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.

Seabass wrote:

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.

GW could write clear intuitive rules, avoid restating other rules when describing a given rule, and hire a technical editor. Expecting a company whose products are atrociously overpriced to do their jobs well is not having "nitpicking btichfests."

Blastaar wrote:

GW could write clear intuitive rules, avoid restating other rules when describing a given rule, and hire a technical editor. Expecting a company whose products are atrociously overpriced to do their jobs well is not having "nitpicking btichfests."

There's always room for improvement. I'll take the improved rules before I worry about technical writing. I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

GW could write clear intuitive rules, avoid restating other rules when describing a given rule, and hire a technical editor. Expecting a company whose products are atrociously overpriced to do their jobs well is not having "nitpicking btichfests."

There's always room for improvement. I'll take the improved rules before I worry about technical writing. I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

People do need to tone down the rhetoric. I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Yea, that's fair. I think ultimately so many people just buy in anyways that there's no boycott that would change things dramatically.

It's like in Fight Club -- cost of technical writer > cost of FAQs = we don't get a technical writer. Best way is to just keep pushing them, but hopefully they also let up on the crazy release schedule (probably won't).

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.

That first sentence is pretty ridiculous, not gonna lie. 'Just because I've never been an underwater oil pipeline welder doesn't mean I couldn't do it!' Experience doing something is a big deal, especially with something like game design where 99% of the nuance and difficulty comes in putting a finished product in front of someone who isn't YOU.

Notice how not everyone who is an avid gamer is also a game designer? Maybe because those skills are related but not necessarily transferable? And no, you couldn't do what they do, not without practice. Not because they're amazing, but because you've not put in the hours they have. A mediocre game designer who's shipped even a mediocre product is ultimately leagues ahead of 90% of the community. We operate in the lofty position of critique, where we don't have to build the full picture, we can just point out a few missed strokes and pat ourselves on the back. Sure, that criticism has value, but keep in mind that it's a metric feth-ton easier than actually making the fething game.

And I'm sorry, but have you read any legal or technical writing ever? NOTHING that is designed not to be abused is elegant, or easy to read. I'd also take this moment to argue that it is ultimately VERY clear what they're saying in these new rules, it's just become closer to legaleze as a result of like 150 pages of FAQs needing to be put in place over the past few years to cover edge cases the more 'easy to read' rules missed.

GW gets mostly guff. Even people who like GW and have liked 8th still have plenty of gak to say about them. I, for example, still think none of them in the studio are good enough at the game to understand the implications of a lot of their unit level rules and points changes, and that that fact is obvious in every codex that comes out.

Bullet points are great. The rule prevents loopholes, the bullet points simplify it down for mouth breathers. It's rules writing symbiosis. It's not poor writing, it's writing to intent. They could have just said what they bullet points said, like they've done in the past, and then we would have had 14 pages of Q&A on edge cases and ignorance like we had through most of 8th for rules like this. They've done fine. In fact, these are the best written rules GW has come out with, probably ever. Inelegant, sure, but they cover everything they need to cover and help force people to relearn reading comprehension. I call that a win win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Yea, that's fair. I think ultimately so many people just buy in anyways that there's no boycott that would change things dramatically.

It's like in Fight Club -- cost of technical writer > cost of FAQs = we don't get a technical writer. Best way is to just keep pushing them, but hopefully they also let up on the crazy release schedule (probably won't).

Also, it's not like a technical writer automatically guarantees a perfect end product. Especially when they've got to do hundreds of pages of interlocking, but totally disparate rules. Is the new direction in rules writing perfect? No, duh. But they've started to use consistent terminology and are writing to not let loopholes through. It's a start.

At least we won't have to deal with gak like people arguing librarius conclave librarians can cast every one of the 15 spells they know because 'Mastery level DETERMINES the amount of powers a psyker can cast' (as opposed to 'is equal to'.). Who else remembers THAT wonderful discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

GW could write clear intuitive rules, avoid restating other rules when describing a given rule, and hire a technical editor. Expecting a company whose products are atrociously overpriced to do their jobs well is not having "nitpicking btichfests."

There's always room for improvement. I'll take the improved rules before I worry about technical writing. I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

People do need to tone down the rhetoric. I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

This is funny when a quote of you using rhetoric that needs to be toned down and caring about what goes on within GW is like...right there bro.

And I'm sorry, but have you read any legal or technical writing ever? NOTHING that is designed not to be abused is elegant, or easy to read. I'd also take this moment to argue that it is ultimately VERY clear what they're saying in these new rules, it's just become closer to legaleze as a result of like 150 pages of FAQs needing to be put in place over the past few years to cover edge cases the more 'easy to read' rules missed.

GW gets mostly guff. Even people who like GW and have liked 8th still have plenty of gak to say about them. I, for example, still think none of them in the studio are good enough at the game to understand the implications of a lot of their unit level rules and points changes, and that that fact is obvious in every codex that comes out.

Bullet points are great. The rule prevents loopholes, the bullet points simplify it down for mouth breathers. It's rules writing symbiosis. It's not poor writing, it's writing to intent. They could have just said what they bullet points said, like they've done in the past, and then we would have had 14 pages of Q&A on edge cases and ignorance like we had through most of 8th for rules like this. They've done fine. In fact, these are the best written rules GW has come out with, probably ever. Inelegant, sure, but they cover everything they need to cover and help force people to relearn reading comprehension. I call that a win win.

The entire point of technical writing (not a lawyer and don't deal with that so can't speak to how they write) is to do the exact opposite of what you're describing. It strives to quickly and as succinctly as possible to explain a concept in a way that allows for as little misinterpretation as possible. So no. A solid technical writing approach would not lead to a "more wordy" rule. Again, if one of my writers brought me something like that, I'd send them back to the drawing board, and we've already seen successful attempts at fixing it. Do I like the rule itself? I think I do, but I'm willing to make a sig-bet right now with anyone here that the way this is worded will cause at least 1 if not more than 1 FAQs in the first few months.

And to the very condescending point about bullets - the fact that the rule needed "dumbed down" to begin with should have been a red flag that they maybe needed to take another look at it. Think about this thread as an LGS. We have 1/3 of the players saying "It's great! I love it!", another 1/3 saying "I ... think I get it" and another 1/3 that seem to be having trouble following it at all. How do we have a game when the way the rule itself is written causes that kind of a split? Failing to acknowledge that there's some kind of problem here, and just falling back on "well anyone who didn't instantly get this and thinks it's too wordy is clearly an idiot" really isn't a good position to take ....

Also, it's not like a technical writer automatically guarantees a perfect end product. Especially when they've got to do hundreds of pages of interlocking, but totally disparate rules. Is the new direction in rules writing perfect? No, duh. But they've started to use consistent terminology and are writing to not let loopholes through. It's a start.

Right from the start, a solid technical writing approach would have prevented the "hundreds and hundreds of pages of interlocking but totally disparate rules" to begin with. That's literally what they do. What a lot of people are pointing out is that GW isn't really using best practices for things like complex rules sets, basic publishing processes etc. It's also why the cries of "armchair quarterbacking" are kind of silly. People play more than one game system. So many people here have experience in systems with complex rules that DON'T have the problems GW runs into over, and over again all the time. It's not "armchair quarter-backing" to look at the "industry leader" and ask them to do better because 30 some odd years later, they're STILL making rookie mistakes ...

To put it differently, imagine if they wrote rules as well as they made miniatures ...

Seabass wrote:

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.

Sure it's always easier to be an arm chair quarterback but that doesn't make some of criticism accurate and on point all the same. That doesn't also mean some here couldn't and wouldn't do better than they do. As well, all we're bitching on as you put it, is the fact that it's cumbersome to read and could be written by someone who is an actual writer in a fashion to express their intent without feeling like a chore to read it. That is literally it, if you like the quality good for you, some people don't. Deciding to jump on someones opinion because you don't agree then complain their dislikes are nitpicks is just like your opinion man. These still end up as critiques if you agree with them or not.

ERJAK wrote:

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.

That first sentence is pretty ridiculous, not gonna lie. 'Just because I've never been an underwater oil pipeline welder doesn't mean I couldn't do it!' Experience doing something is a big deal, especially with something like game design where 99% of the nuance and difficulty comes in putting a finished product in front of someone who isn't YOU.

Notice how not everyone who is an avid gamer is also a game designer? Maybe because those skills are related but not necessarily transferable? And no, you couldn't do what they do, not without practice. Not because they're amazing, but because you've not put in the hours they have. A mediocre game designer who's shipped even a mediocre product is ultimately leagues ahead of 90% of the community. We operate in the lofty position of critique, where we don't have to build the full picture, we can just point out a few missed strokes and pat ourselves on the back. Sure, that criticism has value, but keep in mind that it's a metric feth-ton easier than actually making the fething game.

And I'm sorry, but have you read any legal or technical writing ever? NOTHING that is designed not to be abused is elegant, or easy to read. I'd also take this moment to argue that it is ultimately VERY clear what they're saying in these new rules, it's just become closer to legaleze as a result of like 150 pages of FAQs needing to be put in place over the past few years to cover edge cases the more 'easy to read' rules missed.

GW gets mostly guff. Even people who like GW and have liked 8th still have plenty of gak to say about them. I, for example, still think none of them in the studio are good enough at the game to understand the implications of a lot of their unit level rules and points changes, and that that fact is obvious in every codex that comes out.

Bullet points are great. The rule prevents loopholes, the bullet points simplify it down for mouth breathers. It's rules writing symbiosis. It's not poor writing, it's writing to intent. They could have just said what they bullet points said, like they've done in the past, and then we would have had 14 pages of Q&A on edge cases and ignorance like we had through most of 8th for rules like this. They've done fine. In fact, these are the best written rules GW has come out with, probably ever. Inelegant, sure, but they cover everything they need to cover and help force people to relearn reading comprehension. I call that a win win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Yea, that's fair. I think ultimately so many people just buy in anyways that there's no boycott that would change things dramatically.

It's like in Fight Club -- cost of technical writer > cost of FAQs = we don't get a technical writer. Best way is to just keep pushing them, but hopefully they also let up on the crazy release schedule (probably won't).

Also, it's not like a technical writer automatically guarantees a perfect end product. Especially when they've got to do hundreds of pages of interlocking, but totally disparate rules. Is the new direction in rules writing perfect? No, duh. But they've started to use consistent terminology and are writing to not let loopholes through. It's a start.

At least we won't have to deal with gak like people arguing librarius conclave librarians can cast every one of the 15 spells they know because 'Mastery level DETERMINES the amount of powers a psyker can cast' (as opposed to 'is equal to'.). Who else remembers THAT wonderful discussion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blastaar wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:

GW could write clear intuitive rules, avoid restating other rules when describing a given rule, and hire a technical editor. Expecting a company whose products are atrociously overpriced to do their jobs well is not having "nitpicking btichfests."

There's always room for improvement. I'll take the improved rules before I worry about technical writing. I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

People do need to tone down the rhetoric. I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

This is funny when a quote of you using rhetoric that needs to be toned down and caring about what goes on within GW is like...right there bro.

So now after what 3 decades they want to do fine tuned loop hole free rules ? How much you want to bet even with the painful writing there are plenty or sloppy loopholes, exploits and abuses needing fixes ? I will also add, this isn't a legal document ! This is a game, designed to be fun. They can make the rules easy to read, elegant and also free of loopholes I can't believe there are some people claiming otherwise. I'd rather the section be longer but flow better and be loop hole free then a crammed, jammed pain. This is a game, designed to be fun, not a legal adventure where my opponent will shout.." Objection ! " in a most heroic fashion because he's citing the Fred vs Richard ruling of 2021.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

In which case the problem isn't how people go about the criticism, the problem is with you, for choosing to be offended on behalf of this billion dollar faceless corporation. Games Workshop certainly does not go out of their way to "see what issues I'm dealing with" when they charge outrageous prices for these rules and models. So long as they're making hand over fist selling this product, the people that pay money for the product have every right to criticize it in whatever fashion they deem appropriate.

In any case, at bare minimum, "i don't have an issue with what you said, I don't like how you said it" is a pointless argument to make because it's just whining about whining, which is hardly any more constructive then the complaining you're trying to quell.

Probably worth remembering that we’re promised illustrations fo help explain the terrain rules.

One imagines they’ll help somewhat.

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Yea, that's fair. I think ultimately so many people just buy in anyways that there's no boycott that would change things dramatically.

It's like in Fight Club -- cost of technical writer > cost of FAQs = we don't get a technical writer. Best way is to just keep pushing them, but hopefully they also let up on the crazy release schedule (probably won't).

Also, it's not like a technical writer automatically guarantees a perfect end product. Especially when they've got to do hundreds of pages of interlocking, but totally disparate rules.

You do know that's basically what a technical writer does? They have 2 main jobs: firstly to write the individual rules text in as unambiguously as possible and secondly organise the text in such a way to facilitate the first goal. Those hundreds of pages of interlocking rules would likely be reduced substantially by a competent technical writer. For example, just in the two terrain rules GW have released so far they've re-used wordy definitions for lines and determining the height of terrain. Even if those only pop up twice in the rules (and I suspect it's a hell of a lot more) a competent technical writer would likely define those terms elsewhere first, in order to keep the text of the rules much cleaner.

Zustiur wrote:

So what does this do if the dense train is not at least 3" in height? What's going on with including that as a clause in the same sentence? I think the obstacle rule had the same issue.

There should be a statement, "Terrain of at least 3" in height may be classed as dense terrain." If it's not at least that high, it can't be dense. Ergo no need to have 'if' in the sentence.

You used more words to avoid a situation that doesn't need covering. Its either over 3" or it isn't, the rule works or it doesn't. If you apply it to stuff you know it doesnt work on then that's a bit odd.

You're talking about a rules set its users needed an answer to "if I concede, do I lose ?" (it's in the faqs, so enough people asked), there is no pleasing everyone with rules writing once you enter this territory.
You either write concise rules that will be torn appart because "hey ! It's raw, there is no rule stating I lost if I decide to let you win !" or you write wordy stuff that will bother the people that don't need that much hand holding.

What I don't understand is why they were so verbose in describing dense cover, but were instead really short in describing the obscuring terrain.

Why are we looking at bases in this one and not in the obscuring one?

Does it imply that the line of sight is now base to base? Wouldn't make a lot of sense, since I could hide behind a short wall. Maybe that for line of sight you need to trace a line from or over your base to the target base or over it? So we are now using cilinders? Would make sense...

Seabass wrote: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.

Paragraph spacing, bullet points, pictures, more simplistic writing and less throwing around of things like "terrain feature" every other second, shorten the sentences, etc.

Just take the first line: "if this terrain feature is at least 3" in height" - that should be it's own sentence at the end of the paragraph, saying something like "Only terrain features at least 3" may be classified as dense cover" or words to that extent, because right now, having that in there at the start just makes me wonder what I'm meant to do if the terrain feature is Dense Cover, but under 3". The rule should start straight away with the effect of Dense Cover, and then go on to add in the exceptions, in clear, isolated sections.

And that's just the first clause.

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?

Yes. And I think that's a pretty big thing to bitch about.

These aren't critiques of the design of the rules, these are nitpicking bitchfests.

Riiiiiight, so if I can't understand the rules because they're written thicker than the terrain they're representing, that's not a problem?

I don't care how functional the rules are if I can't understand them. You could have the most balanced, perfectly crafted legal ruleset in existence, but good luck convincing anyone that it's fun to play if they can't make head or tail of it.

Daedalus81 wrote:There's always room for improvement. I'll take the improved rules before I worry about technical writing. I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

No, this is "I can't read what this rule says clearly, how am I supposed to play these rules when I don't understand them"?
I'm notoriously pro-GW, and I'm definitely not one of the "GW sux" brigade, but even I can agree that these rules are harmful - not in content, but in presentation.

If I was trying to get someone into playing 40k with that block of rules, hell, if *I* were trying to get into it for the first time, I'd just read that and either ignore it, or just not play.

AngryAngel80 wrote:This is a game, designed to be fun, not a legal adventure where my opponent will shout.." Objection ! " in a most heroic fashion because he's citing the Fred vs Richard ruling of 2021.

Exactly. I want to *enjoy* the game, not have to have a legal battle every time I do something because of some jumped-up rules lawyers. We all know why GW's made these rules so obtusely worded - because we have people who will argue they didn't lose a game if they conceded because the rules didn't say so.

My solution is simple - don't play those people. They're not worth my time.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Probably worth remembering that we’re promised illustrations fo help explain the terrain rules.

One imagines they’ll help somewhat.

I do sure hope so. Anything other than the wall of text we got.

dhallnet wrote:
You're talking about a rules set its users needed an answer to "if I concede, do I lose ?" (it's in the faqs, so enough people asked), there is no pleasing everyone with rules writing once you enter this territory.
You either write concise rules that will be torn appart because "hey ! It's raw, there is no rule stating I lost if I decide to let you win !" or you write wordy stuff that will bother the people that don't need that much hand holding.

Of course there is a difference. Is it like in sports where when a team drops out you don't get max team points, or is ti counted as a max point victory for you and how are such wins weighted vs wins against opponents who did drop. And if in fact there is a difference between a game ending in a disqualification and one that ended with someone conceding.

We all know why GW's made these rules so obtusely worded - because we have people who will argue they didn't lose a game if they conceded because the rules didn't say so.

I don't know enough about english, but in some languages it isn't the same thing. It is like after a year plus here, I found out that when people in english use game they think about something else that we call a game, which before confused me to no end , because translating "it is just a game, the rules or efficiency aren't important" makes as much sense as if I said it is just the sun, it is naturaly cold.

I also have no idea how big the difference between english and american english is. And by different I am think more about specific ways of interpretation of what a word means. If those exist, then you can only imagine when someone who is non english speaker tries to play a UK made game, with an american ITC rule set. I think that is why for some people, the whole RAI think makes no sense at all, because they look at how stuff is worded, translate it in their heads, and both make just as much sense.

Zustiur wrote:

So what does this do if the dense train is not at least 3" in height? What's going on with including that as a clause in the same sentence? I think the obstacle rule had the same issue.

There should be a statement, "Terrain of at least 3" in height may be classed as dense terrain." If it's not at least that high, it can't be dense. Ergo no need to have 'if' in the sentence.

Karol wrote:

I also have no idea how big the difference between english and american english is.

The playwright George Bernard Shaw once said that Britain and the US are "two nations separated by a common language"...

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.

Nope. Not the first time. They made the same claim with 8th. "Most play tested edition ever". Gathered competitive and narrative players from all over. Ditto the codexes and rules supplements. The edition only got worse as it went. Knowing who *some* of the playtesters were, I have my own theories as to why things went south ... but honestly, the general sense I get is that, more than likely, GW asked them to provide the wrong feedback (there are very specific methods/best practices for this sort of thing that GW probably isn't aware of or used to), or they recieved good feedback and decided to ignore it. OR maybe they got great feedback, tried to implement it, and got over-ruled somewhere. IDK. All I can tell you is that they claimed to have play-tested fairly extensively in 8th (supposedly, one of the reasons the GSC codex got delayed was the play testers said "This is too broken to release" - scary to think about when Iron Hands made it all the way through - how bad was the original GSC?), and it really didn't work.

Dudeface wrote:

Zustiur wrote:

So what does this do if the dense train is not at least 3" in height? What's going on with including that as a clause in the same sentence? I think the obstacle rule had the same issue.

There should be a statement, "Terrain of at least 3" in height may be classed as dense terrain." If it's not at least that high, it can't be dense. Ergo no need to have 'if' in the sentence.

You used more words to avoid a situation that doesn't need covering. Its either over 3" or it isn't, the rule works or it doesn't. If you apply it to stuff you know it doesnt work on then that's a bit odd.

No. The rule should be written so that it's not even possible to apply the feature to terrain that is incapable of benefiting from it. Personally, I would have preferred all the heights to be guidelines and not rules.

Dense Cover

If, when tracing Line of Sight, a Model is incapable of drawing a straight line to every part of at least 1 model's base (or hull) in the target unit from a single point on the attacking model's base (or hull) without any of those lines passing over or through any part of the terrain feature subtract 1 from any hit rolls when resolving an attack with a ranged weapon. Models that are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature with this trait treat treat that terrain feature as Open Ground.

Note: It is recommended that Dense Cover Terrain Features are a minimum of 3" in height at their tallest point.

Of course, the rules for tracing line of sight should have been detailed elsewhere and there should be no damn reason for telling you how to do it here so that first sentence is fething wasted space too.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess part of the issue is how people go about criticism. It isn't, "geez they really need to fix this". It's, "this is garbage, GW sucks, and I am clearly superior" comments laden with exaggerated terms despite not knowing whatever internal issues the designers are dealing with.

In which case the problem isn't how people go about the criticism, the problem is with you, for choosing to be offended on behalf of this billion dollar faceless corporation. Games Workshop certainly does not go out of their way to "see what issues I'm dealing with" when they charge outrageous prices for these rules and models. So long as they're making hand over fist selling this product, the people that pay money for the product have every right to criticize it in whatever fashion they deem appropriate.

In any case, at bare minimum, "i don't have an issue with what you said, I don't like how you said it" is a pointless argument to make because it's just whining about whining, which is hardly any more constructive then the complaining you're trying to quell.

Really? You sure about that? The forum is littered with gak like this:

Sure, but you're still basing this on a summary of the rule, not the actual rule text. So for all we know the real rule text says "within 1" of your table edge and wholly within 6" of your table edge" or something like that.

So I am basing it off the information we have. It could also say "Only if it's the vernal equinox, the current Nanakshahi calendar year is a prime number, and only when Mercury is the closest planet to Uranus", speculating on what a rule might say is pointless.

People just looking to needle the gak out of everything to prove their superiority.

Slipspace wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Yea, that's fair. I think ultimately so many people just buy in anyways that there's no boycott that would change things dramatically.

It's like in Fight Club -- cost of technical writer > cost of FAQs = we don't get a technical writer. Best way is to just keep pushing them, but hopefully they also let up on the crazy release schedule (probably won't).

Also, it's not like a technical writer automatically guarantees a perfect end product. Especially when they've got to do hundreds of pages of interlocking, but totally disparate rules.

You do know that's basically what a technical writer does? They have 2 main jobs: firstly to write the individual rules text in as unambiguously as possible and secondly organise the text in such a way to facilitate the first goal. Those hundreds of pages of interlocking rules would likely be reduced substantially by a competent technical writer. For example, just in the two terrain rules GW have released so far they've re-used wordy definitions for lines and determining the height of terrain. Even if those only pop up twice in the rules (and I suspect it's a hell of a lot more) a competent technical writer would likely define those terms elsewhere first, in order to keep the text of the rules much cleaner.

But, but, USRs are bad! Remember?

90 USRs, 20-30 of which just reference other USRs, ARE bad.

GW fails at their job on every level.

Tycho wrote:

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.

Nope. Not the first time. They made the same claim with 8th. "Most play tested edition ever". Gathered competitive and narrative players from all over. Ditto the codexes and rules supplements. The edition only got worse as it went. Knowing who *some* of the playtesters were, I have my own theories as to why things went south ... but honestly, the general sense I get is that, more than likely, GW asked them to provide the wrong feedback (there are very specific methods/best practices for this sort of thing that GW probably isn't aware of or used to), or they recieved good feedback and decided to ignore it. OR maybe they got great feedback, tried to implement it, and got over-ruled somewhere. IDK. All I can tell you is that they claimed to have play-tested fairly extensively in 8th (supposedly, one of the reasons the GSC codex got delayed was the play testers said "This is too broken to release" - scary to think about when Iron Hands made it all the way through - how bad was the original GSC?), and it really didn't work.

Yes it did. Did you play 6th? 7th? 8th at its absolute worse was still MASSIVELY superior to both previous editions, even at their best. I've heard 5th was really good so maybe that was legitimately a superior edition to 8th, don't know never played it. Point is that the new direction saw massive improvements from the previous two editions. Sure, it didn't make the game perfect and there were some definite flubs and ugly patch jobs on the way, but it's still been (outside of the Ironhands era, all three weeks of it at its most broken.) the most diverse and subjectively, most fun, edition we've had in a very long time(Even during Castellan spam Castellans weren't anywhere near the only things making it into the top 16s. As opposed to 7th where the top 16 was 8 eldar armies, 7 chaos soups and a space marine or tau list.

Also, people who have terrible reading comprehension always throw out that 'Most play tested edition ever' like the fact that the game still has flaws automatically invalidates that. The reality of it is that that phrase is 100% true, GW didn't really playtest other editions. Wasn't really a huge bar to get over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know what goes on within GW, but I also don't care. The final product is what matters.

Yea, that's fair. I think ultimately so many people just buy in anyways that there's no boycott that would change things dramatically.

It's like in Fight Club -- cost of technical writer > cost of FAQs = we don't get a technical writer. Best way is to just keep pushing them, but hopefully they also let up on the crazy release schedule (probably won't).

Also, it's not like a technical writer automatically guarantees a perfect end product. Especially when they've got to do hundreds of pages of interlocking, but totally disparate rules.

You do know that's basically what a technical writer does? They have 2 main jobs: firstly to write the individual rules text in as unambiguously as possible and secondly organise the text in such a way to facilitate the first goal. Those hundreds of pages of interlocking rules would likely be reduced substantially by a competent technical writer. For example, just in the two terrain rules GW have released so far they've re-used wordy definitions for lines and determining the height of terrain. Even if those only pop up twice in the rules (and I suspect it's a hell of a lot more) a competent technical writer would likely define those terms elsewhere first, in order to keep the text of the rules much cleaner.

You do realize that the greater point of that is that the complexity of more than two dozen different factions who all interact with the core rules in totally unique ways increases the odds that even a competent technical writer will have errors or otherwise inelegant rules, correct? Also that you actually agreed with me by saying 'likely to be reduced substantially' rather than 'eliminated' and that you're wasting your's and everyone elses time on a 'Well ACSHULLY' that didn't accomplish anything?

 Lance845 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Zustiur wrote:

So what does this do if the dense train is not at least 3" in height? What's going on with including that as a clause in the same sentence? I think the obstacle rule had the same issue.

There should be a statement, "Terrain of at least 3" in height may be classed as dense terrain." If it's not at least that high, it can't be dense. Ergo no need to have 'if' in the sentence.

You used more words to avoid a situation that doesn't need covering. Its either over 3" or it isn't, the rule works or it doesn't. If you apply it to stuff you know it doesnt work on then that's a bit odd.

No. The rule should be written so that it's not even possible to apply the feature to terrain that is incapable of benefiting from it. Personally, I would have preferred all the heights to be guidelines and not rules.

Dense Cover

If, when tracing Line of Sight, a Model is incapable of drawing a straight line to every part of at least 1 model's base (or hull) in the target unit from a single point on the attacking model's base (or hull) without any of those lines passing over or through any part of the terrain feature subtract 1 from any hit rolls when resolving an attack with a ranged weapon. Models that are within 3" of an Obstacle terrain feature with this trait treat treat that terrain feature as Open Ground.

Note: It is recommended that Dense Cover Terrain Features are a minimum of 3" in height at their tallest point.

Of course, the rules for tracing line of sight should have been detailed elsewhere and there should be no damn reason for telling you how to do it here so that first sentence is fething wasted space too.

The reason Dense and Obscuring have these caveats is because then GW can make a general type of terrain have those rules

e.g. ruins, which they previewed, that have Defensible, Breachible, Obscuring, Light Cover, and Heavy Cover.

So, if you have a Ruin that is 6" tall, it gets all those traits.

But a ruin that is 4" tall gets all those traits except Obscuring.

A lot of people are assuming that people are going to be going back and forth assigning individual properties like "Scalable" and "Exposed Position" to every piece of terrain, but it seems like in reality just like with every edition, the players will start by agreeing "These are ruins, this is an industrial section, those can be Barriers, and these can be Forests" and then if one piece seems to have a weird incongruity - say, a bunker with a big flat top - you might say "And we'll add Exposed Position to that thing".

Yes it did. Did you play 6th? 7th? 8th at its absolute worse was still MASSIVELY superior to both previous editions, even at their best. I've heard 5th was really good so maybe that was legitimately a superior edition to 8th, don't know never played it. Point is that the new direction saw massive improvements from the previous two editions. Sure, it didn't make the game perfect and there were some definite flubs and ugly patch jobs on the way, but it's still been (outside of the Ironhands era) the most diverse and subjectively, most fun, edition we've had in a very long time(Even during Castellan spam Castellans weren't anywhere near the only things making it into the top 16s. As opposed to 7th where the top 16 was 8 eldar armies, 7 chaos soups and a space marine or tau list.

Also, people who have terrible reading comprehension always throw out that 'Most play tested edition ever' like the fact that the game still has flaws automatically invalidates that. The reality of it is that that phrase is 100% true, GW didn't really playtest other editions. Wasn't really a huge bar to get over.

Saying 8th was better than 6/7th is, imo objectively accurate, but it's also a bar so low you could trip over it. The reason so many say the play testing didn't really work is because they still had incredibly obvious "day 1" flaws across every rule set they released for this edition.

For example:

GW: "Fastest playing edition ever" *two weeks post release of 8th* the community "No - no it isn't ..." We saw almost immediately that the number of rerolls was causing even Index 40k to take longer. This is not one of those "wow no way anyone could have foreseen that" kind of things. Playtesting should have pointed out the invalidity of that statement almost immediately. Maybe it did? Maybe they called it out but GW ignored it? Like I said before, it's NOT necessarily the fault of the testers themselves, but a lot of really obvious things got through.

Multiple rules and books were called out almost instantly on Day 1 and again, these aren't things you need thousands of games to detect - they were immediately obvious to a huge chunk of even the casual player base. The reason so many call BS on their play testing is because proper play testing SHOULD prevent them from making the classic "GW" style mistakes (mistakes that are indeed often inherent to GW - other companies frequently manage to avoid these), and yet even with play testing, they still had massive disconnects with the player base, multiple problems with rules confusion and many other issues that only became compounded as time went on. I actually LIKED 8th, but it's pretty clear it was rapidly approaching the debacle of 7th. I don't really see them properly correcting that yet either. With GW it's often a case of "We've learned from our mistakes!" followed by them repeating a different, older mistake in an attempt to fix the more recent one ...

So now after what 3 decades they want to do fine tuned loop hole free rules ? How much you want to bet even with the painful writing there are plenty or sloppy loopholes, exploits and abuses needing fixes ? I will also add, this isn't a legal document ! This is a game, designed to be fun. They can make the rules easy to read, elegant and also free of loopholes I can't believe there are some people claiming otherwise. I'd rather the section be longer but flow better and be loop hole free then a crammed, jammed pain. This is a game, designed to be fun, not a legal adventure where my opponent will shout.." Objection ! " in a most heroic fashion because he's citing the Fred vs Richard ruling of 2021.

In order:

Yes.

Maybe, but certainly less than there were. You'll still have the 'does 'the model dies' mean my model actually dies?!?!' crowd, but they've always been beyond saving.

Games are pretty similar to legal documents, they're both about specificity and building defined modes of conduct. The more complex the contract, the more complex the language.

No they can't. No one can. That's the entire point of why lawyers exist. Easy to read and elegant get you loopholes, closing loopholes make it inelegant. Nothing you can do about that. You also still have the paste eater crowd you have to take point by point through the text no matter how clear it is. The fact that you can't believe people would say otherwise is more of a fault of your education than anything, to be honest. Since I went to a better school than you did, try writing out instructions on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich and then follow them exactly as written. Because I guarantee your first draft will likely end with you realizing you have no access to either peanut butter or jelly because you wrote 'get the peanut butter and jelly out' but didn't include where they were. Or you end up having to stab a knife through the lid because you forgot to include 'unscrew and remove the lid'.

So you're saying you want the rule to be even longer? How is that not less easy to read? People give up halfway through reading the rules now, and you want to blow it out long enough to where boredom can settle in? Get real, that's why the 7th edition rulebook was such a slog to get through (and still had tons of loopholes, not for nothing'). If increases the word count was going to make the rule simpler to understand, maybe, but honestly it would be highly unlikely to help at all.

Do you...do you not know the difference between a legal document and a legal proceeding? Because those are two different things. Also, this is a tabletop wargame, that exact scenario, minus the specific case, is happening in about every third game and is happening literally thousands of times per day one JUST THIS WEBSITE.

What loop holes does this rule generate?

ERJAK wrote:

So now after what 3 decades they want to do fine tuned loop hole free rules ? How much you want to bet even with the painful writing there are plenty or sloppy loopholes, exploits and abuses needing fixes ? I will also add, this isn't a legal document ! This is a game, designed to be fun. They can make the rules easy to read, elegant and also free of loopholes I can't believe there are some people claiming otherwise. I'd rather the section be longer but flow better and be loop hole free then a crammed, jammed pain. This is a game, designed to be fun, not a legal adventure where my opponent will shout.." Objection ! " in a most heroic fashion because he's citing the Fred vs Richard ruling of 2021.

In order:

Yes.

Maybe, but certainly less than there were. You'll still have the 'does 'the model dies' mean my model actually dies?!?!' crowd, but they've always been beyond saving.

Games are pretty similar to legal documents, they're both about specificity and building defined modes of conduct. The more complex the contract, the more complex the language.

No they can't. No one can. That's the entire point of why lawyers exist. Easy to read and elegant get you loopholes, closing loopholes make it inelegant. Nothing you can do about that. You also still have the paste eater crowd you have to take point by point through the text no matter how clear it is. The fact that you can't believe people would say otherwise is more of a fault of your education than anything, to be honest. Since I went to a better school than you did, try writing out instructions on how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich and then follow them exactly as written. Because I guarantee your first draft will likely end with you realizing you have no access to either peanut butter or jelly because you wrote 'get the peanut butter and jelly out' but didn't include where they were. Or you end up having to stab a knife through the lid because you forgot to include 'unscrew and remove the lid'.

So you're saying you want the rule to be even longer? How is that not less easy to read? People give up halfway through reading the rules now, and you want to blow it out long enough to where boredom can settle in? Get real, that's why the 7th edition rulebook was such a slog to get through (and still had tons of loopholes, not for nothing'). If increases the word count was going to make the rule simpler to understand, maybe, but honestly it would be highly unlikely to help at all.

Do you...do you not know the difference between a legal document and a legal proceeding? Because those are two different things. Also, this is a tabletop wargame, that exact scenario, minus the specific case, is happening in about every third game and is happening literally thousands of times per day one JUST THIS WEBSITE.

Do you know the difference between a legal document and rules for a game designed for fun ? I mean one thing can be life and death and the other thing is, ya know, a game. I would point out even those sweet legal documents can have loop holes, precedents, exceptions etc. So if I will have all of that anyways, I'd rather it be elegant for my " fun " game. I don't go out and read legal documents for " fun " for a reason. That is all I'm saying. Trying to act like GW can't do better is really keeping them to an awfully expectation level. I would say some games can have good and loop hole free rules. I still bet even with these rules people will still rules lawyer them as much as any edition.

The rules, are fine, I just wish they read better. I really don't see why people have to argue that point as even the arguments tend to agree its cumbersome to digest. Feels like just sticking up for poor ol GW because we wish they made it flow better. Why so serious ?