Do you think there would ever be another fan "rule revolution"?

[kenshin620]

Note: this isn't me egging on either the official gw rule team nor people who support fan rules. I am just curious what people think.

Do you ever think that there could ever be a possible 2nd rule revolution if enough warhammer (either 40k or AoS) players become disgruntled?

I think currently even with some negativity here an there, there seems to be a pretty "normal-level" acceptance of the warhammer rules so I don't really foresee any big schisms. Maybe thats just the optimist inside of me!

(And I also do realize 9th age wasn't born 100% because of rules, but both rules and fluff)

[Overread]

The main issue is that fan rules rarely get any traction behind them. 9th age is mostly the only one that has and even that has competition. The problem is that there's no unified geek voice in the market. There's no unity at the global nor really even national scales. Old World was a special case because GW ended it and the same was true also of Bloodbowl before GW brought it back.

Big popular games that are ended can sustain themselves sometimes with fan rules and additions; even more so today because Kicsktarter and many more avenues to production exist to allow companies to start up small production setups that can produce a line of consumer or one off models to feed a neglected market. 

That said if you mean a revolution against existing rules for an existing game I'd wager we'd never see a coordinated major pushback unless we first saw unified gamer society at large. If, say, the UK had a single non-gw governing body that oversaw and organised events and clubs over the whole nation then you might see the ground work establish itself for a major rules revolution. Because then you've got a sense of unity, the ability to impose and inform and spread the use of the rules and even to support them through incentives and events. 

[mmimzie]

54 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

Note: this isn't me egging on either the official gw rule team nor people who support fan rules. I am just curious what people think.

Do you ever think that there could ever be a possible 2nd rule revolution if enough warhammer (either 40k or AoS) players become disgruntled?

I think currently even with some negativity here an there, there seems to be a pretty "normal-level" acceptance of the warhammer rules so I don't really foresee any big schisms. Maybe thats just the optimist inside of me!

(And I also do realize 9th age wasn't born 100% because of rules, but both rules and fluff)

Well so asyou said aos is fan based, but it has also been fan driven. 

 

For instance shooting out of combat and look out sir were all respjnves to fan concerns. 

 

I think GW is trying to stay on the pulse of what fans are looking for. 

[svnvaldez]

I hope not.

[King Taloren]

The only reasons there was a fan rule “revolution” was simply from the lack of support in the earlier days of post WFB no one knew what was going on after End Times destroyed the Old World, and then sigmar came with no support for tournament or even matched play, balancing lists was  difficult Because there was no points or even a army comp to work with. 

People rebelled and went to other systems, 9th Age, and Kings of War, or a few just kept playing 8th, and another went on and stated points for all the existing models while GW was getting its act together with new leadership taking control and moving in a direction to get its playerbase back and expand.

[Dead Scribe]

That should never happen.  And even if it did, very very few people pay attention to fan rulesets for it to matter.

I know people talk about 9th age and i suppose its fairly big in parts of europe but it doesn't exist at all from what I see in north america, or if it does its in tiny isolated pockets.

Beyond that, most professional rule sets aren't even played, so fan based rulesets are really in the domain of people playing in their basement by themselves.

[kenshin620]

33 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

Beyond that, most professional rule sets aren't even played, so fan based rulesets are really in the domain of people playing in their basement by themselves.

Yea I guess that is really the big sticking point to this, there are literal dozens of rulebooks out there like Dragons Rampart or One Page Rules. which probably have fewer people actually playing those rules than the average player base of 1 warhammer faction. And there will be a dozen more in the future.

Not to dismiss the people who write those things! One of these days I'm probably gonna go buy a bunch of those niche game books because they do look pretty cool.

 

Even Pancake Edition 40k, despite the universal praise for it was still put to the wayside when the official edition came out. (Man that was a weird time!)

[Clan's Cynic]

Doubtful. Wargaming requires a community to be successful and is in large part why GW have seen such consistent success when just about any other wargame out there has far better rules/balance. The vast majority of people only pickup official products and would only run with those official rulesets, therefore most people who know about fan rules would still only use official rules in order to keep playing with that official majority. 

Occasionally you get an exception to this, but that tends to be small group of friends who use that ruleset in their little circle, but still use official rulings on the side with other people.

9th Age's big problem was that Kings of War already existed and had for a few years. 

 

[VBS]

53 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

That should never happen.  And even if it did, very very few people pay attention to fan rulesets for it to matter.

I know people talk about 9th age and i suppose its fairly big in parts of europe but it doesn't exist at all from what I see in north america, or if it does its in tiny isolated pockets.

Beyond that, most professional rule sets aren't even played, so fan based rulesets are really in the domain of people playing in their basement by themselves.

I have no clue of how it fares in North America, but if the Yearly Review published on their web is even half accurate, I'm sure there are plenty of people playing T9A across the pond.

Tbh, I have the impression that most of us have a tunnel vision on what is played or not, or what is appealing or not, or how things should be. It happens with everything, we all stick to what we know and like, often disregarding the unkown probably due to ignorance it even exists. Regarding wargaming, since I got back into the hobby around the ET, it's incredible how much it expanded in all directions and the crazy variety of games there are (and I love it! Back in the day, I only knew about GW... what a naive foul haha!).

And even if there is no data and that regional-anecdotal-extrapolations are useless, I would have a hard time thinking that most wargamers follow dogmatically the rules given by a company. Sure, there is a tournament/competitive crowd that abides to this way of playing (to unify/facilitate playing, mostly), but out of all games played across all systems around the world, it is most likely a minority.

The amount of rules tweaking, introducing special rules, trying to self-balance a game or creating new scenarios/units/etc... is soooo huge that this "fan revolution" is a constant in a hobby like wargaming. From a full blown homebrew set of rules that are spread across the internet to a single game between friends, or a special campaingsin gaming groups, the examples are endless. This will not translate to the "official" set of rules by a company, but it does show that in terms of how people enjoy their little hobby, it is rarely uniform or linear to the framework given to them (ie. official rules).

In this case, I guess GW opened up a bit and stuff like surveys and whatnot offers a window to fan-rule intervention but the game itself is locked behind too many corporate interests to think it might conduct a significant impact. Rules writters are enthousiastic fans anyway, so probably what a "majority of fans" want will resonate with a few of them. I don't think there ever was a fan-driven-rule-revolution having an impact on corporate level anyway.

 

[Zanzou]

I am surprised we haven’t seen fan rules come out after malign sorcery... Can someone tell me how a D6 mass-damage dealing body-blocking  spell that is impossible to turn or back fire for 40 points is balanced (aethervoid pendulum- can either park it in front of big unit that wants u stuck in combat or just slice straight thru enemy zone???) I just don’t understand it. Also, when any wizard of any army can whip out the exact same strongest broken spells in the game, every game, the character of different armies lose their flavour.

[Overread]

The Aethervoid can only move in one direction but if your opponent controls it for a turn they can just stop it moving. Also because it can only go in one line you can move units out of its way more easily than Endless Spells that can free move in any direction. 

[King Taloren]

I have yet to see anyone call a endless spell overpowered after seeing it actually in play on the tables. On paper they can look insanely strong but in actual play  unless you are very good with your positioning and your opponent cannot dispell it away, (which Pendulum is very easy to be removed/denied on a 6+) the catch is if you don’t go second your opponent can simply not move the spell. 0” is a move that can be made by any model and still count as a move. It only moves one direction so an opponent just has to stay outside 1” of its path and it only works as a map denial tool then.

Or your opponent can go ahead and move the spell so that it does hit a unit but then goes so far ahead that it will just run off the table without hitting anything else if it isn’t removed and recast. And D6 damage is kind of basic at average you are only going to roll 3-4 mortal wounds when it does hit a unit. 

[Zanzou]

2 hours ago, King Taloren said:

I have yet to see anyone call a endless spell overpowered after seeing it actually in play on the tables. On paper they can look insanely strong but in actual play  unless you are very good with your positioning and your opponent cannot dispell it away, (which Pendulum is very easy to be removed/denied on a 6+) the catch is if you don’t go second your opponent can simply not move the spell. 0” is a move that can be made by any model and still count as a move. It only moves one direction so an opponent just has to stay outside 1” of its path and it only works as a map denial tool then.

Or your opponent can go ahead and move the spell so that it does hit a unit but then goes so far ahead that it will just run off the table without hitting anything else if it isn’t removed and recast. And D6 damage is kind of basic at average you are only going to roll 3-4 mortal wounds when it does hit a unit. 

Ok but what about the various effects it causes from the initial turn- first you set it up/ immediately move 8 inches for instant d6 damage for anything moved across and within 1 inch radius- not counterable. After the enemy also is forced to either move around it or use up a dispel even though it has already successfully dealt damage.  Even if they end up dispelling it, you can get your 80 point mage to simply cast it again for the instant d6 damage move on their turn, can’t you?  Honestly, I genuinely want to be sold on the idea that the spell isn’t a problem but I can’t help but see this.

[King Taloren]

IYou do have a chance to deny the spell so if you have any wizard within 30”. A 7 isn’t that hard to roll if they only roll enough to cast.

Getting a wizard within14” of anything can be deadly to the wizard 

[Fairbanks]

23 hours ago, kenshin620 said:

Note: this isn't me egging on either the official gw rule team nor people who support fan rules. I am just curious what people think.

Do you ever think that there could ever be a possible 2nd rule revolution if enough warhammer (either 40k or AoS) players become disgruntled?

I think currently even with some negativity here an there, there seems to be a pretty "normal-level" acceptance of the warhammer rules so I don't really foresee any big schisms. Maybe thats just the optimist inside of me!

(And I also do realize 9th age wasn't born 100% because of rules, but both rules and fluff)

This thread probably should have been locked faster than a cheetah on a crotchrocket, but there’s a lot of sides to the story that got T9A off the ground.

8th Ed played competitively was a horribly broken game played straight out of the rulebooks. To sum up an example in five words: Banner of the World Dragon. A group of players built a balancing points set called Swedish Comp to help achieve some semblance of balance between factions. That was how bad GW was at balancing in those days.

AoS was known as early as December of the year before launch that it was going to be a significantly different game from 8th Edition. Not rank and flank and fluff (woe betide the Bubblehammer and Sigmarine) were contributing factors, sure. When “No Points” was rumored (and later confirmed), most everybody called the game Dead on Arrival.

While most of the Internet collectively melted, the Swedish Comp people were busy rewriting the 8th Ed rulebook into T9A. By rewriting I mean “It’s not plagiarism if it doesn’t say the same thing word for word” and there’s an entire legal debate that could be had about that aspect of that game.

We could also talk about AoS and it’s early player’s literal moving of the internet to breathe life into a stillborn game. Without Ben making this site for people who actually enjoyed playing for fun and not for competition, the three or four people who made Points Systems, and maybe a few other commentators who were either smart enough to read the tea leaves (Vince Venturella on youtube), or too stubborn to change (from my recollection, I’d probably say Garagehammer’s Dave Wytek), we’re probably playing other games.

[Anjohl]

I think the logical way for ITC and other big tournament formats to proceed is by setting their own point costs and rules that override GW's. They're already pointing in that direction with their custom mission packs, so why not go all the way?

Also, I think the logical way to determine point costs is via automation. After every major tournament, increase the point costs of everything that was overrepresented, and lower the cost or things underrepresented. This will create an equilibrium in terms of balance, and reward novelty in list design. With the right point shifts, even the lowly Landraider can shine.

[Clan's Cynic]

21 minutes ago, Fairbanks said:

That was how bad GW was at balancing in those days.

Was?

[Takaloy]

I think all these "GW bad at balancing games" needs some balanced view. First of all, GW may well be "bad" at balancing their games. 

Actually I don't know if that statement is even true.

How many games do the most hardcore 10% play a week? Is the hobby 90% playing 10% painting or more the other way around? Chess players plays daily, multiple times a day. 

Some games, meta changes even when there's no patches for a while, why do you think that's the case?

 

Would it be (shocking) possible that it's both sides of the coin? It's impossible to "balance" the game, because no one can measure if the game is balanced? There's no visibility on actual players playing certain meta. This is not chess where you have a fixed set of pieces where you can run various strategies and replay multiple different moves. Most of the strategies are in your head and the combinations are endless.

Even the top tier players don't get enough practice to accurately say "they've worked out every variation of every combination against every army - and this is the optimum solution". Even an ancient game like GO, Alpha managed to invent new moves; partly because the pre-established moves are so ingrained (the meta) that people can't think outside the box.

More so in tabletop games, who has actually tested Grimghasts multiple times to death against every army, work out they are good before going off and buying 30? Probably a few, but most people will just listen (read on this forum for example) on what's good, then take stock in more experienced players .. who likely only play once a week. I am sure there's a lot more uptake on namarti corps this month and we did in previous year combined, did they suddenly work it out themselves it's pretty good? The book and points haven't changed ...

 

Not defending GW, but I don't think it is "fair" to say GW are bad at balancing games if we cannot measure where the balance is. 4 move checkmate must look like a broken move until you actually learn chess... for example.

[Dead Scribe]

the three or four people who made Points Systems

There were that many??  I only knew of the uk one and another that was done over here.  What were the fan point systems?

As to GW and bad balance, the closest you will ever come is playing other games and then comparing how those games operate at higher end competitive venues compared to this one.  

People complaining about balance is largely them complaining that they don't want to have to be railroaded along a certain army choice or build.  I've been playing other fantasy games just to see how they are and I can see where the complaints stem from in comparison.  I'm not saying AOS is bad by any means, I'm saying I see where the comparison bias is coming from.

[Zanzou]

53 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

...complaining about balance is largely them complaining that they don't want to have to be railroaded along a certain army choice or build.  I've been playing other fantasy games just to see how they are and I can see where the complaints stem from in comparison.  I'm not saying AOS is bad by any means, I'm saying I see where the comparison bias is coming from.

Could I ask what games?

[Dead Scribe]

We've done frost grave, kings of war, that new one from warlords game whose name escapes me, old warhammer, and some other osprey game dragon something.

[Mayple]

You make some great points @Takaloy - I very much agree! 

[Kurrilino]

May i ask whats wrong with the rules ?

[Overread]

There's a few aspects to it

First up lets remember that AoS and 40K 8th edition are anomalies. Prior to both these games GW's general pattern was to release a new rulebook and edition of their game. This new edition would make sweeping changes to aspects of the rules and thus was akin to a new rules system each time. So each army would need a new Codex/Battletome to function properly. The thing was in the past GW updated those books MUCH slower. They tide them (typically) to big model releases for those armies and so they were great events, but at the same time they could have month upon month between book releases. If your army wasn't Space Marines it was also not a case of "when" but "if" you'd actually see an update for that game edition. Yep armies could go for an entire rules edition and not get a rules update. Sometimes armies missed our two whole editions (Dark Eldar and I believe also Sisters of Battle). 

This meant that game balance was continually an issue because some armies were running around with updated rules and some were running around with pretty old rules. Also because each release was a huge investment in resources from GW (it wasn't just a book but likely a half to full dozen of new sculpts and updated sculpts), they tended to err on the side of making new releases "the most powerful ever" more so than "fair" or "weaker" than the current meta. Traditionally 40K was worse for this than Old World fantasy. Indeed Old Warhammer was typically regarded as the more balanced, I think partly also because it never has a poster-child army like marines that got treated "better" than everyone else. 

So historically balance has always been a bit of a troublesome spot. Also GW back then was very slow with FAQ releases. In fact I think one edition of 40K they released the FAQ a few weeks before they ended that rules edition and released a new one. 

 

Now fastfoward past the disaster of the AoS launch and GW goes through a new manager and makes some dramatic changes. First up they released Index's upon launch of 8th edition 40K which updated all armies with a catch-all rules update. A quick pass over the whole game. That had never been done before (or at least not within a long long long time). They did the same with the Warscroll releases for AoS once they got around to adding proper rules to it. So both games got a rough and ready update out of the box. Then GW has spend around 2 years per game providing a massive update to each army and giving them a new Codex/Battletome. 40K 8th edition got this first and is mostly finished; AoS has lagged because of its start and management changes that came around during its lifespan, but as of this year is now getting its first proper big year of being the primary rules focus. 

GW is now giving out much faster FAQ updates, annual revisions of the rules and updates in general. However they still add features, tinker with things and there is some variation in the power-play of armies. This is mostly at the top end of the scale. It's a lot better than it historically has been ,but there are still issues where some armies clearly come out on top in quite a big way compared to others. 

 

 

Balance is also tricky because of player variety. Some players are just bad at the game and even 100% fair and balanced rules wouldn't resolve their losses. Others approach the game with a view that they should be able to take "anything" and have a fair chance to win; rather than building a balanced army (or accepting that an unbalancd approach to army building is relying on a quirk that might or might not work every time). 40K tends to be worse off once more because they've got a lot more variation in unit types - air, heavies, infantry, super heavies, titans etc... Though 8th is a lot better for these things than before because they've opened up what can counter what. AoS is a bit more lax in that regard as it doesn't have many of those concepts - eg it doesn't have a whole "flyer" segment of rules  for units in the air all the time; it doesn't have titans; nor even "super heavies" it just has behemoths etc... 

There are also elements of very casual/loose writing of the rules which can lead to miss interpretation or silly things. Eg original banner and musician rules imposed no limit on teh number of them you could take per unit - you could take 10 bannerholders! It's a casual approach to rule writing and very different from, say, magic the gathering which has a much tighter system of rules writing - indeed with MTG most of the rules debates are more about card interactions within the rules rather than "how the heck does this rule actually play out". 

This is compounded by the fact that GW often writes a "core rule" then writes codex/battletome rules that counter those core rules. Which is fine until two armies fight where they both counter the same core rule. 

[Forrix]

As much as I sometimes bemoan GW rules writing on the whole I'd say their rules writing is miles ahead of most of the suggested stuff I see on fansites. If anything, the fact that most of the rules are well written and balanced makes the exceptions stick out so much, especially when they get ruthlessly exploited by top players for tournament wins.

If things do get bad what we might see are custom scenarios (ala 40k ITC) and perhaps very select point bumps or bans (i.e. tournament not allowing Nagash or Hag-Narr). So far though I feel the GHBs do a good enough job that this isn't really necessary.