PDA

View Full Version : If you could ask GW designers ...



MarcoPollo
20-12-2006, 18:51
I would think that GW would invest some time trolling around on websites like this to get feedback on its design. It would not be a good company without investing in its marketing and consumer preferences.

So, here's your chance to ask a GW designer some of the things you think GW:

a) might have overlooked
b) should consider adding
c) should consider changing
d) could use to make their fantasy product better.


I know they have just produced a FAQ, but they won't catch everything. So speak your mind.

Revlid
20-12-2006, 19:09
a) An Ogre Kingdoms FAQ
b) Warhammer Armies: Chaos Dwarfs. Or even a damn supplement!
c) The distinct lack of Warhammer Armies: Chaos Dwarfs.
d) Warhammer Armies: Chaos Dwarfs.

Grunge
20-12-2006, 19:46
a) An Ogre Kingdoms FAQ
b) Warhammer Armies: Chaos Dwarfs. Or even a damn supplement!
c) The distinct lack of Warhammer Armies: Chaos Dwarfs.
d) Warhammer Armies: Chaos Dwarfs.

I second all of this but i change

a) A Chaos Dwarf Army Book

Sashu
20-12-2006, 20:01
a) might have overlooked - Not hiring a technical writer 10 years ago
b) should consider adding - A technical writer
c) should consider changing - the rules, make the technical writer look over them
d) could use to make their fantasy product better. - Errr a technical writer.


Do you see a theme?

AUN'SHI
20-12-2006, 20:43
1) A new much cooler witchking model.

2) Nippon army would be awsome

3) Cathay army

4) Araby Army

5) much cooler vampires

These would be awsome if they all came out to bad it probabply wont happen:cries:

Selsaral
20-12-2006, 20:50
Direct-only miniatures are frustrating, especially since they are great miniatures. Assuming there isn't some profound supply/demand/warehouse type reasoning involved, please let the market have these.

It's not only ****** who misinterpret the rules. We aren't all English, and a lot of the subtle meaning and intent isn't clear to us. More specific language (i.e. a technical writer lol at Sashu) would be very helpful, especially with issues that have long been known to cause confusion.

This is a bit selfish, but 7th ed apparently broke Orion and his ability to join units. I didn't even like his rules much to begin with (which is doubly frustrating because the fluff and the miniature are great). Could there be a revision to Orion, bringing him close to the kind of value Ariel brings to the army?

Yorrik
20-12-2006, 20:57
My only gripe about fantasy has always been the magic system. I would like to see magic as a more dependable aspect of the game - rolling for random spells makes your wizard impossible to plan around, and sometimes difficult to model (I mean, if I give my fire wizard a flaming sword, it ends up looking rather stupid 5 times out of six). Magic is so easy to shut down, and there's a whole game mechanic (dispell dice and dispell scrolls) dedicated to making sure cool things DON'T happen. I just think the whole magic system could benefit from a major overhaul.

MarcoPollo
20-12-2006, 22:45
I would ask them why they didn't fix the raiders rule properly. Also, I find some of the rules around fanatics confusing. I would like them to clarify how they expect these rules to look like.

Also, I would like them to give examples in the rules about how they expect some of them to work. I shouldn't be too hard to give an example on some of the more complex issues.

Reabe
20-12-2006, 23:43
A) Overlooked? Dogs of War.
B) Should consider adding? Dogs of War army book.
C) Should consider changing? Ogre Kingdoms. The change being from "existing" to not "existing". Or, at the very least, change from "worst army ever" to "army that makes sense".
D) Perhaps have a more story-like flow to the whole thing. A warning of the great horror that is Ogre Kingdoms would of been nice. A mention of a slowly growing nation to the far east, but not as far as Cathay.

Also, why does it take so long to get FAQs and so on? Or Erratas?

Ender Shadowkin
20-12-2006, 23:50
I'd really like a WE army FAQ

I think they should redo dogs of war to allow generals from the far east and or Araby, with a few new units and models to allow themed list from said regioins (but still be Dogs of war)

Bring back the Allied contingent rules from the 3rd.

Support more custom unit formations from the 3rd.

Produce a Seige Book

pcgamer72
21-12-2006, 00:02
First and foremost....

Gnomes?!?!?!

Hobgoblyn
21-12-2006, 01:28
a) Chaos Dwarves/Hobgoblin army
b) Cathay or Nippon, possibly both! If you have a global gaming business, put some Asian armies in.
c) Dogs of War would be much better if it was highly customizable as far as races and equipment. It should be the niche for inspiring creativity and designing one's own unique units.
d) Make the game available to a wider audience by redesigning it so that you can get started for less than $50 (which would entail making rules so you can run a 5-10 model minigame) and THEN encourage people to spend more. You seriously can't expect the game to survive when your starter box is $300. Look at what WarMachine did different and right and duplicate it.

Part of d also involves the fact that armies consist of 40-200+ characterless duplicate models that take forever to paint and contain only 5-10 meaningful ones. This does not inspire people to want to play the game.

der_lex
21-12-2006, 03:59
b) Cathay or Nippon, possibly both! If you have a global gaming business, put some Asian armies in.

Actually, Warhammer fantasy does well in Japan because of the European fantasy feel. they have enough historical/anime-based stuff over there already. Most of the people asking for Nippon/Cathay are western samurai/ninja fanboys. Not that I think Cathay couldn't be interesting, but assuming that Asia would be GW's demographic for it would not be correct, IMO.



d) Make the game available to a wider audience by redesigning it so that you can get started for less than $50 (which would entail making rules so you can run a 5-10 model minigame) and THEN encourage people to spend more. You seriously can't expect the game to survive when your starter box is $300. Look at what WarMachine did different and right and duplicate it.

Part of d also involves the fact that armies consist of 40-200+ characterless duplicate models that take forever to paint and contain only 5-10 meaningful ones. This does not inspire people to want to play the game.

Warhammer's about big battles with big armies, that's the main appeal of the game for a lot of players. It's simply not a 5-10 model game, and that's not a bad thing. It's not Warmachine, and it shouldn't try to be.

That being said, I think skull pass is pretty cheap as a starting point for new players. Split the costs with a friend, and you can each start playing with a small army for about 30 euros each. That's a far cry from the 300 dollars you're talking about (even army deals aren't that expensive).

I also really don't get your last statement. I can honestly say that in my units, no two models are exactly the same. Slight differences with paint and/or minor conversions can make any model stand out, even the rank and file ones. Or are you saying that your hero characters are the only ones on your army that matter? If you are, I'm really wondering what game you're playing. I for one am grateful that the days of herohammer are gone (I didn't play the game myself back then, but I've read the rulebooks and have heard the horror stories from my friends...) and that it's more about the full army now.

intellectawe
21-12-2006, 04:50
a) might have overlooked

What the costumer wants. Forcing chaos and marines on customers is not giving what the customers want.

b) should consider adding

By hiring Hobbyists back into their employment. Lawyers and accountants running the hobby has fuked everything over the past 10 years.

c) should consider changing

Their stand that their customers are wallets and not hobbyists. Maybe break the company apart, and make it again, but this time, not be a publicly traded company, and instead just being a hobbyist business like it once was.

d) could use to make their fantasy product better.

Quit this updating army lists based on what sells to updating army lists based on what armies need updating, because that in turn would cause sales!

Chiron
21-12-2006, 07:30
a) when HW&S rule came in did you realise how ineffective it'd make other weapons?
b) rules people cant spend 3 weeks picking apart to the smallest detail...
c) prices... £20 for 5 horsemen is messed up, no matter how classic they are
d) more encouragement for independent clubs so people wouldnt have to take over an hour to get to a shop and back to have a quick game, as well as more vet nights/late openings

Voltaire
21-12-2006, 08:57
So, here's your chance to ask a GW designer some of the things you think GW:

a) might have overlooked
b) should consider adding
c) should consider changing
d) could use to make their fantasy product better.


A) I think GW have majorly overlooked how much some people think about the Background information of Warhammer. While it is vast, it keeps contradicting itself as new books come out and new events occur. I would rather see them add a bit of consistency than keep making things randomly occur (Oh look, Ogres!)

B) They should add a regularly updated website.

C) They should consider attempting to change the obsessive nature of people who seem to think Tournaments are the be all and end all of Warhammer. This sort of gamer really is the bane of my existence.

D) What might make the product better? Well...erm...a better White Dwarf might. I also think encouraging Gaming Clubs more wouldn't go amiss.

Fredmans
21-12-2006, 09:31
a) might have overlooked
b) should consider adding
c) should consider changing
d) could use to make their fantasy product better.


a) that most of their consumers have access to Internet

b) the equivalence of patches, errata and FAQ:s on their web-site. When it comes to errata, GW might be the worst gaming company I have ever encountered in my 20 years of table-top and strategy gaming.

c) their stoic policy that if a rule, for some reason, does not work as intended, they will wait a full army book cycle to correct it

d) I know it is too late in 7th edition, but what is needed is a major overhaul of the points' system. Models should cost according to what they bring to the battlefield, not according to their stat-lines. High elf archers is the prime example of a flawed points' system. Not only do they cost 50 % more than empire handgunners, they will lose to them in a shoot-out, too.

/Fredmans

Venomizer
21-12-2006, 11:03
I have but one ask from the GW designers.....................a Daemonic Legion army book, also some models for the daemonic cavalry & chariots wouldn't go down a miss as well

Griefbringer
21-12-2006, 11:08
d) Make the game available to a wider audience by redesigning it so that you can get started for less than $50 (which would entail making rules so you can run a 5-10 model minigame) and THEN encourage people to spend more. You seriously can't expect the game to survive when your starter box is $300. Look at what WarMachine did different and right and duplicate it.


But they have already done that with Warhammer Skirmish, Mordheim and Necromunda.

A pity that those specialist games tend to receive mostlyy neglection from GW nowadays.

Grunge
21-12-2006, 14:13
GW wants your cash, not your happiness anymore. Is it me or all WD now scream BUY THIS and BUY THAT at you? When I think I passed the publicity part, I find only the GW shops listing :cries:

der_lex
21-12-2006, 14:19
It's a company, of course they want your money. No matter how nice a company presents itself, it's not your friend. Your cash is all they are after. Of course it would be in their best interest to keep their customers happy, but that's something else altogether.

As for changes, I do agree that the GW attitude towards veteran gamers could improve a little. And I whole-heartedly agree with the 'give us Chaos Dwarves' camp.

Sherlocko
21-12-2006, 14:40
a) might have overlooked
That sometimes the rules are made cool and are way to easy to abuse. Sometimes they think about it and the rules donīt get as cool
b) should consider adding
The armies wich have no support at all. (DoW and CD)
c) should consider changing
One website to rule them all. Or at least donīt split the FAQīs and articles over all kind of websites. it is kind of sad when people are sad that there army has not got an FAQ just because they have only looked at their own website and not the one supposed to be from the other side of the atlantic ocean.
d) could use to make their fantasy product better.
Donīt know really, I like it. :)

phobia
22-12-2006, 16:41
d) Make the game available to a wider audience by redesigning it so that you can get started for less than $50 (which would entail making rules so you can run a 5-10 model minigame) and THEN encourage people to spend more. You seriously can't expect the game to survive when your starter box is $300. Look at what WarMachine did different and right and duplicate it.

Part of d also involves the fact that armies consist of 40-200+ characterless duplicate models that take forever to paint and contain only 5-10 meaningful ones. This does not inspire people to want to play the game.

Skull Pass appears to meet the needs for point D. It contains a hundred models (2 smallerish armies worth), rules, dice, etc. for under $50.

They have Warhammer Warbands and Warhammer Skirmish rules both give guidelines for creating balanced forces for smaller point games.

I don't have an answer for the second part. WFB is a game of mass combat, that in fact means that you must have a "mass" of troops.

75hastings69
22-12-2006, 18:04
I personally would like to see Chaos Dwarfs and Araby (for WFB - I know it is just up for preorder for WM) then I think I will be pretty happy.

Starvid
22-12-2006, 18:26
Rebalance shooting.

Bows vs. crossbows vs. handguns etc currently does not make sense.

Gabacho Mk.II
22-12-2006, 21:52
c) their stoic policy that if a rule, for some reason, does not work as intended, they will wait a full army book cycle to correct it

d) I know it is too late in 7th edition, but what is needed is a major overhaul of the points' system. Models should cost according to what they bring to the battlefield, not according to their stat-lines. High elf archers is the prime example of a flawed points' system. Not only do they cost 50 % more than empire handgunners, they will lose to them in a shoot-out, too.




Very well said on the two above points!!!

We are told that the HE archer problem will be corrected by May 07... we shall see.

The Dark One
22-12-2006, 22:12
a) An Ogre Kingdoms FAQ
b) Warhammer Armies: Chaos Dwarfs. Or even a damn supplement!
c) The distinct lack of Warhammer Armies: Chaos Dwarfs.
d) Warhammer Armies: Chaos Dwarfs.

almost agree but a) should be warhammer armies Chaos Dwarf

Damien 1427
22-12-2006, 23:13
A) Warhammer Armies ~ Chaos Dwarfs
B) Warhammer Armies ~ Dwarfs of Chaos
C) Warhammer Armies ~ Dawi Zharr
D) Warhammer Armies ~ Fishmen of Nippon

Rowenstin
23-12-2006, 08:41
I'd ask if they earn so much money with army books and codexes (codecii?) and if wouldn't make sense to make the army lists freely distributed, since they complain so much how is so difficult to introduce rules changes because they would have to change all army books.