Codex Orks - Informed discussion.

[Krefey]

Honestly though, when you've been in the business as long as GW and you would think it was just a matter of course to make good rules even before playtesting. So many other companies crank rules out and nothing ever seems to be as imbalanced as GW and they don't have anything like the resources, community feedback, or long standing product line to draw on.

My issue is that most casual gamers could come up with better, more balanced rules than the GW design team does. You can often tell the glaring issues with a new GW product the moment you read it, and you're wondering how anyone could have allowed it to happen. I almost think they are forced to just brainstorm out a set number of ideas and then the publishing team just randomly picks ideas off the board and loads them into a book.

Do you remember when Dystopian Wars originally came out? I don't want to sound rude, but I don't think it's as easy as a lot of people think it is. There was a recent kickstarter...Sedition Wars I think it was, the rules for that were also abysmal. It's not unique to GW games. I also don't think GW games are as bad as a lot of people make out, but yes, there are definitely WTF moments. The rule set that they released originally was a steaming pile. The problem with the GW rules is that they do have a narrow selection of people they run things past. And it's all in house, has been since 2nd ed. It's easy for people who have been looking over things for the development of it to overlook something. Ideally they should be getting two teams to work on any rules. One team to design them initially then another to go over it with a fresh set of eyes not having worked on any aspect of the initial development. Not being on the inside, I don't know how they work on their development though.

[odinsgrandson]

GW has, for a long time, fostered an attitude of non-competitive competition among their player base. I mean, we've got a lot of words and acronyms for players who try to win too much (employing cheesy combos and exploiting the best options in their codecies).

The attitude is that game balance is up to the players, not the game designers- and leads many to believe that GW isn't actually trying to create a balanced game.

It may be true, or maybe they try and fail (as you suggest) but the perception is certainly there.

D&D or any other tabletop RPG also has one other huge difference to 40k- authority. ..

Yeah, it's a PVP game, and therefore competitive in nature. Each game ends with one player "winning" and another player "losing" and there's a social expectation that players will try to "win."

With 40k, there's the attitude that trying to win too much is immoral, but we still expect each player to try to win within the hazy boundaries of non-cheesy game play.

[Uberbeast]

Do you remember when Dystopian Wars originally came out? I don't want to sound rude, but I don't think it's as easy as a lot of people think it is. There was a recent kickstarter...Sedition Wars I think it was, the rules for that were also abysmal. It's not unique to GW games. I also don't think GW games are as bad as a lot of people make out, but yes, there are definitely WTF moments. The rule set that they released originally was a steaming pile. The problem with the GW rules is that they do have a narrow selection of people they run things past. And it's all in house, has been since 2nd ed. It's easy for people who have been looking over things for the development of it to overlook something. Ideally they should be getting two teams to work on any rules. One team to design them initially then another to go over it with a fresh set of eyes not having worked on any aspect of the initial development. Not being on the inside, I don't know how they work on their development though.

You're comparing two new games by dinky developers to the giant powerhouse of gaming and it's decades long established flagship product and trying to say GW shortcoming are somehow excused? I wasn't laying an obscure trivia contest for other game failures, I was simply stating that the guys at GW have every advantage when it comes to games development, and yet they fall far below the quality margin when it comes to their rules.

[daboarder]

GW has, for a long time, fostered an attitude of non-competitive competition among their player base. I mean, we've got a lot of words and acronyms for players who try to win too much (employing cheesy combos and exploiting the best options in their codecies).

GW runs tournaments........

[Krefey]

You're comparing two new games by dinky developers to the giant powerhouse of gaming and it's decades long established flagship product and trying to say GW shortcoming are somehow excused? I wasn't laying an obscure trivia contest for other game failures, I was simply stating that the guys at GW have every advantage when it comes to games development, and yet they fall far below the quality margin when it comes to their rules.

My point was addressing your comment that any group of casual gamers could apparently come up with a better rule set. I was providing examples of games that didn't. I just don't think it's quite as easy as you like to think it is.

[Caitsidhe]

My point was addressing your comment that any group of casual gamers could apparently come up with a better rule set. I was providing examples of games that didn't. I just don't think it's quite as easy as you like to think it is.

Fact is a group of actual players could (and have) come up with better rules. People who actually play games rather that companies who just try to sell them, are the experts.

[Ghostofman]

GW runs tournaments........

And doesn't care who wins, or how. They are marketing events, plain and simple.

[daboarder]

And doesn't care who wins, or how. They are marketing events, plain and simple.

And yet...unbound lists are usually band

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Where did the informed Ork discussion go?

[Caitsidhe]

Where did the informed Ork discussion go?

Heh. People have started playing them and are at a loss for words. Everything that can be said about them has been said over the last three editions.