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.

I've heard rumors of new rules for armies like GKs. The rumor was that some or all of the units would be able to use real smites or at least that the baby smite rules would be altered. This is something beyond the ability to ignore the modifier for casting multiple smites which was in the last FAQ I beleive.

So does anyone know where or if these new rules will be coming out?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I've heard rumors of new rules for armies like GKs. The rumor was that some or all of the units would be able to use real smites or at least that the baby smite rules would be altered. This is something beyond the ability to ignore the modifier for casting multiple smites which was in the last FAQ I beleive.

So does anyone know where or if these new rules will be coming out?

They were just rumours, nothing came of it. They did get a lot of point changes (along with most other armies) in chapter approved, but no rules changes.

GW marketing has realized that there are so many problems with the game that they could actually sell Chapter Approved twice per year, so they're going to replace the Spring FAQ with a Summer CA. This is what happens when you employ the worst game design team in the entire tabletop game industry.

That's just a guess though.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This is what happens when you employ the worst game design team in the entire tabletop game industry.

How would we even know? With the dropping of designer credits, who knows what people actually work on anything?

 Trickstick wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This is what happens when you employ the worst game design team in the entire tabletop game industry.

How would we even know? With the dropping of designer credits, who knows what people actually work on anything?

I would guess most of the rules are written by Jervis Johnson, Robin Cruddace, and Jes Bickham, plus several junior designers.

The comment above is total hyperbole though. The game is generally fine, I have a lot of fun with it. So do thousands upon thousands of others.

 Stux wrote:
I would guess most of the rules are written by Jervis Johnson, Robin Cruddace, and Jes Bickham, plus several junior designers.

The comment above is total hyperbole though. The game is generally fine, I have a lot of fun with it. So do thousands upon thousands of others.

You're right, that was a hyperbolic statement, I'll dial it down to the laziest design team in the tabletop game industry.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I would guess most of the rules are written by Jervis Johnson, Robin Cruddace, and Jes Bickham, plus several junior designers.

The comment above is total hyperbole though. The game is generally fine, I have a lot of fun with it. So do thousands upon thousands of others.

You're right, that was a hyperbolic statement, I'll dial it down to the laziest design team in the tabletop game industry.

It's 1000 monkeys chained to Pc's with no editor.

 Stux wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This is what happens when you employ the worst game design team in the entire tabletop game industry.

How would we even know? With the dropping of designer credits, who knows what people actually work on anything?

I would guess most of the rules are written by Jervis Johnson, Robin Cruddace, and Jes Bickham, plus several junior designers.

The comment above is total hyperbole though. The game is generally fine, I have a lot of fun with it. So do thousands upon thousands of others.

Just imagine how much more fun you & all those thousands could have with better rules....

 Trickstick wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This is what happens when you employ the worst game design team in the entire tabletop game industry.

How would we even know? With the dropping of designer credits, who knows what people actually work on anything?

In the age of "put your name on anything, enjoy your death threats" I wouldn't put my name on anything I thought anyone might complain about, ever.

Not to mention all the people that are not having fun or that quit, because they weren't having fun.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This is what happens when you employ the worst game design team in the entire tabletop game industry.

How would we even know? With the dropping of designer credits, who knows what people actually work on anything?

In the age of "put your name on anything, enjoy your death threats" I wouldn't put my name on anything I thought anyone might complain about, ever.

Bingo. I'm so glad they don't do that anymore, its a good thing for them too. They learned from Ward

 Sir Heckington wrote:
Bingo. I'm so glad they don't do that anymore, its a good thing for them too. They learned from Ward

On the other hand, not crediting your authors leads to lower pay and subsequently a lower quality of material.

Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

Eh, complaining about stuff is easier than offering effective and viable solutions. I can think of a fair few fields where this would apply...

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

Not at all sir, totally agree.

To be fair, their design team is chained to the skeleton of a game system using a d6 and can only manipulate it very slightly, furthermore, the system as it was designed 30+ years ago was intended for much smaller and significantly less complex conflicts.

So it's a bit unfair for me to call them the worst, perhaps most handcuffed design team would be more accurate, but definitely lazy.

Edited for pedantry.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

Eh, complaining about stuff is easier than offering effective and viable solutions. I can think of a fair few fields where this would apply...

Oh ya, for sure.

It's funnier here than in other places, IMO, because in other places people complain bitterly but don't offer alternatives. Here, you can see exactly how full of gak those people are.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

I don't know about the game as a whole. But I could write better GK rules, and that is rather scary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

Not at all sir, totally agree.

To be fair, their design team is chained to the skeleton of a game system using a d6 and can only manipulate it very slightly, furthermore, the system as it was designed 30+ years ago was intended for much smaller and significantly less complex conflicts.

So it's a bit unfair for me to call them the worst, perhaps most handcuffed design team would be more accurate, but definitely lazy.

Edited for pedantry.

Ok then why don't they just do the game uber killy like warmachine is? Everything dies very fast, most stuff has "OP" rules in all factions. And you don't have something like eldar and lets say Iron Hands in the same game, which may as well be playing a totaly different game considering the difference of quality of rules, between those two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

Eh, complaining about stuff is easier than offering effective and viable solutions. I can think of a fair few fields where this would apply...

From what I understand w40k tips on improving stuff, is either play a different army or play soup, which ends with you playing a different army in the end. If an army is bad, there is no good way to play it or fix it with GW rules in effect. At the same time the good stuff plays itself. It really doesn't not take a genius level of intelect to notice that a castellan +IG is good, or that soulburst+good eldar unit is good too.

Karol wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

I don't know about the game as a whole. But I could write better GK rules, and that is rather scary.

You're not going to write better GK rules, you're going to write more powerful GK rules. Even Ward could do that.

ccs wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
This is what happens when you employ the worst game design team in the entire tabletop game industry.

How would we even know? With the dropping of designer credits, who knows what people actually work on anything?

I would guess most of the rules are written by Jervis Johnson, Robin Cruddace, and Jes Bickham, plus several junior designers.

The comment above is total hyperbole though. The game is generally fine, I have a lot of fun with it. So do thousands upon thousands of others.

Just imagine how much more fun you & all those thousands could have with better rules....

Marginally? Possibly. Probably about the same. It's not like there is a linear relationship between rules quality (which I don't think is anywhere near as bad as some people here claim) and enjoyment. It's not like a really well written game gives you an orgasm.

Karol wrote:
Ok then why don't they just do the game uber killy like warmachine is? Everything dies very fast, most stuff has "OP" rules in all factions. And you don't have something like eldar and lets say Iron Hands in the same game, which may as well be playing a totaly different game considering the difference of quality of rules, between those two.

I doubt they're allowed to 'move the cheese' that far when it comes to system design.

Honestly, I'm amazed they were able to change the vehicle rules this edition, that was the thing that actually brought me back to the game. I probably hadn't busted out my 40k stuff for a good 5-6 years prior to that.

nekooni wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

I don't know about the game as a whole. But I could write better GK rules, and that is rather scary.

You're not going to write better GK rules, you're going to write more powerful GK rules. Even Ward could do that.

100%

Everyone is an armchair expert. Most people's ideas have terrible unintended consequences.

Not to say they couldn't be better, it's just that most people don't appreciate how complex a task continuously releasing and updating rules for a game with as many variables as 40k is. And that sometimes balance is not the top priority for such a ruleset, and that's ok.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

I'd also like to point out anyone here who proposes rules does so as a hobby.

GW is paid for rules. A LOT of money. Seriously-if two people want to get into the game and use the most up-to-date rules, it's $60 for the BRB, $35 for Chapter Approved, and then $40 for each Codex they need.

nekooni wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

I don't know about the game as a whole. But I could write better GK rules, and that is rather scary.

You're not going to write better GK rules, you're going to write more powerful GK rules. Even Ward could do that.

you know that is like saying that Ronaldo isn't really a good footballer or mr Bolt isn't a master runner, just because they are more powerful then other people they fight against. I mean, I would maybe even get the argument if my army was eldar and I was claiming that all it needs to get "fixed" is some buffed up rules. But it is not. GK are horrible, pre or post CA changes, They need to get more powerful to be even considered a valid tier 2 army. From what I understand this Ward dude was the one that wrote the only good GK codex with multiple good ways to play out of a single codex? I guess if eldar do it, it is considered ok, but if someone else gets a book like that, they have to be punished for it for all eternity. Makes sense. What are you going to tell me next that mr Johnson is a good game designer?

Not to say they couldn't be better, it's just that most people don't appreciate how complex a task continuously releasing and updating rules for a game with as many variables as 40k is. And that sometimes balance is not the top priority for such a ruleset, and that's ok

LoL. Ok, enlighten me how is having something like castellan IG soup or soul burst Inari good for the quality of the game, but having a fixed rule set for GK, that makes it fun to play is somehow going against the core rules of w40k?

Players suck at balance, but to be honest, I don't think that GW does well at communicating the rule and helping with some issues.

I think the best example is the Terrain rules. Ruins are a poster child of how they just didn't try.

I'll never understand how someone signed off on those terrain rules going out the door.

Reemule wrote:
Players suck at balance, but to be honest, I don't think that GW does well at communicating the rule and helping with some issues.

I think the best example is the Terrain rules. Ruins are a poster child of how they just didn't try.

I'll never understand how someone signed off on those terrain rules going out the door.

They made a business decision that terrain rules would be tied to terrain kits they sold. Everything after that point was the design team trying to cope with that fundamental mistake.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

I'd also like to point out anyone here who proposes rules does so as a hobby.

GW is paid for rules. A LOT of money. Seriously-if two people want to get into the game and use the most up-to-date rules, it's $60 for the BRB, $35 for Chapter Approved, and then $40 for each Codex they need.

I don't think the writers are paid that much money. I interviewed for a Rules Writer job earlier this year.

Why didn't they just drop the True LoS, and use a more abstract system with all units and terrain types having a size and "depth" of how far you can see in to it. It could even give a nice balance of shoting vs melee. Because lets say you wouldn't be able to see in to a deep forest or heavy rubble terrain more then 3", but you could charge the full range. So units hiding inside terrain that would be safe from shoting could be flushed out with melee. They could have done that instead, lets say power points or some other useless rule.

Karol wrote:
I don't know about the game as a whole. But I could write better GK rules, and that is rather scary.

Off you pop then. Go fix GK.

JNAProductions wrote:I'd also like to point out anyone here who proposes rules does so as a hobby..

While true, I don't think it's all that relevant. Black Library 'authors', as they will insist on calling themselves, get paid to write and yet there is vastly superior writing posted here and around the interwebs on the 40K universe than Black Library produces. 'Eavy Metal painters get paid to paint, but you can find much, much, much higher-quality paint-jobs out there.

IMO, totally amateur hobbyists can produce better work than GW, but they never do vis-a-vis rules. Which I think is telling.

 Trickstick wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Players suck at balance, but to be honest, I don't think that GW does well at communicating the rule and helping with some issues.

I think the best example is the Terrain rules. Ruins are a poster child of how they just didn't try.

I'll never understand how someone signed off on those terrain rules going out the door.

They made a business decision that terrain rules would be tied to terrain kits they sold. Everything after that point was the design team trying to cope with that fundamental mistake.

This highlights another important aspect. We don't know what business pressures are on the rules team.

It just really gets my goat when people target the people making the game with so much ire. They are intelligent people who love the game. It just isn't that easy.

 Stux wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that 40K forums are full of people complaining about the rules and also full of people trying and utterly failing to write better rules?

Just me?

I'd also like to point out anyone here who proposes rules does so as a hobby.

GW is paid for rules. A LOT of money. Seriously-if two people want to get into the game and use the most up-to-date rules, it's $60 for the BRB, $35 for Chapter Approved, and then $40 for each Codex they need.

I don't think the writers are paid that much money. I interviewed for a Rules Writer job earlier this year.

The point is WE pay GW for rules. A lot of money. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for high-quality rules when we pay a pretty decent chunk of change for 'em.