Heh, flying off a cliff with style still means you'll end up a red pancake.
Heh, flying off a cliff with style still means you'll end up a red pancake.
Mordian/Praetorian Lovers of Warseer
My random Sci-Fi Plog, mostly Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar and CSM Recently finished: Mordian Rapier Laser Destroyer, also several tanks WIP
Its just impossible to write the rules in such a way that there are no rules discussions.
For one there are literary trillions of different situations that could happen. And they don't even know all the factors involved.
Then there is the diffrence between British and American English. The different philosophies that pll have (the it needs to say you can vs it needs to say you can't discussion)
And a hundred other things
Also they have a clear vision and that is models first rules second and I can live whit that.
They formulate some things better for sure but that is really hard to get right. Cause its impossible to misread your own writing.
And to be frank I don't think there are a lot of games whit better rules sets that are just as complex.
Sure chess is better but its also a simpler desing. Same thing whit flames of war for instance.
Oh and I know the next post is going to be from someone who is going to say warmachine is way better. So in a pre-emptive response to that.
1) yea its a bit better but like I said its also simpler (look at the rules for terrain)
2) Man does warmachine have it faults when it comes to chargeing the rules are such a pain to work out if gets clustered.
3) Warmachine has way to much of a arms race going on (if you don't believe me count how many models you use from prime)
4) Warmachine desing team lies to you. No we will not put abilities in the enemy turn in MKII First set of models that comes out includes one whit counter charge. Sigh
5) Despite all that I do like warmachine just a bit better cause they streamlined every thing nicely whit those icon's and cards.
Last edited by Scribe of Khorne; 21-05-2012 at 00:20.
GK: 2-0-2...... BA:0-1-0....DA: 0-0-0
IG: 4-0-1.......SM: 2-1-0...SW:0-0-0
DEM: 3-1-1....DE: 1-0-0....ELD:0-0-0
Ork: 2-1-1.....Tau: 1-0-0...NIDS:1-1-1
Look at magic, creatures are fairly simple, it has a comp system (no more than 4 copies of one card, except for basic lands). It mainly caters to three player types (with a fourth they throw bones too), and a lot of the time they make cards that overlap into multiple categories.
In 40k the stats are simple but then you have weapons which aren't too bad but are tough to balance, and vehicles (who throw a wrench in things). In addition that 4th player type in magic the fluff bunny.... is in full force. Those are just design issues, when you look at the production aspect, its a lot more difficult to sculpt models then to purchase artwork to put on cardboard. It also makes releasing stuff for each fraction at the same time kinda silly. Thats not counting the most difficult aspect showing the proper amount of terrain (which its funny how much better nids get if they get a couple LoS blocking terrain pieces)
I think that would be one of the major complaints many people have with the current incarnation of 40K...while it appears the intent was to keep the "core mechanics" simple the problem is that they are too simple...and so you start layering special rule upon special rule to give the illusion of complexity until it's just a tangled mess. I've argued before that GW could take nearly every "Universal Special Rule" and just put it in its appropriate place in the rules as "special case" rules (for example, Mixed Armour used to be a "special rule", now it's just part of how Saves are done). The rules would still be "special" but they wouldn't seem so separated from the "normal" rules as they are now. Plus at this point there's probably a whole host of "special rules" that should become part of those "universal" rules.
Heck, they could just drop the "remove whole models" bit and allow multi-wound units to be really tough. If they do that I might actually give my Tyranids another go as Warriors would be sweet.
Yes, I agree thats the point, right up until they give it a work around, by adding the 'unique gear' bit to make those units significantly tougher as you say. Its fully intentional, and a number of units have been designed with the mechanic in mind to ensure those elite multi-wound models are still around to do something after wading through all the shooting 5th has shoved down our throats.The idea of "removing whole models" was (as far as I interpret it) meant to ensure that multi-wound units weren't significantly more robust than single wound models
For the most part I think the current system works well. Where the issues occur is when rules are poorly written and vaguely explained. There should not be the need to have so many Faq's if the rules and codexes were written. learly and concisely in the first place. If you mean for x to happen state x, don't state y and rely on gamers to uphold the spirit in which the rule was written. Secondly all codexes must be written with the same level of attention and care as each other (so we don't have the current situations with nids and sisters). Also no codex should miss a complete edition like eldar and each codex should be updated every 3-4 years so you don't have the codex creep like you do now with Tau, Black Templars, dark angels, chaos and others compared to blood angels, guard, space wolves and grey knights.
Victoris aut mortis!
Also pick a rough guide to power level and codex balance and stick to it. I think the dark eldar codex is probably the best as almost everything in the codex is usable and it can be played competitively or balanced. You should never have a codex where certain units never get used or only one build in the codex works (e.g nids or to a lesser extent eldar).
Victoris aut mortis!
Actually, I am changing my opinion. It's a fine philosophy, but in practice I've come to realize that as a casual player, I tend to make even strictly competitive games more casual.When playing a Beer & Pretzel game, become a Beer & Pretzel player.
When playing a strictly competitive game, become a competitor.
I wish I didn't need to post the same rant on the MtG boards about warhammer, but I'm amazed how players of both games talk down on the other medium.
I agree that a tight rule set will benefit anyone who plays. a game where it is an actual rule that if no one can figure out how the rules work, the person who rolls better gets to decide how things work is just asking for trouble
Of course it would be divided into levels of playing. It is unavoidable.True dat. That's what I said in the first place: "I'd like a basic system with lots of optional add-on rules: using the basic system plus BS modifiers, LD modifiers, difficult terrain rules, blah blah". It has the added beauty of allowing people to learn the game by slowly adding stuff over time without actually dividing the game into noob game/expert game. (and helping guys like me who don't like to read 300 page rulebooks in one go before we can play a game anymore ).
GW already provides "advanced" rules in things like Apocalypse and Planetstrike, although I don't believe this is the sort of thing you are referring to, since these seem to be more about different ways to play rather than adding complexity to the "core" game.
Honest mistakes in the final print, that could have been avoided, rubbish spelling and odditites (new giant Lizardmen monster in Forgeworld book isn't a large target?) bother me more.
And a soft drink that can turn you into a Largazoid?
My Fantasy painting thread, classic and modern models:
My 40k & sci-fi painting thread, also with classic and modern models:
My terrain making/painting thread:
Clarity of the rules is (for the most part) ok for me. My main issue is with the lack of accurate costing. If all units were costed appropriately then we would be a long way towards a ruleset that could be used by both the 'tournament' and 'casual' gamers without any problems.
A while back now, Jervis Johnson had a Q&A session at a Fantasy GT (the first one after the most recent ruleset came out) and I posed him the question of how they points cost their units. The answer was that they give models and units some arbitry cost and then tweak to whatever 'feels' right during testing. I do realise that its difficult to get the costs spot on every time but the place we are in now means that either GW is trying to push a different direction for 40K (transports for example being cheaper with vastly improved rules compared to last edition) or they just dont test enough (most of the Tyranid book). If they had some better way of assigning costs to units (maybe some sort of weighting system based on stats?) then we could avoid most problems with 'overpowered' armies and lists.
The question then went onto the topic of costing special characters (apparently they are intentionally cheaper then their stats/gear/rules should make them. Its supposed to be a tradeoff for not being able to change their wargear - Teclis im looking at you).
I for one have no problem with there being very powerful units in the game. The problem is when they are way too cheap for what they do.
To all of those who claim NidZilla Lists are un-fluffy: All Tyranids evolve to counter threats that they face. Pesky Marines kill lots of gaunts with their Boltguns, Assault Cannons and Heavy Bolters. We evolve by removing the gaunts entirely
Xenos (Formerly My Necron Painting Log) Here (Now Finished)
Rahmotep's Revenge (Ogre Kingdoms) Here
Chaos Painting Log (Formerly The Rot, My Daemon Log) Here
I think some people confuse the terms Basic and Advanced rules. While GW uses these terms, it should be more precise. (This goes for both Fantasy and 40K.)
IMO there are Basic rules, Advanced rules AND Additional rules.
Basic rules almost always come first in the rulebook and usually only addresses infantry. Rules for moving infantry, shooting with infantry and close-combat between infantry.
Advanced rules often deal with other unit types, like cavalry, war machines and monsters in Fantasy and vehicles, jump infantry, bike and monstrous creatures in 40K.
Additional rules basically are rules you can use to ake your games more interesting. Here I'm thinking of skirmish and siege rules in Fantasy and cityfight and planet strike in 40K.
Basically you HAVE to use the basic rules to play the game, but advanced rules are also much needed. If not, you can't use certain unit types, weapons, abilities.
As it is, when you learn the game, it's best to start with the basic rules as these will come up most of the time and most of the advanced rules still work with the basic rules (jump infantry shoot, fight and die just the same as normal infantry). And after just a few games, new players will use the advanced rules as well.
Only the additional rules are something you can agree on with your opponent, it depends much on what kind of battle you want to play. But when you play, you will use the basic and advanced rules.
To come back to the example of terrain in Fantasy, these rules are more or less obligatory. You can not use them, but these are the only rules that deal with terrain. In the basic rules there is little to no explanation on how to go about with terrain, so you will go to the specific pages where you read about all the randomness of what terrain will do.
And now we've come to another thing I'd like to address: randomness. I hate it, for the most part. You plan soemthing and a simple roll of the dice destroys that plan and possibly your army. Don't get me wrong, I still believe some things must remain random, but these are the basic things like to hit and to wound.
To me, the rules must be tight. I like to plan what I'm going to do or how I will react to my opponent. But if you have a rules disagreement and either you or your opponent will come to some disadvantage, because now something can (or can't) be done, then the game ends up not being fun anymore.
"Rules need to take competitive players in mind"
What does that even mean? (aside from the bad english...)
We would all like more clear and balanced rules, models appropriately point-valued and more flexibility. How is this specific to competitive players? The only difference in my experience is "casual" players move on from a rule debate after 30sec and "competitive" players argue till their face goes red. But this has nothing to do with "competitiveness", it's a maturity thing.
the game hinging on one roll of the dice right at the end of the game is usually a sign of a close (and enjoyable) battle.
I think we can all agree that better rules would benefit everyone. Casual gamers still can get annoyed if the battle is 1-sided because one player happened to pick a good codex/units and the other player picked a bad one, or if units seem to do wierd stuff that makes no sense (like killing some gaunts causing a nearby un-wounded carnifex to self destruct), or if the rules are unclear about something that makes a huge difference to the battle.
Something like this is an advance rule set, true, but I would be looking at a paradigm shift for GW's sales approach to their rules and codices as well.GW already provides "advanced" rules in things like Apocalypse and Planetstrike, although I don't believe this is the sort of thing you are referring to, since these seem to be more about different ways to play rather than adding complexity to the "core" game.