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.

 Easy E wrote:

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.

Aren't designer's notes basically the same thing though? It is not generally done in the yes or no format but accomplishes the same goal. Kinda like how the FAQ for GK covers what a daemon is for rules interactions, and the designer note in the chaos space marine codex says what a space marine is. Both clarify the rules. I don't quite understand why you don't like FAQs but like designer's notes.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

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.

Aren't designer's notes basically the same thing though? It is not generally done in the yes or no format but accomplishes the same goal. Kinda like how the FAQ for GK covers what a daemon is for rules interactions, and the designer note in the chaos space marine codex says what a space marine is. Both clarify the rules. I don't quite understand why you don't like FAQs but like designer's notes.

I think the difference is more designers notes are in the book from the get go, they've actually thought about this and just done it in the notes format to say "hey here's the thing for clarity so you don't miss it!" as opposed to an FAQ (at least in GW's case) being "Hey! We didn't playtest this at all, so here's all the gak we forgot/couldn't be bothered/ just plain missed!"

 Easy E wrote:
X-wing? Is that tight enough?

Note that X-Wing has the "4+ it" resolution, but you almost never have to use it. Virtually every rule question has been FAQed exactly like a literal reading of the rules would say to play it. 40k's "4+ it" rule isn't a problem because they provide a way to resolve a dispute that isn't going anywhere, it's a problem because GW uses it as an excuse to avoid writing clear and consistent rules and you have to use it constantly.

There's a 4+ rule for xwing? Never seen a need for it yet.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
There's a 4+ rule for xwing? Never seen a need for it yet.

There is a roll-off between opponents when Rules Questions come into play in Warmachine to resolve it. Although I have never had to use it at all. But at least it is safe than sorry, right?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
There's a 4+ rule for xwing? Never seen a need for it yet.

that's the thing, it's there even if it's not needed unlike poorer written rules where it's there as an excuse for sloppy work.

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

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

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

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

The Auld Grump

This is cute, sounds similar to apple picking or house fly hunting. Please don't ever attend a competitive 40k tournament, you'll never be the same... WAAC is FLGS or tourney centric. If you have a WAAC buddy and expect/accept to spend a evening arguing over cocked dice and line of site, you should smack him in the back of the head and turn on the TV.

 Byte wrote:

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

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

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

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

The Auld Grump

This is cute, sounds similar to apple picking or house fly hunting. Please don't ever attend a competitive 40k tournament, you'll never be the same... WAAC is FLGS or tourney centric. If you have a WAAC buddy and expect/accept to spend a evening arguing over cocked dice and line of site, you should smack him in the back of the head and turn on the TV.

Neither of us has any remaining interest in 40K or WHFB at all, I am afraid.

We still play Mordheim, and I want to introduce her to Necromunda, but none of the three current GW games interest us.

Nor do I have any interest in playing a WAAC player, regardless of game - playing one is an activity which sounds like it would be as much fun as covering myself in barbecue sauce and lying in a fire ants nest, only not as pleasant.

The last time I saw a game of WHFB being played was six months ago - with a long rules quoting argument taking up more time than the actual play.

In that same time I got in two games of Kings of War.

Part of that might be the relative age of the players - my opponent was in his forties, and I am older than that - the kids at the other table were in their twenties. (A sign of increasing age - when a person in their twenties is a 'kid'.)

But I have never had a rules argument in Kings of War - even in tourneys or when running at a FLGS - so, no, it is not FLGS or tourney specific. It is badly written rules specific.

I have helped run a KoW tourney, but not fought in one. The only dispute was whether one of the named characters from the rulebook was allowed. (The answer was 'no, but you can use the figure as a generic leader type'. The dispute happened because one player only had the free version from the Mantic site - and was answered in the hardcover rule book. He just hadn't seen the tourney rules, and used Battlescribe to do his list.)

I do not see the fun of arguing the rules when I could instead be playing the game.

The folks that I play Mordheim against are there to have fun - there are minor rules squabbles, but nothing major. And, again, most of the players are in their thirties and forties. (There are also two teens and one girl in her early twenties - I have hope for the next generation.)

The Auld Grump

I've played several different table top games.

I started in 40k, played Heroclix for years, MechWarrior, Crimson Skies, Wings of War/Glory, Axis and Allies table top, Start Wars miniatures, others.

I will say having well written rules is nice. I don't know that it discouraged WAAC or encouraged it at all. I've found that depends on the player. Several of the collectible miniature games have had well written rules or timely FAQ responses, but you got at lot of WAAC guys out prize sharking (winning the prize once wasn't enough, they had to win all of them in the city). I don't even know that building a team to WAAC is the problem. I think there are people that can be the problem. When they have to nickel and dime everything, play with poor sportsmanship, expect you to let their mistakes slide but crucify you for yours, etc.

What well written rules do allow is for less arguments. It doesn't eliminate friendly banter at all. Wings of War/Wings of Glory has very simple, well written rules. Games can be 15 minutes or 2 hours depending on what you want. I've never had a fight over a rules question playing it. Yet it's always been a fun time. We laugh, joke, groan, make light trash talk, etc.

GW makes some fun games. Myself, I'd LOVE to play with the old Warhammer skirmish rules. It seems like simple, fast, low cash involvement fun. Similarly, I loved 4th ed's Kill Team. It had a few problems, but was mostly a fun, and flexible system.

In short, it is the players that make games fun or not fun. Having a good rule set should just be a given, and helps the game flow more smoothly when you aren't buddies with your opponent or helps avoid bad blood between friends.

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

I don't know that it discouraged WAAC or encouraged it at all. I've found that depends on the player.

Maybe that's why I don't get hung up on the Rules debates. I have never found a ryules system someone couldn't be a D-bag with if they wanted too.

Ultimately, my thought is that the rules are secondary to understanding what the other player wants out of the game; and then acting in a cooperative manner to get it. A game designer may believes that his player base feels the same way and incorporates that into his games, where others may come from a more technical writing/programming school where the rules are there to make sure A + B = C to properly govern the interactions.

Old School wargamers, such as Don Featherstone (and others who's names escape me at the moment) were less rules heavy and more pagentry heavy (at least from what I have seen) and assumed you were doing this with a good friend or tow; trying to recreate some historical moment. However, as the Wargaming industry has evolved it has become more "Gamey" and less "Recreation". However, I'm sure I am missing a lot of perspective on the "history" of Wargames as they were originally all work and not play, yes I'm talking to you Kriegspiel.

Anyway, to sum up; a game designer trying to write tight rules sets is fine and won't create an inhernetly WAAC gamer; but a game designer that writes less tight rules with the understanding that players will use what works best is fine for me as well. However, I won't stand in the way of any game designer or player that insists on a Tight ruleset as long as I understand what they want to get out of a game and what they want aligns with what I want to get out of the game.

 Easy E wrote:

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

I don't know that it discouraged WAAC or encouraged it at all. I've found that depends on the player.

Maybe that's why I don't get hung up on the Rules debates. I have never found a ryules system someone couldn't be a D-bag with if they wanted too.

Ultimately, my thought is that the rules are secondary to understanding what the other player wants out of the game; and then acting in a cooperative manner to get it. A game designer may believes that his player base feels the same way and incorporates that into his games, where others may come from a more technical writing/programming school where the rules are there to make sure A + B = C to properly govern the interactions.

Old School wargamers, such as Don Featherstone (and others who's names escape me at the moment) were less rules heavy and more pagentry heavy (at least from what I have seen) and assumed you were doing this with a good friend or tow; trying to recreate some historical moment. However, as the Wargaming industry has evolved it has become more "Gamey" and less "Recreation". However, I'm sure I am missing a lot of perspective on the "history" of Wargames as they were originally all work and not play, yes I'm talking to you Kriegspiel.

Anyway, to sum up; a game designer trying to write tight rules sets is fine and won't create an inhernetly WAAC gamer; but a game designer that writes less tight rules with the understanding that players will use what works best is fine for me as well. However, I won't stand in the way of any game designer or player that insists on a Tight ruleset as long as I understand what they want to get out of a game and what they want aligns with what I want to get out of the game.

That may be the case, but for something like GW, it is just being lazy and focus on selling models and the rules being a very distant second. (And I bold that to state how terrible the rules are). You are also saying as well that you cannot also achieve those same results from tighter rulesets. It might seems more "gamey" in your sense, but those same rules can be used for a fun environment as well, in which in turn can be universal to an extent since you can play at another store, and the rules would have the same exact meaning as the store you would usually go to.

That is just me though.

OP, I don't buy it either. Rock, Paper, Scissors has clear and tight rules and yet I can still play casually with young relatives. The same is true of x-wing (which I also play against strangers). Having a tight ruleset is absolutely does *NOT* somehow make casual games impossible. If anything, I've found the lack of arguments makes them better.