H.B.M.C. wrote: It always impresses me when we find people ready and willing to defend things like the 5-Avenger box price increase. Amazing really.
Same thing when GW increased the prices for LotR miniatures by more than 100%. Some people are mere apologists who lovingly and blindly embrace anything GW does, grasping for straws, pulling reasons out of thin air.
For the record an excerpt from the Legion of the Damned Codex:
When you choose an army, the Legion of the Damned may be taken as a primary
detachment or as a special form of allied detachment known as a Legion of the Damned
detachment.
If you take the Legion of the Damned as a primary detachment, use the Legion of the
Damned Force Organisation chart instead of the primary detachment Force Organisation
chart. Alternatively, an army may include a Legion of the Damned detachment in addition
to any other detachments. Other detachments, such as allied detachments, additional
primary detachments and fortifications can be taken normally. So, for example, you could
field an army with a Blood Angels primary detachment, an allied detachment of Imperial
Guard, and a Legion of the Damned detachment. You can include two Legion of the
Damned detachments in your army if you wish, but one of these must be the army’s
primary detachment. (By the way the mistakes in spelling are not mine. )
Correction: I have never seen organization spelled that way before, so believed it to be an error at the time. It has since been pointed out it is the correct spelling in England and Australia.
There is a mission rule in the glossary that could fix the whole issue if a FAQ allowed pure LotD to use it.
Aid From Beyond All units from the Legion of the Damned detachment arrive from Reserve at the start of
the Legion of the Damned player’s Turn 1. These units must enter play via Deep Strike as
normal.
Throt wrote: Is that an error or a design decision to not allow Legion of the Damned to be played as a primary force.? I don't know, do you and what evidence do you have?
The flamer worked. It was just crappy. You could not move and shoot it.
Again, "it is possible to play the game" is not a relevant standard. Both of those examples are situations where RAW functions, but the outcome is completely absurd. So either GW's rule authors are complete idiots and deliberately create rules that work in stupid ways, or the rules were intended to work differently and were broken.
I don't think that you are understanding the idea that all of this is subjective. You dislike the things that you dislike and you believe that it is broken because of this dislike. That's ok. Stupid to you is good to someone else. Blaming GW for your decision to play a game with rules that you hate so much...well your choice. Many others have no problems with the rule set and we are just as right as you are.
possible to play the game is a relevant standard. Because it is entirely subjective.
Do you play FPS or RTS the 'good' game is up to you.
This truly is a circular argument, and I assume we all know that.
I remember he references cancelling Games Days as a sign, but if they are not turning a profit or making a noticeable difference in market than it makes financial sense to stop them. Does it suck for gamers...hell yes (well in the old school ways anyway) but for business it makes sense.
Well yes, and that's exactly the point: Games Day should be a profitable event that improves GW's prestige, keeps players involved in the community, and builds excitement about new releases. All of these things should lead to improved profits, at a fairly reasonable cost. The fact that GW was unable to make a profit on them (or was short-sighted and canceled the events based on total ticket sales vs. cost instead of considering the indirect benefits) is a bad sign.
You would have to look at the data. Costs could have played a major factor. Many off site events are losses. If the losses are too high you cancel. And it is not necessarily bad business that causes this. I don't know why they were cancelled.
Bad for us sure but it does not mean the sky is falling.
In what bizarre alternate universe is increasing the cost of a model kit, cutting the number of models in half, and putting it in a new box not a drop in value? Does a shiny new box that ends up in the trash within a few minutes of opening it magically make up the drop in value caused by paying more than twice as much per model for the exact same models?
Again, because it is subjective.
My wife saw a Coach purse it was $300, she doesn't like coach that much so there was no value to her. It's still a purse. Yet people buy the purses because they see value in it. People pay $150 for nike tennis shoes that cost $5 to make in Malaysia.
Companies cut package sizes and raise prices often. Is it right? Not really. If you don't feel that you are getting a value you have to look at your options or don't invest. You may not buy, and others might.
People pay millions for artwork that they see value in the $15 paints and $30 canvas.
Throt wrote: You dislike the things that you dislike and you believe that it is broken because of this dislike.
No, I believe that it is broken because the rules as-written do not function in anything remotely resembling a sensible way. Models wearing helmets being unable to shoot or charge is broken, period. It is not a matter of personal preference, the rules obviously are not doing what they're supposed to. And you know why? Because GW doesn't bother to write clear rules.
And no, the fact that you say "this is obviously stupid" and allow models in helmets to shoot (by drawing LOS from their eye lenses) does not mean that the problem doesn't exist. It just means that you fixed the problem yourself, despite GW's failure to do so.
You would have to look at the data. Costs could have played a major factor. Many off site events are losses. If the losses are too high you cancel. And it is not necessarily bad business that causes this. I don't know why they were cancelled.
It's like you didn't even bother to read the post you quoted. I'm not disputing that GD lost money. My point is that it should have been a net profit. Either:
1) GW managed the event badly (removing the games you could play, not dealing with the problem of long lines, etc), allowed it to become unappealing enough (especially compared to third-party gaming conventions and similar events) that only the hardcore fans bothered to attend. The decline in GD attendance is indisputable fact, and the reasons for it are pretty obvious. So it's not a surprise that the event would become a net loss and GW would finally put it out of its misery. But the fact that finally ending it was a sensible decision at that point does not excuse GW's failures in allowing it to reach that point.
and/or
2) GW was incredibly short-sighted, compared the cost of running the event to the total ticket sales, and declared it a net loss without bothering to consider the indirect benefits and how much profit they might be providing. Since those benefits won't appear until later and will probably never have definite numbers attached to them it's easy to cut GD and tell the shareholders how "responsible" you are being by removing that loss, trusting that none of those shareholders know enough about the hobby to realize what is actually happening. It makes the next financial report look a bit better, at the expense of long-term success.
Either way the fact that GW canceled GD is a bad sign. The reasons WHY a company does something are just as important as the act itself, and either interpretation of GW's actions suggests bad things about the health of the company. And it's especially a bad sign once you stop looking at it in isolation and consider the context. Canceling GD alone might not be a bad thing, but in the context of analyzing GW's current situation it seems to be more desperate cost cutting without much concern for its impact on future growth beyond the next financial report.
Again, because it is subjective.
No, it really isn't. If the models cost $X for 10 in the recent past and now cost $(X+Y) for 5 then the box has decreased in value. If you consider that "subjective" then your definition of "subjective" does not match the one found in the dictionary.
I've played GW games on and off for the better part of 20 years. I like the miniatures, the ambiguous nature of the back ground provides ample opportunity for me to personalise my force, and my ever improving modelling skills are allowing me to depict my own vision of what my army should be.
During My formative years i was a power gamer of epic beardy proportions. i didn't cheat (except when playing blood bowl) and i would exploit ridiculous items combinations in both warhammer and 40k for hillarious outcomes. And, being in a naturally competitive group, everyone else did roughly the same thing. We all found the 'Quest for the unbeatable army' article by Allesio to be fantastic, and none of us even thought of the Snotling pump wagon/ goblin shaman combo that ultimately won. We generally all performed well in local and regional tournaments and GW produced enough different games that we could play a different game every day if we wanted to.
I've mellowed out somewhat since. I can still spot the more obvious combos in books during the first read, it took me all of an hour to spot the Orikan + Writhing worldscape combo when the necron codex dropped. and it took me the same amount of time to spot the problem with the 'repair barge' rule (i.e, unless i've missed a FAQ, its broken) I'm prepared to accept that its a distinct possibility that the rule allowing court members to join units was added after most of the book was finished and 'play tested' but the fact that it hasn't been clarified at all says that GW doesn't care (yes or no is irrelevant, just clarification would be nice).
More reasonable pricing would be nice, but i earn enough that i can buy what i want, when i want. iniature quality has been improving, although they do let some absolute stinkers through QC occasionally, and the finecast debacle was ridiculous,
The rules have been evolving over time, and i've not come across a rulebook yet that didn't have typos in it, however 40k suffers from not knowing what kind of game it wants to be. or rather, 40k players choosing to play the game as what they want it to be, rather than what it is. I've found that the sweet spot for 40k is around the 750 - 1250 point mark. However personal opinion of the optimal game size aside, 40k has the most awful army balance issues of any game i've played.
Ideally a player should be able to choose an army using whatever criteria they want (looks, play style, historical accuracy, take all comers) and still have a good game against any other player without having to discuss beforehand what type of game you expect.
Flames of war achieves this. Infinity Achieves this. neither game has a massive divide between 'fluffy' and 'competitive' gamers. those labels in my experience only exist when applied to GW games. Its this divide that causes most of the grief in 40k.
I phoned up a FLGS that i was visiting for the first time. I asked what they played, and i also asked how competitive the group was. 40k was played, and 'Very Competitive' came the answer. I decided to go for wraithwing because of my armies thats the only one that was remotely built for burying opponents(and mostly painted) suffice to say, my definition of competitive, and their definition of competitive were not the same. and the point is i shouldn't even have had to ask, all i need to know with any other game is, what it is, and how many points, thats it!
As to rules? well, the only problems i have with non GW rules is getting them wrong when i'm learning, possibly misunderstanding them. ask a question in infinity, and sure enough someone will point out the page and thats it. for 40k on dakka dakka you have the YMDC forum. that in itself shows how badly playtested, badly worded and badly thought out a lot of rules are.
GW is a big company, they have a lot of loyal fans. they make awesome miniatures. they could go the route a lot of other companies do and have the community help with playtesting the rules, and the armies. they don't, so we have what we have. a badly worded ruleset, badly balanced armies, and a divided community.
Personally, I find that the community can be pretty harsh to GW.
I mean yes there some very sore points, ones that I dislike also but as you said people are just being too complacent.
The faster release schedule I feel is better as it keeps things exciting in the sense there's something to look forward to every week.
The new WD I also think is slightly better because you can pick it up when there's something of interest to you rather than sifting through a whole load of stuff like in the monthly one (tho I didn't mind that either).
And if anyone has checked GW's YouTube channel as of late, they've begun uploading some painting videos also. I mean, of course no one is going to paint Ork skin with 13 different paints for just table top standard, but I feel it shows GW is trying to re-connect with the community a bit and good on them for that.
So yes there are many bad points about GW that could easily be fixed if they just listened to customers a bit more, however I dislike hearing all the slander and complaining about them.
Basically it just comes down to the fact that you can't please everyone but you can try your best and I feel GW is TRYING to do that, not saying they're exactly succeeding but they are trying.
No, I believe that it is broken because the rules as-written do not function in anything remotely resembling a sensible way. Models wearing helmets being unable to shoot or charge is broken, period. It is not a matter of personal preference, the rules obviously are not doing what they're supposed to. And you know why? Because GW doesn't bother to write clear rules.
I agree. Problems with GW rules are not subjective. If someone sold us a car and it wouldn't work , then the fact that the car can be moved by pushing or towing doesn't mean it is only broken subjectivly for us only.
Lobomalo wrote: It is too early to tell, you would need to find a trend to support the theory, so I will give you until the next report, if it shows a decline, you're right, but I doubt it will.
There's already a trend. Prices go up, profits don't go up faster than inflation. Conclusion: GW is selling a smaller number of boxes for a higher price per-box. GW cuts costs everywhere and brags about it in their financial reports, profits don't go up faster than inflation. Conclusion: GW's cost cutting is covering up weak sales, and eventually GW is going to run out of things to cut without sacrificing quality in obvious ways. GW sees a big drop in profits in the period that includes the christmas shopping season (in an industry that should see lots of sales at that time). Conclusion: sales were really bad, and only the christmas spike saved them from a worse disaster.
And as for the next report, it's about more than just the final profit number. Remember that this next report will include the major cash cow of a new 40k edition, which means a lot of extra sales that GW can't easily repeat for a while. To consider the report an optimistic one GW can't just avoid a decline, they need to see a meaningful increase in profit. And they need to do it through legitimate sales increases, not just cost cutting and other short-term business tricks that cover up the real numbers.
Profits at GW have been good and increasing for several years, actually. It is revenues that are relatively static.
The interim report of Dec 2013 was a shocker because of the sudden drop in revenue and profit. The end of year report will show if GW recovered from that.
Like them hiting the wall of what people can pay for a starting w40k army vs playing in an taudar enviroment. I think that is why they made the new edition , so everyone has to buy new rulebooks , drop their tau ally , drop their taudar and stock up on things few people bought a lot.
Lobomalo wrote: Okay, I now know for sure that you are not a competitive MtG player at ll. Mono blue works by exploiting the rules, its the only way it truly functions in some formats. EDH also works by exploiting every loophole a player can, otherwise a deck couldn't run 9 different ways to pull of infinite turns with only two colors.
Can you give me a single example?
Mono-blue might "exploit" the rules, but it doesn't "exploit" errors and loopholes in the rules.
In MtG the 'problem' is that two cards have synergy/combo into something extremely powerful.
In WH40k the problem is that two models create situations that aren't explained in the rules.
The problem in WH40k is that they write rules that don't even work at all!
In MtG I hardly ever have to take out the BRB because with thousands of cards and interactions things are never unclear.
In a well written WH40k I would only have to take out the BRB to check on tables, profiles and effects on Special Rules because I cannot memorize them all.
And to continue with this:
Throt wrote: Do you want/need a 700 page rule book cover everything?
Half the things in YMDC are insanity. There was a Fantasy thread that went for 18 pages because of the line that says 'round fractions up' and how it is divided in 1999 point games. Does GW have to write a breakdown of every subtle nuance and possible situation that might arise.
I guess they do for some.
Yes, I want a 700 page book to cover everything!
The reason I want this is because I spend a lot of money on this game:
60 euro for the 7th Edition BRB.
40 euro for a Codex or 130 for a Limited Edition.
40 euro for a supplement.
5-15 euro for Dataslates.
4 euro for a WD with rules.
When my Blood Angels are released I will buy WD if it has rules, I will buy dataslates and supplements. I will get a Codex and I will have bought the BRB.
By the time I have everything I will have spent over 150 euro for all the rules!
Can you understand that some people would like those rules to actually work without a problem?
Makumba wrote: Like them hiting the wall of what people can pay for a starting w40k army vs playing in an taudar enviroment. I think that is why they made the new edition , so everyone has to buy new rulebooks , drop their tau ally , drop their taudar and stock up on things few people bought a lot.
Which is what they do too often. A good unit today may be garbage tomorrow to force a treadmill of buying. Not in itself bad (WM/H does this too) but then GW compounds it with their insane pricing + quantity scheme. Paying $50 or slightly more for a new unit is one thing. Needing to buy 2+ boxes at $50+ to make a complete unit is not because the cost is multiplying.
Throt wrote: Again the no eye =no los groups had a problem, no one I know did. It did not need any discussion. There was no problem to go away. No problem to fix. Nothing to overlook. Because you had a problem doesn't mean it DID exist.
So how did you draw LOS from models without eyes without creating a house rule?
It appears you do. Let's look at the no eyes issue. Since you seek clarification then we must have a list of all models with out eyes and what point on all the models we draw line of sight from.
You need no such thing. There are multiple, really simple ways to fix the problem. One is the solution that GW finally went with: Stop drawing LOS from the model's eyes, and just let players use any part of the model.
Another option would have been to just add a caveat to the original rule for models without eyes and/or heads, to tell you to draw LOS from somewhere else.
You're making it into a far bigger issue than it actually was, though. For the vast majority of players, a workaround was easy enough that many players didn't even consider it a workaround, as appears to be the case for you. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a basic situation that was not covered by the rules for multiple editions, and that should have been.
The whole point of having a set of rules is to tell you what to do when a given situation arises.
The bit I can never figure out in these discussions is why people go to such great lengths to insist that having a badly-written ruleset is actually a good thing. As it stands, if the rules are unclear, or have a bunch of things that they just don't cover, then the players who don't mind filling in the gaps won't mind, while the players who want a clear, workable ruleset are going to be unhappy with it.
By contrast, if the rules were written in a clear, concise manner that actually covered the entire game, that first group of players would still be fine (in most cases they wouldn't even notice a difference other than perhaps that the rules were easier to read) and the second group would also be fine. Everybody wins... which makes it, to me, seem like the no-brainer option to aim for.
Rules, especially $85 rules (more than everyone else for seemingly no reason other than "We can") should not have ambiguity like that. If the rules state "Draw LOS from a models eyes" then they need to say what to do if a model doesn't have eyes, or else not have that rule. The fact it was simple to house rule just means GW was completely lazy. Therein lies the problem: they seem to assume you WILL house rule or at least come to an agreement with your opponent and keep rules ambiguous as a result (or they really want an impartial third player as GM). That is NOT how to write rules. Even D&D, which DID require a GM for virtually everything, needed concise rules with the GM to arbitrate things that fell outside the rules since accounting for everything a player might do would be impossible. 40k has no such limitation within the rules of the game.
Throwing my thoughts on GW. I think the rules were never meant to be written as 'perfect' as what the customer expected. Its better business sense to in this case to have a few flaws in the product for 2 reasons. People will take advantage of the flaw and purchase models (ie Heldrake, deamons). second, to leave a few desired rules change in each and every book. It gives customers anticiaption for the next edition of their codex and rulebook.
Imagine if your codex and 7th ed ruleset is 'perfect'. You are more likely to dread the next edition instead to hoping GW makes the right changes.
I actually had no issue with the pricetag on the new rulebook (I'm returning to 40K after big hiatus). I expect to pay $50 for a decent sized rulebook of the quality GW puts out. However, the extra books made the $85 reasonable to me since I no longer have anything 40K related (got rid of it all, fluff, galleries etc). I can see this as a problem for a 6th Ed gamer since it was so close and you probably have all the fluff/pictures you could ever want. But from a "new" gamer perspective, the value of the books is certainly close to the $85 mark.
I also find some of the units reasonably priced too. I could say 5 wraithguard are expensive at $50 a box ($10 a model) then I look at my FOW tanks that are $58 for 5 and are not as large a model, so the comparison is fine. Character models are a joke though, $20-25 for a single model is outrageous unless it is a hulking model. And that leads me to my biggest gripe with 40K currently. I've walked into the local GW store many times recently, the manager is a very cool dude and personable (GW Scottsdale), However, sometimes I just want to spend $10-15 on a model as a casual purchase, not invest in an entire unit. I've always liked buying that way and it often leads to an entire army investment. One small purchase. That is no longer possible in the GW environment as those models no longer exist so I often walk away empty handed with cash in my pocket. I just don't see a $50 purchase as a casual buy I'm afraid and therefore won't do it.
So for me, GW can do a lot of things right, but still drop the ball on some of the marketing decisions they have made over the years. As for the rules, I haven't played enough games with enough people to see if 7th Edition works for me yet. I like it through reading, and have 2 armies balanced against each other (Dark Angels vs Iyanden......but I had to really retailor the DA to be competitive) but I have no idea how they would stack up vs my buddy's forces or those at a FLGS. I expect to lose many games until the learning curve is surpassed, but i hope I don't get to the point where I find out it's not a tactical issue but an army purchase issue and have to put models back on shelves to have a chance at a good game.
I think this topic has really gone so far off topic and a lot of personal attacks are being made that we need to get back to discussing what it is about.
I don't think anyone is saying there are absolutely no redeeming qualities about 40k, some are saying there are no redeeming qualities of GW, but that doesn't make people whinners for disliking a lot of what is going on with their hobby.
In the spirit of good will, these are the things I enjoy about this game and this hobby;
The fluff is fun and interesting, it isn't the best written but it certainly has its appeal in the over the top characters and the parody grim dark setting.
The models ARE really nice and fun to work with, even if they are not the best and considerably expensive.
The armies are unique and varied, even between Space Marine chapters you can easily tell the differences and it makes for a lot of interesting games.
The allowance of such customization of your army, to personalize every aspect of it if you desire.
But I have a major problem with the following, because it seems that every step forward GW takes they take two steps back;
The accelerated release schedule, many armies are not getting the attention they need in order to push of codices faster. Tyranids suffer a lot because of the copy and pasting from past editions that have left many units unusable even in a casual setting. You can not tell me that even casually the Pyrovore has any viability. I have not seen the Ork codex yet but from talking with people who have it is in much the same boat. Taking into consideration that these two armies both suffer greatly from the core rules favoring shooting heavy armies it is disheartening to see our favorite armies left behind and it seems that we are being ignored.
Part two of my problem with the accelerated release schedule is that they aren't releasing more rule sets, they are just breaking down the rule sets they made and selling them of piece by piece as opposed to making larger more thought out releases.
Part three is that MANY of their choices seem to be blatant money grabs and regardless of GW being in the business of making money it is disrespectful to your customers.
The rules ARE ambiguous in many areas, more so than in many competing games and while those defending GW may be right and part of it may indeed be because of the scale difference then I would have to argue that GW needs to reconcile their expectation of the game with the rules. If you are going to give us skirmish level rules, make the game skirmish level. If you want the game to be larger scale, modify the rules to reflect this. I have played so many competing games at this point that to me the GW method or rule writing seems archaic and a relic of a day when they were the only game on the scene. I am not asking GW to reinvent the wheel, but it isn't a bad thing to learn something from your competition.
Finally, the pricing. I know many people will say jump on this but I don't mean at large,I mean in a few specific cases. Paying $5-$10 for individual infantry is ridiculous, I am not talking about Terminators I am talking about Dire Avengers and Dark Elf Witch Elves. By and large GW products are priced a little higher than the competition and that is okay, but there are some REAL outliers than need to be addressed. Also, supplements. There is NO reason to charge codex prices for a couple of pages of fluff and about two pages of rules. These things need to be made less expensive seeing as how you already need a codex to play them in the first pace.
wufai wrote: Throwing my thoughts on GW. I think the rules were never meant to be written as 'perfect' as what the customer expected. Its better business sense to in this case to have a few flaws in the product for 2 reasons. People will take advantage of the flaw and purchase models (ie Heldrake, deamons). second, to leave a few desired rules change in each and every book. It gives customers anticiaption for the next edition of their codex and rulebook.
Imagine if your codex and 7th ed ruleset is 'perfect'. You are more likely to dread the next edition instead to hoping GW makes the right changes.
Anticipation, or frustration? Right now, it feels like roulette with each new edition where models will fluctuate wildly in use, in a way that has nothing to do with their actual points costs. People already dread new editions or codexes, and seem to have given up on the notion that balance might improve. The attitude largely seems to be "Don't screw my army up too badly." with each new update.
wufai wrote: Throwing my thoughts on GW. I think the rules were never meant to be written as 'perfect' as what the customer expected. Its better business sense to in this case to have a few flaws in the product for 2 reasons. People will take advantage of the flaw and purchase models (ie Heldrake, deamons). second, to leave a few desired rules change in each and every book. It gives customers anticiaption for the next edition of their codex and rulebook.
Imagine if your codex and 7th ed ruleset is 'perfect'. You are more likely to dread the next edition instead to hoping GW makes the right changes.
Anticipation, or frustration? Right now, it feels like roulette with each new edition where models will fluctuate wildly in use, in a way that has nothing to do with their actual points costs. People already dread new editions or codexes, and seem to have given up on the notion that balance might improve. The attitude largely seems to be "Don't screw my army up too badly." with each new update.
The problem here is that because of how they market, GW basically has to shake things up constantly. They're basically trying to change up the meta like how MtG works, but failing miserably at it. PP does this too but it's nowhere near to the level GW does, where things can go from really good to total garbage with every release. Their model seems to be what is good now needs to be made bad, so people will buy something else and therefore spend more money, and then the cycle continues next time around. IMO that's a pretty piss poor way to run a business.
In an ideal world, GW's rules writers would be like neurosurgeons, each new codex or edition subtly shifting the weighting of player choice, slightly emphasising or de-emphasising a unit's capabilities, not to the point where they're utterly eviscerated and no longer viable. Alongside that, they'd introduce new units which brought new things to the table for a particular faction, or an alternative way of occupying a specific battlefield role.
Alongside that, the design dept would be producing the occasional new kit, but also taking advantage of the passage of time generating new creative ideas and technologies to implement them to re-issue redesigns of old models that we'd gladly buy because they're were massively more pleasing models to own/paint/build.
But alas, in reality, instead of neurosurgeons, we have chimps with mallets.
I'd be happy if everything just had a place in the army, and you weren't penalized JUST for picking the wrong unit. I find it very ironic that they continually push this crap about building your collection and buying what you think is cool or what you like the fluff for, when units aren't equal.
In an ideal game, and what other games do, each unit represents a specific tactical choice with pros and cons that add up to an overall force. There should never be a choice that is so good that taking it is always better than any other choice, regardless of the type of army you build or the other units you have, and there should never be a choice that has absolutely no reason other than "I like how it looks" to be taken because it's bad at everything. 40k has both of those.
WayneTheGame wrote: I'd be happy if everything just had a place in the army, and you weren't penalized JUST for picking the wrong unit. I find it very ironic that they continually push this crap about building your collection and buying what you think is cool or what you like the fluff for, when units aren't equal.
In an ideal game, and what other games do, each unit represents a specific tactical choice with pros and cons that add up to an overall force. There should never be a choice that is so good that taking it is always better than any other choice, regardless of the type of army you build or the other units you have, and there should never be a choice that has absolutely no reason other than "I like how it looks" to be taken because it's bad at everything. 40k has both of those.
Except that's how it is in most games. You pick either what you like or what is best. Every unit has a place in the army, it may not always be the best place in an army but they all have one. It isn't on the game designers that certain things are looked down upon by the players, especially once you look towards the competitive scene. There, in every game is where you see the most trimming of the proverbial fat in a players army and things are flat out left behind because they won't offer a quick victory.
For example, why bother with melee units in a gun line?
Why invest in bikes if your army focuses more on assault?
Depending on how you want to play your army, certain things are going to be tossed out, but that is on you as a player, not the game designer.
The best example I can think of off the top of my head is SCII. Specifically Terrans. No matter how many buffs, nerfs or new units, the best thing a Terran army can do is MMM death balls. There are strategies to counter them but simple micro allows the Terran player to outplay the counter and still pick up a win. The way MMM is played, so many things get left behind.
Zerg Roach rush uses a combination of 2 or three units depending on what you are playing. You end up with units and buildings that never get built because they are not useful for that strategy. Not that they are not viable, but the player has an idea in mind as to what they are trying to do.
The same holds true for 40k. Players choose to build towards top tier lists as if they are going to be competitive players in tournaments all around, in reality, the bulk are casuals who think they are competitive and they emulate the strategies created by those who are competitive.
It's a choice, a preference and something that is entirely the fault of the players.
The problem here is that because of how they market, GW basically has to shake things up constantly. They're basically trying to change up the meta like how MtG works, but failing miserably at it. PP does this too but it's nowhere near to the level GW does, where things can go from really good to total garbage with every release. Their model seems to be what is good now needs to be made bad, so people will buy something else and therefore spend more money, and then the cycle continues next time around. IMO that's a pretty piss poor way to run a business.
Except the meta for MtG doesn't change too much until blocks rotate out. For example, Esper control has continued to be mainstream meta since Alara launched as has Jund aggro. They've never actually been balanced and they have been top tier since the concepts came out years ago. Wizards tried to shift the meta away from this idea of Esper/Jund when they relaunched Mirrodin and Ravnica, but players still found ways to update these ideas with modern cards.
Magic is also a great example of a company that continuously pushes out a product from which the bulk of the cards are not even played. Most top tier decks run 12-13 cards (3-4 copies of each) out of a set with hundreds of cards in them. Standard generally keeps everything within the last two years as legal for tournament play, everything else goes into Extended, Legacy and EDH. So you have two years worth of cards, from which you will rarely see more than 20 different cards in each players deck.
Why is this? Because they are not as useful to the idea the players have gone for in the competitive scene. EDH and Legacy pick up a crap ton of the cards that never see Standard competitive play which helps alleviate the issue, then you have the Cube format and Pauper EDH which picks up all the commons/uncommons nobody wants to use. But only Standard has the international tournaments and even they ditch so many cards its sad.
The point he was making is that there are some units which will not be used regardless of what play style you're going for, as other units are simply better than them at everything.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The point he was making is that there are some units which will not be used regardless of what play style you're going for, as other units are simply better than them at everything.
This I disagree with. I regularly see people that use units others see as useless. I have a guy who regularly wants to use Snipers in his DA army even though they are almost complete garbage. I use Gene Stealers in my army and many, many Tyranid players are very vocal about how bad they think they are.
I tend to look outside the box. A unit is not viable until after I have used it in every combination I can think of. So far, the only unit I have ever seen that has been pointless was my friends DA warlord Azrael. Company Master's do just as well at half the cost.
I also tend to be more objective when I look at units, I don't look for the strongest possible combinations because I have seen and won way too many games with units people disregard because Strategy > Powerful units.
Against a powerful army with a good player using genestealers will not typically yield good results. It may work for you because your meta isnt as cut throat but it will not work for everyone or even many people.
wufai wrote: Imagine if your codex and 7th ed ruleset is 'perfect'. You are more likely to dread the next edition instead to hoping GW makes the right changes.
If the rules were 'perfect' (and frankly, after 7 tries, it's not unreasonable to think that they should be fairly close) there would be no particular need for a 'next' edition. GW could just focus on updating 15-year-old models and releasing campaign books and expansions that would remain current for longer than 2 years...
Whenever anyone on these forums wins with something people on these forums things they shouldn't, it's always because the meta isn't as good there. This answer is so asinine it's insulting. There are seven shops around here, 2 of which are GW the other 5 have been exclusive to Warhammer for over ten years and have some incredibly competitive players. You may not think the meta is very good, but if you came down here, you'd probably lose. They are more open minded about what can work and what does work. I've noticed a great deal of rigidity in these forums when people look at armies and a lot of them are nothing more than opinions.
These things may not work for you for a number of factors, only one of them being the meta in whatever places you play. The majority of the reasons though are what you are using them with, how you are employing them and what you are playing against.
Lobomalo wrote: Whenever anyone on these forums wins with something people on these forums things they shouldn't, it's always because the meta isn't as good there.
Unless you post a full battle report, this is usually an apt assumption to make. People frequently look at Top 16 and Top 32 in 150+ man tournaments because you'll see cream rise to the top. When you have a full years worth of tournament data, you can make a pretty reasonable assumption what's good and what isn't.
Yes, you can be what we call a "statistical outlier" in the sense you're a good general with a solid army and you happen to beat another player with a certain army type that's "supposed to win". The point of armies and their strengths being lopsided is represented by good general + good army means a much more consistent outcome of winning for that player. Also, that good player + bad army is on the back foot for such games and bad player + good army will also be at a disadvantage.
It's boiling down the argument to very few variables, but you get the idea. If someone somehow cracks the nut, then feel free to bring the list to a major GT and see how it goes. Or post detailed battle reports for further analysis. The anecdote of "I beat Seerstar once with 4 Dark Angels Terminators and a bucket of clams" that we see floating around as a means to dismiss the power creep in 40k holds little merit almost all the time when pressed for further details.
Lobomalo wrote: Whenever anyone on these forums wins with something people on these forums things they shouldn't, it's always because the meta isn't as good there. This answer is so asinine it's insulting. There are seven shops around here, 2 of which are GW the other 5 have been exclusive to Warhammer for over ten years and have some incredibly competitive players. You may not think the meta is very good, but if you came down here, you'd probably lose. They are more open minded about what can work and what does work. I've noticed a great deal of rigidity in these forums when people look at armies and a lot of them are nothing more than opinions.
These things may not work for you for a number of factors, only one of them being the meta in whatever places you play. The majority of the reasons though are what you are using them with, how you are employing them and what you are playing against.
You know why Genestealers are looked down on? Because their extremely vulnerable to Bolters. Now how many armies have access to Bolters or something similar? They are not fast, they are not resilient, but they hit hard. Genestealers can do great things in a game where everyone is just having fun and they are honestly not that bad of a unit just entirely overcosted, there is no reason for them to cost as much as a Space Marine.
You are falling into a trap that so many new players fall into with 40k and that is believing that the your meta is somehow special and unique, it isn't. My meta isn't unique, I can play Genestealers in my meta without them getting torn to pieces every game, I sometimes DO play Genestealers for fun. But I still recognize that they are grossly overpriced and in a competitive sense they are terrible. Your meta just isn't as cut throat as you think it is unless you constantly see Screamstar/Seerstar/Serpent Spam or what ever top tier tournament list is making the rounds.
But I have challenge for you Lobomalo, since you seem to think that GW knows better than the players I want you to try and explain to me what use the Pyrovore is. Or how about Rough Rides if you are willing to go boldly into territory unknown to you. I have literally played and owned every single army since 3rd edition at one point or another, I have experienced most of the pros and cons of each army, but the one army that I have never sold, never shelved for longer than a month was Tyranids. You can not truly believe that every single unit has a valid use in this game, I just can not understand that mind set unless you are just ignorant of some of the worse this game has to offer.
Pyrovores, Hormagaunts, Mandrakes, Rough Riders, and so many more are in a place where they serve no function in an army. They are made obsolete by their own codex. This isn't to say they are unplayable but it is a serious design flaw when you have units in a codex that have no benefit to them other than you may like the way the model looks. These units CAN accomplish something on the table but you would be handicapping yourself by playing them.
The key difference between MtG and 40K is that there is a huge investment of time and in some way emotion in building a 40K Army.
For example my Hive Fleet Kielbasa was built over 18 months. I got the codex, selected units and scoured eBay for bargain secondhand models. Sculpted and cast new bases for my 66 Termagants. Got Chapter House and Forge World parts to build my Tervigon and Tyrannofex. Lovingly converted Hive Guard out of Bitz because the GW kits were crap.
Most of the models were converted from the GW standard, and the army was played at three local tournaments. I won some Spore Pods which were brought into service for the 3rd event.
If I was playing MtG I would just have bought some cards.
Lobomalo wrote: Whenever anyone on these forums wins with something people on these forums things they shouldn't, it's always because the meta isn't as good there. This answer is so asinine it's insulting. There are seven shops around here, 2 of which are GW the other 5 have been exclusive to Warhammer for over ten years and have some incredibly competitive players. You may not think the meta is very good, but if you came down here, you'd probably lose. They are more open minded about what can work and what does work. I've noticed a great deal of rigidity in these forums when people look at armies and a lot of them are nothing more than opinions.
These things may not work for you for a number of factors, only one of them being the meta in whatever places you play. The majority of the reasons though are what you are using them with, how you are employing them and what you are playing against.
You know why Genestealers are looked down on? Because their extremely vulnerable to Bolters. Now how many armies have access to Bolters or something similar? They are not fast, they are not resilient, but they hit hard. Genestealers can do great things in a game where everyone is just having fun and they are honestly not that bad of a unit just entirely overcosted, there is no reason for them to cost as much as a Space Marine.
You are falling into a trap that so many new players fall into with 40k and that is believing that the your meta is somehow special and unique, it isn't. My meta isn't unique, I can play Genestealers in my meta without them getting torn to pieces every game, I sometimes DO play Genestealers for fun. But I still recognize that they are grossly overpriced and in a competitive sense they are terrible. Your meta just isn't as cut throat as you think it is unless you constantly see Screamstar/Seerstar/Serpent Spam or what ever top tier tournament list is making the rounds.
But I have challenge for you Lobomalo, since you seem to think that GW knows better than the players I want you to try and explain to me what use the Pyrovore is. Or how about Rough Rides if you are willing to go boldly into territory unknown to you. I have literally played and owned every single army since 3rd edition at one point or another, I have experienced most of the pros and cons of each army, but the one army that I have never sold, never shelved for longer than a month was Tyranids. You can not truly believe that every single unit has a valid use in this game, I just can not understand that mind set unless you are just ignorant of some of the worse this game has to offer.
Pyrovores, Hormagaunts, Mandrakes, Rough Riders, and so many more are in a place where they serve no function in an army. They are made obsolete by their own codex. This isn't to say they are unplayable but it is a serious design flaw when you have units in a codex that have no benefit to them other than you may like the way the model looks. These units CAN accomplish something on the table but you would be handicapping yourself by playing them.
On the contrary, my meta shouldn't be any different than what you would find at any other shop across the states, but this depends entirely on what armies are being played there because they are not always consistent across all shops.
I'll take your challenge, how long do I have to test them out, find a way to make them useful and get back to you? I would need to buy the Pyrovores and some of the others you have listed as the shops here don't let you proxy one unit for another. Say, two weeks?
Also, when did I say GW knew better? Don't put words in my mouth, it is quite rude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The key difference between MtG and 40K is that there is a huge investment of time and in some way emotion in building a 40K Army.
For example my Hive Fleet Kielbasa was built over 18 months. I got the codex, selected units and scoured eBay for bargain secondhand models. Sculpted and cast new bases for my 66 Termagants. Got Chapter House and Forge World parts to build my Tervigon and Tyrannofex. Lovingly converted Hive Guard out of Bitz because the GW kits were crap.
Most of the models were converted from the GW standard, and the army was played at three local tournaments. I won some Spore Pods which were brought into service for the 3rd event.
If I was playing MtG I would just have bought some cards.
MtG has a lot of the same investment and emotion. Especially when you look at the legacy and EDH formats. EDH is a format where people are constantly shifting and building more and more stuff into their deck and once you hit that point where you think it's done, a new set comes out with new cards and you find something that could work in your deck.
The emotional investment between building a great deck and building an army really isn't different and its callous to shrug off the effort people put into building a deck.
Not to mention, high end EDH decks easily cost more than 1k, mono red being slightly less because mono red is incredibly week in this format.
Yet you said yourself earlier that your meta is made up of very competitive players and that any outsider who played there would lose quickly.
The point here isn't that these units are unusable it's that they are far less useable in their role than other units in their own Codex which means they are poorly balanced.
TheCustomLime wrote: Yet you said yourself earlier that your meta is made up of very competitive players and that anyone who played there would lose quickly.
The point here isn't that these units are unusable it's that they are far less useable in their role than other units in their own Codex which means they are poorly balanced.
Try different roles? It helps to think outside the box.
Also, just because something isn't used as often as another unit, that isn't a sign of poor balance. It's a sign that players favor some things over others which is entirely natural and happens in all games that give you unit choices. Things get outdated and become less useful, but not unusable.
There is a major difference between the highlighted. From what I've seen, many here seem to think things are flat unusable and that is entirely not the case. Their uses may be limited and it may take some creativity when using them but they are by no means useless or unusable.
I'll take your challenge, how long do I have to test them out, find a way to make them useful and get back to you? I would need to buy the Pyrovores and some of the others you have listed as the shops here don't let you proxy one unit for another. Say, two weeks?
I'd venture you should at least put forward some hypotheticals, you must have some thoughts on how you'd use them, even if you've not had chance to do so yet?
Happy to let you do so on the provision that it hadn't been tested in practice, but practice is only really testing out theories anyway.
The Internet being what it is, if you take two weeks away from a topic, people will forget, not log on, move house, change their identity.. You know how it goes..
TheCustomLime wrote: Yet you said yourself earlier that your meta is made up of very competitive players and that anyone who played there would lose quickly.
The point here isn't that these units are unusable it's that they are far less useable in their role than other units in their own Codex which means they are poorly balanced.
Try different roles? It helps to think outside the box.
Also, just because something isn't used as often as another unit, that isn't a sign of poor balance. It's a sign that players favor some things over others which is entirely natural and happens in all games that give you unit choices. Things get outdated and become less useful, but not unusable.
There is a major difference between the highlighted. From what I've seen, many here seem to think things are flat unusable and that is entirely not the case. Their uses may be limited and it may take some creativity when using them but they are by no means useless or unusable.
Yeah, try the Pyrovore out as an anti armour unit, let us know how you get on.
I'll take your challenge, how long do I have to test them out, find a way to make them useful and get back to you? I would need to buy the Pyrovores and some of the others you have listed as the shops here don't let you proxy one unit for another. Say, two weeks?
I'd venture you should at least put forward some hypotheticals, you must have some thoughts on how you'd use them, even if you've not had chance to do so yet?
Happy to let you do so on the provision that it hadn't been tested in practice, but practice is only really testing out theories anyway.
The Internet being what it is, if you take two weeks away from a topic, people will forget, not log on, move house, change their identity.. You know how it goes..
True, I'll give it 3 days and run mock battles in that time. Hard to give concrete ideas simply by looking at the codex. I'm full of off the wall strategies in every game I play, many of which only make sense to me so I'll need time to mull things over.
I wouldn't use them as anti armor-vehicle, S is nowhere near high enough to reliable puncture armor unless you're locking Rear Armor 10 vehicles in melee combat and hoping for 5+
I could see them being useful against Terminators. Acid Blood is very interesting to me as is Acid Maw, Flame Spurt is meh, wouldn't bother with it.
Volatile is just fun, I can think of many ways to have fun with this.
Biggest issue, 40 pts per model. Toss them into an ongoing conflict with some gaunts or something cheap, get one to explode. Watch shenanigans happen.
I'll take your challenge, how long do I have to test them out, find a way to make them useful and get back to you? I would need to buy the Pyrovores and some of the others you have listed as the shops here don't let you proxy one unit for another. Say, two weeks?
I'd venture you should at least put forward some hypotheticals, you must have some thoughts on how you'd use them, even if you've not had chance to do so yet?
Happy to let you do so on the provision that it hadn't been tested in practice, but practice is only really testing out theories anyway.
The Internet being what it is, if you take two weeks away from a topic, people will forget, not log on, move house, change their identity.. You know how it goes..
True, I'll give it 3 days and run mock battles in that time. Hard to give concrete ideas simply by looking at the codex. I'm full of off the wall strategies in every game I play, many of which only make sense to me so I'll need time to mull things over.
I wouldn't use them as anti armor-vehicle, S is nowhere near high enough to reliable puncture armor unless you're locking Rear Armor 10 vehicles in melee combat and hoping for 5+
I could see them being useful against Terminators. Acid Blood is very interesting to me as is Acid Maw, Flame Spurt is meh, wouldn't bother with it.
That was my point.
You can't "explore other roles" when a unit's rules are blatantly only good at one thing.
Then when they are blatantly LESS good at that thing Thant other units in the codex, what's the point of them?
Goes double for the Pyrovore, because it's an Elite unit in a book that already has a congested Elite section. (Or did before Unhinged)
TheCustomLime wrote: Yet you said yourself earlier that your meta is made up of very competitive players and that anyone who played there would lose quickly.
The point here isn't that these units are unusable it's that they are far less useable in their role than other units in their own Codex which means they are poorly balanced.
Try different roles? It helps to think outside the box.
Also, just because something isn't used as often as another unit, that isn't a sign of poor balance. It's a sign that players favor some things over others which is entirely natural and happens in all games that give you unit choices. Things get outdated and become less useful, but not unusable.
There is a major difference between the highlighted. From what I've seen, many here seem to think things are flat unusable and that is entirely not the case. Their uses may be limited and it may take some creativity when using them but they are by no means useless or unusable.
I just said that and I agree that the units that most people pan can have their uses. My point is that they are subpar in their supposed roles compared to other units in the same Codex. If one unit does the same thing or makes the unit's role moot for cheaper/more efficiently why would you take it ? I can understand taking a subpar unit just for the sake of having something unusual on the table. However, if that unit does well in the few games that it is taken that doesn't mean it is a hidden gem that the group-think Internet forums just decided was bad. It just means that under the circumstances it worked for you.
In addition, it does mean it's poorly balanced. There will always be good/not as good units in all wargames but GW is fairly unique in how pervasive the bad internal balance is. The fact that Tournament clearing lists tend to consist of a select few units speaks volumes about this.
TheCustomLime wrote: Yet you said yourself earlier that your meta is made up of very competitive players and that anyone who played there would lose quickly.
The point here isn't that these units are unusable it's that they are far less useable in their role than other units in their own Codex which means they are poorly balanced.
Try different roles? It helps to think outside the box.
Also, just because something isn't used as often as another unit, that isn't a sign of poor balance. It's a sign that players favor some things over others which is entirely natural and happens in all games that give you unit choices. Things get outdated and become less useful, but not unusable.
There is a major difference between the highlighted. From what I've seen, many here seem to think things are flat unusable and that is entirely not the case. Their uses may be limited and it may take some creativity when using them but they are by no means useless or unusable.
I just said that and I agree that the units that most people pan can have their uses. My point is that they are subpar in their supposed roles compared to other units in the same Codex. If one unit does the same thing or makes the unit's role moot for cheaper/more efficiently why would you take it ? I can understand taking a subpar unit just for the sake of having something unusual on the table. However, if that unit does well in the few games that it is taken that doesn't mean it is a hidden gem that the group-think Internet forums just decided was bad. It just means that under the circumstances it worked for you.
In addition, it does mean it's poorly balanced. There will always be good/not as good units in all wargames but GW is fairly unique in how pervasive the bad internal balance is. The fact that Tournament clearing lists tend to consist of a select few units speaks volumes about this.
But all these problems stem from the overwhelming amount of models GW uses. They have far more than any other miniature game out there, not all of them will be useful at all times.
People here use the term Balance far too often to explain things that have nothing to do with Balance.
You can't "explore other roles" when a unit's rules are blatantly only good at one thing.
Then when they are blatantly LESS good at that thing Thant other units in the codex, what's the point of them?
Goes double for the Pyrovore, because it's an Elite unit in a book that already has a congested Elite section. (Or did before Unhinged)
What is stopping you from exploring other roles? Is someone physically preventing you from doing so? Is wanting to win every game you play worth not trying anything new?
Pyrovore need a price decrease, 20-30 pts should be fine, increase their unit size to 5. They're living artillery, get creative.
If not Elite, where would you have them? Too good for troop selection, not worthy of Fast Attack,not strong enough for Heavy Support.
No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
H.B.M.C. wrote: We're verging on the dreaded catch-cry of the woefully ignorant: "Use tactics!".
Not all units were created equal. Some units just suck.
Yes and no.
People on these forums told me flat out that Tactical Marines in BA are useless over priced and have no place. Played two games yesterday with them and it was the Tactical that won me the game. I'll admit they are over priced and Assault Marines are so much better than them, but they don't suck because something else fulfills the role better, they become not as useful is all.
Yeah, I can understand that to err is human and all that but Warhammer 40,000 has a very titled balance where a select few units dominate over the rest of the units with some just being plain awful. They are unique amongst their peers in this way.
You can't "explore other roles" when a unit's rules are blatantly only good at one thing.
Then when they are blatantly LESS good at that thing Thant other units in the codex, what's the point of them?
Goes double for the Pyrovore, because it's an Elite unit in a book that already has a congested Elite section. (Or did before Unhinged)
What is stopping you from exploring other roles? Is someone physically preventing you from doing so? Is wanting to win every game you play worth not trying anything new?
Pyrovore need a price decrease, 20-30 pts should be fine, increase their unit size to 5. They're living artillery, get creative.
If not Elite, where would you have them? Too good for troop selection, not worthy of Fast Attack,not strong enough for Heavy Support.
Nothing is stopping me exploring other roles, just like nothing is stopping me stabbing myself in the scrotum as a means of distracting myself from my headache.
If there's a blatantly better option, why would I waste my time "exploring other roles" with an anti infantry unit?
Kilkrazy wrote: No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.
Because if GW tried, they could make rules that are balanced and make the bad units usable. But they dont. And thats on them.
TheCustomLime wrote: Yeah, I can understand that to err is human and all that but Warhammer 40,000 has a very titled balance where a select few units dominate over the rest of the units with some just being plain awful. They are unique amongst their peers in this way.
It was the rigidity of the FoC that cause this tbh. That and the competitive nature of players. You see it in any gaming tournament, players only use what the majority believe is broken or op because they want to win. They won't even try other things because the risk is too great and they don't want to lose.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.
Because if GW tried, they could make rules that are balanced and make the bad units usable. But they dont. And thats on them.
Except me, as a player has managed to make some units "unusable" usable. Is that then on them?
Also, stop using balanced, the word is thrown around too much and not a single one of you have ever actually managed to come up with a solution that is actually balanced. Wanting everything to be playable in all situations isn't balance, stop acting like it is.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.
No we don't.
We don't make a lascannon an excellent anti-horde weapon because we as players decide how to use it.
We don't make Wyches excellent objective campers just because we say so.
TheCustomLime wrote: Yeah, I can understand that to err is human and all that but Warhammer 40,000 has a very titled balance where a select few units dominate over the rest of the units with some just being plain awful. They are unique amongst their peers in this way.
It was the rigidity of the FoC that cause this tbh. That and the competitive nature of players. You see it in any gaming tournament, players only use what the majority believe is broken or op because they want to win. They won't even try other things because the risk is too great and they don't want to lose.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.
Because if GW tried, they could make rules that are balanced and make the bad units usable. But they dont. And thats on them.
Except me, as a player has managed to make some units "unusable" usable. Is that then on them?
Also, stop using balanced, the word is thrown around too much and not a single one of you have ever actually managed to come up with a solution that is actually balanced. Wanting everything to be playable in all situations isn't balance, stop acting like it is.
Wow, for a player with self confessed very little experience, big head much?
Actually, you remind me of another new player, he stopped posting just around the time you showed up. Shame, you'd probably have got on well.
TheCustomLime wrote: Yeah, I can understand that to err is human and all that but Warhammer 40,000 has a very titled balance where a select few units dominate over the rest of the units with some just being plain awful. They are unique amongst their peers in this way.
It was the rigidity of the FoC that cause this tbh. That and the competitive nature of players. You see it in any gaming tournament, players only use what the majority believe is broken or op because they want to win. They won't even try other things because the risk is too great and they don't want to lose.
Actually, I blame the tendency of Games Workshop to never playtest their rules adequately enough to see that some units are being overrepresented in the "Winners circle" so to speak. It's just human nature to not want to lose so people will gravitate to units that overperform. After all, it's not fun when your army accomplishes nothing and gets stomped into to the ground.
TheCustomLime wrote: Yeah, I can understand that to err is human and all that but Warhammer 40,000 has a very titled balance where a select few units dominate over the rest of the units with some just being plain awful. They are unique amongst their peers in this way.
It was the rigidity of the FoC that cause this tbh. That and the competitive nature of players. You see it in any gaming tournament, players only use what the majority believe is broken or op because they want to win. They won't even try other things because the risk is too great and they don't want to lose.
Actually, I blame the tendency of Games Workshop to never playtest their rules adequately enough to see that some units are being overrepresented in the "Winners circle" so to speak. It's just human nature to not want to lose so people will gravitate to units that overperform. After all, it's not fun when your army accomplishes nothing and gets stomped into to the ground.
Oh this I totally can agree is part of the problem. The same has happened in most of the games I've played over the years. The companies use pros to fix issues of imbalance and rules problems though real balance is never actually achieved in any of them.
No one is asking for perfect balance. If you had that you'll end up with insanity like the first Starcraft where the game was about button timing. What I am, and I am sure what most players are, asking for is a game where you don't have a meta where the minority of units dominate the majority of games.
Better balance becomes a matter of opinion after gauging what works, what doesn't, weighing the pros and cons of changing the meta and then evaluating from there. GW doesn't do this very well admittedly. Other companies do better at this, but for the most part they ignore the bulk of the players who "think" they know what balance is but really haven't thought about the far reaching consequences of implementing the "balance" changes the majority shouts for.
Stop latching onto one or two words in a sentence and focus on the argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: No one is asking for perfect balance. If you had that you'll end up with insanity like the first Starcraft where the game was about button timing. What I am, and I am sure what most players are, asking for is a game where you don't have a meta where the minority of units dominate the majority of games.
This would be ideal, except this is how it is in any game that gives players choice of units, builds, cards, etc.
Lobomalo wrote: It was the rigidity of the FoC that cause this tbh. That and the competitive nature of players. You see it in any gaming tournament, players only use what the majority believe is broken or op because they want to win. They won't even try other things because the risk is too great and they don't want to lose.
And the point you keep ignoring is that in a game with better balance you don't have this problem. If there is no clear best unit to use then players will not always make the same choices. Please stop blaming "competitive players" for GW's inability to make a balanced game.
And no, it wasn't the FOC that caused this problem. In fact the FOC was one of the few things mitigating it a bit, since the limit on how many copies of the best unit you could bring forced you to look at alternatives in other FOC slots. Now there's very little reason to ever take anything besides the best units.
Except me, as a player has managed to make some units "unusable" usable. Is that then on them?
Do you understand the difference between anecdotes and data? Yes, you have won some games using bad units. That fact is irrelevant because what we see in competitive tournaments (which draw a wide range of players with the knowledge and experience to identify the best options) is that those bad units are rarely present and rarely finish in the top spots. If you're consistently winning with them it's because you're playing against weaker opponents where perfect list optimization isn't necessary.
Also, stop using balanced, the word is thrown around too much and not a single one of you have ever actually managed to come up with a solution that is actually balanced.
So let me get this straight: until I re-balance the entire game and provide you with a list of changes I'm not allowed to use the word "balance"?
Wanting everything to be playable in all situations isn't balance, stop acting like it is.
No, and nobody is asking for every option to be playable in every single situation. What we want is for every unit/upgrade/etc to be a viable option in a broad range of situations and have clear reasons to use it, instead of having units/upgrades/etc that are clearly inferior options that will never see use unless you're stubbornly insisting on using bad units to "prove" that they can work.
Kilkrazy wrote: No, it stems from GW not writing rules to make all of their models useful.
The models and the rules don't grow depending on weather conditions or voting trends or skirt hem length of something. GW make them.
If they are a problem, it is because GW made them a problem. GW don't even have the excuse of a historical game like WW2 in which the T34 is a good tank because it is a good tank.
Every single thing in the whole of 40K is the way it is because GW made it like that.
GW are entirely to blame for any problems that may arise.
How did you come to this conclusion? They create a set of units, we as players decide what to use and how they should be used, that is on us, not GW. I'll admit, there are issues, but you guys act like the world is going to end every single time one comes up and this just isn't the case.
Because if GW tried, they could make rules that are balanced and make the bad units usable. But they dont. And thats on them.
Except me, as a player has managed to make some units "unusable" usable. Is that then on them?
Also, stop using balanced, the word is thrown around too much and not a single one of you have ever actually managed to come up with a solution that is actually balanced. Wanting everything to be playable in all situations isn't balance, stop acting like it is.
Oh ok, so you can make unusable units usable? Great! Tell me how I can win with banshees at a competitive tournament? Or really in any game that your opponents list isnt equally terrible? Please enlighten me.
I have read many a fan dex that is more balanced than the ones that GW makes. Balanced is possible, and why its thrown around so much is because GW has failed at it. Which is disappointing.
Lobomalo wrote: This would be ideal, except this is how it is in any game that gives players choice of units, builds, cards, etc.
Wrong again. X-Wing has a wide range of top-tier options and very few truly bad choices. Infinity has such a wide range of viable options that the standard response to list-building questions is "play whatever you want, it's about how you use the list, not what you take". Warmachine/Hordes, from what I hear, have much better balance with a wide range of viable options. Now, none of these games are absolutely perfect, but your claim that every game is inevitably like 40k is absolutely absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: I'm still waiting for your explanation of how mono-blue decks in MTG exploit the rules. Or are you conceding that you have no clue what you're talking about?
One thing you should realize Peregrine. That data collected from tournaments and what is played there isn't as good for analyzing the entire player base. It's common knowledge that people list tailor and even go so far as to buy top tier items at top dollar just for an upcoming tournament. These factors tend to skew the data. In reality, the majority of players in this game are casuals, otherwise tournaments would be a much larger affair than they actually are, with much, much more participation from the player base.
Lobomalo wrote: Perfect balance is the goal, not a possibility.
No, it is a possibility, just a difficult one to achieve and questionable if it is actually necessary.
TheCustomLime wrote: No one is asking for perfect balance. If you had that you'll end up with insanity like the first Starcraft where the game was about button timing. What I am, and I am sure what most players are, asking for is a game where you don't have a meta where the minority of units dominate the majority of games.
This would be ideal, except this is how it is in any game that gives players choice of units, builds, cards, etc.
Except for all the games where, you know, it isn't.
Most of the big name, non GW, games seem to achieve a much better (not perfect, but much better) level of balance, with many, many fewer redundant units.
This is, despite what some seem to think, with an analogous number of different units (40K distorts this view by having multiple armies that reuse the same unit and/or statline, sometimes without even minor alterations) and directly comparable complexity of gameplay.
Lobomalo wrote: One thing you should realize Peregrine. That data collected from tournaments and what is played there isn't as good for analyzing the entire player base. It's common knowledge that people list tailor and even go so far as to buy top tier items at top dollar just for an upcoming tournament. These factors tend to skew the data. In reality, the majority of players in this game are casuals, otherwise tournaments would be a much larger affair than they actually are, with much, much more participation from the player base.
The thing is, competitive play and tournaments should be a thing.
It shouldn't be like 40k where everyone has the exact same or near same list, with near no skill actually playing the battle is involved.
Lobomalo wrote: This would be ideal, except this is how it is in any game that gives players choice of units, builds, cards, etc.
Wrong again. X-Wing has a wide range of top-tier options and very few truly bad choices. Infinity has such a wide range of viable options that the standard response to list-building questions is "play whatever you want, it's about how you use the list, not what you take". Warmachine/Hordes, from what I hear, have much better balance with a wide range of viable options. Now, none of these games are absolutely perfect, but your claim that every game is inevitably like 40k is absolutely absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: I'm still waiting for your explanation of how mono-blue decks in MTG exploit the rules. Or are you conceding that you have no clue what you're talking about?
Actually I'm ignoring you on MtG as I have shown in an earlier post the most recent results for the International tournament last year, 4 deck of which were U/W. Also, your comments on magic point you as someone who has no real idea what they're talking about and is by no means competitive in magic.
X-wing, which I play. Warmachine, which I play, Infinity I don't play but I've seen games, have far less choices when determining what you can play with which makes balance possible.
Lobomalo wrote: One thing you should realize Peregrine. That data collected from tournaments and what is played there isn't as good for analyzing the entire player base. It's common knowledge that people list tailor and even go so far as to buy top tier items at top dollar just for an upcoming tournament. These factors tend to skew the data. In reality, the majority of players in this game are casuals, otherwise tournaments would be a much larger affair than they actually are, with much, much more participation from the player base.
The thing is, competitive play and tournaments should be a thing.
It shouldn't be like 40k where everyone has the exact same or near same list, with near no skill actually playing the battle is involved.
Except this is what you see in top tier lists with players at these tournaments. The lists do not vary too much from what I have seen. Which shouldn't happen, but it does because people simply want to play what is considered to be the best out there.
Its not just because of the people who take the lists. If GW took more energy in making it a better game, the competitive players dont have to take the same units. They could take different units and lists and still do well.
Lobomalo wrote: It's common knowledge that people list tailor and even go so far as to buy top tier items at top dollar just for an upcoming tournament.
Concession accepted. If it is possible to buy "top-tier" items that "normal" players wouldn't have then there is a balance problem.
Some people want to win. My dream 40k is a game where I can take an amry and go into a tournament and win because of Skill, not list building. Those people who want to win take and spam the OP units. If GW didnt make these OP units, this woudnt be the case
Lobomalo wrote: One thing you should realize Peregrine. That data collected from tournaments and what is played there isn't as good for analyzing the entire player base. It's common knowledge that people list tailor and even go so far as to buy top tier items at top dollar just for an upcoming tournament. These factors tend to skew the data. In reality, the majority of players in this game are casuals, otherwise tournaments would be a much larger affair than they actually are, with much, much more participation from the player base.
One thing you'd should realise, Zodiark, is that tournament play represents people looking for every possible advantage in order to win the game. Every skewed probability, every undercosted item, every single item within what ever game you care to mention which in some way represents a greater efficiency over other options.
Therefore, while it is an artificial environment, it exposes any inequalities within the system at all levels, and if one particular faction, playstyle or whatever is winning a disproportionate number of games, it is an excellent signifier of an issue.
GW shouldn't have tried to expand to a larger audience, they should have stayed in their niche group.
That is why people are upset, the older players don't have time/money to keep up and the younger ones are funded by their parents until they get bored of it and move on.
Lobomalo wrote: Actually I'm ignoring you on MtG as I have shown in an earlier post the most recent results for the International tournament last year, 4 deck of which were U/W.
Do you understand the difference between U/W winning at ONE TOURNAMENT and the consistent record of "U/W control is unbeatable, the best you can do is also play U/W control and tie" that you claimed existed? You know, the one that is easily disproved by spending a few minutes looking at recent top-8 decklists from major tournaments? Apparently not.
And fine, ignore me instead of providing evidence for your claim that mono-blue decks exploit the rules. I'll just take it as your concession that you made a stupid claim and ran away when someone asked you to back it up.
Except this is what you see in top tier lists with players at these tournaments. The lists do not vary too much from what I have seen. Which shouldn't happen, but it does because people simply want to play what is considered to be the best out there.
THIS IS A BALANCE PROBLEM. Why is it so hard for you to understand that "tournament players always play the same lists because they're the best lists" is about as clear a sign of balance problems as you could ever ask for?
Throt wrote: What I am trying to do is to get the point across that the problem is subjective. You want to see it as a problem and that is fine. But you are no more right than I am. Because you have this rules problem doesn't automatically create one either.
No, it isn't subjective at all. You just keep insisting that the fact that you didn't play by the rules as-printed means that there was no problem with the rules.
Again the no eye =no los groups had a problem, no one I know did. It did not need any discussion. There was no problem to go away. No problem to fix. Nothing to overlook. Because you had a problem doesn't mean it DID exist.
So you never shot or charged with models wearing helmets in previous editions? Or by "no problem to fix" do you mean that you refuse to admit that you fixed the problem?
No. I mean what I said there was no problem to fix.
It appears you do. Let's look at the no eyes issue. Since you seek clarification then we must have a list of all models with out eyes and what point on all the models we draw line of sight from. Dreadnoughts without eyes, converted models without eyes, monsters with eye stalks, Talos, dark elder with the smooth helmets, tyrant guard and on and on.
Or you just say "eyes or equivalent feature, such as optical sensors" and make it explicit that you're supposed to use some judgement and draw LOS from the best approximation when there are no obvious eyes. Or maybe you just abandon TLOS and draw LOS from base to base. Or maybe you draw it from the tip of the weapon. There are plenty of solutions that don't involve a long list of special cases.
Yet you need a rule on how to deal with a special case therefore you do need a long list of special cases and therefore a 700 page rulebook.
You felt the rule was broken because the model had no eyes, which is a special case and you had issues with it. Yet you are saying there are plenty of solutions to the 'problem'. You have created the problem because you weren't specifically told how to deal with it.
Your own sentence solved this problem that you believe was a problem, and the only reason it is a 'problem' is that special case did not have a specific answer written for you. So GW is dumb for not realizing the special case..according to the no eyes crowd.
Everyone else just did it...no problem. (Not sure if that was clear)
Then we must cover what happens when army x allies with all armies 1-14 etc etc.
No, because allying has absolutely nothing to do with the LOS rules. Since it's a per-model thing it doesn't matter at all what other models you have in your army. You're turning a simple fix that GW was too lazy and/or incompetent to make into a major issue, and I can guess that the reason is so you can "prove" how unreasonable it is.
It doesn't have anything to do with LOS.
Actually the ally portion was just another example of the special cases that you seem to need specific direction for because there are many things that could happen when allying. Terrible GW didn't foresee all 10000 combinations with every unit and every army...
And yes I am using these things to prove a point, that is the point of debate, to find the errors in some ones point of view.
You accuse GW of being too lazy to fix the issue that you have just called minor. So are you making it into a big issue to prove how lazy GW is?
I do believe it is minor, so minor it was not a problem because no one even flinched when it came down to shooting with wraithguard or any other model.
It appears you believe that GW must write a rule for all special cases that may arise. Which is fine but it is an unreasonable expectation imo.
Throt wrote: You have created the problem because you weren't specifically told how to deal with it.
No, GW created the problem by not telling us how to deal with it. The thing you keep failing to understand is that games with clear rules don't have this problem. You never have to figure out for yourself how to deal with a special case, you just look at the rules and see what the answer is.
I do believe it is minor, so minor it was not a problem because no one even flinched when it came down to shooting with wraithguard or any other model.
The fact that most people automatically house-ruled away an incredibly stupid decision by GW doesn't mean that the problem never existed. Please stop justifying GW's inability to write clear rules with "but we can fix the rules for GW!".
It appears you believe that GW must write a rule for all special cases that may arise. Which is fine but it is an unreasonable expectation imo.
It's not unreasonable, you just don't understand how other games work. Well-written games (MTG, for example) have rules that cover every possible situation. The only unreasonable thing here is your continued insistence that doing so is impossible or impractical, despite clear evidence of other game companies doing it.
I can't even believe this argument. What if a model doesn't have eyes????? Use the model itself. Use your eyes. Better yet, use your common sense. Does anybody really want to carry around a 10,000 page rulebook that has EXPLICITLY explained every possible scenario or variable that could ever possibly occur?
This type of stuff is really over the top and ridiculous. I'm not saying problems don't exist I'm sure they do but to make such a ridiculous example is not helping your argument. My god.
VanHallan wrote: Does anybody really want to carry around a 10,000 page rulebook that has EXPLICITLY explained every possible scenario or variable that could ever possibly occur?
No, but it doesn't take 10,000 pages. The 7th edition LOS rules (draw LOS from any part of the body) are no longer than the 6th edition LOS rules, but remove the problem entirely. Usually the problem isn't GW skipping a bunch of special-case rulings that would require endless pages to include, it's GW not bothering to be careful with how they write things and then failing to playtest enough to notice that something isn't working right.
VanHallan wrote: I can't even believe this argument. What if a model doesn't have eyes????? Use the model itself. Use your eyes. Better yet, use your common sense. Does anybody really want to carry around a 10,000 page rulebook that has EXPLICITLY explained every possible scenario or variable that could ever possibly occur?
This type of stuff is really over the top and ridiculous. I'm not saying problems don't exist I'm sure they do but to make such a ridiculous example is not helping your argument. My god.
But you know GW could just make a rule that models of X type have 180 or 360 vision and that you check LoS from any part of the base , and such problems wouldn't exist. The problem is not the lack of eyes on some models , but GW being unable to write rules and even worse do not give option to check how a rule should work.
The worse rules right now are those about making the list IMO. Some lists can self ally , others can't . Some supplement codex say they can ally with their parent codex , but the rule book says they can . And if the BRB <Codex , then why is the rule in the BRB to begin with as all supplemnts say they can ally with their parent codex. And what happens if we have two detachments from the same army , but two different books and they exclude each other ?
Add to it the new FAQ that lack some of the old clarifications and the rule set is as broken as ever. >
X-wing, which I play. Warmachine, which I play, Infinity I don't play but I've seen games, have far less choices when determining what you can play with which makes balance possible.
If you played those games, you'd know better. Infinity and Warmachine have a much larger variety of armies because there are no blatently OP or useless units so each unit gets played more. The army sizes are smaller but the actual number of unique units are about the same. Just a quick glance shows about 60+ individual units for the Nomad faction in Infinity and 70+ for Khador in Warmachine.
Eldar have about 52 unique units.
And given that both Infinity and Warmachine's units are all viable and not "don't take that if you intend to win" then the variety and fluff of Infinity and Warmachine armies are greater and not punished.
GW are supposed to be professionals, but they let "Penitent Engines" into the codex. A unit that I've tried numerous ways to make useful but they are so painfully useless and over costed that you'd have to be a masochist to take them. They're literally my favorite models in GW's entire range yet I never take them anymore because GW doesn't care enough to look into and realize that the unit is useless.
(I sold them on Friday to buy Infinity. That's an example of bad rules losing them business.)
And I can't seem to get the quote crap to work properly.
VanHallan wrote: I can't even believe this argument. What if a model doesn't have eyes????? Use the model itself. Use your eyes. Better yet, use your common sense. Does anybody really want to carry around a 10,000 page rulebook that has EXPLICITLY explained every possible scenario or variable that could ever possibly occur?
This type of stuff is really over the top and ridiculous. I'm not saying problems don't exist I'm sure they do but to make such a ridiculous example is not helping your argument. My god.
Common sense is not a substitute for poor rules. All it would take is TFG arguing that by the rules a model without eyes can't draw LOS and technically he's right. A jerk, but right. That's why rules need to be clear and concise.
ninjafiredragon wrote: Some people want to win. My dream 40k is a game where I can take an amry and go into a tournament and win because of Skill, not list building. Those people who want to win take and spam the OP units. If GW didnt make these OP units, this woudnt be the case
List building can be a skill of its own. The problem is that now, spamming Wave Serpents, Wraithknights, or Riptides is "list building."
In 5th edition you had to tailor to a meta. Once Deathwing were fixed, they hard-countered Mech IG which was, for a while, more or less king. But, at the tail end of 5th edition you had several fantastic armies that all played differently and all had an equal shot at taking top places in tournaments: Space Wolves, Blood Angels, IG, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights...all of those armies were at the top of the power curve. The other armies were, by and large, actually very usable: Dash of Pepper did very well with the old Necron 'dex, and the new one wasn't half bad either. Eldar was very usable, etc.
5th edition, with the rules for flyers, overwatch, fixed Challenges rules, and some new missions would have been perfect. Now we're left with a mess in a tube sock.
VanHallan wrote: I can't even believe this argument. What if a model doesn't have eyes????? Use the model itself. Use your eyes. Better yet, use your common sense. Does anybody really want to carry around a 10,000 page rulebook that has EXPLICITLY explained every possible scenario or variable that could ever possibly occur?
This type of stuff is really over the top and ridiculous. I'm not saying problems don't exist I'm sure they do but to make such a ridiculous example is not helping your argument. My god.
Common sense is not a substitute for poor rules.
I'm not saying the rules aren't poor. I'm saying this argument about whether or not a model has eyes is poor. Line of sight is pretty basic. I've never had a second thought about how it works. If my model can see your model, or vice versa, it shoots.
No models have eyes. Players do. Take a look yourself and figure it out. If you can't agree flip a coin. The argument is absurd, whether GW does a good job with rules or not is beside the point I'm making.
ninjafiredragon wrote: Some people want to win. My dream 40k is a game where I can take an amry and go into a tournament and win because of Skill, not list building. Those people who want to win take and spam the OP units. If GW didnt make these OP units, this woudnt be the case
List building can be a skill of its own. The problem is that now, spamming Wave Serpents, Wraithknights, or Riptides is "list building."
In 5th edition you had to tailor to a meta. Once Deathwing were fixed, they hard-countered Mech IG which was, for a while, more or less king. But, at the tail end of 5th edition you had several fantastic armies that all played differently and all had an equal shot at taking top places in tournaments: Space Wolves, Blood Angels, IG, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights...all of those armies were at the top of the power curve. The other armies were, by and large, actually very usable: Dash of Pepper did very well with the old Necron 'dex, and the new one wasn't half bad either. Eldar was very usable, etc.
5th edition, with the rules for flyers, overwatch, fixed Challenges rules, and some new missions would have been perfect. Now we're left with a mess in a tube sock.
ninjafiredragon wrote: Some people want to win. My dream 40k is a game where I can take an amry and go into a tournament and win because of Skill, not list building. Those people who want to win take and spam the OP units. If GW didnt make these OP units, this woudnt be the case
List building can be a skill of its own. The problem is that now, spamming Wave Serpents, Wraithknights, or Riptides is "list building."
In 5th edition you had to tailor to a meta. Once Deathwing were fixed, they hard-countered Mech IG which was, for a while, more or less king. But, at the tail end of 5th edition you had several fantastic armies that all played differently and all had an equal shot at taking top places in tournaments: Space Wolves, Blood Angels, IG, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights...all of those armies were at the top of the power curve. The other armies were, by and large, actually very usable: Dash of Pepper did very well with the old Necron 'dex, and the new one wasn't half bad either. Eldar was very usable, etc.
5th edition, with the rules for flyers, overwatch, fixed Challenges rules, and some new missions would have been perfect. Now we're left with a mess in a tube sock.
Dash did well with orks aswell.
That's right! Kan wall was amazing too.
Basically - it wasn't that every unit in every army was amazing. It was that every army had a viable build. Now that's not really the case at all.
No, it really isn't. If the models cost $X for 10 in the recent past and now cost $(X+Y) for 5 then the box has decreased in value. If you consider that "subjective" then your definition of "subjective" does not match the one found in the dictionary.
val·ue
noun
noun: value; plural noun: values
1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
"your support is of great value"
2. the material or monetary worth of something.
3.•the worth of something compared to the price paid or asked for it.
2.
a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
"they internalize their parents' rules and values"
synonyms: principles, ethics, moral code, morals, standards, code of behavior More
"society's values are passed on to us as children"
verb
verb: value; 3rd person present: values; past tense: valued; past participle: valued; gerund or present participle: valuing
1. estimate the monetary worth of (something).
"his estate was valued at $45,000"
synonyms: evaluate, assess, estimate, appraise, price, put/set a price on More
"his estate was valued at $345,000"
2. consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial; have a high opinion of.
"she had come to value her privacy and independence"
synonyms: think highly of, have a high opinion of, hold in high regard, rate highly, esteem, set (great) store by, put stock in, appreciate, respect; More
sub·jec·tive
adjective
adjective: subjective
1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
•dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
2. Grammar
of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.
Then we have this....this answers the struggle that people have with the Guardian box.... The subjective theory of value.
The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.
You're talking about an item being worth whatever a person is willing to pay, which might work on an individual basis, but, I keep hearing that sales are down and revenue is level.
That means to me that fewer people are buying fewer kits, but the prices make it so the total revenue is about the same.
So if fewer people are wiling to spend the money on the box, the value actually has gone down on a big picture level. Just because some people still purchase doesn't make up for the fact that others do not.
If Ford wanted to charge a million dollars for a Fusion next year, and ONE person paid that price, most people would agree the value was not there, but you'd be saying it was based off of one individual justifying the price.
Throt wrote: Again the no eye =no los groups had a problem, no one I know did. It did not need any discussion. There was no problem to go away. No problem to fix. Nothing to overlook. Because you had a problem doesn't mean it DID exist.
So how did you draw LOS from models without eyes without creating a house rule?
It appears you do. Let's look at the no eyes issue. Since you seek clarification then we must have a list of all models with out eyes and what point on all the models we draw line of sight from.
You need no such thing. There are multiple, really simple ways to fix the problem. One is the solution that GW finally went with: Stop drawing LOS from the model's eyes, and just let players use any part of the model.
Another option would have been to just add a caveat to the original rule for models without eyes and/or heads, to tell you to draw LOS from somewhere else.
You're making it into a far bigger issue than it actually was, though. For the vast majority of players, a workaround was easy enough that many players didn't even consider it a workaround, as appears to be the case for you. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a basic situation that was not covered by the rules for multiple editions, and that should have been.
You have just said it was a minor issue that workaround was easy enough, yet GW is terrible for not addressing it. They didn't need to address it. But I guess when the 1% constantly yell about it they address it to quiet them down.
I'm sure someone has choked to death trying to swallow a Sword, so should we put labels on swords for choking hazards?
The whole point of having a set of rules is to tell you what to do when a given situation arises.
The bit I can never figure out in these discussions is why people go to such great lengths to insist that having a badly-written ruleset is actually a good thing. As it stands, if the rules are unclear, or have a bunch of things that they just don't cover, then the players who don't mind filling in the gaps won't mind, while the players who want a clear, workable ruleset are going to be unhappy with it.
By contrast, if the rules were written in a clear, concise manner that actually covered the entire game, that first group of players would still be fine (in most cases they wouldn't even notice a difference other than perhaps that the rules were easier to read) and the second group would also be fine. Everybody wins... which makes it, to me, seem like the no-brainer option to aim for.
I typed a few posts to Perigrine that will answer much of this.
The reason it is brought up is that the no eyes issue is used as evidence of GW's incompetence. And it is a minor issue.
The rules as written cover the entire game.
I don't believe that the game writer needs to cover every single potential aspect that may pop up. And by not covering everything it does not make them poor rules writers. With the millions upon millions of possible happenings the occasional special case doesn't need addressing.
Ever see those silica packets in a shoe. Originally they never said do not eat but a small number of people apparently did try.
People turned this into a problem because of their inability to understand something, not because of a problem from the maker.
It is not blatant disregard, it is something that was unforeseen and for most people it was not an issue.
People think GW sell models and rules( GW thinks like this). They do not, they sell an experience. The models and rules help create that experience for the customer. The closing of stores and the antagonistic way they behave towards independent stockists and customers, has reduced the satisfaction level. All value is perceived value, and GW perceived value has dropped.
Throt wrote: Then we have this....this answers the struggle that people have with the Guardian box.... The subjective theory of value.
The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.
So let me get this straight: the box of guardians more than doubled in per-model price, and you think that this is somehow magically not a drop in the value of the box because of some vague subjective willingness of some people to buy it?
Nope, you're still wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Throt wrote: I don't believe that the game writer needs to cover every single potential aspect that may pop up.
Then you are wrong. Good games can and do cover every potential situation.
And by not covering everything it does not make them poor rules writers.
Yes it does, because a game that covers every situation (or at least all of them that can occur in normal play) is better than a game that doesn't. And since we've already established that it is possible for a good game designer to cover every possible situation the only possible conclusion is that failure to cover every situation is a result of either lack of skill or laziness.
It is not blatant disregard, it is something that was unforeseen and for most people it was not an issue.
It was only unforeseen because GW's rule authors are lazy idiots. If they had done proper playtesting, which includes having someone who has never seen the rules before (and therefore doesn't share the author's assumptions about how they're meant to work) try to follow them as literally as possible, someone would have noticed that, for example, Tau gun drones do not have eyes or anything even vaguely like an eye. And that person would have asked how they should draw LOS from the gun drone, the person running the playtest would have recorded their question, and someone would have gone back and clarified the rule to handle situations involving models with no eyes.
Kilkrazy wrote: The key difference between MtG and 40K is that there is a huge investment of time and in some way emotion in building a 40K Army.
Not really fair since I've been working on my multiplayer deck for almost 15 years
The biggest difference would be that it's an entirely different system.
MtG can bring out a thousand new cards per year and players will flock to buy them.
In Standard, one of the most played formats, your collection will be quite useless after two years whereas my 10 year old SM-model is still in play.
I wouldn't really like WH40k if they released hundreds of models every year.
A gigantic part of their income is from the rules, which is why I feel that they shouldn't have so many errors and issues.
Another difference is that a new release, like the Orks now, only appeals to Ork-players whereas any MtG-release is interesting to each player, from Standard to Vintage and casual to hardcore-tournament players.
I don't think GW has the capability to write a good rule set anymore. I think all the talent has left.
Gw see their market share dropping, and are just trying to hang on for as long as possible.
The increases in price, are just GW milking it till it dies.
Kangodo wrote: A gigantic part of their income is from the rules, which is why I feel that they shouldn't have so many errors and issues.
This is the biggest point for me, if the rules were free I wouldn't care so much about them being so poorly written and needing to be sorted out between players. When it costs over $100 (BRB + Codex) and you get rules that still require players to make stuff up to address the unclear rules then there is no amount of complaining that is too much.
GW can win, they can stop charging for rules, drastically reduce the cost for rules and spend some time writing them more clearly, or take the time to write them properly and update them all at the same time so the "last edition's codex" situations don't come up.
But how would they be able to make the rules for free? The BRB and Codices are one of their big selling points.
MtG can just release the rules for free, bring out a thousand cards and they will sell a gigantic amount of boosters.
GW has an entirely different system and I believe that 'free rules' wouldn't work in that system.
That's because MtG-cards have a perishable date for most players. Models don't have that.
And I would hate it if each Codex forced me to spend another 500 on models.
VanHallan wrote: I'm not saying the rules aren't poor. I'm saying this argument about whether or not a model has eyes is poor. Line of sight is pretty basic. I've never had a second thought about how it works. If my model can see your model, or vice versa, it shoots.
No models have eyes. Players do. Take a look yourself and figure it out. If you can't agree flip a coin. The argument is absurd, whether GW does a good job with rules or not is beside the point I'm making.
The thing is, you're saying this can be fixed by applying common sense. That's great in principle, but if a win hinges on whether X can see Y and where the "eyes" would be, the rule needs to be clear and unambiguous to avoid the game screeching to a halt for a good ol' rules debate when each players' "common sense" tells them something different. And no, "cheat on a 4+" is not an acceptable answer. Part of good rules writing is to lessen the subjectivity.
Take the same issue in Malifaux. I check if a line can be drawn from any part of the shooter's base to any part of the target's base that is not broken by scenery or models with an equal or greater Height stat. It's quick and simple to resolve, and lets the game carry on. (And incidentally, this doesn't punish me for mounting my Malifaux miniatures on scenic bases that increase their height.)
(edit) I keep making this example, but look at a 40KYMDC thread that's 5 pages or longer. Then look at the rules questions board for something like Infinity or Warmachine, where the answers are almost all "The rules say this, so do this."
Kangodo wrote: But how would they be able to make the rules for free? The BRB and Codices are one of their big selling points.
MtG can just release the rules for free, bring out a thousand cards and they will sell a gigantic amount of boosters.
GW has an entirely different system and I believe that 'free rules' wouldn't work in that system.
That's because MtG-cards have a perishable date for most players. Models don't have that.
And I would hate it if each Codex forced me to spend another 500 on models.
Making the rules freely available to promote the sale of models, and then making a fluff + rules full colour hard back works for Infinity.
But you're right, it would mean the loss of a substantial revenue stream for GW, because their model is different.
Throt wrote: Then we have this....this answers the struggle that people have with the Guardian box.... The subjective theory of value.
The subjective theory of value is a theory of value which advances the idea that the value of a good is not determined by any inherent property of the good, nor by the amount of labor required to produce the good, but instead value is determined by the importance an acting individual places on a good for the achievement of their desired ends.
So let me get this straight: the box of guardians more than doubled in per-model price, and you think that this is somehow magically not a drop in the value of the box because of some vague subjective willingness of some people to buy it?
Nope, you're still wrong.
Wow, that was very nuh, uh you're, wrong.
Yes, yes I am. I have said repeatedly. ALL of this is subjective. People pay millions for artwork. They perceive a value in it that makes it worth them spending. You don't you don't buy it.
People pay $180 for a pair of shoes that cost $5 to make in Malaysia.
It is not up to me to tell someone they are wrong because they see value in something.
This is where your disconnect is, you are telling me and others that we are wrong for something that is nothing more than opinion. I have never said you are wrong. I disagree with you and I have told you why.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Throt wrote: I don't believe that the game writer needs to cover every single potential aspect that may pop up.
Then you are wrong. Good games can and do cover every potential situation.
With the millions upon millions of possibilities within a single game of 40k. you will never see this in your lifetime. Not without costing thousands for a single 10,000 page rulebook.
And by not covering everything it does not make them poor rules writers.
Yes it does, because a game that covers every situation (or at least all of them that can occur in normal play) is better than a game that doesn't. And since we've already established that it is possible for a good game designer to cover every possible situation the only possible conclusion is that failure to cover every situation is a result of either lack of skill or laziness.
Actually that is your conclusion and opinion. They have covered everything. People like me just don't need the rule book to specifically tell me how to deal with everything and don't hold it against the company because they didn't catch every single thing. Call it a house rule if you'd like. GW did their job and they did it well, and I am reaping the rewards of hours of fun with my friends.
This idea that you know better than someone else what is good is like telling someone chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla. It's just your opinion. If you learn that you may be a happier person. In my opinion. I'm sorry you do a hobby that it appears you are so unhappy with.
It is not blatant disregard, it is something that was unforeseen and for most people it was not an issue.
It was only unforeseen because GW's rule authors are lazy idiots. If they had done proper playtesting, which includes having someone who has never seen the rules before (and therefore doesn't share the author's assumptions about how they're meant to work) try to follow them as literally as possible, someone would have noticed that, for example, Tau gun drones do not have eyes or anything even vaguely like an eye. And that person would have asked how they should draw LOS from the gun drone, the person running the playtest would have recorded their question, and someone would have gone back and clarified the rule to handle situations involving models with no eyes.
YOu make many assumptions about people that you don't even know and the job that you are not doing. I guess this is human nature.
Is it ok to play in a tin shed? The rules don't say it's okay to play there. What do I do if the power goes out and I can't see? Is it ok to play by candles ro do I have to stop until tomorrow??
Someone playtesting might have looked at the model and drew line of sight from the gun or the antennae and never even occuured to them that someone would even mention no eyes, never making a connection that someone would have that issue.
The topic is circular and I will not change your opinions of things.
I will end by saying something that continues to baffle me to this day..
I read so much from very few people (it's usually the same people in each place) about how terrible the game is, how much they hate GW, how the writers are lazy and incompetent, how it's poorly priced, how so many other games are better etc...yet they continue to go to forums, play the game and buy the models.
Then there are people that get in these discussions and suddenly you find that they haven't played or bought in years...
These are mindsets I will never understand. Good day.
VanHallan wrote: I'm not saying the rules aren't poor. I'm saying this argument about whether or not a model has eyes is poor. Line of sight is pretty basic. I've never had a second thought about how it works. If my model can see your model, or vice versa, it shoots.
No models have eyes. Players do. Take a look yourself and figure it out. If you can't agree flip a coin. The argument is absurd, whether GW does a good job with rules or not is beside the point I'm making.
The thing is, you're saying this can be fixed by applying common sense. That's great in principle, but if a win hinges on whether X can see Y and where the "eyes" would be, the rule needs to be clear and unambiguous to avoid the game screeching to a halt for a good ol' rules debate when each players' "common sense" tells them something different. And no, "cheat on a 4+" is not an acceptable answer.
Take the same issue in Malifaux. I check if a line can be drawn from any part of the shooter's base to any part of the target's base that is not broken by scenery or models with an equal or greater Height stat. It's quick and simple to resolve, and lets the game carry on. (And incidentally, this doesn't punish me for mounting my Malifaux miniatures on scenic bases that increase their height.)
(edit) I keep making this example, but look at a 40KYMDC thread that's 5 pages or longer. Then look at the rules questions board for something like Infinity or Warmachine, where the answers are almost all "The rules say this, so do this."
Exactly, most rules issues can be resolved by the application of common sense.
The real conflicts arise when there are two ways of interpreting how a rule works/interacts with another rule, both of which are reasonable ways to interpret it, and two players who read it differently...
VanHallan wrote: I'm not saying the rules aren't poor. I'm saying this argument about whether or not a model has eyes is poor. Line of sight is pretty basic. I've never had a second thought about how it works. If my model can see your model, or vice versa, it shoots.
No models have eyes. Players do. Take a look yourself and figure it out. If you can't agree flip a coin. The argument is absurd, whether GW does a good job with rules or not is beside the point I'm making.
The point is that the rules specified a particular part of the model to use in order to determine whether or not it had LOS. Using a different part of the model, particularly on larger models, could potentially have a fairly large impact on what it could see.
So it is absolutely a must for GW to address what you should do if the model doesn't have eyes. On the old Wraithlord, with its gigantic head, it was potentially the difference as to whether or not it could see over an obstruction. For artillery last edition, it was an even bigger deal since not only do artillery weapons not have eyes, they don't have heads either, which is the next best obvious 'default' when the model doesn't have eyes.
It's not like it needed a massive re-write to fix it... they accomplished it this edition by changing the requirement from 'eyes' to 'anywhere on the model's body'. Which not only fixes models without eyes but also removes a certain amount of the imbalance between standing and crouching models and fixes whatever remains of the old 'Fish of Fury' tactic (using crouching or prone models to fire under a skimmer while the upright target unit can't see under to shoot back).
There should never be any need in a commercially purchased set of rules to flip a coin in order to determine what should happen. You just paid someone a large sum of money to provide you with the rules required to play a game.
Throt wrote: You have just said it was a minor issue that workaround was easy enough, yet GW is terrible for not addressing it. They didn't need to address it. But I guess when the 1% constantly yell about it they address it to quiet them down.
Was it, or was it not, a missing detail in the rules that affected multiple units in the game?
The reason it is brought up is that the no eyes issue is used as evidence of GW's incompetence. And it is a minor issue.
Yes, it's a minor issue. But it's a minor issue that they've taken 20 years to correct.
A large part of the point of releasing a new edition of a set of game rules is to correct those niggling little details that were missed in the original design process. Instead, GW focus more on shaking the game up than on fixing the things that actually need it.
I don't believe that the game writer needs to cover every single potential aspect that may pop up. And by not covering everything it does not make them poor rules writers.
Of course it does. Because a well-written game does cover every single potential aspect.
Magic the Gathering includes more than ten thousand unique cards. And yet rules issues are, in all bar the very, very small minority of cases, resolved by simply comparing the specific wording of the rules in question.
Being a complicated system doesn't excuse incomplete rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: But how would they be able to make the rules for free? The BRB and Codices are one of their big selling points.
MtG can just release the rules for free, bring out a thousand cards and they will sell a gigantic amount of boosters.
GW has an entirely different system and I believe that 'free rules' wouldn't work in that system.
It works for Privateer Press.
Every model comes witha stat card that includes the rules for that model. The starter sets come with enough rules to get you started, and you can potentially play games forever without ever buying any of the books... They're ultimately just a bit of shiny for those who want them.
There's not really any reason that GW couldn't do the same. The 'rulebook and codex requred to play' model is just the system they have chosen to use, not the only one that works.
So we're right and you're wrong. Stop defending bad business practices as you look like an incredible white knight without providing any basis of arguments outside of quoting the dictionary. Which, by the way, doesn't fly on this site, for reference.
The measurable dollar value of an item decreased with regards to our view of them. Whether you'd pay $50 for one mini or $5 is irrelevant, the fact that such an instance where previously $3 per unit item went to a $7 per unit item with zero qualitative change is THE definition of reduced value. Stop arguing with us unless you can provide substance.
People pay $180 for a pair of shoes that cost $5 to make in Malaysia.
First, false analogy as shoes have no relation to miniatures intended for a wargame. More so, the margin on plastics makes that look reasonable. Further, you're not making the right anology. Said shoes are $180 a pair. Now, changing absolutely nothing about the product in any manner, to include availability, they are $280 a pair.
This does not change their worth in any form and decreases their value. Just by charging more you do not increase value. And I will refer you to the great debate over video game pricing and piracy. It has been shown that lower pricing and increasing the games value through accessibility, availability, and automated support results in far more sales revenue than increased pricing. Granted this is digital product, but when you are competing for the piracy pricing of "free," dramatically increasing revenues where they did not exist is astounding.
ninjafiredragon wrote: Some people want to win. My dream 40k is a game where I can take an amry and go into a tournament and win because of Skill, not list building. Those people who want to win take and spam the OP units. If GW didnt make these OP units, this woudnt be the case
List building can be a skill of its own. The problem is that now, spamming Wave Serpents, Wraithknights, or Riptides is "list building."
In 5th edition you had to tailor to a meta. Once Deathwing were fixed, they hard-countered Mech IG which was, for a while, more or less king. But, at the tail end of 5th edition you had several fantastic armies that all played differently and all had an equal shot at taking top places in tournaments: Space Wolves, Blood Angels, IG, Dark Eldar, Grey Knights...all of those armies were at the top of the power curve. The other armies were, by and large, actually very usable: Dash of Pepper did very well with the old Necron 'dex, and the new one wasn't half bad either. Eldar was very usable, etc.
5th edition, with the rules for flyers, overwatch, fixed Challenges rules, and some new missions would have been perfect. Now we're left with a mess in a tube sock.
And I agree.
What I was trying to say is that atm list building and what army you play is what determines if you win or lose. Thats not all it should be about.
There should never be any need in a commercially purchased set of rules to flip a coin in order to determine what should happen. You just paid someone a large sum of money to provide you with the rules required to play a game.
To be fair, both the Infinity and Warmachine rules also have a dice off mechanic. I have never seen a reason to use it in either game to date, though. And both rules mention first party resources to resolve the rules dispute during and post game. I dislike this mechanic in any form.
No it is not. If the exact same product doubles in price then it has lost significant value. This is objective fact, no matter how many times you pretend otherwise.
With the millions upon millions of possibilities within a single game of 40k. you will never see this in your lifetime. Not without costing thousands for a single 10,000 page rulebook.
And, as has been previously stated, other games do this without needing a 10,000 page rulebook with a ridiculous cost. MTG, for example, has far more potential combinations than 40k, none of its rule ambiguity or arguments, and all of the rules are available for free.
They have covered everything.
No they have not, as has been clearly demonstrated by things like Tau gun drones being unable to shoot (since they have no eyes) or LOTD automatically losing the game unless you take allies with them.
People like me just don't need the rule book to specifically tell me how to deal with everything and don't hold it against the company because they didn't catch every single thing.
Why do you have such low expectations for GW when other companies are able to do the "impossible" and produce games that DO catch every single thing? Do you honestly not see how a game that catches everything is better than a game that doesn't, or are you just white knighting for GW and declaring that everything GW does is the best possible outcome?
This idea that you know better than someone else what is good is like telling someone chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.
No, it's like telling someone that chocolate ice cream is better than moldy ice cream with shards of broken glass in it.
Someone playtesting might have looked at the model and drew line of sight from the gun or the antennae and never even occuured to them that someone would even mention no eyes, never making a connection that someone would have that issue.
Well yes, obviously this is what happened. But this is because GW's rule authors are lazy and/or stupid, not because this is a good way to write the rules for a game.
I read so much from very few people (it's usually the same people in each place) about how terrible the game is, how much they hate GW, how the writers are lazy and incompetent, how it's poorly priced, how so many other games are better etc...yet they continue to go to forums, play the game and buy the models.
Because some of us like the fluff and models and hate the way GW is destroying the IP that we love. I don't hate GW because I want 40k to die, I wantGWto die so that the IP can go to a better company and I can have a better game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheKbob wrote: To be fair, both the Infinity and Warmachine rules also have a dice off mechanic. I have never seen a reason to use it in either game to date, though. And both rules mention first party resources to resolve the rules dispute during and post game. I dislike this mechanic in any form.
The bolded part is the most important part. Having a "4+ it" rule is fine as long as it's a last resort that should only be used in the incredibly rare case that you find an unexpected rule issue and need to keep the game moving. The problem with GW's attitude isn't that they've offered a last resort option, it's that they've decided to substitute having a "4+ it" option for making the rules work properly.
A Town Called Malus wrote: GW does not know how to test a game. Testing a game is not just playing a game a couple of times, as I suspect it is done at GW.
It seems like it. They seem to think playtesting is just having a few games. Playtesting is setting up a specific scenario to test a specific rule. I'd wager they play everything out each time and see what comes of it, rather than set up a specific condition in a hypothetical game.
Arbiter_Shade wrote: I think this topic has really gone so far off topic and a lot of personal attacks are being made that we need to get back to discussing what it is about.
I don't think anyone is saying there are absolutely no redeeming qualities about 40k, some are saying there are no redeeming qualities of GW, but that doesn't make people whinners for disliking a lot of what is going on with their hobby.
In the spirit of good will, these are the things I enjoy about this game and this hobby;
The fluff is fun and interesting, it isn't the best written but it certainly has its appeal in the over the top characters and the parody grim dark setting.
The models ARE really nice and fun to work with, even if they are not the best and considerably expensive.
The armies are unique and varied, even between Space Marine chapters you can easily tell the differences and it makes for a lot of interesting games.
The allowance of such customization of your army, to personalize every aspect of it if you desire.
But I have a major problem with the following, because it seems that every step forward GW takes they take two steps back;
The accelerated release schedule, many armies are not getting the attention they need in order to push of codices faster. Tyranids suffer a lot because of the copy and pasting from past editions that have left many units unusable even in a casual setting. You can not tell me that even casually the Pyrovore has any viability. I have not seen the Ork codex yet but from talking with people who have it is in much the same boat. Taking into consideration that these two armies both suffer greatly from the core rules favoring shooting heavy armies it is disheartening to see our favorite armies left behind and it seems that we are being ignored.
Part two of my problem with the accelerated release schedule is that they aren't releasing more rule sets, they are just breaking down the rule sets they made and selling them of piece by piece as opposed to making larger more thought out releases.
Part three is that MANY of their choices seem to be blatant money grabs and regardless of GW being in the business of making money it is disrespectful to your customers.
The rules ARE ambiguous in many areas, more so than in many competing games and while those defending GW may be right and part of it may indeed be because of the scale difference then I would have to argue that GW needs to reconcile their expectation of the game with the rules. If you are going to give us skirmish level rules, make the game skirmish level. If you want the game to be larger scale, modify the rules to reflect this. I have played so many competing games at this point that to me the GW method or rule writing seems archaic and a relic of a day when they were the only game on the scene. I am not asking GW to reinvent the wheel, but it isn't a bad thing to learn something from your competition.
Finally, the pricing. I know many people will say jump on this but I don't mean at large,I mean in a few specific cases. Paying $5-$10 for individual infantry is ridiculous, I am not talking about Terminators I am talking about Dire Avengers and Dark Elf Witch Elves. By and large GW products are priced a little higher than the competition and that is okay, but there are some REAL outliers than need to be addressed. Also, supplements. There is NO reason to charge codex prices for a couple of pages of fluff and about two pages of rules. These things need to be made less expensive seeing as how you already need a codex to play them in the first pace.
I think there are two types of posters on this thread right now - the group that is interested in discussing the topic, and the group having an unending argument over things like the correct spelling of the word "organization", why GW is fine and dandy, and why GW isn't fine and dandy.
You make a lot of good points in your post, enjoyed reading it.
A Town Called Malus wrote: GW does not know how to test a game. Testing a game is not just playing a game a couple of times, as I suspect it is done at GW.
It seems like it. They seem to think playtesting is just having a few games. Playtesting is setting up a specific scenario to test a specific rule. I'd wager they play everything out each time and see what comes of it, rather than set up a specific condition in a hypothetical game.
I think GW is a terrible company and the game is currently awful. I love the specialist games, but I have to house rule them pretty heavily as well. I own 4 armies, over several thousand points and have been playing since 3rd (where the BRB showed striking scorpions charging termies and elder just getting creamed in their example of play).
I really hope GW gets bought out by someone who can run this amazing IP.
I also hope they make a necromunda game using the X COM game's system, so I don't put much faith in either
So we're right and you're wrong. Stop defending bad business practices as you look like an incredible white knight without providing any basis of arguments outside of quoting the dictionary. Which, by the way, doesn't fly on this site, for reference.
The measurable dollar value of an item decreased with regards to our view of them. Whether you'd pay $50 for one mini or $5 is irrelevant, the fact that such an instance where previously $3 per unit item went to a $7 per unit item with zero qualitative change is THE definition of reduced value. Stop arguing with us unless you can provide substance.
Yes, you are right on 1 of 7 definitions of the word value. And even then you are only half right.
The material value of the object is low, as is most every product sold. That is how you make profit on a sold item.
The monetary value or market value is the $35 that it sells for because people pay $35 for it.
If half of 1 definition is good enough for you, then yes you are right.
Your statement "The measurable dollar value of an item decreased with regards to our view of them." Therefore that is the subjective or perceived value of the item to you.
Your next statement "Whether you'd pay $50 for one mini or $5" is not irrelevant that shows that the value of that item is subjective..i.e.. entirely up to you.
We haven't been discussing business practice. At this point we are discussing value.
So does that make others the black night with nothing more than a dislike and disdain for most things GW?
The context of complaint (using the eyes example) is that GW didn't give a specific rule addressing no eyes. Something that most gamers simply work out.
I am accused of nit picking on value, yet the black nights are nit picking that they have to make a decision on there own. Hi pot my name is kettle...
I have said from the beginning, and what I look for, is the acknowledgement that all these problems are subjective. They are a problem if you choose to make them one.
The game plays, you may not like parts of it but it works. the 'if you disagree, roll a 4+" but it will solve everything. So there is not a single broken rule in the game.
Every rule works by definition. Though you may not like it, it is a design decision. Black knights have tons of assumptions based on their dislike for particular parts of the game. They are just opinions about the game
And this, as I have always said, is fine, but to blame GW for how you play the game is disingenuous at the least. There are many ways they could balance the game but the closer to absolute balance you get the more similar the armies will become.
The problem is simple...
GW doesn't ask it's principal customer base..
It doesn't even attempt to show any evidence that it even LOOKED nevertheless achknowledged criticism...
And worse it openly acknowledges that it hires on the basis of attitude toward the company rather than skill or experience with customers and industry...
If the larger share-holders knew how the majority of long-term customers felt they were being treated in terms of communication... GW would be in a lot more pain right now...
Throt wrote: Someone playtesting might have looked at the model and drew line of sight from the gun or the antennae and never even occuured to them that someone would even mention no eyes, never making a connection that someone would have that issue.
Sorry, are you seriously saying that's it's reasonable for the rules to have holes in them because the guys play testing them might have got them wrong?
I feel the rest of the world doesn't really have a place to complain about the price of GW products
For example: lets say I wanted to buy a Space Marine Strike Force in the UK. . . 140 pounds, in New Zealand - 210 pounds
The same product in USA. . . 225 USD , in New Zealand - 360 USD.
I would rather be buy American or British overpriced models rather than mine. And before anyone says that's because of shipping - that's all before shipping is put on.
Now I would happily pay those insane prices if the rules were better, if Games Workshop was more about the community like in the old days rather than the sales orientated GW.
Even if they delayed codex releases by 1 month, solely for play testing the feth out of the codices
LordSolar wrote: I feel the rest of the world doesn't really have a place to complain about the price of GW products
You and I suffering from regional pricing on top of overpriced models does not diminish the problem of others still having to pay for overpriced models.
LordSolar wrote: I feel the rest of the world doesn't really have a place to complain about the price of GW products
You and I suffering from regional pricing on top of overpriced models does not diminish the problem of others still having to pay for overpriced models.
I know, its a problem for everyone. But people could be happier that its not worse than what they currently have
LordSolar wrote: I feel the rest of the world doesn't really have a place to complain about the price of GW products
You and I suffering from regional pricing on top of overpriced models does not diminish the problem of others still having to pay for overpriced models.
So we're right and you're wrong. Stop defending bad business practices as you look like an incredible white knight without providing any basis of arguments outside of quoting the dictionary. Which, by the way, doesn't fly on this site, for reference.
The measurable dollar value of an item decreased with regards to our view of them. Whether you'd pay $50 for one mini or $5 is irrelevant, the fact that such an instance where previously $3 per unit item went to a $7 per unit item with zero qualitative change is THE definition of reduced value. Stop arguing with us unless you can provide substance.
Yes, you are right on 1 of 7 definitions of the word value. And even then you are only half right.
The material value of the object is low, as is most every product sold. That is how you make profit on a sold item.
The monetary value or market value is the $35 that it sells for because people pay $35 for it.
If half of 1 definition is good enough for you, then yes you are right.
Your statement "The measurable dollar value of an item decreased with regards to our view of them." Therefore that is the subjective or perceived value of the item to you.
Your next statement "Whether you'd pay $50 for one mini or $5" is not irrelevant that shows that the value of that item is subjective..i.e.. entirely up to you.
We haven't been discussing business practice. At this point we are discussing value.
So does that make others the black night with nothing more than a dislike and disdain for most things GW?
The context of complaint (using the eyes example) is that GW didn't give a specific rule addressing no eyes. Something that most gamers simply work out.
I am accused of nit picking on value, yet the black nights are nit picking that they have to make a decision on there own. Hi pot my name is kettle...
I have said from the beginning, and what I look for, is the acknowledgement that all these problems are subjective. They are a problem if you choose to make them one.
The game plays, you may not like parts of it but it works. the 'if you disagree, roll a 4+" but it will solve everything. So there is not a single broken rule in the game.
Every rule works by definition. Though you may not like it, it is a design decision. Black knights have tons of assumptions based on their dislike for particular parts of the game. They are just opinions about the game
And this, as I have always said, is fine, but to blame GW for how you play the game is disingenuous at the least. There are many ways they could balance the game but the closer to absolute balance you get the more similar the armies will become.
Value in this context is how much product you are getting for your dollar. You are getting considerably less now because of the reduction of included miniatures without reducing the price to compensate. Market value is irrelevant in this discussion as we are talking about how Games Workshop is fleecing their consumers which is directly related to the monetary value of their products. I really don't understand how someone would claim that a hard, easy to prove decrease in monetary value of a product is an opinion when you are talking about the poor monetary value of Games Workshop products.
X-wing, which I play. Warmachine, which I play, Infinity I don't play but I've seen games, have far less choices when determining what you can play with which makes balance possible.
Last Friday, when I asked you which miniature games you played, you said that you only played 40K and wanted to start playing FoW. I see that you've apparently started playing 2 new games over the weekend, my congratulations on this since now you can experience the joy that it is playing games with actually good rules!
But like I've stated twice now on this very thread, WMH has 12 factions and each of those factions has, on average, 50+ distinct units, solos, warjacks / warbeasts and warcasters / warlocks. How is that somehow "less choices" than 40k?
X-wing, which I play. Warmachine, which I play, Infinity I don't play but I've seen games, have far less choices when determining what you can play with which makes balance possible.
Last Friday, when I asked you which miniature games you played, you said that you only played 40K and wanted to start playing FoW. I see that you've apparently started playing 2 new games over the weekend, my congratulations on this since now you can experience the joy that it is playing games with actually good rules!
But like I've stated twice now on this very thread, WMH has 12 factions and each of those factions has, on average, 50+ distinct units, solos, warjacks / warbeasts and warcasters / warlocks. How is that somehow "less choices" than 40k?
Because 40k has large battles and WMH is small skirmishes
X-wing, which I play. Warmachine, which I play, Infinity I don't play but I've seen games, have far less choices when determining what you can play with which makes balance possible.
Last Friday, when I asked you which miniature games you played, you said that you only played 40K and wanted to start playing FoW. I see that you've apparently started playing 2 new games over the weekend, my congratulations on this since now you can experience the joy that it is playing games with actually good rules!
But like I've stated twice now on this very thread, WMH has 12 factions and each of those factions has, on average, 50+ distinct units, solos, warjacks / warbeasts and warcasters / warlocks. How is that somehow "less choices" than 40k?
Because 40k has large battles and WMH is small skirmishes
Notsureifserious?
How does the number of models on the table have any impact on the amount of choices you have? Even more, how does the amount of models on the table have any impact on rules balance?
Because that is the only difference between both games when you are talking about "large battles" and "small skirmishes", because if you compare the two games in terms of unit activations, then they are basically the same...
Case in point, my current 50pt Cygnar army has 10 unit activations:
eStryker3
- Squire
- Hammersmith
- Ol' Rowdy
Storm Lances (max)
Horgenhold Forge Guard (max)
- Captain Jonas Murdoch
Trencher Infantry (min)
- 1x Trencher Infantry Grenadier
Alain Runewood
Captain Maxwell Finn
Rhupert Carvolo, Piper of Ord
The 1850pts 40k army that won Adepticon this year, had the same 10 unit activations:
Spoiler:
In fact, when I look at that same army I even begin to question why people consider 40k a "large battle" system! That army has 37 models, my army has 30... That is a huge difference between a "large battle" system and "skirmish" system?!
Was being sarcastic as that's typically the response you get why 40k can't be balanced or why WMH can be. Everyone always says 40k has so many more options due to bring a large scale game.
WayneTheGame wrote: Was being sarcastic as that's typically the response you get why 40k can't be balanced or why WMH can be. Everyone always says 40k has so many more options due to bring a large scale game.
Its Monday morning, so my sarcasm detector is broken.
Also, in Warmachine you can use giant models with no problem. There's no refusal or accusations of "TFG." It's "Oh, cool! Nice paint job!" And you play. So in that regard Warmachine has more practical variety as well.
First, common sense should not apply to RULES, because all it takes is for one dude to point out at a tournament or similar that by the rules, a model with no eyes can't draw LOS; they might be a jerk, but it's in the rules so technically they are correct. Clear rules alleviate that issue entirely, so just saying "Apply common sense!" doesn't fix the fact that the rules are poor, because good rules don't need common sense applied. This argument seems to be the old "The rules aren't broken if you fix them yourself" argument which is complete bs, doubly so when you're paying $85 for those rules, more than everybody else charges for their rules. Charging more and giving less quality is a joke.
Second, with units. Yes, the Trenchers and MoW are lackluster. However, unlike 40k you can make them work. I recall specifically asking on a 40k forum about something for a Chaos army I was thinking about, the reply I basically got was to drop half the stuff I wanted (I think I wanted a fluffy army with a few CSM squads, Raptors, Havocs and the like) and bring the typical Nurgle Lord, Plague Marines, etc. without care for the fact I didn't want a Nurgle army. On the PP forums you can ask for and get a good list and tactics to get the most out of MoW, not be told that you won't win games by fielding them. Huge difference there.
WayneTheGame wrote: Second, with units. Yes, the Trenchers and MoW are lackluster. However, unlike 40k you can make them work. I recall specifically asking on a 40k forum about something for a Chaos army I was thinking about, the reply I basically got was to drop half the stuff I wanted (I think I wanted a fluffy army with a few CSM squads, Raptors, Havocs and the like) and bring the typical Nurgle Lord, Plague Marines, etc. without care for the fact I didn't want a Nurgle army. On the PP forums you can ask for and get a good list and tactics to get the most out of MoW, not be told that you won't win games by fielding them. Huge difference there.
I was initially put off Warmachine because I wanted to run a Jack heavy Khardor list. Khardor being an infantry spam army I was very quickly told that is not how that army works.
After the first few replies however people actually began telling how to go about making that work.
The difference between it and 40k is night and day, when people say that a unit is not good what they mean is you have to build your list around it if you want to win in a tourney setting, not that bringing that unit puts you at an immediate (and sometimes serious) disadvantage.
WayneTheGame wrote: Second, with units. Yes, the Trenchers and MoW are lackluster. However, unlike 40k you can make them work. I recall specifically asking on a 40k forum about something for a Chaos army I was thinking about, the reply I basically got was to drop half the stuff I wanted (I think I wanted a fluffy army with a few CSM squads, Raptors, Havocs and the like) and bring the typical Nurgle Lord, Plague Marines, etc. without care for the fact I didn't want a Nurgle army. On the PP forums you can ask for and get a good list and tactics to get the most out of MoW, not be told that you won't win games by fielding them. Huge difference there.
I was initially put off Warmachine because I wanted to run a Jack heavy Khardor list. Khardor being an infantry spam army I was very quickly told that is not how that army works.
After the first few replies however people actually began telling how to go about making that work.
The difference between it and 40k is night and day, when people say that a unit is not good what they mean is you have to build your list around it if you want to win in a tourney setting, not that bringing that unit puts you at an immediate (and sometimes serious) disadvantage.
Exactly. You *can* run jack-heavy Khador, it's just not the best option, but it's not "That unit sucks, don't ever take it, take Y instead" like with 40k.
MWHistorian wrote: Also, in Warmachine you can use giant models with no problem. There's no refusal or accusations of "TFG." It's "Oh, cool! Nice paint job!" And you play. So in that regard Warmachine has more practical variety as well.
WayneTheGame wrote: First, common sense should not apply to RULES, because all it takes is for one dude to point out at a tournament or similar that by the rules, a model with no eyes can't draw LOS; they might be a jerk, but it's in the rules so technically they are correct. Clear rules alleviate that issue entirely, so just saying "Apply common sense!" doesn't fix the fact that the rules are poor, because good rules don't need common sense applied. This argument seems to be the old "The rules aren't broken if you fix them yourself" argument which is complete bs, doubly so when you're paying $85 for those rules, more than everybody else charges for their rules. Charging more and giving less quality is a joke.
Funnily enough, I took everyone's advice and read up on Warmachine. Then I realised that Deathrippers from Cryx didn't have shoulders. So no front arc for it?
Basically what I'm saying is, common sense can be applied without meaning the rules are broken.
Funnily enough, I took everyone's advice and read up on Warmachine. Then I realised that Deathrippers from Cryx didn't have shoulders. So no front arc for it?
Basically what I'm saying is, common sense can be applied without meaning the rules are broken.
"If a model lacks shoulders and does not have a 360 degree front arc, you must mark it's base or discuss its facing with your opponent before the game starts."
-Warmachine MkII, Pg 37, end of paragraph on bottom left.
So basically, you're saying Warmachine is a superior rules system because they leave nothing to the moronic depths of interpretation we all have to assume at a basic level to play Warhammer 40k, right?
Sure implied it when you quoted a rule and forgot the back half of it that clarified the rule further in the event when it couldn't be applied.
Unlike many rules in Warhammer 40k. How many editions did it take to fix eyes + line of site?
Seriously, don't pad for Games Workshop. The rules are awful in comparison to any other product on the market. Add in the cost and you have the worst value, too.
You seemed to hint that Warmachine required common sense as well, the difference is that Warmachine is explicit about what to do, while 40k leaves it up to interpreation - TFG would argue "No eyes, no LOS!" and that would be a valid conclusion (although still makes him TFG) as would "how about we measure from his head?". The difference there is you could end up with an argument or dice-off to determine it (and sucks for you if TFG wins) because the rules don't state what to do.
I'm just trying to be fair to both and am not trying to be argumentative.
Honestly, I just want a polite discussion, like the one we are having now, Wayne without any implied comment, words put into my mouth etc.
Can I clarify then, does the rule book give clearer description of the front arc? Since the size of shoulder varies and the quick start rules did not mention from which point of the shoulder to which point of the shoulder.
If so, then I think common sense will dictate you either choose the widest portion of the shoulder or mark out on the base where the front arc is. I wouldn't go so far as to say Warmachine has lousy rules for front arc.
milkboy wrote: I'm just trying to be fair to both and am not trying to be argumentative.
Honestly, I just want a polite discussion, like the one we are having now, Wayne without any implied comment, words put into my mouth etc.
Can I clarify then, does the rule book give clearer description of the front arc? Since the size of shoulder varies and the quick start rules did not mention from which point of the shoulder to which point of the shoulder.
If so, then I think common sense will dictate you either choose the widest portion of the shoulder or mark out on the base where the front arc is. I wouldn't go so far as to say Warmachine has lousy rules for front arc.
Size of the shoulder? Size of the shoulder shouldn't interfere with anything, since all you are doing here is determining the facing.
Here is the full rule:
Facing
A model’s facing is determined by its shoulder orientation.
The 180° arc in the direction its shoulders face defines the
model’s front arc; the opposite 180° defines its back arc. You
may also make two small marks on either side of each of
your models’ bases to indicate where the front arc ends and
the back arc begins instead of relying on the positioning of
its shoulder. If a model lacks shoulders and does not have a
360° front arc, you must mark its base or discuss its facing
with your opponent before the game starts.
Can anyone batting for GW and supporting the current approach explain to me how it is good business sense not to maximise sales by ensuring that every product you make appeals to as many potential purchasers as possible?
For instance, as a daemon player, I love the Bloodcrusher models, but if I was playing exclusively to win, there's no way I'd entertain playing (and therefore purchasing) any thanks to the presence of Fleshounds. If Bloodcrushers offered something that Hounds didn't, beyond AP3 which is largely offset by the greater number of attacks per point that Hounds offer, then I'd have a compelling reason to own both. As it is, they're more points, less durable and don't really offer much more offensively.
Which, before anyone jumps all over me, is not me saying they're "useless" it is me saying they're objectively less good. I've run Bloodcrushers with some success on occasion, but then I don't play all out to win every game. If I did, they'd be useless to me.
So if the opponent does not mark his bases, can there be a slight leeway in how he places his from arc template?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me explain my difficulty with the facing rule. To determine facing, it seems to be a direction perpendicular to a line drawn through the shoulders. However, there are several ways to draw the line through the shoulders as the shoulders are not a point but an area.
This is not nit picking because the same happens in 40k. Where does the Wave Serpent front arc end and the side arc start? That I have not managed to find a good answer.
milkboy wrote: So if the opponent does not mark his bases, can there be a slight leeway in how he places his from arc template?
I don't play the game, but reading the rule as posted above, the only leeway for a model with shoulders is how accurately you can determine the line of the shoulders to determine the facing. If you had a model with no shoulders, there is no leeway, as you aren't following the rules if you don't mark the base or discuss with your opponent for a model without shoulders.
milkboy wrote: So if the opponent does not mark his bases, can there be a slight leeway in how he places his from arc template?
Possibly, just as there's slight leeway in measuring any distance or blast scatter directions in a tabletop game - people are human after all. You can work it close enough to be practicable, and a mm here or there generally doesn't make a difference to 99.9% of games played anyway.
But there's a difference between minutae like that (and I'll include absurd arguments like the no-eyes LOS issue for 40k as Minutae) and the very regular arguments that occur around 40k, in which both sides may have a very reasonable argument for their view, due to lax wording. Whatever someone's thoughts on gameplay or style, Privateer Press has set the bar for having a tight rules set and (importantly) maintaining it through consise errata and continuous community rules support.
Going back to the main topic though, I'll say GW could easily score a "win" for itself by emulating some or all of PPs rules support strategies - that's not saying they should turn 40k into warmachine, but that they could have a method to answer regular questions from players on a consistent basis, and to learn how to use key-words and precise wording for their rule sets.
Let me explain my difficulty with the facing rule. To determine facing, it seems to be a direction perpendicular to a line drawn through the shoulders. However, there are several ways to draw the line through the shoulders as the shoulders are not a point but an area. .
The line drawn has to be parallel (not perpendicular), to the direction of the shoulders and since this line is supposed to be determining the front and back facing of the miniature, it also has to divide the base exactly in half. I don't see how this leaves any leeway in how the line should be drawn (except in those cases where the model has no shoulders, obviously ).
Let me explain my difficulty with the facing rule. To determine facing, it seems to be a direction perpendicular to a line drawn through the shoulders. However, there are several ways to draw the line through the shoulders as the shoulders are not a point but an area. .
The line drawn has to be parallel (not perpendicular), to the direction of the shoulders and since this line is supposed to be determining the front and back facing of the miniature, it also has to divide the base exactly in half. I don't see how this leaves any leeway in how the line should be drawn (except in those cases where the model has no shoulders, obviously ).
But what if my model has no shoulders?! Sic!
Now some Warmachine folk will come up with a reasonable answer according to their common sense. On the other hand 40k community seems to be hell-bent on nitpicking as they do already with no eyes 'issue'. Happens only in one community. Thanks GW. And Obama.
Klerych wrote: But what if my model has no shoulders?! Sic!
Now some Warmachine folk will come up with a reasonable answer according to their common sense. On the other hand 40k community seems to be hell-bent on nitpicking as they do already with no eyes 'issue'. Happens only in one community. Thanks GW. And Obama.
... already answered twice a couple posts above.
If a model lacks shoulders and does not have a 360° front arc, you must mark its base or discuss its facing with your opponent before the game starts.
milkboy wrote: So if the opponent does not mark his bases, can there be a slight leeway in how he places his from arc template?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me explain my difficulty with the facing rule. To determine facing, it seems to be a direction perpendicular to a line drawn through the shoulders. However, there are several ways to draw the line through the shoulders as the shoulders are not a point but an area.
This is not nit picking because the same happens in 40k. Where does the Wave Serpent front arc end and the side arc start? That I have not managed to find a good answer.
It's infrequent that the precise facing matters. The most common time is when a model is moving around another model's side and leaving its melee range, which prompts a free attack against the model leaving. That tends to be pretty unambiguous. In other cases, the facing must be a certain way - for example, when a model charges another model it ends its charge facing the other model directly.
There are some models where the shoulder rule isn't great, and for that reason many players who want it to be very accurate will mark their bases to show where the front arc begins and ends. Most of the time, it's a good enough approximation, which is its purpose. I don't think you'll find many players who don't agree that marking the bases is optimal for gameplay.
On the largest models, the ones around the size of a Wave Serpent, the arcs are actually moulded onto the edges of the bases themselves.
With respect to the main topic, a lot of the things that seem like double binds aren't. People want rules to be corrected with more frequency, but that doesn't mean they want a reprinting of the whole book to buy. They mainly want clarifications and fixes for rules that are broken, or for codices to not be editions out of date. With White Dwarf, people want to be able to access the rules. They don't want them to be lost in the mists of time. Letting them get them on back order or digitally is a great way to fix that while still putting cool stuff in White Dwarf.
There's also the thing that if your goal in business is to have nobody ever suggest any way your product could be better then you probably shouldn't be in business to begin with.
Let me explain my difficulty with the facing rule. To determine facing, it seems to be a direction perpendicular to a line drawn through the shoulders. However, there are several ways to draw the line through the shoulders as the shoulders are not a point but an area. .
The line drawn has to be parallel (not perpendicular), to the direction of the shoulders and since this line is supposed to be determining the front and back facing of the miniature, it also has to divide the base exactly in half. I don't see how this leaves any leeway in how the line should be drawn (except in those cases where the model has no shoulders, obviously ).
But what if my model has no shoulders?! Sic!
Now some Warmachine folk will come up with a reasonable answer according to their common sense. On the other hand 40k community seems to be hell-bent on nitpicking as they do already with no eyes 'issue'. Happens only in one community. Thanks GW. And Obama.
Hey, the Warmachine community nitpicks constantly. Like, seriously, non-stop. But when you nitpick in Warmachine, one of two things will happen:
1. the thing you thought was unclear is actually written out perfectly clearly in the rules somewhere. Occasionally it can be difficult to find, though.
2. you post on their rules forums and if the community can't answer the question then their special rules people will ask the developers how it should be played and relay it back, after which it becomes generally binding in rules disputes.
It's not community, it's how the game is written (precisely) and how it's supported (actively and comprehensively).
1. the thing you thought was unclear is actually written out perfectly clearly in the rules somewhere. Occasionally it can be difficult to find, though.
This is the same for 40k in my experience. When actually playing the game, when rule issues appear it takes less than a few minutes to find an answer. When rule issues appear on the forums, it's a 12 page argument.
Seriously, never had so much drama over a game until I joined these forums lol, says more about the community than it does the game if you look at it objectively
milkboy wrote: So if the opponent does not mark his bases, can there be a slight leeway in how he places his from arc template?
Possibly, just as there's slight leeway in measuring any distance or blast scatter directions in a tabletop game - people are human after all. You can work it close enough to be practicable, and a mm here or there generally doesn't make a difference to 99.9% of games played anyway.
But there's a difference between minutae like that (and I'll include absurd arguments like the no-eyes LOS issue for 40k as Minutae) and the very regular arguments that occur around 40k, in which both sides may have a very reasonable argument for their view, due to lax wording. Whatever someone's thoughts on gameplay or style, Privateer Press has set the bar for having a tight rules set and (importantly) maintaining it through consise errata and continuous community rules support.
Yep I agree that there can be some flexibility and leeway. Like what another poster said, common sense it and play. Like the eye thing, it is manageable.
An even tighter rule would be mandatory base markings. Because a 5 degree in interpretation with 25mm base is approx 0.17 mm at the base edge but 3.5mm at 8 inches. But like scatter, it's a small thing.
It is the amount of fuss over the eye thing which makes me think GW can never win. Like the guy exposed for cheating at the tournament who has realised his folly and the previously trollish poster now matured, GW has run out of goodwill and some will be much less likely to believe they can do any good.
1. the thing you thought was unclear is actually written out perfectly clearly in the rules somewhere. Occasionally it can be difficult to find, though.
This is the same for 40k in my experience. When actually playing the game, when rule issues appear it takes less than a few minutes to find an answer. When rule issues appear on the forums, it's a 12 page argument.
When there's a 12 page argument it's usually because the rule isn't clear and people have different opinions on what was intended and/or the wording is imprecise so again could be taken in different ways.
GW have a tendency to use very imprecise language such that multiple interpretations can arise.
They also tend to create specific definitions for words (which is good) but then don't refer to them correctly or use those same words in different contexts that may or may not mean the specific definition you thought it did.
1. the thing you thought was unclear is actually written out perfectly clearly in the rules somewhere. Occasionally it can be difficult to find, though.
This is the same for 40k in my experience. When actually playing the game, when rule issues appear it takes less than a few minutes to find an answer. When rule issues appear on the forums, it's a 12 page argument.
When there's a 12 page argument it's usually because the rule isn't clear and people have different opinions on what was intended and/or the wording is imprecise so again could be taken in different ways.
GW have a tendency to use very imprecise language such that multiple interpretations can arise.
They also tend to create specific definitions for words (which is good) but then don't refer to them correctly or use those same words in different contexts that may or may not mean the specific definition you thought it did.
If you actually looked at the arguments, it isn't people arguing about the rule, it's them arguing over specific words in the ruling, trying to dig through it, find a loop hole and a flaw in the rule to prove their point. There are rule disputes there that are glaringly obvious, but some posters look at them and cannot help to see a problem where none exists.
1. the thing you thought was unclear is actually written out perfectly clearly in the rules somewhere. Occasionally it can be difficult to find, though.
This is the same for 40k in my experience. When actually playing the game, when rule issues appear it takes less than a few minutes to find an answer. When rule issues appear on the forums, it's a 12 page argument.
When there's a 12 page argument it's usually because the rule isn't clear and people have different opinions on what was intended and/or the wording is imprecise so again could be taken in different ways.
GW have a tendency to use very imprecise language such that multiple interpretations can arise.
They also tend to create specific definitions for words (which is good) but then don't refer to them correctly or use those same words in different contexts that may or may not mean the specific definition you thought it did.
If you actually looked at the arguments, it isn't people arguing about the rule, it's them arguing over specific words in the ruling, trying to dig through it, find a loop hole and a flaw in the rule to prove their point. There are rule disputes there that are glaringly obvious, but some posters look at them and cannot help to see a problem where none exists.
The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.
The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.
Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.
If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.
The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.
Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.
If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.
Wat? If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, then the writer is at fault for not being clearer in their writing.
The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.
Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.
If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.
Now Now. As an English Major (and I believe you said "teacher" at some point?) you of all people should understand that it is possible for two people to read the same work an come up with different interpretations based on their own history and perceptions. It is what makes poetry groups and such interesting. Given that GW does not have a consistent "Phrase-Bible", it is entirely possible to achieve different interpretations of the rules, without it reflecting poorly on anyone's reading comprehension.
Thing is, GW's rules aren't a story or poetry where it's left up to your imagination or has a lot of metaphorical or allegorical things that you need to glean what the intent was. They're meant to be rules for a game. If we both read the same rule, and at the end need to discuss WTF it actually meant, then GW is at fault for not making the rules clear what it means.
Being vague in text is fine for literature and philosophy books, not rules for a game.
The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.
Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.
If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.
Now Now. As an English Major (and I believe you said "teacher" at some point?) you of all people should understand that it is possible for two people to read the same work an come up with different interpretations based on their own history and perceptions. It is what makes poetry groups and such interesting. Given that GW does not have a consistent "Phrase-Bible", it is entirely possible to achieve different interpretations of the rules, without it reflecting poorly on anyone's reading comprehension.
But, then how can he insult people that have different opinions than he does?
The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.
Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.
If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.
Now Now. As an English Major (and I believe you said "teacher" at some point?) you of all people should understand that it is possible for two people to read the same work an come up with different interpretations based on their own history and perceptions. It is what makes poetry groups and such interesting. Given that GW does not have a consistent "Phrase-Bible", it is entirely possible to achieve different interpretations of the rules, without it reflecting poorly on anyone's reading comprehension.
Agreed, it also does not mean the wording is inherently vague either.
But, then how can he insult people that have different opinions than he does?
Sorry, but do you ever have anything constructive to say? Or will it just be passive aggressive insults from you?
You have made it abundantly clear in three threads, just in this sub-forum, how you feel about 40k. Yet all you have done when approached with an actual solution is compare it to other games and how they are more "balanced" and the rules written more "clearly".
Clarity is and always has been the purview of the people looking/reading/understanding something. What is clear to some is not always clear to others, but this does not mean that what is written or being observed is vague or unclear.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote: Thing is, GW's rules aren't a story or poetry where it's left up to your imagination or has a lot of metaphorical or allegorical things that you need to glean what the intent was. They're meant to be rules for a game. If we both read the same rule, and at the end need to discuss WTF it actually meant, then GW is at fault for not making the rules clear what it means.
Being vague in text is fine for literature and philosophy books, not rules for a game.
You have a limited understanding of what English majors do, but I won't get into that.
Again, something that is vague to you and isn't vague to someone else, the issue is with you more so than it is the thing being written. There really is no arguing that point actually, because you have no understanding of the people who are not seeing something vague and you are judging the vagueness of the writing purely on your own interpretations of the words being used.
The purpose of making definitions is to provide clarity in circumstances where sword or phrase admits of more than one possible meaning. Having made a definition you have to stick to it.
"The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."
Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of making definitions is to provide clarity in circumstances where sword or phrase admits of more than one possible meaning. Having made a definition you have to stick to it.
Except this isn't always how it works as words have multiple definitions and depending upon how they are used, the meaning can change dramatically.
Now I'll agree that GW could and probably should be more specific with their rules as other games have done so, but then I think of the age group of the player base and really, they shouldn't imo. There comes a time when you should no longer need to have everything spelled out for you. But again, this is simply my opinion.
The organization of GW rules absolutely sucks balls, no denying that, but clarity, at least for me, hasn't been an issue, though I will admit, I haven't been around for years and years so this could effect my understanding.
Except we are all reading the 7th edition rulebook, which to me is quite clear, so then we get back to the crux of the problem, is it a player issue or a GW one? Can the rules be written more clearly in order to clear up confusion, sure. Do they need to be? Not at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: "The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."
Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.
Literally the answer is right there in the sentence.
A Psyker can only cast a number of spells equal to their Mastery Level.
It is right there for you and literally has no other way of being read, that is simple English dude. Hence why that topic turned into utter garbage and was locked.
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of making definitions is to provide clarity in circumstances where sword or phrase admits of more than one possible meaning. Having made a definition you have to stick to it.
Except this isn't always how it works as words have multiple definitions and depending upon how they are used, the meaning can change dramatically.
Except when you define a word in gameplay terms, it should really be protected and not used in any other context, it isn't like the English language is short of synonyms.
Now I'll agree that GW could and probably should be more specific with their rules as other games have done so, but then I think of the age group of the player base and really, they shouldn't imo. There comes a time when you should no longer need to have everything spelled out for you. But again, this is simply my opinion.
An opinion based in flawed information apparently, as GW have stated that their targeted player base is teenage boys, who really would likely benefit from as much clarity as possible.
The organization of GW rules absolutely sucks balls, no denying that, but clarity, at least for me, hasn't been an issue, though I will admit, I haven't been around for years and years so this could effect my understanding.
Yep, you're naive to a whole lot, as is evidenced by your arguments in YMDC.
Except we are all reading the 7th edition rulebook, which to me is quite clear, so then we get back to the crux of the problem, is it a player issue or a GW one? Can the rules be written more clearly in order to clear up confusion, sure. Do they need to be? Not at all.
azreal13 wrote: "The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."
Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.
Literally the answer is right there in the sentence.
A Psyker can only cast a number of spells equal to their Mastery Level.
It is right there for you and literally has no other way of being read, that is simple English dude. Hence why that topic turned into utter garbage and was locked.
The problem is they try to sound "nice" in their writing, it is to read like entertainment or a "friend" explaining the rules to you.
Clear, concise writing reads like a manual and would make a great sleep aid.
I write procedures, work instructions standards and most people would not like to read them on their social time.
This is the distinction, what hamstrings GW is trying to appeal to the masses. The incredibly clear rules of old I was used to, read like an instruction for doing your taxes but very few rules arguments occurred.
For example: "you could" vs. "you shall", "you may re-roll" vs. "choose to re-roll or not", "you automatically fail a leadership check, no need to roll" vs "You automatically fall back, no leadership check" (so I do not get a leadership check or do I? Commissar wants to shoot someone).
Examples of wording in the interest of not being too dry makes for a hard time with rules as written interpretations.
I think if I was them (always good form to suggest a solution) would be to put a box around the key rule with the most brutally direct "commandment" (editors and play testers: have at it!, authors: "kill your darlings") of the rule and anything outside of the box to explain it, give examples and to be all friendly but make it clear that anything outside of that rule is just support.
azreal13 wrote: "The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."
Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.
Does the 7th Edition rule book actually say that? That could be game changing. If I knew what it meant.
The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.
Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.
If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.
That is patently and objectively false (not to mean insulting) and since you claim to be an English teacher, you really should know better!
Even if we were just talking about normal prose, the varying interpretations that could arise from reading would be perfectly normal and neither the writer or the reader would be at fault, but when we are talking about rules manuals then the principles of Technical Writing should be applied and in that case, if several interpretations arise from the same instruction, then the fault truly is on the writer's side (especially when we are talking about such comparatively trivial matters as rules mechanics for a game).
You do understand what Technical Writing is and how it should be applied to things like rules manuals, right?
azreal13 wrote: "The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."
Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.
Does the 7th Edition rule book actually say that? That could be game changing. If I knew what it meant.
It does and literally has no other interpretation.
But here, let's conduct an experiment where we analyze the words being used and what they mean to a person. I have went ahead and conducted this experiment multiple times so I already know the result.
Go find someone who has never played Warhammer, or any other miniature game.
Have them read Azrael's sentence and have them tell you what they think it means.
It's the control group of the experiment to analyze clarity of words so it would be entirely reliable, whereas anything between players on forums is going to be a senseless argument.
As an author my editor tells me all the time that if someone has a problem with my writing (misinterpretation, not clear) it's always the author's fault. And it's true in the vast majority of cases. It's my job as a writer to be clear and concise.
If people are misinterpreting the rules, it's GW's fault.
The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.
Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.
If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.
That is patently and objectively false (not to mean insulting) and since you claim to be an English teacher, you really should know better!
Even if we were just talking about normal prose, the varying interpretations that could arise from reading would be perfectly normal and neither the writer or the reader would be at fault, but when we are talking about rules manuals then the principles of Technical Writing should be applied and in that case, if several interpretations arise from the same instruction, then the fault truly is on the writer's side (especially when we are talking about such comparatively trivial matters as rules mechanics for a game).
You do understand what Technical Writing is and how it should be applied to things like rules manuals, right?
Did you know that in the California Driver's Manual, there is a specific law telling you that you cannot shoot a gun out of your car window at stop signs?
Do people really need to be told not to do something like this when shooting a gun out of your car window is already illegal?
Common sense tells you that shooting a gun out of a car window is not only a stupid idea but an illegal one, yet people do it anyway so they had to put in a law specifically telling people something obvious.
I completely understand Technical Writing in its application to rule manuals, as well as for laws and instructions. Yet I'm willing to bet that the majority of the average joe citizens, if they were to ever read a law book, wouldn't understand a single thing being said. Even though the words are things they would commonly use or hear.
So is the problem the laws being written or is the problem with the person who simply cannot understand what they are reading? It may not be a polite thing to say, telling people they cannot understand something, but when it's true, it's true. I've flat out told parents of some of the kids I teach that their children sometimes have no understanding of simple English and while harsh, it's completely true. We speak the language all the time, but really, how many people actually understand what they are saying? A lot less than you'd think.
I admit, I don't know what's vague about the psyker quote. It does read to me like "you can cast X many powers per turn" where X is equal to your mastery level.
MWHistorian wrote: As an author my editor tells me all the time that if someone has a problem with your writing (misinterpretation, not clear) it's always the author's fault. And it's true in the vast majority of cases. It's my job as a writer to be clear and concise.
If people are misinterpreting the rules, it's GW's fault.
What do you write? Fiction or non-fiction, from there, what sub-genres and topics do you focus on as it changes depending on what you are writing. For instance, Science Fiction can be written to leave misinterpretation and this is just fine. People often mislead in Auto-Biographies which are heralded as non-fiction works when everyone knows that the subject of the Auto-Biography is going to paint themselves in the best light possible.
Also, you've stated you've been published before. What, may I ask, have you published? I would honestly love to read some of the things you've wrote, if you are published I mean.
When you write something, you have a meaning, an intent inside your mind when writing it. If someone misinterprets what you right, it isn't your fault, they simply lack the understanding you had when you wrote it.
Lobomalo wrote: Did you know that in the California Driver's Manual, there is a specific law telling you that you cannot shoot a gun out of your car window at stop signs?
Do people really need to be told not to do something like this when shooting a gun out of your car window is already illegal?
Common sense tells you that shooting a gun out of a car window is not only a stupid idea but an illegal one, yet people do it anyway so they had to put in a law specifically telling people something obvious.
I completely understand Technical Writing in its application to rule manuals, as well as for laws and instructions. Yet I'm willing to bet that the majority of the average joe citizens, if they were to ever read a law book, wouldn't understand a single thing being said. Even though the words are things they would commonly use or hear.
And I wager this is because someone, at one point, tried to argue a loophole in the law, hence why it was clarified. An extreme example, but one that illustrates why clarity is a good thing.
MWHistorian wrote: We're not talking about legal writing, but an instruction manual for a game. It should be clear and precise.
There isn't much difference between rule writing and law writing. Case in point, look through MtG comprehensive rule book, it reads like a law book.
You are talking about instruction manual writing, I am talking about understanding the words and the meaning of those words, how they are used and how they read to people.
And I wager this is because someone, at one point, tried to argue a loophole in the law, hence why it was clarified. An extreme example, but one that illustrates why clarity is a good thing.
Agreed, but also a clear illustration of a lack in the comprehension skills of the reader as well as their own common sense.
azreal13 wrote: "The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."
Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.
Does the 7th Edition rule book actually say that? That could be game changing. If I knew what it meant.
It does and literally has no other interpretation.
But here, let's conduct an experiment where we analyze the words being used and what they mean to a person. I have went ahead and conducted this experiment multiple times so I already know the result.
Go find someone who has never played Warhammer, or any other miniature game.
Have them read Azrael's sentence and have them tell you what they think it means.
It's the control group of the experiment to analyze clarity of words so it would be entirely reliable, whereas anything between players on forums is going to be a senseless argument.
Yet again, you're confusing RAW, RAI and HIWPI. There was another user that posted all over the boards recently had the same issues.
Yes, the logical assumption is that the dependency is a 1:1 correlation. But nowhere is this explicitly defined. Therefore, I am free to make the assumption that the correlation is 3:1, or hell, if I was a Dark Eldar or Necrons player 1:3, and there is nothing in the rulebook that contradicts my interpretation.
You can argue that it isn't logical to do so, but then we're moving into the subjective, if I genuinely read it that way, where does it say I'm wrong?
Now if it was written...
"The number of powers a Psyker may attempt to cast each turn is equal to their mastery level."
WayneTheGame wrote: I admit, I don't know what's vague about the psyker quote. It does read to me like "you can cast X many powers per turn" where X is equal to your mastery level.
It's because there isn't anything vague with it. The individuals in that thread in question were looking for issues with the wording, and everyone knows that when you go around looking for problems, you're going to find them. But that doesn't always mean there is one.
The OP in that topic asked a cut and dry question and got numerous answers based on what was written and simple analysis. A handful, really the exact same 3 people who always argue rule interpretations fought vehemently to point out vagueness where there was none, the topic was then locked.
"The number of powers a Psyker may attempt to cast each turn is equal to their mastery level."
Then we'd have no argument.
Oh ho ho I get it. "Dependent on" is not the same thing as "equal to", just that it's based on their mastery level, but that could indicate a missing chart or something, or some formula, etc.
A very subtle difference, but a difference. TFG could argue that "dependent on" means something else, and technically they would be right because the rules don't clarify what "dependent on" actually means.
Yet again, you're confusing RAW, RAI and HIWPI. There was another user that posted all over the boards recently had the same issues.
Yes, the logical assumption is that the dependency is a 1:1 correlation. But nowhere is this explicitly defined. Therefore, I am free to make the assumption that the correlation is 3:1, or hell, if I was a Dark Eldar or Necrons player 1:3, and there is nothing in the rulebook that contradicts my interpretation.
You can argue that it isn't logical to do so, but then we're moving into the subjective, if I genuinely read it that way, where does it say I'm wrong?
Now if it was written...
"The number of powers a Psyker may attempt to cast each turn is equal to their mastery level."
Then we'd have no argument.
You keep insisting I am someone else, you're wrong, stop embarrassing yourself.
Look up the word Dependent in a dictionary, all of its definitions. Examples in other sentences, hell, ask an English professor because you obviously have no understanding of what you are reading.
de·pend·ent [dih-pen-duhnt] Show IPA adjective 1. relying on someone or something else for aid, support, etc. 2. conditioned or determined by something else; contingent: Our trip is dependent on the weather. 3. subordinate; subject: a dependent territory. 4. Grammar . not used in isolation; used only in connection with other forms. In I walked out when the bell rang, when the bell rang is a dependent clause. Compare independent ( def 14 ) , main1 ( def 4 ) . 5. hanging down; pendent.
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted. Now don't get me wrong this seems like a silly conflict as obviously the intention is equality, BUT I can see where there would be a disagreement because of the fundamental difference between RAW and RAI.
Then I was right and the reason why you find vagueness in the rules is your own understanding of the words presented in front of you.
No, we actually have concluded the same thing, that one ML = one attempt! the issue you're not grasping is we've made an assumption that is not supported anywhere in the rulebook, and that's a hole a rules lawyer could drive a bus through.
You literally have done nothing but insult my intelligence and called me naive. So, start producing facts, or go away. Until then, you literally have nothing worth reading.
Really? You've fallen back into ad Homs already?
GW may have stated that their target audience is teenage boys, but that is literally not the player base that has embraced the game. Not only do they not have the budget for the game but they lack the time needed to play, hence why everywhere I play, every video I watch, the majority of people I talk to online about the game, are all adults.
Citation needed, I take quite an interest in the business side of GW, as it dovetails with my academic and professional background, and I haven't seen anything that breaks down the demographic of their customer base.
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted.
Determined by something else. That would be the ML
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted.
Determined by something else. That would be the ML
Yes, I'm not arguing that, I'm stating it does not say HOW the ML affects it. There is nothing beyond assumption to indicate anything about equality, just that the ML affects the number of powers, but it doesn't state in what way. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that it's on a 1:1 basis. It could be two powers for every ML (which would still be wrong because it doesn't state a number, but I digress).
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted.
Determined by something else. That would be the ML
Citation needed, I take quite an interest in the business side of GW, as it dovetails with my academic and professional background, and I haven't seen anything that breaks down the demographic of their customer base.
Couldn't be another assumption could it?
Personal experience, eye-witness testimony, simple understanding of money vs interest
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted.
Determined by something else. That would be the ML
Another assumption.
No that is literal meaning. It's part of the definition.
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted.
Determined by something else. That would be the ML
Another assumption.
Eh... it's pretty clear it depends on the ML, just the way in which it depends is what's being discussed and used as evidence of poor rules.
Yes, I'm not arguing that, I'm stating it does not say HOW the ML affects it. There is nothing beyond assumption to indicate anything about equality, just that the ML affects the number of powers, but it doesn't state in what way. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that it's on a 1:1 basis. It could be two powers for every ML (which would still be wrong because it doesn't state a number, but I digress).
There is the crux of the issue. Some people, looking for issues with the rules, find one by exploiting loop holes and perceived issues in definitions and word usage. If you poke hard enough at any rule, you can flat out break it in half, especially when you are picking and choosing definitions, blatantly ignoring how the sentence itself reads and means, which is what happened in that thread and many others. One of which is ongoing right now which I find really hilarious.
Citation needed, I take quite an interest in the business side of GW, as it dovetails with my academic and professional background, and I haven't seen anything that breaks down the demographic of their customer base.
Couldn't be another assumption could it?
Personal experience, eye-witness testimony, simple understanding of money vs interest
#2 is likely the definition we are talking about here. However, notice that the definition does NOT say anything about equality, just that there is another condition. That condition is the mastery level, but the rules don't say how the mastery level affects the number of powers. That's the issue. We all ASSUME it's equality, but nowhere does it state equality. For all we know there could have been a table outlining how many powers based on army and mastery that was omitted.
Determined by something else. That would be the ML
Another assumption.
No that is literal meaning. It's part of the definition.
Dependent literally means equal to? That definition you quoted didn't mention that!!
azreal13 wrote: "The number of powers a Psyker may cast each turn is dependant on their mastery level."
Now, without making assumptions, applying "common sense" or using anything other than quotes directly from the rulebook, explicitly and definitively define how many powers a turn that is.
Does the 7th Edition rule book actually say that? That could be game changing. If I knew what it meant.
It does and literally has no other interpretation.
But here, let's conduct an experiment where we analyze the words being used and what they mean to a person. I have went ahead and conducted this experiment multiple times so I already know the result.
Go find someone who has never played Warhammer, or any other miniature game.
Have them read Azrael's sentence and have them tell you what they think it means.
It's the control group of the experiment to analyze clarity of words so it would be entirely reliable, whereas anything between players on forums is going to be a senseless argument.
I suggest you ask some people who have a scientific background. Saying there is a relationship between two variables is useless if you don't also specify the form of that relationship. It could be linear, exponential, logarithmic etc.
For example my interpretation could be that the number of powers increases exponentially as mastery level increases. This satisfies all the requirements set out in the rule and is also common sense as many, many things in the world have an exponential relationship.
A Town Called Malus wrote: For example my interpretation could be that the number of powers increases exponentially as mastery level increases. This satisfies all the requirements set out in the rule and is also common sense as many, many things in the world have an exponential relationship.
My interpretation is that is works like BS. So, if you are mastery level 1, you get 6 powers. If you are mastery level 4, you have 3 powers. If you are mastery level 6, you get 2 powers, but if you do not like them, you can reroll 6 powers instead.
Eh... it's pretty clear it depends on the ML, just the way in which it depends is what's being discussed and used as evidence of poor rules.
Not specifically written to accommodate those individuals who insist on having everything spelled out for them, not poor rules.
As someone who studies a subject where clarity and fact is everything, you're wrong.
In a scientific paper written for fellow experts you would still not leave anything to "common sense". They should be able to read your paper and reproduce your experiment with absolutely no variation on your own method. If one thing is different, even the material your thermometer is made out of, the results could be very different.
I suggest you ask some people who have a scientific background. Saying there is a relationship between two variables is useless if you don't also specify the form of that relationship. It could be linear, exponential, logarithmic etc.
Would two Chemists and a Biologist work? Can have their answers by the end of the day. Could also ask some historians, a P.E. teacher and a handful of random people, hell I'll ask a janitor for you if you like.
The thing is, I can poll a million people, get a million answers supporting my argument and people on this forum would still disagree because it still wouldn't be something written specific enough for them, that is the part of the problem, this need to have everything spelled out for them.
Eh... it's pretty clear it depends on the ML, just the way in which it depends is what's being discussed and used as evidence of poor rules.
Not specifically written to accommodate those individuals who insist on having everything spelled out for them, not poor rules.
As someone who studies a subject where clarity and fact is everything, you're wrong.
In a scientific paper written for fellow experts you would still not leave anything to "common sense". They should be able to read your paper and reproduce your experiment with absolutely no variation on your own method. If one thing is different, even the material your thermometer is made out of, the results could be very different.
Rules writing should be the same.
Have you ever read or written a scientific paper? Because there are things flat out not mentioned when it is reviewed by other within the community because the underlying mechanics and theories are already widely known. Though admittedly I am not a professional scientist, I do on occasion read the new and exciting papers published in journals as it keeps me updated as to what is going on out there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: Yes, because the logical and reasonable interpretation isn't in question.
What is in question is the wooly writing that leaves room for any doubt.
Honestly there is no doubt until people start looking for loop holes and issues within the rules themselves.
I suggest you ask some people who have a scientific background. Saying there is a relationship between two variables is useless if you don't also specify the form of that relationship. It could be linear, exponential, logarithmic etc.
Would two Chemists and a Biologist work? Can have their answers by the end of the day. Could also ask some historians, a P.E. teacher and a handful of random people, hell I'll ask a janitor for you if you like.
You had previously mentioned one argument fallacy, I'd like to bring up appeal to popularity and appeal to authority.
Lobomalo wrote: For example, Warmachine models, Retribution specifically as this is what I've been working on, the bulk units are actually more expensive than the bulk models of 40k products. I have to search online for places who offer discounts to find something less than $40 bucks.
The difference here is that each of those goes much longer than GW, and represents a bigger part of your army. $50 for a unit that you need one of is one thing, $50 for a unit when you need 2-3 is totally different, and over on the WHFB side of things $50 when you need two boxes just to make a single unit is even worse.
Eh... it's pretty clear it depends on the ML, just the way in which it depends is what's being discussed and used as evidence of poor rules.
Not specifically written to accommodate those individuals who insist on having everything spelled out for them, not poor rules.
As someone who studies a subject where clarity and fact is everything, you're wrong.
In a scientific paper written for fellow experts you would still not leave anything to "common sense". They should be able to read your paper and reproduce your experiment with absolutely no variation on your own method. If one thing is different, even the material your thermometer is made out of, the results could be very different.
Rules writing should be the same.
Have you ever read or written a scientific paper? Because there are things flat out not mentioned when it is reviewed by other within the community because the underlying mechanics and theories are already widely known. Though admittedly I am not a professional scientist, I do on occasion read the new and exciting papers published in journals as it keeps me updated as to what is going on out there.
Wait, wait, you call out Malus for not being a professional, then go on to state that you're not one either? That's... a new one.
Eh... it's pretty clear it depends on the ML, just the way in which it depends is what's being discussed and used as evidence of poor rules.
Not specifically written to accommodate those individuals who insist on having everything spelled out for them, not poor rules.
As someone who studies a subject where clarity and fact is everything, you're wrong.
In a scientific paper written for fellow experts you would still not leave anything to "common sense". They should be able to read your paper and reproduce your experiment with absolutely no variation on your own method. If one thing is different, even the material your thermometer is made out of, the results could be very different.
Rules writing should be the same.
Have you ever read or written a scientific paper? Because there are things flat out not mentioned when it is reviewed by other within the community because the underlying mechanics and theories are already widely known. Though admittedly I am not a professional scientist, I do on occasion read the new and exciting papers published in journals as it keeps me updated as to what is going on out there.
Yes, I have read papers. I haven't published one yet as I have only just finished my proper first year (I did a foundation year last year as I'd been out of education for a while working). However within those two years I have had 2 modules dedicated to writing papers with the scientific rigour required to get published and maintaining a properly detailed lab book with which any of the experiments I carried out over those two years can be recreated entirely from the notes I made when doing them. You are right that you need not quote every theory as you can assume basic scientific knowledge (however you must still reference them) but when it comes to actually recreating the experiment, there must be no detail left out as to the steps taken to recreate the result.
So I guess a rulebook for a wargame would be more akin to a lab report. It tells you what you need and exactly how to do it to get the result that the writer got.
So in a well written game we should be able to read the rules and then, using only what is written in the rules, play the game exactly as the person who wrote the rules did.
Did you know that in the California Driver's Manual, there is a specific law telling you that you cannot shoot a gun out of your car window at stop signs?
Do people really need to be told not to do something like this when shooting a gun out of your car window is already illegal?
Common sense tells you that shooting a gun out of a car window is not only a stupid idea but an illegal one, yet people do it anyway so they had to put in a law specifically telling people something obvious.
Cool story and I'm willing to bet that that law was introduced there because there was some weird interaction with another law that stated that the inside of your car was your own personal property and you could do whatever you wanted there.
Now what does this very cool story has to do with rules for a game?
I completely understand Technical Writing in its application to rule manuals, as well as for laws and instructions. Yet I'm willing to bet that the majority of the average joe citizens, if they were to ever read a law book, wouldn't understand a single thing being said. Even though the words are things they would commonly use or hear.
So is the problem the laws being written or is the problem with the person who simply cannot understand what they are reading? It may not be a polite thing to say, telling people they cannot understand something, but when it's true, it's true. I've flat out told parents of some of the kids I teach that their children sometimes have no understanding of simple English and while harsh, it's completely true. We speak the language all the time, but really, how many people actually understand what they are saying? A lot less than you'd think.
Laws aren't written using the exact same principals of technical writing, they are written using a different subset called legal writing that due to its archaic expressions and citation system makes it very hard to understand to a layman, that is why you generally need a law degree to read and interpret them accurately.
If something is written using technical writing, there really can't be any cause for open interpretation and its the author's fault if any such confusion arises.
Lobomalo wrote: Have you ever read or written a scientific paper? Because there are things flat out not mentioned when it is reviewed by other within the community because the underlying mechanics and theories are already widely known. Though admittedly I am not a professional scientist, I do on occasion read the new and exciting papers published in journals as it keeps me updated as to what is going on out there.
I have written peer reviewed and published scientific papers and you're wrong. Even if it's something that's widely known, you still state it and/or reference it. You might say "applying blah blah from whotsesname" and then not explain what blah blah is, but you'll still reference it. The only time you might not is when it's something that is within itself already well defined, like "applying Newton's second law", because Newton's second law is a well defined thing in and of itself that you can look up in any old text book, it doesn't need to be explained.
However, "dependence" does not in and of itself imply equality, in fact, I'd say it is less likely to imply equality than not. If I were writing a scientific paper and used the phrase "X depends on Y" I'd most certainly explain the dependence, either with some sort of function or if the dependence has no obvious function, I'll explain the nature of the dependence.
When I read that rule, my first thought isn't "casting powers is dependent on mastery level, cool, that means they're equal", my first thought is "err, where's the rest of the paragraph which describes the dependence".
AllSeeingSkink wrote: When I read that rule, my first thought isn't "casting powers is dependent on mastery level, cool, that means they're equal", my first thought is "err, where's the rest of the paragraph which describes the dependence".
Exactly this. Nowhere is equality implied in the portion that reads "dependent on mastery level". Equality is inferred, and is almost 100% likely the intention, but that's not what the rules SAY. There is a subtle, yet significant, difference between the two.
The more I think about it, I think the vague rules are intentional; GW seems to assume that every 40k game is played with friends who share some mystical passion for the game, so maybe they write rules on the assumption that you will A) Apply common sense and not take anything literally, B) Feel free to house rule things that you want to "forge the narrative" harder, and C) Solve any and all disputes with a quick chat or 4+.
It would explain a lot. Of course that still makes the rules gakky, but it's at least intended to be vague and gakky and it's not like they are just incompetent.
milkboy wrote: An even tighter rule would be mandatory base markings.
PP really, really should provide bases with molded facing markers! They do that for huge bases already, now do that for small, medium and big too!
Wouldn't work. There are a lot of models whose tabs would not align with what their logical front arc would be. From a logical POV it makes sense, from an aesthetic one it's a big turn off.
I think (going back to the OP) that the reason GW can't win right now is that they've squandered their customers' good will. So even if they were to do something right, it will be looked on as "too little, too late" or with suspicion. (probably rightfully so.)
MWHistorian wrote: I think (going back to the OP) that the reason GW can't win right now is that they've squandered their customers' good will. So even if they were to do something right, it will be looked on as "too little, too late" or with suspicion. (probably rightfully so.)
Regardless, she will always have her knights of a certain hue to protect her.
I think they can win. All they have to do is appologize to the community at large for every crappy thing they've done, bring regional pricing in line with currency conversion rates, open up communication with the fanbase, lower their prices some, fire all of their developers and bring in some competent rules writers and actually playtest the damned game. Perhaps raise points costs some across the board or provide an alternative skirmish game so that the entry barrier isn't as high. Perhaps bring in more competent sculptors as well. Things like the Gorkanaut and the Centurion shouldn't happen with how deep GW's pockets are.
But they would never do any of that since GW knows best and what's best is for you to hand them all of your money.
For me at least it's not even so much the actual prices (barring ridiculousness like the rules and supplements) it's the fact that they price for a skirmish game but want/have a large-scale game, which necessitates a large amount of figures. Those two things are generally incompatible because the more figures you need, the more value you want to get out of each purchase.
Instead GW has this idea that extra sprues of fiddly bits that are barely used is value. What they need to do is offer more. One box should give a full squad with all possible options for it; on the WHFB side this means that one box should contain like 20 guys, on the 40k side it should be 10 most of the time or 5 otherwise (e.g. Bikes). They've painted themselves into a corner by not only raising prices, but pushing bigger and bigger forces. There's virtually no large-scale game that uses 28mm figures for exactly this reason; it becomes way too cumbersome and the prices rise exponentially. The way 40k is going now, it'd be better off at 15mm or 20mm with squads instead of sticking to the holdover of individual models. WHFB exemplifies this problem even more with casualty removal instead of morale/breaking like every other larger-scale game out there.
To put it bluntly there's a lot of reasons GW can't "win", mostly because they don't do anything that lets them deserve to win. They charge more than everybody else, on practically everything (rules, miniatures although debatable at an individual level this is apparent at quantity, paints, terrain, hobby supplies, etc.) but the rules for the game is still based around a skirmish game when it's been increasing to full-scale war for years now, resulting in games that get bogged down in minutiae and take an extremely long time to play since everything (at least in 40k) is based around individual figures versus units/elements; of course they've built themselves on this and now they've gone too far to change it - if they did switch scale to 20mm or 15mm like other games, they would be eaten alive by their competition. As to the company itself, they are litigious and have shown outright contempt for their own customers to where it's almost comedic, and they think they can ignore the impact of social media and the internet and retreat to 1990s era communication models.
For me, it is giving me new models that are not sculpts older that many of my opponent .
Oh, and plastic.
And actual rules printed on actual paper translated in my own language too.
Stuff like that.
I haven't posted here in a while, largely because I never found it particularly productive from an overall hobby enjoyment/discussion perspective.
That being said, I have avoided the large 'mainstream' social outlets for this game since 7th came out.
I have played about half a dozen games, and I can honestly say the game has improved. It still has its issues, but its a step in the right direction.
To the OP: I suggest you avoid these/other forums like the plauge. I have found that, despite what internet hyperbole or forum celebrities say, the game is largely enjoyable despite obvious issues/concerns with GW management or the rule set.
All of the negativity and ceaseless soap boxing will likely suck any enjoyment you may have had for the hobby. That's really the key here. It's a hobby. It's your hobby. At the end of the day if at any point you or anyone finds that their hobby, an elective, irrelevant, and completely optional aspect of life, is no longer enjoyable or brings them joy, it's best to take a break.
Maybe that means avoiding the vocal minority that brings you down, or forums in general as discussing something that is no longer enjoyable to you seems asinine. Maybe that means taking a break from the game for a while. Maybe that means finding a different game. It doesn't matter what you choose, just find a way to enjoy your hobby. And if you can't for any reason? Find a different one.
These, and many other, forums are poisonous. People are very passionate, almost religiously so, about this game. It boggles my mind, but it is what it is. It's best not to provoke people that are extremely passionate or upset about something in a forum, be it political, religious, or miscellaneous.
WayneTheGame wrote: For me at least it's not even so much the actual prices (barring ridiculousness like the rules and supplements) it's the fact that they price for a skirmish game but want/have a large-scale game, which necessitates a large amount of figures. Those two things are generally incompatible because the more figures you need, the more value you want to get out of each purchase.
Actually I think it's more like the skirmish-scale competition deliberately charged the same(or slightly higher) price because it'd be offset by much smaller amount of minis required. It's not GW that raised their prices to skirmish game levels. Also lowering prices just because they require more minis is kinda silly because most the new kits are just as good or even better than those of competition despite being made in soft plastic. And they sport a lot of additional bits for customization. Not to mention the ability to pose your miniatures. I don't know a single other game that gives such customizability for your units.
Of course I too think that they should be giving us ALL the possible options for the units in boxes(although a devastator box would be ridiculous).
I suppose, for me though posing is irrelevant; they aren't action figures, they're models in a wargame. I would take single-pose models with zero variation (think 2nd edition boxed set Space Marines) if they were cheaper than multi-pose things.
Klerych wrote: Also lowering prices just because they require more minis is kinda silly because most the new kits are just as good or even better than those of competition despite being made in soft plastic. And they sport a lot of additional bits for customization. Not to mention the ability to pose your miniatures.
That is pretty cool. I wish my 40k miniatures were like that. They are not. Not in any way.
WayneTheGame wrote: For me at least it's not even so much the actual prices (barring ridiculousness like the rules and supplements) it's the fact that they price for a skirmish game but want/have a large-scale game, which necessitates a large amount of figures. Those two things are generally incompatible because the more figures you need, the more value you want to get out of each purchase.
Actually I think it's more like the skirmish-scale competition deliberately charged the same(or slightly higher) price because it'd be offset by much smaller amount of minis required. It's not GW that raised their prices to skirmish game levels. Also lowering prices just because they require more minis is kinda silly because most the new kits are just as good or even better than those of competition despite being made in soft plastic. And they sport a lot of additional bits for customization. Not to mention the ability to pose your miniatures. I don't know a single other game that gives such customizability for your units.
Of course I too think that they should be giving us ALL the possible options for the units in boxes(although a devastator box would be ridiculous).
Yeah, what would make sense is a "Space Marine" box with x models for x local currency. Then do a heavy weapons sprue, with 5 of each gun, an assault sprue with pistol and CC weapon options, a jump pack sprue, a Veteran sprue etc.. Etc..
Much like the old Action Man/GI Joe, where you bought the core toy, and then bought the accessories you wanted.
I haven't posted here in a while, largely because I never found it particularly productive from an overall hobby enjoyment/discussion perspective.
That being said, I have avoided the large 'mainstream' social outlets for this game since 7th came out.
I have played about half a dozen games, and I can honestly say the game has improved. It still has its issues, but its a step in the right direction.
To the OP: I suggest you avoid these/other forums like the plauge. I have found that, despite what internet hyperbole or forum celebrities say, the game is largely enjoyable despite obvious issues/concerns with GW management or the rule set.
All of the negativity and ceaseless soap boxing will likely suck any enjoyment you may have had for the hobby. That's really the key here. It's a hobby. It's your hobby. At the end of the day if at any point you or anyone finds that their hobby, an elective, irrelevant, and completely optional aspect of life, is no longer enjoyable or brings them joy, it's best to take a break.
Maybe that means avoiding the vocal minority that brings you down, or forums in general as discussing something that is no longer enjoyable to you seems asinine. Maybe that means taking a break from the game for a while. Maybe that means finding a different game. It doesn't matter what you choose, just find a way to enjoy your hobby. And if you can't for any reason? Find a different one.
These, and many other, forums are poisonous. People are very passionate, almost religiously so, about this game. It boggles my mind, but it is what it is. It's best not to provoke people that are extremely passionate or upset about something in a forum, be it political, religious, or miscellaneous.
Run.
I agree with nearly everything, both with regard to the improvements in 7th and that many people still can enjoy the game regardless of it's issues, but if posting here is actually affecting someone's emotions IRL, then they're taking it too seriously, and that's on them.
Oh I agree. I think you can tell by reading some of these heated 20+ page back and forth circle jerks, though, that far too many people are taking this too seriously.
It's a political debate under the guise of plastic army men. Sometimes it really does feel like it.
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of making definitions is to provide clarity in circumstances where sword or phrase admits of more than one possible meaning. Having made a definition you have to stick to it.
Except this isn't always how it works as words have multiple definitions and depending upon how they are used, the meaning can change dramatically. ... ... ...
That is the exact reason that when you write rules you define the terms and stick to them.
If you define a term and then use it for an undefined meaning you have totally failed as a rules writer.
Terms as common as "turn" have multiple possible meanings within a game and have to be defined.
A lot of poetry, comedy and fiction depends on exploitation of the ambiguity of language.
Lobomalo wrote: Except this isn't always how it works as words have multiple definitions and depending upon how they are used, the meaning can change dramatically.
This is exactly why it is so important for a ruleset to use clear, concise writing, and to use clearly in-game-defined rules terminology... so that readers know, when they see a given word, which meaning should be applied.
There are a whole slew of games out there that get this right. Returning to the MtG example that keeps getting dragged back, someone reading a card knows, when they see certain words, that those words have a single specific meaning regardless of what other real-world meanings that word may have, because if it's a game term, it is specifically defined in the rules.
Other games, like SWM, will also highlight, bold or italicise keywords, so you can tell at a glance whether the writer is using that word as a defined keyword or just as casual language.
GW doesn't do that. They write in a conversational manner, and as a result all these vague, woolly areas creep into the rules.
There comes a time when you should no longer need to have everything spelled out for you.
Whether or not we need everything spelt out is largely irrelevant. If you're paying for a set of game rules, you should receive a complete set of game rules.
If the product you receive is incomplete, then you haven't received what you paid for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
milkboy wrote: It is the amount of fuss over the eye thing which makes me think GW can never win.
Really?
You know how GW could have 'won' and stopped people from complaining about that particular issue? They could have fixed it twenty years ago. Instead, they went through 6 editions of the game with people pointing out that the LOS rules didn't function with some of their models before they decided to take the time to do something about it.
That's not a 'GW can't win' scenario. That's 'GW can't be bothered.'
XenosTerminus wrote: Oh I agree. I think you can tell by reading some of these heated 20+ page back and forth circle jerks, though, that far too many people are taking this too seriously.
It's a political debate under the guise of plastic army men. Sometimes it really does feel like it.
Hobbies like ours take a certain level of passion to participate. Threads like this are the inevitable outcome when passionate people disagree about it. There is a definite arch to the passion involved in GW's games. If you spent more time on the forums you would see the passionate newb become the bitter veteran. IMO it is universal characteristic of the kind of people who play GW games. The only variables are how quickly you travel along the path and how loud about you are as you leave. Some find solace in the arms of another game and others find new hobbies. Its a bit like a divorce.
Maybe they refuse to believe that some people can argue over something like that. Same goes for psyker powers.
When I look at a rule my first idea is not "but what if I can make up an interpretation that works in my favour? Can I nitpick about something to make it sound ambiguous?". My first idea is "Oh, so it means that. If it doesn't have eyes, then I guess I'll just measure it from where they should normally be!" or "Hmm.. the amount of powers depends on the psyker level.. no more information given, so it's pretty obvious it's 1:1 ratio as any other would be highly unreasonable!".
And yeah, the SM kits should be done like that - box of 10 tacticals for $15 and then upgrade sprue kits for various roles like Devastators, Assault and so on. Even sternguard could be done the Dark Angels' vet squad way - as upgrade sprue. Also - poor sisters players.. at least you can build your vehicles..
The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.
Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.
If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.
Yeah, what would make sense is a "Space Marine" box with x models for x local currency. Then do a heavy weapons sprue, with 5 of each gun, an assault sprue with pistol and CC weapon options, a jump pack sprue, a Veteran sprue etc.. Etc..
Much like the old Action Man/GI Joe, where you bought the core toy, and then bought the accessories you wanted.
If they did that, I would probably spend a few hundred dollars on a bunch of those boxes. The thought makes me salivate.
This is one reason why GW can't win, they're making me not want to buy their stuff. Back when there were more models/box and you got a better deal, everything was better (although still not perfect).
EX: 4 years ago, most LotR basic troops were in boxes of 24, 12 different poses repeated twice. While the '24-box' was around, I bought quite a few- some elves, some humans to use in a different game, some orcs, some easterlings. Really, just because I liked the aesthetic and the miniatures.
When they lowered the model count to 12/box I got pissed off- that's not even enough to assemble one full group because it only includes 4 guys with each of the different weapon options! I found some alternate miniatures from other sources to use.
So while reducing the model count from 24 to 12 might seem like it makes them twice the money, it really doesn't. Because so many fewer people will buy the box after you've reduced the number of models.
I haven't posted here in a while, largely because I never found it particularly productive from an overall hobby enjoyment/discussion perspective.
That being said, I have avoided the large 'mainstream' social outlets for this game since 7th came out.
I have played about half a dozen games, and I can honestly say the game has improved. It still has its issues, but its a step in the right direction.
To the OP: I suggest you avoid these/other forums like the plauge. I have found that, despite what internet hyperbole or forum celebrities say, the game is largely enjoyable despite obvious issues/concerns with GW management or the rule set.
All of the negativity and ceaseless soap boxing will likely suck any enjoyment you may have had for the hobby. That's really the key here. It's a hobby. It's your hobby. At the end of the day if at any point you or anyone finds that their hobby, an elective, irrelevant, and completely optional aspect of life, is no longer enjoyable or brings them joy, it's best to take a break.
Maybe that means avoiding the vocal minority that brings you down, or forums in general as discussing something that is no longer enjoyable to you seems asinine. Maybe that means taking a break from the game for a while. Maybe that means finding a different game. It doesn't matter what you choose, just find a way to enjoy your hobby. And if you can't for any reason? Find a different one.
These, and many other, forums are poisonous. People are very passionate, almost religiously so, about this game. It boggles my mind, but it is what it is. It's best not to provoke people that are extremely passionate or upset about something in a forum, be it political, religious, or miscellaneous.
Run.
If the negativity is all over the internet and every other forum, maybe it's not such a minority as you think? Anecdotal either way, just saying a possibility.
The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.
Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.
If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.
U really need to stop trying to defend GW....
Actually I think he's somewhat right. Of course the rules are not 100% clear and some of the mare poorly worded, but 99% of times it's a case of common sense to assume what GW meant with the eyes(or whatever organ they use to see). It's not using common sense to patch up a rule, it's using common sense like every human being should. If GW had to make notes for every single special rule about every single unusual situation the "Rules" tome of the new BRB would be as big as the old BRB just containing all the explanations because some people might have problems with being reasonable.
Thing is - the BRB is not written perfectly, but it's not as bad as some people claim it to be. Nowadays it's both GW AND nitpicking players that are at fault with such situations because some people apparently browse the Codexes and rulebooks only to find any possible ambiguity so they can go over to the forums and create another poisonous topic. Maybe GW assumes that we're smarter than that and facepalms whenever they see such things happening?
The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.
Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.
If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.
U really need to stop trying to defend GW....
Actually I think he's somewhat right. Of course the rules are not 100% clear and some of the mare poorly worded, but 99% of times it's a case of common sense to assume what GW meant with the eyes(or whatever organ they use to see). It's not using common sense to patch up a rule, it's using common sense like every human being should. If GW had to make notes for every single special rule about every single unusual situation the "Rules" tome of the new BRB would be as big as the old BRB just containing all the explanations because some people might have problems with being reasonable.
Thing is - the BRB is not written perfectly, but it's not as bad as some people claim it to be. Nowadays it's both GW AND nitpicking players that are at fault with such situations because some people apparently browse the Codexes and rulebooks only to find any possible ambiguity so they can go over to the forums and create another poisonous topic. Maybe GW assumes that we're smarter than that and facepalms whenever they see such things happening?
Of course allot of the problems in the book are common sense, but that doesnt justify the fact that there are problems. It is GWs job as the supplier of rules to either a) not make these slight problems, or B) listen to the community and fix them. They do neither.
He has also made several claims and not backed them up.
Stuff like the CCB that breaks the rules in so many games and is downright IGNORED by GW is lazy-ass game design and shows a severe lack of interest in the product.
I haven't posted here in a while, largely because I never found it particularly productive from an overall hobby enjoyment/discussion perspective.
That being said, I have avoided the large 'mainstream' social outlets for this game since 7th came out.
I have played about half a dozen games, and I can honestly say the game has improved. It still has its issues, but its a step in the right direction.
To the OP: I suggest you avoid these/other forums like the plauge. I have found that, despite what internet hyperbole or forum celebrities say, the game is largely enjoyable despite obvious issues/concerns with GW management or the rule set.
All of the negativity and ceaseless soap boxing will likely suck any enjoyment you may have had for the hobby. That's really the key here. It's a hobby. It's your hobby. At the end of the day if at any point you or anyone finds that their hobby, an elective, irrelevant, and completely optional aspect of life, is no longer enjoyable or brings them joy, it's best to take a break.
Maybe that means avoiding the vocal minority that brings you down, or forums in general as discussing something that is no longer enjoyable to you seems asinine. Maybe that means taking a break from the game for a while. Maybe that means finding a different game. It doesn't matter what you choose, just find a way to enjoy your hobby. And if you can't for any reason? Find a different one.
These, and many other, forums are poisonous. People are very passionate, almost religiously so, about this game. It boggles my mind, but it is what it is. It's best not to provoke people that are extremely passionate or upset about something in a forum, be it political, religious, or miscellaneous.
Run.
If the negativity is all over the internet and every other forum, maybe it's not such a minority as you think? Anecdotal either way, just saying a possibility.
The internet is a hive of scum and villainy. Self-proclaimed 'voices of the people' exist for every outlet, be it tabletop gaming to any other hobby or interest.
It's 'cool' to hate on big companies tied to hobbies or entertainment. GW is not an example of exclusivity. Opinions run rampant. There are always trolls. There are always white knights. The formula is the same regardless where you go.
This is why it is best to generally avoid forums and comment sections.
I can say with relative certainty that generally speaking things are not as bad when you are discussing things in person, but I may be in the minority where I don't spiral out of control and spew hate when I discuss hobbies or things I claim to enjoy with other human beings.
To be fair, I'm not really vocal in person about my dislike for the rules. I might make some jokes about it in person but it's very minimal. Do I complain about it on the internet though? Most certainly! Just kind of a divide. If I am playing the game, it's more because I'm playing with my group of friends for a narrative from models we have collected from quite some time ago. That and we have been slowly working on just making our own rules for the game. If we have to play bad rules at least let them be our own fault.
That and being critical of 40k feels more right online rather than in person.
StarTrotter wrote: To be fair, I'm not really vocal in person about my dislike for the rules. I might make some jokes about it in person but it's very minimal. Do I complain about it on the internet though? Most certainly! Just kind of a divide. If I am playing the game, it's more because I'm playing with my group of friends for a narrative from models we have collected from quite some time ago. That and we have been slowly working on just making our own rules for the game. If we have to play bad rules at least let them be our own fault.
That and being critical of 40k feels more right online rather than in person.
That's because anyone can be critical or overly negative about their involvement in a hobby with little to no repercussions when shrouded under the guise of internet anonymity.
If a group of friends is playing a friendly game of 40k, or any wargame and are just tossing some dice and having fun, but one guy insists on bitching and moaning every step of the way about the companies missteps, how bad rule X is, how their army was nerfed, this is overpowered, etc.. that person is just not enjoyable to game with, let alone be around. They literally consume any enjoyment out of the game, and playing with them is a chore.
This sort is quickly rooted out in local circles and ostracized from gaming groups. Ironically this same person is likely to purchase another kit on their way out of the store.
GW as a company is winning, it exists, sells product, gives out dividends, has a CEO that can do what he wants; in their eyes it is all good.
It is getting tighter mind you, overall volume of sales has decreased. Product may have begun to not match in quality the asking price so some customers are turning away.
Kirby I am sure is feeling like he is losing; he is trying to ponder how to gut the bunch of us to buy more GW stuff.
He is not asking or looking for your opinion however so it may take him a while.
For every day that GW is in business there is a chance for <edit> (delete: profitability) increasing volume of sales, may they one day figure out how to lay another golden goose.
StarTrotter wrote: To be fair, I'm not really vocal in person about my dislike for the rules. I might make some jokes about it in person but it's very minimal. Do I complain about it on the internet though? Most certainly! Just kind of a divide. If I am playing the game, it's more because I'm playing with my group of friends for a narrative from models we have collected from quite some time ago. That and we have been slowly working on just making our own rules for the game. If we have to play bad rules at least let them be our own fault.
That and being critical of 40k feels more right online rather than in person.
That's because anyone can be critical or overly negative about their involvement in a hobby with little to no repercussions when shrouded under the guise of internet anonymity.
If a group of friends is playing a friendly game of 40k, or any wargame and are just tossing some dice and having fun, but one guy insists on bitching and moaning every step of the way about the companies missteps, how bad rule X is, how their army was nerfed, this is overpowered, etc.. that person is just not enjoyable to game with, let alone be around. They literally consume any enjoyment out of the game, and playing with them is a chore.
This sort is quickly rooted out in local circles and ostracized from gaming groups. Ironically this same person is likely to purchase another kit on their way out of the store.
Exactly. And I can have fun with the game but that doesn't really mean I like GW, the prices, or the rules of the game. And to be honest, these things do put a daempening to my liking of the world. I play this game more for the fluff and customization but the rules are how I play this with friends. I have fun with the game not helped by the rules but in spite of them. I'm not going to complain in a way that isn't funny there but it doesn't mean I'm not disappointed with how bad certain models I want to field are or how good certain models are to the point I refuse to field them. But yeah these threads do not help with keeping jolly about it all
Klerych wrote: Maybe they refuse to believe that some people can argue over something like that. Same goes for psyker powers.
When I look at a rule my first idea is not "but what if I can make up an interpretation that works in my favour? Can I nitpick about something to make it sound ambiguous?". My first idea is "Oh, so it means that. If it doesn't have eyes, then I guess I'll just measure it from where they should normally be!" or "Hmm.. the amount of powers depends on the psyker level.. no more information given, so it's pretty obvious it's 1:1 ratio as any other would be highly unreasonable!".
Nitpicking, common sense and unreasonable is highly subjective.
My first thought with this Psyker rule was this:
My Psyker is ML 3. So he can cast either:
-Three spells with Warp Charge 1.
-One spell with Warp Charge 2 and one spell with Warp Charge 1,
-Or one spell with Warp Charge 3.
Now you are telling me he could cast three spells with Warp Charge 2, as long as I have the dice for it?
Completely different as what I thought, without trying to "cheese the rules in my favour" and it's not unreasonable at all.
This confusion could have been avoided if they would just write down what they mean!
WayneTheGame wrote: I suppose, for me though posing is irrelevant; they aren't action figures, they're models in a wargame. I would take single-pose models with zero variation (think 2nd edition boxed set Space Marines) if they were cheaper than multi-pose things.
Than why don't you play a boardgame instead? The point of a miniature war game is the miniatures. The point of having large, detailed miniatures is the ability to customise and paint to your own liking. Collecting a set of beautiful individualised miniatures is the whole point of having miniatures in 40k. If you don't care about the way your models look you might as well use chess pieces or switch to a game that automatically includes pre-made miniatures.
Warhammer is more than just a game. It is a modelling hobby. The game just was attached to give an extra purpose for people to keep collecting Citadel miniatures.
Klerych wrote: Maybe they refuse to believe that some people can argue over something like that. Same goes for psyker powers.
When I look at a rule my first idea is not "but what if I can make up an interpretation that works in my favour? Can I nitpick about something to make it sound ambiguous?". My first idea is "Oh, so it means that. If it doesn't have eyes, then I guess I'll just measure it from where they should normally be!" or "Hmm.. the amount of powers depends on the psyker level.. no more information given, so it's pretty obvious it's 1:1 ratio as any other would be highly unreasonable!".
Nitpicking, common sense and unreasonable is highly subjective.
My first thought with this Psyker rule was this:
My Psyker is ML 3. So he can cast either:
-Three spells with Warp Charge 1.
-One spell with Warp Charge 2 and one spell with Warp Charge 1,
-Or one spell with Warp Charge 3.
Now you are telling me he could cast three spells with Warp Charge 2, as long as I have the dice for it?
Completely different as what I thought, without trying to "cheese the rules in my favour" and it's not unreasonable at all.
This confusion could have been avoided if they would just write down what they mean!
But.. there was -literally- no mention of Warp Charges in regard to that limit.. there was literally nothing that'd ever imply that Warp Charges had anything to do with that, mate. :-)
Klerych wrote: Maybe they refuse to believe that some people can argue over something like that. Same goes for psyker powers.
When I look at a rule my first idea is not "but what if I can make up an interpretation that works in my favour? Can I nitpick about something to make it sound ambiguous?". My first idea is "Oh, so it means that. If it doesn't have eyes, then I guess I'll just measure it from where they should normally be!" or "Hmm.. the amount of powers depends on the psyker level.. no more information given, so it's pretty obvious it's 1:1 ratio as any other would be highly unreasonable!".
Nitpicking, common sense and unreasonable is highly subjective. My first thought with this Psyker rule was this: My Psyker is ML 3. So he can cast either: -Three spells with Warp Charge 1. -One spell with Warp Charge 2 and one spell with Warp Charge 1, -Or one spell with Warp Charge 3.
Now you are telling me he could cast three spells with Warp Charge 2, as long as I have the dice for it? Completely different as what I thought, without trying to "cheese the rules in my favour" and it's not unreasonable at all.
This confusion could have been avoided if they would just write down what they mean!
But.. there was -literally- no mention of Warp Charges in regard to that limit.. there was literally nothing that'd ever imply that Warp Charges had anything to do with that, mate. :-)
However, considering the previous edition did and the new rules don't feel like telling us how the number of powers is related to your mastery level, it was as good an assumption as any.
In fact it might actually be the way Kangodo says. There's nothing to rule out that interpretation in the rulebook.
However, considering the previous edition did and the new rules don't feel like telling us how the number of powers is related to your mastery level, it was as good an assumption as any.
In fact it might actually be the way Kangodo says. There's nothing to rule out that interpretation in the rulebook.
Well, my version is much more simple and easier to remember and it doesn't relate to any other rules and keywords such as Warp Charges just like the rule itself, so I think it's more likely to work that way. You are of course free to disagree, but I think his version is basically unnecessarily complicating the stuff with bringing up WCs and making it much messier. :-)
Edit: Also you don't need it to be explicitly ruled out. It's like saying that it doesn't rule out being able to cast three powers per level! You'd rather need a proof that it relates to Warp Charges when there is literally no mention of them whatsoever in that rule. :-)
However, considering the previous edition did and the new rules don't feel like telling us how the number of powers is related to your mastery level, it was as good an assumption as any.
In fact it might actually be the way Kangodo says. There's nothing to rule out that interpretation in the rulebook.
Well, my version is much more simple and easier to remember and it doesn't relate to any other rules and keywords such as Warp Charges just like the rule itself, so I think it's more likely to work that way. You are of course free to disagree, but I think his version is basically unnecessarily complicating the stuff with bringing up WCs and making it much messier. :-)
Oh I totally agree but for all we know GW might release an FAQ tomorrow which states that Kangodo's way was right.
Who am I kidding? GW aren't gonna FAQ it, they'll just fix it in 8th edition in 6 months time
For me, its the big rules that I don't like. But they're also the subjective ones so some people will love them.
Unbound (or new broken FOC anything.)
maelstrom
new psychic phase
no assault from vehicles or deep striking.
overwatch
skirmish game rules with too many models.
etc.
The small stuff, eh. No big deal. I aint going to pay $85 for them but they aren't a deal breaker for me.
Hah, then I'd gladly accept any kind of official FAQ on that. But unless proven otherwise I'll try to stick to the most simple and reasonable explanation. :-)
MWHistorian wrote: For me, its the big rules that I don't like. But they're also the subjective ones so some people will love them.
Unbound (or new broken FOC anything.)
maelstrom
new psychic phase
no assault from vehicles or deep striking.
overwatch
skirmish game rules with too many models.
etc.
The small stuff, eh. No big deal. I aint going to pay $85 for them but they aren't a deal breaker for me.
While this is totally subjective on my side, I'd like to comment on those things.
-Unbound - well despite the initial panic flood the battle-forged seems to be superior with superscoring troops and transports and multiple detachments. Unbound was more like a written way of officially allowing us to go bananas with stuff we like. Of course we could do that before, but it's still a nice gesture on their half.
-Maelstrom - you mean the cards and new missions? Well this is, as you said, totally subjective, but I like it. 5th and 6th were very static and revolved around tabling the opponent or last turn grabbing objectives. Maelstrom missions with one simple house rule(discarding cards you literally can't fulfill) actually make you care about running around the table, doing small tasks, all the fun stuff for the game to be more dynamic.
-New Psychic Phase. Kinda hit and miss, but the previous one was a bit too lazy with powers going off almost all the time. Still no idea why didn't they just copy the superior magic phase from WFB(dispelling would be easier), but it's fairly okay.
-No assault from vehicles and deep strike. Combine that with non-random charge distances and you'll get charges turn one while not being able to do crap about it. With Deep Strike it's even worse, because outside of interceptor fire the other player can not do -literally anything- to try stopping the DSing unit. GW definetely seems to avoid making one player helpless in various situations. It was same with the Doom in Tyranid Codex. That's just game explanation. For fluffy one.. well, crawling out of a crowded Rhino through tiny side doors/back ramp, making a 180' turn and then running at an enemy should actually give him enough time to pull up his rifle and shoot at you. :-) With Land Raiders it's different as you launch an assault out of front door, basically spilling right into the enemy before he can aim, only firing snapshots.
-Overwatch. See, now you're trying to take away from the 'defending' player even more. So what you're suggesting is that your extra-killy unit arrives anywhere it wants on the table and then can charge whatever is near and it can't even defend itself? That's like tying the player's hands behind his back and kicking him in the gut repeatedly. :-) Now add consolidating moves and non-random charges and you'll have the deep striking terminator unit tear through several units the turn he charges and the other player can't do crap about it, just watching and removing his plastic army men from the table in fistfuls.
-I slightly don't get the 'skirmish rules' point, though. When people knew the rules 6th played very fast and viciously.
Of course it's just my view on the things, but I thought you might be somewhat wrong in case of some of them. Feel free to consider or ignore my points.
Klerych wrote: Well, my version is much more simple and easier to remember and it doesn't relate to any other rules and keywords such as Warp Charges just like the rule itself, so I think it's more likely to work that way. You are of course free to disagree, but I think his version is basically unnecessarily complicating the stuff with bringing up WCs and making it much messier. :-)
Edit: Also you don't need it to be explicitly ruled out. It's like saying that it doesn't rule out being able to cast three powers per level! You'd rather need a proof that it relates to Warp Charges when there is literally no mention of them whatsoever in that rule. :-)
I play a lot of other games and I always saw Mastery Level like mana from MtG.
You have three mana and your spells are either one, two or three mana.
So for me my idea is much more simpler and easier to remember.
Casting three '3-mana' spells with a mage that has only 3 mana seems so weird!
My goal was to point out that there is no "one logical" way to explain this Psychic Rule and that everything else isn't nitpicking.
It's honestly how I interpreted it and I blame GW for not explaining it in a book that I am about to spend 60 euro on; that's a full day of work for me.
XenosTerminus wrote: that's because anyone can be critical or overly negative about their involvement in a hobby with little to no repercussions when shrouded under the guise of internet anonymity.
If a group of friends is playing a friendly game of 40k, or any wargame and are just tossing some dice and having fun, but one guy insists on bitching and moaning every step of the way about the companies missteps, how bad rule X is, how their army was nerfed, this is overpowered, etc.. that person is just not enjoyable to game with, let alone be around. They literally consume any enjoyment out of the game, and playing with them is a chore.
This sort is quickly rooted out in local circles and ostracized from gaming groups. Ironically this same person is likely to purchase another kit on their way out of the store.
Yeah, stereotypes are fun.
Anonymity has little to do with it. The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss this stuff. So people use the discussion forums to discuss this stuff, and when they are playing games, they get on with playing the game.
If you aren't seeing people being negative in your largely positive group, it's probably because your group is largely positive, and those people are spending their time with more like-minded groups, rather than because they only exist on the internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klerych wrote: Maybe they refuse to believe that some people can argue over something like that. Same goes for psyker powers.
When I look at a rule my first idea is not "but what if I can make up an interpretation that works in my favour? Can I nitpick about something to make it sound ambiguous?". My first idea is "Oh, so it means that. If it doesn't have eyes, then I guess I'll just measure it from where they should normally be!" or "Hmm.. the amount of powers depends on the psyker level.. no more information given, so it's pretty obvious it's 1:1 ratio as any other would be highly unreasonable!".
The problem with the psychic power limit is that you have one rule that is a direct copy-paste from last edition despite the rest of the psychic rules having changed, and another rule that seems to contradict that copy-pasted rule.
So, sure, you might think that your first reading is the reasonable one. The guy arguing for the opposing interpretation isn't automatically being unreasonable because of that, though. He's just reading a rather ambiguously-worded sectiono of the rules differently to you.
And from curiosity, this:
...I'll just measure it from where they should normally be!
Klerych wrote: Well, my version is much more simple and easier to remember and it doesn't relate to any other rules and keywords such as Warp Charges just like the rule itself, so I think it's more likely to work that way. You are of course free to disagree, but I think his version is basically unnecessarily complicating the stuff with bringing up WCs and making it much messier. :-)
Edit: Also you don't need it to be explicitly ruled out. It's like saying that it doesn't rule out being able to cast three powers per level! You'd rather need a proof that it relates to Warp Charges when there is literally no mention of them whatsoever in that rule. :-)
I play a lot of other games and I always saw Mastery Level like mana from MtG. You have three mana and your spells are either one, two or three mana. So for me my idea is much more simpler and easier to remember. Casting three '3-mana' spells with a mage that has only 3 mana seems so weird!
My goal was to point out that there is no "one logical" way to explain this Psychic Rule and that everything else isn't nitpicking. It's honestly how I interpreted it and I blame GW for not explaining it in a book that I am about to spend 60 euro on; that's a full day of work for me.
But now you're even making it even more messy by bringing in influences from other games.. while I understand that it was first thing that came to your mind as an MtG player, but you made it much more complicated instead of just assuming the most simple 3lvls = 3 spells. Then again my judgement might be clouded by the fact that I also played WFB and that's how wizards with magic levels work there, so I just know what GW meant.. But still it's far more simple my way. :-)
MWHistorian wrote: I'm wrong that I don't like something that's a matter of taste? Okay.
Hey, I never said that you are wrong to dislike something. I just tried to prove that if they changed those particular things you didn't like, the game would've gotten much, much worse. Deep Striking assault termie squad(for example) would just tear through any gunline army and the other player couldn't do jack bit about it. While you're free to dislike something, it'd be good to consider what'd changing that bring. It's your point that I claim to be wrong, not the fact that you dislike those things. :-)
...I'll just measure it from where they should normally be!
Where would the eyes 'normally be' on a kannon?
This is my interpretation of course, but if it's a piece of artillery rather than a humanoid model, shouldn't it be treated like vehicles' guns? From the mount along the barrel. At least that's how I would use it. :-)
Klerych wrote: This is my interpretation of course, but if it's a piece of artillery rather than a humanoid model, shouldn't it be treated like vehicles' guns? From the mount along the barrel. At least that's how I would use it. :-)
Up until 5th edition, artillery weapons were essentially vehicles.
In 6th edition they became infantry. With no way in the rules to establish LOS from them.
Most people did indeed just continue to draw LOS down the weapon barrel ... but that's a house rule, since the rules simply didn't cover it. There is no 'interpretation' of the 6th edition rules that could have arrived at that solution.
-Unbound - well despite the initial panic flood the battle-forged seems to be superior with superscoring troops and transports and multiple detachments. Unbound was more like a written way of officially allowing us to go bananas with stuff we like. Of course we could do that before, but it's still a nice gesture on their half.
-Maelstrom - you mean the cards and new missions? Well this is, as you said, totally subjective, but I like it. 5th and 6th were very static and revolved around tabling the opponent or last turn grabbing objectives. Maelstrom missions with one simple house rule(discarding cards you literally can't fulfill) actually make you care about running around the table, doing small tasks, all the fun stuff for the game to be more dynamic.
-New Psychic Phase. Kinda hit and miss, but the previous one was a bit too lazy with powers going off almost all the time. Still no idea why didn't they just copy the superior magic phase from WFB(dispelling would be easier), but it's fairly okay.
-No assault from vehicles and deep strike. Combine that with non-random charge distances and you'll get charges turn one while not being able to do crap about it. With Deep Strike it's even worse, because outside of interceptor fire the other player can not do -literally anything- to try stopping the DSing unit. GW definetely seems to avoid making one player helpless in various situations. It was same with the Doom in Tyranid Codex. That's just game explanation. For fluffy one.. well, crawling out of a crowded Rhino through tiny side doors/back ramp, making a 180' turn and then running at an enemy should actually give him enough time to pull up his rifle and shoot at you. :-) With Land Raiders it's different as you launch an assault out of front door, basically spilling right into the enemy before he can aim, only firing snapshots.
-Overwatch. See, now you're trying to take away from the 'defending' player even more. So what you're suggesting is that your extra-killy unit arrives anywhere it wants on the table and then can charge whatever is near and it can't even defend itself? That's like tying the player's hands behind his back and kicking him in the gut repeatedly. :-) Now add consolidating moves and non-random charges and you'll have the deep striking terminator unit tear through several units the turn he charges and the other player can't do crap about it, just watching and removing his plastic army men from the table in fistfuls.
-I slightly don't get the 'skirmish rules' point, though. When people knew the rules 6th played very fast and viciously.
Of course it's just my view on the things, but I thought you might be somewhat wrong in case of some of them. Feel free to consider or ignore my points.
Uno) Or maybe it's because everyone said "No, thanks!" right out of the gate.
Dos) Random crap cards are random crap cards. If you were keyed into the tournament scene, or any other miniatures game for that matter, you'd know that asymmetrical mission design was already on the table making the notion of the equally bad standard book missions a joke. So Games Workshop took a mechanic from other games and custom tournament missions, tacked on a "narrative forging" element and sold you cards (because that table is too tedious otherwise!). Up sales at the expense of game mechanics! Chu-Ching!
Tres) I agree that it was a half step, and probably not one needed. No reason for 40k psychic powers to be the same as Fantasy spells. I'd rather they dropped the spell tables entirely and go back to paying for powers. Your psyker having a brain fart every time the battle rolled around is why people relied on certain tables more so than others. You just can't guarantee getting what you want, so you forgo the lesser tables even though you'd like a spell from one.
Cuatro) I dunno, how about not parking on the edge of your deployment zone and then you don't get assaulted? Or design the deployment schemes appropriately to handle that situation. Also, having something assault out of reserves means you have had at least one turn, if not more, to readjust for such an event. (Screw the Doom...)
Cinco) Overwatch is cinematic, but kinda dumb as it bloats down the rules and slows down games even further. It only further hurts assault armies and people aren't taking terminators because they fail charges due to overwatch, but rather they fail because of the massive weight of fire that is the game post 5E. It would be better as a real over-watch mechanic of suppression fire and forgoing your shooting to either deter enemy attacks or to gain a special bonus against being assault. Imagine, a gunline of firewarriors getting a bonus to BS to shooting folks coming at them as a "...Not Until the White's of Their Eyes!" moment instead of a "WKHajfhslajdsfhjlahsdflahs -AAAAAAAAAAAAA" *PEW**PEW**PEW* thing that it is now. The former is a choice made by trained soldiers, the latter is space marines failing their training.
Seis) It's because Games Workshop still has a game that fundamentally is a skirmish game that's acting like a battle game just because you put a lot of models on the table. The weight and power of some units necessary to chew through large quantities of models makes the game imbalanced; the scope and scale are not lining up. The amount of models you have on the table in a 2k v 2k game can be asinine when you figure the cost and time to do so and it would be better served by an Epic style 6mm~10mm game. I have read a few posts on how bad the army bloat is getting that current army books are almost to their equivalency in the old Epic scale points (ex. a 5k Epic Army for army X is nearly a 2k 40k army when pointed in their respective lists, both being standard sized games).
MWHistorian wrote: For me, its the big rules that I don't like. But they're also the subjective ones so some people will love them.
Unbound (or new broken FOC anything.)
maelstrom
new psychic phase
no assault from vehicles or deep striking.
overwatch
skirmish game rules with too many models.
etc.
The small stuff, eh. No big deal. I aint going to pay $85 for them but they aren't a deal breaker for me.
+1. My feeling entirely. My beef with the current state of 40k is based upon rule changes / rulings that are central to the way the game is played. Nitpicking is when you have a problem with small aspects of a game. I have a problem with the fact that the game, which I enjoyed immensely in 5th edition, has changed fundamentally in ways that can only be described as totally bizarre.
Rules constrain a game into something that can actually be played (i.e., you can develop tactics for it, plan ahead, etc.). Maelstrom missions remove any ability to form game-long strategies, the new psychic phase is inherently far more random than the way it used to work, overwatch and variable charge distances both add more variance to assaults, unbound armies remove restrictions that usually prohibit players from exploitative combinations, etc. So on and so forth until we're all standing around making "pew pew pew" noises with our little toy soldiers. It's not really a game at this point, if you play "the hobby" the way "the hobby" is meant to be played...
Klerych wrote: Then again my judgement might be clouded by the fact that I also played WFB and that's how wizards with magic levels work there, so I just know what GW meant.. But still it's far more simple my way. :-)
And this is your concession that the rules suck. Good games don't have arguments where two reasonable people can hold opposite positions, rule questions have to consider things like "it's simpler", or "knowing what the author meant" is ever required. They simply tell you what the rules are, and you follow the rules as-printed without any discussion.
Klerych wrote: Then again my judgement might be clouded by the fact that I also played WFB and that's how wizards with magic levels work there, so I just know what GW meant.. But still it's far more simple my way. :-)
And this is your concession that the rules suck. Good games don't have arguments where two reasonable people can hold opposite positions, rule questions have to consider things like "it's simpler", or "knowing what the author meant" is ever required. They simply tell you what the rules are, and you follow the rules as-printed without any discussion.
I feel like part of the problem is the way that certain rules interact with one another. A prime example is Multiple Barrage and Twin Linked. Another is Jink and blast weapons.
The issue is that, when a unit is released that has a Twin Linked Multiple Barrage weapon (i.e., Wyvern), there's really no excuse for failing to have concrete rules in place for it.
But now you're even making it even more messy by bringing in influences from other games.. while I understand that it was first thing that came to your mind as an MtG player, but you made it much more complicated instead of just assuming the most simple 3lvls = 3 spells. Then again my judgement might be clouded by the fact that I also played WFB and that's how wizards with magic levels work there, so I just know what GW meant.. But still it's far more simple my way. :-)
In Fantasy Wizards can cast however many spells they know. Often that is the same as their Mastery Level but not always. Wizards with the Loremaster special rule are a good example.
I think the whole thread could be ended by saying that "Yes, GWcan win... but winning takes effort and hard work, and the ability to look at themselves and their product and admit fault, none of which GW has seemed at all inclined to actually do in the game in over 3 editions, and because of this, instead of Winning, they Lose."
XenosTerminus wrote: If a group of friends is playing a friendly game of 40k, or any wargame and are just tossing some dice and having fun, but one guy insists on bitching and moaning every step of the way about the companies missteps, how bad rule X is, how their army was nerfed, this is overpowered, etc.. that person is just not enjoyable to game with, let alone be around. They literally consume any enjoyment out of the game, and playing with them is a chore.
This sort is quickly rooted out in local circles and ostracized from gaming groups. Ironically this same person is likely to purchase another kit on their way out of the store.
In my experience, pointing out the flaws of 40k resulted in people going "hey, you're right"... and moving to warmahordes, dreadball, DZC and so on. The result *was* everyone being more happy though.
Psienesis wrote: I think the whole thread could be ended by saying that "Yes, GWcan win... but winning takes effort and hard work, and the ability to look at themselves and their product and admit fault, none of which GW has seemed at all inclined to actually do in the game in over 3 editions, and because of this, instead of Winning, they Lose."
Klerych wrote: This is my interpretation of course, but if it's a piece of artillery rather than a humanoid model, shouldn't it be treated like vehicles' guns? From the mount along the barrel. At least that's how I would use it. :-)
The point of buying a rulebook so that you don't have to make basic stuff up to play a game.
After paying a lot of money for a rulebook, especially relative to comparable games, shouldn't someone be able to use that rulebook to find out what the correct way to do LOS from a model without needing to "figure something out" for Artillery LOSwhen Artillery has it's own titled section*?
*I'm using 5th and 6th for reference here as they had the "model's eye view" and "from the model's eyes" LOS. I'm guessing that 7th also has a section for artillery.
Warhammer is more than just a game. It is a modelling hobby. The game just was attached to give an extra purpose for people to keep collecting Citadel miniatures.
You know its funny you bring that up. GW certainly seem to believe it and run their business on that assumption, but I made this thread yesterday that very much disagrees with them:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/601769.page
XenosTerminus wrote: That's because anyone can be critical or overly negative about their involvement in a hobby with little to no repercussions when shrouded under the guise of internet anonymity.
I disagree entirely. It has nothing to do with anonymity. It has everything to do with the way we read and write vs the way we talk.
When typing, you can construct long and detailed responses, those long and detailed responses can be carefully analysed by the other parties involved in the discussion and they can then construct long and detailed responses.
That's not how real life talking and listening conversations work. You tend to just say a few words that are less carefully considered.
***negative conversion begins*** Person 1: "I don't like blah because of blah" Person 2: "Yeah, I think blah is ok, it doesn't really bother me because blah" ***conversation ends***
You don't then separate for 15 minutes while you formulate your next response, researching the resource materials (rulebooks, dictionaries, etc) to lend more weight to your argument. Only if it's something really important to you will you try and formulate a more careful argument on the spot (like if it's going to cause you to win or lose a game on the spot). At worst you'll go back and forth a bit until one of you realises it's not going anywhere and just concedes or says "lets forget about it and dice off for now".
You also have, at least in my mind, the social etiquette where it is impolite to blather on for a long time as you're consuming someone else's time because it's rude for them to just walk away. On the interwebs, I'm fully aware if I write a long winded response, it may just get looked over, so I don't feel like I'm wasting peoples' time (though I still attempt to use proper English to the best of my ability, as I think it's rude to write a response that people have to waste their time trying to decipher).
Whether it be positive or negative, the only time I will hold a real life talky talky discussion to any level that would rival my typed out online discussions is when I'm discussing something in my field of professional expertise with another person who is also in my field of expertise.
Klerych wrote: Then again my judgement might be clouded by the fact that I also played WFB and that's how wizards with magic levels work there, so I just know what GW meant.. But still it's far more simple my way. :-)
And this is your concession that the rules suck. Good games don't have arguments where two reasonable people can hold opposite positions, rule questions have to consider things like "it's simpler", or "knowing what the author meant" is ever required. They simply tell you what the rules are, and you follow the rules as-printed without any discussion.
Yep, exactly. The 6th edition cover rules for intervening models (don't have the 7th book in front of me to check it) are worded such that it could be taken one of a couple of ways. GW failed to define particular words that they used, so you're left thinking "wait, did they mean it behaves like cover saves in this way or that way, it's never actually defined and you could equally argue either way is what is intended".
I also remember having a long discussion on "shooting attack", because it wasn't explicitly defined and the way it was used in a particular place you could either construe it as being common english, in which case it meant one thing, or a specific term "shooting attack" but since it wasn't properly defined so it could go one way or another.
The problem with loose RAW is that the RAI isn't always obvious. It might be obvious to YOU because of your personal bias, but someone else might thing it's obvious in the opposite direction or they might think it's completely not obvious.
You can just dice off, but for many people this is a temporary solution, one that should only exist for a short period between when the vague rule is released and when GW gets off their arse and writes an errata or update to fix it. Instead we are left for years at a time not knowing how to play it or having to conduct a diplomatic discussion before each game as to how things work. Something like the cover issue affects some armies more than others, in the case of my Tyranids, depending on how you interpret that rule, it will change how I construct my army, because one way I can exploit cover saves from small models, the other way I can't.
Psienesis wrote: I think the whole thread could be ended by saying that "Yes, GWcan win... but winning takes effort and hard work, and the ability to look at themselves and their product and admit fault, none of which GW has seemed at all inclined to actually do in the game in over 3 editions, and because of this, instead of Winning, they Lose."
So much this. This and learn to give a damn about PR and their customers.
Klerych wrote: This is my interpretation of course, but if it's a piece of artillery rather than a humanoid model, shouldn't it be treated like vehicles' guns? From the mount along the barrel. At least that's how I would use it. :-)
The point of buying a rulebook so that you don't have to make basic stuff up to play a game.
After paying a lot of money for a rulebook, especially relative to comparable games, shouldn't someone be able to use that rulebook to find out what the correct way to do LOS from a model without needing to "figure something out" for Artillery LOSwhen Artillery has it's own titled section*?
*I'm using 5th and 6th for reference here as they had the "model's eye view" and "from the model's eyes" LOS. I'm guessing that 7th also has a section for artillery.
See, the main point is that I don't really feel the need to 'house rule' it. It's not like "Oh, my model has no eyes.. OBVIOUS LACK OF PROPER RULES! Must house rule. Goddamn GEE-DUBS! Thanks, Obama.", it comes natural to me and I do it automatically. Common sense is not something kept in a vault that has to be opened through a set of locks to use it. When I look at a model it takes literally 1 second to figure out where the eyes or (quasi-)optical organs/sensors should be. I don't feel like I'm going an extra mile and immediately blame the terrible GW writing as it's so obvious to me it didn't have to be worded exactly with every tiny exception for every tiny model that is a wee bit different. My reproductive organ doesn't get stuck in the ceiling fan if my model has eyeless helmet and I don't need to strain my mind trying to figure something that obvious. You seem to live under false assumption that the amount of thought required to realize that Dreadnought's eyes are in it's visor slit where the optical sensors are is some kind of an effort because GW didn't bother to say that eyes in that rule are not necessarily the biological optical organs that humans have, but also can include sensors. Only the artillery is a good example - they should make a small note saying "artillery models should measure their LOS from the weapon's mount and down the barrel", I won't argue there.
I understand that more precise wording would be appreciated and GW could start making their rules more idiot-proof, but some people are really making a huge fuss over stuff that isn't really an issue and they would probably never do that if the game was made by some other company, not GW. I don't know, but turning "LOS is measured from model's eyes" into "LOS is measured from model's eyes, but in case a model doesn't have them, or wears a helmet, or...[and so on]" would bloat the rules even further, as they'd probably have to make such exception notes for EVERY single rule in the rulebook.. and guess what, then Dakka would be full of people screaming "THEY BLOATED THE RULES, MADE THE RULEBOOK EVEN BIGGER, THOSE DESPICABLE GEE-DUBS! THANKS, OBAMA!".
Edit: Page 64, 7th ed rulebook. "Shooting with Artillery [...] When firing the guns, there must be a line of sight to the target from both the gun model and the crewman firing it (unless they are Barrage weapons, of course). Ranges are measured from the barrel on the gun model."
I think it -could- be worded slightly different by adding "and line of sight" right after "Ranges", but I think it's okay as it is, really. Then again I don't need to be spoon fed.
Klerych wrote: I understand that more precise wording would be appreciated and GW could start making their rules more idiot-proof, but some people are really making a huge fuss over stuff that isn't really an issue and they would probably never do that if the game was made by some other company, not GW. I don't know, but turning "LOS is measured from model's eyes" into "LOS is measured from model's eyes, but in case a model doesn't have them, or wears a helmet, or...[and so on]" would bloat the rules even further, as they'd probably have to make such exception notes for EVERY single rule in the rulebook.. and guess what, then Dakka would be full of people screaming "THEY BLOATED THE RULES, MADE THE RULEBOOK EVEN BIGGER, THOSE DESPICABLE GEE-DUBS! THANKS, OBAMA!".
.
I believe the equation which can help explain this is
Player measured displeasure to vague game rules = kx + y
where y is equal to the dislike for company. Thus, we may see a more vehement response to GW's rules, out of proportion to some other non-GW game rules. Or maybe k is the variable for the dislike. For GW to win, the k has to decrease or y has to be brought to zero.
Klerych wrote: but some people are really making a huge fuss over stuff that isn't really an issue and they would probably never do that if the game was made by some other company, not GW.
You know why? Because if it was another company this one issue would be an isolated incident in an otherwise-clear set of rules, and it would probably be fixed within a reasonable amount of time. GW gets hate over every rule problem because it's just one more rule problem in a whole book full of them, and GW doesn't show any sign of caring that they're publishing broken rules.
I don't know, but turning "LOS is measured from model's eyes" into "LOS is measured from model's eyes, but in case a model doesn't have them, or wears a helmet, or...[and so on]" would bloat the rules even further, as they'd probably have to make such exception notes for EVERY single rule in the rulebook.. and guess what, then Dakka would be full of people screaming "THEY BLOATED THE RULES, MADE THE RULEBOOK EVEN BIGGER, THOSE DESPICABLE GEE-DUBS! THANKS, OBAMA!".
Except they DID finally fix it in 7th edition, without making the rule any longer than it was in 6th edition. Please stop insisting that fixing the LOS rules was impossible without adding pages of special-case rulings when it obviously isn't.
Page 64, 7th ed rulebook.
Now go look at the 6th edition rules, not the 7th edition rules, and tell me how you're supposed to draw LOS from an artillery model without adding your own house rules.
and guess what, then Dakka would be full of people screaming "THEY BLOATED THE RULES, MADE THE RULEBOOK EVEN BIGGER, THOSE DESPICABLE GEE-DUBS! THANKS, OBAMA!".
That would be a nice problem to have at this point.
It's not completely fixed because I have artillery without a guncrew
We shouldn't forget that this artillery-thing is just one example, there are more issues.
The main issue with these kind of things is that I spend a crapload of money on those rules.
Klerych wrote: See, the main point is that I don't really feel the need to 'house rule' it. It's not like "Oh, my model has no eyes.. OBVIOUS LACK OF PROPER RULES! Must house rule. Goddamn GEE-DUBS! Thanks, Obama.", it comes natural to me and I do it automatically.
Regardless of what you choose to call it, you're still creating a rule to cover a situation that isn't covered by the rules.
Common sense is not something kept in a vault that has to be opened through a set of locks to use it. When I look at a model it takes literally 1 second to figure out where the eyes or (quasi-)optical organs/sensors should be. I don't feel like I'm going an extra mile and immediately blame the terrible GW writing as it's so obvious to me it didn't have to be worded exactly with every tiny exception for every tiny model that is a wee bit different. My reproductive organ doesn't get stuck in the ceiling fan if my model has eyeless helmet and I don't need to strain my mind trying to figure something that obvious. You seem to live under false assumption that the amount of thought required to realize that Dreadnought's eyes are in it's visor slit where the optical sensors are is some kind of an effort because GW didn't bother to say that eyes in that rule are not necessarily the biological optical organs that humans have, but also can include sensors. Only the artillery is a good example - they should make a small note saying "artillery models should measure their LOS from the weapon's mount and down the barrel", I won't argue there.
Remember someone mentioning this being built up into a bigger deal than it actually was?
The point isn't that this particular lapse in the rules was a major issue. The point was that it was a hole in the rules that could have been easily fixed years ago that GW have only just got around to doing anything about.
Plugging holes in the rules shouldn't be an issue of how upset players are at having to make up their own rules. It's simply something that should be a part of updating to a new edition.
... but some people are really making a huge fuss over stuff that isn't really an issue and they would probably never do that if the game was made by some other company, not GW.
That's because if it was another company, it would have been fixed almost immediately via a published errata when someone pointed it out to them on their official forums. Rather than something that they finally get around to after 20 years.
I don't know, but turning "LOS is measured from model's eyes" into "LOS is measured from model's eyes, but in case a model doesn't have them, or wears a helmet, or...[and so on]" would bloat the rules even further, as they'd probably have to make such exception notes for EVERY single rule in the rulebook.. and guess what, then Dakka would be full of people screaming "THEY BLOATED THE RULES, MADE THE RULEBOOK EVEN BIGGER, THOSE DESPICABLE GEE-DUBS! THANKS, OBAMA!".
Making the rules clearer or less full of holes does not automatically require longer rules. GW already fixed the LOS from the eyes issue without the need to write an extra chapter to accomodate the fix.
'Draw a LOS from the firing model's eyes to any part of the the target's body' is an incomplete rule.
'Draw a LOS from any part of the firing model to any part of the target model' is no longer, and is clear and covers every model currently in the game.
Nobody is asking to be 'spoon fed'. They're just asking for a professionally-finished product from a company that prides itself at supposedly being the best at what it does.
Somewhat to the original topic but for all intents it seems GW is still "winning" where I am, people still play 40k here and see no problem with it - even crap like the new Ork releases get "Awesome can't wait for this!" kind of posts. New people still come from time to time and want to start playing 40k; to be honest it boggles my mind; I'm tempted to take the heat and tell them not to bother with 40k for the reasons we've gone into here, but it'd make me look like a jerk and I certainly wouldn't say it where the rest of the FLGS group could see it, or I'd get flamed. Hell someone just posted saying they were new, wanted to start 40k and had been thinking of it for a while, and I'm like "Why on earth would you pick 40k?" and then I remember because the store doesn't really have anything else, so of course they would be exposed to 40k more than anything else.
Meanwhile the other FLGS has been trying to get interest in Warmachine, and when I've gone there it's always the same person there, nobody else bothers to show up or if they do, they play Fantasy instead :(
It's sad if you ask me. There's so much more out there than 40k and GW. Starting to think if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, at least I'd get to play something. :(
Regardless of what you choose to call it, you're still creating a rule to cover a situation that isn't covered by the rules.
You insist that it's the case but to me it's just sticking to the rule. It's only different with artillery pre-7th, but by 'eyes' in the rule I mean "through what does it see/aim" as that's pretty much what GW meant with that. It's not making up additional house rules. Again, I'm not going an extra mile figuring out what the model's "eyes" are and making such a big fuss about it just because they didn't mention units with helmets is silly. Every model "looks" with something or uses something to aim and that's what I call it's "eyes" in this rule. As simple as that. Rule says eyes, I look for them or their equivalent, why is it so hard to grasp for so many people?
insaniak wrote: The point isn't that this particular lapse in the rules was a major issue. The point was that it was a hole in the rules that could have been easily fixed years ago that GW have only just got around to doing anything about.
Plugging holes in the rules shouldn't be an issue of how upset players are at having to make up their own rules. It's simply something that should be a part of updating to a new edition.
Well, apparently they fixed some of the rules(including artillery LOS in the 7th rulebook). The point is that it was never a -problem-. Just some people nitpicking and expecting GW to rewrite a rule just because a bunch of nitpicks felt like arguing over it.
insaniak wrote: Making the rules clearer or less full of holes does not automatically require longer rules. GW already fixed the LOS from the eyes issue without the need to write an extra chapter to accomodate the fix.
A lot of people expect exactly that, though. They want all the possible exceptions listed under the rule or else they'll nitpick about them.
insaniak wrote: 'Draw a LOS from the firing model's eyes to any part of the the target's body' is an incomplete rule.
'Draw a LOS from any part of the firing model to any part of the target model' is no longer, and is clear and covers every model currently in the game.
Here, let me snipe you with my tactical sergeant's weapon drawing the line of sight from the tip of his power pack's banner pole while being 99% in cover! On a more serious note, it's not really the best idea. Should be "Draw a LOS from the model's head, eyes or other kind of sensors that it would normally use to look to any part of the target model." This should cover helmets, eyeless 'nids, and even visor-slit Dreadnoughts. But I'm still fairly sure that people would nitpick, trying desperately to find and/or even make up a loophole and try to rub it into others' eyes.
Again - my point is that 40k rules(especially in 7th) are much clearer than most people think. I actually think that they're biased and only want to make some fuss on the forums knowing that a few others will join for a circlejerk of whining. Bonus points for someone who disagrees and gets into a dispute and later feces throwing with them. It's just that those that like something about the game don't go vocal about it on the forums saying "Gee, how cool is that!" or "Hey, they fixed a rule, nice!" because the thread will be immediately flooded by those that will want to bring their bucket of poison and sarcasm and shower them with it, even if noone called them there. I've seen dozens of such threads where someone just drops something along the lines of "No, there's nothing good about 40k, go play something else!" or like some other just go there to brag about their own transfer to other games and making claims about how much better they are. On this game's forums.
Nobody is asking to be 'spoon fed'. They're just asking for a professionally-finished product from a company that prides itself at supposedly being the best at what it does.
Klerych wrote: A lot of people expect exactly that, though. They want all the possible exceptions listed under the rule or else they'll nitpick about them.
No, they don't. At least not a lot of people I've met.
What we want is clearly written rules. That is achieved by a more careful use of english (not using words like "dependent on" when you mean "equal to") and properly defining words and sticking to those definitions. It does not mean the rules have to be longer because you write a sentence for each and every exception, if anything they end up shorter because your wording is more precise.
The 40k rulebook is written like a conversation rather than an instruction manual. You might think "well not writing it like an instruction manual makes it easier to read!". Except it doesn't, the 40k rulebook is fething painful to read. Things that could have been stated in a sentence for some reason take paragraphs. Often you have entire pages of rules that could be condensed in to a few short sentences that actually have less chance of being misunderstood or vagueness that could have multiple interpretations.
We use the "model has no eyes" thing as an example, but it's hardly the only instance.
WayneTheGame wrote: Somewhat to the original topic but for all intents it seems GW is still "winning" where I am, people still play 40k here and see no problem with it - even crap like the new Ork releases get "Awesome can't wait for this!" kind of posts. New people still come from time to time and want to start playing 40k; to be honest it boggles my mind; I'm tempted to take the heat and tell them not to bother with 40k for the reasons we've gone into here, but it'd make me look like a jerk and I certainly wouldn't say it where the rest of the FLGS group could see it, or I'd get flamed. Hell someone just posted saying they were new, wanted to start 40k and had been thinking of it for a while, and I'm like "Why on earth would you pick 40k?" and then I remember because the store doesn't really have anything else, so of course they would be exposed to 40k more than anything else.
Meanwhile the other FLGS has been trying to get interest in Warmachine, and when I've gone there it's always the same person there, nobody else bothers to show up or if they do, they play Fantasy instead :(
It's sad if you ask me. There's so much more out there than 40k and GW. Starting to think if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, at least I'd get to play something. :(
Change can happen very quickly...
At my club 2 or so years ago, not many had heard about the other games, now warmahordes is very popular with a good sprinkling of the myriad of other systems out there.
Its launching the assault on some of the "fanboys" that is the difficult bit. Giving advice to potential new 40k players is a bit of a pain but I tend to state it like it is, and give the warning that if they want the uber competitive game play warmahordes instead.
In my eyes at least GW can't really win anymore, sure the products look very good but in the overall swing of things they blew it big time. The community is very "patchy" in their opinions of the game and how they play it respectively, whereas with warmahordes is pretty much the same game wherever you go so you know what to expect.
We have to deal with what we've got, that is true, however in the "what game to start" stakes Warmahordes wins out, assuming your local community plays it which is the big factor here. Otherwise with 40k the warnings are there, so pay attention to them or not, but 40k still wins in the background stakes.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Alright everyone, lemme preface this by saying that I recognize that there are some very valid issues with Games Workshop, which need addressing sooner rather than later.
That said, I've seen quite a few things lately:
1) I've seen people complaining that the faster pace of updated rules is so bad that they cannot possibly keep up:
WarOne wrote: I simply cannot keep up with their update schedule and what I want to buy.
2) Alongside people saying that GW should update their rules faster:
morgoth wrote: It may have made sense back then though, because GW didn't have any possibility to update the rules easily.
I think it's different now, because they could make the rules available for free and update them frequently without any problems arising other than "What version of the rules are you playing ?".
This is just an example - others include asking for more content in White Dwarf, then complaining about being charged to access the content that's exclusive to White Dwarf. People wanted a faster release schedule, and now they want it slower. People wanted GW to drop 0-1 restrictions in codecies, now people want them back.
It seems a bit unfair really.
I think it's more a question of how many people would like one direction rather than the other.
Slow rules clearly harm competition and balance.
The guy arguing against the update schedule only says that because GW expects us to pay for the new rules.
Do note that what you quoted from me explicitly says that they should be free, which imo would make "WarOne" happy as well.
It's not the same people who argue on both sides of the fence, and GW has to take a stand.
I believe making 7th early was very good for the game, they should've made the rules available for free though.
Kilkrazy wrote: Do you disagree that there are justifiable causes for complaint?
aimed at me?
if so...
My previous post was trying to sound reasonable, without going down the "complaint" route but since you asked...
There are indeed many darn valid reasons to duly give GW both barrels, silly pricing, and rules, which frankly would be "ok" with a bit of a clean up. Its a pity GW cannot keep things consistent in each codex and i'm sure we all know the culprits. Not to mention their contempt for anyone who has played their games for years, moreover their frankly bonkers business sense. I'm no expert but they really ought to wake up and smell the coffee, if they bothered to take on the competiton then things might be different.
As it is, i sense a great deal of apathy, i might play the game and have a good time, but really i can't be bothered anymore with GW. Sure i use them for their paints but their recent releases have been frankly dull and overpriced to the nth degree.
That being said jumping on the warmahordes wagon isn't always the pannecea that some would have you think, it can be highly fustrating at times. You know what you are doing to an extent but its getting the sequencing right that is the real challenge. But its actually fun, especially when things do go right.
Wow, I've been frustrated as of late due to 40k. I'm glad to see threads like this, if for no other reason to see others frustrations and hear those who still value the game. Playing since 1998, I never thought till recently that i would be so fed up with GW. For a long time i had blinders on due to the fandom, why, because GW has a lot going for it.
-Great fluff
-Amazing models
-Tons of customization
-Larger scale games and models.
But this soon faded when I stepped into other model games (i was hesitant since figured who could compete against the GW giant). To my shock I was amazed. I, like many, wanted to find balance (multiple tournaments with min max of broken units does that) so i went with Warmachine/Hordes. Now i'm not advocating quit GW and join the warmahordes bandwagon. Far from; if anything it showed me changes that GW will have to take before going back (and will if they change).
IMOGW can win if
-Stop being secret about EVERYTHING: Let us know whats on the horizon, get us involved on changes so you can see reaction before dropping bombs on us and going 'deal with it'
-Create organized rules for tournaments: Stop putting something out and going, let the TO's figure our the balance. Its a cop out if I ever saw one.
-Stop nickel and diming us: I get it you're a company, with shareholders, sales is your revenue. But everyone one knows the economy everywhere is hurt. A codex refresh with random cards and a magic phase is cheesy and everyone felt was a ploy to make money. Stop, create a good product, we will buy it!!! I, like many others, are addicted to plastic crack, doesn't mean i'm going to keep going to same over priced dealer when new dealers are showing with lower prices and possible better products.
-Own up to mistakes and get a team of testers(for balance): Yes the game may be hard to balance, you are built around table based system. So unit needs 3s then 4's to hit against 90% of the targets it chooses. I've seen countless post with Math equations that fill up two pages of post. I'm sure if you put a team together you can work this out guys!!!
I love 40k, i love playing causal games with friends where we agree to do fluff or no cheese list. But this fails when it comes to competitive and pickup games, so i watch as the scene becomes bitter as more and more fights break out for a simple game. Till i see changes GW, i have warmahordes which is loads of fun and at least semi balanced (from what i've seen). Here's to hoping you are working toward solving some serious issues.
I can certainly understand the sentiment behind this thread. When my interest was first piqued in the hobby, literally the first person replied by telling me to abandon the thought. Don't buy anything. Don't bother doing any research. Just turn around, leave and never come back. It was quite the introduction to the fandom, I must say.
Needless to say, my interest didn't die there, but I did find that first conversation incredibly annoying. I kept going, decided I liked the fluff as much as I liked the look of the models.
The game isn't perfect. I can see that. It looks pretty damn fun, though. I like what GW has to offer. The price is limiting, but that's the way of things.
zeromaeus wrote: I can certainly understand the sentiment behind this thread. When my interest was first piqued in the hobby, literally the first person replied by telling me to abandon the thought. Don't buy anything. Don't bother doing any research. Just turn around, leave and never come back. It was quite the introduction to the fandom, I must say.
Needless to say, my interest didn't die there, but I did find that first conversation incredibly annoying. I kept going, decided I liked the fluff as much as I liked the look of the models.
The game isn't perfect. I can see that. It looks pretty damn fun, though. I like what GW has to offer. The price is limiting, but that's the way of things.
Eh, I wouldn't let what others say affect your opinion without doing research (as you obviously did). 40k just has a lot of disenchanted fans. It's not unique to 40k, I'm assuming if Infinity got really big and then Corvus Beli started following many of the decisions GW has made in the last 5 or so years, there would be the same sort of frustration.
zeromaeus wrote: I can certainly understand the sentiment behind this thread. When my interest was first piqued in the hobby, literally the first person replied by telling me to abandon the thought. Don't buy anything. Don't bother doing any research. Just turn around, leave and never come back. It was quite the introduction to the fandom, I must say.
This is a perfect example of the stupidity of GWs current "marketing".
They rely on word of mouth to advertise their products but increasingly word of mouth will be to try a different game instead as GW is too expensive, badly written and not supported efficiently by the company.
Or I live in an area where such things are virtually unheard of, there's no such thing as a shop for this kind of thing, and what few people that do play it are the kind that don't talk to people or get near them unless forced. Dungeons and Dragons only gets a hazy recognition as that devil worship game people play in basements. Everything else gets blank stares or disissals based on being nerdy.
Klerych wrote: You insist that it's the case but to me it's just sticking to the rule. It's only different with artillery pre-7th, but by 'eyes' in the rule I mean "through what does it see/aim" as that's pretty much what GW meant with that.
So you accept that artillery didn't fit into the 6th ed rule, but still claim the rule covered everything...?
It's not making up additional house rules. Again, I'm not going an extra mile figuring out what the model's "eyes" are and making such a big fuss about it just because they didn't mention units with helmets is silly. Every model "looks" with something or uses something to aim and that's what I call it's "eyes" in this rule. As simple as that. Rule says eyes, I look for them or their equivalent, why is it so hard to grasp for so many people?
It's not. As I keep pointing out.
Well, apparently they fixed some of the rules(including artillery LOS in the 7th rulebook). The point is that it was never a -problem-. Just some people nitpicking and expecting GW to rewrite a rule just because a bunch of nitpicks felt like arguing over it.
Expecting the rules to be complete is no 'nitpicking' any more than expecting my new car to have doors is 'nitpicking'.
A lot of people expect exactly that, though. They want all the possible exceptions listed under the rule or else they'll nitpick about them.
You're missing the point, still. Exceptions are only needed when the rule doesn't actually cover everything to begin with. In the case of LOS, people expected exceptions to the rule because GW chose to use a LOS system that relied on the models having eyes, and then included models like Wraithguard, Drones and Kannons in their game that don't have eyes, and in some cases don't even have heads.
The system they chose to move to for 7th edition removes the need to list exceptions.
People aren't asking for exceptions just for the sake of having exceptions. They're just asking for the rules to be complete.
Here, let me snipe you with my tactical sergeant's weapon drawing the line of sight from the tip of his power pack's banner pole while being 99% in cover!
The 7th ed LOS rules discount banners, spikes, weapons and the like just like previous editions did.
On a more serious note, it's not really the best idea. Should be "Draw a LOS from the model's head, eyes or other kind of sensors that it would normally use to look to any part of the target model." This should cover helmets, eyeless 'nids, and even visor-slit Dreadnoughts. But I'm still fairly sure that people would nitpick, trying desperately to find and/or even make up a loophole and try to rub it into others' eyes.
Yes, people would still have a problem with that, because it would still exclude artillery, and it would still be focusing on the fact that our soldiers apparently run 30' and then strike up the exact same action pose once again before they shoot.
The 7th ed system, while seeming slightly odd on the surface that a model can draw LOS from its foot, at least makes a nod towards the idea that just because the model is posed standing up, doesn't mean they can't bend over to look under an obstruction.
Again - my point is that 40k rules(especially in 7th) are much clearer than most people think. I actually think that they're biased and only want to make some fuss on the forums knowing that a few others will join for a circlejerk of whining. Bonus points for someone who disagrees and gets into a dispute and later feces throwing with them. It's just that those that like something about the game don't go vocal about it on the forums saying "Gee, how cool is that!" or "Hey, they fixed a rule, nice!" because the thread will be immediately flooded by those that will want to bring their bucket of poison and sarcasm and shower them with it, even if noone called them there. I've seen dozens of such threads where someone just drops something along the lines of "No, there's nothing good about 40k, go play something else!" or like some other just go there to brag about their own transfer to other games and making claims about how much better they are. On this game's forums.
There are certainly some out there like that. The vast majority of us complaining about the state of 40K's rules, though, are doing so because we see legitimate problems with those rules. And so we discuss them,.. because aside from those problems, we enjoy the game.
If you don't see a gaping hole in the rules as a problem, that's great for you. But assuming that everyone who thinks differently to you is just out to ruin it for everyone else? That way lies madness.
zeromaeus wrote: I can certainly understand the sentiment behind this thread. When my interest was first piqued in the hobby, literally the first person replied by telling me to abandon the thought. Don't buy anything. Don't bother doing any research. Just turn around, leave and never come back. It was quite the introduction to the fandom, I must say.
Needless to say, my interest didn't die there, but I did find that first conversation incredibly annoying. I kept going, decided I liked the fluff as much as I liked the look of the models.
The game isn't perfect. I can see that. It looks pretty damn fun, though. I like what GW has to offer. The price is limiting, but that's the way of things.
Eh, I wouldn't let what others say affect your opinion without doing research (as you obviously did). 40k just has a lot of disenchanted fans. It's not unique to 40k, I'm assuming if Infinity got really big and then Corvus Beli started following many of the decisions GW has made in the last 5 or so years, there would be the same sort of frustration.
Should say 10 +years, but the bolded part is key. GW does dumb gak and get what they reap, as you said any company would be treated that way if the treated their product and player base the same way as GW. Thank for pointing that out, it is GW fault.
WayneTheGame wrote: Somewhat to the original topic but for all intents it seems GW is still "winning" where I am, people still play 40k here and see no problem with it - even crap like the new Ork releases get "Awesome can't wait for this!" kind of posts. New people still come from time to time and want to start playing 40k; to be honest it boggles my mind; I'm tempted to take the heat and tell them not to bother with 40k for the reasons we've gone into here, but it'd make me look like a jerk and I certainly wouldn't say it where the rest of the FLGS group could see it, or I'd get flamed. Hell someone just posted saying they were new, wanted to start 40k and had been thinking of it for a while, and I'm like "Why on earth would you pick 40k?" and then I remember because the store doesn't really have anything else, so of course they would be exposed to 40k more than anything else.
Meanwhile the other FLGS has been trying to get interest in Warmachine, and when I've gone there it's always the same person there, nobody else bothers to show up or if they do, they play Fantasy instead :(
It's sad if you ask me. There's so much more out there than 40k and GW. Starting to think if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, at least I'd get to play something. :(
You have to take the chance. I've introduced several games to my group, some stick and some don't. One day I announced I was buying Flames of War and got all of the standard replies of too expensive and too much investment in 40k to start another game and such. I showed them the rules and models. Now, All of them but one has at least one FoW army and most (75%) won't play 40k anymore. Once the damn broke, it really broke. My group is so diverse in games now, it is hard to get a pick up game anymore because you never know which game they brought with them. lol
I would bring the starter set to the store (either) and ask anyone not playing a game currently if they would be interested in learning Warmachine. That is what I'm currently doing with All Quiet on the Martian Front. It takes times and doesn't always work for each game, but at least you can say you tried.
Klerych wrote: Well, apparently they fixed some of the rules(including artillery LOS in the 7th rulebook). The point is that it was never a -problem-. Just some people nitpicking and expecting GW to rewrite a rule just because a bunch of nitpicks felt like arguing over it.
Expecting the rules to be complete is no 'nitpicking' any more than expecting my new car to have doors is 'nitpicking'.
I think much of the issue people take with the flaws in the 40K rules can be attributed to them coming from GW alone. GW has fairly earned much of the scorn it gets from it's actions, especially in the PR department. But to me the 40K rules just aren't up to snuff. If GW was some backyard group of gamers who published their own game I could accept it but GW is an order of magnitude larger (at least) than it's nearest competitor. And this is no first edition- this is 25 years in the making 7th edition. Worse yet the last several editions haven't been new versions so much as tweaks.
Once upon a time we used to argue about what game to play but of the choices, they were all GW games. Now the market is overflowing with options- it's a great time to be a wargamer- but so little of it is from GW. Worse yet it is impossible not to notice that the bar has been set higher than GW standard in almost every capacity. The real shame of it is that the IP they have is the best foundation you could ask for to build a model range and rule set on. It's like watching someone on a prime spot of land with all the resources and manpower to build a majestic castle but all they do is throw a new coat of paint on the hut and occasionally a new chimney and outhouse.
GW could win. Their IP is good enough and strong enough that with good rules and just mediocre customer appreciation/interaction they could be golden. If 'GW can't win' it's not because of anyone but themselves.
Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?
If they went with that definition did they say, "oh that model doesn't haves eyes, ergo it cannot draw LOS, therefore it cannot target anyone or fire!"???
jamesk1973 wrote: Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?
No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.
jamesk1973 wrote: Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?
No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.
Oh, I know GW could do a looooooooooooot better when it comes to writing the rules.
jamesk1973 wrote:Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?
If they went with that definition did they say, "oh that model doesn't haves eyes, ergo it cannot draw LOS, therefore it cannot target anyone or fire!"???
and if they did....I hope somebody smacked 'em...
Because reading what people are actually saying is overrated.
No, nobody had meltdowns over it. It was pointed out as a flaw in the rules that required players to modify said rules in order to play the game, that took GW 20 years to fix.
That's all. No meltdowns. Just a flawed rule that needed to be fixed.
Las wrote:The models are an abstract representation FFS.
Yes, they are. Which is why we need rules to specify how that abstract representation interacts with the rest of the game.
)
.
