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.

Aside from the more questionable writing decisions of GW, you had certain casual players arguing rules "issues" like how their immobilized skimmer, sitting like a large fat rock in a farm field, somehow should receive a 4+ cover save from Jink.

That's not sloppy rules writing from GW. If you can scrape together two brain cells the solution should be obvious. It borders on embarrassing they had to FAQ it for the wider playerbase! That's why a lot of people like to play with old friends, or family, and stay away the hell away from the greater 40k community. Most rules and balance "issues" simply vanish or get taken care of promptly once you're around the right people.

The community is both the single biggest incentive and disincentive to participating in 40k. Not the ruleset or codex balance. Anyway, here's a far better epic rant than I can come up with alone. Fun for a little different take on things.

http://www.unrememberedlegion.com/2014/10/07/youre-not-a-40k-player-youre-a-wargaming-enthusiast/

Yoyoyo wrote:
Aside from the more questionable writing decisions of GW, you had certain casual players arguing rules "issues" like how their immobilized skimmer, sitting like a large fat rock in a farm field, somehow should receive a 4+ cover save from Jink.

That's not sloppy rules writing from GW.

Except that it is.

Yoyoyo wrote:
If you can scrape together two brain cells the solution should be obvious.

Anyone with two brain cells should also be able to work out that if a wraithknight is engaged with some guardsmen, you can easily shoot it without ever endangering them (hence ignoring the rule prohibiting you from firing into combat).

So, are you happy for me to shoot your engaged wraithknight?

Who knows? If you're the kind of guy to counter a very basic and obvious conclusion by trying to cloud the issue with a completely unrelated counter-argument, I'd probably just avoid playing with you.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Aside from the more questionable writing decisions of GW, you had certain casual players arguing rules "issues" like how their immobilized skimmer, sitting like a large fat rock in a farm field, somehow should receive a 4+ cover save from Jink.

That's not sloppy rules writing from GW. If you can scrape together two brain cells the solution should be obvious. It borders on embarrassing they had to FAQ it for the wider playerbase! That's why a lot of people like to play with old friends, or family, and stay away the hell away from the greater 40k community. Most rules and balance "issues" simply vanish or get taken care of promptly once you're around the right people.

The community is both the single biggest incentive and disincentive to participating in 40k. Not the ruleset or codex balance. Anyway, here's a far better epic rant than I can come up with alone. Fun for a little different take on things.

http://www.unrememberedlegion.com/2014/10/07/youre-not-a-40k-player-youre-a-wargaming-enthusiast/

Except in this example, it's not that people don't understand how the rule should be played, it's people trying to exploit the shoddily written rules to their advantage. If it was written correctly in the first place, there would be no issues.

This thread seems to have a lot of comments painting players who don't simply shrug off game issues as being stupid.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Who knows? If you're the kind of guy to counter a very basic and obvious conclusion by trying to cloud the issue with a completely unrelated counter-argument, I'd probably just avoid playing with you.

The argument is in no way unrelated.

You're saying that logic should override the core rules. I'm pointing out that, if you accept that, you also have to accept the many other instances in the rules where logic is ignored.

Also, I see that you've avoided my question - probably because you know your own argument has fallen apart.

We shrug off issues and resolve conflicts in everything from rec sports to drinking games to Monopoly.

Rules lawyering and lack of etiquette are huge breaches of the social contract in these games.

Apparently 40k is an exception.

In my experience, gamers rules lawyer EVERY game.

I think a major problem is that the intent of the authors is not to make balanced, competitive rulesets but rather something that will assist in marketing miniatures and selling toy soldiers.

Indeed, I would say that "lawyering" impacts everything humans do. Of course the amount that lawyering has an impact, or that people recognize it, largely depends on how ambiguous the rules of whatever thing you're talking about.

And then the goal of the organizing body has an impact too. You could imagine the organizers of major soccer/futbol events strive to create the greatest level of balance and equality as possible. With 40k, that obviously isn't the case given the constant (and increasing) rate GW puts out rules publications, the constantly-fluxing style in which they add new elements (i.e. shifting to formations, CADs, formation bonuses, no HQs, etc. etc.), and the natural benefit GW garners in keeping the game in a state of imbalance (I would argue that they would be better served by perfect imbalance, but that's a different topic).

EDIT: I agree with what Sotek said.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Rules lawyering and lack of etiquette are huge breaches of the social contract in these games.

By "rules lawyering" you appear to mean "following the rules".

Martel732 wrote:
In my experience, gamers rules lawyer EVERY game.

It's not like they can shut off their personality. But some places are going to find poor behaviour more difficult to address than others. A store kicking out a paying customer is difficult. Kicking out an over-competitive guy, who's been aggressively slide-tackling girls in pick-up soccer at the park, is hard not to do.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Aside from the more questionable writing decisions of GW, you had certain casual players arguing rules "issues" like how their immobilized skimmer, sitting like a large fat rock in a farm field, somehow should receive a 4+ cover save from Jink.

That's not sloppy rules writing from GW. If you can scrape together two brain cells the solution should be obvious. It borders on embarrassing they had to FAQ it for the wider playerbase! That's why a lot of people like to play with old friends, or family, and stay away the hell away from the greater 40k community. Most rules and balance "issues" simply vanish or get taken care of promptly once you're around the right people.

The community is both the single biggest incentive and disincentive to participating in 40k. Not the ruleset or codex balance. Anyway, here's a far better epic rant than I can come up with alone. Fun for a little different take on things.

http://www.unrememberedlegion.com/2014/10/07/youre-not-a-40k-player-youre-a-wargaming-enthusiast/

If we start applying logic to cover saves then we might as well re-write the entire rule set.
You can't just say "just use your common sense" because so much of this game's rules don't follow common sense and you'll end up house-ruling everything until it's not the same game. It would be better if the actual game designers did that work for you and wrote the rules...which is...kind of their job.

In my experience, players who don't evaluate the rules are the poorest of players usually hiding behind the "just having fun*" barrier.

I recommend reading the Warmachine rules and some unit entries. You will find every defining term used very accurately allowing for no interpretation beyond what has been specifically written, such as within, completely within, while benefitting from, etc.

Casual play style, such as letting your little brother pass go and collect $400 dollars, should be the option, not the default as is the case with 40k. Games are built on abstractions, so application of true reality logic may not always coincide with actual intent.

*Fun means being a scrub, as defined by Sirlin. Not a new player but and actively ignorant player willingly imposing restrictions beyond the rules and enforcing others to hold to such "code of honor". If I pay $85 for rules, I expect to follow them as written, not as suggestions. Otherwise, playing make believe with man dolls is free of charge.

 TheKbob wrote:
In my experience, players who don't evaluate the rules are the poorest of players usually hiding behind the "just having fun*" barrier.

I recommend reading the Warmachine rules and some unit entries. You will find every defining term used very accurately allowing for no interpretation beyond what has been specifically written, such as within, completely within, while benefitting from, etc.

Casual play style, such as letting your little brother pass go and collect $400 dollars, should be the option, not the default as is the case with 40k. Games are built on abstractions, so application of true reality logic may not always coincide with actual intent.

*Fun means being a scrub, as defined by Sirlin. Not a new player but and actively ignorant player willingly imposing restrictions beyond the rules and enforcing others to hold to such "code of honor". If I pay $85 for rules, I expect to follow them as written, not as suggestions. Otherwise, playing make believe with man dolls is free of charge.

$85 for rules every two years (plus all appropriate army-specific rule purchases)

 Accolade wrote:

$85 for rules every two years (plus all appropriate army-specific rule purchases)

If all folks want is a framework of suggestions to play by, I'll gladly become a Grindark Miniatures™©® Consultant and offer a loose framework of guidance every two years for half that price and issue updates on my guidance based upon how temperament was after my morning eggs and coffee on a semi-unregular basis.

Don't wait, act now. Savings are real!

Yoyoyo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
In my experience, gamers rules lawyer EVERY game.

It's not like they can shut off their personality. But some places are going to find poor behaviour more difficult to address than others. A store kicking out a paying customer is difficult. Kicking out an over-competitive guy, who's been aggressively slide-tackling girls in pick-up soccer at the park, is hard not to do.

Rules lawyering is very different from physical assault of women in a park. And GW frequently writes rules that REQUIRE lawyering because they are ambiguous. They probably think they are being clever or something.

Martel732 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
In my experience, gamers rules lawyer EVERY game.

It's not like they can shut off their personality. But some places are going to find poor behaviour more difficult to address than others. A store kicking out a paying customer is difficult. Kicking out an over-competitive guy, who's been aggressively slide-tackling girls in pick-up soccer at the park, is hard not to do.

Rules lawyering is very different from physical assault of women in a park. And GW frequently writes rules that REQUIRE lawyering because they are ambiguous. They probably think they are being clever or something.

I think part of the problem is the 40k rules seem to be written from a conversation standpoint when it should be an instruction manual. The reason the rules are ambiguous is because of the language used as though it's someone talking to his mates at the pub instead of laying out the rules of the game.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I disagree about the focus being lost on gaming, as I don't draw conclusions from a single official statement made by someone who is heavily business oriented and most likely not very well in touch with the game design department of the big company that is Games Workshop.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/

Thier first sentance speaks volumes, nothing about thier games or game design as part of thier profit model.

They only mention they make the best, high quality models and miniatures. several times they point that out.

They mention 'thier games' twice. In one sentance they define the true function of thier hobby centers, which are for recruitment not sales. The other sentance states the games are a 'key part', but they never state they make or design them. Nor is thier any mention on quality of the games they make.

So, I agree with Tigramans and apparently GW themselves, the focus on gaming is lost, it is a part but alas that is it.

I said I don't believe their focus on gaming is lost completely due to official statements stating so as they are rarely the complete truth, and you present me an official statement to counter. Hmh.

Well, I still don't believe their focus on gaming is lost completely even if an official statement says so, as they are rarely the complete truth. The day they only make models and -nothing- else is the day their focus on gaming is lost.

Martel732 wrote:
Rules lawyering is very different from physical assault of women in a park. And GW frequently writes rules that REQUIRE lawyering because they are ambiguous. They probably think they are being clever or something.

A slide tackle is not physical assault. It can piss people off though as despite being legal, it's an aggressive play and isn't really appropriate outside a somewhat competitive setting.

 MWHistorian wrote:

If we start applying logic to cover saves then we might as well re-write the entire rule set.
You can't just say "just use your common sense" because so much of this game's rules don't follow common sense and you'll end up house-ruling everything until it's not the same game. It would be better if the actual game designers did that work for you and wrote the rules...which is...kind of their job.

Marine 1: Best hide behind this cover brother.
Marine 2: Yes let us.
*both strip out of their power armour to hide in some shrubs"

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

Marine 1: Best hide behind this cover brother.
Marine 2: Yes let us.
*both strip out of their power armour to hide in some shrubs"

Well, that's what they told everyone...

 RunicFIN wrote:
The day they only make models and -nothing- else is the day their focus on gaming is lost.

Competitive tournaments with organizers and cool casual players can both make 40k work. There is a lot of enthusiasm out there and it's not hard to find.

What produces grief is being in a tryhard environment, inside local metas too small to have an organizing body, dealing with rules that open the door to lawyering, playing against opponents that relentlessly powerlist and fight tooth and nail for shady advantages, while simultaneously dealing with the fact that GW's publishing habits leave certain armies in the dust for years.

Considering the former two groups mentioned seem to deal passably well with GW's rather loosey-goosey rules and game balance, you have to ask what makes the latter group so special they can't cope. I figure it has to come down to a lack of cooperation in the social environment between players. That's why they expect a flawless ruleset and tight game balance to compensate in return. With somebody like my brother, immobilized Jink ruling? So easy. With somebody like the guy above? Well, be prepared for a very long argument.

Despite the tight balance of Warmachine, I've read about people quitting simply because they didn't like the other players involved. Too competitive and playing gotcha with newer players by referring to subtle quirks in the well-crafted rules. Certain people can apparently find a way to ruin anything. So it's not a sureshot fix to deliver a good experience either -- in the end, it all comes down to the people you're with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bonus joke: http://penny-arcade.respondcreate.com/images/comics/1163731463_kt4V2-L.jpeg

Yoyoyo wrote:
Competitive tournaments with organizers and cool casual players can both make 40k work. There is a lot of enthusiasm out there and it's not hard to find.

This is what usually gets lost in the noise online.

And for all the griping about Warhammer prices (which I agree are expensive and keep rising), almost every time I go to my FLGS, I see people carting out boxes with $200, $300, $400 of models and hobby supplies. They are excited about the game, about the hobby. If you just looked online, you'd think all these 40k-centric stores would be out of business and nobody played the game.

 Talys wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Competitive tournaments with organizers and cool casual players can both make 40k work. There is a lot of enthusiasm out there and it's not hard to find.

This is what usually gets lost in the noise online.

And for all the griping about Warhammer prices (which I agree are expensive and keep rising), almost every time I go to my FLGS, I see people carting out boxes with $200, $300, $400 of models and hobby supplies. They are excited about the game, about the hobby. If you just looked online, you'd think all these 40k-centric stores would be out of business and nobody played the game.

Yeah sure the odd people still spend that much money, but GW profits are falling quite quickly, so clearly people are leaving the game.

 Talys wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Competitive tournaments with organizers and cool casual players can both make 40k work. There is a lot of enthusiasm out there and it's not hard to find.

This is what usually gets lost in the noise online.

And for all the griping about Warhammer prices (which I agree are expensive and keep rising), almost every time I go to my FLGS, I see people carting out boxes with $200, $300, $400 of models and hobby supplies. They are excited about the game, about the hobby. If you just looked online, you'd think all these 40k-centric stores would be out of business and nobody played the game.

There are still people who find enjoyment in 40k. Why I don't know, but that's their choice. I might speak vehemently against GW and 40k but I've never said that someone who enjoyed 40k was stupid or an idiot for liking it. The fact GW's sales are slowly declining means that less people are falling into that category though.

 vipoid wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Aside from the more questionable writing decisions of GW, you had certain casual players arguing rules "issues" like how their immobilized skimmer, sitting like a large fat rock in a farm field, somehow should receive a 4+ cover save from Jink.

That's not sloppy rules writing from GW.

Except that it is.

Do things that obvious really need to be put in a rulebook? I think GW is reasonable in expecting people to use their brains, if they had to cover all such obvious nonsense, the rulebook would be twice as large.




Really people, how hard can it be to just be a reasonable nice person? When a question about the rules comes up, work it out on friendly terms, make a compromise or just assume that when it is not explicitly mentioned in the rules as being allowed, that it is not allowed.
40k rules are not nearly as bad as some here make it out to be, they are more comprehensive than 90% of rulesets I have seen. There are so many people out there playing 40k without ever running into issues, you can do it too. Just use your common sense.

If you want to complain about GW, fine, but do so about their ridiculous prices, about how some codices do poorly compared to others or something else that is actually worth complaining about. Don't complain about TFGs exploiting gaps in the rules, because the problem there is with the players, not GW. No matter how well one writes a set of rules, people are always going to find little gaps and exploits. Just stop doing that, be nice to your opponent (it is just a silly game with toy soldiers after all) and be happy GW actually bothers to fix such gaps, because most companies don't.

Blame the player not the game argument again.

You'd still be wrong if the game was free. The fact that it's $85 for a rule set that includes a ton of valid loopholes and issues that can have multiple, fair interpretations is the problem.

Go read the rules to other games and see actual technical writing employed. Warhammer 40k is written poorly and game balance is entirely on the game designer, never the player unless actively asked for feedback (Wyrd open beta).

Poor players and scrubs will be in any game. Adding bad rules on top of it is only making that fact worse.

 Iron_Captain wrote:


Really people, how hard can it be to just be a reasonable nice person? When a question about the rules comes up, work it out on friendly terms, make a compromise or just assume that when it is not explicitly mentioned in the rules as being allowed, that it is not allowed.
40k rules are not nearly as bad as some here make it out to be, they are more comprehensive than 90% of rulesets I have seen. There are so many people out there playing 40k without ever running into issues, you can do it too. Just use your common sense.

If you want to complain about GW, fine, but do so about their ridiculous prices, about how some codices do poorly compared to others or something else that is actually worth complaining about. Don't complain about TFGs exploiting gaps in the rules, because the problem there is with the players, not GW. No matter how well one writes a set of rules, people are always going to find little gaps and exploits. Just stop doing that, be nice to your opponent (it is just a silly game with toy soldiers after all) and be happy GW actually bothers to fix such gaps, because most companies don't.

Well, there are two camps --

One believes that a rule book should be the equivalent of the logic coding of a video game, where everything that could happen is ruled upon so that there is no ambiguity or interpretation.

Another believes that 40k is like an RPG, and that making things work the way you want it to is more important than what's in a book anyways.

I think that most real players are somewhere in between, and a more flexible than online forums would seem to indicate!

"One believes that a rule book should be the equivalent of the logic coding of a video game, where everything that could happen is ruled upon so that there is no ambiguity or interpretation"

That would make it a rule book, yes, not a suggestion book.