should a codex be rules or guidlines

[kire]

after reading Gav thorpe's post about CSM (link at bottom) i am far more struck by the attitudes expressed about the nature of a codex than the details of CSM. his opinion as i understand it is that a codex and in a larger scene the rules as a hole are a guideline rather than actual rules. for starters this attitude explains GW's infuriating inability to give answers to even the most basic rule discrepancy in there own material. however this aside the question becomes in this school of thought on the part of game designers good for the hobby or not?

my core disagreement with thorpe's ideas is that treating codex's rules hurts nobody, treating it as guidelines hurts gamers. in this case i use gamers to refer to those who like me enjoy 40k as a game first and as a hobby second. there are many ways to enjoy 40k as model collecting, as model making, as a medium of storytelling, and in many other ways. but in all of these cases codex as rules is no different than codex as guidelines.

however many like myself like 40k as a game and to us codxes as guidelines hurts our experience. the problem with any formalized competition of with 40k is a example is that even the most altruistic and sportsmen like player has a natural tenancy to have outcomes good for them(hence why you roll scatter dice next to the template). therefor an impartial mediator is necessary in sport a referee is used but due to the abstract simplification of games a rule set can be construed such that all (or at least the vast majority of situations) have a prescribed outcome. this allows for a fun ad strategic matching of wits with your opponent.

when i talk about this i am not talking about tournaments i mean simple friendly competition. as of now if i am playing a pickup game i have to break out a list of hose rule and see if we agree on them before we can play. if we disagree we have to figure out who's rules we will use. and in order to get to this point i have had to go true a dozen awkward "well the rules don't really say" moments. what is particularly frustrating is when a lack of rule at a crucial moment in a game causes a dice off to see what happens. in these situation a victory seems hollow an artifact of chance rather than a victory of skill.

some would tell me that i have house rules so whats the problem. to me the problem is that i'm not a game designer i don't get payed to know 40k like the back of my hand. i want a fair balanced rule set and in order to archive that you need an impartial mediator in the rules. any interpenetration hurts some and helps others and i want someone to make there decisions so that the game will fun and balanced i want a game designer not a rules speculator.

some may say that such a set of hard fast rules would discourage the use of homebrew rules and army's. but i would point out that many games with vary hard and fast rules have a huge swath of homebrew material. the type of people will make there own rules without encouragement. a tight rule set dose not hurt anyone

while i understand that given the complexity of 40k some discrepancy in play are unavoidable the bar of game design should be set at making a real rule set not a detailed list of suggestions. i think that such a low standard of quality is the low make of an otherwise excellent game and it is my hope that that this may be corrected and that 40k be allowed to reach its full potential

i know that was a long post but am i the only one that feels this way?


[URL="http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/"]http://mechanicalhamster.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/differences-of-opinion/[/URL]

[Culven]

I completely agree. I think that the "we write guidelines" excuse is just a cop-out that GW uses to skip-out on responsibility for their half-arsed rules. It also leads to the "players should play for fun, not competatively" mindset, as though writing a comprehensive ruleset would prevent casual players from being able to have fun, story driven games. If GW is expecting players to use houe rules as a matter of course, why not force the casual players to use them in order to tailor their game to their needs?

Some may claim that it is impossible to have a set of rules for a game that are both solid tournament-level rules that are also fun for the casual gamer; which, is why GW writes their "guidelines". I think this is incorrect, and I would point to Magic: The Gathering as an example.

In the end, I think that GW can and should own-up and just write solid rules instead.

[Chumbalaya]

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

[Lord Inquisitor]

The 40k rulebook is first a book a rules that must be followed. Second the codex provides stats for units to be used with the rulebook. It can also sometimes provide exceptions that trump the rulebook. If a codex is merely a "guideline" then why cant I follow there "guideline" and make my own units and rules? I don't think Gav would get to far at a tournament if he tried to tell a ref that a codex is a guideline and he can do as he pleases.

[Dragonmann]

My soul hurts like the Emperor just took a bite out of it to light the astronomicon...


This i fundamenatally why I believe that GW should switch completely to a living rulebook system.

You could have tournament rules and non-tournament rules easily.

You could introduce new units anytime.

Fix broken units on a whim.

Clarify rules.

Have s system in place for saying this is gospel and that is guideline.


Arrgggggghh.... find me Andy Chambers and give him control...



Hey Gav, let's play for 5000$, you use any codex you like, I'll use these guidelines. I know I know, genestealers and Leman Russ Companies don't go together, but I figured it was just a guideline and I was making my own cult. OH and I thought genestealers were overpriced, so I made them give me extra points instead. You don't mind do you, it is just a guideline.

One man's informed opinion is another man's sphincter pustule of nurgle

[mountaincycle661]

I can't determine if i agree with the opinions shared on this thread, mostly because nobody uses correct punctuation and/or spelling. Furthermore, there is a complete and total disregard for COMMAS here. Run on sentences are freakin annoying. I cant understand the jist of what you're telling me.

For godsake, proofread.

But, in an effort to stay on topic, I would say that rules are rules. Stick to them. If you want to make house rules and do something wild between friends and friendly games, by all means.

[Sangre]

My soul hurts like the Emperor just took a bite out of it to light the astronomicon...


This i fundamenatally why I believe that GW should switch completely to a living rulebook system.

You could have tournament rules and non-tournament rules easily.

You could introduce new units anytime.

Fix broken units on a whim.

Clarify rules.

Have s system in place for saying this is gospel and that is guideline.


Arrgggggghh.... find me Andy Chambers and give him control...



Hey Gav, let's play for 5000$, you use any codex you like, I'll use these guidelines. I know I know, genestealers and Leman Russ Companies don't go together, but I figured it was just a guideline and I was making my own cult. OH and I thought genestealers were overpriced, so I made them give me extra points instead. You don't mind do you, it is just a guideline.

One man's informed opinion is another man's sphincter pustule of nurgle

B-b-b-but Dragonmann, that would involve GW losing out on £30 a pop for the rulebook, and £12-18 each Codex!

[Prometheus]

I feel this thread is going to get crazy fast and so I am going to say this simple thing and come back when I have time to type until my fingers hurt.

In "friendly" gaming codexs should be used as rules but with the idea that if the game isn't fun, the rules need to change. In a "tournament" setting the rulebook/codexs are set in stone, no exceptions what-so-ever.

[Nabterayl]

You know, this raises a question I've had about GW for a while - do they have anybody on staff qualified to write a really tight rules system? Anybody with a serious background in mathematics, game theory, or anything like that?

[Culven]

I don't know that a background in mathematics and game theory really has anything to do with writing solid rules. Such a background would be useful for writing balanced rules, but that isn't really the recurring problem as I see it in teh various forums. I think that GW needs a technical writer or two to read through and make sure that terms don't have multiple meanings depending upon context (ex. "wound") and that the rules are thorough and clearly written.