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.

Quoth Jervis:

When we started on the new rules we decided that we shouldn't compromise the new rules out of fear of over-competitive players (or "rules-lawyers" as they're known in the trade), but instead we should develop the rules that we'd personally like to use ourselves. As long as the rules worked well in our games, then all we needed to do was explain to other players how to use them in their games.

Thoughts?

So does this mean that they are going to be providing timely and relevant updated FAQ's?

I don't have my WD with me now, but there's another scary quote in there that is basically that we'll all need to be told how to play the game the right way, or some such.

A horrible paraphrasing, I know.

(Unless you just posted it? I'm a bit frazzled, apparently...)

If anyone else has it, it is the quote that they chose to boldface and highlight...

Anyway, I'm not so sure I like the whole theme and direction of the article.

I'll still hold out hope for 5th edition though!

*double post delete*

It seems they've spent the last 20 years perfecting their blather instead of their rules. :(

If that's the what it's trying to say, then it really reeks of the 'One right way to play' mentality that feels the need to bully other people by calling them names and such that are the ones ruining the hobby.

Phryxis wrote:Quoth Jervis:

When we started on the new rules we decided that we shouldn't compromise the new rules out of fear of over-competitive players (or "rules-lawyers" as they're known in the trade), but instead we should develop the rules that we'd personally like to use ourselves. As long as the rules worked well in our games, then all we needed to do was explain to other players how to use them in their games.

Thoughts?

They should know that there's such a thing as over-competitive
"fluff mongers." The definition of over-competition isn't "reading
the rules" or "looking for correct interpretations," but rather someone
who competes to the discomfort of others.

they have given up...... it time to outsource the rules and just focus on making models.

Sigh.

What does this even mean?!?!
"we shouldn't compromise the new rules out of fear of over-competitive players"

Compromise what? Balanced rules? IT MAKES NO SENSE.

"all we needed to do was explain to other players how to use them"

In other words: GW will tell us not to play by their rules as they write them, but rather as how they meant the rules to be written. WHAT?

THE BEST WAY TO EXPLAIN TO OTHER PLAYERS HOW TO USE YOUR RULES WOULD BE TO WRITE THEM PROPERLY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I agree. The quote makes no sense.

Hopefully the rules will be better written than that quote is.

Maybe what they mean is they don't want to compromise their amount of free time with the amount of time it would take to write clear rules and marked exceptions?

This is news?

Moving into 5th Edition, GW has been *very* clear that they're going to cater to the "fun" crowd and leave the tournament crowd to fend for themselves.

And I can't say that I blame them.

For the same effort as the Apocalypse release, we could have gotten a marginally tighter rulebook or a set of FAQs. The difference being that Apocalypse actually brought in revenue and transformed "fun" gaming, whereas FAQs are simply a cost that benefits a very small number of people who wouldn't be satisfied with a GW FAQ anyways.

Besides, Adepticon and Direwolf demonstrated that GW can outsource the rules FAQs to the fans at minimal cost. The tournament crowd has a FAQ that answers all of their questions to their own satisfaction.

So what's the problem?

JohnHwangDD wrote:This is news?

Moving into 5th Edition, GW has been *very* clear that they're going to cater to the "fun" crowd and leave the tournament crowd to fend for themselves.

And I can't say that I blame them.

For the same effort as the Apocalypse release, we could have gotten a marginally tighter rulebook or a set of FAQs. The difference being that Apocalypse actually brought in revenue and transformed "fun" gaming, whereas FAQs are simply a cost that benefits a very small number of people who wouldn't be satisfied with a GW FAQ anyways.

Besides, Adepticon and Direwolf demonstrated that GW can outsource the rules FAQs to the fans at minimal cost. The tournament crowd has a FAQ that answers all of their questions to their own satisfaction.

So what's the problem?

You don't see a problem with the fact that GW either cannot or will not take the time to write a clear rule set?

I think we can all agree that the biggest gripe the majority of players have had for several years is:
1: The poor wording of rules (including mixing and matching different descriptive words which end up meaning nothing when put up against other rules).
2: The need for someone who has little to no knowledge of the rules but has some sort of degree in english to be taught the rules by reading the rules and coming back to the development team to outline where the problems are.
3: The lack of trialing by experienced rules lawyerish players who can pick out the problems in a few seconds, that the development team have missed in months.
4: The lack of FAQs.

The attitude expressed by Jervis is truely frightening.
He should be striving to write a tight set of rules that have plenty of examples in the book and will require little FAQs (there will always be some) beyond the low level dopes who will be confused no matter hiw simple and correct you make it.

This is a company that makes milllions of pounds per year and is seen and sees itself as the market leader worldwide. Why the development team, which is one of the main engines of sales... lame/confusing rules = lame sales is lead by someone with the attitude that if you just let it happen it will is to be honest a great dissapointment after all the blather from GW about their poor sales and returns.
Its time like this I wish I was a major shareholder and could go and put a rocket up their backsides to get with the program....

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I think we can all agree that the biggest gripe the majority of players have had for several years is:
1: The poor wording of rules (including mixing and matching different descriptive words which end up meaning nothing when put up against other rules).
2: The need for someone who has little to no knowledge of the rules but has some sort of degree in english to be taught the rules by reading the rules and coming back to the development team to outline where the problems are.
3: The lack of trialing by experienced rules lawyerish players who can pick out the problems in a few seconds, that the development team have missed in months.
4: The lack of FAQs.

The attitude expressed by Jervis is truely frightening.
He should be striving to write a tight set of rules that have plenty of examples in the book and will require little FAQs (there will always be some) beyond the low level dopes who will be confused no matter hiw simple and correct you make it.

This is a company that makes milllions of pounds per year and is seen and sees itself as the market leader worldwide. Why the development team, which is one of the main engines of sales... lame/confusing rules = lame sales is lead by someone with the attitude that if you just let it happen it will is to be honest a great dissapointment after all the blather from GW about their poor sales and returns.
Its time like this I wish I was a major shareholder and could go and put a rocket up their backsides to get with the program....

Amen brother!

Alpharius wrote:You don't see a problem with the fact that GW either cannot or will not take the time to write a clear rule set?

Nope, I don't see any problem here. Trying to make their rules airtight is an impossible waste of effort that wouldn't satisfy anybody, anyways. The rules are far too complex for this to ever be considered an option.

And why should GW spend money doing what other people are willing to do for free?

Casual gamers don't need an airtight ruleset, and they comprise the overwhelming majority of players. For them, the GW ruleset merely needs to be "good enough", and GW succeeds at that.

Alpharius wrote:
You don't see a problem with the fact that GW either cannot or will not take the time to write a clear rule set?

problem is that they can...

Going back:
Necromunda
Mordheim
BFG

More recently 7th ed WHFB and until the VC and daemons all of the army books have been brilliant.

I've spent probably $100US on 40k models in the last 2 years.

Give me a very well written ruleset and I'll be buying from GW and FW: Deathguard, IG and BAs... on top of my normal WHFB purchases.

If the rules are sloppy I'll continue playing WHFB where I'm having a great time, and won't spend the extra money.

x that by 10000 experienced gamers who can now be easily led astray to other game systems in other companies or computer games and = poor sales and much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth by the CEO who will still refuse to give the development team a damned good thrashing!

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I think we can all agree that the biggest gripe the majority of players have had for several years is:

The attitude expressed by Jervis is truely frightening.
He should be striving to write a tight set of rules that have plenty of examples in the book and will require little FAQs (there will always be some) beyond the low level dopes who will be confused no matter hiw simple and correct you make it.

This is a company that makes milllions of pounds per year and is seen and sees itself as the market leader worldwide. Why the development team, which is one of the main engines of sales... lame/confusing rules = lame sales is lead by someone with the attitude that if you just let it happen it will is to be honest a great dissapointment after all the blather from GW about their poor sales and returns.
Its time like this I wish I was a major shareholder and could go and put a rocket up their backsides to get with the program....

Hahaha.

First off, "the majority of players" is probably only limited the handful of online players. And most players aren't online.

Second, Jervis is correct that GW rules don't sell, because these interactions are rare in the grand scheme of things. Particularly, as tighter rules just take longer, but don't generate any more money. Players won't pay an extra $10 per rulebook for better rules, less Fluff, and fewer pretty pictures.

Third, GW isn't nearly as stupid as you presume. They can do math, and it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming majority of their profits come from miniatures sales. NOT rules. GW makes almost nothing from rules. OTOH, based on the slapdash push for Legendary Fantasy, and Apocalypse 2, it appears that the Apocalypse expansion did really well for GW.

If you were a major shareholder, this would be obvious to you. You'd do just liek the other suits and shrink the development team in favor of better sculpting and plastics manufacturing. As GW has actually done.

John sometimes I wonder if you are being intentionally obtuse.

Are you a major shareholder? How do you come to your conclusions?

From a competitive standpoint, the incentives to write better rules is a wise decision. Why the hell wouldn't a company want to improve their product in the first place?????? is this jut a general assumption that goes in one ear and out the other of many people?

Trying to make their rules airtight is an impossible waste of effort that wouldn't satisfy anybody, anyways. The rules are far too complex for this to ever be considered an option.

I think you're mistaken.

If you're factoring in game balance, than I wouldn't disagree. It's VERY hard to write a bunch of Codices, over the span of a couple years, which are all perfectly balanced. It's probably impossible.

But, to write a set of RULES, as in core mechanics, which are clear, consistent, thoughtfully organized, and very tight, is quite possible. Certainly not easy, but I think it's totally reasonable to expect them to release a tight set of core rules, then with a subsequent FAQ to have them airtight.

FWIW, I think Codex creep is a good thing, so long as it's just enough for players to notice and get intersted. I think a small bit of creep with each Codex keeps people buying the newest stuff, and keeps them excited about their next list.

They can do math, and it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming majority of their profits come from miniatures sales. NOT rules.

Wow, dude, not even close. Here's an anecdote that should put the lie to what you just said.

I'm in the process of finishing up my Tyranid army.

Now, I love the Carnifex model. But when it comes to the model, I think the Crushing Claws, Scything Talons and the basic head are cool. That's the model I'd make, just to make a cool model. How many of those have I made? Zero. I think the stupidest head is the Enhanced Senses head. How many of those have I painted? Five. I made three Dakkafexes. Stupidest looking Carnifex build you can find. Still did three of them.

And what about Gaunts? I've painted 16, and will do another 20 more. I'd do more than that if I could stand it. How fun is it to paint Gaunts? Not. I'd paint one or two in different color schemes and be done with them. But to build the list I want, I need as many as I can stand to paint. That's 36. About 34 more than I'd have paid for, if not for the rules.

The point, which should be abundantly clear by now, is that the rules convince players who would normally paint 1 or 2 of a given model, to paint 36. They provide that motivation.

If the rules get so poor that the game ceases to be fun to play, I will buy ZERO models.

For years now, gamers have bemoaned GW's sloppy rules writing. The advent of Warmachine has thrown that into sharp relief.

GW has also been promoting the tournament scene as a marketing ploy- but nowhere is the need for clear and unambiguous rules greater than in a national (or indeed, international) tournament.

There have been cries for timely FAQs; cries which go unanswered for years. When FAQs are published, what does GW do but appropriate the hard work of gamers? It is very ironic to me that so many people will argue that the Direwolf rulings aren't official, then GW goes and lifts many Direwolf rulings verbatim, and credits them directly in the official GW FAQ. (JohnWangDD asks why should GW spend money doing what others will do for free- it's because GW wants to control what is "official" and what is not. If you want to control something, you have to take responsibility for it, too.)

What has GW's response been, to the calls for better, clearer rules? The Vampire Counts book, the most ambiguously worded and self-contradictory army book ever. It departs from so many precedents (not explicitly stating that Invocation of Nehek may be cast into close combat, as just one example) that it has to be intentional, a big and deliberate "f**k you" to the segment of gamers who were asking for clear well-written rules.

And now we have an article from the official mouthpiece of the company, saying basically if you don't understand what the rules mean, that's too bad, but we didn't write them for you. We wrote them for ourselves, and we understood them.

That saddens me.

JohnWangDD says that trying to make the rules airtight is an impossible waste of effort that wouldn't satisfy everbody anyway. No doubt he's correct- airtight rules are impossible. But tighter, less ambiguous rules are not. And everybody is not satisfied right now, so they would have nothing to lose by trying. Too bad they obviously aren't interested.

Jervis is talking about focussing the rules on producing fun games between players who aren’t playing at a tournament level of competitiveness. It means There is a trade-off between rules that are fun and full of character, and rules that ensure balanced play. At the best of times you can get both, but there will be situations where you have to choose one over the other. Jervis is saying they won’t compromise a good idea that’ll produce a fun game because someone down the line might exploit it.

People in this thread have launched into some grand gnashing of the teeth over GW’s presumed one way to play, over GW apparently making no attempt to write balanced rules (and assuming that’s the only attribute rules should have), and then ended up in a thread as to whether or not balanced rules are economically viable.

Which is weird, because you all seem to have missed the boat on what this quote really means and it certainly is controversial. Just a handful of codices ago GW was talking about paring back the options and extras in codices because balancing that was impossible (a points cost for a single upgrade had to reflect too many potential circumstances). This resulted in the armouries being taken out of recent codices, resulted in sub-lists being cut. Now Jervis is saying the opposite, and this seems to be supported with the sudden expansion in options being rumoured for the new marine codex.

I didn't see anyone talkin' about balanced rules- I certainly wasn't.

I got no problem with unbalanced rules- as long as they are clear. I got no problem with "one way to play"- as long as we know exactly what that way is.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Nope, I don't see any problem here. Trying to make their rules airtight is an impossible waste of effort that wouldn't satisfy anybody, anyways. The rules are far too complex for this to ever be considered an option.

This is ridiculous. I think a lot of players would love clearer rules, and hell no the rules aren't that complicated in the first place. The game goes like this: Move, Shoot, Assault. How is that in any way complicated? Less rule arguments would certainly make the game more enjoyable all around, don't you think? Or do you disagree with that statement, too?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Hahaha.

First off, "the majority of players" is probably only limited the handful of online players. And most players aren't online.

Second, Jervis is correct that GW rules don't sell, because these interactions are rare in the grand scheme of things. Particularly, as tighter rules just take longer, but don't generate any more money. Players won't pay an extra $10 per rulebook for better rules, less Fluff, and fewer pretty pictures.

Third, GW isn't nearly as stupid as you presume. They can do math, and it is abundantly clear that the overwhelming majority of their profits come from miniatures sales. NOT rules. GW makes almost nothing from rules. OTOH, based on the slapdash push for Legendary Fantasy, and Apocalypse 2, it appears that the Apocalypse expansion did really well for GW.

If you were a major shareholder, this would be obvious to you. You'd do just liek the other suits and shrink the development team in favor of better sculpting and plastics manufacturing. As GW has actually done.

Assuming that most players don't have internet access is a generalization. You do realize that most schools and colleges come with internet access now?

Secondly, tight rules generate more money over time because players don't become dissatisfied and go on to other hobbies/games. So they BUY MORE MODELS. Duh.

GW makes little from the sale of the rulebook, but I think it has a large impact on how many miniatures people keeping buying. Do you really think people buy mini's for a poor rules system?

Going off Phryxis's example, I'll tell you I have 16 possessed marines. I put them together because the models are cool. But ZERO are painted because of the terrible rules. I have some plague bearers and daemonettes, and those are not painted because I don't use lesser demons. Guess why? That's right, because of the boring rules.

Seriously John, where the hell do you come up with this stuff?

Noisy, you are making John's point. Even though you don't use them, you still bought the models. And the fact that the rules for those particular models are weak doesn't mean they are bad. Lets face it, in a few years the codex will get revamped, again, and that which was last shall be first, to drive sales.

sebster wrote:

Which is weird, because you all seem to have missed the boat on what this quote really means and it certainly is controversial. Just a handful of codices ago GW was talking about paring back the options and extras in codices because balancing that was impossible (a points cost for a single upgrade had to reflect too many potential circumstances). This resulted in the armouries being taken out of recent codices, resulted in sub-lists being cut. Now Jervis is saying the opposite, and this seems to be supported with the sudden expansion in options being rumoured for the new marine codex.

In other words, GW can't make up its mind as to which way it wants to go with the game. So some armies get characterful books with lots of options, while others get boring books with minimum options. In the meantime, GW vacillates back and forth between "streamlining" and "fun". Gee, what fun. I wonder if my army's next codex will be streamlined or fluffy?

fellblade wrote:Noisy, you are making John's point. Even though you don't use them, you still bought the models. And the fact that the rules for those particular models are weak doesn't mean they are bad.

No I'm not. I bought the plaguebearers during the 3.5 codex when I ran death guard. If I'd known about generic demons I would never have done that. I bought old daemonettes because I hate the new models and I wanted ONE box to have for myself. Just one. The possessed came with my army box and battle forces. But I won't be buying more demons now that I can't use them with CSM. I won't buy any more possessed because I dislike the rules. If I actually LIKED the rules I might aim for 30 possessed or more for apocalypse.

And for me, extra randomness for no reason = bad rules. The possessed rules are just flat out bad.

Noisy_Marine wrote:Assuming that most players don't have internet access is a generalization. You do realize that most schools and colleges come with internet access now?

Secondly, tight rules generate more money over time because players don't become dissatisfied and go on to other hobbies/games. So they BUY MORE MODELS. Duh.

GW makes little from the sale of the rulebook, but I think it has a large impact on how many miniatures people keeping buying. Do you really think people buy mini's for a poor rules system?

Going off Phryxis's example, I'll tell you I have 16 possessed marines. I put them together because the models are cool. But ZERO are painted because of the terrible rules. I have some plague bearers and daemonettes, and those are not painted because I don't use lesser demons. Guess why? That's right, because of the boring rules.

Seriously John, where the hell do you come up with this stuff?

You have assumed John is talking about people being on-line at all, when it's clear he's talking about people who are in the hobby but don't spend their time on-line talking about 40K. Not everyone with internet access and a 40K wants to spend their time on-line talking about. All my 40K mates are on-line and I'm the only one that posts on 40K forums.

And yeah, people will buy minis when the rules are poor. This is proven by the ongoing sale of minis that have no system at all. One problem with assuming the online 40K community represents the whole of the 40K community is that you forget about all the people that are modellers first and foremost, many of whom never have any intention of playing the game. And you forget about the blokes who get together on weekends for purely fun games, and just don't care enough about rules minutiae to post on 40K forums.

But the big thing to remember is the issue really, really isn't about poor rules vs not poor rules. The issue is about the point where awesome, fun, gonzo rules ideas get pulled back in order to maintain balance. Jervis is indicating the recent move to pull back on gonzo rules (see DA, BA and CSM codices) is being relaxed (see Ork and upcoming SM codex).

fellblade wrote:I didn't see anyone talkin' about balanced rules- I certainly wasn't.

I got no problem with unbalanced rules- as long as they are clear. I got no problem with "one way to play"- as long as we know exactly what that way is.

I wrote my reply while you posted yours, it wasn't a direct reply to your post.

Pombe mentioned balanced rules.

The problem with GW clearly articulating one clear way to play is that GW keeps changing their idea on the one clear way to play. Which is, again, the really contraversial issue raised in the quote. GW is changing focus again.

That's an interesting quote from jervis. I want to read the whole article before I really make up my mind, but here are a few things I noticed:

1) the immediate connection between rules lawyers and overly competitive players.

2) The casual dismissal of the notion that 40k could be played seriously

3) Does the last line mean they need to explain how to read the rules, or how to approach the game in general?

Part of me thinks that what they're saying is that they create rules, and simply errata and FAQ them to the desired end. the other part thinks that they will simply look at questions and respond "just play for fun! Don't be overly competitive!"

As for the compromise, I imagine they're trying to balance allowing neat things to occur with ways those things could be broken.

All in all, it's nothing horribly new to hear, although it's vaguely reminiscent of the infamous "in the wrong hobby" comment.

I think the impact or effect this sort of mindset will have on tournament gaming is going to be minimal. Tournements will work themselves out. What this doesn't help is the percieved gap between the design staff and competitive gamers. Even if we're a small minority, we're a vocal one and a big part of the GW community. I'm guessing Standard Bearer is written in an hour before lunch, but I still think it's odd that he would phrase is like that instead of writing:
"We hope to strike a balance between opening up and expanding the rules while tightening them up. We have tried to create a fun and enjoyable ruleset, and are commited to provinding FAQs and errata to provide hassle free gaming."