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.

 Klerych wrote:


snip......

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!".

That would be a nice problem to have at this point.

It's not completely fixed because I have artillery without a guncrew

We shouldn't forget that this artillery-thing is just one example, there are more issues.
The main issue with these kind of things is that I spend a crapload of money on those rules.

Take a look at this forum: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-rulings
Now look at http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page
Where are the multiple-page threads there? Where are the heated arguments? Where are the locked threads?
Doesn't that show you how 'bad' the GW rule-writing is?

 Klerych wrote:
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.

Regardless of what you choose to call it, you're still creating a rule to cover a situation that isn't covered by the rules.

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.

Remember someone mentioning this being built up into a bigger deal than it actually was?

The point isn't that this particular lapse in the rules was a major issue. The point was that it was a hole in the rules that could have been easily fixed years ago that GW have only just got around to doing anything about.

Plugging holes in the rules shouldn't be an issue of how upset players are at having to make up their own rules. It's simply something that should be a part of updating to a new edition.

... 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.

That's because if it was another company, it would have been fixed almost immediately via a published errata when someone pointed it out to them on their official forums. Rather than something that they finally get around to after 20 years.

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!".

Making the rules clearer or less full of holes does not automatically require longer rules. GW already fixed the LOS from the eyes issue without the need to write an extra chapter to accomodate the fix.

'Draw a LOS from the firing model's eyes to any part of the the target's body' is an incomplete rule.

'Draw a LOS from any part of the firing model to any part of the target model' is no longer, and is clear and covers every model currently in the game.



Nobody is asking to be 'spoon fed'. They're just asking for a professionally-finished product from a company that prides itself at supposedly being the best at what it does.

TBH if I pay £50 for a rulebook I expect to have to do less "sorting out" than if I pay £5 for it.

Somewhat to the original topic but for all intents it seems GW is still "winning" where I am, people still play 40k here and see no problem with it - even crap like the new Ork releases get "Awesome can't wait for this!" kind of posts. New people still come from time to time and want to start playing 40k; to be honest it boggles my mind; I'm tempted to take the heat and tell them not to bother with 40k for the reasons we've gone into here, but it'd make me look like a jerk and I certainly wouldn't say it where the rest of the FLGS group could see it, or I'd get flamed. Hell someone just posted saying they were new, wanted to start 40k and had been thinking of it for a while, and I'm like "Why on earth would you pick 40k?" and then I remember because the store doesn't really have anything else, so of course they would be exposed to 40k more than anything else.

Meanwhile the other FLGS has been trying to get interest in Warmachine, and when I've gone there it's always the same person there, nobody else bothers to show up or if they do, they play Fantasy instead :(

It's sad if you ask me. There's so much more out there than 40k and GW. Starting to think if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, at least I'd get to play something. :(

 insaniak wrote:

Regardless of what you choose to call it, you're still creating a rule to cover a situation that isn't covered by the rules.

You insist that it's the case but to me it's just sticking to the rule. It's only different with artillery pre-7th, but by 'eyes' in the rule I mean "through what does it see/aim" as that's pretty much what GW meant with that. It's not making up additional house rules. Again, I'm not going an extra mile figuring out what the model's "eyes" are and making such a big fuss about it just because they didn't mention units with helmets is silly. Every model "looks" with something or uses something to aim and that's what I call it's "eyes" in this rule. As simple as that. Rule says eyes, I look for them or their equivalent, why is it so hard to grasp for so many people?

 insaniak wrote:
The point isn't that this particular lapse in the rules was a major issue. The point was that it was a hole in the rules that could have been easily fixed years ago that GW have only just got around to doing anything about.

Plugging holes in the rules shouldn't be an issue of how upset players are at having to make up their own rules. It's simply something that should be a part of updating to a new edition.

Well, apparently they fixed some of the rules(including artillery LOS in the 7th rulebook). The point is that it was never a -problem-. Just some people nitpicking and expecting GW to rewrite a rule just because a bunch of nitpicks felt like arguing over it.

 insaniak wrote:
Making the rules clearer or less full of holes does not automatically require longer rules. GW already fixed the LOS from the eyes issue without the need to write an extra chapter to accomodate the fix.

A lot of people expect exactly that, though. They want all the possible exceptions listed under the rule or else they'll nitpick about them.

 insaniak wrote:
'Draw a LOS from the firing model's eyes to any part of the the target's body' is an incomplete rule.

'Draw a LOS from any part of the firing model to any part of the target model' is no longer, and is clear and covers every model currently in the game.

Here, let me snipe you with my tactical sergeant's weapon drawing the line of sight from the tip of his power pack's banner pole while being 99% in cover! On a more serious note, it's not really the best idea. Should be "Draw a LOS from the model's head, eyes or other kind of sensors that it would normally use to look to any part of the target model." This should cover helmets, eyeless 'nids, and even visor-slit Dreadnoughts. But I'm still fairly sure that people would nitpick, trying desperately to find and/or even make up a loophole and try to rub it into others' eyes.


Again - my point is that 40k rules(especially in 7th) are much clearer than most people think. I actually think that they're biased and only want to make some fuss on the forums knowing that a few others will join for a circlejerk of whining. Bonus points for someone who disagrees and gets into a dispute and later feces throwing with them. It's just that those that like something about the game don't go vocal about it on the forums saying "Gee, how cool is that!" or "Hey, they fixed a rule, nice!" because the thread will be immediately flooded by those that will want to bring their bucket of poison and sarcasm and shower them with it, even if noone called them there. I've seen dozens of such threads where someone just drops something along the lines of "No, there's nothing good about 40k, go play something else!" or like some other just go there to brag about their own transfer to other games and making claims about how much better they are. On this game's forums.


Nobody is asking to be 'spoon fed'. They're just asking for a professionally-finished product from a company that prides itself at supposedly being the best at what it does.

 Klerych wrote:
A lot of people expect exactly that, though. They want all the possible exceptions listed under the rule or else they'll nitpick about them.

No, they don't. At least not a lot of people I've met.

What we want is clearly written rules. That is achieved by a more careful use of english (not using words like "dependent on" when you mean "equal to") and properly defining words and sticking to those definitions. It does not mean the rules have to be longer because you write a sentence for each and every exception, if anything they end up shorter because your wording is more precise.

The 40k rulebook is written like a conversation rather than an instruction manual. You might think "well not writing it like an instruction manual makes it easier to read!". Except it doesn't, the 40k rulebook is fething painful to read. Things that could have been stated in a sentence for some reason take paragraphs. Often you have entire pages of rules that could be condensed in to a few short sentences that actually have less chance of being misunderstood or vagueness that could have multiple interpretations.

We use the "model has no eyes" thing as an example, but it's hardly the only instance.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Somewhat to the original topic but for all intents it seems GW is still "winning" where I am, people still play 40k here and see no problem with it - even crap like the new Ork releases get "Awesome can't wait for this!" kind of posts. New people still come from time to time and want to start playing 40k; to be honest it boggles my mind; I'm tempted to take the heat and tell them not to bother with 40k for the reasons we've gone into here, but it'd make me look like a jerk and I certainly wouldn't say it where the rest of the FLGS group could see it, or I'd get flamed. Hell someone just posted saying they were new, wanted to start 40k and had been thinking of it for a while, and I'm like "Why on earth would you pick 40k?" and then I remember because the store doesn't really have anything else, so of course they would be exposed to 40k more than anything else.

Meanwhile the other FLGS has been trying to get interest in Warmachine, and when I've gone there it's always the same person there, nobody else bothers to show up or if they do, they play Fantasy instead :(

It's sad if you ask me. There's so much more out there than 40k and GW. Starting to think if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, at least I'd get to play something. :(

Change can happen very quickly...

At my club 2 or so years ago, not many had heard about the other games, now warmahordes is very popular with a good sprinkling of the myriad of other systems out there.

Its launching the assault on some of the "fanboys" that is the difficult bit. Giving advice to potential new 40k players is a bit of a pain but I tend to state it like it is, and give the warning that if they want the uber competitive game play warmahordes instead.

In my eyes at least GW can't really win anymore, sure the products look very good but in the overall swing of things they blew it big time. The community is very "patchy" in their opinions of the game and how they play it respectively, whereas with warmahordes is pretty much the same game wherever you go so you know what to expect.

We have to deal with what we've got, that is true, however in the "what game to start" stakes Warmahordes wins out, assuming your local community plays it which is the big factor here. Otherwise with 40k the warnings are there, so pay attention to them or not, but 40k still wins in the background stakes.

peace out

Do you disagree that there are justifiable causes for complaint?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Alright everyone, lemme preface this by saying that I recognize that there are some very valid issues with Games Workshop, which need addressing sooner rather than later.

That said, I've seen quite a few things lately:

1) I've seen people complaining that the faster pace of updated rules is so bad that they cannot possibly keep up:

 WarOne wrote:
I simply cannot keep up with their update schedule and what I want to buy.

2) Alongside people saying that GW should update their rules faster:

morgoth wrote:
It may have made sense back then though, because GW didn't have any possibility to update the rules easily.

I think it's different now, because they could make the rules available for free and update them frequently without any problems arising other than "What version of the rules are you playing ?".

This is just an example - others include asking for more content in White Dwarf, then complaining about being charged to access the content that's exclusive to White Dwarf. People wanted a faster release schedule, and now they want it slower. People wanted GW to drop 0-1 restrictions in codecies, now people want them back.

It seems a bit unfair really.

I think it's more a question of how many people would like one direction rather than the other.

Slow rules clearly harm competition and balance.
The guy arguing against the update schedule only says that because GW expects us to pay for the new rules.

Do note that what you quoted from me explicitly says that they should be free, which imo would make "WarOne" happy as well.

It's not the same people who argue on both sides of the fence, and GW has to take a stand.
I believe making 7th early was very good for the game, they should've made the rules available for free though.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do you disagree that there are justifiable causes for complaint?

aimed at me?

if so...

My previous post was trying to sound reasonable, without going down the "complaint" route but since you asked...

There are indeed many darn valid reasons to duly give GW both barrels, silly pricing, and rules, which frankly would be "ok" with a bit of a clean up. Its a pity GW cannot keep things consistent in each codex and i'm sure we all know the culprits. Not to mention their contempt for anyone who has played their games for years, moreover their frankly bonkers business sense. I'm no expert but they really ought to wake up and smell the coffee, if they bothered to take on the competiton then things might be different.

As it is, i sense a great deal of apathy, i might play the game and have a good time, but really i can't be bothered anymore with GW. Sure i use them for their paints but their recent releases have been frankly dull and overpriced to the nth degree.

That being said jumping on the warmahordes wagon isn't always the pannecea that some would have you think, it can be highly fustrating at times. You know what you are doing to an extent but its getting the sequencing right that is the real challenge. But its actually fun, especially when things do go right.

Wow, I've been frustrated as of late due to 40k. I'm glad to see threads like this, if for no other reason to see others frustrations and hear those who still value the game. Playing since 1998, I never thought till recently that i would be so fed up with GW. For a long time i had blinders on due to the fandom, why, because GW has a lot going for it.

-Great fluff
-Amazing models
-Tons of customization
-Larger scale games and models.

But this soon faded when I stepped into other model games (i was hesitant since figured who could compete against the GW giant). To my shock I was amazed. I, like many, wanted to find balance (multiple tournaments with min max of broken units does that) so i went with Warmachine/Hordes. Now i'm not advocating quit GW and join the warmahordes bandwagon. Far from; if anything it showed me changes that GW will have to take before going back (and will if they change).

IMO GW can win if

-Stop being secret about EVERYTHING: Let us know whats on the horizon, get us involved on changes so you can see reaction before dropping bombs on us and going 'deal with it'

-Create organized rules for tournaments: Stop putting something out and going, let the TO's figure our the balance. Its a cop out if I ever saw one.

-Stop nickel and diming us: I get it you're a company, with shareholders, sales is your revenue. But everyone one knows the economy everywhere is hurt. A codex refresh with random cards and a magic phase is cheesy and everyone felt was a ploy to make money. Stop, create a good product, we will buy it!!! I, like many others, are addicted to plastic crack, doesn't mean i'm going to keep going to same over priced dealer when new dealers are showing with lower prices and possible better products.

-Own up to mistakes and get a team of testers(for balance): Yes the game may be hard to balance, you are built around table based system. So unit needs 3s then 4's to hit against 90% of the targets it chooses. I've seen countless post with Math equations that fill up two pages of post. I'm sure if you put a team together you can work this out guys!!!

I love 40k, i love playing causal games with friends where we agree to do fluff or no cheese list. But this fails when it comes to competitive and pickup games, so i watch as the scene becomes bitter as more and more fights break out for a simple game. Till i see changes GW, i have warmahordes which is loads of fun and at least semi balanced (from what i've seen). Here's to hoping you are working toward solving some serious issues.

Apathy is the most powerful force in the universe.

I can certainly understand the sentiment behind this thread. When my interest was first piqued in the hobby, literally the first person replied by telling me to abandon the thought. Don't buy anything. Don't bother doing any research. Just turn around, leave and never come back. It was quite the introduction to the fandom, I must say.

Needless to say, my interest didn't die there, but I did find that first conversation incredibly annoying. I kept going, decided I liked the fluff as much as I liked the look of the models.

The game isn't perfect. I can see that. It looks pretty damn fun, though. I like what GW has to offer. The price is limiting, but that's the way of things.

zeromaeus wrote:
I can certainly understand the sentiment behind this thread. When my interest was first piqued in the hobby, literally the first person replied by telling me to abandon the thought. Don't buy anything. Don't bother doing any research. Just turn around, leave and never come back. It was quite the introduction to the fandom, I must say.

Needless to say, my interest didn't die there, but I did find that first conversation incredibly annoying. I kept going, decided I liked the fluff as much as I liked the look of the models.

The game isn't perfect. I can see that. It looks pretty damn fun, though. I like what GW has to offer. The price is limiting, but that's the way of things.

Eh, I wouldn't let what others say affect your opinion without doing research (as you obviously did). 40k just has a lot of disenchanted fans. It's not unique to 40k, I'm assuming if Infinity got really big and then Corvus Beli started following many of the decisions GW has made in the last 5 or so years, there would be the same sort of frustration.

zeromaeus wrote:
I can certainly understand the sentiment behind this thread. When my interest was first piqued in the hobby, literally the first person replied by telling me to abandon the thought. Don't buy anything. Don't bother doing any research. Just turn around, leave and never come back. It was quite the introduction to the fandom, I must say.

This is a perfect example of the stupidity of GWs current "marketing".

They rely on word of mouth to advertise their products but increasingly word of mouth will be to try a different game instead as GW is too expensive, badly written and not supported efficiently by the company.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Apathy is the most powerful force in the universe.

QFT. Which is why I can't be bothered to purchase GW product anymore; I've gone back to boardgames for now.

Or I live in an area where such things are virtually unheard of, there's no such thing as a shop for this kind of thing, and what few people that do play it are the kind that don't talk to people or get near them unless forced. Dungeons and Dragons only gets a hazy recognition as that devil worship game people play in basements. Everything else gets blank stares or disissals based on being nerdy.

 Klerych wrote:
You insist that it's the case but to me it's just sticking to the rule. It's only different with artillery pre-7th, but by 'eyes' in the rule I mean "through what does it see/aim" as that's pretty much what GW meant with that.

So you accept that artillery didn't fit into the 6th ed rule, but still claim the rule covered everything...?

It's not making up additional house rules. Again, I'm not going an extra mile figuring out what the model's "eyes" are and making such a big fuss about it just because they didn't mention units with helmets is silly. Every model "looks" with something or uses something to aim and that's what I call it's "eyes" in this rule. As simple as that. Rule says eyes, I look for them or their equivalent, why is it so hard to grasp for so many people?

It's not. As I keep pointing out.

Well, apparently they fixed some of the rules(including artillery LOS in the 7th rulebook). The point is that it was never a -problem-. Just some people nitpicking and expecting GW to rewrite a rule just because a bunch of nitpicks felt like arguing over it.

Expecting the rules to be complete is no 'nitpicking' any more than expecting my new car to have doors is 'nitpicking'.

A lot of people expect exactly that, though. They want all the possible exceptions listed under the rule or else they'll nitpick about them.

You're missing the point, still. Exceptions are only needed when the rule doesn't actually cover everything to begin with. In the case of LOS, people expected exceptions to the rule because GW chose to use a LOS system that relied on the models having eyes, and then included models like Wraithguard, Drones and Kannons in their game that don't have eyes, and in some cases don't even have heads.

The system they chose to move to for 7th edition removes the need to list exceptions.

People aren't asking for exceptions just for the sake of having exceptions. They're just asking for the rules to be complete.

Here, let me snipe you with my tactical sergeant's weapon drawing the line of sight from the tip of his power pack's banner pole while being 99% in cover!

The 7th ed LOS rules discount banners, spikes, weapons and the like just like previous editions did.

On a more serious note, it's not really the best idea. Should be "Draw a LOS from the model's head, eyes or other kind of sensors that it would normally use to look to any part of the target model." This should cover helmets, eyeless 'nids, and even visor-slit Dreadnoughts. But I'm still fairly sure that people would nitpick, trying desperately to find and/or even make up a loophole and try to rub it into others' eyes.

Yes, people would still have a problem with that, because it would still exclude artillery, and it would still be focusing on the fact that our soldiers apparently run 30' and then strike up the exact same action pose once again before they shoot.

The 7th ed system, while seeming slightly odd on the surface that a model can draw LOS from its foot, at least makes a nod towards the idea that just because the model is posed standing up, doesn't mean they can't bend over to look under an obstruction.

Again - my point is that 40k rules(especially in 7th) are much clearer than most people think. I actually think that they're biased and only want to make some fuss on the forums knowing that a few others will join for a circlejerk of whining. Bonus points for someone who disagrees and gets into a dispute and later feces throwing with them. It's just that those that like something about the game don't go vocal about it on the forums saying "Gee, how cool is that!" or "Hey, they fixed a rule, nice!" because the thread will be immediately flooded by those that will want to bring their bucket of poison and sarcasm and shower them with it, even if noone called them there. I've seen dozens of such threads where someone just drops something along the lines of "No, there's nothing good about 40k, go play something else!" or like some other just go there to brag about their own transfer to other games and making claims about how much better they are. On this game's forums.

There are certainly some out there like that. The vast majority of us complaining about the state of 40K's rules, though, are doing so because we see legitimate problems with those rules. And so we discuss them,.. because aside from those problems, we enjoy the game.

If you don't see a gaping hole in the rules as a problem, that's great for you. But assuming that everyone who thinks differently to you is just out to ruin it for everyone else? That way lies madness.

 Accolade wrote:

zeromaeus wrote:
I can certainly understand the sentiment behind this thread. When my interest was first piqued in the hobby, literally the first person replied by telling me to abandon the thought. Don't buy anything. Don't bother doing any research. Just turn around, leave and never come back. It was quite the introduction to the fandom, I must say.

Needless to say, my interest didn't die there, but I did find that first conversation incredibly annoying. I kept going, decided I liked the fluff as much as I liked the look of the models.

The game isn't perfect. I can see that. It looks pretty damn fun, though. I like what GW has to offer. The price is limiting, but that's the way of things.

Eh, I wouldn't let what others say affect your opinion without doing research (as you obviously did). 40k just has a lot of disenchanted fans. It's not unique to 40k, I'm assuming if Infinity got really big and then Corvus Beli started following many of the decisions GW has made in the last 5 or so years, there would be the same sort of frustration.

Should say 10 +years, but the bolded part is key. GW does dumb gak and get what they reap, as you said any company would be treated that way if the treated their product and player base the same way as GW. Thank for pointing that out, it is GW fault.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Somewhat to the original topic but for all intents it seems GW is still "winning" where I am, people still play 40k here and see no problem with it - even crap like the new Ork releases get "Awesome can't wait for this!" kind of posts. New people still come from time to time and want to start playing 40k; to be honest it boggles my mind; I'm tempted to take the heat and tell them not to bother with 40k for the reasons we've gone into here, but it'd make me look like a jerk and I certainly wouldn't say it where the rest of the FLGS group could see it, or I'd get flamed. Hell someone just posted saying they were new, wanted to start 40k and had been thinking of it for a while, and I'm like "Why on earth would you pick 40k?" and then I remember because the store doesn't really have anything else, so of course they would be exposed to 40k more than anything else.

Meanwhile the other FLGS has been trying to get interest in Warmachine, and when I've gone there it's always the same person there, nobody else bothers to show up or if they do, they play Fantasy instead :(

It's sad if you ask me. There's so much more out there than 40k and GW. Starting to think if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, at least I'd get to play something. :(

You have to take the chance. I've introduced several games to my group, some stick and some don't. One day I announced I was buying Flames of War and got all of the standard replies of too expensive and too much investment in 40k to start another game and such. I showed them the rules and models. Now, All of them but one has at least one FoW army and most (75%) won't play 40k anymore. Once the damn broke, it really broke. My group is so diverse in games now, it is hard to get a pick up game anymore because you never know which game they brought with them. lol

I would bring the starter set to the store (either) and ask anyone not playing a game currently if they would be interested in learning Warmachine. That is what I'm currently doing with All Quiet on the Martian Front. It takes times and doesn't always work for each game, but at least you can say you tried.

 insaniak wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
Well, apparently they fixed some of the rules(including artillery LOS in the 7th rulebook). The point is that it was never a -problem-. Just some people nitpicking and expecting GW to rewrite a rule just because a bunch of nitpicks felt like arguing over it.

Expecting the rules to be complete is no 'nitpicking' any more than expecting my new car to have doors is 'nitpicking'.

I think much of the issue people take with the flaws in the 40K rules can be attributed to them coming from GW alone. GW has fairly earned much of the scorn it gets from it's actions, especially in the PR department. But to me the 40K rules just aren't up to snuff. If GW was some backyard group of gamers who published their own game I could accept it but GW is an order of magnitude larger (at least) than it's nearest competitor. And this is no first edition- this is 25 years in the making 7th edition. Worse yet the last several editions haven't been new versions so much as tweaks.

Once upon a time we used to argue about what game to play but of the choices, they were all GW games. Now the market is overflowing with options- it's a great time to be a wargamer- but so little of it is from GW. Worse yet it is impossible not to notice that the bar has been set higher than GW standard in almost every capacity. The real shame of it is that the IP they have is the best foundation you could ask for to build a model range and rule set on. It's like watching someone on a prime spot of land with all the resources and manpower to build a majestic castle but all they do is throw a new coat of paint on the hut and occasionally a new chimney and outhouse.

GW could win. Their IP is good enough and strong enough that with good rules and just mediocre customer appreciation/interaction they could be golden. If 'GW can't win' it's not because of anyone but themselves.

Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?

If they went with that definition did they say, "oh that model doesn't haves eyes, ergo it cannot draw LOS, therefore it cannot target anyone or fire!"???

and if they did....I hope somebody smacked 'em...

jamesk1973 wrote:
Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?

No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.

The models are an abstract representation FFS.

 Peregrine wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?

No, but that's not the point. The fact that most/all players quickly house ruled the problem away doesn't mean that the problem didn't exist, or that GW shouldn't be criticized for their laziness and/or incompetence in allowing it to get into a published rulebook and remain there for decades.

Oh, I know GW could do a looooooooooooot better when it comes to writing the rules.

 Las wrote:
The models are an abstract representation FFS.

Then they should commit to this principle. Abolish true LoS and for the love of Jeff define base sizes.

jamesk1973 wrote:Did people really have meltdowns concerning LOS and models that did not have eyes?

If they went with that definition did they say, "oh that model doesn't haves eyes, ergo it cannot draw LOS, therefore it cannot target anyone or fire!"???

and if they did....I hope somebody smacked 'em...

Because reading what people are actually saying is overrated.

No, nobody had meltdowns over it. It was pointed out as a flaw in the rules that required players to modify said rules in order to play the game, that took GW 20 years to fix.

That's all. No meltdowns. Just a flawed rule that needed to be fixed.

Las wrote:The models are an abstract representation FFS.

Yes, they are. Which is why we need rules to specify how that abstract representation interacts with the rest of the game.

 Las wrote:
The models are an abstract representation FFS.

The whole game is an abstract representation. That is why it needs to have rules to govern everything.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Las wrote:
The models are an abstract representation FFS.

The whole game is an abstract representation. That is why it needs to have rules to govern everything.

Clear and concise* rules.