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.

I was reading through the Rogue Trader rulebook, and I've come to the conclusion that Fantasy Flight REALLY knows how to write rules.

Would it be feasible for GW to outsource the rule-writing for both 40K and Fantasy to a game-design company like Fantasy Flight? Let's face it, GW is in the model business, and quite a few people, I'm sure, would prefer if they were in the game-balancing business.

How about, if GW and Fantasy Flight worked out a schedule 5 years in advance. They agree to begin with a new edition of either game, and to update all the armies based on a similar schedule we have now. GW would have all that time to focus on the miniatures. They'd reduce costs by laying off their rule writers. If Fantasy Flight could consistently release rules that are balanced, more people would flock to the GW hobby and drive demand for more miniatures.

Have you taken a look at the FF rulebooks based in the Warhammer games? Would you think this is a viable strategy? Let's not forget, GW already has gone to other companies to work with them in different fields, such as video games.

Sounds like it could be too much trouble for its worth especially since GW uses the "we release rules when new models are ready" approach. Having in-house rules development working with modelers and GW business people is probably a more effective and efficient use of resources.

GW's rules for the most part are good and imo has improved significantly over the years. Anyone that can remember the god forsaken 2nd edition 40k can tell ya that 5th edition is a far superior platform ruleswise unless they're one of those guys who loves nostalgia.

Sure there are problems with GW's rules but its generally only in extreme and tailored circumstances. For the most part I think the 'GW rules are bad' is hyperbolic and the way this community behaves is just how any other forum I've come across does: plenty of posts harping on the negatives while ignoring the success thats evident. Similar to World of Warcraft forums; people constantly complain about this and that and while some of its legitimate...most of it is whining and differences of opinions than flat out flaws.

A better rules system of course is always a positive and should be a goal and I'd argue that GW has been doing this and doing it well.

But like a new Windows, or a new video game patch, it'll never solve all faults especially since these systems including tabletop gaming will inherently have problems due to new rules constantly being made and being affected by how much the company needs $$$$.

I doubt GW want to make significant changes to the basic rules of any of the core systems. These are into their 5th and 7th editions and surely should be considered virtually perfected.

They could certainly outsource editing quite cheaply, though equally it would not cost much to have an in-house editorial team who would be close to the design staff to ask questions.

Balance could be improved by better playtesting which IMO should involve mathematical simulation as well as table top games played by humans. Tabletop testing could perhaps be outsourced to test games in stores, and trusted clubs.

If GW want to introduce any new systems, they already have some satellite studios, such as the Warmaster people.

There's also a question of how many 'jobbing' designers and studios there are out there. Most successful companies, such as Steve Jackson Games, would probably prefer to work on their own products.

gw wouldn't outsource their rule because contrary to what you believe it would cost them more to do it since they have to pay another company, also all their writers would be made redundant (costing them money) and fantasy flight games would need more writers to cope with writing more than they do at the moment so some(if not all) of the gw writers would take up the jobs fantasy flight games would have open meaning your rulesbooks and codices written by fantasy flight games will probably be of the same standard.


also of note AFAIK fantasy flight games has no experience writing for TTMG's so you'd probably have a period of worse than we-currently-have rulebooks.

Having played/owned many FF games, I'd be willing to let them try it.

I bet they can make Epic truly what it should be.

I would love to see Games Workshop go back to (essentially) being "Citadel Miniatures" and let someone else design the games. I've advocated for that in the past as well.

GW is a great miniatures company that consistently puts out a quality product. They do produce some good rules (WAB/LOTR being a great example) but at some point became too attached to an intellectual property (namely, the 3rd ed. 40k engine and the 5th ed. WHFB engine) that should have both been chucked a long time ago.

I think they would be much better off EITHER licensing out to someone like FFG to do their flagship games rules (with the understanding that there would have to be some collaboration between the sculptors/CAD writers and the game designers) OR make like Wizards of the Coast and create some kind of "Warhammer License", allowing independent companies to create supplements/games using the base 'engine' (and the figures) for use in the Warhammer/40k universes. Either way, that would free GW up to concentrate on what they're good at, making figs.

I agree with you it would be a huge benefit to redesign both games from the ground up.

Also, this is a company which struggles to update a codex every four months. Almost anyone could do a better job.

However, do you really think they would ever let go of it?

They outsourced their rules when they adopted the INAT FAQ for the final round of the 'Ard Boyz tournament. This severely curtailed the drama of the event and we all feel cheated about it.

olympia wrote: This severely curtailed the drama of the event and we all feel cheated about it.

Agreed! 40k without drama is like getting a hooker for some conversation.

FFG is doing incredibly well, and with Rogue Trader and the other licensed games I think we could all benefit if GW does what it does best and they let FF do what they do best.

I am assuming most of the ego's are gone now from 3rd edition?

Something that FF does particularly well is utilize their customer feedback. Their board games have some of the fastest turn-around for FAQs I've ever seen. Can you imagine if you bought a codex, and even before it was released there was already an FAQ fixing the more notable errors in your book?

As an avid boardgamer who has only relatively recently gotten into 40k, it would be absolutely amazing if GW either gave up on rules or got serious about it. FFG blows them away in terms of have clearly written rules, and they're not even known as the best boardgame rules writers (but they cover for it with swift FAQs). I'd also be fine with a lot more playtesting and critical editing, but something has to happen at some point.

Although the 5th edition rulebook is fairly solid, many of the codexes have terrible ambiguities and problems that could be trivially resolved by even a quick passover and couple of playtest sessions. The notion frequently espoused by Jervis and others that ambiguous, poorly done rules should be done intentionally to promote fun gameplay is ludicrous and a total cop out. The only times I've not had fun playing 40k is when everything bogged down or became heated because some rule was poorly worded and open to interpretation, or contradictory to some other rule.

I would be much more willing to buy new codexes and expansion books if they weren't so terrible and (like PlanetStrike) frequently obviously only half developed and poorly balanced. Sure, they wouldn't get 100% of the profit if they brought someone else in, or would have more costs if they put more effort into these areas. But they'd get more sales overall on books if they were better quality, and hence at least come out the same. Further, that's on top of any additional miniatures sales by reducing the biggest problem with their systems (poor rules), which ultimately hurts their sales by turning people off the games.

Could they? Yes. Should they? Yes.

Would there be repercussions?

Absolutely: it would amount to a pretty serious reorganization much like the one that occurred about 3-4 years ago. It would be a very different corporate mission and the stockholders might get concerned when one of your main departments--game design--is being shut down (it would be the equivalent of Chrysler getting rid of Mopar; doable and worthwhile but requires a complete restructuring and is only undertaken if the company is in deep do-do).

So long as they remain profitable (and as of the last quarter, they were, albeit barely) and continue to meet market expectations you can expect them to hold the line. If GW goes south quickly BECAUSE OF BAD PRODUCT (i.e. not because of the price of tin or they're on the end of a 'blip' from a one-off product etc.) then you might see GW take this kind of approach. Basically, they'd have to be in the same boat Rackham was in last year/two years ago. Otherwise, I'd expect them to continue to experiment with licensing out (e.g. WHFRPG, Dark Heresy, etc.) but not go whole hog just yet.

syr8766 wrote:I think they would be much better off EITHER licensing out to someone like FFG to do their flagship games rules (with the understanding that there would have to be some collaboration between the sculptors/CAD writers and the game designers) OR make like Wizards of the Coast and create some kind of "Warhammer License", allowing independent companies to create supplements/games using the base 'engine' (and the figures) for use in the Warhammer/40k universes. Either way, that would free GW up to concentrate on what they're good at, making figs.

I dunno about option #2. If anyone with some money to purchase the license could make their own rules, 40k as we know it would pretty much disappear. I would bet that there would be SOOOO many versions floating around that it would probably be pretty hard to play a game outside your FLGS/club/circle of friends.

If there's a caveat that they must work within the pre-defined game mechanic, or engine, that would make it nigh on impossible because the core mechanics of the rules are, to me, one of the biggest problems with 40k. All the conflicting rules, the candy-coated "no army left behind" rules (ex: [i]everyone gets a 4+ cover save) and the ever-popular Codex creep. It's all because of the core mechanic. That and a total lack of any coherent thought when writing or playtesting.

Uriels_Flame wrote:40k without drama is like getting a hooker for some conversation.

Mmmmmm... Conversation...



Ghidorah

As much as I like FFG I'm not sure I would go for this.
I wonder how much money GW makes from the Codices anyway?

I would prefer a Living Rulebook scenario.
That is we can download the Codexs from the website and instead of writing new FAQs and Erratas, they change the downloads to reflect the changes.

The only downside of this is that some players might be slightly behind on their printouts, but I think most people are capable of keeping themselves up-to-date.

If GW are at all sensible at print production, they make a huge profit off the codexes.

It costs about £2-3 to typeset print a medium size codex, a bit more for a thicker one (SMs) and a bit less for the thinner ones. (Note that the thicker codexes have a higher cover price.)

Distribution will cost between 50p and £1 per copy put on shelves. There are no advertising costs.

Most of the artwork and fluff inside is recycled and costs near to nothing.

I've no idea how much it costs to design the rules but it can't be a huge amount since most of them are recycled too.

Let's say £4 for typesetting, repro and printing
£3 for art and rules production
£1 for distribution
£8 total costs.
Price to consumer = £18.

That's what I would be aiming for if I made 40K codexes.

Kilkrazy wrote:If GW are at all sensible at print production, they make a huge profit off the codexes.

It costs about £2-3 to typeset print a medium size codex, a bit more for a thicker one (SMs) and a bit less for the thinner ones. (Note that the thicker codexes have a higher cover price.)

Distribution will cost between 50p and £1 per copy put on shelves. There are no advertising costs.

Most of the artwork and fluff inside is recycled and costs near to nothing.

I've no idea how much it costs to design the rules but it can't be a huge amount since most of them are recycled too.

Let's say £4 for typesetting, repro and printing
£3 for art and rules production
£1 for distribution
£8 total costs.
Price to consumer = £18.

That's what I would be aiming for if I made 40K codexes.

killkrazy for president! Wait...

HI all.
Most gamers prefer rules to focus on game play , (not pimping new releases!)

The problem is GW belive writing 'speshul rulz' for the new releases improves sales and adds monetary value to special characters/units.
Ergo improves return for minimal outlay.(This has NOT been proven to be true BTW.)

However, most gamers belive a stable well defined and comprehensive rule set would generate long term interests and therfore long term growth.

If you want to use your 40k minatures with alternative rules sets that suit YOU better, whats stopping you?

Loads of FREE rule sets at 'freewargamesrules' for people to try.

As soon as your group tries out some different rules, that dont need 'GW input-FAQs minatures -books' , the sooner everyone becomes free of 'GW only 'mindset...
And this is great for the table top minature game hobby,IMO.

GW want to control the rule sets to help 'wallet rape' its customers.
So why not try out rules written by a game companies? (Thane Games, Ground Zero Games, Two Hour Wargames,Tabletop Games, etc, ) rather than a minature company ,(Citaadel Minatures-er I mean GW. )

Cut the GW apron strings, and decide YOUR OWN hobby , use whatever minatures and rules YOU want to.

Happy gaming,
Lanrak.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:I would prefer a Living Rulebook scenario.
That is we can download the Codexs from the website and instead of writing new FAQs and Erratas, they change the downloads to reflect the changes.

The only downside of this is that some players might be slightly behind on their printouts, but I think most people are capable of keeping themselves up-to-date.

What about those people who don't use the internet for gaming? Plus, there are those who don't keep up on the current FAQ PDF releases to begin with, why would they do it with Living Rulebooks? That of course, doesn't count those people who play that don't touch a computer to begin with.

GW has also dropped the ball on every LRB they've done in the past, putting out Errata/FAQ PDFs alongside their so called LRBs, basically failing to understand what a LRB even really is.

Concerning GW and the sheer amount of players they have, a LRB is a horrendous idea for 40K.