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.

In light of the recent crap storms generated by GW's rules "writing" and peoples' decision to finally give up on the hobby we've all poured so much into, why don't we instead try modifying the existing BRB and codeces for the sake of bringing some semblance of fun and balance? Perhaps decent fandexes already exist?

For instance, we can make a list of minor widely accepted changes (throw away impossible objectives, etc), vote on some trickier concepts, and compile them onto a wiki page/pdf/what have you.

Of course, these will essentially become community rules/faqs for games with friends, but at least our thousand dollar investments won't have to collect dust.

lustigjh wrote:
widely accepted

Problem highlighted. Absent guarantee that the rules will be widely accepted nobody's going to put enough effort in to get an entire rewrite up.

Closest you're going to get is tournament comp rules.

I figured the best we'll get is minor changes which shouldn't be too bad. At the very least maybe we can channel the mass frustration and discontent info something productive

I'll volunteer to balance inquistion

It will be very hard to define 'balanced'. What I think that is balanced isn't exactly what you think it's balanced...

An example on balanced
A flamer costs xx points in mutliple codexs and therefore costs xx points not the current over priced amount yy points.
No one takes a certain units so drop its price to be more inline with similar units in other codexs. Every one takes z unit so rise his points by c points. So that everything is a decent choice, so there are not any trap choices or any must takes.

I'm all up for this. However, you should acknowledge the main problem here. Homebrew rules - no matter how much better than the original ones - will struggle to become widespread just because it's unofficial.

It's more likely to work within your playgroup of likeminded folks.

I've modified 4-th ed codex: orks when played within 6-th with some decent results. But i'm just lucky with a friendly gaming group so it wasn't an issue to playtest stuff. Noone complained cause i'm more leaning towards ballance around the core units like tactical marines, ork boyz and stuff like this rather than "ballancing" around the cheeze.

Excatly right, therefore this should be a public project that fans of 40k can offer imput on, critize and play test so that it can be balanced and accepted by more people, as no one wants to play with codexs made my a single person but if we have multiple people work on it from differant backgrounds made by fans for fans, it should be able to take of. It should also look feel official by staying true to 40k using offical rules and not just making stuff up.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

lustigjh wrote:
widely accepted

Problem highlighted. Absent guarantee that the rules will be widely accepted nobody's going to put enough effort in to get an entire rewrite up.

Closest you're going to get is tournament comp rules.

Thiiiiiiis

Though you can also end up with 'club rules' for your own personal group, which, if the tournaments I've seen are any indication (90% Eldar/Tau/Knight), is pretty much all you need. I'd rather play the same half a dozen dudes who are all on the same wavelength over random tournament games against nasty cheese any day

Anyway, this sort of project has been proposed time and time again, it will never happen

 Vespid wrote:
An example on balanced
A flamer costs xx points in mutliple codexs and therefore costs xx points not the current over priced amount yy points.
No one takes a certain units so drop its price to be more inline with similar units in other codexs. Every one takes z unit so rise his points by c points. So that everything is a decent choice, so there are not any trap choices or any must takes.

Even your first definition of "balanced" is not actually balanced. A unit or piece of wargear or special rule has no inherent value beyond what usefulness it has in the game. So a power fist shouldn't be worth the same points to models who will get wildly varying use out of it (and yet GW has chapter masters paying the same points as space marine sergeants paying the same points as IG sergeants!) Even for the humble flamer in your example, where the carrying model's BS doesn't come into play, the weapon is still worth more on a fast/durable unit that will make better use of it.

Balancing things is not that easy. Your second definition is much better as far as functional approaches to balance go ("everyone always takes X and never takes Y, so make X more expensive and/or Y cheaper"), but it requires extensive play testing and a very careful hand.

This is the second reason fandexes usually go nowhere - no one is usually willing to put in the time to get the feedback necessary for decent balance (the first reason being that unlike tournament comp or GW's official rules, no one is in a position to issue a fiat saying "this is what we use now").

 Vector Strike wrote:
It will be very hard to define 'balanced'. What I think that is balanced isn't exactly what you think it's balanced...

I'm hoping that an approach of only making some minor changes and not attempting to outright "fix" everything will alleviate this issue. I'm going to go through the latest "problems with 7th" thread later to compile a list of common issues and see if minor tweaks can't help make things generally "better". Perfection is a lofty goal and one that's probably outside the scope of what our collective free time and motivation allows so I'll be happy with "better".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suppose this will go better in the rules forum once rules start getting posted so I'll link to a thread there if one arises