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.

keezus wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote: No other system I have played has had anywhere near these kinds of problems in writing Rules.

No other system has this kind variety over this kind of installed base of players...

This is a cop out and you know it.

The core rules have enough problems in them without considering the codices.

You're a smart guy. Even you must realize that to fix balance and rules issues, the worldview of the game must be examined, and all codices must be reassessed and rebalanced -simultaneously-.

GW has no interest in doing this... so they don't write proper rules because the can't, but because they have no interest in doing so.

The key point issue is that GW has far more rules history and far more players poking holes at them.

The core rules in 40k and WotR appear to be just fine, at least in my playgroup. But as we're casual rather than tournament-oriented, we have a lot more leeway.

To fix all rules and balance issues, I completely agree that all Codices would have to be redone simultaneously. I believe that this is a pipe dream and not realistic given the sheer scope of the 40k universe, along with the GW business model.

I agree that GW isn't interested here, because it goes against their business model, and because the overwhelming majority of their players don't have a problem with the rules. Sure, this pisses of the 5% of their customers who play tournament-style. But GW doesn't give a flying fick about them. The Tournament crowd is GW's bitch, and GW knows it. And I think the tourney guys are finally starting to figure this out, too. But they'll keep buying and buying, regardless of what GW does. Until such time that it makes monetary sense to revise things, GW won't do so. And even then, GW may have reached the ultimate business conclusion that they are just as well off without dong so - that is, they could be "problem" customers from GW's POV. In the mean time, we'll have Codices and expansions and new stuff trickle out.

But for me, I'm not interested in spending more than I have to, nor more quickly. GW accelerating the clock doesn't help me because my budget doesn't go up when GW releases more stuff.

So when you get right down to it, I agree with you, but I don't care enough to get wound up about something that I have zero control or influence over, and doesn't impact me in any significant fashion whatsoever. If GW went out of business tomorrow, I'd be fine, just as if GW decreed that tournaments were verboten, or if all games must be Apocalypse. It doesn't affect me, I can't change it, so I just don't have to care. All I can do is allocate my small annual hobby budget as I see fit. If GW gets a slice of the pie, good for them. If not, too bad for them.

Did anybody ever listen to the GW design studio podcast (lasted 4-5 episodes)? I had them on my computer for a long time but never got around to listening to them. I wasn't sure if it offered any real insight into their design philosphy (which is what they were going for). Couldn't be that good if it only went 5 episodes I guess.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The key point issue is that GW has far more rules history and far more players poking holes at them.

The core rules in 40k and WotR appear to be just fine, at least in my playgroup. But as we're casual rather than tournament-oriented, we have a lot more leeway.

To fix all rules and balance issues, I completely agree that all Codices would have to be redone simultaneously. I believe that this is a pipe dream and not realistic given the sheer scope of the 40k universe, along with the GW business model.

I agree that GW isn't interested here, because it goes against their business model, and because the overwhelming majority of their players don't have a problem with the rules. Sure, this pisses of the 5% of their customers who play tournament-style. But GW doesn't give a flying fick about them. The Tournament crowd is GW's bitch, and GW knows it. And I think the tourney guys are finally starting to figure this out, too. But they'll keep buying and buying, regardless of what GW does. Until such time that it makes monetary sense to revise things, GW won't do so. And even then, GW may have reached the ultimate business conclusion that they are just as well off without dong so - that is, they could be "problem" customers from GW's POV. In the mean time, we'll have Codices and expansions and new stuff trickle out.

But for me, I'm not interested in spending more than I have to, nor more quickly. GW accelerating the clock doesn't help me because my budget doesn't go up when GW releases more stuff.

So when you get right down to it, I agree with you, but I don't care enough to get wound up about something that I have zero control or influence over, and doesn't impact me in any significant fashion whatsoever. If GW went out of business tomorrow, I'd be fine, just as if GW decreed that tournaments were verboten, or if all games must be Apocalypse. It doesn't affect me, I can't change it, so I just don't have to care. All I can do is allocate my small annual hobby budget as I see fit. If GW gets a slice of the pie, good for them. If not, too bad for them.

Way to completely ignore my example of how poorly written rules have negatively impacted the non-tournament gaming environment in my area. Are you actually participating in a conversation, or are you simply repeating yourself in an attempt to convince other players that tournametns=bad. I've seen and had more negative interactions because of rules in non-tournament environments than I have in tournaments.

To paraphrase mauleed, if GW would do a better job writing tight rules, that doesn't hurt the 'non-tourney' gamer. So, why do they fight doing so?

My personal opinion is because they don't need to. We keep buying their products, and they even have people doing FAQs/erratas for free. So, why spend money on something that they don't have to?

mikhaila wrote:

whitedragon wrote:

Moz wrote:I think you're ok with GW as long as you don't take the game more seriously than they do.

Of course this means don't travel to big events, don't invest time and effort attempting to become a better player, don't analyze all the choices available and then take the clearly best models.
Just crack open a book, buy what you think looks cool, paint it up nice, and then push it around on a table. Prepare for frustration if you want more than this.

Back to Warmachine you!

Now, be nice. The poor warmachine players are feeling a bit abandoned in the MK1 vs. MK2 schism, and some of them may be making their way back to GW rather than fight a civil war over which version of the rules they should like. The poor prodigals need our love and understanding.

Which poor Warmachine players are these? The ones that just got their MkII rulebooks for free (4 months early) and their Hordes MkII rulebook beta test bumped up 2 months? Yeah we're struggling over here.

My point quoted above isn't necessarily bashing GW, it's just bashing taking them seriously. You simply cannot intend to play 40k at the highest competitive level without having poor game design ruin the experience. This isn't sour grapes either, I consistently did great at GW events in part because I could and would browbeat people with my interpretation of the bizarre loophole filled rules. I never had any problems on the lower tables mind you, where everyone shared the 'lets just have a good time' vibe - that's where the game is meant to be played and it works great there. On the top tables though, it's he who gets the judge to rule their interpretation correct or presents their argument based on the void that is the rulebook in such a way that a judge doesn't get called: Wins. So I learned first hand that it's not really a good medium for competitive play, and moved on.
I also really disliked the rock-paper-scissors style list building, and the fact that the game is typically decided by the time deployment is complete - which I also consider to be design flaws, just not necessarily brought on by incompetence.

There actually are tabletop games designed for people who want to take them seriously, and it's a pretty rewarding and interesting way to enjoy the hobby. Although I'm among the first to admit that it's not for everyone. Just like how the beer & pretzel style of 40k isn't for everyone either.

The core rules are OK. Not perfect, could do better, but far from unsatisfactory. Alessio did a pretty good job writing them.

The problem is with the codexes.

As John said, there is no way that GW will release a fully updated set of codexes for a new edition. There are several good reasons why they can't do it.

There are two things they could do fairly easily.

1. Write codexes to the standard of the core rules, so there would be fewer internal errors. (E.g. Rune Priest powers.)

2. Release update sheets for each 3e or 4e codes, to explain how the 5e rules changes affect the specific things that have changed (e.g. Tau Target Lock.)

They could do 1 if they wanted, because they've done it with the 5e book.

They could do 2 if they wanted, because INAT have already done most of the work for them.

These changes would benefit everyone, tournament, casual and n00b alike.

The thing GW don't know is how much word of mouth marketing is done by veteran players.

willydstyle wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:So when you get right down to it, I agree with you, but I don't care enough to get wound up about something that I have zero control or influence over,

Way to completely ignore my example of how poorly written rules have negatively impacted the non-tournament gaming environment in my area.

Are you actually participating in a conversation, or are you simply repeating yourself in an attempt to convince other players that tournametns=bad.

I've seen and had more negative interactions because of rules in non-tournament environments than I have in tournaments.

If your internal group among themselves is like you are to me, then I can see how that would be a problem. However, in most groups, the problem is with the group dynamics & dispute resolution, rather than the rules.

Are you actually trying to have a conversation, or are you just trying to bust my chops? Because I'm thinking it's more of the latter than the former. I don't say tournaments are "bad". I do believe that GW could care less about them, and that they're not strategic to GW's vision for 40k. I'm not playing tournaments right now, so I could care less. I do understand that the indies are generally doing just fine in GW's stead.

As above, it's an issue that your group needs to resolve amongst themselves. If you don't have good interpersonal / resolution skills within your group, you will find or create issues with any non-trivial game system.

dietrich wrote:
GW doesn't take rules writting seriously and they encourage us to do the same. If we all played in a basement with a half-dozen regular buddies, it'd be fine, you'd sort through the issues (even with some heated debates).

And the problem isn't just with the 'power gaming WAAC' gamer. It's anyone that plays a stranger, whether it's a competitive tournament or not (Hey, you can't use Target Locks! Hey, you have to use the Grav Chutes on the valk to disembark! Hey, your Rune Priests need to have different wargear and can't have one power the same!).

If the issue was a handful of uncommon interactions, it'd be one thing (and this is what a lot of PP's errata/FAQ dealt with). It's not. It's gaming-system wide. GW should be embarrased about it. And until they lose costumers due to it, they won't change.

Ding Ding Ding!

And as Moz said, don't take the game more seriously than GW does, because you'll be disappointed. They don't "fix" anything because they don't think there is a problem. And since people keep playing the game, it kinda perpetuates the fact that there isn't a problem.

And as someone else noted in another thread, how many rules issues do you really come up with that completely derail the game? Even in tournaments? For all we bemoan and lament, the rules work pretty darn well for about 99% of all the games you ever play, and when you travel for a tournament, you just ask around before everything gets started so you don't get blindsided.

Hi again.
Just some questions...
Why dont GW make it obvious that 40k is a '..light hearted dice rolling exercise to show of you cool minature collection to your mates...'
And is TOTALY unsuited to ballanced competative play?

This way the 40k game would only sell to people who play like the 40k dev team do, and would meet thier expectations.

The 40k core rules are dreadful!They DO NOT cover the basic interactions efficiently.The layout and gramatical accuracy has improved , but the content is woeful concidering the development time.(Seriously, can you point out anything that could not be improved?)

And the codexes are just rushed marketing pamphlets , with very little thought given to game play issues.

There is NOTHING wrong with ANY play styles/preferences.
The heavily narrative driven background soaked light hearted jaunt , right through to the ultra competative hard nosed take no prisoners challenge!
However MOST companies are honest about the suitablity of thier games rules to a particular playstyle.
As they think its important for the players to pick the right rule set for them.

GW PLC appear to just want to push GW product on unsuspecting newbs...

TTFN
Lanrak.

Can we make the title of this thread one of the DakkaDakka taglines at the top of the screen?

@Lanrak: I think that any game system that attracts enough players is going to have a certain subset of the players that want to play it competitively. In addition, since the game's basic set up is two players vying against one another, I don't think that 40k can be seen as wholly non-competitive even if there were no tournaments/leagues/etc.

For example, there are even some D&D players who seem to derive enjoyment from competing with their party, and that game is designed to be wholly cooperative!

So, I think that even if GW came out and said: "our game sucks for competitive play, don't do it." there would still be a sizable subset of the player base who want to play competitively.

Add onto that the fact that there are times that poorly-written rules create conflict in "casual" or "non-competitive" play and you can see the need for a tight rule set, regardless of whether GW thinks that people should be playing in tournaments or not.

Lanrak wrote: Why dont GW make it obvious that 40k is a '..light hearted dice rolling exercise to show of you cool minature collection to your mates...'
And is TOTALY unsuited to ballanced competative play?

I believe GW has stated this several times over - just read any number of Jervis' Standard Bearer articles.

It's just at a number of people don't believe GW when they say so.

John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

Moz wrote:I think you're ok with GW as long as you don't take the game more seriously than they do.

Of course this means don't travel to big events, don't invest time and effort attempting to become a better player, don't analyze all the choices available and then take the clearly best models.
Just crack open a book, buy what you think looks cool, paint it up nice, and then push it around on a table. Prepare for frustration if you want more than this.

John Adams, you have earned a Bonus point

Seriously good posts

You going to be in the NJ area anytime? I'll take you up on the competitive 40k game again.

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

for the beer and the pretzels silly?

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

For the same reason that Ford & GW sponsors NASCAR vehicles that have absolutely nothing to do with anything produced in the last 20 or 30 years.

I think anyone who doesn't think the poorly balanced rules isn't a big deal need only look at the Community GW has spent the past 20 years forming.

Refusing to look at and balance their rules has created a community that tries (poorly) to implement their own restrictions on the game. How often do you hear 'sounds cheesy' or 'we don't play like that here' at your local gaming club? How many other games can you name where a mentality like this exists? Imagine if you were playing monopoly and the other players started berating you for being 'cheesy' for putting hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.

So now we have a completely subjective system that is designed to attack people for making smart choices. Games Workshop's complete lack of interest in balancing the game (indeed some would say the opposite with the way the newer codexes are shaping up) has fostered a community that has become far more interested in looking down on their opponent for playing smart than it is in actually playing the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

For the same reason that Ford & GW sponsors NASCAR vehicles that have absolutely nothing to do with anything produced in the last 20 or 30 years.

I really have no idea how sponsoring a car (which is there to advertise) is in any way the same as hosting a competitive event.

It would be kind of bad for Ford to run an event and have a Toyota win it.

IntoTheRain wrote:I think anyone who doesn't think the poorly balanced rules isn't a big deal need only look at the Community GW has spent the past 20 years forming.

Refusing to look at and balance their rules has created a community that tries (poorly) to implement their own restrictions on the game. How often do you hear 'sounds cheesy' or 'we don't play like that here' at your local gaming club? How many other games can you name where a mentality like this exists? Imagine if you were playing monopoly and the other players started berating you for being 'cheesy' for putting hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.

So now we have a completely subjective system that is designed to attack people for making smart choices. Games Workshop's complete lack of interest in balancing the game (indeed some would say the opposite with the way the newer codexes are shaping up) has fostered a community that has become far more interested in looking down on their opponent for playing smart than it is in actually playing the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

For the same reason that Ford & GW sponsors NASCAR vehicles that have absolutely nothing to do with anything produced in the last 20 or 30 years.

I really have no idea how sponsoring a car (which is there to advertise) is in any way the same as hosting a competitive event.

It would be kind of bad for Ford to run an event and have a Toyota win it.

You have also earned a bonus point

GW already loses customers to it, just not in a way that is easily measureable.

The game system is the only thing that sells their miniatures; people want to perform their own space opera by being A Space Marine, An IG Commander, Abaddon, Etc. Without the game system there's absolutely nothing that separates GW miniatures from all the others that retail for 1/3 of the price.

Their background entices people in while the high price limits their level of investment. When 16 Year Old Kid makes a horribly underpowered army by choosing the 'cool' codex units that are overcosted and ineffective due to poor internal balance and continually gets wiped by vet players, he stops playing the game.

That's a huge problem. Instead of buying another 1000 points to finish off his army, he sells his models off and buys more games for the Wii because those work without extensive retooling. The same thing applies to the guy who buys a massive pile of pewter only to find out that his army is mechanically inferior; like the Ghazghkull+Deffwing player that finds out he can't possibly beat 6 fast skimmers and two Land Raiders filled with AssTerms.

Bad rules make people quit playing. Bad rules make it hard to enter into this game because so many options don't perform well and the cost of buying enough new models to re-tool your army list is prohibitively high.

I believe GW has stated this several times over - just read any number of Jervis' Standard Bearer articles.

It's just at a number of people don't believe GW when they say so.

100% of the new people starting WH40k that I've met at the local gaming shop are buying the miniatures to play the game not the other way around, and believe me they do get upset when they find out that their Fluff list is worthless on the tabletop. Nobody gives a gak about miniatures except the diehard collectors who, ironically, represent the minority of their revenue stream.

sourclams wrote:Their background entices people in while the high price limits their level of investment. When 16 Year Old Kid makes a horribly underpowered army by choosing the 'cool' codex units that are overcosted and ineffective due to poor internal balance and continually gets wiped by vet players, he stops playing the game.

But this is GW's business model. Sell as much to the kids as possible right up front. And don't give a hoot if they quit. They already got that 16 year-old's money, they don't really care if he finishes the army. Maybe the kid who buys his stuff finishes it. More money. Maybe the 16 year old kid ponies up to "make it competitive". More money.

IntoTheRain wrote:Imagine if you were playing monopoly and the other players started berating you for being 'cheesy' for putting hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.

What about if you're playing Monopoly and you refuse to trade your cards? And someone berates you for that. Do some people play it that way? Yup. Do others play it that they trade regularly? Yup. Both are legal according to the rules, but if I play with trading (my 'house rules'), and someone else doesn't (their 'house rules'), who is to say who is playing "correctly" or "more or less competitively". Is the game broken? Should Milton Bradley (or whoever makes it) issue an FAQ?

Cruentus wrote:
But this is GW's business model. Sell as much to the kids as possible right up front. And don't give a hoot if they quit. They already got that 16 year-old's money, they don't really care if he finishes the army. Maybe the kid who buys his stuff finishes it. More money. Maybe the 16 year old kid ponies up to "make it competitive". More money.

This is the part of my post entitled "already losing money in a way that isn't easily measurable".



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cruentus wrote:What about if you're playing Monopoly and you refuse to trade your cards? And someone berates you for that. Do some people play it that way? Yup. Do others play it that they trade regularly? Yup. Both are legal according to the rules, but if I play with trading (my 'house rules'), and someone else doesn't (their 'house rules'), who is to say who is playing "correctly" or "more or less competitively". Is the game broken? Should Milton Bradley (or whoever makes it) issue an FAQ?

Your argument is more akin to a competitive list player versus a noncompetitive list player than it is Monopoly Rules vs GW rules.

If the 'Go to Jail' spot was labeled 'Player Should Choose to Go to Jail' and the rules dictated 'give house-owning player money' without specifying an amount ($100? $5?) you'd have more similarities.

IntoTheRain wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

So then why are they hosting tournaments?

For the same reason that Ford & GW sponsors NASCAR vehicles that have absolutely nothing to do with anything produced in the last 20 or 30 years.

I really have no idea how sponsoring a car (which is there to advertise) is in any way the same as hosting a competitive event.

See emphasis above.

Horst wrote:I really don't know what all you people are going on about.

seriously.

yes, the rules have holes in them. Yes, those holes can break the game. But just follow the INAT faq, and you'll be fine. Its the only comprehensive document with even a hint of legitimacy (it was used at a GW sponsored event), and it covers most major holes in the game. Any others will be addressed by it in time.

You mean the INAT faq that changes rules based on how they think the rai from gw is?

Comprehensive doc? No more than the one someone wrote for their own house rules at their lfgs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:GW already loses customers to it, just not in a way that is easily measureable.

The game system is the only thing that sells their miniatures; people want to perform their own space opera by being A Space Marine, An IG Commander, Abaddon, Etc. Without the game system there's absolutely nothing that separates GW miniatures from all the others that retail for 1/3 of the price.

Their background entices people in while the high price limits their level of investment. When 16 Year Old Kid makes a horribly underpowered army by choosing the 'cool' codex units that are overcosted and ineffective due to poor internal balance and continually gets wiped by vet players, he stops playing the game.

That's a huge problem. Instead of buying another 1000 points to finish off his army, he sells his models off and buys more games for the Wii because those work without extensive retooling. The same thing applies to the guy who buys a massive pile of pewter only to find out that his army is mechanically inferior; like the Ghazghkull+Deffwing player that finds out he can't possibly beat 6 fast skimmers and two Land Raiders filled with AssTerms.

Bad rules make people quit playing. Bad rules make it hard to enter into this game because so many options don't perform well and the cost of buying enough new models to re-tool your army list is prohibitively high.

I believe GW has stated this several times over - just read any number of Jervis' Standard Bearer articles.

It's just at a number of people don't believe GW when they say so.

100% of the new people starting WH40k that I've met at the local gaming shop are buying the miniatures to play the game not the other way around, and believe me they do get upset when they find out that their Fluff list is worthless on the tabletop. Nobody gives a gak about miniatures except the diehard collectors who, ironically, represent the minority of their revenue stream.

110% absolutely correct and a QFT as well.

yes, I mean that faq. and the rules they change are points of contention, that they resolve. there will always be a discrepancy between rai and raw, and there has to be a resolution.

And it may be no more comprehensive than a house document, but its the ONLY 3rd party document to be endorced by a GW sanctioned event. That makes it, in my eyes, the most legitimate 3rd party FAQ to follow.

In my part of the world, we use INAT. I suggest everyone do the same, because we need a universal FAQ to make sure players from different parts of the world play the same way. Nothing is more annoying than going to a new place, looking for a game of 40k, and being stuck following some backwards house rules that are only used in that region.

I've had people scream and whine when I tell them my GKGM killed their daemon prince in one swing, because they say my force weapons are normal force weapons, yet those same people say my grey knight special rules don't work against the daemon prince because its not a Daemon.

INAT fixes issues like this. I cannot see how anyone can see this as anything but a positive.

Horst wrote:yes, I mean that faq. and the rules they change are points of contention, that they resolve. there will always be a discrepancy between rai and raw, and there has to be a resolution.

Or flat out just changes/makes up rules because they just want it to.

Horst wrote:And it may be no more comprehensive than a house document, but its the ONLY 3rd party document to be endorced by a GW sanctioned event. That makes it, in my eyes, the most legitimate 3rd party FAQ to follow.

Shoot. All 3rd party documents are endorsed by the single, most important rule from the brb. Is that 'legitimate' enough for ya?

Horst wrote:In my part of the world, we use INAT. I suggest everyone do the same, because we need a universal FAQ to make sure players from different parts of the world play the same way. Nothing is more annoying than going to a new place, looking for a game of 40k, and being stuck following some backwards house rules that are only used in that region.

And seeing that not everyone uses it, doesn't that make it 'some backwards house rules' itself?

Horst wrote:I've had people scream and whine when I tell them my GKGM killed their daemon prince in one swing, because they say my force weapons are normal force weapons, yet those same people say my grey knight special rules don't work against the daemon prince because its not a Daemon.

GW does this all the time. Perhaps stay at home if this is an issue?

Horst wrote:INAT fixes issues like this. I cannot see how anyone can see this as anything but a positive.

The INAT faq can change on issues for whatever reason. How is that a 'positive'? I can't post what I really want to say, but I hope folks get the point.

imweasel wrote:
Or flat out just changes/makes up rules because they just want it to.

Shoot. All 3rd party documents are endorsed by the single, most important rule from the brb. Is that 'legitimate' enough for ya?

And seeing that not everyone uses it, doesn't that make it 'some backwards house rules' itself?

GW does this all the time. Perhaps stay at home if this is an issue?

The INAT faq can change on issues for whatever reason. How is that a 'positive'? I can't post what I really want to say, but I hope folks get the point.

1) Please cite an example of a case where they arbitrarily change rules for no good reason. I fail to see any in the document.

2) The single most important rule suggests a dice off to resolve rule disputes as well. would you really hold this as a legitimate practice? that line is reflective of a GW attitude that states they should make up their own rules. This is true, and there needs to be a standardized document that defines those rules. The GW documentation leaves much to be desired, and someone needs to step in to fill the gap.

3) Enough people use it that it is more common than house rules followed at a single game store. The examples I mentioned (actual examples... I didn't make them up) are situations where the local store ignore rules and make up their own. This should not be an acceptable practice when playing against people from a different region. There should be a standardized set of rules for the game. The INAT faq is the closest thing we as a gaming community have.

4) Rules disputes should not be an issue, the rules should be clear, and free from interpretation of the reader. The INAT faq brings the game significantly closer to this state. Warhammer needs a unified set of rules, regardless of local situation. House rules are perfectly acceptable, but it should be agreed upon before the game is played. Not assumed to be in effect.

5) INAT can change on issues, true, but I fail to see how that is a negative. As long as the document is accepted universally, the contents of it do not matter. There are rulings in there that I disagree with as well, but I am willing to accept that fact as long as everyone I play against also accepts that fact, and the game will be better off.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:
I really have no idea how sponsoring a car (which is there to advertise) is in any way the same as hosting a competitive event.

See emphasis above.

So...what does advertising at an event have to do with running one? Thats a terrible analogy, especially since GW would naturally have a monopoly on what is being advertised at a 40k tournament. And that still doesn't explain how you find it acceptable that they say their rules aren't meant to be taken competitively yet the continue to run tournaments every year.

Cruentus wrote:

sourclams wrote:

IntoTheRain wrote:Imagine if you were playing monopoly and the other players started berating you for being 'cheesy' for putting hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.

What about if you're playing Monopoly and you refuse to trade your cards? And someone berates you for that. Do some people play it that way? Yup. Do others play it that they trade regularly? Yup. Both are legal according to the rules, but if I play with trading (my 'house rules'), and someone else doesn't (their 'house rules'), who is to say who is playing "correctly" or "more or less competitively". Is the game broken? Should Milton Bradley (or whoever makes it) issue an FAQ?

I have no problem with people who want to play with house rules. Indeed, it I encourage it for anyone looking for a change of pace. But I'm talking about people attacking the way you play even if its within the base rules. Multiple Land Raiders are legal, just as hotels on boardwalk are legal. A strong ruleset is VERY important so that players have a strong baseline to start off on the same page with. Right now we don't have anything even close to that, and the attitude of the many of the players has become awful because of it.

Cane wrote:John's got it spot on imo; 40k is a 'beer and pretzels' oriented game.

"Beer and pretzels" my bottom. When most gaming groups consist of adults with work and/or families, you are talking about a considerable investment of time and effort. For an average 1.5-2K game with two participants your talking about 2-4 hours of time and the use of a whole room. "B&P" is when you grab a game that lasts a maximum of 30 minutes.

GW really needs to rework their official propaganda line.

Really, GW can call it whatever they want. They write it. Just because you don't like it, or think it should be something different, doesn't mean a damn thing. GW has made it clear that the gamer doesn't matter.

THere is a difference between calling something acceptable, and acknowledging the reality of the situation.