This is a thing I noticed on Dakka is that it seems that some good amount of people have a grind with rulesets that are tight/clear and concise rulesets, believing are not playable in a casual environment, and produce a mindset of a person trying to win at all times, at any cost. I have to ask the question to a point, why? Why, and also, in what way does this make it so?
Now, I played the main GW games back when I got into the hobby (that is how I started, like most people), and up until a good 5 months ago about when I decided to try other games and get into them. In fact, the rules was one of the main reasons I dropped 40k/ Fantasy in favor for Warmahordes and Infinity. Also, this is in no way to bash people who still play 40k and fantasy, this is more of an observation of what I have seen a bit and I want to have fun with a game like any other Miniature Wargamer out there no matter what game it is.
And like a large majority of people on this forum, I have a life outside Miniature Wargaming, and I am busy with college as well, so I am glad to get in as many games as I can when I go to my store when I can. That I feel cannot really be done if there is an rule that is unclear or has unclear writing for what it is trying to explain, and debating on that topic takes time away from being able to enjoy and play the game, also taking away from the flow of the game as well. Even then when that is settled, you and your opponent may have the same interpretation of that rule, but universally that may or may not apply to everyone or has an interpretation of the rules completely (unless you just play with friends in a group, then this might be a bit void to these people, since there are house rules one could make up to keep the flow going). With a tight and concise ruleset for the games I play, I feel that I do not have to waste on debating a rule and I can have more time to enjoy and get in my game more.
Another thing as well is that WAAC and some of that nonsense comes from the players, and not the game at all. It is the human condition to some extent, and how the person developed his/her's personality in their life to have that behavior. So at best it is anecdotal evidence if I was to say that the game and the place I used to play used to have crappy players, so that deterred me away from 40K/Fantasy and brought me into Warmahordes/ Infinity, which is not that good of evidence since it does not apply to everyone and people in general tend to have different experiences.
Warmahordes for example: The ruleset for the game is the tightest, most clear and concise I have played so far, and PP does a relatively good job with clearing up any unclear parts for the most part. I mostly play it casually and in a league with nothing too serious behind it, and I can get at least 4-5 games in before heading out back home, and without having to open the rulebook to look up a rule.
Infinity is for the most part concise with its rules, everything for the most part makes sense. But, there are some grey areas in it (although I am not sure if CB wrote it as it was, or if it a translation from Spanish to English) and some of the rules can use a bit of tightening up, but for the most part, it is nothing like 40k/Fantasy.
Am I saying one should stop playing 40k or Fantasy? No, that was not the point I wanted to make. My main thought and idea was how I thought it was a bit of a silly notion that clear, concise, and tight rulesets do not in any way come with the stigma of WAAC and/or you cannot play it casually. I apologize if this came out as a rant, but I wanted to get that out there.
Just remember that the person who complains the most about how "clear rules = bad" also insists that playing a non-GW game is like sex with animals. You aren't dealing with a rational adult, and you should adjust your expectations appropriately.
Peregrine wrote: Just remember that the person who complains the most about how "clear rules = bad" also insists that playing a non-GW game is like sex with animals.
Peregrine wrote: Just remember that the person who complains the most about how "clear rules = bad" also insists that playing a non-GW game is like sex with animals. You aren't dealing with a rational adult, and you should adjust your expectations appropriately.
Well,I have seen that from xruslanx, so he is on my ignore list, but this is some things that I noticed from other people as well. May not be the majority, but it is something that gets me to the point of puzzling to me..
I agree, tightly written rule sets are much better for casual play, if only because it deals with the tension of having multiple, legitimate interpretations of a rule.
Balance also makes casual games better- if I know that Xpts of A is equal to Xpts of B, and ensures a fair fight in a head-to-head scenario, then I know that if I want the fight to be more one-sided I can simply give side A X+Y points. Give side B an advantage with terrain setup, and I have a perfect setup for a last-stand scenario with minimal effort, meaning more playtime.
I think a lot of the balance=WAAC crowd are GW fanatics who use the phrase to try to defend their position against other peoples rational criticisms. By trying to make other game systems look evil, they can overlook the deficiencies of their favored system- some of them simply can't handle the concept of other games being fun to play, so try to use this to justify it.
Peregrine wrote: Just remember that the person who complains the most about how "clear rules = bad" also insists that playing a non-GW game is like sex with animals.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: I agree, tightly written rule sets are much better for casual play, if only because it deals with the tension of having multiple, legitimate interpretations of a rule.
Balance also makes casual games better- if I know that Xpts of A is equal to Xpts of B, and ensures a fair fight in a head-to-head scenario, then I know that if I want the fight to be more one-sided I can simply give side A X+Y points. Give side B an advantage with terrain setup, and I have a perfect setup for a last-stand scenario with minimal effort, meaning more playtime.
I think a lot of the balance=WAAC crowd are GW fanatics who use the phrase to try to defend their position against other peoples rational criticisms. By trying to make other game systems look evil, they can overlook the deficiencies of their favored system- some of them simply can't handle the concept of other games being fun to play, so try to use this to justify it.
Coming from GW and its games when I was younger, I used to have that line of thought, and people at the store I used to go to "Do not believe what the internet says always, it is filled with scum and villainy about GW because they do not know better". Funny thing is when I checked out other things, I had more attention to that, and once I started playing, I had a lot more fun than I did with any of the GW games, and I did not have to worry about about opening the book almost every turn to see if something does or does not make sense.
Peregrine wrote: Just remember that the person who complains the most about how "clear rules = bad" also insists that playing a non-GW game is like sex with animals. You aren't dealing with a rational adult, and you should adjust your expectations appropriately.
Ha! I'm a newbie fishing for a sig, would you object if I used this?
My girlfriend is a very casual gamer, and likes Kings of War just fine.
She plays maybe once or twice a week (not this week or next, though - she is in St. Paul for a family reunion/grandmother's birthday event... dammit).
We play most often against each other, but really enjoy sharing an army in a mixed doubles game. (Us vs. a married couple - so far we are three wins for four games, the fourth and most recent was a tie... the other couple may be catching on to us....)
We have stopped a game when it became clear that neither of us were having fun because she had a bad deployment - I don't think either of us play with a WAAC approach to the game. (Heck, my favorite games are when she beats me, fair and square. I'm the one that taught her, so that means that I did a decent job of it.)
xruslanx wrote: I predict that this thread will contain back-slapping from the anti-gw crowd until it peters into obscurity at 2 or 3 pages.
Except you'll find most people aren't "Anti-GW" so much as they're "Anti-poor-quality-rule-set-and-proofreading".
That's an emotive and pointless way of expressing it. It's like when you see politicians on tv, "We're not anti-conservative, we're anti-poor government, anti-tax breaks for the rich, anti-incompetence" etc.
Everyone is anti poor-quality rules and pro-proofreading, yet "the community" still identifies one side as being pro-GW and one side as being anti-GW. Both might be generalizations, but both exist or they would not be identified by the same community that they come from. I think some people just have different outlooks on life; if my friends and I come across a rules hiccup we just use common sense to sort it out and no more is said or done about it. Other people create a thread on YMDC and unleash a torrent of rage upon the internet.
You continue to ignore the actual point of contention and choose to throw around an even worse label for people who disagree with you.
People like myself are not Anti-GW. I am against poor quality rulesets and expect them to do a better job writing them and testing them, like dozens of other smaller companies are capable of doing.
You and your friends may be able to sort out the rules to your satisfaction, but many aren't in the same situation; all it takes is for one person to have a different interpretation to grind a game to a halt. A better written rule set wouldn't have this problem for anyone.
In fact, it blows my mind how opposed you are to a quality ruleset.
But again, you've never tried anything different, so there's really no point discussing this with you. You've made up your mind, have zero arguments to stand on in a discussion, and use example of bestiality to make laughably wrong comparisons.
Blacksails wrote: You continue to ignore the actual point of contention and choose to throw around an even worse label for people who disagree with you.
People like myself are not Anti-GW. I am against poor quality rulesets and expect them to do a better job writing them and testing them, like dozens of other smaller companies are capable of doing.
You and your friends may be able to sort out the rules to your satisfaction, but many aren't in the same situation; all it takes is for one person to have a different interpretation to grind a game to a halt. A better written rule set wouldn't have this problem for anyone.
In fact, it blows my mind how opposed you are to a quality ruleset.
But again, you've never tried anything different, so there's really no point discussing this with you. You've made up your mind, have zero arguments to stand on in a discussion, and use example of bestiality to make laughably wrong comparisons.
Conversely, you're telling me that my personal experience is incorrect - that I actually did not enjoy those battles, that those games did not go smoothly. Hence why you are being so closed-minded that conversation is irrelevent.
TheAuldGrump wrote: My girlfriend is a very casual gamer, and likes Kings of War just fine.
She plays maybe once or twice a week (not this week or next, though - she is in St. Paul for a family reunion/grandmother's birthday event... dammit).
We play most often against each other, but really enjoy sharing an army in a mixed doubles game. (Us vs. a married couple - so far we are three wins for four games, the fourth and most recent was a tie... the other couple may be catching on to us....)
We have stopped a game when it became clear that neither of us were having fun because she had a bad deployment - I don't think either of us play with a WAAC approach to the game. (Heck, my favorite games are when she beats me, fair and square. I'm the one that taught her, so that means that I did a decent job of it.)
The Auld Grump
First off, lucky you for getting your GF into this. It is good to enjoy a game like that with your significant other casually and not worry about the rules (although I have to ask a bit off-topic in this part, how is Kings of War? I thought about starting it up but the models that Mantic some of the time do not sit right for me and it will be hard to get some people in without convincing. Although I might try Dreadball, since that is mostly a board game that maybe good to start out with,,,), Hell, even sometimes losing is a way of learning, right?
MrMoustaffa wrote:This pops up every week or so, and every time it involves the same people arguing for the same sides. I've participated in several myself.
I hate to say it but some people just can't see what this means.
Also, this thread will probably hit 4-5 pages before the end of the week of the discussion doesn't get heated and the mods nuke it.
But I will say I agree with just about everything you said, I just find war machine a bit boring for whatever reason
I know what you mean (probably since xruslanx is now commenting, I think it is going to begin...) that people tend to have something hold dear to them, that they cannot see it any other way. And no worries about the Warmahordes, it can get a little repetitive at times, hence why I have two armies to spice it up a bit and try other games to have a variety-is-the-spice-of-life approach,
Conversely, you're telling me that my personal experience is incorrect - that I actually did not enjoy those battles, that those games did not go smoothly. Hence why you are being so closed-minded that conversation is irrelevent.
You know what, this just shows how bad you are at discussing anything. Nowhere have I said you were wrong, or telling you the games didn't go smoothly.
I almost typed up a lengthy response, but I'm done now. Good day.
Conversely, you're telling me that my personal experience is incorrect - that I actually did not enjoy those battles, that those games did not go smoothly. Hence why you are being so closed-minded that conversation is irrelevent.
You know what, this just shows how bad you are at discussing anything. Nowhere have I said you were wrong, or telling you the games didn't go smoothly.
I almost typed up a lengthy response, but I'm done now. Good day.
Personally, I would suggest people put him on their Ignore list. Might save the time and effort I would think...
Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
xruslanx wrote: So this thread literally...is people agreeing with each other, and ignoring anyone who disagrees? Lol.
No, just ignoring you.
You might be amazed at how well most folks listen to someone that disagrees with them, yet manages to do so in a concise, logical, well supported, and polite manner - you know, without comparing other folks favored games with consorting with the livestock, after admitting that they have never played any other games.
I was refuting the assertion "you can't judge something before you try it" by using an exaggerated form of that rhetoric to disprove it. At no point did I compare wargames to zoophilia.
I also take issue with the fact that this issue is something that has quantifiable boundries, and therefore can be objectively argued and evaluated. I am more than happy to discuss wargaming qualitatively, but I don't see why I should be labled as closed-minded for simply disagreeing with a quantitative analysis of a complex hobby.
Jimsolo wrote: Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...
Jimsolo I think the point is, with a poorly written will mostly only to 'casual' gamers who don't really care, whereas a well written ruleset can appeal to both the 'competitive' and the 'casual' for only a little bit of effort, so why not double your market?
Krellnus wrote: Jimsolo I think the point is, with a poorly written will mostly only to 'casual' gamers who don't really care, whereas a well written ruleset can appeal to both the 'competitive' and the 'casual' for only a little bit of effort, so why not double your market?
Because once a market appeals to two types of people, rules/models/policy could also change to appeal to a more "hardcore" crowd. I think a large part of 40k's lasting popularity and appeal is its mainstream image, something which could be compromised if the rules catered to more hardcore/competative gamers.
xruslanx wrote: Conversely, you're telling me that my personal experience is incorrect - that I actually did not enjoy those battles, that those games did not go smoothly. Hence why you are being so closed-minded that conversation is irrelevent.
Nobody is disputing that you've had fun with GW games. What we have a problem with is your ridiculous "argument" that GW's games can't be improved and things like clearer rules would make them worse.
xruslanx wrote: Because once a market appeals to two types of people, rules/models/policy could also change to appeal to a more "hardcore" crowd. I think a large part of 40k's lasting popularity and appeal is its mainstream image, something which could be compromised if the rules catered to more hardcore/competative gamers.
And, again, this is obvious nonsense. MTG has rules with zero ambiguity and enough balance to have tournaments with $50k cash prizes. And yet there's still a thriving casual community, entire new releases dedicated to casual gaming, etc.
But of course you're going to ignore this just like you've ignored all of the other examples of non-GW games doing the things you claim are "impossible".
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: I think a lot of the balance=WAAC crowd are GW fanatics who use the phrase to try to defend their position against other peoples rational criticisms. By trying to make other game systems look evil, they can overlook the deficiencies of their favored system- some of them simply can't handle the concept of other games being fun to play, so try to use this to justify it.
IMO it has a lot to do with a certain group of players that loves GW games. Talking about things like clear rules or balanced point costs would mean admitting that they are one of those horrible people who cares about the rules of the game instead of just putting their cool space marine models on the table and forging an awesome cinematic narrative. And from there it's just one tiny step to becoming the worst kind of TFG, a person who actually cares about who wins the game. So they have to make a big public show of pride in how terrible the rules are, because it means they clearly don't care about those WAAC things.
(Meanwhile of course GW is laughing all the way to the bank as they don't have to spend the time and money to write better rules.)
Bull0 wrote: Ha! I'm a newbie fishing for a sig, would you object if I used this?
Feel free, if you don't want to go find the original quote I'm referring to.
Nobody is disputing that you've had fun with GW games. What we have a problem with is your ridiculous "argument" that GW's games can't be improved and things like clearer rules would make them worse.
I never said that 40k couldn't be improved, or that it was flawless. I think if you understood the subtleties of my opinion fully you wouldn't bother posting at all, so it suits you to make up your own version.
And, again, this is obvious nonsense. MTG has rules with zero ambiguity and enough balance to have tournaments with $50k cash prizes. And yet there's still a thriving casual community, entire new releases dedicated to casual gaming, etc.
But of course you're going to ignore this just like you've ignored all of the other examples of non-GW games doing the things you claim are "impossible".
I still think that 40k would not be as popular as they currently are if the rules were more "hardcore". Cinematic rulesets (all the rules I've played since 3rd have had a strong emphasis on cinematic gameplay) encourage newcomers, this is obvious from the way that rules are tought and now newcomers get into 40k. I think an attempt to streamline those rules would probably put off youngsters.
xruslanx wrote: I still think that 40k would not be as popular as they currently are if the rules were more "hardcore".
Do you understand the difference between "hardcore" and "clear"?
Cinematic rulesets (all the rules I've played since 3rd have had a strong emphasis on cinematic gameplay) encourage newcomers, this is obvious from the way that rules are tought and now newcomers get into 40k.
Do you understand that you can have clear and balanced rules that also produce "cinematic" (however you define such a useless term) gameplay?
I think an attempt to streamline those rules would probably put off youngsters.
Nonsense. You know what puts off youngsters (and anyone else)? A phone-book-size rulebook with a bunch of clumsy rules bolted onto the core mechanics of a 1980s fantasy game. Streamlining the rules would make it much easier to learn how to play and reduce the frequency of newbie mistakes.
Krellnus wrote: Jimsolo I think the point is, with a poorly written will mostly only to 'casual' gamers who don't really care, whereas a well written ruleset can appeal to both the 'competitive' and the 'casual' for only a little bit of effort, so why not double your market?
Because once a market appeals to two types of people, rules/models/policy could also change to appeal to a more "hardcore" crowd. I think a large part of 40k's lasting popularity and appeal is its mainstream image, something which could be compromised if the rules catered to more hardcore/competative gamers.
Could you explain how this works to me because I'm not seeing it.
The aesthetic of the game won't change because the people who buy the models because they look cool won't stop buying them because the rules change, but people who don't buy in because of crappy rules will buy in if the.rules become much better.
Tanakosyke22 wrote: First off, lucky you for getting your GF into this. It is good to enjoy a game like that with your significant other casually and not worry about the rules (although I have to ask a bit off-topic in this part, how is Kings of War? I thought about starting it up but the models that Mantic some of the time do not sit right for me and it will be hard to get some people in without convincing. Although I might try Dreadball, since that is mostly a board game that maybe good to start out with...). Hell, even sometimes losing is a way of learning, right?
Most of the folks that I know who play KoW do so with GW figures, along with a mess of other companies, with the exception of Undead and the Ogres - both of which have some good Mantic models.
Spoiler:
My girlfriend's army is a mix of Mantic, GW, Stonehaven, Avatars of War, and Reaper miniatures.... She started with my army, and is growing her own army from that start. About all that they have in common is using 3/4 inch bases - not even that for some of the units - the AoW Pathfinders are on a scenic unit base, made from insulation foam, cut to look like a small bluff.
Julie (another player - who plays with her significant other) uses a bunch of Mantic Twilight Kin and Raging Heroes Vestals - but she is really looking forward to the Raging Heroes Dark Elf Kickstarter. It is likely that they will be entirely RH when she gets her mitts on the Kickstarter.
Jon (the above mentioned Significant Other) plays undead, entirely Mantic.
I know somebody else that has a GW Ogres army, but plans on using just the Mantic Ogres, when he gets them finished. (Their ogres look great.)
Chris uses a mix of goblins from all over the place - currently he plays Warhammer, but intends to try KoW in the near future.
Another, as yet unpainted, army is a mix of Mantic, Warlord, and Perry models - a Basilean Army that was begun too late for him to join the Kickstarter, but he got sucked in when somebody on these boards described the Basileans as 'Chaos as the Good Guys' or something to that effect. (Sadly, the men at arms figures are disappointing. All the other Basileans are good, though.)
Many, many Warhammer Fantasy armies can be used, pretty much as is.
I know what you mean (probably since xruslanx is now commenting, I think it is going to begin...) that people tend to have something hold dear to them, that they cannot see it any other way. And no worries about the Warmahordes, it can get a little repetitive at times, hence why I have two armies to spice it up a bit and try other games to have a variety-is-the-spice-of-life approach,
For some, it is a game, for others... a religion.
The Auld Grump, and for yet others a lifestyle....
xruslanx wrote: I am more than happy to discuss wargaming qualitatively, but I don't see why I should be labled as closed-minded for simply disagreeing with a quantitative analysis of a complex hobby.
That's not why you're being labeled as closed-minded. You're being labeled as closed-minded because this is the typical discussion with you:
You: "X can't be done without ruining the game."
Us: {list of examples of games that do X without being ruined.}
You: "I've never played those, they don't count."
You: "X can't be done without ruining the game."
And on we go in circles, with you continuing to repeat the same old claims no matter how many counter-examples are provided.
xruslanx wrote: I still think that 40k would not be as popular as they currently are if the rules were more "hardcore".
Do you understand the difference between "hardcore" and "clear"?
Yes. But I'm assuming you're saying something other than "gw's rules should be clearer", which ranks alongside motherhood and apple pie.
Do you understand that you can have clear and balanced rules that also produce "cinematic" (however you define such a useless term) gameplay?
Ah so now "balance" is in on it? Now it really is philosophical - I believe in "perfect inbalance", which is to say I think it's a *good* think that some units get stronger and some units get weaker as army books/rulesets come out. Again, you will claim that this is somehow quantifiably invalid, when it is not. It's simply that I regard a "balanced" ruleset as being stale and uninteresting. I'm sure you disagree passionately, but clearly it is not something on which we would find common ground.
Nonsense. You know what puts off youngsters (and anyone else)? A phone-book-size rulebook with a bunch of clumsy rules bolted onto the core mechanics of a 1980s fantasy game. Streamlining the rules would make it much easier to learn how to play and reduce the frequency of newbie mistakes.
So you think the thing that puts of youngsters the most in a tabletop game, is the thing that's present in the largest tabletop game the world has ever seen?
Krellnus wrote: Jimsolo I think the point is, with a poorly written will mostly only to 'casual' gamers who don't really care, whereas a well written ruleset can appeal to both the 'competitive' and the 'casual' for only a little bit of effort, so why not double your market?
Because once a market appeals to two types of people, rules/models/policy could also change to appeal to a more "hardcore" crowd. I think a large part of 40k's lasting popularity and appeal is its mainstream image, something which could be compromised if the rules catered to more hardcore/competative gamers.
Could you explain how this works to me because I'm not seeing it.
The aesthetic of the game won't change because the people who buy the models because they look cool won't stop buying them because the rules change, but people who don't buy in because of crappy rules will buy in if the.rules become much better.
Well people who advocate a more competitive ruleset, presumably must be advocating it with the assumption that such a change by GW would increase the number of competative players, otherwise they wouldn't be advocating it. If you get more competitive players in 40k, I would assume that the rest of 40k would therefore cater more to competative players and less to newcomers.
I suspect that competative players put up with the rules, and casual players enjoy them. Making the ruleset more "competative", whatever that means, won't actually increase sales from that group since they (begrudgingly) are into it anyway.
Tanakosyke22 wrote: First off, lucky you for getting your GF into this. It is good to enjoy a game like that with your significant other casually and not worry about the rules (although I have to ask a bit off-topic in this part, how is Kings of War? I thought about starting it up but the models that Mantic some of the time do not sit right for me and it will be hard to get some people in without convincing. Although I might try Dreadball, since that is mostly a board game that maybe good to start out with...). Hell, even sometimes losing is a way of learning, right?
Most of the folks that I know who play KoW do so with GW figures, along with a mess of other companies, with the exception of Undead and the Ogres - both of which have some good Mantic models.
Spoiler:
My girlfriend's army is a mix of Mantic, GW, Stonehaven, Avatars of War, and Reaper miniatures.... She started with my army, and is growing her own army from that start. About all that they have in common is using 3/4 inch bases - not even that for some of the units - the AoW Pathfinders are on a scenic unit base, made from insulation foam, cut to look like a small bluff.
Julie (another player - who plays with her significant other) uses a bunch of Mantic Twilight Kin and Raging Heroes Vestals - but she is really looking forward to the Raging Heroes Dark Elf Kickstarter. It is likely that they will be entirely RH when she gets her mitts on the Kickstarter.
Jon (the above mentioned Significant Other) plays undead, entirely Mantic.
I know somebody else that has a GW Ogres army, but plans on using just the Mantic Ogres, when he gets them finished. (Their ogres look great.)
Chris uses a mix of goblins from all over the place - currently he plays Warhammer, but intends to try KoW in the near future.
Another, as yet unpainted, army is a mix of Mantic, Warlord, and Perry models - a Basilean Army that was begun too late for him to join the Kickstarter, but he got sucked in when somebody on these boards described the Basileans as 'Chaos as the Good Guys' or something to that effect. (Sadly, the men at arms figures are disappointing. All the other Basileans are good, though.)
Many, many Warhammer Fantasy armies can be used, pretty much as is.
If they had a Lizardmen army and other people had the same, I probably do it in a heartbeat...
Although if I could see if their was a group around, I wanted to try to make a Kingdoms of Men army based around Ancient Greece/ Rome a bit.
would be nice if GW actually updated their FAQ on a more regular basis. Hell with the price of the codexes I dont think its to much to ask.
Having rules for the sake of having rules is silly. I think 40k could do with more thought put into making things clear and less on power creep codexes to push sales. But thats just me being an old romantic I suppose
xruslanx wrote: Yes. But I'm assuming you're saying something other than "gw's rules should be clearer", which ranks alongside motherhood and apple pie.
So you're assuming that I'm demanding some kind of "hardcore" rules (for your personal definition of "hardcore") in addition to clarity just because you want me to be making that demand? Do you know what a straw man is?
Now it really is philosophical - I believe in "perfect inbalance", which is to say I think it's a *good* think that some units get stronger and some units get weaker as army books/rulesets come out.
That's not what GW has. The idea of "perfect imbalance" is that you deliberately manipulate power levels to create an interesting metagame over time. For example, AA units might be weak when flyers are rare, but powerful when a flyer-based army is popular. GW, on the other hand, just sucks at game balance. The 5-Riptide Tau list doesn't exist because GW did it deliberately, it exists because they're too incompetent to realize that letting Tau ally with Tau means bringing two more of the overpowered best unit in the codex.
It's simply that I regard a "balanced" ruleset as being stale and uninteresting.
And you believe this because you've never played a balanced game. If you had you'd realize that it's unbalanced games that are stale and boring because all you have to do to win is identify the most overpowered balance mistakes (or just ask a forum) and then take them. The game is reduced to the same few overpowered choices and the theoretical diversity of having lots of options is thrown away.
So you think the thing that puts of youngsters the most in a tabletop game, is the thing that's present in the largest tabletop game the world has ever seen?
You do realize that people play 40k for reasons besides how much they love the rules, right? And that many of GW's customers never even play the game?
Yo I heard that people hate burgers as fast food
Oh good, that ridiculous analogy again. Burgers may be popular, but I don't think you're going to find any restaurant critics arguing that a big mac is the height of fine dining.
Actually, on second thought, it's a great analogy. GW, like fast food burger places, puts out a garbage product that is cheap and well-marketed. It's adequate if you're hungry or desperate to play a game, but that's about it.
Well people who advocate a more competitive ruleset, presumably must be advocating it with the assumption that such a change by GW would increase the number of competative players, otherwise they wouldn't be advocating it. If you get more competitive players in 40k, I would assume that the rest of 40k would therefore cater more to competative players and less to newcomers.
Here's a better idea: learn from MTG and market to everyone. Casual players are happy with MTG, and competitive players are happy with MTG. Everyone gets what they want. Only with GW games do you have the absurd assumption that only one player group can be happy at a time.
I suspect that competative players put up with the rules, and casual players enjoy them.
Casual players don't, as a general rule, enjoy the rules, they just find them adequate to allow the things they do enjoy: the fluff and models.
Infinity is for the most part concise with its rules, everything for the most part makes sense. But, there are some grey areas in it (although I am not sure if CB wrote it as it was, or if it a translation from Spanish to English) and some of the rules can use a bit of tightening up, but for the most part, it is nothing like 40k/Fantasy.
This. Infinity rules are amazing in that you can say "well, what would make logical sense here" and them BAM, someone finds an FAQ or whatever clarifying it as exactly that.
Only exception is the Retreat=End of Game rule in ITS. That rule is just horrid. Rush up and grab objectives, get massacred, game suddenly ends with your victory before the other guy can walk up and take them when in reality he should have no trouble doing so. Terrible.
Here's a better idea: learn from MTG and market to everyone. Casual players are happy with MTG, and competitive players are happy with MTG. Everyone gets what they want. Only with GW games do you have the absurd assumption that only one player group can be happy at a time.
I agree with most of your post, peregrine, but just a nitpick here:
I was driven away from MTG because of the prevalence of competitive players. They may not have been the top-of-the-line regional champs or something, but every week people would spend ~$50 just to stay on top of the pack, and I didn't want to do that so I basically lost every single game until I gave up.
EDIT: and this was me and like six dudes in high school. I shudder to think what would have happened if I took my Angel tribal deck into a store.
xruslanx wrote: I still think that 40k would not be as popular as they currently are if the rules were more "hardcore".
Do you understand the difference between "hardcore" and "clear"?
Yes. But I'm assuming you're saying something other than "gw's rules should be clearer", which ranks alongside motherhood and apple pie.
Do you understand that you can have clear and balanced rules that also produce "cinematic" (however you define such a useless term) gameplay?
Ah so now "balance" is in on it? Now it really is philosophical - I believe in "perfect inbalance", which is to say I think it's a *good* think that some units get stronger and some units get weaker as army books/rulesets come out. Again, you will claim that this is somehow quantifiably invalid, when it is not. It's simply that I regard a "balanced" ruleset as being stale and uninteresting. I'm sure you disagree passionately, but clearly it is not something on which we would find common ground.
Nonsense. You know what puts off youngsters (and anyone else)? A phone-book-size rulebook with a bunch of clumsy rules bolted onto the core mechanics of a 1980s fantasy game. Streamlining the rules would make it much easier to learn how to play and reduce the frequency of newbie mistakes.
So you think the thing that puts of youngsters the most in a tabletop game, is the thing that's present in the largest tabletop game the world has ever seen?
Krellnus wrote: Jimsolo I think the point is, with a poorly written will mostly only to 'casual' gamers who don't really care, whereas a well written ruleset can appeal to both the 'competitive' and the 'casual' for only a little bit of effort, so why not double your market?
Because once a market appeals to two types of people, rules/models/policy could also change to appeal to a more "hardcore" crowd. I think a large part of 40k's lasting popularity and appeal is its mainstream image, something which could be compromised if the rules catered to more hardcore/competative gamers.
Could you explain how this works to me because I'm not seeing it.
The aesthetic of the game won't change because the people who buy the models because they look cool won't stop buying them because the rules change, but people who don't buy in because of crappy rules will buy in if the.rules become much better.
Well people who advocate a more competitive ruleset, presumably must be advocating it with the assumption that such a change by GW would increase the number of competative players, otherwise they wouldn't be advocating it. If you get more competitive players in 40k, I would assume that the rest of 40k would therefore cater more to competative players and less to newcomers.
I suspect that competative players put up with the rules, and casual players enjoy them. Making the ruleset more "competative", whatever that means, won't actually increase sales from that group since they (begrudgingly) are into it anyway.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I was driven away from MTG because of the prevalence of competitive players. They may not have been the top-of-the-line regional champs or something, but every week people would spend ~$50 just to stay on top of the pack, and I didn't want to do that so I basically lost every single game until I gave up.
But that has a lot more to do with your fellow players than with the game. Any game is going to have problems if one person wants to spend very little money/effort and only play "bad" strategies while the others want to spend lots of money/effort and play whatever is most competitive at a given time. But there are a lot of casual groups where a low-budget angel tribal deck would work just fine, and people would be willing to bring their own silly deck ideas if necessary to avoid crushing you. And they play by the same core rules as the competitive players.
Infinity is for the most part concise with its rules, everything for the most part makes sense. But, there are some grey areas in it (although I am not sure if CB wrote it as it was, or if it a translation from Spanish to English) and some of the rules can use a bit of tightening up, but for the most part, it is nothing like 40k/Fantasy.
This. Infinity rules are amazing in that you can say "well, what would make logical sense here" and them BAM, someone finds an FAQ or whatever clarifying it as exactly that.
Only exception is the Retreat=End of Game rule in ITS. That rule is just horrid. Rush up and grab objectives, get massacred, game suddenly ends with your victory before the other guy can walk up and take them when in reality he should have no trouble doing so. Terrible.
Well, it kind of makes sense that that the enemy is getting the objective, uploading it, deleting the data and then escape with it before the enemy forces does....to a point....
xruslanx wrote: I was refuting the assertion "you can't judge something before you try it" by using an exaggerated form of that rhetoric to disprove it. At no point did I compare wargames to zoophilia.
I also take issue with the fact that this issue is something that has quantifiable boundries, and therefore can be objectively argued and evaluated. I am more than happy to discuss wargaming qualitatively, but I don't see why I should be labled as closed-minded for simply disagreeing with a quantitative analysis of a complex hobby.
You're more than welcome to judge something before you try it, but when you do that other people tend to look at you and have one of two reactions:
1) You do not have enough outside knowledge to make a fair and assessed statement about this subject, please look into this more
2) While you may have never done X, you have done enough of a, b, and c to know that X is very similar to those things, thus you may have some ground to stand on.
When you can sit there and say that 40k is the best rules for cinematic gameplay around and then you say, "I've never played another set of rules" no one is going to take you seriously because you don't have enough outside knowledge. If you were to say, "Hi, I'm Rick Priestly, developer of these the various games, and while I've never played anything beyond these GW games, and Bolt Action, etc... I feel that Warmachine and Hordes isn't a fun ruleset because of reasons, even though I've never played it." then people might give you a little more credit because you are at least considered an expert in the field. With that being said people would say, "try it, you might be surprised."
And to use your burger analogy... If you only eat McDonalds burgers, and someone says, "Hey try this Five Guys burger, it's fantastic" and you say, "I don't need to try it to know that I won't like it." then your buddy is going to look at you like you're crazy. variety is the spice of life. Get out there and play something else, then you might be able to have a valid opinion on this topic instead of just spouting off what ever gak you deem necessary.
Well, it kind of makes sense that that the enemy is getting the objective, uploading it, deleting the data and then escape with it before the enemy forces does....to a point....
I imagine it'd be even easier to download the data and wipe it when your not running for your life, yet we can't.
Regarding clear and tight rulesets being the kingdom of WAAC players, I think it probably is more to do with the kind of players who tend to play them instead of the rules themselves. I also think that because 40k is so prevalent, there are more styles of players who play the games. The more dedicated wargamers are probably the ones who look for other, and arguably better, games.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Regarding clear and tight rulesets being the kingdom of WAAC players, I think it probably is more to do with the kind of players who tend to play them instead of the rules themselves. I also think that because 40k is so prevalent, there are more styles of players who play the games. The more dedicated wargamers are probably the ones who look for other, and arguably better, games.
Maybe, but who is not to say that those type of people also exist in the Warhammer player base as well. Also, there are other gamers as well who want to try another game just for the change from the frustration that they might of had with 40K/Fantasy. Personally, I just think that it is the human factor (as I started in the original post) and the personality one has to be like that, no matter what game. Or at least my thought on it...
I honestly don't see the connection. WAAC (to me, at least) is a state of mind, not a result of unbalanced rules. Unbalanced rules will make a WAAC players life easier, yes, but they er not necessary.
How would it be boring? You could switch up your army every game and not have to worry about it being ridiculously underpowered. The variety of games would improve considerably.
If you play against Orks, what units are you going to see? Lootas, Dakkajets and Nob Bikers, very little else. If the rules were better balanced then you'd see a huge variety of armies - footsloggers, speed freaks, non-nob bikers, balanced, kan wall etc.
As it stands anyone who doesn't take Lootas, Dakkajets and Nob Bikers might as well not bother setting up.
Tight well written rules mean people who can learn to be really good, and thus will win lots. Those will not as much time/interest end up shrugging and giving up
(why chess demands a certain type of player to keep up with it long term, and why a good player in a group can kill the group)
less well written rules have holes and grey areas that can be argued over and debated which may cause problems for an individual game, but long term can help keep a broader player base interested
it's the same set of issues that come up in terms of random/non-random games.
randomness is the enemy of skill, learning, planning etc BUT means that not every time you Bob the expert will he win. Bad for Bob, not so bad for his less skilled friends
So you're assuming that I'm demanding some kind of "hardcore" rules (for your personal definition of "hardcore") in addition to clarity just because you want me to be making that demand? Do you know what a straw man is?
So...you're not. The only thing you want from GW is less rules mistakes? Well gee that's a rich vein of conversation right there.
That's not what GW has. The idea of "perfect imbalance" is that you deliberately manipulate power levels to create an interesting metagame over time. For example, AA units might be weak when flyers are rare, but powerful when a flyer-based army is popular. GW, on the other hand, just sucks at game balance. The 5-Riptide Tau list doesn't exist because GW did it deliberately, it exists because they're too incompetent to realize that letting Tau ally with Tau means bringing two more of the overpowered best unit in the codex.
Oh yay, you're defining my hobby for me again, cheers. No.
Grey Knights stomped face in 5th, then got gradually tailed back. Necrons were OP when they were released, but thanks to new releases are not. Flyers were obscene at the start of 6th, but thanks to more AA are not. Blood Angels were scary and are now week, and my own beloved IG are much diminished, save for the Vendetta.
You may not like this constant shift in power, but it exists.
And you believe this because you've never played a balanced game. If you had you'd realize that it's unbalanced games that are stale and boring because all you have to do to win is identify the most overpowered balance mistakes (or just ask a forum) and then take them. The game is reduced to the same few overpowered choices and the theoretical diversity of having lots of options is thrown away.
That's all you need to do to win? My friends and I have never done that...almost as if 40k is a casual game.
You do realize that people play 40k for reasons besides how much they love the rules, right? And that many of GW's customers never even play the game?
Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.
Here's a better idea: learn from MTG and market to everyone. Casual players are happy with MTG, and competitive players are happy with MTG. Everyone gets what they want. Only with GW games do you have the absurd assumption that only one player group can be happy at a time.
You know what? 40k isn't magic the gathering, I suggest you go find a M:TG forum since you clearly adore it so much.
You keep repeating the matra that 40k would have nothing to lose by focussing on competative players - something which has apparently escaped every single games workshop rule designer for the past twenty years. Why do you think that is? What is it that you, peregrine, have seen, that they have not?
So you're assuming that I'm demanding some kind of "hardcore" rules (for your personal definition of "hardcore") in addition to clarity just because you want me to be making that demand? Do you know what a straw man is?
So...you're not. The only thing you want from GW is less rules mistakes? Well gee that's a rich vein of conversation right there.
Yup, that's what most of us are asking. For GW's rules to be clearer. We don't want them to be more "hardcore", whatever that'd involve.
Grey Knights stomped face in 5th, then got gradually tailed back. Necrons were OP when they were released, but thanks to new releases are not. Flyers were obscene at the start of 6th, but thanks to more AA are not. Blood Angels were scary and are now week, and my own beloved IG are much diminished, save for the Vendetta.
You may not like this constant shift in power, but it exists.
Exactly, the external balance is terrible. At each stage, there's usually an easy win army (currently Tau it seems), and for each army there's really only a couple of combinations that are actually any good. I've never heard of anyone using Gretchins, Conscripts or Rough Riders, or any number of other units in games. For instance, I was playing against a fairly shooting Tau list with an IG list I'd optimized for that and was tabled by turn 2; and I honestly don't think there's any list or strategy I could use to do much better even if I spammed Leman Russ squadrons and lascannon teams.
You keep repeating the matra that 40k would have nothing to lose by focussing on competative players - something which has apparently escaped every single games workshop rule designer for the past twenty years. Why do you think that is? What is it that you, peregrine, have seen, that they have not?
They don't care; the rules are there to support model sales (they even say as much in shareholder reports). The people responsible for the innovations in the gaming are all innovating elsewhere (Bolt Action is currently what 40K should have been, Kings Of War is currently what WHF should have been).
They are, and I paraphrase "in the business of selling toy soldiers to kids", and spout this nonsense about being "cinemetic" and "narrative" to get around the fact that they don't care that the rules are crap. They are selling this idea that they could make the rules better, but they'd ruin the feel, and the best solution is to 4+ it, and people are buying it. Admittedly it's usually people who've never tried other games to have some appreciate of what they could be like.
I get that you like GW games, and don't mind the issues other members are complaining about, and feel that you won't enjoy other games, but that really doesn't give you any basis for claiming that GW has the best rules. But you should give X-Wing a go and see what you can do with a 20 page rule booklet.
You keep repeating the matra that 40k would have nothing to lose by focussing on competative players - something which has apparently escaped every single games workshop rule designer for the past twenty years. Why do you think that is? What is it that you, peregrine, have seen, that they have not?
They see a cost investment they're not willing to make.
xruslanx wrote: Grey Knights stomped face in 5th, then got gradually tailed back. Necrons were OP when they were released, but thanks to new releases are not. Flyers were obscene at the start of 6th, but thanks to more AA are not. Blood Angels were scary and are now week, and my own beloved IG are much diminished, save for the Vendetta.
You may not like this constant shift in power, but it exists.
A balanced ruleset stops a constant shift in power of this magnitude. Grey Knights stomped face in 5th edition because they could deny the basic objectives of the game (kill points) by offering an extremely resilient troop choice that could also reliably take and hold objectives. Blackmoor, a renowned US tournament player, wrote an entire article in 5th edition as to why Grey Knights were fantastic in the tournament scene, but guess what it was always 1 of 2 different lists. It was either Draigowing, or it was Coteaz with Death Cult Assassins. That's pretty much it. Sure they had other things that were decent on the table, but they all had their own major flaw and glaring weakness. Necrons were OP at the dawn of 6th edition because they could 1) Pack flyers into their lists that acted as transports that didn't take their unit with them when they died and 2) could easily and reliably glance vehicles to death again. Sure we've got more AA, but AA is useless against a Riptide list, etc... If the game was truly balanced you'd see an even split of army composition at tournaments (because people would be able to do well with any army), and you'd see certain players topping the tournaments instead of lists (because true player skill starts to shine). As it was said in the last thread on this subject, there was a reason why it was called the Tau'VA open (instead of NoVA Open), because everyone saw that there was a clear winner in terms of army, codex, and list choice. That's not good balance.
That's all you need to do to win? My friends and I have never done that...almost as if 40k is a casual game.
Being a casual game doesn't mean that it's rules have to be ambiguous and unclear. It's been stated over and over that clear rules designed for competition play trickle down to the casual players. If the rules work at the level where you're most likely to see players doing everything in their power to win (outside of cheating and being a dick) then those rules are beneficial to players at the casual level who just want to have fun and no argue rules or 4+ it. A solid and clear ruleset means that if I travel to England and bring my MAN DOLLIES with me to play, I can go into a store throw down some models and I don't have to be like, "Well this is how we play it here in Ohio, how do they do things here?" We just set down our models and start playing without interrupting the game to make rules decisions, because the rules decisions have been laid out in the book already.
Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.
The game is VERY off-putting to newcomers I've been teaching people how to play games for a few years now, and the only games that are difficult to teach to people (in my experience) is Magic the Gathering and GW's main two lines. The reason why Magic is tough to teach is because it's tough to get your mind around how the stack works, deck building is a little confusing, and it takes some time to learn the combos of a deck, but once you learn those things it becomes second nature to play. The game hasn't made giant strides in how it's played in the 20 years it's been around, but that's because it has clear rules that are easy to understand. On the other hand, 40k (and Fantasy) are difficult to teach because you have unbalanced starter sets which means that someone gets the shaft on the armies and losing all the time when you're learning is the #1 way to lose a player, and because the mini rulebook scenario puts out a very basic way to play the game, which gets turned upside down when you start to actually play the game how it's meant to be played. The rules don't go over army building (which is really hard to explain to someone when they don't even have a codex yet), and the game is needlessly complex for the sake of "narrative gameplay"
You keep repeating the mantra that 40k would have nothing to lose by focusing on competitive players - something which has apparently escaped every single games workshop rule designer for the past twenty years. Why do you think that is? What is it that you, peregrine, have seen, that they have not?
If I recall correctly there was a major shift towards the 'competitive 40k scene' starting in 4th edition, and it only moved towards that with 5th edition with Alessio Cavatore having a larger role in the design of the game. If you look at the 3 lead designers for 4th and 5th edition 40k, we have Rick Priestly, Andy Chambers, and Alessio Cavatore. Guess who they don't work with anymore? Games Workshop. All three of these men have moved on to other projects, with Rick being a co-owner of Warlord Games which make games that are arguably better than GW. These men left, so maybe they realized that there was something to be gained, not by focusing on competitive players, but by focusing on clear and concise rules. Compare that to the current 3 designers of 6th edition, Mat Ward, Jeremy Vetock (author of Tau 6th ed), and Adam Troke (author of Eldar 6th ed). The three of them may not be terrible designers, but they've not been at it as long as the three designers of 4th and 5th edition, maybe 7th edition 40k will be the best one yet, able to blend competitive and casual gameplay, but atm no they've done a crap job at clearing up the waters and making these rules easy to learn and difficult to abuse.
Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.
The game is VERY off-putting to newcomers I've been teaching people how to play games for a few years now, and the only games that are difficult to teach to people (in my experience) is Magic the Gathering and GW's main two lines. The reason why Magic is tough to teach is because it's tough to get your mind around how the stack works, deck building is a little confusing, and it takes some time to learn the combos of a deck, but once you learn those things it becomes second nature to play. The game hasn't made giant strides in how it's played in the 20 years it's been around, but that's because it has clear rules that are easy to understand. On the other hand, 40k (and Fantasy) are difficult to teach because you have unbalanced starter sets which means that someone gets the shaft on the armies and losing all the time when you're learning is the #1 way to lose a player, and because the mini rulebook scenario puts out a very basic way to play the game, which gets turned upside down when you start to actually play the game how it's meant to be played. The rules don't go over army building (which is really hard to explain to someone when they don't even have a codex yet), and the game is needlessly complex for the sake of "narrative gameplay".
Bingo.
When I worked for GW we were taught to dumb the game down for demo games and basically make up the rules to get kids interested. Upon actually seeing how the game works most kids don't have the attention span or the interest. Its partially why I left the company, it was dishonest work.
Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.
The game is VERY off-putting to newcomers I've been teaching people how to play games for a few years now, and the only games that are difficult to teach to people (in my experience) is Magic the Gathering and GW's main two lines. The reason why Magic is tough to teach is because it's tough to get your mind around how the stack works, deck building is a little confusing, and it takes some time to learn the combos of a deck, but once you learn those things it becomes second nature to play. The game hasn't made giant strides in how it's played in the 20 years it's been around, but that's because it has clear rules that are easy to understand. On the other hand, 40k (and Fantasy) are difficult to teach because you have unbalanced starter sets which means that someone gets the shaft on the armies and losing all the time when you're learning is the #1 way to lose a player, and because the mini rulebook scenario puts out a very basic way to play the game, which gets turned upside down when you start to actually play the game how it's meant to be played. The rules don't go over army building (which is really hard to explain to someone when they don't even have a codex yet), and the game is needlessly complex for the sake of "narrative gameplay".
Bingo.
When I worked for GW we were taught to dumb the game down for demo games and basically make up the rules to get kids interested. Upon actually seeing how the game works most kids don't have the attention span or the interest. Its partially why I left the company, it was dishonest work.
Lol, at this point, is anybody else thinking that it would actually be easier for them just to make a clearer ruleset?!
Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.
The game is VERY off-putting to newcomers I've been teaching people how to play games for a few years now, and the only games that are difficult to teach to people (in my experience) is Magic the Gathering and GW's main two lines. The reason why Magic is tough to teach is because it's tough to get your mind around how the stack works, deck building is a little confusing, and it takes some time to learn the combos of a deck, but once you learn those things it becomes second nature to play. The game hasn't made giant strides in how it's played in the 20 years it's been around, but that's because it has clear rules that are easy to understand. On the other hand, 40k (and Fantasy) are difficult to teach because you have unbalanced starter sets which means that someone gets the shaft on the armies and losing all the time when you're learning is the #1 way to lose a player, and because the mini rulebook scenario puts out a very basic way to play the game, which gets turned upside down when you start to actually play the game how it's meant to be played. The rules don't go over army building (which is really hard to explain to someone when they don't even have a codex yet), and the game is needlessly complex for the sake of "narrative gameplay".
Bingo.
When I worked for GW we were taught to dumb the game down for demo games and basically make up the rules to get kids interested. Upon actually seeing how the game works most kids don't have the attention span or the interest. Its partially why I left the company, it was dishonest work.
Lol, at this point, is anybody else thinking that it would actually be easier for them just to make a clearer ruleset?!
I think saying that 40K/Fantasy needing a clearer ruleset is a major understatement of sorts. Sadly, knowing how GW is until someone else buys them or so on, that might not be the case.. :/
Its why the starter set should be two evenly pointed sides and it should be taken in baby steps. Because seriously there are "vets" that don't even know how to play properly.
Formosa wrote: Sorry I don't get it, are you saying wanting.tight rules = waac?
If so surely waac don't want a tight ruleset? As (as stereotpyes go) there all baby eating cheaters?
No, look at my original post. It explains why the notion that a tight, clear and concise ruleset does not equate to WAAC behavior and how those can be played casually as those with a not so tight or clear ruleset.
I remember being turned off as a newcomer in 40k because I don't get why there's RAI and RAW. Coming from a M:tG background it upset me that the army I wanted to do (a Shrike army that charges turn 1 in 5th ed) can be considered illegal, depending on my opponent's take on the rules. Take note that it upsets me in a fluff level as well: I like to play Raven Guard and hitting your opponent before they expect it fits their fluff just fine, and it's not like it's an uber-competitive list (CCW scouts and assault Marines in 5th ed?). There shouldn't be RAI and RAW, there be just... rules.
I just continued playing 40k for a few months more because a) I already bought the models b) it's an excuse to hang out with friends. If it's just about the rules I wouldn't really play it,and now that I have discovered other games... I don't play 40k anymore.
I have played M:tG casually from 1994 onwards and just got seriously competitive about it at around 2006-2007. Now I don't see how a nice and clear rules set has ever hindered me to play and enjoy it casually as a "Timmy" (as M:tG designers like to call casual gamers of their game). And I don't see why a clear rules set could do that to 40k either. And maybe some semblance of balance as well. Until then, I'm going to play other games.
Agreed. Ideally, RAW and RAI should be one in the same, the intention of the author should be clear in the rules as they're written. Many game designers have grasped this, GW ignores this.
I have played M:tG casually from 1994 onwards and just got seriously competitive about it at around 2006-2007. Now I don't see how a nice and clear rules set has ever hindered me to play and enjoy it casually as a "Timmy" (as M:tG designers like to call casual gamers of their game). And I don't see why a clear rules set could do that to 40k either. And maybe some semblance of balance as well. Until then, I'm going to play other games.
Apparently, with the exception of a minority of one, neither does anyone else!
I have played M:tG casually from 1994 onwards and just got seriously competitive about it at around 2006-2007. Now I don't see how a nice and clear rules set has ever hindered me to play and enjoy it casually as a "Timmy" (as M:tG designers like to call casual gamers of their game). And I don't see why a clear rules set could do that to 40k either. And maybe some semblance of balance as well. Until then, I'm going to play other games.
Apparently, with the exception of a minority of one, neither does anyone else!
Exactly, we don't want to hate GW just to hate GW we were or are probably fans of their work, and we want them to make us customers once again.
xruslanx, look at it from the so-called 'haters' point of view. Many of us that are decrying GW's rules probably have an army, probably multiples. Games Workshop was my first game company for wargaming. I was immediately drawn into the 40k and fantasy worlds. I had a small Goblin army, a small high elf army, and a space marine army all within my first 6 months of starting wargaming. By the end of my first 18 months I had gotten rid of those small fantasy armies, had a large Vampire Counts and WoC army, and had expanded my 40k armies to include a 2500 Descent of Angels BA army, a 4k point Iron Warriors Army, and a 4k point Imperial Guard Army, as well as trying to get rid of my 1500 nids and orks (because I loved them but didn't like how they played). Shortly after starting the blood angels army, I came across Warmachine and Hordes. I got a demo, started playing on Sundays and was hooked, because the people were jovial, the game was fun, the minis were cool looking, but best of all I didn't have rules arguments. My Thursday night 40k games would be rife with arguments of a single sentence... I have all of these models, and I want to play with them, but GW's inability to write clear rules is preventing me from having the fun I can have with other games.
Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.
I just have to point that this is very flawed logic. 40k is the biggest player in the industry and absolutely dominates it. In the UK at least, if you ask the average person on the street they'll not have a clue what wargaming is, but they know what "Warhammers" are.
Of course it is the largest gateway to newcomers. It is the largest game. Largest game doesn't mean best (another concept which seems utterly lost on you). In the UK, GW practically have a monopoly on high street game stores which are the main entryway into the hobby.
You may as well say that in office software, most people are introduced to Microsoft Office first. Well, yes? It utterly dominates the market in the same way as 40k does. It doesn't mean that the software is any good (although that is a lot more debatable than 40k vs other games), just that it's the most commonly used.
heartserenade wrote: I think a better analogy would be Internet Explorer. It's the most used browser but it's a pretty crappy one.
Another better analogy to go along with it: It is the first thing you are most likely going to start with, give you a taste what surfing the web is, and then you move on to a better web browser most likely once one sees there are better things on the market.
I really don't feel that GW's policy of overcompensation adds to the game either competitively or narratively. Take my Tyranids, for example; when i was introduced to them, I saw them as really being an army where you pinned your army with expendable troops, crippled them with key ambushes, and then crushed them under a tide of bodies and giant monsters. I came in near the end of 4th ed, meaning that it was really just a case of "crush with giant monsters". Then 5th ed rolled around, and genestealers could outflank. Now I have my surgical ambushes! Sure, I'm using my expendable troops as regenerating scoring units instead of fodder, but hey, close enough! Except that I'm now reduced to scratching on the outside of metal boxes, as the Venom Cannon can't do more than dent the tanks. Then the 5th ed codex drops. Suddenly, I can pop tanks! My swarm units and ambushers are cheaper! But my monsters now cost more, so I'm no further ahead if I run a mixed swarm. Also, in order to get the enemy infantry out of the tanks to devour, I need to spam Hive Guard, meaning that I lose a huge chunk of options from my codex. Then 6th ed hits, and I lose my ambushers. There is now a sizable portion of the game that I cannot participate in unless I take a specific model (Fliers). Changes to psychic powers means that now I'm all about rolling and hoping I get the right ability (Ironarm, cough). Plus, random charge distances now mean that my ravenous horde will spontaneously decide that it doesn't want to eat those guardsmen over there.
Competitively, I loved 4th ed because the Carnifex was overpowered. Narratively, I hated it because my swarms of fodder were really expensive, so I could not take as many as I liked.
Competitively, I hated early 5th ed because I lost automatically to mech lists. Naratively, I hated it because sat safely in their vehicles and I couldn't overwhelm them.
Competitively, I hated 5th ed because it nerfed a number of good units, railroaded my choices (Hiveguard, cough), and made me buy new stuff to have any chance (slim though it was). Narratively, I was quite happy, as there were a lot of cool units I could use to fulfill my dreams- despite the loss of biomorphs. As a player who wanted to win, but also play narrativly, I hated the fact that about 75% of the codex would actively hurt my chances of winning if I played it, meaning I had to choose between variety in playstyles and ability to win games.
6th ed, I ditched in short order- simply because both my Tyranids and Dark Eldar stopped playing as I enjoyed it unless I bought a huge pile of new models.
For Tyranids, I lost outflank (my ambushers). Aircraft whipped overhead, leaving 200pt+ models staring helplessly after them (goodbye monsters). Swarms of models fell short to poor assault rolls, and were torn apart by massively increased firepower (Goodbye Swarms). Competitively, I could be quite happy spamming Psychic powers. As someone who liked to win, and win in my way, the shift had basically ruined the game for me. Sure, I could spend a large sum of money to get the necessary new model, which I may quite of enjoyed playing with, but skyrocketing prices, and the discovery of other games, made me disinclined to pursue this option.
In short, GW constantly shifted the balance, with the result that my army never really played in what I considered a fluffy manner. With 5th ed. as a high point, even that had massive problems (loss of Biomorphs, huge number of units which were basically shooting myself in the foot, choice bottlenecks, practically required to buy new stuff to stand a chance in a fight, etc.).
Compare this to some other games:
Warmahordes (Unit A isn't good with Caster B, but is great with casters C or D, and in the meantime there is unit E)
Infinity (Take what you think looks cool, just remember to prepare for contingencies!)
X-Wing (Try different combinations for different fun! Plus, Star Wars!)
xruslanx wrote: I predict that this thread will contain back-slapping from the anti-gw crowd until it peters into obscurity at 2 or 3 pages.
Except you'll find most people aren't "Anti-GW" so much as they're "Anti-poor-quality-rule-set-and-proofreading".
That's an emotive and pointless way of expressing it. It's like when you see politicians on tv, "We're not anti-conservative, we're anti-poor government, anti-tax breaks for the rich, anti-incompetence" etc.
Everyone is anti poor-quality rules and pro-proofreading, yet "the community" still identifies one side as being pro-GW and one side as being anti-GW. Both might be generalizations, but both exist or they would not be identified by the same community that they come from. I think some people just have different outlooks on life; if my friends and I come across a rules hiccup we just use common sense to sort it out and no more is said or done about it. Other people create a thread on YMDC and unleash a torrent of rage upon the internet.
The irony of this post is the fact that even xruslanx equates poor-quality rules with GW. Otherwise, how could he equate anti-poor quality rules people with anti-GW people?
Listen, X. It's completely possible to enjoy the Warhammer fluff and overall feel while at the same time wishing GW would spend more time and attention to creating a stronger rules set with better internal and external balances.
xruslanx, look at it from the so-called 'haters' point of view. Many of us that are decrying GW's rules probably have an army, probably multiples. Games Workshop was my first game company for wargaming.
I have six GW armies between WHFB and 40K, and I started playing in 1988. I have a lot invested in the systems between time, money, and emotional energy. My main frustration is that over the last 25 years, I haven't seen any significant improvement in the game as far as the quality of the rules writing or the overall balance is concerned. I would love to start giving GW my money again, but I'm tired of making a purchase of an army only to have that army become virtually unplayable in a couple of years because of rules changes.
In WHFB, I haven't enjoyed playing my Dwarves for 3+ editions because of balance issues. I stopped playing my Dark Elves when their balance got to the too-strong end of things. I played Daemons of Chaos as a mono-Khorne army with no casters, but under the new book, that army has gone from pretty good (under the old book) to being a whipping boy.
In 40K, I stuck with DE for a decade, but then really stopped enjoying playing them under the old Codex when 5th edition came out, and the new Codex so radically changed the overall playstyle of the army that I haven't played that army in over 2 years. I had an all infiltrating Alpha Legion army back from 3rd edition, but that hasn't been a playable army for two Codices. I could play my DoC in 40K, but frankly, I really dislike 6th edition.
GW will probably get more of my money over the next six months; I'm holding out on seeing if my first love comes back to being an interesting and fun army to play: WHFB Dwarves.
Hi all.
IF we can all agree poorly worded and edited/proof read rules are bad .And cause ALL players concern.(Particularly when you are paying a 'premium' price. )
So the only REAL argument for writing 'over-complication ' and 'randomness' in the rules, is it stops better players from winning all the time.
However, this totally destroys the reason most people KEEP enjoying their hobbies,which is to gauge you personal improvement over time.
So when you win at 40k , it COULD just means you were luckier than you opponent , OR you happen to use more cost effective units in your force than your opponent did.
Jervis Johnson stated he believed army balance to be within 20% across all armies.So that means you could unknowingly have over a 100 points more than your opponent in any game of 40k over 1000 pts.
Where as other games with more focus on game play rely heavily on player skill.
And over time you CAN judge how much you have improved your actual playing skill.
I have hobbies I enjoy, IF however I feel I am NOT improving my skills in some way, I tend to drift away from that hobby.
Note this is PERSONAL skills relative to how you feel about your improvement.(It has sod all to do with winning games/competitions /tournaments. )
The other reason 40k is hard to learn is that the effect of the decisions you make are not that evident due to imbalance and randomness. (Comparatively .)
To the original poster, I don’t see any reason why a tight rule set should mean it’s mainly a game for WAAC gamers. It does make tournaments easier with clear rule sets but that’s a good thing isn’t it?
I mainly game with friends so the emphasis is on fun and enjoying our selves. No one wants to be halting the flow of a really good game by opening up a rulebook/codex to check what happens in this particular circumstance (which seem to happen a lot with 40K).
I love the 40K universe and really wish I could enjoy playing it again but at this time my main army Tryanids are just not fun (for all the reasons that Crazy_Carnifex listed really well above).
This is the main reason why I branched out to new games and was happily surprised.
Necro wrote: To the original poster, I don’t see any reason why a tight rule set should mean it’s mainly a game for WAAC gamers. It does make tournaments easier with clear rule sets but that’s a good thing isn’t it?
I mainly game with friends so the emphasis is on fun and enjoying our selves. No one wants to be halting the flow of a really good game by opening up a rulebook/codex to check what happens in this particular circumstance (which seem to happen a lot with 40K).
I love the 40K universe and really wish I could enjoy playing it again but at this time my main army Tryanids are just not fun (for all the reasons that Crazy_Carnifex listed really well above).
This is the main reason why I branched out to new games and was happily surprised.
P.S. That and the embargo
I agree with that, it makes it a good thing that if it can be used in a tournament setting easier with a clear, tight, and concise ruleset, I think the same is able to be applied to a casual environment since you do not have to ruin the flow and immersion of the game that one would have to open a book or codex over and over again. Also (I think someone else mention this in this thread), it is also great to play the same game without having to ask the person at the store you usually do not go it "Alright, how do you do it in Canada rather than anysuburb, anystate, United States?"
Also, and kind of off-topic, it kind of amazes me to a good extent how much the Miniature Wargamer can take from GW and resilient they are in this industry. Any other industry, everyone would freak. Or at least my thought on it....
I'm into wargaming for the models and fluff - I prefer 40k's fluff which leads me to play their games more often. I'm not even sure I have an opinion on the rules anymore.... I just use them.
Do I get a ribbon for calling it? Because its Tuesday and we're already on page 3, with literally nothing gained because right now it looks like Dakka vs. xruslanx
To add something to this discussion, I went into my FLGS Sunday and there was a 40k game going on. I knew both the players, and both were pretty nice guys. They could be a bit weird when it came rules, but they weren't trying to cheat, just make sure the rules worked for their armies (I.e. If they were playing an assault army they looked at how to make the most of the assault rules.)
I was off to the side talking to the owner. Over the 2 1/2 hours I was there, there were no less than TWELVE rule disputes, two of which got heated. Almost all were ambiguously worded rules, with both players having fairly reasonable arguments. It made the game unpleasant to me, and I wasn't even playing. Even worse, the first thought I had was "thank goodness I play other games now."
Meanwhile, my other 3 games (X-Wing, Bolt Action, and Flames of War) I can count the number of rule disputes on one hand, with most being Bolt Action, which is barely a year old at this point. Almost all were settled with a quick search online to check the main FAQ, and the ruling made sense to everybody. Check out the X Wing forum here on Dakka for example. There's a single YMDC thread and most of the questions are "can I X?" with a clear yes or no as a reply.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Do I get a ribbon for calling it? Because its Tuesday and we're already on page 3, with literally nothing gained because right now it looks like Dakka vs. xruslanx
To add something to this discussion, I went into my FLGS Sunday and there was a 40k game going on. I knew both the players, and both were pretty nice guys. They could be a bit weird when it came rules, but they weren't trying to cheat, just make sure the rules worked for their armies (I.e. If they were playing an assault army they looked at how to make the most of the assault rules.)
I was off to the side talking to the owner. Over the 2 1/2 hours I was there, there were no less than TWELVE rule disputes, two of which got heated. Almost all were ambiguously worded rules, with both players having fairly reasonable arguments. It made the game unpleasant to me, and I wasn't even playing. Even worse, the first thought I had was "thank goodness I play other games now."
Meanwhile, my other 3 games (X-Wing, Bolt Action, and Flames of War) I can count the number of rule disputes on one hand, with most being Bolt Action, which is barely a year old at this point. Almost all were settled with a quick search online to check the main FAQ, and the ruling made sense to everybody. Check out the X Wing forum here on Dakka for example. There's a single YMDC thread and most of the questions are "can I X?" with a clear yes or no as a reply.
I feel like I should add this as well on seeing this on Dakka...
And even then on the Warmachine one, it is only at most one page long with one or two responses solving it.
As a college student as well, I fully understand what you are saying, and that's why I am also finding it hard to get anymore fun out of 40k (that and when I look at all the new codex rules and then I look at my CSM and Orks and also think "WTF am I still playing this game for?").
On the terms of clear rules=WAAC it does not mean that at all, although I can understand why someone can think that, as it all depends on how the company wants to sell their game, you use two brilliant examples which I will use to demonstrate. You use WM/H as an example, now WM/H have a clear and tight ruleset, but because the company (PP) wants to advertise the game as a competitive one they will use a few pages to tell its audience that it is designed to be competitively as the make a page called Page 5, which basically tells its audience to play fair, but play with all you got in each game, and in Infinity the company sells its game by showing to its audience that you can play the game casually and competitively with any models you like (See the infinity threads on Dakka asking what are the best units in a said force), all you have to do is play with skill and strategy as will your opponent and you can have a close game, every game
I personally believe that a clear and tight rule set does not mean WAAC, in fact I believe in the opposite, I believe that it would be the best thing for a game as it means that a casual player and a competitive player could sit down play a game without rules arguments and both players could have a close to the wire and enjoyable game.
Currently when I get free time I make rules for a Sci-fi Skirmish game im working on called Lockdown and, a Fantasy steampunk wargame called The Forgotten Realm, and what I've found in making the games is to leave as many rules as you can clear as possible, if you cant on a specific rule then ask the players what they find difficult in that specific rule then you fix that with an FAQ ASAP, I also find that with different types of games, also gives themselves a different genre of depth in rules, for example in my Skirmish game I can make as much depth as I want to revolve around your team (or Squad as I call them in my skirmish game) to emerge yourself in the narrative or cinematic of the game, however in my Steampunk fantasy game you control an army and your a general commanding an army, therefore because of the size of the genre of game (in this case the wargame) you should have detail into the game, but not to the level of depth that a skirmish game does.
This is why I believe 40k has a very bad balance and RAW in terms of the rules, it has very high detail of rules in the game but the depth and level of them is that of a skirmish game I believe, for example in 40k there is rules such as Duels, The warlord traits and level of customisation of each unit to "flesh out" certain units of your game, whilst I agree there should be depth when you put it all together, in terms of 40k it all synergises meaning that a whole list can become unbalanced though the customisation of your force.
A perfect way of understanding (as I don't think I have worded my point to be as strong as im satisfied with) is have a game of 40k, then have a game of kill team, maybe even mod the kill-team game so that you can include a tank or a walker, for example have a game of 40k with SM, they can at times feel pretty expendable, or something like a dreadnought may not look good on a points level of that size, but say have a 350pt game of kill-team with an opponent, use those SM with that dreadnought again suddenly you can feel those SM are really hard to face against, you can feel that bolter fire having an effect instead of firing them to hopefully kill 2 or 3 guys of your opponent just to "roll some dice", you can see that PA used in effect, and you can see that Dread being a fierce some unit on the table, you can see how that Assault cannon is meant to be used as and how your opponents bullets ping of its front armour, suddenly they become less "expendable" than the feel when playing a standard game of 40k.
All of this is just my opinion of course, but to me this is why 40k has failed as a game, it wants to be a skirmish game as the rules a have that much depth into one as a skirmish, yet it is a wargame, designed for big games with lots of models.
In my experience, the mor e"rigid" a ruleset is the more "rigid" the players are. I.e. the less they welcome departures from the "norm" of play or trying things differently.
I.e. tight rulesets tend to get people hung up on "officialness" and what is and is not allowed.
Granted, I know I come from a certain perspective that wants to create storylines and even social stories from my gaming experience. The rules are there to facilitate the story, and if the rules get in the way of the story; then the rule needs to go. Not many people feel the way I do.
xruslanx wrote: So...you're not. The only thing you want from GW is less rules mistakes? Well gee that's a rich vein of conversation right there.
So, let me get this straight: you don't think my desires for a better 40k are enough to have an interesting conversation, so that means you get to make up a straw man to argue against so you can have more fun?
You may not like this constant shift in power, but it exists.
And again you miss the fundamental point here: power doesn't shift in 40k because of a carefully planned metagame, it shifts because GW is utterly incompetent at game balance. The whole "perfect imbalance" thing does NOT mean "throw some unbalanced rules on paper, the worse the better".
That's all you need to do to win? My friends and I have never done that...almost as if 40k is a casual game.
So 40k's rules are only acceptable if you always ignore all of the problems?
Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.
And you keep ignoring factors like GW's dominance of the retail aspect of gaming (especially in the UK), which means that new players are far more frequently exposed to GW games than their competition. Or the "play what your friends play" factor that gives the biggest company in the industry a lot of inertia in maintaining that dominance. Your theoretical world in which newbies are presented with a bunch of different rules and choose the GW rules is just that, theoretical.
You know what? 40k isn't magic the gathering, I suggest you go find a M:TG forum since you clearly adore it so much.
You're right, 40k isn't MTG. MTG is a professionally designed game that works at all levels from the most casual "kitchen table" players to the most competitive tournaments. 40k is a joke of a game with appallingly bad rules, and if any of the MTG designers had been responsible for it they'd probably commit ritual suicide out of shame.
You keep repeating the matra that 40k would have nothing to lose by focussing on competative players - something which has apparently escaped every single games workshop rule designer for the past twenty years. Why do you think that is? What is it that you, peregrine, have seen, that they have not?
That's because GW's business plan is selling toy soldiers to kids. Most of their customers never play the game, so the rules don't matter. All they need is the idea of a game to get the kids to buy those first boxes of space marines. Making better rules wouldn't help those sales, so why spend more time and money on doing it?
And yes, this is a stupid business plan. There's been no shortage of threads explaining the unbelievable incompetence of GW's current management because of things like this.
Hmmm, I feel the need to counterpoint one of my own arguments - rules balance isn't absolutely required to enjoy a game.
My favorite GW games are Mordheim and Necromunda - neither is perfectly balanced, nor even close. (And why I do not play a Skaven warband in Mordheim - I already win most of my games, playing the most overpowered warband would not help.)
The worst WAAC players that I have ever met played Eldar in 2e WH40K and Skaven in Fantasy.
Those same players are also the worst WAAC that I have ever met in WARMACHINE, but at least the rules are more clearly written....
The best loser that I have ever met plays Orcs in Fantasy, and Dark Eldar in WH40K - and has since 3e WH40K.
He is just plain fun to play against - and he does not lose all his games, he is also one of the best winners that I have ever met. (He once beat me in one turn in 3e WH40K - Breakout mission - his entire army was within moving distance of the edge of the board.... There was a 5 in 6 chance that he would beat me without firing a shot. The way he handled it had me laughing out loud. (His assumption - the Dark Eldar were making a weed run - and my Dark Angels had shown up to burn the crops. The 'woods' terrain was made from plastic pot plants....)
And he does a better job than I do at explaining rules to new players.
He plays Cryx and Khador in WARMACHINE - and gets invited to a lot more games than either of the WAAC players does. He never lacks for an opponent.
He now plays KoW as well, but is one of the few people that I know that plays the latest Warhammer Fantasy as well.
The Auld Grump *EDIT* Hit Quote when I meant to hit Edit.
Hmm, no. I cannot in good conscience agree with that.
Lets be clear (ha, pun) on something.
clear rules are just that: clear rules.
playing 'competitively', and playing 'casually' are attitudes. Not lists. Funnily enough, i regard the community itself as partially to blame for the misnomer that 'competitive' and 'casual' are lists, or games, rather than the aforementioned attitude. warmachine is for competitive WAACers, powergaming is for WAACers, and 'fun' gaming is somehow seen as something different. Its funny. you can play warmachine casually just as easily as you can competitively. its all in the mindset, and what you want out of it.
However, i think this touches on a deeper issue i don't see many people raise. Sportsmanship. Its funny. In the physical world of sports, the general attitude towards sportsmanship involves (a) playing fair, (b) giving it your absolute all, and (c) after this, may the best man win. winning, and the desire to win, and the act of pushing yourself to be the very best are encouraged, seen as healthy, and lauded. Compare that to wargaming (and the 40k community is particularly guilty of this), and this whole sportsmanship idea goes out the window, to be replaced by "you cant do your best. you need to power down. dont give it your absolute all". Sometimes i get the impression the very act of winning, or even worse, an attitude of wanting to win is at best, frowned upon, and normally seen as something negative and something 'bad'. its almost like you have to apologise to your opponent for beating them, and that too often, sportsmanship is reduced from "do your very best" to "wear kid gloves, be gentle and hold their hand all the way through". Anyone else ever feel that way?
i think its interesting, because ive actually been on both sides of the fence. I think a lot of us would be familiar with being at the bottom of the social ladder in school. few friends, no girlfriends, and the 'popular' crowd look down on us. heck, that was me in school, i'd wager a good bet a large percentage of folks here would be, or would have been in the same boat. We were seen as 'losers', and maybe we still carry that baggage. Part of me often thinks the negative attitude to winning stems from an unconscious desire that if there are no winners, then there cant be any losers, and 'i dont want to be a loser any more'. Anyone ever feel that negative groupthink to stay in line, not rock the boat, and show everyone up like this? I've seen it said before, (and i partially agree), that as a community, we're not very social, or possesed of sportsmanship. we have our cliques, we have those we ourselves look down on. heck, how many 'immature player' or 'cheating player' threads have we come across (and they're funny reads, but really, i would argue it is partially indicative of a community attiude that is not very sporting). But thats me going on a tangent. Back to the original message; looking down on 'winners', and 'winning'. And that was me (however unconsciously i did it back in school). We have fight or flight responses, and i suspect most gamers would rather believe in flight (not necessarily just running away, but also not willing to deal with things, or 'push' to make things better). And university happened, and real life happened. And i went from that guy who refused to do sports in school to a guy who quite happily does this whole sporting malarkey (boxing, gym, half marathons, a 24hour endurance race, 10-20 mile cross country races, and my beloved 10k races) One thing is did for me weirdly was give me a different perspective on things. this whole idea of 'pushing myself' and all that nonsense, having it all 'on me', of wanting to try, and win, and do my damndest to be the absolute best i could be, of having a limit, and breaking past it. I enjoy it immendsely, and its given me a positive, assertive attitude.
And its translated to 40k. and its made me realise some things. playing competitively is fine. there is no need to look down on it, or down on folks who want to push themselves to get there. Sadly though, there are too many folks that see what i see as a positive assertive attitude, and snidely dismiss it as 'powergaming waac' nonsense (same thing, different interpretations). Folks see wargaming as an identity (i see it as a hobby), and their type of gaming to be a flag to stand under. Since i've started playing warmachine as my primary game, i've seen an entirely different attitude from the folks playing it. maybe its because we tend to be a bit on the older side than 40k players (most are 20, or 30 somethings, i tend to see the younger folks being more into 40k). who knows - maybe a bit of life experience is telling here? But the attitude from what was essentially a whiny, moany and more or less miserable 40k crowd (online and real life - lets face it, the 40k boards are always complaining about something - for whatever reasons; x is broken, y is underpowered; matt ward etc) which was essentially defeatist in nature (look at the nature of a lot of the complaints - "how dare they have cool toys. nerf it, nerf it, nerf it, pull everything back to a zero baseline") to one which was more assertive and positive (its less about x being borken/whinewhinewhone, and more how can i smash it). i was quite surprised at the change in the thought process of these two communities - things that i thought were bad, well, really they werent.
The sad part is that those complainers on the 40k boards have a point. there is a reason the competitive spirit is looked down upon in 40k. the appalling balance in the game. only so much is actively viable. So you take a powerbuild, and take it against a far-from-optimal build, and you will steamroll it. And for a lot of 40k players, 40k is their first, and only game (not aware of other games, not aware of other communities etc) and this will be their only experience of what is falsely labelled as "competitive gaming" (its more accurate to term it poor internal, and external balance) and frankly, is it any wonder that what is seen as 'competitive gaming' leaves such a sour taste in your mouth? So we've got those guys going through all those grey areas in the rules and powerbuilding, and netdecking the game. thats competitive gaming, 40k style. (ab)using the rules, taking beardy cheese/cheesy beard etc. Now, you hear about competitive games, or games designed as competitive games, and your first instinct is going to be a game populated by assholery and nastiness. clear, tight rules? reading the rules as is? (as opposed to the intent, and 'fun'?) From a 40k perspective, thats labelled as WAAC, and as being a 'rules lawyer'. And from a 40k perspective, it means one thing: trouble. but is it WAAC? Or is it a failure of perception, based on an extremely narrow POV gained from exclusively playing a certain kind of game?
Honestly? I think the answe is to play more games. Not just that, play different games. Try and see things from a greater perspective. More importanrly, i think its good to try and see games designed from a different perspective. clear and tight rules are not the same thing as douchebaggery and WAAC. competitive games are not the hunting grounds of noobstalking jerks who only want to win, and smash little timmy into the dirt. similarly, narrative, scenario based and house ruled games with a clear "screw balance, lets tell a narrative" approach, a few feer beers etc can be brilliant (we tend to do a lot of flames of war like this). clear and tight rules? If you ask me, they help both approaches.
TheAuldGrump wrote: My favorite GW games are Mordheim and Necromunda - neither is perfectly balanced, nor even close. (And why I do not play a Skaven warband in Mordheim - I already win most of my games, playing the most overpowered warband would not help.)
The thing with Necromunda though (haven't played Mordheim) is that while there are all sorts of opportunities for overpowered weirdness, it is balanced somewhat by the campaign system, which is hw the game was designed to be played rather than just as one-off games.
While an individual game may be rather one-sided, giant-killer bonuses and the potential to gain a ridiculous amount of experience in a very short time can even things out overall so long as your gang doesn't get too badly mauled...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xruslanx wrote: Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.
Being the largest gateway doesn't prove it isn't off-putting. It just means it is the largest gateway. As others have pointed out, that's largely just because of market saturation, because their base is still huge due to the large period of time where there were no serious competitors.
But being the largest gateway into gaming also doesn't tell you how many people try it and are put off by the rules, and go do something else instead. In the last 20 years, there are quite a few non-gamers who I have tried to introduce to 40K, and of them all, one of them actually enjoyed it enough to stick with it for more than a single game. The others just found the rules too confusing.
For me the "Fluff" and "friendly games" as well as "fun" are excuses.
Excuses to allow a bad rule set and an imbalanced system to go on forever, from the designer who does not want to commit to the huge time of play testing and number crunching/ tweakign a well written, internally and externally balanced game demands and from the followers of said game systems who do not want to admit their game system is flawed, or who do believe the excuses the developer gives as valid.
I have seen chess been mentioned above, I would dismiss this, a tight game system, when wargaming is considered can never lead to "Chess purity" because the random factors and variables are frankly way to many.
What a tight rule set gives to a gaming system is first and foremost, less or no grey areas that can be taken advantage of, an extended FAQ to cover the rare oddities than may rise because, even with an extended playtesters pool, the released game will be tested to destruction by more people than one can ever have as play testers and second an easy to read rule set that can be referenced and give a conclusive answer with examples, leaving nothing to dispute, after all the players are there to play a game, not dispute how the game should be played.
The balance of the game is in the forces, good balanced forces are internally and externally balanced, internally means that each and every choice is valid and the player will not skip one or more choices because they are "not good" external balance means that each "army" should be a valid option and not have "obviously better and worse" armies.
Recapping the above.
A tight rule set allowes players to play the game and not debate on how the game should be played.
An internally and externally balanced game makes each and every choice a player makes valid.
What is not to like in the above?
A WAAC player will do anything at his disposal to win, a game system that is not tight that also has internally and externally imbalanced forces will only help him maximize his chances to win by giving him access to superior armies than the bulk and allowing him to at least try and enforce the interpretation of how the game should be played that suits him or her better (especially if the game designer says roll it).
For me every type of gamer should seek and demand a game system is as tight and as balanced (internally and externally) as it can be, having a clear ruleset allows not only a nice balanced game, but creates solid foundation for story missions custom units, odd scenarios, because the players only have to deal with the imbalances their custom stuff creates, not the imbalances and inconsistencies of the system and on top of their own creations.
@Auldgrump
In which I can understand, Balance is not absolutely required, but it helps. Hell, I have stated in the thread me and my friend like to play a boardgame called Arena Maximus, and that does not really have the best balance between the racers and chariots.
My main argument of this thread that I presented is that tight, concise, and clear rulesets are as playable casually, and possibly a bit better (although that is my subjective part of it) since you do not have to flip through the rulebook and worry about what a rule means. Also I presented that the WAAC behavior is all dependent on the player and how his/hers personality is and how they came to be, but of which I can agree with you. You are going to find those kinds of players in any game.
@Deadnight
For the most part, I agree with you mate, hell, I was like that as well in my early years, although I developed the competitive nature and pushed myself to become better and better myself midway through high school since real life hit me at that part when growing up.
The competitive nature is just something that is present in humanity, it is just who we are as I see it. But, there is a fine line what is acceptable and what is not to win, but it can be blurry as well. If one cheats, and does not try to give his best by trying to abide by some sort of guidelines or tries to abuse something that might not be clear cut then I feel the competitive spirit is undermined.
But with that being said, one can be competitive, give it their best, and strive to win, but one can also lose with grace, learn from it and take it as experience, and also have fun with it.
Hmm, no. I cannot in good conscience agree with that.
Lets be clear (ha, pun) on something.
clear rules are just that: clear rules.
Spoiler:
Playing 'competitively', and playing 'casually' are attitudes. Not lists. Funnily enough, i regard the community itself as partially to blame for the misnomer that 'competitive' and 'casual' are lists, or games, rather than the aforementioned attitude. warmachine is for competitive WAACers, powergaming is for WAACers, and 'fun' gaming is somehow seen as something different. Its funny. you can play warmachine casually just as easily as you can competitively. its all in the mindset, and what you want out of it.
However, i think this touches on a deeper issue i don't see many people raise. Sportsmanship. Its funny. In the physical world of sports, the general attitude towards sportsmanship involves (a) playing fair, (b) giving it your absolute all, and (c) after this, may the best man win. winning, and the desire to win, and the act of pushing yourself to be the very best are encouraged, seen as healthy, and lauded. Compare that to wargaming (and the 40k community is particularly guilty of this), and this whole sportsmanship idea goes out the window, to be replaced by "you cant do your best. you need to power down. dont give it your absolute all". Sometimes i get the impression the very act of winning, or even worse, an attitude of wanting to win is at best, frowned upon, and normally seen as something negative and something 'bad'. its almost like you have to apologise to your opponent for beating them, and that too often, sportsmanship is reduced from "do your very best" to "wear kid gloves, be gentle and hold their hand all the way through". Anyone else ever feel that way?
i think its interesting, because ive actually been on both sides of the fence. I think a lot of us would be familiar with being at the bottom of the social ladder in school. few friends, no girlfriends, and the 'popular' crowd look down on us. heck, that was me in school, i'd wager a good bet a large percentage of folks here would be, or would have been in the same boat. We were seen as 'losers', and maybe we still carry that baggage. Part of me often thinks the negative attitude to winning stems from an unconscious desire that if there are no winners, then there cant be any losers, and 'i dont want to be a loser any more'. Anyone ever feel that negative groupthink to stay in line, not rock the boat, and show everyone up like this? I've seen it said before, (and i partially agree), that as a community, we're not very social, or possesed of sportsmanship. we have our cliques, we have those we ourselves look down on. heck, how many 'immature player' or 'cheating player' threads have we come across (and they're funny reads, but really, i would argue it is partially indicative of a community attiude that is not very sporting). But thats me going on a tangent. Back to the original message; looking down on 'winners', and 'winning'. And that was me (however unconsciously i did it back in school). We have fight or flight responses, and i suspect most gamers would rather believe in flight (not necessarily just running away, but also not willing to deal with things, or 'push' to make things better). And university happened, and real life happened. And i went from that guy who refused to do sports in school to a guy who quite happily does this whole sporting malarkey (boxing, gym, half marathons, a 24hour endurance race, 10-20 mile cross country races, and my beloved 10k races) One thing is did for me weirdly was give me a different perspective on things. this whole idea of 'pushing myself' and all that nonsense, having it all 'on me', of wanting to try, and win, and do my damndest to be the absolute best i could be, of having a limit, and breaking past it. I enjoy it immendsely, and its given me a positive, assertive attitude.
And its translated to 40k. and its made me realise some things. playing competitively is fine. there is no need to look down on it, or down on folks who want to push themselves to get there. Sadly though, there are too many folks that see what i see as a positive assertive attitude, and snidely dismiss it as 'powergaming waac' nonsense (same thing, different interpretations). Folks see wargaming as an identity (i see it as a hobby), and their type of gaming to be a flag to stand under. Since i've started playing warmachine as my primary game, i've seen an entirely different attitude from the folks playing it. maybe its because we tend to be a bit on the older side than 40k players (most are 20, or 30 somethings, i tend to see the younger folks being more into 40k). who knows - maybe a bit of life experience is telling here? But the attitude from what was essentially a whiny, moany and more or less miserable 40k crowd (online and real life - lets face it, the 40k boards are always complaining about something - for whatever reasons; x is broken, y is underpowered; matt ward etc) which was essentially defeatist in nature (look at the nature of a lot of the complaints - "how dare they have cool toys. nerf it, nerf it, nerf it, pull everything back to a zero baseline") to one which was more assertive and positive (its less about x being borken/whinewhinewhone, and more how can i smash it). i was quite surprised at the change in the thought process of these two communities - things that i thought were bad, well, really they werent.
The sad part is that those complainers on the 40k boards have a point. there is a reason the competitive spirit is looked down upon in 40k. the appalling balance in the game. only so much is actively viable. So you take a powerbuild, and take it against a far-from-optimal build, and you will steamroll it. And for a lot of 40k players, 40k is their first, and only game (not aware of other games, not aware of other communities etc) and this will be their only experience of what is falsely labelled as "competitive gaming" (its more accurate to term it poor internal, and external balance) and frankly, is it any wonder that what is seen as 'competitive gaming' leaves such a sour taste in your mouth? So we've got those guys going through all those grey areas in the rules and powerbuilding, and netdecking the game. thats competitive gaming, 40k style. (ab)using the rules, taking beardy cheese/cheesy beard etc. Now, you hear about competitive games, or games designed as competitive games, and your first instinct is going to be a game populated by assholery and nastiness. clear, tight rules? reading the rules as is? (as opposed to the intent, and 'fun'?) From a 40k perspective, thats labelled as WAAC, and as being a 'rules lawyer'. And from a 40k perspective, it means one thing: trouble. but is it WAAC? Or is it a failure of perception, based on an extremely narrow POV gained from exclusively playing a certain kind of game?
Honestly? I think the answe is to play more games. Not just that, play different games. Try and see things from a greater perspective. More importanrly, i think its good to try and see games designed from a different perspective. clear and tight rules are not the same thing as douchebaggery and WAAC. competitive games are not the hunting grounds of noobstalking jerks who only want to win, and smash little timmy into the dirt. similarly, narrative, scenario based and house ruled games with a clear "screw balance, lets tell a narrative" approach, a few feer beers etc can be brilliant (we tend to do a lot of flames of war like this). clear and tight rules? If you ask me, they help both approaches.
Even in many professional sports there is such a thing as 'handicapping' - golf, in particular.
Merriam Webster wrote:
Full Definition of SPORTSMANSHIP:
Conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport
WAAC is where the problem kicks in - it is abusing the rules for your own advantage. It is, in fact, unsportsmanlike behavior.
Sportsmanship applies to all games, not just GW - but GW's rules are among the most prone to abuse.
Most professional sports are even handed on rules - the same rules apply equally to both sides. It is the players that differ - not the rules.
In WH40K and Fantasy there are rules that only apply to one side of the conflict or to given units within the armies - and those rules are often... ambiguously... worded, or, worse, unbalancing. The WAAC Eldar player was proud to boast that the biggest piece of his strategy was to play Eldar. (This was in 2e... how many official 2e tournaments ended with Eldar vs. Eldar for the final battle? Even White Dwarf started making comments about it....)
Kings of War also has rules that only apply to one side - but has made a real attempt to balance those rules against each other - and every army has a rule that applies to them.
And did a public playtest, rather than only testing in house, if at all.
And Mantic read the comments people made about the rules, and the changes that they made over the various editions.
Games Workshop, back when it used to have any playtesting at all, once boasted in White Dwarf that they had not listened to their playtesters.
*EDIT* To be clear - I agree with your conclusion, but not your argument.
PsychoticStorm wrote: For me the "Fluff" and "friendly games" as well as "fun" are excuses.
Excuses to allow a bad rule set and an imbalanced system to go on forever, from the designer who does not want to commit to the huge time of play testing and number crunching/ tweakign a well written, internally and externally balanced game demands and from the followers of said game systems who do not want to admit their game system is flawed, or who do believe the excuses the developer gives as valid.
I have seen chess been mentioned above, I would dismiss this, a tight game system, when wargaming is considered can never lead to "Chess purity" because the random factors and variables are frankly way to many.
What a tight rule set gives to a gaming system is first and foremost, less or no grey areas that can be taken advantage of, an extended FAQ to cover the rare oddities than may rise because, even with an extended playtesters pool, the released game will be tested to destruction by more people than one can ever have as play testers and second an easy to read rule set that can be referenced and give a conclusive answer with examples, leaving nothing to dispute, after all the players are there to play a game, not dispute how the game should be played.
The balance of the game is in the forces, good balanced forces are internally and externally balanced, internally means that each and every choice is valid and the player will not skip one or more choices because they are "not good" external balance means that each "army" should be a valid option and not have "obviously better and worse" armies.
Recapping the above.
A tight rule set allowes players to play the game and not debate on how the game should be played.
An internally and externally balanced game makes each and every choice a player makes valid.
What is not to like in the above?
A WAAC player will do anything at his disposal to win, a game system that is not tight that also has internally and externally imbalanced forces will only help him maximize his chances to win by giving him access to superior armies than the bulk and allowing him to at least try and enforce the interpretation of how the game should be played that suits him or her better (especially if the game designer says roll it).
For me every type of gamer should seek and demand a game system is as tight and as balanced (internally and externally) as it can be, having a clear ruleset allows not only a nice balanced game, but creates solid foundation for story missions custom units, odd scenarios, because the players only have to deal with the imbalances their custom stuff creates, not the imbalances and inconsistencies of the system and on top of their own creations.
I will say that is damn fine argument you make, and I have to exalt it.
Jimsolo wrote: Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...
They can be played casually, you can play any game ever invented casually, that isn't what's at issue, and it's a little depressing to see people who favour competition-focused rulesets still going after that same strawman argument.
There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
The second issue is the kind of attitude a particular style of rules will engender in your average random punter at a local store/club. I play at two clubs, when I get the opportunity these days, one of which is 40K/Specialist Games-heavy with a sprinkling of historicals, the other is focused mostly on Warmachine/Hordes, and the atmosphere is completely different. The 40K club is relaxed, "friendly" games are considered to be the default, nobody tailors lists without prior arrangement and most people build fluffy/themed lists and purposefully avoid "power" builds, the game is viewed as two or more people cooperating to provide everyone involved with a good time, and while people certainly play to achieve victory that isn't the reason they're playing. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the attitude on display at the more competition-focused club I refer to above, I sometimes enjoy going all "srs bznz" or I wouldn't still go there, but for myself it's not an attitude I want to deal with as the norm, nor is it something I want to have to deal with in the majority of pickup games if I'm playing outside my usual venues, and from my experience of communities both online and off, you DO run into that attitude much more often among players of competition-focused rulesets than you do with "just for fun" rules.
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink. EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
Yodhrin wrote: I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
I'd be curious to know what events fall in to this category that you believe are positive.
In my experience, everything that I've seen which would have been impossible in a "tight" ruleset were narrative-breaking and/or game-breaking issues. For example, the ambiguity about Deff Rollas vs. Vehicles. People argued vehemently about this for pages and pages in YMDC. Accusations of being WAAC/Casual were flung around by both sides of the debate. And it was a real problem too. If my mates and I were having a game, and I made a risky move by trying to deff rolla an enemy land raider assuming (in a fluffy, narrative sense) that it's gonna 'kerrunch!' that tank into oblivion, it's gonna be a problem if my opponent's prior movement decisions were made under the assumption that deff rollas didn't work that way. Now we're in a situation where the game might be decided solely in a roll-off to determine whether my or my opponent's interpretation is "correct". This is extremely narrative breaking for me. The story is no longer about outcomes in the game (i.e. rolling for the hits/damage/etc) and more about outcomes outside the game (i.e. arbitrarily deciding how the mechanics function).
This would have been impossible in a "tight" ruleset and there's absolutely no drawback for casual play if it were sorted out before requiring an FAQ. After all, much of the randomness is built into the game (the deff rolla might not do any damage, or only get 1 hit, etc). There's no need to introduce more in an ambiguous, hand-wavy way. I should never have to externally decide to "roll off to see if you can roll", so to speak. The game should handle that on its own.
Jimsolo wrote: Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...
They can be played casually, you can play any game ever invented casually, that isn't what's at issue, and it's a little depressing to see people who favour competition-focused rulesets still going after that same strawman argument.
There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
The second issue is the kind of attitude a particular style of rules will engender in your average random punter at a local store/club. I play at two clubs, when I get the opportunity these days, one of which is 40K/Specialist Games-heavy with a sprinkling of historicals, the other is focused mostly on Warmachine/Hordes, and the atmosphere is completely different. The 40K club is relaxed, "friendly" games are considered to be the default, nobody tailors lists without prior arrangement and most people build fluffy/themed lists and purposefully avoid "power" builds, the game is viewed as two or more people cooperating to provide everyone involved with a good time, and while people certainly play to achieve victory that isn't the reason they're playing. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the attitude on display at the more competition-focused club I refer to above, I sometimes enjoy going all "srs bznz" or I wouldn't still go there, but for myself it's not an attitude I want to deal with as the norm, nor is it something I want to have to deal with in the majority of pickup games if I'm playing outside my usual venues, and from my experience of communities both online and off, you DO run into that attitude much more often among players of competition-focused rulesets than you do with "just for fun" rules.
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink. EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
But that is the thing, not all 40K clubs and Warmahordes clubs are like that, so that is anecdotal evidence. Hell, even me saying that I play Warmahordes casually with some competitive edge from time to time can be taken as anecdotal since it is not a trend that is firm. Those people can exist in the 40K gamer base as well
But I do understanding what you are saying to a degree, but I feel a good amount of tightness to it can help make it easier than say 40K, which has a lot of ambiguities that can be possibly interpreted differently from country to country, city to city, store to store unless you just playing in one store with your group of friends who have some house rules and so on so it can get the game. That is fine, but what if you go to another store that you do not usually go to, do not know as well, and they do not have the same interpretation of the rules, and then you can have a clash of differences between people before the game begins.
A game I find that has a good amount of conciseness and tightness a bit with a good amount of the element of randomness is Infinity. You can have the most air-tight list and plan that you can think of, but one can adapt to a change in plan that he loses his best unit or Lieutenant and still be able to win the game with that lost.
Yodhrin wrote:
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink.
Here's the thing; when I say I would like a tight, balanced ruleset with limited randomness, I am not saying I want a tournament-HARD game. I'm saying that I would like a ruleset where
a) My decisions matter more than the dice- I don't want to lose the game because the trees decided to eat my guys, or my guys decided not to charge or whatever. If I lose due to luck, it should be because of some bizare, rare cornercase, such as a poorly timed snakes eyes which I had no plan B for. Take, for example charging in Warmachine vs. 40k. Warmachine, I charge a fixed distance. Assuming I judged the distances right, I make it. So charging is all player skill. Once I get to melee, I know that my damage output will fall in a statistical range based on the amount of resources that I allocated. Allocation is again player skill, and I can use to adjust luck more in my favour, reducing its impact on the game. 40k, however, there is the charge roll. An immediate succeed/fail based on luck- how far your charge is, how many guys die to overwatch, etc. Melee, while more calculable as a range of expected results, has no "Influence" ability, so it is all luck. While I can calculate the odds, I have no way to change them, and so player skill is irrelevant once the assault is launched.
b) Minimal time wasted figuring out the rules- I simply like knowing how the game works before playing, and don't want to waste time reading the rulebook. In 40k, when a model dies, any effects which activate at that point pile together in a mess. In Warmachine, there is "Boxed" and then "Destroyed". We check which effects trigger on which keyword, and resolve them in order. Sure, we could 4+ it, but see point (a).
c) balance- I'm the kind of player who likes to win with what I like- I find it exceedingly frustrating to have cool units that are actively sabotaging my chances of winning the game. Do I have to win? No, but but I like there to be tension. I really enjoy it when a player can take a themed list and actually stand a chance- that is what "cinematic" is to me. Pre-existing balance also makes it easier to break the game for the scenario- as I said earlier, want one side outnumbered? Double their opponents points.
Note, nowhere do I say "competitive". An imbalanced game with ambiguous rules is better if all I want to do is win. I just take a power army and abuse loopholes.
Yodhrin wrote: EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
Jimsolo wrote: Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...
They can be played casually, you can play any game ever invented casually, that isn't what's at issue, and it's a little depressing to see people who favour competition-focused rulesets still going after that same strawman argument.
There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
The second issue is the kind of attitude a particular style of rules will engender in your average random punter at a local store/club. I play at two clubs, when I get the opportunity these days, one of which is 40K/Specialist Games-heavy with a sprinkling of historicals, the other is focused mostly on Warmachine/Hordes, and the atmosphere is completely different. The 40K club is relaxed, "friendly" games are considered to be the default, nobody tailors lists without prior arrangement and most people build fluffy/themed lists and purposefully avoid "power" builds, the game is viewed as two or more people cooperating to provide everyone involved with a good time, and while people certainly play to achieve victory that isn't the reason they're playing. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the attitude on display at the more competition-focused club I refer to above, I sometimes enjoy going all "srs bznz" or I wouldn't still go there, but for myself it's not an attitude I want to deal with as the norm, nor is it something I want to have to deal with in the majority of pickup games if I'm playing outside my usual venues, and from my experience of communities both online and off, you DO run into that attitude much more often among players of competition-focused rulesets than you do with "just for fun" rules.
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink. EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
All admirable sentiments, well expressed, but doesn't really address why a better written ruleset with less ambiguity that allows players with different attitudes to mix in the same environment with less conflict and a more balanced environment with a less marked difference between "fluffy" lists and "competitive" lists would be a bad thing?
Yodhrin wrote: There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
Here's the thing, though - When you have a loose ruleset, the casual player who is playing with friends and doesn't mind making stuff up is perfectly at home. The casual player playing pickup games with strangers, or the competitive player... they're going to run into problems.
When you have a tight ruleset, the pickup player or the competitive player have a much better experience, because they don't find themselves having to negotiate with strangers in the middle of the game... and the casual player who likes making up his own rules can still do so.
A tight ruleset doesn't mean that you can't take it and do what you want with it. It just means you have a more stable foundation for the game. The loose ruleset only works properly for that one group of players. The tight ruleset? That works for everybody.
. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly".
That's not intrinsic to the Warmahordes rules being better written, though. It's to do with the overall focus of the game. Warmahordes is written unabashedly for the power gamer. They tell you this in the opening pages of the book. It's a game designed for the player who wants to play hard.
You don't have to play it that way. It's still just a game, you can still take it and modify it, or play with softer lists that you think are fluffy and friendly. But the competitive player has a solid, balls-out ruleset for playing hard when they want to.
40K wouldn't automatically turn into the same game if it had tighter rules, because it wouldn't have to have that same focus. Tighter rules aren't about competitive play... they're just about everybody having a more similar understanding of how the game should work.
I agree with some other people, unbalanced games system can be fun to play, if you play against people who know it and cat accordingly.
GW in recent years has thrown balance out of the door in favor of selling figures, that is why some types and charcters are more expensive because they are more powerfull.
It is like an arms race, you have to buy the new units to stay competitive, in a balanced game you could use other things to compensate.
My group plays warmachine casualy, the rules vastly help in this regard. Most players have some form of ability to play a siege game with a keep to defend or attack.
And with the game focusing on combined arms so much most players can handle objectives realy well with what they bring to the table. The set up and play time even for large games are half of what 40k and fantasy are at right now for us.
I just don't see 40k and fantasy as good casual games now, and find its so much the games that are tight and thaght full that are far more easily played casualy.
Thinking a little more, now that 40k has all but died we play far more games now as a group. Every week there are board games and bring new games now allways gets interest. Before it seemed like other games just didn't get a chance due to the way GW hobby dominance.
Peregrine wrote:
And again you miss the fundamental point here: power doesn't shift in 40k because of a carefully planned metagame, it shifts because GW is utterly incompetent at game balance. The whole "perfect imbalance" thing does NOT mean "throw some unbalanced rules on paper, the worse the better".
Being the cynical bastard that I am, I would suggest that this is entirely intentional. After all, the constant swings in balance does succeed in getting people to go out and buy the newest and most powerful units. And thus we see the swing from mechanized armies, to infantry hordes, to flyer spam... And who knows what will be the new über-unit in the next edition?
But then again, this is Games Workshop we're talking about...
f2k wrote: And who knows what will be the new über-unit in the next edition?
Swarms.
Imagine entire hordes of Ripper Swarms, all with the killing power of the flying mutant Pirahna from Pirahna 3DD...
Or Necron Scarab Swarms as deadly as the original Replicators from Stargate SG-1...
Inquisition and Imperial Guard armies could have swarms of sword toting flying Cherub babies.
Space Wolves might have swarms of rabid Chihuahuas...
*Shudders*
Its a win-win for GW. The models are tiny, so use less resin/metal, and they could upgrade their "Best miniatures in the world" slogan to "Best miniature miniatures in the world" and slap another 20% price hike on them.
f2k wrote: Being the cynical bastard that I am, I would suggest that this is entirely intentional. After all, the constant swings in balance does succeed in getting people to go out and buy the newest and most powerful units. And thus we see the swing from mechanized armies, to infantry hordes, to flyer spam... And who knows what will be the new über-unit in the next edition?
There's an argument for that, and that's just as bad as incompetence. On the other hand the Tau and DA flyers were expensive new kits and had awful rules, so I'm in favor of the "GW are hopeless incompetents" explanation.
f2k wrote: Being the cynical bastard that I am, I would suggest that this is entirely intentional. After all, the constant swings in balance does succeed in getting people to go out and buy the newest and most powerful units. And thus we see the swing from mechanized armies, to infantry hordes, to flyer spam... And who knows what will be the new über-unit in the next edition?
There's an argument for that, and that's just as bad as incompetence. On the other hand the Tau and DA flyers were expensive new kits and had awful rules, so I'm in favor of the "GW are hopeless incompetents" explanation.
Hanlons Razor perhaps? Don't attribute to malice if it can be explained by stupidity.
In fairness though the "other" 6ed prodigy child seems to be the MC, with the tau and eldar getting giant sized new toys, SM getting slightly more mini ones with the termitubbies (I'm honestly surprised they didn't just give them access to the dreadknight with updated rules). With 'Nids being the next rumored codex I can see this continuing easily.
That shows a lack of vision. 7th Edition will be the edition of the Random Troops selection.
Compulsory Troop choices will be chosen randomly from a table, and if you don't have the appropriate models you miss out. If you do have the models, you then roll on another random table for their buffs, which range through various options like 'Shellshocked' (negative modifier to Ld, I and A), 'Hardened' (positive modifiers to BS, WS and LD) and on a double 6 - 'Filled with the Emperor's Vim!' which doubles all of their stats and grants them a 2+ invulnerable save.
Yodhrin wrote: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
So people cannot voice their support towards an idea, only their opposition?
You could have read my post though, it explains why the "casual", "creative" player should aspire to have a clear and tight game system and balanced forces.
Personally, collecting wargame systems is a hobby I have and game design is something I look at least from an amateur perspective, while I acknowledge a system can never predict everything, there is no reason why a system should not be tight and clear with interactions well defined and the designer going the extra length to ensure players play the game he or she designed and not the game they think he or she designed, likewise balance is an important factor mainly for the "fluffy" players, exactly because they and not the competitive edge player are likely to select a variety of different options that should be valid for their recreational gaming.
As I said in my initial post game system and game balance are the foundations on which one builds upon, the firmer the better for everyone.
The fact that 40K players feel they need to make a gentlemans agreement to hobble their lists shows how bad the balance is, compared to Warmachine where no such thing is involved. In 40K you have "competitive", "friendly" and "fluffy" lists, whereas (from what I can tell) in Warmachine you just have lists.
At my club, I've never seen anyone play with flyers, because a lot of people seem to regard them as unfair. In the last tournament they ran the only house rule was "no more than 1 Flyer/FMC". Admittedly, in the FoW "Infantry Aces" campaign the club also had house rules against aircraft and armoured vehicles, but I think that was primarily because it was a low points infantry only campaign and so having to take anti aircraft/tank weapons would be too much of a compromise.
f2k wrote: Being the cynical bastard that I am, I would suggest that this is entirely intentional. After all, the constant swings in balance does succeed in getting people to go out and buy the newest and most powerful units. And thus we see the swing from mechanized armies, to infantry hordes, to flyer spam... And who knows what will be the new über-unit in the next edition?
There's an argument for that, and that's just as bad as incompetence. On the other hand the Tau and DA flyers were expensive new kits and had awful rules, so I'm in favor of the "GW are hopeless incompetents" explanation.
True.
Even if they do it deliberately (and I'd gladly believe that) they do seem to have some issues. Not a big help either, that they now seem to believe that rolling lots of dice (random terrain, random charges, random skills for Warlords, etc.) is good game design. In fact, as far as I'm concerned it's the exact opposite.
In the end I think most of the issues are coursed by "too much tinkering". Rather than simply evolving the rules slightly from edition to edition, they make big changes that completely throw off all previous balance. Add to that the fact that some codexes are hopelessly obsolete to begin with and you have a recipe for disaster.
f2k wrote: Rather than simply evolving the rules slightly from edition to edition, they make big changes that completely throw off all previous balance.
Actually the problem is that they don't make enough changes. What 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning, but instead every edition GW just sticks a few more rules on the bloated mess and charges another $75 for it.
^That's it, in a nutshell. 40k and Warhammer are bloated legacy rulesets still based on RPG mechanics from the late 80s that are utterly sluggish.
Bolt Action = 40k, as if it was re-written and done right.
Kings of War = Warhammer, as if it was re-written and done right.
If you look at some of GW's newer games without all the baggage, like LotR, WotR and Epic Armageddon what you will find is excellent modern rulesets that are extremely good.
I think it's not really helpful to lump together clarity, tightness and balance, as if you cannot have one without the other. I think that they have different qualities, though:
My impression is that even for most of the 'casual' players (I'd say I'm one of those) clarity would be a plus. Proofreading and editing aren't a design choice but part and parcel of a well-done product. As far as that is concerned I think the 40k rules could be improved very much.
'Tightness' on the other hand is - at least to me - a horribly ambiguous quality and very much open to ambiguity and interpretation. Reading this thread I've got the impression that most of the "competitive" players use "tight" almost synonymously with "clear", i.e. simply meaning a system with no ambiguity/contradictions. IMO the term can also mean a system with a high grade of abstraction (say, a system that only differenciates between abstracts like "Light Infantry" or "Heavy Infantry") and a rather limited range of actions/options. I would regard 40k 3rd ed as a far tighter system than 40k 2nd edition - and arguably that's happened at the cost of much flavour. To pick a current example: the Deadzone Beta rules which I've played quite often recently (and enjoy, btw). In order to provide clarity and tightness Jake Thornton decided to use a playing field of 3" squares/boxes instead of movement/shooting ranges. As someone who enjoys scratchbuilding terrain I've found that it's less of a hassle to adapt my buildings to fit the 3"by3"by3" measurements because that would facilitate the playing of the game. But here you have a point at which well-designed rules still more or less restrict the - for lack of a better word - creative aspects of the hobby.
TL/DR: as a more casual player I'd really like to hear what according to the competitive crowd really makes a "tight" system apart from platitudes like "no ambiguities or contradictions". If there isn't anything we should maybe restrict ourselves to "clear rulesets" and find that we're (mostly) on the same side...
As for balance - yeah, it would be nice to find that all units have their place on the gaming table - that's some homework for GW to do. On the other hand - as soon as you start throwing in special units and individual rules into the pot, most ideas of balancing IMO are more or less arbitrary anyway and have to be regularly adjusted. Army lists and points costs do tend to provide a fake sense of objectivity.
Finally, I don't really regard it as 'self-hobbling' if you don't run out and buy 3+ of new unit x as soon as a new codex is published. Most of that kind of netlist has a sort of desperate and pathetic air to it...
Clear means that the rules are well written and the designers intention is clearly conveyed, it also extends to the support of the game when FAQ is used to correct or clarify pieces were there can be interpretation.
Tight means that a game system has a clear and well defined cause and effect extending to how intuitive the game is.
The above sentence means that a tight game is consistent and the effects of a cause is well defined and understood by the players, for example, if in a game system been more difficult to shoot is always a modifier on the targets accuracy with varying degrees of difficulty then the game is tight (on that subject) if the game uses 3-4 different rules to interpret how difficult something is to be hit with a ranged weapon, the game is not tight or intuitive.
How predictable a game is is not a subject of clearness or tightness, but lands firmly on the hands of the game designers decision on luck vs skill based game.
On Deadzone, I will have to say that the intention of using a grid is not a design decision of tightness, but because it is a boardgame, Mr. Thorton correctly identified that using the board in a boardgame is essential (its not a sarcastic comment this is an error many novice boardgame designers especially those coming from wargame background do) and utilized it to a great extend, the fact your terrain is designed for wargame use and not the specific boardgame, is not a problem of tightness in the rules of the game.
TL/DR: as a more casual player I'd really like to hear what according to the competitive crowd really makes a "tight" system apart from platitudes like "no ambiguities or contradictions". If there isn't anything we should maybe restrict ourselves to "clear rulesets" and find that we're (mostly) on the same side...
I will try to again demolish this distinction, there is not competitive and casual crowd in game design, a game system is the house in which the players live in and do what they want, the firmer the foundations, the more lit the rooms the better. it does not matter if the outside aesthetic is Gothic, rococo or Bauhaus, the best interest of the inhabitants is the building to be well build on solid foundations and well lit.
Peregrine wrote:
And again you miss the fundamental point here: power doesn't shift in 40k because of a carefully planned metagame, it shifts because GW is utterly incompetent at game balance. The whole "perfect imbalance" thing does NOT mean "throw some unbalanced rules on paper, the worse the better".
Being the cynical bastard that I am, I would suggest that this is entirely intentional. After all, the constant swings in balance does succeed in getting people to go out and buy the newest and most powerful units.
It also gets people to stop buying GW stuff entirely and move on to other systems.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Do I get a ribbon for calling it? Because its Tuesday and we're already on page 3, with literally nothing gained because right now it looks like Dakka vs. xruslanx
To add something to this discussion, I went into my FLGS Sunday and there was a 40k game going on. I knew both the players, and both were pretty nice guys. They could be a bit weird when it came rules, but they weren't trying to cheat, just make sure the rules worked for their armies (I.e. If they were playing an assault army they looked at how to make the most of the assault rules.)
I was off to the side talking to the owner. Over the 2 1/2 hours I was there, there were no less than TWELVE rule disputes, two of which got heated. Almost all were ambiguously worded rules, with both players having fairly reasonable arguments. It made the game unpleasant to me, and I wasn't even playing. Even worse, the first thought I had was "thank goodness I play other games now."
Meanwhile, my other 3 games (X-Wing, Bolt Action, and Flames of War) I can count the number of rule disputes on one hand, with most being Bolt Action, which is barely a year old at this point. Almost all were settled with a quick search online to check the main FAQ, and the ruling made sense to everybody. Check out the X Wing forum here on Dakka for example. There's a single YMDC thread and most of the questions are "can I X?" with a clear yes or no as a reply.
I feel like I should add this as well on seeing this on Dakka...
And even then on the Warmachine one, it is only at most one page long with one or two responses solving it.
That's not entirely fair, since most people with rules questions will post them in the official PP forums. But it largely doesn't make a difference, as in both most questions read like this:
"How does this work?"
"According to the rules, like this."
"Thanks."
And....well, go to the 40KYMDC thread, and choose a thread that's 4 pages or more long. Go in at the end, and prepare to be horrified and amused in equal measure. The vicious nature of the arguing there should put to rest any idea that laxer rules make for a friendly gaming environment.
As for balance - yeah, it would be nice to find that all units have their place on the gaming table - that's some homework for GW to do. On the other hand - as soon as you start throwing in special units and individual rules into the pot, most ideas of balancing IMO are more or less arbitrary anyway and have to be regularly adjusted. Army lists and points costs do tend to provide a fake sense of objectivity.
Finally, I don't really regard it as 'self-hobbling' if you don't run out and buy 3+ of new unit x as soon as a new codex is published. Most of that kind of netlist has a sort of desperate and pathetic air to it...
Trying to claim some sort of moral superiority because you don't get the netlist du jour is one thing, but why on earth would it be necessary? I'd rather just show up with a list and be able to play against someone else with a list without either of us being censured for "netlisting", "bringing a tournament list to a casual event", or otherwise unwittingly breaking a gentleman's agreement not to pass an arbitary threshold of "too good".
And many other game systems actually have succeeded in balancing very different units (at least to a much greater extent than the Warhammers), in not having choices that are "Like X, but strictly better or worse." Infinity immediately springs to mind.
MrMoustaffa wrote: Do I get a ribbon for calling it? Because its Tuesday and we're already on page 3, with literally nothing gained because right now it looks like Dakka vs. xruslanx
To add something to this discussion, I went into my FLGS Sunday and there was a 40k game going on. I knew both the players, and both were pretty nice guys. They could be a bit weird when it came rules, but they weren't trying to cheat, just make sure the rules worked for their armies (I.e. If they were playing an assault army they looked at how to make the most of the assault rules.)
I was off to the side talking to the owner. Over the 2 1/2 hours I was there, there were no less than TWELVE rule disputes, two of which got heated. Almost all were ambiguously worded rules, with both players having fairly reasonable arguments. It made the game unpleasant to me, and I wasn't even playing. Even worse, the first thought I had was "thank goodness I play other games now."
Meanwhile, my other 3 games (X-Wing, Bolt Action, and Flames of War) I can count the number of rule disputes on one hand, with most being Bolt Action, which is barely a year old at this point. Almost all were settled with a quick search online to check the main FAQ, and the ruling made sense to everybody. Check out the X Wing forum here on Dakka for example. There's a single YMDC thread and most of the questions are "can I X?" with a clear yes or no as a reply.
I feel like I should add this as well on seeing this on Dakka...
And even then on the Warmachine one, it is only at most one page long with one or two responses solving it.
That's not entirely fair, since most people with rules questions will post them in the official PP forums. But it largely doesn't make a difference, as in both most questions read like this:
"How does this work?"
"According to the rules, like this."
"Thanks."
And....well, go to the 40KYMDC thread, and choose a thread that's 4 pages or more long. Go in at the end, and prepare to be horrified and amused in equal measure. The vicious nature of the arguing there should put to rest any idea that laxer rules make for a friendly gaming environment.
I think that is a good point. I think mine may not be the best example of that, but it works as a general gist of it when comparing the two, but oh well.
That is why I dropped the Warhammers (or at least one of the reasons), since I could not get through a game without it being not fun, or having to look through the book over and over unless you are just playing with friends and have some house/club rules to make it go by faster and go nowhere else to play.
Jimsolo wrote: Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...
They can be played casually, you can play any game ever invented casually, that isn't what's at issue, and it's a little depressing to see people who favour competition-focused rulesets still going after that same strawman argument.
There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
The second issue is the kind of attitude a particular style of rules will engender in your average random punter at a local store/club. I play at two clubs, when I get the opportunity these days, one of which is 40K/Specialist Games-heavy with a sprinkling of historicals, the other is focused mostly on Warmachine/Hordes, and the atmosphere is completely different. The 40K club is relaxed, "friendly" games are considered to be the default, nobody tailors lists without prior arrangement and most people build fluffy/themed lists and purposefully avoid "power" builds, the game is viewed as two or more people cooperating to provide everyone involved with a good time, and while people certainly play to achieve victory that isn't the reason they're playing. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the attitude on display at the more competition-focused club I refer to above, I sometimes enjoy going all "srs bznz" or I wouldn't still go there, but for myself it's not an attitude I want to deal with as the norm, nor is it something I want to have to deal with in the majority of pickup games if I'm playing outside my usual venues, and from my experience of communities both online and off, you DO run into that attitude much more often among players of competition-focused rulesets than you do with "just for fun" rules.
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink. EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
All admirable sentiments, well expressed, but doesn't really address why a better written ruleset with less ambiguity that allows players with different attitudes to mix in the same environment with less conflict and a more balanced environment with a less marked difference between "fluffy" lists and "competitive" lists would be a bad thing?
"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"
If I wanted a super clear, tight ruleset that challenged me and my opponent for a clear winner and loser I would just play Chess. However, I don;t play Chess because I want something different, and what that is is a slightly chance that the cause and effect algorithm might do something less predictable in some cases.
"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"
Have you tried? When I was in a chess club we tried out all sorts of variations and scenarios. None of them stuck, but some were a fun one-off.
Jimsolo wrote: Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.
Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...
They can be played casually, you can play any game ever invented casually, that isn't what's at issue, and it's a little depressing to see people who favour competition-focused rulesets still going after that same strawman argument.
There are two issues at play. The first issue is the default assumption behind what make rules "good" - I think rulesets which are broad, open, with some element of randomness are "good" because they enable the kind of games I enjoy, ones focused on telling a story on the tabletop; note that I acknowledge this is a preference not an absolute. But according to fans of competitive rulesets, I'm wrong, factually and objectively, because the only "good" rules by their definition are tight, focused, predictable, with as little room for interpretation as possible. I know, from experience, that things can happen when playing with "loose" rules that are functionally impossible with "tight" rules, but I am just imagining it according to the wisdom of competitive gamers.
The second issue is the kind of attitude a particular style of rules will engender in your average random punter at a local store/club. I play at two clubs, when I get the opportunity these days, one of which is 40K/Specialist Games-heavy with a sprinkling of historicals, the other is focused mostly on Warmachine/Hordes, and the atmosphere is completely different. The 40K club is relaxed, "friendly" games are considered to be the default, nobody tailors lists without prior arrangement and most people build fluffy/themed lists and purposefully avoid "power" builds, the game is viewed as two or more people cooperating to provide everyone involved with a good time, and while people certainly play to achieve victory that isn't the reason they're playing. By contrast, the Warmahordes-focused club is much more serious; they're not holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with the attitude on display at the more competition-focused club I refer to above, I sometimes enjoy going all "srs bznz" or I wouldn't still go there, but for myself it's not an attitude I want to deal with as the norm, nor is it something I want to have to deal with in the majority of pickup games if I'm playing outside my usual venues, and from my experience of communities both online and off, you DO run into that attitude much more often among players of competition-focused rulesets than you do with "just for fun" rules.
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink. EDIT: And there it is again from PsychoticStorm. Seriously why do you guys even bother to start threads about this subject if it's just going to be a few pages of you all agreeing how right you are?
All admirable sentiments, well expressed, but doesn't really address why a better written ruleset with less ambiguity that allows players with different attitudes to mix in the same environment with less conflict and a more balanced environment with a less marked difference between "fluffy" lists and "competitive" lists would be a bad thing?
"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"
If I wanted a super clear, tight ruleset that challenged me and my opponent for a clear winner and loser I would just play Chess. However, I don;t play Chess because I want something different, and what that is is a slightly chance that the cause and effect algorithm might do something less predictable in some cases.
Well, firstly you're assuming in your chess example that not one person would turn around and say "sounds like an interesting idea, let's give it a go" and I believe that there are indeed variations on chess, such as those played in 3D on multiple levels, available?
Secondly, "less predictable" =\= "bad rules"
It is entirely possible to write a ruleset that has some level of variance that doesn't result in both players standing around scratching their heads about what happens next when two random events occur simultaneously that appear to contradict each other.
EDIT Especially when you've had thirty years practice and access to greater resources than any of your peers.
"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"
Have you tried? When I was in a chess club we tried out all sorts of variations and scenarios. None of them stuck, but some were a fun one-off.
Indeed, we used to play with all sorts of variations (allowing multiple queens, more rooks, etc), and I believe Alessio Cavatore has a game out which is a cross between wargaming and chess (using point values for pieces for instance), though I can't think of the name offhand.
"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"
Have you tried? When I was in a chess club we tried out all sorts of variations and scenarios. None of them stuck, but some were a fun one-off.
Indeed, we used to play with all sorts of variations (allowing multiple queens, more rooks, etc), and I believe Alessio Cavatore has a game out which is a cross between wargaming and chess (using point values for pieces for instance), though I can't think of the name offhand.
Also, I believe what you're talking about is Mantic's Loka?
In Loka, you control one or more armies of elemental fantasy warriors – Fire, Earth, Air and Water are at war. The armies, divided into two teams, battle for supremacy using polyhedral dice, moving and fighting over a board layered with ever-changing fantasy terrain. The rules, and type of pieces available to your army are inspired by traditional chess, and so are extremely simple. However, in Loka you get to choose what pieces you are going to include in your army, which means your armies can be expanded for larger, more epic battles.
Another example that has been beaten to death is M:tG. It has very clear rules but it hasn't stopped people from making variant games (Elder Dragon, Two-Headed Giant, commander, Pauper, Booster Pack Mini Masters, Trash drafts, among many things). The clarity of the rules has not impeded creativity, or the want to spice things up by changing and tweaking it up a bit.
"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"
Have you tried? When I was in a chess club we tried out all sorts of variations and scenarios. None of them stuck, but some were a fun one-off.
Indeed, we used to play with all sorts of variations (allowing multiple queens, more rooks, etc), and I believe Alessio Cavatore has a game out which is a cross between wargaming and chess (using point values for pieces for instance), though I can't think of the name offhand.
When I was in Chess Club in high school, we used to play a lot of variants, but the one that we played the most was called "king in the corner." I'm surprised that one didn't show up on the wikipedia entry.
"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"
If I wanted a super clear, tight ruleset that challenged me and my opponent for a clear winner and loser I would just play Chess. However, I don;t play Chess because I want something different, and what that is is a slightly chance that the cause and effect algorithm might do something less predictable in some cases.
I don't know where you got this idea from.
For example, in our WMH scene we generally have "fun" tournaments interspersed with "serious" tournaments. This month's "fun" tournament was 25 points doubles and you didn't knew with whom you got paired until you arrived at the store. The other "fun" one before that was 25 points mangled metal (only warjacks and warbeasts allowed).
There is a very popular format doing the rounds in the US conventions where you make a list and have your warcaster randomly assigned to you from a pool containing every warcaster in the game before each game.
There was a custom tournament the night before the WTC started where you were allowed to place terrain on the table, during the course of the game. That terrain consisted of your empty beer cups (that you drank during the game)!
There is another very popular format for charity where you are allowed to buy cheats and re-rolls during a game based on the amount of canned food that you've donated.
There are literally countless formats out there that are completely outside the "norm" and that despite that are very popular with the warmahordes community.
Also, like azreal13 said, you can have a game that has super clear and concise rules and the game itself be completely random. A random game doesn't mean that it has bad rules, it just means that the game was designed to be random.
Well, firstly you're assuming in your chess example that not one person would turn around and say "sounds like an interesting idea, let's give it a go" and I believe that there are indeed variations on chess, such as those played in 3D on multiple levels, available?
Okay, people have made many claims that this or that happens. If we use this threads stnadards, it is all anecdital evidence and hence can be ignored. However, I will concede the point that people play variant versions of Chess.
However, that doesn't mean the "Chess" community as a whole embraces this idea or encourages it as part of the "Chess" Hobby.
It is entirely possible to write a ruleset that has some level of variance that doesn't result in both players standing around scratching their heads about what happens next when two random events occur simultaneously that appear to contradict each other.
EDIT Especially when you've had thirty years practice and access to greater resources than any of your peers.
Really, because a lot of people on this thread don't seem to agree with that. They want predictable interactions between this and that with a clear causal chain. Isn't that what "Tight" means?
Or does it simply mean "clear" and easy to understand rules? Yeah, who doesn't want clear and easy to understand rules? Unless the point is to try to create a game where the game is to guess the rules?
I want clear and easy to understand rules too. However, i don;t want them to be overly "tight" where I can be entirely confident that if Unit A shoots at Unit B and casualties will occur, force a break test, whch Unit B will fail and run away. At any point, I want my assumptions aboutwhat will happen to possibly not happen, so I have to react to the fact that what i planned and thought would happen didn't happen at all.
However, that doesn't mean the "Chess" community as a whole embraces this idea or encourages it as part of the "Chess" Hobby
No game community is going to have 100% of its players agree on something like custom scenarios. Custom scenarios is always something you have to clear before hand, because you're changing the agreed to rules of the game. It doesn't matter if its Chess, Warhams, Bolt Action, Flames of war, checkers, or any other game, there will always be people who just want to play the standard game and ignore additions, expansions, or custom scenarios.
The rabid hate some people have towards FW is a good example of this.
It is entirely possible to write a ruleset that has some level of variance that doesn't result in both players standing around scratching their heads about what happens next when two random events occur simultaneously that appear to contradict each other.
EDIT Especially when you've had thirty years practice and access to greater resources than any of your peers.
Really, because a lot of people on this thread don't seem to agree with that. They want predictable interactions between this and that with a clear causal chain. Isn't that what "Tight" means?
Or does it simply mean "clear" and easy to understand rules? Yeah, who doesn't want clear and easy to understand rules? Unless the point is to try to create a game where the game is to guess the rules?
I want clear and easy to understand rules too. However, i don;t want them to be overly "tight" where I can be entirely confident that if Unit A shoots at Unit B and casualties will occur, force a break test, whch Unit B will fail and run away. At any point, I want my assumptions aboutwhat will happen to possibly not happen, so I have to react to the fact that what i planned and thought would happen didn't happen at all.
No Azreal has it right in what we want, it people trying to get it across to one dumbass and his reponses that make it seem the other way to you. We tried over 5+ threads to get the point in Azreal qoute across but it fails every time. KNOW ONE WANTS TO GET RID OF RANDOMNESS, WE WANT RULES THAT DON'T CONTERACT EACH OTHER OR AT LEAST RULES THAT TELL USE HOW THE RULES INTERACT WHEN THEY COUNTERACT EACH OTHER. And know roll a dice when it happens is NOT A RULE, it is a patch at best.
Really, because a lot of people on this thread don't seem to agree with that. They want predictable interactions between this and that with a clear causal chain. Isn't that what "Tight" means?
Or does it simply mean "clear" and easy to understand rules? Yeah, who doesn't want clear and easy to understand rules? Unless the point is to try to create a game where the game is to guess the rules?
"Tight" means rules that don't have room for different interpretations.
I want clear and easy to understand rules too. However, i don;t want them to be overly "tight" where I can be entirely confident that if Unit A shoots at Unit B and casualties will occur, force a break test, whch Unit B will fail and run away. At any point, I want my assumptions aboutwhat will happen to possibly not happen, so I have to react to the fact that what i planned and thought would happen didn't happen at all.
You already have that in every single game that uses dice.
Even in many professional sports there is such a thing as 'handicapping' - golf, in particular.
Indeed...
football has age brackets.
boxing has weight classes.
And wargames have points/unit caps etc.
However, no one goes into a boxing match being told "your left hook is awesome! don't use it!", or "its unfair to use your left hook". michael felps is the perfect physical specimen for swimming - does that make him broken and OP? In 40k, you're told x is great, you're waac for using it!
to be fair grump, i was generally talking about the negative mental attitude towards sportsmanship, and being competitive, within the 40k community as opposed to actual mechanics to enforce handicapping
Yodhrin wrote: Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink.
Here's the thing; when I say I would like a tight, balanced ruleset with limited randomness, I am not saying I want a tournament-HARD game. I'm saying that I would like a ruleset where
a) My decisions matter more than the dice- I don't want to lose the game because the trees decided to eat my guys, or my guys decided not to charge or whatever. If I lose due to luck, it should be because of some bizare, rare cornercase, such as a poorly timed snakes eyes which I had no plan B for. Take, for example charging in Warmachine vs. 40k. Warmachine, I charge a fixed distance. Assuming I judged the distances right, I make it. So charging is all player skill. Once I get to melee, I know that my damage output will fall in a statistical range based on the amount of resources that I allocated. Allocation is again player skill, and I can use to adjust luck more in my favour, reducing its impact on the game. 40k, however, there is the charge roll. An immediate succeed/fail based on luck- how far your charge is, how many guys die to overwatch, etc. Melee, while more calculable as a range of expected results, has no "Influence" ability, so it is all luck. While I can calculate the odds, I have no way to change them, and so player skill is irrelevant once the assault is launched.
b) Minimal time wasted figuring out the rules- I simply like knowing how the game works before playing, and don't want to waste time reading the rulebook. In 40k, when a model dies, any effects which activate at that point pile together in a mess. In Warmachine, there is "Boxed" and then "Destroyed". We check which effects trigger on which keyword, and resolve them in order. Sure, we could 4+ it, but see point (a).
c) balance- I'm the kind of player who likes to win with what I like- I find it exceedingly frustrating to have cool units that are actively sabotaging my chances of winning the game. Do I have to win? No, but but I like there to be tension. I really enjoy it when a player can take a themed list and actually stand a chance- that is what "cinematic" is to me. Pre-existing balance also makes it easier to break the game for the scenario- as I said earlier, want one side outnumbered? Double their opponents points.
Note, nowhere do I say "competitive". An imbalanced game with ambiguous rules is better if all I want to do is win. I just take a power army and abuse loopholes.
I fully agree with Crazy_Carnifex, (particularly point C) Here's an Exalt
Really, because a lot of people on this thread don't seem to agree with that. They want predictable interactions between this and that with a clear causal chain. Isn't that what "Tight" means?
Or does it simply mean "clear" and easy to understand rules? Yeah, who doesn't want clear and easy to understand rules? Unless the point is to try to create a game where the game is to guess the rules?
"Tight" means rules that don't have room for different interpretations.[/quote}
This will never happen. It is a Unicorn. Why do you think we have lawyers in this world?
Granted, that doesn't mean I would like it to be better.
However, I would prefer a game that encourages and wants me to bring more to it than just following the rules. If I wanted that, i could just play a Milton bradley board game.
I want clear and easy to understand rules too. However, i don;t want them to be overly "tight" where I can be entirely confident that if Unit A shoots at Unit B and casualties will occur, force a break test, whch Unit B will fail and run away. At any point, I want my assumptions aboutwhat will happen to possibly not happen, so I have to react to the fact that what i planned and thought would happen didn't happen at all.
You already have that in every single game that uses dice.
True, the question is how often those dice come into play.
Finally, I know my ideas about wargaming are counter-intuitive and not popular. I'm fine with that. I don;t expect everyone I come across to even "get" what I like about a wargame. That's cool, whatever you want.
My only beef is when people get so hung up on what is and is not "official" that they let that get in the way of everyone having fun. That comes to Fluff Nazis or Rules Lawyers.
Even in many professional sports there is such a thing as 'handicapping' - golf, in particular.
Indeed...
football has age brackets.
boxing has weight classes.
And wargames have points/unit caps etc.
However, no one goes into a boxing match being told "your left hook is awesome! don't use it!", or "its unfair to use your left hook". michael felps is the perfect physical specimen for swimming - does that make him broken and OP? In 40k, you're told x is great, you're waac for using it!
to be fair grump, i was generally talking about the negative mental attitude towards sportsmanship, and being competitive, within the 40k community as opposed to actual mechanics to enforce handicapping
Yes, but to use GW logic - one side is allowed to use brass knuckles, the other has padded gloves.
Not just an 'awesome uppercut' put an actual advantage that the other side, wearing boxing gloves, does not have.
We are not saying 'don't use your awesome uppercut' we are saying 'put away those brass knuckles, oh, and take the razor blade out of your shoe'.
The Auld Grump, and then the Tau pull out a gun and shoot both boxers.
Easy E wrote: My only beef is when people get so hung up on what is and is not "official" that they let that get in the way of everyone having fun. That comes to Fluff Nazis or Rules Lawyers.
And that's fine, but you're for some bizarre reason trying to tie that to the quality of a set of rules, which is just odd. Pretty much every game ever made, some people have created house rules or variants... and some people will refuse to play by anything other than the rules out of the box.
40K's 'loose' rules don't make people suddenly more receptive to mixing things up than they would be if the game had better-written rules. People who dislike playing against home-brew armies, or who refuse to play against FW units, or who refuse to consider custom scenarios, or who think that the double FOC at 2000 points is just fine, or who think that the double FOC at 2000 points is the worst thing ever - they'll still feel the same regardless of how tight or loosely worded the ruleset is.
The only thing that changes with a more tightly written ruleset is that more people wind up playing the same game, due to a reduced potential for misunderstanding how the rules work.
Easy E wrote: My only beef is when people get so hung up on what is and is not "official" that they let that get in the way of everyone having fun. That comes to Fluff Nazis or Rules Lawyers.
And that's fine, but you're for some bizarre reason trying to tie that to the quality of a set of rules, which is just odd. Pretty much every game ever made, some people have created house rules or variants... and some people will refuse to play by anything other than the rules out of the box.
40K's 'loose' rules don't make people suddenly more receptive to mixing things up than they would be if the game had better-written rules. People who dislike playing against home-brew armies, or who refuse to play against FW units, or who refuse to consider custom scenarios, or who think that the double FOC at 2000 points is just fine, or who think that the double FOC at 2000 points is the worst thing ever - they'll still feel the same regardless of how tight or loosely worded the ruleset is.
The only thing that changes with a more tightly written ruleset is that more people wind up playing the same game, due to a reduced potential for misunderstanding how the rules work.
Quite.
I once played a pick up game at my club (where we're both regulars, and had played one another on several occasions) and simply shuffled and dealt my psychic powers from the relevant deck, rather than rolling the dice as is outlined in the book.
He got dangerously close to implying I was cheating, until he saw that I was in imminent danger of an epic sense of humour failure (I mean seriously, aside from the aspersions on my character, if I was going to be dishonest, I'd do it for something more important than a mild advantage in a game of toy soldiers for feths sake!) and started to back track.
I obliged him by rolling dice instead, and promptly proceeded to win the game at a canter, all the while choosing not to cast any psychic powers.
My point is, winning is extraordinarily important to this chap, and any deviation from the rules does not happen when playing him, because his fear that any deviation will result in an unanticipated situation which harms his chances is too great.
Also, because he has WAAC/TFG tendencies, albeit kept in check at the club by older players with strong characters (I do fear for some of his opponents at the local GW though...) 40K is a splendid environment for him, he is also the only regular player who doesn't play any other system, read into that what you will.
If 40K were a tighter, more balanced, system, he would be free to put just as much effort into, and attach just as much esteem to, winning games, but those players (like myself) who aren't so concerned with winning every game, would have more fun playing him, and more willing to play him (I try and avoid one on one games with him these days)
I just feel that the Priestley method (and others) of "Gentleman's Agreements" as opposed to the Warmachine/Hordes (and others) way is more conducive to a social game that inspires cooperation.
Is the Priestley-style tight? No, not at all. However he encourages you in the rules to dialogue, and provides a way to settle disputes if dialogue fails. It is not inherently a "better" way either.
However, I don't think Tight rule systems are inherently bad, I just don't think they encourage the type of game play I enjoy. Sure, I can choose to play it anyway I want; but if the main rules do not encourage the style I want to play it is really challenging to find players that match my prefered gaming style.
So, my stance is staked out and everyone is free to disagree. However, I think we should just roll a d6, and on 4+ we play my interpretation.
Easy E wrote: I just feel that the Priestley method (and others) of "Gentleman's Agreements" as opposed to the Warmachine/Hordes (and others) way is more conducive to a social game that inspires cooperation.
Is the Priestley-style tight? No, not at all. However he encourages you in the rules to dialogue, and provides a way to settle disputes if dialogue fails. It is not inherently a "better" way either.
However, I don't think Tight rule systems are inherently bad, I just don't think they encourage the type of game play I enjoy. Sure, I can choose to play it anyway I want; but if the main rules do not encourage the style I want to play it is really challenging to find players that match my prefered gaming style.
So, my stance is staked out and everyone is free to disagree. However, I think we should just roll a d6, and on 4+ we play my interpretation.
I would love the Priestly method to be realistic, but human nature being what it is, it just doesn't work outside of pre-existing social groups.
I played the arse off second edition with about 4 other friends, no Internet lists, no power gaming (we seldom had more than one of any unit type, spamming just didn't occur to is as a concept) and loved it.
Only now, with the wider communication that forums and blogs bring, do I see how much possibility there was to abuse the rules.
The fact is now that wargaming is a global hobby, with a global community, and while there still may be mini-azreal13 and his friends playing in a bubble somewhere, completely oblivious to any problems, they wouldn't be adversely affected by a tightening and cleaning up of the ruleset.
It is the players who attach a great deal of importance to winning, and are prepared to push the limits to achieve that, that need their latitude to do so reining in. As I say, they will still be free to devote their energies to becoming good at the game, but at least if they win all the time, it will be precisely because they are good at the game, and not because they are prepared to spend the cash to buy the models and the time to trawl the net looking for the next broken combo.
But I don't think warmachine or hordes hinder agreements for chargeing things at all :0 it's very easy to make changes and missions for the game.
Every time I go to special events every table has had a special mission done for it incorporating the table and objects in some way, and we make fun ones all the time.
Maybe I just don't understand what you are saying but Easy E.
Yes, but to use GW logic - one side is allowed to use brass knuckles, the other has padded gloves.
Not just an 'awesome uppercut' put an actual advantage that the other side, wearing boxing gloves, does not have.
We are not saying 'don't use your awesome uppercut' we are saying 'put away those brass knuckles, oh, and take the razor blade out of your shoe'.
The Auld Grump, and then the Tau pull out a gun and shoot both boxers.
I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing. 'By gw logic'? There's the issue. Gw logic is only partially accurate for gw, but in the wider community, it's inaccurate.
With respect, Didn't I already point out in my first post that 40k players have a point? But it's due to the shocking level of balance in the game; this unfairly skews the perception of what 'competitive' can actually mean (which was my point) . In warmachine, that guy with brass knuckles can be smashed, regardless. Because everyone has armour piercing rocket fists. Brass knuckles? Razor blades? Yeah, bring it on! That right there is the attitude shift. Too often in 40k I see the opposite. Rather than an assertive 'step up and bring the fight to them' you get the opposite, with various threads bemoaning its unfairness, its opness, calls of cheese, beard and Waac. Flight, not fight.
My point was that In 40k there is an unfortunate skew, resulting from its terrible internal/external Balance which unfairly colours the situation and leads to what I regard as an unfairly negative perception on competitive play, tight rules etc.
By the way, regarding the tau shooting the boxers; I take it he missed seeing the catachans tripwire? that's how id have it play out!
Yes, but to use GW logic - one side is allowed to use brass knuckles, the other has padded gloves.
Not just an 'awesome uppercut' put an actual advantage that the other side, wearing boxing gloves, does not have.
We are not saying 'don't use your awesome uppercut' we are saying 'put away those brass knuckles, oh, and take the razor blade out of your shoe'.
The Auld Grump, and then the Tau pull out a gun and shoot both boxers.
I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing. 'By gw logic'? There's the issue. Gw logic is only partially accurate for gw, but in the wider community, it's inaccurate.
With respect, Didn't I already point out in my first post that 40k players have a point? But it's due to the shocking level of balance in the game; this unfairly skews the perception of what 'competitive' can actually mean (which was my point) . In warmachine, that guy with brass knuckles can be smashed, regardless. Because everyone has armour piercing rocket fists. Brass knuckles? Razor blades? Yeah, bring it on! That right there is the attitude shift. Too often in 40k I see the opposite. Rather than an assertive 'step up and bring the fight to them' you get the opposite, with various threads bemoaning its unfairness, its opness, calls of cheese, beard and Waac. Flight, not fight.
My point was that In 40k there is an unfortunate skew, resulting from its terrible internal/external Balance which unfairly colours the situation and leads to what I regard as an unfairly negative perception on competitive play, tight rules etc.
By the way, regarding the tau shooting the boxers; I take it he missed seeing the catachans tripwire? that's how id have it play out!
Don't play WMH myself, however am i wrong in thinking it's "balanced from imbalance"? Or so i've been told anyway, that rather than overly worrying about perfect balance they simply make everything over the top? As opposed to say 40k where on the one hand we have things like Mutilators, and the other hand the riptide?
Easy E wrote: I just feel that the Priestley method (and others) of "Gentleman's Agreements" as opposed to the Warmachine/Hordes (and others) way is more conducive to a social game that inspires cooperation.
Is the Priestley-style tight? No, not at all. However he encourages you in the rules to dialogue, and provides a way to settle disputes if dialogue fails. It is not inherently a "better" way either.
However, I don't think Tight rule systems are inherently bad, I just don't think they encourage the type of game play I enjoy. Sure, I can choose to play it anyway I want; but if the main rules do not encourage the style I want to play it is really challenging to find players that match my prefered gaming style.
So, my stance is staked out and everyone is free to disagree. However, I think we should just roll a d6, and on 4+ we play my interpretation.
I'm not sure how encouraging debate is not inherently bad. It's good if the two of you are gentlemen in that you can mutually solve a problem (which i would find odd if that is why you play wargames) because it creates a bond, but i would say the average gamer is not a gentlemen and a game that ends in a winner and loser requires clear definitions to reach that end. How much weight you place in that end is up to you.
Is it accurate to say that your prefered gaming style is one where you can make it up as you go?
Is it accurate to say that your prefered gaming style is one where you can make it up as you go?
The only way I can make sense of what he said is if his preferred gaming style includes lots of rules debates he can be gentlemanly over. I don't understand what's worse about not having to have the disagreement in the first place.
Also, I want to throw out what I believe the difference between clarity and tightness to be.
Clarity refers to the language used throughout the document to make sure that any single data point is unambiguous. Examples should be provded where needed. Overly verbose text should be avoided. A rulebook is at heart a technical manual, not a novel.
Tightness refers to the interactions between rules. Things happening in a set order, multiple effects kicking off at once, so on. A tight ruleset takes steps to manage these so that there are no conflicts between different rules. I'm not in any way familiar with 40K so I can't offer examples from there, but I'll demonstrate what I believe to be an example of a lack of tightness in Confrontation 3:
The Gorgon, an undead special character, had a rule that meant that she was completely immune to strikes taken in the head, regardless of their effect. Sacred weapons, carried by some 'holy' troops, automatically killed any model if the wound roll was a double. The rulebook explicitly stated that a double roll still hit a location (ie the head). So in the situation of a 'sacred' double 5 on the Gorgon, she was both automatically killed by the roll (as it was Sacred) and immune to its effect (as it was located in the head), at the same time.
This was thankfully quite an isolated example in the ruleset, and the only major rules dispute I remember in several years of playing the game (if you're interested, it was eventually FAQd that she was killed by the attack). As far as I'm concerned, if you're campaigning for less tightness in rules, then you're implicitly supporting the sort of situation described above.
Yes, but to use GW logic - one side is allowed to use brass knuckles, the other has padded gloves.
Not just an 'awesome uppercut' put an actual advantage that the other side, wearing boxing gloves, does not have.
We are not saying 'don't use your awesome uppercut' we are saying 'put away those brass knuckles, oh, and take the razor blade out of your shoe'.
The Auld Grump, and then the Tau pull out a gun and shoot both boxers.
I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing. 'By gw logic'? There's the issue. Gw logic is only partially accurate for gw, but in the wider community, it's inaccurate.
With respect, Didn't I already point out in my first post that 40k players have a point? But it's due to the shocking level of balance in the game; this unfairly skews the perception of what 'competitive' can actually mean (which was my point) . In warmachine, that guy with brass knuckles can be smashed, regardless. Because everyone has armour piercing rocket fists. Brass knuckles? Razor blades? Yeah, bring it on! That right there is the attitude shift. Too often in 40k I see the opposite. Rather than an assertive 'step up and bring the fight to them' you get the opposite, with various threads bemoaning its unfairness, its opness, calls of cheese, beard and Waac. Flight, not fight.
My point was that In 40k there is an unfortunate skew, resulting from its terrible internal/external Balance which unfairly colours the situation and leads to what I regard as an unfairly negative perception on competitive play, tight rules etc.
By the way, regarding the tau shooting the boxers; I take it he missed seeing the catachans tripwire? that's how id have it play out!
The thing to bear in mind is that Privateer actively tries to keep things balanced. GW... just does not care.
As an example - when WARMACHINE was new and shiny, Khador had a game breaker with Scorscha.
When they noticed it, Privateer took steps to fix the problem.
First they put an article in their magazine*, then they changed her Feat in the next iteration of the rules.
Because Scorscha being able to completely stop the other player from taking their turn was not fun.
She was broken.
So, they fixed her rules.
GW, by contrast, would already be working on the next new and shiny thing, and would ignore her problems, only to completely nerf Scorscha in the next edition, so that nobody would bother to take her.
I do not think that it is a coincidence that some of the tightest rules are from companies run by ex-GW folk.
WARMACHINE is tight, Bolt Action is tight, Kings of War is tight.
Each and all, they are better rules, in my opinion, than any GW rules currently in production.
WARMACHINE and Kings of War are both excellent rules for tournaments, in large part because of the lack of rules arguments.
Kings of War is a lot more forgiving than WARMACHINE, but both are tight rules, and both are gobs of fun to play.
And that is the key - Mantic and Privateer both work hard to get things tight and balanced.
If the rules are tight and balanced, and everybody has knuckledusters and crowbars, then nobody is asked to leave their toys at home. With GW games there are two complaints - the folks that want to use their cool, but game breaking toys, and the folks that really do not want to face knuckledusters and crowbars while wielding a pool noodle.
And in both cases it is GW that is at fault.
Then there are the folks that cruise the web looking for the most gamebreaking toys that they can find - and these are the WAAC players.
And GW is still at fault for making their webcheese possible.
The Auld Grump
* No Quarter is everything that White Dwarf used to be. Privateer gets a big thumbs up from me on that score.
Really, because a lot of people on this thread don't seem to agree with that. They want predictable interactions between this and that with a clear causal chain. Isn't that what "Tight" means?
Or does it simply mean "clear" and easy to understand rules? Yeah, who doesn't want clear and easy to understand rules? Unless the point is to try to create a game where the game is to guess the rules?
"Tight" means rules that don't have room for different interpretations.
This will never happen. It is a Unicorn. Why do you think we have lawyers in this world?
Granted, that doesn't mean I would like it to be better.
However, I would prefer a game that encourages and wants me to bring more to it than just following the rules. If I wanted that, i could just play a Milton bradley board game.
I'm sorry but it is not a unicorn and I'm just genuinely curious here: what other non-GW games do you play Easy E?
Infinity has a tight ruleset (rulebook could have a better layout), FoW has a tight ruleset, Warmahordes has a tight ruleset, Malifaux has a tight ruleset (rulebook could have a better layout), even DW has a tight (even if a bit too random for my taste) ruleset. The only major commercial set of rules that I've played in the past 6 years that aren't clear and tight has been GW.
Here is a piece of anecdotal evidence for you. I went into my LGS a couple of weeks ago to have a game. There was a FoW game going on, a couple of WMH tables and a 40K game. Who do you think spent the most time arguing rules out of all those people, to the point that we and the FoW guys actually got distracted from our games?
And you are reaching the point where you really need to start explaining what you mean by "bring more to it than just following the rules"? I have already given you several examples, both at my local meta all the way to the most competitive WMH world event of wacky and alternative formats being embraced by the community, so I actually don't understand what you are trying to say at this point...
Easy E wrote: However, I would prefer a game that encourages and wants me to bring more to it than just following the rules. If I wanted that, i could just play a Milton bradley board game.
Why does the game need to encourage you to do that? It's just a game... if you want to modify the rules, you don't need permission from the designer to do so.
I'm also a little confused about the reference to board games... because people have been playing those with house rules as well for pretty much as long as there have been boardgames. Fines stacking up on free parking in Monopoly? Stackable Draw cards in Uno?
The rules for Scrabble don't particularly encourage you to modify the game... but when we're in the mood, we still like to play at home that you can make up words so long as you can come up with an entertaining meaning for them.
Likewise, Heroquest didn't particularly encourage modifying the game beyond designing your own maps... but we still added a whole bunch of our own stuff into it, like purchasable resurrection scrolls and changing the action sequence slightly.
The desire to modify a game comes from the players, not from the designer. GW just like to use it as a smokescreen for their shoddy rules... Don't like how our rules work? Change them to suit yourself! That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't excuse just leaving out stuff that is actually kind of important to playing the game, or writing vague rules that everybody reads differently.
Easy E wrote: However he encourages you in the rules to dialogue, and provides a way to settle disputes if dialogue fails. It is not inherently a "better" way either.
Which is an awful way of doing it. The rules should be clear enough that you don't ever have disputes in the first place.
Sure, I can choose to play it anyway I want; but if the main rules do not encourage the style I want to play it is really challenging to find players that match my prefered gaming style.
But these issues don't have anything to do with playing style. Let's look at a specific example from 40k: the dispute over whether or not the quad gun from an aegis line has to be placed in contact with the wall, "near" the wall, or anywhere you want. The answer depends on how you interpret "attached", as a physical attachment or organizational attachment, and both of them are valid definitions in english. But having this ambiguity doesn't change playing style at all, a game with quad guns tied to their ADLs is not going to be meaningfully different in style than one where the quad guns are placed 5' away. The ambiguity adds absolutely nothing to the game besides an opportunity for conflict and one player being unhappy with the outcome.
Now contrast this with a hypothetical version of 40k where these questions were answered explicitly. You still have the exact same gaming style available, but now you can spend time creating your own cool missions and stuff instead of arguing about how the rules work.
Yeah, listen to the guy who thinks that playing non-GW games is like having sex with your dog. We're all just a bunch of rabid GW haters who love to persecute anyone who dares to have fun with a GW product.
Clear and Tight rules doesn't necessarily mean balanced. Balanced would be good, but that's not the complaint here.
Have a look at this rule. This is an official FAQ, with designer's notes:
Seriously, what is up with that?
How are people supposed to play that rule? How can you go to a pick up game and know what you're allowed to equip your models with? This is before even starting the game. So you need to contact your opponent (or TO) to clarify how they will be playing the rules on the day, which can completely change how you build your army. And that's assuming the TO knows about the rules conflict in question well enough to make a decent response.
Compare this to Warmachine. As someone said above, WMH has a sequence of events on death: Removed from Play vs Disabled, Boxed, Killed. Events which trigger on Kill don't trigger on Remove From Play. Movement effects are Place vs Move, Run, Advance. There is a distinction between Towards and Directly Towards. Etc. it means that once you understand the rules, you can apply them logically and consistently and always arrive at the same answer.
Its about being able to show up to a game with anyone, anywhere, and know how the rules will work. Not have them complain that you've made an illegal army giving armor a wizard; not have you angry when they attempt to deploy infiltrating characters with units. No surprises from different interpretations of the rules; just good tactical play.
Spoiler:
One that I always need to ask about in 40k at the moment: Can models which fire more than one weapon in the shooting phase (all MC's, Tau battlesuits) fire more than one weapon on overwatch or interceptor? The rules for multi-shooting specifically say "Shooting Phase". But the catch is, the restriction on all models firing only one weapon, only applies in the shooting phase! No-one plays that models may fire all weapons they have on overwatch... but that is how the rules read.
I think having a gentleman's agreement with another person is fine and dandy... as long as it's not a game with a winner or a loser. Like an RPG, for example: it's cooperative storytelling, and even the GM is not the enemy (or at least, a good GM). So if you're playing wargames as a reenactment and you don't care who wins or loses as long as you get to tell your story, then that's fine.
It poses a problem if the game is also meant to be played where someone should win and someone should lose, however. Because a "gentleman's agreement" most of the time will favor one side over the other, and no matter how gentlemanly you are giving opponents advantages would make you feel ill, and the same could be true to the other side: your opponent giving you an advantage does not feel good as well because it feels unfair, albeit on your favor.
It seems to me that GW never bothered to move past the smaller, squad-based combat essence that was Rogue Trader. As the years progressed more models came out, made for larger engagements, and so on but the rules never bothered to show this. Of course each model had a rule and series of special rules to go along with it, but the command level rules never progressed.
A general in charge of a battlegroup isn't going to be involved with each squad or each tank, etc. They're going to dictate the overall objective and delegate it to his/her subordinates and they delegate, etc. Poorly written rules aside, I think 40k suffers greatly from GW's inability to decide what they want to do with their game. Coupled with the INSANE amount of rules that someone needs to know just to play a basic game, it's a wonder they've lasted this long.
That all aside, I suppose my point is that while WAAC's exist in every type of game there is, it doesn't really matter how well the rules are written/deployed. It may be easier for a WAAC to build their army in a setting where the rules are concise and easily understood, and from my experience with WAAC's their pride would almost force them to gravitate towards those sorts of rulesets. But, as most of this discussion has shown, WAAC's are prevalent in any gaming scene, even ones where the rules are silly.
I don't think the rules matter at all actually, it's all about the person playing.
Depends on the definition of "at all cost" a game that is clear, tight and balanced offers less opportunities to go beyond the line, interpreting rules in an advantageous way, or getting armies that are clearly more overpowered, so a player that "will do anything to win" has less options (actually no option) that to play as everybody else without an edge.
That would suggest that a clear and tight game system that is also balanced is not catering to people who would be described as wanting to win at all costs.
We're all just a bunch of rabid GW haters who love to persecute anyone who dares to have fun with a GW product.
Pretty much this.
(Can't believe I have to point this out, but...)
Peregrine's being ironic.
I was undermining that irony by pretending to take it seriously. Funny how people can only spot the irony in posts that they agree with.
Your irony was spotted, it just wasn't appreciated because of
its content, not because I agreed with it or not. I mean, there has
got to be some kind of Godwin's law for animal sex.
Easy E wrote: However he encourages you in the rules to dialogue, and provides a way to settle disputes if dialogue fails. It is not inherently a "better" way either.
Which is an awful way of doing it. The rules should be clear enough that you don't ever have disputes in the first place.
Depends on what you are trying to do as a game system. For example, if you are trying to force some social interaction between players and a level setting process to help build relationships for a larger gamer community; this method would force people to interact. This could ultimately lead to a more fulfilling game experience.
A super-tight system would ask players to do nothing more than declare, " I am shooting X at Y", then communicate results. Their is no other relationship built. I would argue that this would degrade the experience.
Of course, I also realize that Peregrine (and others) and I see playing toy soldiers very different. For many people, it is primarily a competitive experience. For others, like me it is primarily a cooperative experience. I actually want a game system that encourages me to talk with my opponent prior to a game, because I want to know if I should bother playing that person at all.
As a distant secondary point, there are a number of variables that a wargame needs to cover, and trying to cover all such situations is impossible. Therefore, a catch-all "Dice for it" approach is fine with me because I don't want a game with rules to cover every situation because I don't want to read through and learn all those details myself.
Easy E wrote: However he encourages you in the rules to dialogue, and provides a way to settle disputes if dialogue fails. It is not inherently a "better" way either.
Which is an awful way of doing it. The rules should be clear enough that you don't ever have disputes in the first place.
Depends on what you are trying to do as a game system. For example, if you are trying to force some social interaction between players and a level setting process to help build relationships for a larger gamer community; this method would force people to interact. This could ultimately lead to a more fulfilling game experience.
A super-tight system would ask players to do nothing more than declare, " I am shooting X at Y", then communicate results. Their is no other relationship built. I would argue that this would degrade the experience.
Of course, I also realize that Peregrine (and others) and I see playing toy soldiers very different. For many people, it is primarily a competitive experience. For others, like me it is primarily a cooperative experience. I actually want a game system that encourages me to talk with my opponent prior to a game, because I want to know if I should bother playing that person at all.
As a distantly secondary point, there are a number of variables that a wargame needs to cover, and trying to cover all such situations is impossible. Therefore, a catch-all "Dice for it" approach is fine with me because I don't want a game with rules to cover every situation because I don't want to read through and learn all those details myself.
What do you mean ? Warmachine uses dice to determine results. People talk to each other before the games to decide if they should play. Each other and how they should play. And the rules are possibly less difficult to learn due to the way The rules interact .
Why dice it when can know how it works before hand, I can't understand why you would want to play a game where a ingle role can determin weather you where playing the game right or wrong from the start or not.
Easy E wrote: A super-tight system would ask players to do nothing more than declare, " I am shooting X at Y", then communicate results. Their is no other relationship built. I would argue that this would degrade the experience.
There's nothing in that statement relevant to the tightness of a rules system.
Also, I'm not sure why you feel it's the purpose of the rules to force players to engage in banter around every in game action? Seems to me that's the sort of thing that would come naturally through decent human social interaction. If there was a ruleset out there that expressly forbade players talking casually then you might have apoint, but you seem to be attributing that to non-GW games for some reason.
I still don't think you understand what tightness is.
As a distant secondary point, there are a number of variables that a wargame needs to cover, and trying to cover all such situations is impossible. Therefore, a catch-all "Dice for it" approach is fine with me because I don't want a game with rules to cover every situation because I don't want to read through and learn all those details myself.
As an absolute last resort, then it's okay, I guess. However, I can count on the fingers of one hand the amount of times I've had to dice off a rules dispute in the entirety of my non-GW gaming.
It's mildly amusing that you don't want to have read through such weighty tomes as the Kings of War rules pamphlet, a game I've never had to dice off in.
WAAC I thought was pretty clear: people who MUST win and will be willing to ignore rules in order to win (really not playing a game since we "agree" to rules in order to play).
There are many tight rule sets that allow us to be "competitive" but do not require us as players to be uptight.
I had a great game of "Settlers of Catan" and we were utterly ruthless with each other.
It was hilarious when I was completely messed with "twice" in a row being "robbed" at a core land piece.
The guys were completely overcompensating for me winning the first game... A serious game about winning with strategy and luck.
X-wing has some good game mechanics, lots of room for strategy and immensely fun.
Monopoly, Chess, Diplomacy, Risk, Groo Card Game, Battletech, Starfleet Commander are games that all spring to mind as good strategy allowing us to get our inner general going.
WAAC is really a person to be avoided because they have life issues and bring with them a lot of drama (you focus more on policing them than playing and getting into personal issues we are all better off not knowing).
Losing against well thought out tactics and learning from it is a good thing, seeing through those tactics and stopping them is even better
For the record, this isn't about GW vs. Non-Gw. I play lot's of Non-GW games. Disputes happen in all of them, as words have many meanings and stringing them together leads to different interpretations of those words when combined. Plus, many rulesets aren't in the "internet glare" like GW where hundreds of people are trying to exploit them as much as they can all the time.
I don't think tight rules = inherently WAAC. However, I also embrace the idea that games can use a variety of systems, and I want a variety of systems. Not all of them need be "tight".
I think non-tight rulesessts bring something of value to the table. I think "tight" rulesets can bring something to the table too. However, I don't want to live in a world where the only rulesets we have are "tight".
Also, since people think I don't know what "tight" means, why doesn't everyone write out their definitions so you can enlighten this ignorant heathen.
By they way, I don't think there is any "winning" this discussion. That's all it is. A discussion. You can like whatever you like, and so can I. I can buy whatever games I want, and so can you.
I wouldn't mind if GW tightened up their rules on the core games, but it doesn't bother me either way.
Easy E wrote: A super-tight system would ask players to do nothing more than declare, " I am shooting X at Y", then communicate results. Their is no other relationship built. I would argue that this would degrade the experience.
There's nothing in that statement relevant to the tightness of a rules system.
Also, I'm not sure why you feel it's the purpose of the rules to force players to engage in banter around every in game action? Seems to me that's the sort of thing that would come naturally through decent human social interaction. If there was a ruleset out there that expressly forbade players talking casually then you might have apoint, but you seem to be attributing that to non-GW games for some reason.
I still don't think you understand what tightness is.
It is just an example of one reason a game designer may want to choose to use a certain method with their rules as opposed to another. Not the only reason.
Easy E wrote: Also, since people think I don't know what "tight" means, why doesn't everyone write out their definitions so you can enlighten this ignorant heathen.
It is just an example of one reason a game designer may want to choose to use a certain method with their rules as opposed to another. Not the only reason.
I really don't understand what you're getting at - you think games designers should purposefully put conflicting rules into the games? For whose benefit?
Depends on what you are trying to do as a game system. For example, if you are trying to force some social interaction between players and a level setting process to help build relationships for a larger gamer community; this method would force people to interact. This could ultimately lead to a more fulfilling game experience.
A super-tight system would ask players to do nothing more than declare, " I am shooting X at Y", then communicate results. Their is no other relationship built. I would argue that this would degrade the experience.
Of course, I also realize that Peregrine (and others) and I see playing toy soldiers very different. For many people, it is primarily a competitive experience. For others, like me it is primarily a cooperative experience. I actually want a game system that encourages me to talk with my opponent prior to a game, because I want to know if I should bother playing that person at all.
As a distant secondary point, there are a number of variables that a wargame needs to cover, and trying to cover all such situations is impossible. Therefore, a catch-all "Dice for it" approach is fine with me because I don't want a game with rules to cover every situation because I don't want to read through and learn all those details myself.
I will be honest with you Easy E, I don't get you, the scope of a game is tied to the gameplay, not the game design. (I am willing to accept comments that the scope of the game and gameplay affect game design, but when it goes down to it a game designer takes the scope and gameplay, essentially how the client wants the game to be played and writes a game system to correctly depict that).
Clearness and Tightness are firmly in the game design, balance is in game design, but the way it is balanced is based on gameplay.
From a design perspective there is no need to have unintuitive or inconsistent rules that are poorly interacting among themselves and worse of all are poorly conveyed to the players, I cannot see what gameplay would benefit from this (or what scope of the game would have this as a requirement) and I do not see how the players would really benefit from such a bad workmanship.
Edit
For the last time
Clear means well written rules that leave no gaps for misinterpretations
Tight means the rules are Intuitive and consistent without conflicts
External Balance means that any and all sides that can be chosen are equally valid to win.
Internal balance means that all possible choices in one side are valid options to take without been overshadowed by one or a few options that are too good to not take.
Depends on what you are trying to do as a game system. For example, if you are trying to force some social interaction between players and a level setting process to help build relationships for a larger gamer community; this method would force people to interact. This could ultimately lead to a more fulfilling game experience.
This doesn't make any sense. This absolutely happens with rulesets that do not require 20-page debates about their function. Players engage in social interaction over the narrative, story, events, and random rolls of the dice. There is no need to arbitrarily have vaguely written rules to "force" this kind of behavior. I cannot think of anything more narrative breaking than having to argue with your opponent for 10 minutes about whether or not rule X does Y or Z - and quite often, someone will be disappointed at the end because their whole game plan was based on an interpretation overturned by a roll-off.
We're getting to the point in the discussion where I begin to suspect shenanigans (not an accusation, bear with me) purely because someone's perspective is so far divorced from my own that I cannot compute.
To argue against an easily understood ruleset with minimal contradictions and an environment where no choice is objectively "better" or "worse" than another, just more or less functional in a given situation, is so far beyond my ken as to appear completely ludicrous. Therefore the logical assumption to prevent my head exploding is that someone is playing devil's advocate.
azreal13 wrote: ...To argue against an easily understood ruleset with minimal contradictions and an environment where no choice is objectively "better" or "worse" than another, just more or less functional in a given situation,...
I think this is impossible. You can move towards it, or you can move away from it on the spectrum of "tightness" but you will never acheive it for any sustained period (and make money).
Your idea of "better" is simply not my idea of "better". It's okay, no reason to pull a Scanners.
Look, unlike a lot of people in this thread, I'm willing to accept that their are different ways of doing things. YOu have a way you prefer, I have a way I prefer, and someone else has a way they prefer. None of them are right or wrong (unless they are playing me in a way I don't prefer! ). It is the Game Designer's choice on how they create their game based on what they want to achieve with the game.
If I want to do X, what will move me closer or farther from X. Sometimes, tightness will move you closer to X and sometimes it won't. For example, GW wants to create new codexes and units on a regular basis for inclusion into their broad based sci-fantasy game. Tightness does not help that. Seakreig wants to recreate naval combat between the Soviet and Nato Blocs using a set list of units during the Cold War in the early 1980's; then tightness may move the game closer to making sure players use their units in a way that is effective and recreates the circumstances of the period.
Depends on what you are trying to do as a game system. For example, if you are trying to force some social interaction between players and a level setting process to help build relationships for a larger gamer community; this method would force people to interact. This could ultimately lead to a more fulfilling game experience.
This doesn't make any sense. This absolutely happens with rulesets that do not require 20-page debates about their function. Players engage in social interaction over the narrative, story, events, and random rolls of the dice. There is no need to arbitrarily have vaguely written rules to "force" this kind of behavior. I cannot think of anything more narrative breaking than having to argue with your opponent for 10 minutes about whether or not rule X does Y or Z - and quite often, someone will be disappointed at the end because their whole game plan was based on an interpretation overturned by a roll-off.
I agree with this pretty much so, since it is kind of irritating for the flow of the game I am playing to be broken since neither me nor my opponent cannot understand a rule means or when it contradicts itself with another rule if the rules are vague/loose for interpretation. Arguing about the rules in a game is not a probable way to create a really healthy and fun social interaction of the gaming environment, and it takes away the good will if it gets too heated, thus ruins the flow, narrative, and gaming experience for me. With something that is clear, I do not have to worry about what a rule means, and my opponent having the same meaning behind that rule. With something that is tight, I do not have to worry about rules being counter-intuitive and flowing together nicely without many problems at all. In this way, this can help with the flow of the game and can help establish good will indirectly (although the rest is up to the player whether he is an ass or not).
Easy E wrote: Look, unlike a lot of people in this thread, I'm willing to accept that their are different ways of doing things.
No, I think everyone accepts that. The games I play vary wildly in the 'way they do things', and I enjoy them all. What you don't appear to understand is that you're essentially asserting that "My preferred way of doing things is to stop the game continuously for rules debates", and you seem to wonder why people are questioning that.
For example, GW wants to create new codexes and units on a regular basis for inclusion into their broad based sci-fantasy game. Tightness does not help that.
Tightness absolutely helps the integration of new rules into an existing ruleset. To argue otherwise is either ignorance or worse.
azreal13 wrote: ...To argue against an easily understood ruleset with minimal contradictions and an environment where no choice is objectively "better" or "worse" than another, just more or less functional in a given situation,...
I think this is impossible. You can move towards it, or you can move away from it on the spectrum of "tightness" but you will never acheive it for any sustained period (and make money).
Your idea of "better" is simply not my idea of "better". It's okay, no reason to pull a Scanners.
Look, unlike a lot of people in this thread, I'm willing to accept that their are different ways of doing things. YOu have a way you prefer, I have a way I prefer, and someone else has a way they prefer. None of them are right or wrong (unless they are playing me in a way I don't prefer! ). It is the Game Designer's choice on how they create their game based on what they want to achieve with the game.
If I want to do X, what will move me closer or farther from X. Sometimes, tightness will move you closer to X and sometimes it won't. For example, GW wants to create new codexes and units on a regular basis for inclusion into their broad based sci-fantasy game. Tightness does not help that. Seakreig wants to recreate naval combat between the Soviet and Nato Blocs using a set list of units during the Cold War in the early 1980's; then tightness may move the game closer to making sure players use their units in a way that is effective and recreates the circumstances of the period.
What it seems is you prefer a badly designed, badly written, unbalanced, game system because? it makes social interaction better? somehow?
And think that a well designed, tight, clear written and balanced game system helps rule abusers and power creeps?
Off to the "too hard" basket with ye! Let's all get back to the back slappin' GW hatin' we're good at! YEEEEEEEHAW!
I believe I said it was a spectrum, and different goals of the game can lead to different mechanics. Some of these will be different than others.
Plus, as I also said before, I don't want to make this totally about Gw vs. Others. Trust me, I think GW could do a lot fo things better and am not exactly a fanboi.
However, I do bow to the fact H.B.M.C. that you probably have more game design experience than I do.
Clear means well written rules that leave no gaps for misinterpretations
Tight means the rules are Intuitive and consistent without conflicts
External Balance means that any and all sides that can be chosen are equally valid to win.
Internal balance means that all possible choices in one side are valid options to take without been overshadowed by one or a few options that are too good to not take.
Does everyone agree with what was laid out here as the definition of tightness?
It is also totally possible, that I am using the wrong terms to try and illustrate my point. I'm not that smart or skilled at internet communications. It is also possible I am misunderstanding the points of contention. Again, I'm not that smart.
I strongly disagree with the not smart part, maybe you do not use correct terminology, I would suggest that you say what you think with your own words so we can all be in the same page.
Does everyone agree with what was laid out here as the definition of tightness?
It is also totally possible, that I am using the wrong terms to try and illustrate my point. I'm not that smart or skilled at internet communications. It is also possible I am misunderstanding the points of contention. Again, I'm not that smart.
Tight and clear means there is one interpretation of how this rules interaction works and it is the one the designer wants.
I do have one question though Easy E, do you think game designers should errata and FAQ rules (not when it is just a simple mistake) in order to try to achieve a more tight/clear rules set? You know when GW releases all those FAQ questions to answer questions that players have?
For example, GW wants to create new codexes and units on a regular basis for inclusion into their broad based sci-fantasy game. Tightness does not help that.
Tightness absolutely helps the integration of new rules into an existing ruleset. To argue otherwise is either ignorance or worse.
I have to agree with this. A tight and clear rules set would make it more easy to incorporate new rules. If all game effects have clear game definitions, it's easier to choose verbiage that meshes with the existing rules. If you are aware of how existing rules interact in a clear and concise manner, it is simple to write a new rule that offers exceptions to those existing rules by specifying what those exceptions are.
When rules are loose and unclear, then new rules will almost always do nothing but make the overall ruleset more loose and more unclear.
azreal13 wrote: ...To argue against an easily understood ruleset with minimal contradictions and an environment where no choice is objectively "better" or "worse" than another, just more or less functional in a given situation,...
I think this is impossible. You can move towards it, or you can move away from it on the spectrum of "tightness" but you will never acheive it for any sustained period (and make money).
Again--there are games that do this, and make money. To quote another reply to you:
PhantomViper wrote: Infinity has a tight ruleset (rulebook could have a better layout), FoW has a tight ruleset, Warmahordes has a tight ruleset, Malifaux has a tight ruleset (rulebook could have a better layout), even DW has a tight (even if a bit too random for my taste) ruleset. The only major commercial set of rules that I've played in the past 6 years that aren't clear and tight has been GW.
Have you played those games? If so, do you think PhantomViper was wrong in offering them as examples of a tight system (and BTW, all of them are making money). If not, maybe you should try them out before stating that rules tightness in a successful game is an impossible dream.
I really don't want to come across as harassing you for daring to disagree with the groupthink, but you're not doing yourself any favours when you make a statement and keep on making it after ignoring conflicting evidence.
Does everyone agree with what was laid out here as the definition of tightness?
It is also totally possible, that I am using the wrong terms to try and illustrate my point. I'm not that smart or skilled at internet communications. It is also possible I am misunderstanding the points of contention. Again, I'm not that smart.
Tight and clear means there is one interpretation of how this rules interaction works and it is the one the designer wants.
I do have one question though Easy E, do you think game designers should errata and FAQ rules (not when it is just a simple mistake) in order to try to achieve a more tight/clear rules set? You know when GW releases all those FAQ questions to answer questions that players have?
Great question. I'm not a fan of FAQs, instead I prefer designer's notes. I'm also a RAI vs. RAW guy, so I'm not sure why I'm even getting involved here. I'm obviously a stranger in a strange land.
As for other games I have played:
1. Infinity- I have not played.
2. Warma/hordes- I have the rulebook, read the rules, and decided it wasn't the game for me.
3. Malifaux- Have not played or read the rules
4. Dystopian Wars- This game is not "tight". It is a mess with lots of cross-over rules, strange rules interactions, and hard to find details in a poorly laid out rulebook. However, I do like this game. Granted, I'm not sure my version is the current edition.
5. FoW- I have the rulebook. This one is also a mess of "do this and this unless this or that has also happened". Plenty of "special snowflake" rules there. Again, I'm not sure I have the current edition.
Dystopian Wars and FoW are considered "tight" rulesets? Now I really have no idea what people are talking about.
I have played Force-on-Force and Tomorrow's War as well which uses "some" of the same mechanics as Inifnity regarding activation and reaction. I enjoy it alot, but that game is based on scenarios and self-assignment of stats. I really do love both of those games. Do those count as "tight" systems too? How about Blackpowder, Bolt Action, and Hail Ceasar? Since they are Priestely style, I am assuming those don't count as "tight" either because the y use the 4+ dice off method. How about Battletech of CAV? Do those count as tight? I've played those too. X-wing? Is that tight enough?
Do you want me to keep going to try and establish my non-GW gaming street cred because their are other games I have played, but not recently.
FAQ are an essential part of the beast because not all possible interactions can be predicted or caught before a book hits the press, or in some cases the wording is mishandled by some, if you want a more computer based terminology FAQ are patches.
Hi all.
I think there may be a bit of mis communication going on here.
I believe a lot of pre-game discussion on terrain set up, deployment and senario details is important , as these are really down to personal opinion and interpretation.(And players SHOULD agree this sort of stuff before the game starts.)
However, after the game starts, the rules should give you clearly defined instructions on how the game is played.
I do not mind rolling 'off off' something out of the ordinary happens, when 2 or more separate events interact in an unexpected way.
Eg When air burst artillery is in the same area as low flying aircraft, does the air craft take damage?
The rules for the artillery barrage are perfectly clear, and the rules for the low flying aircraft are also clear.
But the fact they were not expected to interact in the game has left a genuine unexpected interaction that is rolled off for.
IF I have to roll of to find out every day normal units interact with other units , then i do have a problem with the way the rules are written.
IF the game has poor balance issues and poorly defined rules, rules lawyer s and WAAC players have far more to work with.
Good games have great social interaction and well defined rules.
I agree the social side is important, but I prefer it to revolve around generating narrative , NOT debating the the function of the games rules.
Great question. I'm not a fan of FAQs, instead I prefer designer's notes. I'm also a RAI vs. RAW guy, so I'm not sure why I'm even getting involved here. I'm obviously a stranger in a strange land.
Aren't designer's notes basically the same thing though? It is not generally done in the yes or no format but accomplishes the same goal. Kinda like how the FAQ for GK covers what a daemon is for rules interactions, and the designer note in the chaos space marine codex says what a space marine is. Both clarify the rules. I don't quite understand why you don't like FAQs but like designer's notes.
Great question. I'm not a fan of FAQs, instead I prefer designer's notes. I'm also a RAI vs. RAW guy, so I'm not sure why I'm even getting involved here. I'm obviously a stranger in a strange land.
Aren't designer's notes basically the same thing though? It is not generally done in the yes or no format but accomplishes the same goal. Kinda like how the FAQ for GK covers what a daemon is for rules interactions, and the designer note in the chaos space marine codex says what a space marine is. Both clarify the rules. I don't quite understand why you don't like FAQs but like designer's notes.
I think the difference is more designers notes are in the book from the get go, they've actually thought about this and just done it in the notes format to say "hey here's the thing for clarity so you don't miss it!" as opposed to an FAQ (at least in GW's case) being "Hey! We didn't playtest this at all, so here's all the gak we forgot/couldn't be bothered/ just plain missed!"
Note that X-Wing has the "4+ it" resolution, but you almost never have to use it. Virtually every rule question has been FAQed exactly like a literal reading of the rules would say to play it. 40k's "4+ it" rule isn't a problem because they provide a way to resolve a dispute that isn't going anywhere, it's a problem because GW uses it as an excuse to avoid writing clear and consistent rules and you have to use it constantly.
There is a roll-off between opponents when Rules Questions come into play in Warmachine to resolve it. Although I have never had to use it at all. But at least it is safe than sorry, right?
TheAuldGrump wrote: My girlfriend is a very casual gamer, and likes Kings of War just fine.
She plays maybe once or twice a week (not this week or next, though - she is in St. Paul for a family reunion/grandmother's birthday event... dammit).
We play most often against each other, but really enjoy sharing an army in a mixed doubles game. (Us vs. a married couple - so far we are three wins for four games, the fourth and most recent was a tie... the other couple may be catching on to us....)
We have stopped a game when it became clear that neither of us were having fun because she had a bad deployment - I don't think either of us play with a WAAC approach to the game. (Heck, my favorite games are when she beats me, fair and square. I'm the one that taught her, so that means that I did a decent job of it.)
The Auld Grump
This is cute, sounds similar to apple picking or house fly hunting. Please don't ever attend a competitive 40k tournament, you'll never be the same... WAAC is FLGS or tourney centric. If you have a WAAC buddy and expect/accept to spend a evening arguing over cocked dice and line of site, you should smack him in the back of the head and turn on the TV.
TheAuldGrump wrote: My girlfriend is a very casual gamer, and likes Kings of War just fine.
She plays maybe once or twice a week (not this week or next, though - she is in St. Paul for a family reunion/grandmother's birthday event... dammit).
We play most often against each other, but really enjoy sharing an army in a mixed doubles game. (Us vs. a married couple - so far we are three wins for four games, the fourth and most recent was a tie... the other couple may be catching on to us....)
We have stopped a game when it became clear that neither of us were having fun because she had a bad deployment - I don't think either of us play with a WAAC approach to the game. (Heck, my favorite games are when she beats me, fair and square. I'm the one that taught her, so that means that I did a decent job of it.)
The Auld Grump
This is cute, sounds similar to apple picking or house fly hunting. Please don't ever attend a competitive 40k tournament, you'll never be the same... WAAC is FLGS or tourney centric. If you have a WAAC buddy and expect/accept to spend a evening arguing over cocked dice and line of site, you should smack him in the back of the head and turn on the TV.
Neither of us has any remaining interest in 40K or WHFB at all, I am afraid.
We still play Mordheim, and I want to introduce her to Necromunda, but none of the three current GW games interest us.
Nor do I have any interest in playing a WAAC player, regardless of game - playing one is an activity which sounds like it would be as much fun as covering myself in barbecue sauce and lying in a fire ants nest, only not as pleasant.
The last time I saw a game of WHFB being played was six months ago - with a long rules quoting argument taking up more time than the actual play.
In that same time I got in two games of Kings of War.
Part of that might be the relative age of the players - my opponent was in his forties, and I am older than that - the kids at the other table were in their twenties. (A sign of increasing age - when a person in their twenties is a 'kid'.)
But I have never had a rules argument in Kings of War - even in tourneys or when running at a FLGS - so, no, it is not FLGS or tourney specific. It is badly written rules specific.
I have helped run a KoW tourney, but not fought in one. The only dispute was whether one of the named characters from the rulebook was allowed. (The answer was 'no, but you can use the figure as a generic leader type'. The dispute happened because one player only had the free version from the Mantic site - and was answered in the hardcover rule book. He just hadn't seen the tourney rules, and used Battlescribe to do his list.)
I do not see the fun of arguing the rules when I could instead be playing the game.
The folks that I play Mordheim against are there to have fun - there are minor rules squabbles, but nothing major. And, again, most of the players are in their thirties and forties. (There are also two teens and one girl in her early twenties - I have hope for the next generation.)
I started in 40k, played Heroclix for years, MechWarrior, Crimson Skies, Wings of War/Glory, Axis and Allies table top, Start Wars miniatures, others.
I will say having well written rules is nice. I don't know that it discouraged WAAC or encouraged it at all. I've found that depends on the player. Several of the collectible miniature games have had well written rules or timely FAQ responses, but you got at lot of WAAC guys out prize sharking (winning the prize once wasn't enough, they had to win all of them in the city). I don't even know that building a team to WAAC is the problem. I think there are people that can be the problem. When they have to nickel and dime everything, play with poor sportsmanship, expect you to let their mistakes slide but crucify you for yours, etc.
What well written rules do allow is for less arguments. It doesn't eliminate friendly banter at all. Wings of War/Wings of Glory has very simple, well written rules. Games can be 15 minutes or 2 hours depending on what you want. I've never had a fight over a rules question playing it. Yet it's always been a fun time. We laugh, joke, groan, make light trash talk, etc.
GW makes some fun games. Myself, I'd LOVE to play with the old Warhammer skirmish rules. It seems like simple, fast, low cash involvement fun. Similarly, I loved 4th ed's Kill Team. It had a few problems, but was mostly a fun, and flexible system.
In short, it is the players that make games fun or not fun. Having a good rule set should just be a given, and helps the game flow more smoothly when you aren't buddies with your opponent or helps avoid bad blood between friends.
I don't know that it discouraged WAAC or encouraged it at all. I've found that depends on the player.
Maybe that's why I don't get hung up on the Rules debates. I have never found a ryules system someone couldn't be a D-bag with if they wanted too.
Ultimately, my thought is that the rules are secondary to understanding what the other player wants out of the game; and then acting in a cooperative manner to get it. A game designer may believes that his player base feels the same way and incorporates that into his games, where others may come from a more technical writing/programming school where the rules are there to make sure A + B = C to properly govern the interactions.
Old School wargamers, such as Don Featherstone (and others who's names escape me at the moment) were less rules heavy and more pagentry heavy (at least from what I have seen) and assumed you were doing this with a good friend or tow; trying to recreate some historical moment. However, as the Wargaming industry has evolved it has become more "Gamey" and less "Recreation". However, I'm sure I am missing a lot of perspective on the "history" of Wargames as they were originally all work and not play, yes I'm talking to you Kriegspiel.
Anyway, to sum up; a game designer trying to write tight rules sets is fine and won't create an inhernetly WAAC gamer; but a game designer that writes less tight rules with the understanding that players will use what works best is fine for me as well. However, I won't stand in the way of any game designer or player that insists on a Tight ruleset as long as I understand what they want to get out of a game and what they want aligns with what I want to get out of the game.
I don't know that it discouraged WAAC or encouraged it at all. I've found that depends on the player.
Maybe that's why I don't get hung up on the Rules debates. I have never found a ryules system someone couldn't be a D-bag with if they wanted too.
Ultimately, my thought is that the rules are secondary to understanding what the other player wants out of the game; and then acting in a cooperative manner to get it. A game designer may believes that his player base feels the same way and incorporates that into his games, where others may come from a more technical writing/programming school where the rules are there to make sure A + B = C to properly govern the interactions.
Old School wargamers, such as Don Featherstone (and others who's names escape me at the moment) were less rules heavy and more pagentry heavy (at least from what I have seen) and assumed you were doing this with a good friend or tow; trying to recreate some historical moment. However, as the Wargaming industry has evolved it has become more "Gamey" and less "Recreation". However, I'm sure I am missing a lot of perspective on the "history" of Wargames as they were originally all work and not play, yes I'm talking to you Kriegspiel.
Anyway, to sum up; a game designer trying to write tight rules sets is fine and won't create an inhernetly WAAC gamer; but a game designer that writes less tight rules with the understanding that players will use what works best is fine for me as well. However, I won't stand in the way of any game designer or player that insists on a Tight ruleset as long as I understand what they want to get out of a game and what they want aligns with what I want to get out of the game.
That may be the case, but for something like GW, it is just being lazy and focus on selling models and the rules being a very distant second. (And I bold that to state how terrible the rules are). You are also saying as well that you cannot also achieve those same results from tighter rulesets. It might seems more "gamey" in your sense, but those same rules can be used for a fun environment as well, in which in turn can be universal to an extent since you can play at another store, and the rules would have the same exact meaning as the store you would usually go to.
OP, I don't buy it either. Rock, Paper, Scissors has clear and tight rules and yet I can still play casually with young relatives. The same is true of x-wing (which I also play against strangers). Having a tight ruleset is absolutely does *NOT* somehow make casual games impossible. If anything, I've found the lack of arguments makes them better.
About all that they have in common is using 3/4 inch bases - not even that for some of the units - the 
)
holes or anything, but the assumption is always that you're there to "play" the game in a mechanical sense, as a puzzle and with a winner and a loser, rather than just to enjoy the experience of pushing your wee soldiers about and inventing a narrative around what happens during the game; there's also a somewhat elitist undercurrent, with "casual" games just being something "real" players do occasionally when they can't be bothered to play "properly". Those trends hold true everywhere I've played, and while there are always exceptions where you run into a casual player of a competitive game, or someone with a really competitive attitude using casual rules, they're not frequent.
