A Passing Space wizard give you control of GW...

[Evil Eye]

 

 

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I have to put my professional hat on.

 

I would not change a single thing that GW is currently doing, let me explain. GW has about 5 to 10 years before the 3d printing market and recast market become affordable and simple for the masses.

Yup, just like being able to pirate films online has killed off the film industry. Nobody pays for online film content.

 

7: Shy away from the super-competitive side of the hobby, and definitely don't pander to it. Perhaps offer a "Playing Warhammer 40,000 in a Tournament" supplement which provides rules and guidelines for playing in such a setting with BIG RED LETTERS saying that the rules are ONLY intended for playing in tournaments and should NEVER EVER EVER be used for casual games.

Agree. 40K has gone too tournamenty, too complex, and is appealing/accessible only to people that have played it before. Our new players are struggling with the insane amount of rules.

I won’t argue that there’s too many rules or that some of them seem to suffer from unnecessary complexity because there are and they do. However, the intent* behind every additional tournament/matched play rule is to create a more even/balanced match. I think you’d have an impossible time convincing people why they shouldn’t use optional rules that supposedly make the game fairer in their regular games. It’s why things like rule of three that they introduced in 8th became the default for most games, even though it was technically only a recommendation for tournaments. Basically I think having a set of tournament rules and not expecting them to filter into normal games is a non-starter.

 

*I say intent because obviously it doesn’t always work out like that

 

I would argue that a lot of the attempts to make the game more "balanced" instead restrict creativity and make the game a lot more bland, which coupled with the fact that a game with as many factions as 40K is basically impossible to balance makes the whole thing a fool's errand. Case in point, the rules for custom Land Raiders, Looted Wagons etc don't have any (official) points values; given the straight up refusal of a lot of people to play anything other than Matched Play, this effectively means that the rules might as well not exist. Coupled with a lot of other things that have over the years been stripped from the game in the name of "balance" (the 3rd edition custom Hive Fleet rules spring to mind) and I'd argue that if having a set of tournament rules and not expecting them to filter into normal games is a non-starter, then we need not to have tournament rules. Because 40K was never supposed to be a tournament game, and the attempts to make it one have sucked a lot of the fun out of the game.

 

 

 

 

Agree. 40K has gone too tournamenty, too complex, and is appealing/accessible only to people that have played it before. Our new players are struggling with the insane amount of rules.

40k is more dumbed down and streamlined then its ever been in the ten years I've been playing. If current 40k is too complex for some people I'm fine with them sticking with other games. I can't say though that I've run into new players that struggle with 9th edition and most of the people I meet up with every week started with 9th.

How does it compare to 5th, aka the best edition?

 

This is a joke, yes?

[MCC]

If i was given control Id start by lowering the prices. I started getting into the hobby when i was 11 (sadly way back in 1998) Back then i could realistically get a hq option and 2 troops for around £25. How much would that cost me now? £100? I know theres things like inflation and everything but they're pricing new young blood out of the hobby which surely cant be sustainable in the long run.

 

Id reverse the no model no rules stance and make it more like the heresy is currently and 40k used to be where you get the cost of a model and a list of options you can equip him with and let you convert it however you want.

 

Thered be a reduction in the amount of mobile games id be releasing, there seems to be a new one every other month often of a very poor standard ripping off an existing game. Id be focusing on trying to make AAA games and give the people what they actually want good FPS/Strategy games.

 

Warhammer + would be cancelled. I think its going to be a money drain. Id focus on trying to get my IP on existing platforms like netflix/amazon. 

 

As for the actual game, Id scrap power level it seems pointless and ive never seen anyone use it. Id have a release road map for the next 6 months to give people an idea about whats happening. Id bring back rules that i feel make sense like only being able to shoot the way you face!  

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

This is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I have to put my professional hat on.

 

I would not change a single thing that GW is currently doing, let me explain. GW has about 5 to 10 years before the 3d printing market and recast market become affordable and simple for the masses.

Yup, just like being able to pirate films online has killed off the film industry. Nobody pays for online film content.

 

7: Shy away from the super-competitive side of the hobby, and definitely don't pander to it. Perhaps offer a "Playing Warhammer 40,000 in a Tournament" supplement which provides rules and guidelines for playing in such a setting with BIG RED LETTERS saying that the rules are ONLY intended for playing in tournaments and should NEVER EVER EVER be used for casual games.

Agree. 40K has gone too tournamenty, too complex, and is appealing/accessible only to people that have played it before. Our new players are struggling with the insane amount of rules.

I won’t argue that there’s too many rules or that some of them seem to suffer from unnecessary complexity because there are and they do. However, the intent* behind every additional tournament/matched play rule is to create a more even/balanced match. I think you’d have an impossible time convincing people why they shouldn’t use optional rules that supposedly make the game fairer in their regular games. It’s why things like rule of three that they introduced in 8th became the default for most games, even though it was technically only a recommendation for tournaments. Basically I think having a set of tournament rules and not expecting them to filter into normal games is a non-starter.

 

*I say intent because obviously it doesn’t always work out like that

I would argue that a lot of the attempts to make the game more "balanced" instead restrict creativity and make the game a lot more bland, which coupled with the fact that a game with as many factions as 40K is basically impossible to balance makes the whole thing a fool's errand. Case in point, the rules for custom Land Raiders, Looted Wagons etc don't have any (official) points values; given the straight up refusal of a lot of people to play anything other than Matched Play, this effectively means that the rules might as well not exist. Coupled with a lot of other things that have over the years been stripped from the game in the name of "balance" (the 3rd edition custom Hive Fleet rules spring to mind) and I'd argue that if having a set of tournament rules and not expecting them to filter into normal games is a non-starter, then we need not to have tournament rules. Because 40K was never supposed to be a tournament game, and the attempts to make it one have sucked a lot of the fun out of the game.

To be honest I probably wouldn’t dispute much of what you say, I’m really just pointing out that if you do have tournament rules, they are going to become the default way of playing, even if GW tells you not to. You said it yourself about matched play. I would generally agree that 40k is impossible to fully balance but I don’t think it’s a fools errand to try, I think its important (and feasible) that it’s balanced enough that both players can still have fun.

 

There’s an important distinction though in that a lot of people don’t want a tournament game but they do want the game to be as close to balanced as possible. If that means some restrictions on creativity etc then that is regrettable but some will deem it a price worth paying. I should say that I don’t think everything that’s resulted from tournament rules has been a negative. The rule of three for example is a great addition. A lot of the other matched play additions they added in 8th were also positive like psychic focus, just imagine how broken and impossible to play against armies like eldar, thousand sons, GK, even regular CSM would be if they could cast the same power as many times as they wanted.

 

Tournaments have also done a lot of good in other ways. They are THE definitive source of data for GW to not only identify OP/broken combos but also force them to address them. It’s pretty hard to argue against solid data like that in terms of how factions and units are performing.

[Scribe]

This is a joke, yes?

Not at all.

 

5th was the most accessible version of the game, played the smoothest, quickest.

 

6th wasn't better, 7th wasn't, 8th wasn't.

 

Maybe 9th is, but current codex design is bad, I doubt it.

Edited August 12, 2021 by Scribe

[Azekai]

 

This is a joke, yes?

Not at all.

 

5th was the most accessible version of the game, played the smoothest, quickest.

 

6th wasn't better, 7th wasn't, 8th wasn't.

 

Maybe 9th is, but current codex design is bad, I doubt it.

 

5th got nuts when it was 'solved' with crazy deathstars rampaging around, and without options like mortal wounds to counter them, things got a bit crazy there towards the end. I recall grey knights being rather out of control.

 

I actually really liked early 8th, when all that was out was the Index lists. Add in rule of 3 and increasing smite warp charge cost, and the game was pretty dang functional. People complained about it being bland, but I liked it. I prefer the elegant simplicity of limited stratagems and traits, especially compared to the current insanity that is the DE/Admech meta.

__

 

If I was in charge of GW I would fire whoever is writing the current impenetrable rules and hire someone who can write effectively in plain English. Entire paragraphs of interlinking exception clauses? No thank you, hit the bricks. I would also bring back keywords. Not tons of them (5th-7th bloated these rules badly), but transport abilities and deepstrike should all work the same.

 

I would also overhaul Crusade. Awesome idea, lackluster execution.

 

 

 

[Noserenda]

Yeah id probably agree 5th was the best edition of third wave 40k, in general things were getting better every edition there until 6th and 7th kinda sank it. Though yeah some of the later codexes were a bit much, thats when our gaming group pretty much switched to Heresy era so i can admit to being a bit out of touch with those.

Fourth wave 40k is better though (8th and 9th) though current Codex design is getting offputting :( 

[Scribe]

 

I prefer the elegant simplicity of limited stratagems and traits...

 

 

This is part of my issue with the current (4th wave as Noserenda calls it) 40K.

 

I dont want stratagems, or weird soup lists, or alliances, or bubble aura's, or even key words.

 

I want my rule book, my codex, and the flexibility offered in the unit entry design of 5th edition, in comparison to 'buy the model, thats the rules' blandness of the current age.

 

There is actually nothing beyond the models, which I enjoy out of the current game, because yes they can make great models, but even then its mostly mono-pose stuff that ruins a massive portion of the hobby for me.

 

I still played (less as we went on) 6th/7th/8th, but for my money (and I certainly spent far too much of it) 5th was what got myself and my group to open our wallets over and over and over.

[Halandaar]

Yeah I quite liked 5th as well, but the point about deathstars dominating it is completely valid.

 

It seems to be the case that GW simply cannot maintain the full course of an edition and by the end some element of it has spiralled out of control. The cleanest the game has felt in as long as I can remember was just after 8th Edition when everybody was operating out of indexes.

[Scribe]

Totally, nothing has been perfect in the over 20 years I've been part of the hobby.

 

Not even that holy tome, CSM, 3.5 :D

 

I don't know how 9th plays. I moved, the pandemic, and my growing disdain for how they over complicated the game just doesn't motivate me at all.

 

5th was clean.

[Valkyrion]

If GW suddenly went bust overnight - no new models, codexes or rules - then I'd probably play 2nd ed (or OG necromunda) for kill team/combat patrol type games, 5th ed for 1000-2000 point games and 8th ed Apocalypse for bigger - all with the caveat that i could find someone to play with, of course.

 

For one reason or another, they have been by favourite rule sets GW have produced (except Warhammer Quest 1st ed. I loved that game)

[Claws and Effect]

I'd really only make 1 major change:

 

Release all the codexes for a new edition at once. And have the writers of each codex talk to each other in the process so they're more balanced against each other.

 

That's the primary reason I stopped attending 40k tournaments. Because I already know that the players who do the best will be the ones using whatever the most recently released codex is. The tournament level of play (in my opinion) should be the most SKILLED players rising to the top, not random jackholes using the latest overpowered codex.

 

That's not going to change as long as GW is in control of it. Because overpowered codexes drive sales to a ridiculous degree.

[The Yncarne]

@Claws and Effect - On the contrary I’ll say that it is more a case of who can crunch numbers on their feet and remember the minutia of multiple armies that tend to win in competition. Likely with the most over the top lists too. That’s just part of a competitive scene.

 

it’s too bad you’re in Iowa. I know the pain of finding games there.  
 

Edit: the Warhammer+ thing looks like it might be a large part of what I would do but framed differently. 

Edited August 16, 2021 by The Blood Raven

[Noctus Cornix]

If the objective is to " Grow 40K into something that rivals Trek, Star Wars and other major entertainment properties in people hearts!" then I wouldn't really change anything about Games Workshop, at the moment. It's already doing fantastic as a company brand as it is and doesn't need me to ruin that. It's already on its way, really.

 

However, if I had full control over Games Workshop, I'd say sod off to that objective. I would tank that company into the ground to achieve my own aims. I would murder the competitive scene, completely cut off the entire game from anything resembling the notion of 'competitive' or 'tournament-friendly'. Age of Sigmar would drop to a secondary product line and 9th edition 40k would be cut off completely to bring back something resembling 4th edition before they started completely gutting the codexes for 5th edition. I'd end the production of Primaris, Primarchs, and let the company shrivel into something that's no better than the rest of the upstart companies that make their own products and don't  rely on consumer brand loyalty to make millions. I'd let Warhammer regress into an otherwise unknown brand that basically no one knows about and happily live with that fact to my dying day. 

 

I'm just happy I'm not a business man, because I'd ruin everything like the little greasy goblin I am.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Noctus Cornix

[Wulf Vengis]

He longs for the pre turn of the century 40k many of us started with. A return to GWs humble beginnings. Edited August 17, 2021 by Wulf Vengis

[Special Officer Doofy]

I'd really only make 1 major change:

 

Release all the codexes for a new edition at once. And have the writers of each codex talk to each other in the process so they're more balanced against each other.

 

That's the primary reason I stopped attending 40k tournaments. Because I already know that the players who do the best will be the ones using whatever the most recently released codex is. The tournament level of play (in my opinion) should be the most SKILLED players rising to the top, not random jackholes using the latest overpowered codex.

 

That's not going to change as long as GW is in control of it. Because overpowered codexes drive sales to a ridiculous degree.

I would do the same thing. You'll make less money which is less of an issue now, just look at their profit and margins the past few years, but the game would be far more balanced. I rather wait on a new unit or redone models throughout the edition/years than wait for rules so an army is remotely playable. I would try and take the company private as well. You have less capital to play around with, but don't have to answer to stockholders/investors.

[Lexington]

Not...a whole lot? The company does well, and by doing well, it employs an awful lot of people, and many of those people seem to like what they do. I might see about making that employment situation a little nicer, given some of the things floating around about the internal culture. I'd definitely invest more in the concept of the 40K and AoS apps, and set Infinity's incredibly Army program as something to emulate, decouple rules access from book purchases and otherwise drag the company kicking and screaming into...well, hell, not even the future, but the present. Mostly, tho, they're making a lot of good models and the quality of their games has, in many ways, shot up over the past few years. Not a boat that needs a lot of rocking.

 

One other, out-of-the-way thing I'd do is find out what happened behind the scenes on some things that've never been public, just to sate my own morbid curiosity. Like, what the hell happened with Cursed City? How did the extremely weird and sudden development/release of 7th Edition come to be? What's the real story behind Andy Chambers and Rick Priestley's  respective (and apparently unpleasant) exits from the company? That sounds fun. Well, okay, maybe the last one is something that no one's supposed to know beyond those involved, but I wanna know, damnit.

 

Oh, and I'd take most all of the 40K background from the past ten or fifteen years and chuck it in a bin. Like, obviously, right?

[Beta galactosidase]

If the objective is to " Grow 40K into something that rivals Trek, Star Wars and other major entertainment properties in people hearts!" then I wouldn't really change anything about Games Workshop, at the moment. It's already doing fantastic as a company brand as it is and doesn't need me to ruin that. It's already on its way, really.

 

However, if I had full control over Games Workshop, I'd say sod off to that objective. I would tank that company into the ground to achieve my own aims. I would murder the competitive scene, completely cut off the entire game from anything resembling the notion of 'competitive' or 'tournament-friendly'. Age of Sigmar would drop to a secondary product line and 9th edition 40k would be cut off completely to bring back something resembling 4th edition before they started completely gutting the codexes for 5th edition. I'd end the production of Primaris, Primarchs, and let the company shrivel into something that's no better than the rest of the upstart companies that make their own products and don't  rely on consumer brand loyalty to make millions. I'd let Warhammer regress into an otherwise unknown brand that basically no one knows about and happily live with that fact to my dying day. 

 

I'm just happy I'm not a business man, because I'd ruin everything like the little greasy goblin I am.

 

 

What the Christ, dude.

f

Yes the first paragraph in the OP is a bit weird. The best outcome, the most creativity and the most enjoyable rules for 40k can only come in the form of a black and white photocopied zine bound with staples and mailed out by the people who wrote it and a few of their mates. The only structure or creative process to emulate if you you want a good, creative 40k is the creative process for Turnip28. literally just randoms sending each other sketches they made after coming home from their forklift job.

[Cheex]

Honestly, there are plenty of things that could be changed in GW. But the thing that sticks out the most for me is the lore - specifically around GW's creation and treatment of named characters. This kind of ties in with GW's policy towards showing conversions in their rules publications (i.e. other than White Dwarf), so bear with me.

 

I don't mean special characters who have their own models; I mean characters who are introduced in the lore, but are usually just created to be killed off. Their deaths often even happen in the same story arc where they were introduced, making us really just not care about their fate.

 

I'd like to see GW introduce more named characters that don't have their own kits, but give us conversion guides on how to kitbash them if we want to - simple head swaps or an extra bit here and there to reflect their personality. Give those characters a little time in the sun over a few publications and show us their goals and setbacks and achievements.

 

And then kill them off. Make their deaths tragic. They were close to achieving their goals, but this cruel universe had other ideas.

 

To their credit, GW has done this well in the past. A good example I can think of is Egil Iron Wolf of the Ironwolves Space Wolf company. He's been mentioned in lore going back all the way to 5th edition IIRC, and even had an "official" conversion built from a Techmarine (and, IMHO, looks pretty boss). He's had little tidbits of fluff all over the place, but was eventually killed off in the War Zone Fenris books at the end of 7th.

 

The only thing they could've done better with Egil Iron Wolf was dedicate a page or two to the creation of his model. All GW publications have pages of models just standing around in cool poses - you could easily turn 1-2 pages of that into an example of how to make a character model unique with a head swap or weapon swap from another kit.

 

Stuff like this helps to cement the grimdark nature of 40k and helps to make the galaxy feel as big as it should. Seeing the same named characters time and time again, wearing the same plot armour they always have, only shrinks the galaxy and (IMHO) stifles creativity in the fandom.

[Claws and Effect]

Really the biggest issue I have is the codex power creep and the length of time people have to wait for their codex.

 

9th edition is an entire year old now. There is absolutely no justification for players to STILL be waiting for their 9th edition codex. None.

 

Granted, the pandemic did slow things down a bit. But now we're looking at some factions not getting their codex until early 2022 for an edition that launched in 2020.

 

I wouldn't necessarily release every codex on the same weekend. But every faction should have their updated rules within 3 months of a new edition release at most.

 

That way the playtesters can actually play the codexes against each other and make sure nothing is too broken. In a well balanced game you shouldn't ever have a game feel like a waste of time because everyone knows who will win before a single die is rolled.

 

Example: AdMech vs Tau

 

Does anyone have any doubt who wins that matchup assuming equally skilled players and nothing statistically improbable happening?

[Lexington]

I’ve been around for every edition that’s had Codexes, and not a single one of them managed to get a Codex out for every faction within a year. Heck, by historical standards, 9th has a breezier release schedule than most.

[Claws and Effect]

I’ve been around for every edition that’s had Codexes, and not a single one of them managed to get a Codex out for every faction within a year. Heck, by historical standards, 9th has a breezier release schedule than most.

That in no way invalidates my point. If anything it actually supports it.

[Ishagu]

I would change very little. They are doing very well.

 

I would, however, create longer road-maps for codex releases, and foster a closer working relationship with some respectable YouTube channels like Luetin09

Edited August 18, 2021 by Ishagu

[Xenith]

 

 

Agree. 40K has gone too tournamenty, too complex, and is appealing/accessible only to people that have played it before. Our new players are struggling with the insane amount of rules. 

 

40k is more dumbed down and streamlined then its ever been in the ten years I've been playing. If current 40k is too complex for some people I'm fine with them sticking with other games. I can't say though that I've run into new players that struggle with 9th edition and most of the people I meet up with every week started with 9th.

 

 How many games of 9th have you played?

 

Beyond "I liked it when vehicles have armour facings" can you provide any evidence for this? I guess the core rules are a lot smaller, however the Codexes add a million layers of complexity.  

 

5-7th ed: whoever holds this objective at the end wins

8/9th ed: progressive scoring over all turns (but not turn 1) conducted in a new 'command phase' at the start of your turn (apart from in turn 5, unless you go first), secondary choosing and calculation (including in turn 1), keeping tallies of models or units killed (first strike, thin their ranks). Compare and contrast how you win in 9th vs how you won in 5th or 6th edition, which was simply bring the most guns (c.f. 'Leafblower').

 

3rd ed - maybe 1-2 units per army had special unique rules (Death co, raptors, obliterators)

5 - 7th ed: one limited set of universal rules from which most units draw

8/9th ed: each unit has bespoke rules meaning lots more to learn. 

 

7th ed: no command points or stratagems

8th ed: track command points, stratagems, unit or faction specific stuff like contagion, cabal points.

 

3 - 7th ed: hit or miss on a fixed dice roll, rerolls in specific, limited instances (master crafted, twin linked)

8/9th: multiple stacking or non stacking modifiers to hit and wound, including both modifiers to specific dice rolls (smokescreen) and modifiers to target roll (transhuman), unless you have a stratagem to counter the opposing stratagem (new thousand sons one)...unless your opponent has a stratagem to counter the stratagem you used to counter their stratagem (agents of vect, callidus).

 

Every. Single. Army. is getting bespoke mechanics, from combat doctrines, the death guard one, tyranid adaptive physiologies and now synaptic links, my Thousand Sons now have to track and spend Cabal Points in addition to unit points cost and command points. Blood Angels get their Death Visions, which some death company can get, others cant, but you can only ever use one, unless you use the special stratagem to use two, but only if no one else has used them yet. 

 

Chaplains. They go from being a better commander in 3rd ed with zero special rules, to giving the unit they're with rerolls in combat from 4-7th ed, to rolling for prayers like psykers do for powers. They get 2 prayers, cast on a 3+, unless you upgrade them to cast on a 2+.

 

I...literally cant. 

[Ishagu]

9th edition is probably the most complex and deep edition yet, without a shadow of a doubt.

 

The core rules are very simple, but they are overlaid with vast amounts of unit abilities, command phase actions, tactical options etc.

 

Past editions had more complex core rules, but they weren't based around tactics or player skill - they were simply admin or busy work.

Take vehicles facings for example - there is nothing clever or tactical about keeping the tank facing towards the enemy for a higher armour value. And don't get me started on crap like Indirect-Fire Blast-Templates with barrage, the minimal depth of cover rules, or the fact that characters had little to no unique abilities, etc, etc

 

9th edition is built around unit combinations, positioning on the board and planning turns in advance.

 

For the record I HATE the ITC/Nova style mission design of 9th, but that doesn't change the fact that the game is more dynamic and tactical than ever from a rules perspective.

 

 

Honestly people need to stop crying about vehicle facings or armour values. It was thematic sure, but not good in terms of gameplay. Like I said, I hate the missions in 9th, but when I get together with like-minded people for a casual game there is nothing stopping us from using old mission packs from prior editions. Just like there is noting stopping a person from making sure the tanks are facing the right way to keep the battle looking thematic.

Edited August 18, 2021 by Ishagu

[Scribe]

Vehicles always had pretty lame rules, but Xenith illustrates perfectly why I want to go back to 5th. :D