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.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I don't play magic the gathering, and I was talking about balance as that is usually the main issue with GW in regards to rule writing, where they skew the balance. Which was what I was referring to in terms of skewed rules in my original approach.

There is also far more interaction with the unit, it isn't just drawn form a deck and played. How many interacting rules does each card actually have? Because how many combinations of rules is absolutely important, because that influences rule writing.

Talking of straw manning arguments, how about not bringing in a game that is actually nowhere near as complex, and has nowhere near as many variables of situations and interactions with other units in the game to make your point that rule writing should be more concise.

It's chalk and cheese as a comparison.

Have you played Magic? It's a pretty flipping complex game. I know you don't CURRENTLY, but with 20,000+ cards, even if they only interact with each other ONCE, that's 400,000,000 combinations.

And there's a lot more interaction than that.

I understand it is complex, and has many variables, it doesn't in comparison to 40k though.

It's like comparing the possible combinations in a 2D world, to a 3D world, quite literally actually.

The napkin math that the other poster did resulted in about 600,000,000 combinations, after two iterations.

One iteration of magic results in 400,000,000 iterations-a significant difference, to be sure, but they're well within a magnitude of each other. 3D space does not make that much of a difference.

GW can and should have more competent writing. It can be done, and they have the resources to do it.

the FF articles are becoming very

LOLz new terrain ye army is gOODe

LOLz CP for everyone ye army can take that crap you didnt take before

So, what we've learned today: Rokkit Kannon and Skorcha missiles are blast weapons. Anything else?

Darsath wrote:
So, what we've learned today: Rokkit Kannon and Skorcha missiles are blast weapons. Anything else?

One of the terrain rules gives -1 to hit rolls.

That was an...underwhelming Ork article.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
So, what we've learned today: Rokkit Kannon and Skorcha missiles are blast weapons. Anything else?

One of the terrain rules gives -1 to hit rolls.

Oh, what terrain rule? Must have missed that one.

The new terrain rules will also be appreciated by all Orks players. With terrain having clearly defined features, you don’t have to worry about your opponent seeing through a crack in the wall to shoot your entire Boyz squad. You can even give your squads a -1 modifier to be shot! This is a big advantage to Orks (and any army that likes to get stuck in) as it means you can seriously limit your opponent’s ability to stop your advance with their shooting.

Any ideas where that -1 is coming from in this bit of the article?

Something new?!

EDIT: Beaten to the punch! To add some new content (and hopefully more fuel to the fire) I just watched https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXaAwml9RQU and at 01:50:00ish they talk about 9th. My understanding is Brian Pullen is a playtester and top ranked Tau player. They talk about how upset the 9th overwatch rules made him, that the Triptide might be dead, Farsight Enclaves are alive and how they feel that 9th is a very shooty edition.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Guys GW is only a small £2 billion company, you can't expect them to hire people with Qualifications in Technical Writing.

If we all spend more on Brand's product, perhaps they'll make enough money to be able to let us pay again for functional Assault weapon rules next time!

Very disappointing they didn't use the Ork article to say something about morale and horde units. It really is starting to look like that "horde units will have advantages too" bit was just nonsense, especially since all the playtesters who have opined on it say that big units are boned hard in 9th.

Darsath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
So, what we've learned today: Rokkit Kannon and Skorcha missiles are blast weapons. Anything else?

One of the terrain rules gives -1 to hit rolls.

Oh, what terrain rule? Must have missed that one.

They didn't mention which one, but it was mentioned in the terrain paragraph.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Darsath wrote:
So, what we've learned today: Rokkit Kannon and Skorcha missiles are blast weapons. Anything else?

One of the terrain rules gives -1 to hit rolls.

Oh, what terrain rule? Must have missed that one.

They didn't mention which one, but it was mentioned in the terrain paragraph.

Ah, fair enough. Still, today has been a dud.

 JNAProductions wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I don't play magic the gathering, and I was talking about balance as that is usually the main issue with GW in regards to rule writing, where they skew the balance. Which was what I was referring to in terms of skewed rules in my original approach.

There is also far more interaction with the unit, it isn't just drawn form a deck and played. How many interacting rules does each card actually have? Because how many combinations of rules is absolutely important, because that influences rule writing.

Talking of straw manning arguments, how about not bringing in a game that is actually nowhere near as complex, and has nowhere near as many variables of situations and interactions with other units in the game to make your point that rule writing should be more concise.

It's chalk and cheese as a comparison.

Have you played Magic? It's a pretty flipping complex game. I know you don't CURRENTLY, but with 20,000+ cards, even if they only interact with each other ONCE, that's 400,000,000 combinations.

And there's a lot more interaction than that.

I understand it is complex, and has many variables, it doesn't in comparison to 40k though.

It's like comparing the possible combinations in a 2D world, to a 3D world, quite literally actually.

The napkin math that the other poster did resulted in about 600,000,000 combinations, after two iterations.

One iteration of magic results in 400,000,000 iterations-a significant difference, to be sure, but they're well within a magnitude of each other. 3D space does not make that much of a difference.

GW can and should have more competent writing. It can be done, and they have the resources to do it.

Let's... not get into a [censored] comparing contest.

I play both MTG and WH40k. Hands down, Magic is more complex to balance for Vintage (1.0) [which is what allows for all cards, bar a comparatively small ban list] than WH40k. Yet, the most played format, Standard (2.0), has about 2500 to 3000 card interactions at most and is far less so.

However, Magic has a far more robust Design -> Development -> Live rules/card creation process that makes the process GW employs for WH40k look down-right primordial in its lack of rigor or iterative follow-through and QC. (I've written on this subject before on this very forum)

However the costs for production, overheads, shipping, and even business model are totally incomparable. Magic has a pennies per card manufacturing cost, a wider distribution channel, a deeper base of engaged customers, and a higher product turnover due to having virtually invented the "loot chest" business model at scale. Their healthier margins support a more expensive overhead.

And whilst we might all wish that GW could turn its record profits back into the product full-bore, the reality is that GW has had a shaky position of dominance over the last 20 years, with numerous upstart companies coming along with the serious potential of unseating them.

So, you can't compare MTG to WH40k, really--although one might be tempted to due to obvious parallels.

 JNAProductions wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
I don't play magic the gathering, and I was talking about balance as that is usually the main issue with GW in regards to rule writing, where they skew the balance. Which was what I was referring to in terms of skewed rules in my original approach.

There is also far more interaction with the unit, it isn't just drawn form a deck and played. How many interacting rules does each card actually have? Because how many combinations of rules is absolutely important, because that influences rule writing.

Talking of straw manning arguments, how about not bringing in a game that is actually nowhere near as complex, and has nowhere near as many variables of situations and interactions with other units in the game to make your point that rule writing should be more concise.

It's chalk and cheese as a comparison.

Have you played Magic? It's a pretty flipping complex game. I know you don't CURRENTLY, but with 20,000+ cards, even if they only interact with each other ONCE, that's 400,000,000 combinations.

And there's a lot more interaction than that.

MtG has been proven to be turing-complete, meaning it can have an infinite number of game states. In theory, it would be possible to write, compile and run software code as part of a game of magic.
It's literally impossible to have a game more complex than that

yea i'm working on the assumption 30 man units of boyz are a thing of the past now.

Its gonna be a couple of blocks of 20 that you da jump/reserve in etc

grots are gone and you replace with filler units of 10 boyz.

so instead of
30boyz
30boyz
30boyz
10 grots
10 grots
10 grots
10 grots ...

it'll be
20boyz
20boyz
10boyz
10boyz
10boyz
10boyz ...

 JNAProductions wrote:
The napkin math that the other poster did resulted in about 600,000,000 combinations, after two iterations.

One iteration of magic results in 400,000,000 iterations-a significant difference, to be sure, but they're well within a magnitude of each other. 3D space does not make that much of a difference.

GW can and should have more competent writing. It can be done, and they have the resources to do it.

Yeah, I am done with trying to make the point there. To assume that all interactions would necessitate a discursive formal instance in the rules is not a position that I could even imagine to take, so I am not going to bother trying to disabuse someone of that notion. Nor of the notion that 40K is vastly more complicated than Magic. One, it is unclear even if that is the case or not and two, even if it is, it hardly proves that formalized rules still cannot possibly handle it. But we are down to fundamental assumptions and metaphysical commitments now, so there is no sense in discussing it with that person further as far as I can tell.

 H wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The napkin math that the other poster did resulted in about 600,000,000 combinations, after two iterations.

One iteration of magic results in 400,000,000 iterations-a significant difference, to be sure, but they're well within a magnitude of each other. 3D space does not make that much of a difference.

GW can and should have more competent writing. It can be done, and they have the resources to do it.

Yeah, I am done with trying to make the point there. To assume that all interactions would necessitate a discursive formal instance in the rules is not a position that I could even imagine to take, so I am not going to bother trying to disabuse someone of that notion. Nor of the notion that 40K is vastly more complicated than Magic. One, it is unclear even if that is the case or not and two, even if it is, it hardly proves that formalized rules still cannot possibly handle it. But we are down to fundamental assumptions and metaphysical commitments now, so there is no sense in discussing it with that person further as far as I can tell.

I think we're in agreement, actually-concise, clear, and robust base rules make for something where you can add lots of complexity (or, preferably, depth) without having anything break and with the rules still being clear to resolve.

 Jidmah wrote:
MtG has been proven to be turing-complete, meaning it can have an infinite number of game states. In theory, it would be possible to write, compile and run software code as part of a game of magic.
It's literally impossible to have a game more complex than that

No, no, you don't understand, clearly games 40K takes place in Hilbert space, so it simply must contain infinite degrees of freedom, therefor infinite interactions! Not to mention stat-lines interactions!!1!1

Basic math, friends, just use it!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think we're in agreement, actually-concise, clear, and robust base rules make for something where you can add lots of complexity (or, preferably, depth) without having anything break and with the rules still being clear to resolve.

Yes, exactly my point. But I quoted you because I am simply done talking to that other person, my apologies.

How many times are they gonna repeat that you can ACTUALLY fire at combat with vehicles? One for each faction?

 H wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think we're in agreement, actually-concise, clear, and robust base rules make for something where you can add lots of complexity (or, preferably, depth) without having anything break and with the rules still being clear to resolve.

Yes, exactly my point. But I quoted you because I am simply done talking to that other person, my apologies.

Okay, garch.

Thanks for clearing that up.

sieGermans wrote:
So, you can't compare MTG to WH40k, really--although one might be tempted to due to obvious parallels.

Most of the groundwork for the templating and rules-writing that people want GW to adapt was done by a single person. GW just needs to hire a person like Mark Gottlieb to fix their stuff.

 Galas wrote:
How many times are they gonna repeat that you can ACTUALLY fire at combat with vehicles? One for each faction?

Until people get the point that they really, really, really want you to buy a bunch of new vehicle models, presumably.

It is kind of funny that people argue that there are too many units in the game making it impossible for GW to do better rules writing

yet GW is the one who gets the units into the game in the first place

If GW adds more units that their rules-writing skills can handle, this is not an excuse but their own fault

The main excuse for GW not being able to write good rules is GW

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How many times are they gonna repeat that you can ACTUALLY fire at combat with vehicles? One for each faction?

Until people get the point that they really, really, really want you to buy a bunch of new vehicle models, presumably.

I mean I was already building a Land Raider Crusader for 9th...

I'm starting to think that melta might be a good investment for 9th.

 kodos wrote:
It is kind of funny that people argue that there are too many units in the game making it impossible for GW to do better rules writing

yet GW is the one who gets the units into the game in the first place

If GW adds more units that their rules-writing skills can handle, this is not an excuse but their own fault

The main excuse for GW not being able to write good rules is GW

You're right. The model-making company should stop making new models. Excellent business plan.

 kodos wrote:
It is kind of funny that people argue that there are too many units in the game making it impossible for GW to do better rules writing

yet GW is the one who gets the units into the game in the first place

If GW adds more units that their rules-writing skills can handle, this is not an excuse but their own fault

The main excuse for GW not being able to write good rules is GW

My only argument is that the game would need a hard reboot on the entire system, statline and points mechanics to future proof it for balancing.

sieGermans wrote:
I play both MTG and WH40k. Hands down, Magic is more complex to balance for Vintage (1.0) [which is what allows for all cards, bar a comparatively small ban list] than WH40k. Yet, the most played format, Standard (2.0), has about 2500 to 3000 card interactions at most and is far less so.

Again though, the point is not balance, the point is rules clarity.

How many times in a MTG game, even a Vintage-legal game, is the game state unclear, or are the interactions unclear? And in those cases, how many are where the formal, Comprehensive rules unable to give a definitive solution, so much so, that RAI must come into play? (I think the answer is vanishingly small, honestly.)

That is what I am discussing. The formality of the rules, as it relates to clarity in how they would interact with each other. It has nothing to do with balance in any way, shape or form. Balance has nothing to do with formality or clarity. I am only discussing the latter two.

Orks must be a strange army in 9th

as 3 Mortal Wounds are an "incredible amount of damage", does it mean that the rest of the army does less damage per turn?

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Now let's just say each faction has 3x HQ, Elite, Troops, Fast Attack, Heavy Support.

3 troop choices!!! Who could ever be gifted with such a girth of different options! All the armies I played had just 1 troop choice available to them.

xttz wrote:

 kodos wrote:
It is kind of funny that people argue that there are too many units in the game making it impossible for GW to do better rules writing

yet GW is the one who gets the units into the game in the first place

If GW adds more units that their rules-writing skills can handle, this is not an excuse but their own fault

The main excuse for GW not being able to write good rules is GW

You're right. The model-making company should stop making new models. Excellent business plan.

or stop writing rules
if GW is not a gaming company but a model company, stop trying to sell crap as the "best game ever"

either get the model output down if this is the reason for bad rules, or get better at writing rules

but stop using "we are producing too many models per month" as an excuse for bad rules as this as their own desicion and something they can do nothing about it

ClockworkZion wrote:
My only argument is that the game would need a hard reboot on the entire system, statline and points mechanics to future proof it for balancing.

they had their chance with 8th but did not feel it was necessary but instead increased the amount of models by doubling on Marines

no sympathy here as it was their own decision to do it and if they cannot handle it there is no excuse

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Guys GW is only a small £2 billion company, you can't expect them to hire people with Qualifications in Technical Writing.

I think that's an unfairly reductionist representation of a reasonable point. To some extent it isn't just about having the resources, but what it is you are dealing with.

It's also foolish to rely upon monetary cost as being a sole indicator of quality/ability, or the quality/ability that one could potentially acquire.

However, I do also think it's reasonable to expect better. And that GW have proven to be incompetent in a number of areas.