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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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".

But saying "this is the 8th version of this particular rule set and I think that they could have used that experience to make a better/worse/different current ruleset" is perfectly valid IMO.

 d-usa wrote:
But saying "this is the 8th version of this particular rule set and I think that they could have used that experience to make a better/worse/different current ruleset" is perfectly valid IMO.

Sure, because you're talking about the current state of the rules.

Trasvi wrote:

 -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.

I'm just saying it's there, and it's used. The fact it's there means it was requested or needed, as subforums aren't created if they won't get traffic here.

 azreal13 wrote:

 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!

Yeah there was one of those late night forgot the detail by page two type this so apologies all round. Under the circumstances dolt seems more than accurate.

Back to the topic, I'll through a little curve ball into the mix The Lord of the Rings system is very good and would suggest that it might well fit into the Top teir bracket. I support this by pointing to its large pick up in historic circles where its use has spread beyond Warhammer Historicals original publication. I have never played LoTRs but am a big Fan of Legends of the High Seas and Old West.

Personally I have no problem with the two Warhammer systems either. Too many special rules? Possibly but variety is the spice of life and all that. I'd rate both as a average.

 Ugavine wrote:
I have no problem with the rules for 40K.

Compared to Heroclix 40K is nearly perfect!

At the risk of going off-topic, what's wrong with Heroclix? I used to really like 'clix, admittedly this was 10 years ago. The game just seemed to play pretty much faster compared to 40K, and the character degradation/wound counter mechanic was brilliant.



Edit: Back on topic, I have to admit that I've never played a full game of 40K as written. I've been gaming on and off for nearly 20 years now, and I've always ignored a lot of the rules or house-ruled stuff, because there's just too much in the 40K book to play properly. I can get away with this because I usually only play with a gaming buddy, so we ignore a lot of the special abilities, psychic abilities, terrain special rules, and a lot of other stuff that seems needlessly complicated purely because I want to get on with the game and have to try and pick up the book every other phase to check something.

I'm currently learning FoW and have to pick up the rule book less often than 40K, even though this is the 4rd edition I've played. Admittedly, the FoW website contains a pdf cheat sheet that steps you through all the common actions, which means there's a lot that can be answered without the main book.

 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.
.

This is an interesting comparison, that's come up a few times. It shows, as clearly as any others, the category error around this issue.

To print a card you simply... print a card. You can print 50 or you can print 50,000, and the origination cost is marginal. Comparing this with a stock list of at least 800 plastic and resin models, plus accessories, all of which have substantial or huge origination costs, and therefore have a huge legacy implication, is like comparing apples with boxes of soap.

The objects with which you play a game are an intrinsic part of that game. LOTR Is a better game based on its ruleset, but the fact remains that you odn't have the freedom of selection,or the ranges of forces, available in 40k, even before consider whether you can actually find an opponent in that tumbleweed-strewn part of the game store.

You are demanding GW invest a huge amount of resources into developing models and also invest the same amount of resources into rules as companies that invest marginal amounts into their gaming pieces. It's just not practical.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
To print a card you simply... print a card. You can print 50 or you can print 50,000, and the origination cost is marginal. Comparing this with a stock list of at least 800 plastic and resin models, plus accessories, all of which have substantial or huge origination costs, and therefore have a huge legacy implication, is like comparing apples with boxes of soap.

Err, what? You're completely missing the point there. It's not about bragging about how many different objects MTG has, it's about rule complexity. MTG has indisputably more rule complexity because of the thousands of different cards, yet has no ambiguity in its rules. So there's no reason to excuse GW's incompetence in failing to get the same kind of rule clarity with a much smaller set of game pieces to deal with.

You are demanding GW invest a huge amount of resources into developing models and also invest the same amount of resources into rules as companies that invest marginal amounts into their gaming pieces. It's just not practical.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Even ignoring the weirdness of bringing in the model kits when we're talking about rules the fact that GW has so many fewer game pieces means they should be able to spend more time writing the rules for each of them (assuming the same total time invested in rule writing).

I voted: "Bottom-tier: the rules are an obstacle to be overcome, if I even play at all."

6th 40K and 8th WHAFB aren't the worst rules sets that I've played, but they certainly are the worst "professional", commercial rules sets.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 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.
.

This is an interesting comparison, that's come up a few times. It shows, as clearly as any others, the category error around this issue.

To print a card you simply... print a card. You can print 50 or you can print 50,000, and the origination cost is marginal. Comparing this with a stock list of at least 800 plastic and resin models, plus accessories, all of which have substantial or huge origination costs, and therefore have a huge legacy implication, is like comparing apples with boxes of soap.

The objects with which you play a game are an intrinsic part of that game. LOTR Is a better game based on its ruleset, but the fact remains that you odn't have the freedom of selection,or the ranges of forces, available in 40k, even before consider whether you can actually find an opponent in that tumbleweed-strewn part of the game store.

You are demanding GW invest a huge amount of resources into developing models and also invest the same amount of resources into rules as companies that invest marginal amounts into their gaming pieces. It's just not practical.

I disagree. The system by which GW could maintain and extend their rules is simple, obvious, and well within the capability of a £130 million international company.

1. The rules should be drafted or at least reviewed by a technical author to make them logically clear. If you want them to be “chatty” have a creative writer put a gloss on them at the end.
2. Do better sub-editing and layout. Hire a proper editor. Stop copy-pasting things around, it causes mistakes.
3. Create a knowledge base. Refer to it when writing rules, to avoid overlaps and clashes.
4. Beta testing. If an FAQ comes out 2 days after a new release, it should have been fixed before publication. Don’t test only within the studio. Test with a wider panel of actual users.

If GW can’t find seats in their 89 person design studio to handle functions 1-3, they can be out-sourced easily enough. The knowledge base is the biggest job, however once done it will only need updating.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

You are demanding GW invest a huge amount of resources into developing models and also invest the same amount of resources into rules as companies that invest marginal amounts into their gaming pieces. It's just not practical.

I'm demanding no such thing. I'm merely pointing out that having a wide range of objects that require rules does not preclude those rules being clear and conflict free.

The fact that GW has a huge range of miniatures doesn't stop them from writing clear rules. Having units in their range that date back to the first edition of the game likewise doesn't prevent those units from having clear rules, because those rules can be revised.

I voted average. I don't play them much, but in my experience the games are getting stupidly unbalanced. Even worse is the "roll many dice" attitude that GW seems to be rapidly moving towards. this results in games of increasing randomness and frustration. another is the sheer ridiculous numbers of special rules in each game, rules that frequently leave me and my opponent scrambling through the pages of the BRB, only to find that the rule grants 2 or 3 other special rules, so off we go again.

Also there is the stupid brokenness of many units. My last game I can remember was my Skaven horde versus a Chaos Dwarf cannon line. The roll for the setup resulted in the crappy "divide the table into thirds and roll to see where each unit starts" the result of which was a massive Skaven logjam facing down a cannon line, with my warlords unit and 1-2 others stuck in the middle facing 2 sniper cannons a ridiculous distance away. End result: 5 Skaven made it into combat by turn 3. All else where dead.

Then there is 40K My last game involved my IG versus an IG tank company. Over an open field. With most of my AT being up close. To be fair I took out 3/4 of his infantry and both his Chimeras along with 3 Leman Russ MBT's. He flattened me.

The big problems I had where due to the rules on grenades and also the fact that under the new rules vehicles are so squishy. HP? Really? So tanks have wounds now? So there just MC that can be instagibbed?

Oh and the terrain rules. According to GW, most of the terrain in the old world is terrifying and deadly. Forests that eat people are common as muck, and rivers are only normal plain water 2/3rds of the time. Other times they are rivers of pure blood, slimey ooze or even magical rivers. And don't even start me on buildings.....

All in all I don't enjoy these games as much as I used too. The cannon spam and other such meta has taken the soul from the game in my eyes, and left my fluff based rat horde looking sad and dejected.

I find that a simple test of a ruleset's quality is the length of the rules themsevles. The longer the ruleset the greater the bloat and the incidents of conflicting/badly written rules increases. In some cases long rules are good, but only in RPGs and other such games where player freedom is paramount. In a TT wargame on the other hand its a sign of poor rules writing,

The entirety of the Bolt Action rules could just about fit in the introduction to the 40k rules and BA is a much better game. Even Infinity has significantly shorter rules than 40K.

GW are now rehashing rules that are nearly 30 years old (and originally designed for games with a very different outlook) resulting in games with complex rules but simplistic gameplay when what the desired goal should be is a simple ruleset but a complex game. It is high time that the'core' game rules were completely redesigned.

GW has produced some excellent rules in the past, Epic Armageddon had maybe 20 pages of rules, the entire game from the rulesets to the army lists fits into a book about the size of a modern Codex, yet they manage to produce a fluid and genuinely tactical wargame.

I voted for bottom tier, I still play 40k as I like the fluff (despite constant attempts to sabotage it), I have a large collection of armies that I amassed over the years and, crucially, its an easy game to find opponents for but its quite far down the list of 'games I want to play'. I don't play Fantasy at all anymore after what 8th ed did to what used to be my favourite wargame.

I voted below average, the rules work 66% of the time on a basic level. There are times when things not only don't work, they don't work well.

I attempted to play 40k on Friday, and cleaned up after an hour because the basic rules of the game were working fine, it was the intricacies and unbalanced codex rules that were making the game unfun, uninteresting, and boring. If I wanted to spend the time to set my Space Marine army up on a table only to remove them in groups of 10 or so, I'd reorganize my hobby room.

I'm fairly certain I have played my last game of 40k for a while this past week. There are major flaws in the game that might work for a 'casual' player, but as a casual player I want a tight ruleset that allows me to play the game and have fun regardless of whether or not I win or lose, and not just be swept off the board before I can get within firing range of my opponent's models.

Was going to vote bottom tier, but then I read through the options and the phrase "I do not play GW games because of their poor rules." seemed to apply more so I went with that. I'm not sure if they're truly unplayable or not, as I haven't tried. Nothing about a 40K table at the gaming club makes me remotely interested in the game.

Like it was said above, I assume anybody voting for top tier (or perhaps above average) hasn't really ever played any other games so has nothing to compare to.

But if they published a decent set of rules, then what would they keep releasing...

Why bother with inhouse testing when your cystomers can do it.

 Compel wrote:



snip*
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..."
snip*

I voted below average, because I think that is precisely where ot sits, I mostly play a homebrewed version of 2nd edition for this reason, but 6th edition 40k can be a fun game, but its usually fun inspite of the rules, not because of them. I stopped playing fantasy much past the 6th/7th edition crossover, so can't say much about that one, I do not own 8th.

Complexity is no excuse either, I'd argue that Infinity, and indeed warmachine/hordes, include far more complexity in terms of on the board tactical depth than GW has ever managed, but with a reasonable level of balance and most importantly, by and large clear rulesets that do not invite contrarian interpretations at every turn.

GW have the most money, the most experience and the biggest development teams in the business. They should be leading the way, not being excused. The commercial advantages they have not translating into significant gap in quality between their product and the competition just highlights extremely poor management.

I hope they really put out a great 9th edition of Fantasy, the world they created all those years ago deserves it, and so do its long suffering players.

I opted for adequate as two newly acquainted opponents can work through a semi-competitive game fairly easily.'

I would even go so far as to say the rule sets are above average in the hands of two regular opponents who have a decent understanding of the rulebook.

GW is in a tricky position as their games are in a large skirmish format - neither controlling massive formations of tanks/infantry or individuals/small squads.

Big P wrote:
But if they published a decent set of rules, then what would they keep releasing...

Models.

Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

...
...

"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

That's why I gave up playing WHFB in 1st edition.

I realised it didn't matter how cleverly I manoeuvred my troops, I could obliterate most of the enemy army and he could still win by pulling out a hero or a mega spell card that automatically won the game.

It made playing pointless and I've never played since.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

...
...

"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

That's why I gave up playing WHFB in 1st edition.

I realised it didn't matter how cleverly I manoeuvred my troops, I could obliterate most of the enemy army and he could still win by pulling out a hero or a mega spell card that automatically won the game.

It made playing pointless and I've never played since.

Not first edition.... no spell cards in 1983

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

Yeah, that's just sad. Predictable, but sad.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

is there something wrong with that? What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

People are not stupid or irrational for liking things differently to you, you know...

xruslanx wrote:

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

is there something wrong with that? What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

People are not stupid or irrational for liking things differently to you, you know...

Nobody's saying that.

What we're saying that is a tight, well written wargame with clear rules and good balance would be fun for everyone. It would in fact be as, if not more, 'cinematic' or similar, than 40k.

A tight rule set would arguably be more fun. Everyone could bring whatever fluffly list they want, and it would be as competitive as any other list conceivable. The rules would be logical, immerse you in the universe with more accurate depictions of the weapons in the rules compared to the fluff. They would also have significantly less in the way of plain oversight on obvious rules issue or lack of clarity.

We're not telling you to give up 40k, or that you're wrong, or anything else. Most of us are simply pointing out that 40k could be a lot better. Expand your horizons, take a good objective look at the game and analyze it. Look at other rule sets.

I would agree with Blacksails, tighter rules would be the most positive situation.

More casual or narrative-focused players would feel relatively the same or maybe even a little happier with some of the fluffier units becoming more on-par with other rules. I know for a long time I enjoyed using rough riders, but it seemed silly when they were just so bad at doing pretty much anything (now I'm not arguing the usefulness of horse cavalry in the distant future, more so that if the unit does exist in the codex, then it would be nice if it had some use).

On the flip side more competitive players could get their fix of balanced game, and when playing someone who was more narrative-driven, the game might be more evenly-sided when all units taken fulfill effective roles! Then it would be more about player skill, which could be dialed up or down depending on the player/background/etc.

I think tight rules are great, and I don't think GW has to get rid of the cinematic flavors of 40k/fantasy that people are attracted to, just clean up, simplify redundancies, and remove excess and overly-complicated stuff.

EDIT: Oh, I would also clarify that I feel the rules are adequate.

I voted bottom tier. I love most of Games Workshop's models, and the universe they have built. But I feel the rules are indeed an obstacle to overcome, and offputting to any casual gamer. I don't own the 6th edition rulebook because it took me so long to get the hang of 5th edition that I just didn't want the hassle, though I imagine I will someday. How many pages is it - 432, right? Assuming half is fluff, and like 25% of the remainder is full page art inside the rules; we're still talking like 160 pages of rules. That is insane! Atop that, so much of it is poorly written, has ambiguous instructions, requires constant patching via FAQ's... they just suck.

As Tannhauser said, I think it's the interaction between the codexes and the rules that cause most of the problems. It's not like it's impossible for them to write good rules since the rules for Space Hulk are pretty good, as well as for Talisman (although they are outside the scope of this poll so did not include them in my vote).

I don't know how exactly to fix their issues but I think the game would be a lot more fun if the main rulebook were not more than 25 pages of rules or so, with similar efficiencies applied to the codexes to streamline things.

xruslanx wrote:
is there something wrong with that?

What's wrong is that GW ignored playtesting feedback in favor of deliberately publishing bad rules because of some insane idea that they're a "beer and pretzels" company so they have to produce garbage.

What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

Again you keep making this ridiculous argument that a ruleset suitable for competitive play is somehow not going to work for casual play.

Also, "roll a D6, on a 6 you win" is not fun. It might be memorable, but even casual players don't like it when the outcome of their story is determined by random chance instead of player decisions.

xruslanx wrote:

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Hey fellas

I game with a group of guys that have done playtesting for GW in the past..i know playtesting??
But really fellas they were part of the Planetstrike book, which incidentally was the last product GW let anybody outside of the studio playtest.
And after the group came to the concensus that we werent being listened to, we wrote a very compelling letter and made a spreadsheet showing the number crunch of the bell curve and were summarily told...
"Games workshop makes games that focus on the narrative. We want people to remember that one game when i rolled a 6 and won the game"
And that was the last time we heard from them.

is there something wrong with that? What do you have against people who want a ruleset that creates fun games rather than hatdcore wargaming rules?

People are not stupid or irrational for liking things differently to you, you know...

How does having a well balanced and easy to understand ruleset prevent fun? Because that's what it sounds like you're implying. How does being able to bring a wide variety of the lists to the table and not get crushed prevent being fun? Is balance boring? Is having insanely easily abused combos and flat out win buttons against certain armies more fun than having two evenly matched forces with an equal chance of winning? Ask Daemon players who have had the "pleasure" of playing against warpquake (I think that's the name) and how much fun they had with a ruleset made for "fun" games.

A well balanced and polished ruleset doesnt mean no fun allowed people.

My idea of fun is being able to look at a codex and seeing all units having a legitimate use in the game. My idea of fun is being able to create an army list that I like and not having to get instantly curbstomped by a net list. I shouldn't have units in my codex that are literally useless due to out of date rules or being overshadowed entirely by other choices. I should be able to take something like infantry horde IG and not be forced to admit that I'm essentially making a joke list.

When people say they want a more balanced ruleset, most could care less about tourneys or being ultra competitive. We just want to be able to play the game and know that most unit choices are balanced and useable. We want to be able to look at a rule entry and see no loopholes or confusing wording. We want a game where a "fun list" and a "competitive one" are almost equally matched as far as "power level" is concerned.

This "competitive rules prevents fun" idea is idiotic and really needs to stop. There are plenty of tightly written rulesets that are competitive, well written, and still manage to be fun.

I think the tone of your post is just coming across wrong, and if so I apologize, but if you seriously think tight ruleset prevents a game from being fun I'm worried about you.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

A well balanced and polished ruleset doesnt mean no fun allowed people.

My idea of fun is being able to look at a codex and seeing all units having a legitimate use in the game. My idea of fun is being able to create an army list that I like and not having to get instantly curbstomped by a net list. I shouldn't have units in my codex that are literally useless due to out of date rules or being overshadowed entirely by other choices. I should be able to take something like infantry horde IG and not be forced to admit that I'm essentially making a joke list.

When people say they want a more balanced ruleset, most could care less about tourneys or being ultra competitive. We just want to be able to play the game and know that most unit choices are balanced and useable. We want to be able to look at a rule entry and see no loopholes or confusing wording. We want a game where a "fun list" and a "competitive one" are almost equally matched as far as "power level" is concerned.

This "competitive rules prevents fun" idea is idiotic and really needs to stop. There are plenty of tightly written rulesets that are competitive, well written, and still manage to be fun.

I think the tone of your post is just coming across wrong, and if so I apologize, but if you seriously think tight ruleset prevents a game from being fun I'm worried about you.

Exalted for undeniable truth and great justice.