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.

QUOTE:
With a community like this, what do you think would happen if they did a complete rules overhaul? An outrage. You and I both know it. Even smaller adjustments make people rage - GW simply can´t do a rules overhaul even if they wanted. It would cause whining in amounts never ever beforeseen by mankind and pose a risk so great they simply can´t take it. If there´s people threatening to quit now, it would be tenfold after a completely new set of rules, no matter how good. You know this. Also, just selling rulebooks doesn´t keep them, or any wargaming company afloat. It´s just not possible to stop creating product that brings in money when you try to run a big company. END QUOTE

If you're going to create a poll, at least TRY to make the options sound neutral. "Immediate rage quit" as an option? Really?

Well, RunicFIN (quoted above) seems to think that's the option the "community" would choose.

If (the rules and the miniatures were reasonable priced) then yes
else
senseless GW rant
end program

The rules need a refresh. The last one they had was third edition in... 1999? That's a long time for one ruleset.

Each new edition adds new special rules, removes some, changes wound allocation, cover rules, etc, but it's the same standard framework they've had for the last 15 years. it's busting at the seams, and really showing its age compared to more modern rulesets.

They need to sit down, come up with a game size they want to aim for (squad, platoon, company, etc) and write rules that go with that game size. No more of this RPG-lite customisation for characters and wound allocation designed for a platoon level game in a game with aircraft and enormous city ending walking arsenals. Pick a scale, and make a good ruleset.

Get good, competitive players onto a testing team and test the ever loving gak out of it. A balanced, well written ruleset benefits casual and narrative gamers as much as it benefits competitive gamers. Prepare all codices for launch with the new rules, and figure out some new way to release new units that doesn't require either waiting on a 4-5 (at least) year long cycle or hundreds of disparate DLC pdfs.

If they did this, it might get my group to look into it again.

 -Loki- wrote:
The rules need a refresh. The last one they had was third edition in... 1999? That's a long time for one ruleset.

Each new edition adds new special rules, removes some, changes wound allocation, cover rules, etc, but it's the same standard framework they've had for the last 15 years. it's busting at the seams, and really showing its age compared to more modern rulesets.

They need to sit down, come up with a game size they want to aim for (squad, platoon, company, etc) and write rules that go with that game size. No more of this RPG-lite customisation for characters and wound allocation designed for a platoon level game in a game with aircraft and enormous city ending walking arsenals. Pick a scale, and make a good ruleset.

Get good, competitive players onto a testing team and test the ever loving gak out of it. A balanced, well written ruleset benefits casual and narrative gamers as much as it benefits competitive gamers. Prepare all codices for launch with the new rules, and figure out some new way to release new units that doesn't require either waiting on a 4-5 (at least) year long cycle or hundreds of disparate DLC pdfs.

If they did this, it might get my group to look into it again.

I feel that the game really needs it, since it is starting to break down with no clear direction on what it really wants to be. That, and it really needs to be play tested almost to the point Warmachine mk.ii was (community feedback may be optional, but I do not really see the modern GW doing that).

I would happily try it, whether or not I end up liking it is of course, another thing entirely.

GW should remake rules AND push new product. It's not like they have to choose.

I think the game has grown so much beyond the rules that exist it needs a serious reboot. But more importantly I think how the rules are developed need a more serious overhaul.

I get the impression the games being played at GW are not really the same game they are selling to everyone.

Basically what Krellnus said. Sure people who think the game needs an overhaul will vote on your poll. The actual end result however is obvious: The community split between liking and hating the new rules just like it is now and has always been. The ratio of "haters and lovers" is anyones guess at best. But if you factor in the hate for GW there would be a alot of people who would hate on the new rules no matter how good, because of their deep rooted attitudes. This is also obvious.

I dont think GW can take that risk, for it could have a massive negative effect, even while as a thought a new good ruleset is nice. Also, your poll dictates only the perfect outcome of the new rules. Good ruleset is a subjective thing and hence some would hate and some would love them.

 RunicFIN wrote:
Basically what Krellnus said. Sure people who think the game needs an overhaul will vote on your poll. The actual end result however is obvious: The community split between liking and hating the new rules just like it is now and has always been. The ratio of "haters and lovers" is anyones guess at best. But if you factor in the hate for GW there would be a alot of people who would hate on the new rules no matter how good, because of their deep rooted attitudes. This is also obvious.

So we shouldn't discuss things because we have opposing points of view?

If people post pointless rubbish, just report it. No point stopping a discussion because of it.

Did I say you shouldn't? Sorry, not tagging along on the misinterpretation ride.

I think if the next edition change is just another blatant money grab, like the last two editions.

There will not be a need for another rule set, as GW plc will not be in business.

Where as a serious attempt to write rules for the game play, along with a halt on price rises .May be enough to turn things around.

40k 3rd edition was a 'misstep' in the development of the game, that has tried to be corrected with a re write by the GW devs, EVERY edition since!

But has been blocked by the corporate management who forced the devs to make the change focus from game play to pimping product in the first place.

(3rd edition was a polished and refined version of second edition , all ready to go.But the managment wanted 40k to be a battle game so they could 'sell more toy soldier to children' .And so 3rd edition was a 11th hour rushed conversion from a WWII rule set Rick was working on.Which Rick developed into the excellent Bolt Action rule set 13 years later.)

Andy Chambers had re-written the rules for 4th, they were designed for the larger miniature numbers that 40k had begun to turn to and it was a much faster and more fluid game system.

But, the decision was made at that point that the break in continuity (and, obviously invalidation of all existing army books) was deemed to be not acceptable. Andy Chambers then left GW and took the rules to Mongoose Publishing for the now defunct Starship troopers game.

I think there are two issues at play here; one, is a complete re-launch of the game likely and two; what would it be like if they did.
I think point one pretty much invalidates the second, as I think in all honesty if GW didn't relaunch the game back in 4th edition, they sure as hell aren't going to do it a decade later for 8th. We've been told time and time again that the sales division of the company dictates what we see and what form it takes; having a 'tight, well balanced set of rules' and the arguments for it doesn't stack up well against the army books that are currently on sale, and which would be withdrawn from sale, if a completely new version was launched.

Speaking hypothetically, you also have to consider how long it has been since the design staff in GW genuinely had to flex their creative muscles and design a new system. Other than Dreadfleet, every other release has been a re-hash or re-write of something that someone else wrote years before, even the new version launches are just a slight adjustment of previous versions. I would love to see them have a go (and I'm sure the designers themselves would love to!) but there would be a big question mark hanging over it, the justifications for how the rules work (see previous comment about input from sales team) and whether it could be pulled off.

But, as I've said it's all hypothetical and it won't happen; there are still enough people lapping up new rules editions and army books despite absolute minimum effort on GW's part to do anything creative, interesting or risky with those releases - while the company is still comfortably above water, there is no reason for them to try.

OP wrote:What whould you do if GW dropped their current rules for quicker, cleaner, more intuitive rules?

Happily give it a try.


Although I'd rather they didn't and instead concentrated on making more models and let FFG write the rules.

Can you rage quit over an extended period of time?

Start playing again. With the caveat that the prices might need to come down a smidge too.

Honestly after citing my disdain for an edition change after only two years recently it would not be genuine for me to say I'd happily switch over. To the point, the level of trust is no longer present, and I'd be afraid for the loss of another $75. I'd still stay away from the game until I heard rave reviews from the community in the way I do with new operating systems for my computer. If GW made an insightful, streamlined, set of new rules I'd demand (or request, or would like) to see a beta version, free of charge on the internet for playtesting and feedback.

If they pulled it off, I'd play again, though my problems with GW still go beyond the 40K ruleset needing an overhaul.

I don't think they could pull off a total re-write, but assuming they could and it was a much better game without obvious price gouging, I could possibly go back.

I think they could do a rewrite but I question if they'd fix anything or just make it even worse because at least the current version has the core of 3rd edition still. A complete rewrite could just be heaps of random nonsense like RT again.

Really their best option for a rewrite would be to hire Alessio back, even if it was as a contract, to create a properly balanced but fun version of 40k, and include a "Black Codex" that has updated army lists for everything. Of course the problem then is that the other people (Jervis, Cruddace and Kelly) would probably screw it up with codex creep, even though Jervis does know how to design games when he actually wants to (IIRC didn't he design Epic which was actually a really good set of rules?)

I'd love a proper re-write.

Assuming it was a quality product, I'd give it a try and likely happily return to GW's loving embrace.

The game mechanics are pretty antiquated for the game its trying to be.

*Edit* Oh yeah, and writing/re-writing rules and making new models/products are not mutually exclusive. So I disagree with the title of the thread.

 Krellnus wrote:
I would happily try it, whether or not I end up liking it is of course, another thing entirely.

 RunicFIN wrote:
… your poll dictates only the perfect outcome of the new rules. Good ruleset is a subjective thing and hence some would hate and some would love them.

 Pacific wrote:
I think there are two issues at play here; one, is a complete re-launch of the game likely and two; what would it be like if they did.

Yes indeed. The Devil in the details. I was thinking GW could switch to rules for 40K something along the lines of Ambush Alley's Tomorrow’s War (TW). WHFB could be adopted along those lines as well, with magic standing in for technology.

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15416.phtml

What ya think?

 Pacific wrote:
I think in all honesty if GW didn't relaunch the game back in 4th edition, they sure as hell aren't going to do it a decade later for 8th.

Things have changed a lot since 2004. In 2004 40K was riding high, no need for change, certainly not in management's eyes. Now, well they might be more willing to consider something new. Besides, it could be developed with community support and you come start small with a skirmish game with 5-10 figs per side. If its a hit you build form there, in modular steps.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Jervis does know how to design games when he actually wants to (IIRC didn't he design Epic which was actually a really good set of rules?)

Yes he he did and yes they're pretty good.

To be honest, it woudn't bother me, but I wouldn't buy a new ruleset. 40k as it stands right now is still a very enjoyable, accesible, expansive and downright fun game and if they were to stop updating it as of tomorrow, I'd be perfectly content with it (in fact, I haven't bought a new rulebook since the end of 6th. Everythnig I had at that point worked, so I can't see the point in newer rules for me.)

An overhaul would not really interest me at all, as if I want something different in scale, scope or complexity I can just go and set up a game of Infinity, Deadzone, Warpath or even Malifaux for something totally different. 40k is the game I play when I want whole armies duking it out as opposed to squads, and it does that just fine.

Would gladly give it a go, to be honest the current rules played exactly the way they play now but written in a clear and logical way would be a huge improvement - say simple things like ohhh numbering the paragraphs and having half decent cross referencing in the book.

Then actually proof reading what they put out, and answering the more common questions that arise in the rules.

Also perhaps a short abstract for special rules and the main sections stating the intent - so when the rule doesn't cover a specific situation you have a clue as to where they intended you to go.

Warhammer is unique, everyone else is streamlining and simplifying, while GW keep with the model removal mechanics, individual models fighting etc - I actually like the concept but think they need to have a bit of a think on how it all is actually presented. Could probably make the rules a lot easier to read by presenting the abstract, then the rule and cutting out the 'fluff' bits into separate sidebars that are not the rules as such but say two in universe characters talking to each other or something.

Depends on how you mean "remake". If they took the current rules, removed a lot of the randomized nonsense, gave everything a balance pass, and rewrote everything to be much clearer, then maybe.

If, in addition to this, they stopped mucking things up in ways to require you to buy new supplements, etc, rather than encourage you too, then absolutely. Especially if they stop this "Buy a new core rule book and codex every four (two, now, I guess?) years!" crap, and if they really *must* keep cycling through editions like this, at least make sure every army's codex is updated in a timely fashion so that you don't have codex referencing obsolete rules, and are actually designed with the current edition in mind.

Rather than completely rewriting the rules in another edition, they should split the rules for different sized games.

*Clean up and polish the current rule mechanics, but apply them only to the squad-level skirmish game they were originally designed for.

*Design and release a new set, with streamlined mechanics, for the higher model count games they currently are pushing.

*For the truly insane ( :-) ) craft/perfect an even more streamlined set of rules for the Apocalypse concept.

The advantage of this, for the modern GW mindset, is that you get three games that all drive sales of the same miniatures no matter what stage of the game you are in.

*Newbies get a full game that can be played for a low entry price, with only a few models. But it gets them into the game. And if they enjoy the game they still have reason to keep buying, because....

* Once they are ready for Big Boy 40K, or have at least bought a lot more models and want to use them all, they step up to the larger game. And if they like this game and have "finished" all their armies, they still have reason to keep buying because....

*Once they've inhaled enough glue and paint fumes to lose all sense, and spent enough money to fund a small country, they can try out Apocalypse. (Or, more sensibly, beg for the reissue of Epic, but I digress.)

Each of the three rulebooks should be released as separate softcover books, preferably under USD 20 each. You can't present them as prestige items then, but the point is to drive more model sales for newbies and all levels of veterans.

Such a concept has precedence. My favorite starship combat universe has an original game that really works best for ship on ship, another game with streamlined rules intended for fleets, and another even more streamlined game designed to let large fleets resolve battles in an afternoon. All use the same miniatures. They also have another game for Imperial Alliance vs Imperial Alliance. So, you know, bring back Epic....

-S'Cipio

 RatBot wrote:
Depends on how you mean "remake". 

Yes indeed. The Devil in the details. I was thinking GW could switch to rules for 40K something along the lines of Ambush Alley's Tomorrow’s War (TW). WHFB Yes indeed. The Devil in the details. I was thinking GW could switch to rules for 40K something along the lines of Ambush Alley's Tomorrow’s War (TW). WHFB could be adopted along those lines as well, with magic standing in for technology. 

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15416.phtml 

What ya think? 

Poll fail.

S'Cipio wrote:
...

Such a concept has precedence.  My favorite starship combat universe has an original game that really works best for ship on ship, another game with streamlined rules intended for fleets, and another even more streamlined game designed to let large fleets resolve battles in an afternoon.  All use the same miniatures.  They also have another game for Imperial Alliance vs Imperial Alliance.  So, you know, bring back Epic....

-S'Cipio

Yeah, I've thought the same.  I also thought you could use the same basic Mechanism in each game.  You do a basic game with generic states on 5-10 guys with cammander. Then a detailed version with stats for gear and equipment at up to say 10-30 guys and a few vehicles.  Then a big game with genric infantry and some vehicles but with rules for Knights and warmachines, and flyers. The basic mechinanic is the one used in Ambush Alley's Tomorrow’s War (TW).  You use D-Types to represent troop and weapon qualities.  This mechanism eleminates the need for chartes and model charactoristic stats. 

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/15/15416.phtml  

What ya think?  

Option for 'happily continue to ignore it' seems to be missing.