Making GW change

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.

**MWHistorian**

agnosto wrote:
TheAuldGrump wrote:

And it looks like Mantic is going to be actively recruiting the Warhammer folks for the new edition of KoW, by coming out with official unofficial army lists for Warhammer like armies. (Unofficial - the army lists are not supported by Mantic miniatures or by the fluff. Official - they can be used in tournaments....)

I would really like to see somebody do the same for 40K.

The Auld Grump

Well, yeah; it's as simple a piece of marketing as there possibly could be:

Mantic: "Hey folks! Come play a fantasy game that takes place in a world that isn't blowed up!"

It's not like GW put, "To be continued" or anything at the end of the last End Times book....and it's certainly not like they're putting ANY information out there at all. So for all intents and purposes, it's a dead universe with the factions in complete disarray. Who wants to play that for months while GW sorts our their gack and finally gets back to us with a supposed reboot?

Kind of a bad move for a game that claims to be about the narrative. "My blowed up army will fight your blowed up army in some kind of weird warp bubble like the end of Interstellar....um...forge the narrative!"

**agnosto**

MWHistorian wrote:
agnosto wrote:
TheAuldGrump wrote:

And it looks like Mantic is going to be actively recruiting the Warhammer folks for the new edition of KoW, by coming out with official unofficial army lists for Warhammer like armies. (Unofficial - the army lists are not supported by Mantic miniatures or by the fluff. Official - they can be used in tournaments....)

I would really like to see somebody do the same for 40K.

The Auld Grump

Well, yeah; it's as simple a piece of marketing as there possibly could be:

Mantic: "Hey folks! Come play a fantasy game that takes place in a world that isn't blowed up!"

It's not like GW put, "To be continued" or anything at the end of the last End Times book....and it's certainly not like they're putting ANY information out there at all. So for all intents and purposes, it's a dead universe with the factions in complete disarray. Who wants to play that for months while GW sorts our their gack and finally gets back to us with a supposed reboot?

Kind of a bad move for a game that claims to be about the narrative. "My blowed up army will fight your blowed up army in some kind of weird warp bubble like the end of Interstellar....um...forge the narrative!"

Forge the heck out of that narrative! Keep forging until it makes sense and then forge so e more until the rules stop stinking and the fluff sucks less. Just call me a Games Workshop, Game Smith...not to be confused with a Poop Smith....though I can certainly see how one could confuse the two.

**Strombones**

Azreal13 wrote:
Buttery Commissar wrote:
I'm asking this from a position of curiosity, why does GW need to change?
With something as freeflow as tabletop gaming, model making etc. then once you own the figures, surely you can do as you wish with them?
In my eyes, it doesn't somehow become less of a game if you fiddle with it, tinkering with things as long as you mutually agree with your fellow players.

Maybe I'm just soft.

The issue here is you're viewing the game from the same viewpoint as GW seem to, ie. 40K is a game played in dining rooms and bedrooms amongst groups of friends who have known each other for years and whose makeup is the same from week to week.

To add to what Az says about tight rules,

Our game group is exactly as described above. Four of us who play pretty much weekly in my garage. Though none of us have bought any rules since the beginning of 6th, we still love the universe and yearn to play with the models from time to time. So,...we fiddle and tinker away with house rules to get our speez mahreens back in action. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Without a third party arbitrated and published rule set set EVERYTHING becomes open to negotiation causing one game to rarely look like the next. Next thing we know the game has come to a stand still as we cite Black Library sources in an argument over the true velocity of a heavy bolter. House rules can be fun, but getting two people (let alone four) to agree on how their toy soldiers should interact is a lot more difficult than some people give it credit for.

In wargaming, I firmly believe in the good fences make good neighbors approach. Decisive answers to disputes are the best thing a game can do to avoid a lot of unnecessary frustration.....frustration that ultimately causes people to lose interest.

**Red Harvest**

Vermis wrote:

[Snip]

- I don't like that other game's rules. (More subjective, but I think this is still a particular example of wargaming Stockholm syndrome or something. 40K and WHFB rules are widely known, but are actually weird outliers compared to most rules dealing with similar sized or organised armies. Of course other rules are going to seem weird and uncomfortable if you've started with and been fully immersed in the GW HobbyTM for at least two or three editions; but most are built to be more appropriate and elegant to the size of their forces, and designed to have a bit more of a tactical, tabletop-decision aspect than overwhelming strategic, micromanaged listbuilding. People think the micromanagement and special rules spam is 'fluffy', but most of the fluff in GW rules is the little title and caption written beside the bit that tells you how many dice to roll and how many wounds your result causes. Much of the rest is a wargaming quagmire. Or: other rules are like brown bread - it'll take a little time to get used to, but in the long run it's better, and before long the old stuff will start to feel like an 'orrible, sticky, claggy mess... )

In lieu of Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps call it Games Workshop Trained Brain Syndrome -- GWTBS-- ( search Microsoft trained brain syndrome for a complete explanation.)

**AllSeeingSkink**

Red Harvest wrote:
In lieu of Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps call it Games Workshop Trained Brain Syndrome -- GWTBS-- ( search Microsoft trained brain syndrome for a complete explanation.)

It's too bad "Microsoft Trained Brain Syndrome" is a load of crap

**SirDonlad**

Thirdeye wrote:

OK, great. So tell me, what are you looking for in a game of 40K?

I'm thinking - start with 6th edition and make changes from there. there was a lot of good ideas in 6th that just weren't worded properly 'focus fire' for example - it would simplify that scenario you've just described nicely without resorting to resolving each weapon individually.

my pet idea was to give initiative numbers as fractions and then use a model's initiative value more - I was impressed by the way 'x-wing' uses initiative to determine who moves and fires when; which is a really good idea!

I also like the notion of blurring the two player phases into one; each player taking turns to deploy or move a unit, going through your armies initiative values from lowest to highest then declare your shooting before anything has shot and resolve all shooting simultaneously.

I don't like the way the player who has first turn gets a free round of shooting for going first.

not sure how the assault phase is going to work in that scenario.

I also liked the old 'overwatch' (delay a unit's shooting attacks until the enemy movement phase when they move in range)

**Lanrak**

IMO 'WHFB in space' type rules are limited to skirmish games , up to about 2nd 40k ed size.
(A bolt gun is not a bow and arrow, and a Land Rider is not a chariot. WHFB in space based 40k rules need lots of additional rules to cover the functional differences.)

So for the current battle game size game play.I think starting with the rules for Epic Space Marine then adding detail to scale up to 28mm detail would be the way to go.

I would use stat values directly as a range in inches or the number of dice rolled.
And as opposed values with a universal resolution table.(As opposed to stating score to succeed as Epic rules do.)_
This is 2 resolution methods for the entire game rather than the SEVEN current 40k uses.(Along with OVER EIGHTY freeking special rules !!!!)

I think between 12 and 20 special rules is PLENTY for a game like 40k,IF they are used for actual special abilities .(Rather than patching up the gaps in the inadequate core rules.)

We use Assault stat(WS) vs Agility stat(I) for'to hit score ' in Close combat.(Simultaneous resolution.)

We use Shooting skill vs Stealth skill for 'to hit score 'at range.

We use targets Armour value vs weapon Armour Penetration for the 'to save roll score'.

We use the attackers weapon Damage value vs the targets resilience 'for the to damage roll score'

Have a look at my latest thread in the rule development forum for more details if you want...

If 40k is supposed to be a battle game with units mainly armed with ranged weapons, we need rules for that to start with.

Trying to convert 1970s Napoleonic rules for massed battles of regiments mainly armed with close combat weapons fighting in close order .Is possibly the WORST core rules to base 40k on IMO.

40k should be an EQUAL BALANCE of Mobility , Fire power , and Assault, IMO.
So the rules and stat line should reflect this.

In short to fix 40k, a re write is going to look a lot different to current rules .Even if the game play is more detailed and more intuitive.While using more straight forward resolution.

**Achaylus72**

Smacks wrote:
I think GW are changing slowly. They've obviously stepped up production, they've released stuff that they probably should have released 20 years ago, such as titans, Ad mech, and Harlequins. It seems like plastic sisters could be just around the corner (at last). Who knows, at this rate they might even bring back squats!. Prices are still steep, but I was shocked to see the new Skitarii launch at only £23.50 for ten. I expected them to be priced more like Scions. My first thought was: "wow, I could actually buy those and only feel slightly ripped off" (as opposed to the usual mugged and raped level of shame that I'm accustomed to when dealing with GW). Of course I didn't actually buy any (I'm not an idiot). We also have the new Execution Force game coming out, which almost looks like one of the old introductory board games that were IMHO instrumental in getting new players involved in 40k during the 90s.

Of course many people will still consider all this too little too late, and the state of the rules is still obscene. But I like to think that they are slowly feeling the pain of dipping sales and starting to respond.

I did some figures recently and since October 2012 to April 2015 GW have brought out over 120 reboxed/rehashed product and claimed them to new Apocalypse formations etc...., the GW hasn't stepped up production, it is just we think that because White Dwarf comes out every week rather than the old regime of once a month, also they (GW) has a scattergun approach that makes no sense. Imagine a further 120 new kits in the system that GW could have done, but didn't.

**Knockagh**

Smacks wrote:
I think GW are changing slowly. They've obviously stepped up production, they've released stuff that they probably should have released 20 years ago, such as titans, Ad mech, and Harlequins. It seems like plastic sisters could be just around the corner (at last). Who knows, at this rate they might even bring back squats!. Prices are still steep, but I was shocked to see the new Skitarii launch at only £23.50 for ten. I expected them to be priced more like Scions. My first thought was: "wow, I could actually buy those and only feel slightly ripped off" (as opposed to the usual mugged and raped level of shame that I'm accustomed to when dealing with GW). Of course I didn't actually buy any (I'm not an idiot). We also have the new Execution Force game coming out, which almost looks like one of the old introductory board games that were IMHO instrumental in getting new players involved in 40k during the 90s.

Of course many people will still consider all this too little too late, and the state of the rules is still obscene. But I like to think that they are slowly feeling the pain of dipping sales and starting to respond.

Agree, things are looking brighter

**Toofast**

^ Things are looking great on the MODEL side of it. Rarely do I hear that as a complaint. It's usually the 1 thing that gets people like me to keep buying their products despite the lack of balance and awful rules. If the rules were half as good as the models, you would hear a lot less complaints about GW in general and specifically their prices. Nobody complains about WMH prices even though they're as much if not more per model and just as much for tournaments (3x 50 points lists, a couple sets of tokens and all the various ring markers you need cost the same as an 1850 40k list with BRB and codex). PP writes solid rules, issues errata to fix broken and unbalanced units and acts like they give a feth about their customers rather than viewing us as walking wallets.

**Stormwall**

Vermis wrote:
I don't think anyone's suggested this yet, but I'd recommend you stop buying GW products.

Venerate1 wrote:
Nay! There is no such thing as free will! You are only in this hobby because GW holds a boltgun to your head and FORCES you to spend money!

You type this out as hyperbolic sarcasm, but I've seen lots of people reveal that they're psychologically trapped in GW games, to some degree or another. Reasons and excuses I've read include:

- I've spent too much money on GW products to stop now. (Classic sunk cost fallacy, and I used to see it with distressing regularity)
- I buy GW models/rules or play GW games because I like the fluff. (No actual mention of enjoying the minis, rules, or games. A BL novel might give them as much or more enjoyment)
- If I started a new game I'd have to spend tons of money on it. (For one thing, they're already spending tons of money, more than they'd need for most new games, on filling out already-huge armies with no end in sight. For another, as I keep harping on, there are plenty of alternate, cheap or free rulesets that you can use your existing 40K/WHFB collection with. I'm sure the GW police won't break your door down and arrest you if you try it.)
- I don't like that other game's minis and fluff. (Well, as above. The Mantic police aren't going to break your door down etc. etc. if you decide to use your WHFB models and Old World [or bubble universe] background with Kings of War, or whatever. Some of those other alternate rulesets don't even have any models or fluff.)
- I don't like that other game's rules. (More subjective, but I think this is still a particular example of wargaming Stockholm syndrome or something. 40K and WHFB rules are widely known, but are actually weird outliers compared to most rules dealing with similar sized or organised armies. Of course other rules are going to seem weird and uncomfortable if you've started with and been fully immersed in the GW HobbyTM for at least two or three editions; but most are built to be more appropriate and elegant to the size of their forces, and designed to have a bit more of a tactical, tabletop-decision aspect than overwhelming strategic, micromanaged listbuilding. People think the micromanagement and special rules spam is 'fluffy', but most of the fluff in GW rules is the little title and caption written beside the bit that tells you how many dice to roll and how many wounds your result causes. Much of the rest is a wargaming quagmire. Or: other rules are like brown bread - it'll take a little time to get used to, but in the long run it's better, and before long the old stuff will start to feel like an 'orrible, sticky, claggy mess... )

What else? People complain that their opponents are too stuck on GW games, but sometimes they mention that those opponents are tired of GW too. I wonder just how much of it is down to a lack of will or courage to take a punt, divert some of the roaring flow of cash going to GW's coffers into a little rulebook or download, try to put together a couple of little demo gangs (even, as mentioned, with existing collections or proxies) or summat. Similarly, people complain that a GW store is the only place to game, which can be a restrictive head-scratcher of a problem, but again I wonder if there's some kind of inertia, a comfortable rut, and an assumption that you need a FLGS to play anything else in. I found out about a nearby wargaming club, miles closer than the nearest GW, but years after I started attending that GW, because I never bothered to look and ask. I've also played on a few kitchen tables many times. It's not going to be possible for everyone, but I don't think it's as generally impossible as often made out.

Hm. I suffer from all of those. In my defense I do BFG from third party, and play Battletech. I jusf feel like since I have 2k pts, I may as well enjoy GW.

But I buy from ebay sellers... so yeah. Not sure if any of that applies.

**Thirdeye**

Thirdeye wrote:

OK, great. So tell me, what are you looking for in a game of 40K?

SirDonlad wrote:
I'm thinking - start with 6th edition and make changes from there. there was a lot of good ideas in 6th that just weren't worded properly 'focus fire' for example - it would simplify that scenario you've just described nicely without resorting to resolving each weapon individually.

Yeah, when I first heard about 6th I thought I might like it. It was suppose to bring back some fun stuff from 2ed. And it did, to some extent. But I really have a problem with the core rules, which haven't changed since RT. Too many stats; plus the fact that they are expressed on a 1-10 scale but rolled with a D6, so ya need a chart to convert. Its very cumbersome, and many times small differences in stats end up being meaningless. Resolving combat with mixed detachments is messy, requiring multiple steps and repeated dice rolls. Sometimes the difference stats are meaningless as you use the majority stat. Then there's all the special rules and re-rolls. No wonder GW can't get the cost of things right. In the end its just a guesstimate. That's why I'm looking for a better way, a different system.

SirDonlad wrote:
my pet idea was to give initiative numbers as fractions and then use a model's initiative value more - I was impressed by the way 'x-wing' uses initiative to determine who moves and fires when; which is a really good idea!

Yeah, that idea has been around. It kinda works. But I don't like being locked into phases. That's too robotic and mechanical. It also doesn't simulate the chaos of battle. I also don't like it much it for fight-sim games like x-wing because position is as important as being an Ace pilot. If I'm in your "6" I have a big advantage even if you're a better pilot. Such things can be simulated so much better on a computer game. But for a fun beer & pretzels game board-game it works good enough. The old Epic had something like that. You put out Orders for your units. Units with "Charge" Orders moved first and fired last. Units with "Advance" Orders moved second and fired second. Units with "First-Fire" Orders didn't move but fired first. We might want to use something like that.

SirDonlad wrote:
I also like the notion of blurring the two player phases into one; each player taking turns to deploy or move a unit, going through your armies initiative values from lowest to highest then declare your shooting before anything has shot and resolve all shooting simultaneously.

Yeah, but low "I" armies are at a disadvantage. You would need some kind of counter to show which units have moved. Also, if units have the same "I", who moved first? But you could do simo shooting, just lay casualties on their side until shootings over, but that kinda defeats the whole "I" thing.

SirDonlad wrote:
I don't like the way the player who has first turn gets a free round of shooting for going first.

Yeah that's one of my biggest gripes w/ GW's game. I like Unit Activation much better. There are different ways of doing it. We should explore them.

SirDonlad wrote:
not sure how the assault phase is going to work in that scenario.
I also liked the old 'overwatch' (delay a unit's shooting attacks until the enemy movement phase when they move in range)

I have some ideas on that, but first we should focus on shooting. We need to get that right before moving on. In that regard, any ideas how you might resolve that scenario I posted above?

**AllSeeingSkink**

I like the idea of alternate activations. However I don't like the idea of random activations (that just strikes me as introducing far too large of a luck element in to the game) nor am I a huge fan of just going back and forth because that provides an advantage based on how many units you have.

Maybe something like breaking the army up in to 500pt chunks and then you "activate" an entire chunk at a time and alternate back and forth between the players.

Maybe you could do something like Bolt Action, but instead of pulling a dice, activating, pulling another dice, just pull ALL the dice out at the start of the turn and line them up on the side of the table. That way it's still random activation, but you at least you could plan out your activations instead of it all just falling to lady luck.

**Thirdeye**

Lanrak wrote:
IMO 'WHFB in space' type rules are limited to skirmish games , up to about 2nd 40k ed size.
(A bolt gun is not a bow and arrow, and a Land Rider is not a chariot. WHFB in space based 40k rules need lots of additional rules to cover the functional differences.)

So for the current battle game size game play.I think starting with the rules for Epic Space Marine then adding detail to scale up to 28mm detail would be the way to go.

I would use stat values directly as a range in inches or the number of dice rolled.
And as opposed values with a universal resolution table.(As opposed to stating score to succeed as Epic rules do.)_
This is 2 resolution methods for the entire game rather than the SEVEN current 40k uses.(Along with OVER EIGHTY freeking special rules !!!!)

I think between 12 and 20 special rules is PLENTY for a game like 40k,IF they are used for actual special abilities .(Rather than patching up the gaps in the inadequate core rules.)

We use Assault stat(WS) vs Agility stat(I) for'to hit score ' in Close combat.(Simultaneous resolution.)

We use Shooting skill vs Stealth skill for 'to hit score 'at range.

We use targets Armour value vs weapon Armour Penetration for the 'to save roll score'.

We use the attackers weapon Damage value vs the targets resilience 'for the to damage roll score'

Have a look at my latest thread in the rule development forum for more details if you want...

If 40k is supposed to be a battle game with units mainly armed with ranged weapons, we need rules for that to start with.

Trying to convert 1970s Napoleonic rules for massed battles of regiments mainly armed with close combat weapons fighting in close order .Is possibly the WORST core rules to base 40k on IMO.

40k should be an EQUAL BALANCE of Mobility , Fire power , and Assault, IMO.
So the rules and stat line should reflect this.

In short to fix 40k, a re write is going to look a lot different to current rules .Even if the game play is more detailed and more intuitive.While using more straight forward resolution.

Hey Lenrak, glad to see you joined the discussion. So, how would you resolve the scenario I posed above?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I like the idea of alternate activations. However I don't like the idea of random activations (that just strikes me as introducing far too large of a luck element in to the game) nor am I a huge fan of just going back and forth because that provides an advantage based on how many units you have.

Maybe something like breaking the army up in to 500pt chunks and then you "activate" an entire chunk at a time and alternate back and forth between the players.

Maybe you could do something like Bolt Action, but instead of pulling a dice, activating, pulling another dice, just pull ALL the dice out at the start of the turn and line them up on the side of the table. That way it's still random activation, but you at least you could plan out your activations instead of it all just falling to lady luck.

Yeah, I've done it a bunch of different ways. Nothing's perfect. Then ya throw-in reactions and it can get really messy. I heard Dakka's Maelstorm game has a reaction system. I'll have to look at that. But I've found the Bolt Action thing is the best all-in-all. I'm sure the designers of BA tried a lot of different systems before they settled on the system they did, so I'm going with their, and my, play-test results.

**Lanrak**

Hi folks.
I agree that 40k NEEDS a more interactive game turn structure to improve tactical depth and simplify the rules.(And make things more intuitive !)

Simply using alternating phases with your current favorite version of 40k is a simple way to see the basic benefit.

However, if alternating unit activation is used, it has to have other restrictions to compensate for the massive variance in unit types found in 40k.

Bolt Actions randomized alternating unit activation game turn works well when all units in the game have similar capabilities.
But 40k has Death Star type builds to MSU builds .

So a player activating two 'death star' type units one after the other ,would have a similar effect to the current alpha strike problem the game suffers from now.

This is why I suggested using the game turn based on Epic Space Marine.
When units activate is decided by the players on 2 levels .
The basic decision on what tactical stance the unit is going to take in the command phase
Fire support, charge, or advance .Do they activate in the 1st 2nd or 3rd action phase.

And then in each phase the players decide which units and when they are going to activate responding to the enemy actions.
As Epic Space Marine has similar units and model count to 6-7th ed 40k I think it is a good place to start from!

@Thirdeye,
It depends on what you want 40k to be?
A detailed skirmish game with up to 30 models a side I would use the rules based on Deadzone or Infinity.(Or any of the great skirmish rule sets out there.)

If we are to suppose that 40k would stay a battle game .
I would use alternating phases or the ESM game turn.

Which ever unit activated first.
Would roll to hit with all weapons in range .(Shooting skill vs target Stealth , determines chance to hit, models in cover get +1 to stealth)

The player owning the defending models hit would then roll armour saves.(Armour value vs Weapon AP determines chance to save .)

The attacking player would then roll to wound the models that failed thier save roll.(Weapon Damage vs targets Resilience determines chance to wound.)

The values are compared on a single table .(The one I posted in the thread in the game development forum.)

(Any special rules for weapons , like Chemical weapons ignoring cover, would be listed on the weapon profile.)

I probably need to explain that better,Please ask questions and comment so I can clarify...

**Sigvatr**

Why would I invest money in a company that has a dwindling customer base over the last recent years, does no market research and caters to a niche market?

**kronk**

tgjensen wrote:
The only way to make them change is to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.

If you want any change from GW, this is the only way.

**KaptinBadrukk**

tgjensen wrote:
The only way to make them change is to STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.

NO! If GW vanishes, i vanish

**Azreal13**

A plan with no drawback?

Excellent.

**SilverDevilfish**

MWHistorian wrote:

Kind of a bad move for a game that claims to be about the narrative. "My blowed up army will fight your blowed up army in some kind of weird warp bubble like the end of Interstellar....um...forge the narrative!"

Just going to blow into this bubble blower here.

There narrative forged.

Oh and on the whole GW is making more stuff conversation. Are they actually making more stuff, or are they increasing the variety of kits while producing around the same number of kits? (100 = 50 x 2 = 25 x 4 = 20 x 5 = 10 x 10)

**boyd**

SirDonlad wrote:
I had a thought while reading threads about GW's behavior/decisionmaking that the only real way of forcing change in this company from our position is to buy shares - we are always complaining about the jumping through hoops to please them so lets become shareholders ourselves!

We clearly have the capacity for large purchases and a year of spending that money on shares instead of models might actually start a change in the company;

all we have to do is wait for a terrible sales report making the shares dip in price to maximise our input and then afterwards we have a say in the boardroom!

I'm up for it - i've never owned shares in a company before!

I said this years ago. Make a DakkaSeer Shareholder Group and provide GW with a unified message. Your message would have to ensure its in the best interest of the shareholders otherwise, you'll never see anything happen. You can own less than 10% of a Company and still make an impact (there have been instances in the US where the Board of Directors has been replaced from opposition). Here is an example and it happened to a Fortune 500 Company and collectively the activist shareholders owned ~ 10% - http://www.cnbc.com/id/102083268

You'd need to put together more than a shareholder petition but rather an action plan and have evidence that your method is better for their Company and would make the other investors more money over the long haul.

**Lanrak**

Even with a concerted effort to get a sizable amount of shares to have a voice that is heard by the GW chairman.
The chairman can still ignore you.

It could be said Tom Kirby has been acting in his own personal interest for at least a decade, at the detriment to the long term future of GW plc.
So unless he leaves there is little hope of change.

**Thirdeye**

Thirdeye wrote:

OK, so here's the challenge: Take the following situation and test your favorite rules to see who can get a resolution that's clean, quick, and intuitive, but rich enough to captures the complexities of the scenario:

A unit of four Space Marines and a Veteran Sergeant are shooting at a unit of five Orks and one Nob. Two Marines have Bolters, one has a flamer, one has a Missile Launcher, and the Sgt. has a Bolt Pistol. The Nob is in front and in the open and at 12 inch range. The Boys are strung-out behind him. One Boy is at 14 inch range and partially shielded by some foliage. Another Boy is at 16 inch range and he's partially behind a large rock. Another Boy is in the open at 18 inch range. Another Boy is in the open at 20 inch range. Another Boy is behind a fortified wall at 22 inch range.

Who's up for the challenge?

OK, so here's how I'd handle this scenario using Tomorrow's War type rules.

Instead of a bunch of states and charts TW uses a simple system of comparing dice roles. Basicly, each Player rolls a dice and the results are compared. Highest result wins! (Generally Defenders win ties as well). Better trained and equipped troops are represented by higher dice types. So, for example, Marines, they are an elite strike-force type army with access to some of the best mass-produced weapons the Empire has available. As such they are a base D8 army, meaning they will mostly be rolling D8's to resolve combat and related “in-game” situations. Orks are a rag-tag, insurgent, irregular type force. As such they are consider to be a D6 base army, meaning they will mostly be rolling D6's to resolve combat and related “in-game” situations.

OK, so, back to the scenario: Marines have 2xBolters, 1 Marine Flamer, 1 Marine Missile Launcher, and the Sgt. has a Bolt Pistol. That works out thus: 2D8 for the Bolters, plus 2D8 for the Flamer, plus another 2D8 for the Missile Launcher (Frag), and a D6 for the Bolt Pistol. (Basic pistol weapons are generally one dice-type less than the army's base dice type).

The Marine rolls all his attack dice in one go, that 6xD8 +D6, and scores: 8,4,4,3,2,2,1. The dice are compared highest score to the closest defending model first. In our scenario that is the Nob. As a command model he gets a stepped-up on his base dice type, so he's rolling a D8. He is in the open so no modifier for cover, also at rage 12 he get no modifier for rage. The highest score of the attaching unit is an “8”, so the Ork Player must roll a nature “8” on a D8 to survive. He rolls a 6, and is removed as a casualty.

Next up is the Boy at 14 inch range. He is rolling against a score of “4” (the next highest attacking score). He also get a +1 for range (models a range 12-24 get a +1 modifier). Also, because he's partially shielded by some foliage he another get a +1 for cover. As a base model he's rolling a D6. He rolls a “3”, adds 2 for a score of “5” and survives.

Next up is the Boy at 16 inch range. He is rolling against a score of “4” (the next highest attacking score). He also get a +1 for range, and because he's partially behind a large rock he another get a +2 modifier for cover. As a base model he's rolling a D6. He rolls a “5”, adds 3 for a score of “8” and easily survives.

Next up is the Boy at 18 inch range. He is rolling against a score of “3” (the next highest attacking score). He also get a +1 for range, but because he's in the open he gets no modifier for cover. As a base model he's rolling a D6. He rolls a “1”, adds 1 for a score of “2”. He is removed as a casualty.

The Boys at 20 & 22 inch range don't need to roll. They both get a +1 for range and are rolling against an attack score of “2”, so they auto-save.

The remaining attack dice score of “1” is ignored as “1” are auto-fails.

Comments?

**studderingdave**

GW is still a giant. You want to push some change? STOP BUYING MODELS! Easier said then done I know but money speaks louder.

**Thirdeye**

studderingdave wrote:
GW is still a giant. You want to push some change? STOP BUYING MODELS! Easier said then done I know but money speaks louder.

Yeah, its been said many, many times. Problem is, I, like many people, like their models and will continue to buy. And even if everyone stopped buying and we force a changes, who's to say it will be a change for the better, or the change we want? I know what I want: a better game with which to use my cool models, a game that's quick, clean, and intuitive. And I don't need GW for that, whether they change or not. I can make a better game on my own. We, as a community, can do it on our own. So, who's sick of complaining and wants to start doing something constructive instead?

**malfred**

I've moved on. I buy models from GW with no guilt and play with
none of them.

**MWHistorian**

malfred wrote:
I've moved on. I buy models from GW with no guilt and play with
none of them.

That's not really teaching GW a lesson.
I wish people would punish me by buying my books. That'll teach me.

**Grot 6**

SirDonlad wrote:
I had a thought while reading threads about GW's behavior/decisionmaking that the only real way of forcing change in this company from our position is to buy shares - we are always complaining about the jumping through hoops to please them so lets become shareholders ourselves!

We clearly have the capacity for large purchases and a year of spending that money on shares instead of models might actually start a change in the company;

all we have to do is wait for a terrible sales report making the shares dip in price to maximise our input and then afterwards we have a say in the boardroom!

I'm up for it - i've never owned shares in a company before!

We have this conversation from time to time, GW's not going to change. if they don't fleece you for 200, they will bend your friends kid brother over for 120.00. Its horrible, but that's how GW wants to run, so let them do it on someone else. Stop going to them fro your stuff, there are too many other games out there to put up with aggravation.

Want to look at the admechs? Your looking at a 200.00 start in fee. If that's what you want, have fun with it. Me? I still have a lot of the old stuff that I'm quite happy with. Of course they are going to auto kill anyone on the table, and move on their own.

Necromunda and Mordhiem can get my cash, but I'm not going for this new bubble wrapped worlds stuff, nor am I going to be able to scrap enough cash for both the Star Wars game, and any one of the three or four board games/ starter sets coming from GW. And as a side note? $150+ for a gundam sized knight? seriously? 1 models worth more money they a starter set? It's not that great of a game to begin with, let alone large scale purchases that will end up costing as much as a car.

Thanks GW, but theres plenty of other girls out there, its not you, its me.

**XvReaperXv**

Ill admit, as a retired gamer with a retired gamer wife, we spend alot on GW products. In the past month we have spent over 2k for Lotr, and have spent close to 4k altogether. But every cent was worth it to us, the game is amazing, and we play 3+ games a week of it. Plus we enjoy the hobby side of it immensely. After playing lotr for quite a while, I had the itch to play 40k again, as I had not played since I was about 15 or so.

Got the wife on board, and we bought the 6th edition starter with dark angels and choas. We enjoyed it, and wanted to build small armies to play. Well, I bought the dv expansion for chaos, while she bought an eldar battleforce and wraithknight. But by the time we got most of it assembled, 7th had come out, so there was 85 bucks for a new rulebook. I bought the rulebook, and finally our codexes, and continued painting when we could. We played about 2 games, and then the new eldar codex came out, and we didn't feel like spending another 50 bucks for another book so soon. The reason we spend so much on lotr I think is because we have all the rules, which wont get updated ever, and our money can go towards models, paints, terrain, etc.

I want to get back into 40k, but I dont see the value there. Buying rules it seems every few months is too much wasted money. So atm we still play with our current codexes, but are going to play a warpath game with our models later this week. I love the models, but if I can play with free rules im going that route. Im sure GW would get much more money out of me if the rules were streamlined quite a bit, and they held there value for longer. Its weird because lotr is such a solid ruleset, but every time we play 40k there are just rules for rules sake for no reason and it really bogs the game down to the point where its just not enjoyable to us.

**Azreal13**

Happy to drop $2k on GW products.

Doesn't see the value in 40K.

That, right there, is a problem GW needs to solve!