jamesk1973 wrote: Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?
No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.
You can't dismiss any interpretation of the rules that's different from your own as a "house rule" because it's not. A house rule is specifically implemented by a gaming group, as opposed to how that gaming group interprets rules.
jamesk1973 wrote: Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?
No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.
You can't dismiss any interpretation of the rules that's different from your own as a "house rule" because it's not. A house rule is specifically implemented by a gaming group, as opposed to how that gaming group interprets rules.
Still doesn't matter - the rule in question requires a group to interpret the rules a certain way, because the way they are written is vague and not explicit. Peregrine is absolutely right: Just because you can infer what you think the rule means (aka RAI) doesn't excuse GW for not making it clear from the start (RAW).
To stick with the better example, the psychic powers rule is vague. It gives no indication whatsoever that it's equal to your mastery level; that's inferred and the generally assumed response, but it's not definite because the rule is poorly written and, therefore, up to interpretation.
jamesk1973 wrote: Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?
No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.
Off topic: I had a guy tell me my unit, on a second floor against a railing. Could not see his unit up against the wall on the ground floor becuase the model in in cabable of bending over. we were in earshoot of the TO who laughed out loud and said 'are you serious'.
Although I saw what the guy was talking about, but to use the LOS rules so rigidly like your example and mine is absurd. If they were alive they simply would have looked over the railing and shot them as they came to the building wall. As for no eyes one would have to imagine...to be battle effective they would need some other type of sight: Psychic, echo location, etc.
jamesk1973 wrote: Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?
No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.
Off topic: I had a guy tell me my unit, on a second floor against a railing. Could not see his unit up against the wall on the ground floor becuase the model in in cabable of bending over. we were in earshoot of the TO who laughed out loud and said 'are you serious'.
Although I saw what the guy was talking about, but to use the LOS rules so rigidly like your example and mine is absurd. If they were alive they simply would have looked over the railing and shot them as they came to the building wall. As for no eyes one would have to imagine...to be battle effective they would need some other type of sight: Psychic, echo location, etc.
That's the point he was making - the rules (for LOS at the time) didn't say how to treat models with no eyes, so it was 100% reliant on interpretation.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: ...to be battle effective they would need some other type of sight: Psychic, echo location, etc.
Well yes, of course they do. But to be functional in the game, the rules either need to define what that 'other type of sight' is, or they need to make it irrelevant (as GW has finally done with 7th Ed.
Off topic: I had a guy tell me my unit, on a second floor against a railing. Could not see his unit up against the wall on the ground floor becuase the model in in cabable of bending over. we were in earshoot of the TO who laughed out loud and said 'are you serious'.
Although I saw what the guy was talking about, but to use the LOS rules so rigidly like your example and mine is absurd. If they were alive they simply would have looked over the railing and shot them as they came to the building wall. As for no eyes one would have to imagine...to be battle effective they would need some other type of sight: Psychic, echo location, etc.
The fact is that in several editions you had to draw LoS from the position of each model in the firing unit to the position of each model in the target unit (Real Line Of Sight) in order to determine which models could fire, which could be hit, and whether the target unit as a whole got any cover -- for instance if firing through a forest you had to check whether the trees individually blocked LoS between individual models.
You also had to take account of whether the bits of models you could see were legal targets. Things like banners and tall horns were not counted as targettable, the body and limbs were counted, but maybe not big wings if they were very cool looking, and in some cases there might be arguments.
All the above was an utter faff but that is how the rules were, without worrying about "eyes", and this Real LoS looking was to be done from the positions of the models as they stood after movement, not 3 seconds earlier when "realistically" they would have been in different positions, or 3 seconds later when they realise they can't see a target and shift position slightly.
This is an example of the abstraction of the game. I would argue there are better ways of doing it, but that is how GW chose to do it, and it would disallow your chaps from looking over the edge of the balcony.
After playing a feth-ton of Dawn of War again - all of DoW2 and now DoW1 + exp1 + exp2 to get into the spirit of my new Blood Ravens army, and then some space marine for good measure, I really wish GW would use their license more for things like this. Feth their table top game, 40k the license is so much more than that. If GW wants to win, they need to partner with some good devs and churn out some more good games like this - or some good visual media, 40k would make a good animated series imo. Relic did some amazing work, Creative Assembly has the potential to do so too... but also the potential to do gak. I got Space Hulk in the humble bundle recently... direct translation of tabletop to PC is a huge waste. It's... barely playable, if it wasn't set in 40k I wouldn't have gone past the second mission. More good PC games please GW and less gak!!!
KommissarKarl wrote: You can't dismiss any interpretation of the rules that's different from your own as a "house rule" because it's not. A house rule is specifically implemented by a gaming group, as opposed to how that gaming group interprets rules.
Of course I can dismiss it, because it IS a house rule. There is no amount of "interpretation" that will allow you to draw LOS from a Tau gun drone in 6th edition, you have to change the rule to do something that is not in any way included in the published rule. And that is a house rule.
Kilkrazy wrote: The fact is that in several editions you had to draw LoS from the position of each model in the firing unit to the position of each model in the target unit (Real Line Of Sight) in order to determine which models could fire, which could be hit, and whether the target unit as a whole got any cover -- for instance if firing through a forest you had to check whether the trees individually blocked LoS between individual models.
You also had to take account of whether the bits of models you could see were legal targets. Things like banners and tall horns were not counted as targettable, the body and limbs were counted, but maybe not big wings if they were very cool looking, and in some cases there might be arguments.
All the above was an utter faff but that is how the rules were, without worrying about "eyes", and this Real LoS looking was to be done from the positions of the models as they stood after movement, not 3 seconds earlier when "realistically" they would have been in different positions, or 3 seconds later when they realise they can't see a target and shift position slightly.
This is an example of the abstraction of the game. I would argue there are better ways of doing it, but that is how GW chose to do it, and it would disallow your chaps from looking over the edge of the balcony.
I liked how one edition (fourth maybe?) had three size levels and used the area of the base or the hull for those without bases, which was nicknamed the "magic cylinder" and I loved LOS in that edition because it didn't treat models like static statues. Many people hated it because it was too abstract, and others just preferred using the model's pose, but I thought it was the easiest one to play with because it didn't involve a whole lot of bending over and arguing.
snooggums wrote: I liked how one edition (fourth maybe?) had three size levels and used the area of the base or the hull for those without bases, which was nicknamed the "magic cylinder" and I loved LOS in that edition because it didn't treat models like static statues. Many people hated it because it was too abstract, and others just preferred using the model's pose, but I thought it was the easiest one to play with because it didn't involve a whole lot of bending over and arguing.
It was 4th edition, and it was a half-measure that only applied when LOS involved area terrain or close combats, although some players extended it to cover the whole game (either because they preferred it that way or they misunderstood the LOS rules). And it caused no end of arguing as a result.
snooggums wrote: I liked how one edition (fourth maybe?) had three size levels and used the area of the base or the hull for those without bases, which was nicknamed the "magic cylinder" and I loved LOS in that edition because it didn't treat models like static statues. Many people hated it because it was too abstract, and others just preferred using the model's pose, but I thought it was the easiest one to play with because it didn't involve a whole lot of bending over and arguing.
It was 4th edition, and it was a half-measure that only applied when LOS involved area terrain or close combats, although some players extended it to cover the whole game (either because they preferred it that way or they misunderstood the LOS rules). And it caused no end of arguing as a result.
Append that last sentence to "...because in my personal experience it didn't involve a whole lot of bending over and arguing about what a model could see." It is possible that the plethora of area terrain usage made it easier for my games as well, but I also prefer some abstraction for terrain because it makes placement of models in terrain easier as well.
The 4th edition rule had the "magic cylinder" but as far as I remember the height of the cylinder was judged by the actual height of the model (ignoring banners and plumes, etc.)
Area terrain was treated as a "blob" with edges and height defined by the placement of the tree models.
Linear terrain was handled differently
Vehicles were handled differently.
People adapted this with house usages because it was rather messy and impractical, rather than because it was unclear.
The TLoS rule has the advantage of establishing a single mechanism, though it is not a very practical one given the variability of model shapes and designs.
Kilkrazy wrote: The 4th edition rule had the "magic cylinder" but as far as I remember the height of the cylinder was judged by the actual height of the model (ignoring banners and plumes, etc.)
No, 4th had arbitrary size categories (infantry Size 1, large models Size 2, vehicles Size 3) to denote height where area terrain or close combats were involved and used true LOS the rest of the time.
3rd ed used true LOS, but models blocked LOS up to twice their height. Because reasons.
Peregrine wrote: There is no amount of "interpretation" that will allow you to draw LOS from a Tau gun drone in 6th edition, you have to change the rule to do something that is not in any way included in the published rule. And that is a house rule.
But the Tau gun drones have that glaring eye-like optical sensor under their trashcan cover plate in the front part of the model..!
Kilkrazy wrote: The 4th edition rule had the "magic cylinder" but as far as I remember the height of the cylinder was judged by the actual height of the model (ignoring banners and plumes, etc.)
No, 4th had arbitrary size categories (infantry Size 1, large models Size 2, vehicles Size 3) to denote height where area terrain or close combats were involved and used true LOS the rest of the time.
3rd ed used true LOS, but models blocked LOS up to twice their height. Because reasons.
and caused no end of arguments. I remember a discussion on here about, probably, the FAQ and "magic cylinder" interpretation that some people had. ANd people classifying everything,m including hills, as area terrain making Tau JSJ even more ridiculous. Oh, and skimmers didnt block friendly LOS. because reasons.
I've yet to really have any arguments about LOS in any game. Sometimes requires your opponent to come round to your side of the table, and to (pre 7th) not simply assume LOS HAD to be reciprocal.
Klerych wrote: But the Tau gun drones have that glaring eye-like optical sensor under their trashcan cover plate in the front part of the model..!
*looks at gun drone model*
Nope. There is nothing that is even close to obviously being an eye/optical sensor/etc. If your defense for your house rule not being a house rule consists of "you can find some random vaguely roundish bit and call it an eye" then you're really getting desperate. Just admit the obvious, the rule as-written is broken and requires house rules to fix it.
I read one of the back pages of the 3rd edition rulebook last night, and if need be I will type it out and post it here. I really hope that is not necessary.
The page was written by Andy Chambers and it talks about the basic philosophy of game design that *PLAYERS* are designed to be given the freedom to interpret and decide on how they WANT to play the game. It specifically states that writing strict and overly detailed rules is not appropriate for the type of game GW was/is trying to create.
Now, there are smart people on this board with smart opinions, and I'm not here to insult or tell anybody they have to LIKE this philosophy or concept or rules......
but being that his is the THIRD edition rulebook that came out over a decade ago, I think it is safe to say that GW isn't going to deliver on the types of demands many of you are making on the rule set. Continued nitpicking on the lack of specificity is evident of a complete oversight of this basic principle. You are barking up the wrong tree. If you have better ideas on how this or that should work, good. Bring your insight to the game and use it with like minded, logical, fair, and rational other people. That's what makes the world go round, is it not?
VanHallan wrote: I read one of the back pages of the 3rd edition rulebook last night, and if need be I will type it out and post it here. I really hope that is not necessary.
The page was written by Andy Chambers and it talks about the basic philosophy of game design that *PLAYERS* are designed to be given the freedom to interpret and decide on how they WANT to play the game. It specifically states that writing strict and overly detailed rules is not appropriate for the type of game GW was/is trying to create.
Now, there are smart people on this board with smart opinions, and I'm not here to insult or tell anybody they have to LIKE this philosophy or concept or rules......
but being that his is the THIRD edition rulebook that came out over a decade ago, I think it is safe to say that GW isn't going to deliver on the types of demands many of you are making on the rule set. Continued nitpicking on the lack of specificity is evident of a complete oversight of this basic principle. You are barking up the wrong tree. If you have better ideas on how this or that should work, good. Bring your insight to the game and use it with like minded, logical, fair, and rational other people. That's what makes the world go round, is it not?
The problem with that idea is that:
1) Unclear rules benefits no one. Even if you don't care they aren't clear, they still don't benefit you. Clear rules, however, do benefit people.
2) Even if you happen to like playing fast and loose with the rules, you can still do that even if the rules are clearly written.
3) For the most part, the sorts of things that are "open to interpretation" aren't the sorts of things that actually add to the game depending on how you interpret it anyway.
If that is genuinely is their philosophy, then it's stupid. Far more likely it just sounds like a bad excuse as to why they don't put any effort in to writing.
150-200 pages? I don't have any rulebooks on my person at the moment. Seems like the rules set is complicated and convoluted enough already as it is without having to add in pages about models that don't have eyes and other absurdities. Again, not saying the rules can't be fixed. Just suggesting people use their own wits to correct errors they believe exist as needed. It's not like we're building bridges here. Screwing up the instructions isn't going to harm anybody.
VanHallan wrote: Seems like the rules set is complicated and convoluted enough already as it is without having to add in pages about models that don't have eyes and other absurdities.
That's the thing, to be clear the rules do NOT have to be increasingly long and convoluted. GW writers write their rules in such an imprecise fashion that we end up with long convoluted rules where shorter more concise rules are entirely possible.
The first time I read the 6th edition rulebook (after being out of the game for a few years) my first though was time and time again "holy gak why did it take them a whole page to explain the rules for blah when a paragraph should be sufficient".
I don't know man. I totally see what you're saying. To me, its like music. Some things make sense to some people and just confuse the gak out of others. The more you try to fix it, the more you try to explain, the more some people understand and the more some people get confused. I try to explain gak to my drummer all the time and end up just wanting to kill him, and I'm sure vice versa.
I'm just saying, GW did acknowledge this years ago, and I think its pretty much a given at this point and RAW is not meant to be the standard of how the game is played. Rules as understood by two or more opposing players and agreed to or rolled for is how this works. If you don't like it, fine.
But people that are bringing this stuff up about LOS are contributing to the problem in their own special way IMO. Maybe I am wrong.
That's because GW's vision of the game has always been a "gaming club" with people who are friends or at least know each other beyond "Jim with the Eldar that's at the store every week", so RAI works better because you can easily come to an agreement.
I think its MORE telling that in over a decade they haven't learned that concise rules are better.
I maintain they like writing rules in a "conversational tone" in the poor attempt at being "entertainment" which with that method allows for all kinds of sloppy wording.
I think they should write a very concise, short, rule element and draw a box around it or something to separate it from the extra verbiage that are used to explain it. They do this to a limited extent but need to commit a bit further.
It would also allow for a condensed small book publication with only the rules with no elaboration, for reference it would be refreshing to not play the "spot the specific rule text".
VanHallan wrote: 150-200 pages? I don't have any rulebooks on my person at the moment. Seems like the rules set is complicated and convoluted enough already as it is without having to add in pages about models that don't have eyes and other absurdities. Again, not saying the rules can't be fixed. Just suggesting people use their own wits to correct errors they believe exist as needed. It's not like we're building bridges here. Screwing up the instructions isn't going to harm anybody.
Compare and contrast..
"To establish line of sight, draw a straight line from the model's eyes to any visible part of the target model. Exclude items such as banner poles"
Vs
"To establish line of sight, draw a straight line from any part of the model to any visible part of the target model. Exclude items such as banner poles"
Or
"The number of powers a Psyker can cast each turn is dependent on their mastery level."
Vs
"The number of powers a Psyker can attempt to cast each turn is equal to their mastery level."
I've paraphrased from the book, but the gist is there.
Increased clarity does not require increased volume.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote: That's because GW's vision of the game has always been a "gaming club" with people who are friends or at least know each other beyond "Jim with the Eldar that's at the store every week", so RAI works better because you can easily come to an agreement.
I think its MORE telling that in over a decade they haven't learned that concise rules are better.
Exactly, and rather than adapt to the fact that, for many, this isn't their gaming reality, they continue to cut the toes off the foot that is their customer base in order to fit the glass slipper of their concept of what 40Kshould be.
The same attitude is visible in their product release schedule, where they consistently release new kits that nobody wanted when there are many kits and sculpts that people are extremely keen to see re-done.
As I've said before
"They'll buy what we make, we don't make what they'll buy."
Although, to balance what is a fairly critical post somewhat, I think it is possible to see, both in some of the changes in 7th and other factors, that they are slowly, and incrementally, changing in ways that have been demanded fairly consistently on boards like this for some time. Whether they are motivated, and capable enough to keep doing it only time will tell.
You may have a point, but you're still trying to teach a pig to sing here.
If you want to waste time griping over a bunch of minutiae, that's your choice. I would rather sort it out with my friends or gaming group and/or play by house rules. That is what GW intends. If there are better games out there, play them.
I don't know what any of this griping seeks to accomplish, but in my view all it does accomplish is an ever changing and never satisfying reboot of the rules every few years.
Its impossible to keep things simple because people ask for clarification on things that should either go without saying or simply flat out aren't of vital importance. Just my opinion.
Don't get me wrong, I think that GW's idea of the game is a fine one WHEN IT WORKS. Just they try to force that on everyone and not care if it doesn't work.
Perfect examples clearly illustrating the problem Azreal. Nothing at all is gained from the current lack of clarity and plenty is lost throughout all instances of it. That is just one of the problems with GW rules.
Not sure what you're getting at, but last I checked the Department of Taxation wasn't charging you $85 for the instructions on how to make a sandwich, $50 for the recipe for each sandwich, on top of hundreds for the ingredients to make each sandwich.
The rules for a game should be laid out clearly, concisely, and without ambiguity, especially when you are being charged more than virtually every other rulebook for games out there.
VanHallan wrote: You may have a point, but you're still trying to teach a pig to sing here.
If you want to waste time griping over a bunch of minutiae, that's your choice. I would rather sort it out with my friends or gaming group and/or play by house rules. That is what GW intends. If there are better games out there, play them.
I don't know what any of this griping seeks to accomplish, but in my view all it does accomplish is an ever changing and never satisfying reboot of the rules every few years.
Its impossible to keep things simple because people ask for clarification on things that should either go without saying or simply flat out aren't of vital importance. Just my opinion.
Just as if you want to let the market leading, premium priced, producer of the "finest toy soldiers in the world" abdicate their responsibility for producing a product with quality commensurate with the price they ask, then that's your choice.
I for one have taken personal action, my spend on GW product is barely 10% what it was even 3 years ago, but I continue to play, and enjoy, 40k.
I will, however, continue to discuss the flaws in the game which prevent me enjoying the game more and if some of the points I raise in a public discussion such as this make one person pause before dumping more cash into GW's products, or, even more unlikely, gets read and taken on board by somebody with the power to influence, then all the better.
The only way to send the message that GW need to shape up is to attack their bottom line. Enjoy the game? Hate the game? Fine, go right on ahead and set your stall out (and no doubt then spend pages defending your view from those who disagree) but the only sort of player, and I suspect we have more than a few posting here regularly, I have a problem with are the ones who post long and loud about how gak the game is here, before dumping ££££ every month on the latest product at full retail.
VanHallan wrote: "For our general elucidation: "Sandwiches include cold and hot sandwiches of every kind that are prepared and ready to be eaten, whether made on bread, on bagels, on rolls, in pitas, in wraps, or otherwise, and regardless of the filling or number of layers." Fair enough, that seems pretty clear. But that wasn't enough for the Department of Sandwiches, which then went on to list possible types of sandwiches, "as simple as a buttered bagel or roll, or as elaborate as a six-foot, toasted submarine sandwich."
Types of taxable sandwiches include: BLTs, PB&J, gyros, breakfast sandwiches, Reubens, cheese-steaks and so forth. Nothing shocking there. Hot Dogs, sausages on buns, "fish fry" sandwiches, burgers and bagel sandwiches (either with spreads or fillings) also make the cut. Also, burritos. I guess that's like a wrap?
We called the Department of Dagwoods for some insight on how this list came to be and spokesperson Cary Ziter was kind enough to illuminate the finer points of The Great Sandwich List. "There's a long list of different tax bulletins on different subjects that are meant to give the general public and merchants and business people guidance as to what is taxable and what is not taxable," Ziter explained. "It's trying to stress the point that all sandwiches are generally subject to sales tax, that's the message you want to get across. So if you're running a bodega in the Bronx or a grocery store in Queens or a small gas station in Buffalo you have an understanding of what the law covers."
So what about items not included on the list, like tacos. Are tacos sandwiches? "What's that place down in Times Square? Chevy's? The big Mexican restaurant down there? If you order the three taco special, that's going to be a sales taxable event and it's going to be charged whatever the rate of sales tax is in NYC [Ed. Note: it's 4.5%]," Ziter illuminated. THE TACOS ARE TAXABLE, PEOPLE!?
Game rules should be written using technical writing since they are essentially a description of a number of steps that a player needs to perform to arrive at a determined result.
Laws on the other hand, are written using legal writing that more often than not, you need a law degree to correctly read and interpret them.
Do you understand the differences between the two? Both of them are in no way comparable to each other.
WayneTheGame wrote: Not sure what you're getting at, but last I checked the Department of Taxation wasn't charging you $85 for the instructions on to make sandwiches, $50 for the recipe for each sandwich, on top of hundreds for the ingredients to make each sandwich.
The rules for a game should be laid out clearly, concisely, and without ambiguity, especially when you are being charged more than virtually every other rulebook for games out there.
basically that layers upon layers of rule making and specificity only leads to more confusion, overlap, and most importantly the abolition of basic use of common sense and human reason.
People need to learn how to sort things out amongst themselves, in principle. People that constantly look to entities of authority to make specific rules about how they play the game of 40k or life are in large part responsible for the nonsense that exists and comes from those entities.
VanHallan wrote: "For our general elucidation: "Sandwiches include cold and hot sandwiches of every kind that are prepared and ready to be eaten, whether made on bread, on bagels, on rolls, in pitas, in wraps, or otherwise, and regardless of the filling or number of layers." Fair enough, that seems pretty clear. But that wasn't enough for the Department of Sandwiches, which then went on to list possible types of sandwiches, "as simple as a buttered bagel or roll, or as elaborate as a six-foot, toasted submarine sandwich."
Types of taxable sandwiches include: BLTs, PB&J, gyros, breakfast sandwiches, Reubens, cheese-steaks and so forth. Nothing shocking there. Hot Dogs, sausages on buns, "fish fry" sandwiches, burgers and bagel sandwiches (either with spreads or fillings) also make the cut. Also, burritos. I guess that's like a wrap?
We called the Department of Dagwoods for some insight on how this list came to be and spokesperson Cary Ziter was kind enough to illuminate the finer points of The Great Sandwich List. "There's a long list of different tax bulletins on different subjects that are meant to give the general public and merchants and business people guidance as to what is taxable and what is not taxable," Ziter explained. "It's trying to stress the point that all sandwiches are generally subject to sales tax, that's the message you want to get across. So if you're running a bodega in the Bronx or a grocery store in Queens or a small gas station in Buffalo you have an understanding of what the law covers."
So what about items not included on the list, like tacos. Are tacos sandwiches? "What's that place down in Times Square? Chevy's? The big Mexican restaurant down there? If you order the three taco special, that's going to be a sales taxable event and it's going to be charged whatever the rate of sales tax is in NYC [Ed. Note: it's 4.5%]," Ziter illuminated. THE TACOS ARE TAXABLE, PEOPLE!?
Yeah, people will go to any lengths to exploit a loophole in tax law, making it necessary to ensure that all bases are covered, and if a loophole is discovered, that an amendment is made to close it.
VanHallan wrote: basically that layers upon layers of rule making and specificity only leads to more confusion, overlap, and most importantly the abolition of basic use of common sense and human reason.
People need to learn how to sort things out amongst themselves, in principle. People that constantly look to entities of authority to make specific rules about how they play the game of 40k or life are in large part responsible for the nonsense that exists and comes from those entities.
Umm no. The writers of the rules (i.e. GW) have an obligation to make sure the rules aren't convoluted or confusing. What they do instead is write something that sounds fine but is actually vague, on the assumption that people are just going to apply common sense. While that isn't a bad idea in and of itself, it's bad for rules because you get different interpretations. It's not a question about whether you can apply common sense, it's the point that applying common sense is a fix to unclear rules, not something that should be considered the norm.
basically that layers upon layers of rule making and specificity only leads to more confusion, overlap, and most importantly the abolition of basic use of common sense and human reason.
People need to learn how to sort things out amongst themselves, in principle. People that constantly look to entities of authority to make specific rules about how they play the game of 40k or life are in large part responsible for the nonsense that exists and comes from those entities.
I think you're confusing a fairly simple want of a cleaner ruleset with some sort of existential crisis people have with regards to authority or order.
Look, its simple.
If we're going to pay as much as GW wants, we want rules that are simple, clear, and lack ambiguity. These are all easily achievable goals that nearly every other game has achieved.
It has nothing to do with looking for authority, or abolishing common sense, or the taxation of sandwiches.
WayneTheGame wrote: Not sure what you're getting at, but last I checked the Department of Taxation wasn't charging you $85 for the instructions on to make sandwiches, $50 for the recipe for each sandwich, on top of hundreds for the ingredients to make each sandwich.
The rules for a game should be laid out clearly, concisely, and without ambiguity, especially when you are being charged more than virtually every other rulebook for games out there.
basically that layers upon layers of rule making and specificity only leads to more confusion, overlap, and most importantly the abolition of basic use of common sense and human reason.
People need to learn how to sort things out amongst themselves, in principle. People that constantly look to entities of authority to make specific rules about how they play the game of 40k or life are in large part responsible for the nonsense that exists and comes from those entities.
Nope, you are wrong once again. Have you tried any other miniature game that is not made by GW? Because in every single one that I've tried, I've found much less ambiguity than in 40k or WHFB...
So if these other, smaller companies, can do it (and asking for much less money than GW), why can't the industry leader accomplish the same?
Basically, do you not understand the difference between these two sentences (paraphrased from 7th edition):
1) The number of powers a psyker may cast per turn is dependent upon their mastery level.
2) The number of powers a pysker may cast per turn is equal to their mastery level.
These are NOT the same thing. The first requires the assumption that "dependent upon" is the same as "equal to" which, while that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, is factually incorrect - if I were your opponent I might have a different interpretation entirely, or think that there was something omitted (a table, for example) that outlines the dependency. That's not to say I wouldn't agree with your interpretation (I do), but your interpretation is just that: Your reading of the rules and determing what you *think* it means, because the rule itself is unclear and can be left up to interpretation in the first place.
The second requires no assumptions whatsoever; it's clearly spelled out what the rule means and how to use it. There is no ambiguity. I can't say "Maybe they left out a table by mistake" because there is only one conclusion that can be inferred from the wording.
The point of rules is to minimize conflicts and arguments. Leaving a rule up to interpretation, no matter how much "common sense" might factor into that interpretation (as with the above example), is a bad thing. All it takes is for one person to have a different interpretation than you have, and you have a rules dispute that needs to be resolved in some way. Clear, concise rules with no ambiguity remove the need for a rules dispute.
The point is, by now, it should be abundantly clear that GW has no DESIRE to make a simplified clear concise be all end all rulebook. They WANT you to interpret it and have fun however you deem it appropriate. They aren't trying to please you people. They're trying to get a bunch of kids to buy models and play with each other. That's the extent of their purpose when it comes to rules writing.
You can talk about obligation and responsibility and whatever else. The only obligation I'm concerned with is the obligation that two players have to play a fun game, treat each other fairly, and enjoy themselves without litigating the ever loving hell out of the rulebook.
“The truth is that many people set rules to keep from making decisions. Not me. I don’t want to be a manager or a dictator. I want to be a leader—and leadership is ongoing, adjustable, flexible, and dynamic. As such, leaders have to maintain a certain amount of discretion."
That's a quote from Mike K(not gonna bother) the Duke head coach.
I think the people have a hard time when things are left up to them. It really shouldn't be such a problem. Especially in a dice game. ITS UP TO YOU.
7th edition just seems to further solidify that position for GW. unbound, daemons, do whatever you want. This is their philosophy.
VanHallan wrote: The point is, by now, it should be abundantly clear that GW has no DESIRE to make a simplified clear concise be all end all rulebook. They WANT you to interpret it and have fun however you deem it appropriate. They aren't trying to please you people. They're trying to get a bunch of kids to buy models and play with each other. That's the extent of their purpose when it comes to rules writing.
You can talk about obligation and responsibility and whatever else. The only obligation I'm concerned with is the obligation that two players have to play a fun game, treat each other fairly, and enjoy themselves without litigating the ever loving hell out of the rulebook.
“The truth is that many people set rules to keep from making decisions. Not me. I don’t want to be a manager or a dictator. I want to be a leader—and leadership is ongoing, adjustable, flexible, and dynamic. As such, leaders have to maintain a certain amount of discretion."
That's a quote from Mike K(not gonna bother) the Duke head coach.
I think the people have a hard time when things are left up to them. It really shouldn't be such a problem. Especially in a dice game. ITS UP TO YOU.
7th edition just seems to further solidify that position for GW. unbound, daemons, do whatever you want. This is their philosophy.
Cool story bro, then why should I pay them for the highest costing books in the market if I'm supposed to make my own rules?
Not to mention the heaps of fun that everyone has every time that the game has to be stopped for both players to argue with each other for 10 minutes just because they have different interpretations of the same rule... Fun for the whole family that is!
You seem to have pretty low standards when it comes to gaming, more power to you for that. Some of us would like our rules to be better, especially when they have that price tag attached to them. And that is a view point arguably as valid as your own.
VanHallan wrote: I didn't say its a winning philosophy, just that it is their stated philosophy. their demonstrated philosophy.
And what everyone has been saying is that its a very poor philosophy.
Then again, we should all be Forging our Narratives harder, or playing more cinematically, or creating our own random tables to add to the narrative experience of 40k with ambiguous rules so we can spend all of our time pleasantly discussing with our opponent how they interpret the rules.
Truly, its the player's fault for not being telepathic and understanding the exact intent behind every vague rule or contradictory statement.
*Edit* I need to figure out how to get those copyright and trademark symbols.
VanHallan wrote: I didn't say its a winning philosophy, just that it is their stated philosophy. their demonstrated philosophy.
Which is why everyone who disagrees with it needs to withold their business and not continue to reward a poor product with commercial success.
It's perfectly democratic, if the voices on the Internet really aren't representative of how the majority feel, then 40K will go from strength to strength, if the increasing number of dissenting voices, coupled with the unknowable number who might just silently give up and walk away, or simply never start, are actually representative of a wider trend, then we'll see sales start to fall, and that will compel GW to act, or ultimately go bust.
"The number of powers a Psyker can attempt to cast each turn is equal to their mastery level."
This the is issue. The paraphrased portion isn't limiting anything to casting attempts, just the amount of spells used. If you fail to cast something, you've failed to use.
This line here, the bolded portion, changes the entire meaning of the word. You could, with a Level 2 Mastery Level Psyker, attempt to cast 2 spells, fail both and you cannot use anymore. But nowhere in the text does it say that attempting to cast and failing counts as using a spell, you kind of need to use a spell to use a spell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VanHallan wrote: The point is, by now, it should be abundantly clear that GW has no DESIRE to make a simplified clear concise be all end all rulebook. They WANT you to interpret it and have fun however you deem it appropriate. They aren't trying to please you people. They're trying to get a bunch of kids to buy models and play with each other. That's the extent of their purpose when it comes to rules writing.
You can talk about obligation and responsibility and whatever else. The only obligation I'm concerned with is the obligation that two players have to play a fun game, treat each other fairly, and enjoy themselves without litigating the ever loving hell out of the rulebook.
“The truth is that many people set rules to keep from making decisions. Not me. I don’t want to be a manager or a dictator. I want to be a leader—and leadership is ongoing, adjustable, flexible, and dynamic. As such, leaders have to maintain a certain amount of discretion."
That's a quote from Mike K(not gonna bother) the Duke head coach.
I think the people have a hard time when things are left up to them. It really shouldn't be such a problem. Especially in a dice game. ITS UP TO YOU.
7th edition just seems to further solidify that position for GW. unbound, daemons, do whatever you want. This is their philosophy.
This seems to be the larger issue for those against GW. They don't want things up to them, they need to have everything told to them, exactly what they can and cannot do. You'll never convince them that this is a good idea, just like they'll never convince others that it's a bad one.
If I wanted things up to me I would write my own rules. The reason for buying commercial rules is to save the effort of making your own.
GW's rules do not give battlefield leaders discretion for making flexible decisions etc. They just set up situations in which you spend time working out or arguing about what the rules are supposed to say. This is not generalship.
Lobomalo wrote: This seems to be the larger issue for those against GW. They don't want things up to them, they need to have everything told to them, exactly what they can and cannot do. You'll never convince them that this is a good idea, just like they'll never convince others that it's a bad one.
Incorrect,sir. What "those against GW" want is for rules that are written to be clear and concise, so you don't end up with ambiguous rules that require discussion when they arise of just WTF they actually mean, because they are vague.
When the rules cost almost $100 (more with a Codex), then feth yes I want them to say what we can and cannot do; that's what makes them RULES. You don't print out "rules" that require players to decide amongst themselves "How do we determine how many powers a psyker can cast?", and you sure as hell don't charge more than everybody else for them.
Never thought I'd see the day where your ability to argue with your opponent about a different rule interpretation could be considered an aspect of being a tactical and flexible field commander.
Cool story bro, then why should I pay them for the highest costing books in the market if I'm supposed to make my own rules?
Not to mention the heaps of fun that everyone has every time that the game has to be stopped for both players to argue with each other for 10 minutes just because they have different interpretations of the same rule... Fun for the whole family that is!
You seem to have pretty low standards when it comes to gaming, more power to you for that. Some of us would like our rules to be better, especially when they have that price tag attached to them. And that is a view point arguably as valid as your own.
1.) Glad you like my stories. I'm going to write them on paper very clearly and let you know when/what you can pay me for them. Because obviously you'll have no choice in the matter. You like the story, so you have to buy it. Well, you SHOULD buy it because I said so.
2.) People argue over everything. There is no written rule in recorded history that has never caused an argument. The 10 Commandments are argued over- for Christ's sake.
3.) My standards for gaming are not relevant to you, and yours or not relevant to me. That's the whole thing. GW isn't going to do what you want them to do, and the continued insistance from players that GW 'fix' this problem is only perpetuating it and justifying their ability to make new editions every few years. They will not fix it, and every few years they'll put out something new and some people will say, HERE IT IS! they FINALLY FIXED IT! and others will say, OMG this is the WORST thing ever. And GW will laugh, rinse, repeat. I'm not defending them. Just being real.
We all know what GW is after, don't we? Revenue. Its not all that different from taxation after all. Rules are the laws of the 40k universe. And they're always going to cause disagreement and people are going to look for and find loopholes to create and exploit.
VanHallan wrote: people are going to look for and find loopholes to create and exploit.
Almost as though writing a clear and concise ruleset would eliminate the ability for people to find loopholes to create and exploit!
I don't understand how this is such a hard concept to understand. We have a dozen successful and popular miniature games that don't even have a fraction of the rule issues that 40k has. We know its possible to have a ruleset that is tight, workable, and prevents silly loophole shenanigans. Why is it that only a small fraction of 40k players believe this to be either impossible or negative for the game?
The fact that it is POSSIBLE and hasn't been done SHOULD lead you to an understanding that GW's principle PURPOSE is not in line with what you are demanding.
Hello mcfly!?
They have no DESIRE to deliver the ruleset you are asking for. They are following a pattern of behavior that is very predictable by now.
You ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition.
is this good? IMO no. But that's the reality of what is going on.
VanHallan wrote: The fact that it is POSSIBLE and hasn't been done SHOULD lead you to an understanding that GW's principle PURPOSE is not in line with what you are demanding.
Hello mcfly!?
They have no DESIRE to deliver the ruleset you are asking for. They are following a pattern of behavior that is very predictable by now.
You ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition.
is this good? IMO no. But that's the reality of what is going on.
So you acknowledge that they don't deliver a better product with each passing edition, but instead just make lateral shifts designed for the sole purpose of extracting more money from their customers... and you are defending this behaviour why?
"The number of powers a Psyker can attempt to cast each turn is equal to their mastery level."
This the is issue. The paraphrased portion isn't limiting anything to casting attempts, just the amount of spells used. If you fail to cast something, you've failed to use.
This line here, the bolded portion, changes the entire meaning of the word. You could, with a Level 2 Mastery Level Psyker, attempt to cast 2 spells, fail both and you cannot use anymore. But nowhere in the text does it say that attempting to cast and failing counts as using a spell, you kind of need to use a spell to use a spell.
You realise that line is my creation right? And that I deliberately included attempt, because by doing so it totally removes the need to for further explanation. Just as if, if the intention was for successful casts, you could substitute 'attempt' for 'successfully.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VanHallan wrote: The fact that it is POSSIBLE and hasn't been done SHOULD lead you to an understanding that GW's principle PURPOSE is not in line with what you are demanding.
Hello mcfly!?
They have no DESIRE to deliver the ruleset you are asking for. They are following a pattern of behavior that is very predictable by now.
You ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition.
is this good? IMO no. But that's the reality of what is going on.
It should also be noted at this point, that the quote you cited from Mr Chambers is from an era where the codexes cost ~1/3 of their current RRP, and the rulebook a similar percentage.
As you charge a higher price for your product, your customers expectations will, understandably and justifiably, increase.
VanHallan wrote: The fact that it is POSSIBLE and hasn't been done SHOULD lead you to an understanding that GW's principle PURPOSE is not in line with what you are demanding.
Hello mcfly!?
They have no DESIRE to deliver the ruleset you are asking for. They are following a pattern of behavior that is very predictable by now.
You ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition.
is this good? IMO no. But that's the reality of what is going on.
So you acknowledge that they don't deliver a better product with each passing edition, but instead just make lateral shifts designed for the sole purpose of extracting more money from their customers... and you are defending this behaviour why?
I'm not defending it I am stating simple truth. You assume I am in favor of this, I'm not. But I wish people would just stop bitching and figure it out on their own so that every time the GW releases a new edition I'm not forced to use it because every other gamer in town falls into this idiot trap every few years.
VanHallan wrote: The fact that it is POSSIBLE and hasn't been done SHOULD lead you to an understanding that GW's principle PURPOSE is not in line with what you are demanding.
Hello mcfly!?
They have no DESIRE to deliver the ruleset you are asking for. They are following a pattern of behavior that is very predictable by now.
You ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition.
is this good? IMO no. But that's the reality of what is going on.
So you acknowledge that they don't deliver a better product with each passing edition, but instead just make lateral shifts designed for the sole purpose of extracting more money from their customers... and you are defending this behaviour why?
Brand loyalty I'm guessing. Which seems strange since GW doesn't seem to show any concern for its loyal customers.
I mean, if it is true that 40k is losing customers and the recent upticks in the effective cost-to-play are are GW's way of making up for lost revenue, then what they are effectively saying to their loyalist customers is "Hey, thanks for being such an avid fan! Oh and by the way, you can stomach an extra $30-$50 on monthly purchases right? I mean, you're a pretty loyal guy like that."
(EDIT: Admittedly, this is something I think I used to struggle with)
I'm not defending it I am stating simple truth. You assume I am in favor of this, I'm not. But I wish people would just stop bitching and figure it out on their own so that every time the GW releases a new edition I'm not forced to use it because every other gamer in town falls into this idiot trap every few years.
Sorry to say this to you, but the people "bitching" have already figured this out, that is why they are "bitching". You are the one that is part of the problem, because even though you've "figured it out" you are still giving them your money willingly and thus rewarding them for their shoddy product.
Talizvar wrote: I maintain they like writing rules in a "conversational tone" in the poor attempt at being "entertainment" which with that method allows for all kinds of sloppy wording.
I think they should write a very concise, short, rule element and draw a box around it or something to separate it from the extra verbiage that are used to explain it. They do this to a limited extent but need to commit a bit further.
It would also allow for a condensed small book publication with only the rules with no elaboration, for reference it would be refreshing to not play the "spot the specific rule text".
Yep, exactly my thoughts. Most rules could be condensed to a sentence or two where as now they are a paragraph or two. If you really want an in depth explanation, have them distinctly separated so you can see the "rule" part at a glance.
The conversational tone (and this is subjective) is fething painful to read. It makes everything soooo damned long, just give me a clear and succinct rule and be done with it.
No, I haven't bought it. I probably will one the rules only book comes out. And I do buy GW stuff, to be fair, but a lot of it is from ebay.
But, what got me back into the hobby is finding a bunch of old guard models. My cousin and I have bags of bits. Lots and lots of stuff to paint and I really do want to have fun playing the actual game.
At this point, I have 2 rulebooks. 3rd and 6th. And I have 2 options, the way I see it.
1.) I can go to the FLGS, and play with a bunch of people that buy every new edition, make lists that are WAY more competitive than fluffy, most of them seem to have an endless supply of money and time with which to buy massive armies of every available thing and basically get my well painted army's ass kicked by a mass of undercoated and minimally painted stuff, WHICH IS WHAT GW CATERS TO, which I dislike.
2.) Or, I could find a few like minded people that want to paint up a good looking army, hang out maybe once a month and play a game. This is much harder to do but i think its much better. I have a dark eldar player that lives abit away and we might get something going. Or maybe not.
All I'm trying to get at with all my posts is that if we keep asking gw to fix the rules, theyre just going to keep doing what theyre doing.
And I am an inexperienced gamer, but one thing I LOVE is painting models. The new Warhammer models are absolutely incredible, but I can't stomach another GW game. I just can't afford it.
So I'm going to check out kings of war after I finish my 2k imperial fists list. I think many of you are right and i will find the rules much more simple and games therefore more enjoyable.
There is a clear problem with the game when a player has to call a new flgs before showing up to find out the house rules. I have all but given up and sold off all but one army. When I travel now I bring 75 points of warmachine and 100 or so points of X-wing.
Ever since 7th came out the first freaking hour at my local club is spent debating rules and applying new rules if the previous house rules are not liked by everyone.
This is clearly a broken system. I can't believe they charged us 100.00 for this gak. Every other system I play charges less than half for their brb and I can show up and play any where and know what the rules will be.
All I'm trying to get at with all my posts is that if we keep asking gw to fix the rules, theyre just going to keep doing what theyre doing.
GW isn't releasing new editions because the players are asking for anything. They are releasing new editions because they have, until now, been a sure fire way to increase an otherwise falling revenue. Even if the entire player base told them that the rules were great and no change needed to happen, they would still keep releasing new editions.
GW cannot win because it is painfully obvious the company is run by people who have little interest in gaming.
If they released a new model or BRB or codex and bothered to explain why, we may not always agree but could respect it if done from a gaming perspective rather than revenue generation (which we automatically assume).
No matter what you have to say, honest, good intentions, genuine attempt to help: if it is presented badly it will not be readily accepted. Since it appears that anything we have to say as customers is actively avoided "voice of customer" is lost and also their emotional "investment" into the company.
Love the phrase I see bouncing around from multiple companies "By gamers, for gamers". If only GW could do that.
Players are no longer gamers, but "hobbyists" You no longer have an "army" or a "force", you have a "collection" (of Citadel Miniatures) You don't play the game, you "forge a narrative" and enjoy the "GW Experience". I'm pretty sure the 40k book even refers to 40k as a "cooperative experience" or some nonsense, rather than a wargame.
Players are no longer gamers, but "hobbyists"
You no longer have an "army" or a "force", you have a "collection" (of Citadel Miniatures)
You don't play the game, you "forge a narrative" and enjoy the "GW Experience". I'm pretty sure the 40k book even refers to 40k as a "cooperative experience" or some nonsense, rather than a wargame.
All of which is language designed to feed back into the idea that GW is not a rules-making company, not a game-making company, and not a story-making company, but a models-making company. It's a way to justify their shoddy editing, poor play-testing, atrocious game balance and laissez-faire attitude towards correcting their mistakes, which leads to requiring the players to do all of that work for them... which can work out fine if the only people you play with is a small circle of friends, but many (most?) players seem to play in local clubs or in circuits where there's a fairly steady influx of new players from different regions or different places, who may not be aware of the local house rules or local meta. So these players (both the new arrivals and the "locals") are constantly having to review their house rules and tone down, or tone up, their lists to maintain even a semblance of balance in their local meta.
40K is really the only game of its type that requires all of this futzing about, and that is entirely GW's fault.
Psienesis wrote: All of which is language designed to feed back into the idea that GW is not a rules-making company, not a game-making company, and not a story-making company, but a models-making company. It's a way to justify their shoddy editing, poor play-testing, atrocious game balance and laissez-faire attitude towards correcting their mistakes, which leads to requiring the players to do all of that work for them... which can work out fine if the only people you play with is a small circle of friends, but many (most?) players seem to play in local clubs or in circuits where there's a fairly steady influx of new players from different regions or different places, who may not be aware of the local house rules or local meta. So these players (both the new arrivals and the "locals") are constantly having to review their house rules and tone down, or tone up, their lists to maintain even a semblance of balance in their local meta.
40K is really the only game of its type that requires all of this futzing about, and that is entirely GW's fault.
Precisely. Everything about the way they present is IMO disparaging. If I buy a Tau Riptide, I'm not buying the model to field in my Tau Army, I'm adding it to my collection. I can pick from my collection for a battle, etc. it's disgusting. I think they seem to think the UK style of the gaming club is everywhere else; having to house rule things is fine (although not optimal) in an established club where you have "club rules" for league night and whatnot, because everyone agrees to them as part of the club and you can let new people know about it before they buy things.
In a largely pickup game crowd though as most stores in the US are, that doesn't work. It's very rare for a store to have its own set of "store rules", since you don't always get the same people coming in all the time and sometimes someone is just passing through or on vacation and happened to bring their miniatures, or they're visiting a new store because they're in the area. Hell I could even see a standard set of rules for leagues, but not every game is a "league" game especially at a store where you have a weekly "miniatures night" where people can show up to play.
KommissarKarl wrote: You can't dismiss any interpretation of the rules that's different from your own as a "house rule" because it's not. A house rule is specifically implemented by a gaming group, as opposed to how that gaming group interprets rules.
Of course I can dismiss it, because it IS a house rule. There is no amount of "interpretation" that will allow you to draw LOS from a Tau gun drone in 6th edition, you have to change the rule to do something that is not in any way included in the published rule. And that is a house rule.
The Line of Sight rule very specifically tells you that a model can only shoot what it can see. If you honestly don't have the common sense to draw line of sight from the Tau Gun Shield's guns rather than eyes (because it doesn't have eyes) then I would insist that you also can't draw line of sight from any demon model whatsoever - since they are immatereal and therefore incapable of having the actual biological entities of "eyes". Similarly tyranids probably don't have actual eyes as we would know them.
Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.
Except, you haven't refuted his assertions have you?
All you've done is argue an oversight in the rules is easily fixed by the application of a little logic and common sense. Something that wasn't really up for debate.
What you haven't done is acknowledge that any action you as a player, or group of players, do that deviate from the rules as written is a de facto house rule. Modifying the rules as written to better suit how you want the game to play is the living, breathing definition of a house rule.
Besides, if you wish to be really facetious, models don't have eyes, they're manufactured from inorganic materials and have no biological functions whatsoever.
KommissarKarl wrote: Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.
The issue of LOS in itself isn't a problem, it's the point that the rules are vague so you have to interpret them, and demonstrating why rules should NOT be up to interpretation. That's the point. Nobody gives a flying feth about the LOS rule in particular, it's just to illustrate how having poorly-worded rules that are left to interpretation causes you to assume/interpret things a specific way, and then hope that others see it your way.
KommissarKarl wrote: Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.
The issue of LOS in itself isn't a problem, it's the point that the rules are vague so you have to interpret them, and demonstrating why rules should NOT be up to interpretation. That's the point. Nobody gives a flying feth about the LOS rule in particular, it's just to illustrate how having poorly-worded rules that are left to interpretation causes you to assume/interpret things a specific way, and then hope that others see it your way.
Well it's hard to reason with you since all of your assumptions are based on the premise that the wording is vague, presumably to a large enough extent for it to be an issue for you. I do not consider the rules overall to be vague, though I daresay I could find some instances of vagueness if I tried hard enough. Regardless a few people with the same opinion doesn't make it fact - unless you have actual objective evidence that a majority - or at least the majority of a large enough, statistically significant sample size - considers the 40k rulebook/army books to be vague and badly written, then all you are doing is shouting your own opinion over and over again.
KommissarKarl wrote: Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.
The issue of LOS in itself isn't a problem, it's the point that the rules are vague so you have to interpret them, and demonstrating why rules should NOT be up to interpretation. That's the point. Nobody gives a flying feth about the LOS rule in particular, it's just to illustrate how having poorly-worded rules that are left to interpretation causes you to assume/interpret things a specific way, and then hope that others see it your way.
Well it's hard to reason with you since all of your assumptions are based on the premise that the wording is vague, presumably to a large enough extent for it to be an issue for you. I do not consider the rules overall to be vague, though I daresay I could find some instances of vagueness if I tried hard enough. Regardless a few people with the same opinion doesn't make it fact - unless you have actual objective evidence that a majority - or at least the majority of a large enough, statistically significant sample size - considers the 40k rulebook/army books to be vague and badly written, then all you are doing is shouting your own opinion over and over again.
The eyes example was a factual example of something that was unclear, as the rules didn't explain what to do if the model doesn't have eyes. The example of psyker powers being 'dependent on mastery level' instead of 'equal to mastery level' was another.
Are you making a distinction between unclear and vague?
Do you think those examples aren't valid examples of something that is unclear/vague?
KommissarKarl wrote: Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.
The issue of LOS in itself isn't a problem, it's the point that the rules are vague so you have to interpret them, and demonstrating why rules should NOT be up to interpretation. That's the point. Nobody gives a flying feth about the LOS rule in particular, it's just to illustrate how having poorly-worded rules that are left to interpretation causes you to assume/interpret things a specific way, and then hope that others see it your way.
Well it's hard to reason with you since all of your assumptions are based on the premise that the wording is vague, presumably to a large enough extent for it to be an issue for you. I do not consider the rules overall to be vague, though I daresay I could find some instances of vagueness if I tried hard enough. Regardless a few people with the same opinion doesn't make it fact - unless you have actual objective evidence that a majority - or at least the majority of a large enough, statistically significant sample size - considers the 40k rulebook/army books to be vague and badly written, then all you are doing is shouting your own opinion over and over again.
The eyes example was a factual example of something that was unclear, as the rules didn't explain what to do if the model doesn't have eyes. The example of psyker powers being 'dependent on mastery level' instead of 'equal to mastery level' was another.
Are you making a distinction between unclear and vague?
Do you think those examples aren't valid examples of something that is unclear/vague?
I think you're equating "requires inference" with "unclear/vague".
KommissarKarl wrote: Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.
The issue of LOS in itself isn't a problem, it's the point that the rules are vague so you have to interpret them, and demonstrating why rules should NOT be up to interpretation. That's the point. Nobody gives a flying feth about the LOS rule in particular, it's just to illustrate how having poorly-worded rules that are left to interpretation causes you to assume/interpret things a specific way, and then hope that others see it your way.
Well it's hard to reason with you since all of your assumptions are based on the premise that the wording is vague, presumably to a large enough extent for it to be an issue for you. I do not consider the rules overall to be vague, though I daresay I could find some instances of vagueness if I tried hard enough. Regardless a few people with the same opinion doesn't make it fact - unless you have actual objective evidence that a majority - or at least the majority of a large enough, statistically significant sample size - considers the 40k rulebook/army books to be vague and badly written, then all you are doing is shouting your own opinion over and over again.
The eyes example was a factual example of something that was unclear, as the rules didn't explain what to do if the model doesn't have eyes. The example of psyker powers being 'dependent on mastery level' instead of 'equal to mastery level' was another.
Are you making a distinction between unclear and vague? Do you think those examples aren't valid examples of something that is unclear/vague?
I think you're equating "requires inference" with "unclear/vague".
If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.
If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.
Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths
If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.
Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths
If GW cannot be counted upon to write clear concise rules and attempt to balance their game, then I cannot be counted upon to drop $85 on gak rules (my opinion) or play games with their models.
When they are ready to change their stance on how the game is played and balanced I will be ready to play 40K.
If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.
Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths
"The dog is brown." requires no inference.
Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to? Which dog is it? What do you mean by "brown"? How do you know it's a dog? How do you know that you and I have the same meaning of dog?
Which is the problem with the way GW writes rules, because they are going to assume that we know what they mean by "dog" and what they mean by "brown", and will provide little to no direction guiding us to understand their thought-process on how they intended those terms to be interpreted.
What they might do is add some clauses that provides some external parameters to help define the term, but will often be equally confusing. "The status of 'dog' is dependent upon it being a quadruped"... well, lots of Tyranids are quadrupeds. Are they dogs? Horses are quadrupeds. Are they dogs?
If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.
Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths
"The dog is brown." requires no inference.
Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to?
The only dog, hence "the dog" rather than "a dog"
Which dog is it?
See above
What do you mean by "brown"?
It reflects the wavelengths of light that when observed by the human eye form the shade often described as brown, made from the interference of red, yellow and black (or red and green).
How do you know it's a dog?
The animal is of the canine persuasion, specifically Canis lupus familiaris.
How do you know that you and I have the same meaning of dog?
All of that is far more detailed and specific than anything GW writes. If a Codex were written with that much definition of terms, then there wouldn't be half the problems there are.
If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.
Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths
"The dog is brown." requires no inference.
Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to?
The only dog, hence "the dog" rather than "a dog"
You didn't say "the only dog", you said "the dog".
It reflects the wavelengths of light that when observed by the human eye form the shade often described as brown, made from the interference of red, yellow and black (or red and green).
You're defining colour using instances of colour. Colour is not the wavelength of electromagnetism that reflects off objects, it's our perceptions of those wavelengths. The very notion of colours is reletively modern, certainly people in ancient greece wouldn't understand what you meant by "brown".
The animal is of the canine persuasion, specifically Canis lupus familiaris.
That's another technical description. It's *your* technical description, you have no way of knowing that I share it.
If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.
Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths
"The dog is brown." requires no inference.
Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to?
The only dog, hence "the dog" rather than "a dog"
You didn't say "the only dog", you said "the dog".
The dog implies that there is only one, or that the subject has already been defined.
It reflects the wavelengths of light that when observed by the human eye form the shade often described as brown, made from the interference of red, yellow and black (or red and green).
You're defining colour using instances of colour. Colour is not the wavelength of electromagnetism that reflects off objects, it's our perceptions of those wavelengths. The very notion of colours is reletively modern, certainly people in ancient greece wouldn't understand what you meant by "brown".
Hence why I said "when observed by the human eye". I am well aware of what colour is. I could also tell you that the Universe is beige.
Also your hypothesis that people in ancient Greece wouldn't know of colours is ridiculous and demonstrably false. Aristotle even came up with a theory of colours. He believed colours were sent by the gods as celestial rays (which when you think about it is quite remarkable that through complete guesswork he got reasonably close to the truth) and that the elements had colours associated with them.
And I wasn't aware that we were writing rules for, or explaining things to, the people of ancient Greece.
Psienesis wrote: Which is the problem with the way GW writes rules, because they are going to assume that we know what they mean by "dog" and what they mean by "brown", and will provide little to no direction guiding us to understand their thought-process on how they intended those terms to be interpreted.
No, the problem is GW writes rules explaining what to do with dogs, then leave out the parts that explain what to do with fish.
Psienesis wrote: Which is the problem with the way GW writes rules, because they are going to assume that we know what they mean by "dog" and what they mean by "brown", and will provide little to no direction guiding us to understand their thought-process on how they intended those terms to be interpreted.
No, the problem is GW writes rules explaining what to do with dogs, then leave out the parts that explain what to do with fish.
And also makes taking cats a no brainer over both dogs and fish. 7 lives OP GG GW.
If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.
Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths
"The dog is brown." requires no inference.
Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to?
The only dog, hence "the dog" rather than "a dog"
You didn't say "the only dog", you said "the dog".
It reflects the wavelengths of light that when observed by the human eye form the shade often described as brown, made from the interference of red, yellow and black (or red and green).
You're defining colour using instances of colour. Colour is not the wavelength of electromagnetism that reflects off objects, it's our perceptions of those wavelengths. The very notion of colours is reletively modern, certainly people in ancient greece wouldn't understand what you meant by "brown".
The animal is of the canine persuasion, specifically Canis lupus familiaris.
That's another technical description. It's *your* technical description, you have no way of knowing that I share it.
All of that is far more detailed and specific than anything GW writes. If a Codex were written with that much definition of terms, then there wouldn't be half the problems there are.
If GW wrote rules like that the rulebook would make the collected volumes of the encyclopedia britanica look like a god damn kids coloring book by size comparison. I get it, drones don't have 'eyes' and so you feel the need to be a dick and say they can't shoot. That's doesn't say anything about the rules GW wrote, that says more about you (I realize your likely not actually making such arguments so don't be defensive it's an example) Frankly the idea that GW could write rules for every codex and edition that perfectly mesh with each other with no hiccups or problems while keeping all what...14 factions? unique and full of cool flavor is a joke. I'm happy as long as they at least hit the dart board I don't need a bullseye and I'd say 7th has done a damn fine job of it. If YOUR ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE OPINION is in disagreement with me then that's your business but please stop screaming in my ear that you are right and I'm wrong.
ALso....GW can't win, years ago people screamed about having to pay for fluff being in the books....so 3rd ed books happened where they were about 20 pages long and other space marine chapters were inserts that told you what option you couldn't user were.......these books were ABSOLUTELY hated and so they changed. Now people think that the layout of rules with the fluff and points at the end of the book are terrible....so they've changed the books to a dataslate like format with fluff/rules/pointcost on the same page....and now people are complaining about that. GW could cut prices by 75%, provide rules for free and make the most balanced game humanity has ever seen but you'd still hear people yelling "Why weren't the models free?" "Can't you give me the rules in a better format than X?" and "OMG YOU MADE EVERYTHING GENERIC YOU MONSTERS"
Also doesn't help that people who haven't played the game in years feel it's necessary to trot onto Dakka, set up a soap box and rail about how the game sucks as if their opinion actually matters a damn. I haven't played magic in years, don't see me going over to MTG sites every time there's a new set railing about how it used to be better back in my day (It wasn't, but you keep those rose colored glasses about sustained fire, jainzar's spear and hero hammer like it was all some sacred cow you loveable dick you)
Orktavius wrote: If GW wrote rules like that the rulebook would make the collected volumes of the encyclopedia britanica look like a god damn kids coloring book by size comparison.
Except for about the 17th time, GW managed to fix the rule under discussion without adding any extra bulk to the rules.
Once again: 'clearer' does not automatically mean 'larger'.
Frankly the idea that GW could write rules for every codex and edition that perfectly mesh with each other with no hiccups or problems while keeping all what...14 factions? unique and full of cool flavor is a joke.
And yet WotC has managed to do just that for a game with over ten thousand unique entities. Privateer has managed to do it with minimal issues with as many factions and just as much 'cool flavour'.
It's not a matter of GW not doing it because it's impossible. GW just don't do it because they couldn't be bothered. And because a large chunk of their fanbase are, for some inexplicable reason, perfectly ok with that.
ALso....GW can't win, years ago people screamed about having to pay for fluff being in the books....so 3rd ed books happened where they were about 20 pages long and other space marine chapters were inserts that told you what option you couldn't user were.......these books were ABSOLUTELY hated and so they changed. Now people think that the layout of rules with the fluff and points at the end of the book are terrible....so they've changed the books to a dataslate like format with fluff/rules/pointcost on the same page....and now people are complaining about that. GW could cut prices by 75%, provide rules for free and make the most balanced game humanity has ever seen but you'd still hear people yelling "Why weren't the models free?" "Can't you give me the rules in a better format than X?" and "OMG YOU MADE EVERYTHING GENERIC YOU MONSTERS"
Indeed. It's almost as if different people like different things.
Magic? You mean the game that had to ban common lands in a block because they were to powerful? The game that's 100% entirely unbalanced unless they ban or restrict massive swathes of cards in every format they run in order for the game not to implode from the sheer brokeness? That game? Their method of balance is the equivilant of going "Yeah...I know you love that Riptide....but your not allowed to use it unless your playing this particular format"
As for the size of the rules...your right, they can be written more concisely...but considering I was commenting about two people have a multipost argument defining the definition of "the brown dog" and how exacting such rules to define said brown dog have to be to be considered sufficent and not the real rules discussion as a whole I feel my point is still god damn valid.
Your 100% right Insaniak, different people like different things and that's cool.....doesn't mean I need to have people shouting from the rooftops how what they like is more important than anything anyone else likes.......especially when they haven't been a part of what I like in years.
lastly, haven't played warmachine/hordes, despite what people keep telling me everytime I price up a list I see online to get a feel for it I seem to be paying $400 for less then 20 models.....and I have issue with a game that requires you to take 2 damn lists so your opponent can avoid the one they'll never beat "balanced"
Orktavius wrote: Magic? You mean the game that had to ban common lands in a block because they were to powerful? The game that's 100% entirely unbalanced unless they ban or restrict massive swathes of cards in every format they run in order for the game not to implode from the sheer brokeness? That game? Their method of balance is the equivilant of going "Yeah...I know you love that Riptide....but your not allowed to use it unless your playing this particular format"
I swear this is the "Say Candyman three times" equivalent for summoning Peregrine.
Awww hell.....I hope I didn't summon Peregrine....is their an unsummoning ritual I can perform? perhaps burning a $200 mythic rare that I need 4 of to have a partly competitive deck?
Orktavius wrote: Magic? You mean the game that had to ban common lands in a block because they were to powerful? The game that's 100% entirely unbalanced unless they ban or restrict massive swathes of cards in every format they run in order for the game not to implode from the sheer brokeness? That game?
Balance and clarity are two completely different issues.
I was presenting Magic as an example of a game with clear rules, not a game that is perfectly balanced.
As for the size of the rules...your right, they can be written more concisely...but considering I was commenting about two people have a multipost argument defining the definition of "the brown dog" and how exacting such rules to define said brown dog have to be to be considered sufficent and not the real rules discussion as a whole I feel my point is still god damn valid.
Except it's not, because the whole 'brown dog' thing was a silly side-track.
The simple fact is that clarity of rules does not require a huge rulebook. All the 'brown dog' thing showed is that it's possible to add a whole bunch of extra detail. If the rule is written clearly to begin with and utilises a simple mechanic that applies across the game, then all that extra detail is completely uneccessary.
Your 100% right Insaniak, different people like different things and that's cool.....doesn't mean I need to have people shouting from the rooftops how what they like is more important than anything anyone else likes.......especially when they haven't been a part of what I like in years.
I'm curious as to what you think the purpose of discussion is, if not for people to present their opinions.
I'm curious as to what you think the purpose of discussion is, if not for people to present their opinions.
So far, it's just a bunch of veterans unhappy that the game they like has stopped being what it was forever and a half ago. Lots of issues, few solutions as you cannot do any so you are simply sitting here venting, accomplishing nothing really.
So tell me, what is the purpose of this discussion again?
32+ pages of how GW is a bad and/or failing company and how smaller "rivals" can do better and all that jazz. Or are you going to once again reiterate that GW could write their rules more clearly? Or are you going to point out issues that happened in editions long ago.
This is 7th Edition, njot 6th, not 5th, not 4th, not 3rd, not 2nd, not 1st. 7th. Your examples of other edition issues have no business in this discussion even if it was an official GW bashing thread.
So I ask you again, what was the purpose of this discussion?
Or are you going to bring up how they've change the amount of units in each box and the prices? Doing something that happens in pretty much any and every business. Sure, you don't like it and that's fine, but do you have anything but opinions on how bad it is or how other companies can do it better? No, so this point is no longer valid in this discussion either.
Ahh, then we get to balance issues. You keep referencing Magic, but from what I can tell in the 32+ pages here, I'm the only one with serious competitive Magic in my background and can attest to actual balance in the game, there isn't. Balance in Magic is reliant entirely on your checkbook really.
So, once more. What was the purpose of this discussion?
Because for 32+ pages all you have done is bash GW because, to sum it all up, things have changed and you don't like it. Not to say you are complaining or whining as these words are worst than racist terminology on these forums it seems, but you are eloquently venting your feelings about a topic you have no control over.
GW has given players tools to solve problems for themselves, you know, to be independent and critical thinkers. But still you insist on something specific and concise like it is something that will actually happen?
This is no longer a thread for people to present their opinions. It's become a thread to point out every flaw in the company as if for one, they are going to read what you have to say, two, that your opinions actually matter or carry any real weight to the playerbase as a whole, three, that your complaining is going to change anything. It won't.
Hell, you can't even say a majority of posters on this forum agree with you because, out of 32+ pages, there has barely been over 30 posters in this conversation, the majority of which are venting their opinions (whining). So you don't even have a majority of the playerbase so really, all you're doing is pointing out how you think things should be, how YOU think certain things are bad and how other, smaller and somehow "competitive" companies are doing better than GW. Hint hint, if they were, GW would not have taken a minor hit in December, no other miniature company even comes close to the amount of money generated by GW so they are by no means competition.
So yeah, what was your point again, sort of lost it in all the whining?
It seems you missed the very obvious point - it's to discuss things, that is all. There is no other point, that's why they're called forums: "a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged." This is exactly what we're doing.
I'm curious as to what you think the purpose of discussion is, if not for people to present their opinions.
So far, it's just a bunch of veterans unhappy that the game they like has stopped being what it was forever and a half ago. Lots of issues, few solutions as you cannot do any so you are simply sitting here venting, accomplishing nothing really.
So tell me, what is the purpose of this discussion again?
32+ pages of how GW is a bad and/or failing company and how smaller "rivals" can do better and all that jazz. Or are you going to once again reiterate that GW could write their rules more clearly? Or are you going to point out issues that happened in editions long ago.
This is 7th Edition, njot 6th, not 5th, not 4th, not 3rd, not 2nd, not 1st. 7th. Your examples of other edition issues have no business in this discussion even if it was an official GW bashing thread.
So I ask you again, what was the purpose of this discussion?
Or are you going to bring up how they've change the amount of units in each box and the prices? Doing something that happens in pretty much any and every business. Sure, you don't like it and that's fine, but do you have anything but opinions on how bad it is or how other companies can do it better? No, so this point is no longer valid in this discussion either.
Ahh, then we get to balance issues. You keep referencing Magic, but from what I can tell in the 32+ pages here, I'm the only one with serious competitive Magic in my background and can attest to actual balance in the game, there isn't. Balance in Magic is reliant entirely on your checkbook really.
So, once more. What was the purpose of this discussion?
Because for 32+ pages all you have done is bash GW because, to sum it all up, things have changed and you don't like it. Not to say you are complaining or whining as these words are worst than racist terminology on these forums it seems, but you are eloquently venting your feelings about a topic you have no control over.
GW has given players tools to solve problems for themselves, you know, to be independent and critical thinkers. But still you insist on something specific and concise like it is something that will actually happen?
This is no longer a thread for people to present their opinions. It's become a thread to point out every flaw in the company as if for one, they are going to read what you have to say, two, that your opinions actually matter or carry any real weight to the playerbase as a whole, three, that your complaining is going to change anything. It won't.
Hell, you can't even say a majority of posters on this forum agree with you because, out of 32+ pages, there has barely been over 30 posters in this conversation, the majority of which are venting their opinions (whining). So you don't even have a majority of the playerbase so really, all you're doing is pointing out how you think things should be, how YOU think certain things are bad and how other, smaller and somehow "competitive" companies are doing better than GW. Hint hint, if they were, GW would not have taken a minor hit in December, no other miniature company even comes close to the amount of money generated by GW so they are by no means competition.
So yeah, what was your point again, sort of lost it in all the whining?
You're not done yet Bad Wolf...now there is whining about whining.
But wait.
Soon there will be whining about the whining you are doing about others whining.
But we can go deeper
It's almost worth it to keep going on and on until the end of time probably, or at least until this specific thread is locked, wait two days until the next one pops up and repeat the cycle.
What I'm doing, isn't whining. I'm pointing out specifically why nothing any of you say in these forums actually matters because, as someone stated before. GW doesn't care. They don't. They want money. You, sitting there and typing about how bad, inept, greedy GW is serves no purpose but whining. Me, I like to point out how pointless your whining actually is, nothing more.
It's quite hilarious.
Seriously though, this is like the 5th topic to turn into a GW bash in the last week alone.
Why not just make a thread and call it, What We All Hate About GW? It'd make it all simpler. Just stick all that bottled up emotion and angst you all have in that one thread, stop spreading it across the forums, people really don't care for it all that much.
It's almost worth it to keep going on and on until the end of time probably, or at least until this specific thread is locked, wait two days until the next one pops up and repeat the cycle.
What I'm doing, isn't whining. I'm pointing out specifically why nothing any of you say in these forums actually matters because, as someone stated before. GW doesn't care.
If you realize this is going to keep happening despite what you say, you also realize that what you say doesn't matter. If what you're doing isn't whining for that reason, than you can't really call what we're doing whining, despite having done so.
Seriously though, this is like the 5th topic to turn into a GW bash in the last week alone.
It's almost as though people are *more* irritated at GW than usual. It's as if.. there's a trend of GW doing worse things over time.
Did I say edition change? No. Read thoroughly. I said look at the posters in the previous discussions, you've posted there as well. But that's besides the point.
Either way, you, here, complaining. No purpose.
If it upsets you that much, don't play. If you still want to play either find a way to deal, fixing what you think is messed up as GW has allowed us free thinkers to do, or keep quiet. You and I both know, and I am sure everyone else here knows as well, posting here, pointless. Outside of letting out pent up emotions it serves no logical purpose at all really as GW won't read or care, new players come here from word of mouth or random chance so you won't reach many new players on the forums and even if you do, chances are slim you'd convince them to quit.
At best, you all sound like disgruntled employees, jilted lovers even. Not fair to veteran players to even call you guys veteran players who whine about change, GW has hurt you too badly it seems. Yet here you are, still taking the abuse only to sit in circles with your friends after and talk about how bad GW is to you. Sound familiar?
*You* replied to *me* when I said "lately". *I* meant "now, as opposed to a couple years or more ago".
I'm not upset, and I don't play. We're having a jolly time here ; ) I think we sound like disappointed fans tbh. Since that's what we are, perhaps you need to "reorient your perceptions".
Fancy that, something that I used to like is now worse and I'm not happy about it? Since I also have a substantial investment in the hobby in the form of armies, it's not as simple as walking away from a game of chess.
Yonan wrote: Fancy that, something that I used to like is now worse and I'm not happy about it? Since I also have a substantial investment in the hobby in the form of armies, it's not as simple as walking away from a game of chess.
I can understand that actually. I have loads of crap I'm holding onto from other hobbies that I don't want to get rid of. But if you know you aren't going to play, then it's just junk taking up space in an otherwise clean house.
In the interest of the whiners to show people they need to leave the game if they don't like it? You aren't going to do that, most complainers continue to play because of the parts they like or have already quit because of the parts they don't like.
To get people to stop complaining so you "free thinkers" (BUAHAHAHA, sorry) can have other discussions? You aren't going to get people to stop complaining, you're welcome to start other threads if you desire to have a discussion without complaining. If you think people aren't going to complain about GW in a thread about why people complain about GW, umm, yeah, you need help.
To show your own superiority? That ship sailed several pages back, you aren't coming back from that, sorry.
Yonan wrote: Fancy that, something that I used to like is now worse and I'm not happy about it? Since I also have a substantial investment in the hobby in the form of armies, it's not as simple as walking away from a game of chess.
I can understand that actually. I have loads of crap I'm holding onto from other hobbies that I don't want to get rid of. But if you know you aren't going to play, then it's just junk taking up space in an otherwise clean house.
I'll play if it gets better. I'll play if I finish writing Deadzone 40k rules. I'll also continue modeling, painting and collecting to an extent. I'll continue wallowing in the lore as despite its cheesiness, it's pretty awesome. Like I said, not as easy to drop as chess ; )
Not trying to show any superiority. You seem to be set on that mindset, should fix it.
As to why I still post, honestly, because I'm bored and surprised that a GW bashing thread lasted this long but one that was focused on talking about why people love GW was closed at half the length. Especially when the comments in that thread were the exact same as the ones here.
It's almost as if positive thought is forbidden here.
Proving a point, don't need to. You're on a forum making complaints about a game, point was proven with the initial post.
To get you to stop complaining? You do realize that when people aren't angry and arguing in YMDC or complaining in General, the threads kind of stall right?
Also, the op was making observations of complaints being made, not asking you to turn this into Dakka therapy session.
Yonan wrote: Fancy that, something that I used to like is now worse and I'm not happy about it? Since I also have a substantial investment in the hobby in the form of armies, it's not as simple as walking away from a game of chess.
I can understand that actually. I have loads of crap I'm holding onto from other hobbies that I don't want to get rid of. But if you know you aren't going to play, then it's just junk taking up space in an otherwise clean house.
I'll play if it gets better. I'll play if I finish writing Deadzone 40k rules. I'll also continue modeling, painting and collecting to an extent. I'll continue wallowing in the lore as despite its cheesiness, it's pretty awesome. Like I said, not as easy to drop as chess ; )
I like you, you see the bigger picture.
The lore is awesome. Either everyone dies or some stupid BS happens and the Humans win.
It's almost worth it to keep going on and on until the end of time probably, or at least until this specific thread is locked, wait two days until the next one pops up and repeat the cycle.
What I'm doing, isn't whining. I'm pointing out specifically why nothing any of you say in these forums actually matters because, as someone stated before. GW doesn't care. They don't. They want money. You, sitting there and typing about how bad, inept, greedy GW is serves no purpose but whining. Me, I like to point out how pointless your whining actually is, nothing more.
It's quite hilarious.
Seriously though, this is like the 5th topic to turn into a GW bash in the last week alone.
Why not just make a thread and call it, What We All Hate About GW? It'd make it all simpler. Just stick all that bottled up emotion and angst you all have in that one thread, stop spreading it across the forums, people really don't care for it all that much.
If by nickname, you mean your username....then yes.
Apparently it's a doctor who thing, which had me delighted. I just love it when stereotypes come alive!
And now we've gone even deeper.
You're whining about their whining has triggered new whining about your whining about their whining.
Now you've begun whining about their whining of your whining which was originally about their whining.
But we can still go deeper
It's almost worth it to keep going on and on until the end of time probably, or at least until this specific thread is locked, wait two days until the next one pops up and repeat the cycle.
What I'm doing, isn't whining. I'm pointing out specifically why nothing any of you say in these forums actually matters because, as someone stated before. GW doesn't care. They don't. They want money. You, sitting there and typing about how bad, inept, greedy GW is serves no purpose but whining. Me, I like to point out how pointless your whining actually is, nothing more.
It's quite hilarious.
Seriously though, this is like the 5th topic to turn into a GW bash in the last week alone.
Why not just make a thread and call it, What We All Hate About GW? It'd make it all simpler. Just stick all that bottled up emotion and angst you all have in that one thread, stop spreading it across the forums, people really don't care for it all that much.
If by nickname, you mean your username....then yes.
Apparently it's a doctor who thing, which had me delighted. I just love it when stereotypes come alive!
And now we've gone even deeper.
You're whining about their whining has triggered new whining about your whining about their whining.
Now you've begun whining about their whining of your whining which was originally about their whining.
But we can still go deeper
You make me laugh, not bad. Except nothing I have stated is whining, which makes me sad as you haven't grasped that yet.
Lobomalo wrote: . I'm pointing out specifically why nothing any of you say in these forums actually matters because, as someone stated before. GW doesn't care.
You say that as if discussion is only worthwhile if it achieves something.
Two people talking about the performance of, say, their favourate sports teams achieves equally little. Their sports team of choice isn't going to overhear their discussion and suddenly decide to change their training regime because a couple of fans are disapointed in the recent games.
The 'purpose' of discussion is ultimately to have a discussion.
\You, sitting there and typing about how bad, inept, greedy GW is serves no purpose but whining. Me, I like to point out how pointless your whining actually is, nothing more.
Dismissing opinions that differ from your own as 'whining' repeatedly is likely to result in you spending less time posting on these forums. Please see Dakka's Rule #1.
Seriously though, this is like the 5th topic to turn into a GW bash in the last week alone.
And like so many before you, you choose to see this as a problem with those engaging in those discussions, rather than a sign that something is wrong at'mill.
As to why I still post, honestly, because I'm bored
It's not enough that other people also post because they're bored?
It's almost as if positive thought is forbidden here.
I'm pretty sure the other thread got closed because it just devolved in to people taking shots at each other. This thread will probably get closed at some point for the same reason.
Also, the op was making observations of complaints being made, not asking you to turn this into Dakka therapy session.
Yes, the OP made some very shallow observations. I know it wasn't worded as a question, but obviously the OP was looking for replies and due to the shallowness of the observations, all it was doing was indirectly asking people to shoot down the short sighted observations. I'm not sure how you expected it to end any other way.
Lobomalo wrote: You make me laugh, not bad. Except nothing I have stated is whining, which makes me sad as you haven't grasped that yet.
If nothing you've said isn't classified as whining then the complaints against GW can't really be classified as whining either, which makes me sad as you haven't grasped that yet.
I am following the rules, I am neither being rude nor am I insulting anyone. I am observing a series of behaviors and pointing out my observations. But you see this as me being negative, when the real negativity, oozes through threads like these by people who have nothing but negativity to say about the game.
You keep insinuating that I don't understand the issues at hand, when I do. See, I simply solved them and moved on. You see an issue, deal with it. Don't sit there and talk about it.
Also, discussion isn't what is going on here, or is bashing a company a discussion now? If so can I make the same argument when I make fun of someone I work with, I'm just "discussing" with them. Not trying to be argumentative but I've watched your own reactions to threads, what you edit and such and you have, over the last week alone, consistently edited and removed posts by those who fight back against the negativity on these forums, or those who point them out. Isn't you job to help remove negative things from the forums?
See, I try not to be argumentative, but I can't help myself. Your own actions don't support the rules you are trying to enforce.
You insinuate about me. You shouldn't. It is not only insulting, but blatantly rude and disregarding to me as a person. You have your opinions, your problems with the game. I express how I and others do not have these problems, the wolves jump out of the shadows and pounce on us, calling us White Knights and so on. Ever consider that maybe, there really is no problem for us.
Things become problems for people when people allow things to become problems to them. Handle things better, no problems. Learn to adapt, no problems. I understand that there are issues in the game, but I also know that there has been for a very long time. If this game lasts another 20 years I guarantee there will be problems with that edition as well. But seriously, what are you going to do to solve the problem. A legitimate question that has yet to be answered by anyone sufficiently enough.
"I'll just stop playing." Is not a solution, it's a cop-out. How are you as a player going to fix the game?
Also. Don't threaten me dude. I understand that I am on an internet forum, you should understand that as well, show respect for people, even if they disagree with you and call you out on your crap.
As to why I still post, honestly, because I'm bored
It's not enough that other people also post because they're bored?
It's almost as if positive thought is forbidden here.
I'm pretty sure the other thread got closed because it just devolved in to people taking shots at each other. This thread will probably get closed at some point for the same reason.
Also, the op was making observations of complaints being made, not asking you to turn this into Dakka therapy session.
Yes, the OP made some very shallow observations. I know it wasn't worded as a question, but obviously the OP was looking for replies and due to the shallowness of the observations, all it was doing was indirectly asking people to shoot down the short sighted observations. I'm not sure how you expected it to end any other way.
That earlier post from me, wasn't me being superior. It's what I do. People try to condescend, they try to act like they're better than others, I shoot them down, has nothing to do with any superiority issues.
Others could also be bored. Honestly most forums are filled with bored people.
The other thread started well, then the same people posting here, the ones "venting" their feelings about the game, they're the ones who drove it to closing.
No, I didn't expect anything more than what we have here to be honest. But I'm an optimist, I was hoping for a different outcome. The very definition of insanity actually lol.
Things become problems for people when people allow things to become problems to them. Handle things better, no problems. Learn to adapt, no problems
How do you adapt to bad rules I'll use my army example , because lets face it that is the most important thing to me , as far as w40k gaming goes. I play at a store , most my opponents are either are friends of my boyfriend or him . I play other people too in tournaments. Right now I have a real bad time with how the missions do my army a huge disfavor compering to 6th ed. Do you have any ideas how I could fix that ?
I am following the rules, I am neither being rude nor am I insulting anyone.
Dismissing opinions that differ from your own as 'whining' is rude. Hence my reference to Dakka's Rule #1. This is not a negotiation - If you can't follow the rules of the site, then your ability to post on the site will be removed.
I am observing a series of behaviors and pointing out my observations. But you see this as me being negative,...
No, I see it as you being rude.
You can be as negative as you want, so long as it is on-topic and polite.
Isn't you job to help remove negative things from the forums?
No. My 'job' here is to make sure everyone follows the rules. A job that should be largely uneccessary, since we're theoretically a bunch of adults (or near-adults) just here to talk about our toy soldiers. One would think that it should be uneccessary to constantly have to remind such people to not be rude to each other.
Posts aren't removed because they are contradicting someone who is being negative. They're removed because they break the rules, or continue a side-track that disrupts the thread. The opinions of the poster have nothing to do with the decision to remove a post - it's how those opinions are presented that matters.
Also. Don't threaten me dude. I understand that I am on an internet forum, you should understand that as well, show respect for people, even if they disagree with you and call you out on your crap.
There was no threat. There was a simple statement that your behaviour determines whether or not you will continue to post on these forums.
We're all here to talk about our hobby. If you can't do that in a civil fashion in the face of people having a different opinion to your own, then maybe this platform of discussion just isn't right for you.
If you really feel the need to argue that further, I would suggest that you take it to PM rather than continuing to drag this thread off-topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Seriously, folks, if you have anything further to add to the actual topic, feel free. Otherwise, please refrain from further derailing the thread, as any such posts will be removed.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Alright everyone, lemme preface this by saying that I recognize that there are some very valid issues with Games Workshop, which need addressing sooner rather than later.
That said, I've seen quite a few things lately:
1) I've seen people complaining that the faster pace of updated rules is so bad that they cannot possibly keep up:
WarOne wrote: I simply cannot keep up with their update schedule and what I want to buy.
2) Alongside people saying that GW should update their rules faster:
morgoth wrote: It may have made sense back then though, because GW didn't have any possibility to update the rules easily.
I think it's different now, because they could make the rules available for free and update them frequently without any problems arising other than "What version of the rules are you playing ?".
3) I'd say updating of the codices could be faster. Not to fast mind you, but fast enough to be at least an edition behind. Ork codex should have been out a while ago, not this month. BA codex coming this year would be great.
Also, it's about time to turn everything into digital, no more books at all, people should get with the times.
Lobomalo wrote: 3) I'd say updating of the codices could be faster. Not to fast mind you, but fast enough to be at least an edition behind. Ork codex should have been out a while ago, not this month. BA codex coming this year would be great.
That's definitely WHY I wanted to see faster codex releases. The flip side (which is why GW isn't "winning") is because the quality of the recent codices has been pretty average to the point where people are suggesting just continuing to play with older versions of their codices.
Also, it's about time to turn everything into digital, no more books at all, people should get with the times.
Not really, books are still very popular with the nerdy type and to disregard that would be folly. I'm not against digital, but we're not at the point where digital is a replacement to print, it's simply a supplement to it. Also, as long as "everything digital" doesn't equal "everything ipad" I have less problems with it. The non-ipad ebook versions GW have been putting out are terrible. The ipad versions look fine from what I've seen, but not everyone owns nor wants to buy an ipad.
There's plenty of articles out there showing digital book sales have started losing ground to print. Many people like to read a printed book over reading a tablet screen, simple as that.
Lobomalo wrote: 3) I'd say updating of the codices could be faster. Not to fast mind you, but fast enough to be at least an edition behind. Ork codex should have been out a while ago, not this month. BA codex coming this year would be great.
That's definitely WHY I wanted to see faster codex releases. The flip side (which is why GW isn't "winning") is because the quality of the recent codices has been pretty average to the point where people are suggesting just continuing to play with older versions of their codices.
Also, it's about time to turn everything into digital, no more books at all, people should get with the times.
Not really, books are still very popular with the nerdy type and to disregard that would be folly. I'm not against digital, but we're not at the point where digital is a replacement to print, it's simply a supplement to it. Also, as long as "everything digital" doesn't equal "everything ipad" I have less problems with it. The non-ipad ebook versions GW have been putting out are terrible. The ipad versions look fine from what I've seen, but not everyone owns nor wants to buy an ipad.
There's plenty of articles out there showing digital book sales have started losing ground to print. Many people like to read a printed book over reading a tablet screen, simple as that.
Not all Ipad, but definitely digital. A friend of mine works for the City library where he is at and they have him looking into a fully digital library and seeing how they are run, pros and cons and the like. While full digital according to what he's found is acceptable for the younger generation i.e., millennials, the older, more traditional people favor books. But the ground is shifting towards digital on a daily basis and its only a matter of time before everything is digital. Much more convenient tbh and, besides being too poor to own one of the devices, in this day and age, at least in America, there is no excuse for not having a computer or other digital device capable of reading digital media.
I figure that last line will be an issue for some, but honestly, its a reality. Gone are the days when people could get away with not being tech savvy, holding onto outdated technology. Literally, in the modern era, it's keep up or be left behind and while I love the traditional book and pen and paper approach, the convenience of digital is appealing as I tend to be on the go a lot more now than I was when I was younger.
Also, not sure where your data is from but digital sales for books have been steadily climbing, so much so that companies have increased the prices schools and libraries need to pay to even borrow e-books from publishers. If sales were going down, money would drop. If anything, audiobooks are taking center stage moreso than e-books
Orktavius wrote: If GW wrote rules like that the rulebook would make the collected volumes of the encyclopedia britanica look like a god damn kids coloring book by size comparison. I get it, drones don't have 'eyes' and so you feel the need to be a dick and say they can't shoot. That's doesn't say anything about the rules GW wrote, that says more about you (I realize your likely not actually making such arguments so don't be defensive it's an example) Frankly the idea that GW could write rules for every codex and edition that perfectly mesh with each other with no hiccups or problems while keeping all what...14 factions? unique and full of cool flavor is a joke.
MTG has way more potential combinations and interactions than 40k. MTG does not have any rule issues. Please stop repeating this claim that GW can't make a functioning game without an unreasonable rulebook length, because it has been thoroughly disproved by other games that do the "impossible".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orktavius wrote: Magic? You mean the game that had to ban common lands in a block because they were to powerful? The game that's 100% entirely unbalanced unless they ban or restrict massive swathes of cards in every format they run in order for the game not to implode from the sheer brokeness?
Current banned list for standard: {empty space}. And this is hardly an exception to the rule, even "broken" standard metagames haven't led to bans on more than one or two cards. Older formats do have longer banned lists but those bans are heavily concentrated on the very oldest sets, from before anyone understood the game well enough to avoid balance issues. If you banned all 40k units/options that have a similar level of balance problems you'd have a much longer banned list relative to the total number of cards/units/etc. The only reason 40k is able to avoid having a banned list is that GW doesn't care about publishing a good game and expects the players to voluntarily ban themselves from abusing any of their balance mistakes.
Lobomalo wrote: Things become problems for people when people allow things to become problems to them. Handle things better, no problems. Learn to adapt, no problems. I understand that there are issues in the game, but I also know that there has been for a very long time. If this game lasts another 20 years I guarantee there will be problems with that edition as well. But seriously, what are you going to do to solve the problem. A legitimate question that has yet to be answered by anyone sufficiently enough.
And how should I handle things better?
Should I refuse to buy the BRB and have my 2000 euro collection sit around collecting dust because everyone moved on to seventh edition?
Or should I pirate the rules and bring my print-out to a store? I'm sure they'd love that! I'm sure this forum would love it if I advocated piracy.
KommissarKarl wrote: Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to? Which dog is it? What do you mean by "brown"? How do you know it's a dog? How do you know that you and I have the same meaning of dog?
Really? Really?
Let's get back to the actual discussion:
'The dog is brown' is clear enough.
"The colour of the dog is dependent on chocolate" however is NOT clear.
Klerych wrote: But the Tau gun drones have that glaring eye-like optical sensor under their trashcan cover plate in the front part of the model..!
*looks at gun drone model*
Nope. There is nothing that is even close to obviously being an eye/optical sensor/etc. If your defense for your house rule not being a house rule consists of "you can find some random vaguely roundish bit and call it an eye" then you're really getting desperate. Just admit the obvious, the rule as-written is broken and requires house rules to fix it.
You dense.. hah, just kidding. You're a stubborn 'un, huh?
Are you saying that you can't see the glaring frickin' red optical sensor under the dish on the gun drones..?
It's right under their armoured plate. You can see the red edge of the lenses under it's front.
Another great examples.
And guess what, it's exactly where are the optical sensors on all other Tau drones! Just smaller!
And finally..
Tell me I'm still doing some house rule on that and I'll lose all my hope in reason on Dakka.
Klerych wrote: Tell me I'm still doing some house rule on that and I'll lose all my hope in reason on Dakka.
Some TFG could claim they don't have eyes and he'd be 100% right that they cannot draw LoS.
In that case the tournament/playgroup would have to quickly house-rule it to actually work.
A well spent 100 euro!
lastly, haven't played warmachine/hordes, despite what people keep telling me everytime I price up a list I see online to get a feel for it I seem to be paying $400 for less then 20 models.....
Care to share that list that has less than 20 models and costs 400$ with the rest of the class? Just so we know that you aren't just making things up to try and prove a point, of course.
and I have issue with a game that requires you to take 2 damn lists so your opponent can avoid the one they'll never beat "balanced"
The game doesn't require 2 lists so your opponent can avoid the one they'll never beat, that is patently false. I could go on and explain to you what the 2 list format accomplishes in the WMH meta, but that would be the what? 3rd time that someone explained this to you, so at this point its pretty pointless, since you'll obviously just continue spouting your views about something that you obviously know nothing and apparently have no interest in learning about...
Klerych wrote: Tell me I'm still doing some house rule on that and I'll lose all my hope in reason on Dakka.
Some TFG could claim they don't have eyes and he'd be 100% right that they cannot draw LoS.
In that case the tournament/playgroup would have to quickly house-rule it to actually work.
A well spent 100 euro!
Merrily enough TFG would be treated with contempt by the whole community and he'd later feel very.. unwelcome unless he changed his TFGy attitude where I live. Here people have balls and act like grownups that can take care of those that ruin the fun for others by constant arguing. In fact if someone says, at the tourney here, that "optical sensors" aren't "eyes" and that the rule doesn't apply, he'd be laughed at even by the referees and told to stop being stupid. If he'd keep arguing he could even get penalty points for ruining the fun for others. In case of extreme TFGism he'd just get banned and every group in my city would know better than to play with him. Point is - you can't be a TFG and expect people to stand your behaviour for too long.
Klerych wrote: Are you saying that you can't see the glaring frickin' red optical sensor under the dish on the gun drones..?
The fact that some people choose to paint a random vaguely roundish blob as a lens does not make it an obvious optical sensor. When I was painting my own drones I just assumed it was part of the random detail, since it looks nothing like an eye/lens/etc. I didn't even think about the possibility of it being a point to draw LOS from until it was mentioned in this thread. And apparently neither did a lot of other people, since a quick search for gun drone pictures turns up some nicely painted models with no lens effects on the supposed "eye".
(And yes, I still drew LOS from my drones, we just house ruled it to be from somewhere approximately in the center of the model.)
And guess what, it's exactly where are the optical sensors on all other Tau drones! Just smaller!
No, it's not the same at all. I have a Remora sitting on my desk here and it has obvious sharply defined lenses (which, while they aren't eyes and therefore can't be used to draw LOS, at least provide a useful starting point for a house rule). The gun drone, on the other hand, has a vaguely roundish blob that looks nothing like the Remora's lenses.
Tell me I'm still doing some house rule on that and I'll lose all my hope in reason on Dakka.
Is it an eye? No. Are you drawing LOS from it? Yes. This makes it indisputably a house rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klerych wrote: In fact if someone says, at the tourney here, that "optical sensors" aren't "eyes" and that the rule doesn't apply, he'd be laughed at even by the referees and told to stop being stupid. If he'd keep arguing he could even get penalty points for ruining the fun for others. In case of extreme TFGism he'd just get banned and every group in my city would know better than to play with him.
So let me get this straight: the rules are so broken that you have to resort to shunning anyone who doesn't accept your house rules if you want the game/community to function, and you're fine with this? You honestly consider this a sign of a high-quality game with clear and consistent rules?
Peregrine wrote: The fact that some people choose to paint a random vaguely roundish blob as a lens does not make it an obvious optical sensor. When I was painting my own drones I just assumed it was part of the random detail, since it looks nothing like an eye/lens/etc. I didn't even think about the possibility of it being a point to draw LOS from until it was mentioned in this thread. And apparently neither did a lot of other people, since a quick search for gun drone pictures turns up some nicely painted models with no lens effects on the supposed "eye".
But those T'au sept drones I linked are OFFICIAL GW images from GW site. You can clearly see that the lenses are painted red, even though the photos are shot at an angle. If you can't see red there, you're colourblind.
And I love how you call everything "house ruling". Because the optical sensors aren't drones' eyes. Oh well, done arguing. And no, people get shunned for being TFGs. "TFG" relates to very negative behaviour. If he insists on nitpicking about obvious stuff just because he can't comprehend that "eyes" was used figuratively in that rule and it's intent was obvious, he will be treated like any other TFG in any other community. Shunned, laughed at and overall unpleasant to interact with. Although yes, that also applies to commonly accepted house rules too. If a big community decides to use some house rule because it makes the game better for them, he is either to comply or go look for games somewhere else. Harsh, but true. If he wants to be a part of the community, he has to comply rather than ruin the fun for them and/or expect the whole group to change their established way of playing.
lastly, haven't played warmachine/hordes, despite what people keep telling me everytime I price up a list I see online to get a feel for it I seem to be paying $400 for less then 20 models.....
Care to share that list that has less than 20 models and costs 400$ with the rest of the class? Just so we know that you aren't just making things up to try and prove a point, of course.
Not sure about the model count(can't bother counting them), but I have an army that was pretty close to that.
Which nets us ~368$. Not 400 on the spot as he mentioned, but(arguably) close. Of course the colossal does the heavy lifting at that terrible price, but yeah, it's an army I play. :-) Unfortunately the prices here can be bit higher than retail ones because Privateer Press largely ignores Poland as a possible market and we only have one small retailer that imports all the 'obscure' titles.
Edit: Of course that army is 50pts, so a high price is kinda expected.
Hang on, did I just stumble upon a conversation Re: weather or not drones don't have specific 'eyes' and as a result you cant draw line of sight....really?
You draw line of sight from any point in the weapons fire arc from the edge of the base\model, why is this a thing that drones may or may not be able to see??
Which nets us ~368$. Not 400 on the spot as he mentioned, but(arguably) close. Of course the colossal does the heavy lifting at that terrible price, but yeah, it's an army I play. :-) Unfortunately the prices here can be bit higher than retail ones because Privateer Press largely ignores Poland as a possible market and we only have one small retailer that imports all the 'obscure' titles.
Edit: Of course that army is 50pts, so a high price is kinda expected.
Not only is that army less than 400$ but it also has more than 20 models (28 to be exact, one of which is a Colossal).
I'll continue waiting on the 400$ army for 20 models.
P.S.- It might even be possible to build such an army, you just need to look for the faction with the lowest point-for-$ ratio and build an army exclusively from those models. I just wan't to know to what lengths Orktavius will go to build such a list and how it will look.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rick_1138 wrote: Hang on, did I just stumble upon a conversation Re: weather or not drones don't have specific 'eyes' and as a result you cant draw line of sight....really?
You draw line of sight from any point in the weapons fire arc from the edge of the base\model, why is this a thing that drones may or may not be able to see??
Anyway carry on.....
Yes, you did just stumble on this conversation so you might have taken a moment to better inform yourself before posting.
The discussion was about the 6th edition (and previous) rules, that specifically mentioned that LOS was drawn from the eyes of the miniature.
Klerych wrote: But those T'au sept drones I linked are OFFICIAL GW images from GW site. You can clearly see that the lenses are painted red, even though the photos are shot at an angle. If you can't see red there, you're colourblind.
Well, sorry if I don't analyze every single detail of the GW catalog pictures before painting my models. If the vaguely roundish blob on a drone isn't obviously a lens (like it is on the Remora) then it isn't reasonable to expect that everyone will figure out that it is an optical sensor. So now you have a case of GW not only expecting you to interpret the rules to allow you to draw LOS from optical sensors, even though they didn't bother to say so in the book they published, but to obsessively look for anything that could possibly be an optical sensor, no matter how unclear it is on the actual model.
And I love how you call everything "house ruling".
Not everything, just when you play by rules which are blatantly against the ones published in the rulebook.
Because the optical sensors aren't drones' eyes.
And a car's wheels are its "legs". I don't care if they have the same function, an optical sensor is an optical sensor, not an eye. The problem here is GW's refusal to include a "or whatever a model uses to see, in the case of models without eyes", define LOS from any part of the model like in 7th, or any of various possible solutions.
If he insists on nitpicking about obvious stuff just because he can't comprehend that "eyes" was used figuratively in that rule and it's intent was obvious, he will be treated like any other TFG in any other community. Shunned, laughed at and overall unpleasant to interact with.
Except that's NOT how it works in other communities. Want to play strictly by the published rules without "interpreting" anything in a game of X-Wing/MTG/etc? Sure, have fun. In fact it's the standard way of playing the game, and everyone understands that any changes are optional house rules that you need to ask your opponent to use before the game begins and should not feel entitled to have approved. The fact that 40k has rules where following the published text is "TFG behavior" is a problem. Is it a problem that can be overcome? Sure. But that doesn't excuse GW's laughably unprofessional writing quality.
Although yes, that also applies to commonly accepted house rules too. If a big community decides to use some house rule because it makes the game better for them, he is either to comply or go look for games somewhere else. Harsh, but true. If he wants to be a part of the community, he has to comply rather than ruin the fun for them and/or expect the whole group to change their established way of playing.
Like I said, the game is broken. If you have to shun anyone who tries to play the game according to the published rules instead of the "obvious" changes that you have made to the game then something is wrong. The only question here is why you continue to defend GW's shamefully bad products.
Rick_1138 wrote: Hang on, did I just stumble upon a conversation Re: weather or not drones don't have specific 'eyes' and as a result you cant draw line of sight....really?
You draw line of sight from any point in the weapons fire arc from the edge of the base\model, why is this a thing that drones may or may not be able to see??
Rick_1138 wrote: Hang on, did I just stumble upon a conversation Re: weather or not drones don't have specific 'eyes' and as a result you cant draw line of sight....really?
Exactly. According to the rules GW published before 6th edition that's exactly how it works. In fact, it's even worse: it isn't just drones, any model wearing a helmet does not have eyes, which means entire armies are unable to shoot or charge. The point here is that this is such an obvious mistake with such an easy solution that allowing it to exist in the rules for decades is incredible incompetence and/or lack of concern for the quality of their games. A better company would have fixed it several editions ago, but GW just pretends the problem doesn't exist and whines about how you're supposed to "forge a narrative" and not complain about how you paid $100 for a rough draft of a rulebook.
Since then we've moved on to discussing why certain players feel compelled to defend GW's actions, instead of accepting the obvious fact that 40k's rules suck.
You draw line of sight from any point in the weapons fire arc from the edge of the base\model, why is this a thing that drones may or may not be able to see??
...
You do realize that this "rule" does not in any way resemble the actual rules of 40k, even ignoring the "eyes" issue, right? You do NOT draw LOS from the edge of the base/model, and non-vehicle models do not have fire arcs. Please don't add to the confusion by citing rules which don't exist.
Also, not sure where your data is from but digital sales for books have been steadily climbing, so much so that companies have increased the prices schools and libraries need to pay to even borrow e-books from publishers. If sales were going down, money would drop. If anything, audiobooks are taking center stage moreso than e-books
I'm on a mobile device so I can't check the efficacy of these articles, but check them out:
I definitely think digital has a place. But at least at this point it's not to entirely replace print. IMO, part of that is simply because people like to read printed books, it may sound obvious, but there are a lot of things I prefer just to flick through pages or hold a physical book than read on a tablet or PC. Has nothing to do with bring computer illiterate. There's definitely many advantages to digital (space requirements, whenever I read a text book I'm looking for the ctrl+F ), but there's also reasons people like print.
I spend a lot of time reading journal articles, I love digital for flipping through the hundreds of articles and reading abstracts, but when it comes to a big chunky article that I really want to sit down and understand it, I head straight to the "print" button and pull out my pen and highlighter. I think part of it, whether natural or engrained, comes to the brain making links to the structure of a printed text vs just words scrolling on a screen.
Peregrine, there is a given level of common sense that apparently was expected, and some people either lack it (and by such should probably not be allowed to leave the house, as they clearly lack the tools not to get into darwin awards) or they choose to ignore it in order to favor themselves, and as such are douches.
They fact people try to bend rather obvious common sense to their favor is nothing unique to 40k, its why we have laywers (talking about real lawyers here too, not just game rule laywers), and why people hate them. they abuse things that were written for the sake of simplicity in a way that conveys the intent, rather then every single possible scenario.
Yes they said "eyes" rather then "eyes, camera, optical sensor and/or other visual instrument..." and went on blabing for twenty pages on how you define these body parts or machines, but have they does so on every damn occasion the book would have been far longer, dragged out, and annoying to readm and even then people would have gotten OTHER loopholes, as many models got themselves secondary sensory systems who are obviously not intended as the vision tool, but are still in there. (markerlights? target locks? the SMdev cover-reducing thing? saint celestine's little angel's own eyes? bet there are a ton more)
There is NO way to write airtight rules that no dumbass interpretations can ever me made when it comes to models unless you give each and every one a clear diagram of exactly his measurements, where his "eye" area, what counts as "bling" and what is actual body, etc. (and by that moment you can't even have pose-able and customizable multi-part kits, forget about conversions and scratch builds)
You demand for the impossible, the undesirable and the irrational, and then get angry for people disagreeing with you just because nobody NEEDS that level of rule tightness.
There are enough examples of mistakes in the books of "they thought it was obvious, but its not", you really have to stick to the DUMBEST one?
Then you insist that "any competent company would have fixed it long ago", except the fact nobody ever made rules like that, because its practically pointless, and nobody (except you apparently) needs it.
And the fact you pointed to MTG as an example of "having way more rules and a good balance" is pathetic, as MTG is probably the single most unblanaced game ever, including hundreds of cases of "strictly better" (you get more for the same cost, or the same for a lower cost, without any even remote or incredibly rare disadvantage) and not only does WotC admit it, they outright said they are aware of it and that they do it on purpose.
I have already understood how you tick long ago peregrine, and the sad fact is that nothing GW will do will ever, EVER please you, even if they somehow made a masterpiece of balanced, well-knitted, versatile rules you would still be complaining over the most mundane things, because that's just what you do.
You do not enjoy the game, you do not enjoy the company, and you do not enjoy the community. you just enjoy complaining about it all.
Do us, GW and yourself a favor, and just quit.
(To any and all mods: I apologize if I went a bit out of line here, but in all honesty, the dude deserve to be put in his place, and I toned myself down quite a bit here anyway.)
BoomWolf wrote: Peregrine, there is a given level of common sense that apparently was expected, and some people either lack it (and by such should probably not be allowed to leave the house, as they clearly lack the tools not to get into darwin awards) or they choose to ignore it in order to favor themselves, and as such are douches.
And you are missing the point completely. COMMON SENSE SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED FOR THE RULES OF A GAME. That has always been the issue, not LOS specifically, not psyker powers, not if a dog is brown, the key point in all these examples is to show that rules should be clear, concise, and not up for interpretation, hence why they are RULES. It is a shoddy rule, and a shoddy rule system, that leaves rules up to interpretation even when that interpretation is entirely reasonable to be the assumed default. Hell, an assume default would have fixed the rule as well (e.g. "If a model does not have visible eyes, measure from the model's head"). The point is to illustrate how a rule that isn't clear or concise is fundamentally broken because it requires you to decide how it's actually meant to work, and then make sure that everybody else is okay with your assumption, otherwise you have a rules dispute.
Neither Peregrine nor anybody here likely actually would try to argue that a Drone, for example, has no eyes and can't draw LOS. Not only is that a jerk move, but it's pretty silly to boot. However, it illustrates the fact that technically, by the rules, it COULD NOT draw LOS because a sensor is not an eye, and the rules specifically mention "eyes". Hence, the point is to illustrate that the rule was poorly written, which it was. A better, and relevant, example is the aforementioned psychic powers. How, exactly, do you determine the number of psychic powers a psyker can cast in a turn? The rules are vague, stating that it is "dependent upon their Mastery Level" with no indication of how it's dependent - the general assumption is that it's equal, but this is not stated explicitly and therefore is not a guaranteed opinion.
There is ambiguity, therefore the rule is up to interpretation, ergo the rule is poorly written.
There is NO way to write airtight rules that no dumbass interpretations can ever me made when it comes to models unless you give each and every one a clear diagram of exactly his measurements, where his "eye" area, what counts as "bling" and what is actual body, etc. (and by that moment you can't even have pose-able and customizable multi-part kits, forget about conversions and scratch builds)
Sure there is, other games do it just fine. You start by not determining LOS from something as stupid as the "eyes" of a model. Anyways, that's not the point. The point is that other game companies, much smaller than GW (except possibly barring WotC which might be larger?), manage to write clear and concise rules without any of these problems. GW alone writes rules in a vague fashion that leaves them up to interpretation.
Which nets us ~368$. Not 400 on the spot as he mentioned, but(arguably) close. Of course the colossal does the heavy lifting at that terrible price, but yeah, it's an army I play. :-) Unfortunately the prices here can be bit higher than retail ones because Privateer Press largely ignores Poland as a possible market and we only have one small retailer that imports all the 'obscure' titles.
Edit: Of course that army is 50pts, so a high price is kinda expected.
Okay, and that's a 50 point list that includes a Stormwall that's a hefty chunk of change (also not taking into account discounts). Now price out an 1850 point 40k army and tell me how much that costs, since a 50 point WM/H list is functionally equivalent.
BoomWolf wrote: Peregrine, there is a given level of common sense that apparently was expected, and some people either lack it (and by such should probably not be allowed to leave the house, as they clearly lack the tools not to get into darwin awards) or they choose to ignore it in order to favor themselves, and as such are douches.
Except, again, this "common sense" isn't required in other games. If you play a game of MTG you follow the published rules exactly, and there's nothing to "interpret". Every rule question can be indisputably resolved by reading the relevant section of the rules and following them. The fact that GW not only fails to meet that same standard, but proudly declares that meeting that standard is bad, is shamefully unprofessional behavior from a game company.
(Of course it's kind of understandable behavior when the company in question is obsessively focused on milking their cash cow of selling space marine starter sets to children as efficiently as possible, the only bizarre part is that GW's customers will actually defend the rules and GW's attitude of "pay us $100 for the rough draft of a rulebook".)
Yes they said "eyes" rather then "eyes, camera, optical sensor and/or other visual instrument..." and went on blabing for twenty pages on how you define these body parts or machines, but have they does so on every damn occasion the book would have been far longer, dragged out, and annoying to readm and even then people would have gotten OTHER loopholes, as many models got themselves secondary sensory systems who are obviously not intended as the vision tool, but are still in there. (markerlights? target locks? the SMdev cover-reducing thing? saint celestine's little angel's own eyes? bet there are a ton more)
Please stop repeating this claim about how difficult it would be to fix the problem. 7th edition resolved it entirely without adding more than a word or two of additional length, and even the "or other sensor" option would at least make it clear that you're supposed to use alternatives when necessary.
There is NO way to write airtight rules that no dumbass interpretations can ever me made when it comes to models unless you give each and every one a clear diagram of exactly his measurements, where his "eye" area, what counts as "bling" and what is actual body, etc. (and by that moment you can't even have pose-able and customizable multi-part kits, forget about conversions and scratch builds)
This assumes that you absolutely must have TLOS drawn from a model's eyes. A more reasonable game designer might have realized that this simply creates lots of arguments about where to draw LOS from, and most of the time the difference between drawing LOS from the eyes vs. drawing LOS from the feet is smaller than the margin of error in the ability of most players to check LOS accurately. And then that other game designer might have decided to use a different system, such as drawing LOS from the center of the model's base.
And the fact you pointed to MTG as an example of "having way more rules and a good balance" is pathetic, as MTG is probably the single most unblanaced game ever, including hundreds of cases of "strictly better" (you get more for the same cost, or the same for a lower cost, without any even remote or incredibly rare disadvantage) and not only does WotC admit it, they outright said they are aware of it and that they do it on purpose.
...
Seriously, have you ever even played MTG? The game overall has much better balance than 40k, and most of those "strictly better" cards are balanced around sealed/draft formats, something 40k doesn't have any equivalent to. Don't confuse deliberate balance choices involving weak cards to make sealed/draft work properly with the inability to make a balanced game. WOTC makes things that don't fit the balance standards of a tabletop wargame as part of a deliberate balance process to make their card game work. GW makes things that don't fit the balance standards of a tabletop wargame because they don't care about balance and/or are too incompetent to do any better.
I have already understood how you tick long ago peregrine, and the sad fact is that nothing GW will do will ever, EVER please you, even if they somehow made a masterpiece of balanced, well-knitted, versatile rules you would still be complaining over the most mundane things, because that's just what you do.
Nice personal attack, but no. I'd be quite happy if GW made a good game, and I would praise it. Check my comments about X-Wing (the other main game I play), where I will gladly say that things are done well. The only reason I always criticize GW and 40k is that the rules for 40k are unbelievably bad and have nothing worth praising. It's just unfortunate that there is no realistic hope of this changing until GW goes bankrupt and the IP is bought by a better company.
Well, sorry if I don't analyze every single detail of the GW catalog pictures before painting my models. If the vaguely roundish blob on a drone isn't obviously a lens (like it is on the Remora) then it isn't reasonable to expect that everyone will figure out that it is an optical sensor. So now you have a case of GW not only expecting you to interpret the rules to allow you to draw LOS from optical sensors, even though they didn't bother to say so in the book they published, but to obsessively look for anything that could possibly be an optical sensor, no matter how unclear it is on the actual model.
Still, I'm right and you know it. You can feel somewhat excused because of the optical sensor not being explicitly stated to be said optical sensor, but it doesn't change the fact that you were wrong there, mate. I'm slowly starting to think that you're too stubborn to admit that you might've been wrong and someone you argued with might be right. I'm not saying that to bash you or something, I respect you like any other person. It's just that it's nice to admit that someone else is right when he proves it in an argument.
Except that's NOT how it works in other communities. Want to play strictly by the published rules without "interpreting" anything in a game of X-Wing/MTG/etc? Sure, have fun. In fact it's the standard way of playing the game, and everyone understands that any changes are optional house rules that you need to ask your opponent to use before the game begins and should not feel entitled to have approved. The fact that 40k has rules where following the published text is "TFG behavior" is a problem. Is it a problem that can be overcome? Sure. But that doesn't excuse GW's laughably unprofessional writing quality.
Okay, let me make it clear - I never said that, one - GW is excused for their often poor wording, two - that I mean explicitly playing "rules as written" as being TFG behaviour. My example of people having to either adjust to the community they want to join or scram because it's not their place was that of a perfectly spherical community(of any sort, not just wargaming) in perfect vacuum. What I said wasn't related to RAW or any other rules. If your nearby boxing group had a different rule than one in the "regular" boxing ruleset, a potential new member would have to either comply or go away. If local poker group had some special rule that is different from official poker rules a new player would have to either comply or scram. That was my point. It had nothing to do with GW, RAW, wording or any particular case mentioned in this thread. Just basics of functioning in the society. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough in the first place.
Like I said, the game is broken. If you have to shun anyone who tries to play the game according to the published rules instead of the "obvious" changes that you have made to the game then something is wrong. The only question here is why you continue to defend GW's shamefully bad products.
Well.. saying that the game is broken is really, really silly. It's still -totally- playable and lots of people have fun with it, so yeah, exaggerating much. And I don't really get why are you claiming that I'm defending GW's "shamefully bad products" that sell like hot cake in my area and we see an influx of new players picking 40k up. I'm just saying that some of the "issues" are ridiculously overblown by cheap sensation seeking TFGs. As someone mentioned - issues like that rarely occur in 'real world' where a group just plays stuff because those more reasonable find the 'solutions' to be obvious and TFGs are tempered or too 'afraid' to female dog about it and it's the forums where they can have all their cheap, sensationalist, arguing, TFGRAW goodness.
Again - I never said the rules are perfectly good, nor that they're great quality and perfectly clear, but they're not even half as bad as some people claim and they're perfectly playable without any real effort. It's that mentally impaired angry mob/sheep herd mentality where the loudest(not necessarily smartest) yell stuff and the rest picks it up, because if he's yelling, he must be right. Just look how any angry mob works.
P.s. - I'm sorry if I sound somewhat rude, it just how my posts turn out on the internet - I mean no disrespect nor insult. :-)
Hmm.. not sure if you know what I am talking about there, mate. I said that I am right because I have proven, using official GW model photos, that this part of Gun Drone(or any other regular drone model) is the optical sensor. Which is also obvious to exist on the model because, one - it's roughly there on every single Drone model in the game unless it has some other custom location for it and two - there is, as far as I remember, no single model(aside from those that don't wear helmets) in whole Tau range that doesn't have an optical sensor/visor outside the sniper drone team controller, because his faceplate is burried in the targetting computer. I know my army's model range pretty well. And it's easy to prove by just looking at model photos on GW site. With T'au sept colours it's always red lenses.
Which nets us ~368$. Not 400 on the spot as he mentioned, but(arguably) close. Of course the colossal does the heavy lifting at that terrible price, but yeah, it's an army I play. :-) Unfortunately the prices here can be bit higher than retail ones because Privateer Press largely ignores Poland as a possible market and we only have one small retailer that imports all the 'obscure' titles.
Edit: Of course that army is 50pts, so a high price is kinda expected.
Not only is that army less than 400$ but it also has more than 20 models (28 to be exact, one of which is a Colossal).
I'll continue waiting on the 400$ army for 20 models.
P.S.- It might even be possible to build such an army, you just need to look for the faction with the lowest point-for-$ ratio and build an army exclusively from those models. I just wan't to know to what lengths Orktavius will go to build such a list and how it will look.
It may be possible the Cavalry models, strictly due to high cost/model count.
Orktavius wrote: Magic? You mean the game that had to ban common lands in a block because they were to powerful? The game that's 100% entirely unbalanced unless they ban or restrict massive swathes of cards in every format they run in order for the game not to implode from the sheer brokeness?
Current banned list for standard: {empty space}. And this is hardly an exception to the rule, even "broken" standard metagames haven't led to bans on more than one or two cards. Older formats do have longer banned lists but those bans are heavily concentrated on the very oldest sets, from before anyone understood the game well enough to avoid balance issues. If you banned all 40k units/options that have a similar level of balance problems you'd have a much longer banned list relative to the total number of cards/units/etc. The only reason 40k is able to avoid having a banned list is that GW doesn't care about publishing a good game and expects the players to voluntarily ban themselves from abusing any of their balance mistakes.
If you think about it 40k have quite a long list of models and items that you aren't allowed in tournaments according to the rules they were published or have recent rules allowing them to be played.
On top of my head:
Imperial/Eldar Robots
Large number of special characters for every faction
Various upgrades including but not limited to multiple weapon choices including special and heavy weapons for most characters and some units, multiple grenade options for models, various biomorph upgrades etc.
Mad boyz, Boarboyz,
Imperial guard rough rider commands squads, including commissars.
Spore pods
Genestealer Cults
The entire line of Squats(snacks )
Cult Terminators
Pariahs
And thats just from memory alone, there is many more models that can't be used with the rules they had when released (or an updated version of those)
So the list of models that have been available for 40k that is no longer useable in tournaments today is quite long and properly more extensive than M:TG already.
As a 40k player you get so used to having random models banned with every new edition/codex and to help us keep track GW provides only lists and rules for models allowed
Hmm.. not sure if you know what I am talking about there, mate. I said that I am right because I have proven, using official GW model photos, that this part of Gun Drone(or any other regular drone model) is the optical sensor.
Is an "Optical sensor" an "Eye"? > No, it is an "Optical sensor". Therefore it is not an "Eye", and LoS cannot be drawn from it, as per the rules.
I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
For the 3294th time, it's not that there's not obvious fixes, it's that different fixes are obvious to different people. With no real "eye" someone might use a sensor, another might use the gun, another might use a different sensor, another might prefer to use the base or any part of the model. When one method gives one perosn an advantage and the other doesn't, that's when problems arise, Clear rules eliminate that problem.
Using those drone pics, with no "eye" on the model, you have one or more sensors, one or more guns, los from the base and los from any part of the model as competiing ideas for which should be used. Probably others too.
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
It's my fault GW wrote a rule that doesn't work? Cool.
I doubt anyone actually argued this, but rules as written, that's how it works. Anything else is a house rule, regardless of how much logic is applied. it's not written in the rulebook, ergo it is a house rule.
Using autistic as an insult is against rule 1 by the way.
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
And what if the person is question was autistic? You're going to laugh at them for playing by the written rules?
And do not, ever, use autism as some form of insult or slur or derogatory comment.
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
It's my fault GW wrote a rule that doesn't work? Cool.
I doubt anyone actually argued this, but rules as written, that's how it works. Anything else is a house rule, regardless of how much logic is applied. it's not written in the rulebook, ergo it is a house rule.
Using autistic as an insult is against rule 1 by the way.
It's not an insult, I have several friends on the autistic spectrum. A hyper-logical interpritation of language is typical of asperger's syndrome, ergo to neuro-typicals it should not be a problem. You can insist until you're blue in the face that the rule "doesn't work" or is "badly written", but you are clearly in a very small minority.
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
And what if the person is question was autistic? You're going to laugh at them for playing by the written rules?
And do not, ever, use autism as some form of insult or slur or derogatory comment.
No, but I haven't seen a single post saying "Well I have Asperger's so I may see things a bit differently than most people". Most people seem to be proposing that their interpretation is the majority, or the only reasonable explanation.
I wasn't saying autistic as an insult, but it's clear the anti-GW crowd like to threaten people in this thread with bans and warnings so I don't think I can win
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
Others have pointed out why you're wrong but I'll add to it: It's not specifically the "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" thing, nobody cares about that specifically. It illustrates that ambiguous rules are BAD, because there's different interpretations of how to address them. Let's say this rule was still in effect. You might say "Obviously, you draw LOS from the head", except it's not obvious, that's your interpretation. I might assume you draw LOS from the weapon, or from the base. Is my conclusion less valid than yours? No, it is not, because both are acceptable conclusions.
The point being made, which continually gets missed, is that CLEAR and CONCISE rules would not have this problem in the first place; there would be no ambiguity regarding what to do if a model doesn't have eyes, because the rules would either A) Not use "eyes" in the first place, or B) Have an addendum that says what to do if the model doesn't have eyes, rather than just leave it up to the players to decide what to do.
It is absolutely GW's fault for writing unclear rules. Yes, somebody who argues that a model without eyes can't draw LOS is a jerk and TFG, but that's not the point. Their conclusion is perfectly valid due to the way the rules are worded, which means the rules are worded in an unclear manner.
What is hard to understand about this? This discussion has been going around in circles debating minutiae about the LOS rule which wasn't even the point of bringing it up in the first place; the point of bringing it up was to illustrate how unclear rules can cause rules arguments.
KommissarKarl wrote: I have no idea how someone can take that "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" nonsense seriously. If you think that is GW's fault somehow...I've got news for you mate, it's not. It's your fault.
If anyone in an actual game ever tried pulling that they'd be laughed out of the room sharpish...it makes anyone advocating a position look very uh...autistic.
Others have pointed out why you're wrong but I'll add to it: It's not specifically the "this model doesn't have eyes so it can't shoot" thing, nobody cares about that specifically. It illustrates that ambiguous rules are BAD, because there's different interpretations of how to address them. Let's say this rule was still in effect. You might say "Obviously, you draw LOS from the head", except it's not obvious, that's your interpretation. I might assume you draw LOS from the weapon, or from the base. Is my conclusion less valid than yours? No, it is not, because both are acceptable conclusions.
The point being made, which continually gets missed, is that CLEAR and CONCISE rules would not have this problem in the first place; there would be no ambiguity regarding what to do if a model doesn't have eyes, because the rules would either A) Not use "eyes" in the first place, or B) Have an addendum that says what to do if the model doesn't have eyes, rather than just leave it up to the players to decide what to do.
It is absolutely GW's fault for writing unclear rules. Yes, somebody who argues that a model without eyes can't draw LOS is a jerk and TFG, but that's not the point. Their conclusion is perfectly valid due to the way the rules are worded, which means the rules are worded in an unclear manner.
What is hard to understand about this? This discussion has been going around in circles debating minutiae about the LOS rule which wasn't even the point of bringing it up in the first place; the point of bringing it up was to illustrate how unclear rules can cause rules arguments.
Except you haven't proved that it's unclear, you're just saying that *you* think it is unclear. Unless you have evidence to state that the majority, or at least a sizable minority, of active 40k players consider it to be "unclear" or "poorly written", you're just shouting your own opinion as fact and demanding that other people agree with you.
The fact that multiple people are stating that they see room for interpretation in a rule isn't sufficient evidence for you to concede that the rule may not be written as clearly as it could?
Except you haven't proved that it's unclear, you're just saying that *you* think it is unclear. Unless you have evidence to state that the majority, or at least a sizable minority, of active 40k players consider it to be "unclear" or "poorly written", you're just shouting your own opinion as fact and demanding that other people agree with you.
azreal13 wrote: The fact that multiple people are stating that they see room for interpretation in a rule isn't sufficient evidence for you to concede that the rule may not be written as clearly as it could?
No, since they spend a good chunk of their spare time actively seeking out and discussing loop-holes in the rules. A few dozen people on an internet forum agreeing with each other does not mean that their collective opinions are fact. You cannot objectively state that something is "unclear" or "vague", you need back up your opinion subjectively - for example by citing some sort of evidence that a chunk of people who actively play 40k consider the rules to be unclear or vague. Simply saying that something is objectively true doesn't make it so.
eye
noun
1.
each of a pair of globular organs of sight in the head of humans and vertebrate animals.
When the model does not have one, it is unclear exactly what to do. Do you use the optical sensor if it has one? Do you use this other thing that could be an optical sensor? How about the antennae because it's a networked drone receiving orders from a controller? Maybe the model detects its surroundings with its tongue like a snake? Does it use echo location like a bat? Due to this ease of confustion, should you instead use the tip of the gun barrel? They've all viable alternatives, as are others. When there are multiple viable options you could say it's "unclear" of which to use.
Except you haven't proved that it's unclear, you're just saying that *you* think it is unclear. Unless you have evidence to state that the majority, or at least a sizable minority, of active 40k players consider it to be "unclear" or "poorly written", you're just shouting your own opinion as fact and demanding that other people agree with you.
So...exactly what you're doing?
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
azreal13 wrote: The fact that multiple people are stating that they see room for interpretation in a rule isn't sufficient evidence for you to concede that the rule may not be written as clearly as it could?
He also claimed that brown and dog are subjective terms open to interpretation. You guys are talking to a wall, you realise this, right?
He understands perfectly, its just that he will never concede that GW somehow writes less than perfect rules because that would probably cause his pure-white armour to instantly combust...
Well, GW does not really hold tournaments anymore so airtight rules are not really their problem.
Disagreement on rules has been covered in "rolling off".
Any games at stores seem to have house rules as a matter of course.
Final weasel clause is "forge the narrative".
Final bastion of defense they do publish FAQ's to fix things they feel are important.
So I really do not see how they could "lose" from a being correct standpoint.
Yep, I really do not see how we have an argument with them.
I... cannot... do... this... anymore...
We are their customers!
We support their business and their lifestyles!
We offer helpful "suggestions" to make it a game we could be proud of if they would bloody well listen or at least engage in a dialogue.
It would not take much, it is because we can see the potential for improvement it is so maddening!
YES! I agree! It is all purely whining if the source of your ire will not listen and will have zero impact on what you want changed. It is the forlorn hope that these "suggestions", "complaints", "whining" is listened to by even a single GW employee so we can hope for a cultural change, even a slight bright spot in the design process.
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
You've moved the goalposts significantly, or at least you're jumping in to defend people who don't share your more moderate viewpoint. I agree that the rules are vague in some areas, I was disagreeing with the notion that you are required to use houserules to play the game properly, or that the rules do not function out-of-the-box.
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
You've moved the goalposts significantly, or at least you're jumping in to defend people who don't share your more moderate viewpoint. I agree that the rules are vague in some areas, I was disagreeing with the notion that you are required to use houserules to play the game properly, or that the rules do not function out-of-the-box.
Yeah, while I'm still open minded on deliberate vs accidental, you're essentially trolling at this point.
How many times do you need to be told the same thing, before you can at least acknowledge the point, even if you don't agree with it?
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
I've seen some people claim the rules to be utterly broken or terribad in general. Some here called them broken too.
Thing is - people that try to prove that GW's rules are ambiguous often go to the opposite extreme, trying to ridicule through exaggeration to prove their point, but then some random sensationalist will pick it up and live by those words like they weren't exaggerated at all, making things like lack of eyes in LOS rule such a huge issue that normal, reasonable folk will just facepalm at. You know what's worst? When confronted about some of those "problems" and proven that they're not even remotely a 'real' issue the answer is always the same "but it's about the principle, not this particular issue". No matter how many of those terrible broken rules issues you topple and prove to be a matter of a very simple interpretation, they will still say that it's not about the particular examples but something that turns into some kind of a mythical land of problems that lies somewhere near the Atlantis. Everyone heard about it, some preach about it, but noone has actually seen it, because strange men in black suits and shades stormed into their houses and erased their memories, planting in the terrible thing called "house rules" to cover up the ugly truth.
Every single issue I have ever read about was so minor it could've been ignored by giving it 2 seconds of reasonable thought. Yet they're somehow combined into giant blob of a problem when mentioned in a conversation.
Not saying the rules are perfect, but they're far, far from being "broken", "unplayable" and "terrible". GW definetely should finally assume that players actually are idiots and that they need to be spoon-fed with idiot-proof rules so noone can ever come up with such stupid problems. Again - reasonable people don't have issues with the rules. Sure, it sometimes takes an interpretation(which some will call house ruling, but whatever), but if someone can't really figure out a solution to a 'problem' like that, he probably should consider changing hobby over to something that doesn't require using brain. Yes, 'figuring out' stuff should not be a thing when it comes to rule, I understand that, but a few small cases, if not overblown by some internet arguists, aren't really a sign that the whole game is broken or terribly written. Vast majority of rules works perfectly fine and the game is -very- playable.
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
You've moved the goalposts significantly, or at least you're jumping in to defend people who don't share your more moderate viewpoint. I agree that the rules are vague in some areas, I was disagreeing with the notion that you are required to use houserules to play the game properly, or that the rules do not function out-of-the-box.
The goalposts have not shifted, you just failed to understand them.
It's not an insult, I have several friends on the autistic spectrum. A hyper-logical interpritation of language is typical of asperger's syndrome, ergo to neuro-typicals it should not be a problem. You can insist until you're blue in the face that the rule "doesn't work" or is "badly written", but you are clearly in a very small minority.
Regardless of your personal experiences we ask users not to bandy around terms like this on Dakka, so please bear this in mind in future. Ta.
And to everyone : debate, critique or attack the point not the poster.
Not saying the rules are perfect, but they're far, far from being "broken", "unplayable" and "terrible". GW definetely should finally assume that players actually are idiots and that they need to be spoon-fed with idiot-proof rules so noone can ever come up with such stupid problems. Again - reasonable people don't have issues with the rules. Sure, it sometimes takes an interpretation(which some will call house ruling, but whatever), but if someone can't really figure out a solution to a 'problem' like that, he probably should consider changing hobby over to something that doesn't require using brain. Yes, 'figuring out' stuff should not be a thing when it comes to rule, I understand that, but a few small cases, if not overblown by some internet arguists, aren't really a sign that the whole game is broken or terribly written. Vast majority of rules works perfectly fine and the game is -very- playable.
So now people are idiots because they insist that a product that has the highest price tag on the market, also should have the quality to go along with it?
You guys are hilarious, you really are. Its no wonder that GW continues to rise prices and lower quality when you guys just gobble it all up and attribute all the problems that might happen to your fellow gamers instead of the company that actually made the rules!
I think GW's assumption is that a lot of their customers, especially the new, younger ones, have never read a set of wargame rules and don't care how they are written as long as the text is carried along by a general theme of enthusiasm and fun.
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
I've seen some people claim the rules to be utterly broken or terribad in general. Some here called them broken too.
Thing is - people that try to prove that GW's rules are ambiguous often go to the opposite extreme, trying to ridicule through exaggeration to prove their point, but then some random sensationalist will pick it up and live by those words like they weren't exaggerated at all, making things like lack of eyes in LOS rule such a huge issue that normal, reasonable folk will just facepalm at. You know what's worst? When confronted about some of those "problems" and proven that they're not even remotely a 'real' issue the answer is always the same "but it's about the principle, not this particular issue". No matter how many of those terrible broken rules issues you topple and prove to be a matter of a very simple interpretation, they will still say that it's not about the particular examples but something that turns into some kind of a mythical land of problems that lies somewhere near the Atlantis. Everyone heard about it, some preach about it, but noone has actually seen it, because strange men in black suits and shades stormed into their houses and erased their memories, planting in the terrible thing called "house rules" to cover up the ugly truth.
Every single issue I have ever read about was so minor it could've been ignored by giving it 2 seconds of reasonable thought. Yet they're somehow combined into giant blob of a problem when mentioned in a conversation.
Not saying the rules are perfect, but they're far, far from being "broken", "unplayable" and "terrible". GW definetely should finally assume that players actually are idiots and that they need to be spoon-fed with idiot-proof rules so noone can ever come up with such stupid problems. Again - reasonable people don't have issues with the rules. Sure, it sometimes takes an interpretation(which some will call house ruling, but whatever), but if someone can't really figure out a solution to a 'problem' like that, he probably should consider changing hobby over to something that doesn't require using brain. Yes, 'figuring out' stuff should not be a thing when it comes to rule, I understand that, but a few small cases, if not overblown by some internet arguists, aren't really a sign that the whole game is broken or terribly written. Vast majority of rules works perfectly fine and the game is -very- playable.
Someone else who is missing the point.
RAW, the pre-7th edition LOS rules (as the primary example in this discussion) were utterly broken and unplayable, because it instructed to use a models eyes, didn't explain what to do if the model lacked eyes, and models existed which didn't have what one would conventionally call eyes.
Therefore, in order to make the game work, the player base, subconsciously in many cases, simply house ruled that on a model that didn't have eyes, you used the most eye-like equivalent, or merely used the model's head.
This is fine until you get into things like artillery, which aren't given permission to use vehicle rules (use the barrel) and don't have a logical analogue for eyes, face or head.
Once again, for the I don't know how many times-th time, nobody is saying that this wasn't something that was worked around by the community at large, what people are saying, repeatedly, is that this was a badly written rule, which was open to exploitation, that required house ruling by the entire 40K community in order to function, that took 20 odd years to fix and was an incredibly easy fix once they could be arsed.
The argument isn't that it couldn't be worked with, the argument is that it should either have been caught pre-publishing, or at the minimum only taken an edition to rectify.
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
I've seen some people claim the rules to be utterly broken or terribad in general. Some here called them broken too.
Thing is - people that try to prove that GW's rules are ambiguous often go to the opposite extreme, trying to ridicule through exaggeration to prove their point, but then some random sensationalist will pick it up and live by those words like they weren't exaggerated at all, making things like lack of eyes in LOS rule such a huge issue that normal, reasonable folk will just facepalm at. You know what's worst? When confronted about some of those "problems" and proven that they're not even remotely a 'real' issue the answer is always the same "but it's about the principle, not this particular issue". No matter how many of those terrible broken rules issues you topple and prove to be a matter of a very simple interpretation, they will still say that it's not about the particular examples but something that turns into some kind of a mythical land of problems that lies somewhere near the Atlantis. Everyone heard about it, some preach about it, but noone has actually seen it, because strange men in black suits and shades stormed into their houses and erased their memories, planting in the terrible thing called "house rules" to cover up the ugly truth.
Every single issue I have ever read about was so minor it could've been ignored by giving it 2 seconds of reasonable thought. Yet they're somehow combined into giant blob of a problem when mentioned in a conversation.
Not saying the rules are perfect, but they're far, far from being "broken", "unplayable" and "terrible". GW definetely should finally assume that players actually are idiots and that they need to be spoon-fed with idiot-proof rules so noone can ever come up with such stupid problems. Again - reasonable people don't have issues with the rules. Sure, it sometimes takes an interpretation(which some will call house ruling, but whatever), but if someone can't really figure out a solution to a 'problem' like that, he probably should consider changing hobby over to something that doesn't require using brain. Yes, 'figuring out' stuff should not be a thing when it comes to rule, I understand that, but a few small cases, if not overblown by some internet arguists, aren't really a sign that the whole game is broken or terribly written. Vast majority of rules works perfectly fine and the game is -very- playable.
Someone else who is missing the point.
RAW, the pre-7th edition LOS rules (as the primary example in this discussion) were utterly broken and unplayable, because it instructed to use a models eyes, didn't explain what to do if the model lacked eyes, and models existed which didn't have what one would conventionally call eyes.
Therefore, in order to make the game work, the player base, subconsciously in many cases, simply house ruled that on a model that didn't have eyes, you used the most eye-like equivalent, or merely used the model's head.
This is fine until you get into things like artillery, which aren't given permission to use vehicle rules (use the barrel) and don't have a logical analogue for eyes, face or head.
Once again, for the I don't know how many times-th time, nobody is saying that this wasn't something that was worked around by the community at large, what people are saying, repeatedly, is that this was a badly written rule, which was open to exploitation, that required house ruling by the entire 40K community in order to function, that took 20 odd years to fix and was an incredibly easy fix once they could be arsed.
The argument isn't that it couldn't be worked with, the argument is that it should either have been caught pre-publishing, or at the minimum only taken an edition to rectify.
There is nothing to understand - you are choosing to miss-interprit the rules to an hilarious extent. Even I could find a rule that seemed vague or unclear, but you keep banging the drum on that one single rule that no single person I have ever met has ever had a problem with. Unless you have actually enforced this in a game - and please god tell me you have tried to do this - your point is self-defeating. You insist that the rule doesn't work and yet thousands of people play with it every day without having a problem with it. Therefore, the problem is with you, not GW.
The dead horse that is this topic has been so thoroughly beaten in this thread, and the dozens that are identical to it (all featuring the same cast that repeat the same tired arguments almost to a T) that it is no longer recognizable and is just a fine mist on the ground.
We get it. The greater collective gets it. We just have the ability to move on.
Coffee is hot. It scalds you when you dump it on your crotch. Your coffee cups did not clearly spell out and dictate that I should not pour it on my crotch. I poured it on my crotch.
I demand you spell out the intent of your coffee to not be poured on my crotch because it will burn me.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you don't like reading this kind of thread why do you read them?
I held out hope that maybe, just maybe, this topic steadied its course and turned into a meaningful discussion (which is what the intent of these forums is, but when is that actually true).
I was wrong. I am always wrong about that thought process. That is why I took an extended break from this and any other forums related to this hobby to just sit back and enjoy it. Unsurprisingly it was easier to enjoy 40k as a whole, despite its problems, with no interaction from the internet.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you don't like reading this kind of thread why do you read them?
I held out hope that maybe, just maybe, this topic steadied its course and turned into a meaningful discussion (which is what the intent of these forums is, but when is that actually true).
I was wrong. I am always wrong about that thought process. That is why I took an extended break from this and any other forums related to this hobby to just sit back and enjoy it. Unsurprisingly it was easier to enjoy 40k as a whole, despite its problems, with no interaction from the internet.
Not surprised on that one, really.
If you let forum discussions affect your enjoyment of anything, that says much more about yourself that it says about the forums.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you don't like reading this kind of thread why do you read them?
I held out hope that maybe, just maybe, this topic steadied its course and turned into a meaningful discussion (which is what the intent of these forums is, but when is that actually true).
I was wrong. I am always wrong about that thought process. That is why I took an extended break from this and any other forums related to this hobby to just sit back and enjoy it. Unsurprisingly it was easier to enjoy 40k as a whole, despite its problems, with no interaction from the internet.
Not surprised on that one, really.
If you let forum discussions affect your enjoyment of anything, that says much more about yourself that it says about the forums.
Was that intended to be an underhanded insult?
If I enjoy something, and beyond interpersonal interaction with my buddies or people I randomly game with at an FLGS, cannot even begin to attempt to converse about it through the popular/regular channels without having to wade through a sea of negativity and outrageous, often completely out of touch perspectives on what should for all intents and purposes be something that is purely meant for fun and an outlet from the real stress in life, the problem is not with me. It's the community, or to be more specific, a small group of stubborn like-minded disgruntled 'veterans of the long war against GW'.
Except I'm not claiming that my opinion is objective truth, I'm simply critiqueing the opposite, that they are objectively awful. My own opinion is that yes there are a lot of areas where the rules could be clearer but I'm not going to claim that the rules as a whole are unworkable or too bad to be unplayable when they are demonstrably not.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
If you're going to discuss something, at least have the courtesy to understand what other people are saying.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
I've seen some people claim the rules to be utterly broken or terribad in general. Some here called them broken too.
Thing is - people that try to prove that GW's rules are ambiguous often go to the opposite extreme, trying to ridicule through exaggeration to prove their point, but then some random sensationalist will pick it up and live by those words like they weren't exaggerated at all, making things like lack of eyes in LOS rule such a huge issue that normal, reasonable folk will just facepalm at. You know what's worst? When confronted about some of those "problems" and proven that they're not even remotely a 'real' issue the answer is always the same "but it's about the principle, not this particular issue". No matter how many of those terrible broken rules issues you topple and prove to be a matter of a very simple interpretation, they will still say that it's not about the particular examples but something that turns into some kind of a mythical land of problems that lies somewhere near the Atlantis. Everyone heard about it, some preach about it, but noone has actually seen it, because strange men in black suits and shades stormed into their houses and erased their memories, planting in the terrible thing called "house rules" to cover up the ugly truth.
Every single issue I have ever read about was so minor it could've been ignored by giving it 2 seconds of reasonable thought. Yet they're somehow combined into giant blob of a problem when mentioned in a conversation.
Not saying the rules are perfect, but they're far, far from being "broken", "unplayable" and "terrible". GW definetely should finally assume that players actually are idiots and that they need to be spoon-fed with idiot-proof rules so noone can ever come up with such stupid problems. Again - reasonable people don't have issues with the rules. Sure, it sometimes takes an interpretation(which some will call house ruling, but whatever), but if someone can't really figure out a solution to a 'problem' like that, he probably should consider changing hobby over to something that doesn't require using brain. Yes, 'figuring out' stuff should not be a thing when it comes to rule, I understand that, but a few small cases, if not overblown by some internet arguists, aren't really a sign that the whole game is broken or terribly written. Vast majority of rules works perfectly fine and the game is -very- playable.
Someone else who is missing the point.
RAW, the pre-7th edition LOS rules (as the primary example in this discussion) were utterly broken and unplayable, because it instructed to use a models eyes, didn't explain what to do if the model lacked eyes, and models existed which didn't have what one would conventionally call eyes.
Therefore, in order to make the game work, the player base, subconsciously in many cases, simply house ruled that on a model that didn't have eyes, you used the most eye-like equivalent, or merely used the model's head.
This is fine until you get into things like artillery, which aren't given permission to use vehicle rules (use the barrel) and don't have a logical analogue for eyes, face or head.
Once again, for the I don't know how many times-th time, nobody is saying that this wasn't something that was worked around by the community at large, what people are saying, repeatedly, is that this was a badly written rule, which was open to exploitation, that required house ruling by the entire 40K community in order to function, that took 20 odd years to fix and was an incredibly easy fix once they could be arsed.
The argument isn't that it couldn't be worked with, the argument is that it should either have been caught pre-publishing, or at the minimum only taken an edition to rectify.
There is nothing to understand - you are choosing to miss-interprit the rules to an hilarious extent. Even I could find a rule that seemed vague or unclear, but you keep banging the drum on that one single rule that no single person I have ever met has ever had a problem with. Unless you have actually enforced this in a game - and please god tell me you have tried to do this - your point is self-defeating. You insist that the rule doesn't work and yet thousands of people play with it every day without having a problem with it. Therefore, the problem is with you, not GW.
You get that this is a hypothetical example right?
Oh no, you're hilariously choosing to misunderstand everything anyone else writes.
If I enjoy something, and beyond interpersonal interaction with my buddies or people I randomly game with at an FLGS, cannot even begin to attempt to converse about it through the popular/regular channels without having to wade through a sea of negativity and outrageous, often completely out of touch perspectives on what should for all intents and purposes be something that is purely meant for fun and an outlet from the real stress in life, the problem is not with me. It's the community, or to be more specific, a small group of stubborn like-minded disgruntled 'veterans of the long war against GW'.
Why on earth would that be an insult?
If you find that diverging opinions from your own, influence you so much that it lowers your actual enjoyment of the game, then maybe you should consider joining B&C or some other forum like that. From what I've heard they toe the GW party line much more closely than Dakka and would probably better suit your needs of being surrounded only by people that agree with you.
If I enjoy something, and beyond interpersonal interaction with my buddies or people I randomly game with at an FLGS, cannot even begin to attempt to converse about it through the popular/regular channels without having to wade through a sea of negativity and outrageous, often completely out of touch perspectives on what should for all intents and purposes be something that is purely meant for fun and an outlet from the real stress in life, the problem is not with me. It's the community, or to be more specific, a small group of stubborn like-minded disgruntled 'veterans of the long war against GW'.
Why on earth would that be an insult?
If you find that diverging opinions from your own, influence you so much that it lowers your actual enjoyment of the game, then maybe you should consider joining B&C or some other forum like that. From what I've heard they toe the GW party line much more closely than Dakka and would probably better suit your needs of being surrounded only by people that agree with you.
This has nothing to do with whether or not people agree with me. I have never personally stated that GW, or the collective game does not have its share of problems. I take issue with the way people approach said problems or cannot seemingly overcome them, and how downright poisonous some people are.
We have people that no longer play this game that literally lurk in order to copy and paste their repeated arguments whenever an opportunity arises, or to purposely sway people away from the game. Their very reason for existing, it seems, is to churn out GW propaganda and start arguments.
Also, for the record, ending every post with a laughing emoticon isn't a terribly effective way to convince someone that you aren't being condescending.
Your damn right that I'll do my utmost to sway people away from the game. Its a pretty bad game and overpriced to booth, made by a terrible company that sees its customers only has walking wallets. I would be making the gaming community a terrible service if I let anyone start spending money in a game like that.
Also, for the record, ending every post with a laughing emoticon isn't a terribly effective way to convince someone that you aren't being condescending.
Your damn right that I'll do my utmost to sway people away from the game. Its a pretty bad game and overpriced to booth, made by a terrible company that sees its customers only has walking wallets. I would be making the gaming community a terrible service if I let anyone start spending money in a game like that.
Also, for the record, ending every post with a laughing emoticon isn't a terribly effective way to convince someone that you aren't being condescending.
I'll stop with the laughing emoticons then.
Thanks for proving my point.
Good luck with your tireless crusade, and enjoy posting in a forum dedicated to a hobby that you clearly dislike.
People have entirely too much time on their hands.
XenosTerminus wrote: Good luck with your tireless crusade, and enjoy posting in a forum dedicated to a hobby that you clearly dislike.
The tabletop game isn't the extent of the hobby. We love the 40k setting, most of the models, the novels, the video games, whatever. We may even have loved the tabletop game. No longer loving it doesn't mean we can't enjoy the rest of 40k, or do what we can to try to improve the tabletop game - the only known way of doing so being to hit GW where it hurts, right in the profits.
XenosTerminus wrote: Good luck with your tireless crusade, and enjoy posting in a forum dedicated to a hobby that you clearly dislike.
The tabletop game isn't the extent of the hobby. We love the 40k setting, most of the models, the novels, the video games, whatever. We may even have loved the tabletop game. No longer loving it doesn't mean we can't enjoy the rest of 40k, or do what we can to try to improve the tabletop game - the only known way of doing so being to hit GW where it hurts, right in the profits.
I get that, I really do. The hobby is more than the rules.
Then why do so many people feel it is necessary to post about rules if they don't care about them? How many times do these people need to repeat their stance? don't post about the rules and stay in the hobby sections maybe?
XenosTerminus wrote: Good luck with your tireless crusade, and enjoy posting in a forum dedicated to a hobby that you clearly dislike.
The tabletop game isn't the extent of the hobby. We love the 40k setting, most of the models, the novels, the video games, whatever. We may even have loved the tabletop game. No longer loving it doesn't mean we can't enjoy the rest of 40k, or do what we can to try to improve the tabletop game - the only known way of doing so being to hit GW where it hurts, right in the profits.
I get that, I really do. The hobby is more than the rules.
Then why do so many people feel it is necessary to post about rules if they don't care about them? How many times do these people need to repeat their stance? don't post about the rules and stay in the hobby sections maybe?
Because the rules enable the game and it's bs to have crap rules when you're paying almost $100 , more than anybody else, for them?
XenosTerminus wrote: Good luck with your tireless crusade, and enjoy posting in a forum dedicated to a hobby that you clearly dislike.
The tabletop game isn't the extent of the hobby. We love the 40k setting, most of the models, the novels, the video games, whatever. We may even have loved the tabletop game. No longer loving it doesn't mean we can't enjoy the rest of 40k, or do what we can to try to improve the tabletop game - the only known way of doing so being to hit GW where it hurts, right in the profits.
I get that, I really do. The hobby is more than the rules.
Then why do so many people feel it is necessary to post about rules if they don't care about them? How many times do these people need to repeat their stance? don't post about the rules and stay in the hobby sections maybe?
Because the rules enable the game and it's bs to have crap rules when you're paying almost $100 , more than anybody else, for them?
Then don't spend $100 on the rules.
It's really quite simple. If you dislike an aspect of the game, no amount of complaining is going to change things. Clearly. GW's business methods, whether you agree with them or not, have largely remained unchanged since 4th edition.
Embrace what you enjoy about the hobby and disregard what you don't. Look for the positives in things instead of lingering on the negative. Don't try to lessen others enjoyment in something because you yourself are cynical and jaded.
It does nobody any good to tirelessly preach on a street corner- eventually people get annoyed after hearing the same thing repeated.
XenosTerminus wrote: Good luck with your tireless crusade, and enjoy posting in a forum dedicated to a hobby that you clearly dislike.
The tabletop game isn't the extent of the hobby. We love the 40k setting, most of the models, the novels, the video games, whatever. We may even have loved the tabletop game. No longer loving it doesn't mean we can't enjoy the rest of 40k, or do what we can to try to improve the tabletop game - the only known way of doing so being to hit GW where it hurts, right in the profits.
QFT.
This is how I feel. I've only recently turned against GW and now that I'm standing on the other side I feel that GW is cheapening the IP that I love by turning it into a poorly thought out short termed money grab.
XenosTerminus wrote: Then why do so many people feel it is necessary to post about rules if they don't care about them? How many times do these people need to repeat their stance? don't post about the rules and stay in the hobby sections maybe?
We *do* care about the rules. This also isn't the rules section - it's 40k general. How long? Until GW listens I guess ; ) It works for other companies - customers got Microsoft to change their Xbox One "features" before launch thanks to loud complaining. It'll work here too - it'll just take longer and go the indirect route of hitting GW in the profits.
MWHistorian wrote: This is how I feel. I've only recently turned against GW and now that I'm standing on the other side I feel that GW is cheapening the IP that I love by turning it into a poorly thought out short termed money grab.
Check the monetization of the new 40K MMO, it's shocking. $35 for a bolter skin, there are $450 pre-order packs and even buying the full game ($40) doesn't give you full access. GW is only getting worse as time goes on and people keep enabling them.
Yonan wrote: The definition of "eye" is very specific:
eye
noun
1.
each of a pair of globular organs of sight in the head of humans and vertebrate animals.
When the model does not have one, it is unclear exactly what to do. Do you use the optical sensor if it has one? Do you use this other thing that could be an optical sensor? How about the antennae because it's a networked drone receiving orders from a controller? Maybe the model detects its surroundings with its tongue like a snake? Does it use echo location like a bat? Due to this ease of confustion, should you instead use the tip of the gun barrel? They've all viable alternatives, as are others. When there are multiple viable options you could say it's "unclear" of which to use.
This is where common sense comes into play. An optical sensor is an eye in fact, just an eye for technological things, it serves the same function. If you need to be told that, something is wrong with you, not the rule.
The whole point, is that the rules have many vague areas; the old LoS rules are a great example of this for many reasons. I don't understand what you're not understanding about this and why you're so fervently arguing against it.
Because at some point, things are just obvious as to how they should be handled and those complaining about GW so far, obviously don't know how to handle issues because they are not spelled out for them.
And no one is claiming the rules as a whole are unworkable or unplayable.
I've seen some people claim the rules to be utterly broken or terribad in general. Some here called them broken too.
Thing is - people that try to prove that GW's rules are ambiguous often go to the opposite extreme, trying to ridicule through exaggeration to prove their point, but then some random sensationalist will pick it up and live by those words like they weren't exaggerated at all, making things like lack of eyes in LOS rule such a huge issue that normal, reasonable folk will just facepalm at. You know what's worst? When confronted about some of those "problems" and proven that they're not even remotely a 'real' issue the answer is always the same "but it's about the principle, not this particular issue". No matter how many of those terrible broken rules issues you topple and prove to be a matter of a very simple interpretation, they will still say that it's not about the particular examples but something that turns into some kind of a mythical land of problems that lies somewhere near the Atlantis. Everyone heard about it, some preach about it, but noone has actually seen it, because strange men in black suits and shades stormed into their houses and erased their memories, planting in the terrible thing called "house rules" to cover up the ugly truth.
Every single issue I have ever read about was so minor it could've been ignored by giving it 2 seconds of reasonable thought. Yet they're somehow combined into giant blob of a problem when mentioned in a conversation.
Not saying the rules are perfect, but they're far, far from being "broken", "unplayable" and "terrible". GW definetely should finally assume that players actually are idiots and that they need to be spoon-fed with idiot-proof rules so noone can ever come up with such stupid problems. Again - reasonable people don't have issues with the rules. Sure, it sometimes takes an interpretation(which some will call house ruling, but whatever), but if someone can't really figure out a solution to a 'problem' like that, he probably should consider changing hobby over to something that doesn't require using brain. Yes, 'figuring out' stuff should not be a thing when it comes to rule, I understand that, but a few small cases, if not overblown by some internet arguists, aren't really a sign that the whole game is broken or terribly written. Vast majority of rules works perfectly fine and the game is -very- playable.
Sorry, the bolded part made my day. I noticed and have been saying this since I joined these forums. Reasonable people. no problems. Those who cannot reason, mucha problemas.
So now people are idiots because they insist that a product that has the highest price tag on the market, also should have the quality to go along with it?
You guys are hilarious, you really are. Its no wonder that GW continues to rise prices and lower quality when you guys just gobble it all up and attribute all the problems that might happen to your fellow gamers instead of the company that actually made the rules!
I put five minutes into building a list for WM, over $400 easily. I've put less than $250, not counting paints into my 40k army. Who has the highest price tag again? A box of guys for $50+ unless a sale happens, a starter set that offers less models at the same price as GW, seriously, your point is so bad here it's laughable.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think GW's assumption is that a lot of their customers, especially the new, younger ones, have never read a set of wargame rules and don't care how they are written as long as the text is carried along by a general theme of enthusiasm and fun.
Or GW realizes that people will take the game for what it is, a game and stop whining and moaning about every little thing they come across. Mind you the playerbase actually whining and complaining, isn't even a majority of the players.
Therefore, in order to make the game work, the player base, subconsciously in many cases, simply house ruled that on a model that didn't have eyes, you used the most eye-like equivalent, or merely used the model's head.
This point, obvious. You are playing in a 40k setting, there will be robots and alien races with different optical parts/pieces than humans. It becomes a little obvious if you simply look at the model and stop looking for a literal sentence always telling you what to do.
MWHistorian wrote: Please stop this nonesense about "LOS and eyes." It does neither side any credit. There are bigger and more pressing issues than that.
Issues to some, not all and those issues, are solved by common sense.
Because the rules enable the game and it's bs to have crap rules when you're paying almost $100 , more than anybody else, for them?
Outside of the rulebook, the prices per model, when looking at infantry is roughly higher for Warmachine, seen this myself. Warmachine is cheaper for solo units which I'll grant them and rulebooks for armies, at least the troll one is roughly the same as what I paid for my Tyrannid rulebook. Overall GW rulebook is a little high, but you are not just buying a rulebook, you're getting a lot of lore and some sweet pics. Also, it isn't almost $100, I paid $81 and change for 6th edition rulebook which was a little high and I paid nada for 7th, but that's another story.
You're whining about the price on things you can easily work around, no basis for argumentation there sir. Prices are high, you get a good product, don't like it, don't buy, simple as that.
Lobomalo wrote: This is where common sense comes into play. An optical sensor is an eye in fact, just an eye for technological things, it serves the same function. If you need to be told that, something is wrong with you, not the rule.
It's funny you should say that, because my group decided - based on common sense - that because of the widely varying nature of models, it was better to use the tips of weapons for LOS. The weapons are always WYSIWYG, the rest of the model... who knows.
Lobomalo wrote: This is where common sense comes into play. An optical sensor is an eye in fact, just an eye for technological things, it serves the same function. If you need to be told that, something is wrong with you, not the rule.
It's funny you should say that, because my group decided - based on common sense - that because of the widely varying nature of models, it was better to use the tips of weapons for LOS. The weapons are always WYSIWYG, the rest of the model... who knows.
That's another way you could do it, but as those are not eyes or any type of optical tool on a model, you'd be doing it wrong, but it is an idea I've heard before
Getting back to a broader theme, GW "win" if they increase sales and profits. This means they have to create and retain happy customers.
The increasingly widespread complaints and criticism about GW -- rules, expense, balance, codex releases too slow/too quick -- seem to show that there is a problem with some of the veterans. The question for GW is whether they can create new customers at a sufficient rate to balance the loss of old ones, or maybe keep some old customers and sell them more stuff each.
The sales figures suggest GW are just about succeeding, as revenues have been relatively constant for some years. (Except the dismal Dec 13 interim results.)
The danger for GW is that by pissing off enough veterans, they may create a situation in which the virtuous circle of supporters becomes a vicious circle of detractors. In other words, rather then newcomers being welcomed into a widespread and growing hobby with many happy users to tutor them in playing and modelling, newcomers are greeted by a shrinking circle of players many of whom have become actively hostile to the point they promote rival rules and models.
Going to have to disagree that it's any more wrong than the other interpretations sorry, but we've been there.
edit: Those sales figures should be out pretty soon I hope. Next 6 months will be more telling as the cannibalization from the early 7th will start to show, but will still be interesting to see.
XenosTerminus wrote: Then why do so many people feel it is necessary to post about rules if they don't care about them? How many times do these people need to repeat their stance? don't post about the rules and stay in the hobby sections maybe?
We *do* care about the rules. This also isn't the rules section - it's 40k general. How long? Until GW listens I guess ; )
MWHistorian wrote: This is how I feel. I've only recently turned against GW and now that I'm standing on the other side I feel that GW is cheapening the IP that I love by turning it into a poorly thought out short termed money grab.
Check the monetization of the new 40K MMO, it's shocking. $35 for a bolter skin, there are $450 pre-order packs and even buying the full game ($40) doesn't give you full access. GW is only getting worse as time goes on and people keep enabling them.
A company will only charge what consumers are willing to pay (the greatest common denominator, or majority), especially in a niche market. Many argue that GW's policies are not sustainable- this may be true in the long run, but right now people are still willing to pay for their products based on what they are charging, despite so many people online suggesting the game is too expensive.
It's basic economics. GW, for all their faults with the actual product, are behaving exactly how a company in their position does, regardless of the product type. If they finding their current methods to be profitable, even if it is a short-term goal, they are perfectly within their rights to do so.
You as a consumer have the ability to choose whether or not to support a company. GW has cut most ties with the community, and clearly doesn't forum ranting seriously (evident by the closure of their very own forums).
Am I suggesting this is good in any way? No. I think GW is shooting themselves in the foot. But here the thing- if they are no longer finding profits to be sustainable, they will be faced with difficult decisions. Things will have to change in order to keep the shareholders happy. Until then, though, they are fully within their rights to operate their business however the hell they want to whether you agree with it or not. Don't like it? Don't support it.
But please, for love of God, if you have literally zero interest, involvement, or have nothing positive to say- EVER- don't try to detract from others enjoyment simply because you can. Do I agree with everything GW does? No, I do not.
Do I find their prices too high? No, because I don't blow hundreds of dollars on this game every month. I will buy a kit every few months, if that. I largely play with the collection I already have. I apply common sense and play the game with like-minded and mature functional adults.
We find no serious issues with the game- and it's just that.. a game. It isn't some incredibly serious and life altering activity that needs to be taken as seriously as it is to some people, regardless of how much you may or may not have invested in it.
That's life, folks. Things change. Sometimes for the worse. You move on and adapt. Don't like GW or the game anymore? Tough. Other people clearly still do, and you are doing nobody any favors by self-loathing and tirelessly whining about the days of yore.
Check the monetization of the new 40K MMO, it's shocking. $35 for a bolter skin, there are $450 pre-order packs and even buying the full game ($40) doesn't give you full access. GW is only getting worse as time goes on and people keep enabling them.
40$ gives you the full game, it just doesn't give you access to the fancy skins and such in the cash shop.
I apply common sense and play the game with like-minded and mature functional adults.
We find no serious issues with the game- and it's just that.. a game. It isn't some incredibly serious and life altering activity that needs to be taken as seriously as it is to some people, regardless of how much you may or may not have invested in it.
That's life, folks. Things change. Sometimes for the worse. You move on and adapt. Don't like GW or the game anymore? Tough. Other people clearly still do, and you are doing nobody any favors by self-loathing and tirelessly whining about the days of yore.
Can I play with you, you seem like a reasonable fellow?
Check the monetization of the new 40K MMO, it's shocking. $35 for a bolter skin, there are $450 pre-order packs and even buying the full game ($40) doesn't give you full access. GW is only getting worse as time goes on and people keep enabling them.
40$ gives you the full game, it just doesn't give you access to the fancy skins and such in the cash shop.
Which is entirely normal and fine as MMO's nowadays run on micro-transactions anyway
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, that $450 is for all the extra perks, not the game, don't complain about it, you don't need to buy it.
XenosTerminus wrote: That's life, folks. Things change. Sometimes for the worse. You move on and adapt. Don't like GW or the game anymore? Tough. Other people clearly still do, and you are doing nobody any favors by self-loathing and tirelessly whining about the days of yore.
Those other people don't seem to care about us no longer enjoying a part of the hobby we've invested $000's into, so why should we care about their enjoyment in our attempts to get change? That would be a pretty bad stance to take though wouldn't it?
BTW, I'm not a veteran. I arrived on the tail of 5th so I'm not pining for the days of yore. It didn't take me long to realize GW were horrible at rule writing. Doesn't mean I can't do whatever I can to remedy that to make the hobby more fun.
Check the monetization of the new 40K MMO, it's shocking. $35 for a bolter skin, there are $450 pre-order packs and even buying the full game ($40) doesn't give you full access. GW is only getting worse as time goes on and people keep enabling them.
40$ gives you the full game, it just doesn't give you access to the fancy skins and such in the cash shop.
$40 gives you the full game - up to 2 months later than people who paid more for it. Or did you not read about the tiered content releases post launch?
Lobomalo wrote: Also, that $450 is for all the extra perks, not the game, don't complain about it, you don't need to buy it.
The extra perks cut from the games content to sell piecemeal to you. Iconic bolter skins should not be gated behind further paywalls. It's a bad model. I have no intention of paying for it, and the majority of MMO players I've talked to about it have all heavily criticized it. For that and other reasons.
All the other rules sets I use to enjoy my hobby of table top war gaming , allow me to turn up , set up the table and play anyone who has read the same rule book as me straight away.
Eg
' X-Wing 50pts?'
'Yeah cool'.
Play and enjoy.
FoW 'Late war 1750 pts'
'Ok lets play..'
Play and enjoy .
The last '40k bring and battle' at my FLGS involved 2 hours 'heated debate ' over what source material to use, unbound lists,or not,then arguing on how to 'interpret' or 'house rule' the new 7th edition.
Obviously the 5 regulars had arrived as a common 'interpetation'.But the players from surrounding clubs had not arrived at the same interpretations.
So if you find needless discussion on how to interpret rules that you paid premium prices for enjoyable.Do not assume every one will feel the same way.
Also do not assume everyone has the luxury of a fixed group of friends who can mutually agree to edit the rules GW sell them to find the game they enjoy.
If you acknowledge GW plc sell 40k as suitable for pick up and play games in stores.Then the prerequisite of this function is being able to use 'Rules As Written'.
It is not fun arguing over the intent of the rules writer when the rules as written are not defined to a professional* standard.(*Proof read and edited.) .IMO.
XenosTerminus wrote: That's life, folks. Things change. Sometimes for the worse. You move on and adapt. Don't like GW or the game anymore? Tough. Other people clearly still do, and you are doing nobody any favors by self-loathing and tirelessly whining about the days of yore.
Those other people don't seem to care about us no longer enjoying a part of the hobby we've invested $000's into, so why should we care about their enjoyment in our attempts to get change? That would be a pretty bad stance to take though wouldn't it?
BTW, I'm not a veteran. I arrived on the tail of 5th so I'm not pining for the days of yore. It didn't take me long to realize GW were horrible at rule writing. Doesn't mean I can't do whatever I can to remedy that to make the hobby more fun.
There is a difference between attempting to make the hobby more enjoyable and simply complaining that it isn't more enjoyable.
GW has given us a toolbox to do whatever we want, within reason. This is absolutely fantastic for people that just want to disconnect and enjoy a game with beautifully sculpted miniatures that we all spend countless hours painting, converting, and crafting into coherent forces based on lore we all hold dear.
Whether GW purposely keeps their rules gray or up for interpretation or not and masks this with a 'forge the narrative' methodology, the very definition of 'remedying the problem' is doing whatever you, and the greater collective of players can, to enjoy the game anyway they can.
The issue is some players are incapable of doing this. They pine for complete balance, meticulously spelled out rules, and various other ways things are handled from a company perspective.
The problem is that this is not how 40k is, or has ever been, give or take subtleties from prior editions. Instead of MAKING 40k the game they want, often with little effort required, these people want everything spelled out or spoon-fed to them. They either lack effort or imagination.
40k is what you choose to make it. If you cannot embrace or accept that this is the way the game is, it's not for you.
I put five minutes into building a list for WM, over $400 easily. I've put less than $250, not counting paints into my 40k army. Who has the highest price tag again? A box of guys for $50+ unless a sale happens, a starter set that offers less models at the same price as GW, seriously, your point is so bad here it's laughable.
$400? I'd like to see that list.
Even without discounts, I've made pretty solid tourney lists with a good selection of units for £150-£200. My first circle army which dis extremely well cost me £90, and is still the core of a lot of my larger armies. I never 'sell' warmachine on the 'but it's cheaper!!11,' ticket, but it's a lot cheaper to buy in than 40k.
Similarly - it's my experience that $250 won't take you very far in 40k, especially if you play a hordey style army. Whenenever those pricing threads come up, I see $500+ price tags more often than not.
With respect, and out of curiosity, I'd like to see your lists, because neither represents the standard...
$40 gives you the full game - up to 2 months later than people who paid more for it. Or did you not read about the tiered content releases post launch?
So it just gives you early access then? It doesn't completely lock that content out from you?
Because at some point, things are just obvious as to how they should be handled and those complaining about GW so far, obviously don't know how to handle issues because they are not spelled out for them.
I'm assuming you've read the whole thread, and yet you still seem to miss the point.
The point is not how the players can adapt, house rule, and otherwise apply basic logic, the point is that the rules are shoddy in many areas. The LoS issue is a single example, of which there are dozens more. So while the LoS issue is fairly easily resolved, it doesn't excuse GW from making a simple fix (which they have with this edition) for that rule. Further, the entire point is that GW can't seem to win because their rule writing ability is quite poor.
Yes, the LoS is a bit of an extreme example of RAW, but it is nevertheless an example of poor writing. There are, however, dozens of other issues among the codices and rule book proper where the solution is not clear and more than one interpretation of the rules may be correct, leading to conflicts.
Stop assuming the people who are making these points aren't using common sense. Many of these posters have been active on these boards for some time and participated in threads aimed at resolving the issues in the game. I understand full well how to fix the game and do when required, but once more, that doesn't excuse GW of poor writing or make it any less important for them to write better rules.
I don't need things to be spelled out for me; I need a game that I don't have to negotiate with my opponent about who's interpretation or application of common sense is more right. This isn't a difficult concept, nor something that should be dismissed because its seemingly too negative.
Once again; the LoS debate was an example to illustrate the greater issues that permeate the game. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm fully capable of applying common sense and making my games run smoothly. The point is, to reiterate once more, that once of the reasons GW can't seem to win is because their rule set is poorly written, which causes issues for many gamers. Never assume because your group of gamers all think and interpret the same way that other groups don't have issues with people not seeing eye to eye with a particularly vague rule.
Lobomalo wrote: Except a sensor, isn't an interpretation of an eye. It serves the exact function, which is why common sense was applied to it.
Or do sensors no longer sense things and provide vision for robots?
Well, I'm no electronics engineer, but I'm aware of motion sensors, heat sensors, audio sensors, proximity sensors... Plus there's radar, sonar etc..
Plus what do we have, other than our own assumption, that what you've assumed is some sort of visual I out isn't, in fact, so,e sort of output device? Or a charging jack? Or any other number of hitherto unthought of things from an alien robot supposedly from 40,000 years in the future?
But, once again, you're arguing the minutiae of the example rather than the wider point.
I put five minutes into building a list for WM, over $400 easily. I've put less than $250, not counting paints into my 40k army. Who has the highest price tag again? A box of guys for $50+ unless a sale happens, a starter set that offers less models at the same price as GW, seriously, your point is so bad here it's laughable.
The starter set for WM brings 2 fully legal lists, the one for 40k not so much. Number of miniatures is completely irrelevant if you can't play the actual game with them...
So show us those mythical 40k and WMH lists that somehow completely reverse the actual cost of both games. All I've seen from you so far is talk, time to actually deliver something.
Ask the legal section of your company , if they think the same. If lets say they ever let the managers sign a contract where fixable things aren't clearly listed.
I put five minutes into building a list for WM, over $400 easily. I've put less than $250, not counting paints into my 40k army. Who has the highest price tag again? A box of guys for $50+ unless a sale happens, a starter set that offers less models at the same price as GW, seriously, your point is so bad here it's laughable.
The starter set for WM brings 2 fully legal lists, the one for 40k not so much. Number of miniatures is completely irrelevant if you can't play the actual game with them...
So show us those mythical 40k and WMH lists that somehow completely reverse the actual cost of both games. All I've seen from you so far is talk, time to actually deliver something.
You can follow through in this while you're at it too...
I'll take your challenge, how long do I have to test them out, find a way to make them useful and get back to you? I would need to buy the Pyrovores and some of the others you have listed as the shops here don't let you proxy one unit for another. Say, two weeks?
I'd venture you should at least put forward some hypotheticals, you must have some thoughts on how you'd use them, even if you've not had chance to do so yet?
Happy to let you do so on the provision that it hadn't been tested in practice, but practice is only really testing out theories anyway.
The Internet being what it is, if you take two weeks away from a topic, people will forget, not log on, move house, change their identity.. You know how it goes..
True, I'll give it 3 days and run mock battles in that time. Hard to give concrete ideas simply by looking at the codex. I'm full of off the wall strategies in every game I play, many of which only make sense to me so I'll need time to mull things over.
I wouldn't use them as anti armor-vehicle, S is nowhere near high enough to reliable puncture armor unless you're locking Rear Armor 10 vehicles in melee combat and hoping for 5+
I could see them being useful against Terminators. Acid Blood is very interesting to me as is Acid Maw, Flame Spurt is meh, wouldn't bother with it.
Volatile is just fun, I can think of many ways to have fun with this.
Biggest issue, 40 pts per model. Toss them into an ongoing conflict with some gaunts or something cheap, get one to explode. Watch shenanigans happen.
Exchange took place last Sunday, so you've had substantially longer than three days to formulate some hypothetical ideas of how to make the Pyrovore not suck.
I put five minutes into building a list for WM, over $400 easily. I've put less than $250, not counting paints into my 40k army. Who has the highest price tag again? A box of guys for $50+ unless a sale happens, a starter set that offers less models at the same price as GW, seriously, your point is so bad here it's laughable.
Okay I'm calling your bluff, because outside of some shenanigans with a list (e.g. double Stormwall versus Draigowing) that's a load of crap. Post the list, and it had better be a straight comparison not some garbage like buying a cheap 40k army off eBay versus paying retail for Warmachine. You show me an equal Warmachine army to a 40k army that costs more: For reference that'd be around 50 points in Warmachine and 1850 in 40k.
I'd really advocate against comparing prices of WarmaHordes and 40k given the fact that 40k, while costing more, will provide you with often better cast(in better material too since their transition from finecast), customizable miniatures with just as good if not better sculpts and in much bigger numbers.
WarmaHordes' strong side is the entry price as you can have 10pt games with one warcaster and two to three warjacks(although those get boring after a moment), there's no doubt. But if someone wants to take WarmaHordes seriously like a serious 40k player takes his game, then he is most likely to play the two list format with both armies being set at 50pts. Taking my lists as an example(because what Cygnar player doesn't have a Colossal? ), it'll quickly turn into 368$ for Siege's dudes and about 200$ for eHaley list(ATGMs, UAs, Lancer/Thorn, other stuff), netting us 568$ of miniatures. Suddenly it's not that cheap, but again, it's expected because the model count also rises.
That being said - every game smaller in size would be cheaper. If GW had rules in 40kBRB to play games at 300pts(I am not counting kill team as it's much different from regular 40k), it'd be cheaper too. But if the game requires more models and they're just as good or better than other companies in most cases, then I see no reason why it being more expensive is an issue. If the products are equal in quality and only quantities change, the price difference will be adequate.
The only thing I can agree upon is that the rulebook and Codexes are way too expensive, even though the visual quality is probably best on the market with all those fancy designs, print quality and such.
My arguments in this thread about LOS were only there to show how ridiculously stupid some 'problems' people have are when they nitpick or use some twisted logic to interpret them. Most 'issues' with 40k ruleset are overblown to an extreme level and, as I said, when confronted, they turn out to not be THE problem, but a part of some mythical thing that noone can mention by name. If someone overblows thing like the poor LOS argument and calls the rules broken because of thing like that it doesn't mean that it's a real problem.
I agree that GW can't win it unless they, I don't know, start giving their rules for free, feed homeless people every tuesday, adopt stray puppies and kittens and pay people to take their products. It doesn't matter that 7th fixed a lot of issues while making only a small handful of it's own, that 7th is much better worded most the times, that it's balance tweaks are largely for the better(I know that MC-using players will disagree) or that the Codexes that came out this year are pretty well balanced externally with each having it's strengths but also weaknesses. Funnily enough those people whining on the forums that the game is broken and that it's unplayable are.. a minority. On the whole Dakka out of the loudest barking dogs you can see that only like... a dozen quit? And mostly in bursts of mass hysteria related to things that they didn't get to even try. "IMPERIAL KNIGHTS! SO OVERPOWERED. LOOK AT THEM STATS! THEY WILL RUIN THE GAME!" Bam, haven't seen a single case of Knights tabling a proper army at 1500 or more points played by a good player. Knights were far from being nigh invincible and their weapons weren't enough to ruin stuff like people predicted. "OOOH 7TH ED, SO BROKEN, MUST QUIT, NO HOPE!" aaaand 7th is so far the best* in last, what, four editions? But no, bashing all the way. Especially without testing. Of course YMMV between armies that are CC and ranged oriented, but things change all the time and various editions favoured various playstyles over time. Before someone says "other games don't have that issue" I will laugh at the idea of a 'ranged' Warmachine army until I get hiccups.
I, for one, think that 40k and WFB are taking steps in the good direction, the models are getting much, much prettier and seeing how the approach to Codex writing changed since they made the "design team" write them, there's no ridiculous overpoweredness on sight. Call me an optimist, but I think that if Codex: Eldar got re-written now, it'd be much more balanced.
Again - not saying GW is perfect, they make bad decisions, some of them are hurtful for the community, but they seem to be willing to change for the better. They even started putting up free and very nice miniature painting vids on their YT channel(rendering some of their digital products such as how to paint Tempestus Scions pointless).
*-- you may disagree based on your personal opinion and/or the position of rose-tinted nostalgia goggles as those affect one's view of stuff greatly.
Rough estimate of costs for my 40k armies at 2k points:
Marines: 600 plus codex
Eldar: 650 plus codex
Necron: 800 plus codex
Warmachine at 50 points. I have three lists for the same faction with some overlap but the total cost including my Colossal is roughly 500. The cost slowly grows as I build up (not stuff I have to have but just want in my showcase) but it is still substantially cheaper. I also do not need a codex or BRB.
The biggest difference how ever is the buy in cost. I had 35 points for two separate armies for around 175 and I was able to find games constantly.
I will also concede that GW does have better crafted models but still a cost that I find unjustifiable.
When I started 40k no one wanted to play 500 points, 1000 points or even 1500. In order to play I had to purchase 900 points and hope three other people were willing to play doubles. The upfront cost into 40k is substantially higher unless you have people willing to play down.
I can post full lists with costs when I get home for any one wanting proof.
I'd really advocate against comparing prices of WarmaHordes and 40k given the fact that 40k, while costing more, will provide you with often better cast(in better material too since their transition from finecast), customizable miniatures with just as good if not better sculpts and in much bigger numbers.
WarmaHordes' strong side is the entry price as you can have 10pt games with one warcaster and two to three warjacks(although those get boring after a moment), there's no doubt. But if someone wants to take WarmaHordes seriously like a serious 40k player takes his game, then he is most likely to play the two list format with both armies being set at 50pts. Taking my lists as an example(because what Cygnar player doesn't have a Colossal? ), it'll quickly turn into 368$ for Siege's dudes and about 200$ for eHaley list(ATGMs, UAs, Lancer/Thorn, other stuff), netting us 568$ of miniatures. Suddenly it's not that cheap, but again, it's expected because the model count also rises.
That being said - every game smaller in size would be cheaper. If GW had rules in 40kBRB to play games at 300pts(I am not counting kill team as it's much different from regular 40k), it'd be cheaper too. But if the game requires more models and they're just as good or better than other companies in most cases, then I see no reason why it being more expensive is an issue. If the products are equal in quality and only quantities change, the price difference will be adequate.
The only thing I can agree upon is that the rulebook and Codexes are way too expensive, even though the visual quality is probably best on the market with all those fancy designs, print quality and such.
My arguments in this thread about LOS were only there to show how ridiculously stupid some 'problems' people have are when they nitpick or use some twisted logic to interpret them. Most 'issues' with 40k ruleset are overblown to an extreme level and, as I said, when confronted, they turn out to not be THE problem, but a part of some mythical thing that noone can mention by name. If someone overblows thing like the poor LOS argument and calls the rules broken because of thing like that it doesn't mean that it's a real problem.
I agree that GW can't win it unless they, I don't know, start giving their rules for free, feed homeless people every tuesday, adopt stray puppies and kittens and pay people to take their products. It doesn't matter that 7th fixed a lot of issues while making only a small handful of it's own, that 7th is much better worded most the times, that it's balance tweaks are largely for the better(I know that MC-using players will disagree) or that the Codexes that came out this year are pretty well balanced externally with each having it's strengths but also weaknesses. Funnily enough those people whining on the forums that the game is broken and that it's unplayable are.. a minority. On the whole Dakka out of the loudest barking dogs you can see that only like... a dozen quit? And mostly in bursts of mass hysteria related to things that they didn't get to even try. "IMPERIAL KNIGHTS! SO OVERPOWERED. LOOK AT THEM STATS! THEY WILL RUIN THE GAME!" Bam, haven't seen a single case of Knights tabling a proper army at 1500 or more points played by a good player. Knights were far from being nigh invincible and their weapons weren't enough to ruin stuff like people predicted. "OOOH 7TH ED, SO BROKEN, MUST QUIT, NO HOPE!" aaaand 7th is so far the best* in last, what, four editions? But no, bashing all the way. Especially without testing. Of course YMMV between armies that are CC and ranged oriented, but things change all the time and various editions favoured various playstyles over time. Before someone says "other games don't have that issue" I will laugh at the idea of a 'ranged' Warmachine army until I get hiccups.
I, for one, think that 40k and WFB are taking steps in the good direction, the models are getting much, much prettier and seeing how the approach to Codex writing changed since they made the "design team" write them, there's no ridiculous overpoweredness on sight. Call me an optimist, but I think that if Codex: Eldar got re-written now, it'd be much more balanced.
Again - not saying GW is perfect, they make bad decisions, some of them are hurtful for the community, but they seem to be willing to change for the better. They even started putting up free and very nice miniature painting vids on their YT channel(rendering some of their digital products such as how to paint Tempestus Scions pointless).
*-- you may disagree based on your personal opinion and/or the position of rose-tinted nostalgia goggles as those affect one's view of stuff greatly.
I'd point out how much of your post is subjective (which is fine, it's just useless if you're trying to "prove" anything) but I'm concerned I'd wear out the letters s,u,b,j,c,t,i,v and e on my keyboard.
Klerych wrote: I'd really advocate against comparing prices of WarmaHordes and 40k given the fact that 40k, while costing more, will provide you with often better cast(in better material too since their transition from finecast), customizable miniatures with just as good if not better sculpts and in much bigger numbers.
WarmaHordes' strong side is the entry price as you can have 10pt games with one warcaster and two to three warjacks(although those get boring after a moment), there's no doubt. But if someone wants to take WarmaHordes seriously like a serious 40k player takes his game, then he is most likely to play the two list format with both armies being set at 50pts. Taking my lists as an example(because what Cygnar player doesn't have a Colossal? ), it'll quickly turn into 368$ for Siege's dudes and about 200$ for eHaley list(ATGMs, UAs, Lancer/Thorn, other stuff), netting us 568$ of miniatures. Suddenly it's not that cheap, but again, it's expected because the model count also rises.
Building a 50 pt Trollblood, I care very little for small point games, too boring for me. He'd be right in that low point warmachine games will cost less to build an army, but if I go into a hobby, I build for the big games.
isatarin wrote: Rough estimate of costs for my 40k armies at 2k points: Marines: 600 plus codex Eldar: 650 plus codex Necron: 800 plus codex
Warmachine at 50 points. I have three lists for the same faction with some overlap but the total cost including my Colossal is roughly 500. The cost slowly grows as I build up (not stuff I have to have but just want in my showcase) but it is still substantially cheaper. I also do not need a codex or BRB.
The biggest difference how ever is the buy in cost. I had 35 points for two separate armies for around 175 and I was able to find games constantly.
When I started 40k no one wanted to play 500 points, 1000 points or even 1500. In order to play I had to purchase 900 points and hope three other people were willing to play doubles. The upfront cost into 40k is substantially higher unless you have people willing to play down.
I can post full lists with costs when I get home for any one wanting proof.
I don't think anyone would not believe you, those prices seem plausible. :-) The only case I know of a cheaper army there is are the Ogre Kingdoms. At little less than 250$ and some very simple converting you can literally make a 2400pts ETC tournament-ready army. Can't beat that!
As for your experience with 40k.. I'm really surprised that you had problems finding a game below 1500 to play. While 500 is very restricted and some armies tend to do it better than others, 1000, 1250 and 1500 point battles are very popular in my local community. In fact fewer people like to play 2k pts than 1500.
Edit:
azreal13 wrote: I'd point out how much of your post is subjective (which is fine, it's just useless if you're trying to "prove" anything) but I'm concerned I'd wear out the letters s,u,b,j,c,t,i,v and e on my keyboard.
Yeah, I wasn't trying to prove anything with that, I just stated my very subjective opinion and if someone disagrees, I'd like him to still try reconsidering his stance based on my honest opinion and eventually try to counter my points with reasonable arguments should he still be sure that I am wrong in, again, my opinion. :-)
Klerych wrote: I'd really advocate against comparing prices of WarmaHordes and 40k given the fact that 40k, while costing more, will provide you with often better cast(in better material too since their transition from finecast), customizable miniatures with just as good if not better sculpts and in much bigger numbers.
WarmaHordes' strong side is the entry price as you can have 10pt games with one warcaster and two to three warjacks(although those get boring after a moment), there's no doubt. But if someone wants to take WarmaHordes seriously like a serious 40k player takes his game, then he is most likely to play the two list format with both armies being set at 50pts. Taking my lists as an example(because what Cygnar player doesn't have a Colossal? ), it'll quickly turn into 368$ for Siege's dudes and about 200$ for eHaley list(ATGMs, UAs, Lancer/Thorn, other stuff), netting us 568$ of miniatures. Suddenly it's not that cheap, but again, it's expected because the model count also rises.
Building a 50 pt Trollblood, I care very little for small point games, too boring for me. He'd be right in that small scale warmachine games will cost less to build an army, but if I go into a hobby, I build for the big games.
Klerych wrote: I'd really advocate against comparing prices of WarmaHordes and 40k given the fact that 40k, while costing more, will provide you with often better cast(in better material too since their transition from finecast), customizable miniatures with just as good if not better sculpts and in much bigger numbers.
WarmaHordes' strong side is the entry price as you can have 10pt games with one warcaster and two to three warjacks(although those get boring after a moment), there's no doubt. But if someone wants to take WarmaHordes seriously like a serious 40k player takes his game, then he is most likely to play the two list format with both armies being set at 50pts. Taking my lists as an example(because what Cygnar player doesn't have a Colossal? ), it'll quickly turn into 368$ for Siege's dudes and about 200$ for eHaley list(ATGMs, UAs, Lancer/Thorn, other stuff), netting us 568$ of miniatures. Suddenly it's not that cheap, but again, it's expected because the model count also rises.
Building a 50 pt Trollblood, I care very little for small point games, too boring for me. He'd be right in that small scale warmachine games will cost less to build an army, but if I go into a hobby, I build for the big games.
Not really, said it before, will say it again, not Zodiark. Do I know him, yes, am I him, no. I told you, I was recruited into these forums by a friend, or did it only now register with you that the BA list I am building is built specifically to go up against my friends DA list? Not very bright are we now. As for Warmachine, we both want trolls and we want to beat each other bloody.
Hurray, you've solved a mystery, no wait, you didn't, you're just as wrong as the last guy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
isatarin wrote: Rough estimate of costs for my 40k armies at 2k points:
Marines: 600 plus codex
Eldar: 650 plus codex
Necron: 800 plus codex
Warmachine at 50 points. I have three lists for the same faction with some overlap but the total cost including my Colossal is roughly 500. The cost slowly grows as I build up (not stuff I have to have but just want in my showcase) but it is still substantially cheaper. I also do not need a codex or BRB.
The biggest difference how ever is the buy in cost. I had 35 points for two separate armies for around 175 and I was able to find games constantly.
I will also concede that GW does have better crafted models but still a cost that I find unjustifiable.
When I started 40k no one wanted to play 500 points, 1000 points or even 1500. In order to play I had to purchase 900 points and hope three other people were willing to play doubles. The upfront cost into 40k is substantially higher unless you have people willing to play down.
I can post full lists with costs when I get home for any one wanting proof.
40k in my opinion is garbage at any point under 2k. This game isn't skirmish based, it's war based. Less than 2k isn't a war, it's a slap fight.
XenosTerminus wrote: That's life, folks. Things change. Sometimes for the worse. You move on and adapt. Don't like GW or the game anymore? Tough. Other people clearly still do, and you are doing nobody any favors by self-loathing and tirelessly whining about the days of yore.
Those other people don't seem to care about us no longer enjoying a part of the hobby we've invested $000's into, so why should we care about their enjoyment in our attempts to get change? That would be a pretty bad stance to take though wouldn't it?
BTW, I'm not a veteran. I arrived on the tail of 5th so I'm not pining for the days of yore. It didn't take me long to realize GW were horrible at rule writing. Doesn't mean I can't do whatever I can to remedy that to make the hobby more fun.
There is a difference between attempting to make the hobby more enjoyable and simply complaining that it isn't more enjoyable.
GW has given us a toolbox to do whatever we want, within reason. ... ...
Well, they have attempted to sell it to us at double the price it was a few years ago.
Forgive my cynicism. I came back at the start of 4th.
The funny thing is that GW have got a bit better at rule writing than 10 years ago, but they are putting out a lot more rules like Escalation that a lot of people don't like, and haven't addressed balance at all, which was always a concern and has got worse due to Allies and Unbound.
I can't quote on my BlackBerry 10 potato for some reason. Regarding not finding lower point games this was when I was new and purchasing my first army years ago. People were ok for the first two days playing down so I could learn the game.
After that everyone wanted back up to their 1850 lists and not play with the new guy. So for my first two months I took most of the money I would normally commit to savings and bought my full marine army.
40k is lack luster and arguably imbalanced the lower points you go. So is warmahordes because some casters break the meta at low points. Our local club usually avoids the meta breakers unless you ask permission. At the normal 50 points though it is all fair game.
When I started warmachine I had no issue with people playing 15 points and allowing me to grow at a comfortable rate.
Lobomalo wrote: This is where common sense comes into play. An optical sensor is an eye in fact, just an eye for technological things, it serves the same function. If you need to be told that, something is wrong with you, not the rule.
Just to go back to this and make the same point again--let's take this scenario. The game hinges on whether a Wraithlord has LOS to a certain target. One player applies his common sense to measure from the top of that big head-like area, and thinks it does have LOS. The other applies their common sense to measure it from halfway up the head-like area, where it doesn't have LOS.
Now what? The options are:
--The players argue until one player concedes either because they don't want to be seen as antisocial, or trying too hard to win, or because they're not enjoying the game anymore because of all the debating.
--Hit the books in a vain attempt to resolve the question, bringing gameplay to a screeching halt.
--Decide the game on a 4+ roll off. Tactics, what tactics?
For a contrast, look at Warmachine, where determining line of sight is wholly within the rules: Can you draw a line between the bases of the two models that isn't blocked by terrain or effects defined as LOS-blocking, or by models with equal or larger bases than the target? If so, you have LOS.
It's not something to obsess over, but it is an excellent example of shoddy rules writing that creates needless arguments and hands the burden of applying the rules off to the players out of laziness, when it could be easily be resolved by clear rules. Arguments over LOS add exactly nothing to the game, and are trivial to avoid if you pay a little attention to the rules system.
I have to say I am rather fed up with the "eyes discussion" however it must be granted that LOS rules are basic to a modern/SF wargame due to the great amount of direct fire involved, so GW would have done well to do it properly from the start.
azreal13 wrote: You can follow through in this while you're at it too...
Good luck on that. I'm still waiting for him to explain his absurd claims about MTG:
1) U/W control is unbeatable, the best you can do is also play U/W control and tie them. Which is pretty easily disproved by looking at top-8 decklists from recent major tournaments, where U/W control is barely present and control decks as a whole aren't winning more than their fair share.
2) Mono-blue decks exploit the rules (and no, counterspelling your favorite 10-mana creature is not exploiting the rules) to win.
Needless to say, despite claiming to be an experienced competitive MTG player (and dismissing everyone else as inferior to his awesome skill) he has refused to even attempt to defend his claims with evidence.
Klerych wrote: If someone overblows thing like the poor LOS argument and calls the rules broken because of thing like that it doesn't mean that it's a real problem.
Except the point you keep missing is that it doesn't matter if the argument is "overblown". Games with well-written rules don't have this problem. You can attempt to nitpick and rules lawyer all you want in MTG and you aren't going to get anywhere with it, because the rules don't have anything to argue about. The only way to have an extended MTG rules argument is for one or more of the participants to deliberately refuse to accept what the rules say just so they can continue the argument.
XenosTerminus wrote: GW has given us a toolbox to do whatever we want, within reason. This is absolutely fantastic for people that just want to disconnect and enjoy a game with beautifully sculpted miniatures that we all spend countless hours painting, converting, and crafting into coherent forces based on lore we all hold dear.
So have other game companies, except they have given us a toolbox that works instead of a broken toolbox that has to be fixed before you can start using it to build what you want. The only advantage GW has over other companies is their models, especially the tanks/aircraft/scenery/etc that other scifi games tend to lack. Set aside the models and look purely at the rules and you'll find that GW's rules are garbage without any redeeming qualities, and other companies publish "toolbox" games that work just as well in sandbox/narrative/whatever games, without all of the rule arguments.
The problem is that this is not how 40k is, or has ever been, give or take subtleties from prior editions. Instead of MAKING 40k the game they want, often with little effort required, these people want everything spelled out or spoon-fed to them. They either lack effort or imagination.
You (and people like you) keep complaining about "lazy" players, but you still haven't explained why exactly we should have to make those changes ourselves. Why shouldn't we expect GW to meet the same standards that other companies manage and publish a complete game that works "out of the box" without any house rules or "interpretation"?
Lobomalo wrote: This is where common sense comes into play. An optical sensor is an eye in fact, just an eye for technological things, it serves the same function. If you need to be told that, something is wrong with you, not the rule.
No, it's a problem with the rule. Other games don't have this "interpretation" problem, where you have to assume that the printed words aren't actually how the rule is supposed to work and find the "obvious" way that it was "intended" to work. They just tell you what you're supposed to do, and it works. If GW intended for optical sensors to be an acceptable location to draw LOS from then they should have said so. The fact that they didn't, despite having "lol your model in a helmet can't draw LOS" being a cliche of how GW rules are badly written for multiple editions, shows that they simply do not care about making the rules function properly.
This point, obvious. You are playing in a 40k setting, there will be robots and alien races with different optical parts/pieces than humans. It becomes a little obvious if you simply look at the model and stop looking for a literal sentence always telling you what to do.
If it's so obvious then why didn't GW say "eyes or other equivalent"? Why didn't someone at GW realize that they're playing in a scifi setting full of models without eyes, and write a LOS system that can handle those situations without house rules?
And yes, the solution to the stupid rule was obvious and everyone used whatever equivalent for eyes seemed appropriate. But that's not the point. The point is that GW shouldn't have published a rule that needs everyone to fix it before the game can function.
Okay I wanted to share this little story that happened last Tuesday at my FLGS...
My dad decided he wanted to run some Stronghold Assault units and put a Vengeance Weapon Battery into his list at 75 points base line with the Quad Icarus Lascannon. That was cool but before the game he was playing with our good friend got rolling, my friend and I were looking over the rules for the Vengeance Weapon Battery and things started to get murky...it was listed as an impassable building with AV14 no hull points. We looked in the core book and we found mention of the chart for buildings with no listed HP based off of their side, the problem then arose that it was listed as "Impassable Building" with no mention of size because infantry could not enter it. So my friend, who was running Deathwing, had to have a S9 weapon to even scratch this thing and to make matters worse because it was purchased as part of my fathers force it could SCORE. So of course he had this AV14 building that was controlling an objective against our buddy whose only option to kill it was take it out with one of his chain fist...not great odds. So what we have is a AV14 objective controlling building with no HP and two TL Lascannons for 75 points. When we kept reading we figured out that "Emblaced Weapons" in battlefield debris are the same as "Weapon Emplacements" so you could attack the TL Lascannons at T7 3+. The point of this story is that it took us TWO hours of flipping between to rule books to figure all of this out because of how poorly written the GW rules are.
The point is, GW needs to use consistent language, clear organization, and just all around better editing for how much they charge for their products. Forget for a second the horrible power imbalances between armies and the flat out useless units in some codices, just play this game with a variety of people and not just the same old club to get a spread of peoples opinions and interpretations of the rules. There shouldn't be so many differences club to club because the rules should be clear enough that I can go to any state, any country, and play this game without having to figure out the house rules. I can play any other major war game and do just that, I only have a problem when I try and play 40k. Hell even when I play WFB, just so people don't tell me I am bashing GW, I can more or less have an understanding because the BRB for WFB seems to have more effort put into it to simplify and consistency.
^ This is a good way of making a point. Real life examples instead of EXTREME mouintain building out of mole hills which we had with the LOS thing.
I'm inclined to sympathize with Arbiter's post a lot more than simple statements that the rules are trash and no one can be expected to use common sense.
I think some people misunderstand the "Eyes and LoS"-example.
Maybe this will explain:
1) GW has some rules that are unclear.
2) People claimed they couldn't write perfect rules because it would make the BRB an additional 200 pages.
3) LoS-rules technically didn't work during 6th.
4) 99% of the players didn't care and let you shoot anyway.
5) Doing that is not strictly following the RAW, that's why others call it houseruling. (Even if it's as obvious as this).
6) GW fixed this issue while only adding a word or two to the total length of this ruling.
So what do we learn? They can fix the ruling without adding hundreds of pages.
Another example would be the Psychic Powers issue, they wouldn't need much additional text if they just used the word "equal".
Some people have no issue with this, they are okay with using common sense to house-rule it.
My common-sense interpretation of some rules differ from the common-sense interpretation of others.
The thing that upsets me and others is that I pay a gakload of money for things that I have to house-rule and then I have to hope my next casual opponent has the same interpretation!
1) RAW for drawing LOS is broken, as models with no eyes (models in helmets, gun drones, etc) can not draw LOS and therefore can never shoot or charge.
2) The fact that RAW is broken was a cliche of "GW can't write clear rules" arguments for multiple editions.
3) Fixing the problem is a trivial task, if you accept that a problem exists and needs to be fixed.
Conclusion: the fact that GW did not fix the problem until 7th edition proves that they simply do not care about writing clear and functional rules, something other game companies are able to do without any problems. They are quite happy to publish rough drafts as $50-100 rulebooks and then hide behind a "4+ it" excuse, which shouldn't be considered acceptable behavior.
An example I like even better is the Rapid Fire rules.
In 5th, being able to "charge after firing" was dependent on the model carrying a Rapid Fire weapon. It also said that a model that had a Rapid Fire weapon could fire twice up to half the weapon's range, but didn't say fire the Rapid Fire weapon twice. This means that a model carrying a bolter could not legally charge after firing their pistol as written, but everyone inferred that they really meant fire the Rapid Fire weapon.
They cleaned up the charging part in 6th to be based on firing the Rapid Fire weapon, but still didn't make it clear that firing twice up to half the max range was when firing the Rapid Fire weapon. The sentence about a unit partially in range is also written confusingly. If they simply used "models that fire Rapid Fire weapons" in all of the sentences it would be far more clear without taking up any more space.
All it takes is a slightly different wording to make things clear, and this is true for a lot of the rules.
Elemental wrote:For a contrast, look at Warmachine, where determining line of sight is wholly within the rules: Can you draw a line between the bases of the two models that isn't blocked by terrain or effects defined as LOS-blocking, or by models with equal or larger bases than the target? If so, you have LOS.
Las wrote: So you can't see over hedges in warmachine?
Most hedges would be considered a Linear Obstacle though the rules do define the requirements to be considered such (including height). As defined in the rules, Linear Obstacles do not block LoS.
The point I believe that was trying to be made though was that LoS- among other things- in WM/H is very rarely called into question because between first edition- which had a fair number of LoS issues- and the current edition virtually every issue has been addressed. It took PP a single edition to go from pretty good rules to extremely tight. If GW wants to start 'winning' again they need to meet that level of professionalism. You can't beat your competition by making excuses for why you're not meeting the bar they're setting. Phrases like 'forge the narrative' or 'the GW experience' are sideways attempts to distance, to separate what GW does from other companies. They're not about tournaments and competitive play or restrictive rules see? They shouldn't be compared to those other companies because they're selling something different.
But they're not. They're selling little plastic men that you assemble, paint and play a game with. And they're selling them to the same people. GW players and other game system players aren't different groups with some overlap, they're the exact same group and the sooner GW realises that the better because that group has finite disposable income. GW is competing, like it or not, and no amount of spin will change that fact and sooner or later no amount of cost cutting will hide it. GW has lost a sizable portion of the market. The people in charge at GW need to own up to this fact too and get in the damn game. They have the best IP out there and the ability to make amazing models. If they supported it with a well written, value for money rules set they would be winning by a mile. They can win but first they have to acknowledge they're competing. Then they have to raise their game to the point where people are talking about how affordable it is to start, how clear and well written the rules are and how well they treat their customers. They can win, but it'll be hard and take effort, not to mention cost some money in the short term. Whatever is holding GW back though is embedded firmly within GW.
Kojiro wrote: The point I believe that was trying to be made though was that LoS- among other things- in WM/H is very rarely called into question because between first edition- which had a fair number of LoS issues- and the current edition virtually every issue has been addressed. It took PP a single edition to go from pretty good rules to extremely tight. If GW wants to start 'winning' again they need to meet that level of professionalism.
This is what gets me. It's not so much the state of GW rules as the fact that after 7 editions they're still this bad with problems persisting from one to the next. A new edition should fix the problems from the previous edition. Ideally, it'll largely just be incorporating the FAQs that cleared up the problems from the previous edition, with enough additional content to warrant a new edition. A "lateral change" is just not acceptable to me, and why after starting at the tail of 5th I'm already over it. The fact that poorly balanced units make it from one codex to another drives me batty ; p
The purpose of a new edition of 40K is to allow GW to sell everyone a new rulebook and codex.
Some people will say it allows GW to shake up the game and prevent it getting boring. I would say if a game is boring, play a different game for a while.
I don't understand why GW stopped making any other games. They have a load of production facilities and retail shops. It ought to be a snap.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't understand why GW stopped making any other games. They have a load of production facilities and retail shops. It ought to be a snap.
It's such a shame GW stopped making other games, I'd have less complaints about GW and 40k if they still made Epic, BFG, mordheim, etc.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't understand why GW stopped making any other games. They have a load of production facilities and retail shops. It ought to be a snap.
It's such a shame GW stopped making other games, I'd have less complaints about GW and 40k if they still made Epic, BFG, mordheim, etc.
Well, they were extremely unpopular the longer they existed and overall died over time. I feel like I was one of the only like.. 3 people in my country that played BFG. When 40k started growing in size, Epic became somewhat obsolete as the miniatures couldn't get much prettier at that scale. Mordheim and Necromunda.. both should be brought back as Kill Team-like expansions for 40k, but they'll always be a tiny niche. I'm not saying that they should be discontinued, but they didn't really stand a chance back then and GW decided to focus on it's flagship titles. Funnily enough nowadays Dystopian Wars seem to be growing at pretty rapid rate while being pretty much about the same type of massive conflict as Epic. Firestorm Armada seems to be doing pretty fine(although not really -that- popular either) too, dealing in big starship battles.
My theory is that GW couldn't compete with full-fledged games from other companies with their little side-projects and had to smother them to focus on the only titles that are pretty unique to them and strong enough to survive. Especially when they devote all their resources to them, rather than spreading the team over several tiny games.
That's completely opposite to what looks like a very successful strategy from Mantic who have far lower resources. Mantic is establishing themseles as direct competitors to WHFB and 40K (with difficulties) but also have Blood Bowl and Mordheim competitors in full swing with Dreadball and Deadzone and Mars Attacks on the way. Also Dwarf Kings Hold, whatever that is ; p One of the arguments against Mantic however I guess is that yeah, they can lack focus and the ranges do need fleshing out. I just thought it was an interesting comparison.
I think the biggest reason is that GW is no longer able to innovate or even really refine their existing products. They can keep publishing more books, but it's still the same old 40k with just enough pointless changes to force you to buy the new book. And, thanks to GW's years of neglect, their other games were at the point where they needed innovation to find any success. All GW could do was cut their losses and brag to the shareholders about how they're "focusing on core markets" now.
1) RAW for drawing LOS is broken, as models with no eyes (models in helmets, gun drones, etc) can not draw LOS and therefore can never shoot or charge.
2) The fact that RAW is broken was a cliche of "GW can't write clear rules" arguments for multiple editions.
3) Fixing the problem is a trivial task, if you accept that a problem exists and needs to be fixed.
Conclusion: the fact that GW did not fix the problem until 7th edition proves that they simply do not care about writing clear and functional rules, something other game companies are able to do without any problems. They are quite happy to publish rough drafts as $50-100 rulebooks and then hide behind a "4+ it" excuse, which shouldn't be considered acceptable behavior.
Well, they were extremely unpopular the longer they existed and overall died over time. I feel like I was one of the only like.. 3 people in my country that played BFG. When 40k started growing in size, Epic became somewhat obsolete as the miniatures couldn't get much prettier at that scale. Mordheim and Necromunda.. both should be brought back as Kill Team-like expansions for 40k, but they'll always be a tiny niche. I'm not saying that they should be discontinued, but they didn't really stand a chance back then and GW decided to focus on it's flagship titles. Funnily enough nowadays Dystopian Wars seem to be growing at pretty rapid rate while being pretty much about the same type of massive conflict as Epic. Firestorm Armada seems to be doing pretty fine(although not really -that- popular either) too, dealing in big starship battles.
My theory is that GW couldn't compete with full-fledged games from other companies with their little side-projects and had to smother them to focus on the only titles that are pretty unique to them and strong enough to survive. Especially when they devote all their resources to them, rather than spreading the team over several tiny games.
The alternative was not to make them barely-supported side projects hidden away on the website, and put a little effort into promoting them so that people actually knew they existed. I remember when Epic was the third flagship GW game (now it barely has two), and the big pushes that Man O'War, Blood Bowl, BFG, Necromunda, etc had. And when they were actually supported and promoted, they were popular!
The alternative was not to make them barely-supported side projects hidden away on the website, and put a little effort into promoting them so that people actually knew they existed. I remember when Epic was the third flagship GW game (now it barely has two), and the big pushes that Man O'War, Blood Bowl, BFG, Necromunda, etc had. And when they were actually supported and promoted, they were popular!
Oh well, it's not like I'm trying to justify GW for doing so - I wanted to play BFG but the rest was pretty much non-existant in my country, so I didn't really get the opportunity to miss them at all. Maybe GW just felt that they can't put enough focus on all those games and would rather kill them than turn them into those shriveled appendages that should be sooner or later cut off? All in all, it was their decision. Good or bad, doesn't matter.
The alternative was not to make them barely-supported side projects hidden away on the website, and put a little effort into promoting them so that people actually knew they existed. I remember when Epic was the third flagship GW game (now it barely has two), and the big pushes that Man O'War, Blood Bowl, BFG, Necromunda, etc had. And when they were actually supported and promoted, they were popular!
Oh well, it's not like I'm trying to justify GW for doing so - I wanted to play BFG but the rest was pretty much non-existant in my country, so I didn't really get the opportunity to miss them at all. Maybe GW just felt that they can't put enough focus on all those games and would rather kill them than turn them into those shriveled appendages that should be sooner or later cut off? All in all, it was their decision. Good or bad, doesn't matter.
There are now entire profitable companies out there taking advantage of the void left by GW specialist games (Spartan for BFG and MoW, Wyrd for Mordheim, Hawk for Epic, Mantic for Bloodbowl and Necromunda, FFG for AE), do you really think that GW with its extensive resources and chain of stores couldn't make those games profitable for themselves instead of delivering them (and their customers) on a silver platter to competing companies?
Also, from what you're saying, your country seems to be very little into wargames in general (which I find pretty odd since it is the home of this year's WMH WTC that already has more than 300 people signed up), considering that even in my country, that has little wargaming tradition to speak of, we had more than a dozen people playing each of the specialist games back when they were actively being promoted by GW.
Peregrine wrote: I think the biggest reason is that GW is no longer able to innovate or even really refine their existing products. They can keep publishing more books, but it's still the same old 40k with just enough pointless changes to force you to buy the new book. And, thanks to GW's years of neglect, their other games were at the point where they needed innovation to find any success. All GW could do was cut their losses and brag to the shareholders about how they're "focusing on core markets" now.
It is easy enough to pay some people to sit around and think of good ideas for games, and even write them up with rules and so on. Not expensive and no risk.
None of that activity would be visible to the customer until the game got published. To get a whole new game with box, rules and models all done and distributed is a much bigger risk.
The last new game idea GW made was Dread Fleet, which was apparently a dismal failure. Perhaps that episode killed GW's appetite for risk.
What GW can do more easily is write new rules that use the models already available. And that is what they are doing with the dataslates and so on. Admittedly it is hardly innovative in the way I think you mean, since it just rides on the coattails of regular 40K.
Im pretty late to the party here but i just wanted to comment on the dropping of othe gw games.
Its fairly evident that they weren't as popular as whfb and 40k and needed updating. The problem is the age old saying of "gotta spend money to make money"
To update the games to try and get them to make more money...costs money and even then you would have no guarantee that the new and inproved mordheim, battlefleet, epic etc would even bring in increased revenue. So the smart thing to do is just drop them. You got to remember that GW is a vast corporation (much like the imperium of man in 40k) that satisfying customers comes second and turning a profit comes first. Although they can judge how satisfied their customers are by how much profit they make. Although you think they see us as souless money bags. The truth is probably closer to them not even knowing we are here when it comes to corporate decision making (much like in 40k the imperium doesnt know a planet is there until something happens on that planet)
Everything that happens is decided in board meetings. Yes they need people from this forum who are passionate about the franchises in those meetings but the simple fact is these meetings are discussions, not about how to improve their existing products, its about how to make more money. Yes an improvement to some product maybe the outcome, but its the outcome of discussing how to make more money.
A business/corporation doesnt exist to appease you. It exists to make the guy at the top money.
NOTE:
I am not trying to defend GW or praise them. I'm just trying to remind you that GW dont hate you, they just lurve money (dont we all)
I dont know every single person or know what the bigwigs (CEO etc) are like but I am just generalising because I see it in every internet forum ever. Take Call of duty for example. A new COD every year. You think they release a new cod every year to make gamers happy? or to make a bunch of money?
Im pretty late to the party here but i just wanted to comment on the dropping of othe gw games.
Its fairly evident that they weren't as popular as whfb and 40k and needed updating. The problem is the age old saying of "gotta spend money to make money"
To update the games to try and get them to make more money...costs money and even then you would have no guarantee that the new and inproved mordheim, battlefleet, epic etc would even bring in increased revenue. So the smart thing to do is just drop them. You got to remember that GW is a vast corporation (much like the imperium of man in 40k) that satisfying customers comes second and turning a profit comes first. Although they can judge how satisfied their customers are by how much profit they make. Although you think they see us as souless money bags. The truth is probably closer to them not even knowing we are here when it comes to corporate decision making (much like in 40k the imperium doesnt know a planet is there until something happens on that planet)
Everything that happens is decided in board meetings. Yes they need people from this forum who are passionate about the franchises in those meetings but the simple fact is these meetings are discussions, not about how to improve their existing products, its about how to make more money. Yes an improvement to some product maybe the outcome, but its the outcome of discussing how to make more money.
A business/corporation doesnt exist to appease you. It exists to make the guy at the top money.
NOTE:
I am not trying to defend GW or praise them. I'm just trying to remind you that GW dont hate you, they just lurve money (dont we all)
I dont know every single person or know what the bigwigs (CEO etc) are like but I am just generalising because I see it in every internet forum ever. Take Call of duty for example. A new COD every year. You think they release a new cod every year to make gamers happy? or to make a bunch of money?
The difference between cod and 40k is that cod works.
There are now entire profitable companies out there taking advantage of the void left by GW specialist games (Spartan for BFG and MoW, Wyrd for Mordheim, Hawk for Epic, Mantic for Bloodbowl and Necromunda, FFG for AE), do you really think that GW with its extensive resources and chain of stores couldn't make those games profitable for themselves instead of delivering them (and their customers) on a silver platter to competing companies?
Never said that those were good decisions for GW. ,)
PhantomViper wrote: Also, from what you're saying, your country seems to be very little into wargames in general (which I find pretty odd since it is the home of this year's WMH WTC that already has more than 300 people signed up), considering that even in my country, that has little wargaming tradition to speak of, we had more than a dozen people playing each of the specialist games back when they were actively being promoted by GW.
Funnily enough Poland is -very- conservative and if you see someone playing something else than WFB, 40k, MtG, Yu-Gi-Oh or Pokemon(and lately X-Wing) in a FLGS, it's a day worth remembering. But that's mostly due to the fact that all the tabletop wargaming companies largely ignore Poland as a market and don't even try to advertise themselves in the community. And it's not that we don't want other games - there are quite a few Warmachine players trying to get others to try it out, but the prices PP gave us are fairly inadequate to the market and their policy towards FLGSes is off-putting for the owners. X-Wing is another great example that a good campaign, support and proper prices can spread the game across the community like wild fire. In a country that is not -THAT MUCH- into Star Wars. But without that, most new players only get to witness and later experience GW's games, so our WFB and 40k communities are thriving, especially that ETC comp is very popular here and everyone always aims for that format to later be able to sign up for ETC-comped tournaments and maybe even form clubs that'll aspire to take part in the ETC.
Dread Fleet felt like a failure from the get go. It was clearly a one off expansion, representing a piece of lore we have never heard before. Plus it was an offshoot of fantasy that didn't really create it's own factions. It was just mixed evil fleet vs mixed good guys fleet. Even if you loved the concept, we all knew that you could only play a limited set of scenarios, no room for personalised armies and therefore it would become tired very quickly.
I actually think that one of the main failures of GW now is the fact that it's two core games are large battle systems that need 2000-3000 points to be played optimally. Even 40k is being pushed that way with super heavies and generally more expensive unit types and rules.
That is a very off putting prospect to a beginner. I used to play fantasy back in 6th, but then sold off my armies and moved over to 40k. Now I don't really play either. However I really like the look of Fantasy in 8th. Tight, fun rules, great model ranges, almost all armies viable.
However, I have two problems. Ironically I remember starting GW as a 10 year old and imagining all the cool stuff I could buy when I was an adult and had money. Unfortunately, now I am a 25 year old I am more reluctant to drop $50 on a couple of pieces of plastic, and my job leaves me with little time to paint many models at a time.
So my first problem is force size. I'd love to get back into it gradually but the idea of 500pts games doesn't appeal to me because I know the game gets better around the 2000 mark.
Secondly, I am not dropping $500 on a game that literally none of my friends actually play. There is no way in hell I could talk them into it at the current prices, it wouldn't even be in the question.
Now, if I had a small Skirmish alternative, set in the same game universe (ala Mordheim) I could buy a handful of models, convince a dew friends to give it a try, and see if they got hooked on the lore and general feeling of the hobby.
Providing the rules are tight and it gives us a chance to draw from the existing fantasy ranges (in this regard it would need an update, I'm not talking about playing old rules for an unsupported system) The there is the chance that we might expand, that the allure of big battles might kick in. Or maybe we stay with Mordheim, but we are kept within the hobby then, ready for GW to try and sell something new to us, maybe Necromunda, maybe BFG. But currently, the choice is play one of two expensive, large scale games or stop playing, which actually removes people from the hobby.
GW has it's claws in me for one reason alone. The Black Library. I love the lore too much to quit cold turkey. And so I hover around these forums, I check their website. I wait for the day that maybe I will get back into it. But every update where I see the now awful fluff codex background and rules that get worse every time, I start to lose faith that anything will bring me back. In all honesty,
Even now, GW are poisoning the BL. I'm sick of limited exclusives that charge 4 times as much for a book half the size of a standard novel, for a usually pointless short story. Fed up of Premium hardbacks and having to wait months to get an affordable paperback. Fed up a HH series which is now so full of filler it looks like we will never get to Terra. Which wouldn't even be so bad if they didn't start contradicting their own fluff within the same series!
All in all, GW is offering very little to those who are not already devout followers. I don't think it will die in the next few years. But slowly, it will die and eventually it will be forgotten if it doesn't inject some new life into the hobby.
Peregrine wrote: I think the biggest reason is that GW is no longer able to innovate or even really refine their existing products. They can keep publishing more books, but it's still the same old 40k with just enough pointless changes to force you to buy the new book. And, thanks to GW's years of neglect, their other games were at the point where they needed innovation to find any success. All GW could do was cut their losses and brag to the shareholders about how they're "focusing on core markets" now.
It is easy enough to pay some people to sit around and think of good ideas for games, and even write them up with rules and so on. Not expensive and no risk.
None of that activity would be visible to the customer until the game got published. To get a whole new game with box, rules and models all done and distributed is a much bigger risk.
The last new game idea GW made was Dread Fleet, which was apparently a dismal failure. Perhaps that episode killed GW's appetite for risk.
What GW can do more easily is write new rules that use the models already available. And that is what they are doing with the dataslates and so on. Admittedly it is hardly innovative in the way I think you mean, since it just rides on the coattails of regular 40K.
Deadfleet failed because it included a whole new box set, including gaming board, miniatures etc. That means it required more upfront cost, as well as requiring a larger return on its investment. If GW release a new rulebook that can be used with existing 40k miniatures it will a) be a lot cheaper to produce and b)be a lot less risky. I'd like to see a small-scale 40k, like necromunda used to be, and a large-scale 40k that was more squad-based than 40k and could handle >2000pt games.
Johnson & The Juice Crew wrote: Im pretty late to the party here but i just wanted to comment on the dropping of othe gw games.
Its fairly evident that they weren't as popular as whfb and 40k and needed updating. The problem is the age old saying of "gotta spend money to make money"
To update the games to try and get them to make more money...costs money and even then you would have no guarantee that the new and inproved mordheim, battlefleet, epic etc would even bring in increased revenue. So the smart thing to do is just drop them. You got to remember that GW is a vast corporation (much like the imperium of man in 40k) that satisfying customers comes second and turning a profit comes first. Although they can judge how satisfied their customers are by how much profit they make. Although you think they see us as souless money bags. The truth is probably closer to them not even knowing we are here when it comes to corporate decision making (much like in 40k the imperium doesnt know a planet is there until something happens on that planet)
Everything that happens is decided in board meetings. Yes they need people from this forum who are passionate about the franchises in those meetings but the simple fact is these meetings are discussions, not about how to improve their existing products, its about how to make more money. Yes an improvement to some product maybe the outcome, but its the outcome of discussing how to make more money.
A business/corporation doesnt exist to appease you. It exists to make the guy at the top money.
NOTE:
I am not trying to defend GW or praise them. I'm just trying to remind you that GW dont hate you, they just lurve money (dont we all)
I dont know every single person or know what the bigwigs (CEO etc) are like but I am just generalising because I see it in every internet forum ever. Take Call of duty for example. A new COD every year. You think they release a new cod every year to make gamers happy? or to make a bunch of money?
They are a stagnant (at best) or shrinking (at worst), company in a growing market. Their business decisions are wrong and are making them loose customers and loose money as a result. To the vast majority of companies in the world, customer retention and customer satisfaction is a very big deal, the simple fact that GW doesn't care about these in a business, that requires a community to properly function in the first place, is beyond asinine!
A couple of years ago I had the GW sales rep for Europe (I forgot what his official title was), tell me to my face that the "veterans" opinions didn't matter because they had already bought the product and that our store owner should forget about them and just focus on drawing in new kids to sell starters to... If any of the sales rep in my company ever even thought anything like that, he would be fired on the spot but instead this is official GW policy... Mind boggling.
And this is a miniature wargaming forum, so if you wan't to trow analogies around, use ones form miniature wargaming companies. The business model for computer games is completely different than the one from a miniature games company and the two really can't be compared.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Klerych wrote: but the prices PP gave us are fairly inadequate to the market and their policy towards FLGSes is off-putting for the owners.
What policy? PP doesn't deal with FLGS's directly, they only work through regional distributors AFAIK, and those are companies that are completely independent from PP .
Johnson & The Juice Crew wrote: Take Call of duty for example. A new COD every year. You think they release a new cod every year to make gamers happy? or to make a bunch of money?
And they're rightly criticized and even boycotted for that and other anti-customer attitudes. CoD: Ghosts has sold (comparatively) poorly too. It's funny how anti-customer practices come back to bite you on the ass.
They are a stagnant (at best) or shrinking (at worst), company in a growing market. Their business decisions are wrong and are making them loose customers and loose money as a result. To the vast majority of companies in the world, customer retention and customer satisfaction is a very big deal, the simple fact that GW doesn't care about these in a business, that requires a community to properly function in the first place, is beyond asinine!
A couple of years ago I had the GW sales rep for Europe (I forgot what his official title was), tell me to my face that the "veterans" opinions didn't matter because they had already bought the product and that our store owner should forget about them and just focus on drawing in new kids to sell starters to... If any of the sales rep in my company ever even thought anything like that, he would be fired on the spot but instead this is official GW policy... Mind boggling.
After actually bothering to look (albeit breifly) at GW end of year reports (which i should have done before blindly generalising and making assumptions that the guys at the top of gw were intelligent beings) and seing that they managed to near enough half their revenues in the space of a year or makes me question how many of the executives are tainted by warp. Im tempted to just remove my previous post as I feel dirty for typing it
And this is a miniature wargaming forum, so if you wan't to trow analogies around, use ones form miniature wargaming companies. The business model for computer games is completely different than the one from a miniature games company and the two really can't be compared.
Counter argument [sincere]: I only throw the COD analogy out to show that big companies dont necessarily do things for solely for their customers but to make money. Do miniature producers update their sculpts or add new ones primarily to make players happy? or to force (force probably isnt the correct word) players to update their armies by spending mullah on new figures? [/sincere]
Another example using rule changes concerning SM attack bikes. At some point they got buffed. Was this to make them more balanced or to shift more units? Maybe I'm wrong and the rule writers thought "you know who needs a break? White scars players"
Klerych wrote: but the prices PP gave us are fairly inadequate to the market and their policy towards FLGSes is off-putting for the owners.
What policy? PP doesn't deal with FLGS's directly, they only work through regional distributors AFAIK, and those are companies that are completely independent from PP .
Exactly. Without any support from PP towards our market to be able to sell WarmaHorde you need to order the -whole range-, including stuff that never sells even on the distributor's online store. It would be different if they were up to negotiations on terms like being able to order just the starter sets and faction tokens just to see how many players would be interested, but without any supportive policy and campaign the game will forevermore remain some weird foreign tabletop wargame played only in some exclusive freemason-like circle just like Spartan Games' products and even Infinity that's so minor here it's barely worth mentioning. For a game to get popular here the company needs to support it. And Poland is a big potential market - despite lower salaries people love blowing their paychecks on MtG booster packs and GW plastic toy soldiers on a regular basis. Wonder if sending PP an e-mail would make them consider giving it some thought.
I'm leery to believe that they intentionally write certain rules to be overpowered to move stock. If that were the case, I'm wondering why the Forgefiend/Maulerfiend was so awful on release. Then again, the Hellturkey was awesome.
It just feels too random and haphazard to give credit to GW for thinking about making something even just a little better than average to boost sales of a particular model.
Peregrine wrote: I think the biggest reason is that GW is no longer able to innovate or even really refine their existing products.
They innovate all the time. Haven't you seen the new Ork Codex? They took the "Unit Entry/Fluff" section and the "Army List" section of any normal Codex, smashed 'em together to save space, and then got rid of the nice original artwork and replaced it with big full-colour photos, turning half the book into a miniatures catalogue.
It may sound like an odd thing to say, but the Ork Codex has no soul, but it's the first GW book to have no soul, so that's new for them. Innovation!
Kilkrazy wrote: The last new game idea GW made was Dread Fleet, which was apparently a dismal failure. Perhaps that episode killed GW's appetite for risk.
Dread Fleet isn't an example of them taking a risk. Dread Fleet was an example of them not listening to what their player-base wants. Remember the whole "They'll buy what we make" mantra? That describes Dread Fleet completely. If GW went out there and engaged with its audience, rather than treating it as a necessary evil, things like Dread Fleet wouldn't happen.
Blacksails wrote: I'm leery to believe that they intentionally write certain rules to be overpowered to move stock. If that were the case, I'm wondering why the Forgefiend/Maulerfiend was so awful on release. Then again, the Hellturkey was awesome.
It just feels too random and haphazard to give credit to GW for thinking about making something even just a little better than average to boost sales of a particular model.
I agree. They don't understand the game they're writing, and they think that the way they play is the way everyone plays it, and because they knew what they meant when they wrote any particular rule that the rest of us will just get it. And then there's the "Forging a Narrative" aspect, which is simply a way of abdicating responsibility. You know where narratives are really important? Role playing games. You think that means we slack off when writing the rules because they're not all that important and people can 'forge a narrative' with any old rules? Hell no!
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't understand why GW stopped making any other games. They have a load of production facilities and retail shops. It ought to be a snap.
It's such a shame GW stopped making other games, I'd have less complaints about GW and 40k if they still made Epic, BFG, mordheim, etc.
Well, they were extremely unpopular the longer they existed and overall died over time. I feel like I was one of the only like.. 3 people in my country that played BFG. When 40k started growing in size, Epic became somewhat obsolete as the miniatures couldn't get much prettier at that scale. Mordheim and Necromunda.. both should be brought back as Kill Team-like expansions for 40k, but they'll always be a tiny niche. I'm not saying that they should be discontinued, but they didn't really stand a chance back then and GW decided to focus on it's flagship titles. Funnily enough nowadays Dystopian Wars seem to be growing at pretty rapid rate while being pretty much about the same type of massive conflict as Epic. Firestorm Armada seems to be doing pretty fine(although not really -that- popular either) too, dealing in big starship battles.
My theory is that GW couldn't compete with full-fledged games from other companies with their little side-projects and had to smother them to focus on the only titles that are pretty unique to them and strong enough to survive. Especially when they devote all their resources to them, rather than spreading the team over several tiny games.
GW hardly did a good job promoting the games. When they were cut, yeah, they were unpopular, because they were tucked away in the "specialist games" section.
When you don't support a game it tends to not be all that popular.
Musashi363 wrote: I'm still waiting on the ultra expensive WM vs super cheap 40K army lists from Lobomalo.
I think we've established he's either a troll or just a deluded fanboy, because such a thing doesn't exist outside of some really crazy situations. WM/H isn't *that* much cheaper than 40k when all is said and done (especially when you consider needing multiple lists), but it feels like you get more bang for your buck.
Who on earth is going to spend $2600 for that crap? And the better question is why? Just who the hell are they actually marketing to with something like that?
Klerych wrote: but the prices PP gave us are fairly inadequate to the market and their policy towards FLGSes is off-putting for the owners.
What policy? PP doesn't deal with FLGS's directly, they only work through regional distributors AFAIK, and those are companies that are completely independent from PP .
Exactly. Without any support from PP towards our market to be able to sell WarmaHorde you need to order the -whole range-, including stuff that never sells even on the distributor's online store. It would be different if they were up to negotiations on terms like being able to order just the starter sets and faction tokens just to see how many players would be interested, but without any supportive policy and campaign the game will forevermore remain some weird foreign tabletop wargame played only in some exclusive freemason-like circle just like Spartan Games' products and even Infinity that's so minor here it's barely worth mentioning. For a game to get popular here the company needs to support it. And Poland is a big potential market - despite lower salaries people love blowing their paychecks on MtG booster packs and GW plastic toy soldiers on a regular basis. Wonder if sending PP an e-mail would make them consider giving it some thought.
Really, becouse over here I go into the store tell the guy what I want to order and he calls the distributors and get just what I and what anyone else ordered, delived the next week. In fact only GW who the store has a trade contract with makes them buy stuff he doesn't want. Maybe your stores distributor is the issue.
Note: Even most of the other games promo stuff comes from the distributor.
Noir wrote: Really, becouse over here I go into the store tell the guy what I want to order and he calls the distributors and get just what I and what anyone else ordered, delived the next week. In fact only GW who the store has a trade contract with makes them buy stuff he doesn't want. Maybe your stores distributor is the issue.
Note: Even most of the other games promo stuff comes from the distributor.
This.. I'm not sure how it works in Poland but here, the store just phones the distributor and gets things ordered, no requirements on what to stock, most stores here have a very small selection of WM/H stuff (a couple of Battlegroup boxes, maybe the rules, maybe a handful of alternate casters) and most things you put in an order.
Well, that's what the guy who runs my FLGS said. Might be the distributor's strange policy(maybe they want to have monopoly due to them having their own online store?) or something. But yeah, that's the case here. :(
Klerych wrote: Well, that's what the guy who runs my FLGS said. Might be the distributor's strange policy(maybe they want to have monopoly due to them having their own online store?) or something. But yeah, that's the case here. :(
There's another Polish poster, Makumba (at least according to the flag) who has a similar problem with WM/H stuff, he goes on about how his store is so limited in what it can get in, and how, without a credit card to order online, he's pretty much screwed. Maybe distributors over there are just dicks? Or he just lives in the same area as you.
Musashi363 wrote: I'm still waiting on the ultra expensive WM vs super cheap 40K army lists from Lobomalo.
I think we've established he's either a troll or just a deluded fanboy, because such a thing doesn't exist outside of some really crazy situations. WM/H isn't *that* much cheaper than 40k when all is said and done (especially when you consider needing multiple lists), but it feels like you get more bang for your buck.
Who on earth is going to spend $2600 for that crap? And the better question is why? Just who the hell are they actually marketing to with something like that?
There was a theory that GW want to up the price and reduce the customer base until they are left with one or several eccentric millionaires collecting their models. That doesn't seem so crazy when you see things like that, it's certainly something their current target audience's parent's wont buy for them on a whim.
Klerych wrote: Well, that's what the guy who runs my FLGS said. Might be the distributor's strange policy(maybe they want to have monopoly due to them having their own online store?) or something. But yeah, that's the case here. :(
There's another Polish poster, Makumba (at least according to the flag) who has a similar problem with WM/H stuff, he goes on about how his store is so limited in what it can get in, and how, without a credit card to order online, he's pretty much screwed. Maybe distributors over there are just dicks? Or he just lives in the same area as you.
I think he's from another city, but that'd make sense after what they said at my FLGS. Which is a real shame because despite the prices not being terrible on the distributor's page, I'd rather be able to pick them up and/or encourage some people to buy them at my FLGS where I could play a demo game with them. I really like Warmachine and would like to see more people give it a shout, but it's never going to be popular if it can't be bought at the FLGS. Sometimes people look at my minis and say that they're cool, but when I'm telling them more about it, they seem to be off-put by the fact that the only way to obtain them is on distributor's site. Having even a small stand with just the battlegroups and those two two-faction starter sets would really help as people could grab them, look at them and see if they like it. Otherwise it's just GW stuff and MtG/Yu-Gi-Oh boosters that make the profits.
Klerych wrote: Well, that's what the guy who runs my FLGS said. Might be the distributor's strange policy(maybe they want to have monopoly due to them having their own online store?) or something. But yeah, that's the case here. :(
There's another Polish poster, Makumba (at least according to the flag) who has a similar problem with WM/H stuff, he goes on about how his store is so limited in what it can get in, and how, without a credit card to order online, he's pretty much screwed. Maybe distributors over there are just dicks? Or he just lives in the same area as you.
I think he's from another city, but that'd make sense after what they said at my FLGS. Which is a real shame because despite the prices not being terrible on the distributor's page, I'd rather be able to pick them up and/or encourage some people to buy them at my FLGS where I could play a demo game with them. I really like Warmachine and would like to see more people give it a shout, but it's never going to be popular if it can't be bought at the FLGS. Sometimes people look at my minis and say that they're cool, but when I'm telling them more about it, they seem to be off-put by the fact that the only way to obtain them is on distributor's site. Having even a small stand with just the battlegroups and those two two-faction starter sets would really help as people could grab them, look at them and see if they like it. Otherwise it's just GW stuff and MtG/Yu-Gi-Oh boosters that make the profits.
Might be an issue in Poland. My local FLGS in Canada only keeps the best sellers but can order just about anything and it will be delivered in 5 business days.
Musashi363 wrote: I'm still waiting on the ultra expensive WM vs super cheap 40K army lists from Lobomalo.
I think we've established he's either a troll or just a deluded fanboy, because such a thing doesn't exist outside of some really crazy situations. WM/H isn't *that* much cheaper than 40k when all is said and done (especially when you consider needing multiple lists), but it feels like you get more bang for your buck.
I'd recommend bookmarking this thread, because I have a feeling that the exact same unsupported arguments will be dragged out again in a few months.
I think he's from another city, but that'd make sense after what they said at my FLGS. Which is a real shame because despite the prices not being terrible on the distributor's page, I'd rather be able to pick them up and/or encourage some people to buy them at my FLGS where I could play a demo game with them. I really like Warmachine and would like to see more people give it a shout, but it's never going to be popular if it can't be bought at the FLGS. Sometimes people look at my minis and say that they're cool, but when I'm telling them more about it, they seem to be off-put by the fact that the only way to obtain them is on distributor's site. Having even a small stand with just the battlegroups and those two two-faction starter sets would really help as people could grab them, look at them and see if they like it. Otherwise it's just GW stuff and MtG/Yu-Gi-Oh boosters that make the profits.
Am from a different city. For example here the only way to get the big walkers , is to order them online from US. The stores can't order them here. Same with expansion packs for units. I know that some shops do orders of stuff , from stores in germany.
I think 40K may be dying in my area. The week of the Ork update there was a 40K local tournament the same day as an Infinity walkthrough. The tourney got canceled because only a couple people showed up for it (the second one to be canceled recently for lack of participants) while the Infinity table was completely surrounded.
I think it's a true sign of dark times when even the Ork players can't seem to get excited.
But it seems whenever GW does something good, its done something worse alongside it. So when the release schedule was faster and so on, it was also more rushed and along with it heaps of what many players would call garbage came with it.
With GW its 1 steps forward 2 steps back.
Thats how I feel anyway. Thats partly why I think people complain a lot too. They just dont do it the way we would think they would and it makes people question it.
I am surprised people would want the release process to speed up, but not expect a drop in quality. Some things should not be rushed, and people should not be surprised if something fouls up in the system when it is rushed.
This assumes the quality dropped, when most people would agree that the quality has remain about the same, which means it was average to begin with.
I don't think the quality has dropped. In some ways I think GW are doing better, though that is off-set by doing worse in other ways.
For example they are releasing codexes faster, but the quality of codexes has gone down.
The crucial difference is the prices have practically doubled over a few years, so the value for money has halved.
A good example is the new mono-pose character figures. They are not exactly the multi-option kits we may have hoped for, but worse, they are very expensive indeed.
$30 for a single infantry figure?
Here in the UK you can get two complete battle-packs of 2mm Napoleonics for $30 from Irregular Miniatures. That is four armies and two rulebooks (or two larger armies and two rulebooks.) 2mm is not everyone's cup of tea but it makes you think, "Shall I buy a Space Marine captain or shall a friend and I try out a completely new game for half the cost?"
The increased release rate should have no bearing on balance - anything missed by shorter play testing (ha... play testing...) could be fixed by an update after release but GW refuses to do this, just issuing some clarifications or fixing blatant misprints like differently costed helbrutes between language releases.
You contradicted yourself a bit there I think KK - "I don't think the quality has dropped.", "but the quality of codexes has gone down."
The average quality considered as a service/product for the consumer.
No-one liked it for a codex to take two or three editions to be updated, so it is good that they get updated a lot more quickly but the updates are in some cases less well written.
Taken as a whole there has not been a big collapse of quality but the price has gone up a lot and there hasn't been an increase in quality.
Klerych wrote: Well, that's what the guy who runs my FLGS said. Might be the distributor's strange policy(maybe they want to have monopoly due to them having their own online store?) or something. But yeah, that's the case here. :(
PP's official distributor for Europe is Simple Miniatures ( http://www.simpleminiaturegames.com/ ), since I've never heard of them having an online store, I think that your FLGS might not be dealing directly with them?!
Have your FLGS give them a call and see what they say. None of our FLGSs have reported the kind of problems and restrictions that you guys are talking about, they are pretty much free to stock the amount that they want...
Musashi363 wrote: I'm still waiting on the ultra expensive WM vs super cheap 40K army lists from Lobomalo.
I think we've established he's either a troll or just a deluded fanboy, because such a thing doesn't exist outside of some really crazy situations. WM/H isn't *that* much cheaper than 40k when all is said and done (especially when you consider needing multiple lists), but it feels like you get more bang for your buck.
Who on earth is going to spend $2600 for that crap? And the better question is why? Just who the hell are they actually marketing to with something like that?
Disclaimer: I'm not claiming that 40k is cheaper than Warmachines, since I don't think it is. This strikeforce is $225, easily gettable for <$200 from discounters. I don't know how it would stack up vs Warmachines though, maybe someone can compare?
Hardly anyone.
But that bundle made you go to the store.
People that check out a store have the tendency to suddenly see something else they like and buy it.
It's like the gigantic army-setups that Warhammer stores have in front of the store.
You don't expect people to buy something like that, you expect them to get in the store and buy several other and smaller things.
Musashi363 wrote: I'm still waiting on the ultra expensive WM vs super cheap 40K army lists from Lobomalo.
I think we've established he's either a troll or just a deluded fanboy, because such a thing doesn't exist outside of some really crazy situations. WM/H isn't *that* much cheaper than 40k when all is said and done (especially when you consider needing multiple lists), but it feels like you get more bang for your buck.
Who on earth is going to spend $2600 for that crap? And the better question is why? Just who the hell are they actually marketing to with something like that?
Disclaimer: I'm not claiming that 40k is cheaper than Warmachines, since I don't think it is. This strikeforce is $225, easily gettable for <$200 from discounters. I don't know how it would stack up vs Warmachines though, maybe someone can compare?
Well for $225 that is a 1200 point or so army (I added a lot of upgrades, I don't think anyone would want to take all of the ones I used though). That is playable but still only 2/3rds of an 'average' sized 1850 force.
For $130 in Warmachine you can get the two player starter set which gives you 25 points of Khador, which is a little over 2/3rds of an average 35 point game (though some areas 50 seems to be average).
So $225 for 2/3rds or $130 for TWO armies that are both either 2/3rds or 1/2 of an average force.
Ignoring the actual number of models you get the Warmachine starters are laughably better value in terms of playability.
Musashi363 wrote: I'm still waiting on the ultra expensive WM vs super cheap 40K army lists from Lobomalo.
I think we've established he's either a troll or just a deluded fanboy, because such a thing doesn't exist outside of some really crazy situations. WM/H isn't *that* much cheaper than 40k when all is said and done (especially when you consider needing multiple lists), but it feels like you get more bang for your buck.
Who on earth is going to spend $2600 for that crap? And the better question is why? Just who the hell are they actually marketing to with something like that?
Disclaimer: I'm not claiming that 40k is cheaper than Warmachines, since I don't think it is. This strikeforce is $225, easily gettable for <$200 from discounters. I don't know how it would stack up vs Warmachines though, maybe someone can compare?
The SM Strike Force (one of GW's better deals actually, although the Drop Pod is kinda crappy to include and should have been a Predator or something cool) is a good *starting* army, but it's only a starting army - it's entry-level for ~$225; someone new would need to spend $360 to actually play (Rulebook + Codex). Even if we ignore the added cost of the rules, I came up with the following 35-point Cygnar army:
Comes to $194.93, with the softcover MkII rulebook ($29.99) it comes to $224.92 and you can start playing the game, as well as play lower points games as 35 points is "approximately" equal to about 1500 in 40k, as 35 points tends to be the size for normal games.
What has had an affect on codex's as they are released is due to the Chapterhouse rulings against them.
GW used to write a codex absolutely complete with all the units they intend to publish so there would be a big release and a trickle of models to finish later.
The public demanded those missing models ASAP and chapterhouse started making them.
GW usually had the stance that since they made the models they had evidence against copying their IP but what do they do if someone else makes them first?
So now we see a trickle of models up front with rules published in WD then the later Codex release (a reversal of prior methods).
So they have to be doubly secret of the upcoming codex to prevent anyone beating them to the model release, they have older models to safeguard their spot and can re-release at their leisure but new units must be released first or with the codex.
These early releases seems to take some of the excitement out of it, making it a long drawn-out launch.
GW is kinda obligated to "recycle" some of the lore for these units (and they have a lot of it) which the new gamers really need to see but it is rough to read for the 20th time for us old timers.
Worst thing is the new models that would get new "fluff" get released with pretty much their stats and a blurb so we have to "forge the narrative" until GW gets that out.
Setting aside all the financial considerations of why they release the way they do, to keep control of their product I can see why they release how they do now.
Whoa, what is wrong with me?
Me hates the GW's just because!
There, I feel better.
Talizvar wrote: What has had an affect on codex's as they are released is due to the Chapterhouse rulings against them.
GW used to write a codex absolutely complete with all the units they intend to publish so there would be a big release and a trickle of models to finish later.
The public demanded those missing models ASAP and chapterhouse started making them.
GW usually had the stance that since they made the models they had evidence against copying their IP but what do they do if someone else makes them first?
So now we see a trickle of models up front with rules published in WD then the later Codex release (a reversal of prior methods).
So they have to be doubly secret of the upcoming codex to prevent anyone beating them to the model release, they have older models to safeguard their spot and can re-release at their leisure but new units must be released first or with the codex.
These early releases seems to take some of the excitement out of it, making it a long drawn-out launch.
GW is kinda obligated to "recycle" some of the lore for these units (and they have a lot of it) which the new gamers really need to see but it is rough to read for the 20th time for us old timers.
Worst thing is the new models that would get new "fluff" get released with pretty much their stats and a blurb so we have to "forge the narrative" until GW gets that out.
Setting aside all the financial considerations of why they release the way they do, to keep control of their product I can see why they release how they do now.
Whoa, what is wrong with me?
Me hates the GW's just because!
There, I feel better.
Yeah, that's true. GW does their release schedule because they're paranoid. Our point is that it's needlessly and counterproductively paranoid. Their fortress wall of secrecy does far more harm than help.
Talizvar wrote: What has had an affect on codex's as they are released is due to the Chapterhouse rulings against them.
GW used to write a codex absolutely complete with all the units they intend to publish so there would be a big release and a trickle of models to finish later.
The public demanded those missing models ASAP and chapterhouse started making them.
GW usually had the stance that since they made the models they had evidence against copying their IP but what do they do if someone else makes them first?
So now we see a trickle of models up front with rules published in WD then the later Codex release (a reversal of prior methods).
So they have to be doubly secret of the upcoming codex to prevent anyone beating them to the model release, they have older models to safeguard their spot and can re-release at their leisure but new units must be released first or with the codex.
These early releases seems to take some of the excitement out of it, making it a long drawn-out launch.
GW is kinda obligated to "recycle" some of the lore for these units (and they have a lot of it) which the new gamers really need to see but it is rough to read for the 20th time for us old timers.
Worst thing is the new models that would get new "fluff" get released with pretty much their stats and a blurb so we have to "forge the narrative" until GW gets that out.
Setting aside all the financial considerations of why they release the way they do, to keep control of their product I can see why they release how they do now.
Whoa, what is wrong with me?
Me hates the GW's just because!
There, I feel better.
Likely true, but still a terrible business practice. GW is too secretive and protective for its own good, and are so afraid of somebody else "stealing" their IP that they pull stuff like this.
MWHistorian wrote: Yeah, that's true. GW does their release schedule because they're paranoid. Our point is that it's needlessly and counterproductively paranoid. Their fortress wall of secrecy does far more harm than help.
I agree with you that a more open "dialogue" with fans should improve matters rather than leave them vulnerable to competition and this is not a new idea to me.
I too was just pointing out the other perspective that this is the possible "tactic" GW has chosen as a business decision right or wrong (and even then we cannot be sure...).
We presently have no understanding of their decision making so one can only assume the worst until proven otherwise (since dealing with rather unpredictable behavior).
I can find certain behaviors acceptable if that person/group is forced into it due to circumstances.
It just is funny how most businesses get better / more competitive with competition while GW somehow manages to get worse; very non-intuitive.
MWHistorian wrote: Yeah, that's true. GW does their release schedule because they're paranoid. Our point is that it's needlessly and counterproductively paranoid. Their fortress wall of secrecy does far more harm than help.
I agree with you that a more open "dialogue" with fans should improve matters rather than leave them vulnerable to competition and this is not a new idea to me.
I too was just pointing out the other perspective that this is the possible "tactic" GW has chosen as a business decision right or wrong (and even then we cannot be sure...).
We presently have no understanding of their decision making so one can only assume the worst until proven otherwise (since dealing with rather unpredictable behavior).
I can find certain behaviors acceptable if that person/group is forced into it due to circumstances.
It just is funny how most businesses get better / more competitive with competition while GW somehow manages to get worse; very non-intuitive.
It comes from their closed off "yes-man" old boy culture at GWHQ. They're oblivious to the outside world and what's going on in the gaming world at large.
MWHistorian wrote: It comes from their closed off "yes-man" old boy culture at GWHQ. They're oblivious to the outside world and what's going on in the gaming world at large.
Because they ARE the gaming world
In other news, I played a demo of Bolt Action yesterday at one of the FLGS in the area, and it was amazing. It felt like the best parts of old 40k without all the BS; in fact it felt like what 40k should play like. Picked up a boxed set on the way out. Even the store owner was talking about how he's wanting to encourage more games than just 40k, which is great because the store is amazing (largest in the area), just for the longest time 40k was the only thing going on there, with everything else ignored or pushed out completely.
Everyone else is on the rise, and GW is on the decline.
MWHistorian wrote: It comes from their closed off "yes-man" old boy culture at GWHQ. They're oblivious to the outside world and what's going on in the gaming world at large.
Because they ARE the gaming world
In other news, I played a demo of Bolt Action yesterday at one of the FLGS in the area, and it was amazing. It felt like the best parts of old 40k without all the BS; in fact it felt like what 40k should play like. Picked up a boxed set on the way out. Even the store owner was talking about how he's wanting to encourage more games than just 40k, which is great because the store is amazing (largest in the area), just for the longest time 40k was the only thing going on there, with everything else ignored or pushed out completely.
Everyone else is on the rise, and GW is on the decline.
Well, also because they don't game. If upper management was actually interested in/enjoyed the hobby, they'd be sampling the competition and you'd see them improving by "borrowing" their competitors' ideas. That's how most other industries work: somebody comes up with a cool way to do something and their competitors do something similar to try and keep pace.
These guys just think they're a manufacturing company and their rules are just marketing material.
slowthar wrote: These guys just think they're a manufacturing company and their rules are just marketing material.
Hate to say, that pretty much nails what I think their views are now.
Games Workshop isn't a game company?
They need to get their act together.
I always found it funny that when they went to that, they didn't just put everything under the Citadel Miniatures banner (or like "Citadel Miniatures, a subsidiary of Games Workshop LTD"); IIRC the boxes still say Citadel on it. At least then there would be no "wat?" type of reaction when they try to sell miniatures; I mean you would expect "Citadel Miniatures" to be a miniatures company. you don't expect "Games Workshop" to not sell games.
For $130 in Warmachine you can get the two player starter set which gives you 25 points of Khador, which is a little over 2/3rds of an average 35 point game (though some areas 50 seems to be average).
So $225 for 2/3rds or $130 for TWO armies that are both either 2/3rds or 1/2 of an average force.
Ignoring the actual number of models you get the Warmachine starters are laughably better value in terms of playability.
Then again if you actually play it using the units from the starter you're most likely to lose, given the fact that both Bastions and Men-o-War are some of the most sub par units in the game, so you're pretty likely to have to buy more stuff for your army to actually be viable. Then again comparing the price to the price of a battlegroup you basically get them for free and they're pretty, pretty models so you can always just paint them and put on your shelf.
That's what really hurts me in Warmachine. 35$ for six mono-pose, non-customizable white metal miniatures. Another great(terrible) examples: 70$ for a squad of precursors(not even with the UA), 60$ for three cavalry models(Storm Lances) and my favourite example: 70$ for nine Sword Knights(with doubles of the same pose) with sergeant. Again - no Unit Attachment.
While Warmachine requires less* money to buy into it, the prices for individual units/models tend to absurdly ridiculous, especially when compared to what GW does with their plastics nowadays. I know because I play both games. That's why I know that if you take it seriously you're most likely to buy second army for two list format(with no overlapping) like every other non-casual WarmaHordes player and the costs add up pretty fast, but yeah, at least the system is better in terms of balance and rules quality.
Klerych wrote: That's what really hurts me in Warmachine. 35$ for six mono-pose, non-customizable white metal miniatures. Another great(terrible) examples: 70$ for a squad of precursors(not even with the UA), 60$ for three cavalry models(Storm Lances) and my favourite example: 70$ for nine Sword Knights(with doubles of the same pose) with sergeant. Again - no Unit Attachment.
While Warmachine requires less* money to buy into it, the prices for individual units/models tend to absurdly ridiculous, especially when compared to what GW does with their plastics nowadays. I know because I play both games. That's why I know that if you take it seriously you're most likely to buy second army for two list format(with no overlapping) like every other non-casual WarmaHordes player and the costs add up pretty fast, but yeah, at least the system is better in terms of balance and rules quality.
I agree (I weep every time I look at Iron Fang Pikemen. $85 for them, most expensive figures in the game :() completely. As I often post though, the difference is that Warmachine has a slow ramp-up cost for the most part, while 40k skyrockets. Yes, Boomhowler and Co are $70 (although there's a few places that offer 30% discounts) but they are also a nice chunk of a force, and being mercenaries can be used in multiple armies (largely irrelevant now with Unbound for 40k). I think they are like 9 points, so in a 35 point list they're 1/4 of your army, so to me at least that $70 goes a long way, longer than 40k where you need multiple boxes of things almost all the time. For whatever reason, I'd have no problem buying Boomhowler for $70 but I balk at the idea of buying let's say another Tac Squad + a Rhino, maybe because it feels like an insignificant part of my force.
I do agree though the price points are roughly the same, but it feels like you can start out gradually with Warmachine, while you can't with 40k. And that's not even getting into the rules quality.
I want to see Gordan Ramsey go into GWHQ and whip them into shape.
"This isn't a club house, this is a business, your business! Deliver a good product at a good price! It's so simple!"
But there'd be much more swearing.
MWHistorian wrote: I want to see Gordan Ramsey go into GWHQ and whip them into shape.
"This isn't a club house, this is a business, your business! Deliver a good product at a good price! It's so simple!"
But there'd be much more swearing.
But it'd be so worth it to see him looking over the model line.
"What is this?!"
"It's a Mutilat-"
"It's disgusting is what it is! Throw all this trash out and start again."
MWHistorian wrote: I want to see Gordan Ramsey go into GWHQ and whip them into shape.
"This isn't a club house, this is a business, your business! Deliver a good product at a good price! It's so simple!"
But there'd be much more swearing.
But it'd be so worth it to see him looking over the model line.
"What is this?!"
"It's a Mutilat-"
"It's disgusting is what it is! Throw all this trash out and start again."
Gordon - Tell me what this is.
GW - It's a Taurox. It's rules are...
Gordon - I don't care about its rules. Look at it! It looks like someone vomited on the design board. It's so lopsided they call it Quasimodo!
GW - We thought it would...
Gordon - I don't care what you thought. What do your customers think?
MWHistorian wrote: I want to see Gordan Ramsey go into GWHQ and whip them into shape.
"This isn't a club house, this is a business, your business! Deliver a good product at a good price! It's so simple!"
But there'd be much more swearing.
You're charging HOW much for a single mono-pose plastic figure? Are you off your rocker?
Nobody is going to pay $500 just to start playing a game, you donkey!
As a big fan of Kitchen Nightmares, that would be hilarious
Oh well, done arguing. And no, people get shunned for being 
)
