I have heard the term "power-creep" used to describe the edition-to-edition ramping up of relative power in a game. It has been a while since I played Magic the Gathering, but I wouldn't be surprised if 3 mana could buy you a 10/10 indestructible monster with trample and landwalk at this point. I have noticed that with each edition of WH40k the game becomes more and more of a nuclear war.

Is WH40k doomed? Do you think there is enough of a community of old-schoolers to keep the older versions of the game alive?

I think it is doomed. Its clearly going downhill and the people in charge are either unaware of the problem or actively causing it.

There are still games of blood bowl and necromunda being played so yes, I think the game will survive GWs bankruptcy.

power creep was always used as a codex to codex.
aaand MTG still doesnt and wont ever have something like that..

aaand jono nice thoughts... but GW aint gonna go bankrupt on you, not now not in 5 years, probably not even in 10.

as to if you dont like 7th your free to pull out your 2nd ed rulebooks and codecies and play games of that any time you want.

40k as a game is most certaintly NOT doomed. and even those that hate GW realise that company is STILL making money (it might be less but millions of $$ in profit is still a multi million $ company) that they will be around for the forseeable future

Two more years of 42% drops in profits and they will be into the red with no way out.
That might sound extreme but they have also shown they have no idea out of their current decline and have blatantly stated that they don't think asking us what we want is a good idea.
Its TSR all over againm they seem too big to fail and then they disappear overnight.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Two more years of 42% drops in profits and they will be into the red with no way out.
That might sound extreme but they have also shown they have no idea out of their current decline and have blatantly stated that they don't think asking us what we want is a good idea.
Its TSR all over againm they seem too big to fail and then they disappear overnight.

I noticed that they have been releasing bigger, more epxensive packages, like the entire ultramarines chapter. Do you think this is a desperate last attempt at generating new revenue?

Im just curious of what specifically you mean?
The game is representation of combat in the 41st millennium where armies field either Millions of Soldiers, Magic Powers or Biological agents that can strip a planet of organic life in moments.
Are you seeing some sort of units that are unkillable? Which ones?
Do you believe some armies are intrinsically overpowered?
Are you commenting on the Fluff based explanations of Special Rules?
A Modern combined Arms force( Infantry, Armor Artillery, Air) can bring an intense amount of firepower to bear especially if its well led and coordinated i would think that in 38,000yrs it would be positively devastating (did you know that the kinetic energy from a Bradley 25MM(.98 cal same as Heavy Bolter) chain gun can actually tear skin from bone by simply passing up to a foot away from the target?) Are you thinking the firepower decpicted is unrealistic? Im merely curious

LocomotiveBreath wrote:
Im just curious of what specifically you mean?
The game is representation of combat in the 41st millennium where armies field either Millions of Soldiers, Magic Powers or Biological agents that can strip a planet of organic life in moments.
Are you seeing some sort of units that are unkillable? Which ones?
Do you believe some armies are intrinsically overpowered?
Are you commenting on the Fluff based explanations of Special Rules?
A Modern combined Arms force( Infantry, Armor Artillery, Air) can bring an intense amount of firepower to bear especially if its well led and coordinated i would think that in 38,000yrs it would be positively devastating (did you know that the kinetic energy from a Bradley 25MM(.98 cal same as Heavy Bolter) chain gun can actually tear skin from bone by simply passing up to a foot away from the target?) Are you thinking the firepower decpicted is unrealistic? Im merely curious

What I mean is it seems like it is becoming more and more like chess with combat between units being more and more one-sided with each release. I think the aspect of attrition is becoming less important.

Oddnerd wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Two more years of 42% drops in profits and they will be into the red with no way out.
That might sound extreme but they have also shown they have no idea out of their current decline and have blatantly stated that they don't think asking us what we want is a good idea.
Its TSR all over againm they seem too big to fail and then they disappear overnight.

I noticed that they have been releasing bigger, more epxensive packages, like the entire ultramarines chapter. Do you think this is a desperate last attempt at generating new revenue?

To an extent yes, but the rerelease of space hulk is a much clearer sign.

They made a ton off it in 09. A year or two later deeadfleet sank and they where destroying excess stock. They refuse to do market research so they don't know why ones was a massive hit at the other dead on arrival. We had plenty if rumours of other boxed games every year since but nothing panned out.

Now they are rereleasing something that was supposed to be gone for good. Why? Because they need money but can't risk another deeadfleet. They have no idea what to do, which worries me greatly about any sort of future they might have.

LocomotiveBreath wrote:
Im just curious of what specifically you mean?
The game is representation of combat in the 41st millennium where armies field either Millions of Soldiers, Magic Powers or Biological agents that can strip a planet of organic life in moments.
Are you seeing some sort of units that are unkillable? Which ones?
Do you believe some armies are intrinsically overpowered?
Are you commenting on the Fluff based explanations of Special Rules?
A Modern combined Arms force( Infantry, Armor Artillery, Air) can bring an intense amount of firepower to bear especially if its well led and coordinated i would think that in 38,000yrs it would be positively devastating (did you know that the kinetic energy from a Bradley 25MM(.98 cal same as Heavy Bolter) chain gun can actually tear skin from bone by simply passing up to a foot away from the target?) Are you thinking the firepower decpicted is unrealistic? Im merely curious

It's not about that. The OP is commenting on how overpowered things keep being released. The things you describe should be contained within the ruleset but point-costed accordingly. The best examples of imbalanced units are Riptides and Wave Serpents.

I see your point but I don't believe basing combat on the principal of attrition is a plus side. The way to win a battle in real life is to strike the enemy with overwhelming firepower at a decisive point or series of decisive points thereby winning with minimal cost to your side. You do this by though leadership, training, terrain and various stratagems (surprise, having a counter to enemy strengths etc) not just trading blows and hoping to be the last boxer standing. Even a well executed defense is executed using the principal of "defense in depth" Using attrition as a strategy is a mark of a poor and callous leader, or a leader who is tactically backed into a corner and is more often than waiting for a strategic asset (Relief forces, Winter Etc) Most battles of attrition are the result of poorly executed plans or a lack of understanding of the strategic or tactical situation( Somme, Stalingrad Etc). If perhaps you wanted to specifically represent a grinding war of attrition then I'm sure you'd be able to coordinate with like minded players at your FLGS. I will admit though that there is a certain marketing based "New Hottness" with GW's Army release cycle I don't believe that it is an insurmountable obstacle to a General using sound tactics and a bit of a "practiced hand" with the dice (training extends to all aspects of military ops ).

I don't think 40k will become MTG for all the reasons Jonolikespie mentioned and it basically boils down to this- the current GW isn't competent enough to make this happen.

Whatever your opinion is on MTG (I don't know much about it to be honest), I believe most of the work regarding rules and interactions is heavily considered. After all, that's really where they *have* to shine (the cards themselves hold little intrinsic value). GW (and again, this is the GW of the last five years or so) doesn't do market research, they got fat-and-happy off of previous releases and seem to think if they just keep amp'ing up the things they do, everything will be awesome. So they produce bigger models, increase costs of books, and push a whole "collecting is hobby-ing" cult-of-personality thing.

Their goal is to get you to buy more models, but rarely is that achieved through the rules. And that's because they don't understand the rules. The intricate level of forethought that is required to produce consistent rules is something GW feels is not worth the investment...this has always been the case to a degree, but these days it's unabashed. Jervis Johnson freely admitted in a White Dwarf during the release of the Imperial Knight that their method is to come up with a rough idea of how powerful/how many points something is, fiddle with it some and off you go. They give no regard to actual rules content, but then again you're not supposed to buy the models because the rules are awesome, you're supposed to buy them because the models are awesome.

Of course none of this makes sense considering the cost of the rules are frankly astronomical, and they get more expensive in every new iteration.

So to sum-up my opinion, yes GW is trying to "up" their game, but it will never be through a MTG-style arms race because they don't put in the forethought that would be required for this to happen.

...you mean the part where it's hugely successful and popular?

...or the part where the company is seriously invested in balancing the rules and supporting competitive play?

...or maybe the part where relatively casual, informal leagues good some company support?

(...I could do this all day, and I haven't even played magic since Urza's Saga....)


It's kind of weird to talk about "power creep" in magic, where some of the most powerful and notorious cards are from the earliest days when the designers didn't know any better (Ancestral Recall, Black Lotus, etc.)

Also, in Magic the most common format ("Standard" or "Type II") is restricted to the most recent sets, which are designed with internal balance in mind.

I don't think this is a good analogy, BUT I think your point where the game feels built around marketing the Model of the Moment is a little frustrating.

I wonder if the "one army at a time" release strategy is part of it; if all the armies got something each "wave", it would be easier to design with internal balance in mind.

Really? I find 40k to be much more an 'arms race' then MtG. At least MtG actually works rules wise, and is balanced to a great degree.

40k is plummeting, with less people buying into it, and fewer existing players continuing to buy. GW has competitors from other systems, people selling on their old armies, 3rd party modelling companies and recasters.

The way 40k is going basic troops are becoming less and less relevant. It's becoming far more about raw firepower. Personally, I like the idea of attrition, provided you don't need to use it to win. It should still e a viable strategy though.

ComTrav wrote:
...you mean the part where it's hugely successful and popular?

...or the part where the company is seriously invested in balancing the rules and supporting competitive play?

...or maybe the part where relatively casual, informal leagues good some company support?

(...I could do this all day, and I haven't even played magic since Urza's Saga....)


It's kind of weird to talk about "power creep" in magic, where some of the most powerful and notorious cards are from the earliest days when the designers didn't know any better (Ancestral Recall, Black Lotus, etc.)

Also, in Magic the most common format ("Standard" or "Type II") is restricted to the most recent sets, which are designed with internal balance in mind.

I don't think this is a good analogy, BUT I think your point where the game feels built around marketing the Model of the Moment is a little frustrating.

I wonder if the "one army at a time" release strategy is part of it; if all the armies got something each "wave", it would be easier to design with internal balance in mind.

I agree that as long as you play only with cards from a single edition MTG is much more balanced, but both games still seem to have the edition-to-edition arms race. I agree that it can be hard to avoid if you want something new, but I feel like WH40k hasn't found the happy median between all units being nearly identical, and the polar opposite which is a series of almost completely one-sided fights where you take turns picking off eachothers units like you do in chess.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:


The way 40k is going basic troops are becoming less and less relevant. It's becoming far more about raw firepower. Personally, I like the idea of attrition, provided you don't need to use it to win. It should still e a viable strategy though.

That is what it boils down to, its just about big powerful units picking eachother off - a pure footslogging infantry army shouldn't be the key, but basic units should not just be a meat shield that you have to take because of FOC rules.

That's an interesting point. It would be like if each color got updated by itself in MTG.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Two more years of 42% drops in profits and they will be into the red with no way out.

GW invested a lot of money back into the business this year, so profit reports could be somewhat deceiving.

The troubling bit of the report was more the 9% drop in revenue. Profits are relative. Revenue is far more important. If their revenue is declining YoY, it means they are selling less product. It's fairly obvious that the current business model is severely flawed. But, having worked for companies and watched firsthand senior leadership teams unable to grasp change. I'm guessing that's the case at GW. They've had the same brains in charge at the top, and nobody has come in to challenge the way of thinking (or they've come in and been ignored. I've seen that happen too, lol).

I'm starting to think at this point, GW is in a death spiral. I'm guessing the game (at least 40K) survives Games Workshop though. The brand is too valuable to disappear. The problem is that really, what do you do when you buy out the IP and then have to strategize how to not alienate large portions of the customer base. It's very clear that there are plenty of players who like the way the game has evolved. They're obviously a minority though, because the revenue is declining. So how do you turn the game back in a direction with more appeal, without alienating all the players who bought in on the latest rounds of product waves (LoWs, flyers, etc).

It's a mess, that much is for sure.

I just wish troops could actually do more in a game that is seemingly dominated by terminator only armies, imperial knights, and pure armored warfare.

The guardsmen are only as useful as how many special weapons they have left, as they can't really hurt anything else. Even when they can hurt something then they are generally fighting against a hoard army in which there isn't enough firepower to do anything substantial anyway.

They don't even consider Warhammer the game, or any game as their product. They consider themselves a collectables company and 'the hobby' is their product. Unless they shake themselves out of this very narrow view, they will continue losing market share to other game systems and eventually their prices will reach a point where only the most hardcore or rich will keep supporting them bringing them to... that TSR example is a good one.

Oddnerd wrote:
I have heard the term "power-creep" used to describe the edition-to-edition ramping up of relative power in a game. It has been a while since I played Magic the Gathering, but I wouldn't be surprised if 3 mana could buy you a 10/10 indestructible monster with trample and landwalk at this point. I have noticed that with each edition of WH40k the game becomes more and more of a nuclear war.

You've never heard of ban lists in MTG have you? Cloudpost for instance is banned in Modern so people can't get, among other things, a turn 4 Emrakul; a flying 15/15 that can't be countered, has protection from colored spells, gives you an extra turn when you cast it, and forces the defending player to sacrifice 6 permanents when he's declared as an attacker.

If anything, MTG sets have gotten softer. The only semblance of power creep that exists in that game is in the eternal formats. And even then, people still go "is this better than what I already have?" Some are, Abrupt Decay for instance is great for Modern Junk or Jund. Others not so much; Firedrinker Satyr is never going to replace Goblin Guide or Vexing Devil for mono-red aggro.

So sure, there are cards that work better than other cards, but there's hardly any sign of them getting progressively better than the last set like the typical idea of a power creep in 40k is.

A balanced, well supported game with good rules that is reasonably priced?
Ooh God, that would be such a terrible thing. It'd be as if it isn't even Games Workshop anymore!

Wizards of the Coast is much more apt to get rid of broken cards or combos than GW. They definitely put forth a lot more effort in playtesting and balancing their game. There could certainly be worse things than adopting similar principles. Magic the Gathering makes over $100M yearly, so they must be doing something right.

7-th edition is way better than 6-th. And new codexes are way better ballanced than all of the the 6-th ones and ba/gk/sw of the 5-th. So if all's going the route of the early 7-th, than it's gona be great. Though, lots of people quit with 7-th due to "you can play whatever you want" and "you can summon daemons". Cause...well, i don't know. People like to panic and hate.

6th looked balanced too until tau.

6th was widely considered to be hilariously broken with flyers ruining the game and CSM/Dark Angels being weaker than older dex's like Necrons before Tau.

That aside, that the last overpowered codex we've received was... what, Eldar? Says alot about power creep.

Or the lack thereof. Codices have been getting progressively weaker since Eldar.

Waiting for Tau Control Armies so that I can run my enemies carnifex into its hive tyrant.

 koooaei wrote:
7-th edition is way better than 6-th. And new codexes are way better ballanced than all of the the 6-th ones and ba/gk/sw of the 5-th. So if all's going the route of the early 7-th, than it's gona be great. Though, lots of people quit with 7-th due to "you can play whatever you want" and "you can summon daemons". Cause...well, i don't know. People like to panic and hate.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. It's not about panicking and hating. In fact, there's a whole thread about why people left. If you actually want to find out why, go read. If you prefer to think that everyone that left is a panicking hater, then by all means, continue on.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
7-th edition is way better than 6-th. And new codexes are way better ballanced than all of the the 6-th ones and ba/gk/sw of the 5-th. So if all's going the route of the early 7-th, than it's gona be great. Though, lots of people quit with 7-th due to "you can play whatever you want" and "you can summon daemons". Cause...well, i don't know. People like to panic and hate.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. It's not about panicking and hating. In fact, there's a whole thread about why people left. If you actually want to find out why, go read. If you prefer to think that everyone that left is a panicking hater, then by all means, continue on.

I just know a few people that said as soon as 7-th arrived : "Oh, hell! Everything is as as bad as it could get, Maelstorm's bad, everything scoring is bad, unbound is bad, they've nerfed my taudar i'm selling stuff and leaving". Even before a single playtest. A few months later after having sold half of their stuff, they start to regret it.

No, i don't claim that everyone who leaves is histerical like this. I've seen a post where op claimed he left due to inability to organise tournaments due to all the imposed restrictions of 'no 2-cad, no LOW, no this, no that'. If you say that all's fine and bring whatever you want, many people won't be happy cause they're gona expect a double transcendent C'Tan list or an all-'insert cheezy stuff here' list. Those lists are beatable but the effort is not worht the result. If you state that 'Don't bring LOW', people will say: "Hey, Ghazzy is LOW, why can't i bring Ghazzy? My meganobz list is based around him and he's not nearly as broken as CAD eldar wave serpent spam".

There are still some significant problems both with game mechanics and codexes. But in all fairness, it feels way better than in 6-th. So far, the massed power creep brought by codexes like Daemons, Eldar and Tau has completely stopped. Look at what's out:

IG, Orks, SW, GK...assasins?.. All theese books (and most of their supplements) are decent but not broken. They're pretty well ballanced. Yes, every book has some underpowered stuff that almost noone uses, situational and strong stuff. But the underpowered stuff is still playable, strong is not unkillable while situational sees the board more and more often.

If memory serves, I remember something about "We only sell models" and closing down all Official Events, doesn't really match to the behavior of WotC. So I think your save to say that no GW is not going the ways of WotC. Is GW doomed? I doubt it... but, I do wish they would stop producing anything to do with gaming in general, cause it seriously isn't improving the playground, and without any officially sponsored Recess Monitors its making problems. I have found new uses for my GK models for a steam-punk Pathfinder campaign though.

I wouldn't be surprised if 3 mana could buy you a 10/10 indestructible monster with trample and landwalk at this point.

http://mythicspoiler.com/ - Available this September 26th, Khans of Tarkir!

Just took a quick look at GW's stock from the 2y, 5y, and 10y standpoint.

Whoever is saying they're about to go bankrupt is either going off hearsay or prefers to live in their own imagination.

It's certainly not at a peak, but it's gone through two similar cycles and in this new, third cycle, it is performing much better historically than before.

Magic is one of the best and most healthy games around. It's being maintained by its parent company, which actively communicates with their community, supports events all over the world and actually cares about creating a well-balanced game of high quality.

If WH40k would become anything like it, I'd be very, very happy.

On the level of power-creep I think GW is just a big offender as WotC. Power-creep is a necessary evil you have to sell part of your soul to as a game publisher, when you want to continue selling game pieces. Otherwise, once someone has completed their army/their deck, there is little incentive to ever go out and buy any new models or cards. That way you could have thousands of players who are actively enjoying your game without earning you a single penny. Of course, you could just try finding new design space (fliers, lords of war), but that will reach its limits as well. There are only so many big bulky hard-to-kill space marines you can design without invalidating the other bulky hard-to-kill guys.

And for the record, this line is just hilarious

Oddnerd wrote:
It has been a while since I played Magic the Gathering, but I wouldn't be surprised if 3 mana could buy you a 10/10 indestructible monster with trample and landwalk at this point.

Or in other words, "I don't know for sure, I've been out of the loop for a while, but I'm just going to assume this is the way things are in MTG now. Aren't you afraid that things in 40k are turning out the way things I only assume are in MTG?"

Ferros wrote:
Just took a quick look at GW's stock from the 2y, 5y, and 10y standpoint.

Whoever is saying they're about to go bankrupt is either going off hearsay or prefers to live in their own imagination.

It's certainly not at a peak, but it's gone through two similar cycles and in this new, third cycle, it is performing much better historically than before.

Stock price is meaningless. An 8% drop in revenue and a 42% drop in profits in a market that has been experiencing unprecedented growth is very telling.

If only the name "Games Workshop" conjures images of erstwhile craftsmen bent over the ruleset, striving for perfection.
That was a loooong time ago, and they've all moved onto other things.

MtG may have become a rolling range of card sets, each making sections of the previous sets obsolete. Or, it was when Slivers first appeared, when I last played.
40k Codex Creep seems to have been based on making unpopular units cheaper or more useful, to get more people to buy them models.
Also, units generally cheaper, to fit more into the battlefield, meaning you need to buy more models than before.
Then, add fliers and fortifications to Super-Heavies. Having more choice is good, but not at the detriment to gameplay. Rock-Paper-Scissors is good enough, but adding Lizard and Spock makes the game silly.

koooaei wrote:Cause...well, i don't know. People like to panic and hate.

Or, they just liked the way the game was, and not what it's turned into.

Just because you like Titans and superheavies and giant robots and D-weapons doesn't mean everyone has to. Or that they're "panicking" or "haters". Maybe it's just that 7th Edition is a radical departure from when playing with giant units was for people who liked playing with giant units, and the people who didn't want to play with giant units didn't get berated by the goons who do.

Heck, some of us liked when the game was platoon sized.


Then again, that's why I've played more games of Necromunda in the last month than I have 40K in the last decade, lol.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
GW invested a lot of money back into the business this year, so profit reports could be somewhat deceiving.

What, you mean like the £4000000 they spent on their new website?

Yeah, I'm sure that'll make some great returns...

As a tournament mtg player, I feel the need to interject in its defense. Some of the most powerful cards are also some of the oldest, and they have repeatedly made awesome things like removal and counter spells "just a bit worse" in an ongoing attempt to see how bad they can make them before players won't use them.

The real truth is GW don't actually know what will be far too good and what will be useless.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
40k is fine. The only people who don't think so are those who are butt hurt over the direction of the game... There's more people that like the game, than those that don't. The company is MAKING MONEY. I've never seen more doomsday malarkey over a PROFITABLE company in my life...

40k is fine.

No, it's not. Check the latest two financial reports.

The only people who don't think so are those who are butt hurt over the direction of the game.

Thanks for the insult. (rule #1 anyone?) But if someone doesn't like a game, isn't that the biggest reason to stop playing? It's not a job, research project or charity, it's a game people play for fun. If they no longer find it fun, they stop playing.
Why are you upset about people criticizing your favorite game?

There's more people that like the game, than those that don't.

False. There are over six billion people on the planet. The vast majority don't play 40k or even know what it is.

The company is MAKING MONEY.

True, but it's less and less money every year, which leads to...

I've never seen more doomsday malarkey over a PROFITABLE company in my life.

....Profits aren't what the issue is. Revenue. Sales. They're losing sales and if they continue to lose sales they will go under within five years at the current rate. After cutting all the fat they could and releasing major items, they still lost sales. The fact that they gloated about doing no market research shows that they won't understand what the problems are or how to fix them.

Applied some thread clean-up. Carry on. Politely.

That market research comment continues to blow my mind. How any company in this day and age in such a booming industry can simply ignore market trends and consumer feedback is incredible. If only they'd own their eyes to the great tools that companies have today to listen to the customer and provide a better product as well as a better financial statement for the company.

While I know little about MTG, clearly wizards of the coast works to address this with the game. I've never gotten into it but my buddies all just did again, praising it. Guess I should get on that train.

My 2 (what does the imperium use for currencies?)

FM Argos

The game currently has little or no power creep.

 PhillyT wrote:
The game currently has little or no power creep.

It's more like power undulations and scale creep.

When i was studying my degree on philosophy, we use to had a saying: from the things you have no knowledge or ignores, its better to remain silent
And looks like there is a lot of poeple here with dregrees on economics, marketing and managent of big companys...
I cant say if GW going to dissapear, if its doomed or if they are in red numbers, simple, i dont know because i know nothing about economics, inflation, variotions in the market, invesment and inner working of a company the size GW.
The only thing i can speak is about the balance that the game gain with the last armys reales, and i can speak about it because i have read all the the codex and play alot of games systems and have more than 5 years playing 40k.
And the only thing i can said about it is that i find it fine, the new codex´s are allright, the new models, i love them and i only hope they keep this new way of make the things


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

The only people who don't think so are those who are butt hurt over the direction of the game.

1 Thanks for the insult. (rule #1 anyone?) But if someone doesn't like a game, isn't that the biggest reason to stop playing? It's not a job, research project or charity, it's a game people play for fun. If they no longer find it fun, they stop playing.
Why are you upset about people criticizing your favorite game?

There's more people that like the game, than those that don't.

2 False. There are over six billion people on the planet. The vast majority don't play 40k or even know what it is.

The company is MAKING MONEY.

3 True, but it's less and less money every year, which leads to...

I've never seen more doomsday malarkey over a PROFITABLE company in my life.

4 ....Profits aren't what the issue is. Revenue. Sales. They're losing sales and if they continue to lose sales they will go under within five years at the current rate. After cutting all the fat they could and releasing major items, they still lost sales. The fact that they gloated about doing no market research shows that they won't understand what the problems are or how to fix them.

1. Ok. its allright if you dont like a game and i agree about its not a obligation to keep playing it, and yes, if they no longer find it fun, they stop playing and leave it for the peace; the problem comes when they beging to keep talking about it, they keep making baseless arguments about the bad things, even when they change their profile pic they keep talking about that game and even begin some kind of campaing trying to covert others to fallow other game systems (like infinity or warmachine or hordes) if a person already make his desicion to begin to play 40k, you dont have to appear and trying to covert it to your game system
2. He is talking about the comunity, so a little of common sense here please, and i am not trying to defend him here, this is something relative, around here the people who know something about wargaming they all like the new rules and have no complains about it (about 40k), and the ones that have complains, they have internet complains, including one, who quated, word by word, one post from here that was about the nerf to the flamers of tzeentch (you know, when they were broken as )
3/4. See my comente above

You like Murder McMurderson, Santa Sleigh and Taurox?? To each his own I guess...

And looks like there is a lot of poeple here with dregrees on economics, marketing and managent of big companys...

You would be surprised at the RL backgrounds of the people who post on these forums. As a matter of fact, when it comes to the financial analysis of GW, it *has* been done by people with degrees in economics, working in marketing and currently or previously in control of big companies.

 anyeri wrote:
When i was studying my degree on philosophy, we use to had a saying: from the things you have no knowledge or ignores, its better to remain silent
And looks like there is a lot of poeple here with dregrees on economics, marketing and managent of big companys...
I cant say if GW going to dissapear, if its doomed or if they are in red numbers, simple, i dont know because i know nothing about economics, inflation, variotions in the market, invesment and inner working of a company the size GW.
The only thing i can speak is about the balance that the game gain with the last armys reales, and i can speak about it because i have read all the the codex and play alot of games systems and have more than 5 years playing 40k.
And the only thing i can said about it is that i find it fine, the new codex´s are allright, the new models, i love them and i only hope they keep this new way of make the things


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

The only people who don't think so are those who are butt hurt over the direction of the game.

1 Thanks for the insult. (rule #1 anyone?) But if someone doesn't like a game, isn't that the biggest reason to stop playing? It's not a job, research project or charity, it's a game people play for fun. If they no longer find it fun, they stop playing.
Why are you upset about people criticizing your favorite game?

There's more people that like the game, than those that don't.

2 False. There are over six billion people on the planet. The vast majority don't play 40k or even know what it is.

The company is MAKING MONEY.

3 True, but it's less and less money every year, which leads to...

I've never seen more doomsday malarkey over a PROFITABLE company in my life.

4 ....Profits aren't what the issue is. Revenue. Sales. They're losing sales and if they continue to lose sales they will go under within five years at the current rate. After cutting all the fat they could and releasing major items, they still lost sales. The fact that they gloated about doing no market research shows that they won't understand what the problems are or how to fix them.

1. Ok. its allright if you dont like a game and i agree about its not a obligation to keep playing it, and yes, if they no longer find it fun, they stop playing and leave it for the peace; the problem comes when they beging to keep talking about it, they keep making baseless arguments about the bad things, even when they change their profile pic they keep talking about that game and even begin some kind of campaing trying to covert others to fallow other game systems (like infinity or warmachine or hordes) if a person already make his desicion to begin to play 40k, you dont have to appear and trying to covert it to your game system
2. He is talking about the comunity, so a little of common sense here please, and i am not trying to defend him here, this is something relative, around here the people who know something about wargaming they all like the new rules and have no complains about it (about 40k), and the ones that have complains, they have internet complains, including one, who quated, word by word, one post from here that was about the nerf to the flamers of tzeentch (you know, when they were broken as )
3/4. See my comente above

Actually, I think it's perfectly alright to try to get people to try other games.
2 was a joke, yes. But also one he can't support with any kind of facts or numbers, just his opinion.
3/4 A lot of people with a great deal of experience and knowledge about economics say that GW is not doing good at all. It's hard to argue against what they say. Can they be wrong? Absolutely. But I also think it wouldn't be right to pretend everything is A Okay at GW.

I tend to think that being run like Magic would be the second best thing that could happen to 40k. The first best would be the entire design studio being fired and the FFG designers taking over 40k. FFG has a track record of doing really solid, high quality products and supporting every aspect of their customer community.

MTG has power creep? Is that why a tournament vintage deck will roflstomp a standard tournament deck by turn 3 almost every game? Is that also why the large majority of banned cards in formats like modern are from the older sets? The most broken cards and combos in MTG are from 15 years ago. 40k does have power creep but how do you expect GW to sell a new kit if it isn't even as good as the ones already on the market for that army? I would say the 7th edition codex releases have done away with power creep in favor of a more internally and externally balanced game. Once they redo the tau and eldar books, the game will be more balanced than it ever has.

MtG has reverse power-creep. The old decks... what are now called "vintage" (and what I call "what I owned in high school") were, indeed, subject to power creep, and sometimes to a very great degree.

So much so that certain cards, because of how broken they were, were selling for rather a lot of money on the secondary market.

WotC looked at this and said, "oops", and so create a new system of ranking their cards, which is why their various tournaments now only permit cards within a certain, or certain range of, release series. This helps maintain the balance between cards and decks being played in that tournament, and makes it much less a pay-to-win game (as, in those "vintage" decks, paying $8000 for just the right card or cards on Ebay is, in many cases, a guaranteed win among players of similar skill level).

^ which is why I laugh when people talk about 40k being more expensive than MTG or more "pay to win". I spent as much on 4 tarmogoyfs as I did on a 1500 point army. The difference is after I bought the goyfs I needed $1000 of other cards to have a top tier deck.

... and the funny thing is, those cards won't be permitted in tournament play in, like, a year, and so will be practically worthless (outside of the specialist tournies).

For the casual player, though, MtG is a much, much cheaper game to get into and continue in, and WotC is *much* better now at balance than they were at first.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Two more years of 42% drops in profits and they will be into the red with no way out.
That might sound extreme but they have also shown they have no idea out of their current decline and have blatantly stated that they don't think asking us what we want is a good idea.
Its TSR all over againm they seem too big to fail and then they disappear overnight.

TSR didn't "disappear overnight". They got bought out by WoTC and then absorbed. There was a two year gap between WoTC appearing on the scene, and TSR ignoring them as irrelevant and WoTC becoming the BIG fish in that pond and eating them.

 chromedog wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Two more years of 42% drops in profits and they will be into the red with no way out.
That might sound extreme but they have also shown they have no idea out of their current decline and have blatantly stated that they don't think asking us what we want is a good idea.
Its TSR all over againm they seem too big to fail and then they disappear overnight.

TSR didn't "disappear overnight". They got bought out by WoTC and then absorbed. There was a two year gap between WoTC appearing on the scene, and TSR ignoring them as irrelevant and WoTC becoming the BIG fish in that pond and eating them.

Yes but my understanding was that right up till the end they where still profitable and still the big shots of the industry. There were showing all the same warning signs GW are now like not doing market research and accelerating their release scedual and people where saying what people here have been saying, that they are too big to fail.

 chromedog wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Two more years of 42% drops in profits and they will be into the red with no way out.
That might sound extreme but they have also shown they have no idea out of their current decline and have blatantly stated that they don't think asking us what we want is a good idea.
Its TSR all over againm they seem too big to fail and then they disappear overnight.

TSR didn't "disappear overnight". They got bought out by WoTC and then absorbed. There was a two year gap between WoTC appearing on the scene, and TSR ignoring them as irrelevant and WoTC becoming the BIG fish in that pond and eating them.

and honestly TSR dismissing WOTC as irrelevent was a valid decision. WOTC produced a CCG, totally differnt product. sure there was some market overlap but TSR's problems wheren't due to MTG

Forgemaster Argos wrote:
That market research comment continues to blow my mind. How any company in this day and age in such a booming industry can simply ignore market trends and consumer feedback is incredible. If only they'd own their eyes to the great tools that companies have today to listen to the customer and provide a better product as well as a better financial statement for the company.

While I know little about MTG, clearly wizards of the coast works to address this with the game. I've never gotten into it but my buddies all just did again, praising it. Guess I should get on that train.

My 2 (what does the imperium use for currencies?)

FM Argos

You should. There are preconstructed decks of all kinds available for around $10, just get then one with the art that appeals most to you and give it a spin. You'll find out whether you like magic or not very fast. At worst, you'll have wasted ten bucks.

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:I tend to think that being run like Magic would be the second best thing that could happen to 40k. The first best would be the entire design studio being fired and the FFG designers taking over 40k. FFG has a track record of doing really solid, high quality
products and supporting every aspect of their customer community.

Yeah, FFG would be awesome as well. I'm still amazed how awesome their Game of Thrones board game is - every game the story from the books basically retells itself (with variations) because the game was designed to make the same things possible that happened in the books/series.

Toofast wrote:MTG has power creep? Is that why a tournament vintage deck will roflstomp a standard tournament deck by turn 3 almost every game? Is that also why the large majority of banned cards in formats like modern are from the older sets? The most broken cards and combos in MTG are from 15 years ago.

Oh, there still is power creep, it's just not universal. Just compare three mana artifacts with mana abilities across editions - the started with CIPT and "add one colorless mana" and arrived at "all your lands produce mana of any color, add a mana of any color". Similar things are true for creatures. Fifteen years ago the Morphling was one of the most powerful creatures in the game. Nowadays is mediocre at best. Also not that broken cards a tournament-level combos are usually not designed to be that way, while power-creep is an intentional design decision.

Psienesis wrote:MtG has reverse power-creep. The old decks... what are now called "vintage" (and what I call "what I owned in high school") were, indeed, subject to power creep, and sometimes to a very great degree.

So much so that certain cards, because of how broken they were, were selling for rather a lot of money on the secondary market.

WotC looked at this and said, "oops", and so create a new system of ranking their cards, which is why their various tournaments now only permit cards within a certain, or certain range of, release series. This helps maintain the balance between cards and decks being played in that tournament, and makes it much less a pay-to-win game (as, in those "vintage" decks, paying $8000 for just the right card or cards on Ebay is, in many cases, a guaranteed win among players of similar skill level).

Actually, when they went "oops" about competitive play the first time, many of the tournament brackets were already in place. When combo-winter pretty much limited all competitive play to coin-flips who goes first, we already hat legacy, vintage, extended and standard (though called T1, T1.5, T2 and extended back then).

Toofast wrote:^ which is why I laugh when people talk about 40k being more expensive than MTG or more "pay to win". I spent as much on 4 tarmogoyfs as I did on a 1500 point army. The difference is after I bought the goyfs I needed $1000 of other cards to have a top tier deck.

The difference is that you don't need a single tarmogogyf to play a game, but you still need that 1500 point army. I have been playing magic continuously for 20 years now, and the only tarmogyf I have very had was sold to pay for two complete decks. Considering those prices I also assume that you're talking about competitive vintage - that's not the only way to play. You'll be hard pressed to actually spend $1500 on a standard deck, and even then, you could just buy display boxes.

I'm not sure it can be compared at all.

These days I mostly play drafts. It's very fair, very balanced and I play less for 3-4h of entertainment than when I go to see one of those 3D movies in cinema.

Constructed on tournament level is broken is very expensive and unfair in many ways. If you want a perfectly fair game you have to play something like chess. But that's pretty boring to me after some time and I like the constantly changing environment in Magic, new cards etc.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 anyeri wrote:
When i was studying my degree on philosophy, we use to had a saying: from the things you have no knowledge or ignores, its better to remain silent
And looks like there is a lot of poeple here with dregrees on economics, marketing and managent of big companys...
I cant say if GW going to dissapear, if its doomed or if they are in red numbers, simple, i dont know because i know nothing about economics, inflation, variotions in the market, invesment and inner working of a company the size GW.
The only thing i can speak is about the balance that the game gain with the last armys reales, and i can speak about it because i have read all the the codex and play alot of games systems and have more than 5 years playing 40k.
And the only thing i can said about it is that i find it fine, the new codex´s are allright, the new models, i love them and i only hope they keep this new way of make the things


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

The only people who don't think so are those who are butt hurt over the direction of the game.

1 Thanks for the insult. (rule #1 anyone?) But if someone doesn't like a game, isn't that the biggest reason to stop playing? It's not a job, research project or charity, it's a game people play for fun. If they no longer find it fun, they stop playing.
Why are you upset about people criticizing your favorite game?

There's more people that like the game, than those that don't.

2 False. There are over six billion people on the planet. The vast majority don't play 40k or even know what it is.

The company is MAKING MONEY.

3 True, but it's less and less money every year, which leads to...

I've never seen more doomsday malarkey over a PROFITABLE company in my life.

4 ....Profits aren't what the issue is. Revenue. Sales. They're losing sales and if they continue to lose sales they will go under within five years at the current rate. After cutting all the fat they could and releasing major items, they still lost sales. The fact that they gloated about doing no market research shows that they won't understand what the problems are or how to fix them.

1. Ok. its allright if you dont like a game and i agree about its not a obligation to keep playing it, and yes, if they no longer find it fun, they stop playing and leave it for the peace; the problem comes when they beging to keep talking about it, they keep making baseless arguments about the bad things, even when they change their profile pic they keep talking about that game and even begin some kind of campaing trying to covert others to fallow other game systems (like infinity or warmachine or hordes) if a person already make his desicion to begin to play 40k, you dont have to appear and trying to covert it to your game system
2. He is talking about the comunity, so a little of common sense here please, and i am not trying to defend him here, this is something relative, around here the people who know something about wargaming they all like the new rules and have no complains about it (about 40k), and the ones that have complains, they have internet complains, including one, who quated, word by word, one post from here that was about the nerf to the flamers of tzeentch (you know, when they were broken as )
3/4. See my comente above

1a. Actually, I think it's perfectly alright to try to get people to try other games.
2a was a joke, yes. But also one he can't support with any kind of facts or numbers, just his opinion.
3/4a A lot of people with a great deal of experience and knowledge about economics say that GW is not doing good at all. It's hard to argue against what they say. Can they be wrong? Absolutely. But I also think it wouldn't be right to pretend everything is A Okay at GW.

1a. Of course is perfectly alrighto to try to get people to other games, if they ask you first abouyt options or other games, if not, well then you become tfg, again, it better to remain silent in the things you dont know, plus, when nobody ask you about it
2a. Its his opinion, like the opinion oif everyone else here in the internet, popularity here is so relative


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:

And looks like there is a lot of poeple here with dregrees on economics, marketing and managent of big companys...

You would be surprised at the RL backgrounds of the people who post on these forums. As a matter of fact, when it comes to the financial analysis of GW, it *has* been done by people with degrees in economics, working in marketing and currently or previously in control of big companies.

Ok, then there is a lot of people that have some knowledge on the subject, but my point is the same, I will not make any judgment, neither positive or negative about GW and their economic situation, for three simple reasons:
1 its a game
2 its a game
3 its a game (well it was just one)
People take it so seriusly, for a variety of reasons, because they have invested heavily, they have a lot of time invested or simple they have a lot of free time, ok, i agree that they the right to feel angry about the subject, but the maybe a rant here or there is alright, but people have take it to another level, when i read the discuicion about how GW is going under, people imbues his word with so much hate, thats even looks like they enjoy the fact that the company is going down and tons of people will lose their jobs, insurence, their retirement etc....
That why i put myself in a neutral stance here, its not like i am pretending everything is alright and live in a honey world, but simple, i dont wish any bad thing to the people who make the company and make possible that i can have some space marines to collect and paint, thats my point true point here




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Musashi363 wrote:
You like Murder McMurderson, Santa Sleigh and Taurox?? To each his own I guess...

I love to read Baudelair and liston to Dvorak, when everyone else find it boring, other find entertaining to wacht football and listen metal, something i find boring...
I love those models, in fact the three of them, there is anything wrong in that?

 anyeri wrote:
Ok, then there is a lot of people that have some knowledge on the subject, but my point is the same, I will not make any judgment, neither positive or negative about GW and their economic situation, for three simple reasons:
1 its a game
2 its a game
3 its a game (well it was just one)
People take it so seriusly, for a variety of reasons, because they have invested heavily, they have a lot of time invested or simple they have a lot of free time, ok, i agree that they the right to feel angry about the subject, but the maybe a rant here or there is alright, but people have take it to another level, when i read the discuicion about how GW is going under, people imbues his word with so much hate, thats even looks like they enjoy the fact that the company is going down and tons of people will lose their jobs, insurence, their retirement etc....
That why i put myself in a neutral stance here, its not like i am pretending everything is alright and live in a honey world, but simple, i dont wish any bad thing to the people who make the company and make possible that i can have some space marines to collect and paint, thats my point true point here

I honestly think you are taking it entirely the wring way if you are reading hate in any discussions about GW going under. Disappointment sure. Frustration absolutely. But not hate.
At least here on Dakka most of the people talking about how they think GW are going under (myself included) are not wishing GW would go under at all. They are seeing a company they used to love treating them like and they are annoyed, but most would want nothing more than to see GW become something great again.

Actually I'll give you that some people seem to want GW to fail, but you'll find those words always followed by things like "because that seems to be the only way we'll see any real, posative change".

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
So how do you turn the game back in a direction with more appeal, without alienating all the players who bought in on the latest rounds of product waves (LoWs, flyers, etc).

It's a mess, that much is for sure.

Flyers and LoW is not the problem. They would be fine especially Low if things were balanced priced properly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

niv-mizzet wrote:
As a tournament mtg player, I feel the need to interject in its defense. Some of the most powerful cards are also some of the oldest, and they have repeatedly made awesome things like removal and counter spells "just a bit worse" in an ongoing attempt to see how bad they can make them before players won't use them.

At least you can use some of the oldest cards. What can you use that is old from GW? Nothing. Everything is redone every 18 months now and invalidated. Hell you can't even use old minis with square bases without someone crying, "It's not a circle and proper size!"

 koooaei wrote:
7-th edition is way better than 6-th. And new codexes are way better ballanced than all of the the 6-th ones and ba/gk/sw of the 5-th. So if all's going the route of the early 7-th, than it's gona be great. Though, lots of people quit with 7-th due to "you can play whatever you want" and "you can summon daemons". Cause...well, i don't know. People like to panic and hate.

Agreed. So very much agreed.

As much as everyone likes to talk, Warhammer isn't going anywhere, even is GW is. And the big issue that might be causing the drop in revenue is the fact that almost all of their kits now are getting more and more expensive, which a lot of people just can't afford. Granted, yes the kits are awesome and the model detail is pretty amazing, but still.

Well, with any luck at least Tom Kirby is going away soon. How much a change of CEO can change the behavior of a company has recently been shown by no-one less than Microsoft. Ever since the Steve Balmer stepped down they have been making 180° turns all over the place.

A new CEO who is interested in making a good game for a great amount of people could change a lot.

 chromedog wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Two more years of 42% drops in profits and they will be into the red with no way out.
That might sound extreme but they have also shown they have no idea out of their current decline and have blatantly stated that they don't think asking us what we want is a good idea.
Its TSR all over againm they seem too big to fail and then they disappear overnight.

TSR didn't "disappear overnight". They got bought out by WoTC and then absorbed. There was a two year gap between WoTC appearing on the scene, and TSR ignoring them as irrelevant and WoTC becoming the BIG fish in that pond and eating them.

TSR, as a company, had been bought and sold half a dozen times before WotC bought them. That was not the first time TSR had been almost bankrupt, but it was certainly the last.

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, with any luck at least Tom Kirby is going away soon. How much a change of CEO can change the behavior of a company has recently been shown by no-one less than Microsoft. Ever since the Steve Balmer stepped down they have been making 180° turns all over the place.

A new CEO who is interested in making a good game for a great amount of people could change a lot.

Kirby is handpicking his replacement and staying on as chairman of the board because it is illegal to be both, he was only ever 'acting' CEO.
As much as I'd love this to start some real change I don't think it will.

On the topic of people saying bad stuff about GW...

I don't like GW. I found the game facinating when I first watched people playing around '99-'00. I was a marine stationed in Okinawa and would watch games among about four dudes that I remember: one had Chaos with a bloodthirster, one IG, one Eldar, one Dark Eldar. The game, specifically the variety of abilities of the factions and units, and the models fired my imagination and interest. A couple years later I started collecting my Eldar Army.

Started playing in 3rd and quit early part of 5th. Throughout I enjoyed for the most part the rules, though would be frustrated at times when something I liked, was lousy in game. Played most heavily during 4th and really liked the way the game worked. It was a great game.

Then 5th came out with a number of changes that I didn't quite like. Not terrible still a good game, but I was not as happy with it. I stopped playing mostly because of real life commitments.

Recently I've thought of playing again and have started getting stuff on ebay, but I won't be playing 7th edition. The game has simply become almost unrecognizable. I would have to talk with my opponent about getting rid of all kinds of stuff to have a game I would want to play.

What is the point? I still love the models and the game at least in a historical form. I would love to play regularly, but GW has changed it too much for my taste. I want to be part of the active playing community, but can't do so and get what I really like. It seems like in many of these discussions, those who like the game as is have the mindset of "too bad, if you don't like it GTFO!" I'm not saying all do, but that vibe comes through some of the comments.

I know that there are many who are of a similar mind on this forum and elsewhere. Many potential spenders and game opponents that are lost to GW and the current active players. Many active players don't play as much or with as broad a group as they might otherwise for the same reasons. Most of us, I would guess, aren't opposed to the various things we don't like all the time. I don't like the idea of Flyers, Superheavies, Allies and many of the other 6th/7th editions additions being a part of most of my games, but wouldn't mind playing against them from time to time. What we would like is a simple core game that most like to which you can add variations to change the dynamic of the game.

TLDR: We still love the 40k universe in many ways and would just like to see it take a form that is more palatable so we can feel we would actually enjoy playing the game again. Oh and it would be nice if GW didn't despise its customers. I don't mind it trying to get as much money from me as it can, but give me a good product if you want my money.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
We still love the 40k universe in many ways and would just like to see it take a form that is more palatable so we can feel we would actually enjoy playing the game again. Oh and it would be nice if GW didn't despise its customers. I don't mind it trying to get as much money from me as it can, but give me a good product if you want my money.

Hear Hear.

I kept all my 2nd edition resources. If I feel like playing I'm thinking that will be the route I go.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
On the topic of people saying bad stuff about GW...

I don't like GW. I found the game facinating when I first watched people playing around '99-'00. I was a marine stationed in Okinawa and would watch games among about four dudes that I remember: one had Chaos with a bloodthirster, one IG, one Eldar, one Dark Eldar. The game, specifically the variety of abilities of the factions and units, and the models fired my imagination and interest. A couple years later I started collecting my Eldar Army.

Started playing in 3rd and quit early part of 5th. Throughout I enjoyed for the most part the rules, though would be frustrated at times when something I liked, was lousy in game. Played most heavily during 4th and really liked the way the game worked. It was a great game.

Then 5th came out with a number of changes that I didn't quite like. Not terrible still a good game, but I was not as happy with it. I stopped playing mostly because of real life commitments.

Recently I've thought of playing again and have started getting stuff on ebay, but I won't be playing 7th edition. The game has simply become almost unrecognizable. I would have to talk with my opponent about getting rid of all kinds of stuff to have a game I would want to play.

What is the point? I still love the models and the game at least in a historical form. I would love to play regularly, but GW has changed it too much for my taste. I want to be part of the active playing community, but can't do so and get what I really like. It seems like in many of these discussions, those who like the game as is have the mindset of "too bad, if you don't like it GTFO!" I'm not saying all do, but that vibe comes through some of the comments.

I know that there are many who are of a similar mind on this forum and elsewhere. Many potential spenders and game opponents that are lost to GW and the current active players. Many active players don't play as much or with as broad a group as they might otherwise for the same reasons. Most of us, I would guess, aren't opposed to the various things we don't like all the time. I don't like the idea of Flyers, Superheavies, Allies and many of the other 6th/7th editions additions being a part of most of my games, but wouldn't mind playing against them from time to time. What we would like is a simple core game that most like to which you can add variations to change the dynamic of the game.

TLDR: We still love the 40k universe in many ways and would just like to see it take a form that is more palatable so we can feel we would actually enjoy playing the game again. Oh and it would be nice if GW didn't despise its customers. I don't mind it trying to get as much money from me as it can, but give me a good product if you want my money.

QFT. This is exactly how I feel and similar to my own situation. Only I was in the Army and played since RT.

Oddnerd wrote:I have heard the term "power-creep" used to describe the edition-to-edition ramping up of relative power in a game. It has been a while since I played Magic the Gathering, but I wouldn't be surprised if 3 mana could buy you a 10/10 indestructible monster with trample and landwalk at this point. I have noticed that with each edition of WH40k the game becomes more and more of a nuclear war.

Is WH40k doomed? Do you think there is enough of a community of old-schoolers to keep the older versions of the game alive?

If players had absolutely no control whatsoever over the game they were choosing to play, then it very well might be.

Thankfully, this isn't true even in the slightest.

Probably the easiest solution to this particular problem is to just play lower points games as points become devalued. Watch how many problems that new content is creating simply disappears when you agree to play 500 point games.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, with any luck at least Tom Kirby is going away soon. How much a change of CEO can change the behavior of a company has recently been shown by no-one less than Microsoft. Ever since the Steve Balmer stepped down they have been making 180° turns all over the place.

A new CEO who is interested in making a good game for a great amount of people could change a lot.

Kirby is handpicking his replacement and staying on as chairman of the board because it is illegal to be both, he was only ever 'acting' CEO.
As much as I'd love this to start some real change I don't think it will.

can't help but feel his replacement is gonna be a yes man/puppet

 Ailaros wrote:

If players had absolutely no control whatsoever over the game they were choosing to play, then it very well might be.

Thankfully, this isn't true even in the slightest.

Probably the easiest solution to this particular problem is to just play lower points games as points become devalued. Watch how many problems that new content is creating simply disappears when you agree to play 500 point games

Only no one plays 500pts games and if they do is to show why it shouldn't be played. There are no 500pts events or big tournaments. And stuff that is already too good at 1500pts, gets broken at 500. Playing eldar or a demon factory or a necron circus is no fun.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Well, with any luck at least Tom Kirby is going away soon. How much a change of CEO can change the behavior of a company has recently been shown by no-one less than Microsoft. Ever since the Steve Balmer stepped down they have been making 180° turns all over the place.

A new CEO who is interested in making a good game for a great amount of people could change a lot.

Kirby is handpicking his replacement and staying on as chairman of the board because it is illegal to be both, he was only ever 'acting' CEO.
As much as I'd love this to start some real change I don't think it will.

Wouldn't be the first time the hand-picked replacement turns against everything his predecessor stood for the second he comes into power.

If anything, Tom Kirby is over 70 years old. He won't be around as long as I will be

You people keep talking about power creep, but honestly? I don't see it.

I see a SCALE creep, but not a power creep. things are honestly not getting any stronger lately. none of the 7th edition codcies is creepingly stronger than 6th ones, none of the late 6th (IG/AM, nids, the random small things like inqusition/sob/etc) are really strong or really weak compared to each other.
The things that stand out right now? eldar and deamons, both relatively early 6th, both because of a mistake in the codex (WS too good and grimoire not properly tested respectively) with SM taking a notable third place because they are the poster boys with just SO many toys, something has to be useful.

Honestly, balance hasn't been this good for a while now.
My army that was mostly built during late 5th/early 6th works perfectly well and plays just right against the newer books, and I don't feel behind at all. can it be better? sure. but its pretty good.
People cry and moan that SH are overpowered and unbalanced, but many never even played against them, and speak from a point of complete ignorance.
They are honestly mostly not even worthwhile fielding. even in "take whatever you want" tournaments not many bring them. Only the trinity (warhound/ctan/revenent) were OTT in 6th, and even that was heavily nerfed with 7th D changes so they are not that bad now.
Actually 7th brought down nearly everything that was too good, and all the things people claimed will take over as the new OP (deamon summon factory for example), just don't really work competitively.

The current balance is DECENT. the latest codcies are among the best balanced ones out there, and if that's the direction we are going than its a good thing, because as we move on more and more in brought in line, until hopefully eventually everything will be standing about equal.


And comparing that to MTG, with WotC that do intentinal and declared unbalance and power creep (yes, they outright said they are doing this on purpose), that's just silly.

 BoomWolf wrote:
And comparing that to MTG, with WotC that do intentinal and declared unbalance and power creep (yes, they outright said they are doing this on purpose), that's just silly.

WotC does not aim for imbalance nor have they declared to do so, quite on the contrary.

An old article on card design in WotC own site claimed otherwise.
Really old one too, from like 2010, back when I still played.
And as someone who played for years, I could clearly see both the intentional imbalance (cards in the same set who are identical except one of them has a flawless benefit) tilted towards "more expensive is stronger", and how over sets things got stronger (cards with the same cost, yet the newer one has a clear always-better edge, or identical power level for cheaper.)

I've been continuously reading the MtG page ever since it launched in 1999, and never has single article mentioned anything remotely like that - not even the actually really old ones.

As someone who played for decades (yes, 21 years means its mutliple ), I can tell you that outside of some exceptions, rares have always been more powerful than uncommons and commons, that's one of the core principles of all trading card games. If you buy ten boosters and get all the good cards, why would you buy more boosters?
They print bad cards on purpose, because some of those bad cards are pure gold for someone drafting and some of the completely awesome cards for constructed players are near worthless to drafters. Many of the "why would I ever play this?"-cards are good cards in drafts. They are actively balancing drafts in addition to all the constructed formats (including commander), so some cards seem bad outside their context.

Things becoming stronger in newer sets is power creep, not imbalance. I never claimed that there is no power creep, in fact I've said so myself a couple of posts up.

That WotC is actively trying to ruin balance is a lie though.

I said they have both inbalance AND insane power creep, not that both are imbalance.

And I played many formats, I'm well aware some cards make no sense outside the proper format (for obvious example multilayer-oriented cards) but some are just outright bad for the sake of being bad. and you can say that's what TCG are all about, but some cards are an honest waste of paper, and obviously so-for the simple reason that another card of the same set is just better in every possible way.
Most notable at the core sets, starting from around 7th where it became apperant, where the commons are mostly worthless in ANY context, as the rares are a +1 version of them.

So, what does that have to with the game being balanced at all?

Balance does not mean all game pieces are the same.

The same? hell no.
Strictly superior though? that's a big balance issue.

And in strickly superior, the 40k comparison will be to have 2 units called A and B.
Unit A and Unit B cost the same 14 points.
Both got the same tactical marine statline.
Both got the same tactical marine abilities
Unit A has boltguns, Unit B has storm bolters.
Unit A costs 5$ per model Unit B costs 7$ per model, and you are only allowed to use the exac models, no proxies, scratchbuilds, conversion or anything of the sort is allowed.

THAT is a money-grab imbalance, THAT is paying to win. and these things exist in TGCs, alot, especially in MTG. and the differences are sometimes far bigger.

I know what strictly superior means. I have just told you that I have been reading the MtG columns for fifteen years, haven't I?

The individual power of a game piece is irrelevant for game balance. Don't believe me? A queen is strictly better than a bishop in chess, the game is still balanced.

Davor wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
So how do you turn the game back in a direction with more appeal, without alienating all the players who bought in on the latest rounds of product waves (LoWs, flyers, etc).

It's a mess, that much is for sure.

Flyers and LoW is not the problem. They would be fine especially Low if things were balanced priced properly.

Again though, that's just a subjective opinion. I don't like either, at any points cost, because they are outside the scale that 40K should be fought at. Flyers especially, given how slow they'd have to be flying to remain on the table, lol.


That said, I don't begrudge those players who enjoy them. I just felt that the game used to have things right. There was Apocalypse for all the big units, and regular 40K for everyone else. The removal of those lines changes 40K fundamentally, and in a negative way in terms of my enjoyment of the game.

 Jidmah wrote:

The individual power of a game piece is irrelevant for game balance. Don't believe me? A queen is strictly better than a bishop in chess, the game is still balanced.

Seriously? chess again?

Chess is a game of fixed and equal pieces-what does it matter if one is stronger than other? both players have them equally! the queen can have knight powers too for all that matters.

In TCG, when a piece's value is directly connected to it's money value, THAT'S where these cases matter, and if you cannot make the separations between fixed games like chess and unfixed games like TCGs, I don't have anything to talk with you anymore.

 Jidmah wrote:
So, what does that have to with the game being balanced at all?

Balance does not mean all game pieces are the same.

if both people spend the same amount of money for two different armies and have the same chance to win. I have no problem getting steam rolled with my draft deck facing a 300$ deck. I see a problem when to get a good army one is super limited and in some cases some of them can't build a wining army, and that is not counting eldar as the normal tier of good.

Oddnerd wrote:
It has been a while since I played Magic the Gathering, but I wouldn't be surprised if 3 mana could buy you a 10/10 indestructible monster with trample and landwalk at this point.

That could be, but at least the rules in MtG are clear. No fighting about rules like in WH40K.

But otherwise, we're already in a sort-of trading card game state. If you have the money you can buy allied armies to bolster that one weakness in your favorite. Or Forge World to do the same. If you don't have cash, well, tough luck. Be prepared to be defeated by anyone with cash or ask people to not use things they've spent good money on.

 BoomWolf wrote:

In TCG, when a piece's value is directly connected to it's money value, THAT'S where these cases matter, and if you cannot make the separations between fixed games like chess and unfixed games like TCGs, I don't have anything to talk with you anymore.

Other way round actually. It's monetary value is directly connected to its in game value. Hence why you have 'jumper cards' on the secondary market. There's also the fact that the secondary market lies outside Wizards control.

MtG is balanced, thanks to formats. 40K isn't. The fact that you can put together a $300 army in one race that requires a $700 army to beat is proof. 40K really requires a group of like minded individuals, whether they house rule and agree to things they find fun, or if you prefer 'anything goes, come at me', to work.

I hope not. Power gamers are a problem with just about any game, but I just can't enjoy a game that I lose before playing.

But isn't that what w40k is right now?

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

In TCG, when a piece's value is directly connected to it's money value, THAT'S where these cases matter, and if you cannot make the separations between fixed games like chess and unfixed games like TCGs, I don't have anything to talk with you anymore.

Other way round actually. It's monetary value is directly connected to its in game value. Hence why you have 'jumper cards' on the secondary market. There's also the fact that the secondary market lies outside Wizards control.

MtG is balanced, thanks to formats. 40K isn't. The fact that you can put together a $300 army in one race that requires a $700 army to beat is proof. 40K really requires a group of like minded individuals, whether they house rule and agree to things they find fun, or if you prefer 'anything goes, come at me', to work.

I think you fudged your quote here, I did not write that. I fully agree with what your wrote though, I was about to write the same

 Jidmah wrote:

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

In TCG, when a piece's value is directly connected to it's money value, THAT'S where these cases matter, and if you cannot make the separations between fixed games like chess and unfixed games like TCGs, I don't have anything to talk with you anymore.

Other way round actually. It's monetary value is directly connected to its in game value. Hence why you have 'jumper cards' on the secondary market. There's also the fact that the secondary market lies outside Wizards control.

MtG is balanced, thanks to formats. 40K isn't. The fact that you can put together a $300 army in one race that requires a $700 army to beat is proof. 40K really requires a group of like minded individuals, whether they house rule and agree to things they find fun, or if you prefer 'anything goes, come at me', to work.

I think you fudged your quote here, I did not write that. I fully agree with what your wrote though, I was about to write the same

Thank you for that, I've edited it. Really should double check things like that before I hit submit.

Makumba wrote:

Only no one plays 500pts games and if they do is to show why it shouldn't be played. There are no 500pts events or big tournaments. And stuff that is already too good at 1500pts, gets broken at 500. Playing eldar or a demon factory or a necron circus is no fun.

I think 500pts is ok occasionally, but it's certainly not the sort of point level I'd want to play at regularly.

 vipoid wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Only no one plays 500pts games and if they do is to show why it shouldn't be played. There are no 500pts events or big tournaments. And stuff that is already too good at 1500pts, gets broken at 500. Playing eldar or a demon factory or a necron circus is no fun.

I think 500pts is ok occasionally, but it's certainly not the sort of point level I'd want to play at regularly.

And that's part of it too. The usual counter to 40k's price and/or balance is to play smaller games. But people don't like to play smaller games, at least not unless the person they're playing against is a noob and even then the newbie isn't expected to stay at that points. Also at low points things get even worse; you can fit 3x Riptides in a 750 point game. What on earth is going to deal with those at that level?

WayneTheGame wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Only no one plays 500pts games and if they do is to show why it shouldn't be played. There are no 500pts events or big tournaments. And stuff that is already too good at 1500pts, gets broken at 500. Playing eldar or a demon factory or a necron circus is no fun.

I think 500pts is ok occasionally, but it's certainly not the sort of point level I'd want to play at regularly.

And that's part of it too. The usual counter to 40k's price and/or balance is to play smaller games. But people don't like to play smaller games, at least not unless the person they're playing against is a noob and even then the newbie isn't expected to stay at that points. Also at low points things get even worse; you can fit 3x Riptides in a 750 point game. What on earth is going to deal with those at that level?

I generally prefer smaller games because they're faster and more interactive, you're not waiting an hour before each turn. But that is the problem, it's tough to have enough diversity in your army to counter everything. Ran into this problem in 1,000 point games the other day. In game one my IG had no real answer for a tough Space Marine biker death star popping my chimeras every turn, in game two the Chaos player had cultists and bloodthirsters and only one ranged weapon that could kill my tanks.

Generally, the Magic community seems much more enthusiastic. Their company and community mindset seems to be focused on building a great atmosphere to get more players engaged, which is why they have so many young players. GW's company mindset seems to be relying on the sunk costs keeping people involved.

Makumba wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So, what does that have to with the game being balanced at all?
Balance does not mean all game pieces are the same.

if both people spend the same amount of money for two different armies and have the same chance to win. I have no problem getting steam rolled with my draft deck facing a 300$ deck. I see a problem when to get a good army one is super limited and in some cases some of them can't build a winning army, and that is not counting eldar as the normal tier of good.

Armies for the same codex are not all the same. A huge amount of it is down to good list-building, and that's where a lot of the skill on the game goes.
Also, match-ups make a bug difference.
So, Eldar may have more ways to build a good list, and may have fewer 'bad' unit choices than others.
And Eldar have a different playstyle to most armies and a TAC list is less likely to do well against them. A couple of other codexes fall into this category, too.
But, surely a well-built list from any codex will be able to take them down, if the right units appear at the right place during the game.

Basically, every codex has a way to run a low-model-count or cheap list which can go up against any other codex.
It might need to be tailored, but can be done.

If what you said was true you wouldn't have eldar dominating the tournaments edition after edition.

And by well build you mean tailored right? And tailored to what? you technicly could carry with you a list tailored against each eldar build, but I struggle to see how, for any army, this would come at the same cost as one eldar army. So you would be spending double or triple the money to get a tailored list, and what if the codex wouldn't be able to tailor one codex or another ,what then . buy a second army and tailored with those. To transport the models you would need a car or something.

A list that is cheap, but is bad is not playable imo . Who cares if one can build a cheap chaos list with Vengance, if the units in it make a bad list. Buying a list that loses at half the price is still wasting half the money spend on a normal list.
What should be, is what other systems have. A 500$ list from any codex should be able to play against 500$ list. That is not the case for most editions, unless you play eldar.

I think 500pts is ok occasionally, but it's certainly not the sort of point level I'd want to play at regularly.

I had seen 500pts played in a store in 5th ed, the store is no longer there , it was run by a guy who came from UK and had their odd views on how the game is suppose to be played. He invited some people start the game and was shocked that all armies were made out of jetbikes, crissis suits, drop pods and deathstars. Worse he was supprised that people that were 13-14y old made those list and weren't interested in the painting cathegory or theme lists that were suppose to give extra points.

But, surely a well-built list from any codex will be able to take them down, if the right units appear at the right place during the game.

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

You mean like centurians vs a nemesis dread knight? Both are space marines, in power armor, in yet bigger sets of power armor.

Not to go too off topic, but I'm curious what they consider to be a profit loss. I see that they claim to have a loss in profit this year but what are GW marjins? They must be huge. 600% at least. They probably have a ratio of pennies to a hundred dollars on materials. So even though, yes there might be loss in profit, it seems cloudy and muddled to see if they're actually going towards shutdown or if they're just getting a healthy reminder that the prices they're asking for is a tad too much.

@Vigilant .
GW plc publish financial reports every year.
And Tom Kirby GW Chairman also publishes a 'preamble', which let you know his thoughts on the position of the company , the customer base and the world in general.

These will give you all the facts you need to make your mind up.

(Actual drop in profits after GW have rushed out their most popular sellers, new 40k rules and SM codex, is not' good news'.And the last preamble does not show Tom Kirby in the best light.I thought it was a spoof when I first read it! )

 Vigilant wrote:
Not to go too off topic, but I'm curious what they consider to be a profit loss. I see that they claim to have a loss in profit this year but what are GW marjins? They must be huge. 600% at least. They probably have a ratio of pennies to a hundred dollars on materials. So even though, yes there might be loss in profit, it seems cloudy and muddled to see if they're actually going towards shutdown or if they're just getting a healthy reminder that the prices they're asking for is a tad too much.

Others have discussed this before, but just to sum up:

GW is making money (i.e. it is still profitable) but it showed a drop in revenue (about 10-15% IIRC). They also had a lot of one-time costs associated with moving to the single-man stores and upgrading their web presence. These one time costs depressed GW's profitability for the year. The costs to manufacture its products is probably not that high due to the fact that their primary product is injection-molded plastic, but keep in mind that tooling costs money (possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars per kit), so they have to sell a lot of each kit to make their money back. Once they hit their break-even point, it's basically all gravy from that point on. They of course have costs for rent, personnel, insurance, warehousing inventory, marketing, etc. which also reduces the profitability of the company as a whole, but which cannot be directly attributed to any particular kit. Also keep in mind that certain products are just losers, and they never make their money back (the Tyranid Pyrovore, for example - nice model, but I can't imagine they sold very many). So a well-selling kit may end up subsidizing several losers. All of these factors combine to reduce the company's overall profitability. That being said, as long as the company is profitable (which it is) there is no real chance it is going out of business.

A more likely event would be for the company to get bought out by a private equity firm that sees the potential but believes current management is idiotic. This is going on right now with Darden Restaurants, which owns the Olive Garden chain. If you want to read something really funny, look up the private equity firm whose trying to take over Darden and their "review" of the Olive Garden.

Anyway, the drop in revenue is worrying, but not the end of the world. The company already has a large audience for 40K, so the potential is there to turn it around. The question is whether they have the management in place who are willing to do it. Kirby's retirement should be taken as a positive sign, as the guy is obviously an ass (based on those preambles, which I also thought were a joke until I looked up the actual document) who doesn't mind his customers knowing that he thinks very little of them.

People are making a lot of fuss about their revenues... All's in millions £.









They had a slightly bad year last year. People need to calm down. People were saying this back in the 90's.

On the other hand, I fething love MtG, though this is weird!

People are making a lot of fuss about their revenues... All's in millions £.

Those charts show a sustained decline in revenue, a continuing plummet in sales growth, and a very sharp decline in profits.

The RPI/CPI chart is fairly useless for this argument, as it shows a slowly-decreasing COL and inflationary rate... which *should* correlate to increased consumer spending... which may have happened, but it certainly wasn't at GW stores!

 Psienesis wrote:

People are making a lot of fuss about their revenues... All's in millions £.

Those charts show a sustained decline in revenue, a continuing plummet in sales growth, and a very sharp decline in profits.

The RPI/CPI chart is fairly useless for this argument, as it shows a slowly-decreasing COL and inflationary rate... which *should* correlate to increased consumer spending... which may have happened, but it certainly wasn't at GW stores!

What? The charts don't show a sustained decline in revenue. Compare the profits with the revenue as well; Kirby's done a decent job there. You've also misread the sales growth - they've not "plummeted;" growth in sales was 0.1% less. Profits did decline, but that was partially due to the website. They're in a healthy state overall. Afaik, they also had a few bumper years due to USDGBP.

The RPI/CPI was added more as an afterthought; I don't particularly believe the numbers are correct in overall price increases relevant to people's expenditure, but it was more to remind people this is in nominal GBP. Also, it doesn't show a decreasing cost of living; the foot's still on the pedal, it's just eased up.

Just pointing out that revenue chart doesn't appear to be adjusted for inflation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and that while yes it is in millions so too are GWs expenses keeping their retail arm open.

 ChazSexington wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

People are making a lot of fuss about their revenues... All's in millions £.

Those charts show a sustained decline in revenue, a continuing plummet in sales growth, and a very sharp decline in profits.

The RPI/CPI chart is fairly useless for this argument, as it shows a slowly-decreasing COL and inflationary rate... which *should* correlate to increased consumer spending... which may have happened, but it certainly wasn't at GW stores!

What? The charts don't show a sustained decline in revenue. Compare the profits with the revenue as well; Kirby's done a decent job there. You've also misread the sales growth - they've not "plummeted;" growth in sales was 0.1% less. Profits did decline, but that was partially due to the website. They're in a healthy state overall. Afaik, they also had a few bumper years due to USDGBP.

The RPI/CPI was added more as an afterthought; I don't particularly believe the numbers are correct in overall price increases relevant to people's expenditure, but it was more to remind people this is in nominal GBP. Also, it doesn't show a decreasing cost of living; the foot's still on the pedal, it's just eased up.

From Q2 2013 to Q3 2014 GW has done nothing but lose money in both profits and revenues. Yes, that is sustained loss. They have seen a massive dive in sale's growth over the same period, and a 5 million GBP loss in profits over the same year.

growth in sales was 0.1% less

It went from a 0.03% positive rate of growth at the end of Q2 2013 to a -0.08% loss by Q2 2014. That's a loss of a full 1% of sales growth... which is significant for any business that is not in a boom industry, and really terrible to be moving in this direction for a company in an industry that *is* booming. This means its competition is eating its lunch.

Looking at a company over only a 1 year period is probably not the best way to look at it, as it can exaggerate the significance of certain trends. GW has plenty of cash on hand, and thus even if sales growth is slowing, they are still doing fine (from the POV of whether it will be able to continue as a going concern). This is not the same thing as saying there is no room for improvement - there obviously is.

The main thing GW needs to do is find a way to bring in new players. That means addressing the barrier to entry. New boxes like the Sanctus Reach SW/Orks box seem to be an attempt to address that issue. They shouldn't have made that box limited edition, but if their strategy is to do a succession of these boxes, they might be going in the right direction. If they stick with Dark Vengeance only (showcasing two less than desirable armies) then we will have a sign that management does not see what the real problem is.

Kirby will be out by the end of the year. Who replaces him will be a big signal as to which direction GW is going, as well.

Frankly, I would be a lot happier if GW became more like WotC. Wizards of the Coast is a very well-run gaming company that puts out a high quality product, runs great tournaments, and does a good (albeit not perfect) job of FAQing rules problems on an ongoing basis. WotC should be the model (no pun intended) that GW strives to emulate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:


From Q2 2013 to Q3 2014 GW has done nothing but lose money in both profits and revenues. Yes, that is sustained loss. They have seen a massive dive in sale's growth over the same period, and a 5 million GBP loss in profits over the same year.

Also worth noting that GW reported 4.5 million in "extraordinary expenditures" during that same period. So, the decrease (not "loss") in profits is almost entirely attributable to the extraordinary costs that fell within this reporting period.

Those costs included things like lawyers for the Chaptethouse case, which is ongoing. One off doesn't mean they are guaranteed to have that money again next year.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Those costs included things like lawyers for the Chaptethouse case, which is ongoing. One off doesn't mean they are guaranteed to have that money again next year.

Very true. There may be additional costs in the future. It's just important to keep these things in perspective, as it can be kind of misleading to just look at the top line number without digging into the reasons why the top line number is what it is.

Being an attorney, I find it kind of hard to believe that all, or even a large portion of that $4.5MM is legal fees. Probably closer to $1MM USD and the rest is attributable to cutting middle management, the web update (which reportedly cost over a million) and buying out the remaining time on a bunch of leases. And, as I understand it, the Chapterhouse trial is over, so what we are talking about is probably an appeal to the Seventh Circuit (I don't do IP, but I do practice in the Northern District of Illinois, which is where the Chapterhouse case was venued, so I have a good idea of how much these things cost). Appeals are expensive, but they are nothing like the cost of a trial. Probably less than a hundred thousand, at most, to take an appeal.

Given the outcome of that trial, I expect GW's litigious days are over for now, at least. They really got burned, and Kirby's preamble suggests they are still smarting.

Asmodas wrote:
Being an attorney, I find it kind of hard to believe that all, or even a large portion of that $4.5MM is legal fees.

I find it even harder to believe that they spent £4000000 on that crap-looking website.

Looking at a company over only a 1 year period is probably not the best way to look at it, as it can exaggerate the significance of certain trends.

That's how you look at businesses, because that's how businesses are run in the modern age. Few are those concerned with "long-term growth" when they have shareholders to answer to *this* quarter.

 ChazSexington wrote:
People are making a lot of fuss about their revenues... All's in millions £.

They had a slightly bad year last year. People need to calm down. People were saying this back in the 90's.

On the other hand, I fething love MtG, though this is weird!

Except most the doom callers are looking beyond the surface figures that you've shown there. Just off the top of my head.

Revenue remains constant, but:
- GW have been raising prices, even if the past couple of years they haven't had storewide price rises, new releases have still been more expensive and we know new release products is where a lot of the money lies**.
- They have been releasing products at a faster rate, so should be making more money since new release products make more money**.
- They have been moving more product to direct only, instead of selling to the FLGS they should be making more money selling direct to the customer.
- The table top scene has been growing, more people are playing and buying table top games, so GW revenue has remained constant in the face of growing competition.

All those point to GW both losing customers and failing to catch new customers that are coming in to wargaming.

Profits have been rising, but:
- Products have been getting more expensive.
- Stores are being cut down to 1 man, so can't remain open 9-5 for 7 days a week.
- They've started to do limited releases for more guaranteed cash injections rather than having stock on the shelves (which might cost them money but also grows the business like they have in years gone by).

The doom sayers have long been saying that, yes, of course GW's outward numbers have been stable, because they've been cutting to the bone to keep their numbers looking good on the surface and milking fewer customers for more money.

You can't look at only 1 years data to make an assumption that the end is near for GW... but people who are claiming that are NOT looking at 1 years data, they are looking at the past 15 years and then looking at the past 1 year and saying GW are finally failing to hold up the house that is falling down.

Now I tend to think GW still have a long way to fall before I'm going to say the ship is sunk, but I do think things aren't looking great for GW.




**We know, like many products, GW makes the most money close to the release of products because they showed some limited sales data during the CH lawsuit. So GW's faster release rate and higher prices make the drop in revenue look even worse.

 vipoid wrote:

Asmodas wrote:
Being an attorney, I find it kind of hard to believe that all, or even a large portion of that $4.5MM is legal fees.

I find it even harder to believe that they spent £4000000 on that crap-looking website.

The money is going somewhere. Something tells me that a fat slob is probably drinking a martini somewhere laughing at GW customers as he burns that money away.

 Vigilant wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Asmodas wrote:
Being an attorney, I find it kind of hard to believe that all, or even a large portion of that $4.5MM is legal fees.

I find it even harder to believe that they spent £4000000 on that crap-looking website.

The money is going somewhere. Something tells me that a fat slob is probably drinking a martini somewhere laughing at GW customers as he burns that money away.

I can't remember where but I heard Ms. Kirby was head of the project.

Everyone!

Please attempt to stay on topic here - thanks!

Yeah, we got a little off topic.

Back on topic: the biggest difference between the 40K/Fantasy and MTG is the barrier to entry. You can get enough cards to build a starter deck for $30-40. It won't be very good, but you can actually play the game. Get a friend, have him do the same thing, and then trade with each other for the cards you can't use/don't want, and you can be off to a great start playing games with each other, and at a similar power level. Or you can just draft, which is an awesome system in itself. It's very easy to get into Magic. It gets expensive, sure, but the "gateway drug" of those first few packs is cheap.

The revenue decline is linked to more players leaving and fewer players starting - there really is no other good explanation. As Psienesis noted, that is not a good sign for the long-term health of the company, and they are going to have to pay attention to it because the market is paying attention. The company's demise is nowhere near imminent, but they are going to have to do something if they want to bring in new players.

Promoting Kill Team (as they've been doing here) is a good start. But, they really need good two army/mini-rulebook combos on a regular basis. I would like to see something like Blood Angels/Dark Eldar or AG/Nids. They don't even need to manufacture anything, just use the existing spues, like they did with the Ork/SW box, maybe throw in a special character (for example, a Winged Tyranid Prime would be awesome, and you could bring Marbo back). That would be of interest to not only new players, but existing ones as well. If they did one of these bundles per quarter, with a different army each time, they could stimulate a lot of interest. Dark Vengeance is pretty tired - it's time for something new.

Asmodas wrote:
Yeah, we got a little off topic.

Back on topic: the biggest difference between the 40K/Fantasy and MTG is the barrier to entry. You can get enough cards to build a starter deck for $30-40. It won't be very good, but you can actually play the game. Get a friend, have him do the same thing, and then trade with each other for the cards you can't use/don't want, and you can be off to a great start playing games with each other, and at a similar power level. Or you can just draft, which is an awesome system in itself. It's very easy to get into Magic. It gets expensive, sure, but the "gateway drug" of those first few packs is cheap.

$30? Maybe 15 years ago, before they had pre-constructed decks.

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Gathering-2014-SPEED-CUNNING/dp/B00MU2MXEC/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1411139464&sr=8-5&keywords=magic+the+gathering+pre-constructed

Spend $16, and you've got not just one deck, but two decks which need no more but shuffling to be ready to go. The decks are even balanced against each other, so two friends starting would be able to have a couple of fun games before spending a single additional dollar.

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Gathering-Shards-Alara-Tournament/dp/B001BR8K26/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-1&keywords=magic+the+gathering+tournament+pack

Spend $23 and you get a competitive deck which can already hold its own at FNM tournaments.

Not to mention that every magic player is probably dragging two or three decks around he could borrow to a new player, not going to happen with WH40k armies.

 Jidmah wrote:

Asmodas wrote:
Yeah, we got a little off topic.

Back on topic: the biggest difference between the 40K/Fantasy and MTG is the barrier to entry. You can get enough cards to build a starter deck for $30-40. It won't be very good, but you can actually play the game. Get a friend, have him do the same thing, and then trade with each other for the cards you can't use/don't want, and you can be off to a great start playing games with each other, and at a similar power level. Or you can just draft, which is an awesome system in itself. It's very easy to get into Magic. It gets expensive, sure, but the "gateway drug" of those first few packs is cheap.

$30? Maybe 15 years ago, before they had pre-constructed decks.

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Gathering-2014-SPEED-CUNNING/dp/B00MU2MXEC/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1411139464&sr=8-5&keywords=magic+the+gathering+pre-constructed

Spend $16, and you've got not just one deck, but two decks which need no more but shuffling to be ready to go. The decks are even balanced against each other, so two friends starting would be able to have a couple of fun games before spending a single additional dollar.

http://www.amazon.com/Magic-Gathering-Shards-Alara-Tournament/dp/B001BR8K26/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=undefined&sr=8-1&keywords=magic+the+gathering+tournament+pack

Spend $23 and you get a competitive deck which can already hold its own at FNM tournaments.

Not to mention that every magic player is probably dragging two or three decks around he could borrow to a new player, not going to happen with WH40k armies.

Or what, $30 for a deckbuilder? $120 could probably get me five decks that are decent, what could that get me in 40K? (Talking about NIB, not including eBay)

 ChazSexington wrote:


On the other hand, I fething love MtG, though this is weird!

Spoiler:

Thank you for telling me that this is a thing. I think I'm going back into standard now.

The lack of an entry product is a huge barrier for GW's growth. No one wants to throw down $500+ to play a game, and the only reason I play it is one of my mate's had two armies, so i borrowed one of his while I slowly built my own.

Now, $120 can get you a reasonable pile of models to build and paint, but nothing resembling an army, and for many factions, not even reaching 500 points. The inherent price differential between factions hurts the game a great deal, and one reason there's limited faction diversity; marines are simply cheaper to play, something Magic and most other tabletop games take steps to avoid (just about any 1000 point Bolt Action army will cost the same, and Warmachine is pretty constant on army prices as well, unless you do something really wacky) .

What could help GW bring players into their market easier would be a better, supported Kill Team ruleset. The current one is lazy and obnoxiously expensive for what is a pdf which used to be free (and can still be downloaded for free) . The Heralds of Ruin Killteam set, however, is a fully functional game in of itself, able to stand on its own and entertain a whole club of gamers without stepping into full 40k armies whatsoever (and a natural fit for someone who already has a fully army). If GW were to get over the fact that their customers MUST spend several hundred dollars just to start playing, they could actually get new people into the game.

Magic costs less than $50 to start playing, X-Wing costs $50, the new infinity starter has two complete armies for what, $120? The Bolt Action starter has two small armies and some terrain with the full rulebook for 100-something. GW starters include two very small forces of uneven points value in bad combinatons with crappy units which can't be built any other way in a game about choice, and require several hundred dollars to actually start playing "real games."

If GW were to produce Kill Team as its own ruleset, not just a throwaway PDF, and support it as the "gateway drug," and alternative for people on a budget, they could get so many more people into the game. People like skirmish games, and the 40k ruleset basically is a skirmish system bloated beyond recognition in an effort to sell more models; pare it down a little, shift things to work with single models and infantry-centric combat, and bang, you can reach into a whole new market.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
The lack of an entry product is a huge barrier for GW's growth. No one wants to throw down $500+ to play a game, and the only reason I play it is one of my mate's had two armies, so i borrowed one of his while I slowly built my own.

I agree. I wish they sold HALF a Dark Vengeance starter box, with either Chaos or SM. Or just have a $100 starter box that was just one faction. One obvious solution is to find someone who wants to play the other faction of a box set (like DV or Stormclaw) and split 2 boxes.

No matter how it goes, if you get into the painting and modelling aspect of any of the games, you'll blow hundreds of dollars on stuff you "need".

 MajorStoffer wrote:
The lack of an entry product is a huge barrier for GW's growth. No one wants to throw down $500+ to play a game, and the only reason I play it is one of my mate's had two armies, so i borrowed one of his while I slowly built my own.

Now, $120 can get you a reasonable pile of models to build and paint, but nothing resembling an army, and for many factions, not even reaching 500 points. The inherent price differential between factions hurts the game a great deal, and one reason there's limited faction diversity; marines are simply cheaper to play, something Magic and most other tabletop games take steps to avoid (just about any 1000 point Bolt Action army will cost the same, and Warmachine is pretty constant on army prices as well, unless you do something really wacky) .

What could help GW bring players into their market easier would be a better, supported Kill Team ruleset. The current one is lazy and obnoxiously expensive for what is a pdf which used to be free (and can still be downloaded for free) . The Heralds of Ruin Killteam set, however, is a fully functional game in of itself, able to stand on its own and entertain a whole club of gamers without stepping into full 40k armies whatsoever (and a natural fit for someone who already has a fully army). If GW were to get over the fact that their customers MUST spend several hundred dollars just to start playing, they could actually get new people into the game.

Magic costs less than $50 to start playing, X-Wing costs $50, the new infinity starter has two complete armies for what, $120? The Bolt Action starter has two small armies and some terrain with the full rulebook for 100-something. GW starters include two very small forces of uneven points value in bad combinatons with crappy units which can't be built any other way in a game about choice, and require several hundred dollars to actually start playing "real games."

If GW were to produce Kill Team as its own ruleset, not just a throwaway PDF, and support it as the "gateway drug," and alternative for people on a budget, they could get so many more people into the game. People like skirmish games, and the 40k ruleset basically is a skirmish system bloated beyond recognition in an effort to sell more models; pare it down a little, shift things to work with single models and infantry-centric combat, and bang, you can reach into a whole new market.

My buddies and I got stupid amounts of fun out of the Mordheim starter set. Two whole warbands, card-stock terrain, and the ruleset for ~$70 back in the day. Best of all, it was a mostly idiot-proof ruleset. The GW Kill Team ruleset makes so many units completely unusable, makes specialists obscenely powerful, and creates too many rules conflicts.

A re-release of Necromunda or a Kill Team set would be a great way to get people in the door. Fix up some special edition Deathwatch marines, Dire Avengers, and a fancied up copy of the Heralds of Ruin Kill Team rules and now interested folks can buy their way into a fun intro-version of 40k for $80, comparable to the price on lots of board games these days.

MtG has actually sized down in terms of power levels in my opinion.