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.

If you hate GW's rules know what to do?

Don't play them.

Use your models and play another game system, there are countless free Sci-Fi games out there on the internet that you can use for them, and also quite a few really good buy-able Sci-Fi games. GW won't be changing the way they make their games anytime soon.

I also see most of the problem is not with the BRB, but mostly with the codexes. The older codexes have so many rules that don't line up. But, here lays an issue.

GW has multiple writers. This brings up the issue that every writer has different ideas so we get varying codex strengths. Also, they may get released at different times but they all come out fairly regularly (with the exception of a few Special SM chapters that seem to have been forgotten).

Now, they could balance them out by having one or two writers who share a vision. BUT the issue there is we would be getting a new codex once every few years (because they will take their sweet time, and accounting that they don't start the new one ASAP after the last one). And a new edition? That's gonna take a longggggg time.

Now they could just release all the new edition codexes at the same time as a new edition, but again that would take a long time between updates and balance could be an issue.

However, I would much prefer a good rough balance between them all rather than speed

 Testify wrote:
Probably because it's incredible obscure? I don't think I've ever met anyone in the UK who's heard of it.

However feel free to *back up your point* by comparing and contrasting it to 40k.

Ahh the typical "not in my country" position...reminds me of a line from the Mel Brooks film To Be or Not to Be: "How can you not have heard of Frederic Bronski? He's world famous in Poland!"

No point in trying to explain the way the rest of the world gaming market exists and works outside the UK today since you have your blinders on.

Skriker

*Edited for quoting issue...

 DarkCorsair wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know.
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.
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.

Alright. Well don't play the game then.

But, I must answer your points...
1. A corporation trying to make money?!?!!!!? The Mayans were right, the world is ending.
2. Because humans are, ya know, perfect beings that create perfect products.
3. Er, where in the rules does this matter? It doesn't say "Place X large and Y small terrain pieces on the battlefield" or anything. You just place terrain based on what looks cool and is relatively fair for both players.
4. So common sense is painful. Hrm. No wonder it's such a rare trait (myself included at times).

I surely could, how ever given i have spent hundreds of dollars in this game, i would rather it not follow the course Fantasy did (on which i have also spent hundreds of dollars) gathering dust on my shelf.

 washout77 wrote:
I also see most of the problem is not with the BRB, but mostly with the codexes. The older codexes have so many rules that don't line up. But, here lays an issue.

The BRB is a big part of the issue because the ruleset is not really any better today than it was in 3rd edition. It just keep changing instead of improving. Thus when a new BRB comes out it can invalidate certain aspects of already existing codecies. If the rules were improvements instead of outright changes there would be less direct impact on the codex lists and less need to always have to be rewriting the codex lists either. Then when they are rewritten they can also focus on improving instead of just adapting to the way the new rules have changed, so that they continue to be less contingent on the specifics of the BRB. It is all one big process, and acting like one part is not an issue is just incorrect.

Skriker

Incompetence is often mistaken for Malice.

Clear concise rules are not mutually exclusive from having fun. When people are calling you tfg in a pickup game just because you know 6th ed rules (chimeras can flat out, rapid fire can shoot full range and move, etc.) something is horribly wrong.

The only way they're fixing this game is starting over again from step 1 and burning the current ruleset to the ground so they can start fresh. GW will never do this.

I only play now because I still love the universe and because it's the main game my friends play. I'm getting into Bolt Action and looking for a sci fi game to get into as well for "serious" games.

Simply put, 40k is turning into a chore to play, rather than a fun game. It'll be the death of it eventually, but its going to take an even bigger mess than 6th to do it.

Hey guys im really new to 40k but i like the rules tbh, seems all good to me, me n my mates have a right laugh when we play, the clues are in the format, its a game, not to be taken too seriously, hope im not the only one who thinks that.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
The only way they're fixing this game is starting over again from step 1 and burning the current ruleset to the ground so they can start fresh. GW will never do this.

Given that they did exactly that when going from 2nd to 3rd, I think 'never' is a bit too strong a term.

Also, people have called you tfg for knowing the rules? That's rough man! I've never heard of such a thing. I've certainly played people who have been caught out by not knowing a key rule change, but every time it's been met with "Wow, it's played like that now? Damn! I'll remember that for next time!"

edit: to obi - It's not just you, I've been playing 40k for a long time and I play it because it's fun. I've tried other miniatures games and for me, 40k is still my favourite. It's all a matter of personal preference. Don't worry about it

obi wan shinobi wrote:
Hey guys im really new to 40k but i like the rules tbh, seems all good to me, me n my mates have a right laugh when we play, the clues are in the format, its a game, not to be taken too seriously, hope im not the only one who thinks that.

Ah fresh meat Haha Its not the game part thats the problem for alot of us, play a few other games and youl see. I play most other games like this, its fun none of the rules hassle we get from 40k. Like was said above, i dont like having to go from enjoying my game to a half hour of looking through multiple books just to figure out how to interpret rule X.

As for privateer press, "not in england" or whatever was said? Seriously? Maybe try playing somewhere other than your attic mate, dont know about you but its bigger than 40k in the several FLGS around me Hell one of them has a warmahordes wall bigger than the GW stock.

 doc1234 wrote:

As for privateer press, "not in england" or whatever was said? Seriously? Maybe try playing somewhere other than your attic mate, dont know about you but its bigger than 40k in the several FLGS around me Hell one of them has a warmahordes wall bigger than the GW stock.

Meh, no one really dwells on that comment, those are GWs coins ringing on his pocket.

Hi all.
Just to clarify.
Developing a well defined elegant and intuitive rule set is VERY labour intensive and difficult to do.
And is ONLY needed if you require the rules to generate and retain interest in your game and associated products.

You know like game companies who need every gamer to use word of mouth to promote their games.

Compared to 40k , 40k is an all right game.
Only when compared to other rule sets does 40k seem counter intuitive and clunky..

40k is a fun game.
Other rule sets are well defined intuitive easy to learn and fun.(Not to mention cheaper too!)

Guess what I would rather play.

Lanrak wrote:
Hi all.
Just to clarify.
Developing a well defined elegant and intuitive rule set is VERY labour intensive and difficult to do.
And is ONLY needed if you require the rules to generate and retain interest in your game and associated products.

You know like game companies who need every gamer to use word of mouth to promote their games.

Compared to 40k , 40k is an all right game.
Only when compared to other rule sets does 40k seem counter intuitive and clunky..

40k is a fun game.
Other rule sets are well defined intuitive easy to learn and fun.(Not to mention cheaper too!)

Guess what I would rather play.

Haha and bricks are great for brain surgery compared to bricks ^^ But damn that hi-tech medical equipment is looking nice im joking obviously mate, and agree with your point. Its why GW seems like its relegated now to being the "entry hobby" compared to the other games, that is at least till they change or whatever.

@Cryogen, I know what they did between 2nd and 3rd, but I highly doubt we'll see it again. Gw would have to rewrite every codex, or drop some entirely, and the way they are now I just dont see them doing that.

As for the TFG incident, the flatout bit angered him the most for some reason, when i did a couple of things that would've been considered "beardier (for example, using the fact that you can place a template wherever you want on a vehicle now to ensure better results if it scatters) I had to come in turn 2 and moved a couple of chimeras and a battlewagon flat out. I showed him where it was and that literally almost every vehicle can do it now but he was still upset.

To be fair, i think the guy had had a long day or something. He's usually really nice so I figure he just had a rough day at work. had a beautiful sisters of battle army too.

Why?

Gaming company inertia.
They've had the "same" game for so long, that changing it to a different way of playing would be too much effort.

Too old, too set in their ways, are they.
They cannot change, they are like the rock of Mcdonalds.

 chromedog wrote:
Why?

Gaming company inertia.
They've had the "same" game for so long, that changing it to a different way of playing would be too much effort.

Too old, too set in their ways, are they.
They cannot change, they are like the rock of Mcdonalds.

Hey now Mcdonalds changed! Pretty sure the kids meal toys back in my day were awesome! Got some rose tinted glasses from there once, great things, wonder where i left them

Monolithic, and you can get a game of it anywhere and it's always the same.

4+ I win.

obi wan shinobi wrote:
Hey guys im really new to 40k but i like the rules tbh, seems all good to me, me n my mates have a right laugh when we play, the clues are in the format, its a game, not to be taken too seriously, hope im not the only one who thinks that.

You're not. That's pretty much how it goes when I play. We play and have a laugh making our plastic soldiers murder each other. No need to fuss about it.

While I can't say I've lived through the editions like some people. I like putting in my two cents. And here it is. I agree that the codexes (Codices?) should be put out at the same time. I don't remember who said something about just one team of writers with a vision could do it but it would take longer between editions.

Well I say that would be a worthy trade off. I mean I'm sure most people who play the more neglected and older codexes (Codices? I really can't remember which) will agree that they'd rather have a book that was written with the current edition in mind. Heck, if the DE codex had held up long enough for the new edition to be released then people probably would either

(A) have a lot less wyches sitting on the shelf/in an army case
(B) probably have a codex written with the 6th edition rules on assault and vehicles written in mind.

That being said, someone else said something about restarting the rules completely and trying something completely new. I don't see why that would be nessesary. The current rules have the potential to be a smooth and easy game to play. Heck, hasn't anyone tried playing the Dark Vengence starter box according to the "Read This First" basic rules? Pretty quick game regardless of size. So the potential is there for streamlining the game. It might take a lot of work. Especially cutting out a lot of rules. But it's possible.

Finally There was something said about consistant rules are automatically competitive. I don't buy it. Checkers is consise and easy to pick up, and it's both for laid back "Pretzel with a beer" and can be played competitively. I see no reason Or law of physics that says the same cant be done for 40k

That's my two cents, make of it what you will. Just remember while fun and immersive, 40k is still a game and nobody should get overly upset about.

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

Balance would imply that everything was built to have a counter in every other codex. About half a thousand threads on this already.

xxvaderxx wrote:
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.

Again, consistency would be accomplished if one team was writing all the rules and they all dropped at the same time.

xxvaderxx wrote:
3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.

It's called common sense and judgement. Start using it.

xxvaderxx wrote:
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.

Would you complain if the opposite of the rule was used against you? Peeling CC wounds off the back makes no sense and can make assaults into boring grindfests. Taking from the front, especially when your opponent beats you on initiative makes it possible to shuffle some guys around when their turn comes in.

Yes, it is an imperfect system. Thank you. We all got that memo. Got something to contribute?

 washout77 wrote:
If you hate GW's rules know what to do?

Don't play them.

Use your models and play another game system, there are countless free Sci-Fi games out there on the internet that you can use for them, and also quite a few really good buy-able Sci-Fi games. GW won't be changing the way they make their games anytime soon.

For real though; these threads are reoccurring, absurd, and go nowhere, save for a dark place where emotions get flared, insults get thrown, and everyone ends up looking ridiculous.

If you hate GW's rules enough to snap over it, play different editions.

Like people do with D&D.

If you don't want to do that, play other games. Or don't.

It's super simple.

Like not eating food you dislike, driving cars you think are crap, and owning pets you don't want to take care of. Don't like it, don't do/buy it. Unless you're a masochist. Then...yeah.

 washout77 wrote:
GW has multiple writers. This brings up the issue that every writer has different ideas so we get varying codex strengths. Also, they may get released at different times but they all come out fairly regularly (with the exception of a few Special SM chapters that seem to have been forgotten).

Now, they could balance them out by having one or two writers who share a vision. BUT the issue there is we would be getting a new codex once every few years (because they will take their sweet time, and accounting that they don't start the new one ASAP after the last one). And a new edition? That's gonna take a longggggg time.

The problem isn't having multiple writers, it's that GW is incredibly lazy about creating new rules and refuses to accept that anyone plays it as anything other than a "beer and pretzels" game with lots of house rules and a focus on the GW (tm) Hobby (tm) and caring more about buying more GW (tm) Products (tm) than the actual game.

For an example of the alternative, WOTC has a large group of designers and they use a different team for each set, but because they have a thorough playtesting process and good standards for how to do things balance from set to set is pretty consistent, and the game feels like a unified product. GW could easily do this, they'd just have to have the initial author write the first codex draft, then refine everything through proper playtesting. The concepts and fluff would all be from one author, but after a consistent playtesting and balancing process all codices would be at roughly the same power level.

rigeld2 wrote:

At a minimum, use words consistently. Remove From Play vs Remove From Play As A Casualty. Or define them if you're going to use them.
Don't ignore things for multiple editions that are literally just sloppy writing (Seriously - 6th edition vehicles still can't make invul saves) (Also - FNP vs other "unsaved wound" abilities).
Read through YMDC and the long threads - a few extra minutes spent on the rule set would've avoided 99% of them.

So you want a literalist 40k?

21st century digital world eh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

The problem isn't having multiple writers, it's that GW is incredibly lazy about creating new rules and refuses to accept that anyone plays it as anything other than a "beer and pretzels" game with lots of house rules and a focus on the GW (tm) Hobby (tm) and caring more about buying more GW (tm) Products (tm) than the actual game.

You mean they have a target demographic that you're not in? And you think this makes them bad?

If I don't like sandwiches I won't go into subway and complain about how crappy their sandwiches are.

 Testify wrote:
You mean they have a target demographic that you're not in? And you think this makes them bad?

Again, look at MTG. If you're a competitive player, you're the target demographic. Here's the pro tour, sanctioned and supported local tournaments, a complex and balanced metagame, and perfect loophole-free rules. If you're a casual "kitchen table" player, you're the target demographic. Here's special casual-only sets, and plenty of cards in every set. If you like the game but really love the fluff, you're the target demographic. Here's awesome art, novels, and frequent short stories/background articles/etc on the website. The general policy of WOTC is that everyone who could like MTG is the target demographic, and they devote a lot of effort to figuring out what each player archetype likes and giving it to them.

Compare this to GW, where all they care about is one target audience and they make very little effort to expand the game beyond it. It's lazy game design, and the sooner the company dies and gets bought by professionals the better.

 Peregrine wrote:

Again, look at MTG.

C'mon, you can't honestly compare MTG to 40k.

Casual gamers are a far larger market than "hardcore" gamers.

Games Workshop have always been about making awesome models with some rules to play battles with. I don't get the issue here.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Again, look at MTG.

C'mon, you can't honestly compare MTG to 40k.

Why not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
Casual gamers are a far larger market than "hardcore" gamers.

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.

Games Workshop have always been about making awesome models with some rules to play battles with. I don't get the issue here.

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.

 Testify wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

At a minimum, use words consistently. Remove From Play vs Remove From Play As A Casualty. Or define them if you're going to use them.
Don't ignore things for multiple editions that are literally just sloppy writing (Seriously - 6th edition vehicles still can't make invul saves) (Also - FNP vs other "unsaved wound" abilities).
Read through YMDC and the long threads - a few extra minutes spent on the rule set would've avoided 99% of them.

So you want a literalist 40k?

21st century digital world eh.

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?

You mean they have a target demographic that you're not in? And you think this makes them bad?

If I don't like sandwiches I won't go into subway and complain about how crappy their sandwiches are.

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?

Testify wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.

Use your initiative.
.

or in other words: "here's a car! but you need to build the engine yourself!" Here is the problem testift. "use your initiative". yes, i can do it. it takes 2 minutes to discuss with my opponent what's what. fine. no worries. but to be fair, is it necessary? I find if i'm doing that, im doing the job the games developer should have done in the first place. effectively, its a half finished product, and i, and other players have to self-police it, and finish their bloody job. its lazy design. the guys at PP define everything in their game down to what "voluntary" movement is, as opposed to forced movement. it makes everything clear and consistent.

rigeld2 wrote:
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.

because they place their emphasis on producing and selling models, and *the hobby*, as opposed to producing rules. hence they're a "model company first". they might not have everything at launch, but it is their intention to produce those models.

Testify wrote:
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

debateable really. i play in 2 gaming groups. in one there is far more interest in bloodbowl than 40k, and non-gw games easily make up 50% of whats played. the other has an equal split in its player base between flames of war, warmachine/hordes and malifaux. and im not just talking about bob and mike turning up. 40k used to be the only game in town, but in the last 3 years, other companies have made their own space.

Here's a huge shocker; GW doesn't give a flying rat's fart about writing a 'competitive tournament' style rules set like Privateer Press does.

GW themselves have said for years and years that their games are ment to be 'beer and preztals games between friends'.
They tried to make a comprehensive competitive rules set in 4th, and it sucked hard core. Remember how the game turned into nothing but 'Nidzilla or SW's or Flying Circus Eldar with a smattering of 3.5 CSM's? Because that was really fun.

If you want a super ballsbusting hardcore competitive rules set, then go play Warmahordes and be happy. The majority of 40k players aren't tourny players, but somehow, the vocal minority insist that their way is the right way and GW are dumb@$$es for thinking otherwise...

i wouldnt consider 4th a competitive rules set. it was like any other edition, and pushed certain things at the expense of others. its true that GeeDub want to push the beer and pretzels games between friends, but bear in mind, clear, consise and well written rules is not necessarily the same as a hardcore competitive rules set, nor will it necessarily lead to ine.

Testify wrote:
Probably because it's incredible obscure? I don't think I've ever met anyone in the UK who's heard of it.

quite a few of us have actually.its really got quite a big and dynamic (and continually growing) player base. you should get out more Like i've said, plenty gaming groups have quit 40k altogether. plenty others have other games getting a lot of table time. there is a huge world of wargaming out there beyond 2 friends at a house, and the GW store.



Honestly - why does GW produce a poor quality rules set? because they're not interested in making a better one. Its not the designers - trust me, they have a very talented team. its just the culture in Gee Dub prevents them from doing good stuff. take anyone who has left GeeDub - Andy Chambers, Alessio, those guys at Mantic. they all produced good stuff afterwards. Its just not in GWs interest to make good rules. lets say they make the perfect rules set. now there is no more need for new editions. and its as simple as that; they're more interested in changing the meta, and pushing different aspects of the game in each edition, than they are in improving it.

^^^BINGO!^^^ We have a winner! The last couple of editions have been deliberate lateral moves, not improvements. GW doesn't deny it; it's a mystery so many gamers do.

GW has flat-out said in WD Editorials that they're about you buying and collecting their products first and foremost. Rules and setting are secondary so they put less effort into them.

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

Heard of the term "perfect imbalance"? "metagame"? "lead disadvantage"? these same concept are why the "best" and "op" units/armies, are in fact often the least successful in a real competitive environment. especially in a game like 40K where the precise cost/effect of everything is open information and possible to calculate just how powerful each thing is.
Thats why even things like my stealth suits, who are deemed horrible by calculations, tend to wrech face. how often do you see something that is actually prepared for them on the other side of the field?
Thats why my broadsides, who are an incredible AT unit, tend not to do well, people KNOW they are coming, they KNOW what they do, and they KNOW they need an answer to that.
Sometimes stuff are strong because they are weak. gaming is weird like that.

True that they dont pull this off perfectly, but thats a side-effect of the need to keep age-old rulesets in the game without a real ability to update them constantly (and don't use FAQ for an answer, many would not stand for the need to check an FAQ before any freaking game to make sure their army didn't change costs/abilities/whatever. especially when some people buy a spesific model list for their armies, do you think one will be happy to discover his army that he spend lots of money on and time to build and paint is suddenly 10% or even 2% higher in points? heck no. but being left behind while new stuff comes out that makes your still as legal army not function as good? fine with me.

xxvaderxx wrote:
2- Rules that don't add up or have consistency issues.

Do share, I have personally never encountered some situation where we could not agree on what is supposed to be the rules, even if we did not think that the rule made sense.

xxvaderxx wrote:
3- Obvious lack of important rules like what actually are "small" and "large" terrain pieces.

Does it matter? as long the scale you set for "small" and "large" is identical at every single game, nothing changed. plus-considering most terrain pieces are custom-made, and not everything is nice and square but often in odd shapes-how CAN you rule it? by volume? like hell I would sit and calculate the volume of each random ruin/pillar/forest/whatever we got lying around in the FLGS (we got enough to populate 10 tables at once, at maximum density, and have spares. seriously there are at least 50 building-scale pieces and 300 that are tank-size or smaller around. plus a few that are about titan sized.)

xxvaderxx wrote:
4- Painful rules to apply while gaming like removing guys from the front when it applies to a 20+ piled in unit.

How is that painful? seems easier then opening a jar of mayo to me.
And the rule of simplification always applies-when in doubt, dice it.