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.

Also, above all else I wish that I'd just remembered to Forlorn Fury my captain forward! Completely forgot because we had an hours break between deployment and turn one! Would have made a hell of a better turn one :(

 Innes wrote:
Also, above all else I wish that I'd just remembered to Forlorn Fury my captain forward! Completely forgot because we had an hours break between deployment and turn one! Would have made a hell of a better turn one :(

You did quite well with all those outside influences messing with playing the game.

That is a lot of plates to be spinning right up untill you start the game, writing a list based of points you've just been shown, with what model the studio has available.
Then what I assume was presumably lots of interruption or disruption to the normal flow of the game of explaining why and pictures etc.

I'm sure I would have gotten totally wrong footed by that and probably wrecked the game with some shockingly bad misplay.

Ice_can wrote:

 Innes wrote:
Also, above all else I wish that I'd just remembered to Forlorn Fury my captain forward! Completely forgot because we had an hours break between deployment and turn one! Would have made a hell of a better turn one :(

You did quite well with all those outside influences messing with playing the game.

That is a lot of plates to be spinning right up untill you start the game, writing a list based of points you've just been shown, with what model the studio has available.
Then what I assume was presumably lots of interruption or disruption to the normal flow of the game of explaining why and pictures etc.

I'm sure I would have gotten totally wrong footed by that and probably wrecked the game with some shockingly bad misplay.

Cards on the table....

I was probably fortunate to win. Innes tends to play more competitive events than me these days, and certainly takes better lists. I had a super lucky turn 1, which I think carried me to the win.

I'll add as well that I think the mission greatly favoured me (although I can't remember how we decided we'd play this particular game) so that was against him too.

What would be preferred is the 2nd edition restrictions on powerful stuff.

So you want to take that independent OP Exarch character? Well you need to have at least 1 unit of Aspects before you can do that. You want 2 of those super exarchs....now you need 2 units of exarchs.

Many HQs were 0-1 per army.

We always played 2nd ed that you could take champion HQ at 500 points.Hero HQ level dudes at 1000 points Mighty Champion at 1500 points and the top tier HQ 1 per 2000.

I think the super heavies could not be over 25% of the battleforce.

It would be easy to extrapolate this to Marine Lt, Captains, Commanders, Chapter Masters.

x number of squads and you unlock Lt, captains,,,,more to unlock Commanders and finally special characters and such when you have a flavorful enough force.

 admironheart wrote:
What would be preferred is the 2nd edition restrictions on powerful stuff.

So you want to take that independent OP Exarch character? Well you need to have at least 1 unit of Aspects before you can do that. You want 2 of those super exarchs....now you need 2 units of exarchs.

Many HQs were 0-1 per army.

We always played 2nd ed that you could take champion HQ at 500 points.Hero HQ level dudes at 1000 points Mighty Champion at 1500 points and the top tier HQ 1 per 2000.

I think the super heavies could not be over 25% of the battleforce.

It would be easy to extrapolate this to Marine Lt, Captains, Commanders, Chapter Masters.

x number of squads and you unlock Lt, captains,,,,more to unlock Commanders and finally special characters and such when you have a flavorful enough force.

25% actually would make sense. for 2000pts, 500pts could be a super heavy. Would also prevent 1k games from having a super powerful super heavy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 liam0404 wrote:

Cards on the table....

I was probably fortunate to win. Innes tends to play more competitive events than me these days, and certainly takes better lists. I had a super lucky turn 1, which I think carried me to the win.

I'll add as well that I think the mission greatly favoured me (although I can't remember how we decided we'd play this particular game) so that was against him too.

Sorry what eldar faction did you play?

 admironheart wrote:
What would be preferred is the 2nd edition restrictions on powerful stuff.

So you want to take that independent OP Exarch character? Well you need to have at least 1 unit of Aspects before you can do that. You want 2 of those super exarchs....now you need 2 units of exarchs.

Many HQs were 0-1 per army.

We always played 2nd ed that you could take champion HQ at 500 points.Hero HQ level dudes at 1000 points Mighty Champion at 1500 points and the top tier HQ 1 per 2000.

I think the super heavies could not be over 25% of the battleforce.

It would be easy to extrapolate this to Marine Lt, Captains, Commanders, Chapter Masters.

x number of squads and you unlock Lt, captains,,,,more to unlock Commanders and finally special characters and such when you have a flavorful enough force.

How would you apply this to forces that don't have that kind of structure, like Drukhari, Orks, Tau, Necrons, etc even AM would be effected.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Kdash wrote:
In regards to a composition of the forces in a game of 40k, you can only determine how “fluffy” a list is, based off your current game narrative.

Sure, 32 Guardsmen, a Chief Librarian, 2 Captains and some Knights might be a really really really really really rea…. Rare occasion on some backwater planet in a minor 1 off skirmish, but, it’d actually probably be extremely likely on a battlefield such as Cadia.

Taking a list to a competitive event (unless it is a narrative event) has nothing to do with fluff I’m afraid. Such, you can create your own narrative, but at the event people would likely be interested in reading it and hearing about it, but, it’d ultimately be a cool sidenote. You could also say that a big tournament is nothing more than a massive crucible of war with all random forces thrown together in one massive maelstrom.

The point is, the setting makes anything and everything possible in a fluffy way. How you determine your casual game’s narrative is what will determine whether a list “fits or not” in your own section of the setting.
A single 2000-point game of 40k might not represent the entire battle. Scale is important to take into account. Just because something doesn’t “fit” at first glance, doesn’t mean it doesn’t fit.

Okay, let's look at this another way. We've all played players who have named their characters, giving them elaborate backstories and being able to tell tales of their conquests in previous games, frequently from previous editions. To me, that's a pretty solid indicator of somebody who is playing something for fluff reasons, not just post-hoc fluffiness. How frequently do we run into Loyal32+Knight+Cap players who have done that? I've yet to meet somebody who runs that sort of list who has done that sort of thing. Sure, maybe coming up with cheesy names or whatever isn't for everybody, so maybe that's not a good metric.

Okay, how many people played a Loyal32+Knight+Cap list at any point when it wasn't OP? Surely, if the list was fluffy in 8th, it was fluffy in 7th too, right? Okay, you'd have to replace the Castellan with a regular knight, but that's not a problem, oh, and you'd have to take a platoon. Okay, not a big deal. And I guess the BA guys would have to take an allied detachment, so maybe that part falls apart a little, but whatever. Did anybody play this sort of list in 7th? I'm guessing not... what was the big difference? Oh wait, this list would've been pretty garbage in 7th.

I get what people are saying. You can't immediately judge somebody with a very strong soup list as not caring about the fluff. But I don't think it's very hard to demarcate the fluffy (and fluffy as intended) lists from the wolves in fluffy clothing.

Loyal32 IS homebrew fluff and a backstory.

Yeah. You think my Commanders don't have names just because I don't want to give them equipment they won't use, like a Power Sword?

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Pretty much as long as I could remember the GW design team has been very upfront that they don't really play the game in a competitive manner and Are often surprised by what the player base come up with.

I remember back when Lash of Slannesh was a thing people asked the design team why would GW put something that would let people put your opponents models in a perfect circle and then drop a pie plate on them, the answer was we didn't think people would do that, let alone take two princess who could do that. They just don't think like that.

Yes, and still, one has to ask, how many fething times does the design team need to learn this lesson before we call them idiots? It's been 18 months, really, as you pointed out, this has been going on for 20+ years. There are truckloads of data out there, there are numerous venues online to find this information that don't involve them having to interact with their playerbase at all (which seems to be the real goal).

It is lazy. It is insulting. They should be called out for it at every opportunity until they fix it or admit that balance is simply of no concern to them. Then we can stop having 30 page discussions about the lack of competitive balance in the game.

The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.

The players are. How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots?

If you can easily break a system, it is a bad system.

If someone had bought a lock they didn't know was of poor quality and someone breaks it to steal their bike, the lock company can't say "Well don't go to an poor neighborhood where people use bolt cutters! That's not what it's meant for!"

 Crimson wrote:
I think it is good that they play these sort of lists. If there are (Ok, not really if...) balance issues which such builds, they're far more likely to be addressed if the GW guys actually play them.

Yeah, I was thinking along those lines myself.

In the long run, it's much better better than the 'forge the narrative' period or the many, many years where they just stuffed grots in their ears and pretended to have no clue how actual people played the game.

This (particularly the back and forth tweets) at least gives indications they're fully aware of where the game ends up with soup and tournament metas in effect. Even if they don't agree that they're problem areas, they might well address at least some interactions, and have a higher chance of doing so than probably any other period in their history.

the_scotsman wrote:

stratigo wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:
Ok but playing narrative is like playing golf. Technicaly there are rich enough people to take a plane to scotland and play it there, but saying that golf and street football are both games that are played would be a huge overstatment.

Also what would the difference actualy be? I never played narrative. From what I see here, people say that points, stratagems and most of the other matched played rules are used in narrative games. It is hard for me to imagine how it be better for GK. In fact if CP were not used, then demon players could just get infinite free units playing against GK, and where is the fun in that ?


Are there any GK narrative players blogs or podcasts, if there are any I would like to read those.

what I find so funny about this is that you're saying that "Narrative gaming" is somehow this rich person's pastime but the meta you constantly describe is by far a much, much more expensive game than a casual meta where everyone brings collections they've had for ages.

If everyone's playing Eldar with tons of shining spears and dark reapers, Drukhari, Custode bike spam, imperial soup with castellans and loyal 32, what that's telling me is that every single person at the place you play must have bought their entire army within the last year and a half, dropping thousands of dollars (or euros or whatever) collectively just to play their little tournament-level meta, because every single thing in all those lists was straight garbage tier or didn't exist before 8th edition.

I've played in several places where every person in attendance had started collecting their army over 5 years ago. Half your stuff inevitably becomes good, or bad, depending on the changing tides of the game edition, and it doesn't matter, you play it anyway because you spent hours painting it a decade ago and you can't be bothered to spend 60$ or whatever the kids these days are paying for a single box of dudes.

You have to have the luxury of people both willing to play and willing to not completely abuse narrative. It’s easy to accidentally break a narrative game. It is trivial to knowingly break a narrative game.

Yup. Usually, if you start with people who are

A) old, and don't have any particular need to pretend winning a game is proportional to the size of their pee-pees

B ) cheap, and not interested in rushing out and ebaying 500$ of miniatures

C) more interested in a loss that takes a solid 4 hours and a few beers to get through rather than a 90 minute turn 2 win

then you don't have a problem creating yourself a casual game meta.

The whole "but the game's so imbalanced that if people have random collections one guy will accidentally have the uber-l33t competitive eldar list and will stomp everyone" narrative that gets trotted out is, in my experience at least, incredibly rare. The guy with the super old Eldar collection that includes shining spears and Dark Reapers doesn't win any more or any less than anyone else, because his army list is usually something like

battalion

autarch on foot
farseer on foot
avatar of khaine

dire avengers on foot
guardians in a wave serpent
guardians on foot

3 shining spears
5 dark reapers with a shuriken cannon exarch
5 howling banshees on foot
2 wraithlords

Oh look, you've got two units in there that are used in competitive tournament lists on accident. well, good thing you've got 90% of the points into stuff that's not even close to tournament viable because that's the percentage of the units in the game that aren't, you're not running them as Ynnari because "what? no, they're biel tan. See, they're painted green. What even is that?" and there's not enough of them in the list for most people to even really notice them being particularly powerful.

Sure, if you ask people what they think of the game balance, they'll complain about it, but then they'll complain about things that aren't even close to a balance issue, and they're usually pretty funny complaints. "Yeah, you know what I hate? Terminators. Darn things. Why'd they make them so tough! 2+ armor saves, can you believe it? Anything but a one...jeez."

Most people when playing narrative build for a theme. I know several people who are in love with all things knights. Oops those knights just thunderstomped that random collection in two turns. But heck I have a themed list that is all custodes bikes all the time. I fudging love the things. My favorite models in 40k. I also have a mechanized victrix guard marine list with primaris Calgary leading it. But I don’t pretend my bikes aren’t a nightmare on the table and would grind my mech marines into fine paste. And under power it would be way worse, I’d have to drop several units for my marines while my bikers just don’t care.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

There’s an entire forge world who is famous for its plasma weaponry.

Citation needed

Other than the Dark Angels who have ready access to it whenever its not as common as one would think, and forgeworlds are notorious for withholding resources.

Wikipedia is not a citation my friend.

And Wikipedia especially Lexi is a valuable resource that is meticulously sourced. Its not warhammer 40k wiki which is written poorly and maintained poorly. Lexi does not have that issue at all. They are just slow to update but have very harsh rules.

Obviously, it specifically refers to the Executioner, but is further supporting evidence from the current edition of the game to what has already been provided.

It can be inferred that they are general talking about plasma as well. I doubt guardsmen have nearly as much access to plasma weaponry as space marines do.

Are you.... unfamiliar with Ryza?

Anyways your source does not say what you think it says. There’s a lot of old technology in the imperium that lasts hundreds of years but are also still produced. Power armor for example. Plasma weapons aren’t forgotten tech the imperium no longer has the skills to create. You over state the rarity of plasma weaponry. It’s not as common as, say, a flamer, or a bolt gun, or a lascannon, sure, but the imperium was never at risk of running out. And importantly distribution isn’t centralized, so the concept of a guard regiment wielding plasma over grenade launchers isn’t particularly lore breaking. They could merely be near one of the manufacturing hubs of plasma weaponry. Like ryza, the forgeworldmfamous for its plasma weaponry. The admech seems to keep plasma weapons closer in house than many other weapons, but they clearly have continued to produce it throughout the imperium

Cawl invented plasma weapons plus




Automatically Appended Next Post:

HoundsofDemos wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Plasma is rare. It was before cawl came around a dying technology.

It wasn’t. Find a citation stating it’s dying nature.

Most existing plasma weapons are hundreds if not thousands of years old

Lexicanum http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Plasma_weapon

1: Warhammer 40,000 3rd Edition Rulebook, pg. 60
2: Warhammer 40,000: Wargear (2nd Edition)
2a: pg. 32
2b: pg. 37
3: Dark Heresy Core Rulebook, pg. 134
4: Rogue Trader Core Rulebook, pg. 123
5: Deathwatch Core Rulebook

Wikipedia is not a citation my friend. There’s a lot of old tech that the imperium makes new versions of regularly. There’s an entire forge world who is famous for its plasma weaponry.

Way to move the goal posts, you asked for sources and they were provided. Plasma was until recently fairly rare. Most guard squads are far more likely to have a flamer or grenade launcher than a PG.

Yes, but that wasn’t the exception I took with the statement. Plasma was never lost tech. The ad mech always had plasma production capabilities. They never lost that unlike, say, phosphex.

If GW is trying to grow 40k beyond a garage game you play with your mates they need to tighten up (balance) the rules.

Being able to play a pick-up game or a RTT at the local FLGS brings in a lot of players that don't have an established group to "forge the narrative with."

Being able to design a list, independently at home, buy and paint those models and then have a reasonable game against someone else isn't too high of a bar. A game with some drama and tension over who will win instead of me plopping down marines and my opponent putting down ravagers and both of us knowing what is going to happen.

With the game being so much decided by luck the armies don't have to be perfectly balanced and the super high end tourney lists should be better than what you see at the average table. That being said a Castellan and some guardsmen isn't OMG WAAC cheese and it's so good unless you bring some real WAAC cheese to deal with it you are going to have a bad time.

I mean the plight of Karol should be familiar to everyone on these boards. That's just not good business practice.

bananathug wrote:
If GW is trying to grow 40k beyond a garage game you play with your mates they need to tighten up (balance) the rules.

Being able to play a pick-up game or a RTT at the local FLGS brings in a lot of players that don't have an established group to "forge the narrative with."

Being able to design a list, independently at home, buy and paint those models and then have a reasonable game against someone else isn't too high of a bar. A game with some drama and tension over who will win instead of me plopping down marines and my opponent putting down ravagers and both of us knowing what is going to happen.

With the game being so much decided by luck the armies don't have to be perfectly balanced and the super high end tourney lists should be better than what you see at the average table. That being said a Castellan and some guardsmen isn't OMG WAAC cheese and it's so good unless you bring some real WAAC cheese to deal with it you are going to have a bad time.

I mean the plight of Karol should be familiar to everyone on these boards. That's just not good business practice.

I think some of the problem comes down to their being no real consensus amongst the writers OR the community about what balanced even means. Does that mean I should be able to put down any combination of any 2000pts of models and have a nearly 50% chance to win against any army being piloted by a player of equal skill? Does it mean that my Dark Eldar optimized list should be able to beat my Marine player friend's optimized list around 50% of the time assuming equal skill? Does it mean that if I take the best Xenos units in the best combination, that I should win about 50% of games against the best Imperial units in the best combination? See the 'unit balance vs faction balance' thread for more on that rabbit hole.

Also, the people who make 40k don't seem to understand it very well. I always get the sense that they're confused by what makes a unit strong vs weak(which is why I don't really buy the 'they just made it good to sell more' thing for 40k.). In Age of Sigmar, the guys who make the game are also some of the better players in the world, with a bunch of tournament podiums under their belts(not that it seems to help much). In 40k they're...not that.

Finally, balancing a game like 40k is REALLY REALLY hard. Just look at all the terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE ideas that make up the majority of threads like these and you'll see that pretty clearly.

bananathug wrote:
I mean the plight of Karol should be familiar to everyone on these boards. That's just not good business practice.

Which of Karol's personas are you referring to, bananathug?

 liam0404 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Innes wrote:
Also, above all else I wish that I'd just remembered to Forlorn Fury my captain forward! Completely forgot because we had an hours break between deployment and turn one! Would have made a hell of a better turn one :(

You did quite well with all those outside influences messing with playing the game.

That is a lot of plates to be spinning right up untill you start the game, writing a list based of points you've just been shown, with what model the studio has available.
Then what I assume was presumably lots of interruption or disruption to the normal flow of the game of explaining why and pictures etc.

I'm sure I would have gotten totally wrong footed by that and probably wrecked the game with some shockingly bad misplay.

Cards on the table....

I was probably fortunate to win. Innes tends to play more competitive events than me these days, and certainly takes better lists. I had a super lucky turn 1, which I think carried me to the win.

I'll add as well that I think the mission greatly favoured me (although I can't remember how we decided we'd play this particular game) so that was against him too.

All i remember is he absolutely destroyed me in the last game of the NWO last summer

That said, his list for the LCO next weekend looks interesting!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you can easily break a system, it is a bad system.

If someone had bought a lock they didn't know was of poor quality and someone breaks it to steal their bike, the lock company can't say "Well don't go to an poor neighborhood where people use bolt cutters! That's not what it's meant for!"

This right here, above and beyond anything else that has been said in the entire existence of this website, is the single ...least informed... thing that has ever been said by anyone on it.

Firstly, not only does the fact that someone can break a lock not make it a bad lock, the company absolutely CAN say that. Locks of all shapes and sizes are a deterrent, not a guarantee. If someone wants your gak bad enough, they CAN find a way to take it.

Second, Humans are better at breaking systems than they are at ANYTHING. The human ability to create will NEVER be able to compete with our ability to break something once it's been made. Look at the entire breadth of human accomplishment: Law, Government, economics, technology, philosophy, all of it doesn't compare to the beautiful insanity of loophole abusing. Governmental Policy is constantly abused for the gain of a few individuals who see the holes in it. Marketplaces basically can't exist without some form of regulation because of how easy it is for someone to eventually dominate them, Technology gets broken into and destroyed all the time and every time they build a new defense, someone writes a way around it. Every major philosophical reasoning ever created has a firm rebuttal out there somewhere.

Breaking systems is what humans DO, there are entire industries dedicated to stopping people from breaking systems(like the Government, for example) and they fail at it constantly. Why do you think every basically every business contract ever written is ridiculously long and stupidly in depth? I just recently went through my 10 page Gym membership contract and all of that together boils down to 'give us money, you use gym, no give money, no get use gym' but it has to be that long because if it wasn't people would break the crap out of it. Even with that 10 page document, I bet I could find a loophole somewhere if I really wanted to.

The best you can hope for is that your system takes just a little bit more effort to break than the person most interested in breaking it is willing to exert.

Lawyers and Solicitors exist because Laws are exploitable.

These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.

You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Lawyers and Solicitors exist because Laws are exploitable.

These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.

You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?

If MTG can do it...

Also, the people who make 40k don't seem to understand it very well. I always get the sense that they're confused by what makes a unit strong vs weak(which is why I don't really buy the 'they just made it good to sell more' thing for 40k.). In Age of Sigmar, the guys who make the game are also some of the better players in the world, with a bunch of tournament podiums under their belts(not that it seems to help much). In 40k they're...not that.

The difference I experience in AoS is that when I end a game in AoS I can see what I did wrong. I find less faction differences in AoS compared to 40k where faction books can vary wildly in power level comparatively. Hell, I am still enjoying and doing okay with my Blades of Khorne and that was released in March 2017. On the flip side I find AoS much heavier on synergies.

Ultimately I think the problem 40k faces is that they are trying to support a huge legacy of models while also trying to keep their stats and flavor somewhat consistent with previous editions. AoS had none of that baggage and was allowed to grow from its completely new ruleset.

Lemondish 769150 10295348 null

The design team isn't the one that needs to learn a lesson.

The players are.How many fething times does the design team have to tell you this isn't a game designed to be ultra competitive before they call you idiots? wrote:

For a non competitive game the design spends a hell lot of time making some factions very good or write armies in a such a way they require 3-4 books to just be run.
If GW though that 8th ed Inari rules or something like castellans are ment for casual gaming, then it would speak a lot about their ability to write rules. The problem is not that w40k has a very good armies, or good synergies, it isn't even the fact that there are very bad armies in the same game, at the same time. The problem is that the difference between a good army and a bad army are huge. Bad stuff in w40k is not just a bit weaker good stuff, unless you play eldar. This makes it so that a bad codex army has to use a tournament list to play against a non competitive army from a good codex, and it still often loses.

Just ask anyone who had a group of friends start the game with some picking eldar and others picking GK, and ask them what the expiriance of playing against each other was for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Lawyers and Solicitors exist because Laws are exploitable.

These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.

You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?

But it is not a question of exploits. Everything good in w40k is good because of rule interaction, raw stats and combination of those two with a low point cost. Taking some IG, a castellan and some smash captins is not an exploit. The thing is that the game should not be played that, or Inari soup, or some hard orc counter to imperial soup.

GW has people with what 30 or 40 years epxiriance in writing rules ? they really can't see that over costed stuff is not going to work, no matter if it is tournaments or some guys playing at a store? What is worse, GW maybe says that they are more in to the casual gaming side of stuff, but the game they make is better for tournament people. Sure it aint perfect, but you can buy a good tournament list and have fun with it. Now trying to have fun with a casual list, is only theoreticaly a thing, because it comes with a bucket load of ifs. You can play casual lists, if your army is good. You can play casual, if your opponents make their lists bad enough to play against you. you can play casual, but if your army is really bad you have to either use a tournament list or your army is only technically the one you want to play, because 2/3 of it may end up being a different army etc.


You can have a great, but not perfect working rule system like the US one. Or you can have a rule system of the Iran or Afganistan type. Neither are perfect, but some are clearly much better to live under. w40k is good only for tournament players or those that own multiple armies, maybe even multiple games and can just switch at anytime, so they never get stuck with an unfun collection of models.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Lawyers and Solicitors exist because Laws are exploitable.

These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.

You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?

I agree with your argument up to a point. However, the difference here is that we have a game company that hypothetically has the ability to react much quicker than lawmakers. Changing laws is a monumental task requiring ton of people to vote and argue and judge. Changing rules for a game is more just dependent on what the company wants.

Now, that doesn't mean we can expect the perfect ruleset or balance. Even games like Blizzard games are always tweaking and balancing things, but even then, their(Blizzard) reaction time exploits are much faster than those of lawmakers.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Lawyers and Solicitors exist because Laws are exploitable.

These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.

You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?

Better than law? Probably not.

But I would like to see them hire a proper technical writer/editor, someone who can instigate some clarity in the verbiage they use to eliminate some of the ambiguity.

Hell, at a bare minimum, make sure flavour text and rules text isn't included in the same darned paragraph!

'Laws are exploitable, therefore we shouldn't expect the rules for assault weapons to actually work as written'.


Yikes.

Karol wrote:
Monumental task? In Poland or Hungary the law makers can pass a law within a single day, all 3 readings in both higher and lower chamber of parlament.

Fair enough, politics in some countries can be relatively one-sided. However, to compare rule writing and law writing is still a large False Equivalence.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Lawyers and Solicitors exist because Laws are exploitable.

These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.

You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?

I agree with your argument up to a point. However, the difference here is that we have a game company that hypothetically has the ability to react much quicker than lawmakers. Changing laws is a monumental task requiring ton of people to vote and argue and judge. Changing rules for a game is more just dependent on what the company wants.

Now, that doesn't mean we can expect the perfect ruleset or balance. Even games like Blizzard games are always tweaking and balancing things, but even then, their(Blizzard) reaction time exploits are much faster than those of lawmakers.

I can't even comprehend the level of complaining that would occur if rules additions/changes were issued at a faster speed than they already are!

"So I have to buy 3 codexes, BRB, CA17/18/19 37 FAQs .. designers commentary, SIaNE and update my facebook posts every 5 minutes ... just to be able to play a game ?!!!"

yeah those posts !

Lemondish wrote:
This will definitely put to bed the discussion on soup being intended and supported, and I look forward to the positive, dignified acceptance of that fact from the playerbase.

Indeed, this is the confirmation that soup and power lists are intended and supported by GW.

Soup has always been intended for 8th, the problem is that soup has ZERO downsides and tremendous benefits.

If soup had some downside, like detachments only generating 1CP unless all detachments share a non-Battle Brothers keyword, then the game would be in a better position.

Reanimation_Protocol wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Lawyers and Solicitors exist because Laws are exploitable.

These are laws that have been worked on and worked on and tweaked for years, if not centuries. And there are still vagaries of interpretation.

You really expect a games company to do better? Really really?

I agree with your argument up to a point. However, the difference here is that we have a game company that hypothetically has the ability to react much quicker than lawmakers. Changing laws is a monumental task requiring ton of people to vote and argue and judge. Changing rules for a game is more just dependent on what the company wants.

Now, that doesn't mean we can expect the perfect ruleset or balance. Even games like Blizzard games are always tweaking and balancing things, but even then, their(Blizzard) reaction time exploits are much faster than those of lawmakers.

I can't even comprehend the level of complaining that would occur if rules additions/changes were issued at a faster speed than they already are!

"So I have to buy 3 codexes, BRB, CA17/18/19 37 FAQs .. designers commentary, SIaNE and update my facebook posts every 5 minutes ... just to be able to play a game ?!!!"

yeah those posts !

If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".

Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.

Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.

 Eldarsif wrote:


If they were to stick to printed paper then yes, that would be problematic. The solution would just to go digital and have a living ruleset there. Digital Ruleset is an eventuality. The question has always been "when" rather than "if".

Of course, GW should be updating its Rule Pamphlet with more precise wording whenever they release a FAQ. That way you would only print the pamphlet and not keep the old pamphlet + FAQ.

Also, downloading 37 FAQs is a bit hyperbolic. There should only be 1-2 FAQs that are current and needed. One for the ruleset and one for you codex. If you are downloading all FAQs for every single codex then that tells more about a person's hoarding instincts than anything else.

yes 37 was hyperbolic because every post here and elsewhere is perfectly rational and emotionless

but the point stands that currently .. say I want to look up how the "Fights twice" ability has been FAQ'd

it's a Berzerker rule .. so Codex FAQ ? - nope .. BRB - nope , big FAQ 1 - nope 2, DC, SiaNE, CA17 Ca18 ...

I know it's in one of those books .. so at this point yeah ... I'd like an abridged version where the older questions (DC is wrong now on many things and should be made redundant) are revoked or further clarified ALL under one document + Codexes