open40K

[Naysmith]

Hello BolS,

in a german forum some fans just started an open40k project. The idea is to take a sharp look at Warhammer 40000 as it is. And check each and every component if it´s fit to stay or should be changed.

So i thought i just gather some ideas. Because i think it´s important that we devolp open40k for the playerbase to really get rid of those stuff that anoys most of us.

Please tell me what you would like to see changed and even throw in some ideas if you have some.

Another thing is important. Who should decide which rules to take?

1. The playerbase.
The developers present some of the alternative concepts in detail after chosing out of the ideas pool. The player vote for the one they like best.

2. The developers.
The developers discuss each and every idea and the chose and decide which is best to make 40k a better game.

Thank you for yor help.

cya

[Charon]

Always the developers.
The players can add thousands of ideas to play around with (most of them you would not even have considered), they can show you perceived issues and loopholes... the internet is huge and can figure out things very fast.
But in the end its the developers job to take all these pieces, test them, discard them, change them,... and build a working system. Players can reach a compromise when they are few enought... if you have thousands there wont be any meaningful compromise without twisting the initial idea so hard that it is nothing like it was planned before.
Thats why we have democracy... its not working but its the best system we have so far.

[Pssyche]

Design by Commitee?
Nein, danke...

[Defenestratus]

Doomed for failure, this.

[ElectricPaladin]

It has to be the developers. They should take the ideas of the players into consideration, of course, but there needs to be unity among the actual creators, or it will look like a game designed by committee.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

It has to be the developers. They should take the ideas of the players into consideration, of course, but there needs to be unity among the actual creators, or it will look like a game designed by committee.

That comment makes me laugh, because that seems (as far as I can see) to be basically how GW do it already.
Listen to the customer base a bit, and do what they think is right for the most part.
Still i applaud this project for what it is, and wish it all the best.

[ElectricPaladin]

Well, you know, honestly, I think that this is one of the things GW does well.

Apart from the endless *****ing and moaning of the tournament base, most 40k players want a fun, nutty, beer-and-pretzels game. I think we'd like a better balanced fun, nutty, beer-and-pretzel's game, and I'm convinced that GW is doing its best to provide that, they just... suck at it.

[Gotthammer]

Doomed for failure, this.

Whilst I perhaps wouldn't have phrased it so directly, I agree with the sentiment - I'm yet to see any of the attempts to rewrite 40k (or most concepts of fan codexes tbh) actually come to fruition.

Edit: wasn't there a really similar thread not long ago too?

[Charon]

That comment makes me laugh, because that seems (as far as I can see) to be basically how GW do it already.
Listen to the customer base a bit, and do what they think is right for the most part.
Still i applaud this project for what it is, and wish it all the best.

The main issue seems to be marketing involvement. They have to take their sales (and memos from marketing) into consideration when writing the rules. While its clear they cant just add a unit which is not produced or just get rid of existing products without a complete overhaul of the product line (eg just delete greater daemons) they have to listen to other calls too. "Hey our X doesnt sell well see to it that we sell more X".
A developer team with no GW relations doesnt have these limitations. They will come from the playerbase (wtf? why did you erase Kroot??!) to some extend but you wont be forced to make a unit "cool" just because it sells badly... or make a unit "suck" to make your customers buy even more of the "cool" units.

[Defenestratus]

While I laud their efforts, the problem with these community-based rulesets is that it only takes one dude at the LGS to make it completely invalid. All it takes is one rule in the set that makes your army stink on ice and it totally ruins it.

[unityvybe]

I understand something like this for the tourney crowd sure. As far as I am concerned in my small microcosm of gaming. I could care less. When I go to the FLGS or when I play at my home in the garage (on the amazing table I built myself). I don't have to play that WAAC guy with the army list of the moment and even if I do, it's just a game. Don't get me wrong I do enjoy the wins I get, but at the same time it's the time I spend gaming I enjoy the most regardless of winning or loosing.

[Defenestratus]

Given what I've read about the upcoming changes to the FOC in the new WD, I'm 100% behind fan-created rulesets.

Can't be worse than what GW is about to come out with.

[Naysmith]

Hello again :).

First things first. Thank you for voting!

Second i would like to see some clearly formulated ideas or critics to know what the playerbase wants to change.
Where do you see a problem?

I think it ist completely insane to assume a developers team is able to create a ruleset most, if not all, are happy with, if the players dont say whats wrong. To really get going we would need the input of more than just 12 people telling me it is a good idea but it wont work in the end ;).

So give us some opinions what you would like to see changed.

Thanks for your effort.

cya

[Pssyche]

Just so we're absolutely clear, I didn't say it was a good idea that won't work in the end.
I said "Design by Committee? Nein, Danke. (No, thanks)"
To be more explicit, I think it's a shocking idea.

And you accuse Games Workshop of not listening...

[Wolfshade]

The problems of open design and such have been documented many times, unlike Necromunda or BloodBowl, 40k is still creating new units and is orders of mangitude larger and more complex.

Then once you have deconstructed the rule set you end up with one group that then thinks that the Open40k rule set is clunky and non-playable or favours certain armies/builds so then set out on their own project to "fix" open40k and you divide and subdivide down to the point where no one can play anyone outside of their local gaming group because they all play slightly different variations on the core rules.

[Naysmith]

@ Pssyche

Sorry mate i never accused GW of anything. :).

@ Wolfshade

If we fail, hey ok then we fail. No problem and who cares! But at least we should try dont you think?.

But thats quite of topic. I would like to read some ideas for a change rather than apprehensions.

cya

[Wolfshade]

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?42944-We-need-better-rules-and-codices-DIY
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?40975-What-House-Rules-do-you-use

[Caitsidhe]

I think the solution is fairly simple, but tedious. A value in points has to be calculated for stats, equipment, and each special rule. In this way each and every unit is repriced to abide by said costs which goes a long way toward balancing things. Then you can either toss all Force Org or retool it. In general, if people pay fair prices for a unit Force Org becomes less important. This kind of redo of the rules is a lot of work and should make the game just as solid for fluff or tournament players. The key word is work and thus why Games Workshop has no interest in it.

A final step could be adjusting a few odd special rules or situations which are broken, but by in large it is pricing. The method I used was simply to find the "Joe Average" Stats which appears to be the (3)s. Each increase above three should cost something, while each reduction below it provides something back. The costs for increases should not be flat but proportional, i.e. the point cost increase for going from a three to a four should be less expensive than that of going from a four to a five. The base cost for a model with nothing but 3s in Attributes, no special rules, and equipment that is all STR-3 and AP- should probably be about 5pts. Models that suck even harder by having a reduced Attribute here and there could get a little cheaper. Like I said, it is very tedious. It is something that should have been done by the Game Designers from the start.

[Wolfshade]

There have been attempts to re-point cost (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?33098-A-New-Approach-to-Unit-Balance-and-Costing-an-Open-Letter-to-GW)

The biggest issue though is situational concerns.

If I take a flamer against a horde list, it is very useful, if I take it against an armoured list it is useless.
If I take a meltagun against an armoured list it is very useful, if I take it against a horde list it is near useless.
If I take a graviton gun against light infantry it is not great, take it against heavy infantry then it is good.

It is like "Preferred Enemy: Orks", really useful playing against Orks, literally pointless against every other army.

It is this situational problems which makes a point costing a very hard thing to calculate.

This is before you start to consider the effects of synergy.

So imagine the situation whereby there is a devastatingly powerful gun, against all targets, now this should have a high points cost. Now if this weapon could only be weilded by a very low BS1 troop, then the actual points cost of that would need to be reduced to take into account that it might only hit once per game, if the troop firing survive untill turn 6.

Then how do you cost a unit that gives a buff.

The benefit of Guide & Doom on Dark Reapers is arguably the best use of them, but then those powers used in the same way on say Swooping Hawks is a lot less beneficial.

So do you try and work out all of the situations and average them, or cost them for the optimal situation, or the msot sub-optimal.

I mean, just looking at the armies (before we consider allies and detachments) straight up single FOC no allies there are 136 different match ups. Multiply that up by all different army compositions and unit choices and wargear choices and soon we are talking several million million (million) combinations.

[Dave Mcturk]

unfortunately the question is poorly phrased. the developers - if they have the nerve to call themselves that - have an almost total monopoly on the overall game design - by virtue of both manufacturing and selling EVERYTHING.

players always have the rules option to "do anything".

i think most groups of players be they 'club' or 'garage' have developed their own house rules - for units, for mechanics, for scenarios and for organisation - this is a GOOD THING!

but for any games system to work over larger distances [ie outside of a very small community] it needs some effort from the PUBLISHERS to keep it balanced, coherent and enjoyable. This conflicts with the bottom line goal of MAXIMISED SALES at MAXIMISED PRICE.

So pay your money and make your choice. Our house rules vary greatly from the basic rule set. But we are HAPPY.

[iplaythisgame]

Unfortunately there is not points parity to the staple(Compulsory) units in the game. Unless they sit down to attempt to balance this, I doubt it would be much better in a competitively balanced sense.