Oh how GW has failed me.....Let me count the ways (7 of them in honor of 7th ed)

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Is it even worth trying to still wade into this conversation?

On the one hand you have a large portion of the community saying they want a certain format and balance, that GW isn't providing it and that it is making the game less fun and harming the community.

And on the other you have both GW and fans saying that they don't care, they don't intend it that way, if you leave no one will miss you and if you have a problem solve it yourself.

It's hard to imagine a scenario where a company and it's fanbase take a more self indulgent and dismissive stance. That's always turned out really well in the end... right?

You appear to be mistaking liking the direction the game is going in and not caring about it.
I actively don't want things to turn in the direction that has been suggested in the name of balance.
I'm all for self governance by the community in terms of play. because I think that the guy who makes a demons summoning demons army has as much right to enjoy his hobby as I do.
I won't be doing it out of personal choice, and I doubt I'll play him more than once, but he the fact that he now has the freedom to do it pleases me.
I used to be one of those guys who rails against WAAC players and their shenanigans, but then it occurred to me that those guys have every right to play and have fun, just as the guy who wants a balanced and tight ruleset has every right to choose not to use the rules as they exist.
As I see it it's significantly easier for us as gamers to have the rules to do anything provided and simply not use or restrict the ones we don't like than have to house rule things in.
But then it is, as is all of this, an opinion. Which means none of us are intrinsically right or wrong.

[Harley]

You appear to be mistaking liking the direction the game is going in and not caring about it.
I actively don't want things to turn in the direction that has been suggested in the name of balance.
I'm all for self governance by the community in terms of play. because I think that the guy who makes a demons summoning demons army has as much right to enjoy his hobby as I do.
I won't be doing it out of personal choice, and I doubt I'll play him more than once, but he the fact that he now has the freedom to do it pleases me.
I used to be one of those guys who rails against WAAC players and their shenanigans, but then it occurred to me that those guys have every right to play and have fun, just as the guy who wants a balanced and tight ruleset has every right to choose not to use the rules as they exist.
As I see it it's significantly easier for us as gamers to have the rules to do anything provided and simply not use or restrict the ones we don't like than have to house rule things in.
But then it is, as is all of this, an opinion. Which means none of us are intrinsically right or wrong.

The problem is a player should be able to drive to a game store an hour away without being close friends with anyone there, ask if anyone wants to play and begin a fun pick up game within 15 minutes of arriving. Right now that's impossible by your standards because that player has to first learn the house rules of the store, then find a player who's list is "fun" to play against, negotiate what type of game they want to play, what sort of lists they want to play with, what sort of missions they will use and what is banned outright as being OP. Said player then has to hope that he brought the right models to play by this now established standard, meaning he had to have brought a large collection of models far and above what he would normally be playing with in a single game. He then has to sit down and write a NEW list which fits the house rules and opponents standard. Furthermore, if he doesn't like the house rules or his opponents list and fails to convincingly negotiate with them, or maybe just didn't bring the right models because he thought that 6 Leman Russ tanks were kosher but the store says it's WAAC, he is **** out of luck and just drove an hour for no reason. Either way he just blew ANOTHER hour setting up a game which already takes several to play and possible killed any opportunity of actually finishing said game let alone getting another game in.

That is the reality of the 40k gaming community right now. That is how GW has divided gamers which otherwise had common ground to play and have fun upon. Literally, this reason, is why many players are quitting. That's not ok.

[Charon]

The thing is that it is way easier to ignore restrictions than to enforce restrictions.
If you go for a P&PRPG which has crazy tables about thirst and starvation, crippled limbs and slow recovery you can either accept them and play within the tight ruleset or ignore some/all which seem to be bothersome.
From personal experience most gaming groups tend to ignore large portions of rules because they hamper gameplay.
Sure. You can do it the other way round and add new rules and restrictions. But this requires much more work, explaination and time.
Lets take an example.

We go for an unrestricted version of 40k which is basically unbound. You dont like that and want to change it.
Now you tell your gaming partner:
Ok I want to play it like this.. we both have to take a Leader and at least two Troops, then you can add in 4 more troops 3 elite 3 heavy support and a second leader these all have to be from the same army. You can only ally with certain armys on a table I made up.

on the other side we have a restricted 40k. You also dont like it and want to change it.
Now you tell your partner:
Hey, can we agree on not using the FOC and just use what we like?

Ignoring rules is no disadvantage and takes minimum time. Creating a new ruleset is time consuming. Thats why a restricted game will always come out on top as you can always decide to just ignore restrictions as you see fit. the other way is harder, may alienate your gaming partner, is time consuming and generally a proof of lazyness in game design.

And evidently ignoring rules actually DOES work in 40k and always has. We ignored FOC for campains, we agreed to not use escalation, stronghold assault, allies, special characters, forge world,...
And all that worked way better than to rewrite rules or adding some more.

[DarkLink]

I used to be one of those guys who rails against WAAC players and their shenanigans, but then it occurred to me that those guys have every right to play and have fun, just as the guy who wants a balanced and tight ruleset has every right to choose not to use the rules as they exist.

WAAC players deserve to have fun, sure. So why not create a game that minimized their ability to abuse the game to make it that much easier to have a fun game between a WAAC player and a casual player. I mean, they'll still probably be dicks a lot of the time, but the less often they can be the better, for everyone.

As to the latter, if you buy a car, it's reasonable to expect you should be able to drive it home without it breaking down. You can't do that with 7th. Sure, you can take a significant amount of time to study the rules in great detail to determine what's broken and figure out a reasonable solution and then spend a half hour per opponent convincing them to use your houserules, but that's as much of a waste of time as replacing the radiator on a brand new car because it was of a shoddy quality and needed to be replaced.

Balanced, quality rules are better in every conceivable manner for everyone, including you.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I'd like a dollar for every time you say "quality rules" without defining in precise terms what that means, DarkLink. I mean, I'm sure GW's game designers believe they design quality rules; it's just that they have different tastes and priorities. You say - and I don't at all think you're wrong - that a game which is quick, streamlined, simple to learn but hard to master is an example of quality rules; someone else might say that the ability of a ruleset to evoke a strong background and a sense of narrative is a mark of quality; others still might prize the elasticity and adaptability of basic rules to myriad situations that the players might come across or come up with. etc.

What I'm driving at is that you play fast and loose with the word quality as if it was an objective measure, and it isn't (it is in car parts; game design, less so). You also overuse it to a maddening extent. It doesn't invalidate your argument, but it also doesn't strengthen it as much as you think it does.

[Caitsidhe]

I'd like a dollar for every time you say "quality rules" without defining in precise terms what that means, DarkLink. I mean, I'm sure GW's game designers believe they design quality rules; it's just that they have different tastes and priorities. You say - and I don't at all think you're wrong - that a game which is quick, streamlined, simple to learn but hard to master is an example of quality rules; someone else might say that the ability of a ruleset to evoke a strong background and a sense of narrative is a mark of quality; others still might prize the elasticity and adaptability of basic rules to myriad situations that the players might come across or come up with. etc.

What I'm driving at is that you play fast and loose with the word quality as if it was an objective measure, and it isn't (it is in car parts; game design, less so). You also overuse it to a maddening extent. It doesn't invalidate your argument, but it also doesn't strengthen it as much as you think it does.

I don't think he has ever been vague about what he defines as "quality" rules. However, I will be glad to give you mine:

1) Balanced.
2) Consistent.
3) Crystal clear with all information regarding a rule in the same rules section.
4) Fast, i.e. not bogged down with lots of looking things up or rolls spamming rolls.
5) Simple, i.e. not complicated, i.e. direct, i.e. the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
6) It handles MECHANICS and lets players handle narrative.
7) Updates correct existing problems, i.e. allowing new editions to improve rather than replace with new problems.
8) Self Correcting, i.e. if a huge issue is found, it is addressed and corrected within (30) days.
9) An organized rule book, i.e. none of this foolishness of having multiple entries for something, one for color and one for tech. Put it all together damn it.
10) Add on rules, i.e. other books follow all the rules listed but with particularly emphasis on BALANCE and CONSISTENCY with core book.

[The Tisroc]

1) Balanced.
2) Consistent.
3) Crystal clear with all information regarding a rule in the same rules section.
4) Fast, i.e. not bogged down with lots of looking things up or rolls spamming rolls.
5) Simple, i.e. not complicated, i.e. direct, i.e. the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
6) It handles MECHANICS and lets players handle narrative.
7) Updates correct existing problems, i.e. allowing new editions to improve rather than replace with new problems.
8) Self Correcting, i.e. if a huge issue is found, it is addressed and corrected within (30) days.
9) An organized rule book, i.e. none of this foolishness of having multiple entries for something, one for color and one for tech. Put it all together damn it.
10) Add on rules, i.e. other books follow all the rules listed but with particularly emphasis on BALANCE and CONSISTENCY with core book.

Ha! You just described Warmachine (my favorite game)! I love 40K but (rules-wise) it doesn't hold a torch to WarmHordes.

[Throne Agent]

The less you're insulting and condescending to people who have different opinions than you the more people will enjoy being in the same hobby as you.

My irony detector just broke.

You treat any one who says the game is fine as it is, a friendly "beer and pretzels" game to play with friends to use your cool models in like they're an idiot that couldn't possibly understand the wikipedia article on Game Theory that you read.

You try and force your opinion that what you think are quality rules (as if that is an objective thing) are better for everyone, ignoring the wider communities utter indifference to what you care about.

[Charon]

So you are suggesting that the majority of players dont want a balanced game with clearly written rules which is consitsent within itself?
A bold theory.

[Throne Agent]

So you are suggesting that the majority of players dont want a balanced game with clearly written rules which is consitsent within itself?
A bold theory.

For the vast majority of players, the rules thay have are balanced and consistent because they're not sad acts who try and break a game to feel better about themselves.