PDA

View Full Version : anyone see the problem with this quote?



moschino_man
13-08-2008, 14:31
Below i have pulled a quote from Alessio Calvatore's (the guy at the front of the 5th edition changes) interview featured in a recent white dwarf and on the official GW website.

"If they could see an enemy model standing in the window of a building, they'd try and send a krak missile into him. So the game system needed to catch up with the hobbyists, so to speak. But to make this work we assume gamers will play in a friendly way. This game requires you to play with a gracious, cooperative spirit. You have to make the game work for you, your opponent and the story you're creating. It is a move away from the ultra-competitive style that has become more prevalent in 40K over the recent years."

Don't get me wrong, i like most of the changes in 5th. I just want to clearly state that. But this comment pretty much aligns with all the gripes i have with it.
I would love to be blissfully ignorant and presume we're all going to become lovely fair gamers over night, but we all know that isn't going to happen.
As a SPECIFIC example,.....one of the nice things about hight sizes was that when you were playing (for want of a better word) a complete t**t. You could tell him to get lost because "thats a hight 4 building, and that's a hight 3 model"......."you're NOT shooting at it - get lost". problem solved, no external judge needed.
While designing a rule set based on ideals is great, i can't help but invisage me spending the next edition having to rules gripe with annoying opponents.
"So don't play annoying opponents" i hear you say.
But is that really the point?
i feel i should be provided with a slightly more clean cut set of rules that enable me to sufficiently conduct a game without an external moderator being needed.
Do you feel the same?
Can you think of other changes which are interpretation based rather than clear cut.
Or am i just yet another moaner stuck on the 4th edition?
(i really hope not lol)
let me know what you think, i'm intrigued to see if i'm the only person who feels this way.

Thommy H
13-08-2008, 14:35
"So don't play annoying opponents" i hear you say.
But is that really the point?

Yes. You should like the person on the other side of the table. You're not playing for money, and no one is forcing you to play against random opponents. Having a good relationship with your opponent is an assumption the rules make (and have always made).

moschino_man
13-08-2008, 14:45
i enjoy healthy competitive games. I enjoy tournaments and find them fun. I completely agree with the changes to missions and the huge new focus on the importance of troops.
I love the balance being restored. i just feel as a gamer who sometimes plays tournaments, some of the changes signal a tide of trouble.
I want to play tournaments, and don't see why i should boycott them because some opponents are annoying.
BELIEVE ME, if i could find a tournament where everyone was cool, i'de go.
i can play nice games at home (and do regularly)
i just feel there are newer and much larger "grey areas", do you not feel the point of an evolution and improvement is to irradicate these interpretation based areas?

MrBigMr
13-08-2008, 14:46
Just start pumping some iron and when you can lift the little weasel with one hand by his groin, he'll see things your way.


But I think that's been (at least for me) a big problem with recent releases: GW tries to appeal to people's sense of honour, which is the last thing one should do. All the rules has been replaced with a dumbed down version and a "you can be fair if you want to", knowing very well that if an average player is give a choice between a Theme and Pwnage... This is why TMP of MAC10 were never as popular in Counter-Strike as AWP.

Thommy H
13-08-2008, 14:48
Perhaps GW games aren't for you then. The designers have never made a secret of the fact that the rules are just guidelines to contextualise a social and craft hobby - this is not a pseudo-sport with finely-honed and balanced rules: it's just something to do with your toys.

ChaosBeast
13-08-2008, 15:02
i understand your point moschino man, and i agree in part. if like me you play predominately pick-up games then this can be a real issue, as it can be quite likely your opponent is an utter ******* and that can lead to serious disagreements. however, i'm willing to bet Alessio does'nt play pick up games much. he plays in the hobby Utopia known only as 'the design studio' where everyone plays fairly and in the spirit of the game.

i have noticed debatable and abusable points in the rules such as measuring from the models 'eyes', which can lead to creatures like zoanthropes not being able to shoot, to converted LoC's covered in eyes who can see everywhere. but the problem has been around long before 5th ed. like the Avatar's immunity to flamer weapons whatever they may be etc.

i dont think that you are just being grumpy and missing 4th as i hold some of your reservations. but i think overall it isnt bad, nothing is going to stop rules lawyers being rules lawyers, even a perfect set of rules.

==Me==
13-08-2008, 15:04
Perhaps GW games aren't for you then. The designers have never made a secret of the fact that the rules are just guidelines to contextualise a social and craft hobby - this is not a pseudo-sport with finely-honed and balanced rules: it's just something to do with your toys.

Agreed. It's a fun game to be played by a couple nerds who want to have a couple laughs while their dolls run around the table and die in horribly gruesome ways.

Competitive games can work, so long as both participants agree on contentious issues like terrain beforehand and roll off for anything in-game. You can play a tourney, you just have to make the rules work with it and avoid *that guy* (which is why you'd need a referee).

moschino_man
13-08-2008, 15:12
THOMMY H, i completely applaud your spirit for good gaming and approach to the hobby. It's pure and untainted and thats great.
But as i am taking your opinion on board and seeing things from your point of view (which is just as valid as mine, and proberbly less bitter and constrewed). You don't seem to be attempting to see my view. Your meeting it with pretty blunt responses.
The rules are there for everyone.........NOT JUST PURE HOBBYISTS!!!!
and i think as a business it is within GW's best interests to consider competitive gamers when developing rules as we form a key demographic of their business.
Theres nothing wrong with taking a football out in the street and having a kick around, but 30 million don't tune in weekly to watch Ronaldinhio have a kick around. They enjoy the competitive element and THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
I'm not slating your view - in fact i completely agree.
But how about a small attempt at taking anothers view on board.

Stingray_tm
13-08-2008, 15:20
While i agree, that players should behave civilised and not like total idiots, i also think, that it is NOT a bad thing, when the rules are clear, logical and just well written with game balance in mind. There is nothing that indicates, that good rules equals power gaming or less fun.
So to me the public statements of GW just translate into this:
"We didn't manage to make really balanced rules in the past, so now we don't try and will not even pretend to try to make this stuff work. We are no longer interested in making rules but selling models. Anybody who disagrees is a frakking powergamer and should be shot."
GW just did become lazy and the real genius behind it all is, that they actually manage to make people believe, that this is a good thing!
It would be hilarous if it wouldn't affect my own enjoyment of the hobby su much :(

MrBigMr
13-08-2008, 15:41
"Bang, bang! I got you Joe."
"Nuh-uh, Mike, I was behind this bench."
"Doesn't count, my bullets go through the wood."
"Do not."
"Do too."
"Do not."
"Do too."
"Dad, Joe's cheating!"
"Now boys, the rules of cops and robbers say that you must have fun."

Stingray_tm
13-08-2008, 15:50
Yeah. And in 5th edition it might even me like this, IF you follow those rules.

"Joe, i got you, you are dead!"
"No way! I was in the other room!"
"But i could see Timmy and he is in your team. So i shot both of you."

A.S.modai
13-08-2008, 16:01
An above poster said powergamers will be powergamers. I agree with this statement whole heartedly. The same dill-weeds that were cheese'n in 4th are cheese'n in 5th. They have seen it as a challenge to find new ways to pattymelt. That same logic applies in reverse, the guys that were fun to play with are still fun.

Pick up games are a pain, period. That's regardless of ruleset. True, that in some places the rules could be more restrictive or a little more clear, but why are we saying that? Because we're not trying to make a fun ruleset, we're trying to make a rule to stop a-holes from being a-holes. No rule in a book is going to prevent that.


I think there is a place for serious competitive gaming. Tourneys. Luckily those things have ref's.

lanrak
13-08-2008, 16:31
Hi all.
And who exactly promoted this'over competative play style' in the first place?
2nd ed 40k was OBVIUOSLY a fun narrative driven large skirmish game.
The FUN and narrative element was re-enforced by GW in its shops, and hobby magazine WD.(Look at WD issues 100 to 200 to see what I mean.)

And as it was aimed at an older demoghraphic that was aware of 'wargames suitable for competive play'.
It was blatently obvious to all concerned GW games put fun and story telling above serious competitive attitudes.

However as GW wanted to sell more minatures, they increased the model count 'streamlined' (Some would say butchered )the rules so a younger demoghraphic might play 40k.
And GW activley promoted competative events, to appeal to a wider demoghrapic,( and reduced WD to a minatures cataloge.)

Lots of GW gamers , belive 40k is a wargame suitable for ballanced competative play.
IT IS NOT!
Its only taken the studio staff 10 years to admit they can not write a 40k rule set tight enough for competative play,and they so have given up all hope of being able to do so.

Kudos, for Alessio for being so honest.

Stingray_tm
13-08-2008, 17:17
Kudos, for Alessio for being so honest.

I whole heartedly disagree.

It's like saying a child, who constantly gets a D in school finally saying: "Hey, i don't bother anymore, i just stop trying to improve my grades."
And you, as parent are saying: "At least you are honest."

From now on, whenever GW really screws up (like releasing extremely powerful rules, that coincidently apply to their latest models) their excuse will always be: "We don't care about inter-codex balance, we just want fun rules."

And you are buying into it. Especially into the unspoken implication, that a tight, well designed ruleset is a hindrance to fun... (Well, i don't have fun, if the game is bad designed)

Welcome to GWs version of 1984.
War is peace.
Love is hate.
Fun is not fun.

When GW fails to make a good game, i don't like that, but at least i'd like to see them make an effort. But not even trying and then publicly stating this, while people are celebrating this laziness? That's where my head really explodes in disbelief.

ashc
13-08-2008, 17:21
Let's all remember; if you don't like the game, no one is forcing you at gunpoint to stay playing it.

The game isn't *actually* crack you know... ;)

Ash

Stingray_tm
13-08-2008, 17:33
Let's all remember; if you don't like my opinon no one is forcing you at gunpoint to read it or post about it.

This is a public forum for voicing ones opinions. Don't tell me, that i should not complain, that my 300 € army is no more fun to play, because GW decided to change the rules without me wanting it. (And it is fact, that these rules will be used by majority of the people so usually you don't have the choice to play old style).

Give me back my 300€ and the time i used to paint and convert my models, then i won't complain.

Ubermensch Commander
13-08-2008, 17:34
No matter the ruleset, powergamers and other assorted a**holes will find ways to suck the fun out of it faster than one can imagine by looking for easter eggs and loopholes in the rules and put together combinations that never occured to the army designers.

That being said, I don't see much of a problem with the designers assuming that gamers will play in a friendly way. It is a game. Let's have fun. Sure you will get jerks and not every game will be a a crazy, xany, bundle of joy, but i believe on the whole the expectation is that people will play the game in a polite and friendly manner, even at tournament level. I approve that this expectation, that the game be played in a polite and friendly manner is actually verbalized in Alessio's quote.

@ Stingray
Actually i dont think GW is excusing anything, i think they are just stating the direction and intent of the game....to have fun. Narrative focus, not competitive focus. That isn't a "bad" game necessarily, though admittedly that boils down to preference.

ashc
13-08-2008, 17:35
Give me back my 300€ and the time i used to paint and convert my models, then i won't complain.

You can get that back by selling on Ebay or privately.

I don't see a problem with making a game that's designed for fun and not for competitiveness.

Why do people have such a problem with powergamers? - Just refuse to play them if you have such opposing ideals as to what is considered a 'fun' game with another person.

lanrak
13-08-2008, 17:39
Hi.
At least Alessio is stating right at the start of the rule book , 40k is a fun dice rolling game to use GW minis with.
Much better than letting gamers think it is/should be a wargame suitable for competative play ,and bieng dissapointed after spending alot of time and money...as was the case for the last 10 years....

And there are MUCH better written concieved and implemented rules set available than 40k.

And I like playing 'proper wargames rules' (ones that represent an actual style of warfare,) that are developed to be suitable for ballanced competative play .
They are fun too.IMO.
(But not realy suitable for the demoghraphic that GWs 40k is aimed at.)

Bieng honest about the 40k games scope is a huge step in the right direction, compared to the ambigiuity 'in all things 40k' we used to have.
Could GW write a much better rule set for 40k.
Heck YES!(But they dont see the point.:cries:)

You pay your money, (or down load some rules sets for free!)And make your chioce.
At least now you can make an informed chioce thanks to Alessio.

This is what I was giving Alessio Kudos for....

Stingray_tm
13-08-2008, 17:40
@ Stingray
Actually i dont think GW is excusing anything, i think they are just stating the direction and intent of the game....to have fun. Narrative focus, not competitive focus. That isn't a "bad" game, its just their intent

But it implies, that competetive is "not fun" which is simply not true. You can have a narrative focus with a game, that works as competetive game as well, but you can't have a competetive game with a game, that has a focus on "fun" completely disregarding the competetive aspect.

Stingray_tm
13-08-2008, 17:43
You can get that back by selling on Ebay or privately.


What if i don't want to sell? What if i want to use my army the way i used to play them, having a lot of fun? Why should i not complain if anybody took that away from me, without any reason?
Also please show me the time travel button on eBay, where i can unpaint my army, unconvert it and unuse the time i put into it.
Let's assume you are driving a car, that uses Diesel and suddenly the oil industry decides to no longer produce Diesel because "it is not fun to drive a Diesel car".
Would your reaction be: "Okay.", selling your car on eBay, without ever complaining ONCE about this change? I mean, come on...
And if you complained about it, my reaction probably should be: "Nobody forces you to own a Diesel car. So shut up."



I don't see a problem with making a game that's designed for fun and not for competitiveness.

I don't see a problem with making a game that's designed for fun AND for competitiveness.
These are NOT mutually exclusive, no matter what GW wants to make you think.



Why do people have such a problem with powergamers? - Just refuse to play them if you have such opposing ideals as to what is considered a 'fun' game with another person.
Exactly. Then why is there a need on making a "fun" edition of 40K? Just refuse to play powergames if you have such opposing ideals as to what is considered a 'fun' game with another person. Using the COMPETETIVE rules.

ashc
13-08-2008, 17:43
I actually think I agree with Ianrak, even though I think he is using his terms in a derogatory way against GW; there ARE better balanced games designed for competitiveness; the GW games are not in that group. :)

@stingray_tm: I'm afraid at the end of the day no amount of compaining on the internet is going to do jack about how you wish GW would change their ways.

Ash

Stingray_tm
13-08-2008, 17:49
@stingray_tm: I'm afraid at the end of the day no amount of compaining on the internet is going to do jack about how you wish GW would change their ways.


I'm afraid at the end of the day no amount of complaining on the internet about people complaining on the internet is going to do jack about how you wish people would not complain on the internet.

Yet still you post about it. So why should i not post about my complaints? Do you really fully understand the point of this thing called "internet forum"? What makes your whining different from yours?

You don't like my opinion? Fine. But don't tell me not to voice my opinion, because i don't like your opinion, obviously. But i don't falsely assume that i have the moral high ground to tell you to shut up, only because i don't like your opinion.

Ubermensch Commander
13-08-2008, 17:55
Let's all remember; if you don't like my opinon no one is forcing you at gunpoint to read it or post about it.

This is a public forum for voicing ones opinions. Don't tell me, that i should not complain, that my 300 € army is no more fun to play, because GW decided to change the rules without me wanting it. (And it is fact, that these rules will be used by majority of the people so usually you don't have the choice to play old style).

Give me back my 300€ and the time i used to paint and convert my models, then i won't complain.

Nah, I have faith you will complain anyway. =)

the_crazy_russian
13-08-2008, 18:08
I'm afraid at the end of the day no amount of complaining on the internet about people complaining on the internet is going to do jack about how you wish people would not complain on the internet.

Yet still you post about it. So why should i not post about my complaints? Do you really fully understand the point of this thing called "internet forum"? What makes your whining different from yours?

You don't like my opinion? Fine. But don't tell me not to voice my opinion, because i don't like your opinion, obviously. But i don't falsely assume that i have the moral high ground to tell you to shut up, only because i don't like your opinion.

you know, you disagree pretty vehemently for one who pulls the opinion card so much. this argument is circular, and there can be no victory ofr either side.

as far as the rest of the thread, i do agree with most of it. 'fun' and 'competitive' are not mutually exclusive. allowing for both would have made 40k an even better game. i have gripes about the new edition, chief among them tlos and casualty removal (especially when taken together). however, there are enough good things about 5th edition that i am willing to accept it and carry on as is.

A.S.modai
13-08-2008, 19:39
I guess the questions are:

What is your definition of fun?

What's your definition of competitive?

Why do you just HAVE to have an uber competitive game to have fun?


If you're seriously saying you can't have fun at all because it isn't competitive enough, what would you do to make it so?

Gensuke626
13-08-2008, 20:56
But it implies, that competetive is "not fun" which is simply not true. You can have a narrative focus with a game, that works as competetive game as well, but you can't have a competetive game with a game, that has a focus on "fun" completely disregarding the competetive aspect.

I don't think that's the implication at all. I think the implication is that many players play competetively, completely disregarding the fun aspect. That in itself is actually worse than palying for fun and disregarding the competetive aspect because at least it's enjoyable.

I agree, a game can be fun and competetive, but if they focus on a finely tuned highly competetive ruleset, then most of the player base is going to switch over to the Magic:The Gathering mindset where your only goal is to win. (That's the reason I stopped playing Magic years and years ago)

insaniak
13-08-2008, 21:23
However as GW wanted to sell more minatures, they increased the model count 'streamlined' (Some would say butchered )the rules so a younger demoghraphic might play 40k.

It's funny how often this little chestnut gets dragged out.

GW didn't streamline the rules to attract a younger audience. The kids were already playing. The club I played at for most of 2nd edition was at least half made up of kids uner 15. You walked into any GW store at the time and there were more young kids in there than I've seen in most of the stores recently.

The rules were streamlined because the trend that GW saw over the course of 2nd edition was for bigger and bigger games. So GW wrote a ruleset that accomodated them.




Its only taken the studio staff 10 years to admit they can not write a 40k rule set tight enough for competative play,and they so have given up all hope of being able to do so.

I haven't seen them admit any such thing. They've explained that the game that they are making is intended for fun games... which is exactly what they've been saying for 15 years.

Making the game that you like doesn't automatically make you incapable of making it differently.

Moriarty
13-08-2008, 21:35
Most of my games are 'pick up' games, I play against some pretty 'competetive' people, I have never had a problem with rules interpretations, 'power gaming' combo's or whatever.

We playing the same game?

Kalec
13-08-2008, 21:47
When GW fails to make a good game, i don't like that, but at least i'd like to see them make an effort. But not even trying and then publicly stating this, while people are celebrating this laziness? That's where my head really explodes in disbelief.

GW is very, very, very good at one thing and one thing only: conditioning their customers. Reminds me of a Dilbert comic strip where PHB announced that their new business plan was to cut tech support so customers would form their own support groups, and eventually replace their workers with customers.

GW cuts the LatD codex, their fans make several. GW cuts legions, their fans make new rules for the legions. GW slows down on issuing FAQ's, their fans create unofficial FAQ's.

Templar Ben
13-08-2008, 21:57
Perhaps GW games aren't for you then. The designers have never made a secret of the fact that the rules are just guidelines to contextualise a social and craft hobby - this is not a pseudo-sport with finely-honed and balanced rules: it's just something to do with your toys.

Some of us are pretty thick. Gav Thorpe actually had to explain that to me. I argued with a designer about what the games are for.

How is that for just not getting it? :(

It takes time for some. It did for me.

lanrak
13-08-2008, 22:21
Hi.
Kalec, you of course are absolutley right.
GW have got VERY good as conditioning thier customers.

insaniak
I agree that 2nd ed 40k attracted teenagers.

Core gamers were 16 to 24 year old, with EXEPTIONS of a few mature and intelegent young gamers down to the 12 or 13 year-old age bracket.(And some older gamers upto 40?)

Now GW actively target 12 to 16 year olds they attract kids as young as 8!

And GW upped the minature count , gamers didnt ask for it.
GW pushed tournaments, and tried to make 40k more suited to competative play.Why do you think they reduced the amount of wargear, and wrote codexes in a more restrictive way?(Cough**Chaos**Cough.)

Compare 2nd ed codexs to the current ones , see what I mean?

Anyhow, I am happier now the GW no longer imply/infer
40k is a wargame ballanced for competative play.
We can go back to laughing at the idiots that take 40k so seriously.:D

If you want a game that is suitible for ballanced competative play, try Thane Games...they are rather good IMO.:D

Warpcrafter
13-08-2008, 22:24
Perhaps GW games aren't for you then. The designers have never made a secret of the fact that the rules are just guidelines to contextualise a social and craft hobby - this is not a pseudo-sport with finely-honed and balanced rules: it's just something to do with your toys.

Heresy! We're commanded by the gaming godz to kill and destroy in the most expediant manner possible, to struggle for every win, no matter how anti-social it makes us look! Actually, I agree with you totally, but the above diatribe is what I get when I tell people that I'm not a hard-core competitive player. I blame video games for this rabid attitude. (I suck at video games and would refuse to play Madden if I had an X-Box, just for sake of full disclosure...)

Kalec
13-08-2008, 22:33
Heresy! We're commanded by the gaming godz to kill and destroy in the most expediant manner possible, to struggle for every win, no matter how anti-social it makes us look! Actually, I agree with you totally, but the above diatribe is what I get when I tell people that I'm not a hard-core competitive player. I blame video games for this rabid attitude. (I suck at video games and would refuse to play Madden if I had an X-Box, just for sake of full disclosure...)

Blaming Magic the Gathering would probably be more accurate. The transition from card games (and other board games) is easier to make then from video games to board games.

Warpcrafter
13-08-2008, 22:34
THOMMY H, i completely applaud your spirit for good gaming and approach to the hobby. It's pure and untainted and thats great.
But as i am taking your opinion on board and seeing things from your point of view (which is just as valid as mine, and proberbly less bitter and constrewed). You don't seem to be attempting to see my view. Your meeting it with pretty blunt responses.
The rules are there for everyone.........NOT JUST PURE HOBBYISTS!!!!
and i think as a business it is within GW's best interests to consider competitive gamers when developing rules as we form a key demographic of their business.
Theres nothing wrong with taking a football out in the street and having a kick around, but 30 million don't tune in weekly to watch Ronaldinhio have a kick around. They enjoy the competitive element and THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
I'm not slating your view - in fact i completely agree.
But how about a small attempt at taking anothers view on board.

Fourth edition was great for competitive gamers, but fifth is the tree-hugging hippie version where we all hold hands and sing songs and nobody gets hurt. You are obviously not a tree-hugging hippie, and for that I salute you. You are a narrow-minded right-wing know-it-all.

BigEaZyE
13-08-2008, 22:37
I whole heartedly disagree.

It's like saying a child, who constantly gets a D in school finally saying: "Hey, i don't bother anymore, i just stop trying to improve my grades."
And you, as parent are saying: "At least you are honest."...

...When GW fails to make a good game, i don't like that, but at least i'd like to see them make an effort. But not even trying and then publicly stating this, while people are celebrating this laziness? That's where my head really explodes in disbelief.

Well I'd have to know more about the kid just like I'd have to know more about the game.

Some kids just do not have the mental capability that it takes to do better in school... it's not their fault, it's just how their brain has developed and they could be trying and working their asses off for years to try and get something better than a D, not get it, and then be content with having a D. I say that that is acceptable.

The same goes for the game. Like it or not you will ALWAYS have people who are simply not as good as others at using certain units or tactics in the way they should be used, and they will complain that that unit needs a boost. Some get a boost, and work really really well against other units, combine a unit that didn't really need a boost vs a unit that it would have normally done well against, plus another player who is just not that great at utilising their units properly, and that's a HUGE gap of difference which GW now have to address. It's a constant cycle.

Add to that this game is based off of DICE, which are random chance, and there is the possibility for the most powerful amazing kill everything unit to do no damage to the most puny unit, and get pummeled in return.

Have fun properly balancing luck and random people's personalities.

Not everyone is a master tactician, and some days you just have bad luck, and it's ridiculously hard to balance something fairly so that everyone is happy, therefore GW is just making it clear that they can't do it, and they'd like people to try and be good about it and fair to each other.

The closest they could come to keeping things even for everyone would pretty much make this game glorified chess, which sucks the life out of it, and even then people who still managed to lose a lot would complain.

Warpcrafter
13-08-2008, 22:42
Blaming Magic the Gathering would probably be more accurate. The transition from card games (and other board games) is easier to make then from video games to board games.

My experience with magic the gathering was that it eventually became more about how much the card were worth and what is the acceptable style of proxy cards rather than actually playing the game. Have you ever tried to play the tabletop 40K with a 13-year-old who has only ever played multiplayer Dawn of War? It's like pulling teeth for both of us, but for different reasons. I had to constantly stop and tell him what the rules were, and he was constantly frustrated with me for interrupting him when he was ranting about how 'I can do this in Dawn of War and that in Dawn of War, why can't I do it here?" Like I said before, I hate video games so much. Maybe you're right after all.

Slaaneshi Ice Cream
13-08-2008, 23:02
If GW designed a tight rules set then casual players would work with it and "powergamers" would have less rules problems. And hopefully, less people telling them to play in the correct spirit of the game.

But GW has a loose "fun" rules set. It's great for casual gamers. It's not so great when I really need to know if I can do this a certain way and GW's official answer is "dice off for it". I can't count the number of times a game stalled because of a rules question that we couldn't find the answer to. And when we call the rules hotline, they're response varies from person to person.

It's not "bad" or "power gaming" to want clear rules that make sense. IMO, it is bad when it comes down to a dice roll to see who is right about a situation. Frankly, I have more fun when the rules make sense, and less fun when I have to fudge them. Does that make me a bad gamer? Nope.

insaniak
13-08-2008, 23:13
Core gamers were 16 to 24 year old, with EXEPTIONS of a few mature and intelegent young gamers down to the 12 or 13 year-old age bracket.(And some older gamers upto 40?)

See, I'd dispute how much of an exception the younger ones were. I saw quite a lot of 12-14 year olds playing 2nd edition... and a lot of them weren't particularly bright.



Now GW actively target 12 to 16 year olds

How?



And GW upped the minature count , gamers didnt ask for it.

Again, my experience differs.

Over the course of 2nd edition, in the places I played games went from 2000 points when it was first released, to routinely being 3000-5000 points over the last couple of years before 3rd edition.

From discussions I've had online over the years, that wasn't unusual. While some gamers were happy to stick with the recommended 2000 points, more and more gamers wanted bigger battles.




GW pushed tournaments, and tried to make 40k more suited to competative play.

GW 'pushed' tournaments rather reluctantly, and never really put a lot of effort into it. They did so, again, because gamers kept asking for it.

They never intended their games to be particularly tournament friendly. Their tournament structure was designed around the principle that their games were supposed to be fun first and competitive second. Hence the inclusion of painting, composition and sportsmanship scores in total results.



Why do you think they reduced the amount of wargear, and wrote codexes in a more restrictive way?(Cough**Chaos**Cough.)

Because there were large swathes of items that simply never got used, so had no realy point in being included, and because the new way makes writing an army list easier, with less flicking back and forth around the book.



Compare 2nd ed codexs to the current ones , see what I mean?

No. The second edition codexes, so far as list design goes, are largely very similar to the current crop.

Doctor Thunder
13-08-2008, 23:33
this is not a pseudo-sport with finely-honed and balanced rules: it's just something to do with your toys.

*Does Comic Book Store Guys Voice*

These are not toys, they are finely-crafted highly-detailed collectible works of art that are used in a dignified battle of intellect and skill.

Kalec
13-08-2008, 23:44
Have fun properly balancing luck and random people's personalities.

Not everyone is a master tactician, and some days you just have bad luck, and it's ridiculously hard to balance something fairly so that everyone is happy, therefore GW is just making it clear that they can't do it, and they'd like people to try and be good about it and fair to each other.

The closest they could come to keeping things even for everyone would pretty much make this game glorified chess, which sucks the life out of it, and even then people who still managed to lose a lot would complain.

Except that nobody expects GW to balance luck or a players personality or tactical acumen. All we want is for the rules to clearly define what we can and cannot do.

Nobody is expecting GW to release 16 perfectly balanced armybooks, but we are hardly being unreasonable when we ask that GW keeps them relatively balanced, which they have done to an extent. Some of the newer books throw this curve off because they incorporate new design philosophies that older ones do not. A prime example would be the equipment available for a BSB in, say, the empire book as compared to the BoC book, or the disappearance of the armory. And, of course, the OnG book.

The problem is that GW has no unified plan for how they want the game to progress. The standards used when making the Dark Eldar book were totally different from the standards used to write the new Eldar codex. Because they fail to plan ahead, GW cannot write the rules we are asking for. They try (I think), fail, and then realize that saying that just want the game to be about fun is much easier and cheaper then creating a comprehensive set of rules.

We do not want glorified Chess. We want 40K, but we want it done well. GW is capable of this, but as long as their customers embrace their shoddy work, we won't get it.

Vet.Sister
13-08-2008, 23:55
I would love to be blissfully ignorant and presume we're all going to become lovely fair gamers over night, but we all know that isn't going to happen.


I posted this a couple of months ago, but I'll post it again. I can respect GW for being honest and open about the change in the direction of WH40K. I will admit that I think they have a HUGE set of "solid brass balls" for doing this. The new direction (to me at least) smacks of pure lazyness!!!:mad:

A nice, thorough set of rules that are play tested by the most insipid power gamers would be a good thing IMO. While it's nice that GW offers up the "dice-for-it" option, it has a major draw back! If you planned on it working one way, then the die roll goes against you, your tactical strategy for that game is probably going fail pretty quickly!:mad:

The hardest thing for me to blindy accept is what GW is effectively saying...

For those of you who may have missed it, allow me to elucidate......

Imagine GamesWorkshop telling you the following (from up high on their soapbox)

"WarHammer 40,000 is our game. We encourage everyone to buy and play our game! The only thing you need to remember is that it is our game, played the way we tell you to play it. The only way to enjoy our game is to play it the way we play our game. Deviating from our play style will only bring you pain and misery."

"Now, what flavor of KoolAid would you like?":rolleyes:

Lame Duck
14-08-2008, 01:20
The ruleset doesnt have to cater to powers gamers and have lines and lines of text covering every possible obscure loophole, but I have to say I do find the new cc system and casualty removal system just... well, lazy.

I don't mind that they assume we'll play fairly, as with any game. The rules are there and they expect players not to try abuse them; fair enough. But dont detract some aspects of the game in the process and just say 'its just for fun, who cares?'. I care! 5th edition is alright, it has improved in some ways, but it could be better with just a little more effort. Not a tactical mindboggler, but if GW can improve, why not?

Kalec
14-08-2008, 02:11
Imagine GamesWorkshop telling you the following (from up high on their soapbox)

"WarHammer 40,000 is our game. We encourage everyone to buy and play our game! The only thing you need to remember is that it is our game, played the way we tell you to play it. The only way to enjoy our game is to play it the way we play our game. Deviating from our play style will only bring you pain and misery."

"Now, what flavor of KoolAid would you like?":rolleyes:


As opposed to fluff gamers telling us this? Not much of a difference, honestly.

Doctor Thunder
14-08-2008, 02:21
As opposed to fluff gamers telling us this? Not much of a difference, honestly.

Quoted for truth. SAG's, or Self-Appointed Gatekeepers, are the biggest killjoy in the hobby.

Freakiq
14-08-2008, 02:31
Most of the grumpy gamers in this thread seems to forget all the earlier versions still exist, if you prefer them then play them.

Gensuke626
14-08-2008, 02:31
Quoted for truth. SAG's, or Self-Appointed Gatekeepers, are the biggest killjoy in the hobby.

Actually, extremists in either direction is what really sucks the fun out of the hobby. People who obstinately insist that rules MUST take precedence over fluff in every way shape and form are as much to blame as the "Self-Appointed Gatekeepers".

Really, we need people to want both in moderation. Rules that are well written, envrionments that are fun. Scenarios that are Balanced and believeable in the universe.

We need to walk the middle path where Rules reasonable reflect the Fluff and Fluff reasonable reflect the Rules...

cailus
14-08-2008, 02:53
Well written rules doesn't necessarily mean that they're not fun.

5th edition does not appear to be well written (in fact a lot of it's counter-intuitive or poorly conceived) or appear to be focusing on fun (i.e. characterful interaction between models/units, tactical decision making, narrative game play).

Instead the game appears to be heading towards mindless dice rolling at the expense of anything else.

Gensuke626
14-08-2008, 02:58
Well...Let's hope GW's "Pendulum" Design philosophy kicks in and when 6th rolls around not only will 5th be such a mess that it'll be close to unplayable, but 6th will be the most amazing thing ever. It's sheer awesomeness will make your head asplode.

Occulto
14-08-2008, 03:05
i understand your point moschino man, and i agree in part. if like me you play predominately pick-up games then this can be a real issue, as it can be quite likely your opponent is an utter ******* and that can lead to serious disagreements. however, i'm willing to bet Alessio does'nt play pick up games much. he plays in the hobby Utopia known only as 'the design studio' where everyone plays fairly and in the spirit of the game.

Erm... yes.

Methinks you need to check what Alessio's background is. You wouldn't win the Italian WHFB GT without encountering more than a handful of bad opponents. :p

If a person's behaviour is that bad, how is suffering in silence, or hoping the rules enforce better behaviour, going to do anything? The reason these people continue acting poorly is because no one does anything about it!

What do people actually expect the rules to stop bad behaviour? A list of gaming etiquette in the rulebook including such things as:

You may not cheat.
You may not throw/damage your opponent's models.
You may not abuse your opponent.
You may not quit or throw a tantrum if the games not going your way.
You may not twist the rules to your advantage.

AgeOfEgos
14-08-2008, 03:13
Well, I guess it depends on the phrase 'competitive'. Everyone plays in a semi-competitive spirit (no doubt some much more than others by the contents of the thread) but I always thought of 'competitive' players by;

Don't care much how their army looks, perhaps painted but paint is secondary
Don't care much what units they need to take (Unless their unique build was recently rendered useless)
Feel soft scores/painting shouldn't matter in any tournament setting


I don't know the numbers but it would be interesting to see how many unique gamers attend the GT's each year and compare that number to unique sales (If such a thing could be tracked). Or if you could somehow poll gamers to find how many really attend tournaments and how many are basement/weekend warriors. I have a feeling the 'important competitive market' would be a very, very small percentage when compared to GW total sales.

Kalec
14-08-2008, 04:16
I can guarantee you that the competitive tournament-goers spend far more per person then the weekend warriors, and that they spend less then the weekend warriors as a whole.

cailus
14-08-2008, 04:22
Well...Let's hope GW's "Pendulum" Design philosophy kicks in and when 6th rolls around not only will 5th be such a mess that it'll be close to unplayable, but 6th will be the most amazing thing ever. It's sheer awesomeness will make your head asplode.

I'm sure this is sarcasm but I'll bite even though I had lunch.

My point is that the rules should be as water tight as possible, intuitive and most of all fun.

Looking at Blood Bowl, the rules are pretty watertight (not much, if any grey areas, they're intuitive) and it's very fun to play. Same applies to Flames of War for the most part.

I think what 5th edition is in essence trying to be both "fun" and "competitive." I think it's also a confused system because it's trying to be a company level wargame using skirmish style models and skirmish style rules. Finally it suffers from lack of direction. Just because the 5th edition rulebook is meant to be "fun" doesn't mean that other codexes were designed with that in mind. Codex design paradigms change so often that it's impossible to work out what GW is trying to do (e.g. streamlined DA and Chaos Codexes, unbalanced Eldar codex, fun Orky codex, dunno what Daemons are trying to be, Space Marines codex is again seeming to focus on fun at the expense of balance) .

Personally I think that the entire system has to be revamped. The game needs a clear direction and GW need to decide whether it's meant to be a skirmish wargame, a company level wargame, a glorified board game that happens to use models, role play focused or whatever.

Basically they need to find a direction and a concept and stick to it.

Stingray_tm
14-08-2008, 05:37
Just imagine 40K was in fact World of Warcraft. An analogy of the situation would be this:
Blizzard releases a new patch (which is mandatory of course, if you want to play with other people, or at least the vast majority of people). This patch changes the classes in PvP in a way, that the classes introduced in the latest add-on have a vast advantage over older classes, because they get new special abilities, that are very unbalanced.
Blizzards statement: "This game is about fun. As long as the new abilities are fun for the player, we don't care if those are perfectly balanced, there will always be munchkins and powergamers out there."
Reaction of Blizzard apologists: "Hey, whiners. If you don't like the new patch, don't play WoW. Or play with people, who don't use the new abilities or classes, because those are powergamers and not worth your time."

I think it is pretty obvious that the situation described above is really stupid, but why does it seem to actually happen for 40K?

insaniak
14-08-2008, 06:09
I think it is pretty obvious that the situation described above is really stupid, but why does it seem to actually happen for 40K?

To a certain degree, powercreep is simply a matter of perception.

The newest codex is almost always (provided there's anything new and interesting in there) going to look godlike. People tend to fixate on the whole 'Hey, they can now do this!' and the downsides tend to be less immediately apparent.

As the codex settles in, and people actually spend a little time with models on the table, and figure out how to counter all the new tricks and tactics produced by the new rules, the outcry tends to die down... until the next codex is released and it all starts again.

I'm not denying that some armies get more powerful over time. But if the newest army really was always the most powerful, there would be a lot more 'flavour of the month' armies at tournaments.

Occulto
14-08-2008, 06:25
I think it is pretty obvious that the situation described above is really stupid, but why does it seem to actually happen for 40K?

Actually, I think it goes more like this:

Player 1: "This unit is undercosted! It absolutely carves through my Guard army. GW should tone it down because it's unbalanced."
Player 2: "Really? It doesn't seem undercosted when I use it against SM. In fact, it's probably a tad overcosted IMHO."

GW: "We're going to raise the cost of the unit."

Player 2: "WTF? What are GW on? If anything, it should've been dropped in price. Thanks GW for making it even harder to use my army."
Player 1: "Well if you played against Guard more, you'd be alright."
Player 2: "Easy for you to say. There's no Guard armies in my area."
Player 1: "That's not my fault if everyone near you plays SM."

GW: "After careful consideration, we're going to lower the cost of this unit."

Player 1: "WTF? But my Guard are screwed."
Player 2: "Good job GW. But you didn't go far enough. It's still overcosted. It needs to work better against SM."

GW: "We've decided to compromise and split the difference, but add this new ability."

Player 1: "Still too cheap."
Player 2: "Still too expensive. I still get owned by SM."
Player 3: "Now my army is screwed due to the new ability. Good one GW."
Player 4: "But the fluff says..."

GW: "OK, OK, so you tell us. How do we make you all happy?"

Player 1: "Make it more expensive."
Player 2: "Make it less expensive."
Player 3: "Neither, just lose the new ability. It was fine as it was."
Player 4: "But the fluff says..."
Player 2: "Sod the fluff! Who cares about fluff? It still costs too much."
Player 1: "You need to learn to play better."
Player 2: "No you need to learn to play better."
Player 1: "I've won more tournaments than you've had hot dinners."
Player 2: "Powergamer."
Player 3: "Why do they keep changing stuff that doesn't need changing? GW just want to sell more models."

GW: "Screw it. No matter what we do, someone's always going to complain. So sort it out yourselves."

Player 1: "Surely you can do something."

GW: "You're right. We reset the whole game system from scratch. New rules. New codices."

Player 1: "Now my army's unusable. I need to redo everything from scratch. Screw you GW!"
Player 2: "Sucked in. I love this new ruleset."
Player 3: "How long til I get my new codex."

GW: "About five years."

Player 3: "Screw you GW!"
Player 4: "But the fluff says..."

cailus
14-08-2008, 06:27
Just imagine 40K was in fact World of Warcraft. An analogy of the situation would be this:
Blizzard releases a new patch (which is mandatory of course, if you want to play with other people, or at least the vast majority of people). This patch changes the classes in PvP in a way, that the classes introduced in the latest add-on have a vast advantage over older classes, because they get new special abilities, that are very unbalanced.
Blizzards statement: "This game is about fun. As long as the new abilities are fun for the player, we don't care if those are perfectly balanced, there will always be munchkins and powergamers out there."
Reaction of Blizzard apologists: "Hey, whiners. If you don't like the new patch, don't play WoW. Or play with people, who don't use the new abilities or classes, because those are powergamers and not worth your time."

I think it is pretty obvious that the situation described above is really stupid, but why does it seem to actually happen for 40K?

I personally think it's a case of people being so enamoured with GW to the point that they sooner relate with the company than they do with their fellow gamers.

In their eyes, the company does no wrong and anyone that disagrees is wrong and should either not use the company's product or shut up and live with it.

I used to know Metallica fans that were like that. They loved Metallica regardless of what Metallica released. They attacked anyone that criticised Metallica. The interesting thing is that most of the people that were like this really didn't listen to that much Metallica in the first place, inspite of owning all the albums and singles. It was us more critical fans that actually listened to them on a regular basis (I still do after all these years though only the albums that I like).

By the same token the only advocate of fifth edition in my own gaming group hasn't even played a game of it and only played 4th edition occassionally. All the other 40K regulars are treading a lot more carefully.

cailus
14-08-2008, 06:30
Player 1: "Surely you can do something."

GW: "You're right. We reset the whole game system from scratch. New rules. New codices."

Player 1: "Now my army's unusable. I need to redo everything from scratch. Screw you GW!"
Player 2: "Sucked in. I love this new ruleset."
Player 3: "How long til I get my new codex."

GW: "About five years."

Given how long it takes for GW to update some of it's codexes, totally resetting the system actually seems viable.

Occulto
14-08-2008, 06:52
Given how long it takes for GW to update some of it's codexes, totally resetting the system actually seems viable.

I played Nids with the BBB list until the codex was released. I never want to go back to that situation again. :p

Writing an army list was pretty simple though.

Two options (besides unit sizes) - venom cannon or barbed strangler on the Tyrant, and whether to take bio plasma on the 'Fex!

Eulenspiegel
14-08-2008, 07:01
I hate the retort "go play somewhere else then", or "so donīt play those people".

Some of us really donīt have the choice. Ashc e.g. lives in London. I bet when hes dissatisfied with one LGS, he has at least a dozen other stores or clubs to choose from.
We here in the GW - diaspora donīt.

I have the choice between exactly two options, and one (the local gaming club here in Kaiserslautern) has been looked into and dismissed immediately. That leaves my friends.

You see, I have exactly 3 people to play against. They are by no means powergamers or rules lawyers, theyīre very decent guys (my friends, after all), but will insist on watertight rules. We will stop and dig through the rules for 10 minutes straight if we have a dissatisfying situation.

Theyīre all older than 30 years, and each of us has decades of gaming experience. The idea that rules may just be "guidelines" canīt be forced into our heads.
We pay 50,- € for a rulebook, half as much for each codex, and we want them to do their damn job. And now, after five editions, after each of us has thousands of euros poured into the hobby, they just admit that they canīt and worse, wonīt even wonīt try to write rules?

Thatīs a slap in the face.

No, e-bay wonīt be seeing my stuff. I wonīt get half the money back, none of the time, and wost of all: I love the 40K universe and the hobby.
And I have hopes for 6th ;)

/rant

Stingray_tm
14-08-2008, 07:03
Amen Eulenspiegel.

Until 6th there will be Flames of War and 4th edition with my club (who despises 5th edition as much as i do). It just means no tournaments for meeting different gamers anymore :(

alphastealer
14-08-2008, 08:42
GW would do us all a favour if they stuck to building minatures and telling fluff stories and left the game mechanics, points values and rules to a sperate division.

Then the design studio could say, "Hey guys we have just come up with this cool looking marine with a big gun."

The game team would then go, "Hmm he looks suitable as a new elite shock trooper we have been thinking of introducing. Say how about you guys make a few more of them and give some of the others a different selection of weapons."

The fact that there are tournaments with prize money means that this hobby is competitive. It is also fair to assume that because GW assign a points cost to each model they produce that it should have a relative bearing on the overall battle based on that points value.

Therefore while GW might say this is all about having fun, I say they are lying to us and lying to themselves. Rather spend more time/money getting the ruleset and codexes and points values correct and updated or just outsource that whole division completely to people who can do it properly.

The fact that warhammer competitions exist means there needs to be fairness and impartiality otherwise it is all a farce.

Adra
14-08-2008, 09:25
The OP makes a fair point.

Its not so much that GW really wants you to be that nice to each other.

Its just a nice one-line excuse for all the holes in the game design that cause conflict.

Pathetic really. They couldnt build a ruleset thats solid because rules scare children and stupid people and so they come up with this bs about fun, shouting it at us as if we dont know how to have fun. Almost as though fun is a rule unto itself.

I would prefer a tighter ruleset and make my own fun with that wrather than an ivory tower dictating how to be a good person.

So 40k isnt really a game, its a toy.

moschino_man
14-08-2008, 09:28
HI EVERYONE, REMEMBER ME? the guy who started this treaturous thread.
I,ve returned to my P.C less than 24 hours since i first posted and WOW, this thing has really snowballed.
ANYWAY, i'm pleased to see i'm not the only person who is unsettled by Alessio's original quote. It has been really interesting reading all the different opinions voiced.
If we can take something positive away from the people who have grated us in this thread it's this..................
We are all passionate to the end about our hobby - thats why we post to defend it dearly. However you play it, paint it, and interperet it, we are ALL right and i'm damned if somebody's going to tell ME otherwise!
Keep the passion going guys, keep promoting your way of play, no one will ever win out.
It will just be a long drawn out unresolving conflict.
OOOOH - That sounds like a good idea for a tabletop wargame. And we could base it in the future! Anyone suggest some rules? LOL

I will say one thing to an earlier comment about me. Because there is a little angel sat on my shoulder screaming "let it go"....."be the bigger man"
but screw that.


Fourth edition was great for competitive gamers, but fifth is the tree-hugging hippie version where we all hold hands and sing songs and nobody gets hurt. You are obviously not a tree-hugging hippie, and for that I salute you. You are a narrow-minded right-wing know-it-all.

Dear Warpcrafter
Its comments like this which can spiral a debate into a petty slanging match.
Everyone in this thread has voiced their views passionately, but how you have managed to jump from mine, to labelling me "narrow minded" and "right wing" truly bewilders me. I'm not going to swear at you or call you names.
I'll just say its a real shame people like you are able to access the internet and taint its good name as a place of views and opinions.
(oh, and also quickly - are you 12?)

Spectral Dragon
14-08-2008, 10:31
I posted this a couple of months ago, but I'll post it again. I can respect GW for being honest and open about the change in the direction of WH40K. I will admit that I think they have a HUGE set of "solid brass balls" for doing this. The new direction (to me at least) smacks of pure lazyness!!!:mad:

A nice, thorough set of rules that are play tested by the most insipid power gamers would be a good thing IMO. While it's nice that GW offers up the "dice-for-it" option, it has a major draw back! If you planned on it working one way, then the die roll goes against you, your tactical strategy for that game is probably going fail pretty quickly!:mad:

The hardest thing for me to blindy accept is what GW is effectively saying...

For those of you who may have missed it, allow me to elucidate......

Imagine GamesWorkshop telling you the following (from up high on their soapbox)

"WarHammer 40,000 is our game. We encourage everyone to buy and play our game! The only thing you need to remember is that it is our game, played the way we tell you to play it. The only way to enjoy our game is to play it the way we play our game. Deviating from our play style will only bring you pain and misery."

"Now, what flavor of KoolAid would you like?":rolleyes:

I think you and several others are missing a few key points here.

First off, I would like to say that I have been a pick-up gamer for a while now at local GW stores. I have run across the gamers we all hate: the foul-cryer, the rule abuser, ect. Theres one thing I love to do when these people are at thier worst: pack up the game in the middle of it all when a redshirt is watching. They hate seeing someone do this and will quickly take action. This can be seen as either cowardly or ballsy depending on which of the above players you are ;)

You see, I see these rules as clearly spelled out. Line of sight, from the eyes of the model shooting. Use the laser pointer if you have to, they have rules for all of this.

What more do you guys need spelled out for you?

You see, I don't think GW is assuming that players are just going after this for fun, I think they are assuming that they actually have an intelligent crowd who wishes to have fun with the hobby.

There are two things here which I notice are being overlooked about cover, for example: 1) All cover is supposed to be clearly defined before deployment and 2) Laser pointers are your friend: bring one.

Osbad
14-08-2008, 10:42
However good and clear the ruleset, you'll always find some dickwad who wants to jerk around and show everyone what a complete tool they are by the way they regularly feel free to violate the agreed behavioural norms of a civilised society. Heck, looking through this thread it seems we've found a few right here... *rolls eyes*

It shouldn't stop GW trying to make rules as clear as possible, but don't ever expect That Guy to be eliminated by clarity of rules. A jackass is a jackass, and he'll still be a jackass if he's playing 40k, Warmachine or tiddlywinks!

ashc
14-08-2008, 11:05
Some of us really donīt have the choice. Ashc e.g. lives in London. I bet when hes dissatisfied with one LGS, he has at least a dozen other stores or clubs to choose from.
We here in the GW - diaspora donīt....

*snip*

I didn't need the whole quote, but thought I would respond.

Eulenspiegel I live in Leeds UK and I actually only have 2 public places to play games in myself. One GW store which is too small for me to run the games of the appropriate size I like (1500pts.) and one private club which can be a pain to get to. So I, like you, have a small group of friends (again, probably about 3 or 4 of us) who have built a table to play on in my basement. My friends and I obviously also insist on playing by whats written in to the rules, but if something seriously askew comes up (and right now, I can't even think of something recently off of the top of my head) we just make a decision between ourselves and carry on; if its between friends and you play this game, like any game, for enjoyment, then why get so angry about a rule in a game? I actually quit playing for the last half of 4th edition; the game didn't inspire me, but with 5th I have found that this has come back. I suppose at the end of the day I do not get so angry about the rules because I enjoy the background, modelling, and painting aspect more; the rules are literally there for me to have some kind of use for my miniatures!

I see many similarities between us which is quite funny, because we take different stances on this issue, which is interesting to say the least! :)

Ash

isidril93
14-08-2008, 11:09
i think what hes trying to say is that you should have fun and that rule isnt really bad its just one of those rules where it relies on the models position which conflicts in a game where its dice based.

Zazoo
14-08-2008, 12:37
I have to agree with the OP that the comment left a bad taste in my mouth and I do prefer a more precise set of rules with less room for argument.

I have been into this hobby for around 15 odd years and have spent more money than is sane.
So I was the type of player GW wants and should try keep since I was ALWAYS spending money.

But the spate of absolute junk (rules not models) that GW is throwing at thier player base is disgusting and the comment by Alessio is just another example.

They have effectivey removed me as a buyer and player, witch is such a pity since I really do love the background and models.

Adra
14-08-2008, 13:10
These sort of things make me glad that playing games is the least important part of the hobby for me.

Brother Loki
14-08-2008, 13:39
"If they could see an enemy model standing in the window of a building, they'd try and send a krak missile into him. So the game system needed to catch up with the hobbyists, so to speak. But to make this work we assume gamers will play in a friendly way. This game requires you to play with a gracious, cooperative spirit. You have to make the game work for you, your opponent and the story you're creating. It is a move away from the ultra-competitive style that has become more prevalent in 40K over the recent years."


Just to bring the original quote back into the picture, I honestly can't understand the negative reaction its got. Who the hell doesn't play a game with a gracious and co-operative spirit, or in a friendly way? If you're not interested in being friendly, why would I want to spend two hours playing a game with you? A game is a social contract, where two or more people agree to have a good time. This isn't suggesting that you shouldn't try to win the game, or that rules are bad, or anything else. All its saying is that you should co-operate to make the game run smoothly and ensure that both people have a good time. Playing the game to win is not the same as trying to exploit the game mechanics to maximum advantage at the expense of your opponent.

shakespear
14-08-2008, 14:03
But to make this work we assume gamers will play in a friendly way. This game requires you to play with a gracious, cooperative spirit. You have to make the game work for you, your opponent and the story you're creating. It is a move away from the ultra-competitive style that has become more prevalent in 40K over the recent years."


*face palm*

Then why dont you stop sanctioning RTTs and GTs?! Competative 40k has grown so much in the past few years that independent conventions have sprung up all over the US. Either embrace it or kill it. Its obvious that competitive play is wanted, probably by a majority.

I am not interested in "narative play" if I wanted to roleplay, I would.

It wont be much longer before all these competative players move on to a better system. The only reason they stay with GW is ease of finding opponents.

TheOverlord
14-08-2008, 14:24
Grand Tourneys were invented to gather together a bunch of people simply to enjoy a weekend of gaming with new players around the country. It isn't to look for a champion, it's just for the fun of it.

Don't look at me, it's in the White Dwarf. I couldn't be bothered either way, in the end it's just a game of toys that I enjoy playing with, how you wanna play with it it's really up to you.

Pyriel
14-08-2008, 14:41
Perhaps GW games aren't for you then. The designers have never made a secret of the fact that the rules are just guidelines to contextualise a social and craft hobby - this is not a pseudo-sport with finely-honed and balanced rules: it's just something to do with your toys.

Isn't it a pseudo-sport?...well, i have news for you...
EVERYTHING IS A SPORT.
it is nature's way of saying"you must evolve".

Did you play hide-and-seek when you were young?guess what... that's a sport, too.the fact that it doesn't have very complicated/perfect rules doesn't change that;it is a sport that trains your perception, patience, and running skills.

"FUN"?there is no such thing:wtf:;fun is merely nature's motive for you to compete (and thus, evolve).in the same manner that there is no such thing as love and there are only hormones screaming "you must have a child for your species to continue".there is no fun or love, only evolution.evolution through winning through power.

there are no such things as "fun","love" and "sportsmanship";there is only power(god, i sound like a Sith lord:D)


the reason to play fair and never ruleslayer is that ruleslayering/being an a-whole and competing are COMPLETELY different things as a true competitive(and not sore-loser) person should be glad when he has a fun, challenging game that helps eveolve his skills.

EVERYTHING is a competitive sport in life;gaming(how many times have you made fun of an other race-not player-for winning against them?), flirting(how many times have you smiled watching the other guys get jealous as you get the most beautiful girl?), working(you know the drill);EVERYTHING, including 40k.
the fact that you fail to see that doesn't "undo" 40k's competitiveness.

Brother Loki
14-08-2008, 15:04
*face palm*

Then why dont you stop sanctioning RTTs and GTs?!


As TheOverlord said, the original intention of the GTs was to get lots of people in one place playing 40k. Its just that is much easier and less work to do it in a tournament format than a narrative campaign.


Competative 40k has grown so much in the past few years that independent conventions have sprung up all over the US.

America is only a small part of GW's market - about 20% or so. Different territiories have very different gaming cultures. Eastern Europe is very tournament driven, so I understand, while western Europe and the UK are much less so.



Either embrace it or kill it. Its obvious that competitive play is wanted, probably by a majority.


There is definitely a market, but is it really a majority?
GW takes roughly Ģ100m a year ($200m) rounded to the nearest whole number. Lets take a ballpark estimate, and say a typical customer spends on average Ģ250 ($500) in a year (some will spend less, some will spend a lot more). That means they might conceivably have somewhere around 400,000 customers. In the UK (which accounts for over 25% of their sales - so 100,000 customers) I'd hazard a guess (based on the number and size of tournaments advertised) that no more than couple of thousand people play in tournaments in the UK.

Even if we increase that to 10,000 to allow for me underestimating it, that would indicate that tournament players make up no more than 10% of the GW customer base in their larges single national market, so why should that group dictate the direction takes its products? Surely the silent majority who play mostly at home with their friends, are the real customers here? Obviously, most of those figures are pulled out of my backside, barring the original sales estimate and the sizes of the different territories, which come from the GW annual report.



I am not interested in "narative play" if I wanted to roleplay, I would.


Fair enough, but all the GW games have always been marketed as narrative wargames. First Edition 40k was supposed to be played with a GM who wrote a scenario and briefed the players with secret objectives etc. You can't really complain if the company is emphasising something which has always been the driving force of the game.



It wont be much longer before all these competative players move on to a better system. The only reason they stay with GW is ease of finding opponents.

Which is fair enough. There aren't enough of the pure competitive types to make much of a difference anyway. I'd hazard that many people stay because they like the background and models as well.


Edit:
@Pyriel - Wow, if that's really your attitude to life, I pity you. You must be so lonely. Seek help, please.

Eulenspiegel
14-08-2008, 15:05
Eulenspiegel I live in Leeds UK and I actually only have 2 public places to play games in myself.

Oops sorry, I thought it said "London" in your profile. Must have mixed that up.

AgeOfEgos
14-08-2008, 15:25
I can guarantee you that the competitive tournament-goers spend far more per person then the weekend warriors, and that they spend less then the weekend warriors as a whole.

You think you can really guarantee that? I honestly don't know (I'm sure GW has pencil pushers that examine this) but I would lean towards weekend warriors making up the vast majority of sales (and spending more per individual on average). I would base this on the following;

1. There are more weekend warriors than tournament players (to the point of making tournament players a very, very small minority)
2. Weekend warriors are more apt to buy units/models 'just because'. I have models from different armies because I like the way they look, playing them is secondary.
3. Apocalypse, which encourages the above, was made for the weekend warrior.

But lets say, just to take the point to conclusion, that tournament gamers do spend more than weekend warriors. Say, 50 USD/year more. What percentage of the market is the tournament gamers as compared to the weekend warrior? 90% weekend vs 10% tournament (I think this is very generous to the tournament crowd!)? I guess what I'm trying to say is would you rather market towards 10 gamers that spend 200/year or 90 gamers that spend 100/year?

shakespear
14-08-2008, 15:26
Isn't it a pseudo-sport?...well, i have news for you...
EVERYTHING IS A SPORT.
it is nature's way of saying"you must evolve".

Did you play hide-and-seek when you were young?guess what... that's a sport, too.the fact that it doesn't have very complicated/perfect rules doesn't change that;it is a sport that trains your perception, patience, and running skills.

"FUN"?there is no such thing:wtf:;fun is merely nature's motive for you to compete (and thus, evolve).in the same manner that there is no such thing as love and there are only hormones screaming "you must have a child for your species to continue".there is no fun or love, only evolution.evolution through winning through power.

there are no such things as "fun","love" and "sportsmanship";there is only power(god, i sound like a Sith lord:D)


the reason to play fair and never ruleslayer is that ruleslayering/being an a-whole and competing are COMPLETELY different things as a true competitive(and not sore-loser) person should be glad when he has a fun, challenging game that helps eveolve his skills.

EVERYTHING is a competitive sport in life;gaming(how many times have you made fun of an other race-not player-for winning against them?), flirting(how many times have you smiled watching the other guys get jealous as you get the most beautiful girl?), working(you know the drill);EVERYTHING, including 40k.
the fact that you fail to see that doesn't "undo" 40k's competitiveness.

Maybe we can have have tournaments where everyone gets a trophy and we dont keep score. :rolleyes:

moschino_man
14-08-2008, 15:39
i dont think that tournie players spend any more in a financial year than weekend gamers and new collectors. Maybe less.
But i would say they are more dedicated to the hobby and more likely to spend a constant average over a longer number of years.
Most businesses are keen to reward this customer loyalty and aoppreciate the regular business. O.K, GW is a trans national corporation - so i don't expect 1 on 1 service from such a large company.
BUT, the main point is, i'm willing to bet if you could poll the average spending of a weekend gamer and a tournie player. And then poll across how many years they spend this amount (and heres the important bit) the tournie players game for a longer amount of years.

AgeOfEgos
14-08-2008, 15:39
Maybe we can have have tournaments where everyone gets a trophy and we dont keep score. :rolleyes:

Oh, I was mistaken. After reading his dissertation on gaming and its evolutionary consequences I was under the impression tournament losers were fed to various predators. The winners, of course, are awarded a harem of females for gene proliferation.

AgeOfEgos
14-08-2008, 15:45
i dont think that tournie players spend any more in a financial year than weekend gamers and new collectors. Maybe less.
But i would say they are more dedicated to the hobby and more likely to spend a constant average over a longer number of years.
Most businesses are keen to reward this customer loyalty and aoppreciate the regular business. O.K, GW is a trans national corporation - so i don't expect 1 on 1 service from such a large company.
BUT, the main point is, i'm willing to bet if you could poll the average spending of a weekend gamer and a tournie player. And then poll across how many years they spend this amount (and heres the important bit) the tournie players game for a longer amount of years.

I have no idea if this is true or not. I'll be honest though, my inclination is that it is not. Tournament gamers, to stereotype, are more dependant on rules while weekend warriors just want cool toys. My gut tells me that people whom collect the models for the hobby aspect will spend more than those that collect them for their rules. Again though, this is unquantifiable and could probably be argued both ways.

I think what is not in question is that weekend warriors disproportionally outnumber tournament players.

nomadimp
14-08-2008, 16:47
I think that the meaning of the word "Competative" needs to be clarified a bit.

The basic definition boils down to "involving rivalry" where a rival is "one of two or more striving to reach or obtain something that only one can possess." In a Competative game system, only one player/team wins and the other player/team loses. When taken to an extreme, as it is in an "Ultra-Competative" scenerio, this becomes a zero-sum scenario (the winner's enjoyment is at the expense of the loser). This last part is what I believe goes against the spirit of the game the most. No player should be getting enjoyment at the expense of another player.

Fortunately, Competative games aren't the only types of games out there. There are aslo Co-operative games. Take a well-known example, Dungeons and Dragons, where the players & DM work together to create a narrative. The rules exist purely to facilitate and guide the story that is being spun collectively. As any good DM knows, the relationship between players and the DM should not be a rivalry, or antagonistic, but rather Co-operative.

Now lets look back at 40k. From it's inception, the purpose of the game has been to create narratives-- memorable moments. Furthermore, these narratives are created co-operatively by the players. Who "wins" the game is only relevant in-so-far as it influences the story, "space marines win the day in a hard-fought battle." Because, honestly, no one worth talking to cares how many games of 40k you have won. Win the Super-Bowl or the World Cup or beat Deep Blue and then come talk to me; brag about how awesome your dice-rolling, 28mm-model-maneuvering skillz are and brace yourself for scorn. There are other game systems that are actually designed for arm-chair generals (hint: these systems do not involve Giant Bugs in Space). On the other hand, tell me about that time that a unit of terminators held the planetary defense laser against seemingly insurmountable odds and I'll swap a few stories of my own.

Should the rules be good? Yes. Does Alessio ever say that they shouldn't be? No. Do a lot of people clearly not understand what the rules are for? Yes. And that is exactly what he is clarifying here: the rules are not for determining a winner and a loser (like, for example, the rules of Chess are); what the rules are for is creating memorable moments and good narratives that players will both enjoy, remember and talk about.

Doctor Thunder
14-08-2008, 16:58
I have no idea if this is true or not. I'll be honest though, my inclination is that it is not. Tournament gamers, to stereotype, are more dependant on rules while weekend warriors just want cool toys. My gut tells me that people whom collect the models for the hobby aspect will spend more than those that collect them for their rules.

It is my experience that tournament players spend a lot more. For two reasons:
1) Every time rules change or new codexes are released, they are going to want to redo their armies to fit the new optimal configurations.
2) The long-standing tradition in tournaments is that when you win an award, you cannot win with that army again, so successful tournament players have to start from scratch often.

Brother Loki
14-08-2008, 17:27
Nomadimp has hit the nail on the head. GW grew out of the roleplaying boom of the late 70s and early 80s. Their games are (and always have been) designed first and foremost for narrative gaming, and have much more in common with co-operative games like D&D than any kind of competitive game. This is how they've always been presented. It's not like Alessio's statement is anything new.

Adra
14-08-2008, 18:01
You know I think this is really truly a gloss of GW marketing.

You see, mummy and daddy don’t like the idea of little Jimmy playing a game where he has to compete to survive and where he might get upset from losing. They much prefer that he play his toy soldiers with other kids and no one ever loses cos everyone’s having fun.

GW actually don’t give a Teacups Toenail if you play to win, and kids are bound to, they just want Mummy and Daddy to be dosed with marketing rehipnol in the form of "this game is just for fun, it’s not competitive." so they won’t open their eyes wide enough to notice that, as well as all the good things about 40k, they are also buying a toy for Jimmy that advocates genocide, mass murder, religious fanaticism and competitiveness.

lanrak
14-08-2008, 18:19
Hi,Brother Loki.
Perhaps the GW studio staff and development team have always intended 40k and WH to be for relaxed freindly narrative games.(I belive this to be true.)
However there certainly was little to back this up in print from GW from the late 1990s to the Standard Bearer article a few months ago.

Oh,and when the gamers wanted to play in tournaments.
Did GW issue an official statment saying..
'40k and WH games ARE NOT realy suited to this style of play.
We will not suport this officialy as it is diametricaly opposed to the development ethos of the studio staff and the intended perpose of games.'

Or did GW PLC just keep quiet, take a LOT of money and NOT answer questions about it?
And when LOTS of gamers have bought into 40k thinking it is ballanced enough for competitions/touranment style play , get a upset , and voice thier oppinions on GW web site.GW just close it down.:rolleyes:

GW are great at producing games for relaxed friendly narrative driven play style.

This is clearly stated in the 40k rule book now.And this is A VERY GOOD THING!

If you dont like this type of game , there are lots of other rule sets you can use your 40k minis with.

GW may be the only supplier of the 'GW hobby', but there are lots of companies producing rules for the scifi wargame market.:D

Lots of these provide FREE to down load rules!

Happy gaming.
Lanrak.

Eulenspiegel
14-08-2008, 18:33
Sooo, where did someone actually prove that all the casual gamers, weekend warriors, fluff gamers, narrative players DONīT want a tight ruleset?
I think I already made clear that I belong to the above, but still want rules.

The holier-than-thou attitude in some of the posts here is rather patronizing.

See, I can do polemic, too:
When we play we want to play -and have fun- with rules. We donīt want to dice out every other occurence, and we donīt start a sing-song and group hug everytime a discrepancy comes up.
Why do you need rules at all?
"My marines run across the table and ninja-flip over the mountains here."
"Meanwhile my cunning Warpspiders sneak up and, anticipating their landing point, unleash mono-filament hell!"
"My marines are surprised, but they have ultimate faith in their armour!"
"Ok, so what would you say, 3+ the squad gets wiped out, 1-2 and half of them survive to counter-charge the Spiders?"
"Cool, and fluffy! Letīs do it."

:angel: ;)

nomadimp
14-08-2008, 18:34
You know I think this is really truly a gloss of GW marketing.

You see, mummy and daddy don’t like the idea of little Jimmy playing a game where he has to compete to survive and where he might get upset from losing. They much prefer that he play his toy soldiers with other kids and no one ever loses cos everyone’s having fun.

GW actually don’t give a Teacups Toenail if you play to win, and kids are bound to, they just want Mummy and Daddy to be dosed with marketing rehipnol in the form of "this game is just for fun, it’s not competitive." so they won’t open their eyes wide enough to notice that, as well as all the good things about 40k, they are also buying a toy for Jimmy that advocates genocide, mass murder, religious fanaticism and competitiveness.

Um, huh? Really not following you here. Compete to survive?? Are you Herbert Spencer? ;)

Obviously, every parent should want their children to learn how to interact socially with other people in a co-operative and constructive manner. Co-operation is every bit as much a part of the human condition as competition. If people want to play a co-operative game in a competative manner (like some DMs and PCs do with D&D) then they will probably be just as unsatisfied as someone trying to put in a screw with a hammer. No one complains that a hammer isn't very good at putting in screws once they understand that putting in screws isnt what a hammer is designed for.

Also, the fact that 40k presents a dystopian galaxy hardly counts as "advocating" anything that occurs in said dystopia.

nomadimp
14-08-2008, 19:05
Sooo, where did someone actually prove that all the casual gamers, weekend warriors, fluff gamers, narrative players DONīT want a tight ruleset?
I think I already made clear that I belong to the above, but still want rules.


Erm, where did Alessio say that there shouldn't be a "tight" ruleset? What, exactly, do you mean by "tight?"

Alessio's point is that you have to look at the rules in the context of their purpose. The primary purpose of the rules is not to facilitate competition. Period. If you judge the "tightness" of the rules by how well they facilitate competition then you are simply judging them by the wrong criteria. That would be like saying that Chess is a terrible game because it really doesnt generate a rich and exciting narrative.

If you judge the "tightness" of the rules by how well they facilitate the generation of memorable stories, then you will see a different picture. Why do we need rules at all? Afterall we can just sit around and make up stories by moving our models around and making noises, right? Well, all stories implicitly have rules. If those rules are loose or not agreed upon (bang bang, you're dead, nuh uh-- I have a force field, no you dont!, Yeah-huh; or if say, characters appear and disappears from the scene without explanation) then the story wont be very coherent. By tightening up the "rules" of the story and making sure that everyone agrees to them beforehand, the story becomes more coherent and meaningful. This "tightness" added to the story by a set of rules makes the stories more internally consistent and structured, which makes them more believable and meaningful-- which, in turn, makes them more memorable and able to be retold.

Edit: A few choice quotes from the 2nd edition rulebook Designer's Notes pg. 96 "As players become more experience and discover for themselves what they like about Warhammer 40,000, so they may wish to make modifications which suit a certain style of gaming or which appeal to a particular gaming group. The Warhammer 40,000 universe is very big indeed, so there is room enough for you to explore whatever corner of the background or game system appeals to you. Naturally you'll have to moderate and control such things for yourself, and you must persuade your fellow players that your rules are fair and reasonably balanced. Such matters are left entirely in your hands, and we wouldn't want to discourage players from doing exactly as they please with the Warhammer 40,000 game."

And from the 1st edition Rogue Trader book pg. 6 "Warhammer 40,000 is a fantasy game set in the far future. Fantasy games are a relatively recent invention, but, as with so much that is new and innovative, they stem from familiar and well understood ideas. For many years, historical wargamers have re-enacted famous battles from history, using model soldiers, scenery and carefully worked out rules to simulate warfare in their chosen era. Fantasy games abandon the idea of re-creating historical events, allowing the imaginative player to stage games set in mythical world, on strange, surreal continents or among the stars. But even places that derive from the imagination need rules. That is where Warhammer 40,000 comes in. This book provides you with a comprehensive framework of rules with which you can represent futuristic combat." Also, "It is possible to fight a game without a GM, so long as the players are willing to cooperate a little, adopt a reasonable attitude and are honest in their record keeping."

Gensuke626
14-08-2008, 21:32
I skimmed alot since my last post. I get the feeling that alot of you aren't fully reading what you're responding to cause it seems to me that there's a lot of people who are argueing the same point from different angles. It's like two people who are screaming at each other that Obama should win the election but since their reasoning and verbage is different they think they're disagreeing with each other.

Point is, guys, calm down, take your time, and construct your arguements based on what the person you're responding to wrote as opposed to gut reactions.

Off topic:

Just imagine 40K was in fact World of Warcraft. An analogy of the situation would be this:
Blizzard releases a new patch (which is mandatory of course, if you want to play with other people, or at least the vast majority of people). This patch changes the classes in PvP in a way, that the classes introduced in the latest add-on have a vast advantage over older classes, because they get new special abilities, that are very unbalanced.
Blizzards statement: "This game is about fun. As long as the new abilities are fun for the player, we don't care if those are perfectly balanced, there will always be munchkins and powergamers out there."
Reaction of Blizzard apologists: "Hey, whiners. If you don't like the new patch, don't play WoW. Or play with people, who don't use the new abilities or classes, because those are powergamers and not worth your time."

I think it is pretty obvious that the situation described above is really stupid, but why does it seem to actually happen for 40K?
Stingray...I get the feeling you don't actually play WoW. I mean, this is what's been going on since day 1.

Example:
Warlocks were the most underpowered and under rated class in the early days of WoW, especially in PvP. Dots were not an effective way to kill another player and it got to the point where even Holy Spec priests weren't afraid to smack around locks for fun.

What was the Community's response?
"QQ Emo Kid! Go Roll a Rogue!"

Warlocks got a huge buff several months to a year before Burning Crusade and suddenly they became "Overpowered". There were many cries of Nerf and Cheese. The Warlock Community's response? "QQ Noobs. Roll Lock!"

Locks were OP for a long time. I mean...when a single Lock could take on a War, a Priest, and a Rogue all at the same time, you know something's wrong.

Rogues got the nerfbat hard when Blizz broke stealth because of Nelf hunters. Community Response? "QQ Noob. Roll a Hunter."

Want to talk about OP abilities that completely outclass everyone else in WoW? Cloak of Shadows and Shadow Step Rogues. Oh Noes! Dots, snares and fear? Cloak of Shadows + Shadow Step + Backstab -> Gouge -> Backstab -> Blind -> Energy potion -> Sinister Strike -> Kidney strike. What's that Mr. Lock? You're at 10% health and you couldn't prevent any of that? QQ Noob. Vanish -> Ambush

In the current state of the Game...
Mages are basically worthless outside of Sheep and Water because Locks, Hunters, and Shammies can get better DPS.
Healing speced Druids and Paladins can reliably outheal Healing Speced Priests. I repeat, the offhealer classes can outheal the main healer class.
Rogues and Locks are generally considered OP and have been since before Burning Crusade.
Shamans are almost as Useless as Mages, but since they can heal and have totems they're much more useful (Slots still go to Boomkin Druids and Healadins first)

Now that I think about it...Blizzard and GW make the same mistakes and have the same problems...it just looks like Blizzard cares for it's customer base more because of the Media. Blizzard can simply apply a 15min dowloaded hotpatch to the game anytime there's a problem and it's either solved or they try again next week.

GW doesn't have the luxury of being able to produce weekly patches for it's games. They don't have the staff on hand to do that AND develop new product and support Old Product.

So please don't use WoW as a comparison to 40k in the future. You'll find that it doesn't work.

-Rant over

nomadimp
14-08-2008, 22:05
The single biggest reason that you cannot compare 40k (or any tabletop game) to a video game is that in 40k you can change the rules at will provided that the other player agrees. This difference is no small thing. GW has always encouraged players to tailor the game to suit their specific tastes rather than trying (in vain) to create the "perfect game" that will satisfy everyone.

Vet.Sister
14-08-2008, 22:12
I hate the retort "go play somewhere else then", or "so donīt play those people".

Some of us really donīt have the choice. Ashc e.g. lives in London. I bet when hes dissatisfied with one LGS, he has at least a dozen other stores or clubs to choose from.
We here in the GW - diaspora donīt.

I have the choice between exactly two options, and one (the local gaming club here in Kaiserslautern) has been looked into and dismissed immediately. That leaves my friends.

You see, I have exactly 3 people to play against. They are by no means powergamers or rules lawyers, theyīre very decent guys (my friends, after all), but will insist on watertight rules. We will stop and dig through the rules for 10 minutes straight if we have a dissatisfying situation.

Theyīre all older than 30 years, and each of us has decades of gaming experience. The idea that rules may just be "guidelines" canīt be forced into our heads.
We pay 50,- € for a rulebook, half as much for each codex, and we want them to do their damn job. And now, after five editions, after each of us has thousands of euros poured into the hobby, they just admit that they canīt and worse, wonīt even wonīt try to write rules?

Thatīs a slap in the face.

No, e-bay wonīt be seeing my stuff. I wonīt get half the money back, none of the time, and wost of all: I love the 40K universe and the hobby.
And I have hopes for 6th ;)

/rant

QFT!!! For the love of everything worth doing/having, why can't they make a serious attempt at better rule set?

Adra
14-08-2008, 22:34
Um, huh? Really not following you here. Compete to survive?? Are you Herbert Spencer? ;)

I wish. What amazing facial hair. ;)

Maybe i was a bit strong on that, more that they may not want to risk their child losing and getting upset. I know, a frail link maybe but i like to think that no business says anything without a finacial upside.

insaniak
14-08-2008, 23:13
You see, mummy and daddy don’t like the idea of little Jimmy playing a game where he has to compete to survive and where he might get upset from losing.

Er... which mummy and daddy would that be?

Ignoring for a moment the repeated claim (without so far anything to actually back it up) that GW are specifically marketing to children, where are you getting the idea that parents would be upset at their child losing a game?

Seriously?



they just want Mummy and Daddy to be dosed with marketing rehipnol in the form of "this game is just for fun, it’s not competitive."

Are parents where you come from in the habit of buying hobby magazines and listening to podcasts before deciding whether or not to let their child buy a boardgame?

Or do you think it's maybe a little more likely that they're going to find themselves standing in a GW store asking what all these little model things are for? At which point they're far more likely to spot all the guns and swords and daemons than they are to hear Allessio waxing lyrical about the spirit of the game...

Vet.Sister
14-08-2008, 23:15
Erm, where did Alessio say that there shouldn't be a "tight" ruleset?

Ok, point taken. noone (that I know of) from GW has advocated lax, substandard rules. My problem is that while each edition of WH40K has had its problems, it has also had its good points as well. I can see that with some effort, they could put out a better rule set that is less open to abuse than the current set. (YES! I do realize that there's room for abuse in any system.)

Their blanket statement about "fun" trumping "competitive" play is troublesome to me.... I am afraid that they are writing themselves a blank check, to cover anything that is fun but ultimately overpowered/useless/inane/etc.........:cries:

Gensuke626
14-08-2008, 23:20
Ok, point taken. noone (that I know of) from GW has advocated lax, substandard rules. My problem is that while each edition of WH40K has had its problems, it has also had its good points as well. I can see that with some effort, they could put out a better rule set that is less open to abuse than the current set. (YES! I do realize that there's room for abuse in any system.)

Their blanket statement about "fun" trumping "competitive" play is troublesome to me.... I am afraid that they are writing themselves a blank check, to cover anything that is fun but ultimately overpowered/useless/inane/etc.........:cries:

I hope not. Else next thing you know the Chaos Space marines codex is gonna be even more broken than the 4th ed on and they're just gonna claim "It's for fun!"

Geddonight
15-08-2008, 00:51
Er... which mummy and daddy would that be?

Ignoring for a moment the repeated claim (without so far anything to actually back it up) that GW are specifically marketing to children, where are you getting the idea that parents would be upset at their child losing a game?

Seriously?

Insaniak... I know nothing about your demographic or whether you're a parent. However, there are several prevailing mentalities among parents these days... and it's rather disturbing. One branch, found often in sports, will drive their children to be over-competitive. Their children essentially become their avatar for what they couldn't achieve... and parents will get violent with anyone who stands in the way of their child's success (you may have heard about this phenomenon on your local news or paper--soccer moms assaulting referees/coaches/other soccer moms, etc).

Another branch doesn't want their children competing at all. They're the kind that ensure everyone at a competition gets a trophy for participating. This trend has also tended to ruin many education programs from what I've seen (I'm in academia, and the quality of these students is abysmal in comparison to the other demographics).

A third branch is what we could approximate to be normal--healthy competition mixed with social skills like cooperation.

I don't know how large each group is, mind you. I just know they exist in quantities enough to draw attention.


@ Gensuke626: Please, for the love of Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, and Buddha NEVER use that many abbreviations and WoW jargon again. I'm one of the guys who tries to read every post thoroughly... and that writing made me want to find your home and slap you with an octopus (a live one, mind you). I agree with your sentiments... but... arrgh!

My Thoughts on the Issue:

I like a tight ruleset. I like narrative games. The two are obviously not mutually exclusive. In fact, the former is conducive to creating the latter. Nothing breaks my suspension of disbelief like having to figure out how to deal with a situation not covered by the rules. I can dislike a rule, but as long as I understand it (TLOS, wound allocation, etc) it works. Ambiguities to situations that should have been anticipated are not helpful.

Army interaction, for instance is a big one. Determining which wargear takes precedence--runes of witnessing vs shadow of the warp, or two eldar armies duking it out with the same wargear--are things that should be thought of as new items come out.

Occulto
15-08-2008, 01:23
It is my experience that tournament players spend a lot more. For two reasons:
1) Every time rules change or new codexes are released, they are going to want to redo their armies to fit the new optimal configurations.
2) The long-standing tradition in tournaments is that when you win an award, you cannot win with that army again, so successful tournament players have to start from scratch often.

In my experience most tournament players are also casual players. :p


Hi,Brother Loki.
Perhaps the GW studio staff and development team have always intended 40k and WH to be for relaxed freindly narrative games.(I belive this to be true.)
However there certainly was little to back this up in print from GW from the late 1990s to the Standard Bearer article a few months ago.

Um... how about all the narrative scenarios, chapter approved articles (creature features etc), battle reports like the Rourke's Drift recreation, and world wide campaigns?

The (big) 4th ed rulebook was filled with ideas for alternative style play - including kill team, combat patrol, campaigns, and unbalanced scenarios.


Oh,and when the gamers wanted to play in tournaments.
Did GW issue an official statment saying..
'40k and WH games ARE NOT realy suited to this style of play.
We will not suport this officialy as it is diametricaly opposed to the development ethos of the studio staff and the intended perpose of games.'

No, they released a bunch of additional rules like Composition and Sports that worked above and beyond the standard rules. They also released lists of what was and wasn't legal at official events. Anyone else remember when mutable genus Nids were barred from the UK GT?

If the games were suited/designed for competitive play, then these wouldn't be required would they?


Or did GW PLC just keep quiet, take a LOT of money and NOT answer questions about it?

Or did they evolve their tournament rules with feedback from players?

Here in Australia, the GW tournament organisers (Andrew Long in particular) have worked closely with the homegrown tournament scene.


And when LOTS of gamers have bought into 40k thinking it is ballanced enough for competitions/touranment style play , get a upset , and voice thier oppinions on GW web site.GW just close it down.:rolleyes:

The GW forums were shut down for a lot of reasons. Mostly because they were filled with absolute garbage and rants about pricing.

insaniak
15-08-2008, 01:38
One branch, found often in sports, will drive their children to be over-competitive. Their children essentially become their avatar for what they couldn't achieve... and parents will get violent with anyone who stands in the way of their child's success (you may have heard about this phenomenon on your local news or paper--soccer moms assaulting referees/coaches/other soccer moms, etc).

The thing about these parents, though... is that they tend to focus on sport.

You won't find them standing behind their child screaming at them to win a boardgame.



Another branch doesn't want their children competing at all. They're the kind that ensure everyone at a competition gets a trophy for participating.

And so, again, not likely to be encouraging their child to buy boardgames...



I don't know how large each group is, mind you. I just know they exist in quantities enough to draw attention.

Frankly, I seriously doubt that either of those extreme groups are hanging around GW stores in anything like large enough quantities to raise any concern from GW's marketing department.

Slaaneshi Ice Cream
15-08-2008, 02:51
I hope not. Else next thing you know the Chaos Space marines codex is gonna be even more broken than the 4th ed on and they're just gonna claim "It's for fun!"

Or they'll go the other way and make a random table for every unit, not just possessed. Rolling dice is fun!

Gensuke626
15-08-2008, 03:39
@ Gensuke626: Please, for the love of Allah, Jesus, Yahweh, and Buddha NEVER use that many abbreviations and WoW jargon again. I'm one of the guys who tries to read every post thoroughly... and that writing made me want to find your home and slap you with an octopus (a live one, mind you). I agree with your sentiments... but... arrgh!

Sorry. I was trying to be light on WoW jargon and abbreviations, but I guess I'm just too fluent in it.

Just for you guys playing at home who didn't catch a word I said...QQ is WoWspeek for...well...It carries the same weight as "I'm playing the world's smallest violin." or "Poor baby...Want me to get your milkie?" and roll a (insert) means to make a new character of (insert) class.

I just wanted to disprove Stingray's theory that WoW is any better managed than 40k. It's just as bad, but it updates faster.


Or they'll go the other way and make a random table for every unit, not just possessed. Rolling dice is fun!

I think I'd rather be Slaanesh's fluffer if he went to work for Zig-Zag studios than play a 40k game where every unit was random like possessed.

Logarithm Udgaur
15-08-2008, 05:16
The thing about these parents, though... is that they tend to focus on sport.

You won't find them standing behind their child screaming at them to win a boardgame.

Do not be so sure. I have played a few games of Mechwarrior Clix against a younger kid (10-15, they all look alike to me), where this exact situation occurred. The dad kept walking away from the game he was playing to yell at his kid for making tactically unsound decisions. I ended up feeling really sorry for the kid and let him win by a close margin.

I thought QQ was supposed to be crying eyes? Anyway, if you doubt that GW is marketing more to kids these days, you are living in denial. Every new codex comes with less and less options so that the kids do not have to do basic math to succeed in building an army. The rules get streamlined (in GWs words), so the games can cater more to the kids limited attention span. There are probably more examples, but my attention has wandered.

zanotam
15-08-2008, 05:22
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread, but I think one of the things they tried to do is basically make it so that instead of the board being exactly how everything is, it's more of an aproximation. Joe might be in point B in the Board, but he's actually somewhere within X feet of point B in the ingame reality.

insaniak
15-08-2008, 05:32
Anyway, if you doubt that GW is marketing more to kids these days, you are living in denial.

Not living in denial... just waiting for some actual proof.

Simplifying the rules doesn't auotomatically mean the game is aimed at kids. There's an awful lot of adults out there, myself included, who much prefer games with simple, straightforward rules.

The rules were streamlined so that they would function for larger games. I've seen no proof whatsoever that marketing to younger kids was a significant aim of the developers.

Octavius_Maximus
15-08-2008, 05:33
I thought QQ was supposed to be crying eyes? Anyway, if you doubt that GW is marketing more to kids these days, you are living in denial. Every new codex comes with less and less options so that the kids do not have to do basic math to succeed in building an army. The rules get streamlined (in GWs words), so the games can cater more to the kids limited attention span. There are probably more examples, but my attention has wandered.

I dont live in denial, and i think that just because a person doesnt need a degree in calculus, physics and Linguistics just to make an Army list (old Chaos Codex) doesnt mean its made for kids.

Occulto
15-08-2008, 05:46
I dont live in denial, and i think that just because a person doesnt need a degree in calculus, physics and Linguistics just to make an Army list (old Chaos Codex) doesnt mean its made for kids.

The irony is, school kids are usually better at maths than a lot of adults!

Logarithm Udgaur
15-08-2008, 06:37
I dont live in denial, and i think that just because a person doesnt need a degree in calculus, physics and Linguistics just to make an Army list (old Chaos Codex) doesnt mean its made for kids.

Your kidding me, right? I have never had to do anything other than add and subtract (occasionally multiplying in order to speed things up) to make an army. I am willing to bet that no-one else has had to do more. I also only have the same command of the American/English language as any 7th grader should possess. None of these things prevented me from making an army that required the use of three different Codexes and a WD article.

Edit: One of those Codexes being the aforementioned 4th ed Chaos Codex.

Warpcrafter
15-08-2008, 06:53
Sooo, where did someone actually prove that all the casual gamers, weekend warriors, fluff gamers, narrative players DONīT want a tight ruleset?
I think I already made clear that I belong to the above, but still want rules.

The holier-than-thou attitude in some of the posts here is rather patronizing.

See, I can do polemic, too:
When we play we want to play -and have fun- with rules. We donīt want to dice out every other occurence, and we donīt start a sing-song and group hug everytime a discrepancy comes up.
Why do you need rules at all?
"My marines run across the table and ninja-flip over the mountains here."
"Meanwhile my cunning Warpspiders sneak up and, anticipating their landing point, unleash mono-filament hell!"
"My marines are surprised, but they have ultimate faith in their armour!"
"Ok, so what would you say, 3+ the squad gets wiped out, 1-2 and half of them survive to counter-charge the Spiders?"
"Cool, and fluffy! Letīs do it."

:angel: ;)

If only that were even remotely possible. I started with D&D Battlesystem, which is a great game, if somewhat simplistic and over the course of three years my buddies and I re-wrote the s**t out of those rules, covering up whole paragraphs with white-out and putting in our own ideas until it in no way resembled the original game. Now, if I some much as dare to breath a word of 'House Rules' at my local gaming store, I get a chorus of sheep bleating that such is heresy, because it's not admissable at a GT. Unfortunately, that copy of Battlesystem got left out in the garage and the roof leaked. I've spent the last eighteen years trying to come up with a game system that equals it and have so far achieved nothing but driving myself crazy. Cool and fluffy may be the ultimate goal of all gamers, but it rarely comes to pass.

Adra
15-08-2008, 10:32
Ive always wondered how GW get past the pester power half-life. I mean, after a while of collecting the same thing adults are gonna pay some attention to what it is the kid is actually asking for every saturday. I think that GW has to present 40k as friendly to values parents hold high on the list. You can see it when you watch the staff do their pitch to a parent. The buzz words they drop. Teamwork, co-operation, friendship, eye for detail, fun. Competetive attitutes are not mentioned. Dont get me wrong, i dont think no parent values competition, some see it as a good thing, but because some dont GW tries not to go near that area too much in case they scare a parent off. Seems fair enough to me marketing wise, but does the game suffer from a lazy attitude towards rules what with having the "its all for fun dammit" get out of jail card?

Brother Loki
15-08-2008, 11:31
Well it is all for fun, isn't it? Regardless of what your personal definition of fun might be, I'd suggest that if you're not finding fun in your hobby then maybe its not the right one for you.

I also don't think that the views of parents has much impact on the design studio. They pretty much do what they like. Forgeworld takes this to an extreme, in that the sculptors quite literally work on what they want, and then Warwick writes rules for it.

I think the designers make games that they find fun, and hope that other people will find them fun too. Its a fairly natural thing in most creative endeavours. Writers write the kind of books that they like to read. Film-makers make kind of the films that they like to watch. It seems natural that game designers make the kind of games that they like to play.

Adra
15-08-2008, 11:41
Well it is all for fun, isn't it? Regardless of what your personal definition of fun might be, I'd suggest that if you're not finding fun in your hobby then maybe its not the right one for you.

I also don't think that the views of parents has much impact on the design studio. They pretty much do what they like. Forgeworld takes this to an extreme, in that the sculptors quite literally work on what they want, and then Warwick writes rules for it.

I think the designers make games that they find fun, and hope that other people will find them fun too. Its a fairly natural thing in most creative endeavours. Writers write the kind of books that they like to read. Film-makers make kind of the films that they like to watch. It seems natural that game designers make the kind of games that they like to play.

No i didnt write that 40k wasnt fun, it is, im suggesting there are some aspects of the game that are more palatable than others.

Also the design studio is not a free enterprise. They cant just sit and do whatever, they are told what to do. They are being paid for a job, wouldnt be much good if they just did whatever took their fancy. The company relies on people they consider experts to write their rulebooks but a company direction has to be given. You dont think that with GW recent finacial issues they would maybe start to be more targeted in their marketing? Assuming that a business as big as GW is just winging it is a bit naive.

Marlow
15-08-2008, 11:57
An interesting Quote.
The problem with most games is there is always some sort of loophole in the rules and some players like to exploit those holes to win. If you play in a club with Leagues or Tournaments you can not always avoid them.

I know a couple of clubs that have tournaments where players would rather concede the game on the first turn than play a game against the problem player.

Brother Loki
15-08-2008, 12:07
I'm sure they are given broad direction from the board etc:

"Find a way to encourage bigger games so people buy more models". (Apocalypse)
"We need a new edition of 40k in 2008, as we need to have a sales spike then."
"Space marines are the best sellers, so make sure they're first on the list for an update."
"We need to sell new stuff to existing space marine players, not just new players, so make sure they have a bunch of new stuff."

I doubt its any more detailed than that though. The details of the game rules are simply irrelevant in the context of running a PLC. Within those guidelines, one would reasonably expect that the designers put quite a lot of themselves in the games. Don't forget that a lot of them have been there since long before GW was a public company. Internally, a lot of folks at GW still have a by gamers for gamers, creative-led culture, despite the demands of working for a big PLC. I'm sure there are some constraints on them for financial reasons - such as a general direction to concentrate on high selling armies at the expense of more niche ones, but I doubt its got that much influence on the products themselves.

Forgeworld on the other hand pretty much do work entirely independently and do what they like, which is why we get such wonderful stuff from them.

Sureshot05
15-08-2008, 12:17
Personally I love the quote and think that it is the way GW should be heading. I also reject the idea that tounaments are the main/key demographic of gamers. Look at the success of apocalypse and you'll see that GW appear to know their target markets better than most. A lot of us are just after a few fun games and don't really worry care for the game to be perfectly balanced as long as (a) we have fun and (b) anything silly that pops up can be handle in a mutually acceptable way. As long as I'm having a good time, I'll keep playing. For me the new edition is miles better than the previous and I can't really fault many of the decisions.

Stingray_tm
15-08-2008, 13:08
"Find a way to encourage bigger games so people buy more models". (Apocalypse)
"We need a new edition of 40k in 2008, as we need to have a sales spike then."
"Space marines are the best sellers, so make sure they're first on the list for an update."
"We need to sell new stuff to existing space marine players, not just new players, so make sure they have a bunch of new stuff."


I agree, but i think, that the need to sell more Space Marines in fact came BEFORE getting a new edition done, because they needed some reason to redo Space Marines (with new models) and that was 5th. Which is exactly the reason, why i hate 5th edition. It totally feels like 5th was only made to re-release Space Marines, hence there are a lot of rules, that make more sense for Marines than for other races.

Brother Loki
15-08-2008, 13:17
...a lot of rules, that make more sense for Marines than for other races.

Such as? What changes make more sense for marines than others?

Surely things like improving cover saves across the board benefirts non-meq armies, who are generally more reliant on cover? Powerfists losing their secondary attack seems to be most likely to affect marines and their equivalents as they are the biggest powerfist users.

cailus
15-08-2008, 13:31
I agree with Stingray regarding the point that without 5th edition, there could not have been any rational reason for re-releasing a new SM codex.

SM are GW's biggest sellers. Hence GW want to sell lots of SM's.

The new SM codex is so full of new units (Thunderfire Tech Marine, LR Redeemer, Sternguard, Assault Veteran, Landspeeder Storm) that it is clearly designed not only to sell marines to new players but also to have existing players have a reason to buy lots of new models.

However most of the these models would not have been possible without a new codex as the rules didn't exist for it.

And GW did not want to alienate non-Marine players by simply releasing a second 4th edition marine codex.

Hence 5th edition is very useful for justifying a new Marine codex.

I actually suspect that certain armies like DE/WH/DH/Necrons and others will remain in limbo without a new codex while GW continues to focus on more profitable armies. So expect more Marine releases and whatever else is selling.

Stingray_tm
15-08-2008, 13:57
Such as? What changes make more sense for marines than others?


Well, how about the overall theme of the game, that now is about elite troop units (which Marines have, and other races like Nids don't have) holding objectives, which perfectly fits to the SM theme, but contradicts fluff for some other armies.
Or also the whole KP thing, which not only is a benefit for armies, that can have big and tough selections (like Marines...) but Marines have (and even had in case of Blood Angels) a special rule, where their most basic troop selection either gives fewer KPs or enables them to take more objectives. And they can decide this before every game...
Then we have rules, that boost Land Raiders (more than ANY other vehicle out there, besides maybe the Monolith). And you know what? They release a new Land Raider.
Then we have rules, that promote the use of big troops. And what happens? This Land Raider is specialised for Anti-Horde.
Then we have new rules for cover, but hey, Marines now get new toys, that helps them to ignore cover.
Then we have the rending nerf, which affects Marines less then anybody else (you still can kill a Land Raider with an Asscannon, while cc render can not) and then they get a new Dreadnought, that due to this change is almost immune to rending (while the old Dreadnought isn't).
And then we have the new No Retreat rule, which will not affect Space Marines at all, but all units, that were meant to swamp Space Marines. (My Gaunts already sucked in 1:1 points wise versus Space Marines. Now i lose twice as many Gaunts.)
We have new rules for Deep Striking, making it more save. And what happens? A Drop Pod model (finally) comes out, being able to deliver more SM stuff and due to a special rule even earlier than before.
The list goes on...

Stingray_tm
15-08-2008, 14:06
I actually suspect that certain armies like DE/WH/DH/Necrons and others will remain in limbo without a new codex while GW continues to focus on more profitable armies. So expect more Marine releases and whatever else is selling.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a 6th edition (with all the sub-chapters of Marines updated during 5th) with an acompanying Marine codex before we will see a new Tyranid or Necron codex.

Cln_kickass
15-08-2008, 14:11
i think your just nit picking i think it was an excelent idea with 99% of these new rules and rules are there to stop cheaters not allow them just tell the guy or gal cheating to read '''..................''' ect..

Zerosoul
15-08-2008, 15:14
I personally think it's a case of people being so enamoured with GW to the point that they sooner relate with the company than they do with their fellow gamers.

This is such an amazing line of thinking. It displays an absolutely breathtaking level of arrogance. "People who don't agree with me are just brainwashed GW drones." Heaven forfend that people just -like the new rules-, right? That can't be! It's just that people are so enamored with GW! After all, your opinion is objective fact, right?


*face palm*

Then why dont you stop sanctioning RTTs and GTs?! Competative 40k has grown so much in the past few years that independent conventions have sprung up all over the US. Either embrace it or kill it. Its obvious that competitive play is wanted, probably by a majority.


You answered your own question. GW sanctions RTTs and GTs because people WANT them. Simple as that.


Isn't it a pseudo-sport?...well, i have news for you...
EVERYTHING IS A SPORT.

No it isn't. You're wrong. Simple as that. That may be the way you view the world but that doesn't mean you're objectively correct. I really wish people would see that, especially in this thread.

Adra
15-08-2008, 16:24
No it isn't. You're wrong. Simple as that. That may be the way you view the world but that doesn't mean you're objectively correct. I really wish people would see that, especially in this thread.

No whats important is that people see that there are two ways to play 40k, one just for fun with a "no worries" attitude and another that means you take the rules more seriously and rigidly in order to test your skills against another player, and that both ways are equaly valid.

Brother Loki
15-08-2008, 17:28
True, but the former is what the game is designed for, and the latter isn't.

Stingray_tm
15-08-2008, 18:17
True, but the former is what the game is designed for, and the latter isn't.

Thank you Captain Obvious we know that. In fact, it's the reason why we are complaining. How about not endlessly telling us again the reason for our complaints, since we allready know why we are complaining...
The game should be designed to enable BOTH groups to get what they want. And no, this is not impossible, it just means more work, than GW is willing to invest. Hey, why should they, most gamers actually seem to believe the kind of garbage GW is releasing these days. I would be lazy aswell, if i got away with it that easy.

Brother Loki
15-08-2008, 18:21
Maybe the latter are such a small (but admittedly vocal) minority that it doesn't make commercial sense to cater to them specifically? If something's good enough for 90% of the customers, its probably good enough.

AgeOfEgos
15-08-2008, 18:26
Maybe the latter are such a small (but admittedly vocal) minority that it doesn't make commercial sense to cater to them specifically? If something's good enough for 90% of the customers, its probably good enough.

Good point and I think that's exactly what it boils down to. The hardcore, tournament types more than likely make such a small portion of sales it only make sense to spend more time/effort/money on the miniatures, fluff and hobby. If the number of people whom throw tantrums online are a semi-true representation of the other side...well, why should they waste their time?

Stingray_tm
15-08-2008, 18:27
Maybe the latter are such a small (but admittedly vocal) minority that it doesn't make commercial sense to cater to them specifically? If something's good enough for 90% of the customers, its probably good enough.

You don't need to "cater to them specifically", you just need to not be lazy. You need to deliver a good product. (Which is the case, when the rules are solid, fair and make fun). Otherwise it is a bad product (at least IMHO).
It's like building a car without airbags. You can do that, and it probably will save the company a lot of money. I mean, why should the implement such a thing, considering how few people are affected by it, compared to the other customers?

There is something that is called work ethics, which may be something unexplainable for turbo-capitalists, maybe.
In my work, i constantly am disgusted on how inferiour a product i have to deliver (no i won't tell you, what i do), just because some executive idiots decided about the budget restraints, before doing an analysis on the work required to get a good product on the street. It's something i have to live with, but i don't say: "It's good enough." In my eyes it's not.

I expect from GW to try their best (under the cicrumstances, whatever they may be), but now GW has publicly stated, that they don't even try and people applaud them? WTF?

Brother Loki
15-08-2008, 19:11
That's not what they've stated at all. In fact what they've stated is what their design goals were, which was to make a cinematic, fun game. If they've achieved that, its a quality product. If they haven't, its not.

As it happens, there are some areas I feel they took the wrong direction with 5th ed. I'm a big fan of 4th ed's area terrain rules, and I feel that the issues with them could have been sorted by simply adding more height levels, but I'm not going to let that stop me enjoying pushing toy soldiers around with my mates.

jstill
15-08-2008, 19:27
There is something that is called work ethics, which may be something unexplainable for turbo-capitalists, maybe.


You're seriously accusing GW of being unethical because they put out a product you aren't happy with?!

nomadimp
15-08-2008, 19:37
I expect from GW to try their best (under the cicrumstances, whatever they may be), but now GW has publicly stated, that they don't even try and people applaud them? WTF?

Um, perhaps you should reread the quote. Nowhere do I see Alessio state that GW wont try to make a good game, quite the opposite, he is saying that they are trying to make a better co-operative game.

You are saying that someone who sets out to make a hammer is lazy because with just a little bit more work they could make a hammer that could also put in a screw or drill a hole or... You can't blame someone who makes hammers (or warhammers) for not making a swiss army knife. That's not what they are trying to do. If you want a swiss army knife, then you should go buy one instead of standing there with your hammer in hand complaining about how poorly your hammer drills holes. It is even more ridiculous that you are even especially upset over the fact that your new hammer is somehow worse at drilling holes than your old hammer (which, I might add, you still have and can use whenever you want, however you want).

I'm not going to sit here and say that the game is perfect by any means, what I, and others, are "applauding" is that GW is saying "we are going to try and make our hammers better at hammering in the future despite the fact that some people seem to be mistaking them for screwdrivers."

Yes, you are free to drill holes, put in screws, dig holes and generally do whatever you are able to with your hammers. But surely, you can see that it is patently absurd to complain that something performs poorly at doing something that it isn't designed to do?

What is so wrong with a niche hobby focusing on its niche??

insaniak
15-08-2008, 21:02
The game should be designed to enable BOTH groups to get what they want.

It should?

Why?

If a car company releases a small, petrol-efficient, city-hopping hatchback, do you see off-road enthusiasts complaining that the company should have made a car that was small and fuel-efficient and usable as an 8-seater off-road vehicle?

Or do the off-road enthusiasts just accept that the car company wanted to release a small hatchback and go buy a different car that's more suited to what they want?

Brother Gabriel
15-08-2008, 21:39
Why dont you poeple just make an "open source" Rulebook online. A game that is playable with 40k Miniatures, uses the same background and templates.
I mean many of you agree, that it cant be that hard to make really mature kid unfriendly rules without loopholes and so on.
This is not meant as trash talk, please prove that you can do it better. Because talk is cheap and i would really like to see a very good complete ruleset for tournamentplay that could become standard for the whole globe ;).
If GW is so bad, then lets make it better!

insaniak
15-08-2008, 21:52
Why dont you poeple just make an "open source" Rulebook online. A game that is playable with 40k Miniatures, uses the same background and templates.

The answer, which was the same answer I was giving for a lot of last edition, will be that people shouldn't have to write their own rules when they've already paid good money for the rules GW wrote.

At some point it occured to me that the problem wasn't actually with the rules that I bought. It's simply with the fact that I was expecting them to be something that GW never intended them to be.

It would be nice if GW put a little more effort into clear rules... (Which, so far as I can see, they actually have done with 5th edition) ... but no matter how much the tournament crown complains, GW are going to write the rules that they want to write. If those aren't the rules that you want to use, then I'm afraid that, as much as people may find the answer distasteful, the answer really is that they're not the rules for you and you would be better off with a different game.



I mean many of you agree, that it cant be that hard to make really mature kid unfriendly rules without loopholes and so on.

Have you actually tried writing a set of wargaming rules?

I have. Turns out that, no, it actually is that hard. Even for a game that's much more simple than 40K, there's an awful lot more to it than it may seem at a glance.

Not saying it's not do-able. Just wouldn't want someone going into such a project thinking that it's just a case of slapping some rules down on a page and turning it loose on the public.

Wording that seems clear to the person writing it will quite often have a completely different meaning to someone else. Every rule you write down seems to spawn the need for 7 more to explain how that first rule works in given situations. And adding multiple writers in just confounds the issue even further, since they'll all want certain things to work different ways...



And, of course, setting your own game in GW's background and making it available to the gaming community is going to have their legal team clubbing you over the head with their briefcases in less time than you can say 'Squig!'

Geddonight
15-08-2008, 22:26
Insaniak, every time you post you're making more and more sense to me (and who said forum discussions were useless).

But let's go back to the "no worries" vs. "serious & rigid" rules groups.

I might as well play with the established metaphors--they work.

When a good chunk of us are discussing having "tighter rulesets" that are more conducive to competitive play, we're not asking a little economy hatchback to become an offroad vehicle; we're asking to make sure the car is in alignment, the breaks work well, the airbags function, and the handy dandy GPS mapping system works so we can get to the GW shoppe on time.

Nor are we asking for rules that are a swiss army knife or a screw driver. We're fine with a (war)hammer. We like hammering things. We just wish the head wouldn't wobble whenever we swing to drive nails into the skulls of our victi--er... opponents...

Now, I'm of the firm belief that the 5th ed rules are a LOT tighter than 4th. I think GW is going in the right direction for the most part. I also like that Alessio gave that caveat. 40k is a WIP and I understand; I just want to make sure that the studio keeps working to make the best ruleset that is conducive to smooth, fun, and efficient play.

insaniak
15-08-2008, 22:37
Insaniak, every time you post you're making more and more sense to me

Be afraid. Be very afraid...

:)



I just want to make sure that the studio keeps working to make the best ruleset that is conducive to smooth, fun, and efficient play.

And I strongly believe that's entirely their intention, particularly when you consider what a huge improvement the 5th edition rulebook is over the last one.

People have blown the original comment way out of proportion, taking it as some sort of 'admission' from GW that they won't even try to write decent rules in the future, when all they're really saying is 'Don't be a jerk when you come across a problem in the rules. This game is written as much for the hobby as for the game, and that's the way it is best played.'

That's not GW trying to insult anyone by dictating that they can only play the game the way GW says to play it. It's simply GW designing a game to fit the way that they want to play.

Adra
15-08-2008, 23:21
I'll agree that the majority of games will be based on having fun over winning...well i hope so....its more the feeling that the fun is forced thats whats irksome.

GW make good games and the rules are fine overall, but by saying over and over and over that the game is about fun...fun fun funny fun fun....it just starts to do two things.

1. It makes you wonder why all this talk of fun? Whats wrong with the rules that they have to keep falling back on the fun? Maybe nothing right....but hold on, im having some problem with this rule here and all i get are cries of "its just for fun" and no solution to my rules problem.

2. I can make my own fun with your game thank you very much and i dont need some marketing department puppet telling me otherwise. Make the rules solid ,make nice models and then shut up...we will all get along alot better.

The biggest issue i have with this is that ive read most of the 5th now and it seems pretty good. a great set of rules in fact. trouble is if we find a problem how do we solve it if the best GW can come up with is "its not broken...nope not broken at all....stop being an anal ***** and have fun with it instead of fretting over the actual rules." Would be nice to have rules without issues or at least a company that was ready to solve them instead of accusing thouse that do notice the rule holes as being funless gibbons out to spoil it for everyone.

Pacific
16-08-2008, 00:09
People have blown the original comment way out of proportion, taking it as some sort of 'admission' from GW that they won't even try to write decent rules in the future, when all they're really saying is 'Don't be a jerk when you come across a problem in the rules. This game is written as much for the hobby as for the game, and that's the way it is best played.'

That's not GW trying to insult anyone by dictating that they can only play the game the way GW says to play it. It's simply GW designing a game to fit the way that they want to play.

I agree with this completely.

I think that GW proved with 4th edition that making a completely water-tight set of rules, with tournament play in mind, was an impossible task. No matter the careful wording, the strict controls and limits on the game, the cheese lists still appeared and the rules were still taken out of context.

I think that perhaps the penalties of trying to apply this kind of design philosophy was obstructing peoples use of imagination and fun within the game, and this has been recognised by the design team - they used line of sight as one example, but one might equally use the ability to ram another vehicle. Yes, I noticed that the topic, "I Killed everything with my ramming falcon LOL" cropping up on this forum straight away, but for every person who exploits these rules and makes a point of doing something daft, I can guarantee you there will be 10 who have a great time, with a nailbiting final shot of the game taking out a character in a building window, or perhaps a last gasp ram by a desperate player trying to take out that gun before it can destroy his unit in the final turn.

These are things only made possible by creating a greater space for the player within the game - yes, it will upset those who regularly play opponents within tournaments or else don't play the same people regularly, but I'm quite sure that these are a minority, and in purely utilitarian terms GW has done the right thing here by opening up the game to greater room for improvisation by the player.

insaniak
16-08-2008, 00:13
I'll agree that the majority of games will be based on having fun over winning...well i hope so....its more the feeling that the fun is forced thats whats irksome.

It's not 'forced'

I'm not sure that's even possible.

Again, all they're saying is that the game is intended to be played a certain way, because that's the way that they consider the most fun. You don't have to agree.



1. It makes you wonder why all this talk of fun?

Because they want the game to be fun?



but hold on, im having some problem with this rule here and all i get are cries of "its just for fun" and no solution to my rules problem.

Huh?

You've been given a solution: Talk it over with your opponent.

And another: roll a die for it.

Two solutions right there.




2. I can make my own fun with your game thank you very much and i dont need some marketing department puppet telling me otherwise.

So do that, then.

Why are you so upset at the idea of them telling you that they write the game to be played in the spirit of friendly co-operation if you're going to ignore it and play the way you want anyway?

Templar Ben
16-08-2008, 00:36
I agree with this completely.

I think that GW proved with 4th edition that making a completely water-tight set of rules, with tournament play in mind, was an impossible task. No matter the careful wording, the strict controls and limits on the game, the cheese lists still appeared and the rules were still taken out of context.

I think that perhaps the penalties of trying to apply this kind of design philosophy was obstructing peoples use of imagination and fun within the game, and this has been recognised by the design team - they used line of sight as one example, but one might equally use the ability to ram another vehicle. Yes, I noticed that the topic, "I Killed everything with my ramming falcon LOL" cropping up on this forum straight away, but for every person who exploits these rules and makes a point of doing something daft, I can guarantee you there will be 10 who have a great time, with a nailbiting final shot of the game taking out a character in a building window, or perhaps a last gasp ram by a desperate player trying to take out that gun before it can destroy his unit in the final turn.

These are things only made possible by creating a greater space for the player within the game - yes, it will upset those who regularly play opponents within tournaments or else don't play the same people regularly, but I'm quite sure that these are a minority, and in purely utilitarian terms GW has done the right thing here by opening up the game to greater room for improvisation by the player.

Actually they proved nothing of the sort. They demonstrated perhaps that they lack the skill in house to do so but it is hardly impossible.

Master Stark
16-08-2008, 00:52
People aren't upset that GW wants to make a narrative game. Thats cool.

What people are upset with is that GW can (and no doubt will) use that as an excuse to make ambiguous, restrictive rules and unbalanced units because they can't be bothered making a tight product.

The only reason a narrative game can't be a competitive game is because the rules and units are poorly constructed.


what I, and others, are "applauding" is that GW is saying "we are going to try and make our hammers better at hammering in the future despite the fact that some people seem to be mistaking them for screwdrivers."

To stick with the hammer analogy:

GW is making their hammers with loose handles, soft metal heads, and weak joins. You can hammer with them, but because of the poor construction you need to be very careful and gentle.

Adra
16-08-2008, 00:56
Why are you so upset at the idea of them telling you that they write the game to be played in the spirit of friendly co-operation if you're going to ignore it and play the way you want anyway?

I question their motives.

nomadimp
16-08-2008, 01:27
Actually they proved nothing of the sort. They demonstrated perhaps that they lack the skill in house to do so but it is hardly impossible.

With the question of whether or not it is possible aside, the real question is whether or not such a thing is desirable enough to throw resources at when a very simple solution ("be civil when playing the game") is already in place.

Say that GW puts their best and brightest to the task of creating a 40k ruleset with the competative calibur of Chess while somehow retaining the openness to customization and personalization and the focus on creating cinematic narratives-- something that would be no small feat (I suggest that you sit down and try it for yourself for a bit if you don't believe me).

Now lets look at what they will have gained: a small minority of their playerbase is now happier. Of course they won't have made a dent in the Chess market (sorry, but they aren't going to steal players away from Chess) and they won't have made a dent in the historical wargaming market (because those people are in it for the history). Just who, exactly, are they directing this colossal effort at??

Again, I would like to note that I believe that 40k has room for improvement, and that the designers at GW have and will work hard to improve the game. However, what Alessio is making clear, is exactly what they hope to improve (the co-operative aspects of the game) and what they believe there is no market for (an ultra-competative tabletop pseudo-sport). Maybe they are wrong, and there is a nascent tabletop pseudo-sport market out there, but the games that actually are trying to provide that kind of service arent really blockbusters just yet.

shakespear
16-08-2008, 01:37
GW doesn't have the luxury of being able to produce weekly patches for it's games. They don't have the staff on hand to do that AND develop new product and support Old Product.





LIES!

Other companies do it! With less resources!

Can be done:

A forum, with "official" answers

FAQs updated monthly, with REAL questions

Gensuke626
16-08-2008, 02:23
LIES!

Other companies do it! With less resources!

Can be done:

A forum, with "official" answers

FAQs updated monthly, with REAL questions

"LIES!"? Seriously? That's how you're going to start your response? Might as well have just posted "STFU Noobzor" I mean honestly. Are you 12 or something?

But to take your idea into account let's look at what would be needed to do this.

GW would need to create and maintain a forum for it's use. That would most likely mean that it would have to pay a hosting company for use of it's forums since we KNOW that if they did that, they'd have a great deal of Traffic on an hourly basis.

They would then need to get forum moderators. Most of these would be volunteers but they'd also need to employ on staff administrators to ensure that the moderators don't abuse their power and to raise people to the Moderator status in the first place.

On top of these site administrators and moderators, they would also need to hire and maintain offical judges of some sort who can get together and answer all rules based questions. They'd need more than 1 because if they only employed 1 then we would all have to play by the rulings of a single person who may still misinterpret the rules. 4 would be optimal.

These 4 Rules Judges would need to convene on a weekly or sometimes daily basis to discuss rules interpretations, possible intent, and would also need to be able to meet with the Dev team atleast twice a month to field such questions with the required accuracy.

Then there's the issue of distributing the FAQs and Errata. Their options are to stick it in the White Dwarf (which not everyone buys), put it on the website (Which not everyone can access) or to make an errata book every few months (Which costs money to print and would largely be reprinting the same material over and over again.)

In the mean time, GW would also have to continue to Develop new Codexes and new ideas for the next edition of all supported games, write WD articles, sculpt new figures, Manufacture and disribute said codexes, rulebooks and figures, have the staff for customer support and keep it's various official store locations up and running.

All while the price of oil rises world wide, the US enters a recession, they're in the middle of corprate restructureing, and they're in the middle of recovering from 2-3 years of not meeting their projected earning goals.

Still sound easy and feasible to you shakespear?

Templar Ben
16-08-2008, 03:02
It was wrong to say lies. I would have been much more accurate to say wrong. You obviously think it would be very difficult to have the FAQ updated every week for a given army (they have 20 or so) and that could be done.

Here is how I would do it.

Have FAQ email addresses for each army and then one for each rulebook. Something like 40KFAQ@gw.com, FantasyFAQ@gw.com, etc. Then three weeks before that army is due to be FAQed the emails are consolidated into what people are asking. Some are not going to be real questions (Why did you nerf my terminators?) and some are going to be asked multiple times. One person can do this easily over three weeks. The questions are then presented to the designer of that army (if still on staff) and two others in a Friday afternoon meeting. They answer their gut instinct of how the rule should work.

The FAQ is formatted with the previous FAQ and published online by Monday.

Will other questions come up due to those answers? Sure. They will address those in time. In time they will learn to answer fully.

There is no need to publish them hard copy. If you can't get online then you are most likely not in a group where that matters. The FAQ would be too large to publish in WD but it would make sense to have a "Designer's Notes" in the WD so that people can understand the reasons. That way people can figure out how it is supposed to be played.

They won't do it though. Age of Strife had a get together at WHW and Tim spoke at length with Jervis. They have a view of the game that precludes the need for FAQ for the most part. I can quote portions of the conversation but in short he said that we should presume that they already know about the loopholes and if there is no FAQ then play it that way even if it seems wonky.

It is definitely doable for minimal cost but it is contrary to the vision of the company so it is not going to happen.

Master Stark
16-08-2008, 03:06
colossal effort

:eyebrows:

We aren't exactly talking about building the Brooklyn bridge here dude.

Taking the ambiguity out of the rules, proper unit testing and balancing accordingly is hardly a colossal effort.

And if you don't think having a tight and balanced rule-set would increase GWs player base, you're nuts.

shakespear
16-08-2008, 03:12
"LIES!"? Seriously? That's how you're going to start your response? Might as well have just posted "STFU Noobzor" I mean honestly. Are you 12 or something?

But to take your idea into account let's look at what would be needed to do this.

GW would need to create and maintain a forum for it's use. That would most likely mean that it would have to pay a hosting company for use of it's forums since we KNOW that if they did that, they'd have a great deal of Traffic on an hourly basis.

They would then need to get forum moderators. Most of these would be volunteers but they'd also need to employ on staff administrators to ensure that the moderators don't abuse their power and to raise people to the Moderator status in the first place.

On top of these site administrators and moderators, they would also need to hire and maintain offical judges of some sort who can get together and answer all rules based questions. They'd need more than 1 because if they only employed 1 then we would all have to play by the rulings of a single person who may still misinterpret the rules. 4 would be optimal.

These 4 Rules Judges would need to convene on a weekly or sometimes daily basis to discuss rules interpretations, possible intent, and would also need to be able to meet with the Dev team atleast twice a month to field such questions with the required accuracy.

Then there's the issue of distributing the FAQs and Errata. Their options are to stick it in the White Dwarf (which not everyone buys), put it on the website (Which not everyone can access) or to make an errata book every few months (Which costs money to print and would largely be reprinting the same material over and over again.)

In the mean time, GW would also have to continue to Develop new Codexes and new ideas for the next edition of all supported games, write WD articles, sculpt new figures, Manufacture and disribute said codexes, rulebooks and figures, have the staff for customer support and keep it's various official store locations up and running.

All while the price of oil rises world wide, the US enters a recession, they're in the middle of corprate restructureing, and they're in the middle of recovering from 2-3 years of not meeting their projected earning goals.

Still sound easy and feasible to you shakespear?



1. they had a forum, that they thought would be full of "narative campaigns" turns out it was rule questions/bitching, go figure

2. they dont need mods, just one rules guy, like battlefront and PP have

3. why not ask the person who wrote said "rules"

4. why not do all 3? or save yourself some trouble by writing a "tight" rule system (see PP and battlefront for help)

5. boo hoo, its hard making tons of cash, surely cost can be made up by selling overpriced resin?

6. according to this thread the US makes up less than 20% of overall sales or someshit, so why does that matter? Besides if you can afford GW now, you can afford it no matter what.

7. yes it does, it just requires realizing you dont work for Wizards and some people actually play your "rules" to win.

Rioghan Murchadha
16-08-2008, 03:16
Say that GW puts their best and brightest to the task of creating a 40k ruleset with the competative calibur of Chess while somehow retaining the openness to customization and personalization and the focus on creating cinematic narratives-- something that would be no small feat (I suggest that you sit down and try it for yourself for a bit if you don't believe me).


I'm sorry? We need weak rulesets to create cinematic narratives? I can't remember the last time I watched a movie where someone was able to see one guy, shot him a bunch of times and the other 9 members of his squad died. (Other than old John Wayne movies where he'd fire once, and 6 indians (sorry, First Nations people) would fall out of the saddle.)

"But Wait!" you say. "Those LoS/Casualty removal rules are to represent the abstract notion that the squad was shot at while moving into cover, or something!" (wow.. you can say ass but not b011ocks) I say, since they work the same for a squad that hasn't moved the whole game as for one that moved into the cover/behind the wall last turn.

Having a tight ruleset wouldn't stop fluff or narrative players from playing the same game they always have. What it would do, is make it easier to play a pickup game without dealing with ambiguous or badly worded rules causing potential issues. This would also obviously be a boon to the tourney crowd, regardless of what sort of minority they are.

Better rules help everyone and hinder no-one. It's also not a collossal effort. Privateer manages 9 factions with a much tighter ruleset, pretty much constant new releases, a continually updated, relevant FAQ, and a MUCH smaller team than GW.

insaniak
16-08-2008, 06:48
What people are upset with is that GW can (and no doubt will) use that as an excuse to make ambiguous, restrictive rules and unbalanced units because they can't be bothered making a tight product.

So, to summarise:
1) GW release the most clearly written rulebook 40K has ever had.
2) Shortly after, the guy who wrote that book mentions that the game is intended to be played in the spirit of co-operative fun rather than to be uber-competitive.
3) You're worried that this means that they'll stop trying to write clear rules.

Frankly, I don't see how 3 follows 1.

If the 5th ed rulebook was a shoddy effort, you might have a valid concern. But it's not. Whatever opinions people may have about particular rules in the new edition, the actual writing of those rules is the clearest I've ever seen from GW.

On the strength of that, I think it's fairly safe to assume that they are, in fact, putting some effort in.

Stingray_tm
16-08-2008, 07:00
So, to summarise:
1) GW release the most clearly written rulebook 40K has ever had.


If everything so clear and balanced, then why does this happen:

1. There are armies out there, that give 20 KP and others 8 KPs.
2. My Lictor has to take a dangerous terrain test, when dsing into terrain, unless it is impassable, where he does not have to.
3. Spore Mines give kill points. Or don't they?
4. Tau Drones give kill points. Or don't they?
5. Hormagaunts can't enter top levels of ruins, while their slower Gaunt brothers can. (Which makes absolutely no sense and is obviously a frakk up of GW)

Also "clear" does not mean "balanced", "realistic" or "fair". See kill points. Or the idiotic damage thingy with 9 guys in a bunker, who can still be shot. There is no real balance reason i can think of, that demands this rule.

These are not problems of the rulebook but of the codex? Maybe. But then i expect one of those two things from GW:
A. Take those problems into account and adress them in the rulebook by writing appropriate rules.
OR
B. Release FAQs, that adress those problems.

GW has failed to do any of those. Their new FAQs were really disapointing. They did adress only very few of the issues in connection with 5th. Instead we got answers for questions, we waited for several years (in 4th edition) and some of the answers overwrote earlier answers (which made more sense) by the same company.

And by the way: The "colossal effort" needed by GW to increase quality. Laughable! I have read some of the new translated stuff from GW in German. And the amount of translation errors or just idiotic slip ups is gigantic. They obviously have NO proof reading. Hell, i would volunteer to correct their translated books for free in my spare time, all they needed is to let me keep my copy of the book. Even i would get better results. Some things are so obvious, like a spelling error on the COVER of a Codex. ("Kodeex Orks"...)
This is the state, GW currently is in.

insaniak
16-08-2008, 07:18
If everything so clear and balanced, then why does this happen:

...

I never said that the rules are perfect. All I said was that it's the most clearly written rulebook so far, which I take as a sign that they are still working to improve the rules rather than, as proposed by some in this thread, just let them slide and claim that it's all 'just for fun'...



Also "clear" does not mean "balanced", "realistic" or "fair".

I don't recall claiming that it did.



Or the idiotic damage thingy with 9 guys in a bunker, who can still be shot.

Sorry, what? Bunkers are classed as buildings. You can't shoot the models inside.

Master Stark
16-08-2008, 07:21
So, to summarise:
1) GW release the most clearly written rulebook 40K has ever had.
2) Shortly after, the guy who wrote that book mentions that the game is intended to be played in the spirit of co-operative fun rather than to be uber-competitive.
3) You're worried that this means that they'll stop trying to write clear rules.

Frankly, I don't see how 3 follows 1.

I suppose it doesn't. I'm not upset about the current trend GW is taking. I like the streamlined, simplified new codexes, and I like the 5th ed changes. However, there is still ambiguity and imbalance in the rules and I am worried that a future trend will emerge where GW doesn't worry itself about those ambiguities or imbalances because they are developing a 'narrative' game.

El'Flashman
16-08-2008, 08:27
Do you feel the same?

No because that heights thing was garbage and TLOS is a lot simpler. If that aforementioned **** were to go, 'Umm you can't shoot that' then please tell me what's easier than drawing a bead on it with a fricking laser?!

Pacific
16-08-2008, 22:58
Great quote from another thread on this forum, straight from the horses mouth so to speak:


some people will be gits - just say "yes"
this is a 2 parter. first of all, the studio tried to write the rules tighter and tighter, and more precise, in order to defeat those that would look for loopholes to abuse, but realised that no matter what they did such players would just try harder and exploit something else instead. so they decided not to bother to pander to such players, and write the rules in a more relaxed fashion (less legalese), instead writing the rules for players willing to work with their opponents to make the game work for them both.
(curiously however the later books seem to have been better written from a RaW-technicality standpoint...)
the second point is that if you are playing someone who wants to push the rules or take liberties, then it is better to just give in and get on with the game, rather than argue with them. Jervis told us a story about when Alessio joined the studio: Alessio was a competitive tournament winner, but was afraid that unless his attitude changed at events then he would bring the studio into disrepute. Jervis' advice to him was to "Just say yes" whenever something came up in a game. Alessio tried it, and while he finished far lower in the rankings than normal (near the middle, rather than at the top), he had much more fun and slept easily that night (where as normally he would have been stressed out). so there we have it: "just say yes"!

shakespear
17-08-2008, 00:26
first of all, the studio tried to write the rules tighter and tighter, and more precise, in order to defeat those that would look for loopholes to abuse, but realised that no matter what they did such players would just try harder and exploit something else instead

thats just not true, its not people that are exploiting rules that are the problem, the problem is no CLEAR answer to questions (sometimes odd ones) that come up in a game

other companies are able to write rulesets that dont have the problems that GW has...

CthulhuDalek
17-08-2008, 00:36
No matter the ruleset, powergamers and other assorted a**holes will find ways to suck the fun out of it faster than one can imagine by looking for easter eggs and loopholes in the rules and put together combinations that never occured to the army designers.

That being said, I don't see much of a problem with the designers assuming that gamers will play in a friendly way. It is a game. Let's have fun. Sure you will get jerks and not every game will be a a crazy, xany, bundle of joy, but i believe on the whole the expectation is that people will play the game in a polite and friendly manner, even at tournament level. I approve that this expectation, that the game be played in a polite and friendly manner is actually verbalized in Alessio's quote.

@ Stingray
Actually i dont think GW is excusing anything, i think they are just stating the direction and intent of the game....to have fun. Narrative focus, not competitive focus. That isn't a "bad" game necessarily, though admittedly that boils down to preference.

Exactly!

I have friends whose decisions during a game(including force selection) is based on themes that they consider "fun" to play with. One of my other friends is an extremely competitive player. I don't think I have ever seen him lose a game--he uses every possible tactic a 'nid player can throw out there in regard to assault-- but he is probably the most fun to play with and he usually makes "honourable" decisions which reflect the idea of having fun rather than powergaming.

CthulhuDalek
17-08-2008, 00:48
Actually, I think it goes more like this:

Player 1: "This unit is undercosted! It absolutely carves through my Guard army. GW should tone it down because it's unbalanced."
Player 2: "Really? It doesn't seem undercosted when I use it against SM. In fact, it's probably a tad overcosted IMHO."

GW: "We're going to raise the cost of the unit."

Player 2: "WTF? What are GW on? If anything, it should've been dropped in price. Thanks GW for making it even harder to use my army."
Player 1: "Well if you played against Guard more, you'd be alright."
Player 2: "Easy for you to say. There's no Guard armies in my area."
Player 1: "That's not my fault if everyone near you plays SM."

GW: "After careful consideration, we're going to lower the cost of this unit."

Player 1: "WTF? But my Guard are screwed."
Player 2: "Good job GW. But you didn't go far enough. It's still overcosted. It needs to work better against SM."

GW: "We've decided to compromise and split the difference, but add this new ability."

Player 1: "Still too cheap."
Player 2: "Still too expensive. I still get owned by SM."
Player 3: "Now my army is screwed due to the new ability. Good one GW."
Player 4: "But the fluff says..."

GW: "OK, OK, so you tell us. How do we make you all happy?"

Player 1: "Make it more expensive."
Player 2: "Make it less expensive."
Player 3: "Neither, just lose the new ability. It was fine as it was."
Player 4: "But the fluff says..."
Player 2: "Sod the fluff! Who cares about fluff? It still costs too much."
Player 1: "You need to learn to play better."
Player 2: "No you need to learn to play better."
Player 1: "I've won more tournaments than you've had hot dinners."
Player 2: "Powergamer."
Player 3: "Why do they keep changing stuff that doesn't need changing? GW just want to sell more models."

GW: "Screw it. No matter what we do, someone's always going to complain. So sort it out yourselves."

Player 1: "Surely you can do something."

GW: "You're right. We reset the whole game system from scratch. New rules. New codices."

Player 1: "Now my army's unusable. I need to redo everything from scratch. Screw you GW!"
Player 2: "Sucked in. I love this new ruleset."
Player 3: "How long til I get my new codex."

GW: "About five years."

Player 3: "Screw you GW!"
Player 4: "But the fluff says..."

ahahahahahahaha yup.

The_Outsider
17-08-2008, 00:49
5th ed is what 3rd ed should've been.

The biggest flaw to the previous 2 editions (especially 4th) was that they kind of assumed you knew how to play, thus leading to massive holes which experienced players wouldn't bat an eyelid over but those looking for holes or those genuinely looking for answers would find a whole swathe of things not answered properly or with ambigous meanings etc.

5th ed is the tightest 40k ruleset yet because GW have written it from a new player's perspective, not from a 10 year vets like most of the studio devs are.

nomadimp
17-08-2008, 00:52
I'm sorry? We need weak rulesets to create cinematic narratives?

Where, exactly, did I, or anyone, advocate a weak ruleset? Nor do I claim that the current set is somehow flawless. The point is that the rules are weak at what? Weak at facilitating competition. Who cares about competition? Not the vast majority of their customers, that's who. Should the ruleset get stronger? Yes, definitely, I wholeheartedly agree. What should it get stronger at? Generating narratives of course.


Having a tight ruleset wouldn't stop fluff or narrative players from playing the same game they always have. What it would do, is make it easier to play a pickup game without dealing with ambiguous or badly worded rules causing potential issues.

Bad wording is bad. I'm not, and have not, been saying that it is good. Wording should be improved where possible. Games should be easy to understand and play. None of this has anything to do with competition. If the game is perfectly worded, completely lucid and still intended for (and thus directed at) narrative gaming would you be happy?



Better rules help everyone and hinder no-one. It's also not a collossal effort. Privateer manages 9 factions with a much tighter ruleset, pretty much constant new releases, a continually updated, relevant FAQ, and a MUCH smaller team than GW.

What do you mean by "better"? Better at what? If it is better at doing something that I don't care about, well then, yeah, it is better, but I still don't care. Neither I, nor Alessio, nor any sane person in this thread is saying that GW will stop trying to make a better game. What he isimplying is that they will be focusing on the part of the game that matters the most to the most people (the narrative). I am saying this is a sound plan that does not worry me at all.

Why do I think this? Well firstly, I believe that it is in sync with the spirit of the game that I've been playing (and buying) for a long time now. Secondly, it is about what kind of community you want to be building. Do you really want to be introducing new customers into an ultra-competative cut-throat environment that they are going to derive little to no enjoyment from? Or do you want to introduce them into a co-operative, helpful environment that they are going to be able to participate in in a meaningful way right off the bat? I'm not saying that you can't have both groups playing one game system, just that there are good business reasons for wanting to make sure that the ultra-competative group is substantially smaller than the co-operative group.

Master Stark
17-08-2008, 01:04
Should the ruleset get stronger? Yes, definitely, I wholeheartedly agree. What should it get stronger at? Generating narratives of course.

Can't argue with that.

But what does that mean? How does a rules-set generate narrative?

It's impossible to eliminate competitiveness from the game. At the very heart of it, 40K is about crushing your opponents army, driving his models before you, and hearing the lamentations of his women.

So I think it's important to define exactly what we mean by 'narrative' and competitive. Ultra competitive high-tier tournament games still have narrative, and even the most relaxed, unbalanced scenario game is still competitive.

IMO, the rules could be better (in this sense) by having less ambiguity, less contradiction, and by the studio being more responsive to gamers needs. I'm worried that 'for narrative games and not competition' will result in a paradigm shift where the designers stop caring about ambiguities, unlcear issues, contraditions and incompatabilities are left by the wayside because the studio expects us to sort any issues out by ourselves.

They could also be better by being more intuitive (which would greatly increase the narrative appeal of the game) but that would require an almost complete overhaul of the system.

Takitron
17-08-2008, 04:14
I have not read the whole thread, so forgive me if I repeat other people

I picked up the game in 4th edition, but I hung out with a lot of people who have been playing for years. One of the first thoughts I had was GW should take a strong look at Magic the Gathering, and model itself after their DCI. Magic produces TONS of cards that interact with each other in very strange ways, but they are almost ALL covered in their free comprehensive rules. It lays out in very clearly defined definitions how things work, in which order they go in, and backs it ALL up with very regular Faqs and updates.

They have an online resource called Gatherer, it lists every card they have made plus all errata and ruling for it. If there ever is a question on what a card does, we fire it up and check to most recent printing (errata) and look at the rulings made on that card. Their design team puts out TONS of cards every year, and somehow keep things going smoothly.

Not only do they put out sets that gets every casual player super excited about, they also have a VERY robust international, national, and local tournament scene. they also give away LOTS OF MONEY at these events (I know a guy who bagged $20K at Worlds). One of the ways they get this done is they have a judgeship program. The people who work the tournaments are tested for their rules knowledge by a higher level judge, and in order to judge at the larger events, you have to be a higher ranking. As with all things, some judges get things wrong, and while it can affect a single game, usually that ruling is discussed and either changed or made more official by people with more rules knowledge. This is then quickly disseminated through the player base.

If Wizards of the coast can do this, why cant GW? Is their design team too good to get involved in clearing up the very things they have written? There are PLENTY of legitimate questions that pop up everywhere, and it would do them a great service to address them. The problem with this is they have shown that they would rather you make up your own rule rather than ensure their vision is understood by all. That is assuming that their vision IS a tight rule set that everyone can agree on. It could very well be they WANT you to just make it up and take ownership, but that leads to fractured communities. The game is big time now, its fine to want to take the game back to your childhood where you played on the kitchen table, but that cant happen. Clean up the rules, vastly improve FAQs and communication, and get everyone playing on the same page. This is all anyone ever really wants, consistency

Chaos and Evil
17-08-2008, 07:41
If Wizards of the coast can do this, why cant GW? Is their design team too good to get involved in clearing up the very things they have written?

It's all down to the target market ; 99.99% of Warhammer 40,000 games are not Tournament style games, they are friendly style games played by 10-14 year-olds who probably don't even know most of the rules. They will simply never come across the kind of rules debates that tournament-style gamers debate, and if they do they just make up a new rule on the spot to patch over the gap...

...The simple fact is that if you want a tournament-ready wargame set in the 41st millenium, you should play Epic (I mean, the standard 'meeting engagement' scenario in that game is called the 'Tournament Scenario'... how much more balance-concious can a wargame be?).

If you want a fun time with your 28/30mm miniatures, then play Warhammer 40,000 (And Warhammer 40,000 is a lot of fun)... but it doesn't have razor-sharp balance, and due to the main target demographic, combined with the legacy of running the game off of a game engine first designed in the 80's, it can never be a truly balanced tournament style wargame (Like Epic).

Logarithm Udgaur
17-08-2008, 12:18
So far as I know, Epic (called Space Marine back then) came out only a few years after Rogue Trader, Rogue Trader being exponentially better than the current 40K. The main problem is that it takes dedication to play, and is not just a quick romp in the model jungle. My point being that if Epic has been balanced so well in the intervening years, why has 40K not been? Particularly when Epic has been allowed less time and editions to get it right.

Rioghan Murchadha
17-08-2008, 15:37
Where, exactly, did I, or anyone, advocate a weak ruleset? Nor do I claim that the current set is somehow flawless. The point is that the rules are weak at what? Weak at facilitating competition. Who cares about competition? Not the vast majority of their customers, that's who. Should the ruleset get stronger? Yes, definitely, I wholeheartedly agree. What should it get stronger at? Generating narratives of course.
Currently the rules are weak at making sense, and avoiding 'robust discussion' about wording and loopholes.


Bad wording is bad. I'm not, and have not, been saying that it is good. Wording should be improved where possible. Games should be easy to understand and play. None of this has anything to do with competition. If the game is perfectly worded, completely lucid and still intended for (and thus directed at) narrative gaming would you be happy?
Damn skippy I would. I'm probably half competitive and half narrative gamer, so I'd love a perfectly worded ruleset that bent towards narrative scenario gaming. The zen state of the rules would make it so that within the scope of the scenario I could try my best to win without dealing with stupid arguments and such.


What do you mean by "better"? Better at what? If it is better at doing something that I don't care about, well then, yeah, it is better, but I still don't care. Neither I, nor Alessio, nor any sane person in this thread is saying that GW will stop trying to make a better game. What he isimplying is that they will be focusing on the part of the game that matters the most to the most people (the narrative). I am saying this is a sound plan that does not worry me at all.
Perhaps you won't care, but all the people that play 40k in tournaments and such WILL care, and you won't even be affected. How is that not good? I personally think they could take the stupid recycled half retconned fluff section out of the main rulebook, cut the size in half and sell it for less than $80 myself, but many of the fluff people would march in the streets, despite the fact that they probably have 7 other books with the same fluff in them.


Why do I think this? Well firstly, I believe that it is in sync with the spirit of the game that I've been playing (and buying) for a long time now. Secondly, it is about what kind of community you want to be building. Do you really want to be introducing new customers into an ultra-competative cut-throat environment that they are going to derive little to no enjoyment from? Or do you want to introduce them into a co-operative, helpful environment that they are going to be able to participate in in a meaningful way right off the bat? I'm not saying that you can't have both groups playing one game system, just that there are good business reasons for wanting to make sure that the ultra-competative group is substantially smaller than the co-operative group.
Given some of the other threads on this forum, the spirit of the game lately seems to be 'rules don't matter' and you're a loser if you don't let your opponent cheat during the game in order to preserve his sense of fun. Unless the original creators of 40k come and tell us what the spirit of the game is, you can only assume it based on what you're presented with. Judging by the rules these last few editions, the spirit of 40k is arguing about damn near everything, and rolling a d6 to resolve said arguments.

It's too bad that most people here seem to game in areas with a large proportion of damaged human beings. I have people in my gaming group that are ultra-ultra-competitive, but I still enjoy playing them because they don't cheat, and it's a test of my ability as a gamer, (and they aren't dicks). I also have friends where I have great games because while it's not as competitive, the game ends up making for a great story to recount later.

Most bad experiences with 'competition' in miniature gaming are a result of socially disfunctional people, rather than the nature of competition itself.

xinsanityx
17-08-2008, 15:38
It's all down to the target market ; 99.99% of Warhammer 40,000 games are not Tournament style games, they are friendly style games played by 10-14 year-olds who probably don't even know most of the rules. They will simply never come across the kind of rules debates that tournament-style gamers debate, and if they do they just make up a new rule on the spot to patch over the gap...

...The simple fact is that if you want a tournament-ready wargame set in the 41st millenium, you should play Epic (I mean, the standard 'meeting engagement' scenario in that game is called the 'Tournament Scenario'... how much more balance-concious can a wargame be?).

If you want a fun time with your 28/30mm miniatures, then play Warhammer 40,000 (And Warhammer 40,000 is a lot of fun)... but it doesn't have razor-sharp balance, and due to the main target demographic, combined with the legacy of running the game off of a game engine first designed in the 80's, it can never be a truly balanced tournament style wargame (Like Epic).

I completely disagree with this. I'd say that about 1/3 of the 40k games played are tournament style games, at least the ones i see, and i see and play ALOT of games. If they aren't actual tournament games then they are practice games for an upcoming tournament.

Another thing i'd like to point out is that you imply the same old cliche that warhammer 40k can't be a fun game if it has tournament tight rules. That's complete bull. It simply boils down to the GW staff being lazy and not wanting to put in the time and energy to make tournament tight rules. If you're just in it for fun you can have fun with a set of tournament tight rules. If you can have fun with tournament tight rules, why not make them, that way both sets of gamers are happy? The only reason you wouldnt is that you're too lazy to put forth the effort.

There's a huge demand for the rules to be tighter. I point you to the rules topic of any forum that deals with warhammer. If you think 99.99% of the people playing are happy with the loosness of the rules because they play friendly games then i think you're sadly mistaken.

nomadimp
17-08-2008, 17:08
Ok, could someone, anyone, please tell me how, exactly, anyone can possibly make a logical connection from what Alessio (or anyone else for that matter) has said (The ruleset is intended for friendly games) to the statement "We at GW do not want to improve our game, because we are lazy." Somewhere in this leap you have completely lost me.

The issue is that when you are playing the game in a non-ultra-competative manner, arguments are simply not a big deal. When they do occur they are easy to resolve quickly with a little common sense and a friendly demeanor. Alessio is saying that the scenario he describes ought to go like so: "Hey, I want to shoot my krak missile at that guy in the window." "Huh, I dont see where in the rulebook it says that I can do that." "Well how about if we just do it and give him a cover save?" "Works for me!"

Rather than the following: "Hey, I want to shoot my krak missile at that guy in the window." "You can't do that (spends 10 minutes digging through rulebook to prove it)" "Well come on, it makes no sense" "No, that is why I put him there in the first place, knowing that he would be safe and letting you shoot at him would be cheating because it would ruin my incredible strategy and then *gasp* I might lose." "Right... oh look at the time, I gotta go."

Am I saying that there shouldn't be rules for shooting krak missiles into windows in the rulebook? No. Nor is Alessio. Quite the opposite.

1. What I am saying is that it is only really an issue when you are being ultra-competative.
2. Most of the players who play the game are (thankfully) not ultra-competative.
3. Doing anything consumes resources that could otherwise be spent elsewhere.
4. Resources should therefore be spent efficiently (improving the game for the greatest number of people).
5. Resources should therefore be spent improving the game for non-competative players.
6. Non-competative players do benefit from clear rules but there are diminishing returns because they simply do not require legal precision in the rules to enjoy the game, nor do they require razor-sharp balance.
7. Resources should therefore be spent improving and clarifying the rules that impact narration and gameflow-- not facilitating competition.

Some people seem to be under the assumption that it would cost GW little to nothing to change the ruleset to make it into a competative game. I believe that they are mistaken. If someone wants to give me a cost analysis or, better yet, sit down and do it for them (because it is really that easy right?), then I will happily change my opinion. As a reference look at the stuff that the guys at the BoLS come up with. It is awesome, but it is definitely not a small task with little effort involved.

Some people seem to believe that resources invested in making a better competative game would be well spent. I believe that the returns on such an investment would be minimal and that GW's limited resources would be much better spent elsewhere (like improving rule clarity, game flow and narration).

Adra
17-08-2008, 17:26
Ok, could someone, anyone, please tell me how, exactly, anyone can possibly make a logical connection from what Alessio (or anyone else for that matter) has said (The ruleset is intended for friendly games) to the statement "We at GW do not want to improve our game, because we are lazy." Somewhere in this leap you have completely lost me.

Concern that it could be used as an excuse for holes, or at least conflicts, in the rules seems to be the main concern. These things can be dealt with on a player level but there is a argument to be made that by pushing a more relaxed attitude towards the game GW can avoid issues around having a water tight rule set. We are talking pretty small conflicts here but all the same.

Its not that hard a leap to make but you have to want it a little bit :)

Chaos and Evil
17-08-2008, 18:37
So far as I know, Epic (called Space Marine back then) came out only a few years after Rogue Trader, Rogue Trader being exponentially better than the current 40K.
I disagree, but do continue. :)

My point being that if Epic has been balanced so well in the intervening years, why has 40K not been? Particularly when Epic has been allowed less time and editions to get it right.

Because Epic didn't have to make the compromises that Warhammer 40,000 has had to make.

Warhammer 40,000 has to serve double-duty both as an introductory-level wargame for young teens, whilst also retaining enough complexity to appeal to 'veteran' wargamers ; Epic only has to serve Veterans.

It's that simple really ; As a 'core' game, Warhammer 40,000 has to make concessions so that kids can understand and play it, whilst Epic has been set free to be its own (More complex/balanced) game system.


I completely disagree with this. I'd say that about 1/3 of the 40k games played are tournament style games, at least the ones i see, and i see and play ALOT of games. If they aren't actual tournament games then they are practice games for an upcoming tournament.

Where do you see those games played?
Answer: At your local games club.

The fact is, the vast, vast, vast majority of games are played by kids aged 10-14 in their own homes, amongst their friends.


Another thing i'd like to point out is that you imply the same old cliche that warhammer 40k can't be a fun game if it has tournament tight rules. That's complete bull.

I say nothing of the sort... I LOVE Warhammer 40,000, and I *know* that it only provides a thin illusion of balance.


There's a huge demand for the rules to be tighter.

There's a huge demand for the rules to be tighter... on the internet. Internet-using GW tournament gamers are a small minority amongst a veritable ocean of kids lining up Space Marines on kitchen tables at home.


If you think 99.99% of the people playing are happy with the loosness of the rules because they play friendly games then i think you're sadly mistaken.

Sadly, your opinion is incorrect. :rolleyes:

Logarithm Udgaur
17-08-2008, 20:20
I disagree, but do continue.
I am guessing you mean the part about Rogue Trader being better than current 40K. Do you have any reasons why you disagree?

Having never played Epic in any of its incarnations (unless Adeptus Mechanicus counts), I really cannot comment on its balance/complexity, but I have heard good things about both.


Where do you see those games played?
Answer: At your local games club.
The fact is, the vast, vast, vast majority of games are played by kids aged 10-14 in their own homes, amongst their friends.

You seem to have some strange insight into where xinsanityx is playin their games, are you stalking them or what. Also, how do you know that the vast majority are 10-14 year olds playing in the kitchen?


Sadly, your opinion is incorrect.
A blanket statement with no supporting evidence or arguement. It must be true.

Chaos and Evil
17-08-2008, 20:53
I am guessing you mean the part about Rogue Trader being better than current 40K. Do you have any reasons why you disagree?

Yeah, Rogue Trader took more time to set up than to play. :p


Having never played Epic in any of its incarnations (unless Adeptus Mechanicus counts), I really cannot comment on its balance/complexity, but I have heard good things about both.

Adeptus Titanicus? A good fun game system.

Epic's current edition (Epic: Armageddon) is both balanced and tactically complex.

Its standard 'meeting engagement' scenario is called the 'Grand Tournament Scenario'... that tells you everything you need to know about how tournament-ready Epic is... that's not to say that it's only a tournament game, only that it adapts itself to the tournament style far more readily than a game like Warhammer 40,000.


how do you know that the vast majority are 10-14 year olds playing in the kitchen?

I have no reason to disbelieve GW's repeated insistence that the vast, vast majority of their gamers are kids aged 10-14, almost none of whom attend tournaments... this age group has always formed the great majority of GW's customers.

To say that '1/3rd of Warhammer 40,000 games played are tournament style games'* in that context is simply wrong.


*I sometimes don't understand why people would want to play Warhammer 40,000 in a tournament environment... not when Epic (Which was actually designed from the ground up as a tournament-suitable game) exists... to me Warhammer 40,000 is a whole barrel of amped-up awesome fun, but playing it in a tournament strikes me as kinda... I dunno... less than awesome?

insaniak
17-08-2008, 21:10
Concern that it could be used as an excuse for holes, or at least conflicts, in the rules seems to be the main concern.

Why do they even need an excuse?

It's their game, they're going to write the rules however they want, regardless of what's said in a podcast.

There's no more or less reason to be concerned on that front than there was before the podcast.





I have no reason to disbelieve GW's repeated insistence that the vast, vast majority of their gamers are kids aged 10-14,

I've seen numerous comments from GW that the majority of their customers are casual gamers. I don't recall having ever seen them put in that age bracket, though.

Gensuke626
17-08-2008, 21:35
1. they had a forum, that they thought would be full of "narative campaigns" turns out it was rule questions/bitching, go figure And whose fault was that? GW's? Or the players?



2. they dont need mods, just one rules guy, like battlefront and PP have
They don't need mods? So what happens when the one rules guy goes to bed and someone spams the forum with ******? What happens when rules arguements with the official rules guy break down into name calling and mudslinging? What happens when some guy from 4chan decides it's a great prank to reply to every single thread on the forum with an attached picture of Child Pornography?

They don't need mods...sure...


3. why not ask the person who wrote said "rules"
Because person who wrote said rules is probably busy developing new material and really ought to be left alone in the hopes that the next book will be as good as the last book or better? Sure we can ask the dev team to sit down once a week and answer rules questions, but if they start having to answer about rules interactions between older and newer material and the answer comes up as "I don't know, we'll have to look into it." it bogs down the development of new material.

Gw needs to keep developing new material to keep the player base interested in buying more product to support the company.


4. why not do all 3? or save yourself some trouble by writing a "tight" rule system (see PP and battlefront for help)
You know, I've played Warmachine and Hordes. Not sure about battlefront. The thing about Warmachine is that it's built for competitive play first and foremost It was designed from the ground up as a platform for competetive play. In my experience of the game, you're encouraged to min-max the heck out of your list and pull out every dirty trick you can to compete.

That works well for Warmachine, but Warhammer was never built for competetive play. The roots of the game were very RPG like and as some have said older editions required a GM, and really, GW's game is basically the same at it's core. To hit and to wound haven't changed much if at all over the editions, and really only the specifics of any given subset of the rules has changed.

For Warhammer to get a set of rules that are tighter than what they've got now, GW would have to completely scrap the current system they use and build the game from the ground up as a lean and well oiled machine.



5. boo hoo, its hard making tons of cash, surely cost can be made up by selling overpriced resin?
Seriously? That's your response? GW needs to turn a profit to make sure that it keeps investors happy. As profit margins decrease investors pull out. Investors pulling out means less monetary support for the company. It becomes a downward spiral that either ends when GW gets it's act in order and starts turning larger profits or when the company goes under.

Saying that you don't care about GW's profits is saying that you don't care whether they survive as a company, which in turn means that you're not a fan of their products. And if you're not a fan of GW's products you really have no place responding to this thread.


6. according to this thread the US makes up less than 20% of overall sales or someshit, so why does that matter? Besides if you can afford GW now, you can afford it no matter what.
That's a very callous attitdue and you're using a rather skewed statistic.
I figure you haven't been in school for a while, but I'd like you to consider something. 20% is the difference between an A and a C in the American grading system. 20% is HUGE for a single factor.

And just because dedicated fans will always find ways to spend money on GW, what happens if the economy weakens and people find that they simply have less money to spend on GW? If we assume there are something like 4 million GW fans across the entire United States (Which is a low estimate) and every fan found themselves having even $2 less to spend on GW product, GW is suddenly out $8 million. The US going into recession isn't a bullet to the skull, it's death by a thousand papercuts.



7. yes it does, it just requires realizing you dont work for Wizards and some people actually play your "rules" to win.

First off, comparing GW to Wizards and saying that people don't play Wizards games to win is the Dumbest thing I've read in the post.

By Wizards, I assume you mean Wizards of the Coast. The guys who still make Magic: The Gathering. The guys who run RPGA "Living" games which require a tight ruleset and even tighter character creation and growth rules because people are actually MORE prone to powergame and twink characters in Dungeons and Dragons than they are to Min-max a Warhammer list. Those Wizards?

Or do you mean Wizkids, the guys behind Heroclix, Mechwarrior Clix, Horror clix, and several other game lines that had leagues and tournaments going (Despite the fact that their rules were generally written worse and reversed more often than GW puts out new product).

Either way, people play Wotc and Wizkids games to Win, probably more often than they do with Warhammer.

@Templarben - That's not a bad idea. It could actually work if GW implemented it, but they'd need to hire on an intern or something to sort through the Emails on a daily basis. Still the operation would cost a heck of a lot less than a forum.

cailus
18-08-2008, 01:04
It's interesting that people state they want fun, narrative gaming and that somehow a tight ruleset would prohibit this.

The looseness of the ruleset promotes nothing but argument and pointless rules debate even in friendly games.

Tight rules make the game more friendly because there's less opportunity for argument.

As for narrative playing, 40K doesn't do narrative playing well anymore. 2nd edition did narrative very well and most people that have played that version will have fond memories of cinematic and narrative events.

But of course when your models can hide, throw grenades, defoliate trees or cause their opponents to have hallucinations, cinematic moments and great narrative will arise.

But when the entire game consists of pushing 50-150 models on a small table and then rolling hundreds of dice, the scope for narrative really isn't there.

Rioghan Murchadha
18-08-2008, 03:53
Rather than the following: "Hey, I want to shoot my krak missile at that guy in the window." "You can't do that (spends 10 minutes digging through rulebook to prove it)" "Well come on, it makes no sense" "No, that is why I put him there in the first place, knowing that he would be safe and letting you shoot at him would be cheating because it would ruin my incredible strategy and then *gasp* I might lose." "Right... oh look at the time, I gotta go."


What if... *gasp* I would like there to be somewhere on the board where my troops are safe from krak missile wielding nutjobs? What if I put a model somewhere because the rules give me the illusion that this will be so? What if I don't want to have to argue over whether or not the model can be shot/gets a cover save because the rules are unclear on the subject?