should a codex be rules or guidlines

[Skragger]

The beer is good, weather sucks though. Why is American beer like sex in a canoe? They are both F***ing close to water.

Huzzah! Python!

[Skragger]

HA! When was the last time anyone wrote "i" with a capital "I"? Or wrote freakin' with brackets around it? Jesus, all i asked for was a little structure and punctuation to the posts. And then someone loses an apocalypse game and has to go off and start throwing names around...

And maybe you could correct me on one other thing, but...Isn't it spelled "grammar"? Because "gramma" is actually any grass of the genus Bouteloua, of South America.

Get over it.

Aha! Grammar ****'s unite!

Nothing like trying to read and understand a long, complex idea when its in a massive whack of text without proper punctuation or natural breaks for the flow of information to go smoothly into my squishy pink brain!

[Nabterayl]

I personally don't understand why GW should have to make things "Tournement perfect" at all, I'm perfectly happy with a set of rules that let me get on with the game at hand. When I meet problems or something the rulebook didn't cover, me and my opponent can come to a reasonable conclusion together about what we should do to overcome it.

For example: The discussion on "what happens when 2 vortex grenades hit each other" - the general consensus was that they should merge into a larger template, nothing ruleswise on the subject so we go with what sounds the best.

When I play in tournements I play for fun, its really interesting to meet new people and have some beers, whilst playing fairly competitively. I have heard so many stories of unfriendly behaviour at larger tournements, it makes me dread to even consider going into such a setting, nothing makes me sadder than seeing supposedly grown up and mature people crying, throwing temper tantrums and generaly being hostile towards each other over a game that was initially created for fun.

My point being, if you want to have a solid set of rules for a tournement, you put the effort in and sort them out, i don't see why GW should have to bother, "we must spend valuable working hours making sure competitive people are satisfied" is probably not in their company mission statement, whereas "making games for people to have fun" probably is.

There's two different questions here. One is how tight the rules are - how tightly they are balanced, and how tightly they are drafted. In this instance I agree that GW is sloppier than necessary, particularly in the drafting. If you draft a sentence of rules, it should be susceptible of fewer constructions than GW's sentences typically are.

The second question is how broad the GW rules are, and in this case, I have to say I agree more with Gav than it seems many people do. Take the case of the Iron Warriors Basilisk, for instance - no option for it in the codex. Gav's attitude seems to be, "If you know Iron Warriors use Basilisks, why do you need me to put it in the book before you give yourself permission to use Basilisks in your Iron Warriors army? Why do you feel like the only things you can do on the tabletop are the ones in the book?" And that, I feel, is a very sensible viewpoint to take. A codex should be a "guideline" in the sense that nobody should feel that it describes (or tries to describe) all the things that a particular faction ever does or might do. You have to draw the line somewhere, so you'll always be treating a codex as a "guideline" in the sense of breadth.

Some people might argue that they don't want to expand the codex themselves, since that way they [presumably] get a more balanced expansion than if they had done it themselves. There's something to that, but I think on the whole even "gamers" put too much stock in balance. My "gamer" goal isn't to win, it's to be the better general - and if I need a "balanced" codex to out-general you, well, then I must not be out-generaling you by very much.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

I would post something, but you two covered it very well.

My feelings in spades...

Rules can be taken away from for fun when not competing,
Excessive disinterest/disengagement from designers can create bad mojo for competing.

[Axel]

I appears to me that, particularly with the Codex: CSM and Codex: Daemons, a lack of self-restraint is a significant problem. People go running around making game-effective combinations "because the rules say I can". No thought is given to the "fact" that a Blood Thirster would just as happily smack a Lord of Change in the back than the Space Marine Captain shooting at it. Still, if that's your idea of having a fun time in the hobby more power to you!

In all seriousness, when was the last time you saw a non-aligned CSM army (Night Lords or Alpha Legion style perhaps)? Or someone playing "recent renegades" using Codex: Space Marines but with all the Imperial bits'n'bobs filed off and no Chaplains? I'd love to play against a "renegade PDF" army that used Codex: Imperial Guard without any Commissars or Priests. The sky is the limit to your imagination.

A number of problems arise, giving rise to internet whinges and nerd rage in spades, when the game is taken into an ultra-competitive environment, ie a tournament. I don't think GW is overly keen to pursue this narrow avenue of the hobby, and certainly not at the expense of other avenues (such as painting, modelling or writing). This hypothesis is supported by the drop-off in support for "gaming only" tournaments. Many GW-sponsored tournaments are now almost like a side-show of a much larger event, like Games Day.

Those advocating a perfectly balance between Codex: I'm a Nerd and Codex: Girls Laugh at Me on the basis of sporting events being equal forget that sporting events aren't equal at all. As someone who's played various team sports every year, year round since he qualified for the local "Under 7" soccer team I can tell you that not having enough money to buy the best equipment (even shoes) can impact a game. Not having enough money for proper training facilities or equipment can impact a game. Your star player having to leave 10 minutes early to go to his brother's wedding can impact a game. Your coach's ex-wife turning up before the game to harrass him over child support will impact a game. 40k is not a professional level competition like most sport on TV. Amateur sport is not an even competition.

I support Gav's position on "guidelines over rules". Those advocating silliness such as 4 wound Orks in a "rulebook match" are taking things out of context. It could be quite enjoyable to play a game where all the Orks have 4 wounds. It would have to be a small game, simply from a book-keeping perspective. Perhaps a Guard Storm Trooper platoon making a near-suicidal drop to kill the Ork Warlord (who has 10 wounds). All the Stormies would then have, say, 2 wounds (3 for a Sergeants), and be led by a "Storm Trooper Captain" with, say 6 wounds and a stat-line similar to a Lord Commissar. Guard objective (instant win): Kill the Warlord. Ork objective: Kill all the Guard.

By all means, the "rulebook match" is a good starting point for a game against a stranger. If they were a good, clever and fun opponent, ask for their phone number after the game. Give 'em a call later and see if they want to play some form of scenario next week. It's about making friends as much as giving your oldest friends a blood nose each week.

[Kahoolin]

It's like this:

Games and sports are of two types.

A: You play co-operatively with your opponent, with the assumption being both of you are trying to have a laugh. The game is a game of compromise and guidelines will work fine.

B: You play adversarially against your opponent and the assumption is that you are each trying to win at all costs, even at the expense of the "spirit of the rules". You need hard rules.

GW has always presented their games as type A.

It sounds harsh, but if you want a game of type B, either accept that GW will never give you what you want and play anyway, or go play another game that does.

[TSINI]

It's like this:

Games and sports are of two types.

A: You play co-operatively with your opponent, with the assumption being both of you are trying to have a laugh. The game is a game of compromise and guidelines will work fine.

B: You play adversarially against your opponent and the assumption is that you are each trying to win at all costs, even at the expense of the "spirit of the rules". You need hard rules.

GW has always presented their games as type A.

It sounds harsh, but if you want a game of type B, either accept that GW will never give you what you want and play anyway, or go play another game that does.

I agree, I truly believe people are forgetting that the tournement element is still basically a fanfictional addition to Games Workshop games.

GW never seem to be hands no involved in any major tournements, in fact the few i know of that were directly ran by GW gave out no prizes for first place.

Big Prize winning tournements are always ran by other gaming groups, because thats the way they see the game. its always these gaming groups that impose the "No forgeworld" "no this" "no that" because they deem themselves more qualified than the game designers at Forgeworld / White Dwarf. if they deem themselves that much more qualified, why don't they ammend all the rules systems themselves, hand out these rulebooks 4 weeks in advance of their tournement and make everyone play those rules instead. instead of moaning at a "fun games" company for not doing it for them.

[Culven]

. . . on the basis of sporting events being equal forget that sporting events aren't equal at all

Isn't this an issue of balance, not an issue of clarity and mutability of the rules? As I read Gav's article, he was discussing mutability of rules, not game balance. He refered to fluff as a reason why some players may want to modify the rules, and I see no problem with that. However, his claim that the rules themselves should be more of a "guideline" than hard-and-fast rules seems, IMHO, iinappropriate for a game company to say the least.

If we were to apply Gav's logic to amature sports, then two teams should feel free to change the rules as they see fit for the enjoyment of all involved in the game. This is fine, except in a tournament setting. If the rules organizations for those sports were to claim that everyone should be playing to have fun and just settle any rules issues amongst themselves because they don't want to write solid rules, I think that some people would be upset.

In the end, I think that allowing the rules to be modified by consenting players in a casual setting is a great thing to be done with the rules in order to make the game more enjoyable, but only in a casual setting. That doesn't mean that the rules should be written loosely nor should they have obvious holes which need to be addressed by the players or judges. A solid rule set is possible, and casual players (who are more likely to change the rules for their enjoyment anyway) can still do so. In fact, well written rules may even benefit casual games since the players will (hopefully) have a better understanding of the core rules and will be better able to modify them to suit their needs.

[Aldramelech]

27 cad = 15.03 gbp

ha! Lmao

[Aldramelech]

All this is fine, but you tell me how liberal you feel about the rules when someone turns up with their 'Special' Nids army complete with attached Baneblades.............

Silly? In my experience if you give people an inch they'll take a light year.