Tau, Necrons, Eldar, D Eldar.

Vehicles with the Fly Keyword are not rare.

the_scotsman wrote:

Sigh. It's like a brain virus. He's got the BCB.

....Since BCB isn't answering this question, do you care to answer why it is that an imaginary line that explicitly within the rule references passing through objects is not allowed to pass through parts of a model or base?

Or are you also just going to assume that the 8th edition rules for drawing line of sight for a shooting attack for some reason apply to this other rule that you just read totally unrelated to that purpose?

I assume it because the rule itself implies the possibility that things can also not be (fully) visible.

If the line of sight is not blocked by models or terrain, it would inversely be impossible to not always draw lines to every single part of the model and the condition would be just as pointless.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well I did like this rule. They had to throw that 18 wound break point in there didn't they? So a repulsor executioner that isn't fully covered by the piece of terrain is -1 to be hit, and a super heavy tank that is fully covered by it doesn't.

Doesn't do much for big squads of cheap infantry either.

Repulsor will always get -1 to hit (unless the shooter is within 3").

As with all 3D-objects, it's physically impossible to draw a line from point A to every single point on the target object. Some part is always facing directly away (furthermore, in 40K, some part of the model or base is also sitting on the table).

That's a quick way of becoming TFG. It's clearly supposed to be played as "can you see the whole silhouette of the model and the nearest edge of it's base? If no, -1 to hit".

There is not a gaming company in existence that would write rules that require it's models to be wholly transparent or its players have x-ray vision.

I'm amused by the people saying this rule is written too complicated. The last 3 (or... 8?) years I read on dakka GW rules are too sloppy and leave too much room for interpretation...

 Afrodactyl wrote:

That's a quick way of becoming TFG. It's clearly supposed to be played as "can you see the whole silhouette of the model and the nearest edge of it's base? If no, -1 to hit".

There is not a gaming company in existence that would write rules that require it's models to be wholly transparent or its players have x-ray vision.

Sure.

And it was clearly supposed to be that you cannot move units after deepstriking. Still took 2 years of FAQ to stop WAAC idiots using Warptime after deepstrike (including several consecutive LVOs, SoCal Opens, etc.. where the current playtesters were almost gleefully ruling against the obvious intent).
And it was clearly supposed to be that a Smash Captain deepstriking on a building would still make a 9" charge, not a 0" charge because it's "vertical" distance. Still took 2 years of FAQ to get it watertight for the WAAC idiots in the game.
Etc..

Just being realistic here.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm amused by the people saying this rule is written too complicated. The last 3 (or... 8?) years I read on dakka GW rules are too sloppy and leave too much room for interpretation...

It's not that difficult to comprehend. I read it once at speed and thought it was complicated.

I then read it back as individual sentences and they all make sense and is pretty straightforward.

Granted, English is my first language, so I could understand why someone with English as their second language/other difficulties reading English might find it more of a head scratcher.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Sigh. It's like a brain virus. He's got the BCB.

....Since BCB isn't answering this question, do you care to answer why it is that an imaginary line that explicitly within the rule references passing through objects is not allowed to pass through parts of a model or base?

Or are you also just going to assume that the 8th edition rules for drawing line of sight for a shooting attack for some reason apply to this other rule that you just read totally unrelated to that purpose?

I assume it because the rule itself implies the possibility that things can also not be (fully) visible.

If the line of sight is not blocked by models or terrain, it would inversely be impossible to not always draw lines to every single part of the model and the condition would be just as pointless.

The rule stipulates you can and will draw a line to any and all points on the hull/base, it doesn't prevent you, what it cares about is if you can 1. See the model in any capacity 2. See the entire base 3. Cross the terrain

laws are often poorly written because they often have to abide by archaic language in order to enmesh themselves within the larger "canon" of law. Even if you're writing a law in 2020, chances are its building upon or tied into another law that was written in 1850, etc. which requires you to utilize similar terminology and definitions in order to maintain legal consistency within the established framework. On top of that, certain terms and phrases have taken on precise and different meanings within legal circles than what would be understood in laymans parlance - this is something that basically happens organically and haphazardly over time (to tie it into the hobby, something like "MEQ" or "tripointing" or "wholly within" or even "d3" are terms that have specific meanings within the 40k community which don't necessarily translate to the same meanings in other games or even to the general public, while these terms aren't generally (yet) part of the games "legal framework", i.e. rules, given time they could eventually be) - in the case of the law we're talking hundreds of years and much of that terminology has been long established as a result, such that those terms and phrases are at this point archaic but are still regularly used because they are understood by legal practitioners.

i.e. if the original law you're expanding upon defines an orange as "an orange, or Citrus orantium, together with all the appurtenances thereto of skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice, to have and to hold the said orange together with its skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice" then you also have to define it as such - unless you're replacing the original law in its entirety, and all other laws within which an orange may be defined, simply referring to it as "an orange" in the new law opens it up to legal challenge - i.e. "this new law doesn't apply under xyz conditions because unlike other laws it doesn't define the term orange in the same way and thus this orange is not considered an orange for the purposes of this law."

Under the US (and IIRC UK) law, there is the concept of stare decisis - i.e. the use of legal precedent to interpret modern laws. Thus modern laws as a result tend to hew closer to the language of older laws where it is merited in order to ensure that precedent can hold to the new laws intended outcomes.

The need to account for more variables is also a factor, but not as big as some make it out to be as there are shorter and more precise ways to legally define most terms to produce the desired understanding than what is sometimes seen. Within the US (and perhaps other countries) legal systems, there are certain elements of the Constitution which also essentially encourage a certain degree of specificity (and sometimes vagueness) in terminology used, as concepts like lenity (ambiguity in criminal law will be ruled in the defendants favor) mean that a law intended to prevent something may end up allowing for it anyway under specific circumstances if its not iron tight. Add on top of this the fact that laws are usually intended to last more or less forever (at least until they are revised) and that language evolves over time, the overly specific definitions contained in laws are often put there as a way of guaranteeing that the laws intent will remain in effect even if the colloquial understanding of the words and phrases used shift underneath it.

But I digress.

Dudeface wrote:


The rule stipulates you can and will draw a line to any and all points on the hull/base, it doesn't prevent you, what it cares about is if you can 1. See the model in any capacity 2. See the entire base 3. Cross the terrain

Yes. But if you take a Warhammer base from your painting table and hold it up in front of you, you'll find it is impossible to see the entire base without turning it.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Sigh. It's like a brain virus. He's got the BCB.

....Since BCB isn't answering this question, do you care to answer why it is that an imaginary line that explicitly within the rule references passing through objects is not allowed to pass through parts of a model or base?

Or are you also just going to assume that the 8th edition rules for drawing line of sight for a shooting attack for some reason apply to this other rule that you just read totally unrelated to that purpose?

I assume it because the rule itself implies the possibility that things can also not be (fully) visible.

If the line of sight is not blocked by models or terrain, it would inversely be impossible to not always draw lines to every single part of the model and the condition would be just as pointless.

But it would NOT be impossible to draw lines to every single part of the model without passing over or through any part of any terrain feature with this trait.

The rule NEVER says "visible". Never once. Ever. It says "Draw lines without passing through or over" which doesn't just imply but openly states the fact that the line can pass through and never implies that beyond the starting point (the firing model) and the ending point (the target model) the ONLY thing that matters is terrain over 3" in height with the Dense Cover keyword.

Read the rule one mo gain, I posted it in a funny joke earlier in the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


The rule stipulates you can and will draw a line to any and all points on the hull/base, it doesn't prevent you, what it cares about is if you can 1. See the model in any capacity 2. See the entire base 3. Cross the terrain

Yes. But if you take a Warhammer base from your painting table and hold it up in front of you, you'll find it is impossible to see the entire base without turning it.

And it is a damn good thing that SEEING has absolutely NOTHING to do with this rule.

the_scotsman wrote:

And it is a damn good thing that SEEING has absolutely NOTHING to do with this rule.

In which case, it will never be possible to not draw a line to every point on every object in the known universe, making the rule just as pointless.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Well I did like this rule. They had to throw that 18 wound break point in there didn't they? So a repulsor executioner that isn't fully covered by the piece of terrain is -1 to be hit, and a super heavy tank that is fully covered by it doesn't.

Doesn't do much for big squads of cheap infantry either.

Repulsor will always get -1 to hit (unless the shooter is within 3").

As with all 3D-objects, it's physically impossible to draw a line from point A to every single point on the target object. Some part is always facing directly away (furthermore, in 40K, some part of the model or base is also sitting on the table).

The rule doesn't state anywhere that you can't cross the model itself. You simply need to not cross the terrain element.

The rule is crystal clear.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


The rule stipulates you can and will draw a line to any and all points on the hull/base, it doesn't prevent you, what it cares about is if you can 1. See the model in any capacity 2. See the entire base 3. Cross the terrain

Yes. But if you take a Warhammer base from your painting table and hold it up in front of you, you'll find it is impossible to see the entire base without turning it.

Please highlight where it tells me you need line of sight to the rear of the base

 Gregor Samsa wrote:

Tycho wrote:

That took me, like, thirty seconds. GW seriously needs a technical writer, this is borderline unreadable. The legalese approach is really not the best way to write rules. The way it's worded is just not intuitive; it sets up the -1 as the default case and then provides the exception of clear LOS, when it should be the opposite, telling you the conditions under which you suffer the penalty.

I was thinking this exact thing. I run a content team, and if one of my technical writers turned this in to me, even as a rough draft, I'd send it back. More and more of these rules are reading like poorly written SAT questions.

As painful as it is, the more 40k approaches legalese levels of rules interaction, the fairer the system becomes. Laws are complicated because grey areas cannot be decided on. Language is required, therefore, to adjudicate gray areas into the either/or scenarios that most games require.

The first part of that statement isn't in any way accurate. Even with the best level of "legalese" possible, you can still have a remarkably unfair play experience. Only now, it's unfair, and impossibly obtuse. Laws are complicated because they have to take into account a significantly higher amount of variables and interactions than the rules in a table top war game. You can have a rule set that suffciently removes as many grey areas as possible, but is still fairly approachable. Other systems don't appear to struggle so hard with this. What's that old saying? "If you can't explain something simply, you probably don't understand it well enough."

Look, you're not wrong, I am just trying to be generous to GW. No doubt this is bad writing, but GW technical writers have clearly demonstrated for 20 years that they cannot be pithy. At least now they are trying to spell out scenarios that we can use as data for adjudicating disputes. Writing short sentences that are definitive is very hard. Technical writing that "distills" without losing "essence" is hard, as I am sure you know

It's REALLY not that hard.

You only have to define a few terms/status.

Occupied Terrain: A unit is considered to be occupying the terrain under x circumstance. A unit that is occupying terrain treats the occupied terrain as Open Ground when tracing Line of Sight.

Open Ground: Completely uninterrupted los.

Dense Terrain: Dense terrain should be a minimum of 3" tall measuring to it's tallest point. A unit within 3" of Dense Obstacle Terrain treats that piece of terrain as Open Ground when tracing line of sight. If a model cannot target a unit without tracing Line of Sight over or through dense terrain they will suffer a -1 penalty to hit with ranged weapons.

 Lance845 wrote:
Tau, Necrons, Eldar, D Eldar.

Vehicles with the Fly Keyword are not rare.

Tau don't want to be in CC and have lost out big with Overwatch being killed as FTGG just became redundant( Aka their factions special rule)
Necrons, we need to see the new rules I could see alot of them loosing fly and picking up the Admech scoripius wording.

Eldar won't care as they are allready rocking -1 to hit.
Drukari maybe.

What I'm worried about here, is that this can go on obstacles, which in theory is nice because it grants both +1 save and -1 hit. It also means though that if I have a big unit behind a tree, and you shoot with a unit with many models, the game slows down to a crawl becuase you have to shoot model by model and every time remove the casualties trying to make it so that you gain the bonus from the attacker...

Not all fly units has -1 to hit, many don't even in CWE and DE.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

And it is a damn good thing that SEEING has absolutely NOTHING to do with this rule.

In which case, it will never be possible to not draw a line to every point on every object in the known universe, making the rule just as pointless.

Um, no? Are you just trolling at this point? Seriously, it gives you a starting condition (model A) and an ending position (model B) and it tells you to draw an imaginary line without passing through specific intervening objects.

How could you ever possibly interpret that as every object in the universe being available?

Sgt. Cortez wrote:I'm amused by the people saying this rule is written too complicated. The last 3 (or... 8?) years I read on dakka GW rules are too sloppy and leave too much room for interpretation...

As one of the people saying it's too complicated, I never had an issue with GW's previous rules, and had very few experiences of it being sloppy or vague.

It's almost like overlap between people who complained about this rule being obtuse and complained about the previous rules being sloppy is ridiculously small.

In which case, it will never be possible to not draw a line to every point on every object in the known universe, making the rule just as pointless.

Correct.
Does one of those lines go through a piece of Dense Terrain? If it does, apply the -1 to hit penalty.

That's all this measurement is checking for. It's not checking line of sight, its not checking distance, it's not checking ANYTHING else. The ONLY thing it cares about if if a piece of Dense Terrain in in between two points.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Not all fly units has -1 to hit, many don't even in CWE and DE.

This. Actually Drukhari have a -1 native to their Venoms and Mandrakes (as well as Airplanes, of course).

Craftworld have to give up their chapter tactic to get it (just like AdMech Stygies, etc..).

Spoletta wrote:
What I'm worried about here, is that this can go on obstacles, which in theory is nice because it grants both +1 save and -1 hit. It also means though that if I have a big unit behind a tree, and you shoot with a unit with many models, the game slows down to a crawl becuase you have to shoot model by model and every time remove the casualties trying to make it so that you gain the bonus from the attacker...

Obstacles don't automatically grant +1 sv.

Obstacle and Area are the two different rulesets for how you claim whatever cover rules the terrain has. From context clues from the new Dense Cover rule, we can say that it *most likely* works like this:

Obstacle: Claim cover by being 3" away and the terrain is closer to the firer than the target.

Area: Claim cover by being on or within.

What kind of cover the terrain grants is entirely dictated by its various terrain keyword benefits. So far, we know of Light Cover (+1sv vs shooting), Heavy Cover (+1sv vs melee except if charged), Dense Cover (-1 to hit), and Defensible (+1 to hit in melee if you get charged this turn, OR +1 to hit with the Overwatch stratagem)

Also, the Dense Cover rule is applied at the point that the firing unit declares their attack. The only point it slows the game down is when you determine which of the firing models incur the penalty. Attacking one model at a time I don't think would have any particular point.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

And it is a damn good thing that SEEING has absolutely NOTHING to do with this rule.

In which case, it will never be possible to not draw a line to every point on every object in the known universe, making the rule just as pointless.

You're trying to hard to find fault and creating a problem that doesn't exist.

Oi. It does appear the the 40k team is trying to write rules free of misinterpretation or oversights, but they just don't understand how to achieve that. On top of the tortured sentences are unnecessary variables that only add more for players to process.. Why the distinction between "dense" terrain and "area" terrain? Citadel Woods represent an area more dense than 3 trees! I would expect that -1 to hit to disproportionately help elite units, as well.

What GW could have done is:

AREA TERRAIN

A unit may draw Line of Sight to an enemy unit within Area Terrain, but not through Area Terrain.


AREA TERRAIN that does not block Line of Sight is LOW AREA TERRAIN.

This is also another reason why I would like to see an Evasion stat that a model or unit's Ballistic Skill is compared with to determine the minimum number to hit. Occupying AREA TERRAIN could simply double that number.

OBSTACLES

Walls, crates, hedges, etc. Units in base contact with an OBSTACLE do not count that OBSTACLE when determining Line of Sight.

But noooooooooooo, GW has to do everything the hard way and cause more problems than they solve.

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
What I'm worried about here, is that this can go on obstacles, which in theory is nice because it grants both +1 save and -1 hit. It also means though that if I have a big unit behind a tree, and you shoot with a unit with many models, the game slows down to a crawl becuase you have to shoot model by model and every time remove the casualties trying to make it so that you gain the bonus from the attacker...

Obstacles don't automatically grant +1 sv.

Obstacle and Area are the two different rulesets for how you claim whatever cover rules the terrain has. From context clues from the new Dense Cover rule, we can say that it *most likely* works like this:

Obstacle: Claim cover by being 3" away and the terrain is closer to the firer than the target.

Area: Claim cover by being on or within.

What kind of cover the terrain grants is entirely dictated by its various terrain keyword benefits. So far, we know of Light Cover (+1sv vs shooting), Heavy Cover (+1sv vs melee except if charged), Dense Cover (-1 to hit), and Defensible (+1 to hit in melee if you get charged this turn, OR +1 to hit with the Overwatch stratagem)

Also, the Dense Cover rule is applied at the point that the firing unit declares their attack. The only point it slows the game down is when you determine which of the firing models incur the penalty. Attacking one model at a time I don't think would have any particular point.

Yep - this is why the blob of text encompasses more than the bullets - there's an ecosystem of rules in the book that link together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:
Oi. It does appear the the 40k team is trying to write rules free of misinterpretation or oversights, but they just don't understand how to achieve that. On top of the tortured sentences are unnecessary variables. Why the distinction between "dense" terrain and "area" terrain? Citadel Woods represent an area more dense than 3 trees! I would expect that -1 to hit to disproportionately help elite units, as well.

What GW could have done is:

AREA TERRAIN

A unit may draw Line of Sight to an enemy unit within Area Terrain, but not through Area Terrain.


AREA TERRAIN that does not block Line of Sight is LOW AREA TERRAIN.

This is also another reason why I would like to see an Evasion stat that a model or unit's Ballistic Skill is compared with to determine the minimum number to hit. Occupying AREA TERRAIN could simply double that number.

But noooooooooooo, GW has to do everything the hard way and cause more problems than they solve.

I think we just lack the insight of the full rule set.

There is already "Area Terrain" and "Obstacles".

Yes, Area Terrain and Obstacles exist in 9th. But their rules are written poorly. We don't need the insight of the full ruleset- which is only tweaking 8th- to spot poor rules.

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
What I'm worried about here, is that this can go on obstacles, which in theory is nice because it grants both +1 save and -1 hit. It also means though that if I have a big unit behind a tree, and you shoot with a unit with many models, the game slows down to a crawl becuase you have to shoot model by model and every time remove the casualties trying to make it so that you gain the bonus from the attacker...

Obstacles don't automatically grant +1 sv.

Obstacle and Area are the two different rulesets for how you claim whatever cover rules the terrain has. From context clues from the new Dense Cover rule, we can say that it *most likely* works like this:

Obstacle: Claim cover by being 3" away and the terrain is closer to the firer than the target.

Area: Claim cover by being on or within.

What kind of cover the terrain grants is entirely dictated by its various terrain keyword benefits. So far, we know of Light Cover (+1sv vs shooting), Heavy Cover (+1sv vs melee except if charged), Dense Cover (-1 to hit), and Defensible (+1 to hit in melee if you get charged this turn, OR +1 to hit with the Overwatch stratagem)

Also, the Dense Cover rule is applied at the point that the firing unit declares their attack. The only point it slows the game down is when you determine which of the firing models incur the penalty. Attacking one model at a time I don't think would have any particular point.

If the current rules for resolving the attacks are kept, then you have to resolve each attacking model on its own. This means that I get to remove models between one model attacking and the next model attacking. This will change which models are affected by the -1 to hit,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way GW, I'm never been so happy that harpies and Chrones are not aircrafts...

Spoletta wrote:


If the current rules for resolving the attacks are kept, then you have to resolve each attacking model on its own. This means that I get to remove models between one model attacking and the next model attacking. This will change which models are affected by the -1 to hit,

No. The rule is either on the unit or it is not. If you can draw unobstructed to any model in that unit then the unit does not benefit.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm amused by the people saying this rule is written too complicated. The last 3 (or... 8?) years I read on dakka GW rules are too sloppy and leave too much room for interpretation...

The way it's written is still pretty sloppy. Believe it or not, you CAN have a well written rule set that is approachable but eliminates so much of the grey area GW rules tend to cause. You'll never totally eliminate the grey areas, but it seems so often like GW's rules pretty much live in the grey area. This rule probably has less room for interpretation, but is now written like an overly verbose word problem on a high-school multiple choice test. It's worded in a needlessly convoluted fashion, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the way it's currently written causes problematic interactions later when we see the rest of the rule set.

Blastaar wrote:

Yes, Area Terrain and Obstacles exist in 9th. But their rules are written poorly. We don't need the insight of the full ruleset- which is only tweaking 8th- to spot poor rules.

These are pretty far beyond what I'd call tweaks.

I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

From the perspective killteam, 90% of the time you glance down and immediately know they're obscured or in the open. And that was when EVERY piece of terrain obscured. Now its only in terrain with this key word (and a 3" antenna lol).

I think people will try this in game and find it pretty intuitive.

Okay, so here is my crack at rewriting it - because it does seem extremely wordy. But I also like the concept of it, as it increase the potential value of short range breacher type squads, well like Tau breachers.

"When resolving a ranged attack at a unit that is potentially blocked by a [Dense Cover] terrain feature that has a height of at least 3" (at the highest point), draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."


This could potentially be shortened to below, because we should be doing the check every time we shoot but we can often skip it if there is no potentially dense cover

"When resolving a ranged attack draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature with a height of at least 3" at its highest point then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."

I think I got the same RAI or RAW as well, but it feels easier to read (at least for me).

I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

We've already been making these checks for... all of 40k.
Check LoS is per model. Check Range is per model.
It's usually very obvious what has a clear shot and what doesnt. There might be a single model on the edge that you actually have to check.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
From the perspective killteam, 90% of the time you glance down and immediately know they're obscured or in the open. And that was when EVERY piece of terrain obscured. Now its only in terrain with this key word (and a 3" antenna lol).

I think people will try this in game and find it pretty intuitive.

Yeah it's a pretty simple thing to put into practice: Is there something in the way of complete base visibility? Is the majority of the issue.

I’m Finnish and these rules seem crystal clear to me, so count me in on the ’fail to see a problem here’ group.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


If the current rules for resolving the attacks are kept, then you have to resolve each attacking model on its own. This means that I get to remove models between one model attacking and the next model attacking. This will change which models are affected by the -1 to hit,

No. The rule is either on the unit or it is not. If you can draw unobstructed to any model in that unit then the unit does not benefit.

That's not how determining cover currently works.

 Therion wrote:
I’m Finnish and these rules seem crystal clear to me, so count me in on the ’fail to see a problem here’ group.

I agree they are clear. They are also more time-consuming to parse simply because there are more words to read, and not the best way to make terrain impactful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

Yes, Area Terrain and Obstacles exist in 9th. But their rules are written poorly. We don't need the insight of the full ruleset- which is only tweaking 8th- to spot poor rules.

These are pretty far beyond what I'd call tweaks.

Eh, the core rules and majority of the codex rules aren't changing, so I'd consider these new rules to be tweaking 8th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tycho wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm amused by the people saying this rule is written too complicated. The last 3 (or... 8?) years I read on dakka GW rules are too sloppy and leave too much room for interpretation...

The way it's written is still pretty sloppy. Believe it or not, you CAN have a well written rule set that is approachable but eliminates so much of the grey area GW rules tend to cause. You'll never totally eliminate the grey areas, but it seems so often like GW's rules pretty much live in the grey area. This rule probably has less room for interpretation, but is now written like an overly verbose word problem on a high-school multiple choice test. It's worded in a needlessly convoluted fashion, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the way it's currently written causes problematic interactions later when we see the rest of the rule set.

Right? Wizards of the Coast does the with Magic:The Gathering all the time. The game's balance may be especially poor of late, but the rules are explicit, yet approachable. Even the massive core rules document on the WOTC site is pretty easy when you're familiar with the rules.

Vilehydra wrote:
Okay, so here is my crack at rewriting it - because it does seem extremely wordy. But I also like the concept of it, as it increase the potential value of short range breacher type squads, well like Tau breachers.

"When resolving a ranged attack at a unit that is potentially blocked by a [Dense Cover] terrain feature that has a height of at least 3" (at the highest point), draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."


This could potentially be shortened to below, because we should be doing the check every time we shoot but we can often skip it if there is no potentially dense cover

"When resolving a ranged attack draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature with a height of at least 3" at its highest point then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."

I think I got the same RAI or RAW as well, but it feels easier to read (at least for me).

Still too wordy, like I said on page 2, you can simplify it down to

"If this terrain feature is at least 3" in height, measured from its base to its heighest point, then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack with a ranged weapon, unless:

-The attacking model can resolve Line of Sight; or
-The attacking model is in an Area Terrain feature and the only terrain feature that Line of Sight is resolved through is the terrain feature that the attacking model is on or within; or
-The attacking model is within 3" of an Obstacle feature with this trait if it is the only feature through which Line of Sight is resolved; or
-The target model is an Aircraft; or
-The target model has 18+ wounds."

where "resolving Line of SIght" is a standardized rule defined elsewhere because I assume all line of sight needs to be resolved in the same manner by drawing 1mm wide lines from one part of one models base to all parts of another models base, etc., as I cannot fathom why this one specific rule would require its own specific version of line of sight resolution otherwise.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Vilehydra wrote:
Okay, so here is my crack at rewriting it - because it does seem extremely wordy. But I also like the concept of it, as it increase the potential value of short range breacher type squads, well like Tau breachers.

"When resolving a ranged attack at a unit that is potentially blocked by a [Dense Cover] terrain feature that has a height of at least 3" (at the highest point), draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."


This could potentially be shortened to below, because we should be doing the check every time we shoot but we can often skip it if there is no potentially dense cover

"When resolving a ranged attack draw a 1mm thick line from any point on the attackers base to every part of one model's base (or hull) in the target unit. If the line at any point passes over the [Dense Cover] terrain feature with a height of at least 3" at its highest point then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving that ranged attack.

Models do not suffer this penalty if:
- They are on or within Area Terrain with the [Dense Cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait.
- They are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature that has the [Dense cover] trait, and no other intervening terrain has this trait."

I think I got the same RAI or RAW as well, but it feels easier to read (at least for me).

Still too wordy, like I said on page 2, you can simplify it down to

"If this terrain feature is at least 3" in height, measured from its base to its heighest point, then subtract 1 from the hit roll when resolving an attack with a ranged weapon, unless:

-The attacking model can resolve Line of Sight; or
-The attacking model is in an Area Terrain feature and the only terrain feature that Line of Sight is resolved through is the terrain feature that the attacking model is on or within; or
-The attacking model is within 3" of an Obstacle feature with this trait if it is the only feature through which Line of Sight is resolved; or
-The target model is an Aircraft; or
-The target model has 18+ wounds."

where "resolving Line of SIght" is a standardized rule defined elsewhere because I assume all line of sight needs to be resolved in the same manner by drawing 1mm wide lines from one part of one models base to all parts of another models base, etc., as I cannot fathom why this one specific rule would require its own specific version of line of sight resolution otherwise.

Because presumably line of sight is permissive (if any point of model A can trace to any point of model B) and this rule is exclusive (If a single point of model A CANNOT trace to any point of model B.)

Honestly, I hope that this shows that LOS is also going to be the same "all of base to all of base" instead of the current "you can blast the whole unit off the table because someone stuck out a lance" It would be worth the tedium just for that alone.

They'd have to come up with standard model and terrain heights for that to work, but they're already kinda doing it with the 3" / 5" thing.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Honestly, I hope that this shows that LOS is also going to be the same "all of base to all of base" instead of the current "you can blast the whole unit off the table because someone stuck out a lance" It would be worth the tedium just for that alone.

They'd have to come up with standard model and terrain heights for that to work, but they're already kinda doing it with the 3" / 5" thing.

That would be amazing, and I can already taste the beautiful salty tears from the people making potato photo/MSpaint rage posts about how you won't be able to draw LOS to a carnifex standing behind an Aegis line, or something like that.

So many years of having people go "no, I'm standing on the top floor of a ruin and so you're not able to hit me in melee cus your base isn't within 1" of my base"....seeing those posts would probably restore a year of my youth.

....but I doubt it. I figure they've added Obscuring, so they'll keep LOS totally permissive, any part of the model to any part of the model.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

Well, no... the rules checks each ranged weapon. The -1 doesnt apply to the entire firing unit as a whole.
Same way rapidfire doesnt trigger for the whole unit if only 1 model is within half range.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

...You see this rule is model by model, right? Not unit by unit?

In a situation where, say, 3 guardsmen want to make a shot at some orks and one is totally out in the open but the other two guardsmen are behind the forest 4" away, the orks get -1 to hit vs the 2 behind the ruin but the third one gets to shoot normally.

The penalty is applied by model in the attacking unit. So indeed, you may have to check sight from individual models in your unit.

chaos0xomega wrote:
laws are often poorly written because they often have to abide by archaic language in order to enmesh themselves within the larger "canon" of law. Even if you're writing a law in 2020, chances are its building upon or tied into another law that was written in 1850, etc. which requires you to utilize similar terminology and definitions in order to maintain legal consistency within the established framework. On top of that, certain terms and phrases have taken on precise and different meanings within legal circles than what would be understood in laymans parlance - this is something that basically happens organically and haphazardly over time (to tie it into the hobby, something like "MEQ" or "tripointing" or "wholly within" or even "d3" are terms that have specific meanings within the 40k community which don't necessarily translate to the same meanings in other games or even to the general public, while these terms aren't generally (yet) part of the games "legal framework", i.e. rules, given time they could eventually be) - in the case of the law we're talking hundreds of years and much of that terminology has been long established as a result, such that those terms and phrases are at this point archaic but are still regularly used because they are understood by legal practitioners.

i.e. if the original law you're expanding upon defines an orange as "an orange, or Citrus orantium, together with all the appurtenances thereto of skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice, to have and to hold the said orange together with its skin, pulp, pip, rind, seeds, and juice" then you also have to define it as such - unless you're replacing the original law in its entirety, and all other laws within which an orange may be defined, simply referring to it as "an orange" in the new law opens it up to legal challenge - i.e. "this new law doesn't apply under xyz conditions because unlike other laws it doesn't define the term orange in the same way and thus this orange is not considered an orange for the purposes of this law."

Under the US (and IIRC UK) law, there is the concept of stare decisis - i.e. the use of legal precedent to interpret modern laws. Thus modern laws as a result tend to hew closer to the language of older laws where it is merited in order to ensure that precedent can hold to the new laws intended outcomes.

The need to account for more variables is also a factor, but not as big as some make it out to be as there are shorter and more precise ways to legally define most terms to produce the desired understanding than what is sometimes seen. Within the US (and perhaps other countries) legal systems, there are certain elements of the Constitution which also essentially encourage a certain degree of specificity (and sometimes vagueness) in terminology used, as concepts like lenity (ambiguity in criminal law will be ruled in the defendants favor) mean that a law intended to prevent something may end up allowing for it anyway under specific circumstances if its not iron tight. Add on top of this the fact that laws are usually intended to last more or less forever (at least until they are revised) and that language evolves over time, the overly specific definitions contained in laws are often put there as a way of guaranteeing that the laws intent will remain in effect even if the colloquial understanding of the words and phrases used shift underneath it.

But I digress.

This is a very interesting perspective. thanks for taking the time to spell it out.

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

Not how the rule works. Read it again carefully. It's by model for the shooting unit, but by unit for the unit being shot at.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

...You see this rule is model by model, right? Not unit by unit?

In a situation where, say, 3 guardsmen want to make a shot at some orks and one is totally out in the open but the other two guardsmen are behind the forest 4" away, the orks get -1 to hit vs the 2 behind the ruin but the third one gets to shoot normally.

The penalty is applied by model in the attacking unit. So indeed, you may have to check sight from individual models in your unit.

Yes - I'm extrapolating a real scenario.

This model on the outside can't see every part of the base. That means the rest of the models in my unit won't be able to see either and the minus applies to everyone. If I moved my unit to get a better angle I'm not going to check the outer most units that are a dead giveaway. I'm going to start with the one that is the most dubious and work the other way.

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

The only negative it seems to me is that at least in 8th's quasi-simultaneous shooting for 1 unit, it means that if say your whole unit can draw a line to a single enemy model without touching any dense terrain, they can all shoot without the -1 to hit, even if the rest of that enemy unit is in the terrain. (To be fair, LOS works the same now, so I don't think its apocalyptic.)

Having to potentially split your shooting into shots with and without a -1 may upset those who think the game already rolls far too many dice. But you'd need testing to really know.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I don't particularly relish the task of having to draw lines from every point of the base of every model I am shooting with - not by unit, by model - to determine whether that particular model has a -1 to hit against the unit or not. Seems like a lot of tedium for what amounts to actually not that big a bonus. It makes sense if the question is whether you can shoot at all, but it's a ton of work to go to just to have to split up your dice rolling between the ones that don't get the -1 and the ones that do.

You don't. Just look for the model whose base is the most exposed and use that one. If you can't see every part of its base from the most advantageous model in your unit then they get the bonus.

Not how the rule works. Read it again carefully. It's by model for the shooting unit, but by unit for the unit being shot at.

That's how I read it too.

Which means a single model exposed in the target unit negates 100% of cover.

So horde armies with crappy stats that need cover to survive for very long are precisely the armies that won't benefit from it.

Space marines on the other hand... Well it's been pretty obvious that they're skewing the mechanics heavily toward MEQ so no surprise there.

For once I'm forced to agree with Smudge, I didn't see if he changed his mind down the line but from the first bit of the talk, I agree with him.

The way these rules are worded feels like running through a labyrinth of words, not enjoyable and needlessly tiresome. I get what they are trying to say but it feels like a typical GW 180.

" Well, the last rules were far too simple. So this time, lets make them painfully annoying and cumbersome to digest. They will love it. "

Honestly it feels like a chore and not like a fun game with these terrain rules. Who thought it would be cool to make it feel like you're back in school doing homework to make sure units are getting proper use of terrain. Why as well have USRs for terrain uses, but not for unit abilities ?

So, we can't be expected to remember USRs but we can remember a million different bespoke rules that do the same things in many cases and yet manage to remember USRs for terrain use ?

This is what is so damn annoying with GW. They don't ever see the forest for the trees. They hear an issue then arse it all up with the fix.

People don't like such overly simple rules, so they over word them and make them needlessly bothersome while a more abstract yet inclusive system would probably work better. Hordes caused a headache for 8th, so lets make them worthless for 9th. It's hard to imagine they have any kind of method to the madness but for over correction or pushing an agenda of sales I'm not sure at this point.

Just to be clear, I agreed with Smudge on the overly painful wordy nature of the terrain rules, the rest of my ramble I'll assume he wouldn't agree with.

Edit: Reading some of these rules had me feel a certain way, I couldn't put my finger on it. It gives me feelings of 6th edition when I read and digested those rules. Which putting my finger on it, zaps my excitement just a little bit more.

They read like:

"Is situation A arises, unless situation B arises, or situation C arisis, or unless factor X is in play, or if factor Y is in play, or if factor Z is in play, unless situation J is also occurring, or if situation K is apparent, then L."

You lose so much of the meaning of the sentence because of all the exceptions to exceptions and caveats. You shouldn't be writing rules like Excel formulae.

catbarf was right when he said that they are writing these rules backwards.

Bigger units will definitely have to cluster ranks to make use of this sort of cover, or spread out to screen but be more visible.

Unless they overhaul the way wounding and removing models work, cover saves should still be model by model though (or rather, you remove models out of cover until the entire unit is in cover, and then your save improves), you just lose out on the -1 to hit if it's Dense Terrain.
though TECHNICALLY if you want to not fast roll, you could just make your opponent roll one attack at a time until he kills the one model out of cover. The you get your -1 for the rest.

Hm. Actually I hope they overhaul the way wounding and removing models work.

Seabass wrote:
Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game..

Nobody was asking for rules to be 'overdrawn and intricate' ... just clearly written.

This rule is not clearly written.

looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.

Seabass wrote:
Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

I'm just going to quote his entire post, as it very much explains why your complaint above doesn't hold any water:

 catbarf wrote:
'When a unit selects a target for shooting, if a straight line drawn from a single point on the attacking model's base cannot reach all parts of the target's base or hull without passing over or through terrain with this keyword, the attacker subtracts 1 from their hit rolls. Ignore any area terrain that the attacker occupies, and any terrain within 3" of the attacker'.

That took me, like, thirty seconds. GW seriously needs a technical writer, this is borderline unreadable. The legalese approach is really not the best way to write rules. The way it's worded is just not intuitive; it sets up the -1 as the default case and then provides the exception of clear LOS, when it should be the opposite, telling you the conditions under which you suffer the penalty.

 Argive wrote:
looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.

Rues can be clear without being so intricate. Wyrd's rules don't read like this, or Corvus Belli's, or..................

I'm in some way relieved that even some native english speakers are struggling to understand at first glance their new cover rules. English is not my mother tongue but after living these 4 past years abroad GW had me really doubting.

Something simple should not be complicated or tricky to understand. Period.

This is a good thing to be precise for how a rule is interpreted and played, but it needs precise writing.

 Argive wrote:
looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.

I dunno, I got round that just fine by simply not playing with dickheads.

It’s not really an issue with word count I have, or suggesting people won’t be bothered to read all that (although in the latter case I think it does raise the question of the effect this has on accessibility to new players), more that it’s *horribly* written – it’s overwrought to the point of completely jettisoning clarity.

There is a difference between complexity and depth that's relevant to the discussion here.

Complexity encompasses how difficult it is for a player to understand rules, and rule interactions. Think of it as an additional price the player has to pay to play the game.
Some players are willing to pay more than others, but it is still a cost.

Depth encompasses the meaningful strategies and tactics that arise out of the complexity. Continuing the analogy, this is what the player is buying with that complexity.
More depth is better, but one still has to be aware of the complexity cost that extra depth requires.

I like these Terrain rules because they add depth (which everyone agreed the game sorely needed) and on the macro rules level terrain rules are generally an elegant way to get good depth with little complexity.
However the rule itself are written more complex then they need to be. As others have pointed out, there are easier ways to write the rule in such a away that it still satisfies the same conditions.
This would mean that a new player - one that has to start learning all the rules from scratch - has to pay just that much less complexity for the exact same depth. In other words, its a straight upgrade because nothing is lost.

The steps so far have shown a notable improvement in a general understanding of game design, but the fact that the Dense Cover rule isn't well written is a valid and (surprisingly, coming from this forum) constructive criticism

If models are removed as they die, rather than en masse at the end of shooting, and shots are resolved one at a time, being able to see all of one model's base only negates the bonus until that model dies.

This resolves the BS about "I can see one dude, so all the ones I can't see will all die too."

That's kind of a drag, because I like speed rolling. But I hate distributing shots to models in cover based on rolls made against those without it more than I love speed rolling, so I guess it's goodbye speed rolling.

Kinda need the rest of the rules to see how that one works out.

Anyone have any ideas or suggestions as to the significance/necessity of the line being “1mm in width”? Seems extraneous and unnecessary to me – why not just say “a straight line”? Or am I missing something?

Yeah, I'm not sure what GW's obsession with "1mm thick" imaginary lines is. It adds absolutely nothing to the rulings of things. People can understand the concept of a line between two points.
They started using it back in 5th edition with some psychic powers and "beam" type weapons I think.

Vilehydra wrote:
Complexity encompasses how difficult it is for a player to understand rules, and rule interactions. Think of it as an additional price the player has to pay to play the game.

I think you're mixing up "complicated" and "complexity". The former is the one you want to avoid.

 McGibs wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure what GW's obsession with "1mm thick" imaginary lines is. It adds absolutely nothing to the rulings of things. People can understand the concept of a line between two points.
They started using it back in 5th edition with some psychic powers and "beam" type weapons I think.

because there will always be that one person who will argue the thinnest line possible can avoid the penalty. It's just there to provide a rule from which to do this.

It seems to me that the simplest way to determine cover is to say that a model is either obscured or not based on drawing a line.

If a unit has some models obscured and some not, targeting the unit forces the attacker to split fire between obscured and unobscured models.

If los is obscured by solid terrain neither side can see.
If inside terrain obscuring is ignored.

The game already lets you split fire why not use it as a way to simplify attacks against partially obscured units?

 Nazrak wrote:
Anyone have any ideas or suggestions as to the significance/necessity of the line being “1mm in width”? Seems extraneous and unnecessary to me – why not just say “a straight line”? Or am I missing something?

I think its (theoretically) to cut down on potential arguments in rare corner case scenarios where the line is just on the edge of a minis base or terrain feature, and then the argument becomes "its really close, I think it touches the line" on one side, and the other side countering with "the line is infinitessimally thin, the line doesn't touch it" on the other.

Yes, I have seen people argue that exact point.

 Argive wrote:
looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.

I would much rather a game have simple, human-readable rules, and then FAQ out the dumbass TFG exploits as necessary, rather than write them in a way that presumes you hold a legal degree and read this stuff for a living.

I mean, that's why legalese is so dense, right? It has to be extremely precise when presiding in matters of life or death, or businesses worth millions. But this is a toy soldier game. Just provide easily-read rules, clarify the intent (ie actually provide RAI in the rules- lots of companies do this, I don't know why GW doesn't), and then it should be obvious if someone's trying to game the system in an unintended way.

And, like, not to toot my own horn too much, but I proposed a rewrite on the first page that I think is pretty compact and intuitive- is there actually any semantic nuance to the original rules that I'm missing, such that my version isn't a valid substitute?

Vilehydra wrote:
There is a difference between complexity and depth that's relevant to the discussion here.

Complexity encompasses how difficult it is for a player to understand rules, and rule interactions. Think of it as an additional price the player has to pay to play the game.
Some players are willing to pay more than others, but it is still a cost.

Depth encompasses the meaningful strategies and tactics that arise out of the complexity. Continuing the analogy, this is what the player is buying with that complexity.
More depth is better, but one still has to be aware of the complexity cost that extra depth requires.

I like these Terrain rules because they add depth (which everyone agreed the game sorely needed) and on the macro rules level terrain rules are generally an elegant way to get good depth with little complexity.
However the rule itself are written more complex then they need to be. As others have pointed out, there are easier ways to write the rule in such a away that it still satisfies the same conditions.
This would mean that a new player - one that has to start learning all the rules from scratch - has to pay just that much less complexity for the exact same depth. In other words, its a straight upgrade because nothing is lost.

The steps so far have shown a notable improvement in a general understanding of game design, but the fact that the Dense Cover rule isn't well written is a valid and (surprisingly, coming from this forum) constructive criticism

Nicely written post - can't say I disagree. I do hope the typo isn't in the book. *sigh*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McGibs wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure what GW's obsession with "1mm thick" imaginary lines is. It adds absolutely nothing to the rulings of things. People can understand the concept of a line between two points.
They started using it back in 5th edition with some psychic powers and "beam" type weapons I think.

You'd be surprised. There's always TFG that takes a "point" to mean something bigger or a "line" to mean a width of their discretion.

I would argue that what Vilehydra described as "complexity" is actually "complication", and what Vilehydra describes as "depth" is actually "complexity".

Complexity, in designers parlance, usually refers to the nature and scope of mechanical interactions within the rules, whereas complication refers to the level of difficulty and friction that a player has to manage in order to work with that complexity.

You can have a complex game that is uncomplicated, you can have a complex game that is complicated, you can have a simple game that is complicated, and you can have a simple game that is uncomplciated.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I would argue that what Vilehydra described as "complexity" is actually "complication", and what Vilehydra describes as "depth" is actually "complexity".

That's exactly what I said.

Ok not exactly...

chaos0xomega wrote:
I would argue that what Vilehydra described as "complexity" is actually "complication", and what Vilehydra describes as "depth" is actually "complexity".

Complexity, in designers parlance, usually refers to the nature and scope of mechanical interactions within the rules, whereas complication refers to the level of difficulty and friction that a player has to manage in order to work with that complexity.

You can have a complex game that is uncomplicated, you can have a complex game that is complicated, you can have a simple game that is complicated, and you can have a simple game that is uncomplciated.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I would argue that what Vilehydra described as "complexity" is actually "complication", and what Vilehydra describes as "depth" is actually "complexity".

Complexity, in designers parlance, usually refers to the nature and scope of mechanical interactions within the rules, whereas complication refers to the level of difficulty and friction that a player has to manage in order to work with that complexity.

You can have a complex game that is uncomplicated, you can have a complex game that is complicated, you can have a simple game that is complicated, and you can have a simple game that is uncomplciated.

Sure, but that difference isn't critical to the topic at hand.

I prefer depth vs complexity as opposed to complexity vs complication because of the more distinct wording.
I guess depth vs complication would be the best to describe them

 Nazrak wrote:
Anyone have any ideas or suggestions as to the significance/necessity of the line being “1mm in width”? Seems extraneous and unnecessary to me – why not just say “a straight line”? Or am I missing something?

In previous editions where they haven't specified, they've wound up having to include it in the FAQ for those who need the thickness of a line explained to them.

Although my brain hurts at them using both metric and imperial measurements in the one rules entry...

In all fairness, if they had stuck with the imperial system for measuring the line it would have been about 1/32 of an inch, and most imperial rulers and tape measures don't go that small. Pretty much all metric measuring tools have millimeters however.

So this is another cover rule that doesn't benefit super heavys. Seems like they get nothing, while they're going to be getting shot from all sides by things they either can't retaliate at or they will be doing so at a disadvantage. So what will they be getting to even the playing field? And don't say blast weapons, because that's useless against vehicles, and if you're firing your baneblade, volcano, or accelerator cannon at a big group of guardsmen you're doing it wrong.

Although my brain hurts at them using both metric and imperial measurements in the one rules entry...

"draw an imaginary line 1/36th of an inch wide" doesn't have the same ring to it.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
In all fairness, if they had stuck with the imperial system for measuring the line it would have been about 1/32 of an inch, and most imperial rulers and tape measures don't go that small. Pretty much all metric measuring tools have millimeters however.

So this is another cover rule that doesn't benefit super heavys. Seems like they get nothing, while they're going to be getting shot from all sides by things they either can't retaliate at or they will be doing so at a disadvantage. So what will they be getting to even the playing field? And don't say blast weapons, because that's useless against vehicles, and if you're firing your baneblade, volcano, or accelerator cannon at a big group of guardsmen you're doing it wrong.

Blast weapons!



I guess it depends which end of the points stick they'll get or other rules they get to break that we don't know about yet.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
In all fairness, if they had stuck with the imperial system for measuring the line it would have been about 1/32 of an inch, and most imperial rulers and tape measures don't go that small. Pretty much all metric measuring tools have millimeters however.

So this is another cover rule that doesn't benefit super heavys. Seems like they get nothing, while they're going to be getting shot from all sides by things they either can't retaliate at or they will be doing so at a disadvantage. So what will they be getting to even the playing field? And don't say blast weapons, because that's useless against vehicles, and if you're firing your baneblade, volcano, or accelerator cannon at a big group of guardsmen you're doing it wrong.

Blast weapons!



I guess it depends which end of the points stick they'll get or other rules they get to break that we don't know about yet.

Yeah, I know. I was just wondering if there were any rumours or conjecture on it like we've had on hordes. Knights will probably benefit from being able to attack things on upper levels of terrain, but that doesn't do anything for super heavy tanks. Maybe some kind of "hull down" rule that lets them use cover if they don't move?

Btw, you're welcome for me setting up that punch line for you.

catbarf wrote:

 Argive wrote:
looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.

I would much rather a game have simple, human-readable rules, and then FAQ out the dumbass TFG exploits as necessary, rather than write them in a way that presumes you hold a legal degree and read this stuff for a living.

I mean, that's why legalese is so dense, right? It has to be extremely precise when presiding in matters of life or death, or businesses worth millions. But this is a toy soldier game. Just provide easily-read rules, clarify the intent (ie actually provide RAI in the rules- lots of companies do this, I don't know why GW doesn't), and then it should be obvious if someone's trying to game the system in an unintended way.

And, like, not to toot my own horn too much, but I proposed a rewrite on the first page that I think is pretty compact and intuitive- is there actually any semantic nuance to the original rules that I'm missing, such that my version isn't a valid substitute?

hey plastic toy solidiers is serious business to some people

Look, I dont like defending GW but in this case it really seems that they are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Its a step in the right direction. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than alternative at the cost of having to read a few sentences twice? Yes. YMMV.

McGibs wrote:Yeah, I'm not sure what GW's obsession with "1mm thick" imaginary lines is. It adds absolutely nothing to the rulings of things. People can understand the concept of a line between two points.
They started using it back in 5th edition with some psychic powers and "beam" type weapons I think.

I think GW has seen army painters Target Lock (I own two these are great), saw the obvious mark up/profit with GW logo on it and thought " You know what. I want some of that market share"
Watch this space.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When the first talked about terrain traits they talked about how something like the Sector Mechanicus terrain should make it harder to hit you, as the railings and whatnot aren't really the kinds of things that can take incoming shots like a big slab of concrete. This explains this 'dense terrain' rule, something you'd apply to this rather than this.



Could the Citadel™ LasPointer™ be close to release?

Yes. And again yes. Laser pointers should be part of the augmented table top along with apps that take pictures and deploy blast templates from ones own as well as perhaps mission based or narrative based forces or factors. Say, turn two the app says take a foto of the table top from directly above. It then adds blasst templates and says these areas have been impacted by an orbital strike from a passing ork cruiser which dropped these scrap bombz on you just for the lulz...

No arguing over scatter dice now.

 McGibs wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure what GW's obsession with "1mm thick" imaginary lines is. It adds absolutely nothing to the rulings of things. People can understand the concept of a line between two points.
They started using it back in 5th edition with some psychic powers and "beam" type weapons I think.

This is because a few editions ago there was a massive issue with one of the Necron beam weapons. The original rule said 'draw a line from this weapon' which to some people meant a band the same physical width of the weapon itself. It had to be FAQ'd. This was at a time when GW FAQs were like hen's teeth. Ever since then the 1mm thing has become standard.

Writing of the rule aside, I'm super happy this is a rule and I will specifically make some terrain to use it, such as forests and ruins with extra lichen underbrush and rubble. It should be pretty easy to hide gaunts in what I'm thinking.

Also, I mostly play with gentlemen who will happily counts-as with terrain.

 jeff white wrote:
No arguing over scatter dice now.

Instead replaced with arguments over camera placement and people not holding the laser pointer "the right way".

 catbarf wrote:

 Argive wrote:
looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.

I would much rather a game have simple, human-readable rules, and then FAQ out the dumbass TFG exploits as necessary, rather than write them in a way that presumes you hold a legal degree and read this stuff for a living.

They have bulletpointed rules and they've stated that they're accompanied by illustrations. The longwinded versions are preemptive FAQs to help when presented with edge-cases or when wallopers want to be gamey and argue about what 'obscured' is.

Ok but they could do the same in a less painful way of writing.

It's amazing how when they mess things up over and over its because they write relaxed rules that make sense to them. Then when they write the rules labyrinth, starring David Bowie , for Dense terrain they are making these locked down amazing rules to fight " that guy " .

People love to defend GW as if they are a helpless child being attacked by the mean internet peoples again. They could write the rules with more clarity and less labor so reading it doesn't feel like a gaming version of rules torture. The fact they need to also bullet point them and point that out just hints they realize reading them sucks.

Clarity is good but it would be nice if the written rules would be clear and feel good to read, with bullet points and additional pictures. Not, reading these rules sucks, so it's very good they come with bullet points and pictures. They should be happy additions not a saving grace.

I don't know seems like a normal way of writing to me. All rules and regulations here are like that. Guess western people aren't used to official language

 Argive wrote:

Look, I dont like defending GW but in this case it really seems that they are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Its a step in the right direction. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than alternative at the cost of having to read a few sentences twice? Yes. YMMV.

They're only 'damned if they do and damned if they don't' if the extremes are the only possible options available to them. And that's the problem with GW... They're fairly consistently unable to find the middle ground. When something is a problem, they seem to more often than not push it right through to the opposite extreme.

I think GW has seen army painters Target Lock (I own two these are great), saw the obvious mark up/profit with GW logo on it and thought " You know what. I want some of that market share"
Watch this space.

Maybe not. They already tried their own laser pointer a decade ago.

 insaniak wrote:

I think GW has seen army painters Target Lock (I own two these are great), saw the obvious mark up/profit with GW logo on it and thought " You know what. I want some of that market share"
Watch this space.

Maybe not. They already tried their own laser pointer a decade ago.

Wasn't that the one that didn't work because it was attached to a tape measure and shaped like a skull (because of course it was) so you could never actually line the laser up properly?

I'm really struggling to understand why GW has taken the approach it has with their rules writing and formatting. It seems like there are several concepts that are common to all, or at least most, terrain pieces. Things like defining height by the tallest point, defining when a terrain piece is occupied or obstructing an attack, defining what a line is and so on. It would be much better if these things were defined in one place in the rules and then referred to in the rules text. That way you're building on a set of core concepts and reducing the wordiness of the rules without losing any information. As others have said, it feels like the rules are written backwards.

I'm pretty sure that after a few games all we'll need are the bullet points but the presentation of the rules so far feels really clunky.

Karol wrote:
I don't know seems like a normal way of writing to me. All rules and regulations here are like that. Guess western people aren't used to official language

Well here, we don't write rules for games in such a way as to make it an annoying experience, usually anyways. There is a very big difference between normal writing and legal writing. This game is far from balanced enough for legal writing and instead it's a supposed to be a fun past time. Notice how when you read a book it isn't written like a legal brief or a summons. You can understand the writing and find it cumbersome and terrible at the same time. To add this is supposed to be something good and not checking out the local stance for noise levels at a given time of day and what is or isn't allowable and what exceptions can and can't be enjoyed there in.

If they'd given us the bulletpoints at the same time i reckon it wouldn't have been such an issue.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Ok but they could do the same in a less painful way of writing.

It's amazing how when they mess things up over and over its because they write relaxed rules that make sense to them. Then when they write the rules labyrinth, starring David Bowie , for Dense terrain they are making these locked down amazing rules to fight " that guy " .

When they do different things it's for different reasons? Err, yes?

The detailed variants could certainly be less clunky, though they're far from labyrinthine (honestly, read the bylaws of any sport, or a single sentence written by a humanities undergraduate), but, again, you'll almost always refer to the abbreviated ones. When you need the detail, you can refer to the longform ones. In those cases, you'll be looking for a specific clause, and they'll be fine for that job.

Hey at least we'll have the bullet points so we can ignore the writing.

I see what people mean to an extent but I think it's also being a little overblown. Perfectly understandable even if it may take actually properly concentrating on every word. (I tend to scan such things, not being a snark)

Slipspace wrote:

Wasn't that the one that didn't work because it was attached to a tape measure and shaped like a skull (because of course it was) so you could never actually line the laser up properly?

No. The skull was just a tape measure. (I have one. It's awesome)

Their laser pointer was shaped like a rifle scope, with a hooked end for lining it up over the miniature.

Argive wrote:looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.

So, the problem here is "that guy(s)" and folks of dubious character, not the rules.

Solution? Don't play with "that guy(s)" and people of dubious character.

As far as the actual rule is concerned, from what little I can understand of it? Yeah, I don't think I have any problems with it. Could it be better written or made more simple? Absolutely. That's what I think most people are complaining about here - the hyper-legal wording and the obtuseness of reading it. And, considering that it seems to exist only to deal with some of the more egregious rules lawyers, I have to wonder why bother playing them in the first place?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, the problem here is "that guy(s)" and folks of dubious character, not the rules.

Solution? Don't play with "that guy(s)" and people of dubious character.

As far as the actual rule is concerned, from what little I can understand of it? Yeah, I don't think I have any problems with it. Could it be better written or made more simple? Absolutely. That's what I think most people are complaining about here - the hyper-legal wording and the obtuseness of reading it. And, considering that it seems to exist only to deal with some of the more egregious rules lawyers, I have to wonder why bother playing them in the first place?

I think if we look at some of the attitudes to the rules writing on this forum alone, and that people here seem to think they speak for the majority of players, that needing to be this specific and wordy with the rule in question has to be a given. Not to aim at anyone in particular but I'd like to point at a lot of BCB's rule related posts - even just the assault weapons one in particular. Everyone knows what it should do, but there's a loud enough contingent out there that demands it works in a non-intuitive manner.

The biggest problem with this rule is not it's function or wording, but in layout on page. Each sentence could have been it's own bullet point and all together it looks a little word soup. But if it's read (and not skimmed because people have played 40k for 5-10+ yrs so already 'know' how it plays) line by line it make sense what it should be doing.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

The biggest problem with this rule is not it's function or wording, but in layout on page. Each sentence could have been it's own bullet point and all together it looks a little word soup. But if it's read (and not skimmed because people have played 40k for 5-10+ yrs so already 'know' how it plays) line by line it make sense what it should be doing.

Yeah, I don't think anyone's literally claiming it doesn't work, or doesn't make sense – rather that the way it's written and formatted is unnecessarily inelegant.

Tycho wrote:

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

Not Online!!! wrote:
If they'd given us the bulletpoints at the same time i reckon it wouldn't have been such an issue.

It would have at least saved me from the misperception of thinking this rule actually helped super heavys. The bullet points put a big "nope" on that idea.

Seabass 789440 10840972 wrote:
Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

Well that is true, but so is the fact that stuff which is good for GW doesn't have to be good for players or communities. And a conter point to the IH codex, I can give at least two with which I can't realy tell what GW was thinking when they made the rules as far as actualy playing the armies in the setting they made against other codex GW wrote themselfs. There is no sound explanation, or at least I can't find one, why GW made the harlequin book and the Inari "nerf" they way they did them, or why they wrote the GK codex they way they did. Unless GW thinks that it is okey to write bad books, of course. But if that is the case, then it is hard to call GW a consumer friendly company, and put much trust in what they do.

Karol wrote:

Seabass 789440 10840972 wrote:
Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

Well that is true, but so is the fact that stuff which is good for GW doesn't have to be good for players or communities. And a conter point to the IH codex, I can give at least two with which I can't realy tell what GW was thinking when they made the rules as far as actualy playing the armies in the setting they made against other codex GW wrote themselfs. There is no sound explanation, or at least I can't find one, why GW made the harlequin book and the Inari "nerf" they way they did them, or why they wrote the GK codex they way they did. Unless GW thinks that it is okey to write bad books, of course. But if that is the case, then it is hard to call GW a consumer friendly company, and put much trust in what they do.

Well, again, I point to the fact that the new edition has been tested by many players all of whom have demonstrated a deep understanding of the game. I don't know if they did this before with other codexes, but the fact that they are doing it now represents a significant investment of money on their part to get the "game" part of it right. GW are trying very hard to standardize the game, bring the different house rules under one roof for the integration of both competitive and narrative play, and this is the first time they have done that.

I wonder how many of these "poor wording" situations are actually driven by the community of playtesters who asked questions like "how wide does the line have to be? if its a "wide" line, which side do I use? What if I can draw a line from X side of the base to the majority of the base but not all the way through it? Does this affect units shooting out of this dense cover? how tall does it need to be? does it cover my flyer? what about my defiler? what about my <insert model here>". Someone said it before but look at games like Warmachine and infinity. Hell, for that matter, look up the layer rules for the combat phase in M: TG. Sometimes, long wording is just needed my dude.

I have done a fair bit of technical writing when i was a corporate trainer for JPMC. Technical writing often does seem over elaborative, but that is only because you have to cover instances and clarify points that the majority of people would take for granted as being common sense and only a few would argue it. But its a rules set, It has to be written for everyone as best they can. I welcome this change to how the rules are presented. While it may be wordy, detailed rules solve problems.

 insaniak wrote:
Maybe not. They already tried their own laser pointer a decade ago.

But modern GW is a different beast. They have a Facebook page now!!!

So them trying again with a laser pointer could work. They could even sell Citadel™ Charge™ Packs™ in case your Citadel™ LasPointer™ runs out of battery!

That said, I wouldn't mind having a trigger activated laser liner that's shaped like a lasgun

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

I brought up Iron Hands not in relation to anything with 9th, but rather to point out one of the many, many cases where GW released a set of rules and, within hours/days, the vast majority of the community was pointing out very quickly exactly how and why the rules were utterly broken. No one is perfect and there will always be issues here and there. For sure. But things like the Iron Hands simply shouldn't happen. At all. Even the most casual players saw almost immediately the major problems that book was going to cause. When tehy can't even spot the big obvious problems, that's a sign there's a huge issue on the rules team. It's very clear GW doesn't use best practices for even basic publishing. Look at how many copy/paste errors happen across multiple versions of a book for example.

It's also clear that, between codexes, there isn't much coordination between authors. Especially in 8th, a lot has simply felt like "let's throw this one at the wall and see if it sticks". When you can see dramatically different approaches across multiple books in the same edition, it's clear there's a problem. And that rule IS excessively wordy. A solid technical writer should be able to to say the same thing with many fewer words. But GW doesn't employ technical writers (where many other games companies will have at least one on staff).

It IS an example of GW TRYING to do the right thing, but "Great idea with weak to terrible implementation" pretty much sums up a lot of their work. I am calling it now - when 9th launches and we have the full rules, this will be one of the first things getting faq'd because the needlessly wordy way in which it is written will ADD to unexpected interactions with other, similarly worded rules. I don't even see anyone saying "I'm a better designer than GW". I think the problem is that they are SO poor at it, you don't NEED to be good to see the many many issues. Issues that other systems manage to easily avoid. GW is at the forefront of things like mini design and injection molding, but still in the stone age when it comes to rules development and publishing best practices. It's like I tell the young designers on the team I manage, someone doens't have to be a professional illustrator to recognize a poorly crafted image. Same applies here.

EDIT:

Fun with diagrams: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/789321.page

Seabass wrote:
Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Hi. I've written rules for games. Professionally.

I don't think I can do a better job than GW. I know I can.

Hi. I've written rules for games. Professionally.

I don't think I can do a better job than GW. I know I can.

Ok ... so maybe ONE PERSON said it ...

Tycho wrote:
Ok ... so maybe ONE PERSON said it ...

You're welcome.

Tycho wrote:

Hi. I've written rules for games. Professionally.

I don't think I can do a better job than GW. I know I can.

Ok ... so maybe ONE PERSON said it ...

I also design games for a living (though mine typically have digital adjudicators, I still have to write rules packets for the players and adjudication methodology and abstraction information for game sponsors and third-party facilitators).

Blastaar wrote:

Rues can be clear without being so intricate. Wyrd's rules don't read like this, or Corvus Belli's, or..................

Did you seriously just say that Corvus Belli's "rules can be clear without being so intricate"?!

There are STILL arguments going on over intended moves. Their rules are NOT an example you want to ever hold up for clarity.

Hi, my BA is in game design (though my career path has taken me in different directions). I could write 40k better than GW.

Seabass wrote:
Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

I hold a BS in Game Design & Development, although I've primarily worked on videogames. I provided a proposed re-write on the first page. If you feel it is less clear or leaves out important nuance, I would genuinely like to hear your reasoning.

 catbarf wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

I hold a BS in Game Design & Development, although I've primarily worked on videogames. I provided a proposed re-write on the first page. If you feel it is less clear or leaves out important nuance, I would genuinely like to hear your reasoning.

It doesn't layer into any of the other rules such as Obstacle terrain. I think the reason the rule is so wordy is it is restating other rules for ultimate clarity. The bullet points are very easy to digest and imply correspondence to other rules (as your rules text does). The full text seems to explicitly spell out the corresponding rules. In that way, I think they've done a very good job. Bullet points for the quick read and big wordy text all in one place (don't need to flip back to figure out LoS rules, or what occupying an Obstacle or Area terrain means) to hammer out any odd areas.

 catbarf wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

I hold a BS in Game Design & Development, although I've primarily worked on videogames. I provided a proposed re-write on the first page. If you feel it is less clear or leaves out important nuance, I would genuinely like to hear your reasoning.

I don't think you're capturing the whole rule.

'When a unit selects a target for shooting, if a straight line drawn from a single point on the attacking model's base cannot reach all parts of the target's base or hull without passing over or through terrain with this keyword, the attacker subtracts 1 from their hit rolls. Ignore any area terrain that the attacker occupies, and any terrain within 3" of the attacker'.

It's model based. Obstacles are the exception in the last sentence - not all terrain, because Obstacles don't have bases. You could still tweak it i'm sure though, but the wordiness will increase.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
You are -1 to shoot unless you can see all of a models Hull or Base and no drawn LoS is over the terrain.
If you are in/on the terrain with your opponent then you are not penalized.
If you are within 3" of an Obstacle with this rule when you shoot you are not penalized.

Honestly this is a fine rule, yes its a bit wordy but i understand why. They wanted the ability to hide single man or elite units easier than hordes, but also not be penalized if you and any opponent are point blanks. Over all its actually a well writen rule from GW lol.

Thats exactly what I was typing out

This is great news

OK! SO MAYBE SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE SAID IT!

I love Dakka sometimes...

Rihgu wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

I hold a BS in Game Design & Development, although I've primarily worked on videogames. I provided a proposed re-write on the first page. If you feel it is less clear or leaves out important nuance, I would genuinely like to hear your reasoning.

It doesn't layer into any of the other rules such as Obstacle terrain. I think the reason the rule is so wordy is it is restating other rules for ultimate clarity. The bullet points are very easy to digest and imply correspondence to other rules (as your rules text does). The full text seems to explicitly spell out the corresponding rules. In that way, I think they've done a very good job. Bullet points for the quick read and big wordy text all in one place (don't need to flip back to figure out LoS rules, or what occupying an Obstacle or Area terrain means) to hammer out any odd areas.

Thats not a good job. It's sloppy and confusing to have every rule restate every other rules. Rules writing should be short, to the point, have as few exceptions as possible, and mesh well with the other rules. If one rule defines something like "Open Ground". Then any other rule that has the effect of open ground needs to only say it is treated as open ground, not restate the entirety of the open ground rule.

This rule is written with a bunch of exceptions and restates things that should be defined elsewhere since it's just going to keep getting rewritten (and since it's GW its going to get rewritten in different ways and thus create even further confusion) over and over again in the book. It's a mess. And I would bet money that when we see the whole picture it's going to be an even bigger mess.

 jeff white wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When the first talked about terrain traits they talked about how something like the Sector Mechanicus terrain should make it harder to hit you, as the railings and whatnot aren't really the kinds of things that can take incoming shots like a big slab of concrete. This explains this 'dense terrain' rule, something you'd apply to this rather than this.



Could the Citadel™ LasPointer™ be close to release?

Yes. And again yes. Laser pointers should be part of the augmented table top along with apps that take pictures and deploy blast templates from ones own as well as perhaps mission based or narrative based forces or factors. Say, turn two the app says take a foto of the table top from directly above. It then adds blasst templates and says these areas have been impacted by an orbital strike from a passing ork cruiser which dropped these scrap bombz on you just for the lulz...

No arguing over scatter dice now.

Unless I imagined it GW had a laser pointer in the past, I believe they called it the markerlight

Seabass wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

You realize just because people aren't a games designer doesn't mean they couldn't be yes ? As people we all made choices, went down paths to find us on the road we currently walk down. You do also realize most games designers if not all are avid gamers themselves, hence why they then become the game designers. I'm willing to bet a great many here, even folk I disagree with could do the same if not better job than GWs pro crack team of rule super men. You do also realize you can not be something and yet still have a valid point of view on its merit or short comings. Like for instance, I'm not a musician but I know the soothing sound of juicy farts onto a drum is pretty crap music. Etc, etc.

Where is it placed only if you do the act in question can you have any actual good opinion on it and/or idea that it sucks or not ? I'd go so far as to say most people on here probably ( before the virus anyways ) play many more games than these crack rules designers. I may disagree with my fellow Dakkas a good amount but I stand by them with their ability to understand the game many of us have played for in my case longer than I'd like to admit. At some point all of that time spent does give us some ability to judge what is good or bad in the game.

However, none of that matters with knowing if something is written poorly or in an elegant fashion. We can understand it could be both clear and nice to read. They don't need to be mutually exclusive ideals.

The only thing silly is how much some people can't handle the idea of GW getting any guff from something that is easy to do better. We had one poster write a better, easier to read version of the rule just pages back.

The rule shouldn't need bullet points, they should be a bonus and not a way to avoid the poor writing skills of professional game designers from the premiere company of miniature games. It's supposed to be an expensive, high quality product, that is why it costs so much. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to do better in that department. Most people after all by the models for the game. I mean someone can argue that but I don't think GW would with how many rule books they keep burning and churning out there.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

You realize just because people aren't a games designer doesn't mean they couldn't be yes ? As people we all made choices, went down paths to find us on the road we currently walk down. You do also realize most games designers if not all are avid gamers themselves, hence why they then become the game designers. I'm willing to bet a great many here, even folk I disagree with could do the same if not better job than GWs pro crack team of rule super men. You do also realize you can not be something and yet still have a valid point of view on its merit or short comings. Like for instance, I'm not a musician but I know the soothing sound of juicy farts onto a drum is pretty crap music. Etc, etc.

Where is it placed only if you do the act in question can you have any actual good opinion on it and/or idea that it sucks or not ? I'd go so far as to say most people on here probably ( before the virus anyways ) play many more games than these crack rules designers. I may disagree with my fellow Dakkas a good amount but I stand by them with their ability to understand the game many of us have played for in my case longer than I'd like to admit. At some point all of that time spent does give us some ability to judge what is good or bad in the game.

However, none of that matters with knowing if something is written poorly or in an elegant fashion. We can understand it could be both clear and nice to read. They don't need to be mutually exclusive ideals.

The only thing silly is how much some people can't handle the idea of GW getting any guff from something that is easy to do better. We had one poster write a better, easier to read version of the rule just pages back.

The rule shouldn't need bullet points, they should be a bonus and not a way to avoid the poor writing skills of professional game designers from the premiere company of miniature games. It's supposed to be an expensive, high quality product, that is why it costs so much. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to do better in that department. Most people after all by the models for the game. I mean someone can argue that but I don't think GW would with how many rule books they keep burning and churning out there.

I think being an armchair quarterback is much easier than being the person who has to determine how to articulate the concept. It's easy when someone lays out the groundwork, it's a different thing to take a concept and articulate it. So no, I'm sorry, I have serious doubts. And no one is saying anything about not being able to criticize GW, I haven't said that, and neither has anyone else I've read.

These rules, all of them that we have read have been easy to read and pretty simple. I literally don't know what else GW can do to make it a bit easier, outside of bullet points, which, they are already doing. I also don't think that there is a problem with setting reasonable expectations, but so far, the biggest thing everyone has to bitch about is the way a rule is written because it doesn't sound elegant? These aren't critiques of the design of the rules, these are nitpicking bitchfests.

Seabass wrote:


I think being an armchair quarterback is much easier than being the person who has to determine how to articulate the concept. It's easy when someone lays out the groundwork, it's a different thing to take a concept and articulate it. So no, I'm sorry, I have serious doubts. And no one is saying anything about not being able to criticize GW, I haven't said that, and neither has anyone else I've read.

These rules, all of them that we have read have been easy to read and pretty simple. I literally don't know what else GW can do to make it a bit easier, outside of bullet points, which, they are already doing. I also don't think that there is a problem with setting reasonable expectations, but so far, the biggest thing everyone has to bitch about is the way a rule is written because it doesn't sound elegant? These aren't critiques of the design of the rules, these are nitpicking bitchfests.

Seconded.

It'll be a god damn shame if those typos make it in and we have the big ol' day 0 FAQ, but ultimately it isn't hurting me. I guess that makes me 'part of the problem', but as long as GW stays engaged like they are now I'm not going to sweat it.

Seabass wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

You realize just because people aren't a games designer doesn't mean they couldn't be yes ? As people we all made choices, went down paths to find us on the road we currently walk down. You do also realize most games designers if not all are avid gamers themselves, hence why they then become the game designers. I'm willing to bet a great many here, even folk I disagree with could do the same if not better job than GWs pro crack team of rule super men. You do also realize you can not be something and yet still have a valid point of view on its merit or short comings. Like for instance, I'm not a musician but I know the soothing sound of juicy farts onto a drum is pretty crap music. Etc, etc.

Where is it placed only if you do the act in question can you have any actual good opinion on it and/or idea that it sucks or not ? I'd go so far as to say most people on here probably ( before the virus anyways ) play many more games than these crack rules designers. I may disagree with my fellow Dakkas a good amount but I stand by them with their ability to understand the game many of us have played for in my case longer than I'd like to admit. At some point all of that time spent does give us some ability to judge what is good or bad in the game.

However, none of that matters with knowing if something is written poorly or in an elegant fashion. We can understand it could be both clear and nice to read. They don't need to be mutually exclusive ideals.

The only thing silly is how much some people can't handle the idea of GW getting any guff from something that is easy to do better. We had one poster write a better, easier to read version of the rule just pages back.

The rule shouldn't need bullet points, they should be a bonus and not a way to avoid the poor writing skills of professional game designers from the premiere company of miniature games. It's supposed to be an expensive, high quality product, that is why it costs so much. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to do better in that department. Most people after all by the models for the game. I mean someone can argue that but I don't think GW would with how many rule books they keep burning and churning out there.

I think being an armchair quarterback is much easier than being the person who has to determine how to articulate the concept. It's easy when someone lays out the groundwork, it's a different thing to take a concept and articulate it. So no, I'm sorry, I have serious doubts. And no one is saying anything about not being able to criticize GW, I haven't said that, and neither has anyone else I've read.

These rules, all of them that we have read have been easy to read and pretty simple. I literally don't know what else GW can do to make it a bit easier, outside of bullet points, which, they are already doing. I also don't think that there is a problem with setting reasonable expectations, but so far, the biggest thing everyone has to bitch about is the way a rule is written because it doesn't sound elegant? These aren't critiques of the design of the rules, these are nitpicking bitchfests.

GW could write clear intuitive rules, avoid restating other rules when describing a given rule, and hire a technical editor. Expecting a company whose products are atrociously overpriced to do their jobs well is not having "nitpicking btichfests."

Blastaar wrote:

GW could write clear intuitive rules, avoid restating other rules when describing a given rule, and hire a technical editor. Expecting a company whose products are atrociously overpriced to do their jobs well is not having "nitpicking btichfests."

There's always room for improvement. I'll take the improved rules before I worry about technical writing. I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

GW could write clear intuitive rules, avoid restating other rules when describing a given rule, and hire a technical editor. Expecting a company whose products are atrociously overpriced to do their jobs well is not having "nitpicking btichfests."

There's always room for improvement. I'll take the improved rules before I worry about technical writing. I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

People do need to tone down the rhetoric. I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Yea, that's fair. I think ultimately so many people just buy in anyways that there's no boycott that would change things dramatically.

It's like in Fight Club -- cost of technical writer > cost of FAQs = we don't get a technical writer. Best way is to just keep pushing them, but hopefully they also let up on the crazy release schedule (probably won't).

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

You realize just because people aren't a games designer doesn't mean they couldn't be yes ? As people we all made choices, went down paths to find us on the road we currently walk down. You do also realize most games designers if not all are avid gamers themselves, hence why they then become the game designers. I'm willing to bet a great many here, even folk I disagree with could do the same if not better job than GWs pro crack team of rule super men. You do also realize you can not be something and yet still have a valid point of view on its merit or short comings. Like for instance, I'm not a musician but I know the soothing sound of juicy farts onto a drum is pretty crap music. Etc, etc.

Where is it placed only if you do the act in question can you have any actual good opinion on it and/or idea that it sucks or not ? I'd go so far as to say most people on here probably ( before the virus anyways ) play many more games than these crack rules designers. I may disagree with my fellow Dakkas a good amount but I stand by them with their ability to understand the game many of us have played for in my case longer than I'd like to admit. At some point all of that time spent does give us some ability to judge what is good or bad in the game.

However, none of that matters with knowing if something is written poorly or in an elegant fashion. We can understand it could be both clear and nice to read. They don't need to be mutually exclusive ideals.

The only thing silly is how much some people can't handle the idea of GW getting any guff from something that is easy to do better. We had one poster write a better, easier to read version of the rule just pages back.

The rule shouldn't need bullet points, they should be a bonus and not a way to avoid the poor writing skills of professional game designers from the premiere company of miniature games. It's supposed to be an expensive, high quality product, that is why it costs so much. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to do better in that department. Most people after all by the models for the game. I mean someone can argue that but I don't think GW would with how many rule books they keep burning and churning out there.

That first sentence is pretty ridiculous, not gonna lie. 'Just because I've never been an underwater oil pipeline welder doesn't mean I couldn't do it!' Experience doing something is a big deal, especially with something like game design where 99% of the nuance and difficulty comes in putting a finished product in front of someone who isn't YOU.

Notice how not everyone who is an avid gamer is also a game designer? Maybe because those skills are related but not necessarily transferable? And no, you couldn't do what they do, not without practice. Not because they're amazing, but because you've not put in the hours they have. A mediocre game designer who's shipped even a mediocre product is ultimately leagues ahead of 90% of the community. We operate in the lofty position of critique, where we don't have to build the full picture, we can just point out a few missed strokes and pat ourselves on the back. Sure, that criticism has value, but keep in mind that it's a metric feth-ton easier than actually making the fething game.

And I'm sorry, but have you read any legal or technical writing ever? NOTHING that is designed not to be abused is elegant, or easy to read. I'd also take this moment to argue that it is ultimately VERY clear what they're saying in these new rules, it's just become closer to legaleze as a result of like 150 pages of FAQs needing to be put in place over the past few years to cover edge cases the more 'easy to read' rules missed.

GW gets mostly guff. Even people who like GW and have liked 8th still have plenty of gak to say about them. I, for example, still think none of them in the studio are good enough at the game to understand the implications of a lot of their unit level rules and points changes, and that that fact is obvious in every codex that comes out.

Bullet points are great. The rule prevents loopholes, the bullet points simplify it down for mouth breathers. It's rules writing symbiosis. It's not poor writing, it's writing to intent. They could have just said what they bullet points said, like they've done in the past, and then we would have had 14 pages of Q&A on edge cases and ignorance like we had through most of 8th for rules like this. They've done fine. In fact, these are the best written rules GW has come out with, probably ever. Inelegant, sure, but they cover everything they need to cover and help force people to relearn reading comprehension. I call that a win win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Yea, that's fair. I think ultimately so many people just buy in anyways that there's no boycott that would change things dramatically.

It's like in Fight Club -- cost of technical writer > cost of FAQs = we don't get a technical writer. Best way is to just keep pushing them, but hopefully they also let up on the crazy release schedule (probably won't).

Also, it's not like a technical writer automatically guarantees a perfect end product. Especially when they've got to do hundreds of pages of interlocking, but totally disparate rules. Is the new direction in rules writing perfect? No, duh. But they've started to use consistent terminology and are writing to not let loopholes through. It's a start.

At least we won't have to deal with gak like people arguing librarius conclave librarians can cast every one of the 15 spells they know because 'Mastery level DETERMINES the amount of powers a psyker can cast' (as opposed to 'is equal to'.). Who else remembers THAT wonderful discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

GW could write clear intuitive rules, avoid restating other rules when describing a given rule, and hire a technical editor. Expecting a company whose products are atrociously overpriced to do their jobs well is not having "nitpicking btichfests."

There's always room for improvement. I'll take the improved rules before I worry about technical writing. I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

People do need to tone down the rhetoric. I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

This is funny when a quote of you using rhetoric that needs to be toned down and caring about what goes on within GW is like...right there bro.

And I'm sorry, but have you read any legal or technical writing ever? NOTHING that is designed not to be abused is elegant, or easy to read. I'd also take this moment to argue that it is ultimately VERY clear what they're saying in these new rules, it's just become closer to legaleze as a result of like 150 pages of FAQs needing to be put in place over the past few years to cover edge cases the more 'easy to read' rules missed.

GW gets mostly guff. Even people who like GW and have liked 8th still have plenty of gak to say about them. I, for example, still think none of them in the studio are good enough at the game to understand the implications of a lot of their unit level rules and points changes, and that that fact is obvious in every codex that comes out.

Bullet points are great. The rule prevents loopholes, the bullet points simplify it down for mouth breathers. It's rules writing symbiosis. It's not poor writing, it's writing to intent. They could have just said what they bullet points said, like they've done in the past, and then we would have had 14 pages of Q&A on edge cases and ignorance like we had through most of 8th for rules like this. They've done fine. In fact, these are the best written rules GW has come out with, probably ever. Inelegant, sure, but they cover everything they need to cover and help force people to relearn reading comprehension. I call that a win win.

The entire point of technical writing (not a lawyer and don't deal with that so can't speak to how they write) is to do the exact opposite of what you're describing. It strives to quickly and as succinctly as possible to explain a concept in a way that allows for as little misinterpretation as possible. So no. A solid technical writing approach would not lead to a "more wordy" rule. Again, if one of my writers brought me something like that, I'd send them back to the drawing board, and we've already seen successful attempts at fixing it. Do I like the rule itself? I think I do, but I'm willing to make a sig-bet right now with anyone here that the way this is worded will cause at least 1 if not more than 1 FAQs in the first few months.

And to the very condescending point about bullets - the fact that the rule needed "dumbed down" to begin with should have been a red flag that they maybe needed to take another look at it. Think about this thread as an LGS. We have 1/3 of the players saying "It's great! I love it!", another 1/3 saying "I ... think I get it" and another 1/3 that seem to be having trouble following it at all. How do we have a game when the way the rule itself is written causes that kind of a split? Failing to acknowledge that there's some kind of problem here, and just falling back on "well anyone who didn't instantly get this and thinks it's too wordy is clearly an idiot" really isn't a good position to take ....

Also, it's not like a technical writer automatically guarantees a perfect end product. Especially when they've got to do hundreds of pages of interlocking, but totally disparate rules. Is the new direction in rules writing perfect? No, duh. But they've started to use consistent terminology and are writing to not let loopholes through. It's a start.

Right from the start, a solid technical writing approach would have prevented the "hundreds and hundreds of pages of interlocking but totally disparate rules" to begin with. That's literally what they do. What a lot of people are pointing out is that GW isn't really using best practices for things like complex rules sets, basic publishing processes etc. It's also why the cries of "armchair quarterbacking" are kind of silly. People play more than one game system. So many people here have experience in systems with complex rules that DON'T have the problems GW runs into over, and over again all the time. It's not "armchair quarter-backing" to look at the "industry leader" and ask them to do better because 30 some odd years later, they're STILL making rookie mistakes ...

To put it differently, imagine if they wrote rules as well as they made miniatures ...

Seabass wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

You realize just because people aren't a games designer doesn't mean they couldn't be yes ? As people we all made choices, went down paths to find us on the road we currently walk down. You do also realize most games designers if not all are avid gamers themselves, hence why they then become the game designers. I'm willing to bet a great many here, even folk I disagree with could do the same if not better job than GWs pro crack team of rule super men. You do also realize you can not be something and yet still have a valid point of view on its merit or short comings. Like for instance, I'm not a musician but I know the soothing sound of juicy farts onto a drum is pretty crap music. Etc, etc.

Where is it placed only if you do the act in question can you have any actual good opinion on it and/or idea that it sucks or not ? I'd go so far as to say most people on here probably ( before the virus anyways ) play many more games than these crack rules designers. I may disagree with my fellow Dakkas a good amount but I stand by them with their ability to understand the game many of us have played for in my case longer than I'd like to admit. At some point all of that time spent does give us some ability to judge what is good or bad in the game.

However, none of that matters with knowing if something is written poorly or in an elegant fashion. We can understand it could be both clear and nice to read. They don't need to be mutually exclusive ideals.

The only thing silly is how much some people can't handle the idea of GW getting any guff from something that is easy to do better. We had one poster write a better, easier to read version of the rule just pages back.

The rule shouldn't need bullet points, they should be a bonus and not a way to avoid the poor writing skills of professional game designers from the premiere company of miniature games. It's supposed to be an expensive, high quality product, that is why it costs so much. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to do better in that department. Most people after all by the models for the game. I mean someone can argue that but I don't think GW would with how many rule books they keep burning and churning out there.

I think being an armchair quarterback is much easier than being the person who has to determine how to articulate the concept. It's easy when someone lays out the groundwork, it's a different thing to take a concept and articulate it. So no, I'm sorry, I have serious doubts. And no one is saying anything about not being able to criticize GW, I haven't said that, and neither has anyone else I've read.

These rules, all of them that we have read have been easy to read and pretty simple. I literally don't know what else GW can do to make it a bit easier, outside of bullet points, which, they are already doing. I also don't think that there is a problem with setting reasonable expectations, but so far, the biggest thing everyone has to bitch about is the way a rule is written because it doesn't sound elegant? These aren't critiques of the design of the rules, these are nitpicking bitchfests.

Sure it's always easier to be an arm chair quarterback but that doesn't make some of criticism accurate and on point all the same. That doesn't also mean some here couldn't and wouldn't do better than they do. As well, all we're bitching on as you put it, is the fact that it's cumbersome to read and could be written by someone who is an actual writer in a fashion to express their intent without feeling like a chore to read it. That is literally it, if you like the quality good for you, some people don't. Deciding to jump on someones opinion because you don't agree then complain their dislikes are nitpicks is just like your opinion man. These still end up as critiques if you agree with them or not.

ERJAK wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

You realize just because people aren't a games designer doesn't mean they couldn't be yes ? As people we all made choices, went down paths to find us on the road we currently walk down. You do also realize most games designers if not all are avid gamers themselves, hence why they then become the game designers. I'm willing to bet a great many here, even folk I disagree with could do the same if not better job than GWs pro crack team of rule super men. You do also realize you can not be something and yet still have a valid point of view on its merit or short comings. Like for instance, I'm not a musician but I know the soothing sound of juicy farts onto a drum is pretty crap music. Etc, etc.

Where is it placed only if you do the act in question can you have any actual good opinion on it and/or idea that it sucks or not ? I'd go so far as to say most people on here probably ( before the virus anyways ) play many more games than these crack rules designers. I may disagree with my fellow Dakkas a good amount but I stand by them with their ability to understand the game many of us have played for in my case longer than I'd like to admit. At some point all of that time spent does give us some ability to judge what is good or bad in the game.

However, none of that matters with knowing if something is written poorly or in an elegant fashion. We can understand it could be both clear and nice to read. They don't need to be mutually exclusive ideals.

The only thing silly is how much some people can't handle the idea of GW getting any guff from something that is easy to do better. We had one poster write a better, easier to read version of the rule just pages back.

The rule shouldn't need bullet points, they should be a bonus and not a way to avoid the poor writing skills of professional game designers from the premiere company of miniature games. It's supposed to be an expensive, high quality product, that is why it costs so much. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to do better in that department. Most people after all by the models for the game. I mean someone can argue that but I don't think GW would with how many rule books they keep burning and churning out there.

That first sentence is pretty ridiculous, not gonna lie. 'Just because I've never been an underwater oil pipeline welder doesn't mean I couldn't do it!' Experience doing something is a big deal, especially with something like game design where 99% of the nuance and difficulty comes in putting a finished product in front of someone who isn't YOU.

Notice how not everyone who is an avid gamer is also a game designer? Maybe because those skills are related but not necessarily transferable? And no, you couldn't do what they do, not without practice. Not because they're amazing, but because you've not put in the hours they have. A mediocre game designer who's shipped even a mediocre product is ultimately leagues ahead of 90% of the community. We operate in the lofty position of critique, where we don't have to build the full picture, we can just point out a few missed strokes and pat ourselves on the back. Sure, that criticism has value, but keep in mind that it's a metric feth-ton easier than actually making the fething game.

And I'm sorry, but have you read any legal or technical writing ever? NOTHING that is designed not to be abused is elegant, or easy to read. I'd also take this moment to argue that it is ultimately VERY clear what they're saying in these new rules, it's just become closer to legaleze as a result of like 150 pages of FAQs needing to be put in place over the past few years to cover edge cases the more 'easy to read' rules missed.

GW gets mostly guff. Even people who like GW and have liked 8th still have plenty of gak to say about them. I, for example, still think none of them in the studio are good enough at the game to understand the implications of a lot of their unit level rules and points changes, and that that fact is obvious in every codex that comes out.

Bullet points are great. The rule prevents loopholes, the bullet points simplify it down for mouth breathers. It's rules writing symbiosis. It's not poor writing, it's writing to intent. They could have just said what they bullet points said, like they've done in the past, and then we would have had 14 pages of Q&A on edge cases and ignorance like we had through most of 8th for rules like this. They've done fine. In fact, these are the best written rules GW has come out with, probably ever. Inelegant, sure, but they cover everything they need to cover and help force people to relearn reading comprehension. I call that a win win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Yea, that's fair. I think ultimately so many people just buy in anyways that there's no boycott that would change things dramatically.

It's like in Fight Club -- cost of technical writer > cost of FAQs = we don't get a technical writer. Best way is to just keep pushing them, but hopefully they also let up on the crazy release schedule (probably won't).

Also, it's not like a technical writer automatically guarantees a perfect end product. Especially when they've got to do hundreds of pages of interlocking, but totally disparate rules. Is the new direction in rules writing perfect? No, duh. But they've started to use consistent terminology and are writing to not let loopholes through. It's a start.

At least we won't have to deal with gak like people arguing librarius conclave librarians can cast every one of the 15 spells they know because 'Mastery level DETERMINES the amount of powers a psyker can cast' (as opposed to 'is equal to'.). Who else remembers THAT wonderful discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

GW could write clear intuitive rules, avoid restating other rules when describing a given rule, and hire a technical editor. Expecting a company whose products are atrociously overpriced to do their jobs well is not having "nitpicking btichfests."

There's always room for improvement. I'll take the improved rules before I worry about technical writing. I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

People do need to tone down the rhetoric. I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

This is funny when a quote of you using rhetoric that needs to be toned down and caring about what goes on within GW is like...right there bro.

So now after what 3 decades they want to do fine tuned loop hole free rules ? How much you want to bet even with the painful writing there are plenty or sloppy loopholes, exploits and abuses needing fixes ? I will also add, this isn't a legal document ! This is a game, designed to be fun. They can make the rules easy to read, elegant and also free of loopholes I can't believe there are some people claiming otherwise. I'd rather the section be longer but flow better and be loop hole free then a crammed, jammed pain. This is a game, designed to be fun, not a legal adventure where my opponent will shout.." Objection ! " in a most heroic fashion because he's citing the Fred vs Richard ruling of 2021.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

In which case the problem isn't how people go about the criticism, the problem is with you, for choosing to be offended on behalf of this billion dollar faceless corporation. Games Workshop certainly does not go out of their way to "see what issues I'm dealing with" when they charge outrageous prices for these rules and models. So long as they're making hand over fist selling this product, the people that pay money for the product have every right to criticize it in whatever fashion they deem appropriate.

In any case, at bare minimum, "i don't have an issue with what you said, I don't like how you said it" is a pointless argument to make because it's just whining about whining, which is hardly any more constructive then the complaining you're trying to quell.

Probably worth remembering that we’re promised illustrations fo help explain the terrain rules.

One imagines they’ll help somewhat.

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Yea, that's fair. I think ultimately so many people just buy in anyways that there's no boycott that would change things dramatically.

It's like in Fight Club -- cost of technical writer > cost of FAQs = we don't get a technical writer. Best way is to just keep pushing them, but hopefully they also let up on the crazy release schedule (probably won't).

Also, it's not like a technical writer automatically guarantees a perfect end product. Especially when they've got to do hundreds of pages of interlocking, but totally disparate rules.

You do know that's basically what a technical writer does? They have 2 main jobs: firstly to write the individual rules text in as unambiguously as possible and secondly organise the text in such a way to facilitate the first goal. Those hundreds of pages of interlocking rules would likely be reduced substantially by a competent technical writer. For example, just in the two terrain rules GW have released so far they've re-used wordy definitions for lines and determining the height of terrain. Even if those only pop up twice in the rules (and I suspect it's a hell of a lot more) a competent technical writer would likely define those terms elsewhere first, in order to keep the text of the rules much cleaner.