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:
There you go making assumptions again. What evidence do you have to support that?

VanHallan wrote:

so that every time the GW releases a new edition I'm not forced to use it

If you use it, I assumed that you bought it. And if you bought it then you are actively supporting GW's behaviour.

No, I haven't bought it. I probably will one the rules only book comes out. And I do buy GW stuff, to be fair, but a lot of it is from ebay.

But, what got me back into the hobby is finding a bunch of old guard models. My cousin and I have bags of bits. Lots and lots of stuff to paint and I really do want to have fun playing the actual game.

At this point, I have 2 rulebooks. 3rd and 6th. And I have 2 options, the way I see it.

1.) I can go to the FLGS, and play with a bunch of people that buy every new edition, make lists that are WAY more competitive than fluffy, most of them seem to have an endless supply of money and time with which to buy massive armies of every available thing and basically get my well painted army's ass kicked by a mass of undercoated and minimally painted stuff, WHICH IS WHAT GW CATERS TO, which I dislike.

2.) Or, I could find a few like minded people that want to paint up a good looking army, hang out maybe once a month and play a game. This is much harder to do but i think its much better. I have a dark eldar player that lives abit away and we might get something going. Or maybe not.

All I'm trying to get at with all my posts is that if we keep asking gw to fix the rules, theyre just going to keep doing what theyre doing.

And I am an inexperienced gamer, but one thing I LOVE is painting models. The new Warhammer models are absolutely incredible, but I can't stomach another GW game. I just can't afford it.

So I'm going to check out kings of war after I finish my 2k imperial fists list. I think many of you are right and i will find the rules much more simple and games therefore more enjoyable.

There is a clear problem with the game when a player has to call a new flgs before showing up to find out the house rules. I have all but given up and sold off all but one army. When I travel now I bring 75 points of warmachine and 100 or so points of X-wing.

Ever since 7th came out the first freaking hour at my local club is spent debating rules and applying new rules if the previous house rules are not liked by everyone.

This is clearly a broken system. I can't believe they charged us 100.00 for this gak. Every other system I play charges less than half for their brb and I can show up and play any where and know what the rules will be.

VanHallan wrote:

All I'm trying to get at with all my posts is that if we keep asking gw to fix the rules, theyre just going to keep doing what theyre doing.

GW isn't releasing new editions because the players are asking for anything. They are releasing new editions because they have, until now, been a sure fire way to increase an otherwise falling revenue. Even if the entire player base told them that the rules were great and no change needed to happen, they would still keep releasing new editions.

GW cannot win because it is painfully obvious the company is run by people who have little interest in gaming.

If they released a new model or BRB or codex and bothered to explain why, we may not always agree but could respect it if done from a gaming perspective rather than revenue generation (which we automatically assume).

No matter what you have to say, honest, good intentions, genuine attempt to help: if it is presented badly it will not be readily accepted. Since it appears that anything we have to say as customers is actively avoided "voice of customer" is lost and also their emotional "investment" into the company.

Love the phrase I see bouncing around from multiple companies "By gamers, for gamers". If only GW could do that.

I'd settle for "For Gamers!"

 azreal13 wrote:
I'd settle for "For Gamers!"

But we aren't gamers, we're "hobbyists" remember?

Players are no longer gamers, but "hobbyists"
You no longer have an "army" or a "force", you have a "collection" (of Citadel Miniatures)
You don't play the game, you "forge a narrative" and enjoy the "GW Experience". I'm pretty sure the 40k book even refers to 40k as a "cooperative experience" or some nonsense, rather than a wargame.

GW can tell me that's what I am all they like it won't matter.

I will remain mostly a potential customer until they grasp the fact that they are what I tell them to be, not the reverse.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I'd settle for "For Gamers!"

But we aren't gamers, we're "hobbyists" remember?

Players are no longer gamers, but "hobbyists"
You no longer have an "army" or a "force", you have a "collection" (of Citadel Miniatures)
You don't play the game, you "forge a narrative" and enjoy the "GW Experience". I'm pretty sure the 40k book even refers to 40k as a "cooperative experience" or some nonsense, rather than a wargame.

All of which is language designed to feed back into the idea that GW is not a rules-making company, not a game-making company, and not a story-making company, but a models-making company. It's a way to justify their shoddy editing, poor play-testing, atrocious game balance and laissez-faire attitude towards correcting their mistakes, which leads to requiring the players to do all of that work for them... which can work out fine if the only people you play with is a small circle of friends, but many (most?) players seem to play in local clubs or in circuits where there's a fairly steady influx of new players from different regions or different places, who may not be aware of the local house rules or local meta. So these players (both the new arrivals and the "locals") are constantly having to review their house rules and tone down, or tone up, their lists to maintain even a semblance of balance in their local meta.

40K is really the only game of its type that requires all of this futzing about, and that is entirely GW's fault.

 Psienesis wrote:
All of which is language designed to feed back into the idea that GW is not a rules-making company, not a game-making company, and not a story-making company, but a models-making company. It's a way to justify their shoddy editing, poor play-testing, atrocious game balance and laissez-faire attitude towards correcting their mistakes, which leads to requiring the players to do all of that work for them... which can work out fine if the only people you play with is a small circle of friends, but many (most?) players seem to play in local clubs or in circuits where there's a fairly steady influx of new players from different regions or different places, who may not be aware of the local house rules or local meta. So these players (both the new arrivals and the "locals") are constantly having to review their house rules and tone down, or tone up, their lists to maintain even a semblance of balance in their local meta.

40K is really the only game of its type that requires all of this futzing about, and that is entirely GW's fault.

Precisely. Everything about the way they present is IMO disparaging. If I buy a Tau Riptide, I'm not buying the model to field in my Tau Army, I'm adding it to my collection. I can pick from my collection for a battle, etc. it's disgusting. I think they seem to think the UK style of the gaming club is everywhere else; having to house rule things is fine (although not optimal) in an established club where you have "club rules" for league night and whatnot, because everyone agrees to them as part of the club and you can let new people know about it before they buy things.

In a largely pickup game crowd though as most stores in the US are, that doesn't work. It's very rare for a store to have its own set of "store rules", since you don't always get the same people coming in all the time and sometimes someone is just passing through or on vacation and happened to bring their miniatures, or they're visiting a new store because they're in the area. Hell I could even see a standard set of rules for leagues, but not every game is a "league" game especially at a store where you have a weekly "miniatures night" where people can show up to play.

 Peregrine wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
You can't dismiss any interpretation of the rules that's different from your own as a "house rule" because it's not. A house rule is specifically implemented by a gaming group, as opposed to how that gaming group interprets rules.

Of course I can dismiss it, because it IS a house rule. There is no amount of "interpretation" that will allow you to draw LOS from a Tau gun drone in 6th edition, you have to change the rule to do something that is not in any way included in the published rule. And that is a house rule.

The Line of Sight rule very specifically tells you that a model can only shoot what it can see. If you honestly don't have the common sense to draw line of sight from the Tau Gun Shield's guns rather than eyes (because it doesn't have eyes) then I would insist that you also can't draw line of sight from any demon model whatsoever - since they are immatereal and therefore incapable of having the actual biological entities of "eyes". Similarly tyranids probably don't have actual eyes as we would know them.

Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.

Except, you haven't refuted his assertions have you?

All you've done is argue an oversight in the rules is easily fixed by the application of a little logic and common sense. Something that wasn't really up for debate.

What you haven't done is acknowledge that any action you as a player, or group of players, do that deviate from the rules as written is a de facto house rule. Modifying the rules as written to better suit how you want the game to play is the living, breathing definition of a house rule.

Besides, if you wish to be really facetious, models don't have eyes, they're manufactured from inorganic materials and have no biological functions whatsoever.

KommissarKarl wrote:
Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.

The issue of LOS in itself isn't a problem, it's the point that the rules are vague so you have to interpret them, and demonstrating why rules should NOT be up to interpretation. That's the point. Nobody gives a flying feth about the LOS rule in particular, it's just to illustrate how having poorly-worded rules that are left to interpretation causes you to assume/interpret things a specific way, and then hope that others see it your way.

WayneTheGame wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.

The issue of LOS in itself isn't a problem, it's the point that the rules are vague so you have to interpret them, and demonstrating why rules should NOT be up to interpretation. That's the point. Nobody gives a flying feth about the LOS rule in particular, it's just to illustrate how having poorly-worded rules that are left to interpretation causes you to assume/interpret things a specific way, and then hope that others see it your way.

Well it's hard to reason with you since all of your assumptions are based on the premise that the wording is vague, presumably to a large enough extent for it to be an issue for you. I do not consider the rules overall to be vague, though I daresay I could find some instances of vagueness if I tried hard enough. Regardless a few people with the same opinion doesn't make it fact - unless you have actual objective evidence that a majority - or at least the majority of a large enough, statistically significant sample size - considers the 40k rulebook/army books to be vague and badly written, then all you are doing is shouting your own opinion over and over again.

KommissarKarl wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.

The issue of LOS in itself isn't a problem, it's the point that the rules are vague so you have to interpret them, and demonstrating why rules should NOT be up to interpretation. That's the point. Nobody gives a flying feth about the LOS rule in particular, it's just to illustrate how having poorly-worded rules that are left to interpretation causes you to assume/interpret things a specific way, and then hope that others see it your way.

Well it's hard to reason with you since all of your assumptions are based on the premise that the wording is vague, presumably to a large enough extent for it to be an issue for you. I do not consider the rules overall to be vague, though I daresay I could find some instances of vagueness if I tried hard enough. Regardless a few people with the same opinion doesn't make it fact - unless you have actual objective evidence that a majority - or at least the majority of a large enough, statistically significant sample size - considers the 40k rulebook/army books to be vague and badly written, then all you are doing is shouting your own opinion over and over again.

The eyes example was a factual example of something that was unclear, as the rules didn't explain what to do if the model doesn't have eyes. The example of psyker powers being 'dependent on mastery level' instead of 'equal to mastery level' was another.

Are you making a distinction between unclear and vague?
Do you think those examples aren't valid examples of something that is unclear/vague?

 snooggums wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.

The issue of LOS in itself isn't a problem, it's the point that the rules are vague so you have to interpret them, and demonstrating why rules should NOT be up to interpretation. That's the point. Nobody gives a flying feth about the LOS rule in particular, it's just to illustrate how having poorly-worded rules that are left to interpretation causes you to assume/interpret things a specific way, and then hope that others see it your way.

Well it's hard to reason with you since all of your assumptions are based on the premise that the wording is vague, presumably to a large enough extent for it to be an issue for you. I do not consider the rules overall to be vague, though I daresay I could find some instances of vagueness if I tried hard enough. Regardless a few people with the same opinion doesn't make it fact - unless you have actual objective evidence that a majority - or at least the majority of a large enough, statistically significant sample size - considers the 40k rulebook/army books to be vague and badly written, then all you are doing is shouting your own opinion over and over again.

The eyes example was a factual example of something that was unclear, as the rules didn't explain what to do if the model doesn't have eyes. The example of psyker powers being 'dependent on mastery level' instead of 'equal to mastery level' was another.

Are you making a distinction between unclear and vague?
Do you think those examples aren't valid examples of something that is unclear/vague?

I think you're equating "requires inference" with "unclear/vague".

KommissarKarl wrote:

 snooggums wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Obviously I'm being deliberately facetious, but the point is, so are you. There are plenty of flaws with 40k - it needs to be severely streamlined, and they need to make a lot more information more easily available. But what you're banging on about really isn't a problem.

The issue of LOS in itself isn't a problem, it's the point that the rules are vague so you have to interpret them, and demonstrating why rules should NOT be up to interpretation. That's the point. Nobody gives a flying feth about the LOS rule in particular, it's just to illustrate how having poorly-worded rules that are left to interpretation causes you to assume/interpret things a specific way, and then hope that others see it your way.

Well it's hard to reason with you since all of your assumptions are based on the premise that the wording is vague, presumably to a large enough extent for it to be an issue for you. I do not consider the rules overall to be vague, though I daresay I could find some instances of vagueness if I tried hard enough. Regardless a few people with the same opinion doesn't make it fact - unless you have actual objective evidence that a majority - or at least the majority of a large enough, statistically significant sample size - considers the 40k rulebook/army books to be vague and badly written, then all you are doing is shouting your own opinion over and over again.

The eyes example was a factual example of something that was unclear, as the rules didn't explain what to do if the model doesn't have eyes. The example of psyker powers being 'dependent on mastery level' instead of 'equal to mastery level' was another.

Are you making a distinction between unclear and vague?
Do you think those examples aren't valid examples of something that is unclear/vague?

I think you're equating "requires inference" with "unclear/vague".

If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.

Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths

KommissarKarl wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.

Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths

"The dog is brown." requires no inference.

If GW cannot be counted upon to write clear concise rules and attempt to balance their game, then I cannot be counted upon to drop $85 on gak rules (my opinion) or play games with their models.

When they are ready to change their stance on how the game is played and balanced I will be ready to play 40K.

 snooggums wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.

Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths

"The dog is brown." requires no inference.

Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to? Which dog is it? What do you mean by "brown"? How do you know it's a dog? How do you know that you and I have the same meaning of dog?

Which is the problem with the way GW writes rules, because they are going to assume that we know what they mean by "dog" and what they mean by "brown", and will provide little to no direction guiding us to understand their thought-process on how they intended those terms to be interpreted.

What they might do is add some clauses that provides some external parameters to help define the term, but will often be equally confusing. "The status of 'dog' is dependent upon it being a quadruped"... well, lots of Tyranids are quadrupeds. Are they dogs? Horses are quadrupeds. Are they dogs?

KommissarKarl wrote:

 snooggums wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.

Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths

"The dog is brown." requires no inference.

Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to?

The only dog, hence "the dog" rather than "a dog"

Which dog is it?

See above

What do you mean by "brown"?

It reflects the wavelengths of light that when observed by the human eye form the shade often described as brown, made from the interference of red, yellow and black (or red and green).

How do you know it's a dog?

The animal is of the canine persuasion, specifically Canis lupus familiaris.

How do you know that you and I have the same meaning of dog?

We are both speaking english.

I feel this is going in circles because of semantics.

@A Town Called Malus

All of that is far more detailed and specific than anything GW writes. If a Codex were written with that much definition of terms, then there wouldn't be half the problems there are.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 snooggums wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.

Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths

"The dog is brown." requires no inference.

Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to?

The only dog, hence "the dog" rather than "a dog"

You didn't say "the only dog", you said "the dog".

It reflects the wavelengths of light that when observed by the human eye form the shade often described as brown, made from the interference of red, yellow and black (or red and green).

You're defining colour using instances of colour. Colour is not the wavelength of electromagnetism that reflects off objects, it's our perceptions of those wavelengths. The very notion of colours is reletively modern, certainly people in ancient greece wouldn't understand what you meant by "brown".

The animal is of the canine persuasion, specifically Canis lupus familiaris.

That's another technical description. It's *your* technical description, you have no way of knowing that I share it.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 snooggums wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.

Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths

"The dog is brown." requires no inference.

Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to?

The only dog, hence "the dog" rather than "a dog"

You didn't say "the only dog", you said "the dog".

The dog implies that there is only one, or that the subject has already been defined.

It reflects the wavelengths of light that when observed by the human eye form the shade often described as brown, made from the interference of red, yellow and black (or red and green).

You're defining colour using instances of colour. Colour is not the wavelength of electromagnetism that reflects off objects, it's our perceptions of those wavelengths. The very notion of colours is reletively modern, certainly people in ancient greece wouldn't understand what you meant by "brown".

Hence why I said "when observed by the human eye". I am well aware of what colour is. I could also tell you that the Universe is beige.

Also your hypothesis that people in ancient Greece wouldn't know of colours is ridiculous and demonstrably false. Aristotle even came up with a theory of colours. He believed colours were sent by the gods as celestial rays (which when you think about it is quite remarkable that through complete guesswork he got reasonably close to the truth) and that the elements had colours associated with them.

And I wasn't aware that we were writing rules for, or explaining things to, the people of ancient Greece.

 Psienesis wrote:
Which is the problem with the way GW writes rules, because they are going to assume that we know what they mean by "dog" and what they mean by "brown", and will provide little to no direction guiding us to understand their thought-process on how they intended those terms to be interpreted.

No, the problem is GW writes rules explaining what to do with dogs, then leave out the parts that explain what to do with fish.

 snooggums wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Which is the problem with the way GW writes rules, because they are going to assume that we know what they mean by "dog" and what they mean by "brown", and will provide little to no direction guiding us to understand their thought-process on how they intended those terms to be interpreted.

No, the problem is GW writes rules explaining what to do with dogs, then leave out the parts that explain what to do with fish.

And also makes taking cats a no brainer over both dogs and fish. 7 lives OP GG GW.

KommissarKarl wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 snooggums wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If it were not unclear or vague it would not require interference as it would be explicitly said what the rule was. Interference is a natural consequence of unclear/vague.

Inference is a natural consequence of language. If language didn't require inference, it'd be maths

"The dog is brown." requires no inference.

Yes it does. Which dog are you referring to?

The only dog, hence "the dog" rather than "a dog"

You didn't say "the only dog", you said "the dog".

It reflects the wavelengths of light that when observed by the human eye form the shade often described as brown, made from the interference of red, yellow and black (or red and green).

You're defining colour using instances of colour. Colour is not the wavelength of electromagnetism that reflects off objects, it's our perceptions of those wavelengths. The very notion of colours is reletively modern, certainly people in ancient greece wouldn't understand what you meant by "brown".

The animal is of the canine persuasion, specifically Canis lupus familiaris.

That's another technical description. It's *your* technical description, you have no way of knowing that I share it.

Pot, do you even kettle?