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've been playing WH40K for about 9 months, and in that time I still can't seem to grasp all of the ridiculous, ever-changing, unbalanced rules of this game. I know I'm going to get flamed by all the die-hard players out there who know every facet of the game for every army out there, problem is I'm not one of those guys. I LOVE the GW models, LOVE to paint and convert, and would like to play a game with my models without learning everyone else's special character rules. So instead of bitching and moaning, my friend and I decided to come up with our own set of rules. The reason for the post is so everyone here can take a look at these rules and then comment on them. What I'm looking for is some honest C + C, what would you add, change, omit, etc. Leaving a post of "Your rules suck" doesn't really help me fine tune them for play. So like I said, take an objective, open minded look at them and tell me what you think, Thanks.

ha, "ever-changing rules" made me laugh,

have you though of playing other games like war-machine and such, if your more into the models than the official rules then that might be a good game for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ha, "ever-changing rules" made me laugh,

have you though of playing other games like war-machine and such, if your more into the models than the official rules then that might be a good game for you.

Havokas wrote:ha, "ever-changing rules" made me laugh,

have you though of playing other games like war-machine and such, if your more into the models than the official rules then that might be a good game for you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ha, "ever-changing rules" made me laugh,

have you though of playing other games like war-machine and such, if your more into the models than the official rules then that might be a good game for you.

Well it's true right. I really like the warhammer 40K fluff and the models.

You really went to the other extreme with your rules. It's waaay too simplistic and generic. Like Risk with really extensive counters. I have issues with some of the rules for Warhammer 40,000, but In my rules, which I've been working on since 1998, I pursued my vision until I felt they were precisely what I wanted. Keep at it, and perhaps one day you will feel that same sense of accomplishment.

warpcrafter wrote:You really went to the other extreme with your rules. It's waaay too simplistic and generic. Like Risk with really extensive counters. I have issues with some of the rules for Warhammer 40,000, but In my rules, which I've been working on since 1998, I pursued my vision until I felt they were precisely what I wanted. Keep at it, and perhaps one day you will feel that same sense of accomplishment.

Well they were meant to be pretty simple, mainley for people who want to play a tabletop game but not have to learn a ****ton of rules to play it, maybe you could PM me a copy of the rules you have done, I'm interested in reading them.

Hi sub zero.
I belive quite a few people share your view, that the current 40k rule set is abstract and counter intuitive.
It needs a cr^pton of rules to make the very simple gameplay look interesting .

However, you appear to have adopted the restrictive writing method of the 40k rules , and without all the exceptions (special rules) adding the 'shine' , the gameply becomes obviuosly simple.(Not your fault ,you have been using a bad example.)

I am no expert on game devlopent, but having played all sorts of wargames from a wide variety of companies over the last 20 years or so, I can help with alternatives to the current game mechanics and resolution methods if you like?

The majority of units used in 40k are very similar in intended use to modern unit types.
Small skirmishing units of infantry with small arms weapons, supported by transport /armoured /artillery type elements.
So when coupled with a modified Napoleonic rule set ,(WHFB) lots of abstractions-contradictions are needed , to try to get the game play to work.

Modern type units behaviour should be covered with an EQUAL blend of mobility, firepower, and assault.(IMO.)

Looking at the 40k characterstics, mobility is NOT present, firepower has ONE specific characteristic (BS), and assault has FOUR specific characteristics.(WS,S,I,A.)

Half the stats are dedicated to close combat resolution.In WHFB where the majority of the fighting IS in close combat this makes sense.
BUT NOT IN 40k!

So starting with a completley blank page,what game play do you want, what level of interaction,how much of a simulation -abstraction of every element of the desired interaction?

If you pick a real world conflict to base your game play on, It can help define the game play and which game mechanics and resolution methods work best.
Do you think 40k game play should be closest to , Ancient, Napoleonic, WWI,WWII, modern conflicts?

I am working on a revision of my own rule set.(Posted in a different thread. My rule set was over complicated. )
May be we could work together and look at some alternatives?

TFN
lanrak