PDA

View Full Version : Warhammer is dead, long live Warhammer! Proposal for a WFB Living Rule Book



Seelenhaendler
14-08-2010, 14:24
Warhammer is dead, long live Warhammer!
Proposal for a WFB Living Rule Book

Since the announcement of 8th ed and the direction it was going to take on the game, I was itching to write down my thoughts on it but real life got a hold of me and I thought that maybe time would take care of the issues I hadÖ

For weeks I am reading threads by passionate WFB gamers that voice valid critique for the new edition and in turn are getting torn apart by gamers that are passionate GW followers.
Now, I canít hold back any longer.

I was going to write a long article about why I think itís time for the community to step up and take over the game they know and love, but Iím not sure if it is worth my time. Therefore you get the short version below (lacking arguments and most ideas I have, mind you) and a poll to voice your interest in such an endeavour.

For me WFB has always been a game about strategy and tactics that is not only fun to play but also a good challenge. I like the competitive side of play and was looking forward to a new edition that improved the game further. But instead of a ruleset that takes care of problems in older editions, we got an edition that basically is a new take on the game itself.
Iím not going to debate which is the better edition, because itís pointless. The point though is, that for competitive play this edition is a huge step backwards.
Balancing armies, with books that were written with three different editions (6th to 8th) in mind, with a new ruleset is as likely as shooting a Helstorm salvo into a scrapyard and thereby creating a fully functional Altdorf pattern steamtank! Itís not going to work. And with the way new army books are released, we can look forward to have a level playing field inÖ well, actually never!
Iím not going to criticise GW for their company policy. Actually, I hope that 8th ed is a huge success and GW will be able to continue to produce all those excellent miniatures and fluff we love.But in terms of rules and competitive play, GW has dropped their support, at least as far as Iím concerned.
Since I attended my first WFB tournament 15 years ago, there have always been restrictions and compilation rules for competitive play. The comp rules usualy only tried to balance the event by limiting the broken stuff each player was able to field in his army, instead of fixing it by either rules or point cost adjustments.
Now with the dawn of 8th ed and no change in policy how army books are updated, I donít think comp rules for competitive play will be enough. It think it is time to come up with an independent WFB ruleset for competitive play.

The vision:
Creating a tight ruleset that allows for tactical, challenging, competitive play of WFB. This will include a revision of all the army lists, which are the core of most problems that are game breaking and cause the most grievance.
To reflect the feel of warhammer battles on the tabletop, armies that are build around a core of infantry with support from other units will be the most effective army builds point for point. This way restrictions for army lists shouldnít be necessary for the most part and would give players more freedom in list building if they are willing to take the hit in competitiveness.
In the end, games should be won by the tactics used on the tabletop not by the list brought to the game.

How to achieve this:
This seemingly monumental task is not that intimidating if you consider that we have a good foundation in the form of 7th ed. Apart from magic and terrain rules (psychology can probably be fixed by the army lists), the rules are solid for the most part. However, the rules revision is not limited to slight adjustments to 7th ed, the idea is to take the best parts from all editions (even 8th!) and combine them for the ďperfectĒ WFB ruleset.
The way to create army list balance, internally as well as between the lists, is to give each unit a role and point cost it accordingly. What you pay for is, what you get. To make infantry an integral part of the game again, it is necessary to scale down everything else and make static CR count. As a rule of thumb, there should be nothing able to single-handedly break a reasonably sized infantry unit in their front. In addition, infantry units should be the most point effective units in the game.
As balancing a game is an ongoing process, there would be regular updates every few weeks (/months) in the beginning, with the goal to release an annual revision with small rule updates and rules for new models that were released by GW.

Why do I think that we, the WFB community, can do something that paid professionals are unable to?
Because we are not paid for it. Itís that easy.
I was going to accuse the designers at GW that their passion for WFB would stop the second, their pay check stops from reaching their post box, but that would be an ill-founded assertion. However, if the comments from (ex-)GW employees in recent podcasts is anything to go by, I wouldnít be that far off.
Of course, the real problem is not the employees but the company and the terms that they have to work under. Since we donít have to push model sales, have no deadlines and can amend the rules as we go, I think itís fair to assume that we can make it!
Also, have a look at all the great work that has come out of fan projects and you can see what is possible.


If you made it this far and are pumped to go, I will have to get you down to earth so to speak.
This project of a ďLiving Rulebook for WFBĒ is an enormous undertaking and will live and die by the support of the fans.
I have to admit that I donít have the time and resources to make that project happen, although I would love to see it come to live.
If there is interest by the community, I will come up with a few articles of ideas and general guidelines to follow to get this project to a good start. From then on my assistance will be limited by the time I can spare for the project.

Thanks for reading and do not forget to vote!

TheKingInYellow
14-08-2010, 14:41
Sorry, in my opinion you are going to get a bunch of people bickering over rules that benefit their army, and you'll have a series of rules that change so often that you are going to have to re-read them every time you sit down to have a game.

What we have now is not perfect, but it's consistent so at least you can make a plan for it.

chivalrous
14-08-2010, 14:42
What is needed for a project like this is a strong chairperson or committee that will, at some point, make a final decision.
I'm currently writing up a dissertation assessing the progress made in the scientific research community as to the best way to manage and archive their research data and the most notable conclusion is that they have been talking in circles for 30 years, raising and discussing the same possible solutions and practices over and over again, while deciding on and implementing nothing.

The danger with fan/player led development is that all discussions will end up spiralling into yet another fractious debate that achieves nothing but reams of recycling text.

If it is to succeed, there needs to be regular decision and implementation of those decisions.

R Man
14-08-2010, 15:09
For weeks I am reading threads by passionate WFB gamers that voice valid critique for the new edition and in turn are getting torn apart by gamers that are passionate GW followers.
Now, I canít hold back any longer.

It goes the other way too. There are those who attack 8th because it is not 7th among other reasons. Buried in between are legitimate criticisms and possible improvements that have been suggested but as long as the hate fest continues they will stay buried.


I was going to write a long article about why I think itís time for the community to step up and take over the game they know and love, but Iím not sure if it is worth my time. Therefore you get the short version below (lacking arguments and most ideas I have, mind you) and a poll to voice your interest in such an endeavour.

Here's the thing, and the reason this will fail. Authority. No one here has the authority to say how the game should roll. GW has the authority due to owning the IP and actually publishing the books. No one here can claim that, and that means that if their is a divergence of opinion then splat! Nada happens. People won't play it.


For me WFB has always been a game about strategy and tactics that is not only fun to play but also a good challenge. I like the competitive side of play and was looking forward to a new edition that improved the game further. But instead of a ruleset that takes care of problems in older editions, we got an edition that basically is a new take on the game itself.

Isn't this a good thing? Something new instead of a re-hash of something old?


Balancing armies, with books that were written with three different editions (6th to 8th) in mind, with a new ruleset is as likely as shooting a Helstorm salvo into a scrapyard and thereby creating a fully functional Altdorf pattern steamtank! Itís not going to work. And with the way new army books are released, we can look forward to have a level playing field inÖ well, actually never!

Actually the new rule book seems more concerned with granting traits to unit roles (infantry resilient, monsters killy, cavalry fast) and such than re-balancing the rules. The boon it gave to many units is a result of the inherit imbalances in the previous system evaporating.


This seemingly monumental task is not that intimidating if you consider that we have a good foundation in the form of 7th ed. Apart from magic and terrain rules (psychology can probably be fixed by the army lists), the rules are solid for the most part. However, the rules revision is not limited to slight adjustments to 7th ed, the idea is to take the best parts from all editions (even 8th!) and combine them for the ďperfectĒ WFB ruleset.

What about the abysmal restrictions on effective unit size, if not in actuality. Except against shooting the advantage of going large was minimal at best. Fear was a huge imbalance, it was very nasty. There was also a lack of definition for unit types. Not to mention the question about if Unit Strength was a stat or not. No 7th is not a good starting point.

Mix and match rules from different editions is very bad. You'll just end up with a load of disconnected ideas that were not meant to work together. If you want to make a coherent ruleset, you need to have an overarching concept, this means picking things that support the concept.


The way to create army list balance, internally as well as between the lists, is to give each unit a role and point cost it accordingly. What you pay for is, what you get. To make infantry an integral part of the game again, it is necessary to scale down everything else and make static CR count. As a rule of thumb, there should be nothing able to single-handedly break a reasonably sized infantry unit in their front. In addition, infantry units should be the most point effective units in the game.
As balancing a game is an ongoing process, there would be regular updates every few weeks (/months) in the beginning, with the goal to release an annual revision with small rule updates and rules for new models that were released by GW.

Isn't this basically 8th?
Lets see:
Units given a role to play? Check.
Infantry integral? Check.
Scaled down? Not Checked.
Regular updates? Well 8th has already been amended. So maybe.
Its not quite 8th, so I concede the larger point.

And infantry units the most point effective? Won't that just lead to mass infantry spam?


I have to admit that I donít have the time and resources to make that project happen, although I would love to see it come to live.

And you think everyone else does?

Ultimately this project is doomed. Have you seen how confused, convoluted threads can get over a simple issue of outnumbering bonuses, what chance do you think an idea this complicated. People suggest ideas without thinking about them, or mention them in passing, ideas get hijacked and people take days of and come back and find they have lost their place. Without a structured writer the idea cannot function in an organized way.

Every one has a different concept of how the game should be played, which means that posters will be pulling the game in different directions without any overriding creation principle.

rtunian
14-08-2010, 15:35
your poll options are as poorly thought out as your idea. it doesn't even sound like you've played 8th edition... the op reads like you have merely read a few posts criticizing the edition, and so you have decided to start a grass roots campaign to entirely reinvent warhammer.

"hello mister fly. i'm going to swat you with a bazooka."
wait i'm sorry, it's actually more like...
"what's that? you say there's a fly around here? well help me get my bazooka out!"

here's my advice: actually play 8th ed, in a competitive environment, at a time such as the "newness" of the edition has worn off (ffs it has barely been out for 1 month), when players have already satisfied their curiosity for experimentation with new rules. in other words, at a "real" tournament. not a "1st tourny of 8th, let's try out the new rules!" event... let the dust settle, so to speak. if at that time you still feel so strongly, then revisit this issue.

Seelenhaendler
14-08-2010, 16:08
your poll options are as poorly thought out as your idea. it doesn't even sound like you've played 8th edition...

Could you elaborate on that?
The intention was to get an overview of how many would be interested in this project. And thats exactly what the poll achieves, imho at least.



the op reads like you have merely read a few posts criticizing the edition, and so you have decided to start a grass roots campaign to entirely reinvent warhammer.


The decision was not made on what the players had to say but rather that there are apperently people that are not happy with the game. The poll is there to show how many of us there are.



here's my advice: actually play 8th ed, in a competitive environment, at a time such as the "newness" of the edition has worn off (ffs it has barely been out for 1 month), when players have already satisfied their curiosity for experimentation with new rules. in other words, at a "real" tournament. not a "1st tourny of 8th, let's try out the new rules!" event... let the dust settle, so to speak. if at that time you still feel so strongly, then revisit this issue.

Sorry, my point actually has nothing to do with the 8th ed rules! It was just the right point in time. If I had written such a poll 3 month ago, nobody would have cared because there was a new edition up on the horizon.
The problems with the imblanaced armybooks and the way they are updated far outweight the problems with the core rules. But since I was going to propose a revision, why not include the core rules too.

Seelenhaendler
14-08-2010, 16:15
What is needed for a project like this is a strong chairperson or committee that will, at some point, make a final decision.
I'm currently writing up a dissertation assessing the progress made in the scientific research community as to the best way to manage and archive their research data and the most notable conclusion is that they have been talking in circles for 30 years, raising and discussing the same possible solutions and practices over and over again, while deciding on and implementing nothing.

The danger with fan/player led development is that all discussions will end up spiralling into yet another fractious debate that achieves nothing but reams of recycling text.

If it is to succeed, there needs to be regular decision and implementation of those decisions.

That is a big problem we are facing right now, but i think the decision depends largely on the number of supporters.
I could do this project by myself, only discussing some key issues with the community, but if in the end nobody cared my time would be wasted.

Ideally there would be a small group actively working on the rules and making decision and a large group of supporters who provide us with feedback.

I still think this can be done.

chamelion 6
14-08-2010, 16:40
I think it's a valid idea. I don't think it's going to be as easy as you think, but it's doable. The first problem is going to define the vision and goal of the new ruleset. If you can nail that down you're half way there. I think you're going to find that the unity you see on the general topic doesn't extend into the details and that every decision is going to alienate someone.

Personally, I hope you get this thing off the ground. I'm interested in seeing where it goes and how it goes.

I wish you luck.

Seelenhaendler
14-08-2010, 16:42
What about the abysmal restrictions on effective unit size, if not in actuality. Except against shooting the advantage of going large was minimal at best. Fear was a huge imbalance, it was very nasty. There was also a lack of definition for unit types. Not to mention the question about if Unit Strength was a stat or not. No 7th is not a good starting point.


As I have already said, I didn't put my ideas in the opening post. But I did write that everthing will be pointed accordingly to its battlefield effectiveness, at least as good as possible without needing a science degree to build a list.
The problem of unit sizes will be adressed by a lower cost per model for larger unti sizes.

e.g.
basic unit: 20 goblins = 60p
each additional gobbo 2p

This is just a very basic example but you can see that this way of calculating unit cost adresses alot of issues: small units can be made more expensive without impacting larger ones, thereby penalising MSU if needed or making lager units viable/an option.
US is not a problem at all and fear can be balanced by point costs or by a revision of psychology.



Mix and match rules from different editions is very bad. You'll just end up with a load of disconnected ideas that were not meant to work together. If you want to make a coherent ruleset, you need to have an overarching concept, this means picking things that support the concept.


Of course there has to be a 'big picture', which I will write up if there is enough interest.




Isn't this basically 8th?
Lets see:
Units given a role to play? Check.
Infantry integral? Check.
Scaled down? Not Checked.
Regular updates? Well 8th has already been amended. So maybe.
Its not quite 8th, so I concede the larger point.

And infantry units the most point effective? Won't that just lead to mass infantry spam?

By role, I meant not a different name or unit class but a real, well defined, battlefield role. The way 8th edition handles this is ,at least with the current army books, more than unsatisfying.

The Infantry will be integral but armies with support (i.e. balanced armies) will have to have an advantage. I don't see a problem in it.

Skitter-Squeek
14-08-2010, 16:48
You forgot the option of "Please add the amount of time back to my life that it took to read this."


I am really stoked you feel the need to "save" :rolleyes: Warhammer but in all fairness you should probably play a lot more or switch systems. 8th edition for it's few faults destroys 7th edition. I have had more fun games in 8th then any other edition I have played. The games are more bloody and the tactics are still there. Terrain thank god has a role in the game now more then ever and more units you haven't seen fielded before are getting dusted off the shelf.



Anyhow before I go off on a rant that is 5 more paragraphs that noone will ever read I suggest you go play a little more come back in a year then Call to arms on this Edition.



Squeek

freddieyu
14-08-2010, 17:08
This project is doomed to fail for the simple fact more people like 8th. Tactics are there, but but the ones you are used to in 7th. So I suggest you can take this project and adapt it to like minded people, while the majority of us find new tactics and ways to enjoy 8th ed.

Good luck!

druchii7
14-08-2010, 18:08
I've done 1 or 2 versions of WFB. it's good to have fun writting it and gives you an idea about how complicated it is, but nothing else. it's quite unlikely that you manage people to play it and if you do not fot long.

even if you don't like 8th, an amateur rulebook will be generally more unbalanced and partial than others.

8th edition is NOT autoplay nor unstrategic. it's just a SO different strategy that you might still not recognize it. I've played a single match of 8th and I found it very tactic.

you needn't an ingeneerings doctorate to play the movement phase, it's a lot easier now, but it's not parcheesi. now you have to take combat and shooting phase in a more serious way.

in conclussion, you loose variety on 1 phase and gain variety on the other 3. fantastic then.

the thing I'd add to warhammer is mathmatics and formality on all. I'ts quite obvious that they use few mathmatical analysis when they write books and then get many unbalanced armies or units. apart from that, most of my complaints about WFB were blown away as 8th edition arrived

druchii7
14-08-2010, 18:09
post duplicated:S (lag)

Oglog
14-08-2010, 18:34
good luck, but I jut don't think it will work (shout to me if it does, I would be interested). A HUGE amount of time would have to be invested and even then people wont be happy. WFB will never be perfect, but 8th isn't actually that bad. As always, if you take half a dozen things out, it would be more balanced and mostly fair and fun.

wizbix
14-08-2010, 22:59
The option for 'silly idea' just wasnt available, hence why I chose the next best option: it is doomed to fail.

Goblin Gonads
14-08-2010, 23:02
Well my vote was for it's doomed to fail, I would have voted no I don't care and it's doomed to fail but that wasn't an option.

As has already been said, this would develop into a shout and nerf fest with every body strivinf for gain for their own army, I've seen it happen before with games designers opening up rules to forums. He who shouts loudest or has the biggest post count wins.

Unless you elect a writer or small team of writers, give them a wide ranging remit, ultimate control, ultimate authority, it won't work, gamers are simply too fractious a bunch to agree with each other. If you did manage to get it off the ground you still wouldn't please eveybody so prepare for son of warhammer mark 2 from those as disaffected with your efforts as they are with GWs.

Grimstonefire
14-08-2010, 23:18
Your poll should have been a public poll so you had the user names of people who wanted to help. ;)

On the forum I was on over here (http://www.livingrulebook.com/forums/index.php), we had a reasonably effective way of resolving disputes (very regular polls requiring a majority vote).

As others have said, the way you have approached this is not going to work.

However, unlike the others I think there is a way something like this could work, and really it would be nice for people to have an alternate version to play should they want to.

What you need to do is to spend a few weeks looking at threads on every issue people have with the rulebook, here and places like dakka, warhammer.org.

Compile a list of all the issues you find, these are the things people would hope to have changed in an alternate version, so it would be a very good place to start to get people interested. If you can come up with decent alternatives to things people find unnecessary it will work towards your aim a bit (I think).

If you're looking to reinvent warhammer I think you will still get more interest if you address the common issues first.

I also think it is very important that if you are working by project group you only include:
a) active gamers willing to playtest (no need for theoryhammer here)
b) people who have played a lot of games in 7th, preferably 6th ed as well. To give something to compare to.

Having nothing to read now by way of actual work is not a great way to start, it relies on others doing a lot of the work. ;)

R Man
14-08-2010, 23:30
As I have already said, I didn't put my ideas in the opening post. But I did write that everthing will be pointed accordingly to its battlefield effectiveness, at least as good as possible without needing a science degree to build a list.
The problem of unit sizes will be adressed by a lower cost per model for larger unti sizes.

e.g.
basic unit: 20 goblins = 60p
each additional gobbo 2p

This is just a very basic example but you can see that this way of calculating unit cost adresses alot of issues: small units can be made more expensive without impacting larger ones, thereby penalising MSU if needed or making lager units viable/an option.
US is not a problem at all and fear can be balanced by point costs or by a revision of psychology.

I was pointing out that 7th is not a good base to start with. I don't know where this other stuff as come from. Nor are any of these ideas new, I remember the pricing idea from at least 2 years ago. The psychology and US problems in fact largely have been solved in 8th.


By role, I meant not a different name or unit class but a real, well defined, battlefield role. The way 8th edition handles this is ,at least with the current army books, more than unsatisfying.

The Infantry will be integral but armies with support (i.e. balanced armies) will have to have an advantage. I don't see a problem in it.

You do realize that unit types receive benefits that help them achieve their goals. Cavalry gets special rules like Swift Stride and monsters get stomp. Some Special rule also benefit some unit types more than others, for example Infantry get far more utility out of Steadfast than Cavalry or Fliers.

As others have pointed out, you don't seem to have played 8th at all. But you could at least read some 8th ed battle reports, especially now that people are starting to get to grips with it. Ultimately a lot of concerns are in fact addressed in 8th. Now 8th does have some areas for criticism, such as the 6 dice limit for any wizard, regardless of level. So perhaps go through 8th, analyze the core set of rules and not just ones that affect the army book, and suggest them here. Ask if people like and support the idea and get feed back on how to improve them. Then if you get enough support, send GW and E-Mail with a Petition showing support for your intended changes. Or just make it into an un-official 'House Rules' Pack. Much simpler because there is a clear starting point and direction.

SilasOfTheLambs
15-08-2010, 00:38
I didn't vote on the poll. I think people have pointed out correctly some of the pitfalls of the project, but I also think (unlike some others) that it could work and be useful. I wish you luck, and if any of your work shows up here, I'll drop in from time to time.

Billy
15-08-2010, 08:04
I think this would be a good idea for the players who are having trouble letting go of 7th. And it would also be great to get rid of the blatant flaws that 7th had.

That being said, I feel this project would be doomed. The amount of time and effort required to do this project would be vast. If it was so easy to rewrite every army book with good balance and character why wouldn't GW have done it already.

I just think this is a project that would take too much time and energy to complete. I wish you luck with your endevour. I will be sure to check out a finished project if you succeed. Lord knows it would be awsome to never have to shell out $90 for a rulebook ever again!

freebooter
15-08-2010, 09:04
Sorry, but it sounds like the game you want to play is Warmaster.
Go and check it out mate, free rules download and there are resources out there for using 28mm figs rather than 10mm.

Alric
15-08-2010, 09:06
Check the link in my signature for free miniture wargame rules , might give you an idea or 2.

Seelenhaendler
15-08-2010, 10:41
For all of you that recommend me playing 8th ed more:
Thanks for your time posting but as I said, the basic rules are only a minor reason why I think it is necessary to develop a ruleset for competitive play.
Don't get me wrong, I do NOT want to win over all WFB players. This is a very special project for a minoritiy of WFB gamers that usually also attend tournaments and like to compete on the table top like other people compete in sports. Fairness and an equal starting position should be paramount for them, so that their potential win does mean something.
You can see this project as a supplement to WFB that allows for competitive play like the Skirmish rules used to be a supplement for small Warhammer games. It didn't destroy WFB but gave players a diffent way to play.
Now, if you are promoting 8th ed to me, it's like I was looking for the perfect BBQ recipe and you are trying to get me to eat some salad.
So, if you are happy with WFB like it is now, then you obviously aren't the audience I was addressing with this thread. Make your vote, if you need to voice your opinion and let the ones who care discuss the matter.

On the matter of the balance issue:
I know that there will be players trying to push their army and nerf others. But if you get older and start to love the game for its tactical challenge, a win will only be satisfying if you know that you won the game by superior play and not by bringing a superior army list.
I know this concept might sound odd to some players (independant of age), but I hope to find some like minded enthusiasts that are willing to bring competitive play in WFB to a new level.
Balancing the game is an impossible task, but creating a better balance than now is easily done. If you just take 5-10mins per army book to address the most glaring issues with the book, you would get to a better balance instantly. For example, if you take the Hydra, lower the breath weapon to a permanent S3, its attacks to 5, remove hatred from the hydra itself and increase its price to 200 points. Would it be balanced? No, but it wouldn't be as game breaking as it is now.
The first draft of the rules will not be perfect and probably will never be, but with regular balance 'patches' we could address the issues.
If it that easy to create a better game why doesn't GW do it?! Because they have a policy that if something exists in written form and doesn't cause rule conflicts, it will not be changed, even if it is detrimental to the game.


On to Grimstonefire now. Thanks for your constructive reply.


Your poll should have been a public poll so you had the user names of people who wanted to help. ;)

On the forum I was on over here (http://www.livingrulebook.com/forums/index.php), we had a reasonably effective way of resolving disputes (very regular polls requiring a majority vote).

As others have said, the way you have approached this is not going to work.


My reasoning for this approach was to get an idea if there is at all interest for such a project, before I start to invest a considerable amount of time in it.
But I realise now that everybody is looking for actual solutions here which I purposefully held back for the next article. Maybe this was a mistake, but if nobody is interested in the project it will save me some trouble.



However, unlike the others I think there is a way something like this could work, and really it would be nice for people to have an alternate version to play should they want to.

What you need to do is to spend a few weeks looking at threads on every issue people have with the rulebook, here and places like dakka, warhammer.org.

Compile a list of all the issues you find, these are the things people would hope to have changed in an alternate version, so it would be a very good place to start to get people interested. If you can come up with decent alternatives to things people find unnecessary it will work towards your aim a bit (I think).


I did this already and this would have been the long version of my post, that I was hesitant to compile without feedback first.



If you're looking to reinvent warhammer I think you will still get more interest if you address the common issues first.

I also think it is very important that if you are working by project group you only include:
a) active gamers willing to playtest (no need for theoryhammer here)
b) people who have played a lot of games in 7th, preferably 6th ed as well. To give something to compare to.

Having nothing to read now by way of actual work is not a great way to start, it relies on others doing a lot of the work. ;)

You are probably right. Maybe I should take the plunge and go write up the concept first, including all the possible solutions for the problems that most people seem to have with the game. I can only hope there will be enough interest to at least get a few to read it.


Let's see a few more days how this poll is going. If the amount of votes that show interest in the project is reasonable, I will compile and post a first article.


edit:
@Grimstonefire:
I just have been checking the livingrulebook.com site and it is more or less what this project was meant to be, with some interesting discussions about a variety of topics.
Is it still going or is it dead?

rtunian
15-08-2010, 14:35
Could you elaborate on that?

your poll options are not mutually exclusive. for example: i can both be interested in the idea and believe that it's doomed to fail.

a good poll will have options such that any given person will fall into only one of the categories. this does not preclude you from having a catch all option such as "none of the above".

a bad poll will ask readers to "select the option that most applies to them". well, how do you quantify which feeling you feel more? "i am interested" or "i think it's going to fail" well, i feel both of those fairly equally. now what? do you see what i mean?

Grimstonefire
15-08-2010, 16:40
@Grimstonefire:
I just have been checking the livingrulebook.com site and it is more or less what this project was meant to be, with some interesting discussions about a variety of topics.
Is it still going or is it dead?

It stopped because we were unsure what was going to happen with 8th ed. It could have invalidated everything.

Much as we achieved some good things there, it is now lost to spam. :( So it would be better to start anew. There probably could be some admin level changes to require users to have a couple of posts before they can start a new topic, but you'd have to contact Lyynark (who is a member here, as most of the people on there are).

Urgat
15-08-2010, 17:07
Honestly, I'd rather do my own set of rules for my own game, with my own universe, for that kind of project. Well, that's actually what I'm doing, in fact. I know it's a pointless, fruitless endeavour that nobody besides me (and a friend) will ever be interested in, but it flatters my ego, I guess. But what you propose is, after all, I can emulate in my own galing group with a simple set of houserules, to be quite frank, if I want it ti relain Warhammer at the core, otherwise, it's wasted effort, I think.

Seelenhaendler
19-08-2010, 21:40
Wow, 1500 views and less than 100 votes!
With all the threads popping up on the front page voicing their displeasure with the current state of WFB, I would have hoped that there would be a bit more interesst in this project.

But fear not, the article is on its way and it is coming along very well.
While I adress some controversial topics, I am confident that my analysis is conclusive and the major points are convincing.

So long!

Lord of Divine Slaughter
19-08-2010, 23:12
Great! A never ending nerd project that will be sabotaged whenever GW publishes a new army book :D

Macavity
20-08-2010, 00:48
I actually kind of want to applaud you. I really think you should just write your own rules, though. There is good work being done outside of GW (Hordes/Warmachine, Arcane Legions, TwoHourWargames all bring neat, new things to the table).

I have to admit to a bit of cynical curiousity, though. You said if interest was high enough, you'd write an article.... The combined three poll options of 'interested' are far under 50% and most viewing the thread didn't even bother voting (file under "No, I don't care"). You clearly don't care what others think, which is awesome! You will be writing this ruleset on your own, with the occasional helpful question from someone else.

That said, go for it! Every gamer writing rules means that many more potential uses for my figures!

Wakerofgods
20-08-2010, 00:53
Opps I forgot to read anything but the thread title before I voted. Unfortunatley take one vote away from strongly support and put it in the doomed to fail - in my haste to vote I thought this was a petition for games workshop to release an offical living rulebook.

If this worked out I would love it - but I dont think the players are able to do this.

Such a project would have to be led by a single person who ultimately makes all the decisions and everyone else just posts on his forum with their argument - which this poor bugger has to then read. I dont think anything else could work.

I think this person should be me (on a related note, I should also be in charge of everything else), but I am far to lazy to even try (also, I'll fail and fail hard).

Kayosiv
20-08-2010, 04:10
But fear not, the article is on its way and it is coming along very well.
While I address some controversial topics, I am confident that my analysis is conclusive and the major points are convincing.

So long!

PM me if you want my talents. I'm a valuable resource.

J.P. Biff
20-08-2010, 07:31
A version of a living rulebook has worked from what I've been led to believe. Wasn't Warmachine Mk II a result of tonnes of player feedback and playtesting of Mk I, by players?? The difference here is that Privateer Press supported/endorsed such actions of their player base, listened to them, tried the suggestions themselves and ran with what worked which led to a great game (um... I mean great game Mk II :D). GW does not (and would not IMO) do this, and I think thats why this might not work, though I would actively support it in the same way as warmachine players supported MKII.

Wasn't Mk I also updated online at regular intervals (via the same system above) to keep the game as balanced as possible too???

They also released the MkII rulebook and all army books in the same year which helped, I think. I understand GW has alot more than 4 armies, this is just a fact not an arguement for GW to do the same.

Glabro
20-08-2010, 10:36
Despite what you say, there's a clear pro 7th edition bias here. Why is it a more solid foundation than 8th? Because we're used to it.

Back when I started in the early 90s, I kept wishing that more models could fight besides the front rank, and that there wasn't the silly "we charged and thus struck first, so you can'tfight back." thing.

The magic system of 4th / 5th and now 8th is also good - the problem is overpowered spells (and in 4th / 5th, little stuff like the Escape! card).

I say take 8th and build from there. It's an evolution of the game after all. Then tweak / nerf rules from that basis. I'd start with the spells, terrain rules and steadfast.

So yes, I'm biased, but at least I should have some perspective...

yabbadabba
20-08-2010, 10:52
I think my key problem with this idea is that we are still in knee jerk territory. Had this post come up in 1-2 years with some new army books, tournaments and battle reports highlighting if and where 8th Ed had its issues, you might have had my contribution.

HOwever I think you comment of "For weeks I am reading threads by passionate WFB gamers that voice valid critique for the new edition and in turn are getting torn apart by gamers that are passionate GW followers." shows how poor a basis for motivation you have for this project. This isn't based on sound analysis, experimentation and playtime of 8e and identifying key issues through proper process, but on the fact that you just don't like the new rules. Fair enough, but others do, and calling them "GW followers" as an implied insult is, to be frank, childish.

Good luck to you and those who work with you on this - I am always supportive of such endaevours; but be warned of your own and other's motivations on this as it can, and will, derail the project.

Lyynark
20-08-2010, 12:45
edit:
@Grimstonefire:
I just have been checking the livingrulebook.com site and it is more or less what this project was meant to be, with some interesting discussions about a variety of topics.
Is it still going or is it dead?


It stopped because we were unsure what was going to happen with 8th ed. It could have invalidated everything.

Much as we achieved some good things there, it is now lost to spam. :( So it would be better to start anew. There probably could be some admin level changes to require users to have a couple of posts before they can start a new topic, but you'd have to contact Lyynark (who is a member here, as most of the people on there are).


And here I am :D

I've cleared the forum of spam and I intend to add some user registration challenges, i.e. captchas and such. It's currently shut down (waiting for some admin love) but if there is an interest I can archive the old discussions and start a smaller forum anew. Since I'm paying for the domain and hosting anyway I might as well put it to use :)

Seelenhaendler, PM me if you're interested.

Mike3791
20-08-2010, 15:55
I like 8th edition a lot

Seelenhaendler
20-08-2010, 16:29
*snip*
I have to admit to a bit of cynical curiousity, though. You said if interest was high enough, you'd write an article.... The combined three poll options of 'interested' are far under 50% and most viewing the thread didn't even bother voting (file under "No, I don't care").
*snip*


Well, I didn't specify how many votes are necessary to pass as 'high enough' but the numbers are actually not that bad. The LRB is aimed at players that like to compete in a fair environment and are interessted in a tactical and challenging ruleset to play WFB. Although more votes would have been appreciated, imo the project would be worth it even if it was only supported by 5-10% of the community. If we get this project going, I am sure other will convert to the cause.



PM me if you want my talents. I'm a valuable resource.

Thanks for your support! Keep an eye out for the article. If you truely are a valuable resource, your feedback should be welcome.



Despite what you say, there's a clear pro 7th edition bias here. Why is it a more solid foundation than 8th? Because we're used to it.

Back when I started in the early 90s, I kept wishing that more models could fight besides the front rank, and that there wasn't the silly "we charged and thus struck first, so you can'tfight back." thing.
snip*


Most of the current army books have been writen with the 7th ed rules in mind and as the rules, apart from a few specific cases, are not the main problem, the current army books are the best starting point. Also people have the most experience with 7th ed and konw the major issues with the rules and army books. That is something, that can't be said of 8th ed.

By getting rid of the 'the silly "we charged and thus struck first, so you can'tfight back." thing' you also get rid of a whole class of units/armies, usually referred to as 'glas cannons'. While the issue has to be looked at, I don't think that removing a whole group of units from the game is a good thing.



I think my key problem with this idea is that we are still in knee jerk territory. Had this post come up in 1-2 years with some new army books, tournaments and battle reports highlighting if and where 8th Ed had its issues, you might have had my contribution.

HOwever I think you comment of "For weeks I am reading threads by passionate WFB gamers that voice valid critique for the new edition and in turn are getting torn apart by gamers that are passionate GW followers." shows how poor a basis for motivation you have for this project. This isn't based on sound analysis, experimentation and playtime of 8e and identifying key issues through proper process, but on the fact that you just don't like the new rules. Fair enough, but others do, and calling them "GW followers" as an implied insult is, to be frank, childish.

Good luck to you and those who work with you on this - I am always supportive of such endaevours; but be warned of your own and other's motivations on this as it can, and will, derail the project.

As I already pointed out, the quality of 8th ed rules have nothing to do with this project. The major issues are the imbalanced army books and the way they are updated. The release of 8th ed was the right time for this project as there is no sign that 8th ed will adress these issues in the near future.
If the army books for 8th are drastically different from the ones for 7th ed, the problems will only increase and it will take about 5 years before all armies will (or could) be on an even level. If they are not, then where is the point in the first place?

I actually start to regret the sentence you quoted, because it seems to get misconceived and overrated. I wont deny that the comment was a bit harsh but it has actually nothing to do with my motivations for this project and was merely the trigger for me to come forth with this idea.
By accusing me that this project is not based on " sound analysis, experimentation and playtime of 8e and identifying key issues through proper process, but on the fact that you just don't like the new rules", shows that you didn't read my posts in this thread carefully, as , I repeat myself, the actual 8th ed rules are only a minor reason for this project.
I make you a proposal, wait for the article before you pass judgement.



And here I am :D

I've cleared the forum of spam and I intend to add some user registration challenges, i.e. captchas and such. It's currently shut down (waiting for some admin love) but if there is an interest I can archive the old discussions and start a smaller forum anew. Since I'm paying for the domain and hosting anyway I might as well put it to use :)

Seelenhaendler, PM me if you're interested.

Thanks for your support!
But before I accept your generous offer, I want to wait and see how the article is received.
If everything goes according to plan, you will hear from me soon.

Thanks again!

chilledenuff
20-08-2010, 16:33
As I already pointed out, the quality of 8th ed rules have nothing to do with this project. The major issues are the imbalanced army books and the way they are updated. The release of 8th ed was the right time for this project as there is no sign that 8th ed will adress these issues in the near future.
If the army books for 8th are drastically different from the ones for 7th ed, the problems will only increase and it will take about 5 years before all armies will (or could) be on an even level. If they are not, then where is the point in the first place?


Have you tried Armies of Arcana? That might address your issues

loveless
20-08-2010, 16:37
Proposals for living rulebooks are one of the top causes of sighing and head-to-desk contact in the Lovelessian household.

The Doominator
20-08-2010, 17:35
Seelenhaendler, from what I've seen you've rejected pretty much almost every bit of criticism given to you by other posters (even the valid ones), which shows that you probably won't accept differing opinions very well either during the discussions for this project of yours.

Seems to me that if someone explains to you that they think you're wrong during your group discussions on this project, you'll just end up ignoring them or brushing them away as you have many others in this thread. :eyebrows:

Ender Shadowkin
20-08-2010, 19:02
A. Most people are enjoying 8th, (despite some vocal folks) so you are going to have a hard time recruiting. I know you said your project has nothing to do with 8th, but regardless most people would rather be happily playing 8th than your new version of 7th.

B. Your Piggy backing on the intelectual property of GW. If some bizarre alignment of the stars results in a success to your project. It will simply be unable to go anywhere.

I would suggest you just spend your time on a completely new system . Adding in the tactics that you feel warhammer lacks. I bet you would end up in that direction anyway, so you might as well just start from scratch. Warhammer is just one of many fantasy battle toy soldier games. It has a certain appeal that has made it popular. Thats not to say there arn't other better systems out there, or waiting to be made. So if your going to be this ambitious, try to bottle up some lightening and do something really innovative.

Lars Porsenna
20-08-2010, 19:29
I voted "doomed to failure." Really, who'se going to play it? I have a library of wargames and RPG rules collecting dust due to lack of players, or my inability to convince others to play these games. I don't have that problem with Warhammer, and have played far more WHFB and WH40K in the past year than any other historical game, despite historicals being my personal preference. I can't imagine a non-print "re-imagined" version of 7e getting much traction locally, and I would guesstimate that would be true elsewhere. Maybe if WHFB engine was "open source" like D&D D20 was, you'd have a real shot, but it's not.

I think other posters have the right of it: write your own rules, and get them published in one form or another.

Damon.