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.

 ImAGeek wrote:


It really doesn't improve anything for casual players. If anything casual players are hit hardest by the shoddiness of GW rules.

This is arguable. I think most casual players are happy to come to arrangements where the rules fall down. However the rules fall down in very specific places that affect competitive gaming environments.

I think I am confusing the issues by using the term casual as a catch all term. As always my gaming environment is going to vary considerably from yours and everyone elses. I am lucky that I have access to a wide gaming group as well as lots of GW stores. There are some players who have to travel miles to play sporadically. Players that are collectors and/or lovers of the IP(storyline) largely are unaffected. new players generally develop their attitudes from their gaming groups. Comp players will always be severely affected.

but referring back to this post, Yes GW doesn't care. They care about their profit margins and their shareholders. Its always gonna fall back on you to get what you can out of the game. I love to come onto dakka and read the threads because it helps us to vent our frustrations. But I love to read the threads on tactics, storyline, house rules development etc. and then go away and play with battlescribe listbuilding and go out and throw some dice and create some wacky play experiences that are the perfect blen\d of strategy, on the fly tactics, randomness and adapting to said randomness and a bit of roleplaying thrown in. You have to find your fun. If you want comp then reserve 40k for the hell of it fun and play other games.
I'm looking forward to Maelstrom's edge because I think its gonna fill the niche that GW doesn't.

Find your fun

the_scotsman wrote:
Honestly I think the best spam protection in 40k right now (which, admittedly, does not work for 100% of cases cough cough bikespamlists) is Maelstrom. That alone gives bound armies a significant advantage over stuff like knight spam, or unbound lists.

Drop pod spam and scatter bike spam dominate maelstrom. I play both armies and can count my maelstrom losses on 1 hand with them.

GW openly considers itself a model company. Recent rules releases have, sadly, cemented that idea as GW went from trash to utterly unusuable trash. Codex: Eldar, just to name the most recent peak.

GW most likely knows that their competitors release vastly superior ruleset and thus fully stopped putting any effort in their rules department anymore.

 Sigvatr wrote:
GW openly considers itself a model company. Recent rules releases have, sadly, cemented that idea as GW went from trash to utterly unusuable trash. Codex: Eldar, just to name the most recent peak.

GW most likely knows that their competitors release vastly superior ruleset and thus fully stopped putting any effort in their rules department anymore.

Its sad because it could be.

The game it self isnt thaaaaaaat bad.

The bones are still there its just all this extra fat that makes the game wonky.

also the terrible points costing based entirely on "feelz" which makes me really sad.

also the random = balanced mantra needs to be taken out to the back yard :/

 Nithaniel wrote:

I came from a background of playing MtG. It is comparative to 40k in cost in terms of total spend however it is supported in competitive play. But it is also a game environment where the money bags players have the ability to dominate competitive and casual gaming scenes until the rest of the world is able to catch up. The balancing factor in this competitive environment is that a new expansion is released 3-4 times a year.

I agree completely! MtG is a perfect game to get moms, sisters, grandmas and girlfriends into. It takes almost no time to learn, and the pictures are pretty But casual and competitive decks don't mix any better than in 40k. When my aunt plays MtG, she plays with every card she owns IN ONE DECK. She insists on it because she doesn't want any card to feel bad, because you know, MtG cards have feelings too. Sometimes, she can go for 80 cards without draw a single freaking land.

But in the competitive scene, to have the "full MtG experience", you really need to have enough cards -- including extremely rare cards -- that allow you to build pretty much any deck you want, to experiment, and to have multiple playable decks all at the same time. It's actually very expensive to do. One may argue, "but you can just buy the cards you want" -- this is true, but it is not. No serious MtG player will do this, because all it lets you do is build a couple of netdecks and as the creepy guy in SHIELD said, "Progress requires experimentation".

In the same way, my girlfriend plays Orks and simply fields all the models she thinks are cool, without any regard for effectiveness. She's happy with a win, lose or draw, but if you try to curb stomp her with 5 Wraithknights, she'll just come over and knee you in the balls. She is a riot to game with, though, and all my buddies are happy to accommodate if she happens to be in the mood.

Generally speaking, in my opinion, 40k is not a good fit for people with very limited incomes or very limited time. I'm not trying to be an elitist snob. It's just that this game takes a lot of miniatures, the hobby supplies are costly, the hobby itself is time consuming, and every few years there's an army reboot in such a seismic way that you're likely to need a major reinvestment, unless you pretty much have bought everything along the way. In which case, you STILL might need to spend a bunch of money, because you suddenly need (or want) a lot more of unit X that you only had 1 of before; and unit Y that you had 30 of is suddenly poop.

Unless, of course, you play 7e Eldar -- almost everything is solid enough that not much has to go onto the shelf!

 Nithaniel wrote:
This is arguable. I think most casual players are happy to come to arrangements where the rules fall down. However the rules fall down in very specific places that affect competitive gaming environments.

Well, especially regular groups. They'll just make up the rules they want, and go with it. Friendly groups tend to play rather than argue.

 Nithaniel wrote:

Yes GW doesn't care. They care about their profit margins and their shareholders.

Once, I too thought this, but no more. If GW actually just cared about profit margins and shareholders, they'd design the game that the market demands.

Instead, what they actually do, is write a game and make miniatures that they think is cool, regardless of whether it is optimal for the market. GW plays 40k in a way that harkens back to Chainmail (who is old enough to remember that? ) -- roleplaying scenarios and campaigns, with miniatures. I've said it before: GW has strong AD&D roots in its DNA. GW doesn't really care if the market doesn't want it; it's confident that there is enough of a market that wants their stuff enough that they'll just do what they damn well please, and either take it and make it your own, or leave it and do something else.

 Nithaniel wrote:
Find your fun

No truer words ever were said, when it comes to gaming and hobby


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
GW openly considers itself a model company. Recent rules releases have, sadly, cemented that idea as GW went from trash to utterly unusuable trash. Codex: Eldar, just to name the most recent peak.

GW most likely knows that their competitors release vastly superior ruleset and thus fully stopped putting any effort in their rules department anymore.

Its sad because it could be.

The game it self isnt thaaaaaaat bad.

Meh. Like I said, I think GW just does what it wants to, the world be damned. They care more about keeping their vision for the game (which is not very tournament friendly OOB) and the people who think the way they do about tabletop wargames, than they do about making everyone else happy (and the game more profitable).

I think GW puts a huge effort into faction books. They certainly pump out enough of them, with tons of art and fluff, and well, rules, GW style. The only question is -- is that your thing, or can you or do you want to make it your own, because if you don't, you'll never be happy with 40k. I don't think in the next 7 editions there will be a set of rules that is "fair" or balanced that makes everyone happy.

It's like, the thought process is: "Eldar are supposed to be powerful. So we'll just make them powerful! Oh, well, they're more powerful than Orks? Well of course they are. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. They did rule the galaxy for millions of years, you know. Why should the Orks have anything but the most desparate chance?"

That actually makes for pretty good fluff and narrative (after all, they were an ancient race that could erase stars at a snap of the fingers). It just makes for a lousy game for the Ork player trying to win.

It's like building a historical recreation of Desert Shield, with US forces on one side, and Iraqi forces on the other. Where is the balance, dammit. Why do the Iraqis lose 100% of the time?!

 Talys wrote:

It's like, the thought process is: "Eldar are supposed to be powerful. So we'll just make them powerful! Oh, well, they're more powerful than Orks? Well of course they are. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. They did rule the galaxy for millions of years, you know. Why should the Orks have anything but the most desparate chance?"

That actually makes for pretty good fluff and narrative (after all, they were an ancient race that could erase stars at a snap of the fingers). It just makes for a lousy game for the Ork player trying to win.

It's like building a historical recreation of Desert Shield, with US forces on one side, and Iraqi forces on the other. Where is the balance, dammit. Why do the Iraqis lose 100% of the time?!

Historical doesn't pit 2 armies against each other, and see who loses. More often than not, its unequal forces, but with one trying to achieve a certain objective within a certain timeframe. For example, The iraqi forces win if they kill more than 5 US troops, or if the US troops cannot achieve objective by turn 3.

A good way to rebalance the game is by imposing the following rules on an eldar player. In fact, its the only way I'll play them these days:

Turn 1 tabling: Minor eldar win
Turn 2 tabling: Draw
Turn 3 tabling minor win for opponent
Turn 4 tabling: major win for opponent
turn 5 onward: massive humiliation for eldar player

Getting curbstomped for 3 hours is not "forging a narrative" It's just satisfying the eldar player's ego, with no fun for anyone else.

Has GW abdicated responsibility for game balance?

Yes.

I have conflicted feelings about GW.

The CSM codex is an insult to what they are in the lore. Their model quality is also inconsistent. I really am not interested in giving GW more of my money.

I like 30k a lot and I am pushed towards it steadily. FW does a far better job at writing rules than GW are and their models are splendid. Expensive, but extremely good. Worth my money. Money I spend on FW, though, still goes to GW, and they are happy as long as cash rolls in...

kburn wrote:

 Talys wrote:

It's like, the thought process is: "Eldar are supposed to be powerful. So we'll just make them powerful! Oh, well, they're more powerful than Orks? Well of course they are. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. They did rule the galaxy for millions of years, you know. Why should the Orks have anything but the most desparate chance?"

That actually makes for pretty good fluff and narrative (after all, they were an ancient race that could erase stars at a snap of the fingers). It just makes for a lousy game for the Ork player trying to win.

It's like building a historical recreation of Desert Shield, with US forces on one side, and Iraqi forces on the other. Where is the balance, dammit. Why do the Iraqis lose 100% of the time?!

Historical doesn't pit 2 armies against each other, and see who loses. More often than not, its unequal forces, but with one trying to achieve a certain objective within a certain timeframe. For example, The iraqi forces win if they kill more than 5 US troops, or if the US troops cannot achieve objective by turn 3.

A good way to rebalance the game is by imposing the following rules on an eldar player. In fact, its the only way I'll play them these days:

Turn 1 tabling: Minor eldar win
Turn 2 tabling: Draw
Turn 3 tabling minor win for opponent
Turn 4 tabling: major win for opponent
turn 5 onward: massive humiliation for eldar player

Getting curbstomped for 3 hours is not "forging a narrative" It's just satisfying the eldar player's ego, with no fun for anyone else.

That's why I lament the loss of the Mission Cards from 2nd edition. Each player had their own thing that they needed to accomplish during the game. That's what 40k needs and that would make it more narrative. Games shouldn't be this just line up and destroy each other or roll for random nonsense, it should be themed battles. So if a Dark Angels army is facing an Eldar army and there's some cool piece of terrain in the middle, bam the narrative is the Dark Angels are trying to capture this Eldar relic and the Eldar are trying to defend it - if the Dark Angels hold it by Turn 4 they win, otherwise the Eldar player wins as the Dark Angels have to retreat when reinforcements arrive. A truely casual game would have a section of the rules that focus on and gives good examples of how to come up with narrative scenarios for the game, not just say here's a bunch of random charts have at it cheers.

Instead, it's some random crap that's supposed to form a narrative but really doesn't. It's almost like they wanted to do one of those random NPC generators like in older D&D books to give a basic concept and have you flesh it out, but failed miserably.;

 Ashiraya wrote:
I have conflicted feelings about GW.

The CSM codex is an insult to what they are in the lore. Their model quality is also inconsistent. I really am not interested in giving GW more of my money.

I like 30k a lot and I am pushed towards it steadily. FW does a far better job at writing rules than GW are and their models are splendid. Expensive, but extremely good. Worth my money. Money I spend on FW, though, still goes to GW, and they are happy as long as cash rolls in...

I guess this confuses me? They make a game that other people like, but isn't to your taste. Or they put out a codex for a faction that doesn't meet your expectations. And you aren't happy with the models.

Then, they make a game you like better, with models you like better, and factions you like better. So now there's something that suits your tastes, and the people that like the other game still have something that suits theirs. I am really only seeing good things here. But the tone of your post makes it sound like you don't like giving GW any money, even when they make something you like. Surely, the way to get them to do more of what you like is to "speak with your wallet" as it were?

 office_waaagh wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I have conflicted feelings about GW.

The CSM codex is an insult to what they are in the lore. Their model quality is also inconsistent. I really am not interested in giving GW more of my money.

I like 30k a lot and I am pushed towards it steadily. FW does a far better job at writing rules than GW are and their models are splendid. Expensive, but extremely good. Worth my money. Money I spend on FW, though, still goes to GW, and they are happy as long as cash rolls in...

I guess this confuses me? They make a game that other people like, but isn't to your taste. Or they put out a codex for a faction that doesn't meet your expectations. And you aren't happy with the models.

Then, they make a game you like better, with models you like better, and factions you like better. So now there's something that suits your tastes, and the people that like the other game still have something that suits theirs. I am really only seeing good things here. But the tone of your post makes it sound like you don't like giving GW any money, even when they make something you like. Surely, the way to get them to do more of what you like is to "speak with your wallet" as it were?

He doesn't like giving GW money because they're a horrible company that has disdain for independent stores and their own customers?

I've just recently come back to 40k after something like a 5 year hiatus and have been browzing these forums the last few weeks seeing what is new and such but all I keeps seeing is people crying about balance. The game was never balanced, but then in real life war is never balanced someone always has better guns, or more guys, or better tactics or just pure simple luck. The game is supposed to be fun some times you win sometimes you lose. Me and my friends who played in the past made the game more fun by taking standard missions and giving them background stories and we had our warlords with unique names and background stories for them. Hell sometime we played way unbalanced games like an ambush on a tank convoy led by a baneblade. But I guess it's human nature to only feel like you are having fun if you are winning. But not everyone can win all the time. Take the good take the bad and make a good story of it. I for one have always played a Khorne army, and I have lost more times than I can count but then the games where I get lucky and manage to pull out a victory just seem so much better. Anyways sorry about the long rant. Just wanted to put my .02 cents out there.

Knytmare wrote:
I've just recently come back to 40k after something like a 5 year hiatus and have been browzing these forums the last few weeks seeing what is new and such but all I keeps seeing is people crying about balance. The game was never balanced, but then in real life war is never balanced someone always has better guns, or more guys, or better tactics or just pure simple luck. The game is supposed to be fun some times you win sometimes you lose. Me and my friends who played in the past made the game more fun by taking standard missions and giving them background stories and we had our warlords with unique names and background stories for them. Hell sometime we played way unbalanced games like an ambush on a tank convoy led by a baneblade. But I guess it's human nature to only feel like you are having fun if you are winning. But not everyone can win all the time. Take the good take the bad and make a good story of it. I for one have always played a Khorne army, and I have lost more times than I can count but then the games where I get lucky and manage to pull out a victory just seem so much better. Anyways sorry about the long rant. Just wanted to put my .02 cents out there.

You contradict yourself.
You say war is not balanced but then say a game is meant to be fun. Which is it?
40k isn't a war. (Not even remotely, trust me.) It's a game and should be balanced to ensure a fair and fun game.
You could forge narratives just as good with a well written rule set.

War isn't supposed to be balanced or fun. GAMES are, at least reasonably so. I'm not expecting perfect balance like chess. Something better than 1000 monkeys banging away at keyboards could produce would be nice though.

 Toofast wrote:
War isn't supposed to be balanced or fun. GAMES are, at least reasonably so. I'm not expecting perfect balance like chess. Something better than 1000 monkeys banging away at keyboards could produce would be nice though.

Maybe 40k isn't the game for you then? At least, it seems not designed for the type of play that you enjoy. As a number of people have mentioned, more than most games 40k is dependent on the group of people you play with and everyone's willingness to co-operate with one another's fun. If you prefer finely balanced, competitive games, maybe 30k is better? I can't speak to this as I've not played it, but a number of people have recommended it to me on this basis. 40k is designed with a narrative focus (more like D&D), with maximum flexibility deemed more important than rigid balance.

 office_waaagh wrote:
40k is designed with a narrative focus (more like D&D), with maximum flexibility deemed more important than rigid balance.

No it isn't. It's "designed" to be a minimum-effort game where GW spends as little as possible on creating the rules and generally treats it like one of those games you get on the back of a cereal box. The problems that make it bad for competitive play are also problems in casual/narrative/etc games.

 MWHistorian wrote:
He doesn't like giving GW money because they're a horrible company that has disdain for independent stores and their own customers?

I guess this is a matter of personal opinion. I've never got this sense. Their games are fun, their models are (mostly) very well made, their customer service is some of the best I've ever dealt with, and the stores are fun places to hang out without there being pressure to buy stuff. Their pricing is transparent, there aren't any fake sales (where stuff is permanently "on sale"), and I've always appreciated that everything is priced in round dollars rather than with .99 at the end. There aren't any pandering or obsequious advertising campaigns. They've created a highly evocative and interesting fictional universe, and the Black Library keeps it expanding and attracts some top talent. So I've no complaints, really. I can't speak to their treatment of independent stores, but the stores are still carrying their stuff so it can't be all that bad.

So if they have disdain for me, they've a funny way of showing it. They seem to express their contempt by making lots of things that I like, and then selling those things to me. I guess I wish more companies felt such disdain.

-

I would say, yes, they have abdicated responsibility for game balance. The whiplash from Tyranids, SM, Grey Knight and Orc codices to Necron and Eldar was severe.

They are also responsible for writing poorly worded rules and failing to communicate with their customers who want answers for game rules. It really feels as if they don't care if people have actual problems understanding what the rules intend.

I loath with all my being their codices, special codices, datafaxes, formations only available from this new campaign book, etc as nothing more then a blatant money grab. If the codices were paperbacks, without much of the photos, at $30, $35 dollars, I would be tempted to buy more to read up on what other armies can do. But at what they want? No way. I have an Blood Angels army I haven't fielded in forever, and probably never will, won't even buy the codex for it since I don't feel like spending $60 for book it takes two or three hours, max, to read through.

For the most part I don't mind the cost of the miniatures at all. They tend to be high quality. I do get irate at the dual kits (tyrannocyte/malceptor kit as example) that require me to pay for a bunch of bits for a second model that I cannot build. I have boxes of bits, some I can make a bit of use of as terrain parts, but the rest just cost the buyer money. What is even worse is when one of the two choices of a kit are so bad, you would never field it.

 Peregrine wrote:


No it isn't. It's "designed" to be a minimum-effort game where GW spends as little as possible on creating the rules and generally treats it like one of those games you get on the back of a cereal box. The problems that make it bad for competitive play are also problems in casual/narrative/etc games.

Its clear that many people dislike the rules for failing to meet individual ruling points (or lack therof) scattered throughout a very large complex ruleset. But what they do have is a 350+ pg rulebook with impeccable design quality and production value and about 20 armies with associated codex and supplements and digital offerings as well as faq's and erratas and the certainty of new army books to come such as daemonkin et al.

To liken all this to minimum effort game design and to suggest they spend as little as possible on cereal box rules is deliberately misleading and pessimistic. Its not to the standard I want it to be but I believe its currently to the highest standard its ever been!

There are definitely better miniature games out there. Some have better models, some have inifinitely better rulesets and some even have both but none have the scope and variety, the player base or the media machine behind it to produce a varied and detailed fluff to back it up.

 Nithaniel wrote:
But what they do have is a 350+ pg rulebook with impeccable design quality and production value

Which game are you talking about here? It clearly isn't 40k.

To liken all this to minimum effort game design and to suggest they spend as little as possible on cereal box rules is deliberately misleading and pessimistic.

No, it's entirely accurate criticism. They don't playtest, they don't spend any effort making sure that their rules are clear and functional, and there's no real sign that the rules go through any development beyond the author coming up with some random ideas and putting them on paper. If you really wanted to you could probably write the entire rules content of GW's releases for the next year in a single afternoon.

 Peregrine wrote:

But it isn't an attempt at game balance. A game with spammed overpowered troops is no more balanced than one with spammed overpowered fast attack units. The end result is exactly the same regardless of which FOC slot the overpowered spam happens to occupy.

See I disagree on this.

1) We are not merely talking about OP units per se. Some units would not be OP if there were restrictions on how many you could take, or how large your army had to be first. They would only become OP if you could spam them, because your opponent would be unlikely to be able to muster the weaponry to kill them without specifically tailoring his list.

2) A game in which ONE category of units contains some OP units is, by definition, less balanced than one in which you can take whatever you bloody well like from ANY slot. E.g. even if Necron Warriors were OP then I would still prefer that to 5 imperial knights.

The problem I have with the argument that it's down to us, as hobbyists, to refrain from using certain OP units/combinations of units that would not be "fun" for our opponents is that it defeats the object of the game. It defeats the point of designing an army. Ok, maybe this is all we can do in the circumstances... But I still believe primary responsibility lies with GW.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 office_waaagh wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I have conflicted feelings about GW.

The CSM codex is an insult to what they are in the lore. Their model quality is also inconsistent. I really am not interested in giving GW more of my money.

I like 30k a lot and I am pushed towards it steadily. FW does a far better job at writing rules than GW are and their models are splendid. Expensive, but extremely good. Worth my money. Money I spend on FW, though, still goes to GW, and they are happy as long as cash rolls in...

I guess this confuses me? They make a game that other people like, but isn't to your taste. Or they put out a codex for a faction that doesn't meet your expectations. And you aren't happy with the models.

Then, they make a game you like better, with models you like better, and factions you like better. So now there's something that suits your tastes, and the people that like the other game still have something that suits theirs. I am really only seeing good things here. But the tone of your post makes it sound like you don't like giving GW any money, even when they make something you like. Surely, the way to get them to do more of what you like is to "speak with your wallet" as it were?

He doesn't like giving GW money because they're a horrible company that has disdain for independent stores and their own customers?

Bingo. GW is matching the 'evil corporation' trope so well so it's almost a caricature. I do not feel very happy feeding them money and encouraging that, even though they have a subsystem I like.

WayneTheGame wrote:

That's why I lament the loss of the Mission Cards from 2nd edition. Each player had their own thing that they needed to accomplish during the game. That's what 40k needs and that would make it more narrative. Games shouldn't be this just line up and destroy each other or roll for random nonsense, it should be themed battles. So if a Dark Angels army is facing an Eldar army and there's some cool piece of terrain in the middle, bam the narrative is the Dark Angels are trying to capture this Eldar relic and the Eldar are trying to defend it - if the Dark Angels hold it by Turn 4 they win, otherwise the Eldar player wins as the Dark Angels have to retreat when reinforcements arrive. A truely casual game would have a section of the rules that focus on and gives good examples of how to come up with narrative scenarios for the game, not just say here's a bunch of random charts have at it cheers.

Instead, it's some random crap that's supposed to form a narrative but really doesn't. It's almost like they wanted to do one of those random NPC generators like in older D&D books to give a basic concept and have you flesh it out, but failed miserably.;

We do this kind of thing like... almost every time we play. It is much more satisfying than I deploy, you deploy, CHARGE!

There are 6-8 of us that get together every couple of weeks. What we'll do is set up separate game tables (at home, not store), and when we're done, we'll swap tables (and missions/scenario, with maybe minor changes). The game tables are pretty elaborate in terms of setup, and this dramatically cuts down on the overhead of time lost between games. We use little carts to keep our fallen on, too, so when it comes to deploy for game #2 or game #3, it's quick and easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Krusha wrote:
The problem I have with the argument that it's down to us, as hobbyists, to refrain from using certain OP units/combinations of units that would not be "fun" for our opponents is that it defeats the object of the game. It defeats the point of designing an army. Ok, maybe this is all we can do in the circumstances... But I still believe primary responsibility lies with GW.

Therein lies the disconnect. Many players feel it is GW's responsibility to create a fair, balanced system that minimizes rules lawyering and overpowered, spammy lists. I'm not suggesting this is unreasonable.

GW feels that it's their responsibility to create a world of models and fluff, plus a framework to play in, and players' responsibility to find ways to have fun with it, to sort things out (or even just outright rewrite rules they don't like) in an amiable way.

GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.

 Talys wrote:
GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.

It's a big ruleset to learn. Once I've memorised it all, I'd like to be able to go to another store that plays the same game without having to learn and remember how their game rules differ from mine, and when I'm in the next one, how theirs differ from my first two.

There is no way to defend the shoddy rules of GW without being an appologist. Because they seriously need to appologise for them.
If they are of the opinion that their rules aren't what we should be playing with, and the rulesbooks are mostly for the design and pretty pictures, then they would release them without rules. That way we could get some proper unofficial rules that wouldn't have to compete with the canon, which everyone knows it can't. No matter how good your unofficial rules are, they will always be "the unofficial rules."
Everyone would rather learn the ones that have the biggest chance of getting them games elsewhere.

 Talys wrote:

GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.

What? You mean some fools actually think that rules should be rules? What morons!

But then, perhaps they were mislead when GW accidentally misspelt "Overpriced pile of crap suggestions and convoluted nonsense" as "Rulebook".

GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.

If the rules are so unimportant to GW, then why does the starter rules pack for an army without ally or supplements of any kind cost around 200$.

Makumba wrote:

GW sees their own rules as guidelines; some of their customers see the rules as gospel.

If the rules are so unimportant to GW, then why does the starter rules pack for an army without ally or supplements of any kind cost around 200$.

Pretty much this. They sell rules for more than everybody else, why should you pay that much for guidelines when every other company charges less for actual rules?

The problem to me is that 40k is almost 100% dependent on what your local group is like. The locals around me want to play 1850 point games constantly and pretend that they can play 40k competitively, which is about as full 180 as you can get from how 40k seems to be intended to be played. If they had a small group playing casual, narrative style games, well that might be more tempting to get into because I like that part. But I already play a competitive, well thought out game (Warmachine) that's infinitely better for being a competitive, well thought out game than 40k is or ever was; with the 40k crowd around here there's no reason to frustrate myself by playing 40k in a bad way when I can play a better game in a good way, even if I do like the models and the fluff.

People constantly ignore the fact that good, solid rules benefits everybody. The casual/narrative/fluffbunny players aren't unduly punished for liking X unit instead of Y unit. The powergamer/competitive/WAAC players don't have such a free reign to break the game. Everybody wins. Yet for some reason people seem to think that because 40k is bad for competitive play, it must be good for casual play as if it's a black and white situation. It's not. Games can (and should) be both, but focusing (as far as the level of detail and clarity) on the competitive game for the rules ensures that the rules are tight and well-written, which in turn benefits the casual group as well.

What are you talking about? I thought rules are free.

The more garbage the rules are and the more they cost - the more...freer they are

 Nithaniel wrote:


To liken all this to minimum effort game design and to suggest they spend as little as possible on cereal box rules is deliberately misleading and pessimistic. Its not to the standard I want it to be but I believe its currently to the highest standard its ever been!

...what? GW deliberately cuts stuff from codices and sells it seperately to increase profit. That's about the lowest you can get customer-wise. Rules see no playtesting at all, proof-reading is lackluster and maybe doesn't even go beyond Microsoft Office auto-correct levels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
What are you talking about? I thought rules are free.

The more garbage the rules are and the more they cost - the more...freer they are

YARRRRRRRRRRR!