PDA

View Full Version : New 40k Rules Design Blog - looking for writers/editors



Atrotos
02-10-2010, 01:35 PM
Hey guys,

I'm putting together a site that I hope will become a nexus for 40k game designers. A source of fresh rules that will liven the hobby and provide much the same thing BoLS did when they still produced mini-dexes.

I'm looking for writers that are commited to quality that can contribute the following:


New units and characters complete with background blurbs and pictures
Articles related to game balance, custom rules in competitive play, and anything related to custom rules
Net staff to help organize/moderate the site and edit material


Anybody interested in contributing should take pride in their work and make sure their schedules allow for frequent updates. We can work together to minimize small mistakes such as grammar and typos.

I'm also looking for people (Madness I'm looking at you) with experience in Desktop Publishing to help compile our combined efforts into regular PDF releases that will adhere to the same quality standard of the BoLS mini-dexs.

Things I hope to accomplish:


Regular Custom Rules Updates several pages long
Character Desing Competitions with limited prize support
A healthy following that accepts Rules Manufactorum as an alternate source of playble rules
To make custom rules a widely accepted part of tournaments and competitive play


Post some contact info/ writing sample in the thread or PM me if you're interested in working with me.

Master Bryss
02-10-2010, 01:53 PM
That last aim of yours looks really, really tough actually.

I'd like to help out but I only actually started writing full custom rules for as long as I've been on this forum, and I'm worried that I'm not yet 'fully trained' so to speak.

I'm relatively free at any time that isnt an exam period, which is now and May. And by relatively free I mean 'nothing whatsover to do.'

You know full well what I'm capable of right now, since you're my main critic.

I've got a few ideas in the pipeline once I've done all the units in the Dark Eldar WIP, see my recently-started BoLS blog for more details.

If I'm not ready yet, I'll be watching this site of yours anyway.

Herald of Nurgle
02-10-2010, 02:24 PM
That last aim of yours looks really, really tough actually.

I'd like to help out but I only actually started writing full custom rules for as long as I've been on this forum, and I'm worried that I'm not yet 'fully trained' so to speak.

I'm relatively free at any time that isnt an exam period, which is now and May. And by relatively free I mean 'nothing whatsover to do.'

You know full well what I'm capable of right now, since you're my main critic.

I've got a few ideas in the pipeline once I've done all the units in the Dark Eldar WIP, see my recently-started blog for more details.

If I'm not ready yet, I'll be watching this site of yours anyway.
Likewise.

Atrotos
02-11-2010, 07:56 AM
The concept of a "fully trained" game designer made me laugh. GW's been at it for more than a quarter of a century and they still mess up sometimes.

You guys were exactly the kind of writers I wanted on the site in the first place.

What I would like is, rather than a full codex effort, to design new units or characters that are present in novels and background or old codecies. This could be an Iron Hands father or Blood Pact rules that plug directly into the IG codex etc.
The idea being that it will be easier for people to accept single units that they feel should be in the game already. My thinking is that's easier to ask for a pick-up game using a single non-codex rule or unit than to ask a stranger to play with a whole homebrew codex that shares few similarities with anything they know.

I would like your writing to emulate game's workshop wherever possible. For instance when dealing with a wargear description GW tends to give two paragraphs: the first about how the wargear works in theory and the second about how it performs in game. This emulation will help us win over people who are skeptical about homegrown rules because it will give them something they are familiar with.

Write things you are familiar with and love - the extra attention you give it will show.

Finally I'd each custom rule we put up to have at least some artwork accompany it. This could artwork or a model you yourself have converted.

Send me your projects or articles: [email protected]

Eventually I hope Rules Manufactorum can become the home of my Stellans or Bryss' Angels of Secrecy and other more personal projects but I would like to see the site gain some momentum before then.

Thanks guys

Lord Azaghul
02-11-2010, 09:27 AM
Just a minor suggestion. (and taking a page out of gw's book)

You have pretty loft goals, and that will take a while to achieve, so you'll need to start with easy to access, spoon feed ideas.

I think it would be easier to start with a few of your own scenarios first. Create a few overall, field effective rules. Don't make up/create any new units, but build simple rules lending to easy adaptation.
Like some of stuff we see on GW homepage, and in WD.

Once these get acceptance the next step would be a new unit idea or two.

Master Bryss
02-11-2010, 10:25 AM
(Yes! I worked out how to do this 'answer each bit of a quote' method!)


The concept of a "fully trained" game designer made me laugh. GW's been at it for more than a quarter of a century and they still mess up sometimes.

You guys were exactly the kind of writers I wanted on the site in the first place.

Thanks, it's good to be appreciated. Although it does suggest to me that articles that give advice on writing rules might also be a good idea.


What I would like is, rather than a full codex effort, to design new units or characters that are present in novels and background or old codecies. This could be an Iron Hands father or Blood Pact rules that plug directly into the IG codex etc.
The idea being that it will be easier for people to accept single units that they feel should be in the game already. My thinking is that's easier to ask for a pick-up game using a single non-codex rule or unit than to ask a stranger to play with a whole homebrew codex that shares few similarities with anything they know.

Agreed. Designing a complete new race from scratch is difficult. If it fits the theme of the army, go with it. The Pit of Slaves is my best example of this.


I would like your writing to emulate game's workshop wherever possible. For instance when dealing with a wargear description GW tends to give two paragraphs: the first about how the wargear works in theory and the second about how it performs in game. This emulation will help us win over people who are skeptical about homegrown rules because it will give them something they are familiar with.

Write things you are familiar with and love - the extra attention you give it will show.

In other words, I have to write the full fluff at the same time as the rules. But GW's style isn't that hard to do. Although it might help if we use slightly clearer words. Malan'Tai Syndrome is a bad thing.


Finally I'd like each custom rule we put up to have at least some artwork accompany it. This could artwork or a model you yourself have converted.

Send me your projects or articles: [email protected]

I'm alright at drawing (manual only though) when I have a source, but full converted minis is hard on my budget. This will be the hardest thing for me, for sure.


Eventually I hope Rules Manufactorum can become the home of my Stellans or Bryss' Angels of Secrecy and other more personal projects but I would like to see the site gain some momentum before then.

Thanks guys

You read my blog then. The AoS are a pretty radical Chapter, as you'll see once I write the things. But I'm really pleased with their motives and such.

If all goes to plan I'll playtest an early version of the Instinctive Behaviour Battle scenario at the weekend. Which leads me to think that batreps using custom rules (you've already done one of these (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=3763)) would be good. I think I'm pretty good at writing these, if you haven't already seen my battle report have a look and tell me what you think (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=4629).

Atrotos
02-11-2010, 03:59 PM
@ Lord Azaghul: I think you'll find it's much more difficult and contentious to design scenarios than it is to design unit entries. For that matter I seem to encounter way more people disillusioned with GW's codecies than with their rulebook.

Why don't you tell us what you would like to see added to your army? Something that's suggested in the fluff but never got to have a points value? Perhaps if you saw how custom rules can make your gaming a more carefree, pleasant experience you'd change your mind about how difficult it is to change others' minds.

@Master Bryss: Man that multi-quote is sick. Gotta get me one of those.

- Damn I've got to go... movie starts in 30 mins

In a nutshell: Artwork doesn't have to be you're artwork, it just needs citation.
Start with units everyone will want to see - AoS and Space Marine characters can be a good start plus if it's your army you're more likely to invest in converted/unique models.
I like the Pit of Slaves but I love the Soul Prison
Batreps are good but it will be a while before we get enough units together to make a "feature" out of it

Thanks for the support Bryss

Lord Azaghul
02-11-2010, 04:20 PM
@ Lord Azaghul: I think you'll find it's much more difficult and contentious to design scenarios than it is to design unit entries. For that matter I seem to encounter way more people disillusioned with GW's codecies than with their rulebook.

Why don't you tell us what you would like to see added to your army? Something that's suggested in the fluff but never got to have a points value? Perhaps if you saw how custom rules can make your gaming a more carefree, pleasant experience you'd change your mind about how difficult it is to change others' minds.



I will respectfully disagree.

A group of friends and myself get together once a month. We just finished a long multi-month campaign. We all designed and pointed our own special characters. Characters were then approved by the group - without play testing. We found some characters were far undercosted, where changing one little stat or combining the best of two characters was really too much.
We also added our own special rules for the campaign - again we found that those of us make over the top characters were improved even more so my 'abusing' these new rules.
I have found more people to be overall content with the rules set that are provided to them.

The hardest part is of course getting other to agree with what you want to do!

Now scenarios on the other hand don't change the codex'. They merely change a few factors for the purpose of one game. I have found scenarios are easier to accept by others. Your not changing how there unit is now autokilled my your unit, your changed how the table effects both players.

Honest: I play guard and I like my army. I think the book has a few flaws, but I just wouldn't dream of bringing in stormtroopers and telling my opponent that I only paid 12 points a model for them 'cause that's what they are worth. I just don't take stormtroopers.

Now if I say today where going to play our game with explosive dangerous terrain. Or each side can set 3d booby traps and explain how booby traps work. I'm more likely to get my ideas through, and then after a while once people have grown accustom to trying non-standard things they would be more willing to create and (more importaintly) play against custom units that others have created.

I'm not trying to attack your efforts. I just believe that it will be every difficult to get things accepted. Most people will view this has sort of 'reinventing the wheel'.

Madness
02-11-2010, 07:51 PM
@Master Bryss: Man that multi-quote is sick. Gotta get me one of those.
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/images/visioncollison/buttons/multiquote_off.gif is your friend.

Atrotos
02-11-2010, 09:18 PM
I will respectfully disagree.

A group of friends and myself get together once a month. We just finished a long multi-month campaign. We all designed and pointed our own special characters. Characters were then approved by the group - without play testing. We found some characters were far undercosted, where changing one little stat or combining the best of two characters was really too much.
We also added our own special rules for the campaign - again we found that those of us make over the top characters were improved even more so my 'abusing' these new rules.

Wouldn't the solution to this problem just be to not make "over the top" characters? Personally I'm a fan of subtle units and rules - not Calgar + Storm Shield + Feel No Pain (exaggerating to make a point). I find it fascinating that we could have such different experiences - as we speak I am taking part in a long campaign with custom characters. Most of us focused on FOC changing characters and no one's character was above 175 points. This because we all felt that the game already had enough "muscle-head" characters. We were looking for ways to make our armies more interesting without re-writing the whole codex.

For example one friend of mine wrote rules for a Command Sentinel HQ which had a custom M. Launcher, BS 4 and made Sentinels a Troop choice. Simple, and an elegant way to play a totally 'new' army using the same codex.




I have found more people to be overall content with the rules set that are provided to them.


I've never met a player that had no complaints about their codex.





Now scenarios on the other hand don't change the codex'. They merely change a few factors for the purpose of one game. I have found scenarios are easier to accept by others. Your not changing how there unit is now autokilled my your unit, your changed how the table effects both players.

Now if I say today where going to play our game with explosive dangerous terrain. Or each side can set 3d booby traps and explain how booby traps work. I'm more likely to get my ideas through, and then after a while once people have grown accustom to trying non-standard things they would be more willing to create and (more importaintly) play against custom units that others have created.



I find it fascinating that "explosive area terrain" was easier to accept in your group than custom units. Just goes to show the game is different everywhere. You're assumption that this change to area terrain affects all players the same is not entirely true though. Consider the advantage you give mechanized armies over non-mechanized for instance. Or the advantage that Plague Marines will have over Orks.

My point here is that it's much harder to make additional mission parameters that affect every army equally. Changes to the core rules will affect some armies much more than others. On the other hand giving players the option to make their Chimeras BS 4 for +15 pts to represent a more elite force gives the player the chance to field whatever army he imagines without really affecting the game.




Honest: I play guard and I like my army. I think the book has a few flaws, but I just wouldn't dream of bringing in stormtroopers and telling my opponent that I only paid 12 points a model for them 'cause that's what they are worth. I just don't take stormtroopers.



^This is a MASSIVE problem. It should never, ever happen that a player who has spent money, time and effort collecting and assembling models won't use them because Mr. X at GW central had a headache the day he wrote their rules.

That said, simply reducing the cost is not the solution - recosting things downward is very ill received and hard to do properly. In the campaign I mentioned above I designed a character that made Storm Troopers Troops at the exclusion of vets and Platoons. By basing him off of the existing Senior Officer I was able to balance the character well changing my army to match the theme I wanted with no real change to the feel of the game itself.



The hardest part is of course getting other to agree with what you want to do!


With the minimalist approach to rules design that I encourage this is less of an issue. With good quality codecies such as Imperial Guard or Orks small changes are all we need to combine the framework that GW has given us with the unique army we all want to field.

Thanks for the response. Constructive criticism such as yours is just the kind I look forward to.

Master Bryss
02-12-2010, 06:10 AM
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/images/visioncollison/buttons/multiquote_off.gif is your friend.

When I used that button, it just changed the plus symbol to a minus. I just copied and pasted the code a few times.

@Atrotos: As for custom characters, I'll mail you my version of Hervald Strom soonish. He's mentioned in passing a few times in C:SM, so I think I can make a good job of him.

DarkLink
02-12-2010, 12:18 PM
All it does is change from + to -. However, when you hit reply/quote, it will add all the comments marked with a - to your reply.

Atrotos
02-12-2010, 05:38 PM
All it does is change from + to -. However, when you hit reply/quote, it will add all the comments marked with a - to your reply.

Oohhh, that makes sense. Thanks.

Any chance we could get your input on this blog Darklin? We haven't got any Grey Knight experts as yet - how about a spread on ideas for Grey Knight special rules?

Atrotos
02-12-2010, 08:35 PM
First unit entries are up!