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.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
When I read that rule, my first thought isn't "casting powers is dependent on mastery level, cool, that means they're equal", my first thought is "err, where's the rest of the paragraph which describes the dependence".

Exactly this. Nowhere is equality implied in the portion that reads "dependent on mastery level". Equality is inferred, and is almost 100% likely the intention, but that's not what the rules SAY. There is a subtle, yet significant, difference between the two.

Vague rules. Another reason GW "can't win."

 MWHistorian wrote:
Vague rules. Another reason GW "can't win."

The more I think about it, I think the vague rules are intentional; GW seems to assume that every 40k game is played with friends who share some mystical passion for the game, so maybe they write rules on the assumption that you will A) Apply common sense and not take anything literally, B) Feel free to house rule things that you want to "forge the narrative" harder, and C) Solve any and all disputes with a quick chat or 4+.

It would explain a lot. Of course that still makes the rules gakky, but it's at least intended to be vague and gakky and it's not like they are just incompetent.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 milkboy wrote:
An even tighter rule would be mandatory base markings.

PP really, really should provide bases with molded facing markers! They do that for huge bases already, now do that for small, medium and big too!

Wouldn't work. There are a lot of models whose tabs would not align with what their logical front arc would be. From a logical POV it makes sense, from an aesthetic one it's a big turn off.

For big bases at least, there is literally nothing that prevents you from putting it right. For medium and small, it might be trickier, true.

I think (going back to the OP) that the reason GW can't win right now is that they've squandered their customers' good will. So even if they were to do something right, it will be looked on as "too little, too late" or with suspicion. (probably rightfully so.)

 MWHistorian wrote:
I think (going back to the OP) that the reason GW can't win right now is that they've squandered their customers' good will. So even if they were to do something right, it will be looked on as "too little, too late" or with suspicion. (probably rightfully so.)

Regardless, she will always have her knights of a certain hue to protect her.

I think they can win. All they have to do is appologize to the community at large for every crappy thing they've done, bring regional pricing in line with currency conversion rates, open up communication with the fanbase, lower their prices some, fire all of their developers and bring in some competent rules writers and actually playtest the damned game. Perhaps raise points costs some across the board or provide an alternative skirmish game so that the entry barrier isn't as high. Perhaps bring in more competent sculptors as well. Things like the Gorkanaut and the Centurion shouldn't happen with how deep GW's pockets are.

But they would never do any of that since GW knows best and what's best is for you to hand them all of your money.

For me at least it's not even so much the actual prices (barring ridiculousness like the rules and supplements) it's the fact that they price for a skirmish game but want/have a large-scale game, which necessitates a large amount of figures. Those two things are generally incompatible because the more figures you need, the more value you want to get out of each purchase.

Instead GW has this idea that extra sprues of fiddly bits that are barely used is value. What they need to do is offer more. One box should give a full squad with all possible options for it; on the WHFB side this means that one box should contain like 20 guys, on the 40k side it should be 10 most of the time or 5 otherwise (e.g. Bikes). They've painted themselves into a corner by not only raising prices, but pushing bigger and bigger forces. There's virtually no large-scale game that uses 28mm figures for exactly this reason; it becomes way too cumbersome and the prices rise exponentially. The way 40k is going now, it'd be better off at 15mm or 20mm with squads instead of sticking to the holdover of individual models. WHFB exemplifies this problem even more with casualty removal instead of morale/breaking like every other larger-scale game out there.

To put it bluntly there's a lot of reasons GW can't "win", mostly because they don't do anything that lets them deserve to win. They charge more than everybody else, on practically everything (rules, miniatures although debatable at an individual level this is apparent at quantity, paints, terrain, hobby supplies, etc.) but the rules for the game is still based around a skirmish game when it's been increasing to full-scale war for years now, resulting in games that get bogged down in minutiae and take an extremely long time to play since everything (at least in 40k) is based around individual figures versus units/elements; of course they've built themselves on this and now they've gone too far to change it - if they did switch scale to 20mm or 15mm like other games, they would be eaten alive by their competition. As to the company itself, they are litigious and have shown outright contempt for their own customers to where it's almost comedic, and they think they can ignore the impact of social media and the internet and retreat to 1990s era communication models.

For me, it is giving me new models that are not sculpts older that many of my opponent .
Oh, and plastic.
And actual rules printed on actual paper translated in my own language too.
Stuff like that.

Another one of these threads?

I haven't posted here in a while, largely because I never found it particularly productive from an overall hobby enjoyment/discussion perspective.

That being said, I have avoided the large 'mainstream' social outlets for this game since 7th came out.
I have played about half a dozen games, and I can honestly say the game has improved. It still has its issues, but its a step in the right direction.

To the OP: I suggest you avoid these/other forums like the plauge. I have found that, despite what internet hyperbole or forum celebrities say, the game is largely enjoyable despite obvious issues/concerns with GW management or the rule set.

All of the negativity and ceaseless soap boxing will likely suck any enjoyment you may have had for the hobby. That's really the key here. It's a hobby. It's your hobby. At the end of the day if at any point you or anyone finds that their hobby, an elective, irrelevant, and completely optional aspect of life, is no longer enjoyable or brings them joy, it's best to take a break.

Maybe that means avoiding the vocal minority that brings you down, or forums in general as discussing something that is no longer enjoyable to you seems asinine. Maybe that means taking a break from the game for a while. Maybe that means finding a different game. It doesn't matter what you choose, just find a way to enjoy your hobby. And if you can't for any reason? Find a different one.

These, and many other, forums are poisonous. People are very passionate, almost religiously so, about this game. It boggles my mind, but it is what it is. It's best not to provoke people that are extremely passionate or upset about something in a forum, be it political, religious, or miscellaneous.

Run.

WayneTheGame wrote:
For me at least it's not even so much the actual prices (barring ridiculousness like the rules and supplements) it's the fact that they price for a skirmish game but want/have a large-scale game, which necessitates a large amount of figures. Those two things are generally incompatible because the more figures you need, the more value you want to get out of each purchase.

Actually I think it's more like the skirmish-scale competition deliberately charged the same(or slightly higher) price because it'd be offset by much smaller amount of minis required. It's not GW that raised their prices to skirmish game levels. Also lowering prices just because they require more minis is kinda silly because most the new kits are just as good or even better than those of competition despite being made in soft plastic. And they sport a lot of additional bits for customization. Not to mention the ability to pose your miniatures. I don't know a single other game that gives such customizability for your units.

Of course I too think that they should be giving us ALL the possible options for the units in boxes(although a devastator box would be ridiculous).

I suppose, for me though posing is irrelevant; they aren't action figures, they're models in a wargame. I would take single-pose models with zero variation (think 2nd edition boxed set Space Marines) if they were cheaper than multi-pose things.

 Klerych wrote:
Also lowering prices just because they require more minis is kinda silly because most the new kits are just as good or even better than those of competition despite being made in soft plastic. And they sport a lot of additional bits for customization. Not to mention the ability to pose your miniatures.

That is pretty cool. I wish my 40k miniatures were like that. They are not. Not in any way.

 Klerych wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
For me at least it's not even so much the actual prices (barring ridiculousness like the rules and supplements) it's the fact that they price for a skirmish game but want/have a large-scale game, which necessitates a large amount of figures. Those two things are generally incompatible because the more figures you need, the more value you want to get out of each purchase.

Actually I think it's more like the skirmish-scale competition deliberately charged the same(or slightly higher) price because it'd be offset by much smaller amount of minis required. It's not GW that raised their prices to skirmish game levels. Also lowering prices just because they require more minis is kinda silly because most the new kits are just as good or even better than those of competition despite being made in soft plastic. And they sport a lot of additional bits for customization. Not to mention the ability to pose your miniatures. I don't know a single other game that gives such customizability for your units.

Of course I too think that they should be giving us ALL the possible options for the units in boxes(although a devastator box would be ridiculous).

Yeah, what would make sense is a "Space Marine" box with x models for x local currency. Then do a heavy weapons sprue, with 5 of each gun, an assault sprue with pistol and CC weapon options, a jump pack sprue, a Veteran sprue etc.. Etc..

Much like the old Action Man/GI Joe, where you bought the core toy, and then bought the accessories you wanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

XenosTerminus wrote:
Another one of these threads?

I haven't posted here in a while, largely because I never found it particularly productive from an overall hobby enjoyment/discussion perspective.

That being said, I have avoided the large 'mainstream' social outlets for this game since 7th came out.
I have played about half a dozen games, and I can honestly say the game has improved. It still has its issues, but its a step in the right direction.

To the OP: I suggest you avoid these/other forums like the plauge. I have found that, despite what internet hyperbole or forum celebrities say, the game is largely enjoyable despite obvious issues/concerns with GW management or the rule set.

All of the negativity and ceaseless soap boxing will likely suck any enjoyment you may have had for the hobby. That's really the key here. It's a hobby. It's your hobby. At the end of the day if at any point you or anyone finds that their hobby, an elective, irrelevant, and completely optional aspect of life, is no longer enjoyable or brings them joy, it's best to take a break.

Maybe that means avoiding the vocal minority that brings you down, or forums in general as discussing something that is no longer enjoyable to you seems asinine. Maybe that means taking a break from the game for a while. Maybe that means finding a different game. It doesn't matter what you choose, just find a way to enjoy your hobby. And if you can't for any reason? Find a different one.

These, and many other, forums are poisonous. People are very passionate, almost religiously so, about this game. It boggles my mind, but it is what it is. It's best not to provoke people that are extremely passionate or upset about something in a forum, be it political, religious, or miscellaneous.

Run.

I agree with nearly everything, both with regard to the improvements in 7th and that many people still can enjoy the game regardless of it's issues, but if posting here is actually affecting someone's emotions IRL, then they're taking it too seriously, and that's on them.

Oh I agree. I think you can tell by reading some of these heated 20+ page back and forth circle jerks, though, that far too many people are taking this too seriously.

It's a political debate under the guise of plastic army men. Sometimes it really does feel like it.

 Lobomalo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The purpose of making definitions is to provide clarity in circumstances where sword or phrase admits of more than one possible meaning. Having made a definition you have to stick to it.

Except this isn't always how it works as words have multiple definitions and depending upon how they are used, the meaning can change dramatically. ... ... ...

That is the exact reason that when you write rules you define the terms and stick to them.

If you define a term and then use it for an undefined meaning you have totally failed as a rules writer.

Terms as common as "turn" have multiple possible meanings within a game and have to be defined.

A lot of poetry, comedy and fiction depends on exploitation of the ambiguity of language.

 Lobomalo wrote:
Except this isn't always how it works as words have multiple definitions and depending upon how they are used, the meaning can change dramatically.

This is exactly why it is so important for a ruleset to use clear, concise writing, and to use clearly in-game-defined rules terminology... so that readers know, when they see a given word, which meaning should be applied.

There are a whole slew of games out there that get this right. Returning to the MtG example that keeps getting dragged back, someone reading a card knows, when they see certain words, that those words have a single specific meaning regardless of what other real-world meanings that word may have, because if it's a game term, it is specifically defined in the rules.

Other games, like SWM, will also highlight, bold or italicise keywords, so you can tell at a glance whether the writer is using that word as a defined keyword or just as casual language.


GW doesn't do that. They write in a conversational manner, and as a result all these vague, woolly areas creep into the rules.

There comes a time when you should no longer need to have everything spelled out for you.

Whether or not we need everything spelt out is largely irrelevant. If you're paying for a set of game rules, you should receive a complete set of game rules.

If the product you receive is incomplete, then you haven't received what you paid for.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 milkboy wrote:
It is the amount of fuss over the eye thing which makes me think GW can never win.

Really?

You know how GW could have 'won' and stopped people from complaining about that particular issue? They could have fixed it twenty years ago. Instead, they went through 6 editions of the game with people pointing out that the LOS rules didn't function with some of their models before they decided to take the time to do something about it.

That's not a 'GW can't win' scenario. That's 'GW can't be bothered.'

XenosTerminus wrote:
Oh I agree. I think you can tell by reading some of these heated 20+ page back and forth circle jerks, though, that far too many people are taking this too seriously.

It's a political debate under the guise of plastic army men. Sometimes it really does feel like it.

Hobbies like ours take a certain level of passion to participate. Threads like this are the inevitable outcome when passionate people disagree about it. There is a definite arch to the passion involved in GW's games. If you spent more time on the forums you would see the passionate newb become the bitter veteran. IMO it is universal characteristic of the kind of people who play GW games. The only variables are how quickly you travel along the path and how loud about you are as you leave. Some find solace in the arms of another game and others find new hobbies. Its a bit like a divorce.

Maybe they refuse to believe that some people can argue over something like that. Same goes for psyker powers.

When I look at a rule my first idea is not "but what if I can make up an interpretation that works in my favour? Can I nitpick about something to make it sound ambiguous?". My first idea is "Oh, so it means that. If it doesn't have eyes, then I guess I'll just measure it from where they should normally be!" or "Hmm.. the amount of powers depends on the psyker level.. no more information given, so it's pretty obvious it's 1:1 ratio as any other would be highly unreasonable!".


And yeah, the SM kits should be done like that - box of 10 tacticals for $15 and then upgrade sprue kits for various roles like Devastators, Assault and so on. Even sternguard could be done the Dark Angels' vet squad way - as upgrade sprue. Also - poor sisters players.. at least you can build your vehicles..

Edit: typo fixinz

 Lobomalo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.

Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.

If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.

You really need to stop trying to defend GW....

 azreal13 wrote:

Yeah, what would make sense is a "Space Marine" box with x models for x local currency. Then do a heavy weapons sprue, with 5 of each gun, an assault sprue with pistol and CC weapon options, a jump pack sprue, a Veteran sprue etc.. Etc..

Much like the old Action Man/GI Joe, where you bought the core toy, and then bought the accessories you wanted.

If they did that, I would probably spend a few hundred dollars on a bunch of those boxes. The thought makes me salivate.

This is one reason why GW can't win, they're making me not want to buy their stuff. Back when there were more models/box and you got a better deal, everything was better (although still not perfect).

EX: 4 years ago, most LotR basic troops were in boxes of 24, 12 different poses repeated twice. While the '24-box' was around, I bought quite a few- some elves, some humans to use in a different game, some orcs, some easterlings. Really, just because I liked the aesthetic and the miniatures.

When they lowered the model count to 12/box I got pissed off- that's not even enough to assemble one full group because it only includes 4 guys with each of the different weapon options! I found some alternate miniatures from other sources to use.

So while reducing the model count from 24 to 12 might seem like it makes them twice the money, it really doesn't. Because so many fewer people will buy the box after you've reduced the number of models.

XenosTerminus wrote:
Another one of these threads?

I haven't posted here in a while, largely because I never found it particularly productive from an overall hobby enjoyment/discussion perspective.

That being said, I have avoided the large 'mainstream' social outlets for this game since 7th came out.
I have played about half a dozen games, and I can honestly say the game has improved. It still has its issues, but its a step in the right direction.

To the OP: I suggest you avoid these/other forums like the plauge. I have found that, despite what internet hyperbole or forum celebrities say, the game is largely enjoyable despite obvious issues/concerns with GW management or the rule set.

All of the negativity and ceaseless soap boxing will likely suck any enjoyment you may have had for the hobby. That's really the key here. It's a hobby. It's your hobby. At the end of the day if at any point you or anyone finds that their hobby, an elective, irrelevant, and completely optional aspect of life, is no longer enjoyable or brings them joy, it's best to take a break.

Maybe that means avoiding the vocal minority that brings you down, or forums in general as discussing something that is no longer enjoyable to you seems asinine. Maybe that means taking a break from the game for a while. Maybe that means finding a different game. It doesn't matter what you choose, just find a way to enjoy your hobby. And if you can't for any reason? Find a different one.

These, and many other, forums are poisonous. People are very passionate, almost religiously so, about this game. It boggles my mind, but it is what it is. It's best not to provoke people that are extremely passionate or upset about something in a forum, be it political, religious, or miscellaneous.

Run.

If the negativity is all over the internet and every other forum, maybe it's not such a minority as you think? Anecdotal either way, just saying a possibility.

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.

Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.

If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.

U really need to stop trying to defend GW....

Actually I think he's somewhat right. Of course the rules are not 100% clear and some of the mare poorly worded, but 99% of times it's a case of common sense to assume what GW meant with the eyes(or whatever organ they use to see). It's not using common sense to patch up a rule, it's using common sense like every human being should. If GW had to make notes for every single special rule about every single unusual situation the "Rules" tome of the new BRB would be as big as the old BRB just containing all the explanations because some people might have problems with being reasonable.

Thing is - the BRB is not written perfectly, but it's not as bad as some people claim it to be. Nowadays it's both GW AND nitpicking players that are at fault with such situations because some people apparently browse the Codexes and rulebooks only to find any possible ambiguity so they can go over to the forums and create another poisonous topic. Maybe GW assumes that we're smarter than that and facepalms whenever they see such things happening?

I think GW would be surprised to learn anyone plays their game at all. Remember from the lawsuit we learned the GW Hobby is buying things from GW.

 Klerych wrote:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 Lobomalo wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


The arguing over specific words is because GW doesn't stick to its own definition of game terms.

Or because people have difficulties understanding what they are reading.

If two people read the same thing and come up with two different yet distinct answers, the flaw is not in the thing being read but in the comprehension and understanding of one of the players. Why people on these forums cannot understand this simple concept I'll never know.

U really need to stop trying to defend GW....

Actually I think he's somewhat right. Of course the rules are not 100% clear and some of the mare poorly worded, but 99% of times it's a case of common sense to assume what GW meant with the eyes(or whatever organ they use to see). It's not using common sense to patch up a rule, it's using common sense like every human being should. If GW had to make notes for every single special rule about every single unusual situation the "Rules" tome of the new BRB would be as big as the old BRB just containing all the explanations because some people might have problems with being reasonable.

Thing is - the BRB is not written perfectly, but it's not as bad as some people claim it to be. Nowadays it's both GW AND nitpicking players that are at fault with such situations because some people apparently browse the Codexes and rulebooks only to find any possible ambiguity so they can go over to the forums and create another poisonous topic. Maybe GW assumes that we're smarter than that and facepalms whenever they see such things happening?

Of course allot of the problems in the book are common sense, but that doesnt justify the fact that there are problems. It is GWs job as the supplier of rules to either a) not make these slight problems, or B) listen to the community and fix them. They do neither.
He has also made several claims and not backed them up.

It depends on what you pick on.

Stuff like the CCB that breaks the rules in so many games and is downright IGNORED by GW is lazy-ass game design and shows a severe lack of interest in the product.

 MWHistorian wrote:

XenosTerminus wrote:
Another one of these threads?

I haven't posted here in a while, largely because I never found it particularly productive from an overall hobby enjoyment/discussion perspective.

That being said, I have avoided the large 'mainstream' social outlets for this game since 7th came out.
I have played about half a dozen games, and I can honestly say the game has improved. It still has its issues, but its a step in the right direction.

To the OP: I suggest you avoid these/other forums like the plauge. I have found that, despite what internet hyperbole or forum celebrities say, the game is largely enjoyable despite obvious issues/concerns with GW management or the rule set.

All of the negativity and ceaseless soap boxing will likely suck any enjoyment you may have had for the hobby. That's really the key here. It's a hobby. It's your hobby. At the end of the day if at any point you or anyone finds that their hobby, an elective, irrelevant, and completely optional aspect of life, is no longer enjoyable or brings them joy, it's best to take a break.

Maybe that means avoiding the vocal minority that brings you down, or forums in general as discussing something that is no longer enjoyable to you seems asinine. Maybe that means taking a break from the game for a while. Maybe that means finding a different game. It doesn't matter what you choose, just find a way to enjoy your hobby. And if you can't for any reason? Find a different one.

These, and many other, forums are poisonous. People are very passionate, almost religiously so, about this game. It boggles my mind, but it is what it is. It's best not to provoke people that are extremely passionate or upset about something in a forum, be it political, religious, or miscellaneous.

Run.

If the negativity is all over the internet and every other forum, maybe it's not such a minority as you think? Anecdotal either way, just saying a possibility.

The internet is a hive of scum and villainy. Self-proclaimed 'voices of the people' exist for every outlet, be it tabletop gaming to any other hobby or interest.

It's 'cool' to hate on big companies tied to hobbies or entertainment. GW is not an example of exclusivity. Opinions run rampant. There are always trolls. There are always white knights. The formula is the same regardless where you go.

This is why it is best to generally avoid forums and comment sections.

I can say with relative certainty that generally speaking things are not as bad when you are discussing things in person, but I may be in the minority where I don't spiral out of control and spew hate when I discuss hobbies or things I claim to enjoy with other human beings.

To be fair, I'm not really vocal in person about my dislike for the rules. I might make some jokes about it in person but it's very minimal. Do I complain about it on the internet though? Most certainly! Just kind of a divide. If I am playing the game, it's more because I'm playing with my group of friends for a narrative from models we have collected from quite some time ago. That and we have been slowly working on just making our own rules for the game. If we have to play bad rules at least let them be our own fault.

That and being critical of 40k feels more right online rather than in person.

 StarTrotter wrote:
To be fair, I'm not really vocal in person about my dislike for the rules. I might make some jokes about it in person but it's very minimal. Do I complain about it on the internet though? Most certainly! Just kind of a divide. If I am playing the game, it's more because I'm playing with my group of friends for a narrative from models we have collected from quite some time ago. That and we have been slowly working on just making our own rules for the game. If we have to play bad rules at least let them be our own fault.

That and being critical of 40k feels more right online rather than in person.

That's because anyone can be critical or overly negative about their involvement in a hobby with little to no repercussions when shrouded under the guise of internet anonymity.

If a group of friends is playing a friendly game of 40k, or any wargame and are just tossing some dice and having fun, but one guy insists on bitching and moaning every step of the way about the companies missteps, how bad rule X is, how their army was nerfed, this is overpowered, etc.. that person is just not enjoyable to game with, let alone be around. They literally consume any enjoyment out of the game, and playing with them is a chore.

This sort is quickly rooted out in local circles and ostracized from gaming groups. Ironically this same person is likely to purchase another kit on their way out of the store.