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.

Wasnt there a supplement for Necromunda that had rules for space marines and such? Outlands if I recall (its been like what, 13 years?)

GW made a solid foray into skirmish level boxed games with Mordheim. Me and some freinds that never got into full scale games had alot of fun with mordheim. GW supported it for a while, but then, like all specialist games......poof.

It was a decent system, tied in with WHFB, and had an affordable price point.

Alot of players really wanted a 40k version of Mordheim- that would have been rather succesful.

But what does GW decide to do? Well, they didnt want us using our 40k figs for a new rule set. So, they as always wanted to make us buy new minis- so the made Inquisitor and its 54mm scale.

I dont think I have to remind you guys how 'succesful' Inquisitor was. The minis were nice, but the different scale made the terrain different than the 25/30mm terrain-so there was another point of incompatibility. So, it flopped, and a few diehards adapted the rules to work with regualr 40k minis. But in all GW made an epic fail with something that could have been great.

And lets be serious about GW. Even when they do make a decent boxed game- they do something slowed with it. Recently- the genius of Space Hulk and its limited release.

Sometimes you have to wonder if GW is looking at these forums and laughing hysterically.

GW product manager: "Hey guys check this out, our paying customers are giving us feedback and suggestions. We'd better take their advice."

GW officemates: " haha, good one man! "

GW fanbase:

Whirling Blade Exarch wrote:Sometimes you have to wonder if GW is looking at these forums and laughing hysterically.

GW product manager: "Hey guys check this out, our paying customers are giving us feedback and suggestions. We'd better take their advice."

GW officemates: " haha, good one man! "

GW fanbase:

Kirby doesn't believe the internet exists so, no, they won't come looking here.

Mistress of minis wrote:Wasnt there a supplement for Necromunda that had rules for space marines and such? Outlands if I recall (its been like what, 13 years?

No. Outlands was mutants, redemptionists, etc.

Mistress of minis wrote:Wasnt there a supplement for Necromunda that had rules for space marines and such? Outlands if I recall (its been like what, 13 years?)

I don't recall that exactly. Necromunda had an expansion called "Outlanders" that included the rules for lots more gangs like the Ratskins and Redemptionists and more campaign rules to get another gang outlawed. They did publish various rules in various magazines like the Citadel Journal so may have included Space Marines there.

Everything in the OP's suggestions is spot on. But totally not in line with their business model: Sell moar Spaze Mahrinz

There used to be two excellent (and both White Dwarf Origin) Rules for small games.

The Combat Patrol Rules for 40k. Which allowed players to build small 400/500 point forces. But stopped the use of big monsters, battle tanks and other powerful units.

Border Patrol Rules for WHFB which used an alternative force organisation chart (the good old days when you didn't just see armies of WoC, Deamons and Lizardmen in massive horde formations which then steam-roll anything else...) And again limited magic items, magic levels etc.

Both of these rules set have led to the current armies I do have one way or another. I love small games because it means that I can get a lot of games (and have been involved with Campaigns and tournaments at such small points values).

In fact a lot of the recent changes to fantasy have made the game unplayable for me now. I don't have the money to bulk all my units up to 40+ models. :/

Everyone points out how expensive warhammer is, but I've always looked at it like this:
A cheap, barebones setup for a videogamers (assuming you have a TV already) is roughly $340, at least. You could get a decent sized army and books/tools for that much.
-Nintendo Wii $200.
-Extra Controller $50.
- 3 games (a small selection, purchased over the course of time) $90-150.

Holdenstein wrote:

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.

Yep. And even after that post, it seems everybody is happily ignoring the fact that GW really do do this, and that it is a part of their business model, just not one they're using with their Warhammer systems.

E.g.

Le Grognard wrote:Everything in the OP's suggestions is spot on. But totally not in line with their business model: Sell moar Spaze Mahrinz

Again, I agree it is a great shame that there's no equivalent entry-level skirmish system for WHFB/40k, and would love to see it (re)introduced, but complaining that GW are ignoring this model entirely when, er, they use it, seems a little odd.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

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.

Essentially yes. That was their era of fastest growth. Then they shut down everything except the two core products and a smattering of "specialist games", which have since been quietly dropped.

LoTR got them up a big hill, and since it lost traction they have been sliding down again. All they achieved in the past few years was to rationalise the retail chain they had spent years building up, and get rid of tons of experienced staff they need to demo their two products.

In other words, GW didn't like blah blah blah, but they are wrong, that business model worked.

Scott-S6 wrote: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.

While I agree with most of your post, just wanted to make a quick correction: Privateer tends not to change rules per se. Instead, if an option is regarded as sub-par they'll release another model to up its power level considerably. The only time they've really changed rules was with Mk.II and (to a much lesser extent) Remix. I suppose you could also count errata, but that's honestly something ANY company ought to be doing...

Scott-S6 wrote: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.

You're missing the point a bit. My idea was not to release a skirmish game with other miniatures, it is to make a skirmish-scale game that works for the miniatures they already produce. Set up a way for players to start playing fun games immediately from the moment they pick up their first box, as a way of maintaining interest in the game and sustaining potential later purchases. They wouldn't need to constantly change the game to keep people buying stuff because people are already buying stuff to build to the next level in the scale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote: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.

This is a fair point. I'm guessing to pull this off well GW would have to dedicate someone with experience writing rules and exceptional organizational skills to keep it all straight over the long term. Which seems unlikely. But given how low the new model requirements would be for this game, I imagine the cost would not be so great in the long term.

Polonius wrote:At the upper levels, a few bad units sort of wash out. In small scale games, a single overpowered model can dominate.

I wonder if one way to deal with is to make enough optional rules that players have a variety of ways of taking something out. But of course, there would have to be some playtesting and some limitations. Certain battle-scale models would have to be banned from skirmish-scale. No Wraithlords, please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

12thRonin wrote: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.

To answer your last comment first, because I don't think 2nd edition handled its options very well. There were too many things that just didn't matter most of the time. (Like say, if you were playing orks against space marines and drew a virus weapon strategy card.)

To answer your first comment last, because I'm not really all that interested in sticking to GW. I'm mostly in it for the miniatures, with gaming a distant secondary wish. So rather than spend a lot of my already scarce free time coming up with an original and balanced ruleset, I'm more likely to just buy some other company's skirmish game and stop buying GW models. Or just buy computer games. This was more of an intellectual exercise to see if there was a way for GW to improve their profit by improving the game experience for their customers. Since so often it's assumed that GW can only be profitable by disregarding everything their customers think.

That said, if there was a fan community dedicated to building a ruleset like this, I might get involved. Until GW sues us that is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote: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.

If GW was smart about it, there's no reason they would have to detract from their other games though. If they used a simplified version of the core mechanic for the rules, that saves on mechanical development time. If they use one-piece miniatures that would fit into existing armies, then they aren't distracting from production. And you know current GW customers would buy the game just for the minis that are slightly different from normal if they looked good enough.

Basically, these could be just like the latest Space Hulk, only not completely rendered irrelevant by being limited edition.

Rule development is by far the smallest cost that GW have to bear. It is negligible compared to mould making, HQ overhead, distribution, and the cost of their retail chain.

GW could very easily and cheaply commission designers to write individual projects. If they wanted to, the projects could all be co-ordinated within an over-arching design concept, such as the already existing 40K rules. No new models are required. If the printing costs frighten GW, then release the rules as PDFs.

There would be more work and money involved in producing one box games, because you need artwork for parts and models to go into them. You have to build an expensive inventory before release, which might flop.

I like the tiered idea with a skirmish entry level for 40k and fantasy, Mordheim and Necromunda were always my favourite games back in the day. There's something nice about seeing your squad evolve over time.

One thing you could do to allow people to progress from the lowest level up without losing their squad's uniqueness would be to formulate some way of turning the squad into a Special Character/squad that costs significantly more than the basic squad. Obviously a lot of the skills would need to be toned down/dropped as the skills that help you sneak into an enemy base aren't the same that help you survive on an open battlefield...

They already have the very basic rules set up as a little booklet that would be great to just give away with purchases. It's the quick start guide from AoBR. Making this, and the other rules ring bound makes adding in the new power levels simple enough. I would consider having each army's codex contain the rules for all three power levels with certain items not usable at each power level for some semblance of balance as well as teasing people with what they could be using if they just spent a bit more.

to be honest it still surprises me that the codex' don't already include apocalypse formations/units for exactly the same reason.

The other benefit of having a small skirmish game that uses one box of figures is they would, potentially, sell more miniatures. For example I like some of the Dark Eldar figures, but have absolutely no intention of buying an army... so I don't buy any DE at all. If I could play a skirmish game with one or two boxes, I'd happily buy the odd extra unit or two if I liked the models. It also allows them to, if they really want, to introduce new races or lower tier forces without the expense of having to produce an entire army's worth of rules and models.

I also love the idea of the upgrade sprues.

They had a small skirmish game for Fantasy. It used the same models as the regular game, laid everything out for you, etc.

It was called, interestingly enough, "Warhammer: Skirmish". It used small amounts of figures, had the scenarios laid out with specific forces and potential alternatives(Assassin! for example is the one that really got me playing WHFB. Dark Elf Assassin and some Shades going to kill a High Elf General in the dead of night? Awww yeah!).

Needless to say, it didn't really fare well.

Kanluwen wrote:They had a small skirmish game for Fantasy. It used the same models as the regular game, laid everything out for you, etc.

It was called, interestingly enough, "Warhammer: Skirmish". It used small amounts of figures, had the scenarios laid out with specific forces and potential alternatives(Assassin! for example is the one that really got me playing WHFB. Dark Elf Assassin and some Shades going to kill a High Elf General in the dead of night? Awww yeah!).

Needless to say, it didn't really fare well.

But that wasn't what I'm talking about either. Skirmish didn't really let you just play. Scenarios with specific forces involved don't work for a tiered approach because they force the player to conform their skirmish force to what GW laid out in the scenario, or the potential alternatives GW provides. What I'm talking about would be more like Mordheim, only with the factions available aligned to the armies GW sells for WFB, rather than pit fighters and sisters of sigmar and cultists and other things no one fields as armies. I'm talking a game where if I have some beastmen models and my friend has some dark elves we can immediately plop down some plastic terrain and a couple of trees and have an engaging and tactical battle with as little as 10 guys per side.

Well cost wise when I look at xbox/ps2/drinking&clubbing/PC gaming (which is dying!) horse riding, music (instruments etc) it's actually not that expensive.

Actually, they had multiple skirmish scenarios that were exactly what you're describing.

"Take 500 points of your chosen forces, matched against 500 points of your opponent's chosen forces and clear them out from a town to seize an objective." for example, then there was "Baggage Train", where the attackers had 750 points v. 500 points of Defenders who had special rules like Stubborn while the Baggage Train was still intact, etc.

it's still a scenario driven game, not an "open play" system. Warhammer: skirmish also didn't even pretend to re-balance the various armies down to the level of the game.

it's the same problem kill team had: limited scenarios and no attempt to rebalance the game.

A true skirmish game would use the same models, and probably the same stat lines, but would actually be a new game with internal balance and a range of missions. Does anybody really want to play 150pts of grey hunters against 150pts of firewarriors? Anybody?

Well applying the "Mohammed Mountain no move" prove principle. If GW won't release skirmish Rules for 40k Miniatures, why don't we write and release them? Dakka Skirmish rules anyone (don't mention 40k and call them Spaze mehrens and space orks, star elfs etc we should be alright? ) ....

Because nobody would play it. Nobody buys GW because they make the best rules, they buy because they make the most commonly used rules.

It wouldn't be "nobody" who would play it, but it wouldn't get the world wide coverage that 40K does.

It may not be necessary to write a new set of rules. There are several sets of free modern and SF skirmish rules that could be used or adapted.

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

So almost what you said, just not as sinister.

FFG and Days of Wonder seem to be doing ok with lots of titles with new ones and expansions being released regularly. The difference is in being a game company versus a miniatures company.

They may in the future once they find how sweet it is to play mordhiem etc.

'' HOLY CRAP!!! We had this game!!! oh sweet''

A nice idea. I keep looking at making a new army for WFB in 8th, but then I look at the size of regiments needed now, and the way the focus has (deliberately) been changed to large and expensive blocks of infantry. And I think.. can I be bothered to spend so much money on something which will be so time consuming? Not that I don't enjoy painting and modelling, but when it's 50 similar looking night goblins I need to paint, my enthusiasm ebbs away.

Necromunda and Mordheim are arguably some of the finest games GW has ever produced, and require relatively little outlay (in terms of both money and time). There is a reason they are kept hidden away and their play is not encouraged.

Polonius wrote:it's still a scenario driven game, not an "open play" system. Warhammer: skirmish also didn't even pretend to re-balance the various armies down to the level of the game.

it's the same problem kill team had: limited scenarios and no attempt to rebalance the game.

A true skirmish game would use the same models, and probably the same stat lines, but would actually be a new game with internal balance and a range of missions. Does anybody really want to play 150pts of grey hunters against 150pts of firewarriors? Anybody?

Yes. I think at a minimum such a game would require some form of re-pointing the entire line. After all, if I match my gors against an equal points value of my friend's brand new dark elves with repeater cross bows, I imagine the battle simply using WFB rules would not be terribly fun for either of us. Repointing everything would be a pretty big task, but then while they're at it there would be a chance to toss in all the fun, characterful rules that might tweak the game but be too fiddly to put into WFB.

You wouldn't have to repoint the entire line, only the units made available for the skirmish game.

This would be the basic infantry units, the less powerful elites and fast attack, and characters/HQ who either aren't too powerful or you reduce their powers for the skirmish game.

Power reduction could be done in the skirmish rules by various methods. Remember how Combat Patrol didn't allow multi-wound models?

Has I have told on the previous GW balance thread, GW does need a inbetween game to introduce new folks to the warhammer universe, A small contained game that would appeal to newcomers with few models but also to vets that have less and less time to keep up with massive battles.
Would anyone either have a vet or a noob entertained with some minis or a vet or noob just giving up after making their maths... Its not like theres no competent and high quality miniatures skirmish games outhere.

The business model GW choosed to apply does not need to exclude the small game, in fact its a relatively obvious complement to the bigger games that they want to shove down everyones troaths. I believe small games were cutted down by blind bean counters whohave no clue of how marketing works... YOU HAVE TO INVEST in order to pass the word and the small game works like a charm if you wnat to introduce the hobby to a wider and less pornographic rich audience.

Kilkrazy wrote:You wouldn't have to repoint the entire line, only the units made available for the skirmish game.

This would be the basic infantry units, the less powerful elites and fast attack, and characters/HQ who either aren't too powerful or you reduce their powers for the skirmish game.

Power reduction could be done in the skirmish rules by various methods. Remember how Combat Patrol didn't allow multi-wound models?

You can also introduce skills, traits, and other special rules along with repointed models. You can also allow mixing and matching from squads.

So an Eldar "fire team" might be a warlock, five dire avengers, two pathfinders, and a striking scorpion. A space marine Fire Team might be a five man combat squad. IG might be a Platoon command, commissar, and two squads. Tau could be 8 fire warriors, three stealth suits, and two pathfinders.

NAVARRO wrote:Has I have told on the previous GW balance thread, GW does need a inbetween game to introduce new folks to the warhammer universe, A small contained game that would appeal to newcomers with few models but also to vets that have less and less time to keep up with massive battles.
Would anyone either have a vet or a noob entertained with some minis or a vet or noob just giving up after making their maths... Its not like theres no competent and high quality miniatures skirmish games outhere.

The business model GW choosed to apply does not need to exclude the small game, in fact its a relatively obvious complement to the bigger games that they want to shove down everyones troaths. I believe small games were cutted down by blind bean counters whohave no clue of how marketing works... YOU HAVE TO INVEST in order to pass the word and the small game works like a charm if you wnat to introduce the hobby to a wider and less pornographic rich audience.

There is an apocryphal story about an electrical supply shop who bring in an accountant to advise them. When he finds out the profit margin on cable ties, basically nothing, he tells them to stop selling them and concentrate on the more profitable items.

After they do this, sales of other items start to decline.

Eventually the owner realises that people used to come in for an XYZ and a bunch of cable ties. Now they can't get the cable ties, they go somewhere else for the XYZ as well.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:You wouldn't have to repoint the entire line, only the units made available for the skirmish game.

This would be the basic infantry units, the less powerful elites and fast attack, and characters/HQ who either aren't too powerful or you reduce their powers for the skirmish game.

Power reduction could be done in the skirmish rules by various methods. Remember how Combat Patrol didn't allow multi-wound models?

You can also introduce skills, traits, and other special rules along with repointed models. You can also allow mixing and matching from squads.

So an Eldar "fire team" might be a warlock, five dire avengers, two pathfinders, and a striking scorpion. A space marine Fire Team might be a five man combat squad. IG might be a Platoon command, commissar, and two squads. Tau could be 8 fire warriors, three stealth suits, and two pathfinders.

Yes, exactly.

GW want to sell models. It doesn't matter if they sell them for 40K or some other rules.

Free/cheap skirmish rules using existing sets of models would encourage small scale purchases which in time would add up to a larger army and might get people into 40K.