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.

It's been stewing in me for a while, but it's my belief that I could fix many of this games balance issues with a few small changes to the codexes of warhammer 40k. I've finally begun typing things up (starting with the tyranid, tau, IG, and space marine codexes). I have a few questions concerning all this and this forum. Firstly, what is the legality and forum rules of discussing changes? Secondly, would the community be interested? While I don't expect this to ever go beyond uncommonly used house rules I am not afraid of posting results online and discussing reasons and intentions behind changes. It's not my first go on the merrygoround concerning game development and creating/refining rules systems and I plan to use a mix of mathhammer and logical situations (commonly reffered to as "Theoryhammer) to justify changes and additions. Nothing will be removed from any codex under my revisions, and while "nerfs" may be common, so will "buffs". The attempt being to create a relatively even playing field from a relatively broken rock paper scissors one.

Just looking for a response mainly on what I am in fact allowed to post (not full codexes, but how much concerning changes and rule sets can I post?) and the communities interest at large.

People are fine with people making their own army books and rewriting others.

There used to be another forum called "Warhammer 40, 000 Revisited" which tanked a little while ago...

Proposed Rules.

Go wild!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Proposed Rules.

Go wild!

I've had posts deleted for discussing rules and point values before. You're not helping me to know where I stand here.

Really? I've never had a post deleted for that. Go figure.

If you post actual rules verbatim, or actual points costs, that is a problem. If you propose your own rules and/or points costs, that is perfectly fine.

Don't do it! Its folly! You're entering a world of pain that will surely drive you mad!

I say this because I rewrote the whole damned rulebook back in the mid-to-late 90's for 40K (not that it was very thick in 2nd ed.) It was cleaner and better defined with examples. It was written more as a "general use" set of rules, essentially balancing all races so that strategy and tactics during the game became much more important than outfitting your crazy special character and his retinue. Sure, the races were different but in subtle ways. Okay, enough romanticizing.

Anyway, no one I played with cared or even bothered to read my rules (hence, no play-testing). I felt cheated. These were the same people that bitched at least as fervently as I had. I was crushed, betrayed by those I considered friends, okay, I actually still consider many of them friends but devastated none-the-less. They wanted and were satisfied with their prepacked bullcrap instead.

Now, you have a more powerful and robust internet then I had back then but please tread carefully. For every ten that bitch, only one or two will do anything about it. All of this directly led to me quitting the game for eleven years. Although I've been told I haven't missed much in 3rd and 4th Editions.

When I say IG Stormtroopers with S3 AP3 RF guns are overpriced at 16+ pts each, and offer a fix to change the price to 12 pts, that isn't something to be deleted. It's a legitimate discussion, and the points value and stats are needed to give reference point in the discussion.

It's not like I'm linking to a scan on the Pirate Bay...

Yep, post your stuff here.

You can post rules and point values that you came up with! GW isn't the president of that.

This is another one of those legal questions most of the forum residents (myself included) aren't qualified to answer, but could GW use the trademark protection they have on a lot of 40k names (See the big block of legal text on the 1st page of most of the rulebooks) to block something like this if it annoyed them?

As with other legal discussions, it'd probably come down to 'ability to pursue/defend the lawsuit' but it seems liek there must be a line somewhere.

For example, I understand TMs are for a a relatively specific scope. So it's illegal for me to make a wargame where the heroic robotic defenders of earth are the "Necrons" but I could theoretically release a cheese-flavored cracker called "Necrons". Marketing for these ideas would eb interesting.

Also, it seems to be legal to use the TMed term in some ways, I.E. "Necrons rock!" is OK, which is why i think companies have had trouble attempting to claim TM infringement to remove "Necrons Suck!" comments.

ungulateman wrote:There used to be another forum called "Warhammer 40, 000 Revisited" which tanked a little while ago...

The forum was left to waste away mainly because there wasn't much point to it. Anything we needed to post we could just post here. The Revisited Project itself continues as normal, with me starting on the next version of CSM last night.

Id be interested to read your ideas. Sometimes it just works better then how GW did it. They arnt gods *lightning strikes*