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.

What if...

All the rules for 40k were free and online (Gasp!)

And, were not necessarily open-source, but each individual rule had a number associated with it. Similar to computer programming where each line has a number.
Then, every GW customer has a number associated with them, using similar security measures and encryption to say...a bank with online banking.

Then, once per-day (or per week ect.) you can vote on one (or more?) rules that you think need to be changed. (forcing each person to prioritize importance)
Then GW could see which rules their customer-base feels need to be changed the most and they could either choose to change the most un-popular rules, or at least give a reason on this "rule-website" as to why they won't change it.

Not to mention rules could be updated constantly to work with the current state of the game/meta/expansions. As any online-gamer knows how often rules need to be changed to even come close to creating a sense of balance in a game (because people are smart and are always coming up with ways to un-balance the rules/meta and therefore the rules should be able to compensate for this as quickly as possible)

Also, all those people who download/borrow/photocopy the rules, I'm willing to bet would have no problem paying $5,$10,$20 bucks for an account on this "rules-website", especially if it meant they could vote and have even a small say in the direction of the game.

As well, again, if you look at the video gaming community and see how competitive semi-balanced games are hugely more popular than questy/fluff games it makes it obvious that the global demand for a balanced competitive gaming experience is big.

Plus, it could possibly bring in a whole new generation of players who still like the idea of having/painting a cool army, but also require some feeling of competitive balance. And paying GW's increasing prices for miniatures might not seem quite as bad if it at least looked like they were making an effort to give every army an equal fighting chance.

I also know that the higher-ups at GW feel the backstory/art and 'narrative' of their game is the most important thing and I know they are some of the best universe-story creators out there, but I also think they are missing out on a huge opportunity to bring more people into 40k by not having state-of-the-art online rules balancing.

TLDR(too-long-didn't-read): game unbalanced, updates too slow, need online rules and voting.

Downside is that coordinated voting could mess up the rules and nerf things not because of balance problems, but just because people don't like them for some reason. You end up with marines being super, uber killy because they are the most popular. And space elves will suck because they are space elves so they should suck.

I do like the idea of the rules being online and frequently updated though. I would just limit the impact of voting for rule changes.

Yes, because giving control of a game to the internet mob is an amazing idea. Because internet mobs are the only people who play 40k. And they are so reliably reasonable when ti comes to game balance.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Downside is that coordinated voting could mess up the rules and nerf things not because of balance problems, but just because people don't like them for some reason. You end up with marines being super, uber killy because they are the most popular. And space elves will suck because they are space elves so they should suck.

I do like the idea of the rules being online and frequently updated though. I would just limit the impact of voting for rule changes.

Ya I don't think the rule changes would be automatic, and as long as all the armies (ie points-values) are as balanced as possible as often as possible I have no problem with Space Marines being the "benchmark" for balance because it wouldn't mean they would necessarily be more powerful than other armies they would just be kept at a slightly more consistent level of balance if they ended up spending a bit more time on them in comparison with other armies because of their popularity......but ALL of the armies/rules would be updated much more often with an online system.

I'd also like to offer up that rapid-fire updates may not be as golden a thing as you believe them to be. Now don't mistake me, I do think GW needs to be more frequent in their updates, but the image you are giving me is something of too much of a good thing.

Do you really want to go online every week (or even every day) to check rules updates? Do you realize how big of a pain that would be, especially when you meet someone for a game and they are even just a couple days outside of rules updates?

 curran12 wrote:
Yes, because giving control of a game to the internet mob is an amazing idea. Because internet mobs are the only people who play 40k. And they are so reliably reasonable when ti comes to game balance.

Actually the internet 'mob' tends to make things a lot better in my experience with open-source hardware/software. I think you are confusing the differing opinions on forums with the amount of actual agreeing that happens when it comes to actually having a say in how changes should be made when you only have a limited number of votes for these changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:
I'd also like to offer up that rapid-fire updates may not be as golden a thing as you believe them to be. Now don't mistake me, I do think GW needs to be more frequent in their updates, but the image you are giving me is something of too much of a good thing.

Do you really want to go online every week (or even every day) to check rules updates? Do you realize how big of a pain that would be, especially when you meet someone for a game and they are even just a couple days outside of rules updates?

Well if you are just meeting someone for a fun game would little rule changes even be that big of a deal? It might even make it more fun and exciting if it doesn't ever feel stale or stagnant!

And the positive outcomes of every army feeling more balanced on a regular basis I think would outweigh the negatives.

What if the mob voted on a rule change that massively reshifts the metagame the day of a tournament? How do you expect a TO to reasonably put together a balanced set of scenarios if the rules change on a daily basis?

 curran12 wrote:
What if the mob voted on a rule change that massively reshifts the metagame the day of a tournament? How do you expect a TO to reasonably put together a balanced set of scenarios if the rules change on a daily basis?

The same way they have tournaments for other games that do have constant rule updates. They pick a day prior to the tournament and us the rules that came into effect prior to that day and make sure everyone knows that ahead of time. Yes there will obviously always be people who are upset with rule changes or lack thereof, but at least the overall balance would be better due to the online voting and updates.

I'm pretty sure tournament organizers have been talking about doing their own rule changes for this very reason...I think it would actually make their job easier.

I think the "mob" can be very effective at identifying problems and finding solutions quickly. I think there is a real danger of popular options being overbuffed and unpopular ones being overnerfed. Votes can help identify problems, but should be limited to that purpose--not resulting in automatic changes to the rules.

The concern about constantly changing rules has legitamacy, but is easily fixed by limiting the frequency of changes. Just make the changes monthly or quarterly. Keep one or two older versions available so organizers can select a rule set and let the parties know what set will be used.

I totally agree with the idea of having rules online, and updated regularly with input from the players. The rules would I think improve significantly.

An annual subscription for access would be reasonable.

 AlTzeentch wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
What if the mob voted on a rule change that massively reshifts the metagame the day of a tournament? How do you expect a TO to reasonably put together a balanced set of scenarios if the rules change on a daily basis?

The same way they have tournaments for other games that do have constant rule updates. They pick a day prior to the tournament and us the rules that came into effect prior to that day and make sure everyone knows that ahead of time. Yes there will obviously always be people who are upset with rule changes or lack thereof, but at least the overall balance would be better due to the online voting and updates.

So you say. I happen to disagree wholeheartedly.

Now this, I stress, is not in defense of GW's policy, however I do not believe the best source of rules balance is by popular vote. For a few reasons:

1. Gamers rarely think in terms of system-wide impacts. A game like 40k is a complex system, and a change ostensibly to fix one unbalanced thing may easily unbalance something else. If a fix to something broken breaks something else, is it really a fix?

2. Going off of my first point, gamers are notoriously short-sighted. If we use the online forums (and we can because this is the crowd that will do the majority of the voting), we see all kinds of ridiculous overreactions to small changes. Remember the first release of the new Tau codex? The bemoaning that the Tau got worse because of the railgun nerfs? In your system, that is what would have been acted on, not any kind of balance.

3. Likewise, gamers are notoriously selfish. Combining this with the shortsightedness, you will essentially have groups dedicated to self-interest above all else, voting to hurt and limit their opponents while voting in favor of what benefits them. This is not how you get balance, this is a breeding ground for argument.

4. Internet polls are ludicrously easy to break. Combine that with a selfish, reactionary audience and I guarantee that no poll will ever accurately represent balance.


I could go on, however, mass democracy (so to speak) is an exceptionally poor idea, imo. Simply because it is online assures that not even close to all gamers will have a say in rules, as it needs to be people who know about the site, have the ability to get there (albeit less likely now but still) and who have the inclination to vote. That doesn't even cover the needs for someone to be a fully informed voter, more likely it will be someone voting blindly. That does not contribute to balance.

 curran12 wrote:

 AlTzeentch wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
What if the mob voted on a rule change that massively reshifts the metagame the day of a tournament? How do you expect a TO to reasonably put together a balanced set of scenarios if the rules change on a daily basis?

The same way they have tournaments for other games that do have constant rule updates. They pick a day prior to the tournament and us the rules that came into effect prior to that day and make sure everyone knows that ahead of time. Yes there will obviously always be people who are upset with rule changes or lack thereof, but at least the overall balance would be better due to the online voting and updates.

So you say. I happen to disagree wholeheartedly.

Now this, I stress, is not in defense of GW's policy, however I do not believe the best source of rules balance is by popular vote. For a few reasons:

1. Gamers rarely think in terms of system-wide impacts. A game like 40k is a complex system, and a change ostensibly to fix one unbalanced thing may easily unbalance something else. If a fix to something broken breaks something else, is it really a fix?

2. Going off of my first point, gamers are notoriously short-sighted. If we use the online forums (and we can because this is the crowd that will do the majority of the voting), we see all kinds of ridiculous overreactions to small changes. Remember the first release of the new Tau codex? The bemoaning that the Tau got worse because of the railgun nerfs? In your system, that is what would have been acted on, not any kind of balance.

3. Likewise, gamers are notoriously selfish. Combining this with the shortsightedness, you will essentially have groups dedicated to self-interest above all else, voting to hurt and limit their opponents while voting in favor of what benefits them. This is not how you get balance, this is a breeding ground for argument.

4. Internet polls are ludicrously easy to break. Combine that with a selfish, reactionary audience and I guarantee that no poll will ever accurately represent balance.


I could go on, however, mass democracy (so to speak) is an exceptionally poor idea, imo. Simply because it is online assures that not even close to all gamers will have a say in rules, as it needs to be people who know about the site, have the ability to get there (albeit less likely now but still) and who have the inclination to vote. That doesn't even cover the needs for someone to be a fully informed voter, more likely it will be someone voting blindly. That does not contribute to balance.

I think your faith in the basic goodness of communities has been corrupted by online negativity. I am not saying the rules that people vote on would necessarily be changed automatically.

Just that at least the whole process would become much more open and up-to-date with more transparency and interactivity from their customers. It's the way of many successful businesses in 2014.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the general feeling I get when I read descriptions of experiences from recent tournaments and events is that most people are having more fun than ever, but are not satisfied with the state of the stagnant rules that have contradictions and typo's and need FAQ's, and are imbalanced and out-of-date.

I am just presenting one of possibly many solutions to this problem to make 40k even better! And I don't think a 7th Edition or new Codex's, (just to have another huge gap of several months or years without dealing with new issues that come up) will be good for GW's business or game balance.

In all honesty GW's biggest problem is they're expecting the rulebooks to be a revenue source; it provides a $130 barrier to entry and it means they physically can't update Codexes in real time. If they were trying to make a more easily balanced game the basic rules in every Codex would be up online for free download with a system to update everything every time there's a new release so you don't end up with a lead time of years to change the game whenever you make a mistake in a Codex.

 AlTzeentch wrote:

I think your faith in the basic goodness of communities has been corrupted by online negativity. I am not saying the rules that people vote on would necessarily be changed automatically.

Just that at least the whole process would become much more open and up-to-date with more transparency and interactivity from their customers. It's the way of many successful businesses in 2014.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the general feeling I get when I read descriptions of experiences from recent tournaments and events is that most people are having more fun than ever, but are not satisfied with the state of the stagnant rules that have contradictions and typo's and need FAQ's, and are imbalanced and out-of-date.

I am just presenting one of possibly many solutions to this problem to make 40k even better! And I don't think a 7th Edition or new Codex's, (just to have another huge gap of several months or years without dealing with new issues that come up) will be good for GW's business or game balance.

You yourself said that this will be online voting. There is going to be one power in that arrangement; online communities. And yes, I do have a generally negative and pessimistic view of online communities because online, it is not a matter of what is 'right' it is a matter of what is loudest. The loudest ideas become the background state of what is right and what should be, regardless of any kind of wider impact. By using an online voting system, you hand the keys to the game over to these crowds because, with established online communities, they will easily drown out the handful of pop-ins who do not participate more fully.

I agree that transparency and interactivity with customers is a good business practice, but can you give me an example of a company that does what you are suggesting? Placing the core fundamentals of their product in the hands of non-experts? What you are proposing is far more than just communication. And again, I think more transparency and communication from GW would be great, but I do not think giving the ability to change rules over to a crowd that is obnoxiously loud, shortsighted, hyper-overreactive and selfish is going to bring us into some kind of golden age. I want more skilled professionals working on my rules, not mobs of people who think they know what's best.

As hard as I am disagreeing with you on some things, I do agree with a new update system, and better fundamental rules. I think that would be a good thing. What I disagree with is the approach.