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.

Peregrine wrote:
Why is this an either/or thing? You can keep both markets happy, and even if hardcore gamers are a smaller market the sum of both markets is still larger than just the casual gamer market.

Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.

Peregrine wrote:
Because it's lazy, unprofessional game design, and they could make a better product if they bothered to invest the effort required. Which is why I hope that GW dies and gets bought by a better company, so we can have the same awesome models but with awesome rules as well.

In your humble opinion. There are many problems with GW, but the ruleset, which is generally considered their best yet, isn't one of them.

rigeld2 wrote:
No? I want consistency. For all its other failures Battletech was a pretty solid rules set. Seriously - you're okay with glaring errors like the ones I mentioned consistently being ignored when it'd literally be a 30 minute meeting to decide how they want it to work and a sentence or two of clarification?

Yes but the major issues have been rectified. They don't need to fix tiny semantic things that say, allow you to outflank in your opponent's turn, because only people on the internet care about that gak.

Peregrine wrote:
As a casual player I would benefit from a consistent rules set. This isn't a casual vs hardcore thing. You're going to say that you've never paused a casual game to discuss a rule?

Of course I have, but 99% of the the time it's because none of us could be arsed to print off the FAQs. Compared to inconsistancies in computer games, which are about 100 times easier to fix, there aren't that many.

 Testify wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
Why is this an either/or thing? You can keep both markets happy, and even if hardcore gamers are a smaller market the sum of both markets is still larger than just the casual gamer market.

Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.

How would casual gamers be put off by a clear and consice ruleset that isn't ambiguous? That doesn't make any sense!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Testify wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
Why is this an either/or thing? You can keep both markets happy, and even if hardcore gamers are a smaller market the sum of both markets is still larger than just the casual gamer market.

Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.

How would casual gamers be put off by a clear and consice ruleset that isn't ambiguous? That doesn't make any sense!

Asking for a "clear and consise" ruleset is one thing. It is entirely subjective and pointless to ask for it. The rules will be as clear and consise as they make them. Personally I find them pretty unambiguous.

Hvaing played all editions of WFB and 40K I do think the game keeps moving in the right direction in terms of the rules.

I like alot of 8th Ed WFB over 7th - just need to get the one roll magic wins element under control.............so you can actually have a game............

6th Ed 40K - again I like most of the changes - prefer that high WS could actually hit low WS on better than 3+ but hey............

It would in my mind help if they actually released a general codex update as a seperate book - charge £30 - make it pretty and update all the Codexes in one shiny book when the rules came out rather than waiting years fro "your" codex to get proper rules.................

I wouldn't be playing 40K if I didn't like the rules.

Maybe they're not for hardcore tournament players. Good. I play 40K for fun to have a laugh with mates. And I love that every game something weird and unpredicted can happen. GW cannot predict every possible event in such a large game.

As for balance. I hear the term 'power creep' used a lot. A better one would be marketing. I've been gaming for 25 years, it's nothing new. The only thing new is the internet giving everyone the chance to whine at a larger audience.

Testify wrote:Asking for a "clear and consise" ruleset is one thing. It is entirely subjective and pointless to ask for it. The rules will be as clear and consise as they make them. Personally I find them pretty unambiguous.

I have to disagree heavily on this. Check the YMDC forums if you don't agree, and I believe (unless you have blinders on in addition to rose colored glasses) you will realize you have made a mistake with this statement.

Mr Morden wrote:prefer that high WS could actually hit low WS on better than 3+ but hey............

This has always bugged me. Oh, you are fighting against WS 3, and you have WS4? You hit on a 3+ You are fighting against WS 3 and you have WS 10, basically you are a god in CC? You hit on a 3+.

Mr Morden wrote:It would in my mind help if they actually released a general codex update as a seperate book - charge £30 - make it pretty and update all the Codexes in one shiny book when the rules came out rather than waiting years fro "your" codex to get proper rules................

I can't see this happening for two major reasons
1. model sales. New codexes get released in conjunction with new waves of models, and as GW themselves have pointed out many times - their goal is to sell models.
2. codex sales. With the new format, they are charging $50 per codex. For people that run multiple armies, if there was only one book, they would lose possibly hundreds of dollars in profit.

And the reason I am glad they don't do this? I hate having to carry around giant books. How large do you think a book would be encompassing every codex? You think the BYB is large? Try lugging around a 1500 page monster. (newest codex release is over 100 pages, I believe it is safe to assume this is the new direction they will be taking)

Yes and no - a new shiny book ecompasing general update for all armies and some nice artwork should likely run to about the same page count as a Codex (say 6-7 pages per faction) - this comes out when you release the rules, then you release the new codexes with new stuff - win win. I do run multiple armies which is why its so annoying that updates are breathtakingly long waits..........

true, the new codex is massively overpirced IMO.

the 3+ WS is just stupid - it worse when you think about a WS10 trying to hit a WS1 on a 3+ and missing with most or all rolls. Yes I have seen and done this..........its extremely annoying - one missed is possible but all of the attacks - - stupid. Double your opponents WS should be 2+, more than that and you get a re-roll.

 Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No? I want consistency. For all its other failures Battletech was a pretty solid rules set. Seriously - you're okay with glaring errors like the ones I mentioned consistently being ignored when it'd literally be a 30 minute meeting to decide how they want it to work and a sentence or two of clarification?

Yes but the major issues have been rectified. They don't need to fix tiny semantic things that say, allow you to outflank in your opponent's turn, because only people on the internet care about that gak.

Yeah, things like the Night Scythe interaction with Crash and Burn, FNP vs other unsaved wound mechanics, and vehicles not being able to take invul saves is "tiny semantic things" that "only people on the Internet care about".

What major issues were rectified? Seriously, I'd like to know what you're referring to. Fr every "fix" they've had they've opened up at least one new problem because they aren't consistent with wording. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away, and trying to straw man me doesn't make you correct. (Note that I've never brought up anything to do with outflanking in your opponents turn).

 Ailaros wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:1- Balance issues all over the place.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.

These are matters of mere opinion, though. All you're saying is that GW doesn't agree with your idea of what balance should be, not that GW isn't doing balance correctly.

Plus, you can either have a rules edition that is carefully balanced, or you can have rules edition that adds new stuff, but you can not have both, especially not at the scale GW is doing things.

xxvaderxx wrote:3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.

You know, you could always start playing 4th ed with your friends. Both of these were "fixed" back then.

This post is literally flabbergasting considering your epic thread on how you cannot defeat power units without Vendettas.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/492433.page

 Ailaros wrote:

To put it another way, my best opponents have been moving up to really difficult to kill units, and I'm having a really hard time coping
[...]

If it winds up that literally the only answer is vendettas then I'm going to quit guard until we get a new codex, as being forced to take a single unit in the codex to have any chance of winning sounds like the kind of game I don't want to play.

Amazing.

 BlueDagger wrote:

Evertras wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.

I need an image of Matt Ward riding a dolphin. Like right now.

Went even better for ya

No vest?!

 Vaktathi wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
because they are a model firm first, gaming firm second

People keep saying that when it's been demonstrated that they make rules that don't have any existing models - and wait literally years before making those models.
If models came first, that would not be the case.

They come right out and say that's exactly what they are in their report to shareholders. A model company. The fact that they don't immediately have models but have rules wasn't an issue as it was for future expansion, until others started filling the gaps and threatening their copyright.

Yep exactly.

 Testify wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Testify wrote:
See my above post, which was ignored in all the *hilarity* ensueing a joke about dolphins.

There are a lot of people on dakka who insist that 40k's rules are a pile of crap. Seems weird that 40k is so popular really

Racing is one of the least successful football clubs in recent history in my area, immensely popular thou, popularity is not directly related to quality.

Or alternatively, you've just revealed your arrogance in equating your personal subjective taste with objectivity.

Bravo.

Britney Spears sells more than Beethoven.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Testify wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Testify wrote:
...Seems weird that 40k is so popular really

...popularity is not directly related to quality.

Or alternatively, you've just revealed your arrogance in equating your personal subjective taste with objectivity.

Bravo.

Britney Spears sells more than Beethoven.

Well played.

 Testify wrote:
Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.

Nonsense. MTG caters towards both at the same time, and both groups love it.

In your humble opinion. There are many problems with GW, but the ruleset, which is generally considered their best yet, isn't one of them.

That just means it's the least garbage, mostly because they finally bothered to release FAQs on something remotely resembling a decent schedule. The core rules still have fundamental issues and GW is still guilty of lazy game design.

 Ugavine wrote:
IMaybe they're not for hardcore tournament players. Good. I play 40K for fun to have a laugh with mates. And I love that every game something weird and unpredicted can happen. GW cannot predict every possible event in such a large game.

Nonsense. MTG is a FAR more complicated game (simply because it has so many more "units"), and WOTC has predicted every conceivable situation that can occur in the game and given explicit rules to handle it so that the only way you ever solve a rule dispute is by reading the rulebook. And if you somehow manage to create a situation that doesn't yet have an explicit ruling it will be addressed in the next rule update.

And guess what: casual players still love the game.

Nonsense. MTG is a FAR more complicated game (simply because it has so many more "units"), and WOTC has predicted every conceivable situation that can occur in the game and given explicit rules to handle it so that the only way you ever solve a rule dispute is by reading the rulebook. And if you somehow manage to create a situation that doesn't yet have an explicit ruling it will be addressed in the next rule update.

Mainly because they ban sets they've previously released from a certain timeline being used. Seeing as we still have black templars in play.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Mainly because they ban sets they've previously released from a certain timeline being used. Seeing as we still have black templars in play.

Not true.

1) They only ban all but the most recent sets in one tournament format. The game still supports other formats with a range of legal sets, including an "everything legal" format where only a very small number of cards from the earliest days of the game are banned, and only because they aren't compatible with the modern rules (for example, cards that add to ante, from the first year or two before everyone stopped playing for ante).

2) They don't use format rotation as an excuse, and every possible scenario involving those old cards (with those very few exceptions) is covered by the rules to support formats which allow more than just the newest stuff. In fact, the rules for the game spend pages of effort on making explicit rules to support a handful of "problem" cards from earlier sets, before WOTC settled on the modern rules and got better at making cards that don't create rule nightmares.

And of course "GW has old books" is a huge part of their lazy game design problem. If they were professionals they'd update everything to the current rules all at once, but instead we get laughably unprofessional behavior and putting short-term profits ahead of quality work.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nonsense. MTG caters towards both at the same time, and both groups love it.

So does Halo.

And Starcraft 2.

But they're (MTG, Halo, and SC2) hugely different from 40k. Price, units (or their equivalents), rule distribution, and individual rule-balancing, randomness, and the presence of an extensive set of game-wide rules all make balancing 40k a totally different feat.

 Testify wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Testify wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
Why is this an either/or thing? You can keep both markets happy, and even if hardcore gamers are a smaller market the sum of both markets is still larger than just the casual gamer market.

Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.

How would casual gamers be put off by a clear and consice ruleset that isn't ambiguous? That doesn't make any sense!

Asking for a "clear and consise" ruleset is one thing. It is entirely subjective and pointless to ask for it. The rules will be as clear and consise as they make them. Personally I find them pretty unambiguous.

You don't seem to understand us at all Testify. How on earth would "casual" (and I hate that term as much as competitive) be put off by a ruleset that is well written and leaves no room for abuse or confusion? Why would a "casual" (again, only using it because people insist on using it) be turned away by a ruleset that strives to balance all codexes equally, so that if I show up with my IG and you showed up with Tau, we would know that odds are it's a fair fight. Why would a "casual" player not want a ruleset where when they look up a rule, it's simple and to the point, covering any possible oddities, instead of a vaguely written rule that can lead up to a ten minute debate, with the only "solution" is to roll off (and just because your group is cool, doesn't mean everyone has that luxury. I've had friendly pickup games derailed by rules arguments) WHY ON EARTH would "casual" gamers not want that? A simply written, concise, and well balanced game system? By making the game balanced and "competitive" (I.E. in that all the books and most to all playstyles have a decent shot of winning) you allow people to have more fun in the game. A person who wanted to take a Tau army with minimal suits wouldn't be curbstomped every match. An IG player wouldn't have to take vendettas and vets if he wanted to win. Etc. etc. By making the game balanced and giving it a more fine tuned ruleset, you make it more enjoyable and fun for everybody.

Most of the people that are answering could care less for a "hardcore" and needlessly complex ruleset (we have that now ) we're saying that we want a game where they actually take the time to proofread their rules and codexes and not rush things. I hate showing up to a pickup game, and having to have several lists written up. One if someone is looking to play a friendly game, one if a guy wants to practice for a tourney, and another for in case some guy has the cheese of the month. It shouldn't be where people are getting chewed out just because of what codex they picked due to outrageously varied power levels (GK and Necron players get a lot of this this) or even when a player just takes a certain unit (vendettas, paladins, Nob Bikers, etc.) The fact that this sentiment exists at all says a lot for how GW has poorly handled it. Obviously some whining is to be expected, but when you can justifiably prove some armies are more powerful and others, and that units like the Vendetta exist, the system needs to be fixed.

Would you play chess if half the pieces had dodgy rules that were difficult to understand and the Black side was able to take 20% more pieces than you? Of course not. This is what people are feeling with 40k, and it's why they want a more balanced ruleset. If you go to play chess, it's purely determined by skill. You and I could goof around, and have a great time, or, we could play it as seriously as we wanted, and go to a world championship. The rules lend themselves well to both styles of play, and everything in between. Just because chess has rules that allow for tip top competitive play, doesn't prevent kids in gradeschool from playing it and enjoying it as well.

 TheCaptain wrote:
But they're (MTG, Halo, and SC2) hugely different from 40k. Price, units (or their equivalents), rule distribution, and individual rule-balancing, randomness, and the presence of an extensive set of game-wide rules all make balancing 40k a totally different feat.

It's different, but it's not impossible. The problem is that GW doesn't even try, and then blames the players for "taking it too seriously".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
By making the game balanced and "competitive" (I.E. in that all the books and most to all playstyles have a decent shot of winning) you allow people to have more fun in the game. A person who wanted to take a Tau army with minimal suits wouldn't be curbstomped every match. An IG player wouldn't have to take vendettas and vets if he wanted to win. Etc. etc. By making the game balanced and giving it a more fine tuned ruleset, you make it more enjoyable and fun for everybody.

Yeah, that's the funny thing about game balance. As much as people try to say it's just about letting TFG WAAC players WAAC, it's really the casual players who benefit the most from a balanced game. Competitive players will just happily win with the best options whatever GW prints, while casual players are screwed if they try to bring anything other than the most powerful lists.

 Peregrine wrote:

The problem is that GW doesn't even try, and then blames the players for "taking it too seriously".

But if their stance is "beer and pretzels", then that's that, isn't it?

People can go ahead and take it seriously, but that's not their (GW's) aim. They shouldn't be held accountable for the community's choice.

Because I love analogies and comparisons;

Tic-tac-toe. Ridiculously unbalanced. Feel free to run Tic-tac-toe tournaments, but it's going to be unbalanced, because it wasn't intended to be a serious competition.

 TheCaptain wrote:
But if their stance is "beer and pretzels", then that's that, isn't it?

People can go ahead and take it seriously, but that's not their (GW's) aim. They shouldn't be held accountable for the community's choice.

The point is that good game designers are capable of creating games that are equally enjoyable for both competitive and casual players, and that both groups benefit from the things that make competitive players happy (good balance, clear rules). GW could make 40k a better game and make everyone happy, but instead they use "beer and pretzels" as an excuse for laughably unprofessional game design and write off entire player archetypes because they're too lazy to do their job right.

Which, like I said, is why I hope GW dies and the IP goes to a better company that understands how to research player archetypes and ensure that everyone is happy.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

The problem is that GW doesn't even try, and then blames the players for "taking it too seriously".

But if their stance is "beer and pretzels", then that's that, isn't it?

People can go ahead and take it seriously, but that's not their (GW's) aim. They shouldn't be held accountable for the community's choice.

Because I love analogies and comparisons;

Tic-tac-toe. Ridiculously unbalanced. Feel free to run Tic-tac-toe tournaments, but it's going to be unbalanced, because it wasn't intended to be a serious competition.

This post has earned you the distinction of leaving my ignore list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
But if their stance is "beer and pretzels", then that's that, isn't it?

People can go ahead and take it seriously, but that's not their (GW's) aim. They shouldn't be held accountable for the community's choice.

The point is that good game designers are capable of creating games that are equally enjoyable for both competitive and casual players, and that both groups benefit from the things that make competitive players happy (good balance, clear rules). GW could make 40k a better game and make everyone happy, but instead they use "beer and pretzels" as an excuse for laughably unprofessional game design and write off entire player archetypes because they're too lazy to do their job right.

Dude. No. GW have a target market and it's not you, get over it.

Judging from your posts it seems that while you have a decent tactical mind, you clearly don't enjoy playing 40k very much. I'd suggest finding other people to play with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yeah, things like the Night Scythe interaction with Crash and Burn, FNP vs other unsaved wound mechanics, and vehicles not being able to take invul saves is "tiny semantic things" that "only people on the Internet care about".

Yes actually. YMMV.

If you choose to take a literalist approach to an implicitly not literalist ruleset, don't be surprised when your approach fails.

rigeld2 wrote:
What major issues were rectified? Seriously, I'd like to know what you're referring to. Fr every "fix" they've had they've opened up at least one new problem because they aren't consistent with wording. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away, and trying to straw man me doesn't make you correct. (Note that I've never brought up anything to do with outflanking in your opponents turn).

Sure I'm going to go through every single edition of every FAQ for every codex and point out things that GW have fixed. If you don't like the FAQs, don't play with them.

MrMoustaffa wrote:
You don't seem to understand us at all Testify. How on earth would "casual" (and I hate that term as much as competitive) be put off by a ruleset that is well written and leaves no room for abuse or confusion?

By virtue of it being unreadable. Ever read a fandex? Or hell, ever *tried* to read a fandex?

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Why would a "casual" (again, only using it because people insist on using it) be turned away by a ruleset that strives to balance all codexes equally, so that if I show up with my IG and you showed up with Tau, we would know that odds are it's a fair fight. Why would a "casual" player not want a ruleset where when they look up a rule, it's simple and to the point, covering any possible oddities, instead of a vaguely written rule that can lead up to a ten minute debate, with the only "solution" is to roll off (and just because your group is cool, doesn't mean everyone has that luxury. I've had friendly pickup games derailed by rules arguments) WHY ON EARTH would "casual" gamers not want that? A simply written, concise, and well balanced game system? By making the game balanced and "competitive" (I.E. in that all the books and most to all playstyles have a decent shot of winning) you allow people to have more fun in the game. A person who wanted to take a Tau army with minimal suits wouldn't be curbstomped every match. An IG player wouldn't have to take vendettas and vets if he wanted to win. Etc. etc. By making the game balanced and giving it a more fine tuned ruleset, you make it more enjoyable and fun for everybody.

I have nothing against internal balance. Don't expect me to defend Nork Deddog or Vendetta's gross under-costing.

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Most of the people that are answering could care less for a "hardcore" and needlessly complex ruleset (we have that now ) we're saying that we want a game where they actually take the time to proofread their rules and codexes and not rush things. I hate showing up to a pickup game, and having to have several lists written up. One if someone is looking to play a friendly game, one if a guy wants to practice for a tourney, and another for in case some guy has the cheese of the month. It shouldn't be where people are getting chewed out just because of what codex they picked due to outrageously varied power levels (GK and Necron players get a lot of this this) or even when a player just takes a certain unit (vendettas, paladins, Nob Bikers, etc.) The fact that this sentiment exists at all says a lot for how GW has poorly handled it. Obviously some whining is to be expected, but when you can justifiably prove some armies are more powerful and others, and that units like the Vendetta exist, the system needs to be fixed.

Again, you're playing at a competative or semi-competative environment. 40k isn't designed for that. None of my friends and I play cheese/netlists, and our games are always good fun. It seems that people who try to play competatively are the ones who don't enjoy 40k.

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Would you play chess if half the pieces had dodgy rules that were difficult to understand and the Black side was able to take 20% more pieces than you? Of course not. This is what people are feeling with 40k, and it's why they want a more balanced ruleset. If you go to play chess, it's purely determined by skill. You and I could goof around, and have a great time, or, we could play it as seriously as we wanted, and go to a world championship. The rules lend themselves well to both styles of play, and everything in between. Just because chess has rules that allow for tip top competitive play, doesn't prevent kids in gradeschool from playing it and enjoying it as well.

Chess also has 0 randomness. Good luck creating a game system that is both completely balanced and allows for randomness while remaining both playable and easy to learn for young adolescents.

 Testify wrote:

This post has earned you the distinction of leaving my ignore list.

Mission accomplished?

 Testify wrote:
Dude. No. GW have a target market and it's not you, get over it.

Again, the whole point is that it's bad game design to declare that you have a "target market" and ignore all other markets because you're too lazy to create a better game with broader appeal. Other games manage to be extremely popular and successful with both casual AND competitive players, so why should we excuse GW's failure to do so as well?

But really, the difference is simple:

WOTC asks "who wants to play MTG", researches what each group of players likes about the game, and ensures that everyone gets what they want out of it.

GW declares their "target market" and pretends that everyone else doesn't exist.

Can you seriously say that GW's plan is better?

Judging from your posts it seems that while you have a decent tactical mind, you clearly don't enjoy playing 40k very much. I'd suggest finding other people to play with?

I enjoy 40k, despite its flaws. However, I'm not going to excuse GW's failures just because they succeeded in some areas, especially when 40k would be a much better game if they did their jobs right.

If you choose to take a literalist approach to an implicitly not literalist ruleset, don't be surprised when your approach fails.

How exactly is "don't be literalist" a better way of doing things than just having rules that aren't ambiguous?

By virtue of it being unreadable. Ever read a fandex? Or hell, ever *tried* to read a fandex?

Yeah, because MTG is "unreadable" for casual players, which is why none of them play it.

Oh wait, casual players love MTG even though there are absolutely no ambiguous rules or room for dispute.

Again, you're playing at a competative or semi-competative environment. 40k isn't designed for that. None of my friends and I play cheese/netlists, and our games are always good fun. It seems that people who try to play competatively are the ones who don't enjoy 40k.

And that's why 40k is an example of lazy game design. A well-designed game would be enjoyable for competitive players while still being just as enjoyable for casual players.

Chess also has 0 randomness. Good luck creating a game system that is both completely balanced and allows for randomness while remaining both playable and easy to learn for young adolescents.

Ever hear of this game called MTG? Very well balanced, incorporates a strong random element, and playable and easy to learn for new players.

I find any argument invalid that uses WOTC as an example. They may have got one game right but they've screwed up many more.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:
But they're (MTG, Halo, and SC2) hugely different from 40k. Price, units (or their equivalents), rule distribution, and individual rule-balancing, randomness, and the presence of an extensive set of game-wide rules all make balancing 40k a totally different feat.

It's different, but it's not impossible. The problem is that GW doesn't even try.

I find it hard to believe they didn't try to balance the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yeah, because MTG is "unreadable" for casual players, which is why none of them play it.

Oh wait, casual players love MTG even though there are absolutely no ambiguous rules or room for dispute.

Not where we game - its all about who can spend the most omoney on the I win you loose cards - I quite playing after the fiasco with the afinity / artefact lands that was broken from turn 1 of any game they were in - yeah that was playtested and balanced. That and the obvious continuing powercreep.............

That and the ultra complicated stacking system meant I gave up on - not played since............40K is not perfect but at least I still enjoy it

I find it hard to believe they didn't try to balance the rules.

I look at the 7th ed demons or 5th ed GK and am having problems with seeing the balancing .

xxvaderxx wrote:
Srry to burst your bubble, Warmahordes has a much higher unit count than WH40K and 2 different rules systems and actually manage to strike a much better balance than GW does.

If Warmahordes is so much better, go play it.

Seriously, negative attitudes don't help the game or the community of 40k gamers. Yes, the game is not perfect, but it is what it is. Noone is making you play this hobby.

Makumba wrote:

I find it hard to believe they didn't try to balance the rules.

I look at the 7th ed demons or 5th ed GK and am having problems with seeing the balancing .

Both were made with the next edition in mind.
Would you rather they held off the codices for another 2 years?

Testify wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
Why is this an either/or thing? You can keep both markets happy, and even if hardcore gamers are a smaller market the sum of both markets is still larger than just the casual gamer market.

Not really. Most casual gamers would be put off by a ruleset that catered towards hardcore gamers. You can't have Company of Heroes *and* The Operational Art of War in the same game.

the assumption that clear anc consise rules sets are for hardcore gamers is ridiculous if you ask me. clear and consise is just that - clear and consise, and can be used by both casual, and hardcore players in equal measure. grassroots soccer leagues, and premiership divisions all play from the same rulebook.

Testify wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
Because it's lazy, unprofessional game design, and they could make a better product if they bothered to invest the effort required. Which is why I hope that GW dies and gets bought by a better company, so we can have the same awesome models but with awesome rules as well.

In your humble opinion. There are many problems with GW, but the ruleset, which is generally considered their best yet, isn't one of them.

your humble opinion. "their best yet" means little when their rules sets are genrally scoffed at by a large portion of gamers. GW rules, and GW lack of internal/external balance drove me from the game. every new edition breaks as many things as it fixes, and basically just changes whats dodgy. neither fifth nor sixth have been steps forward - they've been steps sideways. Fair enough, its what GW wants, but please, dont insult our intelligense by saying that they're somehow "better".

Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No? I want consistency. For all its other failures Battletech was a pretty solid rules set. Seriously - you're okay with glaring errors like the ones I mentioned consistently being ignored when it'd literally be a 30 minute meeting to decide how they want it to work and a sentence or two of clarification?

Yes but the major issues have been rectified. They don't need to fix tiny semantic things that say, allow you to outflank in your opponent's turn, because only people on the internet care about that gak.

they've broken as many things as they've fixed if you ask me. they overbalanced vehicles to the point where a lot of people will not take them, and re-broke the game with flyers and the necessity of buying fortifications. also, a lot of the transition FAQs did not address a lot of the problems - i saw two guys arguing for 15 minutes as to whether what dante had was a power axe, or a power weapon by the rules. it was laughable. GW fixes merely end up in other things being broken.

Testify wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
As a casual player I would benefit from a consistent rules set. This isn't a casual vs hardcore thing. You're going to say that you've never paused a casual game to discuss a rule?

Of course I have, but 99% of the the time it's because none of us could be arsed to print off the FAQs. Compared to inconsistancies in computer games, which are about 100 times easier to fix, there aren't that many.

see above. compared to the rules set that companies like Privateer Press and Corvus Beli put out, GW are leagues behind. PP had a 6-page FAQ for 11 factions upon release of their Warmachine/Hordes Mk2 game. GW FAQs are laughable by comparison.

Testify wrote:
If you choose to take a literalist approach to an implicitly not literalist ruleset, don't be surprised when your approach fails.

so basically asking for rules to say what they mean is a bad idea. shame really, as other companies manage perfectly fine with this approach. "rules as intended", "it implies that..." and vague, loosely worded rules are nothing more than excuses for releasing half finished producsts. I work in a lab. i have to write down all my reagents, times, calculations and signatures on everything. im not kidding. i wouldnt get away with "yeah, i did something like that, i think". If i dont write things down literally, i lose my job and the company gets shut down. writing down precisely what you mean is the only proper way of doing things.

Testify wrote:
Sure I'm going to go through every single edition of every FAQ for every codex and point out things that GW have fixed. If you don't like the FAQs, don't play with them.

i've seen FAQs going back four editions that didnt fix anything. how many posts do you see online with someone pointing out how the FAQ didnt fix something? I've seen lots. Again, i'll point to other companies who get it mostly right every time. Check PP's FAQs for example.

Testify wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:
You don't seem to understand us at all Testify. How on earth would "casual" (and I hate that term as much as competitive) be put off by a ruleset that is well written and leaves no room for abuse or confusion?

By virtue of it being unreadable. Ever read a fandex? Or hell, ever *tried* to read a fandex? .

well written ruleset that leaves no room for abuse or confusion is "unreadable". right, you just lost your credibility. do yourself a favour. read the warmachine/hordes and Infinity rulebooks. clear consise, and very readable with no room for error. If anything, "grey" and vague rules are the ones that are more open to abuse than clear and consise ones as they leave room for interpretation.

Testify wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Most of the people that are answering could care less for a "hardcore" and needlessly complex ruleset (we have that now ) we're saying that we want a game where they actually take the time to proofread their rules and codexes and not rush things. I hate showing up to a pickup game, and having to have several lists written up. One if someone is looking to play a friendly game, one if a guy wants to practice for a tourney, and another for in case some guy has the cheese of the month. It shouldn't be where people are getting chewed out just because of what codex they picked due to outrageously varied power levels (GK and Necron players get a lot of this this) or even when a player just takes a certain unit (vendettas, paladins, Nob Bikers, etc.) The fact that this sentiment exists at all says a lot for how GW has poorly handled it. Obviously some whining is to be expected, but when you can justifiably prove some armies are more powerful and others, and that units like the Vendetta exist, the system needs to be fixed.

Again, you're playing at a competative or semi-competative environment. 40k isn't designed for that. None of my friends and I play cheese/netlists, and our games are always good fun. It seems that people who try to play competatively are the ones who don't enjoy 40k.

So?

i've played warmachine/hordes seriously, and for a laugh. i've done simple, quick and "easy ride" demo games for Infinity that were very casual in scope, and nature. and yet i still had fun. there is a time and a place for both casual games, and fun games, and having clear, consise rules does not prevent either approach. 40k is a beer and pretzels game, but that is still no excuse for vague, poorly worded, bloated and badly conceived and implemented rulesets.

Testify wrote:

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Would you play chess if half the pieces had dodgy rules that were difficult to understand and the Black side was able to take 20% more pieces than you? Of course not. This is what people are feeling with 40k, and it's why they want a more balanced ruleset. If you go to play chess, it's purely determined by skill. You and I could goof around, and have a great time, or, we could play it as seriously as we wanted, and go to a world championship. The rules lend themselves well to both styles of play, and everything in between. Just because chess has rules that allow for tip top competitive play, doesn't prevent kids in gradeschool from playing it and enjoying it as well.

Chess also has 0 randomness. Good luck creating a game system that is both completely balanced and allows for randomness while remaining both playable and easy to learn for young adolescents.

Again, Corvus Beli and Privateer Press have both done extremely good jobs at designing and implementing balanced games. you should go and check them out.

 Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yeah, things like the Night Scythe interaction with Crash and Burn, FNP vs other unsaved wound mechanics, and vehicles not being able to take invul saves is "tiny semantic things" that "only people on the Internet care about".

Yes actually. YMMV.

If you choose to take a literalist approach to an implicitly not literalist ruleset, don't be surprised when your approach fails.

Yeah, making assumptions and 4+ing rules is a much more acceptable way to play.
How would an unambiguous rule set be bad for anyone?

rigeld2 wrote:
What major issues were rectified? Seriously, I'd like to know what you're referring to. Fr every "fix" they've had they've opened up at least one new problem because they aren't consistent with wording. Ignoring that doesn't make it go away, and trying to straw man me doesn't make you correct. (Note that I've never brought up anything to do with outflanking in your opponents turn).

Sure I'm going to go through every single edition of every FAQ for every codex and point out things that GW have fixed. If you don't like the FAQs, don't play with them.

That's the right way to participate in a discussion!
You said that the "major issues have been rectified". Stating something as fact without being able to support it isn't a good way to make your point.
You made the claim. Prove it.

MrMoustaffa wrote:
You don't seem to understand us at all Testify. How on earth would "casual" (and I hate that term as much as competitive) be put off by a ruleset that is well written and leaves no room for abuse or confusion?

By virtue of it being unreadable. Ever read a fandex? Or hell, ever *tried* to read a fandex?

What does a poorly written codex have to do with crappily written rules?

Again, you're playing at a competative or semi-competative environment. 40k isn't designed for that. None of my friends and I play cheese/netlists, and our games are always good fun. It seems that people who try to play competatively are the ones who don't enjoy 40k.

I don't play competitively. I enjoy 40k. I think the rules are written in a horribly unprofessional manner for people who are paid to be game designers.

MrMoustaffa wrote:
Would you play chess if half the pieces had dodgy rules that were difficult to understand and the Black side was able to take 20% more pieces than you? Of course not. This is what people are feeling with 40k, and it's why they want a more balanced ruleset. If you go to play chess, it's purely determined by skill. You and I could goof around, and have a great time, or, we could play it as seriously as we wanted, and go to a world championship. The rules lend themselves well to both styles of play, and everything in between. Just because chess has rules that allow for tip top competitive play, doesn't prevent kids in gradeschool from playing it and enjoying it as well.

Chess also has 0 randomness. Good luck creating a game system that is both completely balanced and allows for randomness while remaining both playable and easy to learn for young adolescents.

You do understand the difference between balance and a well written rule set, right?