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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Do things that obvious really need to be put in a rulebook?

Well, yes. They're rules. By definition, they should contain everything you need to know in how to play the game, and consequently, how to resolve any issues by not being vague or ambiguous.

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.

The first problem with this statement is the underhanded shot at anyone who thinks the rules need improving by implying they're not using their brains. Good work. I see you must also be a super nice person that empathises with people well.

The second problem is that it is absolutely false that the rulebook would be need be to bigger, let alone twice as big. In fact, the shortest gander at other rulesets would show you that some of the best written games do so in half the page count 40k does.

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.

You're assuming people calling for better rules are total donkey-caves and insufferable, annoying hardcore gamers. I'm sure you couldn't be farther from the truth. Being a reasonable person and carrying on a game with the most sensible solution is not mutually exclusive from asking for and discussing a better ruleset. 40k, of all the rulesets I've played, is the largest, most complex, offers the least amount of tactical depth, and contains the most amount of unclear, vague, or conflicting rules. Hell, I think I'd rate Firestorm V1 higher than 6th/7th ed, and that's saying something.

There are so many people out there playing 40k without ever running into issues, you can do it too. Just use your common sense.

And there are plenty of other people who run into plenty of issues. What's your point?

Further, common sense may not apply if two people have differing ideas of what common sense should be. Your line of thinking strikes me very much that you only consider your rationale as the appropriate or correct way of doing things, rather than understanding that different people understand problems differently, thus why the rules should always strive to be as clear and concise as possible.

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.

And now you're telling people what to complain about while entirely misunderstanding the argument and points being made?

Go and read the arguments again. If GW bothered to write clear and concice rules, many issues would disappear. Yes, donkey-caves will continue to be donkey-caves, but the amount and severity of the potential exploits these people can abuse gets reduced, which is lessens a potential headache for everyone, and having clear rules means that even the most casual, half-drunk night of beer hammer goes smoothly with nary a sour taste from having to 4+ a rules dispute.

This is really simple stuff to understand. Only with 40k do I see this attitude that GW is fine and the players are bad, instead of the other way around.

*Edit* Then again, I'm almost positive no one is disagreeing that the rules couldn't be better. I'm also positive even the most vocal anti-GW, haterade drinking, horse of the apocalypse riding, doom covered nay-sayer still understands that enjoying a game of 40k is a two way experience with another human being and thus requires some degree of compromise, negotiation, and a sprinkle of meh to move on past whatever snag you hit. None of that means the complaints aren't valid though and resorting to insults on either side doesn't help much.

Seriously, the whole blame the players mentality is ridiculous. The simple fact is in almost any other game you don't get the level of people asking about rules, finding loopholes in rules, ambiguities etc because the rules are written well in the first place. I don't care how 'casual' your game is - a rulebook should have minimal ambiguity. Have you been to YMDC? Notice how other threads for other games on here are just called 'rules questions'? Because most games have the answers in the rules.

And it's not like the rules are cheap. I can make armies in other games for the amount the rules cost in 40k. It's inexcusable. Add to that the fact they very rarely even FAQ and Erratta stuff, it's entirely GWs fault. Stop blaming players for GWs cock ups.

Blacksails, have an exalt.

I remember getting into Firestorm Armada on its release year. Rulebook was dirt cheap for a nice hardcover, full cover product. I think it was sub $25CAD, but my memory is failing me. The rules were super short and simple. The downside was that things were explained particularly well, so there was a lot of confusion, particularly with fighters/wings. But hell, considering it was one of their first rulesets ever, and given the cost, simplicity, and all-in-one nature of the ruleset, I'll forgive it for being pretty vague on many occasions.

40k on the other hand, is well over $100 for rules plus codex, and has 20+ years of development behind it.

You'd think they'd have this rules thing nailed down by now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

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.

Once again, it's obvious that I should be able to shoot a wraithknight if it's only engaged with infantry models. Are you saying you'd be fine with that too? If the answer is 'no' then obviously you're just an idiot and not using your brain.

It's obvious that models that run should move further than ones which stop to fight. So, I take it you're happy for me to add 3d6 to my run moves? If the answer is 'no' then obviously you're just an idiot and not using your brain.

When you start applying common sense to GW rules, when do you stop?

 Talys wrote:
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.

This is a lot closer to the true origins of 40k, where Warhammer was designed as a game because more miniatures could be sold in a tabletop wargame than as a unique RPG character. This hardcore e-sports style obsession with balance is something that's a lot more modern than 1980's goofiness with guitar-toting noise marines.

But yes, reasonable people can usually be flexible, and make just about everything work. And unreasonable people can break even the finest of game systems. Nothing new under the sun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is an article about the early days of the company.

http://www.unpluggedgames.co.uk/2015/02/13/games-workshop-the-inside-story-part-one/

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Talys wrote:
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.

This is a lot closer to the true origins of 40k, where Warhammer was designed as a game because more miniatures could be sold in a tabletop wargame than as a unique RPG character. This hardcore e-sports style obsession with balance is something that's a lot more modern than 1980's goofiness with guitar-toting noise marines.

But yes, reasonable people can usually be flexible, and make just about everything work. And unreasonable people can break even the finest of game systems. Nothing new under the sun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is an article about the early days of the company.

http://www.unpluggedgames.co.uk/2015/02/13/games-workshop-the-inside-story-part-one/

A lot of us were still playing during the early days of the company. They have moved far beyond what the original game is, it practically no longer applies.

Ever since 3rd edition, you could hear people getting...verbal about the state of the game. You could probably search far back enough in Dakka forum history and see that these threads existed before the e-sport thing going on right now.

40k is not an RPG, and hasn't been for quite some time. Notice the lack of a moderator mentioned anywhere in the rulebook.

Why don't you try arguing the point presented? He's right, it is common sense that you should be able to shoot at a wraithlord while it's in melee. It's a huge model that towers over everything else, why shouldn't I be able to shoot it?
Why should my Alpha Legion CSM have to challenge enemies? It doesn't make sense to me.
Reasonable doesn't equal flexible. Often it means quite the opposite. My co-workers are some of the most reasonable people on the planet, but I would never call them flexible. Scientists rarely are in my experience.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

I wonder why WMH doesn't have nearly as many rules lawyers despite being more competitive and having a far higher % of "TFG" players. Most likely because there aren't holes in the rules big enough to drive a truck through. It is not the players' fault that GW can't be bothered to playtest their rules and change a few words here or add an extra sentence there to remove the ambiguity. For example with grav guns, just add a sentence stating "jink saves can still be taken against grav weapons". For the eldar serpent shield, a diagram of the serpent showing the firing arc in the codex would prevent tournaments and players ruling it 15 different ways. How long would that take to do in photoshop? 5-10 minutes? Is that really too much to ask when I'm spending $50 on a codex that will be useless in 2 years? All of these smaller companies with much lower budgets and much cheaper rulebooks manage to playtest their rules and remove most of the ambiguity or fix it in an FAQ almost immediately. When PP released Bradigus, he was borderline broken and made for some very un fun games. What did they do? Released an errata shortly after that fixed the one aspect that made him broken. The wave serpent has been broken for 2 years. What did GW do? Told the players that if something was overpowered, they should just not use that model for 2-4 years until a new codex is released or forge the narrative harder. I'm not sure whether I find it humorous or sad that people scramble to defend GW for things like that.

Akiasura wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

A lot of us were still playing during the early days of the company. They have moved far beyond what the original game is, it practically no longer applies.

Ever since 3rd edition, you could hear people getting...verbal about the state of the game. You could probably search far back enough in Dakka forum history and see that these threads existed before the e-sport thing going on right now.

40k is not an RPG, and hasn't been for quite some time. Notice the lack of a moderator mentioned anywhere in the rulebook.

Why don't you try arguing the point presented? He's right, it is common sense that you should be able to shoot at a wraithlord while it's in melee. It's a huge model that towers over everything else, why shouldn't I be able to shoot it?
Why should my Alpha Legion CSM have to challenge enemies? It doesn't make sense to me.
Reasonable doesn't equal flexible. Often it means quite the opposite. My co-workers are some of the most reasonable people on the planet, but I would never call them flexible. Scientists rarely are in my experience.

There was no GM in Rogue Trader, either, which was practically a recipe book for an RPG. 80's style goofiness with guitar-toting noise marines is a perfect way to describe it. It's a goofy game that has weird rules that often don't make sense, but I still find that it's as fun as it was in RT, when army lists were made up by gaming groups.

Personally, the amount of time I spend on 40k has waxed and waned over the years, but I have always loved the fluff, models, and at least in some aspects, the game. I love the 2-4 40k game nights I have a month (with friends). I wouldn't trade it for anything.

 Talys wrote:


There was no GM in Rogue Trader, either, which was practically a recipe book for an RPG.

Page 6 of the Rogue Trader rulebook

"To fight a Warhammer 40,000 game you will need an extra person called the gamemaster, usually referred to simply as the GM. He will act as the umpire or referee, and it is his task to enforce the rules of the game; interpreting them where necessary. The GM should make sure that the players have sufficient dice, pencils, paper, and any other items needed during play"

 Talys wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

A lot of us were still playing during the early days of the company. They have moved far beyond what the original game is, it practically no longer applies.

Ever since 3rd edition, you could hear people getting...verbal about the state of the game. You could probably search far back enough in Dakka forum history and see that these threads existed before the e-sport thing going on right now.

40k is not an RPG, and hasn't been for quite some time. Notice the lack of a moderator mentioned anywhere in the rulebook.

Why don't you try arguing the point presented? He's right, it is common sense that you should be able to shoot at a wraithlord while it's in melee. It's a huge model that towers over everything else, why shouldn't I be able to shoot it?
Why should my Alpha Legion CSM have to challenge enemies? It doesn't make sense to me.
Reasonable doesn't equal flexible. Often it means quite the opposite. My co-workers are some of the most reasonable people on the planet, but I would never call them flexible. Scientists rarely are in my experience.

There was no GM in Rogue Trader, either, which was practically a recipe book for an RPG. 80's style goofiness with guitar-toting noise marines is a perfect way to describe it. It's a goofy game that has weird rules that often don't make sense, but I still find that it's as fun as it was in RT, when army lists were made up by gaming groups.

Personally, the amount of time I spend on 40k has waxed and waned over the years, but I have always loved the fluff, models, and at least in some aspects, the game. I love the 2-4 40k game nights I have a month (with friends). I wouldn't trade it for anything.

There was indeed a GM in Rogue Trader. Are you sure you aren't thinking of Necromunda or one of the specialist games?

It's great you enjoy the games, and they used to be goofy, but that isn't really the point at hand. I still play GorkaMorka and Necromunda, though I have been out of 40k this year despite owning a massive collection of minis. I find WMH to be a lot more fun if I want a game, since 40k always breaks down into a rules dispute at some point. These are the same people I play all of my games with, including Necromunda, so I wouldn't call them unreasonable (specialist games require a lot of houserules).

Someone claimed the rules being loose is fine, because common sense should lead reasonable people to find what the rules should be.
Counter examples were brought up.
They were not addressed.

Another point I forgot to mention about those companies with less revenue, a lower budget to pay rules authors and (MUCH) cheaper rulebooks, they're usually on their first or second edition and <10 years of writing rules. It boggles the mind that GW can still be putting out rules with this many contradictions and holes in them after nearly 30 years, 7 editions, by far the largest budget and revenue and the highest cost. It's such a difficult feat that only the great, infallible GW could manage to pull it off. If anything, the GW rules have gotten progressively worse despite getting more money thrown at their production and their price tag increasing at many times the rate of inflation.

Like the whole deepstrike assault with FMC has gotten so bafflingly bad, I feel bad for people with daemonkin who just encounter the two turns before charge.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talys wrote:


There was no GM in Rogue Trader, either, which was practically a recipe book for an RPG.

Page 6 of the Rogue Trader rulebook

"To fight a Warhammer 40,000 game you will need an extra person called the gamemaster, usually referred to simply as the GM. He will act as the umpire or referee, and it is his task to enforce the rules of the game; interpreting them where necessary. The GM should make sure that the players have sufficient dice, pencils, paper, and any other items needed during play"

Sorry, I just couldn't help it

All of these issues with the rules just come back to the cost the game operates under these days. With high cost comes high expectations. GW seems to meets these expectations at times with its models, which very often do a good job of really putting the plastic molding system to its maximum potential. However, GW seems to think its rules are just as good as its models, and this is where their biggest mistake lies.

We can all probably agree that GW puts some serious investment in their miniature production capabilities, and in the artists that design their models. I do not think the same can be said for the rules. They have been continually recycled, often cobbled together with not much more than "this combination should probably work well." Going back to Jervis Johnson's comments about the design of the Imperial Knights very clearly shows this. This system of non-professional rule design would be fine if GW charged what their re-harshed, re-iterated rules were worth. But they don't. You pay for the art, yes, and you pay for the design of the books. But the rules have barely any investment in resources, and yet people are charged huge amounts of money for them. Look at Codex: Militarum Tempestus, a codex that is entirely inferior to its core book, sold a month before the release of C:AM just to draw in customers that are either compulsive buyers or not knowledgable about the army book system for 40k. And somehow the Fantasy Flight Dark Heresy books, huge tombs with vast amounts of rules, fluff and art are priced about the same or less than the individual 40k army books? Are you joking GW?

The rules are pimped out as a revenue generator for the game, and it really frustrates people. It is generating significant complaints because for all you pay for the rules in the books, you don't get much in value. But don't worry! The rules will soon be invalid and you can buy the next set, and then *maybe* some of the issues will be addressed! Not all of them though, we gotta keep you clamoring for the next version. WH40k 10th edition, here we come!

I just had a terrible thought - what if the total absence of regular, and meaningful, FAQs and Errata in recent years is down to the fact they would undermine the ability to regurgitate the various books at an increased rate?

That would make all those people who (jokingly) said GW would start charging for FAQs bang on...

Now I need to check how tight my tinfoil hat is on.

I love a good spice weasel reference.

 Blacksails wrote:
Now I need to check how tight my tinfoil hat is on.

If it isn't impairing circulation, it's too loose.

Except that "people leaving the game" isn't the reason for GWs net profits going downwards as there are now more players of 40k than there ever have been. The factual, impactful reasons have been analyzed and listed by people who actually have a clue ( instead of your armchair economics ) in vaurious articles, of which none are "people leaving the game." Talk about talking out of your arse huh?

I would list the reasons of which there are 4 major ones, none having nothing to do with players, but thats offtopic and someone would be eager to disagree with facts no doubt because hey, its fun being wrong.

Right, thanks. Much better now. Your post makes more sense with that adjustment.

Joking aside, I'm not going to assume GW consciously made this decision, but at the same time...I'm not ruling it out either.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Except that "people leaving the game" isn't the reason for GWs net profits goikg downwards as there are now more players of 40k than there ever have been. The factual, impactful reasons have been analyzed and listed by people who actually have a clue ( instead of your armchair economics ) in vaurious articles, of which none are "people leaving the game." Talk about talking out of your arse huh?

I would list the reasons of which there are 4 major ones, none having nothing to do with players, but thats offtopic and someone would be eager to disagree with facts no doubt because hey, its fun being wrong.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what data do you have that says that there are more 40k players now than there have ever been? I can only point to anecdotal evidence about declines I have witnessed, so I am curious what your information is that says it is the reverse.

 RunicFIN wrote:
there are now more players of 40k than there ever have been.

I would love a source for this claim.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Except that "people leaving the game" isn't the reason for GWs net profits goikg downwards as there are now more players of 40k than there ever have been. The factual, impactful reasons have been analyzed and listed by people who actually have a clue ( instead of your armchair economics ) in vaurious articles, of which none are "people leaving the game." Talk about talking out of your arse huh?

I would list the reasons of which there are 4 major ones, none having nothing to do with players, but thats offtopic and someone would be eager to disagree with facts no doubt because hey, its fun being wrong.

Forgive me, your track record in economics threads is.. dubious? at best.

Soooo..

Citation needed.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Except that "people leaving the game" isn't the reason for GWs net profits goikg downwards as there are now more players of 40k than there ever have been. The factual, impactful reasons have been analyzed and listed by people who actually have a clue ( instead of your armchair economics ) in vaurious articles, of which none are "people leaving the game." Talk about talking out of your arse huh?

I would list the reasons of which there are 4 major ones, none having nothing to do with players, but thats offtopic and someone would be eager to disagree with facts no doubt because hey, its fun being wrong.

We have hard numbers showing that people are leaving. At least four annual reports show declining sales during a period of the highest volume of highest priced products to date rolling out.

In fact, "more players of 40k than there ever have been" would fly in the face of current data, so you'd have to support your argument versus the opposite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:


Forgive me, your track record in economics threads is.. dubious? at best.

Soooo..

Citation needed.

Jinx

Let's also remember that prior to the last financial report, Runic claimed with total certainty that GW's sales would increase.

Look at how that turned out.

For all your supposed intellect, its amazing how poorly you recognize trolling. And to answer your question beforehand, yes, from the start till the end, and basically having to draw you a map is disappointing.

Also, decreased sales doesnt translate to people leaving a game. If someone cant even grasp this then talking about the subject is quite moot. But refer to my post before and use the search if you want to know the actual reasons of which 2 / 4 major ones actually have nothing to do with GW, and of which only one has to do with players, and even that one is linked to global economy instead of players going "I quit!"- sorry, just a a fact. But thats the last of this subtopic from me.

I'm sure we'd all love for you to bless us with your superior intellect and explain to us drooling morons the reasons why GW is failing and how falling sales actually means rising sales.

Had to say I really appreciate and value you people who suggested being reasonable. Unfortunately you always have the neckbeard asperger type here and there, who are just unable to organize their 40K gaming into a functioning entirety, and for some reason just cant deal with pretty much anything.

Meanwhile the rest of us have fun games, have no match destroying issues with other players or the rules, be it in groups OR tournaments even if they are abroad with strangers.

Go figure.

I say let them work it out on their own, their reaction to any suggestions is no.jpeg - because ofcourse it is.

Maybe I will design a perfectly balanced competitive game, where two male players race to see who can be the first to pound their nuts flat with a hammer. You can choose from one of three factions. The ruleset will be very clear and every faction has been painstakingly balanced in terms of mass, striking area and leverage so that your nut-pounding tool leaves no player at a disadvantage. May the best man win! I'm sure a few of you in this thread would probably love it.

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm sure we'd all love for you to bless us with your superior intellect and explain to us drooling morons the reasons why GW is failing and how falling sales actually means rising sales.

Interesting, just said that reduced sales dont translate to people leaving a game, not what you describe.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Maybe I will design a perfectly balanced competitive game, where two male players race to see who can be the first to pound their nuts flat with a hammer. You can choose from one of three factions. The ruleset will be very clear and every faction has been painstakingly balanced in terms of mass, striking area and leverage so that your nut-pounding tool leaves no player at a disadvantage. May the best man win! I'm sure a few of you in this thread would probably love it.

So this is what we've gotten to, just being derogatory to other commenters in the thread. I'm thinking this topic needs to die.