The rest of us view these as products, where 10% wrong means utter garbage.

This would explain why they continue to think they're doing a great job and we continue to think their a pack of incompetent baffoons.

Somehow, GW manangement needs to make them realize that their own self imposed measure of success isn't working.

Thoughts?

Your sig says it all. If we want a better game we have to be able to walk away. Though I would recommend the B5 game.

ender502

Its this desire for the unattainable holy grail of 'tight rules' that sets the bar at an impossible height.  As someone mentioned, their rules started as a 'beer and pretzels' kind of game, some structure to push around their miniatures.  Now, they're expected to churn out a balanced, well edited, and tournament-tight ruleset with all the bells and whistles.  Ain't happening, no matter what other game you pick up instead, or how much bashing and whining is done on forums.

I'm not an apologist for GW, but I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.  I also wouldn't want a game I play 'for fun' to turn into an Physics textbook to try to close every loophole, fix every error, and make it a perfect game.

There is enough drama going on everywhere else, I don't need it in my hobby...

You seem to suggest that a "tight rule" set is an "unattainable holy grail."

If that is the case I would suggest annoiting yourself with sacred oils and making a pilgrimage to wherever it is they made the B5, warmachine and flames of war rules sets. Apparently they are having daily grail showings.

Further, I don't see how it is too much to ask for a "balanced, well edited and tournament-tight ruleset." That's like saying that it is too much to ask for a dictionary to have the words defined correctly.

A solid rules set is not hard. Decent editing is not hard.

ender502

Redshirt:  "Hello, are you familiar with our games?  They are a tabletop strategy game, kind of like Chess, or Risk".

Strangely enough, Chess and Risk have tight rules.  There's no question if that Rook can take your Knight.

Granted, Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are much more complex with more varied pieces and rules, however, the rulesets are still much too vague, especially when compared with Warmachine/Hordes and Flames of War.  However, this vaugeness in the ruleset is a black mark against GW, since one of GW's biggest strengths is the penetration of their product.  I can go from one town to another and pick-up a game of 40k.  What I don't need is an arguement as to whether Fear of the Darkness needs LOS or not.  This should be clearly laid out in the codex.

While I agree on principle that it is impossible to write a 100% tight ruleset, they can do better than the 75% tight ruleset they have now.

I guess I underestimated the stupidity of my fellow gamers.

Other companies are doing it. They're putting out tighter and more complex rules and literally stealing market share from this bloated, self congratulating dinosaur.

PP has 9 factions.  However, each core Warmachine faction has 6 regular casters and 3 epic casters for a total of 9 sublists.  The Mercenaries have 4 regular casters and 1 epic caster.  Hordes has 4 factions with 3 warlocks each for a total of 12 sublists.  So I guess with as few as 53 different "caster/warlocks" for your army, you can say that Privateer's system is a lot less complex than Warhammer/Warhammer40k.

And as for "obvious balance"...  As GW provides a fantasy setting, statistics are clearly infinitely maleable, considering that Wraithlords went from invincible to being easily eaten by powerfists, Librarians went from never-before-seen on the field of battle to being in every army and rhinos (the most common STC in the galaxy) are about as common as Ogryn on the battlefield.

It's a good thing that GW is on the ball.

Sure, then I can count all the possible combinations of Traits in the Marine Dex as 'armies' or 'varients'.  I think that's more than 53.  Not including Armaggedon lists, Chapter Approved (some of which are still 'official'), back of codex/army book variants, etc.  Or, I could argue that just using a Librarian rather than a Commander as a HQ makes my army 'different'.

Nope, no smoke, just an opinion, but its obvious I'm just wrong because I disagree.

Well, the two systems can not be directly comparable, since PPs system is fully designed around having a mandatory HQs who have fairly different (battle affecting) skillsets.  One may be a beatstick and another may be a support character.  Nothing in 40k has this kind of continuous in-game effect.  The closest analogies are:  Farsight Enclave (different force org, and perfered enemy orks) and the trait/doctrine system.

While 40k has more variant lists based off the sheer number of permutations available due to Traits, Doctrines, Chaos Legions, Campaign sub-lists... this is no justification for having a rules package written as loosely as it is now.  A few things jump out immediately:

1.  Wounding with ordinance.
2.  LOS for fury of the ancients. - This is just assinine, it either does, or it doesn't.  All it takes is a single sentence in the codex to fix it.
3.  Tau pathfinders and scout.

None of these needed to be ambigious.  These should not require a FAQ to fix, unlike bizzaro rules issues like:  Are warlocks taken as a seperate HQ choice.

Finally, would it kill GW to not keep issuing updated books without version numbers?  The Chaos codex is a notable example, with AV13-12-10 predators, T1 thrall wizards, multiple versions of doom-siren etc.  Its one thing to produce a book full of errors, but another thing altogether to issue an update on the sly.

Don't get me wrong, GW does lots of things right.  Rules aren't one of them.

If someone wants to set it up, I'll sign it, but I'm not "disgruntled" enough (ie. I'm one of those beer and nuts players), to go about and do it myself.  But sitting back and saying it'll be worthless only shows that your never going to take any stance to try to get GW to change it's policy.  You could post this here, Librarium, Warseer, and any other forums you all know about, and hundreds to thousands of people will sign it.  If that doesn't cover the "Core group" then nothing will.

I've bought at least $1.5k for Warmachine/Hordes in the last year, with 300-1700+ points in 5 factions, four of them playable at 500 point tournament size.  I've spent about $50 on GW product - and only because the old stormtroopers are out of production.  If that isn't taking a stand against GW, I don't know what is.

Disclaimer: 

5000+ of Eldar, 3000+ of Chaos, 1000+ of Tau, 2000+ of Space Marines, 1000+ of Dark Eldar, 1000+ of Sisters of Battle, 2000+ of Empire.

Not that it has any bearing on FAQ writing, but...

IGFan:  Here, I fixed your post for you:

Games Workshop Factions

MEQ
non MEQ
Fantasy
BLOODBOWL
Necromunda
Battlefleet Gothic
Inquisitor
MAN O WAR

Privateer Press Factions

Warmachine
Hordes

OMGWTFBBQ!  GW wins!  (In before lock).

Didn't pay attention to the rest of the thread did you?

Reread my post and the ones before it.

The point is that while GK, DA, BA, SW, and C:SM all play very differently, they are pretty much made up of the same units with different special rules thrown into the mix.

Warmachine/Hordes is constructed very similarly. When you switch out the Warcaster/Warlock in a faction most of the models remain the same, but just about EVERYTHING else changes.

Circle with Kaya and Circle with Krueger play extremely differently and yet they are made up of primarily the same models, just like DA and BA.

Fantastic business model if I've ever seen one myself...  Kids may be confused by the loosely written rules, and can't afford the product themselves...  Hardcore gamers are unhappy with the high price tag to maintain performance in the shifting seas of codex creep and the ambigious ruleset... 

GW should just pick their market and stay in it instead of trying to be everything to everyone and failing miserably.

Then why do the original rules suck so badly?

They both suck for the same reason: incompetence at the managerial level.

Its like WD.  WD is has taken craptacular to a whole new level recently.  I would get very annoyed about that, about spending money for nothing but a catalog, which I should be getting for free, because all discernible non-marketing content has been removed.  But once I didn't renew my subscription I was remarkably ok about the whole thing. They can do what they want, but I don't have to support it.  I've even gone back to playing an occasional 40K recently.

Its the same for the FAQs. If the FAQ's are such a factor of annoyance that they make the game un-enjoyable, then sell your stuff and move on. Life is too short to be annoyed by this (CENSORED).  If its just a minor blurb  then ok, just vent on occasion buut play the game until something better coems along for you.

Well, they actually don't.  On an individual level, people frequently take lower-paying jobs and work in less lucrative careers because their give other factors higher priority.

A publically-traded company, on the other hand, is legally beholden to its shareholders to maximize profits, and its officers can actually be sued by the shareholders for failing to do so.

Forgive me if I come across as angry, it's just really tiring to see people constantly give a company a hard time for being a company. It makes me wonder if people on auto forums complain about auto prices and things like that to the same degree.

Just be glad you have a disposable income to begin with. We are all so fortunate to be in wealthy countries with oportunities to live very comfortable lives, and it seems ridiculous to me to get upset over the cost of an optional and indulgent purchase.

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Or do you understand that often times people use every in a general sense to mean a majority? I think you do, but keep going along here, I'm certain we'll both grow as people because of this petty bickering. Also, I don't see the need to be condescending. It doesn't help your point. What we have is a miscommunication, they happen all the time,

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Or do you understand that often times people use every in a general sense to mean a majority? I think you do, but keep going along here, I'm certain we'll both grow as people because of this petty bickering. Also, I don't see the need to be condescending. It doesn't help your point. What we have is a miscommunication, they happen all the time,

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Game design isn't as easy as people think it is, primarily because when you write and test rules, you cannot even begine to fathom how 200,000 players will interperet and abuse them. The fact that they even issue FAQs is enough to say that they are trying, but it seems that gamers in particular, and this extends from board games to video games, are harder to please than anyone else on the planet.

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:39 PM
However, I think that hyperbole has been lost on you. I can say with confidence that you have many times in your life said every when it isn't 100%.

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 12:19 AM

Leave it to the RAW nuts to take things as literally as possible.
<snip>
But whatever guys, GW is evil and the average Joe is a saint right?

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 2:11 PM
Every time you say every you mean 100%? Or do you understand that often times people use every in a general sense to mean a majority? I think you do, but keep going along here, I'm certain we'll both grow as people because of this petty bickering. Also, I don't see the need to be condescending. It doesn't help your point. What we have is a miscommunication, they happen all the time, even more so over the internet where facial expression, body language, tone, and inflection are lost. I find it's best to try to read and reread someones posts a few times just to make sure of an understanding before outright refuting someone. That or ask a question for clarification.

Posted By Wayfarer on 12/26/2006 12:19 AM

Forgive me if I come across as angry, it's just really tiring to see people constantly give a company a hard time for being a company. It makes me wonder if people on auto forums complain about auto prices and things like that to the same degree.

Neither is automotive engineering, but I expect my car to start and be safe no matter how hard the designers whine it is.

And when they do correct a known issue, I expect them to actually correct it all of them when they recall my car, not fix two things and then take something not broken and replace it with a bad part.

I can sum up all you GW apologists in one phrase: Lowered Expectations. You think GW makes a good product because, for whatever reason, you don't need a better product or can't use a better product. If you never need it, fantastic, but shame on you all for being so dense you can't imagine why anyone else would.

We're all screaming we need anti-lock breaks that work on our car, and you're screaming that we should shut up, who needs them, it's hard work to design ones that work, and who cares because you ride a bike to work anyway?

Around here it's going to work out alot better than yours.

Honestly, I've always liked Dakka because I thought that the maturity level was higher, and the atmosphere, even in RAW debates, was more relaxed. I guess I was wrong about that, because tempers have certainly flared, and what I thought was respected around here isn't. Now I feel all wierd for even bothering to say this much over some foolish debate on the internet, but I guess it really bothers me that I have effected such a negative reaction over what I thought was harmless.

Posted By malfred on 12/26/2006 7:46 PM
Nyarly! You said I was the only brown beauty! You skeezy soulless
thing of the Deep...

You say that games development isn’t easy.  I don’t think anyone here will disagree with you.  That being said, the majority of the problems that “RAW nuts” point out have nothing to do with games development.  They have everything to do with proper written communication and completeness of the product released. 

Take a look at the GW rulebooks (of all kinds) from the perspective of someone who has never played any tabletop war game and isn’t learning from someone who hasn’t played.  You can’t pick up the rulebook and, with a proper understanding of English, play the game “correctly”.  Why?  It’s because not even all of the basic rules are included in the books.  GW seems to have the mentality that close is good enough.  They seem to believe that people should correct their mistakes simply because they’re too lazy, or too incompetent, to do it themselves.  Trying to use the excuse of deadlines, etc, doesn’t cut it.  Almost everything one does has a deadline.  You have to meet the expectation whether you’re ready to do it or not.  Tell me this; if you pay 90% of your rent/mortgage, will your landlord/bank just let the rest slide because it’s close enough?  I think not.

That seems to be all that people expect from GW, and that’s just in their main rulebooks.  It seems like their customers want even less in terms of things like balance.  Heck, the fact that “comp” exists in tournaments is another issue.  Models are supposed to have points values based on their power in the game.  That’s the whole point of the points system.  If you have to have additional restrictions to make a tournament, or any game, fair that’s a problem with games development.  The fact that they refuse to make decisions about specific circumstances that come up is a problem with games development.  The fact that many of these issues have been around for multiple versions of the game is a problem with games development.  Poor wording on rules and missing sections of rules has nothing to do with games development.

Do I think I could do a better job than Games Workshop at developing games?  Possibly, but I know I could write rules much better, more completely, and more concisely than they do, while effectively communicating what I mean to the reader.  That’s the whole point of written communication.  A rulebook is a manual for playing a game.  It is a technical manual, not a work of prose.  Now, that’s not to say that the codices and rulebooks shouldn’t have background materiel.  That’s the only real draw left, for me, to GW products.  The background materiel, however, shouldn’t be a part of the rules themselves.  If you want to see what a good layout for a rulebook should look like, in my not so humble opinion, pick up a WARMACHINE or HORDES rulebook.  There is background materiel for each unit on one page and on the adjacent page there are rules for that unit.

Now, I’m not saying that Privateer Press is perfect, or that they make perfect rules.  Their games, however, are much better balanced, their rules make a lot more sense, and they’re willing to answer questions that people have about their games in a timely manner.  That, and with each expansion they improve the clarity of the rules, the options that players have, and they maintain the balance between the factions while doing it.

Playing these games should be about pitting the tactical skills of the players against each other while interacting socially.  It shouldn’t matter whether or not you’re a “tournament player”, a “RAW nut”, a “social gamer”, or a “Noob.”  Everyone should expect the products they buy from ANY company, including GW, to be complete and to work correctly.  For some reason, many of “you” seem to be content with a product that’s incomplete and just good enough.  I don’t understand that, and I’m not content with a product that’s “good enough.”  That’s why I haven’t bought anything from Games Workshop in over 3 years, and that’s why I play, and promote, games from Privateer Press.

Knight

In 40k/Fantasy, you buy the "buffs" for your each unit individually.  If you want a unit to hunt tanks, you buy them the guy that carrys a tank gun or a powerfist.  However, other than this type of customization, there are very few "global effects" or external "buffs".  A few of the rare examples of the former are the Tau Ethereal and Lysander.  The only example of the latter is the Farseer.  (The librarian's / chaplain powers are more self or own squad-buffing).  Fantasy is a little closer with the Winds of Magic, however, the unpredictability of spell lists and the few buffing spells makes magic a less important component than in Privateer's product.

In Warmachine/Hordes, units are geared towards anti-infantry or anti-armor.  If you want further customization, you buy the warcaster / warlock / unit attachment which gives the appropriate buffs (and debuffs).  Finally, the Feat system in Privateer's system is what really sets warcasters / warlocks apart as they have game-changing properties..

Slave:  I personally feel your arguements are laughable.  40k and Warmachine can NOT be directly compared because in 40k, the units modify themselves by purchasing squad and unit upgrades, and in Warmachine, the units are modified through interaction with other choices.  So yes, superficially, Warmachine models have fixed statlines and seem more simplistic than Warhammer ones which do not.  However this changes in gameplay.

Let's look at a simple example.

A Juggernaut warjack is designed to kill things.  Vlad can give it a boost in accuracy and damage.  (Extra D6 pick the highest).  Sorscha and Vlad can make it charge an extra 2 inches.  Irusk can make it so it can't be knocked down.  Epic Sorscha can bond it for an extra FOC alotment.  While the different warcasters don't change its role, they give it significantly different abilities.

In 40k terms these abilitiy changes would be akin to:  Twinlinking, charges as cavalry, can't be immobilized / pinned, and +1A.  These ability changes are bought right on the model (if applicable).  However, the point you are missing is that in Warmachine, these abilities (for the most part) can be applied to any legal model / unit, or are global effects, making for vastly different gameplay.

Let's look at a second example:

Grand Exemplar Kreoss buffs Knights Exemplar (and by extension Exemplars Errant) by boosting MAT, RAT, S and CM.  He also makes the immune to continious effects.  This is a -global- change boosting WS, BS, S, Ld and the continious effect immunity is somewhat akin to "never counts as outnumbered".  The closest analogy to this in 40k is the Farsight and Ork Fighters (changing them to totally-suck vs Orks in HTH to merely-suck vs Orks in HTH).  So while, this doesn't change the roles of the Exemplar, it significantly improves their ability to go toe-to-toe with stronger models.

So I'd just like to say that to discount this interplay between models is assinine.  40k is ALL about list-building, since what you buy at the start is what you're stuck with.   - Sure there's gameplay skill required too, but it is more an extension of executing what you started with in listbuilding.  You can't buff that unit of Devestators to fight that Chaos Lt in HTH in the middle of the game.  You can't make that dreadnought get into HTH any faster.  You can't give those Stormtroopers a boosted coversave mid-game.

Warmachine has an important list-building aspect as well, but proper use of synergy is imperative.  The closest 40k analogy is the -theory- of combined arms where the sum is greater than its parts...  I say theory because units seldom work together in 40k, apart from the superficial "let's attack the same target" or "let's shoot the same target".  This is the fault of the ruleset since units that contribute to this kind of gameplay - transports, pinning, fear-causing units and external unit-buffs are either laughably useless or laregly missing. 

An example of Warmachine's flexible play:  The Choir of Menoth can turn your Jacks into a wall of "no shooty" and then turn them into beatsticks when they are close.  Failing that (i.e. your Jacks are killed), with the right support, the Choir itself could crack some skulls, or be redeemed for souls.  You'd be hard pressed to use an Engiseer and servitors in the same role, because they can't be externally buffed and are stuck with whatever role you put them in (either fixy or shooty).

At any rate, enough about Warmachine and 40k.

Finally, to address your statement that 40k can't be balanced:  Back in the days of yore, there was this thing called the BBB at the beginning of the 3rd age of 40k.  In the back there was an armylist section with -gasp- largely balanced 40k forces!  Fancy that.  The thing that GW is not doing is taking the system as a whole when building new codices.  Editing would help too.

No, I think they beat GW on that score. My Big Mac only has a 1 page FAQ. And it written better.

www.mcdonalds.com/corp/about/factsheets.RowPar.0001.ContentPar.0001.ColumnPar.0007.File1

I liked Star Wars TCG.    Granted there wasn't as much complexity as Star Wars CCG, and it was nigh impossible for the Dark Side to win without going hard to two arenas... But I still liked it.

(Just goes to show there can be love for GW as well I suppose).

Here at Dakka, we try to let people talk freely.  There's still no excuse for telling someone who is clearly making a carefully-reasoned post, and NOT engaging you on the argumentative level you are sinking to, that they are spewing crap and their argument is worthy of a toilet. 

You were flaming, and you have been warned.  Keep it up, and the aforementioned sanctions will take place.

KiMonarrez:  I'm surprised that you think that this sad state of affairs is acceptable...  Let's break it down a bit and say, for the heck of it that...

40% time is create new rules
40% time is test new rules
10% time is show at events / article writing
I've omitted armybuilding on the assumption that since even manager level GW staffers have to armybuild on their own time, that this is probably the case for the rules writers as well. - Playtest games seem to take place using the Studio armies... (which might account for the lack of playtesting...)

There's 3 major releases per year.  That means that there is 4 months per cycle or roughly 17 weeks.  Assuming a standard 40hr workweek, that gives 680 manhours per staffer put on rules development and testing. - Note, I am also assuming that this process preceeds actual production and rollout by some regular margin.

272 hrs for new rules writing (34 workdays)
272 hrs for playtesting (or enough time for 68 4hr playtest games)
68 hrs for events and article writing (includes FAQs)

Note:  This is for one person.  If you add additional staffers to the dev team (say 3 more people) then you have twice as many playtest games - (moreso if you include the studio staff), and 132 man-days worth of rules-writing time...

To defend their practices as unavoidable is laughable at best... considering that their 30 or so playtest Witchunter codex was the most riggorously tested codex ever.  Hell, with 68 hrs each for events and FAQs, you'd think they could do better than what they're producing.

Sorry, that was supposed to be question. I picked up few models, read the rulebook a few times, and will probably make an army someday, but people compare WM tournaments to CCG-like play, so I'm definitely interested.

As for SWTCG, you can laugh but now instead of keeping one successful game, we (both TCGers and CCGers) now have zero and Decipher's down the sink as well.   

Well, there's something to be said for hiring the right staff for any job.  While technical writing need not be the forte of the creative team, it should be an important skill for the editing team...

er...

Crap.  You're right dude.  We can't expect clearly worded rules because they don't employ editors.  My bad.

Stonefox:  What's most galling with respect to SW - TCG is that after the brief resurgence in popularity after Revenge of the Sith, Wizards never bothered to produce the last set...  it's the goddamned LAST SET and instead went on to SW - minis.  Argh.

Also thankyou for not telling me off for being off topic.

Take care,

Steve