So clear and tight rulesets=WAAC, not able to play casually ? I don't buy it....

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.

**heartserenade**

Herzlos wrote:
Riquende wrote:
Easy E wrote:

"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"

Have you tried? When I was in a chess club we tried out all sorts of variations and scenarios. None of them stuck, but some were a fun one-off.

Indeed, we used to play with all sorts of variations (allowing multiple queens, more rooks, etc), and I believe Alessio Cavatore has a game out which is a cross between wargaming and chess (using point values for pieces for instance), though I can't think of the name offhand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_variant

Also, I believe what you're talking about is Mantic's Loka?

In Loka, you control one or more armies of elemental fantasy warriors – Fire, Earth, Air and Water are at war. The armies, divided into two teams, battle for supremacy using polyhedral dice, moving and fighting over a board layered with ever-changing fantasy terrain. The rules, and type of pieces available to your army are inspired by traditional chess, and so are extremely simple. However, in Loka you get to choose what pieces you are going to include in your army, which means your armies can be expanded for larger, more epic battles.

Another example that has been beaten to death is M:tG. It has very clear rules but it hasn't stopped people from making variant games (Elder Dragon, Two-Headed Giant, commander, Pauper, Booster Pack Mini Masters, Trash drafts, among many things). The clarity of the rules has not impeded creativity, or the want to spice things up by changing and tweaking it up a bit.

**Herzlos**

Loka is the one I was thinking of, but Shuuro is a good call as well; it's a 3/4 player variant closer to Chess?

I've never played either, but read about them of forums, so I don't know any real details.

**Saldiven**

heartserenade wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
Riquende wrote:
Easy E wrote:

"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"

Have you tried? When I was in a chess club we tried out all sorts of variations and scenarios. None of them stuck, but some were a fun one-off.

Indeed, we used to play with all sorts of variations (allowing multiple queens, more rooks, etc), and I believe Alessio Cavatore has a game out which is a cross between wargaming and chess (using point values for pieces for instance), though I can't think of the name offhand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_variant

When I was in Chess Club in high school, we used to play a lot of variants, but the one that we played the most was called "king in the corner." I'm surprised that one didn't show up on the wikipedia entry.

**PhantomViper**

Easy E wrote:

"Tight" and "Clear" rulesets foster a mindset in the players that anything outside of the "norm" is wrong and should never be done. For example, let say I walk into my local Chess club and say, "Hey guys, I have this cool variant scenario where Black has to go firs. Who wants to try that?"

If I wanted a super clear, tight ruleset that challenged me and my opponent for a clear winner and loser I would just play Chess. However, I don;t play Chess because I want something different, and what that is is a slightly chance that the cause and effect algorithm might do something less predictable in some cases.

I don't know where you got this idea from.

For example, in our WMH scene we generally have "fun" tournaments interspersed with "serious" tournaments. This month's "fun" tournament was 25 points doubles and you didn't knew with whom you got paired until you arrived at the store. The other "fun" one before that was 25 points mangled metal (only warjacks and warbeasts allowed).

There is a very popular format doing the rounds in the US conventions where you make a list and have your warcaster randomly assigned to you from a pool containing every warcaster in the game before each game.

There was a custom tournament the night before the WTC started where you were allowed to place terrain on the table, during the course of the game. That terrain consisted of your empty beer cups (that you drank during the game)!

There is another very popular format for charity where you are allowed to buy cheats and re-rolls during a game based on the amount of canned food that you've donated.

There are literally countless formats out there that are completely outside the "norm" and that despite that are very popular with the warmahordes community.

Also, like azreal13 said, you can have a game that has super clear and concise rules and the game itself be completely random. A random game doesn't mean that it has bad rules, it just means that the game was designed to be random.

**Easy E**

azreal13 wrote:

Well, firstly you're assuming in your chess example that not one person would turn around and say "sounds like an interesting idea, let's give it a go" and I believe that there are indeed variations on chess, such as those played in 3D on multiple levels, available?

Okay, people have made many claims that this or that happens. If we use this threads stnadards, it is all anecdital evidence and hence can be ignored.

However, I will concede the point that people play variant versions of Chess.

However, that doesn't mean the "Chess" community as a whole embraces this idea or encourages it as part of the "Chess" Hobby.

azreal13 wrote:

Secondly, "less predictable" =\= "bad rules"

It is entirely possible to write a ruleset that has some level of variance that doesn't result in both players standing around scratching their heads about what happens next when two random events occur simultaneously that appear to contradict each other.

EDIT Especially when you've had thirty years practice and access to greater resources than any of your peers.

Really, because a lot of people on this thread don't seem to agree with that. They want predictable interactions between this and that with a clear causal chain. Isn't that what "Tight" means?

Or does it simply mean "clear" and easy to understand rules? Yeah, who doesn't want clear and easy to understand rules? Unless the point is to try to create a game where the game is to guess the rules?

I want clear and easy to understand rules too. However, i don;t want them to be overly "tight" where I can be entirely confident that if Unit A shoots at Unit B and casualties will occur, force a break test, whch Unit B will fail and run away. At any point, I want my assumptions aboutwhat will happen to possibly not happen, so I have to react to the fact that what i planned and thought would happen didn't happen at all.

**MrMoustaffa**

However, that doesn't mean the "Chess" community as a whole embraces this idea or encourages it as part of the "Chess" Hobby

No game community is going to have 100% of its players agree on something like custom scenarios. Custom scenarios is always something you have to clear before hand, because you're changing the agreed to rules of the game. It doesn't matter if its Chess, Warhams, Bolt Action, Flames of war, checkers, or any other game, there will always be people who just want to play the standard game and ignore additions, expansions, or custom scenarios.

The rabid hate some people have towards FW is a good example of this.

**Noir**

Easy E wrote:

azreal13 wrote:

Secondly, "less predictable" =\= "bad rules"

It is entirely possible to write a ruleset that has some level of variance that doesn't result in both players standing around scratching their heads about what happens next when two random events occur simultaneously that appear to contradict each other.

EDIT Especially when you've had thirty years practice and access to greater resources than any of your peers.

Really, because a lot of people on this thread don't seem to agree with that. They want predictable interactions between this and that with a clear causal chain. Isn't that what "Tight" means?

Or does it simply mean "clear" and easy to understand rules? Yeah, who doesn't want clear and easy to understand rules? Unless the point is to try to create a game where the game is to guess the rules?

I want clear and easy to understand rules too. However, i don;t want them to be overly "tight" where I can be entirely confident that if Unit A shoots at Unit B and casualties will occur, force a break test, whch Unit B will fail and run away. At any point, I want my assumptions aboutwhat will happen to possibly not happen, so I have to react to the fact that what i planned and thought would happen didn't happen at all.

No Azreal has it right in what we want, it people trying to get it across to one dumbass and his reponses that make it seem the other way to you. We tried over 5+ threads to get the point in Azreal qoute across but it fails every time. KNOW ONE WANTS TO GET RID OF RANDOMNESS, WE WANT RULES THAT DON'T CONTERACT EACH OTHER OR AT LEAST RULES THAT TELL USE HOW THE RULES INTERACT WHEN THEY COUNTERACT EACH OTHER. And know roll a dice when it happens is NOT A RULE, it is a patch at best.

**PhantomViper**

Easy E wrote:

Really, because a lot of people on this thread don't seem to agree with that. They want predictable interactions between this and that with a clear causal chain. Isn't that what "Tight" means?

Or does it simply mean "clear" and easy to understand rules? Yeah, who doesn't want clear and easy to understand rules? Unless the point is to try to create a game where the game is to guess the rules?

"Tight" means rules that don't have room for different interpretations.

Easy E wrote:

I want clear and easy to understand rules too. However, i don;t want them to be overly "tight" where I can be entirely confident that if Unit A shoots at Unit B and casualties will occur, force a break test, whch Unit B will fail and run away. At any point, I want my assumptions aboutwhat will happen to possibly not happen, so I have to react to the fact that what i planned and thought would happen didn't happen at all.

You already have that in every single game that uses dice.

**Deadnight**

TheAuldGrump wrote:

Even in many professional sports there is such a thing as 'handicapping' - golf, in particular.

Indeed...

football has age brackets.

boxing has weight classes.

And wargames have points/unit caps etc.

However, no one goes into a boxing match being told "your left hook is awesome! don't use it!", or "its unfair to use your left hook". michael felps is the perfect physical specimen for swimming - does that make him broken and OP? In 40k, you're told x is great, you're waac for using it!

to be fair grump, i was generally talking about the negative mental attitude towards sportsmanship, and being competitive, within the 40k community as opposed to actual mechanics to enforce handicapping

**happygolucky**

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
Peregrine provides a perfect example of what's perhaps most annoying about the whole issue from my perspective; the assumption that improving rules necessarily means making them cater more to his personally favoured style of play. There's no room for people to value different things, there's no opinion involved; competitive rules are always better, anyone who disagrees is a mindless GW drone terrified to step outside their obviously foolish groupthink.

Here's the thing; when I say I would like a tight, balanced ruleset with limited randomness, I am not saying I want a tournament-HARD game. I'm saying that I would like a ruleset where

a) My decisions matter more than the dice- I don't want to lose the game because the trees decided to eat my guys, or my guys decided not to charge or whatever. If I lose due to luck, it should be because of some bizare, rare cornercase, such as a poorly timed snakes eyes which I had no plan B for. Take, for example charging in Warmachine vs. 40k. Warmachine, I charge a fixed distance. Assuming I judged the distances right, I make it. So charging is all player skill. Once I get to melee, I know that my damage output will fall in a statistical range based on the amount of resources that I allocated. Allocation is again player skill, and I can use to adjust luck more in my favour, reducing its impact on the game. 40k, however, there is the charge roll. An immediate succeed/fail based on luck- how far your charge is, how many guys die to overwatch, etc. Melee, while more calculable as a range of expected results, has no "Influence" ability, so it is all luck. While I can calculate the odds, I have no way to change them, and so player skill is irrelevant once the assault is launched.

b) Minimal time wasted figuring out the rules- I simply like knowing how the game works before playing, and don't want to waste time reading the rulebook. In 40k, when a model dies, any effects which activate at that point pile together in a mess. In Warmachine, there is "Boxed" and then "Destroyed". We check which effects trigger on which keyword, and resolve them in order. Sure, we could 4+ it, but see point (a).

c) balance- I'm the kind of player who likes to win with what I like- I find it exceedingly frustrating to have cool units that are actively sabotaging my chances of winning the game. Do I have to win? No, but but I like there to be tension. I really enjoy it when a player can take a themed list and actually stand a chance- that is what "cinematic" is to me. Pre-existing balance also makes it easier to break the game for the scenario- as I said earlier, want one side outnumbered? Double their opponents points.

Note, nowhere do I say "competitive". An imbalanced game with ambiguous rules is better if all I want to do is win. I just take a power army and abuse loopholes.

I fully agree with Crazy_Carnifex, (particularly point C) Here's an Exalt

**Easy E**

PhantomViper wrote:
Easy E wrote:

Really, because a lot of people on this thread don't seem to agree with that. They want predictable interactions between this and that with a clear causal chain. Isn't that what "Tight" means?

Or does it simply mean "clear" and easy to understand rules? Yeah, who doesn't want clear and easy to understand rules? Unless the point is to try to create a game where the game is to guess the rules?

"Tight" means rules that don't have room for different interpretations.[/quote}

This will never happen. It is a Unicorn. Why do you think we have lawyers in this world?

Granted, that doesn't mean I would like it to be better.

However, I would prefer a game that encourages and wants me to bring more to it than just following the rules. If I wanted that, i could just play a Milton bradley board game.

Easy E wrote:

I want clear and easy to understand rules too. However, i don;t want them to be overly "tight" where I can be entirely confident that if Unit A shoots at Unit B and casualties will occur, force a break test, whch Unit B will fail and run away. At any point, I want my assumptions aboutwhat will happen to possibly not happen, so I have to react to the fact that what i planned and thought would happen didn't happen at all.

You already have that in every single game that uses dice.

True, the question is how often those dice come into play.

Finally, I know my ideas about wargaming are counter-intuitive and not popular. I'm fine with that. I don;t expect everyone I come across to even "get" what I like about a wargame. That's cool, whatever you want.

My only beef is when people get so hung up on what is and is not "official" that they let that get in the way of everyone having fun. That comes to Fluff Nazis or Rules Lawyers.

**TheAuldGrump**

Deadnight wrote:
TheAuldGrump wrote:

Even in many professional sports there is such a thing as 'handicapping' - golf, in particular.

Indeed...

football has age brackets.

boxing has weight classes.

And wargames have points/unit caps etc.

However, no one goes into a boxing match being told "your left hook is awesome! don't use it!", or "its unfair to use your left hook". michael felps is the perfect physical specimen for swimming - does that make him broken and OP? In 40k, you're told x is great, you're waac for using it!

to be fair grump, i was generally talking about the negative mental attitude towards sportsmanship, and being competitive, within the 40k community as opposed to actual mechanics to enforce handicapping

Yes, but to use GW logic - one side is allowed to use brass knuckles, the other has padded gloves.

Not just an 'awesome uppercut' put an actual advantage that the other side, wearing boxing gloves, does not have.

We are not saying 'don't use your awesome uppercut' we are saying 'put away those brass knuckles, oh, and take the razor blade out of your shoe'.

The Auld Grump, and then the Tau pull out a gun and shoot both boxers.

**insaniak**

Easy E wrote:
My only beef is when people get so hung up on what is and is not "official" that they let that get in the way of everyone having fun. That comes to Fluff Nazis or Rules Lawyers.

And that's fine, but you're for some bizarre reason trying to tie that to the quality of a set of rules, which is just odd. Pretty much every game ever made, some people have created house rules or variants... and some people will refuse to play by anything other than the rules out of the box.

40K's 'loose' rules don't make people suddenly more receptive to mixing things up than they would be if the game had better-written rules. People who dislike playing against home-brew armies, or who refuse to play against FW units, or who refuse to consider custom scenarios, or who think that the double FOC at 2000 points is just fine, or who think that the double FOC at 2000 points is the worst thing ever - they'll still feel the same regardless of how tight or loosely worded the ruleset is.

The only thing that changes with a more tightly written ruleset is that more people wind up playing the same game, due to a reduced potential for misunderstanding how the rules work.

**Azreal13**

insaniak wrote:
Easy E wrote:
My only beef is when people get so hung up on what is and is not "official" that they let that get in the way of everyone having fun. That comes to Fluff Nazis or Rules Lawyers.

And that's fine, but you're for some bizarre reason trying to tie that to the quality of a set of rules, which is just odd. Pretty much every game ever made, some people have created house rules or variants... and some people will refuse to play by anything other than the rules out of the box.

40K's 'loose' rules don't make people suddenly more receptive to mixing things up than they would be if the game had better-written rules. People who dislike playing against home-brew armies, or who refuse to play against FW units, or who refuse to consider custom scenarios, or who think that the double FOC at 2000 points is just fine, or who think that the double FOC at 2000 points is the worst thing ever - they'll still feel the same regardless of how tight or loosely worded the ruleset is.

The only thing that changes with a more tightly written ruleset is that more people wind up playing the same game, due to a reduced potential for misunderstanding how the rules work.

Quite.

I once played a pick up game at my club (where we're both regulars, and had played one another on several occasions) and simply shuffled and dealt my psychic powers from the relevant deck, rather than rolling the dice as is outlined in the book.

He got dangerously close to implying I was cheating, until he saw that I was in imminent danger of an epic sense of humour failure (I mean seriously, aside from the aspersions on my character, if I was going to be dishonest, I'd do it for something more important than a mild advantage in a game of toy soldiers for feths sake!) and started to back track.

I obliged him by rolling dice instead, and promptly proceeded to win the game at a canter, all the while choosing not to cast any psychic powers.

My point is, winning is extraordinarily important to this chap, and any deviation from the rules does not happen when playing him, because his fear that any deviation will result in an unanticipated situation which harms his chances is too great.

Also, because he has WAAC/TFG tendencies, albeit kept in check at the club by older players with strong characters (I do fear for some of his opponents at the local GW though...) 40K is a splendid environment for him, he is also the only regular player who doesn't play any other system, read into that what you will.

If 40K were a tighter, more balanced, system, he would be free to put just as much effort into, and attach just as much esteem to, winning games, but those players (like myself) who aren't so concerned with winning every game, would have more fun playing him, and more willing to play him (I try and avoid one on one games with him these days)

**Easy E**

I just feel that the Priestley method (and others) of "Gentleman's Agreements" as opposed to the Warmachine/Hordes (and others) way is more conducive to a social game that inspires cooperation.

Is the Priestley-style tight? No, not at all. However he encourages you in the rules to dialogue, and provides a way to settle disputes if dialogue fails. It is not inherently a "better" way either.

However, I don't think Tight rule systems are inherently bad, I just don't think they encourage the type of game play I enjoy. Sure, I can choose to play it anyway I want; but if the main rules do not encourage the style I want to play it is really challenging to find players that match my prefered gaming style.

So, my stance is staked out and everyone is free to disagree. However, I think we should just roll a d6, and on 4+ we play my interpretation.

**Azreal13**

Easy E wrote:
I just feel that the Priestley method (and others) of "Gentleman's Agreements" as opposed to the Warmachine/Hordes (and others) way is more conducive to a social game that inspires cooperation.

Is the Priestley-style tight? No, not at all. However he encourages you in the rules to dialogue, and provides a way to settle disputes if dialogue fails. It is not inherently a "better" way either.

However, I don't think Tight rule systems are inherently bad, I just don't think they encourage the type of game play I enjoy. Sure, I can choose to play it anyway I want; but if the main rules do not encourage the style I want to play it is really challenging to find players that match my prefered gaming style.

So, my stance is staked out and everyone is free to disagree. However, I think we should just roll a d6, and on 4+ we play my interpretation.

I would love the Priestly method to be realistic, but human nature being what it is, it just doesn't work outside of pre-existing social groups.

I played the arse off second edition with about 4 other friends, no Internet lists, no power gaming (we seldom had more than one of any unit type, spamming just didn't occur to is as a concept) and loved it.

Only now, with the wider communication that forums and blogs bring, do I see how much possibility there was to abuse the rules.

The fact is now that wargaming is a global hobby, with a global community, and while there still may be mini-azreal13 and his friends playing in a bubble somewhere, completely oblivious to any problems, they wouldn't be adversely affected by a tightening and cleaning up of the ruleset.

It is the players who attach a great deal of importance to winning, and are prepared to push the limits to achieve that, that need their latitude to do so reining in. As I say, they will still be free to devote their energies to becoming good at the game, but at least if they win all the time, it will be precisely because they are good at the game, and not because they are prepared to spend the cash to buy the models and the time to trawl the net looking for the next broken combo.

**Apple fox**

But I don't think warmachine or hordes hinder agreements for chargeing things at all :0 it's very easy to make changes and missions for the game.
Every time I go to special events every table has had a special mission done for it incorporating the table and objects in some way, and we make fun ones all the time.
Maybe I just don't understand what you are saying but Easy E.

**Deadnight**

TheAuldGrump wrote:

Yes, but to use GW logic - one side is allowed to use brass knuckles, the other has padded gloves.

Not just an 'awesome uppercut' put an actual advantage that the other side, wearing boxing gloves, does not have.

We are not saying 'don't use your awesome uppercut' we are saying 'put away those brass knuckles, oh, and take the razor blade out of your shoe'.

The Auld Grump, and then the Tau pull out a gun and shoot both boxers.

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing. 'By gw logic'? There's the issue. Gw logic is only partially accurate for gw, but in the wider community, it's inaccurate.

With respect, Didn't I already point out in my first post that 40k players have a point? But it's due to the shocking level of balance in the game; this unfairly skews the perception of what 'competitive' can actually mean (which was my point) . In warmachine, that guy with brass knuckles can be smashed, regardless. Because everyone has armour piercing rocket fists. Brass knuckles? Razor blades? Yeah, bring it on! That right there is the attitude shift. Too often in 40k I see the opposite. Rather than an assertive 'step up and bring the fight to them' you get the opposite, with various threads bemoaning its unfairness, its opness, calls of cheese, beard and Waac. Flight, not fight.
My point was that In 40k there is an unfortunate skew, resulting from its terrible internal/external Balance which unfairly colours the situation and leads to what I regard as an unfairly negative perception on competitive play, tight rules etc.

By the way, regarding the tau shooting the boxers; I take it he missed seeing the catachans tripwire?

that's how id have it play out!

**doc1234**

Deadnight wrote:
TheAuldGrump wrote:

Yes, but to use GW logic - one side is allowed to use brass knuckles, the other has padded gloves.

Not just an 'awesome uppercut' put an actual advantage that the other side, wearing boxing gloves, does not have.

We are not saying 'don't use your awesome uppercut' we are saying 'put away those brass knuckles, oh, and take the razor blade out of your shoe'.

The Auld Grump, and then the Tau pull out a gun and shoot both boxers.

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing. 'By gw logic'? There's the issue. Gw logic is only partially accurate for gw, but in the wider community, it's inaccurate.

With respect, Didn't I already point out in my first post that 40k players have a point? But it's due to the shocking level of balance in the game; this unfairly skews the perception of what 'competitive' can actually mean (which was my point) . In warmachine, that guy with brass knuckles can be smashed, regardless. Because everyone has armour piercing rocket fists. Brass knuckles? Razor blades? Yeah, bring it on! That right there is the attitude shift. Too often in 40k I see the opposite. Rather than an assertive 'step up and bring the fight to them' you get the opposite, with various threads bemoaning its unfairness, its opness, calls of cheese, beard and Waac. Flight, not fight.
My point was that In 40k there is an unfortunate skew, resulting from its terrible internal/external Balance which unfairly colours the situation and leads to what I regard as an unfairly negative perception on competitive play, tight rules etc.

By the way, regarding the tau shooting the boxers; I take it he missed seeing the catachans tripwire? that's how id have it play out!

Don't play WMH myself, however am i wrong in thinking it's "balanced from imbalance"? Or so i've been told anyway, that rather than overly worrying about perfect balance they simply make everything over the top? As opposed to say 40k where on the one hand we have things like Mutilators, and the other hand the riptide?

**Negator80**

Easy E wrote:
I just feel that the Priestley method (and others) of "Gentleman's Agreements" as opposed to the Warmachine/Hordes (and others) way is more conducive to a social game that inspires cooperation.

Is the Priestley-style tight? No, not at all. However he encourages you in the rules to dialogue, and provides a way to settle disputes if dialogue fails. It is not inherently a "better" way either.

However, I don't think Tight rule systems are inherently bad, I just don't think they encourage the type of game play I enjoy. Sure, I can choose to play it anyway I want; but if the main rules do not encourage the style I want to play it is really challenging to find players that match my prefered gaming style.

So, my stance is staked out and everyone is free to disagree. However, I think we should just roll a d6, and on 4+ we play my interpretation.

I'm not sure how encouraging debate is not inherently bad. It's good if the two of you are gentlemen in that you can mutually solve a problem (which i would find odd if that is why you play wargames) because it creates a bond, but i would say the average gamer is not a gentlemen and a game that ends in a winner and loser requires clear definitions to reach that end. How much weight you place in that end is up to you.

Is it accurate to say that your prefered gaming style is one where you can make it up as you go?

**PsychoticStorm**

PhantomViper wrote:

"Tight" means rules that don't have room for different interpretations.

Actually this is clear, tight is to be consistent, intuitive and not contradicting itself.

**Riquende**

Negator80 wrote:

Is it accurate to say that your prefered gaming style is one where you can make it up as you go?

The only way I can make sense of what he said is if his preferred gaming style includes lots of rules debates he can be gentlemanly over. I don't understand what's worse about not having to have the disagreement in the first place.

Also, I want to throw out what I believe the difference between clarity and tightness to be.

Clarity refers to the language used throughout the document to make sure that any single data point is unambiguous. Examples should be provded where needed. Overly verbose text should be avoided. A rulebook is at heart a technical manual, not a novel.

Tightness refers to the interactions between rules. Things happening in a set order, multiple effects kicking off at once, so on. A tight ruleset takes steps to manage these so that there are no conflicts between different rules. I'm not in any way familiar with 40K so I can't offer examples from there, but I'll demonstrate what I believe to be an example of a lack of tightness in Confrontation 3:

The Gorgon, an undead special character, had a rule that meant that she was completely immune to strikes taken in the head, regardless of their effect. Sacred weapons, carried by some 'holy' troops, automatically killed any model if the wound roll was a double. The rulebook explicitly stated that a double roll still hit a location (ie the head). So in the situation of a 'sacred' double 5 on the Gorgon, she was both automatically killed by the roll (as it was Sacred) and immune to its effect (as it was located in the head), at the same time.

This was thankfully quite an isolated example in the ruleset, and the only major rules dispute I remember in several years of playing the game (if you're interested, it was eventually FAQd that she was killed by the attack). As far as I'm concerned, if you're campaigning for less tightness in rules, then you're implicitly supporting the sort of situation described above.

**Melissia**

There's a difference between clear and tight rules and Powergaming (I refuse to give "WAAC" to anyone other than the ones who deserve it).

Often, powergamers benefits from NOT having clear and tight rules.

**TheAuldGrump**

Deadnight wrote:
TheAuldGrump wrote:

Yes, but to use GW logic - one side is allowed to use brass knuckles, the other has padded gloves.

Not just an 'awesome uppercut' put an actual advantage that the other side, wearing boxing gloves, does not have.

We are not saying 'don't use your awesome uppercut' we are saying 'put away those brass knuckles, oh, and take the razor blade out of your shoe'.

The Auld Grump, and then the Tau pull out a gun and shoot both boxers.

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing. 'By gw logic'? There's the issue. Gw logic is only partially accurate for gw, but in the wider community, it's inaccurate.

With respect, Didn't I already point out in my first post that 40k players have a point? But it's due to the shocking level of balance in the game; this unfairly skews the perception of what 'competitive' can actually mean (which was my point) . In warmachine, that guy with brass knuckles can be smashed, regardless. Because everyone has armour piercing rocket fists. Brass knuckles? Razor blades? Yeah, bring it on! That right there is the attitude shift. Too often in 40k I see the opposite. Rather than an assertive 'step up and bring the fight to them' you get the opposite, with various threads bemoaning its unfairness, its opness, calls of cheese, beard and Waac. Flight, not fight.
My point was that In 40k there is an unfortunate skew, resulting from its terrible internal/external Balance which unfairly colours the situation and leads to what I regard as an unfairly negative perception on competitive play, tight rules etc.

By the way, regarding the tau shooting the boxers; I take it he missed seeing the catachans tripwire? that's how id have it play out!

The thing to bear in mind is that Privateer actively tries to keep things balanced. GW... just does not care.

As an example - when WARMACHINE was new and shiny, Khador had a game breaker with Scorscha.

When they noticed it, Privateer took steps to fix the problem.

First they put an article in their magazine*, then they changed her Feat in the next iteration of the rules.

Because Scorscha being able to completely stop the other player from taking their turn was not fun.

She was broken.

So, they fixed her rules.

GW, by contrast, would already be working on the next new and shiny thing, and would ignore her problems, only to completely nerf Scorscha in the next edition, so that nobody would bother to take her.

I do not think that it is a coincidence that some of the tightest rules are from companies run by ex-GW folk.

WARMACHINE is tight, Bolt Action is tight, Kings of War is tight.

Each and all, they are better rules, in my opinion, than any GW rules currently in production.

WARMACHINE and Kings of War are both excellent rules for tournaments, in large part because of the lack of rules arguments.

Kings of War is a lot more forgiving than WARMACHINE, but both are tight rules, and both are gobs of fun to play.

And that is the key - Mantic and Privateer both work hard to get things tight and balanced.

If the rules are tight and balanced, and everybody has knuckledusters and crowbars, then nobody is asked to leave their toys at home. With GW games there are two complaints - the folks that want to use their cool, but game breaking toys, and the folks that really do not want to face knuckledusters and crowbars while wielding a pool noodle.

And in both cases it is GW that is at fault.

Then there are the folks that cruise the web looking for the most gamebreaking toys that they can find - and these are the WAAC players.

And GW is still at fault for making their webcheese possible.

The Auld Grump

* No Quarter is everything that White Dwarf used to be. Privateer gets a big thumbs up from me on that score.

**PhantomViper**

Easy E wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
Easy E wrote:

Really, because a lot of people on this thread don't seem to agree with that. They want predictable interactions between this and that with a clear causal chain. Isn't that what "Tight" means?

Or does it simply mean "clear" and easy to understand rules? Yeah, who doesn't want clear and easy to understand rules? Unless the point is to try to create a game where the game is to guess the rules?

"Tight" means rules that don't have room for different interpretations.

This will never happen. It is a Unicorn. Why do you think we have lawyers in this world?

Granted, that doesn't mean I would like it to be better.

However, I would prefer a game that encourages and wants me to bring more to it than just following the rules. If I wanted that, i could just play a Milton bradley board game.

I'm sorry but it is not a unicorn and I'm just genuinely curious here: what other non-GW games do you play Easy E?

Infinity has a tight ruleset (rulebook could have a better layout), FoW has a tight ruleset, Warmahordes has a tight ruleset, Malifaux has a tight ruleset (rulebook could have a better layout), even DW has a tight (even if a bit too random for my taste) ruleset. The only major commercial set of rules that I've played in the past 6 years that aren't clear and tight has been GW.

Here is a piece of anecdotal evidence for you. I went into my LGS a couple of weeks ago to have a game. There was a FoW game going on, a couple of WMH tables and a 40K game. Who do you think spent the most time arguing rules out of all those people, to the point that we and the FoW guys actually got distracted from our games?

And you are reaching the point where you really need to start explaining what you mean by "bring more to it than just following the rules"? I have already given you several examples, both at my local meta all the way to the most competitive WMH world event of wacky and alternative formats being embraced by the community, so I actually don't understand what you are trying to say at this point...

**insaniak**

Here's a thing:

Easy E wrote:
However, I would prefer a game that encourages and wants me to bring more to it than just following the rules. If I wanted that, i could just play a Milton bradley board game.

Why does the game need to encourage you to do that? It's just a game... if you want to modify the rules, you don't need permission from the designer to do so.

I'm also a little confused about the reference to board games... because people have been playing those with house rules as well for pretty much as long as there have been boardgames. Fines stacking up on free parking in Monopoly? Stackable Draw cards in Uno?

The rules for Scrabble don't particularly encourage you to modify the game... but when we're in the mood, we still like to play at home that you can make up words so long as you can come up with an entertaining meaning for them.

Likewise, Heroquest didn't particularly encourage modifying the game beyond designing your own maps... but we still added a whole bunch of our own stuff into it, like purchasable resurrection scrolls and changing the action sequence slightly.

The desire to modify a game comes from the players, not from the designer. GW just like to use it as a smokescreen for their shoddy rules... Don't like how our rules work? Change them to suit yourself! That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't excuse just leaving out stuff that is actually kind of important to playing the game, or writing vague rules that everybody reads differently.

**Peregrine**

Easy E wrote:
However he encourages you in the rules to dialogue, and provides a way to settle disputes if dialogue fails. It is not inherently a "better" way either.

Which is an awful way of doing it. The rules should be clear enough that you don't ever have disputes in the first place.

Sure, I can choose to play it anyway I want; but if the main rules do not encourage the style I want to play it is really challenging to find players that match my prefered gaming style.

But these issues don't have anything to do with playing style. Let's look at a specific example from 40k: the dispute over whether or not the quad gun from an aegis line has to be placed in contact with the wall, "near" the wall, or anywhere you want. The answer depends on how you interpret "attached", as a physical attachment or organizational attachment, and both of them are valid definitions in english. But having this ambiguity doesn't change playing style at all, a game with quad guns tied to their ADLs is not going to be meaningfully different in style than one where the quad guns are placed 5' away. The ambiguity adds absolutely nothing to the game besides an opportunity for conflict and one player being unhappy with the outcome.

Now contrast this with a hypothetical version of 40k where these questions were answered explicitly. You still have the exact same gaming style available, but now you can spend time creating your own cool missions and stuff instead of arguing about how the rules work.

**xruslanx**

Easy E....just drop it mate

**Peregrine**

xruslanx wrote:
Easy E....just drop it mate

Yeah, listen to the guy who thinks that playing non-GW games is like having sex with your dog. We're all just a bunch of rabid GW haters who love to persecute anyone who dares to have fun with a GW product.

**xruslanx**

Peregrine wrote:
xruslanx wrote:
Easy E....just drop it mate

We're all just a bunch of rabid GW haters who love to persecute anyone who dares to have fun with a GW product.

Pretty much this.