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.

xruslanx wrote:
Well by definition a "tight" ruleset won't have the looseness necessary to create fun rules.

I... But... What?

Did you read what you just typed?

"Tight" doesn't mean forbidding custom scenarios and house rules. "Tight" means when I look at a rule, I can clearly tell exactly what it means. There is no abusable grey area, no shady wording, no questions at all.

If anything, a "tight" ruleset would be EASIER to create fun rules for, because its much easier to tell how rules interact and keep house rules or scenarios balanced with the "official rules".

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

Again, no. MTG has absolutely no ambiguity in its rules, and has a thriving "casual" community, lots of "fluffy" cards and mechanics, etc. How "tight" a ruleset is has absolutely nothing to do with how much fun it is.

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

Sorry, but GW gets no credit for this. They FAQ half the issues, after everyone complains about it enough that they can't refuse an FAQ without giving up even the flimsy pretense of writing quality rules. Meanwhile YMDC is still full of threads arguing about how the rules work.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

"Tight" doesn't mean forbidding custom scenarios and house rules. "Tight" means when I look at a rule, I can clearly tell exactly what it means. There is no abusable grey area, no shady wording, no questions at all.

If anything, a "tight" ruleset would be EASIER to create fun rules for, because its much easier to tell how rules interact and keep house rules or scenarios balanced with the "official rules".

I can't envisage anything written without any "gray area, shady wording or questions at all" that was also fun and fluffy. A game as large and complex as 40k is bound to create rule frictions, the only way you could eliminate these would be by crushing all fun things out of the game completely.

There are tonnes of stuff that wouldn't fit within a "tight" ruleset:

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

I get what you're saying, I just don't see why you want to actively make 40k more boring. I don't go around telling other games that they need to be more fun

I voted Below average

Once the rules are worked out it does make games fun, but it is nothing more than a beer and pretzels game system, this si both fantasy and 40k, as well as the other games.

My problem lies in the amount of editions. I play Rapid Fire, a WW2 wargame. in about 20 years they have brought out 2 editions, the 2nd one updating the first. I don't have to re alter my list every year, or spend ever more money buying the latest rules or codex. I wish they would stick with one set and develop it with expansions, which they were doing at one point, but have left it to go back to the 1 edition a year so people can give them more money. They update the game not for the sake of the rules but so they can make more money off the current player base, and that's what annoys me.

xruslanx wrote:
I can't envisage anything written without any "gray area, shady wording or questions at all" that was also fun and fluffy. A game as large and complex as 40k is bound to create rule frictions, the only way you could eliminate these would be by crushing all fun things out of the game completely.

There are tonnes of stuff that wouldn't fit within a "tight" ruleset:

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

I get what you're saying, I just don't see why you want to actively make 40k more boring. I don't go around telling other games that they need to be more fun

Have you played other games?

xruslanx wrote:


There are tonnes of stuff that wouldn't fit within a "tight" ruleset:

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

All those thing can exist in a tight rule set. The difference between a tight and a loose rules set is that when Fluffy Rule A interacts with Cool Rule B the interaction is defined instead of having to throw your hands up in the air and 4+ it.

Warmachine manages to have some pretty cool fluffy rules that cause models to get tossed all over the battlefield without much ambiguity.

xruslanx wrote:
I can't envisage anything written without any "gray area, shady wording or questions at all" that was also fun and fluffy. A game as large and complex as 40k is bound to create rule frictions, the only way you could eliminate these would be by crushing all fun things out of the game completely.

Again, MTG. Fluffy, complex, fun, and absolutely no ambiguity in the rules.

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

Nonsense. Every one of those things could be written with absolutely no ambiguity. GW just doesn't bother to do it.

Of course if you think those things are impossible then you could explain why, instead of just listing a bunch of random stuff and complaining about how the rules wouldn't be fun if everyone understood what they did.

For the 'warpstorm' table, random does not mean gray area. Random means random. Every entry on the table could be written as clear as fething day.

xruslanx wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

"Tight" doesn't mean forbidding custom scenarios and house rules. "Tight" means when I look at a rule, I can clearly tell exactly what it means. There is no abusable grey area, no shady wording, no questions at all.

If anything, a "tight" ruleset would be EASIER to create fun rules for, because its much easier to tell how rules interact and keep house rules or scenarios balanced with the "official rules".

I can't envisage anything written without any "gray area, shady wording or questions at all" that was also fun and fluffy. A game as large and complex as 40k is bound to create rule frictions, the only way you could eliminate these would be by crushing all fun things out of the game completely.

There are tonnes of stuff that wouldn't fit within a "tight" ruleset:

*The old changeling

*Space Marine doctrines

*Psychic powers that were basic and/or shooting attacks

*Warpstorm table

*Virtually any fluffy or cool special rule

I get what you're saying, I just don't see why you want to actively make 40k more boring. I don't go around telling other games that they need to be more fun

I don't think you get what I'm saying at all, but I realize we're probably not going to reach an agreement on this, so I'll let it be.

I still don't get how you see "rules that make sense and can't be abused" as boring, but hey, if that's what you like out of a game, good for you.

I will say that there are fluffy/cool special rules that were still tightly written. Imperial Guard orders are one example I can think of off the top of my head. Every order sounds like something a commander would say, they are all clearly described as to what they do, there's no confusion as to when or how you do them, and they all make sense as something you would expect IG to do. Its one of the few rules in 40k that I think perfectly fit the character of the army and wasn't open to abuse or confusing. The only time they ever got even remotely cloudy was when 6th hit and allies became a thing, where they FAQ'd it pretty quickly with the sensible answer I.E. Only IG units can be given orders and only use the highest IG leadership in the unit. The orders framework was also really easy to understand and if you wanted to come up with homebrew orders it was incredibly easy.

My brain. It hurts. So the logic follows as this:

tight rules = unfun
fun = ambiguous rules

Following that, MtG and Warmachine (and to a some extent, Infinity) are not fun, nope not at all. The people who are having fun playing them are just deluding themselves.

Look, it's one thing to have your own fun with ambiguous rules. it's another to impose your eccentric idea of fun to others.

I don't think you're getting it. Tight rules make the rules... tight. It doesn't make it more or less fluffy, nor does it make it more or less fun (unless you get your fun out of debating rules or whatever). But I guess even when people point this out with reasonable arguments and provide examples, you won't listen as long as "you don't feel it" even if evidence provides the contrary.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

I don't think you get what I'm saying at all, but I realize we're probably not going to reach an agreement on this, so I'll let it be.

I still don't get how you see "rules that make sense and can't be abused" as boring, but hey, if that's what you like out of a game, good for you.

I will say that there are fluffy/cool special rules that were still tightly written. Imperial Guard orders are one example I can think of off the top of my head. Every order sounds like something a commander would say, they are all clearly described as to what they do, there's no confusion as to when or how you do them, and they all make sense as something you would expect IG to do. Its one of the few rules in 40k that I think perfectly fit the character of the army and wasn't open to abuse or confusing. The only time they ever got even remotely cloudy was when 6th hit and allies became a thing, where they FAQ'd it pretty quickly with the sensible answer I.E. Only IG units can be given orders and only use the highest IG leadership in the unit. The orders framework was also really easy to understand and if you wanted to come up with homebrew orders it was incredibly easy.

I don't want to "reach an agreement", the only reason I'm responding to you is because you seem like you appreciate the discussion of ideas more than some adolescent notion of "winning" an argument.

IG orders are by their nature "tight". All they do is augment existing rules, boosting shooting usually, or defensiveness. Just adding a couple of dice here or there.

But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

xruslanx wrote:
But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

Flavor of an army doesn't preclude something from having tight rules. As I said, random does not mean gray area or vague. Chaos Daemons can have all of the fun and flavor that they have but their rules could be written in such a way to leave out ambiguity of the rules.

Here is a currently example of "ambiguous" rules. In Codex: Space Marines, Command Squads are comprised of veterans. In these squads, veterans are allowed to take a series of upgrades, like power fists, special weapons, etc... One of the upgrades that exists for this squad is to upgrade a veteran to an Apothecary. If you spend the points to give a veteran a power fist and a plasma pistol, does he keep these upgrades when you make him an Apothecary? Can he even become an Apothecary after taking these upgrades? How are these rules tight?

xruslanx wrote:
But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

So are you ever going to explain why these things can't be done with clear rules, or are you just going to rant about how you can't possibly imagine an ambiguity-free ruleset that people enjoy?

Also, GK being unbalanced against demons has absolutely nothing to do with rule clarity.

xruslanx wrote:


IG orders are by their nature "tight". All they do is augment existing rules, boosting shooting usually, or defensiveness. Just adding a couple of dice here or there.

But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

And that why we all feel a little sad for you and other that can't understand. Instead of trying to push the game we love(or loved) into something anyone can pick up and have fun with, lets keep the game on it's downward path and end up with even less people to play with. And not being able to understand that is sad.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Here is a currently example of "ambiguous" rules. In Codex: Space Marines, Command Squads are comprised of veterans. In these squads, veterans are allowed to take a series of upgrades, like power fists, special weapons, etc... One of the upgrades that exists for this squad is to upgrade a veteran to an Apothecary. If you spend the points to give a veteran a power fist and a plasma pistol, does he keep these upgrades when you make him an Apothecary? Can he even become an Apothecary after taking these upgrades? How are these rules tight?

And just to answer the inevitable "but it won't work if the rules are clear" you could very easily fix this problem with better writing. Replace the unity entry with:

Unit composition:
* Veteran #1-4 {stat line}
* Veteran #5 {stat line}

Veterans #1-4 may each take one option from the special weapons list.
Veteran #5 may be upgraded to an apothecary for +X points.

Note that this works exactly the same way. Absolutely nothing is lost by writing the rules in a way that leaves no room for debate over what they meant.

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
But imagine how dull the rest of 40k would be with that philosophy. Chaos Deamons would be "just another army". Special charectors would rapidly become bland and uninteresting, Grey Knights probably wouldn't work (since they are a dedicated anti-deamon army, hence imbalanced against deamons). I don't see how many of the fun and cool things that I, and the millions of people who enjoy playing 40, enjoy, could be fit into a "tight" ruleset.

Flavor of an army doesn't preclude something from having tight rules. As I said, random does not mean gray area or vague. Chaos Daemons can have all of the fun and flavor that they have but their rules could be written in such a way to leave out ambiguity of the rules.

Here is a currently example of "ambiguous" rules. In Codex: Space Marines, Command Squads are comprised of veterans. In these squads, veterans are allowed to take a series of upgrades, like power fists, special weapons, etc... One of the upgrades that exists for this squad is to upgrade a veteran to an Apothecary. If you spend the points to give a veteran a power fist and a plasma pistol, does he keep these upgrades when you make him an Apothecary? Can he even become an Apothecary after taking these upgrades? How are these rules tight?

I was really, really hoping that the argument against 40k didn't consist of a series of sloppily written rules, but an actual design philosophy that was different from my own. Clearly not, and if you guys think I'm advocating poor wording in rules writing then I may as well give up now.

Agreed Peregrine, I'd probably write something along the lines of how terminators can't take bikes or jump packs. "Like Models with Narthecium cannot take options from the Special Weapons, Melee weapons, etc.... list.

xruslanx wrote:
I was really, really hoping that the argument against 40k didn't consist of a series of sloppily written rules, but an actual design philosophy that was different from my own.

The point you keep missing is that GW's rules are garbage because of a lack of effort, not because of a difference in design philosophy. Unless of course you define "design philosophy" as "hey janitor, throw some stuff together on your lunch break and send it off to the printers".

Clearly not, and if you guys think I'm advocating poor wording in rules writing then I may as well give up now.

You may not be advocating it, but you're certainly making excuses for it.

xruslanx wrote:
I was really, really hoping that the argument against 40k didn't consist of a series of sloppily written rules, but an actual design philosophy that was different from my own. Clearly not, and if you guys think I'm advocating poor wording in rules writing then I may as well give up now.

The problem with 40k is that the rules are sloppily and hastily written. The design philosophy of the company is, "We are a model company." GW is in the game to make high quality, good looking plastic kits, and the rules simply give you a reason to play with their kits. If Games Workshop's design philosophy was, "We want to give you the best game on the market so that you and your friends can have fun fighting the wars of the 41st millennium." And then produced a set of rules that allowed 0 ambiguity in the rules then most of us wouldn't be complaining.

You want to know the most flavorful game I've ever played? Malifaux. In Malifaux every character has is chock full of special rules that make the characters different from one another, sure a death marshal is a death marshal is a death marshal, but a a death marshal plays differently than a witchling stalker which plays differently from blah blah blah, etc... That game had a tight set of rules that allowed for characterful fights in their world. If GW, a GIANT in the gaming world for longer than Malifaux even been a concept in Eric Johns head, could produce rules that were at least half as tight as Malifaux, I wouldn't have spent a year playing Malifaux as often as I did because I'd still be playing 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I was really, really hoping that the argument against 40k didn't consist of a series of sloppily written rules, but an actual design philosophy that was different from my own.

The point you keep missing is that GW's rules are garbage because of a lack of effort, not because of a difference in design philosophy. Unless of course you define "design philosophy" as "hey janitor, throw some stuff together on your lunch break and send it off to the printers".

Clearly not, and if you guys think I'm advocating poor wording in rules writing then I may as well give up now.

You may not be advocating it, but you're certainly making excuses for it.

Well now that I know all this thread is is neckbeards demanding perfection from everything, I don't feel bad about leaving.

Toodles!

Guys, stop feeding the troll. Report, ignore and move on.

nvm

xruslanx wrote:
... and if you guys think I'm advocating poor wording in rules writing then I may as well give up now.

But you haven't even started yet...

As others have requested, try actually explaining why you think that having rules written in such a way that people understand what they are supposed to mean would result in the game having to change, or be less 'fun'.

Adding a line into the Shooting rules that explains infantry arc of sight wouldn't make the game less fun. It would simply mean that everyone knows how LOS works for infantry.
Adding a statement in the vehicle rules that explains that a vehicle that loses all of its hull points is treated as being Removed as a Casualty wouldn't make the game less fun. It would just remove the potential for the silly argument that the vehicle doesn't count for First Blood.
Adding a statement requiring the Quad Gun to be deployed touching an Aegis wall section, or within 2", or on another table, wouldn't make the game less fun. It would simply mean that everyone would understand where the Quad Gun is supposed to be deployed.


It doesn't have to be a different game. Just a game that has clear, unambiguous rules. That doesn't have to affect your fun at all. It doesn't mean that rules have to go away. It just means that Person A reading the rule should, the vast majority of the time, wind up with the exact same impression of how the rule works as Person B reading that same rule.

 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.

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

Dozens of wargames that are much younger than GW rules are much tighter and better balanced.

GW just don't bother to try.

I do (finally) understand what you're saying. But codexes/rulebooks are a matter of how much time/resources are available. Many people in this would clearly prefer that gw spent more time on them first, many many other people don't mind.

I can't tell you how few issues I've had with the rules when I play 40k. With most people it's literally none, with one guy it's at least a dozen times every single battle, but that's because he's a dick and would argue anything anyway.

Regardless it really doesn't bother me, and I struggle to imagine why it would bother anyone really. I have friends who program for a living and their attitude towards 40k is that it's a fun game. They (and I) don't become apoplectic with rage over small rules inconstancies, we just get on with it. Horses for courses i guess.

And as a counter-example to "tight" rules ruining all the fun let's look at MTG's timing rules:

In MTG you have a lot of things of the form "if X happens do Y". This potentially causes problems because you can have rules saying "if X happens do Y" and "if X happens do Z", and it can make a big difference whether Y or Z happens first. For example, you might have two cards that say "if a creature dies, return it to play" and "if a creature dies, remove it from the game and draw a card". Obviously you can't both return it to play and remove it from the game, so what happens?

The solution is that MTG defines that entire class of rules as "triggered abilities" and provides a set of rules for how they work. One of them is that if multiple events are triggered simultaneously the player whose turn it is chooses what order they resolve in (and yes, this is a very simplified explanation of it). The result is that MTG has more room for creative and fluffy ideas because the designers know that they never have to worry about the simultaneous effects problem and can make whatever cool stuff they want regardless of what other things might be trying to happen "simultaneously". Contrast this with 40k where there's no simple solution and every rule needs its own special-case answer (or long forum argument).

xruslanx wrote:
They (and I) don't become apoplectic with rage over small rules inconstancies, we just get on with it.

Nor do the vast majority of people discussing the sorry state of the rules online. Criticising something doesn't automatically mean that someone is angry about it. Just that they see a problem with it.

xruslanx wrote:
But codexes/rulebooks are a matter of how much time/resources are available. Many people in this would clearly prefer that gw spent more time on them first, many many other people don't mind.

And the point is that other companies, many of which don't have GW's level of resources, manage to create much better rules. GW rules are only as bad as they are because GW's internal culture is "we're a beer and pretzels company so we don't have to try very hard".

I can't tell you how few issues I've had with the rules when I play 40k. With most people it's literally none, with one guy it's at least a dozen times every single battle, but that's because he's a dick and would argue anything anyway.

And if 40k's rules were better written that guy wouldn't be able to argue about anything because every single attempt at arguing could be shut down with "page X, paragraph Y".

Regardless it really doesn't bother me, and I struggle to imagine why it would bother anyone really.

It bothers me because this is an incredibly expensive game, but we're expected to just accept bad rules and 4+ it. I shouldn't have to argue about rules, or even discuss them, to play a game.

xruslanx wrote:
I can't tell you how few issues I've had with the rules when I play 40k. With most people it's literally none, with one guy it's at least a dozen times every single battle, but that's because he's a dick and would argue anything anyway.

YMDC, the old INAT FAQ, and the various FAQs used by major tournament scenes might want a word with you on this statement...

Regardless it really doesn't bother me, and I struggle to imagine why it would bother anyone really. I have friends who program for a living and their attitude towards 40k is that it's a fun game. They (and I) don't become apoplectic with rage over small rules inconstancies, we just get on with it. Horses for courses i guess.

That's fine that it doesn't bother you, but just because it doesn't bother you doesn't mean that everyone thinks the same way you do. I'd love to play 40k as my main game, I've got plenty of armies and time invested in GW's product, but I'm fairly certain I've played my first and last game with the new Space Marine codex because the main rules have their own problem, they're not clear in places, and it leads to unnecessary headaches and rules discussions. I shouldn't have to say, "let's just roll off to see how we play this rule." A clear and tight ruleset avoids these issues.

xruslanx wrote:
I do (finally) understand what you're saying. But codexes/rulebooks are a matter of how much time/resources are available. Many people in this would clearly prefer that gw spent more time on them first, many many other people don't mind.

I can't tell you how few issues I've had with the rules when I play 40k. With most people it's literally none, with one guy it's at least a dozen times every single battle, but that's because he's a dick and would argue anything anyway.

Regardless it really doesn't bother me, and I struggle to imagine why it would bother anyone really. I have friends who program for a living and their attitude towards 40k is that it's a fun game. They (and I) don't become apoplectic with rage over small rules inconstancies, we just get on with it. Horses for courses i guess.

First of all, out of genuine curiosity to understand what experience you have, have you played any other games?

Your experience may be fine, but many other peoples' aren't. Tournaments have issues regularly, hence the need for a significant number of TO's to arbitrate on the various disputes. Plus, with a better ruleset, even your experience would improve by eliminating that way for that one guy to be an ass.

Most of us discussing this are in the exact same boat as you are. I'm a student pilot with the military; do you think I'd waste my time playing with people who would ruin the game for me? Absolutely not, so any game's I've ever had have gone swimmingly. However, that doesn't mean I can't wish the rules were significantly better, and in fact expect a multi-million dollar international corporation to produce at least a rule set on par with ones being brewed out of basements or lifted off the ground with small kickstarters.

We're not saying 40k isn't fun. Its still a playable game, but it could be a lot better without 'demanding perfection'. Don't look at it so black and white. We expect GW to at least proofread or try out their books first. As has been said several times, not even an hour after a few books were in the hands of players, several glaring issues were found across several codices and the core book. Frankly, its unacceptable and not a little insulting when you consider how much you pay for these books. Demand quality, don't accept mediocrity.

Remember, tightness simply means things like enhanced clarity, better balance, and much less loopholes or oversights. Tightness in no way shape or form will ever preclude creativity, fluffiness, or fun.

If you haven't played any other games, in response to my first question, I highly recommend you try branching out or at least taking part in a few demos. You'll quickly see that the rules for 40k could be so much better, and actually enhance your current game play.

Oh, and don't call people neckbeards.