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.

Right first off not read all the posts so sorry if this has been covered before.

GW can do decent rules when they want to. I remember playing the old epic system without any problems and the current fantasy rules don't seem to have as many loop holes and is much more balanced than 6th edition 40k.

My major gripe is the wording of the rules, its easy to see that they suck by the amount of ways you can interpret them.

They should just get a load of people together to play test them maybe a warhammer world weekend event or something at least then you will have a good mix of people and including some TFG types lol

 doc1234 wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
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

People throw around lol alot, but this actually made me laugh really hard.

That.... I am speechless. That's really LOL worthy, in real life.

 Fafnir wrote:
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.

Depends solely on your personality. As someone who has done testing as a career, you either enjoy the challange of pushing things to the breaking point and beyond or not. Some people, like myself, love doing it, others would kill themselves if they did it. Same like I would do if I had to write software code...BOR-ING!

Skriker

rigeld2 wrote:

 pretre wrote:
GW could do a better job making a balanced, clear, concise ruleset. For one reason or another, they choose not to. 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) whereas others believe that it is intentional (intentional imbalance to sell certain units).

I agree with you there (Are we sure the world didn't end on the 21st?) - their stance on things like the Internet shows that they're just ignorant (willfully or not) about what the players would like to see improve. Which is sad overall.

This is actually not true, or at least it wasn't for the Specialist Games teams. My own experiences with them were that they were very involved with the internet gaming community, and considered feedback from them very seriously. But Jervis would also remind us regularly that the rules had to function not just for the knowledgable internet-savvy players, who had the ability to grab FAQs and such as they were released, but also for the "just picked it up at the store or dug it out of the closet" casual gamers.

I remember, at one point, there was a new rule created for Blood Bowl called "one skill per action" (OSPA), and it was universally reviled. After a loud outcry, Jervis did the right thing, held an internet chat, listened to the valid arguments against it, and revised the rule quickly.

The ruleset and balance could be so much better. And there's just no excuses having ancient codices out, something which certainly lends to the unbalance. It's not like it takes millions to write a new codex, plus when you do and release it, you make up the cost in sales anyway.

For rules specifically yeah, so many inconsistencies, gray areas, alternate interpretations and whatnot. I'll admit I'm not an experienced tabletop player. The only other game I've really played is BattleTech. But despite being slow-paced which was sometimes a pain (mainly when you had to stop mid-game and wanted to continue later, only for a "mishap" to happen in the meanwhile sending all the pieces flying, making the game uncontinuable!), I must say that I never suffered from unclear rules playing it, even with the more advanced rules (never really went past Master Rules, though).

milo wrote:

This is actually not true, or at least it wasn't for the Specialist Games teams. My own experiences with them were that they were very involved with the internet gaming community, and considered feedback from them very seriously. But Jervis would also remind us regularly that the rules had to function not just for the knowledgable internet-savvy players, who had the ability to grab FAQs and such as they were released, but also for the "just picked it up at the store or dug it out of the closet" casual gamers.

Considering how poorly and unclearly the rule rulebook is written, this is obviously not true.

 Fafnir wrote:

milo wrote:

This is actually not true, or at least it wasn't for the Specialist Games teams. My own experiences with them were that they were very involved with the internet gaming community, and considered feedback from them very seriously. But Jervis would also remind us regularly that the rules had to function not just for the knowledgable internet-savvy players, who had the ability to grab FAQs and such as they were released, but also for the "just picked it up at the store or dug it out of the closet" casual gamers.

Considering how poorly and unclearly the rule rulebook is written, this is obviously not true.

The rule rulebook, eh? What part of my assertion are you disagreeing with, GW in general or the Specialist Games team?

Ah, missed the 'specialist' part.

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.

I think it's because of one simple reason: Games Workshop doesn't have official tournaments (unless I am mistaken).
Warhammer has a different goal than games like TCG's.
Most TCG's host tournaments with prizes up to 50k, I can remember WotC giving out around 250.000 dollar in their tournaments.

But Warhammer is mostly something you play with your friends, not to win but to have fun.

 Evertras wrote:

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

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

Glorious.

Kangodo wrote:
But Warhammer is mostly something you play with your friends, not to win but to have fun.

Not always. Some of the people I know only play to hone their tournament lists in prep for the next upcoming event. That is how they enjoy the game - by the win.

Kangodo wrote:

But Warhammer is mostly something you play with your friends, not to win but to have fun.

What is this objective definition of 'fun' you seem to have?

 Fafnir wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

But Warhammer is mostly something you play with your friends, not to win but to have fun.

What is this objective definition of 'fun' you seem to have?

The part where GW doesn't really support tournaments in the way that other companies do.
So unless you play WH to settle disagreements with your girlfriend, I have to assume it's purely for fun.

But does that mean that you can't have fun on tournaments or in a competitive setting?

That's what Fafnir is pointing out: you or GW's idea of fun might be different from mine or anyone else's. "What I do for fun" is attend tournaments with my friends. Even GW acknowledges that one can have fun in a competitive setting (see 40k 5th edition rulebook, pg. 282).

Are we really going to discuss the phrase "a game for fun"?
It's an expression, indicating that the only reward you can "win" is the fun of it.

It's a general word in hobbies and sports to describe everything that isn't tournament related.

And no, I am not going to by a 5th ed rulebook because you both misunderstood me and interpreted it as if you can't have fun on a tournament

It may be "a general word in hobbies and sports to describe everything that isn't tournament related," but it's also a word that is consistently used as a term used in an attempt to invalidate the opinion of anyone who enjoys competitive play.

You may be using it in a more innocent way, but the phrase has picked up a negative connotation.

On a side note, I've always thought the description of WH40K as a "beer & pretzels" game is a bit disingenuous. On one hand it's used as an excuse to not take the game very seriously, so it's given a pass on its badly written or thought out rules. So why then are all the layers upon layers of rules minutia needed? Seems to me if you are going to invest so much time and effort into learning special rules and their interaction it would be worth a better effort at making sensible rules.

 forrestfire wrote:
It may be "a general word in hobbies and sports to describe everything that isn't tournament related," but it's also a word that is consistently used as a term used in an attempt to invalidate the opinion of anyone who enjoys competitive play.

You may be using it in a more innocent way, but the phrase has picked up a negative connotation.

I am sorry, it was not my intent and not what I ment.
In my spare time I (have) play(ed) enough of my hobbies on competitive level, it is fun to many people.

Kangodo wrote:

 forrestfire wrote:
It may be "a general word in hobbies and sports to describe everything that isn't tournament related," but it's also a word that is consistently used as a term used in an attempt to invalidate the opinion of anyone who enjoys competitive play.

You may be using it in a more innocent way, but the phrase has picked up a negative connotation.

I am sorry, it was not my intent and not what I ment.
In my spare time I (have) play(ed) enough of my hobbies on competitive level, it is fun to many people.

Well at least that clears things up. "Fun" has been used by many people, sometimes here on Dakka, claiming that those who play competitively are not having fun at all. So pardon me if there's some misunderstanding.