GW rules: how good are they?

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.

**Pacific**

blood ravens addiction wrote:
BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun

Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

This is by far the best post I have read on Dakka this year.

**Tanakosyke22**

Pacific wrote:
blood ravens addiction wrote:
BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun

Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

This is by far the best post I have read on Dakka this year.

These are all very bold statements.

**Big P**

Well thats me convinced, but if its too fun for the emperor... Are we worthy?

**Alfndrate**

Big P wrote:
Well thats me convinced, if its fun enough for the emperor...

We've been doing it wrong this entire time, they're just telling us that 40k is for the emperor and not for us

**Big P**

It all makes sense now... for the emperor.

**Imposter101**

blood ravens addiction wrote:
BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun

Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

2/10.

i.e; opinions exist and you aren't great at understanding that we do not all posses the same view of GW as you do.

**Azreal13**

There's clearly some sort of cold or flu sweeping across Dakka, as several posters' noses are clearly so comgested they can't smell Troll,

**Talizvar**

Is this like one of those things where you can make any statement and add "for the emperor" at the end?

40k rules are gakk for the emperor.

40k plays like a "beer and pretzels" game for the emperor.

GW does as they see fit for the emperor.

Peregrine wants more competitive rules for the emperor.

All GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome for the emperor.

These are all very bold statements for the emperor.

Yup, I am convinced this new add-on endline is so full of win... for the emperor.

**kronk**

Chicks love 40k for the emperor.

**Alfndrate**

azreal13 wrote:
There's clearly some sort of cold or flu sweeping across Dakka, as several posters' noses are clearly so comgested they can't smell Troll,

Not troll, child.

Most of his posts are all of that quality it seems. 4 closed threads in... 5 minutes or so seems to tell a lot about this poster.

**Easy E**

I think Rick Priestley addressed this idea really well a long time ago. I wish I had a link handy to the interview, but I think it was in a round of interviews for Hail Ceasar.

When you are a lad, you crave complexity for the sake of complexity. Knowing some obscure bit that the other players don't IS fun. Your mind latches onto details at the expense of the overall feel or flow.

As you mature, (and your memory gets cluttered with other stuff) you crave simplicity and streamlined play. Time becomes more valuable since you don't have hours to waste playing a game and chitter with your urchin friends.

Since GW's demo is (allegedly) younger lads with disposable income why would they try to improve and move away from the needless complexity when that is what their core demo wants? In fact, making the move could be counter-productive.

**Azreal13**

Alfndrate wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
There's clearly some sort of cold or flu sweeping across Dakka, as several posters' noses are clearly so comgested they can't smell Troll,

Not troll, child.
.

I see a distinction without a difference.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:
I think Rick Priestley addressed this idea really well a long time ago. I wish I had a link handy to the interview, but I think it was in a round of interviews for Hail Ceasar.

When you are a lad, you crave complexity for the sake of complexity. Knowing some obscure bit that the other players don't IS fun. Your mind latches onto details at the expense of the overall feel or flow.

As you mature, (and your memory gets cluttered with other stuff) you crave simplicity and streamlined play. Time becomes more valuable since you don't have hours to waste playing a game and chitter with your urchin friends.

Since GW's demo is (allegedly) younger lads with disposable income why would they try to improve and move away from the needless complexity when that is what their core demo wants? In fact, making the move could be counter-productive.

Can't fault the logic, so....40K Advanced anyone?

**Alfndrate**

azreal13 wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
There's clearly some sort of cold or flu sweeping across Dakka, as several posters' noses are clearly so comgested they can't smell Troll,

Not troll, child.
.

I see a distinction without a difference.

One's dumb comments are purposeful and the others aren't?

**Kilkrazy**

Easy E wrote:
I think Rick Priestley addressed this idea really well a long time ago. I wish I had a link handy to the interview, but I think it was in a round of interviews for Hail Ceasar.

When you are a lad, you crave complexity for the sake of complexity. Knowing some obscure bit that the other players don't IS fun. Your mind latches onto details at the expense of the overall feel or flow.

As you mature, (and your memory gets cluttered with other stuff) you crave simplicity and streamlined play. Time becomes more valuable since you don't have hours to waste playing a game and chitter with your urchin friends.

Since GW's demo is (allegedly) younger lads with disposable income why would they try to improve and move away from the needless complexity when that is what their core demo wants? In fact, making the move could be counter-productive.

Yes, I've felt that as well -- the sheer mass of minutiae appeals to the collecting mindset of the young teenager. Like Pokemon.

I hope that doesn't seem ageist.

**Blood Hawk**

Phobos wrote:
As the original poster of the thread that got locked that this one is based on; I feel it's high time that I commented.

Believe it or not I don't have an agenda. You see despite being involved with the Games Workshop hobbies and models for over 10 years, I have only actually played a small handful of games (coached ones at that) and I truly do not know how to play the game.

The purpose for the parameters that I originally created and that are repeated here is to force you to look at the game in an objective light upon its on merits. I'm often seeing people recommending the game for things that have little if any basis on whether or not the game in and of itself is any good.

And I have to admit I'm very surprised by the responses to both my thread and this one. The overwhelming consensus appears to be that no, the main games themselves are not very good. There have been numerous examples cited as to why the rules are inferior, with nobody actually being able to defend the rules on their own merits. The best I have seen so far is that " well my friends and I have fun with them". This is a disturbingly low standard.

I'm going to editorialize for a little bit as to why I think this appears to be so. The main games have been going on for quite some time now and as with anything begin to take a life of their own. Things that works at one time do not appear to work anymore. One thing that I have noticed is that the army sizes continue to grow. You don't have to be a professional game designer to realize that this can start creating problems. Another is that the original designers have left, bringing in a new crew of folks who may have their own design ideas and goals which are constrained to work within the vision of another artist. Of course the smartest thing to do would be to start from scratch, but that isn't without risk either. In addition to it being costly, you have to worry about how it would be received.

And if you look at this just from a mercenary standpoint there's really no reason whatsoever for Games Workshop to even bother trying to improve their rules. I mean on 20 plus pages here on this forum as to the quality of their rules nobody has been able to cite objectively what is good about them, yet still they are the most popular without question! So from Games Workshop's perspective clearly something is going right and why fix what's not broken. Obviously no matter what they publish people are going to buy it, playtested and clear or not. Hell I'm guilty of it as well. I bought myself a Tomb Kings codex, because I like them and the book is full of them. I haven't even played them in a bloody game, and I still bought it.

How can you argue with that kind of success?

Don't underestimate networks effects, which is when a product is more valuable the more people that have it. The example people generally use for this normally are telephones, if only one person owns a telephone it isn't very valuable (you got no one to call) but as more people have them they become more valuable (now a days everyone seems to have a cell phone). The more modern example are websites like facebook, twitter, etc.. Games are the same way, if you have no one to play your game with it isn't as valuable.

For example if a new player walks into a LGS on both 40k night and lets say warmachine/hordes night. The GW night has 12+ players showing up to play while the WM/H has one regular person who shows up and maybe 1-2 people who show up occasionally. Which game has the stronger network effect? 40k, if the new player only can has enough money/time to buy into one game he very well may choose 40k just because it has the larger community.

I mean every friday I have gone to LGS the place always seems packed for Friday Night Magic, does that mean MTG is a "better" game then its competitors, nope it still has the much larger community though.

**Starfarer**

Pacific wrote:
blood ravens addiction wrote:
BOTTOM TIER OMG!!!!!
how can they be as bad as that?
all GW games are fun and un predictable and awesome!!!

deal with it really, theyre too fun

Automatically Appended Next Post:
for the emperor

This is by far the best post I have read on Dakka this year.

Indeed.

Alfndrate wrote:

Not troll, child.

Also a shiny example of GW's target customer, it would seem.

for the emperor

**kb305**

Easy E wrote:
I think Rick Priestley addressed this idea really well a long time ago. I wish I had a link handy to the interview, but I think it was in a round of interviews for Hail Ceasar.

When you are a lad, you crave complexity for the sake of complexity. Knowing some obscure bit that the other players don't IS fun. Your mind latches onto details at the expense of the overall feel or flow.

As you mature, (and your memory gets cluttered with other stuff) you crave simplicity and streamlined play. Time becomes more valuable since you don't have hours to waste playing a game and chitter with your urchin friends.

Since GW's demo is (allegedly) younger lads with disposable income why would they try to improve and move away from the needless complexity when that is what their core demo wants? In fact, making the move could be counter-productive.

im not really sold on this. even as kids my circle quickly began to exploit and break the 2nd edition rules. soon after that started we decided that the rules sucked and started playing D&D.
it was a very good choice i think, D&D was much cheaper, less work and more fun.

**Peregrine**

Easy E wrote:
When you are a lad, you crave complexity for the sake of complexity. Knowing some obscure bit that the other players don't IS fun. Your mind latches onto details at the expense of the overall feel or flow.

As you mature, (and your memory gets cluttered with other stuff) you crave simplicity and streamlined play. Time becomes more valuable since you don't have hours to waste playing a game and chitter with your urchin friends.

I don't think this is really true, except in a broad sense. Sure, kids can get obsessed about something, but the stereotypical player for the really complex games (SFB, real-world "simulation" wargames, etc) is an older player who has "outgrown" the kid games. I think it's more a case that kids can obsess about details but don't have the context to understand the difference between good and bad complexity, so it's easy to just throw a bunch of trivia at them without really caring about the overall quality of the product. Meanwhile adults with more experience are willing to get into a complex game but have higher standards for a quality product that is worth the investment.

Since GW's demo is (allegedly) younger lads with disposable income why would they try to improve and move away from the needless complexity when that is what their core demo wants? In fact, making the move could be counter-productive.

But don't forget that GW has the incredibly detailed background for kids to obsess over.

**Kilkrazy**

SFB is tactically complex but the system is relatively simple, allowing a player to grasp the essential core of the game and understand the main features of any ship.

**Fafnir**

As I've gotten older (I'm not a lot older, just 22, but still not in my teens anymore), I've found that I still appreciate complexity in games as much as ever. For example, I absolutely love examining the tiniest minutia in games like Armored Core and Pokemon (despite the simple appearances on the surface, there's a hell of a lot going on underneath). But what I can't stand is arbitrary complexity that does nothing more than obfuscate actual gameplay, or much of any sense of grind.

40k is a perfect example of a game with a tonne of arbitrary complexity that does nothing more than obfuscate actual gameplay.

And grinding is pretty self explanatory, although I'd like to emphasize that I qualify it as a grind if it involves monotanous 'non-content' having to be repeated over and over again, to serve as little more than filler, or as an artificial wall between content. I have less time to actually spend playing games these days, and so any element of that spent on mindless filler is unappealing to the point of pushing me away from a game entirely.

**rigeld2**

Kilkrazy wrote:
SFB is tactically complex but the system is relatively simple, allowing a player to grasp the essential core of the game and understand the main features of any ship.

Relatively simple system?
Are talking about the same rule set that has dozens of books and cross references from one to another?

**Kilkrazy**

I am talking about the SFB of 30 years ago when it was made by Amarillo Design Bureau.

The core mechanics are relatively simple and well explained, yet allow for the creation of any number of different ship designs, which the player can understand quickly from a view of the design layout.

I don't know what it may be like now. Perhaps someone has come along and sicked up a load of 40K style special rules and supplements all over it. Which would support the point about unnecessary complexity.

The same thing happened to Star Fire. Originally it was presented as three thin A5 rulebooks, which covered everything from ship design to combat to campaigns. In the 5th edition it has ballooned to a 375 page, A4 PDF, which cover everything from ship design to combat to campaigns, in much more detail and less fun.

**Lanrak**

The sad thing is,this 'kiddies do not want rules, just things to argue over' does not have to be true for Kirby to use it to undermine actual games development at GW .

''We spend less resources on rules development every year, but our fans still 'goober' over the 'shiney' new models they will pay any price for.And we still turn a profit.''
So this PROVES that WASTING resources on actual rules development is pointless to Kirby.

Appealing to the easiest to please, is NOT the way to grow a business is it?

To paraphrase Jevis Johnson, the 40k rules are written for 'collectors' who probably never play the game , or the people who think the rules are 'not that important'.

So writing for those that dont play or dont care means incredibly low standards are set for the game development .

**xruslanx**

'gw spending less and less on rules development every year' got a source on this?

**Kilkrazy**

It's difficult to see where they spend any money at all on rules development.

Look at the number of games published now compared to 10 years or 20 years ago. There are three, all of which are later than first edition and represent minor evolutions rather than new developments.

**jonolikespie**

xruslanx wrote:
'gw spending less and less on rules development every year' got a source on this?

Their last few financial reports have been bragging about cutting costs across the board.

**Hivefleet Oblivion**

jonolikespie wrote:
xruslanx wrote:
'gw spending less and less on rules development every year' got a source on this?

Their last few financial reports have been bragging about cutting costs across the board.

Please give us a quote; all i remember is seeing notes about controlling costs, IIRC the main element in the last report was about items like energy prices.

Remember, the last report we had on dakkadakka from someone who actually questioned the design staff, is that they're spending more money on recruiting designers, and investing more in production machinery. Appreciate that doesn't mean they're necessarily spending more on developing the rulesets... but i think we get a lot of disinformation circulated and repeated here that grows with the retelling.

**Azreal13**

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
jonolikespie wrote:
xruslanx wrote:
'gw spending less and less on rules development every year' got a source on this?

Their last few financial reports have been bragging about cutting costs across the board.

Please give us a quote; all i remember is seeing notes about controlling costs, IIRC the main element in the last report was about items like energy prices.

Remember, the last report we had on dakkadakka from someone who actually questioned the design staff, is that they're spending more money on recruiting designers, and investing more in production machinery. Appreciate that doesn't mean they're necessarily spending more on developing the rulesets... but i think we get a lot of disinformation circulated and repeated here that grows with the retelling.

The reality is, you wouldn't get a statement made publicly that would in any way be good enough to prove this, as it simply isn't an admission that would be politic to unveil to the world at large.

I did notice while reviewing the financial statement just in case there was something substantial enough that jumped out, that they have, for the first time this year, folded development costs into their "cost of sales" figure, which still remains at barely 25% of sales revenue. This could be something or nothing, but it is a change from previous years, I lack the desire or motivation to run with it. If someone was willing, there may be a way of extrapolating the changes between the cost of sales figure this year and where they were allocated in previous reports (I forget, sorry, but it is in the accounting notes.)

It also reminded me how fething scary Kirby's report was, either he himself is dumb as gak and got incredibly lucky to get where he is, or he has a really low opinion of the intellect of his investors, because that sure as hell doesn't read like a document from the chairman and CEO of a multi million pound turnover PLC!

**xruslanx**

jonolikespie wrote:
xruslanx wrote:
'gw spending less and less on rules development every year' got a source on this?

Their last few financial reports have been bragging about cutting costs across the board.

And you just assume that means they arbitrarily slashed product development? At the same time that codexes and suppliments are being churned out at a rate literally unheard of in their history?

**Peregrine**

xruslanx wrote:
And you just assume that means they arbitrarily slashed product development? At the same time that codexes and suppliments are being churned out at a rate literally unheard of in their history?

It can be both at once. GW isn't spending much per product (or if they are, they certainly aren't getting much out of their money) but they're putting out new products so frequently that they've had to maintain or increase their total spending.