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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
Sorry this made me laugh, like a lot actually. You realize that this came about by pure accident and was encouraged by the very people we mentioned earlier as rule nazis, those players who look around for any exploit to seek some flaw or advantage within the game?

"Rule nazis" are only a problem because GW writes rules with flaws in them and doesn't care. "Rule nazis" is a meaningless concept in MTG because there are no rule issues to exploit.

Also, no, it wasn't an accident that the "no eyes = no LOS" thing happened, it was GW being lazy about writing clear rules that don't have any room for argument.

Okay, I now know for sure that you are not a competitive MtG player at ll. Mono blue works by exploiting the rules, its the only way it truly functions in some formats. EDH also works by exploiting every loophole a player can, otherwise a deck couldn't run 9 different ways to pull of infinite turns with only two colors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


Yet wouldn't this support the idea that GW does indeed make changes when something is actually broken?

It was broken for, what, many full editions? So sure, they made changes, but not in any responsible fashion. And very frequently, when they fix one thing, they break more, again referencing multiple on-going, multi-page disputes on YMDC that continue ad naeseum simply because Games Workshop cares not to address them openly and efficiently.

My notion: it's because they can't and aren't allowed to do their jobs properly as rules writers due to management. I'd blame poor leadership prior to bad rules writers. Except Jervis. I cringe whenever I hear him actively spin his nonsense as good.

I can agree with this actually.

It is hard to account for every scenario when making rules, they should employ people to double check if things make sense. As for fixing it, I could see why it took so long, but it should have been done faster. The point is though, they fix it. When things become an issue, they fix them. It may take time, but it gets done

- Removed by insaniak. Please see Dakka's Rule #1 -

 Lobomalo wrote:
It is hard to account for every scenario when making rules, they should employ people to double check if things make sense. As for fixing it, I could see why it took so long, but it should have been done faster. The point is though, they fix it. When things become an issue, they fix them. It may take time, but it gets done

That last part is the only sticking point. Taking years to issue a simple one line blurb to address such a situation breeds a lot of negativity, as you can see. Therefore fixing it efficiently also implies within a reasonable time frame. A reasonable time frame is not when the next iteration of the game is released, much also to the chagrin of video game players of annualized franchises. No one likes buying the crap year of Madden, Assassin's Creed, etc. much like no one should enjoy buying the half baked version of 40k only to hope their concerns might be addressed in the 2-5 years before the next large investment hits.

 Throt wrote:
No they come up some places and not others. They are non-issues for many.

Only because most players overlook the flaws in the rules and just play it "as intended" without really thinking about the fact that they're modifying the game. But failing to recognize that a problem exists doesn't magically make it go away.

In My OPINION..anyone who has an issue with the elder walkers not having eyes and need GW to write a rule to deal with that is an ass hat.

And IMO you're TFG. Now that we're done trading insults can we move on to constructive discussion?

The simple fact is that no matter how much you insult the people who objected to the "no eyes = no LOS" issue the rule was still broken. Being willing to overlook a broken rule and modify the game to work in a more sensible way does NOT mean that the rule wasn't broken in the first place.

Do you want/need a 700 page rule book cover everything?

You don't need a 700 page rulebook. X-Wing doesn't have any of 40k's rule issues and the rules, along with the entire printed text of every single card ever published, are still probably shorter than the first chapter of the 40k rulebook. What you actually need is a company that makes rule clarity a priority and stops to think about how a rule can be interpreted instead of just coming up with an idea an publishing it immediately on the assumption that everyone will magically understand how you meant for it to work and play it that way.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Okay, I now know for sure that you are not a competitive MtG player at ll. Mono blue works by exploiting the rules, its the only way it truly functions in some formats.

...

Words fail me, honestly. But hey, I need a good joke, so please provide some examples of how mono blue decks exploit the rules.

EDH also works by exploiting every loophole a player can, otherwise a deck couldn't run 9 different ways to pull of infinite turns with only two colors.

You do realize that infinite combos are a deliberate part of the game, right? The fact that you don't like losing against them doesn't make them an exploit, just like having your all-melee tactical squad army get slaughtered by a tournament Tau gunline list doesn't make the Tau list an exploit.

(And no, a bunch of "casual at all costs" EDH players whining and crying about how it isn't nice to kill people with infinite combos in multiplayer doesn't make the infinite combo a rule exploit.)

The point is though, they fix it. When things become an issue, they fix them. It may take time, but it gets done

Sorry, but that's an absurdly low standard for quality. Eventually getting a fix years later for a problem that most players noticed within a few hours of getting the new rules is not even close to an adequate response to a rule issue.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
It is hard to account for every scenario when making rules, they should employ people to double check if things make sense. As for fixing it, I could see why it took so long, but it should have been done faster. The point is though, they fix it. When things become an issue, they fix them. It may take time, but it gets done

That last part is the only sticking point. Taking years to issue a simple one line blurb to address such a situation breeds a lot of negativity, as you can see. Therefore fixing it efficiently also implies within a reasonable time frame. A reasonable time frame is not when the next iteration of the game is released, much also to the chagrin of video game players of annualized franchises. No one likes buying the crap year of Madden, Assassin's Creed, etc. much like no one should enjoy buying the half baked version of 40k only to hope their concerns might be addressed in the 2-5 years before the next large investment hits.

The first part I agree with, the 2nd, no.

Madden has continued to sell out and has remained one of EA's highest grossing games. Assassins Creed has continued to top charts since the original game launched.

I'm curious about something about you actually, feel free not to answer and try not to be offended.

But are you one of those big corporations are evil, the government is trying to manipulate us, buy organic, buy American, support local business type of people? A lot of your posts seem to suggest this and if this is the case, then there really is no debating with you at all because there is no logic behind your arguments. Again, if this is a wrong assumption, that is fine, it was just something that became apparent when you hyped up an indie game yet downplayed one of the most popular gaming series in the last decade.

I'd like to add, before hopping off here, that there's a reason why some people go to tournaments without any hope of every winning, such as the NOVA Open, Bay Area Open, Feast of Blades, Adepticon, Duelcon, Wargamescon, etc. It's that each of these has a flavor of 40k that usually is in the form of missions and FAQs that address the major concerns of the game.

So no matter if you like a TOs FAQ or game change, everyone is held to it and there's no longer any wiggle room for argument.

So, instead, you get to the matter that those guys going to the event are really there for: the beer, the pretzels, the good times.

And thus, a better written game supports all members of the community better. Thus Games Workshop could "win" if they started putting up some damned respect for their product and customers and addressed this like a real game company.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
Okay, I now know for sure that you are not a competitive MtG player at ll. Mono blue works by exploiting the rules, its the only way it truly functions in some formats.

...

Words fail me, honestly. But hey, I need a good joke, so please provide some examples of how mono blue decks exploit the rules.

EDH also works by exploiting every loophole a player can, otherwise a deck couldn't run 9 different ways to pull of infinite turns with only two colors.

You do realize that infinite combos are a deliberate part of the game, right? The fact that you don't like losing against them doesn't make them an exploit, just like having your all-melee tactical squad army get slaughtered by a tournament Tau gunline list doesn't make the Tau list an exploit.

The point is though, they fix it. When things become an issue, they fix them. It may take time, but it gets done

Sorry, but that's an absurdly low standard for quality. Eventually getting a fix years later for a problem that most players noticed within a few hours of getting the new rules is not even close to an adequate response to a rule issue.

I'm one of those players who manipulate the rules in MtG to do whatever I want with my deck.

As for all tacticals beating gunline, I've watched it happen with Maelstrom missions. Shop and the melee player in question made sure to have a variety of terrain across the board and that the objectives he was responsible for placing were all within the middle of the map.

Tau was stomped by turn 3. But you won't believe that, hence why I really need to get my camera working so I can show battle reports

 Lobomalo wrote:

But are you one of those big corporations are evil, the government is trying to manipulate us, buy organic, buy American, support local business type of people? A lot of your posts seem to suggest this and if this is the case, then there really is no debating with you at all because there is no logic behind your arguments. Again, if this is a wrong assumption, that is fine, it was just something that became apparent when you hyped up an indie game yet downplayed one of the most popular gaming series in the last decade.

No. I quite almost always chock up what is seen as malevolence as incompetence if facts aren't presented otherwise such as our case with the G of Dubyahs.

((And EA and Activision both suck, but I love me some Mass Effect. Dance with the Devil for 'dem goods...))

 TheKbob wrote:
I'd like to add, before hopping off here, that there's a reason why some people go to tournaments without any hope of every winning, such as the NOVA Open, Bay Area Open, Feast of Blades, Adepticon, Duelcon, Wargamescon, etc. It's that each of these has a flavor of 40k that usually is in the form of missions and FAQs that address the major concerns of the game.

So no matter if you like a TOs FAQ or game change, everyone is held to it and there's no longer any wiggle room for argument.

So, instead, you get to the matter that those guys going to the event are really there for: the beer, the pretzels, the good times.

And thus, a better written game supports all members of the community better. Thus Games Workshop could "win" if they started putting up some damned respect for their product and customers and addressed this like a real game company.

The highlighted is the purpose of all games though. The good times, the time you spend playing with friends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

But are you one of those big corporations are evil, the government is trying to manipulate us, buy organic, buy American, support local business type of people? A lot of your posts seem to suggest this and if this is the case, then there really is no debating with you at all because there is no logic behind your arguments. Again, if this is a wrong assumption, that is fine, it was just something that became apparent when you hyped up an indie game yet downplayed one of the most popular gaming series in the last decade.

No. I quite almost always chock up what is seen as malevolence as incompetence.

((And EA and Activision both suck, but I love me some Mass Effect. Dance with the Devil for 'dem goods...))

Wait, you like ME but hate Assassins Creed? What are you, those games are both fantastic.

I get not liking EA, they're trash, but what have you got against the Creed?

 TheKbob wrote:


Legion of the Damned automatically loses if played as a primary source.

The Exalted Flamer Chariot did not work for an entire year.

Is that an error or a design decision to not allow Legion of the Damned to be played as a primary force.? I don't know, do you and what evidence do you have?
The flamer worked. It was just crappy. You could not move and shoot it.

I can link you the entire 14 part series of "The Future of Games Workshop" that has all the facts that you can speak to Mr. Beeble towards. Or you can pop over to Dakka discussions where there is a 34 page topic chock full of goodness. I can provide another thread, too.

Market speculation until it happens. I remember he references cancelling Games Days as a sign, but if they are not turning a profit or making a noticeable difference in market than it makes financial sense to stop them. Does it suck for gamers...hell yes (well in the old school ways anyway) but for business it makes sense.

And for further evidence for the value to be decreasing, I continually and will forever point to one of many exhibits:

Spoiler:

Not a value for you. It does show a price increase and a change of packaging but it does not represent a drop in value to those that buy it.

 Lobomalo wrote:

Wait, you like ME but hate Assassins Creed? What are you, those games are both fantastic.

I get not liking EA, they're trash, but what have you got against the Creed?

I don't hate the Creed, the first one didn't hold my attention and I have the Etzio saga on my PS3 still in the wrapper (got 'em $10 each, so meh). I'll give it a-go one of these days, but my Fantasy style jam is The Witcher.

 Lobomalo wrote:
I'm one of those players who manipulate the rules in MtG to do whatever I want with my deck.

Do you understand the difference between manipulating the rules to create a winning strategy within the rules, and exploiting broken rules? I'm still waiting for you to provide an example of how mono blue decks exploit the rules.

As for all tacticals beating gunline, I've watched it happen with Maelstrom missions. Shop and the melee player in question made sure to have a variety of terrain across the board and that the objectives he was responsible for placing were all within the middle of the map.

You're completely missing the point. I never said that gunlines were unbeatable, I said that whining about losing to an infinite combo in MTG is like whining about how you lost a game against a gunline in 40k. Both 40k gunlines and MTG infinite combos are normal parts of the game, not rule exploits.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

Wait, you like ME but hate Assassins Creed? What are you, those games are both fantastic.

I get not liking EA, they're trash, but what have you got against the Creed?

I don't hate the Creed, the first one didn't hold my attention and I have the Etzio saga on my PS3 still in the wrapper (got 'em $10 each, so meh). I'll give it a-go one of these days, but my Fantasy style jam is The Witcher.

Wow, you have very good tastes. I may not agree with a lot you have to say, but damn do you like some good games.

Ezio trilogy is fantastic, but Black Flag was the only one in the series to have me get a 100% completion rate. But that's partially cause I love pirates. Ezio story was much better

 Throt wrote:


Not a value for you. It does show a price increase and a change of packaging but it does not represent a drop in value to those that buy it.

Same exact models.

Previously, $3.30 USD per model. New kit is $7.00 USD per model.

If that isn't the very definition of value change, I don't know that is...

 TheKbob wrote:

 Throt wrote:


Not a value for you. It does show a price increase and a change of packaging but it does not represent a drop in value to those that buy it.

Same exact models.

Previously, $3.30 USD per model. New kit is $7.00 USD per model.

If that isn't the very definition of value change, I don't know that is...

I find Amazon to be better for buying new. Or this shop I go to, both give you up to 20% off new models, still a little pricey, bet loads better than GW

 Lobomalo wrote:


Wow, you have very good tastes. I may not agree with a lot you have to say, but damn do you like some good games.

Ezio trilogy is fantastic, but Black Flag was the only one in the series to have me get a 100% completion rate. But that's partially cause I love pirates. Ezio story was much better

I like a wide smattering of video games. I have Witcher 2 CE on my shelf and Mass Effect framed on my wall. I already pre-ordered Witcher 3 CE as the statue was made by Scibor of Scibo minis and his friend(s).

Games, bro. Games.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


Wow, you have very good tastes. I may not agree with a lot you have to say, but damn do you like some good games.

Ezio trilogy is fantastic, but Black Flag was the only one in the series to have me get a 100% completion rate. But that's partially cause I love pirates. Ezio story was much better

I like a wide smattering of video games. I have Witcher 2 CE on my shelf and Mass Effect framed on my wall. I already pre-ordered Witcher 3 CE as the statue was made by Scibor of Scibo minis and his friend(s).

Games, bro. Games.

Man, you're actually not bad. Can tell a lot about a man by the games he plays.

I need to beat Witcher 1, only played 2, I feel bad about that sometimes.

 Lobomalo wrote:


I find Amazon to be better for buying new. Or this shop I go to, both give you up to 20% off new models, still a little pricey, bet loads better than GW

The prices per model changes, but the ratio stands as you could figure that both kits would receive a 20% discount. Thus one is unarguably a better deal over the other. Cheaper and more models. Both are the exact same models. Thus the definition of a better value completely void of subjectivity.

 Peregrine wrote:

Have you seen the things GW produces? I know you're going to claim that design is a subjective thing, but really, can the company that produced the Taurox really claim to have the best designs? Taking a basic low-tier model kit and throwing a bunch of skulls on it doesn't make an excellent design.

You don't think it's subjective?
Some people love the Taurox. Some hate it.

 Throt wrote:
Is that an error or a design decision to not allow Legion of the Damned to be played as a primary force.? I don't know, do you and what evidence do you have?
The flamer worked. It was just crappy. You could not move and shoot it.

Again, "it is possible to play the game" is not a relevant standard. Both of those examples are situations where RAW functions, but the outcome is completely absurd. So either GW's rule authors are complete idiots and deliberately create rules that work in stupid ways, or the rules were intended to work differently and were broken.

I remember he references cancelling Games Days as a sign, but if they are not turning a profit or making a noticeable difference in market than it makes financial sense to stop them. Does it suck for gamers...hell yes (well in the old school ways anyway) but for business it makes sense.

Well yes, and that's exactly the point: Games Day should be a profitable event that improves GW's prestige, keeps players involved in the community, and builds excitement about new releases. All of these things should lead to improved profits, at a fairly reasonable cost. The fact that GW was unable to make a profit on them (or was short-sighted and canceled the events based on total ticket sales vs. cost instead of considering the indirect benefits) is a bad sign.

Not a value for you. It does show a price increase and a change of packaging but it does not represent a drop in value to those that buy it.

In what bizarre alternate universe is increasing the cost of a model kit, cutting the number of models in half, and putting it in a new box not a drop in value? Does a shiny new box that ends up in the trash within a few minutes of opening it magically make up the drop in value caused by paying more than twice as much per model for the exact same models?

 Lobomalo wrote:


Man, you're actually not bad. Can tell a lot about a man by the games he plays.

I need to beat Witcher 1, only played 2, I feel bad about that sometimes.

The first one is a much different game, a CRPG to it's core versus the sequel being the Mass Effect 2-like game change for the better.

But I digress, this is offtopic as engaging as it is. Good night, ya'll.

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


I find Amazon to be better for buying new. Or this shop I go to, both give you up to 20% off new models, still a little pricey, bet loads better than GW

The prices per model changes, but the ratio stands as you could figure that both kits would receive a 20% discount. Thus one is unarguably a better deal over the other. Cheaper and more models. Both are the exact same models. Thus the definition of a better value completely void of subjectivity.

Yeah. Ebay has something I have found interesting, at least an alternative to bulk. They sell the parts to models and a lot of them offer discounts if you buy multiple parts, another cheap alternative. I like to spam little things and throw in a random large mofo later on so I tend to focus on bulk. Also building for Apocalypse, albeit slowly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:


Man, you're actually not bad. Can tell a lot about a man by the games he plays.

I need to beat Witcher 1, only played 2, I feel bad about that sometimes.

The first one is a much different game, a CRPG to it's core versus the sequel being the Mass Effect 2-like game change for the better.

But I digress, this is offtopic as engaging as it is. Good night, ya'll.

'

Night man

 insaniak wrote:

 Throt wrote:
It doesn't fail. How many games does it take to run across problem 'x'? If the vast majority playing a game are like minded they may never come across problem 'x'.

How many of the current problems with 40K get pointed out within hours of a book being released?

Some. By people hunting for problems. Things that many may never notice. And the game still works, just not how they would like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

You are either blatantly ignoring an obvious conclusion or you have failed to see it.

If people want to pay a high price for something, what the hell does that have to do with you or your opinions on the companies business tactics.

That if people choose to remain ignorant to the cost of producing such models or worse, become informed customer and continue to choose to throw money at said models, then there's an adage said:

"A Fool and his money are soon parted."

For the record, I am not calling anyone a fool, rather it's foolish to both know you are being ripped off and to continue to purchase something. It's hypocritical and illogical. As long as you are okay with that fact, then it's on you. Spend your money as you wish.

You do know Superman #1 sold for something like $300,000 dollars and cost 10cents.
Was the guy that bought it ripped off or did he find value in his purchase.
You can listen to a Metallica CD or see them in concert for $300. It's both music. Which is the better value.?
Your value is different to someone elses. You believe they are ripped off, they don't. Subjective.

It always impresses me when we find people ready and willing to defend things like the 5-Avenger box price increase. Amazing really.

 Throt wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Throt wrote:
It doesn't fail. How many games does it take to run across problem 'x'? If the vast majority playing a game are like minded they may never come across problem 'x'.

How many of the current problems with 40K get pointed out within hours of a book being released?

Some. By people hunting for problems. Things that many may never notice. And the game still works, just not how they would like.

I didn't have to hunt to see the glaring error in the original Farsight Enclaves supplement which meant that you had to take Shadowsun and the Pope in order to play a Farsight Enclaves army.

Which, hilariously enough, filled your HQ slots so as it was originally released you could never take Farsight in a Farsight Enclaves list.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:
I've already stated that me saying all Indie games were bad was too harsh, just most of them.

And you know why this is true? Because indie game developers have the freedom to take risks and do new things instead of just publishing the annual CoD/football/etc game that is just like last year's game. A chance of failure is inherent in trying to do new things instead of just milking the cash cow with more mediocre-but-profitable games.

Yet wouldn't this support the idea that GW does indeed make changes when something is actually broken?

Yes, occasionally GW does fix things, long after the point when any competent game designer would have done something about it. This doesn't excuse GW's habit of letting obvious mistakes like that slip into published products and then failing to consistently fix them on anything remotely approaching a reasonable schedule.

This post appears to exude hate for GW. Nothing they could do would be good enough for the standard that you have set.
And that is fine, but it surprises me at the same time you continue to follow a game, from a company, that you have so much dislike for both as a system and as a business.

 Throt wrote:
This post appears to exude hate for GW. Nothing they could do would be good enough for the standard that you have set.
And that is fine, but it surprises me at the same time you continue to follow a game, from a company, that you have so much dislike for both as a system and as a business.

Oh good, and now we're back to "WHY R U SO NEGATIVE!?!?!?!?!?" instead of addressing the substance of my criticism.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Throt wrote:
No they come up some places and not others. They are non-issues for many.

Only because most players overlook the flaws in the rules and just play it "as intended" without really thinking about the fact that they're modifying the game. But failing to recognize that a problem exists doesn't magically make it go away.

What I am trying to do is to get the point across that the problem is subjective. You want to see it as a problem and that is fine. But you are no more right than I am. Because you have this rules problem doesn't automatically create one either.

The simple fact is that no matter how much you insult the people who objected to the "no eyes = no LOS" issue the rule was still broken. Being willing to overlook a broken rule and modify the game to work in a more sensible way does NOT mean that the rule wasn't broken in the first place.

Again the no eye =no los groups had a problem, no one I know did. It did not need any discussion. There was no problem to go away. No problem to fix. Nothing to overlook. Because you had a problem doesn't mean it DID exist.

Do you want/need a 700 page rule book cover everything?

You don't need a 700 page rulebook. X-Wing doesn't have any of 40k's rule issues and the rules, along with the entire printed text of every single card ever published, are still probably shorter than the first chapter of the 40k rulebook. What you actually need is a company that makes rule clarity a priority and stops to think about how a rule can be interpreted instead of just coming up with an idea an publishing it immediately on the assumption that everyone will magically understand how you meant for it to work and play it that way.

 Throt wrote:
What I am trying to do is to get the point across that the problem is subjective. You want to see it as a problem and that is fine. But you are no more right than I am. Because you have this rules problem doesn't automatically create one either.

No, it isn't subjective at all. You just keep insisting that the fact that you didn't play by the rules as-printed means that there was no problem with the rules.

Again the no eye =no los groups had a problem, no one I know did. It did not need any discussion. There was no problem to go away. No problem to fix. Nothing to overlook. Because you had a problem doesn't mean it DID exist.

So you never shot or charged with models wearing helmets in previous editions? Or by "no problem to fix" do you mean that you refuse to admit that you fixed the problem?

It appears you do. Let's look at the no eyes issue. Since you seek clarification then we must have a list of all models with out eyes and what point on all the models we draw line of sight from. Dreadnoughts without eyes, converted models without eyes, monsters with eye stalks, Talos, dark elder with the smooth helmets, tyrant guard and on and on.

Or you just say "eyes or equivalent feature, such as optical sensors" and make it explicit that you're supposed to use some judgement and draw LOS from the best approximation when there are no obvious eyes. Or maybe you just abandon TLOS and draw LOS from base to base. Or maybe you draw it from the tip of the weapon. There are plenty of solutions that don't involve a long list of special cases.

Then we must cover what happens when army x allies with all armies 1-14 etc etc.

No, because allying has absolutely nothing to do with the LOS rules. Since it's a per-model thing it doesn't matter at all what other models you have in your army. You're turning a simple fix that GW was too lazy and/or incompetent to make into a major issue, and I can guess that the reason is so you can "prove" how unreasonable it is.