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.

"I feel GW cannot win".

GW as a company is winning, it exists, sells product, gives out dividends, has a CEO that can do what he wants; in their eyes it is all good.

It is getting tighter mind you, overall volume of sales has decreased. Product may have begun to not match in quality the asking price so some customers are turning away.

Kirby I am sure is feeling like he is losing; he is trying to ponder how to gut the bunch of us to buy more GW stuff.

He is not asking or looking for your opinion however so it may take him a while.

For every day that GW is in business there is a chance for <edit> (delete: profitability) increasing volume of sales, may they one day figure out how to lay another golden goose.

XenosTerminus wrote:

 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.

Exactly. And I can have fun with the game but that doesn't really mean I like GW, the prices, or the rules of the game. And to be honest, these things do put a daempening to my liking of the world. I play this game more for the fluff and customization but the rules are how I play this with friends. I have fun with the game not helped by the rules but in spite of them. I'm not going to complain in a way that isn't funny there but it doesn't mean I'm not disappointed with how bad certain models I want to field are or how good certain models are to the point I refuse to field them. But yeah these threads do not help with keeping jolly about it all

 Klerych wrote:
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!".

Nitpicking, common sense and unreasonable is highly subjective.
My first thought with this Psyker rule was this:
My Psyker is ML 3.
So he can cast either:
-Three spells with Warp Charge 1.
-One spell with Warp Charge 2 and one spell with Warp Charge 1,
-Or one spell with Warp Charge 3.

Now you are telling me he could cast three spells with Warp Charge 2, as long as I have the dice for it?
Completely different as what I thought, without trying to "cheese the rules in my favour" and it's not unreasonable at all.

This confusion could have been avoided if they would just write down what they mean!

WayneTheGame wrote:
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.

Than why don't you play a boardgame instead? The point of a miniature war game is the miniatures. The point of having large, detailed miniatures is the ability to customise and paint to your own liking. Collecting a set of beautiful individualised miniatures is the whole point of having miniatures in 40k. If you don't care about the way your models look you might as well use chess pieces or switch to a game that automatically includes pre-made miniatures.
Warhammer is more than just a game. It is a modelling hobby. The game just was attached to give an extra purpose for people to keep collecting Citadel miniatures.

Kangodo wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
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!".

Nitpicking, common sense and unreasonable is highly subjective.
My first thought with this Psyker rule was this:
My Psyker is ML 3.
So he can cast either:
-Three spells with Warp Charge 1.
-One spell with Warp Charge 2 and one spell with Warp Charge 1,
-Or one spell with Warp Charge 3.

Now you are telling me he could cast three spells with Warp Charge 2, as long as I have the dice for it?
Completely different as what I thought, without trying to "cheese the rules in my favour" and it's not unreasonable at all.

This confusion could have been avoided if they would just write down what they mean!

But.. there was -literally- no mention of Warp Charges in regard to that limit.. there was literally nothing that'd ever imply that Warp Charges had anything to do with that, mate. :-)

 Klerych wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
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!".

Nitpicking, common sense and unreasonable is highly subjective.
My first thought with this Psyker rule was this:
My Psyker is ML 3.
So he can cast either:
-Three spells with Warp Charge 1.
-One spell with Warp Charge 2 and one spell with Warp Charge 1,
-Or one spell with Warp Charge 3.

Now you are telling me he could cast three spells with Warp Charge 2, as long as I have the dice for it?
Completely different as what I thought, without trying to "cheese the rules in my favour" and it's not unreasonable at all.

This confusion could have been avoided if they would just write down what they mean!

But.. there was -literally- no mention of Warp Charges in regard to that limit.. there was literally nothing that'd ever imply that Warp Charges had anything to do with that, mate. :-)

However, considering the previous edition did and the new rules don't feel like telling us how the number of powers is related to your mastery level, it was as good an assumption as any.

In fact it might actually be the way Kangodo says. There's nothing to rule out that interpretation in the rulebook.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


However, considering the previous edition did and the new rules don't feel like telling us how the number of powers is related to your mastery level, it was as good an assumption as any.

In fact it might actually be the way Kangodo says. There's nothing to rule out that interpretation in the rulebook.

Well, my version is much more simple and easier to remember and it doesn't relate to any other rules and keywords such as Warp Charges just like the rule itself, so I think it's more likely to work that way. You are of course free to disagree, but I think his version is basically unnecessarily complicating the stuff with bringing up WCs and making it much messier. :-)

Edit: Also you don't need it to be explicitly ruled out. It's like saying that it doesn't rule out being able to cast three powers per level! You'd rather need a proof that it relates to Warp Charges when there is literally no mention of them whatsoever in that rule. :-)

 Klerych wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


However, considering the previous edition did and the new rules don't feel like telling us how the number of powers is related to your mastery level, it was as good an assumption as any.

In fact it might actually be the way Kangodo says. There's nothing to rule out that interpretation in the rulebook.

Well, my version is much more simple and easier to remember and it doesn't relate to any other rules and keywords such as Warp Charges just like the rule itself, so I think it's more likely to work that way. You are of course free to disagree, but I think his version is basically unnecessarily complicating the stuff with bringing up WCs and making it much messier. :-)

Oh I totally agree but for all we know GW might release an FAQ tomorrow which states that Kangodo's way was right.

Who am I kidding? GW aren't gonna FAQ it, they'll just fix it in 8th edition in 6 months time

For me, its the big rules that I don't like. But they're also the subjective ones so some people will love them.
Unbound (or new broken FOC anything.)
maelstrom
new psychic phase
no assault from vehicles or deep striking.
overwatch
skirmish game rules with too many models.
etc.

The small stuff, eh. No big deal. I aint going to pay $85 for them but they aren't a deal breaker for me.

Hah, then I'd gladly accept any kind of official FAQ on that. But unless proven otherwise I'll try to stick to the most simple and reasonable explanation. :-)

 MWHistorian wrote:
For me, its the big rules that I don't like. But they're also the subjective ones so some people will love them.
Unbound (or new broken FOC anything.)
maelstrom
new psychic phase
no assault from vehicles or deep striking.
overwatch
skirmish game rules with too many models.
etc.

The small stuff, eh. No big deal. I aint going to pay $85 for them but they aren't a deal breaker for me.

While this is totally subjective on my side, I'd like to comment on those things.

-Unbound - well despite the initial panic flood the battle-forged seems to be superior with superscoring troops and transports and multiple detachments. Unbound was more like a written way of officially allowing us to go bananas with stuff we like. Of course we could do that before, but it's still a nice gesture on their half.

-Maelstrom - you mean the cards and new missions? Well this is, as you said, totally subjective, but I like it. 5th and 6th were very static and revolved around tabling the opponent or last turn grabbing objectives. Maelstrom missions with one simple house rule(discarding cards you literally can't fulfill) actually make you care about running around the table, doing small tasks, all the fun stuff for the game to be more dynamic.

-New Psychic Phase. Kinda hit and miss, but the previous one was a bit too lazy with powers going off almost all the time. Still no idea why didn't they just copy the superior magic phase from WFB(dispelling would be easier), but it's fairly okay.

-No assault from vehicles and deep strike. Combine that with non-random charge distances and you'll get charges turn one while not being able to do crap about it. With Deep Strike it's even worse, because outside of interceptor fire the other player can not do -literally anything- to try stopping the DSing unit. GW definetely seems to avoid making one player helpless in various situations. It was same with the Doom in Tyranid Codex. That's just game explanation. For fluffy one.. well, crawling out of a crowded Rhino through tiny side doors/back ramp, making a 180' turn and then running at an enemy should actually give him enough time to pull up his rifle and shoot at you. :-) With Land Raiders it's different as you launch an assault out of front door, basically spilling right into the enemy before he can aim, only firing snapshots.

-Overwatch. See, now you're trying to take away from the 'defending' player even more. So what you're suggesting is that your extra-killy unit arrives anywhere it wants on the table and then can charge whatever is near and it can't even defend itself? That's like tying the player's hands behind his back and kicking him in the gut repeatedly. :-) Now add consolidating moves and non-random charges and you'll have the deep striking terminator unit tear through several units the turn he charges and the other player can't do crap about it, just watching and removing his plastic army men from the table in fistfuls.

-I slightly don't get the 'skirmish rules' point, though. When people knew the rules 6th played very fast and viciously.

Of course it's just my view on the things, but I thought you might be somewhat wrong in case of some of them. Feel free to consider or ignore my points.

I'm wrong that I don't like something that's a matter of taste? Okay.

 Klerych wrote:
Well, my version is much more simple and easier to remember and it doesn't relate to any other rules and keywords such as Warp Charges just like the rule itself, so I think it's more likely to work that way. You are of course free to disagree, but I think his version is basically unnecessarily complicating the stuff with bringing up WCs and making it much messier. :-)

Edit: Also you don't need it to be explicitly ruled out. It's like saying that it doesn't rule out being able to cast three powers per level! You'd rather need a proof that it relates to Warp Charges when there is literally no mention of them whatsoever in that rule. :-)

I play a lot of other games and I always saw Mastery Level like mana from MtG.
You have three mana and your spells are either one, two or three mana.
So for me my idea is much more simpler and easier to remember.
Casting three '3-mana' spells with a mage that has only 3 mana seems so weird!

My goal was to point out that there is no "one logical" way to explain this Psychic Rule and that everything else isn't nitpicking.
It's honestly how I interpreted it and I blame GW for not explaining it in a book that I am about to spend 60 euro on; that's a full day of work for me.

XenosTerminus wrote:
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.

Yeah, stereotypes are fun.


Anonymity has little to do with it. The whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss this stuff. So people use the discussion forums to discuss this stuff, and when they are playing games, they get on with playing the game.

If you aren't seeing people being negative in your largely positive group, it's probably because your group is largely positive, and those people are spending their time with more like-minded groups, rather than because they only exist on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Klerych wrote:
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!".

The problem with the psychic power limit is that you have one rule that is a direct copy-paste from last edition despite the rest of the psychic rules having changed, and another rule that seems to contradict that copy-pasted rule.

So, sure, you might think that your first reading is the reasonable one. The guy arguing for the opposing interpretation isn't automatically being unreasonable because of that, though. He's just reading a rather ambiguously-worded sectiono of the rules differently to you.


And from curiosity, this:

...I'll just measure it from where they should normally be!

Where would the eyes 'normally be' on a kannon?

Kangodo wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
Well, my version is much more simple and easier to remember and it doesn't relate to any other rules and keywords such as Warp Charges just like the rule itself, so I think it's more likely to work that way. You are of course free to disagree, but I think his version is basically unnecessarily complicating the stuff with bringing up WCs and making it much messier. :-)

Edit: Also you don't need it to be explicitly ruled out. It's like saying that it doesn't rule out being able to cast three powers per level! You'd rather need a proof that it relates to Warp Charges when there is literally no mention of them whatsoever in that rule. :-)

I play a lot of other games and I always saw Mastery Level like mana from MtG.
You have three mana and your spells are either one, two or three mana.
So for me my idea is much more simpler and easier to remember.
Casting three '3-mana' spells with a mage that has only 3 mana seems so weird!

My goal was to point out that there is no "one logical" way to explain this Psychic Rule and that everything else isn't nitpicking.
It's honestly how I interpreted it and I blame GW for not explaining it in a book that I am about to spend 60 euro on; that's a full day of work for me.

But now you're even making it even more messy by bringing in influences from other games.. while I understand that it was first thing that came to your mind as an MtG player, but you made it much more complicated instead of just assuming the most simple 3lvls = 3 spells. Then again my judgement might be clouded by the fact that I also played WFB and that's how wizards with magic levels work there, so I just know what GW meant.. But still it's far more simple my way. :-)

 MWHistorian wrote:
I'm wrong that I don't like something that's a matter of taste? Okay.

Hey, I never said that you are wrong to dislike something. I just tried to prove that if they changed those particular things you didn't like, the game would've gotten much, much worse. Deep Striking assault termie squad(for example) would just tear through any gunline army and the other player couldn't do jack bit about it. While you're free to dislike something, it'd be good to consider what'd changing that bring. It's your point that I claim to be wrong, not the fact that you dislike those things. :-)

Edit:

 insaniak wrote:
And from curiosity, this:

...I'll just measure it from where they should normally be!

Where would the eyes 'normally be' on a kannon?

This is my interpretation of course, but if it's a piece of artillery rather than a humanoid model, shouldn't it be treated like vehicles' guns? From the mount along the barrel. At least that's how I would use it. :-)

 Klerych wrote:
This is my interpretation of course, but if it's a piece of artillery rather than a humanoid model, shouldn't it be treated like vehicles' guns? From the mount along the barrel. At least that's how I would use it. :-)

Up until 5th edition, artillery weapons were essentially vehicles.

In 6th edition they became infantry. With no way in the rules to establish LOS from them.


Most people did indeed just continue to draw LOS down the weapon barrel ... but that's a house rule, since the rules simply didn't cover it. There is no 'interpretation' of the 6th edition rules that could have arrived at that solution.

 Klerych wrote:

-Unbound - well despite the initial panic flood the battle-forged seems to be superior with superscoring troops and transports and multiple detachments. Unbound was more like a written way of officially allowing us to go bananas with stuff we like. Of course we could do that before, but it's still a nice gesture on their half.

-Maelstrom - you mean the cards and new missions? Well this is, as you said, totally subjective, but I like it. 5th and 6th were very static and revolved around tabling the opponent or last turn grabbing objectives. Maelstrom missions with one simple house rule(discarding cards you literally can't fulfill) actually make you care about running around the table, doing small tasks, all the fun stuff for the game to be more dynamic.

-New Psychic Phase. Kinda hit and miss, but the previous one was a bit too lazy with powers going off almost all the time. Still no idea why didn't they just copy the superior magic phase from WFB(dispelling would be easier), but it's fairly okay.

-No assault from vehicles and deep strike. Combine that with non-random charge distances and you'll get charges turn one while not being able to do crap about it. With Deep Strike it's even worse, because outside of interceptor fire the other player can not do -literally anything- to try stopping the DSing unit. GW definetely seems to avoid making one player helpless in various situations. It was same with the Doom in Tyranid Codex. That's just game explanation. For fluffy one.. well, crawling out of a crowded Rhino through tiny side doors/back ramp, making a 180' turn and then running at an enemy should actually give him enough time to pull up his rifle and shoot at you. :-) With Land Raiders it's different as you launch an assault out of front door, basically spilling right into the enemy before he can aim, only firing snapshots.

-Overwatch. See, now you're trying to take away from the 'defending' player even more. So what you're suggesting is that your extra-killy unit arrives anywhere it wants on the table and then can charge whatever is near and it can't even defend itself? That's like tying the player's hands behind his back and kicking him in the gut repeatedly. :-) Now add consolidating moves and non-random charges and you'll have the deep striking terminator unit tear through several units the turn he charges and the other player can't do crap about it, just watching and removing his plastic army men from the table in fistfuls.

-I slightly don't get the 'skirmish rules' point, though. When people knew the rules 6th played very fast and viciously.

Of course it's just my view on the things, but I thought you might be somewhat wrong in case of some of them. Feel free to consider or ignore my points.

Uno) Or maybe it's because everyone said "No, thanks!" right out of the gate.

Dos) Random crap cards are random crap cards. If you were keyed into the tournament scene, or any other miniatures game for that matter, you'd know that asymmetrical mission design was already on the table making the notion of the equally bad standard book missions a joke. So Games Workshop took a mechanic from other games and custom tournament missions, tacked on a "narrative forging" element and sold you cards (because that table is too tedious otherwise!). Up sales at the expense of game mechanics! Chu-Ching!

Tres) I agree that it was a half step, and probably not one needed. No reason for 40k psychic powers to be the same as Fantasy spells. I'd rather they dropped the spell tables entirely and go back to paying for powers. Your psyker having a brain fart every time the battle rolled around is why people relied on certain tables more so than others. You just can't guarantee getting what you want, so you forgo the lesser tables even though you'd like a spell from one.

Cuatro) I dunno, how about not parking on the edge of your deployment zone and then you don't get assaulted? Or design the deployment schemes appropriately to handle that situation. Also, having something assault out of reserves means you have had at least one turn, if not more, to readjust for such an event. (Screw the Doom...)

Cinco) Overwatch is cinematic, but kinda dumb as it bloats down the rules and slows down games even further. It only further hurts assault armies and people aren't taking terminators because they fail charges due to overwatch, but rather they fail because of the massive weight of fire that is the game post 5E. It would be better as a real over-watch mechanic of suppression fire and forgoing your shooting to either deter enemy attacks or to gain a special bonus against being assault. Imagine, a gunline of firewarriors getting a bonus to BS to shooting folks coming at them as a "...Not Until the White's of Their Eyes!" moment instead of a "WKHajfhslajdsfhjlahsdflahs -AAAAAAAAAAAAA" *PEW**PEW**PEW* thing that it is now. The former is a choice made by trained soldiers, the latter is space marines failing their training.

Seis) It's because Games Workshop still has a game that fundamentally is a skirmish game that's acting like a battle game just because you put a lot of models on the table. The weight and power of some units necessary to chew through large quantities of models makes the game imbalanced; the scope and scale are not lining up. The amount of models you have on the table in a 2k v 2k game can be asinine when you figure the cost and time to do so and it would be better served by an Epic style 6mm~10mm game. I have read a few posts on how bad the army bloat is getting that current army books are almost to their equivalency in the old Epic scale points (ex. a 5k Epic Army for army X is nearly a 2k 40k army when pointed in their respective lists, both being standard sized games).

 MWHistorian wrote:
For me, its the big rules that I don't like. But they're also the subjective ones so some people will love them.
Unbound (or new broken FOC anything.)
maelstrom
new psychic phase
no assault from vehicles or deep striking.
overwatch
skirmish game rules with too many models.
etc.

The small stuff, eh. No big deal. I aint going to pay $85 for them but they aren't a deal breaker for me.

+1. My feeling entirely. My beef with the current state of 40k is based upon rule changes / rulings that are central to the way the game is played. Nitpicking is when you have a problem with small aspects of a game. I have a problem with the fact that the game, which I enjoyed immensely in 5th edition, has changed fundamentally in ways that can only be described as totally bizarre.

Rules constrain a game into something that can actually be played (i.e., you can develop tactics for it, plan ahead, etc.). Maelstrom missions remove any ability to form game-long strategies, the new psychic phase is inherently far more random than the way it used to work, overwatch and variable charge distances both add more variance to assaults, unbound armies remove restrictions that usually prohibit players from exploitative combinations, etc. So on and so forth until we're all standing around making "pew pew pew" noises with our little toy soldiers. It's not really a game at this point, if you play "the hobby" the way "the hobby" is meant to be played...

 Klerych wrote:
Then again my judgement might be clouded by the fact that I also played WFB and that's how wizards with magic levels work there, so I just know what GW meant.. But still it's far more simple my way. :-)

And this is your concession that the rules suck. Good games don't have arguments where two reasonable people can hold opposite positions, rule questions have to consider things like "it's simpler", or "knowing what the author meant" is ever required. They simply tell you what the rules are, and you follow the rules as-printed without any discussion.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
Then again my judgement might be clouded by the fact that I also played WFB and that's how wizards with magic levels work there, so I just know what GW meant.. But still it's far more simple my way. :-)

And this is your concession that the rules suck. Good games don't have arguments where two reasonable people can hold opposite positions, rule questions have to consider things like "it's simpler", or "knowing what the author meant" is ever required. They simply tell you what the rules are, and you follow the rules as-printed without any discussion.

I feel like part of the problem is the way that certain rules interact with one another. A prime example is Multiple Barrage and Twin Linked. Another is Jink and blast weapons.

The issue is that, when a unit is released that has a Twin Linked Multiple Barrage weapon (i.e., Wyvern), there's really no excuse for failing to have concrete rules in place for it.

 Klerych wrote:


But now you're even making it even more messy by bringing in influences from other games.. while I understand that it was first thing that came to your mind as an MtG player, but you made it much more complicated instead of just assuming the most simple 3lvls = 3 spells. Then again my judgement might be clouded by the fact that I also played WFB and that's how wizards with magic levels work there, so I just know what GW meant.. But still it's far more simple my way. :-)

In Fantasy Wizards can cast however many spells they know. Often that is the same as their Mastery Level but not always. Wizards with the Loremaster special rule are a good example.

I think the whole thread could be ended by saying that "Yes, GW can win... but winning takes effort and hard work, and the ability to look at themselves and their product and admit fault, none of which GW has seemed at all inclined to actually do in the game in over 3 editions, and because of this, instead of Winning, they Lose."

XenosTerminus wrote:
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.

In my experience, pointing out the flaws of 40k resulted in people going "hey, you're right"... and moving to warmahordes, dreadball, DZC and so on. The result *was* everyone being more happy though.

 Psienesis wrote:
I think the whole thread could be ended by saying that "Yes, GW can win... but winning takes effort and hard work, and the ability to look at themselves and their product and admit fault, none of which GW has seemed at all inclined to actually do in the game in over 3 editions, and because of this, instead of Winning, they Lose."

Correct.

 Klerych wrote:
This is my interpretation of course, but if it's a piece of artillery rather than a humanoid model, shouldn't it be treated like vehicles' guns? From the mount along the barrel. At least that's how I would use it. :-)

The point of buying a rulebook so that you don't have to make basic stuff up to play a game.

After paying a lot of money for a rulebook, especially relative to comparable games, shouldn't someone be able to use that rulebook to find out what the correct way to do LOS from a model without needing to "figure something out" for Artillery LOS when Artillery has it's own titled section*?





*I'm using 5th and 6th for reference here as they had the "model's eye view" and "from the model's eyes" LOS. I'm guessing that 7th also has a section for artillery.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Warhammer is more than just a game. It is a modelling hobby. The game just was attached to give an extra purpose for people to keep collecting Citadel miniatures.

You know its funny you bring that up. GW certainly seem to believe it and run their business on that assumption, but I made this thread yesterday that very much disagrees with them:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/601769.page

XenosTerminus wrote:
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.

I disagree entirely. It has nothing to do with anonymity. It has everything to do with the way we read and write vs the way we talk.

When typing, you can construct long and detailed responses, those long and detailed responses can be carefully analysed by the other parties involved in the discussion and they can then construct long and detailed responses.

That's not how real life talking and listening conversations work. You tend to just say a few words that are less carefully considered.

***negative conversion begins***
Person 1: "I don't like blah because of blah"
Person 2: "Yeah, I think blah is ok, it doesn't really bother me because blah"
***conversation ends***

You don't then separate for 15 minutes while you formulate your next response, researching the resource materials (rulebooks, dictionaries, etc) to lend more weight to your argument. Only if it's something really important to you will you try and formulate a more careful argument on the spot (like if it's going to cause you to win or lose a game on the spot). At worst you'll go back and forth a bit until one of you realises it's not going anywhere and just concedes or says "lets forget about it and dice off for now".

You also have, at least in my mind, the social etiquette where it is impolite to blather on for a long time as you're consuming someone else's time because it's rude for them to just walk away. On the interwebs, I'm fully aware if I write a long winded response, it may just get looked over, so I don't feel like I'm wasting peoples' time (though I still attempt to use proper English to the best of my ability, as I think it's rude to write a response that people have to waste their time trying to decipher).

Whether it be positive or negative, the only time I will hold a real life talky talky discussion to any level that would rival my typed out online discussions is when I'm discussing something in my field of professional expertise with another person who is also in my field of expertise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
Then again my judgement might be clouded by the fact that I also played WFB and that's how wizards with magic levels work there, so I just know what GW meant.. But still it's far more simple my way. :-)

And this is your concession that the rules suck. Good games don't have arguments where two reasonable people can hold opposite positions, rule questions have to consider things like "it's simpler", or "knowing what the author meant" is ever required. They simply tell you what the rules are, and you follow the rules as-printed without any discussion.

Yep, exactly. The 6th edition cover rules for intervening models (don't have the 7th book in front of me to check it) are worded such that it could be taken one of a couple of ways. GW failed to define particular words that they used, so you're left thinking "wait, did they mean it behaves like cover saves in this way or that way, it's never actually defined and you could equally argue either way is what is intended".

I also remember having a long discussion on "shooting attack", because it wasn't explicitly defined and the way it was used in a particular place you could either construe it as being common english, in which case it meant one thing, or a specific term "shooting attack" but since it wasn't properly defined so it could go one way or another.

The problem with loose RAW is that the RAI isn't always obvious. It might be obvious to YOU because of your personal bias, but someone else might thing it's obvious in the opposite direction or they might think it's completely not obvious.

You can just dice off, but for many people this is a temporary solution, one that should only exist for a short period between when the vague rule is released and when GW gets off their arse and writes an errata or update to fix it. Instead we are left for years at a time not knowing how to play it or having to conduct a diplomatic discussion before each game as to how things work. Something like the cover issue affects some armies more than others, in the case of my Tyranids, depending on how you interpret that rule, it will change how I construct my army, because one way I can exploit cover saves from small models, the other way I can't.

 Psienesis wrote:
I think the whole thread could be ended by saying that "Yes, GW can win... but winning takes effort and hard work, and the ability to look at themselves and their product and admit fault, none of which GW has seemed at all inclined to actually do in the game in over 3 editions, and because of this, instead of Winning, they Lose."

So much this. This and learn to give a damn about PR and their customers.

 snooggums wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
This is my interpretation of course, but if it's a piece of artillery rather than a humanoid model, shouldn't it be treated like vehicles' guns? From the mount along the barrel. At least that's how I would use it. :-)

The point of buying a rulebook so that you don't have to make basic stuff up to play a game.

After paying a lot of money for a rulebook, especially relative to comparable games, shouldn't someone be able to use that rulebook to find out what the correct way to do LOS from a model without needing to "figure something out" for Artillery LOS when Artillery has it's own titled section*?





*I'm using 5th and 6th for reference here as they had the "model's eye view" and "from the model's eyes" LOS. I'm guessing that 7th also has a section for artillery.

See, the main point is that I don't really feel the need to 'house rule' it. It's not like "Oh, my model has no eyes.. OBVIOUS LACK OF PROPER RULES! Must house rule. Goddamn GEE-DUBS! Thanks, Obama.", it comes natural to me and I do it automatically. Common sense is not something kept in a vault that has to be opened through a set of locks to use it. When I look at a model it takes literally 1 second to figure out where the eyes or (quasi-)optical organs/sensors should be. I don't feel like I'm going an extra mile and immediately blame the terrible GW writing as it's so obvious to me it didn't have to be worded exactly with every tiny exception for every tiny model that is a wee bit different. My reproductive organ doesn't get stuck in the ceiling fan if my model has eyeless helmet and I don't need to strain my mind trying to figure something that obvious. You seem to live under false assumption that the amount of thought required to realize that Dreadnought's eyes are in it's visor slit where the optical sensors are is some kind of an effort because GW didn't bother to say that eyes in that rule are not necessarily the biological optical organs that humans have, but also can include sensors. Only the artillery is a good example - they should make a small note saying "artillery models should measure their LOS from the weapon's mount and down the barrel", I won't argue there.

I understand that more precise wording would be appreciated and GW could start making their rules more idiot-proof, but some people are really making a huge fuss over stuff that isn't really an issue and they would probably never do that if the game was made by some other company, not GW. I don't know, but turning "LOS is measured from model's eyes" into "LOS is measured from model's eyes, but in case a model doesn't have them, or wears a helmet, or...[and so on]" would bloat the rules even further, as they'd probably have to make such exception notes for EVERY single rule in the rulebook.. and guess what, then Dakka would be full of people screaming "THEY BLOATED THE RULES, MADE THE RULEBOOK EVEN BIGGER, THOSE DESPICABLE GEE-DUBS! THANKS, OBAMA!".


Edit:
Page 64, 7th ed rulebook.
"Shooting with Artillery
[...] When firing the guns, there must be a line of sight to the target from both the gun model and the crewman firing it (unless they are Barrage weapons, of course). Ranges are measured from the barrel on the gun model."

I think it -could- be worded slightly different by adding "and line of sight" right after "Ranges", but I think it's okay as it is, really. Then again I don't need to be spoon fed.

 Klerych wrote:
I understand that more precise wording would be appreciated and GW could start making their rules more idiot-proof, but some people are really making a huge fuss over stuff that isn't really an issue and they would probably never do that if the game was made by some other company, not GW. I don't know, but turning "LOS is measured from model's eyes" into "LOS is measured from model's eyes, but in case a model doesn't have them, or wears a helmet, or...[and so on]" would bloat the rules even further, as they'd probably have to make such exception notes for EVERY single rule in the rulebook.. and guess what, then Dakka would be full of people screaming "THEY BLOATED THE RULES, MADE THE RULEBOOK EVEN BIGGER, THOSE DESPICABLE GEE-DUBS! THANKS, OBAMA!".
.

I believe the equation which can help explain this is

Player measured displeasure to vague game rules = kx + y

where y is equal to the dislike for company. Thus, we may see a more vehement response to GW's rules, out of proportion to some other non-GW game rules. Or maybe k is the variable for the dislike. For GW to win, the k has to decrease or y has to be brought to zero.

 Klerych wrote:
but some people are really making a huge fuss over stuff that isn't really an issue and they would probably never do that if the game was made by some other company, not GW.

You know why? Because if it was another company this one issue would be an isolated incident in an otherwise-clear set of rules, and it would probably be fixed within a reasonable amount of time. GW gets hate over every rule problem because it's just one more rule problem in a whole book full of them, and GW doesn't show any sign of caring that they're publishing broken rules.

I don't know, but turning "LOS is measured from model's eyes" into "LOS is measured from model's eyes, but in case a model doesn't have them, or wears a helmet, or...[and so on]" would bloat the rules even further, as they'd probably have to make such exception notes for EVERY single rule in the rulebook.. and guess what, then Dakka would be full of people screaming "THEY BLOATED THE RULES, MADE THE RULEBOOK EVEN BIGGER, THOSE DESPICABLE GEE-DUBS! THANKS, OBAMA!".

Except they DID finally fix it in 7th edition, without making the rule any longer than it was in 6th edition. Please stop insisting that fixing the LOS rules was impossible without adding pages of special-case rulings when it obviously isn't.

Page 64, 7th ed rulebook.

Now go look at the 6th edition rules, not the 7th edition rules, and tell me how you're supposed to draw LOS from an artillery model without adding your own house rules.