Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here are a few ideas I had for GW in a brainstorming session last night. It seems that there is a problem with their games (40k especially) and it goes like this:

Their miniatures are cool, but their rules suck. And this reflects the philosophy of the business..they are a miniature selling company first, and a rule's writing company second.

This is obviously problematic, because it leads to a situation with Imperial Guard for example where half of the army (the coolest units in the army actually) have bad rules and dramatically reduce your armies winning abilities.

Now, this is a difficult issue because while rules and competitiveness are important, the background story and flavor of the game are important as well, and not all gamers are competitive for competition's sake. For example, even though Sanctioned Psykers are terrible I love the models, bought some, and even used them in my army a few times, simply because I like the concept of the model. Indeed, this is probably one of GW's own arguments for their mediocrity, in saying that they can't please everyone and their current system represents their best efforts.

Ultimately, however, shouldn't the goal be to have the best of both worlds?

But GW's current way of doing things seriously gets in the way of this. First of all, GW, every time you release a new edition to the game, you need to release a new, updated codex for EVERY SINGLE ARMY, EVERY TIME. This "backwards compatible" stuff is complete garbage.

Here is a very simple idea for GW that can solve a lot of their problems. One problem for balancing the game is its complexity, but here's something you have to realize: you have all the playtesters could ever want in the actual gaming community, and they are happy to give their input free of charge. A few years after a codex is out, it has usually been thoroughly analyzed by the community and much of it is judged to suck. Not only that, but the gamers themselves often have straightforward, logical ideas for how to make a certain unit that is really bad into a unit that is very nice with only a minor change. Now, GW might say: gamers' opinions are a dime a dozen! Effective feedback will be impossible. Well, if GW says this, they are completely wrong. All you have to do is go to a forum like this, or warseer, and look at the articles, and you see that pretty much everybody agrees on everything, so much so that it is kind of scary. For example, every IG army list I've ever posted, I get the exact same advice, almost verbatim, from dozens of completely separate people.

Why doesn't GW use this huge playtesting resource that is the gaming community?

Here's how to put it into practice: points values. GW went to all this trouble to design their system around an abstract point system for balance. Normally a hindrance, this could be turned into a great opportunity. Often, the minor change a gamer would recommend is just a slight tweak in the points value of the model. This leads me to an idea of how GW could constantly update the game balance with the information gathered from the free playtesters: updated points charts.

For every edition, and after every codex, GW should release something similar to the FAQ, but instead it is a chart that adjusts the points values for the units, upgrades, and wargear choices for the codex. Boom. Simple, all numbers, and while it's harder than releasing a FAQ, that's not saying much because their FAQs look like they were written in 30 minutes.

So if GW can make excuses for not updating all the codexes with a new edition, how can they make an excuse for simply releasing a chart for each codex that tweaks the points values? As far as the playtesting feedback system, it could even be a voting system where players of an army vote for how many points they want a model to be. Like, if all the IG players got together they would probably on average vote for a 10-20 point decrease for the Commissar and a 15-25 point decrease for the Chimera. The good information would triumph over the bad just like wikipedia, so there is little chance some jerkoffs could skew the results. I'm sure the people at GW are smart enough to get something like this working.

Think about all those kickass models in the IG army that no one buys. Sanctioned Psykers, Priests, Techpriests, Ogryns, etc. GW must be so sad that they create an awesome miniature and no one buys it. Newsflash IG! Use point charts! All it might take is just a 5-10 point tweak and boom, people are buying your miniature again! And their rules are not nearly as sucky anymore! Everyone's happy and all it takes is the slightly intelligent tweaking of a number.

Am I out of my mind here people? Why do we put up with so much mediocrity with this company? I spent like 1 hour brainstorming this crap and I've already convinced myself I have a better idea of how to run GW than they do.

Feedback appreciated. I also am not sure if this is the right forum, so mod can feel free to move it if it isn't.

I think this is the general consensus of the gaming community. So you're not crazy. I think there has been this same general discontent for a long while now.

GW's real advantage is that it effectively has a monopoly, not an actual one but the lack of a clear competitor makes it effectively so. Though there are other gaming companies, none of them have the multiple-millions of dollars or the international distribution channels. This allows GW to get away with par to sub-par products and allows it to dictate its asking price with minimal repercussions.

The internet has been great because its allowed fans of the GW properties talk and organize to a degree. We have fans who make significant contributions to FAQ's as a result. Right now we're in the early stages of a bit of a revolution, where there is more sharing of home brew rules. You also have larger more organized venues such as the Bell of Lost Souls who are constantly working on their own codices. The next logical step is a progression to full rule sets, I know HBMC has written some, but all it would take is a high enough profile and enough people playing and suddenly that GW rule monopoly is supplanted by the masses. How long will it take, who knows? I think if GW keeps going down its road its inevitable though years off.

The problem with what we've done is that we could alwyas get slapped with a 'case & desist' order (which I would find deliciously ironic, before I ignored it completely). We're not making money nor selling anything, but they could slap us.

Of course, changing it is easy:

Find/Replace Space Marine with Hurr Marine. Find/Replace Eldar with Space Elf, and so on.

BYE

I've always wanted to write up a set of rules and my own fluff as a big parody of GW's. In the U.S. satirical use of another persons work is protected as a freedom of expression. I'd write about the Emporium of Man, the "Hurr Marines," and the Taco-Bell of Lost Souls that tolls every time a Hurr Marine has a bad burrito.

The Hurr Marines, would be unbeatable. With their stats based on how long the player can yell "HUUUUURRRR" before turning ultr-hurr-marine blue and passing out or just plain getting punched in the face.

Actually, if enough small changes were made to the background they would have no grounds for legal action. There was a thread on Warseer a few weeks ago where people submitted their own ideas for an alternate 40K universe. Taking one of those a couple of steps further could easily result in a completely different game where most of the same miniatures would still be usable. I started working on a list of changes I would like to see in 40K about a week after 3rd edition came out, and it eventually turned into an entire ruleset with its own fluff, but these days it bears no resemblence to any GW product and would require lots of miniatures to be designed. It could be done, and it would not harm their sales at all but they would still try to stop it just because they are EVIL!

I've always wanted to write up a set of rules and my own fluff as a big parody of GW's. In the U.S. satirical use of another persons work is protected as a freedom of expression. I'd write about the Emporium of Man, the "Hurr Marines," and the Taco-Bell of Lost Souls that tolls every time a Hurr Marine has a bad burrito.

The Hurr Marines, would be unbeatable. With their stats based on how long the player can yell "HUUUUURRRR" before turning ultr-hurr-marine blue and passing out or just plain getting punched in the face.

Don't forget Codex: Not Hurr Marines

They'll be woefully underpowered, and none of their rules will be up to date.
Their units will have names like: Big Stupid Guys, Fast Guys Who Get Killed Anyways, Guys Who Are Supposed To Be Really Smart But Never Fight In An Intelligent Manner, and Really Big Scary Guy That The Hurr Marine Battle-King-Master Can Kill Dramatically.

The update schedule will go: New Edition, Hurr Marines Codex, Not Hurr Marines Codex, Hurr Marines Codex, New Edition, Hurr Marines Codex, New Edition, Hurr Marines Codex, Hurr Marines Codex, Hurr Marines Codex, Codex: Rock Monsters (this will be a clever marketing ploy to sell people rocks with googly eyes stuck on them).

No... that won't work at all, non-Hurr Marines sounds too much un-marine. I think a release would be like this: Hurr Marines, Harr Marines, HURR! Marines, Huh Marines, Not-Marines (or look how good marines are now they have something to beat), new edition (makes Not-Marines immediately defunct), rinse and repeat.

I do like the sound of Codex: Rock Monsters... but I think it needs a better name... like Codex: Rock Marines or "Codex: Marines ROCK! HURR!"

Best reason not to let the community as a whole playtest? We're idiots. Pure and simple.

Historically, whenever a Codex has allowed player designed shenigans (Tyranids and previous Chaos Codex) all that happened was number crunching by a few cretins, a handful of options declare 'optimal' and the rest ignored. The same thing would happen with open play testing.

As for releasing all the books at the same time, from a business point of view, this is a very bad idea. After all, if we allowed 6 years between editions (or even 5 push come to shove) then what exactly do they use to raise sales each year? Everything is already out. Nothing new under the sun, no real incentive or attention grabbing techniques available to encourage me to start yet another army.

Points values reflect the ability of a unit within the structure of it's own points value. This is a sensible way to run things. For example, a Lascannon is indeed a Lascannon. But given to an Ork, at BS2, the Lascannon will be less effective than in the hands of a Space Marine, at BS4. Indeed, it is 50% less efficient based purely on ballistic skill. So, for a Marine, it should be a more expensive option. Same with Tanks and indeed everything. For someone with 4 attacks, a Powerfist is a lot more powerful than a model with 1 attack. Ergo, the more attacks, the higher the WS and base strength, the more expensive the Powerfist needs to be.

There is a hell of a lot to consider when writing a Codex, far, far more than most people consider.

As to some units being less effective than others, what makes the other units that much better? Some say the rubbish units are overpriced, some say the better units are underpriced. Sometimes, a unit only comes into it's own when multiples are picked (Tank Squaring is a modern military example used in a White Dwarf).


You used the example of Sanctioned Psykers. Given he's 12 points, what exactly did you expect in terms of capability? Sure, the random psychic power is extremely annoying, and a cheaper base cost with a purchased power is a far better way, but 12 points...I mean, it's less than a Space Marine, for a model which, with a bit of luck, can take out a Landraider on it's own.

Points charts are a fairly interesting idea, but I fear would annoy players a lot more than a dated and showing it Codex. Why? If I've spent my money on an army, and suddenly the points change, I'm going to have to rejig it. If points drop, I need to spend more. If the go up, I need to sacrifice something, and so on.

Not true. With the new edition of Battletech there were TONS of playtesters and brainstorm sessions and a lot of player feedback for following releases.

You know what? The rules are about as solid, stable, and balanced as well as a simulation game can be.

GW just doesn't CARE. They want money. They haven't figured out that better products sell better.

I think GW would do a lot better not changing editions as often and having most of the codices ready when that happens. All the new armies get released quickly, you just have to wait on models. That is where the "Counts As" rules comes in.

Simpler, easier, with less power creep.

Even now, on the official BTech forums, there are open forums for rules questions and errata submissions that are answered within a few days of being posted not by some faceless mail order troll, but buy the guys writing the rules. They post full previews of their books with lengthy explanations of the testing process and what went into the rules, and ask for feedback before heading into print.

As Matlov said. GW doesn't care about rules. The rules service the models. End of story. They'll write whatever they need to sell a model, assuming the 'ooh shiny' effect doesn't sell the model by itself.

BYE

Mattlov wrote:GW just doesn't CARE. They want money. They haven't figured out that better products sell better.

GW CARES about money.

GW has figured out that better products sell better, but "better" means "heavily-detailed and beautifully-painted". When they look at their bottom line, they conclude that Rules don't matter.

And as gamers, we continue to buy the shiny, pretty stuff. Hell, look at Rackham. Nobody cared about the rules (in French, no less!), but the painting and NMM effects sold lots of minis.

Well, despite the story about Sanctioned Psykers, there are actually a lot of their really cool "shiny" models that I haven't bought because their rules are so bad, and I'm much more fluffy/casual oriented than competitive. Geez, does it have to be that we chose between the units we like or the units that can actually be used to win a game or two? Why can't we have the best of both worlds (which is good for GW sales AND the players)?

I boughtb the psykers, but I use them as Mystics with my Inquisitorial army. I bought one of the new Ogryn, but for my own ruleset. I bought all the new Commissars, but that's because I love Commissars.

Now if they had good rules it'd be even better.

BYE

Well I think we'll eventually get good rules it will just take a while. GW's incremental approach does make good changes, they just take a long time. With codices, I think they're doing better, but its ultimately the lack of communication with players in the form of FAQ's that is frustrating. Its one thing to write rules poorly, its another to ignore the fact you've done it, and its just plain insulting when people keep asking for clarification and the ignore their customers.

aka_mythos wrote:Well I think we'll eventually get good rules it will just take a while. GW's incremental approach does make good changes, they just take a long time. With codices, I think they're doing better, but its ultimately the lack of communication with players in the form of FAQ's that is frustrating. Its one thing to write rules poorly, its another to ignore the fact you've done it, and its just plain insulting when people keep asking for clarification and the ignore their customers.

I agree with you there.

I would also add that a decent FAQ system would allow GW to make larger changes with new editions, due to their ability to work out the kinks they cause with the older codices. It seems like an obvious step to take, and one that wouldn't eat up too much time or resources.

Hi folks.
Maybe I am old and cynacle?
But any company that changes the rules for area terrain to sell a laser pointer for 500% mark up to alot of tweenies , is not realy the company I want in charge of writing the rules for a game I want to play.

GW used to have ALL the army lists with the rule book.(Pre PLC days.)
And oddly enough the games were MUCH better ballanced.

But GW is all about selling models now, and the 40k rule set is just a marketing exercise.
I wish GW would change its name to Citadel Minatures, as it would stop the company name giving the wrong impression.

If much smaller companies with tiny budgets compared to GW , can develop a complete rule set, with much deeper game play and PROVABLE levels of balance in LESS time than GW take on one edition of 40k.
It just shows how little reguard the senoir GW managment have for gamers.

IF the dev team wanted to imporive ballance and general quality of tha game play.All that would be required is for them to write EXACTLY what they ACTUALY playtested.

Eg in the Ork dex next to the Lootas entry, put (1x15, 2 x10)
So WE know they playtested with one unit of 15 OR 2 units of 10.
Therfore if you use 3 units of 15 it may be a bit unballancing? .

It would make tournament restrictions a doddle wouldnt it!
All army selections to stick to restrictions in (brackets).

TTFN
Lanrak.

I don't think wh40k rules will ever get better. They are just being re-released with simplification - not improvement.
GW know how to make good rules = space hulk had awesome rules. Epic had pretty awesome rules etc etc.
It's just for some reason 40k demands specifically moronic rules.
As for playtesting 40k is actually very simple- they could easily find a formula to find the exact value of units - but they don't, probably because it's a hassle and players enjoy the mtg style power discrepancies.
Also consulting with the unwashed public would prob not be the best idea - there are some pretty commonly held but stupid assumptions.

I actually like how area terrain rules were changed. I never bought a laser pointer, because anyone so demanding as to make a big deal and require you to whip one out is probably not worth playing with; my fun would be diminished.

Space hulk is what got me into 40k. BFG is what kept me in 40k. The kill team rules are what kept me past that.

If there is a simplification of rules, it isn't because GW is getting lazier its because they keep pushing the game in the direction of larger and larger games to drive miniature sales. You used to be able to play with only a handful of units. This is also connected to power creep, since the more deadly units become the more units you need, the more units you have to kill the deadlier your units have to be.

People might forget that there was a time when GW did communicate with the players, they did let us get glimpses of codices, they wrote more FAQ's, and their books had substance and their magazines were more than catalogs. I try and give GW the benefit of the doubt and blame their increased disconnect on growing pains from getting as big as they are. I like to believe that they'll eventually try to get back to doing what people want listening to the "unwashed masses" just enough to take the good ideas and run with them.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Best reason not to let the community as a whole playtest? We're idiots. Pure and simple.

And all the other stuff you said; spot on!

I'm not an idiot. HBMC isn't an idiot. There are a couple other people who say idiotic things, but even they aren't idiots. I won't deny there are idiots that play 40k, but I think its so clear cut. I've met people who work for GW that were bigger idiots than probably half the people on this forum.

There are some people more suited to rules writing just as there are people more suited to painting or sculpting or making terrain. GW has kinda cut off any sanctioned avenue for the expression of that particular talent. People have varying levels of skills in different areas, GW's design staff have shown their weak point is in writing rules, simply put they should do something about it. Whether they open up a dialogue with players or just find a better game designer to add to their staff they should do something.

I think you're wrong. GW can make v good rules and have done so before. The current 40k rules -craptaculer as they are perfectly fulfill their function. Selling models to little kids whose parents spend... well it's up to them how much they spend - but I wouldn't spend that much

Did so before, in the past. Who's left from the good 'ol days of GW? Rick seems to vanish in and out when they need him. Jervis has lost the plot. There's a new guy no one's heard about doing the Guard Codex. Graham McNeil wasn't allowed to write any more Codices after the Black Templars failed to sell as well as they'd hoped. Pete Haines is gone. Bloody Gav is gone. Andy Hoare seems to have vanished. Phil Kelly and Alessio 'Counting Hurts My Brain' Cavatore at the only others.

They need people who understand writing rules, or, they would need people like that if they cared. But they don't. They exist to sell miniatures. Making a good game is secondary to that goal (not mututally exclusive mind you, but if there's ever a choice between a shiny new kit/selling a new model and game balance, the former always wins over the latter).

BYE

It must be flipping (whats the swearing rules here?) boring to write a codex. You are essentially re-stating what is down in print at least 4 or so times by now. No room for flair due to canon.

Actually GW changes and adds to the fluff all the time.

Sternguard and Vanguard didn't exist in the fluff 4 months ago. Nor did Land Speeder Storms or Thunderfire Cannons.

BYE

Face it, this is the sort of thing that causes them to not listen to gamers. Pointless arguments about minutae referring to a game that is intended for tweens who barely bother to actually learn the rules and don't care about using painted miniatures, hell they don't care about using the right miniatures. Why do we bother?

aka_mythos wrote:I'm not an idiot. HBMC isn't an idiot...

I am! But I also agree with everything you said. Now if I, being an idiot, can understand... what is holding back GW?!

H.B.M.C. wrote:Actually GW changes and adds to the fluff all the time.

Sternguard and Vanguard didn't exist in the fluff 4 months ago. Nor did Land Speeder Storms or Thunderfire Cannons.

BYE

You prove my point. If your writing a codex you want to do more creative than a new veteran unit variation, and a new land speeder variation. 90% the same 10% new.

namegoeshere wrote:It must be flipping (whats the swearing rules here?) boring to write a codex. You are essentially re-stating what is down in print at least 4 or so times by now. No room for flair due to canon.

I would say that the Codex as sold, if done correctly, is made of up in such a way that 10% of the content (rules) takes up 90% of the time, while the fluff & model pics take 10% of the time, yet makes up 90% of the codex. GW can collect art through out the year and those items are also recycled a lot. A lot of the fluff has been around since 2nd edition or earlier and thus is either updated or reformatted into the new codex. I am sure they have a business model some where that lists what models they want to redesign, how many new models they want and how many "accessory" add-ons they want to produce. When the upcoming codex is planned, these factors are taken into account and it is decided what units will be added or subtracted in the next codex. Again, if done correctly, the team on the rules would then spend the next several weeks/months play testing the army in all it's configurations to come up with a good set of rules.

However, we all know they don't test real builds with any rigor.

namegoeshere wrote:It must be flipping (whats the swearing rules here?) boring to write a codex. You are essentially re-stating what is down in print at least 4 or so times by now. No room for flair due to canon.

How boring could it be? It seems that they only spend about five minutes on them, simple cut and paste and some monkey-typing.

Do they actually just use the exact same paragraphs as before? My impression was that - redundant as it is they re-wrote, the same fluff, over and over...