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.

While I was responding to this thread here under a similar title (https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/781885.page) I realized that the thread was not what I thought it was. But I thought the question it WAS asking was a very interesting one! So let me posit this to you;

You are working for Games Workshop. While there, they bring you into a strategy group with other top members of Games Workshop where you are going to try and figure out how to increase market share. Your job in this group is to be the representative for NEW PLAYERS. Nothing is off the table at this point, so you are free to suggest anything, or even just voice radical things that would attract new players. What do you bring up?


Myself, I would tell them that the competitive portion of the game, which is one of the most loud and visible segments of the hobby (even if not the largest), is having a big issue with barriers to entry. That a lot of people are seeing the lineup of new codexes and new stuff, and it scares them away. This edition is fantastic, and we're suffering a bit from our own success. A lot of superficial complexity was added to the game in the hopes that it would bleed through to a richer game, and while parts of that has happened, it does make bringing new players in a much different prospect than it used to be.

I remember when a great and easy line for someone getting into the hobby was "Buy 1 HQ, and 2 Troops, because you need that for any army. Maybe go splits with a friend for a rulebook. Expand from there.". At the time, that worked out to a roughly $100 initial investment. Small numbers by all means. In 5th edition, the Assault on Black Reach was a phenomenon, and a runaway success even compared to the successful 3rd edition starter set. There have been some great redos of that, and the recent 8th edition Dark Imperium box is a fantastic spiritual successor to that.
However, 8th edition has grown to a place that the content of the start box no longer match what a player can reasonably expect from a "bring and play" game of 40k. Relics, detachments, stratagems, FAQs, Chapter Approved, and White Dwarf articles mean that even if a player has enough money to jump into a game, the vastness of the hobby tends to arrive right on their doorstep, rather than taking steps in a time. Frankly, a lot of people are scared off by just how deep the water looks.
With nothing off the table, my recommendations are as follows:

#1 - Change to a Living Rule Set. By which, I mean the basic rules, and all updates to them, should be in a single document that is referenced across our media channels.

#2 - Make advanced rules like Codexes and Campaign Books pay to access online, with the online copy being the definitive source. As they are changed and updated, the online copy is changed and updated as well. Re-buys for totally new codexes as editions change could be done, along with warnings that an online-access item is about to become obsolete/no longer available. This would greatly help with confusion from units and datasheets that are updated and referenced across multiple codexes or campaign books. This way it is clear what the newest rules are. A subscription based service for die-hard players such that a person paying the subscription has access to all online material allows for levels of player investment. As with unlimited data plans for phones/internet, the idea of having 1 payment and getting EVERYTHING is a big sales perk, so more people will sign up for this than you think.

#3 - Ditch "Open Play", and instead create a 2nd Matched Play system, such that the three levels of the game are "Basic", "Competitive", and "Advanced". Basic is where simple missions live, and don't include army traits or stratagems, with a goal of being able to play straight out of the purchased box. Competitive is the mid-point, and is meant to be more easily accessed. Labeling it "Competitive" will draw the competitive community. Playtesting should be aimed towards Competitive play. This is where we get Eternal War and Maelstrom missions, army traits, and stratagems. "Advanced" play is where things get turned up to 11, and is where we get super-army tactic/formation bonuses, narrative and/or lopsided missions, and cool stratagems, abilities, or units that are iconic but game-breaking.

The importance of Advanced play is that there are a lot of players that love these things, and like the feeling of power that they get from them. That power fantasy deserves its own place. Sadly, Imperial Knights, Primarchs, and other Lords of War should be relegated to Advanced Play. Advanced Play would definitely see lots of play, because people like to play with ALL their toys, but doing so would help keep the Competitive bracket more approachable. Also, by not labelling anything as "open" or "narrative", we're not clouding people's judgements that these are not also fine ways to play. The Competitive Crowd may even run events at the Basic or Advanced game levels if those levels turn out to be popular.

That might be the best part of this; the competitive scene may help entice new players by having Basic-level Tournaments that are easier for new players to get into the game with.

OK, honest attempt.
I have seen GW 40k since Rogue Trader and played all editions.

Broad Strokes:

Unit/Model Rules: Stats and Rules (general)
Basic and Advanced is the way to go with an eye where you can throttle-down to Basic for Advanced players if they want to play more Apocalypse type games.
I am thinking like they do for "Battletech" going to "Alpha-Strike", for "Star Trek Federation Commander" had a detailed and less detailed side for the info "card" for each ship so more simple or larger battles could be played.
I honestly think the two "streams" are the way to go to bring utility for any game you want, fast, large, simple.
I am thinking use some core stats only for basic and the "in addition" rules for advanced.

Unit/Model Rules: Stats and Rules (New Release)
All models "henceforth!" shall have a stat card bundled in the model kit AND some relevant Strategem cards.
Each new "Codex" has a thin printed guide (weapons list) bundled with a set of cards for units and strategems.
NOW the "no models, no rules" is not so problematic.
They are already doing this to a point with rules printed at the end of the assembly instructions.
This is borrowing a bit from the Warmahordes way of doing things but I am thinking of UNIT cards not model ones.

Unit/Model/Gear/Weapon - Points Values
I honestly feel they should "steal" from the second edition X-wing method: post the points on-line.
They can update them to balance at ANY time and rev-up the adjustment version with notes.
For added fun, make a database available for army build programs to link into it for the latest and greatest updates (where you can lock-into or choose an update version, useful for tournaments).
GW should offer a "basic" army build program and then the FANCY paid version littered with their artwork (tm, tm, tm).

Models Themselves
They have the right idea with push-build "easy build" models, mold them approximately in the colour needed and ready to play out of the box BUT with sufficient detail you can happily glue it together and paint.
1 HQ and 2 Troop has been the fundamental starter force for ages and I would not want to move away from that.
I would suggest then selling a separate customization sprue add-on for the standard starters (Just a bigger version of what they are already doing but push-on stuff!!).

Painting the models
All parts on sprue would be nailed with pre-prime 'out of the box" but only white.
Sell each army type primary colour as a paint DIP (Division Initiation Process...). i could just see a fancy looking high tech dunk tank as the poor civilian/initiate is converted to his primary military colours.
Then all other paint as the high contrast paint.

Updates
To heck with FAQs.
You pay for white dwarf and if comes with cards bundled in it and fluff updates... Done.
With a published quarterly summary of the last 3 months for a nominal fee AND individual backorder months can be purchased easily searched for your relevant units.

Bringing it all together
i would like to see that you could log into GW and have your own "control panel" that you can register the product into your account (like Magic Cards) and be able to see all you documents through this portal.
A means to sort, view and filter your unit information and Codex would be nice.

There is so much potential and so many good ideas out there it would be very easy to steal all of them and get a fairly simple one-stop spot to stay up to date and not mess around.

I think the hobby does a lot right for new players at the moment. Starter sets and Start Collecting kits can get new players into the game without breaking the bank.

So I would push for a SC for every faction, and playtest them against each other to ensure that they give a good game. I think at the moment they are a bit cobbled together from kits they have to hand. I think they should be chosen to give a good play experience against other SC sets.

Then I would simplify the pipeline for rules to something that is less expensive than the hardback books and more accessible. Something like D&D beyond where you can get stuff piecemeal rather than buying a stack of expensive hardbacks.

That is the immediate thing, for people joining the hobby. But the problems then come when the overall game balance is poor between factions. So if you liked the look of a faction that is the buttmonkey for this edition, you are not going to have a good time and probably will not stick with the game. For that reason, every faction needs to be reasonably well balanced against every other faction, particularly within starters and start collecting boxes.

This is something GW predictably get wrong the same way every edition, and I think it comes from a fundamental lack of discipline and professionalism in the Design Studio. They start the edition with good intentions and often the person who builds the edition has clear ideas about this stuff. But then as the codices get released piecemeal they get farmed out to other people on the team. Some of those have a bright idea to change the entire paradigm of the game and make rules for a faction that start to break the system. Daemons of Chaos in 7th edition Fantasy is a classic example of this. Then subsequent books need to be "powered up" or are designed in the same paradigm. This leads to a vast gulf in power between factions.

There are two things that can be done to solve this. 1. Hire someone who says no to the designers when they want to introduce their paradigm shifts and who has overall control on the paradigm for a given edition. This should probably be the main writer of the edition.
2. Simultaneously release miniatures and rules for all factions at once, like Warmachine and Hordes does. This is much harder to achieve, but should be the starting point for each edition at the very least.

GW has actually made big strides toward this in what they have done for 8th edition. The indices and SC sets are far better than what we had for for several previous editions. But they need to go further and improve upon it, and I don't see that they themselves see the need for that because of their lazy design team and general excuse making attitude.

Less of a GW fix, and more of an ITC one: create a new circuit for a lower points value (personally I like 1250). Modify the missions as necessary for that point value, then promote and hold events alongside the 2k games.

1. Bring back a grand rule book with proper terrain rules. Yes9th edition. Include all of the basic rules data sheets, relics, and all datasheets indexed in one book. Plus pics of armies and basic paint guide/conversions!. Parcel this in a box that comes with 2 small armies - 1 HQ 2 troops just works and always worked.

2. Yes this book will be out of date almost instantly - For most up to date datasheets and rules, players would need to get hold of a codex's/supplaments that get released as time goes on.

3. Codex's/supplements - Apart from hard back expensive collectible ones (which will be errata'd unless proof reading/rules writing is addressed), have digital one you can buy on a subscription basis (bronze Lv £5 a month - for one dex, Silver £10 - for 4-5 dexes Gold - £15 a month for ALL the codexes). The Hard copy BRB would have a QR code you can scan which would give you all the free up to date Core rules in a PDF (NOT the data sheets). What does the current BRB offer outside of collectible thing to put on the shelf?

The BRB is a proper BRB and gives you an overview OF ALL of the armies. That way you can play with your 2 small armies and proxy them in as other stuff to get a feel for how different armies play with your friends. This will allow new players to weight up aesthetics vs gameplay and decide which faction suits them and allow you to corss refernce stats and fluff... How many people have you known who built an army based on units they like, not realising the play style is not for them..

4. Include more customisation options in the new rules moving forward and get rid of the ridiculous "no unit no rules bul crap" and get hobbyist to be hobbyists! Gett them into building/converting and being creative. The genie is out of the bottle now, people will go 3rd party anyway as the kits are less and less dynamic. You cant stop it and cannot keep up with releasing upgrade sprues left right and centre. embrace it and profit from it. Or just get your gak together and make better kits with ALL the options..

What does the current BRB offer outside of collectible thing to put on the shelf?

Is it mad? yes!! Could it work ? Maybe...

Step 1) Anyone who has ever written so much as a single word of rules is fired.

Step 2) I throw velcro balls into a crowd and hire whoever they stick to to write 9th edition, moving 40k to an Alternating Action D12 based game, hopefully not needing 117+ rulebooks to play.

Step 3) Codexes become collectors items, they get the first printing of the rules as well as the art assets. Each codex comes with a digital voucher for an online, rules only copy of the codex with FAQ appended to the back of it.

Step 4) Every month FAQs and functionality (i.e. broken rules, nothing balance related) errata is evaluated and the online editions updated. Ballance errata takes place every 4 months.

Step 5) Completely scrap anything Gathering Storm related. Primarchs can still come swinging back, but Cawl is now an exiled Archmagos who is tasked by Guilliman in developing a new generation of Mark X armour and improvements to weaponry. All Marines are retconned to Primaris statline (Chaos Marines included), Primaris Marines no longer exist, but the Mark X squad formations do. Iron Hands Companies go back to being 10 semi-automatous mini-chapters instead of the nonsense they got retconned into.

Step 6) Banish Titanic Lord of War models to Apocalypse and improve Apocalypse support to the level of a 3rd game.

I would encourage campaign play from small scale games through the entire range as the new default path.

Starting a 40k Apocalypse Scale with a single Blackstone Explorer is an amazing experience that every player should get to experience.

To do it, they just release a BSF character card for every existing 40k character and every character to come. Then they need to de-couple the game from it's location. Release several tile sets and missions for other suitable locations throughout the universe, including content for all factions.

Each Character also comes with Kill Team rules, as does every eligible infantry unit. Assemble the core rules, Elites and Commanders into a single book. Once you've collected enough retinue characters to form a Kill Team, you switch.

Of course your hero can return to BSF scale adventures at any time, but they are now effectively part of a growing warband that begins as a Kill Team. The rule transition is easy, because you have models and rules already, so you just need the big book. The Kill Team campaign mode also needs to be expanded with content to grow a Kill Team roster into an army through game play- as simple as using the 4 campaign resources in standard configurations to add a certain point value of a particular type of unit to your roster. 40K only units like vehicles and monsters can be added to the roster, but only fielded in games of 40k.

The transition is seamless, really. The BRB and most recent CA and your off to the races because every model also comes with 40k rules in the box. You could continue the Kill Team growth method and campaign resource system into 40k or create a new system to grow the 40k army to Apocalypse scale.

The two best things about this are that a) those who like the game the way they currently play it do not have to change anything at all and b) it is already possible to do this as long as you like one of the one of the explorers in the BSF starter box as an Army Commander- right now, it's really only possible for Ecclesiarchy and the Adeptus Mechanicus, but it can be done.

So jump in at any level, or start at the beginning and play through them all. Just do more to bring other factions to BFG and include rules [data cards] for all 4 games for every applicable model.

Then encourage campaign play. Donate rules and models to after school programs so kids can get models if they earn them through campaign play. Imagine that- an after school program that encourages math, literacy and visual art rather than concussions. If that doesn't convince you, imagine the tax write offs for GW's charity work and in kind product support.

Or just do it in stores for existing customers- offer them a discount rather than a freebie if they earn it through game play in the store.

A lot could be achieved by "encouraging" JJ to retire it's been well over a decade since he produced anything remotely worthwhile and his "ideas" on how games should be designed are outdated and detrimental to the games he was inflicted on.


To a lesser degree the same could be done with "Blanche" who seems to now thankfully be relegated to concept art for the concept artists to redo into actually minatures and the odd horrifically sculpted faithly rendered special edition.

Without Jarvis and his casual at all costs we don't design rules we design a framework for stories bollocks the various games could be rebooted with tight competently written rule sets that can only benefit new players learning them.

I like that other people are onboard with the idea of 1 unit with two profiles based on the mode of play, or 1 profile but two sets of special abilities - a simple/advanced version. I definitely had not thought of putting stratagems in with new boxes, but without a living rule set, it seems like something that might make it very challenging to properly collect all the rules together. It certainly does help with getting stratagems and the idea of command points into the hands of newer players though. "Hey, what's this? How do I use it? What does it do?"

I agree that a system like D&D Beyond where you can access and store information would be stellar, as well as being able to change purchases into a more micro-transaction situation. Like, if you really wanted to, you could buy the rules for a single unit, though it'd make much more sense to buy the whole codex. Still, same idea that all the rules could be updated as required this way, and all players would then have access to them. Yeah, hard-cover copies would become a collector's item, and I think that's awesome (especially if you can register your product for access to it online for updated versions).

I'm not sure we could get the ITC to change its stuff, since they're not affiliated with GW. However, if GW started saying to play a different points level, that might work. In a Basic/Competitive/Advanced modes of play model, it wouldn't be hard to say that a Basic game should be 1000 points, Competitive should be 2000. It'd be another way to signal that the Basic mode of play is an entry-point into the game, good for beginning players.

Argive, I wish we could go back to a 1HQ, 2 Troops, and all armies in 1 book model. Alas, with how much the game has grown, I just don't know if that's possible. The Indexes were a fantastic attempt to get back to that, but there were still 5 of them, and the game has only gotten bigger since! Plus, 1HQ and 2 Troops really isn't your basic game any longer. Maybe it could be in a Basic/Competitive/Advanced modes of play though. Without stratagems in Basic play, having armies have to follow the old 1HQ, 2 Troops model isn't a bad spot to be in.

PenitentJake, I think your idea is awesome, but is best reserved for being part of a Chapter Approved book. While it's fun to grow a warband that way (and starting with Blackstone Fortress level is pretty genius), I don't think most players want to start with a single model and slowly grow from there. I don't know about you, but when I first started the game, even back in 3rd edition with way tinier armies, I wanted to grow my force as fast as possible. I was lucky enough to start at the same time as a bunch of friends, and we all had our armies grow at about the same rate, and eBay and whatnot didn't exist so there was no "oh I found a great deal and fast-tracked my army building". Like, I don't think I could've had an easier time entering the hobby, except for maybe having had an adult who could help show me things. But getting to a level where we could start playing at store events was a milestone we were so excited to reach. If a store wanted to do this, I think it'd be cool as a year-long league or something, but I think that'd be a store-level decision, rather than a company-wide one.

As an old hand of GW/40, seeing it when it first released in sheffield at the GW store....but having just returned after a 25year break....I feel im in a good position to speak about some of this.

Some of the below, you people with more experience might say that some of this already exist, but to my mind, these things pop up.

1- I bought Dark Imperium. Its great..but CRAZY there isnt a starter battle/setup guide in the for the starter battle.

2- A simple online guide to a small scale points battle system to test a few basics would be high on the list.

3- One of the great things about 40k is its age/size and scope of stuff and rules.....but its als very daunting. I have no clue where some newer rules are...even if I buy a Marine Codex...I hear its updated(dont worry not looking for the updates now...just speaking my mind)

4- did I mention introduction set with INTRO BATTLE.

5- Direction to a GW list building on ios etc

 Yarium wrote:
While I was responding to this thread here under a similar title (https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/781885.page) I realized that the thread was not what I thought it was. But I thought the question it WAS asking was a very interesting one! So let me posit this to you;

Spoiler:

You are working for Games Workshop. While there, they bring you into a strategy group with other top members of Games Workshop where you are going to try and figure out how to increase market share. Your job in this group is to be the representative for NEW PLAYERS. Nothing is off the table at this point, so you are free to suggest anything, or even just voice radical things that would attract new players. What do you bring up?


Myself, I would tell them that the competitive portion of the game, which is one of the most loud and visible segments of the hobby (even if not the largest), is having a big issue with barriers to entry. That a lot of people are seeing the lineup of new codexes and new stuff, and it scares them away. This edition is fantastic, and we're suffering a bit from our own success. A lot of superficial complexity was added to the game in the hopes that it would bleed through to a richer game, and while parts of that has happened, it does make bringing new players in a much different prospect than it used to be.

I remember when a great and easy line for someone getting into the hobby was "Buy 1 HQ, and 2 Troops, because you need that for any army. Maybe go splits with a friend for a rulebook. Expand from there.". At the time, that worked out to a roughly $100 initial investment. Small numbers by all means. In 5th edition, the Assault on Black Reach was a phenomenon, and a runaway success even compared to the successful 3rd edition starter set. There have been some great redos of that, and the recent 8th edition Dark Imperium box is a fantastic spiritual successor to that.
However, 8th edition has grown to a place that the content of the start box no longer match what a player can reasonably expect from a "bring and play" game of 40k. Relics, detachments, stratagems, FAQs, Chapter Approved, and White Dwarf articles mean that even if a player has enough money to jump into a game, the vastness of the hobby tends to arrive right on their doorstep, rather than taking steps in a time. Frankly, a lot of people are scared off by just how deep the water looks.
With nothing off the table, my recommendations are as follows:

#1 - Change to a Living Rule Set. By which, I mean the basic rules, and all updates to them, should be in a single document that is referenced across our media channels.

#2 - Make advanced rules like Codexes and Campaign Books pay to access online, with the online copy being the definitive source. As they are changed and updated, the online copy is changed and updated as well. Re-buys for totally new codexes as editions change could be done, along with warnings that an online-access item is about to become obsolete/no longer available. This would greatly help with confusion from units and datasheets that are updated and referenced across multiple codexes or campaign books. This way it is clear what the newest rules are. A subscription based service for die-hard players such that a person paying the subscription has access to all online material allows for levels of player investment. As with unlimited data plans for phones/internet, the idea of having 1 payment and getting EVERYTHING is a big sales perk, so more people will sign up for this than you think.

#3 - Ditch "Open Play", and instead create a 2nd Matched Play system, such that the three levels of the game are "Basic", "Competitive", and "Advanced". Basic is where simple missions live, and don't include army traits or stratagems, with a goal of being able to play straight out of the purchased box. Competitive is the mid-point, and is meant to be more easily accessed. Labeling it "Competitive" will draw the competitive community. Playtesting should be aimed towards Competitive play. This is where we get Eternal War and Maelstrom missions, army traits, and stratagems. "Advanced" play is where things get turned up to 11, and is where we get super-army tactic/formation bonuses, narrative and/or lopsided missions, and cool stratagems, abilities, or units that are iconic but game-breaking.

The importance of Advanced play is that there are a lot of players that love these things, and like the feeling of power that they get from them. That power fantasy deserves its own place. Sadly, Imperial Knights, Primarchs, and other Lords of War should be relegated to Advanced Play. Advanced Play would definitely see lots of play, because people like to play with ALL their toys, but doing so would help keep the Competitive bracket more approachable. Also, by not labelling anything as "open" or "narrative", we're not clouding people's judgements that these are not also fine ways to play. The Competitive Crowd may even run events at the Basic or Advanced game levels if those levels turn out to be popular.

That might be the best part of this; the competitive scene may help entice new players by having Basic-level Tournaments that are easier for new players to get into the game with.

This is a great post, agree with most of what you are saying.

Sadly, GW would never go this route. These ideas are far too sensible and straightforward to be implemented. They're simple enough to be understood by someone who's never played and that is bad for GW.

Here's what you are proposing: optimizing for the community. You're making the new player experience simpler by streamlining a complex process. While that's well-meaning, the rules are kept obtuse for a reason.

GW is optimized around new model sales. New models are almost always overpowered when they come out, those rules get walked back when GW has something new to sell. The model range is large enough to focus on different factions at different times so most people don't notice how intentional this has become. Once a new model is released, players endlessly debate its impact on the game.

But players don't debate the game itself. GW's pricing increases annually, real wages in the US and UK haven't significantly increased in 30 years. The real-world buying power of players goes down each year they don't improve their economic situation, one would need to get an annual pay raise greater than the rate of inflation just to break even.

This is the brilliance of GW. By giving players this complex, unfriendly ruleset to argue about, players spend their time on that instead of discussing GW's marketing practices. By frequently releasing new models and only periodically responding to complaints about the rules, they use stagnation to keep attention on this meta-economy created within the game instead of real-world, factual issues.

What happen if GW simplifies the ruleset? Let's say they went to Basic / Competitive / Advanced - do they end there, or do they create demand for more streamlining in other areas of the game? Once the rules are streamlined, does this lead to greater awareness of how much this whole thing costs since there's less to research / argue about?

Probably, or possibly. Either way, GW won't change course, it's too good a racket.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
While I was responding to this thread here under a similar title (https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/781885.page) I realized that the thread was not what I thought it was. But I thought the question it WAS asking was a very interesting one! So let me posit this to you;

Spoiler:

You are working for Games Workshop. While there, they bring you into a strategy group with other top members of Games Workshop where you are going to try and figure out how to increase market share. Your job in this group is to be the representative for NEW PLAYERS. Nothing is off the table at this point, so you are free to suggest anything, or even just voice radical things that would attract new players. What do you bring up?


Myself, I would tell them that the competitive portion of the game, which is one of the most loud and visible segments of the hobby (even if not the largest), is having a big issue with barriers to entry. That a lot of people are seeing the lineup of new codexes and new stuff, and it scares them away. This edition is fantastic, and we're suffering a bit from our own success. A lot of superficial complexity was added to the game in the hopes that it would bleed through to a richer game, and while parts of that has happened, it does make bringing new players in a much different prospect than it used to be.

I remember when a great and easy line for someone getting into the hobby was "Buy 1 HQ, and 2 Troops, because you need that for any army. Maybe go splits with a friend for a rulebook. Expand from there.". At the time, that worked out to a roughly $100 initial investment. Small numbers by all means. In 5th edition, the Assault on Black Reach was a phenomenon, and a runaway success even compared to the successful 3rd edition starter set. There have been some great redos of that, and the recent 8th edition Dark Imperium box is a fantastic spiritual successor to that.
However, 8th edition has grown to a place that the content of the start box no longer match what a player can reasonably expect from a "bring and play" game of 40k. Relics, detachments, stratagems, FAQs, Chapter Approved, and White Dwarf articles mean that even if a player has enough money to jump into a game, the vastness of the hobby tends to arrive right on their doorstep, rather than taking steps in a time. Frankly, a lot of people are scared off by just how deep the water looks.
With nothing off the table, my recommendations are as follows:

#1 - Change to a Living Rule Set. By which, I mean the basic rules, and all updates to them, should be in a single document that is referenced across our media channels.

#2 - Make advanced rules like Codexes and Campaign Books pay to access online, with the online copy being the definitive source. As they are changed and updated, the online copy is changed and updated as well. Re-buys for totally new codexes as editions change could be done, along with warnings that an online-access item is about to become obsolete/no longer available. This would greatly help with confusion from units and datasheets that are updated and referenced across multiple codexes or campaign books. This way it is clear what the newest rules are. A subscription based service for die-hard players such that a person paying the subscription has access to all online material allows for levels of player investment. As with unlimited data plans for phones/internet, the idea of having 1 payment and getting EVERYTHING is a big sales perk, so more people will sign up for this than you think.

#3 - Ditch "Open Play", and instead create a 2nd Matched Play system, such that the three levels of the game are "Basic", "Competitive", and "Advanced". Basic is where simple missions live, and don't include army traits or stratagems, with a goal of being able to play straight out of the purchased box. Competitive is the mid-point, and is meant to be more easily accessed. Labeling it "Competitive" will draw the competitive community. Playtesting should be aimed towards Competitive play. This is where we get Eternal War and Maelstrom missions, army traits, and stratagems. "Advanced" play is where things get turned up to 11, and is where we get super-army tactic/formation bonuses, narrative and/or lopsided missions, and cool stratagems, abilities, or units that are iconic but game-breaking.

The importance of Advanced play is that there are a lot of players that love these things, and like the feeling of power that they get from them. That power fantasy deserves its own place. Sadly, Imperial Knights, Primarchs, and other Lords of War should be relegated to Advanced Play. Advanced Play would definitely see lots of play, because people like to play with ALL their toys, but doing so would help keep the Competitive bracket more approachable. Also, by not labelling anything as "open" or "narrative", we're not clouding people's judgements that these are not also fine ways to play. The Competitive Crowd may even run events at the Basic or Advanced game levels if those levels turn out to be popular.

That might be the best part of this; the competitive scene may help entice new players by having Basic-level Tournaments that are easier for new players to get into the game with.

GW is optimized around new model sales. New models are almost always overpowered when they come out, those rules get walked back when GW has something new to sell. The model range is large enough to focus on different factions at different times so most people don't notice how intentional this has become. Once a new model is released, players endlessly debate its impact on the game.
.

I hear this a lot. It appears to be, eh...very not true?

New models, starting from current and moving back:

-Current new Eldar Release.

Howling Banshees: Total Garbage
Jain Zar: Total Garbage
Incubi: Decent in Casual Games
Drazar: Decent in casual games

0/4 follow the "OP rules at release, rolled back when the next new thing to buy comes out" pattern.

Primaris Phobos Armor Release

Repulsor Executioner: Was utter garbage at release, rules got greatly improved upon release of the IH supplement...ironically when GW had something new to sell in the form of the new Eldar release.
Impulsor: Seems good? not popping up in current competitive releases
Incursors/Infiltrators: I literally had to look up the name of the new configuration of the unit because so few people have talked about it. They're garbage.
Phobos Lieutentant: Garbage
Phobos Captain: Appears to be seeing some play in IF lists.
Phobos Librarian: Garbage
Suppressors: Garbage
Infiltrators: Tournament Level
Invictus: Tournament Level

2/9 follow the "OP rules at release, rolled back when the new hotness comes out" pattern you posit.

Chaos Space Marine model line relaunch

Master of Possession: Garbage
Greater Possessed: Garbage
Master of Execution: Garbage
Venomcrawler: Garbage
New Obliterators: Garbage
New Havocs: Some people still seem to be claiming 4x chaincannon havocs are OP. Have not seen them in any tournament lists.
Chaos Space Marines: Well, people are taking them as the heretical 15? So, tournament....level...I guess?
Terminators: Garbage
Discolord: Tournament Level

2.5/9 good on release, none of the rules have been rolled back.

Admech new transport: Garbage.

Chaos Knights: Despoiler seems to be showing up in tournament lists. Haven't seen anything else.

GSC Wave 2 Release

Kelermorph: Tournament Level
Biophagus: Garbage
Locus: Garbage
Nexos: Tournament Level
Sanctus: Garbage
New Magos: Didn't even get new rules y'all, just a new model
Clamavus: Good? I don't recall seeing him much in competitive lists. I think he's good.
Bikes: Good
Achilles: Garbage
Abberrants; Tournament Level

4/10, our best ratio of new models to OP rules yet.

See how this is just you counting the hits and ignoring the misses yet?

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Yarium wrote:
While I was responding to this thread here under a similar title (https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/781885.page) I realized that the thread was not what I thought it was. But I thought the question it WAS asking was a very interesting one! So let me posit this to you;

Spoiler:

You are working for Games Workshop. While there, they bring you into a strategy group with other top members of Games Workshop where you are going to try and figure out how to increase market share. Your job in this group is to be the representative for NEW PLAYERS. Nothing is off the table at this point, so you are free to suggest anything, or even just voice radical things that would attract new players. What do you bring up?


Myself, I would tell them that the competitive portion of the game, which is one of the most loud and visible segments of the hobby (even if not the largest), is having a big issue with barriers to entry. That a lot of people are seeing the lineup of new codexes and new stuff, and it scares them away. This edition is fantastic, and we're suffering a bit from our own success. A lot of superficial complexity was added to the game in the hopes that it would bleed through to a richer game, and while parts of that has happened, it does make bringing new players in a much different prospect than it used to be.

I remember when a great and easy line for someone getting into the hobby was "Buy 1 HQ, and 2 Troops, because you need that for any army. Maybe go splits with a friend for a rulebook. Expand from there.". At the time, that worked out to a roughly $100 initial investment. Small numbers by all means. In 5th edition, the Assault on Black Reach was a phenomenon, and a runaway success even compared to the successful 3rd edition starter set. There have been some great redos of that, and the recent 8th edition Dark Imperium box is a fantastic spiritual successor to that.
However, 8th edition has grown to a place that the content of the start box no longer match what a player can reasonably expect from a "bring and play" game of 40k. Relics, detachments, stratagems, FAQs, Chapter Approved, and White Dwarf articles mean that even if a player has enough money to jump into a game, the vastness of the hobby tends to arrive right on their doorstep, rather than taking steps in a time. Frankly, a lot of people are scared off by just how deep the water looks.
With nothing off the table, my recommendations are as follows:

#1 - Change to a Living Rule Set. By which, I mean the basic rules, and all updates to them, should be in a single document that is referenced across our media channels.

#2 - Make advanced rules like Codexes and Campaign Books pay to access online, with the online copy being the definitive source. As they are changed and updated, the online copy is changed and updated as well. Re-buys for totally new codexes as editions change could be done, along with warnings that an online-access item is about to become obsolete/no longer available. This would greatly help with confusion from units and datasheets that are updated and referenced across multiple codexes or campaign books. This way it is clear what the newest rules are. A subscription based service for die-hard players such that a person paying the subscription has access to all online material allows for levels of player investment. As with unlimited data plans for phones/internet, the idea of having 1 payment and getting EVERYTHING is a big sales perk, so more people will sign up for this than you think.

#3 - Ditch "Open Play", and instead create a 2nd Matched Play system, such that the three levels of the game are "Basic", "Competitive", and "Advanced". Basic is where simple missions live, and don't include army traits or stratagems, with a goal of being able to play straight out of the purchased box. Competitive is the mid-point, and is meant to be more easily accessed. Labeling it "Competitive" will draw the competitive community. Playtesting should be aimed towards Competitive play. This is where we get Eternal War and Maelstrom missions, army traits, and stratagems. "Advanced" play is where things get turned up to 11, and is where we get super-army tactic/formation bonuses, narrative and/or lopsided missions, and cool stratagems, abilities, or units that are iconic but game-breaking.

The importance of Advanced play is that there are a lot of players that love these things, and like the feeling of power that they get from them. That power fantasy deserves its own place. Sadly, Imperial Knights, Primarchs, and other Lords of War should be relegated to Advanced Play. Advanced Play would definitely see lots of play, because people like to play with ALL their toys, but doing so would help keep the Competitive bracket more approachable. Also, by not labelling anything as "open" or "narrative", we're not clouding people's judgements that these are not also fine ways to play. The Competitive Crowd may even run events at the Basic or Advanced game levels if those levels turn out to be popular.

That might be the best part of this; the competitive scene may help entice new players by having Basic-level Tournaments that are easier for new players to get into the game with.

This is a great post, agree with most of what you are saying.

Sadly, GW would never go this route. These ideas are far too sensible and straightforward to be implemented. They're simple enough to be understood by someone who's never played and that is bad for GW.

Here's what you are proposing: optimizing for the community. You're making the new player experience simpler by streamlining a complex process. While that's well-meaning, the rules are kept obtuse for a reason.

Spoiler:

GW is optimized around new model sales. New models are almost always overpowered when they come out, those rules get walked back when GW has something new to sell. The model range is large enough to focus on different factions at different times so most people don't notice how intentional this has become. Once a new model is released, players endlessly debate its impact on the game.

But players don't debate the game itself. GW's pricing increases annually, real wages in the US and UK haven't significantly increased in 30 years. The real-world buying power of players goes down each year they don't improve their economic situation, one would need to get an annual pay raise greater than the rate of inflation just to break even.

This is the brilliance of GW. By giving players this complex, unfriendly ruleset to argue about, players spend their time on that instead of discussing GW's marketing practices. By frequently releasing new models and only periodically responding to complaints about the rules, they use stagnation to keep attention on this meta-economy created within the game instead of real-world, factual issues.

What happen if GW simplifies the ruleset? Let's say they went to Basic / Competitive / Advanced - do they end there, or do they create demand for more streamlining in other areas of the game? Once the rules are streamlined, does this lead to greater awareness of how much this whole thing costs since there's less to research / argue about?

Probably, or possibly. Either way, GW won't change course, it's too good a racket.

Thanks! But I don't think any of what you're saying would apply to these ideas, even if it were true. If anything, breaking things down into 3 levels would increase debate and sales. You'd now have people arguing about how good/bad stuff is in the 3 different systems. Heck, it could mean that sales go up because now "well, if I want to compete in all three, but different units are good in different ones, then it's like I need 3 armies!!!". So, yeah, even if it's true that GW will sometimes release OP new models/rules, these suggestions don't stop that, and a setup like this that is good for new players would also increase sales to old players too.

the_scotsman wrote:
See how this is just you counting the hits and ignoring the misses yet?

No, what I see is you trying to start an argument about what's OP instead of discussing the consumer relationship with GW.

Which is my point. We can't have nice game systems because GW benefits from the complexity.

Players arguing about points efficiency is better for GW than having them talk about faults with the game itself. The problems with annual price hikes, power creep, abandoned factions, etc, are universal issues that affect every consumer of GW goods.

Isn't it kind of hard to describe the relationship a customer has with GW, as a lot of it depends on how much money the customer has and what army he picked initialy or wants to play.

If someone picked Karahradon Overlords as his army, because he likes the models, bought the army over time. Then their view on GW is going to be drasticly different from someone who plays Legion of Nagash. Same way if someone picked up necron or chaos marines, and someone else picked other marines or eldar.

the hikes, power creep, etc also gets greatly affected by how much money the customer has. I mean, who knows, maybe GW thinks that the natural reaction to your models or army not working, is buying a new army. The the problem of weak rules or power creep stops existing, because your constantly buying in to the good stuff. It is only a problem if your stuck with an army, and from GW perspective someone who does not buy new stuff on a regular basis could be consider a leech.

Karol wrote:
Isn't it kind of hard to describe the relationship a customer has with GW, as a lot of it depends on how much money the customer has and what army he picked initialy or wants to play.

If someone picked Karahradon Overlords as his army, because he likes the models, bought the army over time. Then their view on GW is going to be drasticly different from someone who plays Legion of Nagash. Same way if someone picked up necron or chaos marines, and someone else picked other marines or eldar.

the hikes, power creep, etc also gets greatly affected by how much money the customer has. I mean, who knows, maybe GW thinks that the natural reaction to your models or army not working, is buying a new army. The the problem of weak rules or power creep stops existing, because your constantly buying in to the good stuff. It is only a problem if your stuck with an army, and from GW perspective someone who does not buy new stuff on a regular basis could be consider a leech.

At the individual level, certainly. Everyone is unique, there is no reason to expect all players behave the same way.

At the macro level, there are practices that affect every consumer. I argue GW uses complexity to focus attention on a meta-game (the rules) instead of marketing practices that fundamentally affect the balance of the game. It's sleight of hand.

Maybe GW does view buying a new army as the remedy of bad rules. It would be consistent with everything we know through their corporate statements, they exist to find people to buy high quality models.

Consider this tho. Over a long enough period of time, will any army remain playable? Between FAQs, Supplements, Codexes, New Editions, etc, there's a constant shift in the relative competitiveness of all armies. We've seen them abandon various factions this edition, leaving them with rules that clearly need some TLC.

Is it right to shift the power level that dramatically? On the one hand, GW owns the game, they can do what they want. On the other hand, someone spent thousands of dollars on their army and GW just made it obsolete. Is that how players should be treated?

Everyone will have a different answer to that question. I think it reduces the relationship to something resembling a drug dealer / junkie, where the dealer feels no sense of obligation watching the junkie's life deteriorate. Either spend more money or wipe out, the value of what you originally spent is nothing.

Karol wrote:
Isn't it kind of hard to describe the relationship a customer has with GW, as a lot of it depends on how much money the customer has and what army he picked initialy or wants to play.

Not really. That's why a company does well to have consumer profiles. I'm 100% confident that GW has a consumer profile for the people they want to sell the most stuff to. And because a consumer profile is specific enough to start drawing conclusions, you can model your interaction with them. They likely have multiple profiles for the different types of people they want to sell to, and so can model different series of interactions. If a type of customer doesn't have a lot of spending power, or are unlikely to have high enough interest in the game to spend their money, GW won't waste time developing a profile to model anything off of.

To be honest I don't claim to be in the know how multi national mega companies work. All I know is that they like money more then anything else. And that is probably the universal thing about them.

I don't think GW care much about players that don't buy new stuff or that just bought old stuff. From what I understand some WFB players waited for an updated for 20years or so, and then GW killed their game? For a small bug like me, that is rather scary.

As the playability goes, I don't know enough about the past either. I know eldar were good in every edition, broken in most. and the rest had small few month windows of being good. But again that knowladge is stuff people told me, who knows maybe they lied. The eldar thing seems to be at least a bit true though.

as the power level shift goes. It makes sense WOTC do it all the time. Put out something broken, wait till the boxs are mostly out and sold, and then when your about to bring out new sutff nerf the old stuff. Oko is now wrecking the enviroment, WoTC says they are observing the situation. there are cards that are ultra broken, and they first tried to nerf the cards around them, but that never works, as there is always something else to run. So when 60% of big events are one deck type, they finaly kill it. But only when they have new set. GW seems to do the same thing. Castellan is OP, they let it run for a few months, when the sells are done, they nerf it. Am sure that by the time anti marine stuff is going to be coming out, the marine stuff that is OP right now, is going to get nerfed too. Only question is, if they are going to do it in spring FAQ or later.

CA should have nerfs for the armies that were good after castellans bit the bullet. So probably nerfs to flyers, maybe tau. But who knows. Maybe GW won't do a thing and nerf necron, or something like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yarium wrote:

Karol wrote:
Isn't it kind of hard to describe the relationship a customer has with GW, as a lot of it depends on how much money the customer has and what army he picked initialy or wants to play.

Not really. That's why a company does well to have consumer profiles. I'm 100% confident that GW has a consumer profile for the people they want to sell the most stuff to. And because a consumer profile is specific enough to start drawing conclusions, you can model your interaction with them. They likely have multiple profiles for the different types of people they want to sell to, and so can model different series of interactions. If a type of customer doesn't have a lot of spending power, or are unlikely to have high enough interest in the game to spend their money, GW won't waste time developing a profile to model anything off of.

I don't think it has to do well with customers. I mean it should do well with important customers, and probably the paying ones. But all of them? I don't think so.
I wonder what profile did GK fall in to. Who GW though was going to be buying or playing with the rules they gave them. Would be interesting to know, for me at least. But GW is too secretive about everything for them to ever spill the beans on stuff like that.

Although I do think there is a loop here. If the rules for an army are bad, the few people are going to buy it, if few people buy it, then GW doesn't update their rule set. This means even fewer people play the game, which probably in the end means only people that can't buy another army play the neglected army. Not bad for GW, but really bad for those people that are left with the models. I always wonder what people with WFB armies did with their stuff, when suddenly they had thousand points of illegal stuff.

 techsoldaten wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
See how this is just you counting the hits and ignoring the misses yet?

No, what I see is you trying to start an argument about what's OP instead of discussing the consumer relationship with GW.

Which is my point. We can't have nice game systems because GW benefits from the complexity.

Players arguing about points efficiency is better for GW than having them talk about faults with the game itself. The problems with annual price hikes, power creep, abandoned factions, etc, are universal issues that affect every consumer of GW goods.

The entire premise of your argument here is "GW bases their business model around making new models OP".

This is one of those lies that gets repeated so often that people treat it as fact. GW just. does. not. make all, or even close to most, new model releases OP. New model releases if you actually look at what the stats of new things are when they come out tend to be pretty evenly distributed on the power curve, and for every 7th ed WK there is a 7th ed Electropriests kit.

You can make a good argument for a fairly steady power creep in the books throughout an edition, and I will 100% get behind the idea that GW tends to use strong rules to sell books/supplements.

But new rules for new models, you are just engaging in confirmation bias. New books just as frequently make older model kits good as they do newer model kits. GW cares not from whence the meta churns, just that it continuously fluctuates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Although I do think there is a loop here. If the rules for an army are bad, the few people are going to buy it, if few people buy it, then GW doesn't update their rule set. This means even fewer people play the game, which probably in the end means only people that can't buy another army play the neglected army. Not bad for GW, but really bad for those people that are left with the models. I always wonder what people with WFB armies did with their stuff, when suddenly they had thousand points of illegal stuff.

It is almost like you're describing the cycle of neglect and disinterest that every Space Marine fanboy claims every xenos player is coocoo for coco puffs about.

Necrons have been basically abandoned since their big 5th ed relaunch. Same with GK. Same with DA, though their launch as a proper sub-faction model range was more like 6th ed? Same with Harlequins since 7th, their rules have also gotten steadily more dull and boring.

We've gone into this design paradigm where GW no longer considers an army to be a large comprehensive faction where they add small elements to it, making it more and more expansive, instead a new army is something to dump out all at once and abandon to slow rot.