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.

This is a thing I noticed on Dakka is that it seems that some good amount of people have a grind with rulesets that are tight/clear and concise rulesets, believing are not playable in a casual environment, and produce a mindset of a person trying to win at all times, at any cost. I have to ask the question to a point, why? Why, and also, in what way does this make it so?

Now, I played the main GW games back when I got into the hobby (that is how I started, like most people), and up until a good 5 months ago about when I decided to try other games and get into them. In fact, the rules was one of the main reasons I dropped 40k/ Fantasy in favor for Warmahordes and Infinity. Also, this is in no way to bash people who still play 40k and fantasy, this is more of an observation of what I have seen a bit and I want to have fun with a game like any other Miniature Wargamer out there no matter what game it is.

And like a large majority of people on this forum, I have a life outside Miniature Wargaming, and I am busy with college as well, so I am glad to get in as many games as I can when I go to my store when I can. That I feel cannot really be done if there is an rule that is unclear or has unclear writing for what it is trying to explain, and debating on that topic takes time away from being able to enjoy and play the game, also taking away from the flow of the game as well. Even then when that is settled, you and your opponent may have the same interpretation of that rule, but universally that may or may not apply to everyone or has an interpretation of the rules completely (unless you just play with friends in a group, then this might be a bit void to these people, since there are house rules one could make up to keep the flow going). With a tight and concise ruleset for the games I play, I feel that I do not have to waste on debating a rule and I can have more time to enjoy and get in my game more.

Another thing as well is that WAAC and some of that nonsense comes from the players, and not the game at all. It is the human condition to some extent, and how the person developed his/her's personality in their life to have that behavior. So at best it is anecdotal evidence if I was to say that the game and the place I used to play used to have crappy players, so that deterred me away from 40K/Fantasy and brought me into Warmahordes/ Infinity, which is not that good of evidence since it does not apply to everyone and people in general tend to have different experiences.

Warmahordes for example: The ruleset for the game is the tightest, most clear and concise I have played so far, and PP does a relatively good job with clearing up any unclear parts for the most part. I mostly play it casually and in a league with nothing too serious behind it, and I can get at least 4-5 games in before heading out back home, and without having to open the rulebook to look up a rule.

Infinity is for the most part concise with its rules, everything for the most part makes sense. But, there are some grey areas in it (although I am not sure if CB wrote it as it was, or if it a translation from Spanish to English) and some of the rules can use a bit of tightening up, but for the most part, it is nothing like 40k/Fantasy.

Am I saying one should stop playing 40k or Fantasy? No, that was not the point I wanted to make. My main thought and idea was how I thought it was a bit of a silly notion that clear, concise, and tight rulesets do not in any way come with the stigma of WAAC and/or you cannot play it casually. I apologize if this came out as a rant, but I wanted to get that out there.

Just remember that the person who complains the most about how "clear rules = bad" also insists that playing a non-GW game is like sex with animals. You aren't dealing with a rational adult, and you should adjust your expectations appropriately.

 Peregrine wrote:
Just remember that the person who complains the most about how "clear rules = bad" also insists that playing a non-GW game is like sex with animals.

And that's something DakkaDakka will never forget

 Peregrine wrote:
Just remember that the person who complains the most about how "clear rules = bad" also insists that playing a non-GW game is like sex with animals. You aren't dealing with a rational adult, and you should adjust your expectations appropriately.

Well,I have seen that from xruslanx, so he is on my ignore list, but this is some things that I noticed from other people as well. May not be the majority, but it is something that gets me to the point of puzzling to me..

I agree, tightly written rule sets are much better for casual play, if only because it deals with the tension of having multiple, legitimate interpretations of a rule.

Balance also makes casual games better- if I know that Xpts of A is equal to Xpts of B, and ensures a fair fight in a head-to-head scenario, then I know that if I want the fight to be more one-sided I can simply give side A X+Y points. Give side B an advantage with terrain setup, and I have a perfect setup for a last-stand scenario with minimal effort, meaning more playtime.

I think a lot of the balance=WAAC crowd are GW fanatics who use the phrase to try to defend their position against other peoples rational criticisms. By trying to make other game systems look evil, they can overlook the deficiencies of their favored system- some of them simply can't handle the concept of other games being fun to play, so try to use this to justify it.

fishy bob wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Just remember that the person who complains the most about how "clear rules = bad" also insists that playing a non-GW game is like sex with animals.

And that's something DakkaDakka will never forget

I have to say....10/10 it made me chuckle.

Loose and ill-defined rulesets can facilitate WAAC-ing - allowing abuse and rules-stretching .

Could be the WAAC-er fears the well defined ruleset as it offers less opportunity for shenanigans

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
I agree, tightly written rule sets are much better for casual play, if only because it deals with the tension of having multiple, legitimate interpretations of a rule.

Balance also makes casual games better- if I know that Xpts of A is equal to Xpts of B, and ensures a fair fight in a head-to-head scenario, then I know that if I want the fight to be more one-sided I can simply give side A X+Y points. Give side B an advantage with terrain setup, and I have a perfect setup for a last-stand scenario with minimal effort, meaning more playtime.

I think a lot of the balance=WAAC crowd are GW fanatics who use the phrase to try to defend their position against other peoples rational criticisms. By trying to make other game systems look evil, they can overlook the deficiencies of their favored system- some of them simply can't handle the concept of other games being fun to play, so try to use this to justify it.

Coming from GW and its games when I was younger, I used to have that line of thought, and people at the store I used to go to "Do not believe what the internet says always, it is filled with scum and villainy about GW because they do not know better". Funny thing is when I checked out other things, I had more attention to that, and once I started playing, I had a lot more fun than I did with any of the GW games, and I did not have to worry about about opening the book almost every turn to see if something does or does not make sense.

 Peregrine wrote:
Just remember that the person who complains the most about how "clear rules = bad" also insists that playing a non-GW game is like sex with animals. You aren't dealing with a rational adult, and you should adjust your expectations appropriately.

Ha! I'm a newbie fishing for a sig, would you object if I used this?

This pops up every week or so, and every time it involves the same people arguing for the same sides. I've participated in several myself.

I hate to say it but some people just can't see what this means.

Also, this thread will probably hit 4-5 pages before the end of the week of the discussion doesn't get heated and the mods nuke it.

But I will say I agree with just about everything you said, I just find war machine a bit boring for whatever reason.

My girlfriend is a very casual gamer, and likes Kings of War just fine.

She plays maybe once or twice a week (not this week or next, though - she is in St. Paul for a family reunion/grandmother's birthday event... dammit).

We play most often against each other, but really enjoy sharing an army in a mixed doubles game. (Us vs. a married couple - so far we are three wins for four games, the fourth and most recent was a tie... the other couple may be catching on to us....)

We have stopped a game when it became clear that neither of us were having fun because she had a bad deployment - I don't think either of us play with a WAAC approach to the game. (Heck, my favorite games are when she beats me, fair and square. I'm the one that taught her, so that means that I did a decent job of it.)

The Auld Grump

I predict that this thread will contain back-slapping from the anti-gw crowd until it peters into obscurity at 2 or 3 pages.

xruslanx wrote:
I predict that this thread will contain back-slapping from the anti-gw crowd until it peters into obscurity at 2 or 3 pages.

Except you'll find most people aren't "Anti-GW" so much as they're "Anti-poor-quality-rule-set-and-proofreading".

And anti beastiality.

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I predict that this thread will contain back-slapping from the anti-gw crowd until it peters into obscurity at 2 or 3 pages.

Except you'll find most people aren't "Anti-GW" so much as they're "Anti-poor-quality-rule-set-and-proofreading".

That's an emotive and pointless way of expressing it. It's like when you see politicians on tv, "We're not anti-conservative, we're anti-poor government, anti-tax breaks for the rich, anti-incompetence" etc.

Everyone is anti poor-quality rules and pro-proofreading, yet "the community" still identifies one side as being pro-GW and one side as being anti-GW. Both might be generalizations, but both exist or they would not be identified by the same community that they come from. I think some people just have different outlooks on life; if my friends and I come across a rules hiccup we just use common sense to sort it out and no more is said or done about it. Other people create a thread on YMDC and unleash a torrent of rage upon the internet.

You continue to ignore the actual point of contention and choose to throw around an even worse label for people who disagree with you.

People like myself are not Anti-GW. I am against poor quality rulesets and expect them to do a better job writing them and testing them, like dozens of other smaller companies are capable of doing.

You and your friends may be able to sort out the rules to your satisfaction, but many aren't in the same situation; all it takes is for one person to have a different interpretation to grind a game to a halt. A better written rule set wouldn't have this problem for anyone.

In fact, it blows my mind how opposed you are to a quality ruleset.

But again, you've never tried anything different, so there's really no point discussing this with you. You've made up your mind, have zero arguments to stand on in a discussion, and use example of bestiality to make laughably wrong comparisons.

 Blacksails wrote:
You continue to ignore the actual point of contention and choose to throw around an even worse label for people who disagree with you.

People like myself are not Anti-GW. I am against poor quality rulesets and expect them to do a better job writing them and testing them, like dozens of other smaller companies are capable of doing.

You and your friends may be able to sort out the rules to your satisfaction, but many aren't in the same situation; all it takes is for one person to have a different interpretation to grind a game to a halt. A better written rule set wouldn't have this problem for anyone.

In fact, it blows my mind how opposed you are to a quality ruleset.

But again, you've never tried anything different, so there's really no point discussing this with you. You've made up your mind, have zero arguments to stand on in a discussion, and use example of bestiality to make laughably wrong comparisons.

Conversely, you're telling me that my personal experience is incorrect - that I actually did not enjoy those battles, that those games did not go smoothly. Hence why you are being so closed-minded that conversation is irrelevent.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
My girlfriend is a very casual gamer, and likes Kings of War just fine.

She plays maybe once or twice a week (not this week or next, though - she is in St. Paul for a family reunion/grandmother's birthday event... dammit).

We play most often against each other, but really enjoy sharing an army in a mixed doubles game. (Us vs. a married couple - so far we are three wins for four games, the fourth and most recent was a tie... the other couple may be catching on to us....)

We have stopped a game when it became clear that neither of us were having fun because she had a bad deployment - I don't think either of us play with a WAAC approach to the game. (Heck, my favorite games are when she beats me, fair and square. I'm the one that taught her, so that means that I did a decent job of it.)

The Auld Grump

First off, lucky you for getting your GF into this. It is good to enjoy a game like that with your significant other casually and not worry about the rules (although I have to ask a bit off-topic in this part, how is Kings of War? I thought about starting it up but the models that Mantic some of the time do not sit right for me and it will be hard to get some people in without convincing. Although I might try Dreadball, since that is mostly a board game that maybe good to start out with,,,), Hell, even sometimes losing is a way of learning, right?

MrMoustaffa wrote:This pops up every week or so, and every time it involves the same people arguing for the same sides. I've participated in several myself.

I hate to say it but some people just can't see what this means.

Also, this thread will probably hit 4-5 pages before the end of the week of the discussion doesn't get heated and the mods nuke it.

But I will say I agree with just about everything you said, I just find war machine a bit boring for whatever reason

I know what you mean (probably since xruslanx is now commenting, I think it is going to begin...) that people tend to have something hold dear to them, that they cannot see it any other way. And no worries about the Warmahordes, it can get a little repetitive at times, hence why I have two armies to spice it up a bit and try other games to have a variety-is-the-spice-of-life approach,

xruslanx wrote:

Conversely, you're telling me that my personal experience is incorrect - that I actually did not enjoy those battles, that those games did not go smoothly. Hence why you are being so closed-minded that conversation is irrelevent.

You know what, this just shows how bad you are at discussing anything. Nowhere have I said you were wrong, or telling you the games didn't go smoothly.

I almost typed up a lengthy response, but I'm done now. Good day.

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

Conversely, you're telling me that my personal experience is incorrect - that I actually did not enjoy those battles, that those games did not go smoothly. Hence why you are being so closed-minded that conversation is irrelevent.

You know what, this just shows how bad you are at discussing anything. Nowhere have I said you were wrong, or telling you the games didn't go smoothly.

I almost typed up a lengthy response, but I'm done now. Good day.

Personally, I would suggest people put him on their Ignore list. Might save the time and effort I would think...

Just did. Feel better already.

So this thread literally...is people agreeing with each other, and ignoring anyone who disagrees? Lol.

Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.

xruslanx wrote:
So this thread literally...is people agreeing with each other, and ignoring anyone who disagrees? Lol.

No, just ignoring you.

You might be amazed at how well most folks listen to someone that disagrees with them, yet manages to do so in a concise, logical, well supported, and polite manner - you know, without comparing other folks favored games with consorting with the livestock, after admitting that they have never played any other games.

The Auld Grump

I was refuting the assertion "you can't judge something before you try it" by using an exaggerated form of that rhetoric to disprove it. At no point did I compare wargames to zoophilia.

I also take issue with the fact that this issue is something that has quantifiable boundries, and therefore can be objectively argued and evaluated. I am more than happy to discuss wargaming qualitatively, but I don't see why I should be labled as closed-minded for simply disagreeing with a quantitative analysis of a complex hobby.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Personally, I think balance is what is required for a good competitive game. All the best 'casual' games I can think of were unbalanced as hell, or had completely silly rules sets. Fuzzy Heroes, Necromunda, Bang!, Pimp, Are You a Werewolf, Toboggans of Doom; there's scores of games out there that make for great casual gaming encounters, and all the ones I can think of have either hideously unbalanced rules (a set of KISS action figures will decimate a Fuzzy Heroes game) or completely asinine rules sets (Necromunda- the game where I can spend all season carving people up with a chainsword, and the only benefit of my experience will be increased Ballistic Skill!) Don't get me wrong, I love these games, but I'm not going to try to pretend like they have top-notch rules to them.

Which is a fair enough point. If you love playing the games with your group of buddies and you can handwave it a bit, then that is all that matters. My original post was meant to convey games that have tight, clear and concise rulesets can be played casually like those you mentioned above, but it sure as hell does help in the competitive department. Hell, me and my friend love to play a game called Arena Maximus, which has kind of horrible balance between the racers a bit as the game later devolves into going fast...

Jimsolo I think the point is, with a poorly written will mostly only to 'casual' gamers who don't really care, whereas a well written ruleset can appeal to both the 'competitive' and the 'casual' for only a little bit of effort, so why not double your market?

 Krellnus wrote:
Jimsolo I think the point is, with a poorly written will mostly only to 'casual' gamers who don't really care, whereas a well written ruleset can appeal to both the 'competitive' and the 'casual' for only a little bit of effort, so why not double your market?

Because once a market appeals to two types of people, rules/models/policy could also change to appeal to a more "hardcore" crowd. I think a large part of 40k's lasting popularity and appeal is its mainstream image, something which could be compromised if the rules catered to more hardcore/competative gamers.

xruslanx wrote:
Conversely, you're telling me that my personal experience is incorrect - that I actually did not enjoy those battles, that those games did not go smoothly. Hence why you are being so closed-minded that conversation is irrelevent.

Nobody is disputing that you've had fun with GW games. What we have a problem with is your ridiculous "argument" that GW's games can't be improved and things like clearer rules would make them worse.

xruslanx wrote:
Because once a market appeals to two types of people, rules/models/policy could also change to appeal to a more "hardcore" crowd. I think a large part of 40k's lasting popularity and appeal is its mainstream image, something which could be compromised if the rules catered to more hardcore/competative gamers.

And, again, this is obvious nonsense. MTG has rules with zero ambiguity and enough balance to have tournaments with $50k cash prizes. And yet there's still a thriving casual community, entire new releases dedicated to casual gaming, etc.

But of course you're going to ignore this just like you've ignored all of the other examples of non-GW games doing the things you claim are "impossible".

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
I think a lot of the balance=WAAC crowd are GW fanatics who use the phrase to try to defend their position against other peoples rational criticisms. By trying to make other game systems look evil, they can overlook the deficiencies of their favored system- some of them simply can't handle the concept of other games being fun to play, so try to use this to justify it.

IMO it has a lot to do with a certain group of players that loves GW games. Talking about things like clear rules or balanced point costs would mean admitting that they are one of those horrible people who cares about the rules of the game instead of just putting their cool space marine models on the table and forging an awesome cinematic narrative. And from there it's just one tiny step to becoming the worst kind of TFG, a person who actually cares about who wins the game. So they have to make a big public show of pride in how terrible the rules are, because it means they clearly don't care about those WAAC things.

(Meanwhile of course GW is laughing all the way to the bank as they don't have to spend the time and money to write better rules.)

 Bull0 wrote:
Ha! I'm a newbie fishing for a sig, would you object if I used this?

Feel free, if you don't want to go find the original quote I'm referring to.