Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

40K needs to be rewritten, BADLY!!!!

9K views 114 replies 46 participants last post by  Viscount Vash 
#1 · (Edited)
There needs to be AT LEAST two different versions of this game!

I've stopped playing because people are all about competition and the people who would rather just convert some awesome models and play scenario games are getting screwed by the new rules systems. There's a butt load of special rules and counter rules and meta-gaming that have ruined the game for me. I have almost no interest in playing it, but I still feel the burning need to cleanse, purge, and kill the unclean.

I propose there be a competition set of rules with a rule book and codecies (as it is now) and a lighter version that isn't completely compatible but comes as a single book full of all the rules needed to play all the major armies in a fun and fast way.

This faster version would have all the cool rules we love as scenario players, such as VDR(vehicle design rules) and MDR (monster design rules). The scenario book would be thicker and cost more than the competition core rule book but it would have more in it and be thicker. I realize this sounds like a contradiction (simplify the rules but make more of them), but the little special character rules are a lot harder to keep track of, than a rule that is universal for both armies playing.

The competition core rule book could cut out a lot of the fluff to make it thinner and easier to carry to tournaments.

I think these changes are LONG overdue. But if it were up to me, I would produce THREE versions of the rule book. I would also post a digital copy of a more realistic rule book online. The 40K "Realism" rules would expand weapon ranges and make bombardment pieces, such as the Basilisk and Deathstrike unusable on anything but massive tables (more than 10 feet).

Discuss.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Well their isn't anything stopping you and your mates having a friendly game.

You don't have to follow the rulebook 100%, you can have house rules, create your own scenarios etc.

As you said, the majority of players are competitive. Now, as a business, GW want to appeal to them, as they are the main consumers. Why would they produce lots of books like what you suggested for the minority?

And at the end of the day, like I just said, you can create your own stuff based around what you want.
 
#24 · (Edited)
As you said, the majority of players are competitive. Now, as a business, GW want to appeal to them, as they are the main consumers. Why would they produce lots of books like what you suggested for the minority?
I dont think that is right. There have been a number of polls on Warseer asking if people are competitive or more casual. In all the polls I saw casual or a middle ground won by a long shot. If I used my gaming group as an example we have around 30 w40k players and I would say about 5 are massivly competitive as always asking for competitive games each time they play.
There was also a poll asking if people had been to tournaments official or unofficial and next to none had actually been to a tournament.
I know warseer is not where all the gw gamers go and I know a massive amount dont post on online forums but it was some good data none the less.
The tournament scene is a tiny tiny amount of gamers. I think GW actually appeals more to the casual side of the game.

To the op its easy to make a fluff list and still be competitive. The fluffness I find comes out more in the paint and hobby side than the rules.
 
#3 ·
My friends and i had just this discussion, we fixed it by allowing units form 3rd ed codexes onwards in apocalypse games, as well as vdr, mdr rules. This allows over the top fluffy characters from say the 3.5 edition chaos codex as well as special rules armies like the legion of the damned list etc. It just means you have to play in private clubs instead of in gw stores.
 
#5 ·
There needs to be AT LEAST two different versions of this game!
That's all we need, yet another way to divide the hobby into secular groups.

I've stopped playing because people are all about competition and the people who would rather just convert some awesome models and play scenario games are getting screwed by the new rules systems.
What game are you playing? :shok: Seriously, what? You're going to have to expand on this because I have no idea how hobbyists are getting screwed by the new rules.

There's a butt load of special rules and counter rules and meta-gaming that have ruined the game for me. I have almost no interest in playing it, but I still feel the burning need to cleanse, purge, and kill the unclean.
Dude, suck it up. Meta-gaming is part of how these things work. Any game that is constantly changing and evolving has a meta - it's just the way of things.

The rest of your post is pretty much one giant contradiction. You're saying you want a game that plays faster and simpler, yet has complex rules like designing your own vehicles and monsters (and probably characters too)? It doesn't work like that. If you want the game to play fast and smooth, you want to minimize the number of rules there are to remember and write them in an extremely clear fashion, not add more and more to bog the game down.

"Little special character rules" are not hard to keep track of. To use an example that almost everyone can relate to, how hard is it to remember that all your melta and flamer weapons are twin-linked and that all your thunder hammers are master-crafted if Vulkan is in the army?

Answer: Not very hard.

All in all, I'd have to say that I'm really not at all a fan of the proposed ideas.
 
#7 ·
That's all we need, yet another way to divide the hobby into secular groups.
Gotta say it always has been. There are always gamers more focussed on winning then having a laugh, just like there are always people who want to paint a model over spending hours on their army list. i've never been a seriously competative player but i still came up with tounament builds for 3rd and 4th ed. I wouldn't even try to build a competative army now, i feel it would just be one of the cut outs that seem to be run in this edition.

What game are you playing? :shok: Seriously, what? You're going to have to expand on this because I have no idea how hobbyists are getting screwed by the new rules.
I'm assuming this relates to the nerfing of a lot of the old special rules. The imperial guard traits, the chaos deamonic gifts, the index astartes specialist chapter rules. All of these added layers to the game which made each encounter interesting. It was never enough to know you were fighting marines cause they could be anything fromflesh tearers to imperial fists and all had their own special niches. I still feel that the 5th ed rules have taken a big chunk of this flavour which is why my group still plays a big chunk of the old rules.

Dude, suck it up. Meta-gaming is part of how these things work. Any game that is constantly changing and evolving has a meta - it's just the way of things.
Harsh much?


The rest of your post is pretty much one giant contradiction. You're saying you want a game that plays faster and simpler, yet has complex rules like designing your own vehicles and monsters (and probably characters too)? It doesn't work like that. If you want the game to play fast and smooth, you want to minimize the number of rules there are to remember and write them in an extremely clear fashion, not add more and more to bog the game down.

"Little special character rules" are not hard to keep track of. To use an example that almost everyone can relate to, how hard is it to remember that all your melta and flamer weapons are twin-linked and that all your thunder hammers are master-crafted if Vulkan is in the army?

Answer: Not very hard.

All in all, I'd have to say that I'm really not at all a fan of the proposed ideas.
I'll agree that the new rules streamline things pretty well but can't help but feel we're approaching the limit of streamlining without compromising creativity.
I believe that what the op was trying to suggest was not to get rid of the current ed of rules, but to republish or rewrite the older edition rules which had so much extra toppings on that you couldn't fit the whole thing in your mouth without cutting it into potions.
this way fans of the 5th ed rules could happily carry on playing as they are now and tournies etc could be played with the 5th ed rules. Us storyline gamers who miss playing with the crazy overbalanced armies would have a 5th ed S-type (storyline edition) that was horribley broken but in which a squad of space marines could have any number of rules depending on their chapter.

Clearly you are a fan of the new rules or you wouldn't have argued so angri...passionately against the idea. The point remains that there are still oldschool gamers who strongly dislike the new rules. I for one could be happy playing version 4 rules but as all of the new codexes are produced in the 5th ed format and are less and less compatible with the old stuff it makes it increasingly difficult incorperate new and old together.
 
#6 ·
The idea of a "Competition" version and a "casual" version of the games has come up before. It isn't a bad idea, per se, but it won't ever happen really. It would split GWs IP, make the game more complex for beginners (as you have 2 versions to choose between! Two lots of rules to learn.), and they'd have to put out two complete versions of the rules for not much gain. Lots of downsides really.

They should try to balance the rules between armies and between units a bit more though. If there were less comparitively bad choices, then it would be easier to just play what you like the look of, without reference to how well it performs on the battlefield. If only they would...

Personally, if they rewrote the rules, I wish they'd make special rules for units easier to reference. There are some units where you have to go though 4 pages of a codex to actually find out their full rules (Psychic power rules, special rules page, equipment page, their own page, and maybe a the equipment page will reference another units page for it's rules!). Now, I know the rules extremely well, but I've seen this bog down newer players quite a lot before. Privateer press does well with including it's Stat cards with every model/unit sold, which gives all the stats and special rules for that model, and which you can easily keep with you at all times. GWs system is far more customisable, so that probably wouldn't work, but you could still put a rules summary sheet in with all the relevant special rules for the unit in one place in the codex. It would be handy.

So yeah, 40k doesn't need to be rewritten badly, but some streamlining, and some balancing between forces, would help when they do.
 
#8 ·
Sorry to double post but what if these overpowered rules were marketed in a similar way to apocalypse and planetfall. An expansion rather then a full rules set, including a lot of older rules that were phased out this edition and relevent modifications to make them more balanced. Call it warhammer 40k veteran units. Include rules which can be added to existing codexes to change how they play, include the vdr rules etc. Effectively you wouldn't need a whole new rulebook and codex, just a list of things you could add by using this expansion.
 
#9 ·
That would be something I would like to see; something that allows you to create imensly characterful units. Sure Imperial Guard veteran squads are cool, but I want a sniper that can no-scope baddies on the run; relentless please. I want a guy duel weilding bolt pistols!

I think having something like this, allowing you to create eilite squads would be a great expansion, and I'm not talking about Kill Team; I'm talking about an Army of Veterans; survivors of a decade long siege, feral worlders on a post apocolyptic wasteland. stuff like that.
 
#10 ·
Like the others have said play with your friends, that way you can do what ever you want, and thousands of people play 40k with homebrew rules.

If you want anything more than that then you’re being delusional that ranting about it here @ heresy will change anything. GW does not really care what we say here, and so any discussion along the lines of "40k should be like insert dumb idea " is a waste of time and breath.
 
#15 ·
I think your very educated statement can be summed up by one simple yet very powerful word. That word is !!!!FAIL!!!! :)

Who is that directed to? its the equivalent of somebody typing POO in caps and hitting "Submit Reply"


I don't see a reason for people to get all chaffed in the crack over a game.

If you don't like the complexity of the rules as written, write your own set of rules or delete/ignore the points in the main rules or in the codices you do not like.
40K, since its inception back in the mid 1980's, has always had the integrated ability for the gamer to change, delete, modify or outright ignore the rules as written and take the game in any direction conceivable. It even says, in black and white print in the rule book that the rules do not matter all that much, and that enjoying the experience is what is most important. There is only one good option to exercise, and that is to be proactive and change it to suite you and your gaming friends abilities and tastes, because complaining about it fixes nothing.
Oh thats where your wrong sir, complaining fixes EVERYTHING. But I guess your logic makes sense too... :(

Chaosftw
 
#14 ·
I don't see a reason for people to get all chaffed in the crack over a game.

If you don't like the complexity of the rules as written, write your own set of rules or delete/ignore the points in the main rules or in the codices you do not like.
40K, since its inception back in the mid 1980's, has always had the integrated ability for the gamer to change, delete, modify or outright ignore the rules as written and take the game in any direction conceivable. It even says, in black and white print in the rule book that the rules do not matter all that much, and that enjoying the experience is what is most important. There is only one good option to exercise, and that is to be proactive and change it to suite you and your gaming friends abilities and tastes, because complaining about it fixes nothing.
 
#16 ·
There needs to be AT LEAST two different versions of this game!
LOLS :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Yeah because that would make the game easier. Have 2 different rules for the same in game issue has always worked out well in the past.

I've stopped playing because people are all about competition and the people who would rather just convert some awesome models and play scenario games are getting screwed by the new rules systems. There's a butt load of special rules and counter rules and meta-gaming that have ruined the game for me. I have almost no interest in playing it, but I still feel the burning need to cleanse, purge, and kill the unclean.
This, honestly, sounds like nothing but crap. You can still play scenario games, there are 3 expansions (PlanetStrike, Apoc, and CoD) and the Battle Missions books. There's even the Planetary Empires "expansion" to add flavor to any scenario type of game.

I'm not quite sure of what "special rules and counter rules" you're referring to in the main rule book so I can't comment on that, but your statement about meta-gaming shows you lack an understanding of what meta-gaming actually is.

Heres a secret, when you buy a codex and then buy the troops you think are cool in the codex, YOU'RE META-GAMING!

I propose there be a competition set of rules with a rule book and codecies (as it is now) and a lighter version that isn't completely compatible but comes as a single book full of all the rules needed to play all the major armies in a fun and fast way.
Why would you have the "heavier" version of the game be the competition? For Competition you want the games to go faster so you can get more games in.

This faster version would have all the cool rules we love as scenario players, such as VDR(vehicle design rules) and MDR (monster design rules). The scenario book would be thicker and cost more than the competition core rule book but it would have more in it and be thicker. I realize this sounds like a contradiction (simplify the rules but make more of them), but the little special character rules are a lot harder to keep track of, than a rule that is universal for both armies playing.
I'm confused. You don't like all the "special rules" in the current rule book but you're encouraging creating a rule book for rules to make custom vehicle's and monsters? You're right it doesn't sound like a contradiction, it IS a contradiction.

Furious Charge is too much to know about, but being able to write up your own vehicle and monsters from scratch is easier?

The competition core rule book could cut out a lot of the fluff to make it thinner and easier to carry to tournaments.
Just to let you know they have done this already. This book came with the AOBR set.

I think these changes are LONG overdue. But if it were up to me, I would produce THREE versions of the rule book. I would also post a digital copy of a more realistic rule book online. The 40K "Realism" rules would expand weapon ranges and make bombardment pieces, such as the Basilisk and Deathstrike unusable on anything but massive tables (more than 10 feet).

Discuss.
3 versions? 3? For what, expanding weapon range? Would you extend movement range too? I'm not sure how that would add to realism, as it's just increasing the measurement scale.

I gotta say that Unforgiven302 had the best idea for dealing with rules issues that you have. You playing a game with your buddies, you throw out the rules you don't like.

Just don't expect to walk into a FLGS and get a pick up game where you're picking and choosing which rules are ok.
 
#18 ·
I still cant figure out why he is so bitter... I mean I know 3 gents that have extremely competitive guard lists. Like disgustingly competitive. I envy the fire power they bring to the table.. I mean I think guard can triple the amount of heavy weapon power that anyone else can in the same point size army... thats good enough in my books lol

good sum up Winterous >.>

Chaosftw
 
#19 ·
I don't really get the problem. I find that making fluffy fun lists is fairly easy, and i can still consistently get at least get a Draw against most armies with BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD HURHIHFIHGAAAAR! type lists (well, except against IG).

Between Platetstrike/Cities/Apoc/BMissions there are more than enough non-standard scenarios to keep most people happy, and you can house-rule to make them even more diverse.
 
#23 ·
I don't understand the OP's issue in any sense of the problem.

40k is a fair game, all armies roughly equal; a good split between competitive and friendly game and it's got adaptable rules.

There is nothing true about your statement saying the game is against people just converting, or whatever rubbish that was.

If you think a game sucks, don't play it? You wouldn't run around saying Monopoly's rules should be changed, just because you suck at it.

All it takes a minor amount of maturity to make a game fair, and enjoyable for both sides; if you're saying that in every single game, you feel someone is cheating; then it's most likely that you're the immature one.

Just man up really; Asking a game to change it's already crystal clear rule set, just shows your own incompetence as a wargamer. If the majority of us find the game fair and think the rules are adequate; then there's something wrong with the minority.

Don't mean to rant, but to be honest, this is retarded.
 
#25 · (Edited)
At the OP,

Although I believe this is slightly silly, I would rather see you explain yourself a little bit more before I totally condemn you. However, I don't see how your idea is particularly helpful in solving this issue. In fact, I don't believe this is an issue that needs to be solved. The 5th ed codices are some of the best work I have seen GW come out with, I must say that I am rather impressed with their work. But I digress.

I don't see any reason to further confuse gamers, a group which is comprised in a large part by children under the age of 14, with 3 versions of the same game.

@ROT,
Best not to call someone, or their idea, retarded and point out that they are immature in the same post. It is similar to Harry Truman suggesting that there is never a right time to use nuclear weapons and referencing the necessity of the bombing of Hiroshima in the same statement. Just best not to insult someone if you can help it.
 
#26 ·
no matter what you do to the rules you will always have atleas tthe following types of people;
- Hard core converters
- Painters
- Competative players
- Play what i like gamers
- Douche bags
- Fun gamers

Even if we go back to 2nd edition or so you will still have that. You get thta sort of thying in EVERY game regardless of being table top, board games or computer
 
#28 ·
Yea tbh it all depends where you play. You could have a gaming club full of tourney players or just casual players it really depends where you play.
So to the op maybe talk to your friends and see if any of them want to set up some more story based games or anything like that.
Campaigns are a great way to allow crazy units and ideas.
 
#31 · (Edited)
Im a very casual player, so can never really get my head around the whole broken rules debate, people trying to gain advantage by telling you lies about what a unit can do, cant be that common? and in any case if they are genuinely trying to win by cheating i would just pack up my models and wish them good luck with there cheating. I cant understand the competitive play thing either, If you only get off on the winning and cant enjoy the hobby without it you missing the point of "play".

Can anyone give an example of a broken rule that does not have a common sense solution or FAQ/errata available for it?
And i dont just mean "TLOS is shit", i mean a rule that is genuinely broken and why you say its broken and why you cant logically see a solution



 
#33 · (Edited)
I'd like 2 rule systems, an advanced version of 40k with all the fun stuff included (written by someone who knows what the fuck there doing as well), and you can keep the shitty metagame dumbed down version we have currently for all the competetive gamers and children since neither like or are capable of thinking to win anyway.

those lot can sit in the corner and brag about tableing in 2 turns to there hearts content while proper gamers have fun and have a laugh with a proper rule system.
 
#34 ·
i agree with Katie, HUGE difference.

i think im a competitive player, but often times my group plays @ such a low point level (500 point combat patrol-ish) that its almost impossible to have a "hardcore" list, that being said i do as much as possible (w/o cheating) to WIN! if i dont & i wasnt tabled/SOL'd right @ the beginning it was fun a game. which is all that i wanted - winning is a bonus.
 
#38 ·
I'm not saying he's a retard for expressing his opinions. I'm saying his opinion is retarded.

AND before you call me out on that; Yes, you can call someone's opinion retarded for example

ExampleMan1: Hi, I'm mark, and In my opinion 12+8 = 216.
Me: Your opinion is retarded.

And yes, Saying a game should be changed because you don't like it; is retarded - Don't like it, don't play the game. I Can't believe you're finding it so hard to see my point of you. I'm being just as cynical as you usually are towards everything else.
 
#40 · (Edited)
And yes, Saying a game should be changed because you don't like it; is retarded
what the fuck should they say then?, if you can't post your opinion on a game you play because its retarded then why do forums even exist?, we must all be retarded for posting our opinions positive or negative because ROT says so.

if you want the game to rewritten because in your opinion the rules are a complete mess your entitled to say so and its a completely valid point, a very valid point.

what isn't a valid point is calling somones valid point retarded.

but then again ROT do you even know what a valid opinion is?, since you make so few.
 
#39 · (Edited)
I have found that it really doesn't help. I believe the saying is that you can.... Ok, I don't recall, but the point is that it is better to be considerate than it is to be overly harsh.

In the case you pointed out it would be better to say that he is simply wrong and point out why rather than just calling it retarded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top