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 is just a question I have. Personally I think things are mostly fine, but what do you think?

The next person should click every box so that you learn to use radio buttons where they are appropriate.

Hi all.
A rule set should be written with'...clarity brevity and wit...', according to Rick Priestly. And I totaly agree.

A rule set written with game balance in mind uses the minimum amount of rules to cover the end game play in a straight forward way.
Eg basic rules cover everything.

The more exceptions you put into a rule set , the harder it is to balance.

If the races have ALL thier in game abilities detailed in thier characteristics, and the game uses suitable game mechanics , it is far easier to balance the end game.

If the rule set is a mass of unecissary abstractions and exceptions (special rules) it beomes a nightmare to ballance.(Lots of 'special rules' to help market new minature ranges just make game balance harder to achive.)

I am amazed how much balance the 40k dev team manage to achive !

Using WHFB game mechanics for the current 40k game play is like trying to get a square peg into a round hole..messy!

Most other companies achive much more game play and game balance with far fewer rules...

TTFN
Lanrak.