An Open Letter to GW

[rikkumon]

An open letter to Games Workshop.

I have decided to write down a couple of thoughts I’ve had on how I see Games Workshop (GW) adapting their business model to become more of the narrative based play company they claim to be, in an ‘Open letter’ style format. My goal is to develop a system that works for the two primary styles of gamer, the competitive tactics driven and the narrative ‘fluff’ driven, and still retain the business model that GW have been pursuing. Take of it what you will, I would love to hear people’s thoughts and opinions, and I would especially love GW to adopt a system like it.

Before I begin I need to layout how I see GW as a company and that comes in three parts:

Narrative.
GW claim to be a narrative driven company, and they make excellent fluff. From World setting to faction history there are a lot of books where one can find out more about the 41st millennium.

Models.
They make great models, that isn’t in doubt. This is the primary revenue product for GW. This includes paints and modelling equipment.

Rules.
This includes the rulebooks themselves and the codices for varying factions. The rules allow you to use the models in a game, they are there to allow us to justify the time and money we spend on the models. They are also a main reason we buy the third tactical squad instead of only getting the latest, beautifully sculpted, individual character models that take our fancy.

As I see it these three things exist almost in a vacuum. They all happen – just not together. The rules and models are close, but the narrative is somewhere in the background. I find this odd from a company that wish you to form a narrative in game. The rules especially are apart from what they say they want you to do on the table top, it’s like being sold a flatpack table and receiving nothing but wood and nails and being told ‘It’s clearly a table…’. Sure, some people will thrive under the challenge of making a table from such simple materials, some people would herald the freedom of choice to make any table they want, but others will turn it into a 2by4 with screws sticking out and beat people over the head – either ‘because you can’ or from frustration. Others may just walk away from the project and buy a readymade table elsewhere.

Part of my goal is to better unify these three aspects of the company, and still make those that want to be free and those that want more structure happy.

The first, and probably most controversial, change would be to make the rules free and living. The idea would be a free to download, text only, updated three or four times a year, rule set. By giving away the rules for free it furthers GW’s own message that they are a model company and the rules are secondary. It also stops people from moaning about discrepancies because, a: they are free which reduces the duty of care or buyer rights, and b: with updates they can be changed more liberally.

The current format of rules is like buying an operating system that works fine until a bug causes a crash when the sixth program is opened, a bug the creator doesn’t address, and leaves it to customers to say ‘just reboot and in future don’t open more than five programs’. You can still open six programs… it just keeps crashing. This answer is unacceptable from a product you have to purchase because it is not ‘fit for purpose’, and yet seems acceptable for GW. If we take Linux as an example then a lot of work goes into making it function to the user’s specification, this works because it’s available for free and people like the freedom they get from using Linux. But no one wanting a plug and play, readymade OS would use Linux.

By making the rules a living document it also helps the Tournament players by nixing issues that are plaguing that scene. The Fluff player doesn’t care that an exploit allowing for a broken unit gets changed/ removed, but a tournament player will. Both customers will be annoyed if the rules/ codex they paid for become suddenly invalid.

(Side story: I used to play Magic: The Gathering and I used a card that was very good. I used it in a pretty bad deck, but the card was so good it made the deck work to a fair level. That card was ‘broken’ in standard play and banned. My deck was neutered in that fall out, which sucked, but overall it increased the variance in the field and meant more people were playing because they didn’t instantly lose to the unfair decks.)

A collector’s edition could still be released every few years, which would contain the most up to date rule set, but focuses more on looking pretty and talking about ‘fluff’ and narrative.

I would also remove any way to ‘play’ the game outside of pure functionality. By this I mean no ‘Force Org Chart’ and no ‘Standard Missions’. Just how to move, cast spells, shoot, assault, and how to interact with those things (armour, cover, universal special rules etc, etc). The rules should dictate the how to play, not the why. Missions would come from mission packs, White Dwarf and Campaign settings, maybe even a book on ‘how to design missions for play in 40k’.

The aim here is to not have a ‘default’ way to play, and therefore a ‘deviation from default’ that is inherently unattractive. Most games at my local club use the book missions, despite a wealth of alternatives out there. This moves away from the ‘Take All Comer’ style list that is trying to be good at everything in one of six random missions to instead arranging a game where players chose to play ‘the latest mission in White Dwarf, I’ll be player A and you be player B’ Then that mission would have rules for each player when it comes to set up and army composition. Both players would know what they are in for from the beginning and there would be no ‘Oh… you have a 2++ re-rolling deathstar in my random pickup game… Fun!’. This brings the game back to a more ‘narrative feel’.

Take All Comer, tournament style mission packs could be released by GW or independent TOs (many of whom already do this) that are freer in army composition and game play – but by not being the default players will get more choice, control and variance in the game they play before they even play it.

I mentioned Campaign settings and this is the crux of my plan. Instead of having a faction by faction, rules based release schedule (a complete codex with accompanying models) I would like to see a move to an ongoing, Campaign a year, release. Army Codices would move over to the free side of the fence, and include only the stat line and point cost of the models, which would also get updated in the update window- not to alter but to ‘fix’ problems as with units. Faction codices could still exist but as Fluff only, pretty pictures and back story.

At the beginning of the year a Campaign setting would be released – to illustrate my example I will steal use a similar setting to Dawn of War, but the basics are that four ongoing Campaign books are released in a year along with accompanying models and novels. The same approach works for Warhammer Fantasy, and would fill the rest of the year’s release windows.

Example.
Imperial guard have just finished quashing a cult uprising and as soon as the last cultist is dead the Orks invade.

Products to be released:
• Campaign setting, including fluff on the area where the campaign takes place, rules for specific characters and units that take part in the narrative, missions (including missions for other factions, ie the Cultists VS Guard street battles that took place before the main Campaign starts, Eldar scouting missions on a nearby moon etc – the aim is when all four books are released almost every faction is present in some way).
• Fiction books that take place in the setting – Following named characters, such as an Ork Boss and a Militarum Commissar that would have:
• Specific character models that can be used as nonspecific characters (On the box it would have ‘This model is to be used as ‘Commissar Yoland from the Dawn of war rip off campaign setting but can be used as a generic commissar in your games of 40k’
• Starter faction kits, which I will go over in more detail later.
• 3 smaller books throughout the year that progress the story, introduce more factions, missions and units with:
• Models that represent those rules.

So when the Space Marines turn up in book 2 we have a story book alongside it, a new named character, and because the Marines know they’ll face Orks you can field a drop pod tactical squad with 2 flamers and the option for the captain to take a flamer, not just a combi flamer, and they have ‘hatred Orks’. You can use that unit in regular 40K – but it’s designed for this campaign and results outside of it may vary (the unit wouldn’t go into the free to download codex, for example). When it turns out (plot twist) that the Orks are under the control of Chaos you could get possessed Ork Boy models with unique rules. You could put in special, otherwise game breaking, rules just for the campaign that won’t interfere with regular games or tournaments (Summoning demons springs to mind). These models don’t have to be tied to the books, safer ones for generic play can come in the form of weekly model releases and dataslates, complete with fluff tying them to back to the campaign.

The idea here is to tie the narrative and the played game closer together. Players can play battles described in the books, they can play with characters in the books, they can play along the whole campaign (it may be too hard to do but I’d love a ‘choose your own adventure’ style campaign that has different missions depending on what faction wins), and they can pick and choose missions they like – there would be rules to adapt it by faction. Ultimately this would be GW saying ‘we are a narrative experience company, and we are selling you that narrative in campaign form.’

This has the added benefit of cross pollination from GWs own product line. A person that only reads the books may buy the model of a character that is in them. A player that is playing along, but doesn’t usually read the novels, may buy the book to get into the setting more. Someone that loves the idea of possessed Orks may give the Campaign a try to use them. People that get the special models with the dataslate for their regular play may get hooked on the fluff in the dataslate and check out the campaign setting they come from.

Players would, in theory, become personally attached to the outcome of the story – this would keep people playing and coming back in store. Entitlement and ownership are strong motivators for repeated buying habits.

The other advantage is being able to run ‘World Progression’ campaigns. They could run the next black crusade, Abaddon marching with his Black Legion against the forces of the Imperium. If they wanted to bring back a Primach they could – in game, model, narrative, rules and stories. This would further engage the customer base with all the products in the line.

The final change I would like to discuss is the idea I mentioned earlier - ‘Faction Starter Kits’. With the release of each Campaign setting would be the two initial/ primary evergreen (meaning always available, even after the campaign) snap-fit box set in the style of Dark Vengeance. The purpose would be to reduce the barrier for entry to the world of 40k, with an aim to eventually have one for every faction and be around 500 points.

So in our Dawn of War example there would be an Astra Militarum box containing two units of guardsmen and a HQ squad (with the possible option to make them into a Cultist force) and an Ork box of slugga boys, shoota boys and a warboss. To get out all the sets quickly there could also be a Marine and Chaos box in the same year.

Snap-fit will keep the price down so new players can pick up an army quickly with no real choices and therefore no chance of making a weapon or unit choice that will end up never getting used (Hi Dark Vengeance Chosen… glad I painted you...). For experienced players they can give a new army a try with the same ease and a reduced cost (more armies for everyone!). With all the boxes being balanced then quick games with ‘my starter box vs yours’ leads to finding a balanced game very easy, great for new players and great for experienced players looking for games based on pure skill over list building. With it being snap-fit a new player can enter a store, buy, assemble (maybe with a little help) and be playing their first game, with their own models, within 20 minutes. Reducing the time and difficulty of getting from ‘decision to buy’ to ‘playing’ increases the chance of that customer being involved with the product for a longer time.

So to conclude, I believe this approach accomplishes what GW have set out to do in creating a much more narrative based play, and still gives a set of rules that competitive players can use to play their game. Campaigns can let GW create crazy, imbalanced yet fun ways to play, and over time the rules and factions would become much more balanced as interactions and discrepancies are ironed out.

What are people's thoughts?

Rikkumon

[KaiZie]

Now that is a well thought out, well constructed suggestion. It was a very good read and I'm glad i took the time to do so. Thank you

[Erik Setzer]

Your post was rather long, so I think a lengthy response isn't a bad thing. You've been warned. ;-)

Also, please understand that where I disagree, it's nothing personal. Should be obvious, but some people take offense easily on the Internet, so it's best to make sure that's said ahead of time.

You have some interesting ideas, but one of the biggest problems is finite resources at Games Workshop. They're already stretched, I imagine, just trying to keep up with the current releases.

The campaign idea is nice, but they already do something similar with the War Zone series. Not exactly campaigns, I know, but they release a book with fluff about a battle/war and some rules to help you play it out on the table, as well as a novel on the side. They could modify the War Zone books a bit to fit this concept as well.

A nice way to approach rules to help all the different types of games would be to split the army books up like this:

Rules - $10
Background - $20
Modeling - $10

If someone wants to collect all the background and modeling, they're able to. If someone wants just the rules, they can grab that at an affordable price. When the rules for an army are updated, that's the only book those people need to purchase. The price is still significant enough to give Games Workshop a tidy profit, especially if they reversed course on the hardbacks galore idea they're running with (seriously, even just one codex and the rulebook feels a lot heavier than in the past; throw in a second codex or a hardback supplement and it starts feeling obnoxious). I know that their profit on printing materials is quite handsome as they're cheap enough for the company to just throw them in the trash rather than return them to either recycle or sell later (i.e. issues of White Dwarf and Visions). They can sell more and thus achieve more profit this way.

Releasing update books as time goes on seems like a reasonable idea, but in practice it would be something of a pain, at least doing them proactively. A return to the days of Chapter Approved would be nice, wherein new rules (units, characters, missions, etc.) are released in White Dwarf - returning value to that publication - and later collected together in supplements for $25 (or $30 depending on size).

Price on the rules is an important point. Games Workshop says they're all about selling miniatures. To that end, you want to make it as cheap as possible to get the rules for those figures. (I.e. a core rulebook for $30/$45 as soft/hard cover).

The starter sets are a great idea, like other companies do. Snap fit, however, isn't. While it seems like a good plan, it would mean the creation of special models just for those sets. Rather, you could easily combine existed plastic kits together (especially with the new plastic characters in most armies) and it wouldn't cost anything new in terms of production costs (very important). A very simple pamphlet with the rules for the models in the kit, what you'd want to buy to expand from there (i.e. sample list, codex advert), and maybe some modeling/painting ideas, and you have a great entry kit. Give it a good starting price, too. Basically, like the battle force boxes, but with a fully usable army.

On the price topic, it has to be said that some of the products need to be brought back in line with reality. They go past the top of the bell curve and are actively hurting their sales and impacting profits with their price. Units like Witch Elves, or any unit in WFB where you pay $50+ for ten infantry, are the worst offenders, because you need multiples to build an army. When you have similar models for $29/10, it's obvious you're overpricing something. That drives customers to seek out alternatives, which they can use in any non-GW store (or at home), leaving sales going out the door.

It would also be good to have a "starter pamphlet" for handing to people who are interested in the games. If someone walks into a GW store, it would be a good thing for them to have something explaining the basics of the games, some pictures of the models, a primer on how to model and paint. Getting your hooks into new players (aka new customers) is vital!

Oh, and finally (at least for now)... Some freaking web presence would be good. They don't need a forum on their website (though it'd be a good idea), but at least more Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Heck of a wish list... but likely none of it will see the light of day.

[Denzark]

Umm. Would not work. Why not? Because they make profit on the current model. They dont want to pay someone to update rules every 3-4 months and give it to us for free, when it is proven they can change every 2 years and we will pay them.

Whilst they remain profitable there will be no major change.

People will in response suggest GW could make more profit. That involves a risk - that they change out of the known status quo, and into the unknown. Why take the risk when they are profitable...

[FallenTalon]

Both ideas (from @Eric Setzer and @rikkumon) are very well-thought-out, well written and I agree with both to whatever extent they allow. I love the idea of the release window presented in the OP, and this would probably completely revitalise my interest in 40k. It could also restore my faith in GW, as long as everything wasn't £100 a model...

Unfortunately, @Denzark is probably right, an that worries me, because as much as I love Warhammer, I am left wondering how long I'll be able to keep up before I have to stop.

[Anggul]

I like it.

The vital part to control would be releases in conjunction with this 'annual campaign' idea. Having a new campaign isn't cause for releasing a new unit every time. Sure you might come up with a couple of interesting ideas, but if you force yourself to make new units every year for every faction involved in that year's campaign you're just going to peter out into creating units with no discernible purpose other than being a new kit (looking at you Haruspex), and then run out of steam completely. When you think about it GW only make a couple of new units for each faction every few years, trying to do it every couple of years probably won't work out without really pulling at straws.

You would also need to make the campaign different every year, having different combinations of factions without giving any of them too much or too little attention. It would take a lot of planning in advance, but could be interesting if pulled off well.

I think the most important thing by far is updating the rules more regularly and actually writing decent ones in the first place. The biggest complaint about GW is that they charge a lot of money for rules which have clearly had very little effort or thought put into them. Like you say, if they're free no-one can complain if they aren't particularly good, but you can't charge money (certainly not the large quantities of money GW charge) for an untested, incomplete product and just put your hands over your ears pretending nothing is wrong.

Think how many Mandrakes, Howling Banshees, Vanguard Veterans, Bloodcrushers, Genestealers and so on go un-bought every year because no-one wants to put their favourite, cool-looking, cool-backstory unit on the field only for it to do nothing much and be removed again in a most anti-narrative fashion. Fix the rules and people will buy the models, whether fluffy or competitive. The two are only seen as so very separate because of the bad rules. Good rules blur the line between competitive and fluffy.

[Harley]

Rikkumon, while your letter may be well thought out and intelligent, this isn't the first time GW has received letters like this. Myself on various occasions as well as the entire community of Heresy Online have collaborated on letters which were physically sent to GW in hopes they would listen. The primary point was for them to open up venues of communication and be more open with their fan base. None of it has done any good, with the shut down of their forums, facebook pages, closure of comments on social media outlets and in the years since we have seen GW close ever method of input from their fans short of email and post.

TLDR: Unless the opinion comes from are a significant owning interest in their corporation, GW doesn't care.

[crandall87]

You make some good points indeed. I really like the starter sets for each faction idea. In fact all your points which include some sort of starter sets as cheap introduction to the game or starting new armies are good. We're slowly seeing these happen with some of their boxed sets which actually save money so hopefully these will become the norm.

I don't agree with free rules. Why would a business who want to make money make their rules free? None of us like paying for them but we all did. Some people moan about these rules only being two years since 6th edition but that's still twice as long as the lifespan of most video game franchises which cost just as much as a rulebook if not more. The rules will never be perfect though. Ironically if GW were to make a perfect ruleset it could do more harm than good as any future editions will be met with criticism for not being as good and if they cannot bring out new editions they don't make as much money.

Your campaign idea is a good one but it would take time out of GW redoing codices or army books if they had to release too much for it which wont please a lot of people. That said if they did something like the old Eye or Terror or Armageddon campaigns again it would be awesome!

[clively]

Overall opinion: Too long. Short, simple and to the point is much more likely to garner attention. Someone with the power to make the changes you are talking about won't wade through that wall of text. Which means you need to clarify and reduce it in order to give the person who might actually read your message the "elevator pitch" they need to run with.

Case in point: in Feb of 2013 I sent an email to GW with 5 short sentences in which I made a request for an iBook that covered rules for fighting in different environments (like Daemon Worlds in CoF). In June of 2013 Death Worlds was released to iBooks. Given the timing and the fact that the book was very simple to put together, it's entirely possible that this release was based on my request. I didn't send a 4 page email telling them what to do; just a short one telling them what I'd like.

------

I did want to address one item in particular:



I would also remove any way to ‘play’ the game outside of pure functionality. By this I mean no ‘Force Org Chart’ and no ‘Standard Missions’. Just how to move, cast spells, shoot, assault, and how to interact with those things (armour, cover, universal special rules etc, etc). The rules should dictate the how to play, not the why. Missions would come from mission packs, White Dwarf and Campaign settings, maybe even a book on ‘how to design missions for play in 40k’.

The aim here is to not have a ‘default’ way to play, and therefore a ‘deviation from default’ that is inherently unattractive. Most games at my local club use the book missions, despite a wealth of alternatives out there. This moves away from the ‘Take All Comer’ style list that is trying to be good at everything in one of six random missions to instead arranging a game where players chose to play ‘the latest mission in White Dwarf, I’ll be player A and you be player B’ Then that mission would have rules for each player when it comes to set up and army composition. Both players would know what they are in for from the beginning and there would be no ‘Oh… you have a 2++ re-rolling deathstar in my random pickup game… Fun!’. This brings the game back to a more ‘narrative feel’.



Before you try to fix something, it's probably better to understand the reasoning behind it. Specifically, you should explore the topic of why your local club sticks to the book missions when other missions from GW clearly exist. If the extant alter of war missions aren't being played then you need to understand Why before asking GW to pull the rug out from under the players that are obviously happy with the standard ones.

[gungagreg]

My new "Best guy on BoLS" nominee! Loved it!

[-Tom-]

Overall opinion: Too long. Short, simple and to the point is much more likely to garner attention. Someone with the power to make the changes you are talking about won't wade through that wall of text. Which means you need to clarify and reduce it in order to give the person who might actually read your message the "elevator pitch" they need to run with.

I agree with the consensus that it is a well thought out, reasoned letter.

I agree and disagree with this quote too in part... I think that there is a difficult middle ground to hit between spelling out the problems that you think need addressing, without going on to offer constructive suggestions, and having too long a letter that they decide not to read it all. I think the answer though may not lie in cutting out content, but instead in the order of presenting it. Perhaps write the letter as more of an 'abstract', covering the basics of what you think are the issues, just the very basics of changes you are suggesting, and with regard to 'profits' comments made by others, briefly how you feel that this will help their bottom line. Beyond that, collate more in depth ideas into an appendix that comes after the letter. Reel them in with the letter, pique their interest and then have a further resource that is there with the remaining information that by the end of the letter they should WANT to read.

[olberon]

you know you got a point here ! i reallylike the general idea of it and really hope GW pick this one up, seems to fit theur current business model with some minor adjustments!

[Ghostofman]

These are neat forward thinking ideas, but it's all stuff that GW just plain can't do for many different reasons. Core of which: GW would need to seriously review, evaluate, and redesign it's business model. GW's proven time and again that it's just not in a position to do anything that risky, they don't have the money, they don't have the people, they don't have the skill, the motivation, or the time. It's not that they don't want to, it's just that they can't. So instead they do what they can to keep the money flowing. Codex: Sharp Sticks, White Dwarf (ads you can pay for), smaller products with higher prices. Like it or hate it it's keeping them afloat, and all they can do that doesn't involve a good chance the entire company burning up like a drop pod with a broken nav system. At least the way things are there's a chance the company will be around long enough for something to change that will allow them to recover.

It's kinda funny really.

The Imperium is presented at this near hopeless blob in need of a messiah to save them, permanently focused on ideas and events long past, assaulted on all sides, still somehow managing to hang in there as a galactic power.

GW... a near hopeless blob in need of a messiah to save them, permanently focused on ideas and events long past, fighting competition on all sides, and yet somehow hanging in there as a gaming world power.

[Jose A. Fabian]

SNIP

I'm really for what you are proposing. What I'm mainly behind is making the army rules free, but have the fluff be in a separate book with a price. This lets GW separate their IP as such and keep it without compromising sales, plus the fluff is really why many of us buy the codex, as the rules people can find somehow and SHOULD know before going out and investing a penny in an army. $40 dollars or whatever codices cost now is way too much for a "research cost". Make it max $5 for the army rules, but free would be better, then charge whatever you want for munitorum ed quality fluff books. These can come out with new editions when the campaigns advance. There's enough stories going on in the 41st millenium to expand campaigns without advancing the plot.

[deinol]

While I think a living rulebook would be cool, I'm skeptical that it would happen. To be honest, for all that the rulebook has a hefty price tag, the reality is the rules are the cheapest part of this hobby. Even with a free living corebook, there is no way they'd stop selling codexes.

As for more narrative "rules" and missions being released, how many people clamoring for more narrative stuff have even played the narrative missions they've been putting out in all the supplement codexes? I picked up Altar of War precisely because I love playing more narrative missions. They've been putting out a ton of that kind of content. But most people just complain that the supplements "only" have a few pages of rules, ignoring the missions, planetstrike, and cities of death content included.

My only real complaint is where are my Imperial Guard altar of war missions?

[Jose A. Fabian]

That's the thing though, it becomes a vicious cycle. Their business model is keeping them afloat, but it's also keeping them from earning more by expanding their market share. The following sentence is descriptive: new wargaming companies mostly get their market share by pulling it from GW customers.
Am I saying this shouldn't happen? No.
What I'm saying is that the market can support people liking and playing 2 or more systems at a time. If I play Infinity or whatever, that doesn't preclude me from playing 40k. The only thing that would keep me from playing 40k in that case is if it becomes a worse alternative, and that falls within the responsibility of the company GW. IMHO, a better alternative would be to create a policy that permits one to say "GW customers tend to play 40k as well as other tabletop wargames."

Before anyone argues that GW has to pay development costs for miniatures and that drives the prices way high, think about this- all of their competitors have to pay for development costs too. The fact that GW is bigger and has an established infrastructure, plus through economies of scale should give them a leg up on producing higher volumes without running as much risk, and permit them to dominate the market through lower costs and higher quality.

[Thaldin]

What about an annual small license fee? I would gladly pay $10 a year for a consistently updated set of rules. The annual fee would entitle you to updates and fixes and when you are done playing 40k, stop paying. Hell people pay $10 to $20 a month for computer games *coughs and hides his credit card bill*, why not $10 of a living document set of rules.

[Defenestratus]

What about an annual small license fee? I would gladly pay $10 a year for a consistently updated set of rules. The annual fee would entitle you to updates and fixes and when you are done playing 40k, stop paying. Hell people pay $10 to $20 a month for computer games *coughs and hides his credit card bill*, why not $10 of a living document set of rules.

I was thinking the same thing. Its easily achievable through both the Google Play Store subscriptions and the crApp store.

You buy a rules subscription... hell, it would definitely boost WD sales.

[Sainhann]

Umm. Would not work. Why not? Because they make profit on the current model. They dont want to pay someone to update rules every 3-4 months and give it to us for free, when it is proven they can change every 2 years and we will pay them.

Whilst they remain profitable there will be no major change.

People will in response suggest GW could make more profit. That involves a risk - that they change out of the known status quo, and into the unknown. Why take the risk when they are profitable...

But are they profitable? When a company remains profitable by increasing their prices every year by 5-10% or doubling the prices of certian models I.E. Dire Avengers that says they just might have a problem.

Oh as to the rules updating they are doing that all the time with the FAQ's.

Oh and I will not buy 7th Edition because I only see it as a money grab, was 6th Edition so hosed up that they needed to bring out 7th Edition?

If the rules were well written in the first place they would not need to put out FAQ's but they will be putting out FAQ's nearly every month until they release 8th Edition which could be in two years and maybe sooner.

GW did not come out on top in the Chapterhouse lawsuit and have been losing customers to other games that don't cost an arm & a leg to even get one army.

Very few players today can afford to have 4-5 armies, which is what I have for both 40K and WFB.

As to the fluff I say that GW dropped most of that over ten years ago.

There are no longer several Ork clans just Orks, gone are the Goffs, Bad Moons, Evil Suns, Death Lootas, Blood Axes & Snakebites.

There is really only one type of Imperial Guard, which is Cadians.

Plus I don't even want to mention what GW did to the Squats and Genestealer Cults armies.

Today Squats are gone as are the Genestealer Cults.

They are only interested in selling their overpriced miniatures and have destroyed once was a great gaming magazine - White Dwarf, which is nothing but a customer supported advertisement filled with lots of petty pictures of the new models and hardly anything else.

[daboarder]

But are they profitable? When a company remains profitable by increasing their prices every year by 5-10% or doubling the prices of certian models I.E. Dire Avengers that says they just might have a problem.

Oh as to the rules updating they are doing that all the time with the FAQ's.

Oh and I will not buy 7th Edition because I only see it as a money grab, was 6th Edition so hosed up that they needed to bring out 7th Edition?

If the rules were well written in the first place they would not need to put out FAQ's but they will be putting out FAQ's nearly every month until they release 8th Edition which could be in two years and maybe sooner.

GW did not come out on top in the Chapterhouse lawsuit and have been losing customers to other games that don't cost an arm & a leg to even get one army.

Very few players today can afford to have 4-5 armies, which is what I have for both 40K and WFB.

As to the fluff I say that GW dropped most of that over ten years ago.

There are no longer several Ork clans just Orks, gone are the Goffs, Bad Moons, Evil Suns, Death Lootas, Blood Axes & Snakebites.

There is really only one type of Imperial Guard, which is Cadians.

Plus I don't even want to mention what GW did to the Squats and Genestealer Cults armies.

Today Squats are gone as are the Genestealer Cults.

They are only interested in selling their overpriced miniatures and have destroyed once was a great gaming magazine - White Dwarf, which is nothing but a customer supported advertisement filled with lots of petty pictures of the new models and hardly anything else.

Before ssomeone jumps in,

GW is still profitable. BUT its not growing, and thats a problem

[rikkumon]

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to read my post and replying – I tried to have people’s replies in spoiler code… but couldn’t get it to work. So instead the original message is hyperlinked with the username.

Warning, like my original post this one is long – it appears that brevity escapes me.

Just FYI – any comments that come across as snarky or short is just my sense of humour failing to come across in text.

@KaiZie, FallenTalon, Gungagreg, Olberon: Thanks!

@Erik Setzer (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426628&viewfull=1#post426628): How can anyone take offence to a well-reasoned and detailed response? Thanks for taking the time to do so. Do you want to start a miniatures company? Seems like we have some good ideas ^_^

I understand that GW resources are limited, it’s why I tried to use a system that fits their current output, i.e. regular book and model releases, just changing the content about a bit – I wouldn’t suggest these campaigns alongside the current releases, but instead replace them. It would mean less copy paste on their behalf and more content, however…

The issue I see for GW releasing any dedicated rule book goes against their stance of ‘We are a model company not a rule company’. They currently get to hide behind ‘The rules come with fluff’ or ‘the rules come with models’ which allows the rules to not be the primary focus, or even very good. More options when buying is generally better (too many can actually increase the barrier for purchase) so if GW want to keep selling the rules I like the idea of splitting the book into its parts, or even releasing a small paper book like the 6th ed one in Dark Vengeance.

Your idea is similar to a ‘Micro Transaction’ system, the type that most MMOs use (I will talk a bit about this in response to Thaldin’s post.

White Dwarf should definitely start having more game related content, it’s just good business ^_^

I generally don’t like talking about price because I don’t know the fixed and variable costs for GW, when I talk about ‘barrier for entry’ it is more about time and perception.

Yes GW would need to make new sculpts if they went snap fit, however I think the benefits outweigh the costs (although I would need more information to know for sure). Snap fit, or even single sculpt, block figures that can be put in their base and trotted off to war make it easy to start as I mentioned. It is the first step in making an army – without the difficulty of holding arms, legs, gun or claws in place as the glue dries. It also has a lower perceived cost which won’t act as a barrier when making the next purchase.

To illustrate: The Dark Angel starter kit comes with two tactical squads, a land speeder and a librarian. If the kit is exactly the same as the boxes you could buy, in terms of content and price, there is no incentive to purchase. If it has the same content but a lower price, people may not buy the third tactical squad because it feels more expensive than their first purchase. Using snap fit GW can get around these issues – if the sculpts aren’t as dynamic or variable as the individual kits then the second purchase can be more expensive and not be affected by the perception of the buyer.

If you made your pamphlet a ‘White Dwarf’ branded pamphlet you could sell new people on multiple products at once ^_^ I would also like to see an official online 'What army are you?' quiz that helps people pick a faction.

Yes, it amazes me that in this day and age, when information flows so freely and every big company is exploring ways to communicate directly with their consumers, GW is so backward in their digital footprint.

@Denzark (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426629&viewfull=1#post426629): There are two times when a company changes – when they can afford to and when they need to. Time will tell how things play out, but the amount of changes that have taken place over the last few years indicate someone, somewhere within GW is trying new things. I love GW and the products they put out, this is just my way of saying ‘I’m not too happy with how things are beginning to play out.’ Will it make a difference? Probably not… but that isn’t a reason to not try… I will remain hopeful ^_^

@Anggul (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426632&viewfull=1#post426632): Yes, models for models sake aren’t great. With my idea there would be four primary factions per year – which is less than the current GW release schedule. There would also be focus on the individual character models involved in the narrative. There are also quite a few models in the GW back catalogue that could do with an update – some of the new models are incredible and make them a little embarrass at the company parties.

GW could also get you dusting off your unused (and unsold for them) models by weaving them into the narrative campaigns.

@Harley (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426638&viewfull=1#post426638): Maybe it’s time someone opened a Kickstarter to raise enough money to buy controlling interest in GW? ^_^

@Crandall87 (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426646&viewfull=1#post426646): There are a few reasons why a company would give away their rules for free. Say x people will buy the rules and the models (and therefore those x people would buy the models if the rules are free) and y people would only buy the models (there would also be people that only buy the rules – but collectors editions and fluff books would cover that ). So naming the profit, P, for Rules is R, and Models M we have:
P1 = x(R+M) and P2= (x+y)M
If y(M) is greater than x(R) then you give the rules away! If not, then you sell them. Considering the profit on books is generally quite small then I would assume the p2 is more desirable… but without seeing the costs I wouldn’t know for certain.
Another thing to consider is making the game more accessible to 'giving a go' - at the moment one needs a Rulebook, Codex and Battlebox/ Army +time. Removing the need to pay for a Rulebook or Codex means more people may 'give it a go', as long as GW have systems in place to convert those 'give it a go' new customers into long term heavily enfranchised consumers then they will recap their lost revenue from giving the rules away.
(I agree they probably won’t do this, but there are reasons why a company would)

I wouldn’t have an edition based released. The change in system from 3rd to 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons had a significant, negative effect on their sales and community reaction (despite 4th being a great system). I see it being closer to the Magic: The Gathering rules, always evolving to fit the needs of the sets (campaigns) they release.

@Clively (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426651&viewfull=1#post426651): … this response may be getting too long also… Thanks for the tip!

@-Tom (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426658&viewfull=1#post426658)- Great idea!

@Ghostofman (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426671&viewfull=1#post426671): Whilst I don’t share your pessimistic view – that did make me laugh ^_^

@JoseA.Fabian (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426687&viewfull=1#post426687): I personally prefer the books for reading, especially on the loo, and the Digital releases for in game rules. I would love to be able to buy the fluff in hard back and get the rules for my iPad.
In response to your second post: Yes, I agree.

@ Deniol (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426691&viewfull=1#post426691): I think this comes from the ‘norm – deviation from the norm’. The norm is in the book, everyone knows what to expect and it’s easier to just go with it. The missions and fluff stuff are the deviation, and currently require more work/ communication to get going.
My local GW ran a campaign recently and it was pretty successful at getting people in store.

@Thaldin (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426710&viewfull=1#post426710), Defenestratus (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426725&viewfull=1#post426725): I would further this to a micro transaction system instead of a subscription. Basic digital codex for Dark Angels (including all the units from the starter box) would cost very little. If you want terminators it’ll cost a little more. Fluff on the Deathwing more still. Ravenwing bikes? Another purchase. At the end the cost would be close to buying a current codex, but again the barrier for entry is reduced and picking up an ally codex is a lot cheaper (and would, in theory, grow into a full codex purchase).

@Sainhann (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?45688-An-Open-Letter-to-GW&p=426727&viewfull=1#post426727): I am waiting on 7th edition – I’m currently in Hong Kong and my army is in the UK… The cost isn’t stopping me, the amount of use I will get out of it Vs the cost is stopping me – which is an important distinction. I’m hoping the rumours of a Blood Angel/ Ork starter kit are true and I will more than likely pick that up – especially if it comes with a mini rulebook.
A lot of the things I am talking about in the original post would address your fluff concerns – campaigns with specific Ork clans or a Genestealer cult invasions would be perfectly possible (Chaos cult VS Genestealer cult would be a great one to play – missions designed to show two large forces clashing by controlling the peons of a hive world like chess pieces… hmmm I may just write that…).

Rikkumon

[Deadlift]

But are they profitable? When a company remains profitable by increasing their prices every year by 5-10% or doubling the prices of certian models I.E. Dire Avengers that says they just might have a problem.

Oh as to the rules updating they are doing that all the time with the FAQ's.

Oh and I will not buy 7th Edition because I only see it as a money grab, was 6th Edition so hosed up that they needed to bring out 7th Edition?

If the rules were well written in the first place they would not need to put out FAQ's but they will be putting out FAQ's nearly every month until they release 8th Edition which could be in two years and maybe sooner.

GW did not come out on top in the Chapterhouse lawsuit and have been losing customers to other games that don't cost an arm & a leg to even get one army.

Very few players today can afford to have 4-5 armies, which is what I have for both 40K and WFB.

As to the fluff I say that GW dropped most of that over ten years ago.

There are no longer several Ork clans just Orks, gone are the Goffs, Bad Moons, Evil Suns, Death Lootas, Blood Axes & Snakebites.

There is really only one type of Imperial Guard, which is Cadians.

Plus I don't even want to mention what GW did to the Squats and Genestealer Cults armies.

Today Squats are gone as are the Genestealer Cults.

They are only interested in selling their overpriced miniatures and have destroyed once was a great gaming magazine - White Dwarf, which is nothing but a customer supported advertisement filled with lots of petty pictures of the new models and hardly anything else.

Whilst I don't disagree with most of this sentiment, I do think the "fluff" of 40k is far richer now than many other imagined universes from other wargaming companies. I'm not being disparaging but I am pretty sure the BL produces more novels based on the 40k universe than the rest do combined on their own products. Hell I feel the 40k universe easily surpasses the Starwars or Star trek ones for sheer diversity and complexity. Supporting the 40k backstory has always been GWs strong point IMO. The prices of their novels are comparable to usual book prices too and I feel this is one area they actually do produce something that's good value fof money.
The rules books and codex prices however are now beyond a joke, and in my experiance that is what's turning players away. And having thm look at alternatives.

[BeardMonk]

There’s much to be said for many of the ideas in the OP.:) If you were starting GW again from scratch with today’s technology then you might look to do a number of those things.


Campaign a year, release. Army Codices would move over to the free side of the fence, and include only the stat line and point cost of the models, which would also get updated in the update window- not to alter but to ‘fix’ problems as with units. Faction codices could still exist but as Fluff only, pretty pictures and back story.

Respectfully, this would utterly destroy the fluff and background for the games. The Warhammer fantasy and 40K universes are so huge in scale that it would be impossible. Campaigns and crusades are just tiny blips in the scheme of things. You need those army books to represent the basic/standard set up of each race. You can’t just change them every 6-12 months. Even if you went to a fully online fre-to-use rule set, people still have to buy and paint models to create armies that may not work a few months after they have been bought.

I also play WamaHordes. The various new releases sort of follow the slowly evolving between the factions, warcasters get new version (or tiers) released, new warjacks are added for each faction as technologies etc moves on, battles are foughts etc. However, nobody I have ever met who plays wamahordes gives a flying flat fish about the fluff. Fluff is irrelevant. I don’t even buy the “army books”. I just look at stats and buy the models. Fluff is irrelevant. Id hate to see Warhammer/40K go that way.


‘Faction Starter Kits’.

You can argue these already exist in the form of the various Battalion/Army boxes that GW produce for each army. Again, drawing on WamaHordes, each faction also has a starter box which comes with quick start rules, a painting guide and a copy of the lates “No Quarter” magazine which has some battle reports etc in it. I would like that concept to be brought over into Warhammer and 40K. A Space Marine Starter Set could have a single piece character, a combat squad, a rhino and some quick start 40K rules for example. Cost less than the full Army Box and allows new player to get into the games without too much investment.

[Andrew Thomas]

As to the fluff I say that GW dropped most of that over ten years ago.

There are no longer several Ork clans just Orks, gone are the Goffs, Bad Moons, Evil Suns, Death Lootas, Blood Axes & Snakebites.

There is really only one type of Imperial Guard, which is Cadians.

Plus I don't even want to mention what GW did to the Squats and Genestealer Cults armies.

Today Squats are gone as are the Genestealer Cults.

They are only interested in selling their overpriced miniatures and have destroyed once was a great gaming magazine - White Dwarf, which is nothing but a customer supported advertisement filled with lots of petty pictures of the new models and hardly anything else.

Seriously? This just seems like a lot of baseless, reactionary butthurt.

The fluff is still there, if you actually read it.

You can have any kind of army you want if you take the time to build it.

I'm not going to sit here, telling you to quit complaining if you are unwilling to put some extra effort into your hobby, but I am going to say that if you want everything handed to you, you may want to consider a less labor intensive pass time.

[Sainhann]

Seriously? This just seems like a lot of baseless, reactionary butthurt.

The fluff is still there, if you actually read it.

You can have any kind of army you want if you take the time to build it.

I'm not going to sit here, telling you to quit complaining if you are unwilling to put some extra effort into your hobby, but I am going to say that if you want everything handed to you, you may want to consider a less labor intensive pass time.

Hmm, you must have missed the part where I stated that I have 5 armies for Warhammer 40K; Dark Angels, Guardians of the Covenant, Eldar, Orks, & Imperial Guard.

Total number of models for those well over 1000+

Oh and lets not forget the 4 armies for Warhammer Fantasy Battle; Empire, High Elves, Dwarves & Orks & Goblins.

Total number of models for those well over 1000+ as well.

Then I also have 5 armies for Warhammer 40K Epic; Eldar, Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Orks & Squats (they aren't dead in Epic) total figures run around 2500+.

Then there are the French, Prussians, Russians, Bavarians, Saxons & British that I have for Napoleonics as well.

Then you come out and tell me that I am not putting extra effort into the hobby.

I started out with 40K in 1989 and then into WFB in the early 1990's I put a lot of effort into it until GW decided to trash the rules.

But I would not be able afford to replace what I have because the cost to do so would be in the five figure range.

Which is why today most players only have one army and would not even consider to have 9 armies across both 40K & WFB that have over 2000+ models because they just can not afford them. Just the Army/Codex books alone would be around $500 and that price keeps on going up.

There is a limit on the amount of effort one is willing to do to keep up with GW.