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.

Not really I mean GW really needs to expand their intellectual properties a la battletech. They seem stingy with them though.

I'd make

1. Everything cheaper (i liked it when it was 15 quid for a box set!)

2. Bring Back Specialist Games, with new stuff every month

3. Get the Fat Bloke Back for WD (we need toooo!, )

4. Fire Everyone i don't like in the Design Studio

5. Re-do the rules

Oh yeah and bring back the old website l actually liked that one! Umm... and bring back the Squats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What would I do?

First, I would take at least a month to learn the business - find out what the profit margins and sunk costs are, at what point making kits in plastic becomes the most profitable method, and how most people collect - an army at a time, a few armies which are added to a bit at a time, or something else entirely. Any changes made to the modelling side of things would be based purely on a more informed viewpoint.

Second, I would arrange for the rules to be re-written with tournament play in mind. In other words, they would be done in a way which does not result in ambiguity - think like MtG's comprehensive rulebook.

Third, all rulebooks, including army books and codices, would be available online as PDFs as well as in book form. The book version would include all background information, missions and so forth, whilst the online version would be pure rules. The book versions would also be written more in the friendly style, to be appropriate for 'casual' gamers.

Fourth, I would ensure that several different styles of gamer would be used for playtesting, including testing in small games of 500-1000 points, big games of 3000-5000, and the standard game size range of 1500-2250 (Fantasy numbers, but you get the idea for 40K). I would also ensure that there were tournament players doing their best to break the lists.

Fifth, I would accept that sometimes people screw up and allow the army books, or even the rulebook itself, to be edited directly. Every six months, the rules would be checked to ensure they are consistent and reasonably balanced, and anything that required editing would be.

Most of these changes are to facilitate tournament play, obviously.

First, invest a couple million supporting senators/mp/congressmen.

Second, lobby my new friends that the metal miniature industry needs a bailout.

Third, enjoy.

M.

Fire Jervis Johnson.

Remake metal models to be come plastic.

Make LoTR a specialist game at first occasion.

Hire some inspired B.Sc.'s for codex updates

wuestenfux wrote:Fire Jervis Johnson.

So you're dump Jervis to bring back Gav as head of games development?

:shudder:

Please, please, please...

Aelyn wrote:The book versions would also be written more in the friendly style, to be appropriate for 'casual' gamers.

Care to explain what you mean by that?

What's not friendly about the current 5th Ed book?

BYE

The 5e book IMO gets closer to the ideal of a ruleset which is accesible to new and young players while presenting the rigourous definitions that rules need.

I agree. The 5th Ed rulebook is by far the most 'friendly' rulebook they've produced. It's still one step forward twelve steps back as far as actual rules are concerned, but the book itself (and the way its written) is very, very good.

I don't see why you'd want to change that.

BYE

1. Playtesters
2. Sell starter sets anywhere possible, but as a pack with a starter paintset
3. Clear, concise FAQ's covering all questions and a white dwarf/ online "mailbag" where official answers are given to rule questions on a monthly basis
4. Close some GW retail stores where there are several close together
5. Open stores where there is no presence and redistribute retail presence evenly after doing research on the surrounding area (ie cost of having a store in the city instead of just outside, etc)

If i owned GW it would be all about maximizing gross profit margin while trying to stay as customer centric as possible. I would train my store staff to identify the customers need before they opened there mouth. IE brake it down into range groups.....
12YO
Tournament
Collector
Uber gamer/collector
and focus seperate sales tactics on them.

Release as much in plastic as humanly possible (plastic has to be cheaper then metal...right?)

only withdraw models when the new version is days from release (ie ipod)

Redo the website so it facilitates customers spending time there. easier navigation, forums, faqs and the like.

Sell box sets via mainstream distributors (Target, Walmart, Toys R Us etc. just enough to get them on the website or in the stores)

set up online (WAR) and in store cross promotions.

focus on organic growth....opening more stores in areas that are lacking.

Start a GW Credit Card and offer finance options that would help those of us that have troubles dropping 500 bucks on a battle company but could handle no intrest for 6 months and 20 dollar payments a week

start a yearly GD hardback glossy book filled with photos of the world class models (i personally would pay big moneys for that.)

im sure im forgeting stuff but not knowing anything about the company other then being a customer.

Let's see....
If I owned Games Workshop, and didn't want to run the company into the ground, then realistically....

1. First thing, release some FAQs that actually answer most of the questions that have come up. Also, put the website back to how it was before, or at least closer to it. While the rules developers were fixing their mistakes I would have the model making people work on: new plastic Dark Eldar warriors, plastic Dark Eldar wyches, plastic Sisters of Battle, and a metal archon/drachon

2. Second, work on bringing back the Lost and the Damned PDF, revised for 5th edition.

3. Third, continue work on the Imperial Guard codex. Once the models I wanted worked on are finished, move on to: Plastic Reaver Jetbikes, plastic Guardsmen in great/trenchcoats (for DKoK or Steel Legion conversions), and a plastic Valkyrie.

4. After IG is done, Dark Eldar, for the rules developers. Also: a plastic Hellion/Scourge box, a plastic Archon with Incubi Retinue set, and plastic Immortals.

5. New Necron codex, that probably ditches the C'Tan. Allow Necrons some more versatility, possibly releasing metal models for special weapons/ squad leaders. For models, release: a new, lighter Necron vehicle, and a better looking Tomb Spider (plastic or metal).

6. Codex: Inquisition, along with plastic Grey Knights, plastic Grey Knight terminators, a plastic Inquisitor( Lord) with a retinue (for all Ordos), plastic Sisters of Battle seraphim, and a conversion pack for Deathwatch.

7. ???

8. Profit, hopefully. While all that's going on for 40K, I would see if I could get a decent set of skirmish rules put together that encompasses Necromunda, Gorkamorka, Space Hulk, Kill-Team, etc. I would also see if I could get a movie licenced, since this would really bring the game into the public eye (I would be careful with this though. These kind of movies have a tendency to really suck). No opinion on fantasy really; I'd probably just let them do their own thing.

Hm. I would probably make some other changes, but I can't think of them right now.

Maybe try and fix White Dwarf? I would probably try and work in some Chaos Legions, Space Wolves, and Kroot Mercenaries rules in there too. Invalidating entire armies is generally not the best way to go. Also, I would try and get the rules playtested a little bit better, particularly in regards to extreme builds.

Vaktathi wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Mechwarrior *is* Battletech. Either that or somebody's really slipped on their IP protection.

*HUGE* differences there.

Nomoreso than RT -> 2E -> 3E. I guess we should be pretty happy that 40k managed to thrive so it's not stuck as RT.

Vaktathi wrote:I'm also pretty sure that the amount of support they get strangles other armies when just a little bit of extra resources could make some of the other armies much more iconic as well.

Huh? All of the "iconic" armies Orks, Guard, Nids, and Eldar seem to be doing OK (the Eldar are still a bit behind the curve). The minor forces (DE, Tau, Necrons, and Hunters) haven't been cancelled, and Tau (like Sisters and Hunters) even appears to have done well enough to move up a notch to an expanded list.

Vaktathi wrote:

That said, I'd love to do a Space Marines hip hop fan Alien Enemy army...

Well, for the Brits, I'd imagine that Orks are about as close as that gets

Not likely, as Brits just don't have the same racial lens that we Americans use and live with. They probably look at Orks as Cockney. Or maybe Irish. I think the closest GW actually got to that was with the Diggas.

Vaktathi wrote:Apoc itself probably didn't require a huge amount of developer time for coming up with the rules, half the "new" things already existed from FW, and they didn't put a whole of time into recosting everything (generally just rounded it up or down to the nearst hundred or five hundred points) and its been a great success.

Plenty of businesses fail to implement or produce things that would be value enhancing because they are stuck in a certain mindset or schedule.

Huh? Apoc wasn't slapped together in an afternoon, as you suggest. The new Apoc rules are nothing like the old FW rules.

The Apoc Baneblade is both better and cheaper than the FW version, because it's not hamstrung by the old VDR rules that underlie the old FW stuff and lead to gross, but consistent, overcosting. The Baneblade wasn't just "rounded", either. I have IA (before it became IA1), and the FW BB was 634 pts base with a S9 AP2 Battlecannon. The Apoc Baneblade is cuts the cost to 500 pts, upgrades the Battlecannon to 10" blast with Primary Weapon, *and* adds the option for (overpriced) AV14 or (underpriced) extra Sponsons. Things changed dramatically in Apoc.

It would be good if GW actually *had* a schedule that they followed.

Vaktathi wrote:Playtesting scenario's shouldn't take too much development effort, if it is they are doing it wrong, and Scenario rules should apply strictly to the Scenario and as long as its not poorly designed, shouldn't have a problem.

Question: how much playtesting do *you* put into scenarios that you develop, and how much do you think that GW puts in?

Vaktathi wrote:

Like in 3E when GW would make new stuff up for each WD and leave it for the players to sort out.

Again, poorly implemented, especially when they didn't tie it all together in one place.

Also not quite what I'm getting at. Imagine a campaign book, it comes with a couple special characters for an IG army and a Tau army, along with some predesigned scenario missions and a general campaign structure, some fluff, and some special rules for each army and a couple of the missions that apply to that scenario campaign. None of this would apply to "tournament/pickup" style games, it would be something that people could pick up for $15-30 and be maybe 50 pages,

So, this becomes the compiled Chapter Approved again? With FAQs and all the misc rules released over the previous year.

How is that not essentially what GW's already doing with Apocalypse and FW SoV? Each Apoc book has special formations / datasheets, etc. FW SoV has new Fluff and lists. Apparently, we'll continue to get Datasheets and new SoV stuff until it stops selling (which won't be for quite a while, I guess)

Vaktathi wrote:

This is the internet. Nothing can stop the complaining.

Of course not, but I hear just as much, if not more complaining, at the places I play at as well.

My playgroup is well-satisfied with 5E and Apoc ATM - I haven't heard any unusual significant griping at our gaming sessions.

Vaktathi wrote:I'm just not as enthusiastic about starting new 40k projects is all.

If you have as many projects to finish as I do, yeah, you shouldn't be starting new projects, either.

Vaktathi wrote:

If 5E had been done like you suggest, it'd be a worse system overall, a retrograde step back towards WFB, rather than a progressive step away from WFB.

How so? How would BS modifiers be a bad thing?

I think fantasy's shooting system is actually much more intelligently designed than 40k's, although still not quite perfect.

BS modifiers are going *back* to WFB. By definition, that is retrograde.

It's "bad" only in the sense that GW has decided that 40k doesn't need to be (nor should be) WFB. GW has decided that 40k is to be "streamlined" to support Apoc-scale gaming.

BS modifers aren't as intelligent as fiddly. That may work great in a high-detail system WFB, which emphasizes rules detail for the sake of rules detail. But I don't like WFB, so the idea of turning 40k into WFB holds no attraction for me.

Vaktathi wrote:

Question: How many man-hours do you think went into the INAT FAQ, and how big do you think GW Development staff is?

For gathering questions, designing and editing the document, etc, you may be right. But for actually answering the questions, a full time paid developement staff should be able to get that done in a week.

All in all, 6 work days (48 hours) for the development team themselves, assuming 6 people, 288 man-hours.

Do that once a year and GW suddenly goes from crap FAQ and rules support to having amazing rules support. It may not mean much to 13 year old kids, but for older gamers, it really would mean a lot.

To be honest, that sounds like what did in 3E, and we got a lot of really crappy FAQ answers, with Devs just making stuff up rather than actually researching the rule.

You said 2 dozen questions per army, and we have roughly a dozen armies today. So that's 288 questions total. You estimate a grand total of 1 hour per question. And this includes all activities (collected, researched, drafted, reviewed, finalized, typeset, etc.) within that hour. Based on your estimated volume, I suspect that your workload estimate is off by a factor of at least 3. Probably 5 to 10.

If you look at the INAT FAQ, it is 90 pages. With examples and illustrations. And it as updated to v1.1. That was *not* done in 240 hours. Formatting, layout and proofing alone for 2x 90 pages probably took close to 240 hours. I'm going to guesstimate that, based on the volume of pages, the INAT FAQ probably took around 2000 man-hours (1 full man-year) to complete.

Now it is possible that GW could do it faster, as they're "professionals". They might be twice as quick. That means they only need to burn 6 man-months on the FAQ. The only way GW can afford to release a FAQ is to charge like a Codex / Chapter Approved. But they can't charge for because INAT just gave it away for FREE...

Vaktathi wrote:

Given that the GW fanbase has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to hold the IP when it is shared with them, by NDA or otherwise, you think GW can depend on external playtesters for quality feedback?

That's a seperate issue entirely. Even after cutting their external playtesting, the leaks keep occuring with the same regularity.

That is because GW is now controlling the leaks. That is why we only see certain leaks on nearly-finished items. As opposed to things very early in development. But if GW is to move back to external playtesting, who can they use? Who can they trust?

Vaktathi wrote:

And keep in mind that external playtest needs to be coordinated and professionally evaluated. On the scale that you're asking, that's a pretty big job.

Well, yeah, especially considering they aren't doing any now. If they were, it wouldn't really be a huge step up.

Either way, it's a cost that generates dubious actual value. Either you hired the right staff and you can trust them to do the right thing with internal playtesting, or you didn't and should get new staff.

Vaktathi wrote:

I just can't see how this works. The resources don't exist to do this in the physical (TTG) realm. TTG isn't MMO. You can't just do new patches and stuff.

Aside from a couple solid playtesting groups of maybe 10 people each, I really don't see why it would be such a huge deal. Hell, it could just be GW staff from various departments playing games in their off-time.

2x 10 = 20 people? If you pay regular entry level salary, that's over $500k USD in salary alone. If you add statutory requirements (insurance, taxes), you're spending $1M on playtesting. That's a *lot* of money to earn back from "better-balanced" rules... For typical ROI, GW would need to generate something like $2+M, $3+M in additional revenue to justify such a large playtesting group.

Also , if it's outside of working hours, then GW can't do it. It's illegal to require people to do work on a volunteer basis. That's why they're off-clock.

Vaktathi wrote:They don't need a ton of support, just something to get them out there. The fact that they are not being played has much to do with that they aren't in stores, they aren't featured in GW publications almost at all, have almost nil support at events (relatively speaking), even before being relegated to their current position, and just generally have always had poor support. Give them some *decent* face time in WD and events, and at least have something in the stores showing that it *exists* and I think they'd do much better.

Really? I think it's because everybody who wants a Nec / Epic / BFG / whatever army already has one. GW could do a huge BFG re-release with bells, whistles, balloons, and hot dogs, and I could hardly care less. I have Imperial and Chaos fleets painted, along with a large Eldar fleet to build. So maybe, on net, GW gets zero dollars, but I'm motivated to build and paint my Eldar fleet.

Or maybe GW does a huge Epic re-release, call it "Armageddon". OK, great. I finish building and painting my Epic Eldar army. Maybe I'm motivated to spend all of $40 on new models. Woo-hoo, that's going to make them more money!

Space Hulk? Got plenty Termies, no interest in Bugs.

Gork? No, I don't do greens.

Nec? Got Escher and Spyre gangs already painted. I can probably build a brand new Van Saar gang from a box of Cadians, just like I originally built my Mord warband from a box of Empire State Troops.

AT/TL? See Epic, above. I own Epic Titans, so it's build and paint time.

Seriously, GW can spend the next 6 release slots on SG, and they'll get all of $100 in incremental sales from me? And that's because I play almost all of their SG range? That's not good ROI.

Hmmmm, I basing this on the idea I acquired the company by being majority stock holder and have large amounts of capital to work with.

1) Take the company and make it a private corporation.

2) Create a joint partnership with Fantasy Flight Games or Hasbro to create a series of boardgames that are gateways into table top war gaming.

The games would be Space Hulk, Blood Bowl, Hero Quest &Talisman.
These games would all be of high quality and come with pre-painted plastics. They would be sold in gaming conventions, hobby shops, comic shops, toy stores and most importantly... Wal-Mart!

3) Re-organize the company.

a) Citadel and Forge World combined into one entity. Improve quality control, introduction of better resin casting machines, reintroduce the idea of scale.

b) Cancel White Dwarf. Create a joint-partnership with Rackham, Privateer Press, & FFG to create an industry wide periodical focused on Fantasy and Sci-Fi Table War Gaming, Board Games, and Modeling. All four companies would share the cost to produce the magazine. An independent editor would manage the magazine with assistant editors for each of the companies products. Distribute the magazine in non-traditonal places.

4) While letting the current editions of the game run there course A complete ground up revamping of the core systems and specialist games would also be going on behind the scenes. A number of the game systems will be redesigned, combined or completely discontinued. Hire experienced game designers from outside of the company and industry. Beta Test the games using gamers signing NDAs

5) The Relaunch

1) WH40K: Rogue Trader - 25mm scale skirmish wargame that includes elements of Necromunda & Gorka Morka.

2) WH40K: Apocalypse - 15mm scale army level tactical wargame that includes elements of Epic Armageddon & old Apocalypse.

3) WHFB: War Cry - 25mm scale skirmish wargame that includes elements of Mordheim, Skirmish, and Warbands

4) WHFB: Warmaster - 15mm scale scale army level tactical wargame that includes elements of old Warmaster & WAB

5) Specialist Games - Clearing House of LOTR & Board Game Initative

JohnHwangDD wrote:Nomoreso than RT -> 2E -> 3E. I guess we should be pretty happy that 40k managed to thrive so it's not stuck as RT.

More like 40K and Dark Heresy. Same universe. Utterly different games.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your own twisted reality John.

BYE

How I would "save" GW.

Get hero quest/bloodbowl/spacehulk brought upto date and back into toy stores everywhere.

Create a skirmish ruleset under the GURPS theory so that it will work for any IP they need it to. Give it a nice fluffy and roleplaying/progression feel.

Break out of the overpowered rules to sell new minis cycle. Produce balanced and fun rules where every army feels like it plays unique. Easier said than done but imho they need to bite the bullet and try harder.

Refocus stores away from kids with pocket money and towards people with jobs, including lots of late opening and gaming nights on every week night. Lots of official tournies and leader boards and player ladders.

40k should be the flagship, it is massively popular outside the tabletop gaming world. People outside the TTgaming world think WHFB is either a lotr copy or a wow clone, 40k stands on its own two legs and is fairly unique in most peoples eyes.

With this in mind GW need to learn from the mistakes they just made with the WAR Online MMO and get a 40k MMO out. If they do it right a 40k MMO has the potential to make them more cash than everything else they do combined. Doing WHFB first honestly stunned me, really stupid move imho.

Films and TV series. This one is so obvious it worries me that we haven't seen them yet. I am assuming there is a large financial or creative roadblock in the way.

Basically the biggest asset GW have is there 40k IP and it is sorely underused, they should be making millions upon millions upon millions out of it without even taking miniature sales into account.

1) Change the focus of the company to selling rules instead of selling miniatures.
a) Rules make the game, so focus on that. If the rules are good, then the miniatures will sell.

2) Balance and rewrite the Codices against each other and for the missions. This would help the tournament scene as well as casual gaming.
a) Get top tournament winners to seriously playtest and try to break army lists against each other.
b) Get computational models to randomly generate army lists and play them against each other.
c) Get technical writers to write clear and precise rules, as well as standardize game related wording and jargon...and finally make a universal glossary for each of the games.

3) Bring Specialist Games back as a true priority.
a) TRY NEW THINGS, let your game designers actually design games. Man O War, Gorka Morka, Adeptus Titanicus, Inquisitor...all these things, despite them not ultimately being successful were all important forays into expanding the GW universe.
b) Put a Specialist Games battle report in every WD. Whether it's Mordheim, BFG, Necromunda, or Aeronautica Imperialis, you NEED to show these games off to generate interest in these games for them to be successful. Also, it would increase the WD value to readers.
c) Space Hulk...try to find a way to bring it back successfully and financially. And the opportunity to promote joint games with BFG and 40K would be too good to miss.
d) Skirmish, skirmish, skirmish. Create a way to introduce how to play games with few miniatures as a gateway into the larger games of the 'Big Three'. Kill Team was a good start, but a true dedicated skirmish game would be a great way to introduce new gamers to the hobby, as well as creating a refreshing diversion for experienced gamers who want more characterful experiences.

4) Break the connection between rules and miniatures.
a) Release rules as needed...not when miniatures are available.
b) Try to find a way to release the rules and ALL the codices TOGETHER...for balance issues and to not create gamer resentment for having to watch other armies get new codices while waiting YEARS for their own.
c) Miniatures can come out separately in their own waves.

5) Make more video games. Dawn of War, Warhammer MMO, and the upcoming 40K MMO are all good things...but expanding this area would be a great way to pull in people from the video games market into the table top hobby. Sure, some games will be stinkers, but just like for Specialist Games, it will be important to expanding the universe.

1. Use the fact that GW would no longer be a PLC to redirect share dividend into ensuring the company is debt free, followed by a business model that would use all profit to invest in growing the business.

2. Streamline the product line - 40k and Fantasy would both get 3 games: core rules using 28mm minis, epic rules using 6mm/10mm minis, naval rules (BFG and a revamped Man o' War).
The core rules would each get two supplements, one a detailed skirmish/semi-RPG set (replacing Necromunda/Inquisitor/Kill-team and Mordheim/Skirmish), the other for large battles and campaigns (replacing Apocalypse and Legendary Battles/Generals Compendium)
Each army book/codex to become a one-stop-shop for how to play that army in all forms (core/skirmish/large/epic/naval) to encourage players to play more than one system.

3. Develop further ties with FFG by allowing them to take over Blood Bowl (while retaining the IP rights - similar to the WFRP/Dark Heresy arrangement) and sell Blood Bowl and the RPG's in-store. Sell LotR outright to whoever wants it.

4. Use the factory space previously dedicated to LotR and Blood Bowl to bring Forgeworld in-house. All forgeworld material will become canon and tournament-legal. Ongoing process with the (now) combined design-team to make as much in plastic as possible, with resin and metal used only where necessary.

5. Improve the rules by running a proper tournament circuit, rigorous playtesting and regular FAQ's. Rulebook lifecycle to be extended from 4 years to 5.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nomoreso than RT -> 2E -> 3E.

Um...no. That comparison doesn't really work. RT->2nd->3rd,etc was a progression of a single game system and background storyline. BattleTech and MW: Dark Age having *zip*, *zero*, *nada* in common rules wise, one is an 80's style hex-based wargame, the other is a Clix game, they play nothing alike in any way other than they both have mini's of some sort (although vastly different ones). About the only thing they have in common with respect to background is a couple similar names, they WizKids basically made a different BT universe by saying it was in further in the future and then basically ignoring 20 years of BT fluff.

It's like comparing Space Hulk to 40k, sure they may have some background similarities, but the games themselves are nothing alike in any way.

Different companies, totally different games, totally different target market.

Huh? All of the "iconic" armies Orks, Guard, Nids, and Eldar seem to be doing OK (the Eldar are still a bit behind the curve). The minor forces (DE, Tau, Necrons, and Hunters) haven't been cancelled, and Tau (like Sisters and Hunters) even appears to have done well enough to move up a notch to an expanded list.

I'm not saying they are all failing, I'm saying that they could be doing better. I'd imagine there would be more than a few more DH players out there if they got an updated list, even in WD. Many of these armies play a clear 2nd fiddle to SM's, especially those still stuck with 3rd ed books, and some are simply stagnant (DE for instance).

Huh? Apoc wasn't slapped together in an afternoon, as you suggest. The new Apoc rules are nothing like the old FW rules.

The Apoc Baneblade is both better and cheaper than the FW version, because it's not hamstrung by the old VDR rules that underlie the old FW stuff and lead to gross, but consistent, overcosting. The Baneblade wasn't just "rounded", either. I have IA (before it became IA1), and the FW BB was 634 pts base with a S9 AP2 Battlecannon. The Apoc Baneblade is cuts the cost to 500 pts, upgrades the Battlecannon to 10" blast with Primary Weapon, *and* adds the option for (overpriced) AV14 or (underpriced) extra Sponsons. Things changed dramatically in Apoc.

Yes I realize this, but it also didn't take a huge amount of time to make those changes. They got rid of many of the superheavy rules (such as running over infantry) cut the cost (as it was massively overcosted before) and threw on a bigger template. How hard was that? Not very.

: how much playtesting do *you* put into scenarios that you develop, and how much do you think that GW puts in?

Given that when we do such things, its generally done for Apoc, there isn't much time to sit there and play through multiple games (so in that regard, probably about as much as GW), but we aren't intending on releasing a commercial product, but usually a good deal of thought goes into it.

So, this becomes the compiled Chapter Approved again? With FAQs and all the misc rules released over the previous year.

How is that not essentially what GW's already doing with Apocalypse and FW SoV? Each Apoc book has special formations / datasheets, etc. FW SoV has new Fluff and lists. Apparently, we'll continue to get Datasheets and new SoV stuff until it stops selling (which won't be for quite a while, I guess)

The reason its different is because you'd be doing it for the core game and be releasing FAQ's at the same time, not just for a single expansion pack and stuff that isn't "legal" ( ) in many situations. Including in depth FAQ's, new stuff for the basic game and expansions, etc all in one book.

Currently GW just releases stuff whenever they feel like it, don't bother with rules updates/questions, releases shoddy rules (APOC reload missing listed assets, getting heavy flamer profiles confuses with heavy bolters, etc)

My playgroup is well-satisfied with 5E and Apoc ATM - I haven't heard any unusual significant griping at our gaming sessions.

Well then you really don't have any problems. While games still go on and people still play 5th ed, its really no more a balanced ruleset than 4th was, its just different armies reign. It gets noticed where I play.

If you have as many projects to finish as I do, yeah, you shouldn't be starting new projects, either.

Probably true, I've still got to finish painting a bunch of CSM's, some guard tanks and infantry, almost all my Tau army, and I still have to assemble most of my Eldar army and paint it, but that doesn't mean I won't charge off and start something new just because (like a WoC fantasy army)

]
BS modifiers are going *back* to WFB. By definition, that is retrograde.

Why is that a *BAD* thing?

It's "bad" only in the sense that GW has decided that 40k doesn't need to be (nor should be) WFB. GW has decided that 40k is to be "streamlined" to support Apoc-scale gaming.

That's the first I've ever heard of that, that the core rules were there to support Apoc gaming. From what I've heard they try to balance it around 1500-2000pt games, why make the cored rules then for 3000 and up games?

Either way, its stupid reasoning for poorly balanced rules on GW's part.

BS modifers aren't as intelligent as fiddly. That may work great in a high-detail system WFB, which emphasizes rules detail for the sake of rules detail. But I don't like WFB, so the idea of turning 40k into WFB holds no attraction for me.

BS modifiers are far more balanced than the 4+ cover save system we have now, they just require a nanosecond of thought when you shoot. Got space marines or Storm Troopers in cover or behind another unit? Well that cover save means dick. Got Orks in the open behind Grots? Well now they are taking 200% fewer casualties.

You said 2 dozen questions per army, and we have roughly a dozen armies today. So that's 288 questions total. You estimate a grand total of 1 hour per question. And this includes all activities (collected, researched, drafted, reviewed, finalized, typeset, etc.) within that hour.

Research isn't included in that estimate, and that would be the big time sink, most of that should really come from player suggestions and the developers own experiences, thus mitigating that time cost (i.e all they'd need to do is compile questions at that point), nor does that time take into account the Typeset stuff, a technical writer makes it all purty with their work time seperately, which shouldn't take much more than formatting the document, and pasting in some diagrams, the big time sink there may be making the diagrams.

I'm going to guesstimate that, based on the volume of pages, the INAT FAQ probably took around 2000 man-hours (1 full man-year) to complete.

God I hope not, with a couple decent technical writers that could get done in a couple days no problem. How on earth are you getting 2000 man hours out of that?

That is because GW is now controlling the leaks. That is why we only see certain leaks on nearly-finished items. As opposed to things very early in development. But if GW is to move back to external playtesting, who can they use? Who can they trust?

I'm suspect of this, we're seeing the exact same kind of stuff now that we did earlier, at all about the same time frame too. Either way, if a company like GW can't establish a trustworthy group of volunteer gamers for playtesting, they have bigger issues as a corporation.

Either way, it's a cost that generates dubious actual value. Either you hired the right staff and you can trust them to do the right thing with internal playtesting, or you didn't and should get new staff.

See above.

2x 10 = 20 people? If you pay regular entry level salary, that's over $500k USD in salary alone. If you add statutory requirements (insurance, taxes), you're spending $1M on playtesting. That's a *lot* of money to earn back from "better-balanced" rules... For typical ROI, GW would need to generate something like $2+M, $3+M in additional revenue to justify such a large playtesting group.

Why are you assuming full time salaried employees for playtesting? The Dev team should already be doing that part, the 20 people really should be a community group that enjoys the stuff, and maybe gets a couple comps on products. Many companies do this, I was part of such a group for C&C3 and RA3.

Really? I think it's because everybody who wants a Nec / Epic / BFG / whatever army already has one.

I wouldn't say so, I just finished my Chaos fleet, and am probably going to add at least 6 more ships, then start an Imperial Fleet, and possibly Eldar as well. There's a couple people here starting into it as well.

GW could do a huge BFG re-release with bells, whistles, balloons, and hot dogs, and I could hardly care less. I have Imperial and Chaos fleets painted, along with a large Eldar fleet to build. So maybe, on net, GW gets zero dollars, but I'm motivated to build and paint my Eldar fleet.

For you maybe, but how is that any different than many 40k players with their armies?

Or maybe GW does a huge Epic re-release, call it "Armageddon". OK, great. I finish building and painting my Epic Eldar army. Maybe I'm motivated to spend all of $40 on new models. Woo-hoo, that's going to make them more money!

Again, subjective example of someone who already has an army. The same argument could be made of 40k. As long as whatever new army book comes out doesn't totally invalidate your model collection, how likely are you to buy a bunch of new stuff for 40k? Personally, for me? Unless the whole thing has drastically changed, not much.

Space Hulk? Got plenty Termies, no interest in Bugs.

Gork? No, I don't do greens.

Nec? Got Escher and Spyre gangs already painted. I can probably build a brand new Van Saar gang from a box of Cadians, just like I originally built my Mord warband from a box of Empire State Troops.

AT/TL? See Epic, above. I own Epic Titans, so it's build and paint time.

See above replies.

Seriously, GW can spend the next 6 release slots on SG, and they'll get all of $100 in incremental sales from me? And that's because I play almost all of their SG range? That's not good ROI.

From *you* maybe. From me, or other players, they may see a lot more. Sure some people may pass them by completely. How's that different from 40k/WFB? I'm sure there are at least a couple SG games that if given a proper re-launch would do far better than LoTR is doing for GW.

legoburner wrote:Asia would respond very well to this tactic too I think.

hear hear!

A high-level Necromancer appears!

Necromancer raises the dead!

Thread is being locked due to thread necromancy.