GW rules: how good are they?

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.

**fynn**

Average rules, fun to play in a friendly enviroment (at home, the local club and so on), but are not good enough, or clear enough in places for hard core tourny use (how many tournys do a rule pack to clear GW's mess up in the rules and codex)

**Blacksails**

Somewhere between below average and bottom tier.

**Azreal13**

I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

**Tannhauser42**

Below average.
The problem is GW's entire collection of rules spans a period of several years of different design philosophies and editions. The core rulebook by itself is not bad. It's the interactions of all the different codices with those rules (and with each other), many of which were written before the current edition, that cause all of the problems. I believe every edition should be done much like 3rd Edition was: release a new edition with basic army lists in the starter box, and then throughout the following year release all new codices for every army fully updated to the new edition, so that all are balanced with each other in regards to the new edition's rules.

But that will never happen because GW will never again release rules without models (even though no other gaming company has a problem with that), and they continue to sell their investors on the belief that GW is a model company, not a game company (despite the, you know, NAME of the company being GAMES Workshop).

**Compel**

Strangely, when I was making my 'top of my head' list of "why GW has terrible rules" it was almost entirely a result of models and decisions made in the past few years. A significant portion of problems were from the main rulebook.

Compel wrote:
Examples of 40k rules being terrible, listing them just off the top of my head.

1) The entire ruleset for the Fortress of Redemption. Line of Sight gun rules, I have friends insisting the Walkway doesn't exist for it.. What's a valid firepoint?

2) Landing Pad rules. I see no rules reason (other than not wanting to be an jerk), to stop someone fielding mortar squads underneath the pad, and sticking a Baneblade on top of it.

3) Terrain set-up rules. You find out what deployment type, what table half you're on, you set up fortifications, THEN terrain? That's just truly horrible, even if you aren't using the 'alternating' terrain rules. - And if you are, you then have to deal with the problem of your opponent inevitably sticking a clifftop in front of your bastion. Because that makes sense.

4) Someone mentioned this earlier. "Zealot" confers both the "Fearless" and "Hatred" special rules. That's just bad rules writing, plain and simple. An argument could be made that 'slow and purposeful' is quite a mess as well.

5) The barrage rules are another example of horrible rules writing. Let's combine both positive and negative phrasing to make the most convoluted rule possible.

6) Rushed print runs of rules resulting in incredibly stupid errors, which have to be FAQ'ed. Examples: Chaos Codex helbrutes, Dark Angels Codex ravenwing and veterans, Tau codex missile drones and possibly the Eldar codex with the shadow weaver?

7) And, the opposite of (6), very badly thought out FAQ rules changes / 'clarifications', that end up either changing the nature of the game (The Heldrake 360 arc baleflamer) or making certain units almost entirely useless (removing 'lumbering behemoth' and replacing it with 'heavy' ends up being the deathknell for most Leman Russ variant builds.)

8) Making models and forgetting about how their own rules work. EG, Eldar Wraithknight. Lets give it up to 4 guns, put them on the cover of the box. Oh wait, we forgot they can only fire 2 and it's not like they get weapons destroyed results. Lets give the option to give it a sword that adds to its strength, oh wait, we forgot it is already at max strength... See also Grey Knights Dreadknights for similar mistakes.

9) I'd really want to put down Chaos Demons random rolls on top of random rolls on top of random rolls. But, that's probably far too subjectivee.

10) Apocalypse. "I know, lets make the main mechanic for games of Apocalypse revolve around our players getting fed up of playing Apocalypse and wanting a break from it..."

And that, is pretty much 10 reasons, listed straight off the top of my head about how 40k's terrible rules and therefore, I submit m'lud, not worth playing on its own merits.

Whereas, comparing it to the main game I'm playing right now, Dreadball, there has been about 4 'bad rules' found since release last year, which has been tested and fixed by the designer in a published form within a matter of months that they've been discovered.

**Haight**

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.

While this horrifically awful, i could not help but laugh my ass off at this comment. Which makes me hate myself a little.

**Noir**

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.

Or you can answer the question and not just be a ass. Note this is not a reason to wine about poeple not agreeing with you, but to answer the OP post.

OP I had to vote for just above unplayable, becouse anything playable if you try hard enough.

**SBG**

I like the game for the fluff and the models, and the excuse to get together with my buddies every once in a while.

The terribad rules are more like... a guideline.

**Cruentus**

azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Or maybe those who are voting above average or better have little problem playing the game, enjoying it amongst friends, and aren't getting all agitated and frothed trying to find obscure rules to abuse or to loophole. I've been playing since 2nd ed, and have zero problem playing the game amongst friends. In a tournament or other ultra competitive environment, that's a whole different ball of wax, and the reason I avoid it.

**Blacksails**

Cruentus wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Or maybe those who are voting above average or better have little problem playing the game, enjoying it amongst friends, and aren't getting all agitated and frothed trying to find obscure rules to abuse or to loophole. I've been playing since 2nd ed, and have zero problem playing the game amongst friends. In a tournament or other ultra competitive environment, that's a whole different ball of wax, and the reason I avoid it.

You realize that everything you just said proves that GW rules are at best, sub par?

**notprop**

azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Really? 30+ years of GW games is not enough information for you to accept another's opinion the at some point during that time GW will have produced a gem or two. I call you liar you quite clear don't give a damn about others opinions.

With 30 years of rules this poll is too open ended to prove or indicate jack gak. Today I have played Chainsaw Warrior and Warhammer Quest both were top notch.

Also the poll is skewed toward negative responses so fails as an even test, still as a quick guide to Dakkas drama queens this thread is most successful.

**Compel**

With the exception of Jervis 'Blood Bowl' Johnson, as far as I know, all of Games Workshops truly good games designers have since left the company.

Andy Chambers (40k redesign, 3rd edition) is at Blizzard (now that's a step down, hehe)

Jake Thornton (Necromunda), is now doing stuff for mantic, including Necromunda's spiritual successor, Deadzone.

Alessio Cavatore (Lord of the Rings), is now doing River Horse games, including Loka.

Sure, in GW's 30 year history, they've made good games. That doesn't mean their current editions are any good. Which was the subject of the poll.

Even the Fantasy players I know, who up until recently have been defending the games rules to the hilt are now saying they're completely fed up of fighting yet another identical Chaos army.

**Cruentus**

Blacksails wrote:
Cruentus wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Or maybe those who are voting above average or better have little problem playing the game, enjoying it amongst friends, and aren't getting all agitated and frothed trying to find obscure rules to abuse or to loophole. I've been playing since 2nd ed, and have zero problem playing the game amongst friends. In a tournament or other ultra competitive environment, that's a whole different ball of wax, and the reason I avoid it.

You realize that everything you just said proves that GW rules are at best, sub par?

Nope, more a comment about the attitude of the players coming into the game.

Great GW games: Gothic, Mordheim, LOTR SBG, Necromunda
Good GW games: 40k, Fantasy, original Mighty Empires
So-so GW games: Bommas over the Sulfa River

All in my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.

*edit: When GW isn't hamstringing itself with legacy stuff, they can turn out some great games.

**Blacksails**

Cruentus wrote:

Nope, more a comment about the attitude of the players coming into the game.

Great GW games: Gothic, Mordheim, LOTR SBG, Necromunda
Good GW games: 40k, Fantasy, original Mighty Empires
So-so GW games: Bommas over the Sulfa River

All in my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.

*edit: When GW isn't hamstringing itself with legacy stuff, they can turn out some great games.

The thing is, complaining about the attitude of the players is because (at least in no insignificant part) of the rules that divide players unnecessarily. If the rules were clear, and the game balanced, there wouldn't be any issue to complain that some people read too much or too little into some rule loopholes, or accusing some players of being too competitive or too fluffy.

I will say that I was speaking mostly to 40k, and I've tried my hand at fantasy, and found mostly the same problems on the surface.

BFG was a fine ruleset, though the improvement made later by the BFG committee after GW abandoned the game made it better.

I'd disagree that 40k is a good game, and put at best in a so-so/meh/would easily play another game adapted for the 40k setting.

But I could have been clearer I was speaking more to 40k.

**OrlandotheTechnicoloured**

There certainly not the most coherent rule set out there

but they are trying to cope with a wider range of 'stuff' than many other rules sets, and stuff that has grown up over a very long period of time

(since the squats went bye-bye they feel they can't dump stuff that has outlives it's usefulness anymore either)

and typically i'm playing with has at least as much if not more effect on how much fun can be had than the rules we're using

**TheAuldGrump**

azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

I feel the same - but add in Bottom Tier and Unplayable.

A range between Average and Below Average - favoring Below Average would be my take.

It is not the worst - I have played and enjoyed Federation & Empire, which has even more problems.

It is not the best - I play and enjoy Kings of War, which has fewer problems.

Average... I rate the Warhammer Historicals as Average or maybe Above Average - which shows that the core system has potential, but I do not feel that either WHFB or WH40K live up to that potential.

So... Below Average is my over all judgement.

The Auld Grump

**malfred**

I don't understand why there are 6 choices instead of 5.

Average in the middle.

Awesome up top.

Unplayable down below.

**insaniak**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
but they are trying to cope with a wider range of 'stuff' than many other rules sets, and stuff that has grown up over a very long period of time

There are around 12000 unique Magic the Gathering cards. With no problem caused by vague rules causing grey areas, and unintended loopholes are closed by the designers as soon as they are noticed.

And the 'grown up over time' argument is actually one against the current standard. After 6 iterations, the 40K ruleset should be a finly polished masterwork. After 8? 9? editions, Fantasy should be even better.

They're not, because GW keeps reinventing the wheel instead of just putting new rubber on it.

**d-usa**

insaniak wrote:
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
but they are trying to cope with a wider range of 'stuff' than many other rules sets, and stuff that has grown up over a very long period of time

There are around 12000 unique Magic the Gathering cards. With no problem caused by vague rules causing grey areas, and unintended loopholes are closed by the designers as soon as they are noticed.

And the 'grown up over time' argument is actually one against the current standard. After 6 iterations, the 40K ruleset should be a finly polished masterwork. After 8? 9? editions, Fantasy should be even better.

They're not, because GW keeps reinventing the wheel instead of just putting new rubber on it.

I think part of it is just a natural result of having rules to support sales.

You want to make a new ruleset with each edition that forces a change in armies. You keep a very basic section of the rules the same, but switching from monster fantasy to giant infantry fantasy or parking lot 40k to infantry 40k just requires more rule changes than an easy fix.

Now none of that means that they shouldn't be able to write non-confusing rules by now.

**MrMoustaffa**

OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
There certainly not the most coherent rule set out there

but they are trying to cope with a wider range of 'stuff' than many other rules sets, and stuff that has grown up over a very long period of time

(since the squats went bye-bye they feel they can't dump stuff that has outlives it's usefulness anymore either)

and typically i'm playing with has at least as much if not more effect on how much fun can be had than the rules we're using

Flames of War has hundreds of "army lists" and units. My Grey Wolf book alone has enough units for at least 5 codexes on its own. Yet Flames of War isn't nearly as broken as 40k is. They even have 4 (technically 5 now) different historical periods they have to balance between.

**Peregrine**

notprop wrote:
With 30 years of rules this poll is too open ended to prove or indicate jack gak. Today I have played Chainsaw Warrior and Warhammer Quest both were top notch.

You could try reading the OP, specifically the part where I limited the poll to the current editions of 40k and WHFB. That might be more productive than complaining about a problem you invented for yourself.

malfred wrote:
I don't understand why there are 6 choices instead of 5.

Because I want to see how many of the "bottom tier" voters actually dislike the games enough to refuse to play them, compared to how many people hate the rules but keep playing for other reasons. There's no matching answer on the top end because you can't really get above top-tier unless you want to include stupid answers like "this game is divine perfection, I do not play it because I am not worthy".

**frozenwastes**

I voted bottom tier and not unplayable because people obviously do play it and I don't think they need to fix it to make it work, but simply tolerate the problems. I'd reserve unplayable for the games that you truly cannot play without fixing them as they break down in play.

**Azreal13**

notprop wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I'm sorry, while I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, I can't help but assume that anyone voting for top tier or above average simply doesn't have enough information to be making an informed choice.

Really? 30+ years of GW games is not enough information for you to accept another's opinion the at some point during that time GW will have produced a gem or two. I call you liar you quite clear don't give a damn about others opinions.

With 30 years of rules this poll is too open ended to prove or indicate jack gak. Today I have played Chainsaw Warrior and Warhammer Quest both were top notch.

Also the poll is skewed toward negative responses so fails as an even test, still as a quick guide to Dakkas drama queens this thread is most successful.

No, of course in their 30+ years of production and my near 25 years of involvement, they have made some decent games. However, that is irrelevant in light of the OP, which is as follows..

Peregrine wrote:
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.

So, thanks for calling me a liar, when it is in fact your failure of comprehension that is causing your issue.

Considering that now is probably the time of some of the most playable, successful and accessible alternatives to GW games, certainly in my memory, I refute your claim of liar, stand by my original post, and call you dolt in return!

**-Loki-**

Adequate. They work, and when I'm gaming with my friends who are all as laid back as me, they give us a cracking fun game.

I can see where the ambiguity of rule wording can seriously hurt competitive gaming, which is why I didn't rate it higher. The fact that my friends and I get a fun game out of them doesn't mean they're well written, it just means we're laid back enough to not care and houserule bits we don't like.

**solkan**

As far as I can tell, the great tragedy of Games Workshop is that the hobby is supposed to be three things:
1. Painting and modeling.
2. Playing the wargame.
3. Rules development and modification.
and that third part doesn't get nearly the attention it's supposed to by either gamers or GW.

So you have these monstrous works like the one hundred page INAT FAQ to try to produce a document where someone could hope to say, "It's the middle of the game, if you based your strategy on rule X doing Y instead of Z, you should have known better because the FAQ or the rulebook or the codex says W."

Without that much effort, you run into "Our condolences, you lost because the game didn't work the way you thought it did" or "Our condolences, you won because your opponent didn't know any better." Which I think is a terrible situation to be in.

Or you play "casually" enough that "Oh, wow, that rule works in a completely different way than I was expecting. Let's make a note of it, and just play out the rest of the game anyway." can be said with no hard feelings.

**MrMoustaffa**

I just don't like any amount of ambiguity in rules because not everyone plays games against a tight knit group of people. Some people play pick up games at stores against strangers or at tourneys/game days. Its all fine and well when a small group of friends agrees on something in a controlled environment, but what if I'm playing against a stranger and we have completely different notions of how a key rule works?

A system should be easily understood for everyone with clear, concise rules. I should be able to walk up to any random person at a convention, challenge them to a 40k game, and know that if both players read the rules they'll be on the same page page. The very existence of the phrase "we cleared it up by house ruling it" or "we rolled off to see who was right" shows that that rule system is FLAWED. Anyone who has mentioned that they've had to house rule things shouldn't have put down anything higher than "above average", if only because they've admitted there are problems with the ruleset.

TL;DR I shouldn't have to play just with a good group of friends to have a hope of getting the rules to work. I shouldn't have to roll off on the wording for a rule almost every game, and I definitely shouldn't have to resort to large amounts of house rules to make the game enjoyable. Rules shouldn't have multiple interpretations possible. We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM dedicated to trying to figure out what rules mean. How is that not a sign that there is something wrong with the ruleset?

**-Loki-**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM dedicated to trying to figure out what rules mean. How is that not a sign that there is something wrong with the ruleset?

We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM fdedicated to Warmahordes rules questions as well, which is said to be a very tight ruleset. Granted, it's not as busy, but it's still got 480 thread with active discussion.

Questions are going to happen with any game, it's just a matter of how often.

**Ailaros**

I still don't understand the pointless restrictions that the previous thread to this had and, presumably, so does this.

It's like asking the question "What is the best car ever made, excluding safety, economy, ease of service, or number sold?" The conversation might talk about how Pagani makes cars with great power to weight ratios, or how the Ferrari Enzo has such a graceful torque curve.

... but that's silly. I've never seen an Enzo in person before, nor will I ever, likely, much less drive one, much less own one. Talking about cars in this narrow of a scope is pretty meaningless to a vast majority of people.

In the case of this analogy, the best car ever made in the whole world is the Toyota Corolla, because they've sold 40 MILLION of them. Whatever it's mix of cost, safety, reliability and other factors, I can't pretend to understand, but for whatever reason people think they're the best value, and so they buy them, and then buy new ones when the old ones break down.

Popularity isn't, in itself, an argument for something (as it's a fallacy), but popularity can point to other reasons for why something is successful over time. I'm not going to attempt to flesh out those reasons (as I don't really care), but there is a pretty strong implication that they are there.

However much you want to badmouth cars that people actually drive, people actually drive them for good reasons. However much you want to badmouth GW games, you can find someone to play them pretty much anywhere, because an awful lot of people play them.

Keep logical purity, but reasonlessly discard such a massive data set at your ideological peril.

**Trasvi**

-Loki- wrote:
MrMoustaffa wrote:
We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM dedicated to trying to figure out what rules mean. How is that not a sign that there is something wrong with the ruleset?

We have an ENTIRE SUBFORUM fdedicated to Warmahordes rules questions as well, which is said to be a very tight ruleset. Granted, it's not as busy, but it's still got 480 thread with active discussion.

Questions are going to happen with any game, it's just a matter of how often.

There are 480 'threads', most with less than 5 replies.
Q: "Is a feat a spell?"
A: "No."
"Ok thanks."

The highest reply count on the first page is 20.

Compare to the 40k YMDC: 29,000 threads, the highest reply count on the first page is over 200.

So rules *questions* are going to happen in any game... but rules *debates* don't need to happen. I think I've only ever seen 2 or 3 real rules 'debates' that go on for more than 3 pages on any warmachine forum. This isn't just because the rules are tight to begin with, but because they have staff called 'Infernals' which browse the forums and provide official binding answers to questions. Unlike in 40k where various debates about rules crop up again and again every month.

IMO, 40k is a decent rule set - better than some I've played, and the rulebook is actually quite well laid out which contributes significantly to the usability of the rules.
However, there are many significant flaws, some of which have survived through 4 editions of the game. Balance issues are also rampant which makes it less fun. Its ok to play, but I frequently have the rules get in the way of the fun experience.

**Peregrine**

Ailaros wrote:
I still don't understand the pointless restrictions that the previous thread to this had and, presumably, so does this.

The point is that if you're asking about whether the rules to a game are well-written it doesn't add anything to the discussion when people say "but I had fun painting a space marine back in 1990".

In the case of this analogy, the best car ever made in the whole world is the Toyota Corolla, because they've sold 40 MILLION of them. Whatever it's mix of cost, safety, reliability and other factors, I can't pretend to understand, but for whatever reason people think they're the best value, and so they buy them, and then buy new ones when the old ones break down.

That's a terrible analogy for two reasons:

1) It ignores the market factors that have nothing to do with gaming. A more accurate analogy would be if Toyota had a near-monopoly and buying another car meant you'd never have a repair shop available if anything happened to it. In that case of course a Toyota car would be the best seller, even if competing cars were better if you only considered the cars themselves.

2) It assumes a single purpose for a car. If the question is "what's the best car for racing" the fact that lots of people buy Corollas for their daily commuting isn't relevant. In gaming terms, it doesn't matter if lots of 10 year olds whine until their parents buy them a box of space marines because that market has nothing to do with the actual game. Even GW admits that most of their customers don't play their games, so citing GW's total sales numbers as evidence that their rules are good is just insane.

Popularity isn't, in itself, an argument for something (as it's a fallacy), but popularity can point to other reasons for why something is successful over time. I'm not going to attempt to flesh out those reasons (as I don't really care), but there is a pretty strong implication that they are there.

It can point to reasons, but only if you ignore two important issues:

1) GW's market dominance has a lot to do with their business strategy, not the quality of the product. For example, driving independent stores out of the market so the only hobby shop nearby is a GW store (selling only GW products) is a great way of increasing sales even if your product is garbage. Similarly, GW has a huge advantage in selling plastic kits because they have a manufacturing infrastructure built up (and paid for) over 20+ years, while their competition doesn't and can't put as many (relatively) cheap plastic kits on the shelves.

2) GW's market share is shrinking. What this suggests is that GW, for various reasons, managed to build a dominant market position in the past but their current products are not good enough to maintain that position.

However much you want to badmouth GW games, you can find someone to play them pretty much anywhere, because an awful lot of people play them.

And that's exactly the kind of bad argument I'm trying to exclude. The question is whether the games themselves are good, not whether or not you can find someone to play with.