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.

Nothing is changing unless your local meta accepts the changes.

If you only ever played with friends, then it as simply as - no one buys the new books.

Alternatively, if all you ever do is play random people while jumping from store to store, yeah your experience is going to veryyyy different with all these new products.

 Ailaros wrote:
It's kind of strange to think about how a larger community might go about house ruling things. I don't know if a mob-rule version of 40k would necessarily be better, for example. On the other hand, how would you even structure it? How would they come to a consensus?

It seems like, at best, it would be sort of like the Jesus Commission casting votes for what they think Jesus actually said.

Isn't that the premise of certain christian denominations?

Anyways, as for how the community would come to an agreement, I've been thinking on that. The best thing I can see happening is:

Someone posts up a ruleset on Dakka, having put in research and playtesting.
Dakkanoughts debate the rules until favourable results have made it into the final version, with all rules conflicts/problems sorted.
Dakkanoughts spread this ruleset.
Ruleset becomes common consensus.
GW releases new minis.
Back to dakka to give them rules.

And by ruleset, I mean Rulebook and Codexes.

That sounds like a terrible, terrible idea.

Yeah I don't see how that would be possible. That's a ton of effort from the community. Its just much easier to change rules with your local group. My group has made full FAQs for each codex with rule changes and that's how we have coped with 6th edition so far. But I wouldnt be the first in line to even attempt a community wide house version of 40k

 Psienesis wrote:
That sounds like a terrible, terrible idea.

And it is.

The whole thing will be too disorganised, and due to differing opinions, nobody will really be able to agree to the thing in its entirety.

It wouldn't realistically create a standardised set, rather a whole family of similar-looking rulesets, each with variations that many different groups may or may not use.

And it would then die out as a "fad" by 7th ed, where the cycle will begin anew.

Well with any luck 7th editions problems won't rub people off as negatively as 6th edition has

 Noir Eternal wrote:
Well with any luck 7th editions problems won't rub people off as negatively as 6th edition has

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I don't know of a single GW release that doesn't upset people for some reason.

The Iron Hands supplement? Haven't heard much about that either negatively or postively.

As for the thread, it's always been time to house rule. WH40k isn't and hasn't been the most well written game. I guess it's just getting worse.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:
Well with any luck 7th editions problems won't rub people off as negatively as 6th edition has

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I don't know of a single GW release that doesn't upset people for some reason.

Maybe so, but even with 5th edition problems my group played the game rules as written and enjoyed it.

 Noir Eternal wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:
Well with any luck 7th editions problems won't rub people off as negatively as 6th edition has

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I don't know of a single GW release that doesn't upset people for some reason.

Maybe so, but even with 5th edition problems my group played the game rules as written and enjoyed it.

I can attest to that. In 5th I could actually win games, and have a game done in under 3 hours.

Not I can't even get a 750 pts game down in that time due to rules arguments, and I get smashed by armies I used to stomp...

 Ailaros wrote:
It's kind of strange to think about how a larger community might go about house ruling things. I don't know if a mob-rule version of 40k would necessarily be better, for example. On the other hand, how would you even structure it? How would they come to a consensus?

It seems like, at best, it would be sort of like the Jesus Commission casting votes for what they think Jesus actually said.

I envision more of an admin organised selection of a few level headed, experienced volunteers to bash it out together. Mob rule would be a bad idea, however input can't hurt.

I don't even mind having to change up army lists so much to win or other people lists all of a sudden being much more deadly.

But I agree, I've also had much more rules arguments, and a lot of the new rules are heavily unbalanced to be too strong or too weak. And so far I have had a lot less fun playing the game in general with the new way GW has forced armies to fight


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I see those sort of rules coming out in tournaments with rule changes or comp and being used by local groups before any sort of round table of rule admins here on dakka

 Yonan wrote:

I envision more of an admin organised selection of a few level headed, experienced volunteers to bash it out together. Mob rule would be a bad idea, however input can't hurt.

Wouldn't accomplish much. Put just two soldiers together and within five minutes, you'll have three rumours. It's the same with 40k players. No one will come to a consensus because everyone wants to push it in a different direction. Besides, who would you get to do it? What community-decided 'experts' will be chosen? Who decides who these people will be? Or will we argue over this as much as the game?

Will the community follow what a handful of level headed people say? Nope. It'll be too casual for some, and too competitive for others, it will affect too many peoples favourite builds. On top of that, the mob will all want their own little tweaks. End result is what you'll have now with pages upon pages of discussions, whines, moaning and in my opinion, it will accomplish nothing.

And this is from someone who would dearly love to see a 'better' 40k released. But I'm too cynical to ever believe the 40k community will ever accomplish such a thing.

Agreed, and honestly what does it matter if everyone all over the country is playing the same house rules. If players want house rules, which my group does, its much better to just make your own and have your group play with that.

I know that's not the answer for people who still try to play this game competitively with random people. But that's also why I stopped playing this game competitively all together and moved onto other games with much better rule sets

Deadnight wrote:

 Yonan wrote:

I envision more of an admin organised selection of a few level headed, experienced volunteers to bash it out together. Mob rule would be a bad idea, however input can't hurt.

Will the community follow what a handful of level headed people say? Nope. It'll be too casual for some, and too competitive for others, it will affect too many peoples favourite builds. On top of that, the mob will all want their own little tweaks. End result is what you'll have now with pages upon pages of discussions, whines, moaning and in my opinion, it will accomplish nothing.

They won't be following the level headed people, they'll be following "The official Dakka sponsored 40k patch", even better if the admins from the other large forums promote it. It has nothing to do with casual or competitive, and a (more) balanced ruleset benefits both equally. Casuals will be able to play their fluffier lists with less of a disadvantage, and more competitive units would allow a great variety of lists for the competitive players which won't boil down to spamming the same few strong units every time.

That's where the whole "big community" thing comes in. Once it's done and to a level deemed acceptable, dakka admins could push it. It wouldn't be hard to make the game substantially better with a relatively simple list of changes that is updated when necessary. Even if everyone each disagreed with some of the changes, most would agree with the majority which would be enough to make the game better for most people imo.

You know the Dakka mods aren't paid to run the site, right? They aren't employees of GW. Why should they have to take the time out of their lives to come up with a ruleset for everyone else, when every local play-group is perfectly capable of coming up with that on their own?

Because fun?

 Psienesis wrote:
You know the Dakka mods aren't paid to run the site, right? They aren't employees of GW. Why should they have to take the time out of their lives to come up with a ruleset for everyone else, when every local play-group is perfectly capable of coming up with that on their own?

Did you miss the part where I suggested they delegate all the work?

Delegate it to... who?

Me? You want me (and people like me) to determine how you're going to play 40k?

MUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 Yonan wrote:
following "The official Dakka sponsored 40k patch", even better if the admins from the other large forums promote it. It has nothing to do with casual or competitive, and a (more) balanced ruleset benefits both equally. Casuals will be able to play their fluffier lists with less of a disadvantage, and more competitive units would allow a great variety of lists for the competitive players which won't boil down to spamming the same few strong units every time.

That's where the whole "big community" thing comes in. Once it's done and to a level deemed acceptable, dakka admins could push it. It wouldn't be hard to make the game substantially better with a relatively simple list of changes that is updated when necessary. Even if everyone each disagreed with some of the changes, most would agree with the majority which would be enough to make the game better for most people imo.

Again, you're assuming people will support dakka because... Stuff.

Dakka does not head this community. It is not our leader. I know plenty folks who don't follow Internet forums. I'm getting less and less interested in them myself. The official dakka sponsored patch means very little to me personally, and a lot less to other people.

Finally the issue is even getting such a project started, let alone 'done to a level deemed acceptable'. Having folks disagree with some of the changes goes directly against the idea of having a universally supported fandex. Heck, people already disagree on some of the most fundamental features of the game!
Similarly, assuming the majority will agree... How? Why? What simple list of changes gets everyone on board? Is it done with Magic? You can talk about better balanced rules sets all you want (and i play these) but everyone and their dog has a different idea of how to achieve this.

I think you're being naive. I applaud the idealism behind your thinking but it won't work. You'll end up with too many captains shouting directions, one very confused helmsman, and frankly, everyone else just not bothering and doing their own thing. I've sen too many community sponsored projects that couldn't even get consensus going from a dozen contributors (I remember the old todex on tau online a few years back). What started as a fun intellectual exercise ended up very quickly turning into a quagmire of frustration and resentment. Everyone wanted something different. Everyone wanted their ideas included. Too many people had wildly contradicting views that were utterly irreconcilable. In the end it spluttered and died as everyone lost interest because it would go nowhere. And this was a small little project on a small forum amongst a handful of people about a theoretical new codex! You're talking about a full game. A dozen codices. Or more. Not one. And supplements. And every thing else included.

No my friend. What you'll get is a thread where you talk about what you'll like to do. A bunch of folks will put down the usual 'this is what I'd do' statements. And No one will play test. And then people will argue. At best, you'll get a few people who will like your suggestions. And a few people who will prefer the other guys suggestions. And everyone else won't bother reading, or won't go on dakka. Which is as far from what 'the official dakka 40k mod' which unites everyone as you can hope to get.

Prove me wrong though. I'd like to see it. But if you ask me, it won't happen.

I don't think it will happen either, but I do think it would work if it did. I'm not talking a rewrite of the game if that's what you were thinking, I'm talking a simple list of chances to address the greatest imbalances, ie:
- Vendetta +20 points, removal of transport capacity
- Ogryn -5-10 points
- Night scythe +20 points
- Lychgarde -10 points.
For a very rough, un-playtested idea.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:
Delegate it to... who?

Me? You want me (and people like me) to determine how you're going to play 40k?

MUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 Yonan wrote:
I envision more of an admin organised selection of a few level headed, experienced volunteers to bash it out together. Mob rule would be a bad idea, however input can't hurt.

You'll end up with too many captains shouting directions, one very confused helmsman, and frankly, everyone else just not bothering and doing their own thing. I've sen too many community sponsored projects that couldn't even get consensus going from a dozen contributors (I remember the old todex on tau online a few years back). What started as a fun intellectual exercise ended up very quickly turning into a quagmire of frustration and resentment. Everyone wanted something different. Everyone wanted their ideas included. Too many people had wildly contradicting views that were utterly irreconcilable. In the end it spluttered and died as everyone lost interest because it would go nowhere. And this was a small little project on a small forum amongst a handful of people about a theoretical new codex! You're talking about a full game. A dozen codices. Or more. Not one. And supplements. And every thing else included.

^ This right here. There is no organized selection of level-headed, experienced volunteers here on Dakka that can agree on what to have for lunch, let alone what should be the manner in which 40K is played.

And even if there were, why would Warseer, or Bolter and Chainsword, or TauTactica or any of the hundred other 40K forums on the internet agree to what we come up with here? What if they had the same idea, did the same thing, but came up with a radically different set of rules? Who, then, has the "right" ruleset?

Build it and they will come, it's very possible. I'm still more of a PC gamer than tabletop, so seeing a game in such a horrible state of balance irks me immensely. Players have the ability to make patches for PC games, many of which are successful and get wide community acceptance to the extent that they can login to the online match making system and be guaranteed to get games. There's no reason it can't be done for the tabletop community too. All they need is to reach critical mass to take off widely - that's where the help of a large figure in the community (ie. Dakka) comes in. "Hey guys, we think this greatly improves 40k, give it a try!" Even if it only gets 10% acceptance imo it's worthwhile as that's a lot of players getting what they think is a better game and you always have the opportunity for it to be a lot more. And just like with PC games, maybe the company (ie. GW) will absorb some of the best ideas.

This is because there does not need to be a national or global patching system for 40K. The only group that needs to agree on how a patch should work is your local gaming group.

Maybe this group over here loves the idea of playing standard-40K armies with Titans and super-heavies. Maybe a group the next town over plays *only* with core codex factions, precluding any usage of supplements, expansions or similar publications. A few states over, the gamers in one town just *love* tanks and mechanized infantry is *huge* in their meta, so they quintupled Hull Points on all vehicles, and gave Skyfire to a bunch of different vehicles to have crazy land/air battles between all kinds of vehicles while their infantry forces slug it out on the ground.

None of these people are "doing it wrong", but the way these people play is probably not going to be accepted by the people from the next town over.

And that's fine and can continue to happen? I don't see how they come into conflict. People who want a pre-made, updated, semi respectable balance patch will have one available (if done well, I stand by a lot of people choosing to use it). Those who don't continue with their house rules as before. Others will house rule on top of the balance patch.

Well, good luck.

Oh I'm not doing it. I said in another thread the 40k ruleset is too broken to really be worth fixing. Despite considering doing what I mentioned here, I decided to make army lists for 40k in Deadzone instead, a much better ruleset to work with.

I stand by a community patch being the best way to fix 40k, other than GW sorting it themselves though as there isn't much else that can be done to improve the situation imo.

 Selym wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Noir Eternal wrote:
Well with any luck 7th editions problems won't rub people off as negatively as 6th edition has

Thanks, I needed a good laugh. I don't know of a single GW release that doesn't upset people for some reason.

Maybe so, but even with 5th edition problems my group played the game rules as written and enjoyed it.

I can attest to that. In 5th I could actually win games, and have a game done in under 3 hours.

Not I can't even get a 750 pts game down in that time due to rules arguments, and I get smashed by armies I used to stomp...

A 5th edition ruleset with 6th edition wound allocation, template rules, and fliers would make me happy as a pig in gak.

We also use many of the 5th edition rules in addition to codex FAQs that we made.
Not being able to assault out of a transport that hasn't moved is total nonsense.

Our version is a 4th/5th hybrid with a touch of 6th. We might give 7th a try if GW really worked at cleaning up its rules, but that's not something I expect.