Coming out of the RaW vs. RaI discussion in the space wolf thread, although this applies to all GW games, not just 40k:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/257681.page

http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/

Gav says: "This approach has two main problems. Firstly, it creates a mindset of false legitimacy. This isn’t just in gaming, it’s in wider society as well. Some people feel entitled to place all responsiblity on the rules-makers (or lawmakers…) with the argument, ‘Well, the rules say I can do it.’ This fundamentally diverts the choices a person makes onto somebody else, absolving them of blame (in their mind). By moving away from a set of rules that tries to legislate for every single possibility, and instead return to the original idea that these books are as much a guide to players as they are rulebooks, we sought to bring back both the responsiblity and the power for players to make the decisions for themselves. They are a framework for players to collect an army of miniature soldiers not a dictat on the way they must do so."

Of course, in the 40k rulebook:
This very line encapsulates my frustration with the GW design team:

"The current Codex is about a very simple foundation that allows players to make hobby-based, aesthetic decisions regarding their army without worrying about the gaming implications.

And there's nothing RaW that says I can't use a sharpie and make my own rules.

I quote on p. 2 of the rulebook:

"The most important rule is that the rules aren't all that important! SO long as both players agree, you can treat them as sacrosanct or mere guidelines-the choice is entirely yours."

RaW, the only legal requirement to using a sharpie and making my own rules is that both players agree.

Edit: Once again, not written for RaW, and I might add, it's "the most important rule." Funny enough, RaW, treating the rules as sacrosant like you are doing is only okay so long as both players agree to play that way...

THis is why GW didn't release FAQS for a long time, aren't a fan of tournament players, and why GW writes rules the way they do. My main point in all this is that this is why one cannot use RaW as a method of rules interpretations because the rules are clearly not written in this manner. This causes all sorts of silly issues to arise because the rules aren't robust enough to handle proper RaW interpretation.

I've always been of the opinion that GW can do both..that clean concise rules are not mutually exclusive from background and guidelines, but they don't agree.

So what you're saying is that the rules are officially un-official?

Yeah, it's stupid in my opinion, but "guidelines" is what they're trying to write. Really, they're trying to push an idea of a hobby, not a game.

Edit: Actually, I should say more than that. It's kinda like casual gamers and noncasual gamers in WoW. THe noncasual players want to go to raids and fight the toughest stuff, etc etc, and they're usually the loudest crowd and want different things from casual gamers. However, there are more casual gamers than competitive ones, so Blizzard caters to casual players by dumbing the game down and making things easier. It's the same idea. Gw is trying to pitch to a "casual" crown of people more interested in bringing their models and moving models around and doing pretend killing. Beer and pretzl's kinda game.

Nurglitch wrote:So what you're saying is that the rules are officially un-official?

Without sugar coating it , yes.

Gav is such a disappointment , they just cant be bothered to admit their rule writing is awful .

scuddman wrote:Yeah, it's stupid in my opinion, but "guidelines" is what they're trying to write. Really, they're trying to push an idea of a hobby, not a game.

Because Hobby is where the money is at right? Like other dakkites have previously said :

The rules and codex are only important to them once they have whored out the product release , they can care less about it after that
and will be working on their next release ignoring any mistakes they made.

The name is a little misleading. Games Workshop is not a gaming company; it is a miniatures company. The game is a vehicle to push their minis --- and this is from their own mouths, not some sarcastic remark by me! Jervis is stuck in the 80s and believes we are all playing DnD in the 40K universe. Hopefully he will one day realise that this game began a push into competitive environments, by their own hands, over a decade ago.

I agree that this is horse manure. I buy the rules so that I can play the same game as others, not so that I can make my own up anytime.

If I wanted to make my own, I'd do so and save a lot of money in the process!

GW rules seem to have plenty of holes in them, typos, and bad organization. When I need to prove a point to an opponent, this gets frustrating! And in the heat of battle, "whatever both players agree on" just doesn't cut it.

It's GW's job to make nice, tight rules. This means Codexes that don't break the game when they're released. It means balance between the various armies. And yes, it means lots of playtesting and EDITING before the release of new rules.

It is shocking how often this isn't done.

If players want to do their own thing, they don't need encouragement. They just do it. This silly nonsense doesn't belong in a rulebook. Rulebooks are for: you guessed it, THE RULES.

40K is a game - and how is a $50 game any good with such ambiguity and cop-outs in its pages?

Apocolypse is the worst. All rules, FOCs, and sense of balance go out the window. And what is the excuse? "Don't take it too seriously." After 9 hours for 2 turns of Apoc, you bet I want it to be balanced! Else I may as well have just laid out my models and said, "OOooh, look at what I bought and painted - let's flip to see who wins and then get lunch."

OK, I may be exaggerating a little, but this really is a pet peeve of mine. After 5 editions of the game, I'd really love it if GW would start doing more basic editing in their books for organization, clarity, and balance. But when they pretend it doesn't even matter, as the above posters indicated, then there seems less and less hope of that.

Elric of Grans wrote:The name is a little misleading. Games Workshop is not a gaming company; it is a miniatures company. The game is a vehicle to push their minis --- and this is from their own mouths, not some sarcastic remark by me! Jervis is stuck in the 80s and believes we are all playing DnD in the 40K universe. Hopefully he will one day realise that this game began a push into competitive environments, by their own hands, over a decade ago.

Yes they said that.

But they also said the following to "justify" their pricing to be "fair"

"Games workshop is also a miniature games , which is why the product tend to be pricier than normal model kits"

Which is fine , but they shouldnt just pick w/e thing they have said in the past to conveniently fit their incompetence.

How long have they been writting warhammer rules for?

This is not an excuse.

See, this is the part I don't understand, the whole discussion that GW needs to write tight rules. I've been playing 40k in all its iterations since 2nd edition, and playing in at least one GT (and RTTs) every year, and I have come across exactly 1 (one, uno, ein) instance of a rule being unclear during a GT, and that was the guy with the highlighted sections to prove his interpretation according to RAW (he was wrong btw).

Could I just be lucky? Sure. Are there issues with GW rules? Sure. Is YMDC representative of the kinds of rules issues I've ever seen? No. Imo, YMDC is basically a mental exercise in rules-lawyering and logic, that has as much to do with the game as GW's "the rules are a guideline" stuff.

I believe GW has created a ruleset that can be used to play a pick-up game relatively easily. When rules issues do come up, they can usually be worked out by the players, and are negotiated thousands of times a day, when it's needed.

It only becomes a real issue in the hyper-intense scrutiny of a RAW, word by word dissection of every rule. Which is probably necessary for a 'competitive' game of little toy soldiers. I imagine that Warmachine, SST, or whatever ruleset you care to mention, has the same problems when looked at that closely.

The only difference between GW and the others, is that GW decided to not produce dozens and dozens of pages of FAQs and errata. They tried that in 2nd (it was a massive document), and in 3rd (stuff to cut out of WD, FAQs every month in WD, such that you couldn't find anything), and decided that wasn't worth it. The INAT folks, for example, p[ut together an 80+ page document where if you need it, to play the game, there you go.

Personally, I can play the game at a GT or in my basement just fine without them

So would be ok if we got a few professional game designers to sit down and write a completely new ruleset using 40k minis based on the 40k universe and sell just the ruleset? Or even some non-professionals.

Or even do an "open source" type rules project?

kadun wrote:So would be ok if we got a few professional game designers to sit down and write a completely new ruleset using 40k minis based on the 40k universe and sell just the ruleset? Or even some non-professionals.

Or even do an "open source" type rules project?

They'd be all over you with cease and desist faster than you can say "Ork". However, Gavin nearly asks the community to do so in his above statement. It's quite funny how they align everything they say in a way that it fits the current context best, but in another codex don't care sh*t about what they might have said before. Everything you've been told is a lie, anyone?

I never had a Cease and Desist order when I wrote "Dark Millennium". Never heard peep out of GW.

A couple points:
1. Gav doesn't speak for GW as far as I know.
2. Gav is talking about army theme in the initial quote
3. GW doesn't need to straitjacket things, or deal with non-common-sense issues that don't come up in normal play.

The primary "rules" issues occur in tournament situations in which players are just playing to WIN, rather than just PLAYING (to win). That isn't GW's fault.

I would believe Gav were I playing in a dedicated group of gamers.

Unfortunately, I play regular 40k, with sometimes random opponents, so unless my friends allow me to add ACTUAL bloodletters in a Chaos Marine Army, then I'm stuck with generic daemons.

Cruentus wrote:
It only becomes a real issue in the hyper-intense scrutiny of a RAW, word by word dissection of every rule. Which is probably necessary for a 'competitive' game of little toy soldiers. I imagine that Warmachine, SST, or whatever ruleset you care to mention, has the same problems when looked at that closely.

Thats just it though. No other system I have played has had anywhere near these kinds of problems in writing Rules.

GW rules writing is bad. Its really bad. The fact that they are coming out and saying "we don't give a sh*t about our game after we have sold you stuff" is incredibly insulting. Thats on top of the fact that they charge you for a $50 rulebook.

It continues to amaze me to this day that people still buy stuff from them. I stopped in the middle of 4th and can't imagine purchasing anything from them ever again. (although I still play the occasional game with some friends with the adepticon FAQ close at hand)

I think you're ok with GW as long as you don't take the game more seriously than they do.

Of course this means don't travel to big events, don't invest time and effort attempting to become a better player, don't analyze all the choices available and then take the clearly best models.
Just crack open a book, buy what you think looks cool, paint it up nice, and then push it around on a table. Prepare for frustration if you want more than this.

IntoTheRain wrote: No other system I have played has had anywhere near these kinds of problems in writing Rules.

No other system has this kind variety over this kind of installed base of players...

I've been with 40K since first, I've owned every edition and haven't only ever tried to play a couple times during 1st and 2nd ed. I just couldn't find people into it, so it became more of a collectors thing. I would read each new rules, but never played with them, I've never experienced the crap rules everybody talks about. Unless you are tournament playing, I would always just play with friends. I get it, you use the rules that make sense to you, you change the ones that don't. It may be irresponsible for GW to want you to have a relax attitude, but then sponsor events in which the rules become very important.

Gav has gak for brains, and he couldn't write a decent codex to save his life.

Oh, and yes, GW rules writing is bad. They don't care, they just want to sell the minis.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Gav has gak for brains, and he couldn't write a decent codex to save his life.

Oh, and yes, GW rules writing is bad. They don't care, they just want to sell the minis.

This is why we need RAI instead of RAW. People [redacted by Mod] who stubbornly stick to RAW as if it came from the Bible obviously have some sort of serious mental block, and it's amazing that they ever find anybody to play the game with. It must be a terrible, terrible existence.

You don't need RAI instead of RAW. You need both.

You have to examine the RAW first. If it is clear and makes practical sense in game terms you use it.

In the cases, such as the Valkyrie case, when the RAW does not work or is too unclear, you turn to RAI or How Do You Play It because you need to find a workable rule.

Once an unclear rule has been cleared up, it can be put in the FAQ list.

Hi all.
Yet another thread about how GWPLC have a severe disconnect with , thier own studio, and thier customers.

The GW studio staff are mostly made up of artists.They produce high quality sculpts and narrative.The game development teams at GW seem to adopt the same playstyle/metality.(Which is understandable.)
They play narrative driven , relaxed /informal games, percived by them as an 'added extra' to thier collecting converting and painting hobby.

The rules and army lists codexes ARE written as 'rough guides to'. They ALWAYS have been written this way AFAIK.

But what Games Workshop became a PLC , the man at the top had to explain to the share holders what was happening-what they are doing.
'We are in the buisness of selling toy sodiers...'
And so this was achived taking tha path of least resistance.(As always with GW PLC.)

Option 1.
Sell as much stuff to as many people as possible , for as much as posible .Focus on short term profits .
Infer the games are perfect for ALL styles of play, and the rules -codexes-army books are written without any erors -problems .
(With out actualy saying' this is the ONLY brand of product for the table top minature game hobby, and it perfect as is...'
So when people kick up a fuss GW can say ' we never implicitly said that, so what is your problem?')

Option 2/
Write a concise and well defined rule set , that is suitable for all playstyles .
Grow the games and interest in the game by promoting the game play above all else.Great games sell minatures !


So GW PLC 'over sells' the games and hobby suplies to maximise short term profit.As it is the path of least resistance.(Fat and lazy GW PLC )

This practice will lead to long term problems.(See my 'Have GW paintedthemselves into a corner' thread. )

In the last 10 years 40k has had minor imrovments in game play and rules layout.

In 8 years Thane Games developed a game with its gaming community to finalisation.(Beta rules were playtested by the community for over5 years.)
AoA has provable levels of balance, and army lists creation methods in the back of the rule book.
AoA has 14 sample armies in the back of the Rule Book.
And using the information in the back of the book you can create and use YOUR OWN army .

Games Workshop was far more open about the type of games they produced.WD showed how to develop YOUR hobby using some GW products and a bit of creative thinking.It was obvious WH and 40k were '3D RPG games' heavy on narrative and creativity, so quite unsuted to the type of competative play some players prefer.

But after converting to GW PLC, they simply wanted to shift product, using the easiest methods available.
IF someone buys a load of GW product because they have been mislead, then GW wins, in the short term.(GW even refer to thier prime demoghraphic a 'vunerable'. )

The ONLY problem with writing another rule set for 40k, is the 'GW PLC installed 'official only GW Hobby' mentality.
I have been using other rule sets for ages!

TTFN
Lanrak.

Lanrak wrote:But after converting to GW PLC, they simply wanted to shift product, using the easiest methods available.
IF someone buys a load of GW product because they have been mislead, then GW wins, in the short term.(GW even refer to thier prime demoghraphic a 'vunerable'. )

Sorry to pick a tiny point out of your post, but this pricked my ears...

It seems very sensible for GW to focus on short-term selling, since I guess their customer base IS very vulnerable. Apart from a few veterans, the VAST majority of their customer base is kids, who may only be 'into' the game for a few years until they tire of it, find a new hobby, or move to college or something. In this situation, I can completely see why the focus is on short term sales.

If they concentrated on making a great game system they'd attract more 'gamers-for-life' but I doubt even that would be a big enough customer base to sustain the company - a good reason why the smaller companies out there seem to be writing the best rules - they NEED to to keep their small, specialist customer base of veteran gamers.

GW are far too big to be sustained by the serious veterans, who are coincidentally the ones wanting the highest quality of rules-writing.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Lanrak wrote:But after converting to GW PLC, they simply wanted to shift product, using the easiest methods available.
IF someone buys a load of GW product because they have been mislead, then GW wins, in the short term.(GW even refer to thier prime demoghraphic a 'vunerable'. )

Sorry to pick a tiny point out of your post, but this pricked my ears...

It seems very sensible for GW to focus on short-term selling, since I guess their customer base IS very vulnerable. Apart from a few veterans, the VAST majority of their customer base is kids, who may only be 'into' the game for a few years until they tire of it, find a new hobby, or move to college or something. In this situation, I can completely see why the focus is on short term sales.

If they concentrated on making a great game system they'd attract more 'gamers-for-life' but I doubt even that would be a big enough customer base to sustain the company - a good reason why the smaller companies out there seem to be writing the best rules - they NEED to to keep their small, specialist customer base of veteran gamers.

GW are far too big to be sustained by the serious veterans, who are coincidentally the ones wanting the highest quality of rules-writing.

Unfortunately, you're right but this will eventually damage their sales, once enough people realize that you can get used mini's on Ebay cheaper than anywhere else. Mine are going up there pretty soon, and good riddance to GW.

No it won't, because they just get new kids interested...

The op took the quotes out of context, Gav was writing on the codex; chaos space marines, and how every one was complaining about it, this was said as to why it was laid out in the way it was.

This doesn't give anyone the right in gameplay in my opinion to go and just change rules cause they want to or say GW doesn't care, they care enough to change a set of rules to minimize nerd-in-fighting. I think that would be blatantly obvious, Gav just wrote this to get something off of his chest, and that was the constant complaining of players.

I think that alot of people need to look long and hard at how the think about the codex's that have been produced.

The New Romance wrote:

kadun wrote:So would be ok if we got a few professional game designers to sit down and write a completely new ruleset using 40k minis based on the 40k universe and sell just the ruleset? Or even some non-professionals.

Or even do an "open source" type rules project?

They'd be all over you with cease and desist faster than you can say "Ork". However, Gavin nearly asks the community to do so in his above statement. It's quite funny how they align everything they say in a way that it fits the current context best, but in another codex don't care sh*t about what they might have said before. Everything you've been told is a lie, anyone?

he key is "SELL"I, if you were sellign it and making money off it .. if it was open source (free) can't see why - you need the buy the rules and the miniatures to play. As long as you don't release that, and charge for it. Honestly I don't see them really caring about how you play - just as long as you buy gak.

That being said - only being into 40k for a short while, and having two sedts of rules, it seems (uneducated opinion) that they are definitely
"dumbing the game down" in the guise of speed of play.

chaplaincliff wrote:The op took the quotes out of context, Gav was writing on the codex; chaos space marines, and how every one was complaining about it, this was said as to why it was laid out in the way it was.

This doesn't give anyone the right in gameplay in my opinion to go and just change rules cause they want to or say GW doesn't care, they care enough to change a set of rules to minimize nerd-in-fighting. I think that would be blatantly obvious, Gav just wrote this to get something off of his chest, and that was the constant complaining of players.

I think that alot of people need to look long and hard at how the think about the codex's that have been produced.

It's hardly out of context. My assertion is that GW rules design is not written for gameplay purposes. Jervis has said that, the rulebook reflects it, and now here Gav is saying the same thing. The concept is pretty clear. They don't make a game and make minis for the game like most people in the hobby think. THey make minis, and then make "cool" rules for the minis so you'll buy more. Gav was hired as a games designer not because he had large amounts of game design experience or ability, but because he was a prolific fiction writer.

Edit: Originally the whole point of the post was a commentary on how they make rules and how we, as the consumers, interact with them. You look at many of the assertions in YMDC, and many of them don't hold up because the rules aren't made to fit those assertions.

OK, dug this out based on something I saw in another thread.

White Dwarf #320 (US), Standard Bearer Article by Jervis Johnson re: Rules Questions.

Without re-typing the whole thing, I'll pull out the relevant parts:

"It's a fact of the hobby that rules questions come up. Some players dream of heving a "loophole-free" rulebook. However, I think it's important to accept that the detailed rules we produce, combined with the free-form nature of tabletop gaming, pretty much guarantee that rules questions will come up. It is the price we pay for having such a flexible and detailed hobby."

Then goes on to talk about the importance of playing, and not getting bogged down in rules arguments.

"The first thing we need to do is to go back to the rules and attempt to apply them exactly as they are written, the "rules as written" or RAW principle. Some people don't like it RAW - the principle can sometimes lead to situations in which troops act in a way that doesn't seem quite right. Nonetheless, if RAW gives a clear and unambiguous solution to a rules question, then you must use it."

Then he talks about the (at the time) issue of Marine Drop Pods and immobilization and giving up VPs.

The rest devolves into the 1) Check rules, 2) Dice for it (to speed game play), 3) Check the website for errata/faq, 4) Contact GW for answers process of getting your answers.

Later he mentions the rationale for not making too many rules-changes between codexes as a means to 'not confuse' people who all might not have access to the FAQs, etc.

So, at least last year, GW was trumpeting RAW, while admitting their rules aren't perfect. They still fell back to the 'its important to play' and not get hung up. This was their foray into organizing the FAQs in one place, which, as we've seen, has been spotty, and not all that rapid.

I also did come across another later SB article which was regarding Tournaments, maybe I'll dig that up for a good laugh

That is just nonsense -- I know you didn't write it, just quoted out of WD.

Plenty of much more complicated rules have been and are written without 1/10th the amount of argument and problems that 40K has. That is not just because 40K is more popular. It is because 40K is badly written.

There are two reasons why 40K is so unusually bad.

1. All the different books are written at different times by different people and there is no editorial control. This is nothing to do with detail and complexity, it is to do with not being bothered to put in a bit of effort to do a proper job. It couldn't cost more than £100,000 a year to have a editorial office. That's less than one thousandth of GW's turnover.

2. GW refuse to admit they have a problem. They prefer to paper over the yawning cracks with Standard Bearer articles and advice about D6ing for it.

GW sometimes even manage to make contradictory rules within a single codex. That is simply sloppy and lazy. They should hang their head in shame. A codex isn't some little fan publication put out by a couple of students in their spare time. It is the product of a £100 million international corporation which claims to represent 95% of the world's table top wargame industry. A book which has taken at least a year to develop, and costs the user £15. At the same time, it contains under a dozen pages of actual information, the rest of it is padding.

WH has been around for nearly 30 years. It just can't happen that weird new situations keep popping up all the time. For example, the question of whether it's possible to place an objective on top of a tall object which non-flying troops can't reach. Has that really never, ever, ever, once occurred since 1981? What the hell are the design doing in all their playtest games? Clearly they aren't testing play.

I don't expect perfect rules. I don't expect a disorganised shambles and a bunch of excuses either, especially at the prices they charge.

Pah!

I disagree that Gav cannot write a codex. The Dark Elf Book is just fantastic, and is on par with many other Armybooks (The newer ones, of course)

I also disagree that RAI should replace RAW. RAW is RULES AS WRITTEN, meaning that the rule is written to mean exactly what it means. If we played a pure RAI standpoint, then who cares about the rules, as they can be interpreted to mean anything by anybody. Both are required, but RAW should still be prominent.

As for d6ing it, I would go for it should the rule be too unclear. It's rare for me to have too many arguments in games, and for me, D6ing does speed it up. Though, at tournaments, they should really clarify everything to ensure that cheating is disallowed.

I wonder if all the problems asscociated with GW products doesn't stem from people taking the game too seriously?

By my statement, I don't mean Table Top Wargaming, I mean GW products specifically. Year after year, they make the same mistakes, they put out substandard miniatures (compared to upcoming companies) and their fluff has more contradictions than the Holy Bible.

Its a flawed product set that enjoys too much fame (and by default fortune)....

Why don't people see it for what it is, and leave it at that. I see threads asking whether this faction is evil compared to that faction, and all other kind of fan related intricate debate....and I wonder whether GW staff read this stuff and laugh themselves to sleep?

Lets compare WH40K to Star Wars, or even Dune.....I'm not saying that these other universes are perfect, but I see a lot more coherence in their fluff and related products.....why is it possible for these Giants that have been around for decades to manage this, and a company like GW to fail so miserably at it?

I don't rate GW products in the same vein as those statues of modern Sci Fi greatness mind you, I rate it alongside GI-Joe, or Transformers....or maybe even Thundercats its comic, its throw away entertainment....its not mean't to be considered as an article for high brow debate, or the searching of a deeper meaning.....

Unfortunately, this is also refelctedin its rules writing, and miniatures.....

Delephont wrote:I wonder if all the problems asscociated with GW products doesn't stem from people taking the game too seriously?

By my statement, I don't mean Table Top Wargaming, I mean GW products specifically. Year after year, they make the same mistakes, they put out substandard miniatures (compared to upcoming companies) and their fluff has more contradictions than the Holy Bible.

Don't most people take their hobbies too seriously? "Play like you got a pair", historicals fretting over the color of the lapel or the button holes, internet and tournament drama.

Sure, people could take it for what it is, entertainment, but that'd lose half the fun of it. I'm a huge star wars nerd, and can quote episodes 4-6 verbatim. I love to chat about the movies, the characters, etc. I don't know much about the 'fluff' because I never bothered to read any of the fan fiction that populates the book shelves.

With GW, I read the BL novels, enjoy the games, and most of all enjoy the modeling and painting aspects of it, and the narrative games. Do I talk about which Primarch can beat which? No. Do I enjoy talking fluff and background with others who have read the novels? Yes.

I think what we see here, and on other sites, is a vocal minority who lambast GW, expect great things, and have plenty of time to post, but not enough to paint their minis or actually play games. Its all about the drama, which I don't need much of in my "free-time".

I do agree with Killkrazy that for a multinational corporation, their "handle" on their fluff, rules, game-play, playtesting, and editing is tenuous at best.

What I'd love to see if how much, if any, profit GW makes from their codexes and printed materials. My feeling is not very much, which would continue to explain their stance that they're a "miniatures company" and that is what drives it all, sales of minis. And if that means mangling the fluff (yet again), creating an uber-codex to drive sales, and generally targeting a younger audience than me (by about 25 years), then that's what they'll continue to do.

What I also think it means is that the older, veteran gamers, who have all the history, know the fluff, and have seen the careening path GW has taken, are finally becoming more discerning. I know for me, 40k is losing lustre, I'm leaning toward WHFB (which has its own power issues), and historicals. Not to mention playing way more Specialist games, which have tighter rules and are much more fun

My favorite excuse (and the one that ALWAYS freaking comes up when talking to anyone attached to GW) is that "writing balanced rules is hard." I'm always conflicted with the many responses I could give:

"You know those guys on the shows that fish for Alaskan crab and even sometimes die? Amazingly, I can go to any Walmart and somehow find crab meat."

"When was the last time you paid for 50+ dollars for guidelines?"

Or the straight-forward:

"Then what the hell is their job?"

Hi again.
Aparently its the game developers job at GW towers to help sell the latest releases.

Other companies GROW thier buisness by writeing great game rules and supporting thier gamers.

GW write thier rules to appeal to thier target demoghraphic.11 to 16 year old boys.
They only have to be good enough to make them drop some cash.

Unfortunatley this short sighted profiteering just results in short bouts of spending before leaving GW behind.
Since 2000 GWs turn over has DROPPED by 30% appx in real terms.

GWs customer base is shrinking , or reducing its spending.GW PLC Putting up prices to recoup the short fall , is just acting as a barrier to new customer entering the hobby.And therfore can not be sustained indefinatley.

If the 'wallet rape of unsuspecting customers' is the best buisness practice.Why is it ONLY GW PLC that adoptd it?

In my experiance better games have greater longevity and generate far more interest LONG TERM.(Like CBT.)
As most game companies rely on word of mouth, surley engaging with your customers to give them what they deserve,or at least be honest about what you are selling, must be best practice?

GW appear to not realy bother doing either.

Definition of;-
The 'GW Hobby'
Selling overpriced gak to people that dont know any better.

Table top minature gaming hobby.
The creative actions and social interaction undertaken by like minded people.

STOP CONFUSING THEM !

Happy gaming .
Lanrak,

Writing balanced rules is hard, especially when you stack the deck against yourself by not using any kind of organised methodology or tools to help do it.

If GW don't make money from their books they are doing it wrong.

Most of the material is recycled from one edition to the next. The creative work isn't expensive. We've already seen they don't bother to organise and test the new stuff.

I used to lay out a magazine the size of a codex by myself every month, using Quark Xpress. Repro and printing is cheap in China and Dubai when you aren't on a tight deadline.

So, we should all mail GW and ask why exactly we're paying for these rules if they aren't supposed to be worth using anyway.

They are worth using, specifically they're a starting point, not an end in themselves. I think that's been explained already. Why is that so hard to understand?

HEres my take on it. At my table, any rules problem we come to, we discuss it like intelligent adults, and come to a common ground on the problem. We havnt had any fights or outbreaks ever on rules problems. I honestly cant see how this mind set becomes a problem to strait thinking people. The only time I see it become a problem is when its the WIN AT ALL COSTS types in tournaments.
Im not really wanting to come off as a defender fan boy for GW, but they have a complex rule system for a pretty large army base. Of course its not going to be possible for them to cover EVERYTHING that can happen during this type of game. Yes they SHOULD do pre tests on the rules and codices before a launch. That just makes sence. Yes they SHOULD try to write a codex with rules that doesnt BREAK units. But in all honesty, there isnt THAT MUCH that breaks the normal game play.
As for the people that complain of the "they dont give a gak about us after we make a purchase" Well DUH! They are a publicly traded company. Its all about the share holders now. We are a distant second if we are REALLY lucky. (prolly more like 4th or 5th.)
And most of you that complain about this so much, STILL buy the books, buy the minis, play the game. So whats the problem then?

Solorg wrote:I agree that this is horse manure. I buy the rules so that I can play the same game as others, not so that I can make my own up anytime.

If I wanted to make my own, I'd do so and save a lot of money in the process!

GW rules seem to have plenty of holes in them, typos, and bad organization. When I need to prove a point to an opponent, this gets frustrating! And in the heat of battle, "whatever both players agree on" just doesn't cut it.

It's GW's job to make nice, tight rules. This means Codexes that don't break the game when they're released. It means balance between the various armies. And yes, it means lots of playtesting and EDITING before the release of new rules.

It is shocking how often this isn't done.

If players want to do their own thing, they don't need encouragement. They just do it. This silly nonsense doesn't belong in a rulebook. Rulebooks are for: you guessed it, THE RULES.

40K is a game - and how is a $50 game any good with such ambiguity and cop-outs in its pages?

Apocolypse is the worst. All rules, FOCs, and sense of balance go out the window. And what is the excuse? "Don't take it too seriously." After 9 hours for 2 turns of Apoc, you bet I want it to be balanced! Else I may as well have just laid out my models and said, "OOooh, look at what I bought and painted - let's flip to see who wins and then get lunch."

OK, I may be exaggerating a little, but this really is a pet peeve of mine. After 5 editions of the game, I'd really love it if GW would start doing more basic editing in their books for organization, clarity, and balance. But when they pretend it doesn't even matter, as the above posters indicated, then there seems less and less hope of that.

It DOESN'T matter, to them. God, I wish it did. I wish the games they printed were tight and waterproof. However, the sad reality is that ofter you have bought your models they don't care about you. They are off to the next conquest; so other wallet. I. Wish. That. Weren't. So. However, begging for tight rules and balanced structure does not appear to be within their interests because they don't see it as being a selling point for more models. That's the reality. I just wish it wasn't. I have never used the Adepticon FAQ, but it gets more and more enticing everytime I play.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote: No other system I have played has had anywhere near these kinds of problems in writing Rules.

No other system has this kind variety over this kind of installed base of players...

Truly a case of quanitity having a quality all its own, eh John?

Noisy_Marine wrote:... Oh, and yes, GW rules writing is bad. They don't care, they just want to sell the minis.

Just keep that in mind as the truth it is. Mins minis minis

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:My favorite excuse (and the one that ALWAYS freaking comes up when talking to anyone attached to GW) is that "writing balanced rules is hard." I'm always conflicted with the many responses I could give:

"You know those guys on the shows that fish for Alaskan crab and even sometimes die? Amazingly, I can go to any Walmart and somehow find crab meat."

"When was the last time you paid for 50+ dollars for guidelines?"

Or the straight-forward:

"Then what the hell is their job?"

I agree with your sentiment. However, their job is to write rules that sell models; bothering to write balanced rulesets is just not what they are paid for. God how I wish it wasn't so.

Lanrak wrote:Hi again.
Aparently its the game developers job at GW towers to help sell the latest releases.

Other companies GROW thier buisness by writeng great games and supporting thier gamers.

GW write thier rules to appeal to thier target demoghraphic.11 to 16 year old boys.
They only have to be good enough to make them drop some cash.

Unfortunatley this short sighted profiteering just results in short bouts of spending before leaving GW behind.
Since 2000 GWs turn over has DROPPED by 30% appx in real terms.

GWs customer base is shrinking , or reducing its spending.GW PLC Putting up prices to recoup the short fall , is just acting as a barrier to new customer entering the hobby.And therfore can not be sustained indefinatley.

If the 'wallet rape of unsuspecting customers' is the best buisness practice.Why is it ONLY GW PLC that adoptd it?

In my experiance better games have greater longevity and generate far more interest LONG TERM.(Like CBT.)
As most game companies rely on word of mouth, surley engaging with your customers to give them what they deserve,or at least be honest about what you are selling, must be best practice?

GW appear to not realy bother doing either.

Definition of;-
The 'GW Hobby'
Selling overpriced gak to people that dont know any better.

Table top minature gaming hobby.
The creative actions and social interaction undertaken by like minded people.

STOP CONFUSING THEM !

Happy gaming .
Lanrak,

Why does it have to be so? </mournful howl>

Cruentus wrote:

Delephont wrote:I wonder if all the problems asscociated with GW products doesn't stem from people taking the game too seriously?

By my statement, I don't mean Table Top Wargaming, I mean GW products specifically. Year after year, they make the same mistakes, they put out substandard miniatures (compared to upcoming companies) and their fluff has more contradictions than the Holy Bible.

Don't most people take their hobbies too seriously? "Play like you got a pair", historicals fretting over the color of the lapel or the button holes, internet and tournament drama.

Sure, people could take it for what it is, entertainment, but that'd lose half the fun of it. I'm a huge star wars nerd, and can quote episodes 4-6 verbatim. I love to chat about the movies, the characters, etc. I don't know much about the 'fluff' because I never bothered to read any of the fan fiction that populates the book shelves.

With GW, I read the BL novels, enjoy the games, and most of all enjoy the modeling and painting aspects of it, and the narrative games. Do I talk about which Primarch can beat which? No. Do I enjoy talking fluff and background with others who have read the novels? Yes.

I think what we see here, and on other sites, is a vocal minority who lambast GW, expect great things, and have plenty of time to post, but not enough to paint their minis or actually play games. Its all about the drama, which I don't need much of in my "free-time".

I'm not sure how to respond to this, as it seems you are contradicting yourself a little.

First of all, when I made the statement about taking the game seriously, I was specifically talking about GW WH40K fluff setting.....I agree with you that people will and do take their hobbies seriously, but, you still have to accept the limitations of that hobby no matter how serious you take it!

Its impossible to talk about the average height of a Space Marine, if the creators of said Space Marine don't even know! ......and the list goes on!

You are not a Star Wars nerd, if you were you'd realise the books that make up what is commonly known as the expanded universe is far from "Fan Fiction", its scrutinised and controlled by the Lucas corperation, and they are very tight on what actually makes it to the shelves....unlike the stuff from BL, which you do bother to read

Too seriously or not, the quality of GW rules does not match the price tag. End of story. There is no other excuse. Crappy rules should cost less. If it's "too hard" they shouldn't print more rules, because balancing them is part of their job. The only reason I touch this game is because other people play it, and it's convenient to find a game. That's it.

Delephont wrote:I mean GW products ... their fluff has more contradictions than the Holy Bible... Lets compare WH40K to Star Wars, or even Dune

I agree with what you say about people taking it too seriously, but one of the best things about GW is the fluff in my opinion. Star Wars and Dune aren't fair comparisons because you are movie cross medium. And don't even get my started on what the feth is the gak with star wars. Dune on the other hand is incredible, I've held Dune and 40K as my two favorite scifi settings for a long time.


If the rules are so bad, I don't understand why people wouldn't just shift to another gaming system. Anybody who has been part of an RPG group knows that. Why do people feel so burned? I have to play 5 PS3 games before I find one that's good.

I don't see how people can argue that RAI should replace RAW. In fact, I can't think of a single game system (other than GW...in the past 3 months) that has suggested this. RAI is a slippery slope, because how one person thinks the rules were intended isn't always how other people feel they were intended. RAW (hypothetically) bypasses this by keeping to a set of easily understood rules in an otherwise murky situation, and its the reason that basically every game system advocates using them even if the rules don't always make perfect sense in the given situation.

Mainly it's because the rules are where you start, and how you play is where you end up. By knowing the rules well, you know where, when, and why you might deviate from them during play.

I really don't know what all you people are going on about.

seriously.

yes, the rules have holes in them. Yes, those holes can break the game. But just follow the INAT faq, and you'll be fine. Its the only comprehensive document with even a hint of legitimacy (it was used at a GW sponsored event), and it covers most major holes in the game. Any others will be addressed by it in time.

Horst wrote:I really don't know what all you people are going on about.

seriously.

yes, the rules have holes in them. Yes, those holes can break the game. But just follow the INAT faq, and you'll be fine. Its the only comprehensive document with even a hint of legitimacy (it was used at a GW sponsored event), and it covers most major holes in the game. Any others will be addressed by it in time.

How fast do they release the faqs ? in time? can be anytime between now and infinity.
( i know i sound harsh , but the players would like something reliable ) which is the whole issue here.

they update it fairly often, luna... a new update should be comming out soon that covers the guard as well.

Cryonicleech wrote:I disagree that Gav cannot write a codex. The Dark Elf Book is just fantastic, and is on par with many other Armybooks (The newer ones, of course)

Yeah, I was hoping no one would bring that up. But then again, how could the new DE book *not* be better than the last one? Hm? Hmmmm?!

JohnHwangDD wrote:A couple points:
1. Gav doesn't speak for GW as far as I know.
2. Gav is talking about army theme in the initial quote
3. GW doesn't need to straitjacket things, or deal with non-common-sense issues that don't come up in normal play.

The primary "rules" issues occur in tournament situations in which players are just playing to WIN, rather than just PLAYING (to win). That isn't GW's fault.

Really? I've seen more damage done to the local (non-tournament) gaming community because of rules disagreements in "casual" play than I have rules disagreements in tournament play. In tournaments, gamers often seem like they are more professional, either because of sportsmanship guidelines and scoring, or just because it's a more structured environment. In my experience, the guys who are really going to try to twist the rules to benefit themselves will do so in casual play, and especially against younger and less experienced gamers (who generally don't play in tournaments).

Within the last several months, our gaming community has had two major rules issues that have affected the local gaming atmosphere to a large degree. One guy had an opinion about being able to fire passengers' weapons out of fast vehicles. Even though in the rules an embarked unit and its transport are separate units, it doesn't actually state so very clearly. He was adamant that he was right, and despite most of the community presenting good, well-thought-out arguments to him, he did not play the game at the local store for a few months. Another pair of people have agreed that they simply won't play each other in the current campaign because they have a disagreement about how the KFF works. In my eyes there are about 3 valid interpretations for how the KFF interacts with vehicles and vehicle squadrons. If these rules were written more clearly, then the local gaming community would be more friendly and thriving.

Edit: fixed typo.

GW you fickle liars...

when asked about ruless:

"We are a hobby company!"

when asked about prices aka Gray Knights

" We are a game company! the price have to adjust via points! "

LunaHound wrote:
GW you fickle liars...

when asked about ruless:

"We are a hobby company!"

when asked about prices aka Gray Knights

" We are a game company! the price have to adjust via points! "

Indeed, and yet people keep buying stuff from them new, some even insist on paying retail, boggles my fething mind.

... when it comes to GW IG... behold yellow and blue! By their powers combined, I am Captain Greenstuff!!!

Sorry, just had to say it. eBay, bit kingdom, and five bucks worth of greenstuff and I've already saved $400 on my IG army... LOL

GW, please contract Paizo about writing the next edition of 40k? They actually seem to have some grasp of what they're doing?

I just finished reading this, then decided to see if they had a Eldar codex. Anyone seen their Google result?

Games Workshop make the best model soldiers in the world.

Moz wrote:I think you're ok with GW as long as you don't take the game more seriously than they do.

Of course this means don't travel to big events, don't invest time and effort attempting to become a better player, don't analyze all the choices available and then take the clearly best models.
Just crack open a book, buy what you think looks cool, paint it up nice, and then push it around on a table. Prepare for frustration if you want more than this.

Back to Warmachine you!

whitedragon wrote:

Moz wrote:I think you're ok with GW as long as you don't take the game more seriously than they do.

Of course this means don't travel to big events, don't invest time and effort attempting to become a better player, don't analyze all the choices available and then take the clearly best models.
Just crack open a book, buy what you think looks cool, paint it up nice, and then push it around on a table. Prepare for frustration if you want more than this.

Back to Warmachine you!

Huh, why? I think that's what most skilled table-top generals do, and yet GW clearly does not design for that style of game play. I thought that was a good summary of the disconnect between GW and "competitive" gamers.

whitedragon wrote:

Moz wrote:I think you're ok with GW as long as you don't take the game more seriously than they do.

Of course this means don't travel to big events, don't invest time and effort attempting to become a better player, don't analyze all the choices available and then take the clearly best models.
Just crack open a book, buy what you think looks cool, paint it up nice, and then push it around on a table. Prepare for frustration if you want more than this.

Back to Warmachine you!

Now, be nice. The poor warmachine players are feeling a bit abandoned in the MK1 vs. MK2 schism, and some of them may be making their way back to GW rather than fight a civil war over which version of the rules they should like. The poor prodigals need our love and understanding.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote: No other system I have played has had anywhere near these kinds of problems in writing Rules.

No other system has this kind variety over this kind of installed base of players...

This is a cop out and you know it. The core rules have enough problems in them without considering the codices. You're a smart guy. Even you must realize that to fix balance and rules issues, the worldview of the game must be examined, and all codices must be reassessed and rebalanced -simultaneously-. GW has no interest in doing this... so they don't write proper rules because the can't, but because they have no interest in doing so.

mikhaila wrote: The poor warmachine players are feeling a bit abandoned in the MK1 vs. MK2 schism, and some of them may be making their way back to GW rather than fight a civil war over which version of the rules they should like. The poor prodigals need our love and understanding.

I'm sure we'll give them all the love and understanding they showed to us, two or thee times over.

Which means rubbing their noses in it every chance we get.

It's not just that GW has problems with writing rules over multiple editions of 40k (For example: What does a Tau Target Lock do in 5th?) kinds of problems. They don't do a good job with models and rules (Are Infantry without eyes able to draw LOS? Can I disembark from a Valkyrie, other to the top of a hill or a building?). And, they don't do a good job of writing clear rules (Can I have two Rune Priests in a same wolf army with the same wargear, one psychic power the same and one different? How about two powers the same but different wargear?).

GW doesn't take rules writting seriously and they encourage us to do the same. If we all played in a basement with a half-dozen regular buddies, it'd be fine, you'd sort through the issues (even with some heated debates).

And the problem isn't just with the 'power gaming WAAC' gamer. It's anyone that plays a stranger, whether it's a competitive tournament or not (Hey, you can't use Target Locks! Hey, you have to use the Grav Chutes on the valk to disembark! Hey, your Rune Priests need to have different wargear and can't have one power the same!).

If the issue was a handful of uncommon interactions, it'd be one thing (and this is what a lot of PP's errata/FAQ dealt with). It's not. It's gaming-system wide. GW should be embarrased about it. And until they lose costumers due to it, they won't change.

And GW is capable of writing good rules. See LotR and WotR, Space Hulk, and other games. They're lazy and they've gotten away with it for too long.

BaronIveagh wrote:GW, please contract Paizo about writing the next edition of 40k? They actually seem to have some grasp of what they're doing?

Rehash old rules, fail to address the actual problems and continue to promote a game full of inherent unbalances? Thanks, but no thanks. In fact I think we have that already.

I certainly agree with the premise of getting help writing a much better set of rules though.

keezus wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote: No other system I have played has had anywhere near these kinds of problems in writing Rules.

No other system has this kind variety over this kind of installed base of players...

This is a cop out and you know it.

The core rules have enough problems in them without considering the codices.

You're a smart guy. Even you must realize that to fix balance and rules issues, the worldview of the game must be examined, and all codices must be reassessed and rebalanced -simultaneously-.

GW has no interest in doing this... so they don't write proper rules because the can't, but because they have no interest in doing so.

The key point issue is that GW has far more rules history and far more players poking holes at them.

The core rules in 40k and WotR appear to be just fine, at least in my playgroup. But as we're casual rather than tournament-oriented, we have a lot more leeway.

To fix all rules and balance issues, I completely agree that all Codices would have to be redone simultaneously. I believe that this is a pipe dream and not realistic given the sheer scope of the 40k universe, along with the GW business model.

I agree that GW isn't interested here, because it goes against their business model, and because the overwhelming majority of their players don't have a problem with the rules. Sure, this pisses of the 5% of their customers who play tournament-style. But GW doesn't give a flying fick about them. The Tournament crowd is GW's bitch, and GW knows it. And I think the tourney guys are finally starting to figure this out, too. But they'll keep buying and buying, regardless of what GW does. Until such time that it makes monetary sense to revise things, GW won't do so. And even then, GW may have reached the ultimate business conclusion that they are just as well off without dong so - that is, they could be "problem" customers from GW's POV. In the mean time, we'll have Codices and expansions and new stuff trickle out.

But for me, I'm not interested in spending more than I have to, nor more quickly. GW accelerating the clock doesn't help me because my budget doesn't go up when GW releases more stuff.

So when you get right down to it, I agree with you, but I don't care enough to get wound up about something that I have zero control or influence over, and doesn't impact me in any significant fashion whatsoever. If GW went out of business tomorrow, I'd be fine, just as if GW decreed that tournaments were verboten, or if all games must be Apocalypse. It doesn't affect me, I can't change it, so I just don't have to care. All I can do is allocate my small annual hobby budget as I see fit. If GW gets a slice of the pie, good for them. If not, too bad for them.

Did anybody ever listen to the GW design studio podcast (lasted 4-5 episodes)? I had them on my computer for a long time but never got around to listening to them. I wasn't sure if it offered any real insight into their design philosphy (which is what they were going for). Couldn't be that good if it only went 5 episodes I guess.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The key point issue is that GW has far more rules history and far more players poking holes at them.

The core rules in 40k and WotR appear to be just fine, at least in my playgroup. But as we're casual rather than tournament-oriented, we have a lot more leeway.

To fix all rules and balance issues, I completely agree that all Codices would have to be redone simultaneously. I believe that this is a pipe dream and not realistic given the sheer scope of the 40k universe, along with the GW business model.

I agree that GW isn't interested here, because it goes against their business model, and because the overwhelming majority of their players don't have a problem with the rules. Sure, this pisses of the 5% of their customers who play tournament-style. But GW doesn't give a flying fick about them. The Tournament crowd is GW's bitch, and GW knows it. And I think the tourney guys are finally starting to figure this out, too. But they'll keep buying and buying, regardless of what GW does. Until such time that it makes monetary sense to revise things, GW won't do so. And even then, GW may have reached the ultimate business conclusion that they are just as well off without dong so - that is, they could be "problem" customers from GW's POV. In the mean time, we'll have Codices and expansions and new stuff trickle out.

But for me, I'm not interested in spending more than I have to, nor more quickly. GW accelerating the clock doesn't help me because my budget doesn't go up when GW releases more stuff.

So when you get right down to it, I agree with you, but I don't care enough to get wound up about something that I have zero control or influence over, and doesn't impact me in any significant fashion whatsoever. If GW went out of business tomorrow, I'd be fine, just as if GW decreed that tournaments were verboten, or if all games must be Apocalypse. It doesn't affect me, I can't change it, so I just don't have to care. All I can do is allocate my small annual hobby budget as I see fit. If GW gets a slice of the pie, good for them. If not, too bad for them.

Way to completely ignore my example of how poorly written rules have negatively impacted the non-tournament gaming environment in my area. Are you actually participating in a conversation, or are you simply repeating yourself in an attempt to convince other players that tournametns=bad. I've seen and had more negative interactions because of rules in non-tournament environments than I have in tournaments.

To paraphrase mauleed, if GW would do a better job writing tight rules, that doesn't hurt the 'non-tourney' gamer. So, why do they fight doing so?

My personal opinion is because they don't need to. We keep buying their products, and they even have people doing FAQs/erratas for free. So, why spend money on something that they don't have to?

mikhaila wrote:

whitedragon wrote:

Moz wrote:I think you're ok with GW as long as you don't take the game more seriously than they do.

Of course this means don't travel to big events, don't invest time and effort attempting to become a better player, don't analyze all the choices available and then take the clearly best models.
Just crack open a book, buy what you think looks cool, paint it up nice, and then push it around on a table. Prepare for frustration if you want more than this.

Back to Warmachine you!

Now, be nice. The poor warmachine players are feeling a bit abandoned in the MK1 vs. MK2 schism, and some of them may be making their way back to GW rather than fight a civil war over which version of the rules they should like. The poor prodigals need our love and understanding.

Which poor Warmachine players are these? The ones that just got their MkII rulebooks for free (4 months early) and their Hordes MkII rulebook beta test bumped up 2 months? Yeah we're struggling over here.

My point quoted above isn't necessarily bashing GW, it's just bashing taking them seriously. You simply cannot intend to play 40k at the highest competitive level without having poor game design ruin the experience. This isn't sour grapes either, I consistently did great at GW events in part because I could and would browbeat people with my interpretation of the bizarre loophole filled rules. I never had any problems on the lower tables mind you, where everyone shared the 'lets just have a good time' vibe - that's where the game is meant to be played and it works great there. On the top tables though, it's he who gets the judge to rule their interpretation correct or presents their argument based on the void that is the rulebook in such a way that a judge doesn't get called: Wins. So I learned first hand that it's not really a good medium for competitive play, and moved on.
I also really disliked the rock-paper-scissors style list building, and the fact that the game is typically decided by the time deployment is complete - which I also consider to be design flaws, just not necessarily brought on by incompetence.

There actually are tabletop games designed for people who want to take them seriously, and it's a pretty rewarding and interesting way to enjoy the hobby. Although I'm among the first to admit that it's not for everyone. Just like how the beer & pretzel style of 40k isn't for everyone either.

The core rules are OK. Not perfect, could do better, but far from unsatisfactory. Alessio did a pretty good job writing them.

The problem is with the codexes.

As John said, there is no way that GW will release a fully updated set of codexes for a new edition. There are several good reasons why they can't do it.

There are two things they could do fairly easily.

1. Write codexes to the standard of the core rules, so there would be fewer internal errors. (E.g. Rune Priest powers.)

2. Release update sheets for each 3e or 4e codes, to explain how the 5e rules changes affect the specific things that have changed (e.g. Tau Target Lock.)

They could do 1 if they wanted, because they've done it with the 5e book.

They could do 2 if they wanted, because INAT have already done most of the work for them.

These changes would benefit everyone, tournament, casual and n00b alike.

The thing GW don't know is how much word of mouth marketing is done by veteran players.

willydstyle wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:So when you get right down to it, I agree with you, but I don't care enough to get wound up about something that I have zero control or influence over,

Way to completely ignore my example of how poorly written rules have negatively impacted the non-tournament gaming environment in my area.

Are you actually participating in a conversation, or are you simply repeating yourself in an attempt to convince other players that tournametns=bad.

I've seen and had more negative interactions because of rules in non-tournament environments than I have in tournaments.

If your internal group among themselves is like you are to me, then I can see how that would be a problem. However, in most groups, the problem is with the group dynamics & dispute resolution, rather than the rules.

Are you actually trying to have a conversation, or are you just trying to bust my chops? Because I'm thinking it's more of the latter than the former. I don't say tournaments are "bad". I do believe that GW could care less about them, and that they're not strategic to GW's vision for 40k. I'm not playing tournaments right now, so I could care less. I do understand that the indies are generally doing just fine in GW's stead.

As above, it's an issue that your group needs to resolve amongst themselves. If you don't have good interpersonal / resolution skills within your group, you will find or create issues with any non-trivial game system.

dietrich wrote:
GW doesn't take rules writting seriously and they encourage us to do the same. If we all played in a basement with a half-dozen regular buddies, it'd be fine, you'd sort through the issues (even with some heated debates).

And the problem isn't just with the 'power gaming WAAC' gamer. It's anyone that plays a stranger, whether it's a competitive tournament or not (Hey, you can't use Target Locks! Hey, you have to use the Grav Chutes on the valk to disembark! Hey, your Rune Priests need to have different wargear and can't have one power the same!).

If the issue was a handful of uncommon interactions, it'd be one thing (and this is what a lot of PP's errata/FAQ dealt with). It's not. It's gaming-system wide. GW should be embarrased about it. And until they lose costumers due to it, they won't change.

Ding Ding Ding!

And as Moz said, don't take the game more seriously than GW does, because you'll be disappointed. They don't "fix" anything because they don't think there is a problem. And since people keep playing the game, it kinda perpetuates the fact that there isn't a problem.

And as someone else noted in another thread, how many rules issues do you really come up with that completely derail the game? Even in tournaments? For all we bemoan and lament, the rules work pretty darn well for about 99% of all the games you ever play, and when you travel for a tournament, you just ask around before everything gets started so you don't get blindsided.

Hi again.
Just some questions...
Why dont GW make it obvious that 40k is a '..light hearted dice rolling exercise to show of you cool minature collection to your mates...'
And is TOTALY unsuited to ballanced competative play?

This way the 40k game would only sell to people who play like the 40k dev team do, and would meet thier expectations.

The 40k core rules are dreadful!They DO NOT cover the basic interactions efficiently.The layout and gramatical accuracy has improved , but the content is woeful concidering the development time.(Seriously, can you point out anything that could not be improved?)

And the codexes are just rushed marketing pamphlets , with very little thought given to game play issues.

There is NOTHING wrong with ANY play styles/preferences.
The heavily narrative driven background soaked light hearted jaunt , right through to the ultra competative hard nosed take no prisoners challenge!
However MOST companies are honest about the suitablity of thier games rules to a particular playstyle.
As they think its important for the players to pick the right rule set for them.

GW PLC appear to just want to push GW product on unsuspecting newbs...

TTFN
Lanrak.

Can we make the title of this thread one of the DakkaDakka taglines at the top of the screen?

@Lanrak: I think that any game system that attracts enough players is going to have a certain subset of the players that want to play it competitively. In addition, since the game's basic set up is two players vying against one another, I don't think that 40k can be seen as wholly non-competitive even if there were no tournaments/leagues/etc.

For example, there are even some D&D players who seem to derive enjoyment from competing with their party, and that game is designed to be wholly cooperative!

So, I think that even if GW came out and said: "our game sucks for competitive play, don't do it." there would still be a sizable subset of the player base who want to play competitively.

Add onto that the fact that there are times that poorly-written rules create conflict in "casual" or "non-competitive" play and you can see the need for a tight rule set, regardless of whether GW thinks that people should be playing in tournaments or not.

Lanrak wrote: Why dont GW make it obvious that 40k is a '..light hearted dice rolling exercise to show of you cool minature collection to your mates...'
And is TOTALY unsuited to ballanced competative play?

I believe GW has stated this several times over - just read any number of Jervis' Standard Bearer articles.

It's just at a number of people don't believe GW when they say so.

John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

Moz wrote:I think you're ok with GW as long as you don't take the game more seriously than they do.

Of course this means don't travel to big events, don't invest time and effort attempting to become a better player, don't analyze all the choices available and then take the clearly best models.
Just crack open a book, buy what you think looks cool, paint it up nice, and then push it around on a table. Prepare for frustration if you want more than this.

John Adams, you have earned a Bonus point

Seriously good posts

You going to be in the NJ area anytime? I'll take you up on the competitive 40k game again.

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

for the beer and the pretzels silly?

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

For the same reason that Ford & GW sponsors NASCAR vehicles that have absolutely nothing to do with anything produced in the last 20 or 30 years.

I think anyone who doesn't think the poorly balanced rules isn't a big deal need only look at the Community GW has spent the past 20 years forming.

Refusing to look at and balance their rules has created a community that tries (poorly) to implement their own restrictions on the game. How often do you hear 'sounds cheesy' or 'we don't play like that here' at your local gaming club? How many other games can you name where a mentality like this exists? Imagine if you were playing monopoly and the other players started berating you for being 'cheesy' for putting hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.

So now we have a completely subjective system that is designed to attack people for making smart choices. Games Workshop's complete lack of interest in balancing the game (indeed some would say the opposite with the way the newer codexes are shaping up) has fostered a community that has become far more interested in looking down on their opponent for playing smart than it is in actually playing the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

For the same reason that Ford & GW sponsors NASCAR vehicles that have absolutely nothing to do with anything produced in the last 20 or 30 years.

I really have no idea how sponsoring a car (which is there to advertise) is in any way the same as hosting a competitive event.

It would be kind of bad for Ford to run an event and have a Toyota win it.

IntoTheRain wrote:I think anyone who doesn't think the poorly balanced rules isn't a big deal need only look at the Community GW has spent the past 20 years forming.

Refusing to look at and balance their rules has created a community that tries (poorly) to implement their own restrictions on the game. How often do you hear 'sounds cheesy' or 'we don't play like that here' at your local gaming club? How many other games can you name where a mentality like this exists? Imagine if you were playing monopoly and the other players started berating you for being 'cheesy' for putting hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.

So now we have a completely subjective system that is designed to attack people for making smart choices. Games Workshop's complete lack of interest in balancing the game (indeed some would say the opposite with the way the newer codexes are shaping up) has fostered a community that has become far more interested in looking down on their opponent for playing smart than it is in actually playing the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

For the same reason that Ford & GW sponsors NASCAR vehicles that have absolutely nothing to do with anything produced in the last 20 or 30 years.

I really have no idea how sponsoring a car (which is there to advertise) is in any way the same as hosting a competitive event.

It would be kind of bad for Ford to run an event and have a Toyota win it.

You have also earned a bonus point

GW already loses customers to it, just not in a way that is easily measureable.

The game system is the only thing that sells their miniatures; people want to perform their own space opera by being A Space Marine, An IG Commander, Abaddon, Etc. Without the game system there's absolutely nothing that separates GW miniatures from all the others that retail for 1/3 of the price.

Their background entices people in while the high price limits their level of investment. When 16 Year Old Kid makes a horribly underpowered army by choosing the 'cool' codex units that are overcosted and ineffective due to poor internal balance and continually gets wiped by vet players, he stops playing the game.

That's a huge problem. Instead of buying another 1000 points to finish off his army, he sells his models off and buys more games for the Wii because those work without extensive retooling. The same thing applies to the guy who buys a massive pile of pewter only to find out that his army is mechanically inferior; like the Ghazghkull+Deffwing player that finds out he can't possibly beat 6 fast skimmers and two Land Raiders filled with AssTerms.

Bad rules make people quit playing. Bad rules make it hard to enter into this game because so many options don't perform well and the cost of buying enough new models to re-tool your army list is prohibitively high.

I believe GW has stated this several times over - just read any number of Jervis' Standard Bearer articles.

It's just at a number of people don't believe GW when they say so.

100% of the new people starting WH40k that I've met at the local gaming shop are buying the miniatures to play the game not the other way around, and believe me they do get upset when they find out that their Fluff list is worthless on the tabletop. Nobody gives a gak about miniatures except the diehard collectors who, ironically, represent the minority of their revenue stream.

sourclams wrote:Their background entices people in while the high price limits their level of investment. When 16 Year Old Kid makes a horribly underpowered army by choosing the 'cool' codex units that are overcosted and ineffective due to poor internal balance and continually gets wiped by vet players, he stops playing the game.

But this is GW's business model. Sell as much to the kids as possible right up front. And don't give a hoot if they quit. They already got that 16 year-old's money, they don't really care if he finishes the army. Maybe the kid who buys his stuff finishes it. More money. Maybe the 16 year old kid ponies up to "make it competitive". More money.

IntoTheRain wrote:Imagine if you were playing monopoly and the other players started berating you for being 'cheesy' for putting hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.

What about if you're playing Monopoly and you refuse to trade your cards? And someone berates you for that. Do some people play it that way? Yup. Do others play it that they trade regularly? Yup. Both are legal according to the rules, but if I play with trading (my 'house rules'), and someone else doesn't (their 'house rules'), who is to say who is playing "correctly" or "more or less competitively". Is the game broken? Should Milton Bradley (or whoever makes it) issue an FAQ?

Cruentus wrote:
But this is GW's business model. Sell as much to the kids as possible right up front. And don't give a hoot if they quit. They already got that 16 year-old's money, they don't really care if he finishes the army. Maybe the kid who buys his stuff finishes it. More money. Maybe the 16 year old kid ponies up to "make it competitive". More money.

This is the part of my post entitled "already losing money in a way that isn't easily measurable".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cruentus wrote:What about if you're playing Monopoly and you refuse to trade your cards? And someone berates you for that. Do some people play it that way? Yup. Do others play it that they trade regularly? Yup. Both are legal according to the rules, but if I play with trading (my 'house rules'), and someone else doesn't (their 'house rules'), who is to say who is playing "correctly" or "more or less competitively". Is the game broken? Should Milton Bradley (or whoever makes it) issue an FAQ?

Your argument is more akin to a competitive list player versus a noncompetitive list player than it is Monopoly Rules vs GW rules.

If the 'Go to Jail' spot was labeled 'Player Should Choose to Go to Jail' and the rules dictated 'give house-owning player money' without specifying an amount ($100? $5?) you'd have more similarities.

IntoTheRain wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

For the same reason that Ford & GW sponsors NASCAR vehicles that have absolutely nothing to do with anything produced in the last 20 or 30 years.

I really have no idea how sponsoring a car (which is there to advertise) is in any way the same as hosting a competitive event.

See emphasis above.

Horst wrote:I really don't know what all you people are going on about.

seriously.

yes, the rules have holes in them. Yes, those holes can break the game. But just follow the INAT faq, and you'll be fine. Its the only comprehensive document with even a hint of legitimacy (it was used at a GW sponsored event), and it covers most major holes in the game. Any others will be addressed by it in time.

You mean the INAT faq that changes rules based on how they think the rai from gw is?

Comprehensive doc? No more than the one someone wrote for their own house rules at their lfgs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:GW already loses customers to it, just not in a way that is easily measureable.

The game system is the only thing that sells their miniatures; people want to perform their own space opera by being A Space Marine, An IG Commander, Abaddon, Etc. Without the game system there's absolutely nothing that separates GW miniatures from all the others that retail for 1/3 of the price.

Their background entices people in while the high price limits their level of investment. When 16 Year Old Kid makes a horribly underpowered army by choosing the 'cool' codex units that are overcosted and ineffective due to poor internal balance and continually gets wiped by vet players, he stops playing the game.

That's a huge problem. Instead of buying another 1000 points to finish off his army, he sells his models off and buys more games for the Wii because those work without extensive retooling. The same thing applies to the guy who buys a massive pile of pewter only to find out that his army is mechanically inferior; like the Ghazghkull+Deffwing player that finds out he can't possibly beat 6 fast skimmers and two Land Raiders filled with AssTerms.

Bad rules make people quit playing. Bad rules make it hard to enter into this game because so many options don't perform well and the cost of buying enough new models to re-tool your army list is prohibitively high.

I believe GW has stated this several times over - just read any number of Jervis' Standard Bearer articles.

It's just at a number of people don't believe GW when they say so.

100% of the new people starting WH40k that I've met at the local gaming shop are buying the miniatures to play the game not the other way around, and believe me they do get upset when they find out that their Fluff list is worthless on the tabletop. Nobody gives a gak about miniatures except the diehard collectors who, ironically, represent the minority of their revenue stream.

110% absolutely correct and a QFT as well.

yes, I mean that faq. and the rules they change are points of contention, that they resolve. there will always be a discrepancy between rai and raw, and there has to be a resolution.

And it may be no more comprehensive than a house document, but its the ONLY 3rd party document to be endorced by a GW sanctioned event. That makes it, in my eyes, the most legitimate 3rd party FAQ to follow.

In my part of the world, we use INAT. I suggest everyone do the same, because we need a universal FAQ to make sure players from different parts of the world play the same way. Nothing is more annoying than going to a new place, looking for a game of 40k, and being stuck following some backwards house rules that are only used in that region.

I've had people scream and whine when I tell them my GKGM killed their daemon prince in one swing, because they say my force weapons are normal force weapons, yet those same people say my grey knight special rules don't work against the daemon prince because its not a Daemon.

INAT fixes issues like this. I cannot see how anyone can see this as anything but a positive.

Horst wrote:yes, I mean that faq. and the rules they change are points of contention, that they resolve. there will always be a discrepancy between rai and raw, and there has to be a resolution.

Or flat out just changes/makes up rules because they just want it to.

Horst wrote:And it may be no more comprehensive than a house document, but its the ONLY 3rd party document to be endorced by a GW sanctioned event. That makes it, in my eyes, the most legitimate 3rd party FAQ to follow.

Shoot. All 3rd party documents are endorsed by the single, most important rule from the brb. Is that 'legitimate' enough for ya?

Horst wrote:In my part of the world, we use INAT. I suggest everyone do the same, because we need a universal FAQ to make sure players from different parts of the world play the same way. Nothing is more annoying than going to a new place, looking for a game of 40k, and being stuck following some backwards house rules that are only used in that region.

And seeing that not everyone uses it, doesn't that make it 'some backwards house rules' itself?

Horst wrote:I've had people scream and whine when I tell them my GKGM killed their daemon prince in one swing, because they say my force weapons are normal force weapons, yet those same people say my grey knight special rules don't work against the daemon prince because its not a Daemon.

GW does this all the time. Perhaps stay at home if this is an issue?

Horst wrote:INAT fixes issues like this. I cannot see how anyone can see this as anything but a positive.

The INAT faq can change on issues for whatever reason. How is that a 'positive'? I can't post what I really want to say, but I hope folks get the point.

imweasel wrote:
Or flat out just changes/makes up rules because they just want it to.

Shoot. All 3rd party documents are endorsed by the single, most important rule from the brb. Is that 'legitimate' enough for ya?

And seeing that not everyone uses it, doesn't that make it 'some backwards house rules' itself?

GW does this all the time. Perhaps stay at home if this is an issue?

The INAT faq can change on issues for whatever reason. How is that a 'positive'? I can't post what I really want to say, but I hope folks get the point.

1) Please cite an example of a case where they arbitrarily change rules for no good reason. I fail to see any in the document.

2) The single most important rule suggests a dice off to resolve rule disputes as well. would you really hold this as a legitimate practice? that line is reflective of a GW attitude that states they should make up their own rules. This is true, and there needs to be a standardized document that defines those rules. The GW documentation leaves much to be desired, and someone needs to step in to fill the gap.

3) Enough people use it that it is more common than house rules followed at a single game store. The examples I mentioned (actual examples... I didn't make them up) are situations where the local store ignore rules and make up their own. This should not be an acceptable practice when playing against people from a different region. There should be a standardized set of rules for the game. The INAT faq is the closest thing we as a gaming community have.

4) Rules disputes should not be an issue, the rules should be clear, and free from interpretation of the reader. The INAT faq brings the game significantly closer to this state. Warhammer needs a unified set of rules, regardless of local situation. House rules are perfectly acceptable, but it should be agreed upon before the game is played. Not assumed to be in effect.

5) INAT can change on issues, true, but I fail to see how that is a negative. As long as the document is accepted universally, the contents of it do not matter. There are rulings in there that I disagree with as well, but I am willing to accept that fact as long as everyone I play against also accepts that fact, and the game will be better off.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:
I really have no idea how sponsoring a car (which is there to advertise) is in any way the same as hosting a competitive event.

See emphasis above.

So...what does advertising at an event have to do with running one? Thats a terrible analogy, especially since GW would naturally have a monopoly on what is being advertised at a 40k tournament. And that still doesn't explain how you find it acceptable that they say their rules aren't meant to be taken competitively yet the continue to run tournaments every year.

Cruentus wrote:

sourclams wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:Imagine if you were playing monopoly and the other players started berating you for being 'cheesy' for putting hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.

What about if you're playing Monopoly and you refuse to trade your cards? And someone berates you for that. Do some people play it that way? Yup. Do others play it that they trade regularly? Yup. Both are legal according to the rules, but if I play with trading (my 'house rules'), and someone else doesn't (their 'house rules'), who is to say who is playing "correctly" or "more or less competitively". Is the game broken? Should Milton Bradley (or whoever makes it) issue an FAQ?

I have no problem with people who want to play with house rules. Indeed, it I encourage it for anyone looking for a change of pace. But I'm talking about people attacking the way you play even if its within the base rules. Multiple Land Raiders are legal, just as hotels on boardwalk are legal. A strong ruleset is VERY important so that players have a strong baseline to start off on the same page with. Right now we don't have anything even close to that, and the attitude of the many of the players has become awful because of it.

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

"Beer and pretzels" my bottom. When most gaming groups consist of adults with work and/or families, you are talking about a considerable investment of time and effort. For an average 1.5-2K game with two participants your talking about 2-4 hours of time and the use of a whole room. "B&P" is when you grab a game that lasts a maximum of 30 minutes.

GW really needs to rework their official propaganda line.

Really, GW can call it whatever they want. They write it. Just because you don't like it, or think it should be something different, doesn't mean a damn thing. GW has made it clear that the gamer doesn't matter.

THere is a difference between calling something acceptable, and acknowledging the reality of the situation.

A-P wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

"Beer and pretzels" my bottom. When most gaming groups consist of adults with work and/or families, you are talking about a considerable investment of time and effort. For an average 1.5-2K game with two participants your talking about 2-4 hours of time and the use of a whole room. "B&P" is when you grab a game that lasts a maximum of 30 minutes.

GW really needs to rework their official propaganda line.

not exactly. My old group up in Gettysburg played "B&P" style historicals that took several hours.

"Beer and Pretzels" is (IMHO) more about simplistic rulesets than fast play.

40K (IMHO) now qualifies as a -fairly- simple ruleset, especially compared to older versions.

frgsinwntr wrote:You going to be in the NJ area anytime? I'll take you up on the competitive 40k game again.

You coming out for DaBoyz GT in Rochester this weekend? That'll be my first 40k in about 11 months, planning to go in with a borrowed army and won't know the list itself until the first game. Should be good times.

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

For publicity and to keep a segment/minority of their customers happy (the tourney gamer); these events also strengthen the overall value and brand.

sourclams wrote:

The game system is the only thing that sells their miniatures; people want to perform their own space opera by being A Space Marine, An IG Commander, Abaddon, Etc. Without the game system there's absolutely nothing that separates GW miniatures from all the others that retail for 1/3 of the price.

100% of the new people starting WH40k that I've met at the local gaming shop are buying the miniatures to play the game not the other way around, and believe me they do get upset when they find out that their Fluff list is worthless on the tabletop. Nobody gives a gak about miniatures except the diehard collectors who, ironically, represent the minority of their revenue stream.

Disagreed to an extent. The gamer segment is definitely one type of customer GW has but not THE customer. There are many segments in GW's market that never set foot in a store or play a single game with their armies; these players are in it for the fluff and cool miniatures ie the hobby aspect. Unlike other wargaming companies, GW's has been around for a long time with a very strong IP that you won't find in other franchises which further separates 'em from their "competition". And of course the people you'd find in a LGS are in it for the gaming - why else would they be there! Unless there's a painting studio too.

Howlingmoon wrote:

A-P wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

"Beer and pretzels" my bottom. When most gaming groups consist of adults with work and/or families, you are talking about a considerable investment of time and effort. For an average 1.5-2K game with two participants your talking about 2-4 hours of time and the use of a whole room. "B&P" is when you grab a game that lasts a maximum of 30 minutes.

GW really needs to rework their official propaganda line.

not exactly. My old group up in Gettysburg played "B&P" style historicals that took several hours.

"Beer and Pretzels" is (IMHO) more about simplistic rulesets than fast play.

40K (IMHO) now qualifies as a -fairly- simple ruleset, especially compared to older versions.

Agreed. 40k is an easy and streamlined game and with the right players a relatively quick one too. Meant for fun and entertainment than scrutinizing the rules with a fine tooth comb however the rules are still to a high enough degree that they are friendly to tournaments and imo the best GW has been yet. They've been constantly improving but still far from perfect --- however even the megasuccessfu World of Warcraft has this same problem despite being in a more readily updated format since its a video game. WoW has competitive play as seen in arena's however like 40k some combinations and decisions simply would not be competitive in such a context.

A-P wrote: "Beer and pretzels" my bottom. When most gaming groups consist of adults with work and/or families, you are talking about a considerable investment of time and effort. For an average 1.5-2K game with two participants your talking about 2-4 hours of time and the use of a whole room. "B&P" is when you grab a game that lasts a maximum of 30 minutes.

No, GW just makes the most expensive B&P games out there.

The fact that some people believe it's competitive, well, that's on them. Somewhere, I imagine there's a competitive Checkers league with the same arguments being hashed through again and again...

Neconilis wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:GW, please contract Paizo about writing the next edition of 40k? They actually seem to have some grasp of what they're doing?

Rehash old rules, fail to address the actual problems and continue to promote a game full of inherent unbalances? Thanks, but no thanks. In fact I think we have that already.

As opposed to writing a new set of something resembling rules full of WoW AND unbalance, in addition to canceling White Dwarf and making it a pay to play web blog?

God help us if Hasbro ever buys GW.

BaronIveagh wrote:As opposed to writing a new set of something resembling rules full of WoW AND unbalance, in addition to canceling White Dwarf and making it a pay to play web blog?

As someone who actually plays WoW and dislikes D&D 4E, this wee lil' argument is so blatantly false as to be an insult to mere dishonesty.

Horst wrote:1) Please cite an example of a case where they arbitrarily change rules for no good reason. I fail to see any in the document.

Changing specific army rules from a codex due to changes in the brb that were not in dispute. THAT'S BAD.

Horst wrote:2) The single most important rule suggests a dice off to resolve rule disputes as well. would you really hold this as a legitimate practice? that line is reflective of a GW attitude that states they should make up their own rules. This is true, and there needs to be a standardized document that defines those rules. The GW documentation leaves much to be desired, and someone needs to step in to fill the gap.

Dicing off is just as much of a legitimate practice as some of the 'player' made faqs out there. These faq's rule the way they want to play the game. THAT'S BAD.

Horst wrote:3) Enough people use it that it is more common than house rules followed at a single game store. The examples I mentioned (actual examples... I didn't make them up) are situations where the local store ignore rules and make up their own. This should not be an acceptable practice when playing against people from a different region. There should be a standardized set of rules for the game. The INAT faq is the closest thing we as a gaming community have.

Personally, I believe more people use the gw faq's than the inat faq.

Horst wrote:4) Rules disputes should not be an issue, the rules should be clear, and free from interpretation of the reader. The INAT faq brings the game significantly closer to this state. Warhammer needs a unified set of rules, regardless of local situation. House rules are perfectly acceptable, but it should be agreed upon before the game is played. Not assumed to be in effect.

The inat faq changes rules that were not in dispute. The rules were clear. The inat faq muddies the waters by changing things that don't need to be changed.

Horst wrote:5) INAT can change on issues, true, but I fail to see how that is a negative. As long as the document is accepted universally, the contents of it do not matter. There are rulings in there that I disagree with as well, but I am willing to accept that fact as long as everyone I play against also accepts that fact, and the game will be better off.

The contents don't matter? Change on issues not a negative?

Politics should not enter on what changes the inat faq does or make. It should be about rules and certainly not about hypothetical changes that gw may or may not make.

Does everyone realize that according to RaW, an Independent Character cannot end its movement within 2" of a vehicle model? That by the rules as they are written, that means that a techmarine cannot get into position to repair an immobilized vehicle?

And yet, amazingly, despite the rules being clear (An IC cannot join a vehicle unit, and an IC cannot end its movement within 2" of a unit it cannot join), I have never seen anyone play by that rule or even mention playing by that conclusion. If a statement codifying that existing practice made it into the INAT FAQ, would that still fall under "You're changing the rules, that's bad"?

imweasel wrote:Personally, I believe more people use the gw faq's than the inat faq.

I'd even go so far as to say that most people don't even know the FAQ's exist - be their GW's or Inat.

Snit's Revenge is a beer and pretzels game. Pass The Pigs is beer a pretzels game.

A game that costs £35 for just the incomplete basic rules is not a beer and pretzels game.

you guys keep saying INAT changes army specific rules that were clear for no good reason... please be specific, and give me a reference. I don't see any in there, but then again, I haven't strictly compared it to EVERY codex, because I don't own every codex.

and dicing off is NEVER a legitimate practice. people saying GKGM force weapons don't work do not deserve a 50% chance of being right, when they are obviously wrong.

Horst wrote:you guys keep saying INAT changes army specific rules that were clear for no good reason... please be specific, and give me a reference. I don't see any in there, but then again, I haven't strictly compared it to EVERY codex, because I don't own every codex.

Just do a search in the inat faq for 'rules change' and look some stuff up. It's quite interesting.

It's also interesting to note the changes made from different versions of an faq and the reasons why those changes were made.

Other than that, believe folks or not. It's obvious you have made up your mind on the matter.

imweasel wrote:Just do a search in the inat faq for 'rules change' and look some stuff up. It's quite interesting.

It's also interesting to note the changes made from different versions of an faq and the reasons why those changes were made.

Other than that, believe folks or not. It's obvious you have made up your mind on the matter.

It's funny how he directly asks you again and again for a quote of a bad rules change and you continue to ignore that.

Agamemnon2 wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:As opposed to writing a new set of something resembling rules full of WoW AND unbalance, in addition to canceling White Dwarf and making it a pay to play web blog?

As someone who actually plays WoW and dislikes D&D 4E, this wee lil' argument is so blatantly false as to be an insult to mere dishonesty.

I say WoW because if I wrote MMORPG I'd get five people asking what that was.

ph34r wrote:

imweasel wrote:Just do a search in the inat faq for 'rules change' and look some stuff up. It's quite interesting.

It's also interesting to note the changes made from different versions of an faq and the reasons why those changes were made.

Other than that, believe folks or not. It's obvious you have made up your mind on the matter.

It's funny how he directly asks you again and again for a quote of a bad rules change and you continue to ignore that.

I did just answer him. I am not going to post 50+ 'rules change' items from the inat faq.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

imweasel wrote:

ph34r wrote:

imweasel wrote:Just do a search in the inat faq for 'rules change' and look some stuff up. It's quite interesting.

It's also interesting to note the changes made from different versions of an faq and the reasons why those changes were made.

Other than that, believe folks or not. It's obvious you have made up your mind on the matter.

It's funny how he directly asks you again and again for a quote of a bad rules change and you continue to ignore that.

I did just answer him. I am not going to post 50+ 'rules change' items from the inat faq.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

No one's asking you to, all that was asked was for you to list one or two that you believed were unjustified and why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:As opposed to writing a new set of something resembling rules full of WoW AND unbalance, in addition to canceling White Dwarf and making it a pay to play web blog?

As someone who actually plays WoW and dislikes D&D 4E, this wee lil' argument is so blatantly false as to be an insult to mere dishonesty.

I say WoW because if I wrote MMORPG I'd get five people asking what that was.

Get thee behind me!