PDA

View Full Version : Reflection on the nature of iterative rules-sets



BrainFireBob
01-10-2007, 10:31
Been thinking quite a bit about the furor over the last few 'dexes, and really thinking about the pattern of a large piece of the objections.

Anyone notice how many of the debates are stuck in the "as it is now" paradigm, instead of shifting to a new paradigm?

Take Chaos bikers. I've seen- I'm sure we all have- who knows how many posts complaining about how they've lost their +1 attack- this, despite the fact that they are now armed with both a bolt pistol and a close combat weapon, instead of one or the other. The rule regarding needing one hand to control the bike died with 3rd Ed. So it's still there.

What I wanted to bring up for community discussion was something along the lines of "GW can't win, because while new rules are very plain, altered and dropped rules aren't, and that colors the reactions of the community."

Most of us who suffered the 3rd to 4th transition had to cope with this, since rules were so similar, but not quite the same, that restrictions, limitations, and boundaries that were valid in 3rd weren't anymore in 4th.

The biggest example, obviously, is being highlighted oh-so-subtly by the new codices- seems like every week we have someone asking about the "mistake" in the new <BLANK> codex where some models can take two one-handed AND one two-handed weapon. Yes, they can. Show me the rule in either the 4th Ed rulebook or the new <BLANK> 'dex that says otherwise. There isn't one- the rule was moved to codices in 4th, and was eliminated from the newer 'dexes.

Take the new generic Daemons. Scatter's gone, as is daemonic instability. The daemons, when they arrive, stay on the table, and can summon off of any icon, which frankly, you're probably going to take. These losses are both pluses, in that they're removed negatives. Yet all anyone seems to see is that the bonuses of the daemons are gone- yes, they are. Their major negatives are gone as well.

That may not be the best example- because how often did you hear someone complain about instability?- but the idea behind is there: When GW eliminates problem rules or unit limitations, most of us don't notice, meaning they can't win. Something I wanted to toss out for discussion.

TheLionReturns
01-10-2007, 10:55
I'm not entirely sure that the difference in specific rules that comes about from a new codex/ruleset is the main reason for criticism. It is merely the vehicle. I gave up the hobby for a number of years. One reason was the expense and other things to spend my money on but the main reason was sheer disillusionment with GW. They had just introduced a new version of WHFB and Bretonnians and Lizardmen had been invented. What annoyed me is that I had spent time learning the rules, building armies and enjoying the game. However, I now had to buy new rules, learn them and face the fact that the thought and time I'd put into my armies would no longer be relevant.

Now the game had changed for the better in my opinion, but I could not get over the feeling that my love of the hobby was being taken advantage of. The changes seemed designed to make me spend more, nothing else, as I believed that the game was fine and playable before.

I think this sentiment can lie at the heart of criticisms of changes. We can often be suspicious of motives, and whilst improvements are made, these are not always necessary. Its not like we do not enjoy the games in their current form.

Nowadays I am more relaxed about changes. I look at the hobby before I gave up and how it is now and the improvement is unbelievable. One thing I will say though is that it is important that GW tries to keep changes slow and gradual without too many large shocks. When it starts rendering forces obsolete this is when people will grumble most and peopel will be lost from the hobby.

destroyerlord
01-10-2007, 11:23
I don't really mind these changes. My chaos lord can take a combi-bolter AND get +1 attack in close combat? Works for me. Models that GW never made are now unusable? Well if you spent decent time and effort on that conversion then you should still be proud of your own creation. Put it on display.

Easy E
01-10-2007, 11:42
It's a lot of "Who Moved My Cheese!" type stuff isn't it?

Isambard
01-10-2007, 15:41
I actually enjoy the challenge of learning to play my army in a new way - each new codex or rules set has increased my enjoyment of the hobby.

That being said, I haven't had any of my major units become either total junk or obsolete (except my guardians with power fists) so I can imagine it is different for all those gamers who have a Chaos Dwarf/Squat army.

leonmallett
01-10-2007, 15:49
To my mind many of the changes have been for the better - removing clutter and minutae to address the game in context as a wargame dealing with multiple units, rather than individuals.

I don't think the 'nerf bat' or whatever we call it has been wielded with the intent to cause disapproval, but rather changes are made to (hopefully) improve the system, which is the circumstances under which changes should be made.

sprugly
01-10-2007, 18:41
totally agree with Isambard. I don't want to play the same game every time, i take a different armylist every time i play if possible and when the game changes i always seem to see it as an exciting event! A new dimention added to the game in some way. New units to learn to use and defeat, new armylists to be written.
The new chaos 'dex sure is different, and tho (damn, just wrote text speak without even trying. Death to the english language :( ) my army could be used as it is (and will be just to see how it works). It has opened up a hundred new plans in my head!
New units that i now want (defiler, vindicator, marked raptors), new armies i want to collect (slaanesh based renegades, iron warriors now they're not all cheese) and loads of new finky rules that i keep pouring over trying to think of fun ways to use them to scare the snot out of my friends!