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