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.

THe problem is that some "gamers" like to pretend their social hour that they tell their parents/wives/gf's is game time isn't. THey sit around and laugh and 1/2 heartedly play a turn or 2 while having a beer.

For those guys intent is great.

Gamers, intent on playing a game, and getting better at it and who use it as self improvement know the idea of Intent is crap.

Real play with a tight ruleset that doesn't have grey area's makes for a better play experience.

Is there some social construct I missed that demands GW games designers to answer questions like "What's it like, working on games rules" with new FAQ rules to clean up the game?

How far does that rule go? Do you require them to fix one rule every time they order breakfast? How does the waitress know what to bring them if they're jabbering about MEQ vs Green Tide instead of sausage or bacon?

I get that you don't care for a video where they're talking about the hows and whys, but what's so wrong with them producing such a video for those who want it?

Besides, either the process is working and things are as they should, or the process is broken and needs to be fixed. In the first case, why not share their process? But in the second case, wouldn't focusing on their process be the only way to fix it?

Either way, it's hard to see how this video warrents so much hate.

Reemule wrote:
THe problem is that some "gamers" like to pretend their social hour that they tell their parents/wives/gf's is game time isn't. THey sit around and laugh and 1/2 heartedly play a turn or 2 while having a beer.

For those guys intent is great.

Gamers, intent on playing a game, and getting better at it and who use it as self improvement know the idea of Intent is crap.

Real play with a tight ruleset that doesn't have grey area's makes for a better play experience.

You do understand the intent doesn't contradict the idea that the game can have a tight ruleset right? The reason I shared this discussion of intent is because it shows the intent of the studio so when we're discussing RAW versus RAI we know more of what the studio is going for rather than what we assume they're going for.

Basically if your reading of a rule creates moments that feel bad to play against, your reading of the rule is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Is there some social construct I missed that demands GW games designers to answer questions like "What's it like, working on games rules" with new FAQ rules to clean up the game?

How far does that rule go? Do you require them to fix one rule every time they order breakfast? How does the waitress know what to bring them if they're jabbering about MEQ vs Green Tide instead of sausage or bacon?

I get that you don't care for a video where they're talking about the hows and whys, but what's so wrong with them producing such a video for those who want it?

Besides, either the process is working and things are as they should, or the process is broken and needs to be fixed. In the first case, why not share their process? But in the second case, wouldn't focusing on their process be the only way to fix it?

Either way, it's hard to see how this video warrents so much hate.

Most of the hate is from people who don't even watch it, assume what it actually covers and then running with their biases on full display.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most of the hate is from people who don't even watch it, assume what it actually covers and then running with their biases on full display.

I feel like that could apply to most threads.

Reemule wrote:
Gamers, intent on playing a game, and getting better at it and who use it as self improvement know the idea of Intent is crap.

Real play with a tight ruleset that doesn't have grey area's makes for a better play experience.

I'd argue the true "intent on playing" a tournament 40k isn't about getting better at it but how badly they can break the game to their advantage which for them "makes for a better play experience."

Imagine you bought a car, and VW told everyone that they know it sometimes the engine work and sometimes it doesn't, same with breaks, heating etc. But they full encourage the buyer of their cars to fix the cars they bought themselfs, they are even willing to sell the parts needed for specific repairs.

The stock market would probably explode


As RAI goes, I understand how it could work with strange interaction , although they sometimes get supported by later supplements. I even get how RAI could work with too good rule combinations. But I have zero idea how RAI would work with bad rules. So if GW writes a set of rules and they end up real bad, and then the fixs make them worse, but I think we agree people want fun armies to play with, how do those two go hand in hand. Can't have bad armies that are unfun to play with, that are fun to play, and you can't even fix them through house rules, assuming you play in a place where those are accepted, because GWs own doing clearly shows the rules are suppose to be bad, because if GW wanted to fix them, they would either say they want to fix the rules or they would just fix them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most of the hate is from people who don't even watch it, assume what it actually covers and then running with their biases on full display.

Why you conflate criticism and hate? This is not the first time this happens.

 skchsan wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Gamers, intent on playing a game, and getting better at it and who use it as self improvement know the idea of Intent is crap.

Real play with a tight ruleset that doesn't have grey area's makes for a better play experience.

I'd argue the true "intent on playing" a tournament 40k isn't about getting better at it but how badly they can break the game to their advantage.

I'd say it's both. Competitive play is hinged on finding the strongest exploitation of the rules while ensuring it works on the widest number of opponents all while claiming the game needs to be more balanced despite the fact that the competitive scene, especially at high level play, hinges on this sort of exploration.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Most of the hate is from people who don't even watch it, assume what it actually covers and then running with their biases on full display.

Why you conflate criticism and hate? This is not the first time this happens.

Why do you pretend that people who are making commentary about what they think GW said without actually checking to see what GW said is valid criticism? I could have posted that the video had said just about anything and most of the posters in this thread would have jumped on that without bothering to check it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Why do you pretend that people who are making commentary about what they think GW said without actually checking to see what GW said is valid criticism? I could have posted that the video had said just about anything and most of the posters in this thread would have jumped on that without bothering to check it.

Could you please point out specific instances? Like, Poster X stated Y, but at minute zz:zz of the video this is countered.
Because this sounds a lot like some band-aid defense.

Karol wrote:
Imagine you bought a car, and VW told everyone that they know it sometimes the engine work and sometimes it doesn't, same with breaks, heating etc. But they full encourage the buyer of their cars to fix the cars they bought themselfs, they are even willing to sell the parts needed for specific repairs.

The stock market would probably explode

It's more that BMW sells you a car for daily driving but you try and use it as a formula one car by adding extra parts to it, and then complain it's not a sports car.

That's competitive play in a nutshell, it's trying to make a formula one car out of a rule set intended more for a daily driver that might be able to drive the autobahn comfortably, but isn't meant for the sort of redlining it keeps getting shoved into.

Karol wrote:
Imagine you bought a car, and VW told everyone that they know it sometimes the engine work and sometimes it doesn't, same with breaks, heating etc. But they full encourage the buyer of their cars to fix the cars they bought themselfs, they are even willing to sell the parts needed for specific repairs.

I take this from GW "spend money on our models, not on our rules - these are worthless".
Ok GW, message received.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Why do you pretend that people who are making commentary about what they think GW said without actually checking to see what GW said is valid criticism? I could have posted that the video had said just about anything and most of the posters in this thread would have jumped on that without bothering to check it.

Could you please point out specific instances? Like, Poster X stated Y, but at minute zz:zz of the video this is countered.
Because this sounds a lot like some band-aid defense.

I'm not the one claiming that GW doesn't care about game balance and is just trying to bandaid the game with an excuse video. The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on the usual suspects who jumped into this thread to take shots at GW without doing the research.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Karol wrote:
Imagine you bought a car, and VW told everyone that they know it sometimes the engine work and sometimes it doesn't, same with breaks, heating etc. But they full encourage the buyer of their cars to fix the cars they bought themselfs, they are even willing to sell the parts needed for specific repairs.

I take this from GW "spend money on our models, not on our rules - these are worthless".
Ok GW, message received.

The rules explicitly state you can make your own rules.

The base rules give you a framework in which you can alter to suit your local meta.

Tourny meta is one which eschews the TMIR, take the rules at its face value (even if it would mean some hilarious outcomes) and pits players & their min-maxed army together.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Why do you pretend that people who are making commentary about what they think GW said without actually checking to see what GW said is valid criticism? I could have posted that the video had said just about anything and most of the posters in this thread would have jumped on that without bothering to check it.

Could you please point out specific instances? Like, Poster X stated Y, but at minute zz:zz of the video this is countered.
Because this sounds a lot like some band-aid defense.

I'm not the one claiming that GW doesn't care about game balance and is just trying to bandaid the game with an excuse video. The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on the usual suspects who jumped into this thread to take shots at GW without doing the research.

This is hilarious. "Forge the narrative" became a meme for a reason.

Why do you pretend that people who are making commentary about what they think GW said without actually checking to see what GW said is valid criticism? I could have posted that the video had said just about anything and most of the posters in this thread would have jumped on that without bothering to check it.

Isn't more important, then what GW says in videos, the stuff they actually do with their rules.
GW can tell all they want that their goal is for people to have fun, but then I get to look at my codex, the FAQs and the CAs, and I don't get how this can be true. Because clearly they do not want GK players to have fun with their army.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Why do you pretend that people who are making commentary about what they think GW said without actually checking to see what GW said is valid criticism? I could have posted that the video had said just about anything and most of the posters in this thread would have jumped on that without bothering to check it.

Could you please point out specific instances? Like, Poster X stated Y, but at minute zz:zz of the video this is countered.
Because this sounds a lot like some band-aid defense.

I'm not the one claiming that GW doesn't care about game balance and is just trying to bandaid the game with an excuse video. The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on the usual suspects who jumped into this thread to take shots at GW without doing the research.

This is hilarious. "Forge the narrative" became a meme for a reason.

Yeah, because the loudest voices on the internet can't imagine using a game as a game to have fun and need to treat it like a bloodsport.

Well that, and Kirby was running the company into the ground with bad practices that ran counter to anything the studio actually intended to do with the game.

 skchsan wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Karol wrote:
Imagine you bought a car, and VW told everyone that they know it sometimes the engine work and sometimes it doesn't, same with breaks, heating etc. But they full encourage the buyer of their cars to fix the cars they bought themselfs, they are even willing to sell the parts needed for specific repairs.

I take this from GW "spend money on our models, not on our rules - these are worthless".
Ok GW, message received.

The rules explicitly state you can make your own rules.

The base rules give you a framework in which you can alter to suit your local meta.

Tourny meta is one which eschews the TMIR and pits players & their min-maxed army together.

Make my own rules should be an addition to a tight ruleset. Once my friends and I master the ruleset, and we have a good common ground and solid baseline CREATED BY THE AUTHORS, then we can make up rules.
This is not what can happen with GW games. 40k rule writing is erratic, inconsistent, unbalanced, schizophrenic, and partial to a given faction on a given moment. Is not, it cannot be, a solid framework to work on.
What are you asking it to do the designer's job.

Karol wrote:

Why do you pretend that people who are making commentary about what they think GW said without actually checking to see what GW said is valid criticism? I could have posted that the video had said just about anything and most of the posters in this thread would have jumped on that without bothering to check it.

Isn't more important, then what GW says in videos, the stuff they actually do with their rules.
GW can tell all they want that their goal is for people to have fun, but then I get to look at my codex, the FAQs and the CAs, and I don't get how this can be true. Because clearly they do not want GK players to have fun with their army.

You live in a meta where people think smashing face is the only way to play. There are people out there who can roll up to their local store say "I brought Grey Knights" and play people who will tone their army down for a fun game rather than trying to stomp face.

Yes, GK need a rework from the ground up, but the inability to have fun with the army has as much to do with the enviroment you play in as much as the army you play with.

The object of the game is to win.
The point of the game is to have fun.

Arguments are not fun. Unclear rules and stuff like Intent encourages arguments.

Tournament games hardly ever have arguments. If something is unclear a Judge is called, the play is clarified and the game goes on.

Casual play is where you get arguments. You get TFG. You get Intent discussions. Not fun.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Yeah, because the loudest voices on the internet can't imagine using a game as a game to have fun and need to treat it like a bloodsport.

Well that, and Kirby was running the company into the ground with bad practices that ran counter to anything the studio actually intended to do with the game.

If my friends, as happened, get frustrated because the mad max ork army they envisioned is not functional since 3rd edition I am not going to have fun because they quit and I am not going to play with them.
And I know Kirby is a serviceable boogeyman but here the problem is the same old with the design team.

 skchsan wrote:

I take this from GW "spend money on our models, not on our rules - these are worthless".
Ok GW, message received.

The rules explicitly state you can make your own rules.

The base rules give you a framework in which you can alter to suit your local meta.

Tourny meta is one which eschews the TMIR, take the rules at its face value (even if it would mean some hilarious outcomes) and pits players & their min-maxed army together.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The game should try harder for balance, period.

Define "balance".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Marine Battle Companies don't suck.

Outside Gladius and metas where everyone buys one-of-everything and doesn't bother to optimize by even a percent, they suck.

If you can't get clouds of power armor to work after the new books, there's just no hope for you.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Why do you pretend that people who are making commentary about what they think GW said without actually checking to see what GW said is valid criticism? I could have posted that the video had said just about anything and most of the posters in this thread would have jumped on that without bothering to check it.

Could you please point out specific instances? Like, Poster X stated Y, but at minute zz:zz of the video this is countered.
Because this sounds a lot like some band-aid defense.

I'm not the one claiming that GW doesn't care about game balance and is just trying to bandaid the game with an excuse video. The burden of proof isn't on me, it's on the usual suspects who jumped into this thread to take shots at GW without doing the research.

You're blaming others for what has become of this thread when the blame should lay right at your feet for summarising the video incorrectly. You KNEW people were not going to watch it for one reason or another. This is all on you for not doing a proper TL;DR.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Karol wrote:
Imagine you bought a car, and VW told everyone that they know it sometimes the engine work and sometimes it doesn't, same with breaks, heating etc. But they full encourage the buyer of their cars to fix the cars they bought themselfs, they are even willing to sell the parts needed for specific repairs.

I take this from GW "spend money on our models, not on our rules - these are worthless".
Ok GW, message received.

The rules explicitly state you can make your own rules.

The base rules give you a framework in which you can alter to suit your local meta.

Tourny meta is one which eschews the TMIR and pits players & their min-maxed army together.

Make my own rules should be an addition to a tight ruleset. Once my friends and I master the ruleset, and we have a good common ground and solid baseline CREATED BY THE AUTHORS, then we can make up rules.
This is not what can happen with GW games. 40k rule writing is erratic, inconsistent, unbalanced, schizophrenic, and partial to a given faction on a given moment. Is not, it cannot be, a solid framework to work on.
What are you asking it to do the designer's job.

No ruleset for any game is watertight. Albeit 40k has more holes than I'd like, it's functional enough to get a game going.

Reemule wrote:
The object of the game is to win.
The point of the game is to have fun.

Arguments are not fun. Unclear rules and stuff like Intent encourages arguments.

Tournament games hardly ever have arguments. If something is unclear a Judge is called, the play is clarified and the game goes on.

Casual play is where you get arguments. You get TFG. You get Intent discussions. Not fun.

You get TFG and intent discussions in competitive play too. Let's not pretend that those things don't exist just because you can get a third party over to discuss things with and solve a dispute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
You're blaming others for what has become of this thread when the blame should lay right at your feet for summarising the video incorrectly. You KNEW people were not going to watch it for one reason or another. This is all on you for not doing a proper TL;DR.

Nice blame shift. I summarized, not provided a line by line transcript. Summaries eliminate context and boil things down to points, and people where ignoring those points from the get go and railed on about how GW doesn't care about balance.

I'm not taking the blame for people looking for their latest excuse to make up new BS to complain about.

 skchsan wrote:
No ruleset for any game is watertight.

Fallacy already debunked above.

Albeit 40k has more holes than I'd like, it's functional enough to get a game going.

Not really. Again, try to build a decent Aspect Warriors or Trukk Boyz list. 8th has still the potential to be great IMHO but the volume and scope of the game killed any subtlety again. 40k is go big, or go home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Nice blame shift. I summarized, not provided a line by line transcript. Summaries eliminate context and boil things down to points, and people where ignoring those points from the get go and railed on about how GW doesn't care about balance.

I'm not taking the blame for people looking for their latest excuse to make up new BS to complain about.

Post and minute of the video please.
And no, your "burden of proof" is nonsense I am afraid. People are discussing the ruleset, YOU are calling their statement and interpretation of the video fallacious, it's therefore on YOU to debunk the posts.
I am waiting.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

You live in a meta where people think smashing face is the only way to play. There are people out there who can roll up to their local store say "I brought Grey Knights" and play people who will tone their army down for a fun game rather than trying to stomp face.

Yes, GK need a rework from the ground up, but the inability to have fun with the army has as much to do with the enviroment you play in as much as the army you play with.

I don't see endless threads about other ways of playing here, or on other forums or facebook groups. Where is the world wide community that produces rule sets for narrative or open play? where are the community accepted, codex rewrites? If my place is so one of the kind, in playing with just the match play rules. Then I am sure the open or narrative stuff, should be bursting everywhere.

And I am talking separate from my personal position. The fact that people here have 1 army, and out of 30 or something people, only 4-5 have more then one, means that even if you tell someone your bringing GK, not like everyone doesn't know what other people have and play with, there is no place for adjustment. How does someone with 2000pts with flyer eldar or a orc da jump list, is going to modify it to accomodate a GK army. Which kind of a brings the argument someone else brought before. GW doesn't want you to buy a 2000pts working army, they want you to buy 2-3 armies, or 5-6k pts of one army, and mix and match from that"so everyone can have fun". But lets not make all of this about me, and my supposed evil and unique place to play.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Not really. Again, try to build a decent Aspect Warriors or Trukk Boyz list. 8th has still the potential to be great IMHO but the volume and scope of the game killed any subtlety again. 40k is go big, or go home.

That would be a discussion of "fairness" and/or "balance", not that of rules intent.

You can't generalize the game as a whole as seen on tournament scene because they play by a specific house rule sets that skews the advantages to a certain build.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Post and minute of the video please.
And no, your "burden of proof" is nonsense I am afraid. People are discussing the ruleset, YOU are calling their statement and interpretation of the video fallacious, it's therefore on YOU to debunk the posts.
I am waiting.

Post the timestamp for what exactly? The part of the video where GW talks about how things they don't talk about? I can't provide evidence that something that didn't happen didn't happen, that's why it's not my burden to prove.

What good rules allows

1) Narrative players will be given a decent frame work to build of on for "forging the narrative." "Muh Story." (it would be easier and effortless to do so)
2) Players who want to achieve a "Win State" will have various options and/or playstyles suited to their needs.
3) Prevents rules inconsistencies to the point that the game itself has a clear simple mechanical flow that is because of its intuitive design.

Various games may meet these partial or somewhat however that doesn't invalidate their importance. That argument is "it's hard to write good rules." Really shouldn't be in the debate.
People getting triggered of the intent of the vid that explains intent. It wouldn't exist if the RULEZ met the above criteria. Holding games design to a high standard isn't the problem, the problem is if you accept mediocrity you will only get a downward spiral of mediocrity.

Remember kidz "GW is a model(s) company not a RULEZ company "