We need better rules and codices - DIY?

[pseudodelic]

I wonder why we don't all get together as a community and take the best of all the rule editions and codices and our ideas and experience to come up with the definitive army lists, rules and yes even fluff to make Warhammer 40k what it could and should be. Then GW can just concentrate on their "core business" making miniatures and models and leave the gaming to a committed bunch of us gamers... we could make it open like an Open Source piece of software... I know what you are going to say GW would issue a cease and desist on all of us along with copyright infringements and court cases but is it something you would all buy into? Could we do it? Would it be feasible, worthwhile and dare I say it more balanced than what GW are doing? Answers on a postcard to Thomas Kirby, Games Workshop PLC, Nottingham, England.... Just kidding but seriously what does everyone think of taking control of this ourselves?

[Gotthammer]

It's been tried many, many times. Never comes to anything since everyone has ideas (that often conflict) and few are committed to really putting the work in necessary.

[pseudodelic]

I agree but all it takes is a group of us who are happy to act as mediators and editors... I write and have published and would be willing to act as a mediator, editor etc. if others would too... At the end of the day it only takes a few good people to make it a reality... if it is based on existing and major asks are put up for vote then I think it is doable... it is not easy but then again nothing worthwhile ever is... I am just fed up like the rest of the community and am trying to do something about it including writing to Mr Thomas Kirby who is director at GW in Nottingham. I am just going to keep plugging away... might as well.. it's not like anything is going to change if I don't and maybe just maybe it will if I do...


It's been tried many, many times. Never comes to anything since everyone has ideas (that often conflict) and few are committed to really putting the work in necessary.

[This Dave]

Have you met the Internet yet? :)

You can probably get your local group to agree on certain things but even as shaky as the published rules are they're at least a common reference for everyone.

[Wolfshade]

While the initial rule writting/altering may only take a few good people. To analyse the scope of the rules you then require thousands of games to play test the rules. This is against all different types of armies and all different types of build.
Then once you have a tight ruleset you then have the issue of trying to pin down the point costs of everything which again requires thousands of games to ensure that a result was not just a statistical anomaly.
Then once you have your new rules and new points you then need to test all this all over again, with balanced armies using the new rules for the new points.

Each iteration requires thorough play testing and needs to try and avoid the local affects of meta. For instancem, if you were considering the points cost of a meltagun in a local meta that used very little armour then its usefulness would be quite limited and therefore should be quite cheap, you then spam that it a local meta which takes loads of armour and suddenly it is massively under costed as it is very useful.

So you need significant numbers of games.

The other issue is, if you do choose to pick rules based on committee or group votes then the minority of people who are defeated will cry that the rules/points are poor and require a DIY and you fracture into subfactions and sub-subfactions which then makes it very hard to play against anyone.

"Oh you play 40k lets play a game?"
"Cool, I play Bols-Wolfshade-Gott Rules."
"Oh, I play Bols-Pseudodelic Rules, the BWG rules are unbalanced."

But that could just be the pessamist in me. I would certainly be interesting to see what you come up with.

[Psychosplodge]

It requires consensus.

Never going to happen...

[pseudodelic]

I'm not suggesting a total rewrite from scratch. I am more thinking of taking what is good from what we have and making the required/suggested tweaks. Yes it needs play testing but so do GW but they don't do any do they... we do it for them... It is easy to throw stones in a glass house... glass gets broken as a result but I get the message from the poll that most people think it can't happen won't work and don't even want to try... I am not going to argue but what a shame that people are happy to moan about things like rules, codices, balance, miniatures and GW in general but don't want to do anything about it... except carry on moaning... well good luck with that guys but most importantly just have fun... I do...

[Defenestratus]

Do the current rules allow me to have fun with another like-minded individual set upon enjoying a few hours of plastic toy soldiers?

Yes?

No need for any more mucking about.

[Wolfshade]

I am sorry that I came across quite so negative.

Having fun is the most important rule :) and it appears that there are those whose idea of fun is bemoaning what GW do.
I am all in favour of house rules if they work for you and your group.

[ToHitMod]

People like to think they know how to write a balanced and interesting ruleset, and that its easy to do and it would be popular, but if that were the case, they'd do it and people would play it. As it doesn't happen, either, game design is a lot harder than people assume and GW are actually doing a pretty good job for a game so huge or, people don't really want a balanced set of rules.

I'm pretty sure its the former, people like to talk a big game, come online and say they could make better rules and that GW don't know what they're doing but when it comes down to it, they can't come up with anything and anythng they do say isn't tested and would likely be as abusable as GWs rules or just boring to play

[Charon]

Writing rules and balancing is a learning process. Its also a steady process where you have to actively listen, play, adapt and rethink.
We have the means for a living rulebook and living codices.
GW is not interested. They plan their books according to marketing stategies and have a tendency to break their own ruleset at a certain point which makes older codices (who obey said ruleset) less fun and more binary.

You maybe want to listen to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e31OSVZF77w&list=TL9eBelUEBkDUnoo6c127TYykuML9SBDMB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxszx60ZwGw&list=TLQVdvgb_uk8iugfn0nY_SrdAwPgRtz7N5

to get a better idea of game design

[DarkLink]

Do the current rules allow me to have fun with another like-minded individual set upon enjoying a few hours of plastic toy soldiers?

Yes?

No need for any more mucking about.

What if the answer is no? It might be yes for you, but there are a lot of people for whom it isn't.

[Chaoschrist]

What if the answer is no? It might be yes for you, but there are a lot of people for whom it isn't.

Then, perhaps ask yourself this

What is causing you not to have fun. The people you play with or the rules?

[daboarder]

Then, perhaps ask yourself this

What is causing you not to have fun. The people you play with or the rules?

A complete lack of options, particularly ones that would enable me to play a faction as it is described in the background material

as for the question, its entirely possible. Look at necromunda

[DarkLink]

Then, perhaps ask yourself this

What is causing you not to have fun. The people you play with or the rules?

Given the context it should be blatantly obvious that I'm referring to people who aren't having as much fun anymore because of poor quality rules.

[Gleipnir]

I don't think the community taking the time to come up with a consensus rule set is likely to be either productive or effective.

I do think sharing house rules that you use with the community is a positive thing, as others in the community may like your ideas to use as a house rule of their own, or it may inspire them with rules to use in narrative campaign play for example.

The rulebook is a framework that the players are free to take apart however they choose so long as they are mutually agreeable.

Does this help a Tournament or rules centric play setting? Nope but Tournament organizers are welcome to do the same thing for the sake of balance if they so choose.

[Lexington]

I've had similar ideas recently; for all the furor over 6th Edition's radical changes, there's a lot of good there. Cut out or massage those parts that are causing the problems, and you'd have a hell of a thing to be playing. Of course, you've got to get enough people to agree to which components are the problem, and which solutions are acceptable. It'd be a tough road, but one that might well be worth the trouble.

[DarkLink]

The community isn't going to be able to effectively enact any change directly. They can call for change, but anarchy isn't going to actually get anything done. If the world's TO's step up and start communicating, though, something could come of that. There already is a standardized FAQ in the USA. That said, most TOs are really only concerned with their own event, so getting them all on the same page for an FAQ is tough, let alone game-changing house rules.

[daboarder]

The community isn't going to be able to effectively enact any change directly. They can call for change, but anarchy isn't going to actually get anything done. If the world's TO's step up and start communicating, though, something could come of that. There already is a standardized FAQ in the USA. That said, most TOs are really only concerned with their own event, so getting them all on the same page for an FAQ is tough, let alone game-changing house rules.

My understanding of the way it worked with necromunda was that a group of gamers (o's or whatever) just wrote in teh sensible changes. Mostly its nothing radical, things like addressing issues that need an FAQ with common sense, adding things that we're lost and removing the obscenities.

then you just promote it, use it and offer it up for others to use, stop playing with the old broken version all together and let example be your way.

it happens with DnD, I fail to see why the 40k community would be any different.

Would really be giving the finger to GW if they lost a significant portion of control over their own rules to the player bases version.

[Lexington]

I wouldn't be concerned with tournament organizers myself - they're too conservative a bunch. Some might come around to an idea like this, but it took the shock of 6th Edition's expansion and vast imbalance to get them even thinking about restricting or otherwise changing the basic dictates from GW. One could have amended a huge number of 5th Edition's tournament issues with a few well-placed sentences in an errata, but I never heard of a single event organizer who ever bothered.

[daboarder]

then someone else should step up

[Lexington]

Indeed.

[Ang56]

It's not a bad system right now. Especially since it looks as though they might actually get most of the codex's up to date in the same edition which would be amazing.

It is impossible for someone to write a set of rules that the community in it's entirety likes every aspect of. I find this edition far more enjoyable then the previous. Some people do not.

You're suggesting that GW should give up their IP to a group of writers and editors not employed by them and make models for their rules...

And GW focusing on creating miniatures wouldn't really change anything. They can't wave a wand and transform writers and editors into sculptors. It would just be a bunch of people already doing what you intend getting fired. Your rules design would not likely focus on increasing sales of new kits, creating a less profitable company. Profit losses don't tend to come off the top, product quantity and or quality would be what suffered first.

I do also think a lot of the balance complaints are blown out of proportion, pretty much every new codex has the tools to deal with whatever is fielded against you. The problem is that there are so many more and varied options now when it comes to really strong units, that take all comers lists aren't what they used to be. Allies plays a big part, it brought a lot of really cool things to the game, but also allows for some pretty hard to deal with lists unless you know whats coming and bring the right list.

[daboarder]

You're suggesting that GW should give up their IP to a group of writers and editors not employed by them and make models for their rules...


Hardly, Im suggesting we create a community edition of 40k 6th ed much like necromunda, battlefleet gothic or many of the other specialist games.

[Psychosplodge]

as for the question, its entirely possible. Look at necromunda

Necromunda is a lot smaller game though.

[Wolfshade]

The big difference between those specialist games and 40k/wfb/warmahordes etc is the scope.
The specialists are all closed systems, whose models/factions/wargear are essentially fixed. It is easier to write rules/corrections to those sorts of things then games which are continually growing and developing.

People have pointed to DnD and their open rules and it was quite true some of the fan made supplements were brilliant, others were so out of kilter that they were quite unplayable unless you had either developed your characters in a very specific way or made major rules re-writes.

I certainly think that it would be possible to do put together a FAQ type document, but that would still miss out on trying to address any issues with re-balance or a force being completely unrecognisable from teh background fluff.

[ToHitMod]

The vast, vast majority of people playing the game don't care about balance to nearly the same extent people on the internet seem to, a lot of players are kids, for a start, and just want to have fun playing with their friends, and others are functional adults who don't need to win at a game of model soldiers to feel better about themselves.

Most 40k players don't go online and moan about the rules, you can see the same names on different forums and comment sections *****ing and whining about their faction not being able to auto-win (hi daboarder and dr bored) the percived problems with the rules are literally the opinions of about 20 people moaning very loudly.

Its not perfect, no game is perfect, the Community Edition of Necromunda is based on a really good ruleset for 10 man squads, it was already balanced because most of which start with identical stats no matter the faction, its a lot easier to balance that. Necromunda gangs take most flavor from the way they're played, you can play a goliath gang as shooty is you want, you wont get all the relevant skills, but skills aren't the most important thing in the game, but you get all the equipment that any other gang get once you play your first game. Spyrers and Arbites are still ridiculously overpowered, those gangs will tear through a regular gang with ease a lot of the time, Pit Slaves are useless unless they're in combat, which is hard to get them into without agility skills which they can't get.

Necromunda Community edition isn't a holy grail of game design, its great and I love Necromunda but its not perfect and a 40k Community edition would be worse because there are a lot more 40k players who'd want input.

[daboarder]

I certainly think that it would be possible to do put together a FAQ type document, but that would still miss out on trying to address any issues with re-balance or a force being completely unrecognisable from teh background fluff.

I think its possible, Even chaos players would be willing to accept say a pts cost of 30+pts for the baleflamer on the heldrake, if it mean that those serpent shields were similarly "fixed"

[ToHitMod]

I think its possible, Even chaos players would be willing to accept say a pts cost of 30+pts for the baleflamer on the heldrake, if it mean that those serpent shields were similarly "fixed"

You might, but there would be chaos players who'd say it was too much, Space Marine plaers would say its not enough. The problem with a community edition is that everyone has a voice, when the rules are given from an independant party, they make the decision and thats it

[Lexington]

I certainly think that it would be possible to do put together a FAQ type document, but that would still miss out on trying to address any issues with re-balance or a force being completely unrecognisable from teh background fluff.
Well, I think it'd need to be stronger than just a short FAQ-type document - more like a thorough errata that (eventually) covered the rulebooks and Codexes/expansions. A re-written rules set would be preferable, but that gets into legally murky territory. Best to stay away from that.


The vast, vast majority of people playing the game don't care about balance to nearly the same extent people on the internet seem to
Ah, "the internet," that old strawman. I feel bad for the poor guy. He's everything you need, so long as you need him to be wrong.

Really, tho, are there so many people who can afford the costs in both cash and time that 40K requires, but somehow don't find their way online? That seems inconceivable - I mean, it's 2014. The internet isn't some weird sideshow for X-Files fan fetishes anymore - or at least it's not just for that. Hell, even in the web's dim pre-history, 40K players disproportionately found their way online to blabber on the Igcom email lists and Portent forums of their time. The 40K fanbase is synonymous with nerdy, cash-flush white boys who have Opinions. Of course we're on the damned internet.

I've moved around the US a decent amount the past few years, and when I talk to 40K groups, there's nowhere near the wide disparity of opinions that some seem to believe exist in the magical world of "offline 40K". People have the same issues with the game. The same armies/units/combos dominate where people bother to use them, and for all the same reasons they're so loathed and discussed online - they're vastly more useful, on a point-for-point basis, than their counterparts in the game. These are issues that can be fixed, and without a back-breaking amount of work. Get some good solutions worked out for them, and you improve the game dramatically. Then you find the next tier of problems, and you fix them. Repeat until satisfied. It's definitely possible, and just a question of finding the right people with the right skills set to get it done.

[Charon]

Thats why you playtest changes. And actually its hard to believe that GW playtests at all. The probably have done this a long time ago but nowadays it just seems like they go with their fixed point costs and not caring much anymore.
I know that writing rules is hard and there will always be loopholes to exploit, but seeing huge issues when you first read the codex is a thing which should never ever happen.
The first two things when I first read the eldar codex:
Jetseer council... wtf?!
Wow serpents are really strong.... curious what they did with the falcon to make him worth... oh... nothing... basically the serpent is a better armed, more durable Falcon with mor transport capacaty that doesnt take a FOC slot. Ok... i guess that was totally playtested and points where adjusted accordingly... oh wait.. no... the serpent is actually cheaper.

These are things that are obvious for example.

[ToHitMod]

Well, I think it'd need to be stronger than just a short FAQ-type document - more like a thorough errata that (eventually) covered the rulebooks and Codexes/expansions. A re-written rules set would be preferable, but that gets into legally murky territory. Best to stay away from that.


Ah, "the internet," that old strawman. I feel bad for the poor guy. He's everything you need, so long as you need him to be wrong.

Really, tho, are there so many people who can afford the costs in both cash and time that 40K requires, but somehow don't find their way online? That seems inconceivable - I mean, it's 2014. The internet isn't some weird sideshow for X-Files fan fetishes anymore - or at least it's not just for that. Hell, even in the web's dim pre-history, 40K players disproportionately found their way online to blabber on the Igcom email lists and Portent forums of their time. The 40K fanbase is synonymous with nerdy, cash-flush white boys who have Opinions. Of course we're on the damned internet.

I've moved around the US a decent amount the past few years, and when I talk to 40K groups, there's nowhere near the wide disparity of opinions that some seem to believe exist in the magical world of "offline 40K". People have the same issues with the game. The same armies/units/combos dominate where people bother to use them, and for all the same reasons they're so loathed and discussed online - they're vastly more useful, on a point-for-point basis, than their counterparts in the game. These are issues that can be fixed, and without a back-breaking amount of work. Get some good solutions worked out for them, and you improve the game dramatically. Then you find the next tier of problems, and you fix them. Repeat until satisfied. It's definitely possible, and just a question of finding the right people with the right skills set to get it done.

Ah the "straw man", the fall back of anyone online who doesn't know what they're talking about (I think I've yet to see "straw man argument" used correctly online, its as bad as "ad hominem" with nerds who want to sound superior, basically, you're talking ****e. You're talking about people that go online, see the things the same 20 people have written all over the internet and take as fact. Most hobbyists simply don't care enough to go online and arue and whine and moan. Most people play at home, they don't hang out all day in gameshops, you'll rarely see most hobbyists, they order models online or pop in to grab the things they want and leave, the smellies that hang out all day and talk to you, they're not the majority, they're like you, whiniers and complainers with no life outside of a game of toy soliders.

[Charon]

I wonder if you are actually able to discuss without outright insulting everyone who has a contrary opinion than yours.

[Dave Mcturk]

"there's nowhere near the wide disparity of opinions that some seem to believe exist in the magical world of "offline 40K". People have the same issues with the game. The same armies/units/combos dominate where people bother to use them, and for all the same reasons they're so loathed and discussed online - they're vastly more useful, on a point-for-point basis, than their counterparts in the game. These are issues that can be fixed, and without a back-breaking amount of work. Get some good solutions worked out for them, and you improve the game dramatically. Then you find the next tier of problems, and you fix them. Repeat until satisfied. It's definitely possible, and just a question of finding the right people with the right skills set to get it done.

^^ this: and for less than 50K GW could even project lead it and keep control of publishing and profit !

[Wolfshade]

Really, tho, are there so many people who can afford the costs in both cash and time that 40K requires, but somehow don't find their way online? That seems inconceivable - I mean, it's 2014. The internet isn't some weird sideshow for X-Files fan fetishes anymore - or at least it's not just for that. Hell, even in the web's dim pre-history, 40K players disproportionately found their way online to blabber on the Igcom email lists and Portent forums of their time. The 40K fanbase is synonymous with nerdy, cash-flush white boys who have Opinions. Of course we're on the damned internet.


I would say, purely anacedotally, that of my gaming group I am the only one that is "active" in the online community. The rest will look at rumours but do not post on fora or anysuch thing. Obviously I can't say how well that scales up but I guess there must be a dichotomy. We also see in the various threads that there are a number of people who are quite vocal both pro and anti 40k/warhmachine etc that don't actively play that system.

[ToHitMod]

Even taking into account the online part of the hobby, as you can see in the thread DarkLink started, is massivley skewed towards casual players and pure hobbyists and collectors, thats who the hobby is and thats who its aimed at, the people who care about balance and competitiveness over having fun and playing with their friends are a small almost statistically insignificant part of the community.

Incidentaly, there are well made and well balanced wargamer rules out there, from people who don't use models and write rules for people to use with any models they want, they're just not well known becuase the demand for such things just isn't very big

[Charon]

I wonder if you nerds can stop spewing your dumb opinions which are seemingly based only on massivley overestimating your own intellect all over the internet.

Its a whole world of wonders out there, there are questions that while echo down through the ages.

So obviously the answer is: no

[Wolfshade]

Please feel free to disagree with each other but you can do so without insulting each other


If in any doubt here are the commenting rules.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_bolsrules

[ToHitMod]

So obviously the answer is: no

Bingo.

[Littha]

Even taking into account the online part of the hobby, as you can see in the thread DarkLink started, is massivley skewed towards casual players and pure hobbyists and collectors, thats who the hobby is and thats who its aimed at, the people who care about balance and competitiveness over having fun and playing with their friends are a small almost statistically insignificant part of the community.


The thing is, speaking as one of the "casual" players/collecters that not being into tournaments does not necessaraly mean I don't want solid rules. I don't say balanced rules here because that is functionally impossible to achieve anyway. What is more desirable to myself at least are rules that are internally consistant, not biased toward one faction or another and maintained with an eye towards fairness.

If the rules of the game were better I would probably play more, as it is I mostly collect and paint my khorne daemons and play a couple of games here and there (1 a month at most). What I do however play a lot of is warmachine, I dont like the fluff as much and while I find the models perfectly acceptable they dont usually have the flair of the GW ones but that matters little when the game is much more fun (to me) to play.

A big part of this is probably due to the way variability affects the outcome of the game. Quite often I will be beaten playing 40k/fantasy through no fault of my own (daemons are particually bad at this) because of the sheer number of random factors and the wild swing of possible results whereas if I lose a (casual) game of warmachine it is nearly always because of some mistake I made or maneuver I didnt see coming from my opponent. I say casual here because tournament games of warmachine have their own issues with particular styles of listbuilding that is endemic to the hobby as a whole, i.e. spamming the most powerful units. The difference being that Privateer press actually publishes eratta and FAQs on a regular basis in an attempt to correct the more aggrevious errors.

tl;dr: Even though my main aim is to collect and paint nice models I will buy less impressive models purely to play a better designed game.

[ToHitMod]

The thing is, speaking as one of the "casual" players/collecters that not being into tournaments does not necessaraly mean I don't want solid rules. I don't say balanced rules here because that is functionally impossible to achieve anyway. What is more desirable to myself at least are rules that are internally consistant, not biased toward one faction or another and maintained with an eye towards fairness.

If the rules of the game were better I would probably play more, as it is I mostly collect and paint my khorne daemons and play a couple of games here and there (1 a month at most). What I do however play a lot of is warmachine, I dont like the fluff as much and while I find the models perfectly acceptable they dont usually have the flair of the GW ones but that matters little when the game is much more fun (to me) to play.

A big part of this is probably due to the way variability affects the outcome of the game. Quite often I will be beaten playing 40k/fantasy through no fault of my own (daemons are particually bad at this) because of the sheer number of random factors and the wild swing of possible results whereas if I lose a (casual) game of warmachine it is nearly always because of some mistake I made or maneuver I didnt see coming from my opponent. I say casual here because tournament games of warmachine have their own issues with particular styles of listbuilding that is endemic to the hobby as a whole, i.e. spamming the most powerful units. The difference being that Privateer press actually publishes eratta and FAQs on a regular basis in an attempt to correct the more aggrevious errors.

tl;dr: Even though my main aim is to collect and paint nice models I will buy less impressive models purely to play a better designed game.


Luck is a big factor in war, this game is set out to tell the stories of a war, sometimes, you can be the better general but things don't work out in your favour. You say Daemons are losing you games through no fault of your own, but its just as likely, statistically that their randomness will work in your favour, if you've played a lot of games and you're losing every time with daemons, the rules aren't the problem.

The rules are solid as long as you play the game in the spirit its intended, there aren't Seercouncil Death-Stars when you play in the spirit intended, no one I know and play with would ever dream of using that in a game, because thats not fun for your opponent, so people don't use it.

If you use a broken unit, you're admitting to breaking the game, if you use a RAW over RAI ruling of a rule, you're admitting that you're breaking the game.

I'm playing in a tournament next month where the rule pack specifically states that the even is supposed to be fun and tells you "don't be a dickhead", this is the kind of attitude wargames had for most of the 20 odd years I've played them, being a cheese-monger was a bad thing and if people used unbeatable deathstars or stuff like that, they were told to **** off.

Competitive people online don't seem to blink about taking these units that will ruin the game for the other person.

I don't know where these competitive people came from, but really, if they wanted a balanced and competitive game, they'd go else where, I can only imagine they like showing up with their broken army and stomping other people to get some validation and when the army they bought changes to be more in line with the fluff and they can't stomp people with it, they whine.

[Charon]

The rules are solid as long as you play the game in the spirit its intended, there aren't Seercouncil Death-Stars when you play in the spirit intended, no one I know and play with would ever dream of using that in a game, because thats not fun for your opponent, so people don't use it.

They are in the codex. They are in the rules. They are in the fluff.

[ToHitMod]

They are in the codex. They are in the rules. They are in the fluff.

They aren't in the fluff, no where in the fluff are there unkillable units of 8 jetbike riding Warlocks lead by 2 Jetbike riding Farseers and an Aurtarch while the Baron rides along with them. That is NOT a fluffy unit by any stretch of the imagination.

Just because the option is there in the codex, doesn't mean you have to use it and that its fair and balanced. If you find a combination thats unfair, YOU SHOULDN'T USE IT

[Charon]

So the rules are good because if we find a unit that is very good we should just ignore it? Hello sanity?

The Baron needs no place in the Jetbikes. The Craftworld you are looking for is Ulthwe.

[Wolfshade]

I agree with the spirit of what ToHitMod says, just because something is permissable in the ruleset doesn't mean that you should do it. But the issue comes when you expect someone else to make the same decision as what you have done. It all comes down to the idea of a social contract and because we are all different we all have different expectations.

A friend of mine a while back started to get back into 40k and he had troops but no vehicles or anti-flyers so when I started playing him I resolved to take a footslogging army as I knew that he had no anti-flyers and would not be able to cope against a full mech list. Nothing in the rules made me do this, but I chose to do so. Another opponent of his took his usual list that included tanks and flyers. The mate in question didn't mind either way, but could have got quite upset that what I thought as being responable someone else didn't.

tl;dr - Just because can do something doesn't mean you should. Just because you do something "fair" don't expect others to do the same.

[Wolfshade]

You were reminded in post 38. If we cannot have a discussion without resulting to insults then this will be closed. Get it back on topic.


If in any doubt here are the commenting rules.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/faq.php?faq=termsmaster#faq_bolsrules

[Littha]

Luck is a big factor in war, this game is set out to tell the stories of a war, sometimes, you can be the better general but things don't work out in your favour. You say Daemons are losing you games through no fault of your own, but its just as likely, statistically that their randomness will work in your favour, if you've played a lot of games and you're losing every time with daemons, the rules aren't the problem.

The problem isn't that I lose game or win games with my daemons, I play Mono-Khorne, I am pretty much resigned to losing most of the time anyway (especially when I use the army in Fantasy).

The problem is that as randomness increases the decisions and skill of a player become less and less important.

Say turn 1 I roll on my warp storm table and for arguments sake we compare the best and worst possible results.

Worst result possible is that my entire army gets double 6s for their instability test and vanish. Through no fault of my own I have lost.

Best possible result my opponents only psyker turns into a herald and ties up his best shooting unit for a turn or two. There is a good chance I would win, again with no merit of my own.

Obviously these two extremes only represent a fraction of the time (approximately once every two games for each) but display the point. That victory or loss can be gained through random factors that sideline the skill and wit of both the players, I find this deeply saddening when it happens.

This randomness influencing outcomes is repeated ad nauseam through mission selection, warlord traits and at least once if not more on every character model in my army for selecting their gifts meaning that the end result of a fight often has more to do with how I roll rather than how well I play.

[Dave Mcturk]

"This randomness influencing outcomes is repeated ad nauseam through mission selection, warlord traits and at least once if not more on every character model in my army for selecting their gifts meaning that the end result of a fight often has more to do with how I roll rather than how well I play."

so you would be happy to help re-write the rules then ?

dont think the green wombles are as stupid as the fraternity thinks; every splinter group that 'houserules' for anything is cementing themselves to the game by involvement; it is pretty unethical though! :rolleyes:

just as an example of community wide changes - almost all tournaments write their own scenarios - based on brb but easier to use and less 'broken' - and most tournaments now are changing 'warlord tables' and banning the 'super D' weapons.

so some changes are 'evolving' without any help from the wombles.

[Littha]

so you would be happy to help re-write the rules then ?

They need to be rewritten but I feel it is the duty of the company, not its consumers to do so.

Besides that, I have a masters degree in games design and I know full well how long and hard it would be for a community based project like that to work.

Ideally you would want to hire at least two designers for 6 months or so full time to do playtesting/balancing. The designers should have different backgrounds, one in probability based math and the other in literature to ensure both mathamatically sound rules as well as thematically pleasing ones.

[Wolfshade]

I agree that it is the duty of the company, but as a bridge you could always create a houserule as long as it is something that your friends agree with.

I have seen things like Nids being able to ally with Guard or Orks on the thematic basis of the old hybrid and cults and a number of little "conventions" that work fine in a very localised meta but may not work in a larger setting.

[Charon]

A friend of mine a while back started to get back into 40k and he had troops but no vehicles or anti-flyers so when I started playing him I resolved to take a footslogging army as I knew that he had no anti-flyers and would not be able to cope against a full mech list. Nothing in the rules made me do this, but I chose to do so. Another opponent of his took his usual list that included tanks and flyers. The mate in question didn't mind either way, but could have got quite upset that what I thought as being responable someone else didn't.

While this works with ppl you KNOW it completely fails if you play random ppl.
Now imagine you play a guy at - say - hobbycenter X. You provide a reasonably allcomer list no real hard elements in it, far away from optimised turnament lists. As it turns out "the guy" doesnt have a single heavy weapon in his list and cant do nothing against your only 2 tanks. Now he starts yelling at you how unfair and cheesy your army is.
He has no valid point. But in his mind, its still unfun. Thats where universal rules are needed.
You can bend the rules all day or ignore it completely when playing with friends. But not all peoply play only against friends.
In our gaming group we restricted allies to the original FOC (you still have to pick the "must have" units but you wont gain additional slots) and banned special characters.
But thats OUR gaming group. The entire rules section of this board would be basically useless because every answer would be "doesnt exist in our games" or "we houseruled it"

[Wolfshade]

Oh I agree. The vast majority of my games are part of my local "group" we are just a group of firneds who all enjoy similiar things not a formal gaming group.
Becuase of people's different views you need a "universal source of truth"