Should there be a 40k Rules Committee to develop 8th Edition

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.

**kodos**

There are a lot of people who are not happy with the current development and there are different possibilities to solve the current problems.
Some want to add restrictions or change some rules to get a more balanced gameplay.
Others want to wait because the next official edition will be better.

Another possibility would be to form a rules Committee and make the 8th edition a community based one instead of just adding minor tweaks or writing FAQ's for the current one.
(looking at how "the Ninth Age" next Edition Warhammer Fantasy rules are done)

**Blacksails**

It'd have to be fully sanctioned by GW for it to gain enough traction to be worth the effort.

Which we all know wouldn't happen.

A dedicated team of people could produce something worthwhile, but it'd likely not get the widespread attention it'd need to have any serious impact.

**oldzoggy**

No GW should fix their own games.
If you like to publish a fork game, publish it yourself.

**BoomWolf**

And who will be making these rules?
You?
Me?

Because there is little concensus, and many self service. I look at "suggested rules" section here on the forum and many things are in quality that makes wraith knight look tame, make no sense what so ever, or commit fluff murder of first degree.

What should happen, is a purge. Replacing the entire GW rules staff with fresh guys that will first and foremost make FAQ for the unclear sections, and errata to obvious balance offenders, including point cost adjustments.

**Mr Morden**

It might work if there was an offical Dakka Dakka or similar group that made it clear this was the the community rules set.

Needs someone to organise it, sooth arguments, proof it all, fend of angry agamers online who know they are right.....

been there done that - its not a great deal of fun tbh.................

**Vector Strike**

Not by the way you posted.

Now, if GW opened up to the customers and asked them what they wanted to the game, filtering out obvious stupidity and powergamering, AND working for game balance, then yes.

**greyknight12**

BoomWolf wrote:
And who will be making these rules?
You?
Me?

Because there is little concensus, and many self service. I look at "suggested rules" section here on the forum and many things are in quality that makes wraith knight look tame, make no sense what so ever, or commit fluff murder of first degree.

What should happen, is a purge. Replacing the entire GW rules staff with fresh guys that will first and foremost make FAQ for the unclear sections, and errata to obvious balance offenders, including point cost adjustments.

Basically what BoomWolf said. Then you have to add in the fact that not every 40K player is on dakka...there are other forums out there and furthermore some people don't visit any of them; meaning that the players who just buy the rulebook will be playing a different game. Pickup games are possible because we all use the same ruleset and if you take that away there is a very real chance 40K dies.

**GreyCrow**

A rules committee could be interesting, and in the days of internet and instant transmission of information, publishing the ruleset and getting it accepted is easier than a few years back.

Several caveats though :
1) When multiple people work on a process, there are politics involved. How do you make a good ruleset with 4 people with different perspectives and goals ?
2) How would people feel if their proposed rules are rejected ? Spoiler alert : pretty bad :p
3) There should be a single person making the rules and setting the project, with feedback from a community of testers that review the game rather than pitch their own ideas

**kodos**

BoomWolf wrote:

What should happen, is a purge. Replacing the entire GW rules staff with fresh guys that will first and foremost make FAQ for the unclear sections, and errata to obvious balance offenders, including point cost adjustments.

Vector Strike wrote:

Now, if GW opened up to the customers and asked them what they wanted to the game, filtering out obvious stupidity and powergamering, AND working for game balance, then yes.

If GW would just do this but I don't think we will ever get something like "Balance". Maybe if the new FAQ turn out to be not that bad I see some hope.....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BoomWolf wrote:
And who will be making these rules?
You?
Me?

Because there is little concensus, and many self service. I look at "suggested rules" section here on the forum and many things are in quality that makes wraith knight look tame, make no sense what so ever, or commit fluff murder of first degree.

The question about "who is making it" is something different than "should it be done at all"
There are good (hobby) designers out there and the amount of community projects for Warhammer show that it could be possible.

And making a complete new Edtion is something different than just adding suggested rules to the current one which are aiming to nerf powerful units.

greyknight12 wrote:
Pickup games are possible because we all use the same ruleset and if you take that away there is a very real chance 40K dies.

Maybe on you location
Here (speaking of 500km around were I used to play tournaments and Events) pick up games are impossible because every Club, LGS, Tournament and Event use a different Version of 40k (different restrictions, different FAQ's etc)
and it is not even possible to play the same 1500 points lists against on 2 different tournaments (in Germany thy try to get a unified tournament system but it turns out to rather complicated to fit the needs of ETC players and causal ones)

This was always the one argument why a lot of people here played 40k but in the last view months 40k lost it's status as a pick up game completely (and was replaced by WM/H and X-Wing were really everywhere the same rules are played).

greyknight12 wrote:
Pickup games are possible because we all use the same ruleset and if you take that away there is a very real chance 40K dies.

US may be different but here 40k is already dying because of that.

Mr Morden wrote:

been there done that - its not a great deal of fun tbh.................

True
Would be more fun to skip and just take the minis to play Warpath

**SpookyRuben**

I voted No to the question. As has been stated, the 40k Community is very diverse, and spread over a wide area. Both geographically and on internet sites. Keeping in mind that in all likelihood most players do not actually engage their 40k hobby on the internet. So trying to gain their support for the community committee game would be very challenging, even more so if GW kept publishing.

However, I do feel that there has been some excellent discussion regarding the rules right here in the 40K You Make Da Call forum. No doubt there are other sites which have similar rules discussion. And if you look through that forum, some of the insight and discussion in that forum is of very high caliber!

So while I don't feel that a community based committee writing the rules would be the best course of action for 8th ed. I do feel that GW should aggressively make use of the excellent resource that community discussion provides. Without any doubt, if the GW rules writers combed through the YMDC forum from May of 2014 to today; they could probably address almost every single rules issue that has appeared in every Codex and BRB in one fell swoop.

As well GW could use White Dwarf as a vehicle for introducing new rules to the community, allowing a period of play, and following up by checking various forums for any new discussion, before a hardback publish. It has crossed my mind that the recent FAQ request on Facebook may have been a 'testing the waters' type of endevor. While I hope that a comprehensive FAQ is forthcoming, GW's history hasn't been great when it comes to providing that. Time will tell I suppose.

**SGTPozy**

It's only be a good idea if I am on the committee

**the_Armyman**

I find it interesting that the idea of a fan-made 40K is gaining a bit of traction as of late. It's almost as it a lot of people are all getting pissed off at the same time. Also, where is it said that everyone has to be happy with a given ruleset? Just because it's created/moderated by a community, doesn't mean it makes everyone happy. The idea would be to balance, and when you balance the unbalanced, someone on that scale has to come down. The idea is that enough people (not everyone, just enough) are mature enough to realize that their favorite army might have to take some hits for the betterment of the game.

BTW, it is very possible to make a ruleset designed for 40K without infringing upon the IP and violating any copyright laws.

**zerosignal**

Professionals only please. (Perhaps hire some of those wonderful guys at WotC? Who've managed to write a comprehensive rules system for a game that supports $30,000 dollar first prize professional tournaments. A game that has SEVERAL THOUSAND components).

Leaving it to the 'community' is like asking a bunch of 10 year olds to assemble a PC from components. It's gonna go bzzzt! *pop*

**Franarok**

Actually the main problem is some codex, no the core rules.

There we have tau, eldar, necrons (mostly because decurion) and the Space Marines (graviton, librarians council, skyhammer, the new gamebreaking powers, op bikes, tons of allies combos, the god in bike, cents.....to much to comment xD).

The thing GW must to do is fix the game just like the mmos, with regular fixes on the web changing rules, weapons, point costs and such.
Like: "oh, this unit is to much op....point increase" or "mmm, every player of that armi span that weapon, we should look if we did it to much op..."

That is the problem, that some unit or formation is way OP or way nerf and that will be that way forever.

And some even with a nex codex wil lbe still op, mostly talking about formations with special rules, for example, no matter the librarians change a bit, the special rule of the formation will remain

**CalgarsPimpHand**

I voted yes, but I feel I need to comment to say that it's impossible. The main reason why is that 40k is already too far gone.

Look at Fantasy 8th, or the poster child for successful fan-run post-GW games, Epic: Armageddon. The games were already in good shape (or good enough in Fantasy's case), and fans just continued to tweak and balance them.

Meanwhile 40k, at its black rotten heart, is just a bad game. It has so very many problems with core mechanics, heaped with layers and layers of extra poorly thought out garbage. If you balanced the dexes and FAQ'd some rules, you might bring some players back, but I would personally still consider it a failure. You'll have a lot of difficulty getting your committee (and the players) to agree on how far is far enough when you could keep cutting past bone and still not find a healthy part of the game.

And the second reason is, GW still supports the game. You're never going to reach a critical mass of players when the community mostly still uses the legit rules. You'd be lucky to even convince the majority of disgruntled players to follow your fan ruleset instead of someone else's fan ruleset.

So yes, 40k should be rewritten by the fans. But no, it will never, ever work.

**kronk**

If the complete rules don't come from GW, I wouldn't be interested in it. ITC style nerfs/FAQs I can live with. But scratch-built rules from 8-10 garage band or tournament jocks? Not interested.

**kodos**

zerosignal wrote:
Professionals only please

When I look on the rules the professionals from GW are making, I rather give the non-professional designers a try (ok, I knew some very good game and rules designer who do this as a "hobby" and get paid for their work but would never count as professionals)

the_Armyman wrote:
I find it interesting that the idea of a fan-made 40K is gaining a bit of traction as of late. It's almost as it a lot of people are all getting pissed off at the same time. Also, where is it said that everyone has to be happy with a given ruleset? Just because it's created/moderated by a community, doesn't mean it makes everyone happy. The idea would be to balance, and when you balance the unbalanced, someone on that scale has to come down. The idea is that enough people (not everyone, just enough) are mature enough to realize that their favorite army might have to take some hits for the betterment of the game.

BTW, it is very possible to make a ruleset designed for 40K without infringing upon the IP and violating any copyright laws .

totally agree
just arguing about how bad the game is, is not a way to get things better, because GW will never read nor listen to it if they would.

And if the project fails you have at least tried to get rules the game deserves

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

And the second reason is, GW still supports the game. You're never going to reach a critical mass of players when the community mostly still uses the legit rules. You'd be lucky to even convince the majority of disgruntled players to follow your fan ruleset instead of someone else's fan ruleset.

SpookyRuben wrote:
I voted No to the question. As has been stated, the 40k Community is very diverse, and spread over a wide area. Both geographically and on internet sites. Keeping in mind that in all likelihood most players do not actually engage their 40k hobby on the internet. So trying to gain their support for the community committee game would be very challenging, even more so if GW kept publishing.

When I have a look on the forums and around my area, GW keeping 40k alive is not that big of a problem.
Because such project would not address those that are happy with the current game, but those that want to quit or already have. And for someone ho left 40k behind because of 7th edi rules, a community edition could be the way to get back to the game while for him it doesn't matter if GW release another 7th edi campaign book or not

CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Look at Fantasy 8th, or the poster child for successful fan-run post-GW games, Epic: Armageddon. The games were already in good shape (or good enough in Fantasy's case), and fans just continued to tweak and balance them.

Meanwhile 40k, at its black rotten heart, is just a bad game. It has so very many problems with core mechanics, heaped with layers and layers of extra poorly thought out garbage. If you balanced the dexes and FAQ'd some rules, you might bring some players back, but I would personally still consider it a failure. You'll have a lot of difficulty getting your committee (and the players) to agree on how far is far enough when you could keep cutting past bone and still not find a healthy part of the game.

Fantasy 8th was not in a good shape any more, but the project was based on it because it was for those who liked 8th.
There is also a project for 7th edition warhammer, which is more favoured here but does not get much on the web because the other one was chosen for ETC.

But for 40k, taking just one edition would never work.
You have to take the core of the rules, add the best from 2nd to 7th and change stuff that is not treated well (flyers) and write a complete new edition to go forward.

**Mr_Piddlez**

Spoiler:

I think that the biggest problem plaguing 40k is that while there are a lot of rules that are important and fluffy, there are also a lot of rules that have just been grandfathered in because the game is just that old. A Lot of these rules just don't make sense in the current state of the game. Ordinance seems to be one of the biggest offender of this. In 4th or 5th edition, firing a battle or demolisher cannon was a big deal, they were some of the strongest weapons (if not the strongest) pie plates in the game. So it made sense that firing them was gonna effect any other weapons you had. It was a way to balance that sheer power of it. At that time though, the scale of the game was a lot smaller, where a vindicator could wreck an enemy if it got too close, So antitank was incredibly useful and needed.

Now, Destroyer weapons are commonplace and SHV and GMC rules make it so there is no downside to using them, In this edition, Ordinance has no place besides hindering units with it. So the rule needs to modified to be be less malignant or actually a boon to have, for example maybe making Ordnance weapons TL if the vehicle has remained stationary in the movement phase. Unfortunately, you can't remove the rule, too many weapons have it as part of their profile, and if there is anything i've learned about GW, its that they can add whatever they want, but they WILL NEVER take anything out or change profiles of something once its established.

This is evident with codex releases also. If a codex misses an update during an edition, it also loses the power level and point adjustments of the edition along with whatever flavor of the month that edition entailed. I'll use CSM as my example since its what I'm the most familiar with. CSM missed its 5th edition release, but it got it's 5th edition book in the form of its 6th edition release, thus why its points, power level. and playstyle are relative to the 5th edition style of game (AKA Randomness). Yet, because they were a 5th edition book being forced into 6th, they were not designed with the 6th edition change that favored making walkers into monstrous creatures, encouraging flyers, and allies, (The only thing in the codex that was at 6th edition power level is the heldrake, so, I think it kind of got shoehorned in at the end.) So, as the later codices that were actually designed for 6th dropped, certain new units were considered monstrous creatures instead of a walker as they would of been in 5th (AKA Riptide).

When 7th dropped, it favored SHVs, GCs, and formations. Yet, besides the escalation book released near the start of the edition, The starting codexes of 7th lacked these staples. Which makes me think that Necrons were the first actual 7th edition intended release in forms of power level, formations, etc. In which the trend continued with the other books released (With obvious exceptions).CSM also has missed its 7th edition release, So, its lacking both the staples of 6th and 7th which is part of the reason it's so weak. This is also why the upcoming updated supplements don't fix anything. Sure, we get some formations, but its just like putting a bandaid on a missing limb since our entire book is designed with a 5th edition points and playstyle.

So, GW can't really balance the rules for their game partially because they don't know what edition to design around. By the time they release 8th, they now have to cater to 5th, 6th, 7th, and upcoming 8th edition armies, all with differing playstyles, points levels, and edition centric gimmicks, and somehow find a way to make them all even. Personally, I don't even think that is possible.

So the alternative is gutting the game and redesigning it from the ground up. Removing and modifying rules, reevaluating game phases, Adjusting points across the board, etc. The problem that rises is that every codex has to by updated simultaneously to make sure all the rules that no longer exist are removed and the armies are balanced around one edition. The ONLY way I see them doing that is either updating the edition and releasing a huge FAQ for every faction for free (Which I highly doubt) or including every army and variant of the armies they decide not to "squat" in the the 8th edition book release. Making it so everyone just needs to buy the 8th edition rulebook to have all the armies codexes updated. They can then later start releasing codex updates again with a singular edition in mind and models to go with them. Similar to how supplements are added now. Just with more models.

They'll eat some cost on it early with the loss of the initial codex sales but make it up by making the game more approachable to new players while also keeping in enjoyable to current players. Right now, the biggest bar to entry in this game is the complicated ruleset and the initial starting cost. After you buy the start collecting box, the codex, and rulebook, dice, and templates. You are looking at a pretty sizable monetary investment. Let alone the time investment of learning all the rules of the game. Simplifying the game and putting the codices and rulebooks together with ease some of this pain.

Also having one massive book with all the codexes helps encourage allied play, Which GW has made necessary to play the game. If you really NEED to have single army codex, make it a small paperback version added to a rulebook that you can include with start collecting boxes, similar to the one dark vengeance box had. Include some dice, templates, and a ruler to make it playable out of the box. The only barrier to entry to the game should be a single start collecting box.

Anyway, that's the only way I can see GW "fixing" the game. The problem that arises is GW has to recognize that the game is broken and be willing to take a financial hit to save their game. I just don't foresee that happening.

I posted this in the "Can 40K be fixed by GW?" thread, It's a bit of a read so I'll summarize. 40K is old, needs to be gutted, and it probably could use some fresh eyes. So, I voted yes for an organized community ruleset. But, it's not just the rulebook that would need to be updated. You create a new ruleset, you need to create new codexes that can follow it and be balanced by it. So, a fan made update isn't just a patch for the game. It's a BRB and 23 codex endeavor. With all the favoritism, spite, and other mindsets that entails. If a group wants to take on that task, more power to them. But, I'm thinking that may just be biting of more than you can chew.

**Jimsolo**

Rules design by committee?

No thank you, the rules are already bad enough.

**kodos**

Mr_Piddlez wrote:
But, it's not just the rulebook that would need to be updated. You create a new ruleset, you need to create new codexes that can follow it and be balanced by it. So, a fan made update isn't just a patch for the game. It's a BRB and 23 codex endeavor. With all the favoritism, spite, and other mindsets that entails. If a group wants to take on that task, more power to them. But, I'm thinking that may just be biting of more than you can chew.

Yeah, to get all codex books done you need a team working on it and than it will still take a year to get something that can be called "beta-test".

I know how much work it would be to start from scratch again.
It is also hard work to get a team that stays working on the project and not give up early and you need people who accept work that is already done and don't want to change everything again after 2 months

**Jaxler**

Inb4 we let the community wright the tau codex and it takes 4 markerlights to raise bs by 1 and 10 lights to remove cover, the riptide is toughness 5 with 3 wounds and a stormsurge can only fire one weapon. Fire warriors cost 15 points per model and go down to bs 2, and all suits lose the ability to jump shoot jump.

It would be balenced right?

**MechaEmperor7000**

I would like it if DakkaDakka had it's own Unofficial 8th Edition rules.

That would mean that the YMDC section would get actual answers instead of people getting into chicken scratches over improper wording.

As for the committee though, it would have to be a voting process, preferably limited to only mod-sanctioned nominees and mods themselves and only accounts that are either extremely active or old should vote on it (otherwise we get a bunch of people nominating random accounts and padding votes with bot accounts).

As an overarching "fan 8th edition" though, unless it appears in a popular tournament format it will never catch on, as people will always point to the tournaments and say "they didn't use it". However if there is to be one, we need a very small selection of strong-willed people.

I work as an animator and lacking a Director on the production right now means that everyone wants a say in everything, which not only grinds production to a halt (we're a full month behind schedule currently) but it also creates nonsensical designs because we're incapable of throwing other people's ideas out. I'd say no more than 5 "main editors" for the rules while a few other committee members below them take in the suggestions and produce something coherent.

**Lanrak**

It is very important to be clear on what sort of game play you want from the new rule set.

The horrible mess of ideas 40k currently fails to make into a coherent game is a bad place to start.

So decide on the scale and scope of the game play you want to arrive at first.
Eg.
Detailed skirmish/RPG(RT) , larger skirmish (2nd ed.) , battle game,(4th ed,) massive battle game(7th ed.)

Do you want to game to be mainly focused on mobility and close combat?

Or mainly focused on mobility and ranged attacks?

Or an equal focus on mobility ,ranged attacks and close combat?

After these basic questions have been answered, you can get like minded people to focus on a defined end game play.

**Brennonjw**

unless they were truly non-biased, no. To much favoritism to specific armies and play styles would be in this new edition. God forbid we let tournament players write the rules, 'cause who knows how they would go on to break the game.

**Gamgee**

Oh hell no. I know what people think of Tau. They'll add in 5 nerfs to rules Tau use to every half a rule they make for any other faction. The ITC is the closest the 40k community can get to writing unbiased rules and its got some major issues with the status quo.

Edit
Jaxters's got it right this time. People would make Kroot WS 1 BS 2 and cost 18 points a model. Vespids would cost 20 points a model.

**kodos**

Why should a group of players who develop rules for 40k be more biased than GW.

Or why should they write ridiculous rules for something?

Have you ever worked seriously on housrules or tournament rules?
You cannot be biased to anything if you want to write rules for a game.
You can make mistakes because you had not the time or resources to test stuff, but something like giving all Space Wolves toughness 10 and all Dark Angels T2 because you are a Space Wolve player is nothing I would ever take as a serious attempt.

Of course you need a group of players who know actually what they do and not some kids that want to troll the web.

**Mr. Burning**

Gamgee wrote:
Oh hell no. I know what people think of Tau. They'll add in 5 nerfs to rules Tau use to every half a rule they make for any other faction. The ITC is the closest the 40k community can get to writing unbiased rules and its got some major issues with the status quo.

Edit
Jaxters's got it right this time. People would make Kroot WS 1 BS 2 and cost 18 points a model. Vespids would cost 20 points a model.

No.

The committee would write the Tau no rules - not even a mention - less love than even the squats.

**jreilly89**

Yes, let the community write the rules, NOTHING COULD GO WRONG HERE.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/boaty-mcboatface-wins-poll-to-name-polar-research-vessel

**Mr. Burning**

kodos wrote:
Why should a group of players who develop rules for 40k be more biased than GW.

Or why should they write ridiculous rules for something?

Have you ever worked seriously on housrules or tournament rules?
You cannot be biased to anything if you want to write rules for a game.
You can make mistakes because you had not the time or resources to test stuff, but something like giving all Space Wolves toughness 10 and all Dark Angels T2 because you are a Space Wolve player is nothing I would ever take as a serious attempt.

Of course you need a group of players who know actually what they do and not some kids that want to troll the web.

And who would this be? I am a committee of one already! With enough traction I could get my rules accepted as the defacto go to for 40k. Implausible but not impossible.

How do I trust this group? what if the group falls out? What if they do not have the time or energy - Its almost like writing a ruleset or something for one of the hobbies largest and most well known games. If they cannot be bothered, what then? I mean they are not getting paid to do something which full time paid staff cant even get right.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jreilly89 wrote:
Yes, let the community write the rules, NOTHING COULD GO WRONG HERE.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/boaty-mcboatface-wins-poll-to-name-polar-research-vessel

You write as if this is a bad name.....

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brennonjw wrote:
unless they were truly non-biased, no. To much favoritism to specific armies and play styles would be in this new edition. God forbid we let tournament players write the rules, 'cause who knows how they would go on to break the game.

I would think Tournament players would have some good input.

Obviously not those who play orks, BA or CSM, By their army choices they automatically rule themselves out........

**kodos**

Mr. Burning wrote:

And who would this be? I am a committee of one already! With enough traction I could get my rules accepted as the defacto go to for 40k. Implausible but not impossible.

How do I trust this group? what if the group falls out? What if they do not have the time or energy - Its almost like writing a ruleset or something for one of the hobbies largest and most well known games. If they cannot be bothered, what then? I mean they are not getting paid to do something which full time paid staff cant even get right.

While this is not the questions here, finding and building up a team is a difficult task.
And of course the team fall out and have no time and energy any more.

Same can happen to all bigger events. Ever thought of the idea that Nova Open is just skipped 1 week before it should start because the guys who organise it falls out?

So there are people out there who want to write rules for the game they love and they do it for free in their spare time.

We have organised big Warhammer tournaments in the past, a group of 3 people was working about 4 months each year to get the tournament rules (restrictions, army balance, mission design, play testing) while another 5 -10 people did the organising, build terrain and tables etc.
If there would be no one out there who would waste his time for this and actually know what he is doing (and do a better job than those who get paid by GW) big Events with their own rules would never be possible

And games like Blood Bowl have shown that this is also possible for rules

jreilly89 wrote:
Yes, let the community write the rules, NOTHING COULD GO WRONG HERE.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/17/boaty-mcboatface-wins-poll-to-name-polar-research-vessel

You are just angry because "It’s bloody cold here" didn't make it