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 hoping they have other stuff to do; nothing you posted there looks terribly odious, or even like it would fill a 40 hour work week.

How many official events are there? How many new rules come out of the studio in a given month? Don't most of us here assemble armies, and not while on the clock? Aren't there a number of posters who have written extensive articles, again during their free time, on various 40k topics (and neglecting those who post smaller volumes but in greater quantities, say when reviewing an army list)?

And how does any of this affect their ability to properly use the english language (sorry, foreign-types) to convey meanings? Hell, items #1 and 2 on your list would be greatly simplified if the underlying rules were clear, concise, and used words consistently, with defined meanings. They started in that general direction with the Universal Special Rules, but it should have been so easy to extend that to the rest of the ruleset as well.

For those who write novels, more power to them - I have great respect for anyone willing to undertake that particularly task. But their command of the language should be great enough to handle rulesets, or to repair damage to the rules upon occasion.

The novels thing is on contract, though I'm assuming, and does not
constitute a part of their working week. Unless GW allows them time to
write on the clock? That would be kinda awesome.

Unless they didn't pay you extra for the novel...

I could see GW doing that. "This year, your goals are to write 3 codexii, 4 WD articles praising an underselling product, and 1 250 page novel. Or else."

Posted By Janthkin on 01/04/2007 1:44 PM

Unless they didn't pay you extra for the novel...

I could see GW doing that. "This year, your goals are to write 3 codexii, 4 WD articles praising an underselling product, and 1 250 page novel. Or else."

... you have to go to GamesDay and wear the plastic Space Marine costume and have your picture taken with the smelliest WAAAAGH-screaming fanboyz we can find.

You know, I wasn't playing 40k during 2nd edition (Battletech held too much of my attention), but I recall others complaining about game TURNS lasting an hour or so. So they did their best to streamline for 3rd ed.

I did hop onboard during 3rd, and saw them making the effort to improve (sometimes it did, sometimes not so much). I recall them doing their level best to try to bring some semblence of balance back to the game by the end of 3rd (they introduced the TAR, TVR, etc...) Then they roll out 4th ed. ( which has bugs).

I recognize it as being a process of continually striving for improvement ,which implies a flawed initial effort (a not unreasonable assumption).



Now, again, I have recently seen a complete breakdown of their efforts of trying to eliminate the bugs. And THAT is what I find galling. It obviously has errors, they know they are there, and they should fix them.

And I stand by my assessment of their time constraints. Writing rules takes time. Testing them takes time. Building their various prodcts takes time (making molds, designing models, codex layouts, WD articles, WD layouts, answering phone calls, remembering to attach coversheets to the TPS reports (), etc...

Again, I don't fault them for making a flawed initial product (as long as it's not GROSSLY FLAWED). There's only so much time in the day. It's the lack of support that's the real problem.

As a side note. Why do you expect perfect techical writing quality rules from non-technical writers? As I recall, Andy Chambers started out at GW as a stockboy. Little wonder some of the codex he had his hands on weren't techical writing masterpieces.

Personally, I don't think the style of the rules is the problem (i.e. technical writing or not).  It seems to me that the rules could be cleared up a lot without making the rulebook read like a dry physics textbook.

I've read other rulebooks (Flames of War, etc.) that I wouldn't say are written in an overly technical style, but they are still very clear, balanced, and well-written rules for the most part.  That's not to say Flames of War doesn't have some issues, but at least the Battlefront Staff quickly correct any mistakes and clear up ambiguous rules (which are relatively few to begin with) - Something the GW staff doesn't seem very eager to do at this point.

True. I think not starting fresh in 4th edition caused a lot of (unnecessary) problems. If GW had reset the game and published a Ravening Hordes style army list booklet, they could have cleaned up the core rules, standardized the many different versions of similar rules and rebalanced the points costs of various units to take into account how the rules changed their effectiveness between the editions. It would also have saved them the troubles that predictably arose from trying to make 3rd edition Codexes work with the 4th edition rules by means of various FAQs, errata, etc.

Posted By Asmodai on 01/04/2007 6:32 PM
It would also have saved them the troubles that predictably arose from trying to make 3rd edition Codexes work with the 4th edition rules by means of various FAQs, errata, etc.

Although putting out complete FAQs and errata would have accomplished that as well...

Personally though, I've never been a fan of GW's approach to new releases. If it had been up to me, the 4th edition release would have included the new rules and reprints of ALL the current codexes...

Posted By Janthkin on 01/03/2007 4:02 PM
The nice thing about WM, Asmodai, is that if you encountered that situation, you could post it on their official forums, and it would be FAQ'd out of existence in less than a month.

When you find situations like that in 40k, the studio a) won't notice; b) won't fix it; and/or c) issue some FAQ that creates new problems instead of fixing the old.

And/or d) admit that according the rules such a situation can arise, so if your opponent agrees then you can go ahead and ignore the rules (conversely if you decide to actually follow the rules then you are just a big meanie-head).

Posted By keezus on 01/04/2007 6:14 AM

Posted By stonefox on 01/03/2007 3:34 PM

Or, for a bigger burn, 40k is like Star Wars TCG while Warmachine is like Star Wars CCG. Now I want to pick up my old HBOX deck.

I liked Star Wars TCG.    Granted there wasn't as much complexity as Star Wars CCG, and it was nigh impossible for the Dark Side to win without going hard to two arenas... But I still liked it.

(Just goes to show there can be love for GW as well I suppose).

Sorry, that was supposed to be question. I picked up few models, read the rulebook a few times, and will probably make an army someday, but people compare WM tournaments to CCG-like play, so I'm definitely interested.

As for SWTCG, you can laugh but now instead of keeping one successful game, we (both TCGers and CCGers) now have zero and Decipher's down the sink as well.   

I started out coding software. Now I write patents. As that is what I'm paid to do, I don't find it unreasonable that my bosses and my clients hold me to a certain standard for use of the tools, i.e., the language. *shrug*

Clear writing is a learned skil, and 3/4 of the effort is in the planning. They seem to have the idea for the rules in their heads - they just need to get it on paper in a clear, unambiguous, and non-contradictory manner. If they can't, they should hire 1 technical writer, to translate their rules into a clear, unambiguous document.



(Have you tried Megamek? Incredibly good networked version of classic BTech, with just about all rule through level 3 implemented now. It's playing Battletech, but the computer handles the dice and LoS checks.)

2nd ed was a more complicated game. Me, I like complicated games. But I didn't play enough of it to speak to rules issues.



Here I disagree with you. I DO blame them for the initial release. It is from those initial problems that all the rest have sprung. They could have held up release for 2 weeks, given the rulebook to a decent editor/tech writer/selected Dakka posters, and had a much tighter foundation to build new armies on top of. Something about an ounce of prevention and a metric ton of "cure"....

Posted By KiMonarrez on 01/04/2007 3:43 PM

As a side note. Why do you expect perfect techical writing quality rules from non-technical writers? As I recall, Andy Chambers started out at GW as a stockboy. Little wonder some of the codex he had his hands on weren't techical writing masterpieces.

Well, there's something to be said for hiring the right staff for any job.  While technical writing need not be the forte of the creative team, it should be an important skill for the editing team...

er...

Crap.  You're right dude.  We can't expect clearly worded rules because they don't employ editors.  My bad.

Stonefox:  What's most galling with respect to SW - TCG is that after the brief resurgence in popularity after Revenge of the Sith, Wizards never bothered to produce the last set...  it's the goddamned LAST SET and instead went on to SW - minis.  Argh.

Many apologies for putting this in totally the wrong place but I only seem to be able to post using "quick reply". When I try to start a new post or click on "reply post" I can only fill in a subject as there is no box next to Body. Does anyone know how I can sort this problem out, please?

Thanks
Steve

Which browser are you using? Dakka plays nice with Firefox, but less so with Opera (e.g., I can't use "New Post" or "Reply" without changing browsers).

Dakka doesn't work with Safari. It won't allow topic origination, quoting, replies or messages, but does allow quick replies.

(You should be able to use the Quote button in the quick reply box; highlight desired text, click "Quote", and off you go.)

Janthkin is right. I'm not sure about the Wizards of the Coast guys, but all the Decipher (who also make card games for those who don't know ) guys all had typical day jobs before they started working on designing card games. Now, you had to lug around a packet of errata/FAQs for their main games but they got the job done and the game balance was great. All-in-all, they were able to write unambiguous rules even though none of them had a profession which required technical writing before.

Honestly, it doesn't have to be perfect technical writing. If WOTC and Decipher were able to create unambiguous rules, using minor technical writing, in a card game, GW should be able to do it too. And remember guys, card game players are more ruthless and will create infinite loops if they are able.

GW is a multi-million dollar global company. It doesn't have to rely on hoping its design team have natural editing talents. It could send them on a course, or hire a couple of people.

A constant and old rant. Editing that is.

I agree with kimonarezz about the FAQ issue, with one major flaw he seemed to have skipped.

If the rules were written so that a tremendous amount of FAQ's werent neccesary, then this whole threead would be a moot point.

If GW wants their GAMES to flourish (emphasis on games, not models) then they will have to employ a tech writer or a better one than they have now. 40K is not so complicated that a bunch of gathered enthusiasts couldnt do better within a week of the 4th ed release.

WOTC was started by a small group of guys trying to make a name for themselves. MTG was a great game from the get go. Some cards were broken, but the mechanics were solid. They didnt need tech writers to make a great game. (though they did hire a battery of lawyers to write the concise rules they use today). So that being said, why does GW need a tech writer to make good rules when other companies with much less experience in the industry blows them away? They need a tech writer, but shouldnt have to need one.

I enjoy the rules, and find them playable for the most part. But reinstituting sanctioned tournament play with the sense of blind hope that their rules are solid enough to withstand competitive scrutiny is a false hope that needs to be addressed quite quickly, and thoroughly.

I really hope when 5th ed comes around, if GW is still around by that time, that they do something revolutionary that will be viewed as something that merits the perception of "porsche of the wargames". The way things are going though, I doubt Ill be around to see.

Thanks guys - I switched computers and it works fine now.

Also thankyou for not telling me off for being off topic.

Take care,

Steve

Posted By thebeardking on 01/06/2007 7:59 AM

Thanks guys - I switched computers and it works fine now.

Also thankyou for not telling me off for being off topic.

Take care,

Steve

Attack wombs ready!