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.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:
Silly question, but isn't this very reason why things like the INAT FAQ were created?

I seem to recall the INAT FAQs created as many problems as they solved.

The rules themselves have zero effect on the balance between codexes.

Patently wrong. If I change a rule in the rule book - say jink saves, or hull points, or assault rules then I will have had a noticeable affect on balance between codices. Just look at the point made about Eldar, they went from uber mass unkillable skimmers to not, and it was the rules in the BRB that was largely responsible for that.

I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do)

Hardly. I expect GW are well aware that different people want different things. It is probably more a case of posters here thinking that the rules should be written for them because they think everyone should play as they do.

It really never sinks in that there are other people who might disagree with the way they do it.

I doubt it, they are producing the product they want to produce. They are probably more than well aware that there are people on sites like Dakka who disgree with what they do.

There was one balancing factor, to be fair, and that was the maps that may favor one race over another, and those did change over time by the community and the tournaments that used them.

That is a factor in a lot of games of this nature. Play ASL on some random map with a random matchup and one side or another is likely to be favored, play FOG or DBA with certain terrain and one side or another will favored depending on who has the better troops for that terrain. Play Federation Commander and map size or terrain affect who has the advantage.

Play 40k with different scenarios and terrain, and amries won't handle them all evenly, some they will be advantages in, others at a disadvantage.

I imagine video games with controlled variables are a lot different than tabletop games.

Some video games maybe, not all. But even so why does that affect the comparison, it is just showing another way of handling the game to try and maintain some semblance of balance. If you want better balance in 40k then maybe it is those sorts of solutions you are actually needing. Set army lists are one way of making it easier to achieve. Or set terrain layouts etc.

Either way, we don't really need to talk about Starcraft, since it isn't a tabletop wargame.

How does that make it different? It is a 'wargame' with multiple sides fighting over multiple 'boards'. How far to go balancing games is an issue faced by all games designers, be they computer or table top or board. There isn't much difference in practise on a conceptual level between something like Starcraft and 40k when it comes to getting balance. 40k is just vastly harder due to the sheer number of armies. Harder again with random maps and victory conditions.

Terrans, for example, under performed the other races since 2008 with a less than 50% win rate.

Not according to that graph. But what do you consider balanced then? Most of the time each side was within a few % of 50. That is pretty darn close, and starcraft is considered fairly well balanced by most who play it. However even there (according to the graphs) the individual matchups show imbalances. Yet this is a game that has just 3 sides and far less variability than 40k. For most of that period Proboss > Terran, Terran > Zerf, Zerg > Proboss.

I totally agree that no game is 100% balanced, but getting close to it with asymmetric abilities isn't impossible.

what do you consider close. The overall win rate within a few % of 50? and does it matter that specific matchups may be clearly skewed?

a standard rulebook like 40k's (or most other games), and a SFB-style phone-book-sized set of precisely written tournament rules. However, most people use the standard rulebook which is good enough to cover most situations and probably never even read the tournament rules. The tournament rules exist just so that every single obscure interaction has an explicit answer, so that when there is a dispute over the rules (especially in a tournament with thousands of dollars in cash prizes at stake) all the players/judges have to do is consult the tournament rules and find the answer.

In the case of SFB the tourney rules are actually a cut down set of rules, leaving out whole portions of the standard rules (e.g. electronic warfare as I remember). At least that in part, is to make it easier to balance, the SFB tourney also has small number of special ships (aka units) that have been especially designed for tourney balance. You can't just turn up with any of the normal ships. The tourney players of that game recognised that close balance was not something they were going to get from the standard game and hence produced what is almost a seperate game for the purpose of tourney style balance.

Nobody expects literal 100% balance where there isn't even the slightest advantage to any army/unit/etc.

Reading posters above about the starcraft being out by a few % and therefore not balanced, I'm not so sure about that.

I would like to say too things, the first is that the discussion on balance should probably be moved to a different thread, as it is derailing the OP (who intended to discuss the quality of the written rules). I do have things to say on the topic of balance, but will not do so here.

Balance is his number 1 point actually
"1- Balance issues all over the place. Done on porpoise to boost sales mostly i know. "

puree wrote:

The rules themselves have zero effect on the balance between codexes.

Patently wrong. If I change a rule in the rule book - say jink saves, or hull points, or assault rules then I will have had a noticeable affect on balance between codices. Just look at the point made about Eldar, they went from uber mass unkillable skimmers to not, and it was the rules in the BRB that was largely responsible for that.

Way to take my point out of context. In context I'm referring to the ambiguity of the rules. If you clarify rules, balance won't change.

I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do)

Hardly. I expect GW are well aware that different people want different things. It is probably more a case of posters here thinking that the rules should be written for them because they think everyone should play as they do.

No, you're under the mistaken impression that clearly written rules would not benefit a casual player whatsoever.

rigeld2 wrote:

puree wrote:

The rules themselves have zero effect on the balance between codexes.

Patently wrong. If I change a rule in the rule book - say jink saves, or hull points, or assault rules then I will have had a noticeable affect on balance between codices. Just look at the point made about Eldar, they went from uber mass unkillable skimmers to not, and it was the rules in the BRB that was largely responsible for that.

Way to take my point out of context. In context I'm referring to the ambiguity of the rules. If you clarify rules, balance won't change.

Yes, better 'clarified' rules may help (or it may not, the writers may well know what the rules mean). But in a thread about 'poor quality rules', where the first point made by the OP is balance, then I'm assuming the context of anyone saying the rules are flawed/poor quality or words to the affect includes rules that affect balance as well. The rules clearly affect balance between codices.

Ceratinly I don't dispute that 'clearer' rules would be nice.

I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do)

Hardly. I expect GW are well aware that different people want different things. It is probably more a case of posters here thinking that the rules should be written for them because they think everyone should play as they do.

No, you're under the mistaken impression that clearly written rules would not benefit a casual player whatsoever.

I'm saying nothing of the kind. I'm saying that there are a lot of players who probably do not all have the same idea of the what they want. Claiming that GW are ignorant of what the players want and they think all want to play the same game that GW produce is just wrong. Not producing what someone wants is not the same as being ignorant of what the others want. Producing the game they want to play is a perfectly reasonable approach, and doesn't mean you think everyone wants that.

puree wrote:

I believe that this is due to a misunderstanding between them and the player base (ignorance of what the players want and thinking everyone plays the same game they do)

Hardly. I expect GW are well aware that different people want different things. It is probably more a case of posters here thinking that the rules should be written for them because they think everyone should play as they do.

Care to elaborate? Not sure what you mean but clear and balanced ruleset benefits everyone bar tfgs maybe whoever they are.

puree wrote:

There was one balancing factor, to be fair, and that was the maps that may favor one race over another, and those did change over time by the community and the tournaments that used them.

That is a factor in a lot of games of this nature. Play ASL on some random map with a random matchup and one side or another is likely to be favored, play FOG or DBA with certain terrain and one side or another will favored depending on who has the better troops for that terrain. Play Federation Commander and map size or terrain affect who has the advantage.

Play 40k with different scenarios and terrain, and amries won't handle them all evenly, some they will be advantages in, others at a disadvantage.

Yep despite the fact that I consider balance in 40k close to abysmal with how you have to avoid units, it is still better that many people think - example is Tyranids who gain a lot of power if you follow BRB rules about terrain (that was in 5th for me, I haven't play enouth games in 6th to be certain but I guess that is still the case, d3 pieces for 2'x2' is a lot). Actualy when we went overboard with terrain, I was unbeatable for some time with lists that most people would laugh at here.

puree wrote:

I totally agree that no game is 100% balanced, but getting close to it with asymmetric abilities isn't impossible.

what do you consider close. The overall win rate within a few % of 50? and does it matter that specific matchups may be clearly skewed?

Not a question for me though I'd like to answer. It's not about balanced matchups as there should be better and worse lists etc. It's just about internal and external balance for units, no clearly abusable combos (either do not create them or faq them out), anti spam rule maybe (like 2nd unit of the same type is 10% more expensive) so assuming 2 properly built lists (without glaring errors) the skewed matchup is unlikely to happen. You can't avoid that ofc in a game with multiple different armies but you can do better than GW now.

puree wrote:
Yes, better 'clarified' rules may help (or it may not, the writers may well know what the rules mean). But in a thread about 'poor quality rules', where the first point made by the OP is balance, then I'm assuming the context of anyone saying the rules are flawed/poor quality or words to the affect includes rules that affect balance as well. The rules clearly affect balance between codices.

Ceratinly I don't dispute that 'clearer' rules would be nice.

Instead of assuming, reading the thread would be good. That would get you the required context.
And the writers knowing what they mean is meaningless. In fact, it exacerbates the problem. The writers mean one thing, but write another. Then when it comes down to codex time, they re-read the rules involved and possibly come to a different interpretation.

I'm saying nothing of the kind. I'm saying that there are a lot of players who probably do not all have the same idea of the what they want. Claiming that GW are ignorant of what the players want and they think all want to play the same game that GW produce is just wrong. Not producing what someone wants is not the same as being ignorant of what the others want. Producing the game they want to play is a perfectly reasonable approach, and doesn't mean you think everyone wants that.

Producing the game they want to play is fine. Writing ambiguous, shoddy rules for the game they want to play is being ignorant about the fact that their rules are ambiguous. If they don't know that, it's because they're purposely not investigating.

Instead of assuming, reading the thread would be good. That would get you the required context.

Odd, for someone who is saying I was assuming to much you are very quick to assume too much as well.

I did read the enitre thread, indeed only a few posts before yours I was respondong to other peoples post about balance. Balance has been a significant part of the context of the thread since the OP noted is as the very first point.

The writers mean one thing, but write another. Then when it comes down to codex time, they re-read the rules involved and possibly come to a different interpretation.

Do They?

puree wrote:

Instead of assuming, reading the thread would be good. That would get you the required context.

Odd, for someone who is saying I was assuming to much you are very quick to assume too much as well.

I did read the enitre thread, indeed only a few posts before yours I was respondong to other peoples post about balance. Balance has been a significant part of the context of the thread since the OP noted is as the very first point.

If you had read my post in context, you would not have assumed incorrectly as you did.

The writers mean one thing, but write another. Then when it comes down to codex time, they re-read the rules involved and possibly come to a different interpretation.

Do They?

Do they what? Write one thing and mean another? Demonstrably yes. Look at all the FAQs that clarify things.

rigeld2 wrote:

puree wrote:

Instead of assuming, reading the thread would be good. That would get you the required context.

Odd, for someone who is saying I was assuming to much you are very quick to assume too much as well.

I did read the enitre thread, indeed only a few posts before yours I was respondong to other peoples post about balance. Balance has been a significant part of the context of the thread since the OP noted is as the very first point.

If you had read my post in context, you would not have assumed incorrectly as you did.

The writers mean one thing, but write another. Then when it comes down to codex time, they re-read the rules involved and possibly come to a different interpretation.

Do They?

Do they what? Write one thing and mean another? Demonstrably yes. Look at all the FAQs that clarify things.

I miss 5th Ed where they would release an FAQ that needed an FAQ or would FAQ unambiguous rules to make them ambiguous.

I've been playing 40k sense 3rd and never had an issue with anything rules wise (except the time my buddy discovered 3.5 Iron Warriors...which was nipped quick). Granted I've never done anything but play the rules at face value. Funny how major balance issues don't show up when you don't worry about you to break the game.

On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.

Except we've already named companies that produce games that can't be broken like that.

RIfts was the best example of a horribly written ruleset, the character creation steps were out of order so you had to house rule just to start.

Horribly written rules can be worked around in a setting with a single arbiter, but in a game where two people who have never met might want to play a game the rules should be clear so they can enjoy playing instead of bickering over rules.

I don't think the ruleset in its self is particularly broken. there are a few things that got overlooked that were FAQ'd quite quickly, like challenges and how initiative affecting wargear works in assaults (like whip coils) but on the whole the rules work exactly as i would expect.

The problem is that most (all??) armies have a unit or piece of wargear that breaks the rules, and then that is compounded by the fact that the rule they were intending to break was from a previous edition of the game and that particular rule has changed.

If GW didn't insist on making so many special rules that break all the rules then there would be far less rule conflicts

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I've been playing 40k sense 3rd and never had an issue with anything rules wise (except the time my buddy discovered 3.5 Iron Warriors...which was nipped quick). Granted I've never done anything but play the rules at face value. Funny how major balance issues don't show up when you don't worry about you to break the game.

So obviously you don't play with/against Night Scythes, don't use Feel No Pain when hit with other "unsaved wound" abilities, or any of the other myriad of rules that simply fail to function "at face value".
Or Abbadon's joining marked squads.

If you mean you house rule what you think is intended then sure - that works. The problem is that its required to make the 40k rules work.
I'm paying for a rules set. Not for a bunch of words that help me make rigeld2-hammer.

On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.

D&D is deliberately loose, Rifts is known for horrible rules writing, 40k and WHFB are what's being discussed here... So yeah.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.

rigeld2 wrote:
D&D is deliberately loose, Rifts is known for horrible rules writing, 40k and WHFB are what's being discussed here... So yeah.

The other issue with those other systems is that they have an arbitrator, a GM or DM that is going to make that final call on those broken rules. This is not the case with 40k as neither player can claim to be the GM over the other.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.

Except we've already named companies that produce games that can't be broken like that.

Get real. Given enough time, any game system can be broken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

madtankbloke wrote:
I don't think the ruleset in its self is particularly broken. there are a few things that got overlooked that were FAQ'd quite quickly, like challenges and how initiative affecting wargear works in assaults (like whip coils) but on the whole the rules work exactly as i would expect.

The problem is that most (all??) armies have a unit or piece of wargear that breaks the rules, and then that is compounded by the fact that the rule they were intending to break was from a previous edition of the game and that particular rule has changed.

If GW didn't insist on making so many special rules that break all the rules then there would be far less rule conflicts

Then Necron players would have no reason to exist...

Listen, if it weren't for all the rules, there would be no point to the game. All the armies would either be identical stats-wise or in their composition.

Quit complaining. This is not a job. If a game stresses you out this much, find a hobby!

rigeld2 wrote:

So obviously you don't play with/against Night Scythes, don't use Feel No Pain when hit with other "unsaved wound" abilities, or any of the other myriad of rules that simply fail to function "at face value".
Or Abbadon's joining marked squads.

Well that is entirely possible, they only occur under certain circumstances, there are still some armies I've never played with or against.

If you mean you house rule what you think is intended then sure - that works. The problem is that its required to make the 40k rules work.

House implies that there was a disagreement and that some compromise was produced. Many people probably only play with a very small number of regular opponents/friends who don't read rules in different ways, and just play by the rules as they read them, which is exactly how they'd be playing any other rule set.

Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.

Except we've already named companies that produce games that can't be broken like that.

Get real. Given enough time, any game system can be broken.

Perhaps. But the real point is that it takes some considerable effort to break it, and in many cases, not nearly as badly as 40k is.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

madtankbloke wrote:
I don't think the ruleset in its self is particularly broken. there are a few things that got overlooked that were FAQ'd quite quickly, like challenges and how initiative affecting wargear works in assaults (like whip coils) but on the whole the rules work exactly as i would expect.

The problem is that most (all??) armies have a unit or piece of wargear that breaks the rules, and then that is compounded by the fact that the rule they were intending to break was from a previous edition of the game and that particular rule has changed.

If GW didn't insist on making so many special rules that break all the rules then there would be far less rule conflicts

Then Necron players would have no reason to exist...

Listen, if it weren't for all the rules, there would be no point to the game. All the armies would either be identical stats-wise or in their composition.

The problem is not an abundance of rules, it's that they're poorly written. GW rules are rife with contradictions and specific exceptions that are poorly worded to begin with. Look at something like the Warmahorde rulebooks. Everything is written in a way to get rid of as much contradiction as possible, and is very precise in its wording. I feel that some of Warmahordes' rules are convoluted and needlessly complex (I can say the same thing about 40k, although moreso, and more nonsensically), but there's no denying that it's a very well written ruleset. GW is a giant compared to companies like Privateer Press, they should have the resources to do this right.

Quit complaining. This is not a job. If a game stresses you out this much, find a hobby!

It's only natural for one to express concern for their hobby when they see it moving in a direction that they don't like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puree wrote:

Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.

And that rule is a complete cop-out for bad quality control and writing. If GW wrote a decent ruleset, "The Most Important Rule" wouldn't need to be in the book to begin with. It would reveal itself organically through gameplay. "Narrative" and "cinematics" fall in the same boat.

 Fafnir wrote:

puree wrote:

Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.

And that rule is a complete cop-out for bad quality control and writing. If GW wrote a decent ruleset, "The Most Important Rule" wouldn't need to be in the book to begin with. It would reveal itself organically through gameplay. "Narrative" and "cinematics" fall in the same boat.

This. If you ever have to fall back on TMIR then the game designers have failed. The more its required, the more they've failed. Go check out YMDC for threads that would simply cease to exist if the writing was even a little more consistent/clear.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

puree wrote:

Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.

And that rule is a complete cop-out for bad quality control and writing. If GW wrote a decent ruleset, "The Most Important Rule" wouldn't need to be in the book to begin with. It would reveal itself organically through gameplay. "Narrative" and "cinematics" fall in the same boat.

This. If you ever have to fall back on TMIR then the game designers have failed. The more its required, the more they've failed. Go check out YMDC for threads that would simply cease to exist if the writing was even a little more consistent/clear.

Excellent points. As it stands, the number of posts/topics of YMDC outnumber those of Tactics. That is pretty sad, really.

 amanita wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

puree wrote:

Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.

And that rule is a complete cop-out for bad quality control and writing. If GW wrote a decent ruleset, "The Most Important Rule" wouldn't need to be in the book to begin with. It would reveal itself organically through gameplay. "Narrative" and "cinematics" fall in the same boat.

This. If you ever have to fall back on TMIR then the game designers have failed. The more its required, the more they've failed. Go check out YMDC for threads that would simply cease to exist if the writing was even a little more consistent/clear.

Excellent points. As it stands, the number of posts/topics of YMDC outnumber those of Tactics. That is pretty sad, really.

two reasons for that:

1. too many posters on YMDC don't want to read the rules, so they post rules questions that can be answered by page numbers.
2. too many posters expect army lists to fall out of the sky like manna from heaven, tactics schmactics. that's too hard.

playing a game like this requires more effort than just buying the parts and showing up.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 amanita wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

puree wrote:

Coming up with an interpretation (house rule) for something that you don't agree on is actually part of the rules. It is listed as the most important rule.

And that rule is a complete cop-out for bad quality control and writing. If GW wrote a decent ruleset, "The Most Important Rule" wouldn't need to be in the book to begin with. It would reveal itself organically through gameplay. "Narrative" and "cinematics" fall in the same boat.

This. If you ever have to fall back on TMIR then the game designers have failed. The more its required, the more they've failed. Go check out YMDC for threads that would simply cease to exist if the writing was even a little more consistent/clear.

Excellent points. As it stands, the number of posts/topics of YMDC outnumber those of Tactics. That is pretty sad, really.

two reasons for that:

1. too many posters on YMDC don't want to read the rules, so they post rules questions that can be answered by page numbers.
2. too many posters expect army lists to fall out of the sky like manna from heaven, tactics schmactics. that's too hard.

playing a game like this requires more effort than just buying the parts and showing up.

Aye your right there, too many people over there asking silly questions they could just look up
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/recentTopics/showTopicsByUser/30265.page?f=15

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
On balance issues and tight rules...they simply don't exist in the gaming world. I've consistently broke every rule set I've come across. From D&D, Rifts and Exalted to 40k and WHFB. Trick is to not make use of any of that knowledge.

Except we've already named companies that produce games that can't be broken like that.

Get real. Given enough time, any game system can be broken.

So the quality of it doesn't matter? All are the same then? No need to ever get better? Get real.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Quit complaining. This is not a job. If a game stresses you out this much, find a hobby!

In response to the posted question, Why is GW dead set on putting out poor rule sets.
IMO.
They are really dead set on putting out rules with little to no game testing!!!
Had they done enough game testing they would have had a far better rules set to start with. When working through a new rules set, one must keep going back to the rules to find answers. If the answers are not in the rules then the rules are broken. By reading through the rules as you go one can quickly find the holes in them. At this point, having found the holes they should be plugged!

I have been looking for how Rapid Fire weapons work now with 6th edition. All other weapons have a notation as to how they work if the model moved. I am not finding that for Rapid Fire weapons... Or perhaps I have not stubbled across that yet. I am sure that if this is covered in the rules... it is not where it should be in the rules set. Now granted I have the small rules book so maybe missing something.

Anyway, this is their 6th offering and the fact that FAQ was so vast so quickly say much.

 Testify wrote:
Yeah, no. I stand by my statement. Rulesets are insanely complicated, I think people who complain about 40k being flawed or badly written have a poor understanding of systems. Ironic considering they tend to label themselves as "hardcore" gamers.

Wow...talk about ignorance. People who complain about 40k being flawed or badly written don't understand systems? That is pure and utter BS. I have worked in quality assurance and testing and systems analysis over the last 20 years. Difficult and complicated systems are tested and verified and improved in every other industry in the world every day, but it is beyond the abiliites of someone to test a complicated gaming rule system? Hardly. The testing could be done with the proper effort. GW just doesn't want to. Heck GW doesn't even want to listen to its player base to discover and fix issues in a new ruleset or codex after release either. Any complicated system can be documented thoroughly and tested. It can be tested to make sure it does what it is intended to do, but even more importantly to make sure it *doesn't* do what it isn't intended to do.

At the simplest level GW doesn't even learn from its past mistakes. They make the same errors of vagueness and lack of detail every time they come out with a new edition of the rules. That is just lazy. I don't expect GW will ever change, but that doesn't mean I can't *hope* that they could and would change.

Skriker

Hell the game testing is the fun part of the job. Anyone can slap together a bunch of rules, but until you play a bunch of games and review the rules set, it most likely will be broken.

I much preferred the 5th addition rules and some tweaking and corrections would have been much more welcome than another set of rules that were not reviewed and corrected. In our very first game of we had to look stuff up, like moving when firing Rapid Fire weapons. Could not find it and it was NOT where it should have been. I think mistakes like that would be caught in the first play.

The sad part is I think they just don't care and know that there are more than enough people to blindly buy their stuff and they make a sweet profit. Who knows how many left the hobby, or at least GW, for their business practices.

I think my son and I will continue playing with their great model and make our own house rules from their base rules set of 5th addition. It is bad enough hte models are so expensive but to pay top dollar for a broken rules set, that is just to much.

 Tara wrote:
Hell the game testing is the fun part of the job.

Good god no. If you're going to do it properly, you have to push every single thing you possibly can to the point of breaking, push it further, and then see what happens and figure out how to fix it. Playtesting--proper playtesting--can be a hellish process.

I think my son and I will continue playing with their great model and make our own house rules from their base rules set of 5th addition. It is bad enough hte models are so expensive but to pay top dollar for a broken rules set, that is just to much.

You could always try other systems and other model companies as well.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Tara wrote:
Hell the game testing is the fun part of the job.

Good god no. If you're going to do it properly, you have to push every single thing you possibly can to the point of breaking, push it further, and then see what happens and figure out how to fix it. Playtesting--proper playtesting--can be a hellish process.

Some of us do find that to be fun

Hellish perhaps to those that don't care about what they produce.

You paly a game work through the rules when questions come up, make note of missing or unclear rules. correct, continue.

Yeah if you are trying to break everything it could start to get rough but really, the initial writing must have been flawed. We have house ruled many things that were not clear, noted them on the appropriate page and used that from then on.

It is more a matter of work ethics, getting it right the first time. GW continues to produce..... 6 editions now, and repeat the same mistakes everytime. As I have already noted I liked 5th edition best to date, let us say that most people did. Why not just improve on that rather than revisit most every aspect of the game and leave stuff out and unclear..... AGAIN!

I have writen game rules and yes, they are not as complex as 40K, but we have played for several years now with NO rule changes but merely clarifications. I worked tirelessly reviewing rules vs. charts vs. reference material.... and enjoyed it. Most clarifications simply due to English being a second language to some players.

I believe if they played the game and reviewed their rules, NOT from memory but from writen rules, a very high percentage of questions would be answered before publication. Anything less is just not giving a damn.

 Tara wrote:
Hellish perhaps to those that don't care about what they produce.

Nope, even when you do care, it's hellish. But you do it anyway, precisely because you do care.

You paly a game work through the rules when questions come up, make note of missing or unclear rules. correct, continue.

Yeah if you are trying to break everything it could start to get rough but really, the initial writing must have been flawed.

But you can't tell what flaws are there until you do push it to the breaking point, in as many ways as possible. A lot of things can look to be near perfect, but it only takes one fatal error to totally break a game, so you need to do your best to find as many as possible, and rectify them, no matter how polished it looks already.