Because this thread needs a poll.

For purposes of this poll please consider only the current editions of 40k and WHFB, without any house rules/special campaigns/etc that you may have added to the game. Also, do not consider factors like fluff, models, or how easy it is to find other players in your area. This poll is only about the rules.

The rules are great for starting arguments.

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, do not consider factors like fluff, models, or how easy it is to find other players in your area. This poll is only about the rules.

Not considering these things I find 40K to be bottom-tier and Fantasy to be adequate. So my vote goes to below average.

If I do consider those things however, Fantasy is still adequate and 40K is too.

They're good, but not great.

I voted adequate.

On the basis of rules and nothing but rules, they provide a framework to play a game with your dudesmen. Fantasy i think is a bit better than 40k on the total whole, though i have issues with this current edition i'm hoping are sorted in 9th.

Honestly, i view both as beer and pretzel games. I used to be a hardcore competitive player, i don't think i could ever take WHFB or 40K seriously for competition.


That said, i find both games fun, and a portion of that is the ruleset. So on rules alone, adequate, though there's room for improvement.

you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

To me the rules are adequate, especially if you play against opponents that don't mind skipping/averting the more illogical rules questions.

Above all, I have fun doing it. For competitive play, well I don't do hardcore competitive play..

Pretty abysmal. From the standpoint of actually getting everything to work properly, the rules are usually poorly written and poorly edited, leaving much more up to interpretation than there should be.

From a gameplay standpoint, assuming you get everything to flow properly with less arguments than there absolutely will be, it's not exceptional in any regard other than the sheer amount of models you can throw on the table (take that as a pro or con, as you will, I personally find that the ever-increasing model count goes further to obfuscate the already paper-thin gameplay). There's a lot of detail written into the books for things that really don't matter, and the game ends up being far more simplistic in actual play than the design would let on.
Even worse, the huge reliance on needlessly random elements remove players from making decisions and actually playing the game to being little more than dice-rolling machines.
And I'm not going to touch the state of inter and intra-army balance, which is at the best of times pretty bad.

So they get points for existing. That's about it, really.

I'd say unplayable to the extent that the major reason I no longer play their games is because the rules have become so uninteresting to the point of making the game unplayable, but there is a system that theoretically is supposed to work once slogged through enough. For that reason, I'll put them at "Bottom-Tier."

xruslanx wrote:
you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

Despite appearances to the contrary, Dakka isn't a forum devoted to bashing GW - they just seem to have a habit of doing things thst merit criticism lately.

 Dysartes wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

Despite appearances to the contrary, Dakka isn't a forum devoted to bashing GW - they just seem to have a habit of doing things thst merit criticism lately.

I was referring to the dakka discussions sub-forum. And you sound like an abusive husband justifying his wife's bruises


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I did Peregrine's job for him.

 Dysartes wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

Despite appearances to the contrary, Dakka isn't a forum devoted to bashing GW - they just seem to have a habit of doing things thst merit criticism lately.

Exactly.
Dakka is one of (the as of last count?) biggest sites dedicated to wargaming in general. Yes, there is a lot of dislike for GW here, and especially in Dakka Discussion (since it is the most relevant sub forum for it). But you know what, if GW have that bad of a rep here (and everywhere really, remember that thread about websites that have a positive view of GW?) there has to be a reason for it.



On topic, I think the fantasy rules are playable in that I can enjoy the models and fluff despite the problems with the rules but threads like this that are about 'GW games' are really about 40k and on that front I have tried, I have really, really tried to like the game.

I would love to do a pre heresy Iron Warriors army since the HH books are quickly turning them into my favourite legion but every time I look at it all I see is a codex that can't give me an army that plays the way I want and the HH list which isn't exactly designed for play against regular 40k forces. I could play them with the current chaos dex but then I've got to take some guard allies to get access to all the cool siege toys I need, but at that point any list I write would make a lot more sense as guard with chaos allies and all of a sudden I lose interest.

I'd love a Raven Guard army using lots of bits and pieces from anvil since some of them are amazing for giving marines that realistic modern/future soldier look GW seem to ignore but with the latest book that has come out the only way for me to do it is lots of assault marines and I really, really don't want to do that because I think assault marines should not be the focus of a raven guard force, they are an infiltrating force, not a jump pack force. Unfortunately the only way I have seen to do that is to take a chaos marine list with Huron as 'counts as' to get his warlord trait.

Even a guard footslogger list seems like fun since I could do it really cheap with mantic models, but even as I try to tell myself that I can't bring myself to do it because as I write the list people tell me to take X because it's OP and make sure I pick up Y because I'll have to deal with fliers and stay away from Z because it's useless. After exploring other systems I just can't deal with that kind of while list building.


40k is not a game I can enjoy on any level because as much as I love the fluff and models the rules are:
A) Horribly unbalanced compared to every other system I have tried.
B) Overly complicated in that rule A means X happens but unit B has rule C that turns X into Y unless someone has brought Z, and if that is the case we'll have to check the rulebook to see what Z does.
C) Very, very poorly written. So much so that one of the rules writers admitted in White Dwarf that often while playtesting if something came up where they did not know how new rule X interacts with another units rule Y they would 4+ it themselves and make that how it goes. There is no justification for that, the rules writers are admitting to playtesting things without having a very clear idea at all how the rule is supposed to work.
D) Not sure what scale they are at. I said it in the last thread and I'll say it again, there are elements of a skirmish game in a game that involves jets and artillery.
E) Tactically speaking, very shallow. Between weapon ranges and no sort of facings on units it's not hard to sit on an objective in the middle of the board and stay there. If I want to get you off it I run strait at you with a weapon that can dislodge you, there is no benefit to flanking you or outmaneuvering you in any way. Either I have the tools in my list to deal with your unit on the objective or I don't. (This might be a little bit of an oversimplification I'll admit but in general I think it's a very valid point.


Go ask anyone in the infinity sub forum what units you should take in your list, their answer will be 'whatever you like, they are all viable'. Try winning a game of W-wing if your opponent is good enough to stay out of your firing arc all game. Me and my friends are still new enough to Dystopan wars that we certainly don't know all the rules so the other night we had a bit of an issue with wording when it came to ramming. As soon we got home we jumped on the net and looked up the 1.1 rules (we only had 1.0 on us) and all of a sudden it became perfectly clear.

40k rules are not good. 40k is popular because most the people playing it have never tried anything else. It is most people's first introduction to the hobby but the ease of finding a game and the fluff/models are all that keeps it afloat, in terms of gameplay it is nothing.
/rant

You can play a game of 40k ,and have fun..
IF you are happy to spend time and effort to overcome the problems caused by GW sales department driving the rules development.

So they CAN result in a functional game IF BOTH players have the same idea of what fun is.(The rule set is ambigous on all levels. )
AND are prepared to put a lot of time and effort in editing the rules themselves.

I can not understand why people pay twice as much for a rule set they have to 're-write on the fly as they go along '.

Perhaps this inspired GW to release Finecast.

Looks and sounds AWESOME .

But in reality they are both full of holes and distortions you have to fix yourself....

I voted obstacle to playing the game .Because they are NOT 'player friendly'.

I went for bottom tier. The rules are not just an obstacle, they're a willpower sucking drudgery that you need to push through in the vain hope that things may work right, eventually.
I've got quite a big post about it in the other thread. Though I'm thinking I should have posted it here now, since the other one has gone massively offtrack.

I feel the rules are good, we rarely have any problems with them.

 Rayvon wrote:
I feel the rules are good, we rarely have any problems with them.
OP has an obvious agenda though so maybe I should not have even answered !

Regardless of OP's possible personal agenda, the opening post and poll itself look very fair and devoid of suggestion.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
I feel the rules are good, we rarely have any problems with them.
OP has an obvious agenda though so maybe I should not have even answered !

Regardless of OP's possible personal agenda, the opening post and poll itself look very fair and devoid of suggestion.

Ok, I should not have bought that up, i will just use the ignore function in future and edit my post, i do apologise if I offended you.

Saying this having only played GW games.
I find them to be adequate, 40k has absolutely terrible rules, if the models weren't awesome and it wasn't easy to find a game, I would not be playing it anymore.

Fantasy has a decent ruleset, I liked 7th better, but I find the rules are (somewhat) tighter and better thought out than 40k's.

LoTR/The Hobbit has to be some of the best rules I have come across, with very few clashes in the rules that required an FAQ (in fact most of it is errata for typo's and some minor clarifications).

WoTR, the rules were tight, but it quickly became a game of who could take the most broken combo, if you've played against the White Council or The Nine Are Abroad, you'll know what I mean.

Necromunda and Mordheim both had very clear rules that required a total of 0 FAQs and errata to my knowledge.

GW make my favourite rules.
Bloodbowl, necromunda, space hulk and 40k are my preferred rulesets.

They're pretty good rules, IMHO. Above average, but quite far from perfect.

Slightly off-topic, but how many other games have so many unique units? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to claim 40k and fantasy are the best rulesets around.

I voted below average.

For me they don't cut it imo, I like the fluff which is why I keep playing it but to me a game should have these factors:

Is a game interesting? for 40k and WFB yes they are

Is Skill and Tactics there? in competitive terms, no they are not why? because once you really look at the armies there is the whole Netlist problem, and the depth of it. imo every unit in a codex should be viable, an example of this should be Dreadnoughts and Hellbrutes, whilst in some armies they are an exception, in majority of armies they are a waste of points, but why should they? why should I be penalised because I may like the Hellbrute model, because the rules are crud for it? I can guarantee if every unit was viable there would be a lot more flavour In competitive 40k, than just Tau-dar/Flying daemon circus/etc, etc where someone will win with just rules without any thought required is just plain wrong imo. remember people flavour is always a good thing

is it balanced? for 40k and WFB no it really is not, whilst I agree there should be slight imbalance in games, imo they should be kept to a bare minimum, 40k and WFB just quite plainly chucks balance out of the window, because they think its funny. because of this imbalance we have Netlists and in WFB, cannonade where there is really no point in placing my Undead dragon down because my general is going to be one-shotted of the board. The level of imbalance in both games is horrendous. whilst I say I think there should be imbalance in games it should be kept to a bare minimum to keep a game fair, after all no one likes it when they feel like they have just been jelly legged on a game.

Close to the wire: every gamer likes a game when every game is close from start to finish, it also imo allows and helps gamers to improve in skill and strategy, 40k and WFB has very occasionally those moments, whilst they still exist in 40k and WFB it is much, much more likely to be tabled in a few turns than it to be close to the wire, which is the opposite of what the game devs intended for their games.

All this is just my opinion, but these are what makes games good, if it was not for the background and the armies in both games I really would not have bothered with them and went to other games.

-Shrike- wrote:

Slightly off-topic, but how many other games have so many unique units? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to claim 40k and fantasy are the best rulesets around.

Infinity's factions have many more units than 40k/Fantasy's, and each unit tends to be considerably more unique in terms of abilities and function. Warmahordes armies also tend to be similarly diverse. Really, 40k isn't exceptional at all in that regard.

Rules are gak, you can get a game of KoW done in half the time with twice as large an army and much more interesting tactical interaction going on (for starters flank and rear attacks actually murder enemy units, in warhammer it simply tickles them).

The only remotely positive new development for GW is their accelerated release schedule this year, rather than leaving armies to fester with 8-10 year-old codexes and army books from 2 editions ago.

Still plenty of armies that get left to rot, wood elves and bretonnians in particular.

Rule #1 everyone.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

Thanks.

I voted above-average.

Fantasy's current rule set is very good, with only a few issues that let it down. I won't go into the details here, but there's only a few things that need to be addressed. I have high hopes for 9th edition.

40k's rules are less good, but still alright in my opinion. What I really dislike is some of the codex rules and the mentality people often bring to the game. I still manage to have fun with 40k both competitively and non-competitively. There are a few grey areas, but as long as you're not a complete TFG about it, it can easily be sorted out.

xruslanx wrote:
you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

If you think this forum is dedicated to bashing GW then you need to get out more. Dakka is one of the more positive forums I've been on.

As for me, I voted below average. I can have fun with the system at times, but I always felt like it was in spite of the rules, not because of them. Probably should have rated it lower but that didn't feel fair when I have had legitimately good games at times.

EDIT: To expand on that, after trying X-Wing, Flames of War, and even Bolt Action and seeing how much more balanced than 40k they are, I just can't bring myself to play again. And those are systems that I've heard still have some balance issues. Compared to 40k, they're almost flawless. I'll get excited over some models or a cool conversion idea until I think to myself "eh, why bother? I don't have nearly enough models to play anymore." Its really sad, I REALLY want to like 40k again, but the armies I want to play are all either crippled by new rules, exhausting to play, or just boils down to standing still and shooting, something neither player will enjoy.

I have no problem with the rules for 40K.

Compared to Heroclix 40K is nearly perfect!

40K is an incredibly fun game... if I don't care about winning and I dice off rules problems more often then not. The best rules sets capture the flavor of the fluff and make you feel immersed in the setting. 40K fails miserably at this. Every Codex is written such that every unit is awesome and kicks butt, has never lost a battle, and is awesome. Awesome, awesome, awesome. The reality is, a disproportionate amount of units are sub-par, some are borderline useful, and a few are must takes. If a player can't take what they want or is "fluffy" according to the Codex and have a reasonable chance of winning/having a good time, then it's poor game design. We get a new edition every 3-5 years, and instead of the game getting better, it feels like random rules are added, random rules stricken, and the best parts of the previous edition are ignored. Over night, whole units in armies become useless, and the ignored units in the previous edition are reworked to become awesome (Grey Knight Paladins) or are dropped altogether (Necron Pariahs).

When you start to play other games, ignoring the models and fluff and just concentrating on the rules, you suddenly realize that GW can write good rules (see Mordheim, Battlefleet Gothic, Bloodbowl... basically, all their specialist games), but for the flagship games 40K and Fantasy... I just don't understand where/why they failed. or why they don't do anything about it.

Average. Not great, not terrible, just quite lacking in fun and diversity, and overall balance.

Below average , major problems , some redeeming qualities

Bottom tier - the rules are an obstacle to be overcome, if I can be bothered to play at all.

Average rules, fun to play in a friendly enviroment (at home, the local club and so on), but are not good enough, or clear enough in places for hard core tourny use (how many tournys do a rule pack to clear GW's mess up in the rules and codex)

Somewhere between below average and bottom tier.

I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Below average.
The problem is GW's entire collection of rules spans a period of several years of different design philosophies and editions. The core rulebook by itself is not bad. It's the interactions of all the different codices with those rules (and with each other), many of which were written before the current edition, that cause all of the problems. I believe every edition should be done much like 3rd Edition was: release a new edition with basic army lists in the starter box, and then throughout the following year release all new codices for every army fully updated to the new edition, so that all are balanced with each other in regards to the new edition's rules.

But that will never happen because GW will never again release rules without models (even though no other gaming company has a problem with that), and they continue to sell their investors on the belief that GW is a model company, not a game company (despite the, you know, NAME of the company being GAMES Workshop).

Strangely, when I was making my 'top of my head' list of "why GW has terrible rules" it was almost entirely a result of models and decisions made in the past few years. A significant portion of problems were from the main rulebook.

 Compel wrote:
Examples of 40k rules being terrible, listing them just off the top of my head.

1) The entire ruleset for the Fortress of Redemption. Line of Sight gun rules, I have friends insisting the Walkway doesn't exist for it.. What's a valid firepoint?

2) Landing Pad rules. I see no rules reason (other than not wanting to be an jerk), to stop someone fielding mortar squads underneath the pad, and sticking a Baneblade on top of it.

3) Terrain set-up rules. You find out what deployment type, what table half you're on, you set up fortifications, THEN terrain? That's just truly horrible, even if you aren't using the 'alternating' terrain rules. - And if you are, you then have to deal with the problem of your opponent inevitably sticking a clifftop in front of your bastion. Because that makes sense.

4) Someone mentioned this earlier. "Zealot" confers both the "Fearless" and "Hatred" special rules. That's just bad rules writing, plain and simple. An argument could be made that 'slow and purposeful' is quite a mess as well.

5) The barrage rules are another example of horrible rules writing. Let's combine both positive and negative phrasing to make the most convoluted rule possible.

6) Rushed print runs of rules resulting in incredibly stupid errors, which have to be FAQ'ed. Examples: Chaos Codex helbrutes, Dark Angels Codex ravenwing and veterans, Tau codex missile drones and possibly the Eldar codex with the shadow weaver?

7) And, the opposite of (6), very badly thought out FAQ rules changes / 'clarifications', that end up either changing the nature of the game (The Heldrake 360 arc baleflamer) or making certain units almost entirely useless (removing 'lumbering behemoth' and replacing it with 'heavy' ends up being the deathknell for most Leman Russ variant builds.)

8) Making models and forgetting about how their own rules work. EG, Eldar Wraithknight. Lets give it up to 4 guns, put them on the cover of the box. Oh wait, we forgot they can only fire 2 and it's not like they get weapons destroyed results. Lets give the option to give it a sword that adds to its strength, oh wait, we forgot it is already at max strength... See also Grey Knights Dreadknights for similar mistakes.

9) I'd really want to put down Chaos Demons random rolls on top of random rolls on top of random rolls. But, that's probably far too subjectivee.

10) Apocalypse. "I know, lets make the main mechanic for games of Apocalypse revolve around our players getting fed up of playing Apocalypse and wanting a break from it..."

And that, is pretty much 10 reasons, listed straight off the top of my head about how 40k's terrible rules and therefore, I submit m'lud, not worth playing on its own merits.

Whereas, comparing it to the main game I'm playing right now, Dreadball, there has been about 4 'bad rules' found since release last year, which has been tested and fixed by the designer in a published form within a matter of months that they've been discovered.

xruslanx wrote:
you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

While this horrifically awful, i could not help but laugh my ass off at this comment. Which makes me hate myself a little.

xruslanx wrote:
you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

Or you can answer the question and not just be a ass. Note this is not a reason to wine about poeple not agreeing with you, but to answer the OP post.

OP I had to vote for just above unplayable, becouse anything playable if you try hard enough.

I like the game for the fluff and the models, and the excuse to get together with my buddies every once in a while.

The terribad rules are more like... a guideline.

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Or maybe those who are voting above average or better have little problem playing the game, enjoying it amongst friends, and aren't getting all agitated and frothed trying to find obscure rules to abuse or to loophole. I've been playing since 2nd ed, and have zero problem playing the game amongst friends. In a tournament or other ultra competitive environment, that's a whole different ball of wax, and the reason I avoid it.

 Cruentus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Or maybe those who are voting above average or better have little problem playing the game, enjoying it amongst friends, and aren't getting all agitated and frothed trying to find obscure rules to abuse or to loophole. I've been playing since 2nd ed, and have zero problem playing the game amongst friends. In a tournament or other ultra competitive environment, that's a whole different ball of wax, and the reason I avoid it.

You realize that everything you just said proves that GW rules are at best, sub par?

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Really? 30+ years of GW games is not enough information for you to accept another's opinion the at some point during that time GW will have produced a gem or two. I call you liar you quite clear don't give a damn about others opinions.

With 30 years of rules this poll is too open ended to prove or indicate jack gak. Today I have played Chainsaw Warrior and Warhammer Quest both were top notch.

Also the poll is skewed toward negative responses so fails as an even test, still as a quick guide to Dakkas drama queens this thread is most successful.

With the exception of Jervis 'Blood Bowl' Johnson, as far as I know, all of Games Workshops truly good games designers have since left the company.

Andy Chambers (40k redesign, 3rd edition) is at Blizzard (now that's a step down, hehe)

Jake Thornton (Necromunda), is now doing stuff for mantic, including Necromunda's spiritual successor, Deadzone.

Alessio Cavatore (Lord of the Rings), is now doing River Horse games, including Loka.

Sure, in GW's 30 year history, they've made good games. That doesn't mean their current editions are any good. Which was the subject of the poll.

Even the Fantasy players I know, who up until recently have been defending the games rules to the hilt are now saying they're completely fed up of fighting yet another identical Chaos army.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Cruentus wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Or maybe those who are voting above average or better have little problem playing the game, enjoying it amongst friends, and aren't getting all agitated and frothed trying to find obscure rules to abuse or to loophole. I've been playing since 2nd ed, and have zero problem playing the game amongst friends. In a tournament or other ultra competitive environment, that's a whole different ball of wax, and the reason I avoid it.

You realize that everything you just said proves that GW rules are at best, sub par?

Nope, more a comment about the attitude of the players coming into the game.

Great GW games: Gothic, Mordheim, LOTR SBG, Necromunda
Good GW games: 40k, Fantasy, original Mighty Empires
So-so GW games: Bommas over the Sulfa River

All in my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.

*edit: When GW isn't hamstringing itself with legacy stuff, they can turn out some great games.

 Cruentus wrote:

Nope, more a comment about the attitude of the players coming into the game.

Great GW games: Gothic, Mordheim, LOTR SBG, Necromunda
Good GW games: 40k, Fantasy, original Mighty Empires
So-so GW games: Bommas over the Sulfa River

All in my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.

*edit: When GW isn't hamstringing itself with legacy stuff, they can turn out some great games.

The thing is, complaining about the attitude of the players is because (at least in no insignificant part) of the rules that divide players unnecessarily. If the rules were clear, and the game balanced, there wouldn't be any issue to complain that some people read too much or too little into some rule loopholes, or accusing some players of being too competitive or too fluffy.

I will say that I was speaking mostly to 40k, and I've tried my hand at fantasy, and found mostly the same problems on the surface.

BFG was a fine ruleset, though the improvement made later by the BFG committee after GW abandoned the game made it better.

I'd disagree that 40k is a good game, and put at best in a so-so/meh/would easily play another game adapted for the 40k setting.

But I could have been clearer I was speaking more to 40k.

There certainly not the most coherent rule set out there

but they are trying to cope with a wider range of 'stuff' than many other rules sets, and stuff that has grown up over a very long period of time

(since the squats went bye-bye they feel they can't dump stuff that has outlives it's usefulness anymore either)

and typically i'm playing with has at least as much if not more effect on how much fun can be had than the rules we're using

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

I feel the same - but add in Bottom Tier and Unplayable.

A range between Average and Below Average - favoring Below Average would be my take.

It is not the worst - I have played and enjoyed Federation & Empire, which has even more problems.

It is not the best - I play and enjoy Kings of War, which has fewer problems.

Average... I rate the Warhammer Historicals as Average or maybe Above Average - which shows that the core system has potential, but I do not feel that either WHFB or WH40K live up to that potential.

So... Below Average is my over all judgement.

The Auld Grump

I don't understand why there are 6 choices instead of 5.

Average in the middle.

Awesome up top.

Unplayable down below.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
but they are trying to cope with a wider range of 'stuff' than many other rules sets, and stuff that has grown up over a very long period of time

There are around 12000 unique Magic the Gathering cards. With no problem caused by vague rules causing grey areas, and unintended loopholes are closed by the designers as soon as they are noticed.

And the 'grown up over time' argument is actually one against the current standard. After 6 iterations, the 40K ruleset should be a finly polished masterwork. After 8? 9? editions, Fantasy should be even better.

They're not, because GW keeps reinventing the wheel instead of just putting new rubber on it.

 insaniak wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
but they are trying to cope with a wider range of 'stuff' than many other rules sets, and stuff that has grown up over a very long period of time

There are around 12000 unique Magic the Gathering cards. With no problem caused by vague rules causing grey areas, and unintended loopholes are closed by the designers as soon as they are noticed.

And the 'grown up over time' argument is actually one against the current standard. After 6 iterations, the 40K ruleset should be a finly polished masterwork. After 8? 9? editions, Fantasy should be even better.

They're not, because GW keeps reinventing the wheel instead of just putting new rubber on it.

I think part of it is just a natural result of having rules to support sales.

You want to make a new ruleset with each edition that forces a change in armies. You keep a very basic section of the rules the same, but switching from monster fantasy to giant infantry fantasy or parking lot 40k to infantry 40k just requires more rule changes than an easy fix.

Now none of that means that they shouldn't be able to write non-confusing rules by now.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
There certainly not the most coherent rule set out there

but they are trying to cope with a wider range of 'stuff' than many other rules sets, and stuff that has grown up over a very long period of time

(since the squats went bye-bye they feel they can't dump stuff that has outlives it's usefulness anymore either)

and typically i'm playing with has at least as much if not more effect on how much fun can be had than the rules we're using

Flames of War has hundreds of "army lists" and units. My Grey Wolf book alone has enough units for at least 5 codexes on its own. Yet Flames of War isn't nearly as broken as 40k is. They even have 4 (technically 5 now) different historical periods they have to balance between.

 notprop wrote:
With 30 years of rules this poll is too open ended to prove or indicate jack gak. Today I have played Chainsaw Warrior and Warhammer Quest both were top notch.

You could try reading the OP, specifically the part where I limited the poll to the current editions of 40k and WHFB. That might be more productive than complaining about a problem you invented for yourself.

 malfred wrote:
I don't understand why there are 6 choices instead of 5.

Because I want to see how many of the "bottom tier" voters actually dislike the games enough to refuse to play them, compared to how many people hate the rules but keep playing for other reasons. There's no matching answer on the top end because you can't really get above top-tier unless you want to include stupid answers like "this game is divine perfection, I do not play it because I am not worthy".

I voted bottom tier and not unplayable because people obviously do play it and I don't think they need to fix it to make it work, but simply tolerate the problems. I'd reserve unplayable for the games that you truly cannot play without fixing them as they break down in play.

 notprop wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Really? 30+ years of GW games is not enough information for you to accept another's opinion the at some point during that time GW will have produced a gem or two. I call you liar you quite clear don't give a damn about others opinions.

With 30 years of rules this poll is too open ended to prove or indicate jack gak. Today I have played Chainsaw Warrior and Warhammer Quest both were top notch.

Also the poll is skewed toward negative responses so fails as an even test, still as a quick guide to Dakkas drama queens this thread is most successful.

No, of course in their 30+ years of production and my near 25 years of involvement, they have made some decent games. However, that is irrelevant in light of the OP, which is as follows..

 Peregrine wrote:
Because this thread needs a poll.

For purposes of this poll please consider only the current editions of 40k and WHFB, without any house rules/special campaigns/etc that you may have added to the game. Also, do not consider factors like fluff, models, or how easy it is to find other players in your area. This poll is only about the rules.

So, thanks for calling me a liar, when it is in fact your failure of comprehension that is causing your issue.

Considering that now is probably the time of some of the most playable, successful and accessible alternatives to GW games, certainly in my memory, I refute your claim of liar, stand by my original post, and call you dolt in return!

Adequate. They work, and when I'm gaming with my friends who are all as laid back as me, they give us a cracking fun game.

I can see where the ambiguity of rule wording can seriously hurt competitive gaming, which is why I didn't rate it higher. The fact that my friends and I get a fun game out of them doesn't mean they're well written, it just means we're laid back enough to not care and houserule bits we don't like.

As far as I can tell, the great tragedy of Games Workshop is that the hobby is supposed to be three things:
1. Painting and modeling.
2. Playing the wargame.
3. Rules development and modification.
and that third part doesn't get nearly the attention it's supposed to by either gamers or GW.

So you have these monstrous works like the one hundred page INAT FAQ to try to produce a document where someone could hope to say, "It's the middle of the game, if you based your strategy on rule X doing Y instead of Z, you should have known better because the FAQ or the rulebook or the codex says W."

Without that much effort, you run into "Our condolences, you lost because the game didn't work the way you thought it did" or "Our condolences, you won because your opponent didn't know any better." Which I think is a terrible situation to be in.

Or you play "casually" enough that "Oh, wow, that rule works in a completely different way than I was expecting. Let's make a note of it, and just play out the rest of the game anyway." can be said with no hard feelings.

I just don't like any amount of ambiguity in rules because not everyone plays games against a tight knit group of people. Some people play pick up games at stores against strangers or at tourneys/game days. Its all fine and well when a small group of friends agrees on something in a controlled environment, but what if I'm playing against a stranger and we have completely different notions of how a key rule works?

A system should be easily understood for everyone with clear, concise rules. I should be able to walk up to any random person at a convention, challenge them to a 40k game, and know that if both players read the rules they'll be on the same page page. The very existence of the phrase "we cleared it up by house ruling it" or "we rolled off to see who was right" shows that that rule system is FLAWED. Anyone who has mentioned that they've had to house rule things shouldn't have put down anything higher than "above average", if only because they've admitted there are problems with the ruleset.

TL;DR I shouldn't have to play just with a good group of friends to have a hope of getting the rules to work. I shouldn't have to roll off on the wording for a rule almost every game, and I definitely shouldn't have to resort to large amounts of house rules to make the game enjoyable. Rules shouldn't have multiple interpretations possible. We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM dedicated to trying to figure out what rules mean. How is that not a sign that there is something wrong with the ruleset?

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM dedicated to trying to figure out what rules mean. How is that not a sign that there is something wrong with the ruleset?

We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM fdedicated to Warmahordes rules questions as well, which is said to be a very tight ruleset. Granted, it's not as busy, but it's still got 480 thread with active discussion.

Questions are going to happen with any game, it's just a matter of how often.

I still don't understand the pointless restrictions that the previous thread to this had and, presumably, so does this.

It's like asking the question "What is the best car ever made, excluding safety, economy, ease of service, or number sold?" The conversation might talk about how Pagani makes cars with great power to weight ratios, or how the Ferrari Enzo has such a graceful torque curve.

... but that's silly. I've never seen an Enzo in person before, nor will I ever, likely, much less drive one, much less own one. Talking about cars in this narrow of a scope is pretty meaningless to a vast majority of people.

In the case of this analogy, the best car ever made in the whole world is the Toyota Corolla, because they've sold 40 MILLION of them. Whatever it's mix of cost, safety, reliability and other factors, I can't pretend to understand, but for whatever reason people think they're the best value, and so they buy them, and then buy new ones when the old ones break down.

Popularity isn't, in itself, an argument for something (as it's a fallacy), but popularity can point to other reasons for why something is successful over time. I'm not going to attempt to flesh out those reasons (as I don't really care), but there is a pretty strong implication that they are there.

However much you want to badmouth cars that people actually drive, people actually drive them for good reasons. However much you want to badmouth GW games, you can find someone to play them pretty much anywhere, because an awful lot of people play them.

Keep logical purity, but reasonlessly discard such a massive data set at your ideological peril.

 -Loki- wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM dedicated to trying to figure out what rules mean. How is that not a sign that there is something wrong with the ruleset?

We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM fdedicated to Warmahordes rules questions as well, which is said to be a very tight ruleset. Granted, it's not as busy, but it's still got 480 thread with active discussion.

Questions are going to happen with any game, it's just a matter of how often.

There are 480 'threads', most with less than 5 replies.
Q: "Is a feat a spell?"
A: "No."
"Ok thanks."

The highest reply count on the first page is 20.

Compare to the 40k YMDC: 29,000 threads, the highest reply count on the first page is over 200.

So rules *questions* are going to happen in any game... but rules *debates* don't need to happen. I think I've only ever seen 2 or 3 real rules 'debates' that go on for more than 3 pages on any warmachine forum. This isn't just because the rules are tight to begin with, but because they have staff called 'Infernals' which browse the forums and provide official binding answers to questions. Unlike in 40k where various debates about rules crop up again and again every month.


IMO, 40k is a decent rule set - better than some I've played, and the rulebook is actually quite well laid out which contributes significantly to the usability of the rules.
However, there are many significant flaws, some of which have survived through 4 editions of the game. Balance issues are also rampant which makes it less fun. Its ok to play, but I frequently have the rules get in the way of the fun experience.

 Ailaros wrote:
I still don't understand the pointless restrictions that the previous thread to this had and, presumably, so does this.

The point is that if you're asking about whether the rules to a game are well-written it doesn't add anything to the discussion when people say "but I had fun painting a space marine back in 1990".

In the case of this analogy, the best car ever made in the whole world is the Toyota Corolla, because they've sold 40 MILLION of them. Whatever it's mix of cost, safety, reliability and other factors, I can't pretend to understand, but for whatever reason people think they're the best value, and so they buy them, and then buy new ones when the old ones break down.

That's a terrible analogy for two reasons:

1) It ignores the market factors that have nothing to do with gaming. A more accurate analogy would be if Toyota had a near-monopoly and buying another car meant you'd never have a repair shop available if anything happened to it. In that case of course a Toyota car would be the best seller, even if competing cars were better if you only considered the cars themselves.

2) It assumes a single purpose for a car. If the question is "what's the best car for racing" the fact that lots of people buy Corollas for their daily commuting isn't relevant. In gaming terms, it doesn't matter if lots of 10 year olds whine until their parents buy them a box of space marines because that market has nothing to do with the actual game. Even GW admits that most of their customers don't play their games, so citing GW's total sales numbers as evidence that their rules are good is just insane.

Popularity isn't, in itself, an argument for something (as it's a fallacy), but popularity can point to other reasons for why something is successful over time. I'm not going to attempt to flesh out those reasons (as I don't really care), but there is a pretty strong implication that they are there.

It can point to reasons, but only if you ignore two important issues:

1) GW's market dominance has a lot to do with their business strategy, not the quality of the product. For example, driving independent stores out of the market so the only hobby shop nearby is a GW store (selling only GW products) is a great way of increasing sales even if your product is garbage. Similarly, GW has a huge advantage in selling plastic kits because they have a manufacturing infrastructure built up (and paid for) over 20+ years, while their competition doesn't and can't put as many (relatively) cheap plastic kits on the shelves.

2) GW's market share is shrinking. What this suggests is that GW, for various reasons, managed to build a dominant market position in the past but their current products are not good enough to maintain that position.

However much you want to badmouth GW games, you can find someone to play them pretty much anywhere, because an awful lot of people play them.

And that's exactly the kind of bad argument I'm trying to exclude. The question is whether the games themselves are good, not whether or not you can find someone to play with.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
I still don't understand the pointless restrictions that the previous thread to this had and, presumably, so does this.

The point is that if you're asking about whether the rules to a game are well-written it doesn't add anything to the discussion when people say "but I had fun painting a space marine back in 1990".

But saying "this is the 8th version of this particular rule set and I think that they could have used that experience to make a better/worse/different current ruleset" is perfectly valid IMO.

 d-usa wrote:
But saying "this is the 8th version of this particular rule set and I think that they could have used that experience to make a better/worse/different current ruleset" is perfectly valid IMO.

Sure, because you're talking about the current state of the rules.

Trasvi wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM dedicated to trying to figure out what rules mean. How is that not a sign that there is something wrong with the ruleset?

We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM fdedicated to Warmahordes rules questions as well, which is said to be a very tight ruleset. Granted, it's not as busy, but it's still got 480 thread with active discussion.

Questions are going to happen with any game, it's just a matter of how often.

There are 480 'threads', most with less than 5 replies.
Q: "Is a feat a spell?"
A: "No."
"Ok thanks."

The highest reply count on the first page is 20.

I'm just saying it's there, and it's used. The fact it's there means it was requested or needed, as subforums aren't created if they won't get traffic here.

 azreal13 wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Really? 30+ years of GW games is not enough information for you to accept another's opinion the at some point during that time GW will have produced a gem or two. I call you liar you quite clear don't give a damn about others opinions.

With 30 years of rules this poll is too open ended to prove or indicate jack gak. Today I have played Chainsaw Warrior and Warhammer Quest both were top notch.

Also the poll is skewed toward negative responses so fails as an even test, still as a quick guide to Dakkas drama queens this thread is most successful.

No, of course in their 30+ years of production and my near 25 years of involvement, they have made some decent games. However, that is irrelevant in light of the OP, which is as follows..

 Peregrine wrote:
Because this thread needs a poll.

For purposes of this poll please consider only the current editions of 40k and WHFB, without any house rules/special campaigns/etc that you may have added to the game. Also, do not consider factors like fluff, models, or how easy it is to find other players in your area. This poll is only about the rules.

So, thanks for calling me a liar, when it is in fact your failure of comprehension that is causing your issue.

Considering that now is probably the time of some of the most playable, successful and accessible alternatives to GW games, certainly in my memory, I refute your claim of liar, stand by my original post, and call you dolt in return!

Yeah there was one of those late night forgot the detail by page two type this so apologies all round. Under the circumstances dolt seems more than accurate.

Back to the topic, I'll through a little curve ball into the mix The Lord of the Rings system is very good and would suggest that it might well fit into the Top teir bracket. I support this by pointing to its large pick up in historic circles where its use has spread beyond Warhammer Historicals original publication. I have never played LoTRs but am a big Fan of Legends of the High Seas and Old West.

Personally I have no problem with the two Warhammer systems either. Too many special rules? Possibly but variety is the spice of life and all that. I'd rate both as a average.

 Ugavine wrote:
I have no problem with the rules for 40K.

Compared to Heroclix 40K is nearly perfect!

At the risk of going off-topic, what's wrong with Heroclix? I used to really like 'clix, admittedly this was 10 years ago. The game just seemed to play pretty much faster compared to 40K, and the character degradation/wound counter mechanic was brilliant.



Edit: Back on topic, I have to admit that I've never played a full game of 40K as written. I've been gaming on and off for nearly 20 years now, and I've always ignored a lot of the rules or house-ruled stuff, because there's just too much in the 40K book to play properly. I can get away with this because I usually only play with a gaming buddy, so we ignore a lot of the special abilities, psychic abilities, terrain special rules, and a lot of other stuff that seems needlessly complicated purely because I want to get on with the game and have to try and pick up the book every other phase to check something.

I'm currently learning FoW and have to pick up the rule book less often than 40K, even though this is the 4rd edition I've played. Admittedly, the FoW website contains a pdf cheat sheet that steps you through all the common actions, which means there's a lot that can be answered without the main book.

 insaniak wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
but they are trying to cope with a wider range of 'stuff' than many other rules sets, and stuff that has grown up over a very long period of time

There are around 12000 unique Magic the Gathering cards. With no problem caused by vague rules causing grey areas, and unintended loopholes are closed by the designers as soon as they are noticed.
.

This is an interesting comparison, that's come up a few times. It shows, as clearly as any others, the category error around this issue.

To print a card you simply... print a card. You can print 50 or you can print 50,000, and the origination cost is marginal. Comparing this with a stock list of at least 800 plastic and resin models, plus accessories, all of which have substantial or huge origination costs, and therefore have a huge legacy implication, is like comparing apples with boxes of soap.

The objects with which you play a game are an intrinsic part of that game. LOTR Is a better game based on its ruleset, but the fact remains that you odn't have the freedom of selection,or the ranges of forces, available in 40k, even before consider whether you can actually find an opponent in that tumbleweed-strewn part of the game store.

You are demanding GW invest a huge amount of resources into developing models and also invest the same amount of resources into rules as companies that invest marginal amounts into their gaming pieces. It's just not practical.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
To print a card you simply... print a card. You can print 50 or you can print 50,000, and the origination cost is marginal. Comparing this with a stock list of at least 800 plastic and resin models, plus accessories, all of which have substantial or huge origination costs, and therefore have a huge legacy implication, is like comparing apples with boxes of soap.

Err, what? You're completely missing the point there. It's not about bragging about how many different objects MTG has, it's about rule complexity. MTG has indisputably more rule complexity because of the thousands of different cards, yet has no ambiguity in its rules. So there's no reason to excuse GW's incompetence in failing to get the same kind of rule clarity with a much smaller set of game pieces to deal with.

You are demanding GW invest a huge amount of resources into developing models and also invest the same amount of resources into rules as companies that invest marginal amounts into their gaming pieces. It's just not practical.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Even ignoring the weirdness of bringing in the model kits when we're talking about rules the fact that GW has so many fewer game pieces means they should be able to spend more time writing the rules for each of them (assuming the same total time invested in rule writing).

I voted: "Bottom-tier: the rules are an obstacle to be overcome, if I even play at all."

6th 40K and 8th WHAFB aren't the worst rules sets that I've played, but they certainly are the worst "professional", commercial rules sets.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
but they are trying to cope with a wider range of 'stuff' than many other rules sets, and stuff that has grown up over a very long period of time

There are around 12000 unique Magic the Gathering cards. With no problem caused by vague rules causing grey areas, and unintended loopholes are closed by the designers as soon as they are noticed.
.

This is an interesting comparison, that's come up a few times. It shows, as clearly as any others, the category error around this issue.

To print a card you simply... print a card. You can print 50 or you can print 50,000, and the origination cost is marginal. Comparing this with a stock list of at least 800 plastic and resin models, plus accessories, all of which have substantial or huge origination costs, and therefore have a huge legacy implication, is like comparing apples with boxes of soap.

The objects with which you play a game are an intrinsic part of that game. LOTR Is a better game based on its ruleset, but the fact remains that you odn't have the freedom of selection,or the ranges of forces, available in 40k, even before consider whether you can actually find an opponent in that tumbleweed-strewn part of the game store.

You are demanding GW invest a huge amount of resources into developing models and also invest the same amount of resources into rules as companies that invest marginal amounts into their gaming pieces. It's just not practical.

I disagree. The system by which GW could maintain and extend their rules is simple, obvious, and well within the capability of a £130 million international company.

1. The rules should be drafted or at least reviewed by a technical author to make them logically clear. If you want them to be “chatty” have a creative writer put a gloss on them at the end.
2. Do better sub-editing and layout. Hire a proper editor. Stop copy-pasting things around, it causes mistakes.
3. Create a knowledge base. Refer to it when writing rules, to avoid overlaps and clashes.
4. Beta testing. If an FAQ comes out 2 days after a new release, it should have been fixed before publication. Don’t test only within the studio. Test with a wider panel of actual users.

If GW can’t find seats in their 89 person design studio to handle functions 1-3, they can be out-sourced easily enough. The knowledge base is the biggest job, however once done it will only need updating.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

You are demanding GW invest a huge amount of resources into developing models and also invest the same amount of resources into rules as companies that invest marginal amounts into their gaming pieces. It's just not practical.

I'm demanding no such thing. I'm merely pointing out that having a wide range of objects that require rules does not preclude those rules being clear and conflict free.

The fact that GW has a huge range of miniatures doesn't stop them from writing clear rules. Having units in their range that date back to the first edition of the game likewise doesn't prevent those units from having clear rules, because those rules can be revised.

I voted average. I don't play them much, but in my experience the games are getting stupidly unbalanced. Even worse is the "roll many dice" attitude that GW seems to be rapidly moving towards. this results in games of increasing randomness and frustration. another is the sheer ridiculous numbers of special rules in each game, rules that frequently leave me and my opponent scrambling through the pages of the BRB, only to find that the rule grants 2 or 3 other special rules, so off we go again.

Also there is the stupid brokenness of many units. My last game I can remember was my Skaven horde versus a Chaos Dwarf cannon line. The roll for the setup resulted in the crappy "divide the table into thirds and roll to see where each unit starts" the result of which was a massive Skaven logjam facing down a cannon line, with my warlords unit and 1-2 others stuck in the middle facing 2 sniper cannons a ridiculous distance away. End result: 5 Skaven made it into combat by turn 3. All else where dead.

Then there is 40K My last game involved my IG versus an IG tank company. Over an open field. With most of my AT being up close. To be fair I took out 3/4 of his infantry and both his Chimeras along with 3 Leman Russ MBT's. He flattened me.

The big problems I had where due to the rules on grenades and also the fact that under the new rules vehicles are so squishy. HP? Really? So tanks have wounds now? So there just MC that can be instagibbed?

Oh and the terrain rules. According to GW, most of the terrain in the old world is terrifying and deadly. Forests that eat people are common as muck, and rivers are only normal plain water 2/3rds of the time. Other times they are rivers of pure blood, slimey ooze or even magical rivers. And don't even start me on buildings.....

All in all I don't enjoy these games as much as I used too. The cannon spam and other such meta has taken the soul from the game in my eyes, and left my fluff based rat horde looking sad and dejected.

I find that a simple test of a ruleset's quality is the length of the rules themsevles. The longer the ruleset the greater the bloat and the incidents of conflicting/badly written rules increases. In some cases long rules are good, but only in RPGs and other such games where player freedom is paramount. In a TT wargame on the other hand its a sign of poor rules writing,

The entirety of the Bolt Action rules could just about fit in the introduction to the 40k rules and BA is a much better game. Even Infinity has significantly shorter rules than 40K.

GW are now rehashing rules that are nearly 30 years old (and originally designed for games with a very different outlook) resulting in games with complex rules but simplistic gameplay when what the desired goal should be is a simple ruleset but a complex game. It is high time that the'core' game rules were completely redesigned.

GW has produced some excellent rules in the past, Epic Armageddon had maybe 20 pages of rules, the entire game from the rulesets to the army lists fits into a book about the size of a modern Codex, yet they manage to produce a fluid and genuinely tactical wargame.

I voted for bottom tier, I still play 40k as I like the fluff (despite constant attempts to sabotage it), I have a large collection of armies that I amassed over the years and, crucially, its an easy game to find opponents for but its quite far down the list of 'games I want to play'. I don't play Fantasy at all anymore after what 8th ed did to what used to be my favourite wargame.

I voted below average, the rules work 66% of the time on a basic level. There are times when things not only don't work, they don't work well.

I attempted to play 40k on Friday, and cleaned up after an hour because the basic rules of the game were working fine, it was the intricacies and unbalanced codex rules that were making the game unfun, uninteresting, and boring. If I wanted to spend the time to set my Space Marine army up on a table only to remove them in groups of 10 or so, I'd reorganize my hobby room.

I'm fairly certain I have played my last game of 40k for a while this past week. There are major flaws in the game that might work for a 'casual' player, but as a casual player I want a tight ruleset that allows me to play the game and have fun regardless of whether or not I win or lose, and not just be swept off the board before I can get within firing range of my opponent's models.

Was going to vote bottom tier, but then I read through the options and the phrase "I do not play GW games because of their poor rules." seemed to apply more so I went with that. I'm not sure if they're truly unplayable or not, as I haven't tried. Nothing about a 40K table at the gaming club makes me remotely interested in the game.

Like it was said above, I assume anybody voting for top tier (or perhaps above average) hasn't really ever played any other games so has nothing to compare to.

But if they published a decent set of rules, then what would they keep releasing...

Why bother with inhouse testing when your cystomers can do it.

 Compel wrote:



snip*
10) Apocalypse. "I know, lets make the main mechanic for games of Apocalypse revolve around our players getting fed up of playing Apocalypse and wanting a break from it..."
snip*

I voted below average, because I think that is precisely where ot sits, I mostly play a homebrewed version of 2nd edition for this reason, but 6th edition 40k can be a fun game, but its usually fun inspite of the rules, not because of them. I stopped playing fantasy much past the 6th/7th edition crossover, so can't say much about that one, I do not own 8th.

Complexity is no excuse either, I'd argue that Infinity, and indeed warmachine/hordes, include far more complexity in terms of on the board tactical depth than GW has ever managed, but with a reasonable level of balance and most importantly, by and large clear rulesets that do not invite contrarian interpretations at every turn.

GW have the most money, the most experience and the biggest development teams in the business. They should be leading the way, not being excused. The commercial advantages they have not translating into significant gap in quality between their product and the competition just highlights extremely poor management.

I hope they really put out a great 9th edition of Fantasy, the world they created all those years ago deserves it, and so do its long suffering players.

I opted for adequate as two newly acquainted opponents can work through a semi-competitive game fairly easily.'

I would even go so far as to say the rule sets are above average in the hands of two regular opponents who have a decent understanding of the rulebook.

GW is in a tricky position as their games are in a large skirmish format - neither controlling massive formations of tanks/infantry or individuals/small squads.

Big P wrote:
But if they published a decent set of rules, then what would they keep releasing...

Models.

Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

...
...

"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

That's why I gave up playing WHFB in 1st edition.

I realised it didn't matter how cleverly I manoeuvred my troops, I could obliterate most of the enemy army and he could still win by pulling out a hero or a mega spell card that automatically won the game.

It made playing pointless and I've never played since.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

...
...

"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

That's why I gave up playing WHFB in 1st edition.

I realised it didn't matter how cleverly I manoeuvred my troops, I could obliterate most of the enemy army and he could still win by pulling out a hero or a mega spell card that automatically won the game.

It made playing pointless and I've never played since.

Not first edition.... no spell cards in 1983

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

Yeah, that's just sad. Predictable, but sad.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

is there something wrong with that? What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

People are not stupid or irrational for liking things differently to you, you know...

xruslanx wrote:

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

is there something wrong with that? What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

People are not stupid or irrational for liking things differently to you, you know...

Nobody's saying that.

What we're saying that is a tight, well written wargame with clear rules and good balance would be fun for everyone. It would in fact be as, if not more, 'cinematic' or similar, than 40k.

A tight rule set would arguably be more fun. Everyone could bring whatever fluffly list they want, and it would be as competitive as any other list conceivable. The rules would be logical, immerse you in the universe with more accurate depictions of the weapons in the rules compared to the fluff. They would also have significantly less in the way of plain oversight on obvious rules issue or lack of clarity.

We're not telling you to give up 40k, or that you're wrong, or anything else. Most of us are simply pointing out that 40k could be a lot better. Expand your horizons, take a good objective look at the game and analyze it. Look at other rule sets.

I would agree with Blacksails, tighter rules would be the most positive situation.

More casual or narrative-focused players would feel relatively the same or maybe even a little happier with some of the fluffier units becoming more on-par with other rules. I know for a long time I enjoyed using rough riders, but it seemed silly when they were just so bad at doing pretty much anything (now I'm not arguing the usefulness of horse cavalry in the distant future, more so that if the unit does exist in the codex, then it would be nice if it had some use).

On the flip side more competitive players could get their fix of balanced game, and when playing someone who was more narrative-driven, the game might be more evenly-sided when all units taken fulfill effective roles! Then it would be more about player skill, which could be dialed up or down depending on the player/background/etc.

I think tight rules are great, and I don't think GW has to get rid of the cinematic flavors of 40k/fantasy that people are attracted to, just clean up, simplify redundancies, and remove excess and overly-complicated stuff.

EDIT: Oh, I would also clarify that I feel the rules are adequate.

I voted bottom tier. I love most of Games Workshop's models, and the universe they have built. But I feel the rules are indeed an obstacle to overcome, and offputting to any casual gamer. I don't own the 6th edition rulebook because it took me so long to get the hang of 5th edition that I just didn't want the hassle, though I imagine I will someday. How many pages is it - 432, right? Assuming half is fluff, and like 25% of the remainder is full page art inside the rules; we're still talking like 160 pages of rules. That is insane! Atop that, so much of it is poorly written, has ambiguous instructions, requires constant patching via FAQ's... they just suck.

As Tannhauser said, I think it's the interaction between the codexes and the rules that cause most of the problems. It's not like it's impossible for them to write good rules since the rules for Space Hulk are pretty good, as well as for Talisman (although they are outside the scope of this poll so did not include them in my vote).

I don't know how exactly to fix their issues but I think the game would be a lot more fun if the main rulebook were not more than 25 pages of rules or so, with similar efficiencies applied to the codexes to streamline things.

xruslanx wrote:
is there something wrong with that?

What's wrong is that GW ignored playtesting feedback in favor of deliberately publishing bad rules because of some insane idea that they're a "beer and pretzels" company so they have to produce garbage.

What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

Again you keep making this ridiculous argument that a ruleset suitable for competitive play is somehow not going to work for casual play.

Also, "roll a D6, on a 6 you win" is not fun. It might be memorable, but even casual players don't like it when the outcome of their story is determined by random chance instead of player decisions.

xruslanx wrote:

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

is there something wrong with that? What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

People are not stupid or irrational for liking things differently to you, you know...

How does having a well balanced and easy to understand ruleset prevent fun? Because that's what it sounds like you're implying. How does being able to bring a wide variety of the lists to the table and not get crushed prevent being fun? Is balance boring? Is having insanely easily abused combos and flat out win buttons against certain armies more fun than having two evenly matched forces with an equal chance of winning? Ask Daemon players who have had the "pleasure" of playing against warpquake (I think that's the name) and how much fun they had with a ruleset made for "fun" games.

A well balanced and polished ruleset doesnt mean no fun allowed people.

My idea of fun is being able to look at a codex and seeing all units having a legitimate use in the game. My idea of fun is being able to create an army list that I like and not having to get instantly curbstomped by a net list. I shouldn't have units in my codex that are literally useless due to out of date rules or being overshadowed entirely by other choices. I should be able to take something like infantry horde IG and not be forced to admit that I'm essentially making a joke list.

When people say they want a more balanced ruleset, most could care less about tourneys or being ultra competitive. We just want to be able to play the game and know that most unit choices are balanced and useable. We want to be able to look at a rule entry and see no loopholes or confusing wording. We want a game where a "fun list" and a "competitive one" are almost equally matched as far as "power level" is concerned.

This "competitive rules prevents fun" idea is idiotic and really needs to stop. There are plenty of tightly written rulesets that are competitive, well written, and still manage to be fun.

I think the tone of your post is just coming across wrong, and if so I apologize, but if you seriously think tight ruleset prevents a game from being fun I'm worried about you.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

A well balanced and polished ruleset doesnt mean no fun allowed people.

My idea of fun is being able to look at a codex and seeing all units having a legitimate use in the game. My idea of fun is being able to create an army list that I like and not having to get instantly curbstomped by a net list. I shouldn't have units in my codex that are literally useless due to out of date rules or being overshadowed entirely by other choices. I should be able to take something like infantry horde IG and not be forced to admit that I'm essentially making a joke list.

When people say they want a more balanced ruleset, most could care less about tourneys or being ultra competitive. We just want to be able to play the game and know that most unit choices are balanced and useable. We want to be able to look at a rule entry and see no loopholes or confusing wording. We want a game where a "fun list" and a "competitive one" are almost equally matched as far as "power level" is concerned.

This "competitive rules prevents fun" idea is idiotic and really needs to stop. There are plenty of tightly written rulesets that are competitive, well written, and still manage to be fun.

I think the tone of your post is just coming across wrong, and if so I apologize, but if you seriously think tight ruleset prevents a game from being fun I'm worried about you.

Exalted for undeniable truth and great justice.

The question has been asked how can GW correct the 40k rule set.
The answer is simple, STOP TRYING TO MAKE EVERYTHING BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE!

Its legacy issues that are killing the clarity and brevity of the rules.
They keep using the WHFB skirmish rules for a game with far to many models to be manageable.
And keep adding layer upon layer of poorly thought out quick fixes, that create more problems than they actually fix.

Rather than randomly switching from macro to micro management, and concrete and abstract resolution ...

Why not re-write the rules for 40k , focusing on the game play for DETAILED UNIT INTERACTION!

40k IS about unit interaction.(GW even tell you this in the 40k rule book!)

So focusing the detail on individual models in a unit , then trying to addressing balance issues at the army level.
COMPLETELY misses the UNIT level out of the development process!

xruslanx wrote:
is there something wrong with that? What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

People are not stupid or irrational for liking things differently to you, you know...

can you explain to be how a rules set can only either be "fun", or "hardcore wargaming"? Furthermore, can you explain your viewpoint as to how 'tight' rules sets and 'fun' games are somehow seemingly mutually exclusive? And i have a personal question - what games do you play?

People are most certainly not stupid or irrational for liking different things. thats not we're talking about here. You can like whatever you want. you can like GW games for example. But please, be objective in your analysis and assessment of these games and dont stick your head in the sand about it. Dont be dishonest. Dont pretend GW games dont have issues - they're based on poorly thought through, ham fisted, bloated, counter intuitive, unbalanced rules and saying these exact rules (of which we have loads of examples), as they are are needed for 'fun games' is a joke (I've pointed this out to you in the past how this is not the case). Dont try and pretent folks having legitimite grievances are somehow 'hating' on GW, and that this somehow invalidates their criticism.

you are confusing two things -seem to confuse objective criticism with an irrational 'hating on GW', and seem to dismiss it as not being valid. Please dont.

there is nothing wrong with liking 'casual' games. my flames of war group is extremely casual (we bolt on a lot of the rules - especially the random activation order from bolt action - because they add to our enjoyment when we do our very laid back and enjoyable evening moving our wee ww2 tanks about a board). but bear in mind - please - your casual gaming is only helped by tight, well written, thoroughly playtested rules - despite your assertions that they are mutually exclusive.

"Casual" surely is just a mental attitude to playing a game. It doesn't derive from the rules.

Obviously people who want to play casually won't care much if a rulebook is badly written, because they will just D6 past the problems, but a well-written book doesn't stop a game from being played casually.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Casual" surely is just a mental attitude to playing a game. It doesn't derive from the rules.

Obviously people who want to play casually won't care much if a rulebook is badly written, because they will just D6 past the problems, but a well-written book doesn't stop a game from being played casually.

I'd go so far as to say that a well written book is better for casual players; that way you spend less time trying to interpret or D6 the outcome of the rules, and more time playing the game and having interesting discussion.

There's absolutely no case in which sloppy rules are better than clear rules.


I'd also agree with 40K getting a re-write that drops any sense of backwards compatibility; that'd give them much more scope to improve the game.

My group is finding more and more, that when we are looking for a casual and fun game we are skipping out on 40k almost exclusively.
Other games are Easyerr to teach and play with even new players picking them up and playing competently with little rule issues.
We are finding that warmachine is far better at scaling up to large games also simply due to less rule confusion also, 50 point to 200 points taking a reasonable game time.
It's a sad thing but now, people don't even bring 40k for pickup games. But other games take that place.

Right now with some army's I would think the game is getting close to unplayable by design. My last 2 40k games I could have not play and the games would have probably gone very similar.

Fantasy is more favourable but still I find has issues that other games just don't seem to have. And it's disheartening within the hobby that 2 games that used to get a great deal of play are dieing here

I know I'm a little different from most people, but here's my take on GW rules:

WHFB 8th edition is the first edition I've enjoyed playing since 3rd, but there are still rules issues.

Out of all the editions of WH40K, 6th edition is the only one I'm just not interested in playing.

Both of these opinions are based upon the rules for each system and how the game plays under those rules.

As such, I rated GW's rules below-average.

Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

I play 2-5 games a week and rarely have any real issue, the only time there is a problem is with ultra competitive or tourny players, but we must all put up with those kind of people haha

 Formosa wrote:
Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

As long as you understand that these problems wouldn't exist if GW rules were properly done. A well done rule set wouldn't breed rule lawyers and people looking for loopholes, as there would be none.

The problem are the rules, not the people.

 Formosa wrote:
Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

I play 2-5 games a week and rarely have any real issue, the only time there is a problem is with ultra competitive or tourny players, but we must all put up with those kind of people haha

So for you, the problem isn't that the rules have problems, its that people find about those problems and tell other people? Right...

I think considering the complexity of the rules, they are pretty good. It tends to be the players different perception of those rules that causes problems.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
I think considering the complexity of the rules, they are pretty good. It tends to be the players different perception of those rules that causes problems.

The complexity is part of the problem. More often than not, simple is better.

And again, the differing perceptions thing, or people reading a rule differently than you is a direct cause of poor, unclear rules. If there were clear and tight rules, there wouldn't be differing opinions.

I think people forget to try to look at 40k with fresh eyes. Just imagine trying to sit down and explain the game to someone who has never played a tabletop game before.

"Okay everyone Moves 6", but these guys with Jump Packs move like this, oh and this vehicle has to roll 1D6 for Dangerous Terrain, oh oh oh and!"

I can also imagine how awkward the shooting phase would be:

"So what's your Ballistic Skill? 4? Okay, well 7 minus that is 3, so you need 3+ to hit. How many shots do you have? Okay grab 12 dice then. Roll them, okay you got 5 hits. Now what's the Strength of the gun? Yeah flip to the back of the codex there. 4 again? My Toughness is 3, so let me check this chart, so 3+ to Wound. Roll those 5 leftover dice again. 2 Wounds made it through. Now I need to roll my saves, let me check that, oh wait do you have AP on that gun? Yeah just go to that back page again. Okay the AP doesn't affect my save, let me roll 2 saves. I failed one so the closest guy dies. WOW THAT WAS FUN AND EASY!"

Don't even get me started on assault, or morale ("No no, now you WANT to roll low!"), or fiddly vehicle rules.

Everyone seems to gloss over the grueling learning process involved in 40k. The overwhelming amount of useless, contradictory information that a person has to digest before they can put some models on the table and play.

 Formosa wrote:
Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

i like this. i really do. them people! its their fault! Never mind the fact that all these flaws and loopholes actually exist - thats fine! its the fact that people see them, and query them. And then even worse - in trying to find answers, they let other people know about these faults! thats terrible! they're ruining the game! yes, lets just leave all these faults, and not talk about it. lets do an ostrich, and stick our heads in the sand. that'll solve it!

What bothers me most is the intent you ascribe these folks. Its never a genuine head-scratching query. its not about seeking clarification on a grey area. its not about solving a problem. Its all about maliciously, and intentionally gutting the rules for flaws and loopholes presumably to justify tfg behaviour. please, drop it. please, drop it. as well as being hysterically inaccurate, it is also extremely insulting and small minded to say this.
the truly ironic thing is that ironclad rules sets like what is offered in warmachine/hordes (designed with competitive play as its focus), and games like Infinity simply do not offer this scope for rules abuse.

Don't feed it, boys.

If they kept the rules the same for the whole time since 40k's release we might have a slightly less loop hole ridden game. But we dont, we have a game that evolves every few years. And unless you want decades between codex's and rule books there is no way to release a full proof set of rules. Yes there are some right awfull holes as we can tell from looking at the arguments that often occur in the YMTC forum section.

Sure you can simplify the rules, but would you realy want that, Remove all the Special rules, remove dynamic game play like cover and such. to make the rules less complicated to save People having to Discuss (argue in the internets case) about rules.

Saw someone reference Chess earlier as a full proof game. Sure it has but chess has been around for close on 1500 years. And the chess we all know today has been set in stone since the first ever Championship in 1886. It has simple rules with very little dynamic play. Ie you dont get Armour saves in chess for instance

Deadnight wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

i like this. i really do. them people! its their fault! Never mind the fact that all these flaws and loopholes actually exist - thats fine! its the fact that people see them, and query them. And then even worse - in trying to find answers, they let other people know about these faults! thats terrible! they're ruining the game! yes, lets just leave all these faults, and not talk about it. lets do an ostrich, and stick our heads in the sand. that'll solve it!

What bothers me most is the intent you ascribe these folks. Its never a genuine head-scratching query. its not about seeking clarification on a grey area. its not about solving a problem. Its all about maliciously, and intentionally gutting the rules for flaws and loopholes presumably to justify tfg behaviour. please, drop it. please, drop it. as well as being hysterically inaccurate, it is also extremely insulting and small minded to say this.
the truly ironic thing is that ironclad rules sets like what is offered in warmachine/hordes (designed with competitive play as its focus), and games like Infinity simply do not offer this scope for rules abuse.

You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.

Case in point, allies of convenience idiocy that came up, this was never an issue untill someone decided to try and abuse these rules and read them in a certain way, I didn't know a single person who played them the way this rules lawyer did untill this person started to blab about it, had this person not caused this issue by deliberately trying to gain an advantage then no one would be the wiser and no issue would exist.

We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

 Formosa wrote:


You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.

Case in point, allies of convenience idiocy that came up, this was never an issue untill someone decided to try and abuse these rules and read them in a certain way, I didn't know a single person who played them the way this rules lawyer did untill this person started to blab about it, had this person not caused this issue by deliberately trying to gain an advantage then no one would be the wiser and no issue would exist.

We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

Not every loophole is discovered by malicious intent. When the rules are poorly constructed different interpretations are going to happen naturally. I've seen situations where different gaming groups in the same city where playing the same rules in different ways, and when players swapped between them it just lead to frustration. By then people have an established way of playing and don't want to change.

This is something that doesn't happen with tighter more consistent rules.

 Formosa wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

i like this. i really do. them people! its their fault! Never mind the fact that all these flaws and loopholes actually exist - thats fine! its the fact that people see them, and query them. And then even worse - in trying to find answers, they let other people know about these faults! thats terrible! they're ruining the game! yes, lets just leave all these faults, and not talk about it. lets do an ostrich, and stick our heads in the sand. that'll solve it!

What bothers me most is the intent you ascribe these folks. Its never a genuine head-scratching query. its not about seeking clarification on a grey area. its not about solving a problem. Its all about maliciously, and intentionally gutting the rules for flaws and loopholes presumably to justify tfg behaviour. please, drop it. please, drop it. as well as being hysterically inaccurate, it is also extremely insulting and small minded to say this.
the truly ironic thing is that ironclad rules sets like what is offered in warmachine/hordes (designed with competitive play as its focus), and games like Infinity simply do not offer this scope for rules abuse.

You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.

Case in point, allies of convenience idiocy that came up, this was never an issue untill someone decided to try and abuse these rules and read them in a certain way, I didn't know a single person who played them the way this rules lawyer did untill this person started to blab about it, had this person not caused this issue by deliberately trying to gain an advantage then no one would be the wiser and no issue would exist.

We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

Except in an environment with a solid ruleset, there is little or no room for abuse.

As the living embodiment of the "casual gamer" I find your perspective slightly off. You are assuming that people who read a rule a certain way have done so purely to try and gain an advantage? While no doubt true, I have encountered plenty of occasions, dating all the way back to 2E, when I have played people outside of my usual circle who have, completely innocently and, I am confident in saying, with no desire to gain any sort of artificial advantage, interpreted a rule in a different way to me or my group.

Are there people who specifically look for these flaws because they feel they really must WAAC? Sure. But if those loopholes weren't there in the first place, they'd be SOL.

The fact is, in its current state, 40K is a game which can force me to make high risk decisions just in order to try and achieve parity with newer, shinier armies, and when those decisions backfire (which is too frequent in a game where probability jumps in 15% increments) the consequences are such that it is near impossible to recover. This isn't fun for either party.

I would dearly love to keep playing my Bangles as Bangles, but the fact remains, even as a casual gamer, I like to at least feel I have a chance of winning before the game starts, and if I lose, I like to analyse the game and figure out what I could do differently next time to get a better result. When I find myself on the end of a defeat and unable to realistically see a way it could have gone differently, without some exceptional luck, that is no fun for me. Frankly, the only reason I'm still playing them is because my daemons aren't ready yet. Once they are, the BA will be remodelled as C:SM, in time for daemons to likely fall behind the "chance of winning" curve, and once the Marines have, hopefully BA will be the new shiny again.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.

Case in point, allies of convenience idiocy that came up, this was never an issue untill someone decided to try and abuse these rules and read them in a certain way, I didn't know a single person who played them the way this rules lawyer did untill this person started to blab about it, had this person not caused this issue by deliberately trying to gain an advantage then no one would be the wiser and no issue would exist.

We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

Not every loophole is discovered by malicious intent. When the rules are poorly constructed different interpretations are going to happen naturally. I've seen situations where different gaming groups in the same city where playing the same rules in different ways, and when players swapped between them it just lead to frustration. By then people have an established way of playing and don't want to change.

This is something that doesn't happen with tighter more consistent rules.

That is true, I play at several different local clubs and there are different interpretations, but it is the malicious rules lawyers that do cause issues aswell, this is I'm what referring to.

We all know someone like this, annoyingly it's part of the game

The rules are adequate. I can't believe anyone could seriously claim they were "Top-tier: either the absolute best, or tied with the best."

Time and time again what happens. A codex is introduced. Within a few short days tons of questions arise. Most of the time stuff GW should have caught before they published the dex.

 Formosa wrote:


That is true, I play at several different local clubs and there are different interpretations, but it is the malicious rules lawyers that do cause issues aswell, this is I'm what referring to.

We all know someone like this, annoyingly it's part of the game

Does it make a difference if the loophole was found innocently of maliciously? If I buy 3 Heldrakes because I think mechanical flying dragons are the coolest, or I buy 3 because I like making marine players cry, the end result is still a crying Marine player.

 Formosa wrote:
You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.

You seem to be under the impression that players in a casual environment don't mind having these amicable rules resolutions. A tight ruleset that leaves no room for such arse-hattery means that people of all play levels can enjoy it at the style and level they wish to play at. When I set my models on the table, I'd like to be able to go through the game without rules discussions or 'negative play experiences'. A lot of people on here describe their ideal game as one in which they can have fun, fun games can be found in tight rulesets across the globe! Am I a pariah of the casual gamer because I don't even want these amicable rules resolutions to exist in the first place?

We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

I'll give you a piece of my own 'unforseen manner' from Warmachine and Hordes
I use to run the prime version of Madrak Ironhide. Madrak has an item called Scroll of Grindar's Perseverance after any direct attack has hit Madrak, he may use this scroll to suffer no damage roll from the attack. I had been using this strategy to wait until my opponent declared he was going to use a focus or fury to boost their damage roll, and then declare my use of the scroll. It wasn't until I brought up this strategy amongst the DCMs that I was told flat out, that boosting is only allowed when the damage roll occurs. If it doesn't occur then there is no boosting. So while I was misreading it it was quickly pointed out to me that I was misreading it and there was no other correct way for it to be read due to the clarity and tightness of the rules.

Unlike in 40k where we have a 10 page discussion on whether or not 2 grav guns hits cause 2 hull points or 3 hull points against vehicles. A tight ruleset wouldn't allow for such things.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
But we dont, we have a game that evolves every few years. And unless you want decades between codex's and rule books there is no way to release a full proof set of rules. Yes there are some right awfull holes as we can tell from looking at the arguments that often occur in the YMTC forum section.

Flames of War and Warmahordes (to a lesser degree), kind of prove that you can have a game evolving every few years without being riddled with ambiguous rules.

 cerbrus2 wrote:

Sure you can simplify the rules, but would you realy want that, Remove all the Special rules, remove dynamic game play like cover and such. to make the rules less complicated to save People having to Discuss (argue in the internets case) about rules.

Its arguments like these that really make me wonder if the people that are defending GW's rules systems have actually ever played anything other than said GW systems.

GW's systems are on the bottom of the heap for dynamic game play... IGUG systems in general are pretty bad because you have very limited answers during your opponents turn. If you wan't examples of rule sets with better dynamic game play you need to check out FoF, Infinity, Malifaux and a whole bunch of others that make a much better job of it.

Also, having rules for cover isn't an example of having "dynamic play" any more than randomizing everything is an example of "cinematic gameplay"! Literally every single rules system that I've tried that places any sort of importance on ranged combat will have rules for cover and concealment, and a lot of them will go far beyond that when representing the tactical problems and options of modern ranged combat...

 cerbrus2 wrote:
I think considering the complexity of the rules, they are pretty good. It tends to be the players different perception of those rules that causes problems.

But are the rules really all that complex?

Here's an exercise for you. Take a highlighter, and start reading the main rule book. Highlight only the parts of sentences that directly pertain to a rule. Do not mark anything that is fluff, or explanation for "why" something happens, or things that are needlessly colorful language.

I think you'll discover that only a small portion of any given page is devoted to actual rules. If GW wrote their rules in a format similar to how Avalon Hill used to write for their board games, the books would be less interesting to read but significantly easier to understand, from a rules perspective.

cerbrus2 wrote:If they kept the rules the same for the whole time since 40k's release we might have a slightly less loop hole ridden game. But we dont, we have a game that evolves every few years. And unless you want decades between codex's and rule books there is no way to release a full proof set of rules. Yes there are some right awfull holes as we can tell from looking at the arguments that often occur in the YMTC forum section.

evolution implies the game is taking steps forward. In GWs case, i can't see this as being true. third ed had a huge amount of faults. Some were fixed in fourth, but fourth bred its own stable of faults and problems. fifth fixed some of them, and bred its own stable of faults and problems. See where I'm going? Each new edition GW releases, they don't move forward, they move sideways. GW are less interested in making imporvements, and far more interested in making changes.

cerbrus2 wrote:
Sure you can simplify the rules, but would you realy want that, Remove all the Special rules, remove dynamic game play like cover and such. to make the rules less complicated to save People having to Discuss (argue in the internets case) about rules.

Look at warmachine please. plenty special rules, literally oozing with character and flair, and yet it has simple, straight forward game play with no end to its depth.

you mention cover. I've seen plenty games do cover in better ways than GW. as negative modifers to hit (flames of war, early 40k, warmachine/hordes, etc), or as positive modifiers to armour (starship troopers). In GWs case they have this horrible dual nature of cover and armour where if a marine takes a cover save, his armour disappears, and if he uses his armour, his cover disappears. One would assume with common sense that a marine in cover gets to use them sum of both, rather than one of their individual parts. you call this 'dynamic'? i call it 'poor game mechanics that others have implemented better'.

Formosa wrote:
You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.
We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

which is the point. GW release a half finished rules set, and simply expect their players to deal with the mess, and pick up the pieces. you shouldnt have to. I dont get this attitude from Privateer press, or Corvus beli whether i play their games at a tournament, or casually with friends.

Again, this attitude thats its all about abusing them to advantage - thats simply not always the case.

In a casual environment, the problems dont disappear. they're still there. they're just being ignored. and whilst ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes, i'd rather not be in that situation in the first place where i have to deal with a game built upon poorly thought through loosely worded and vague game mechanics by playing ostrich, sticking my head in the sand and pretending its not there. frankly, i'd rather be dealing with a more professional product in the first place (and here's the catch - i can still play casually with these! )

Formosa wrote:
That is true, I play at several different local clubs and there are different interpretations, but it is the malicious rules lawyers that do cause issues aswell, this is I'm what referring to.
We all know someone like this, annoyingly it's part of the game

tightly written rules sets cure this though. those rules lawyers thrive on grey areas. in games like warmachine, they have no leg to stand on, as there is no room for interpretation. you either can, or you cant. honestly, its refreshing.

Flames of War kind of prove that you can have a game evolving every few years without being riddled with ambiguous rules.

Well apart from them US tank destroyer business and the early war mess with the British...

The point is that releasing rules that have issues, means you have to redo and release a new set, which, oops, has other issues, which means doing another new set, that has other issues... etc etc.

All the while players have to buy the latest generation of rules and army books to stay up to date... constant and regular cash injection.

Whether its FOW or 40k, the business model demands rules that need updating and revision, hence the loopholes...

A cynical man might say its all a very clever sales plan.

Big P wrote:

Flames of War kind of prove that you can have a game evolving every few years without being riddled with ambiguous rules.

Well apart from them US tank destroyer business and the early war mess with the British...

Both of those issues have been resolved in a timely manner and without any further cost for the players, also, both of those issues were balance issues and not any problem with rule's ambiguities.

Big P wrote:

The point is that releasing rules that have issues, means you have to redo and release a new set, which, oops, has other issues, which means doing another new set, that has other issues... etc etc.

No that called lazy rule writing with no playtesting or not caring if they do a good job.

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

is there something wrong with that? What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

People are not stupid or irrational for liking things differently to you, you know...

Nobody's saying that.

What we're saying that is a tight, well written wargame with clear rules and good balance would be fun for everyone. It would in fact be as, if not more, 'cinematic' or similar, than 40k.

A tight rule set would arguably be more fun. Everyone could bring whatever fluffly list they want, and it would be as competitive as any other list conceivable. The rules would be logical, immerse you in the universe with more accurate depictions of the weapons in the rules compared to the fluff. They would also have significantly less in the way of plain oversight on obvious rules issue or lack of clarity.

We're not telling you to give up 40k, or that you're wrong, or anything else. Most of us are simply pointing out that 40k could be a lot better. Expand your horizons, take a good objective look at the game and analyze it. Look at other rule sets.

Well by definition a "tight" ruleset won't have the looseness nessesary to create fun rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Noir wrote:

Big P wrote:

The point is that releasing rules that have issues, means you have to redo and release a new set, which, oops, has other issues, which means doing another new set, that has other issues... etc etc.

No that called lazy rule writing with no playtesting or not caring if they do a good job.

That's probably why they don't bother FAQing their codexes.

xruslanx wrote:

Noir wrote:

Big P wrote:

The point is that releasing rules that have issues, means you have to redo and release a new set, which, oops, has other issues, which means doing another new set, that has other issues... etc etc.

No that called lazy rule writing with no playtesting or not caring if they do a good job.

That's probably why they don't bother FAQing their codexes.

Let not forget the FAQ for the core rule book a week after release. But, the important part is the FAQ that create even bigger loopholes. I any failing to see it as a plus.

xruslanx wrote:
Well by definition a "tight" ruleset won't have the looseness necessary to create fun rules.

I... But... What?

Did you read what you just typed?

"Tight" doesn't mean forbidding custom scenarios and house rules. "Tight" means when I look at a rule, I can clearly tell exactly what it means. There is no abusable grey area, no shady wording, no questions at all.

If anything, a "tight" ruleset would be EASIER to create fun rules for, because its much easier to tell how rules interact and keep house rules or scenarios balanced with the "official rules".

xruslanx wrote:
Well by definition a "tight" ruleset won't have the looseness nessesary to create fun rules.

Again, no. MTG has absolutely no ambiguity in its rules, and has a thriving "casual" community, lots of "fluffy" cards and mechanics, etc. How "tight" a ruleset is has absolutely nothing to do with how much fun it is.

That's probably why they don't bother FAQing their codexes.

Sorry, but GW gets no credit for this. They FAQ half the issues, after everyone complains about it enough that they can't refuse an FAQ without giving up even the flimsy pretense of writing quality rules. Meanwhile YMDC is still full of threads arguing about how the rules work.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

"Tight" doesn't mean forbidding custom scenarios and house rules. "Tight" means when I look at a rule, I can clearly tell exactly what it means. There is no abusable grey area, no shady wording, no questions at all.

If anything, a "tight" ruleset would be EASIER to create fun rules for, because its much easier to tell how rules interact and keep house rules or scenarios balanced with the "official rules".

I can't envisage anything written without any "gray area, shady wording or questions at all" that was also fun and fluffy. A game as large and complex as 40k is bound to create rule frictions, the only way you could eliminate these would be by crushing all fun things out of the game completely.

There are tonnes of stuff that wouldn't fit within a "tight" ruleset:

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

I get what you're saying, I just don't see why you want to actively make 40k more boring. I don't go around telling other games that they need to be more fun

I voted Below average

Once the rules are worked out it does make games fun, but it is nothing more than a beer and pretzels game system, this si both fantasy and 40k, as well as the other games.

My problem lies in the amount of editions. I play Rapid Fire, a WW2 wargame. in about 20 years they have brought out 2 editions, the 2nd one updating the first. I don't have to re alter my list every year, or spend ever more money buying the latest rules or codex. I wish they would stick with one set and develop it with expansions, which they were doing at one point, but have left it to go back to the 1 edition a year so people can give them more money. They update the game not for the sake of the rules but so they can make more money off the current player base, and that's what annoys me.

xruslanx wrote:
I can't envisage anything written without any "gray area, shady wording or questions at all" that was also fun and fluffy. A game as large and complex as 40k is bound to create rule frictions, the only way you could eliminate these would be by crushing all fun things out of the game completely.

There are tonnes of stuff that wouldn't fit within a "tight" ruleset:

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

I get what you're saying, I just don't see why you want to actively make 40k more boring. I don't go around telling other games that they need to be more fun

Have you played other games?

xruslanx wrote:


There are tonnes of stuff that wouldn't fit within a "tight" ruleset:

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

All those thing can exist in a tight rule set. The difference between a tight and a loose rules set is that when Fluffy Rule A interacts with Cool Rule B the interaction is defined instead of having to throw your hands up in the air and 4+ it.

Warmachine manages to have some pretty cool fluffy rules that cause models to get tossed all over the battlefield without much ambiguity.

xruslanx wrote:
I can't envisage anything written without any "gray area, shady wording or questions at all" that was also fun and fluffy. A game as large and complex as 40k is bound to create rule frictions, the only way you could eliminate these would be by crushing all fun things out of the game completely.

Again, MTG. Fluffy, complex, fun, and absolutely no ambiguity in the rules.

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

Nonsense. Every one of those things could be written with absolutely no ambiguity. GW just doesn't bother to do it.

Of course if you think those things are impossible then you could explain why, instead of just listing a bunch of random stuff and complaining about how the rules wouldn't be fun if everyone understood what they did.

For the 'warpstorm' table, random does not mean gray area. Random means random. Every entry on the table could be written as clear as fething day.

xruslanx wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

"Tight" doesn't mean forbidding custom scenarios and house rules. "Tight" means when I look at a rule, I can clearly tell exactly what it means. There is no abusable grey area, no shady wording, no questions at all.

If anything, a "tight" ruleset would be EASIER to create fun rules for, because its much easier to tell how rules interact and keep house rules or scenarios balanced with the "official rules".

I can't envisage anything written without any "gray area, shady wording or questions at all" that was also fun and fluffy. A game as large and complex as 40k is bound to create rule frictions, the only way you could eliminate these would be by crushing all fun things out of the game completely.

There are tonnes of stuff that wouldn't fit within a "tight" ruleset:

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

I get what you're saying, I just don't see why you want to actively make 40k more boring. I don't go around telling other games that they need to be more fun

I don't think you get what I'm saying at all, but I realize we're probably not going to reach an agreement on this, so I'll let it be.

I still don't get how you see "rules that make sense and can't be abused" as boring, but hey, if that's what you like out of a game, good for you.

I will say that there are fluffy/cool special rules that were still tightly written. Imperial Guard orders are one example I can think of off the top of my head. Every order sounds like something a commander would say, they are all clearly described as to what they do, there's no confusion as to when or how you do them, and they all make sense as something you would expect IG to do. Its one of the few rules in 40k that I think perfectly fit the character of the army and wasn't open to abuse or confusing. The only time they ever got even remotely cloudy was when 6th hit and allies became a thing, where they FAQ'd it pretty quickly with the sensible answer I.E. Only IG units can be given orders and only use the highest IG leadership in the unit. The orders framework was also really easy to understand and if you wanted to come up with homebrew orders it was incredibly easy.

My brain. It hurts. So the logic follows as this:

tight rules = unfun
fun = ambiguous rules

Following that, MtG and Warmachine (and to a some extent, Infinity) are not fun, nope not at all. The people who are having fun playing them are just deluding themselves.

Look, it's one thing to have your own fun with ambiguous rules. it's another to impose your eccentric idea of fun to others.

I don't think you're getting it. Tight rules make the rules... tight. It doesn't make it more or less fluffy, nor does it make it more or less fun (unless you get your fun out of debating rules or whatever). But I guess even when people point this out with reasonable arguments and provide examples, you won't listen as long as "you don't feel it" even if evidence provides the contrary.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

I don't think you get what I'm saying at all, but I realize we're probably not going to reach an agreement on this, so I'll let it be.

I still don't get how you see "rules that make sense and can't be abused" as boring, but hey, if that's what you like out of a game, good for you.

I will say that there are fluffy/cool special rules that were still tightly written. Imperial Guard orders are one example I can think of off the top of my head. Every order sounds like something a commander would say, they are all clearly described as to what they do, there's no confusion as to when or how you do them, and they all make sense as something you would expect IG to do. Its one of the few rules in 40k that I think perfectly fit the character of the army and wasn't open to abuse or confusing. The only time they ever got even remotely cloudy was when 6th hit and allies became a thing, where they FAQ'd it pretty quickly with the sensible answer I.E. Only IG units can be given orders and only use the highest IG leadership in the unit. The orders framework was also really easy to understand and if you wanted to come up with homebrew orders it was incredibly easy.

I don't want to "reach an agreement", the only reason I'm responding to you is because you seem like you appreciate the discussion of ideas more than some adolescent notion of "winning" an argument.

IG orders are by their nature "tight". All they do is augment existing rules, boosting shooting usually, or defensiveness. Just adding a couple of dice here or there.

But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

xruslanx wrote:
But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

Flavor of an army doesn't preclude something from having tight rules. As I said, random does not mean gray area or vague. Chaos Daemons can have all of the fun and flavor that they have but their rules could be written in such a way to leave out ambiguity of the rules.

Here is a currently example of "ambiguous" rules. In Codex: Space Marines, Command Squads are comprised of veterans. In these squads, veterans are allowed to take a series of upgrades, like power fists, special weapons, etc... One of the upgrades that exists for this squad is to upgrade a veteran to an Apothecary. If you spend the points to give a veteran a power fist and a plasma pistol, does he keep these upgrades when you make him an Apothecary? Can he even become an Apothecary after taking these upgrades? How are these rules tight?

xruslanx wrote:
But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

So are you ever going to explain why these things can't be done with clear rules, or are you just going to rant about how you can't possibly imagine an ambiguity-free ruleset that people enjoy?

Also, GK being unbalanced against demons has absolutely nothing to do with rule clarity.

xruslanx wrote:


IG orders are by their nature "tight". All they do is augment existing rules, boosting shooting usually, or defensiveness. Just adding a couple of dice here or there.

But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

And that why we all feel a little sad for you and other that can't understand. Instead of trying to push the game we love(or loved) into something anyone can pick up and have fun with, lets keep the game on it's downward path and end up with even less people to play with. And not being able to understand that is sad.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Here is a currently example of "ambiguous" rules. In Codex: Space Marines, Command Squads are comprised of veterans. In these squads, veterans are allowed to take a series of upgrades, like power fists, special weapons, etc... One of the upgrades that exists for this squad is to upgrade a veteran to an Apothecary. If you spend the points to give a veteran a power fist and a plasma pistol, does he keep these upgrades when you make him an Apothecary? Can he even become an Apothecary after taking these upgrades? How are these rules tight?

And just to answer the inevitable "but it won't work if the rules are clear" you could very easily fix this problem with better writing. Replace the unity entry with:

Unit composition:
* Veteran #1-4 {stat line}
* Veteran #5 {stat line}

Veterans #1-4 may each take one option from the special weapons list.
Veteran #5 may be upgraded to an apothecary for +X points.

Note that this works exactly the same way. Absolutely nothing is lost by writing the rules in a way that leaves no room for debate over what they meant.

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

Flavor of an army doesn't preclude something from having tight rules. As I said, random does not mean gray area or vague. Chaos Daemons can have all of the fun and flavor that they have but their rules could be written in such a way to leave out ambiguity of the rules.

Here is a currently example of "ambiguous" rules. In Codex: Space Marines, Command Squads are comprised of veterans. In these squads, veterans are allowed to take a series of upgrades, like power fists, special weapons, etc... One of the upgrades that exists for this squad is to upgrade a veteran to an Apothecary. If you spend the points to give a veteran a power fist and a plasma pistol, does he keep these upgrades when you make him an Apothecary? Can he even become an Apothecary after taking these upgrades? How are these rules tight?

I was really, really hoping that the argument against 40k didn't consist of a series of sloppily written rules, but an actual design philosophy that was different from my own. Clearly not, and if you guys think I'm advocating poor wording in rules writing then I may as well give up now.

Agreed Peregrine, I'd probably write something along the lines of how terminators can't take bikes or jump packs. "Like Models with Narthecium cannot take options from the Special Weapons, Melee weapons, etc.... list.

xruslanx wrote:
I was really, really hoping that the argument against 40k didn't consist of a series of sloppily written rules, but an actual design philosophy that was different from my own.

The point you keep missing is that GW's rules are garbage because of a lack of effort, not because of a difference in design philosophy. Unless of course you define "design philosophy" as "hey janitor, throw some stuff together on your lunch break and send it off to the printers".

Clearly not, and if you guys think I'm advocating poor wording in rules writing then I may as well give up now.

You may not be advocating it, but you're certainly making excuses for it.

xruslanx wrote:
I was really, really hoping that the argument against 40k didn't consist of a series of sloppily written rules, but an actual design philosophy that was different from my own. Clearly not, and if you guys think I'm advocating poor wording in rules writing then I may as well give up now.

The problem with 40k is that the rules are sloppily and hastily written. The design philosophy of the company is, "We are a model company." GW is in the game to make high quality, good looking plastic kits, and the rules simply give you a reason to play with their kits. If Games Workshop's design philosophy was, "We want to give you the best game on the market so that you and your friends can have fun fighting the wars of the 41st millennium." And then produced a set of rules that allowed 0 ambiguity in the rules then most of us wouldn't be complaining.

You want to know the most flavorful game I've ever played? Malifaux. In Malifaux every character has is chock full of special rules that make the characters different from one another, sure a death marshal is a death marshal is a death marshal, but a a death marshal plays differently than a witchling stalker which plays differently from blah blah blah, etc... That game had a tight set of rules that allowed for characterful fights in their world. If GW, a GIANT in the gaming world for longer than Malifaux even been a concept in Eric Johns head, could produce rules that were at least half as tight as Malifaux, I wouldn't have spent a year playing Malifaux as often as I did because I'd still be playing 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I was really, really hoping that the argument against 40k didn't consist of a series of sloppily written rules, but an actual design philosophy that was different from my own.

The point you keep missing is that GW's rules are garbage because of a lack of effort, not because of a difference in design philosophy. Unless of course you define "design philosophy" as "hey janitor, throw some stuff together on your lunch break and send it off to the printers".

Clearly not, and if you guys think I'm advocating poor wording in rules writing then I may as well give up now.

You may not be advocating it, but you're certainly making excuses for it.

Well now that I know all this thread is is neckbeards demanding perfection from everything, I don't feel bad about leaving.

Toodles!

Guys, stop feeding the troll. Report, ignore and move on.

nvm

xruslanx wrote:
... and if you guys think I'm advocating poor wording in rules writing then I may as well give up now.

But you haven't even started yet...

As others have requested, try actually explaining why you think that having rules written in such a way that people understand what they are supposed to mean would result in the game having to change, or be less 'fun'.

Adding a line into the Shooting rules that explains infantry arc of sight wouldn't make the game less fun. It would simply mean that everyone knows how LOS works for infantry.
Adding a statement in the vehicle rules that explains that a vehicle that loses all of its hull points is treated as being Removed as a Casualty wouldn't make the game less fun. It would just remove the potential for the silly argument that the vehicle doesn't count for First Blood.
Adding a statement requiring the Quad Gun to be deployed touching an Aegis wall section, or within 2", or on another table, wouldn't make the game less fun. It would simply mean that everyone would understand where the Quad Gun is supposed to be deployed.


It doesn't have to be a different game. Just a game that has clear, unambiguous rules. That doesn't have to affect your fun at all. It doesn't mean that rules have to go away. It just means that Person A reading the rule should, the vast majority of the time, wind up with the exact same impression of how the rule works as Person B reading that same rule.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
If they kept the rules the same for the whole time since 40k's release we might have a slightly less loop hole ridden game. But we dont, we have a game that evolves every few years. And unless you want decades between codex's and rule books there is no way to release a full proof set of rules. Yes there are some right awfull holes as we can tell from looking at the arguments that often occur in the YMTC forum section.

Sure you can simplify the rules, but would you realy want that, Remove all the Special rules, remove dynamic game play like cover and such. to make the rules less complicated to save People having to Discuss (argue in the internets case) about rules.

Saw someone reference Chess earlier as a full proof game. Sure it has but chess has been around for close on 1500 years. And the chess we all know today has been set in stone since the first ever Championship in 1886. It has simple rules with very little dynamic play. Ie you dont get Armour saves in chess for instance

Dozens of wargames that are much younger than GW rules are much tighter and better balanced.

GW just don't bother to try.

I do (finally) understand what you're saying. But codexes/rulebooks are a matter of how much time/resources are available. Many people in this would clearly prefer that gw spent more time on them first, many many other people don't mind.

I can't tell you how few issues I've had with the rules when I play 40k. With most people it's literally none, with one guy it's at least a dozen times every single battle, but that's because he's a dick and would argue anything anyway.

Regardless it really doesn't bother me, and I struggle to imagine why it would bother anyone really. I have friends who program for a living and their attitude towards 40k is that it's a fun game. They (and I) don't become apoplectic with rage over small rules inconstancies, we just get on with it. Horses for courses i guess.

And as a counter-example to "tight" rules ruining all the fun let's look at MTG's timing rules:

In MTG you have a lot of things of the form "if X happens do Y". This potentially causes problems because you can have rules saying "if X happens do Y" and "if X happens do Z", and it can make a big difference whether Y or Z happens first. For example, you might have two cards that say "if a creature dies, return it to play" and "if a creature dies, remove it from the game and draw a card". Obviously you can't both return it to play and remove it from the game, so what happens?

The solution is that MTG defines that entire class of rules as "triggered abilities" and provides a set of rules for how they work. One of them is that if multiple events are triggered simultaneously the player whose turn it is chooses what order they resolve in (and yes, this is a very simplified explanation of it). The result is that MTG has more room for creative and fluffy ideas because the designers know that they never have to worry about the simultaneous effects problem and can make whatever cool stuff they want regardless of what other things might be trying to happen "simultaneously". Contrast this with 40k where there's no simple solution and every rule needs its own special-case answer (or long forum argument).

xruslanx wrote:
They (and I) don't become apoplectic with rage over small rules inconstancies, we just get on with it.

Nor do the vast majority of people discussing the sorry state of the rules online. Criticising something doesn't automatically mean that someone is angry about it. Just that they see a problem with it.

xruslanx wrote:
But codexes/rulebooks are a matter of how much time/resources are available. Many people in this would clearly prefer that gw spent more time on them first, many many other people don't mind.

And the point is that other companies, many of which don't have GW's level of resources, manage to create much better rules. GW rules are only as bad as they are because GW's internal culture is "we're a beer and pretzels company so we don't have to try very hard".

I can't tell you how few issues I've had with the rules when I play 40k. With most people it's literally none, with one guy it's at least a dozen times every single battle, but that's because he's a dick and would argue anything anyway.

And if 40k's rules were better written that guy wouldn't be able to argue about anything because every single attempt at arguing could be shut down with "page X, paragraph Y".

Regardless it really doesn't bother me, and I struggle to imagine why it would bother anyone really.

It bothers me because this is an incredibly expensive game, but we're expected to just accept bad rules and 4+ it. I shouldn't have to argue about rules, or even discuss them, to play a game.

xruslanx wrote:
I can't tell you how few issues I've had with the rules when I play 40k. With most people it's literally none, with one guy it's at least a dozen times every single battle, but that's because he's a dick and would argue anything anyway.

YMDC, the old INAT FAQ, and the various FAQs used by major tournament scenes might want a word with you on this statement...

Regardless it really doesn't bother me, and I struggle to imagine why it would bother anyone really. I have friends who program for a living and their attitude towards 40k is that it's a fun game. They (and I) don't become apoplectic with rage over small rules inconstancies, we just get on with it. Horses for courses i guess.

That's fine that it doesn't bother you, but just because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same way you do. I'd love to play 40k as my main game, I've got plenty of armies and time invested in GW's product, but I'm fairly certain I've played my first and last game with the new Space Marine codex because the main rules have their own problem, they're not clear in places, and it leads to unnecessary headaches and rules discussions. I shouldn't have to say, "let's just roll off to see how we play this rule." A clear and tight ruleset avoids these issues.

xruslanx wrote:
I do (finally) understand what you're saying. But codexes/rulebooks are a matter of how much time/resources are available. Many people in this would clearly prefer that gw spent more time on them first, many many other people don't mind.

I can't tell you how few issues I've had with the rules when I play 40k. With most people it's literally none, with one guy it's at least a dozen times every single battle, but that's because he's a dick and would argue anything anyway.

Regardless it really doesn't bother me, and I struggle to imagine why it would bother anyone really. I have friends who program for a living and their attitude towards 40k is that it's a fun game. They (and I) don't become apoplectic with rage over small rules inconstancies, we just get on with it. Horses for courses i guess.

First of all, out of genuine curiosity to understand what experience you have, have you played any other games?

Your experience may be fine, but many other peoples' aren't. Tournaments have issues regularly, hence the need for a significant number of TO's to arbitrate on the various disputes. Plus, with a better ruleset, even your experience would improve by eliminating that way for that one guy to be an ass.

Most of us discussing this are in the exact same boat as you are. I'm a student pilot with the military; do you think I'd waste my time playing with people who would ruin the game for me? Absolutely not, so any game's I've ever had have gone swimmingly. However, that doesn't mean I can't wish the rules were significantly better, and in fact expect a multi-million dollar international corporation to produce at least a rule set on par with ones being brewed out of basements or lifted off the ground with small kickstarters.

We're not saying 40k isn't fun. Its still a playable game, but it could be a lot better without 'demanding perfection'. Don't look at it so black and white. We expect GW to at least proofread or try out their books first. As has been said several times, not even an hour after a few books were in the hands of players, several glaring issues were found across several codices and the core book. Frankly, its unacceptable and not a little insulting when you consider how much you pay for these books. Demand quality, don't accept mediocrity.

Remember, tightness simply means things like enhanced clarity, better balance, and much less loopholes or oversights. Tightness in no way shape or form will ever preclude creativity, fluffiness, or fun.

If you haven't played any other games, in response to my first question, I highly recommend you try branching out or at least taking part in a few demos. You'll quickly see that the rules for 40k could be so much better, and actually enhance your current game play.

Oh, and don't call people neckbeards.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
But codexes/rulebooks are a matter of how much time/resources are available. Many people in this would clearly prefer that gw spent more time on them first, many many other people don't mind.

And the point is that other companies, many of which don't have GW's level of resources, manage to create much better rules. GW rules are only as bad as they are because GW's internal culture is "we're a beer and pretzels company so we don't have to try very hard".

One thing that's always bothered me about GW's "Beer and Pretzels" game is that whenever I've mixed RPGs/Tabletop games with drinking, I've always appreciated well written, concise rulesets more. It's a hell of a lot easier to understand properly written rules when you're spinning than it is to understand whatever GW puts in their books.

How "good" are the rules?
"Good" by definition is sloppy all on it's own.
That depends on what you think is "good".

Good enough for me and my friends to play and have fun.

Good enough to march a variety of models around and kill stuff in a somewhat epic way.

Good enough for dealing with TFG or WAAC players?
Not a chance.

I put this under category of beer and pretzels game.

If you are trying to put it on a pedestal of a grand strategy game, I have swampland to sell you.

It will NEVER be "good enough" for some.
It CAN be better, but the company chooses not to.
If it does not suit you, move-on to product more to your liking.

@xruslanx I think your viewpoint of "more boring" is removing the "gray zone" some players I have taken on, base an entire army on a rule exploit, that is why the rules are so "good" for them.

I know you weren't hugely implying this, but why does a "beer and pretzels" game HAVE to be bad or lack strategy though? I wish the term hadn't become synonymous with making sloppy rules. :(

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't envisage anything written without any "gray area, shady wording or questions at all" that was also fun and fluffy. A game as large and complex as 40k is bound to create rule frictions, the only way you could eliminate these would be by crushing all fun things out of the game completely.

Again, MTG. Fluffy, complex, fun, and absolutely no ambiguity in the rules.

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

Nonsense. Every one of those things could be written with absolutely no ambiguity. GW just doesn't bother to do it.

Of course if you think those things are impossible then you could explain why, instead of just listing a bunch of random stuff and complaining about how the rules wouldn't be fun if everyone understood what they did.

he's trolling

xruslanx wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

I don't think you get what I'm saying at all, but I realize we're probably not going to reach an agreement on this, so I'll let it be.

I still don't get how you see "rules that make sense and can't be abused" as boring, but hey, if that's what you like out of a game, good for you.

I will say that there are fluffy/cool special rules that were still tightly written. Imperial Guard orders are one example I can think of off the top of my head. Every order sounds like something a commander would say, they are all clearly described as to what they do, there's no confusion as to when or how you do them, and they all make sense as something you would expect IG to do. Its one of the few rules in 40k that I think perfectly fit the character of the army and wasn't open to abuse or confusing. The only time they ever got even remotely cloudy was when 6th hit and allies became a thing, where they FAQ'd it pretty quickly with the sensible answer I.E. Only IG units can be given orders and only use the highest IG leadership in the unit. The orders framework was also really easy to understand and if you wanted to come up with homebrew orders it was incredibly easy.

I don't want to "reach an agreement", the only reason I'm responding to you is because you seem like you appreciate the discussion of ideas more than some adolescent notion of "winning" an argument.

IG orders are by their nature "tight". All they do is augment existing rules, boosting shooting usually, or defensiveness. Just adding a couple of dice here or there.

But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

Ok now I get why we're disagreeing. We just have different notions of what makes a rule fluffy and interesting.

Because to me, IG orders are very fluffy and fit the flavor of the army very well, as well as giving it a unique character. They're not just a way to add dice here and there, they're a way to represent your officers barking orders to the men. Occasionally a unit will lose their nerve or not hear the officer, or they'll respond to the order in record time and another can get instructions that it normally couldn't, which helped add to that feeling of a raging battle full of chaos and confusion. Yes, in reality all you were getting was some extra rerolls here and there, but that's why it works so well. It works WITH the rules, not against them. For a player who has never played against IG, all I need to tell him is "this unit is twin linked against monstrous creatures or vehicles" and he can understand perfectly what I'm doing. On top of that, it still fits the idea of what the commander is telling his men to do. If the platoon commander yells "INCOMING!" its only natural to think his men might do a better job of taking cover than if they were caught by surprise without a warning. The rules don't need to be needlessy complex, a simple "+2 for going to ground instead of +1" perfectly conveys what the order does and keeps it easy to understand.

Which is what you want in any game system. You want to give an army character and uniqueness, yet keep it so that any player reading the rule will understand what's going on, ideally using "generic" terms used regardless of army. It doesn't matter if I've got fearless Orks or Fearless Guardsmen, they're still fearless, so they both can use the same Fearless standard rule. There's no point in calling their rules different names if they both have the same effect.

xruslanx wrote:
Well by definition a "tight" ruleset won't have the looseness nessesary to create fun rules.

Lets see this definition then...

As to your statement, the existence of warmachine/hordes and their hundreds of unique warlocks and warcasters demonstrates the falseness of your statement. Pp run an incredibly tight ship when it comes to rules, and yet they have a massive stable of unique, fun rules and characters.

Read epic butchers fluff. Now play him on the table top. Rules match his fluff perfectly, and no one else in the entire game is anything like him.

xruslanx wrote:
I can't envisage anything written without any "gray area, shady wording or questions at all" that was also fun and fluffy. A game as large and complex as 40k is bound to create rule frictions, the only way you could eliminate these would be by crushing all fun things out of the game completely.

There are tonnes of stuff that wouldn't fit within a "tight" ruleset:

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

I get what you're saying, I just don't see why you want to actively make 40k more boring. I don't go around telling other games that they need to be more fun

I'll just repeat what I said above: the existence of warmachine/hordes and their hundreds of unique warlocks and warcasters demonstrates the falseness of your statement. Pp run an incredibly tight ship when it comes to rules, and yet they have a massive stable of unique, fun rules and characters.

Read epic butchers fluff. Now play him on the table top. Rules match his fluff perfectly, and no one else in the entire game is anything like him

Characterful rules and tight rules and fun rules are not mutually exclusive. Games like warmachine/hordes, infinity, dystopian wars, flames of war etc prove this repeatedly.

Have you ever played any other games?

xruslanx wrote:
I don't want to "reach an agreement", the only reason I'm responding to you is because you seem like you appreciate the discussion of ideas more than some adolescent notion of "winning" an argument.

But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

Then you're extremely short sighted in your assessment. Have you any experience of other games? Do you have any experience of other games design ethos? You know... especially the ones where tight rules are actually not 'dull' but 'fun' too? where special characters habe fantastic flavour and unique playstyles - because these games do exist. When you do acknowledge them, and play them, then we'll talk...

I'm all up for discussion of ideas but that involves your participation too - you've failed to address (or acknowledge, even) any point, for example, that demonstrates how tight we'll written rules can actually add to the fun of a game.

xruslanx wrote:
Well now that I know all this thread is is neckbeards demanding perfection from everything, I don't feel bad about leaving.

Toodles!

I'd like to see a quote of this demanding perfection thing. I've not seen it. As to neck beards - yeah, real mature. Personal attacks are the last refuge when ones arguments have been shown to be empty and it hour merit. Keep it up !

I'm on his ignore list, and he's on mine, so wouldn't be aware of what he was saying if you lot didn't keep quoting him, but xruslanx is given to the odd personal insult, from my perspective, usually when the discussion isn't going his way.

He called me a nerd once.

On Dakka!

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm on his ignore list, and he's on mine, so wouldn't be aware of what he was saying if you lot didn't keep quoting him, but xruslanx is given to the odd personal insult, from my perspective, usually when the discussion isn't going his way.

He called me a nerd once.

On Dakka!

Wait... he called you a nerd?

I thought you said that he was insulting....

The Auld Grump - we're all nerd here... I'm nerd, you're nerd... You must be, or you wouldn't have come here.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'm on his ignore list, and he's on mine, so wouldn't be aware of what he was saying if you lot didn't keep quoting him, but xruslanx is given to the odd personal insult, from my perspective, usually when the discussion isn't going his way.

He called me a nerd once.

On Dakka!

Wait... he called you a nerd?

I thought you said that he was insulting....

The Auld Grump - we're all nerd here... I'm nerd, you're nerd... You must be, or you wouldn't have come here.

I don't know. They let me mod. Something's gotta be wrong with the place.

Really what it comes down to is if you hate the rules so much quit playing, and if you quit playing there is only one question left for you.

Niexist wrote:
Really what it comes down to is if you hate the rules so much quit playing, and if you quit playing there is only one question left for you.

Ah good, so instead of rationally discussing the aspects of 40k that could be improved upon and maybe broadening your wargaming views, you post a simple image with the classic internet tag 'can i haz ur stuff'.

Well, at least it was an attempt to lighten the tension.

But one of the advantages of liking fantasy and playing other games... I can find other uses for my old stuff....

The Auld Grump

Niexist wrote:
Really what it comes down to is if you hate the rules so much quit playing, ...

It's really not that simple for a lot of gamers.

I've been playing 40K for nearly 20 years now. I have 9 or 10 armies (and several more still sitting in boxes), and a lot of time, effort and money gone into this game over that time. Up until 6th edition, I've mostly enjoyed the game, aside from the latter half of 4th when I decided to stop playing and wait it out in the hope that 5th edition would be better (it was).

But dropping the game completely is not easy when you have invested so much into it. That's why people who have been in the game for a while tend to feel so strongly about the need for improvement when the game heads in a direction that they don't like. It's simply not as easy as saying 'Oh well, I'll go do something else instead...' because then, what the hell do I do with all of these armies? I have no desire to get rid of them.... I sold one army way back in 2nd edition, and I've regretted it ever since. That's my hobby craft I'm selling there... It's one thing when it's something that you have created specifically to sell, but quite another to part with stuff that you have done for yourself.

6th edition 40K started out really promising. Despite the initial obvious flaws, the basic system looked fun, and my first few games were a blast. But then once we all settled in a bit, and the loopholes, typos and grey areas started to come out, it became more and more apparent that GW just aren't trying any more. The rushed out codexes with their own share of issues, and the push towards more and more supplements (which will last right up until their core codex is updated and then leave you with a niche army that is suddenly obsolete, just like the last time GW went the supplemental codex route) makes it clear that GW are far more interested in selling books than in writing them.

But we've been down this road before. 5th edition was a huge improvement over 4th. So those of us who have been around a while, and who have so much invested into the game, have to wonder if maybe, just maybe, 7th edition will also be better than the current mess.

So I'm not selling everything off... But I'll be sticking to painting some of my backlog, and playing Warmachine instead, while I wait it out and see what happens next...

I haven't liked any of the other games I've played really. I think warmachine, infinity and kings of war are all a bit rubbish and don't get me started on dreadball which is utterly crap. I like board games but other wargames? Nothings really caught my eye (dystopian wars aside)
WHFB is in a really bad place now. It is not tactical at all. Stupid units and fluff and turbo charged magic phases. Big blcks of infantry who don't care about flank charges. 40k is the only game in town despite its flaws......

I am working on my own version of fantasy out of sheer frustration. I think I've got the rules down but I need a universe to set it in that's not too clichéd. Anyone know of any original fantasy settings to plunder?

jamin484 wrote:
I haven't liked any of the other games I've played really. I think warmachine, infinity and kings of war are all a bit rubbish and don't get me started on dreadball which is utterly crap. I like board games but other wargames? Nothings really caught my eye (dystopian wars aside)
WHFB is in a really bad place now. It is not tactical at all. Stupid units and fluff and turbo charged magic phases. Big blcks of infantry who don't care about flank charges. 40k is the only game in town despite its flaws......

I am working on my own version of fantasy out of sheer frustration. I think I've got the rules down but I need a universe to set it in that's not too clichéd. Anyone know of any original fantasy settings to plunder?

Care to elaborate a little bit? those are very different games with very different kinds of rules, and you feel that all of these are worse than 40K? this is not criticism, I'm just curious...

On topic :
40K rules are bottom tier IMHO, and WFB are just a little bit better. I thought that GW finally did the right thing when they start to release one Codex/Army Book per month, but the rules are even worst than before...

Fortunately, there are lots of other games, and a lot of them are good. Just have to find (or write...) the right one for 40k!

 insaniak wrote:

Niexist wrote:
Really what it comes down to is if you hate the rules so much quit playing, ...

It's really not that simple for a lot of gamers.

I've been playing 40K for nearly 20 years now. I have 9 or 10 armies (and several more still sitting in boxes), and a lot of time, effort and money gone into this game over that time. Up until 6th edition, I've mostly enjoyed the game, aside from the latter half of 4th when I decided to stop playing and wait it out in the hope that 5th edition would be better (it was).

But dropping the game completely is not easy when you have invested so much into it. That's why people who have been in the game for a while tend to feel so strongly about the need for improvement when the game heads in a direction that they don't like. It's simply not as easy as saying 'Oh well, I'll go do something else instead...' because then, what the hell do I do with all of these armies? I have no desire to get rid of them.... I sold one army way back in 2nd edition, and I've regretted it ever since. That's my hobby craft I'm selling there... It's one thing when it's something that you have created specifically to sell, but quite another to part with stuff that you have done for yourself.

6th edition 40K started out really promising. Despite the initial obvious flaws, the basic system looked fun, and my first few games were a blast. But then once we all settled in a bit, and the loopholes, typos and grey areas started to come out, it became more and more apparent that GW just aren't trying any more. The rushed out codexes with their own share of issues, and the push towards more and more supplements (which will last right up until their core codex is updated and then leave you with a niche army that is suddenly obsolete, just like the last time GW went the supplemental codex route) makes it clear that GW are far more interested in selling books than in writing them.

But we've been down this road before. 5th edition was a huge improvement over 4th. So those of us who have been around a while, and who have so much invested into the game, have to wonder if maybe, just maybe, 7th edition will also be better than the current mess.

So I'm not selling everything off... But I'll be sticking to painting some of my backlog, and playing Warmachine instead, while I wait it out and see what happens next...

I know what you're saying, the problem is that no one from GW will ever read this, and even if they did they won't listen and chalk it up to the people being the vocal minority since so many of their models are selling. I imagine right now with all the vidya games that 40k is selling better than it ever has in the past, so they figure they're doing things right.

I honestly played my first game last night, and it was a cool experience, but I'd still be buying models and painting them even if I never play the game again, I love the fact that I am painting something that looks awesome to me. Maybe I could make a diorama with the figures or something, but at the moment I really enjoy the modelling, and painting more than I enjoy the game.

Niexist wrote:
I know what you're saying, the problem is that no one from GW will ever read this, and even if they did they won't listen and chalk it up to the people being the vocal minority since so many of their models are selling.

That's not a problem, since the point of this discussion isn't to provide feedback to Games Workshop. It's a bunch of people discussing their opinions of GW's rules.

WHFB is in a really bad place now. It is not tactical at all. Stupid units and fluff and turbo charged magic phases. Big blcks of infantry who don't care about flank charges.

and kings of war are all a bit rubbish

Given that KoW has been lauded as having nothing you attribute to WHFB (there are no stupid units, no magic phase at all, and flank charges being very important) I'm surprised at the negative reaction to it.

Yay... best thread ever...

/sarcasm

Arw you looking foe the world's most concise ruleset ever? GW is probably not going to be it. Sorry, it was created by people, so there will be imperfections. Are you looking for an existential experience in game design? Again, probably not the right game.

However, if you are looking for a robust system with over 20 years of plot and backstory with a pretty decent following that ensures a reasonable number of players out there, GW games are a good choice.

In otherwords, lighten up. It's a game. If you can't negotiate or laugh off a rules issue, you're taking it too seriously. It's not a job.

 Riquende wrote:

WHFB is in a really bad place now. It is not tactical at all. Stupid units and fluff and turbo charged magic phases. Big blcks of infantry who don't care about flank charges.

and kings of war are all a bit rubbish

Given that KoW has been lauded as having nothing you attribute to WHFB (there are no stupid units, no magic phase at all, and flank charges being very important) I'm surprised at the negative reaction to it.

I don't like how the units bounce off each other after combat, how they don't take casualties and get smaller and I couldn't get excited by the unit types or models (they were all a wee bit samey) The clichéd fluff wasn't exactly inspiring either. I only played it once and that was quite a while ago now so I should definitely revisit it. It seems to have expanded a lot. What's your experience of the game? I take it your a fan?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Yay... best thread ever...

/sarcasm

Arw you looking foe the world's most concise ruleset ever? GW is probably not going to be it. Sorry, it was created by people, so there will be imperfections. Are you looking for an existential experience in game design? Again, probably not the right game.

Straw man arguments are the best arguments, because straw man arguments never end.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:


In otherwords, lighten up. It's a game. If you can't negotiate or laugh off a rules issue, you're taking it too seriously. It's not a job.

Straw man argument. This game's not for fun.

It's to show how smart you are, how everyone else is wrong. After all, that's the opinion of half the people on this thread.

jamin484 wrote:
I don't like how the units bounce off each other after combat, how they don't take casualties and get smaller and I couldn't get excited by the unit types or models (they were all a wee bit samey) The clichéd fluff wasn't exactly inspiring either. I only played it once and that was quite a while ago now so I should definitely revisit it. It seems to have expanded a lot. What's your experience of the game? I take it your a fan?

Well I play it from time to time, which is more than I've ever been able to do with WHFB (I had one demo and hated it). Not having casualty removal is a big plus (IMO) and it's becoming more common in 'popular' rulesets, what with the Warlord Historicals all using it. Why paint 40 guys if half them are going back in the case in the first turn? Also, diorama multibasing is a fantastic tool for hobbyists that WHFB just can't offer. It's worth revisiting I think, as it's just had about a year or so of major expansion in terms of units, models and things like magic items, which might alleviate some of your issues.

I think you're stuck with the 'bounce' though!

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:


In otherwords, lighten up. It's a game. If you can't negotiate or laugh off a rules issue, you're taking it too seriously. It's not a job.

Straw man argument. This game's not for fun.

It's to show how smart you are, how everyone else is wrong. After all, that's the opinion of half the people on this thread.

I know right, how dare they want to play a game where their choices matter instead of just putting models on a table and seeing who can roll a 6 first!

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Arw you looking foe the world's most concise ruleset ever? GW is probably not going to be it. Sorry, it was created by people, so there will be imperfections. Are you looking for an existential experience in game design? Again, probably not the right game.

Going by the thread so far, no, nobody is looking for any of those things.

However, if you are looking for a robust system with over 20 years of plot and backstory with a pretty decent following that ensures a reasonable number of players out there, GW games are a good choice.

The question posed at the start of the thread was about how good people think the rules are, not how popular the games are.

The two concepts are not automatically synonymous.

. If you can't negotiate or laugh off a rules issue, you're taking it too seriously. It's not a job.

Most people are quite capable of 'negotiating our laughing off' rules issues. That doesn't mean that they have to like the necessity of doing so, when a better written rulebook could remove that necessity and let them just get on with playing the game.

That's the part that confuses me about these sorts of threads: why are some people so opposed to the idea of the rules being better?

 insaniak wrote:

That's the part that confuses me about these sorts of threads: why are some people so opposed to the idea of the rules being better?

They aren't, they just literally have never played anything else, its the only possible answer.

Its like trying to explain colours to someone that was born blind... At this point I just feel very, very sorry for them...

 insaniak wrote:
That's the part that confuses me about these sorts of threads: why are some people so opposed to the idea of the rules being better?

It's GW's greatest marketing success. They've managed to convince a non-trivial percentage of their customers that not only should they accept low-quality rules, they should be proud of those low-quality rules because the worse the rules are the more of a "beer and pretzels" game it is. Accepting the possibility of better rules would mean admitting that you're one of those WAAC TFGs who cares about the rules and doesn't understand that it's all about fun and pushing models around the table while spending time with friends.

My point isn't that GW's rules can't get better. Anything is able to be improved. My point is that whining about it accomplishes nothing.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
My point is that whining about it accomplishes nothing.

Kind of like posting in whine threads to whine about them?

 Peregrine wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
My point is that whining about it accomplishes nothing.

Kind of like posting in whine threads to whine about them?

Oh the irony

 Peregrine wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
My point is that whining about it accomplishes nothing.

Kind of like posting in whine threads to whine about them?

Better to move on and have some fun than cry that the rules weren't written as perfectly as you would have done. I can deal with the rules issues, can you? Endlessly bashing GW online does as much good as punching a brick wall. Instead of the constant whining about how much it sucks, why not find another game? Because unless you score a job with GW as a game designer, you just waste our time.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
My point isn't that GW's rules can't get better. Anything is able to be improved. My point is that whining about it accomplishes nothing.

It accomplishes as much as talking about which Primarch is your favourite, or what rules you would like to see in the next codex, or posting battle reports.

We're not here to bring about world peace. The forum exists simply for people to discuss their hobby.

So only bringing up the negatives is any better? Since the rules won't be changing anytime soon, wouldn't it be more consteuctive to discuss the better aspects? or at least how to deal with the negatives?

(fyi, the OP was about rules, not fluff or batreps)

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So only bringing up the negatives is any better? Since the rules won't be changing anytime soon, wouldn't it be more consteuctive to discuss the better aspects? or at least how to deal with the negatives?

The thread, once again, is asking peoples' opinion of the standard of GW's rules. Pointing out the reasons that someone doesn't think those rules are particularly good is far more constructive in that context than insisting that everyone should just play the game your way or they're doing it wrong. Some of those making those comments have no interest in playing the game in the first place. Part of the point of this discussion is to establish why.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So only bringing up the negatives is any better? Since the rules won't be changing anytime soon, wouldn't it be more consteuctive to discuss the better aspects? or at least how to deal with the negatives?

(fyi, the OP was about rules, not fluff or batreps)

We're not only bringing up the negative, there's been many requests for people to clarify why they think the games are good.

I'm sure we can all point out some positives (I, personally, like some of the randomness, as it forces you to be a bit more cautious. I also like the snap fire when assaulted, as it makes assaults a bit more risky and realistic). But then many of us can point out plenty of negatives or ambiguity as well (such as the abundance of overlapping or conflicting special rules, unit's which are cool but largely useless, the fact there's at least 4 type of save, and assaults themselves seem pretty clunky).


Edit: Does anyone want to attempt to explain why the GW rules are good, rather than moaning about people moaning about the rules being poor?

You want a beer and pretzels game?

"Port and Cigars" is so beer and pretzels that the recommended equipment includes a pointy stick for poking at loopholes in the rules.

There's mention of positives in the thread, like the IG orders rules.

 snurl wrote:
The rules are great for starting arguments.

My dad called it "arguehammer" when I played as a lad.

WH and 40k are great. Simple games, plenty of depth, loads of armies. Its easy to get a game anywhere in europe pretty much. Some stuff is a bit silly, and balance between armies is crap, but these come from the fact that its written to sell models, not to be the best game ever.

I think the best way to solve the large problems (game blaance) would be to put all the army lists into a single volume that is updated yearly or regularly. Then sell the background books (codecises) seperately. These could contain non -official army lists too, or special units and so forth. This would keep game balance in line AND mean GW could sell the army list to every player every year, rather than only getting the sales of codecies to people who want to play that army when the release cycle comes around..

Interesting that 52% of people feel the rules are below average or worse and only 23% feel they are above average. That's pretty telling.

Barfolomew wrote:
Interesting that 52% of people feel the rules are below average or worse and only 23% feel they are above average. That's pretty telling.

Almost exactly half finds it below average. Too good for coincidence!

A true pessimist would point out that the "adequate" definition in the poll says that the rules don't really help, so it could easily be 77% feel the rules suck.

I'm also still trying to figure out what delusional world those 5 people live in that they voted top-tier.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'm also still trying to figure out what delusional world those 5 people live in that they voted top-tier.

It's very easy to believe that if you're still in the GW bubble. My 12 year old self would have agreed. But back then the historic rulebooks I had were hugely complicated (tables everywhere) and even worse written. Everyone else has caught up since the 90's.

I think it's more that on any internet poll/review there's people that will vote 0 or 10 just because.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
That's the part that confuses me about these sorts of threads: why are some people so opposed to the idea of the rules being better?

It's GW's greatest marketing success. They've managed to convince a non-trivial percentage of their customers that not only should they accept low-quality rules, they should be proud of those low-quality rules because the worse the rules are the more of a "beer and pretzels" game it is. Accepting the possibility of better rules would mean admitting that you're one of those WAAC TFGs who cares about the rules and doesn't understand that it's all about fun and pushing models around the table while spending time with friends.

I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know. Apparently I'm the only person that buys novels full of typos and errors, and computer games with bugs that render them unplayable that aren't fixed for months.

But no, everything else in your life is perfect, so 40k should be too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Barfolomew wrote:
Interesting that 52% of people feel the rules are below average or worse and only 23% feel they are above average. That's pretty telling.

A more reflective sample, rather than those who specifically come on Dakka Discussions to bitch about 40k, can be found here. That's 66% of players rating 40k as good or better.

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

To answer the topic of the thread, I find GW's rules good enough to play casually and have a good time. I don't even see a third of all the rules arguments I see when I go online.

I won't claim their perfection or anything but they do their job well enough that I have fun and there aren't any real issues.

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

Rules are only as good as the community that supports the game and the game company that supports the community.

If rules continue to be broken (see entire YMDC Forum) and no one fixes or addresses it, it shows how poorly the rules are considered for that game.

At the very least, GW has an active community of players and hobbyists who do care about the rules and GW from time to time adds their 2 cents or pence to the argument by clarifying problematic rules.

Will it ever be as good as a card game or a computer game? Probably not. MtG, WoW and other games have far more support and a larger fan base so their rules are airtight (a computer game with broken rules would be unplayable, much like abusing mechanics such as "Damage on the Stack" in MtG).

But if your not content with the rules, improve them. Redress with GW on FAQs. Rinse and repeat.

Or play a game with better rules, like Brushfire .

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

So just because other companies do mediocre things, GW's clients should also settle for mediocrity? Is that what you are saying?

That instead of comparing itself with the best examples of its own industry, the market leaders of the miniature wargaming industry are taking their cues from the mistakes of other companies?

ClockworkZion wrote:
You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

And how, exactly, did the gaming consumer base respond to EA's flawed release of Sim City?

How did the gaming populace respond to the flawed initial release of Final Fantasy XIV?

When other companies make this kind of botched release attempt, the consumer either pitches a fit or silently takes their business elsewhere. For some reason, there's a certain segment of GW's fan base that thinks the consumer should ignore GW's flaws and just keep buying their stuff without even pointing out that those flaws exist.

Edit: I also want to point out a difference between EA and Squaresoft's response to customers and GW's response to customers. In the two issues I posted above, people complained, and complained a lot about the problems with those two games. With SimCity, their CEO resigned over that issue. EA publicly admitted that they made a mistake and offered financial compensation to customers in the form of granting a free game. Squaresoft eventually pulled the original Final Fantasy XIV, completely reworked it, and released it earlier this year. Now, from everything I have heard, it's an excellent game. Games Workshop, on the other hand, doesn't even acknowledge that their fan base even has a complaint, much less actually address those complaints.

 WarOne wrote:
Or play a game with better rules, like Brushfire .

I approve of this statement. I feel like On the Lamb has gotten a better ruleset written between a team of three people than GW has with their entire team

Also, xruslanx, your poll is biased to those that view the 40k general discussion forum, which means that they probably play and enjoy GW games. You're also further limiting your sample size with extremely biased answers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ClockworkZion wrote:
You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

And EA customers bitched up a storm about it and EA fixed it and said, "whoops our bad."

I feel that everytime xruslanx makes an "argument", Khorne kills a baby seal.

Seriously, I still don't get how can a casual game not benefit from tight rules. Or how can tight rules stifle creativity.

Guess what game adds a bunch of mechanics to the core game every half of the year? MtG. And does it have tight rules? Yep. Are the keywords fluffy? They sure are. If you need ambiguous writing to make "cool, fluffy" rules, you shouldn't be writing rules in the first place.

I'm not a huge MtG fan, myself. About the only format I enjoy is drafting. That being said, I was around when it first came out back around 1992-1993 or so. Despite having a quite well defined rule system, this most recent release is something different from anything else they've done. Even with tight rules and a 20+ year history of production, they're still coming up with new content. Apparently, tight rules haven't affected their developers' creativity.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
My point is that whining about it accomplishes nothing.

Kind of like posting in whine threads to whine about them?

Better to move on and have some fun than cry that the rules weren't written as perfectly as you would have done. I can deal with the rules issues, can you? Endlessly bashing GW online does as much good as punching a brick wall. Instead of the constant whining about how much it sucks, why not find another game? Because unless you score a job with GW as a game designer, you just waste our time.

There is always the potential for GW games designers* to have read these forums. It isn't just Dakka, if anything the atmosphere here is a lot more forgiving than some of areas of the internet that have just fallen back on out-and-out, unstructured ridicule.

Battlefront responded to criticism posted online, as have other companies that have given customer-driven campaigns what they wanted (Corvus Belli), I'm sure there are many other examples.

* The issue here being that, as Ramshackle Curtis has pointed out, GW is more concerned with selling miniatures than in producing a game that is well designed and balanced (I'm not praising or disparaging this, just making an observation) - occasionally these two elements reconcile, but a lot of the time they don't. When the 'suits' start to decide everything, and you put your fingers in your ears to any criticism (on the grounds that some of it is just noise, therefore making all of it groundless(?!) - am I the only one that believes that's how GW thinks?) you end up with rules systems that are constantly lambasted online and a large number of veteran fans moving on to pastures new.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

Why do you bring this up? Do you disagree GW is sloppy? Do you disagree we should complain?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean really. GW is sloppy. If I were a tournament fanatic I don't think I would play 40k due to rule sloppiness. I'm a casual gamer. But I still do facepalms because time and time again a codex is released and right away people find many obvious problems.

 bosky wrote:
I know you weren't hugely implying this, but why does a "beer and pretzels" game HAVE to be bad or lack strategy though? I wish the term hadn't become synonymous with making sloppy rules. :(

Translation of my intent is "we know the game so well it runs smoothly and does not require too much thought to carry out the mechanics".
You did understand correctly, intent was not "bad" or lacking strategy, it IS there, we just do not need to think hard on the rules.
Way back when, the phrase was not meant to be a bad thing, casual can = fun and challenging.

When any of us try to play a rules exploit for "fun" it can get very exciting.
It just means we gang up on the guy (usually 4 of us play) to show our "love" for them as the honorary "rules troll".

It is funny how often each of us get in touch with our TFG side for a giggle (only with friends!).
The carnage and shouting and mayhem and vendettas (not the model) are fantastic.
By the end there is much laughing and outrageous play (sometimes tactics thrown out the window for the "I-must-kill-THAT-model!!") even broken rules can find worth.

If people would like permission to criticise GW, please first criticise EA in the Video Games forum.

Niexist wrote:
Really what it comes down to is if you hate the rules so much quit playing, and if you quit playing.

This has been quoted a bit but it was pointed out well that in the next codex OR round of rules any given army can be "good" again.
So giving away your stuff or quit completely is foolish because of the effort put in and "things change" so all you can do is wait and see.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If people would like permission to criticise GW, please first criticise EA in the Video Games forum.

I'd be happy to, but I can't remember the last time I purchased an EA game. I spoke with my wallet in regards to their products a long time ago.

Edit: I just checked. The last EA game I bought was Tiger Woods '08.

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

You meant to just laugh at his post, not answer them. I fell for that for it, his real name I belive is Kirby .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

Yes and if you go to video game EA got no love for this, the hate is worse then GW every gets. So poeple bitching about GW get singled out on a table top miniature forum and not EA, are either stupid or have blinder on to the rest of the world. I'm mean really were does he think poeple are going to bitch about video game, on a miniature game forum .

PhantomViper wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

So just because other companies do mediocre things, GW's clients should also settle for mediocrity? Is that what you are saying?

That instead of comparing itself with the best examples of its own industry, the market leaders of the miniature wargaming industry are taking their cues from the mistakes of other companies?

No, of course not. The point is we can't pretend GW is alone in this bad decision making program.

EDIT: And it seems despite what I was hoping would provide context that it wasn't clear enough. My response was to point out that GW isn't alone with this problem and it's an issue that's rampant in pretty much every industry, including games, not to try and justify GW for anything.

ClockworkZion wrote:

No, of course not. The point is we can't pretend GW is alone in this bad decision making program.

EDIT: And it seems despite what I was hoping would provide context that it wasn't clear enough. My response was to point out that GW isn't alone with this problem and it's an issue that's rampant in pretty much every industry, including games, not to try and justify GW for anything.

Nobody thinks that GW is the only company in the world that releases sub-par product. But the fact that some other companies also do it is no reason to just accept it without complaint...

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

When Skyrim was released I had to cheat and use the console just to advance in the game. As it is there is an entire city that is out to kill me simply because of a glitch in the game. Yet it is still lauded as a fantastic game, 9/10 on reviews etc.

By contrast 40k has rules problems that crop up once every 20 games and it's an unplayable mess. They are clearly not "sloppy" rules, or so many people wouldn't enjoy them. Such needless exaggeration only weakens your point since it makes you look deranged.

 insaniak wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

No, of course not. The point is we can't pretend GW is alone in this bad decision making program.

EDIT: And it seems despite what I was hoping would provide context that it wasn't clear enough. My response was to point out that GW isn't alone with this problem and it's an issue that's rampant in pretty much every industry, including games, not to try and justify GW for anything.

Nobody thinks that GW is the only company in the world that releases sub-par product. But the fact that some other companies also do it is no reason to just accept it without complaint...

Also, when other companies do it, typically they listen to the negative feedback they receive and make at least some adjustment to their policies to address those customer concerns.

GW does not do this. Just as an example, they still haven't released an updated FAQ for the WHFB DoC army book that addresses the dozens of questions submitted by several different groups. The one they released a month after the book came out had around four answers, and only one of them was for a question that was actually frequently asked.

xruslanx wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

When Skyrim was released I had to cheat and use the console just to advance in the game. As it is there is an entire city that is out to kill me simply because of a glitch in the game. Yet it is still lauded as a fantastic game, 9/10 on reviews etc.

By contrast 40k has rules problems that crop up once every 20 games and it's an unplayable mess. They are clearly not "sloppy" rules, or so many people wouldn't enjoy them. Such needless exaggeration only weakens your point since it makes you look deranged.

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

xruslanx wrote:
By contrast 40k has rules problems that crop up once every 20 games and it's an unplayable mess. They are clearly not "sloppy" rules, or so many people wouldn't enjoy them. Such needless exaggeration only weakens your point since it makes you look deranged.

With my WHFB Daemons of Codex army, there are rules issues that come up literally every game. In every single game, I have to discuss with my opponent how they wish to play things before hand so as to avoid disagreements later. For the sake of avoiding confrontation, I just agree to whatever interpretation my opponent wants, regardless of whether or not it puts me at a disadvantage.

My gaming experience would be far better if the rules were written more clearly with fewer conflicts to other rules.

Edit: corrected a typographical error.

 insaniak wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

No, of course not. The point is we can't pretend GW is alone in this bad decision making program.

EDIT: And it seems despite what I was hoping would provide context that it wasn't clear enough. My response was to point out that GW isn't alone with this problem and it's an issue that's rampant in pretty much every industry, including games, not to try and justify GW for anything.

Nobody thinks that GW is the only company in the world that releases sub-par product. But the fact that some other companies also do it is no reason to just accept it without complaint...

I never said people shouldn't complain, I was just pointing out that criticizing GW because they're a gaming company who screws up is a bit of a weak argument when we should be doing this with ANY company that's legitimately screwed up.

Here's the thing about computer/console->Tabletop comparisons: For a Tabletop game, the rules need to say that a model can move 6". The player can then move the model 6". For the Digital system, it must claim 6" movement, and then have some rules for the graphics, pathing, etc. So the tabletop game has fewer rules, and can simply rely on the human brain to fill in the blanks. Ergo, they should not screw up as much as a computer game, as they have fewer rules. Yet somehow 6th ed has all the fun of stupid pathing glitches without a computer.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

No, of course not. The point is we can't pretend GW is alone in this bad decision making program.

EDIT: And it seems despite what I was hoping would provide context that it wasn't clear enough. My response was to point out that GW isn't alone with this problem and it's an issue that's rampant in pretty much every industry, including games, not to try and justify GW for anything.

Nobody thinks that GW is the only company in the world that releases sub-par product. But the fact that some other companies also do it is no reason to just accept it without complaint...

I never said people shouldn't complain, I was just pointing out that criticizing GW because they're a gaming company who screws up is a bit of a weak argument when we should be doing this with ANY company that's legitimately screwed up.

Then everyone point out they do, your just on the wrong forum it see it.

ClockworkZion wrote:

I never said people shouldn't complain, I was just pointing out that criticizing GW because they're a gaming company who screws up is a bit of a weak argument when we should be doing this with ANY company that's legitimately screwed up.

And...? People do. Just not generally in threads talking specifically about GW. The flaws of, say, the new iPhone aren't particularly relevant on a forum dedicated to miniature wargaming, in a discussion about one particular company's rules.

I feel like I should add my two cents on this.....

If the rules were tight for both Warhammer 40k and Fantasy, then there would not be as much with the topics started and the replies. And if you look in the Warmahordes section, the replies are usually one to two post rather than pages long.

 insaniak wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

I never said people shouldn't complain, I was just pointing out that criticizing GW because they're a gaming company who screws up is a bit of a weak argument when we should be doing this with ANY company that's legitimately screwed up.

And...? People do. Just not generally in threads talking specifically about GW. The flaws of, say, the new iPhone aren't particularly relevant on a forum dedicated to miniature wargaming, in a discussion about one particular company's rules.

I was initially responding to a post that was emphasizing they were a "GAMING" company as if that was the reason people should complain. Industry shouldn't be the justification, being screw ups should be.

 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.