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

[Cap'nSmurfs]

FWIW, and to lay out some of my own cards, I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that GW doesn't produce the clearest, simplest rules on the block. I'm sure they don't. I also think it's absolutely the case that Fantasy and 40k substantially do things the way they do because that's the way they've always done them (igo-ugo etc.); not because it's the best way. But that's the thing: so much of GW's games' identity is the fact that the product has always been in some sense The Same throughout their editions; the Str, T, W, I, A, Ld characteristics are a recognisable part of the game's marketing. You can recognise a GW game from these things and so they don't change that stuff.

I think we all recognise that a big part of why GW does things is for business, rather than game development reasons. Whatever we think of those reasons.

With all that said: because I'm not into the hardcore gaming side of the hobby - I'm into background and painting, dreaming up scenarios and playing casually - I'm not as fussed as you guys about the rules. Most (not all!) of the people I play with aren't either. I do like what I'm seeing of 7th; I think the psychic phase looks interesting and I think they've done some work on some of the more annoying aspects of 6th. I think there's definitely some valid criticisms, and I'm not at all a fan of a two-year turnaround and hope that isn't a new precedent.

[Charon]

Any proof of this?
Cause I see people complaining all the time how an army is OP because it has unit X and how unit Y is useless compared to unit Z. These are not competitive players and no WAAC players. Hell there are even discussion about how unfair it is to pick plasma vs space marines or that a BF6 Models snapshots not better than an BF2 Orc.
And we are not talking about anything that breaks the game... which is another quite subjective factor. Are 2 Serpents breaking the game? 4? 6? What if this is part of a craftworld which deploys mobile infantry? There is even a guy posting around who thinks markerlights are breaking the game.
Gunlines do break the game for example and still they are considered fluffy and narrative. So please tell me: What does break the game form an objective point of view? Does a Knight army break the game? Does an imperial armored Company break the game?

[Throne Agent]

Any proof of this?
Cause I see people complaining all the time how an army is OP because it has unit X and how unit Y is useless compared to unit Z. These are not competitive players and no WAAC players. Hell there are even discussion about how unfair it is to pick plasma vs space marines or that a BF6 Models snapshots not better than an BF2 Orc.
And we are not talking about anything that breaks the game... which is another quite subjective factor. Are 2 Serpents breaking the game? 4? 6? What if this is part of a craftworld which deploys mobile infantry? There is even a guy posting around who thinks markerlights are breaking the game.
Gunlines do break the game for example and still they are considered fluffy and narrative. So please tell me: What does break the game form an objective point of view? Does a Knight army break the game? Does an imperial armored Company break the game?

You're not even talking sense now.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

I will also say that the internet gives one a very different impression of the mood in the community, generally. Which is not to say that The Internet Is Wrong, just that the internet is different.

[Throne Agent]

I will also say that the internet gives one a very different impression of the mood in the community, generally. Which is not to say that The Internet Is Wrong, just that the internet is different.

The internet is where people who don't have friends to play the game in the manner its intended for, come to moan about the game for being what they want it to be.

[DarkLink]

I'd like a dollar for every time you say "quality rules" without defining in precise terms what that means, DarkLink.

I'd say there are three requirements:

1: The rules should be clear and concise, with minimal typos, ambiguities, and loopholes. You should not need to houserule anything to make the game function. If an issue arises, which will happen in even the best written of games, there should be an official FAQ/Errata to cover the issue within a reasonable period of time. Objectively, GW fails at this. Even the most staunch defenders will handwave most complaints with "just houserule it". GW FAQs are often nonsensical, or fail to address relevant issues, or just completely nonexistent.

2: The rules should be reasonably balanced. You should be able to show up to a game with most any army and have a decent chance of winning. Objectively, GW fails at this. Even the most stauch of defenders of the tournament scene will admit that 40k is often barely functional as a competitive game because the balance is so skewed.

3: The rules should be "fun". This is totally subjective, so it mostly isn't relevant to the discussion since different people like different things. That said, overly clunky mechanics (Look Out Sir and Wound Allocation), and rules that sound cool but are effectively useless in game (Fear, Ramming), are probably pretty universally considered a bad thing for a game. I happen to like a lot about the general gameplay in 40k, but it does have a lot of rules that fall into those categories.



Compare to Warmahordes or Infinity. Both have well written rules, and when a loophole arises, PP and Corvus Belli are quick to answer the community's question. The games are fairly well balanced. There are certainly things that are too good or not good enough, but you can show up with any army and have a solid chance of winning, as long as you're a good player. Both have two very, very different styles of gameplay from both 40k and each other, which is a toss up on whether or not you like their respective style, and there's no shame in not caring for the way Warmahordes plays, but the gameplay is fast and smooth in a way that 40k isn't. Infinity in particular is extremely fast to play, and most of the game is spent pondering tactical decisions rather than bogged down in complex book keeping or rolling buckets of dice over and over again.


Does that clarify your question? There's a lot to like about 40k, but it objectively fails a couple of these qualifiers.


Plus, when you say that it's not designed nor good as a competitive game, because it's intended to be a beer and pretzels game, you're literally saying you have to be drinking to enjoy it .

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.

I was blunt and offensive. If you have a problem with that, I don't particularly care. While DrBored, who is generally a cool guy, nor is he an idiot, used polite words, anyone older than about 5 should know that you don't have to be using four letter words to be insulting. I take no offense to the idea that not everyone plays competitively, nor did my statement imply that in any way. I personally prefer competitive games, but I enjoy more casual silly games as well. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

However.

There is significant unwarranted social stigma against players who happen to enjoy playing competitively. It's literally elitist class warfare, which is kind of sad considering this is basically a game of war barbies. It is not behavior I find acceptable, so even if I like someone, I will call them on their attitude. I come from a place where if someone is wrong, you tell them they're wrong, you don't hide behind passive-aggressive political correctness. If DrBored changes his opinion or explains that he meant something different that I misunderstood, then no big deal, everything works out.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Eh, I don't think that's fair. The internet just does what it does; skew perceptions one way or another.

[The Tisroc]

Gaming wise, the interwebz seem to be a big echo chamber wherein a discontented few shout and shout. The discontent and dismay that I find in the digital world doesn't really match the real world that I play in.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Thanks for the response DarkLink: I think your standards there are reasonable. I don't even disagree with you very much; I just care much less about those things.

"you're literally saying you have to be drinking to enjoy it"

Nah: I think it's more a description of the kind of tone where you're both playing to enjoy it and aren't too concerned about the result or any issues which arise (and I've never played a game without at least one rules query!). "Beer and pretzels" is a shorthand for a light-hearted game, not "this only makes sense if you're drunk".

(And yeah, I know that hardcore tournament players and WAAC types are, in fact, having fun as a primary activity. )

[Mr Mystery]

There's also the approach of the individual to what they want their hobby to be.

Me? It's for relaxing. Whether it's talking biscuits on the interwebs about Warhammer and 40k, building up a kit I bought just because I liked the look of it, or having the odd game down the shop.

It gets me away from my professional life, which whilst I do enjoy it, can often be mentally exhausting and frustrating in equal measure (I've got one case in my name where one side just will not give me the information I need, despite them legally not having an option. Inquisitorial mandate, dontcha know!). And despite being a public service, it's a competitive environment when it comes to promotion and standing out. And that is my arena. That is where I pull out the stops and don't let people get in my way. So I feel somewhat naturally, my downtime and hobby time should be anything but. It should be a time when I'm not driving myself to ever greater heights, but just monging out and enjoying myself.

Others? I don't know their own motivations, nor do I care to speculate, as there's no way to do that sort of speculation without being an arse.