven Wing, Death Wing, plus regular marines, once again, in 500, 1500 and 2000+ variety. Its worse actually, if WM gets a different faction according to what warcaster, plus ow many points you are using, 40K has about 1 million factions. You can design your won leader, use the pregenerated ones, plus different point values. This login is a joke. Just say that you hate GW. That works for me. No matter what Cygnar you use, they all use the same jacks and troops. Changing the caster and point values just doesn't give you a new faction, all it does is gives you a longer game that takes longer to play.
131
Post by: malfred
Posted By Slave on 01/01/2007 3:26 PM Posted By carmachu on 12/20/2006 11:10 AM but I beg to doubt that a Cygnar army with Stryker is a different faction than a Cygnar army with Epic Stryker you would of course, be wrong. First, epics require 750pts, regular as little as 350-500pts. SO at the start, epics have at least 250pts more to play with. Second, epics give bonuses to certain units(stormguard in this case I believe) to their stats. Third, both the feats and spell lists are different. So yes, they do play differently.
Wait, are you trying to say that epic stryker is a different faction, because he has more points????? WTF? I am all for hating GW when they do something wrong, but this crap is uttlerly crazy. This is why GW fanboys are so standoffish with PP fanboys. Based on this flawed logic, the Chaos Space Marines Codex is 54 factions at least. Each specific power, plus the the non marked ones. Then you have the 500 point quick game faction, the 1500 tournet faction, plus the 2000 epic faction. The dark angels have 9. Raven Wing, Death Wing, plus regular marines, once again, in 500, 1500 and 2000+ variety. Its worse actually, if WM gets a different faction according to what warcaster, plus ow many points you are using, 40K has about 1 million factions. You can design your won leader, use the pregenerated ones, plus different point values. This login is a joke. Just say that you hate GW. That works for me. No matter what Cygnar you use, they all use the same jacks and troops. Changing the caster and point values just doesn't give you a new faction, all it does is gives you a longer game that takes longer to play.
Relax. We're explaining why we feel like we get "more" out of WM than out of 40k, even though the games are smaller and you don't customize units. Perhaps the biggest thing is that the scale of the game means that whenever you change anything in Warmachine you're changing the way that you play. Warcasters specifically have abilities that have a wider range of effects so that Stryker and epic Stryker are far more different than choosing between a Farseer or an Autarch. Also, models often have more options than move, fire, assault. This is just a requirement of the inherited 3rd edition changes that streamlined things so that effects had to be streamlined, but a lot of warmachine players love the fact that they can chain a series of effects together to alter the course of battle. Though rolling two handfuls of dice is fun, too...
1615
Post by: Slave
I am relaxed.
The same things you posted apply to both games. you change ANYTHING in 40K, you change the way you play, just the same as in WARMACHINE.
If you are playing Chaos, you can go all heavy, or mostly HQ, maybe mostly daemon. All assult.
Same thing. Change a few models, you change the way you play.
The complexity of t he rules must cover all of them, and in WM, you have far less variety, thats a FACT. The Warcasters are standard, the Warjacks are standard, the troops are configured in just a couple ways.
in 40K, you can tool a dreadnaught out in 20 different configuratiuons. Even basic troops have a laundry list of options. Hell, with IG, you can get 2-4 different SQUADS, and each squad about 10 different configurations, and thats just a single troops choice.
Like I said, hate GW if ya like. They make it easy. Call them lazy on them rules. You can never ever say that WM gives you MORE choice in army creation, has more factions, or even attempt to spout the crap that GW has LESS variety to try and balance. Thats simply bulls***. If you attempt to argue that point, you are simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
131
Post by: malfred
You can never ever say that WM gives you MORE choice in army creation, has more factions, or even attempt to spout the crap that GW has LESS variety to try and balance. Thats simply bulls***. That doesn't sound very relaxed. The 20 different configurations of a dreadnought all lead to the same kinds of game play. Stand and shoot. Move x inches (I forget the exact rules) and shoot. Assault a heavy target and tear it to shreds. The different configurations modify the statistics up or down. The warcasters are standardized, but that doesn't mean the gameplay (this has been the comparison all along at least in my head where no man dare tread except the underwear rummaging Jester) is standard. Abilities/spell lists/ weapons have different effects on the table, which is why the game is sometimes compared more to CCGs than 40k. A "standard" warcaster has more options available to them in terms of gameplay than just "shoot, assault, hold leadership." Their spells enhance their own effectiveness or the effectiveness of others. Their feats often have game altering effects. I think the closest thing that 40k has to that is the farseer. And the thing that people like best is that you can change a warcaster and suddenly your army, without changing a figure, will play very differently. A part of this bias toward WM might be the prevalence and effectiveness of the meq in 40k. The popularity of marines and certain game effects (3+ armor saves, access to good general units) leads to less of a variety in terms of effectiveness (see the composition argument for more details, lol). So our perception is a bit skewed. Maybe a good comparison is the scariness that is Sorscha. To sum up: 40k has more guns and weapons. On the table, they alter your range, and effectiveness but your options remain the same. Shoot, advance, etc. WM has no customizable units at all, but units on the table have more effects they can use in game that go beyond weapon strength. I've come to enjoy the latter more than the former, and see it as a form of more variety to play with that goes beyond list building. I prefer the variety in gameplay over the variety in equipment options. You don't have to agree. But you also don't have to get so angry. I'm not trying to turn this into GW vs. PP at all, but an analysis of why I see a certain game the way I do and maybe ry to convince you to see why I see things that way.
984
Post by: KnightoNi1894
Get outta my head malfred...
Knight
1795
Post by: keezus
Slave: Just to append on to Malfred's post. One of the major differences between GW's system and Privateer's system is how customization works. In 40k/Fantasy, you buy the "buffs" for your each unit individually. If you want a unit to hunt tanks, you buy them the guy that carrys a tank gun or a powerfist. However, other than this type of customization, there are very few "global effects" or external "buffs". A few of the rare examples of the former are the Tau Ethereal and Lysander. The only example of the latter is the Farseer. (The librarian's / chaplain powers are more self or own squad-buffing). Fantasy is a little closer with the Winds of Magic, however, the unpredictability of spell lists and the few buffing spells makes magic a less important component than in Privateer's product. In Warmachine/Hordes, units are geared towards anti-infantry or anti-armor. If you want further customization, you buy the warcaster / warlock / unit attachment which gives the appropriate buffs (and debuffs). Finally, the Feat system in Privateer's system is what really sets warcasters / warlocks apart as they have game-changing properties..
26
Post by: carmachu
The same things you posted apply to both games. you change ANYTHING in 40K, you change the way you play, just the same as in WARMACHINE No. You dont. Using the chaos as an example: It doesnt matter if its Slaneesh or Khorne, a demon bomb is a demon bomb. Which faction you use, doesnt change the fact of how it works. Using a tactic in the tactic forums: csm bikes....as quoted there, its a great way to go 24" and dump off demons. But it doesnt matter whether its Demonettes, Bloodletters or Plaguebears. You can do it interchangably, and it makes no difference. It doesnt matter much between a farseer or an autotarch: your still going to bring say Direavengers in waveserpents or Falcons. But chaning from say, The butcher to Sorcha, means a whole different way of playing. Even changing from regular to epic variants changes your play style. I might use the same jacks with magnus as I do with epic magnus, but HOW it plays is completely different.
445
Post by: frenrik
There is a lot of difference in how you play bloodletters, deamonettes and plaguebearers.
An IW list is vastly different than a Deathguard list.
Sure, some are similar like a khorn or slaneesh demom bomb, but you can't even take bikes with the other 2 marks.
1615
Post by: Slave
Posted By malfred on 01/01/2007 9:24 PM You can never ever say that WM gives you MORE choice in army creation, has more factions, or even attempt to spout the crap that GW has LESS variety to try and balance. Thats simply bulls***. That doesn't sound very relaxed. The 20 different configurations of a dreadnought all lead to the same kinds of game play. Stand and shoot. Move x inches (I forget the exact rules) and shoot. Assault a heavy target and tear it to shreds. The different configurations modify the statistics up or down. The warcasters are standardized, but that doesn't mean the gameplay (this has been the comparison all along at least in my head where no man dare tread except the underwear rummaging Jester) is standard. Abilities/spell lists/ weapons have different effects on the table, which is why the game is sometimes compared more to CCGs than 40k. A "standard" warcaster has more options available to them in terms of gameplay than just "shoot, assault, hold leadership." Their spells enhance their own effectiveness or the effectiveness of others. Their feats often have game altering effects. I think the closest thing that 40k has to that is the farseer. And the thing that people like best is that you can change a warcaster and suddenly your army, without changing a figure, will play very differently. A part of this bias toward WM might be the prevalence and effectiveness of the meq in 40k. The popularity of marines and certain game effects (3+ armor saves, access to good general units) leads to less of a variety in terms of effectiveness (see the composition argument for more details, lol). So our perception is a bit skewed. Maybe a good comparison is the scariness that is Sorscha. To sum up: 40k has more guns and weapons. On the table, they alter your range, and effectiveness but your options remain the same. Shoot, advance, etc. WM has no customizable units at all, but units on the table have more effects they can use in game that go beyond weapon strength. I've come to enjoy the latter more than the former, and see it as a form of more variety to play with that goes beyond list building. I prefer the variety in gameplay over the variety in equipment options. You don't have to agree. But you also don't have to get so angry. I'm not trying to turn this into GW vs. PP at all, but an analysis of why I see a certain game the way I do and maybe ry to convince you to see why I see things that way.
you telling me i am angry doesn't make it true. Are you saying that warjacks or any other unit in the game has a different purpose in WM than a dreadnaught has in 40k? the purpose of every single model in the game is to kill, or help something else kill,. or weaken something so it can be killed. A warjack fullfills the same exact role asa dreadnaughgt does. Move, shoot, assult. Some can arc node, some can flame, some can knock down, some can throw, each is the same reult, move, shoot, and kill a model. A dreadnaught can be outfitted to shoot lots, some can be fitted to assult, if you are chaos, they can be fitted to self repair, smae thing as in WM. if you enjoy WM more, just say that, trying to convince anyone else but a PP fanboy that 40K models are less customisable, or a warcaster, all of whom are the exact same if you buy the same model, and can not ever ever ever be changed, is more customisable. They all share the same stats, same base abilities, each differs in thier feats, and foucus, armour, etc, but all are static. The high redemptionist in my army is the EXACT same as it is in your army. The epic version is the EXACT same as it is in my army. To say a demon bomb is the same as any other demon bomb is pure sophistry. Blood letters fulfil a vastly differnt battle field role that a demonette. The even take saves differently. Its also garbage for you to suggest that a chaos lord's only abilities or functions are to "shoot, assault, hold leadership." Nothing in 40K is that static. For you to say different is just pure lies and deceit. Sitting in front of me I see 5 slaanesh minor psychic powers, each on of them do none of the above you are trying to say. 40K plays as differently as any other game when you change out units. Thousand Sons Chaos marines play nothing like Blood Angels. You stop attacking me now, trying to make me about to be this angry person, I will hope that you can admit that you are making up crap to give 40K a bad name, all of which apply equally to each minature game on the market. WM is easier to balance because of its static nature. 40K is harder to balance because of the variety, and GW's laziness. This crap you are talking is worthy of a toilet bowl.
161
Post by: syr8766
STOP SAYING I'M SHOUTING! I'M NOT SHOUTING! I'M NOT ANGRY! I'M NOT I'M NOT I'M NOT! AND YOU'RE A POOPY-HEAD FOR THINKING THAT! WM IS THE SUXXOR, AND ALL YOUR DREADNOUGHTS ARE BELONG TO ME!!!!!
Slave's not angry, Malfred. Can't you see that he says you're citing "Bull****" and "crap...worthy of a toilet bowl" with love?
131
Post by: malfred
I'm not making up crap to give 40k a bad name. I don't like the game that much but I like the figures, so if GW went out of business I'd be sorry to see them go.
A warjack fullfills the same exact role asa dreadnaughgt does. Move, shoot, assult. Some can arc node, some can flame, some can knock down, some can throw, each is the same reult, move, shoot, and kill a model.
A dreadnaught can be outfitted to shoot lots, some can be fitted to assult, if you are chaos, they can be fitted to self repair, smae thing as in WM.
Just to make the middle schoolers in the audience giggle: But it feels different.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Hi, Malfred.
The word you want is "synergy". Warmachine has tons of it. WHFB has some. 40k has relatively little.
Because of the interrelation of units in Warmachine, changing several of them will greatly modify the more effective ways of playing the list: old combinations are unavailable, new ones open up.
What synergy exists in 40k tends to either focus around specific pairings (e.g., demon packs and summoning icons), or around the ROLES of units (e.g., transport cracker & assault unit, to break open a transport and chop up the chewy insides). [Not the best possible example, that latter one, but it's late.]
There are relatively few synergistic role combinations in 40k that are effective, and they extend well beyond codex boundaries. The easiest to explain example is the 3rd ed Rhino Rush. Every marine army, regardless of base codex (and including Chaos) could use the rhino rush model; barring minor fluctuations in specific options/powers (Blood Angels vs. Ultramarines vs. Chaos Marines), the rhino rush played out identically in all cases.
459
Post by: Hellfury
*Hands Malfred the Asbestos suit.*
Sorry I didnt get here sooner. You look a little charred but otherwise ok. *brushes of a chunk of charcoal from malfreds shoulder*
Ahh Dakka. I want to know who the hell keeps bleeding for the sharks to circle the way they do here.
I swear there is a dakka super villian whose name is "Chum", lurking here.
161
Post by: syr8766
Yessirs, that's what happens when you linger too long in a parking lot. All kinds of things can happen to you, son. You gotta watch your back, make sure that righteous lord Chinesus is looking out for you.
Janthkin's description is pretty spot-on. WM is a game of synergies, and those synergies determine your tactics. 40k is not; it is about homogeneity, minimizing diversity and concentrating on having an entire army do one thing with one kind of unit (there are exceptions, but they are rare).
131
Post by: malfred
 Thanks Hellfury.
1795
Post by: keezus
Posted By Slave on 01/02/2007 7:12 PM
WM is easier to balance because of its static nature. 40K is harder to balance because of the variety, and GW's laziness.
This crap you are talking is worthy of a toilet bowl.
Slave: I personally feel your arguements are laughable. 40k and Warmachine can NOT be directly compared because in 40k, the units modify themselves by purchasing squad and unit upgrades, and in Warmachine, the units are modified through interaction with other choices. So yes, superficially, Warmachine models have fixed statlines and seem more simplistic than Warhammer ones which do not. However this changes in gameplay. Let's look at a simple example. A Juggernaut warjack is designed to kill things. Vlad can give it a boost in accuracy and damage. (Extra D6 pick the highest). Sorscha and Vlad can make it charge an extra 2 inches. Irusk can make it so it can't be knocked down. Epic Sorscha can bond it for an extra FOC alotment. While the different warcasters don't change its role, they give it significantly different abilities. In 40k terms these abilitiy changes would be akin to: Twinlinking, charges as cavalry, can't be immobilized / pinned, and +1A. These ability changes are bought right on the model (if applicable). However, the point you are missing is that in Warmachine, these abilities (for the most part) can be applied to any legal model / unit, or are global effects, making for vastly different gameplay. Let's look at a second example: Grand Exemplar Kreoss buffs Knights Exemplar (and by extension Exemplars Errant) by boosting MAT, RAT, S and CM. He also makes the immune to continious effects. This is a -global- change boosting WS, BS, S, Ld and the continious effect immunity is somewhat akin to "never counts as outnumbered". The closest analogy to this in 40k is the Farsight and Ork Fighters (changing them to totally-suck vs Orks in HTH to merely-suck vs Orks in HTH). So while, this doesn't change the roles of the Exemplar, it significantly improves their ability to go toe-to-toe with stronger models. So I'd just like to say that to discount this interplay between models is assinine. 40k is ALL about list-building, since what you buy at the start is what you're stuck with. - Sure there's gameplay skill required too, but it is more an extension of executing what you started with in listbuilding. You can't buff that unit of Devestators to fight that Chaos Lt in HTH in the middle of the game. You can't make that dreadnought get into HTH any faster. You can't give those Stormtroopers a boosted coversave mid-game. Warmachine has an important list-building aspect as well, but proper use of synergy is imperative. The closest 40k analogy is the -theory- of combined arms where the sum is greater than its parts... I say theory because units seldom work together in 40k, apart from the superficial "let's attack the same target" or "let's shoot the same target". This is the fault of the ruleset since units that contribute to this kind of gameplay - transports, pinning, fear-causing units and external unit-buffs are either laughably useless or laregly missing. An example of Warmachine's flexible play: The Choir of Menoth can turn your Jacks into a wall of "no shooty" and then turn them into beatsticks when they are close. Failing that (i.e. your Jacks are killed), with the right support, the Choir itself could crack some skulls, or be redeemed for souls. You'd be hard pressed to use an Engiseer and servitors in the same role, because they can't be externally buffed and are stuck with whatever role you put them in (either fixy or shooty). At any rate, enough about Warmachine and 40k. Finally, to address your statement that 40k can't be balanced: Back in the days of yore, there was this thing called the BBB at the beginning of the 3rd age of 40k. In the back there was an armylist section with -gasp- largely balanced 40k forces! Fancy that. The thing that GW is not doing is taking the system as a whole when building new codices. Editing would help too.
26
Post by: carmachu
There is a lot of difference in how you play bloodletters, deamonettes and plaguebearers. Not really. They all get slammed into combat.....
26
Post by: carmachu
Are you saying that warjacks or any other unit in the game has a different purpose in WM than a dreadnaught has in 40k?
the purpose of every single model in the game is to kill, or help something else kill,. or weaken something so it can be killed.
A warjack fullfills the same exact role asa dreadnaughgt does. Move, shoot, assult. Some can arc node, some can flame, some can knock down, some can throw, each is the same reult, move, shoot, and kill a model.
A dreadnaught can be outfitted to shoot lots, some can be fitted to assult, if you are chaos, they can be fitted to self repair, smae thing as in WM. Your ingnorace is really showing. Yes a jack is completely different from a dreadnaught. See thats where you getting confused. Jacks have a variety of roles. Dread....doesnt: either it shoots, or it assaults, or both. Jacks, depending on the force, have a variety of roles besides just shooting and assualting: body guards, assassins, indirect fire, killing infantry. Power attacks are a HUGE bonus, if you have one able to do so. Channel spells.... No, jacks are not the same as dreads. Look similar, different roles and ideas on using them.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Slave, please relax the tone and stop flaming. This is a warning.
-The Mgmt.
1615
Post by: Slave
Posted By Mannahnin on 01/03/2007 1:25 PM
Slave, please relax the tone and stop flaming. This is a warning.
-The Mgmt.
relax my tone? So, enough people say you are angry, then suddenly you are? Warn away mr. mod. BTW, I never said that 40K can not be balanced, it can, it's just that GW is lazy. Appaerently I am angry, plus I am now saying stuff I did not say, oh yeah, I am flaming now. What else?
1615
Post by: Slave
Posted By carmachu on 01/03/2007 7:13 AM There is a lot of difference in how you play bloodletters, deamonettes and plaguebearers. Not really. They all get slammed into combat.....
So do warjacks. Its a war game, you don't win if nothing is killed. My ignorance eh? Yeah, but I am flaming, and have been warned. Tell me, you said it, so point out my ignorance? You are saying a Warjack has many roles? A big steam powered killing machine has several roles, in the menoth list, It can also shield right? The devastator can close up and not kill, and instead absorb damage. Cryx light jacks can arc node. Seems I know something about WM eh? Not bad for an angry ignoramous whom is yelling kicking screaming mad, whom the Mod needs to bust out the red letters to warn, or else lose his lunch money, plus get the dunce cap. What difference does it make in the grand scheme of Warmachine? So what, a jack is sheilding, or closed up, or what ever, what else is the rest of the list doing? KILLING[/angry yelling]!!!!! Thats the whole point. You kill. What the issue is, I disagreed about WM being the Holy Grail of wargaming. In the end, I said that 40K can't be balanced (I did not), and I flamed someone (I did not), and I was warned in RED letters. Looks like I am screwed.
In the end, 40K is still more variable than WM, 40K still has more lists, and 40K still can be balanced, if GW tried, FAQs do suck, and GW should still get thier head put of thier collective butts and fix this game.
P.S. You flamers of me do know that I play and enjoy WM right? Just checking.
844
Post by: stonefox
It's fun being able to summarize all that's said into a simple analogy : 40k is like playing Pokemon or yugioh. Stats are upfront. Played almost exclusively by little kids. Warmachine is like playing Magic. Card combos and encouragement of pushing the abilities to the edge of the rules. Played by hairy, stinky 16 year old guys. Sometimes 25 year olds. Or, for a bigger burn, 40k is like Star Wars TCG while Warmachine is like Star Wars CCG. Now I want to pick up my old HBOX deck.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
See, I'm more into the simulation aspect and out for a relaxing beer and pretzel game. GW fits that for me.
I don't want to lose because the person across from me had the time to work out a recursive combo to give their Warjack infinite attacks or such crap. It's not why I play miniature games.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
I don't want to lose because the person across from me had the time to work out a recursive combo to give their Warjack infinite attacks or such crap. It's not why I play miniature games. The nice thing about WM, Asmodai, is that if you encountered that situation, you could post it on their official forums, and it would be FAQ'd out of existence in less than a month. When you find situations like that in 40k, the studio a) won't notice; b) won't fix it; and/or c) issue some FAQ that creates new problems instead of fixing the old. I'm not angry. I'm not even bitter. I'm just sad - I like 40k, both the playing itself and the fairly simple level of tactical thought that goes into it. All I could ask for would be a company that gave a damn about the ruleset they put out to support my little plastic/metal dolls.
1615
Post by: Slave
Posted By Janthkin on 01/03/2007 4:02 PM I don't want to lose because the person across from me had the time to work out a recursive combo to give their Warjack infinite attacks or such crap. It's not why I play miniature games. The nice thing about WM, Asmodai, is that if you encountered that situation, you could post it on their official forums, and it would be FAQ'd out of existence in less than a month. When you find situations like that in 40k, the studio a) won't notice; b) won't fix it; and/or c) issue some FAQ that creates new problems instead of fixing the old. I'm not angry. I'm not even bitter. I'm just sad - I like 40k, both the playing itself and the fairly simple level of tactical thought that goes into it. All I could ask for would be a company that gave a damn about the ruleset they put out to support my little plastic/metal dolls.
Yeah, it is pretty sad. The obliterators sat at T5 for a long time, when they should have been t4(5) from the start, and like the gift reads. Plus stuff like the wraithlord being so cheap for so long, and 30 man seer councils, with a sprinkle of guardians to make it legal. Stuff like that stood for too long, and they band aid it with a poorly written FAQ that solves nothing. Think of the Tyranid FAQ fiasco, when they made a rule, an independent screwed it up, GW retracted it, and misworded it, leading to the need for yet another FAQ for the FAQ. They would get it right, but somewhere, someone needs to beat GW on the head, so they get back to proper playtesting and proof reading.
173
Post by: Shaman
So answer is
Fanboy + cynical gamer = 12 pages.
Yay! GW always sucked, theyre as professional as Macdonalds..
161
Post by: syr8766
Posted By Shaman on 01/03/2007 6:54 PM
So answer is
Fanboy + cynical gamer = 12 pages.
Yay! GW always sucked, theyre as professional as Macdonalds..
One might even say the K-mart of miniatures games...
1615
Post by: Slave
Posted By syr8766 on 01/03/2007 6:56 PM Posted By Shaman on 01/03/2007 6:54 PM
So answer is
Fanboy + cynical gamer = 12 pages.
Yay! GW always sucked, theyre as professional as Macdonalds..
One might even say the K-mart of miniatures games...
I wouldn't give them that much credit. I would give them the netzero (free service) award for crapatcular customer service.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
Posted By Shaman on 01/03/2007 6:54 PM
So answer is
Fanboy + cynical gamer = 12 pages.
Yay! GW always sucked, theyre as professional as Macdonalds..
No, I think they beat GW on that score. My Big Mac only has a 1 page FAQ. And it written better.
www.mcdonalds.com/corp/about/factsheets.RowPar.0001.ContentPar.0001.ColumnPar.0007.File1
131
Post by: malfred
Super-size me!
1795
Post by: keezus
Posted By stonefox on 01/03/2007 3:34 PM
Or, for a bigger burn, 40k is like Star Wars TCG while Warmachine is like Star Wars CCG. Now I want to pick up my old HBOX deck.
I liked Star Wars TCG. Granted there wasn't as much complexity as Star Wars CCG, and it was nigh impossible for the Dark Side to win without going hard to two arenas... But I still liked it.
(Just goes to show there can be love for GW as well I suppose).
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Slave, if you seriously think your responses to Malfred (for one) were appropriate, then you need to reconsider posting on this forum. If you maintain the same manners in posting, you will find your posts edited or deleted, and may wind up banned eventually. Some forums would have resorted to these already. Here at Dakka, we try to let people talk freely. There's still no excuse for telling someone who is clearly making a carefully-reasoned post, and NOT engaging you on the argumentative level you are sinking to, that they are spewing crap and their argument is worthy of a toilet. You were flaming, and you have been warned. Keep it up, and the aforementioned sanctions will take place.
685
Post by: KiMonarrez
You know... after reading all (ok... most) of the posts (I skipped the Slave and Malf exchange) I have to say, I'm forgiving of the rules.
How many hats do you think the people on the development team have? They are expected to
1) Create new rules
2) Playtest new rules
3) Build their own armies (put together and paint)
4) "Show face" at official events
5) write up and submit articles for WD (not so much nowadays).
6) (sometimes) write NOVELS for GW.
So to expect a perfect product from the get go, I think that's a bit much. What I do agree with, however, is the sorry state of their FAQs and rules corrections in general. I don't really think there is any excuse for that.
Also, of all the analogies getting thrown around, none are really that aplicable. A car can kill people if improperly manufactured. Rulesets won't. GW, is a hobby interest fed by disposable income. My car is a necessity for providing food and shelter for myself and my family.
1795
Post by: keezus
Posted By KiMonarrez on 01/04/2007 12:06 PM
How many hats do you think the people on the development team have? They are expected to
1) Create new rules
2) Playtest new rules
3) Build their own armies (put together and paint)
4) "Show face" at official events
5) write up and submit articles for WD (not so much nowadays).
6) (sometimes) write NOVELS for GW.
So to expect a perfect product from the get go, I think that's a bit much. What I do agree with, however, is the sorry state of their FAQs and rules corrections in general. I don't really think there is any excuse for that.
KiMonarrez: I'm surprised that you think that this sad state of affairs is acceptable... Let's break it down a bit and say, for the heck of it that...
40% time is create new rules
40% time is test new rules
10% time is show at events / article writing
I've omitted armybuilding on the assumption that since even manager level GW staffers have to armybuild on their own time, that this is probably the case for the rules writers as well. - Playtest games seem to take place using the Studio armies... (which might account for the lack of playtesting...)
There's 3 major releases per year. That means that there is 4 months per cycle or roughly 17 weeks. Assuming a standard 40hr workweek, that gives 680 manhours per staffer put on rules development and testing. - Note, I am also assuming that this process preceeds actual production and rollout by some regular margin. 272 hrs for new rules writing (34 workdays)
272 hrs for playtesting (or enough time for 68 4hr playtest games)
68 hrs for events and article writing (includes FAQs) Note: This is for one person. If you add additional staffers to the dev team (say 3 more people) then you have twice as many playtest games - (moreso if you include the studio staff), and 132 man-days worth of rules-writing time... To defend their practices as unavoidable is laughable at best... considering that their 30 or so playtest Witchunter codex was the most riggorously tested codex ever. Hell, with 68 hrs each for events and FAQs, you'd think they could do better than what they're producing.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
How many hats do you think the people on the development team have? They are expected to
1) Create new rules
2) Playtest new rules
3) Build their own armies (put together and paint)
4) "Show face" at official events
5) write up and submit articles for WD (not so much nowadays).
6) (sometimes) write NOVELS for GW. I'm hoping they have other stuff to do; nothing you posted there looks terribly odious, or even like it would fill a 40 hour work week. How many official events are there? How many new rules come out of the studio in a given month? Don't most of us here assemble armies, and not while on the clock? Aren't there a number of posters who have written extensive articles, again during their free time, on various 40k topics (and neglecting those who post smaller volumes but in greater quantities, say when reviewing an army list)? And how does any of this affect their ability to properly use the english language (sorry, foreign-types) to convey meanings? Hell, items #1 and 2 on your list would be greatly simplified if the underlying rules were clear, concise, and used words consistently, with defined meanings. They started in that general direction with the Universal Special Rules, but it should have been so easy to extend that to the rest of the ruleset as well. For those who write novels, more power to them - I have great respect for anyone willing to undertake that particularly task. But their command of the language should be great enough to handle rulesets, or to repair damage to the rules upon occasion.
131
Post by: malfred
The novels thing is on contract, though I'm assuming, and does not constitute a part of their working week. Unless GW allows them time to write on the clock? That would be kinda awesome. Unless they didn't pay you extra for the novel... 
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Unless they didn't pay you extra for the novel... I could see GW doing that. "This year, your goals are to write 3 codexii, 4 WD articles praising an underselling product, and 1 250 page novel. Or else."
1122
Post by: fellblade
Posted By Janthkin on 01/04/2007 1:44 PM Unless they didn't pay you extra for the novel... I could see GW doing that. "This year, your goals are to write 3 codexii, 4 WD articles praising an underselling product, and 1 250 page novel. Or else."
... you have to go to GamesDay and wear the plastic Space Marine costume and have your picture taken with the smelliest WAAAAGH-screaming fanboyz we can find.
685
Post by: KiMonarrez
You know, I wasn't playing 40k during 2nd edition (Battletech held too much of my attention), but I recall others complaining about game TURNS lasting an hour or so. So they did their best to streamline for 3rd ed. I did hop onboard during 3rd, and saw them making the effort to improve (sometimes it did, sometimes not so much). I recall them doing their level best to try to bring some semblence of balance back to the game by the end of 3rd (they introduced the TAR, TVR, etc...) Then they roll out 4th ed. ( which has bugs). I recognize it as being a process of continually striving for improvement ,which implies a flawed initial effort (a not unreasonable assumption). Now, again, I have recently seen a complete breakdown of their efforts of trying to eliminate the bugs. And THAT is what I find galling. It obviously has errors, they know they are there, and they should fix them. And I stand by my assessment of their time constraints. Writing rules takes time. Testing them takes time. Building their various prodcts takes time (making molds, designing models, codex layouts, WD articles, WD layouts, answering phone calls, remembering to attach coversheets to the TPS reports (  ), etc... Again, I don't fault them for making a flawed initial product (as long as it's not GROSSLY FLAWED). There's only so much time in the day. It's the lack of support that's the real problem. As a side note. Why do you expect perfect techical writing quality rules from non-technical writers? As I recall, Andy Chambers started out at GW as a stockboy. Little wonder some of the codex he had his hands on weren't techical writing masterpieces.
91
Post by: Hordini
Personally, I don't think the style of the rules is the problem (i.e. technical writing or not). It seems to me that the rules could be cleared up a lot without making the rulebook read like a dry physics textbook.
I've read other rulebooks (Flames of War, etc.) that I wouldn't say are written in an overly technical style, but they are still very clear, balanced, and well-written rules for the most part. That's not to say Flames of War doesn't have some issues, but at least the Battlefront Staff quickly correct any mistakes and clear up ambiguous rules (which are relatively few to begin with) - Something the GW staff doesn't seem very eager to do at this point.
1321
Post by: Asmodai
I did hop onboard during 3rd, and saw them making the effort to improve (sometimes it did, sometimes not so much). I recall them doing their level best to try to bring some semblence of balance back to the game by the end of 3rd (they introduced the TAR, TVR, etc...) Then they roll out 4th ed. ( which has bugs). True. I think not starting fresh in 4th edition caused a lot of (unnecessary) problems. If GW had reset the game and published a Ravening Hordes style army list booklet, they could have cleaned up the core rules, standardized the many different versions of similar rules and rebalanced the points costs of various units to take into account how the rules changed their effectiveness between the editions. It would also have saved them the troubles that predictably arose from trying to make 3rd edition Codexes work with the 4th edition rules by means of various FAQs, errata, etc.
99
Post by: insaniak
Posted By Asmodai on 01/04/2007 6:32 PM
It would also have saved them the troubles that predictably arose from trying to make 3rd edition Codexes work with the 4th edition rules by means of various FAQs, errata, etc.
Although putting out complete FAQs and errata would have accomplished that as well... Personally though, I've never been a fan of GW's approach to new releases. If it had been up to me, the 4th edition release would have included the new rules and reprints of ALL the current codexes...
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
Posted By Janthkin on 01/03/2007 4:02 PM
The nice thing about WM, Asmodai, is that if you encountered that situation, you could post it on their official forums, and it would be FAQ'd out of existence in less than a month.
When you find situations like that in 40k, the studio a) won't notice; b) won't fix it; and/or c) issue some FAQ that creates new problems instead of fixing the old.
And/or d) admit that according the rules such a situation can arise, so if your opponent agrees then you can go ahead and ignore the rules (conversely if you decide to actually follow the rules then you are just a big meanie-head).
844
Post by: stonefox
Posted By keezus on 01/04/2007 6:14 AM Posted By stonefox on 01/03/2007 3:34 PM
Or, for a bigger burn, 40k is like Star Wars TCG while Warmachine is like Star Wars CCG. Now I want to pick up my old HBOX deck.
I liked Star Wars TCG. Granted there wasn't as much complexity as Star Wars CCG, and it was nigh impossible for the Dark Side to win without going hard to two arenas... But I still liked it.
(Just goes to show there can be love for GW as well I suppose).
Sorry, that was supposed to be question. I picked up few models, read the rulebook a few times, and will probably make an army someday, but people compare WM tournaments to CCG-like play, so I'm definitely interested.
As for SWTCG, you can laugh but now instead of keeping one successful game, we (both TCGers and CCGers) now have zero and Decipher's down the sink as well. 
1406
Post by: Janthkin
As a side note. Why do you expect perfect techical writing quality rules from non-technical writers? As I recall, Andy Chambers started out at GW as a stockboy. Little wonder some of the codex he had his hands on weren't techical writing masterpieces. I started out coding software. Now I write patents. As that is what I'm paid to do, I don't find it unreasonable that my bosses and my clients hold me to a certain standard for use of the tools, i.e., the language. *shrug* Clear writing is a learned skil, and 3/4 of the effort is in the planning. They seem to have the idea for the rules in their heads - they just need to get it on paper in a clear, unambiguous, and non-contradictory manner. If they can't, they should hire 1 technical writer, to translate their rules into a clear, unambiguous document. You know, I wasn't playing 40k during 2nd edition (Battletech held too much of my attention), but I recall others complaining about game TURNS lasting an hour or so. So they did their best to streamline for 3rd ed. (Have you tried Megamek? Incredibly good networked version of classic BTech, with just about all rule through level 3 implemented now. It's playing Battletech, but the computer handles the dice and LoS checks.) 2nd ed was a more complicated game. Me, I like complicated games. But I didn't play enough of it to speak to rules issues. Again, I don't fault them for making a flawed initial product (as long as it's not GROSSLY FLAWED). There's only so much time in the day. It's the lack of support that's the real problem. Here I disagree with you. I DO blame them for the initial release. It is from those initial problems that all the rest have sprung. They could have held up release for 2 weeks, given the rulebook to a decent editor/tech writer/selected Dakka posters, and had a much tighter foundation to build new armies on top of. Something about an ounce of prevention and a metric ton of "cure"....
1795
Post by: keezus
Posted By KiMonarrez on 01/04/2007 3:43 PM
As a side note. Why do you expect perfect techical writing quality rules from non-technical writers? As I recall, Andy Chambers started out at GW as a stockboy. Little wonder some of the codex he had his hands on weren't techical writing masterpieces.
Well, there's something to be said for hiring the right staff for any job. While technical writing need not be the forte of the creative team, it should be an important skill for the editing team...
er... Crap. You're right dude. We can't expect clearly worded rules because they don't employ editors. My bad. Stonefox: What's most galling with respect to SW - TCG is that after the brief resurgence in popularity after Revenge of the Sith, Wizards never bothered to produce the last set... it's the goddamned LAST SET and instead went on to SW - minis. Argh.
3969
Post by: thebeardking
Many apologies for putting this in totally the wrong place but I only seem to be able to post using "quick reply". When I try to start a new post or click on "reply post" I can only fill in a subject as there is no box next to Body. Does anyone know how I can sort this problem out, please?
Thanks
Steve
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Many apologies for putting this in totally the wrong place but I only seem to be able to post using "quick reply". When I try to start a new post or click on "reply post" I can only fill in a subject as there is no box next to Body. Does anyone know how I can sort this problem out, please? Which browser are you using? Dakka plays nice with Firefox, but less so with Opera (e.g., I can't use "New Post" or "Reply" without changing browsers).
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Dakka doesn't work with Safari. It won't allow topic origination, quoting, replies or messages, but does allow quick replies.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
Dakka doesn't work with Safari. It won't allow topic origination, quoting, replies or messages, but does allow quick replies. (You should be able to use the Quote button in the quick reply box; highlight desired text, click "Quote", and off you go.)
844
Post by: stonefox
Janthkin is right. I'm not sure about the Wizards of the Coast guys, but all the Decipher (who also make card games for those who don't know ) guys all had typical day jobs before they started working on designing card games. Now, you had to lug around a packet of errata/ FAQs for their main games but they got the job done and the game balance was great. All-in-all, they were able to write unambiguous rules even though none of them had a profession which required technical writing before. Honestly, it doesn't have to be perfect technical writing. If WOTC and Decipher were able to create unambiguous rules, using minor technical writing, in a card game, GW should be able to do it too. And remember guys, card game players are more ruthless and will create infinite loops if they are able.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
GW is a multi-million dollar global company. It doesn't have to rely on hoping its design team have natural editing talents. It could send them on a course, or hire a couple of people.
459
Post by: Hellfury
A constant and old rant. Editing that is.
I agree with kimonarezz about the FAQ issue, with one major flaw he seemed to have skipped.
If the rules were written so that a tremendous amount of FAQ's werent neccesary, then this whole threead would be a moot point.
If GW wants their GAMES to flourish (emphasis on games, not models) then they will have to employ a tech writer or a better one than they have now. 40K is not so complicated that a bunch of gathered enthusiasts couldnt do better within a week of the 4th ed release.
WOTC was started by a small group of guys trying to make a name for themselves. MTG was a great game from the get go. Some cards were broken, but the mechanics were solid. They didnt need tech writers to make a great game. (though they did hire a battery of lawyers to write the concise rules they use today). So that being said, why does GW need a tech writer to make good rules when other companies with much less experience in the industry blows them away? They need a tech writer, but shouldnt have to need one.
I enjoy the rules, and find them playable for the most part. But reinstituting sanctioned tournament play with the sense of blind hope that their rules are solid enough to withstand competitive scrutiny is a false hope that needs to be addressed quite quickly, and thoroughly.
I really hope when 5th ed comes around, if GW is still around by that time, that they do something revolutionary that will be viewed as something that merits the perception of "porsche of the wargames". The way things are going though, I doubt Ill be around to see.
3969
Post by: thebeardking
Thanks guys - I switched computers and it works fine now. Also thankyou for not telling me off for being off topic. Take care, Steve
131
Post by: malfred
Posted By thebeardking on 01/06/2007 7:59 AM Thanks guys - I switched computers and it works fine now. Also thankyou for not telling me off for being off topic. Take care, Steve
Attack wombs ready!
|
|
