PDA

View Full Version : Would GW Outsource 40K Rules to FFG?



Scribe of Khorne
15-07-2015, 18:38
GW identifies as a Model manufacturer. They do not wish to make rules.

Fine, no problem, would there be any chance of GW just outsourcing their Development side to FFG? Just let them write the rules that GW sneers so openly at?

As you may be aware, I'm grasping at straws here before GW AoS-ifies my beloved 40K.

Formerly Wu
15-07-2015, 19:08
You've read FFG rules, yes?

TheFang
15-07-2015, 19:20
Can't see it. Too hard for GW central to control an external team and keep new models a secret. I'd like to see Forgeworld's team in control of the rules development but I can't see GW doing that either.

I do fear the coming of a Sigmar style bodge up job. They've shown nothing but contempt for people who've bought into fantasy.

Scribe of Khorne
15-07-2015, 20:15
You've read FFG rules, yes?

No, I just picked them as they are the most obvious (to me) external party that has written rules.

I do have no issue with FW taking over the ship as well, the fact they continue to push against what 7th has done in the HH line gives me reason to smile.

Lord Damocles
15-07-2015, 20:19
I'd like to see Forgeworld's team in control of the rules development...
Because Forgeworld haven't ever made monstrously unbalanced rules...
:shifty:

Scribe of Khorne
15-07-2015, 20:30
Because Forgeworld haven't ever made monstrously unbalanced rules...
:shifty:

It doesnt matter though, in the greater context of things. I dont even care if things are unbalanced (as I dont believe true balance can exist outside Rock/Paper/Scissors type design) but what I dont want, is for GW to just give up, and dump an AoS on us.

Formerly Wu
15-07-2015, 20:52
No, I just picked them as they are the most obvious (to me) external party that has written rules.
FFG's rules tend to be immensely convoluted, borderline unworkable. Their fluff is incomparable, but I don't think I'd much fancy their crunch work. Same with Forge World.

What exactly is it about the AoS rules system (as opposed to the fluff reboot) that's so bad?

Scribe of Khorne
15-07-2015, 21:21
There's no points costs. No FoC. No Army building guidelines beyond 'what fits on the table or seems right.'

Its literally as far away from what I want from 40K as possible. :]

Orkusmorkus
15-07-2015, 21:21
It's all economics. AoS came about because GW wanted to inject new life (and new players) into the WFB brand. The old system simply wasn't generating any income. They tried new rule editions, new armies etc but the same old players continued to play with the same old armies they had bought years ago.

WH40K is a large and steady income earner, much more than the other system ever was. They wouldn't risk a revamp of that, the shareholders wouldn't stand for it I think :D

ehlijen
15-07-2015, 21:39
I don't see FFG rules as being anywhere near as bad as GW ones. Some of the best board games I've ever played (BSG, Eldritch Horror) were FFG's with reasonably succinct and very clear rules, and they must be doing something right with X-Wing doing so well.

But X-Wing is the problem: FFG are now a competitor, so asking them to write GW's rules may not be a good move.

But not expecting AoS for 40k is being in denial. I don't know if it will happen, but 6th and 7th have taken major steps towards AoS already (unbound, weakening of the FOC, formations to replace points values as a balancing mechanic, random terrain, random objectives...). An AoS 40k is what the studio seems to want to happen; they will at least keep moving that way for the next few editions if they don't outright go for it.

TheFang
15-07-2015, 21:42
Because Forgeworld haven't ever made monstrously unbalanced rules...
:shifty:
Yeah, but they'll listen to feedback and change the rules. Almost like they're interested in the gaming experience...:)

Eldartank
15-07-2015, 21:46
That one is sort of "iffy" for me. FFG's rules for their various 40K roleplaying games are absolutely excellent and very fun. However, their rules for their new Star Wars roleplaying game (Edge of Empire) positively suck in my opinion.

Wintermute
15-07-2015, 21:47
GW identifies as a Model manufacturer.

This has always been the case.


They do not wish to make rules.

They have never said this.

GW produce rules (and games) to sell the (Citadel) miniatures they make and for no other reason.

So the answer to your question is no, they wouldn't outsource 40K rules to FFG.

Formerly Wu
15-07-2015, 21:50
There's no points costs. No FoC. No Army building guidelines beyond 'what fits on the table or seems right.'

Its literally as far away from what I want from 40K as possible. :]
No offense, but I find that kind of an odd hill to plant one's flag on.

My read of AoS is GW's attempt at an evolving ruleset. That means starting small and building from there. To accommodate existing collections without wasting time on balancing armies that functionally don't exist any more, they handwaved away the army construction rules. If it's not working, they'll probably bring them in later, because why not? I just don't see the point in extrapolating a game's long-term health from a starter set and a bunch of pdf get-you-bys.


I don't see FFG rules as being anywhere near as bad as GW ones. Some of the best board games I've ever played (BSG, Eldritch Horror) were FFG's with reasonably succinct and very clear rules, and they must be doing something right with X-Wing doing so well.
Buddy, I love me some BSG, but reasonably succinct it is not.


But not expecting AoS for 40k is being in denial. I don't know if it will happen, but 6th and 7th have taken major steps towards AoS already (unbound, weakening of the FOC, formations to replace points values as a balancing mechanic, random terrain, random objectives...). An AoS 40k is what the studio seems to want to happen; they will at least keep moving that way for the next few editions if they don't outright go for it.
Other than Scribe, I've yet to have somebody explain to me what's so awful about that in a way separate from heartburn about an (entirely unecessary) fluff reboot.

ehlijen
15-07-2015, 23:57
No offense, but I find that kind of an odd hill to plant one's flag on.

My read of AoS is GW's attempt at an evolving ruleset. That means starting small and building from there. To accommodate existing collections without wasting time on balancing armies that functionally don't exist any more, they handwaved away the army construction rules. If it's not working, they'll probably bring them in later, because why not? I just don't see the point in extrapolating a game's long-term health from a starter set and a bunch of pdf get-you-bys.

The problem is that the game will need a strong start or it will die before it gets to have a long term health, and in my opinion GW went about getting the strong start all wrong:
-They kicked out their oldest game with many long term fans for something that at best pays lip service to that setting
-There was no buildup to this, GW was doing its silence until the sudden reveal scheme and that doesn't work for a new franchise and a new game if it's at the expense of old ones that the fans were getting really worried about
-The new game is intended for an entirely different player than the one GW has mostly been attracting (seemingly against the intent, but they still did). This new game fails to frame itself as being for this different kind of player; it is still presented as a game where two players try to defeat each other and that will bring a competitive mindset out in most players.
-As the statue shows, they are banking on this being their next big thing, when there is no evidence to suggest this (they pride themselves on not listening to customers, so there's no way to have an idea of how well this game will be received)



Buddy, I love me some BSG, but reasonably succinct it is not.

I think something went wrong with your quote tags? They should show that you're quoting multiple people.

BSG is far more succinct and clear while at it than anything GW has produced in a long while. It may not be sensibly organised, an artefact of the multiple optional expansion components, but it all 4 rules booklets together are still shorter than any GW rulebook other than AoS but with far less ambiguities and loopholes.



Other than Scribe, I've yet to have somebody explain to me what's so awful about that in a way separate from heartburn about an (entirely unecessary) fluff reboot.

It's a game designed for a different customer.
3rd-5th ed 40k and 6th-7th fantasy were written with the clear intent of providing a game that pitches even forces against each other for mutually exclusive victory with an army building system that allows players to choose, build and paint an army with a reasonably expectation that it will have a fair and even match against most other armies of the same points.
That's what many of the players of those games want.

AoS. and to a large extent 7th 40k, do not provide that. You can't build a 1.5k point army on your own and hope it will fare well against all other 1.5k point armies at the club meeting anymore. You have to design each game in cooperation with the opponent beforehand; if you don't, there is almost a guarantee for a lack of balance.
This is not an inherently bad game based on that point alone, but it is a game that many GW players do not want and have been asking the opposite of for (ie greater effort to provide balance instead of an abolishment of the concept).

A lot of players who have been waiting for a better 9th Warhammer edition are now understandably disappointed. AoS threw out too much to be recognisable as WH and doesn't offer the kind of game they want.

Formerly Wu
16-07-2015, 00:11
I think something went wrong with your quote tags? They should show that you're quoting multiple people.
Naw, I was just posting from my phone and got lazy with attribution.


The problem is that the game will need a strong start or it will die before it gets to have a long term health, and in my opinion GW went about getting the strong start all wrong:
-They kicked out their oldest game with many long term fans for something that at best pays lip service to that setting
-There was no buildup to this, GW was doing its silence until the sudden reveal scheme and that doesn't work for a new franchise and a new game if it's at the expense of old ones that the fans were getting really worried about
-The new game is intended for an entirely different player than the one GW has mostly been attracting (seemingly against the intent, but they still did). This new game fails to frame itself as being for this different kind of player; it is still presented as a game where two players try to defeat each other and that will bring a competitive mindset out in most players.
-As the statue shows, they are banking on this being their next big thing, when there is no evidence to suggest this (they pride themselves on not listening to customers, so there's no way to have an idea of how well this game will be received)

...

It's a game designed for a different customer.
3rd-5th ed 40k and 6th-7th fantasy were written with the clear intent of providing a game that pitches even forces against each other for mutually exclusive victory with an army building system that allows players to choose, build and paint an army with a reasonably expectation that it will have a fair and even match against most other armies of the same points.
That's what many of the players of those games want.

AoS. and to a large extent 7th 40k, do not provide that. You can't build a 1.5k point army on your own and hope it will fare well against all other 1.5k point armies at the club meeting anymore. You have to design each game in cooperation with the opponent beforehand; if you don't, there is almost a guarantee for a lack of balance.
This is not an inherently bad game based on that point alone, but it is a game that many GW players do not want and have been asking the opposite of for (ie greater effort to provide balance instead of an abolishment of the concept).

A lot of players who have been waiting for a better 9th Warhammer edition are now understandably disappointed. AoS threw out too much to be recognisable as WH and doesn't offer the kind of game they want.
All these are audience-related arguments. I'm asking about the mechanics. If 40k switched over to an AoS-style rules system tomorrow, with nothing else changing save maybe adding some army composition rules, would the game still basically function? If not, why not, and what would be bad about it?

Spiney Norman
16-07-2015, 00:18
Because Forgeworld haven't ever made monstrously unbalanced rules...
:shifty:

Relative to the garbage the citadel studio kicks out? The two are not even on the same plane of existence. Forgeworld demonstrates a concern and care about their game and rules in particular which is completely foreign to the regular 40k team, yes sometimes their experimental rules are way off beam, but that is why they are 'experimental' (and, I might add, free). Published rules are often significantly modified from the experimentals, esp in the case of the outliers.

They have shown a willingness to react to, and adapt their rules based on, player feedback rather than the approach the citadel studio takes of sticking their fingers in their ears, singing 'la la la' and pretending they can't hear. Heck the FW designers have been seen to camp out at the gaming area of their weekender events making notes about how people are playing their game and what works well/doesn't work. They have a fundamentally different ethos regarding game design to the rest of the company, and I for one would love them to be at the helm of 40k because they seem to want the rules to be a tool to help recreate the setting rather than just a gimmick to flog more models.

Spell_of_Destruction
16-07-2015, 00:26
'GW is a miniature company not a games company' is an oft repeated trope that (IMO) is misunderstood.

Most of GW's revenue is generated through miniature sales. They develop and produce miniatures and devise game system to support the sale of those miniatures. Miniatures development drives games system development, not the other way around. It's really that simple. I don't think they honestly believe that the majority of their customers don't purchase models for the purpose of playing their games. At the same time, their competitive strategy is based on the quality of their models, not the quality of their rules.

GW know full well the importance of their games to their business. Why else would they invest so much into developing and marketing AoS? They realised that the 8th edition gaming system was failing to drive sales. I can't see them outsourcing such a critical element of their marketing strategy.

ehlijen
16-07-2015, 01:26
All these are audience-related arguments. I'm asking about the mechanics. If 40k switched over to an AoS-style rules system tomorrow, with nothing else changing save maybe adding some army composition rules, would the game still basically function? If not, why not, and what would be bad about it?

For one, you seem to have missed my point and for two, you seem to have missed the point of AoS.

My point was: It doesn't matter how brilliantly you polish an apple if people expected you to sell them oranges. It may be the best apple in the world, but if I want an orange I'll go to the next market stall and get one there.

RE AoS and force composition: the fact that composition rules are entirely absents is one of the defining aspects of the game. It sets the nature of the game (lighthearted fooling around with no real objective) as something incompatible with what many players wanted (reasonably tight balance, which requires composition rules, for a game that won't fall apart when subjected to a tournament now and then).

That's why so many people don't like it: it's an apple when they're looking for oranges.


But if you really want some examples of what mistakes the game has made:
-Separate to hit and wound rolls when neither is effected by anything the opponent does. Why bother? Why not make it one roll? Just because you'd rather make people roll twice against set target numbers than switch to d8s or d10s or change the numbers to work with one die roll?
-Unnecessary randomness: why does every piece of shrubbery have to roll for a special rule? (And yes, the rules require the roll, leaving it out would be a houserule).
-Holes in the rules the players are asked to fill with base assumptions. Dice are six sided, but what numbers are on them? (matters with regards to the screaming bell). Being in or on top of any terrain gives cover (look, I'm on a hill! Cover! I'm balancing on a fencepost! That's totally cover!), but being behind it does not by the base rules.
-Easily broken charge rules. It's apparently possible to charge a unit with a single expendable model to force the enemy to pile into a nearby enemy unit without getting attacks, thus allowing that unit to pile in without having charged and swinging after the enemy's already missed their chance to fight.
-Nonsense rules: Why are pretending to ride a horse or talking to your minis considered actions that should affect the outcome of the game? Again, this marks AoS as a lolfuntimes past time, not as a wargame.
-Overloaded rules: Several factions have 3-5 differently named shields with 2-3 different rules attached to them. Who is supposed to remember all of that? And no, warscroll referencing during a game is not something most people like to do a lot of, not for minor details like that that didn't need to be this incoherent.

And before you say "a good player wouldn't care about or do that": That's the point!
The player that this game works for is drastically different than the kind of player GW has been attracting in large numbers to their games for years before 7th 40k hit and WHFB was switched to silent mode, respectively.
GW have written a game (barely) for a customer other than the kind they had a lot of.

Zingraff
16-07-2015, 01:59
Having been a board gamer my entire life, I've played (and often owned) most of the games from FFG published in the last 15 years. And while I appreciate the majority of their games, their rulebooks are often so convoluted that they're nearly unreadable. Even the most well designed, balanced, elegant games in FFG's portfolio, have awful rulebooks. And then you got the trademark FFG chits and counters; FFG games always have enormous amounts of fiddly and unnecessary chits to represent every minor thing.

In 40k terms, if 40k was a FFG publication, you would have had official cardboard dials to indicate remaining wounds or hull points, you would have had card board chits to mark units that were pinned, or gone to ground, etc.

However, taken into account the recent GW release, which just makes it painfully obvious that GW now longer bothers to even playtest their games, let alone communicating with their customers; makes me wish they would just leave rule development to FFG. FFG comes across as a more responsible, professional game developer, willing to listen to complaints and suggestions from their fans and interacting with their community. In other words, as a game developer FFG is the total antithesis of what GW has become.

I think it's only a matter of time before GW is gobbled up by a bigger company, like Hasbro, and when that happens, 40k is dead. I'd would rather GW collaborated more closely with FFG, or even merged with them.

Formerly Wu
16-07-2015, 02:30
For one, you seem to have missed my point and for two, you seem to have missed the point of AoS.
With respect, I got your point. I just don't find it persuasive. Frankly I think it's a myopic point of view. "I don't like it, and people who are like me don't like it" is an honest critique, but "therefore nobody likes it and it is objectively bad" does not logically follow. There are, after all, many people who are not like you.


RE AoS and force composition: the fact that composition rules are entirely absents is one of the defining aspects of the game. It sets the nature of the game (lighthearted fooling around with no real objective) as something incompatible with what many players wanted (reasonably tight balance, which requires composition rules, for a game that won't fall apart when subjected to a tournament now and then).
As I said earlier, I very much doubt this is a permanent state of affairs.


But if you really want some examples of what mistakes the game has made:
-Separate to hit and wound rolls when neither is effected by anything the opponent does. Why bother? Why not make it one roll? Just because you'd rather make people roll twice against set target numbers than switch to d8s or d10s or change the numbers to work with one die roll?
...
-Easily broken charge rules. It's apparently possible to charge a unit with a single expendable model to force the enemy to pile into a nearby enemy unit without getting attacks, thus allowing that unit to pile in without having charged and swinging after the enemy's already missed their chance to fight.
...
Being in or on top of any terrain gives cover (look, I'm on a hill! Cover! I'm balancing on a fencepost! That's totally cover!), but being behind it does not by the base rules.
These are all indeed problematic, thank you.


-Unnecessary randomness: why does every piece of shrubbery have to roll for a special rule? (And yes, the rules require the roll, leaving it out would be a houserule).
...
-Overloaded rules: Several factions have 3-5 differently named shields with 2-3 different rules attached to them. Who is supposed to remember all of that? And no, warscroll referencing during a game is not something most people like to do a lot of, not for minor details like that that didn't need to be this incoherent.
These are both issues that 40k currently deals with, so not much change there.


-Holes in the rules the players are asked to fill with base assumptions. Dice are six sided, but what numbers are on them? (matters with regards to the screaming bell).
Pretty sure "roll a 13 on 2D6" is meant as a joke.



-Nonsense rules: Why are pretending to ride a horse or talking to your minis considered actions that should affect the outcome of the game? Again, this marks AoS as a lolfuntimes past time, not as a wargame.
My understanding was this was meant as easter eggs for players of the old factions, and won't be a part of the new factions going forward. Still, I can see how some players can see this as a thumb in the eye. I wouldn't have done it if I was GW.


The player that this game works for is drastically different than the kind of player GW has been attracting in large numbers to their games for years before 7th 40k hit and WHFB was switched to silent mode, respectively.
GW have written a game (barely) for a customer other than the kind they had a lot of.
I disagree with your premise. I think many kinds of gamers have been attracted to GW, and that you are overestimating the number who think like you.

ehlijen
16-07-2015, 05:09
With respect, I got your point. I just don't find it persuasive. Frankly I think it's a myopic point of view. "I don't like it, and people who are like me don't like it" is an honest critique, but "therefore nobody likes it and it is objectively bad" does not logically follow. There are, after all, many people who are not like you.

Then you again misunderstood me. I never claimed no one likes this game. I was in fact very careful to avoid stating such nonsense. I merely claim that many of the people GW has been attracting with previous editions do not like this new direction they've taken since 40k 6th, of which AoS is just the latest step.
If GW wants to succeed, it needs to reach out to the players who might like AoS more than they currently are. They cannot rely on the same crowd that liked their recent past games and editions also liking AoS because it throws out so much of what drew people to those games.
Yes, there will be overlap, but that overlap alone is not going to be enough, I believe.



As I said earlier, I very much doubt this is a permanent state of affairs.

I disagree with that expectation. This is what they did in Rogue Trader and by all signs, GW is trying to return to that. 6th and 7th 40k have taken significant steps away from points balance, and now AoS launched with no sign of any balancing system in its core rules, legacy rules or starter sets. If GW is going to add such a system later, it was a big mistake not to include it already.



These are all indeed problematic, thank you.

No worries. They do appear mostly to be due to extremely short rules sections, and in fact led me to suspect at first that the free pdf was a summary only. But from all I've heard, it's the same in the actual book.




These are both issues that 40k currently deals with, so not much change there.

The random scenery has been included since 6th ed, and most people I know consider that a bad thing (in fact, I have yet to see any game where the players bothered with them). It was included in 3rd ed 40k, but as an optional extra, while 6th and 7th treat it as the default.

The overloaded rules I have not yet seen to this degree in 40k, though I won't deny they do exist. But again, this being bad in 40k doesn't mean it's good to have in AoS.




Pretty sure "roll a 13 on 2D6" is meant as a joke.

Yes, but then you throw in a fateweaver or two and the joke can kill a gaming session.


My understanding was this was meant as easter eggs for players of the old factions, and won't be a part of the new factions going forward. Still, I can see how some players can see this as a thumb in the eye. I wouldn't have done it if I was GW.

It does appear there are no such rules in the new factions, but that again doesn't paint GW in a good light to have done this. The whole release has a very unprofessional nature to it, I feel.


I disagree with your premise. I think many kinds of gamers have been attracted to GW, and that you are overestimating the number who think like you.

For GW's sake I hope you're right, but the problem is still that because GW proudly announced in their shareholder reports that they don't care to check such things, that by all appearances they jumped in with that assumption based on nothing.

I know I'm not the only one with my view, but even counting those I know with less favourable views than me on AoS I won't claim to be the majority. I just honestly believe GW made mistakes in
a) replacing a very different game with this one without replacement and
b) not advertising far more clearly that this is a very different game meant for very different gaming desires

AngryAngel
16-07-2015, 05:43
Simple answer, No. GW is well and truly content to fubar their own game systems. For those saying FFG would do a worse job, I honestly couldn't see how. One company has systems that do hold up in competitive metas, another not so much. One company that actively courts the competitive crowd and another that finds it a bane to be banished with utmost haste. Is either company perfect ? No, but those who bash FFG to pile on the praise to GW have been too heavily drinking the kool aid and need to slide off the rosey shades. Their game rules and systems are just devolving and not evolving.

The bloat is worse then ever, and even still exists with all the war scrolls for AoS. All the rules fubars and people saying " It will get better you'll see " It should have been better at release, first impressions are key and the first impression for AoS was, we don't really care what you think, if they don't why should we ? Honestly we've all been saying the negatives for so long being asked to repeat them is a bit silly but they are easy enough to find. All given for reasons of devolving back to warhammer at its most primordial.

That said, they'll never give away the ability to write the rules out of house, when that day happens they are a breath away from going under if they ever do such.

Beppo1234
16-07-2015, 12:44
They have shown a willingness to react to, and adapt their rules based on, player feedback rather than the approach the citadel studio takes of sticking their fingers in their ears, singing 'la la la' and pretending they can't hear. Heck the FW designers have been seen to camp out at the gaming area of their weekender events making notes about how people are playing their game and what works well/doesn't work. They have a fundamentally different ethos regarding game design to the rest of the company, and I for one would love them to be at the helm of 40k because they seem to want the rules to be a tool to help recreate the setting rather than just a gimmick to flog more models.

though I agree I feel I must write: I think FW's quality of work on rules would diminish suddenly if all 40k factions became their responsibility. Balancing marines vs. marines is pretty simple IMO, that's kind of like balancing a game of chess. But balance among factions with varying profiles will get more and more difficult.

Beppo1234
16-07-2015, 12:47
That's why so many people don't like it: it's an apple when they're looking for oranges.




more like they wanted a sport, and got a game instead

ehlijen
16-07-2015, 13:11
more like they wanted a sport, and got a game instead

Do you mean to start an argument over what 'game' means? Soccer is a sport and a game for example.

Beppo1234
16-07-2015, 13:59
Do you mean to start an argument over what 'game' means? Soccer is a sport and a game for example.

no, I think it's a good way to describe the situation though. People wanted a sharper gaming system and got a looser one instead. I feel their disappointment, I'd expect GW to have 30 years of data and experience to sharpen rather than dull warhammer.

Theocracity
16-07-2015, 14:29
Yes, but then you throw in a fateweaver or two and the joke can kill a gaming session.

I'm having a hard time imagining that game even getting out of the deployment.

Player 1: *puts down Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell*

Player 2: "Haha, I see what you did there, very funny. Now let's put down armies for a real game...."

That being said, I think the main problem with porting AoS rules to 40k is shooting into combat. It's an interesting change for a Fantasy based rules set, but would be an utter nightmare for 40k.

I do think it's possible that we could see AoS style rules in this rumored plastic HH box set, though.

Denny
16-07-2015, 15:00
Do you mean to start an argument over what 'game' means? Soccer is a sport and a game for example.

And Charades is a game but not a sport.
I think the suggestion is that, if you treat AoS like Charades, it works fine.
If you treat it as professional football . . . not so much . . .

AngryAngel
16-07-2015, 19:10
And Charades is a game but not a sport.
I think the suggestion is that, if you treat AoS like Charades, it works fine.
If you treat it as professional football . . . not so much . . .

yeah I think we can all agree, AoS is beyond simple and a game for yuk yuks ( laughs as it were ). If you want more, you'd need to look else where, however some people do find that as a failing and not a great boon. Note, some people don't like charades, but do like football. ( both types ) Though, you do it a disservice, if you treat it like even just yard football is doesn't work fine. As people actually care who wins football, any kind, where as if you care about victory at all in AoS, it just falls on its keys over and over.

ehlijen
16-07-2015, 21:14
no, I think it's a good way to describe the situation though. People wanted a sharper gaming system and got a looser one instead. I feel their disappointment, I'd expect GW to have 30 years of data and experience to sharpen rather than dull warhammer.

Fair enough, my apologies.

itcamefromthedeep
16-07-2015, 23:04
They've let FFG do other games with their IP, and don't believe that they have any competition in the miniatures wargaming market.

Sure.

Okuto
17-07-2015, 06:01
While I love GMing for FFG's various RPGs.....particularly Dark Heresy(1st edition) and rogue trader

I wouldn't want them to write them. FFG's rules can be a bit over complicated and they do make mistakes at times(anyone who's played may note that battle sisters in DH were grossly overpowered and grey knights had no reason to be added in, also they dropped the ball on tau character creation)


They have exceptional fluff, the current crop of 40k codexes are seriously lacking in that department, FFG could fix that right up

GrandmasterWang
17-07-2015, 06:13
I'd actually think GW should outsource a "W40k tournament edition" ruleset to a group of tournament organisers to do.

It actually makes a lot of sense from GWs point of view which is why they won't do it lol.

As the people outsourcing already try to comp and balance stuff amd are exceeding passionate about 40k GW could get away with paying them peanuts! In fact I dare say a whole slew of tournament goers and organisers would actually volunteer for the opportunity to be a part of creating a fair "tournament ruleset" for GW.

So GW could have 7th as is with all the inherent craziness and a "tournament edition" with a much tighter ruleset.

Wont happen though.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Konovalev
17-07-2015, 14:28
FFG's rules tend to be immensely convoluted, borderline unworkable.

I think X-Wing's rules are quite solid.

That might just be the exception though, because I agree, most other FFG games I've played the rules were excessive.

Denny
17-07-2015, 15:18
yeah I think we can all agree, AoS is beyond simple and a game for yuk yuks ( laughs as it were ). If you want more, you'd need to look else where, however some people do find that as a failing and not a great boon. Note, some people don't like charades, but do like football. ( both types ) Though, you do it a disservice, if you treat it like even just yard football is doesn't work fine. As people actually care who wins football, any kind, where as if you care about victory at all in AoS, it just falls on its keys over and over.

A fair point, though it does remind me a little of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MusyO7J2inM

"Every FOOTBALL team will be playing FOOTBALL several times and in various combinations!! THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of hours of FOOTBALL!"

Grand Master Raziel
17-07-2015, 16:16
Wizards of the Coast has done okay under Hasbro. Hasbro even let them make the mistake that was 4th edition D&D.

If Hasbro bought Games Workshop, the only place I can see the rules going is up. A new team almost couldn't fail to improve upon them.

Zingraff
18-07-2015, 09:58
Wizards of the Coast has done okay under Hasbro. Hasbro even let them make the mistake that was 4th edition D&D.

If Hasbro bought Games Workshop, the only place I can see the rules going is up. A new team almost couldn't fail to improve upon them.

Yes, but Wizards of the Coast is the exception. They've pretty much killed off Milton Bradley, Avalon Hill and Parker Brothers, which are all owned by Hasbro and probably only continue to exist in name only. There's almost zero creative development in any of these companies; they're not on par with the other international game developers, and they're not trying to be either. The only games that remain in production, tend to be the big names we all grew up with (Monopoly, Axis & Allies, Risk, etc.) and nothing else. They've pretty much squandered their other game IPs, and allowed other licenses to revert to the original designers, whereupon those same games have been immediately acquired by FFG. And most of the time, FFG has had a great success with them.

Hasbro is pretty terrible at making modern, "hobbyist" board games, they only really know how to print and sell Monopoly. They're no better than GW, except that they got more money.

AngryAngel
19-07-2015, 04:52
I think it ends up for different reasons however with hasbro. I do agree, they did squander some IPs and companies they took over. I think, if putting their mind to it they would pick up well with warhammer, they've shown they can. They just seemingly don't think board games are really profitable. Then again they've been doing alot with DnD to try and get it back around, and they follow a very solid strategy with magic. If they believed they could make tidy profits with warhammer, I think they'd put a solid plan forward, and keep working it, revamping the plan until they fully find it. It is a matter of caring however, if they care enough. GW has no option really but to try and succeed, however they end up a bit lacking in that goal.

I know which company I think would make good, if they had a reason to.

big squig
20-07-2015, 01:02
While, yes, FFG could do better organizing their rulebooks, nearly all of their games are MUCH better designed than anything GW has ever produced.

I've stood by the opinion that this is what GW should have been doing for a long time now. They should just own their IP, rent it out, and produce miniatures.

GW gets other companies to make their video games. They sell their IP rights to a publisher, the publisher hires a developer, and the game gets made by people who know what they're doing. You can argue about the quality of those video games (which is due way more to budget and deadlines than talent), but if GW did those games in house they would be way worse.

GW doesn't write it's own novels, they hire writers. They don't do their own art, video games, comics, movies, anything. Why are they making rules as well when they are so bad at it? A company like FFG has WAY more resources and experience. Plus FFG already has the rights to WHFB and 40k as is.

GW should just own their IP and collect on it. It's certainly popular enough.

Baneboss
20-07-2015, 08:46
Having been a board gamer my entire life, I've played (and often owned) most of the games from FFG published in the last 15 years. And while I appreciate the majority of their games, their rulebooks are often so convoluted that they're nearly unreadable. Even the most well designed, balanced, elegant games in FFG's portfolio, have awful rulebooks. And then you got the trademark FFG chits and counters; FFG games always have enormous amounts of fiddly and unnecessary chits to represent every minor thing.

Indeed. Im playing Warhammer 40k: Conquest with a friend and we had quite a lot of arguments involving our different view on rules. Rules are packed into 2 mini rulebooks one of which is 'Rules reference' and another is 'Learn to play'. Both have almost 50 pages of rules together. By comparision I once played Dark Millenium 40k CCG by Sabertooth Games 10 years ago and entire rules were printed on 2 sides of 1 big sheet of paper and those rules were much more clean and obvious. I dont remember having an argument there. FFG really need to work on their rulebooks.

Gingerwerewolf
20-07-2015, 09:28
Going back to the original topic, that rules and the Miniatures are so hand in hand. They cannot outsource what so ever as they would lose creative control.

When they make up an entirely new model, they do it while talking to the rules guys, and vice versa. The development would be stunted.

Either that or you would end up with Models coming out, and then 6 months later the rules hitting the shelves.

We may know the rules back to front as a community and may be able to help - the best we could hope for is a Balancing act done by the community in a sort of Open Rules system like Blood Bowl and so forth. a Sort of 40k Living rulebook.

Beppo1234
20-07-2015, 15:42
Going back to the original topic, that rules and the Miniatures are so hand in hand. They cannot outsource what so ever as they would lose creative control.

When they make up an entirely new model, they do it while talking to the rules guys, and vice versa. The development would be stunted.



that's not so is it.

GW make models, then write rules for the contents of that kit. Not the other way around. As such, if GW did outsource rules, I would assume that they design and output their plastic, and the rules company would write up according to the plastic available.

Templar Ben
20-07-2015, 16:07
GW identifies as a Model manufacturer. They do not wish to make rules.

Fine, no problem, would there be any chance of GW just outsourcing their Development side to FFG? Just let them write the rules that GW sneers so openly at?

As you may be aware, I'm grasping at straws here before GW AoS-ifies my beloved 40K.

GW makes rules to help sell the models. That is just a piece of the "hobby" as defined by GW. I know you know this but for anyone else I am taking the opportunity to pontificate.

GW loves their models and they want customers that love those models too. They want customers to buy new models and then pose and paint those models. They encourage kit bashing with an emphasis on taking existing Citadel models in different ranges and combine them to make something new that fits the setting. Take Necrons and IG to make a really different Skit army? They will love you for it. GW wants you to view that as another part of the hobby.

Some people (sadly this includes me) needs to have a sense of completation. Not that I finished an army but that the army is finished. This could mean building an entire company or for old people like me building an entire chapter. I did that with Black Templars using the 4th edition Codex as there was an Order of Battle listed in the back with each of the different crusades. I worked one crusade at a time to try to complete the BT before I got onto a different build using Steel Legion and Yarrick. GW wants you to view collecting as another part of the hobby.

Some people actually game. GW wants you to use their rules as that is another part of "the hobby" as defined by GW. They will not outsource that as they wish to pretend that GW is a stand alone hobby and has no connection with other games. They have enough going on with PP, FoW, BA, and everyone else to not say, "Please, go check out these competitor games with very different prices." no matter what short term benefit to players may exist.

They could do it but they won't and (strangely for me) I don't blame them.

Templar Ben
20-07-2015, 16:10
Going back to the original topic, that rules and the Miniatures are so hand in hand. They cannot outsource what so ever as they would lose creative control.

When they make up an entirely new model, they do it while talking to the rules guys, and vice versa. The development would be stunted.

Either that or you would end up with Models coming out, and then 6 months later the rules hitting the shelves.

We may know the rules back to front as a community and may be able to help - the best we could hope for is a Balancing act done by the community in a sort of Open Rules system like Blood Bowl and so forth. a Sort of 40k Living rulebook.

Is there any reason that rules have to be tied to models? A rule for heavy infantry would work for both SM and CSM with a few tweaks to differentiate between the two. That would lead to balanced play.

jet_palero
21-07-2015, 00:01
Star Wars Armada is a brilliant little rule set. So is X-wing, although that one is a modified version of that older air combat game. I think FFG would do a great job on 40k, especially if they mostly just cleaned up the existing rules sets.

They have 7 previous editions to draw ideas from after all. They don't have to create it from whole cloth.


GW loves their models and they want customers that love those models too. They want customers to buy new models and then pose and paint those models. They encourage kit bashing with an emphasis on taking existing Citadel models in different ranges and combine them to make something new that fits the setting. Take Necrons and IG to make a really different Skit army? They will love you for it. GW wants you to view that as another part of the hobby.


One of the easiest way to get customers to buy more models is to, gasp, get more customers. GW seems to have forgotten about that. They think the only way to move more product is to sell to their existing customers, rather than find new ones.

mrknify
21-07-2015, 00:26
Aos is a multi player game. Get some friends... more the merrier. Everybody grabs 1-2 warscrolls. You must have a minimum of 10 wounds total across the scrolls. Each player moves one unit at a time, attacking and such.
For every wound lost that player takes a drink.

Now its fun! And even the guy losing has fun.

Gingerwerewolf
21-07-2015, 10:42
Is there any reason that rules have to be tied to models? A rule for heavy infantry would work for both SM and CSM with a few tweaks to differentiate between the two. That would lead to balanced play.

What people are missing here is that the Studio is one big amorphous thing. The guys that write the rules walk over to inspire the guys who make the models and vice versa.

You take away the rule writing and you loose that - you're adding in a layer of abstraction that does not currently exist.

Giving it to another company also adds delay - the Rules will come out a few months after the models drop.

They have proved that they will never release a Rule without a model (due to the Chapterhouse thing) so the rules will come out after.

I agree that it would be "Simpler" from our point of view, but it would not be from theirs.

What they need is a dedicated Rules Team, that are not considered to be an afterthought by the top brass. They have the experience and they have the intelligence, they just need to give the time and resources to have the Rules writers shine.

The only thing I could see them doing long term is moving to a more Living Rulebook thing.

If they were to bring back forums and have a very good Mod Team, they could have Rules that were unbelievably solid within Weeks.

Templar Ben
22-07-2015, 20:10
One of the easiest way to get customers to buy more models is to, gasp, get more customers. GW seems to have forgotten about that. They think the only way to move more product is to sell to their existing customers, rather than find new ones.

I agree that GW bringing in new customers leads to higher sales which was why they had the churn and burn model a decade ago. Little did GW realize that the models would not be thrown away or hidden in an attic and instead went right to eBay where guys like me picked them up on the cheap. They have been fighting that battle even before people started buying starter sets just to piece them out.


What people are missing here is that the Studio is one big amorphous thing. The guys that write the rules walk over to inspire the guys who make the models and vice versa.

You take away the rule writing and you loose that - you're adding in a layer of abstraction that does not currently exist.

Giving it to another company also adds delay - the Rules will come out a few months after the models drop.

They have proved that they will never release a Rule without a model (due to the Chapterhouse thing) so the rules will come out after.

I agree that it would be "Simpler" from our point of view, but it would not be from theirs.

What they need is a dedicated Rules Team, that are not considered to be an afterthought by the top brass. They have the experience and they have the intelligence, they just need to give the time and resources to have the Rules writers shine.

The only thing I could see them doing long term is moving to a more Living Rulebook thing.

If they were to bring back forums and have a very good Mod Team, they could have Rules that were unbelievably solid within Weeks.

They could get there now if they wanted. They don't want that as demonstrated by their actions.

You failed to show how having a dedicated writing staff actually makes for better rules. Old rule writers have left GW and put out much better rules so it is not the writers (unless the current writers are just that bad compared to previous ones which I am not quick to believe).

mrknify
22-07-2015, 21:20
You failed to show how having a dedicated writing staff actually makes for better rules. Old rule writers have left GW and put out much better rules so it is not the writers (unless the current writers are just that bad compared to previous ones which I am not quick to believe).


Right on the nose. Its the whole lets sell 90$ books. Here's this months op flavour, leads us to an understanding as why the writers leave.

Of course if I did not have decent medical or pay vs the work load of a job leaving me unsatisfied, I would find a better job. Or just make the game I want(looking at you Alessio)

Still.... I've got a project on the go that can serve as an alternative rule set for any games, allowing different systems to play each other.

Cheers.

lanrak
23-07-2015, 18:50
IMO GW plc seem to have a different idea on what a rule set function is .

Other companies realize the good game play adds value to the minatures they sell,And gamers will 'froth about ' the good games to their friends if they enjoy the games they play.This gives them lots of free positive word of mouth marketing.

The background and art, (including the sculpts of the minatures, ) are subjective and so tend to be as wide ranging and emotionally engaging as possible.
This way the widest group of customers are inspired to engage with the companies product, but the quality of the rules keep them engaged long term.

With GW plcs current massive minature range and extensive background history .They provide all the inspiration they need for customers to want to try GW products.
However, GW sales department seems intend to maximizing short term sales by making rules inspiring, rather than functional.
Eg they may sound and look cool, but just mess up the game play .

This is the core problem GW plc has, IMO.
They over exaggerate the inspiration, and totally fail to deliver the functional requirement for game players.

lordreaven448
23-07-2015, 19:37
That one is sort of "iffy" for me. FFG's rules for their various 40K roleplaying games are absolutely excellent and very fun. However, their rules for their new Star Wars roleplaying game (Edge of Empire) positively suck in my opinion.
I have to respectfully disagree. I have been having a blast withtheir Star Wars RPG. I have put more money into that than I have into any GW products. I own both AoR and EotE rule books, and all 3 starter sets.

Eldartank
23-07-2015, 22:19
I have to respectfully disagree. I have been having a blast withtheir Star Wars RPG. I have put more money into that than I have into any GW products. I own both AoR and EotE rule books, and all 3 starter sets.

Maybe you're right. I bought the Edge of the Empire main rulebook and was immediately turned off by the special dice with symbols that were required to play the game, and I never really did read further. I love FFG's various Warhammer 40k Roleplay games. They are very easy with enough details to make it seem realistic. I ran a Dark Heresy campaign for over a year and we all had a blast. I also ran a Grey Knights campaign for several months, and that was a really fun shoot-em-up hack'n'slash bloodfest, with a bit of roleplaying thrown in. I also played in a high level campaign that combined Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader, and I had lots of fun playing my Vindicare Assassin. But I digress. Perhaps I should take a closer look at that Edge of the Empire book that is buried in my pile of gaming books.

ehlijen
24-07-2015, 06:19
From what I can tell FFG's SW and 40k ranges are made for very different players. The 40k ones are all about detail, number crunching and gritty combat, the SW ones seem to be more abstract and geared for fast paced, don't tell me the details or odds kind of gameplay. The first will appeal to wargamers more (makes sense given the setting's origins), the latter is more for people into the character and story aspects. Of, course, there is overlap, but each has its own focus.

But yes, something FFG has been doing with all their new SW stuff is proprietary dice for everything. I don't like it (that and the many cues they're taking from MtG in their card driven mechanics for the combat games).

Gingerwerewolf
24-07-2015, 09:32
I agree that GW bringing in new customers leads to higher sales which was why they had the churn and burn model a decade ago. Little did GW realize that the models would not be thrown away or hidden in an attic and instead went right to eBay where guys like me picked them up on the cheap. They have been fighting that battle even before people started buying starter sets just to piece them out.

They could get there now if they wanted. They don't want that as demonstrated by their actions.

You failed to show how having a dedicated writing staff actually makes for better rules. Old rule writers have left GW and put out much better rules so it is not the writers (unless the current writers are just that bad compared to previous ones which I am not quick to believe).

and

IMO GW plc seem to have a different idea on what a rule set function is .

Other companies realize the good game play adds value to the minatures they sell,And gamers will 'froth about ' the good games to their friends if they enjoy the games they play.This gives them lots of free positive word of mouth marketing.

The background and art, (including the sculpts of the minatures, ) are subjective and so tend to be as wide ranging and emotionally engaging as possible.
This way the widest group of customers are inspired to engage with the companies product, but the quality of the rules keep them engaged long term.

With GW plcs current massive minature range and extensive background history .They provide all the inspiration they need for customers to want to try GW products.
However, GW sales department seems intend to maximizing short term sales by making rules inspiring, rather than functional.
Eg they may sound and look cool, but just mess up the game play .

This is the core problem GW plc has, IMO.
They over exaggerate the inspiration, and totally fail to deliver the functional requirement for game players.

GW is a company and is only as big as it is, because it makes money. It MUST make money to continue. This is how its doing it moving forward. GW have led the charge with this sort of game, and arguably 90% of the other table top gaming companies would not exist in their current forms if it were not for them. However they dont really care about the second hand market, any more than Samsung care about Second hand Phones. They do care about the bits market, but there is not much that can do about that other than what they have already done.


They are targetting the new guys as this hobby is an addiction, and if you get em started early, then they will pour money in over the long term. Thats what we are doing. Hell Ive been pouring money into GW for the last 30 years. Thing is, if I rage quit, they maybe loose at most 500 a year. Each new person that starts, they will make more than that, and then have the chance that they would turn into me.


The Top Brass who look at the cash flow dont care so much for the Tourney or Rules scene as they are just an incentive to buy models.


However your point kinda proved my point (and I think we are Arguing the same idea): Im saying that if GW plc directors backed off, and gave the Writers enough room to do what they needed to do, we would have a great rule set. As you say, the previous writers who left complained that they were not allowed to make the game that they wanted while they were there.


GW top Brass use the Addiction of us lot to pay for their fast cars. They Use us, and promote (hire) the nerds to give them new stuff to make them more money, but at the end of the day, its about making them more money year to year. Making a perfect rule set? Why spend the cash in Outsourcing? They'll make more money keeping it in house, under the tight reign that its currently under.


Im saying that the Company Money Makers interferes too much with rules.


The People who work for GW can be fitted into two groups


The Financials, who only care about the bottom line. Since they have the purse strings they control which department gets cash, which is wholly dependent on how important they think that Dept is to generating cash. Almost in their entirety, there is not a hobbyist amoungst them.
or
The Hobbyists, who make the games and live breathe and create the GW stuff. The Art, the models, the books, the rules. They are controlled by the Financials. If you speak to ANYONE who works there, and they love the hobby just as much as you do, if not more, as thats their life - you have to stop your hobby to go to work. They do it more while there.


The stupid thing here is that GW was failing back in the early 90's - it was dying and had a management buyout - all due to letting hobbists run the financials...


Right on the nose. Its the whole lets sell 90$ books. Here's this months op flavour, leads us to an understanding as why the writers leave.

Of course if I did not have decent medical or pay vs the work load of a job leaving me unsatisfied, I would find a better job. Or just make the game I want(looking at you Alessio)

Still.... I've got a project on the go that can serve as an alternative rule set for any games, allowing different systems to play each other.

Cheers.

I think this is a very regional thing - You look at GW as an American company and it isnt. The Mindset isnt there - the American Work Ethic is very different from the British one. Im not being racist or pro UK here, just pointing out differences. I work for an international company and see the difference daily between my US colleagues and my UK, and my European ones (which are more different).


In the UK we are a very Brand Loyal set of people, very stuck in our ways. We have Laws that protect us within the workplace that can make us feel like we are working for a family. A lot of companies foster this idea: You work for the Family and they care for you. For example you cant just walk out, but they cant just fire you either. Notice period that the company has to give you to get rid of you (other than Gross misconduct) is usually 3 months!


For the most part, we have no Dental or Medical (because we have the NHS - not because we dont want it or need it) and we have a Pension but thats about it for Bonus's.
We have much more holiday, minimum of 20 + Bank Holidays such as Xmas and Easter, but most places Ive worked Ive had 5 to 10 days more than that. This means that we can quite literally take a month of work.


Compounded on this - Working for GW is a Dream come true, and it doesn't easily get shaken off. You never want to leave. You are there, writing stuff, getting it published, making friends with the designers, and these incredibly talented individuals. Its like what people say its like working Google, but with your hobby.


Most people only leave after it gets so bad for them that they have to leave or go through some sort of breakdown. That company uses you more than any other company Ive worked for, and they teach you to Love them as you would a Religion. When staff leave because of this they nearly always end up extremely bitter with resentment. Its like a bad breakup with a partner when they find someone new and dont need you any more.


So those into the Hobby are brought up to love the company even though they know its not so good for them. They'll not just pack up and leave.


Source? Me and my Friends who worked and still work there. Our actual experience. And the worst part? Id go back if I could afford it.

Wintermute
24-07-2015, 18:58
The People who work for GW can be fitted into two groups

You forgot the third group, those have no interest in the products and just work there because its a job.

Templar Ben
24-07-2015, 19:59
You forgot the third group, those have no interest in the products and just work there because its a job.

To quote philbrad, "As ever WINTERMUTE speaks the truth".

Commissar_42
27-07-2015, 14:50
Why would they outsource the development of rules that require only a small team of people and virtually no capital investment? Quite apart from the other issues people have mentioned (rules and model development frequently go hand in hand for example).

It wouldn't make economic sense.

HelloKitty
27-07-2015, 15:11
Why I would not want 40k outsourced to FFG

* 40k would require sheets of cardboard tokens and status panels. I hate these.
* If following their other games, I can imagine 40k models would come pre painted and already assembled. This is great for those that hate modeling, but would kill my interest with a quickness.
* Army lists would become even more about popping combinations off like xwing is. I'm not a huge fan of combo-based games, and this is an issue i have trouble reconciling with Age of Sigmar now and is why I sold all my xwing collection off.
* if using xwing and armada's scale as reference, 40k would become more akin to Infinity as a game in terms of its scale

big squig
27-07-2015, 19:08
Why I would not want 40k outsourced to FFG

* 40k would require sheets of cardboard tokens and status panels. I hate these.
* If following their other games, I can imagine 40k models would come pre painted and already assembled. This is great for those that hate modeling, but would kill my interest with a quickness.
* Army lists would become even more about popping combinations off like xwing is. I'm not a huge fan of combo-based games, and this is an issue i have trouble reconciling with Age of Sigmar now and is why I sold all my xwing collection off.
* if using xwing and armada's scale as reference, 40k would become more akin to Infinity as a game in terms of its scale

I think people are suggesting outsourcing RULES to FFG, not miniature production. Thousands of cardboard tokens I could see, but not pre-paints.

lanrak
27-07-2015, 19:42
@Gingerwerewolf.
Yes I agree, if the GW game developers were allowed to develop the games, they would do a much better job.
Than the current focus on short term sales placed upon them by the GW plc sales department.

Grudgedesign
27-07-2015, 20:19
Special dice, cards and cardboard tokens? Sounds like 2:nd ed.

This all sounds like a classical example of creating a quality product versus making a quarterly profit. It is surprisingly difficult, and unless the senior management is genuinely interested in the former, the focus will be 100% on the latter. The problem is that if you do not care about your product you will never be successful in the long run. Would Apple be where it is today if Steve Jobs did not care passionately about the iPod or the iPhone?

Gingerwerewolf
28-07-2015, 08:19
You forgot the third group, those have no interest in the products and just work there because its a job.


Personally I would count them under the financials as they only care about their paychecks bottom line. They have almost no creative input what so ever, and will follow blindly the will of the upper financials



Special dice, cards and cardboard tokens? Sounds like 2:nd ed.


This all sounds like a classical example of creating a quality product versus making a quarterly profit. It is surprisingly difficult, and unless the senior management is genuinely interested in the former, the focus will be 100% on the latter. The problem is that if you do not care about your product you will never be successful in the long run. Would Apple be where it is today if Steve Jobs did not care passionately about the iPod or the iPhone?


He cared passionately about control of his products. Not specifically so much about the iPod and iPhone. But I think that just makes your analogy better. Had it been better for him control wise to make a brand new iPhone that forced you to rebuy all of your adapters and chargers then he would have done it. Oh Wait, he did...


Thing is, reading about the so called "Death of the Codex" I would be open for another company doing them. Id rather there was a detailed ruleset - I love that 40k has harked back to 2nd edition. I like detail and knowing the rules. I love the background in the books, and from that I love painting.


The modeling is great and all, but its making your army that is the buzz.

popisdead
28-07-2015, 23:10
Fine, no problem, would there be any chance of GW just outsourcing their Development side to FFG? Just let them write the rules that GW sneers so openly at?

If they do I hope Warlord outsources their rules to Battlefront so Bolt Action doesn't have inherent problems with dice spiking and "LMG Vets winning all".

Inquisitor Kallus
28-07-2015, 23:14
The modeling is great and all, but its making your army that is the buzz.

For you obviously, though not necessarily for everyone else

Cergorach
07-08-2015, 18:41
FFG: Makes some awesome board/card/rpg games! But everyone is blinded by the recent success of X-wing and most have forgotten or don't know previous attempts by FFG to make/distribute miniature wargames, the all failed and didn't last long. GW has been around for 30+ years writing rules.

GW: If we're talking about convoluted rulebooks, GW can be close to the top of the list. Using two (plus) paragraphs what can be said in a single sentence is still very painful!

daveNYC
07-08-2015, 19:18
FFG: Makes some awesome board/card/rpg games! But everyone is blinded by the recent success of X-wing and most have forgotten or don't know previous attempts by FFG to make/distribute miniature wargames, the all failed and didn't last long. GW has been around for 30+ years writing rules.

Yeah, but it's not like the people who were writing the rules 30 years ago (or even 10 years ago) are still designing the crunch. I'm not sure how much institutional experience the GW team has at this point.

And really it's not like the game has be getting better with the recent editions. Sure, some people like fifth better than sixth better than seventh or vice versa, but the rules aren't getting tighter, various elements become stronger or weaker (vehicles vs. MC, shooting vs. assault), but the balance between them never seems to really improve, the speed of the game doesn't seem to improve particularly. Things change, but from a technical rule writing and playing standpoint they don't really get better for the players.

From that standpoint, I think it would be interesting to contract out the BRB to a different company and see what they come up with. There have been a lot of good, tight games released recently and I'd be interested in seeing some of those ideas incorporated into the core game. Maybe mashup Malifaux's alternate activation with Infinity's order pool combined with the standard three phases we have in 40k. Players would alterate moving, then shooting, then assaulting, all while having a small pool of order tokens that they could use for either reactive actions for units that have already been activated, or for bonus actions or something on units when they're being activated.

I mean it might suck, but it'd be an interesting shakeup, which is something that I don't see GW ever doing. Unless these AoS rumors pan out.

Cergorach
07-08-2015, 22:58
Nope, the same people aren't writing it, if they were we would have had a far more extreme evolution years and years ago. Look at what Rick Priestly is writing now.

It's not getting better, no, it never was good, just good enough. They try variety but within a similar set (until AoS replaced WFB), keep it familiar for everyone, but with enough upheaval to keep it 'interesting'.

The Speed has improved over the last 25 years for 40k (also for WFB). RT was a pain with people often not finishing a game on a gameday. This has improved drastically, but GW keeps lowering the point values, so playing with the same points means that you have more minis on the table, that does take more time and balances out in the end. Games do get completed in an afternoon.

Also keep in mind that game mechanics are an inherent part of the gaming experience, you can have a tight well balanced rules set, but at the same time it also needs to integrate/relate with the subject matter. That's the reason why Kings of War feels more like a 'counter mover' (think ASL) the a mass battle system with miniatures (you could just as easily change the block of minis with a block of wood. Others might not feel this way, but I'm certainly not the only one, and it's often given as a reason why certain WFB fans don't like KoW.

The same goes for AoS, it doesn't feel like a mass battle system with miniatures, it feels like a skirmish game. Nothing wrong with that, just a completely different experience, one reason why many WFB fans are so pissed.

Horus Heresy by Forge World feels a lot more like the older RT/2e era then anything since by GW. It has a unique atmosphere, it gives a lot of options even though everyone is essentially playing Space Marines. I think FW would be perfect to write a new WFB for fans while GW publishes the game with AoS, the same goes for 40k/HH/whateverelsetheythinkup...

daveNYC
10-08-2015, 16:40
RT games always sound like Calvinball made manifest. For game speed, I was thinking more about the recent editions.

I'm still holding out some small hope that FW will do a single BFG book. Get all the rules and units in one place and throw in some fun fluff and artwork. If they make sure to include HH units and scenarios, then I think it'd sell well enough to be worth their while. It might be too much to hope for, but it's possible that looking at the initial rules and then looking at the various errata and changes made to things like ordinance and the Necron victory points and the like might give them some ideas on how to actually improve the 40k rules.