PDA

View Full Version : Alessio's laziness to wreck the game? (It's more likely than you think)



GodHead
04-02-2008, 16:36
Ready for RAW arguments from hell? Well look no further once A-lazy-o's brand spanking new FAQs hit. They're just around the corner and will write in stone that GW never makes mistakes, and if it looks like an unintentional cockup, well that's just your problem you stupid gamers.

Here's what he had to say about his latest "work" at a recent GT:


if the rules were clear (such as for scouting Terminator vet sergents or no half points for the stank) they would be FAQed as such even if they were design "mistakes".

Wow! We wait a year for FAQs, and they aren't worth the electrons they're printed on. What a surprise, coming from the community oriented company that we all know and love.

Isn't it time for someone else to be in charge of our game? It's obvious that Gav and Alessio just don't "get it."

Warhammer.org discussion here:
http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?t=29492&start=236

Fantasy discussion here:
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125589

JackBurton01
04-02-2008, 16:39
I'll wait untill I see the faq to comment on his work effort.

Chaos and Evil
04-02-2008, 16:39
*Rolls a D6*

*Insults random member of the Dev team*


Seriously, this is an understandable direction.

GodHead
04-02-2008, 16:43
It's understandable to never fix any of the mistakes that the Dev team makes?

I don't see that... Care to explain that position?

If the quote is accurate, the official FAQs will be taking the same hard-line, nonsensical position that the first GT Rules Pack took. Remember how much the community loved that, and how much better that made the game?

Now all of that fun will be official.

Wolf Scout Ewan
04-02-2008, 16:48
Hmmm I think its because they dont want to get into the writing of FAQ's to correct the errors introduced by the FAQ of the second edition of the updated codex X.

Chaos and Evil
04-02-2008, 16:48
Most of these loopholes are only discovered by rules-lawer types seeking an edge and will fly right over the head of anyone who isn't specifically looking.

On the other hand it's important that the kids who buy the rulebooks (Who form the vast majority of GW's customers) don't get told 'Every book in the shop is wrong' by the local Vets who think they're being helpful.

Shasolenzabi
04-02-2008, 16:55
[[[ I say the best way to show them is to simply keep playing, buy your models and paint, and to STOP going to GT's to play in them. Tournaments that you have no chance in are NOT worth the bother. The only way they will learn is through players TELLING them, and that may mean,,,,,,,NOT signing up for a tourney, go to the event, see what's new, see what they are planning, but DO NOT PLAY! That, more than anything, will send a message that players are not pleased with the total BS(Not Ballistic Skill) that these guys keep pulling by being so slack and sloppy!

Marinox
04-02-2008, 16:58
lol. i've always loved "the game is fine as long as you don't think about it. and if you think about it, you're a jerk" argument.

i have a strong sneaking suspicion that GW wants house rules. and that they drastically underestimate how pissed off people get when get travel to different play groups and encounter a multitude of different rulings.

lol "well we're not gonna publish FAQs! we're.....gonna.......go have a sandwich"

it makes me laugh...

Llew
04-02-2008, 17:02
Well, what I'm taking from the OP's quote is that, even messed up rules will be supported as long as they are clear and understandable.

If they are NOT clear and understandable, they'll FAQ 'em.

It sounds like the most efficient way to handle things. A badly-designed rule that everyone can reference and understand in the rulebooks they have means that fewer people have to rely on a FAQ. Given that there are probably only a handful of rules that are BOTH badly-designed AND very clear, it probably doesn't affect too many rules.

I'd call it a fair solution for a FAQ.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
04-02-2008, 17:04
Essentially, it seems people are going to get pissed off because a rule interpretation proves them wrong after all?

Yup, that'll wreck the game....

EvC
04-02-2008, 17:25
Most of these loopholes are only discovered by rules-lawer types seeking an edge and will fly right over the head of anyone who isn't specifically looking.

Yes, and so when Alessio confirms in the FAQ that "badly designed rule #485" that most normal people wouldn't notice" is in fact genuine, then those rules will indeed be official, and will no longer fly over anyone's heads. That is not a good thing.

It's not about rules interpretations and being proved wrong. It's about GW coming up with their rules in a poor, entirely unsatisfactory manner, and then refusing to fix their mistakes. It's one thing that the Empire book author didn't notice that when he said "Treat the Steam Tank as a warmachine in all regards" that this meant that if you do 9 wounds to it, you get zero victory points... it's another for them to put out an FAQ that deliberately confirms it, rather than corrects it.

MDG, I recall you making a thread about tournament playing ruining your games? Before, it was just the hardcore and tournament players taking a Steam Tank (or two) and saying that you get nothing for doing half damage to it. After this FAQ, everyone will know to play it that way. Yes: that is not going to improve the quality or enjoyment of your games against the Empire.

brettz123
04-02-2008, 17:40
The purpose of a faq should not just eb clarification a faq should FIX problems. If you aren't going to fix things that cause the game to be unbalanced then why release a faq in the first place. If you can't be bothered to do something right the first time at least do it right the second time.......

RobC
04-02-2008, 17:43
An FAQ is literally a 'frequently asked question'. Nothing more, nothing less.

W0lf
04-02-2008, 18:25
Im not speaking for alessio but i love Gav!

He writes brilliant books.

GodHead
04-02-2008, 18:26
An FAQ is literally a 'frequently asked question'. Nothing more, nothing less.


Well gee, thanks for that bit of wisdom. I guess by your lights they shouldn't even bother answering any of the questions because it should just be a list of the questions that people frequently ask? I mean, there's nothing in that acronym about answers is there? :rolleyes:

Get real. A(n?) FAQ is an opportunity for developers to clarify and correct mistakes and disputed rules. Not doing the work to actually fix anything is a slap in the face to gamers.

scarletsquig
04-02-2008, 18:32
new FAQs. They're just around the corner

Thanks for the information.

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post for now, until I can see the FAQ.

I am also a bit miffed about the lack of a decent FAQ system but not to the point where I won't welcome any efforts by the /dev team to change this. If we're getting FAQ's, yay! Eldar codex and Empire army book needs a few loose ends tied up.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
04-02-2008, 18:36
Well gee, thanks for that bit of wisdom. I guess by your lights they shouldn't even bother answering any of the questions because it should just be a list of the questions that people frequently ask? I mean, there's nothing in that acronym about answers is there? :rolleyes:

Get real. A(n?) FAQ is an opportunity for developers to clarify and correct mistakes and disputed rules. Not doing the work to actually fix anything is a slap in the face to gamers.

Which is what it would appear he is intending to do.

Whether or not you agree with his jurisdiction is therefore a moot point, as the FAQ has been answered, and thus, the rule clarified.

DonkeyMan
04-02-2008, 18:38
Honestly, I rather play a game with some flaws then a game with 30 FAQ's.

Just my 2 cents.


EDIT (to the post below): Who is Alsesso? Sorry mate, in smartass mood right now. ;)

Stonerkid655321
04-02-2008, 18:41
I agre with Alsesso. Im sick of FAQ's going against what the codex's say. I hated having to carry around annuals to prove that the rulebook is wrong.

The only time a FAQ should say something is if the rule is unclear or literally a misprint.

Stanks are hard, thats just the way it is.

RobC
04-02-2008, 18:42
Well gee, thanks for that bit of wisdom. I guess by your lights they shouldn't even bother answering any of the questions because it should just be a list of the questions that people frequently ask? I mean, there's nothing in that acronym about answers is there? :rolleyes:My point, Mr Polite, is that an FAQ isn't necessarily about fixing the rules, nor clarifying them, as Brettz123 seems to be demanding.

Please consider the tone of your response next time. There's absolutely no need to resort to comments like that.

GodHead
04-02-2008, 18:44
What would you consider the point of a FAQ to be then?

Why bother reading the thing if it doesn't answer or clarify or fix anything?

THAT. MAKES. NO. SENSE.

I made it big for you.

t-tauri
04-02-2008, 18:48
Please do not post in this manner. If you can't discuss in a reasonable fashion then I'll be forced to take action.

GodHead
04-02-2008, 18:50
I just want to know what he thinks the point is. I really do. I am genuinely bewildered as to what he thinks the point of a FAQ is, if it's not to clarify or fix rules.

RobC
04-02-2008, 18:53
My point simply was that an FAQ is not necessarily going to resolve rules queries. Nor is it necessarily going to be a binding and 'official' ruling even if it is - ultimately it's up to individual gamers and tournament organisers to say how contested rules are interpreted. Until there's an official errata or amendment, anyway.

Llew
04-02-2008, 19:02
However, in the past GW has used FAQ's as a combination FAQ/Errata/Addendum/Clarification publication. While the literal definition of a FAQ may be as was stated earlier, that has not been the traditional function when GW finally got around to issuing them.

Bloodknight
04-02-2008, 19:04
I think the problem lies not in the FAQs which purpose is to clear up a question.

The problem is that GW unlike most other games companies does not offer errata for anything other than misspellings (...); I've been playing RPGs for ages and really broken or silly stuff often gets errata'd by cut and paste errata which replace a paragraph in the text. Don't ask me why, but GW will not do that. Other companies also errata points cost between editions if something is totally off, while GW sits it out until the next book arrives 5 years later - which is just bad game development.

IAMNOTHERE
04-02-2008, 19:09
OK, where did this rumour start from? To the original poster, please, where did you hear or read that there were going to be new FAQs?

Apart from the blatant denial of red shirts to that effect I can find nothing to confirm any FAQs.

Warpcrafter
04-02-2008, 19:18
What's a Stank? (I thought it was a term used to describe an especially smelly homeless person.):wtf:

Keichi246
04-02-2008, 19:24
What's a Stank? (I thought it was a term used to describe an especially smelly homeless person.):wtf:

Short for "Steam Tank" - an especially smelly warmachine in the Empire book.... :D

Bloodknight
04-02-2008, 19:24
Steam Tank.


...ninja'd.

GodHead
04-02-2008, 19:44
OK, where did this rumour start from? To the original poster, please, where did you hear or read that there were going to be new FAQs?

Apart from the blatant denial of red shirts to that effect I can find nothing to confirm any FAQs.

Do you mean aside from the two links I put in the original post? The original post which says people have talked to Alessio at the most recent GT event?
:eyebrows:

Now it could be that he was referring only to Fantasy FAQs, but the reference to scouting Terminators would have be believe otherwise.

EvC
04-02-2008, 20:20
My point simply was that an FAQ is not necessarily going to resolve rules queries. Nor is it necessarily going to be a binding and 'official' ruling even if it is - ultimately it's up to individual gamers and tournament organisers to say how contested rules are interpreted. Until there's an official errata or amendment, anyway.

Well, the other side of the discussion is, they should! The fix they did for Thorek was fantastic- except for the fact it referenced a non-existent errata... so why would anyone have a problem with including the very occasional errata with an FAQ?

JesseO_o
04-02-2008, 21:46
FAQ's in many other games, as they used to and should in Warhammer, serve to fix mistakes made in design or development, usually small oversights which make rules function differently to their intended functionality. If GW prides itself on rigorous testing of rules, and then proceeds to defend tooth and nail an imbalanced and mis-written rule, that seems completely illogical.

starlight
04-02-2008, 22:06
GW has never prided itself on *any* testing of rules, so I see where your misunderstanding starts...;)

silashand
04-02-2008, 22:16
I just want to know what he thinks the point is. I really do. I am genuinely bewildered as to what he thinks the point of a FAQ is, if it's not to clarify or fix rules.

The point of a FAQ is to answer questions (hence the title "Frequently Asked *Questions*"). The purpose of errata is to fix mistakes. GW has publicly stated on many occasions that they will not issue errata unless a rule is unclear or unusable. If the rule is clear, they will leave it alone regardless if it is the way they originally intended or not.

Personally, I think this is a ridiculous stance, but at least they have consistently applied it (when they've released their FAQs anyway). IMO at least we will have them and they *will* clear up confusion even if we don't always like what they say. At the very least that alone is a good thing.

Cheers, Gary

Misfratz
04-02-2008, 22:41
GW used to print Errata's. Indeed, I remember going through my 6th edition Warhammer rulebook with a [purple] pen noting in the changes in wording, etc. However, this never really made anyone happy, because some people would still disagree with whatever ruling they made and so they still suffered lots of flak about it.

People complained about having to carry around extra White Dwarfs, etc, in order to have "proof" of the errata to show to people. Plus new people would have to buy an extra book of corrections to the new books they had just bought which must have been a really easy sell for the store staff </sarcasm>

So, they changed tack and decided to give up on it. It's not like they ever received many thanks on internet fora for the rulings they made, so they didn't think they'd be missing out on much. Reasonable people who could come up with a reasonable agreement where there was doubt would be able to continue to do so. The people who wanted something definitive, would have something definitive. New people would have the same rules as everyone else in their shiny new army book.

I know I'd prefer GW to perfectly proof-read the books, but I've reviewed enough computer code in my life... and I've found the odd typo in my bound dissertation... Yes, I would prefer GW to take a less rigid and absolutist line with their rules, and feel freer to amend them as they saw fit, but I can understand why they don't.

It's just a game guys. The most important rule is to have fun. Don't you read that part of the rulebook?

ankara halla
04-02-2008, 23:02
Honestly, I rather play a game with some flaws then a game with 30 FAQ's.

Just my 2 cents.

Really? You honestly wouldn't want errata and Faq's to clear up the poor wording of the game rules? And even if it were 30 pages (which *is* exaggerating...), what's so difficult with having a few A4's printed out and kept between the pages of your codex/armybook/rulebook? You need slips of paper anyway for your armylist and I often find it useful to carry a notebook as well. A few errata and faq pages wouldn't hinder me at all. In fact, it would allow me to play a higher quality game where human errors have been corrected.
Yeah, I'd really prefer that.

IAMNOTHERE
04-02-2008, 23:06
@GodHead, my apologies for not reading the links you posted but now that I have...

We're still without a time frame, without a system, without anything.

It's good to pin these people down at GTs and get answers but (no disrespect) it looks like people asking the questions got sidestepped. With an "It's up to someone else now" answer.

No commitment from GW and to be honest no real hope for change. I can't remember who said it but it's difficult to get investment when you have to FAQ your latest product as soon as you release it.

It's good to get a heads up though.

I live in hope and dissapointment.

The Orange
05-02-2008, 01:55
Personally, I think this is a ridiculous stance, but at least they have consistently applied it (when they've released their FAQs anyway).
cough "tyranids" cough :p

I'm with godhead here. The FAQ's should be used to clear up misrulings. People can and do use house rules weather GW puts out a FAQ or not, so I'd rather they do, as it doesn't change anything for those people who would rather play by their own rules anyways. I don't care if I have to look at a few FAQ's. So what? I'd rather hear what the Dev's intended rather then hear people go on about their own interpretations (I just read about how someone wanted his ally to use a tech-marine to un-immobilize his drop pod :wtf:). When the Dev's made a ruling in the past, it was almost always to cut through the BS that players tried to get away with. But now with the stance of letting bad wording stand, look at the rules forum. Not to insult anyone there, but I don't think all that rules lawyering was as bad when GW did put out decent FAQs. Back then people knew GW didn't stand for that rule-lawyer crap, so most people didn't even bother wasting their breath.

Eldanar
05-02-2008, 02:54
I'm kind of ambivalent in regard to a FAQ. While I think they are needed (see my sig); GW also has a horrendous history of issuing FAQ's with really bad rulings as well as loaded with a lot of basic fluff questions that have no bearing on fixing rules problems, all while leaving glaring holes with unanswered questions.

So be careful what you wish for, you just might get it...

TheDarkDaff
05-02-2008, 07:06
i am of the opinion that GW should issue FAQ's that only clarify what the exact current wording of the rule means and if the rule needs to be changed then make an Errata like they did with the Dark Elf Armybook. Make the errata people can cut and paste into the book in question that rewrites the book and change the book so future print runs have the new wording. But as if that will ever happen.

Loken1
05-02-2008, 12:02
Most of these loopholes are only discovered by rules-lawer types seeking an edge and will fly right over the head of anyone who isn't specifically looking.

On the other hand it's important that the kids who buy the rulebooks (Who form the vast majority of GW's customers) don't get told 'Every book in the shop is wrong' by the local Vets who think they're being helpful.

Preach on brother

Stingray_tm
05-02-2008, 13:32
Personally, I think this is a ridiculous stance, but at least they have consistently applied it (when they've released their FAQs anyway).

Really?

Cough... cough... *instant death and Nids* ... cough... cough...

Edit: Oops. Somebody beat me to it. Maybe i should read the whole thread before posting...

de Selby
05-02-2008, 13:36
If nids get screening back in the next edition, they could do a new FAQ and retcon that ruling. Then everything could be RAW (including necron WBB conditions, which are worded the same way?).

At this point, I'll settle for FAQs that provide answers where I have no idea what the rules even mean. Correcting the ones that mean something stupid I can do for myself.

Drabant
05-02-2008, 13:47
This wouldn't be a problem if GW learned to proof read their books. Seriously, they are full of mistakes, both linguistic and otherwise. The quality of the text is very poor compared to other books in the same price ranges and sizes.

RobC
05-02-2008, 14:03
This wouldn't be a problem if GW learned to proof read their books. Seriously, they are full of mistakes, both linguistic and otherwise. The quality of the text is very poor compared to other books in the same price ranges and sizes.They do. In fact, they've recently taken on a new guy at the Design Studio to do just that job. I met him at Games Day; he's a good guy and knows his stuff.

starlight
05-02-2008, 14:39
Hopefully they let him do his job...:(

THE CHIEF
05-02-2008, 14:41
They do. In fact, they've recently taken on a new guy at the Design Studio to do just that job. I met him at Games Day; he's a good guy and knows his stuff.

lol - only took them a handfull of decades.

EvC
05-02-2008, 14:59
And they'll have just fired someone else from another crucial part of the machine to pay his salary anyway...

darkprincewilson
05-02-2008, 15:04
Has anyone thought that Alessio and the development studio might not have the time or resources to do a FAQ?

I would guess that a FAQ is not going to make them significant additional revenue in sales compared to the new shiny codex and models they need to work on first.

As soon as they get a momentary breather between releases, they have to push the next release out the door. My guess is that a FAQ is always at the bottom of the priority list.

Osbad
05-02-2008, 15:07
Has anyone thought that Alessio and the development studio might not have the time or resources to do a FAQ?

I would guess that a FAQ is not going to make them significant additional revenue in sales compared to the new shiny codex and models they need to work on first.

As soon as they get a momentary breather between releases, they have to push the next release out the door. My guess is that a FAQ is always at the bottom of the priority list.

BUt what about the sales they lose because people (like me) give up on the game because its "broken and clunky" (my reaction to 40k).

If they fixed the rules, they may get more sales. At least that is what I conclude from the volume of people complaining about the lack of FAQs.

Clearly GW think otherwise though. Once its "out there" they really couldn't give a flying..

darkprincewilson
05-02-2008, 15:19
BUt what about the sales they lose because people (like me) give up on the game because its "broken and clunky" (my reaction to 40k).

If they fixed the rules, they may get more sales. At least that is what I conclude from the volume of people complaining about the lack of FAQs.

Clearly GW think otherwise though. Once its "out there" they really couldn't give a flying..

Fair point. I was just trying to think of another reason that we are not seeing a FAQ and this was the thought that came to mind.

Not defending GW on this point in any way.