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.

More BCB Pointless Complaining: A multitude of Boring Threads

 Elbows wrote:
More BCB Pointless Complaining: A multitude of Boring Threads

I find them quite entertaining.

 skchsan wrote:
BCB is indeed being very pedantic but he is nonetheless right. The patch fixes are all over the places.

Its not if hes right or not that ticks people off, its the unrelenting crusade against GW that hes bringing everywhere with him and the fact that he refuses to see other people's point of view.

I would absolutely love to have clearly defined rules for 40k like MTG has. in the meantime, we as a community have to find smart ways to parse these rules. As i keep repeating, using a specific > generic approach gives us that.

I know assault/pistol weapons technically dont work as per RAW, but i would never tell my opponent that they cant use them, BCB would, and thats exactly why he comes off the way he does.

The thing that annoys me is that GW is clearly designing the rules as if there are USRs, but without actually enforcing USRs (because GW always bins a concept if they screw it up once because blech). The flaw with USRs in previous editions wasn't the concept, but the lack of consolidation and the fact that GW's Editors are awful considering the size of the company. As a result, the game is being balanced and produced assuming X does Y, when a singular X doesn't exist beyond the most basic of rules.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Just stop, clearly we dont play the game for the same reason. When at the core of the game rules there is a "roll off to decide" its clear that it wont have perfect rules, and you keep bargin in with your RAW is god bs. People have tried to reason with you but you keep coming back with the same old arguments and pestering people in hopes of them suddenly agreeing with you.

"Just ignore the rules" is not reasoning.

Seems valid to me. As an aside, I really appreciate BCB keeping his unpopular nonsense in a separate thread. Nobody else cares about this gak quite as much as he does, so that's definitely something.

But I'm setting up at a table with beer and snacks to play a game, not determine the legitimate victor in a life and death bout. The rules facilitate having fun in a mock battle using tiny plastic models, not selecting the next Andrew Wiggin.

Adjusting rules to be workable by making assumptions is totally fine to me. That sometimes means ignoring the written rule in favour of the agreed spirit of the rule.

And yeah, sometimes we might decide to ignore or house rule something for the fun of it. Oh, the horror. I'm intentionally not following the rules for purposes of having a good time. What kind of monster am I?

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The thing that annoys me is that GW is clearly designing the rules as if there are USRs, but without actually enforcing USRs (because GW always bins a concept if they screw it up once because blech). The flaw with USRs in previous editions wasn't the concept, but the lack of consolidation and the fact that GW's Editors are awful considering the size of the company. As a result, the game is being balanced and produced assuming X does Y, when a singular X doesn't exist beyond the most basic of rules.

This exactly.

40k is in desperate need of consolidated Glossary of Terms. See 'rules reference' that comes with catan.

 skchsan wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The thing that annoys me is that GW is clearly designing the rules as if there are USRs, but without actually enforcing USRs (because GW always bins a concept if they screw it up once because blech). The flaw with USRs in previous editions wasn't the concept, but the lack of consolidation and the fact that GW's Editors are awful considering the size of the company. As a result, the game is being balanced and produced assuming X does Y, when a singular X doesn't exist beyond the most basic of rules.

This exactly.

I'm still confused by them doing that. It's just a much better way especially when they seem to act like they still have USR's and everything having rules that are Deep Strike but not.

The underlying issue is that GW still sees itself as a model company that happens to write rules to sell models.

But on to more specific issues and causes of the issue.

Pay, simply put GW doesn't pay enough money to actually attract statisticians and other skilled workers, most GW employee's are fans first.

The rules team.is checking their own homework.
This is bad as they will always have RAW = RAI because they know what RAI is and they wrote RAW because they think that's what they want.

Alot of these issues could as usual be fixed by throwing money at the problem and hire or outsourcing labour.

However the biggest issue of consistency is going to be a problem. The obvious solution is technical author's for each game system.

Technical authoring isn't exactly common as a skill set and good technical author's are a fairly dying profession.

You really want someone who's into playing that game system with the relevant required skills that's taking a small potential applicant pool to probably double digits at best globally.

Oh look another BCB pontificating thread....

Over/under on how many real, actual games of 40k he has played? Because I'm betting zero.

 skchsan wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The thing that annoys me is that GW is clearly designing the rules as if there are USRs, but without actually enforcing USRs (because GW always bins a concept if they screw it up once because blech). The flaw with USRs in previous editions wasn't the concept, but the lack of consolidation and the fact that GW's Editors are awful considering the size of the company. As a result, the game is being balanced and produced assuming X does Y, when a singular X doesn't exist beyond the most basic of rules.

This exactly.

40k is in desperate need of consolidated Glossary of Terms. See 'rules reference' that comes with catan.

this is the #1 thing i mentioned in the big survey. 40k needs a comprehensive rulebook equivalent (Thats the MTG equivalent) litterally every interaction is possible can be clearly defined using this rulebook and its updated with every new release. I love playing "by the rules" since i was playing mtg before 40k. I'm still not going to argue against things like assault weapons not working.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Complaining for the sake of complaining is bad. .

When someone has admitted on the forums that they don't actually play the game, that would seem to fit into the above category.


I'm not really seeing a point to this thread. If there are rules issues to discuss, that can be done in YMDC. If we're just bitching about a game that we don't play but for some reason are incredibly invested in to the extent of getting worked up enough about it to constantly insult the people responsible for making it, that woudl seem to be better suited to a personal blog.

Moving on.