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.

Not a chance. Some of the dross suggestions the usual suspects on this forum come up with in regards to rules are laughable at best and downright painful at worst.

I would actually be happy to play with 5th edition rules provided the individual factions had more balance and got rid of the ridiculous bloat.

5th, in of itself, had a good foundation and requires much less tweaking. It was the introduction of extra large models, flyers and fancy rules all over the place that

Only changes I would make would be:

1.) keep the current AP system but only on guns. The old AP system of all or nothing was just stupid, and a lot of things that would have never seen use are seeing use now (like, who used Power Mauls before without being forced to?)

2.) Melee Weapons remain simplified to "CCW or Power Weapons with extra rules attached" instead of having a bunch of profiles that essentially said the same thing.

Just 2c - since people rightfully pointed out that even a good ruleset would be futile because the interest would lie in the "official" GW rules, what about an organized feedback system?

Like creating a table/archive with the most outrageous stuff and discuss appropriate point costs and similar things.

Then find a way, through force of number, to send the message to its target.

In theory that's a good idea.

In practice.....no. The australian boycott was the largest organization of complaints levied against GW I can remember and that had all the effect of an ant's fart in what it accomplished.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
In theory that's a good idea.

In practice.....no. The australian boycott was the largest organization of complaints levied against GW I can remember and that had all the effect of an ant's fart in what it accomplished.

But I don't mean to be confrontational, just to make it work as a database. Is stated in the thread that GW receives a bit of feedback from social media - well, use that, but using the numbers of a board community once the feedback infos on a specific topic reach a "critical mass".

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Just 2c - since people rightfully pointed out that even a good ruleset would be futile because the interest would lie in the "official" GW rules, what about an organized feedback system?

Like creating a table/archive with the most outrageous stuff and discuss appropriate point costs and similar things.

Then find a way, through force of number, to send the message to its target.

GW seems fairly aware of what different user communities think about the rules already. Their main issue historically has been that they never actually did anything to address balance issues with already-published rules. The most recent codices are really the first time that GW has been releasing what are essentially revised versions of existing rules after getting player feedback -- the first couple codices were presumably finalized before 8th launched. The Guard codex makes an attempt to hit pretty much every area of player concern as of the first few weeks of 8th. Conscripts and Scion plasma and Taurox Primes and Mortar Squads got nerfed, while Leman Russes and regular Taurox and Baneblades and Valkyries got buffed. The big things that they just didn't address at all are things that didn't really see much discussion right after 8th launched and only became apparent later -- Astropaths and Primaris Psykers are still far and away the best psykers in the game other than Malefic Lords, for example. Plausibly Conscripts and maybe infantry in general needed more of a nerf but this was a lot less clear in the first weeks. It's been noticed that the Guard codex appears to be a lot more thorough of a rebalancing than any of the earlier codices too. We'll see very soon if this has continued with Eldar and Tyranids -- it was realized very early on that there are basically just 4 good units in the Eldar index. The real test, of course, will be Chapter Approved in December, where supposedly they'll have taken into account player feedback to rebalance almost everything. We already know that they're nerfing flyers in response to player feedback.

Only if it included a creative and simple way to include alternating activations into the normal 40k style of gameplay.

Thats the big problem 40k always has, is its still at its heart IgoUgo. Fixing anything else is just polishing your beat up old Honda civic instead of buying a new car.

So there's a lot of alternative rulesets that have been built over the years. They only get a small following - if any - and seem to go away quick.

Provisionally, I would be interested in an alternative ruleset provided it was crowdsourced. Instead of a small team writing it, give the community an opportunity to weigh in an identify the rules that would be best for them.

Fine to use 5th edition as a starting point, but I would want to see things like consolidating into combat, better rules around cover, flyers, etc. If they are not going into the game, I would want to have a good explanation for why.

Alternately, a good "generic-purpose" system that can stand on its own without being 40k, before adapting 40k to it?

7th ed was generally perceived as total disaster and despite that NO ATTEMPT, and there were numerous on here on dakka alone, gained any popularity outside of "mother group" of players for each one of them... There were "clean slate" redos, alternating activation systems, d10 systems, 5th ed revival attempts, custom codices, adaptations of third party systems etc... And now, majority of playerbase is more or less content with 8th with just "tweaks and patches" desired. IF you could somehow convince people behind ITC to go against "modern GW", which has completely different approach to organised play than "old GW" that made ITC format necessary in the first place, then maybe, just maybe you could have a shot at any form of widely accepted "community 8th ed". But in any other case this is just "game dev excercise" for you and anyone involved.

And as previous posters mentioned: 40K is HUGE. Every core rules change, even minor one, usually requires recosting of everything dependant on that changed rule and resolving any and all resulting loopholes or (sometimes unexpectedly large) imbalances caused by simple changes... As example of what I'm talking about, one common 7th ed reworks pitfalls was trying to make non-random run&charge distances work as desired in presence of Battle Focus, Fleet and other run/charge bonuses/rerolls...

My advice - forget about reviving 5th, work on "community 8th". One HUGE perk of going on with working "on top" of most current ed is that any new model releases will be compatible or have understandable and easily adaptable stats published by GW. Otherwise you'll soon end up with having tons of completely made-up units, that no one will accept as ballanced in any agreable way...

If you want to make up a ruleset, you're going to need to put some time into the presentation, get a ruleset together, and publish it with some kind of official backing.

Otherwise yeah... fan rulesets typically go nowhere.