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.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Ok but they could do the same in a less painful way of writing.

It's amazing how when they mess things up over and over its because they write relaxed rules that make sense to them. Then when they write the rules labyrinth, starring David Bowie , for Dense terrain they are making these locked down amazing rules to fight " that guy " .

When they do different things it's for different reasons? Err, yes?

The detailed variants could certainly be less clunky, though they're far from labyrinthine (honestly, read the bylaws of any sport, or a single sentence written by a humanities undergraduate), but, again, you'll almost always refer to the abbreviated ones. When you need the detail, you can refer to the longform ones. In those cases, you'll be looking for a specific clause, and they'll be fine for that job.

Hey at least we'll have the bullet points so we can ignore the writing.

I see what people mean to an extent but I think it's also being a little overblown. Perfectly understandable even if it may take actually properly concentrating on every word. (I tend to scan such things, not being a snark)

Slipspace wrote:

Wasn't that the one that didn't work because it was attached to a tape measure and shaped like a skull (because of course it was) so you could never actually line the laser up properly?

No. The skull was just a tape measure. (I have one. It's awesome)

Their laser pointer was shaped like a rifle scope, with a hooked end for lining it up over the miniature.

Argive wrote:looks good.

And people who complain about it being too wordy. May I remind you that bare bones "streamlining" rules lead to 0" charges, moving after DS rollining infinite dice and all the other crap played by "that guy(s)".

Appealing to "intent" is dead when dealing with people of dubious character..

So having wordier rules is the next step. I support this approach. It has to be this way because ambiguity is abused by &^%$$.

So, the problem here is "that guy(s)" and folks of dubious character, not the rules.

Solution? Don't play with "that guy(s)" and people of dubious character.

As far as the actual rule is concerned, from what little I can understand of it? Yeah, I don't think I have any problems with it. Could it be better written or made more simple? Absolutely. That's what I think most people are complaining about here - the hyper-legal wording and the obtuseness of reading it. And, considering that it seems to exist only to deal with some of the more egregious rules lawyers, I have to wonder why bother playing them in the first place?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So, the problem here is "that guy(s)" and folks of dubious character, not the rules.

Solution? Don't play with "that guy(s)" and people of dubious character.

As far as the actual rule is concerned, from what little I can understand of it? Yeah, I don't think I have any problems with it. Could it be better written or made more simple? Absolutely. That's what I think most people are complaining about here - the hyper-legal wording and the obtuseness of reading it. And, considering that it seems to exist only to deal with some of the more egregious rules lawyers, I have to wonder why bother playing them in the first place?

I think if we look at some of the attitudes to the rules writing on this forum alone, and that people here seem to think they speak for the majority of players, that needing to be this specific and wordy with the rule in question has to be a given. Not to aim at anyone in particular but I'd like to point at a lot of BCB's rule related posts - even just the assault weapons one in particular. Everyone knows what it should do, but there's a loud enough contingent out there that demands it works in a non-intuitive manner.

The biggest problem with this rule is not it's function or wording, but in layout on page. Each sentence could have been it's own bullet point and all together it looks a little word soup. But if it's read (and not skimmed because people have played 40k for 5-10+ yrs so already 'know' how it plays) line by line it make sense what it should be doing.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

The biggest problem with this rule is not it's function or wording, but in layout on page. Each sentence could have been it's own bullet point and all together it looks a little word soup. But if it's read (and not skimmed because people have played 40k for 5-10+ yrs so already 'know' how it plays) line by line it make sense what it should be doing.

Yeah, I don't think anyone's literally claiming it doesn't work, or doesn't make sense – rather that the way it's written and formatted is unnecessarily inelegant.

Tycho wrote:

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

Not Online!!! wrote:
If they'd given us the bulletpoints at the same time i reckon it wouldn't have been such an issue.

It would have at least saved me from the misperception of thinking this rule actually helped super heavys. The bullet points put a big "nope" on that idea.

Seabass 789440 10840972 wrote:
Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

Well that is true, but so is the fact that stuff which is good for GW doesn't have to be good for players or communities. And a conter point to the IH codex, I can give at least two with which I can't realy tell what GW was thinking when they made the rules as far as actualy playing the armies in the setting they made against other codex GW wrote themselfs. There is no sound explanation, or at least I can't find one, why GW made the harlequin book and the Inari "nerf" they way they did them, or why they wrote the GK codex they way they did. Unless GW thinks that it is okey to write bad books, of course. But if that is the case, then it is hard to call GW a consumer friendly company, and put much trust in what they do.

Karol wrote:

Seabass 789440 10840972 wrote:
Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

Well that is true, but so is the fact that stuff which is good for GW doesn't have to be good for players or communities. And a conter point to the IH codex, I can give at least two with which I can't realy tell what GW was thinking when they made the rules as far as actualy playing the armies in the setting they made against other codex GW wrote themselfs. There is no sound explanation, or at least I can't find one, why GW made the harlequin book and the Inari "nerf" they way they did them, or why they wrote the GK codex they way they did. Unless GW thinks that it is okey to write bad books, of course. But if that is the case, then it is hard to call GW a consumer friendly company, and put much trust in what they do.

Well, again, I point to the fact that the new edition has been tested by many players all of whom have demonstrated a deep understanding of the game. I don't know if they did this before with other codexes, but the fact that they are doing it now represents a significant investment of money on their part to get the "game" part of it right. GW are trying very hard to standardize the game, bring the different house rules under one roof for the integration of both competitive and narrative play, and this is the first time they have done that.

I wonder how many of these "poor wording" situations are actually driven by the community of playtesters who asked questions like "how wide does the line have to be? if its a "wide" line, which side do I use? What if I can draw a line from X side of the base to the majority of the base but not all the way through it? Does this affect units shooting out of this dense cover? how tall does it need to be? does it cover my flyer? what about my defiler? what about my <insert model here>". Someone said it before but look at games like Warmachine and infinity. Hell, for that matter, look up the layer rules for the combat phase in M: TG. Sometimes, long wording is just needed my dude.

I have done a fair bit of technical writing when i was a corporate trainer for JPMC. Technical writing often does seem over elaborative, but that is only because you have to cover instances and clarify points that the majority of people would take for granted as being common sense and only a few would argue it. But its a rules set, It has to be written for everyone as best they can. I welcome this change to how the rules are presented. While it may be wordy, detailed rules solve problems.

 insaniak wrote:
Maybe not. They already tried their own laser pointer a decade ago.

But modern GW is a different beast. They have a Facebook page now!!!

So them trying again with a laser pointer could work. They could even sell Citadel™ Charge™ Packs™ in case your Citadel™ LasPointer™ runs out of battery!

That said, I wouldn't mind having a trigger activated laser liner that's shaped like a lasgun

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

I brought up Iron Hands not in relation to anything with 9th, but rather to point out one of the many, many cases where GW released a set of rules and, within hours/days, the vast majority of the community was pointing out very quickly exactly how and why the rules were utterly broken. No one is perfect and there will always be issues here and there. For sure. But things like the Iron Hands simply shouldn't happen. At all. Even the most casual players saw almost immediately the major problems that book was going to cause. When tehy can't even spot the big obvious problems, that's a sign there's a huge issue on the rules team. It's very clear GW doesn't use best practices for even basic publishing. Look at how many copy/paste errors happen across multiple versions of a book for example.

It's also clear that, between codexes, there isn't much coordination between authors. Especially in 8th, a lot has simply felt like "let's throw this one at the wall and see if it sticks". When you can see dramatically different approaches across multiple books in the same edition, it's clear there's a problem. And that rule IS excessively wordy. A solid technical writer should be able to to say the same thing with many fewer words. But GW doesn't employ technical writers (where many other games companies will have at least one on staff).

It IS an example of GW TRYING to do the right thing, but "Great idea with weak to terrible implementation" pretty much sums up a lot of their work. I am calling it now - when 9th launches and we have the full rules, this will be one of the first things getting faq'd because the needlessly wordy way in which it is written will ADD to unexpected interactions with other, similarly worded rules. I don't even see anyone saying "I'm a better designer than GW". I think the problem is that they are SO poor at it, you don't NEED to be good to see the many many issues. Issues that other systems manage to easily avoid. GW is at the forefront of things like mini design and injection molding, but still in the stone age when it comes to rules development and publishing best practices. It's like I tell the young designers on the team I manage, someone doens't have to be a professional illustrator to recognize a poorly crafted image. Same applies here.

EDIT:

Fun with diagrams: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/789321.page

Seabass wrote:
Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Hi. I've written rules for games. Professionally.

I don't think I can do a better job than GW. I know I can.

Hi. I've written rules for games. Professionally.

I don't think I can do a better job than GW. I know I can.

Ok ... so maybe ONE PERSON said it ...

Tycho wrote:
Ok ... so maybe ONE PERSON said it ...

You're welcome.

Tycho wrote:

Hi. I've written rules for games. Professionally.

I don't think I can do a better job than GW. I know I can.

Ok ... so maybe ONE PERSON said it ...

I also design games for a living (though mine typically have digital adjudicators, I still have to write rules packets for the players and adjudication methodology and abstraction information for game sponsors and third-party facilitators).

Blastaar wrote:

Rues can be clear without being so intricate. Wyrd's rules don't read like this, or Corvus Belli's, or..................

Did you seriously just say that Corvus Belli's "rules can be clear without being so intricate"?!

There are STILL arguments going on over intended moves. Their rules are NOT an example you want to ever hold up for clarity.

Hi, my BA is in game design (though my career path has taken me in different directions). I could write 40k better than GW.

Seabass wrote:
Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

I hold a BS in Game Design & Development, although I've primarily worked on videogames. I provided a proposed re-write on the first page. If you feel it is less clear or leaves out important nuance, I would genuinely like to hear your reasoning.

 catbarf wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

I hold a BS in Game Design & Development, although I've primarily worked on videogames. I provided a proposed re-write on the first page. If you feel it is less clear or leaves out important nuance, I would genuinely like to hear your reasoning.

It doesn't layer into any of the other rules such as Obstacle terrain. I think the reason the rule is so wordy is it is restating other rules for ultimate clarity. The bullet points are very easy to digest and imply correspondence to other rules (as your rules text does). The full text seems to explicitly spell out the corresponding rules. In that way, I think they've done a very good job. Bullet points for the quick read and big wordy text all in one place (don't need to flip back to figure out LoS rules, or what occupying an Obstacle or Area terrain means) to hammer out any odd areas.

 catbarf wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

I hold a BS in Game Design & Development, although I've primarily worked on videogames. I provided a proposed re-write on the first page. If you feel it is less clear or leaves out important nuance, I would genuinely like to hear your reasoning.

I don't think you're capturing the whole rule.

'When a unit selects a target for shooting, if a straight line drawn from a single point on the attacking model's base cannot reach all parts of the target's base or hull without passing over or through terrain with this keyword, the attacker subtracts 1 from their hit rolls. Ignore any area terrain that the attacker occupies, and any terrain within 3" of the attacker'.

It's model based. Obstacles are the exception in the last sentence - not all terrain, because Obstacles don't have bases. You could still tweak it i'm sure though, but the wordiness will increase.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
You are -1 to shoot unless you can see all of a models Hull or Base and no drawn LoS is over the terrain.
If you are in/on the terrain with your opponent then you are not penalized.
If you are within 3" of an Obstacle with this rule when you shoot you are not penalized.

Honestly this is a fine rule, yes its a bit wordy but i understand why. They wanted the ability to hide single man or elite units easier than hordes, but also not be penalized if you and any opponent are point blanks. Over all its actually a well writen rule from GW lol.

Thats exactly what I was typing out

This is great news

OK! SO MAYBE SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE SAID IT!

I love Dakka sometimes...

Rihgu wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Seabass wrote:
Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

I hold a BS in Game Design & Development, although I've primarily worked on videogames. I provided a proposed re-write on the first page. If you feel it is less clear or leaves out important nuance, I would genuinely like to hear your reasoning.

It doesn't layer into any of the other rules such as Obstacle terrain. I think the reason the rule is so wordy is it is restating other rules for ultimate clarity. The bullet points are very easy to digest and imply correspondence to other rules (as your rules text does). The full text seems to explicitly spell out the corresponding rules. In that way, I think they've done a very good job. Bullet points for the quick read and big wordy text all in one place (don't need to flip back to figure out LoS rules, or what occupying an Obstacle or Area terrain means) to hammer out any odd areas.

Thats not a good job. It's sloppy and confusing to have every rule restate every other rules. Rules writing should be short, to the point, have as few exceptions as possible, and mesh well with the other rules. If one rule defines something like "Open Ground". Then any other rule that has the effect of open ground needs to only say it is treated as open ground, not restate the entirety of the open ground rule.

This rule is written with a bunch of exceptions and restates things that should be defined elsewhere since it's just going to keep getting rewritten (and since it's GW its going to get rewritten in different ways and thus create even further confusion) over and over again in the book. It's a mess. And I would bet money that when we see the whole picture it's going to be an even bigger mess.

 jeff white wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When the first talked about terrain traits they talked about how something like the Sector Mechanicus terrain should make it harder to hit you, as the railings and whatnot aren't really the kinds of things that can take incoming shots like a big slab of concrete. This explains this 'dense terrain' rule, something you'd apply to this rather than this.



Could the Citadel™ LasPointer™ be close to release?

Yes. And again yes. Laser pointers should be part of the augmented table top along with apps that take pictures and deploy blast templates from ones own as well as perhaps mission based or narrative based forces or factors. Say, turn two the app says take a foto of the table top from directly above. It then adds blasst templates and says these areas have been impacted by an orbital strike from a passing ork cruiser which dropped these scrap bombz on you just for the lulz...

No arguing over scatter dice now.

Unless I imagined it GW had a laser pointer in the past, I believe they called it the markerlight

Seabass wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

You realize just because people aren't a games designer doesn't mean they couldn't be yes ? As people we all made choices, went down paths to find us on the road we currently walk down. You do also realize most games designers if not all are avid gamers themselves, hence why they then become the game designers. I'm willing to bet a great many here, even folk I disagree with could do the same if not better job than GWs pro crack team of rule super men. You do also realize you can not be something and yet still have a valid point of view on its merit or short comings. Like for instance, I'm not a musician but I know the soothing sound of juicy farts onto a drum is pretty crap music. Etc, etc.

Where is it placed only if you do the act in question can you have any actual good opinion on it and/or idea that it sucks or not ? I'd go so far as to say most people on here probably ( before the virus anyways ) play many more games than these crack rules designers. I may disagree with my fellow Dakkas a good amount but I stand by them with their ability to understand the game many of us have played for in my case longer than I'd like to admit. At some point all of that time spent does give us some ability to judge what is good or bad in the game.

However, none of that matters with knowing if something is written poorly or in an elegant fashion. We can understand it could be both clear and nice to read. They don't need to be mutually exclusive ideals.

The only thing silly is how much some people can't handle the idea of GW getting any guff from something that is easy to do better. We had one poster write a better, easier to read version of the rule just pages back.

The rule shouldn't need bullet points, they should be a bonus and not a way to avoid the poor writing skills of professional game designers from the premiere company of miniature games. It's supposed to be an expensive, high quality product, that is why it costs so much. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to do better in that department. Most people after all by the models for the game. I mean someone can argue that but I don't think GW would with how many rule books they keep burning and churning out there.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Seabass wrote:

Tycho wrote:

Man, talk about a no-win scenario. If GW doesn't make the rules for their game as overdrawn and intricate as possible, they get hammered by the community for not being in-depth enough and not being clear enough for the game.

If they do, they get people complaining that no one can bother to read all of those rules, because they suck so bad and are so poorly written and wordy that they make no sense.

Rules that spell out the details in which or how things happen is important. They are trying (and I would add so far has seem to do so pretty reliably) to eliminate confusion.

But, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

I'm usually one of the first people to accuse Dakka of complaining just to complain, but I don't think your post is fair. When several of the new rules have required folks to make flow charts (and when they then needed several attempts to get the charts right), that's a problem. When the entire community looks at codex rules on day 1 and overwhelmingly points out how stupendously OP they are (Iron Hands), that's a problem. When Grey areas are the rule, instead of the exception to the rule - also a legitimate problem.

These are all problems GW has pretty much always suffered from. It's a system that is successful despite its rules, not because of them. You in fact CAN have rules that aren't living in the grey area, are clear, and specific, and don't require minor essays to describe. What the community wants is pretty clear. A professionally written rule book. Like so many other systems out there. There will always be problems, but the approach to rules that GW takes often amounts to "Wargames Amatuer Hour" and it's a real shame because they make the best models out there.

No, I think it's pretty fair, honestly. I'm not sure why any of the rules that have been provided require charts. Even so, because someone is a visual learner and focuses more on visuals isn't necessarily a hit on GW. I think its also patently unfair to point out the Iron Hands codex with the intent to say see, the rules in 9th are just bad because IH codex was awful. I really don't see what they have to do with each other, and while I do not know the review process for the IH codex, I do know that they have had a lot of very good players playtest 9th edition. You also mention grey areas, but again, I offer that the reason why these rules are written as such is so they can avoid grey areas. These terrain rules may be wordy, but they seem pretty specific to me.

Here's the thing though, everyone on here is a professional game designer until they aren't, so while everyone on here likes to point out how much better they can do it than GW, the reality is that I'm not sure that is really true and adding the bullet points below the rules to help make them a bit easier and digestible seems like they already have this in mind.

Nothing in that rule, or any of the rules that people are complaining about, has extemporaneous wording and it seems very specific to me. I think its a wonderful example of GW trying to do the right thing, dealing with a lot of the frustrations about the grey area that people are talking about, and then getting blasted because everyone else is a better game designer than they are.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is getting a bit silly.

You realize just because people aren't a games designer doesn't mean they couldn't be yes ? As people we all made choices, went down paths to find us on the road we currently walk down. You do also realize most games designers if not all are avid gamers themselves, hence why they then become the game designers. I'm willing to bet a great many here, even folk I disagree with could do the same if not better job than GWs pro crack team of rule super men. You do also realize you can not be something and yet still have a valid point of view on its merit or short comings. Like for instance, I'm not a musician but I know the soothing sound of juicy farts onto a drum is pretty crap music. Etc, etc.

Where is it placed only if you do the act in question can you have any actual good opinion on it and/or idea that it sucks or not ? I'd go so far as to say most people on here probably ( before the virus anyways ) play many more games than these crack rules designers. I may disagree with my fellow Dakkas a good amount but I stand by them with their ability to understand the game many of us have played for in my case longer than I'd like to admit. At some point all of that time spent does give us some ability to judge what is good or bad in the game.

However, none of that matters with knowing if something is written poorly or in an elegant fashion. We can understand it could be both clear and nice to read. They don't need to be mutually exclusive ideals.

The only thing silly is how much some people can't handle the idea of GW getting any guff from something that is easy to do better. We had one poster write a better, easier to read version of the rule just pages back.

The rule shouldn't need bullet points, they should be a bonus and not a way to avoid the poor writing skills of professional game designers from the premiere company of miniature games. It's supposed to be an expensive, high quality product, that is why it costs so much. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to do better in that department. Most people after all by the models for the game. I mean someone can argue that but I don't think GW would with how many rule books they keep burning and churning out there.

I think being an armchair quarterback is much easier than being the person who has to determine how to articulate the concept. It's easy when someone lays out the groundwork, it's a different thing to take a concept and articulate it. So no, I'm sorry, I have serious doubts. And no one is saying anything about not being able to criticize GW, I haven't said that, and neither has anyone else I've read.

These rules, all of them that we have read have been easy to read and pretty simple. I literally don't know what else GW can do to make it a bit easier, outside of bullet points, which, they are already doing. I also don't think that there is a problem with setting reasonable expectations, but so far, the biggest thing everyone has to bitch about is the way a rule is written because it doesn't sound elegant? These aren't critiques of the design of the rules, these are nitpicking bitchfests.

Seabass wrote:


I think being an armchair quarterback is much easier than being the person who has to determine how to articulate the concept. It's easy when someone lays out the groundwork, it's a different thing to take a concept and articulate it. So no, I'm sorry, I have serious doubts. And no one is saying anything about not being able to criticize GW, I haven't said that, and neither has anyone else I've read.

These rules, all of them that we have read have been easy to read and pretty simple. I literally don't know what else GW can do to make it a bit easier, outside of bullet points, which, they are already doing. I also don't think that there is a problem with setting reasonable expectations, but so far, the biggest thing everyone has to bitch about is the way a rule is written because it doesn't sound elegant? These aren't critiques of the design of the rules, these are nitpicking bitchfests.

Seconded.

It'll be a god damn shame if those typos make it in and we have the big ol' day 0 FAQ, but ultimately it isn't hurting me. I guess that makes me 'part of the problem', but as long as GW stays engaged like they are now I'm not going to sweat it.