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:

 Testify wrote:
Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.

It IS lazy.

Assuming 5 seconds for each check, That would take about 6 working days, or 2 working days for 3 guys working flat out.

And that's without multiple rules affecting the same thing.

Oh my god - it would take a week to even do a simple check on all the rules without even play testing in a game!
You're right Testify, that's absolutely outrageous and were fools for thinking its a good idea.

 Testify wrote:
Assuming 5 seconds for each check, That would take about 6 working days, or 2 working days for 3 guys working flat out.

And that's without multiple rules affecting the same thing.

And yet WOTC manages to create a game with zero ambiguity despite even a single MTG set having more possible interactions.

Not all rules interact with each other, in fact very few special rules directly interact with each other.

Move Through Cover doesn't interact with any of the shooting special rules for example.

That leaves a lot fewer interactions than thousands, tens, or even hundreds of thousands if you just multiply based on the total number. But if there is any kind of standard to how rules are designed then the actual conflicts would be few and far between.

Complexity isn't a big issue if there is consistency in the writing and design, GW's rules are poor because they don't go for consistency because they go for 'fun' and leave it to the players to fix the issues caused by poor wording.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Assuming 5 seconds for each check, That would take about 6 working days, or 2 working days for 3 guys working flat out.

And that's without multiple rules affecting the same thing.

And yet WOTC manages to create a game with zero ambiguity despite even a single MTG set having more possible interactions.

Have you even read the newest DnD next playtests? It's been going on for an entire YEAR and still isn't anywhere near close to done due to how asinine some things they do with it is.

Not to mention MTG is a bit of a different issue, considering that if they were in charge we'd either have all new sets of codex's for everyone, or everything before 5th edition would be banned from standard play until updated. Not to mention what doesn't sell would simply be cut and never updated.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Have you even read the newest DnD next playtests? It's been going on for an entire YEAR and still isn't anywhere near close to done due to how asinine some things they do with it is.

Nope. I stopped playing D&D when I realized that I don't actually like most of the other players. If the people running the D&D side of the company are screwing things up that's sad, but I'm talking about the MTG side.

(Of course public playtests are a good thing, can you imagine GW ever doing one at all?)

Not to mention MTG is a bit of a different issue, considering that if they were in charge we'd either have all new sets of codex's for everyone, or everything before 5th edition would be banned from standard play until updated. Not to mention what doesn't sell would simply be cut and never updated.

Err, no. First of all, this has nothing to do with the point here, about GW's poor quality rules. The rules for MTG are flawless even if you hate the block rotation mechanic, and all of those old cards (which are still legal in various tournament formats) still work perfectly without any ambiguity or room for rule disputes. So whether or not you like MTG it's simply absurd to suggest that it's not possible for GW to do the same, because other companies are doing it just fine.

And besides that MTG and 40k are not the same game. They have very different goals and there's no reason to believe that WOTC would suddenly impose a rotation mechanic that accomplishes a necessary goal in MTG (and it's not "make more money") on a game like 40k that doesn't have that same goal.

 Peregrine wrote:
Nope. I stopped playing D&D when I realized that I don't actually like most of the other players. If the people running the D&D side of the company are screwing things up that's sad, but I'm talking about the MTG side.

(Of course public playtests are a good thing, can you imagine GW ever doing one at all?)

And yet you keep clamouring for GW to be bought by WotC. It's equally possible they'll treat it the same way they're treating the DnD side.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Nope. I stopped playing D&D when I realized that I don't actually like most of the other players. If the people running the D&D side of the company are screwing things up that's sad, but I'm talking about the MTG side.

(Of course public playtests are a good thing, can you imagine GW ever doing one at all?)

And yet you keep clamouring for GW to be bought by WotC. It's equally possible they'll treat it the same way they're treating the DnD side.

That's the chance you take. GW's current management is hilariously incompetent, so I'd gladly take the 50/50 gamble on getting professionals like the MTG side of the company to run GW.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.

It IS lazy. Other companies manage to develop games with no possible ambiguity in their rules, even when those games have equal or greater levels of complexity. For example, count up how many interactions there are in even a single MTG set, and then observe that it is impossible to create a situation that isn't explicitly covered by the rules.

That's because new cards sets constantly govern new rules. Hence the power creep of any Wizard$ product.

Get real. There is no way on Earth that GW or anyone can preview every single style of matchup ever, short of programming them into a computer and asking Joshua to crank up the W.O.P.R.

You really need to lighten up.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
That's because new cards sets constantly govern new rules.

And yet:

1) Every new release is perfectly clear in its rules, with no possible rule disputes.

and

2) All of the old sets are still perfectly clear in their rules, including all interactions with the newest releases.

The simple fact is that WOTC has no problem producing an incredibly complex game with tons of potential interactions without ever allowing rule disputes to occur. Arguing that it's impossible for GW to do the same with 40k, a far simpler game, is just insane.

Hence the power creep of any Wizard$ product.

If you think there's power creep in MTG you clearly don't understand the game and never played against competitive decks/players with old cards.

Get real. There is no way on Earth that GW or anyone can preview every single style of matchup ever, short of programming them into a computer and asking Joshua to crank up the W.O.P.R.

So why is it that other companies release games that are at least as complex as 40k but don't have the same rule problems or terrible balance?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.

It IS lazy. Other companies manage to develop games with no possible ambiguity in their rules, even when those games have equal or greater levels of complexity. For example, count up how many interactions there are in even a single MTG set, and then observe that it is impossible to create a situation that isn't explicitly covered by the rules.

That's because new cards sets constantly govern new rules. Hence the power creep of any Wizard$ product.

Get real. There is no way on Earth that GW or anyone can preview every single style of matchup ever, short of programming them into a computer and asking Joshua to crank up the W.O.P.R.

You really need to lighten up.

As we've acknowledged, mistakes happen. Errors can occasionally slip through. The problem is, GW is slow to fixing them (or sometimes just doesn't at all). I like GW. I love playing Warhammer 40k. I'll probably keep playing for a while. But it's not a horrific thing to ask for better follow through on such an expensive product. You act like it's a massive undertaking to just respond to feedback from players in a timely fashion. I can tell you from my own work experience that it's not. If I can get a clearer wiring diagram to 196 ships spread out over 26,000 miles of ocean before lunch on a Tuesday, GW can figure out whether necrons die in reserve and post it to the FAQ within a year.

 TrickyTaquito wrote:
Asking GW to have a "perfectly balanced" rule system is silly.

Though simpifying the debate to either perfect balance or 40k current status without middleground is even sillier.

 TrickyTaquito wrote:
Noone seems to think "GW is a model company not a rules company" is a good argument, I call them silly. GW does what they think makes them the most money. This means selling models. This turns out to be releasing a book (which means new models) every once in awhile so people can keep going OOH SHINY. This results in lots of codicies written for different rules. See point B. They could release every codex in one giant wave with new editions, but the gap in between editions would be massive, resulting in more people leaving from lack of new content and less people coming in because they see something new. That means less money, which means unhappy shareholders, which means GW isn't going to go down that road.

Congratulations on your defending of paid and actualy very expensive rules being used for marketing purposes. This is shameless and offending practice, for that price you should expect quality rules and if you say silly then I don't know how to call a guy being aware of such crap buying anything from company pulling it off. btw quality rules would sell models just as good if not better than the mess they write now but it's GW, the toy soldiers predator, the plastic shark, the ripoff tiger. They don't need puny things like quality or decency to rule the jungle that is TT market.

 Testify wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.

It IS lazy.

Assuming 5 seconds for each check, That would take about 6 working days, or 2 working days for 3 guys working flat out.

And that's without multiple rules affecting the same thing.

Yep now take it out of perfection land, it takes about a minute to look at Carnifex entry, then at Trygon entry, again at Carnifex with OMG incompetent/ deliberate cashgrab remark and would take a day maybe to fix. After they will fix the obvious in your face imbalances then the discussion about honing balance to perfection, its cost and dimnishing returns may start, until that 40k has abysmal balance and 40k writers are either lazy/ incompetent or deliberatly use rules to sell models.

Given GW doesn't address issues speedily or effectively, would a "community patch" get much traction? Dakka has a substantial 40k population so playtesting shouldn't be a problem.

Using IG as an example, this should get a better variety of units on the board:
- Vendetta +20 points.
- Rough Rider -2 points
- Ratling -2 points
- Ogryn -5 points

Then some quick clarifications such as:
- Abaddon can join squads that have any chaos mark.
- All units with missile launchers can purchase flakk missiles for 10 points.

Just some rough, off the cuff examples. GW is slow addressing flyer concerns - the community can step in with a quick fix that keeps things playable.

Wouldn't need any mechanic changes, you could just modify points generally to ensure that even if GW tries a nerf/buff cycle to sell models the community can still use all (or at least a lot more) models in their codex and not be gimped.

 Testify wrote:

Oh yeah. It's actually 320,000 possible interactions. How lazy of GW not to check every single one of them.

Indeed, its laughable to suggest they release a finished and completed product, isnt it? especially when their competitors do so as well.

 Testify wrote:

They are fixed, hence FAQs. Holding up nightsythes as an example of GW's laziness screams of beardy pedantry. If people email GW with errors/complaints, they *do* get fixed.

Except they're not.

they might be fixed, eventually. Others have given examples of rules, and interactions that GeeDub never bothered with in their FAQs. Nightscythes is one example, and asking for GeeDub to provide clear, consise interpretations of their rules is certainly not beardy pedantry.

Anyway, other companies do a far better job with regard to their FAQs. Look at Privateer Press and Corvus Beli.

 Testify wrote:

So you alone are better than every single GW writer, and every single proof-reader? Okay mate.

And yet, within days, or even hours of a major new GeeDub release, the playerbase will have already identified a host of problems that flew by all the playtesters, writers, and editors. So yeah, if we're catching things as soon as we've grabbed the codex that are obviously screwy, then it says something about the culture of GeeDub writers and proof readers when they've written, playtested and developed these things over months or years (iirc a new codex development cycle is 18months)

So yeah. apparently, he is better.

 Testify wrote:

Conversely, you want to look up how a rule works in 40k? That's fine, just check it in the glossary.

And then argue with your friends because the rule is vague and poorly worded. I saw 2 guya argue for 15 minutes over whether Dante's Axe (and its an axe on the figure) was either a "power weapon" or a "power axe". Even if it does work, its crude, and clunky and based on a monolithic example of game design, that in evolutionary terms is a dinosaur.

Again, there is how GeeDub do things and there is how other companies do things. Look at Privateer Press. Look at Corvis Beli. Simple. and elegant.

 Testify wrote:

I've never played (or before I came to dakka, even heard of) privateer press, so I can't comment.

And i'll say this to you then *and i'm saying this in a friendly, joking tone* you should come out from under your rock. Privateer Press, and their games have exploded in popularity here in the UK since they released their Mk2 rules set 2 or 3 years ago. i play in 2 gaming groups in Edinburgh - in one, its evenly split between historicals, malifaux and warmachine.hordes. No GeeDub. at all. In the other, GeeDub games make up 50% of whats played, but a huge proportion of that is bloodbowl. of the rest, warmachine/hordes is a big percentage. and its like this all over the UK and Ireland (personal home country) from my experience. Personally, i would recommend checking them, and other games (malifaux, infinity, flames of war, dropzone commander etc) out if you can. For one simple reason. To see the whole hobby. GeeDub isnt "the hobby". they're a slice of it, and there is so much more wonderful stuff out there.

I personally find when people's sole experience of wargaming comes from GeeDub games, they tend to get a naturally skewed viewpoint. to be fair, its as true of anything where your experience comes from only one point of view. But i made the jump from being a "40k player" a few years ago to being a "wargamer". And its opened my eyes in a big way. All you are doing by playing other games (as well as 40k btw, its not an either/or equation) is broadening your experience, and expanding your viewpoint. essentially, all you are doing is doing yourself a favour.

What does GeeDub mean?

GW. Games Workshop

uh ok - be easier to just write GW but ok........ On topic. just shows whats obvious/clear to some is not obvious to others..........

Deadnight wrote:

Indeed, its laughable to suggest they release a finished and completed product, isnt it? especially when their competitors do so as well.

Do you know what a development cycle is, yes? There is not an infinite amount of time to develop games, despite what "the community" think.

Deadnight wrote:

Except they're not.

Maybe there's a problem with your browser

Deadnight wrote:

they might be fixed, eventually. Others have given examples of rules, and interactions that GeeDub never bothered with in their FAQs. Nightscythes is one example, and asking for GeeDub to provide clear, consise interpretations of their rules is certainly not beardy pedantry.

Nightsythes is the biggest problem you can find with 40k. Sweet Jesus Christ you need a sense of perspective son.

Deadnight wrote:

Anyway, other companies do a far better job with regard to their FAQs. Look at Privateer Press and Corvus Beli.

Those things that no one plays but are constantly mentioned but I haven't heard of outside of dakka? Yeah I'll check that out mate.

Deadnight wrote:

And yet, within days, or even hours of a major new GeeDub release, the playerbase will have already identified a host of problems that flew by all the playtesters, writers, and editors.

Because in a single day the community will play a hundred times more games than the testers could possibly hope to. I followed these forums on the days after 6th release. I was amazed at how little problems there were, given the difficulties of 5th.

Deadnight wrote:

So yeah, if we're catching things as soon as we've grabbed the codex that are obviously screwy, then it says something about the culture of GeeDub writers and proof readers when they've written, playtested and developed these things over months or years (iirc a new codex development cycle is 18months)

How many people play GW worldwide? 10,000? 50,000? Okay let's say 50,000. Say 10,000 of these buy the game on the day of release, and play a couple of games each, so 10,000 games in total. In order for GW to have 10,000 tester games, with the finished rules, would take 10,000 times 2.5 hours = 25,000 hours, or 3,125 working days. Congrats you've just pushed back the release of 6th edition 40k by 8 years.

Deadnight wrote:

And then argue with your friends because the rule is vague and poorly worded. I saw 2 guya argue for 15 minutes over whether Dante's Axe (and its an axe on the figure) was either a "power weapon" or a "power axe". Even if it does work, its crude, and clunky and based on a monolithic example of game design, that in evolutionary terms is a dinosaur.

You saw two people who took their hobby far too seriously. And the power weapon rules are very clearly written, so whoever was arguing it was a "power weapon" was flat-out wrong.

Deadnight wrote:

yawn

okay mate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
uh ok - be easier to just write GW but ok........ On topic. just shows whats obvious/clear to some is not obvious to others..........

You mean all interpritation of language is subjective?

...

We have a winner

With all due respect to the discussion and the arguments (and "arguments") people bring up...GW stated that they are not interested in a balanced, competitive ruleset. I agree with Penegrin about WotC likely being better for GW - sure, they'll rip everyone off, but alas, that what GW keeps doing more and more eagerly anyway. On the other side, however, unlike GW, they are interested in a competitive ruleset...and I much, much prefer having such a ruleset than the terrible situation we have right now. I will gladly buy a new codex every 1-2 years compared to...well, every 10 years, given that this codex has actually seen playtesting.

GW will NEVER do any playtesting. GK codex, IG codex, Necron codex - all of these either are an entire mess of blatant overpoweredness (GK) or contain severe and really obvious balance problems (IG, Necrons). All those flaws would be found and complained about by playtesters on the very first day.

GW does not care about balance. Not at all. Get that in your head. If GK would have been balanced, how many GK players would we see now? A whole megaton less. I remembered a huge influx of GK players in our local meta after their codex, that blatantly catered to powergamers, was released. After the new Necron codex was released, we got a lot of new Necron players. New Chaos codex gets released and...1-2 new Chaos players.

GW cares about sales. Overpowered stuff sells really well. The new DA codex is on the horizon. New year, part of the starter box - I expect it to be overpowered. But alas, that's what happened, happens and will always happen. I will gladly accept any competitor taking over GW. For the better or, less likely, worse.

Playtesting the ruleset has been suggested for clarity in the rules, not the balance or competitiveness.

why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?

as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?

as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?

If you'd read what he said, this isn't about competitiveness or balance. Balance is something I admit is extraordinarily difficult to manage, especially when you have thousands of possible iterations that can conflict with each other. I helped a friend make NPCs for a Dark Heresy campaign and it became incredibly clear that balancing was going to be an idea, not a goal. What we're talking about is simple "Are the rules clear enough that players don't need to debate them?" It's not about "Do these rules work well together?" It's just simple "Does the wording of what I wrote make sense or does it need to have more information?" The fact we have an entire forum based on debating rules interpretation means that "Yes, there are some clarity issues." I'm looking at a thread right now that's debating whether Kharn can negate the force weapon ID if it had a S8 given that his Blessing of the Blood god says he can't be ID'd by a Force weapon (it doesn't specific if it's the force effect or any weapon with that prefix, regardless of strength). It just requires a quick remark from the writer of the rule to clarify if he intended for Kharn to be immune to ID from force weapons regardless of their innate S or not. It's not a balance issue. It's a clarity issue.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?

Cite one time I've talked about balance in this thread. Balance has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with poorly worded rules. Please don't distract from the topic.

as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?

Because its not what I want to do. I actually just got my dream job and its so far away from wargame design it's not funny.
And really - that's the point. I apparently am better at proof reading rules as a hobbyist than someone who is getting paid to do it.

It's like if I somehow painted better than Nuke Arts - it should be embarrassing. (Not that I do - far from it)

 Testify wrote:
Do you know what a development cycle is, yes? There is not an infinite amount of time to develop games, despite what "the community" think.

And yet somehow other companies manage to create games with ambiguity-free rules and far superior balance despite having only a finite amount of time.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
why do all the codexes have to be balanced to work? I really don't hear too many people whining about the ineffetiveness of certain units in Flames of War; or would that be because some armies excel at certain things where others do not? Do you want lots of heavy artillery for Tyranids? or CC-oriented Tau?

Yeah, because "balance" means "everyone does all of the same things" not "each army has a roughly equal chance of winning".

as a side note, if so many of you are such experts on game design and mechanics, why don't you try and work for a game company? or, better yet, design your own?

Why do you have to be an expert to point out the fact that the things that are "impossible" for GW are being done right now by other companies?

 Testify wrote:


Do you know what a development cycle is, yes? There is not an infinite amount of time to develop games, despite what "the community" think.

actually, i do. I have friends back home in Cork and Dublin who used to test for GW- back when they used external playtesting. I've got a pretty decent understanding of the thought and effort, and discipline that needs to go into the process. In fact, i know some of the names that appear, usually in the "special thanks" sections of the various rulebooks and codices. Game theory, and game design is something that i find quite interesting, if niche and obscure.

you are correct - there is not an infinity time to develop games. typcially 18 months for a codex from what i remember. I do know, however when GW release something, things are cought within days by the community that shouldnt have gone out the door in the first place. some are big, some are small, and regardless, its sloppy design.

And i'll add to this - i dont care what "the community" thinks. But i will look at what other companies can and have done. and im sorry, but if they can do it, then GW have no excuses. you mentioned 320,000 interactions of special rules. there is probably as much, if not more within warmachine/hordes, when you factor in all the spells, feats and special rules that are involved, and yet, despite this, rarely is there an issue. if there is, its fixed within days.

 Testify wrote:
Maybe there's a problem with your browser

Sigh. they have FAQs (and i never said they didnt). Eventually. And as others have said, the FAQs dont actually fix all the issues people raise and find. I've seen plenty threads along the lines of "when are GW going to update their FAQs" and "Will GW FAQ this issue next time" and "GW missed X in their FAQ". Other companies release FAQs and by comparison, they make what GW does look childish. Such a shame really.

 Testify wrote:

Nightsythes is the biggest problem you can find with 40k. Sweet Jesus Christ you need a sense of perspective son.

Without trying to be narky mate, please read my entire post, and not jump on one word? as i pointed out, the nightscythe is one example. from earlier in this thread. and please, can you drop the "son" comment my good man. I dont know if its intentional or not, but its coming across more than a bit patronising.

being honest about it, (and this really isnt the thread for it), i could write down a lot more general things to the list of "biggest problems with 40k" such as counter intuitive cover, the AP system, the 3-roll system, the "tacked-on" vehicle rules, the lack of decent "reactions" to shooting and enemy movement, emphasis on the special weapon trooper and the guy with the power fist, and the rest of the grunts basically being wound counters, excess emphasis on space marines (look! new space marines! Now with slightly different bling!), childish fluff, rules for rules sake, and a general level of bloat and excess that really is not necessay. I really could go on.

and yes, *perspective*. this is a game about toy soldiers. In ways though, whilst obvious, its also a bit dismissive of the hobby. real life and real life *stuff* is more important, obviously. I work in a lab. i produce things that get put into people. Everything i do. every assay, every reagent, every time gets written down correctly. And it has to be. I simply do not have the leeway to fudge things, or to leave room for any kind of erroneous interpretation of what im doing. THis is simply how i have to behave in a professional environment. things need to be clear and consise. Outside of work too, i have the same attitude. When i go sparring, i dont want a grey, vague, loosely worded set of rules. Or gear made to a variety of standards. for obvious reasons. thats simply asking for trouble. When im in training (cross country running, tough mudder-esque race/challenges etc), i want, and need clear, consise goals and objectives. I need to know that im doing the right things, eating the right foods, and training the right way. i need to make sure my equipment is faultless. i dont want to be running with shoes that will cause damage to my ankles for example. things that are *grey* are unhelpful at best, and downright dangerous as a worst case scenario. So yes, even though its a niche hobby, where we are painting toy soldiers (and yes, im quite happy to laugh about it too, and see the silly side), i expect it to be produced in an effective, efficient and professional manner.

But like i said, this really isnt the thread for this. this is a thread about why GW is dead set on putting out poor quality rules. Which sadly, they do.

 Testify wrote:

Those things that no one plays but are constantly mentioned but I haven't heard of outside of dakka? Yeah I'll check that out mate.

ha. funny.

and you're doing it again. Please, dont be so dismissive. With all due respect, all you're showing here is a shocking level of ignorance of the rest of the hobby (and please dont take this as a personal attack - it is not meant as such in any way). Warmachine/hordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Flames of War etc are not games "no one plays". Up here is Scotland there is a thriving warmachine/hordes community-whether its in edinburgh, glasgow, dundee, perth, st.andrews or elsewhere. and its the same down south. I've seen it literally explode in popularity back home in ireland, especially in cork and dublin. I've seen whole gaming clubs, and university game societies drop 40k entirely for warmachine. I've given the examples here in Edinburgh as well.

With all due respect, (and im not trying to be patronising) but you really need to get out from where you game and check out some other gaming clubs. there is more out there than just GW games. 4, or maybe 5 years ago? No, not really. But now? Yes, im afraid there are other visible, viable games with large, and growing playerbases.

Malifaux (and thats a game i personally am not interested in) - a skirmish game - has gathered a huge following. I've drummed up a lot of interest here around edinburgh with Infinity. its the same with Warmachine/Hordes. In ways, Warmachine/Hordes is now the *other game* in this hobby. its the big *alternative*.

 Testify wrote:

Because in a single day the community will play a hundred times more games than the testers could possibly hope to. I followed these forums on the days after 6th release. I was amazed at how little problems there were, given the difficulties of 5th.

So then why dont GW playtest? Privateer Press did a worldwide beta playtest for warmachine/hordes Mk2. If individual players can read the rulebook, and find faults on their first read, then its not a finished product, despite the books actual polish and physical quality.

 Testify wrote:


How many people play GW worldwide? 10,000? 50,000? Okay let's say 50,000. Say 10,000 of these buy the game on the day of release, and play a couple of games each, so 10,000 games in total. In order for GW to have 10,000 tester games, with the finished rules, would take 10,000 times 2.5 hours = 25,000 hours, or 3,125 working days. Congrats you've just pushed back the release of 6th edition 40k by 8 years.

Would that be a bad thing, if they waited in order to give a clear, consise, well written rules set with no ambiguities? I'd wait.

And look- its not just game time. Think about it. New rulebook. Whats the first thing you do? you grab your codex and read through them both and the same time, to gauge and examine the changes and differences. And yet, even at this *reading the rulebook with my codex beside me* phase, people are catching ambiguities and things that are unclear, vague and poorly worded. What does that say of GW's writing and development culture? (And the sad thing is, GW have great writers. Andy Chambers' now defunct Starship Troopers game had one of the most fantastic set of game mechanics i've come across in my time, for example). THe rumours at the time was what because ST was originally meant to be 4th ed 40k. And GW voting it down was part of the reason he moved on. Apparently. I dont know the truth of it. Regardless, GW has the talent but they simply choose not to use it.

And also, as a sidenote, i will point out Privateer Press did just that amount of playtesting for warmachine/hordes Mk2. and they did it in a couple of months for each game. and then gave the finalised rules out for free, a month or two before the actual rulebooks hit the shelves.

 Testify wrote:

You saw two people who took their hobby far too seriously. And the power weapon rules are very clearly written, so whoever was arguing it was a "power weapon" was flat-out wrong.

Indeed. i was setting up with my mate for a game of warmachine, and we both found the whole thing quite amusing when we wateched two guys in their 40s/50s arguing as to whether the axe was an axe. "It is!" "It isnt!" quite funny. but sad at the same time. thing is - that kind of argument never happens in warmachine/hordes. clear, consise rules with no ambiguity. an axe is an axe. a sword is a sword. you either can do something, or you cant. it works this way. and thats that.

but i will say this - the two lads asked us over for a neutral arbitration on their argument (and my mate had never played 40k - he got into gaming through Flames of War). We agreed. we read the 40k rulebook, and BA codex and from when RAW (ie rules as written) was followed, Dante had a power weapon, not a power axe, as his was a power weapon with a special rule (it was master crafted). the wording in the rulebook was quite awkward on the point, especially where elsewhere you were suggested to take it based on what the weapon looked like. To be honest, myself and my mate had an even bigger laugh at how poorly thought through the whole thing was. It really was a mess.

 Testify wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

yawn

okay mate.

putting words in my mouth again? Nice one.+1.

@Deadknight - It's useless to try to rationalize with someone who is not using rationality in the first place. Believe me, I've tried.

Also, Merry Christmas.

All weapons should cost the same across the board as well. So a heavy weapon marine pays the same for his heavy weapon whether he is a space puppy, dark angel or imperial fist.

Welcome to the world of trying to write balanced rules.

A good weapon is far more valuable in a unit that is a pain to kill than on an Imperial guardsman. It is a darn sight more valuable on a unit that can move and shoot than a static unit.

Having all weapons cost the same across the board with no regard to the unit, or even army, is going to be as unbalanced as you think the current rules are.

When one stares at a particular piece of work... Model, codex, ruleset, porpoise photo... One begins to see things that are supposed to be there, but aren't... And things that are not supposed to be there, but are...
That's why there are editors, print-setters, and audiences... As a member of the audience, I take great pride in my ability to notice that in The Dark Knight Rises, when Bruce is talking with Lucius, while the camera points at Bruce, his hand is on his cane... But when the camera points at Lucius, the cane top is bare... Does this make the movie less enjoyable? No, Sir, it most certainly does not...
I also find it funny when there are words in the print, that have been so horribly spelled, that they spell a different word... Just spelling something wrong is not funny.

Yes, there are errors. Yes, they release errata. Yes, there are Mary/Gary Sue... Does this make the game less enjoyable... No, Sir, it most certainly does not...

To say you dont like it, is one thing (i dont) to say you never heard of it, is just GW coin ringing in your pocket.

puree wrote:

All weapons should cost the same across the board as well. So a heavy weapon marine pays the same for his heavy weapon whether he is a space puppy, dark angel or imperial fist.

Welcome to the world of trying to write balanced rules.

An good weapon is far more valuable in a unit that is a pain to kill than an Imperial guardsman. It is a darn sight more valuable on a unit that can move and shoot than a static unit.

Having all weapons cost the same across the board with no regard to the unit, or even army, is going to be as unbalanced as you think the current rules are.

Exactly, that's why IG get Power weapons for 10 points (Used to be 5) and Marines get them for 15

And @Deadnight, here in Perth Warmahordes has surpassed 40K (alot of 40K players playing warmahordes but not all of them play 40K)in popularity but the gaming groups have kinda fractured recently making it harder to completely confirm it