Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm convinced that GW views their rules and FAQs like term papers, and not products. They figure if you get 90% right, that's an 'A', and it's a job well done, just like a term paper.

The rest of us view these as products, where 10% wrong means utter garbage.

This would explain why they continue to think they're doing a great job and we continue to think their a pack of incompetent baffoons.

Somehow, GW manangement needs to make them realize that their own self imposed measure of success isn't working.

Thoughts?

I think that's a nice analogy.

As long as they are the most successful miniature wargames company in the world, GW Mgt won't think they are wrong.

The bubba gump shrimp company was number one as well, but that didn't make Forrest any less slowed.

True, but if we want to bring about change, it has to be through the revolutionary power of not buying the products. It's the only language people like GW understand.

From what I can tell, they don't really care.

In the designers mind, these games are fun little things that are meant to be played in a beer & pretzels type scenario.

Fixing things such as broken or overpowered units, tactics, whatever isn't a totally top priority because if you're playing the game in the above mentality, it's not a real problem since you won't do it.

Because we the gamers take these games and apply them to a mentality that is much more binary than the rules are written for, we encounter a lot of problems.  GW exacerbates this problem by running tournaments where the kind of ultra competitiveness-letter-of-the-law-says-so kind of way of playing the game rules the day.

Because the Designers are stuck in a "Beer & Pretzels" mentality and us fans are demanding a much tighter ruleset, we're going to constantly have problems like this.

Every second that GW spends on a product (whether rules or minis) increases the cost of the product and negatively effects profit. It is not all that odd to find them short changing the consumer IF they can get away with it.

Your sig says it all. If we want a better game we have to be able to walk away. Though I would recommend the B5 game.

ender502

 

 

You're spot on about how they view the main rules, but I think their FAQ viewpoint is slightly different.

GW FAQs are more like extra credit.
They're optional.
If you don't do it, you don't suffer.
If you do do it, the outcome can only be positive.
No matter what grade you get on it, you should be applauded for attempting it.


I've never understood the old phrase, "You get an 'A' for effort."
Shouldn't it be, "You get an 'E'..."

I can't find it now, but I'm sure there's a quote from Kirby or someone saying that they reckon there's no point attempting to take the games beyond a "good enough" level. i.e. they aren't striving for excellence in their games, but rather producing games that are "just good enough" to persuade people to keep spending on miniatures.

Never saw the sense in that really, but...

Dang. I wish I could find that quote!

But its only not working for the 0.0001% of game players who actually frequent and post on forums like Dakka.  The smallest percentage of players decry the rules, the FAQ's, and bash GW every which way, while a large percentage of players have no problems playing in their FLGS, GW store, or in their homes. 

Its this desire for the unattainable holy grail of 'tight rules' that sets the bar at an impossible height.  As someone mentioned, their rules started as a 'beer and pretzels' kind of game, some structure to push around their miniatures.  Now, they're expected to churn out a balanced, well edited, and tournament-tight ruleset with all the bells and whistles.  Ain't happening, no matter what other game you pick up instead, or how much bashing and whining is done on forums.

I'm not an apologist for GW, but I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.  I also wouldn't want a game I play 'for fun' to turn into an Physics textbook to try to close every loophole, fix every error, and make it a perfect game.

There is enough drama going on everywhere else, I don't need it in my hobby...

If it's a beer and pretzels environment, then stop producing for the
tournament crowd. Isn't it the tourney crowds who buy the latest
things and convert them buying bitz and kit bashing? That was always
my impression.

The Tournament crowd used to be the Beer and Pretzels crowd. Now the Tournament crowd is all about IW, Seer Villages (till recently), loopholes, and no-comp.

Sure, tourney-goers buy bitz, convert, etc.(at least they used to, I've been singularly unimpressed by what I've seen at larger tourneys lately) , but the 'tourny crowd' I would argue, is also a vast minority of the dollars spent by all hobbyists.

I think you're playing that down a bit too much.

If it's only the 0.0001% of gamers that have a problem, then why is it that large groups like Adepticon and many smaller local gaming clubs have had to resort to creating their own homebrew FAQs?

Many online gaming forums have constructed their own FAQs as well. And while there are plenty of folks who crossover between forums, there are just as many who just stick with their favorite and ignore the rest.

If this really was just a problem for the smallest number of troublesome players, so many different attempts at fixing the problems would not exist as it would not be necessary.

I think Malfred has hit it right on the head. If it was a more "beer and pretzels" environment, there would be more league scenarios published, league play would be promoted, there would be more Gamesdays than GTs. However, we all know this to be the opposite.

As for being the best, as a product:

Models: Consistently good models on average (arguably). However, I don't think they can claim the title of the "best" anymore. Too many of the new models are either static, recycled or are suffering from the "Emperor's Bling Explosion".

Rules: Well. We all know that GW is less than the best here.

Value: Privateer's army-building model offers more value through the interchangable caster system. Mongoose Publishing is much cheaper / model. FOW while also requiring decent starting capital, you don't have to worry about a Tiger Tank being worse than a Sherman in the next edition.

Support: This is a mixed bag. Hobby and sales support is unparalleled. Rules support is so terrible it can be said to be non-existent.

Hardly No. 1 anymore.

Posted By Cruentus on 12/20/2006 6:03 AM

Its this desire for the unattainable holy grail of 'tight rules' that sets the bar at an impossible height.  As someone mentioned, their rules started as a 'beer and pretzels' kind of game, some structure to push around their miniatures.  Now, they're expected to churn out a balanced, well edited, and tournament-tight ruleset with all the bells and whistles.  Ain't happening, no matter what other game you pick up instead, or how much bashing and whining is done on forums.

You seem to suggest that a "tight rule" set is an "unattainable holy grail."

If that is the case I would suggest annoiting yourself with sacred oils and making a pilgrimage to wherever it is they made the B5, warmachine and flames of war rules sets. Apparently they are having daily grail showings.

Further, I don't see how it is too much to ask for a "balanced, well edited and tournament-tight ruleset." That's like saying that it is too much to ask for a dictionary to have the words defined correctly.

A solid rules set is not hard. Decent editing is not hard.

ender502

Posted By Cruentus on 12/20/2006 6:03 AM

Its this desire for the unattainable holy grail of 'tight rules' that sets the bar at an impossible height.

Redshirt:  "Hello, are you familiar with our games?  They are a tabletop strategy game, kind of like Chess, or Risk".

Strangely enough, Chess and Risk have tight rules.  There's no question if that Rook can take your Knight.

Granted, Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are much more complex with more varied pieces and rules, however, the rulesets are still much too vague, especially when compared with Warmachine/Hordes and Flames of War.  However, this vaugeness in the ruleset is a black mark against GW, since one of GW's biggest strengths is the penetration of their product.  I can go from one town to another and pick-up a game of 40k.  What I don't need is an arguement as to whether Fear of the Darkness needs LOS or not.  This should be clearly laid out in the codex.

While I agree on principle that it is impossible to write a 100% tight ruleset, they can do better than the 75% tight ruleset they have now.

DBM (De Bellis Multitudinis) is the most popular set of historical rules in the world, at least for the ancient, classical and medieval period. The rules are extremely tight, and almost unreadable (though I don't know if one necessarily follows the other). The rules are very popular for tournament play; in fact, tournament play seems to be the primary purpose of the rules.

Warhammer Ancient Battles is another popular set of rules for ancient, classical and medival battles, and it is also very popular for tournament use. However, it is written in a more friendly, "beer and pretzels" style; it may be even more casual than Warhammer Fantasy.

I cannot say that I have had more fun playing in DBM tournaments than in WAB tournaments, despite the superior clarity of the former's rules. While WAB (and WFB, and 40k) require some compromise between opponents to solve the grey areas in the rules, I do not think this detracts from the game. In fact, I think the grey areas add to the game - they are a necessary evil, if you will - since they are for the most part a symptom of the looser, more flexible Warhammer rules set.

If GW's FAQs are not precise, then part of that is because of the laziness of the rules writers, while part of it is because of the nature of the Warhammer rules.

My theory is that GW's theory is that a tightly written ruleset with definitions of terms, a proper index, and appendices would actually frighten away the core market who are 13 yr-old boys.

To put bluntly:

THey dont care much about the ruless, because their not trying to sell rules. THey only want to sell models. Thats where the effort is.

Warhammer Ancients is a lot smoother than Warhammer Fantasy for one simple reason: less complexity. Everyone is human, battlefield capability is based on 'historical' approximations of ability. No magic, no flying creatures, monsters, or magic items. In the same vein, WFB and 40k have over a dozen army books each, with a dizzying array of options, magics, psychics, powers and abilities. There is no way to balance all of that. Sure, you can write some basic mechanics that are tight, but to give everyone their 'unique' army, with unique play style, and all the extra doo-dads that people will scream for, then its going to be 75% tight. There is no way around it.

Sure, editing can be improved, language can be streamlined across books, but the basic fact is that there is such variety, that it becomes almost impossible to balance it all. I mean, games designers don't have all day to sit around and come up with loopholes and abuses, like we do. They have their next codex to put out, next army book to write, etc on a deadline. We're the ones with too much free time, apparently.

I would argue that the 3rd ed 'back of the book' 40k armies were fairly fun and balanced. The game had a lot of movement, some tactical challenges were raised, and a bright lance was a lascannon, and a fusion gun was a melta. Lots of 'acts as' weapons, which was fine for me. However, that's not good enough for everyone else, including the 13yos. So GW puts out new books, comes up with all kinds of exceptions to exceptions to rules, and there you go - too much complexity.

And PP has how many factions? And FOW is based on 'historical' capability - if their shermans were beating up Tiger IIs 1 on 1, there'd be an outcry and it'd be fixed - there is an obvious 'balance' that has to be maintained...

Excuse mongering.

Hordes/Warmachine have MORE interchangable parts, hell its two different games that work togther, and somehow they can make it work, and work right.

Thats just an excuse of the matter....

People really buy into that "you just can't make good, unambiguous rules" crap?

I guess I underestimated the stupidity of my fellow gamers.

Other companies are doing it. They're putting out tighter and more complex rules and literally stealing market share from this bloated, self congratulating dinosaur.

I think they would do well to take a look at the changes that WotC made to M:TG, I'm guessing around 1999.

Pre-1999 - Similar to GW now. Text on cards was written in English, and sometimes a bit ambiguous. Play was defined ok for beer&pretzel play, but had issues.

Post 1999 - The biggest change they made was simply to standardize wording. Anything that was a cost came before a :, anything that was an effect came after the : They clearly defined a set of words that had very precise meanings, and those were the rules that they used from then on. And, they clearly defined the timing rules - but in such a way that if you only played the beer&pretzels version of the game, you probably didn't notice.

These things may have had a one-time hit in terms of development costs. But, once they had them established, they reduced development times for all subsequent releases, because they had narrowed the scope of how they were writing.

Does this mean they never had game balance issues? Of course not. Does it make them perfect? No, not that either. But, the designer's intent was no longer in question. Maybe their judgement, sometimes, but not their intent. Everything was well defined, even in the cases where they screwed up the balance a bit.

Posted By Cruentus on 12/20/2006 7:35 AM

And PP has how many factions? And FOW is based on 'historical' capability - if their shermans were beating up Tiger IIs 1 on 1, there'd be an outcry and it'd be fixed - there is an obvious 'balance' that has to be maintained...

PP has 9 factions.  However, each core Warmachine faction has 6 regular casters and 3 epic casters for a total of 9 sublists.  The Mercenaries have 4 regular casters and 1 epic caster.  Hordes has 4 factions with 3 warlocks each for a total of 12 sublists.  So I guess with as few as 53 different "caster/warlocks" for your army, you can say that Privateer's system is a lot less complex than Warhammer/Warhammer40k.

And as for "obvious balance"...  As GW provides a fantasy setting, statistics are clearly infinitely maleable, considering that Wraithlords went from invincible to being easily eaten by powerfists, Librarians went from never-before-seen on the field of battle to being in every army and rhinos (the most common STC in the galaxy) are about as common as Ogryn on the battlefield.

It's a good thing that GW is on the ball.

I agree.

As I see it  the present rules set is solid, but needs lots of cleaning.

The rules, as they stand now, are not so complex that they couldn't be tightened considerably.  It wouldn't require a new edition, just "Rulebook 4.2"  If we were still playing second ed, I'd be telling people to stop whining because there was no way (short of a 1200 page rulebook) that those rules were going to be tightened.

When I really look at the rules questions that come up in my games, the real problem is at the codex level.  Unfortunately, the new Eldar Codex has a format that is absolutely terrible.  That's a shame, because overall balence of the game has improved considerably over the years, with more "top tier" and strong tourney armies too choose from.

2nd ed.-
Eldar and Space Wolves

3rd ed-
Biel Tan Eldar (Falcon + Serpent Rush), Rhino rush [Space Wolves/Templar Rush, Various chaos], Dark Eldar (Darklance or raider heavy), Iron Warriors

4rth ed-
Mech Eldar, Demon bomb, Iron Warriors, SAFH marines, 'Pod marines, Dark Eldar
I would also put 'Crons,  Mech Tau and Farsight Tau, and Speed Freaks on the outside of this.  Strong, but in no way broken.

Ulthwe Eldar (Gone with new codex)

Posted By keezus on 12/20/2006 8:10 AM

Posted By Cruentus on 12/20/2006 7:35 AM

And PP has how many factions?...

PP has 9 factions. 

Ten, actually.

Posted By Stu-Rat on 12/20/2006 8:18 AM

Posted By keezus on 12/20/2006 8:10 AM

Posted By Cruentus on 12/20/2006 7:35 AM

And PP has how many factions?...

PP has 9 factions. 

Ten, actually.

IIRC, minions isn't playable presently due to the lack of a Warlock... or am I wrong...

No, you're right.

Minions don't have a Warlock, and might not ever if you trust the rumor mill.

So it's 9 factions....

....unless you count Magnus + Skorne as a 10th...

More than that. Depends on whether you play 500, 1000, or even 1500pt games. YOu can have 1, 2, even 3 casters in the mix.

PLus you can have an epic merc with Hordes....

I noticed you didnt include how many 40K has. Because It sure isnt 53 in 40k. YOu have the big 5 for marines(standard, BA, DA, SW, BT), 2 eldar books, tau, IG, ork, necron, WH, DH, Tyranid.

Did I miss any? 14 army books. I'd say the combination is a bit smaller for 40k. And fantasy.(what 15 different armies?)

And considering hordes and warmachine cant play against each other.....while fntasy and 40k cant, I'd say your blowing smoke out your rear.

I don't quite buy the 53 factions. 53 possible builds, maybe, 53 different lists... but I beg to doubt that a Cygnar army with Stryker is a different faction than a Cygnar army with Epic Stryker, any more than a Dark Elf army led by a Highborn is a faction than a DE army led by Morathi.

Which is entirely beside the point.

Having just read the new FAQ, I am actually angry at GW for bothering to post it. They went to the trouble and expense (our expense, actually) to release a 7th edition of the rules, which when you get to the actual changes, should have been rules v6.2. They specifically simplified a lot of the rules for charging and pursuit. Now, in the first FAQ, they are confusing the issues again. In the main rules it clearly states that you must maximize the number of models in combat, but in the FAQ they say, basically, 'you don't have to after all, unless you really want to.' It is _BOGUS_. What, now the roolzboyz are writing the FAQ?