If so many people are upset with 40k rules, why isn't there a large alternate rule set community?

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.

**ntdars**

I've been thinking for a long time that a large, constantly updated rule set for 40k would be insanely successful if it got big. Looking at Heralds' of Ruin Killteam rules and the 9th age's popularity why isn't there any big 40k alternate rulesets / hotfixes for balancing etc?

**Frozocrone**

There are, it's the various houserules in place.

40K needs scrapping and building from the bottom IMO. I only play because my gaming group only uses the power factions and enjoy crushing people, so it's kindof hard to get them into more balanced games. HH is pretty much my last hope - if they try and power game there I'll probably be done playing GW.

**Vaktathi**

There's several reasons.

First and foremost, it's a ton of work, and everyone's already paying $75 for a rulebook. Duplicating work GW is supposed to do can be somewhat exasperating.

Second, trying to get something like that adopted, especially at a store that relies on sales of GW prodcuts (and hence won't be happy about people trying to bypass the rules they sell), amongst widely varied play groups and without the backing and sanction of GW, is extremely difficult.

Third, if an alternate ruleset really got big and started displacing the core 40k ruleset, GW might step in and put a stop to it.

yes, AoS has some alternate rules floating about, but adoption is extremely haphazard, and in large part even what little there is of that was driven by what many see as both an incomplete ruleset and something that simply wasn't a replacement for WHFB, and while 40k 7E has a legion of problems, they're different problems.

However, that said, there are lots of common house rules in widespread use as modifications to the 40k ruleset to an extent not seen since 2E.

**mathaius90**

In my gaming group we have some limitations to keep the level on a medium, usually there's one of our store managers keeping a tab on the list we wanna bring, acting as a "moderator" to keep things civil. Examples include no lib conclave, no double formations etc.
Obviously the first thing preventing our gaming circle going full-slow powergaming mode are the gamers themselves, understanding we're there on saturday afternoon only to escape the cold and the fog with a handful of dice and some people to joke together with.
As for the rules themselves sometimes they'll just wrong, but we roll a dice to see who's right and move along.

**niv-mizzet**

Because getting even 3 people to agree on what is and isn't acceptable or needs change in 40k is a nightmare in practice. Usually due to differences in experience and skill.

(There are people that claim assault overall is good, and not just on the few God tier units that do it successfully, people that say the wraithknight is bad, etc etc. If you can name a very "questionable" 40k opinion, there's a guy somewhere that believes it.)

**Selym**

niv-mizzet wrote:
Because getting even 3 people to agree on what is and isn't acceptable or needs change in 40k is a nightmare in practice. Usually due to differences in experience and skill.

(There are people that claim assault overall is good, and not just on the few God tier units that do it successfully, people that say the wraithknight is bad, etc etc. If you can name a very "questionable" 40k opinion, there's a guy somewhere that believes it.)

There are people in the world, right now, that think that 7E is a watertight ruleset.

This is why we can't have nice rules.

**vipoid**

Probably because it would be a great deal of work.

40k's rules are such a bloated mess that any attempt to fix them would just be a patch-job. The equivalent of a sticky-plaster on a fractured an tumour-infested limb.

You've also got the problem of flyers, GCs, SHs and such - which the game really isn't suited for. Do you ban them? Or, try and completely rewrite their rules? Moreover, what about the 50 or so codices, supplements, mini-codices, IA books and such? Many of those have terrible internal and/or external balance. And, if you have a bad codex, it's probably even more of an annoyance than the atrocious core rules. So, do you try to fix all those as well? Because, that sounds like a really good source of unending arguments.

And, this is all assuming you have a group that will willingly play with these modifications. Anyone who plays pick-up games will be out of luck.

The thing is, even in 5th (when the game peaked), 40k never had a solid ruleset. And now, so much crap has been added to it that it's just falling apart. What you'd really need is a complete rebuild from the ground up. Even if you love 40k, that's a huge amount of work.

Really, if you have the time and patience to build a completely new system from the ground up... wouldn't you use it to make your own game? Seems like if you put in all that effort, you'd want something back.

**godardc**

Overall, I think the 7E rules are really good, even for assault^^
Just some minor problems.

**vipoid**

godardc wrote:
Overall, I think the 7E rules are really good, even for assault^^

Seriously?

**BaronVonSnakPak**

I've been thinking about how to adapt the Betrayal at Calth rules to be played on the tabletop, because I really like the stream-lined nature of it, alternating unit activation, and action points compared to phases.

I love the hobby side of 40K, but the gaming side has always struck me as needlessly convoluted.

**godardc**

yeah, I play a unit of vanguard veterans with jump packs, they use to do well.
One of my friend play a terminator assault squad and, when they finally arrive in his opponent's face, they are ok too.
But we are more beer and bretzels guys, I think everything begins to fall appart when you play competitively ?

One day, I killed 2 assault terminators in overwatch with bolters...

More on topic
: if you want to have some "alternative rules", there are some conditions: a guy/a group of guy truly respected by the majority of the community,
the will do to all this work,
and the time to do this work.
Moreover, no one will do it if he think he will have to do it every 2 years...

I would begin with the tournament environnement. There are less people to convince, "just" some thousands/hundreds of to, and they can "sweeten the pill" with players, by arguing it's a more balanced 40k etc...
These players will adopt it and then try to vulgarize it in their clubs.
But, yeah, not GW shops...

A lot of 40k players look favorably to the tournament players and tend to copy them.

**vipoid**

godardc wrote:
yeah, I play a unit of vanguard veterans with jump packs, they use to do well.
One of my friend play a terminator assault squad and, when they finally arrive in his opponent's face, they are ok too.
But we are more beer and bretzels guys, I think everything begins to fall appart when you play competitively ?

One day, I killed 2 assault terminators in overwatch with bolters...

I'm more thinking of stuff like this:

- Some weapons are difficult to use, and so you can't get an extra attack from using another weapon or pistol with them. But, if you have two different weapons that are both difficult to use, you can use them together for an extra attack.

- Pistols can't be fired in combat.

- An extra CCW (or pistol) grants you an extra attack at the stats of your other weapon.

- A unit that shoots and then stops to fight moves further than one which forgoes both shooting and melee and just runs.

- Units aren't allowed to shoot into combat in case they hit their own side... even if their own side is fighting a Wraithknight or such that towers above them.

- Other than Tau, all units declaring overwatch are all psychic and know whether or not they're being charged. e.g. if I have 2 guardsmen squads next to one another and some Khorne Berserkers charge at them, one of them instinctively knows that it's being charged and overwatches. The other knows that it isn't the target, and so can safely ignore the berserkers. In fact, it doesn't even attempt to overwatch them to help out their comrades in the adjacent squad. Guess they must really hate those guys.

- Any unit declaring a charge first runs it through their virtual reality machine. If their charge is destined to fail, then they abort and don't move an inch.

- Unfortunately, the charged squad instinctively knows when an enemy is using a virtual reality machine to gauge a charge at them and will overwatch that enemy, even if the charge is doomed to fail. To any outside observer, it looks like they're only allowed to perform overwatch at completely arbitrary times, against some stationary targets and not others.

- Challenges even exist, even when the units do not share any language. Also, everyone always obeys the rules even when one side is untrustworthy and/or completely lacking in any concept of honour.

There are probably more, but you get the idea.

**DaPino**

Spoiler:

vipoid wrote:
godardc wrote:
yeah, I play a unit of vanguard veterans with jump packs, they use to do well.
One of my friend play a terminator assault squad and, when they finally arrive in his opponent's face, they are ok too.
But we are more beer and bretzels guys, I think everything begins to fall appart when you play competitively ?

One day, I killed 2 assault terminators in overwatch with bolters...

I'm more thinking of stuff like this:

- Some weapons are difficult to use, and so you can't get an extra attack from using another weapon or pistol with them. But, if you have two different weapons that are both difficult to use, you can use them together for an extra attack.

- Pistols can't be fired in combat.

- An extra CCW (or pistol) grants you an extra attack at the stats of your other weapon.

- A unit that shoots and then stops to fight moves further than one which forgoes both shooting and melee and just runs.

- Units aren't allowed to shoot into combat in case they hit their own side... even if their own side is fighting a Wraithknight or such that towers above them.

- Other than Tau, all units declaring overwatch are all psychic and know whether or not they're being charged. e.g. if I have 2 guardsmen squads next to one another and some Khorne Berserkers charge at them, one of them instinctively knows that it's being charged and overwatches. The other knows that it isn't the target, and so can safely ignore the berserkers. In fact, it doesn't even attempt to overwatch them to help out their comrades in the adjacent squad. Guess they must really hate those guys.

- Any unit declaring a charge first runs it through their virtual reality machine. If their charge is destined to fail, then they abort and don't move an inch.

- Unfortunately, the charged squad instinctively knows when an enemy is using a virtual reality machine to gauge a charge at them and will overwatch that enemy, even if the charge is doomed to fail. To any outside observer, it looks like they're only allowed to perform overwatch at completely arbitrary times, against some stationary targets and not others.

- Challenges even exist, even when the units do not share any language. Also, everyone always obeys the rules even when one side is untrustworthy and/or completely lacking in any concept of honour.

There are probably more, but you get the idea.

I've always believed that they were not specifically more difficult to use, but required a more specialized fighting style. Fighting with a sword (a held weapon) definitely requires a fundamentally different fighting style from a power fist (a weapon that's build around your fist). However, a lightning claw and a powerfist are more akin to each other, hence they are usable with the same fighting style.

And having two weapons definitely means you have more offensive capabilities compared to someone who's only holding a single weapon without a shield (which of course is always better). If you don't have defensive equipment, you're relying on your blade (or whatever it is you're carrying) for both offense and defense (parrying). Having two weapons allows you to parry with one weapon whilst attacking with the other. That also explains why having a different weapon gives you an extra attack on the one you're using. You're using the second weapon to create more opporunities to strike with the first.

I could go on about some of the other rules being more realistic than they seem, but I'm de-railing the thread so I'm going to stop here. :p

**vipoid**

DaPino wrote:
I've always believed that they were not specifically more difficult to use, but required a more specialized fighting style. Fighting with a sword (a held weapon) definitely requires a fundamentally different fighting style from a power fist (a weapon that's build around your fist). However, a lightning claw and a powerfist are more akin to each other, hence they are usable with the same fighting style.

How are they similar to each other? Aside from both being worn on the hand, they have entirely different profiles and fighting styles.

DaPino wrote:
And having two weapons definitely means you have more offensive capabilities compared to someone who's only holding a single weapon without a shield (which of course is always better).

No it doesn't. And it certainly wouldn't help you attack any faster, let alone get extra benefit out of your main weapon.

DaPino wrote:
If you don't have defensive equipment, you're relying on your blade (or whatever it is you're carrying) for both offense and defense (parrying).

That's true, but an extra blade isn't "defensive equipment".

DaPino wrote:
Having two weapons allows you to parry with one weapon whilst attacking with the other.

Which only applies if you're facing a single opponent, and then only if the attacks can actually be parried. But I guess that guardsman sergeant can parry that carnifex just fine with his laspistol.

DaPino wrote:
That also explains why having a different weapon gives you an extra attack on the one you're using. You're using the second weapon to create more opporunities to strike with the first.

As above, this would only work in a 1v1 situation. I could maybe see it working challenges, and then only against characters of similar size, strength and armour. And, even then, it wouldn't help you attack any faster - you'd just be safer when attacking.

But, even then, how does this work for high initiative characters who attack before everyone else?

**Makumba**

Doesn't the powerfist give +1A with power sword, but doesn't with normal swords?

**Akiasura**

I'd love to do it, but I'd probably have to convert the entire stat line to a 1-20 range and use 2d6 for dice.

Basically I would use something similar to the WMH stat line with a 40k twist on everything. I think it'd be easier to balance with a larger range. On one of these threads I posted a guardsmen and spacemarine that seemed popular.

It's too much work for something that wouldn't be accepted in the community at large.

**vipoid**

Makumba wrote:
Doesn't the powerfist give +1A with power sword, but doesn't with normal swords?

No, it gives +1A with Lightning Claws or Thunder Hammers. Or the Teeth of Terra, is that a sword?

Presumably, Thunder Hammers and Lightning Claws require exactly the same fighting style.

**Polonius**

The first reason there isn't a fan made rule set is that it would be an awful lot of work. The core rules would actually be somewhat simple, but balancing the armies would be hell without extensive playtesting.

The second reason is that different people want different things. Some players like a semi-realistic military sci-fi wargame, others want more space opera. People have wildly different preferences for level of detail and complexity of rules. Very minor preferences by key members can lead to some weirdness, as they introduce pet concepts.

The third reason is the fact that it's likely going to be wasted effort. Who exactly is going to start playing it?

The best chance for success would be for a core group to come up with rules that are clearly 40k, meaning no changes to stat lines, dice, game phases, etc. The rules would need to be clear, simple, and allow for quick play. I think that could possibly get some traction over time, but it's still highly unlikely.

**Korinov**

Polonius wrote:
The best chance for success would be for a core group to come up with rules that are clearly 40k, meaning no changes to stat lines, dice, game phases, etc. The rules would need to be clear, simple, and allow for quick play. I think that could possibly get some traction over time, but it's still highly unlikely.

That already exists in the form of "Onepage" 40k. It's arguably much better than 40k itself and it's been around for a while, yet it seems it's hardly played at all outside some specific local communities.

On the issue at large, I agree it's a war lost by default. Just look at what's happening with Fantasy and its increasingly atomized community. Some people have switched to AoS, some have kept playing 8th edition with the End Times rules, some keep playing 8th edition but without the End Times supplements, some intend to switch to fan-made "Ninth Age", some play 8th edition with homebrew tweaks, some play previous editions (be either 7th, 6th, 4/5th or 3rd), some have switched to KoW, some have abandoned medieval fantasy gaming completely, etc.

Just too many people with too different tastes, and too dependent on their meta's behaviour and beliefs, for anything fanmade to become really popular in a wide scenario.

**wuestenfux**

House rules are everywhere but a clean rule set is missing.
It would be worth the effort.

**vipoid**

wuestenfux wrote:
House rules are everywhere but a clean rule set is missing.
It would be worth the effort.

Only if you could sell it to GW.

**namiel**

vipoid wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
House rules are everywhere but a clean rule set is missing.
It would be worth the effort.

Only if you could sell it to GW.

You wont need to sell it to GW just the major tournments. Look at 9th age, ETC is now using that as their ruleset to replace 8th whfb

**Kap'n Krump**

ntdars wrote:
I've been thinking for a long time that a large, constantly updated rule set for 40k would be insanely successful if it got big. Looking at Heralds' of Ruin Killteam rules and the 9th age's popularity why isn't there any big 40k alternate rulesets / hotfixes for balancing etc?

There kind of is - in the U.S., at least, many people use the ITC standards as a fair and reasonable interpretation of ambigious rules, because they are what most U.S. run tournaments utilize to encourage fair play. I personally find them quite reasonable, and would highly recommend them.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NkfW26mcJHaqDKlaZyA3PB-prM0k17-DuTifGv2mOG4/pub

They address things like 2+ rerollable saves, invisibility, 1+ FNP rolls, allow for garg creatures to fire more than 2 weapons, disallow ICs from joining and utilizing the skyhammer formation special rules, allow summoned FMCs (from KHK) to enter in gliding mode, and other contentious issues in a manner that encourages fair play, in my opinion.

**Makumba**

Please, ITC is fair? They had crazy ruling that made no sense, like the buffmander one.

**Polonius**

Makumba wrote:
Please, ITC is fair? They had crazy ruling that made no sense, like the buffmander one.

And this, right here, is an example of the uphill climb a third party ruleset face.

I don't mean to pick on Makumba, but he's rejecting a tournament structure simply because of some rulings he doesn't agree with. Everybody can play what they choose, but there are a lot of people that are highly suspicious of any unfairness, real or perceived, and simply don't trust anybody but GW to make the rules. Of course, GW makes crazy rulings all the time...

**Makumba**

If a tournament FAQ or scenario rule set, suddenly makes armies not work, then it is not just some ruling. And don't bring fairness in to ITC, they nerfed a lot of non eldar stuff and had a ton of pro elder ruling in 6th ed.

**DarknessEternal**

Because so many aren't.

It's a very vocal minority.

**vipoid**

Makumba wrote:
If a tournament FAQ or scenario rule set, suddenly makes armies not work, then it is not just some ruling. And don't bring fairness in to ITC, they nerfed a lot of non eldar stuff and had a ton of pro elder ruling in 6th ed.

What was this problematic ruling?

DarknessEternal wrote:
Because so many aren't.

It's a very vocal minority.

Do you have any evidence for that?

**Azreal13**

Of course he doesn't, he just likes to gak in threads and piss off.

As to OP, the simple explanation is I suspect that people who are dissatisfied with the actual game, but such huge fans of the fluff that they can't bring themselves to simply go and play something else with a better rule set and can't find an existing agnostic sci fi system that suits them better is a relatively small subset.

For me, once I stopped having fun I just played other stuff, despite having a go at redoing the rules.

**vipoid**

Azreal13 wrote:
For me, once I stopped having fun I just played other stuff, despite having a go at redoing the rules.

Out of interest, what did you move to?