Maybe a way to interlink the fluff to the 40k rules?

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.

**Slipstream**

Now this is not going to be an in depth post about the rules,ok? This is just an idea I had travelling home from work tonight and I thought I'd put it out there and gather some opinions? Please give it some thought and don't just say "It won't work". It's just a philosophical idea I had about how to advance the rules.

Ok. Every time we get a new set of rules they are generally just the same as last time albeit with a couple of tweaks just to wind people up.Oh! And to also make sure people buy it 'cause let's face it,no-one would buy it if it was just the same as the last edition would we?

Maybe it's time GW thought radically...

Instead of churning out basically the same rules each time, how about if they brought out rules that bore no relation to the previous set? In the real world,no war is ever the exact same;weapons,tactics etc have always evolved so why not the same with a rulebook? Instead of release after release which usually gets deciphered as 40k 5th edition 5.5 6th edition 6.5 why not something totally unique each time?

Do away with codexes completely and just have base line stats for all armies and let the players figure out how to adapt to each totally stand alone ruleset? Personally I'd rather play something like 40k 8th edition knowing that it would never just become 8.5 and the next would be 9th and totally different.

Imagine having a set of rulebooks on your shelves.All 40k.All different and you could tap into them any time knowing you'd get a completely different type of game each time. No creeping boredom with the usual boring rules.

I rest my case!

**Filch**

Because They have to rewrite ALL the codex and release them at the start of 8th ed. NOPE NOPE NOPE!

Too much work for lazy gw writers and gw cant sell over priced codex over time to cover last months expenses.

They will earn revenue because PEOPLE still support the game thru buying these excuses of a book.

It is only when enough people outright boycott and not support GW publishing that it become non profitable and they finally get the hint that making and selling these overpriced books wont earn money.

I also have qualms about college text books too. There is no need for it to be so over priced. Most of the text is re hashed over 10 years ago. Its just the change in questions and answer for homework. The only reason these books are bought is because they own a monopoly.

**vipoid**

Filch wrote:
Too much work for lazy gw writers and gw cant sell over priced codex over time to cover last months expenses.

Also, if they did this, they might have to admit that 40k had a 'game' aspect.

Anyway, 40k is definitely in need of a rewrite. The rules weren't exactly solid to begin with, and they've added so much nonsense to the that they've basically fallen apart. Basically, they need much better core rules to build around.

In terms of editions where all the rules are different to the previous edition, no. I don't think that's necessary (after the above is done, anyway). Instead, new editions should be about fixing problems with the previous ruleset and not just replacing them with new ones. Same with codices - the aim should be to make all units and wargear viable - not just switching around which units/wargear are OP and which are garbage.

Put simply, new editions should be about improving the game, not just making a load of random changes to justify another load of overpriced, badly-written codices to go with the convoluted mess of a rulebook.

**Psienesis**

Instead of churning out basically the same rules each time, how about if they brought out rules that bore no relation to the previous set? In the real world,no war is ever the exact same;weapons,tactics etc have always evolved so why not the same with a rulebook? Instead of release after release which usually gets deciphered as 40k 5th edition 5.5 6th edition 6.5 why not something totally unique each time?

War... war never changes.

**Peregrine**

It's a bad idea because a fundamental concept of game design is that new editions of the game make things better, not just different. You learn from your previous mistakes and refine the game with each new edition, eventually reaching a point where you can call it finished. But if you make changes just for the sake of having changes you're never going to be able to apply your experience with the previous editions and make those improvements. Each new edition will have its own balance issues, unclear rules, etc, and as soon as anyone starts to fix them you blow up the whole mess and introduce new problems to deal with.

And of course fluff-wise there's the problem that the setting is explicitly defined to be static. Only the Tau and Tyranids are really making any progress, everyone else has been fighting the same way for thousands of years. So you've got bad game design with no fluff to justify it, making it a pretty clear mistake.

**Psienesis**

There is further complication in the fact that what is related in fluff does not match what is demonstrated on the table-top. If it were so, then 5 Tac-Marines with a single clump of ruins would be able to take on 15,000 points of Orks without breaking a sweat or running out of ammo, the average Tyranid army would comprise so many models you would need to play the game on a football field, and you would need to out-points the Necrons 100 to 1 to have a chance of winning.

**vipoid**

Psienesis wrote:
If it were so, then 5 Tac-Marines with a single clump of ruins would be able to take on 15,000 points of Orks without breaking a sweat or running out of ammo

How much ammo do SMs carry?

**oldzoggy**

Worst idea since Age of Sigmar.

The current 40k formula works great for GW, and most of us are having a blast. Why would they put this much effort into something that is this risky and is not likely to increase sales.

**SharkoutofWata**

If I wanted to play a game totally different than 40k 7th Edition, kid go play Warmachine, or Infinity, or X-Wing, or Pathfinder, or Dropzone Commander. Do you get my point? I play 40k to play 49k and if it's no longer the same game, I'd go play a different game today, now, instead of being surprised by a sudden rule set change. Change for change's sake is bad. Change as in improving the existing is good. You are not suggesting the latter with this idea.

**AndrewGPaul**

vipoid wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
If it were so, then 5 Tac-Marines with a single clump of ruins would be able to take on 15,000 points of Orks without breaking a sweat or running out of ammo

How much ammo do SMs carry?

As JMS said about Babylon 5, "enough for the needs of the plot".

Also, if you want a radically different set of rules that reflects the setting of 40k, they did that over a decade ago. It was called Epic Armageddon, and it's much better at reflecting the setting than 40k is.