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.

If poorly written rules are the problem, why don't we just remove GW from the equation and let them be the modeling company they profess to be? The only thing stopping us from improving on their rules is us.

We have a huge community on Dakka that we can use for a project like this. We have all kinds of creative, intelligent contributors here, and some of the most vocal, active people in the community are writers, lawyers, gaming veterans, and others that could very easily put their heads together and come up with something better than the tripe GW is pushing these days. There are a number of different ways to set up an online living document that can be added to, edited, and amended over time. Crowd-sourcing this project to the community that cares the most about the gaming aspect of 40k seems like it would produce the most robust, balanced system possible.

It could be something as simple as a community-wide agreement to use certain rules interpretations. When a stupid, poorly-designed, or contentious rule or codex entry comes up, we'll have the discussion on YMDC, vote or poll over it, and come to a consensus. This consensus ruling then gets moved into the repository, and used going forward. Tournaments and gaming groups use smaller versions of this process in every game, all we'd be doing is expanding on the process and making it more comprehensive and globally acknowledged.

Ultimately I would envision going so far as to re-cost some units and wargear to get around GW's never ending game of making models useless compared to cost, in order to push their new hotness.

If it ever looks like it could be an issue, copyrights, trademarks, and patents can all be avoided / worked around with some tacit agreement by the players regarding the language used, and / or sufficiently vague language.

Assuming what we, as a community, can come up with is truly better than what GW is currently pushing, what would be the downside?

Because it's impossible to get Dakka to agree on what to have for lunch.

If you want to see the sorts of horrors that a rules discussion can unleash, I recommend browsing some of the 20+ page threads in YMDC.

Even if Dakka were to do the impossible and agree on a ruleset, there's nothing that says Bolter & Chainsword, Bell of Lost Souls, Tau Tactica, or any one of a thousand other 40K fansites needs to adopt it, which means that you're stuck playing against only people on Dakka, because no one else uses the rules you do.

I'm sure you could have a good time running Infinity with 40k miniatures. I've been tempted to try it out with Warmachine, but I think it would be kind of awkward to implement in a way that makes sense fluff wise.

What Filthy Sanchez said was interesting and thought-provoking.

What Psienesis said was the truth.

Most players play only one faction. They will go to great lengths to make their own faction far, far more powerful than the rest, while trying to deliberately break the rest.

Sad, but I think it is the truth

Courtesy of XKCD:

 Psienesis wrote:
Even if Dakka were to do the impossible and agree on a ruleset, there's nothing that says Bolter & Chainsword, Bell of Lost Souls, Tau Tactica, or any one of a thousand other 40K fansites needs to adopt it, which means that you're stuck playing against only people on Dakka, because no one else uses the rules you do.

And don't forget that Warseer will whine about it
.

The biggest problem with ballancing the rules is everyone will try to over compensate for their codex's weaknesses. Each codex has strengths and weaknesses. If its not raw then one side will always say its op and complain about it. There is no way to make everyone happy.

 Hedgehog wrote:
Courtesy of XKCD:

Wow.
Exalted.

Exactly...
I've been tempted to sit down with the 40k rulebook and just copy edit the damn thing...

Or you can make your own house rules, and make the game fun for you and the gang?

 namiel wrote:
The biggest problem with ballancing the rules is everyone will try to over compensate for their codex's weaknesses. Each codex has strengths and weaknesses. If its not raw then one side will always say its op and complain about it. There is no way to make everyone happy.

As mentioned, it simply can't be done. Some want an edge, others will just be biased. On top of that, we could never get an answer. Heck, look at some of the debates about CC. You have people that think CC is underpowered, others that think them equal, others that say CC is OP and then a few that say CC is inferior to shooting as it should be. We have a large proportion of players in favor of the imperium and primarily 3+ saves and who knows what that could influence. How will you convince other online sites to dollar your rules? Why not they make their own? When you go to a FLGS why would the stranger want to play your custom rules.

I do find it odd that forums dedicated to the Specialist games rather than 40K seem to be able to come up with some pretty good consensual ways to keep those games alive.

Would be easier to make each of the codexes a copy/paste color-swap of each other. Same units, same rules, different models. Done *dusts off hands*

It can't be done in a way that would be favorable for all because these rules would be written by fans not the designers. Fans have biases towards one way of doing things since those are the things that they saw in the franchise. For example, some people love CC and would buff it to hell if they wrote 7th. Some people love shooting and would buff that in 7th. Designers are, ideally, impartial towards any particular playstyle and would write what they feel is a fun ruleset for all. Plus what Hedgehog posted.

To elaborate more on that point I, and probably a lot of people, would like the ability to go anywhere and play 40k. Sure there may be a houserule or two but those are usually fairly simple. If everyone started making what they felt was the best version of 40k you'd have a ton of different versions of 40k that you'd have to learn between regions or FLGS. That's just mental.

The designers are just as biased. (un)fortunately, they have the sales figures to guide them.

Just to answer a few of the comments above:

More people DON'T play your codex, than do. While everyone may be angling for their specific army, there will be a lot more arguing against. It's my belief that there's enough commonality between the codexes that a consensus can be reached.

While there are other communities out there, I'm not suggesting we exclude them. Quite the opposite, I suggest that we include them all. I don't want a DakkaDakka only rule set.

It can be done if there is a will to do it. Far more complicated things take place, each and every day, than the re-balancing of a ~100 page book of rules.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The designers are just as biased. (un)fortunately, they have the sales figures to guide them.

It may sound odd, but I disagree with you on this: of course they are biased, but what guide them is not the sales figures.

The Eldar Codex is amazing, and the Dark Eldar Codex too. Yet both Chaos Codexes are of a far inferior quality, with far less effort. Glaring, random changes in the background, useless units, senseless and unfun to play rules... Is this because it is a minor faction? The Chaos codex was a really huge success in third edition, creating a high number of fans. This is the reason books like "The First Heretic" made it into the New York Times Best Sellers List. Chaos fans are legion, pun intended. Look at polls regarding Chaos vs Loyalist, there are lots of potential buyers.

And the same can go for Orks and other armies. All factions, actually. The amount of effort dedicated to some armies is minimal compared with others, regarless sales figures. Sales figures are dictated by the quality of the product, not the only way around.

And there are obvious missing oportunities. It would be a huge success to release a Codex Chaos Legions or a Codex Inquisiton (a proper one) yet they are not doing it. Quite the contrary. And a single hour of effort would do wonders to the Adepta Sororitas Codex, which would cause an immediate boost in sales. Just by adding a flyer the codex would get far more interesting. Ten minutes effort? Less.

So I think it is not the money.

It is personal bias, and nothing else. Kelly likes Eldars, so he does a lot of effort. Cruddace likes Marines (I think everyone in the Studio likes Marines), so he does a lot of effort. At this moment, nobody in the Studio has the slightest interest in Sisters or Chaos, so they get a worse Codex (regarding size and effort) with every edition.

Matt Ward admitted this in an interview regarding Chaos Daemons on Fantasy: he liked the faction so he made it overpowered as hell. He did the same with Grey Knights (a rather unknown faction, especially compared with the eagerly expected Inquisition) and Necrons (he liked the look, he didn´t like the background though). He wrote the Sisters of Battle in quite a different matter.

So it is not the money. The persons writting the rules for the units are fans, and they do a completely different work depending on their personal bias on the unit. Balance is not in their minds, at all.

With the exception of some new units made overpowered as money-grabbers, the Codexes are written with two possible goals: made them overpowered and funny to play or made them easy prey for the favorite factions of the person writting the book.

This is the reason I truly believe in house rules.
/rant over.

Filthy Sanchez wrote:
Just to answer a few of the comments above:

More people DON'T play your codex, than do. While everyone may be angling for their specific army, there will be a lot more arguing against. It's my belief that there's enough commonality between the codexes that a consensus can be reached.

While there are other communities out there, I'm not suggesting we exclude them. Quite the opposite, I suggest that we include them all. I don't want a DakkaDakka only rule set.

It can be done if there is a will to do it. Far more complicated things take place, each and every day, than the re-balancing of a ~100 page book of rules.

I envy your ingenuity.

I have been creating house rules and fan-made Codexes since forever. If you ever get this project on, count on me to give you as an unbiased feedback as I am able to give.

Also look in the Proposed Rules sections for ideas. There is really cool stuff out there.

Filthy Sanchez wrote:
Just to answer a few of the comments above:

More people DON'T play your codex, than do. While everyone may be angling for their specific army, there will be a lot more arguing against. It's my belief that there's enough commonality between the codexes that a consensus can be reached.

While there are other communities out there, I'm not suggesting we exclude them. Quite the opposite, I suggest that we include them all. I don't want a DakkaDakka only rule set.

It can be done if there is a will to do it. Far more complicated things take place, each and every day, than the re-balancing of a ~100 page book of rules.

You still run into the problem of getting anybody that's not on one of the participating forums to accept your rules. Also, you don't have a clear consensus on WHAT is broken about the rules. Some people feel Overwatch is broken, others feel Assault is broken, so on and so for. By fixing one alleged problem, you are likely creating 10 more.

There is a reason that the 40K rules have been considered "broken" since 2nd edition. I am not entirely sure you can make a perfectly balanced game with all the bases that 40K is trying to cover. The focus is far too broad. Other rules sets are tighter, but they don't try to do as much or the faction differences are mainly cosmetic. 40K's "everything AND the kitchen sink" approach is problably one of the driving reasons for its success, but also the main reason for all the criticism.

 da001 wrote:

 Hedgehog wrote:
Courtesy of XKCD:
Wow.
Exalted.

Thanks


Moment of truth time - 40k players don't play 40k because of the rules

There are far better wargaming systems out there with either simpler and faster rules, or more complex and realistic rules, depending on players choice. There are games in historical settings, 'what if'' settings, fantasy settings, near-future sci-fi settings and far future sci-fi settings. There are squad level skirmish games, battlefield-level games, grand strategy games, small ship naval games, big ship naval games, aircraft games, space fighter games and even sports games.

If people want better rules, then there are better rules available, without question.

So why do people still play 40k if it's not the best game around?

There are three main reasons why 40k is still light-years ahead of its competitors in terms of audience:
- The depth and variety in the background
- The models are distinctive and overall of a high quality
- It's already the most popular miniatures wargame

It's the last of these that causes a problem with your idea. One of the key reasons why so many people play 40k is because they know that they will be able to find a group of players wherever they go, and the only reason they'll be able to play a game is because virtually every 40k player worldwide uses exactly the same ruleset.

Yes, DakkaDakka is a large community of 40k players, but it's not all (or even most) of the 40k players everywhere. You might be able to try something like this for a smaller, unsupported game where the majority of the remaining players have congregated in one or two online communities, but not 40k.

If you managed to get this going and if you finished it and if you managed to get your own gaming group to give it a try and if they liked it - then you can't play 40k anywhere else. New players to the area will likely avoid your local group, And, most likely, the rules you've come up will still have major problems of their own. For a case in point consider the various fan-made codices hanging around on the web. You'd be very hard pressed to find any that are accepted by any gaming group, anywhere.

So while I applaud your enthusiasm, and fully agree there are significant improvements that can be made to the 40k rules, don't expect this to actually go anywhere - even if you do somehow manage to succeed.

Yeah, this thread has already happened, and recently:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/567710.page

The end result of it is that the same people who passionately believe that GW's rules are wrong also tend to equally passionately believe that every one else's attempts to fix the wrong rules are also wrong (or are making it worse).

I'm sure there's a game theory out there where you put 10 paranoid schizophrenics in a room, lock the door, and then announce that there's a personality in the room that's trying to kill them.

I'm sure that myself and a couple of gaming buddies could write better rules in a weekend, but no one would use them.

Its baffling to me that so many on this board have such difficulty with the rules. Its 40k, not game 7 of the NHL finals. Be flexible and have fun. If its a tournament - read the rules beforehand, if you don't like them don't enter. If its a club game or a pick-up in your local shop - be prepared to make compromises. Use your social skills. Dont be the guy that gets pissy over easily resolved and trivial issues. Its a game

I think it can be done, albeit in a far less democratic version than envisioned. The whole thing just needs a little bit of structure and organization.

First of all, there should be 3 groups of people actively working on the thing.
First group works on the general rules. "Core rulebook" if you want.
Second group is splitted into subgroups of say 2-4 people each, working on the codices.
Third group is the controll group. They set the guidelines (what should be average range? 24"? 30"? Should there be special rules for emergency exit of light infantry from skimmers or should the system be simple for quick learning...) People who are genuinely interested in a well-ballanced system and can overrule the descisions made by the other two groups.

As far as other websites are concerned, you could simply allow them in on the team. Why not let their most usefull members contribute to the project. The way I see it, the amount of people should be along the lines of "few, but with an neckbeard of epic proportions", thus the demand for the most dedicated will probably not be satisfied by dakka alone (just guessing).

Anyways, I'm neither long enough in the community to decide who's the most trustworthy nor experienced enough for ballance descisions, so I'll be eating popcorn and watching the proceedings from the couch over yonder...

 da001 wrote:
What Filthy Sanchez said was interesting and thought-provoking.

What Psienesis said was the truth.

Most players play only one faction. They will go to great lengths to make their own faction far, far more powerful than the rest, while trying to deliberately break the rest.

Sad, but I think it is the truth

*looks down at feet*

*raised hand*

"Guilty as charged..."

when idiots talk about how imbalance keeps it fresh and how a more balanced game would be boring. or how bad changes for changes sake is somehow "evolving" the game. (devolving more like it). or use the fluff to justify broken rules.

my faith is low.

 Selym wrote:

 da001 wrote:
What Filthy Sanchez said was interesting and thought-provoking.

What Psienesis said was the truth.

Most players play only one faction. They will go to great lengths to make their own faction far, far more powerful than the rest, while trying to deliberately break the rest.

Sad, but I think it is the truth

*looks down at feet*

*raised hand*

"Guilty as charged..."

You are hereby condemned to be banished back to the Warp. For all eternity...


I think that if you disagree with GW's rules and want to make rules of your own, house rules are a much easier and faster way to do so than 'writing an entire new rulebook with the entire Dakka community'.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm sure that myself and a couple of gaming buddies could write better rules in a weekend, but no one would use them.

This is true too.

Many fan-codexes and house rules that can be found in the Proposed Rules subforums are
1) More clearly written
2) Far, far, far more respectful with the fluff
3) Far more interesting and fun to play
4) In many cases, more balanced
than most stuff GW is throwing out nowadays. They are acts of love instead of acts of money-grabbing. Stuff like the Riptide would be shunned down, let alone a Riptide R´Varna. And if someone writing about the Black Templars ignore that it is the Edict of Nikaea the reason they lack Librarians, he would probably be mocked at. Or someone claiming that Undivided Daemon Princes do not exist, in spite of having many of them alive and kicking in the setting.

But the threads are full of people complaining that their favorite faction will be "utterly destroyed" if any single house-rule is applied. So at the end nobody would use them. They could lose.

I am trying to be positive but I can´t.

da001 wrote:1) More clearly written

This is perhaps the one real exception. I'm pretty sure everyone could agree on a better codex format layout than GW has right now.

The GW way:

Pg. 94: A warpsmith may take a single mark of chaos from the wargear list.

Pg. 91: Models may take a mark of khorne for 10 points.

Pg. 30: Models with a mark of khorne have rage and counter-attack

... and now I have to break out another book, and look at two different entries on two different pages. To figure out what my warpsmith can do as one of it's options, on a whole, requires two books, and looking at five entries. That's insane.

The Ailaros way:

Pg. 94: A warpsmith may take one of the following: 10pts - Mark of Khorne (+1 A), 15 pts - Mark of...etc.

There, one entry in one place. No page flipping. No nonsense.

Better formatting - real change we can believe in...

 Ailaros wrote:

da001 wrote:1) More clearly written

This is perhaps the one real exception. I'm pretty sure everyone could agree on a better codex format layout than GW has right now.

The GW way:

Pg. 94: A warpsmith may take a single mark of chaos from the wargear list.

Pg. 91: Models may take a mark of khorne for 10 points.

Pg. 30: Models with a mark of khorne have rage and counter-attack

... and now I have to break out another book, and look at two different entries on two different pages. To figure out what my warpsmith can do as one of it's options, on a whole, requires two books, and looking at five entries. That's insane.

The Ailaros way:

Pg. 94: A warpsmith may take one of the following: 10pts - Mark of Khorne (+1 A), 15 pts - Mark of...etc.

There, one entry in one place. No page flipping. No nonsense.

Better formatting - real change we can believe in...

The amount of times i have said a rule (or someone else) and people go really? Then we look for it and find heaps of similar rules, only to weeks later find that rule and realise we are playing the rulebook wrong. Its a real pain really. For a book with hardly any rules compared to other games its so hard to follow without looking in the index constantly.

The GW community is too fractured to agree on the unified system it desperately needs. The top TOs have gotten together and tried, but apparently they could not reach a consensus with one another.. Even right now, we don't even use GW's unified system, but use custom tournament house rules and scenarios, with each tournament being completely different.

40K definitely needs a Smogon equivalent.