Switch Theme:

40k is at its worse point since 7th edition.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
[MOD]
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 vipoid wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
I picked up the new marines codex and codex dark angels.

And I am absolutely overwhelmed with so much information, I have no idea where to start with these books, I stopped playing halfway through 8th as I did not like the rules or the way the game was played.


I'd heard that the AdMech book was looking really overpowered so I took a glance at the leaks, just out of curiosity.

My first impression was that they might as well have been written in another language for all I could discern from them. It's not just the layered rules, it's that so many rules have stupidly verbose names that make them completely unintuitive for someone trying to get to grips with an unfamiliar army.
This, 200,000% this.

The single biggest thing at this point, now that gaming venues are back open, keeping me from hopping back in, is trying to discern what the everloving hell all these new units are. Opening a book and getting faceblasted by an angry gorilla with a fully automatic thesaurus that adjectivizes 3,000 words a minute is not fun. If I can't tell an Intercessor from an Interceptor from an Inceptor, I'm going to stop caring real quick.


IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






^I lol'd

Also, I agree. I don't understand their new "language style". That compounded with the overly complex-yet-restrictuve datasheet formats is a turn off.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Hacking Interventor





 Vaktathi wrote:
 vipoid wrote:

I'd heard that the AdMech book was looking really overpowered so I took a glance at the leaks, just out of curiosity.

My first impression was that they might as well have been written in another language for all I could discern from them. It's not just the layered rules, it's that so many rules have stupidly verbose names that make them completely unintuitive for someone trying to get to grips with an unfamiliar army.
This, 200,000% this.

The single biggest thing at this point, now that gaming venues are back open, keeping me from hopping back in, is trying to discern what the everloving hell all these new units are. Opening a book and getting faceblasted by an angry gorilla with a fully automatic thesaurus that adjectivizes 3,000 words a minute is not fun. If I can't tell an Intercessor from an Interceptor from an Inceptor, I'm going to stop caring real quick.



Ooh, ooh, let's not forget that the supposedly 'newbie friendly' 'easy to use' Space Marine army now basically has no two Primaris units with the same weapons, so now instead of "Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter" we have to differentiate the Bolt Carbine from the Auto Bolt Rifle from the Storm Bolter from the Hellstorm Bolt Rifle from the Hellstorm Heavy Bolter from the Heavy Bolt Rifle (which is Rapid Fire, btw) from the Executioner Bolt Rifle from the Instigator Bolt Funnel from the Stalker Bolt Lathe from the Reverse Bolt Cowgirl from the...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/28 01:59:11


"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"

-Tex Talks Battletech on GW 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

I straight up can't get new players into 40K. There's just too much stuff to learn. AOS has proven more newbie-friendly so far.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Formosa wrote:
I picked up the new marines codex and codex dark angels.

And I am absolutely overwhelmed with so much information, I have no idea where to start with these books, I stopped playing halfway through 8th as I did not like the rules or the way the game was played.

got the 9th book and kinda liked the changes but due to the coof I have been working solid and only now really had a chance to dig in properly and have to say I am opining for a simpler ruleset like 3rd or 4th, hell even 5th.


Don't stress taking it all in at once. Play and learn as you go. There's no shame in forgetting things or learning new tricks along the way.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I made a joke once about needing a two week correspondence course to figure out how to use the AdMech book. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that book is a landmine of verbose excess.

Even small examples of their rules have this issue. Take this from the Iron Hands book:



I'm all for being thorough and unambiguous with rules, but do they need to repeat the phrase "Once that phase, when resolving an attack made with a ranged weapon by a model from that unit..." three times in the same paragraph?

 xttz wrote:
What gets me is that CA17 came with a bunch of extra interim rules for factions without a codex. It was literally just a page each but it helped.
Why couldn't they do the same alongside the FAQs or CA21, adding faction-specific secondaries or upgrading army traits?
I've brought that up before. They should be doing that for get-you-by faction-specific Crusade rules.

It would certainly make the book more worthwhile then just a reprint of the damned core rules again.

 vipoid wrote:
"Acute Reflexes" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Twisted Senses" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Master Tactician" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Unrivalled Duellist" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"Chosen of the God Emperor" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
"EMPOWERED BY THE DAEMON LORD DRAKHOSTVXH, DREAD RULER OF THE NIGHTMARE LABARYNTH OF CHAOS" - This unit rerolls to-hit rolls of 1.
This comes down to GW's obsession with 'bespoke' rules, whilst at the same time not actually having enough variance in rules to make such an undertaking worthwhile.

People bemoan USRs, but USRs would allow you to have all your fancy splashy silly named rules whilst keeping everything in a sensible order.

I mean imagine if there was a rule called "Accurate". This rule allowed you to re-roll to-hit rolls of 1.

Then you could have:

"Twisted Senses" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"Master Tactician" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"The Flan of Ages" - The unit has the Accurate USR.
"MASSIVE FEET!" - The unit has the Accurate USR.

It means you have one source of rules, requiring you to update only one thing (rather than tracking different variants/wordings of the rule across multiple units in multiple books), but you can keep the race-specific flavouring of rules so that it fits with the theme.

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2021/07/28 02:40:53


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I made a joke once about needing a two week correspondence course to figure out how to use the AdMech book. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that book is a landmine of verbose excess.

Even small examples of their rules have this issue. Take this from the Iron Hands book:



I'm all for being thorough and unambiguous with rules, but do they need to repeat the phrase "Once that phase, when resolving an attack made with a ranged weapon by a model from that unit..." three times in the same paragraph?

 xttz wrote:
What gets me is that CA17 came with a bunch of extra interim rules for factions without a codex. It was literally just a page each but it helped.
Why couldn't they do the same alongside the FAQs or CA21, adding faction-specific secondaries or upgrading army traits?
I've brought that up before. They should be doing that for get-you-by faction-specific Crusade rules.

It would certainly make the book more worthwhile then just a reprint of the damned core rules again.


Sadly they do.
Because otherwise you would get some <insert pejorative of choice> say in that voice which screams; "i have no friends" say:

"Whwwwweeeeelllll aaaahhhhhctuallly because it doesn't say once per phase.. by RRRRAAAWWWWW It applies to all shooting phases/ its unlimited rerolls. I'm smart me. Derpa derpa derp. GW bad at rules writing. "

Now don't get me wrong Im the first one to call out GW for their stupidity.
But some of the arguments that get brought up on the you make da call on sub forum are straight up ridiculous...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/28 02:44:09


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

They don't need it three times though.

"Once that phase, when resolving an attack made with a ranged weapon from that unit, you may re-roll one hit roll and/or one wound roll and/or one damage roll."

The "and/or" allows you to do one or two parts of the rule, and not the other, stopping the "If you re-roll one you have to re-roll the other two" people that talk in the aforementioned 'I have no friends' voice.


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They don't need it three times though.

"Once that phase, when resolving an attack made with a ranged weapon from that unit, you may re-roll one hit roll and/or one wound roll and/or one damage roll."

The "and/or" allows you to do one or two parts of the rule, and not the other, stopping the "If you re-roll one you have to re-roll the other two" people that talk in the aforementioned 'I have no friends' voice.



My point was that I think some of this might be driven by players taking the piss if there is any slight wording ambiguity even if the obvious intent is obvious.
I'm sure they hate having to FAQ stuff that everyone and their mother can see did not really need FAQ.

I'm glad the current edition is following the FAQ trend and correcting things promptly.
Of course if they got it right the first time there would be no need to the FAQ lol.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





GW's new language style is an attempt of them trying to give players what they think players want.

Players keep complaining about balance, not enough uniqueness in an army, they complain about rules with bad loopholes.

What do you get when you try to close loopholes? You get Legalese, and the rules are starting to sound more and more like Legalese. A lot of legalese begins with a layout of Definitions. In 40k, these definitions are made by giving things keywords.

But then, this is one of those 'careful what you wish for' situations. All through 5th-7th, people begged for more FAQ's, better balance, more unique rules to make the armies feel distinguished... And this is how they're trying to satisfy all of that.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 CEO Kasen wrote:


Ooh, ooh, let's not forget that the supposedly 'newbie friendly' 'easy to use' Space Marine army now basically has no two Primaris units with the same weapons, so now instead of "Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter" we have to differentiate the Bolt Carbine from the Auto Bolt Rifle from the Storm Bolter from the Hellstorm Bolt Rifle from the Hellstorm Heavy Bolter from the Heavy Bolt Rifle (which is Rapid Fire, btw) from the Executioner Bolt Rifle from the Instigator Bolt Funnel from the Stalker Bolt Lathe from the Reverse Bolt Cowgirl from the...


I may have thrown up in my mouth on reading that. Just a little.

That's absolutely ridiculous.

The only logical explanation for that sort of nonsense is to be able to selectively nerf/buff Space Marines but not other imperial factions whenever a new edition rolls around.

Still pretty silly. I wonder when they're going to start differentiating between factions of space marines. Hellstorm Heavy Bolter? Nah, space wolves use the Wolfstorm Heavy Bolter! The Stormfang Carbine!!
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Stormfang Carbine does actually sound pretty cool. That'd make a good Relic weapon.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 CEO Kasen wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 vipoid wrote:

I'd heard that the AdMech book was looking really overpowered so I took a glance at the leaks, just out of curiosity.

My first impression was that they might as well have been written in another language for all I could discern from them. It's not just the layered rules, it's that so many rules have stupidly verbose names that make them completely unintuitive for someone trying to get to grips with an unfamiliar army.
This, 200,000% this.

The single biggest thing at this point, now that gaming venues are back open, keeping me from hopping back in, is trying to discern what the everloving hell all these new units are. Opening a book and getting faceblasted by an angry gorilla with a fully automatic thesaurus that adjectivizes 3,000 words a minute is not fun. If I can't tell an Intercessor from an Interceptor from an Inceptor, I'm going to stop caring real quick.



Ooh, ooh, let's not forget that the supposedly 'newbie friendly' 'easy to use' Space Marine army now basically has no two Primaris units with the same weapons, so now instead of "Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter" we have to differentiate the Bolt Carbine from the Auto Bolt Rifle from the Storm Bolter from the Hellstorm Bolt Rifle from the Hellstorm Heavy Bolter from the Heavy Bolt Rifle (which is Rapid Fire, btw) from the Executioner Bolt Rifle from the Instigator Bolt Funnel from the Stalker Bolt Lathe from the Reverse Bolt Cowgirl from the...


While all this is definitely bad, my favorite aspect of this and the rules writing is the combined nonsense that leads to the last paragraph of Bolter Discipline:
"For the purposes of this ability, a Rapid Fire bolt weapon is any bolt weapon (defined on page 195) with the Rapid Fire type"

Restating what has just been stated in a different order is _not_ good rules writing. Its merely redundant. Adding a cross reference is awful, particularly since page 195 is basically 'It has the word 'bolt' in it' (which is _again_ restating what was already said, but now on another page), except {list} but also includes {list of unique weapons}.

Just... let marines shoot twice with their default rapid fire bolters. 100% of the time. Easy, done. No bizarre list of conditionals but only for certain unit types, and no laundry list of what is or isn't and has other parts (combi-weapons) or what have you. Marine bolters shoot twice, forever.

Alternately, don't give them a pile of exceptions from the basic rules of the game, but that's a different discussion.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/28 03:33:44


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in ca
Yellin' Yoof on a Scooter





I dunno I have recently returned after a long hiatus of at least 15yrs, I am having more fun than I once did playing 40K. Simply remember much frustration and little support for anything that was not a Space Marine Chapter.

It may just simply be that I am now playing Orks and enjoying all the modeling and simplistic approach. Also, seem to have a much better success rate than my old Eldar and CSM.

While I can’t comment on the recent editions, there is no nostalgia for the good old days here. They were tough times for the Xenos and Chosen of the Gods.

Da Groxx, WarBoss of the Da Aff-Kicka Korps (DAKK) 
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





To be honest aside from the bolters I wouldn't mind this stuff if GW actually used the bespoke rules they've introduced as a way to balance the game. I get WHY they gave all these same abilities different names because again, its something I defended in 8th and have since come to dislike. The granularity in the rules COULD have been used to spot balance rules. For example if you have a unit that is underpreforming you just tweak its own little rule while the rest of the units that have that ruler remain uneffected.

THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL AN NOT REPRESENTITIVE OF THE CURRENT GAME. Say you have terminators and genestealers both with their own deep strike rule. But genestealers tend to get shot to death because they fail the charge so no one takes them. You can modify the genestealer rule for deep striking so that they can come in closer to the enemy and fulfill their role while the terminators (and every other deep striking unit in the game) remains untouched so theres no need to worry about unintended consequences elsewhere.

It WOULD be a good way to surgically balance the game over time, but for some reason GW just refuses to change special rules outside of codex editions which come too fast to actually achieve any balance.


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

You can do that without the need for bespoke rules though.

Using your good Termy/'Stealer example, say rather than having two slightly different Deep Strike rules you had a single Deep Strike rule:

Deep Strike (X)

And "X" is the minimum inches away that the unit must be deployed. Most things would have Deep Strike (9), but some things, like super-sneaky Genestealers or appear-out-of-the-shadows Mandrakes could have Deep Strike (5), or something like that.

A single rule that allows variance within itself. It's built in.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Voss wrote:
 CEO Kasen wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
 vipoid wrote:

I'd heard that the AdMech book was looking really overpowered so I took a glance at the leaks, just out of curiosity.

My first impression was that they might as well have been written in another language for all I could discern from them. It's not just the layered rules, it's that so many rules have stupidly verbose names that make them completely unintuitive for someone trying to get to grips with an unfamiliar army.
This, 200,000% this.

The single biggest thing at this point, now that gaming venues are back open, keeping me from hopping back in, is trying to discern what the everloving hell all these new units are. Opening a book and getting faceblasted by an angry gorilla with a fully automatic thesaurus that adjectivizes 3,000 words a minute is not fun. If I can't tell an Intercessor from an Interceptor from an Inceptor, I'm going to stop caring real quick.



Ooh, ooh, let's not forget that the supposedly 'newbie friendly' 'easy to use' Space Marine army now basically has no two Primaris units with the same weapons, so now instead of "Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter" we have to differentiate the Bolt Carbine from the Auto Bolt Rifle from the Storm Bolter from the Hellstorm Bolt Rifle from the Hellstorm Heavy Bolter from the Heavy Bolt Rifle (which is Rapid Fire, btw) from the Executioner Bolt Rifle from the Instigator Bolt Funnel from the Stalker Bolt Lathe from the Reverse Bolt Cowgirl from the...


While all this is definitely bad, my favorite aspect of this and the rules writing is the combined nonsense that leads to the last paragraph of Bolter Discipline:
"For the purposes of this ability, a Rapid Fire bolt weapon is any bolt weapon (defined on page 195) with the Rapid Fire type"

Restating what has just been stated in a different order is _not_ good rules writing. Its merely redundant. Adding a cross reference is awful, particularly since page 195 is basically 'It has the word 'bolt' in it' (which is _again_ restating what was already said, but now on another page), except {list} but also includes {list of unique weapons}.

Just... let marines shoot twice with their default rapid fire bolters. 100% of the time. Easy, done. No bizarre list of conditionals but only for certain unit types, and no laundry list of what is or isn't and has other parts (combi-weapons) or what have you. Marine bolters shoot twice, forever.

Alternately, don't give them a pile of exceptions from the basic rules of the game, but that's a different discussion.



ironically, even GW couldn't get around having to use a USR to define what another rule applies to....
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Daedalus81 wrote:


Don't stress taking it all in at once. Play and learn as you go. There's no shame in forgetting things or learning new tricks along the way.


yeah only to play , you need to buy, paint and assemble the units first. kind of a unfun to find out you armed your dudes the wrong way after you did all of that.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Khorne Chosen Marine Riding a Juggernaut




Southampton, UK

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You can do that without the need for bespoke rules though.

Using your good Termy/'Stealer example, say rather than having two slightly different Deep Strike rules you had a single Deep Strike rule:

Deep Strike (X)

And "X" is the minimum inches away that the unit must be deployed. Most things would have Deep Strike (9), but some things, like super-sneaky Genestealers or appear-out-of-the-shadows Mandrakes could have Deep Strike (5), or something like that.

A single rule that allows variance within itself. It's built in.


Think this was mentioned further up. You could maintain the individual flavour still by giving different names but still calling out the same USR, e.g.

Genestealers - "They're Coming Out Of The Goddamn Walls" - unit has Deep Strike (5)
Mandrakes - "Strike From The Shadows" - unit has Deep Strike (5)

I think the fact that most people who played the editions with USRs still refer to those abilities by the USR names shows how useful they are. It absolutely eases the rules burden. My son has only played since 8th, and had no idea that things like Deep Strike, Feel No Pain, Objective Secured and so on were effectively still USRs but have just been given a different name each time they appear.

My big criticism of 9th edition would be that it seems to assume prior knowledge of previous editions like that. The codexes are massively disappointing from a fluff perspective in that respect. Looking back at my 6th edition CSM codex, each unit had a full page of text explaining the unit in the lore. That just doesn't exist any more, it just seems to be assumed knowledge that you've already read in previous editions. Nowadays you just get a little side box with barely a sentence in it. Before, the Heldrake entry went into all the details of how they are formed from a mutated and daemon-infused space marine fighter ship, and deep within it's core there is still a shrivelled husk of a pilot, whose cries of anguish are amplified and blared out as the screams of the monster he has become. I eagerly await the 9th edition version with a little blink-and-you'll-miss-it text box saying "dragon dinobot LOL"...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/28 06:05:57


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

One thing they could stand to do would be to codify Overcharge as well.

Overcharge (X) - When making an attack, an unmodified To Hit roll equal to X (or lower) results in 1 Mortal Wound on the wielder.

Stops us having some plasma weapons that insta-kill you, others that don't, and some that do but also kill vehicles in one hit because GW didn't think it through. Also allows for variance ("X") so you can show extra volatile things without needing to introduce special rules on top of special rules.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




drbored wrote:
GW's new language style is an attempt of them trying to give players what they think players want.

Players keep complaining about balance, not enough uniqueness in an army, they complain about rules with bad loopholes.

What do you get when you try to close loopholes? You get Legalese, and the rules are starting to sound more and more like Legalese. A lot of legalese begins with a layout of Definitions. In 40k, these definitions are made by giving things keywords.

But then, this is one of those 'careful what you wish for' situations. All through 5th-7th, people begged for more FAQ's, better balance, more unique rules to make the armies feel distinguished... And this is how they're trying to satisfy all of that.


Legalese isn't necessary for clear rules. Magic: The Gathering card text is clear and concise.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm all for being thorough and unambiguous with rules, but do they need to repeat the phrase "Once that phase, when resolving an attack made with a ranged weapon by a model from that unit..." three times in the same paragraph?


Have you ever participated in any discussion on YMDC?

So the simple answer is "yes, they do".

Formatting it in a little box to make it harder to read though...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Legalese isn't necessary for clear rules. Magic: The Gathering card text is clear and concise.


The big difference between 40k and MtG is that MtG has created a human readable "code" for their rules that dictates how each rule has to be written, with the grammar and each word defined.
During 8th and 9th GW has improved their rules writing by a lot, but currently they are only up to the standards that WotC was already applying during onslaught 20 years ago. There still is lots of room to improve.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/28 07:39:26


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






In YMDC people can argue something well beyond the point of common sense, when in real life the other players would have walked away long before. The rules absolutely do not need to be written like that, people just need to be less tolerant of TFGs' bull.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 Jidmah wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Legalese isn't necessary for clear rules. Magic: The Gathering card text is clear and concise.


The big difference between 40k and MtG is that MtG has created a human readable "code" for their rules that dictates how each rule has to be written, with the grammar and each word defined.
During 8th and 9th GW has improved their rules writing by a lot, but currently they are only up to the standards that WotC was already applying during onslaught 20 years ago. There still is lots of room to improve.


And this is why I don't understand why people defend GW. They are the biggest name in tabletop wargames by an ENORMOUS margin since X-Wing and Privateer Press gak the bed, not to mention they have nearly 40 years making successive iterations of the basically the same ruleset, yet they've only rarely hired anyone competant at writing rules and it was probably more through luck than intention. This is especially egregious in the last 10 years or so as many games have an insanely good quality of rules, so it's not like competent designers are hard to find. Compared to the money they're making these days I doubt it would be much of an imposition for GW to drive a dump truck full of money up to Eric Lang's house and put him in charge of overhauling 40k to be what GW wants it to be. Lang especially is amazing at designing simple, streamlined rule sets that would work perfectly for 40k. Then there's numerous other designers kick about they could hire. But they instead recruit GW managers who think that because they've been glorified babysitters for twenty years they know how to write a codex. There's no excuse for 40k to be in the state it's in given the circumstances.


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






They have plenty of good rules writers. They work on AoS.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
ERJAK wrote:
...probably has a some amount of Nazi memorabilia, has many concerning opinions about racial and cultural minorities, and/or likely refers to women as 'females'.
--Saying this about another member does not violate Dakka's Rule #1, apparently. 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

If there's one thing GW has proven, it's that they don't need good rules to sell.
As long as the rules as passable, people will flock towards them for a number of different reasons.

So why would GW throw a truck load of money at a rules designer when they can throw it at senior management instead?
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Sim-Life wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blastaar wrote:
Legalese isn't necessary for clear rules. Magic: The Gathering card text is clear and concise.


The big difference between 40k and MtG is that MtG has created a human readable "code" for their rules that dictates how each rule has to be written, with the grammar and each word defined.
During 8th and 9th GW has improved their rules writing by a lot, but currently they are only up to the standards that WotC was already applying during onslaught 20 years ago. There still is lots of room to improve.


And this is why I don't understand why people defend GW. They are the biggest name in tabletop wargames by an ENORMOUS margin since X-Wing and Privateer Press gak the bed, not to mention they have nearly 40 years making successive iterations of the basically the same ruleset, yet they've only rarely hired anyone competant at writing rules and it was probably more through luck than intention. This is especially egregious in the last 10 years or so as many games have an insanely good quality of rules, so it's not like competent designers are hard to find. Compared to the money they're making these days I doubt it would be much of an imposition for GW to drive a dump truck full of money up to Eric Lang's house and put him in charge of overhauling 40k to be what GW wants it to be. Lang especially is amazing at designing simple, streamlined rule sets that would work perfectly for 40k. Then there's numerous other designers kick about they could hire. But they instead recruit GW managers who think that because they've been glorified babysitters for twenty years they know how to write a codex. There's no excuse for 40k to be in the state it's in given the circumstances.


Considering the viral tweets about rules writer's salary, IMO this seems to be a "pay peanuts, get monkeys" problem.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Moustache-twirling Princeps





Gone-to-ground in the craters of Coventry

 kirotheavenger wrote:
If there's one thing GW has proven, it's that they don't need good rules to sell.
As long as the rules as passable, people will flock towards them for a number of different reasons.

So why would GW throw a truck load of money at a rules designer when they can throw it at senior management instead?
Just think how many gamers might go back to 40k if the rules were as solid as other games manage to be.
All of that translates into more money.
GW's penny-pinching at the rules level is hurting them.
The constant churn of rules is hurting the players, too, with the need to rebuy rule books and codexes, and the annual paid-for rules updates in CA. If the rules were better, we'd spend more on models instead. Surely, if the models are made in-house, they bring a higher profit than outsourced books.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2021/07/28 09:25:22


4000 pts - 4000 pts - Harlies: 1000 pts - 1000 ptsDS:70+S+G++MB+IPw40k86/f+D++A++/cWD64R+T(T)DM+
IG/AM force nearly-finished pieces: http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-38888-41159_Armies%20-%20Imperial%20Guard.html
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." - George Bernard Shaw (probably)
Clubs around Coventry, UK 
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 kirotheavenger wrote:
If there's one thing GW has proven, it's that they don't need good rules to sell.
As long as the rules as passable, people will flock towards them for a number of different reasons.

So why would GW throw a truck load of money at a rules designer when they can throw it at senior management instead?


Didn't work towards the end of Kirby's time when GW's annual reports were showing less and less profit every six months. Didn't X-Wing beat out 40k as the best selling game at one point? GW had a good few years after Rountree took over but the shine is fading and its become clear that GW is still GW and they'll be back to where they were soon enough if things don't change.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/28 09:39:17



 
   
Made in ch
Warped Arch Heretic of Chaos





 Skinnereal wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
If there's one thing GW has proven, it's that they don't need good rules to sell.
As long as the rules as passable, people will flock towards them for a number of different reasons.

So why would GW throw a truck load of money at a rules designer when they can throw it at senior management instead?
Just think how many gamers might go back to 40k if the rules were as solid as other games manage to be.
All of that translates into more money.
GW's penny-pinching at the rules level is hurting them.
The constant churn of rules is hurting the players, too, with the need to rebuy rule books and codexes, and the annual paid-for rules updates in CA. If the rules were better, we'd spend more on models instead. Surely, if the models are made in-house, they bring a higher profit than outsourced books.



The Rules churn is mandated. Its baseline a DLC type deal like with the modern videogames industry... which btw absolutely sucks for the consumer.
that would of course be less bad if the additional content were actually good, and here we go torwards the pay problem, in which GW just seems to attempt to live with the "culture" of passion instead of actually bothering to pay a decent wage, which of course leads to burn outs and loss of experienced personell.

NVM that we know that the Bookkeepers intervene on occaision directly into design, cue wraithknight incident.

Combine these two things and you get either the motivated ruleswriter that wants to do good but has too little ressources and needs to worry about his living standard which gets desilusioned and therefore thinks to himself why should he or she or whatever else go the extra mile for the company that pays so badly in the first place. this leads to bad rules quality mid term guaranteed, which of course doesn't make them look good for the community.

then on the model front, i think, we are at a point were a lot of the players just put stuff in the cart and then put it out again simply because of price.
I remember a time, where even little student me could walk into a FLGS locally, see a nice mini or kit, buy it without a dex and just build and paint them and put em in a box or show em off or gift them to a new player. Nowadays? Not so much. (for the record, £--> CHF wonder exchange rate is baseline and was baseline just as nuts as the AUS side of things with the only saving grace that the average swiss collector has more spare money to throw at a hobby...)

And of course the usual explanations for the price get touted, like high quality and modularity and options. But with the ever increasing monoposing and lack of options (or even lack of baseline equipment cue CSM and especially CSM terminators) that just doesn't work anymore on multiple levels.

Sure,we are not yet at the p2w situation we had in 7th with formations with such abismal rules. But the buisness modell is the same, the rules piecemeal is the same. BCB , think of him what you want, made a list of all the doccuments, of which basically 2/3rds were monetised and reached over 100 differing rules sources for 8th edition.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/28 09:41:16


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page
A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

In the 41st millennium there is only overpriced hamberders.

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: