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.

The question has been asked how can GW correct the 40k rule set.
The answer is simple, STOP TRYING TO MAKE EVERYTHING BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE!

Its legacy issues that are killing the clarity and brevity of the rules.
They keep using the WHFB skirmish rules for a game with far to many models to be manageable.
And keep adding layer upon layer of poorly thought out quick fixes, that create more problems than they actually fix.

Rather than randomly switching from macro to micro management, and concrete and abstract resolution ...

Why not re-write the rules for 40k , focusing on the game play for DETAILED UNIT INTERACTION!

40k IS about unit interaction.(GW even tell you this in the 40k rule book!)

So focusing the detail on individual models in a unit , then trying to addressing balance issues at the army level.
COMPLETELY misses the UNIT level out of the development process!

xruslanx wrote:
is there something wrong with that? What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

People are not stupid or irrational for liking things differently to you, you know...

can you explain to be how a rules set can only either be "fun", or "hardcore wargaming"? Furthermore, can you explain your viewpoint as to how 'tight' rules sets and 'fun' games are somehow seemingly mutually exclusive? And i have a personal question - what games do you play?

People are most certainly not stupid or irrational for liking different things. thats not we're talking about here. You can like whatever you want. you can like GW games for example. But please, be objective in your analysis and assessment of these games and dont stick your head in the sand about it. Dont be dishonest. Dont pretend GW games dont have issues - they're based on poorly thought through, ham fisted, bloated, counter intuitive, unbalanced rules and saying these exact rules (of which we have loads of examples), as they are are needed for 'fun games' is a joke (I've pointed this out to you in the past how this is not the case). Dont try and pretent folks having legitimite grievances are somehow 'hating' on GW, and that this somehow invalidates their criticism.

you are confusing two things -seem to confuse objective criticism with an irrational 'hating on GW', and seem to dismiss it as not being valid. Please dont.

there is nothing wrong with liking 'casual' games. my flames of war group is extremely casual (we bolt on a lot of the rules - especially the random activation order from bolt action - because they add to our enjoyment when we do our very laid back and enjoyable evening moving our wee ww2 tanks about a board). but bear in mind - please - your casual gaming is only helped by tight, well written, thoroughly playtested rules - despite your assertions that they are mutually exclusive.

"Casual" surely is just a mental attitude to playing a game. It doesn't derive from the rules.

Obviously people who want to play casually won't care much if a rulebook is badly written, because they will just D6 past the problems, but a well-written book doesn't stop a game from being played casually.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Casual" surely is just a mental attitude to playing a game. It doesn't derive from the rules.

Obviously people who want to play casually won't care much if a rulebook is badly written, because they will just D6 past the problems, but a well-written book doesn't stop a game from being played casually.

I'd go so far as to say that a well written book is better for casual players; that way you spend less time trying to interpret or D6 the outcome of the rules, and more time playing the game and having interesting discussion.

There's absolutely no case in which sloppy rules are better than clear rules.


I'd also agree with 40K getting a re-write that drops any sense of backwards compatibility; that'd give them much more scope to improve the game.

My group is finding more and more, that when we are looking for a casual and fun game we are skipping out on 40k almost exclusively.
Other games are Easyerr to teach and play with even new players picking them up and playing competently with little rule issues.
We are finding that warmachine is far better at scaling up to large games also simply due to less rule confusion also, 50 point to 200 points taking a reasonable game time.
It's a sad thing but now, people don't even bring 40k for pickup games. But other games take that place.

Right now with some army's I would think the game is getting close to unplayable by design. My last 2 40k games I could have not play and the games would have probably gone very similar.

Fantasy is more favourable but still I find has issues that other games just don't seem to have. And it's disheartening within the hobby that 2 games that used to get a great deal of play are dieing here

I know I'm a little different from most people, but here's my take on GW rules:

WHFB 8th edition is the first edition I've enjoyed playing since 3rd, but there are still rules issues.

Out of all the editions of WH40K, 6th edition is the only one I'm just not interested in playing.

Both of these opinions are based upon the rules for each system and how the game plays under those rules.

As such, I rated GW's rules below-average.

Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

I play 2-5 games a week and rarely have any real issue, the only time there is a problem is with ultra competitive or tourny players, but we must all put up with those kind of people haha

 Formosa wrote:
Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

As long as you understand that these problems wouldn't exist if GW rules were properly done. A well done rule set wouldn't breed rule lawyers and people looking for loopholes, as there would be none.

The problem are the rules, not the people.

 Formosa wrote:
Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

I play 2-5 games a week and rarely have any real issue, the only time there is a problem is with ultra competitive or tourny players, but we must all put up with those kind of people haha

So for you, the problem isn't that the rules have problems, its that people find about those problems and tell other people? Right...

I think considering the complexity of the rules, they are pretty good. It tends to be the players different perception of those rules that causes problems.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
I think considering the complexity of the rules, they are pretty good. It tends to be the players different perception of those rules that causes problems.

The complexity is part of the problem. More often than not, simple is better.

And again, the differing perceptions thing, or people reading a rule differently than you is a direct cause of poor, unclear rules. If there were clear and tight rules, there wouldn't be differing opinions.

I think people forget to try to look at 40k with fresh eyes. Just imagine trying to sit down and explain the game to someone who has never played a tabletop game before.

"Okay everyone Moves 6", but these guys with Jump Packs move like this, oh and this vehicle has to roll 1D6 for Dangerous Terrain, oh oh oh and!"

I can also imagine how awkward the shooting phase would be:

"So what's your Ballistic Skill? 4? Okay, well 7 minus that is 3, so you need 3+ to hit. How many shots do you have? Okay grab 12 dice then. Roll them, okay you got 5 hits. Now what's the Strength of the gun? Yeah flip to the back of the codex there. 4 again? My Toughness is 3, so let me check this chart, so 3+ to Wound. Roll those 5 leftover dice again. 2 Wounds made it through. Now I need to roll my saves, let me check that, oh wait do you have AP on that gun? Yeah just go to that back page again. Okay the AP doesn't affect my save, let me roll 2 saves. I failed one so the closest guy dies. WOW THAT WAS FUN AND EASY!"

Don't even get me started on assault, or morale ("No no, now you WANT to roll low!"), or fiddly vehicle rules.

Everyone seems to gloss over the grueling learning process involved in 40k. The overwhelming amount of useless, contradictory information that a person has to digest before they can put some models on the table and play.

 Formosa wrote:
Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

i like this. i really do. them people! its their fault! Never mind the fact that all these flaws and loopholes actually exist - thats fine! its the fact that people see them, and query them. And then even worse - in trying to find answers, they let other people know about these faults! thats terrible! they're ruining the game! yes, lets just leave all these faults, and not talk about it. lets do an ostrich, and stick our heads in the sand. that'll solve it!

What bothers me most is the intent you ascribe these folks. Its never a genuine head-scratching query. its not about seeking clarification on a grey area. its not about solving a problem. Its all about maliciously, and intentionally gutting the rules for flaws and loopholes presumably to justify tfg behaviour. please, drop it. please, drop it. as well as being hysterically inaccurate, it is also extremely insulting and small minded to say this.
the truly ironic thing is that ironclad rules sets like what is offered in warmachine/hordes (designed with competitive play as its focus), and games like Infinity simply do not offer this scope for rules abuse.

Don't feed it, boys.

If they kept the rules the same for the whole time since 40k's release we might have a slightly less loop hole ridden game. But we dont, we have a game that evolves every few years. And unless you want decades between codex's and rule books there is no way to release a full proof set of rules. Yes there are some right awfull holes as we can tell from looking at the arguments that often occur in the YMTC forum section.

Sure you can simplify the rules, but would you realy want that, Remove all the Special rules, remove dynamic game play like cover and such. to make the rules less complicated to save People having to Discuss (argue in the internets case) about rules.

Saw someone reference Chess earlier as a full proof game. Sure it has but chess has been around for close on 1500 years. And the chess we all know today has been set in stone since the first ever Championship in 1886. It has simple rules with very little dynamic play. Ie you dont get Armour saves in chess for instance

Deadnight wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

i like this. i really do. them people! its their fault! Never mind the fact that all these flaws and loopholes actually exist - thats fine! its the fact that people see them, and query them. And then even worse - in trying to find answers, they let other people know about these faults! thats terrible! they're ruining the game! yes, lets just leave all these faults, and not talk about it. lets do an ostrich, and stick our heads in the sand. that'll solve it!

What bothers me most is the intent you ascribe these folks. Its never a genuine head-scratching query. its not about seeking clarification on a grey area. its not about solving a problem. Its all about maliciously, and intentionally gutting the rules for flaws and loopholes presumably to justify tfg behaviour. please, drop it. please, drop it. as well as being hysterically inaccurate, it is also extremely insulting and small minded to say this.
the truly ironic thing is that ironclad rules sets like what is offered in warmachine/hordes (designed with competitive play as its focus), and games like Infinity simply do not offer this scope for rules abuse.

You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.

Case in point, allies of convenience idiocy that came up, this was never an issue untill someone decided to try and abuse these rules and read them in a certain way, I didn't know a single person who played them the way this rules lawyer did untill this person started to blab about it, had this person not caused this issue by deliberately trying to gain an advantage then no one would be the wiser and no issue would exist.

We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

 Formosa wrote:


You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.

Case in point, allies of convenience idiocy that came up, this was never an issue untill someone decided to try and abuse these rules and read them in a certain way, I didn't know a single person who played them the way this rules lawyer did untill this person started to blab about it, had this person not caused this issue by deliberately trying to gain an advantage then no one would be the wiser and no issue would exist.

We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

Not every loophole is discovered by malicious intent. When the rules are poorly constructed different interpretations are going to happen naturally. I've seen situations where different gaming groups in the same city where playing the same rules in different ways, and when players swapped between them it just lead to frustration. By then people have an established way of playing and don't want to change.

This is something that doesn't happen with tighter more consistent rules.

 Formosa wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Tourny players and rules lawyers (not all tourney players mind you) are what is wrong with the rules most of the time, these people pick over the rules looking for any and every flaw and loophole they can find, they then show others of this loophole or abuse and compound the problem.

i like this. i really do. them people! its their fault! Never mind the fact that all these flaws and loopholes actually exist - thats fine! its the fact that people see them, and query them. And then even worse - in trying to find answers, they let other people know about these faults! thats terrible! they're ruining the game! yes, lets just leave all these faults, and not talk about it. lets do an ostrich, and stick our heads in the sand. that'll solve it!

What bothers me most is the intent you ascribe these folks. Its never a genuine head-scratching query. its not about seeking clarification on a grey area. its not about solving a problem. Its all about maliciously, and intentionally gutting the rules for flaws and loopholes presumably to justify tfg behaviour. please, drop it. please, drop it. as well as being hysterically inaccurate, it is also extremely insulting and small minded to say this.
the truly ironic thing is that ironclad rules sets like what is offered in warmachine/hordes (designed with competitive play as its focus), and games like Infinity simply do not offer this scope for rules abuse.

You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.

Case in point, allies of convenience idiocy that came up, this was never an issue untill someone decided to try and abuse these rules and read them in a certain way, I didn't know a single person who played them the way this rules lawyer did untill this person started to blab about it, had this person not caused this issue by deliberately trying to gain an advantage then no one would be the wiser and no issue would exist.

We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

Except in an environment with a solid ruleset, there is little or no room for abuse.

As the living embodiment of the "casual gamer" I find your perspective slightly off. You are assuming that people who read a rule a certain way have done so purely to try and gain an advantage? While no doubt true, I have encountered plenty of occasions, dating all the way back to 2E, when I have played people outside of my usual circle who have, completely innocently and, I am confident in saying, with no desire to gain any sort of artificial advantage, interpreted a rule in a different way to me or my group.

Are there people who specifically look for these flaws because they feel they really must WAAC? Sure. But if those loopholes weren't there in the first place, they'd be SOL.

The fact is, in its current state, 40K is a game which can force me to make high risk decisions just in order to try and achieve parity with newer, shinier armies, and when those decisions backfire (which is too frequent in a game where probability jumps in 15% increments) the consequences are such that it is near impossible to recover. This isn't fun for either party.

I would dearly love to keep playing my Bangles as Bangles, but the fact remains, even as a casual gamer, I like to at least feel I have a chance of winning before the game starts, and if I lose, I like to analyse the game and figure out what I could do differently next time to get a better result. When I find myself on the end of a defeat and unable to realistically see a way it could have gone differently, without some exceptional luck, that is no fun for me. Frankly, the only reason I'm still playing them is because my daemons aren't ready yet. Once they are, the BA will be remodelled as C:SM, in time for daemons to likely fall behind the "chance of winning" curve, and once the Marines have, hopefully BA will be the new shiny again.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Formosa wrote:


You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.

Case in point, allies of convenience idiocy that came up, this was never an issue untill someone decided to try and abuse these rules and read them in a certain way, I didn't know a single person who played them the way this rules lawyer did untill this person started to blab about it, had this person not caused this issue by deliberately trying to gain an advantage then no one would be the wiser and no issue would exist.

We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

Not every loophole is discovered by malicious intent. When the rules are poorly constructed different interpretations are going to happen naturally. I've seen situations where different gaming groups in the same city where playing the same rules in different ways, and when players swapped between them it just lead to frustration. By then people have an established way of playing and don't want to change.

This is something that doesn't happen with tighter more consistent rules.

That is true, I play at several different local clubs and there are different interpretations, but it is the malicious rules lawyers that do cause issues aswell, this is I'm what referring to.

We all know someone like this, annoyingly it's part of the game

The rules are adequate. I can't believe anyone could seriously claim they were "Top-tier: either the absolute best, or tied with the best."

Time and time again what happens. A codex is introduced. Within a few short days tons of questions arise. Most of the time stuff GW should have caught before they published the dex.

 Formosa wrote:


That is true, I play at several different local clubs and there are different interpretations, but it is the malicious rules lawyers that do cause issues aswell, this is I'm what referring to.

We all know someone like this, annoyingly it's part of the game

Does it make a difference if the loophole was found innocently of maliciously? If I buy 3 Heldrakes because I think mechanical flying dragons are the coolest, or I buy 3 because I like making marine players cry, the end result is still a crying Marine player.

 Formosa wrote:
You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.

You seem to be under the impression that players in a casual environment don't mind having these amicable rules resolutions. A tight ruleset that leaves no room for such arse-hattery means that people of all play levels can enjoy it at the style and level they wish to play at. When I set my models on the table, I'd like to be able to go through the game without rules discussions or 'negative play experiences'. A lot of people on here describe their ideal game as one in which they can have fun, fun games can be found in tight rulesets across the globe! Am I a pariah of the casual gamer because I don't even want these amicable rules resolutions to exist in the first place?

We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

I'll give you a piece of my own 'unforseen manner' from Warmachine and Hordes
I use to run the prime version of Madrak Ironhide. Madrak has an item called Scroll of Grindar's Perseverance after any direct attack has hit Madrak, he may use this scroll to suffer no damage roll from the attack. I had been using this strategy to wait until my opponent declared he was going to use a focus or fury to boost their damage roll, and then declare my use of the scroll. It wasn't until I brought up this strategy amongst the DCMs that I was told flat out, that boosting is only allowed when the damage roll occurs. If it doesn't occur then there is no boosting. So while I was misreading it it was quickly pointed out to me that I was misreading it and there was no other correct way for it to be read due to the clarity and tightness of the rules.

Unlike in 40k where we have a 10 page discussion on whether or not 2 grav guns hits cause 2 hull points or 3 hull points against vehicles. A tight ruleset wouldn't allow for such things.

 cerbrus2 wrote:
But we dont, we have a game that evolves every few years. And unless you want decades between codex's and rule books there is no way to release a full proof set of rules. Yes there are some right awfull holes as we can tell from looking at the arguments that often occur in the YMTC forum section.

Flames of War and Warmahordes (to a lesser degree), kind of prove that you can have a game evolving every few years without being riddled with ambiguous rules.

 cerbrus2 wrote:

Sure you can simplify the rules, but would you realy want that, Remove all the Special rules, remove dynamic game play like cover and such. to make the rules less complicated to save People having to Discuss (argue in the internets case) about rules.

Its arguments like these that really make me wonder if the people that are defending GW's rules systems have actually ever played anything other than said GW systems.

GW's systems are on the bottom of the heap for dynamic game play... IGUG systems in general are pretty bad because you have very limited answers during your opponents turn. If you wan't examples of rule sets with better dynamic game play you need to check out FoF, Infinity, Malifaux and a whole bunch of others that make a much better job of it.

Also, having rules for cover isn't an example of having "dynamic play" any more than randomizing everything is an example of "cinematic gameplay"! Literally every single rules system that I've tried that places any sort of importance on ranged combat will have rules for cover and concealment, and a lot of them will go far beyond that when representing the tactical problems and options of modern ranged combat...

 cerbrus2 wrote:
I think considering the complexity of the rules, they are pretty good. It tends to be the players different perception of those rules that causes problems.

But are the rules really all that complex?

Here's an exercise for you. Take a highlighter, and start reading the main rule book. Highlight only the parts of sentences that directly pertain to a rule. Do not mark anything that is fluff, or explanation for "why" something happens, or things that are needlessly colorful language.

I think you'll discover that only a small portion of any given page is devoted to actual rules. If GW wrote their rules in a format similar to how Avalon Hill used to write for their board games, the books would be less interesting to read but significantly easier to understand, from a rules perspective.

cerbrus2 wrote:If they kept the rules the same for the whole time since 40k's release we might have a slightly less loop hole ridden game. But we dont, we have a game that evolves every few years. And unless you want decades between codex's and rule books there is no way to release a full proof set of rules. Yes there are some right awfull holes as we can tell from looking at the arguments that often occur in the YMTC forum section.

evolution implies the game is taking steps forward. In GWs case, i can't see this as being true. third ed had a huge amount of faults. Some were fixed in fourth, but fourth bred its own stable of faults and problems. fifth fixed some of them, and bred its own stable of faults and problems. See where I'm going? Each new edition GW releases, they don't move forward, they move sideways. GW are less interested in making imporvements, and far more interested in making changes.

cerbrus2 wrote:
Sure you can simplify the rules, but would you realy want that, Remove all the Special rules, remove dynamic game play like cover and such. to make the rules less complicated to save People having to Discuss (argue in the internets case) about rules.

Look at warmachine please. plenty special rules, literally oozing with character and flair, and yet it has simple, straight forward game play with no end to its depth.

you mention cover. I've seen plenty games do cover in better ways than GW. as negative modifers to hit (flames of war, early 40k, warmachine/hordes, etc), or as positive modifiers to armour (starship troopers). In GWs case they have this horrible dual nature of cover and armour where if a marine takes a cover save, his armour disappears, and if he uses his armour, his cover disappears. One would assume with common sense that a marine in cover gets to use them sum of both, rather than one of their individual parts. you call this 'dynamic'? i call it 'poor game mechanics that others have implemented better'.

Formosa wrote:
You have clearly misunderstood what I'm trying to say, these problems do indeed exist, however in a casual environment they cease to be a problem as if there is an issue we resolve it amicably, the issue comes in when these rules lawyers try there best to find these issues and abuse them to advantage, then that issue seeps down into normal gameplay.
We as players cannot give all the blame to the ruleset, when we. Try to abuse them in a unforseen manner.

which is the point. GW release a half finished rules set, and simply expect their players to deal with the mess, and pick up the pieces. you shouldnt have to. I dont get this attitude from Privateer press, or Corvus beli whether i play their games at a tournament, or casually with friends.

Again, this attitude thats its all about abusing them to advantage - thats simply not always the case.

In a casual environment, the problems dont disappear. they're still there. they're just being ignored. and whilst ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes, i'd rather not be in that situation in the first place where i have to deal with a game built upon poorly thought through loosely worded and vague game mechanics by playing ostrich, sticking my head in the sand and pretending its not there. frankly, i'd rather be dealing with a more professional product in the first place (and here's the catch - i can still play casually with these! )

Formosa wrote:
That is true, I play at several different local clubs and there are different interpretations, but it is the malicious rules lawyers that do cause issues aswell, this is I'm what referring to.
We all know someone like this, annoyingly it's part of the game

tightly written rules sets cure this though. those rules lawyers thrive on grey areas. in games like warmachine, they have no leg to stand on, as there is no room for interpretation. you either can, or you cant. honestly, its refreshing.

Flames of War kind of prove that you can have a game evolving every few years without being riddled with ambiguous rules.

Well apart from them US tank destroyer business and the early war mess with the British...

The point is that releasing rules that have issues, means you have to redo and release a new set, which, oops, has other issues, which means doing another new set, that has other issues... etc etc.

All the while players have to buy the latest generation of rules and army books to stay up to date... constant and regular cash injection.

Whether its FOW or 40k, the business model demands rules that need updating and revision, hence the loopholes...

A cynical man might say its all a very clever sales plan.

Big P wrote:

Flames of War kind of prove that you can have a game evolving every few years without being riddled with ambiguous rules.

Well apart from them US tank destroyer business and the early war mess with the British...

Both of those issues have been resolved in a timely manner and without any further cost for the players, also, both of those issues were balance issues and not any problem with rule's ambiguities.

Big P wrote:

The point is that releasing rules that have issues, means you have to redo and release a new set, which, oops, has other issues, which means doing another new set, that has other issues... etc etc.

No that called lazy rule writing with no playtesting or not caring if they do a good job.

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

is there something wrong with that? What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

People are not stupid or irrational for liking things differently to you, you know...

Nobody's saying that.

What we're saying that is a tight, well written wargame with clear rules and good balance would be fun for everyone. It would in fact be as, if not more, 'cinematic' or similar, than 40k.

A tight rule set would arguably be more fun. Everyone could bring whatever fluffly list they want, and it would be as competitive as any other list conceivable. The rules would be logical, immerse you in the universe with more accurate depictions of the weapons in the rules compared to the fluff. They would also have significantly less in the way of plain oversight on obvious rules issue or lack of clarity.

We're not telling you to give up 40k, or that you're wrong, or anything else. Most of us are simply pointing out that 40k could be a lot better. Expand your horizons, take a good objective look at the game and analyze it. Look at other rule sets.

Well by definition a "tight" ruleset won't have the looseness nessesary to create fun rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Noir wrote:

Big P wrote:

The point is that releasing rules that have issues, means you have to redo and release a new set, which, oops, has other issues, which means doing another new set, that has other issues... etc etc.

No that called lazy rule writing with no playtesting or not caring if they do a good job.

That's probably why they don't bother FAQing their codexes.

xruslanx wrote:

Noir wrote:

Big P wrote:

The point is that releasing rules that have issues, means you have to redo and release a new set, which, oops, has other issues, which means doing another new set, that has other issues... etc etc.

No that called lazy rule writing with no playtesting or not caring if they do a good job.

That's probably why they don't bother FAQing their codexes.

Let not forget the FAQ for the core rule book a week after release. But, the important part is the FAQ that create even bigger loopholes. I any failing to see it as a plus.