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.

Or maybe it's the rules...

Crazy idea, but I mean, if they were well written, there wouldn't be a discussion for each issue in the first place.

True, that is another possibility. So unless we do some real digging and statistics, we can hardly conclude definitively.

No, we can conclude quite definitively that the core issue is with the rules.

The reason for the discussions in the first place is due to poor rules writing; remove that and you remove the root of the issue, killing it before it becomes a greater problem.

Every other problem you're trying to blame is merely a symptom of the poor rules writing, not the underlying cause.

Hopefully that is correct and not a Type 1 error. The question would be also, how much of the increased posts in YMDC is genuinely due to dispute and now much is due to other confounders.

In an analysis, we are trying to compare the number of poor rules divided all the rules in 40K vs the number of poor rules in other games divided by the total number of rules in other games. There may be a weak correlation of percentage of poor rules to the number of post increase.

This thread is fully derailed, see you guys next thread.

 Blacksails wrote:
No, we can conclude quite definitively that the core issue is with the rules.

The reason for the discussions in the first place is due to poor rules writing; remove that and you remove the root of the issue, killing it before it becomes a greater problem.

Every other problem you're trying to blame is merely a symptom of the poor rules writing, not the underlying cause.

This. Vague rules require discussion and clarification, concise rules might need to be asked but the answer is typically definitive because the rules aren't up to interpretation. Warmachine's rules, for instance, are generally concise and clear, and there's very little debate as to what a rule actually means, because it's spelled out exactly. This is the sign of a well-written ruleset.

40k's rules are left up to interpretation and/or house rules, which often differ depending on the person you actually ask (and I've even heard of people asking GW designers in the past at like Games Day, and even they had no idea and said to just house rule it!). That is the sign of a poorly-written ruleset, because rules should not be ambiguous by default. House rules should be things to add variety to the game or change things, not fix gaps in the rules.

The premise brought up by Kojiro was that the number of posts in 40KYMDC shows how many rules need discussion. This is suggesting a linear relationship which may not be the case. A lot of YMDC is repeated arguments (restating), jokes, comments about other posters. There are also a lot of posts for rule clarifications, when a new player is unsure. To attribute the number of posts versus views, to the reason that 40K has vague rules, may be excessive. That was my point of contention.

I fully agree that 40K has some vague rules. Without having played Warmachine, I cannot comment but take your word for it. That was not my intent to dispute.

Just go read Warmachine's rules or watch a demo game. The rules are far more clear and intuitive than 40k's and Infinity's are almost beautiful.

But yes, I do say that voting with my wallet isn't quite enough. I actively discourage people from playing GW games in order to get them to sit up and take notice.

The Veterans that used to get people in the game are now steering them away. Seeing as how GW doesn't advertise and relies on word of mouth you'd think they'd take that a bit more seriously.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Just go read Warmachine's rules or watch a demo game. The rules are far more clear and intuitive than 40k's and Infinity's are almost beautiful.

But yes, I do say that voting with my wallet isn't quite enough. I actively discourage people from playing GW games in order to get them to sit up and take notice.

The Veterans that used to get people in the game are now steering them away. Seeing as how GW doesn't advertise and relies on word of mouth you'd think they'd take that a bit more seriously.

I have to agree with everything here execpt 1.

Almost beautiful? Really? Almost?

Infinity takes a little time to get your head wrapped around it but it has to be the most intuitive game system I have ever played. It is a work of art.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Just go read Warmachine's rules or watch a demo game. The rules are far more clear and intuitive than 40k's and Infinity's are almost beautiful.

But yes, I do say that voting with my wallet isn't quite enough. I actively discourage people from playing GW games in order to get them to sit up and take notice.

The Veterans that used to get people in the game are now steering them away. Seeing as how GW doesn't advertise and relies on word of mouth you'd think they'd take that a bit more seriously.

I have to agree with everything here execpt 1.

Almost beautiful? Really? Almost?

Infinity takes a little time to get your head wrapped around it but it has to be the most intuitive game system I have ever played. It is a work of art.

My apologies, sir.
As a professional artist, I should have known better.

Let's not mince words, Infinity's rulebook is nearly on par or worse than the 40k rulebook in terms of layout. The rules held within are superior, but my goodness is that a smeared mess.

Good thing Corvus Belli are awesome enough to say, yes we know this, here's 3rd Edition (months in advance, not two weeks) and we're fixing that. Unlike Games Workshop who allows people to buy 6E up until the very last moment and goes "Surprise!!!!"

Infinity also doesn't charge $85 for their rules. Their free.

And the Wiki is amazingly helpful. I own all the books but I still just use the wiki for each and every rules query.

I use the MayaNet app.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Infinity also doesn't charge $85 for their rules. Their free.

While free is always good, what simply bugs me is that GW seems to have a pattern of charging more than everybody else and delivering less, seemingly just because they're GW and can get away with it. The rules are an obvious comparison ($85 for GW versus like $45 for Warmachine, likely the same for Bolt Action/Hail Caesar/etc., for the same kind of hardcover book), but also look at their paints ($4 for 12mL when virtually everybody else is less than that for 17mL or therabouts).

WayneTheGame wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Infinity also doesn't charge $85 for their rules. Their free.

While free is always good, what simply bugs me is that GW seems to have a pattern of charging more than everybody else and delivering less, seemingly just because they're GW and can get away with it. The rules are an obvious comparison ($85 for GW versus like $45 for Warmachine, likely the same for Bolt Action/Hail Caesar/etc., for the same kind of hardcover book), but also look at their paints ($4 for 12mL when virtually everybody else is less than that for 17mL or therabouts).

GW mini-rulebook in 6E: $40~$50, right?
Malifaux mini-rulebood in 2E: $15

 TheKbob wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Infinity also doesn't charge $85 for their rules. Their free.

While free is always good, what simply bugs me is that GW seems to have a pattern of charging more than everybody else and delivering less, seemingly just because they're GW and can get away with it. The rules are an obvious comparison ($85 for GW versus like $45 for Warmachine, likely the same for Bolt Action/Hail Caesar/etc., for the same kind of hardcover book), but also look at their paints ($4 for 12mL when virtually everybody else is less than that for 17mL or therabouts).

GW mini-rulebook in 6E: $40~$50, right?
Malifaux mini-rulebood in 2E: $15

Something like that, but yeah, GW's mini softcover book cost about as much as hardcover books from others, while GW's hardcover book was nearly double the price. I get the impression they do it just because they can.

Maybe they look at the game only from the UK perspective , from what I understand GW mostly killed off non GW FLGS in UK. So if people don't know there is infinity and Warmahordes ,or do know but won't have a place to play , they start up with GW games , because there are no other options.

Makumba wrote:
Maybe they look at the game only from the UK perspective , from what I understand GW mostly killed off non GW FLGS in UK. So if people don't know there is infinity and Warmahordes ,or do know but won't have a place to play , they start up with GW games , because there are no other options.

I think that might factor into it a bit; in the UK there used to be a GW store all over the place, so they had tremendous exposure and were generally the first thing people went to. In the US, GW stores are few and far between and it's mostly FLGS that sell products.

Straying a bit far from the topic,. we have other threads for general GW bashing ; p This thread is probably better for general GW discussion.

The focus of this thread should be list building, should it be up to players to limit their lists despite the rules or should GW write the rules that enable the lists they think are acceptable... something to that effect.

 Yonan wrote:
Straying a bit far from the topic,. we have other threads for general GW bashing ; p This thread is probably better for general GW discussion.

The focus of this thread should be list building, should it be up to players to limit their lists despite the rules or should GW write the rules that enable the lists they think are acceptable... something to that effect.

GW should have rules that encourage list building but strive to make all choices viable. The issue with list building now is that there are units that are objectively "good" and objectively "bad", so list building revolves around taking the good units and ignoring the bad. now, other games have something to this effect but not as pronounced as 40k. For example, Chaos Warp Talons are just gak all around; this is bad as it means someone who likes how they look (and they do look awesome IMO) is punished just for picking them. Compare that to something like the Riptide or the Wraithknight, which look awesome and are insanely powerful too.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Yonan wrote:
Straying a bit far from the topic,. we have other threads for general GW bashing ; p This thread is probably better for general GW discussion.

The focus of this thread should be list building, should it be up to players to limit their lists despite the rules or should GW write the rules that enable the lists they think are acceptable... something to that effect.

GW should have rules that encourage list building but strive to make all choices viable. The issue with list building now is that there are units that are objectively "good" and objectively "bad", so list building revolves around taking the good units and ignoring the bad. now, other games have something to this effect but not as pronounced as 40k. For example, Chaos Warp Talons are just gak all around; this is bad as it means someone who likes how they look (and they do look awesome IMO) is punished just for picking them. Compare that to something like the Riptide or the Wraithknight, which look awesome and are insanely powerful too.

And then you have the Penitent Engine which is amazing looking but is a complete waste of 80 points. That's a large chucnk of points to give up for something that won't survive long enough to get into combat.
No one's going to take it unless they go into the battle with the intention of losing.
A unit this bad should have been spotted before publishing the codex, but it wasn't. Actually, it was nerfed from the previous edition which is an even bigger head scratcher. This is the kind of situation that make people wonder, "Does GW even play their own games?"

Yep. I'd love it for Warp Talons (and lychgarde, praetorians, rough riders, penient engines etc.) to be more effective. As is, even raptors which are basically average (subpar overall due to rang focused rules) aren't worth choosing given the hellchicken, bikers and spawn that compete for fast attack slots. You can argue for relatively decent external codex balance as most 'dexes have the ability to mount a decent list or 2 - a couple stand above the rest though. Internal codex balance cannot be argued as good though, there are many units that stand out as far above or far below average in effectiveness.

If internal balance alone was fixed I swear half my complaints against GW would cease. I can get around the pricing and the cumbersome rules would be tolerable if every unit was usable, allowing for diverse gaming without worry of TFG/stomping friends/being stomped due to anything other than ability.

 Yonan wrote:
Yep. I'd love it for Warp Talons (and lychgarde, praetorians, rough riders, penient engines etc.) to be more effective. As is, even raptors which are basically average (subpar overall due to rang focused rules) aren't worth choosing given the hellchicken, bikers and spawn that compete for fast attack slots. You can argue for relatively decent external codex balance as most 'dexes have the ability to mount a decent list or 2 - a couple stand above the rest though. Internal codex balance cannot be argued as good though, there are many units that stand out as far above or far below average in effectiveness.

If internal balance alone was fixed I swear half my complaints against GW would cease. I can get around the pricing and the cumbersome rules would be tolerable if every unit was usable, allowing for diverse gaming without worry of TFG/stomping friends/being stomped due to anything other than ability.

It would also make "Unbound" playable.

Yep my only complaint against unbound - and the new multiple detachment shenanigans - is the poor balance is emphasised. Well... the fluff harming aspects don't help, but that can be tolerated for a fun game.

 Yonan wrote:
Yep my only complaint against unbound - and the new multiple detachment shenanigans - is the poor balance is emphasised. Well... the fluff harming aspects don't help, but that can be tolerated for a fun game.

That's the other half. The fluff breaking. I can't do it. But, still, codex balance would solve half of the gameplay complaints from me.