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.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Hah so ignore what to me is the obvious and certainly the most reasonable interpretation, that also works just fine; and instead bang my head against the wall... for what?

Rules discussions on forums fill two main functions. The first is to answer simple questions where someone has either misunderstood or been unable to find a clear rule. The second is to serve as a place for people to hash out unclear rules so that people can be aware of the different ways that people are reading those rules.

Some of the time, those latter discussions are covering situations that simply never arise at the table. For others, different groups wind up playing the game completely different ways, so unless you're only ever playing with the same group of opponents, it can be handy to know that those other interpretations are out there to avoid nasty surprises.

The old GW forums closed because they were filled to the brim with (mostly ridiculous) negativity; they had become a running joke by then.

Indeed. But the reason that happened was that GW themselves practically ignored them.

By contrast, the 'official' forums for pretty much every other game I have ever bothered hanging out on have generally been fairly positive places, because staff or appointed forum representatives have spent considerable time on them interacting with their players and as a result making them feel like their opinions matter.

GW never bothered doing that, and the Eye of Terror was the direct result.

Insaniak I see now why you use your mod power to police people pointing out negativity - but not the actual negativity which literally exists here in HEAPS.

We don't 'police' negativity so long as it stays within the confines of the forum's rules because we accept that different people hold different opinions and they are welcome to voice them. We're not going to sanction someone for holding a negative opinion of something any more than we're going to do so because someone likes something. That would more or less negate the entire point of having a discussion forum in the first place.

The other thing to keep in mind is that there are a lot of criticisms of GW, but they don't all fall into a single category. The people who have a problem with the price and the people who have a problem with the rules mightn't be the same people. So telling someone who doesn't like the rules and the price to "stop playing if its too expensive" may be a (bad) solution to one of their problems, but it doesn't solve their other problem. Too often people spout the "If you don't like it, stop playing" which completely and massively manages to miss the points being made entirely. So going back to GW getting a "win", they don't get a free pass on problem X because someone wants to dismiss criticisms of problem Y.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Take a ten minute tour of YMDC and you see people arguing over the definition of words and how they are used in the rulebooks, all while trying to find a conclusion that makes sense to them.

A lot of which wouldn't be an issue if there was a greater emphasis at GW in writing a decent set of rules rather than attempting to shirk responsibility either by "Rolling for it" (which is akin to sweeping a problem under the rug) or crapping on about how you should "Forge a narrative" (which is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la I can't hear you!"). The problems with GW's rules aren't vast, they're just deep. Fixing the core mechanics of the game would naturally create a better rules base from which to build the rest upon.

As to what you're saying about players wanting too much, I don't think they do want too much. If you lump all the problems together it seems like a massive Chaos Spawn - too much going on, no way to really deal with any one issue, and lots of conflicting opinions - but if you separate them out the solutions are easier to see.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

"If it's the latter, *then* I'm both wrong" ...while trying to sound intellectually superior you've made some pretty funny flubs.

They are unreasonable because you have to go out of your way to allow those interpretations. The obvious interpretation, and not just obvious to me, already works. At least in the case of the "psychic phase doesn't function". Admittedly in every 40K rulebook there have been issues of questionable interpretation; but amongst people that can actually communicate like human beings are capable of on occasion - it all works out fine.

The role of "Grammar Nazi" is cute, but borderline Ad Hominem attack. It doesn't make my point any less valid given the fact I am not a literary powerhouse. So stick to the topic.

And no, they don't. Again, go to YMDC and drop your logic bombs; your literary prowess you want to so endow us with. If they are so obvious, connect the dots. Again, either give proof, or you're simply puffing up and saying "I'm right because I am right." Which is not an actual argument.

Something to think about.

Multiple people can read the same thing and come up with entirely different meanings from what they read. It's why Poetry is so well loved and hated across the field of English.

People comprehend things at different rates. Some people can read a rule and find an easy answer and never need any clarification. Whereas other players can read the same rule and be confused because of a wording issue or because something to them appears to be vague.

A lot of the issues I have seen in YMDC have fallen into this category. Some person reads a rule, it looks vague to them so they seek clarification. Then a debate happens. Others join in and for some the answer is obvious, for others it isn't. 6, 7, 8 pages later, no answer is found, the thread gets locked.

Is the issue then bad clarification of the rules or faulty understanding by the players who see vague when things are clear?

I favor the ladder in most cases. Some things I have come across are quite vague. Psyker/ML is quite clear and to me, needs no further clarification, but for others this isn't the case. But is that a fault of GW?

Do they really need to write out every single instance of every possible issue that could ever possibly occur? Or can they rely on the comprehension skills of a game played primarily by adults who have, at minimum graduated high school?

It's a waste of time and effort to write out every instance of an issue because for all anyone knows, it could only come up once or twice for a few players in some back water hobby shop, does this warrant a FAQ just to clear it up, the answer is no by the way, the easiest solution is for those players to solve it themselves, something GW has given permission for players to do.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

"If it's the latter, *then* I'm both wrong" ...while trying to sound intellectually superior you've made some pretty funny flubs.

They are unreasonable because you have to go out of your way to allow those interpretations. The obvious interpretation, and not just obvious to me, already works. At least in the case of the "psychic phase doesn't function". Admittedly in every 40K rulebook there have been issues of questionable interpretation; but amongst people that can actually communicate like human beings are capable of on occasion - it all works out fine.

The role of "Grammar Nazi" is cute, but borderline Ad Hominem attack. It doesn't make my point any less valid given the fact I am not a literary powerhouse. So stick to the topic.

And no, they don't. Again, go to YMDC and drop your logic bombs; your literary prowess you want to so endow us with. If they are so obvious, connect the dots. Again, either give proof, or you're simply puffing up and saying "I'm right because I am right." Which is not an actual argument.

Give proof of what? You have the same book I have presumably. Tell me honestly, without hearing this forced interpretation of the physic phase, was it not clear to you how many powers you can cast per turn?

And of the both of us, you've certainly been more on the 'attack' there bud. I've made just as many grammar/spelling mistakes, but not so comically while 'puffing up' my superiority over GW's "Writing abilities".

 insaniak wrote:

We don't 'police' negativity so long as it stays within the confines of the forum's rules because we accept that different people hold different opinions and they are welcome to voice them. We're not going to sanction someone for holding a negative opinion of something any more than we're going to do so because someone likes something. That would more or less negate the entire point of having a discussion forum in the first place.

This is an untruth. You have on two different occasions censored me for negativity when all I did was cite observations that others in the same thread had made.

 insaniak wrote:

By contrast, the 'official' forums for pretty much every other game I have ever bothered hanging out on have generally been fairly positive places, because staff or appointed forum representatives have spent considerable time on them interacting with their players and as a result making them feel like their opinions matter.

You can search the privateer press forums to find anyone from their artists to rules writers to the CEO of the company posting in them. Imagine if Jervis actually got onto a forum and said even "Sup?" But they brought that on themselves.

If you think Dakka is negative now, imagine if the folks like Insaniak weren't around to get rid of the real garbage at times (I'm throwing myself under that bus too... we all have bad days )? Thankless job, indeed. (Thanks, Mods).

 Lobomalo wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

We don't 'police' negativity so long as it stays within the confines of the forum's rules because we accept that different people hold different opinions and they are welcome to voice them. We're not going to sanction someone for holding a negative opinion of something any more than we're going to do so because someone likes something. That would more or less negate the entire point of having a discussion forum in the first place.

This is an untruth. You have on two different occasions censored me for negativity when all I did was cite observations that others in the same thread had made.

He policed me for saying this forum was full of negativity haha...

 Sigvatr wrote:
[quote=Throt 601367 6955815 fad29d8ef35eadfd8636ca1094c624c9.jpg
You missed the context of the Mercedes comparison. It was strictly based on people being able to afford it.
GW delivers on everything required. Everything else is subjective. That is the point I am trying to get across.

That is the problem: you miss the point. You assume that a lot of people complain about the prices because they cannot afford them. That is a wrong assumption based on nothing to back it up. Just take me as an example. My wife and I both score very high on the income scale. We bought a PS3 just so we could play Dark Souls II. You assume that because someone can afford a product he has to be ok with tge price. That's a very naive and wrong assumption. GW rules are poor quality rules that often lack cohesion and don't see any playtesting. Poor quality does not justify a premium price. That is because we don't pay for the ruloes: the cost-quality ratio is way off.

It's not really an issue but you are making an assumption out of context. But we can move on.
What evidence do you have that there is no playtesting?
Which is a better quality game, soccer or American football?

How about we discuss a single appalling rule that is ruining the game? If it plays fine for me and not for you then it is not broken it is subjective.

That is my point. I have a classic rational consumist point of view: high price means high quality. If this is not the case, it feels wrong. You are an apologist: "Yeah there are problems but I can fix them so it's still awesome! ". That's fine if you are happy with it as it is your opinion and youbare entitlef to it. You finding a solution for a problem, however, does not make the problem disappear. It is still there. Your view is the subjective view, with you finding ways around a problem. The objective view is that there are problems. Latest example: CCB. Still no FAQ.

Sry for typos on phone and football match about to start.

 TheKbob wrote:


The January financial report says otherwise. We can discuss this further come July for the end of year report, which is already considered a poor to grim outcome from those educated in the world of economic and business matters.

The other half of your argument implies strongly that GW can be lazy just because they've been a large incumbent. And I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Folks are leaving in droves or greatly curtailing their purchases. Again, please review the financials for one piece of evidence.

You have a financial quote for January, after news and rumors of 7th dropped. People always come and go when new editions drop in every game. To get a real representation of their finances, you would need for 7th to actually be around long enough, to sink into and be accepted by the player base. Until then, you have nothing solid, only theories by "experts"

 TheKbob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

By contrast, the 'official' forums for pretty much every other game I have ever bothered hanging out on have generally been fairly positive places, because staff or appointed forum representatives have spent considerable time on them interacting with their players and as a result making them feel like their opinions matter.

You can search the privateer press forums to find anyone from their artists to rules writers to the CEO of the company posting in them. Imagine if Jervis actually got onto a forum and said even "Sup?" But they brought that on themselves.

If you think Dakka is negative now, imagine if the folks like Insaniak weren't around to get rid of the real garbage at times (I'm throwing myself under that bus too... we all have bad days )? Thankless job, indeed. (Thanks, Mods).

That's a fairly obvious butt-kissing, coming from the guy making comments like, "I'd say just link the thread(s) where this is being discussed and let those dogs go there." Tell me Dakka is a place of reasonable people(?)

 Gunzhard wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

By contrast, the 'official' forums for pretty much every other game I have ever bothered hanging out on have generally been fairly positive places, because staff or appointed forum representatives have spent considerable time on them interacting with their players and as a result making them feel like their opinions matter.

You can search the privateer press forums to find anyone from their artists to rules writers to the CEO of the company posting in them. Imagine if Jervis actually got onto a forum and said even "Sup?" But they brought that on themselves.

If you think Dakka is negative now, imagine if the folks like Insaniak weren't around to get rid of the real garbage at times (I'm throwing myself under that bus too... we all have bad days )? Thankless job, indeed. (Thanks, Mods).

That's a fairly obvious butt-kissing, coming from the guy making comments like, "I'd say just link the thread(s) where this is being discussed and let those dogs go there." Tell me Dakka is a place of reasonable people(?)

You're talking to a guy who spent the better part of yesterday with others calling me rude, condescending, pretentious and a lot of other things, merely because I called them out on what amounts to whining.

I'm fairly reasonable, just don't come at me with BS, theories and opinions.

 Gunzhard wrote:

That's a fairly obvious butt-kissing, coming from the guy making comments like, "I'd say just link the thread(s) where this is being discussed and let those dogs go there." Tell me Dakka is a place of reasonable people(?)

Yes, I'm butt kissing the guy who has moderated me several times for completely fair and legit reasons because I was being a giant turd. You got me...

(or maybe I was a mod on forums in another life and know that it is a thankless job, but I digress.)

 TheKbob wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

That's a fairly obvious butt-kissing, coming from the guy making comments like, "I'd say just link the thread(s) where this is being discussed and let those dogs go there." Tell me Dakka is a place of reasonable people(?)

Yes, I'm butt kissing the guy who has moderated me several times for completely fair and legit reasons because I was being a giant turd. You got me...

(or maybe I was a mod on forums in another life and know that it is a thankless job, but I digress.)

It's a pain being a mod. They should totally get paid for putting up with a lot of the crap they deal with.

 Crimson Devil wrote:


Engage with their fan base again. They could start with the Tournament Organizers and Top Players. Most would be able to point out all the weak points and anti-fluffy rules conflicts.

They will be able to point out things that they don't like, not rules that do not work.
For example many tournament players hate random charts. They still work they are just unpredictable.
Just as tournament players try to minimize the randomness across their army.
Tournament players are also not the majority that they believe themselves to be. They just tend to be the most vocal

 Lobomalo wrote:


You have a financial quote for January, after news and rumors of 7th dropped. People always come and go when new editions drop in every game. To get a real representation of their finances, you would need for 7th to actually be around long enough, to sink into and be accepted by the player base. Until then, you have nothing solid, only theories by "experts"

Cool, now we just have "theories" based on "data" that we have "collected" from my different "places" and "experts" who "review" the "data" to give us "results."

This sounds like we're getting very much into Fox News style territory of arguing against sound science in other topics. If you don't want to trust the rational explanations of others educated in the matter, one of which is publicly speaking about it in a fashion that could give him major backlash to himself personally and his company, and not provide any factual rebuttal yourself, then that's on you. But "head in sand" is not a valid tactic no matter how many 4+ roll-offs you try for.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Do they really need to write out every single instance of every possible issue that could ever possibly occur? .

I don't see why not. Other games manage to do so.

However, not covering any possible situation is only half of the problem. The other half is the lack of clarity in the rules that are there.

Yes, different people can interpret a given piece of text different ways. But a more clearly written piece of text is less prone to misinterpretation. Rules aren't poetry... much of the variable interpretation inherent in poetry comes from the fact that the writing is used to convey ideas and imagery rather than specific concepts. Rules, by contrast, need to be clear and concise precisely to avoid as much misinterpretation as possible.

A professional games developer doesn't get a 'get out of jail free' card by including a line in the book saying 'Yeah, if we didn't make it clear enough, just work it out for yourself' any more than my mechanic gets a free pass for pointing out that I can tighten my own wheel nuts if he forgot to do it himself.

 Throt wrote:

Tournament players are also not the majority that they believe themselves to be. They just tend to be the most vocal

That line, so perfect and so what is going on here. You have players who are unhappy and are thinking themselves in the majority, when in reality they are the ones talking the loudest.

This is also why the games I mentioned earlier flat out ignore the players when it comes to balance issues because only the ones unhappy, i.e., those who cannot win are the ones being the loudest.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
This is an untruth. You have on two different occasions censored me for negativity when all I did was cite observations that others in the same thread had made.

He policed me for saying this forum was full of negativity haha...

And it's good to know you both took on board the reason that happened.


Sigh.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


You have a financial quote for January, after news and rumors of 7th dropped. People always come and go when new editions drop in every game. To get a real representation of their finances, you would need for 7th to actually be around long enough, to sink into and be accepted by the player base. Until then, you have nothing solid, only theories by "experts"

Cool, now we just have "theories" based on "data" that we have "collected" from my different "places" and "experts" who "review" the "data" to give us "results."

This sounds like we're getting very much into Fox News style territory of arguing against sound science in other topics. If you don't want to trust the rational explanations of others educated in the matter, one of which is publicly speaking about it in a fashion that could give him major backlash to himself personally and his company, and not provide any factual rebuttal yourself, then that's on you. But "head in sand" is not a valid tactic no matter how many 4+ roll-offs you try for.

First, never said his data didn't have merit, it simply isn't enough to come up with a solid answer, only theories. Any interpretation of this data and applying it to the future is nothing more than shotty science and ignorance.

 Throt wrote:
[Tournament players are also not the majority that they believe themselves to be. They just tend to be the most vocal

Most tournament players don't believe themselves to be a majority. They're fully aware that most players don't play in tournaments.

The reason they complain is that for the most part, writing a game that is tournament-friendly benefits all of the players, whereas writing a game that is only fit for those players who are happy to make up rules with their opponent excludes a chunk of the player base.

 insaniak wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
Do they really need to write out every single instance of every possible issue that could ever possibly occur? .

I don't see why not. Other games manage to do so.

However, not covering any possible situation is only half of the problem. The other half is the lack of clarity in the rules that are there.

Yes, different people can interpret a given piece of text different ways. But a more clearly written piece of text is less prone to misinterpretation. Rules aren't poetry... much of the variable interpretation inherent in poetry comes from the fact that the writing is used to convey ideas and imagery rather than specific concepts. Rules, by contrast, need to be clear and concise precisely to avoid as much misinterpretation as possible.

A professional games developer doesn't get a 'get out of jail free' card by including a line in the book saying 'Yeah, if we didn't make it clear enough, just work it out for yourself' any more than my mechanic gets a free pass for pointing out that I can tighten my own wheel nuts if he forgot to do it himself.

Other games also have much less going on, hence easier to be clear. They aren't trying to manage 10+ armies with multiple rules on their own.

Again, clear to one person and not clear to another is not a fault of the writer. The blame falls on both the reader and the writer. If something is clear to 5 people in an argument, but unclear to 10, who is in the wrong? By your logic, the ones with the larger amount of people are correct and for those who understand, they're wrong.

So if I was to complain about a unit I purchased (Burning Chariot of Tzeentch) being objectively unusable for over a year, I'd just be a noisy forum whiner who can't win?

The hyperbole in this thread is astounding.

 insaniak wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:
Part of the fan base. Few businesses should listen to the internet complainer crowd. Similar to athletes and celebrities, never go online and listen to Forum Guy when you are a public figure or company.

That was arguably true 10 years ago. These days, as more and more people have ready access to the web, the 'internet crowd' covers a much wider cross-section of a company's potential audience.

I believe this is a common fallacy
.Though the internet has large numbers and potentially large audience it is still not necessarily representative.
Take this forum alone approximately 5000 views plus however many registered users and there are only about 15-20 people taking part.
This shows that the topic is not as hot button amongst players as some might believe.

 Lobomalo wrote:

First, never said his data didn't have merit, it simply isn't enough to come up with a solid answer, only theories. Any interpretation of this data and applying it to the future is nothing more than shotty science and ignorance.

I don't think you're using that word correctly... the very nature of science is to create an assertion based on theory and try to disprove it. We have enough data that the pull of Earth's gravity on a falling object creates an acceleration of roughly 32 ft/s^2.

Same applies with economics, thought it's a bit fuzzier because it involves human behavior. However, using the one thing you cannot measure, experience, better educated and experienced individuals can draw strong conclusions of future events. It's not as set in stone as the gravitational constant for an object near the surface of the Earth, but we have a fairly strong degree of certainty. Enough that someone is risking their credentials as such a person and potentially the value of his company to boot.

So something tells me we have enough reason to give trust to the theory at hand.

 Eldarain wrote:
So if I was to complain about a unit I purchased (Burning Chariot of Tzeentch) being objectively unusable for over a year, I'd just be a noisy forum whiner who can't win?

The hyperbole in this thread is astounding.

What makes the unit unusable? Is there something physically preventing you from playing it or does it not fit the top tier list you are trying to emulate?

If its the former, blame GW, if its the ladder, blame yourself and the meta. The meta changes all the time, in no game when you have as many units as this does, will you find a use for every possible unit you can bring, Some are stronger and better than others, this is how it is. Other units are useful in other situations.

Case in point, in the tactics forum right now there is a guy that flat out believes that Gene Stealers are worthless as they are not as cost effective as other units. Yet from my own experience using my Tyranid army, my Gene Stealers have more than earned their keep. So, does the problem come from issues in the meta, or from players trying to build that ideal top tier list and simply not trying other units because they "think" they are not as good/

 Lobomalo wrote:
Other games also have much less going on, hence easier to be clear. They aren't trying to manage 10+ armies with multiple rules on their own.

And that's a problem that GW have created all by themselves.

To keep the car analogy going, how do you think, say, Ford's customers would take it if the latest shiny model was full of flaws that Ford hand-waved away on the basis that making a car properly is too complicated?

If your games designers aren't capable of writing a comprehensive set of rules for a game with that amount of complexity, then surely the obvious answer is to write a less complex set of rules, no?

Again, clear to one person and not clear to another is not a fault of the writer. The blame falls on both the reader and the writer. .

Sure. Except in this case, one of those people is selling a product, and the other is a customer expecting to buy a functional and professional product.

The onus there is on the writer to make a 'best effort' to get it right.

 Throt wrote:
They will be able to point out things that they don't like, not rules that do not work.

No, they'll be able to point out plenty of rules that don't work. Go read YMDC.

And if you want to use a definition of "work" that includes some form of working well, not just "it is possible to play a game", you'll find that the game is a bloated mess that is full of clumsy exceptions to special cases, contradictory design goals, balance nightmares, etc. It's like a car that barely runs, leaks every time it rains, etc: sure it will get you from point A to point B as long as it isn't too far, but I don't think you can really say that it works very well.

For example many tournament players hate random charts. They still work they are just unpredictable.
Just as tournament players try to minimize the randomness across their army.
Tournament players are also not the majority that they believe themselves to be. They just tend to be the most vocal

It's not just tournament players that hate random charts. Things like random warlord traits are awful for narrative play. They're objectively bad design for everyone, not just a few people that want to minimize randomness that might interfere with their winning percentage.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

First, never said his data didn't have merit, it simply isn't enough to come up with a solid answer, only theories. Any interpretation of this data and applying it to the future is nothing more than shotty science and ignorance.

I don't think you're using that word correctly... the very nature of science is to create an assertion based on theory and try to disprove it. We have enough data that the pull of Earth's gravity on a falling object creates an acceleration of roughly 32 ft/s^2.

Same applies with economics, thought it's a bit fuzzier because it involves human behavior. However, using the one thing you cannot measure, experience, better educated and experienced individuals can draw strong conclusions of future events. It's not as set in stone as the gravitational constant for an object near the surface of the Earth, but we have a fairly strong degree of certainty. Enough that someone is risking their credentials as such a person and potentially the value of his company to boot.

So something tells me we have enough reason to give trust to the theory at hand.

Except when you look at other companies who have had similar issues who simply bounced back without changing anything. I have mentioned these before.

It is too early to tell, you would need to find a trend to support the theory, so I will give you until the next report, if it shows a decline, you're right, but I doubt it will.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


You have a financial quote for January, after news and rumors of 7th dropped. People always come and go when new editions drop in every game. To get a real representation of their finances, you would need for 7th to actually be around long enough, to sink into and be accepted by the player base. Until then, you have nothing solid, only theories by "experts"

Cool, now we just have "theories" based on "data" that we have "collected" from my different "places" and "experts" who "review" the "data" to give us "results."

This sounds like we're getting very much into Fox News style territory of arguing against sound science in other topics. If you don't want to trust the rational explanations of others educated in the matter, one of which is publicly speaking about it in a fashion that could give him major backlash to himself personally and his company, and not provide any factual rebuttal yourself, then that's on you. But "head in sand" is not a valid tactic no matter how many 4+ roll-offs you try for.

Have you ever read the comments-sections of the Fox News facebook page? ...your so-called "data" is like polling that comment section. It's not science, it's not tested or proven, it's not even entirely definable... it's just a bunch of screaming voices. For all we know half of the users on Dakka could be the same 12 year old kid, and you honestly cannot 'prove' otherwise.

Just because a unit or strategy works for you doesn't automatically make it good. It just means it works for you. You have to look at the bigger picture and if, on average, Genestealers tend to underperform then they aren't an adequate unit.