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!