I believe rules need to take competive players in mind

[Bloodknight]

Heh, flying off a cliff with style still means you'll end up a red pancake.

[bad dice]

I have been thinking about this for a while when I heard the rule for 40k were made with the beer and pretzel crowd in mind and not competitive player


Is out of date thinking? 20+ years ago this was true. People didn't have access to the internet to find the "list" or broken combos so for most casual game this wasn't a problem.

Now that people have access to this information and everyone in the world can get together to find the best of everything to play if you want to play to win. This can make casual games not as fun or balanced.

I believe it's time that the rules need to be designed with competitive players in mind. Not just for tournaments but for the "beer and pretzel" crowd.

I have seen to many heated "rule debates" ruin casual games. If we could make the rules more clear and balanced it would lessen the rule arguments, though never get rid of them

To respond to first post.

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.

[Wishing]

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)

You'll probably get lots of replies to your other comments about WM, so I will just pick up on this one. Many of the models from Prime, Warcasters especially, are still some of the most powerful in the game. Deneghra, Kreoss, Haley, Vlad, have all been extremely powerful since the beginning and newer casters can only dream of having as great spells and feats. As for other models, I feel that Journeymen, Bane Thralls, Winterguard, etc., are still extremely popular. So no, I don't really buy the power creep thing.

[Scribe of Khorne]

I must disagree here very strongly. Of course You can, making mockery of what was intended by the rules author, by abusing rules in a way that change the whole game in a direction not planned is cheating. Example ? Wound allocation cheating - it was never intended that giving some models varied equipment, sometimes very silly like ammo runt, would cause them to survive much more beating. From a minor rule that was planned for ones interested in characterising their miniatures, "competetive" players made a major game problem of cheating the wound allocation system that is commonly pointed out by some while discussing needed changes in 6th edition. So, yes let's call things by their names.

Wound allocation is cheating now? Man I cant wait for that rule to make it to 6th, just so I can drink in all the weeping...

EDIT: Nobs, TWC, Bloodcrushers, Paladins, Wratihs. You think these are all a happy accident? lol

[Rated_lexxx]

To respond to first post.

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.

I never had a notion of perfect gaming system, I just want one with better and clearer rules. Unfourntly with the mindset of aking rules for "beer and pretzel crowd" you don't care as much about the rules

[althathir]

Wound allocation is cheating now? Man I cant wait for that rule to make it to 6th, just so I can drink in all the weeping...

EDIT: Nobs, TWC, Bloodcrushers, Paladins, Wratihs. You think these are all a happy accident? lol

Honestly it wouldn't shock me if Nobs were, and the designers went this is a cool system, and starting to push some units that way.

I never had a notion of perfect gaming system, I just want one with better and clearer rules. Unfourntly with the mindset of aking rules for "beer and pretzel crowd" you don't care as much about the rules

I think they're just a bit more realistic about how difficult it is to get a question free ruleset. There are a lot more dimensions that you have to work with on a table top game then a card for example.

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)

[Egaeus]

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)

I've never played Warmachine myself, but this sort of comment makes me curious...you are saying that it is a better game but is also simpler?

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.

Wound allocation is cheating now? Man I cant wait for that rule to make it to 6th, just so I can drink in all the weeping...

EDIT: Nobs, TWC, Bloodcrushers, Paladins, Wratihs. You think these are all a happy accident? lol

While this has been whole debates in itself this is one of those topics where one could point to the problems GW has in attempting to make a balanced game. 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. Of course it's debatable whether or not they should be and thus the issues with the 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.

[Scribe of Khorne]

Honestly it wouldn't shock me if Nobs were, and the designers went this is a cool system, and starting to push some units that way.

I could buy that, but at this point its baked in to so many books I would be really shocked if it went away. Really I think its a great thing. Some units SHOULD be tougher, and take more of a commitment to remove.

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

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.

[Dazza612]

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.

[Dazza612]

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).

[Scaryscarymushroom]

When playing a Beer & Pretzel game, become a Beer & Pretzel player.
When playing a strictly competitive game, become a competitor.

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.

[DarkDrgon]

This would be the same MtG where choosing anything except the absolute best cards available to you pretty much guarantees a loss, and "fluff" plays almost no role whatsoever in deck composition or play strategies? Yeah, not the best example of how competitive rule sets are better for casual and fluff gamers there chief.

Actually, this right here is kinda dead wrong. The only way to gurantee a loss is if you go out of your way to choose the worst possible cards and not following any kind of logic in your build, and theme decks are one of the biggest parts of the game. One of the Best selling products out right now are sets of 2 decks that are 2 main characters or 2 factions in the story that are meant to be played head to head. Mtg also has some of the best kept rules out there, with a massive rulebook resource of rulings to show you exactly how cards interact. the same issues you point out occur in 40k (A tau build based on stealth suits and mass firewarriors is an auto lose, for example, and aren't there a ton of Space Wolf or GK builds that go against their established fluff)

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

[yabbadabba]

Yeah, would also work nicely for pick-up games. "Which rules are we using today?"

You use the basic rules. Simple.

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 ).

Of course it would be divided into levels of playing. It is unavoidable.

[Egaeus]

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.

Well it seems to me that in that case it's a rule that should just be dropped then you don't have to worry about "abuse" or "shenanigans" or any other derisive terms because it them becomes "how the rules work"...that is, it's how they work now in some cases but many players are under the impression that although it's the letter of the rules it goes against the spirit. If the rules were well-written then there really shouldn't be any such separate concept.

You use the basic rules. Simple.
Of course it would be divided into levels of playing. It is unavoidable.

My only major concern, if I am reading this suggestion correctly, is that in my experience (primarily with collectible card games and it has been a while) is that if a game has a "tournament" set of rules then for most players that is going to be the "de facto" set of rules that is used, mostly because one assumes that for a tournament setting you want the most balanced setup you can achieve with the rules. So if there is going to be such a set of rules why not then just make those the "standard" rules?

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.

[zoggin-eck]

I never had a notion of perfect gaming system, I just want one with better and clearer rules. Unfourntly with the mindset of aking rules for "beer and pretzel crowd" you don't care as much about the rules

Trouble is, you won't find that everyone has the same definition of "better" rules, which is something people like to ask for. I think GW's games generally have fantastic rules, because the end result is a game I enjoy and have for a long time. Clearer perhaps, but I find them clear enough. I think saying that the "beer and pretzel" crowd (you lot talking about the dry, salty pretzels or those big softer ones?) don't care about rules is a bit silly. They (and I) may well just care about different rules more than the ones another person quite vocally care about.

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.

I belive he was refering to the comment of flipping a coin, is simular to playing fantasy, which it it nothing like flipping a coin. and if it is you are playing a strange game of fantasy.

Thanks! It was such a silly statement, I thought it deserved a silly response. No, flipping a coin has not been anything like the outcome and overally feeling of any game I've ever played, bar two-up.

[oCoYoRoAoKo]

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.

[Tarax]

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.

[DietDolphin]

"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.

[Cheeslord]

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.

Well, randomness is an intrinsic part of the game, but I do hate extreme early-mid game randomness (i.e. where one side or the other can gain a huge advantage well before the end of the game based on only a couple of dice rolls). Chaos daemons are a good example of this where just 4 dice rolls on turn 1 determine that each unit may be destroyed before it can even enter play (3 scatter dice and the deepstrike mishap table). losing a greater daemon or bloodcrusher squad puts you at a big disadvantage in most games, while getting flamers on target next to an enemy terminator squad sometimes feels cheap too. And psychotroke grenades ... due to the lethal nature of close combat they essentially auto-win it on a single D6 roll (although to be fair grey knights would probably win anyway...)

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.

Mark.

[yabbadabba]

My only major concern, if I am reading this suggestion correctly, is that in my experience (primarily with collectible card games and it has been a while) is that if a game has a "tournament" set of rules then for most players that is going to be the "de facto" set of rules that is used, mostly because one assumes that for a tournament setting you want the most balanced setup you can achieve with the rules. So if there is going to be such a set of rules why not then just make those the "standard" rules?

I would have the standard set of rules as the tournament rules as well. In my experience tournament players and new gamers share a huge number of needs that it would be an ideal place to start. I am not denigrating tournament players here, but there are things that would suit both a beginner and tournament rules set that match far better than any other match up.

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.

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.