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.

I liked the way FFG did their (mostly) public beta for Only War. Anyone could join, they just had to buy the $20 beta rulebook PDF. It was a cut-down rulebook with all the art and most of the fluff missing, but all the rules were present. FFG set up a special forum and encouraged people to send in reports.

Of course, these sorts of things (selling PDF’s, selling PDF’s at a low price point, encouraging feedback, engaging with their target audience) are an anathema to GW, so it’s unlikely it would ever happen.

They’d be better served with an extensive NDA-based private beta.

HBMC - do you know if that's how GW play testing presently, or has ever been? I was always under the impression that all their "testing" was done in house?

Btw I completely agree that the way FFG did their open betas was fantastic.

 cincydooley wrote:

But that's really besides the point. Would it be ideal to do a Mark II for 40k 7th edition? Probably. But the scope of what would be required by GW is much larger than the undertaking Privateer had to (in sheer terms of point values they'd need to rewrite) and it would require them to either hire a significant amount of testers or allow a closed public beta to occur with NDAs in place. Fiscally, right now the first makes little sense. And based on GWs corporate culture, it's very unlikely the 2nd would ever happen.

Would you believe me if I said there were more units entries in the WM/H playtest than there are current 40k units? Run some numbers, you'll be surprised. I don't think anything PP does should ever be outside the scope of GW.

Internet wish listing is great and all, but it's significantly more impactful if you offer some ideas that could reasonably happen considering all we know about GW and how they conduct business.

Well there's the rub. GW have shown zero intention of changing their business strategies in any way, let alone rules design.

I know there are more units, but there are less options. That's the primary problem. Further, when PP did their MarkII reboot, there were less options.

But it's always been PPs modus operandi to do the expansion books with a few models per book. It's a pretty big difference from how GW conducts their business.

 cincydooley wrote:
HBMC - do you know if that's how GW play testing presently, or has ever been? I was always under the impression that all their "testing" was done in house?

IIRC, back in the 90's and early 00's, they did outside testing.

To answer the original question.
GW plc sees the rules and codex/army books as a way to help sell the latest minatures.
Hence, the prevalence of exclusive rules writing , to make the new models sound cooler...

Other companies use the GAME PLAY to drive AND MAINTAIN interest in their games and minature ranges.
This makes ALL minatures ranges popular and usable all the time.

Spending a fortune developing and manufacturing new minature ranges means GW HAS to rely on very expencive B&M stores to use isolationist marketing to get the amount of profit they need to cover the cost of the stores and this counter intuitive release method.

But what do these other companies know ?They are growing their customer base and expanding their market share...

ONLY GW plc is getting more money from its customer while giving them less and less each year.And allowing the Chairman of the Board to get massive payouts every year...
And as far as the Chairman of the Board sees, this is far more important.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Not to mention that most competitive players actually want a well written, balanced ruleset.

Competative players have never been GW's target market. I may as well complain that my mug is gak at hammering nails into the wall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

BryllCream wrote:Outsourcing any kind of creative work is generally a bad idea

Why? A lot of miniatures companies do it. You think every model companies like Privateer puts out are sculpted in house?

Wait, you mean outsourcing to companies or to the developing world? Judging by this reply I assume you mean other companies, in which case forget my previous remark.

Actually, you and a great many others on this forum are wrong about GW "never targeting competitive players" At one time GW definitely included tournament players as one of its target markets. They spent a fair amount supporting RTT and grand tournaments and there is an entire page in the 4th edition 40k book extolling the virtues of tournament play.

Its really only people that have started playing in recent years that have not seen a real shift in the GW attitude toward tournaments. You cant blame him because its his job, but Jervis is a huge hypocrite about competitive play these days.

As bad as things are now it could be even worse if they farmed out the rules. Not because others couldnt do a better job than the miserable rats writing the current rules but I could see a lot of complications that would just serve to delay things.

It is completely unneccassary to farm the rules out anyway, it would just be easier to hire someone that was competent. At this low watermark they could be average, but look brilliant compared to the current knuckleheads.

 Fafnir wrote:

Because a concise, cogent, well written and balanced ruleset with little room for interpretation that puts everyone on an even platform would completely destroy the experience for non-competitive players, right?

Assuming it reads like the water-tight, totally balanced fandexes I've read, then yes, it'll be boring as hell and immediately offputting. Live a little!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWhex wrote:

Actually, you and a great many others on this forum are wrong about GW "never targeting competitive players" At one time GW definitely included tournament players as one of its target markets. They spent a fair amount supporting RTT and grand tournaments and there is an entire page in the 4th edition 40k book extolling the virtues of tournament play.

Its really only people that have started playing in recent years that have not seen a real shift in the GW attitude toward tournaments. You cant blame him because its his job, but Jervis is a huge hypocrite about competitive play these days.

Then I stand (kinda) corrected. Though it still sounds like GW explaining that the rules could be used for tournaments - as can anything, even Connect 4. I don't think previous editions were specifically designed for tournament/competative play in mind.

GW will never licence rules making, outsource may be, by their marketing is too heavily invested on the codexcreep to relinquish control of unit design.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Because a concise, cogent, well written and balanced ruleset with little room for interpretation that puts everyone on an even platform would completely destroy the experience for non-competitive players, right?

Assuming it reads like the water-tight, totally balanced fandexes I've read, then yes, it'll be boring as hell and immediately offputting. Live a little!

You mean even GW creating an imbalanced game is a good thing in your eyes?

 BryllCream wrote:
Assuming it reads like the water-tight, totally balanced fandexes I've read, then yes, it'll be boring as hell and immediately offputting.

And if it doesn't read like that, what then?

 BryllCream wrote:
Live a little!

So your answer to the question "How would casual players not benefit from a clean and concise set of rules" is "Live a little".

Great.

 BryllCream wrote:
Then I stand (kinda) corrected. Though it still sounds like GW explaining that the rules could be used for tournaments - as can anything, even Connect 4. I don't think previous editions were specifically designed for tournament/competative play in mind.

No, you stand completely corrected. When someone shows what you said ("Competative players have never been GW's target market") to be false, you concede. End of story.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So your answer to the question "How would casual players not benefit from a clean and concise set of rules" is "Live a little".

I really don't have a beef with streamlining and improving the rules. However, I will put in why it is bad for the casual player to have them streamlined. It all depends on what you see the goal of the game system to be. If you read, there are two main points:

1). If as a game designer, I want to create a game experiences that encourages the games players to interact with each other the most, and demonstrate a certain level of "espirit d' corp" with one another; one potential method to do that is to create a rules system that is the springboard for discussion.

To do that, you make it just a bit imprecise so the players must engage ahead of time to talk about some aspects of the rules and the game they are about to play. This then is an "ice breaker" which allows for social development to grow from. If you set-up the rules ackcordingly, you can minimize conflict and instead encourage discussion. From these growing bonds of social interaction, the game designer has now created a space for a community to develop around as they have a certain "way" to play.

2). Now, streamlined rules are bad for casual players because a discint set of clear and concise rules naturally leads people to no longer take the rules casually. The clearer and more concise, then people start to think that the "rules" are the be all and end all; and start worrying too much about "Official" this and "this is the correct way" versus just playing. It also tends to have people lean towards organized tournament play and the 'tourney practice" mindset, since the rules themselves lend themselves really well to such activities. This can be off-putting to someone who doesn't really care so much about the "correct" way and instead want to experience a general feel of play (Play in the child like sense, and not the competitive sense).

Again, I really don't car either way; but for the purposes of discussion I thought I would give it a shot.

 Easy E wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So your answer to the question "How would casual players not benefit from a clean and concise set of rules" is "Live a little".

I really don't have a beef with streamlining and improving the rules. However, I will put in why it is bad for the casual player to have them streamlined. It all depends on what you see the goal of the game system to be. If you read, there are two main points:

1). If as a game designer, I want to create a game experiences that encourages the games players to interact with each other the most, and demonstrate a certain level of "espirit d' corp" with one another; one potential method to do that is to create a rules system that is the springboard for discussion.

To do that, you make it just a bit imprecise so the players must engage ahead of time to talk about some aspects of the rules and the game they are about to play. This then is an "ice breaker" which allows for social development to grow from. If you set-up the rules ackcordingly, you can minimize conflict and instead encourage discussion. From these growing bonds of social interaction, the game designer has now created a space for a community to develop around as they have a certain "way" to play.

Totally agree with you here. Playing the game with someone is effectively signing a social contract. The way it stands, GW's rules imply that that 'contract' is one to have fun, and less of one to be really competitive.

2). Now, streamlined rules are bad for casual players because a discint set of clear and concise rules naturally leads people to no longer take the rules casually. The clearer and more concise, then people start to think that the "rules" are the be all and end all; and start worrying too much about "Official" this and "this is the correct way" versus just playing. It also tends to have people lean towards organized tournament play and the 'tourney practice" mindset, since the rules themselves lend themselves really well to such activities. This can be off-putting to someone who doesn't really care so much about the "correct" way and instead want to experience a general feel of play (Play in the child like sense, and not the competitive sense).

Again, I really don't car either way; but for the purposes of discussion I thought I would give it a shot.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree a touch. My hope would be that, using the 'contract' from before, that 'casual' players could simply enter into it as casual players and not rule-check everything. Casual players do that now with rule ambiguities, and (for us at least) simply go with the most common sense answer. WIth that being said, I don't think streamlining and tightening up the rules is bad for anyone. Will there be less rule ambiguities for the casual player to shrug off? Sure. But that doesn't mean their attitude when entering into the game has to change from casual. Plus, it would make the game better for the tournament-type player.

I think the 40k demographic is broad enough that a tightening up of the rule system wouldn't yield the same hyper-competitive player base that Warmahordes has (which isn't a bad thing). I think it would be more akin to M:tG: there are plenty of casual M:tG players out there that utilize the tight rules system to play all their various 'less competitive' game types, while the tight rules allow the tourny player to go hardcore. It's a win for both, I think.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
Not to mention that most competitive players actually want a well written, balanced ruleset.

Competative players have never been GW's target market. I may as well complain that my mug is gak at hammering nails into the wall.

A good game should be balanced anyway

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Because a concise, cogent, well written and balanced ruleset with little room for interpretation that puts everyone on an even platform would completely destroy the experience for non-competitive players, right?

Assuming it reads like the water-tight, totally balanced fandexes I've read, then yes, it'll be boring as hell and immediately offputting. Live a little!

You mean even GW creating an imbalanced game is a good thing in your eyes?

Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool. I want the first and foremost thought of a game designer's mind to be "how can I make this awesome", not "how can I balance this". Obviously a degree of balance is nessesary to play the game, but 40k has that anyway. I'd like to see some blatently under/over-costed units being bought into line but I don't see why the whole game should be completely overhauled.

It doesn't need to be completely overhauled.
As you said, some units need to be brought in line.
Then it needs wording cleared up and actual rules writers let loose. None of the rules (really) need to change, they just need to be worded better.

And edition changes that alter the meta (ie - making assault worse, removing assault from reserves) should come with errata that changes the point cost of units that used those mechanics.

Of course one should always seek to be as unambiguous as possible in writing rules, but I think that goes without saying, along with correct spelling/grammar. Certainly GW do have a ways to go in that respect.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Fafnir wrote:Not to mention that most competitive players actually want a well written, balanced ruleset.

Great, well that's 2% of the wargaming fanbase sorted, then...... But what about the 98% of non-competitive players....?

They want a well written, balanced ruleset.

I don't know why people think that good rules are only for competitive players, everyone benefits from the rules being clear.

I'm a completely casual gamer, and play very infrequently but I must spend about 25% of my turn time flicking through the book trying to establish what I'm meant to do when X, Y or Z happens. What did they mean by that? Does special rule A overrule speciaul rule B?

The rules are a waffling, contradictory mess, and then benefits no-one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BryllCream wrote:

Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool. I want the first and foremost thought of a game designer's mind to be "how can I make this awesome", not "how can I balance this". Obviously a degree of balance is nessesary to play the game, but 40k has that anyway. I'd like to see some blatently under/over-costed units being bought into line but I don't see why the whole game should be completely overhauled.

But if it's unbalanced and points values aren't tied to game effectiveness you end up with 1 of 2 situations:

1. A player with cool but poor value units is going to get slaughtered most of the time, which isn't fun. (Guard infantry Vs Terminator-heavy Marine units)

2. All the cool but poor value units are ignored by everyone and games are power lists, where everyone takes similar stuff and variety suffers.


The aim of having points values in the first place is that theoritically a any army list of any construction should be a reasonable match for any other army of the same size, within reason (a list with no anti-air will probably struggle against an all air list).

There's no way an unbalanced set of rules can benefit anyone, unless they are just ignoring them in which case they may as well be balanced.

I can not understand how having more accurate point values makes a game boring?

It simply means that the cool units you want to use are not BORING 'auto win' or a BORING' handicap' to playing how you want.

In fact ALL logic dictates that if you are using PV they SHOULD be as accurate as possible TO PREVENT limited and/or BORING games....

A concise, cogent, well written and streamlined ruleset means less time flipping through (poorly written and poorly organized) rulebooks trying to lawyer what does what, and more time spent talking about how awesome it was when X unit did Y and Z happened.

I don't know about you, but my idea of 'narrative' play does not involve having to take 10 minute breaks in between turns just to figure out if my opponent and I are playing by the same rules.

Bryll wrote:Balance would make the game boring...

Simply unbelievable.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Bryll wrote:Balance would make the game boring...

Simply unbelievable.

Concurred.

To make an analogy to another game, Guilty Gear is one of the most balanced fighters out there. It's also one of the least boring games, let alone fighters, that I've ever played.

Infinity is a very well balanced (and mostly well written) game for the most part, and I've found my games in that to be far more entertaining than my games in 6th edition.

Boring mechanics make games boring (such as substituting player involvement for RANDOM). Not balance.

 BryllCream wrote:

Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool.

If you haven't already, you need to start playing Palladium RPGs. You'll find them to be the coolest most exciting few hours you're capable of having by your own definition. I personally find them to be a poster child for why games need to be mechanically sound before adding in the "cool" stuff.

Balance in games would be boring because we all know that trying to piss up hill (due to imbalance) is the definition of living a little.

Does anyone else think the flyer book was GW having it's first foray into the PP style of release? Factions all having releases at the one time is brilliant in my opinion, not only does everyone get new toys at the same time making the metas change all that the same time and creating 6 months of interesting game play while people figure their crap out, it also shows you other factions stuff at the same time (which unfortunately does lead to "why aren't my toys as shiny syndrome" ) which does lead to faction buy in in my opinion.
Having everyone up to date is a great way to keep gamer satisfaction going , and gives you the benefit of being able to give "compensation" in the next book. Waiting 8 years for an update is far too long , playing 2 editions behind is deplorable.

In short GW farming the rules out so they can focus on miniature making would be a boon for the franchises.

Bullockist wrote:
Does anyone else think the flyer book was GW having it's first foray into the PP style of release?

I'm not sure on that. While it'd be a nice idea it feels more like they were stuck. There isn't enough to warrant individual race releases but there's too much for a WD release or to just give it away. And of course the cynical among us will probably attribute it to the desire for cash. That said the only way this works is if they put rules in boxes/blisters too- otherwise a given book would be prohibitively expensive. When I played WM/H I eschewed buying the multi faction books because I just didn't need (or want) all that extra stuff for the other factions, just the rules for my faction. But it was fine since when I bought a model I got those rules- the multi faction book was a purely optional item. I strongly doubt GW will adopt a position that allows me to not buy a product.

At the end of the day I think GW feels that control of the rules plays too big a part in the control of sales. Releasing units means you can sell units to existing army owner. Releasing a new (or rewritten) codex sells the same units but it also sells new armies.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

Because a concise, cogent, well written and balanced ruleset with little room for interpretation that puts everyone on an even platform would completely destroy the experience for non-competitive players, right?

Assuming it reads like the water-tight, totally balanced fandexes I've read, then yes, it'll be boring as hell and immediately offputting. Live a little!

You mean even GW creating an imbalanced game is a good thing in your eyes?

Yes. Balance would make the game boring, with the effects, stats and points of each unit being assigned mathematically rather than because they're cool. I want the first and foremost thought of a game designer's mind to be "how can I make this awesome", not "how can I balance this". Obviously a degree of balance is nessesary to play the game, but 40k has that anyway. I'd like to see some blatently under/over-costed units being bought into line but I don't see why the whole game should be completely overhauled.

|

How silly.

Do you really think a high point value makes a unit COOL

Balance would make the game more fun and varied, because it would finally mean there would be a reason to take all those units gathering dust on the shelf due to how obviously bad they are. It would also mean different types of lists would be viable, instead of "mass infantry and flyers/AA, or take allies that can, and if you can't do either then you suck", which is what 6th seems to be all about.

If you like spam armies and boring predictability, then GW is doing everything right and balance is indeed not what you want.

 Easy E wrote:
To do that, you make it just a bit imprecise so the players must engage ahead of time to talk about some aspects of the rules and the game they are about to play. This then is an "ice breaker" which allows for social development to grow from. If you set-up the rules ackcordingly, you can minimize conflict and instead encourage discussion. From these growing bonds of social interaction, the game designer has now created a space for a community to develop around as they have a certain "way" to play.

Except GW doesn't give a starting point for discussion, they write poor quality rules where you randomly encounter ambiguous or broken rules and have to argue about what the answer is. People don't show up to 40k night with a list of the most recent threads in YMDC and start every game with a round of negotiation about how each player expects to resolve those issues, they start the game and then worry about rule problems as they come up. There is no benefit gained from this at all.

2). Now, streamlined rules are bad for casual players because a discint set of clear and concise rules naturally leads people to no longer take the rules casually. The clearer and more concise, then people start to think that the "rules" are the be all and end all; and start worrying too much about "Official" this and "this is the correct way" versus just playing. It also tends to have people lean towards organized tournament play and the 'tourney practice" mindset, since the rules themselves lend themselves really well to such activities. This can be off-putting to someone who doesn't really care so much about the "correct" way and instead want to experience a general feel of play (Play in the child like sense, and not the competitive sense).

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. MTG has completely clear rules, and any possible rule question can be answered by simply looking up the answer in the rules (and if it can't be, it will be fixed in the next revision). And yet somehow MTG is still incredibly popular with casual players, including casual players who have no problems at all coming up with house rules for new and interesting ways of playing the game. The clarity of the rules doesn't in any way diminish their enjoyment of the game, it just means that they can focus on playing the game instead of arguing about what the rules should be.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
Now how great would it be if one of us won the Mega Millions lottery, bought out GW, and then hired Privateer Press or some other company to come in and fix everything?

and then hired Privateer Press or some other company to come in and fix everything?[

Privateer Press

NO.

NO.

Seconded not privateer press noooooooooo.

Something that needs to be mentioned here: yes, having "loose" rules sends a message that the goal of the game is "fun". However, what it really does is help every rules-lawyering TFG. Because guess who is going to take advantage of the ambiguity in the rules and exploit every loophole/poorly balanced unit/etc, and then argue their opponent into submission on every point? Exactly the kind of player that makes life hell for "casual" players. Compare this to a "tight" rule set where TFG might be able to play more competitively than their opponents, but at least has to follow the same clear and unambiguous rules as everyone else.

 BryllCream wrote:
I want the first and foremost thought of a game designer's mind to be "how can I make this awesome", not "how can I balance this".

And that's supposed to be why 40k uses a point system: the designer can focus on making a unit cool/fluffy/whatever, and then set an appropriate point cost for it. Having perfect balance through the point system doesn't in any way interfere with making things awesome, unless your idea of awesome is "completely overpowered auto-win toy for my tournament list".