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.

Fairly straight forward question, but with a number of viable answers.

All I want to know is which you find more important in a game (not necessarily a Games Workshop one).

Good rules, or good opponents?

I ask this because I think it's an interesting topic of conversation. Me, I find that with good opponents (I'll leave the qualification definition to yourselves) your games will tend to be pretty enjoyable, regardless of how many rules questions crop up.

To me, a good opponent is one more concerned with keeping the pace of the game up, than debating an apparent nuance of wording in the rules, or trying to exploit a peculiar situation for their own furtherance. The guys I play against are this way inclined. We pretty much only play Warhammer Fantasy, and every game we tend to come up against a situation we're either not 100% sure about, or that isn't covered by the rules fully. And when this happens, we have a quick conversation, and come to an agreement and continue. Sometimes we'll hunt around in the Rulebook, but only when the decision is an important one. For example, Dan and I spent a couple of minutes regarding Killing Blow V Regenerate. Depending on the outcome, his Khorne Lord on Jugger was either very dead, or unscathed. He had rolled his Regen and passed both for the two Killing Blows. I mentioned thinking it didn't help. He was happy to check the book. Regenerate rule said nowt, so we continued with his Lord alive to the next combat. Greg then checked the Killing Blow rule, and it turned out you don't get Regenerate against Killing Blow. We redressed this after finishing the other combat. Nice and quick, no quibbling. I guess you could say we often have a rules quibble, but very, very rarely a rules arguement.

And I have played against a Rules Lawyer before quite a few times, and every game I found to be a chore, as did his other opponents. The flow of the game spluttered and stalled.

So, in this imperfect world, do you find good opponents can make up for less than good rules? Or do you feel a good rule set means better players in general? And don't forget to post your reasoning!

EDIT

And please note the wording of the question. I have no asked *what* is more important, but *which*. This is meant to imply both are important considerations when trying to enjoy a game, and I am not suggesting that a glut of one can make up the abscence of the other!

My take: If you are playing a friendly, reasonable opponent the game will go fine no matter how tight or loose the rules are. If there is a "Win At All Costs" donkey-cave on the other side of the table you will be in hell for the duration of the game no matter how well the rules are written.

Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt.

I'm not sure I understand the poll.

I wouldn't play a game if I didn't like the rules. Hence my pretty much complete abstinence from 40K for the latter half of 4th edition, and resurgence of interest now.

But I also wouldn't voluntarily play against someone I didn't enjoy playing with.

A good opponent isn't a substitute for poor rules, but nor are good rules a substitute for an enjoyable game. So they're both equally important... which isn't a 'happy middle ground' ... it's a 'both are required if you're going to have fun'...

If both players are happy then thats all that counts.

I voted good rules. I already more or less play in a cut throat type environment and I find it pretty enjoyable. I bring the best I can, they bring the best they can. I suppose I voted rules because I don't have good rules. I have 40k rules that need some fixing.

In my opinion it is absolutely more important to find sympathetic players than rules.

You can't change people. You can change games.

BloodDeathAssault wrote:If both players are happy then thats all that counts.

so true

The way I see it, most of the people I play 40K with already are pretty good players.

If a game has really good rules, then most of the games I play will have good rules and good players.

If the game has bad rules and universally good players, then that still doesn't mean that the game will be all that tactically challenging and balanced, unless you expand good players to including being extremely skilled at designing and modifing rules.

Of course, if it's a choice between terrible rules and terrible players, I would favor the terrible rules. But honestly, I probably wouldn't even play the game.

Without the players, the game is nothing, regardles of how good the rules are.

Good players can worka round any issues with the rules.
Good rules can't help you work around a bad player.

Well-written rules make it more difficult for weasely players to have their way, so I would say that this is a prime consideration. The more leeeway there is for people to win through lawyerism the more people will do it.

as has been said by many its always about a good opponent, at the GT this year me and friend came up against each other in the last game and neither of us could of had more fun w/l/d we didn't care just played the game and got on with it,

i have found some rules lawyers and outright blatant cheats around my FLGS and they get offended when i refuse to play them, today i watched one guy moving 7 - 8" for his assaults, lying models down so he could get more attacks in on an assault ( he was playing horde orks, like he didn't have enough attacks already for crying out loud) and other such things, i took his opponent to one side after the game not saying anything for the whole time i watched them play and basically told him what he was doing (his last game of 40k was rouge trader so you can understand why he didn't notice so much) and he was shocked and would never play him again,

but of course that's for friendly games and at a GT or any other tournament you can't choose your opponents, but that's part of the weekend

but to some up my roundabout argument players are always more important than the rules no matter what game you are playing

I don't understand how to answer this question. Good players with bad rules is kind of lame, and good rules with bad players is annoying.


I want both.

For my 2p, "both" are necessary. If the opponents aren't fun I won't play *them* again, and if the rules aren't fun I won't play *them* again. In practical terms I've got mates I enjoy playing games with and we play various games that we find fun. On the other hand, I'm not likely to hunt around for opponents just to play a "great" game if my mates aren't interested as I'm just too lazy, and there are already enough games in my cupboard that I can play any week with my friends anyhow, so there's no need to go looking...

Good players are great, but if they don't know how to play it's just frustrating. And I'm not talking about piddly stuff. I'm talking about a lack of basic rules knowledge, like no, your Necrons cannot assault after using the Veil because they count as Deep Striking some such.

So both.

players are important. rules are important, but I think themost important is yourself.. don't be a dick and you'll find that no matter how dumb the rules are and how dumb the people are, you'll have a better chance of finding games and friends..

depends on wat people want, some times good players are citical, but fun players are good to

HI .
If you assume you play TTGs with freinds and like minded people, then the quality of the rules determines the level of enjoyment.
IMO.

If you assume that any idiot will do as a gaming buddy then perhaps you deserve all you get!

NEVER take an idiot with you, you can ALWAYS find one when you get there!

TTFN
Lanrak.

Quite a very good point there Lanrak.

Particularly about the idiot part!

i'd say good players cause personally rooting through the rule book can some times suck the life out of a game.

Depends on the situation that one.

If they've not played in a while, then fair enough, and if it's a situation less encountered, then also fair enough. However, constant, incessant rules lawyering and seeking would seem to suggest they are not, in my definition at least, a good player. Or rather, good opponent!

Good players are definitely more important to me. I'm with chromedog on this one.

You love these polls don't you Grotsnik?

Find two things that aren't mutually exclusive and throw them up agianst one another as though only one can exist at a time.

BYE

Read what I said. The question is about which is *more* important.

Definately good players, especially that have imagination and intelligence...

I also have to agree with Lanrak as to choosing who is in your group, to paraphrase a poker adage...

If you can't spot the idiot....look in the mirror!!

I like happy players, as bad players with good or bad rules is just a pain in the .

You can't fix the players, but you can fix the rules.

Not that kind of fixing.

But good players are infinitely more important. Luckily my group is really cool.