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.

So in News & Rumours we are talking about GW's latest press release and a common claim was that GW is too expensive for the entry level player, because GW is an army-level game and most of GW's competitors are skirmish-level games. And a point was made that by the time a new customer has typically bought enough models to have a playable army, they've been in the hobby too long to be GW's target customer.

So it seems to me that what GW needs is a game that people can play with very few purchases. Of course, in theory you can play WFB and 40K right now with very few purchases, but those sorts of games are typically not that fun because the current core games focus on too big of a scale to allow interesting play at the bottom end. This new game has to be a core game, since we all know what happens to Specialist Games the moment GW sees a squirrel.

The 40K 4th edition rulebook had kill team rules in it. IIRC, it never really took off. If I remember right, my objection was that the rules pitted one cool, fleshed-out squad of elite commandos against the other player's faceless goons. Who wants to play faceless goons? Why not let players each have a crack commando squad?

So what I propose is a restructure to each GW core game. 40K and WFB would each be based around a set of main rules that apply to every scale of that game. Things like the stat-line for example, and the basic turn structure. These rules would be collected into a small pamphlet and sold as cheaply as GW could possibly get away with- I'd propose even handing them out as a free flyer at GW stores.

A fully developed game would then be written to expand each game to different scales:
A "Kill Team" type game would have all sorts of optional rules like overwatch, throwing grenades, kneeling/lying prone, and all sorts of things that would bog down an army-scale game. This would focus on individual troopers who don't fight in a squad, allowing each member of the squad to be customized and maybe even gain experience. Like a Necromunda or Mordheim game that is setting-independent, and any 40K/WFB infantry can be used as members of the team.
A army-scale game like the current WFB and 40K as we know them.
An "Apocalypse" scale game with formation level organization and lots of cool super-huge monstrosities.

Now what I think would really make this work is first to make sure that each game is unique (and fun, and engaging in the long-term) but that there is a significant carry-over of the game principles from scale to scale. So that learning how to step up from say, Kill Team to 40K isn't really like learning a new set of rules.

Now, this would need to be supported in the models. That's why first, every GW model kit should be sold with a card that carries that unit's rules for the core game, as well as stats for the main weapon included. This would mean that combined with the cheap/free core rules pamphlet, and player can begin playing a simple version of the game simply by buying a model. No rulebooks/codicies necessary, though obviously buying a rulebook will make the whole experience much more enjoyable and open up customization options by explaining in detail different wargear options and how everything in the faction works.

Second, every faction GW supports should get a plastic sprue of bits to customize their core troops with for the "Kill Team" scale game. Of course, if designed well these sprues will no doubt sell well to 40K/Apocalypse scale players. Along with that GW should sell a small scenery set designed for each faction a la the 40K Battlefield Accessory set. Nothing big or super ambitious, just some plastic that any new player can pick up with their squad and use to make the game feel interesting- and naturally if they have faction-specific scenery, every player will want scenery geared for their faction.

So for the cost of a $25-$35(USD) troop squad, plus a let's say ~$10 upgrade sprue, ~$10 scenery pack, and a free core rules flyer, they can start playing. When they want to expand, they pick up their faction's rule book and the Kill Team scale rulebook, for let's say at most $50 total. And they can keep gradually buying troops for their faction here and there, not really worrying about force organization charts or anything, just buying what they think would be fun. Some players may stay at the Kill Team scale forever, just trying out Kill Teams for different factions. But eventually most players will see all the tanks and huge squads on the posters and game tables at their GW and decide it's time to build their kill team up to a full army. But the grand thing is they can keep playing with whatever they buy at the Kill Team scale, and then once they have enough models for the 40K scale they can keep using their Kill Team models as 40K models. If they're really customized, maybe they're a veterans squad (naturally, all new army books would have veteran squad options) If they're not, maybe they're just regular infantry with the particularly flash models used as squad leaders.

Of course, some players might balk at having a squad of guys with all sorts of crazy wargear now being used as RaF infantry, so all the army rulebooks would have a "counts as" page to help players keep track of the fact that their Triplex-Pattern lasguns are now standard lasguns, etc.

What do you think? Can it work?

Note: If you're reading this GW and want to steal my idea that's totally cool, you don't have to give me any money. Send me a private message and I'll give you the address to send my Forgeworld Tau Manta to.

I think GW's system is based more off purchases of people who are all in obsessed with their games with a bonus being the 90% of people who buy a box or 2 and never stay in the hobby. I still think those 10% of people who find the hobby purchase more than the 90% together so they are more focused on their core player base than restructuring their game to a lower point balance. One of the largest issues facing smaller games in 40k at least is balance between army cost efficiency. The reason 1500-2000 games are most common is the point where their rules are balanced around. Also it doesn't take an unreasonable cost for most people to field a 2000 point army. If you figure an xbox with a few games is likely to cost over 500 while you could field a 2000pt army for most races for 3-400. Some people might feel its prohibitively expensive but its just about priorities. You could go out to the movies or drinking a few times a week or buy some models, hangout at a friends and play games.

This is an excellent idea.

Make the games more modular, so people can buy a piece at a time. and not feel tied in to a massive spend.

I also think GW should maximise the use of their retail chain by selling one box games.

GW has had plenty of games with a low entry point in the past - necromunda, blood bowl, space fleet, battlefleet gothic. And, of course, a bunch of boxed games that don't require further purchase.

The problem with all of these is that you don't make much money out of them as people don't have to buy many models.

If you look at Warmachine, whilst it has a small buy-in they encourage constant change in order to keep people buying stuff. Warmachine is constantly tweaking the rules for models and units to put different things on the top of the pile and keep people buying models. You see the same with Magic and other systems - constant releases of new expansions that change the power-level keep people buying more stuff.

So, the real question is - should GW introduce a game with a small buy-in but constant revisions? My gut feeling is no. Right now the big differentiator for 40K and WHFB is the size of the game. There are lots of skirmish games - some have cheaper models, some have nicer models, some have better rules. There are (virtually) no other games with models of this quality that allow you to field armies this large and still play in a reasonable time frame. Other games with armies of this size are almost all smaller scale minis.

So in otherwords, you want a military Necromunda? Way too sensible an idea.

Therfore GW will never do it.

Cheers

Andrew

Kilkrazy wrote:I also think GW should maximise the use of their retail chain by selling one box games.

I'm not sure about that but I do think that GW needs a boxed game being sold through mainstream retailers as they did with Space Crusade and Hero Quest. Those game netted them an awful lot of new players who would otherwise have never known they existed.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I also think GW should maximise the use of their retail chain by selling one box games.

I'm not sure about that but I do think that GW needs a boxed game being sold through mainstream retailers as they did with Space Crusade and Hero Quest. Those game netted them an awful lot of new players who would otherwise have never known they existed.

It depends on the business model that GW want to follow.

Their current model is to use their retail outlets as demo spaces to get users to buy into WHFB or 40K, then sell them lots of models.

My view is that part of GW's poor performance is because they have a very expensive retail chain, which isn't doing enough selling.

One box games like Necromunda, Space Hulk and so on, are easy to stock and sell, so they producerevenue even though they do not tie users into a constant upgrade process. They also generate foot fall that might turn into core product buyers.

I can't prove that GW would be better off with this business model rather than their current one. I will point out, though, that GW's rise to greatness in the 80s and 90s was done using a similar business model of selling more than just the two core games.

honestly, i love the sound of "kill type missons" o.o they make me drool, but i dont have a clue what goes into them other than a specialised commando squad with names and different wargear (bit like necromuna?)

Well, the interesting thing is they do have that system in place... for their Lord of the Rings range. Of course, that was only a skirmish system until WOTR came out, but now it's exactly what you describe; a system where you can use your figures piecemeal for LOTR, while collecting towards the larger massed armies needed for WOTR. Of course, as it's a system that was, until recently, geared entirely towards skirmish, it means that collecting any army for WOTR, or at least any army that has a large contingent of non-plastic units, is very expensive. I can only imagine how pricey a Fiefdoms of Gondor army would cost, or a Dol Amroth Swanhost.

Nevertheless, I do think the two-tier system has merit, and would be interested to see it applied to WHFB or 40k (not least so I could play with my tiny Dark Eldar and Daemonhunter forces). And, from GW's perspective, one of those merits is the opportunity to sell people several rulebooks per setting (this was, again, taken to extremes with LOTR). Hell, just give me some expanded Mordheim/Necromunda-style games and I'd be happy.

And yes, I do think GW could benefit from increasing their brand presence through boxed games again, though I imagine they see that as less of a concern that it was back in the late 80s/early 90s thanks to their expanded retail presence meaning there's already a good deal of brand awareness. There's also the issue of GW-branded computer games - Dawn of War, the upcoming Space Marine etc. What that doesn't take into account, of course, is that exposing kids to actual physical boardgames is a great gateway into the hobby itself, as it's more directly linked to the core games than virtual Ork shoots.

But hey, what do I know?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I also think GW should maximise the use of their retail chain by selling one box games.

I'm not sure about that but I do think that GW needs a boxed game being sold through mainstream retailers as they did with Space Crusade and Hero Quest. Those game netted them an awful lot of new players who would otherwise have never known they existed.

It depends on the business model that GW want to follow.

Their current model is to use their retail outlets as demo spaces to get users to buy into WHFB or 40K, then sell them lots of models.

My view is that part of GW's poor performance is because they have a very expensive retail chain, which isn't doing enough selling.

I agree with all of that. However the exposure of getting boxsets into national chains (argos, toysrus, etc) and the television advertising that goes with it reaches lots of people that may not know GW or wargaming even exists.

I've always thought they should remake space crusade to an extent. There has to be a way of releaseing marines/tyranids in a "space hulk" set up, that can still use 40k rules, all in one convenient set.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I also think GW should maximise the use of their retail chain by selling one box games.

I'm not sure about that but I do think that GW needs a boxed game being sold through mainstream retailers as they did with Space Crusade and Hero Quest. Those game netted them an awful lot of new players who would otherwise have never known they existed.

It depends on the business model that GW want to follow.

Their current model is to use their retail outlets as demo spaces to get users to buy into WHFB or 40K, then sell them lots of models.

My view is that part of GW's poor performance is because they have a very expensive retail chain, which isn't doing enough selling.

I agree with all of that. However the exposure of getting boxsets into national chains (argos, toysrus, etc) and the television advertising that goes with it reaches lots of people that may not know GW or wargaming even exists.

They could make the boxed games and put them in both venues. TV advertising starts to get expensive, though.

GW seem to be allergic to advertising.

wiper wrote:Well, the interesting thing is they do have that system in place... for their Lord of the Rings range.

+1. and yet you will find many people here saying how much they hate the game and think that it should be scrapped, without realising that with its relatively low starting price and parent friendly imagery, it's designed as a starter game to get people, especially kids, going in the hobby.

Kilkrazy wrote:

GW seem to be allergic to advertising.

Well, to people outside the hobby anyways. Open a copy of White dwarf and you are attacked by ads. They give retailers all kinds of signs and such to hype up the GW products. However outside of the hobby they are unknown.

In all Id say the whole miniatures gaming hobby is under advertised. Most LGS are small dark poorly lit holes. None ever advertise on TV or radio. I drove right past my LGS almost every day for 2 years before I knew they were there. They are stuffed in a hole between a bait shop and an ethnic market. Of course the fact that they have almost 0 stock and focus solely on 40k, WHFB and FoW means I very rarely shop there.

Skirmish games are dime a dozen. To draw people in, GW's Kill Team or whatever would have to be two things:

1) as good as the readily available skirmish games out there (Infinity, Warmachine, Alkemy at the very least) so people even buy into it
2) worse than GW's army-scale game, so people even have a reason to buy more than one squad

Good luck?

The advantage GW would have with a skirmish scale game is that it's start up cost to GW would be negligible. They already have a couple dozen great plastic squad boxes, simply come up with rules that allow the use of a single squad (preferably built out of the box), and can be expaned or contracted slightly.

Small games would use a single box of IG/Orks/Gaunts and half boxes of MEQs. Larger games would use battle forces for horde armies and full squads plus maybe a hero or two.

it could actually be pretty fun. Pit 10 IG veterans against 4 Chaos space Marines. Or 25 Orks against 12 fire warriors.

Craft the rules around the models that exist, so that even boring boxes like Firewarriors can use all of the options. Use the same stat-lines (to ease people into 40k), but allow for more extra rules and abilities to match the skirmish games on the market. So, for example, IG veterans stay WS3 and A1 with only one CCW, but maybe can re-roll all misses in combat.

^^

Yes, like that.

After all, Apoc and so on are just attempts by GW to make people with big armies get even bigger armies.

It shouldn't be hard to come up with some rules to let people start with very small armies. The actual models are already there.

They already have Kill Team and 40K in 40 as examples.

I believe in a "Modular Future" in all things, consumer electronics, home entertainment. It allows you to make the most of the Model lines and extract the maximum value out of your scultures. It also allows for more freedom at the player level, so SM models that can be used in a Modern Version of the Venerable Space Crusade. Using your Termies and Xenos in Space Hulk, or a Deathwatch Kill Team in Space Hulk or in Necromunda 2.0? What about a Individual team game where 4 individuals pick a single miniature and fight against a single enemy on a 40K sized board? What about a Wings of War style BFG update (no dice all cards and models!) ?

Modular is better, it allows more diversity for everyone and would reduce their production costs. Buy a basic pack and an upgrade sprue. Put the Sprue in a plastic sealed bag, save money on Packaging. I am happy to buy GW direct with minimal packaging (i bin it straight away so why I am paying for it!) I buy lots of Ebay on sprues from bit's sites. I wish I could get involved over there I would definitely modify their business model.

The reason GW wouldn't do it is that for it to actually take off, they'd need to spend time writing rules and balancing options. Kill team was fun as a goof, but was so easy to break that it basically had not value as anything other than an idle pasttime.

Which leads to one possible reason GW won't do a skirmish game: they need to be better balanced. At the upper levels, a few bad units sort of wash out. In small scale games, a single overpowered model can dominate.

One my long-time hobby dreams has always been to write, from the ground up, "40k D-10" as a skirmish game of squad level combat. Literally send five space marines against a full platoon of guard, that sort of thing. Try to match the fluff better while allowing for quick play action.

GW can do that, but the rules would be a pretty substantial investment, closer to the rules for bloodbowl or epic than for Apoc.

That all said, I'd drop $50 on 40k skirmish, if the rules and all the "lists" were included. It'd be cool to paint up a new unit type from a different army.

I just can't think of any real way for them to do large scale advertising without it reaching the scale of those late 80s/early 90s kids' toy commercials.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree with all of that. However the exposure of getting boxsets into national chains (argos, toysrus, etc) and the television advertising that goes with it reaches lots of people that may not know GW or wargaming even exists.

They could make the boxed games and put them in both venues. TV advertising starts to get expensive, though.

GW seem to be allergic to advertising.

Which is where producing a product for a third party like MB games is a good idea. Then you sell supplements and extensions in-store.

Why rely on GW to do this? Have your group do 400 point combat patrol games/events. Fun and fast with not a lot of layout.

Or dust off 2nd edition and leave out the vehicles.

Skirmish versions of their core games is something I've proposed here several times before. There are some reasons why GW might object to this approach, but I think the benefits are enough to make it worthy of exploration.

I'd guess U.S. indy retailers -- for one -- would love having a skirmish game to demo and help push existing GW merchandise. Meanwhile, it'd help GW attack its competition in their market space while they start to go after GW's market share in larger-scale games.

From a shelf space standpoint, there's no reason the game itself has to be more than a self-contained softcover rulebook.

gorgon wrote:Skirmish versions of their core games is something I've proposed here several times before. There are some reasons why GW might object to this approach, but I think the benefits are enough to make it worthy of exploration.

I'd guess U.S. indy retailers -- for one -- would love having a skirmish game to demo and help push existing GW merchandise. Meanwhile, it'd help GW attack its competition in their market space while they start to go after GW's market share in larger-scale games.

From a shelf space standpoint, there's no reason the game itself has to be more than a self-contained softcover rulebook.

Which is essentially the Core Game boxed sets.

If they just fleshed out the killteam rules and put them back in the main rule book (or even provided a seperate rulebook with everything needed for killteam included (more fleshed out than battle missions killteam although those rules are still useful) although brb killteam would be better).

Also holding killteam tournements would get more people into playing it, and get players into regular 40k through small killteam missions

there are rules in thisw ed for kill team its 200 points 1 elite 2 troop 1 fast attack from any codex there are rules that allow each model in a squad to be seperate members in there own right shoot and fight independantly no coherency and that allown has encuraged me to by models i would never even thought about buying and now i have them i an considering expanding to a whole 1500pts based around these little 200 pt starters (thats the reason i have 4000pts of orks that i ahve built up over last 6 months started with a couple of kill temas and took it from there my local club even holds kill team comps on a regular basis as it encorages new ideas etc

Polonius wrote:The advantage GW would have with a skirmish scale game is that it's start up cost to GW would be negligible. They already have a couple dozen great plastic squad boxes, simply come up with rules that allow the use of a single squad (preferably built out of the box), and can be expaned or contracted slightly.

Small games would use a single box of IG/Orks/Gaunts and half boxes of MEQs. Larger games would use battle forces for horde armies and full squads plus maybe a hero or two.

it could actually be pretty fun. Pit 10 IG veterans against 4 Chaos space Marines. Or 25 Orks against 12 fire warriors.

Craft the rules around the models that exist, so that even boring boxes like Firewarriors can use all of the options. Use the same stat-lines (to ease people into 40k), but allow for more extra rules and abilities to match the skirmish games on the market. So, for example, IG veterans stay WS3 and A1 with only one CCW, but maybe can re-roll all misses in combat.

Huh, I like the idea! Sadly, GW will probably not do that, so it is up to us fans to make our won rules for small games such as this. The thing that really hurts GW is the fact that they only see the big picture, i.e., they concentrate on what will make them the most money as fast as possible, and so that limits them quite a bit. I would LOVE to see a series of boxed games, each with 15-30 figures that make up two Killteams. The sets could include the very basic 40k rules, with extra rules for experience and the like. Toss in some nice scenery bits, and voila! A cheap, yet involving intro into the world of 40k!

_Tim?

sbu wrote:there are rules in thisw ed for kill team its 200 points 1 elite 2 troop 1 fast attack from any codex there are rules that allow each model in a squad to be seperate members in there own right shoot and fight independantly no coherency and that allown has encuraged me to by models i would never even thought about buying and now i have them i an considering expanding to a whole 1500pts based around these little 200 pt starters (thats the reason i have 4000pts of orks that i ahve built up over last 6 months started with a couple of kill temas and took it from there my local club even holds kill team comps on a regular basis as it encorages new ideas etc

Yep killteam rules are avlaible in the battle missions book, kill team tournements dont seem to be that common though. (and would definatly help 40k compete withother small model count games)

Kilkrazy wrote:This is an excellent idea.

Make the games more modular, so people can buy a piece at a time. and not feel tied in to a massive spend.

I also think GW should maximise the use of their retail chain by selling one box games.

Ah, so you're asking GW to go back 10-20 years to when they had a range of smaller games which were entirely self-contained (like Judge Dredd, Rogue Trooper and Chainsaw Warrior) or to when they released games that required far fewer models (Necromunda, Gorkamorka, Mordheim, Bloodbowl, Dark Future).

I think GW abandoned most of these because they didn't like people having the option of picking up games that require few purchases and had years of play. They detract from the big games that require a huge amount of investment.

That, and you're less likely to recoup the investment in producing the new game.

So almost what you said, just not as sinister.