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.

xruslanx wrote:

 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.

Huh. Instead of misrepresenting Peregrines argument, you're just changing it. See? Variety is fun

xruslanx wrote:

 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.

(Can't believe I have to point this out, but...)

Peregrine's being ironic.

Clear and Tight rules doesn't necessarily mean balanced. Balanced would be good, but that's not the complaint here.

Have a look at this rule. This is an official FAQ, with designer's notes:



Seriously, what is up with that?
How are people supposed to play that rule? How can you go to a pick up game and know what you're allowed to equip your models with? This is before even starting the game. So you need to contact your opponent (or TO) to clarify how they will be playing the rules on the day, which can completely change how you build your army. And that's assuming the TO knows about the rules conflict in question well enough to make a decent response.

Compare this to Warmachine. As someone said above, WMH has a sequence of events on death: Removed from Play vs Disabled, Boxed, Killed. Events which trigger on Kill don't trigger on Remove From Play. Movement effects are Place vs Move, Run, Advance. There is a distinction between Towards and Directly Towards. Etc. it means that once you understand the rules, you can apply them logically and consistently and always arrive at the same answer.

Its about being able to show up to a game with anyone, anywhere, and know how the rules will work. Not have them complain that you've made an illegal army giving armor a wizard; not have you angry when they attempt to deploy infiltrating characters with units. No surprises from different interpretations of the rules; just good tactical play.

I think having a gentleman's agreement with another person is fine and dandy... as long as it's not a game with a winner or a loser. Like an RPG, for example: it's cooperative storytelling, and even the GM is not the enemy (or at least, a good GM). So if you're playing wargames as a reenactment and you don't care who wins or loses as long as you get to tell your story, then that's fine.

It poses a problem if the game is also meant to be played where someone should win and someone should lose, however. Because a "gentleman's agreement" most of the time will favor one side over the other, and no matter how gentlemanly you are giving opponents advantages would make you feel ill, and the same could be true to the other side: your opponent giving you an advantage does not feel good as well because it feels unfair, albeit on your favor.

It seems to me that GW never bothered to move past the smaller, squad-based combat essence that was Rogue Trader. As the years progressed more models came out, made for larger engagements, and so on but the rules never bothered to show this. Of course each model had a rule and series of special rules to go along with it, but the command level rules never progressed.

A general in charge of a battlegroup isn't going to be involved with each squad or each tank, etc. They're going to dictate the overall objective and delegate it to his/her subordinates and they delegate, etc. Poorly written rules aside, I think 40k suffers greatly from GW's inability to decide what they want to do with their game. Coupled with the INSANE amount of rules that someone needs to know just to play a basic game, it's a wonder they've lasted this long.

That all aside, I suppose my point is that while WAAC's exist in every type of game there is, it doesn't really matter how well the rules are written/deployed. It may be easier for a WAAC to build their army in a setting where the rules are concise and easily understood, and from my experience with WAAC's their pride would almost force them to gravitate towards those sorts of rulesets. But, as most of this discussion has shown, WAAC's are prevalent in any gaming scene, even ones where the rules are silly.

I don't think the rules matter at all actually, it's all about the person playing.

Depends on the definition of "at all cost" a game that is clear, tight and balanced offers less opportunities to go beyond the line, interpreting rules in an advantageous way, or getting armies that are clearly more overpowered, so a player that "will do anything to win" has less options (actually no option) that to play as everybody else without an edge.

That would suggest that a clear and tight game system that is also balanced is not catering to people who would be described as wanting to win at all costs.

 malfred wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 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.

(Can't believe I have to point this out, but...)

Peregrine's being ironic.

I was undermining that irony by pretending to take it seriously. Funny how people can only spot the irony in posts that they agree with.

xruslanx wrote:

 malfred wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 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.

(Can't believe I have to point this out, but...)

Peregrine's being ironic.

I was undermining that irony by pretending to take it seriously. Funny how people can only spot the irony in posts that they agree with.

Your irony was spotted, it just wasn't appreciated because of
its content, not because I agreed with it or not. I mean, there has
got to be some kind of Godwin's law for animal sex.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Depends on what you are trying to do as a game system. For example, if you are trying to force some social interaction between players and a level setting process to help build relationships for a larger gamer community; this method would force people to interact. This could ultimately lead to a more fulfilling game experience.

A super-tight system would ask players to do nothing more than declare, " I am shooting X at Y", then communicate results. Their is no other relationship built. I would argue that this would degrade the experience.

Of course, I also realize that Peregrine (and others) and I see playing toy soldiers very different. For many people, it is primarily a competitive experience. For others, like me it is primarily a cooperative experience. I actually want a game system that encourages me to talk with my opponent prior to a game, because I want to know if I should bother playing that person at all.




As a distant secondary point, there are a number of variables that a wargame needs to cover, and trying to cover all such situations is impossible. Therefore, a catch-all "Dice for it" approach is fine with me because I don't want a game with rules to cover every situation because I don't want to read through and learn all those details myself.

 Easy E wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Depends on what you are trying to do as a game system. For example, if you are trying to force some social interaction between players and a level setting process to help build relationships for a larger gamer community; this method would force people to interact. This could ultimately lead to a more fulfilling game experience.

A super-tight system would ask players to do nothing more than declare, " I am shooting X at Y", then communicate results. Their is no other relationship built. I would argue that this would degrade the experience.

Of course, I also realize that Peregrine (and others) and I see playing toy soldiers very different. For many people, it is primarily a competitive experience. For others, like me it is primarily a cooperative experience. I actually want a game system that encourages me to talk with my opponent prior to a game, because I want to know if I should bother playing that person at all.




As a distantly secondary point, there are a number of variables that a wargame needs to cover, and trying to cover all such situations is impossible. Therefore, a catch-all "Dice for it" approach is fine with me because I don't want a game with rules to cover every situation because I don't want to read through and learn all those details myself.

What do you mean ? Warmachine uses dice to determine results. People talk to each other before the games to decide if they should play. Each other and how they should play. And the rules are possibly less difficult to learn due to the way The rules interact .
Why dice it when can know how it works before hand, I can't understand why you would want to play a game where a ingle role can determin weather you where playing the game right or wrong from the start or not.

 Easy E wrote:
A super-tight system would ask players to do nothing more than declare, " I am shooting X at Y", then communicate results. Their is no other relationship built. I would argue that this would degrade the experience.

There's nothing in that statement relevant to the tightness of a rules system.

Also, I'm not sure why you feel it's the purpose of the rules to force players to engage in banter around every in game action? Seems to me that's the sort of thing that would come naturally through decent human social interaction. If there was a ruleset out there that expressly forbade players talking casually then you might have apoint, but you seem to be attributing that to non-GW games for some reason.

I still don't think you understand what tightness is.

As a distant secondary point, there are a number of variables that a wargame needs to cover, and trying to cover all such situations is impossible. Therefore, a catch-all "Dice for it" approach is fine with me because I don't want a game with rules to cover every situation because I don't want to read through and learn all those details myself.

As an absolute last resort, then it's okay, I guess. However, I can count on the fingers of one hand the amount of times I've had to dice off a rules dispute in the entirety of my non-GW gaming.

It's mildly amusing that you don't want to have read through such weighty tomes as the Kings of War rules pamphlet, a game I've never had to dice off in.

WAAC I thought was pretty clear: people who MUST win and will be willing to ignore rules in order to win (really not playing a game since we "agree" to rules in order to play).

There are many tight rule sets that allow us to be "competitive" but do not require us as players to be uptight.

I had a great game of "Settlers of Catan" and we were utterly ruthless with each other.
It was hilarious when I was completely messed with "twice" in a row being "robbed" at a core land piece.
The guys were completely overcompensating for me winning the first game...
A serious game about winning with strategy and luck.

X-wing has some good game mechanics, lots of room for strategy and immensely fun.

Monopoly, Chess, Diplomacy, Risk, Groo Card Game, Battletech, Starfleet Commander are games that all spring to mind as good strategy allowing us to get our inner general going.

WAAC is really a person to be avoided because they have life issues and bring with them a lot of drama (you focus more on policing them than playing and getting into personal issues we are all better off not knowing).

Losing against well thought out tactics and learning from it is a good thing, seeing through those tactics and stopping them is even better

For the record, this isn't about GW vs. Non-Gw. I play lot's of Non-GW games. Disputes happen in all of them, as words have many meanings and stringing them together leads to different interpretations of those words when combined. Plus, many rulesets aren't in the "internet glare" like GW where hundreds of people are trying to exploit them as much as they can all the time.

I don't think tight rules = inherently WAAC. However, I also embrace the idea that games can use a variety of systems, and I want a variety of systems. Not all of them need be "tight".

I think non-tight rulesessts bring something of value to the table. I think "tight" rulesets can bring something to the table too. However, I don't want to live in a world where the only rulesets we have are "tight".

Also, since people think I don't know what "tight" means, why doesn't everyone write out their definitions so you can enlighten this ignorant heathen.

By they way, I don't think there is any "winning" this discussion. That's all it is. A discussion. You can like whatever you like, and so can I. I can buy whatever games I want, and so can you.

I wouldn't mind if GW tightened up their rules on the core games, but it doesn't bother me either way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Riquende wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
A super-tight system would ask players to do nothing more than declare, " I am shooting X at Y", then communicate results. Their is no other relationship built. I would argue that this would degrade the experience.

There's nothing in that statement relevant to the tightness of a rules system.

Also, I'm not sure why you feel it's the purpose of the rules to force players to engage in banter around every in game action? Seems to me that's the sort of thing that would come naturally through decent human social interaction. If there was a ruleset out there that expressly forbade players talking casually then you might have apoint, but you seem to be attributing that to non-GW games for some reason.

I still don't think you understand what tightness is.

It is just an example of one reason a game designer may want to choose to use a certain method with their rules as opposed to another. Not the only reason.

 Easy E wrote:
Also, since people think I don't know what "tight" means, why doesn't everyone write out their definitions so you can enlighten this ignorant heathen.

Already did. In this thread, in fact. Take a peep: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/557808.page#6155320

It is just an example of one reason a game designer may want to choose to use a certain method with their rules as opposed to another. Not the only reason.

I really don't understand what you're getting at - you think games designers should purposefully put conflicting rules into the games? For whose benefit?

 Easy E wrote:

Spoiler:

Depends on what you are trying to do as a game system. For example, if you are trying to force some social interaction between players and a level setting process to help build relationships for a larger gamer community; this method would force people to interact. This could ultimately lead to a more fulfilling game experience.

A super-tight system would ask players to do nothing more than declare, " I am shooting X at Y", then communicate results. Their is no other relationship built. I would argue that this would degrade the experience.

Of course, I also realize that Peregrine (and others) and I see playing toy soldiers very different. For many people, it is primarily a competitive experience. For others, like me it is primarily a cooperative experience. I actually want a game system that encourages me to talk with my opponent prior to a game, because I want to know if I should bother playing that person at all.




As a distant secondary point, there are a number of variables that a wargame needs to cover, and trying to cover all such situations is impossible. Therefore, a catch-all "Dice for it" approach is fine with me because I don't want a game with rules to cover every situation because I don't want to read through and learn all those details myself.

I will be honest with you Easy E, I don't get you, the scope of a game is tied to the gameplay, not the game design. (I am willing to accept comments that the scope of the game and gameplay affect game design, but when it goes down to it a game designer takes the scope and gameplay, essentially how the client wants the game to be played and writes a game system to correctly depict that).

Clearness and Tightness are firmly in the game design, balance is in game design, but the way it is balanced is based on gameplay.

From a design perspective there is no need to have unintuitive or inconsistent rules that are poorly interacting among themselves and worse of all are poorly conveyed to the players, I cannot see what gameplay would benefit from this (or what scope of the game would have this as a requirement) and I do not see how the players would really benefit from such a bad workmanship.

Edit

For the last time

Clear means well written rules that leave no gaps for misinterpretations

Tight means the rules are Intuitive and consistent without conflicts

External Balance means that any and all sides that can be chosen are equally valid to win.

Internal balance means that all possible choices in one side are valid options to take without been overshadowed by one or a few options that are too good to not take.

 Easy E wrote:

Depends on what you are trying to do as a game system. For example, if you are trying to force some social interaction between players and a level setting process to help build relationships for a larger gamer community; this method would force people to interact. This could ultimately lead to a more fulfilling game experience.

This doesn't make any sense. This absolutely happens with rulesets that do not require 20-page debates about their function. Players engage in social interaction over the narrative, story, events, and random rolls of the dice. There is no need to arbitrarily have vaguely written rules to "force" this kind of behavior. I cannot think of anything more narrative breaking than having to argue with your opponent for 10 minutes about whether or not rule X does Y or Z - and quite often, someone will be disappointed at the end because their whole game plan was based on an interpretation overturned by a roll-off.

We're getting to the point in the discussion where I begin to suspect shenanigans (not an accusation, bear with me) purely because someone's perspective is so far divorced from my own that I cannot compute.

To argue against an easily understood ruleset with minimal contradictions and an environment where no choice is objectively "better" or "worse" than another, just more or less functional in a given situation, is so far beyond my ken as to appear completely ludicrous. Therefore the logical assumption to prevent my head exploding is that someone is playing devil's advocate.

 azreal13 wrote:
...To argue against an easily understood ruleset with minimal contradictions and an environment where no choice is objectively "better" or "worse" than another, just more or less functional in a given situation,...

I think this is impossible. You can move towards it, or you can move away from it on the spectrum of "tightness" but you will never acheive it for any sustained period (and make money).

Your idea of "better" is simply not my idea of "better". It's okay, no reason to pull a Scanners.

Look, unlike a lot of people in this thread, I'm willing to accept that their are different ways of doing things. YOu have a way you prefer, I have a way I prefer, and someone else has a way they prefer. None of them are right or wrong (unless they are playing me in a way I don't prefer! ). It is the Game Designer's choice on how they create their game based on what they want to achieve with the game.

If I want to do X, what will move me closer or farther from X. Sometimes, tightness will move you closer to X and sometimes it won't. For example, GW wants to create new codexes and units on a regular basis for inclusion into their broad based sci-fantasy game. Tightness does not help that. Seakreig wants to recreate naval combat between the Soviet and Nato Blocs using a set list of units during the Cold War in the early 1980's; then tightness may move the game closer to making sure players use their units in a way that is effective and recreates the circumstances of the period.

 Easy E wrote:
I think this is impossible.

So let's call the whole thing off!

Off to the "too hard" basket with ye! Let's all get back to the back slappin' GW hatin' we're good at! YEEEEEEEHAW!

 Xca|iber wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

Depends on what you are trying to do as a game system. For example, if you are trying to force some social interaction between players and a level setting process to help build relationships for a larger gamer community; this method would force people to interact. This could ultimately lead to a more fulfilling game experience.

This doesn't make any sense. This absolutely happens with rulesets that do not require 20-page debates about their function. Players engage in social interaction over the narrative, story, events, and random rolls of the dice. There is no need to arbitrarily have vaguely written rules to "force" this kind of behavior. I cannot think of anything more narrative breaking than having to argue with your opponent for 10 minutes about whether or not rule X does Y or Z - and quite often, someone will be disappointed at the end because their whole game plan was based on an interpretation overturned by a roll-off.

I agree with this pretty much so, since it is kind of irritating for the flow of the game I am playing to be broken since neither me nor my opponent cannot understand a rule means or when it contradicts itself with another rule if the rules are vague/loose for interpretation. Arguing about the rules in a game is not a probable way to create a really healthy and fun social interaction of the gaming environment, and it takes away the good will if it gets too heated, thus ruins the flow, narrative, and gaming experience for me. With something that is clear, I do not have to worry about what a rule means, and my opponent having the same meaning behind that rule. With something that is tight, I do not have to worry about rules being counter-intuitive and flowing together nicely without many problems at all. In this way, this can help with the flow of the game and can help establish good will indirectly (although the rest is up to the player whether he is an ass or not).

 Easy E wrote:
Look, unlike a lot of people in this thread, I'm willing to accept that their are different ways of doing things.

No, I think everyone accepts that. The games I play vary wildly in the 'way they do things', and I enjoy them all. What you don't appear to understand is that you're essentially asserting that "My preferred way of doing things is to stop the game continuously for rules debates", and you seem to wonder why people are questioning that.

For example, GW wants to create new codexes and units on a regular basis for inclusion into their broad based sci-fantasy game. Tightness does not help that.

Tightness absolutely helps the integration of new rules into an existing ruleset. To argue otherwise is either ignorance or worse.

 Easy E wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
...To argue against an easily understood ruleset with minimal contradictions and an environment where no choice is objectively "better" or "worse" than another, just more or less functional in a given situation,...

I think this is impossible. You can move towards it, or you can move away from it on the spectrum of "tightness" but you will never acheive it for any sustained period (and make money).

Your idea of "better" is simply not my idea of "better". It's okay, no reason to pull a Scanners.

Look, unlike a lot of people in this thread, I'm willing to accept that their are different ways of doing things. YOu have a way you prefer, I have a way I prefer, and someone else has a way they prefer. None of them are right or wrong (unless they are playing me in a way I don't prefer! ). It is the Game Designer's choice on how they create their game based on what they want to achieve with the game.

If I want to do X, what will move me closer or farther from X. Sometimes, tightness will move you closer to X and sometimes it won't. For example, GW wants to create new codexes and units on a regular basis for inclusion into their broad based sci-fantasy game. Tightness does not help that. Seakreig wants to recreate naval combat between the Soviet and Nato Blocs using a set list of units during the Cold War in the early 1980's; then tightness may move the game closer to making sure players use their units in a way that is effective and recreates the circumstances of the period.

What it seems is you prefer a badly designed, badly written, unbalanced, game system because? it makes social interaction better? somehow?

And think that a well designed, tight, clear written and balanced game system helps rule abusers and power creeps?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I think this is impossible.

So let's call the whole thing off!

Off to the "too hard" basket with ye! Let's all get back to the back slappin' GW hatin' we're good at! YEEEEEEEHAW!

I believe I said it was a spectrum, and different goals of the game can lead to different mechanics. Some of these will be different than others.

Plus, as I also said before, I don't want to make this totally about Gw vs. Others. Trust me, I think GW could do a lot fo things better and am not exactly a fanboi.

However, I do bow to the fact H.B.M.C. that you probably have more game design experience than I do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

For the last time

Clear means well written rules that leave no gaps for misinterpretations

Tight means the rules are Intuitive and consistent without conflicts

External Balance means that any and all sides that can be chosen are equally valid to win.

Internal balance means that all possible choices in one side are valid options to take without been overshadowed by one or a few options that are too good to not take.

Does everyone agree with what was laid out here as the definition of tightness?

It is also totally possible, that I am using the wrong terms to try and illustrate my point. I'm not that smart or skilled at internet communications. It is also possible I am misunderstanding the points of contention. Again, I'm not that smart.

I strongly disagree with the not smart part, maybe you do not use correct terminology, I would suggest that you say what you think with your own words so we can all be in the same page.

 Easy E wrote:

Does everyone agree with what was laid out here as the definition of tightness?

It is also totally possible, that I am using the wrong terms to try and illustrate my point. I'm not that smart or skilled at internet communications. It is also possible I am misunderstanding the points of contention. Again, I'm not that smart.

Tight and clear means there is one interpretation of how this rules interaction works and it is the one the designer wants.

I do have one question though Easy E, do you think game designers should errata and FAQ rules (not when it is just a simple mistake) in order to try to achieve a more tight/clear rules set? You know when GW releases all those FAQ questions to answer questions that players have?

 Riquende wrote:

For example, GW wants to create new codexes and units on a regular basis for inclusion into their broad based sci-fantasy game. Tightness does not help that.

Tightness absolutely helps the integration of new rules into an existing ruleset. To argue otherwise is either ignorance or worse.

I have to agree with this. A tight and clear rules set would make it more easy to incorporate new rules. If all game effects have clear game definitions, it's easier to choose verbiage that meshes with the existing rules. If you are aware of how existing rules interact in a clear and concise manner, it is simple to write a new rule that offers exceptions to those existing rules by specifying what those exceptions are.

When rules are loose and unclear, then new rules will almost always do nothing but make the overall ruleset more loose and more unclear.

 Easy E wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
...To argue against an easily understood ruleset with minimal contradictions and an environment where no choice is objectively "better" or "worse" than another, just more or less functional in a given situation,...

I think this is impossible. You can move towards it, or you can move away from it on the spectrum of "tightness" but you will never acheive it for any sustained period (and make money).

Again--there are games that do this, and make money. To quote another reply to you:

PhantomViper wrote:
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.

Have you played those games? If so, do you think PhantomViper was wrong in offering them as examples of a tight system (and BTW, all of them are making money). If not, maybe you should try them out before stating that rules tightness in a successful game is an impossible dream.

I really don't want to come across as harassing you for daring to disagree with the groupthink, but you're not doing yourself any favours when you make a statement and keep on making it after ignoring conflicting evidence.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

Does everyone agree with what was laid out here as the definition of tightness?

It is also totally possible, that I am using the wrong terms to try and illustrate my point. I'm not that smart or skilled at internet communications. It is also possible I am misunderstanding the points of contention. Again, I'm not that smart.

Tight and clear means there is one interpretation of how this rules interaction works and it is the one the designer wants.

I do have one question though Easy E, do you think game designers should errata and FAQ rules (not when it is just a simple mistake) in order to try to achieve a more tight/clear rules set? You know when GW releases all those FAQ questions to answer questions that players have?

Great question. I'm not a fan of FAQs, instead I prefer designer's notes. I'm also a RAI vs. RAW guy, so I'm not sure why I'm even getting involved here. I'm obviously a stranger in a strange land.

As for other games I have played:

1. Infinity- I have not played.
2. Warma/hordes- I have the rulebook, read the rules, and decided it wasn't the game for me.
3. Malifaux- Have not played or read the rules
4. Dystopian Wars- This game is not "tight". It is a mess with lots of cross-over rules, strange rules interactions, and hard to find details in a poorly laid out rulebook. However, I do like this game. Granted, I'm not sure my version is the current edition.
5. FoW- I have the rulebook. This one is also a mess of "do this and this unless this or that has also happened". Plenty of "special snowflake" rules there. Again, I'm not sure I have the current edition.

Dystopian Wars and FoW are considered "tight" rulesets? Now I really have no idea what people are talking about.

I have played Force-on-Force and Tomorrow's War as well which uses "some" of the same mechanics as Inifnity regarding activation and reaction. I enjoy it alot, but that game is based on scenarios and self-assignment of stats. I really do love both of those games. Do those count as "tight" systems too? How about Blackpowder, Bolt Action, and Hail Ceasar? Since they are Priestely style, I am assuming those don't count as "tight" either because the y use the 4+ dice off method. How about Battletech of CAV? Do those count as tight? I've played those too. X-wing? Is that tight enough?

Do you want me to keep going to try and establish my non-GW gaming street cred because their are other games I have played, but not recently.

FAQ are an essential part of the beast because not all possible interactions can be predicted or caught before a book hits the press, or in some cases the wording is mishandled by some, if you want a more computer based terminology FAQ are patches.

Hi all.
I think there may be a bit of mis communication going on here.

I believe a lot of pre-game discussion on terrain set up, deployment and senario details is important , as these are really down to personal opinion and interpretation.(And players SHOULD agree this sort of stuff before the game starts.)

However, after the game starts, the rules should give you clearly defined instructions on how the game is played.

I do not mind rolling 'off off' something out of the ordinary happens, when 2 or more separate events interact in an unexpected way.

Eg When air burst artillery is in the same area as low flying aircraft, does the air craft take damage?
The rules for the artillery barrage are perfectly clear, and the rules for the low flying aircraft are also clear.
But the fact they were not expected to interact in the game has left a genuine unexpected interaction that is rolled off for.

IF I have to roll of to find out every day normal units interact with other units , then i do have a problem with the way the rules are written.

IF the game has poor balance issues and poorly defined rules, rules lawyer s and WAAC players have far more to work with.

Good games have great social interaction and well defined rules.
I agree the social side is important, but I prefer it to revolve around generating narrative , NOT debating the the function of the games rules.

Just my 2p worth.