Talizvar wrote:


I have accepted what has been handed down because there is no means to bring about change except house rules or fluff that the OP has disallowed (which we have compensated in slight ways that make it acceptable).

And this ^^ is way GW will never change. Thinking like that, when the truth is being change is easy. I fact you don't have to do anything. Hell you can even play the game and still get the point across. The answer, is.... money. Stop giving it to them, you already have every thing you need to play. Any other money you give GW should be earned, not be couse of GW feel it there entitlement.

As the original poster of the thread that got locked that this one is based on; I feel it's high time that I commented.

Believe it or not I don't have an agenda. You see despite being involved with the Games Workshop hobbies and models for over 10 years, I have only actually played a small handful of games (coached ones at that) and I truly do not know how to play the game.

The purpose for the parameters that I originally created and that are repeated here is to force you to look at the game in an objective light upon its on merits. I'm often seeing people recommending the game for things that have little if any basis on whether or not the game in and of itself is any good.

And I have to admit I'm very surprised by the responses to both my thread and this one. The overwhelming consensus appears to be that no, the main games themselves are not very good. There have been numerous examples cited as to why the rules are inferior, with nobody actually being able to defend the rules on their own merits. The best I have seen so far is that " well my friends and I have fun with them". This is a disturbingly low standard.

I'm going to editorialize for a little bit as to why I think this appears to be so. The main games have been going on for quite some time now and as with anything begin to take a life of their own. Things that works at one time do not appear to work anymore. One thing that I have noticed is that the army sizes continue to grow. You don't have to be a professional game designer to realize that this can start creating problems. Another is that the original designers have left, bringing in a new crew of folks who may have their own design ideas and goals which are constrained to work within the vision of another artist. Of course the smartest thing to do would be to start from scratch, but that isn't without risk either. In addition to it being costly, you have to worry about how it would be received.

And if you look at this just from a mercenary standpoint there's really no reason whatsoever for Games Workshop to even bother trying to improve their rules. I mean on 20 plus pages here on this forum as to the quality of their rules nobody has been able to cite objectively what is good about them, yet still they are the most popular without question! So from Games Workshop's perspective clearly something is going right and why fix what's not broken. Obviously no matter what they publish people are going to buy it, playtested and clear or not. Hell I'm guilty of it as well. I bought myself a Tomb Kings codex, because I like them and the book is full of them. I haven't even played them in a bloody game, and I still bought it.

How can you argue with that kind of success?

 Phobos wrote:
SNIP

Several people who have claimed to be former GW staff have said that GW's main sales don't come from regulars, but those who buy starter sets and a few box sets, and not getting anything else. Going on this, it appears GW simply doesn't care about the complaints of those who are regulars because if they leave, people new to the hobby will replace.

Again, this is all conjecture.

Again - no-one is arguing against their success or popularity, without question they are the giants of the fantasy/sci-fi wargaming market.

But, in the same way as other markets, best selling does not automatically mean best in class. Look at some of the no.1 films that have come out, or music.

In the same way that music aficionados wouldn't club together and nod sagely about the artistic merit of the new One Direction CD, GWs games are popular because of their tremendous imagery (with big shoulder pads and grim future taking the place of large, physics-challenging hair dos) and their prior establishment. If you're seriously into wargames, you spend a lot of time playing them, 40k especially (I have a lot more time for WFB) runs out of mileage pretty fast and doesn't compare well to other systems that are out there for multiple reasons.

It makes sense from one point of view, which is how many armies does a player need before he is done?

Once you've got all the models, you only need new rules editions and codexes and a few supplementary models. For instance, if you are a long term Tau player, you probably only want the Riptide out of the new range for 6th edition.

The crazy thing is that GW could easily have their cake and eat it, too.

Writing quality rules would not discourage impulse buyers. Having easily understood rules that have minimal gray area would not discourage younger customers from entering the hobby. It would, however, encourage people who enter the hobby to continue to be customers in the future.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It makes sense from one point of view, which is how many armies does a player need before he is done?

14.

Once you've got all the models, you only need new rules editions and codexes and a few supplementary models. For instance, if you are a long term Tau player, you probably only want the Riptide out of the new range for 6th edition.

This is where supplements come in. But in the form of campaign books, rather than short lived army list off-shoots. Campaigns can add in specialised missions, which encourage players to add units to their army that they otherwise might not have bothered with, or can encourage them to start a new army or allied detachment specifically to play in that campaign, or buy new models to represent campaign advancements and veteran status and the like.

And unlike the army list supplements, a cleverly written campaign book doesn't suddenly become obsolete when a codex or the core rules are redone, because it's not reliant on the core rules... it just adds new missions and extras on top of the existing rules, whatever they happen to be at the time.

 Phobos wrote:
As the original poster of the thread that got locked that this one is based on; I feel it's high time that I commented.

Believe it or not I don't have an agenda. You see despite being involved with the Games Workshop hobbies and models for over 10 years, I have only actually played a small handful of games (coached ones at that) and I truly do not know how to play the game.

The purpose for the parameters that I originally created and that are repeated here is to force you to look at the game in an objective light upon its on merits. I'm often seeing people recommending the game for things that have little if any basis on whether or not the game in and of itself is any good.

And I have to admit I'm very surprised by the responses to both my thread and this one. The overwhelming consensus appears to be that no, the main games themselves are not very good. There have been numerous examples cited as to why the rules are inferior, with nobody actually being able to defend the rules on their own merits. The best I have seen so far is that " well my friends and I have fun with them". This is a disturbingly low standard.

I'm going to editorialize for a little bit as to why I think this appears to be so. The main games have been going on for quite some time now and as with anything begin to take a life of their own. Things that works at one time do not appear to work anymore. One thing that I have noticed is that the army sizes continue to grow. You don't have to be a professional game designer to realize that this can start creating problems. Another is that the original designers have left, bringing in a new crew of folks who may have their own design ideas and goals which are constrained to work within the vision of another artist. Of course the smartest thing to do would be to start from scratch, but that isn't without risk either. In addition to it being costly, you have to worry about how it would be received.

And if you look at this just from a mercenary standpoint there's really no reason whatsoever for Games Workshop to even bother trying to improve their rules. I mean on 20 plus pages here on this forum as to the quality of their rules nobody has been able to cite objectively what is good about them, yet still they are the most popular without question! So from Games Workshop's perspective clearly something is going right and why fix what's not broken. Obviously no matter what they publish people are going to buy it, playtested and clear or not. Hell I'm guilty of it as well. I bought myself a Tomb Kings codex, because I like them and the book is full of them. I haven't even played them in a bloody game, and I still bought it.

How can you argue with that kind of success?

I think the problem is that at this point, they are simply too big and have too many fans expecting their product to bewhat it already is to risk a massive overhaul of their rules. Where there is a lot of money at stake, especially combined with a large user base that is accustomed to things working a certain way, change comes very gradually. This is applicable to many things, not just GW.

Andy Chambers apparently envisaged it for 4th edition - complete overhaul, but it would have meant major reinvestment as all of the currently released material would have been useless. Obviously it was deemed too much of a risk, and so what we got was a version 3.2, with small incremental changes ever since.

He then left the company, check out the Starship Troopers game (sadly now defunct) which then used the rules instead, to check out what it might have been like.

Might have been somewhat like Dust Warfare, which he co-wrote more recently. I haven't played Starship Troopers, but from what I have read Dust Warfare was somewhat of a progression from those rules.

 Starfarer wrote:
I think the problem is that at this point, they are simply too big and have too many fans expecting their product to bewhat it already is to risk a massive overhaul of their rules.

I don't think that this is too much of a problem. GW's biggest customer groups are kids who buy a bunch of space marines and probably never even play the game, and self-titled "casual" players who brag obnoxiously about how much they don't care about the rules. The only people who would really be upset about a major rule change are the competitive players, and they're the ones who are most in favor of a major overhaul.

I think the bigger issue is that GW just doesn't want to take any risks at all. GW management is content to make a modest profit every year for a while longer until they retire. Like advertising rewriting the rules would cost money (have to pay for new game developers once you fire the incompetents they have right now) and not guarantee more short-term profit.

Where there is a lot of money at stake, especially combined with a large user base that is accustomed to things working a certain way, change comes very gradually. This is applicable to many things, not just GW.

The problem with this idea is that GW doesn't seem to have any long-term plan they're working towards. New rules change stuff without any apparent reason besides "this is what the author thought would be cool".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Starfarer wrote:


Where there is a lot of money at stake, especially combined with a large user base that is accustomed to things working a certain way, change comes very gradually. This is applicable to many things, not just GW.

The problem with this idea is that GW doesn't seem to have any long-term plan they're working towards. New rules change stuff without any apparent reason besides "this is what the author thought would be cool".

Then you have WHFB, which apparently had a long term plan from 6th ed., with Tuomas Pirinen (or however it was spelt) being the head designer. Then GW got rid of him halfway through 6th ed's. life. IIRC Gav Thorpe said there were certain things that they had to guess on when designing army books after he left as they had no clue on author intent on some things.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Starfarer wrote:
I think the problem is that at this point, they are simply too big and have too many fans expecting their product to be what it already is to risk a massive overhaul of their rules.

I don't think that this is too much of a problem. GW's biggest customer groups are kids who buy a bunch of space marines and probably never even play the game, and self-titled "casual" players who brag obnoxiously about how much they don't care about the rules. The only people who would really be upset about a major rule change are the competitive players, and they're the ones who are most in favor of a major overhaul.

You are being absolutely disingenuous if you don't think a complete overhaul of GW's core games would cause an uproar. It did from 2nd to 3rd, and it certainly would now. People are critical of every last minutia of GW's policies or releases. People throw tantrums and rage quit over rumors of rules changes.

This reality really isn't so much about GW as it is about people. People fear change and value certainty.

 Starfarer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Starfarer wrote:
I think the problem is that at this point, they are simply too big and have too many fans expecting their product to be what it already is to risk a massive overhaul of their rules.

I don't think that this is too much of a problem. GW's biggest customer groups are kids who buy a bunch of space marines and probably never even play the game, and self-titled "casual" players who brag obnoxiously about how much they don't care about the rules. The only people who would really be upset about a major rule change are the competitive players, and they're the ones who are most in favor of a major overhaul.

You are being absolutely disingenuous if you don't think a complete overhaul of GW's core games would cause an uproar. It did from 2nd to 3rd, and it certainly would now. People are critical of every last minutia of GW's policies or releases. People throw tantrums and rage quit or rumors of rules changes.

This reality really isn't so much about GW as it is about people. People fear change and value certainty.

Yep.

I was one of those who threw their toys out of the pram when 3rd landed, quit, sold my models (in theory, long story) and stopped taking an interest in GW at all.

Took me years to realise I'd been wrong.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It makes sense from one point of view, which is how many armies does a player need before he is done?

Once you've got all the models, you only need new rules editions and codexes and a few supplementary models. For instance, if you are a long term Tau player, you probably only want the Riptide out of the new range for 6th edition.

As a counterpoint - back in the day, most of the Warhammer/40K players that I knew had more than one army - Heck, I can field most of the warbands in Mordheim myself. (And do... I often end up fighting my own warband because I have loaned it to another player.*)

But then most of the players that I knew back then (Nineties to the Oughts) were also role players - the fantasy miniatures would end up being used for a lot of games.

The Auld Grump

* Last time I played Necromunda I had my arse handed to me on toast by one of my own gangs.... Serves me right for not playing in three years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
But I don't see why that should detract from my opinion of 40k

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but when it has been formed in a near vaccum it is worth far, far less than the opinion of someone who is knowledgable about the subject at hand.

Read the Epic:Armaggedon rules. They were a GW publication (although you may well have to resort to piratebay and the like now that Specalist games have finally been killed off) which are tightly written and concise. Ideally play a few games as well.
Once you have done so contrast them with the 40K rules and you will see just how bloated and imprecise they are.

And, in a round about way, this addresses what I consider the key problem -

GW can produce good games, and has produced good games, but isn't currently producing good games.

The excuse of 'beer and pretzels' does not work - I love Mordheim which was beer & pretzels game and a good game. Bloodbowl is a game that I hated - but it was a good game as well as a beer & pretzels game. (I don't have to like it for it to be a good game.) Warhammer Quest was all about the beer and the pretzels! (Literally - one group that I played with turned it into a drinking game. )

It is worse when a company that can produce such good games is instead selling schlock.

No one expects a gem from the writer of F.A.T.A.L..... He can get away with making more schlock....

The Auld Grump

 Starfarer wrote:
Might have been somewhat like Dust Warfare, which he co-wrote more recently. I haven't played Starship Troopers, but from what I have read Dust Warfare was somewhat of a progression from those rules.

And that is the dumbed down final version of Warfare, after someone else took over and FFG it. Board and card game FFG is great, but they never really been good at the miniature table top games. I really looking forward to the new version on Warfare.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


No one expects a gem from the writer of F.A.T.A.L..... He can get away with making more schlock....

Are you implying that FATAL isn't a gem?

I'm not sure what has already been said since I don't feel particularly motivated to wade through 11 pages of commentary, but I will still throw in my input.

I have little to no experience with Fantasy, so I will focus on 40k. Compared to other games I have either played or know players of, from a rules standpoint only 40k is well below average in terms of their rules. Even if we ignore issues of balance and some of the poorer design choices made, the rules are poorly written. There are numerous conflicts with rules within editions and even within the same book, and the exact wording of many rules seems to be a spot inconsistent. Worst of all, these inconsistencies seem to be, at least while I still followed 40k closely, poorly resolved. FAQs and Erratas were infrequent in their publication, and many of the most glaring issues are often left unresolved, or the proposed 'fixes' only complicate the rules further. To compare this, my two other gaming alternatives, Warmachine/Hordes and M:tG, use rules terminology that is consistent and the few uncertain issues are generally addressed fairly promptly (ie, judges at Wizards Events and Infernals on Privateer Presses forum). To put it simply, compared to many other games, fewer questions have clear answers in 40k than in many other gaming systems.

That being said, despite the fact that 40ks rules are flawed, I would say they are damaged rather than destroyed. They game is for the most part functional and tends to be enjoyable enough in most circumstances. I personally feel that GW could stand to look at its competitors, who are growing increasingly successful, particularly Warmahordes, Infinity, etc, and apply the lessons learned from their competitors to their own product. In the real world those who do not learn from their opponents will be overtaken by them. In every industry from industrial machinery to home appliances, whenever a company releases a new product the first batch is generally bought up by their competitors so that they can at least learn what a company is doing, if not use their designs or ideas as a base for improving their own. It is surprising that GW appears to be failing to look at what is making their competitors successful, and I hope that they start to adapt and look outside of their enclosed biosphere before they run themselves into the ground (particularly since according to their last earnings report they were merely profit neutral despite an overall improvement in the economy and significant increases in their margins on all products).

 Starfarer wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Starfarer wrote:
I think the problem is that at this point, they are simply too big and have too many fans expecting their product to be what it already is to risk a massive overhaul of their rules.

I don't think that this is too much of a problem. GW's biggest customer groups are kids who buy a bunch of space marines and probably never even play the game, and self-titled "casual" players who brag obnoxiously about how much they don't care about the rules. The only people who would really be upset about a major rule change are the competitive players, and they're the ones who are most in favor of a major overhaul.

You are being absolutely disingenuous if you don't think a complete overhaul of GW's core games would cause an uproar. It did from 2nd to 3rd, and it certainly would now. People are critical of every last minutia of GW's policies or releases. People throw tantrums and rage quit over rumors of rules changes.

Absolutely.. I remember the 'uproar' when marines changed from T3 to T4 at the tail end of 1st edition, it certainly wasn't popular with a lot of people (well.. at least the groups of people that I knew that played the game - obviously no internet to talk about back then!)

GW won't do this but they certainly have the capability to create an entirely new ruleset using the same models, while keeping the current 6th edition in print.

Call it 40K Advanced or something and write a new system from the ground up, taking account of 30 years of advances in wargames. 40K is at core the same game as original WHFB released in 1983.

(I'm sorry for ignoring Fantasy, it's just that I haven't played it since 2nd edition.)

I think Fantasy is in a similar boat - both rulesets are a product of evolution rather than revolution.

 Starfarer wrote:
You are being absolutely disingenuous if you don't think a complete overhaul of GW's core games would cause an uproar. It did from 2nd to 3rd, and it certainly would now.

It might cause an uproar among the small minority of GW's customers that post on forums, but that's hardly the end of the world. Just look at it by customer group:

The kids who buy a couple boxes of space marines and give up before finishing them don't care about the rules at all.

The people who play for the fluff and models might be a bit annoyed at having to learn new rules, but will be happy in the end since they can keep using their cool models.

The "beer and pretzels" players might care but won't ever admit it to anyone because they're terrified of being WAAC TFGs who care about the rules or winning.

The competitive players will celebrate because they'll finally have a proper competitive wargame to play.

People are critical of every last minutia of GW's policies or releases.

That's because GW's actions deserve criticism. People aren't complaining just because things are changing, they're complaining because GW is putting out questionable products and enforcing absolutely idiotic policies. If GW announced a comprehensive re-write of the game and the rumors suggested that it really would be a step up in quality most of the GW critics would probably be happy.

People throw tantrums and rage quit over rumors of rules changes.

Yes, but those people are a tiny and irrelevant minority. They make a lot of noise, but even if all of them actually quit instead of just threatening it to get attention (which will never happen of course) they would not cause a meaningful decrease in sales. In fact their loss would probably be more than offset by the increase in sales from having better rules.

Someone mentioned PP vs GW on rules generation. I seem to remember that when PP was updating the V2 rules, the posted the rules on their forums as a beta and allowed players to play them and provide feedback. This resulted in them having many, many players playing the rules and finding scenarios where rules would break that they wouldn't have known about until post publish.

GW's approach: here it is, be glad it is less than $100, we'll put up a couple page pdf in a couple weeks to address FAQs. BTW, the FAQ may be just as ambiguous because our intern will take care of it.

In order to have clear and concise rules, it has to be volume tested with people who like to abuse the rules. They can't be tested in low volume with "let's have fun" players. Let's have fun and rule's abusers are not mutually exclusive.

I'm one of GWs biggest detractors (that I know of) when it comes to the quality of their rules. I would praise a rewrite from the ground up from now till eternity if they did it well. I would forgive all of the past mistakes with poorly worded FAQs and shoddy wording, the fact that they ignore issues for multiple editions without an FAQ let along changing the wording in the rules...

Noir wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

I have accepted what has been handed down because there is no means to bring about change except house rules or fluff that the OP has disallowed (which we have compensated in slight ways that make it acceptable).

And this ^^ is way GW will never change. Thinking like that, when the truth is being change is easy. I fact you don't have to do anything. Hell you can even play the game and still get the point across. The answer, is.... money. Stop giving it to them, you already have every thing you need to play. Any other money you give GW should be earned, not be couse of GW feel it there entitlement.

Hey! now you are forcing me to quote myself, read a little further before you get on your soap box ... I had also said:

GW has more than adequately shown they are not interested in receiving our feedback or demands to better improve the game.
Only reducing their sales to a point they cannot juggle the books enough to show profit will they hunt around for a reason why.

Right now GW is not interested in our opinion as long as they can still manage to show profit even though after a little digging it is clear they have lost market share and actual sales are down.

Only after maybe a couple more rounds of putting out codexes, various silly e-pub stuff and new batches of models and them not getting the big financial boost they are hoping for will they be more willing to look at rules because nothing makes more money than a 7th edition 40k non-optional book we all have to purchase.

Getting more on topic: the rules have many opportunities for improvement, we only have to create the opportunity or wait until they are more receptive for change.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
The problem with this idea is that GW doesn't seem to have any long-term plan they're working towards. New rules change stuff without any apparent reason besides "this is what the author thought would be cool".

At the present moment the only plan is to ensure short term profitability, so dividends can be given to line the pockets of those in charge.
Increased infrastructure and R&D cost are contrary to that goal.
We may see a new renaissance when Kirby decides he wants to retire which would only be when the quarterly report stops showing a profit.

It has been said a few times that an idea from the art department turns into a model which then the rules are made for it.
A codex is typically made and written with an eye of what models were made, not possibly dictating the need for new models in certain elements of the army (shortage, balancing)

Usually, crafting rules involves defining the overall role of the army and creating the elements to support that role.
I think they are leaning on the "force choice slots" to maintain the balance of the army and not caring if they overload the "Fast", "Hvy", "Troop", etc. choices.
They also are happy to allow multiple units that do not take up any of these slots so many balance regulating elements of the rules are trumped.
As the various force choices get congested, the more powerful and versatile models are chosen and the rest never see the light of day.
If everything had it's place and had a more "rock-paper-scissors" element, tactical choice would be more difficult and tactics on the field become more interesting.

Again, pointless exercise with no venue for being heard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
The "beer and pretzels" players might care but won't ever admit it to anyone because they're terrified of being WAAC TFGs who care about the rules or winning.

I must remember never to bring up "beer and pretzels" again.

No "terror" here; caring about the rules is core to playing a game.
Having parameters for winning is the focus of a game however, so if you lose sight of that, you might as well go play in some real or virtual sandbox where "everybody wins!!!, hugs all around!".

If you do not follow the rules, you are no longer playing a "game".
It all just devolves into who, can B.S. who, the best.
The rules for 40k as they stand is a huge draw for those who live in the "gray zone" and know that every rule they do not like has a 50% chance to go their way.
I really fail to see any reason to get all up in arms about the fine points of the game when a basic rule like this exists, so we have some common ground here.

Chess has always been the game of choice for slapping your ego on a table, no luck to blame, no uneven rules for your army, just plain old direct competition.
There are examples of games with tight rule sets that allow excellent competitive opportunities, you will just have to wait and see if GW feels like making FB or 40k that way again; the business decision appears to be to keep rules "loose" as they are.

That's because GW's actions deserve criticism. People aren't complaining just because things are changing, they're complaining because GW is putting out questionable products and enforcing absolutely idiotic policies. If GW announced a comprehensive re-write of the game and the rumors suggested that it really would be a step up in quality most of the GW critics would probably be happy.

Again, agreeable statement but your opinion on this does not matter that would bring about meaningful change.
Buy a meaningful number of shares in the company and then you would be heard.

The "Allies" rule is IMO intended to compensate for unbalanced codexes by allowing an army to paper over the cracks with a different army's units.

Unfortunately, it creates more imbalances as well by allowing strong armies to double up or paper over their minor cracks.

I'm prepared to excuse the allies rule on the grounds of the modelling and painting options it opens up, and I while I enjoy playing, I probably rate the creative side slightly higher (it certainly takes up far more of my hobby hours than gaming.)

There's no reason why we couldn't have our cake and eat it though, balanced codexes where the allies rule existed solely to provide interest and flavour to armies, and wasn't a necessary evil to try and add balance.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW won't do this but they certainly have the capability to create an entirely new ruleset using the same models, while keeping the current 6th edition in print.

Call it 40K Advanced or something and write a new system from the ground up, taking account of 30 years of advances in wargames. 40K is at core the same game as original WHFB released in 1983.

(I'm sorry for ignoring Fantasy, it's just that I haven't played it since 2nd edition.)

Actually, I remember hearing rumours some time ago, prior to the release of Apocalypse, that there was going to be a '40k advanced' release. Sadly, what we got instead was the most hilarious version of 'The Emperor's new clothes' in the form of 'put all your minis on the table and play a game' (Apocalypse), something that pretty much every 40k fan ever had been doing since the age of 10 anyway.

BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

 blood ravens addiction wrote:
BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

You truly put forth a lot of thought into this answer.

How does the quality of the rules relate to fun for you? Please give us more of your insight from years as a seasoned game designer.

 blood ravens addiction wrote:
BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

This is by far the best post I have read on Dakka this year.

 Pacific wrote:

 blood ravens addiction wrote:
BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

This is by far the best post I have read on Dakka this year.

These are all very bold statements.

Well thats me convinced, but if its too fun for the emperor... Are we worthy?

Big P wrote:
Well thats me convinced, if its fun enough for the emperor...

We've been doing it wrong this entire time, they're just telling us that 40k is for the emperor and not for us

It all makes sense now... for the emperor.

 blood ravens addiction wrote:
BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

2/10.

i.e; opinions exist and you aren't great at understanding that we do not all posses the same view of GW as you do.

There's clearly some sort of cold or flu sweeping across Dakka, as several posters' noses are clearly so comgested they can't smell Troll,

Is this like one of those things where you can make any statement and add "for the emperor" at the end?

40k rules are gakk for the emperor.

40k plays like a "beer and pretzels" game for the emperor.

GW does as they see fit for the emperor.

Peregrine wants more competitive rules for the emperor.

All GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome for the emperor.

These are all very bold statements for the emperor.

Yup, I am convinced this new add-on endline is so full of win... for the emperor.

Chicks love 40k for the emperor.

 azreal13 wrote:
There's clearly some sort of cold or flu sweeping across Dakka, as several posters' noses are clearly so comgested they can't smell Troll,

Not troll, child.

Most of his posts are all of that quality it seems. 4 closed threads in... 5 minutes or so seems to tell a lot about this poster.

I think Rick Priestley addressed this idea really well a long time ago. I wish I had a link handy to the interview, but I think it was in a round of interviews for Hail Ceasar.

When you are a lad, you crave complexity for the sake of complexity. Knowing some obscure bit that the other players don't IS fun. Your mind latches onto details at the expense of the overall feel or flow.

As you mature, (and your memory gets cluttered with other stuff) you crave simplicity and streamlined play. Time becomes more valuable since you don't have hours to waste playing a game and chitter with your urchin friends.

Since GW's demo is (allegedly) younger lads with disposable income why would they try to improve and move away from the needless complexity when that is what their core demo wants? In fact, making the move could be counter-productive.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
There's clearly some sort of cold or flu sweeping across Dakka, as several posters' noses are clearly so comgested they can't smell Troll,

Not troll, child.
.

I see a distinction without a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
I think Rick Priestley addressed this idea really well a long time ago. I wish I had a link handy to the interview, but I think it was in a round of interviews for Hail Ceasar.

When you are a lad, you crave complexity for the sake of complexity. Knowing some obscure bit that the other players don't IS fun. Your mind latches onto details at the expense of the overall feel or flow.

As you mature, (and your memory gets cluttered with other stuff) you crave simplicity and streamlined play. Time becomes more valuable since you don't have hours to waste playing a game and chitter with your urchin friends.

Since GW's demo is (allegedly) younger lads with disposable income why would they try to improve and move away from the needless complexity when that is what their core demo wants? In fact, making the move could be counter-productive.

Can't fault the logic, so....40K Advanced anyone?

 azreal13 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
There's clearly some sort of cold or flu sweeping across Dakka, as several posters' noses are clearly so comgested they can't smell Troll,

Not troll, child.
.

I see a distinction without a difference.

One's dumb comments are purposeful and the others aren't?

 Easy E wrote:
I think Rick Priestley addressed this idea really well a long time ago. I wish I had a link handy to the interview, but I think it was in a round of interviews for Hail Ceasar.

When you are a lad, you crave complexity for the sake of complexity. Knowing some obscure bit that the other players don't IS fun. Your mind latches onto details at the expense of the overall feel or flow.

As you mature, (and your memory gets cluttered with other stuff) you crave simplicity and streamlined play. Time becomes more valuable since you don't have hours to waste playing a game and chitter with your urchin friends.

Since GW's demo is (allegedly) younger lads with disposable income why would they try to improve and move away from the needless complexity when that is what their core demo wants? In fact, making the move could be counter-productive.

Yes, I've felt that as well -- the sheer mass of minutiae appeals to the collecting mindset of the young teenager. Like Pokemon.

I hope that doesn't seem ageist.

 Phobos wrote:
As the original poster of the thread that got locked that this one is based on; I feel it's high time that I commented.

Believe it or not I don't have an agenda. You see despite being involved with the Games Workshop hobbies and models for over 10 years, I have only actually played a small handful of games (coached ones at that) and I truly do not know how to play the game.

The purpose for the parameters that I originally created and that are repeated here is to force you to look at the game in an objective light upon its on merits. I'm often seeing people recommending the game for things that have little if any basis on whether or not the game in and of itself is any good.

And I have to admit I'm very surprised by the responses to both my thread and this one. The overwhelming consensus appears to be that no, the main games themselves are not very good. There have been numerous examples cited as to why the rules are inferior, with nobody actually being able to defend the rules on their own merits. The best I have seen so far is that " well my friends and I have fun with them". This is a disturbingly low standard.

I'm going to editorialize for a little bit as to why I think this appears to be so. The main games have been going on for quite some time now and as with anything begin to take a life of their own. Things that works at one time do not appear to work anymore. One thing that I have noticed is that the army sizes continue to grow. You don't have to be a professional game designer to realize that this can start creating problems. Another is that the original designers have left, bringing in a new crew of folks who may have their own design ideas and goals which are constrained to work within the vision of another artist. Of course the smartest thing to do would be to start from scratch, but that isn't without risk either. In addition to it being costly, you have to worry about how it would be received.

And if you look at this just from a mercenary standpoint there's really no reason whatsoever for Games Workshop to even bother trying to improve their rules. I mean on 20 plus pages here on this forum as to the quality of their rules nobody has been able to cite objectively what is good about them, yet still they are the most popular without question! So from Games Workshop's perspective clearly something is going right and why fix what's not broken. Obviously no matter what they publish people are going to buy it, playtested and clear or not. Hell I'm guilty of it as well. I bought myself a Tomb Kings codex, because I like them and the book is full of them. I haven't even played them in a bloody game, and I still bought it.

How can you argue with that kind of success?

Don't underestimate networks effects, which is when a product is more valuable the more people that have it. The example people generally use for this normally are telephones, if only one person owns a telephone it isn't very valuable (you got no one to call) but as more people have them they become more valuable (now a days everyone seems to have a cell phone). The more modern example are websites like facebook, twitter, etc.. Games are the same way, if you have no one to play your game with it isn't as valuable.

For example if a new player walks into a LGS on both 40k night and lets say warmachine/hordes night. The GW night has 12+ players showing up to play while the WM/H has one regular person who shows up and maybe 1-2 people who show up occasionally. Which game has the stronger network effect? 40k, if the new player only can has enough money/time to buy into one game he very well may choose 40k just because it has the larger community.

I mean every friday I have gone to LGS the place always seems packed for Friday Night Magic, does that mean MTG is a "better" game then its competitors, nope it still has the much larger community though.

 Pacific wrote:

 blood ravens addiction wrote:
BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun


Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

This is by far the best post I have read on Dakka this year.

Indeed.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Not troll, child.

Also a shiny example of GW's target customer, it would seem.


for the emperor

 Easy E wrote:
I think Rick Priestley addressed this idea really well a long time ago. I wish I had a link handy to the interview, but I think it was in a round of interviews for Hail Ceasar.

When you are a lad, you crave complexity for the sake of complexity. Knowing some obscure bit that the other players don't IS fun. Your mind latches onto details at the expense of the overall feel or flow.

As you mature, (and your memory gets cluttered with other stuff) you crave simplicity and streamlined play. Time becomes more valuable since you don't have hours to waste playing a game and chitter with your urchin friends.

Since GW's demo is (allegedly) younger lads with disposable income why would they try to improve and move away from the needless complexity when that is what their core demo wants? In fact, making the move could be counter-productive.

im not really sold on this. even as kids my circle quickly began to exploit and break the 2nd edition rules. soon after that started we decided that the rules sucked and started playing D&D.
it was a very good choice i think, D&D was much cheaper, less work and more fun.

 Easy E wrote:
When you are a lad, you crave complexity for the sake of complexity. Knowing some obscure bit that the other players don't IS fun. Your mind latches onto details at the expense of the overall feel or flow.

As you mature, (and your memory gets cluttered with other stuff) you crave simplicity and streamlined play. Time becomes more valuable since you don't have hours to waste playing a game and chitter with your urchin friends.

I don't think this is really true, except in a broad sense. Sure, kids can get obsessed about something, but the stereotypical player for the really complex games (SFB, real-world "simulation" wargames, etc) is an older player who has "outgrown" the kid games. I think it's more a case that kids can obsess about details but don't have the context to understand the difference between good and bad complexity, so it's easy to just throw a bunch of trivia at them without really caring about the overall quality of the product. Meanwhile adults with more experience are willing to get into a complex game but have higher standards for a quality product that is worth the investment.

Since GW's demo is (allegedly) younger lads with disposable income why would they try to improve and move away from the needless complexity when that is what their core demo wants? In fact, making the move could be counter-productive.

But don't forget that GW has the incredibly detailed background for kids to obsess over.

SFB is tactically complex but the system is relatively simple, allowing a player to grasp the essential core of the game and understand the main features of any ship.

As I've gotten older (I'm not a lot older, just 22, but still not in my teens anymore), I've found that I still appreciate complexity in games as much as ever. For example, I absolutely love examining the tiniest minutia in games like Armored Core and Pokemon (despite the simple appearances on the surface, there's a hell of a lot going on underneath). But what I can't stand is arbitrary complexity that does nothing more than obfuscate actual gameplay, or much of any sense of grind.

40k is a perfect example of a game with a tonne of arbitrary complexity that does nothing more than obfuscate actual gameplay.

And grinding is pretty self explanatory, although I'd like to emphasize that I qualify it as a grind if it involves monotanous 'non-content' having to be repeated over and over again, to serve as little more than filler, or as an artificial wall between content. I have less time to actually spend playing games these days, and so any element of that spent on mindless filler is unappealing to the point of pushing me away from a game entirely.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
SFB is tactically complex but the system is relatively simple, allowing a player to grasp the essential core of the game and understand the main features of any ship.

Relatively simple system?
Are talking about the same rule set that has dozens of books and cross references from one to another?

I am talking about the SFB of 30 years ago when it was made by Amarillo Design Bureau.

The core mechanics are relatively simple and well explained, yet allow for the creation of any number of different ship designs, which the player can understand quickly from a view of the design layout.

I don't know what it may be like now. Perhaps someone has come along and sicked up a load of 40K style special rules and supplements all over it. Which would support the point about unnecessary complexity.

The same thing happened to Star Fire. Originally it was presented as three thin A5 rulebooks, which covered everything from ship design to combat to campaigns. In the 5th edition it has ballooned to a 375 page, A4 PDF, which cover everything from ship design to combat to campaigns, in much more detail and less fun.

The sad thing is,this 'kiddies do not want rules, just things to argue over' does not have to be true for Kirby to use it to undermine actual games development at GW .

''We spend less resources on rules development every year, but our fans still 'goober' over the 'shiney' new models they will pay any price for.And we still turn a profit.''
So this PROVES that WASTING resources on actual rules development is pointless to Kirby.

Appealing to the easiest to please, is NOT the way to grow a business is it?

To paraphrase Jevis Johnson, the 40k rules are written for 'collectors' who probably never play the game , or the people who think the rules are 'not that important'.

So writing for those that dont play or dont care means incredibly low standards are set for the game development .

'gw spending less and less on rules development every year' got a source on this?

It's difficult to see where they spend any money at all on rules development.

Look at the number of games published now compared to 10 years or 20 years ago. There are three, all of which are later than first edition and represent minor evolutions rather than new developments.

xruslanx wrote:
'gw spending less and less on rules development every year' got a source on this?

Their last few financial reports have been bragging about cutting costs across the board.

 jonolikespie wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
'gw spending less and less on rules development every year' got a source on this?

Their last few financial reports have been bragging about cutting costs across the board.

Please give us a quote; all i remember is seeing notes about controlling costs, IIRC the main element in the last report was about items like energy prices.

Remember, the last report we had on dakkadakka from someone who actually questioned the design staff, is that they're spending more money on recruiting designers, and investing more in production machinery. Appreciate that doesn't mean they're necessarily spending more on developing the rulesets... but i think we get a lot of disinformation circulated and repeated here that grows with the retelling.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
'gw spending less and less on rules development every year' got a source on this?

Their last few financial reports have been bragging about cutting costs across the board.

Please give us a quote; all i remember is seeing notes about controlling costs, IIRC the main element in the last report was about items like energy prices.

Remember, the last report we had on dakkadakka from someone who actually questioned the design staff, is that they're spending more money on recruiting designers, and investing more in production machinery. Appreciate that doesn't mean they're necessarily spending more on developing the rulesets... but i think we get a lot of disinformation circulated and repeated here that grows with the retelling.

The reality is, you wouldn't get a statement made publicly that would in any way be good enough to prove this, as it simply isn't an admission that would be politic to unveil to the world at large.

I did notice while reviewing the financial statement just in case there was something substantial enough that jumped out, that they have, for the first time this year, folded development costs into their "cost of sales" figure, which still remains at barely 25% of sales revenue. This could be something or nothing, but it is a change from previous years, I lack the desire or motivation to run with it. If someone was willing, there may be a way of extrapolating the changes between the cost of sales figure this year and where they were allocated in previous reports (I forget, sorry, but it is in the accounting notes.)

It also reminded me how fething scary Kirby's report was, either he himself is dumb as gak and got incredibly lucky to get where he is, or he has a really low opinion of the intellect of his investors, because that sure as hell doesn't read like a document from the chairman and CEO of a multi million pound turnover PLC!

 jonolikespie wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
'gw spending less and less on rules development every year' got a source on this?

Their last few financial reports have been bragging about cutting costs across the board.

And you just assume that means they arbitrarily slashed product development? At the same time that codexes and suppliments are being churned out at a rate literally unheard of in their history?

xruslanx wrote:
And you just assume that means they arbitrarily slashed product development? At the same time that codexes and suppliments are being churned out at a rate literally unheard of in their history?

It can be both at once. GW isn't spending much per product (or if they are, they certainly aren't getting much out of their money) but they're putting out new products so frequently that they've had to maintain or increase their total spending.

I didn't feel like the initial post had enough information to adequately answer the question.

Specifically, I think that the consistent cycle of updated rule books (at a pace which is slow enough to not break the bank) is one of the best parts of the game. It seemed like we were supposed to disregard that, though. It also didn't specify if we were looking only at wargames, only at games that were in-print, or if we were to take codexes/army books into account when making this distinction.

I said 'above average.' The rules usually seem pretty clear, and I've never encountered a game with both a rules set that was complex enough to make me feel like it made a game effort at approximating reality, while at the same time being completely devoid of grey areas. The fact that GW has (until recently) been fairly good at putting out clarifying FAQs only heightens my enjoyment for their game.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Specifically, I think that the consistent cycle of updated rule books (at a pace which is slow enough to not break the bank) is one of the best parts of the game. It seemed like we were supposed to disregard that, though.

No, it's fair to consider that. What I meant about "current edition" is that you shouldn't be voting based on "5th edition transport spam sucked" or "2nd edition was the best game ever!". The poll is about the current state of GW's games, not what they've been like years ago.

Though IMO the update cycle is one of the bad things about the game since it ensures that at least half of the armies always have outdated rules.

I said 'above average.' The rules usually seem pretty clear, and I've never encountered a game with both a rules set that was complex enough to make me feel like it made a game effort at approximating reality, while at the same time being completely devoid of grey areas.

Do you really never notice all of the many rule problems (see YMDC), or are you just willing to 4+ it and forget about it? I've just never seen anything that suggests that GW's rules are above average in clarity, and certainly no argument that the clarity of GW's rules is so great that it elevates the overall rating to "above average". Nor would I really say that GW games do a good job of approximating reality, with the awful IGOUGO turn structure, flyers floating around the battlefield at a walking pace, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

Do you really never notice all of the many rule problems (see YMDC), or are you just willing to 4+ it and forget about it? I've just never seen anything that suggests that GW's rules are above average in clarity, and certainly no argument that the clarity of GW's rules is so great that it elevates the overall rating to "above average". Nor would I really say that GW games do a good job of approximating reality, with the awful IGOUGO turn structure, flyers floating around the battlefield at a walking pace, etc.

No, I just think that the MAJORITY of the rules problems can be settled with an application of common sense. (Just like the MAJORITY of new threads in YMDC wind up being settled by simply looking at the rules.) Most of the rules problems I see where an immediate solution isn't apparent to both players usually stem from both players being influenced by their personal stake in the matter. Especially when the rules don't concern armies I play, the way it is supposed to work usually jumps out at me fairly quickly. The solutions seem to be readily apparent to you, too, since you seem to be fairly confident in your answers in the YMDC forum. I can't ever recall you saying you thought the situation could go either way. (Not saying you haven't, I just can't remember.)

I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate grey areas, because there are. It's just that any game that is tight enough to NOT have those rules holes has always been too simple for me. Fuzzy Heroes had an awesome rule set, probably my favorite in all of wargaming. Far too simple for long term satisfaction, but gratifyingly good rules nevertheless.

NO game is ever going to approximate reality perfectly. I must be misunderstanding what you mean when you say IGOUGO, because I can't fathom any kind of alternative. We both go at the same time? Like Hungry Hungry Hippos? Or are you meaning a system where I move, then you move, then I shoot, then you shoot, rather than doing our whole turns at once?

Battletech had a great rules system, but nobody plays that anymore. The Clix based games had a really good rule system when they started, but the collectible nature of the game has driven it far from my ability to enjoy it any longer.

Now I freely admit that my willingness to TRY new rules is limited, anymore. I've bought into far too many game systems only to have them tank and leave me with books, cards, or miniatures I have no use for. If a new system doesn't show some promise of stability (or alternative use) I'm not usually willing to try it, and I freely admit that this would color my opinion on this poll.

 Jimsolo wrote:
The solutions seem to be readily apparent to you, too, since you seem to be fairly confident in your answers in the YMDC forum. I can't ever recall you saying you thought the situation could go either way.

That's because I only post in YMDC when I'm very confident in my answer. But even when I do post something I'm very sure about there's someone else very confidently claiming the exact opposite. For example, look up some of the nice arguments over where you can place the ADL gun.

I must be misunderstanding what you mean when you say IGOUGO, because I can't fathom any kind of alternative.

There are at least two good alternatives:

1) Use a system of alternating unit activations. I move a unit, you move a unit, until we've moved all of our units. I shoot with a unit, you shoot with a unit, until we've shot with all of our units. Or even generalize it to "choose a unit and move or shoot or assault with it", alternating choices until each unit has acted. X-Wing is a good example, with ships acting in order of their pilot skill, which even turns the alternating sequence into a strategic choice of how much you're willing to pay to get the first action.

2) Use a system of actions and reactions. I move a model, but you can react to my move by shooting at it as it crosses an open window. I shoot, but you shoot back. Etc. Infinity does a good job of this and makes it so even when it's your turn your opponent gets to respond immediately to your actions as they happen.

Either way actions are happening at a reasonable approximation of simultaneously instead of having an entire army standing around doing nothing while every enemy unit does a full sequence of actions, which is unrealistic and incredibly boring.

Either of your alternatives seem fine.

I do agree that one of the largest flaws in the GW rules set is the amount of 'down time' you have during your opponent's move phase. Also, the inability to shoot into melee.

I still don't think it's a sub-par rules system, though. (I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.) There's always room for tweaking. (And always a new edition to hope will bring those tweaks!)

I'd definitely be willing to play 40k in an alternating unit system (although that could throw a monkey wrench into codex balance, but that could be ironed out with an update).

In the past 9 years GW have put out the following rule books:

WHFB 6th, 7th and 8th editions -- updates of 5th edition.
WH40K 4th, 5th and 6th editions -- updates of 3rd edition.
Planetstrike -- an adaptation of 40K.
Cities of Death -- an update of the earlier Cityfight (?) book.
Planetary Empires -- an adaptation of Mighty Empires.
Space Hulk 3rd edition -- an update of 2nd edition.
Apocalypse -- an adaptation of 40K.
Various codexes that are updates of the previous version.
Blood Bowl edition X -- an update of the previous edition.
Trafalgar -- historical naval rules, withdrawn.
Dread Fleet -- a genuinely new game that flopped, partly due to the poor quality rules.
The Hobbit -- an update of LoTR.

Where are GW putting all this money into rules development?

 azreal13 wrote:
[.)

It also reminded me how fething scary Kirby's report was, either he himself is dumb as gak and got incredibly lucky to get where he is, or he has a really low opinion of the intellect of his investors, because that sure as hell doesn't read like a document from the chairman and CEO of a multi million pound turnover PLC!

Scary is in the eye of the beholder. Kirby is actually pretty widely respected for the lack of BS, for instance attracted a complimentary report in the Telegraph. I'm not saying the sun shines out of his butt, but he's been there 20 years, and compared to most MDs he has a good record of delivering - for shareholders, at any rate, which is why their share performance is very good. WE as purchasers might not agree, of course.

For me, the current rules for both 40k and Fantasy are alright, I have not played much games though.

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
[.)

It also reminded me how fething scary Kirby's report was, either he himself is dumb as gak and got incredibly lucky to get where he is, or he has a really low opinion of the intellect of his investors, because that sure as hell doesn't read like a document from the chairman and CEO of a multi million pound turnover PLC!

Scary is in the eye of the beholder. Kirby is actually pretty widely respected for the lack of BS, for instance attracted a complimentary report in the Telegraph. I'm not saying the sun shines out of his butt, but he's been there 20 years, and compared to most MDs he has a good record of delivering - for shareholders, at any rate, which is why their share performance is very good. WE as purchasers might not agree, of course.

Talking of "eye of the beholder" you're still the only poster I've encountered who thinks that Telegraph article was written in a positive way, nearly everyone else (myself included) seemed to take the general gist completely differently.

 azreal13 wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
[.)

It also reminded me how fething scary Kirby's report was, either he himself is dumb as gak and got incredibly lucky to get where he is, or he has a really low opinion of the intellect of his investors, because that sure as hell doesn't read like a document from the chairman and CEO of a multi million pound turnover PLC!

Scary is in the eye of the beholder. Kirby is actually pretty widely respected for the lack of BS, for instance attracted a complimentary report in the Telegraph. I'm not saying the sun shines out of his butt, but he's been there 20 years, and compared to most MDs he has a good record of delivering - for shareholders, at any rate, which is why their share performance is very good. WE as purchasers might not agree, of course.

Talking of "eye of the beholder" you're still the only poster I've encountered who thinks that Telegraph article was written in a positive way, nearly everyone else (myself included) seemed to take the general gist completely differently.

Is that because it went on to compare Kirby to another "straight-talker" who it then implied used straight-talking and theatre as a tactic to stop people focussing to clearly on the actual business?

I'd also like to see "widely respected" quantified/defined or otherwise demonstrated, since the likely reality for a company of GW's size is "most commentators don't care".

More an example of confirmation bias in action I think.

You could certainly read the article the way HO seems to, but it isn't in any way more valid to read it one way than the other, so as any sort of "evidence" to back up an argument the whole thing is pretty much worthless. At least until we can get confirmation from the author as to the intent behind the article.

I've also never seen anything written about The Taxman outside of that one piece, and would agree, on instinct and nothing else, that as the head of a small fish in a puddle, he really wouldn't show up on enough people's radar in the wider financial community to be "widely" anything.

But I'm sure all those arguing in favour of TK and GW will have oodles of evidence to prove me wrong, as they wouldn't dream of throwing out hyperbole with no facts to back it up when all us "antis" get accused of that all the time!

I'm trying desperately to think of something to bring this line of chat around closer to topic, but can't, so I'll leave it at that!

text removed.
Reds8n

How disappointing.

Via other people quoting you, I decided to take you off ignore, as you seemed to at least be trying to engage in proper discussions rather than name calling.

I try and deal in facts and logical arguments, informed opinions from my own experience and information provided by others. This is how it is possible to conduct proper, adult discussions where parties can disagree but still remain civil.

Something you have repeatedly, and spectacularly failed to do on numerous occasions.

Ignore function reapplied, I won't make the same mistake again.

EDIT
One more thing. Try and refute my arguments. Go on, just once, rather than name calling, actually come up with a reasoned response as to why I am wrong, backed up with objective fact, rather than opinion. Or, even easier, simply express why you disagree with me in a reasoned and eloquent manner, explain why you think I'm wrong, without even proving it. Your persistent abusiveness just brings the whole board down with its presence.

xruslanx wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

But unlike GW, Bethesda patches and updates their games in a regular manner to remove negative play experiences.

GW releases FAQs. You can choose to pretend that the minor issues these FAQs don't address are game-breakingly bad, or you cannot. But please don't be dishonest enough to claim that GW do not actively try to resolve rules problems via FAQs.

Similarly you can pretend that a fully patched Bethesda game is completely playable, but that won't make it true.

My copy of Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas have been completely playable since day 1. I've never had any bugs or issues with my games. That doesn't mean I'm willfully blind to the fact that they do exist. The difference at this point becomes how often these patches, faqs, erratas, etc... are released
Bethesda and GW both release 'patches' to their games, 1 company does these in a regular manner, and the other releases a new update every 6 months if we're lucky. To put this in perspective, I play Chaos Space Marines, for the longest time it was argued that Abaddon couldn't join another unit with a mark of chaos because he had all of the marks, so his Mark of Nurgle would prevent him from joining a Mark of Tzeentch unit, etc... GW took 6 months to answer this issue. 6 months of people arguing and bickering. Besthesda took care of minor issues that were plaguing people in Skyrim and appeasing people until they could release an update that fixed how horribly broken crafting was in the game. Tonight I can go home and I can play Skyrim and expect 0 issues, and 0 questions about how something should work. I can play 40k this Friday and expect at least 5 rules discussions about various things.

You got lucky with Skyrim then. I had at least two main plot developments that failed to trigger, meaning I had to open the console and do it myself. And putting the problem into google revealed that others had the problem too, hence why a console solution existed. There was also a quest in a city (I can't remember exactly, something about helping some dudes break out of a mine and take over the city) that every single time would result in all the guards in the city turning hostile and attacking you for the rest of the game. Whoops.

Contrast this to 40k where 99% of problems can be resolved in a few seconds. 40k certainly is more "polished" than Skyrim.

You cant compare 40k to Skyrim, development and support of game's like skyrim and 40k are worlds apart

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Anything from the original WoD. Axis & Allies. The original WWF game. Marvel Classic. Overpower. Talisman. Necromunda. Just off the top of my head. (I didn't list any originally because I figured everyone knew at least ONE system worse than GW's, and I didn't want to offend anyone's love for a particular game, or drag the thread off topic.)

 Jimsolo wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Anything from the original WoD. Axis & Allies. The original WWF game. Marvel Classic. Overpower. Talisman. Necromunda. Just off the top of my head. (I didn't list any originally because I figured everyone knew at least ONE system worse than GW's, and I didn't want to offend anyone's love for a particular game, or drag the thread off topic.)

Two of those are GW systems, Jim...

 Jimsolo wrote:

Anything from the original WoD. Axis & Allies. The original WWF game. Marvel Classic. Overpower. Talisman. Necromunda. Just off the top of my head. (I didn't list any originally because I figured everyone knew at least ONE system worse than GW's, and I didn't want to offend anyone's love for a particular game, or drag the thread off topic.)

What was wrong with Necromunda? Aside from its quite dodgy campaign balance of course.

There are 4 things that a game requires to be above average.

It needs clear and concise rules. They can be in depth but they must not be ambigous nor obtuse.

A single 'turn' needs considerable imput from both players. Variable activation systems are fine, as are systems which allow actions within the opponents turn, such as reaction fire or ambushes.

Components within a given army must be able to effectively support each other in ways that don't simply involve killing things; suppression fire, reducing cover saves or providing concealment for example.

It must be balanced, both internally and externally. Mixture of units A must be able to beat mixture of units B,C,D,E etc with appromiately the same chance of success.

Of these 4 40K manages about 0.5 due to the (inadequate) inclusion of overwatch and the ability to roll saves.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Havok: Skirmish springs to mind `


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:
What was wrong with Necromunda? Aside from its quite dodgy campaign balance of course.

There were some serious balance issues, both with the campaign rules and with some of the stuff added after the core rules (Spyrers got insanely good far too quickly), but I can't think of any major flaws in the rules themselves that wouldn't have been covered in FAQs. It was pretty much just 2nd edition 40K with some additional rules, with the difference being that the 2nd edition rules worked so much better with Necromunda due to all of your models running solo.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Specifically, I think that the consistent cycle of updated rule books (at a pace which is slow enough to not break the bank) is one of the best parts of the game.

It'd be a lot better if the cycle was consistent and even. One of the most aggravating things about GW (and a big factor in why I quit) is how some armies can get stuck in a cycle of getting no support because they're unpopular, and being unpopular because they're getting no support.

 Jimsolo wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Anything from the original WoD. Axis & Allies. The original WWF game. Marvel Classic. Overpower. Talisman. Necromunda. Just off the top of my head. (I didn't list any originally because I figured everyone knew at least ONE system worse than GW's, and I didn't want to offend anyone's love for a particular game, or drag the thread off topic.)

Well, if you are rating GW's rules above average it helps to know against what games you are measuring them.

Most of the games you've stated aren't miniature games, they are board games and RPG's and I'm sorry but I have no idea what WoD or Overpower are.

From that whole list, only Necromunda is really a miniature game (that I recognize at least), and sure, its campaign system has a few flaws balance wise. But as far as rules clarity and even tactical depth? Its miles ahead of 40k 6th edition...

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Anything from the original WoD. Axis & Allies. The original WWF game. Marvel Classic. Overpower. Talisman. Necromunda. Just off the top of my head. (I didn't list any originally because I figured everyone knew at least ONE system worse than GW's, and I didn't want to offend anyone's love for a particular game, or drag the thread off topic.)

Well, if you are rating GW's rules above average it helps to know against what games you are measuring them.

Most of the games you've stated aren't miniature games, they are board games and RPG's and I'm sorry but I have no idea what WoD or Overpower are.

From that whole list, only Necromunda is really a miniature game (that I recognize at least), and sure, its campaign system has a few flaws balance wise. But as far as rules clarity and even tactical depth? Its miles ahead of 40k 6th edition...

WoD is, I think, World of Darkness - which had middling rules that I think are better than the current run of any of the GW games or than the current WoD. But I will qualify that as being the last editions of the old WoD games. The first editions... had problems. (Though many of those problems kicked in with Storytellers not realizing that increasing Difficulty also increased the chance to Botch. Easiest fix was to actually use 6 as the default Difficulty....)

I also semi-disagree with Necromunda being on the list - I have had more fun with Necromunda than any current GW game. (The semi is that either way it is a matter of opinion - Necromunda had serious balance issues, but was enough fun to play that I enjoyed it anyway. Compare that to 4e D&D which has very balanced rules, but that I had no fun at all playing.)

The Auld Grump - I got stomped hard last time I played Necromunda, but still had fun.... (Worse... I got stomped by a Gang that I had built.... )

I don't see the point of comparing a role-playing game with a tabletop wargame.

The point of an RPG is that the game master uses rules to facilitate the production of an ongoing story featuring the characters portrayed by the players. He can change the rules as much as he likes if needs be.

A tabletop game needs clear rules that are balanced and fair to both sides, because both players have the same relationship to the rules and to each other.

Just popping in here now so sorry if this point was already made.

The poll is clearly biased. You provide 3 options for how the game can be below average but only 2 possibilities for how it can be above average.

That point was already made.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't see the point of comparing a role-playing game with a tabletop wargame.

The point of an RPG is that the game master uses rules to facilitate the production of an ongoing story featuring the characters portrayed by the players. He can change the rules as much as he likes if needs be.

A tabletop game needs clear rules that are balanced and fair to both sides, because both players have the same relationship to the rules and to each other.

Which is where I think 4e D&D lost touch... trying to balance the GM with the players.

But... Apples >=< Oranges. (Apples to Oranges is a term that has always annoyed me - there are a lot of ways to compare apples to oranges, starting with nutritional value....)

There can also be significant overlap when an RPG setting is shared with a wargame - Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer Fantasy Role Play as examples.

Back on topic - Warning - Rambling Ahead -

One recurring comment is that the GW games have good fluff/background.

I am not certain about the value of background fluff, even if the background is good. (And I will grant that GW has decent background - though their three ring binder approach to their history annoys the heck out of me.) I am not saying that fluff either positively or negatively impacts the rules, merely that I am not certain how I feel about the way that it impacts the rules.

If you are looking to create your own setting then making the background integral to the rules can be a bad thing.

If you just want to play the game, and do not enjoy creating background then it can lead to a game that lacks flavor.

I very much liked Fire Fusion & Steel for the old GDW Traveller: The New Era. Which had a direct impact on the wargame Brilliant Lances - because you could use the rules in FF&S to create ships, and even to determine the properties of the available design elements.

Traveller used the Jump Drive - but FF&S included rules for Stutterwarp, Keyhole, Wormhole, Psionic, etc. Drives - even though they only used Jump.

But, even if you determined the design elements ahead of time... ship design could be a lengthy and involved process.

In Warhammer and Warhammer 40K the setting is directly involved in the Magic and Psycher systems - so the setting does have a direct impact upon the rules.

Magic is dangerous and powerful, with variable resources available to draw upon at any given time.

There are no rules for tailoring the games to different settings - so will be dissatisfying for folks that want to create their own setting, while a system that allows tinkering might seem flavorless to someone that really likes 40K because of the way its fluff impacts the rules.

I prefer Full Thrust to Battlefleet Gothic - but some might find it not to their tastes, it is very easy to tailor to fit what I want.

I also like World Works' Wormhole game (Free Here). In that case the setting more directly impacts the rules. Scattered minor Wormholes changes the tactics of the game by an enormous degree.

So... what I think that I am saying is that the setting fluff may impact WH more than folks expect, and does affect how folks feel about the rules themselves.

The Auld Grump

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
The poll is clearly biased. You provide 3 options for how the game can be below average but only 2 possibilities for how it can be above average.

Because there are only two relevant options for being above average. There is no reasonable opinion above "it's the best", so adding an option above it would be something absurd like "divine perfection, I don't play because I am not worthy". On the other hand there's a significant and interesting difference between "it sucks but I keep playing" and "it sucks and I quit", so it makes sense to split the "it sucks" option into two choices.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
The poll is clearly biased. You provide 3 options for how the game can be below average but only 2 possibilities for how it can be above average.

Because there are only two relevant options for being above average. There is no reasonable opinion above "it's the best", so adding an option above it would be something absurd like "divine perfection, I don't play because I am not worthy". On the other hand there's a significant and interesting difference between "it sucks but I keep playing" and "it sucks and I quit", so it makes sense to split the "it sucks" option into two choices.

Well, at least you have a reason for your clearly biased poll.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Well, at least you have a reason for your clearly biased poll.

Well, we've certainly established that you don't know what "biased" means.

(And of course given that only 2% of the people so far have voted for "best" I don't really see what adding another category above "best" would accomplish.)

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Well, at least you have a reason for your clearly biased poll.

Having 3 choices for variations on 'below average', having 2 choices, or having a hundred choices, it's still the same number of people voting 'below average'...

Rules are a mathematical model for simulating troop and vehicle behaviour. You could use a completely different game turn sequence in 40K without needing to change the background fluff.

Fluff affects rules in the sense that if you write a particular thing into the fluff, and you want to express it on the tabletop, you have to write a rule for it. The Tyranid "Instinctive Behaviour" rule is a good example.

Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Well, at least you have a reason for your clearly biased poll.

Well, we've certainly established that you don't know what "biased" means.

(And of course given that only 2% of the people so far have voted for "best" I don't really see what adding another category above "best" would accomplish.)

insaniak wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Well, at least you have a reason for your clearly biased poll.

Having 3 choices for variations on 'below average', having 2 choices, or having a hundred choices, it's still the same number of people voting 'below average'...

You're right I have no idea what biased means at all, let me go look it up real quick. I never said the option needed to be added above "best", it just needs to be above average or as you termed it "adequate". The use of the term adequate in and of itself is an attempt to mislead people into choosing that option rather than one higher than it.

Insaniak it isn't about those who voted below average. Having fewer legitimate options for the above "adequate" level than exist below it means you are limiting the options of poll responders who may otherwise have given a positive response.

The inclusion of the 3rd option "unplayable" shows a clear bias in and of itself. Oh wait, I forgot I don't know what that word means.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
I never said the option needed to be added above "best", it just needs to be above average or as you termed it "adequate".

You realize I included an option for "above average", right?

The use of the term adequate in and of itself is an attempt to mislead people into choosing that option rather than one higher than it.

No, the use of the term "adequate" is meant to represent the common response in the previous thread that inspired this poll: "I play GW games because of the fluff/models, and the rules are good enough to let me do that".

Having fewer legitimate options for the above "adequate" level than exist below it means you are limiting the options of poll responders who may otherwise have given a positive response.

No it doesn't. There is a full range from "average" to "above average" to "best", covering any positive response you want to give.

The inclusion of the 3rd option "unplayable" shows a clear bias in and of itself.

Yeah, it's completely biased to be interested in the difference between "it sucks but I play anyway" and "it sucks and I quit". It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to know that about 21% of the people voting rank GW's games among the worst in the industry but only about a third of them feel so strongly about the issue that they refuse to support GW.

I may not agree with Peregrine's opinion about the GW rules, but claiming this poll is biased simply based on the number of responses is a little silly.

All of the response options are legitimate. (Best, good, neutral, bad, worst, worst AND I quit.) Adding another option about 'best' serves no purpose. (And what would it BE? What is the logical counterpoint to 'so bad I quit?' 'So good it should be legally mandated to play?') The relevant data to draw here will be (similar to my series of Objective Opinion threads) in the balance between positive and negative response, regardless of how many options they are split across. The splitting of the two sides of the spectrum into different component responses is done simply for curiosity's sake.

EDIT: Unless, Overwatch, you meant to say that the mere suggestion that the game is unplayable (and not the numerical rank of that option) is what makes the poll biased? That's also silly, but for a different reason. I guess I'm confused, since I can't really see where you think this poll is biased. I mean, obviously Peregrine has an opinion, but I think he's done a very lovely job of keeping the poll itself neutral.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
I never said the option needed to be added above "best", it just needs to be above average or as you termed it "adequate".

You realize I included an option for "above average", right?

The use of the term adequate in and of itself is an attempt to mislead people into choosing that option rather than one higher than it.

No, the use of the term "adequate" is meant to represent the common response in the previous thread that inspired this poll: "I play GW games because of the fluff/models, and the rules are good enough to let me do that".

Having fewer legitimate options for the above "adequate" level than exist below it means you are limiting the options of poll responders who may otherwise have given a positive response.

No it doesn't. There is a full range from "average" to "above average" to "best", covering any positive response you want to give.

The inclusion of the 3rd option "unplayable" shows a clear bias in and of itself.

Yeah, it's completely biased to be interested in the difference between "it sucks but I play anyway" and "it sucks and I quit". It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to know that about 21% of the people voting rank GW's games among the worst in the industry but only about a third of them feel so strongly about the issue that they refuse to support GW.

Hmmm....

That would still put me in a category that is not listed - The Rules Are Below Average and I Quit.

They are by no means the worst rules that I have ever encountered, but I also think that there are better alternatives.

Between mediocre rules and miniatures that just do not grab my fancy at their current prices... it is not really so much that I quit as that I do other things with the money.

If they ever have a model that makes me go 'It will be mine!' then I would buy it, given a sticker that agrees with how much I want the model.

That... doesn't happen much these days.

I generally would rather buy Mantic, or Reaper, or Wyrd, or Kromlech, or Stonehaven, or.....

The Auld Grump

I voted adequate. 6th edition is much better than 3rd edition and I hate to admit that somewhere around 4th edition I just gave up for a while. I liked RT and 2nd ed the best. If I am really honest WH40K is a procurement game, the guy who can spend the most $$$ on his models and build the most useful army list will prevail. Strangely that is also real life, the side that can win the logistics battle will win the war. I like 6th ed enough I will keep playing.

- J

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
The poll is clearly biased. You provide 3 options for how the game can be below average but only 2 possibilities for how it can be above average.

Because there are only two relevant options for being above average. There is no reasonable opinion above "it's the best", so adding an option above it would be something absurd like "divine perfection, I don't play because I am not worthy". On the other hand there's a significant and interesting difference between "it sucks but I keep playing" and "it sucks and I quit", so it makes sense to split the "it sucks" option into two choices.

It's because you've specifically phased one of the options to be more negative than it should be. If something has flaws but people still enjoy it, clearly that is a positive opinion. You've phrased it to sound more negative than it should be.

I voted that it was below average. The rules are really unconcise in how they are written. I don't understand why fluff has to be inserted along with the rules. I should be able to read rules without having to read information about why they are justifying the rules fluff wise. I also highly dislike how you need an FAQ for every army and each FAQ is a large tome of knowledge. The FAQs errata a lot of stuff out of the original rule book as well. That's just bad game design. You shouldn't have to FAQ that much.

That brings me to another point. The rules are not clear and it uses the same word to mean different things when a word should only have one meaning in the context of the rules. Also right now one of the FAQs breaks the game. It states you can't wound models out of your range or at least that's how it reads (sort of) because it has a grammatical error. Its also not an errata and it even mentions the wrong page for wounding out of range. The rulebook on a different page says that you can wound out of your range, but the FAQ doesn't errata this page away.

The rules need to be tighter. GW needs a better set of writers so that the rules are clear and I can play a game with an opponent without having to make up rulings right there on the spot before the game starts or maybe in the middle of the game. That's awful IMO for a tabletop game.

xruslanx wrote:

It's because you've specifically phased one of the options to be more negative than it should be. If something has flaws but people still enjoy it, clearly that is a positive opinion. You've phrased it to sound more negative than it should be.

"It has flaws but i enjoy it"?

Well, take your pick - both of these choices from the poll represent that point of view quite well. Either it has flaws and you still have fun, or it has flaws, but other things make up for it.

Adequate: it lets me have fun playing with my models, but the rules don't really help.
Below average: the game has major problems, but there are some redeeming qualities.

Some of the stuff in the current edition is rather badly worded and difficult to explain to people, and have either no summary or a very badly worded summary, but on the whole it is a lot better than the average.

 Timmy149 wrote:
Some of the stuff in the current edition is rather badly worded and difficult to explain to people, and have either no summary or a very badly worded summary, but on the whole it is a lot better than the average.

Really? Better than average? What are you comparing it against?

I my experience it isn't completely unplayable or anything and I did enjoy it while playing, but the more I branched out an tried other games the more I found it couldn't stand up to any competition.

I've made it a new mission at my gaming club to troll someone with. 'That's illegal. Page 8, column 2 paragraph 1.' When they try to shoot.

Lanrak wrote:
Appealing to the easiest to please, is NOT the way to grow a business is it?

Actually, that is a pretty valid strategy with a long record of success for driving large profits.

Cross-reference: McDonalds and Wal-Mart.

 Timmy149 wrote:
Some of the stuff in the current edition is rather badly worded and difficult to explain to people, and have either no summary or a very badly worded summary, but on the whole it is a lot better than the average.

In my local gaming group, the people who defend GW's rules as being "good" or "above average" have typically never played any other game system. I'm curious if that is the case with this poster?

Saldiven wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
Some of the stuff in the current edition is rather badly worded and difficult to explain to people, and have either no summary or a very badly worded summary, but on the whole it is a lot better than the average.

In my local gaming group, the people who defend GW's rules as being "good" or "above average" have typically never played any other game system. I'm curious if that is the case with this poster?

It is the case... Here are his words on the subject:

xruslanx wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Genuinely curious at the OP: have you ever tried playing any other game before?

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

I bolded the important part and italicized the great part.

@Easy E.
How is appealing to those who want a product fast and or relatively cheap appealing to the easiest to please?

IF GW were a fast food resturant you would have to wait 4 days for you food, shipped from GW only cook house miles from you order point.And pay 10 times as much as other similar products from other resturants. AND not be able to determine exactly what you bought in terms of content / constitution/ quality.

Eg GW targets those who dont care a bout rules, or synergy in concepts and back ground.
And those who are happy to pay over the odds simply because it is sold by GW.

Eg '..those that enjoy the GW hobby, simply enjoy buying stuff from GW... 'According to GW senior management.

Most other companies in the TTMG hobby try to give good game play in their rules and good value for money from their products.And attract those who are far more demanding that those who 'put up with GW '.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
Some of the stuff in the current edition is rather badly worded and difficult to explain to people, and have either no summary or a very badly worded summary, but on the whole it is a lot better than the average.

In my local gaming group, the people who defend GW's rules as being "good" or "above average" have typically never played any other game system. I'm curious if that is the case with this poster?

It is the case... Here are his words on the subject:

xruslanx wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Genuinely curious at the OP: have you ever tried playing any other game before?

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

I bolded the important part and italicized the great part.

They are different posters.

Though I am curious as to what games he's aware of that are worse than GW's. I'm sure I could name some but they'd be from the 90's.

Whoops!

Meant to add in an explanation!

The main poster in this thread that has been saying that GW rules are good has stated that they have never played other game systems* so I would bet that this is the case with this poster.


* - see the above hilarious quote.

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Genuinely curious at the OP: have you ever tried playing any other game before?

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

I bolded the important part and italicized the great part.

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

Back to the point, I have played 40k for a good amount of years, I got fed up with it and went to try the other TTGs that were on the Market. Suffice to say that after playing a couple, it made me drop the main GW games entirely, as I actually had fun with those games and the rules were miles ahead. It almost feels like GW does not even try to write rules that good and just sell models and the rules help that. That is my line of thought though...

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

You mean like ethos?

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

You are implying from that statement in the other thread that people who play other TTG are people who are abnormal and have sex with non-human, and yet you call it rhetoric?
Okay then. I would argue with you, but seeing your post history, I can already see that it is not even worth the bloody effort to even try. Guess the Ignore function comes into play now.

 malfred wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

You mean like ethos?

Well that depends where you're from

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:
Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

Back to the point, I have played 40k for a good amount of years, I got fed up with it and went to try the other TTGs that were on the Market. Suffice to say that after playing a couple, it made me drop the main GW games entirely, as I actually had fun with those games and the rules were miles ahead. It almost feels like GW does not even try to write rules that good and just sell models and the rules help that. That is my line of thought though...

I think there are two main reasons why GWs rules are in the state that they are:
- New releases have to be (for the most part) backwards compatible. This means no sweeping changes to the rulesets that would invalidate old army books/codex's (despite ludicrous balance changes). The changes to 40k have only been tweaks and adding complexity since 3rd edition. The biggest change has been to add hull points, but the core rules are all still the same. This is a big problem because the rules are really showing their age and need a complete overhaul from scratch to bring them up to the standard provided by other companies. It's the same as software development. You can tweak and add to the same core piece of software, but eventually after so many editions you need to scrap it and start over from scratch. See Windows XP resetting the Windows OS from being a front-end to MS-DOS (or at least being the first version aimed at the home user to do so) and Windows 7 scrapping the Windows NT backend and rewriting from scratch. It's often rumoured that Andy Chambers wanted a hard reset of 40k after 4th edition, but was told no. He then went away and wrote Starship Troopers which felt very much like a hard reset of 40k.
- Maybe the developers are insulated from other products on the market. From what I've heard of upper GW management (and this could well just be baseless hearsay), they actually believe their own propaganda. Much like the people in this thread who think that GW's rules are good but haven't played any other games, it could be that the developers believe the companies own claims and don't think it even slightly necessary to look at other games for ideas/inspiration.

I don't think the developers are particularly incompetent or deliberately writing bad rules. I think they're held back. Look at Alessio Cavatore - after leaving GW he's gone on to write Kings of War and Bolt Action. Both games feel very much like what WHF and 40k would be if they were scrapped and rewritten from scratch.

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

Except that it 1) wasn't very persuasive and 2) wasn't a figure of speech. You said "No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?" This leads us to a few things.

1) You have never played other tabletop games besides GW games
2) You have never had sex with non-humans
3) You don't need to have sex with non-humans to know you won't like it.

You are the one that presented the out of this world comparison, and while I'm sure there is a logical fallacy (I'll ask Ahtman) here, the only recourse you're leaving us is this:

4) You don't need to play other TTG to know you you won't like it.

Which is adamantly not true. You don't know how good or bad GW games are if you have nothing to compare them to. If your gold standard is GW games but you've only experienced GW games you don't have a large enough sample size to ensure you know what is a good game for you.

It's fine to say, "yeah I got a demo of MERCs and I don't like it, or I used to play Malifaux, but I don't like the rules changes and at the end of the day I like GW games better." But to just say, "I don't like other games even though I haven't played them" doesn't give you much ground to stand on.

xruslanx wrote:

 malfred wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

You mean like ethos?

Well that depends where you're from

Having to explain my joke = terrible joke.

I mentioned ethos because you're not really building yours up any by
denying to know about/play other games.

Daedleh wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:
Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

Back to the point, I have played 40k for a good amount of years, I got fed up with it and went to try the other TTGs that were on the Market. Suffice to say that after playing a couple, it made me drop the main GW games entirely, as I actually had fun with those games and the rules were miles ahead. It almost feels like GW does not even try to write rules that good and just sell models and the rules help that. That is my line of thought though...

I think there are two main reasons why GWs rules are in the state that they are:
- New releases have to be (for the most part) backwards compatible. This means no sweeping changes to the rulesets that would invalidate old army books/codex's (despite ludicrous balance changes). The changes to 40k have only been tweaks and adding complexity since 3rd edition. The biggest change has been to add hull points, but the core rules are all still the same. This is a big problem because the rules are really showing their age and need a complete overhaul from scratch to bring them up to the standard provided by other companies. It's the same as software development. You can tweak and add to the same core piece of software, but eventually after so many editions you need to scrap it and start over from scratch. See Windows XP resetting the Windows OS from being a front-end to MS-DOS (or at least being the first version aimed at the home user to do so) and Windows 7 scrapping the Windows NT backend and rewriting from scratch. It's often rumoured that Andy Chambers wanted a hard reset of 40k after 4th edition, but was told no. He then went away and wrote Starship Troopers which felt very much like a hard reset of 40k.
- Maybe the developers are insulated from other products on the market. From what I've heard of upper GW management (and this could well just be baseless hearsay), they actually believe their own propaganda. Much like the people in this thread who think that GW's rules are good but haven't played any other games, it could be that the developers believe the companies own claims and don't think it even slightly necessary to look at other games for ideas/inspiration.

I don't think the developers are particularly incompetent or deliberately writing bad rules. I think they're held back. Look at Alessio Cavatore - after leaving GW he's gone on to write Kings of War and Bolt Action. Both games feel very much like what WHF and 40k would be if they were scrapped and rewritten from scratch.

I was trying to imply the second part more, but I should've gone into much better detail about it. If they did a complete overhaul, then I think they would have to redo all the Codices at once, which would take time but help revitalize the game I think. That being said, I agree with you. Although I would the add as well as The rules are starting to show its age, and in an 'era' were the competition is starting to arise, GW is going to have to get its game together. They are the top dog now and have a Monopoly (well, not really in a real sense, but they hold the majority of the market), but the competition is starting to seep at the cracks and the best GW does is shake them off and act as if it is nothing. This is really unhealthy for a business.

Not trying to sound like the typical GW basher, I thought I give my thoughts on the situation as a whole.

To be fair, the scale Peregine chose to use for the poll does not include a mid-point. Now, it is an informal internet poll, and not having a mid-point is not in and of itself a "bad" thing. It simply means that there is no response for people who are undecided/don't really care. But then are those people answering the poll anyway?

The poll includes one additional option below average than above: Unplayable. Unplayable is an extreme response, and one could argue that there is no direct corollary to include in the top half of the scale.

The scale might be slightly better if the top end included the following option:

Only playable game: Compared to GW games, all other game systems are unplayable.

Again, it does not really matter as this is an informal poll on a forum. But look at the responses. Only 10 respondents out of 558 selected Top-tier. Further, the respondents are split almost exactly 50/50 between those who think the games are below average and those who think the games are at least average.

I don't think a 7 point scale would have changed that. What you've got are results from a decently-sized poll of self-selected respondents showing that about half think GW's games are not up to snuff. For the "leading" wargaming company, these data should be disheartening, even considering the informal nature of the poll and the issues surrounding the pool of respondents.

If I were GW, I would be sad to see people rating the company's products as average, much less below average. That this thread even exists in the first place should be a serious red flag.

In short, I wouldn't worry about the particulars of the poll. As market research it is wildly flawed, so what's the point of debating whether it is inherently biased? It totally is, but not really by a fault in the specific questions. Even considering the inherent flaws, results like these are bad news for a company claiming to be the best, who charges premium prices based on that claim.

I aint gonna pay 100 bucks for a rulebook when GW won't pay someone to write decent rules. Where's my money going? Nice artwork? No, thank you, I'll take good rules first. If you can put pretty pictures in crappy rules, you can put them in good rules too.

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

Still that what I going to point out, maybe you should you know think before you post. Be cause after that must people think your a joke, and rightly know you are sadly uniformed when it come to miniature gaming.

Noir wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

Still that what I going to point out, maybe you should you know think before you post. Be cause after that must people think your a joke, and rightly know you are sadly uniformed when it come to miniature gaming.

Wait, is this me or him? Because I play other games to refute that. If it is not, I apologize mate, I am just confused who it was directed towards.

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Noir wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

Still that what I going to point out, maybe you should you know think before you post. Be cause after that must people think your a joke, and rightly know you are sadly uniformed when it come to miniature gaming.

Wait, is this me or him? Because I play other games to refute that. If it is not, I apologize mate, I am just confused who it was directed towards.

Him of course, the rest of use know how much fun sheep are.... I mean other games .

No no, sheep are tons of fun... >_>

...you need the sheep, a cliff, and a pair of rubber gumboots...

I would be interested in a thread that explains why WH is a better ruleset than others on the market.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would be interested in a thread that explains why WH is a better ruleset than others on the market.

Unfortunately you're going to have to wait a while for that one. So far in 30-40 pages of recent argument about the subject I have yet to see a single explanation of how GW's rules are better than the alternatives. The entire pro-GW argument consists of "they're good enough for me, stop complaining".

The entire thread would be shorter than my affair with Fleecy.

 Fafnir wrote:
The entire thread would be shorter than my affair with Fleecy.

50 Shades of Wool

Another interesting thing would be to examine other rulesets and say what makes them good.

I look for these points in a rule set:
- Clarity of rules with appropriate core rules (What's the point of a lack of a movement value in 40k when half the units have special rules to make them move faster)
- Short learning curve with great tactical emphasis (X-Wing is the perfect example of this)
- Depth appropriate to scale (I couldn't care less about individual models in a mass game like Epic or Kings of War - just what units do, while flyers have absolutely no place in a 40k sized game)
- Balanced forces, both internally and externally (pick your army list to suit your tactics, rather than selecting The Best Units and adjusting your tactics to suit them)
- Manoeuvring is a key tactic (not gunline up on opposite sides of the board and roll dice)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Another interesting thing would be to examine other rulesets and say what makes them good.

I guess the main upsides I've seen are rules that don't cause arguments, rules that are simple-to-grasp-hard-to-master, and any complexity adds actual tactical depth instead of just confusion. Specifically:

Infinity: Getting to do SOMETHING in the opponent's turn instead of sitting for 30-45 minutes only waking up to roll saves. Full army UGO-IGO is one of the worst problems with 40k in my opinion. Anyway having a set core mechanic that is used for all resolutions, instead of a weird split of shooting and melee being totally different. Each unit can be customized a lot and is still balanced, so it's hard to take an over/underpowered list.

X-Wing Miniatures: You could teach this game to a 4 year old but it is still a blast to play for an adult. Awesome tactics due to the hidden-move-segmented-reveal of maneuver dials. Quick resolution mechanism with fun custom dice, so you still get that excitement of a "lucky hit". Lots of customization between pilots and gear. Incredible value since you can get playing for $35-40 (depending on how expensive the starter set is in your area).

Chain Reaction (Two Hour Wargames): Always interacting with the game, instead of again sitting still, passively, while your whole army is gobbled up by shooting.

Firestorm Armada: All about positioning baby. Also alternating activations instead of entire fleet at once. Plenty of fun dice rolling, plenty of variety between races, great models that are fairly inexpensive (and more importantly you don't need 80 of them to play). Good variety of "space terrain" and variables to change how the game plays (such as Mines).

Battletech: Clear, unchanged mechanics that are tried and true. Phenomenal build system for creating your own custom mechs. Lots of neat weapons that vary playstyles. Heat management is genius. Playing on paper hex maps with stand-up paper models makes the game so cheap to start.

Car Wars (5th edition): Theme matches mechanics beautifully. Very easy for people to grasp because you just move via angles and get to play with Hot Wheels. Simple and good bell curve shooting mechanism, lots of car customization, and besides a $5 PDF or book it's basically $1 per model (again, Hot Wheels matchbox cars).

Silent Death Next Millenium: Coolest degrading performance damage track I've ever seen. Each spaceship will have their speed, armor, weapons, etc. slowly degrade as they take damage.

Song of Blades and Heroes: Awesome activation mechanism, basically you can "push your luck" but trying to get more actions, but there is a chance you'll fail to activate a unit or even worse, pass play to your opponent! Extremely fast playing (4-6 games in the span of a single 40k game). Lots of neat units. Simple statline. Pre-set movement speeds are nice. Combat has a couple of options to give you choice on how to spend the actions you gambled for.

D&D (4th edition): Say what you want about the roleplaying aspects, but the combat is rock solid. Zillions of options that give the player a ton of choice, but are all internally balanced. You feel like you can DO neat things. Lots of tactical movement as well with positioning, pushing, sliding, attacks of opportunity, etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would be interested in a thread that explains why WH is a better ruleset than others on the market.

One could do something of the sort, but that would be kind of subjective.Although it is the the tightest, clearest ruleset I played so far (There could be others that pop-up in the future that change my mind, and is fast-paced so you have a game fit in at lunch break if you want one, the down side it that it leaves little room for custom characters (although it deals with that issue quite well with a lot of unique playstyles from each casters, but it is a bit jarring to most people still) and the occasional bad match-up (which is taken care of the two-list format in tournaments). Also I would like to add that it is very much IGOUGO format, and some people might want to move away from that and try something else.

I think the comparison between the current GW rules and A.N.Other ruleset is simply that those that are held up as good examples of rules are generally produced by companies that engage with their user base and actively manage the ruleset.

That way, even if something does slip through the net, its gets fixed (I'm not a player, but I understand some Warmachine units have been adjusted multiple times to get the balance right) whereas GW simply don't bother.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would be interested in a thread that explains why WH is a better ruleset than others on the market.

Wait, do you mean Warhammer or Warmahordes? Because if it's the former, the response would be "because it's the only game I've played" or "I like the fluff! And models!" or "It's cinematic!". Or just "it's okay. Has its flaws, though." As seen in the other thread.

 heartserenade wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I would be interested in a thread that explains why WH is a better ruleset than others on the market.

Wait, do you mean Warhammer or Warmahordes? Because if it's the former, the response would be "because it's the only game I've played" or "I like the fluff! And models!" or "It's cinematic!". Or just "it's okay. Has its flaws, though." As seen in the other thread.

I thought he meant Warmahordes when I posted my response...welp...and pretty much that would be the case.

I stopped playing 40k because the rules are so bad, I play Infinity now, a far superior game miniatures wise and rules-wise IMO.

 snurl wrote:
The rules are great for starting arguments.

This. I hate having to explain to people how the game works. One fella insisted that Weapon destroyed meant ALL the vehicles weapons.. took me about 10 minutes to tell him why that's not how it works

GW rules are not unplayable. They are an obstacle that must be overcome however.

 Peregrine wrote:
Unfortunately you're going to have to wait a while for that one. So far in 30-40 pages of recent argument about the subject I have yet to see a single explanation of how GW's rules are better than the alternatives. The entire pro-GW argument consists of "they're good enough for me, stop complaining".

Not to mention the 10 people who have clearly never seen another war game of any type - not even chess - it seems.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Another interesting thing would be to examine other rulesets and say what makes them good.

And another thread explaining why those games aren't as popular as 40k. Seriously, people don't like perfection.

xruslanx wrote:
And another thread explaining why those games aren't as popular as 40k. Seriously, people don't like perfection.

Yeah, what we need is yet another thread explaining GW's business strategy of driving independent stores out of business through store location/inventory "shortages"/etc, or how the "all my friends play it" effect keeps people starting GW games even when better alternatives are available. The answers are there if you want them, but we all know you don't want to listen.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
And another thread explaining why those games aren't as popular as 40k. Seriously, people don't like perfection.

Yeah, what we need is yet another thread explaining GW's business strategy of driving independent stores out of business through store location/inventory "shortages"/etc, or how the "all my friends play it" effect keeps people starting GW games even when better alternatives are available. The answers are there if you want them, but we all know you don't want to listen.

I agree. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone could disagree with you on anything ever, since every single statement you make is backed up by reams of irrefutable quantifiable data.

xruslanx wrote:
I agree. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone could disagree with you on anything ever, since every single statement you make is backed up by reams of irrefutable quantifiable data.

At least that's better than you backing up all of your statements with "playing non-GW games is like sex with animals".

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I agree. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone could disagree with you on anything ever, since every single statement you make is backed up by reams of irrefutable quantifiable data.

At least that's better than you backing up all of your statements with "playing non-GW games is like sex with animals".

Peregrine, you're being trolled.

From personal experience I suspect this user likes to drink and post of a weekend, I expect you'll get called a neck beard and a nerd before long too. Just use the triangle of friendship or hit of ignore if I were you.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I agree. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone could disagree with you on anything ever, since every single statement you make is backed up by reams of irrefutable quantifiable data.

At least that's better than you backing up all of your statements with "playing non-GW games is like sex with animals".

Peregrine, you're being trolled.

From personal experience I suspect this user likes to drink and post of a weekend, I expect you'll get called a neck beard and a nerd before long too. Just use the triangle of friendship or hit of ignore if I were you.

Reported. Please don't accuse people of trolling just because they disagree with you.

xruslanx wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I agree. Frankly I'm astounded that anyone could disagree with you on anything ever, since every single statement you make is backed up by reams of irrefutable quantifiable data.

At least that's better than you backing up all of your statements with "playing non-GW games is like sex with animals".

Peregrine, you're being trolled.

From personal experience I suspect this user likes to drink and post of a weekend, I expect you'll get called a neck beard and a nerd before long too. Just use the triangle of friendship or hit of ignore if I were you.

Reported. Please don't accuse people of trolling just because they disagree with you.

Lol!

Ok kid, that's exactly what I was doing!

News flash, there's an 8-odd page thread in 40K Discussion where you got your arse spanked by many, many other users repeatedly, while you continued to make totally unsubstantiated nonsense posts that didn't address any of their valid, supported claims, while accusing them simultaneously of posting unsubstantiated nonsense.

In this matter, everyone disagrees with you.

If everyone on an internet forum disagrees with me, I'm probably right.

xruslanx wrote:
If everyone on an internet forum disagrees with me, I'm probably right.

Whatever keeps you warm at night dude, that one thread just demonstrated to me that you're simply not worth engaging with as you can't be expected to argue logically and showed one of my own personal ""7 deadly sins" for dealing with people in any context, real life or Internet, when your ignorance of a subject was demonstrated to you, you showed no desire to either educate yourself or accept the opinion of those better placed to know than you, that's a pretty unforgivable thing for me.

I think we're well and truly done here.