We need better rules and codices - DIY?

[ToHitMod]

The thing is, speaking as one of the "casual" players/collecters that not being into tournaments does not necessaraly mean I don't want solid rules. I don't say balanced rules here because that is functionally impossible to achieve anyway. What is more desirable to myself at least are rules that are internally consistant, not biased toward one faction or another and maintained with an eye towards fairness.

If the rules of the game were better I would probably play more, as it is I mostly collect and paint my khorne daemons and play a couple of games here and there (1 a month at most). What I do however play a lot of is warmachine, I dont like the fluff as much and while I find the models perfectly acceptable they dont usually have the flair of the GW ones but that matters little when the game is much more fun (to me) to play.

A big part of this is probably due to the way variability affects the outcome of the game. Quite often I will be beaten playing 40k/fantasy through no fault of my own (daemons are particually bad at this) because of the sheer number of random factors and the wild swing of possible results whereas if I lose a (casual) game of warmachine it is nearly always because of some mistake I made or maneuver I didnt see coming from my opponent. I say casual here because tournament games of warmachine have their own issues with particular styles of listbuilding that is endemic to the hobby as a whole, i.e. spamming the most powerful units. The difference being that Privateer press actually publishes eratta and FAQs on a regular basis in an attempt to correct the more aggrevious errors.

tl;dr: Even though my main aim is to collect and paint nice models I will buy less impressive models purely to play a better designed game.

Luck is a big factor in war, this game is set out to tell the stories of a war, sometimes, you can be the better general but things don't work out in your favour. You say Daemons are losing you games through no fault of your own, but its just as likely, statistically that their randomness will work in your favour, if you've played a lot of games and you're losing every time with daemons, the rules aren't the problem.

The rules are solid as long as you play the game in the spirit its intended, there aren't Seercouncil Death-Stars when you play in the spirit intended, no one I know and play with would ever dream of using that in a game, because thats not fun for your opponent, so people don't use it.

If you use a broken unit, you're admitting to breaking the game, if you use a RAW over RAI ruling of a rule, you're admitting that you're breaking the game.

I'm playing in a tournament next month where the rule pack specifically states that the even is supposed to be fun and tells you "don't be a dickhead", this is the kind of attitude wargames had for most of the 20 odd years I've played them, being a cheese-monger was a bad thing and if people used unbeatable deathstars or stuff like that, they were told to **** off.

Competitive people online don't seem to blink about taking these units that will ruin the game for the other person.

I don't know where these competitive people came from, but really, if they wanted a balanced and competitive game, they'd go else where, I can only imagine they like showing up with their broken army and stomping other people to get some validation and when the army they bought changes to be more in line with the fluff and they can't stomp people with it, they whine.

[Charon]

The rules are solid as long as you play the game in the spirit its intended, there aren't Seercouncil Death-Stars when you play in the spirit intended, no one I know and play with would ever dream of using that in a game, because thats not fun for your opponent, so people don't use it.

They are in the codex. They are in the rules. They are in the fluff.

[ToHitMod]

They are in the codex. They are in the rules. They are in the fluff.

They aren't in the fluff, no where in the fluff are there unkillable units of 8 jetbike riding Warlocks lead by 2 Jetbike riding Farseers and an Aurtarch while the Baron rides along with them. That is NOT a fluffy unit by any stretch of the imagination.

Just because the option is there in the codex, doesn't mean you have to use it and that its fair and balanced. If you find a combination thats unfair, YOU SHOULDN'T USE IT

[Charon]

So the rules are good because if we find a unit that is very good we should just ignore it? Hello sanity?

The Baron needs no place in the Jetbikes. The Craftworld you are looking for is Ulthwe.

[Wolfshade]

I agree with the spirit of what ToHitMod says, just because something is permissable in the ruleset doesn't mean that you should do it. But the issue comes when you expect someone else to make the same decision as what you have done. It all comes down to the idea of a social contract and because we are all different we all have different expectations.

A friend of mine a while back started to get back into 40k and he had troops but no vehicles or anti-flyers so when I started playing him I resolved to take a footslogging army as I knew that he had no anti-flyers and would not be able to cope against a full mech list. Nothing in the rules made me do this, but I chose to do so. Another opponent of his took his usual list that included tanks and flyers. The mate in question didn't mind either way, but could have got quite upset that what I thought as being responable someone else didn't.

tl;dr - Just because can do something doesn't mean you should. Just because you do something "fair" don't expect others to do the same.

[Wolfshade]

You were reminded in post 38. If we cannot have a discussion without resulting to insults then this will be closed. Get it back on topic.


If in any doubt here are the commenting rules.
[url]http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_bolsrules[/url]

[Littha]

Luck is a big factor in war, this game is set out to tell the stories of a war, sometimes, you can be the better general but things don't work out in your favour. You say Daemons are losing you games through no fault of your own, but its just as likely, statistically that their randomness will work in your favour, if you've played a lot of games and you're losing every time with daemons, the rules aren't the problem.

The problem isn't that I lose game or win games with my daemons, I play Mono-Khorne, I am pretty much resigned to losing most of the time anyway (especially when I use the army in Fantasy).

The problem is that as randomness increases the decisions and skill of a player become less and less important.

Say turn 1 I roll on my warp storm table and for arguments sake we compare the best and worst possible results.

Worst result possible is that my entire army gets double 6s for their instability test and vanish. Through no fault of my own I have lost.

Best possible result my opponents only psyker turns into a herald and ties up his best shooting unit for a turn or two. There is a good chance I would win, again with no merit of my own.

Obviously these two extremes only represent a fraction of the time (approximately once every two games for each) but display the point. That victory or loss can be gained through random factors that sideline the skill and wit of both the players, I find this deeply saddening when it happens.

This randomness influencing outcomes is repeated ad nauseam through mission selection, warlord traits and at least once if not more on every character model in my army for selecting their gifts meaning that the end result of a fight often has more to do with how I roll rather than how well I play.

[Dave Mcturk]

"This randomness influencing outcomes is repeated ad nauseam through mission selection, warlord traits and at least once if not more on every character model in my army for selecting their gifts meaning that the end result of a fight often has more to do with how I roll rather than how well I play."

so you would be happy to help re-write the rules then ?

dont think the green wombles are as stupid as the fraternity thinks; every splinter group that 'houserules' for anything is cementing themselves to the game by involvement; it is pretty unethical though!

just as an example of community wide changes - almost all tournaments write their own scenarios - based on brb but easier to use and less 'broken' - and most tournaments now are changing 'warlord tables' and banning the 'super D' weapons.

so some changes are 'evolving' without any help from the wombles.

[Littha]

so you would be happy to help re-write the rules then ?

They need to be rewritten but I feel it is the duty of the company, not its consumers to do so.

Besides that, I have a masters degree in games design and I know full well how long and hard it would be for a community based project like that to work.

Ideally you would want to hire at least two designers for 6 months or so full time to do playtesting/balancing. The designers should have different backgrounds, one in probability based math and the other in literature to ensure both mathamatically sound rules as well as thematically pleasing ones.

[Wolfshade]

I agree that it is the duty of the company, but as a bridge you could always create a houserule as long as it is something that your friends agree with.

I have seen things like Nids being able to ally with Guard or Orks on the thematic basis of the old hybrid and cults and a number of little "conventions" that work fine in a very localised meta but may not work in a larger setting.