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.

Hello Dakka o7

I have played Warhammer 40k since my early teens some 15 odd years ago, but it has only been in recent years where I've been dropping back in and out of the hobby since I left uni where I've begun to notice the great imbalances in the game and between different armies and units. This always leads to me lose interest after some time and drop out of the hobby, only to come back because of the great models and interesting and rich background but with a new edition of the rules, which turns out to be just as imbalanced or more so than previous editions.

My proposal for this community project it to right all the wrongs of the careless rule writers at Games Workshop and bring some semblance of balance to 40k, a new rule-set based closely on the official rules but tailored via community input to be balanced for more competitive and entertaining games. Rules which can be adopted by clubs and tournament organisers and the community as a whole around the world. However, not only will the core rules need to be addressed but the codexes themselves as balancing can not come from core rules alone, the eventual goal of the project would be that every single codex unit is a viable option to be used in a competitive and varied list, death to spam lists I say!

What will be required -

A project chairman. Someone passionate about the project, but also who has the time and capability to organise a project of this scale and delegate responsibility amongst all project members, able to manage a large number of people and chair meetings on voip software. This person must be focused on the goal of a tightly balanced rule-set(not lets do this because it benefits my army of choice).

A secretary. A person with the skillset needed to take some of the workload off the chairman and co-ordinate with the committee, writers and community as a whole.

A committee of up to maybe 20-30 people with vast experience of the game, veterans that know the ins and outs of 40k but fed up with the imbalance and willing to do something about it. These 30 people will be responsible for collection of ideas from the community as well as bringing in their own ideas to be voted on by either the committee or the 40k community for major proposals. Again these people must be driven to achieve the goal of the project and be able to work together towards that common goal.

A team of highly competent writers will be required during the re-writing of the core rules, able to adhere to strict naming convention and follow a coherent writing style and also able to write clear rules in plain English that are not easy to misconstrue.

Proof readers....NO TYPOS ALOUD!

And of course ALL OF YOU! the community, without support from the community projects such as this are doomed to fail! Constant input and feedback to the members of the project will be needed if this stands any chance of success.

Right now I'm testing the waters, I'd like to know what everyone thinks about this idea, if the initial feedback is positive then I will start looking to find people that are interested in taking up roles within the project.

Kind regards
Mike

I don't think you need a "project". I could "balance" the IG codex in about 5 minutes, i daresay most people could do the same for their codex.

Interesting idea but by the time everything is ironed out they will come out with a new version.

Isn't the plural of Codex -> codices?

xruslanx wrote:
I don't think you need a "project". I could "balance" the IG codex in about 5 minutes, i daresay most people could do the same for their codex.

It's more to do with ending up with something that will be widely accepted and adopted by everyone.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Interesting idea but by the time everything is ironed out they will come out with a new version.

Isn't the plural of Codex -> codices?

Which could easily be ignored if the community project rules are just flat out better in every way.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

Isn't the plural of Codex -> codices?

Only if the plural of democracy is democratos, the plural of philosophy is philosophos. You get the picture.

It would be nice if such a thing took off. You could walk into your FLGS, find a random opponent. Ask "vanilla or balance hammer?" And go from there.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Interesting idea but by the time everything is ironed out they will come out with a new version.

Isn't the plural of Codex -> codices?

Yes, but a Warhammer Codex has been largely accepted as a different thing than the old/unusual term for book/collection of writings and codexes is normally the accepted plural.

xruslanx wrote:
Only if the plural of democracy is democratos, the plural of philosophy is philosophos. You get the picture.

You mean only if you understand how the language works and don't insist on inventing new words just because you're GW and you're special. The plural of 'codex' is 'codices', end of discussion.

orkybenji wrote:
It would be nice if such a thing took off. You could walk into your FLGS, find a random opponent. Ask "vanilla or balance hammer?" And go from there.

Yes exactly and hopefully once someone had tried the project ruleset they would stick to it because it would lead to better balanced and more fun games.

xruslanx wrote:
I don't think you need a "project". I could "balance" the IG codex in about 5 minutes, i daresay most people could do the same for their codex.

No you couldn't. You could make some of the biggest balance issues less severe but making a balanced set of rules requires huge amounts of playtesting and design work. An IG codex with 175 point Vendettas is not a finished balanced codex, and that's all you're going to get with a small amount of effort.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Only if the plural of democracy is democratos, the plural of philosophy is philosophos. You get the picture.

You mean only if you understand how the language works and don't insist on inventing new words just because you're GW and you're special. The plural of 'codex' is 'codices', end of discussion.

The Oxford Dictionary disagrees. In general English usage, either is acceptable.

 Peregrine wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Only if the plural of democracy is democratos, the plural of philosophy is philosophos. You get the picture.

You mean only if you understand how the language works and don't insist on inventing new words just because you're GW and you're special. The plural of 'codex' is 'codices', end of discussion.

It is if you want to rigidly adhere to Latin grammar rules.

If anyone is willing to and able can they please post linking to this on Warseer in the 40k general section , I can't create new threads there yet. Or if there's any other boards you regularly frequent and allow links to other forums, I'd appreciate all the publicity I can get for this.

Can we have a little less of the linguistic willy waving now? I think this is great idea, and something I've been seriously thinking about myself

Mike712 wrote:
If anyone is willing to and able can they please post linking to this on Warseer in the 40k general section , I can't create new threads there yet. Or if there's any other boards you regularly frequent and allow links to other forums, I'd appreciate all the publicity I can get for this.

Honestly, what makes your plan more likely to succeed and deserving of publicity than all the countless other "it would be really cool if someone re-balanced 40k" proposals that have been made in the past?

I don't mean to be rude by saying this, but I think it is largely a waste of time. If you want to play a balanced game there are plenty of alternatives out there. Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, Dust and others all have balanced rules and great models in their own right. Maybe just give one of those games a shot. They are cheaper to get started and it doesn't mean you can't still play 40k when you're looking for more casual games and don't want to focus and super balanced game play. It will save you a lot of time and you'e likely to find a community who has the same mindset as you when it comes to gaming.

 azreal13 wrote:
Can we have a little less of the linguistic willy waving now? I think this is great idea, and something I've been seriously thinking about myself

It's good to hear some positivity about the idea already!

 Peregrine wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
If anyone is willing to and able can they please post linking to this on Warseer in the 40k general section , I can't create new threads there yet. Or if there's any other boards you regularly frequent and allow links to other forums, I'd appreciate all the publicity I can get for this.

Honestly, what makes your plan more likely to succeed and deserving of publicity than all the countless other "it would be really cool if someone re-balanced 40k" proposals that have been made in the past?

What makes it less?

 Starfarer wrote:
I don't mean to be rude by saying this, but I think it is largely a waste of time. If you want to play a balanced game there are plenty of alternatives out there. Warmachine/Hordes, Infinity, Dust and others all have balanced rules and great models in their own right. Maybe just give one of those games a shot. They are cheaper to get started and it doesn't mean you can't still play 40k when you're looking for more casual games and don't want to focus and super balanced game play. It will save you a lot of time and you'e likely to find a community who has the same mindset as you when it comes to gaming.

Yes, that's a fair point, but those games aren't 40k, there's just something about the 40k models and fluff that seem more appealing to many, and yes I've seen other systems, warma/hordes is played extensively at my local club. The 40k rule-set has potential in it, it's just that games workshop makes up some crazy rules to sell unpopular models, iron out these broken rules, ditch the stuff that makes no sense, balance some points costs and you end up with a balanced and fun game.

My personal thoughts were more along a kind of "40K Advanced" so not just balance, but also a few other tweaks to.

(My initial thoughts were a return to to hit modifiers for speed and cover, rather than cover saves, some adjustments to make assault more viable and less unpredictable, as you might surmise, I hadn't really got deep into it!)

 Peregrine wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
If anyone is willing to and able can they please post linking to this on Warseer in the 40k general section , I can't create new threads there yet. Or if there's any other boards you regularly frequent and allow links to other forums, I'd appreciate all the publicity I can get for this.

Honestly, what makes your plan more likely to succeed and deserving of publicity than all the countless other "it would be really cool if someone re-balanced 40k" proposals that have been made in the past?

I'm willing to put in considerable work myself, I know what's broken and what doesn't work well in the 40k rule set, I'm willing to sit down with other 40k fans and discuss at length over voice comms problems with the game and what can be done to change it. I'm willing to make compromises for the better of everyone who plays 40k and I'm open to listening to the community as a whole.

This is a community project, we're all passionate about our hobby lets make it better together!

Mike712 wrote:
The 40k rule-set has potential in it

Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
What makes it less?

Nothing makes it less. But I don't go promoting every random "hey guys let's fix 40k" thread that gets a few posts and then dies when the author realizes that making a balanced high-quality game is actually a lot of work. The OP isn't just expressing an idea, they're asking for a lot of help in doing it.

 azreal13 wrote:
My personal thoughts were more along a kind of "40K Advanced" so not just balance, but also a few other tweaks to.

(My initial thoughts were a return to to hit modifiers for speed and cover, rather than cover saves, some adjustments to make assault more viable and less unpredictable, as you might surmise, I hadn't really got deep into it!)

These are all things that would be brought up during the committee stage of the project, deciding how the fundamentals of the game works is the first step, once a consensus is reached, some play testing done on the alpha balancehammer 40k rule-set the basics tweaked, how the turn works, movement, shooting, assault, the committee would then move onto finer details such as balancing special rules, then finally onto the armies themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.

Much of the streamlining to keep things relatively simple makes for a good game, it's only the really daft or broken stuff that completely ruins things.

Nothing makes it less. But I don't go promoting every random "hey guys let's fix 40k" thread that gets a few posts and then dies when the author realizes that making a balanced high-quality game is actually a lot of work. The OP isn't just expressing an idea, they're asking for a lot of help in doing it.

I am fully aware of what such a project entails, this is why I'm trying to enlist the help of 40 or so people, I know there are those out there that would be willing to put some time into making this a reality, we all like to talk about our hobby right? well lets put that towards something productive!

Mike712 wrote:
Much of the streamlining to keep things relatively simple makes for a good game, it's only the really daft broken stuff that completely ruins things.

Are we talking about the same game here? One of 40k's biggest problems is the lack of streamlining, there are way too many rules with pointless detail and dice rolling.

 Peregrine wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
The 40k rule-set has potential in it

Really? What potential do you see in the rules? IMO what 40k needs is a complete re-write from the beginning to get rid of awful mechanics like the IGOUGO turn structure and the D6 stat lines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
What makes it less?

Nothing makes it less. But I don't go promoting every random "hey guys let's fix 40k" thread that gets a few posts and then dies when the author realizes that making a balanced high-quality game is actually a lot of work. The OP isn't just expressing an idea, they're asking for a lot of help in doing it.

Honestly? You don't go promoting any fix 40K thread.

You're pretty vocal about opinion of 40K, and I'm largely in the same camp, but if your reaction to someone saying "well, ok, let's fix it" is to be equally negative, then one could, perhaps quite reasonably, accuse you of just being negative, and perhaps enjoying moaning more than sorting anything out.

Perhaps this is an attempt that succeeds, perhaps it isn't, but if everyone shares your attitude, failure is a nailed on, cast iron guarantee.

Plus the OP has expressed a desire to undertake a large percentage of the work, but it makes sense to use a resource like a massive online wargaming community and all its experience in this sort of project (as long as it doesn't go all Gates Of Antares)

After the immense butthurt over"community FAQ" and how so many egos wanted their own interpretation and the fragmented way now of " how the game should be played" you will NEVER get an agreement of valid balance from the so-called community and especially never see it used universally as every person would have their own ideas and will modify it to suit their local event, which in turn defeats the purpose.

Rules by committee never work when doing game development, it won't work when rewriting rules. You would just need to do it yourself, publish it, then solicit feedback and then make it "your" balance hammer. If it is good, then it might take off... Or it might not. Even if you had perfect balancehammer, many will never read it simply because it is not official, regardless how useful it is.

Sounds like a disaster and a waste of time, especially since the people who play 40k don't have an issue for the most part with imbalance, and those who want true balance and skill can just play a better game.

 Peregrine wrote:

Mike712 wrote:
Much of the streamlining to keep things relatively simple makes for a good game, it's only the really daft broken stuff that completely ruins things.

Are we talking about the same game here? One of 40k's biggest problems is the lack of streamlining, there are way too many rules with pointless detail and dice rolling.

Of course there are certain things that need to be addressed, but as a whole I wouldn't call 40k needlessly complex, it's simple enough that you can pick up the basics in a 20 minute intro game, I've thought friends how to play using a few 100 points on my dining table, the many special rules just add an abundance of variety in my opinion plus a potential for a lot more if all units were actually viable some just need to be toned down, altered or even re-worded to be less ambiguous for the sake of balance.

xruslanx wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

Isn't the plural of Codex -> codices?

Only if the plural of democracy is democratos, the plural of philosophy is philosophos. You get the picture.

Not to Word Nerd on you, but thee correct plural is codices. GW maintained "codexes" for the longest time, and then under the veil of night, they took to their Errata and FAQs and put them all to the sword until the interns in charge of the PDFs changed it to the correct version, which is, has been, and always should be, codices.

As for the topic at hand, if anyone can get their hands on Just Dave, he might be down for helping with an endeavor, he's penned a fandex or two while here on Dakka.

nkelsch wrote:
After the immense butthurt over"community FAQ" and how so many egos wanted their own interpretation and the fragmented way now of " how the game should be played" you will NEVER get an agreement of valid balance from the so-called community and especially never see it used universally as every person would have their own ideas and will modify it to suit their local event, which in turn defeats the purpose.

Rules by committee never work when doing game development, it won't work when rewriting rules. You would just need to do it yourself, publish it, then solicit feedback and then make it "your" balance hammer. If it is good, then it might take off... Or it might not. Even if you had perfect balancehammer, many will never read it simply because it is not official, regardless how useful it is.

Sounds like a disaster and a waste of time, especially since the people who play 40k don't have an issue for the most part with imbalance, and those who want true balance and skill can just play a better game.

To start with I would only be looking for people who can set their egos aside, if someone can't be rational and diplomatic they are in no way suited to a project of this sort, I see no reason why 20 ish calm logical people via discussion could not come up with a rule-set that would appeal to most if not all.

Rules coming from a single person are more likely to be one sided, 20-30 people would cover a fairly broad scope of the community, if more than half of those people vote in one direction or another on an idea, it's likely that at least half the community will agree with that decision too, that's just the way things work, as in a democracy most people will end up more of less happy. About it being official, well yes something like this would never be "official" but if it became so successful due to it's own merits as a game, that wouldn't really matter, because everyone in the community would be saying "play this balancehammer it's better" it's not like any of us actually play in GW stores anymore anyway.

I would say that's untrue, on the net and spoken about at every club I've been to, is how this or that is broken, it's fairly well documented that people are consistently unhappy with the imbalances in 40k.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Not to Word Nerd on you, but thee correct plural is codices. GW maintained "codexes" for the longest time, and then under the veil of night, they took to their Errata and FAQs and put them all to the sword until the interns in charge of the PDFs changed it to the correct version, which is, has been, and always should be, codices.

Again, as per the Oxford Dictionary, either is acceptable. So how about we all stop de-railing the thread with arguments over spelling?