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.

This 'love it or leave it' attitude really gets old. It's like some sad form of moral superiority that you bravely forge ahead and either manage to deal with sh*t rules or just refuse to even recognize them.

No, others want to have better rules because they DO care about the game, not because they hate it. This is a forum where among other things, ideas of improving the game are bantered back and forth. Sometimes it is just criticism for its own sake, which is hardly constructive. But to prattle on about how people are fools to voice their concerns about lousy game mechanics on a forum designed for such discussions is nothing short of asinine.

I suppose if we tried to cross a lake on a leaky wooden raft with one oar you'd say 'everything is fine quit yer complaining' since that is the currently available gear. No sense patching the leaks, getting more oars or attaching a sail, right?

Bad analogy is bad.

It isn't like a leaky boat. No one is going to drown if you play the game as is.

A slightly better, although still bad, analogy would be: It is like a car that you don't like all the features for or the design of. There are several other companies that sell cars. Go buy a car from one that has the features and design you like instead of buying this one and constantly complaining about it.

When we break down into analogy wars, no one wins. It's like a train with- ...dammit.

 amanita wrote:
This 'love it or leave it' attitude really gets old. It's like some sad form of moral superiority that you bravely forge ahead and either manage to deal with sh*t rules or just refuse to even recognize them.

No, others want to have better rules because they DO care about the game, not because they hate it. This is a forum where among other things, ideas of improving the game are bantered back and forth. Sometimes it is just criticism for its own sake, which is hardly constructive. But to prattle on about how people are fools to voice their concerns about lousy game mechanics on a forum designed for such discussions is nothing short of asinine.

This is a whinge thread that is entirely devoted towards slagging off the existing ruleset. No one is saying that you shouldn't be allowed to knock the rules, or specific rules that you think are poor.

But the general statements backed up by no anecdotes whatsoever is no help to anyone. If people actually cited rules that they thought were poorly written and/or stupid, then it would bring in perspective just how small and obscure that particular rule is.

 Evertras wrote:
When we break down into analogy wars, no one wins. It's like a train with- ...dammit.

Begun the analogy wars have.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Then plan on massive price increases as the massive amount of playtesting to release all codexes in one version massively increases the payroll at GW. And remember, its the UK, so the pay is higher there.
...

and yet, Privateer Press did exactly that.

And how? They rolled out a worldwise playtesting base for Warmachine/Hordes Mk2 that pretty much involved the entire player base of the game. they constantly updated the beta rules based on player input, and with thousands of players, and tens of thousands of games they got some pretty solid results and a lot of positive feedback from fans towards the company. it also was part of the reason for its explosion in popularity at the time.

Privateer Press are the movers and shakers in this industry. GeeDub could do worse than take a leaf from their book.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

the rules are fine. maybe its the people whose lives seem to depend on the rules that misinterpret the Most Important Rule, you know, to have fun? I'm sure that GW goes out of their way to make rules that seem to make sense when they write them so that they may be disemboweled because of a rule they wrote three years ago for another edition.

if the rules are "fine" then why do we have a never ending stream of complaints?

You know, having good, solid, clear consise rules and having fun are not mutually exlusive.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The reason there is such a disconnect between players and GW is that GW is playing a different game than we are. I am of the opinion that GW really believes in the Most Important Rule and just hashes stuff out at the table. They are honestly confused by how worked up people get over issues, I imagine. For them, the rules look great. We just don't always agree.

Good for Privateer Press, they impressed game development work onto their players for the price of a couple free minis.

And for most people in these fora, having fun and playing Warhammer *are* mutually exclusive.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
And for most people in these fora, having fun and playing Warhammer *are* mutually exclusive.

You keep saying that. You're absolutely wrong, but you keep saying it.

I've cited rules that are poorly worded, and continue to be after multiple editions. I don't stress out about playing, and if an unclear rule comes up at the table, I rarely care - we talk for 30 seconds and move on. That doesn't change the fact that there are quite a few unclear holes in the rules.

I don't want "perfect" balance. I'm not even addressing balance at all. And it wouldn't take gobs of play testing to find the rules that cause the most grief - it would require a different method of play testing. Instead of playing games for fun and assuming the rules are good, play games to test the rules. "But why should they not play for fun? They're people too!" Because they're game designers. Their job is to not have gak quality rules. Games Workshop isn't a unique entity. There are dozens of other companies that have been successful and putting out better quality rule sets. Saying that common play testing is an undue burden is insane - it should be the minimum required before the book goes to printers.

rigeld2 wrote:
"But why should they not play for fun? They're people too!" Because they're game designers. Their job is to not have gak quality rules. Games Workshop isn't a unique entity. There are dozens of other companies that have been successful and putting out better quality rule sets. Saying that common play testing is an undue burden is insane - it should be the minimum required before the book goes to printers.

That's not entirely true. Their job is to make a game. Whether its balanced or worded unambigulously is only their goal if their management make it their goal or if they personally make it their goal. While it may be unprofessional to look at it that way, they are still doing their job - they're making a game that is selling.

 Testify wrote:
But the general statements backed up by no anecdotes whatsoever is no help to anyone. If people actually cited rules that they thought were poorly written and/or stupid, then it would bring in perspective just how small and obscure that particular rule is.

So basically, if anyone provides examples, there will be a comparison to all rules so that the examples can be belittled for bringing up a small and obscure rule?

In practice it is death by papercuts. Rules that don't meet the fluff, including the description of the rule fluff. Word usage that is vague and could be clarified with only a few word changes.

40k may be poorly-balanced. It may not always make sense in context of the fluff. It may not contain the clearest or most logical rules ever written. It may not be the best game for competitive or tournament play ever written.

However.

40k, when played in a friendly setting with a group of rational people who know each other and are willing to construct house rules and house interpretations of the rules, and who are willing to build lists that are fun to play and to play against rather than throwing the most broken combination of things they can find at their foes, works fairly well.

I realize these are rather stringent qualifications to place on any game, but if you can find a friendly setting and agree upon resolutions to issues with the rules, it's actually a very fun game.

 Testify wrote:
But the general statements backed up by no anecdotes whatsoever is no help to anyone. If people actually cited rules that they thought were poorly written and/or stupid, then it would bring in perspective just how small and obscure that particular rule is.

Night Scythe rules and their interaction with 6th edition Flyer rules.

Those are obscure?

Edit: that's just the first example that came to mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"But why should they not play for fun? They're people too!" Because they're game designers. Their job is to not have gak quality rules. Games Workshop isn't a unique entity. There are dozens of other companies that have been successful and putting out better quality rule sets. Saying that common play testing is an undue burden is insane - it should be the minimum required before the book goes to printers.

That's not entirely true. Their job is to make a game. Whether its balanced or worded unambigulously is only their goal if their management make it their goal or if they personally make it their goal. While it may be unprofessional to look at it that way, they are still doing their job - they're making a game that is selling.

Saying that they're doing their job - albeit in an unprofessional manner - is similar to saying that a cabbie that gets his fares to their destination is doing his job while cursing and insulting his fares the entire way.

Doing your job poorly isn't the same thing as doing your job. If they wrote better rules, 40k would sell more. Ad it wouldn't take that much more effort.

GW rules are a festering pile of gak. i quit playing. It's unfortunate, i wouldnt mind building a new army and playing if the rules were half decent.
the models are good, their paint is good, the hobby aspect is ok (very time consuming but good). its a shame.

in 5th they made vehicles good so everyone would buy those. now they switch to fliers in 6th.
i read alot of posts telling people to "change and adapt" to 6th. which basically means "buy a bunch of new crap, put your old stuff on the shelf to collect dust"
this is not how a good game should be, i wont bother wasting my energy.

even 13+ years ago. back then in 2nd or whatever it was, our games quickly came down to whoever could fire off 12 missles at once from their cyclone missle launcher. all my friends played for awhile then decided that the game and painting sucked and started playing DnD.

i dont think it's ever been a great game, probably never will be.

rigeld2 wrote:

Doing your job poorly isn't the same thing as doing your job. If they wrote better rules, 40k would sell more. Ad it wouldn't take that much more effort.

Subway should make better sandwiches. If they made better sandwiches, it wouldn't cost them anything, customers would be happy and they'd make more money.

See what I did there? Saying they should make something "better" is pretty much pointless. What, specifically, do you want from the rules, without using any vague wooly terms?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Night Scythe rules and their interaction with 6th edition Flyer rules.

Those are obscure?

Edit: that's just the first example that came to mind.

That's pretty obscure, yes.

Okay there are, let's say, 20 units in each codex. And how many codexes, like 10? That's 200 units.

How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.

Now factor in over-lapping rules. Exceptions, codex-specific rules.

Yeah, no. I stand by my statement. Rulesets are insanely complicated, I think people who complain about 40k being flawed or badly written have a poor understanding of systems. Ironic considering they tend to label themselves as "hardcore" gamers.

 Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Doing your job poorly isn't the same thing as doing your job. If they wrote better rules, 40k would sell more. Ad it wouldn't take that much more effort.

Subway should make better sandwiches. If they made better sandwiches, it wouldn't cost them anything, customers would be happy and they'd make more money.

See what I did there? Saying they should make something "better" is pretty much pointless. What, specifically, do you want from the rules, without using any vague wooly terms?

Less ambiguity. More consistency.

rigeld2 wrote:

Night Scythe rules and their interaction with 6th edition Flyer rules.

Those are obscure?

Edit: that's just the first example that came to mind.

That's pretty obscure, yes.

Okay there are, let's say, 20 units in each codex. And how many codexes, like 10? That's 200 units.

How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.

Now factor in over-lapping rules. Exceptions, codex-specific rules.

Yeah, no. I stand by my statement. Rulesets are insanely complicated, I think people who complain about 40k being flawed or badly written have a poor understanding of systems. Ironic considering they tend to label themselves as "hardcore" gamers.

Seriously - Night Scythe rules are obscure? And how they interact with Flying Transport rules is something that shouldn't have been caught?

No, really - playing test games not for fun but with the objective of testing the rules (you know, actual QA) would've caught that. Or the FNP+other "unsaved wound" interaction.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
40k may be poorly-balanced. It may not always make sense in context of the fluff. It may not contain the clearest or most logical rules ever written. It may not be the best game for competitive or tournament play ever written.

However.

40k, when played in a friendly setting with a group of rational people who know each other and are willing to construct house rules and house interpretations of the rules, and who are willing to build lists that are fun to play and to play against rather than throwing the most broken combination of things they can find at their foes, works fairly well.

I realize these are rather stringent qualifications to place on any game, but if you can find a friendly setting and agree upon resolutions to issues with the rules, it's actually a very fun game.

In other words, you are having fun in spite of the rules, rather than because of them.

What you are saying is this: "if you can ignore everything that is bad, and dodgy, and not put together right, its actually pretty OK". Christ, that kind of attitude could be used to make getting the bloody plague sound like a good experience! And i'm sorry, but that kind of attitude from a company will not sell me on anything, whether its a game of toy soldiers, or a car or anything in between.

 Testify wrote:
How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.

There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.

This does not change the fact that there are many rules that are poorly written, or written so that they are very ambiguous. No, I will not list examples, that is a waste of time.
If you want to see a list of examples, I will direct your here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

There are far more examples of rules that are not clear there than I would want to have to list for you.

 Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

That's pretty obscure, yes.

Okay there are, let's say, 20 units in each codex. And how many codexes, like 10? That's 200 units.

How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.

Now factor in over-lapping rules. Exceptions, codex-specific rules.

Yeah, no. I stand by my statement. Rulesets are insanely complicated, I think people who complain about 40k being flawed or badly written have a poor understanding of systems. Ironic considering they tend to label themselves as "hardcore" gamers.

But it doesn't take a massive amount of effort to fix. When I got my Necron codex last year, I almost immediately noticed the poor wording. I hadn't even played a game with the new units and the wording was already hazy enough that I knew it would be difficult to argue heads or tails on. It didn't take play testing or days of study. It took 30 seconds and a little knowledge of the game. And the thing is, the rule has been that way since it was released....even though there has been what? At least one FAQ since then? It's not an unknown issue. It's just one they haven't bothered to fix. There are other issues in other codices as well. Some might require play testing to clarify, others might just require a quick walk down to the office of whoever wrote the rules to see what's up. It's the type of thing that should have gotten caught by an editor, really....but that's another issue entirely.

For the Nightscythe rule, all they have to do is go to Matt Ward and say "Hey, if a nightsythe gets blown up before it's troops disembark, do they take damage even though they are in reserve?" Wait for his response. Add to FAQ (which requires opening the PDF, adding the note with a date of addition, and then reuploading it to the website...I do the same thing at work on a daily basis).

 nolzur wrote:

 Testify wrote:
How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.

There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.

That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.

Do you not see my point yet?

 Testify wrote:

 nolzur wrote:

 Testify wrote:
How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.

There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.

That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.

Do you not see my point yet?

Is your point that you are bad at math?

 Testify wrote:

 nolzur wrote:

 Testify wrote:
How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.

There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.

That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.

Do you not see my point yet?

No one is a saying that there shouldn't be issues. We all know that's impossible. We just ask that we get caught and fixed. There are rules that have been vague or ambiguously written for years without being fixed. Is it too much to ask that the rules for the game we spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on be well written, or at least fixed when errors are found?

 Testify wrote:

 nolzur wrote:

 Testify wrote:
How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.

There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.

That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.

Do you not see my point yet?

No. The day I bought the book I read through it and found a few rules with poor wording.
That's not even playing games - I've since found far more. And if I sat down to play test the rules, as GW should have done, I'd find all of them before it goes to print.
You're making excuses for them not play testing these rules, many of which have issues that go back through editions. There's literally no excuse for that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 nolzur wrote:

 Testify wrote:
How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.

There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.

That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.

Do you not see my point yet?

No. The day I bought the book I read through it and found a few rules with poor wording.
That's not even playing games - I've since found far more. And if I sat down to play test the rules, as GW should have done, I'd find all of them before it goes to print.
You're making excuses for them not play testing these rules, many of which have issues that go back through editions. There's literally no excuse for that.

What you are referring to is called a QA usability test. Codices are essentially just like the manuals I write at work everyday (technical writer). When you finish writing a section/chapter/whatever, you test to be sure everything makes sense. If I'm writing a manual for a radio handset, I take my instructions and follow them to the T (RaW) and make sure the results match the purpose. If my instructions do not do what they were supposed to (ie: through a ambiguity with terminology or what have you), I fix it. Then I hand it off to my lead copy editor. She does the same thing and typically takes it to a non-tech department to get them to do it too. If the directions fail, it lands back on my desk with notes and I fix it, repeating the process as before. Nothing leaves our department for print or publication without 4-5 people testing it out. GW, apparently, doesn't do this. The Nightscythe rule that's come up multiple times in this thread shouldn't have made is past Matt Ward. He should have usability tested it (doesn't actually require playing the game to find the fault) and then rewritten it for clarity. He didn't. As a writer, especially one working in essentially technical communications....which is what writing a rule book is, it's his job to fix that. It hasn't been.

Thus, problems.

(Before anyone attacks me about "Matt Ward....", remember that it is HIS name on the codex. His reputation stands to be tarnished by that mistake. If he values his rep, he'd have caught it. He didn't.)

 Testify wrote:

 nolzur wrote:

 Testify wrote:
How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.

There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.

That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.

Do you not see my point yet?

I'll keep going back to this. your point falls flat for the simple reason that Privateer Press can do it right. And they did it right with 11 factions (2 of which are technically 6 sub faction), hundreds of warlocks/warcasters, thousands of spells hundreds of warjacks/warbeasts, hundreds of units and solos, most of which have their own unique slew of rules and abilities, which all leads to a mindboggling amount of possible synnergies, combos and interactions. In each expansion of the game, they've added something new to it (cavalry, epic warcasters, battle engines, colossals/gargantuans) so the game is constantly growing and evolving. And yet, they've created a game that in three years has become one of the bywords for "balance" in our little wee hobby.

GeeDub may think they have many reasons for putting out shoddy rules. but "too many interactions" isnt valid.

snooggums wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 nolzur wrote:

 Testify wrote:
How many special rules are there? 20? 30? Let's keep it conservative at 20. We already have 4,000 unit/rule interactions.

There are actually 80 USRs listed in the 6th edition BYB.

That gives us 16,000 rule interactions.

Do you not see my point yet?

Is your point that you are bad at math?

Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.

Nerobellum wrote:
No one is a saying that there shouldn't be issues. We all know that's impossible. We just ask that we get caught and fixed. There are rules that have been vague or ambiguously written for years without being fixed. Is it too much to ask that the rules for the game we spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on be well written, or at least fixed when errors are found?

They are fixed, hence FAQs. Holding up nightsythes as an example of GW's laziness screams of beardy pedantry. If people email GW with errors/complaints, they *do* get fixed.

rigeld2 wrote:
No. The day I bought the book I read through it and found a few rules with poor wording.
That's not even playing games - I've since found far more. And if I sat down to play test the rules, as GW should have done, I'd find all of them before it goes to print.

So you alone are better than every single GW writer, and every single proof-reader? Okay mate.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're making excuses for them not play testing these rules, many of which have issues that go back through editions. There's literally no excuse for that.

Now you've just made up something else completely. What are these issues that go back through editions?

Nerobellum wrote:
What you are referring to is called a QA usability test. Codices are essentially just like the manuals I write at work everyday (technical writer). When you finish writing a section/chapter/whatever, you test to be sure everything makes sense. If I'm writing a manual for a radio handset, I take my instructions and follow them to the T (RaW) and make sure the results match the purpose. If my instructions do not do what they were supposed to (ie: through a ambiguity with terminology or what have you), I fix it. Then I hand it off to my lead copy editor. She does the same thing and typically takes it to a non-tech department to get them to do it too. If the directions fail, it lands back on my desk with notes and I fix it, repeating the process as before. Nothing leaves our department for print or publication without 4-5 people testing it out. GW, apparently, doesn't do this. The Nightscythe rule that's come up multiple times in this thread shouldn't have made is past Matt Ward. He should have usability tested it (doesn't actually require playing the game to find the fault) and then rewritten it for clarity. He didn't. As a writer, especially one working in essentially technical communications....which is what writing a rule book is, it's his job to fix that. It hasn't been.

Thus, problems.

(Before anyone attacks me about "Matt Ward....", remember that it is HIS name on the codex. His reputation stands to be tarnished by that mistake. If he values his rep, he'd have caught it. He didn't.)

Are you serious? Are you serious? I have never bought a manual for *anything* that was even slightly readable. I tried flicking through the manual for my dad's car to disable the automatic travel updates from interupting the radio. I gave up after half an hour because it was just impossible to navigate the manual.

Conversely, you want to look up how a rule works in 40k? That's fine, just check it in the glossary.

Deadnight wrote:
I'll keep going back to this. your point falls flat for the simple reason that Privateer Press can do it right. And they did it right with 11 factions (2 of which are technically 6 sub faction), hundreds of warlocks/warcasters, thousands of spells hundreds of warjacks/warbeasts, hundreds of units and solos, most of which have their own unique slew of rules and abilities, which all leads to a mindboggling amount of possible synnergies, combos and interactions. In each expansion of the game, they've added something new to it (cavalry, epic warcasters, battle engines, colossals/gargantuans) so the game is constantly growing and evolving. And yet, they've created a game that in three years has become one of the bywords for "balance" in our little wee hobby.

I've never played (or before I came to dakka, even heard of) privateer press, so I can't comment.

 Testify wrote:

Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.

They don't need to check every single one - I don't expect perfection.

They are fixed, hence FAQs. Holding up nightsythes as an example of GW's laziness screams of beardy pedantry. If people email GW with errors/complaints, they *do* get fixed.

Demonstrably false. The FNP vs unsaved wound debacle has been going on since the beginning of 5th and has never been FAQed despite numerous emails.

rigeld2 wrote:No. The day I bought the book I read through it and found a few rules with poor wording.
That's not even playing games - I've since found far more. And if I sat down to play test the rules, as GW should have done, I'd find all of them before it goes to print.

So you alone are better than every single GW writer, and every single proof-reader? Okay mate.

Apparently so. And I'm not alone. If GW cared about putting out a good rules set, they'd QA it.

Now you've just made up something else completely. What are these issues that go back through editions?

You have the Feel No Pain special rule. You suffer a wound that has the Entropic Strike special rule (for example - also Tyranid Boneswords, Force Weapons, and more). You pass your Feel No Pain roll.

Do you lose your armor save?

Are you serious? Are you serious? I have never bought a manual for *anything* that was even slightly readable. I tried flicking through the manual for my dad's car to disable the automatic travel updates from interupting the radio. I gave up after half an hour because it was just impossible to navigate the manual.

Conversely, you want to look up how a rule works in 40k? That's fine, just check it in the glossary.

Can you show me in the rule book how the Night Scythe rule interacts with Crash and Burn? Page numbers would be awesome - hundreds of people have missed it, so your help would be appreciated.

As for your anecdote, I've only ever found technical manuals easy to navigate. Not sure what else to tell you

I've never played (or before I came to dakka, even heard of) privateer press, so I can't comment.

What other tabletop game systems have you played?

Testify wrote:So you alone are better than every single GW writer, and every single proof-reader? Okay mate.

In the realm of usability testing, I would say yes, I am better at it then GW. I went to college and have a degree as a technical writer. It's my job to do that. If GW wants to pay me a salary to do it for them, I'll do it gladly. I'll even guarantee the conversation we're having now won't be necessary if that be the case.

Testify wrote:

Nerobellum wrote:
What you are referring to is called a QA usability test. Codices are essentially just like the manuals I write at work everyday (technical writer). When you finish writing a section/chapter/whatever, you test to be sure everything makes sense. If I'm writing a manual for a radio handset, I take my instructions and follow them to the T (RaW) and make sure the results match the purpose. If my instructions do not do what they were supposed to (ie: through a ambiguity with terminology or what have you), I fix it. Then I hand it off to my lead copy editor. She does the same thing and typically takes it to a non-tech department to get them to do it too. If the directions fail, it lands back on my desk with notes and I fix it, repeating the process as before. Nothing leaves our department for print or publication without 4-5 people testing it out. GW, apparently, doesn't do this. The Nightscythe rule that's come up multiple times in this thread shouldn't have made is past Matt Ward. He should have usability tested it (doesn't actually require playing the game to find the fault) and then rewritten it for clarity. He didn't. As a writer, especially one working in essentially technical communications....which is what writing a rule book is, it's his job to fix that. It hasn't been.

Thus, problems.

(Before anyone attacks me about "Matt Ward....", remember that it is HIS name on the codex. His reputation stands to be tarnished by that mistake. If he values his rep, he'd have caught it. He didn't.)

Are you serious? Are you serious? I have never bought a manual for *anything* that was even slightly readable. I tried flicking through the manual for my dad's car to disable the automatic travel updates from interupting the radio. I gave up after half an hour because it was just impossible to navigate the manual.

Conversely, you want to look up how a rule works in 40k? That's fine, just check it in the glossary.

If you haven't seen a good manual, then clearly you don't buy or use high end navigation and communications equipment on merchant ships. The manual for your dad's car is a bad manual (though I'd like to know what the make and model is so I can see for myself). They exist. Odds are, the company that made your dad's car either did in house or found the lowest bidder. In my line of work, that doesn't fly. My last publication was the user guide to a $47,000 radio telemetry system for large container ships. The manual itself cost $350 and is not included with the system (but considering the customers are multinational shipping companies like Mearsk and CGM CMA, it's drops in a swimming pool). If my manual isn't clear and concise, a quarter billion worth of ship and cargo could end up dashed on coral reef because the radioman didn't know the frequency tunings require updating at regular 50 nautical mile intervals. However, the fact you even have a manual with the car is incidental. Your dad presumably paid for the car, not the manual. For most people, the manual is not necessary for the successful use of the car. When you spend $75 on the BRB or $20-30 for a codex or $350 on a radio system manual, you are paying for a manual. The money spent ceases to serve it's intended purpose if you can't make sense of it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
"But why should they not play for fun? They're people too!" Because they're game designers. Their job is to not have gak quality rules. Games Workshop isn't a unique entity. There are dozens of other companies that have been successful and putting out better quality rule sets. Saying that common play testing is an undue burden is insane - it should be the minimum required before the book goes to printers.

That's not entirely true. Their job is to make a game. Whether its balanced or worded unambigulously is only their goal if their management make it their goal or if they personally make it their goal. While it may be unprofessional to look at it that way, they are still doing their job - they're making a game that is selling.

Saying that they're doing their job - albeit in an unprofessional manner - is similar to saying that a cabbie that gets his fares to their destination is doing his job while cursing and insulting his fares the entire way.

Doing your job poorly isn't the same thing as doing your job. If they wrote better rules, 40k would sell more. Ad it wouldn't take that much more effort.

Doing your job poorly is still doing your job. Because they are doing it - poorly. If someone does a poor job at work, they will still get paid to go to work and keep doing it, until managment gets fed up and either tells you to lift your game or go.

The fact that they're not being told to lift their game, and are still putting out the same quality rules as they always have, means managent is perfectly happy with the current staff and the job they're doing. So yeah, they're doing their job by writing a ruleset that sells.

Whether you like their product or not has no bearing whatsoever on them doing their job. It just means you're dissatisfied with their product. I don't eat McDonalds anymore because I'm not satisfied with their product - I'm not going to walk into the back and yell at the person making their 'burgers' that they're not doing their job, because they are. I'm just one unsatisfied customer, and eat elsewhere.

 Testify wrote:
Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.

It IS lazy. Other companies manage to develop games with no possible ambiguity in their rules, even when those games have equal or greater levels of complexity. For example, count up how many interactions there are in even a single MTG set, and then observe that it is impossible to create a situation that isn't explicitly covered by the rules.