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.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

You make the claim, and then demand others prove you wrong?

That's not how proof works. You have to provide proof of the validity for your claim. What is your knowledge of their laziness?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

Not as lazy as this gakpost!

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

You make the claim, and then demand others prove you wrong?

That's not how proof works. You have to provide proof of the validity for your claim. What is your knowledge of their laziness?

Have you read anything they wrote the last year?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

Not as lazy as this gakpost!

GW isn't going to send you free stuff for defending their lazy ass rules writing. You know that, right?

Wayniac wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

Normally I would agree, but their track record is so abysmal that it's either laziness or incompetence, or both.

You can't really judge the track record if you don't know what their internal goals are or were - change for change's sake is a thing that happened with GW's publication model, and continues to happen, and there is a wealth of sources like interviews with ex-designers that talk about interventions from managment that threw development out of the loop. Of course you can judge the end product on its own merits and demerits, but without knowing the ins and outs of how you got there you're probably too harsh on the designers.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

You make the claim, and then demand others prove you wrong?

That's not how proof works. You have to provide proof of the validity for your claim. What is your knowledge of their laziness?

They copy/paste stuff all the time. Almost every special rule in the game is a copy/paste of the handful of rules they sprinkle about. No time or consideration is given to individual units on how they should alter the copy/pasted rules to suit the unit. Because obviously a lictor benefits from a 9" deep strike the same way a heavy weapon terminator unit does.

We all know GW doesn't hire based on merit for their rules or models. How big a fan you are is a more important qualification than ability to them because it's cheaper. And when the rules are bad who cares? Just sell them again.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

Define lazy here, they publish a looot of rules and books every year so they're hardly sat with a thumb up their ass.

Dudeface wrote:
Define lazy here, they publish a looot of rules and books every year so they're hardly sat with a thumb up their ass.

By that metric the production of funko pops must be the height of creative diligence.

 Vermis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Define lazy here, they publish a looot of rules and books every year so they're hardly sat with a thumb up their ass.

By that metric the production of funko pops must be the height of creative diligence.

Funko pops scare me, every place that sells them has them stacked up high. And never accounts for anyone with any movement difficulty’s at all.
I fear one day I will be crushed by funko pops entering our local Video game store.

Apple fox wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Define lazy here, they publish a looot of rules and books every year so they're hardly sat with a thumb up their ass.

By that metric the production of funko pops must be the height of creative diligence.

Funko pops scare me, every place that sells them has them stacked up high. And never accounts for anyone with any movement difficulty’s at all.
I fear one day I will be crushed by funko pops entering our local Video game store.

I will never understand how people can have rooms full of featureless faces and blank staring eyes surround them and not feel unnerved.

 Vermis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Define lazy here, they publish a looot of rules and books every year so they're hardly sat with a thumb up their ass.

By that metric the production of funko pops must be the height of creative diligence.

Still can't call them lazy even if they have the imagination of a plank.

Dudeface 809003 11497701 wrote:

Define lazy here, they publish a looot of rules and books every year so they're hardly sat with a thumb up their ass.

If you sign up for doing 2 masters and the same time, and fail both, you have not been hard at work, having goals and trying to achive stuff. No you just failed twice. Things and people are judged by their results. And after a few decades of GW, we can litteraly say what is going to happen in 10th. First books are going to be marines. GW is going to be doing the tone the crazy thing they did in 8th and 9th. Then there will be 1-2 non marine books that will also be toned down. And then GW will have books for armies which are either always writen above the curve or who need good rule support to sell. And the race will be on. Marines will be dropping in their adaptivness, through the edition, only to blow up with new set of rules at the end of it. To have it nullfied with new books coming in the next edition.
All books will be full of copy past with no unit or character fixes. The only good/bad changes are going to come from core rules changes. Books are going to be copy paste from prior edition, especialy for armies who are not being updated in a given cycle.

Or on a more personal level. If for 2 edition straight, the army to play does not change it is the same identical set up, then someone is not putting a lot of work in to the faction. And let me remind again that the goals is what is important in the end, not the intentions. And the goal for GW is to MAKE MORE MONEY. An idential list as prior edition means old players don't buy more stuff, and new players will have access to pre build armies on secondary market. Any new box, bundle etc who does not have those specific units that are being always run, is going to have lower sales. And something like the custodes christmas box is going to make any custodes player, who couldn't get it, salty. Twice as much considering yearly price rises.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

Define lazy here, they publish a looot of rules and books every year so they're hardly sat with a thumb up their ass.

The problem with the whole thing of insulting individuals is it distracts from the actual topic. If the rules are bad that's an entirely different thing to whether or not someone is "lazy". A Lazy person could write good rules, or they could write bad rules. It's a fundamentally different topic to "The rules are bad".

I think the rules are awful. I think the game is fundamentally made bad to play because of them. Why the rules are bad I do not care. I Just want good rules so if I ever do play it'll be an enjoyable experience.

Dudeface wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Define lazy here, they publish a looot of rules and books every year so they're hardly sat with a thumb up their ass.

By that metric the production of funko pops must be the height of creative diligence.

Still can't call them lazy even if they have the imagination of a plank.

When I call the lazy, I'm talking about their bare minimum effort.

Very few changes etc. are taken out more than one degree of separation.

They just added the new MFM.

Hellblasters got a minor drop. Devs got a minor increase and free weapons. They are:

Defensively - Relatively equal.
Offensively - Not quite as equal but still fairly so.
Points: Large edge going to the Devs.

Probably because the Hellblasters still have gun cost baked into their PPM.

So not only are Hellblasters "bad", they set the "bottom" of PRIMARIS INFANTRY heavy weapons. Eradicators - as Gravis - are "better" than both Desolators and Hellblasters so they set the top end. This leaves Desloators in the Meh zone because Hellblasters weren't repriced in relation to Devastators.

I agree the rules are bad, i dont consider that laziness. They put out so much stuff on relatively low wages that i consider that a ridiculous charge. I suspect its down to a mix of corporate wanting to appeal to the absolute largest amount of people and designers not having the skillset to turn that into what I'd consider a good product (not convinced anyone could). I hate people attacking the workers when the likelihood it is on the bosses if one wonders why i am on this soapbox

Dai wrote:
I agree the rules are bad, i dont consider that laziness. They put out so much stuff on relatively low wages that i consider that a ridiculous charge. I suspect its down to a mix of corporate wanting to appeal to the absolute largest amount of people and designers not having the skillset to turn that into what I'd consider a good product (not convinced anyone could). I hate people attacking the workers when the likelihood it is on the bosses if one wonders why i am on this soapbox

The problem with calling them "lazy" is "Lazy" writers could write good, or bad rules. I don't care if they're lazy or not, I care if the rules are good or if they're bad. Whether or not they're good individual workers I could not care less about.

You are right. Instead of blaming the bottom rung people if we are to direct blame I'd suggest it be towards the decision makers. The ones who could delete strategems from the game but choose not to.

 vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Terrain's the perfect example. 8th Ed terrain rules sucked, so in 9th Ed they addressed it with a convoluted keyword system with unintuitive effects and wording that reads like legalese.

Just on that point, there's something I find almost soul-crushing about GW's rule wording.

I get that they want to avoid misinterpretation, but maybe this is why it would help to have USRs, keywords and core rules that are actually worth a damn.

I mean, other games can work just fine with effects as simple as 'push the target 6"', yet GW apparently needs:

"Thou may, if thou choses, push [that is move] the target ["the target" being a model [defined as a tabletop miniature for use in the game of Warhammer 40k (TM)] currently in play on the table in the current game and not a person, animal, or object not being a model or a model not being on the table, in play at the present time, or presently in use in the current game] a number of inches being no more than 6" (it may be less but not so few as to pull the model instead) measured horizontally (being defined as level with and parallel to the table, excepting in the case of terrain, the rules for which are defined in volumes 14 through 19 of the Core Rules) . . ."

Of course when they wrote short players abused the rules as hell and complained gw rules aren't detailed enough opening up loopholes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

Well. Lazy might be incorrect. Incompetent though isn't as shows by rules they produce.

But then again as GW openly admits they don't hire for abilities.

Beast_of_Guanyin wrote:

Dai wrote:
I agree the rules are bad, i dont consider that laziness. They put out so much stuff on relatively low wages that i consider that a ridiculous charge. I suspect its down to a mix of corporate wanting to appeal to the absolute largest amount of people and designers not having the skillset to turn that into what I'd consider a good product (not convinced anyone could). I hate people attacking the workers when the likelihood it is on the bosses if one wonders why i am on this soapbox

You are right. Instead of blaming the bottom rung people if we are to direct blame I'd suggest it be towards the decision makers. The ones who could delete strategems from the game but choose not to.

1. They don't HAVE to write rules if the supposed decision makers are the problem.
2. Stratagems aren't the problem, it's the overall implementation of then due to the laziness (see?) of random fight/shoot twice and durability Strats that somehow only one unit remembers.

Karol wrote:
And after a few decades of GW, we can litteraly say what is going to happen in 10th. First books are going to be marines. GW is going to be doing the tone the crazy thing they did in 8th and 9th. Then there will be 1-2 non marine books that will also be toned down. And then GW will have books for armies which are either always writen above the curve or who need good rule support to sell. And the race will be on. Marines will be dropping in their adaptivness, through the edition, only to blow up with new set of rules at the end of it. To have it nullfied with new books coming in the next edition.
All books will be full of copy past with no unit or character fixes. The only good/bad changes are going to come from core rules changes. Books are going to be copy paste from prior edition, especialy for armies who are not being updated in a given cycle.

So absolutely nothing has changed about how GW handles the game in those decades?

Was there no fluffy rules distinction between 8th and 9th edition codexes or did I imagine that?

Or on a more personal level. If for 2 edition straight, the army to play does not change it is the same identical set up, then someone is not putting a lot of work in to the faction. And let me remind again that the goals is what is important in the end, not the intentions. And the goal for GW is to MAKE MORE MONEY. An idential list as prior edition means old players don't buy more stuff, and new players will have access to pre build armies on secondary market. Any new box, bundle etc who does not have those specific units that are being always run, is going to have lower sales. And something like the custodes christmas box is going to make any custodes player, who couldn't get it, salty. Twice as much considering yearly price rises.

People who have been playing for a long time have a deep enough bench that point shifts are pretty irrelevant. I know you bought your army from someone tuned to 6th edition or something and probably still have yet to buy any other models because of how expensive it is out there.

Despite shifts the GK have always had an over reliance on DKs. And as long as you don't mix and match you can run Paladins as Terminators or vice versa.

In reviewing the point changes for GK the GM/DKs were mostly unchanged. This is logically correct as it would be the most used unit. Other units saw drops that mirror what happened to other factions.

Marines get 33 point termies with whatever they want. You get 35 point obsec terminators that can cast a spell and have an extra attack. Perhaps it isn't fair to see TH/SS termies while you pay for the Daemon Hammer, but again -- extra attack and the ability to give themselves RR wounds. And while Strikes and the popular Interceptors drops by 2 the terminators dropped by 5.

So nowhere in this do I see GW capriciously buffing or nerfing things that don't need it just to sell different models.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

1. They don't HAVE to write rules if the supposed decision makers are the problem.

So you think the entire rules team should stand up and become jobless over pride? Get a grip.

Breton wrote:
So not only are Hellblasters "bad", they set the "bottom" of PRIMARIS INFANTRY heavy weapons. Eradicators - as Gravis - are "better" than both Desolators and Hellblasters so they set the top end. This leaves Desloators in the Meh zone because Hellblasters weren't repriced in relation to Devastators.

Helblasters get 5 weapons per squad. Devs get 4 plus Cherub / Signum. Often this is phrased as no ablative wounds, but losing the Sarge nicks the BS2 shot/s. Helblasters pay 35 per weapon and Devs effectively pay 29. This closes the gap a bit.

If you imagine playing against someone bringing lots of terminators ( quite likely ) the outcome of LC vs OC HPI is below.



It's a more reliable gun that can also double out marines and totally remove their armor and wounds -- LC does most of the time, too, but then the HPI can strip cover bonus. I would consider it a far better weapon than a LC. The problem is rolling 1s and clearly GW has had a problem balancing Plas-ceptors as well.

Unlike Plas-ceptors RR1s are an opportunity cost for Helblasters. They can more easily stick near any captains you happen to grab, which makes the raw math a little more difficult to consider.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

You make the claim, and then demand others prove you wrong?

That's not how proof works. You have to provide proof of the validity for your claim. What is your knowledge of their laziness?

I'll provide the proof. 9th Edition. Done.

Tsagualsa wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

Normally I would agree, but their track record is so abysmal that it's either laziness or incompetence, or both.

You can't really judge the track record if you don't know what their internal goals are or were - change for change's sake is a thing that happened with GW's publication model, and continues to happen, and there is a wealth of sources like interviews with ex-designers that talk about interventions from managment that threw development out of the loop. Of course you can judge the end product on its own merits and demerits, but without knowing the ins and outs of how you got there you're probably too harsh on the designers.

So to tie both these posts into one reply that isn't just tongue in cheek (My comment above). Lets break it down, how are GW rules writers Lazy? Personally I think its a combination between Lazy and stupid but that is just my opinion; so here are the facts.

GW released the 9th edition Ork codex...with a few problems.
#1: Trukk Boyz weren't legal by their own incompetent rules writing.
#2: Synergy...sorry we couldn't find any.
#3: Completely forgot to buff units that were struggling for multiple editions (Stompa hasn't been good....pretty much ever).
#4: The number of typos and screw ups is hilarious. On multiple pages of the codex GW design team screwed up photos and images and overlapped them leaving you with an amalgam of images that they just said ...meh screw it. My personal favorite is the two headed grot on the painboy picture
#5: Biggest buff/rules change for Orkz in 9th was -1AP on choppas! Which GW immediately nerfed 5-6 months later by releasing AoC which ignored it. Huzzah.

But wait...there's more! GW went ahead and fixed the Trukkboyz illegality problem and then immediately created a new rule which made them illegal again I can probably keep going but the point I am making is that GW's rules team is either lazy or incompetent. You can pick which or both for that matter, but a single skilled editor or review process would have caught 99% of these issues.

tneva82 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Terrain's the perfect example. 8th Ed terrain rules sucked, so in 9th Ed they addressed it with a convoluted keyword system with unintuitive effects and wording that reads like legalese.

Just on that point, there's something I find almost soul-crushing about GW's rule wording.

I get that they want to avoid misinterpretation, but maybe this is why it would help to have USRs, keywords and core rules that are actually worth a damn.

I mean, other games can work just fine with effects as simple as 'push the target 6"', yet GW apparently needs:

"Thou may, if thou choses, push [that is move] the target ["the target" being a model [defined as a tabletop miniature for use in the game of Warhammer 40k (TM)] currently in play on the table in the current game and not a person, animal, or object not being a model or a model not being on the table, in play at the present time, or presently in use in the current game] a number of inches being no more than 6" (it may be less but not so few as to pull the model instead) measured horizontally (being defined as level with and parallel to the table, excepting in the case of terrain, the rules for which are defined in volumes 14 through 19 of the Core Rules) . . ."

Of course when they wrote short players abused the rules as hell and complained gw rules aren't detailed enough opening up loopholes

Sigh.

Again, the issue with GW's old rules wasn't that they were short, it was that they were completely inconsistent.

Language is extremely important in games like this because there are a lot of defined terms and playing loosey-goosey with terms means that rules quickly become very unclear.

For example, a model with Eternal Warrior is immune to Instant Death, but is it also immune to effects that remove models from play? Instant Death was a defined term, but the latter was not.

I would also add that GW switching to legalese did not stop the Assault weapon rule being non-functional as-written for the entirity of 8th.

 vipoid wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Terrain's the perfect example. 8th Ed terrain rules sucked, so in 9th Ed they addressed it with a convoluted keyword system with unintuitive effects and wording that reads like legalese.

Just on that point, there's something I find almost soul-crushing about GW's rule wording.

I get that they want to avoid misinterpretation, but maybe this is why it would help to have USRs, keywords and core rules that are actually worth a damn.

I mean, other games can work just fine with effects as simple as 'push the target 6"', yet GW apparently needs:

"Thou may, if thou choses, push [that is move] the target ["the target" being a model [defined as a tabletop miniature for use in the game of Warhammer 40k (TM)] currently in play on the table in the current game and not a person, animal, or object not being a model or a model not being on the table, in play at the present time, or presently in use in the current game] a number of inches being no more than 6" (it may be less but not so few as to pull the model instead) measured horizontally (being defined as level with and parallel to the table, excepting in the case of terrain, the rules for which are defined in volumes 14 through 19 of the Core Rules) . . ."

Of course when they wrote short players abused the rules as hell and complained gw rules aren't detailed enough opening up loopholes

Sigh.

Again, the issue with GW's old rules wasn't that they were short, it was that they were completely inconsistent.

Language is extremely important in games like this because there are a lot of defined terms and playing loosey-goosey with terms means that rules quickly become very unclear.

For example, a model with Eternal Warrior is immune to Instant Death, but is it also immune to effects that remove models from play? Instant Death was a defined term, but the latter was not.

See also my complaint about aircraft being able to pivot up to 90d & then having to fly forward.
There's no facings in this edition. So what is this "Forward" the rule is referring to??

 catbarf wrote:
Or the Tyranid adaptation system. But at least that one doesn't matter because, seeing that they had inadvertently created something interesting (a faction that can adapt to each opponent, rather than being locked into a fixed list), GW patched it out of matched play ASAP.

Don't fething remind me.

The best types of things in 40k are when the rules and the fluff match up perfectly. The Tyranids adapt to things. The rules let Tyranid players adapt their armies (in small ways) to the situation they found themselves in. A simple system that wasn't "list tailoring", but was an elegant way of matching fluff to rules.

Gone in a "balance" dataslate. Well done GW.

I personally thought those adaptation rules for Nids were one of the few good ideas that they had in 9th. And then they just killed them......

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

not how things normally work...you're the one levelling an accusation, the burden of proof is on you.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

1. They don't HAVE to write rules if the supposed decision makers are the problem.

So you think the entire rules team should stand up and become jobless over pride? Get a grip.

Well you know they could probably get better paying jobs elsewhere!

johnpjones1775 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

not how things normally work...you're the one levelling an accusation, the burden of proof is on you.

Yeah, have you read anything done this edition or the random fixes?

Y'all seem hung up on defending the "rules writers" for whatever reason. GW will not see you defend them in this forum and send you free stuff.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:
Calling the rules writers lazy is incredibly childish unless you have first hand experience of the work culture there.

They are lazy. Prove otherwise, please.

not how things normally work...you're the one levelling an accusation, the burden of proof is on you.

Yeah, have you read anything done this edition or the random fixes?

Y'all seem hung up on defending the "rules writers" for whatever reason. GW will not see you defend them in this forum and send you free stuff.

No one is defending anyone.
Weird how mentioning the burden of proof is on the accuser is somehow ‘defending’ GW.
There have been some bad/poorly written rules and fixes, that however doesn’t equate to lazy as mentioned above.