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.

 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.

MTG has way more complexity than 40k. MTG also has absolutely no rule questions that can not be answered with a brief look at the rulebook. Please stop excusing GW's lazy writers based on ignorance of what better game designers are capable of.

 Lobomalo wrote:

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.

I have not seen you mention specifics. So please either provide me a frame of reference for this or a link to where you gave very specific circumstances, more so within the context of wargaming. I'll give you even all of game space to navigate. I'd even take a Wikipedia article so I can follow the references myself and meet you half way.

 insaniak wrote:

 PhillyT wrote:
A rule ... that cannot be applied because of its mechanic.

The entire psychic phase currently doesn't function.

Last edition, it was fortifications, most notably the Skyshield, anything with battlements, and the Aegis Defense Line, and the Look Out Sir! rule which was errataed to work completely differently 3 minutes after release..

In 5th edition it was characters joining units pre-game and LOS outside the shooting phase... two issues that carried over into 6th edition despite being clarified at the very end of 5th.

In 4th edition, they 'forgot' to include the rules for vehicle access and fire points, and the badly written LOS rules coupled with a complete failure to ever clarify them meant that for the entire life of that edition there were arguments over just how LOS worked.


Those are just the big ones. It seems like every edition they manage to jam something in there that they wrote out on a napkin in a hurry and never bothered to actually proof-read.

Many of the so called 'errors' come from players that start reading between the lines. The rules lawyers typically. (None of this is meant derogatory)
I saw an issue, I believe was from a tournament somewhere, that there were arguments about line of sight with wraithguard and other Eldar walkers because they don't have eyes.
Many of these problems are just not forseen.
Do we need a rulebook written like law, and to have a law degree to play? I don't want that.

 insaniak wrote:


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.

Which I would agree with if there was a legitimate majority who did not understand what was written. Honestly, most of the issues I have come across, just looking at Dakka alone, they are only unclear to the players on here. I bring up the same questions to those I meet pretty much everywhere I play, the answer is obvious to them as well.

So again, who is to blame? The company or the players for seeing something vague when the answer is clear?

Also, clear to some and not to others, was referred to players only, thought that was clear, but I'll state it here.

For some players rules are clear, for others they are vague.

GW wrote all of the game.

If there are any problems with the game due to the way it is written, GW are to blame.

It doesn't matter if the problem arose "because there are 10 armies". GW put the 10 armies in there and let it cause a problem.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

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.

I have not seen you mention specifics. So please either provide me a frame of reference for this or a link to where you gave very specific circumstances, more so within the context of wargaming. I'll give you even all of game space to navigate. I'd even take a Wikipedia article so I can follow the references myself and meet you half way.

I listed the games earlier in the thread, scroll back and find it for yourself.

 Throt wrote:
That is my point. I have a classic rational consumist point of view: high price means high quality.

Not to nitpick, but in a truly capitalist society, this is super naive.

High price means that people are willing to pay that price for the product - you could have a turd, but if people pay $15,000,000 for it, you bet your ass it'll be sold for that much.

Perhaps there ought to be a correlation between quality and price, but there are waaaayyy more things that go into pricing than mere quality, including branding, market share, target markets, et cetera.

 Throt wrote:
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.

It's not just about the number of people in any given discussion. It's about the cross-section of people involved.

Where the internet was once the domain of IT folk and tech junkies, as more and more people get easy access, you get a wider cross-section of the community getting involved in online stuff.

Divining customer opinion isn't just about counting heads in one specific place. It's about counting different heads.

 Throt wrote:


Many of the so called 'errors' come from players that start reading between the lines. The rules lawyers typically. (None of this is meant derogatory)

This right here is the issue with YMDC. People try and read into things when there is no reason to, things are quite clear.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 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?

It actually didn't function for over a year. The passenger is equipped with a Template weapon. If a Chariot moves it's passengers must snap fire. You can't snap fire a Template outside of "Wall of Death" The fact they couldn't be bothered to write a FaQ for that obvious mistake is shocking.

I appreciate that you are new to the game and are full of the same enthusiasm we all felt during that same time, but I'd advise you to take a step back from the "coming in swinging" approach you've adopted.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
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.

This. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Lobomalo seems like a classic "big fish in a small pond" case. Their local group probably consists of a few people with mid-tier lists and a bit of skill, and a bunch of newbies/"casual" players/etc with truly awful lists and limited skill. The mid-tier players dominate with lists that would get dominated in a large competitive tournament, simply because there is no real competition. And as long as you never leave that group it can seem like certain strategies are overpowered based on their win rate against that weak competition.

This is of course backed up by Lobomalo's claim about MTG balance, that U/W control is unbeatable (when in fact it isn't really doing very well in major tournaments). Someone in their local store probably has a decent U/W control deck and beats all the weaker players, and Lobomalo struggles to compete with it. And they make the textbook mistake of assuming that everyone else has the same problems, ignoring the tournament results demonstrating that they don't. The only question is whether Lobomalo is sincerely wrong about this, or posted a balance complaint without realizing that other people in this thread might have some MTG experience and check their claims.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
GW wrote all of the game.

If there are any problems with the game due to the way it is written, GW are to blame.

It doesn't matter if the problem arose "because there are 10 armies". GW put the 10 armies in there and let it cause a problem.

Question.

Say there are players who understand the rules, sense no problems in them and are able to play just fine without issue. Does there still exist a problem?

If only an issue exists for some, is there a problem?

When looking at rules, something cannot both be a problem to some and not a problem to others. Somewhere alone the line, someone is misunderstanding something or blatantly misreading it.

If the rules were written as unclear as many of you have claimed, you wouldn't have people who see things clearly and don't have issues getting answers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 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?

It actually didn't function for over a year. The passenger is equipped with a Template weapon. If a Chariot moves it's passengers must snap fire. You can't snap fire a Template outside of "Wall of Death" The fact they couldn't be bothered to write a FaQ for that obvious mistake is shocking.

I appreciate that you are new to the game and are full of the same enthusiasm we all felt during that same time, but I'd advise you to take a step back from the "coming in swinging" approach you've adopted.

Anything else?

Me being new has no bearing on my understanding or comprehension of rules. I am able to read and understand them quite clearly thank you very much.

Now, get off your high horse please.

 Throt wrote:
I saw an issue, I believe was from a tournament somewhere, that there were arguments about line of sight with wraithguard and other Eldar walkers because they don't have eyes.
Many of these problems are just not forseen.

Not foreseen?

The issue with LOS from models without eyes has been something that people have been complaining about for 6 editions now. GW finally resolved it by changing the LOS rules in 7th edition.

And while it was never that huge a problem for things like Wraithguard, it was somewhat less clear last edition just how we were supposed to establish LOS with artillery.


The thing is, these are things that should be foreseen. Particularly when people have been complaining about them for multiple editions.

So, again, it ultimately comes back to engaging with the customer base, which they just don't bother to do.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

You sound fairly well read into game design. Have you tried redesigning 40k? I'm sure if all that you mentioned can be achieved, it would also pull existing players to your version instead. It might be interesting as well since a tighter ruleset may bring joy to those players who have quit due to loose rules.

 insaniak wrote:

 Throt wrote:
I saw an issue, I believe was from a tournament somewhere, that there were arguments about line of sight with wraithguard and other Eldar walkers because they don't have eyes.
Many of these problems are just not forseen.

Not foreseen?

The issue with LOS from models without eyes has been something that people have been complaining about for 6 editions now. GW finally resolved it by changing the LOS rules in 7th edition.

And while it was never that huge a problem for things like Wraithguard, it was somewhat less clear last edition just how we were supposed to establish LOS with artillery.


The thing is, these are things that should be foreseen. Particularly when people have been complaining about them for multiple editions.

So, again, it ultimately comes back to engaging with the customer base, which they just don't bother to do.

OR, they can expect people to act like gentlemen and use common sense, instead of saying "YOUR GUY DOESN'T HAVE EYES HOW DOES HE SEE TO SHOOT?!?!?!??!?!!!"

Because really, you're right, we shouldn't have to do it and that is a problem.

But seriously?

 Lobomalo wrote:


I listed the games earlier in the thread, scroll back and find it for yourself.

Well,... I'll take that as a no.

 Lobomalo wrote:
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.

There's already a trend. Prices go up, profits don't go up faster than inflation. Conclusion: GW is selling a smaller number of boxes for a higher price per-box. GW cuts costs everywhere and brags about it in their financial reports, profits don't go up faster than inflation. Conclusion: GW's cost cutting is covering up weak sales, and eventually GW is going to run out of things to cut without sacrificing quality in obvious ways. GW sees a big drop in profits in the period that includes the christmas shopping season (in an industry that should see lots of sales at that time). Conclusion: sales were really bad, and only the christmas spike saved them from a worse disaster.

And as for the next report, it's about more than just the final profit number. Remember that this next report will include the major cash cow of a new 40k edition, which means a lot of extra sales that GW can't easily repeat for a while. To consider the report an optimistic one GW can't just avoid a decline, they need to see a meaningful increase in profit. And they need to do it through legitimate sales increases, not just cost cutting and other short-term business tricks that cover up the real numbers.

I would say that if even a sizable minority (Not an oxymoron) finds issue with the rules then their concerns should be at least addressed. That's lost customers and bad PR right there if you just tell them to go screw themselves because everyone else is having fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
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.

There's already a trend. Prices go up, profits don't go up faster than inflation. Conclusion: GW is selling a smaller number of boxes for a higher price per-box. GW cuts costs everywhere and brags about it in their financial reports, profits don't go up faster than inflation. Conclusion: GW's cost cutting is covering up weak sales, and eventually GW is going to run out of things to cut without sacrificing quality in obvious ways. GW sees a big drop in profits in the period that includes the christmas shopping season (in an industry that should see lots of sales at that time). Conclusion: sales were really bad, and only the christmas spike saved them from a worse disaster.

And as for the next report, it's about more than just the final profit number. Remember that this next report will include the major cash cow of a new 40k edition, which means a lot of extra sales that GW can't easily repeat for a while. To consider the report an optimistic one GW can't just avoid a decline, they need to see a meaningful increase in profit. And they need to do it through legitimate sales increases, not just cost cutting and other short-term business tricks that cover up the real numbers.

I know I'm about to say a bit of an oversimplification but:

In my business class, I was told that it is the wet dream of every manufacturer and retailer to sell one product for fifteen million dollars, rather than to sell fifteen million products for one dollar.

So if you can sell fewer units, but make up for it by selling those units at an inflated price, then you're a better capitalist than someone who sells more units at a lower price and makes the same profit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
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.

This. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Lobomalo seems like a classic "big fish in a small pond" case. Their local group probably consists of a few people with mid-tier lists and a bit of skill, and a bunch of newbies/"casual" players/etc with truly awful lists and limited skill. The mid-tier players dominate with lists that would get dominated in a large competitive tournament, simply because there is no real competition. And as long as you never leave that group it can seem like certain strategies are overpowered based on their win rate against that weak competition.

This is of course backed up by Lobomalo's claim about MTG balance, that U/W control is unbeatable (when in fact it isn't really doing very well in major tournaments). Someone in their local store probably has a decent U/W control deck and beats all the weaker players, and Lobomalo struggles to compete with it. And they make the textbook mistake of assuming that everyone else has the same problems, ignoring the tournament results demonstrating that they don't. The only question is whether Lobomalo is sincerely wrong about this, or posted a balance complaint without realizing that other people in this thread might have some MTG experience and check their claims.

I like you, I really do. People like you give me hope for the future. - Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1-

Do you play Magic right now? Have you ever actually made it to a competitive event and not a local Friday night game? I've played for almost twenty years now, U/W has always been one of the most dominant decks in the game. It falls out of favor here and there because Wizards buffs the other colors because U/W is so strong. But you would know this if you actually played competitively.

http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/ptgtc13/top_8_decks

For you.

%50 of the top 8 decks from events last year are combinations of solid U/W or U/W and something else. These results have been fairly consistent since Alara launched. Before then it was about %25 U/W

 milkboy wrote:
You sound fairly well read into game design. Have you tried redesigning 40k? I'm sure if all that you mentioned can be achieved, it would also pull existing players to your version instead. It might be interesting as well since a tighter ruleset may bring joy to those players who have quit due to loose rules.

No, of course I haven't tried redesigning 40k. If I'm going to invest the massive amount of effort required for a complete rewrite of the game (and that's what it would take to fix it) there's no way I'm going to spend it on designing a game for someone else's IP that I can't sell.

 Lobomalo wrote:
If only an issue exists for some, is there a problem?

Yes, because when you say that the issue only exists for some people what you really mean is that some people ignore the issue and 4+ it/house rule it/etc.

If the rules were written as unclear as many of you have claimed, you wouldn't have people who see things clearly and don't have issues getting answers.

Sure you would. Those people who "see things clearly" are actually just playing the game as they believe it was intended to work, not according to the published rules. The fact that some players can come up with their own variant game that works kind of like the official one doesn't mean that the problems in the official rules don't exist.

Anything else?

And this is why a lot of people here don't really like your attitude: you asked for an example of a broken unit, you got an example. Did you accept the example and admit that the problem exists? Of course not, you just dismissed it and demanded another example.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

GW cannot win because the players want too much.

Players want at least what other, smaller companies, with less fiscal resources than Games Workshop, provide for free or at a much reduced price. That would be great start and no one would be opposed to that. So your argument doesn't have merit.

It is actually more difficult for GW.
Lets say that on release 'x' GW screwed up 5 things, and made 2 things out of balance that the rules lawyers have found.
They have just printed and shipped 500,000 rulebooks across the globe.
The naysayers see the books and say GW you suck.
Many don't buy, because it is overpriced, or it sucks or whatever and they want GW to recall all these books and have lost all the investment and have to start all over.
Can you see a cycle appearing.
The expectation of the naysayer is naïve and harmful.
Companies with less resource also have less overhead to cover.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
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.

There's already a trend. Prices go up, profits don't go up faster than inflation. Conclusion: GW is selling a smaller number of boxes for a higher price per-box. GW cuts costs everywhere and brags about it in their financial reports, profits don't go up faster than inflation. Conclusion: GW's cost cutting is covering up weak sales, and eventually GW is going to run out of things to cut without sacrificing quality in obvious ways. GW sees a big drop in profits in the period that includes the christmas shopping season (in an industry that should see lots of sales at that time). Conclusion: sales were really bad, and only the christmas spike saved them from a worse disaster.

And as for the next report, it's about more than just the final profit number. Remember that this next report will include the major cash cow of a new 40k edition, which means a lot of extra sales that GW can't easily repeat for a while. To consider the report an optimistic one GW can't just avoid a decline, they need to see a meaningful increase in profit. And they need to do it through legitimate sales increases, not just cost cutting and other short-term business tricks that cover up the real numbers.

I know I'm about to say a bit of an oversimplification but:

In my business class, I was told that it is the wet dream of every manufacturer and retailer to sell one product for fifteen million dollars, rather than to sell fifteen million products for one dollar.

So if you can sell fewer units, but make up for it by selling those units at an inflated price, then you're a better capitalist than someone who sells more units at a lower price and makes the same profit.

Except for some, this mentality is evil and is bad for a business to do. It's almost as if they have forgotten the point of a business and what their goals are.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Which I would agree with if there was a legitimate majority who did not understand what was written. Honestly, most of the issues I have come across, just looking at Dakka alone, they are only unclear to the players on here. I bring up the same questions to those I meet pretty much everywhere I play, the answer is obvious to them as well.

You seem to have this odd idea that the guys discussing rules in YMDC only exist in YMDC.

Most of the more contentious issues I've seen discussed in YMDC over the years wind up discussed on every 40K-related forum sooner or later, and every gaming group that I have been a part of in the last decade has wound up discussing those same issues sooner or later.

For many groups they won't be a problem, because the gamers in that group are all like-minded enough to naturally gravitate to the same resolutions. That doesn't mean the problems aren't there... it simply means that for those groups the resolution was seemingly obvious because nobody disagreed with the general consensus (or cared enough to argue the point).


The other reason that you don't see those arguments as much is simply down to knowledge of the rules. To put it simply, at least from my experience, most players just don't know the rules all that well. In 20 years of playing this game, I've found that in the vast majority of situations when a rules issue comes up at the table, one player will just naturally defer to the other on the assumption that they probably know the rules better, and will maybe worry about finding out if what happened was actually correct afterwards. If they remember to.

YMDC, and other similar forums around the web, tend to attract those gamers who are more into actually knowing the rules inside and out, and so they will find those little details that get overlooked by the average gamer.

 Throt wrote:
Many of the so called 'errors' come from players that start reading between the lines.

So we're back to blaming the victim are we?

I'm not going to claim that writing rules is easy - in my experience it can be a frustrating thing indeed - but writing clear and concise rules isn't very hard once the you've got the base down correctly. The fact that GW fails in this aspect on a consistent basis says to me that they either don't know what they're doing or that they don't care. I choose to think the better of people, so I'll go with the ignorance over apathy conclusion.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I would say that if even a sizable minority (Not an oxymoron) finds issue with the rules then their concerns should be at least addressed. That's lost customers and bad PR right there if you just tell them to go screw themselves because everyone else is having fun.

I don't disagree with this - but even the staunchest GW-haters have to admit, that the "sky is falling" reaction to every change in the game has remained a constant since day 2 of WH40K... they must have to become numb to some of that.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 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?

It actually didn't function for over a year. The passenger is equipped with a Template weapon. If a Chariot moves it's passengers must snap fire. You can't snap fire a Template outside of "Wall of Death" The fact they couldn't be bothered to write a FaQ for that obvious mistake is shocking.

I appreciate that you are new to the game and are full of the same enthusiasm we all felt during that same time, but I'd advise you to take a step back from the "coming in swinging" approach you've adopted.

Anything else?

Me being new has no bearing on my understanding or comprehension of rules. I am able to read and understand them quite clearly thank you very much.

Now, get off your high horse please.

1: Nowhere in my post did I question your ability to understand or comprehend rules.
2: Your inability to discern that does bring into question your comprehension.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
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.

This. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Lobomalo seems like a classic "big fish in a small pond" case. Their local group probably consists of a few people with mid-tier lists and a bit of skill, and a bunch of newbies/"casual" players/etc with truly awful lists and limited skill. The mid-tier players dominate with lists that would get dominated in a large competitive tournament, simply because there is no real competition. And as long as you never leave that group it can seem like certain strategies are overpowered based on their win rate against that weak competition.

This is of course backed up by Lobomalo's claim about MTG balance, that U/W control is unbeatable (when in fact it isn't really doing very well in major tournaments). Someone in their local store probably has a decent U/W control deck and beats all the weaker players, and Lobomalo struggles to compete with it. And they make the textbook mistake of assuming that everyone else has the same problems, ignoring the tournament results demonstrating that they don't. The only question is whether Lobomalo is sincerely wrong about this, or posted a balance complaint without realizing that other people in this thread might have some MTG experience and check their claims.

I like you, I really do. People like you give me hope for the future. .

Do you play Magic right now? Have you ever actually made it to a competitive event and not a local Friday night game? I've played for almost twenty years now, U/W has always been one of the most dominant decks in the game. It falls out of favor here and there because Wizards buffs the other colors because U/W is so strong. But you would know this if you actually played competitively.

Wow, the arrogance is strong with this one. Well, just because you been to a few local or even national events doesn't make your experience representative of the overall meta. You need results from a lot of tournaments to draw any conclusion about what build is good or not. As a man who believes in science I must stress this: Anecdotes mean feth all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I know I'm about to say a bit of an oversimplification but:

In my business class, I was told that it is the wet dream of every manufacturer and retailer to sell one product for fifteen million dollars, rather than to sell fifteen million products for one dollar.

So if you can sell fewer units, but make up for it by selling those units at an inflated price, then you're a better capitalist than someone who sells more units at a lower price and makes the same profit.

Because it's called gambling. I have not taken a business class, but I know in my own personal investments and guidance I have received on them is that diversification leads to better chances of success. As it were, Games Workshop is nearly at the point of all-in on Warhammer 40k, meaning one product line. Should it falter, the company goes too.

 Throt wrote:
It is actually more difficult for GW.
Lets say that on release 'x' GW screwed up 5 things, and made 2 things out of balance that the rules lawyers have found.
They have just printed and shipped 500,000 rulebooks across the globe.
The naysayers see the books and say GW you suck.
Many don't buy, because it is overpriced, or it sucks or whatever and they want GW to recall all these books and have lost all the investment and have to start all over.
Can you see a cycle appearing.
The expectation of the naysayer is naïve and harmful.
Companies with less resource also have less overhead to cover.

Firstly, let's ditch the "rules lawyers" out of the above. You're attempting (knowingly or otherwise) to dismiss a whole group of people by applying a label to them in a pejorative manner. So stop that.


Secondly, your scenario above fails in one big area: The problem could have been prevented before going to print. Having a decent method and structure for play-testing would eliminate a lot (not all; perfect balance is impossible) of these problems before the book goes to print. You are 100% correct when you say that it's a problem to fix a book once it's already on store shelves, but the fact remains that a good amount of testing before sending it to the printers would mean that so many of these bleedingly obvious problems would simply cease to exist.