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.

The more I look around here at dakkadakka and talk to gaming friends, the more I've some to this conclusion:

The problem with GW rules (40k mostly) is not the rule writers per se....it's people and their inability to use common sense, the English language and their idea that if I think the rule sucks, I'm going to interpret it the correct way.

-Summoning demons as a SM. Of course you can. Conjuring a unit could not be " deployed" because it would not exist at first. And if GW didn't want everyone being able to summon demons, then they would not have made it a primaris power, nor would they have given non-chaos armies the ability to take the powers in question.

-grav weapons follow the standard flow of vehicle damage. It always causes a Hull Point lost and immobilized, which can also cause another Hull Point loss given the correct circumstances.

These just seem to be the biggest 2 going on right now. People need to use common sense, the English language and also realize its a game that supposed to be fun, not rule lawyered to death

You realise that neither of those would be under discussion if GW had written the rules more clearly, right?

Another thread blaming the gamers for the unclear rules? Huh, is this becoming a trend I wonder?

People seem to be specifically obtuse when it comes to the rules and interpretations.

Like suddenly we're in a court of law and if you can't explain it fully your gonna get 20 years in the clink.

If people on 40k forums deal with life about how they deal with rules then they'd be functionally mentally handicapped.

Oh good, time to blame the players for GW's incompetence. You know, you can whine all you like about how all the evil rules lawyers are ruining everything, but this only seems to happen in GW games. When I play X-Wing or MTG we can attempt rules lawyer all we want and it isn't going to get anywhere because the rules are clear and there's no room for debate once someone opens the rulebook and quotes the relevant rule.

Fortunately 40K forums are a fun discussion about games of toy soldiers, so we don't have to neb at people about that.

spaztacus wrote:...it's people and their inability to use common sense, the English language and their idea that if I think the rule sucks, I'm going to interpret it the correct way.

insaniak wrote:You realise that neither of those would be under discussion if GW had written the rules more clearly, right?

Both of these assume that people aren't trying to read things on purpose in one way or another to give them an advantage in winning a game.

In a way, it's sort of like gun control's "laws don't stop lawbreakers" problem. No rules can be written clearly enough to avoid all circumvention. Realising this, GW just doesn't try very hard to stop the worst from being bad.

Because in a way, the rules here sort of work like the law does in real life - it exists to force people to behave differently, according to norms rather than purely to one's own benefit at the detriment of others. Given that, practically speaking, all law does is weed people out of our communities, you can very much do that already without having to resort to rules.

If someone is rules lawyering just so they can win a game of toy soldiers, just don't play with them. Tweaking the language on rules won't stop those kinds of people from behaving in that kind of way.

Meanwhile, people with a basic sense of social ethic can come to an equitable solution no matter how poorly-worded the rules are.

Which means, in the end, it's a problem with the players, not the game.

Jaceevoke wrote:Another thread blaming the gamers for the unclear rules? Huh, is this becoming a trend I wonder?

... which, complain about it all you like, is just how things are. In general, but especially in 40k.

If people want a game that saves them from themselves, they probably shouldn't play something that is devoted to player choice and player freedom.

Hollismason wrote:
People seem to be specifically obtuse when it comes to the rules and interpretations.

Like suddenly we're in a court of law and if you can't explain it fully your gonna get 20 years in the clink.

If people on 40k forums deal with life about how they deal with rules then they'd be functionally mentally handicapped.

Agreed, I tend to stay away from YMDC because some of the 'reasoning' people try to employ in the face of, to me, common sense makes me cross.

Thing is, for every incidence of rules-lawyering, there's usually at least one incidence of something where it is genuinely possible to see both sides, or where there is no clear explanation of how two conflicting rules are supposed to interact. Every single one of those instances is purely down to poor editing, proof reading or play testing by the Devs, and to try and place the responsibility for those failures on the players is unfair and incorrect.

Sometimes GW doesn't even know how to interpret their rules. Before it's update the Tau FAQ said said that seeker missiles hit flyers on a 2+. A few weeks later they changed it to 6+. The Tau bomber has a weapon system that it really can't use because it doesn't come with an initial bomb.

The deamon chariot went on for how long until it could finally move and fire it's flamer? Honestly consider that. They made a vehicle that would either have to hope people wandered into distance or move up and hope everyone stayed in place until next turn.

The Necron flyers had no mention of their occupants ignoring the effect of a destroyed transport on it's passengers and had to be specifically called out that it did.

They gave the DA flyer missile lock when it didn't apply, and kept it off when it would apply.

They removed Fast from all the BA vehicles only to put it back on a few days later.

There is a disconnect in their studio, we have numerous examples of this. Yes. There is some nit picking. But don't overlook the huge glaring faults that most people just gloss over now.

 Savageconvoy wrote:


The deamon chariot went on for how long until it could finally move and fire it's flamer? Honestly consider that. They made a vehicle that would either have to hope people wandered into distance or move up and hope everyone stayed in place until next turn.

Let us also consider for a moment that they changed the core rules to make the chariot work, rather than issue some sort of FAQ.

Scratching one's left ear with one's right hand, if ever I saw it!

I use my right hand to scratch my ear all the time, never use the left. Left hands a slut.

I would like to point out, that a number of issues that come up, especially in YMDC, are not how anyone would play it.

Good example, Currently, the way the rules are written, Drop Pods are auto-destroyed due to the fact they start the game in reserves and cannot move after deployment. 3 pages later, and nobody said they would actually play it that way.

The same can be said regarding Drop Pods being Immobilised in 6th (from a special rule) caused a HP loss (Pre-FAQ), or until 7th edition, models that had no eyes could not shoot or charge.

 Ailaros wrote:
No rules can be written clearly enough to avoid all circumvention.

Blatantly false. MTG's rules do exactly that, there is no possible situation that can not be resolved by checking the appropriate rule (and if you find one somehow it will be fixed soon), and there is no possible room for rules lawyering without deliberately cheating and inventing rules that aren't in the rulebook. GW are just lazy and incompetent.

Meanwhile, people with a basic sense of social ethic can come to an equitable solution no matter how poorly-worded the rules are.

Which means, in the end, it's a problem with the players, not the game.

No, it's a problem with the game. Even if the players can often compromise and work together to fix the mistakes of the incompetent rule authors they aren't necessarily going to like compromising. If I genuinely think that the rule works a certain way I'm not going to be happy if I have to let it work a different way just so you'll play the game. And I'm really not going to be happy if I have to keep making compromises because we disagree on a lot of rules. Compare this to a game which isn't written by incompetent morons, and it is impossible for two players to have legitimate different interpretations of a rule: the only discussion of rules consists of pointing out mistakes followed by both players agreeing without hesitation that a mistake was made and should be fixed for the future.

If people want a game that saves them from themselves, they probably shouldn't play something that is devoted to player choice and player freedom.

Player choice and freedom has nothing to do with how clear the rules are. MTG has way more freedom than 40k (simply because there are more combinations of cards than 40k could even dream of) and yet its rules are completely immune to rules lawyering and rule debates.

I think you've got to be careful holding up M:TG as some sort of paragon of rules perfection Peregrine, they have made, and continue to make, mistakes.

The difference is, and where your argument is stronger, that WotC actively try to manage and rectify issues should they arise, whereas for the last year GW haven't given a feth, and prior to that, we're not consistent in the timing nor the ruling of their management.

 Happyjew wrote:


Currently, the way the rules are written, Drop Pods are auto-destroyed due to the fact they start the game in reserves and cannot move after deployment.

Stupidest possible interpretation of the rules I have ever seen.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:


Currently, the way the rules are written, Drop Pods are auto-destroyed due to the fact they start the game in reserves and cannot move after deployment.

Stupidest possible interpretation of the rules I have ever seen.

I agree it's stupid, however, from a RAW standpoint, them's the rules. Like I said, I don't expect anyone to play it that way.

I think GW's writers aim after a certain literary style in their rules which sacrifices concision. If you read the rules for Star Trek Attack Wing, you discover no ambiguity, but you discover no jokes either.

Players need to enter into GWs less-than-pedantic rule system with the mentality of how to make this game work as intended, and not be afraid to houserule where it does not or where there's equal arguments on both sides. The old INAT was a big houserule, and it was a good thing.

For example, the Ghost Helm requires the Psyker to spend a warpcharge to avoid a perils roll. However, Psykers no long control or retain warpcharges, which are instead kept in a common pool. The FAQs have not addressed this. What to do? is the hullabaloo. Houserule the problem so that the warpool loses on charge. Now the Ghost Helm has a purpose, and nothing has materially changed.

 thunderingjove wrote:
I think GW's writers aim after a certain literary style in their rules which sacrifices concision.

No, they just publish rough drafts as finished rules and don't bother playtesting enough to catch their mistakes. You can throw in jokes and stuff around the rules as long as the actual rule text is clear. And GW's rule issues often have absolutely nothing to do with "literary style", they involve rules that are written as straightforward fluff-free rules. The simple fact is that they just don't care if their rules function, since they know that most of their customers rarely play the game and just need the idea of a game to get them to buy that space marine starter set.

Players need to enter into GWs less-than-pedantic rule system with the mentality of how to make this game work as intended, and not be afraid to houserule where it does not or where there's equal arguments on both sides.

Sure. Obviously the players need to fix the broken rules if they want to play the game. But I don't think we should in any way excuse GW's decision to publish garbage at $50 a book just because we're able to fix most of the issues ourselves.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thunderingjove wrote:
I think GW's writers aim after a certain literary style in their rules which sacrifices concision.

No, they just publish rough drafts as finished rules and don't bother playtesting enough to catch their mistakes. You can throw in jokes and stuff around the rules as long as the actual rule text is clear. And GW's rule issues often have absolutely nothing to do with "literary style", they involve rules that are written as straightforward fluff-free rules. The simple fact is that they just don't care if their rules function, since they know that most of their customers rarely play the game and just need the idea of a game to get them to buy that space marine starter set.

Players need to enter into GWs less-than-pedantic rule system with the mentality of how to make this game work as intended, and not be afraid to houserule where it does not or where there's equal arguments on both sides.

Sure. Obviously the players need to fix the broken rules if they want to play the game. But I don't think we should in any way excuse GW's decision to publish garbage at $50 a book just because we're able to fix most of the issues ourselves.

Let me expand on my thought above: I don't think GW is aiming for a technical voice in their rules. I know that seems absurd; we expect concision in rules-writing. However, we also expect competitiveness in game-play; GW also doesn't really provide that either. I would further add that it's our mistake to assume GW wants to write technically-proficient rules, or a game meant for competitive play. They're goals differ from ours, probably for cultural & generational reasons. We, including me, want this; hence why we must houserule. It's analogous to using Greek philosophy to understand the mythos of the Hebrews: problems abound.

 thunderingjove wrote:
I would further add that it's our mistake to assume GW wants to write technically-proficient rules, ...

No more than it's a mistake to expect Sony to produce a TV that is fully functional.

Games Workshop call themselves "...the largest and the most successful tabletop fantasy wargames company in the world." (From their Investors page). So they're not just billing themselves as a miniatures company. They're a wargames company. And as such, is it really that unreasonable for customers to expect them to write rules that actually reflect their self-promotion as the premier company in the field?

 insaniak wrote:

 thunderingjove wrote:
I would further add that it's our mistake to assume GW wants to write technically-proficient rules, ...

No more than it's a mistake to expect Sony to produce a TV that is fully functional.

Games Workshop call themselves "...the largest and the most successful tabletop fantasy wargames company in the world." (From their Investors page). So they're not just billing themselves as a miniatures company. They're a wargames company. And as such, is it really that unreasonable for customers to expect them to write rules that actually reflect their self-promotion as the premier company in the field?

Ha!

I'm not disagreeing per se, and want the same from GW as all of you. I'm just arguing that they think this is want good game writing is suppose to be, closer to essay than tech manual.

insaniak wrote:No more than it's a mistake to expect Sony to produce a TV that is fully functional.

That's not what you're saying, though.

Sony produces lots of TVs that are up to its own specifications and works in its own ways. If you don't like the way Sony's TVs work, that's your problem, not Sony's. If you like other TVs better, then go buy one of those, but it doesn't mean that the alternative TV is broken.

I'd agree, aesthetically, that more specifically-written rules are usually better, but that doesn't make GW's objectively bad.

insaniak wrote:Games Workshop call themselves "...the largest and the most successful tabletop fantasy wargames company in the world." (From their Investors page). So they're not just billing themselves as a miniatures company. They're a wargames company. And as such, is it really that unreasonable for customers to expect them to write rules that actually reflect their self-promotion as the premier company in the field?

Given their sales volume, they're probably correct in calling themselves that.

In any case, you use the magic word: "expect".

If somebody doesn't like something because they expected more, that's only a reflection on the person with the expectations, nothing else. Other people are happy, and/or have different expectations (apparently, lower). The only way you can really back out of it is by saying that other people should feel ashamed because their expectations aren't high enough, and don't understand how miserable or angry they should be, which is hard to pull off gracefully.

 Ailaros wrote:
Sony produces lots of TVs that are up to its own specifications and works in its own ways. If you don't like the way Sony's TVs work, that's your problem, not Sony's.

Except if I get that TV home, and once it's all tuned in I discover that pressing '7' on the remote might get me channel 7, or might get me channel 9, or might just turn off the TV... but nobodys quite sure... then that is Sony's problem, because their product is flawed.

Similarly, if Games Workshop publishes a ruleset that, say, doesn't explain what happens if you have two different pskyers in the same unit, then that ruleset is flawed. It's not the customer's fault that flaw is there, and it's not the customer's fault for expecting GW, on their 7th iteration of their biggest selling game, to have thought of that scenario before they hit the 'print' button on the book.

The only way you can really back out of it is by saying that other people should feel ashamed because their expectations aren't high enough, and don't understand how miserable or angry they should be, which is hard to pull off gracefully.

Why should someone else feel ashamed for having lower expectations than me? I couldn't care less what someone else expects. What I care about is what I expect And what I expect is for a company that prides itself on being the best wargaming company on the planet to produce rules worthy of the best wargames company on the planet.

What we get instead is rules that have holes in them that people start driving trucks through 3 minutes after release.

That's not a sign of a premier product. It might be a product you're personally happy with, and if so, then more power to you. But it's crazy to expect that everyone else should lower their expectations to match yours. You don't have to be 'ashamed' of your expectations... just accept that others have different expectations, and that those expectations are set by GW's own self-promotion.

We're not expecting 'more'.
We're expecting rules for a game to tell us how to play the game.

And this is their 7th try at it!

If they'd quit re-inventing the game each edition, and pick one damn game and focus each edition on making it better, instead of different, it would help. Instead, by rewriting the rules each time, they get rid of some of the old errors and introduce new ones.

Regarding the split between conversational and technical writing, you might think that a games company with 6 editions of their rulebook under their belt might understand the concept of a sidebar, given that they USE THEM ALL THE TIME. You don't have to have all the text in the rulebook be technical and pendantic, but you need to separate the actual rules from chatty commentary on them.

 Ailaros wrote:
In any case, you use the magic word: "expect".

If somebody doesn't like something because they expected more, that's only a reflection on the person with the expectations, nothing else. Other people are happy, and/or have different expectations (apparently, lower). The only way you can really back out of it is by saying that other people should feel ashamed because their expectations aren't high enough, and don't understand how miserable or angry they should be, which is hard to pull off gracefully.

There is such a thing as reasonable degree of expectation.

Expecting a ruleset of some 30 years vintage to have shaken out most of the kinks, and for the 'leading' wargaming company to use proper technical writers, or at least employ rigorous play testing in order to catch as many mistakes as possible and to give making all units equally viable in their role at least the ole college try, are not unreasonable expectations.

spaztacus wrote:The more I look around here at dakkadakka and talk to gaming friends, the more I've some to this conclusion:

The problem with GW rules (40k mostly) is not the rule writers per se....it's people and their inability to use common sense, the English language and their idea that if I think the rule sucks, I'm going to interpret it the correct way.

-Summoning demons as a SM. Of course you can. Conjuring a unit could not be " deployed" because it would not exist at first. And if GW didn't want everyone being able to summon demons, then they would not have made it a primaris power, nor would they have given non-chaos armies the ability to take the powers in question.

-grav weapons follow the standard flow of vehicle damage. It always causes a Hull Point lost and immobilized, which can also cause another Hull Point loss given the correct circumstances.

These just seem to be the biggest 2 going on right now. People need to use common sense, the English language and also realize its a game that supposed to be fun, not rule lawyered to death

Jaceevoke wrote:Another thread blaming the gamers for the unclear rules? Huh, is this becoming a trend I wonder?

GW apologists just can't place bame on their idols no matter how bad they muck it up. "The English Language did it!", WTF?? It has nothing to do with the English language and everything to do with then ineptitude of the rules department headed by Jervis Jhonson.

If the GW apologists had any sense at all they would demand that Jervis Jhonson be fired. That way the people that make the models (awesome) and the people that write the fluff (awesome) aren't out of jobs because they have a mentally challenged Monkey at the head of their rules department.

dresnar1 wrote:
GW apologists...

And this is the other problem we have lately.

Labelling people with differing opinions to your own as 'apologists' or 'white knights' is every bit as devisive as people being labelled as 'haters' for posing criticisms. It does nothing to promote actual dialogue, as people just get riled up about having labels applied to them

Can we all just, you know, not?

dresnar1 wrote:
"The English Language did it!", WTF?? It has nothing to do with the English language and everything to do with then ineptitude of the rules department headed by Jervis Jhonson.

Once again, I think it's a style question. GW is going for a more conversational, or literary style, but we as gamers would be better served had they chosen a more technical style. It's the difference between a treatise by Decartes, and a Cartesian essay by Spinoza.

 thunderingjove wrote:
Once again, I think it's a style question. GW is going for a more conversational, or literary style, but we as gamers would be better served had they chosen a more technical style. It's the difference between a treatise by Decartes, and a Cartesian essay by Spinoza.

No, it's the difference between a well-written product manual and one written by the author's five year old and run through google translate a few times. GW's rule problems aren't the result of a conversational writing style, they're just the same kind of problems that every rough draft of a game has. The difference is that most companies invest effort into playtesting to find and fix these issues, while GW doesn't give a and publishes the rough draft as-is.