Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Because this thread needs a poll.

For purposes of this poll please consider only the current editions of 40k and WHFB, without any house rules/special campaigns/etc that you may have added to the game. Also, do not consider factors like fluff, models, or how easy it is to find other players in your area. This poll is only about the rules.

The rules are great for starting arguments.

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, do not consider factors like fluff, models, or how easy it is to find other players in your area. This poll is only about the rules.

Not considering these things I find 40K to be bottom-tier and Fantasy to be adequate. So my vote goes to below average.

If I do consider those things however, Fantasy is still adequate and 40K is too.

They're good, but not great.

I voted adequate.

On the basis of rules and nothing but rules, they provide a framework to play a game with your dudesmen. Fantasy i think is a bit better than 40k on the total whole, though i have issues with this current edition i'm hoping are sorted in 9th.

Honestly, i view both as beer and pretzel games. I used to be a hardcore competitive player, i don't think i could ever take WHFB or 40K seriously for competition.


That said, i find both games fun, and a portion of that is the ruleset. So on rules alone, adequate, though there's room for improvement.

you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

To me the rules are adequate, especially if you play against opponents that don't mind skipping/averting the more illogical rules questions.

Above all, I have fun doing it. For competitive play, well I don't do hardcore competitive play..

Pretty abysmal. From the standpoint of actually getting everything to work properly, the rules are usually poorly written and poorly edited, leaving much more up to interpretation than there should be.

From a gameplay standpoint, assuming you get everything to flow properly with less arguments than there absolutely will be, it's not exceptional in any regard other than the sheer amount of models you can throw on the table (take that as a pro or con, as you will, I personally find that the ever-increasing model count goes further to obfuscate the already paper-thin gameplay). There's a lot of detail written into the books for things that really don't matter, and the game ends up being far more simplistic in actual play than the design would let on.
Even worse, the huge reliance on needlessly random elements remove players from making decisions and actually playing the game to being little more than dice-rolling machines.
And I'm not going to touch the state of inter and intra-army balance, which is at the best of times pretty bad.

So they get points for existing. That's about it, really.

I'd say unplayable to the extent that the major reason I no longer play their games is because the rules have become so uninteresting to the point of making the game unplayable, but there is a system that theoretically is supposed to work once slogged through enough. For that reason, I'll put them at "Bottom-Tier."

xruslanx wrote:
you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

Despite appearances to the contrary, Dakka isn't a forum devoted to bashing GW - they just seem to have a habit of doing things thst merit criticism lately.

 Dysartes wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

Despite appearances to the contrary, Dakka isn't a forum devoted to bashing GW - they just seem to have a habit of doing things thst merit criticism lately.

I was referring to the dakka discussions sub-forum. And you sound like an abusive husband justifying his wife's bruises


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I did Peregrine's job for him.

 Dysartes wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

Despite appearances to the contrary, Dakka isn't a forum devoted to bashing GW - they just seem to have a habit of doing things thst merit criticism lately.

Exactly.
Dakka is one of (the as of last count?) biggest sites dedicated to wargaming in general. Yes, there is a lot of dislike for GW here, and especially in Dakka Discussion (since it is the most relevant sub forum for it). But you know what, if GW have that bad of a rep here (and everywhere really, remember that thread about websites that have a positive view of GW?) there has to be a reason for it.



On topic, I think the fantasy rules are playable in that I can enjoy the models and fluff despite the problems with the rules but threads like this that are about 'GW games' are really about 40k and on that front I have tried, I have really, really tried to like the game.

I would love to do a pre heresy Iron Warriors army since the HH books are quickly turning them into my favourite legion but every time I look at it all I see is a codex that can't give me an army that plays the way I want and the HH list which isn't exactly designed for play against regular 40k forces. I could play them with the current chaos dex but then I've got to take some guard allies to get access to all the cool siege toys I need, but at that point any list I write would make a lot more sense as guard with chaos allies and all of a sudden I lose interest.

I'd love a Raven Guard army using lots of bits and pieces from anvil since some of them are amazing for giving marines that realistic modern/future soldier look GW seem to ignore but with the latest book that has come out the only way for me to do it is lots of assault marines and I really, really don't want to do that because I think assault marines should not be the focus of a raven guard force, they are an infiltrating force, not a jump pack force. Unfortunately the only way I have seen to do that is to take a chaos marine list with Huron as 'counts as' to get his warlord trait.

Even a guard footslogger list seems like fun since I could do it really cheap with mantic models, but even as I try to tell myself that I can't bring myself to do it because as I write the list people tell me to take X because it's OP and make sure I pick up Y because I'll have to deal with fliers and stay away from Z because it's useless. After exploring other systems I just can't deal with that kind of while list building.


40k is not a game I can enjoy on any level because as much as I love the fluff and models the rules are:
A) Horribly unbalanced compared to every other system I have tried.
B) Overly complicated in that rule A means X happens but unit B has rule C that turns X into Y unless someone has brought Z, and if that is the case we'll have to check the rulebook to see what Z does.
C) Very, very poorly written. So much so that one of the rules writers admitted in White Dwarf that often while playtesting if something came up where they did not know how new rule X interacts with another units rule Y they would 4+ it themselves and make that how it goes. There is no justification for that, the rules writers are admitting to playtesting things without having a very clear idea at all how the rule is supposed to work.
D) Not sure what scale they are at. I said it in the last thread and I'll say it again, there are elements of a skirmish game in a game that involves jets and artillery.
E) Tactically speaking, very shallow. Between weapon ranges and no sort of facings on units it's not hard to sit on an objective in the middle of the board and stay there. If I want to get you off it I run strait at you with a weapon that can dislodge you, there is no benefit to flanking you or outmaneuvering you in any way. Either I have the tools in my list to deal with your unit on the objective or I don't. (This might be a little bit of an oversimplification I'll admit but in general I think it's a very valid point.


Go ask anyone in the infinity sub forum what units you should take in your list, their answer will be 'whatever you like, they are all viable'. Try winning a game of W-wing if your opponent is good enough to stay out of your firing arc all game. Me and my friends are still new enough to Dystopan wars that we certainly don't know all the rules so the other night we had a bit of an issue with wording when it came to ramming. As soon we got home we jumped on the net and looked up the 1.1 rules (we only had 1.0 on us) and all of a sudden it became perfectly clear.

40k rules are not good. 40k is popular because most the people playing it have never tried anything else. It is most people's first introduction to the hobby but the ease of finding a game and the fluff/models are all that keeps it afloat, in terms of gameplay it is nothing.
/rant

You can play a game of 40k ,and have fun..
IF you are happy to spend time and effort to overcome the problems caused by GW sales department driving the rules development.

So they CAN result in a functional game IF BOTH players have the same idea of what fun is.(The rule set is ambigous on all levels. )
AND are prepared to put a lot of time and effort in editing the rules themselves.

I can not understand why people pay twice as much for a rule set they have to 're-write on the fly as they go along '.

Perhaps this inspired GW to release Finecast.

Looks and sounds AWESOME .

But in reality they are both full of holes and distortions you have to fix yourself....

I voted obstacle to playing the game .Because they are NOT 'player friendly'.

I went for bottom tier. The rules are not just an obstacle, they're a willpower sucking drudgery that you need to push through in the vain hope that things may work right, eventually.
I've got quite a big post about it in the other thread. Though I'm thinking I should have posted it here now, since the other one has gone massively offtrack.

I feel the rules are good, we rarely have any problems with them.

 Rayvon wrote:
I feel the rules are good, we rarely have any problems with them.
OP has an obvious agenda though so maybe I should not have even answered !

Regardless of OP's possible personal agenda, the opening post and poll itself look very fair and devoid of suggestion.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
I feel the rules are good, we rarely have any problems with them.
OP has an obvious agenda though so maybe I should not have even answered !

Regardless of OP's possible personal agenda, the opening post and poll itself look very fair and devoid of suggestion.

Ok, I should not have bought that up, i will just use the ignore function in future and edit my post, i do apologise if I offended you.

Saying this having only played GW games.
I find them to be adequate, 40k has absolutely terrible rules, if the models weren't awesome and it wasn't easy to find a game, I would not be playing it anymore.

Fantasy has a decent ruleset, I liked 7th better, but I find the rules are (somewhat) tighter and better thought out than 40k's.

LoTR/The Hobbit has to be some of the best rules I have come across, with very few clashes in the rules that required an FAQ (in fact most of it is errata for typo's and some minor clarifications).

WoTR, the rules were tight, but it quickly became a game of who could take the most broken combo, if you've played against the White Council or The Nine Are Abroad, you'll know what I mean.

Necromunda and Mordheim both had very clear rules that required a total of 0 FAQs and errata to my knowledge.

GW make my favourite rules.
Bloodbowl, necromunda, space hulk and 40k are my preferred rulesets.

They're pretty good rules, IMHO. Above average, but quite far from perfect.

Slightly off-topic, but how many other games have so many unique units? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to claim 40k and fantasy are the best rulesets around.

I voted below average.

For me they don't cut it imo, I like the fluff which is why I keep playing it but to me a game should have these factors:

Is a game interesting? for 40k and WFB yes they are

Is Skill and Tactics there? in competitive terms, no they are not why? because once you really look at the armies there is the whole Netlist problem, and the depth of it. imo every unit in a codex should be viable, an example of this should be Dreadnoughts and Hellbrutes, whilst in some armies they are an exception, in majority of armies they are a waste of points, but why should they? why should I be penalised because I may like the Hellbrute model, because the rules are crud for it? I can guarantee if every unit was viable there would be a lot more flavour In competitive 40k, than just Tau-dar/Flying daemon circus/etc, etc where someone will win with just rules without any thought required is just plain wrong imo. remember people flavour is always a good thing

is it balanced? for 40k and WFB no it really is not, whilst I agree there should be slight imbalance in games, imo they should be kept to a bare minimum, 40k and WFB just quite plainly chucks balance out of the window, because they think its funny. because of this imbalance we have Netlists and in WFB, cannonade where there is really no point in placing my Undead dragon down because my general is going to be one-shotted of the board. The level of imbalance in both games is horrendous. whilst I say I think there should be imbalance in games it should be kept to a bare minimum to keep a game fair, after all no one likes it when they feel like they have just been jelly legged on a game.

Close to the wire: every gamer likes a game when every game is close from start to finish, it also imo allows and helps gamers to improve in skill and strategy, 40k and WFB has very occasionally those moments, whilst they still exist in 40k and WFB it is much, much more likely to be tabled in a few turns than it to be close to the wire, which is the opposite of what the game devs intended for their games.

All this is just my opinion, but these are what makes games good, if it was not for the background and the armies in both games I really would not have bothered with them and went to other games.

-Shrike- wrote:

Slightly off-topic, but how many other games have so many unique units? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to claim 40k and fantasy are the best rulesets around.

Infinity's factions have many more units than 40k/Fantasy's, and each unit tends to be considerably more unique in terms of abilities and function. Warmahordes armies also tend to be similarly diverse. Really, 40k isn't exceptional at all in that regard.

Rules are gak, you can get a game of KoW done in half the time with twice as large an army and much more interesting tactical interaction going on (for starters flank and rear attacks actually murder enemy units, in warhammer it simply tickles them).

The only remotely positive new development for GW is their accelerated release schedule this year, rather than leaving armies to fester with 8-10 year-old codexes and army books from 2 editions ago.

Still plenty of armies that get left to rot, wood elves and bretonnians in particular.

Rule #1 everyone.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

Thanks.

I voted above-average.

Fantasy's current rule set is very good, with only a few issues that let it down. I won't go into the details here, but there's only a few things that need to be addressed. I have high hopes for 9th edition.

40k's rules are less good, but still alright in my opinion. What I really dislike is some of the codex rules and the mentality people often bring to the game. I still manage to have fun with 40k both competitively and non-competitively. There are a few grey areas, but as long as you're not a complete TFG about it, it can easily be sorted out.

xruslanx wrote:
you're starting this here? In a forum specifically devoted to bashing gw?

May as well set up a poll on stormfront asking if black people are more likely to commit crime.

If you think this forum is dedicated to bashing GW then you need to get out more. Dakka is one of the more positive forums I've been on.

As for me, I voted below average. I can have fun with the system at times, but I always felt like it was in spite of the rules, not because of them. Probably should have rated it lower but that didn't feel fair when I have had legitimately good games at times.

EDIT: To expand on that, after trying X-Wing, Flames of War, and even Bolt Action and seeing how much more balanced than 40k they are, I just can't bring myself to play again. And those are systems that I've heard still have some balance issues. Compared to 40k, they're almost flawless. I'll get excited over some models or a cool conversion idea until I think to myself "eh, why bother? I don't have nearly enough models to play anymore." Its really sad, I REALLY want to like 40k again, but the armies I want to play are all either crippled by new rules, exhausting to play, or just boils down to standing still and shooting, something neither player will enjoy.

I have no problem with the rules for 40K.

Compared to Heroclix 40K is nearly perfect!

40K is an incredibly fun game... if I don't care about winning and I dice off rules problems more often then not. The best rules sets capture the flavor of the fluff and make you feel immersed in the setting. 40K fails miserably at this. Every Codex is written such that every unit is awesome and kicks butt, has never lost a battle, and is awesome. Awesome, awesome, awesome. The reality is, a disproportionate amount of units are sub-par, some are borderline useful, and a few are must takes. If a player can't take what they want or is "fluffy" according to the Codex and have a reasonable chance of winning/having a good time, then it's poor game design. We get a new edition every 3-5 years, and instead of the game getting better, it feels like random rules are added, random rules stricken, and the best parts of the previous edition are ignored. Over night, whole units in armies become useless, and the ignored units in the previous edition are reworked to become awesome (Grey Knight Paladins) or are dropped altogether (Necron Pariahs).

When you start to play other games, ignoring the models and fluff and just concentrating on the rules, you suddenly realize that GW can write good rules (see Mordheim, Battlefleet Gothic, Bloodbowl... basically, all their specialist games), but for the flagship games 40K and Fantasy... I just don't understand where/why they failed. or why they don't do anything about it.

Average. Not great, not terrible, just quite lacking in fun and diversity, and overall balance.

Below average , major problems , some redeeming qualities

Bottom tier - the rules are an obstacle to be overcome, if I can be bothered to play at all.