Switch Theme:

40K - Alternative Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





This thread is maybe more suited to be posted in the rules section though it gives it more exposure if it´s being posted here in General. Mods may later relocate it at their own discretion.

I wanted to ask in this thread, if there is a willingness in the community to create a unique set of basic rules and codices for 40K which does not follow a sales driven mindset. Enthusiasts of Blood Bowl (Living Rulebook) and WHFB (9th Age) are fine examples that those projects can succeed. I am aware that the usual response would be to play just an older edition, if the current one isn´t to one´s liking but imho a community edition would incorporate the best ideas of a few or single selected edition(s) as it was the case with 9th Age. Also keep in mind that such an undertaking isn´t done in a couple of months but will take a long time.

Despite all of this the rewards of such an effort would be superior compared to GW´s releases as it will ensure that the SAME people will work on the basic rules and all the army books. This means that it is highly unlikely that a few factions will be significantly better than the rest. Another boon would be the obsolescence of new edition syndrome requiring the player base to update all their rules after a few years.

Suggested first factions to begin work on:

- Space Marines
- Imperial Guard
- Eldar
- Chaos
- Orks
- Tyranids

To make matters even more simple the first draft of the above factions should only include their vanilla versions which means no emphasis on specific chapters, craftworlds, klans, etc.



This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/12/01 17:51:54


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

You need core rules before you can do faction work.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

It's an interesting idea and might be worth a go but JNA is right - we have to do the core rules first.

Otherwise we won't know whether we're using pre-8th or post-8th WS/BS values, whether initiative exists, what USRs we have and what each one does etc.

I think it would be useful to have a jumping-off point. e.g. is there an edition you think we sould start with as a baseline and work on modifying?

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in ca
Sureshot Kroot Hunter





In the vein of the Core Rules, how much of a dramatic shakeup to things are you thinking?

For example, one thing that I've always thought would be a big improvement (but would require A LOT of testing) would be less dice at higher values. By this I mean using something like D10's (since they seem to be the most popular beyond D6's.)

To explain my reasoning for this, take BS for instance, you are putting everthing in the galaxy on a 4 point scale. 2+ insane (Heros/specialist snipers) 3+ superhuman (Space Marines) 4+ Human (Guard) 5+ inaccurate (Orks) No one uses 6+ as far as I know.

So with this as a scale, where to Tau Fire Warriors fit? They are better than guard, but not as good as Space Marines. How about Gretchin? They are better than Orks, but are that as good as humans? Ect...

This would also allow things like +1 to hit to be used as a modification tool without being anywhere near as strong as it is now. An increase of only 1/10 rather than 1/6 is far less impactful, but still feels relavent. Though it doesn't also mean that if something does get to 2+ it does feel much more like a master marksman, and with an edition that I'm assuming will do away with much of the maligned re-rolls, something like that would be needed to feel thematic.

You wouldn't want to be rolling as many dice since they are reasonable larger in size, but I think that's something else people have wanted to tone down too. If it's designed with D10's in mind, everything can be balanced along the lesser dice rolls philosophy.

Food for thought.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/25 22:40:49


13317 4264 3375 2344 2671 1106 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Tawnis wrote:
In the vein of the Core Rules, how much of a dramatic shakeup to things are you thinking?

For example, one thing that I've always thought would be a big improvement (but would require A LOT of testing) would be less dice at higher values. By this I mean using something like D10's (since they seem to be the most popular beyond D6's.)

To explain my reasoning for this, take BS for instance, you are putting everthing in the galaxy on a 4 point scale. 2+ insane (Heros/specialist snipers) 3+ superhuman (Space Marines) 4+ Human (Guard) 5+ inaccurate (Orks) No one uses 6+ as far as I know.

So with this as a scale, where to Tau Fire Warriors fit? They are better than guard, but not as good as Space Marines. How about Gretchin? They are better than Orks, but are that as good as humans? Ect...

This would also allow things like +1 to hit to be used as a modification tool without being anywhere near as strong as it is now. An increase of only 1/10 rather than 1/6 is far less impactful, but still feels relavent. Though it doesn't also mean that if something does get to 2+ it does feel much more like a master marksman, and with an edition that I'm assuming will do away with much of the maligned re-rolls, something like that would be needed to feel thematic.

Food for thought.
I'm partial to d12s, myself. I like the way they roll-plus, converting from existing 40k means you only need to use a simple formula to convert with the same odds.

The formula, for reference, is to multiply the target number 2, then subtract 1.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ca
Sureshot Kroot Hunter





 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm partial to d12s, myself. I like the way they roll-plus, converting from existing 40k means you only need to use a simple formula to convert with the same odds.

The formula, for reference, is to multiply the target number 2, then subtract 1.


I totally agree, I just thought more people would have D10's than D12's so it wouldn't be as hard to get into. Would be much easier to design though. Guard become 7+, Tau 6+, Space Marine 5+, ect...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/25 22:45:08


13317 4264 3375 2344 2671 1106 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Tawnis wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm partial to d12s, myself. I like the way they roll-plus, converting from existing 40k means you only need to use a simple formula to convert with the same odds.

The formula, for reference, is to multiply the target number 2, then subtract 1.


I totally agree, I just thought more people would have D10's than D12's so it wouldn't be as hard to get into.
Acquiring 50 d12s is $13.95 on Amazon. That's not a big hurdle to overcome considering the price of 40k kits.

I'd rather build a system that requires a little more investment but works better, than going with a cheaper but less satisfying option.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in ca
Sureshot Kroot Hunter





 JNAProductions wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm partial to d12s, myself. I like the way they roll-plus, converting from existing 40k means you only need to use a simple formula to convert with the same odds.

The formula, for reference, is to multiply the target number 2, then subtract 1.


I totally agree, I just thought more people would have D10's than D12's so it wouldn't be as hard to get into.
Acquiring 50 d12s is $13.95 on Amazon. That's not a big hurdle to overcome considering the price of 40k kits.

I'd rather build a system that requires a little more investment but works better, than going with a cheaper but less satisfying option.


Okay, you sold me. I'm down for D12's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So beyond that, I imagine that there will be a lot taken from the older editions as people have fond memories, but there are a few things that I personally like from that newer ones that I think are worth considering keeping around.

1. Space Marines being 2W. (This would have to be accounted for in points obviously, but I think they should feel stronger, but be fewer.)
2. AP. Not as much of it as things are getting a little dumb, but weapons having a partial reduction effect to armor rather than all or nothing. Again, this is improved by making individual pips less impactful with D12's.
3. The concept of secondary objectives. While I think the system could certainly use a re-work, I think the concept is solid.
4. Cover modifying saves/hit rolls. Much like with AP, I like the idea of cover always protecting you in some way rather than being a replacement for your armor.

Things from old editions that work well.
1. Vehicle facing/armor sides. This is great and very thematic with fire arcs and all that. HOWEVER, I don't necessarily think the current wound system over the old Damage table is bad. I think they both have pros and cons and both should be tested once general rules are established.
2. Overall lower points/model count for basic games. This will be more a factor of how we balance units, but I think 1k should be the idea for a standard match.
3. Initiative. I really liked this. Maybe charring could give a modifier to your initiative, but I liked that some units were just plain faster/more dexterous than others.
4. WS vs WS. I really miss this too, not much math required and it really makes it feel like the warriors skill matters. On D12's you could even make this 7+ standard with a +1/-1 modifier for every point you are above/below, super easy to remember. Could have modifiers like +1 to hit if you outnumber them or something like that too so that a single model with high WS can still get swarmed.

Other ideas:
1. Weather effects: Some kind of system to fairly generate weather/time of day conditions. Not everyone fights in clear days in the afternoon when the sun is high on every alien planet out there.
2. Special Abilities and Stratagems: This is something that really got away from GW. I really don't like the way the Stratagem system is implemented, but I do like that units can do unique and special things that produces "hero moments" for a unit. Not even sure how to implement something like this, but this is the feeling that I think would be great.
3. Mission Types: Not having everything be "go hold x points". Things should be diverse and it's okay to have some modes favour certain playstyles over others so long as everyone still has a decent chance. Will think on this more and come up with some kind of comprehensive list when I can.
I'll post more if anything else pops into my head.

So how would you plan to get people together to test this? TTS?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/11/25 23:19:36


13317 4264 3375 2344 2671 1106 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






 JNAProductions wrote:
 Tawnis wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
I'm partial to d12s, myself. I like the way they roll-plus, converting from existing 40k means you only need to use a simple formula to convert with the same odds.

The formula, for reference, is to multiply the target number 2, then subtract 1.


I totally agree, I just thought more people would have D10's than D12's so it wouldn't be as hard to get into.
Acquiring 50 d12s is $13.95 on Amazon. That's not a big hurdle to overcome considering the price of 40k kits.

I'd rather build a system that requires a little more investment but works better, than going with a cheaper but less satisfying option.


The issue isn't acquiring d12s. Its mini d12s. Standard d12s are quite a bit larger than d6s and when a single unit of termagants are rolling 90 dice you need to fit as many in your hands as possible.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ca
Sureshot Kroot Hunter





 Lance845 wrote:


The issue isn't acquiring d12s. Its mini d12s. Standard d12s are quite a bit larger than d6s and when a single unit of termagants are rolling 90 dice you need to fit as many in your hands as possible.


In designing a new version of that game, that is something controllable. A lot of people seem to want to roll less dice anyway. To roll 90 dice, you're probably taking three goes at it anyway, with D12's if you're rolling something like 60, it would be pretty similar.

13317 4264 3375 2344 2671 1106 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Then you should look to apocalypse to consider how to reduce number of dice. A much better game imo with some really great ideas.

Stat lines for units instead of models.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ca
Sureshot Kroot Hunter





 Lance845 wrote:
Then you should look to apocalypse to consider how to reduce number of dice. A much better game imo with some really great ideas.

Stat lines for units instead of models.


That is part of where the idea came from, but that style serves Apoc well where it wouldn't work as good in a skirmish game like 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though something else to consider from Apoc, alternating activations.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/25 23:50:00


13317 4264 3375 2344 2671 1106 1000
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000  
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Tawnis wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Then you should look to apocalypse to consider how to reduce number of dice. A much better game imo with some really great ideas.

Stat lines for units instead of models.


That is part of where the idea came from, but that style serves Apoc well where it wouldn't work as good in a skirmish game like 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though something else to consider from Apoc, alternating activations.
I mean, I'd want to look beyond GW for inspiration, if we're not to just revamp an edition of 40k.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 JNAProductions wrote:
You need core rules before you can do faction work.


True.

My post also mentioned the basic rules. I stressed the point of doing these factions first to prevent codex bloat from burying such a project from the very beginning. Take a look at Epic Armageddon. It had only three factions and was good enough to play. So limiting oneself to only work on six factions would be prudent. Once those factions work well and are different enough from one another work could continue on others.

Just some thoughts what I would like to see in a community edition. I won´t go into detail as there are many ways to incorporate these ideas into the game and to not create a wall of text:

Emphasis on USR:
Keeps a gamer life simple and stress free.

Alternate activation
Keeps both players engaged.

Emphasis on small-sized engagements
Scale of the game shouldn´t be Epic with 40K minis.

Several different actions possible for units
Take a look in Epic Armageddon. Spices up the game.

Abstract area cover
Essentially every model on a terrain base gains the advantage of it´s cover bonus. Scatter terrain works differently.

Wide range of modifiers
Ranged combat: Distance, Quality of cover, Speed of target, Size of target & Wargear.
Close combat: Wargear and Quality of opponent.

Facings
Definitely for vehicles. Still undecided for infantry.

Templates
Yep, they are back.

Move stat
Yep, those are back too. No more idiotic SR to differentiate between fast and slow units. Keep random speed only for the likes of drunks (LOL!) and plague zombies.

Overwatch&Crossfire
Take a look in Epic Armageddon.

Pinning/Stagger mechanic
Should come in levels. Units coming under fire should behave worse than those who are not being shot at. Epic Armageddon uses the blast mechanic for that. Some weapon types should obviously be more useful for suppressing enemy units such as template weapons.

Wound allocation
Preventing abuse.

Close Combat Result Modifiers/Effects:
Wounds caused, Outnumbering, Fear & Terror, etc.

Scenarios
Take a look in 4th edition.

Environmental effects/hazards:
Rain, Fog, Night, Dim-light, Blizzard, Snowfall, Sunny, etc.




   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

Mezmorki has basically already done this with his professional looking pro-hammer project while only making marginal homemade rules. there is also the "one-page rules" set as well as just doing what we did-play the edition you like with whatever compatible codex you liked best.


As it turns out many of us have the same thought as the OP, and in many cases, we come to the same or similar fixes for mistakes GW has made.

Of course, all of these projects are for older editions of the game as we are not fans of the mechanics of 9th edition.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







This already exists, as mentioned.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







I've tried to do this as a collaborative thing in the past, and it doesn't work. Everyone who's willing to put in the hours to patch 40k themselves has a different idea about what worked/what doesn't about prior editions and is very set in their interpretation, whether or not it has anything to do with what anyone else liked.

I think Mezmorki's got the right idea by saying "here's a core rulebook I did myself, now go and do whatever version of whatever army book you liked". It avoids the issue of needing to argue extensively with lots of people about what goes in the core book by making it a solo job and it avoids the issue of needing to draw hard lines on what versions of books to use by leaving that up to players.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

You'll never get anyone to agree to anything.

There are people here who want to consolidate the rules down into an optionless nightmare where the 8th Ed Indices would be seen as giving too much freedom. There are others who want to expand on everything - Chapter rules aren't enough, every Marine Company should have its own unique rules!

There are people who want the old AP system back, who want to enhance the current AP system, who want vehicles with armour values, who want to alter the core rule fundamentally and those who want to operate within existing bounds. I mean within four posts of the OP people are already discussing using alternate dice.

There are those that hate strats, love strats, want to change strats, want to remove them altogether. Replace 'strats' in the previous sentence with 'relics', 'warlord traits', and 'chapter tactics' as you see fit, 'cause they all exist.

There are people who refuse to acknowledge that there's anything wrong with the game, and will say "You can't change that!" at every turn, often with a bad "... because then this would happen!" excuse because either they only see singular things in a vacuum, or think we do.

There are those who want to remove Tau from the game completely and, as hard as it is to believe, insane people who disagree with them!

You'll never find a consensus.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/26 03:57:45


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




 AnomanderRake wrote:
I've tried to do this as a collaborative thing in the past, and it doesn't work. Everyone who's willing to put in the hours to patch 40k themselves has a different idea about what worked/what doesn't about prior editions and is very set in their interpretation, whether or not it has anything to do with what anyone else liked.

This, like x1000000

Some of the worst things from prior editions: vehicle facings, model facings, templates and initiative. Those things never added anything to the game, they were just meaningless details or ways of making things OP.

Templates: how many models you hit turn to turn was really the same as a random number. There was all kinds of shenanigans and rules about templates bouncing behind cover, where the hole was at, what was "wholly" under the template vs. partially, what was on the opposite side of the wall from the hole, etc. It also forced player to spread out their models making movement take longer, and even flamer templates usually only got ~2-3 models.

vehicle facings: it all came down to the AV, which was really just a disguised STR vs. T roll. Hitting from the side granted a slightly better shot, but was a nightmare for moving and positioning. Just going STR vs. T speeds up the game a lot, and reality, vehicles are moving around, turning, etc. So this just complicated things by adding a level of detail and model placement that doesn't add any value. Same for a models with firing arcs because they turned to face the tank. It was just stupid.

Initiative, the absolute worst idea ever. The only value of the "I" stat was "my I stat is higher, I win" People forget the unkillable death stars, and models with a high I that were unkillable in melee because they always went first and could kill enough models that return attacks did nothing. I literally remember a squad of incubi mowing thru over 60 guardsmen AND 2 sentinels because there was NOTHING I could do to them because they always went first. I also remember 8 point hormugants mowing thru 12 point marines because Adrenal Glands (?) giving the gaunts I5, and marines I4, so the hordes of gaunts would always strike first no matter what I did.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






I think it'd be really hard with 40k because the range of liked features is larger than in WHFB, I think there is fairly broad agreement that the current implementation of Stratagems is imperfect, what would actually be perfect ranges from complete removal, to datasheet integration to curbing, to cross-faction standardization. We cannot even agree on whether Deep Strike should have 50 names or if 1 name is enough. I think there was a pretty broad dislike of the WHFB horde mechanic and cavalry's inability to break a unit with a side charge in WHFB 8th edition.

I joined a previous project like this and it fell through when 8th started coming out, 10th might be as little as 18 months out, who knows how many of your collaborators will duck out when that happens? Statistically, a few people out of a group will generally do the most work, it might take just one or two people leaving for the project to end. 40k is not being cancelled, you don't have a whole community looking for where to go next, in fact there are already countless other 40k fan editions that people can go to. All of this is ignoring that, generally core rules are less problematic than codexes, just pick your favourite edition, errata it where absolutely 100% needed and make fandexes to suit your taste.

A mission/errata pack for an edition with pts errata where that suffices for existing codexes and full codex rewrites where the rules are badly written could be doable as a collaborative effort if you all agreed what the overall design plan was.
   
Made in de
Contagious Dreadnought of Nurgle




Agreed. What OP wants to do already exists, with One Page rules probably being the most well known kind of alternative rules.
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!






One page rules is a pretty well written rules set.

It just needs more people actually playing it.


JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

alternative rules for 40k exists, a lot, no need to make another one

if you are talking of a community edition, it would need to start with the base rules of one Edition and make minimum adjustments that are needed to clear things up and than add balanced army books
Like FW have done it with 7th for 30k, or 9th Age used 8th Edition
No different dice, no big changes to the core rules unless they are broken etc.

Main problem here is that as soon as GW releases something new and promise that they fixed it and this time they really try, the project dies if you took the recent Edition as base, while if you used an older one the initial interest of the community won't be big


the other option is to make 40k army books for an already exiting non-GW game
the advantage here is that you already have a base to start with were a new wargame (like 40k with D12 and AA) starts from zero (look at OPR, that game exists for 15+ years now)

as an example, there were 40k lists for Warpath 2nd & 3rd Edition, or Starship Troopers

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




One Page Rules have alternating activation though, which is the worst idea in wargaming.

If this keeps closer to actual 40K, it might be a viable alternative.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Really if you want change you've got to start with the little things.

In my group, the things I want to change as a start are:

1. Coherency/horde rules kick in at 11+ models. None of this 6-10 models horse gak.
2. Monoliths/Gorkanauts/Morkanauts are not LoWs. Macharius tanks shouldn't be either, but baby steps
3. You cannot target antennae/gun barrels/wing tips/claw tips/pointing fingers/heraldry. You gotta see the damned model.
4. Monoliths get Fly back so they can actually move over terrain.

Once we get used to these, and tweak them if necessary, then we can move onto the next thing: Removing the "Lose More" phase and replacing it with an actual God-damned Morale Phase.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/26 08:04:31


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in gb
Leader of the Sept







Vehicle facing armour and templates may have slowed the game down a bit, but they were actual tactical decisions that the player needed to make. Bunch up to make movement and cover easier, and risk taking more damage from templates. If you want an easier time with vehicles, you needed to consider movement and flanking.

So it. Very much depends what you want out of a tactical tabletop Wargames.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/26 08:18:59


Please excuse any spelling errors. I use a tablet frequently and software keyboards are a pain!

Terranwing - w3;d1;l1
51st Dunedinw2;d0;l0
Cadre Coronal Afterglow w1;d0;l0 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

You'll never get anyone to agree to anything.


Indeed, H is right. a lot of also depends on what one wants out of the game as well as where they started.

For example, i like my 40K being a strategy war game with some abstraction to keep it moving fast enough for the scale while including some realistic immersion that makes sense to real world experience- not a resource mechanic game where basic infantry small arms even have a chance to hurt a main battle tank.


To the point that i completely disagree with brainpsyk entire posts, i love templates, i love initiative, i love armor facings, and movement penalties for vehicles firing heavy weapons with the tradeoff for being harder/easier to hit in close combat ala 4th ed


alternating activation though, which is the worst idea in wargaming.


This is also situational. having regularly played games that use some variant of AA it can work and work quite well. like battletech where you alternately activate movement but shooting is simultaneous or DUST where you activate 1 unit but it gets a minimum of 2 action to do all the things it can do but also has a reaction mechanic possibility.

With 40K it has been IGO/UGO for so long that's all people think of.




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

A lot of people are being negative and referencing other efforts. I'm enthusiastic about those other efforts and I've chosen One Page Rules as my variant of choice.

But I think it's wrong to say "don't make your own version, nobody will agree". You don't have to get the entire playerbase on board with your changes and that's impossible. But what IS possible is to get your local group or some part of your local group that thinks the same as you to take your changes on board, or to work together for a series of changes you want.

I think that's how all these projects start - with a group of friends working together, and then maybe you publish it and other people think "Oh, cool, I'll try that out" and others think "nah, not for me". I think trying to do it on the internet is gonna pull it in too many directions, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it at all, just that it's more suited to the people you're actually playing with.

   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






I wouldn't be opposed to such a project and would probably contribute to such an open source project if it ever got any traction.

However:
- My experience with trying to implement house rules like these is that most people are resistent to anything that changes more than a few particularly annoying rules. People are also very likely to reject house rules that don't support new things they have seen in a store or on the internet.
- What AnomanderRake wrote. Just looking at the contributors of this thread, half of them would fight me to the death on some ideas I have for my vision of a perfect 40k. There are just too many diametrical opposed ideas flying around - IGOUGO vs alternating activations, fully control of your army vs roll dice and see what happens, realism of firing arcs, scatter, templates etc vs less potential for conflict, model based positioning vs unit based positioning, 4th/5th edition style profiles vs 8th edition, stratagems or not and so on.
- People are biased for and against certain armies and often overestimate their knowledge of armies they don't play. You would need to have experts of every army to actually write rules for every army (this is a major flaw GW itself has right now)
- Even if you managed to overcome all these issues, there is no guarantee that the new game is better than what GW did. Writing rules from scratch is a whole different beast than applying some patches to the current system.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

 Da Boss wrote:
A lot of people are being negative and referencing other efforts. I'm enthusiastic about those other efforts and I've chosen One Page Rules as my variant of choice.

But I think it's wrong to say "don't make your own version, nobody will agree". You don't have to get the entire playerbase on board with your changes and that's impossible. But what IS possible is to get your local group or some part of your local group that thinks the same as you to take your changes on board, or to work together for a series of changes you want.

I think that's how all these projects start - with a group of friends working together, and then maybe you publish it and other people think "Oh, cool, I'll try that out" and others think "nah, not for me". I think trying to do it on the internet is gonna pull it in too many directions, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it at all, just that it's more suited to the people you're actually playing with.

I want to second this. The best rules in the world are useless if you can't convince your local group to play with them. And then, what your local group likes or thinks it needs fixing might be totally different from others. Talk to your own community, get them on board with the project and find something that fits your taste.

If you got something ready in the end, feel free to share with us. Some people might get inspired by it and use it themselves or adapt the rules to their need.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: