247
Post by: Phryxis
Quoth Jervis:
When we started on the new rules we decided that we shouldn't compromise the new rules out of fear of over-competitive players (or "rules-lawyers" as they're known in the trade), but instead we should develop the rules that we'd personally like to use ourselves. As long as the rules worked well in our games, then all we needed to do was explain to other players how to use them in their games.
Thoughts?
443
Post by: skyth
So does this mean that they are going to be providing timely and relevant updated FAQ's?
123
Post by: Alpharius
I don't have my WD with me now, but there's another scary quote in there that is basically that we'll all need to be told how to play the game the right way, or some such.
A horrible paraphrasing, I know.
(Unless you just posted it? I'm a bit frazzled, apparently...)
If anyone else has it, it is the quote that they chose to boldface and highlight...
Anyway, I'm not so sure I like the whole theme and direction of the article.
I'll still hold out hope for 5th edition though!
123
Post by: Alpharius
*double post delete*
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
It seems they've spent the last 20 years perfecting their blather instead of their rules. :(
443
Post by: skyth
If that's the what it's trying to say, then it really reeks of the 'One right way to play' mentality that feels the need to bully other people by calling them names and such that are the ones ruining the hobby.
131
Post by: malfred
Phryxis wrote:Quoth Jervis:
When we started on the new rules we decided that we shouldn't compromise the new rules out of fear of over-competitive players (or "rules-lawyers" as they're known in the trade), but instead we should develop the rules that we'd personally like to use ourselves. As long as the rules worked well in our games, then all we needed to do was explain to other players how to use them in their games.
Thoughts?
They should know that there's such a thing as over-competitive
"fluff mongers." The definition of over-competition isn't "reading
the rules" or "looking for correct interpretations," but rather someone
who competes to the discomfort of others.
165
Post by: jeremycobert
they have given up...... it time to outsource the rules and just focus on making models.
3294
Post by: pombe
Sigh.
What does this even mean?!?!
"we shouldn't compromise the new rules out of fear of over-competitive players"
Compromise what? Balanced rules? IT MAKES NO SENSE.
"all we needed to do was explain to other players how to use them"
In other words: GW will tell us not to play by their rules as they write them, but rather as how they meant the rules to be written. WHAT?
THE BEST WAY TO EXPLAIN TO OTHER PLAYERS HOW TO USE YOUR RULES WOULD BE TO WRITE THEM PROPERLY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
7019
Post by: Antryg
I agree. The quote makes no sense.
Hopefully the rules will be better written than that quote is.
186
Post by: GrimTeef
Maybe what they mean is they don't want to compromise their amount of free time with the amount of time it would take to write clear rules and marked exceptions?
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
This is news?
Moving into 5th Edition, GW has been *very* clear that they're going to cater to the "fun" crowd and leave the tournament crowd to fend for themselves.
And I can't say that I blame them.
For the same effort as the Apocalypse release, we could have gotten a marginally tighter rulebook or a set of FAQs. The difference being that Apocalypse actually brought in revenue and transformed "fun" gaming, whereas FAQs are simply a cost that benefits a very small number of people who wouldn't be satisfied with a GW FAQ anyways.
Besides, Adepticon and Direwolf demonstrated that GW can outsource the rules FAQs to the fans at minimal cost. The tournament crowd has a FAQ that answers all of their questions to their own satisfaction.
So what's the problem?
123
Post by: Alpharius
JohnHwangDD wrote:This is news?
Moving into 5th Edition, GW has been *very* clear that they're going to cater to the "fun" crowd and leave the tournament crowd to fend for themselves.
And I can't say that I blame them.
For the same effort as the Apocalypse release, we could have gotten a marginally tighter rulebook or a set of FAQs. The difference being that Apocalypse actually brought in revenue and transformed "fun" gaming, whereas FAQs are simply a cost that benefits a very small number of people who wouldn't be satisfied with a GW FAQ anyways.
Besides, Adepticon and Direwolf demonstrated that GW can outsource the rules FAQs to the fans at minimal cost. The tournament crowd has a FAQ that answers all of their questions to their own satisfaction.
So what's the problem?
You don't see a problem with the fact that GW either cannot or will not take the time to write a clear rule set?
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
I think we can all agree that the biggest gripe the majority of players have had for several years is:
1: The poor wording of rules (including mixing and matching different descriptive words which end up meaning nothing when put up against other rules).
2: The need for someone who has little to no knowledge of the rules but has some sort of degree in english to be taught the rules by reading the rules and coming back to the development team to outline where the problems are.
3: The lack of trialing by experienced rules lawyerish players who can pick out the problems in a few seconds, that the development team have missed in months.
4: The lack of FAQs.
The attitude expressed by Jervis is truely frightening.
He should be striving to write a tight set of rules that have plenty of examples in the book and will require little FAQs (there will always be some) beyond the low level dopes who will be confused no matter hiw simple and correct you make it.
This is a company that makes milllions of pounds per year and is seen and sees itself as the market leader worldwide. Why the development team, which is one of the main engines of sales... lame/confusing rules = lame sales is lead by someone with the attitude that if you just let it happen it will is to be honest a great dissapointment after all the blather from GW about their poor sales and returns.
Its time like this I wish I was a major shareholder and could go and put a rocket up their backsides to get with the program....
123
Post by: Alpharius
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I think we can all agree that the biggest gripe the majority of players have had for several years is:
1: The poor wording of rules (including mixing and matching different descriptive words which end up meaning nothing when put up against other rules).
2: The need for someone who has little to no knowledge of the rules but has some sort of degree in english to be taught the rules by reading the rules and coming back to the development team to outline where the problems are.
3: The lack of trialing by experienced rules lawyerish players who can pick out the problems in a few seconds, that the development team have missed in months.
4: The lack of FAQs.
The attitude expressed by Jervis is truely frightening.
He should be striving to write a tight set of rules that have plenty of examples in the book and will require little FAQs (there will always be some) beyond the low level dopes who will be confused no matter hiw simple and correct you make it.
This is a company that makes milllions of pounds per year and is seen and sees itself as the market leader worldwide. Why the development team, which is one of the main engines of sales... lame/confusing rules = lame sales is lead by someone with the attitude that if you just let it happen it will is to be honest a great dissapointment after all the blather from GW about their poor sales and returns.
Its time like this I wish I was a major shareholder and could go and put a rocket up their backsides to get with the program....
Amen brother!
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Alpharius wrote:You don't see a problem with the fact that GW either cannot or will not take the time to write a clear rule set?
Nope, I don't see any problem here. Trying to make their rules airtight is an impossible waste of effort that wouldn't satisfy anybody, anyways. The rules are far too complex for this to ever be considered an option.
And why should GW spend money doing what other people are willing to do for free?
Casual gamers don't need an airtight ruleset, and they comprise the overwhelming majority of players. For them, the GW ruleset merely needs to be "good enough", and GW succeeds at that.
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
Alpharius wrote:
You don't see a problem with the fact that GW either cannot or will not take the time to write a clear rule set?
problem is that they can...
Going back:
Necromunda
Mordheim
BFG
More recently 7th ed WHFB and until the VC and daemons all of the army books have been brilliant.
I've spent probably $100US on 40k models in the last 2 years.
Give me a very well written ruleset and I'll be buying from GW and FW: Deathguard, IG and BAs... on top of my normal WHFB purchases.
If the rules are sloppy I'll continue playing WHFB where I'm having a great time, and won't spend the extra money.
x that by 10000 experienced gamers who can now be easily led astray to other game systems in other companies or computer games and = poor sales and much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth by the CEO who will still refuse to give the development team a damned good thrashing!
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I think we can all agree that the biggest gripe the majority of players have had for several years is:
The attitude expressed by Jervis is truely frightening.
He should be striving to write a tight set of rules that have plenty of examples in the book and will require little FAQs (there will always be some) beyond the low level dopes who will be confused no matter hiw simple and correct you make it.
This is a company that makes milllions of pounds per year and is seen and sees itself as the market leader worldwide. Why the development team, which is one of the main engines of sales... lame/confusing rules = lame sales is lead by someone with the attitude that if you just let it happen it will is to be honest a great dissapointment after all the blather from GW about their poor sales and returns.
Its time like this I wish I was a major shareholder and could go and put a rocket up their backsides to get with the program....
Hahaha. First off, "the majority of players" is probably only limited the handful of online players. And most players aren't online. Second, Jervis is correct that GW rules don't sell, because these interactions are rare in the grand scheme of things. Particularly, as tighter rules just take longer, but don't generate any more money. Players won't pay an extra $10 per rulebook for better rules, less Fluff, and fewer pretty pictures. Third, GW isn't nearly as stupid as you presume. They can do math, and it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming majority of their profits come from miniatures sales. NOT rules. GW makes almost nothing from rules. OTOH, based on the slapdash push for Legendary Fantasy, and Apocalypse 2, it appears that the Apocalypse expansion did really well for GW. If you were a major shareholder, this would be obvious to you. You'd do just liek the other suits and shrink the development team in favor of better sculpting and plastics manufacturing. As GW has actually done.
4936
Post by: VermGho5t
John sometimes I wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse.
Are you a major shareholder? How do you come to your conclusions?
From a competitive standpoint, the incentives to write better rules is a wise decision. Why the hell wouldn't a company want to improve their product in the first place?????? is this jut a general assumption that goes in one ear and out the other of many people?
247
Post by: Phryxis
Trying to make their rules airtight is an impossible waste of effort that wouldn't satisfy anybody, anyways. The rules are far too complex for this to ever be considered an option.
I think you're mistaken.
If you're factoring in game balance, than I wouldn't disagree. It's VERY hard to write a bunch of Codices, over the span of a couple years, which are all perfectly balanced. It's probably impossible.
But, to write a set of RULES, as in core mechanics, which are clear, consistent, thoughtfully organized, and very tight, is quite possible. Certainly not easy, but I think it's totally reasonable to expect them to release a tight set of core rules, then with a subsequent FAQ to have them airtight.
FWIW, I think Codex creep is a good thing, so long as it's just enough for players to notice and get intersted. I think a small bit of creep with each Codex keeps people buying the newest stuff, and keeps them excited about their next list.
They can do math, and it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming majority of their profits come from miniatures sales. NOT rules.
Wow, dude, not even close. Here's an anecdote that should put the lie to what you just said.
I'm in the process of finishing up my Tyranid army.
Now, I love the Carnifex model. But when it comes to the model, I think the Crushing Claws, Scything Talons and the basic head are cool. That's the model I'd make, just to make a cool model. How many of those have I made? Zero. I think the stupidest head is the Enhanced Senses head. How many of those have I painted? Five. I made three Dakkafexes. Stupidest looking Carnifex build you can find. Still did three of them.
And what about Gaunts? I've painted 16, and will do another 20 more. I'd do more than that if I could stand it. How fun is it to paint Gaunts? Not. I'd paint one or two in different color schemes and be done with them. But to build the list I want, I need as many as I can stand to paint. That's 36. About 34 more than I'd have paid for, if not for the rules.
The point, which should be abundantly clear by now, is that the rules convince players who would normally paint 1 or 2 of a given model, to paint 36. They provide that motivation.
If the rules get so poor that the game ceases to be fun to play, I will buy ZERO models.
1122
Post by: fellblade
For years now, gamers have bemoaned GW's sloppy rules writing. The advent of Warmachine has thrown that into sharp relief.
GW has also been promoting the tournament scene as a marketing ploy- but nowhere is the need for clear and unambiguous rules greater than in a national (or indeed, international) tournament.
There have been cries for timely FAQs; cries which go unanswered for years. When FAQs are published, what does GW do but appropriate the hard work of gamers? It is very ironic to me that so many people will argue that the Direwolf rulings aren't official, then GW goes and lifts many Direwolf rulings verbatim, and credits them directly in the official GW FAQ. (JohnWangDD asks why should GW spend money doing what others will do for free- it's because GW wants to control what is "official" and what is not. If you want to control something, you have to take responsibility for it, too.)
What has GW's response been, to the calls for better, clearer rules? The Vampire Counts book, the most ambiguously worded and self-contradictory army book ever. It departs from so many precedents (not explicitly stating that Invocation of Nehek may be cast into close combat, as just one example) that it has to be intentional, a big and deliberate "f**k you" to the segment of gamers who were asking for clear well-written rules.
And now we have an article from the official mouthpiece of the company, saying basically if you don't understand what the rules mean, that's too bad, but we didn't write them for you. We wrote them for ourselves, and we understood them.
That saddens me.
JohnWangDD says that trying to make the rules airtight is an impossible waste of effort that wouldn't satisfy everbody anyway. No doubt he's correct- airtight rules are impossible. But tighter, less ambiguous rules are not. And everybody is not satisfied right now, so they would have nothing to lose by trying. Too bad they obviously aren't interested.
5470
Post by: sebster
Jervis is talking about focussing the rules on producing fun games between players who aren’t playing at a tournament level of competitiveness. It means There is a trade-off between rules that are fun and full of character, and rules that ensure balanced play. At the best of times you can get both, but there will be situations where you have to choose one over the other. Jervis is saying they won’t compromise a good idea that’ll produce a fun game because someone down the line might exploit it.
People in this thread have launched into some grand gnashing of the teeth over GW’s presumed one way to play, over GW apparently making no attempt to write balanced rules (and assuming that’s the only attribute rules should have), and then ended up in a thread as to whether or not balanced rules are economically viable.
Which is weird, because you all seem to have missed the boat on what this quote really means and it certainly is controversial. Just a handful of codices ago GW was talking about paring back the options and extras in codices because balancing that was impossible (a points cost for a single upgrade had to reflect too many potential circumstances). This resulted in the armouries being taken out of recent codices, resulted in sub-lists being cut. Now Jervis is saying the opposite, and this seems to be supported with the sudden expansion in options being rumoured for the new marine codex.
1122
Post by: fellblade
I didn't see anyone talkin' about balanced rules- I certainly wasn't.
I got no problem with unbalanced rules- as long as they are clear. I got no problem with "one way to play"- as long as we know exactly what that way is.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope, I don't see any problem here. Trying to make their rules airtight is an impossible waste of effort that wouldn't satisfy anybody, anyways. The rules are far too complex for this to ever be considered an option.
This is ridiculous. I think a lot of players would love clearer rules, and hell no the rules aren't that complicated in the first place. The game goes like this: Move, Shoot, Assault. How is that in any way complicated? Less rule arguments would certainly make the game more enjoyable all around, don't you think? Or do you disagree with that statement, too?
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hahaha.
First off, "the majority of players" is probably only limited the handful of online players. And most players aren't online.
Second, Jervis is correct that GW rules don't sell, because these interactions are rare in the grand scheme of things. Particularly, as tighter rules just take longer, but don't generate any more money. Players won't pay an extra $10 per rulebook for better rules, less Fluff, and fewer pretty pictures.
Third, GW isn't nearly as stupid as you presume. They can do math, and it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming majority of their profits come from miniatures sales. NOT rules. GW makes almost nothing from rules. OTOH, based on the slapdash push for Legendary Fantasy, and Apocalypse 2, it appears that the Apocalypse expansion did really well for GW.
If you were a major shareholder, this would be obvious to you. You'd do just liek the other suits and shrink the development team in favor of better sculpting and plastics manufacturing. As GW has actually done.
Assuming that most players don't have internet access is a generalization. You do realize that most schools and colleges come with internet access now?
Secondly, tight rules generate more money over time because players don't become dissatisfied and go on to other hobbies/games. So they BUY MORE MODELS. Duh.
GW makes little from the sale of the rulebook, but I think it has a large impact on how many miniatures people keeping buying. Do you really think people buy mini's for a poor rules system?
Going off Phryxis's example, I'll tell you I have 16 possessed marines. I put them together because the models are cool. But ZERO are painted because of the terrible rules. I have some plague bearers and daemonettes, and those are not painted because I don't use lesser demons. Guess why? That's right, because of the boring rules.
Seriously John, where the hell do you come up with this stuff?
1122
Post by: fellblade
Noisy, you are making John's point. Even though you don't use them, you still bought the models. And the fact that the rules for those particular models are weak doesn't mean they are bad. Lets face it, in a few years the codex will get revamped, again, and that which was last shall be first, to drive sales.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
sebster wrote:
Which is weird, because you all seem to have missed the boat on what this quote really means and it certainly is controversial. Just a handful of codices ago GW was talking about paring back the options and extras in codices because balancing that was impossible (a points cost for a single upgrade had to reflect too many potential circumstances). This resulted in the armouries being taken out of recent codices, resulted in sub-lists being cut. Now Jervis is saying the opposite, and this seems to be supported with the sudden expansion in options being rumoured for the new marine codex.
In other words, GW can't make up its mind as to which way it wants to go with the game. So some armies get characterful books with lots of options, while others get boring books with minimum options. In the meantime, GW vacillates back and forth between "streamlining" and "fun". Gee, what fun. I wonder if my army's next codex will be streamlined or fluffy?
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
fellblade wrote:Noisy, you are making John's point. Even though you don't use them, you still bought the models. And the fact that the rules for those particular models are weak doesn't mean they are bad.
No I'm not. I bought the plaguebearers during the 3.5 codex when I ran death guard. If I'd known about generic demons I would never have done that. I bought old daemonettes because I hate the new models and I wanted ONE box to have for myself. Just one. The possessed came with my army box and battle forces. But I won't be buying more demons now that I can't use them with CSM. I won't buy any more possessed because I dislike the rules. If I actually LIKED the rules I might aim for 30 possessed or more for apocalypse.
And for me, extra randomness for no reason = bad rules. The possessed rules are just flat out bad.
5470
Post by: sebster
Noisy_Marine wrote:Assuming that most players don't have internet access is a generalization. You do realize that most schools and colleges come with internet access now?
Secondly, tight rules generate more money over time because players don't become dissatisfied and go on to other hobbies/games. So they BUY MORE MODELS. Duh.
GW makes little from the sale of the rulebook, but I think it has a large impact on how many miniatures people keeping buying. Do you really think people buy mini's for a poor rules system?
Going off Phryxis's example, I'll tell you I have 16 possessed marines. I put them together because the models are cool. But ZERO are painted because of the terrible rules. I have some plague bearers and daemonettes, and those are not painted because I don't use lesser demons. Guess why? That's right, because of the boring rules.
Seriously John, where the hell do you come up with this stuff?
You have assumed John is talking about people being on-line at all, when it's clear he's talking about people who are in the hobby but don't spend their time on-line talking about 40K. Not everyone with internet access and a 40K wants to spend their time on-line talking about. All my 40K mates are on-line and I'm the only one that posts on 40K forums.
And yeah, people will buy minis when the rules are poor. This is proven by the ongoing sale of minis that have no system at all. One problem with assuming the online 40K community represents the whole of the 40K community is that you forget about all the people that are modellers first and foremost, many of whom never have any intention of playing the game. And you forget about the blokes who get together on weekends for purely fun games, and just don't care enough about rules minutiae to post on 40K forums.
But the big thing to remember is the issue really, really isn't about poor rules vs not poor rules. The issue is about the point where awesome, fun, gonzo rules ideas get pulled back in order to maintain balance. Jervis is indicating the recent move to pull back on gonzo rules (see DA, BA and CSM codices) is being relaxed (see Ork and upcoming SM codex).
5470
Post by: sebster
fellblade wrote:I didn't see anyone talkin' about balanced rules- I certainly wasn't.
I got no problem with unbalanced rules- as long as they are clear. I got no problem with "one way to play"- as long as we know exactly what that way is.
I wrote my reply while you posted yours, it wasn't a direct reply to your post.
Pombe mentioned balanced rules.
The problem with GW clearly articulating one clear way to play is that GW keeps changing their idea on the one clear way to play. Which is, again, the really contraversial issue raised in the quote. GW is changing focus again.
752
Post by: Polonius
That's an interesting quote from jervis. I want to read the whole article before I really make up my mind, but here are a few things I noticed:
1) the immediate connection between rules lawyers and overly competitive players.
2) The casual dismissal of the notion that 40k could be played seriously
3) Does the last line mean they need to explain how to read the rules, or how to approach the game in general?
Part of me thinks that what they're saying is that they create rules, and simply errata and FAQ them to the desired end. the other part thinks that they will simply look at questions and respond "just play for fun! Don't be overly competitive!"
As for the compromise, I imagine they're trying to balance allowing neat things to occur with ways those things could be broken.
All in all, it's nothing horribly new to hear, although it's vaguely reminiscent of the infamous "in the wrong hobby" comment.
I think the impact or effect this sort of mindset will have on tournament gaming is going to be minimal. Tournements will work themselves out. What this doesn't help is the percieved gap between the design staff and competitive gamers. Even if we're a small minority, we're a vocal one and a big part of the GW community. I'm guessing Standard Bearer is written in an hour before lunch, but I still think it's odd that he would phrase is like that instead of writing:
"We hope to strike a balance between opening up and expanding the rules while tightening them up. We have tried to create a fun and enjoyable ruleset, and are commited to provinding FAQs and errata to provide hassle free gaming."
5333
Post by: BeefyG
Hahaha,
What Jervis is saying is that if you want the best set of rules to play with...don't use theirs. Their rules are bad, they admit it, they use it to push sales.
A balanced ruleset will not drive sales.
He can't come out and say it directly or he'd lose his job wouldn't he? So take the hint and start writing your own base rulesets on your gaming mechanics experience.
HBMC has been pushing their groups Revisited ruleset for some time: http://www.revisitedproject.org/
Our gaming group has taken those rules as a basis and have changed several things around to suit our personal tastes of balance and game mechanics. I look forward to uploading our "Gong Grots" version of the Revisited rules once our esteemed group member finishes his great work in formatting.
4595
Post by: CaptainLoken
I was just wondering...do any of you out there actually LIKE Warhammer 40K? I have been playing this game sine '91, when I graduated from highschool. Let me tell you, there have been some MAJOR changes in the whole setting, rules, and miniature line. For the most part, I have really enjoyed most of the changes.
A friend of mine told me about this site, because he knew how much I enjoyed 40K. However, ever since I have signed on to this site, I have read NOTHING but how much 40K sucks. Do any of you actually play this game? And, if so, why do you play?
I mean, every time GW tries to do something, it seems like you all have a problem with it. Why do you play the game if you don't enjoy what you are doing?
I actually hated the whole min/max SM army list. I actually hated the godzilla nid army. I really hated the cheesed out CSM daemon prince/greater daemon army from hell. Everyone complained. GW changed the rules. Now everyone is upset about the "nerfing" of each codex. As much as I hated to play "competitive" armies, I still PLAYED. I took it upon myself to beat such craptacular armies and players, because if I could beat the cheese, then I was better than the cheese. It didn't always happen, but I still ENJOYED playing the game.
I'm not trying to start a flame war, nor am I pointing fingers. I'm just saying, if you have so much trouble with the way GW writes their books, prices/sells their miniatures, the actual sculpts of the miniatures, releases/doesn't release FAQ's, and so on and so on......why do you play the game? Why are you even posting on this site?
I'll get off my  now. I am just really tired of reading about how much GW sucks from people that must spend a great deal of time and money on the hobby.
5436
Post by: NaZ
I hate to say that GW views the higher end players in the same way they view people who want to play necromunda or the other "specialist" games.
the smaller % of the population, the lower the overall sales yet the louder their voices.
veteran players spend less money than beginners, don't generally need hobby advice, and like to play more sophisticated rules.
it is their mentality to brush aside and ignore these smaller groups WHENEVER POSSIBLE in order to cater to the masses of 12-15 year olds buying space marines. play intro games, participate in beginner battles. make that trek from your starter set to 3000 pts as quickly as possible. nevermind the rules we'll get there eventually right?
they even kick out veteran players from leagues if they are consistently creaming people. losing = not fun = lost customers.
anyone who's played magic, or warmachine, or other strategic games sees the importance of clearly defined rules (regardless of overall game balance.. that is another issue entirely) so that debates about specific situations can be resolved quickly and amicably.
but this does not help the youngsters that show up with their freshly built overglued unpainted 3rd baneblade for the saturday apocalypse game. and who will likely be talked into buying another landraider or russ for their mechanized company.
sorry I personally hate apoc.. lets throw out the FOC and make sure that it is a time based rather than turn based game.. its not really 40k. if you disagree thats cool go play apoc.
so what was said in WD 341 doesn't surprise me in the least. atleast yakface and others are doing their best to figure out a workable FAQ for people who actually care about the rules. our community for the most part is self sustaining and will need to be more so in the future.
NaZ
edit: saw the above post right after I finished.
Yes I like playing 40k. or I wouldn't bother assembling and painting miniatures. I do take some pride in that but I'm generally happy with tabletop quality work. but I specifically like the strategic interaction of units. its why I also play RTS games.
is it unreasonable of me to ask the manufacturer of my game to produce a clear set of rules? I don't think so. it saddens me that they have effectively outsourced said rules work to the community at large. won't stop me from playing the game and having fun splattering people or fighting the good fight.
752
Post by: Polonius
CaptainLoken wrote:
However, ever since I have signed on to this site, I have read NOTHING but how much 40K sucks. Do any of you actually play this game? And, if so, why do you play?
I'll get off my now. I am just really tired of reading about how much GW sucks from people that must spend a great deal of time and money on the hobby.
I cut your post down to two lines, I apologize for taking them out of context, but I want to point out a few things.
While you may have read nothing but negativity, I'm guessing you haven't spent any time in the modeling, tactics, or fluff forums, which are always hopping with activity.
I'm not impressed by any post that calls out virtually all of the regulars as being overly critical and/or negative, and then says that you're not trying to start a flame war. Adding "I mean no offense" when you say something offensive doens't make it not offensive. I think that there are posters on this site that are overly critical of GW. I think there are some posters who are overly defferential. I think our balance is more to the former than the latter. Everybody knows this. To say that we contribute nothing, or like nothing, is a gross exageration and an obvious attempt to draw ire. So please don't toss a grenade like this into a room and expect an emoticon and a "but we're still friends, right?" to calm everything down.
Finally, I think if you read your last line, you'll understand the criticism and dare I say, entitlement that people have. We spend a lot of time and money on this hobby. We want GW to do everything well, and we hope they make 40k what we want. I don't think it's out of line for us to hope they take it as seriously as we do. I'm not reading the quote his way, but I think a lot of people here are reading Jervis as basically saying "we're writing rules that are good enough for us. If you don't like, you're playing the game improperly."
Of course, it's not our game, it's GW's. But GW likes to sell the game as a hobby, as a creative exercise, as a community. Part of a community is communication, and hey, we're communicating.
752
Post by: Polonius
Naz: I actually challenge the premise that beginners spend more than vets. Sure, we all know the guy that has a fully painted 3000pt chaos army from 1997 he still uses, but I think most vets belong to the "buy an army/build an army/paint half an army/ either sell army or finish army/ start a new army" spin cycle.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
Another stroke of genius from the man that is whats left of the old Jervis. He should have stepped down long time ago but since he hasnt this shouldnt really surprise anyone.
Its pretty much the same he wrote about Apoc when they released it. The rules will not be balanced and usable by competative pepole blabla...
On the sidenote why play 40k at all, its that it has been balanced(even old hero-hammer) with a few exceptions and probably mostly cause you already have a ton of miniatures.
If you start to throw boring armylists that get beaten to bloody pulp to the new players then you will see if pepole really play it for the minis or because its a fun game. I dont really know anyone who collects just the minis, is that just me since Hwang seems to imply they are the bigger mass.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
VermGho5t wrote:How do you come to your conclusions?
From a competitive standpoint, the incentives to write better rules is a wise decision.
Same as the rest of you - I look at the data and put things together. 
However, GW isn't interested in competitive gaming. And from a business standpoint, if it costs 20% extra work to write better rules, that drive (maybe) 1% additional sales, that's a pretty poor decision from a cost-benefit standpoint.
FWIW, I spent over a decade as a Systems Programmer / Analyst. Rules development has a lot in common with software development. A basic rule of thumb for development is that it takes about twice as long to make something "good", and about three times as long ensure that it is "right". Similarly, it takes about twice as long to make something "general", and about three times as long ensure that it is "reusable". Taking the two dimensions together, it takes about 5 times the effort to make something generally-usable and good. It takes about 10 times the effort to make something strongly-reusable and ensure that it is right. This is why most commercial software (and rules) fails the obscure situations. It is also why it is easier to do small things well, compared to large things.
So looking at costs and effort vs benefits, there is a clear tradeoff point at which further effort at clarifying rules has diminishing returns and should be halted from a business standpoint. After all, it's not like lives or money are on the line... 
fellblade wrote:For years now, gamers have bemoaned GW's sloppy rules writing.
GW has also been promoting the tournament scene as a marketing ploy
There have been cries for timely FAQs;
(JohnWangDD asks why should GW spend money doing what others will do for free- it's because GW wants to control what is "official" and what is not. If you want to control something, you have to take responsibility for it, too.)
JohnWangDD says that trying to make the rules airtight is an impossible waste of effort that wouldn't satisfy everbody anyway.
But tighter, less ambiguous rules are not.
they would have nothing to lose by trying.
Actually, it's only the online gamers, which represent a very small fraction of GW's actual customers.
Actually, GW has strongly de-emphasized competitive tournament gaming moving into 5th Edition. Lately, GW is emphasizing painting, and "fun" (i.e. Apocalypse / Legendary).
GW knows that FAQs are a waste of time for their developers because FAQs don't generate revenue.
If you are going to call me out by name, please spell my name properly "JohnHwangDD".
GW is addressing the rules problems by writing fewer rules, simplifying rules, streamlining options, and consolidating rules as USRs. There are fewer possible unintended and non-standard interactions available to cause problems. From what I see, this strategy is clearly paying off, as there seem to be a lot fewer things that can go wrong.
You seem to think that opportunity cost is free. It is not. Every extra day that a developer spends on existing rules is a day that cannot be spent creating something that can be sold.
sebster wrote:Jervis is talking about focussing the rules on producing fun games between players who aren’t playing at a tournament level of competitiveness.
Just a handful of codices ago GW was talking about paring back the options and extras in codices because balancing that was impossible (a points cost for a single upgrade had to reflect too many potential circumstances). This resulted in the armouries being taken out of recent codices, resulted in sub-lists being cut. Now Jervis is saying the opposite, and this seems to be supported with the sudden expansion in options being rumoured for the new marine codex.
I'm not at all sure that this article represents any kind of reversal in GW's thinking. From what I see, GW is doing both. GW is clearly paring back the one-off options in a huge way (i.e. no armouries). And GW is also targeting things towards the casual gamer. When you look at how GW is adding a number of "well-focused" options (e.g. Cult Marines, Siege Dreadnought, new Land Raider), it is clear that these aren't incompatible statements. GW is adding things, but each these things is very well-defined. These result in a lot more tailoring options, but minimize rules headaches.
Look at the rumored new stuff in the SM book. Siege Dreadnought. Veteran Assault Marines (probably templated right off the BA entry, minus the "FREE" DC). Land Raider Redeemer is merely a weapons swap. I don't foresee any rules issues cropping up, yet these are quite different from what we currently have and expand the envelope of what vanilla SM can do.
Noisy_Marine wrote:I think a lot of players would love clearer rules, and hell no the rules aren't that complicated in the first place. The game goes like this: Move, Shoot, Assault. How is that in any way complicated? Less rule arguments would certainly make the game more enjoyable all around, don't you think? Or do you disagree with that statement, too?
Assuming that most players don't have internet access is a generalization. You do realize that most schools and colleges come with internet access now?
Secondly, tight rules generate more money over time because players don't become dissatisfied and go on to other hobbies/games. So they BUY MORE MODELS. Duh.
GW makes little from the sale of the rulebook, but I think it has a large impact on how many miniatures people keeping buying. Do you really think people buy mini's for a poor rules system?
Going off Phryxis's example, I'll tell you I have 16 possessed marines. I put them together because the models are cool. But ZERO are painted because of the terrible rules. I have some plague bearers and daemonettes, and those are not painted because I don't use lesser demons. Guess why? That's right, because of the boring rules.
Seriously John, where the hell do you come up with this stuff?
You seem to think that rules don't take any effort to wrote, and you seem to think that the total volume of GW rules would fit on a single sheet of paper (it does NOT). With a dozen Codices modifying the rules, that's a lot of work to coordinate.
Players would love it if GW miniatures were FREE. That ain't happening either. GW has a business to run, and rules aren't worth the effort.
Sure, everybody has internet access. Not everybody posts on GW game forums. Probably less than 10% of GW's customers post on GW game forums.
In all my time gaming, I can't think of anybody who quit "the GW hobby" for another system. I've seen people shift from Fantasy to 40k and vice versa. But they don't get out entirely. The guys who get out are the guys who are forced out because pick things like VOR and VOID and Warzone and Confrontation 1.0 watch the game system collapse around them.
Given that GW sells way more minis than rules, I'd imagine that rules are largely incidental to their sales, and GW has sales figures to back this up. I don't think rules quality has much impact at all, compared to sculpting quality.
What I find amusing is that you own the models at all, rather than having sold them on eBay or traded them on Bartertown. What I also find amusing is how you claim the rules are boring. I'll bet that you've never bothered to play them, because if you did, I think you'd find that 2 or 3 squads of Possessed backed by a couple blocks of generic Daemons actually play pretty well, if you bother to learn how to use them effectively. The issue isn't that the rules are boring. It's that they're not the no-brainers that they were previously.
752
Post by: Polonius
The problem with that analysis John (which looks pretty solid) is that it assumes that all customers/users are the same. If a key client, or group of clients, wanted one new feature or a fix for a specific crash, the cost might be worth it. Clearly the hundreds of people that post here are a small minority of GW's audience, but a disproportionate number of the online gamers are high level users: tournament organizers, club hosts, league umpires, Golden Demon entrants, etc. etc.
For the record, i really don't dislike the 40k rules at all. I think they do just fine, except for unanswered questions (the old Ork Nob with powerklaw chestnut, for example). Your analysis breaks down a bit, because while the average user doesn't care (how many people play orks after all), it limits the portability of 40k a bit. And 40k's portability is it's biggest asset.
What I find fault with isn't that GW doesn't want to cater to competive gamers. It's that GW doesn't even make the quick fixes, it just seems to blame the "rules lawyers." I mean, I know FAQs aren't free, but since most of them revolve around designer intent, not balance, I really don't see how being on the ball with FAQs wouldn't bring in goodwill to GW to balance out the investment.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
CaptainLoken wrote:I was just wondering...do any of you out there actually LIKE Warhammer 40K?
I do. 
I think it's *great*. I get to model stuff that I like, play the occasional game making wierd noises and just having fun. For me, the great turning point was when GW pulled the stick out and allowed us to model and play "counts as". 
Kallbrand wrote:I dont really know anyone who collects just the minis, is that just me since Hwang seems to imply they are the bigger mass.
OK, just how much stuff do you have that's still in box, on sprue, unbuilt, or unpainted? 
Putting the *very* large piles of incomplete stuff aside, I believe you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm saying that the overwhelming majority of players are casual players who don't worry too much about the rules minutiae. Hell, they probably don't even know (or care) if (or when) they get the occasional rule wrong, as long as they have a fun time. And if they do, no biggie, they simply "fix" it the next time.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Polonius wrote:The problem with that analysis John (which looks pretty solid) is that it assumes that all customers/users are the same. If a key client, or group of clients, wanted one new feature or a fix for a specific crash, the cost might be worth it.
Your analysis breaks down a bit, because while the average user doesn't care (how many people play orks after all), it limits the portability of 40k a bit.
And 40k's portability is it's biggest asset.
I mean, I know FAQs aren't free, but since most of them revolve around designer intent, not balance, I really don't see how being on the ball with FAQs wouldn't bring in goodwill to GW to balance out the investment.
Oh, no doubt. We had the occasional customer who required the additional effort, we made sure that they paid for it. I could share the details, but then I'd have to kill you... 
But for ordinary commercial customers, it's very rare to go to those lengths.
One funny thing is that portability is somewhat overrated, because for the average gamer, the overwhelming majority games are played in a very small community. If the community has any size, then somebody will act as local rules judge / arbiter. Worst case, eventually, some dork with a modem will download something like the Direwolf / Adepticon FAQ and this will become the standard.
When people move to new groups, local house rules win, and the problem is solved as well. The only real problem is national tournaments among strangers, where no convention is set. This is a vanishingly small proportion of all games played, so GW could care less. What people tend to forget is that the point of a FAQ isn't accuracy, it's *clarity*. Hell, look at the Direwolf FAQ handles Welves - someone on the Direwolf rules committee sure loves their forest pansies, but this doesn't matter because the point is to make it so everybody has the *same* understanding. GW figured this out when the forced blatant rules changes as "errata" in their 40k3 FAQs. GW learned they can make a stupidly wrong FAQ, gold-plate it, and the players will *still* follow it, simply because it's the FAQ for the tournament.
GW has garnered tremendous ill will, and they still sell more than anybody else. Clearly, GW has figured out that building a reservoir goodwill isn't so important if their sales aren't so hugely impacted.
752
Post by: Polonius
I think your statement about clarity helps my point. I don't care how Lash works, I just want to know exactly what it does. GW can (and did) simply lift FAQs from wherever it wants. My point is, while there is a cost, I think it's astonishingly small compared to the goodwill it buys.
As for portability, I think you're undervaluing it. People travel, they move, and a legal play or model in one town should be legal in another.
I also think your undervaluing the value of the noisy minority. Clearly GW still sells, and most of it's customers probably could care less. There is some movement from 40k to other games (although that's always been there), and if the noisy minority gets upset enough, they can take the silent majority (or part of it) with them.
I think we agree on a lot of this, it's just shades. I also don't find the rules that bad, and frankly most people that complain about them do so in broad terms rather then specifics. I'm not saying they couldn't be imporved (let's go D10 and switch to hex bases for facings!), but the basic engine is pretty decent. I don't want weekly errata, but getting an update every couple of months wouldn't kill GW, and it was make a lot of people happy.
4595
Post by: CaptainLoken
The point I was trying to make, is that there is SO much negativity in this hobby. When there is an entire thread about why Jarvis should die, it's not good for the game. My favorite hobby shop is actually getting rid of much of their GW miniature stock. Why? Because they don't like the suppliers. Because the game sucks. Because the players suck. Because the miniatures do not sell like they used to. These are actual reasons that I have heard the staff say. WHAT? No WONDER the miniatures are not selling!!!! Have you even TRIED to sell a 40K miniature? Come ON!!! I was absent from the store for a while, and returned to see what was new for the hobby. I was actually told that, "No one plays 40K anymore. Try Warmachine...it's much better." WHAT!?!?!?
I have some news for you all. Everyone keeps talking about the dumbing down of the rules. They keep talking about how stupid Jarvis' son is. They keep talking about all the horrid little 12 to 15 year olds. How about this: those little 12 to 15 year olds are going to KEEP YOUR FAVORITE HOBBY ALIVE!!! Instead of beating the crap out of them on the table, and then making them feel stupid for even trying to play a game against you, why don't you make it fun for them? Instead of complaining about how horrid the rules are, why don't you try to find a way to make them work?
If everyone is so full of hate, that they bring a bad taste to the entire hobby, it is going to die. Just go to your local comic book store. Ask the person there how sales are. They will tell you that they are OK, but nothing like they used to be. Why? Because the comic book industry has nothing for 12 to 15 year olds. They are still telling the same tired old stories to us 30 year olds. That medium is going to die. Our hobby will go the same way if we do not change the environment in which we play our games.
You are correct. We should all expect clear, fair, and distinct rules. If they are not clear or fair, are you going to stop playing the game? GW is in the ultimate no win situation. They have a limited staff, trying to write rules that are easy to understand, while not being too complex. Then the WORLD gets a copy of the rules, and finds every little flaw that they can find. You talk about playtesting. How many game do you think the studio team would have to play in order to play the same number of games that happen in the US alone? Let's make it just a single day. How many games of 40K are played every Saturday in the US? Do you honestly think, that with such massive numbers of players, that a perfect rulebook can be produced? Some one is going to find a way to beat the system. MANY players will find a way to beat the system. Then, they will all share it online. Before you know it, you have a min/max army of death that is tearing up the scene.
Then, that new 12 year old player finally gets enough miniatures to play a game, and gets that crap beat out of them. Do you think that they are going to continue playing our little game? No. And then our game ends forever.
I will not use any Orkmoticons. I will simply say, that we have got to turn this thing around. You have better rules? Send them to GW. They listened to the fans about the FAQ. They might just listen about the perfect ruleset. And no, that is not being lazy on GW's part. They actually did what "many" people have said that they never do: THEY LISTENED TO US.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Yeah, we're essentially in agreement. And I think the last bits are pretty trivial.
Sure, I'd *like* it if GW rules were "better". But I'll also do OK with them as they currently are and where I suspect they're going. I think the rules are a lot more solid than they were when I first got into 40k, and that the game is better for it.
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
CaptainLoken wrote:I was just wondering...do any of you out there actually LIKE Warhammer 40K? I have been playing this game sine '91, when I graduated from highschool. Let me tell you, there have been some MAJOR changes in the whole setting, rules, and miniature line. For the most part, I have really enjoyed most of the changes.
A friend of mine told me about this site, because he knew how much I enjoyed 40K. However, ever since I have signed on to this site, I have read NOTHING but how much 40K sucks. Do any of you actually play this game? And, if so, why do you play?
Since you asked, no. I do not like Warhammer 40k. I also don't play anymore, after a decade's worth of sporadic games, none of which I've won. Oh, I've been on a winning side once or twice in multiplayer games, but never through any agency attributable to my army. CaptainLoken wrote:If everyone is so full of hate, that they bring a bad taste to the entire hobby, it is going to die. Just go to your local comic book store. Ask the person there how sales are. They will tell you that they are OK, but nothing like they used to be. Why? Because the comic book industry has nothing for 12 to 15 year olds. They are still telling the same tired old stories to us 30 year olds. That medium is going to die. Our hobby will go the same way if we do not change the environment in which we play our games.
Isn't that just natural, though? Theater lost its prominence once movies took center stage, and they lost a bit of their appeal once we got television. Arcades were all but killed by game consoles and PCs. Entertainment mediums change. This is as it has always gone. Progress. Accept it or deny it, but there's no stopping it.
5333
Post by: BeefyG
I really miss beating the crap out of some 12-15 year olds...you're right captain loken
I think you are missing the point of the "forum" where people discuss their likes and dislikes or other pertinent details of a subject.
Does hating on people who hate on a subject in a forum *which is the appropriate place for such things*  make you worse than them?
I like the fact that Jervis has been open with his admittance of design ineptitude on GW’s part in the construction of a solid balanced rule set for tournament play. Whilst it speaks volumes of what people can expect from GW in the future, it also speaks volumes of what people *expected* from GW. 
As John has pointed out, perhaps these expectations were unrealistic from a business perspective.
Whilst other rival companies seem to have overcome the core rule problems (not balance as was previously stated) GW obviously isn’t going to change anytime soon.
People care a lot. People have invested time and money, it’s a hard thing to give up and walk away from, but if you fall into the category of gamer that has these *expectations* it would be better for your overall happiness to learn when to give up and move on. This is a principle that is taught by counsellors/life coaches and psychology academics the world over and doesn’t just apply to Warhammer 40k.
To re-state my platform: Jervis has said categorically to look elsewhere for a competitive game, and to expect this from GW is an unrealistic expectation.
Happy gaming
5534
Post by: dogma
General reply, as I'm tired of reading what basically amount to reiterations of the same idea over and over again.
Neither 40k, nor fantasy have ever been intended as competitive games; at least not in the context of a tournament system. Sure, there is a winner and a loser, but, as GW reminds, the general point is to have fun playing. A game which is meant to simply allow people to have fun does not have to be clearly written. Why? Because the point, in that context, is not to win or lose but to systematize the act of playing army men. A game which has no winner or loser. 40k is, at its core, a child's game interpreted for a much more mature audience. Need proof of this? Read any WD from before 3rd edition and revel in the exploits of Fat Bloke and friends as they "compete" in campaigns which have a great deal more to do with building attractive armies than winning games. Hell, want even more proof? The most revered title in GW gaming is Overall Champion; a position which is heavily dependent on factors which have nothing to do with any factor which is relevant to a tournament format.
What made 40k attractive was its total hobby appeal which allowed people to commit their time to something which allowed varied modes of participation. You didn't have to be playing to do something productive. You could paint a model a night and still feel attached to the hobby. You can see similar approaches in MMOs today; a general push towards avoiding the level grind so as to reward players for even casual commitment. Unfortunately, this type of experience does not scale well. That's why its hard to target both casual and hardcore MMO players. Simply put, GW's success was built on its ability to market an atmosphere of casual fun which one could contribute to with little expenditure of effort. I remember articles in Citadel Journal that were written by 12 year olds, for example. The design team, at least the older parts of it, seem to understand this. The problem is that the mass-market style of current GW games does not allow any form of casual approach without major repercussions. As with any company, GW is leveraged against it continued success. Unfortunately, that success is also what pushes GW further away from what made it succesful to begin with. As such, the game either has to change in response to its new market, or fall far away from its current market.
This quote is merely Jervis making an effort to connect the current 40k with the old. He wants the game to retain at least some of its old "friendly" persona where winning was less important than having a good time. Is this a good thing? It depends on your designs for the future of the game. Personally? I don't want 40k to be the huge mass-market hobby it has become. It was better before the age of the munchkins. This is not to say I don't want the company to profit. Far from it. Profits keep GW alive and 40k with it. But, there is a time to recognize when expansion is simply not a viable option. Of course, this view is fully biased an I am likely to be alienated eventually. Thats fine, if 40k becomes something I don't want to play then that's simply beyond my control. The truth is that I expect GW to be the corporation that it is. I expect them to target their products for maximum profit potential. And that means that they will target a younger crowd that will be perpetually enterring the hobby.
5313
Post by: Tetchy
Yeah, I got from that article that GW was back in "headless chicken" mode again. For a while they were tightening things up with added "fluffy" optional extras (like Apoc and CoD). But now the main rules are being made less tight and more "d6 it". WHich does seem like a reversion back to the Gav Thorpe mentality, and to be fair, where GW started with Rogue Trader.
I've no problem with GW being one or the other, as long as they pick with one path and damn well stick to it. Othewise I will continue to stay away while 40k remains a horrible mixture of fluff and cheese - like a fondu that the cat fell into...
116
Post by: Waaagh_Gonads
I don't like 40k in 4th ed.... which is why I have barely played since it was released.
But WHFB... brilliant and almost invariably a fun game even in the most competative tournament.
I like the 40k background better, like the models better, have played both since 1990, sometimes playing one system more than the other.
When the rules for 40k are returned to a level approaching the quality of the WHFB ruleset (note ruleset not codii) I'll be back in a flash.
The only thing that has stopped me from buying other games systems (especially FOW) is a lack of time to learn a new rule set from scratch.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
CaptainLoken wrote: snipped.......KEEP YOUR FAVORITE HOBBY ALIVE!!!..............snipped
Since it needs to be said.
GW is not the whole of the hobby, just the hole. The HOBBY existed before GW and it will be here after its long gone.
6210
Post by: Le Grognard
Sorry kiddos. As the vaunted Red Book says, Kirby is in the business of selling models.
And it's not THE hobby, it's YOUR hobby.
875
Post by: Stu-Rat
Phryxis wrote:Quoth Jervis:
over-competitive players (or "rules-lawyers" as they're known in the trade)
Personally, I am so sick of thise blurring of two completely separate types of people. You can be competitive (even over-competitive) without being a rules lawyer. You can be a "just for fun" player and still be a rules lawyer - I've seen plenty of those over the years. The two aren't the same thing.
1122
Post by: fellblade
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Actually, it's only the online gamers, which represent a very small fraction of GW's actual customers.
Actually, GW has strongly de-emphasized competitive tournament gaming moving into 5th Edition. Lately, GW is emphasizing painting, and "fun" (i.e. Apocalypse / Legendary).
GW knows that FAQs are a waste of time for their developers because FAQs don't generate revenue.
If you are going to call me out by name, please spell my name properly "JohnHwangDD".
GW is addressing the rules problems by writing fewer rules, simplifying rules, streamlining options, and consolidating rules as USRs. There are fewer possible unintended and non-standard interactions available to cause problems. From what I see, this strategy is clearly paying off, as there seem to be a lot fewer things that can go wrong.
You seem to think that opportunity cost is free. It is not. Every extra day that a developer spends on existing rules is a day that cannot be spent creating something that can be sold.
Mmm. Only the online gamers who are crying out? Not in my experience. There are lots of gamers at my FLGS that bemoan the sloppy rules. I don't know if they post online or not.
If GW has strongly de-emphasized competitive tournament gaming, will we see fewer Rogue Traders and no tournament at the Games Days? I will watch.
FAQs are not so much a waste of time as an embarrassing acknowledgement that the developers didn't do their job right the first time.
Sorry about forgetting the H. It was late.
I haven't played 40K in over 12 years. I guess we'll see if 5th edition cleans up enough of the problems that I'll get back into it- but somehow I don't think it will. I've gotten spoiled after playing the better rules from other companies.
I don't think opportunity cost is free; I do think it is a cost of doing business that GW should reasonably be expected to pay. A programming company can release something that meets the written specifications, but then it's also expected to release patches to fix unforeseen problems. If it didn't, no one would buy their programs. To stretch the analogy a bit, since GW wrote the specifications, there should be very few unforeseen situations that arise, and they should address those problems quickly. GW seems to feel that they are adequately addressing the problems by telling us to d6 it, or to let our opponent have his way, or- (most insulting) to tell us that we just aren't playing the game in the right way.
I disagree.
1795
Post by: keezus
Polonius wrote:That's an interesting quote from jervis. I want to read the whole article before I really make up my mind, but here are a few things I noticed:
2) The casual dismissal of the notion that 40k could be played seriously.
Actually - this is an interesting point. I think that Jervis and the other greybeards are stuck in their world-view.
They think of the hobby as being a "play for fun" with characterful, fluffy (containing a fair share of conversions - ) armies. While this is all well and good, the cost of the hobby has drastically increased since the RT days when they first started 40k. Between price increases (per product/unit) vs the increasingly large armies that are being fielded in regular play - the investment for the average hobbyist to achieve their definition of the "proper" way to play 40k is enormous! On top of this, GW has made it increasingly difficult to procure parts for conversions as of late, forcing many players to waste valuable time exploring secondary markets.
It is not a stretch of the imagination to realize that increasing monetary and time invested might have a correlation with percieved "seriousness" in playing 40k - i.e. playing not to lose. I think that Jervis' heart is in the right place, but the hobby is evolving, and his understanding of the hobby demographics is saddly archaic.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Actually I'd be ok with the rules if FAQs were frequent and didn't create issues themselves (or modified from feedback to address the issue). Of course I'd like some rule modifications to make it more tactical, and the new LOS focus/S4 defensive weapons annoys the  out of me
411
Post by: whitedragon
dogma wrote:Neither 40k, nor fantasy have ever been intended as competitive games; at least not in the context of a tournament system. Sure, there is a winner and a loser, but, as GW reminds, the general point is to have fun playing.
Why oh why can't we have fun when playing competitively? Who are you to tell me how I can enjoy my hobby? If I don't recall, I spent the same good money on my books and mini's as you did, so now I can enjoy them however I want. Why is it so hard to give us an FAQ, or an official article in WD or something so I don't have to wonder what the Lash really does or whether the Ork Nob can have a power klaw? I don't want to get hung up on trivial things like this that require a D6 and leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth, I just want to play the game.
And to re-iterate it as everyone else said for the 400th time, just because we are critical of something doesn't mean we hate it. We are all part of the community, and we care enough about the hobby to voice our concerns about it. And look, we even made our own FAQ!
Also, I have yet to read any "Jervis must die" threads.
4802
Post by: Mario
Why would casual gamers not benefit from better rules? Is it that naive to think that a clearer rule set would profit all games?
John's business analysis seems to be optimized for short term growth. Not investing some more time in designing better rules seems to have caused a lot of new editions, FAQ's, confused, and unsatisfied gamers of all levels (casual and competitive). And as a system programmer you should know that good up front design help to avoid many problems in the end even when you are aiming at a "good enough" system and not a perfect one. And a better product results in higher customers satisfaction, better brand perception, and less people looking for something better.
And the argument that it costs more to write better rules is useless as well, as they are going to spend time explaining how to play the "not perfect" rules. If they were to just write the rules and not offer any explanations or FAQ's, then it would be valid but the quote in the first post of this thread says that they are going to explain. So why not just create something that is better and does not need constant bug fixes? That would give the rules development team time to create something new to sell instead of fixing the old stuff again and again.
People could learn the rules and have fun faster. And think of all the time that Games Workshop employees could spend on selling stuff instead of solving rules disputes for casual gamers who have no access to some non-official online FAQ. Less need for reprints of codex books and no need for FAQ's in White Dwarf (again more space for ads).
If this is really the "good enough" point where they can maximize profits then I am just sad (and I think competing systems with clearer rules are moving the "good enough point" upwards). I still think the argument that clear and good rules only benefit competitive gamers and not casual ones is completely wrong. Why should anyone assume that clear rules do not work better for casual games? Isn't a game essentially defined by it's (hopefully good) rules?
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Some interesting thoughts in this thread.
Since my own 341 hasn't shown up, I am unaware of the context in which the little JJ snippet was presented. It actually has direct bearing on any rational response to the quote, but whatever. I'll respond more to the posts in here.
1) Intent: I believe JJ's point is that they are going to focus on fun more than rigid balance. That's something I support, and have supported since we first had this argument in 2002 when the 3.1 version of CSM came out. I loved how wide open it was, and plenty (mostly competitive gamers) of other Dakkaites only saw the abusability of it. There will always be a push/pull effect for "flavor" versus "tightness". Just like a race car. Too tight, and it runs stiffer, but easy to control. A bit looser, and it can get away from you. So it goes with GW rules (well, ALL rulesets actually).
2) Not good enough: That is still no excuse. You can have elements of both. Punting on tightness is a bad idea, though I don't believe that is what JJ was saying. He was indiciating the preference, the LEANING, of GW. But...
3) PR: JJ sucks at getting his point across. I like the guy. Unlike many posters here, I do not believe he is trying to screw me or look down on me or any number of other personal issues. He's trying to be genial and explain some philosophical outlooks. But he chooses poor words, and makes it easy to misconstrue what he is saying. If you want a PR flack...hire one. It's not a collateral duty for a designer.
4) Rules Lawyer: I completely agree that anyone can be a rules lawyer, not just the super-competitive nerds. I would also postulate that a majority of rules lawyers (that's greater than 50%) are super-competitive. It doesn't mean super-competitive = rules lawyers. But I would disagree with JJ on that assertion.
5) The Hobby: While Crimson Devil may be right that GW isn't *the* wargaming hobby...it analogous to being the NBA wrt basketball. It spread the hobby much wider than anything before or anything since. Like it or not, there it is. No other company in this business has survived as long. Not even close.
6) It's a pendulum and it'll never stop moving. They are never going to find the exact right balance, and frankly, they don't want to. As a business, they shouldn't. They should try and limit how far it swings, however.
EDIT: 7) How to play: This is where JJ is probably irritating folks, and I have to agree that he's talking out of his arse. You don't tell people HOW to play with the rules. You discuss how the rules were written, in what context they were conceived, and perhaps recommend that they will work best when played like "X". This, again, is probably a function of him not being a good PR guy. But it does come off a bit poorly.
I'll post more when I read the whole article. That said, I still enjoy watching the hair-pulling and rending of teeth over a meaningless, poorly worded PR comment. People are wildly (and incorrectly) stretching what he said into all sorts of strawmen for them to vent their righteous anger. Please continue...
1795
Post by: keezus
CaptainLoken wrote:If everyone is so full of hate, that they bring a bad taste to the entire hobby, it is going to die. Just go to your local comic book store. Ask the person there how sales are. They will tell you that they are OK, but nothing like they used to be. Why? Because the comic book industry has nothing for 12 to 15 year olds. They are still telling the same tired old stories to us 30 year olds. That medium is going to die. Our hobby will go the same way if we do not change the environment in which we play our games.
YMMV, but in my neck of the woods, the reasons that retailers are reducing support for GW product is twofold - and is more for fiscal reasons than the general mailaise generated by the Veterans.
1. Canadian MSRP is approximately 50% higher than the US MSRP across the board... Mikhaila's good experinces with GWUS aside, GW Canada's retailer price from what I understand, is often times HIGHER than a retailer buying from say... Neil's everyday consumer prices 20% off USMSRP at the Warstore. Bearing this in mind... GW's stance, expecting Canadian independent retailers to push GW product is insane... having product that is 10-20% higher in price -(which was the norm all through the 90s) is like pushing a pregnant whale up a hill... but when the product is easily attainable over the web for 30-40% off Canadian MSRP after shipping, that's like pushing the same pregnant whale up a CLIFF. Consumers aren't stupid, and goodwill towards your local store only goes so far. Unfortunately, there is no end in sight to this significant price disparity, if the Daemons release is any indication. For independent retailers, this is a bitter pill to swallow. On top of that - the local GW outlets tend to canibalize whatever new interest independents generate due to the inability of many independents to stock the full range due to high cost and declining sales caused by the above... (Of course, GW uses this to point an accusing finger at independents for not pushing the product enough... so you can understand why many indpendents are fed-up.)
2. GW Canada's GW reps have had massive churn. It is hard to maintain a good relationship with the company when your point of contact continuously changes. GW's events staff here in Canada typically undergoes total churn every 3-4 years. I think that we're coming to the end of the "no Conflicts" era, and that a new era of events is on the horizon for 5th Edition.
752
Post by: Polonius
keezus wrote:
Actually - this is an interesting point. I think that Jervis and the other greybeards are stuck in their world-view.
~snip~
It is not a stretch of the imagination to realize that increasing monetary and time invested might have a correlation with percieved "seriousness" in playing 40k - i.e. playing not to lose. I think that Jervis' heart is in the right place, but the hobby is evolving, and his understanding of the hobby demographics is saddly archaic.
That's a really great point. I've heard reports that Americans tend to be more OTT then the europeans, which if true backs up your point as well: Jervis, bless his heart, just might be out of touch.
5642
Post by: covenant84
keezus - WELL SAID
I've played many games of risk with my regular group and the last few games have been 'lets just have a quick game for fun for a change'. What happens, two hours in people start realising they've 'wasted' two hours of an evening and competitivness kicks in. When you've spent that long you want something from it - value for money/time = a win. 7 hours later there's a few apologies and 'good games' comments. 6 hours in, there's backstabbing, breaking truices, bribing and every other snidy trick in the book to get hold of that extra bonus point.
Same with 40K, i myself have noticed armies growing and costs spiralling - anyone remember paint being £1.25? never mind the models. Rhinos were £10, and while I'm earning more now, I actually have far less disposable income to spend on 40K than I did as a teenager. I want something from it. However, I don't want a win, I want to have fun! within my group we don't power game as some say, we don't even moan about broken rules, if you can't decide logically flip a coin like it says in the rule book and keep the fun going. The game although is great for tounaments isn't designed for them and most gamers never attend them It's a hobby, not a competition.
As for the point of the thread, well ignore the whole article. Ever since the first one I've not been happy with the waste of three pages. The first one I'll give them but I was under the impression that 'standard bearer' would be something enjoyable to read, with hints of upcoming releases, new ideas/ways of playing, and interesting stuff. Instead it's dribble, and dribble that most of us pay for. It's says lots without telling us anything. If they want designers notes on the shokk attack gun then put it in the article, not reapeat it in standard bearer.
While I'm having a moan I also really don't like the attitude of Junes WD. It's rediculous. comments like 'unless you've had your head in the sand you now a new 40ks coming'. I only know because its on the forums that I havn't been a member of for years, these are NEW to me, an experienced hobbyist, and the only other clues I've seen is that one picture in Mays which frankly could be hinting at all sorts of things. Maybe I've missed something, maybe if WD was better I'd read the thing like I used to. Maybe they need to take their heads out of their arses and listen to the few gamers with good suggestions, encourage it as a HOBBY NOT A GAME. This was the impression I got when I first started, GW would put as much effort into teaching me in store how to model scenery and conversion more than actually teaching how to paint. Better experience =more sales. Better hobby support - WD/citadel journal = more sales
end rant
I LIKE 40K!!!!
465
Post by: Redbeard
fellblade wrote:FAQs are not so much a waste of time as an embarrassing acknowledgement that the developers didn't do their job right the first time.
I don't know you, nor what you do for a living. I will, however, make the bold claim that I doubt you've gone a week in your life without making a mistake at your job. I know I regularly make mistakes, both at work, and at home. Maybe something as simple as a typo - but it's still a mistake.
Mistakes happen. We're all human. Acknowledging and fixing mistakes is not embarrassing, it's being accountable. What's embarrasing is when the mistakes aren't addressed for over a year. Software companies have learned this - they release patches. Most gaming companies have learned this too. WotC gets Errata out on a very regular basis. It's not hard to acknowledge that you made a mistake and correct it, and doing such breeds goodwill from your customers.
5313
Post by: Tetchy
covenant84 wrote:While I'm having a moan I also really don't like the attitude of Junes WD. It's rediculous. comments like 'unless you've had your head in the sand you now a new 40ks coming'. I only know because its on the forums that I havn't been a member of for years, these are NEW to me, an experienced hobbyist, and the only other clues I've seen is that one picture in Mays which frankly could be hinting at all sorts of things. Maybe I've missed something, maybe if WD was better I'd read the thing like I used to.
Yeah, that comment made me laugh too. It was only a few weeks back that the blueshirts in my local store were flat out denying 5th edition was coming out. There's certainly been nothing in WD about it.
Maybe they are tacitly acknowledging that the majority of 40k gamers are net-savvy? It was something GW used to deny (as an excuse for ignoring "internet whinging"), but started to doubt a couple of years back when the UK Lotr GT errata was exclusively circulated by email... something they wouldn't have done if they weren't pretty certain most attending would get hold of it...
If anyone's got their heads in the sand, it isn't the fans, its the GW design staff in their ivory tower!
181
Post by: gorgon
It's a little irresponsible of me to comment given that I haven't read the article. However, a couple posts in this thread resonated in a general way...
fellblade wrote:GW has also been promoting the tournament scene as a marketing ploy- but nowhere is the need for clear and unambiguous rules greater than in a national (or indeed, international) tournament.
There have been cries for timely FAQs; cries which go unanswered for years. When FAQs are published, what does GW do but appropriate the hard work of gamers? It is very ironic to me that so many people will argue that the Direwolf rulings aren't official, then GW goes and lifts many Direwolf rulings verbatim, and credits them directly in the official GW FAQ. (JohnWangDD asks why should GW spend money doing what others will do for free- it's because GW wants to control what is "official" and what is not. If you want to control something, you have to take responsibility for it, too.)
I think you nailed it with this post. I'll defend GW for a lot of things. But their lack of responsibility for their actions just drives me *crazy.* THEY created the tournament scene. THEY created and spread the notions of official, universal rules and official models -- a definite departure from the historicals scene. And yet for years, the designers have decried the "tournament players" that their own tournaments created.
Polonius wrote:2) The casual dismissal of the notion that 40k could be played seriously
Again, for years GW has tried to tell players HOW to play 40K, and it's never worked. So they swing the pendulum from edition to edition, trying to force players to play the "correct" way. And we end up with a game that hasn't truly found its way despite 20 YEARS of development.
Let me be clear -- I think the designers take too much abuse and get too little credit for the things they do well. But this constant philosophizing over "how" just leads to a dead end. *Players* decide how the game will be played. The designers' role should be to enable these sometimes very different groups to play their way, not to force them to play the way the designers envision. Maybe they're on that path now with Apoc and their current approach to codices, I dunno. But Jervis has a talent for sounding dictatorial. Which leads me to...
dienekes96 wrote:3) PR: JJ sucks at getting his point across. I like the guy. Unlike many posters here, I do not believe he is trying to screw me or look down on me or any number of other personal issues. He's trying to be genial and explain some philosophical outlooks. But he chooses poor words, and makes it easy to misconstrue what he is saying. If you want a PR flack...hire one. It's not a collateral duty for a designer.
Yeah, he's a lot different in person and when corresponding. Maybe GW sees that column as the equivalent of a newspaper's editorial page, which is basically only there to stir the pot and get people reading and responding. I dunno.
1122
Post by: fellblade
@Redbeard: You are correct, and I expressed myself poorly. What I meant to say is more along the lines of
"JohnHwangDD says that GW does not want to waste time on FAQs, since that is time the games developers could be using to work on something new they can sell.
This may be true.
But the feeling I get is that GW does not want to do any FAQ at all, as the company perceives them to be an embarrassing acknowledgement that the game developers didn't do their job right the first time."
26
Post by: carmachu
dogma wrote:
Neither 40k, nor fantasy have ever been intended as competitive games; at least not in the context of a tournament system.
Then they need to stop supporting and shut down the tournment scene, Games day and Grand tournments and any support for local tournment scene.
They cant have it both ways. They cant sponsor tournments, and then not support them rules wise, FAQ wise and other such. They want the tournment scene, and in the SAME BREATH, tell us that its just for fun, and how mean the rules lawyers are and all the other nonsense in the stand at the start of the thread.
Thats BS. You cant have it both ways.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
I’d like to read the article, but if that quote is representative, Jervis and the design team have come to sad and completely wrongheaded conclusions about what damage sloppy writing and poor design do to the hobby, and about who is affected.
P1: GW has written tight (or at least tighter) rules in the past. Battlefleet: Gothic, Blood Bowl, and Warhammer are all examples.
P2: Using standardized terminology and clear and consistent wording makes for a better game and a more enjoyable experience for casual gamers.
Again, Blood Bowl is a great example, as are Warmachine and Hordes. My more-casual former-GW gaming buddies (listen to The D6 Generation podcast to know exactly who I’m talking about) have switched over to PP’s games in large part because virtually every rules question they have can be solved with a quick glance at the rulebook or the model’s stat card. They almost never have to consult a FAQ (though there is a very detailed FAQ for hardcore players).
P3: Black Templars and Speed Freaks armies were omnipresent in 3rd edition tournaments virtually from the moment Codex: Armageddon was released until Codex: Black Templars came out (for the former) and 4th edition cane out (for the latter). Both of which were releases that toned down the army in question. For the last two years I have rarely seen either army at a tournament. But since Codex: Orks came out, I see Orks again.
C1: Rules can drive sales.
C2: Clearer rules make the game more appealing to casual gamers, not just to competitive gamers.
I still love 40k. It’s my second favorite wargame after Warhammer and just ahead of Warmachine.
But it is primarily because of the mistakes GW has made with the rules that I NO LONGER HAVE A LOCAL GROUP with whom to play GW games in my town. The core, enthusiastic ambassadors for the hobby; the guys who were always fun to play and who recruited and attracted others, have moved over to PP games. And they did so because those games let them have fun games with less confusion about the rules. Casual gamers want clear rules too. Clear rules (I’m not asking for perfectly balanced; and neither are my casual gamer buddies) make the game better for EVERYONE.
1122
Post by: fellblade
Hear, hear!
181
Post by: gorgon
I keep thinking that one fundamental disconnect that's happened is that GW now views itself as a miniatures company. That's true in that miniatures are what they're manufacturing and profiting from. However, most customers (excluding those who strictly collect miniatures) *experience* GW as a games company.
Whether GW likes it or not, they're still on the hook for the quality of their rulesets.
5147
Post by: tomguycot
A few thoughts of mine:
1. I don't really like the notion that tight rules somehow prohibit people or are somehow an obstacle to people casually playing the game and enjoying themselves. Case in point, Magic the Gathering. This games has some of the tighest rules out there and a huge portion of Wizards of the Coast's sales are from casual players (they've said so themselves).
2. As much as I complain about the Chaos book I am of the opinion that 40k really has improved over the past year. The Dark Angel book was pretty bland and uninspiring, the Chaos book was pretty good compared to the Dark Angel book but a pale shadow of its former self, then the Ork book is probably my favorite book currently out and would have been perect if it wasn't for some sloppy wording and editing, and then we have...
3. Codex: Chaos Demons. A lot of people have bemoaned that it can't hang with the big boys (Nidzilla, Mecheldar, etc.) and it probably can't. Still it is in my opinion a very well written book with a lot of cool/unique units and characters that plays completely differently than anything else out there. One thing I have noticed is a complete lack of discussion about major rules problems or ambiguities in the Codex (the Ork Codex had a huge rules debate before the book was even out). This makes me think that they are really cleaning up their rules writing and makes me very hopefull for the 5th ed book.
4. FAQs, yes, I thought they would never get around to releasing them but now that they are the FAQs actually look pretty good and they even bothered to use clarifications from Yakface and Direwolf. I am really quite pleased with the current crop of FAQs.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Mannahnin wrote:
I’d like to read the article, but if that quote is representative, Jervis and the design team have come to sad and completely wrongheaded conclusions about what damage sloppy writing and poor design do to the hobby, and about who is affected.
P1: GW has written tight (or at least tighter) rules in the past. Battlefleet: Gothic, Blood Bowl, and Warhammer are all examples.
P2: Using standardized terminology and clear and consistent wording makes for a better game and a more enjoyable experience for casual gamers.
Again, Blood Bowl is a great example, as are Warmachine and Hordes. My more-casual former-GW gaming buddies (listen to The D6 Generation podcast to know exactly who I’m talking about) have switched over to PP’s games in large part because virtually every rules question they have can be solved with a quick glance at the rulebook or the model’s stat card. They almost never have to consult a FAQ (though there is a very detailed FAQ for hardcore players).
P3: Black Templars and Speed Freaks armies were omnipresent in 3rd edition tournaments virtually from the moment Codex: Armageddon was released until Codex: Black Templars came out (for the former) and 4th edition cane out (for the latter). Both of which were releases that toned down the army in question. For the last two years I have rarely seen either army at a tournament. But since Codex: Orks came out, I see Orks again.
C1: Rules can drive sales.
C2: Clearer rules make the game more appealing to casual gamers, not just to competitive gamers.
I still love 40k. It’s my second favorite wargame after Warhammer and just ahead of Warmachine.
But it is primarily because of the mistakes GW has made with the rules that I NO LONGER HAVE A LOCAL GROUP with whom to play GW games in my town. The core, enthusiastic ambassadors for the hobby; the guys who were always fun to play and who recruited and attracted others, have moved over to PP games. And they did so because those games let them have fun games with less confusion about the rules. Casual gamers want clear rules too. Clear rules (I’m not asking for perfectly balanced; and neither are my casual gamer buddies) make the game better for EVERYONE.
Succinct, clear, and accurate Manny.
6084
Post by: theHandofGork
Mannahnin hit it on the head- casual gamers want clear rules too.
That being said, I just read the article in my FLGS (I wouldn't spend money on WD unless it was worth reading, and it usually isn't). It seems like a lot of people on this thread haven't read it yet, and I suggest they do. While I can see a few problems people mention here being valid, after reading it I wondered what all the fuss was about. The OP took a quote very our of context in my mind and here we are. The actual article was pretty innocuous and doesn't say a quarter of what people say it does.
284
Post by: Augustus
JohnHwangDD wrote:However, GW isn't interested in competitive gaming. And from a business standpoint, if it costs 20% extra work to write better rules, that drive (maybe) 1% additional sales, that's a pretty poor decision from a cost-benefit standpoint.
Rubbish, besides how do you know that? I suspect you made this up, unless you're actually in GW marketing JHwangwhoever
JohnHwangDD wrote:FWIW, I spent over a decade as a Systems Programmer / Analyst.
So Naturally you know about all the business stuff too, of course. Not sanctimonious at all.... Thanks for the education.
JohnHwangDD wrote:So looking at costs and effort vs benefits, there is a clear tradeoff point at which further effort at clarifying rules has diminishing returns and should be halted from a business standpoint. After all, it's not like lives or money are on the line...
As opposed to making them into things that do sell, like say, rules in white dwarf or annuals. Your dismissal of FAQs may be merrited but it is no reason not to adress the problems.
JohnHwangDD wrote:GW knows that FAQs are a waste of time for their developers because FAQs don't generate revenue.
Well if thats true then the only conlcusion I can make is they make bad decisions, because they COULD make the answers AND SELL THEM to generate revenue by basically putting FAQ contents into an annual, just like they use to. In fact they could put in inconsistencies on purpose with a plan to sell the solution later in the year...
JohnHwangDD wrote:If you are going to call me out by name, please spell my name properly "JohnHwangDD".
Lighten up.
JohnHwangDD wrote:GW is addressing the rules problems by writing fewer rules, simplifying rules, streamlining options, and consolidating rules as USRs. There are fewer possible unintended and non-standard interactions available to cause problems. From what I see, this strategy is clearly paying off, as there seem to be a lot fewer things that can go wrong.
Also Balderdash, GW writes core rules and then spends the next X years writing rules exceptions, to intentionally make the core game obsolete for the innevitable rerelease one day. They always break the USRs in the first few codices that get published... As to fewer things that can go wrong why don't you explain the 3 stealth releases of thethe old chaos codex, or how the Tau drones worked, or wether or not a Drop Pod Deepstrikes, or more recently why the Ork Boss in Mega Armor gets extra attacks but can't get any because of his armor or a whole host of other sillyness caused by new codexes
JohnHwangDD wrote:You seem to think that opportunity cost is free. It is not. Every extra day that a developer spends on existing rules is a day that cannot be spent creating something that can be sold.
Your whole argument revolves around GW not getting cost gain, which is easily answered or countered by the fact that they should just sell them in books and annuals (like they use to) instead of giving them away for free. Besides they HAVE BEEN GIVING THEM AWAY FOR FREE with FAQs right? SHouldnt they just stop that and sell those in annuals to make money? (YES)
Your claim that they should just do nothing is like saying a disease shouldn't be treated. Its ludicrous and it makes you sound like a fanboy defending the system for no other reason. Besides couldn't they make more money by selling annuals? and WD with rules in them? Right JhnHwGwangjgh?
431
Post by: stjohn70
Just a random thought...
Is it a coincidence that GW's past "tight rules" are for game systems that have essentially failed? Yes, I know people still play them... you get my point.
Not that I'm against tight rules - on the contrary, I include my desire for them in my nightly prayers and supplications. It was just a random thought.
83
Post by: ZandrisIV
By all accounts LOTR has a pretty tight rules system, and it's still going strong.
The aforementioned tight rules were for Specialist Games, which probably failed more for lack of content than for lack of rules writing. You didn't need to buy loads of miniatures to play any of them, and you could get multiple fleets/teams/gangs for the price of a single 40k army.
Just my 2cp
Cheers
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
I think GW really does miss the point of good rules.
I paint a far sight more than I play, but even when my best friends sneak off to get a game at the local store, we find rules issues we debate. That's just silly, not because we are debating the way things work, but because if there is anyone just out to have fun, it's us. However, we are playing a game and having fun by attempting to win within a set of rules thereby. As such, we both need to agree on what the rules are, but when they are written the way GW's are, it creates a problem. It isn't a super competitive streak causing the issue, after all, all my friends I game with regularly use either "weak" army lists or fluffy builds made for fun. It comes up when we come up with a clever plan, only to be stopped mid execution by the other player who thinks "it doesn't work like that." No rules lawyering to get an advantage, just making plans based on understandings of the rules, which can be equally valid but contradictory.
Also, I think GW and John really underestimate the value of both goodwill and service to a company. There are piles of literature written about value differentiation between similar products, none of which involve price or material value, but all of which serve to produce competive advantage.
In general terms, most people will go to a bar with a bartender they like or find attractive as opposed to one they are ambivalent about. It might cost the bar a little more money to retain that person, but it draws more business.
There are also products known as "loss leaders" that companies lose money selling, but then are related to and help sell other products they make money on. The classic example is "give the razor away free; make money on the blades."
There are thousands examples of these sorts of things, all of which show the value of good rules when applied to GW. Sure, the customer might not spend 10$ more for a well written rule book, but if you don't treat the rules as an entity in a void, you see that good rules encourage more people to play, which leads to more sales, and often more rule books sold as a result.
284
Post by: Augustus
Nice explanation on the business concepts Wehrkind, that makes sense.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
A few more points, based on the conversation here.
1) I am not surprised we are arguing a quote taken out of context. I look forweard to seeing the context. I still think it is an interesting debate about the game.
2) GW *IS* a mini company. But they are dependent upon the hobby to sell those minis. And the hobby is the game. The rules are an enabling sales point, and the most vital one. Take the game away, and GW dies. While I agree they should pay Jes Goodwin and Brian Nelson more than the rules writers, they should consider the importance of rules in the future of their product. They should aim for a solid ruleset, because that makes the game more approachable to the largest contingent of hobbyists, thereby increasing their customer base for models. It's not just about profit on the rulebook, but ancillary sales of customers pleased with the rules and buying more models to play them. It's not a direct relationship, but it absolutely is a relationship.
3) We're not going to agree on what the balance should be. No two of us would agree. So let's not pretend there is a finish line. There is a close enough and appeals to the greatest number of players. I think the designers are trying to get there (no one wants to work on a bad project). Either they should get more time or they should manipulate the mechanics of making the rules. They are not far off. There are a lot of great core mechanics. They need to work on the balancing aspect and the flexibility, in my unintelligent and mostly uninformed opinion.
284
Post by: Augustus
I like your point 2 and 3 a lot.
What has always surprised me is a lack of creative direction. Not that they are not creative or that they don't have a direction, neat stuff still keeps coming out, it's just that they seem to really lack the guiding hand of an editor in the codex releases.
So many of the codexes seem to be written with a differnet set of creative directions. For example the DA codex was even handedly written to encourage an army style for that list and put a box around who the DA are. But the Ork Codex was not written with the same paradigm in mind, that codex is filled with myriad army configurations, is not "even handedly" written rules wise with obvious choices and looser options (tank busters vs lootas as 1 example). What happened to the idea of drawing a box around what an army should be composed of we saw in the DE dex?
The ork codex is still satisfying to see but what happened to the seeming editorial influence in the DA codex? It's like one is written at about a 7 and one is written at a 9 for effect. They also have totally different paradigms on limiting army structure...? They seemingly were written with a different aproach to making USR and Core MEchanic exceptions.
It's just odd. Inconsistent creative direction hurts the game by creating unknowns. This is my fear for 5th with many years of codexes writen for other core mechanics.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
JohnHwangDD wrote:
What I find amusing is that you own the models at all, rather than having sold them on eBay or traded them on Bartertown. What I also find amusing is how you claim the rules are boring. I'll bet that you've never bothered to play them, because if you did, I think you'd find that 2 or 3 squads of Possessed backed by a couple blocks of generic Daemons actually play pretty well, if you bother to learn how to use them effectively. The issue isn't that the rules are boring. It's that they're not the no-brainers that they were previously.
What can I say, I'm a pack rat. But my Fantasy Chaos army is for sale. It that goes I may follow it with those possessed as you suggest.
And I see the problem is my inability to grasp the subtley of possessed and demons. Actually, I think terminators are a far better Elites choice for about the same price. So why use my possessed over my 10 man termi squad? Why take units that don't even have guns when for a slightly more points I can take sqauds of marines with bolters and bolt pistols?
26
Post by: carmachu
JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW has garnered tremendous ill will, and they still sell more than anybody else. Clearly, GW has figured out that building a reservoir goodwill isn't so important if their sales aren't so hugely impacted.
*blinks*
Dont read the GW quarterly finacials, do you? GW doesnt sell NEARLY as much as they use to 7 years ago. The ill will has an impact, a solid impact. They just dont care.
They could sell more....
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
John oddly might have a unintended point about GW there Carmachu. It may well be that GW does in fact think that the mini-market is a zero sum game, and so long as they are selling more than anyone else, they will win. Lots of people both in and out of business look at a given market like that.
The trouble with that view though is that markets shrink and grow depending on whether people want to be in them. GW might be thinking "Well, we are still on top, so we are probably just seeing a decline in the general miniature game market due to video games etc. Nothing we can do about it, we just need to ride it out." However, if so, they could not be more wrong. Ill will drives people away from a company and sometimes out of a market all together. It can be difficult to see by the numbers whether a market shrinking is due to some external factor you can't control or not, but more often than not it is because an option is less appealing due to the companies providing a good's own actions.
So while GW might be thinking they rule the miniature realm (which may very well be true) they might also be seriously contributing to the desolation of said realm by not caring about their customers. As carmachu points out, ill will always comes back to haunt a company, particularly as consumers start deciding there is better value to be had elsewhere.
181
Post by: gorgon
Augustus wrote:So many of the codexes seem to be written with a differnet set of creative directions. For example the DA codex was even handedly written to encourage an army style for that list and put a box around who the DA are. But the Ork Codex was not written with the same paradigm in mind, that codex is filled with myriad army configurations, is not "even handedly" written rules wise with obvious choices and looser options (tank busters vs lootas as 1 example). What happened to the idea of drawing a box around what an army should be composed of we saw in the DE dex?
That's been going on for ages, though. Designers have different philosophies, and it seems each designer gets the room to see their philosophy though. Look at Jervis's 3rd edition DA codex compared to Gav's BA codex. One designer built in significant disadvantages to go with their advantages, the other mostly piled on advantages and some fluffy(-ish) pre-game rolling and resolution, the latter of which would later become a running theme with his codices. Later, Jervis got the memo and wrote the strong (at the time) SW codex.
In the case of the DA and Ork codices, it wouldn't surprise me if the directions were the same. The difference was how well each designer worked within those directions.
26
Post by: carmachu
Wehrkind wrote:John oddly might have a unintended point about GW there Carmachu. It may well be that GW does in fact think that the mini-market is a zero sum game, and so long as they are selling more than anyone else, they will win. Lots of people both in and out of business look at a given market like that.
The trouble with that view though is that markets shrink and grow depending on whether people want to be in them. GW might be thinking "Well, we are still on top, so we are probably just seeing a decline in the general miniature game market due to video games etc. Nothing we can do about it, we just need to ride it out." However, if so, they could not be more wrong. Ill will drives people away from a company and sometimes out of a market all together. It can be difficult to see by the numbers whether a market shrinking is due to some external factor you can't control or not, but more often than not it is because an option is less appealing due to the companies providing a good's own actions.
The problem is.....their on top for now. They arent on top as much as they use to be even 4 years ago. Their ill will and sloppiness have opened the doors to Privateer press, flames of war, and AT-43. A decade or so ago the competition couldnt get the traction those companies have.
GW isnt doing NEARLY as well as it has, or could.
http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2007/full_year/businessreview.aspx
2003 sees 129.1 in millions of pounds.
2004 sees a spike of 151.8 million, I think lord of the rings about then?
Then what happens?
2005 sees 136.6 million
2006 sees 115.2 million
2007 sees 111.5 million
And the competition? Takes off. 2-3 years ago PP sees a quardrupling of sales, and only expected double. They had to delay new releases one month to get caught up on the basic boxes. FoW sees a jump. AT-43 seems to be doing ok.
GW's own financials dont lie. They arent doing much to stem the tide there. All the cost cutting and closing stores and such, they arent selling nearly as much as they have, or they should.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
fellblade wrote:Mmm. Only the online gamers who are crying out? Not in my experience. There are lots of gamers at my FLGS that bemoan the sloppy rules. I don't know if they post online or not.
If GW has strongly de-emphasized competitive tournament gaming, will we see fewer Rogue Traders and no tournament at the Games Days? I will watch.
FAQs are not so much a waste of time as an embarrassing acknowledgement that the developers didn't do their job right the first time.
Sorry about forgetting the H. It was late.
I haven't played 40K in over 12 years. I guess we'll see if 5th edition cleans up enough of the problems that I'll get back into it- but somehow I don't think it will. I've gotten spoiled after playing the better rules from other companies.
I don't think opportunity cost is free; I do think it is a cost of doing business that GW should reasonably be expected to pay. A programming company can release something that meets the written specifications, but then it's also expected to release patches to fix unforeseen problems. If it didn't, no one would buy their programs. To stretch the analogy a bit, since GW wrote the specifications, there should be very few unforeseen situations that arise, and they should address those problems quickly. GW seems to feel that they are adequately addressing the problems by telling us to d6 it, or to let our opponent have his way, or- (most insulting) to tell us that we just aren't playing the game in the right way.
I disagree.
Isn't the point of the board for people to disagree?
And WRT rules sloppiness, while I acknowledge that it does exist, I just don't see it as such a big deal in normal gaming situations.
You do realise there's a difference between "empahsis" (featuring, highlighting) vs "existence" (having at all), right? GW can still have GTs and RTTs without emphasizing them as the primary or featured way to play. So I'd simply direct you to go through your WDs to see the competitive gaming emphasis (or lack thereof). Back in the 40k3 years, GW had more pages pushing their GTs, highlighting GT winners. They even invited a a hardcore "beardy" player (David something?) to play a WAAC game of WFB (Welves vs LM), and did a whole featured batrep on it. Back then, GW had more GTs along with a larger, GW-sposored RTT circuit to push things. And GT scoring was very different as well, with less emphasis on Sports and Comp. Nowadays, WD has these huge picture spreads on Golden Daemon and new models that are basically all pretty pictures of stuff to buy. Personally, I think GW got caught up in the novelty of GTs and WAAC gaming.
BTW, thanks on the name - I know it's not a common spelling among most native English speakers.
And FWIW, I haven't played so much 40k lately, either, mostly due to pressures from this thing we call "life". That said, I like the direction the game is headed, and I sure hope to play more once 5th hits the ground. As far as other rules being objectively "better", I think a lot of what you're seeing ties to the rulesets being more concise. Small rules are a lot easier to get correct.
What I think is funny, is when we talk about softwrare companies. From what I see, Microsoft can't code to spec to save their lives. Which is parlty what causes them to write a lot of patches and make wierd declarations. From a GW standpoint, most likely, they never thought players would do the things that they do. Fzorgle is a perfect example. As gentlemen, they assumed that players would understand that Lash movement as a result of a shooting attack has all of the standard restrictions from Shooting / targets, and movement... They NEVER expected Fzorgle to fall into the hands of unscrupulous cads and rogues!
But I get the point. For each company or project, someone needs to make a business decision on how much effort to spend on the details and cleanup. Given that an edition of 40k or Fantasy has a usable lifespan of about 5 years, as long as each edition is "a little bit better", it's probably "good enough".
Mario wrote:John's business analysis seems to be optimized for short term growth. Not investing some more time in designing better rules seems to have caused a lot of new editions, FAQ's, confused, and unsatisfied gamers of all levels (casual and competitive).
And as a system programmer you should know that good up front design help to avoid many problems in the end even when you are aiming at a "good enough" system and not a perfect one.
GW lives quarter to quarter, so short-term growth makes sense. Plus, editions have built-in obsolescence, so they actually know they *aren't* building something for the ages.
When you look at 40k4's initial move to USRs, that's an example of good up-front design. Same with paring back the Armoury to make the options clear(er). The problem is that one man's "good enough" isn't the same as another's. And usually, "good enough" is defined by whomever is paying the bills. In this case, it's the GW suits calling the shots.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
carmachu wrote:They want the tournment scene, and in the SAME BREATH, tell us that its just for fun, and how mean the rules lawyers are and all the other nonsense in the stand at the start of the thread.
Who said that tournaments need to be entirely about competition ("winning")? If GW wants their "tournaments" to be about cameraderie ("fun"), that is their perogative.
tomguycot wrote:Magic the Gathering. This games has some of the tighest rules out there and a huge portion of Wizards of the Coast's sales are from casual players.
You realise, of course, that Magic development is pretty much entirely rules development, and that Magic cards are basically rules snippets? So in the case of WotC's MtG, the customers are actually paying for the rules development.
In the case of 40k, even the most casual analysis of revenue and profit will quickly conclude that GW makes the overwhelming majority of revenue and profit from miniatures, while rules are incidental.
If you step into the way-back machine, do you recall what happened to the MtG miniatures line?
Augustus wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:...
Rubbish, besides how do you know that? I suspect you made this up, unless you're actually in GW marketing JHwangwhoever
So Naturally you know about all the business stuff too, of course. Not sanctimonious at all.... Thanks for the education.
As opposed to making them into things that do sell, like say, rules in white dwarf or annuals. Your dismissal of FAQs may be merrited but it is no reason not to adress the problems.
Well if thats true then the only conlcusion I can make is they make bad decisions, because they COULD make the answers AND SELL THEM to generate revenue by basically putting FAQ contents into an annual, just like they use to. In fact they could put in inconsistencies on purpose with a plan to sell the solution later in the year...
Lighten up.
Also Balderdash, ...
Your whole argument revolves around GW not getting cost gain, which is easily answered or countered by the fact that they should just sell them in books and annuals (like they use to) instead of giving them away for free. Besides they HAVE BEEN GIVING THEM AWAY FOR FREE with FAQs right? SHouldnt they just stop that and sell those in annuals to make money? (YES)
Your claim that they should just do nothing is like saying a disease shouldn't be treated. Its ludicrous and it makes you sound like a fanboy defending the system for no other reason. Besides couldn't they make more money by selling annuals? and WD with rules in them? Right JhnHwGwangjgh?
I only quote you for posterity. I find you impolite, rude and offensive, and will not be responding to you. Ever. Have a nice life.
Wehrkind wrote:I think GW and John really underestimate the value of both goodwill and service to a company.
There are also products known as "loss leaders" that companies lose money selling, but then are related to and help sell other products they make money on. The classic example is "give the razor away free; make money on the blades."
I think you misunderstand how I'm making the point. Please note that I am playing Devil's Advocate on behalf of GW to better illuminate the points of discussion. I personally happen to believe that corporate goodwill has real tangible value. However, I don't think anybody really believes GW has any goodwill remaning, and I don't think that GW does much of anything about it, because they believe it would cost too much to fix.
WRT "loss leaders", what makes you think that GW doesn't treat BfM, BfSP, and rules as loss leaders so they can make money on the miniatures?
Noisy_Marine wrote:What can I say, I'm a pack rat. But my Fantasy Chaos army is for sale. It that goes I may follow it with those possessed as you suggest.
And I see the problem is my inability to grasp the subtley of possessed and demons. Actually, I think terminators are a far better Elites choice for about the same price.
Hey, it's OK. I'm probably just as much of a pack rat as you are. When I retire, I'll lots of cool stuff to work on and play with!
I agree Termies are a great choice, but also believe that Possessed and Daemons are quite playable. If I had more time to play, I'd be able to put this to the test.
BTW, if 5th Edition only Troops are Scoring, Daemons being (relatively) inexpensive Troops could make them better than Termies.
carmachu wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:GW has garnered tremendous ill will, and they still sell more than anybody else. Clearly, GW has figured out that building a reservoir goodwill isn't so important if their sales aren't so hugely impacted.
Dont read the GW quarterly finacials, do you?
Oh, I do. Even though I'm well aware GW could do better, I just don't think there's anybody else who moves a greater amount of stuff than GW.
carmachu wrote:A decade or so ago the competition couldnt get the traction those companies have.
2003 sees 129.1 in millions of pounds.
2004 sees a spike of 151.8 million, I think lord of the rings about then?
2005 sees 136.6 million
2006 sees 115.2 million
2007 sees 111.5 million
Totally agreed that GW was the only game a decade ago. GW prices were relatively lower, and they were in "expansion mode" with the new 40k3 / WFB6 full system releases. GW's subsequently higher prices allowed competition to charge a lot more, and the shift to maintenance mode along with the distraction of LotR really dissipated a lot of the momentum they built up.
If you ask a GW suit, they'll probably tell you that the 2007 shows that things have "bottomed", and that good times are ahead...
464
Post by: muwhe
“Jervis is talking about focusing the rules on producing fun games between players who aren’t playing at a tournament level of competitiveness.”
Help me understand how having a tight set of rules that “work for tourney players” doesn’t benefit the “casual” gamer as well? Honestly I hate both of those terms... we are all gamers .. I started off with store/basement gaming, skipping school and class, burning the late nights ...
For the most part a good chunk of “Tourney” players are just guys that have grown up, have family and work responsibilities. They don’t have as much spare time, but have a decent income stream and like the idea of getting in 3-4 games over a day against some new players with nice looking armies. They can afford 1 weekend every couple months.. a ton easier than they can afford 1 or 2 nights a week at the local gaming store.
Additionally I don’t understand how they think the only “competitive games” happen at tourney settings.
I have seen plenty of “club” games or “fun” games that have far more heated rule arguments. Honestly I think people are more willing to "argue" with a friend than a complete stranger because they feel more comfortable. Heck I’ve seen guys asked if they want to take it outside during a “friendly” game between friends.
That is what they don’t get. A good set of rules benefits everyone. From the guy that just wants to field the models he thinks look cool to the most mini-max cut throat veteran player. Good rules are just that good rules.
The whole idea that “We don’t design rules for tourney play” is a crutch. That has been communicated but we evidently have a difference of opinion.
They have not figured out that the "kids" they marketed to 20+ years ago have grown up and have to find other ways to still enjoy this hobby...
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
muwhe wrote:“Jervis is talking about focusing the rules on producing fun games between players who aren’t playing at a tournament level of competitiveness.”
Help me understand how having a tight set of rules that “work for tourney players” doesn’t benefit the “casual” gamer as well? Honestly I hate both of those terms... we are all gamers .. I started off with store/basement gaming, skipping school and class, burning the late nights ...
Well it's mostly a matter of limited resources, time and profit conflict. On one hand, you could add a great deal of individuality to each unit/char/vehicle and say to hell with balance, it's all about fun. Blizzard would be a good example (Although they have refined the process and patch frequently) but I think the analogy is still solid. Fun over everything else and people will play.
On the other hand, if one unit is obviously sub-par compared to others, over thousands of games...people will gravitate towards building armies around it. This happens in computer RTS simulations, FPS simulations and board games. Now, game designers could obviously focus on balance and realism (Somewhat tossing out fun in the making) and have a perfectly balanced game. Perhaps 15mm Ancient rule sets would be a good example. However, in a Sci-Fi market, unique is fun. So they strive to strike a balance. Ironically enough, if they strive to achieve more balance and less unique (As they have started to do with Codex vs Apoc armies), they are accused of ripping away the " Id" of an army (See CSM). So it's a tough line to walk.
If anything, you may fault the designers for holding too high an opinion of their market. Quite often, their replies of "Well make your own adjustments!" comes across as aloof when it's simply sincere. I'm sure in their spare time they play unbalanced scenarios for their personal games and adjust accordingly just as we do.
Anyways, that would be my two slightly inebriated cents.
5534
Post by: dogma
whitedragon wrote:
Why oh why can't we have fun when playing competitively? Who are you to tell me how I can enjoy my hobby? If I don't recall, I spent the same good money on my books and mini's as you did, so now I can enjoy them however I want. Why is it so hard to give us an FAQ, or an official article in WD or something so I don't have to wonder what the Lash really does or whether the Ork Nob can have a power klaw? I don't want to get hung up on trivial things like this that require a D6 and leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth, I just want to play the game.
I'm not telling you how, GW is. Its your own fault if you bought into a game system which does not actually reflect what you personally value. Its not that playing competitively isn't fun. I, personally, am a very competetive person in much of what I do. Its just that 40k was never designed to cater to people who win-at-all-costs. You can complain all you want, but so long as the designers want a game which is designed around nothing more than making noises and rolling dice your complaints will fall on deaf ears. I rarely argue for love-it-or-leave-it ideology, but this is a case where it certainly applies.
carmachu wrote:
Then they need to stop supporting and shut down the tournment scene, Games day and Grand tournments and any support for local tournment scene.
They cant have it both ways. They cant sponsor tournments, and then not support them rules wise, FAQ wise and other such. They want the tournment scene, and in the SAME BREATH, tell us that its just for fun, and how mean the rules lawyers are and all the other nonsense in the stand at the start of the thread.
Thats BS. You cant have it both ways.
Tournament in which the highest award is a non-competetive honor are not tournaments at all. Certainly, they might be called Grand Tournaments, but in reality they are simply celebrations of the hobby as a whole. The tournament scene which GW supports is perfectly appropraite for what it wants it product to be. What is out of whack is the way much of the customer base views the competetive side of the hobby.
26
Post by: carmachu
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Who said that tournaments need to be entirely about competition ("winning")? If GW wants their "tournaments" to be about cameraderie ("fun"), that is their perogative.
The stop handing out trophies and prizes for playing or painting. Stop scoring for points.
IF its about fun, then make it so. Stop trying to say tournment with every actions.
Totally agreed that GW was the only game a decade ago. GW prices were relatively lower, and they were in "expansion mode" with the new 40k3 / WFB6 full system releases. GW's subsequently higher prices allowed competition to charge a lot more, and the shift to maintenance mode along with the distraction of LotR really dissipated a lot of the momentum they built up.
If you ask a GW suit, they'll probably tell you that the 2007 shows that things have "bottomed", and that good times are ahead...
I dont know if they bounced back...they've spent the last year, or year and a half in cost cutting measures.
Higher prices allowed the competetion in. Their prices became higher later.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
VermGho5t wrote:John sometimes I wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse.
Are you a major shareholder?
Major sycophant more like it. And a tireless debater for that matter.
BYE
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
stjohn70 wrote:Just a random thought...
Is it a coincidence that GW's past "tight rules" are for game systems that have essentially failed? Yes, I know people still play them... you get my point.
Depends on how you define "failure," I guess. I seem to recall that the last major Blood Bowl event that GW ran (some time in the last year, IIRC) attracted more players than any other GW before or since. So, that doesn't exactly sound like a failure.
Sales of Epic Armageddon products have consistantly exceeded GW's projections. Is that a failure?
Both of these have pretty tight rulesets compared to 40K. Blood Bowl, by its very design, doesn't encourage the purchase of large numbers of miniatures (you pretty much just need 1 box for a lifetime of gaming), and the Epic community at large has, from what I can tell, become rather disappointed with GW's shoddy rules and miniature support for their game.
I'm not really sure where I'm going with this. Replying to your random thought with a random answer, I guess.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Hope everyone's got their tickets? Let's go for a ride on the DD Inter-Argument Train Line!
JohnHwangDD wrote:You seem to think that rules don't take any effort to wrote, and you seem to think that the total volume of GW rules would fit on a single sheet of paper (it does NOT). With a dozen Codices modifying the rules, that's a lot of work to coordinate.
Welcome to Strawman Station. Nextstop - Red Herringville!
JohnHwangDD wrote:Players would love it if GW miniatures were FREE. That ain't happening either. GW has a business to run, and rules aren't worth the effort.
And here we are folks - beautiful sunny Red Herringville! Remember to respond to every point whilst staying in stunning Red Herringville, whether or not it has anything to do with the argument.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Given that GW sells way more minis than rules
Hope you enjoyed your time in Red Herringville, because we've got to leave now and head towards Tautology Central!
JohnHwangDD wrote:I'll bet that you've never bothered to play them, because if you did, I think you'd find that 2 or 3 squads of Possessed backed by a couple blocks of generic Daemons actually play pretty well, if you bother to learn how to use them effectively
Sorry folks, looks like the name of this station has been taken down. Although it seems someone has spay-painted ' Standard Warseer Argument' on all the walls? Curious...
If I didn't know any better, I'd say our next stop might just be ' Use Tacticsborough', assuming we've transferred to the Warseer Line.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Yeah, we're essentially in agreement
Next up, the mean streets of 'Golden Mean Junction'.
Well that brings our journey to an end... for the moment.
Hope y'all had fun!
JohnHwangDD wrote:This is news?
JohnHwangDD wrote:So what's the problem?
JohnHwangDD wrote:Nope, I don't see any problem here
JohnHwangDD wrote:Hahaha.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Clearly, GW has figured out that building a reservoir goodwill isn't so important if their sales aren't so hugely impacted.
Just so we're clear - you don't care about having a tight ruleset without too many ambiguities (as let's be honest, you can't get rid of all of them), or you don't want want a tight ruleset without too many ambiguities?
JohnHwangDD wrote:I don't foresee any rules issues cropping up
Then you obviously haven't been playing this game as long as you say you have?
Stu-Rat wrote:Personally, I am so sick of thise blurring of two completely separate types of people.
Are you kidding me? It's just the veritable 'get out of writing good rules' free card that GW needs. Just claim that everyone who wants a tight ruleset is an 'over-competative rules lawyer', force us to see that in a negative ligh (and how could you not?), and we can get back on to drawing pretty pictures of guns rather than explaining how they work. Easy!
BYE
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
LOL. Every time I almost give up on you, HBMC, you post something like this, and I fall in love with you all over again.
Personally, I find that the unclear and inconsistent rules aren't a big issue. Sure, they crop up every once in a while, but no biggie. We're all grown-ups (in my gaming circle, anyway.)
No, my problem is that the rules are BORING. There aren't enough thorny tactical choices to be made. I don't have to hardly think at ALL when I'm playing 40K. Now, EPIC, on the other hand, has a lot of neat tactical considerations. Here's hoping for 5th edition...
247
Post by: Phryxis
Another note: The same WD I quoted to start this thread has an article by Christian Byrne, who, it is emphised a half dozen times is very "beardy." The article is a tactica on how to build a powergamed CSM list. At the end, there's a disclaimer by the editor about how, if the article upset us with its beardiness, we can go to JJ's editorial, and feel better.
It's a strange set of datapoints to absorb.
On one hand, they're putting a powergaming article in WD. On the other, they're acting like it's poison to their fanbase to see something like that.
All in all, my perception is that they think their hobby is troubled by some sort of strife between "competitive" and "friendly" gamers. I find this odd, since the impression I get from Dakka is that nobody has any real problem with players of different style, but instead they have a problem with GW's failure to address all styles effectively.
When one considers the amount of real strategic direction exposed in a given issue of WD, it's really not all that much, but in the past issues it feels like Jervis is REALLY hung up on this issue of "competition" vs "friendly." I feel like he's actually pretty angry at "us" who he sees as "competitive."
Personally, I am so sick of thise blurring of two completely separate types of people.
I think Jervis is doing a lot of blurring. Not just the sort you mention, but I think he confuses "competitive" with "want clear rules."
JJ sucks at getting his point across.
This is a possible explanation... I wonder if he's not TOO good at getting his point across, in that he seems to be angry at "competitive" players, and he lets that show through in everything he says that's related to the subject.
But their lack of responsibility for their actions just drives me *crazy.* THEY created the tournament scene. THEY created and spread the notions of official, universal rules and official models -- a definite departure from the historicals scene.
I tend to wonder if this isn't driven by internal personality conflicts. I feel like JJ holds the tournament scene in a certain amount of contempt. It seems like he's gained more prominence of late as well. Is it possible that we're seeing policies put in place by people before him, people he disagreed with and had friction with? Now that he's in charge, he's cutting their policies loose, and counting the backlash as the fault of the people he never agreed with?
FWIW, I spent over a decade as a Systems Programmer / Analyst.
And FWIW I am currently a software engineer. I think your arguments about additional costs leading to a disproportionately small gain in sales is mistaken. I really don't get the impression that the guys in charge have a clear enough picture of how to do their jobs.
They're hobby enthusiasts, not game designers.
To me, your argument is like hiring a bunch of recent college grads, trying to get them to write a software application, then complaining that I'm being unreasonable to expect good architecture out of your team. I agree, recent grads won't have good sense of architecture... But why are they the team? Hire half as many, hire one good architect, let him run them and keep them organized, and you'll get better quality results for less money.
We're not going to agree on what the balance should be. No two of us would agree. So let's not pretend there is a finish line.
I agree, and I think it's important to make a distinction between balanced lists, and clear rules. Clarity is critical. Balance is merely desirable.
5470
Post by: sebster
carmachu wrote:http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2007/full_year/businessreview.aspx
2003 sees 129.1 in millions of pounds.
2004 sees a spike of 151.8 million, I think lord of the rings about then?
Then what happens?
2005 sees 136.6 million
2006 sees 115.2 million
2007 sees 111.5 million
And the competition? Takes off. 2-3 years ago PP sees a quardrupling of sales, and only expected double. They had to delay new releases one month to get caught up on the basic boxes. FoW sees a jump. AT-43 seems to be doing ok.
GW's own financials dont lie. They arent doing much to stem the tide there. All the cost cutting and closing stores and such, they arent selling nearly as much as they have, or they should.
It's only among the cloistered world of on-line 40K fans that the negative sales growth of GW can be directly attributed to the quality of its rules set. GW certainly has a problem... it's very likely they've priced themselves too high, and possibly by more than 50%. Their relationship with independent retailers was terrible. There were long periods when the release schedule was glacial. The absence of low cost introductory games is a contraversial possibility, but I personally think it's highly significant.
Compared to actual retail factors, the quality of the rules is unlikely to be anything close to a major factor.
By the way, directly comparing the growth rates of market leaders and startups is horrible, horrible analysis. Really, truly horrible. Don't do it.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Having finally read the entire editorial, I can rest a bit easier. The specific quote *is* taken out of context when presented in a vacuum. The entire Standard Bearer is about the philosophical underpinning of the new rules developed for 5th. When JJ is saying: "...then all we needed to do was explain to other players how to use them in their games.", he is referring to the mechanics of the new rules, not the ruleset as a whole. That may seem pedantic, but it puts his tone as something quite different.
Yet again, as with our last argument, I think some folks are reading into a rules defense where there is none. Based on the rather benign article, they simply want to inject fun back into the game. Cinematic mechanics instead of efficient mechanics, as the example provided indicates. It might slow some games down, but should increase player participation in more segments of the game besides movement and dice rolling.
As to whether it works, time will tell.
But having read the SB in question, it's fine, the point is fine, and I appreciate the concept. The rest of our discussion about rule balancing between flavor and tightness is a different argument.
As for the dichotomy in articles (Byrne and JJ's), I don't think they aren't acting like powergaming is a poison. They are merely stating they'd rather base rules development on "what is fun?" rather than "can it be abused?" They still recognize the competitive streak in many of their customers, so they write an article to address that on a recent Codex. It helps that Byrne has a GREAT looking army.
They also have LOTS of articles on the washes, painting technique, and their little spraygun. One of the things GW is doing right now is they are addressing the WHOLE hobby better than they used to.
Anyways, a great WD if you love LOTR (I don't). Just the calm before the storm regarding 5th, though.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Addressing the whole hobby... by that I assume you meant they're advertising the whole hobby, rather than just bits of it.
(/obvious joke)
BYE
181
Post by: gorgon
Phryxis wrote:I tend to wonder if this isn't driven by internal personality conflicts. I feel like JJ holds the tournament scene in a certain amount of contempt. It seems like he's gained more prominence of late as well. Is it possible that we're seeing policies put in place by people before him, people he disagreed with and had friction with? Now that he's in charge, he's cutting their policies loose, and counting the backlash as the fault of the people he never agreed with?
But guess who was the architect of the GTs? That's right, ol' JJ himself. Or at least I remember that he was heavily involved with the UK GTs, and provided guidance when the US team started theirs. Now, maybe he's dealing with some internal conflict over what they've become. But then, that doesn't really make sense either, because AFAIK the UK scene has never had substantive comp requirements, etc. like the US. That implies that a certain level of beardiness is acceptable. 
IMO, the issue is that GW really never figured out what they want 40K to be about, or how to best balance the needs of new customers and vets. I think the first part is addressable simply by writing a clear-as-possible ruleset, and just let the customers figure out the rest. The constant handwringing about HOW players play the game is a pointless waste of time.
181
Post by: gorgon
dienekes96 wrote:Based on the rather benign article, they simply want to inject fun back into the game. Cinematic mechanics instead of efficient mechanics, as the example provided indicates. It might slow some games down, but should increase player participation in more segments of the game besides movement and dice rolling.
In other words, they brought back some of the "cinematic" 2nd edition stuff. In retrospect (and I'm glad to see the designers apparently agree), it probably was a mistake to remove virtually all of that stuff that made for memorable games. Now, it needed to be greatly cleaned up and balanced, don't get me wrong. But throwing it all out was like repairing an injury through amputation.
157
Post by: mauleed
GW hates you and wants you to die in a fire.
Jervis should just admit the truth, and then maybe he'd earn some respect.
Here's how it should have went:
"Writing tight rules is hard, i have no real aptitude for it, and I've got other things I'd rather be doing. My boss doesn't really understand the game, so he has no real understanding of where I need to improve, so I get no pressure from him, so why should I bother? Besides, I'll probably be laid off some time in the next 12 months anyway."
Then at least I wouldn't think he's an idiot.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
ere’s a thread on 5th ed LOS over on TWF in which someone managed to get a personal emailed response from Jervis on the subject.
http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?t=43154&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=26
miker
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 170
Location: milton keynes Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:29 am Post subject:
________________________________________
Just had a reply email from Jervis about LOS. I emailed him a specific question about modelled figures after I received this and I hope he will be kind enough to reply.
"This isn’t to say that we made the change whimsically. It was tested extensively, both by the development team, and in the white heat of tournaments that we ran as part of the development process. It stood both tests supremely well, and the tournaments, in particular, proved so successful that we’ve had players cuing up to take part again after they’ve played once. Speaking personally, it was very hard to have to use the old LOS rules when taking part in things like the 40K Doubles tournament I joined in with earlier this year, because I’d become so used to the true LOS during playtesting and I enjoyed using them so much more.
And this, I guess, is an important point. You can look at all of the new the rules ‘on the page’, but you really need to play them to see how the come together. Try them out, and I think you’ll quickly see what I mean.
This response from Jervis is absolutely tragic.
We HAD true LOS (except for forests) all through 3rd edition. I played in friendlies, leagues, tournaments, and GTs using it over literally hundreds of games. It does work pretty well, but it DOES take longer, it DOES create more disagreements, and it OFTEN results in somewhat unrealistic events like sniping someone's tank through the window of a building. In 3rd edition at least Hull Down automatically reduced Pens to Glances. But in 5th, tanks will not be so fortunate.
Area Terrain was standardized/instituted in 4th edition because it plays MUCH faster and better. It makes it easier to model up terrain bases which are usable in play (because you have enough space to physically fit models in them), while simultaneously allowing them to block LOS so that the board is divided up into fire lanes and areas where you can maneuver. Area Terrain was a deliberate broadening and expansion of the Forest rules, which were the most successful terrain rules in the game; ones which successfully served BOTH the rule and modeling aspects of the game.
This is an enormous step backwards, and clear evidence that Jervis has not learned from 4th edition. Which is terrible news for folks like me who are trying to get friends back into the game who have moved on to better-written systems like Warmachine and Flames of War.
I think Muwhe’s comments are exactly on the mark. A lot of grownups who play these games have a much easier time blocking out a day once a month to get in three games against painted armies than they do scheduling a weekly night down at the game store to get in friendlies. This doesn’t mean that said grownup games are “rules lawyers” or “over-competitive players”. Quite to the contrary. Competitive players and rules lawyers might have the free time on their hands to hash out unclear rules online and figure out arcane and badly-worded concepts. Grownups and casual gamers are actually more in need of a clear rule so that they can just get on with the game. And it doesn’t mean they’re “overly competitive” if they’re dissatisfied with rolling a d6 for it.
Phyxis makes an excellent point that it feels like Jervis has drawn a false dichotomy between friendly and competitive players, and that he has come to the utterly mistaken conclusion that only competitive players need/desire clear rules. Also that he was perhaps not completely on board or in agreement with the development of 4th edition, and he is now taking the game in a different direction starting to some extent with 3rd as a reference point for a lot of things instead of 4th.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
sebster wrote:carmachu wrote:http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2007/full_year/businessreview.aspx
2003 sees 129.1 in millions of pounds. , 2004 sees a spike of 151.8 million, I think lord of the rings about then?,
Then what happens?, 2005 sees 136.6 million, 2006 sees 115.2 million, 2007 sees 111.5 million
And the competition? Takes off. 2-3 years ago PP sees a quardrupling of sales, and only expected double. They had to delay new releases one month to get caught up on the basic boxes. FoW sees a jump. AT-43 seems to be doing ok.
GW's own financials dont lie. They arent doing much to stem the tide there. All the cost cutting and closing stores and such, they arent selling nearly as much as they have, or they should.
It's only among the cloistered world of on-line 40K fans that the negative sales growth of GW can be directly attributed to the quality of its rules set. GW certainly has a problem... it's very likely they've priced themselves too high, and possibly by more than 50%. Their relationship with independent retailers was terrible. There were long periods when the release schedule was glacial. The absence of low cost introductory games is a contraversial possibility, but I personally think it's highly significant.
Compared to actual retail factors, the quality of the rules is unlikely to be anything close to a major factor.
By the way, directly comparing the growth rates of market leaders and startups is horrible, horrible analysis. Really, truly horrible. Don't do it.
Those seem to me like useful and meaningful numbers. GW’s sales have been dropping. Competitors have been much more successful lately than anyone who tried (for example) in the 90s (Warzone, Void, etc).
Can you explain how the data he’s using here does not support his point?
And it’s not just in the “cloistered” online world that we see a correspondence between dissatisfaction with the rules and losses for GW. Check out the D6 Generation podcast for a classic example of friendly gamers who used to be in love with GW (Raef and Russ both had multiple armies and played every week for years; Russ owned a darn GW-specialist gaming store). Neither of them has time any more for the ambiguities and vagueness of the 40k rules. Warmachine and Hordes have stolen their loyalty from GW due to giving an enjoyable play experience with virtually no ambiguities from the perspective of the casual player.
I am completely in agreement with you that several other factors contribute. But the rules are not insignificant. Make the game fun and people will buy figures. I had to buy a Warmachine army just to keep playing miniatures with Raef and Russ. But I (and they) never would have bothered if the game weren't fun.
3236
Post by: EpilepticMoose
IMHO the tournament circuit in the US this year sucks. Only 3 GTs and all of them are far from where I live. I sure as hell am not going to pay $1,000 (airfare, room with a friend, and entrance fee) to play in the LVGT, much less Chicago or Baltimore...
So, if the 5th ed rules are more geared toward casual play, I guess that is fine with me...
844
Post by: stonefox
Shouldn't you be looking at UKGTs, moose?
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
Mannahin: I might be able to explain Sebster's point, and I will try since I butchered my last attempt.
GW may THINK is it enough to "be on top" of the miniatures market. They may think it is a zero sum game, and so long as they get more than anyone else, cool.
This isn't necessarily so, however. More often markets grow and shrink based on not only the immutable tastes of the consumer, but also the actions of the producer in filling different needs. This can be seen in some niche markets with what are called "gateway products." For instance, lots of people my age got hooked on anime because of the movie Akira, and now buy expensive boxed sets of say Evangelion for hundreds of dollars. Now, the companies that produced and imported the two are probably not related at all, but the latter greatly benefitted by thier competitor's actions, as without the introduction a 10$ DVD provided these new fans would never have bought super expensive sets just to "see what it was about".
Now, as this relates to GW as the market leader, we have a company that likely sells more rules and mini's than any other. If you go into a random wargame shop, I would say chances are very good there are regulars who play 40k or Fantasy there. People often start playing mini games because they know people who do. It isn't really a hobby you just pick up. It's expensive, there is a lot involved, and unless you get into it simultaniously with a few friends finding a game is well nigh impossible due to the complicated rules. (We are not talking checkers here after all.)
So imagine for a second every current player throws up their hands and says "Screw it! Screw GW, screw their rules, I am out!" What are people going to do to get into the hobby? Suddenly, people are playing many different games at stores, or maybe none. I don't know about other stores, but the ones around here carry just about 0 non-GW miniatures, with the exception of some clicks games. Surely PP and such will start to fill the void, but how many new players will really start up?
Anyway, without going off on too much of a tangent, beating the competition is not sufficient. Hell, it is hardly even necessary. Growing a market is often as important or even more important than what your share of the market is. GW's lack of customer focus despite being the leader of their market, as well as the self described leader of the whole bloody hobby, does nothing to increase their market.
How does that apply to good rules? Clear, tight rules are what make games good. Games that don't require being played with your best friend to be fun are the games that really take off and appeal to a lot of people. If your rules don't allow people to play the game without lots of disputes over how things work, it doesn't lend itself to casual, unorganized "show up at the shop" play.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
I again postulate that tight rules are significantly LESS important than clear rules. I'll take fun over balance more often than not. I think the designers would as well.
To address Ragnar, I think it's a philosophical difference. I would wager older veteran gamers are more inclined to care about balance and clarity. New kids want to have fun. It's a paradigm shift, and GW would be wise to cater to the majority, whoever they are. If it's new players, you run the risk of pissing off vets. If it's vets, you run the risk of minimizing new players.
And the players GW does (and should) care about, are the ones who spend the most. If vets spend twice as much, they count twice as much. Or if the opposite is true, they count half as much.
That said, GW is trying to straddle a fairly wide gap. Taking it personally, or acting like they are clueless, might be humorous and get a laugh...but it probably isn't true. It's more likely they are acting on more data than you have. You may not like their positioning, but it's done to maximize sales.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
dienekes96 wrote:I again postulate that tight rules are significantly LESS important than clear rules.
Whoa, hold on a sec.
Doesn't having clear rules make the rules tight, Chuck?
And GW doesn't even seem interested (or capable) of making clear rules in the first place.
BYE
464
Post by: muwhe
I think Muwhe’s comments are exactly on the mark. A lot of grownups who play these games have a much easier time blocking out a day once a month to get in three games against painted armies than they do scheduling a weekly night down at the game store to get in friendlies.
I would argue that the above is the norm for the majority of “Tourney” players. It’s certainly the case for me…and that we have allowed these “generic sort of generalizations" to divide the GW gaming community as whole. That fact is the spectrum of players you find at a tourney .. are only the same sort of spectrum of players you see at your local FLGS only on an order of magnitude.
Having been involved with running AdeptiCon now for a number of years. It’s become clear to me that a good chunk of our attendees are just that guys that have “grown-up” and this might be the one chance a year they get to “break” free and play for a weekend, see old friends, and be a “kid” again. I know for a fact this year we had several groups of college buddies that had moved on in life to various corners of the country.. yet used AdeptiCon as a chance to come together, have a reunion of sorts, drink beer and play in the team tourney. Outstanding ..
I honestly feel there is an issue that has been missed by GW UK management. The kids they marketed heavy 25 years ago have grown up and a good chunk of them are still part of the hobby. It’s time to develop a marketing process that includes them. Don’t get me wrong .. there are a huge number of GW employees that get it as well.. we are fortunate to be able to work directly with several of them to make AdeptiCon the sort of event it has become …
This idea of “writing rules for fun” .What exactly does that mean? There are games that make no pre-text that they are “beer and pretzel games. They are quick to play, don’t take a ton of brain power, and generally rely of lady luck more than talent or skill. I got a shelf full of those types of games. I enjoy those games and play them on a regular basis but is WFB/ 40K at the core that sort of game…I think they require to much personal investment… to be purely whimsical. Course a good set of tight rules .. are fun rules. But not all fun rules are a good set of rules.
I would wager older veteran gamers are more inclined to care about balance and clarity. New kids want to have fun.
Which is a generalization .. and I think is a mistake .. you can have silly fun games of WFB/ 40K even if you have a tight set of rules. You can all ways do the crazy, goofy WFB/ 40K scenarios or little hearted stuff with any ruleset. What you can not do is move the other direction from a swiss cheese rule system.
Because 40K/WFB requires such a personal investment on the part of the player...I personally feel that with that comes the responsiblity and the expectation that the system has some fairiness and balance associated with it. That I just didn't spend months of my life and hordes of cash building army X only to be out classed by army Y. Sure we might have fun but that starts getting old after a few games of getting my head kicked in without much of a chance. What they should be interested in is building a ruleset that has sustainablity and has the best chance to retain a player base long term.
181
Post by: gorgon
dienekes96 wrote:To address Ragnar, I think it's a philosophical difference. I would wager older veteran gamers are more inclined to care about balance and clarity. New kids want to have fun. It's a paradigm shift, and GW would be wise to cater to the majority, whoever they are. If it's new players, you run the risk of pissing off vets. If it's vets, you run the risk of minimizing new players.
And the players GW does (and should) care about, are the ones who spend the most. If vets spend twice as much, they count twice as much. Or if the opposite is true, they count half as much.
That said, GW is trying to straddle a fairly wide gap. Taking it personally, or acting like they are clueless, might be humorous and get a laugh...but it probably isn't true. It's more likely they are acting on more data than you have. You may not like their positioning, but it's done to maximize sales.
I agree they're straddling pretty wide, and think that a lot of GW's problems stem from them trying to serve very different markets with the same product. Let's face it, if they solely want to go after those 13 year olds who will likely drop the hobby in about 12 months, why not go to collectible prepaints? I think the fact that they still push a time-intensive, attention-demanding *hobby* shows they really still do want us vets.
It's no wonder GW seems so schizo at times. Just because they're a public company, they have to rather expensively target kids and newbies through their retail store chain to try to hit their growth targets. Trouble is that their vets still make up a solid percentage of sales. If they were still private, they could probably be a nice little profitable operation selling to a mostly veteran audience, like with most historicals manufacturers. But their shareholders demand more, and thus they have to try to grow beyond the limited veteran base.
So here's the thing. Faced with two different audiences with different needs, some companies would likely just create TWO products. I've never been an advocate of "advanced 40K," but wouldn't a smaller, more newbie-friendly skirmish game that uses existing miniatures make sense? Or why not get involved in a prepaint collectible game on the side? Seems like those are cash cows even moreso than GW minis.
I realize GW's in the mode of getting back in touch with their "core" business, but it sure seems to me that they're going to have a harder and harder time trying to make all their customers happy with one product. When you try to do that, you often either completely drive off one set of customers, or slightly alienate all of them.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
H.B.M.C. wrote:1) Doesn't having clear rules make the rules tight, Chuck?
2) And GW doesn't even seem interested (or capable) of making clear rules in the first place.
1) No, it's a difference in how we are using the words. I use the word tight to mean rigidly balanced. I use the word clear to be easily understandable. Two different things.
2) That's an anecdotal observation, possibly based on your frustration, and not on any sort of data. GW has made clear rules numerous times, as we both know. That's why I made the point that their customer base is bigger than Dakka, or vets, or newbies, or schoolkids, or...etc, etc, etc.
muwhe wrote:I would wager older veteran gamers are more inclined to care about balance and clarity. New kids want to have fun.
Which is a generalization .. and I think is a mistake .. you can have silly fun games of WFB/ 40K even if you have a tight set of rules. You can all ways do the crazy, goofy WFB/ 40K scenarios or little hearted stuff with any ruleset.
Of course I generalized, muwhe. So did you.
As for the tight rules, again, we appear to be using the words to mean different things. I'm not talking crazy scenarios, I am talking rules that might be looser...like (again) the 3.5 edition of CSM. To me, that was a great Codex with a LOT of character. It was abusable by the douches (and they did), but it also had a lot of flavor. That's what I want. Balancing that much stuff COSTS more, and if GW has to choose to not include it for balance, or include it and trust the players...I'd vote for the latter. Perhaps they could do both. But for their own reasons (none of which are "stick it to the vets", most of which are probably $$$), they have chosen to emphasize one or the other.
muwhe wrote:Because 40K/WFB requires such a personal investment on the part of the player...I personally feel that with that comes the responsiblity and the expectation that the system has some fairiness and balance associated with it. That I just didn't spend months of my life and hordes of cash building army X only to be out classed by army Y. Sure we might have fun but that starts getting old after a few games of getting my head kicked in without much of a chance. What they should be interested in is building a ruleset that has sustainablity and has the best chance to retain a player base long term.
That *IS* what they are interested in, but you are not representative of their entire customer base. You believe that solving your problems would be beneficial for all, but that is an assumption, not an objective fact. And as a company celebrating 25 years of their initial game system, with quite a few major successes along the way, I think they have shown sustainability far beyond ANY of their competitors. That is an objective fact. They are having a rough patch, but their rough patch would be wild success to every one of their peers.
5468
Post by: temprus
People have mentioned some of GW's competitors, does anyone have actual sales figures for them or are they just guessing based on "how the locals play/buy"? I know GW had almost twice the sales as Wizards of the Coast in 2007 because I read their Financials.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
muwhe wrote:Because 40K/WFB requires such a personal investment on the part of the player...I personally feel that with that comes the responsiblity and the expectation that the system has some fairiness and balance associated with it. That I just didn't spend months of my life and hordes of cash building army X only to be out classed by army Y. Sure we might have fun but that starts getting old after a few games of getting my head kicked in without much of a chance. What they should be interested in is building a ruleset that has sustainablity and has the best chance to retain a player base long term.
That *IS* what they are interested in, but you are not representative of their entire customer base. You believe that solving your problems would be beneficial for all, but that is an assumption, not an objective fact. And as a company celebrating 25 years of their initial game system, with quite a few major successes along the way, I think they have shown sustainability far beyond ANY of their competitors. That is an objective fact. They are having a rough patch, but their rough patch would be wild success to every one of their peers.
I dont think you are reading their results very good.. their rough patch is a pretty big negative number. There isnt a company that would call that wild success. And this is in a time of economics running hot.. Not a good grade at all.
They have done great work before, dont think there is anyone here who says diffrently but there was a whole other mindset when they did. Now you got people like JJ(or rather only him so far) even stating it in his articles "the game isnt balanced" yaddaydadda.. = we dont care about making good rules. Pretty much the same he said when Apoc was comming out. That wasnt the way before when they had constant FAQs and rebalancing of things that didnt work out.. when they showed they actually did care. How the spokesman of a company can go so public and just tell pepole that surprises me, regardless of whatever buisness you are in. Im not saying this is the doom of everything, since there are alot of things thats actually good about the game, but he is stepping on a bad path. Alot of new recruitng is also made at tournaments in stores and the like and without competative possible play those things are becomming very rare.
5793
Post by: drunkorc
Wow! you guys should really have your own TV/Web Show for DakkaDakka.
LMAO!
The Rumer of the 5th. edd. is really getting me painting my Mini's, ( & Making/Buying) Im just short of a 4000 Pt. Ork Army.
Now im going to Pick up WD 341 in a few. (and a Box Of Lootas )
4670
Post by: Wehrkind
I think dienekes96 that you and I are arguing the same point from different sides. I don't think GW is out to get anyone. I just think that they are making poor choices, in particular choices that are made by people who sort of understand basic business concepts, but are mostly interested in what they like to make.
In other words, I attribute decisions that I find highly questionable and seemly self defeating to ignorance, not malice.
Personally, I think it is a classic example of a person who loves some trade, and is great at it, but does not have the skills to run a business that makes money off the trade. One sees that a lot since they are very different skill sets.
Even with professional bean counters as people refer to them here, there is no guarantee that the company will make good decisions. Every industry has companies that just don't quite make it big, or that don't change enough for the times. It is also a possibility that that the war gaming industry does not attract the kind of big league folks that really form the cutting edge of business theory. Who knows?
I do think they need to make a few segments of 40k. I think a small skirmish game, a medium tourney game and a big crazy game for vets makes a lot of sense. Say "40k: Kill team" with stripped down rules and maybe prepaints, WarHammer 40k: Classic with tight, clear rules that allow more detailed games designed for serious players , and then 40k: Apocalypse with optional crazy rules for fun things that rely on the players to balance (more like how historicals have done it.)
I had thought GW was more on this track, but now I don't know as much.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Wehr,
I've been advocating the tiered approach for some time. I think Kill Team would be a better avenue for starters than 40K proper. It would sell the concept and the mechanics. I think it would also help sell some model kits to vets.
Tier 1: Kill Team
Tier 2: 40k
Tier 3: Apocalypse
Trust me, I've been saying that for over a year They've got two of the three, and the basis for the last. It would require some resources to make a proper release, though. I think the speed of play would be a selling point for vets as well.
26
Post by: carmachu
temprus wrote:People have mentioned some of GW's competitors, does anyone have actual sales figures for them or are they just guessing based on "how the locals play/buy"? I know GW had almost twice the sales as Wizards of the Coast in 2007 because I read their Financials.
None of their competitors are publically traded companies, nor their figures listed.
However, its a matter of public record they, PP, had to delay new releases one month due to demand, which quardupled rather doubled they were prepared for.
No idea about FoW. Rackham has had ups and downs.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
dienekes96 wrote:I've been advocating the tiered approach for some time. I think Kill Team would be a better avenue for starters than 40K proper.
I agree, but all cynicism aside, GW wants to sell miniatures first and rules last - kill team, in the short-term, is a smaller game requiring less in the way of miniatures, therefore it is an anathema to GW bean-counters. Having an intro boxed set with cool and detailed skirmish would would certainly interest me and quite a lot of other people, but it won't have full-page spreads of massive 2000 point armies, and that's what GW want to sell to people the moment they come in the door.
As far as them writing clear rules go, perhaps we need to look at in a different light. They can right clear rules (most of Warhammer works, and Specialist Games has a good track record), but it seems that writing clear rules isn't their priority. Just getting it done in time for the miniature release is their main goal, and selling the latest releases is the design goal of their rules writing. As I'll keep saying, minis come first with them, which is fine from a business perspective - it would make them the most money compared to selling some books - but given the examples where they have written the rules correctly there is frankly no excuse for the current state of 40K.
Their 5th Ed trailers (which are absurd in and of themsleves, but we'll ignore that for the moment), they talk about how 5th Ed is ' 20 years in the making'. I just about fell off my chair with laugher when I read that because it was so blatantly untrue. If 5th Ed really was 20 years in the making, then it'd be tight (from your definition and mine) and whilst not error free, would be balanced and clear from the first page to the last page.
Compare 40K to... say... Classic BattleTech. Now there is a game that has been around in virtually the same form for the past 20 years. The most recent edition - Total Warfare (which I guess you could call 5th Ed) - really has been 20 years in the making. I can pick up a copy of my 3rd Ed rulebook, my 4th Ed rulebook, my Revised Master Rules and my 5th Ed rulebook and I can actually track the progression of rules and see the changes they've made, see the attempts at balancing, the re-wording of things to make them clear. Was it always error free? No, of course not, they are human after all and they're already onto their second printing of the main rulebook and have a errata document as long as my arm for the others. But it was all done in the right spirit - to make a better game.
Take their rules for tanks.
In 4th Ed BattleTech tanks were a complete waste of time. 'Mechs would absolutley shred them. If you scored a critical hit on an enemy vehicle it would be crippled 5/6ths of the time and destroyed half the time. The damage table was that savage. For this reason tanks were used because people liked them, not because they were any good. Along comes 5th Ed and the writers decide that something has to change. They rework the rules for vehicles, making them tougher and expanding their critical hit and damage table so that they only die outright on an 11 or 12 on 2D6 - a fair bit better than the 4+ on a D6.
But did this massive change in the way tanks work coincide with a new army book all about tanks? Or a massive new release of several different tank miniatures? No. It coincided with a release of some plastic 'Mechs and no new tanks. The change wasn't made to sell tanks, it was made to make the game better - to make it tighter, more balanced, clearer and, and this should always be the objective, more fun.
It is this attitude that GW is missing. Despite my cynicism, I can actually admit that GW is capable of writing some damned good rules, they just don't seem to have the impetus to do it beyond selling whatever their sculptors have made recently, and that, I have to say, is a terrible shame.
BYE
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
dienekes96 wrote:Wehr,
I've been advocating the tiered approach for some time. I think Kill Team would be a better avenue for starters than 40K proper. It would sell the concept and the mechanics. I think it would also help sell some model kits to vets.
Tier 1: Kill Team
Tier 2: 40k
Tier 3: Apocalypse
Trust me, I've been saying that for over a year They've got two of the three, and the basis for the last. It would require some resources to make a proper release, though. I think the speed of play would be a selling point for vets as well.
Aye, this was similar to PPs model (350 starter, 500, then Epic Casters, etc) and it works well. I believe this is also part of the intent of Apoc. As an example, players that like units from other armies would be forced to 'buy in' with several models in which to play them. On the other hand, if I were to purchase a unit for Apoc that I normally wouldn't (Due to allies), there is a greater chance I will buy yet another unit and eventually collect an army. I believe Apoc was the best single idea they've came up with in ages. I don't know if Jervis is the father of this idea or not...but I can honestly state since he's taken his new title I've became more and more excited about 40K (And spent more money).
If the new Marine whispers hold true, I'll probably collect another army as well (And Jervis is the author). I think he's full of win.
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
H.B.M.C. wrote:It is this attitude that GW is missing. Despite my cynicism, I can actually admit that GW is capable of writing some damned good rules, they just don't seem to have the impetus to do it beyond selling whatever their sculptors have made recently, and that, I have to say, is a terrible shame.
BYE
I can almost agree with this, but then I remember that GW released rules for Chaos in Epic:A, and then Jervis told everyone to look for old Chaos miniatures on eBay. I suppose that's really more an an "exception that proves the rule," though.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Yeah but that's Specialist Games. They don't give two gaks about that part of the business. I wouldn't even count that as an example, let alone an exception that proves any rules.
BYE
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
dienekes96 wrote:
Tier 1: Kill Team
Tier 2: 40k
Tier 3: Apocalypse
I think pretty much everybody's on board with this approach, and it appears GW is getting pretty serious about making this formal with their coming 1500-pt-army-in-a-box releases, along with the continuing Apocalypse support. But it is odd that Tier 1 has been neglected.
The only thing is I think you've picked the wrong Tier 1 game moving forward. If you recall, in 40k4, they pushed Battle for MacCragge micro scenario gaming, Kill Team unbalanced cinematic scenario gaming *and* Combat Patrol balanced gaming. Of these, Kill Team is the most problematic, because one player is "stuck" with a big pile of Mooks that act as stupid Goon Squads. Not Fun.
OTOH, 40k in 40m / Combat Partol has a lot more in common with regular 40k, and gives players a lot more gaming options. At the coming Baltimore, they're doing a Q&D Combat Patrol Tournament, with modified force construction rules. I think this may presage a Combat Patrol revival for the introductory Tier 1 game that feeds very naturally into "regular" 1500-pt games of 40k.
With any luck, we'll see a nice little Combat Patrol supplement next year that contains "campaign" rules that simulate Necromunda, along with "missions" that simulate Space Hulk.
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
H.B.M.C. wrote:Yeah but that's Specialist Games. They don't give two gaks about that part of the business.
Who is this "they" you speak of? You throw around a lot of vague names like " GW" and "they." It's not really clear to me who you mean. Tom Kirby? Rick Priestley? Jervis? The redshirts' union? The stockholders?
I wouldn't even count that as an example, let alone an exception that proves any rules
You don't have to; I already did.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Pariah Press wrote:Who is this "they" you speak of?
Your naïveté is astounding PP. When I say 'they' I mean GW, as a collective.
BYE
3806
Post by: Grot 6
Phryxis wrote:Quoth Jervis:
When we started on the new rules we decided that we shouldn't compromise the new rules out of fear of over-competitive players (or "rules-lawyers" as they're known in the trade), but instead we should develop the rules that we'd personally like to use ourselves. As long as the rules worked well in our games, then all we needed to do was explain to other players how to use them in their games.
Thoughts?
One Thought- GW should get JJ away from any sort of communication with fans and keep his locked back up in Specialist Games. This is the exact stuff that I had an issue with by giving this his own forum to spout the party line. Not only does he NOT get a coherent thought out of his head, he makes it a point to call out "Rules Laweyers" and "Overly Competitive Players", the same sort of people he was cultivating back in the late ninties.
Another Thought- I wonder why we put stock in this buffoons rantings when we watch the whole " Nero fiddles as Rome burns" situation that GW is clearly in. I could easily sit here and be negative, but I am well past the point of listening to Jervis the Tool. He doesn't know his from a hole in the ground.
Yet Another Thought- The suits are clearly going to let him take the fall for the clearly dismal performance of the product when the time comes, I only wonder who will be the next paint brush cleaner that takes over the rules division. Even after his past successes, Jervis still will not put the effort demanded into cleaning up the system, making it fun again, and shoreing up blaitently horrible writings, when clearly he cannot put pen to page and write effective explinations and uses language that is horrible, phrased wrong and is probibly intentionally ambiguous.
For Naz- This is the big kids table. We don't HATE 40K, we hate stupid decision making, lack of standards, and either intentional or unintentional devolution of our hobby. Most of us have 1000's invested into it. I personnally have almost every army known to 40K. I love painting, I love modeling, and most of us love playing a good game.
Those that don't, like a challenge, having a good game that we like to play, and not spend an hour and a half playing debate Courthammer and trying to figure out if this is in assault, while clearing the air about such and such a ruling. You are obviously a Noob, but thats ok. I don't fault you. Dakka Dakka isn't B and S. It isn't Warseer, and it isn't GW's lapdog site. The group here is honest in thier assessments, and they have probibly all played more games, armies, and tournies then you could ever think that you could.
They arn't your cup of tea, then theres the 'n door. You don't want a flame war? Then comment on the Jervis the Tool Standard Breaker or don't post.
And in General- This guy is writing this trite from a propaganda prospective. He STILL thinks he has to sell every facit of the game, and actully hold peoples hand like the mouthpiece of the suit that he is, because Jervis is as pedestrian as he is predictable. These articles as of late are just setting us all up for the 5th edition getting ready to come out. It's obvious that he isn't going to do anything to rock the boat, so I put it on the table that he didn't write the article, and he is posting it from on high coming from the bean counters.
26
Post by: carmachu
H.B.M.C. wrote:
I agree, but all cynicism aside, GW wants to sell miniatures first and rules last - kill team, in the short-term, is a smaller game requiring less in the way of miniatures, therefore it is an anathema to GW bean-counters. Having an intro boxed set with cool and detailed skirmish would would certainly interest me and quite a lot of other people, but it won't have full-page spreads of massive 2000 point armies, and that's what GW want to sell to people the moment they come in the door.
as an aside, back in the day...space hulk use to do this for alot of use, abit poorly. We had more than a few terminators and expanded from there....
As someone pointed out, PP's business plan does this quote well.
4713
Post by: efarrer
JohnHwangDD wrote:dienekes96 wrote:
Tier 1: Kill Team
Tier 2: 40k
Tier 3: Apocalypse
I think pretty much everybody's on board with this approach, and it appears GW is getting pretty serious about making this formal with their coming 1500-pt-army-in-a-box releases, along with the continuing Apocalypse support.
I have to say I think the 1500 points in a box is one of GW's dumber ideas. It will be a poor mix of seemingly random components to an army which will be unplayable out of the box. Further this will be too expensive for the casual outsider to purchase.
Why do I say this?
I have never seen the company make anything similar which was remotely playable. So for the one or two people per city who must buy every GW purchase these will be good. Otherwise people will pass on these boxes the way they pass on army boxes now.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
efarrer wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:dienekes96 wrote:
Tier 1: Kill Team
Tier 2: 40k
Tier 3: Apocalypse
I think pretty much everybody's on board with this approach, and it appears GW is getting pretty serious about making this formal with their coming 1500-pt-army-in-a-box releases, along with the continuing Apocalypse support.
I have to say I think the 1500 points in a box is one of GW's dumber ideas. It will be a poor mix of seemingly random components to an army which will be unplayable out of the box. Further this will be too expensive for the casual outsider to purchase.
Why do I say this?
I have never seen the company make anything similar which was remotely playable. So for the one or two people per city who must buy every GW purchase these will be good. Otherwise people will pass on these boxes the way they pass on army boxes now.
I'm not quite sure on the other box sets coming out but the new space marine box set is:
Commander
Command Squad w/ Razor
Two tac squads w/ Rhinos
Vindicator
Land Raider
While we could all argue more competitive lists, considering how hard vehicles look in 5th....this isn't a bad box.
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
H.B.M.C. wrote:Pariah Press wrote:Who is this "they" you speak of?
Your naïveté is astounding PP. When I say 'they' I mean GW, as a collective.
BYE
Hey, I may be obtuse, but I'm not naïve, m'kay? But, er, yeah, they probably don't give two, er, "gaks," as you say, about SG. They might give one "gak," as they went to the trouble and expense of moving the SG material over to the new website. I think that GW is like Iran; any general statements about their policies and attitudes are rather worthless, as there are many competing factions with different agendas.
7139
Post by: BBeale
I just want to figure out where people are coming from on a few points:
1) Where does everyone get the idea that GW as a company is in financially dire straights? They posted an 11 million dollar loss for last year if I recall. However, they had a lot of capital investments, including tons of new plastic molds, which they’re going to get to depreciate over coming years. On top of this, they posted record sales at over 100 million worldwide. There’s not another game company in the world that even comes close to this. The repeated insistence that GW is only in this for the profit is true though, but that’s what companies are supposed to do. I venture to say that not many of us would get up every morning and go to our jobs unless we were sure that there would be a check waiting for us at the end of the week. On top of it all, they turn out a product that has proven longevity and is consistently better than every other comparable product on the market. And that leads me to my second issue:
2) There’s a lot of griping over issues with the clarity of the rules. 40k is an extremely open ended gaming system. There are an infinite number of combinations that can occur on the tabletop, particularly when you consider that players create the gaming environment. It would be impossible for developers to create rule sets that addressed everything that could ever be encountered in a game of 40k-they couldn’t even come close. That said, the current rule set is of an extremely high quality. Yes, the developers struggle with balancing issues-the largest problem being giving players enough freedom to customize armies without making it impractical to fit the options to a point scheme that serves a good enough job of valuing choices in most situations. However, these issues are aggravated by a large segment of the gaming community, which JJ and others refer to as “rules lawyers” and “over-competitive.” And that leads me to my third issue:
3) For whatever reason, there is a very vocal segment of this board that balks at any reference to players as “rules lawyers” and “over-competitive.” Frankly, I’m confounded as to why. These are the players that dig and strain to poke holes in the rules and come up with abusive combinations (and no matter how tightly written the rules are, this will always be the case). They refuse to accept common sense approaches to problem solving within the rules, convulse at the mention of the “spirit” of the rules, insist on RAW even when the application leads to absurd and unintended results, and steadfastly refuse to change their approach, even in the face of overwhelming reason, instead relying on the 40k gamers’ version of the Nuremberg Defense, “It’s in the Codex” or “It’s GW’s fault for not making the rule clearer” or “Until GW says I can’t do it. . .” The problem with this way of thinking is that it pushes personal accountability for overly competitive behavior onto GW instead of onto the player where it belongs. And that leads me to my fourth issue:
4) I’ve played 40k since the release of Rogue Trader in 1987. I’ve seen the game grow into what it is today, and this is truly a golden age for the hobby. Never before in the history of the hobby have there been this many available army lists with almost fully supported miniature ranges, including huge numbers of available plastics. But, therein also lies some of the problem. Many of the posters in this thread seem to believe that JJ is saying GW is punting on creating tight rule set. This, however, ignores precedent. Every rule set has gotten tighter and more defined. The rules have gotten clearer. The loopholes have gotten smaller. More revisions are coming, and it’s only going to get better for the hobby as a whole. Having read that article several times now, it’s clear to me that JJ is only asking players to be accountable for how they play the game. If someone is the type of person who needs to poke holes in the rules, search out exploits, and undermine the spirit of the rules, they’re going to do it, and be able to do it, no matter how tight the rules are. JJ is talking about finding a balance between tight rules and rules that are fun to play. And that leads me to my final point:
5) Several people have posted that they believe GW is responsible for cultivating the overly competitive type tournament player that they now decry. I don’t think that this is the case at all. I traveled to at least 2 GTs per year until they stopped having them, before the recent reintroduction (and no, Games Day tournaments don’t count). Early on in the GT scene here in the US, GW removed the Best General award from the list of GT awards. This was done, as the explanation was given at the time, to encourage a more well-rounded approach to the hobby, one that was less focused on just winning games, and more about having fun. The GT seasons without the Best General award were some of the best in my opinion. The quality of both the armies and the players was better, and I had a lot more fun. However, there was a bit of an uproar from a segment of the community requesting that Best General be reinstated. As soon as GW reinstated that award, the level of players and the quality of armies on the GT circuit dropped off sharply in my opinion. Some players even started complaining about the inclusion of soft scores like painting, composition (again we see the Nuremberg Defense), and sportsmanship. The modern era of tournaments is becoming more and more about winning games, and I know this may be hard for some of you to believe; 10 years ago it wasn’t about that at all. Tournaments used to be about meeting some of the coolest and most talented players out there, drinking beer, generally having a fun geeky weekend with like-minded people, and maybe getting an award. Since GW reinstated GTs this past year, the new rule set is very reminiscent of the early days, with a slightly more objective take on soft scores. You don’t have to look any further than the GW tournament packet to see that GW is not encouraging overly competitive types, and anyone with a sense of history knows that they never have. The win-at-all-costs mentality was solely driven by what I like to think is a relative minority (albeit and unfortunately vocal one) in the hobby.
The bottom line is this, it is easy to sit here and blame every perceived flaw in the games system on GW, but that ignores the individual responsibility we all have to continue to make this hobby what it is and what it can be.
Brice
26
Post by: carmachu
BBeale wrote:I just want to figure out where people are coming from on a few points:
1) Where does everyone get the idea that GW as a company is in financially dire straights? They posted an 11 million dollar loss for last year if I recall. However, they had a lot of capital investments, including tons of new plastic molds, which they’re going to get to depreciate over coming years. On top of this, they posted record sales at over 100 million worldwide. There’s not another game company in the world that even comes close to this. The repeated insistence that GW is only in this for the profit is true though, but that’s what companies are supposed to do. I venture to say that not many of us would get up every morning and go to our jobs unless we were sure that there would be a check waiting for us at the end of the week. On top of it all, they turn out a product that has proven longevity and is consistently better than every other comparable product on the market. And that leads me to my second issue:
You really dont read their financial reports do you? For the last 4 years at the very least?
They arent in a great position, especially borrowing to pay dividends like they did before 1-2 quarters ago.
247
Post by: Phryxis
GW's lack of customer focus despite being the leader of their market, as well as the self described leader of the whole bloody hobby, does nothing to increase their market.
I've heard the phrase "lack of customer focus" a lot, and only just now did it hit me that I don't agree. I think GW is very focused on the customer. They've got White Dwarf, they have employees posting on forums, they maintain a network of retails stores and try to sponsor events... They're very aware of the customer, and the need to engage.
What I just don't get is the way they do it. It's made all the more baffling by the fact that I DO think they want to focus on the customer.
There's a strange "kid friendly" tone to a lot of what they do, which is totally bizzare given what a truly hideously dark universe Warhammer is. It's also a bit stupid, considering that even the youngest people in their target audience are looking to do things that are more "adult" in nature. I know I felt pretty cool when I was a kid, reading the grown ups magazines on making scale models.
Maybe I'm just mistaking a form of humor for kid courting... But WTF is Grombrindal? I'm being talked to by a dwarf? No I'm not.
There's also JJ, who strikes me as wanting very much to share his enthusiasm with the customer, but then getting very bitter and snippy at critics. There's a clear focus on the customer there, but one that seems rather ill-considered, if the person doing the focusing thinks some of the customers are a blight on the hobby.
I again postulate that tight rules are significantly LESS important than clear rules. I'll take fun over balance more often than not.
Not sure I follow. To me, "clear" and "tight" are pretty close. "Balanced" is a whole other issue. I'd say that rules should be clear and tight before they're balanced, which I think is what you're saing as well...
Clear and tight rules mean that you're never confused how to resolve a situation. Clarity means you can easily understand what is there, and tightness means that there's no holes in what's there to let situations fall through.
Balance simply refers to the utility of the modesl in the game. You want balance across a Codex, so that all the units in the Codex are worth taking (internal balance) and you want balance across all Codices, so that a well designed, well played army from any Codex has equal chance against the same from any other.
I would wager older veteran gamers are more inclined to care about balance and clarity. New kids want to have fun.
I think it's worth noting that veterans may value clear/tight rules, but they're also more resilient to poor rules. Kids, on the other hand, need rules they can pick up quickly, and which take care of what's happening on the table. If they don't understand how to do stuff, they're much more likely to get lost and give up, than a vet who understands the general framework of the game, and can just fill in a hack to make things work and move on.
This is the big kids table. We don't HATE 40K, we hate stupid decision making, lack of standards, and either intentional or unintentional devolution of our hobby
At the risk of a total threadjack... Setting up my wife's computer last night really drove this home for me. It's Vista machine, the first one I've allowed into my house, and I literally started feeling nauseous with fear. I work in software almost exclusively with Microsoft technologies. I have a half dozen WinOS machines running in my house right now. I'm NOT leaving Microsoft any time soon. That's why I'm terrified of how crap Vista is.
This is not a "love it or leave it situation."
This is a "I picked my horse, now please make it stop kicking me in the solar plexus situation."
I AM going to use Vista. No question. So I hope that MS will fix the damn thing and spare me the misery.
I AM going to keep playing 40K. SO I hope GW will do it right, and not hamstring my enjoyment.
Honestly, I think people would be a lot less bitter and angry with JJ (and others), if they DIDN'T like the hobby. For example, I don't really give a crap about TV's Lost. When it started seeming lame to me, I just stopped watching and never looked back. It didn't make me mad at the writers, I just didn't care.
40k is an extremely open ended gaming system. There are an infinite number of combinations that can occur on the tabletop, particularly when you consider that players create the gaming environment.
I'd point to the most recent incarnations of DnD as an example of why this isn't right. DnD is VASTLY more open ended than 40K, and the 3rd Edition systems present a very straightforward, simple, comprehensive system for dealing with it.
Honestly, I don't think 40K is, or need be, all that open ended. There's not that much going on. Moving, shooting, assaulting. Shouldn't be impossible to cover that tightly.
For whatever reason, there is a very vocal segment of this board that balks at any reference to players as “rules lawyers” and “over-competitive.” Frankly, I’m confounded as to why.
Because "competitive" and "rules-lawyer" aren't the same thing.
You described a rules lawyer.
A competitive player is simply one who seeks to win every game, and bases a high proportion of their enoyment on doing so.
The problem with this way of thinking is that it pushes personal accountability for overly competitive behavior onto GW instead of onto the player where it belongs.
I don't think this is the only way to look at it. It could also be said that the rules are so sloppy that a RAW approach is the best and least subjective way to deal with it. After all JJ himself said RAW was the right way in a previous Standard Bearer article.
The rules have gotten clearer. The loopholes have gotten smaller.
I think this may have been true up to 3rd, but I feel like 3rd to 4th was a sideways move in terms of clarity and loopholes. I don't see any reason 5th will be any better, and instead I see a certain amount of disdain for the idea of trying.
they’re going to do it, and be able to do it, no matter how tight the rules are.
I can't really agree with the sentiment.
A lame person will never be fun to play against, and no rules can solve that... But if the rules are written perfectly, there will be no room for them to fudge and wiggle.
Even if they're not perfect, it might reduce the areas of fudge and wiggle to a small enough subset that people can be prepared to deal with them, rather than the near infinite number of confusions we have now.
Finally, if the rules get tight enough, the real problem players might lose interest, and move on to more fudgey, wiggly games.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
efarrer wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think pretty much everybody's on board with this approach, and it appears GW is getting pretty serious about making this formal with their coming 1500-pt-army-in-a-box releases, along with the continuing Apocalypse support.
I have to say I think the 1500 points in a box is one of GW's dumber ideas. It will be a poor mix of seemingly random components to an army which will be unplayable out of the box. Further this will be too expensive for the casual outsider to purchase.
Why do I say this?
I have never seen the company make anything similar which was remotely playable. So for the one or two people per city who must buy every GW purchase these will be good. Otherwise people will pass on these boxes the way they pass on army boxes now.
I'm thinking you haven't been in "the GW Hobby" long enough. The 2nd Edition Army boxes were definitely playable. And 40k Battleforces are all playable - take 3 of them, and you have a decent 1500 pt army.
I think you use the word "playable" where you mean "autowinning", or something similar where you expect a hyper-optimized unit selection.
BBeale wrote:I just want to figure out where people are coming from on a few points:
...
The bottom line is this, it is easy to sit here and blame every perceived flaw in the games system on GW, but that ignores the individual responsibility we all have to continue to make this hobby what it is and what it can be.
Brice
Hey Brice, nice post.
376
Post by: hubcap
Hey Brice, nice post.
I second that. FWIW I've been reading Dakka since 2000 and there has never not been griping about the imbalanced rules. Those first Direwolf FAQs were what, 50 pages single-spaced? The same people who yell at GW for writing loophole-ridden rules scream bloody murder when GW removes 6-man las/ plas squads or pares back all the traitor legion rules. If I were a game designer, I would take all the Internet complaints with a grain of salt too.
But what do I know, I'm so dumb I have 30 Possessed and 15 Spawn because I think they are fun.
Anybody have anything to say about the one rule Jervis actually discussed - real "if you can see it you can shoot it" LoS replacing hypothetical LoS?
7139
Post by: BBeale
A lame person will never be fun to play against, and no rules can solve that... But if the rules are written perfectly, there will be no room for them to fudge and wiggle.
Even if they're not perfect, it might reduce the areas of fudge and wiggle to a small enough subset that people can be prepared to deal with them, rather than the near infinite number of confusions we have now.
Finally, if the rules get tight enough, the real problem players might lose interest, and move on to more fudgey, wiggly games.
I understand what you’re trying to say, but I don’t think that I was really clear in what I meant. Tighter rules are one thing. We all want clarity. I’m sure we can all agree that there are things that can come up in hundreds of thousands of games of 40k that the design team can’t anticipate given the finite time and resources they have to allot to creating the rule sets. As a result there are going to be naturally occurring inconsistencies and some things are going to slip through the cracks. I think that the developers are focused on these. As I’ve already said, it is impossible to draft a rule set where this doesn’t occur. Hell, it’s the entire basis of the common law legal system in the United States. Every day legislatures in all 50 states and on Capitol Hill attempt to write airtight laws that attorneys spend the next several years debating the meaning of. Who can forget Bill Clinton asking a prosecutor to define the word “is.” As a lawyer I deal with written rules every day, and GWs rules are better drafted than many laws dealing with individuals’ money, liberty, and life. On that note, let’s try to keep these rules in perspective-perfect they are not, but they are pretty damn good (the FAQ needed to clarify 40k rules is much smaller than combined volume of 40k rules in their entirety, whereas the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure are only one tiny volume and the amount of case law necessary to clarify them consists of over 100 large volumes). The problem, as I see it, are the player “created” inconsistencies-rules quandaries created where intent is clear (or clear enough) for the purpose of creating and exploiting a gap in the rules. When I read through FAQs, the overwhelming majority of the issues I see presented concern correcting rules interpretations that when reasonably, and objectively, viewed are obviously exploitive. This isn’t about players that compete at the game (I’ve been to over 10 GTs and countless RTs). This is about overly-competitive players who knowingly and willfully manipulate rules to create in-game advantages that were unanticipated and unintended by the developers.
And for me, the most troubling thing about it is what seems to be the communities’ indulgence of this style of play. The overwhelming tone of this thread has been negative. The focus has been on the terms “rules lawyer” and “overly competitive” (note that JJ did not say just simply “competitive” which is no cause for shame). What we should be focused on is that they are 1) considering player feedback, and 2) trying to make the game more fun to play. I don’t understand why we can’t all agree that overly competitive rules lawyer types are a problem. I think if everyone was individually poled and honestly answered that question we’d all agree-and if someone didn’t, I think it would be safe to assume that you wouldn’t want to play them.
Brice
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
Good post BBeale.
I agree, the FAQ's addressed obviously exploitive situations. Some of which are really, really obvious.
For example, what do you get when you combine a battlecannon with the ability to move your opponents' models? Gee, I dunno, I might think about bunching them up! Apparently, this did not occur to the Devs.
Because nowhere n the CSM codex does it say "YOU CAN'T USE LASH OF SUBMISSION TO BUNCH OF YOUR OPPONENTS UNITS FOR A BATTLE CANNON SHOT." As soon as I read that power I thought about doing that.
Gee, I have lash, and a defiler, which has a battle cannon. If I combine the two I can make a lot of dead stuff. But there is nothing in there that says "You MUST move the enemy models the full distance rolled". Or "You cannot bunch up space marines you beardy git!"
Surely the developers might've considerd that Chaos players use Defilers and might this somehow be too overpowering against, oh, every army out there.
As for True LOS, it sounds like BAD NEWS for anything bigger than an infantry model. I can no longer hide rhinos or demon princes behind hills. At least, not the hills at my FLGS.
4802
Post by: Mario
loophole-ridden rules = rules not clear
6-man las/ plas squads = game balance issue
These two issue are part of the game but not the same. The less clear the basic rules are the harder it is to balance the game.
Cut down traitor legion rules = instead of having clear rules on the high level they are attacking the problem by cutting whole parts of the low level detail (and deforming a lot of people's existing armies). It's the difference between having an real cure (a clean and sound system) or just some way to treat the problem temporarily (less army choice) until something better comes along ( FAQ/sixth edition?).
With a cleaned up system they could adjust the codex books even better (and faster) to sell more of the "new miniature in the army".
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
hubcap wrote:Anybody have anything to say about the one rule Jervis actually discussed - real "if you can see it you can shoot it" LoS replacing hypothetical LoS?
It's always worked fine for me in Mordheim.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Pariah Press wrote:hubcap wrote:Anybody have anything to say about the one rule Jervis actually discussed - real "if you can see it you can shoot it" LoS replacing hypothetical LoS?
It's always worked fine for me in Mordheim.
I think it might cause a lot of headaches.
The example he used?
Heroically sniping a Chaos Space Marine through a window?
I guess if it is clear in the rules (!) how it works and how to apply cover saves, it might turn out OK...
3294
Post by: pombe
Mario wrote:loophole-ridden rules = rules not clear
6-man las/plas squads = game balance issue
These two issue are part of the game but not the same. The less clear the basic rules are the harder it is to balance the game.
Indeed.
We cannot have a balanced game without clear rules first.
443
Post by: skyth
BBeale wrote:
3) For whatever reason, there is a very vocal segment of this board that balks at any reference to players as “rules lawyers” and “over-competitive.” Frankly, I’m confounded as to why.
First off, it's bullying in the form of name-calling and de-humanizing the other person rather than actually making a coherent argument.
Second off, it's also a reaction to the idea (combined with the above) that actually playing by the rules is a bad thing and actually trying to win is a bad thing.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
2 JJ
what comes around eventually goes around.
:>
131
Post by: malfred
hubcap wrote:Hey Brice, nice post.
Anybody have anything to say about the one rule Jervis actually discussed - real "if you can see it you can shoot it" LoS replacing hypothetical LoS?
Mannahin did.
247
Post by: Phryxis
Anybody have anything to say about the one rule Jervis actually discussed - real "if you can see it you can shoot it" LoS replacing hypothetical LoS?
I think it's a generally positive change. The old system was a bit too arcane. This system is more straightforward, and encourages better terrain building, too.
I have two issues with it:
1) It may encourage better terrain building, but it also discourages big impressive models. How many towering Demon Princes will we see, standing atop scenic bases? People are encouraged to make smaller models that are easier to hide.
2) Models are static in their pose, and topheavy. I'm not sure precisely how the rules will work, but a "real" Space Marine can crouch, lean, etc. etc. If there's a high window, a real soldier could crouch under it, and be out of sight. Not a model. Also, a lot of time there's rubble, hills, other things that add character to a terrain piece, but when topple any model that tries to stand on them. The old system allowed for a lot of shorthanding "this guy is in the building, but he just won't stand up" whereas the new system doesn't seem to as much.
5470
Post by: sebster
Mannahnin wrote:Those seem to me like useful and meaningful numbers. GW’s sales have been dropping. Competitors have been much more successful lately than anyone who tried (for example) in the 90s (Warzone, Void, etc).
Can you explain how the data he’s using here does not support his point?
And it’s not just in the “cloistered” online world that we see a correspondence between dissatisfaction with the rules and losses for GW. Check out the D6 Generation podcast for a classic example of friendly gamers who used to be in love with GW (Raef and Russ both had multiple armies and played every week for years; Russ owned a darn GW-specialist gaming store). Neither of them has time any more for the ambiguities and vagueness of the 40k rules. Warmachine and Hordes have stolen their loyalty from GW due to giving an enjoyable play experience with virtually no ambiguities from the perspective of the casual player.
I am completely in agreement with you that several other factors contribute. But the rules are not insignificant. Make the game fun and people will buy figures. I had to buy a Warmachine army just to keep playing miniatures with Raef and Russ. But I (and they) never would have bothered if the game weren't fun.
The point is that you should compare apples with apples. Companies that are new to market will experience considerably greater rates of growth than established companies. The standards of growth for each are very different. You’re better off comparing GW with similarly sized, mature companies in related markets, than with start up companies in the same market. This is a pretty core part of decent financial analysis.
And no, quoting an on-line source of gaming commentary does not count towards pointing out that gamers away from the on-line community have been unsatisfied with the ruleset.
Truth is, I’ve been in this hobby since the early nineties and I can’t remember a time when people weren’t unhappy with GW’s ruleset, but they kept playing, the games kept growing and their market kept expanding. Meanwhile, the GW games with the most popular rules were their slowest sellers. As you pointed out, there have always been competitors but it’s only recently that they’ve managed to expand their business.
At the end of the day, sales are based on a whole hell of a lot more than product quality, and the rules are only a small part of product quality. As such, I don’t think rules can be mentioned as significant cause of company’s woes.
5470
Post by: sebster
BBeale wrote:I just want to figure out where people are coming from on a few points:
1) Where does everyone get the idea that GW as a company is in financially dire straights? They posted an 11 million dollar loss for last year if I recall. However, they had a lot of capital investments, including tons of new plastic molds, which they’re going to get to depreciate over coming years. On top of this, they posted record sales at over 100 million worldwide. There’s not another game company in the world that even comes close to this. The repeated insistence that GW is only in this for the profit is true though, but that’s what companies are supposed to do. I venture to say that not many of us would get up every morning and go to our jobs unless we were sure that there would be a check waiting for us at the end of the week. On top of it all, they turn out a product that has proven longevity and is consistently better than every other comparable product on the market.
GW isn't in dire financial straits. The loss last year isn't all that meaningful, accounting profit is a very subjective thing, and the loss was based largely on the decision to write-off older inventory management plant. But, and it's a big but, they've had successive years of sales contraction and that's a serious issue the company will need to address.
4713
Post by: efarrer
JohnHwangDD wrote:efarrer wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think pretty much everybody's on board with this approach, and it appears GW is getting pretty serious about making this formal with their coming 1500-pt-army-in-a-box releases, along with the continuing Apocalypse support.
I have to say I think the 1500 points in a box is one of GW's dumber ideas. It will be a poor mix of seemingly random components to an army which will be unplayable out of the box. Further this will be too expensive for the casual outsider to purchase.
Why do I say this?
I have never seen the company make anything similar which was remotely playable. So for the one or two people per city who must buy every GW purchase these will be good. Otherwise people will pass on these boxes the way they pass on army boxes now.
I'm thinking you haven't been in "the GW Hobby" long enough. The 2nd Edition Army boxes were definitely playable. And 40k Battleforces are all playable - take 3 of them, and you have a decent 1500 pt army.
I think you use the word "playable" where you mean "autowinning", or something similar where you expect a hyper-optimized unit selection.
[\quote]
Nice try. I've been in long enough to remember several 2nd edition boxed "armies". I still have the battle sister booklet sitting in my GW codex section. I have my Preatorian booklet in the same place. Do you really want to claim those were "playable" in any realistic fashion? Tell me more about these boxed armies (though did at least have rules booklets), please? What did they have? How many points were they?
As well, take three of the current battle forses and you have a playable army?
Yeah, right. See my original comment. If you packaged those together and sent them to stores they will do as well as the current "army boxes" which are relesed at the dawn of a new army. $390.00 is just too darn pricey as an entry point, in particular as the boxes always contain units you will not choose to use, because not all units will meet your individual play styles.
Do I believe it has to be ultra competitive? No. But it should be themed, and that is not going to happen.
459
Post by: Hellfury
sebster wrote:Mannahnin wrote:Those seem to me like useful and meaningful numbers. GW’s sales have been dropping. Competitors have been much more successful lately than anyone who tried (for example) in the 90s (Warzone, Void, etc).
Can you explain how the data he’s using here does not support his point?
And it’s not just in the “cloistered” online world that we see a correspondence between dissatisfaction with the rules and losses for GW. Check out the D6 Generation podcast for a classic example of friendly gamers who used to be in love with GW (Raef and Russ both had multiple armies and played every week for years; Russ owned a darn GW-specialist gaming store). Neither of them has time any more for the ambiguities and vagueness of the 40k rules. Warmachine and Hordes have stolen their loyalty from GW due to giving an enjoyable play experience with virtually no ambiguities from the perspective of the casual player.
I am completely in agreement with you that several other factors contribute. But the rules are not insignificant. Make the game fun and people will buy figures. I had to buy a Warmachine army just to keep playing miniatures with Raef and Russ. But I (and they) never would have bothered if the game weren't fun.
The point is that you should compare apples with apples. Companies that are new to market will experience considerably greater rates of growth than established companies. The standards of growth for each are very different. You’re better off comparing GW with similarly sized, mature companies in related markets, than with start up companies in the same market. This is a pretty core part of decent financial analysis.
And no, quoting an on-line source of gaming commentary does not count towards pointing out that gamers away from the on-line community have been unsatisfied with the ruleset.
Truth is, I’ve been in this hobby since the early nineties and I can’t remember a time when people weren’t unhappy with GW’s ruleset, but they kept playing, the games kept growing and their market kept expanding. Meanwhile, the GW games with the most popular rules were their slowest sellers. As you pointed out, there have always been competitors but it’s only recently that they’ve managed to expand their business.
At the end of the day, sales are based on a whole hell of a lot more than product quality, and the rules are only a small part of product quality. As such, I don’t think rules can be mentioned as significant cause of company’s woes.
Not that Ragnar needs any help in defending his position, but I had to point out something.
He IS comparing apples to apples.
How new a company is to the scene has very little if any bearing on sales corresponding to the quality of rules.
If the rules are good, the company sells more. If the rules are bad, they don't sell as much.
Rules DO drive sales.
Have you seen some of the truly horrendous sculpts that PP have for their games? I am honestly shocked that they had the huevos to sell them to the public when compared to the quality of their competitors.
Do you know why those particular hugely ugly minis from PP sold at all? I'll give you a hint. Its because of the rules.
40K's lack of good rules isn't the cause of GW's woes, as 40K isn't the only game they sell. But the poor state of 40K's rules doesn't contribute to GW's financial well being either.
I can only speak anecdotally, but GW's rules are THE reason why I play other games from other companies. That certainly isn't helping GW's bottom line.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
efarrer wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm thinking you haven't been in "the GW Hobby" long enough. The 2nd Edition Army boxes were definitely playable. And 40k Battleforces are all playable - take 3 of them, and you have a decent 1500 pt army.
I think you use the word "playable" where you mean "autowinning", or something similar where you expect a hyper-optimized unit selection.
Nice try. I've been in long enough to remember several 2nd edition boxed "armies". I still have the battle sister booklet sitting in my GW codex section. I have my Preatorian booklet in the same place. Do you really want to claim those were "playable" in any realistic fashion? Tell me more about these boxed armies (though did at least have rules booklets), please? What did they have? How many points were they? As well, take three of the current battle forses and you have a playable army? Yeah, right. See my original comment. If you packaged those together and sent them to stores they will do as well as the current "army boxes" which are relesed at the dawn of a new army. $390.00 is just too darn pricey as an entry point, in particular as the boxes always contain units you will not choose to use, because not all units will meet your individual play styles. Do I believe it has to be ultra competitive? No. But it should be themed, and that is not going to happen.
OK, if you've been in "the GW Hobby" that long, why can't you mastered the "quote" button? In a 2E context "playable" means the army conforms to the percentages, and those boxed armies did so. Just because they're not huge or optimal, that doesn't make them unplayable. As for examples, let me dig a bit... OK. I have the Eldar army from way back then, which came with a nice little Army List... 2003 points for Eldrad, Asurmen, and Warlock; 9 Gurdians, 4 Avengers, 4 Dragons, 3 Reapers, 5 Hawks, 5 Banshees, 5 Scorpions, 3 Spiders, 5 Scouts, an AGP, a Dreadnought, and a War Walker. At the time, you could get these at up to 40% off retail, and the retail bundle was discounted something like 20% off the blister / box price. *GREAT* set, had I known how much Eldar I'd end up collecting, I shoulda bought 2 more, because I'd have saved an absolute *ton* with them. Now granted, in an environment of dorks running around with all-Spider armies or whatever, this isn't super-competitive. But that's not the point. The point is that it's a legal 2000+ point army with extra models that doesn't even use the full set of options available in the rulebook. So there's tuning room. At retail, a SM Battleforce is $90, so elementary-school math says that 3 of them will cost ... (wait for it) ... $270. With GW now giving bulk set discounts of 30%, a triple-battleforce boxed set might retail for $195 and be available from the WarStore for $155. That's a total of 3 Tactical squads, 3 Combat squads in Razorbacks, 3x 5-man Assault squads, and 3x 5-man Scout squads. With the spare bitz, you can easily build: Hero w/ PW Hero w/ PW 4 Cmd w/ 2 Melta, PF Vet in Razorback w/ twin-Las 4 Cmd w/ 2 Melta, PF Vet in Razorback w/ twin-Las 5 Veterans w/ Melta, PF Vet in Razorback w/ twin-Las 10 Tacticals w/ ML/ Plas 10 Tacticals w/ ML/ Plas 10 Tacticals w/ ML/ Plas 5 Scouts w/ HB 5 Scouts w/ HB 5 Scouts w/ HB 5 Assault w/ 2 PP; PW Vet 5 Assault w/ 2 PP; PW Vet 5 Assault w/ 2 PP; PW Vet That's not a terrible 1500-pt force. It's punchy and mobile, and should do OK, particularly under 5th Edition rules in which games focus on Objectives instead of VPs. As for the idea that it should be "themed", that's kind of strange, given that it's a starter set. Did you mean "themed" like the old Iyanden or Biel-Tan armies that GW sold when Armageddon came out? Those were very good deals, too.
4713
Post by: efarrer
JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, if you've been in "the GW Hobby" that long, why can't you mastered the "quote" button?
Your grasp of grammar no doubt exceeds my grasp of forum computer controls.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
In a 2E context "playable" means the army conforms to the percentages, and those boxed armies did so. Just because they're not huge or optimal, that doesn't make them unplayable. As for examples, let me dig a bit...
They should be cross playable though.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK. I have the Eldar army from way back then, which came with a nice little Army List... 2003 points for Eldrad, Asurmen, and Warlock; 9 Gurdians, 4 Avengers, 4 Dragons, 3 Reapers, 5 Hawks, 5 Banshees, 5 Scorpions, 3 Spiders, 5 Scouts, an AGP, a Dreadnought, and a War Walker. At the time, you could get these at up to 40% off retail, and the retail bundle was discounted something like 20% off the blister / box price. *GREAT* set, had I known how much Eldar I'd end up collecting, I shoulda bought 2 more, because I'd have saved an absolute *ton* with them.
That's not an army box though. The two forces I described were actual "army boxes". I can find no other boxes from that time period mentioned. You are describing a bundled package which is a different beast altogether.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Now granted, in an environment of dorks running around with all-Spider armies or whatever, this isn't super-competitive. But that's not the point. The point is that it's a legal 2000+ point army with extra models that doesn't even use the full set of options available in the rulebook. So there's tuning room.
Again, though not an army box.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
At retail, a SM Battleforce is $90, so elementary-school math says that 3 of them will cost ... (wait for it) ... $270. With GW now giving bulk set discounts of 30%, a triple-battleforce boxed set might retail for $195 and be available from the WarStore for $155.
And good on you for pointing out that as an American your prices are subsidized by Canadians, for whom that is $390 (3 boxes at $130=$390). But that is a different matter and not relevant to this discussion. THe bulk discount price is irrelevant for growing the hobby as well. $195 is too big a hit for a person starting the game.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's a total of 3 Tactical squads, 3 Combat squads in Razorbacks, 3x 5-man Assault squads, and 3x 5-man Scout squads. With the spare bitz, you can easily build:
(snipped redundant information)
That's not a terrible 1500-pt force. It's punchy and mobile, and should do OK, particularly under 5th Edition rules in which games focus on Objectives instead of VPs.
But not from a single army box. That's three battle forces with a retail of 390.00 US if purchased in Canada, and not a good entry point for new players.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
As for the idea that it should be "themed", that's kind of strange, given that it's a starter set. Did you mean "themed" like the old Iyanden or Biel-Tan armies that GW sold when Armageddon came out? Those were very good deals, too.
Since I began this conversation I looked at the web site and found none of the new armies seem to have battalions (or spearheads) listed.
123
Post by: Alpharius
It just about goes without saying that GW is designing its games with the intent that you "have" to field larger armies.
That was definitely the case from 2nd to 3rd.
Not so much in 3rd to 4th.
But certainly now from 4th to 5th.
Whatever.
But I just wish I could shake the feeling that it means we won't see another edition of SPACE HULK for a long, long time.
Too bad, as GW should realize that it would serve as an excellent "gateway" to bigger and better things...
117
Post by: Tribune
Whoa, I'm a little late to this party, but reading Jervis' quote literally, I would say it just means they won't bother playtesting for abusive use. You can decide for yourself where that may take the game.
However, I also think that this is classic Jervis, the big, friendly games designer who is all about the grand design, the big vision, in this case it being millions of cheery gamers all playing merrily with nary a rules dispute or a RAW debate. He may want things to turn out this way, but obviously it won't. But at the same time, I don't think that vision will actually drive the final rules too much anyway, it's just a piece of concept marketing at the end of the day.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I think you're dead nuts on with that, Tribune.
Especially when you look at last month's Standard Bearer, and the Chaos Marine Tactics article from this month's WD.
The three together paint a pretty clear picture, actually...
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
efarrer wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK. I have the Eldar army from way back then, which came with a nice little Army List... 2003 points for Eldrad, Asurmen, and Warlock; 9 Gurdians, 4 Avengers, 4 Dragons, 3 Reapers, 5 Hawks, 5 Banshees, 5 Scorpions, 3 Spiders, 5 Scouts, an AGP, a Dreadnought, and a War Walker. At the time, you could get these at up to 40% off retail, and the retail bundle was discounted something like 20% off the blister / box price. *GREAT* set, had I known how much Eldar I'd end up collecting, I shoulda bought 2 more, because I'd have saved an absolute *ton* with them.
That's not an army box though.
Huh? If you go back to your 1998 Catalog, it's #0515 "Eldar Boxed Army". Just because GW changed the order around to "Army Box" sometime after 2nd Edition finished, that doesn't mean it isn't an army box.
efarrer wrote:The two forces I described were actual "army boxes".
No, I'm describing what is clearly an army box - fully legal, and fully-playable, and specifically described as an "Army", with an actual Army list within.
In fact, I also bought #0507 Chaos Boxed Army:
1 Terminator Champion
1 Sorceror
5 Terminator boxed set
1 Dreadnought
8 CSM w/ Champion & ML
6 Plague Marines w/ Champion & PLasma GUn
6 Berzerkers w/ Champion
This was also featured in the 1998 Catalog, along with:
#0510 Ultramarine Boxed Army - "a complete 2,000 point Ultramarine army"
#0514 Space Wolf Boxed Army - "a complete 2,000 point Space Wolf army"
#0526 Blood Angel Boxed Army - "a complete 2,000 point Blood Angel army"
#0512 Tyranid Boxed Swarm - "a complete 1,500 point Tyranid army"
These were noted as "includes a booklet with full army lists for all the models in the box including points values and characteristics".
For comparison, the 1998 Catalog also had:
#987399 Dark Angel Ravenwing Force Box (*not* an "Army" - "around 750 points")
efarrer wrote:I can find no other boxes from that time period mentioned. You are describing a bundled package which is a different beast altogether.
Then perhaps the fault lies with your memory and/or memorabilia. I know which boxes you're talking about, and they were produced *after* the Boxed Armies.
And no, those Boxed Armies are not merely "bundled packages". Bundled packages are things like the current Apocalypse or Battalion multi-packs. Those were very specifically Armies. You don't have to take my word for it. Just get out the 1998 Catalog and see for yourself. The intent was very clearly to have a full (balanced) army in a box, ready to go.
efarrer wrote:Again, though not an army box.
It is a "Boxed Army", which is very clearly an army box.
efarrer wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:At retail, a SM Battleforce is $90, so elementary-school math says that 3 of them will cost ... (wait for it) ... $270. With GW now giving bulk set discounts of 30%, a triple-battleforce boxed set might retail for $195 and be available from the WarStore for $155.
And good on you for pointing out that as an American your prices are subsidized by Canadians, for whom that is $390 (3 boxes at $130=$390). But that is a different matter and not relevant to this discussion.
THe bulk discount price is irrelevant for growing the hobby as well.
$195 is too big a hit for a person starting the game.
Sorry, I assumed some basic level of intelligence that presumes nobody would be so foolish as to pay full Canadian Retail + VAT instead of buying American...
The bulk discount rate is very important because those discounts definitely drive sales. It's why Apocalypse is considered an absolute success and major contributor to GW's bottom line.
Are you kidding me? When I got into 40k, the very first thing I did was to buy the "Eldar Boxed Army" army box. And then, when I started my CSM force, the first thing I did was to buy the "Chaos Marine Boxed Army" army box. Each of these was over $100 USD, back in 1998 or so (it's been a while, and GW has snuck in quite a few price increases over the years, so you'll have to forgive me if I forget the precise pricing details...)
Hell, when I started into RC car racing, I dropped over $500 in one fell swoop for a full competition-level set. When I got into golf, another $500. And if you want to get into X-Box / PS/3 gaming you're looking at dropping $500 started. The idea that $200, $300, or $400 US is "too much" for a hobby / game system is clearly false. And God help you if you decide you want to enjoy the pleasures of competitive motorsport or sailing...
efarrer wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:That's a total of 3 Tactical squads, 3 Combat squads in Razorbacks, 3x 5-man Assault squads, and 3x 5-man Scout squads. With the spare bitz, you can easily build:
(snipped redundant information)
That's not a terrible 1500-pt force. It's punchy and mobile, and should do OK, particularly under 5th Edition rules in which games focus on Objectives instead of VPs.
But not from a single army box. That's three battle forces with a retail of 390.00 US if purchased in Canada, and not a good entry point for new players.
I'm sure GW could easily bundle this into an Army Box. If they did so, based on their discounting of other sets, GW would apply an additional discount to it. No nobody, not even a 51st-Stater, is going to pay full Canadian retail.
efarrer wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:As for the idea that it should be "themed", that's kind of strange, given that it's a starter set. Did you mean "themed" like the old Iyanden or Biel-Tan armies that GW sold when Armageddon came out? Those were very good deals, too.
Since I began this conversation I looked at the web site and found none of the new armies seem to have battalions (or spearheads) listed.
And your point is what, exactly, here?
As I see it, the fact are:
1. GW has sold army boxes / Boxed Armies advertised as a full, legal, playable, army-in-a-box
2. These boxed sets are sold at considerable discount from retail.
3. They're not too expensive to start an army for $200 to $400 US.
5470
Post by: sebster
Hellfury wrote:Not that Ragnar needs any help in defending his position, but I had to point out something.
He IS comparing apples to apples.
How new a company is to the scene has very little if any bearing on sales corresponding to the quality of rules.
If the rules are good, the company sells more. If the rules are bad, they don't sell as much.
Rules DO drive sales.
No, that’s not what I’m talking about at all. I know on the internet it’s cool to talk about anything you want and make whatever assumptions you need to cover the gaps, but just this once I’m asking people to restrict themselves to what they actually know.
Ragnar tried to benchmark GW to PP and other recently started companies, by comparing the growth rate of a mature company with some startups. At the end he came to the predictable conclusion that the mature company isn’t performing as well. But he compared apples with potatoes.
There are situations with startups where growth in excess of 200 and 300% is not sufficient, while in many mature industries a mature company might be satisfied with growth of 1 or 2%, even zero growth. Meanwhile it can be perfectly acceptable for a startup to record significant losses for 3 and 4 years running as it develops its customer base and infrastructure, while ongoing losses are not acceptable for an established company. Because the startup and the mature company are in fundamentally different business positions.
And they should not be compared blindly.
Have you seen some of the truly horrendous sculpts that PP have for their games? I am honestly shocked that they had the huevos to sell them to the public when compared to the quality of their competitors.
Do you know why those particular hugely ugly minis from PP sold at all? I'll give you a hint. Its because of the rules.
40K's lack of good rules isn't the cause of GW's woes, as 40K isn't the only game they sell. But the poor state of 40K's rules doesn't contribute to GW's financial well being either.
I can only speak anecdotally, but GW's rules are THE reason why I play other games from other companies. That certainly isn't helping GW's bottom line.
Sure, but you can’t assume you’re the world. GW has long maintained the dominant market position despite having rules that were just as hated as the current set. If anything, 4th is generally seen in a more positive light than 2nd was.
689
Post by: Salvation122
BeefyG wrote:Whilst it speaks volumes of what people can expect from GW in the future, it also speaks volumes of what people *expected* from GW.
People who expected an ASL level of rules focused on tournament games from GW were, frankly, stupid. GW has never produced tightly focused rules designed for highly competitive play for either WHFB or 40k. Like, ever. In twenty years. It is very much a beer and pretzels game, and always has been. If your primary interest is a tight rules set, you're probably best off looking at old Avalon Hill stuff or card games.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
I think a lot of people are doom and glooming a paragraph that simply seems to imply that they are designing a ruleset for fun games primarily with a secondary focus on competitive play. That doesn't mean the rules won't be tight or competitive, and by what I've seen from the fifth ed rumors (and the few pdf based games I've played) the rules seem demonstrably better than in fourth.
So maybe we should all stop arguing over 4 short lines of text and exclaiming privateer press and warmachine (A game with virtually no customizeability and a design direction that is closer to a ccg than a minis game) as the new messiah, and actually just wait the short span for fifth so we can all download a pirated pdf of it and grumble alone in our homes about how our mech eldar lists suck now.
Honestly, 7 pages of heated argument over misty hypotheticals based around a single paragraph is a bit much.
3294
Post by: pombe
Salvation122 wrote:
People who expected an ASL level of rules focused on tournament games from GW were, frankly, stupid.
Then perhaps GW should get rid of the tournament circuit altogether. Right now, GW is trying to have it's cake and eat it, too. They have a tournament circuit (which involves an entry fee and prizes), and when players decry how bad the rules are or how unbalanced the armies are (or even how soft scores are calculated), they default into a "hey, it's just a beer and pretzel game" and tell the players not to take it too seriously.
I've never participated in a tournament, but I can say truthfully that many of the 40K games that I have participated in over the years would have benefitted greatly from either clear, unambiguous, unabusable rules or better game balance. It doesn't just take losing in a tournament to THAT GUY to sour one's experience in the hobby. The moment you gear up a list to try new and fun ideas and end up bringing a knife to a gunfight can sour one's experience, too. I want game balance as a casual player, not as a tournament player, but I also can see how very clear rules and good balance will benefit everyone. I'm arguing for game balance not because I'm a "rules lawyer", but because I want to bring crazy lists for fun and not get massacred by Turn 3. I WANT A FUN AND BALANCED BEER AND PRETZEL GAME.
Why should one list be better than another? They cost the same points and thus, should be equal, no?
411
Post by: whitedragon
ShumaGorath wrote:I think a lot of people are doom and glooming a paragraph that simply seems to imply that they are designing a ruleset for fun games primarily with a secondary focus on competitive play.
I still find it hard to believe that people are implying that it's not "fun" to play competetively, and it's not "fun" to have clear rules. It's definetely not "fun" for me to have to dig the rulebook out on an ambiguous issue, even in a non-competitive environment. It's also not "fun" to roll a D6 on a crucial point in the game, leaving the entire game's outcome to the interpretation (or lack there-of) of an ambiguous rule. It leaves a bad taste in both player's mouths.
Anyway, back on topic. 40k is a "game", (that we all have invested alot of money in) and I am frankly a little insulted that someone, (even the game designer) has the audacity to tell me how to have "fun" with my own stuff. I mean, really. For the record, I think 40k is alot of "fun", or I wouldn't play it, but it's ludicrous to me that they put out a supplement like "Apocalypse" and try to tell us that they're bringing the "fun" back. Did it ever really leave? Is 40k that awful? It just sounds silly when you say it like that. Of course the game is fun, or we wouldn't play it.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
pombe wrote:Salvation122 wrote:
People who expected an ASL level of rules focused on tournament games from GW were, frankly, stupid.
Then perhaps GW should get rid of the tournament circuit altogether. Right now, GW is trying to have it's cake and eat it, too. They have a tournament circuit (which involves an entry fee and prizes), and when players decry how bad the rules are or how unbalanced the armies are (or even how soft scores are calculated), they default into a "hey, it's just a beer and pretzel game" and tell the players not to take it too seriously.
The tourneys exists primarily as advertising and fun. Every company *IS* trying to have their cake and eat it too. That's called "business". The tourneys probably make a bit of coin for GW and cater to the very competitive players. They also focus on army appearance and hobby aspects. Why do you think they should get rid of them? Because you expect different things from a tourney than they do? They get what they want from them, and clearly the entrants do as well.
whitedragon wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:I think a lot of people are doom and glooming a paragraph that simply seems to imply that they are designing a ruleset for fun games primarily with a secondary focus on competitive play.
I still find it hard to believe that people are implying that it's not "fun" to play competetively, and it's not "fun" to have clear rules. It's definetely not "fun" for me to have to dig the rulebook out on an ambiguous issue, even in a non-competitive environment. It's also not "fun" to roll a D6 on a crucial point in the game, leaving the entire game's outcome to the interpretation (or lack there-of) of an ambiguous rule. It leaves a bad taste in both player's mouths.
Anyway, back on topic. 40k is a "game", (that we all have invested alot of money in) and I am frankly a little insulted that someone, (even the game designer) has the audacity to tell me how to have "fun" with my own stuff.
Good thing JJ's SB is about NONE of the things you mentioned. This SB is about the intent of the rules, not the clarity or tightness. It's about trying to make the game cinematic. He never tells you how to use the ruleset or how to play, and he never said you should roll off an ambiguity. Not in this article. So what's your point about WD 341's Standard Bearer?
7139
Post by: BBeale
JohnHwangDD wrote:And your point is what, exactly, here?
As I see it, the fact are:
1. GW has sold army boxes / Boxed Armies advertised as a full, legal, playable, army-in-a-box
2. These boxed sets are sold at considerable discount from retail.
3. They're not too expensive to start an army for $200 to $400 US.
JohnHwangDD is entirely correct about this. The early boxed armies that GW produced were playable right out of the box and they were priced at a discount. I bought several of them back in the day. They came complete with an army list and "quick" rules references-if I recall correctly, they even had pre-generated names for the generic units and characters.
skyth wrote:BBeale wrote:
3) For whatever reason, there is a very vocal segment of this board that balks at any reference to players as “rules lawyers” and “over-competitive.” Frankly, I’m confounded as to why.
First off, it's bullying in the form of name-calling and de-humanizing the other person rather than actually making a coherent argument.
Second off, it's also a reaction to the idea (combined with the above) that actually playing by the rules is a bad thing and actually trying to win is a bad thing.
I think this is part of the problem. It’s not name-calling or dehumanizing per se to give someone a label. We do it everyday. Note: this is distinct and entirely different than applying a stereotype to someone. “He’s the guy that snorts when he laughs.” “That’s the girl with the cute butt.” These types of labels are no different. Jerks are jerks are jerks. I have no problem calling them out on it, and no one else should either. Just because we are all entitled to our own opinions doesn’t make those opinions correct, and it doesn’t mean that anyone else has to be deferential to them or respect them. There are right and wrong ways to do things-playing 40k as an overly-competitive rules lawyer IS the wrong way to play.
I’m sure there are going to be a lot of posters who jump all over that last bit. But, read what I said. I didn’t say that it was bad to be competitive at 40k. As I previously noted, I’ve been to more than my fair share of GTs in the last 10 years. What I said was overly-competitive is bad. Reread JJ’s article. He says the same thing. Never does he call out competitive play. He simply addresses “over-competitive” types in those exact terms. I feel like most of the negative posts this article has generated here are based upon a knee-jerk misreading of the article. One of the over-arching themes in this thread is that “ GW is saying competitive play is bad.” Nowhere in the article does it even imply that. I challenge everyone to go reread the article (or actually read it for the first time, as has been made obvious by some of the posts). JJ and GW are not saying competitive play is bad, they are merely acknowledging that there are overly competitive players out there, and they’re not going to right a rule set just for them. Rather, GW is focused on writing rules that are fun to play.
Brice
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
whitedragon wrote:ShumaGorath wrote:I think a lot of people are doom and glooming a paragraph that simply seems to imply that they are designing a ruleset for fun games primarily with a secondary focus on competitive play.
I still find it hard to believe that people are implying that it's not "fun" to play competetively, and it's not "fun" to have clear rules. It's definetely not "fun" for me to have to dig the rulebook out on an ambiguous issue, even in a non-competitive environment. It's also not "fun" to roll a D6 on a crucial point in the game, leaving the entire game's outcome to the interpretation (or lack there-of) of an ambiguous rule. It leaves a bad taste in both player's mouths.
I think I stopped having fun playing warmachine when my friend started having his kovnik slam his kodiak on the back while it was being buffed so it couldnt be knocked down, just to double it's speed ever turn. That was about the same time I started using chain lightning on my own heavy warjacks because it meant i never had to risk missing or worry about being able to see what I'm shooting at. All legal in warmachine, and all pretty stupid. When you have a rule set that is tight to the point of RAW allowing things like that a game gets pretty hard to play for some people (and thats leaving out the millions of pages of errata inherent in the game). If you have the rules without the spirit behind them you're left with something the casual crowd will not enjoy. I would rather have a judge walk down and tell me my opponant is just being a dumbass when he does such things rather than having a ruleset that allows it to maintain coherency.
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
That is in the spirit of Warmachine. Being creative within the rules is something WM allows and encourages, Warhammer on the other hand just breaks.
The way I see it is that a tighter rule set makes the casual gamers feel like that have to know more rules. Making the game more inaccessible. Which isn't true you guys can continue to half ass it all you want. I don't think I have ever met a casual gamer that has read more than half the rule book.
247
Post by: Phryxis
It doesn't just take losing in a tournament to THAT GUY to sour one's experience in the hobby.
Even in a friendly game, poorly written rules are a liability to fun. I don't want to have to turn the game into a challenge in social interaction. I don't want to have to guess how the guy across the table felt about the fairness of the last compromise we had to reach to overcome a missing rule. Is he frustrated? Is that just cause he's rolling awful, or is it that ruling?
I don't want to spend my game time avoiding bad feelings or an argument.
Messed up rules create this very situation. Even a very reasonable person, who doesn't care if they win or lose, might still get upset if they think the other person is trying to cheat them. And it's easier than it might appear to have this happen, if one gaming group has always played something one way, and another has played it the opposite, and the rules are too shoddy to be clear which is correct.
The fact is, unclear, sloppy rules ruin (or at least harm) ALL kinds of games.
"It's beer and pretzels" isn't an excuse of any type. It's a cop out.
Never does he call out competitive play. He simply addresses “over-competitive” types in those exact terms.
Sure, but "over-competitive" is sortof a tautology, since it has "over" on it. It must be too much, it's "over."
I think the problem that people are having, one I think JJ does nothing to address, is how he lumps terms together, and shows a limited awareness of the actual thoughts or motivations of the people he's labelling.
For example, I'd agree that it's not dehumanizing to call black people "black people." But if there are a bunch of black people some of whom are asking for equality in wages, and you say "feh, them blacks just don't wanna work," that's pretty offensive. It takes an inoffensive term, and uses it in the trivialization and simplification of a group's viewpoint.
We're not just a bunch of "over-competitive" douchebags, bent on ruining the game for JJ and his fun-loving friends. We're simply asking for rules that are clear and tight, and allow us to run a game smoothly and without having to resort to guesswork and dice offs.
Nowhere in the article does it even imply that.
Meh. Maybe, maybe not. I can't say that you're categorically wrong about this, but I also don't think it takes much imagination to see a deliberate devaluation of competitiveness in the hobby. There's a lot of "hey, if you want to play that way, whatever" about it from JJ. And while he never really calls competitive play out, he definitely states, over and over, that it's the path to failing in the hobby.
JJ seems to see some sort of continuum or tension between fun and competition. He says "we're not going to let competitive concerns get in the way of fun rules." I think it's a false continuum, but he seems to see it that way.
Given that, we can also see no examples of him mentioned "over-funloving" players. He feels you can never have too much fun. But you can be too (or "over") competitive. He's pretty clear in his feelings on the matter. I think the implications are pretty transparent.
Not so much that I think you're wrong to challenge that they exist, but I think they're there...
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
Its quite fun to see everyone buying JJs sorry excuse not to make a proper work ("The game is not balanced"). Well, its rather no excuse but a statement that they didnt care about making a good job. (Im not debating if the rules are good or bad or whatever, just that alot of people just buys the stuff JJ says). Also note that this only is about 40K, since fantasy is running for a balanced game and actually have quite well worked out rules. Wonder if that is because JJ isnt in charge there?
In almost any other buisness were a public spokesman would go out for a company and say that they wont make a decent job they would be counting the days untill bankrupcy.
752
Post by: Polonius
Hey, I've been thinking for a while now that GW's problem isn't strategy (I think they might actually have a plan) but on PR and diplomacy. I think that if GW did what they did, but were honest and open with the veteran gamers, particularly us noisy wretches online, we'd have a lot more respect, and we'd know that they know what's going on.
For example, Here are a few press releases GW could have made that would have made me more content in my hobby:
1) "FAQ's are a drain on resources when we are trying to balance 40k codices and bring fantasy into 7th edition. We plan to do some at some point, but there are some good starts in a few places, direwolf and Adepticon in particular, so feel free to use those until official FAQ's are released."
2) "Bitz have been a big part of the GW hobby for decades, but unfortunatly they cost a ton of money and don't bring in much income. We're going to make available the most popular and important bitz, and hopefully bring back more of the collector models, but we simply can no longer keep 25 years of models in constant supply. "
3) "LatD players may notice that your army does not have any rules in the new codex. When looking at Chaos, we wanted to focus the books on a single archtype, and unfortunatly LatD did not fit. We know this makes you upset and we apologize. In the past, we have released rules for armies that we simply can't always support. We encourage all LatD players to use their models as an IG or Ork "counts as" army, and to use the new Datasheet in apocolypse."
Do these statements chance anything? No. Do they show that GW knows it's boning us? Yeah, and that would be a little nice.
That's the furor with this SB. Is it anything we haven't known? Of course not. JJ could simply phrase things a little better. "I feel your pain" is better then "get over it, crybaby."
3294
Post by: pombe
Polonius wrote:Hey, I've been thinking for a while now that GW's problem isn't strategy (I think they might actually have a plan) but on PR and diplomacy. I think that if GW did what they did, but were honest and open with the veteran gamers, particularly us noisy wretches online, we'd have a lot more respect, and we'd know that they know what's going on.
Actually, I will disagree.
I think GW's problem is that they don't think there is a problem. The first step in fixing something is admitting that there is something wrong in the first place.
According to JJ, apparently the problem lies with the overly competitive players and rules lawyers, not with the rules and codices.
Which, again as I stated in the other thread about this, is why I'm so riled up. JJ's flippant attitude is not winning him any support from any type of player, whether they are tournament or casual.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Phryxis wrote:"Everything Phryxis said"
You summed up very well what I was trying to convey with my earlier post, but much more eloquently. Thanks.
5470
Post by: sebster
pombe wrote:Why should one list be better than another? They cost the same points and thus, should be equal, no?
It’s nonsense to think all possible lists should be equal. It could only be achieved by making all units equal, differing only in superficial differences. If we believe, as we all should, that units should fill distinct battlefield roles, then we should expect that lists that are built with a decent balance of unit types will be superior to lists without that balance.
There are individual units that aren’t as well balanced as they could be (flash gitz) but they’re not as common as the internet likes to believe. The problem with dominant lists generally comes from units that are more useful the more of them you take (falcons, TMCs)… and that’s a problem beyond the simple points structure used by 40K.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Crimson Devil wrote:That is in the spirit of Warmachine. Being creative within the rules is something WM allows and encourages, Warhammer on the other hand just breaks.
Except, I don't want GW to turn Warhammer into more of a build-and-paint-your-own CCG / Clix game like WM.
I'm OK with GW minimizing such kinds of "creativity" to impart some sense of rational tactical and strategic play. If that means that rules aren't perfect (and they never have been, never will be), then so be it.
Kallbrand wrote:Its quite fun to see everyone buying JJs sorry excuse not to make a proper work ("The game is not balanced"). Well, its rather no excuse but a statement that they didnt care about making a good job.
In almost any other buisness were a public spokesman would go out for a company and say that they wont make a decent job they would be counting the days untill bankrupcy.
Don't be ridiculous. Bic doesn't have a public spokesman apologizing for why their pens aren't gold-plated like Mont Blanc. Timex doesn't apologize that their watches aren't as durable as Rolex. And Ford doesn't make any bones that their cars are anything but absolute, utter crap. But all of this stuff is affordable precisely because they are designed at a lower level of quality and capability.
The idea that GW owes gamers perfect balance, and that their imperfect rules aren't decent is nonsense. No company in the history of gaming has produced a perfectly balanced game with anywhere near the complexity of 40k, because it would take too long and cost too much to develop, so the company would go out of business for lack of product to sell. Instead, GW takes incremental steps, with a new edition every 4 to 6 years that's "good enough" to "get you by" until the next edition.
Polonius wrote:Hey, I've been thinking for a while now that GW's problem isn't strategy (I think they might actually have a plan) but on PR and diplomacy.
JJ could simply phrase things a little better. "I feel your pain" is better then "get over it, crybaby."
If Jervis said that, the Intarwebs would be in an uproar because he's patronizing. GW is in a no-win business trying to cater to the internet crowd, so really they shouldn't bother. And don't.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
sebster wrote:pombe wrote:Why should one list be better than another? They cost the same points and thus, should be equal, no?
It’s nonsense to think all possible lists should be equal. It could only be achieved by making all units equal, differing only in superficial differences. If we believe, as we all should, that units should fill distinct battlefield roles, then we should expect that lists that are built with a decent balance of unit types will be superior to lists without that balance.
Well, you could always go back to Chess as the sample point. Each unit fills a distinct battlefield role, and each army has the same units, only differing in color. Except that White has the (broken) Special Rule of Always Moves First...
247
Post by: Phryxis
Except, I don't want GW to turn Warhammer into more of a build-and-paint-your-own CCG / Clix game like WM.
I don't either.
I think the biggest takeaway that GW can gain from PP is the consistent use of language, and the separation of fluff and rules.
GW is too chummy in their rules. They mix in funny quips with rules. They like to write their rules to be conversational and fun, rather than clear. They try to avoid repetition, as opposed to embracing it. This is bad. Put the fluff in the fluff section, use consistent, unadorned language for the rules.
They need to standardize their language. Across all the books, GW has models doing a whole of of things with weapons. Equipping them, carrying them, using them, taking them, purchasing them, replacing them, etc. etc. etc. Just pick one word, one mechanic, and go with it.
I think they're getting a hang of this. I notice a trend towards recognizing this. They need to be even more strenuous about it.
This sort of practice is critical to making clear and consistent rules. If you've got a toolbox of sentence structures and rules conventions that you've reviewed for clarity and tightness, you can just reuse them over and over, and nobody will be in any doubt what's going on.
If Jervis said that, the Intarwebs would be in an uproar because he's patronizing. GW is in a no-win business trying to cater to the internet crowd, so really they shouldn't bother. And don't.
I don't think this is accurate. You're right, they can never please everyone, because some people don't want to be pleased. But it is always a matter of degrees. I think honesty really is the best policy. If they're straight up with people, I think they'll get the best result overall.
There will always be guys like you that respond positively to whatever they GW does. There will always be people who enjoy being pissed off and too good for everything, and they will always be around, trying to think of ways to demonize JJ. But the "undecided voters" can be won over with the right word and attitude.
443
Post by: skyth
JohnHwangDD wrote: No company in the history of gaming has produced a perfectly balanced game with anywhere near the complexity of 40k, because it would take too long and cost too much to develop, so the company would go out of business for lack of product to sell.
Star Fleet Battles, Battletech...
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
JohnHwangDD wrote:The idea that GW owes gamers perfect balance, and that their imperfect rules aren't decent is nonsense. No company in the history of gaming has produced a perfectly balanced game with anywhere near the complexity of 40k, because it would take too long and cost too much to develop, so the company would go out of business for lack of product to sell. Instead, GW takes incremental steps, with a new edition every 4 to 6 years that's "good enough" to "get you by" until the next edition.
Wow John.
You're more sycophantic than I first thought.
No company, in history, has produced a game near the complexity of 40K? Are you mad?
Have you never heard of games like BattleTech?
40K? Complex? No one in history? Good God John. Self delusion is a problem you need to see someone about, soon!
BYE
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'd also note Avalon Hill line. Panzer Leader/Blitz, Squad Leader, Alexander the Great, Gettysberg. Those were complex games.
7139
Post by: BBeale
H.B.M.C. wrote:Wow John.
You're more sycophantic than I first thought.
No company, in history, has produced a game near the complexity of 40K? Are you mad?
Have you never heard of games like BattleTech?
40K? Complex? No one in history? Good God John. Self delusion is a problem you need to see someone about, soon!
So, let me get this straight, it’s not o.k. for JJ to refer to over-competitive players as rules lawyers, but it is o.k. for you to call someone a sycophant and delusional because they disagree with people like you who never have anything positive to say?
131
Post by: malfred
HBMC has positive things to say about models and kits. He
has large disagreements with the rules envisioned by JJ's
creative direction.
752
Post by: Polonius
BBeale: Dakka isn't like prison, you shouldn't pick a fight on your first day to show that we shouldn't mess with you. Even if it was, and even if you should, you don't pick Lifers like HBMC. He's got a lot of friends and not much else to live for....
Anyway, John and HBMC have a thing going back, and while HBMC is insanely cynical about GW rules, John does have a pretty solid record of unwavering support for GW, beyond that expected of fairness. The sychophant crack did not exist in a vacuum, and while it's veracity is a matter of debate, it's got some legs. As for delusion, well, it's probably not the right word, but John is a poster that's often right, but can occaisionally assume that he's always right.
Finally, making a statement about another poster (essentially a peer) on a web forum is a bit different than a companies ambassador to it's customers speaking in it's flagship editorial. Here, like anywhere else, context is important.
131
Post by: malfred
Polonius wrote:BBeale: Dakka isn't like prison, you shouldn't pick a fight on your first day to show that we shouldn't mess with you. .
Lol, great analogy.
And a little disturbing. *rams shiv into Polonius's back*
221
Post by: Frazzled
malfred wrote:Polonius wrote:BBeale: Dakka isn't like prison, you shouldn't pick a fight on your first day to show that we shouldn't mess with you. .
Lol, great analogy.
And a little disturbing. *rams shiv into Polonius's back*
I was thinking more like high school cafeteria.
FOOD FIGHT! (throws chocolately pudding in random direction)
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Heh. We had a chip van in our school, cafeterias were a mythical thing from across the water.
I hope Dakka doesn't become like that chip van, I don't want to know what the Dakka analogue to spitting in the vinegar is!
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
BBeale wrote:So, let me get this straight, it’s not o.k. for JJ to refer to over-competitive players as rules lawyers, but it is o.k. for you to call someone a sycophant and delusional because they disagree with people like you who never have anything positive to say?
Remind me again, who are you and why do I care? I seem to have forgotten.
And I have many positive things to say about certain aspects of the GW Hobby. I love the models (I'll usually be the first in a thread going 'oooh' and 'aaah' at a new model, sometimes even when everyone else hates it), I love the fluff (why else would I play?), and I love the game. It is because I love the game that I am so critical (and cynical) about the parts of the GW Hobby that aren't so good, such as... umm... everything else, be it rules or just GW's attitude (both as a company and from their designers) towards players. I also have a sense of humour about it, hence my sig, which, I suspect, most people will see in the ironic light that it is portrayed.
As far as comments to ol' Jonny Boy... well... when someone says that no one has ever made a balanced game as complex as 40K, someone has to call him out on that, as it shows both his ignorance of other games as well as the blinders he has on in regards to GW and how, apparently, in his eyes 'they can do no wrong'. And, as Polonius said, there's context as well. My comments don't exist in a vacuum - only John's ideas about GW exist there.
BYE
1036
Post by: fullheadofhair
H.B.M.C. wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:The idea that GW owes gamers perfect balance, and that their imperfect rules aren't decent is nonsense. No company in the history of gaming has produced a perfectly balanced game with anywhere near the complexity of 40k, because it would take too long and cost too much to develop, so the company would go out of business for lack of product to sell. Instead, GW takes incremental steps, with a new edition every 4 to 6 years that's "good enough" to "get you by" until the next edition.
Wow John.
You're more sycophantic than I first thought.
No company, in history, has produced a game near the complexity of 40K? Are you mad?
Have you never heard of games like BattleTech?
40K? Complex? No one in history? Good God John. Self delusion is a problem you need to see someone about, soon!
BYE
I think I understand his point, which is actually rare for me. I would actually add to his statement "that is this popular and has lasted this long". I have been gaming for 15-20 years. I play all sorts of games - board, card (no ccg) and miniatures. I own silly things like Starship Command (card game), ASL, an airplane card game whos name I cannot remember, various dungeon crawls & Guillotine, lunch money and corruption. So, as you can imagine - a wide variety of stuff has passed through my hands. In all that time I have NEVER seen a game of Battletech or Starfleet Battles. I have also never seen any squats etc on the table - heard many people talk whistfully about them but never seen them.
The point being made in the article is OVERLY competitive play. I took it to me those people who you play that forget the game is fun as well as competitive. We have all met them - the ones that just totally suck the fun out of game and make you wish you could get those 2hrs of your life back. Those that bend the rules always in their favor, "accidental" get rules wrong to gain extra attacks and the douches who use loaded dice.
131
Post by: malfred
fullheadofhair wrote:
The point being made in the article is OVERLY competitive play. I took it to me those people who you play that forget the game is fun as well as competitive. We have all met them - the ones that just totally suck the fun out of game and make you wish you could get those 2hrs of your life back. Those that bend the rules always in their favor, "accidental" get rules wrong to gain extra attacks and the douches who use loaded dice.
You can't lump all that in under "rules lawyering," though, as rules lawyers can
also provide insight and feedback into the rules to make them playable (point at
Adepticon FAQ).
It's like real lawyers. They get all this bad rap, but good ones improve life, not hinder it.
7139
Post by: BBeale
Who am I and why should you care? H.B.M.C. I don’t have to prove myself to you or anyone else. However, I don’t think it’s expecting too much for you to act civilly.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
sebster wrote:Hellfury wrote:Not that Ragnar needs any help in defending his position, but I had to point out something.
He IS comparing apples to apples.
How new a company is to the scene has very little if any bearing on sales corresponding to the quality of rules.
If the rules are good, the company sells more. If the rules are bad, they don't sell as much.
Rules DO drive sales.
No, that’s not what I’m talking about at all. I know on the internet it’s cool to talk about anything you want and make whatever assumptions you need to cover the gaps, but just this once I’m asking people to restrict themselves to what they actually know.
Ragnar tried to benchmark GW to PP and other recently started companies, by comparing the growth rate of a mature company with some startups. At the end he came to the predictable conclusion that the mature company isn’t performing as well. But he compared apples with potatoes.
There are situations with startups where growth in excess of 200 and 300% is not sufficient, while in many mature industries a mature company might be satisfied with growth of 1 or 2%, even zero growth. Meanwhile it can be perfectly acceptable for a startup to record significant losses for 3 and 4 years running as it develops its customer base and infrastructure, while ongoing losses are not acceptable for an established company. Because the startup and the mature company are in fundamentally different business positions.
And they should not be compared blindly.
Sebster, please do me the courtesy of reading my and Carmachu's posts. I never compared GW and PP's sales. And no one tried to benchmark GW against PP or any other newer company. Carmachu brought up some financial and sales data, but he never said the data was directly comparable. Hellfury may have mistaken both Carmachu's and my points, but I'd appreciate if you'd respond to what we actually posted. You called Carmachu's analysis "horrible", but didn't (until now) actually explain where you found fault with it, which is what I asked you to do.
Carmachu pointed out, with real world data, that GW has been experiencing substantial financial issues for several years now. During those same years, other competing companies, most notably Privateer Press, have been doing very well. Now, he did not at any point compare their rates of growth or their absolute sales numbers. That would, for the very reasons you've pointed out, be comparing apples to oranges. He pointed out that Privateer has been selling a lot, at one point so much more than expected that they had trouble meeting demand and had to revise their release schedule to make up the backlog in supplying their older products. That wasn't when they were a "startup", either, if I understand the terminology correctly. That was maybe 2 years ago, and the company is now more than 6 years old.
Now, I love GW's games, and WH and 40k are still my favorites. Their worlds and their figures are excellent. Their figures are honestly superior (on the whole) to Privateer's stuff. So what do the two companies do differently that might explain how two companies selling similar products to the same market are experiencing opposite sales trends- simply positive vs negative?
From the perspective of gamers who play and enjoy both games, the biggest difference between their approaches and products seems to be the clarity and (to a lesser extent) balance of the rules. And in the effort made at communicating directly with and being responsive to the feedback and questions of the customers. As evinced by the fact the GW completed removed their message boards, but Privateer and its employees are continually active on theirs, and use them as a medium to gather feedback and to issue clarifications and corrections.
sebster wrote:40K's lack of good rules isn't the cause of GW's woes, as 40K isn't the only game they sell. But the poor state of 40K's rules doesn't contribute to GW's financial well being either.
I can only speak anecdotally, but GW's rules are THE reason why I play other games from other companies. That certainly isn't helping GW's bottom line.
Sure, but you can’t assume you’re the world. GW has long maintained the dominant market position despite having rules that were just as hated as the current set. If anything, 4th is generally seen in a more positive light than 2nd was.
Certainly. I completely agree that the first 4 editions of the game have shown a strong progressive trend. In fact from 1st to 2nd, and from 2nd to 3rd, were all radical leaps forward in playability, balance, and (for most folks) fun.
Rogue Trader was an over the top mish-mash of crazy and random stuff that expressed GW's love for the genre and all the neat things they wanted to do in it. It was released in the 80s when geek game design was at a pretty primitive level, and enthusiasm and creativity were in much greater supply (and demand) than thoughtful and cautious design skills.
40k 2nd ed was a substantial change. They cleaned up and standardized a lot, though balance was still sadly lacking. They got rid of a lot of random tables, and (as I understand it from reading the books and talking to fellow gamers) the game first became capable of supporting competitive play, albeit often with player-added restrictions (like "no Virus Bomb" and similar). This is similar to Warhammer Fantasy through the 90s. When I first got into Warhammer in 98/99, there were rules for tournament and competitive play, but they included additions onto the base rules; things like a 50pt max magic item allowance for heroes (100pts for Lords) which became rules in 6th ed, and banning outright certain overpowered magic items (tournament packs often said "The Forbidden Rod is exactly that").
40k 3rd was another massive change. The armies and codices were all restarted. GW cleaned up, sped-up, and simplified the rules virtually everywhere. The game became more about movement and maneuver of units, less about individual uber-characters with tons of wargear and units standing and shooting. There were still some uber-characters, and assault tended to dominate over shooting, but this was when competitive play really flourished. I joined up with a big group of competitive league players in May of '99 primarily because Warhammer 5th was not written/designed well enough to support balanced competitive play. A friend of mine got involved and hooked me into a group largely because he was more interested in 40k, but I got excited and stayed because I enjoyed the game design, even though I didn't like Eldar as much as I liked my Wood Elves.
In none of those editions were the armies truly balanced, but it seems like 3rd (as one would hope/expect) was the closest, and honestly at each of these revisions they were making such large changes to the system that no one really expected the system to be very refined or without issues. Also, in the context of the time period, there still weren't a lot of really tight rules designs out there for fantasy or sci-fi wargames. GW wasn't competing against anyone who had such superior rules that they ever needed to worry.
4th edition was the first time they tried to make the game backwards compatible with old codices. It's also the smallest change from the prior edition of any of them. There are lots of good and smart rules and refinements in there. Universal Special Rules. More balanced missions. Clearer LOS. The increasing clarity of the terrain rules (more general Area Terrain rules; specifics for vertical movement; quick but comprehensive charts for cover saves). Cleaner and quicker HTH resolution, with significantly less bonus movement for assaulters, so shooting could compete better. Thanks to a lot of these changes, the game got much better balanced between shooting and assault. Mobile shooty or mixed armies became more effective than pure HTH assault fests, with a corresponding increase in shoot & scoot maneuver battles.
4th edition was also a bit of a disappointment in how many areas they left unclear and how many really simple rules they actually just overlooked (like there being no rule telling you which Leadership to test on for a squad containing a higher-Leadership Sgt). Given that 4th ed is/was really supposed to be a refinement and improvement on a fairly-successful and popular system (3rd), it just doesn't seem quite as refined as we expected. It was also released in the context of there being a few more competitive games out there which have made a real professional effort at clarity and cleanliness in design. Warmachine, Warhammer Ancient Battles, Warhammer 6th and 7th editions, Flames of War, and Stargrunt II are all out there now demonstrating that it's possible to do better.
I'm not sure what's responsible for the seeming lack of direction since the release of 4th. Some people have speculated that staff turnover is part of it. Andy Chambers was in charge of the design of 4th, and left right around its release. Pete Haines took over, and seemed to be on the same page, as he was closely involved in the design of 4th. Now he's gone, and I'm really not sure how involved Jervis was with the development of 4th, or how committed the studio is to executing the plan Andy and Pete most likely had. It does feel like they're reinventing the wheel (and quite possibly taking some steps backwards) to some extent, and the obvious worry is that this won't really be a big step forward in terms of clean and fun rules.
We won't know for sure until we try it. I've really enjoyed 3rd and 4th, so the track record is there to indicate that this will probably be a fun game. I just don't know if it's going to be so good as to bring disillusioned fans back to the game.
Jervis' comments that they're not going to "compromise" the rules to cater to "overly-competitive" players clearly indicate that he's completely backwards on at least one point. "Overly-competitive" gamers are people so focused on winning that they make the game less fun, whether it's by arguing or bending/breaking the rules. These people are LESS of a problem if the rules are CLEAR. Clear rules (with consistent phrasing and terminology, which there is NO good reason for GW to not do better) help prevent arguments and answer questions quickly.
The whole concept of throwing out Area Terrain's abstract blocking of LOS is so foolish as to stun me. There was no clearer and cleaner rule in 4th edition. A rule that perfectly marries form and function. Allowing for clean and quick play AND supporting creative and attractive modeling. GW expanded it from just Forests (in 3rd) to be a more general rule in 4th because it made the game better. Jervis' expressed opinion that true LOS is more fun and better is a very worrying sign that he is laboring under some terrible misapprehensions.
221
Post by: Frazzled
BBeale wrote:Who am I and why should you care? H.B.M.C. I don’t have to prove myself to you or anyone else. However, I don’t think it’s expecting too much for you to act civilly.
Lets all take a chill pill here and argue the thread, not personal attacks please.
The whole concept of throwing out Area Terrain's abstract blocking of LOS is so foolish as to stun me. There was no clearer and cleaner rule in 4th edition. A rule that perfectly marries form and function. Allowing for clean and quick play AND supporting creative and attractive modeling. GW expanded it from just Forests (in 3rd) to be a more general rule in 4th because it made the game better. Jervis' expressed opinion that true LOS is more fun and better is a very worrying sign that he is laboring under some terrible misapprehensions.
Agree wholeheartedly Manny.
5376
Post by: two_heads_talking
BBeale wrote:Who am I and why should you care? H.B.M.C. I don’t have to prove myself to you or anyone else. However, I don’t think it’s expecting too much for you to act civilly.
isn't that a bit kettle and pot? And usually, yes, you do have to prove yourself to gain any or some credit. If you had backed up your comments with more than a "so it's ok for you but not us" statement, it might have gone over a bit better.
In otherwords, it's very important where one stands when they decide to cut down a tree, certain places to stand are lethal..
3236
Post by: EpilepticMoose
The whole concept of throwing out Area Terrain's abstract blocking of LOS is so foolish as to stun me. There was no clearer and cleaner rule in 4th edition. A rule that perfectly marries form and function. Allowing for clean and quick play AND supporting creative and attractive modeling. GW expanded it from just Forests (in 3rd) to be a more general rule in 4th because it made the game better. Jervis' expressed opinion that true LOS is more fun and better is a very worrying sign that he is laboring under some terrible misapprehensions.
Agree wholeheartedly Manny.
Seconded.
I already see a lot of skimmers not mounted on flying bases, and the removal of Size 3 terrain will only increase the frequency. At least with the abstract terrain sizes, you could mount your skimmer on a flying base, park it behind a size 3 hill and not have to worry that your opponent could see the tail fin and therefore shoot it.
Being at a disadvantage because the way the model looks sucks, plain and simple.
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Some people have suggested that players over-applied the Area Terrain rules to terrain that was never meant to use them (e.g. Hills), and chucking Area Terrain out the window is a reaction to that by Jervis.
I suspect that may be a contributing factor, but even if so, he's mistaking a symptom for a cause. That problem would never have come up if GW had explained a little more explictly and in a couple of paragraphs' more detail what is and isn't Area Terrain, and when exactly Size Categories are used.
In some cases (for example, on tables with insufficient actual Area Terrain, like ruins and forests) applying Area Terrain attributes to other terrain features like Hills isn't necessarily a bad thing, and it certainly speeds up the game and simplifies things. If GW simply added a few refinements to size categories/area terrain, they could have made it work even better both as simulation and as quick-play abstraction. For example, they could go to a 5 size abstraction instead of 3 sizes, and gone officially and explicitly to a Magic Cylinder Lite system*.
*ref http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Line_of_Sight_and_the_Magic_Cylinder)
6035
Post by: Techboss
Here are my expectations from any gaming company:
- Balance
- Clear and concise rules
- Good models
- Continual updates
- Interaction with the customer base via FAQs, blogs and/or forums
GW does 2 out of the 5 to my satisfaction (models and updates). While the updates aren't as fast as I'd like, they still provide me with potentially something new to read every quarter. The GW models in general are pretty good.
Whenever I read WD or other GW publications/statements I get the impression they don't know what the hell is going on in their games. Their army lists are usually not written like people play and they make really, really stupid tactical moves in the games. IMO, GW needs to fire their whole playtesting department and start over.
3294
Post by: pombe
sebster wrote:The problem with dominant lists generally comes from units that are more useful the more of them you take (falcons, TMCs)… and that’s a problem beyond the simple points structure used by 40K.
Very much agreed.
Please don't misconstrue my ranting over balance as some sort of "unsatisfied whining over what cannot be possibly done". I'm not so unreasonable that I would dare demand perfection (though it seems I often preach it), however, I'd like to think that I am experienced enough to see that improvements can be made.
I've always advocated an extreme amount of playtesting (I volunteer Mauleed and Stelek to break the lists as badly as they can so GW can fix them), and others have said that computational modeling would also speed up the process of balancing the rules/codices. You've just brought up another example of how broken the codices are. I've always believed that 40K should have a "economies of scale" penalty involved with army list making, such that your 2nd Whirlwind would cost more than your 1st, and your 3rd would cost more than your 2nd. Right now, there is no diminishing returns on bringing 3x of the same unit. In fact, bringing 3x of the same unit would be more of a force multiplier than anything else, which is not accounted for by the points value of the unit.
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
The area terrain thing has been a problem for a lot of the... shall we say more casual or less-experienced players in my gaming group. It's a very clean and tight rule, once you've studied it carefully, but it not very intuitive at all.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
H.B.M.C. wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:The idea that GW owes gamers perfect balance, and that their imperfect rules aren't decent is nonsense. No company in the history of gaming has produced a perfectly balanced game with anywhere near the complexity of 40k, because it would take too long and cost too much to develop, so the company would go out of business for lack of product to sell. Instead, GW takes incremental steps, with a new edition every 4 to 6 years that's "good enough" to "get you by" until the next edition.
Wow John.
You're more sycophantic than I first thought.
No company, in history, has produced a game near the complexity of 40K? Are you mad?
Have you never heard of games like BattleTech?
40K? Complex? No one in history? Good God John. Self delusion is a problem you need to see someone about, soon!
And you're less capable of comprehending clear English than I might have given you credit for.
Let's see what I actually wrote:
"No company in the history of gaming has produced a perfectly balanced game with anywhere near the complexity of 40k"
Now, let's read carefully, because there are two operative clauses here that you need to pay attention to:
1. "perfectly balanced" - i.e. any mix of options from any force is perfectly balanced against any mix of options from any other force.
2. "complexity of 40k" - i.e. over a dozen forces with a minimum of a dozen unit types, a at least a half-dozen options for each unit, with a plethora of special rules at the game, army, unit, and option levels.
So, how, let's go back to your precious Battletech. You're making the statement that Clans and Inner Sphere is *perfectly balanced* against original Battletech and Outer Sphere? Really? Seriously? You're going to make that claim? With a straight face?
By any objective / comparative measure, 40k is doing pretty darn well.
jfrazell wrote:I'd also note Avalon Hill line. Panzer Leader/Blitz, Squad Leader, Alexander the Great, Gettysberg. Those were complex games.
Agreed... but were they perfectly balanced and complex?
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'd put the complexity of most Avalon Hill games as light years beyond beer and pretzel 40K. Of the games I played with them, if using the actual missions etc. they were indeed quite balanced. Of course breaking out every chit available for the russians or Germans was fun (nothing like running division troop movements at the platoon level) it probably was not balanced. But really cool
3294
Post by: pombe
JohnHwangDD wrote:[
So, how, let's go back to your precious Battletech. You're making the statement that Clans and Inner Sphere is *perfectly balanced* against original Battletech and Outer Sphere? Really? Seriously? You're going to make that claim? With a straight face?
Actually, the concept of Zelbringen is designed to balance the Clans vs everyone else. Also, there is the Battle Value system, which does a very good job (surprisingly well, really) of balancing the 'mechs against each other (which sadly, as it relates to 40K, is a POINTS BASED SYSTEM).
993
Post by: xenite
Alpharius wrote:
You don't see a problem with the fact that GW either cannot or will not take the time to write a clear rule set?
I think that everyone sees a problem with this...unfortunately, the community's interest in the rules, clarifying them through FAQs, and writing and sharing house rules shows that there is some wiggle-room for GW. I would think that simply getting the rules rock solid would be easier than constantly fielding criticism about them online and at conventions and what have you.
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
JohnHwangDD wrote:GW is addressing the rules problems by writing fewer rules, simplifying rules, streamlining options, and consolidating rules as USRs. There are fewer possible unintended and non-standard interactions available to cause problems. From what I see, this strategy is clearly paying off, as there seem to be a lot fewer things that can go wrong.
I used to be a really bad cello player. Several times a week I would sit down with my cello to play. But whenever I drew my bow across the strings they would squeek and shriek and make godawful sounds. My parents kept telling me to practice more, but I knew better. First I cut back my cello sessions to only once a week, then to once every other week, then once a month, once every other month and so on. It's been over ten years since I've heard any godawful sound emanate from my cello. Now I'm not a bad cello player anymore.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
BBeale wrote:Who am I and why should you care? H.B.M.C. I don’t have to prove myself to you or anyone else. However, I don’t think it’s expecting too much for you to act civilly.
Mate, you're the one who jumped on me first. Remember that.
BYE
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
JohnHwangDD wrote:And you're less capable of comprehending clear English than I might have given you credit for.
Debating semantics won't get you far.
JohnHwangDD wrote:Let's see what I actually wrote:
"No company in the history of gaming has produced a perfectly balanced game with anywhere near the complexity of 40k"
Now, let's read carefully, because there are two operative clauses here that you need to pay attention to:
1. "perfectly balanced" - i.e. any mix of options from any force is perfectly balanced against any mix of options from any other force.
2. "complexity of 40k" - i.e. over a dozen forces with a minimum of a dozen unit types, a at least a half-dozen options for each unit, with a plethora of special rules at the game, army, unit, and option levels.
And tautologies won't get you very far either. You can't create impossible criteria - flawless and perfectly balanced rules - and then claim victory because no one can match it. That's a dishonest debating tactic. It's what's known as ' moving the goalposts'.
JohnHwangDD wrote:So, how, let's go back to your precious Battletech. You're making the statement that Clans and Inner Sphere is *perfectly balanced* against original Battletech and Outer Sphere? Really? Seriously? You're going to make that claim? With a straight face?
BattleTech works fine whether the scenario is balanced or unbalanced. There are scenarios dealing with unbalanced forces - where one side is bigger than the other, or has better units (Clan) vs lesser units (Inner Sphere), and the scenarios themselves balance those games. Try doing a 2000 point army vs a 1000 point army in 40K. It doesn't work. It does in BTech, and I'm sure it does in far more complex games.
40K is not complex compared to other wargames, and your attempts at 'moving the goalposts', so to speak, in order to score points in an argument won't fly either.
jfrazell wrote:Agreed... but were they perfectly balanced and complex?
Nothing is perfectly balanced, but you knew that before you said it.
BYE
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
H.B.M.C. wrote:Try doing a 2000 point army vs a 1000 point army in 40K. It doesn't work.
As much as I don't want to get in between you and JohnHwangDD, I have to dispute this point. 40K works fine with a two-against-one scenario like you've suggested, assuming you use the right scenario. I've had great times playing these sorts of scenarios, which ended up being very close victories.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
There are no scenario rules that make a 2000 vs 1000 battle balanced in official 40k at least, there is in some other games tho. (But this is way off topic).
Its quite obvious to most people here that John is just a fanatic in the extreme and will just throw on new fuel on the fire that doesnt even fit here.. Bic pens and lighters? What are you smoking? All I said was that a spokesman for a company cant go about writing that they dont do quality work(if you wanna have a good sales).. how did you fit that with wrong coloured pens? If you wanna defend your holy grail at least do it coherent and with some accurate reasons.
3480
Post by: CrazyB
One thing that I'm very worried about is not just the screwing up of rules, but the dumbing down of codices. As a Dark Angel player since 3rd ed(and a 40k player since the 2nd Ed days of vortex grenade volleyball) seeing the complete dumbing down of a codex really hurts my want to play the game. Why is it that I can't give my chapter master artificer armor? Any reason why iron halo can't go on my librarian? I'm really concerned about the state of future releases deal with the min/maxing armies but reducing the number of options to allow the different armies to be balanced far easier. I think we can look at Chaos codex to see how they massively reduced the number of options. I enjoy fielding awkward armies and trying to figure out how to make them work, in 3rd ed using Imperial Guard with carapace armor trait. It's these reduction to what a character can and cannot use or do that changes the modeling aspect of this game, which I enjoy so much. If the rules of using supplied bases with model is true it seems the modeling aspect of this hobby is drying up and I should just pick up AT-43 and get all my figures prepainted and based.
6899
Post by: daggitkiller
Jervis' comments that they're not going to "compromise" the rules to cater to "overly-competitive" players clearly indicate that he's completely backwards on at least one point. "Overly-competitive" gamers are people so focused on winning that they make the game less fun, whether it's by arguing or bending/breaking the rules. These people are LESS of a problem if the rules are CLEAR. Clear rules (with consistent phrasing and terminology, which there is NO good reason for GW to not do better) help prevent arguments and answer questions quickly.
This is so spot on. This is why his article rankled my feathers. It smells of propaganda and creates an uneasy feeling many people are having with GW right now. I'm tired of being told by GW that I'm going to enjoy rules written "just for fun" or that splitting up chaos is clean and simple, without all that hassle of picking armies the old way. If that's the direction they want to go in, stand it like a man, tell me you weighed all the factors, knew it would tick people off, but decided to do it for x,y,z... Not to invoke the fanboy PP wraith, but I have not agreed with things they've done, but they have usually responded directly either in corespondance or in person. I have actually been won over by people being straighforward about their creative choices rather than being elitist and obtuse.
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
Kallbrand wrote:There are no scenario rules that make a 2000 vs 1000 battle balanced in official 40k at least, there is in some other games tho.
It's quite doable with extremely minor tweaks of the existing scenarios. Like, one sentance changed.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
Do you have an example, with that one sentance changed? Unless the change is to up it to 2000 pts
5470
Post by: sebster
H.B.M.C. wrote:Wow John.
You're more sycophantic than I first thought.
No company, in history, has produced a game near the complexity of 40K? Are you mad?
Have you never heard of games like BattleTech?
40K? Complex? No one in history? Good God John. Self delusion is a problem you need to see someone about, soon!
BYE
Of course, Battletech solves the problem of balance by never even remotely attempting it in the first place.
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
Oh man. It's been a while. I remember doing a city fight mission where there were extra buildings that had to be captured by the strong team, and the weak team got D3 extra strategems. The weak team won by a single model. The buildings didn't even require a change in the scenario, we just used more. This was the Grand Assault mission.
We did a Blitz with asymmetrical forces, too. I can't recall if we used any additional rules. I think we may have played it "straight out of the box," actually. The (stronger) attacking force barely won, and it was a VP victory, not an objectives victory, so the defender was able to claim moral victory.
5470
Post by: sebster
pombe wrote:Actually, the concept of Zelbringen is designed to balance the Clans vs everyone else. Also, there is the Battle Value system, which does a very good job (surprisingly well, really) of balancing the 'mechs against each other (which sadly, as it relates to 40K, is a POINTS BASED SYSTEM).
You find battle values produce balanced games? Really?
No bias towards a force taking more numerous, low quality mechs? No bias towards a force taking disposable crud to move in the early parts of the simultaneous turn sequence, while taking quality units to exploit movement later.
You build a themed lance of mechs and I'll take some truly exploitative silliness that'll make any 40K cheese look trivial.
5470
Post by: sebster
pombe wrote:sebster wrote:The problem with dominant lists generally comes from units that are more useful the more of them you take (falcons, TMCs)… and that’s a problem beyond the simple points structure used by 40K.
Very much agreed.
Please don't misconstrue my ranting over balance as some sort of "unsatisfied whining over what cannot be possibly done". I'm not so unreasonable that I would dare demand perfection (though it seems I often preach it), however, I'd like to think that I am experienced enough to see that improvements can be made.
I've always advocated an extreme amount of playtesting (I volunteer Mauleed and Stelek to break the lists as badly as they can so GW can fix them), and others have said that computational modeling would also speed up the process of balancing the rules/codices. You've just brought up another example of how broken the codices are. I've always believed that 40K should have a "economies of scale" penalty involved with army list making, such that your 2nd Whirlwind would cost more than your 1st, and your 3rd would cost more than your 2nd. Right now, there is no diminishing returns on bringing 3x of the same unit. In fact, bringing 3x of the same unit would be more of a force multiplier than anything else, which is not accounted for by the points value of the unit.
Other games have the same problem, and it seems to me there's two possible solutions. The first is to have hard limits on the numbers you can take of a single item - GW used to have a lot of 0-1 options and the like, but seems happy enough right now with the FOC restrictions. It isn't enough of a restriction, as everyone knows there's a big difference between the heavy slots being taking up a unit of dark reapers, a war walker and falcon, and the heavy support slots being taken up by three falcons.
The second option is to make different units good at different things and make each role an important part of a winning strategy. The ability to take and hold ground, an infantry ability, should be distinct from mobile firepower, the role of armour and monstrous cretures, which should be distinct from dedicated killing power, the role of fixed guns and stationary weapons teams. Sure, you could take 8 TMCs but if they can't hold objectives or outshoot the dedicated heavy weapons, then it won't be as effective as a balanced army.
The move to ake holding objectives a troop only thing seems a decent step in the right direction, though I'll have to see it in play to see how it functions.
5470
Post by: sebster
Mannahnin wrote:Sebster, please do me the courtesy of reading my and Carmachu's posts. I never compared GW and PP's sales. And no one tried to benchmark GW against PP or any other newer company. Carmachu brought up some financial and sales data, but he never said the data was directly comparable. Hellfury may have mistaken both Carmachu's and my points, but I'd appreciate if you'd respond to what we actually posted. You called Carmachu's analysis "horrible", but didn't (until now) actually explain where you found fault with it, which is what I asked you to do.
Carmachu listed GW’s sales figures, and (quite rightly) pointed out they’re heading in the wrong direction, then mentioned the competition’s high growth in the same period, then made a closing statement on GW’s performance.
If that doesn’t read to you like a comparison of sales growth, I don’t know what does. And that’s the only time I’ve directly criticised anyone for making the comparison.
Carmachu pointed out, with real world data, that GW has been experiencing substantial financial issues for several years now. During those same years, other competing companies, most notably Privateer Press, have been doing very well. Now, he did not at any point compare their rates of growth or their absolute sales numbers. That would, for the very reasons you've pointed out, be comparing apples to oranges. He pointed out that Privateer has been selling a lot, at one point so much more than expected that they had trouble meeting demand and had to revise their release schedule to make up the backlog in supplying their older products. That wasn't when they were a "startup", either, if I understand the terminology correctly. That was maybe 2 years ago, and the company is now more than 6 years old.
Being in the first four years of development you can certainly be considered a startup company. Especially when you represent a small, but rapidly growing, section of the market.
Now, I love GW's games, and WH and 40k are still my favorites. Their worlds and their figures are excellent. Their figures are honestly superior (on the whole) to Privateer's stuff. So what do the two companies do differently that might explain how two companies selling similar products to the same market are experiencing opposite sales trends- simply positive vs negative?
I agree, for the most part, with your summary of GW’s development of their rules. I don’t, however, think the lack of clarity in their rules is anywhere near the problem you think it is. I certainly don’t think it’s responsible for anything but the most minor portion of their reduction in sales. If quality was the primary cause of sales growth McDonalds would be single hamburger stand.
Instead, I think it relates to the treatment of independent retailers in the US, to pricing themselves far too high (possibly 50%), and to a glacial release rate of codices and miniatures. There’s also a lot of stories floating around about really obnoxious corporate practices (you can only paint a mini in-store if you bought it here) and I suspect that kind of thing can have a significant effect on a company absolutely dependant on customer goodwill.
As to the new rules, I’m in favour of a few (return of real line of sight – what’s the point to a mini’s game if everything is abstracted?), hate a few others (running) and have no idea what to think about some others (troops as scoring). We’ll see.
5470
Post by: sebster
Mannahnin wrote:Sebster, please do me the courtesy of reading my and Carmachu's posts. I never compared GW and PP's sales. And no one tried to benchmark GW against PP or any other newer company. Carmachu brought up some financial and sales data, but he never said the data was directly comparable. Hellfury may have mistaken both Carmachu's and my points, but I'd appreciate if you'd respond to what we actually posted. You called Carmachu's analysis "horrible", but didn't (until now) actually explain where you found fault with it, which is what I asked you to do.
Carmachu listed GW’s sales figures, and (quite rightly) pointed out they’re heading in the wrong direction, then mentioned the competition’s high growth in the same period, then made a closing statement on GW’s performance.
If that doesn’t read to you like a comparison of sales growth, I don’t know what does. And that’s the only time I’ve directly criticised anyone for making the comparison.
Carmachu pointed out, with real world data, that GW has been experiencing substantial financial issues for several years now. During those same years, other competing companies, most notably Privateer Press, have been doing very well. Now, he did not at any point compare their rates of growth or their absolute sales numbers. That would, for the very reasons you've pointed out, be comparing apples to oranges. He pointed out that Privateer has been selling a lot, at one point so much more than expected that they had trouble meeting demand and had to revise their release schedule to make up the backlog in supplying their older products. That wasn't when they were a "startup", either, if I understand the terminology correctly. That was maybe 2 years ago, and the company is now more than 6 years old.
Being four years old you can certainly be considered a startup company. Especially when you represent a small, but rapidly growing, section of the market.
And yeah, pointing out that a company has declining sales while another has expanding sales... is comparing growth rates. It can't be anything but.
Now, I love GW's games, and WH and 40k are still my favorites. Their worlds and their figures are excellent. Their figures are honestly superior (on the whole) to Privateer's stuff. So what do the two companies do differently that might explain how two companies selling similar products to the same market are experiencing opposite sales trends- simply positive vs negative?
I agree, for the most part, with your summary of GW’s development of their rules. I don’t, however, think the lack of clarity in their rules is anywhere near the problem you think it is. I certainly don’t think it’s responsible for anything but the most minor portion of their reduction in sales. If quality was the primary cause of sales growth McDonalds would be single hamburger stand.
Instead, I think it relates to the treatment of independent retailers in the US, to pricing themselves far too high (possibly 50%), and to a glacial release rate of codices and miniatures. There’s also a lot of stories floating around about really obnoxious corporate practices (you can only paint a mini in-store if you bought it here) and I suspect that kind of thing can have a significant effect on a company absolutely dependant on customer goodwill.
As to the new rules, I’m in favour of a few (return of real line of sight – what’s the point to a mini’s game if everything is abstracted?), hate a few others (running) and have no idea what to think about some others (troops as scoring). We’ll see, but I do know there will be lots of threads about sentences that aren't quite exactly worded, most of which will have really obvious intent, while a couple of others will not.
6210
Post by: Le Grognard
Polonius wrote:BBeale: Dakka isn't like prison, you shouldn't pick a fight on your first day to show that we shouldn't mess with you. Even if it was, and even if you should, you don't pick Lifers like HBMC. He's got a lot of friends and not much else to live for....
I know for a fact that Mr. Beale is not a 'new kid on the block'. To this day I still bow to that Space Wolves army when I see pics of it around.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
sebster wrote:Of course, Battletech solves the problem of balance by never even remotely attempting it in the first place.
Nup. Not gonna bite on this one. You want to make a point then make the damned point. Don't throw a point in the air an expect me to catch it.
BYE
5470
Post by: sebster
H.B.M.C. wrote:Nup. Not gonna bite on this one. You want to make a point then make the damned point. Don't throw a point in the air an expect me to catch it.
BYE
For the first ten odd years of the game there wasn’t a points value system, there were a large number of scenarios available but these were rarely designed so that each player was equally likely to win. When the designer’s notes for the battle value system were released, it was pointed out that the system wasn’t perfect.
And Battletech is a great game, and I have a lot of fun playing it. But if you think you’re walking into games with two equally balanced forces you’re kidding yourself.
181
Post by: gorgon
sebster wrote:Instead, I think it relates to the treatment of independent retailers in the US, to pricing themselves far too high (possibly 50%), and to a glacial release rate of codices and miniatures. There’s also a lot of stories floating around about really obnoxious corporate practices (you can only paint a mini in-store if you bought it here) and I suspect that kind of thing can have a significant effect on a company absolutely dependant on customer goodwill.
It does seem that GW has a knack for stepping on people's toes. I don't think it's malicious...I think they're just clumsy. Part of it is probably that a lot of store owners, etc. aren't/weren't used to game companies that treat their business so seriously/aggressively/whatever. It makes you wonder if relationships would be better now if they'd adopted a corporate culture of friendliness from the getgo.
I agree that the release rate really just chokes enthusiasm for their core games. They like the income from three games, but can't really support three games. Something has to give.
6035
Post by: Techboss
sebster wrote:Instead, I think it relates to the treatment of independent retailers in the US, to pricing themselves far too high (possibly 50%), and to a glacial release rate of codices and miniatures. There’s also a lot of stories floating around about really obnoxious corporate practices (you can only paint a mini in-store if you bought it here) and I suspect that kind of thing can have a significant effect on a company absolutely dependant on customer goodwill.
I tend to agree with this statement that GW has killed their sales through self inflicted wounds, rather than through other miniature companies bringing a superior product to the table. From my own personal experiance, I didn't know about Warmachine till after I had some bad blood with GW. Warmachine was also below GW in initial model quality, so I wouldn't say I gravitated to them based on that. The sequence of events that lead me to PP was:
1) My local GW store decided that veterans were no longer their core audience. They changed Friday and Saturday gaming from being centered around 1500 to 2000 point battles to being 500 point battles. There were also some pretty heavy restrictions on what you could take.
2) After busting my butt to have a fully painted army in order to play in the store, they removed that stipulation and went with the "show progress" methodology. While I don't mind this for a couple weeks, constant grey models with one extra primed per a week gets old.
3) The store manager was a prick and the previous staff I liked moved to a LGS in the area that did allow 1500+ point battles.
4) At the LGS, I could play other games while waiting on a gaming table to free up, such as MTG, and not get yelled at.
5) The LGS gave us a discount on our purchases as we bought stuff quite often. The GW store said full price or nothing.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
sebster wrote:
I agree, for the most part, with your summary of GW’s development of their rules. I don’t, however, think the lack of clarity in their rules is anywhere near the problem you think it is. I certainly don’t think it’s responsible for anything but the most minor portion of their reduction in sales. If quality was the primary cause of sales growth McDonalds would be single hamburger stand.
Instead, I think it relates to the treatment of independent retailers in the US, to pricing themselves far too high (possibly 50%), and to a glacial release rate of codices and miniatures. There’s also a lot of stories floating around about really obnoxious corporate practices (you can only paint a mini in-store if you bought it here) and I suspect that kind of thing can have a significant effect on a company absolutely dependant on customer goodwill.
Well said. In my experiences of the gaming sector, both as a consumer and employee, I have yet to find a popular/balanced game that lacks an online forum digressing how awful the latest incantation of rules are. Variety + Time constraints = rule/balance issues, regardless if it's a PC, miniature or board game. In terms of balance, *Shrug* this is part of the 'experience' to several. Finding that optimal build, finding counters, etc. When it gets stale (Or we've narrowed down our builds to one optimal list), another dex/ruleset comes out for us to discover the next greatest build. We're pattern seeking animals, I think we internally dig that.
However, I do fault GW for three things;
1. Their PR has been weak. I see them making strides to address this.
2. Lack of focus. Too many projects/not enough resources. Addressing this will be (and has been) rough ( SG comes to mind)
3. Erratic releases. 6 years for one army, 2 years for another....this needs to change (And I believe Jervis has stated it will)
7129
Post by: Gary
We used to have a LGS called Miniature Merchants, which was a pretty awesome place. People could game with all kinds of non-GW systems and stuff, and the chaps even let me have a few £ of stuff now and then
Sadly (I dont really know why) they fell out with GW and the refreshment of the stock became less and less until they couldnt even get paints regulary..
Now we're stuck with a toy store with a single shelf for GW stuff -,- or i have to take the train to Reading for it's GW
3294
Post by: pombe
sebster wrote:
You find battle values produce balanced games? Really?
You build a themed lance of mechs and I'll take some truly exploitative silliness that'll make any 40K cheese look trivial.
Actually, I do.
I seriously hope you aren't thinking that a lance of FASA designed crap would stand up to whatever force you can design. But I find that FASA vs FASA or home brewed designs vs home brewed designs are quite fair. And within the same technology level, you don't even need to rely on Battle Values, just give each side a tonnage. Battle Values are really only useful when the opposing sides have different technology levels.
I've played Battletech far longer than I've played 40K (and considering that I started in Rogue Trader, that tells you I'm an old fart), and I've never:
1) had rules disputes playing Battletech
2) had a sour taste in my mouth from either annihilating my opponent or being annihilated myself in Battletech
I can say with absolute certainty that I've had many more games in Battletech come down to the wire than in 40K. In fact, I dare say that the majority of my 40K games were usually decided by the 4th Turn, if not sooner.
I will admit, that as a GM, I find it challenging to come up with scenarios in Battletech for my players such that they will likely win (and therefore, continue to the next mission) but still provide enough of a difficulty that they could lose, either due to bad tactics or bad dice. But that is a level of balance I think any game would have problems with.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
BattleTech works fine whether the scenario is balanced or unbalanced. There are scenarios dealing with unbalanced forces - where one side is bigger than the other, or has better units (Clan) vs lesser units (Inner Sphere), and the scenarios themselves balance those games. Try doing a 2000 point army vs a 1000 point army in 40K. It doesn't work. It does in BTech, and I'm sure it does in far more complex games.
I would just like to pop in and note that after skimming over the blah blah area terrain and blah blah game vision posts I came to this confusing tidbit. Battletech is a neat game, and works very well in non competitive rpg like scenario systems (It's partially designed to work in tandem with the rpg isn't it?). But it is -not- a complex game. At all.
In fact as far as army selection goes its about as complex as the average clix game. Unit A has a, b, and c for weapons and D armor. It has E pilot. The end.
Go with weight loadouts or a difficult to use points based system that is not used throughout the whole system to make a force and fight. In fact honestly unless you have the up to date books with universal points it's actualy a pretty bad system with highly unbalanced weight to usefullness ratios (that spider is never going to be as good as that jenner).
So honestly the games really not a very good example of a game with a "tight and complex system".
131
Post by: malfred
Outside of list selection, though, what did you think of the
gameplay? The one game I played of it I caught a glimpse
of the rules, and the only complaint you seem to have
against Battletech is the lack of force selection.
1406
Post by: Janthkin
It has solid rules for building your 'mech, and covers every interaction I was ever able to think up. It had indirect fire, with or without spotters, tanks, infantry, and airborne assets. It could be played small-scale (single 'mechs), "skirmish" style (one or two lances), or all the way up to full-scale war.
Some of the balance has needed tweaking over the years (tanks in particular have fluctuated between too good and too bad), but if you follow pombe's advice and don't try your custom-built death machine against FASA's default builds, BV does a pretty decent job of keeping the core game ('mechs) balanced.
I strongly recommend MegaMek. It handles LoS and modifier calculation (something long-time players have down cold); enables double-blind fighting in a manner that doesn't require two rooms, two sets of maps, and an arbiter; dice rolling & crit resolution (much faster than doing it yourself); and has great networking support.
443
Post by: skyth
Having played Battletech for more years than I've known of 40k's existence, it definitely has a nice clear set of rules. The only whining you hear about online is what Zellbringen actually means.
SFB blows both games away though.
3806
Post by: Grot 6
How is Battletech a comparison to 40K?
Thats like comparing something like a stationwagon to a pinto. The mechs arn't along the same scale lines as 40K, If I remember correctly, Battletech's 25mm scale combat system outright sucked. Fasa didn't have a system like 40k until maybe Vor: the Maelstrum. mThat was ok, but I didn't feel that it got enough off of the ground before the preverbial merde' hit the ventilator.
A better system then 40k.... hmmmm...... Starship Troopers had some pretty tight rules. Figures kinda sucked, but the rules are solid. Void or the new inception of VOID, urban mamouth/ VOID had some tight rules as well.
Starfleet Battles was nice as far as a standpoint for game systems, not miniature wargaming, but ship battles.
Flames of War, today is probibly by far better then current 40K, gamesystem wise.
365
Post by: Abadabadoobaddon
I really wonder what percentage of sales are made to 12-15 yr old newbies who drop $200-300 on a space marine army they never finish before losing interest and moving on. Because for those "customers" the quality of the rules is really inconsequential so long as they exist.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Or maybe it part of why they lose interest and move on, whereas certain grizzled veterans complain all the way to the cash register each and every edition...
5470
Post by: sebster
AgeOfEgos wrote:Well said. In my experiences of the gaming sector, both as a consumer and employee, I have yet to find a popular/balanced game that lacks an online forum digressing how awful the latest incantation of rules are. Variety + Time constraints = rule/balance issues, regardless if it's a PC, miniature or board game. In terms of balance, *Shrug* this is part of the 'experience' to several. Finding that optimal build, finding counters, etc. When it gets stale (Or we've narrowed down our builds to one optimal list), another dex/ruleset comes out for us to discover the next greatest build. We're pattern seeking animals, I think we internally dig that.
However, I do fault GW for three things;
1. Their PR has been weak. I see them making strides to address this.
2. Lack of focus. Too many projects/not enough resources. Addressing this will be (and has been) rough (SG comes to mind)
3. Erratic releases. 6 years for one army, 2 years for another....this needs to change (And I believe Jervis has stated it will)
Yeah, I agree entirely. I'd also add, though, that the other factor causing people to complain on the internet is that they're not always correct. A rule or unit can be perfectly reasonable and it will still attract detractors... you can witness this when you'll see two perfectly sensible and intelligent people, one saying, for example, that death company and the blood angels are a weak list, while the other argues that they're broken beyond belief and far too strong.
That doesn't account for all complaints, but it's a factor.
5470
Post by: sebster
pombe wrote:Actually, I do.
I seriously hope you aren't thinking that a lance of FASA designed crap would stand up to whatever force you can design. But I find that FASA vs FASA or home brewed designs vs home brewed designs are quite fair. And within the same technology level, you don't even need to rely on Battle Values, just give each side a tonnage. Battle Values are really only useful when the opposing sides have different technology levels.
Nah, in the interest of limiting the more ridiculous stuff and trying to put some balance into the game we almost exclusively use FASA mechs. Their stuff operates something like actual military units, with versatility and redundancy built in, instead of the stuff you get if you have people build their own mechs...
And even with a consistent tech tonnage is a terrible balancing guide. Heavier mechs simply don't contribute as much, ton for ton, as lighter mechs. Two 35 ton mechs will dominate against a 70 mech, and if you start looking at optimised light vehicles like the Savannah Master it gets ridiculous. It also stops you from taking less effective designs, there's a wealth of history and the weird, failed mech designs can add a lot of flavour to a game. If you use strict tonnage as a control then you don't get to see banshees on the field.
BV gives a price somewhat closer to the actual utility of the unit, so it's better but ultimately the same problems emerge, only you end up looking at units that don't quite match their BV points (units with an excess of offence to defence, units with glaring weaknesses, units with a broad range of weapons compared to a focus on a single optimum range). It got to the point in our games where we could look at two armies lined up against each other and quickly eyeball a likely winner, and we'd be right each time barring some remarkable piece of dice rolling.
Now we start with BV as a guide then adjust the final force to something much closer to a 50/50 game. It's a solid system, but it doesn't really do 'balance'.
I've played Battletech far longer than I've played 40K (and considering that I started in Rogue Trader, that tells you I'm an old fart), and I've never:
1) had rules disputes playing Battletech
2) had a sour taste in my mouth from either annihilating my opponent or being annihilated myself in Battletech
I can say with absolute certainty that I've had many more games in Battletech come down to the wire than in 40K. In fact, I dare say that the majority of my 40K games were usually decided by the 4th Turn, if not sooner.
Sure, but it's a lot easier to build a clear ruleset in a hex based game, compared to a miniatures game. And Btech works largely on a model of attrition, each side grinding the other down over multiple turns, compared to 40K which favours decisive actions.
The strength of the Btech system is that you can recover from a bad strategy or an unlucky couple of rolls, while the weakness is the number of rolls that aren't very exciting. The strength of the 40K is that you feel constantly on the precipice, and each tactical decision and roll has a chance of proving decisive, while the weakness is that it actually does end up decisive, and one side or the other ends up dominant by the end of turn 2, or 3 or whatever.
It's worth pointing out that the overwhelming majority of more recent game designs, such as Warmachine and FoW, have followed something a lot closer to the 40K model, and have the same strengths and weaknesses as 40K.
It's also worth pointing out that for all the fans and positive thoughts about Battletech, it's now a tiny blip on the gaming scene, kept alive almost entirely by loyal veterans and a very dedicated new licence owner. Which only goes to further my point that rules quality isn't a major factor in a game's success.
I will admit, that as a GM, I find it challenging to come up with scenarios in Battletech for my players such that they will likely win (and therefore, continue to the next mission) but still provide enough of a difficulty that they could lose, either due to bad tactics or bad dice. But that is a level of balance I think any game would have problems with.
I had the same problem when running games, though in Btech this is an easier thing to control, for the reasons I mentioned above.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
Nurglitch wrote:Or maybe it part of why they lose interest and move on, whereas certain grizzled veterans complain all the way to the cash register each and every edition...
Think you got a point there, with maybe the loss of a few grizzled veterans also each edition.
Still, its not that the rules are so horrendus and bad, they are pretty ok. Its just the attitude JJ expresses, disgusting in a professional salesperson and really nothing that improves sales.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
ShumaGorath wrote:But it is -not- a complex game. At all.
Here is a list of contents for the upcoming Strategic Operations book. Once you've read it, tell me again that BTech is not a complex game:
Movement Modes
Standing Still (Expanded: Movement Mode)
Sprinting (Movement Mode)
Evading (Movement Mode)
Shielding (Movement Mode)
Physical Defense (Movement Mode)
Crawling (Movement Mode)
Hurried Movement
Hull Down
Backward Movement (Expanded)
Climbing and Leaping
Stacking (Expanded)
Skidding
Piloting Skill Rolls
Fumbles
Taking Damage
Leg Damage
Falling (Expanded)
Attempting to Stand
Vehicles
Movement
Infantry
Squad Deployment
Movement on Pavement
Fast Movement
Climbing
Movement Dice (Tips and Suggestions)
Planetary Conditions
Expanded Movement Cost and Planetary Conditions Rules
Base Terrain Types
Terrain Modifications
Terrain Conditions
Weather Conditions
Fog
Light Fog
Heavy Fog
Hail
Light Hail
Heavy Hail
Light
Dusk/Dawn
Full Moon Night/Glare
Moonless Night/Solar Flare
Pitch Black
Rain
Light Rainfall
Moderate Rainfall
Lightning Storm
Heavy Rainfall
Gusting Rain
Torrential Downpour
Snow
Light Snowfall
Moderate Snowfall
Sleet
Snow Flurries
Heavy Snowfall
Ice Storm
Blizzard
Wind
Light Gale
Moderate Gale
Strong Gale
Storm
Tornado F1-F3
Tornado F4+
Misc.
Blowing Sand
Extreme Temperature
Bog Down Rules
Careful Movement
Heat Scale Modifiers
Terrain Factor Rules
Planetary Conditions Tables
General Rules
Expanded Critical Hits and Damage
Fumbles
Floating Critical Rule
Advanced Hit Locations
Engine Explosions
Called Shots
Weapons Attacks
Line of Sight and Dead Zones
Glancing/Direct Blows
Missed Shots
Damage
Advanced Firing
Partial Cover
Physical Combat
Weight Class Physical Attack Modifiers
New Physical Attack Weapons
New Attack Types
Charging
Death From Above
Intentional Falls From Above
Picking Up and Throwing Objects
Picking Up Inanimate Objects
Throwing ’Mechs and ProtoMechs
Picking Up and Throwing Vehicles
Picking Up and Throwing Battle Armor
Dropping or Setting Down Inanimate Objects
Dragging a ’Mech
Other Combat Weapons and Equipment
Active Probes
Anti-Missile Systems
Autocannons
ECM Suites
Energy Weapons
Gauss Weapons
Machine Guns
Missiles
Particle Projector Gannon (PPC)
Retractable Blade
Heat
Avoiding Shutdown
Rerouting Heat Sink Coolant (’Mechs only)
Heat Sink Coolant Failure
Vehicles
Firing Arcs
Vehicle Effectiveness
VTOL Special Attacks
Infantry
Digging In
Conventional Infantry Squad Deployment
Using Non-Infantry Units As Cover
Battle Armor Infantry
Weapon Resolution Dice (Tips and Suggestions)
ADVANCED BUILDINGS
Structure Record Sheet
Advanced Building Classifications
Building Classifications
Standard Rules Expansions
Moving Through Advanced Buildings
Advanced Building Critical Damage
Armored Buildings
Attacking Buildings From Within
Construction Factor (Expanded)
Building Collapse (Expanded)
Scaled Damage
Building Construction
Building Basics
The Design Process
Step 1: Establish Superstructure
Step 2: Add Armor
Step 3: Install Components
Step 4: Complete the Record Sheet
Advanced Building Equipment
Automated Weapons
Power Generators
Liquid Fuel/Chemical Storage Tanks
Environmental Sealing
Heavy Metal Superstructure
High/Low Ceilings
Industrial Elevators
Large Doors
Open Space Construction
Subsurface/Underwater Structures
Tunnels
Castles Brian Complexes
ADVANCED SUPPORT VEHICLES
Satellites
Movement (Outside of Game Play)
Movement (During Game Play)
Rail
Movement
Carrying Units
Combat
Charging Rail Vehicles
Accidental Falls From Above
Large Naval Vessel Support Vehicles
Movement
Stacking
Carrying Units
Flight Decks
Naval Tractors
Combat
Critical Damage
Electronic Equipment
Unit Destruction
Large Airship Support Vehicles
Movement
Stacking
Carrying Units
Flight Decks
Combat
Electronic Equipment
Accidental Falls From Above
Mobile Structures
Movement
Facing
Collisions
Buildings
Stacking (Ground Mobile Structures)
Carrying Units
Flight Decks
Combat
Critical Hits
Destroying a Mobile Structure
Unit Displacement
GENERAL RULES
Advanced Scatter
Advanced Altitude Bombing Scatter
Artillery
Sequence of Play
Artillery Not Directly on the Playing Area
Targeting
Damage
Direct-Fire Artillery
Counter-Battery Fire
Planetary Conditions
Battle Armor Weights
Battlefield Wreckage
Boarding Actions (Non-Infantry)
Mounting Through A Bay Door (Into a Cargo Bay)
Weapon Attacks in Cargo Bays
Fire Due to Weapon Attacks in Cargo Bays
Command-Level (Tactical) Comms
Commanders
Satellites
Ejection and Abandoning Units
’Mechs
Vehicles
Naval Vessels
Fatigue
Improved Positions
Infantry Vs. Infantry Actions
Boarding Actions (Infantry)
Infantry Vs. Infantry Action Inside A Building
Resolving Infantry Vs. Infantry Actions 201
Re-Converting Marine Points Score
Crew Losses and Crew Hits
Using A Captured Unit/Building
Minefields
Conventional Minefields
Command-Detonated Minefields
Vibrabomb Minefields
Active Minefields
Combined Minefields
Weapon-Delivered Minefields
Clearing Minefields
Morale
Morale Checks
Broken Morale
Recovering Nerve
Rearming Under Fire
Rolling Maps
Simultaneous Movement
Plotting Movement
Movement
Taking Control of A Unit
Abandoned Units
Swarming
Transport Bays (Expanded)
Vehicle Crews
Crew Numbers And Abilities
Zip Lines
Concealing Information
Record Sheets And Set-Up
Available Information
Scanning
Double-Blind Rules
Sequence of Play
Initiative Phase
Movement Phase (Spotting Phase)
Weapon Attack Phase
ADVANCED SUPPORT VEHICLE CONSTRUCTION
The Basics of Advanced Unit Design
Unit Type
Technology Base
Weight
Designing Advanced Support Vehicle Units
Step 1: Design the Chassis
Choose Advanced Support Vehicle Type
Choose Technology Base
Choose Weight
Allocate Weight for Internal Structure/Structural Integrity
Step 2: Install Engines And Control Systems
Install Engine
Determine Fuel Capacity
Determine Structural Integrity (Airships Only)
Add Lift/Dive Equipment
Determine Jump Capability
Add Control/Crew Systems
Special Enhancements
Step 3: Add Heat Sinks
Step 4: Add Armor
Step 5: Add Weapons, Ammunition And Other Equipment
Step 6: Complete The Record Sheet
Support OmniVehicles
Designing Mobile Structures
Step 1: Establish Function
Choose Mobile Structure Type
Choose Technology Base
Choose Class, Size, And Shape
Construction Factor and Internal Weight Capacity
Step 2: Install Power, Motive, And Control Systems
Install Power System
Install Motive System
Determine Fuel Capacity
Add Crew
Special Enhancements (Enviro Sealing, Modular Structure Linkage)
Step 3: Install Armor
Step 4: Install Weapons, Heat Sinks, And Equipment
Step 5: Complete The Record Sheet
ADVANCED WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT
Equipment Notes
Active Probe
Actuator Enhancement System (AES)
Angel ECM Suite
Armor
Armored Components
Armored Motive Systems
Artemis V Fire-Control System
Artillery
Artillery Cannons
Autocannon
Battle Armor Mechanical Jump Booster
Battle Armor Myomer Booster
Battle Armor Detachable Weapon Pack
BattleMech HarJel System
BattleMech Melee Weapons
BattleMech/ProtoMech Motive Systems
Beast-Mounted Infantry
Blue Shield Particle Field Damper (PDF)
Booby Trap
C3 Systems
CASE II
Chaff Pod
Chameleon Light Polarization Shield ( LPS)
Cockpit Systems
Collapsible Command Module (CCM)
Combat Vehicle Chassis Modifications
Coolant Pod
Disposable Weapons
Docking Hardpoint (Docking Collar)
Docking thrusters
Drone (Remote) Systems
Energy Storage Batteries
Engine Systems
Ejection Systems
Electronic Warfare ( EW) Equipment
Field Guns/Field Artillery
Flamers
Flight Deck/Helipad
Fluid Gun
Gauss Rifles
Grav Deck
Grenade Launchers, Vehicular (VGL)
Handheld Weapons
Heat Sinks
Infantry Armor
Landing Deck
Lasers
Laser Anti-Missile System
Laser Insulator
Light Sail
Lithium-Fusion Battery
Mass Driver
’Mech Mortars
Mechanized VTOL Infantry
MechWarrior Aquatic Survival System
Mine Dispensers
Minesweeper
Missile Launchers
Mobile Field Base
Mobile Hyperpulse Generators
M-Pod
MRM “Apollo” Fire Control System
Naval Autocannons (Capital AC)
Naval C3
Naval Comm-Scanner Suite
Naval Gauss (Capital Gauss)
Naval Laser (Capital Laser)
Naval PPC (Capital PPC)
Naval Repair Facilities
Naval Tug Adaptor
Null-Signature System
Power Collector and Microwave Transmitter
PPC Capacitor
ProtoMech Melee Weapon
Recon Camera
Rifle (Cannon)
Satellite Imagers
Specialized Infantry
Structure
Sub-capital Weapons
Sub-Compact K-F Drive System
Supercharger
Taser
Thunderbolt Missile Launcher
Turrets
Vehicular/Battle Armor Dropchute
Vehicular Jump Jets
Void-Signature System
VTOL Jet Booster
VTOL Mast Mount
Xeoplanetary Condition-Trained Troops
Alternative Munitions
Autocannon Munitions
Artillery Munitions
Bomb Munitions
Flamer/Fluid Gun/Sprayer Ammunition
Grenade Launcher Munitions
Mines
Missile Munitions
’Mech Mortar Ammunition
Remote Sensors
Advanced Construction Options
Fractional Accounting
Mixed Technologies
Patchwork Armor
Super-Heavy Vehicles
Ultra-Light BattleMechs
AVANCED BATTLE VALUES
Satellites
Rail Vehicles
Large-Sized Airships
Large-Sized Naval Vessels
Mobile Structures
Step 1: Calculating Defensive Battle Rating
Step 2: Calculating Offensive Battle Rating
Step 3: Calculate The Final BV
Advanced Infantry
Step 1: Calculating Defensive Battle Rating
Step 2: Calculating Offensive Battle Rating
Step 3: Calculate The Final BV
Advanced Weapons and Equipment
Actuator Enhancement System
Armor
Armored Components
Battle Armor Mechanical Jump Booster
Battle Armor Myomer Booster
Battle Armor Detachable Weapon pack
BattleMech Mechanical Jump Boosters
BattleMech/ProtoMech Partial Wing
BattleMech UMU System
Blue Shield PDF
CASE II
Chameleon Light Polarization Shield
Cockpit systems—Torso-Mounted Cockpit
Combat Vehicle Chassis Modifications
Cooland Pod
Engine Systems
Handheld Weapons
Laser Anti-Missile System
Laser Insulator
Laser—Variable Speed Pulse
Null-Signature System
Patchwork Armor
PPC Capacitor
Shields
Structure
Supercharger
Turrets
Vehicular Jump Jets
Void-Signature system
VTOL-Jet Booster
VTOL MAST Mount
Constructing A Battle Force (Addendum)
Alternative Munitions (New)
Target Acquisition Gear (Expanded)
Command, Control and Communications (Expanded)
External Stores (Expanded)
Skill Ratings (Expanded)
Force Size
Minefields (New)
And this is one of three books of roughly equal length, each detailing different levels of combat.There are also, I should think, more types of 'Mechs, Vehicles, Infantry, Armour, Aircraft, and space craft than there are units in 40K, maybe even 40K and Warhammer combined.
Nope... nothing complex in there.
BYE
131
Post by: malfred
HBMC sure types fast
5470
Post by: sebster
I'm hoping that's a list he's grabbed from somewhere online, or it must be a really slow day at work.
Meanwhile, a big list of options isn't in and of itself proof of complexity. Especially when a lot of those rules are options like weather conditions, or gonzo weapons variants.
Ultimately, battletech is about trying to get your mech at it's optimum effective range while depriving your opponent the same. This becomes really interesting when both sides have multiple units, each with their own optimum range, so you have to start finding the best movement option for the unit as a whole, often sacrificing the best option for an individual mech in order to protect another mech, or to focus your fire on a single enemy unit. The complexity is measured in the vast number of possible moves that might be legimate for each of your mechs... which optional weather rules really don't affect very often.
That is to say, yeah Battletech is a pretty complicated game, but nowhere near as complicated as games like chess... where the rules can be written on a postcard.
212
Post by: Kotrin
And I can testify too that I never had any rule issue in any Battletech game. (Nor Battlespace BTW).
But please, people, don't fall into this stupid trap: game balance has nothing to do with rules clarity.
Game balance is the how the point value of a unit is consistent with its battlefield efficiency.
Rules clarity is to avoid arguments during a game.
Game balance is very easy to achieve, at least in an iterative way: you just change the point value of a unit or option depending if it's "too good" or "too bad" and that's it.
Rule clarity implies rules writing with this goal in mind, and is a prerequisite to game balance: you can't balance point cost of a unit if what you can do in a game is unclear in the first place.
GW has a poor record history in both.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
I'd say that game balance is at the very core of how the game works, before you even get to units and points values.
If your rules favour one type of fighting style over another, and that's an unintentional byproduct of the rules you've written, then the rules themselves are not balanced, even before you've worked out whether you want Sci-Fi American GI's fighting Space Bugs of Elves fighting Dwarves.
So, using BattleTech, if there are significant penalties for firing outside of short-ranged, and massive benefits for being at short-range, your game is favouring a short-range style of battle and all your long-range designs suffer because of the core rules. On the other hand, if there were equal advantages and disadvantages to being at short- or long-range (like there is in BTech), then the game is balanced and it comes down to the units which you create and then the play style preference of the players (I prefer long range, he perfers short-range, but the game is not weighted towards either style of play).
BYE
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
sebster wrote:I'm hoping that's a list he's grabbed from somewhere online, or it must be a really slow day at work.
Copied from the PDF preview of the contents page. See, one thing about the CBT guys is that they trust and like their audience, so they'll give previews and ask for feedback on their products rather than keeping them hidden in a '3 month window', and offering sneek peaks. Moreover, they'll ask for errata submissions and then release detailed errata even when the errata has nothing to do with the rules - they'll issue an errata if they've gotten some in-universe historical dates wrong. Hell, they have a team of people who's job it is to check the canon to make sure new bits don't contradict old bits.
And they playtest for more than a week or so. That's another feather in their oh-so-feather'd cap.
When a book comes out - at about the same rate as 40K gets Codices I might add - it'll have been playtested for a year or so, by multiple different teams for multiple different things. As soon as the book comes out they'll start asking for suggestions for improvements, for FAQs and for errata. Within a month or two they collate this, release an errata, and then make a new printing that adds all the changes in. They'll also release the rulebooks in PDF form and they can be copied over and over again with no restriction. Such a break from the ' This is what you get and if you don't like it wait 8 years for the next Codex revision' way GW does things.
All of this helps to make a stupidly complex game into a very balanced game.
BYE
3294
Post by: pombe
Yep, the new Catalyst crew has really playtested the hell out of the game.
My favorite fix is how partial cover is now actually advantageous. In the old games, my friends and I would avoid level 1 hills to avoid getting head capped. Now, there's no such worry (though if you're not careful, you can still get a good kick to the noggin).
Also, there was a period in time where my friends and I took WAY too much advantage of vehicles (we abused the fact that missile/ballistic weapons made no heat and we added jump jets to get around immobilization). We ran around with so many jumping tracked tanks designed for crit seeking (basically SRM boats) it was ridiculous. I'm glad they got toned down.
And yeah, LAMs were broken, and I'm glad they aren't in the new rules.
3936
Post by: Pariah Press
Zip lines?!? ZIP LINES!!!
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Mmmhmm, for infantry mounted in VToL transports.
BYE
5470
Post by: sebster
Kotrin wrote:Game balance is very easy to achieve, at least in an iterative way: you just change the point value of a unit or option depending if it's "too good" or "too bad" and that's it.
This isn’t true, and I suspect GW thinking that’s the case has resulted in most of their imbalanced units.
A unit’s value is a very complicated thing, and isn’t the same in all situations. A unit might be average if taken alone, but far more effective if taken in multiples. A unit might be utterly horrible if the correct support units aren’t available, and utterly dominant if support units can be included in the army. A specialised unit might be an absolute bargain if you know your opponent’s list, and an utter waste of time if you do not.
A unit doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and increasing or lowering its point value can’t be seen as a solution in itself.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
As I've often said during the creation of our Revisted Project, points are not the great leveller. There are many other things that go into balancing things.
Putting the points up on something that's 'too good' might be a good way to start, but there are situations where points do nothing. In fact, a perfect example is the current state of the Imperial Guard. As was said in Kyoto's thread by many people including myself and Janthkin, if you put the cost up on things like Plasma Guns and Lascannons, it doesn't stop us from taking them. It just means we take less of other things to maintain the same amount (or as close to) of Lascannons and Plasma Guns that we currently use.
Points don't balance a game, which is why a game must be balanced even before units are invented. This is where BTech excels, and where 40K consistantly falls on its pretty-picture-drawing, option-removing ass.
BYE
199
Post by: Crimson Devil
H.B.M.C. wrote:.......and where 40K consistantly falls on its pretty-picture-drawing, option-removing ass.
I have a mental picture of 40k acing the swimsuit portion of the pageant, but setting themselves on fire during the flaming baton talent portion.
I have a weird mind.
6210
Post by: Le Grognard
But you have to admit, back in the day before 40K; Battletech was the schizzle.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Le Grognard wrote:Polonius wrote:BBeale: Dakka isn't like prison, you shouldn't pick a fight on your first day to show that we shouldn't mess with you. Even if it was, and even if you should, you don't pick Lifers like HBMC. He's got a lot of friends and not much else to live for....
I know for a fact that Mr. Beale is not a 'new kid on the block'. To this day I still bow to that Space Wolves army when I see pics of it around.
Concur. Brice was winning GT Best Appearance and Player's Choice before many of these Dakka regulars were newbies. With one of the finest SW armies I've seen (and I've looked around pretty hard). So perhaps you should brush up on your hobby history, Polonius.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
dienekes96 wrote:Brice was winning GT Best Appearance and Player's Choice before many of these Dakka regulars were newbies. ... So perhaps you should brush up on your hobby history, Polonius.
Making it, of course, perfectly reasonble that he attack me immediately upon joining.
Sure.
BYE
(I know you didn't imply that Chuck...)
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Well, of course. If I could quit and rejoin, you'd be the first person I'd go after, HBMC. [H2]I've earned my journey![/H2]
You wouldn't be the first person to DESERVE it, though {nudge, nudge}.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
huge list
Ok, it has a giant list of different neat things. Woo. The game system itself is still a reletively simple hex grid game with clix like pre set units attempting to vie for superior position on the board. The depth of the game comes from the chess like simplicity and the depth comes from the "ability" to create your own units. Few people do that though, and the rulebooks themselves provide no good template for doing so. The problem is when you turn the game into a competitive one you lose -many- of the things you listed as many are specifically designed for scenario play and do not hold up at all in simpler force based games. Thats not weakness per se, it's a good fun game. It's just not a good comparison to 40k, which is in its entirety a skirmish based game with an immense ammount of emphasis placed on the customization of your force.
Battletech is a good game, but it's simply too different to really compare to 40k.
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
I can't believe a lame WD article has gotten 9 pages of discussion....LOL. Most of you are WD haters anyways...so why care?
Capt K
4713
Post by: efarrer
ShumaGorath wrote:
huge list
ShumaGorath wrote:
Ok, it has a giant list of different neat things. Woo. The game system itself is still a reletively simple hex grid game with clix like pre set units attempting to vie for superior position on the board. .
Clix like preset units, huh? That's Mechwarrior. Hex like grid, that battletech. two seperate games.
ShumaGorath wrote:
The depth of the game comes from the chess like simplicity and the depth comes from the "ability" to create your own units. .
The depth of the game comes from the designers willingess to allow the universe to change and for allowing multiple play styles to be handled by adding optional rules to the system over time. The create your own rules have always been there, but they are an add on, not needed for play and not part of the games depth.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Few people do that though, and the rulebooks themselves provide no good template for doing so. .
Other then detailed rules for designing the mechs, with a specific unit for measurig the construction.
ShumaGorath wrote:
The problem is when you turn the game into a competitive one you lose -many- of the things you listed as many are specifically designed for scenario play and do not hold up at all in simpler force based games. Thats not weakness per se, it's a good fun game. It's just not a good comparison to 40k, which is in its entirety a skirmish based game with an immense ammount of emphasis placed on the customization of your force..
WTF? So the ability to design units based on what your prorities (not the designers, you own) with literally hundreds of possible different individual mechs per lance doesn't equal customization? If that doesn't equal unit customization I don't know what does.
Battletech is a good game, but it's simply too different to really compare to 40k.
Minature based games in a science fiction environment with larger followings and 20+ years of history?
3699
Post by: artificer
CaptKaruthors wrote:I can't believe a lame WD article has gotten 9 pages of discussion....LOL. Most of you are WD haters anyways...so why care?
Capt K
Hi Cap'n, how's life?
I think it's really just Jervis that rubs people the wrong way, compounded by GW's seemingly rudderless drift. I worked for a company that was a lot like GW.
Top dog in it's field and trying to stay there, but losing ground and customers (old and new) to the competition. Sometimes being in the lead for too long can lead to the delusional idea that your word is god, that your farts don't stink, and that you can do no wrong. Couple this with a front man who seems to annoy and a corporate policy of countering it's policy enacted just a season or two earlier, and people tend to get annoyed.
I personally see Jervis' whole battle plan to make the game 'easier' with fewer rules (and d6 if you don't know what to do) to be a bad one. Their target 12-17yr old market is also the part of their customer base that experiences +90% turn over in a year. As almost anyone in business will tell you, it's a F*ton cheaper and easier to KEEP customers than to get new ones. Yet, GW seems intent on driving the bulk of 40k toward that customer. Anyone who's been to Adepticon will tell you that it's the serious 18+yr old gamers with some actual money that BUY. Sure some 12 yr old might spend $100-200 and then quit the game, but I personally know 15-20 gamers that easily buy 2+ ARMIES each and every year. You cannot (and the GW continually declining sales numbers prove this in my eyes) base a business on one-off, throw away customers.
All that said, I am looking forward to 5th, although true LOS will, without a doubt, be a total PITA.
BTW I also hate WD.
The following passage has to be my favorite in the whole thread and is QFT
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:GW is addressing the rules problems by writing fewer rules, simplifying rules, streamlining options, and consolidating rules as USRs. There are fewer possible unintended and non-standard interactions available to cause problems. From what I see, this strategy is clearly paying off, as there seem to be a lot fewer things that can go wrong.
I used to be a really bad cello player. Several times a week I would sit down with my cello to play. But whenever I drew my bow across the strings they would squeek and shriek and make godawful sounds. My parents kept telling me to practice more, but I knew better. First I cut back my cello sessions to only once a week, then to once every other week, then once a month, once every other month and so on. It's been over ten years since I've heard any godawful sound emanate from my cello. Now I'm not a bad cello player anymore.
131
Post by: malfred
Masochists.
463
Post by: CaptKaruthors
Hey man, whats up?
I fully see what people are saying. However, why invest so much angst on a WD article when the majority of the people commenting don't even read the mag because they hate it.... LOL. That would be like me watching Nancy Grace and getting angry about it. I hate that show, so why would I even invest in the time to care what's on it? Same applies here. I'd rather eat my own than watch that tripe.... WD sucks and has sucked for almost a decade now. Why bother?
Capt K
artificer wrote:CaptKaruthors wrote:I can't believe a lame WD article has gotten 9 pages of discussion....LOL. Most of you are WD haters anyways...so why care?
Capt K
Hi Cap'n, how's life?
I think it's really just Jervis that rubs people the wrong way, compounded by GW's seemingly rudderless drift. I worked for a company that was a lot like GW.
Top dog in it's field and trying to stay there, but losing ground and customers (old and new) to the competition. Sometimes being in the lead for too long can lead to the delusional idea that your word is god, that your farts don't stink, and that you can do no wrong. Couple this with a front man who seems to annoy and a corporate policy of countering it's policy enacted just a season or two earlier, and people tend to get annoyed.
I personally see Jervis' whole battle plan to make the game 'easier' with fewer rules (and d6 if you don't know what to do) to be a bad one. Their target 12-17yr old market is also the part of their customer base that experiences +90% turn over in a year. As almost anyone in business will tell you, it's a F*ton cheaper and easier to KEEP customers than to get new ones. Yet, GW seems intent on driving the bulk of 40k toward that customer. Anyone who's been to Adepticon will tell you that it's the serious 18+yr old gamers with some actual money that BUY. Sure some 12 yr old might spend $100-200 and then quit the game, but I personally know 15-20 gamers that easily buy 2+ ARMIES each and every year. You cannot (and the GW continually declining sales numbers prove this in my eyes) base a business on one-off, throw away customers.
All that said, I am looking forward to 5th, although true LOS will, without a doubt, be a total PITA.
BTW I also hate WD.
The following passage has to be my favorite in the whole thread and is QFT
Abadabadoobaddon wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:GW is addressing the rules problems by writing fewer rules, simplifying rules, streamlining options, and consolidating rules as USRs. There are fewer possible unintended and non-standard interactions available to cause problems. From what I see, this strategy is clearly paying off, as there seem to be a lot fewer things that can go wrong.
I used to be a really bad cello player. Several times a week I would sit down with my cello to play. But whenever I drew my bow across the strings they would squeek and shriek and make godawful sounds. My parents kept telling me to practice more, but I knew better. First I cut back my cello sessions to only once a week, then to once every other week, then once a month, once every other month and so on. It's been over ten years since I've heard any godawful sound emanate from my cello. Now I'm not a bad cello player anymore.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
And now for an exciting expose on ' Making statements about things you know nothing about', featuring ShumaGorath, and hosted by none other than Commissar Calgar himself:
Welcome viewers,
I am Commissar Calgar - may the Emperor reign for all eternity.
*executes Guardsmen*
I'm here today to deliver the Emperor's Word - the Word of Truth that is - to the masses beneath me who make up the glorious citizenry of His Most Holy Realm. Our subject is making statements of fact with no factual basis behind them, or, to put it in a Guardsmen vernacular – talking out your ass. This little dissemination will feature a proud adherent to this heretical act - ShumaGorath - known to our good friends in the Ordos Malleus as the Succubus of Un-Knowledge and the Silent Well of Un-Thinking. May the Most Holy Emperor guide my words and through Him may I avoid falling into the traps that have befallen this poor tortured soul.
*executes Guardsman*
The Succubus of Un-Knowledge wrote:The game system itself is still a reletively simple hex grid game with clix like pre set units attempting to vie for superior position on the board.
There are a few things wrong with this statement:
1. Clix-like pre-set units.
First and foremost, it takes a brave man – or perhaps a clueless one – to draw any comparisons between BattleTech (and its ilk) and any sort of Clix game except the most obvious comparison – there is a MechWarrior Clix game.
However, MechWarrior: Dark Age, or, MechWarrior: Age of War as it is known now, has nothing beyond shared background material to link it to Classic BattleTech as far as the game is concerned.
Classic BattleTech is not a group of ‘ pre-set’ units any more than Warhammer or Warhammer 40,000 is. Taking an Atlas or a Timber Wolf is like taking a Space Marine Tactical Squad or a unit of Fire Warriors – they both have set parameters and options within those parameters. In the same way as I can choose between a selection of Heavy and Special Weapons for my Tactical Squad, so to can I choose between 10 different configurations of Timber Wolf, not including the virtually limitless design choices that an Omni-Mech gives the player. In the same way that you can choose between Pulse Rifles or Pulse Carbines for a Fire Warrior squad, so to can I make a choice between the main weapon load-out on an Atlas. Do I want Pulse Rifles on my Fire Warriors/a Gauss Rifle on my Atlas so that I can shoot from long range, or would I prefer Pulse Carbines/an AC/20 so that I’m better up close? These are the choices I have before me.
Compare this to an actual Clix game, where my ‘Mech has a Firepower Rating that is an abstraction of all his guns. In Classic BattleTech, all my guns will have a range, minimum range (where applicable), base to hit modifiers (where applicable), damage, heat, short range, medium range, long range and soon an extreme range. This is not to say it is more complex than the Range/Strength/ AP/Type/Special structure of 40K, but it is certainly not a Clix game.
The only conclusions I can draw from this then is one of the following:
1. ShumaGorath is unaware of Classic BattleTech, and his only exposure to the ‘Mechwarrior’ universe is through Dark Age/Age of Warfare, in which case he has assumed that the only Mechwarrior game is the Clix game.
2. He does know that there are two different games encompassing Mechwarrior – that of the tabletop game and that of the Clix game – in which case he’s talking out his ass.
Being a champion of human endeavour and a true believer in man’s divine right to rule over the stars as ordained by His Most Holy Lord, the Emperor of Mankind, *executes Guardsman*, I would like to believe the former, no matter how tempted I am to believe the latter.
2. 'Simple' Hex Grid.
And it is most certainly not a ‘simple’ hex grid. While a grid of hexes is in no way complex (as to increase its inherent efficiencies), there is nothing simple about it. Where Warhammer 40,000 requires abstractions such as ‘area terrain’ and ‘terrain sizes’ (and, we hope, they will become a thing of the past in the coming days), each ‘Hex may have multiple different types of terrain applied to it – depth, hight, the structure involved (you can damage terrain), what terrain becomes once it has taken damage or been destroyed and how weather effects each type of terrain. No, nothing simple about it. As such, my two conclusions from above remain the same.
Silent Well of Un-Thinking wrote: The depth of the game comes from the chess like simplicity and the depth comes from the "ability" to create your own units. Few people do that though, and the rulebooks themselves provide no good template for doing so
It would be fair to say that being compared to chess would be a compliment, but unfortunately the Silent Well seems to think that Chess is simplistic. How unfortunate. But that’s not what I want to focus on, I want to focus on the elements of the above statement that I have made stand out through the use of the bolding function.
*executes Guardsman*
There are two parts to this:
1. Few people design their own units.
This is an absurd statement. Excluding discussions based around modelling, unit colours, painting and other hobby concerns, it would be an quite within the realms of possibility to say that half of all BattleTech discussion stems from the design of or modifications to BattleMechs, vehicles and other such items within the game. One only needs to view major BattleTech website such as Solaris 7, ChaosMarch.com and even the official forums themselves to see that people are full of ideas for new and existing ‘Mechs and that a considerable amount of time and effort goes into coming up with new ideas in what is already a fairly flooded market – flooded with official designs that is.
And the second part:
2. The rulebooks themselves provide no good template for doing so.
This statement goes against The Emperor’s Truth so completely that I am tempted to call ShumaGorath out as a liar in this instance – and please understand that is a claim I do not make lightly.
Take a look at this. This entire book is dedicated to the creation, construction and modification of units. This book has no other purpose than to present the rules for constructing everything from Infantry units right up to Drop Ships in the most minute of detail, from game rules to the fluff of the manufacturer.
And this is only the latest version of these rules, rules that have existed for over 20 years.
The rulebooks provide no template? This book does nothing but!
*executes Guardsman*
Once again, this brings me to two possible conclusions:
1. ShumaGorath is unaware of Classic BattleTech completely and assumes that the only Mechwarrior game in existence is Dark Age/Age of Warfare.
2. He knows full well that Classic BattleTech exists and either does not understand it, or is deliberately obscuring the truth – in which case he’s either talking out his ass, or lying.
ShumaGorath wrote:The problem is when you turn the game into a competitive one you lose -many- of the things you listed as many are specifically designed for scenario play and do not hold up at all in simpler force based games.
What a wiley creature of the Warp ol’ Shummy is. Here he has created a logical trap – a statement of opinion phrased as fact with nothing to back it up. The trick here is that the clever Daemonic entity wishes to enter into a verbal sparring match with the high ground already in his posession. In other words, he wants me to prove him wrong, rather than he prove himself correct.
Thankfully, the Guardian of my Soul, the Most Immortal Emperor has given me enough experience over the years to avoid these sorts of logical traps, and I am not one to parley with such unscrupulous attempts at goading.
*executes Guardsman*
The Abyss of Intellect wrote:It's just not a good comparison to 40k, which is in its entirety a skirmish based game with an immense ammount of emphasis placed on the customization of your force.
Maybe I am wrong, oh trickster Daemon of the Yawning Expanse, but I thought that few people did that, and that the rulebooks themselves provided no template for doing so? Am I to believe that you will change the axis of your argument mid-paragraph.
You are a servant of Tzeentch, that is for sure. And a clever one at that…
ShumaGorath wrote:BattleTech is a good game, but it's simply too different to really compare to 40k.
Sadly this is not the comparison I was attempting to draw. I was, at least originally, responding to the claim that no one had ever, ever, in the history of, like, y’know, everything n’stuff, ever made a balanced game as complex as 40K (I am paraphrasing John’s words of course, but the meaning is no less different).
This is quite simply untrue, as BattleTech is a far more complex game (the list I posted were just optional rules designed to add flavour – one of three books of equal or bigger size), and from testimonies already expressed here, people have found it to be a far more balanced game than 40K ever has been despite being vastly more complex.
*executes Guardsman*
So my question to you – oh aspiring Herald of the Dark Conniver Tzeentch – were you aware of these things before you made your post? Were you of the knowledge that Classic BattleTech and ClickTech (as it is more derogatorily known) are, in fact, two separate entities? And, if so, why did you make such statements above other than to satisfy your despicable master’s need to make things appear not as they truly are?
Please, ShumaGorath, explain that to me, and I will ensure that the Malleus Excruciator Teams make your experience shorter than they would do normally.
- Commissar Matthias Calgar
Well, what can I say that the Commissar (pictured above to the left), hasn’t said already except to say, more directly on the topic of balance and Jervis’ statements, that 40K is an unbalanced game. I’m not talking about whether this unit is underpriced or underpowered and blah blah blah Codex nonsense, I’m talking from an actual core rules perspective.
It is loosely written when it doesn’t need to be, fails to explain itself adequately enough, and the pendulum swings far to often from favouring one type of thing to another. Part of this is driven by market forces (ie. they have something new to sell, so the rules will reflect that), but 40K could be so much better than it is right now. It could be a balanced game, like BattleTech, where there are no rules disputes or ambiguity because the company’s chief priority is writing a good rules set, not selling a Starter Box to every 12-year-old who wanders into the store. And on the occasions where rules questions or problems to arise, they are fixed quickly and in a manner designed to help the player as quickly and completely as possible, not in the distrustful and patronising way that GW's FAQ's and errata have taken in the past.
BYE
4588
Post by: Destrado
This may be a good time to post that 'chop I did some time ago in case an infamous poster came back to a certain thread.
HMBC IN...
1
1406
Post by: Janthkin
That was...beautiful.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
*clears his throat*
Ok, this may be a bit long.
And now for an exciting expose on 'Making statements about things you know nothing about', featuring ShumaGorath, and hosted by none other than Commissar Calgar himself:
And now for an exciting expose on 'self obsessed agrandized internet tough guys droning on about dead game systems held close to their hearts. Featuring none other than Commisar van noonegivesadamnaboutyouravatar.
*executes all cause for civility*
Classic BattleTech is not a group of ‘pre-set’ units any more than Warhammer or Warhammer 40,000 is. Taking an Atlas or a Timber Wolf is like taking a Space Marine Tactical Squad or a unit of Fire Warriors – they both have set parameters and options within those parameters. In the same way as I can choose between a selection of Heavy and Special Weapons for my Tactical Squad, so to can I choose between 10 different configurations of Timber Wolf, not including the virtually limitless design choices that an Omni-Mech gives the player. In the same way that you can choose between Pulse Rifles or Pulse Carbines for a Fire Warrior squad, so to can I make a choice between the main weapon load-out on an Atlas. Do I want Pulse Rifles on my Fire Warriors/a Gauss Rifle on my Atlas so that I can shoot from long range, or would I prefer Pulse Carbines/an AC/20 so that I’m better up close? These are the choices I have before me.
First I shall combat this affront to the sanctity of the internet. Stop lying. I'm looking at a battletech technical readout book as we speak. I own several. I've played classic battletech. I am currently involved in a battletech rpg and the events in question circle around happenings in solaris.
You know whats neat about this book? There are no options. There are weights, some fluff about alternate varients, and the actual info on a large selection of mechs, vehicles and aerospace fighters. I also own a rule book for battletech, and in that there are no rules for customization. I own a campaign book featuring large events in the fourth succession war, and guess what? No customization.
Where is it exactly? In crap old source books from a decade ago? I have the white dwarf vdr rules for 40k too, but I'm not going to tell anyone the rules are widespread or easy. Mechs are as simple as clix. They may not have a dial but they might as well given the ablative armor system in the game.
The only conclusions I can draw from this then is one of the following:
1. ShumaGorath is unaware of Classic BattleTech, and his only exposure to the ‘Mechwarrior’ universe is through Dark Age/Age of Warfare, in which case he has assumed that the only Mechwarrior game is the Clix game.
2. He does know that there are two different games encompassing Mechwarrior – that of the tabletop game and that of the Clix game – in which case he’s talking out his ass.
Being a champion of human endeavour and a true believer in man’s divine right to rule over the stars as ordained by His Most Holy Lord, the Emperor of Mankind, *executes Guardsman*, I would like to believe the former, no matter how tempted I am to believe the latter.
In real life sentences like this would probably have people staring at you like some sort of loud mouthed jackass. It's unfortunate that you can't see most peoples reaction online, as it's probably very similar.
And it is most certainly not a ‘simple’ hex grid. While a grid of hexes is in no way complex (as to increase its inherent efficiencies), there is nothing simple about it. Where Warhammer 40,000 requires abstractions such as ‘area terrain’ and ‘terrain sizes’ (and, we hope, they will become a thing of the past in the coming days), each ‘Hex may have multiple different types of terrain applied to it – depth, hight, the structure involved (you can damage terrain), what terrain becomes once it has taken damage or been destroyed and how weather effects each type of terrain. No, nothing simple about it. As such, my two conclusions from above remain the same.
Neat, theres a lot of different kind of terrains. Woo, 40k has a lot of those too. And they do different things, (dangerous terrain, impassable, difficult, water, roads, etc) just like in battletech. They can even be destroyed! (bunkers). There may not be quite as many, thats true. But I didn't say 40k was a more complex game than battletech. Just that battletech is simple.
What a wiley creature of the Warp ol’ Shummy is. Here he has created a logical trap – a statement of opinion phrased as fact with nothing to back it up. The trick here is that the clever Daemonic entity wishes to enter into a verbal sparring match with the high ground already in his posession. In other words, he wants me to prove him wrong, rather than he prove himself correct.
Thankfully, the Guardian of my Soul, the Most Immortal Emperor has given me enough experience over the years to avoid these sorts of logical traps, and I am not one to parley with such unscrupulous attempts at goading.
By totally ignoring the statement all together. Congradulation. You have proven that you are able to pick and choose argumentative points to suit yourself and leave any that may prove you wrong behind. I am in awe. Truly, you are a master of the debating arts.
It would be fair to say that being compared to chess would be a compliment, but unfortunately the Silent Well seems to think that Chess is simplistic. How unfortunate. But that’s not what I want to focus on, I want to focus on the elements of the above statement that I have made stand out through the use of the bolding function.
Chess is immensely simplistic. The fundamentals of the game can be learned in seconds, and games can be won or lost incredibly quickly. Tag is also simplistic. As is hop scotch. The difference? Chess while being simple has a depth of human interaction that goes far beyond the mechanics of the game. It's a game between humans, not forces. Somewhat similar to battletech.
Maybe I am wrong, oh trickster Daemon of the Yawning Expanse, but I thought that few people did that, and that the rulebooks themselves provided no template for doing so? Am I to believe that you will change the axis of your argument mid-paragraph.
You are a servant of Tzeentch, that is for sure. And a clever one at that…
I could debate this one. Or i could just be confused by it. I said battletech was not a game based around force customization. I then said that 40k is. I'm just going to chalk this up to your mental aptitude for reading what you want, when you want, regardless of the actual content.
Take a look at this. This entire book is dedicated to the creation, construction and modification of units. This book has no other purpose than to present the rules for constructing everything from Infantry units right up to Drop Ships in the most minute of detail, from game rules to the fluff of the manufacturer.
And this is only the latest version of these rules, rules that have existed for over 20 years.
The rulebooks provide no template? This book does nothing but!
*executes Guardsman*
Ahh, theres that book. Not so widely available online at a hefty price. With no mention of it made in the current and still sold editions of the game. Fascinating. Moving on from that the book also requires all players to be experienced in making mechs, understanding the systems involved, and would hopefully assume that both players are well versed in the current tech timeline. Because if any of those aren't true then it's going to be one hell of a bad game. Wait, what is that? I hear a long line of offensive gloating coming!!
Once again, this brings me to two possible conclusions:
1. ShumaGorath is unaware of Classic BattleTech completely and assumes that the only Mechwarrior game in existence is Dark Age/Age of Warfare.
2. He knows full well that Classic BattleTech exists and either does not understand it, or is deliberately obscuring the truth – in which case he’s either talking out his ass, or lying.
I knew it!
Sadly this is not the comparison I was attempting to draw. I was, at least originally, responding to the claim that no one had ever, ever, in the history of, like, y’know, everything n’stuff, ever made a balanced game as complex as 40K (I am paraphrasing John’s words of course, but the meaning is no less different).
This is quite simply untrue, as BattleTech is a far more complex game (the list I posted were just optional rules designed to add flavour – one of three books of equal or bigger size), and from testimonies already expressed here, people have found it to be a far more balanced game than 40K ever has been despite being vastly more complex.
But it isn't a balanced game. It's in fact highly unbalanced with certain units (battlemasters, jenners) being far more common, useful, and powerful than certain other units (jaegermech to name a few in the same time frame). Sure, you can make it balanced by carefully orchestrating scenario games with mismatched forces but you can just as easily do that in any tabletop game. It's a crux of the hobby.
So my question to you – oh aspiring Herald of the Dark Conniver Tzeentch – were you aware of these things before you made your post? Were you of the knowledge that Classic BattleTech and ClickTech (as it is more derogatorily known) are, in fact, two separate entities? And, if so, why did you make such statements above other than to satisfy your despicable master’s need to make things appear not as they truly are?
Please, ShumaGorath, explain that to me, and I will ensure that the Malleus Excruciator Teams make your experience shorter than they would do normally.
- Commissar Matthias Calgar
As I have already stated, I've been a battletech fan for years (the card game got me into the tabletop game and I had always played the pc games). I also have a few of the clix mechs, and a rather substantial collection of heroclix, and two 40k armies. I have played all games quite heavily, and am drawing from my personal experiences in all.
Well, what can I say that the Commissar (pictured above to the left), hasn’t said already except to say, more directly on the topic of balance and Jervis’ statements, that 40K is an unbalanced game. I’m not talking about whether this unit is underpriced or underpowered and blah blah blah Codex nonsense, I’m talking from an actual core rules perspective.
You will get no argument here. It's an unbalanced rules set that seems to see very little forthought in new edditions.
It is loosely written when it doesn’t need to be, fails to explain itself adequately enough, and the pendulum swings far to often from favouring one type of thing to another. Part of this is driven by market forces (ie. they have something new to sell, so the rules will reflect that), but 40K could be so much better than it is right now. It could be a balanced game
This is true.
like BattleTech
This is not so true.
where there are no rules disputes or ambiguity because the company’s chief priority is writing a good rules set, not selling a Starter Box to every 12-year-old who wanders into the store. And on the occasions where rules questions or problems to arise, they are fixed quickly and in a manner designed to help the player as quickly and completely as possible, not in the distrustful and patronising way that GW's FAQ's and errata have taken in the past.
Yeah, they are pretty bad about faq'ing. Whereas battletech, with no major releases for a while now basically has it down to a T. It's good to know that a company that has little to do but sell old books and models can manage to keep up on it's online pdf's. How do they ever find time in their busy scheduals?
As an aside, HMBC I do believe you are quite possibly the most rude, self obsessed, sack of internet toughguy I have ever seen in all my years on the mighty interweb. You have turned unrelated personal attacks into an art form. And for that I salute you. People like you have to exist, otherwise the rest of us have no one to stand beside and look more civil by comparison. And since I'm certain that you were preparing some sort of fussilade of verbal missiles aimed directly at me rather than any of my sentiments well before I even managed to post this, I should probably go ahead and note that I doubt I will respond to your post. I'm sure it will rival the king james eddition of the bible in length and a star wars verses star trek debate in it's scathing virtuosity of cander.
But hey, at least you'll get golf claps.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Nah, my post was funnier. Yours is just full of bile.
BYE
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
H.B.M.C. wrote:Nah, my post was funnier. Yours is just full of bile.
BYE
...
Damnit he's right.
4588
Post by: Destrado
Actually, he is.
I still don't like him, but you've got to admit, even if he didn't prove any point at all (though I'm not saying he didn't, just that even if he did I don't care) he did have some style. Like in a cheap Kal Jerico novel
And now back to your regular schedule.
EDIT (number 3): I was going to post an image of you, Shuma, but since you don't have an avatar I couldn't get anything worthwhile over Vader's head. If you had, I would've edited the Empire Strikes Back poster to feature your name or something like that.
Yeah, medication rocks. Lack of sleep doesn't deprive imagination, just coherence.
131
Post by: malfred
One more kill and it'd be a turk--- oh, I see.
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Through brilliant maneuvering I have defeated your photoshop.
4588
Post by: Destrado
I stand pwned!
NOT!
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
ShumaGorath wrote:*executes all cause for civility*
Be my guest, but do under the assurances that you opened this floodgate.
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm looking at a battletech technical readout book as we speak...You know whats neat about this book? There are no options. There are weights, some fluff about alternate varients, and the actual info on a large selection of mechs, vehicles and aerospace fighters.
You do realise that for every Technical Readout that has ever been released a companion set of record sheets has been released specifically designed to go with that technical readout thereby giving each player the configuration stated within said technical readout but also giving them the exact rules and statistics for each of the various alternate configurations *deep breath* and that it is from these record sheets that the options are gained.
No?
So, you were ' Making statements about things you know nothing about'.
ShumaGorath wrote:I also own a rule book for battletech, and in that there are no rules for customization. I own a campaign book featuring large events in the fourth succession war, and guess what? No customization. Where is it exactly? In crap old source books from a decade ago?
Did you fail to see the link in my post? That's only the most recent construction rules. The previous edition's (4th Edition's) Master Rulebook contained the construction rules for 'Mechs. As did MaxTech. These rulebooks aren't new, except the TechManaul, which came out this year.
ShumaGorath wrote:I have the white dwarf vdr rules for 40k too, but I'm not going to tell anyone the rules are widespread or easy.
Because they were in White Dwarf, not in every edition of the game ('cept maybe BattleDroids and the initial versions of BattleTech).
Why would they put the construction rules in the 4th Succession War pack anyway? That's a starter-kit to go with the 4th Ed boxed set, also a starter kit.
And while you're looking at technical readouts, go and fetch Technical Readout: 3060. Looky there! Construction rules for Proto-Mechs. Not so hidden either.
ShumaGorath wrote:Mechs are as simple as clix.
Let's see... Firepower value vs multiple indifidual weapon systems, electronic systems, heat systems. A ClickTech 'Mech can be represented by a few numbers. A BattleMech is represented by an A4 piece of paper with the locations of every essential component spelled out as each one has a dramatic game effect. There is a difference between losing a Hand Actuator and losing a Shoulder Actuator. An Inner Sphere Medium Laser is vastly different to a Clan ER Large Laser - they are not just represented by a single catch-all value.
Far more complex than Clix. The closest thing to Clix on a 'Mech's Record Sheet is the hit-boxes on pilots.
ShumaGorath wrote:They may not have a dial but they might as well given the ablative armor system in the game.
That's it? Ablative armour diagrams = same as clix despite heat scales, weapon systems, electronic systems, piloting skills and abilities, movement values, jump values, specific items that affect movement values and heat values?
ShumaGorath wrote:In real life sentences like this would probably have people staring at you like some sort of loud mouthed jackass. It's unfortunate that you can't see most peoples reaction online, as it's probably very similar.
Ah. Good. The old 'style over substance' logical fallacy. Don't got nothin' to say to rebut me... well then... just attack the way I said it. That's a sure-fire ' get out of argument free' card right there. Well done.
ShumaGorath wrote:Ahh, theres that book. Not so widely available online at a hefty price.
Available from the inhouse distribution network... TheWarstore... hell I can even order it locally in Australia, and I can't do that with the models. eBay stores, eBay, it's on Amazon. You can even download the PDF directly from their website if you don't want a hardcopy.
Actually, it seems as though they've gone out of their way to make obtaining this book quite easy.
And if price is your fething argument, then leave this thread immediately. We play 40K.
ShumaGorath wrote:With no mention of it made in the current and still sold editions of the game.
Hahahahahahahahahah.
The Total Warfare rulebook (ie. the current and still sold edition of the game), mentions not only the Tech Manual and its purpose, but the presence and purpose of books that have yet to be published but are yet to be written. That's how far in advance they are thinking - Here's the rulebook, and soon will come a book dedicated to building 'Mechs rather than cramming it into the main book like we have in the past, and after that will come detailed and advanced rules, then rules for planetary campaigns, then rules for interstallar campaigns, and then the RPG.
That's what they spell out within the first few pages of the current and still sold edition of the game. You didn't know that? Well in that case you were ' Making statements about things you know nothing about'.
ShumaGorath wrote:Moving on from that the book also requires all players to be experienced in making mechs, understanding the systems involved, and would hopefully assume that both players are well versed in the current tech timeline.
The book actually goes into great depth giving many and multiple examples of how to build everything within the rules included there, going over each step in amazingly complex detail to make sure that people understand exactly what's going on. More than that entire sections of the book are dedicated to the background material, explaining technology not just from a 'how's it work' standpoint, but from a 'when did this first appear' stantpoint as well.
What, you didn't that? Well in that case you were ' Making statements about things you know nothing about'
ShumaGorath wrote:Because if any of those aren't true then it's going to be one hell of a bad game.
Well then isn't it good that, for both our sakes, everything you just said isn't true. Phew! We dodged a bullet there man. High five... no? Ok then. Back to your bile...
But it isn't a balanced game. It's in fact highly unbalanced with certain units (battlemasters, jenners) being far more common, useful, and powerful than certain other units (jaegermech to name a few in the same time frame). Sure, you can make it balanced by carefully orchestrating scenario games with mismatched forces but you can just as easily do that in any tabletop game. It's a crux of the hobby.
Come on, this isn't hard.
I'm not talking about units within the game. I am talking about the game. How much clearer do I have to make that?
I'm talking about the core rules, not about units within the rules. The core rules of BattleTech are balanced. They are tigh rules. They are well written, well tested and work outout any ambiguities (and any that do exist are quickly removed). Yes, there are good units and bad units, but in a lot of cases these actually make sense and fit within the BTech mythos - hell, some of the worst designs (Charger anyone?), are even mocked in the fluff as being bad designs. Nothing is by accident, and it is because their rules are so balanced that they can do things like this.
Whereas battletech, with no major releases for a while now basically has it down to a T. It's good to know that a company that has little to do but sell old books and models can manage to keep up on it's online pdf's. How do they ever find time in their busy scheduals?
No releases for a while now? If by 'now' you mean 'since March this year', then yes you'd be right. But you're not right.
The Total Warfare book, which is the current and still sold edition of the game, came out in 2006. Since then we've had TRO:3025 Revisted (completely re-written fluff and edited stats to fit with current rules), 3050 revised, 3055 revised, 3058 revised, three Jihad books, two historicals, the Techmanual (that was this year), the Intro Boxed Set (that was also this year), we're getting another three books this year alone (TacOps, another Jihad book and TRO:3075)... wait, make that four books this year (StratOps as well). There's also the Clan Intro Box set, the starterbook that goes with Tac Ops... what else... StellarOps after that, plus the next Jihad book to bring us to 3076. Plus there's the updates to all the companion Record Sheets you seemed to know nothing about. There's also the Handbook series for the great houses... umm... what else... the Merc update book, the Field Manual update book. The Vehicle Annex - a whole TRO for vehicles - that was there as well. Hmm... what else has come out in the past two years. Project Phoenix was another one. Yeah. Busy times, and that's if you ignore BattleCorps fiction, which has been continuing the canon story of BattleTech since FASA bought the farm.
Yeah, this is all in the past two years or so years. What, you didn't that? Well in that case you were ' Making statements about things you know nothing about'
As an aside, HMBC I do believe you are quite possibly the most rude, self obsessed, sack of internet toughguy I have ever seen in all my years on the mighty interweb.
Then clearly you haven't been on the internet long enough if I'm the top of your list.
Should I be... humbled?
You have turned unrelated personal attacks into an art form. And for that I salute you.
Why thankyou! You don't know how much that means to me.
People like you have to exist, otherwise the rest of us have no one to stand beside and look more civil by comparison.
Style over Substace Fallacy again. Let me give you my fav example of that (I didn't write this):
Dave: "Hey John, I saw your baby crawling around in the back of your car. Where's your child seat?"
Richard: "I don't have one, and I don't plan on getting one. Mind your own business."
Dave: "What the feth is wrong with you, donkey-cave? Don't you realize that a baby who's not in a car seat will be launched like a fething missile if you have an accident? Jesus H Christ, don't you care if your kid lives or dies?"
Richard: "How dare you use such language in front of my child?"
Dave: "How dare you risk your kid's life, gak? Is it really so goddamned important to save fifty fething bucks on a child seat? Would it kill you to spend five seconds strapping him in?"
Richard: "I don't have to take this kind of abuse. You need to learn some manners."
Dave's not being very nice in this example... but he's still right. When someone's only retort is that 'You're mean, therefore I ignore your argument because you're mean', it's a style over substance fallacy. In other words, the terribly (and unfortunately) common belief that the manner in which one makes his argument somehow affects the truth of that argument.
Sure, we can all be civil, but I'd have to travel a long way before I considered my original post to you anything but civil. Sure, I went after you, but I tried to put it into a humerous context for the benefit of our fellow members. You just shot bile at me like a Chimp at a zoo flings... well... I think you get the comparison.
What, you didn't know th-... no that jokes old already.
I should probably go ahead and note that I doubt I will respond to your post.
Yes, take the moral high-ground! It's yours to hold good sir! Godspeed!
But hey, at least you'll get golf claps.
That's what it's all about ain't it? Don't you judge your self worth as a human being by how many people say 'U are funny n'stuff' after your posts?
I know I don't.
BYE
6210
Post by: Le Grognard
Wow. Can I get you guys started on the whole Squad Leader vs. Advanced Squad Leader before the lock?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Oh... wow. He copied my Avatar. Oooof... right in the (Waagh) Gonads that time. That's some cutting stuff there.
Truly I am outclassed.
And more sarcastic than normal.
Nah actually that's the first clever thing you've done Shummy. Exalt.
BYE
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Le Grognard wrote:Wow. Can I get you guys started on the whole Squad Leader vs. Advanced Squad Leader before the lock?
I don't see why this deserves a 'lock' either.
The topic is, and has been, Jervis' comments and upon the balance of the game (whether it exists, how it exists, etc.).
I related that to Battletech, and Mr. Wellspring of Original Thought here decided to have a crack at my comparisons. So I tabled him (to borrow a phrase from fan-favourite Stelek), all the while trying to maintain the topic at hand, which I'll quickly repost so we can get back to making fun of Jervis... sorry... discussing his comments:
Well, what can I say that the Commissar (pictured above to the left), hasn’t said already except to say, more directly on the topic of balance and Jervis’ statements, that 40K is an unbalanced game. I’m not talking about whether this unit is underpriced or underpowered and blah blah blah Codex nonsense, I’m talking from an actual core rules perspective.
It is loosely written when it doesn’t need to be, fails to explain itself adequately enough, and the pendulum swings far to often from favouring one type of thing to another. Part of this is driven by market forces (ie. they have something new to sell, so the rules will reflect that), but 40K could be so much better than it is right now. It could be a balanced game, like BattleTech, where there are no rules disputes or ambiguity because the company’s chief priority is writing a good rules set, not selling a Starter Box to every 12-year-old who wanders into the store. And on the occasions where rules questions or problems to arise, they are fixed quickly and in a manner designed to help the player as quickly and completely as possible, not in the distrustful and patronising way that GW's FAQ's and errata have taken in the past.
Now we're back on topic. I apologise to all for the slight distraction.
BYE
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Hey, theres that vitriol packed fussilade of verbal missiles! *ducks*
7210
Post by: Muddy
Hey Shuma,
I read that whole thing and it didn't seem to be filled with venom at all,
It more was pointing out that a lot of your comments seemed to be unfounded (and did so in a way that on;y people that would frequent this site would understand)
Maybe you should read the whole thing and comment on anything you disagree with (or gasp, agree with) instead of just saying that it was an all out attack,
Just an idea,
it's best not to stake the moral high ground when it comes to table games, it's just easier to remember it's a game (and characters killing guardsmen are fun!)
7210
Post by: Muddy
Um,
Just in case someone knows how to do it,
I was Makaleth,
I lost my password (well I have a habit of forgetting things!!)
and I just changed jobs (hence emails!!)
anyone know how to get an old password.
I thought I may as well ask,
Thanks!!
752
Post by: Polonius
dienekes96 wrote:Le Grognard wrote:Polonius wrote:BBeale: Dakka isn't like prison, you shouldn't pick a fight on your first day to show that we shouldn't mess with you. Even if it was, and even if you should, you don't pick Lifers like HBMC. He's got a lot of friends and not much else to live for....
I know for a fact that Mr. Beale is not a 'new kid on the block'. To this day I still bow to that Space Wolves army when I see pics of it around.
Concur. Brice was winning GT Best Appearance and Player's Choice before many of these Dakka regulars were newbies. With one of the finest SW armies I've seen (and I've looked around pretty hard). So perhaps you should brush up on your hobby history, Polonius.
I'm gonna skip right past the concept of "hobby history" and simply apologize for not realizing he was somebody I should know. I saw a low post count and a pretty snippy post, and I made what I thought was a pretty funny joke. Frankly, if we was an old school dakkite coming back, he's seen far worse, and if he's genuinely new to Dakka it's still not bad advice.
Anyway, I'd been meaning to drop that joke for months, and I finally found the right moment, which gives you an idea of just how full and rich my life is.
5470
Post by: sebster
H.B.M.C. wrote:Come on, this isn't hard.
I'm not talking about units within the game. I am talking about the game. How much clearer do I have to make that?
I'm talking about the core rules, not about units within the rules. The core rules of BattleTech are balanced. They are tigh rules. They are well written, well tested and work outout any ambiguities (and any that do exist are quickly removed). Yes, there are good units and bad units, but in a lot of cases these actually make sense and fit within the BTech mythos - hell, some of the worst designs (Charger anyone?), are even mocked in the fluff as being bad designs. Nothing is by accident, and it is because their rules are so balanced that they can do things like this.
It’s at this point that it should become obvious to all involved that HBMC is using a definition of balance that is probably very sensible and important concept, it’s just a concept that has nothing to do with the word ‘balance’.
And thing is I agree with HBMC for the most part, classic Btech is an excellent game and it’s being well handled by the new owners. It’s certainly superior in complexity and all around design to the strange ruleset found in the clix version. But one of the reasons I love Btech is that there is no concept of balance, you take the mechs given and attempt the objectives presented, sometimes it’s a raw deal but you shut up and get on with the job as best you can.
But arguing that a game is balanced despite having no effective rules mechanic to ensure even forces… despite having a wide difference in performance between mechs of the same type… because there’s an inherent balance within the core rules (presumably initiative, movement and damage) – that’s simply got nothing to do with any relevant definition of the word ‘balance’.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Wow, I come back and this thing is way out of control...
A few points:
1. HMBC, you're unquestionably a jerk, and claiming "civility" in your actions is patently false. You conveniently forget that Dakka requires politeness as a baseline.
2. The fact that a points system may exist is pretty meaningless. 40k has had a points system since Rogue Trader (remember?). 40k VDR and TMC are both a points system, and neither is perfect. Car Wars, Battletech, and Heavy Gear all have points construction systems, but the idea that every option and combination of options is perfectly balanced against utility is nonsense, particularly when you consider the various versions and tactical situations. Even the Cobb formula for Ogre falls apart at the extremes.
3. There seems to be a lot of silliness the trying to explain the Balance concept, particularly as applied to Classic Battletech. The idea that rulesets can be balanced without context of the units and forces is again false - for example, 40k4 bumped HtH considerably compared to 40k3. But if all armies look like Iron Warriors, and 6-man Las/Plas, then the any notion of inherent rules balance is rather pointless.
4. There seems to be quite a bit of having and eating cake with respect to CBT. CBT has a fairly wide variance in unit utility against tonnage / BV cost, and but true unit balance would preclude this. Saying that unbalanced forces can be fixed with an unbalanced scenario in CBT, but not in 40k is again false.
5. GW gaming is beer and pretzels, nothing more, so any objectives for GW must be very modest: show some rules improvement with each edition, make prettier models. It's not a high bar, so I tend not to be disappointed by GW.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
sebster wrote:It’s at this point that it should become obvious to all involved that HBMC is using a definition of balance that is probably very sensible and important concept, it’s just a concept that has nothing to do with the word ‘balance’.
And thing is I agree with HBMC for the most part, classic Btech is an excellent game and it’s being well handled by the new owners. It’s certainly superior in complexity and all around design to the strange ruleset found in the clix version. But one of the reasons I love Btech is that there is no concept of balance, you take the mechs given and attempt the objectives presented, sometimes it’s a raw deal but you shut up and get on with the job as best you can.
But arguing that a game is balanced despite having no effective rules mechanic to ensure even forces… despite having a wide difference in performance between mechs of the same type… because there’s an inherent balance within the core rules (presumably initiative, movement and damage) – that’s simply got nothing to do with any relevant definition of the word ‘balance’.
Ok, so you want to argue semantics, that's fine, we'll go along that line.
I still say that a balanced ruleset is at the core of a game and is most important. You can have balanced/even forces that don't work due to unbalanced rules. 40K is a prime example of those where you can have two armies seemingly balanced, but if the rules are weighted (ie. not balanced) towards one style of combat over another (shooting vs assault or vice versa), then regardless of how balanced the forces are, the game you are playing won't be even.
Of course, finding the right balance (no pun intended, really), between game rules balance and units within the game balance is the hard part, you cannot at all rule it out unilaterally as having 'nothing' to do with balance. I'm not saying you're wrong about forces needing to be balanced, but if your core rules don't work, it doesn't matter how balanced your forces are.
BYE
1084
Post by: Agamemnon2
Polonius wrote:dienekes96 wrote:Le Grognard wrote:I know for a fact that Mr. Beale is not a 'new kid on the block'. To this day I still bow to that Space Wolves army when I see pics of it around.
Concur. Brice was winning GT Best Appearance and Player's Choice before many of these Dakka regulars were newbies. With one of the finest SW armies I've seen (and I've looked around pretty hard). So perhaps you should brush up on your hobby history, Polonius.
I'm gonna skip right past the concept of "hobby history" and simply apologize for not realizing he was somebody I should know. I saw a low post count and a pretty snippy post, and I made what I thought was a pretty funny joke. Frankly, if we was an old school dakkite coming back, he's seen far worse, and if he's genuinely new to Dakka it's still not bad advice.
I don't think you did anything wrong, personally. I see no reason to treat a poster with any more respect just because his Space Puppies are pretty, or because he's won X tournaments. A post should stand on its own merits.
212
Post by: Kotrin
JohnHwangDD wrote:2. The fact that a points system may exist is pretty meaningless. 40k has had a points system since Rogue Trader (remember?). 40k VDR and TMC are both a points system, and neither is perfect. Car Wars, Battletech, and Heavy Gear all have points construction systems, but the idea that every option and combination of options is perfectly balanced against utility is nonsense, particularly when you consider the various versions and tactical situations. Even the Cobb formula for Ogre falls apart at the extremes.
The very purpose of a point system is to provide a more balanced game than if this point system was ignored in the first place.
A point system isn't perfect and can't be perfect. But it can be damn close or off by a mile. W40K system obviously belongs to the latter category. Any decent player with half a brain is able to detect powerful combos just by browsing a codex in a hobby store. That's the definition of a failed system. Don't tell us it can't be any better.
Claiming perfection doesn't belong to this world is the poorest excuse for lame results.
5470
Post by: sebster
H.B.M.C. wrote:Ok, so you want to argue semantics, that's fine, we'll go along that line.
I still say that a balanced ruleset is at the core of a game and is most important. You can have balanced/even forces that don't work due to unbalanced rules. 40K is a prime example of those where you can have two armies seemingly balanced, but if the rules are weighted (ie. not balanced) towards one style of combat over another (shooting vs assault or vice versa), then regardless of how balanced the forces are, the game you are playing won't be even.
Of course, finding the right balance (no pun intended, really), between game rules balance and units within the game balance is the hard part, you cannot at all rule it out unilaterally as having 'nothing' to do with balance. I'm not saying you're wrong about forces needing to be balanced, but if your core rules don't work, it doesn't matter how balanced your forces are.
BYE
There’s a marked difference between arguing semantics and arguing against someone co-opting a word to introduce a wholly different concept into the debate, and nullify the original discussion, where it had become obvious their point was failing badly.
If you said ‘I want to talk about the interaction between various elements of the core rules, and as a shorthand I will call this ‘balance’, and I argued that you shouldn’t use the word balance, but instead use ‘core rule interactions’ then it’d be a semantic argument.
But you decided you wanted to talk about the interaction between the elements of the core rules, and decided to do that by taking a word already in use in the conversation, balance, and use it to mean something completely different.
I agree that the core of a game is in the complexity of its core rules. In Btech it’s in initiative, movement and target numbers. In 40K it’s in movement, shooting and assault. It’s a lot more interesting and potentially inciteful a topic than just talking about whether a game is ‘balanced’ or not. Afterall, snakes and ladders is balanced, but sucks, while chess at the highest level is won by the player acting first in around 3 games out of 5, but is probably the greatest game there is.
But that wasn’t the conversation we were having.
And arguing that two armies can be balanced, but then unbalanced by the ruleset makes no sense. How else is an army judged, than by its power level given the rules available?
5470
Post by: sebster
Kotrin wrote:The very purpose of a point system is to provide a more balanced game than if this point system was ignored in the first place.
A point system isn't perfect and can't be perfect. But it can be damn close or off by a mile. W40K system obviously belongs to the latter category. Any decent player with half a brain is able to detect powerful combos just by browsing a codex in a hobby store. That's the definition of a failed system. Don't tell us it can't be any better.
Claiming perfection doesn't belong to this world is the poorest excuse for lame results.
Of course the points value of a system attempts to bring in something closer to balance. Point is, the game looked at in comparison, Battletech, has a system where general players are just as likely to accidentally bring forces to the table that vary wildly in ability, and that an experienced player will break just as easily.
But Btech doesn't have anywhere near the number of complaints about balance, and there must be reasons for this. First up, there's hardly any players relative to 40K... harsh but true. Second up, everyone in Btech has access to the same broken options - in 40K only an eldar player can take 3 falcons, while in Btech you don't get clan players, or 3025 Inner Sphere players, players tend to move all over the possible groups, and within each groups there's countless options. The other big thing, though, is culture. Btech players tend towards scenario based play, often allowing one side to be considerably more likely to win an encounter than the other. When Btech is played competitively players are allowed to build their own mechs. The first is unbalanced, but that's fine as that's half the point. The second style of play shows up countless options as completely superior to their alternative, but everyone has access to the same stuff so it all works out in the end - it is akin to allowing people to pick whatever units they wanted from whatever codex they wanted, balance exists because everyone has access to all the broken stuff.
It's worth noting that these styles of play are popular for historical reasons (the early versions of the game emphasised how similar the factions and their forces were and haven't substantially rebuilt their force compositions since) but also largely because attempts at points buy systems for Btech have been pretty crappy.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
The crappy BV system in BTech might be a byproduct of the fact that the guys writing it hate points systems and only did one because the tournament players begged them for it.
That said, BV2.0 seems to be heading in the right direction, and they've got people who are testing that system and nothing but that system so that it actually makes sense unlike the original BV system.
Finally, sebster, I'm not co-opting a phrase. If you have a ruleset (let's use 4th, as terrible an example it is), and you have two different armies that are balanced against one another, and then the core rules change (to 5th), and something fundamental within those rules change and now our two balanced armies don't have an equal chance (players and dice willing), then the core rules are no longer balanced. They've created a shift that has caused two equally balanced armies to come out of alignment, so where they should be balanced, the rules have stopped them from being so.
BYE
4588
Post by: Destrado
This looks like the history of mankind, in a shell.
Ten pages later and we're still not getting anywhere.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
So glad you felt the need to add to the thread. Now with your post out of the way we can really get somewhere.
Sorry. That was mean. I apologise.
BYE
4588
Post by: Destrado
Boo-hoo, I am so going to cry a river.
Glad you met in kind and kept the trend that's been going over and over again. At least you're back to reality
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Agamemnon2 wrote:I don't think you did anything wrong, personally. I see no reason to treat a poster with any more respect just because his Space Puppies are pretty, or because he's won X tournaments. A post should stand on its own merits.
I don't think Polonius did anything wrong either. And there is no reason to treat a poster better because he has a great army, he won tourneys, or even if he has a LOW POST COUNT. That was the point.
1795
Post by: keezus
sebster wrote:But arguing that a game is balanced despite having no effective rules mechanic to ensure even forces… despite having a wide difference in performance between mechs of the same type… because there’s an inherent balance within the core rules (presumably initiative, movement and damage) – that’s simply got nothing to do with any relevant definition of the word ‘balance’.
I'm not a Battletech player, but I from my reading of the explanations of the game, HBMC's arguement that Battletech has a balanced ruleset in that there is no specific bias towards a particular force configuration. In WH40k, the pendulum swings wildly from the main rules favouring transport based / assault armies (V3) to close in firefight armies and monstrous creature armies (V4) to horde armies ( V5). Not only do the main rulesets introduce bias towards making one build archetype more effective than others, it has the tendency to make some builds completely obsolete - i.e. transport armies (V4), elite armies ( V5). On top of this, units vary widely in effectiveness with each codex release (usually points to effectiveness ratio is more appropriate for the previous edition!) - Battletech endeavours to keep some kind of consistency - i.e. a medium laser has more or less the same effect throughout the ages. Granted, there was talk of vehicles swinging from underpowered to overpowered, but this seemed to be more of an interative approach to reach a happy medium rather than a symptom of major reworking of the core rule set.
In this way, Battletech can be argued to be a more "balanced environment" than WH40k.
752
Post by: Polonius
dienekes96 wrote:I don't think Polonius did anything wrong either. And there is no reason to treat a poster better because he has a great army, he won tourneys, or even if he has a LOW POST COUNT. That was the point.
I certainly don't want to make a thing out of this, but I want to point two things out. First, you told me earlier to "brush up on my hobby history," which I read as implying that I didn't have info that would have lead to a better post. Second, you seem to imply that I treated somebody different because they had a low post count. Now, I'm sure you didn't mean either as an insult, or even really to pertain to me. I'd just like to point out that it could be read (and I did, initially) that you thought I was jumping on noobs to pad my own rep. Like I said, I don't think that after reflection, but it's one way to read it.
Anyways, I like to think that I'll call people out on crappy assertions regardless of post count. I mean, this isn't Warseer, where your posts get ignored until you hit a coupla hundred posts. We value what people say (generally not very highly, but it's Dakka!), not how many things they've said. Still, post count is a quick hit way of seeing, well, how often they've posted.
This has turned into a long winded post explaining what was really just a throw away joke. I want to make it clear that I don't take offense or anything. It probably looks passive aggressive to point out how I could have taken offense, but I think this is a good opportunity to demonstrate one of the immutable laws of the internet: "everything that's posted can be read as being malicious."
411
Post by: whitedragon
ShumaGorath wrote:Hey, theres that vitriol packed fussilade of verbal missiles! *ducks*
Stop pulling a Stelek. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, and uses the "quote" button, doesn't mean they are attacking you. Why does everyone have to be a victim here?
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Keezus, I could kiss you.
I knew someone'd get it eventually.
BYE
4588
Post by: Destrado
Actually, the way Keezuz said it makes a whole lot of sense.
Meaning that H.B.M.C. was right on something
I'm not a Battletech player either (though I'm interested, as I loved the Mechwarrior games (only the 3rd actually) and the concept), but they lived by the rules or did they depend on miniature sales?
Not trying to justify anything, just pointing out that GW does have to continuously sell models in order to keep itself alive.
EDIT: take that back, should read "in order to keep the high standard of living the high-ups are used to".
There, makes a lot more sense.
1423
Post by: dienekes96
Polonius wrote:I certainly don't want to make a thing out of this, but I want to point two things out.
Too late, it's a "thing" 
Polonius wrote:First, you told me earlier to "brush up on my hobby history," which I read as implying that I didn't have info that would have lead to a better post. Second, you seem to imply that I treated somebody different because they had a low post count. Now, I'm sure you didn't mean either as an insult, or even really to pertain to me. I'd just like to point out that it could be read (and I did, initially) that you thought I was jumping on noobs to pad my own rep. Like I said, I don't think that after reflection, but it's one way to read it.
I've been a member for years and years and I have half the post count you do, Polonius. I don't care about post count, or rep, or any of that nonsense (like most of us). I did see a comment that inferred post count added veracity to what someone was saying (and I'd agree Brice has been pretty aggressive as a new Dakkaite), so I replied to that with a generic defense, essentially pointing out the hobby is bigger than Dakka. Besides, my post count is low, and I go after HBMC all the time.
Polonius wrote:Anyways, I like to think that I'll call people out on crappy assertions regardless of post count. I mean, this isn't Warseer, where your posts get ignored until you hit a coupla hundred posts. We value what people say (generally not very highly, but it's Dakka!), not how many things they've said. Still, post count is a quick hit way of seeing, well, how often they've posted.
I only care what is in the post itself. Content is king. That doesn't make it right, just my POV. I was merely supporting that notion.
Polonius wrote:This has turned into a long winded post explaining what was really just a throw away joke. I want to make it clear that I don't take offense or anything. It probably looks passive aggressive to point out how I could have taken offense, but I think this is a good opportunity to demonstrate one of the immutable laws of the internet: "everything that's posted can be read as being malicious."
No offense was intended, towards you or anyone else.
752
Post by: Polonius
whitedragon wrote: Why does everyone have to be a victim here?
Well, leaving aside our culture's (at least in the US) obsession with victim status, I think that there is a pretty simple explanation for that on Dakka.
There is a subset of people on the internet that crave negative attention. Everybody that posts wants their ideas heard and discussed, but most of us wnat people to agree, or at least discuss them positively. There are some, however, that simply crave the attention or the thrill of causing a ruckus (or even a hubbub, but ballyhoo is simply too far). Call them trolls, call them flamewarriors, call them what you will, but it's hard to label them because there is a sliding scale of Asshattery that includes who post soley for negative feedback, those that post some good stuff buried in crap, and those that post a lot of good stuff but simply love a good scrap. The identifying of the many species of flamewarrior isn't my job here today (it's been done, and far better, here: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/)
Dakka, however, is a moderated forum. This means that simply spewing random attacks and utter filth will get you canned, and quickly. So how do you rile people up? Walk the line, baby. The best way to troll dakka is to post content (which isn't hard, everybody has stuff they can post), but include subtle digs, overly broad insinuations, etc. The goal is to illicit the predictable response, and then immediatly complain about being personally attacked. the idea is to come close to the line of what's allowed, taunt someone into crossing over, and then point out that whatever behavior we may find offensive, the other party did the same or worse. Rinse and repeat.
there really isn't a label for it, so I've been referring to them as Weasels in other moderated boards. They remind me of the kids that would shoot a spitwad at you in grade school, and then tell on you if you hit them. it's frustrating, because they are technically correct, except IMO they're brand of malice deserves it's own punishment. How to deal with them? Same way you dealt with the kid back then: ignore them. Don't give them what they want, attention of any sort, and they will wander away.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Thankyou for that website! I was looking for that the other day so I'd be able to describe J... uhh... I mean a poster here.
Tireless Rebutter, not Tireless Debator. I knew I was googling the wrong thing!
Thanks again Polonius!
dienekes96 wrote:I've been a member for years and years and I have half the post count you do, Polonius. I don't care about post count, or rep, or any of that nonsense (like most of us). I did see a comment that inferred post count added veracity to what someone was saying (and I'd agree Brice has been pretty aggressive as a new Dakkaite), so I replied to that with a generic defense, essentially pointing out the hobby is bigger than Dakka. Besides, my post count is low, and I go after HBMC all the time.
Yeah, but for you and I it's always in good fun Chuck. I mean, you're one of the people who gets my style. It never ceases to amaze me the responces I get when, in other threads, I'm posting things like my first post in this thread.
BYE
752
Post by: Polonius
That website mostly calls back to the old days of usenet, but I think it's still appropriate. An interesting thread for the OT forum would be figuring out which archtype everybody is. Some of the portrayals are dead accurate to posters here.....
1423
Post by: dienekes96
HBMC, it's the yin and yang thing. You are the eternal pessimist, and I'm the eternal optimist (wrt GW's efforts). But you still get excited when GW does something cool, and you admit it. And I still get pissed when GW screws the pooch, and I admit it. Besides, your style works and often provides a decent laugh with the snark. If only some other posters would get that. It's not what you say, it's how you say it.
Reasonably educated adults can have civil conversations when they disagree. The first step is realizing that they aren't disagreeing with you because they are evil and they hate you.
181
Post by: gorgon
Keezus, great post.
And I'll say it again. My personal belief is that GW does care about vets. The problem is that the demands of being a public company probably forces to chase the kiddies. And in trying to make their products appeal to both of these very different groups, they ultimately don't serve either group as well as they could. Different products specifically targeted to different customer sets would be a solution. But do they have the resources to do that?
Beyond plastics manufacturing, I don't think GW really knows where to go from here. That's what makes the company seem so schizo, as seen in their rulesets, constant evolution of their products, etc.
7139
Post by: BBeale
I have debated for a while whether or not I should respond to any of this. Unfortunately it all seems to have taken on a life of its own and refuses to die. To put some perspective on all of this, in my original post in response to H.B.M.C., I was calling him out for referring to another poster as delusional and a sycophant. I find it really hard to stomach abrasive personalities, and I make no apologies for this. I wholeheartedly disagree with H.B.M.C.’s function over form justification that he gives for his communication style. If we’re going to have a meaningful discussion regarding any aspect of this hobby, respect is a prerequisite-a polarized mind is harder to change.
As far as anyone’s hobby reputation goes, I agree that it is not germane to the issues regarding H.B.M.C. and I, which is what I somewhat inarticulately pointed out when he asked who I am and why he should care. That said, I have been around the hobby for a long time and I obviously love it. During that time I’ve made a lot of friends (some of whom have posted here) and played (read as lost) a ton of games. I have a very different perspective on the hobby and GW, and it makes me sad that so many people seem to be so cynical about a hobby that I think is so awesome. In any event, this thread has been derailed, and I’m sorry for the hand that I had in it.
Brice
4588
Post by: Destrado
Great site btw, quite a laugh.
1795
Post by: keezus
BBeale wrote:I have a very different perspective on the hobby and GW, and it makes me sad that so many people seem to be so cynical about a hobby that I think is so awesome. In any event, this thread has been derailed, and I’m sorry for the hand that I had in it.
You are always hurt more by the things you love.
6210
Post by: Le Grognard
keezus wrote:You are always hurt more by the things you love.
Hear! Hear! If no one gave a skaven's backside, we wouldn't be here 'debating' the finer points of the games. Besides, a grumbling gamer is a happy gamer.
4395
Post by: Deadshane1
Could everyone please NOT make peace? Hopefully attacking H.M.B.C. one more time...this has been a great read! Much more interesting than the OP. I want to hear more from Commissar Calgar!
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
I knew I shouldn't have come back to this thread. Though it was worth is when Shuma copied HBMC's avatar and I though HBMC was arguing with himself for a minute. I don't know why, I found that incredibly amusing.
I don't actually have a point.
Ozymandias, King of Kings
963
Post by: Mannahnin
Leaving aside all the meta-discussion for a minute, and talking about the balance thing (because I took a while composing my post and actually *working* for a while)…
There are two separate concepts here, and people have repeatedly intermingled them through the thread.
One is the quality of the core game rules. Positive attributes include clarity, fun, and variety. For a miniatures wargame, rules which enhance or complement the visual drama and appeal of the game are very good. For a competitive game, clear writing which minimizes the number of varying interpretations (and therefore arguments) is a big virtue. Complexity can be good or bad depending on the audience and the situation. Generally speaking you want a game to be simple enough to learn and remember the rules without a great deal of work, but complex enough to give tactical depth and not grow boring quickly. Sometimes simple rules working in conjunction can produce a complex effect in terms of tactical depth and challenge. Chess being the classic example.
A separate virtue for a game is balance. Which generally means do the players start on a level playing field (apart from their personal skill levels)? In wargames with multiple different forces, you have balance between different forces to consider, as well as internal balance within those forces, in terms of multiple choices and combinations being equally worthwhile.
IMO balance is a much trickier goal to achieve than having good core rules. The more variety of units and armies there are, and the more restricted you are by staying compatible with what came before, the tougher the task gets.
For my part, given that Jervis’ article (which I finally got to read last night) is about the thought process that went into 5th edition, the focus for this thread really should be on the quality of the core rules. We’re going to occasionally touch on the balance of the armies/game as a whole as well (necessarily), but it’s better to avoid getting side-tracked.
Focusing for a bit on the article again, I can completely see the point Jervis is making about focusing on the visual drama of the game. He is trying to make the exact size, shape, and positions of the models on the table more important. To use the example from the article, if you can see that chaos guy with the missile launcher in the window 8” off the table, you can shoot at him! No worrying about whether there’s actually a 6” high wood template between you and him, which technically blocks all the way up to the sky. Sometimes abstractions create odd-looking situations that hurt your immersion and suspension of disbelief.
However, the same point is equally true in reverse. True LOS, when used with static models, also often creates odd situations. The classic example I always used to run into, and am NOT looking forward to facing again, is having models on an upper story of a building who cannot see or shoot at anyone within several inches of the building, because a static plastic model can’t lean towards or out of a window. This has the distinctly counter-intuitive effect of turning what should be a great defensive position into something of a deathtrap, particularly on city tables with buildings a short distance from one another.
True LOS also creates the situation of having to make unpleasant decisions when modeling buildings. You can either build with solid walls so units can actually hide, or build with doors and windows so troops can actually move through the terrain, fighting in, out, and over it. If you want the visual and tactical effects of units moving and fighting through buildings, you lose the ability to have those buildings break up the table and create fire lanes. With Area Terrain you can have your cake and eat it too.
Given the clear and inarguable fact that both True LOS and Abstract LOS sometimes result in odd-looking situations which hurt suspension of disbelief, what to make of Jervis’ claim that abstract LOS is being chucked so as to enhance immersion?
Does he simply lack comprehension of the rules? Did he never play 3rd edition using buildings? Or is the change simply being made for change’s sake? Just to shake up the game and make players change the way they game and they look at the table?
That may be a worthy goal. But the means by which you achieve that goal have got to be considered in conjunction with the other needs of the game. Including supporting quick/simple play, supporting competitive play, and supporting creative and attractive modeling. All of which are much better served by an Abstract or semi-Abstract LOS system.
The modeling factor is particularly telling. Jervis says they don’t want to worry too much about rules lawyers and over-competitive players. But what about creative modelers? Every guy who built extra-tall, big, and dramatically-posed models and commanders- every player/artist who built biggerized marines, or who modeled their assault marines or Swooping Hawks to be leaping, floating, or hovering off the ground, is actually hurt by this change. They’re being penalized in game play for having put in the investment of work and expense to make cool models. That’s dumb. It’s counter-productive. It’s discouraging people from making dramatic models. Which would seem to be exactly the opposite of what GW’s priority should be.
I am looking forward to trying out the rules and seeing how they play. But based on hundreds’ of games experience with 3rd ed and 4th ed, what he’s doing with the LOS rules seems to be the result of shallow analysis, throwing valuable stuff out for little or no gain (or even a loss) in terms of playability or fun.
2764
Post by: AgeOfEgos
BBeale wrote:I have a very different perspective on the hobby and GW, and it makes me sad that so many people seem to be so cynical about a hobby that I think is so awesome. In any event, this thread has been derailed, and I’m sorry for the hand that I had in it.
*Shrug*, you shouldn't apologize for doing absolutely nothing wrong. It's frustrating clicking on threads with hobby news/discussion and finding the same childish, GW-Hate catch phrases in page after page.
/Yak did add an ignore feature though
|
|
