Switch Theme:

GW needs lawyers to play test things.  [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 au
Skillful Swordmaster






As any GW patron will tell you one of the biggest cause of rules disputes is the ambiguous wording of some of the rules.

So what I propose is that GW actually make the effort to find some hobbyist with a background in law to playtest there systems can you imagine how rock solid those rulesets would become with proper wording.

Damn I cant wait to the GW legal team codex comes out now there is a dex that will conquer all. 
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine





The wind swept peaks

The wording has actually improved with each subsequent edition.

DA:80S+++G+++M++B+I+Pw40k99/re#+D++A+++/fWD255R+++T(T)DM+


I am Blue/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
<small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>

I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Maryland

Well, I hope you like price increases. Since GW will then have to support not one, but two teams of lawyers.

And it's a silly idea, anyway. Plenty of other wargames have great, near-airtight rules without needing a bunch of lawyers to playtest and write rules. Case in point (and you know this was coming), Warmachine/Hordes. The rules are clearly written, consistent all the way through. It's why, when you look at the YMDC section, you have people asking questions and, 99% of the time, the answer is someone giving a page number. It's why, for all of WM/H books and models, you have only 7 pages of errata - none of which is Frequently Asked Questions.

   
Made in ru
Regular Dakkanaut





So what I propose is that GW actually make the effort to find some hobbyist with a background in law to playtest there systems can you imagine how rock solid those rulesets would become with proper wording.


It's simplier than that: "GW actually make the effort to [...] playtest there systems".

Lawyers tend to over-complicate texts. Their job is to make a text unambiguous, not easy to read.
   
Made in gb
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander





Ramsden Heath, Essex

Yes the OP. has clearly never engage a lawyer.

The rules would become a literal contract with more herebys and persuants than you could shake a gakky stick at and it would refer to defendant vs plaintiff . The last paragraph would absolve them of responsibility.

How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website " 
   
Made in us
Big Fat Gospel of Menoth





The other side of the internet

infinite_array wrote:Well, I hope you like price increases. Since GW will then have to support not one, but two teams of lawyers.

And it's a silly idea, anyway. Plenty of other wargames have great, near-airtight rules without needing a bunch of lawyers to playtest and write rules. Case in point (and you know this was coming), Warmachine/Hordes. The rules are clearly written, consistent all the way through. It's why, when you look at the YMDC section, you have people asking questions and, 99% of the time, the answer is someone giving a page number. It's why, for all of WM/H books and models, you have only 7 pages of errata - none of which is Frequently Asked Questions.


Hell, most of the errata is just fixing sentences that were a bit awkward or misprints between cards and books.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

RAGE

Be sure to use logic! Avoid fallacies whenever possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies 
   
Made in ca
Cold-Blooded Saurus Warrior




The Great White North

GW write rules to match their plastic................. GREY.


I do not think GW has EVER written a codex or Army book that is 100% good.


+ +=

+ = Big Lame Mat Ward Lovefest  
   
Made in au
Skillful Swordmaster






infinite_array wrote:Well, I hope you like price increases. Since GW will then have to support not one, but two teams of lawyers.

And it's a silly idea, anyway. Plenty of other wargames have great, near-airtight rules without needing a bunch of lawyers to playtest and write rules. Case in point (and you know this was coming), Warmachine/Hordes. The rules are clearly written, consistent all the way through. It's why, when you look at the YMDC section, you have people asking questions and, 99% of the time, the answer is someone giving a page number. It's why, for all of WM/H books and models, you have only 7 pages of errata - none of which is Frequently Asked Questions.


/shrugs I am aussie mate I am kinda used to having to pay a premium for my hobby.

I wasnt suggesting that lawyers write the rules just check the wording.


Damn I cant wait to the GW legal team codex comes out now there is a dex that will conquer all. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Florida

Cent99 is studying law, there is your candidate.

Comparing tournament records is another form of e-peen measuring.
 
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






I would dare say a lawyer would tell the players to lighten up and compromise. Does no one ever try and resolve these issues?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Milisim wrote:GW write rules to match their plastic................. GREY.


I do not think GW has EVER written a codex or Army book that is 100% good.



And find me a ruleset that is larger than one book that is.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/13 07:14:49


 
   
Made in ru
Regular Dakkanaut





Actually, best approach in my opinion would not be lawyers, it would be QA (quality assurance). In software development, QA is an essential step of making any product. As a developer, I can assure you that, given enough time, good QA will tear the product down mercilessly and will find just about any problem with it. Often not being a particularly educated specialist in any area except poking holes in things. Being familiar with this development cycle, I can see that 40k rules and especially codexes do not have nearly enough QA work done, if any. Often there's a feeling there's just a single guy drinking beer and having fun while writing the rules, and then they go ahead and print it right away. I guess this was actually the way in the beginning, they are improving over time.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/13 07:29:35


 
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine





The wind swept peaks

infinite_array wrote:Well, I hope you like price increases. Since GW will then have to support not one, but two teams of lawyers.

And it's a silly idea, anyway. Plenty of other wargames have great, near-airtight rules without needing a bunch of lawyers to playtest and write rules. Case in point (and you know this was coming), Warmachine/Hordes. The rules are clearly written, consistent all the way through. It's why, when you look at the YMDC section, you have people asking questions and, 99% of the time, the answer is someone giving a page number. It's why, for all of WM/H books and models, you have only 7 pages of errata - none of which is Frequently Asked Questions.


Did you play MK1? It was a mess of timing questions and special rules inquiries. It's true that MKII is more streamlined... but I often find myself missing the insanity of MKI. Honestly, the problem with 40k isn't the rules as is; RAW works fairly consistently across the board--it's the inconsistent rulings from GW in the FAQs.

DA:80S+++G+++M++B+I+Pw40k99/re#+D++A+++/fWD255R+++T(T)DM+


I am Blue/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
<small>Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</small>

I'm both selfish and rational. I'm scheming, secretive and manipulative; I use knowledge as a tool for personal gain, and in turn obtaining more knowledge. At best, I am mysterious and stealthy; at worst, I am distrustful and opportunistic.
 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




The guy GWplc need is a professional proof reader.

Some one who can spot the gramatical and implication abiguities in an instruction set.

Heck just giving the rules to someone without previous knowledge of the rules or development process would help.
(One editrion of 40k didnt say a unit can use the highest LD value on any model in the unit.Becuse it was 'common knowledge!' )

If you look at the 40k rule book and codex set as a set of intructions on how to play the game.They are awful on so many levels.

If you look at them as a 'book to inspire children to buy toy soldiers with pictures and words.' then they sort of fit the design brief.

All good game companies use extensive play testing and proof reading , to deliver well defined consise instructions to play thier game.
Because they DEPEND on great gaming experiance to grow thier customer base.

GW plc has a chain of B&M stores instead...
'Well the new players are shown how to play in store , so dont worry about it....'
   
Made in no
Umber Guard







Surtur wrote:
infinite_array wrote:Well, I hope you like price increases. Since GW will then have to support not one, but two teams of lawyers.

And it's a silly idea, anyway. Plenty of other wargames have great, near-airtight rules without needing a bunch of lawyers to playtest and write rules. Case in point (and you know this was coming), Warmachine/Hordes. The rules are clearly written, consistent all the way through. It's why, when you look at the YMDC section, you have people asking questions and, 99% of the time, the answer is someone giving a page number. It's why, for all of WM/H books and models, you have only 7 pages of errata - none of which is Frequently Asked Questions.


Hell, most of the errata is just fixing sentences that were a bit awkward or misprints between cards and books.


The first three pages are in fact just one and a half page, as they are repeats of the same basic rule erratas from the Primal and Prime Mk2 books. Of the remaining four, they could've compressed them by a few pages by writing text for all Side Step errata changes together rather than in each and every model entry for Side Step models.

I think the deal is in addition to, as Gnawer says, Quality Assurance, what sort of vision the company has for their game. PP's design team is a varied bunch, with the most relevant background being engineering, I think. Their purpose with Mk2 was to reduce clutter, make the game more streamlined without losing the core game concept that makes it interesting, and producing a better ruleset than Mk1. They succeeded in this at the expense of the craziness deatholydeath misses. I do not; the reason I stopped cold with Malifaux was because it was, in many ways, the late stages of Mk1 rules philosophy driven onward. Which works for some people, but not for me.

However, as it is, I do not think GW's design team actually aim for clarity of rules and a game that fits equally well with any play style (the 86-page home made WHFB clarification document bears this out, I think); the main purpose is to keep the cycle going, rather than producing better rulesets...because those would invalidate the need for new editions, and perhaps new editions drive sales by their very nature?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/06/13 09:02:36


 
   
Made in gb
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:I would dare say a lawyer would tell the players to lighten up and compromise. Does no one ever try and resolve these issues?
.


Yes right! Please, no-one give lawyers more of a role in society than they already have!

Rather than a 'tighter' set of rules, I would rather see just a reduction in the level of abstraction with 6th, as I find myself scratching my head in wonderment at some truly daft rules that are already in place:

- The '1 kills all' of dangerous terrain tests. So that ork with his jetpack has the same chance of becoming a casualty as that 300yr old space marine veteran? I think not. Very, very easy to implement.
- Some kind of reactionary shot. The assault marines who come flying in over some trees, land, brush the dust off their lapels and then catch-up about last nights episode of Real Homes before charging in and killing my guardsmen - while my guardsmen must presumably want to know if that guy found a solution to the plumbing problem in the kitchen as well, and just stand there watching like mind-locked servitors while the assault closes in.
This also applies to: Being able to charge in and kill troops in the wreckage of a transport. But, if you smashed it to bits in your assault phase then presumably, again the soldiers attacking just stand there and wait for the vehicle occupants to slowly climb out of the wreckage, prepare themselves for combat "hang on guys, I'm sure my chainsword fell over here somewhere during that 780 barrel roll!" while all the while the guys outside the vehicle stand there like simpletons.
If this rule is kept in 6th edition, I insist on another special rule whereby a clown on a pogo stick enters the game on behalf of the aggrieved player. Just so that we know the events taking place on the board are firmly in the realms of fantasy.
To be honest though, this might be difficult to implement without a complete re-haul of the turn system.
- You want re-rolls with your re-rolls sir? "But I've got an invulnerable save!" "Ah, no you don't, you have to re-roll that as well!" Some of the special rules in the various codecies sit together so poorly, like mis-matched pieces of a puzzle that don't fit but are jammed together anyway. It's just such inelegant and badly thought out game design. And again, this level of abstraction for a 28mm game makes my head want to explode. Include in this list crappy special rules that make no sense - 'selective' thunderstorms and winds that only affect your opponent for instance.

I'm sure I can think of more, but that is the end of the sermonising for now!


Epic 30K&40K! A new players guide, contributors welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
 
   
Made in gb
Lieutenant Colonel




Hi Pacific.
You said..'Just so that we know the events taking place on the board are firmly in the realms of fantasy.'

Perhaps this is due to 40k STILL using Warhammer FANTASY battle game mechanics...

You are absolutly right!
IF you want a well defined consise and elegant rule set for the game of 40k.
It needs a rule set written specificaly for the game play.(Similar to Epic Armageddon.)

   
Made in ph
Utilizing Careful Highlighting





Manila, Philippines

Coming from M:tG, I was shocked and a bit turned off by the ambiguity of GW rules in 40k. Rules debates are no fun and would've been solved by a tighter, well-written set of rules. It will also create confusion especially in competitive settings. It doesn't help anyone, both for the competitive players and the ones playing more for fun (where's the fun in settling rules debate when you can spend the time playing the game?). I think it's only fun for those who enjoy debating the rules. Rules ambiguity is permissible in, say, tabletop RPGs since it is more of cooperative storytelling and no one wins or loses.

Nowadays I play Infinity, and the rules are tight and well-written. Mighty complicated, but at least you are assured that when an unexpected situation comes, there's always an official ruling as to how it should be resolved.


 
   
Made in gb
The Hammer of Witches





Lincoln, UK

heartserenade wrote:Rules ambiguity is permissible in, say, tabletop RPGs since it is more of cooperative storytelling and no one wins or loses.


More to the point, TTRPGs have a built in rules arbitrator in the form of a GM. Something that wargames used to have, as a rule.

DC:80SG+M+B+I+Pw40k97#+D+A++/wWD190R++T(S)DM+
htj wrote:You can always trust a man who quotes himself in his signature.
 
   
Made in us
Drakhun





Eaton Rapids, MI

Employing a Technical Writer to clean up the mess of words would go a very, very long way to fixing the ambiguity in the rules.

Now with 100% more blog....

CLICK THE LINK to my painting blog... You know you wanna. Do it, Just do it, like right now.
http://fltmedicpaints.blogspot.com

 
   
Made in ca
Sister Vastly Superior






Canada

Yep, a good technical writer or proof reader would really help GW's publications. Both would be better, but either would would be a pretty good move.

- Deathskullz - 6000 points
- Order of the Sacred Rose - 2000 points 
   
Made in au
Trustworthy Shas'vre






I always think that the rules should be written by a software developer. As a developer, one of the main things you learn to do very well is abstraction of the problem, and reduction of repetition. And so Feel No Pain (ignore wound of a 4+) becomes FeelNoPain(X) (ignores wound on a X+). You take the similarities between say, Relentless and Fast and roll them into the same rule. Jet Packs and Jet Bikes get rolled into the same rule. And by the time you've finished that, you have quite a few special rules but hardly any unique ones, and they all interact with each other well.

Of course, the reply to the op would be: GW needs *people* to playtest things. Particularly tournament players: 90% of rules ambiguity and unbalance can be caught just by a simple readthrough with a tournament game in mind. However, they don't seem to do any playtesting out of house due to 'rumours' spreading.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





GWs lawyers are too busy suing other mini companies to play test the latest ruleset.

GW fails to improve their rules. Instead they replace them. If they had developed an attitude of improving game systems, then they would be lightyears ahead of the competition, as they have been around for many decades.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Louisiana

infinite_array wrote:Well, I hope you like price increases. Since GW will then have to support not one, but two teams of lawyers.

And it's a silly idea, anyway. Plenty of other wargames have great, near-airtight rules without needing a bunch of lawyers to playtest and write rules. Case in point (and you know this was coming), Warmachine/Hordes. The rules are clearly written, consistent all the way through. It's why, when you look at the YMDC section, you have people asking questions and, 99% of the time, the answer is someone giving a page number. It's why, for all of WM/H books and models, you have only 7 pages of errata - none of which is Frequently Asked Questions.


Well, Gw's legal team's time would be better spent play testing rules, so maybe GW could keep the same staff and simply find something more beneficial for them to do.

And I completely agree that it does not take a lawyer to write solid, understandable rules. It simply takes editing and play testing. What seems perfectly clear to the person who initially writes the rule may not be perfectly clear to another reader. Hence, play testing and editing. It is a relatively simple process.

"Hey, experienced gamer and game designer, does this make sense to you?" "Hey, experienced gamer with a background in many different systems, does this make sense to you?" "Hey, gamer with loads of experience with this product line, does this make sense to you?" "Hey, casual gamer, does this make sense to you?" "Hey, person who has never played a wargame before, does this make sense to you?"

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/06/13 15:34:39


Kirasu: Have we fallen so far that we are excited that GW is giving us the opportunity to spend 58$ for JUST the rules? Surprised it's not "Dataslate: Assault Phase"

AlexHolker: "The power loader is a forklift. The public doesn't complain about a forklift not having frontal armour protecting the crew compartment because the only enemy it is designed to face is the OHSA violation."

AlexHolker: "Allow me to put it this way: Paramount is Skynet, reboots are termination attempts, and your childhood is John Connor."
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Poughkeepsie, NY

Jubear wrote:As any GW patron will tell you one of the biggest cause of rules disputes is the ambiguous wording of some of the rules.

So what I propose is that GW actually make the effort to find some hobbyist with a background in law to playtest there systems can you imagine how rock solid those rulesets would become with proper wording.


I don't really see how that makes much sense. Might make more sense to just get some good technical writers. If you have read any laws you would realize just how complicated those are. Not what I want my rules to look or read like.

3500 pts Black Legion
3500 pts Iron Warriors
2500 pts World Eaters
1950 pts Emperor's Children
333 pts Daemonhunters


 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: