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.

 DominayTrix wrote:
Honestly? GW needs to hire someone like BCB to playtest and proofread their rules if they want even a chance at balance. Fire every single playtester who does the "UGH I CANT BELIEVE THEY WOULD PLAY IT THAT WAY IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED TO PLAY LIKE THAT" excuse/eyeroll. The language either allows it or doesn't allow it. If it isn't clear then the instructions are bad. It's pretty hard to balance things if people are playing them differently depending on how you interpret vague language.

Savior protocols is probably one of the better examples for this:
Originally, the rules were vague enough that it was ANY attack and it would be translated into a single mortal wound. This is incredibly strong. Some people argued that attacks resulting in mortal wounds (typically psychic attacks) would treat each mortal wound as an individual attack so 3 MW=3 Drones. Still strong but not nearly as strong as turning smite into 1 MW on a drone. It was then clarified to be only ranged and melee attacks originating from a weapon. (No psychic attacks) Strong with a weakness and most people still assumed mortal wounds required an additional drone (snipers etc) It was then further clarified that additional MW do not require additional drones, but attacks that fail to wound while still causing mortal wounds means you cannot intercept the MW.

None of these clarifications required changing the actual Savior Protocols rules. How do you accurately cost drones if the original rules were vague enough to allow literally all of these interpretations? The first option is OP if drones cost anything less than 15ppm. The last option is strong, but arguably fair at 10ppm given how many things are unblockable by SP. Then, given that almost every Tau unit has access to SP, how do you accurately price their durability with the same vagueness?

Once everyone is playing the same game you can make a pass at balance. Anything before that can be completely destroyed by later clarifications that change the way rules are played without actually changing the text of the rules.

It's not that easy, especially not when people want to be misled. Who knows what efforts they have going on, we can agree that it's probably too little, but things slip. A few thousand people are better than any single technical writer/catbug could ever be and an FAQ document is pretty easy to make. For example, there is no such thing as a psychic attack which you seem to imply exists, that's something you made up or took over from a previous edition, that's just what GW has to deal with. Or a sniper hitting a drone, normally, it would do 1 wound with AP- and 1 mortal wound instead it just does 1 mortal wound to the Drones.

The effect GW wanted for Saviour Protocols is also super complex IMO and they have other bodyguard rules that are pretty simple and aura durability buffs that are simple, it's really just a question of putting a tool that's too difficult to learn to use in the hands of hairless monkies and using a natural language that was not engineered to avoid misunderstandings to convey that rule. Think about literal laws for the real world, how they get interpreted and wrung about for political gain, then multiply that by a thousand when Timmy shoots his snipers at a Suit and it only takes one mortal wound. It's not that the rule was badly written, it's that its effect should never have been in the game.

 vict0988 wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Honestly? GW needs to hire someone like BCB to playtest and proofread their rules if they want even a chance at balance. Fire every single playtester who does the "UGH I CANT BELIEVE THEY WOULD PLAY IT THAT WAY IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED TO PLAY LIKE THAT" excuse/eyeroll. The language either allows it or doesn't allow it. If it isn't clear then the instructions are bad. It's pretty hard to balance things if people are playing them differently depending on how you interpret vague language.

Savior protocols is probably one of the better examples for this:
Originally, the rules were vague enough that it was ANY attack and it would be translated into a single mortal wound. This is incredibly strong. Some people argued that attacks resulting in mortal wounds (typically psychic attacks) would treat each mortal wound as an individual attack so 3 MW=3 Drones. Still strong but not nearly as strong as turning smite into 1 MW on a drone. It was then clarified to be only ranged and melee attacks originating from a weapon. (No psychic attacks) Strong with a weakness and most people still assumed mortal wounds required an additional drone (snipers etc) It was then further clarified that additional MW do not require additional drones, but attacks that fail to wound while still causing mortal wounds means you cannot intercept the MW.

None of these clarifications required changing the actual Savior Protocols rules. How do you accurately cost drones if the original rules were vague enough to allow literally all of these interpretations? The first option is OP if drones cost anything less than 15ppm. The last option is strong, but arguably fair at 10ppm given how many things are unblockable by SP. Then, given that almost every Tau unit has access to SP, how do you accurately price their durability with the same vagueness?

Once everyone is playing the same game you can make a pass at balance. Anything before that can be completely destroyed by later clarifications that change the way rules are played without actually changing the text of the rules.

It's not that easy, especially not when people want to be misled. Who knows what efforts they have going on, we can agree that it's probably too little, but things slip. A few thousand people are better than any single technical writer/catbug could ever be and an FAQ document is pretty easy to make. For example, there is no such thing as a psychic attack which you seem to imply exists, that's something you made up or took over from a previous edition, that's just what GW has to deal with. Or a sniper hitting a drone, normally, it would do 1 wound with AP- and 1 mortal wound instead it just does 1 mortal wound to the Drones.

The effect GW wanted for Saviour Protocols is also super complex IMO and they have other bodyguard rules that are pretty simple and aura durability buffs that are simple, it's really just a question of putting a tool that's too difficult to learn to use in the hands of hairless monkies and using a natural language that was not engineered to avoid misunderstandings to convey that rule. Think about literal laws for the real world, how they get interpreted and wrung about for political gain, then multiply that by a thousand when Timmy shoots his snipers at a Suit and it only takes one mortal wound. It's not that the rule was badly written, it's that its effect should never have been in the game.

Assuming people want to be misled is kind of rude to assume about their character, but that really doesn't matter if the rules are concise and clear. If the rules are written in a way that is open to multiple interpretations then they are not clear rules full stop. How do you determine the base strength of a model? You look at the number in the S column. No matter how hard I want to be misled S4 is S4. Sure, nobody gets it right on the first time and some things slip up, but how does infinite exploding 6s pass all of the playtesters without a single person going "uhhh isn't this infinite?" How does the Tigershark AX-1 have a non-functional main gun on day 1? Did literally 0 playtesters try to block smite with SP? Not a single one went "Is smite an attack?" Their playtesters are assuming things and applying knowledge of what the intent is. That is a bad playtester for determining what something does and that's exactly why you need someone who follows the instructions without knowing what the goal is. Record the results and each revision should try to minimize deviation to an acceptable level.

 DominayTrix wrote:

Assuming people want to be misled is kind of rude to assume about their character, but that really doesn't matter if the rules are concise and clear. If the rules are written in a way that is open to multiple interpretations then they are not clear rules full stop. How do you determine the base strength of a model? You look at the number in the S column. No matter how hard I want to be misled S4 is S4. Sure, nobody gets it right on the first time and some things slip up, but how does infinite exploding 6s pass all of the playtesters without a single person going "uhhh isn't this infinite?" How does the Tigershark AX-1 have a non-functional main gun on day 1? Did literally 0 playtesters try to block smite with SP? Not a single one went "Is smite an attack?" Their playtesters are assuming things and applying knowledge of what the intent is. That is a bad playtester for determining what something does and that's exactly why you need someone who follows the instructions without knowing what the goal is. Record the results and each revision should try to minimize deviation to an acceptable level.

You can interpret even the clearest rules to mean something they don't. Like is a psychic power an attack? You can apparently take it doing damage to mean that it's an attack, even though it's not in the rules, because something that does damage is an attack according to your view of the English language and your values and beliefs (I'd agree if we weren't talking about terms of rules in a game). Knowing that a psychic power is never an attack is just something you know, so if you write attack you do not need to specify that psychic powers are excluded because they are not attacks. Otherwise, you would have to write "this unit has a 5+ invulnerable save against Shooting attacks, but not against Melee attacks, psychic powers or any other ability or rule that deals damage", instead of "this unit has a 5+ invulnerable save against Shooting attacks". Then if people misunderstand (knuckleheads that want to game the system or people that are legitimately confused like yourself) you make an FAQ and/or Errata. Take the following rule:

If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit with one or more wounds remaining (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to one of the targets with the largest number of lost wounds possible.

I tried to fix the wording of the wound rolls because of an exploit you can do with models that are not immediately removed from the table after reaching 0 wounds and someone asked me if he could put wounds on one model and then before that model is killed put a wound on a different model. I think it's extremely clear by "if a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to one of the targets with the largest number of lost wounds possible" that is not possible since the wounded model has lost more wounds than a model that is not wounded. Someone was confused and thought I had accidentally allowed people to juggle wounds, I now have a much greater degree of sympathy for GW. You also have to factor into the whole thing that English is not the first language of everyone that plays the game. That's why I said you can't put complicated rules in the game, because some people will not understand what you are trying to tell them unless you use simple language, even if the text is technically clear on how it works. So yes, we can all agree that it says 4 in the Strength characteristic of the unit, but when you try to juggle wounds before saves are made and ignoring any additional damage dealt by abilities, then it's just too complicated to implement and should've been scrapped in favour of a rule that either eats individual damage like Lychguard or just adds durability in the form of an improved Sv or T characteristic to all Infantry and Suit units within 3" of a Savour Protocols unit.

Vict you are being obtuse...Clear rules make sense. Through the fickleness of language you can get alternate interpretation, sure. That is why you play test and that is where you clarify using such precise language there is no possibility about how to interpret it.

It really is funny looking at a YMDC thread and average joe shmoo rolls in and just say...why didn't they just say it this way "example" and everyone can only respond with..."well because that would have made too much sense".

It is clear to anyone with a base level of average intelligence that these designers do not properly play test or even attempt to make balanced rules. It's not because it's hard. It is literally because they don't try or don't approach things correctly. Almost like this is the same company that had no idea people would attempt to DS their whole army with 7 tyrants and a few spores hiding in their deployment zone....they are so uninspired and out their element when it comes to rules design.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Vict you are being obtuse...Clear rules make sense. Through the fickleness of language you can get alternate interpretation, sure. That is why you play test and that is where you clarify using such precise language there is no possibility about how to interpret it.

Clear, concise technical wording that has no possibility of being misread? There are whole *professions* devoted to it (Law and Business Analysis). If those entire *professions* can't do it, what makes you think GW can?

It's not a trivial task.

It really is funny looking at a YMDC thread and average joe shmoo rolls in and just say...why didn't they just say it this way "example" and everyone can only respond with..."well because that would have made too much sense".

It's funny how everyone on Monday morning can lay out exactly what team X should have done to win. There's a term for that: Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

It is clear to anyone with a base level of average intelligence that these designers do not properly play test or even attempt to make balanced rules.

Demonstrably untrue. Several posters (not including myself) have that belief who've otherwise shown they posses "base level of average intelligence".

It's not because it's hard.

Lolwut? 100% testing nontrivial systems *is* hard. Possibly NP hard, depending on the system. Quite literally a "wicked problem", most of the time, too.

It is literally because they don't try or don't approach things correctly.

Only pedantically true based on particular meanings of "correctly". Not to the level you (or I) would want? Sure. But whos' to say the level we pick is "correct"?

Almost like this is the same company that had no idea people would attempt to DS their whole army with 7 tyrants and a few spores hiding in their deployment zone....they are so uninspired and out their element when it comes to rules design.

I think you don't understand large organizations.

I myself see nothing wrong in deep srtiking with full army. There is terminator wing as a concept at least. 7 tyrants seems like a strange thing. What would drive them to work like that together without troops, mist be really strange setup.

Those companies and everything makes their hardest to anyone not understand anything. Thats what they get their income on. People who tell you the world is a complex place are the most simple. It really is not. To make something complex is to purposedly make a pull on people. Then everybody must say that its complex and you just dont understand and thats how the "world is" even it isnt, its just people taking advantage of other people. Some people call it "babylon" and the gw marketing department is definetely part of it. This is the reason for all the hate i n wh players against the company that have provided them the greatest game ever.

I have never had any rules that could not be understood in fantasy battles and when i tried 40k it made sense and the rules could be given in few minutes.

Maybe its more like there are people who do not want to understand no matter what because they think there is some kind of gain for it.


Btw, in real time environment knowing "how to win" usually amounts to nothing even if it would be right. The best perform is usually to act on instinct alone.

Bharring wrote:
what makes you think GW can?

because other companies writing game rules can

and we are not talking about a fail-safe rulebook easy to understand for everyone, but about mistakes that someone who never played the game/edition before spots it the first time reading the rules.
which is something that could be easy avoided

 kodos wrote:

Bharring wrote:
what makes you think GW can?

because other companies writing game rules can

and we are not talking about a fail-safe rulebook easy to understand for everyone, but about mistakes that someone who never played the game/edition before spots it the first time reading the rules.
which is something that could be easy avoided

Other companies write better rules. Which is a standard we should hold them to. No other companies write perfect rules, or don't write some rules badly. It's silly to hold them to *that* standard.

I agree they fall short of an appropriate standard. I disagree on what the appropriate standard is.

never said anyone writes perfect rules

and of course different people have a different opinion on what a basic or good standard is

but it is just not true that is is impossible to avoid some simple mistakes by taking a little bit more care

we can discuss until eternity if "0-12, 12-24" or "0-12, >12-24" is easier to understand or will avoid discussions during gameplay
or if a unit should cost 210 points instead of 215

but this is not the point

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Vict you are being obtuse...Clear rules make sense. Through the fickleness of language you can get alternate interpretation, sure. That is why you play test and that is where you clarify using such precise language there is no possibility about how to interpret it.

Clear, concise technical wording that has no possibility of being misread? There are whole *professions* devoted to it (Law and Business Analysis). If those entire *professions* can't do it, what makes you think GW can?

It's not a trivial task.

It really is funny looking at a YMDC thread and average joe shmoo rolls in and just say...why didn't they just say it this way "example" and everyone can only respond with..."well because that would have made too much sense".

It's funny how everyone on Monday morning can lay out exactly what team X should have done to win. There's a term for that: Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

It is clear to anyone with a base level of average intelligence that these designers do not properly play test or even attempt to make balanced rules.

Demonstrably untrue. Several posters (not including myself) have that belief who've otherwise shown they posses "base level of average intelligence".

It's not because it's hard.

Lolwut? 100% testing nontrivial systems *is* hard. Possibly NP hard, depending on the system. Quite literally a "wicked problem", most of the time, too.

It is literally because they don't try or don't approach things correctly.

Only pedantically true based on particular meanings of "correctly". Not to the level you (or I) would want? Sure. But whos' to say the level we pick is "correct"?

Almost like this is the same company that had no idea people would attempt to DS their whole army with 7 tyrants and a few spores hiding in their deployment zone....they are so uninspired and out their element when it comes to rules design.

I think you don't understand large organizations.

Are you a GW shill? Seriously? Are you comparing law...which often involves 90 page contracts that no one reads to a board game with the most basic rules possible? Even if it actually were hard to write clear rules (its not) you could always give an example of how to play it if you were somehow incapable of putting it into words (laughable). Stop making excuses for GW. It's getting really old. If only we could unite. Then they'd be forced to listen.

Breakng the law breaking the law!

How can you, you, with the custom rule sheet. This is heresy.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Vict you are being obtuse...Clear rules make sense. Through the fickleness of language you can get alternate interpretation, sure. That is why you play test and that is where you clarify using such precise language there is no possibility about how to interpret it.

Clear, concise technical wording that has no possibility of being misread? There are whole *professions* devoted to it (Law and Business Analysis). If those entire *professions* can't do it, what makes you think GW can?

It's not a trivial task.

It really is funny looking at a YMDC thread and average joe shmoo rolls in and just say...why didn't they just say it this way "example" and everyone can only respond with..."well because that would have made too much sense".

It's funny how everyone on Monday morning can lay out exactly what team X should have done to win. There's a term for that: Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

It is clear to anyone with a base level of average intelligence that these designers do not properly play test or even attempt to make balanced rules.

Demonstrably untrue. Several posters (not including myself) have that belief who've otherwise shown they posses "base level of average intelligence".

It's not because it's hard.

Lolwut? 100% testing nontrivial systems *is* hard. Possibly NP hard, depending on the system. Quite literally a "wicked problem", most of the time, too.

It is literally because they don't try or don't approach things correctly.

Only pedantically true based on particular meanings of "correctly". Not to the level you (or I) would want? Sure. But whos' to say the level we pick is "correct"?

Almost like this is the same company that had no idea people would attempt to DS their whole army with 7 tyrants and a few spores hiding in their deployment zone....they are so uninspired and out their element when it comes to rules design.

I think you don't understand large organizations.

Are you a GW shill? Seriously? Are you comparing law...which often involves 90 page contracts that no one reads to a board game with the most basic rules possible? Even if it actually were hard to write clear rules (its not) you could always give an example of how to play it if you were somehow incapable of putting it into words (laughable). Stop making excuses for GW. It's getting really old. If only we could unite. Then they'd be forced to listen.

You can unite. You can choose not to purchase there products or involve yourself in the hobby until they make the changes you demand they make. Let me know how it goes for you

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Vict you are being obtuse...Clear rules make sense. Through the fickleness of language you can get alternate interpretation, sure. That is why you play test and that is where you clarify using such precise language there is no possibility about how to interpret it.

Clear, concise technical wording that has no possibility of being misread? There are whole *professions* devoted to it (Law and Business Analysis). If those entire *professions* can't do it, what makes you think GW can?

It's not a trivial task.

It really is funny looking at a YMDC thread and average joe shmoo rolls in and just say...why didn't they just say it this way "example" and everyone can only respond with..."well because that would have made too much sense".

It's funny how everyone on Monday morning can lay out exactly what team X should have done to win. There's a term for that: Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

It is clear to anyone with a base level of average intelligence that these designers do not properly play test or even attempt to make balanced rules.

Demonstrably untrue. Several posters (not including myself) have that belief who've otherwise shown they posses "base level of average intelligence".

It's not because it's hard.

Lolwut? 100% testing nontrivial systems *is* hard. Possibly NP hard, depending on the system. Quite literally a "wicked problem", most of the time, too.

It is literally because they don't try or don't approach things correctly.

Only pedantically true based on particular meanings of "correctly". Not to the level you (or I) would want? Sure. But whos' to say the level we pick is "correct"?

Almost like this is the same company that had no idea people would attempt to DS their whole army with 7 tyrants and a few spores hiding in their deployment zone....they are so uninspired and out their element when it comes to rules design.

I think you don't understand large organizations.

Are you a GW shill? Seriously?

Only on DakkaDakka are posters that say things like "I agree they fall short of an appropriate standard" clearly a shill.

Are you comparing law...which often involves 90 page contracts that no one reads to a board game with the most basic rules possible?

It's 90 pages because even simple things get very complicated when you try to be exactly technically correct. Law was one of the examples I gave, not the only. But it's a good example of how anything simple becomes really, really complex to get exactly right. Take the rules for driving; they're fairly simple, and almost every American can execute them properly. But I don't even want to know how many pages and pages of laws it took to codify them.

Even if it actually were hard to write clear rules (its not) you could always give an example of how to play it if you were somehow incapable of putting it into words (laughable).

And that example would cover several scenarios. But not all scenarios. So again, you're looking at an imperfect solution to a complicated problem.

Stop making excuses for GW. It's getting really old.

You could prevent such "excuses" by ceasing to make the same silly claims. It would get old if it weren't so counterproductive.

If only we could unite. Then they'd be forced to listen.

You can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_corporate_law

I'm not sure I'd side with you over GW, though.

Dont be stupid, who makes better and cooler miniatyres than citadel was it ?

You are just that kind of people who is building their own 3d models.


I see in the far future, people will print their stuff and you will get to understand how nice it was when someone did the rules for you.

Bharring wrote:
Law was one of the examples I gave, not the only. But it's a good example of how anything simple becomes really, really complex to get exactly right. Take the rules for driving; they're fairly simple, and almost every American can execute them properly. But I don't even want to know how many pages and pages of laws it took to codify them.

and than there are laws that are just a single sentence and clear to everyone (murder in Austrian law is a single sentence with 20 words and there was never a problem with it or something not clear, you mea need 1 more sentences from the beginning of the law book that explains the basics but nothing more)

so it is a good example that if you want to keep things simple, you can do it

Whats the sentence ?

You get reduction if its first time ? If you were drunk ? If you confess ? If you are nice in prison ?


In our country the law starts with sentences that announce that the judges of our countey judge first behalf god and after that, sweden.

Amai wrote:
Whats the sentence ?

(with google translator)

Anyone who kills another person is punished with imprisonment of ten to twenty years or life imprisonment.

§5 (optional): Intentionally acts, who wants to realize a fact, which corresponds to a legal Tatbild (an action under punishment in the law); For this it suffices that the perpetrator seriously considers this realization possible and agrees with it.

so as simple as that, everyone who kills someone (intentionally) is a murderer

PS:
the very first sentence in the law book is:
A punishment or preventive measure may only be imposed for an act that is subject to an legal punishment and has already been punishable at the time of its commission.

So all kind of custom stuff is acceptable if its not stated in the book correctly ?

Iv heard america is the wonderlnd in that.

 kodos wrote:

Amai wrote:
Whats the sentence ?

(with google translator)

Anyone who kills another person is punished with imprisonment of ten to twenty years or life imprisonment.

§5 (optional): Intentionally acts, who wants to realize a fact, which corresponds to a legal Tatbild; For this it suffices that the perpetrator seriously considers this realization possible and agrees with it.

the very first sentence in the law book is:
A punishment or preventive measure may only be imposed for an act that is subject to an legal punishment and has already been punishable at the time of its commission.

Killing:
-In the Trolly Experiemnt:
--If the operator picked the track with one guy, did he kill the one guy?
--If the operator didn't do anything, did he kill five guys?
-Does euthinasia count?
--What about publishing technical details about it?
--What about hosting technical details someone else posted?
--What about linking to them?
--Emailing them to someone who used them?
-If Alice stabbed Carla, and Bob shot Carla, who killed Carla?
-If Alice sold Carla a house with a carcinegin, and Carla died of cancer, did Alice kill Carla?
-If Alice pushes Carla in front of Bob, who runs her over, did Alice or Bob kill Carla?

Person:
-Do the braindead count?
-Does one become a person at conception, birth, or some other point? (Don't debate this one, just recognize the discrepency)

Imprisonment:
-Can you be House Arrested?
-Can you be "imprisoned" in an elaborate estate with all your needs attended to?
-Can you be imprisoned in a 5x3x3 closet and not let out at all for 10-20 years (or life)?

This works because those concepts are identified elsewhere. And because some concepts we accept a "generally understood" concept over a technical definition.

I have these kind of items to come.
-Warhammer: Game of Thrones
-Warhammer: One Piece
-Warhammer: Belgariad
-Warhammer: Old Hammer
-Warhammer 40k: Starcraft

Later if i manage:
-Warmaster
-Mordheim

Amai wrote:
In finland you would get slapped in the face for speaking such nonsense.

You might say that, but even the wikipedia article summarizing Finish law on murder alone (only one type of killling) is much longer than my post:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(Finnish_law)

The thing is, in here the court do not give sentences based on law -> Each judge can do what ever they want nobody is restricting them in any way. Same applies to everything else. So it does not matter at the slightest what the law book says, the judges know whats right and give sentences based on that. There are some small prints in the law books called "pre cases" and those are the one you can think of a guideline not the law text. (How actual judges have acted on court)

You can plead on higher courts but they are basically the same people who decided the first one.

They use common logic and its more important than the law and it is a good thing -> Try anything bs in the court and the judge wont take it.

Drop the incredibly off topic stuff now. Thank you

I think most of the issues with savior protocols occur because people think they "know" the rules - but actually they don't, they just remember something close to them and rule of thumb it. So yes, there are no psychic attacks - you do not "resolve attacks" in the psychic sequence, you resolve the psychic power. Whereas you do resolve "attacks" in the shooting and fighting phases.

But thats based on having the rulebook in front of me. If you had asked me at the weekend I'd probably said "yeah, smite's basically d3 mortal wounds on the nearest target, why shouldn't it be an attack?"

I can also see why this might give rise to a RAW and RAI debate - because why shouldn't the various psychic powers which amount to "roll some dice, the target takes mortal wounds" be treated as "attacks"? The book doesn't ever explicitly say "these are not attacks" - probably because, with the exception of things like savior protocols, it doesn't come up and so doesn't matter.

Moving back on topic though - not really sure this matters for balance - beyond a marginal maybe they should be worth a little more or less points if they have this ability.

I mean shield drones are an interesting one for balance, because really their value is determined by the value of other units. Want to try and kill my 3 riptides surrounded by 40~ drones? Good luck. But if this is "overpowered" (and I don't know if it, versus just being quite good and borderline obnoxious to fight) - is the issue the drones or the tides? Which should be nerfed?

How can i change the topic name. I want to change tjis as general smacktalk thread and stop that balance discussion. Im not contributing to it more until i get the codexes wjich may be never so it is finished for now and go back to fantasy projects. I will later post the starcraft mod for 40kmin appropriate thread.

I want people to tell how things are ran n their country i at least am ashamed of my own. People are not respected here.

I guess this can be left hanhing though amd let it work its magic if any, this does not need me i open a different thread for nation smacktalk thread.

Political and Religious confessions not allowed it seems so that makes it then.

I will just say that if you ever visit Finland, stay away from anything that seem evil, the evil side is very strong in this country and they are not restricted by law (the most light criminal punishment system in the whole world i suppose) and if someone is unemployed it is a bad sign even the person would be nice -> Almost always related to some criminal activities.

Otherwise very beautiful country and especially the lakes and lots of people who are shy and locked up spiritually but will open up when drunk. In big cities its quite safe as there are that much people but the mid size sities could be really bad, especially the areas with cheap apartments and in some cases, centrums. The most beautiful city is Helsinki, which has astounding buildings and when you walk from the train station to any direction it will be less crowded and real beautiful -> Lets say walk from Mannerheimintie to the direction of sea and go to St Michels Church (or what was it) -> Real beautiful.

If you want nice lakes, go in middle Finland, there is lots of it. But stay away from junkies / criminals, they are out of control and their movement is not restricted in any way as i heard that in some countries they are locked up in certain areas called "Ghettos" but in here you could meet "ghetto people" from basicly all around the country expect the Swedish areas (who are often rich and feel good about their life) and some remote places where there are almost no humans at all.

The Law system is completely and beyond stupid. Would need A LOT of rebalancing to be anywhere fair to lawful citizens. It makes you think your goverment do not appreciate people at all and accepts evil.

Finnishi men are also basically controlled by women and are basically shy and pathetic -> So if you have good self esteem finnish women are easy pick. Just talk about anything and they start to want you. They are really beautiful too, but michevious and basically all of them are liars.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Are you a GW shill? Seriously? Are you comparing law...which often involves 90 page contracts that no one reads to a board game with the most basic rules possible? Even if it actually were hard to write clear rules (its not) you could always give an example of how to play it if you were somehow incapable of putting it into words (laughable). Stop making excuses for GW. It's getting really old. If only we could unite. Then they'd be forced to listen.

Would you read it if the 40k rulebook was 90 pages? I know a lot of people didn't read the 7th ed rulebook, they just played games with 6th edition rules until someone who had read 7th edition corrected them on something and then that became incorperated into their ruleset amalgam. Being able to tell people to read the rules real quick when they ask to be taught is super helpful, I can get a cup of tea, watch a cat video, whip up a couple of 500 pt army lists and they'll have read the core rules. Being both impeccably precise without being long-winded is hard, all things considered I'd rather have the shorter rules and then have more FAQ and maybe make a roll off once in a while than a long rulebook. They nibbed the infinite hits thing in the butt after only a couple of days, how long did the 1+ FNP Captain last in 7th? Talking about being a shill, I don't know I'm the one that hasn't supported any of GW's rules for 8th edition because I don't think the standard at which they write rules is high enough, can you say the same? I was just about to order a couple of FW models before the SM codex and supplements came out, now I cancelled that for the immediate future, I think that's more important than saying online that writing clear and concise rules is harder than just so.

 vict0988 wrote:

Would you read it if the 40k rulebook was 90 pages? I know a lot of people didn't read the 7th ed rulebook, they just played games with 6th edition rules until someone who had read 7th edition corrected them on something and then that became incorperated into their ruleset amalgam

this is a real problem and not something that is new but was there from the beginning and the same people who did not read the rules are most of the time, also those who would argue that reducing the rules will remove tactical depth as only a huge amount of rules will grant that

and 8th is not better than 7th regarding rules, it is just different.
Most core rules were every only important at the beginning of an edition without Codex books adding their own rules replacing the part of the core
at the end of an edition most of the core was ignored in one way or the other

my problem with 40k is, that changes in the basic rules never really affect the faction rules of the different armies. and this is causing the whole balance problem
this is also a reason why changing to a different dice won't do anything as GW will keep the faction rules and even with a D20, most models will hit on 3+ or 4+ until a everyone has a new Codex

so a start would be to stick with a core rule concept and adjust the faction rules to match them, instead of keeping the faction rules and changing the core to balance them
(which is the main reason why people get the impression that it is an impossible task, as if you do it that way it really is impossible)

we once took the rules of 7th and wrote a "clean" version of the rules, removing leftovers, somed up special rules etc and had less than 40 pages that covered everything that was in the game at that point.

Amai, close the bottle and take a breather. That description of Finland is so off the mark it's straight up funny

Thread has taken a very strange tangent at this point.....

This thread has become my favorite thread of all time. I, don't know what to say other then this, I never could have expected how it would end up. This is a unique feeling for me. Very interesting.