Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
My point is that whining about it accomplishes nothing.

Kind of like posting in whine threads to whine about them?

Better to move on and have some fun than cry that the rules weren't written as perfectly as you would have done. I can deal with the rules issues, can you? Endlessly bashing GW online does as much good as punching a brick wall. Instead of the constant whining about how much it sucks, why not find another game? Because unless you score a job with GW as a game designer, you just waste our time.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
My point isn't that GW's rules can't get better. Anything is able to be improved. My point is that whining about it accomplishes nothing.

It accomplishes as much as talking about which Primarch is your favourite, or what rules you would like to see in the next codex, or posting battle reports.

We're not here to bring about world peace. The forum exists simply for people to discuss their hobby.

So only bringing up the negatives is any better? Since the rules won't be changing anytime soon, wouldn't it be more consteuctive to discuss the better aspects? or at least how to deal with the negatives?

(fyi, the OP was about rules, not fluff or batreps)

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So only bringing up the negatives is any better? Since the rules won't be changing anytime soon, wouldn't it be more consteuctive to discuss the better aspects? or at least how to deal with the negatives?

The thread, once again, is asking peoples' opinion of the standard of GW's rules. Pointing out the reasons that someone doesn't think those rules are particularly good is far more constructive in that context than insisting that everyone should just play the game your way or they're doing it wrong. Some of those making those comments have no interest in playing the game in the first place. Part of the point of this discussion is to establish why.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So only bringing up the negatives is any better? Since the rules won't be changing anytime soon, wouldn't it be more consteuctive to discuss the better aspects? or at least how to deal with the negatives?

(fyi, the OP was about rules, not fluff or batreps)

We're not only bringing up the negative, there's been many requests for people to clarify why they think the games are good.

I'm sure we can all point out some positives (I, personally, like some of the randomness, as it forces you to be a bit more cautious. I also like the snap fire when assaulted, as it makes assaults a bit more risky and realistic). But then many of us can point out plenty of negatives or ambiguity as well (such as the abundance of overlapping or conflicting special rules, unit's which are cool but largely useless, the fact there's at least 4 type of save, and assaults themselves seem pretty clunky).


Edit: Does anyone want to attempt to explain why the GW rules are good, rather than moaning about people moaning about the rules being poor?

You want a beer and pretzels game?

"Port and Cigars" is so beer and pretzels that the recommended equipment includes a pointy stick for poking at loopholes in the rules.

There's mention of positives in the thread, like the IG orders rules.

 snurl wrote:
The rules are great for starting arguments.

My dad called it "arguehammer" when I played as a lad.

WH and 40k are great. Simple games, plenty of depth, loads of armies. Its easy to get a game anywhere in europe pretty much. Some stuff is a bit silly, and balance between armies is crap, but these come from the fact that its written to sell models, not to be the best game ever.

I think the best way to solve the large problems (game blaance) would be to put all the army lists into a single volume that is updated yearly or regularly. Then sell the background books (codecises) seperately. These could contain non -official army lists too, or special units and so forth. This would keep game balance in line AND mean GW could sell the army list to every player every year, rather than only getting the sales of codecies to people who want to play that army when the release cycle comes around..

Interesting that 52% of people feel the rules are below average or worse and only 23% feel they are above average. That's pretty telling.

Barfolomew wrote:
Interesting that 52% of people feel the rules are below average or worse and only 23% feel they are above average. That's pretty telling.

Almost exactly half finds it below average. Too good for coincidence!

A true pessimist would point out that the "adequate" definition in the poll says that the rules don't really help, so it could easily be 77% feel the rules suck.

I'm also still trying to figure out what delusional world those 5 people live in that they voted top-tier.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'm also still trying to figure out what delusional world those 5 people live in that they voted top-tier.

It's very easy to believe that if you're still in the GW bubble. My 12 year old self would have agreed. But back then the historic rulebooks I had were hugely complicated (tables everywhere) and even worse written. Everyone else has caught up since the 90's.

I think it's more that on any internet poll/review there's people that will vote 0 or 10 just because.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
That's the part that confuses me about these sorts of threads: why are some people so opposed to the idea of the rules being better?

It's GW's greatest marketing success. They've managed to convince a non-trivial percentage of their customers that not only should they accept low-quality rules, they should be proud of those low-quality rules because the worse the rules are the more of a "beer and pretzels" game it is. Accepting the possibility of better rules would mean admitting that you're one of those WAAC TFGs who cares about the rules and doesn't understand that it's all about fun and pushing models around the table while spending time with friends.

I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know. Apparently I'm the only person that buys novels full of typos and errors, and computer games with bugs that render them unplayable that aren't fixed for months.

But no, everything else in your life is perfect, so 40k should be too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Barfolomew wrote:
Interesting that 52% of people feel the rules are below average or worse and only 23% feel they are above average. That's pretty telling.

A more reflective sample, rather than those who specifically come on Dakka Discussions to bitch about 40k, can be found here. That's 66% of players rating 40k as good or better.

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

To answer the topic of the thread, I find GW's rules good enough to play casually and have a good time. I don't even see a third of all the rules arguments I see when I go online.

I won't claim their perfection or anything but they do their job well enough that I have fun and there aren't any real issues.

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

Rules are only as good as the community that supports the game and the game company that supports the community.

If rules continue to be broken (see entire YMDC Forum) and no one fixes or addresses it, it shows how poorly the rules are considered for that game.

At the very least, GW has an active community of players and hobbyists who do care about the rules and GW from time to time adds their 2 cents or pence to the argument by clarifying problematic rules.

Will it ever be as good as a card game or a computer game? Probably not. MtG, WoW and other games have far more support and a larger fan base so their rules are airtight (a computer game with broken rules would be unplayable, much like abusing mechanics such as "Damage on the Stack" in MtG).

But if your not content with the rules, improve them. Redress with GW on FAQs. Rinse and repeat.

Or play a game with better rules, like Brushfire .

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

So just because other companies do mediocre things, GW's clients should also settle for mediocrity? Is that what you are saying?

That instead of comparing itself with the best examples of its own industry, the market leaders of the miniature wargaming industry are taking their cues from the mistakes of other companies?

ClockworkZion wrote:
You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

And how, exactly, did the gaming consumer base respond to EA's flawed release of Sim City?

How did the gaming populace respond to the flawed initial release of Final Fantasy XIV?

When other companies make this kind of botched release attempt, the consumer either pitches a fit or silently takes their business elsewhere. For some reason, there's a certain segment of GW's fan base that thinks the consumer should ignore GW's flaws and just keep buying their stuff without even pointing out that those flaws exist.

Edit: I also want to point out a difference between EA and Squaresoft's response to customers and GW's response to customers. In the two issues I posted above, people complained, and complained a lot about the problems with those two games. With SimCity, their CEO resigned over that issue. EA publicly admitted that they made a mistake and offered financial compensation to customers in the form of granting a free game. Squaresoft eventually pulled the original Final Fantasy XIV, completely reworked it, and released it earlier this year. Now, from everything I have heard, it's an excellent game. Games Workshop, on the other hand, doesn't even acknowledge that their fan base even has a complaint, much less actually address those complaints.

 WarOne wrote:
Or play a game with better rules, like Brushfire .

I approve of this statement. I feel like On the Lamb has gotten a better ruleset written between a team of three people than GW has with their entire team

Also, xruslanx, your poll is biased to those that view the 40k general discussion forum, which means that they probably play and enjoy GW games. You're also further limiting your sample size with extremely biased answers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ClockworkZion wrote:
You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

And EA customers bitched up a storm about it and EA fixed it and said, "whoops our bad."

I feel that everytime xruslanx makes an "argument", Khorne kills a baby seal.

Seriously, I still don't get how can a casual game not benefit from tight rules. Or how can tight rules stifle creativity.

Guess what game adds a bunch of mechanics to the core game every half of the year? MtG. And does it have tight rules? Yep. Are the keywords fluffy? They sure are. If you need ambiguous writing to make "cool, fluffy" rules, you shouldn't be writing rules in the first place.

I'm not a huge MtG fan, myself. About the only format I enjoy is drafting. That being said, I was around when it first came out back around 1992-1993 or so. Despite having a quite well defined rule system, this most recent release is something different from anything else they've done. Even with tight rules and a 20+ year history of production, they're still coming up with new content. Apparently, tight rules haven't affected their developers' creativity.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
My point is that whining about it accomplishes nothing.

Kind of like posting in whine threads to whine about them?

Better to move on and have some fun than cry that the rules weren't written as perfectly as you would have done. I can deal with the rules issues, can you? Endlessly bashing GW online does as much good as punching a brick wall. Instead of the constant whining about how much it sucks, why not find another game? Because unless you score a job with GW as a game designer, you just waste our time.

There is always the potential for GW games designers* to have read these forums. It isn't just Dakka, if anything the atmosphere here is a lot more forgiving than some of areas of the internet that have just fallen back on out-and-out, unstructured ridicule.

Battlefront responded to criticism posted online, as have other companies that have given customer-driven campaigns what they wanted (Corvus Belli), I'm sure there are many other examples.

* The issue here being that, as Ramshackle Curtis has pointed out, GW is more concerned with selling miniatures than in producing a game that is well designed and balanced (I'm not praising or disparaging this, just making an observation) - occasionally these two elements reconcile, but a lot of the time they don't. When the 'suits' start to decide everything, and you put your fingers in your ears to any criticism (on the grounds that some of it is just noise, therefore making all of it groundless(?!) - am I the only one that believes that's how GW thinks?) you end up with rules systems that are constantly lambasted online and a large number of veteran fans moving on to pastures new.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

Why do you bring this up? Do you disagree GW is sloppy? Do you disagree we should complain?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean really. GW is sloppy. If I were a tournament fanatic I don't think I would play 40k due to rule sloppiness. I'm a casual gamer. But I still do facepalms because time and time again a codex is released and right away people find many obvious problems.

 bosky wrote:
I know you weren't hugely implying this, but why does a "beer and pretzels" game HAVE to be bad or lack strategy though? I wish the term hadn't become synonymous with making sloppy rules. :(

Translation of my intent is "we know the game so well it runs smoothly and does not require too much thought to carry out the mechanics".
You did understand correctly, intent was not "bad" or lacking strategy, it IS there, we just do not need to think hard on the rules.
Way back when, the phrase was not meant to be a bad thing, casual can = fun and challenging.

When any of us try to play a rules exploit for "fun" it can get very exciting.
It just means we gang up on the guy (usually 4 of us play) to show our "love" for them as the honorary "rules troll".

It is funny how often each of us get in touch with our TFG side for a giggle (only with friends!).
The carnage and shouting and mayhem and vendettas (not the model) are fantastic.
By the end there is much laughing and outrageous play (sometimes tactics thrown out the window for the "I-must-kill-THAT-model!!") even broken rules can find worth.

If people would like permission to criticise GW, please first criticise EA in the Video Games forum.

Niexist wrote:
Really what it comes down to is if you hate the rules so much quit playing, and if you quit playing.

This has been quoted a bit but it was pointed out well that in the next codex OR round of rules any given army can be "good" again.
So giving away your stuff or quit completely is foolish because of the effort put in and "things change" so all you can do is wait and see.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If people would like permission to criticise GW, please first criticise EA in the Video Games forum.

I'd be happy to, but I can't remember the last time I purchased an EA game. I spoke with my wallet in regards to their products a long time ago.

Edit: I just checked. The last EA game I bought was Tiger Woods '08.

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

You meant to just laugh at his post, not answer them. I fell for that for it, his real name I belive is Kirby .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

You mean like how EA released Sim City and no one could play it? Or how games are shipped with bugs so bad they wreck the game? GW is hardly alone in this market of shipping things that are far from perfect. It doesn't stop people from buying the products and even having fun with them though.

Yes and if you go to video game EA got no love for this, the hate is worse then GW every gets. So poeple bitching about GW get singled out on a table top miniature forum and not EA, are either stupid or have blinder on to the rest of the world. I'm mean really were does he think poeple are going to bitch about video game, on a miniature game forum .