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.

Say a company comes along and buys out GW. They consult the fans (us) with a few to make drastic changes to 40k in order to make it a balanced game, that may or may not be that similar to the current game.

What would you be willing to sacrifice?

Would you be willing to sacrifice the fluff being redone (at least in part) to allow this to happen or would you consider this heretical?

Also how far would you be willing to allow this developer to change things?

To give you an example of a significant change:
The developer is sick of so many marines as it doesn't work for them so they decide that marines are going to become super soldiers limited to a handful of roles (some what akin to chapter tactics) and are going to be rolled up into a single codex that may be combined into an imperial guard codex. In this example you would get the option of outfitting them in any way but wouldn't have, necessarily, a dedicated army of them.

Total rules overhaul.

Minor fluff changes, some back to older stuff, others get expanded stuff, most stay largely the same.

But a total rules overhaul is needed.

*Edit* Also, all loyalist marines in one codex, as above.

Someone doesn't play Space Marines!

lol. I used to play marines and might get some again in the future. I don't particularly mind them i just dislike seeing entire armies of them. but that's not really the point, it was just an example.

I would tolerate anything rules-wise so long as it wasn't a huge deviation from that current system that, as far as I'm concerned, works fine. A few minor tweaks, such as we get from edition to edition would be fine, but if they were to completely change things, why shouldn't I just pick a different game? A ground-up rewrite holds no appeal for me.

What I wouldn't want is fluff changes on any significant level. I play this game for the setting and background, so to change that would either force me to keep playing in 'my version' of the universe and therefore be misaligned with any new players (cue a lot of 'back in my day...'-type moaning) or to rewrite all the fairly extensive fluff for my armies to fit the new vision.

Complete rewrite for me (I GO U GO needs TO GO ), minor fluff tweaks would be fine.

Im one of the few that doesn't mind the rules at the moment... maybe some slight changes and tweaks but nothing to drastic.

As for the fluff i love it the way it is, especially the dark angels ( which is one of the main reasons i play them along with the fact they kick butt ) and the horus heresy is just plain awesomeness

I honestly don't care how much the rules change (so long as the overall change is for the better). I'm happy with the current system and I'd be happy to make significant changes too.

Not that bothered about the background being changed either. I'd like some of the inconsistency between the rules and the background to be addressed (either marines get nerfed in the background or buffed in the game, for example), I'd be happy to see more believable numbers being used and I'd love to have a generally more consistent and realistic setting, but I'd be happy to keep the current gonzo-metal-space-fantasy stuff too. What I'd be put off by is if they kept the background just as daft, but changed all the details; without the power of nostalgia, I don't think it would work for me.

Minor rules changes, minor fluff changes. I would be fine with tweaking, but not a total overhaul.

GW is doing a fine job on their own. Not perfect, but acceptable.

Rules-wise I'd love it if a new owner decided to scrap the whole game and start over. The current rules are so awful, from the detailed balance problems to the core foundation of the game, that it would be pretty much impossible to make things worse. So why not take the chance of having a better game?

Fluff-wise I'd be somewhat concerned. I'm not 100% happy with all of the fluff, but I don't see any reason why the fluff would have to change to make the rules work. Therefore I'd be worried that the new owner is deciding to change things for the sake of changing them, especially if they jump straight into fluff changes as soon as they get the IP.

No touching the fluff, it's near perfect as-is, and I only like W40K for the fluff, the game comes second. I'd happily have them tweak or even redesign some of the rules to make W40K flow better, but I'd near drop it or just outright ignore everything if they warped, censored, or rebooted the fluff.

I'm all for changing the gameplay/rules, at whatever level...if the result is a better game I really don't care about whether or not the mechanics are different. Fluff changes are really unnecessary though.

Boniface wrote: They consult the fans (us) with a few to make drastic changes to 40k in order to make it a balanced game

It's unlikely that I'd play a game that was designed by thousands of raving internet lunatics.

If you could even manage to make A game out of it in the first place, rather than a highly fractured mess.

A rules overhaul risks changing the character of the game too much, I would rather they just tighten up the current rules set. 6e is not a fundamentally bad ruleset, it's just lacks the fit and finish that other wargames have.

The fluff is fine. I don't care if the make relatively small changes (they do that anyhow), it's just a backdrop and I can use my own headcanon.

 DanielBeaver wrote:
A rules overhaul risks changing the character of the game too much

That's fine, because the current character of the game is "barely-playable garbage". Nothing of value would be lost if the entire game was thrown out and replaced with an entirely new one.

 Peregrine wrote:
That's fine, because the current character of the game is "barely-playable garbage". Nothing of value would be lost if the entire game was thrown out and replaced with an entirely new one.

I really think that's more of a problem with badly designed codexes (which are far worse than the rulebook, IMO).

 DanielBeaver wrote:
I really think that's more of a problem with badly designed codexes (which are far worse than the rulebook, IMO).

No, it's the core rules too. Badly designed codices cause massive (and laughably unprofessional) balance problems, but the core rules are also a barely-playable mess. IGOUGO is a completely idiotic system with no redeeming qualities, the core stat line and D6 mechanics of a 1980s fantasy game are inappropriate for a scifi game, the complete lack of consistency with scale (both in distances/model size and how many/what type of models you want to use) creates awkward compromises that make the game terrible at both things, etc. Fixing some of the codex balance issues would be good of course, but without changing the core rules you're still just making superficial improvements over a broken foundation.

 DanielBeaver wrote:

I really think that's more of a problem with badly designed codexes (which are far worse than the rulebook, IMO).

They're both problematic. One is a bloated mess of redundancy and poorly worded rules, while the others are contradictory, poorly laid out and awfully balanced both internally and externally.

I mean, even the basic UGOIGO is terrible for the size of the game its intended to be played at.

*Edit* Dammit, Peregrine beat me to the UGOIGO punch.

I want a complete reboot - 2nd-3rd ed style.

With a complete removal of any fluff which retconned the older stuff (DE are fine - they existed as pirates and raiders and to the imperium, all pointy ears look the same anyway).

But I loathe 6th ed and all it has come to be.

I await a version of the rules that makes me want to play it the way 2nd or 3rd did (or perhaps I just want to go back to being in my 20s.)

 chromedog wrote:
I want a complete reboot - 2nd-3rd ed style.

With a complete removal of any fluff which retconned the older stuff (DE are fine - they existed as pirates and raiders and to the imperium, all pointy ears look the same anyway).

But I loathe 6th ed and all it has come to be.

I await a version of the rules that makes me want to play it the way 2nd or 3rd did (or perhaps I just want to go back to being in my 20s.)

Why the hell would you retcon back to the old fluff? The old stuff was just utter gak and a bad attempt at throwing every single Sci Fi GW could think of together, especially the 2000AD stuff. Modern W40K is vastly superior, especially with the overarching Gothic Medieval Europe in Speeeess- which actually isn't that common on a massive franchise scale. The IOM, Space Marines, Chaos, and Eldar are fine as-is. The only thing that needs some reworking are Orks, Tau, and Tyranids. The IOM and Chaos have fully matured now in the fluff, they're where they fit, and they fit together exceptionally well. Orks, Tau, and Nids just feel incredibly jarring when compared to the largely gothic nature of W40K- like a puzzle piece that had to have pieces shaved off in order for it to fit.

I would love it if somebody changed the game to a move-move, shoot-shoot, assault-assault type game or almost anything other than the current UGOIGO system which is so boring against some armies.

I also wouldn't mind a major fluff reboot with someone actually maintaining a cannon for the fluff. You know there are fluff problems when your iconic astartes range in height from 7' to over 14' from one publication to another. Some of the fluff in this game is just looney toons level cartoonish and make the setting poorer for it.

Mostly I would very much appreciate a a play testing and proof reading department.

GW does have playtesters. They're credited in the codices.

 Ailaros wrote:
GW does have playtesters. They're credited in the codices.

I was more talking about a group of people they listen to and who can spend 8 hours a day testing every permutation of a rule and will actually read the rule and try to use it without being the writer of said rule. These people could then community feedback on their released product (gasp!) to find out what rules do not work as written and how they might have messed up on balancing something (no you shouldn't always trust the player opinions but it certainly wouldn't hurt to know when people are so angry about certain units and why, large numbers of angry customers is not a good thing). While they were at it they could fix a few typos perhaps? Right now the playtesters have other hats to where and certainly appear to not be able to proof read the rules considering the number of mistakes.

You're counting on people making rules to be more creative than those who want to bend or exploit the rules.

Given the existence of prisons and bloated government regulatory agencies, this seems unlikely to be successful. Like in the real world, a great deal requires people to police themselves.

Part of the deal would have to be changing the Necron fluff back to the old book.

They went from ancient, silent, ominous killing machines to annoying, nerdy, honor code following space Egyptians.

The introduction of speech to Necrons really kills their whole atmosphere. I was afraid in the new Tyranid codex that Hive Tyrants were going to get emotion filled personalities.

 Der Metzgermeister wrote:
Part of the deal would have to be changing the Necron fluff back to the old book.

They went from ancient, silent, ominous killing machines to annoying, nerdy, honor code following space Egyptians.

The introduction of speech to Necrons really kills their whole atmosphere. I was afraid in the new Tyranid codex that Hive Tyrants were going to get emotion filled personalities.

Adding characterization is vastly superior and much needed to fix the bland and complete generic nature of oldcrons. Necrons are now a very unique and pragmatic race that stand out from the others, which is not bad in any way, shape, or form.

 Ailaros wrote:
You're counting on people making rules to be more creative than those who want to bend or exploit the rules.

No, you're counting on people playtesting the rules to do that. That's how playtesting works, you write the rules and then you have your playtesters try to find all the exploits and balance problems. And then you fix those problems, and give the rules back to the playtesters to see if you're making good progress. And so on, through cycles of writing and testing, until you have a finished product. If you've done it right you've tested with a broad enough audience that the full community is rarely going to find anything too exploitable, and the occasional mistake is easy to ban/errata/whatever if necessary.

The problem with GW's "playtesting" is that it seems to consist of playing a couple beer and pretzels games on your lunch break, which isn't going to accomplish anything besides having some fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Der Metzgermeister wrote:
They went from ancient, silent, ominous killing machines to annoying, nerdy, honor code following space Egyptians.

The new fluff might not be ideal, but at least it's better than the awful old fluff where Necrons are just Tyranids with metal instead of flesh.

I think 6th still have some redeeming qualities so I don't think a complete overhaul is necessary but if made right then a overhaul would be better.

The fluff I like for the most part and I would prefer that it stay the same but I would ofc be ok with some changes here and there.

I agree with Der MetzgermeisterMade that I don't like the new Necrons, most because the whole C'tan being beaten by Silent King since they just trusted him not to betray them, even going so far to give him all the power with no failsafe what so ever. That is IMHO the most stupidest fluff I have read so far.

I also liked the mysterie and unkown about them in the old codex.
Thou I can agree that they were a bit to much "Tyranids with metal instead of flesh" before.

Can't say I'm surprised by the results of the poll so far.

 Wyzilla wrote:


Adding characterization is vastly superior and much needed to fix the bland and complete generic nature of oldcrons. Necrons are now a very unique and pragmatic race that stand out from the others, which is not bad in any way, shape, or form.

Peregrine wrote:

The new fluff might not be ideal, but at least it's better than the awful old fluff where Necrons are just Tyranids with metal instead of flesh.

I am for the Necrons having character, but the character they got just kills the atmosphere for me. I.e. page 20 of the necron codex: "Combat efficiency remains at seventy percent of acceptable parameters. Further data is necessary to complete the required optimization."
And just look at the Quotes on page 21 and page 23.
When I read the above quote and Zahndrek's quote on page 21, I cannot help but read it in a nasally nerdy voice. It is not intimidating at all. Imohteks quote on page 23 is just incredibly cheesy in the first paragraph, but the second is a lot better.

I really like the beginning of the fluff, concerning the War in Heaven, the C'Tan, and biotransference. Of course the battle scenes are always cool, Especially the necron warriros phalanxes coming out of the red ocean. Just listen to the description of the warriors: "...the first wave of Necron Warriors emerged from the blood-red seas. Brackish water streaming from their bodies, the soulless androids strode across the obsidian sands, each marching in perfect unison with every other, save for where circuitry misfires caused an involuntary twitch or stumble."

I would imagine something like the Gravemind from Halo would be more suitable for these guys. i.e. "This is not your grave, but you are welcome in it." Imagine if the Necrons sent something similar to that to humans living on one of their sleeping tomb worlds- rather than an honorable or "generous" offer to leave? Of course, I'm not suggesting they should rip off from Halo.

In short: Giving the Necrons character is good, but it is mostly GW's attempt to make the Necrons look intelligent through excessive use of "intelligent" words that kills the character of the Necrons for me.
.
Everyone has their own opinion though. Anyway, we best stay on topic. I'm sure there is a thread about Necron fluff already.