Site hosted by Build your free website today!

Why Alternate Rules?

When 3rd Edition came out, like everyone else I was eager to see what had changed but worried that it might not be as good. I took to the new game quicker than most people and I decided I liked it a lot, the rules were much simpler and even though we had to use more models the games went quicker and least in the beginning.
As codex's came out, of course, things got more and more complicated and rules became less clear cut. I won't go into my (and I know many other peoples, I could literally write a 10 page report on it.) gripes about the game but I will say what I think has caused the problem:

Inconsistencies in rules between codex to codex, the main rule book, and White Dwarf magazine.

I can't say for certain but my guess would be that this problem is due to each codex having a different writter, maybe poor playtesting, and I hesitate to say, perhaps even favoritism. I don't intend to insult or belittle anyone here, I have great respect for the guys at GW for their vision of the game and I have to admit, I don't really know how they decide to put things together or why things seem to have gone wrong, but I feel that my fellow gamers and I can do a more consistent job and logical job.
We intend to make sure that armies are actually equal, make sense, and that rules remain consistent between armies. I invite all avid 40K players out there to comment on what we've got and make their own suggestions.

<Back to Main