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.

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

What was that? And others? I've found them to be quite reasonable.

Its easiet for some people to move on to a new game than to fix an old one. I did.

 vipoid wrote:

 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?

X Wing, mainly.

There's a small group of us waiting for the Darklands rules to make it to physical media, we've played the Imperial Assault campaign, I'm looking at some LCGs, I was also looking at a Fleet scale space game, but with BFG on the horizon once more I'll likely wait, plus I've started expanding painting into non-GW, non gaming related stuff, I'm just starting out on a 1/12 scale Boba Fett from Bandai (which knocks everything GW does with plastics into a cocked hat, and costs a fraction of what a typical GW kit of a comparable size would be.)

Essentially, FFG now own me, but there's lots of other things I'm excited to try.

Waitwhat?! Vipoid and Darkness Eternal have the exact same avatar. For a moment I thought Vipoid was arguing with himself.

There is the added complication that some of the most-imbalancing units, at least as far as super-heavies and GC and such go, are among the most-expensive models, and if you're nerfing the tabletop effectiveness of those units, you're basically directly devaluing the real-money cost of the unit.

I mean, shoot, if I spend $300 on a model, I will certainly want to get $300 worth of effectiveness out of it on the table, you know?

Nope, don't get that at all.

If I'm spending a lot of money on a model, it's because I really like it. All I expect from it rules wise is to be neither over or under powered for its points cost.

 Psienesis wrote:
There is the added complication that some of the most-imbalancing units, at least as far as super-heavies and GC and such go, are among the most-expensive models, and if you're nerfing the tabletop effectiveness of those units, you're basically directly devaluing the real-money cost of the unit.

I mean, shoot, if I spend $300 on a model, I will certainly want to get $300 worth of effectiveness out of it on the table, you know?

So... pay-to-win then?

 vipoid wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
There is the added complication that some of the most-imbalancing units, at least as far as super-heavies and GC and such go, are among the most-expensive models, and if you're nerfing the tabletop effectiveness of those units, you're basically directly devaluing the real-money cost of the unit.

I mean, shoot, if I spend $300 on a model, I will certainly want to get $300 worth of effectiveness out of it on the table, you know?

So... pay-to-win then?

Not necessarily. A bigger model should should have decent rules. Think about the Lord Of Skulls for example; it sucks.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Not necessarily. A bigger model should should have decent rules. Think about the Lord Of Skulls for example; it sucks.

*All* models should have decent rules, and power appropriate to their point costs.

The RL cost of a model should never be a factor in their rules.

But, in many cases, it is, is all I'm saying.

Thanks for all the great replies guys. I'd respond to everyone but I didn't see how much the thread had blown up overnight :O

In general, it seems like the consensus is that it would take too long to develop a solid rule set with little to no guarantee that people would use it. Honestly, I disagree; looking at the 9th Age and Heralds of Ruin's stuff, it seems those projects got off the ground just fine. I think one person with a lot of free time could easily find a basis of rules (personally I'd start with 5th Ed) then start tweaking out pieces of it I liked. I'm also not talking just about competitive rules, but really more fluffy ones.

For example, if I was going to make my own home brewed Ed. of 40k I'd start with something like this -

* Bring back the MASS of options missing from Codexs' today. Special characters, etc etc.
* Bring back some of my favorite older rules. Ramshackle, old synapse rules, assaulting from reserves
* Internal Codex balancing is the biggest one. Races like DE that nowadays are just trimmed down more and more and have no Codex synergy what so ever.

Personally, I think it's just adding/subtracting numbers that come out over several updates and such. The benefit of it all being online is that you can get instant updates to the army lists and everyone is a play tester. Just some thoughts.

Sod assaulting from reserves, that filth was removed for a reason.

But the rest, yes you are right there.

 vipoid wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Because so many aren't.

It's a very vocal minority.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Yes, and so do you. Sales reports are posted every quarter.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Because so many aren't.

It's a very vocal minority.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Yes, and so do you. Sales reports are posted every quarter.

Were the sales good for the last quarter? I didn't see any information about it one way or another.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Because so many aren't.

It's a very vocal minority.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Yes, and so do you. Sales reports are posted every quarter.

You mean the ones that are still declining in spite of GW increasing prices and cutting operating costs to the bone?

Yeah, can't imagine why anyone would think people were unhappy with 40k.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Because so many aren't.

It's a very vocal minority.

Do you have any evidence for that?

Yes, and so do you. Sales reports are posted every quarter.

You mean the ones that show either GW has the same amount of customers buying less or there are simply less customers as their profits have declined YoY?

Yeah, those ones.

But we all know what the reply will be....


"Otiose".

My honest opinion is it's down to a combination of scared tourny organisers and the players being immature.

No one is willing to budge on their opinion. No wants to sacrifice even if it's for the greater good.

However the respect in local player groups really shines through with tweaking rules, new rules, new missions etc. If that isn't done it's either a case of everyone's happy or no truly respects each other enough i think.

There is a large alternate ruleset community... it's just not a unified community and doesn't produce a coherent alternative rulebook (even if it wanted to, it couldn't, GW would just shut it down).

No alternative ruleset for 40k has been created I don't think..not one that is widely accepted.

Several other games have had this. 5e and 3.5 dnd had widely accepted house rules. Warhammer fantasy had a fan made codex (the druchii) gain wide acceptance and even some legalization from GW.

 eskimo wrote:
and the players being immature.

Sorry, what? You're going to have to clarify a point like that.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 eskimo wrote:
and the players being immature.

Sorry, what? You're going to have to clarify a point like that.

The attitude in the rules section speaks for itself.

Akiasura wrote:
No alternative ruleset for 40k has been created I don't think..not one that is widely accepted.

That's the thing, it's impossible to make something that is widely accepted because not everyone will agree and even if they did, GW would shut it down. But there's a lot of individual groups who hack and slash rules to make them work better for their local communities, it's just 40k by nature it's hard to get anything off the ground and even harder to get something that's going to be widely accepted. When it comes to smaller games when you find alternate rule sets it's usually just cobbled together by a very small group of people who then put it online.

Doesn't mean there's not an "alternate rule set community" for 40k though.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
No alternative ruleset for 40k has been created I don't think..not one that is widely accepted.

That's the thing, it's impossible to make something that is widely accepted because not everyone will agree and even if they did, GW would shut it down.

Historically, this hasn't always been the case. See what happened with the druchii in...I can't remember the edition. 5th maybe? It was very widely accepted, even by the tournament community, and eventually GW did release a FAQ that incorporated some of their ideas.
You could also look at mordenheim or necromunda for widespread house rules, though GW isn't involved in those anymore. I believe one is even called the living rulebook, and by and large many house rules are widely agreed upon to make the game a lot better.
So no, not impossible.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

But there's a lot of individual groups who hack and slash rules to make them work better for their local communities, it's just 40k by nature it's hard to get anything off the ground and even harder to get something that's going to be widely accepted. When it comes to smaller games when you find alternate rule sets it's usually just cobbled together by a very small group of people who then put it online.

Doesn't mean there's not an "alternate rule set community" for 40k though.

I'm not saying there aren't alternate rule set communities. I'm just saying that, outside of few exceptions, they are not widely spread enough to be commonly accepted and worth discussing much.

The "One Page 40k" project seems way more reasonable than the actual 40k rules I have ever seen ha.

The issue is that even a bad rule set is better than a good one, as long as there's consistency.

That being said, the ITC is actually a pretty large tournament organizer and the majority of competitive play is based on it. However, even then there are a lot of issues, just look at my army list thread, where the first like six posts are a back and forth of confusion until I realised the other person didn't know about the ITC ruling on a formation, and essentially rendered the whole conversation meaningless because they were playing a completely different game than I was.

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

Aye, it's a bit weird - but maybe it's to represent the weilder being more bad-ass than a regular trooper? Someone able to requisition two Special CCWs from the armory is no basic groundpounder after all, he's a veteran.

Any games of 40k I've had lately have been with the One-Page rules. Makes for a fun game. Reminds me a lot of Song of Blades and Heroes.

 vipoid wrote:

You mean the ones that are still declining in spite of GW increasing prices and cutting operating costs to the bone?

Yes, the one showing them making millions of dollars in profit. Hard to imagine people spending that much money on a product they hate.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

You mean the ones that are still declining in spite of GW increasing prices and cutting operating costs to the bone?

Yes, the one showing them making millions of dollars in profit. Hard to imagine people spending that much money on a product they hate.

They remain profitable, nobody is denying that, however they fact is their revenue has dropped to levels not seen since the late 90's (adjusted for inflation), and has been declining for over a decade, and fundamentally they're selling less stuff from a smaller array of products to fewer people than they were a few years ago. GW's peak revenue was 50% higher than their latest report.

The fact that they remain profitable means they're covering their bills with a little left over. They also can't repeat many of the actions that allowed them to cut costs low enough to remain profitable (they can only do so much internal restructuring). They've been selling less and less stuff for over a decade and if the revenue trend they've been on for all those years continues, they're going to have problems in a couple of years.

Just because they're not closing their doors tomorrow doesn't mean they aren't having trouble or that they aren't slowly shrinking.

Deadza wrote:
The "One Page 40k" project seems way more reasonable than the actual 40k rules I have ever seen ha.

Yeah they look really good to me. In fact here's the link: https://onepagerules.wordpress.com/