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.

I didn't feel like the initial post had enough information to adequately answer the question.

Specifically, I think that the consistent cycle of updated rule books (at a pace which is slow enough to not break the bank) is one of the best parts of the game. It seemed like we were supposed to disregard that, though. It also didn't specify if we were looking only at wargames, only at games that were in-print, or if we were to take codexes/army books into account when making this distinction.

I said 'above average.' The rules usually seem pretty clear, and I've never encountered a game with both a rules set that was complex enough to make me feel like it made a game effort at approximating reality, while at the same time being completely devoid of grey areas. The fact that GW has (until recently) been fairly good at putting out clarifying FAQs only heightens my enjoyment for their game.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Specifically, I think that the consistent cycle of updated rule books (at a pace which is slow enough to not break the bank) is one of the best parts of the game. It seemed like we were supposed to disregard that, though.

No, it's fair to consider that. What I meant about "current edition" is that you shouldn't be voting based on "5th edition transport spam sucked" or "2nd edition was the best game ever!". The poll is about the current state of GW's games, not what they've been like years ago.

Though IMO the update cycle is one of the bad things about the game since it ensures that at least half of the armies always have outdated rules.

I said 'above average.' The rules usually seem pretty clear, and I've never encountered a game with both a rules set that was complex enough to make me feel like it made a game effort at approximating reality, while at the same time being completely devoid of grey areas.

Do you really never notice all of the many rule problems (see YMDC), or are you just willing to 4+ it and forget about it? I've just never seen anything that suggests that GW's rules are above average in clarity, and certainly no argument that the clarity of GW's rules is so great that it elevates the overall rating to "above average". Nor would I really say that GW games do a good job of approximating reality, with the awful IGOUGO turn structure, flyers floating around the battlefield at a walking pace, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

Do you really never notice all of the many rule problems (see YMDC), or are you just willing to 4+ it and forget about it? I've just never seen anything that suggests that GW's rules are above average in clarity, and certainly no argument that the clarity of GW's rules is so great that it elevates the overall rating to "above average". Nor would I really say that GW games do a good job of approximating reality, with the awful IGOUGO turn structure, flyers floating around the battlefield at a walking pace, etc.

No, I just think that the MAJORITY of the rules problems can be settled with an application of common sense. (Just like the MAJORITY of new threads in YMDC wind up being settled by simply looking at the rules.) Most of the rules problems I see where an immediate solution isn't apparent to both players usually stem from both players being influenced by their personal stake in the matter. Especially when the rules don't concern armies I play, the way it is supposed to work usually jumps out at me fairly quickly. The solutions seem to be readily apparent to you, too, since you seem to be fairly confident in your answers in the YMDC forum. I can't ever recall you saying you thought the situation could go either way. (Not saying you haven't, I just can't remember.)

I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate grey areas, because there are. It's just that any game that is tight enough to NOT have those rules holes has always been too simple for me. Fuzzy Heroes had an awesome rule set, probably my favorite in all of wargaming. Far too simple for long term satisfaction, but gratifyingly good rules nevertheless.

NO game is ever going to approximate reality perfectly. I must be misunderstanding what you mean when you say IGOUGO, because I can't fathom any kind of alternative. We both go at the same time? Like Hungry Hungry Hippos? Or are you meaning a system where I move, then you move, then I shoot, then you shoot, rather than doing our whole turns at once?

Battletech had a great rules system, but nobody plays that anymore. The Clix based games had a really good rule system when they started, but the collectible nature of the game has driven it far from my ability to enjoy it any longer.

Now I freely admit that my willingness to TRY new rules is limited, anymore. I've bought into far too many game systems only to have them tank and leave me with books, cards, or miniatures I have no use for. If a new system doesn't show some promise of stability (or alternative use) I'm not usually willing to try it, and I freely admit that this would color my opinion on this poll.

 Jimsolo wrote:
The solutions seem to be readily apparent to you, too, since you seem to be fairly confident in your answers in the YMDC forum. I can't ever recall you saying you thought the situation could go either way.

That's because I only post in YMDC when I'm very confident in my answer. But even when I do post something I'm very sure about there's someone else very confidently claiming the exact opposite. For example, look up some of the nice arguments over where you can place the ADL gun.

I must be misunderstanding what you mean when you say IGOUGO, because I can't fathom any kind of alternative.

There are at least two good alternatives:

1) Use a system of alternating unit activations. I move a unit, you move a unit, until we've moved all of our units. I shoot with a unit, you shoot with a unit, until we've shot with all of our units. Or even generalize it to "choose a unit and move or shoot or assault with it", alternating choices until each unit has acted. X-Wing is a good example, with ships acting in order of their pilot skill, which even turns the alternating sequence into a strategic choice of how much you're willing to pay to get the first action.

2) Use a system of actions and reactions. I move a model, but you can react to my move by shooting at it as it crosses an open window. I shoot, but you shoot back. Etc. Infinity does a good job of this and makes it so even when it's your turn your opponent gets to respond immediately to your actions as they happen.

Either way actions are happening at a reasonable approximation of simultaneously instead of having an entire army standing around doing nothing while every enemy unit does a full sequence of actions, which is unrealistic and incredibly boring.

Either of your alternatives seem fine.

I do agree that one of the largest flaws in the GW rules set is the amount of 'down time' you have during your opponent's move phase. Also, the inability to shoot into melee.

I still don't think it's a sub-par rules system, though. (I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.) There's always room for tweaking. (And always a new edition to hope will bring those tweaks!)

I'd definitely be willing to play 40k in an alternating unit system (although that could throw a monkey wrench into codex balance, but that could be ironed out with an update).

In the past 9 years GW have put out the following rule books:

WHFB 6th, 7th and 8th editions -- updates of 5th edition.
WH40K 4th, 5th and 6th editions -- updates of 3rd edition.
Planetstrike -- an adaptation of 40K.
Cities of Death -- an update of the earlier Cityfight (?) book.
Planetary Empires -- an adaptation of Mighty Empires.
Space Hulk 3rd edition -- an update of 2nd edition.
Apocalypse -- an adaptation of 40K.
Various codexes that are updates of the previous version.
Blood Bowl edition X -- an update of the previous edition.
Trafalgar -- historical naval rules, withdrawn.
Dread Fleet -- a genuinely new game that flopped, partly due to the poor quality rules.
The Hobbit -- an update of LoTR.

Where are GW putting all this money into rules development?

 azreal13 wrote:
[.)

It also reminded me how fething scary Kirby's report was, either he himself is dumb as gak and got incredibly lucky to get where he is, or he has a really low opinion of the intellect of his investors, because that sure as hell doesn't read like a document from the chairman and CEO of a multi million pound turnover PLC!

Scary is in the eye of the beholder. Kirby is actually pretty widely respected for the lack of BS, for instance attracted a complimentary report in the Telegraph. I'm not saying the sun shines out of his butt, but he's been there 20 years, and compared to most MDs he has a good record of delivering - for shareholders, at any rate, which is why their share performance is very good. WE as purchasers might not agree, of course.

For me, the current rules for both 40k and Fantasy are alright, I have not played much games though.

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
[.)

It also reminded me how fething scary Kirby's report was, either he himself is dumb as gak and got incredibly lucky to get where he is, or he has a really low opinion of the intellect of his investors, because that sure as hell doesn't read like a document from the chairman and CEO of a multi million pound turnover PLC!

Scary is in the eye of the beholder. Kirby is actually pretty widely respected for the lack of BS, for instance attracted a complimentary report in the Telegraph. I'm not saying the sun shines out of his butt, but he's been there 20 years, and compared to most MDs he has a good record of delivering - for shareholders, at any rate, which is why their share performance is very good. WE as purchasers might not agree, of course.

Talking of "eye of the beholder" you're still the only poster I've encountered who thinks that Telegraph article was written in a positive way, nearly everyone else (myself included) seemed to take the general gist completely differently.

 azreal13 wrote:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
[.)

It also reminded me how fething scary Kirby's report was, either he himself is dumb as gak and got incredibly lucky to get where he is, or he has a really low opinion of the intellect of his investors, because that sure as hell doesn't read like a document from the chairman and CEO of a multi million pound turnover PLC!

Scary is in the eye of the beholder. Kirby is actually pretty widely respected for the lack of BS, for instance attracted a complimentary report in the Telegraph. I'm not saying the sun shines out of his butt, but he's been there 20 years, and compared to most MDs he has a good record of delivering - for shareholders, at any rate, which is why their share performance is very good. WE as purchasers might not agree, of course.

Talking of "eye of the beholder" you're still the only poster I've encountered who thinks that Telegraph article was written in a positive way, nearly everyone else (myself included) seemed to take the general gist completely differently.

Is that because it went on to compare Kirby to another "straight-talker" who it then implied used straight-talking and theatre as a tactic to stop people focussing to clearly on the actual business?

I'd also like to see "widely respected" quantified/defined or otherwise demonstrated, since the likely reality for a company of GW's size is "most commentators don't care".

More an example of confirmation bias in action I think.

You could certainly read the article the way HO seems to, but it isn't in any way more valid to read it one way than the other, so as any sort of "evidence" to back up an argument the whole thing is pretty much worthless. At least until we can get confirmation from the author as to the intent behind the article.

I've also never seen anything written about The Taxman outside of that one piece, and would agree, on instinct and nothing else, that as the head of a small fish in a puddle, he really wouldn't show up on enough people's radar in the wider financial community to be "widely" anything.

But I'm sure all those arguing in favour of TK and GW will have oodles of evidence to prove me wrong, as they wouldn't dream of throwing out hyperbole with no facts to back it up when all us "antis" get accused of that all the time!

I'm trying desperately to think of something to bring this line of chat around closer to topic, but can't, so I'll leave it at that!

text removed.
Reds8n

How disappointing.

Via other people quoting you, I decided to take you off ignore, as you seemed to at least be trying to engage in proper discussions rather than name calling.

I try and deal in facts and logical arguments, informed opinions from my own experience and information provided by others. This is how it is possible to conduct proper, adult discussions where parties can disagree but still remain civil.

Something you have repeatedly, and spectacularly failed to do on numerous occasions.

Ignore function reapplied, I won't make the same mistake again.

EDIT
One more thing. Try and refute my arguments. Go on, just once, rather than name calling, actually come up with a reasoned response as to why I am wrong, backed up with objective fact, rather than opinion. Or, even easier, simply express why you disagree with me in a reasoned and eloquent manner, explain why you think I'm wrong, without even proving it. Your persistent abusiveness just brings the whole board down with its presence.

xruslanx wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

But unlike GW, Bethesda patches and updates their games in a regular manner to remove negative play experiences.

GW releases FAQs. You can choose to pretend that the minor issues these FAQs don't address are game-breakingly bad, or you cannot. But please don't be dishonest enough to claim that GW do not actively try to resolve rules problems via FAQs.

Similarly you can pretend that a fully patched Bethesda game is completely playable, but that won't make it true.

My copy of Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas have been completely playable since day 1. I've never had any bugs or issues with my games. That doesn't mean I'm willfully blind to the fact that they do exist. The difference at this point becomes how often these patches, faqs, erratas, etc... are released
Bethesda and GW both release 'patches' to their games, 1 company does these in a regular manner, and the other releases a new update every 6 months if we're lucky. To put this in perspective, I play Chaos Space Marines, for the longest time it was argued that Abaddon couldn't join another unit with a mark of chaos because he had all of the marks, so his Mark of Nurgle would prevent him from joining a Mark of Tzeentch unit, etc... GW took 6 months to answer this issue. 6 months of people arguing and bickering. Besthesda took care of minor issues that were plaguing people in Skyrim and appeasing people until they could release an update that fixed how horribly broken crafting was in the game. Tonight I can go home and I can play Skyrim and expect 0 issues, and 0 questions about how something should work. I can play 40k this Friday and expect at least 5 rules discussions about various things.

You got lucky with Skyrim then. I had at least two main plot developments that failed to trigger, meaning I had to open the console and do it myself. And putting the problem into google revealed that others had the problem too, hence why a console solution existed. There was also a quest in a city (I can't remember exactly, something about helping some dudes break out of a mine and take over the city) that every single time would result in all the guards in the city turning hostile and attacking you for the rest of the game. Whoops.

Contrast this to 40k where 99% of problems can be resolved in a few seconds. 40k certainly is more "polished" than Skyrim.

You cant compare 40k to Skyrim, development and support of game's like skyrim and 40k are worlds apart

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Anything from the original WoD. Axis & Allies. The original WWF game. Marvel Classic. Overpower. Talisman. Necromunda. Just off the top of my head. (I didn't list any originally because I figured everyone knew at least ONE system worse than GW's, and I didn't want to offend anyone's love for a particular game, or drag the thread off topic.)

 Jimsolo wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Anything from the original WoD. Axis & Allies. The original WWF game. Marvel Classic. Overpower. Talisman. Necromunda. Just off the top of my head. (I didn't list any originally because I figured everyone knew at least ONE system worse than GW's, and I didn't want to offend anyone's love for a particular game, or drag the thread off topic.)

Two of those are GW systems, Jim...

 Jimsolo wrote:

Anything from the original WoD. Axis & Allies. The original WWF game. Marvel Classic. Overpower. Talisman. Necromunda. Just off the top of my head. (I didn't list any originally because I figured everyone knew at least ONE system worse than GW's, and I didn't want to offend anyone's love for a particular game, or drag the thread off topic.)

What was wrong with Necromunda? Aside from its quite dodgy campaign balance of course.

There are 4 things that a game requires to be above average.

It needs clear and concise rules. They can be in depth but they must not be ambigous nor obtuse.

A single 'turn' needs considerable imput from both players. Variable activation systems are fine, as are systems which allow actions within the opponents turn, such as reaction fire or ambushes.

Components within a given army must be able to effectively support each other in ways that don't simply involve killing things; suppression fire, reducing cover saves or providing concealment for example.

It must be balanced, both internally and externally. Mixture of units A must be able to beat mixture of units B,C,D,E etc with appromiately the same chance of success.

Of these 4 40K manages about 0.5 due to the (inadequate) inclusion of overwatch and the ability to roll saves.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Havok: Skirmish springs to mind `


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:
What was wrong with Necromunda? Aside from its quite dodgy campaign balance of course.

There were some serious balance issues, both with the campaign rules and with some of the stuff added after the core rules (Spyrers got insanely good far too quickly), but I can't think of any major flaws in the rules themselves that wouldn't have been covered in FAQs. It was pretty much just 2nd edition 40K with some additional rules, with the difference being that the 2nd edition rules worked so much better with Necromunda due to all of your models running solo.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Specifically, I think that the consistent cycle of updated rule books (at a pace which is slow enough to not break the bank) is one of the best parts of the game.

It'd be a lot better if the cycle was consistent and even. One of the most aggravating things about GW (and a big factor in why I quit) is how some armies can get stuck in a cycle of getting no support because they're unpopular, and being unpopular because they're getting no support.

 Jimsolo wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Anything from the original WoD. Axis & Allies. The original WWF game. Marvel Classic. Overpower. Talisman. Necromunda. Just off the top of my head. (I didn't list any originally because I figured everyone knew at least ONE system worse than GW's, and I didn't want to offend anyone's love for a particular game, or drag the thread off topic.)

Well, if you are rating GW's rules above average it helps to know against what games you are measuring them.

Most of the games you've stated aren't miniature games, they are board games and RPG's and I'm sorry but I have no idea what WoD or Overpower are.

From that whole list, only Necromunda is really a miniature game (that I recognize at least), and sure, its campaign system has a few flaws balance wise. But as far as rules clarity and even tactical depth? Its miles ahead of 40k 6th edition...

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
(I've seen some truly grievously flawed rules systems in my tenure as a gamer.)

Such as?

Anything from the original WoD. Axis & Allies. The original WWF game. Marvel Classic. Overpower. Talisman. Necromunda. Just off the top of my head. (I didn't list any originally because I figured everyone knew at least ONE system worse than GW's, and I didn't want to offend anyone's love for a particular game, or drag the thread off topic.)

Well, if you are rating GW's rules above average it helps to know against what games you are measuring them.

Most of the games you've stated aren't miniature games, they are board games and RPG's and I'm sorry but I have no idea what WoD or Overpower are.

From that whole list, only Necromunda is really a miniature game (that I recognize at least), and sure, its campaign system has a few flaws balance wise. But as far as rules clarity and even tactical depth? Its miles ahead of 40k 6th edition...

WoD is, I think, World of Darkness - which had middling rules that I think are better than the current run of any of the GW games or than the current WoD. But I will qualify that as being the last editions of the old WoD games. The first editions... had problems. (Though many of those problems kicked in with Storytellers not realizing that increasing Difficulty also increased the chance to Botch. Easiest fix was to actually use 6 as the default Difficulty....)

I also semi-disagree with Necromunda being on the list - I have had more fun with Necromunda than any current GW game. (The semi is that either way it is a matter of opinion - Necromunda had serious balance issues, but was enough fun to play that I enjoyed it anyway. Compare that to 4e D&D which has very balanced rules, but that I had no fun at all playing.)

The Auld Grump - I got stomped hard last time I played Necromunda, but still had fun.... (Worse... I got stomped by a Gang that I had built.... )

I don't see the point of comparing a role-playing game with a tabletop wargame.

The point of an RPG is that the game master uses rules to facilitate the production of an ongoing story featuring the characters portrayed by the players. He can change the rules as much as he likes if needs be.

A tabletop game needs clear rules that are balanced and fair to both sides, because both players have the same relationship to the rules and to each other.

Just popping in here now so sorry if this point was already made.

The poll is clearly biased. You provide 3 options for how the game can be below average but only 2 possibilities for how it can be above average.

That point was already made.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't see the point of comparing a role-playing game with a tabletop wargame.

The point of an RPG is that the game master uses rules to facilitate the production of an ongoing story featuring the characters portrayed by the players. He can change the rules as much as he likes if needs be.

A tabletop game needs clear rules that are balanced and fair to both sides, because both players have the same relationship to the rules and to each other.

Which is where I think 4e D&D lost touch... trying to balance the GM with the players.

But... Apples >=< Oranges. (Apples to Oranges is a term that has always annoyed me - there are a lot of ways to compare apples to oranges, starting with nutritional value....)

There can also be significant overlap when an RPG setting is shared with a wargame - Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer Fantasy Role Play as examples.

Back on topic - Warning - Rambling Ahead -

One recurring comment is that the GW games have good fluff/background.

I am not certain about the value of background fluff, even if the background is good. (And I will grant that GW has decent background - though their three ring binder approach to their history annoys the heck out of me.) I am not saying that fluff either positively or negatively impacts the rules, merely that I am not certain how I feel about the way that it impacts the rules.

If you are looking to create your own setting then making the background integral to the rules can be a bad thing.

If you just want to play the game, and do not enjoy creating background then it can lead to a game that lacks flavor.

I very much liked Fire Fusion & Steel for the old GDW Traveller: The New Era. Which had a direct impact on the wargame Brilliant Lances - because you could use the rules in FF&S to create ships, and even to determine the properties of the available design elements.

Traveller used the Jump Drive - but FF&S included rules for Stutterwarp, Keyhole, Wormhole, Psionic, etc. Drives - even though they only used Jump.

But, even if you determined the design elements ahead of time... ship design could be a lengthy and involved process.

In Warhammer and Warhammer 40K the setting is directly involved in the Magic and Psycher systems - so the setting does have a direct impact upon the rules.

Magic is dangerous and powerful, with variable resources available to draw upon at any given time.

There are no rules for tailoring the games to different settings - so will be dissatisfying for folks that want to create their own setting, while a system that allows tinkering might seem flavorless to someone that really likes 40K because of the way its fluff impacts the rules.

I prefer Full Thrust to Battlefleet Gothic - but some might find it not to their tastes, it is very easy to tailor to fit what I want.

I also like World Works' Wormhole game (Free Here). In that case the setting more directly impacts the rules. Scattered minor Wormholes changes the tactics of the game by an enormous degree.

So... what I think that I am saying is that the setting fluff may impact WH more than folks expect, and does affect how folks feel about the rules themselves.

The Auld Grump

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
The poll is clearly biased. You provide 3 options for how the game can be below average but only 2 possibilities for how it can be above average.

Because there are only two relevant options for being above average. There is no reasonable opinion above "it's the best", so adding an option above it would be something absurd like "divine perfection, I don't play because I am not worthy". On the other hand there's a significant and interesting difference between "it sucks but I keep playing" and "it sucks and I quit", so it makes sense to split the "it sucks" option into two choices.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
The poll is clearly biased. You provide 3 options for how the game can be below average but only 2 possibilities for how it can be above average.

Because there are only two relevant options for being above average. There is no reasonable opinion above "it's the best", so adding an option above it would be something absurd like "divine perfection, I don't play because I am not worthy". On the other hand there's a significant and interesting difference between "it sucks but I keep playing" and "it sucks and I quit", so it makes sense to split the "it sucks" option into two choices.

Well, at least you have a reason for your clearly biased poll.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Well, at least you have a reason for your clearly biased poll.

Well, we've certainly established that you don't know what "biased" means.

(And of course given that only 2% of the people so far have voted for "best" I don't really see what adding another category above "best" would accomplish.)

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Well, at least you have a reason for your clearly biased poll.

Having 3 choices for variations on 'below average', having 2 choices, or having a hundred choices, it's still the same number of people voting 'below average'...