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.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.

The game is VERY off-putting to newcomers I've been teaching people how to play games for a few years now, and the only games that are difficult to teach to people (in my experience) is Magic the Gathering and GW's main two lines. The reason why Magic is tough to teach is because it's tough to get your mind around how the stack works, deck building is a little confusing, and it takes some time to learn the combos of a deck, but once you learn those things it becomes second nature to play. The game hasn't made giant strides in how it's played in the 20 years it's been around, but that's because it has clear rules that are easy to understand. On the other hand, 40k (and Fantasy) are difficult to teach because you have unbalanced starter sets which means that someone gets the shaft on the armies and losing all the time when you're learning is the #1 way to lose a player, and because the mini rulebook scenario puts out a very basic way to play the game, which gets turned upside down when you start to actually play the game how it's meant to be played. The rules don't go over army building (which is really hard to explain to someone when they don't even have a codex yet), and the game is needlessly complex for the sake of "narrative gameplay".

Bingo.

When I worked for GW we were taught to dumb the game down for demo games and basically make up the rules to get kids interested. Upon actually seeing how the game works most kids don't have the attention span or the interest. Its partially why I left the company, it was dishonest work.

Lol, at this point, is anybody else thinking that it would actually be easier for them just to make a clearer ruleset?!

 azreal13 wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.

The game is VERY off-putting to newcomers I've been teaching people how to play games for a few years now, and the only games that are difficult to teach to people (in my experience) is Magic the Gathering and GW's main two lines. The reason why Magic is tough to teach is because it's tough to get your mind around how the stack works, deck building is a little confusing, and it takes some time to learn the combos of a deck, but once you learn those things it becomes second nature to play. The game hasn't made giant strides in how it's played in the 20 years it's been around, but that's because it has clear rules that are easy to understand. On the other hand, 40k (and Fantasy) are difficult to teach because you have unbalanced starter sets which means that someone gets the shaft on the armies and losing all the time when you're learning is the #1 way to lose a player, and because the mini rulebook scenario puts out a very basic way to play the game, which gets turned upside down when you start to actually play the game how it's meant to be played. The rules don't go over army building (which is really hard to explain to someone when they don't even have a codex yet), and the game is needlessly complex for the sake of "narrative gameplay".

Bingo.

When I worked for GW we were taught to dumb the game down for demo games and basically make up the rules to get kids interested. Upon actually seeing how the game works most kids don't have the attention span or the interest. Its partially why I left the company, it was dishonest work.

Lol, at this point, is anybody else thinking that it would actually be easier for them just to make a clearer ruleset?!

I think saying that 40K/Fantasy needing a clearer ruleset is a major understatement of sorts. Sadly, knowing how GW is until someone else buys them or so on, that might not be the case.. :/

Its why the starter set should be two evenly pointed sides and it should be taken in baby steps. Because seriously there are "vets" that don't even know how to play properly.

Sorry I don't get it, are you saying wanting.tight rules = waac?

If so surely waac don't want a tight ruleset? As (as stereotpyes go) there all baby eating cheaters?

 Formosa wrote:
Sorry I don't get it, are you saying wanting.tight rules = waac?

If so surely waac don't want a tight ruleset? As (as stereotpyes go) there all baby eating cheaters?

No, look at my original post. It explains why the notion that a tight, clear and concise ruleset does not equate to WAAC behavior and how those can be played casually as those with a not so tight or clear ruleset.

I remember being turned off as a newcomer in 40k because I don't get why there's RAI and RAW. Coming from a M:tG background it upset me that the army I wanted to do (a Shrike army that charges turn 1 in 5th ed) can be considered illegal, depending on my opponent's take on the rules. Take note that it upsets me in a fluff level as well: I like to play Raven Guard and hitting your opponent before they expect it fits their fluff just fine, and it's not like it's an uber-competitive list (CCW scouts and assault Marines in 5th ed?). There shouldn't be RAI and RAW, there be just... rules.

I just continued playing 40k for a few months more because a) I already bought the models b) it's an excuse to hang out with friends. If it's just about the rules I wouldn't really play it,and now that I have discovered other games... I don't play 40k anymore.

I have played M:tG casually from 1994 onwards and just got seriously competitive about it at around 2006-2007. Now I don't see how a nice and clear rules set has ever hindered me to play and enjoy it casually as a "Timmy" (as M:tG designers like to call casual gamers of their game). And I don't see why a clear rules set could do that to 40k either. And maybe some semblance of balance as well. Until then, I'm going to play other games.

 azreal13 wrote:
A splendid, articulate and well reasoned post Alfindrate, have one of my very rare Exalts!

Shame it will be a complete waste of your time.

If he even sees it, I'm fairly certain he has me on ignore.

 heartserenade wrote:
There shouldn't be RAI and RAW, there be just... rules.

Agreed. Ideally, RAW and RAI should be one in the same, the intention of the author should be clear in the rules as they're written. Many game designers have grasped this, GW ignores this.

 heartserenade wrote:

I have played M:tG casually from 1994 onwards and just got seriously competitive about it at around 2006-2007. Now I don't see how a nice and clear rules set has ever hindered me to play and enjoy it casually as a "Timmy" (as M:tG designers like to call casual gamers of their game). And I don't see why a clear rules set could do that to 40k either. And maybe some semblance of balance as well. Until then, I'm going to play other games.

Apparently, with the exception of a minority of one, neither does anyone else!

 azreal13 wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:

I have played M:tG casually from 1994 onwards and just got seriously competitive about it at around 2006-2007. Now I don't see how a nice and clear rules set has ever hindered me to play and enjoy it casually as a "Timmy" (as M:tG designers like to call casual gamers of their game). And I don't see why a clear rules set could do that to 40k either. And maybe some semblance of balance as well. Until then, I'm going to play other games.

Apparently, with the exception of a minority of one, neither does anyone else!

Exactly, we don't want to hate GW just to hate GW we were or are probably fans of their work, and we want them to make us customers once again.

xruslanx, look at it from the so-called 'haters' point of view. Many of us that are decrying GW's rules probably have an army, probably multiples. Games Workshop was my first game company for wargaming. I was immediately drawn into the 40k and fantasy worlds. I had a small Goblin army, a small high elf army, and a space marine army all within my first 6 months of starting wargaming. By the end of my first 18 months I had gotten rid of those small fantasy armies, had a large Vampire Counts and WoC army, and had expanded my 40k armies to include a 2500 Descent of Angels BA army, a 4k point Iron Warriors Army, and a 4k point Imperial Guard Army, as well as trying to get rid of my 1500 nids and orks (because I loved them but didn't like how they played). Shortly after starting the blood angels army, I came across Warmachine and Hordes. I got a demo, started playing on Sundays and was hooked, because the people were jovial, the game was fun, the minis were cool looking, but best of all I didn't have rules arguments. My Thursday night 40k games would be rife with arguments of a single sentence... I have all of these models, and I want to play with them, but GW's inability to write clear rules is preventing me from having the fun I can have with other games.

xruslanx wrote:

Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.

I just have to point that this is very flawed logic. 40k is the biggest player in the industry and absolutely dominates it. In the UK at least, if you ask the average person on the street they'll not have a clue what wargaming is, but they know what "Warhammers" are.

Of course it is the largest gateway to newcomers. It is the largest game. Largest game doesn't mean best (another concept which seems utterly lost on you). In the UK, GW practically have a monopoly on high street game stores which are the main entryway into the hobby.

You may as well say that in office software, most people are introduced to Microsoft Office first. Well, yes? It utterly dominates the market in the same way as 40k does. It doesn't mean that the software is any good (although that is a lot more debatable than 40k vs other games), just that it's the most commonly used.

I think a better analogy would be Internet Explorer. It's the most used browser but it's a pretty crappy one.

 heartserenade wrote:
I think a better analogy would be Internet Explorer. It's the most used browser but it's a pretty crappy one.

Another better analogy to go along with it: It is the first thing you are most likely going to start with, give you a taste what surfing the web is, and then you move on to a better web browser most likely once one sees there are better things on the market.

@xruslanx

I really don't feel that GW's policy of overcompensation adds to the game either competitively or narratively. Take my Tyranids, for example; when i was introduced to them, I saw them as really being an army where you pinned your army with expendable troops, crippled them with key ambushes, and then crushed them under a tide of bodies and giant monsters. I came in near the end of 4th ed, meaning that it was really just a case of "crush with giant monsters". Then 5th ed rolled around, and genestealers could outflank. Now I have my surgical ambushes! Sure, I'm using my expendable troops as regenerating scoring units instead of fodder, but hey, close enough! Except that I'm now reduced to scratching on the outside of metal boxes, as the Venom Cannon can't do more than dent the tanks. Then the 5th ed codex drops. Suddenly, I can pop tanks! My swarm units and ambushers are cheaper! But my monsters now cost more, so I'm no further ahead if I run a mixed swarm. Also, in order to get the enemy infantry out of the tanks to devour, I need to spam Hive Guard, meaning that I lose a huge chunk of options from my codex. Then 6th ed hits, and I lose my ambushers. There is now a sizable portion of the game that I cannot participate in unless I take a specific model (Fliers). Changes to psychic powers means that now I'm all about rolling and hoping I get the right ability (Ironarm, cough). Plus, random charge distances now mean that my ravenous horde will spontaneously decide that it doesn't want to eat those guardsmen over there.

Competitively, I loved 4th ed because the Carnifex was overpowered. Narratively, I hated it because my swarms of fodder were really expensive, so I could not take as many as I liked.

Competitively, I hated early 5th ed because I lost automatically to mech lists. Naratively, I hated it because sat safely in their vehicles and I couldn't overwhelm them.

Competitively, I hated 5th ed because it nerfed a number of good units, railroaded my choices (Hiveguard, cough), and made me buy new stuff to have any chance (slim though it was). Narratively, I was quite happy, as there were a lot of cool units I could use to fulfill my dreams- despite the loss of biomorphs. As a player who wanted to win, but also play narrativly, I hated the fact that about 75% of the codex would actively hurt my chances of winning if I played it, meaning I had to choose between variety in playstyles and ability to win games.

6th ed, I ditched in short order- simply because both my Tyranids and Dark Eldar stopped playing as I enjoyed it unless I bought a huge pile of new models.

For Tyranids, I lost outflank (my ambushers). Aircraft whipped overhead, leaving 200pt+ models staring helplessly after them (goodbye monsters). Swarms of models fell short to poor assault rolls, and were torn apart by massively increased firepower (Goodbye Swarms). Competitively, I could be quite happy spamming Psychic powers. As someone who liked to win, and win in my way, the shift had basically ruined the game for me. Sure, I could spend a large sum of money to get the necessary new model, which I may quite of enjoyed playing with, but skyrocketing prices, and the discovery of other games, made me disinclined to pursue this option.

In short, GW constantly shifted the balance, with the result that my army never really played in what I considered a fluffy manner. With 5th ed. as a high point, even that had massive problems (loss of Biomorphs, huge number of units which were basically shooting myself in the foot, choice bottlenecks, practically required to buy new stuff to stand a chance in a fight, etc.).


Compare this to some other games:

Warmahordes (Unit A isn't good with Caster B, but is great with casters C or D, and in the meantime there is unit E)
Infinity (Take what you think looks cool, just remember to prepare for contingencies!)
X-Wing (Try different combinations for different fun! Plus, Star Wars!)

xruslanx wrote:

 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.

The irony of this post is the fact that even xruslanx equates poor-quality rules with GW. Otherwise, how could he equate anti-poor quality rules people with anti-GW people?

Listen, X. It's completely possible to enjoy the Warhammer fluff and overall feel while at the same time wishing GW would spend more time and attention to creating a stronger rules set with better internal and external balances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Just did. Feel better already.

Me, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx, look at it from the so-called 'haters' point of view. Many of us that are decrying GW's rules probably have an army, probably multiples. Games Workshop was my first game company for wargaming.

I have six GW armies between WHFB and 40K, and I started playing in 1988. I have a lot invested in the systems between time, money, and emotional energy. My main frustration is that over the last 25 years, I haven't seen any significant improvement in the game as far as the quality of the rules writing or the overall balance is concerned. I would love to start giving GW my money again, but I'm tired of making a purchase of an army only to have that army become virtually unplayable in a couple of years because of rules changes.

In WHFB, I haven't enjoyed playing my Dwarves for 3+ editions because of balance issues. I stopped playing my Dark Elves when their balance got to the too-strong end of things. I played Daemons of Chaos as a mono-Khorne army with no casters, but under the new book, that army has gone from pretty good (under the old book) to being a whipping boy.

In 40K, I stuck with DE for a decade, but then really stopped enjoying playing them under the old Codex when 5th edition came out, and the new Codex so radically changed the overall playstyle of the army that I haven't played that army in over 2 years. I had an all infiltrating Alpha Legion army back from 3rd edition, but that hasn't been a playable army for two Codices. I could play my DoC in 40K, but frankly, I really dislike 6th edition.

GW will probably get more of my money over the next six months; I'm holding out on seeing if my first love comes back to being an interesting and fun army to play: WHFB Dwarves.

Hi all.
IF we can all agree poorly worded and edited/proof read rules are bad .And cause ALL players concern.(Particularly when you are paying a 'premium' price. )

So the only REAL argument for writing 'over-complication ' and 'randomness' in the rules, is it stops better players from winning all the time.
However, this totally destroys the reason most people KEEP enjoying their hobbies,which is to gauge you personal improvement over time.

So when you win at 40k , it COULD just means you were luckier than you opponent , OR you happen to use more cost effective units in your force than your opponent did.

Jervis Johnson stated he believed army balance to be within 20% across all armies.So that means you could unknowingly have over a 100 points more than your opponent in any game of 40k over 1000 pts.

Where as other games with more focus on game play rely heavily on player skill.
And over time you CAN judge how much you have improved your actual playing skill.

I have hobbies I enjoy, IF however I feel I am NOT improving my skills in some way, I tend to drift away from that hobby.

Note this is PERSONAL skills relative to how you feel about your improvement.(It has sod all to do with winning games/competitions /tournaments. )

The other reason 40k is hard to learn is that the effect of the decisions you make are not that evident due to imbalance and randomness. (Comparatively .)

To the original poster, I don’t see any reason why a tight rule set should mean it’s mainly a game for WAAC gamers. It does make tournaments easier with clear rule sets but that’s a good thing isn’t it?

I mainly game with friends so the emphasis is on fun and enjoying our selves. No one wants to be halting the flow of a really good game by opening up a rulebook/codex to check what happens in this particular circumstance (which seem to happen a lot with 40K).

I love the 40K universe and really wish I could enjoy playing it again but at this time my main army Tryanids are just not fun (for all the reasons that Crazy_Carnifex listed really well above).

This is the main reason why I branched out to new games and was happily surprised.

P.S. That and the embargo

 Necro wrote:
To the original poster, I don’t see any reason why a tight rule set should mean it’s mainly a game for WAAC gamers. It does make tournaments easier with clear rule sets but that’s a good thing isn’t it?

I mainly game with friends so the emphasis is on fun and enjoying our selves. No one wants to be halting the flow of a really good game by opening up a rulebook/codex to check what happens in this particular circumstance (which seem to happen a lot with 40K).

I love the 40K universe and really wish I could enjoy playing it again but at this time my main army Tryanids are just not fun (for all the reasons that Crazy_Carnifex listed really well above).

This is the main reason why I branched out to new games and was happily surprised.

P.S. That and the embargo

I agree with that, it makes it a good thing that if it can be used in a tournament setting easier with a clear, tight, and concise ruleset, I think the same is able to be applied to a casual environment since you do not have to ruin the flow and immersion of the game that one would have to open a book or codex over and over again. Also (I think someone else mention this in this thread), it is also great to play the same game without having to ask the person at the store you usually do not go it "Alright, how do you do it in Canada rather than anysuburb, anystate, United States?"

Also, and kind of off-topic, it kind of amazes me to a good extent how much the Miniature Wargamer can take from GW and resilient they are in this industry. Any other industry, everyone would freak. Or at least my thought on it....

I'm into wargaming for the models and fluff - I prefer 40k's fluff which leads me to play their games more often. I'm not even sure I have an opinion on the rules anymore.... I just use them.

Do I get a ribbon for calling it? Because its Tuesday and we're already on page 3, with literally nothing gained because right now it looks like Dakka vs. xruslanx

To add something to this discussion, I went into my FLGS Sunday and there was a 40k game going on. I knew both the players, and both were pretty nice guys. They could be a bit weird when it came rules, but they weren't trying to cheat, just make sure the rules worked for their armies (I.e. If they were playing an assault army they looked at how to make the most of the assault rules.)

I was off to the side talking to the owner. Over the 2 1/2 hours I was there, there were no less than TWELVE rule disputes, two of which got heated. Almost all were ambiguously worded rules, with both players having fairly reasonable arguments. It made the game unpleasant to me, and I wasn't even playing. Even worse, the first thought I had was "thank goodness I play other games now."

Meanwhile, my other 3 games (X-Wing, Bolt Action, and Flames of War) I can count the number of rule disputes on one hand, with most being Bolt Action, which is barely a year old at this point. Almost all were settled with a quick search online to check the main FAQ, and the ruling made sense to everybody. Check out the X Wing forum here on Dakka for example. There's a single YMDC thread and most of the questions are "can I X?" with a clear yes or no as a reply.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Do I get a ribbon for calling it? Because its Tuesday and we're already on page 3, with literally nothing gained because right now it looks like Dakka vs. xruslanx

To add something to this discussion, I went into my FLGS Sunday and there was a 40k game going on. I knew both the players, and both were pretty nice guys. They could be a bit weird when it came rules, but they weren't trying to cheat, just make sure the rules worked for their armies (I.e. If they were playing an assault army they looked at how to make the most of the assault rules.)

I was off to the side talking to the owner. Over the 2 1/2 hours I was there, there were no less than TWELVE rule disputes, two of which got heated. Almost all were ambiguously worded rules, with both players having fairly reasonable arguments. It made the game unpleasant to me, and I wasn't even playing. Even worse, the first thought I had was "thank goodness I play other games now."

Meanwhile, my other 3 games (X-Wing, Bolt Action, and Flames of War) I can count the number of rule disputes on one hand, with most being Bolt Action, which is barely a year old at this point. Almost all were settled with a quick search online to check the main FAQ, and the ruling made sense to everybody. Check out the X Wing forum here on Dakka for example. There's a single YMDC thread and most of the questions are "can I X?" with a clear yes or no as a reply.

I feel like I should add this as well on seeing this on Dakka...
And even then on the Warmachine one, it is only at most one page long with one or two responses solving it.

To the OP:

As a college student as well, I fully understand what you are saying, and that's why I am also finding it hard to get anymore fun out of 40k (that and when I look at all the new codex rules and then I look at my CSM and Orks and also think "WTF am I still playing this game for?").

On the terms of clear rules=WAAC it does not mean that at all, although I can understand why someone can think that, as it all depends on how the company wants to sell their game, you use two brilliant examples which I will use to demonstrate. You use WM/H as an example, now WM/H have a clear and tight ruleset, but because the company (PP) wants to advertise the game as a competitive one they will use a few pages to tell its audience that it is designed to be competitively as the make a page called Page 5, which basically tells its audience to play fair, but play with all you got in each game, and in Infinity the company sells its game by showing to its audience that you can play the game casually and competitively with any models you like (See the infinity threads on Dakka asking what are the best units in a said force), all you have to do is play with skill and strategy as will your opponent and you can have a close game, every game

I personally believe that a clear and tight rule set does not mean WAAC, in fact I believe in the opposite, I believe that it would be the best thing for a game as it means that a casual player and a competitive player could sit down play a game without rules arguments and both players could have a close to the wire and enjoyable game.

Currently when I get free time I make rules for a Sci-fi Skirmish game im working on called Lockdown and, a Fantasy steampunk wargame called The Forgotten Realm, and what I've found in making the games is to leave as many rules as you can clear as possible, if you cant on a specific rule then ask the players what they find difficult in that specific rule then you fix that with an FAQ ASAP, I also find that with different types of games, also gives themselves a different genre of depth in rules, for example in my Skirmish game I can make as much depth as I want to revolve around your team (or Squad as I call them in my skirmish game) to emerge yourself in the narrative or cinematic of the game, however in my Steampunk fantasy game you control an army and your a general commanding an army, therefore because of the size of the genre of game (in this case the wargame) you should have detail into the game, but not to the level of depth that a skirmish game does.

This is why I believe 40k has a very bad balance and RAW in terms of the rules, it has very high detail of rules in the game but the depth and level of them is that of a skirmish game I believe, for example in 40k there is rules such as Duels, The warlord traits and level of customisation of each unit to "flesh out" certain units of your game, whilst I agree there should be depth when you put it all together, in terms of 40k it all synergises meaning that a whole list can become unbalanced though the customisation of your force.

A perfect way of understanding (as I don't think I have worded my point to be as strong as im satisfied with) is have a game of 40k, then have a game of kill team, maybe even mod the kill-team game so that you can include a tank or a walker, for example have a game of 40k with SM, they can at times feel pretty expendable, or something like a dreadnought may not look good on a points level of that size, but say have a 350pt game of kill-team with an opponent, use those SM with that dreadnought again suddenly you can feel those SM are really hard to face against, you can feel that bolter fire having an effect instead of firing them to hopefully kill 2 or 3 guys of your opponent just to "roll some dice", you can see that PA used in effect, and you can see that Dread being a fierce some unit on the table, you can see how that Assault cannon is meant to be used as and how your opponents bullets ping of its front armour, suddenly they become less "expendable" than the feel when playing a standard game of 40k.

All of this is just my opinion of course, but to me this is why 40k has failed as a game, it wants to be a skirmish game as the rules a have that much depth into one as a skirmish, yet it is a wargame, designed for big games with lots of models.

As a side note hgl, you may want to re-think the name of your fantasy game... Wizards of the Coast might have issues with that name.

 Alfndrate wrote:
As a side note hgl, you may want to re-think the name of your fantasy game... Wizards of the Coast might have issues with that name.

Aye, will do all names are in development

I don;t even know why I am wading into this.

In my experience, the mor e"rigid" a ruleset is the more "rigid" the players are. I.e. the less they welcome departures from the "norm" of play or trying things differently.

I.e. tight rulesets tend to get people hung up on "officialness" and what is and is not allowed.

Granted, I know I come from a certain perspective that wants to create storylines and even social stories from my gaming experience. The rules are there to facilitate the story, and if the rules get in the way of the story; then the rule needs to go. Not many people feel the way I do.

xruslanx wrote:
So...you're not. The only thing you want from GW is less rules mistakes? Well gee that's a rich vein of conversation right there.

So, let me get this straight: you don't think my desires for a better 40k are enough to have an interesting conversation, so that means you get to make up a straw man to argue against so you can have more fun?

You may not like this constant shift in power, but it exists.

And again you miss the fundamental point here: power doesn't shift in 40k because of a carefully planned metagame, it shifts because GW is utterly incompetent at game balance. The whole "perfect imbalance" thing does NOT mean "throw some unbalanced rules on paper, the worse the better".

That's all you need to do to win? My friends and I have never done that...almost as if 40k is a casual game.

So 40k's rules are only acceptable if you always ignore all of the problems?

Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.

And you keep ignoring factors like GW's dominance of the retail aspect of gaming (especially in the UK), which means that new players are far more frequently exposed to GW games than their competition. Or the "play what your friends play" factor that gives the biggest company in the industry a lot of inertia in maintaining that dominance. Your theoretical world in which newbies are presented with a bunch of different rules and choose the GW rules is just that, theoretical.

You know what? 40k isn't magic the gathering, I suggest you go find a M:TG forum since you clearly adore it so much.

You're right, 40k isn't MTG. MTG is a professionally designed game that works at all levels from the most casual "kitchen table" players to the most competitive tournaments. 40k is a joke of a game with appallingly bad rules, and if any of the MTG designers had been responsible for it they'd probably commit ritual suicide out of shame.

You keep repeating the matra that 40k would have nothing to lose by focussing on competative players - something which has apparently escaped every single games workshop rule designer for the past twenty years. Why do you think that is? What is it that you, peregrine, have seen, that they have not?

That's because GW's business plan is selling toy soldiers to kids. Most of their customers never play the game, so the rules don't matter. All they need is the idea of a game to get the kids to buy those first boxes of space marines. Making better rules wouldn't help those sales, so why spend more time and money on doing it?

And yes, this is a stupid business plan. There's been no shortage of threads explaining the unbelievable incompetence of GW's current management because of things like this.

Hmmm, I feel the need to counterpoint one of my own arguments - rules balance isn't absolutely required to enjoy a game.

My favorite GW games are Mordheim and Necromunda - neither is perfectly balanced, nor even close. (And why I do not play a Skaven warband in Mordheim - I already win most of my games, playing the most overpowered warband would not help.)

The worst WAAC players that I have ever met played Eldar in 2e WH40K and Skaven in Fantasy.

Those same players are also the worst WAAC that I have ever met in WARMACHINE, but at least the rules are more clearly written....

The best loser that I have ever met plays Orcs in Fantasy, and Dark Eldar in WH40K - and has since 3e WH40K.

He is just plain fun to play against - and he does not lose all his games, he is also one of the best winners that I have ever met. (He once beat me in one turn in 3e WH40K - Breakout mission - his entire army was within moving distance of the edge of the board.... There was a 5 in 6 chance that he would beat me without firing a shot. The way he handled it had me laughing out loud. (His assumption - the Dark Eldar were making a weed run - and my Dark Angels had shown up to burn the crops. The 'woods' terrain was made from plastic pot plants....)

And he does a better job than I do at explaining rules to new players.

He plays Cryx and Khador in WARMACHINE - and gets invited to a lot more games than either of the WAAC players does. He never lacks for an opponent.

He now plays KoW as well, but is one of the few people that I know that plays the latest Warhammer Fantasy as well.

The Auld Grump *EDIT* Hit Quote when I meant to hit Edit.

clear and tight rules = waac?

Hmm, no. I cannot in good conscience agree with that.

Lets be clear (ha, pun) on something.

clear rules are just that: clear rules.

playing 'competitively', and playing 'casually' are attitudes. Not lists. Funnily enough, i regard the community itself as partially to blame for the misnomer that 'competitive' and 'casual' are lists, or games, rather than the aforementioned attitude. warmachine is for competitive WAACers, powergaming is for WAACers, and 'fun' gaming is somehow seen as something different. Its funny. you can play warmachine casually just as easily as you can competitively. its all in the mindset, and what you want out of it.

However, i think this touches on a deeper issue i don't see many people raise. Sportsmanship. Its funny. In the physical world of sports, the general attitude towards sportsmanship involves (a) playing fair, (b) giving it your absolute all, and (c) after this, may the best man win. winning, and the desire to win, and the act of pushing yourself to be the very best are encouraged, seen as healthy, and lauded. Compare that to wargaming (and the 40k community is particularly guilty of this), and this whole sportsmanship idea goes out the window, to be replaced by "you cant do your best. you need to power down. dont give it your absolute all". Sometimes i get the impression the very act of winning, or even worse, an attitude of wanting to win is at best, frowned upon, and normally seen as something negative and something 'bad'. its almost like you have to apologise to your opponent for beating them, and that too often, sportsmanship is reduced from "do your very best" to "wear kid gloves, be gentle and hold their hand all the way through". Anyone else ever feel that way?

i think its interesting, because ive actually been on both sides of the fence. I think a lot of us would be familiar with being at the bottom of the social ladder in school. few friends, no girlfriends, and the 'popular' crowd look down on us. heck, that was me in school, i'd wager a good bet a large percentage of folks here would be, or would have been in the same boat. We were seen as 'losers', and maybe we still carry that baggage. Part of me often thinks the negative attitude to winning stems from an unconscious desire that if there are no winners, then there cant be any losers, and 'i dont want to be a loser any more'. Anyone ever feel that negative groupthink to stay in line, not rock the boat, and show everyone up like this? I've seen it said before, (and i partially agree), that as a community, we're not very social, or possesed of sportsmanship. we have our cliques, we have those we ourselves look down on. heck, how many 'immature player' or 'cheating player' threads have we come across (and they're funny reads, but really, i would argue it is partially indicative of a community attiude that is not very sporting). But thats me going on a tangent. Back to the original message; looking down on 'winners', and 'winning'. And that was me (however unconsciously i did it back in school). We have fight or flight responses, and i suspect most gamers would rather believe in flight (not necessarily just running away, but also not willing to deal with things, or 'push' to make things better). And university happened, and real life happened. And i went from that guy who refused to do sports in school to a guy who quite happily does this whole sporting malarkey (boxing, gym, half marathons, a 24hour endurance race, 10-20 mile cross country races, and my beloved 10k races) One thing is did for me weirdly was give me a different perspective on things. this whole idea of 'pushing myself' and all that nonsense, having it all 'on me', of wanting to try, and win, and do my damndest to be the absolute best i could be, of having a limit, and breaking past it. I enjoy it immendsely, and its given me a positive, assertive attitude.

And its translated to 40k. and its made me realise some things. playing competitively is fine. there is no need to look down on it, or down on folks who want to push themselves to get there. Sadly though, there are too many folks that see what i see as a positive assertive attitude, and snidely dismiss it as 'powergaming waac' nonsense (same thing, different interpretations). Folks see wargaming as an identity (i see it as a hobby), and their type of gaming to be a flag to stand under. Since i've started playing warmachine as my primary game, i've seen an entirely different attitude from the folks playing it. maybe its because we tend to be a bit on the older side than 40k players (most are 20, or 30 somethings, i tend to see the younger folks being more into 40k). who knows - maybe a bit of life experience is telling here? But the attitude from what was essentially a whiny, moany and more or less miserable 40k crowd (online and real life - lets face it, the 40k boards are always complaining about something - for whatever reasons; x is broken, y is underpowered; matt ward etc) which was essentially defeatist in nature (look at the nature of a lot of the complaints - "how dare they have cool toys. nerf it, nerf it, nerf it, pull everything back to a zero baseline") to one which was more assertive and positive (its less about x being borken/whinewhinewhone, and more how can i smash it). i was quite surprised at the change in the thought process of these two communities - things that i thought were bad, well, really they werent.

The sad part is that those complainers on the 40k boards have a point. there is a reason the competitive spirit is looked down upon in 40k. the appalling balance in the game. only so much is actively viable. So you take a powerbuild, and take it against a far-from-optimal build, and you will steamroll it. And for a lot of 40k players, 40k is their first, and only game (not aware of other games, not aware of other communities etc) and this will be their only experience of what is falsely labelled as "competitive gaming" (its more accurate to term it poor internal, and external balance) and frankly, is it any wonder that what is seen as 'competitive gaming' leaves such a sour taste in your mouth? So we've got those guys going through all those grey areas in the rules and powerbuilding, and netdecking the game. thats competitive gaming, 40k style. (ab)using the rules, taking beardy cheese/cheesy beard etc. Now, you hear about competitive games, or games designed as competitive games, and your first instinct is going to be a game populated by assholery and nastiness. clear, tight rules? reading the rules as is? (as opposed to the intent, and 'fun'?) From a 40k perspective, thats labelled as WAAC, and as being a 'rules lawyer'. And from a 40k perspective, it means one thing: trouble. but is it WAAC? Or is it a failure of perception, based on an extremely narrow POV gained from exclusively playing a certain kind of game?

Honestly? I think the answe is to play more games. Not just that, play different games. Try and see things from a greater perspective. More importanrly, i think its good to try and see games designed from a different perspective. clear and tight rules are not the same thing as douchebaggery and WAAC. competitive games are not the hunting grounds of noobstalking jerks who only want to win, and smash little timmy into the dirt. similarly, narrative, scenario based and house ruled games with a clear "screw balance, lets tell a narrative" approach, a few feer beers etc can be brilliant (we tend to do a lot of flames of war like this). clear and tight rules? If you ask me, they help both approaches.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
My favorite GW games are Mordheim and Necromunda - neither is perfectly balanced, nor even close. (And why I do not play a Skaven warband in Mordheim - I already win most of my games, playing the most overpowered warband would not help.)

The thing with Necromunda though (haven't played Mordheim) is that while there are all sorts of opportunities for overpowered weirdness, it is balanced somewhat by the campaign system, which is hw the game was designed to be played rather than just as one-off games.

While an individual game may be rather one-sided, giant-killer bonuses and the potential to gain a ridiculous amount of experience in a very short time can even things out overall so long as your gang doesn't get too badly mauled...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xruslanx wrote:
Yes but saying that the 40k ruleset is offputting to newcomers, when it is by far and away the largest gateway to newcomers, is flat-out wrong. You are wrong, perigrine.

Being the largest gateway doesn't prove it isn't off-putting. It just means it is the largest gateway. As others have pointed out, that's largely just because of market saturation, because their base is still huge due to the large period of time where there were no serious competitors.

But being the largest gateway into gaming also doesn't tell you how many people try it and are put off by the rules, and go do something else instead. In the last 20 years, there are quite a few non-gamers who I have tried to introduce to 40K, and of them all, one of them actually enjoyed it enough to stick with it for more than a single game. The others just found the rules too confusing.

For me the "Fluff" and "friendly games" as well as "fun" are excuses.

Excuses to allow a bad rule set and an imbalanced system to go on forever, from the designer who does not want to commit to the huge time of play testing and number crunching/ tweakign a well written, internally and externally balanced game demands and from the followers of said game systems who do not want to admit their game system is flawed, or who do believe the excuses the developer gives as valid.

I have seen chess been mentioned above, I would dismiss this, a tight game system, when wargaming is considered can never lead to "Chess purity" because the random factors and variables are frankly way to many.

What a tight rule set gives to a gaming system is first and foremost, less or no grey areas that can be taken advantage of, an extended FAQ to cover the rare oddities than may rise because, even with an extended playtesters pool, the released game will be tested to destruction by more people than one can ever have as play testers and second an easy to read rule set that can be referenced and give a conclusive answer with examples, leaving nothing to dispute, after all the players are there to play a game, not dispute how the game should be played.

The balance of the game is in the forces, good balanced forces are internally and externally balanced, internally means that each and every choice is valid and the player will not skip one or more choices because they are "not good" external balance means that each "army" should be a valid option and not have "obviously better and worse" armies.

Recapping the above.
A tight rule set allowes players to play the game and not debate on how the game should be played.

An internally and externally balanced game makes each and every choice a player makes valid.

What is not to like in the above?

A WAAC player will do anything at his disposal to win, a game system that is not tight that also has internally and externally imbalanced forces will only help him maximize his chances to win by giving him access to superior armies than the bulk and allowing him to at least try and enforce the interpretation of how the game should be played that suits him or her better (especially if the game designer says roll it).

For me every type of gamer should seek and demand a game system is as tight and as balanced (internally and externally) as it can be, having a clear ruleset allows not only a nice balanced game, but creates solid foundation for story missions custom units, odd scenarios, because the players only have to deal with the imbalances their custom stuff creates, not the imbalances and inconsistencies of the system and on top of their own creations.

@Auldgrump
In which I can understand, Balance is not absolutely required, but it helps. Hell, I have stated in the thread me and my friend like to play a boardgame called Arena Maximus, and that does not really have the best balance between the racers and chariots.

My main argument of this thread that I presented is that tight, concise, and clear rulesets are as playable casually, and possibly a bit better (although that is my subjective part of it) since you do not have to flip through the rulebook and worry about what a rule means. Also I presented that the WAAC behavior is all dependent on the player and how his/hers personality is and how they came to be, but of which I can agree with you. You are going to find those kinds of players in any game.


@Deadnight
For the most part, I agree with you mate, hell, I was like that as well in my early years, although I developed the competitive nature and pushed myself to become better and better myself midway through high school since real life hit me at that part when growing up.

The competitive nature is just something that is present in humanity, it is just who we are as I see it. But, there is a fine line what is acceptable and what is not to win, but it can be blurry as well. If one cheats, and does not try to give his best by trying to abide by some sort of guidelines or tries to abuse something that might not be clear cut then I feel the competitive spirit is undermined.

But with that being said, one can be competitive, give it their best, and strive to win, but one can also lose with grace, learn from it and take it as experience, and also have fun with it.