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.
VanHallan wrote: You may have a point, but you're still trying to teach a pig to sing here.
If you want to waste time griping over a bunch of minutiae, that's your choice. I would rather sort it out with my friends or gaming group and/or play by house rules. That is what GW intends. If there are better games out there, play them.
I don't know what any of this griping seeks to accomplish, but in my view all it does accomplish is an ever changing and never satisfying reboot of the rules every few years.
Its impossible to keep things simple because people ask for clarification on things that should either go without saying or simply flat out aren't of vital importance. Just my opinion.
Just as if you want to let the market leading, premium priced, producer of the "finest toy soldiers in the world" abdicate their responsibility for producing a product with quality commensurate with the price they ask, then that's your choice.
I for one have taken personal action, my spend on GW product is barely 10% what it was even 3 years ago, but I continue to play, and enjoy, 40k.
I will, however, continue to discuss the flaws in the game which prevent me enjoying the game more and if some of the points I raise in a public discussion such as this make one person pause before dumping more cash into GW's products, or, even more unlikely, gets read and taken on board by somebody with the power to influence, then all the better.
The only way to send the message that GW need to shape up is to attack their bottom line. Enjoy the game? Hate the game? Fine, go right on ahead and set your stall out (and no doubt then spend pages defending your view from those who disagree) but the only sort of player, and I suspect we have more than a few posting here regularly, I have a problem with are the ones who post long and loud about how gak the game is here, before dumping ££££ every month on the latest product at full retail.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
VanHallan wrote: "For our general elucidation: "Sandwiches include cold and hot sandwiches of every kind that are prepared and ready to be eaten, whether made on bread, on bagels, on rolls, in pitas, in wraps, or otherwise, and regardless of the filling or number of layers." Fair enough, that seems pretty clear. But that wasn't enough for the Department of Sandwiches, which then went on to list possible types of sandwiches, "as simple as a buttered bagel or roll, or as elaborate as a six-foot, toasted submarine sandwich."
Types of taxable sandwiches include: BLTs, PB&J, gyros, breakfast sandwiches, Reubens, cheese-steaks and so forth. Nothing shocking there. Hot Dogs, sausages on buns, "fish fry" sandwiches, burgers and bagel sandwiches (either with spreads or fillings) also make the cut. Also, burritos. I guess that's like a wrap?
We called the Department of Dagwoods for some insight on how this list came to be and spokesperson Cary Ziter was kind enough to illuminate the finer points of The Great Sandwich List. "There's a long list of different tax bulletins on different subjects that are meant to give the general public and merchants and business people guidance as to what is taxable and what is not taxable," Ziter explained. "It's trying to stress the point that all sandwiches are generally subject to sales tax, that's the message you want to get across. So if you're running a bodega in the Bronx or a grocery store in Queens or a small gas station in Buffalo you have an understanding of what the law covers."
So what about items not included on the list, like tacos. Are tacos sandwiches? "What's that place down in Times Square? Chevy's? The big Mexican restaurant down there? If you order the three taco special, that's going to be a sales taxable event and it's going to be charged whatever the rate of sales tax is in NYC [Ed. Note: it's 4.5%]," Ziter illuminated. THE TACOS ARE TAXABLE, PEOPLE!?
Game rules should be written using technical writing since they are essentially a description of a number of steps that a player needs to perform to arrive at a determined result.
Laws on the other hand, are written using legal writing that more often than not, you need a law degree to correctly read and interpret them.
Do you understand the differences between the two? Both of them are in no way comparable to each other.
WayneTheGame wrote: Not sure what you're getting at, but last I checked the Department of Taxation wasn't charging you $85 for the instructions on to make sandwiches, $50 for the recipe for each sandwich, on top of hundreds for the ingredients to make each sandwich.
The rules for a game should be laid out clearly, concisely, and without ambiguity, especially when you are being charged more than virtually every other rulebook for games out there.
basically that layers upon layers of rule making and specificity only leads to more confusion, overlap, and most importantly the abolition of basic use of common sense and human reason.
People need to learn how to sort things out amongst themselves, in principle. People that constantly look to entities of authority to make specific rules about how they play the game of 40k or life are in large part responsible for the nonsense that exists and comes from those entities.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/26 14:51:35
VanHallan wrote: "For our general elucidation: "Sandwiches include cold and hot sandwiches of every kind that are prepared and ready to be eaten, whether made on bread, on bagels, on rolls, in pitas, in wraps, or otherwise, and regardless of the filling or number of layers." Fair enough, that seems pretty clear. But that wasn't enough for the Department of Sandwiches, which then went on to list possible types of sandwiches, "as simple as a buttered bagel or roll, or as elaborate as a six-foot, toasted submarine sandwich."
Types of taxable sandwiches include: BLTs, PB&J, gyros, breakfast sandwiches, Reubens, cheese-steaks and so forth. Nothing shocking there. Hot Dogs, sausages on buns, "fish fry" sandwiches, burgers and bagel sandwiches (either with spreads or fillings) also make the cut. Also, burritos. I guess that's like a wrap?
We called the Department of Dagwoods for some insight on how this list came to be and spokesperson Cary Ziter was kind enough to illuminate the finer points of The Great Sandwich List. "There's a long list of different tax bulletins on different subjects that are meant to give the general public and merchants and business people guidance as to what is taxable and what is not taxable," Ziter explained. "It's trying to stress the point that all sandwiches are generally subject to sales tax, that's the message you want to get across. So if you're running a bodega in the Bronx or a grocery store in Queens or a small gas station in Buffalo you have an understanding of what the law covers."
So what about items not included on the list, like tacos. Are tacos sandwiches? "What's that place down in Times Square? Chevy's? The big Mexican restaurant down there? If you order the three taco special, that's going to be a sales taxable event and it's going to be charged whatever the rate of sales tax is in NYC [Ed. Note: it's 4.5%]," Ziter illuminated. THE TACOS ARE TAXABLE, PEOPLE!?
Yeah, people will go to any lengths to exploit a loophole in tax law, making it necessary to ensure that all bases are covered, and if a loophole is discovered, that an amendment is made to close it.
If only....
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
VanHallan wrote: basically that layers upon layers of rule making and specificity only leads to more confusion, overlap, and most importantly the abolition of basic use of common sense and human reason.
People need to learn how to sort things out amongst themselves, in principle. People that constantly look to entities of authority to make specific rules about how they play the game of 40k or life are in large part responsible for the nonsense that exists and comes from those entities.
Umm no. The writers of the rules (i.e. GW) have an obligation to make sure the rules aren't convoluted or confusing. What they do instead is write something that sounds fine but is actually vague, on the assumption that people are just going to apply common sense. While that isn't a bad idea in and of itself, it's bad for rules because you get different interpretations. It's not a question about whether you can apply common sense, it's the point that applying common sense is a fix to unclear rules, not something that should be considered the norm.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/26 14:55:05
basically that layers upon layers of rule making and specificity only leads to more confusion, overlap, and most importantly the abolition of basic use of common sense and human reason.
People need to learn how to sort things out amongst themselves, in principle. People that constantly look to entities of authority to make specific rules about how they play the game of 40k or life are in large part responsible for the nonsense that exists and comes from those entities.
I think you're confusing a fairly simple want of a cleaner ruleset with some sort of existential crisis people have with regards to authority or order.
Look, its simple.
If we're going to pay as much as GW wants, we want rules that are simple, clear, and lack ambiguity. These are all easily achievable goals that nearly every other game has achieved.
It has nothing to do with looking for authority, or abolishing common sense, or the taxation of sandwiches.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/26 14:54:38
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
WayneTheGame wrote: Not sure what you're getting at, but last I checked the Department of Taxation wasn't charging you $85 for the instructions on to make sandwiches, $50 for the recipe for each sandwich, on top of hundreds for the ingredients to make each sandwich.
The rules for a game should be laid out clearly, concisely, and without ambiguity, especially when you are being charged more than virtually every other rulebook for games out there.
basically that layers upon layers of rule making and specificity only leads to more confusion, overlap, and most importantly the abolition of basic use of common sense and human reason.
People need to learn how to sort things out amongst themselves, in principle. People that constantly look to entities of authority to make specific rules about how they play the game of 40k or life are in large part responsible for the nonsense that exists and comes from those entities.
Nope, you are wrong once again. Have you tried any other miniature game that is not made by GW? Because in every single one that I've tried, I've found much less ambiguity than in 40k or WHFB...
So if these other, smaller companies, can do it (and asking for much less money than GW), why can't the industry leader accomplish the same?
Basically, do you not understand the difference between these two sentences (paraphrased from 7th edition):
1) The number of powers a psyker may cast per turn is dependent upon their mastery level.
2) The number of powers a pysker may cast per turn is equal to their mastery level.
These are NOT the same thing. The first requires the assumption that "dependent upon" is the same as "equal to" which, while that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, is factually incorrect - if I were your opponent I might have a different interpretation entirely, or think that there was something omitted (a table, for example) that outlines the dependency. That's not to say I wouldn't agree with your interpretation (I do), but your interpretation is just that: Your reading of the rules and determing what you *think* it means, because the rule itself is unclear and can be left up to interpretation in the first place.
The second requires no assumptions whatsoever; it's clearly spelled out what the rule means and how to use it. There is no ambiguity. I can't say "Maybe they left out a table by mistake" because there is only one conclusion that can be inferred from the wording.
The point of rules is to minimize conflicts and arguments. Leaving a rule up to interpretation, no matter how much "common sense" might factor into that interpretation (as with the above example), is a bad thing. All it takes is for one person to have a different interpretation than you have, and you have a rules dispute that needs to be resolved in some way. Clear, concise rules with no ambiguity remove the need for a rules dispute.
The point is, by now, it should be abundantly clear that GW has no DESIRE to make a simplified clear concise be all end all rulebook. They WANT you to interpret it and have fun however you deem it appropriate. They aren't trying to please you people. They're trying to get a bunch of kids to buy models and play with each other. That's the extent of their purpose when it comes to rules writing.
You can talk about obligation and responsibility and whatever else. The only obligation I'm concerned with is the obligation that two players have to play a fun game, treat each other fairly, and enjoy themselves without litigating the ever loving hell out of the rulebook.
“The truth is that many people set rules to keep from making decisions. Not me. I don’t want to be a manager or a dictator. I want to be a leader—and leadership is ongoing, adjustable, flexible, and dynamic. As such, leaders have to maintain a certain amount of discretion."
That's a quote from Mike K(not gonna bother) the Duke head coach.
I think the people have a hard time when things are left up to them. It really shouldn't be such a problem. Especially in a dice game. ITS UP TO YOU.
7th edition just seems to further solidify that position for GW. unbound, daemons, do whatever you want. This is their philosophy.
VanHallan wrote: The point is, by now, it should be abundantly clear that GW has no DESIRE to make a simplified clear concise be all end all rulebook. They WANT you to interpret it and have fun however you deem it appropriate. They aren't trying to please you people. They're trying to get a bunch of kids to buy models and play with each other. That's the extent of their purpose when it comes to rules writing.
You can talk about obligation and responsibility and whatever else. The only obligation I'm concerned with is the obligation that two players have to play a fun game, treat each other fairly, and enjoy themselves without litigating the ever loving hell out of the rulebook.
“The truth is that many people set rules to keep from making decisions. Not me. I don’t want to be a manager or a dictator. I want to be a leader—and leadership is ongoing, adjustable, flexible, and dynamic. As such, leaders have to maintain a certain amount of discretion."
That's a quote from Mike K(not gonna bother) the Duke head coach.
I think the people have a hard time when things are left up to them. It really shouldn't be such a problem. Especially in a dice game. ITS UP TO YOU.
7th edition just seems to further solidify that position for GW. unbound, daemons, do whatever you want. This is their philosophy.
Cool story bro, then why should I pay them for the highest costing books in the market if I'm supposed to make my own rules?
Not to mention the heaps of fun that everyone has every time that the game has to be stopped for both players to argue with each other for 10 minutes just because they have different interpretations of the same rule... Fun for the whole family that is!
You seem to have pretty low standards when it comes to gaming, more power to you for that. Some of us would like our rules to be better, especially when they have that price tag attached to them. And that is a view point arguably as valid as your own.
VanHallan wrote: I didn't say its a winning philosophy, just that it is their stated philosophy. their demonstrated philosophy.
And what everyone has been saying is that its a very poor philosophy.
Then again, we should all be Forging our Narratives harder, or playing more cinematically, or creating our own random tables to add to the narrative experience of 40k with ambiguous rules so we can spend all of our time pleasantly discussing with our opponent how they interpret the rules.
Truly, its the player's fault for not being telepathic and understanding the exact intent behind every vague rule or contradictory statement.
*Edit* I need to figure out how to get those copyright and trademark symbols.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/26 15:21:01
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
VanHallan wrote: I didn't say its a winning philosophy, just that it is their stated philosophy. their demonstrated philosophy.
Which is why everyone who disagrees with it needs to withold their business and not continue to reward a poor product with commercial success.
It's perfectly democratic, if the voices on the Internet really aren't representative of how the majority feel, then 40K will go from strength to strength, if the increasing number of dissenting voices, coupled with the unknowable number who might just silently give up and walk away, or simply never start, are actually representative of a wider trend, then we'll see sales start to fall, and that will compel GW to act, or ultimately go bust.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
"The number of powers a Psyker can attempt to cast each turn is equal to their mastery level."
This the is issue. The paraphrased portion isn't limiting anything to casting attempts, just the amount of spells used. If you fail to cast something, you've failed to use.
This line here, the bolded portion, changes the entire meaning of the word. You could, with a Level 2 Mastery Level Psyker, attempt to cast 2 spells, fail both and you cannot use anymore. But nowhere in the text does it say that attempting to cast and failing counts as using a spell, you kind of need to use a spell to use a spell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VanHallan wrote: The point is, by now, it should be abundantly clear that GW has no DESIRE to make a simplified clear concise be all end all rulebook. They WANT you to interpret it and have fun however you deem it appropriate. They aren't trying to please you people. They're trying to get a bunch of kids to buy models and play with each other. That's the extent of their purpose when it comes to rules writing.
You can talk about obligation and responsibility and whatever else. The only obligation I'm concerned with is the obligation that two players have to play a fun game, treat each other fairly, and enjoy themselves without litigating the ever loving hell out of the rulebook.
“The truth is that many people set rules to keep from making decisions. Not me. I don’t want to be a manager or a dictator. I want to be a leader—and leadership is ongoing, adjustable, flexible, and dynamic. As such, leaders have to maintain a certain amount of discretion."
That's a quote from Mike K(not gonna bother) the Duke head coach.
I think the people have a hard time when things are left up to them. It really shouldn't be such a problem. Especially in a dice game. ITS UP TO YOU.
7th edition just seems to further solidify that position for GW. unbound, daemons, do whatever you want. This is their philosophy.
This seems to be the larger issue for those against GW. They don't want things up to them, they need to have everything told to them, exactly what they can and cannot do. You'll never convince them that this is a good idea, just like they'll never convince others that it's a bad one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/26 15:36:14
In the works
Warhammer 40k. Enjoy it or go play something else. Life is too short to complain.
If I wanted things up to me I would write my own rules. The reason for buying commercial rules is to save the effort of making your own.
GW's rules do not give battlefield leaders discretion for making flexible decisions etc. They just set up situations in which you spend time working out or arguing about what the rules are supposed to say. This is not generalship.
Lobomalo wrote: This seems to be the larger issue for those against GW. They don't want things up to them, they need to have everything told to them, exactly what they can and cannot do. You'll never convince them that this is a good idea, just like they'll never convince others that it's a bad one.
Incorrect,sir. What "those against GW" want is for rules that are written to be clear and concise, so you don't end up with ambiguous rules that require discussion when they arise of just WTF they actually mean, because they are vague.
When the rules cost almost $100 (more with a Codex), then feth yes I want them to say what we can and cannot do; that's what makes them RULES. You don't print out "rules" that require players to decide amongst themselves "How do we determine how many powers a psyker can cast?", and you sure as hell don't charge more than everybody else for them.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/26 15:47:36
Never thought I'd see the day where your ability to argue with your opponent about a different rule interpretation could be considered an aspect of being a tactical and flexible field commander.
These comparisons are just getting absurd now.
Miniature rulesets aren't a game of MadLibs.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Cool story bro, then why should I pay them for the highest costing books in the market if I'm supposed to make my own rules?
Not to mention the heaps of fun that everyone has every time that the game has to be stopped for both players to argue with each other for 10 minutes just because they have different interpretations of the same rule... Fun for the whole family that is!
You seem to have pretty low standards when it comes to gaming, more power to you for that. Some of us would like our rules to be better, especially when they have that price tag attached to them. And that is a view point arguably as valid as your own.
1.) Glad you like my stories. I'm going to write them on paper very clearly and let you know when/what you can pay me for them. Because obviously you'll have no choice in the matter. You like the story, so you have to buy it. Well, you SHOULD buy it because I said so.
2.) People argue over everything. There is no written rule in recorded history that has never caused an argument. The 10 Commandments are argued over- for Christ's sake.
3.) My standards for gaming are not relevant to you, and yours or not relevant to me. That's the whole thing. GW isn't going to do what you want them to do, and the continued insistance from players that GW 'fix' this problem is only perpetuating it and justifying their ability to make new editions every few years. They will not fix it, and every few years they'll put out something new and some people will say, HERE IT IS! they FINALLY FIXED IT! and others will say, OMG this is the WORST thing ever. And GW will laugh, rinse, repeat. I'm not defending them. Just being real.
We all know what GW is after, don't we? Revenue. Its not all that different from taxation after all. Rules are the laws of the 40k universe. And they're always going to cause disagreement and people are going to look for and find loopholes to create and exploit.
VanHallan wrote: people are going to look for and find loopholes to create and exploit.
Almost as though writing a clear and concise ruleset would eliminate the ability for people to find loopholes to create and exploit!
I don't understand how this is such a hard concept to understand. We have a dozen successful and popular miniature games that don't even have a fraction of the rule issues that 40k has. We know its possible to have a ruleset that is tight, workable, and prevents silly loophole shenanigans. Why is it that only a small fraction of 40k players believe this to be either impossible or negative for the game?
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
The fact that it is POSSIBLE and hasn't been done SHOULD lead you to an understanding that GW's principle PURPOSE is not in line with what you are demanding.
Hello mcfly!?
They have no DESIRE to deliver the ruleset you are asking for. They are following a pattern of behavior that is very predictable by now.
You ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition.
is this good? IMO no. But that's the reality of what is going on.
VanHallan wrote: The fact that it is POSSIBLE and hasn't been done SHOULD lead you to an understanding that GW's principle PURPOSE is not in line with what you are demanding.
Hello mcfly!?
They have no DESIRE to deliver the ruleset you are asking for. They are following a pattern of behavior that is very predictable by now.
You ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition.
is this good? IMO no. But that's the reality of what is going on.
So you acknowledge that they don't deliver a better product with each passing edition, but instead just make lateral shifts designed for the sole purpose of extracting more money from their customers... and you are defending this behaviour why?
"The number of powers a Psyker can attempt to cast each turn is equal to their mastery level."
This the is issue. The paraphrased portion isn't limiting anything to casting attempts, just the amount of spells used. If you fail to cast something, you've failed to use.
This line here, the bolded portion, changes the entire meaning of the word. You could, with a Level 2 Mastery Level Psyker, attempt to cast 2 spells, fail both and you cannot use anymore. But nowhere in the text does it say that attempting to cast and failing counts as using a spell, you kind of need to use a spell to use a spell.
You realise that line is my creation right? And that I deliberately included attempt, because by doing so it totally removes the need to for further explanation. Just as if, if the intention was for successful casts, you could substitute 'attempt' for 'successfully.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
VanHallan wrote: The fact that it is POSSIBLE and hasn't been done SHOULD lead you to an understanding that GW's principle PURPOSE is not in line with what you are demanding.
Hello mcfly!?
They have no DESIRE to deliver the ruleset you are asking for. They are following a pattern of behavior that is very predictable by now.
You ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition.
is this good? IMO no. But that's the reality of what is going on.
It should also be noted at this point, that the quote you cited from Mr Chambers is from an era where the codexes cost ~1/3 of their current RRP, and the rulebook a similar percentage.
As you charge a higher price for your product, your customers expectations will, understandably and justifiably, increase.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/26 16:04:50
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
VanHallan wrote: The fact that it is POSSIBLE and hasn't been done SHOULD lead you to an understanding that GW's principle PURPOSE is not in line with what you are demanding.
Hello mcfly!?
They have no DESIRE to deliver the ruleset you are asking for. They are following a pattern of behavior that is very predictable by now.
You ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition.
is this good? IMO no. But that's the reality of what is going on.
So you acknowledge that they don't deliver a better product with each passing edition, but instead just make lateral shifts designed for the sole purpose of extracting more money from their customers... and you are defending this behaviour why?
I'm not defending it I am stating simple truth. You assume I am in favor of this, I'm not. But I wish people would just stop bitching and figure it out on their own so that every time the GW releases a new edition I'm not forced to use it because every other gamer in town falls into this idiot trap every few years.
VanHallan wrote: The fact that it is POSSIBLE and hasn't been done SHOULD lead you to an understanding that GW's principle PURPOSE is not in line with what you are demanding.
Hello mcfly!?
They have no DESIRE to deliver the ruleset you are asking for. They are following a pattern of behavior that is very predictable by now.
You ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition. you ask for fixed rules, they make a new edition.
is this good? IMO no. But that's the reality of what is going on.
So you acknowledge that they don't deliver a better product with each passing edition, but instead just make lateral shifts designed for the sole purpose of extracting more money from their customers... and you are defending this behaviour why?
Brand loyalty I'm guessing. Which seems strange since GW doesn't seem to show any concern for its loyal customers.
I mean, if it is true that 40k is losing customers and the recent upticks in the effective cost-to-play are are GW's way of making up for lost revenue, then what they are effectively saying to their loyalist customers is "Hey, thanks for being such an avid fan! Oh and by the way, you can stomach an extra $30-$50 on monthly purchases right? I mean, you're a pretty loyal guy like that."
(EDIT: Admittedly, this is something I think I used to struggle with)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/06/26 16:10:40
I'm not defending it I am stating simple truth. You assume I am in favor of this, I'm not. But I wish people would just stop bitching and figure it out on their own so that every time the GW releases a new edition I'm not forced to use it because every other gamer in town falls into this idiot trap every few years.
Sorry to say this to you, but the people "bitching" have already figured this out, that is why they are "bitching". You are the one that is part of the problem, because even though you've "figured it out" you are still giving them your money willingly and thus rewarding them for their shoddy product.
Talizvar wrote: I maintain they like writing rules in a "conversational tone" in the poor attempt at being "entertainment" which with that method allows for all kinds of sloppy wording.
I think they should write a very concise, short, rule element and draw a box around it or something to separate it from the extra verbiage that are used to explain it. They do this to a limited extent but need to commit a bit further.
It would also allow for a condensed small book publication with only the rules with no elaboration, for reference it would be refreshing to not play the "spot the specific rule text".
Yep, exactly my thoughts. Most rules could be condensed to a sentence or two where as now they are a paragraph or two. If you really want an in depth explanation, have them distinctly separated so you can see the "rule" part at a glance.
The conversational tone (and this is subjective) is fething painful to read. It makes everything soooo damned long, just give me a clear and succinct rule and be done with it.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
In the works
