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.

Rules are a mathematical model for simulating troop and vehicle behaviour. You could use a completely different game turn sequence in 40K without needing to change the background fluff.

Fluff affects rules in the sense that if you write a particular thing into the fluff, and you want to express it on the tabletop, you have to write a rule for it. The Tyranid "Instinctive Behaviour" rule is a good example.

Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Well, at least you have a reason for your clearly biased poll.

Well, we've certainly established that you don't know what "biased" means.

(And of course given that only 2% of the people so far have voted for "best" I don't really see what adding another category above "best" would accomplish.)

insaniak wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Well, at least you have a reason for your clearly biased poll.

Having 3 choices for variations on 'below average', having 2 choices, or having a hundred choices, it's still the same number of people voting 'below average'...

You're right I have no idea what biased means at all, let me go look it up real quick. I never said the option needed to be added above "best", it just needs to be above average or as you termed it "adequate". The use of the term adequate in and of itself is an attempt to mislead people into choosing that option rather than one higher than it.

Insaniak it isn't about those who voted below average. Having fewer legitimate options for the above "adequate" level than exist below it means you are limiting the options of poll responders who may otherwise have given a positive response.

The inclusion of the 3rd option "unplayable" shows a clear bias in and of itself. Oh wait, I forgot I don't know what that word means.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
I never said the option needed to be added above "best", it just needs to be above average or as you termed it "adequate".

You realize I included an option for "above average", right?

The use of the term adequate in and of itself is an attempt to mislead people into choosing that option rather than one higher than it.

No, the use of the term "adequate" is meant to represent the common response in the previous thread that inspired this poll: "I play GW games because of the fluff/models, and the rules are good enough to let me do that".

Having fewer legitimate options for the above "adequate" level than exist below it means you are limiting the options of poll responders who may otherwise have given a positive response.

No it doesn't. There is a full range from "average" to "above average" to "best", covering any positive response you want to give.

The inclusion of the 3rd option "unplayable" shows a clear bias in and of itself.

Yeah, it's completely biased to be interested in the difference between "it sucks but I play anyway" and "it sucks and I quit". It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to know that about 21% of the people voting rank GW's games among the worst in the industry but only about a third of them feel so strongly about the issue that they refuse to support GW.

I may not agree with Peregrine's opinion about the GW rules, but claiming this poll is biased simply based on the number of responses is a little silly.

All of the response options are legitimate. (Best, good, neutral, bad, worst, worst AND I quit.) Adding another option about 'best' serves no purpose. (And what would it BE? What is the logical counterpoint to 'so bad I quit?' 'So good it should be legally mandated to play?') The relevant data to draw here will be (similar to my series of Objective Opinion threads) in the balance between positive and negative response, regardless of how many options they are split across. The splitting of the two sides of the spectrum into different component responses is done simply for curiosity's sake.

EDIT: Unless, Overwatch, you meant to say that the mere suggestion that the game is unplayable (and not the numerical rank of that option) is what makes the poll biased? That's also silly, but for a different reason. I guess I'm confused, since I can't really see where you think this poll is biased. I mean, obviously Peregrine has an opinion, but I think he's done a very lovely job of keeping the poll itself neutral.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
I never said the option needed to be added above "best", it just needs to be above average or as you termed it "adequate".

You realize I included an option for "above average", right?

The use of the term adequate in and of itself is an attempt to mislead people into choosing that option rather than one higher than it.

No, the use of the term "adequate" is meant to represent the common response in the previous thread that inspired this poll: "I play GW games because of the fluff/models, and the rules are good enough to let me do that".

Having fewer legitimate options for the above "adequate" level than exist below it means you are limiting the options of poll responders who may otherwise have given a positive response.

No it doesn't. There is a full range from "average" to "above average" to "best", covering any positive response you want to give.

The inclusion of the 3rd option "unplayable" shows a clear bias in and of itself.

Yeah, it's completely biased to be interested in the difference between "it sucks but I play anyway" and "it sucks and I quit". It couldn't possibly have anything to do with wanting to know that about 21% of the people voting rank GW's games among the worst in the industry but only about a third of them feel so strongly about the issue that they refuse to support GW.

Hmmm....

That would still put me in a category that is not listed - The Rules Are Below Average and I Quit.

They are by no means the worst rules that I have ever encountered, but I also think that there are better alternatives.

Between mediocre rules and miniatures that just do not grab my fancy at their current prices... it is not really so much that I quit as that I do other things with the money.

If they ever have a model that makes me go 'It will be mine!' then I would buy it, given a sticker that agrees with how much I want the model.

That... doesn't happen much these days.

I generally would rather buy Mantic, or Reaper, or Wyrd, or Kromlech, or Stonehaven, or.....

The Auld Grump

I voted adequate. 6th edition is much better than 3rd edition and I hate to admit that somewhere around 4th edition I just gave up for a while. I liked RT and 2nd ed the best. If I am really honest WH40K is a procurement game, the guy who can spend the most $$$ on his models and build the most useful army list will prevail. Strangely that is also real life, the side that can win the logistics battle will win the war. I like 6th ed enough I will keep playing.

- J

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
The poll is clearly biased. You provide 3 options for how the game can be below average but only 2 possibilities for how it can be above average.

Because there are only two relevant options for being above average. There is no reasonable opinion above "it's the best", so adding an option above it would be something absurd like "divine perfection, I don't play because I am not worthy". On the other hand there's a significant and interesting difference between "it sucks but I keep playing" and "it sucks and I quit", so it makes sense to split the "it sucks" option into two choices.

It's because you've specifically phased one of the options to be more negative than it should be. If something has flaws but people still enjoy it, clearly that is a positive opinion. You've phrased it to sound more negative than it should be.

I voted that it was below average. The rules are really unconcise in how they are written. I don't understand why fluff has to be inserted along with the rules. I should be able to read rules without having to read information about why they are justifying the rules fluff wise. I also highly dislike how you need an FAQ for every army and each FAQ is a large tome of knowledge. The FAQs errata a lot of stuff out of the original rule book as well. That's just bad game design. You shouldn't have to FAQ that much.

That brings me to another point. The rules are not clear and it uses the same word to mean different things when a word should only have one meaning in the context of the rules. Also right now one of the FAQs breaks the game. It states you can't wound models out of your range or at least that's how it reads (sort of) because it has a grammatical error. Its also not an errata and it even mentions the wrong page for wounding out of range. The rulebook on a different page says that you can wound out of your range, but the FAQ doesn't errata this page away.

The rules need to be tighter. GW needs a better set of writers so that the rules are clear and I can play a game with an opponent without having to make up rulings right there on the spot before the game starts or maybe in the middle of the game. That's awful IMO for a tabletop game.

xruslanx wrote:

It's because you've specifically phased one of the options to be more negative than it should be. If something has flaws but people still enjoy it, clearly that is a positive opinion. You've phrased it to sound more negative than it should be.

"It has flaws but i enjoy it"?

Well, take your pick - both of these choices from the poll represent that point of view quite well. Either it has flaws and you still have fun, or it has flaws, but other things make up for it.

Adequate: it lets me have fun playing with my models, but the rules don't really help.
Below average: the game has major problems, but there are some redeeming qualities.

Some of the stuff in the current edition is rather badly worded and difficult to explain to people, and have either no summary or a very badly worded summary, but on the whole it is a lot better than the average.

 Timmy149 wrote:
Some of the stuff in the current edition is rather badly worded and difficult to explain to people, and have either no summary or a very badly worded summary, but on the whole it is a lot better than the average.

Really? Better than average? What are you comparing it against?

I my experience it isn't completely unplayable or anything and I did enjoy it while playing, but the more I branched out an tried other games the more I found it couldn't stand up to any competition.

I've made it a new mission at my gaming club to troll someone with. 'That's illegal. Page 8, column 2 paragraph 1.' When they try to shoot.

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

Actually, that is a pretty valid strategy with a long record of success for driving large profits.

Cross-reference: McDonalds and Wal-Mart.

 Timmy149 wrote:
Some of the stuff in the current edition is rather badly worded and difficult to explain to people, and have either no summary or a very badly worded summary, but on the whole it is a lot better than the average.

In my local gaming group, the people who defend GW's rules as being "good" or "above average" have typically never played any other game system. I'm curious if that is the case with this poster?

Saldiven wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
Some of the stuff in the current edition is rather badly worded and difficult to explain to people, and have either no summary or a very badly worded summary, but on the whole it is a lot better than the average.

In my local gaming group, the people who defend GW's rules as being "good" or "above average" have typically never played any other game system. I'm curious if that is the case with this poster?

It is the case... Here are his words on the subject:

xruslanx wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Genuinely curious at the OP: have you ever tried playing any other game before?

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

I bolded the important part and italicized the great part.

@Easy E.
How is appealing to those who want a product fast and or relatively cheap appealing to the easiest to please?

IF GW were a fast food resturant you would have to wait 4 days for you food, shipped from GW only cook house miles from you order point.And pay 10 times as much as other similar products from other resturants. AND not be able to determine exactly what you bought in terms of content / constitution/ quality.

Eg GW targets those who dont care a bout rules, or synergy in concepts and back ground.
And those who are happy to pay over the odds simply because it is sold by GW.

Eg '..those that enjoy the GW hobby, simply enjoy buying stuff from GW... 'According to GW senior management.

Most other companies in the TTMG hobby try to give good game play in their rules and good value for money from their products.And attract those who are far more demanding that those who 'put up with GW '.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:
Some of the stuff in the current edition is rather badly worded and difficult to explain to people, and have either no summary or a very badly worded summary, but on the whole it is a lot better than the average.

In my local gaming group, the people who defend GW's rules as being "good" or "above average" have typically never played any other game system. I'm curious if that is the case with this poster?

It is the case... Here are his words on the subject:

xruslanx wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Genuinely curious at the OP: have you ever tried playing any other game before?

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

I bolded the important part and italicized the great part.

They are different posters.

Though I am curious as to what games he's aware of that are worse than GW's. I'm sure I could name some but they'd be from the 90's.

Whoops!

Meant to add in an explanation!

The main poster in this thread that has been saying that GW rules are good has stated that they have never played other game systems* so I would bet that this is the case with this poster.


* - see the above hilarious quote.

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Genuinely curious at the OP: have you ever tried playing any other game before?

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

I bolded the important part and italicized the great part.

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

Back to the point, I have played 40k for a good amount of years, I got fed up with it and went to try the other TTGs that were on the Market. Suffice to say that after playing a couple, it made me drop the main GW games entirely, as I actually had fun with those games and the rules were miles ahead. It almost feels like GW does not even try to write rules that good and just sell models and the rules help that. That is my line of thought though...

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

You mean like ethos?

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

You are implying from that statement in the other thread that people who play other TTG are people who are abnormal and have sex with non-human, and yet you call it rhetoric?
Okay then. I would argue with you, but seeing your post history, I can already see that it is not even worth the bloody effort to even try. Guess the Ignore function comes into play now.

 malfred wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

You mean like ethos?

Well that depends where you're from

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:
Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

Back to the point, I have played 40k for a good amount of years, I got fed up with it and went to try the other TTGs that were on the Market. Suffice to say that after playing a couple, it made me drop the main GW games entirely, as I actually had fun with those games and the rules were miles ahead. It almost feels like GW does not even try to write rules that good and just sell models and the rules help that. That is my line of thought though...

I think there are two main reasons why GWs rules are in the state that they are:
- New releases have to be (for the most part) backwards compatible. This means no sweeping changes to the rulesets that would invalidate old army books/codex's (despite ludicrous balance changes). The changes to 40k have only been tweaks and adding complexity since 3rd edition. The biggest change has been to add hull points, but the core rules are all still the same. This is a big problem because the rules are really showing their age and need a complete overhaul from scratch to bring them up to the standard provided by other companies. It's the same as software development. You can tweak and add to the same core piece of software, but eventually after so many editions you need to scrap it and start over from scratch. See Windows XP resetting the Windows OS from being a front-end to MS-DOS (or at least being the first version aimed at the home user to do so) and Windows 7 scrapping the Windows NT backend and rewriting from scratch. It's often rumoured that Andy Chambers wanted a hard reset of 40k after 4th edition, but was told no. He then went away and wrote Starship Troopers which felt very much like a hard reset of 40k.
- Maybe the developers are insulated from other products on the market. From what I've heard of upper GW management (and this could well just be baseless hearsay), they actually believe their own propaganda. Much like the people in this thread who think that GW's rules are good but haven't played any other games, it could be that the developers believe the companies own claims and don't think it even slightly necessary to look at other games for ideas/inspiration.

I don't think the developers are particularly incompetent or deliberately writing bad rules. I think they're held back. Look at Alessio Cavatore - after leaving GW he's gone on to write Kings of War and Bolt Action. Both games feel very much like what WHF and 40k would be if they were scrapped and rewritten from scratch.

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

Except that it 1) wasn't very persuasive and 2) wasn't a figure of speech. You said "No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?" This leads us to a few things.

1) You have never played other tabletop games besides GW games
2) You have never had sex with non-humans
3) You don't need to have sex with non-humans to know you won't like it.

You are the one that presented the out of this world comparison, and while I'm sure there is a logical fallacy (I'll ask Ahtman) here, the only recourse you're leaving us is this:

4) You don't need to play other TTG to know you you won't like it.

Which is adamantly not true. You don't know how good or bad GW games are if you have nothing to compare them to. If your gold standard is GW games but you've only experienced GW games you don't have a large enough sample size to ensure you know what is a good game for you.

It's fine to say, "yeah I got a demo of MERCs and I don't like it, or I used to play Malifaux, but I don't like the rules changes and at the end of the day I like GW games better." But to just say, "I don't like other games even though I haven't played them" doesn't give you much ground to stand on.

xruslanx wrote:

 malfred wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

You mean like ethos?

Well that depends where you're from

Having to explain my joke = terrible joke.

I mentioned ethos because you're not really building yours up any by
denying to know about/play other games.

Daedleh wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:
Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

Back to the point, I have played 40k for a good amount of years, I got fed up with it and went to try the other TTGs that were on the Market. Suffice to say that after playing a couple, it made me drop the main GW games entirely, as I actually had fun with those games and the rules were miles ahead. It almost feels like GW does not even try to write rules that good and just sell models and the rules help that. That is my line of thought though...

I think there are two main reasons why GWs rules are in the state that they are:
- New releases have to be (for the most part) backwards compatible. This means no sweeping changes to the rulesets that would invalidate old army books/codex's (despite ludicrous balance changes). The changes to 40k have only been tweaks and adding complexity since 3rd edition. The biggest change has been to add hull points, but the core rules are all still the same. This is a big problem because the rules are really showing their age and need a complete overhaul from scratch to bring them up to the standard provided by other companies. It's the same as software development. You can tweak and add to the same core piece of software, but eventually after so many editions you need to scrap it and start over from scratch. See Windows XP resetting the Windows OS from being a front-end to MS-DOS (or at least being the first version aimed at the home user to do so) and Windows 7 scrapping the Windows NT backend and rewriting from scratch. It's often rumoured that Andy Chambers wanted a hard reset of 40k after 4th edition, but was told no. He then went away and wrote Starship Troopers which felt very much like a hard reset of 40k.
- Maybe the developers are insulated from other products on the market. From what I've heard of upper GW management (and this could well just be baseless hearsay), they actually believe their own propaganda. Much like the people in this thread who think that GW's rules are good but haven't played any other games, it could be that the developers believe the companies own claims and don't think it even slightly necessary to look at other games for ideas/inspiration.

I don't think the developers are particularly incompetent or deliberately writing bad rules. I think they're held back. Look at Alessio Cavatore - after leaving GW he's gone on to write Kings of War and Bolt Action. Both games feel very much like what WHF and 40k would be if they were scrapped and rewritten from scratch.

I was trying to imply the second part more, but I should've gone into much better detail about it. If they did a complete overhaul, then I think they would have to redo all the Codices at once, which would take time but help revitalize the game I think. That being said, I agree with you. Although I would the add as well as The rules are starting to show its age, and in an 'era' were the competition is starting to arise, GW is going to have to get its game together. They are the top dog now and have a Monopoly (well, not really in a real sense, but they hold the majority of the market), but the competition is starting to seep at the cracks and the best GW does is shake them off and act as if it is nothing. This is really unhealthy for a business.

Not trying to sound like the typical GW basher, I thought I give my thoughts on the situation as a whole.

To be fair, the scale Peregine chose to use for the poll does not include a mid-point. Now, it is an informal internet poll, and not having a mid-point is not in and of itself a "bad" thing. It simply means that there is no response for people who are undecided/don't really care. But then are those people answering the poll anyway?

The poll includes one additional option below average than above: Unplayable. Unplayable is an extreme response, and one could argue that there is no direct corollary to include in the top half of the scale.

The scale might be slightly better if the top end included the following option:

Only playable game: Compared to GW games, all other game systems are unplayable.

Again, it does not really matter as this is an informal poll on a forum. But look at the responses. Only 10 respondents out of 558 selected Top-tier. Further, the respondents are split almost exactly 50/50 between those who think the games are below average and those who think the games are at least average.

I don't think a 7 point scale would have changed that. What you've got are results from a decently-sized poll of self-selected respondents showing that about half think GW's games are not up to snuff. For the "leading" wargaming company, these data should be disheartening, even considering the informal nature of the poll and the issues surrounding the pool of respondents.

If I were GW, I would be sad to see people rating the company's products as average, much less below average. That this thread even exists in the first place should be a serious red flag.

In short, I wouldn't worry about the particulars of the poll. As market research it is wildly flawed, so what's the point of debating whether it is inherently biased? It totally is, but not really by a fault in the specific questions. Even considering the inherent flaws, results like these are bad news for a company claiming to be the best, who charges premium prices based on that claim.

I aint gonna pay 100 bucks for a rulebook when GW won't pay someone to write decent rules. Where's my money going? Nice artwork? No, thank you, I'll take good rules first. If you can put pretty pictures in crappy rules, you can put them in good rules too.

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

Still that what I going to point out, maybe you should you know think before you post. Be cause after that must people think your a joke, and rightly know you are sadly uniformed when it come to miniature gaming.

Noir wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:

Remember people, if you play any other game than 40k, This person thinks you have sex with non-humans.

There's this thing called rhetoric. Look it up sometime, seriously.

Still that what I going to point out, maybe you should you know think before you post. Be cause after that must people think your a joke, and rightly know you are sadly uniformed when it come to miniature gaming.

Wait, is this me or him? Because I play other games to refute that. If it is not, I apologize mate, I am just confused who it was directed towards.