PhantomViper wrote: Unless you wan't a game that requires actual input on the part of the player to win.
Tell me the coordinates to the alternate dimension you live in, since obviously it´s not the one the rest of us exist in. I´ll come visit some time.
In any case, Warhammer 40,000 is a fun game ( to most, not to all ) with great miniatures and decent gameplay, and can be played competitively with ease, usually just requires a rules package from the TO if you want to make it a bit more sensible.
Does it make you mad that to the majority of wargamers this is probably the case, as still the naysayers on this and other forums are but a tiny fraction of the entire wargaming community on the planet?
Good. I love to watch you squirm and swim against the tide.
PhantomViper wrote: Unless you wan't a game that requires actual input on the part of the player to win.
Tell me the coordinates to the alternate dimension you live in, since obviously it´s not the one the rest of us exist in. I´ll come visit some time.
In any case, Warhammer 40,000 is a fun game ( to most, not to all ) with great miniatures and decent gameplay, and can be played competitively with ease, usually just requires a rules package from the TO if you want to make it a bit more sensible.
Does it make you mad that to the majority of wargamers this is probably the case, as still the naysayers on this and other forums are but a tiny fraction of the entire wargaming community on the planet?
Good. I love to watch you squirm and swim against the tide.
No I think it makes him mad and more likely sad, that poeple think needing to rewrite the rules on day 1 to play with their friends is a sign of a good rule set.
Even rats know to flee a sinking ship. But, I do enjoy watching you go down with the ship.
No I think it makes him mad and more likely sad, that poeple think needing to rewrite the rules on day 1 to play with their friends is a sign of a good rule set.
Even rats know to flee a sinking ship. But, I do enjoy watching you go down with the ship.
Huh, another alternate dimension dweller. Most of the wargamers in existence can play the game just fine and have fun without rewriting any rules, a fact which just doesn´t change no matter what you say. And GW nor 40K are nowhere near sinking as they are once again eclipsing 99% of other wargames when it comes to sales and playercounts.
But hey, enjoy your imaginary reality. You fellas are fighting a battle you won´t win, as once again you are the fraction minority.
No I think it makes him mad and more likely sad, that poeple think needing to rewrite the rules on day 1 to play with their friends is a sign of a good rule set.
Even rats know to flee a sinking ship. But, I do enjoy watching you go down with the ship.
Huh, another alternate dimension dweller. Most of the wargamers in existence can play the game just fine and have fun without rewriting any rules, a fact which just doesn´t change no matter what you say. And GW nor 40K are nowhere near sinking as they are once again eclipsing 99% of other wargames when it comes to sales and playercounts.
But hey, enjoy your imaginary reality. You fellas are fighting a battle you won´t win, as once again you are the fraction minority.
Keep on squirming.
Ahhhh..... your cute.
But, yes your right thats why you have to dismiss others with insults. The sign of someone sure of themselfs. The fact you seem to have no idea GW is losing more player then bring in, is funny as their own sells prove this, but what ever. No need to belive facts GW on figures must be in a alternate dimension as thats the only why they show a drop in sells. But I got popcorn and love t o see your response, likely will be along the lines "but they made more profit" without understanding why the made more.
RunicFIN wrote: Declined sales in actuality don´t translate into declining playerbases. Make sure your arguments are valid before putting them out in the open.
....
Warhammer 40,000 currently has a larger global playerbase than ever before in history.
I like how you attack someone else for making an unprovable statement in your first paragraph and then go on to make your own unprovable statement in your last paragraph
Daba wrote: Rising prices, but flat revenue means fewer players are buying less for more.
Actually it just means players are buying less for more. You can't say fewer players are buying less for more without more information.
PhantomViper wrote: Unless you wan't a game that requires actual input on the part of the player to win.
Tell me the coordinates to the alternate dimension you live in, since obviously it´s not the one the rest of us exist in. I´ll come visit some time.
In any case, Warhammer 40,000 is a fun game ( to most, not to all ) with great miniatures and decent gameplay, and can be played competitively with ease, usually just requires a rules package from the TO if you want to make it a bit more sensible.
Underlined a key part. By your own admission it needs house-ruled in order to be played competitively, which is a sign of it being poor.
No-one is saying it isn't fun, doesn't have good miniatures or can produce a good game. But there are so many compromises, and often the feeling that the end result is known before a figure is placed on the table. Most people are saying they can't recommend GW games to new players because of the cost, and because there are so many better games out there.
In any case, you can use your 40K mini's and different rules (since you're modifying them anyway) to play much better games in the 40K universe.
I'd really love to see how you think GW sales/players are on the increase though. Since it contradicts all the anecdotal evidence from pretty much everywhere, including their own annual reports.
Herzlos wrote: Underlined a key part. By your own admission it needs house-ruled in order to be played competitively, which is a sign of it being poor.
It has been many years since I've played 40k competitively. That GW basically gave the finger to the competitive crowd is a major plus in my book.
Riquende wrote: 40K players make up a fraction of the world's gamers, once you take the vast array of historicals into account.
Historical players are quiet, elusive and seldom seen in public, but if you told one that 40k is the most popular or most played game in history I imagine they would fall over laughing. I think it was this years Salute I was looking at on Beasts of War with literally hundreds of people lined up on the day to get in, and those where only the ones who hadn't pre bought their tickets. Meanwhile GW have downsized Games Day year on year until it's turned into Warhammer Fest with what, maybe 200 people?
Herzlos wrote: Underlined a key part. By your own admission it needs house-ruled in order to be played competitively, which is a sign of it being poor.
It has been many years since I've played 40k competitively. That GW basically gave the finger to the competitive crowd is a major plus in my book.
How so?
All of the things they make a good competitive game also make a good casual game. Namely balance and clarity. You can play a competitive game casually, but to make a game deliberately anti-competitive doesn't make for a good casual game.
Herzlos wrote: Underlined a key part. By your own admission it needs house-ruled in order to be played competitively, which is a sign of it being poor.
It has been many years since I've played 40k competitively. That GW basically gave the finger to the competitive crowd is a major plus in my book.
Why is that? I'll guess it's one of two things:
--The notion that competitive players are more dickish than casual ones because detailed rules give them scope to be annoying legalists, and that vaguer rules encourage a more chilled and casual attitude. Honestly, I think if you go to the 40KYMDC forum and look at any thread over three pages long, that should show that isn't the case. And when I played 40K, it was a rare game that didn't skid to a halt with a debate over just what a certain rule meant. IME again, but games with precisely written rules avoid that aggravation or room for exploitation don't have this problem, since I can simply check what the rule says, and apply that, with no interpretation needed. Of course there are twerps in these games--but fewer, because vague rules don't provide a point of contention. There's no figuring out "Do I press my point about this rule, and risk becoming That Guy, or potentially let him cheat?", and no unsatisfactory "cheat on a 4+" rules.
In 40K, there seems to be this taboo against "trying too hard" to win, since the exploitable nature of the rules means that if you're going all out to win, you're relying on lists that are no fun to play against or abusing obvious loopholes in the rules, or that you're being a rude and aggressive player who, when rules debates inevitably happen, forces their rules interpretations on meeker players. Those things don't happen anywhere near as much in better written games.
--The idea that games that can be played competitively must exclude players who don't take them hyper-seriously. IME, that's not the case. Well-written rules provide more scope to become skilled at the game (beyond "figure out the underpriced unit or gamebreaker combo, then spam it"), but that doesn't translate to ignoring the just-show-up-and-have-a-bash players. After all, it's easier to intentionally unbalance a balanced rules set than the other way around.
I guess I don't see what a game system actually loses through having balanced rules. The casual gamers keep doing what they've always done, and have more fun because they're not getting hung up by the rules, and it's less likely that they have a "decided in list building" battle, when one of them decides that they like the fluff of 'a number of Wave Serpents backed up by Wraithknights.
Chillreaper wrote:Essentially, it's a 30 year old ruleset for ranks of fantasy troops that's been modded into its current incarnation. Add layer upon layer of extra rules and exclusions and it's going to get muddled.
And barely any ranks, at that. Take a look at the 3rd ed WFB batreps on the Realm of Chaos 80's blog, and how few models are involved compared to the modern game. It's my understanding that 3rd ed WFB grew the model count from the first two editions, too. It's practically a 30 year old ruleset for fantasy skirmish, with models and rules heaped onto only a few core tweaks over several editions. 'Real' mass battle games work differently. See my reply to Noir below...
thegreatchimp wrote:When reading this thread, prefix every one of the stronger statements (including my own) with "in my opinion..." Because really unless your post enjoys a majority consensus, that's all it it -your opinion! I like debating these things the same as any of you, but I'm still surprised with how absolutely convinced some folks are that the majority of other hobbyists and/or gamers will agree (or should agree) with their appreciation of aesthetics and what are considered good and enjoyable rules.
I suspect (is that good enough?) that an awful lot of gamers have a high opinion of 40K and have it as their wargame of choice because that's all they've played. GW stores are regularly seen as a blessing, as a gateway to the wargaming world, but I see it as the curse of GW stores too, when too many people stop there and never move on. I'd be interested to see some poll results, here and on other forums.
There can also be a decent argument made that GW's core two are increasingly geared towards selling more and bigger models. Can that be at least partially determined by a poll, too (how many more flyers do you buy?) and would any results from those help convince you of the objectivity of disgruntled arguments?
JohnHwangDD wrote:If you are playing "for fun", like they do at GWHQ, 40k is fine.
That means it's about having a few beers and shooting the gak with your buddies as the first priority, versus actually "competing" for a "win". After all, anybody can take some sort of "I win" list at this point, so why bother?
I remain utterly unconvinced by this reasoning. If all you want is to hang around with your buddies and chug a few beers, and use the random movement of playing pieces as a secondary excuse for that, then why the H-E-dubble-hokkee-sticks do you need to spend so much money and time getting 40K armies put together? Snakes 'n' Ladders or Ludo would serve you just as well.
Not to mention all the players eschewing your postmodern ponderings and playing the thing competitively (as is, 'y'know, the point of most games with a winner and a loser; though just to be clear, competitive =/= aggressive), as 'til recently supported by GW themselves in the form of tournaments. I doubt the motto in those was "Everyone's a winner! No neckbeard left behind!"
Noir wrote:No Warhammer has a good core framework and works OK for a fantasy setting and historical (sadly all the extra rules the add for army means it is not good for playing Warhammer), it has never really been a good 40K rule set. It was a good fantasy rule set used for sci-fantasy, but the move to large games destoryed even the OK fit it had with a small scale battle game called 40K.
I joined a historical gaming club a couple of years ago, partly to get away from 40K/WFB. They played WAB. A couple of small games of that convinced me that no, it wasn't just the irritating idiosyncracies of later WFB and 40K editions that made the Warhammer 'engine' a rubbish wargame. Fortunately the club was thinking the same about that point, and my brand-spanking new copy of Hail Caesar waved about, not to mention WAB's crash-and-burn, helped us all move on.
At the very least, in my opinion (okay Greatchimp?) no wargame that dresses itself up as an infantry-block mass battle has any business mucking about with nitpicky combat res (including daft rank bonuses), different stats in the front of the unit, single casualty removal, or otherwise faffing about with single grunts in a way described elsewhere, elsewhen: obsessing about the handkerchief on the sixth model of the fourth rank of your fifth unit. 40K maybe bypasses some of that, but it has plenty of its own fine-crunch-large-battle problems.
Ehsteve wrote:I would only suggest that you start a game that you enjoy/like the look of and that you can enjoy locally. No use starting Infinity if there are no other players around, no use starting Warhammer if the same applies. If you want to start up a system with others, make sure they're on board with the idea before starting, because there's nothing worse than models sitting on the shelf gathering dust rather than seeing use (unless of course they're just looking pieces) or having to start up a new system just after you've spent all that time building/painting models.
Inertia is an awful reason for sticking with a bad game. (and part of that GW store curse, IMO) If a new game is a good game and you're convinced by it, it won't be so hard to convince others. I know a guy so wowed by Malifaux that he became a Wyrd Henchman and turned at least three clubs onto it.
Now a handful of freebies from the parent company helps, but I don't think they're necessary to set up a wee demo game or two for a game that you think could catch on. I've seen a few stories along those lines too. You just need to step outside the spoonfed Stockholm syndrome of GW and put a wee bit of effort into it, as ye olde gamers of yore did. (What also helps is that you generally need less expense and effort to set up small demo forces for other games; and heck, as I keep banging on about, if it's an alternate fantasy battle or sci-fi platoon/company ruleset for your WFB/40K models, you don't even have to go that far. )
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jonolikespie wrote: I think it was this years Salute I was looking at on Beasts of War with literally hundreds of people lined up on the day to get in, and those where only the ones who hadn't pre bought their tickets.
I was there in that queue. Couldn't believe it almost went round the entire hall.
--The notion that competitive players are more dickish than casual ones because detailed rules give them scope to be annoying legalists, and that vaguer rules encourage a more chilled and casual attitude.
I don't think it helps 40K that it's both detailed and vague: so many gratuitous rules that it's almost inevitable that some (many?) are confusing or collide against eachother. The lack of 'crunch' in other games frightens GW gamers in ways (I know I felt that way looking at Epic: A) but the elegance and often the tactical depth usually outweighs that concern, if it's given half a chance.
Lets try actually reading what I wrote In my post shall we?
''@thegreatchimp.
The point many try to make is that rule sets are functional.
As as such can be objectively assessed. ''
This is fact.
Any thing that has a defined function can be objectively compared and assessed.
Or are you going to ignore 1000s of years of language, maths and physics?
''The preferred game play is subject to personal opinion though. ''
This is fact as people prefer to play different types of game.(Snakes and ladders to Chess, skirmish to massed battle war games, narrative based campaigns to PV and F.O.C balanced for random pick up games.etc.)
Or are you arguing that every one wants to play the same type of game?
''And as most other games focus on a particular scale and scope of game and defined game play.
Which makes it much easier for players of a similar mind set find the game they want to play together. ''
This is why most people playing other games seem to collect around a game they all can just get on with and enjoy.(Compared to 40k)
The most popular well written games can be learned as you play within 1/2 an hour.(And YMDC threads show how poorly defined 40k actually is,)
''This is why 40k is called a poor rule set, as it has no clearly defined game play, scale or scope.
And fails to deliver the very limited game play it has ,in a well defined way. ''
If 40k has clearly defined game play , why do so many people seem to argue everyone else is playing the game 'wrong'?
Please point out where in the 7th edition 40k rules 'intended game play scale and scope' is defined .
If players have to agree how to interpret/fix the rules before they can get an enjoyable game , surely this means the core function of the rules 'to clearly define game play' is not well defined?
I never said you can not arrive at a fun game using the 40k rules as a base to work from.
(Quoting ancient game mechanics from the 1970's is a very low bar standard for game development IMO though.)
But that objective comparison to other rule sets means that 40k is comparatively poorly worded,edited and implemented.
Eg you can arrive at a fun game much quicker and with much less effort, using other rule sets, than you can with 40k.
Rather than attempt to reply to that detailed post allow me me to rephrase my message, because I may have caused some confusion:
-People shouldn't get heated at eachother over whether one appreciates a)The collective ruleset b) The aesthetics of a game. Because those things vary from person to person.
Furthermore, while you can compare games on factual things like duration, and cost there are as many things that contribute to like or dislike of a game that are unquantifiable...and you can't tell poeple they are right or wrong about them.
If you contest the above, then by all means explain why and I'll answer as best I can. If not, then there is no disagreement here because that's all I'm trying to convey
Herzlos wrote: Underlined a key part. By your own admission it needs house-ruled in order to be played competitively, which is a sign of it being poor.
It has been many years since I've played 40k competitively. That GW basically gave the finger to the competitive crowd is a major plus in my book.
How so?
All of the things they make a good competitive game also make a good casual game. Namely balance and clarity. You can play a competitive game casually, but to make a game deliberately anti-competitive doesn't make for a good casual game.
I hate the player, not the game. The competitive crowd attracts a bunch of over-entitled whiners that suck the fun out of 40k. Especially on the Internet. You have guys like Stelek becoming Internet-famous over how hardass he plays the game. In GW's case, the best thing they have done was to tell the competitive crowd that they wouldn't waste time supporting them helped "encourage" them to switch to different games, and the overall playing environment is healthier for it.
There are a lot of games that we can play casually that don't require perfect balance, especially when we know that the opponent may not be of equal skill and experience. Sometimes, the joy of playing is about the playing itself, not necessarily the result. Sometimes, it's OK to just enjoy the ride.
Furthermore, GW has pushed harder for "clarity" in the last couple editions. The whole "refer to section 12.1, sub-reference paragraph 3, cross-reference sub-section 8.7" is GW's effort to make 40k as precise and clear as possible. No more questions about what "Ordnance" means across various Codices - there is only one definition, and it's right there in the rulebook, decomposed into each of it's sub-components with their sub-rules fully-defined. From a technical standpoint, 40k has never been clearer from a definitional standpoint. Same thing with the new "closest first" rule. These rules create a level of clarity and precision that was never present before. There is no longer a question about "better" Storm Shields, or any of that stuff.
No, the real issue is that the competitive crowd is unsatisfiable, and that they only want a sort of "balance" that allows them to continue to win as they won before.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It has been many years since I've played 40k competitively. That GW basically gave the finger to the competitive crowd is a major plus in my book.
--The notion that competitive players are more dickish than casual ones
There's no figuring out "Do I press my point about this rule, and risk becoming That Guy, or potentially let him cheat?", and no unsatisfactory "cheat on a 4+" rules.
--The idea that games that can be played competitively must exclude players who don't take them hyper-seriously.
I guess I don't see what a game system actually loses through having balanced rules.
The competitive players *are* more dickish. Go play them, you'll see.
The issue about cheating isn't about rules "balance". Cheaters outright lie about what the rules say. I've played against notorious cheaters in my time, and the fact that the rules say a model may move no more than 6" doesn't mean they won't fudge them to move 7" or 8". Or fast-roll the dice to pick up "successes" that can't be verified. The rules could be perfectly balanced, but if someone is cheating, then that isn't a rules or balance issue.
One may play seriously, without being a WAAC-hole about it.
Lets try actually reading what I wrote In my post shall we?
''This is why 40k is called a poor rule set, as it has no clearly defined game play, scale or scope.
And fails to deliver the very limited game play it has ,in a well defined way. ''
If 40k has clearly defined game play , why do so many people seem to argue everyone else is playing the game 'wrong'?
If players have to agree how to interpret/fix the rules before they can get an enjoyable game , surely this means the core function of the rules 'to clearly define game play' is not well defined?
Eg you can arrive at a fun game much quicker and with much less effort, using other rule sets, than you can with 40k.
Oh, I read it, and you just make no sense.
People like to argue. In many cases, people are arguing over manufactured nonsense. That is not a question of the rules being unclear. It is an issue of people being toolbags, and trying to twist wording to say things that it doesn't say due to a deliberate misunderstanding of the rules, in order to gain some perceived advantage.
In my case, I don't really have an issue with playing by the current version of 40k's rules. I don't see any real issues with clarity or that come up from a "plain reading" of the rules. I do have issues with many 40k7 rules, because they result in a slower game which requires a lot more work for no real improvement in gameplay. Disliking a rule is different from not understanding it, or pretending that it isn't clear enough to play correctly. Perhaps the real issue is that your, and other's, mental acuity is insufficient to play a correct game of 40k? Or perhaps the issue is that you continue to play with toolbags who cheat and deliberately try to twist the rules around, saying that 6' for you is 8" for them.
Learning something completely new, and having to collect and prepare an all-new army is much slower and far more effort compared to playing a slightly different version of what I already know how to play. To say nothing of continuing to play the game I already own and know how to play. If I roll back the clock to 40k3 or 40k4, it's even simpler.
Noir wrote: No I think it makes him mad and more likely sad, that poeple think needing to rewrite the rules on day 1 to play with their friends is a sign of a good rule set.
Even rats know to flee a sinking ship. But, I do enjoy watching you go down with the ship.
Huh, another alternate dimension dweller. Most of the wargamers in existence can play the game just fine and have fun without rewriting any rules, a fact which just doesn´t change no matter what you say.Keep on squirming.
Well that was a wee tad "trolltastic".
Yes, the game with it's rules we can play it just fine... but would we want to?
The game has such differing power levels of lists even if they are the same points that you must play at the full competitive level of the meta or be "disappointed".
Those who wish to play more balanced lists just cannot: they do not come close to the netlists out there so it requires an "agreement" between players.
And GW nor 40K are nowhere near sinking as they are once again eclipsing 99% of other wargames when it comes to sales and playercounts.
Yeah, this has been discussed in other forums, most of the other competition is privately owned so there is no good way to compare sales figures but it has been proven that GW gross sales have dropped markedly (all product has gone through substantial cost increases so only decreased volume of sales can do this, overhead keeps being slashed).
But hey, enjoy your imaginary reality. You fellas are fighting a battle you won´t win, as once again you are the fraction minority.
Not sure what minority or majority you are talking to.
I had been in with GW since second edition.
It is only in the last two years I am getting into X-wing, Warmachine and dusted off my Battletech.
This is the most "fun" competition I have seen against GW product and they are not stepping up their game.
I see more future in all these new trendy games with a smaller money outlay for the beginner and the relative "fun" I see is greater than my 40k experience presently.
Well, we all have our opinions but when I start seeing my local stores shifting shelf space away from GW for new product, it appears store commerce and consumer voice has spoken!
Somehow, an argument that bad rules are a good thing because the dickish players avoid them... fails to move me.
In general crappy rules with bad balance attracts dickish behavior - because it is easier to build an exploitative list.
I play Kings of War, against some very competitive players - and only one of them would qualify, in my estimation, as a dick - and he is by no means the best player - he ranks something like eighth out of twelve.
Mind you, in WARMACHINE I have seen some players that definitely deserve the title - even with a well balanced game.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Somehow, an argument that bad rules are a good thing because the dickish players avoid them... fails to move me.
In general crappy rules with bad balance attracts dickish behavior - because it is easier to build an exploitative list.
I too have found the more loose language or imprecise language used in rules do tend to attract an exploitive personality: I have seen entire army lists made in 40k to leverage a poorly worded rule many times.
I play Kings of War, against some very competitive players - and only one of them would qualify, in my estimation, as a dick - and he is by no means the best player - he ranks something like eighth out of twelve.
I too have found that personality type can be found anywhere, just more often with exploitable rule-sets.
Mind you, in WARMACHINE I have seen some players that definitely deserve the title - even with a well balanced game.
They are drawn to it like a moth to the flame since the confirmed more "competitive" games make a win all the more sweet.
They tend to move-on when a WAAC can not claim the top spot from "proper competitive" players.
@ Lanrak Sorry man just noticed your somwhat fiery comment wasn't actuaally directed at me! Ah damn, well shame is what I get for not reading properly!
JohnHwangDD wrote: There are a lot of games that we can play casually that don't require perfect balance, especially when we know that the opponent may not be of equal skill and experience. Sometimes, the joy of playing is about the playing itself, not necessarily the result. Sometimes, it's OK to just enjoy the ride.
Just on this, it's an association that I've only ever seen made with regard to 40K--that trying to win is somehow taboo. If I'm playing a game, then, erm, yes....I'm going to try to win. As will my opponent. That doesn't mean we sit there in the grimly hostile and unforgiving battle of wills that you seem to be imagining. Had a game of Warmachine today where me and my opponent were trying to use our tactical skill to win the game to the very best of our ability, destroy the enemy army, and dominate the battlefield....while we the players were chatting, joking and have a laugh. I pointed out some things that benefited him ("Don't forget to attack with that guy there."), and afterwards we thanked each other and had a chat about how the match went, and what we could have done differently. It was about the experience and the result and I never for one moment felt the need to choose between them.
Ehsteve wrote:I would only suggest that you start a game that you enjoy/like the look of and that you can enjoy locally. No use starting Infinity if there are no other players around, no use starting Warhammer if the same applies. If you want to start up a system with others, make sure they're on board with the idea before starting, because there's nothing worse than models sitting on the shelf gathering dust rather than seeing use (unless of course they're just looking pieces) or having to start up a new system just after you've spent all that time building/painting models.
Inertia is an awful reason for sticking with a bad game. (and part of that GW store curse, IMO) If a new game is a good game and you're convinced by it, it won't be so hard to convince others. I know a guy so wowed by Malifaux that he became a Wyrd Henchman and turned at least three clubs onto it.
Now a handful of freebies from the parent company helps, but I don't think they're necessary to set up a wee demo game or two for a game that you think could catch on. I've seen a few stories along those lines too. You just need to step outside the spoonfed Stockholm syndrome of GW and put a wee bit of effort into it, as ye olde gamers of yore did. (What also helps is that you generally need less expense and effort to set up small demo forces for other games; and heck, as I keep banging on about, if it's an alternate fantasy battle or sci-fi platoon/company ruleset for your WFB/40K models, you don't even have to go that far. )
That's very much irrelevant. All I'm saying is that regardless of the system you choose, choose something you like, and something that you can play, how you go about those has been very much left open. No use playing a GW game if you don't like the models, same goes for Infiinty, Malifaux, Warmachine or any other tabletop. Same goes for having to travel more than say, an hour or two each way to find a game on a regular basis or worse yet, only being able to find any play at tournaments every blue moon by travelling out of state. It requires a lot of internal drive to maintain a hobby in those sorts of conditions.
Noir wrote: No I think it makes him mad and more likely sad, that poeple think needing to rewrite the rules on day 1 to play with their friends is a sign of a good rule set.
Even rats know to flee a sinking ship. But, I do enjoy watching you go down with the ship.
Huh, another alternate dimension dweller. Most of the wargamers in existence can play the game just fine and have fun without rewriting any rules, a fact which just doesn´t change no matter what you say.Keep on squirming.
Well that was a wee tad "trolltastic".
It's RunicFIN. He has a habit of bursting into threads he deems anti-40K and antagonising & raising the heat level until they get locked. Perhaps that's his intent, who can say?
JohnHwangDD wrote: There are a lot of games that we can play casually that don't require perfect balance, especially when we know that the opponent may not be of equal skill and experience. Sometimes, the joy of playing is about the playing itself, not necessarily the result. Sometimes, it's OK to just enjoy the ride.
Just on this, it's an association that I've only ever seen made with regard to 40K--that trying to win is somehow taboo.
There is a difference between PLAYING to win, and playing TO WIN.
I'm now more of the former than the latter. I no longer choose to make "winning" the only thing.
Anyone ever try Heroscape? It's a hex tile battlegame that comes with pre-painted minis and stackable terrain. I wouldn't recommend it to serious wargamers, but for those who like the idea of wargaming and don't want to invest the mountain of time in modelling and painting, it's a pretty good alternative. The modular terrain is a particularely good feature. I played it for a few years while I wasn't bothered with 40k, and got great enjoyment out of it. Easy to apply a more complex realistic rulset with the terrain and figures too.
It's RunicFIN. He has a habit of bursting into threads he deems anti-40K and antagonising & raising the heat level until they get locked. Perhaps that's his intent, who can say?
On topic: between the atrocious balance, ridiculous prices, and awful behavior of the parent company, I could never in good conscience recommend any GW game to a beginner.
I hate the player, not the game. The competitive crowd attracts a bunch of over-entitled whiners that suck the fun out of 40k. Especially on the Internet. You have guys like Stelek becoming Internet-famous over how hardass he plays the game. In GW's case, the best thing they have done was to tell the competitive crowd that they wouldn't waste time supporting them helped "encourage" them to switch to different games, and the overall playing environment is healthier for it.
I find the competitive 40K crowd attracts these 'WAAC' players, because of the leeway for rules abuse (the rules are open to so much interpretation) and balance abuse (balance is frankly awful).
There are a lot of games that we can play casually that don't require perfect balance, especially when we know that the opponent may not be of equal skill and experience. Sometimes, the joy of playing is about the playing itself, not necessarily the result. Sometimes, it's OK to just enjoy the ride.
None of that really has anything to do with the quality of the ruleset; you can play clear rules casually. Just because a game is clear and balanced and tournament ready, doesn't mean the only goal is to win. It really is only GW games where this mentality is that there's something wrong with trying to win, because it's just too easy to abuse it. I play other games that are a lot better than 40K and I play them to win. I almost always lose, and I still have great fun at it. Sure occasionally you'll be up against a fairly difficult line-up, and there's games where I've struggled to maintain ground, but never to the level of 40K where you know you genuinely don't stand a chance.
Furthermore, GW has pushed harder for "clarity" in the last couple editions. The whole "refer to section 12.1, sub-reference paragraph 3, cross-reference sub-section 8.7" is GW's effort to make 40k as precise and clear as possible. No more questions about what "Ordnance" means across various Codices - there is only one definition, and it's right there in the rulebook, decomposed into each of it's sub-components with their sub-rules fully-defined. From a technical standpoint, 40k has never been clearer from a definitional standpoint. Same thing with the new "closest first" rule. These rules create a level of clarity and precision that was never present before. There is no longer a question about "better" Storm Shields, or any of that stuff.
Oh they are getting better at consistent language across the books and some contradictions, but there is still a lot of interactions that aren't intuitive and the rulebook is still a clunky mess. I can cope with complicated documents (I work with ISO standards, tomes that are 600+ pages of rules) and still find the 40K rules incredibly hard to follow.
Compared to all the other rule systems I've read (Bolt Action, Flames Of War, X-Wing, Malifaux, Hail Caesar, Spearhead) the GW books are awful.
No, the real issue is that the competitive crowd is unsatisfiable, and that they only want a sort of "balance" that allows them to continue to win as they won before.
The competitive crowd is pretty easy to satisfy, and most aren't as interested in winning as in feeling like they have a chance with winning. I play Malifaux competitively and there's nothing like the hassle as playing 40K competitively.
The problem with competitive 40K is that the TO's have to make huge changes to the rules and lots of restrictions, which causes fractions and discontent because people find lists invalidated, or find that people react poorly to their spam-lists. I've never encountered another game that has any restrictions, so that's a problem that's unique to GW.
The only time I've seen restrictions in other games is in Flames Of War escalation campaigns, where it's usually "no armour above 7 and no air support" because with the smaller 500pt games it's very hard to counter those things.
The problem isn't that the competitive crowd is hard to satisfy, it's that 40k is way too open to abuse because there's barely any semblance of balance in the name of "forging a narrative" which is ironic because a well-balanced set of rules benefits *EVERYBODY*, especially the non-competitive people and the "collectors" who are more likely to buy and field whatever instead of caring about how well they perform. GW's current approach hurts those people most of all because they are the least likely to research how good something is before buying and less likely to care how good something is if they like how it looks. It really amazes me how people can say that it's good that 40k's rules don't cater to the competitive crowd (often citing nonsense like "lack of options" as though having a balanced game with balanced options is an oxymoron), when catering to the competitive crowd benefits both competitive and casual players by providing clear rules that are easy to learn and hard to master and where player skill will win the day, while the current rules cater to nobody at all: Competitive gamers dislike the random elements and lack of balance, while casual gamers who might not dislike those things still get screwed by them, and nobody benefits from unbalanced rules where you can win a game before a single die is rolled based solely on what you took if your army is just way better than your opponents.
Sure, there are jerks who play solely to win at the expense of fun, but they exist everywhere. In other games though, it's not as easy to just crush someone with a netlist. In Warmahordes for example there are more powerful and less powerful choices, but the order of magnitude is a lot less and the "bad" and "good" units are often within a few percentages of each other, not at the other ends of the spectrum like with 40k. You don't always see spam/netlists at Warmahordes tournaments, even if you do tend to see variations of the same thing or the same crop of casters (which is just as much a result of the two-list pairing as anything else, since you need to account for all possibilities with one of your two lists to avoid having a bad matchup). Arguably 40k has spam lists for the same reasons; because you only have a single list so you need to bring something to deal with virtually anything. Just the difference between units is often too great to where picking the wrong unit because it fits your army or you like it better is going to cost you a lot more in a game of 40k.
I would never recommend someone start playing GW games right now. It's too much of a cost investment to start playing at a decent level (I do not count Kill Team or 500 point nonsense demo games to be a decent level), and for a new player especially there are a lot of "fool's gold" choices that can and will trip them up unless they know how to research things first, assuming they even want to do that, and it's very easy for a newbie to come up with a cool army in their head and have it contain all the garbage choices so they always lose and get frustrated as a result, because let's face it nobody wants to spend hundreds of dollars and always lose because the units you like are bad since the company who makes the rules doesn't care about the rules.
Part of the biggest issue with 40k is that it tries to be everything to everyone, and fails miserably at all. The rules are too detailed to be a large-scale combat game, but the lack of any sort of balance makes it ill-suited to smaller scales like it used to be in 2nd edition. The price is insane for a large-scale game; if the model count was like it used to be in 2nd edition (a 1,500 point army of Space Marines being three characters, a Tactical Squad, a Terminator Squad and a Bike Squad - this was the "Imperial Fists Strike Force" boxed army circa August 1998) then the current prices would be acceptable, but at the current army sizes it grows to near-ridiculous levels. Either the price should not have changed, or the number of figures you got should have increased over the years to where it would be comparable to other "miniatures companies" like Perry or Victrix who give you lots of guys because you need lots of guys. GW gives you a few guys when you need lots of guys to get you to buy more.
This boils down to the similar GW rage threads.
Wayne has been very patient laying this all out in detail.
It really does boil down to that there are so many factors of rule-sets, cost outlay and company support that is superior to a GW product.
Since the title is "any" GW game, SpaceHulk is still an excellent choice!
Oh dear, I have a tonne of GW models that I've begun to paint and would like to get pretty good at painting before thinking about playing. Would it be advised to just paint the models then? I guess I don't really have much time to learn the rules and would have less time to play anyway.
Gregga wrote: Oh dear, I have a tonne of GW models that I've begun to paint and would like to get pretty good at painting before thinking about playing. Would it be advised to just paint the models then? I guess I don't really have much time to learn the rules and would have less time to play anyway.
If you like the figures, then paint the figures. Nothing wrong with that.
Gregga wrote: Oh dear, I have a tonne of GW models that I've begun to paint and would like to get pretty good at painting before thinking about playing. Would it be advised to just paint the models then? I guess I don't really have much time to learn the rules and would have less time to play anyway.
What game?
If you have Warhammer minis then it is dead easy to use most of them for Kings of War.
If you have Warhammer 40K minis... your choices are a bit limited - but there is Mantic's Deadzone (a game that I get to play far too little of - tonight will be my first game in two months - I normally work while the game is running). Also... Warpath - very much a work in progress, and no where near ready for prime time.
I know one person that is reversing the trend of using the Mars Attack figures in place of Necrons, and is using Necrons in place of Martians.... (He is also doing stats for this weird guy in a time traveling police call box. I have no idea Who that could be....)
Well, also, if you want to play WHFB/40K, then by all means, do so, especially since you've already got tons of models. They're not great games, imo, but that doesn't mean you can't have fun with them.
The time factor could be an issue as, unless things have changed since I last played, normal sized games of WHFB and 40K can take quite a while, especially if you're just learning. You could play a couple of small games to decide if you like it.
Alternatively, you could take TheAuldGrump's suggestion and look into Kings of War for Fantasy. I haven't played it but I've read the rules and watched a couple of games on YouTube and it's a pretty fast game with straightforward, easy-to-learn rules.
For 40K, there's Mantic's Warpath but I don't know a lot about it, other than the most recent ruleset basically look like Kings of War in space, and I'm not sure that's a good thing; having all the models in loose skirmish formations doesn't really jive with the "entire unit is treated as one entity" thing KoW has. But that's just my opinion
JohnHwangDD wrote: If you are playing "for fun", like they do at GWHQ, 40k is fine.
That means it's about having a few beers and shooting the gak with your buddies as the first priority, versus actually "competing" for a "win". After all, anybody can take some sort of "I win" list at this point, so why bother?
Size-wise, if you're playing 500-1500 pts per player, the game is great. I don't much like 1750 or more, as it's just more stuff.
But if that is the objective I can sit at home with my buddies and Watch Football/hockey and have a beer.. Or play some Video Games with my buddies.. Or just sit in the local pub and shooting the gak with my buddies.. There are alot of other stuff I could be doing if the "Main focus" is sitting around chatting and just taking it easy.. ANd that would cost me alot less then 40k is charging hahah.. I see no point whatsoever to hang out with people rolling "dice", I am not socialy awkward and I am personaly not there to shoot the breeze with people I'm there to play a game...If there is no game to play I would be doing something ells instead...
"competing" for a win is what makes games fun.. if there where No winners and losers "what the feth is the point?". There are alot of better places to go if the "GOAL of the hobby" is to socialize with other people.... If that was my prime focus I would not spend it in some dusty Local, with a bunch of dirty old geezers rolling dice that is for sure hahaha..
This is the Reason I cant recomend "40k" IT BLOWS, and you cant play competitively... It is not a game, Because GW is not a Game company they are are Miniature company "they have said so themselves", they do not do market research and they don't give a gak that their game is unplaybal for serious gamers.... And as I said before if I want to socialize with others I WOULD NOT HANG AROUND IN A Dirty basement....LOLZ
It's RunicFIN. He has a habit of bursting into threads he deems anti-40K and antagonising & raising the heat level until they get locked. Perhaps that's his intent, who can say?
Or maybe I just find these people who are delusional about GW going down, and doomsaying it 10 years running ( which makes it even more ridicilous ) unbearably unintelligent.
I guess for some the illusion just can´t be broken. They really are unable to perceive how much of a minority they are with their anti-gw antics, and how hugely popular Warhammer 40,000 is around the world. Wargaming in general is now more popular than ever, and it also applies to 40K. Admittedly it´s a bigger slice of popularity split among more companies.
Most of the time it seems that some people are really unable to grasp things at a larger scale than their 2 closest gaming stores, or their local gaming group.
Wargaming in general is now more popular than ever, and it also applies to 40K. Admittedly it´s a bigger slice of popularity split among more companies.
Wargaming in general grew, apart from GW which shrunk.
Warhammer FB already dropped below the top 5 in the US, and it's only a matter of time before the smaller fishes catch up to it.
It may be only a matter of time before 40k drops from that top slot.
Last year had their biggest hitters: new SM codex, new 40k rulebook, in a way a new 40k army (Imperial Knights) but they still had decline.
Herzlos wrote: I'm still curious as to this 40K growth you keep mentioning. Is it currently booming in Finland?
It seems to be declining on the whole, outwith some pockets of local growth, and their annual reports back that up.
Sure, they're still at the top, but not by as much as before.
I'm curious as well. I haven't seen anything but anecdotal evidence from people looking at their two closest FLGSs as evidence it's doing well while between ICV2 and GWs own reports it is blatantly clear not as much product is being bought as it used to be.
I wouldn't recommend anyone getting into GW games, not least because of how much money you have to shell out (for the rules alone!). If they like, say, the 40K universe, then I'd suggest they'd get a box of troops or two and download some generic sci-fi skirmish rules. A lot of 40K kits are good for skirmish games as you get a lot of parts, and can kit out a squad with different weapons.
That's not to say I'd get pissy if they ended up going with 40K anyway. None of my business how other people spend their time and money.
I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.
People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.
RunicFIN wrote: I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.
People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.
Perhaps, but value is an issue and for the value, every other game beats 40k by a wide margin.
Also, do you have statistics to back up your assertion that money isn't important to people?
RunicFIN wrote: I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.
People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.
But what advantage does 40K have on other (cheaper) games, that makes 40K worth taking over them?
If someone new to wargames could spend $100 for a new game, or $500 for a new game, what do you think most people would recommend and choose, assuming all subjective factors (aesthetics, fluff, etc) being equal?
From a mechanical and cost viewpoint, there is no real redeeming feature to recommend 40k or Fantasy. GW's specialist games are far better in both of those categories, only they're significantly less popular than many other games being played. Other wargames (Infinity, WM/H, DW, DZC) are all far away cheaper and play easier, thus will likely be recommended over GW games due to cost.
So yes, money is a very real reason why someone wouldn't recommend a specific game. As mentioned, unless someone is absolutely dead set on the 40k universe and looks, just about any game out there will play better for cheaper. As such, people would be less inclined to recommend and start a GW game, partly due to money.
RunicFIN wrote: I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.
People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.
But what advantage does 40K have on other (cheaper) games, that makes 40K worth taking over them?
If you lack skill, and know that your not that good of a player I would say 40k do have its appeal. The people I know who still play it fall into 3 categories
1: They Suck at playing and got beaten sensless in most other table-top games or card games they have tried, but they still manages to have fun with 40k because it is just less hardcore and random, that they can snatch a win hehe
2: They love the lore to the point that they cant live without it, even if the rules suck..
3 They are whiteknights who are in denial, and still think 40k is a "GREAT GAME", when in fact it is a miniatures collection hobby...
What y we all need to accept is that some people dont like playing on Deathclocks, and they do not get their thrills playing competitively, and most important they know in their hearts that they will not stand a chans, and this puts them off more competative skill based games,,,
Ask anyone why they dont want to play warmachine/hordes for example and the answer is often, Its too competetive for me, and I dont find it fun... It can be hard on the ego to get OWNED.. some people rise to the challange others wither away..
RunicFIN wrote: I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.
People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.
Your statement does echo somewhat Kirby's statements in the financial reports that the price is meaningless for a niche market.
The trick is matching perceived value (quality?) to cost.
What is confusing is the target GW market is new, young customers that would depend somewhat on mommy and daddy forking over the money which may balk at the price (not being the dedicated model collectors like their children).
I think they would be attracted more to the Warmachine box set or the even cheaper X-wing set after that initial sticker shock.
Robotech RPG Tactics just hit the shelf now so another starter 2 faction set for around $100 is out there competing.
I agree that GW should be around for years to come.
But their influence without some changes from present will continue to decline since there is no real innovation, changes in advertising or response to competition.
I am unsure how it happened, but I now have Warmachine, Robotech and some recent Battletech stuff I need to work on at my bench and my kids are bugging me to play X-wing games while my nicely painted 40k stuff is collecting dust... it is only evidence at a personal level, but I do not think of myself as all that unique.
RunicFIN wrote: I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.
People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.
Your statement does echo somewhat Kirby's statements in the financial reports that the price is meaningless for a niche market.
The trick is matching perceived value (quality?) to cost.
What is confusing is the target GW market is new, young customers that would depend somewhat on mommy and daddy forking over the money which may balk at the price (not being the dedicated model collectors like their children).
I think they would be attracted more to the Warmachine box set or the even cheaper X-wing set after that initial sticker shock.
Robotech RPG Tactics just hit the shelf now so another starter 2 faction set for around $100 is out there competing.
I agree that GW should be around for years to come.
But their influence without some changes from present will continue to decline since there is no real innovation, changes in advertising or response to competition.
I am unsure how it happened, but I now have Warmachine, Robotech and some recent Battletech stuff I need to work on at my bench and my kids are bugging me to play X-wing games while my nicely painted 40k stuff is collecting dust... it is only evidence at a personal level, but I do not think of myself as all that unique.
You are not Unique most of the dudes I play with fall into this category, We play Warmachine/hordes, Flames of War, Bolt action, X-wing, Warzone and Malifaux.. and the 40k stuff is collecting dust on the shelf hehe
RunicFIN wrote: I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.
People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.
But what advantage does 40K have on other (cheaper) games, that makes 40K worth taking over them?
If you lack skill, and know that your not that good of a player I would say 40k do have its appeal. The people I know who still play it fall into 3 categories
1: They Suck at playing and got beaten sensless in most other table-top games or card games they have tried, but they still manages to have fun with 40k because it is just less hardcore and random, that they can snatch a win hehe
2: They love the lore to the point that they cant live without it, even if the rules suck..
3 They are whiteknights who are in denial, and still think 40k is a "GREAT GAME", when in fact it is a miniatures collection hobby...
What y we all need to accept is that some people dont like playing on Deathclocks, and they do not get their thrills playing competitively, and most important they know in their hearts that they will not stand a chans, and this puts them off more competative skill based games,,,
Ask anyone why they dont want to play warmachine/hordes for example and the answer is often, Its too competetive for me, and I dont find it fun... It can be hard on the ego to get OWNED.. some people rise to the challange others wither away..
I can add a fourth to your list:
4: People that like the look of the models, and just want a reason to use them.
I like the deathclock in Kings of War (assuming that you mean chess clocks) since it forces me to confront one of my own weaknesses. (I spend too much time plotting and planning - the chess clock makes me do the planning during my opponent's turn, so I don't use up my valuable time on tactics, only to lose when that time runs out. )
If you lack skill, and know that your not that good of a player I would say 40k do have its appeal. The people I know who still play it fall into 3 categories
1: They Suck at playing and got beaten sensless in most other table-top games or card games they have tried, but they still manages to have fun with 40k because it is just less hardcore and random, that they can snatch a win hehe
This is part of the train of thought that 40K is primarily aimed at children. Much easier to do most of the 'playing' beforehand, doing all that mathhammering and listbuilding and piling on what the internet and your pocket calculator says should beat other armies fairly comfortably. It's a little harder for kids to think in terms of abstract, layered strategy and tactics (not a slight against them; just a point of mental development) and a little harder for anyone to ask a gaming forum what it thinks when you have to come up with solutions mid-game, on the fly.
'Course, lack of tactical options in 40K plays a part too.
2: They love the lore to the point that they cant live without it, even if the rules suck..
I've seen too many say that about themselves, too. That's why I constantly harp on about divorcing the rules from the minis and background, and using alternative, compatible rule sets, even if it starts to sound monotonous and parrotlike. It can't be hammered in too much, IMO.
What y we all need to accept is that some people dont like playing on Deathclocks, and they do not get their thrills playing competitively, and most important they know in their hearts that they will not stand a chans, and this puts them off more competative skill based games,,,
Ask anyone why they dont want to play warmachine/hordes for example and the answer is often, Its too competetive for me, and I dont find it fun... It can be hard on the ego to get OWNED.. some people rise to the challange others wither away..
I can see what you're saying, but along with your '40K is less hardcore' comment above, I'm not sure I completely agree. In line with the discussion going on, I can see people being hooked by the fluff, but with a lot of the subsequent enjoyment coming from the ability to tailor lists to best, competitive, hardcore, horrifying effect. It might not demand as much skill as pulling off a good crossfire or flanking maneuvre, but I don't think that'll be much consolation to the guy sick of being blasted by Wave Serpent/Wraithknight spam. He definitely 'will not stand a chance' either.
It's all a kind of arms race anyway. In that case, the difference between tactical games and 40K largely boils down to skill vs. money. Tactical games demand time and effort to develop your skill; 40K demands your life savings for the biggest, bestest models in each new edition or codex shuffle. I know which one my pocket likes the sound of most. Although I can see why young 'un's don't relish the idea of 'grinding' through a lot of defeats to 'level up' before they can be seen as a badass master of the game; but to me the idea of being seen as a great player because you can buy the right toys whiffs fairly badly, and it's my hope that most of these people hanker for a more... cerebral pastime later in life. Though that's all tempered by concern of what we've been talking about: that they're so in love with the fluff and simple buy-model-shoot-guns nature of 40K, that it'll all become indivisibly cemented in their heads as 'the' way to wargame. (Despite reports of 40K's plummeting popularity... I wonder how many of those leaving GW move onto other games, or are part of the "if I can't play 40K I'll play nothing" set?)
RunicFN, could you please enlighten us as to what evidence made you come to the conclusion that GW is growing? They are releasing more product at a faster pace and a higher price than ever before. Yet somehow, revenue keeps going down. They're closing more stores than they're opening every year. You can go on and on all you want about how GW is the best war gaming company ever and everyone loves them, but all factual evidence (and most anecdotal evidence) says you're completely wrong, GW is shrinking and losing their customer base faster than they're gaining new customers. Have you ever read a financial report? A turd painted gold is not worth $1100 an oz no matter how loudly you try to convince everyone it is. Please, show me one piece of actual evidence about how GW has grown either in revenue or customer base over the last 5 years. I would bet my collection that you can't. Since you want to insult our intelligence, I would like to point out that it seems YOU are the one who is unable to grasp numbers in a simple year end financial report. Those alone contradict all of your valiant efforts to white knight for GW.
@Toofast. I don't bother looking too much into the financial side of wargaming, because it mostly bores me, but I'm sure you're correct.
However I'd like to point out that -and excuse me if I'm stating the obvious here- this decline is not solely a result of poor management, but a simple fact of business in any industry: rising competition.
GW enjoyed a golden age while they remained unchallenged in wargaming. A lot of rival companies have sprung up, some serous challengers amongst them. So a lot of that lost profit, downsizing and decline was an inevitable occurrence, i.e. not a result of anything GW did wrong. If their accounting department is any better than their PR department, they may have even prepared for it...
3 They are whiteknights who are in denial, and still think 40k is a "GREAT GAME", when in fact it is a miniatures collection hobby...
Provide me a factual source that proves Warhammer 40,000 isn´t a great miniaturegame ( which means it can be played enjoyably and to have fun with it, while providing a nice gaming experience. ) Me and hundreds of thousands of other players are having a fun gaming experience with it on a weekly, even daily basis. And in the end it´s a subjective matter.
So yeah, what you said is meaningless and has no bearing on pretty much anything.
Like much of Runic's argumentation, no, there are no statistics to back this claim up.
And the only thing to back up yours ( and many others ) is a single sales report and a chairmans preamble, both which actually mean nothing in the end.
RunicFIN wrote: I don´t see money as a reason not to recommend anyone not to do anything.
People more often than not can afford Warhammer 40,000, and/or are willing to spend on it aswell. Only if someones requirement is "it shouldn´t cost too much" - is it a good reason.
But what advantage does 40K have on other (cheaper) games, that makes 40K worth taking over them?
Many of the things regarding a wargame are very subjective. Most beginners make their choice based on the universe, or the models as they usually lack the gaming experience. I believe everyone should go for what they like, and if they happen to be interested in Warhammer 40,000 for example above others, then it can be easily recommended for them.
MWHistorian wrote: Also, do you have statistics to back up your assertion that money isn't important to people?
Have never claimed such a thing in the first place so don´t know why I would need statistics. If someone says they got the money and they´re willing to spend, then there should be no issue.
-
Some golden comedy going on here with some of the doom predictions, I can´t fathom what kind of enclosure from the outside world it requires to come into these conclusions about GW going down and the playerbase shrinking. Declined sales are also partially due to people not needing to buy new miniatures all of the time, as the large portion of the playerbase already owns quite the collection. Warhammer 40,000 has the largest, oldest playerbase around, that also makes way for secondhand markets; yet another reason all purchases of GW miniatures don´t translate to GW income. And then there´s the manufacturers of alternatives, and also recasters that bring their own spice into the soup. These are all facts and all of them play a role of impact on sales of new miniatures.
In any case, you anti-GW folk have fun with your delusional doomsday theories now. Keep believing GW is going down just because there´s more competitors out there than before. Such a normal scenario in business, and yet some of you fail to grasp it doesn´t mean a companys doom, especially if said company is the top dog in said industry.
But I´m sure continously writing on the forums that GW is going down and 40K is dying will make it so. Obviously this logic is driving some users on a subconsious level.
The rest of us can enjoy the actual reality, inwhich Games Workshop is the largest and most overall successfull wargaming company in existence, while Warhammer 40,000 is the most played, widely spread wargame with the largest playerbase around. <3
RunicFin, you said GW is growing. All evidence points to the opposite.
Unless a person is delusional, they'll admit that GW is declining. What's in question is where that decline stops. Do they level out at a new normal, fall to the bottom of the heap or go under. That, I can't answer, but the decline is happening whether you like to admit it or not.
And the only thing to back up yours ( and many others ) is a single sales report and a chairmans preamble, both which actually mean nothing in the end.
Okay, I´m judging by your above described quoting that you actually believe a sales report and a chairmans preamble that states they don´t do market research ( while they still obviously do it ) are meaningful. If you however are aware that even years of declined sales really don´t mean much in a large companys lifeline, and are aware that the chairmans preamble is basically propaganda for investors, then I don´t know what you´re trying to say. ( Your message to me implies that you hold both of these 2 items as some sort of meaningful evidence, while neither of them actually is such on the grand scale of things. Yeah, they had reduced sales, and they´ve had them before numerous times. And overall they have been on the rise for the last 15 years. )
MWHistorian wrote: RunicFin, you said GW is growing. All evidence points to the opposite.
Unless a person is delusional, they'll admit that GW is declining. What's in question is where that decline stops. Do they level out at a new normal, fall to the bottom of the heap or go under. That, I can't answer, but the decline is happening whether you like to admit it or not.
You do have quite the habit of either deliberately misinterpreting what is being said or being unable to comprehend it. Never said GW is growing ( or source please ) just said their sales have increased, which is a fact as they just launched the new tyranid kits ( of which the "drop pod" has sold extremely well ) and the huge amount of hobby kits. Next to that the upcoming starter box & BA Codex will most likely increase sales further. Whether you like to admit it or not.
Companies that continually have increased sales over a duration of 20 years are the rarest of the rare. Doesn´t make a company unsuccessfull to have reduced sales. However, it makes a company successfull to bounce back up time after time and to stay in business.
Okay, I´m judging by your above described quoting that you actually believe a sales report and a chairmans preamble that states they don´t do market research ( while they still obviously do it ) are meaningful. If you however are aware that even years of declined sales really don´t mean much in a large companys lifeline, and are aware that the chairmans preamble is basically propaganda for investors, then I don´t know what you´re trying to say. ( Your message to me implies that you hold both of these 2 items as some sort of meaningful evidence, while neither of them actually is such on the grand scale of things. Yeah, they had reduced sales, and they´ve had them before numerous times. And overall they have been on the rise for the last 15 years. )
RunicFIN wrote: I guess for some the illusion just can´t be broken.
Herzlos wrote: Maybe it's a language thing. Do you mean gw have more stuff available for sale, or they are making more sales transactions?
Their new products have increased their sales on a global scale, and at the same time they have more stuff available for sale for the beforementioned reason.
Aside from sales, I´m glad to see some completely new moves from GW ( well, new as in "this hasn´t happened in some time" ) as they publish free rules and improve their starter boxes to include actual kits with options now ( atleast the SW one was such, I think I read somewhere the same goes for BA. ) Perhaps they are taking a bit of a new direction. Also "fixing" the Tyranids was pretty nice of them, although it´s obvious it´s just asmuch a move to make money.
Aside from that Codex balance is now better than ever ( albeit game balance still needs a lot of work ) and they have all been brought up to date soon, with Necrons being last. We also have the best edition so far afaic ( I´ve played 62 games of 7.ed now. ) Things are looking pretty good.
Herzlos wrote: Maybe it's a language thing. Do you mean gw have more stuff available for sale, or they are making more sales transactions?
Their new products have increased their sales on a global scale, and at the same time they have more stuff available for sale for the beforementioned reason.
Aside from sales, I´m glad to see some completely new moves from GW ( well, new as in "this hasn´t happened in some time" ) as they publish free rules and improve their starter boxes to include actual kits with options now ( atleast the SW one was such, I think I read somewhere the same goes for BA. ) Perhaps they are taking a bit of a new direction. Also "fixing" the Tyranids was pretty nice of them, although it´s obvious it´s just asmuch a move to make money.
Aside from that Codex balance is now better than ever ( albeit game balance still needs a lot of work ) and they have all been brought up to date soon, with Necrons being last. We also have the best edition so far afaic ( I´ve played 62 games of 7.ed now. ) Things are looking pretty good.
Like much of Runic's argumentation, no, there are no statistics to back this claim up.
And the only thing to back up yours ( and many others ) is a single sales report and a chairmans preamble, both which actually mean nothing in the end.
"Yeah, well, I've got no evidence, but you've only got some evidence, and that's like, totally the same thing. Besides, your evidence is just a legal document that will remain on record for years to come and has criminal offences attached to it should it be misrepresented, that's totes meaningless!"
Haven't seen you post in ages runic, keep on keeping on dude, you're great value!
Musashi363 wrote: So Runic gets caught in a lie, and claims GW is growing?! please point out where in the latest financial report backs that up.
Except I never said such a thing, and already stated that in a previous post ( after MWHistorian went onto commit his deliberate misinterpretation number 34876. ) Double reading fail?
Also the financial report he is referring to is from before Space Wolves, the new Tyranid kits, the new hobby kits, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, and the new starter kit. We´ll see about the next one.
Funny thing is:
By your logic ( everyone who thinks the following ) GW is doomed and going down and whatever other nonsense when they have reduced sales. Applying this same logic, any positive future sales report will mean they´re ontop of the world. If you take a moment to consider this scenario applied the other way around, maybe you will finally see how idiotic your logic truly is.
Azreal13 wrote: a legal document that will remain on record for years to come and has criminal offences attached to it should it be misrepresented, that's totes meaningless!"
You should really learn a bit more about chairmans preamble as a document and what is okay to write in such a document. Obviously you have no clue. I haven´t see one chairmans preamble, ever, inwhich things aren´t smoothed out for investors or the company presenting itself in a confident light.
I thought you were a bit mode aware of how the world works Azreal, but I guess you´re pseudointellectual afterall. And if under a month is a long time of not posting to you then I don´t know, I guess you spend most of your hours just browsing DakkaDakka and being all anti-gw.
Azreal13 wrote: I'm more referring to the hard financial data, but keep tilting at windmills.
Just read what I wrote above and continue to refer to your 5 month old sales report until the end of time for all I care. Keep believing the most successfull wargaming company in history is going down.
Keep on the good fight, Azreal13 ( did you typo Azrael btw? )
People, people don't show Runic to truth. You say what happened last time someone broke down wall. He got so up set when I parroted his rude post, to him he couldn't control his anger about a GAME OF TOYS. That the Mod need to wipe the text of him post right after. We should all be nice, and let him know how much of a .... cute little child he is and we understand it is the reason for his misinformed belive. I mean calling people names is the sign you belve in what your saying right, right?
Azreal13 wrote: I'm more referring to the hard financial data, but keep tilting at windmills.
Just read what I wrote above and continue to refer to your 5 month old sales report until the end of time for all I care. Keep believing the most successfull wargaming company in history is going down.
Keep on the good fight, Azreal13 ( did you typo Azrael btw? )
No, I'll keep referring to the 5 month old and 11 month old reports, both of which painted similar pictures, and the multiple previous reports which only showed growth in the most tenuous sense (cause more than last year is always better right? It in no way fails to account for above inflation price rises or cost cutting to mask flat sales performance?) at least until January when the next interim report is due, and then I'll adjust my interpretation as that information suggests.
Oh, and no, my username refers back to an old multiplayer handle I used to use, inspired by, but not a copy of Azrael.
Noir wrote: People, people don't show Runic to truth. You say what happened last time someone broke down wall. He got so up set when I parroted his rude post, to him he couldn't control his anger about a GAME OF TOYS. That the Mod need to wipe the text of him post right after. We should all be nice, and let him know how much of a .... cute little child he is and we understand it is the reason for his misinformed belive. I mean calling people names is the sign you belve in what your saying right, right?
Actually I just showed my disappointed in a calm manner, but it was unpolite. I would´ve thought you left the "you´re mad!" -strategy at middleschool. But guess not. Infact what you are writing in the above post I find childish.
Also, do express this "truth" of yours, thanks.
Azreal13 wrote: No, I'll keep referring to the 5 month old and 11 month old reports, both of which painted similar pictures, and the multiple previous reports which only showed growth in the most tenuous sense (cause more than last year is always better right? It in no way fails to account for above inflation price rises or cost cutting to mask flat sales performance?) at least until January when the next interim report is due, and then I'll adjust my interpretation as that information suggests.
I can´t recall if you´re one of those people who thinks reduced sales is the end of the world. I´ll give you the benefit of doubt. What would increased sales mean for you?
Just asking to see if you´re one of those people who will make an excuse if that happens, still fueling the hate train of if you´re actually neutral instead of welded-shut-biased.
In essence what I´m saying is:
-GW´s sales will have increased after the last financial reports due to the vast amount of new product, some of them ( especially the Tyranid drop pod ) having been reported selling really well. This is true.
-Warhammer 40,000 is still an enjoyable game, with the largest playerbase in it´s field. This matter is subjective, and can therefore be true and false.
-Games Workshop is the largest, most successfull wargaming company in existence. This is true.
If someone interprets any of these differently, they can only blame themselves. I guess some want to argue against these facts because it angers them that they´re the truth for whatever reason.
Musashi363 wrote: So Runic gets caught in a lie, and claims GW is growing?! please point out where in the latest financial report backs that up.
Except I never said such a thing, and already stated that in a previous post ( after MWHistorian went onto commit his deliberate misinterpretation number 34876. ) Double reading fail?
Also the financial report he is referring to is from before Space Wolves, the new Tyranid kits, the new hobby kits, Dark Eldar, Blood Angels, and the new starter kit. We´ll see about the next one.
.
Well, actually, you did say that.
Their new products have increased their sales on a global scale, and at the same time they have more stuff available for sale for the beforementioned reason.
So, again, you're caught lying or you're painfully ignorant about what a sales report actually is.
The funny thing is, the bad sales reports were during the Space Marine Codex (their top sellers) Imperial Knights (a huge success) and a new edition. If you think SW and a tyranid giant testicle are going to top those, then you're mistaken.
Azreal13 wrote: No, I'll keep referring to the 5 month old and 11 month old reports, both of which painted similar pictures, and the multiple previous reports which only showed growth in the most tenuous sense (cause more than last year is always better right? It in no way fails to account for above inflation price rises or cost cutting to mask flat sales performance?) at least until January when the next interim report is due, and then I'll adjust my interpretation as that information suggests.
I can´t recall if you´re one of those people who thinks reduced sales is the end of the world. I´ll give you the benefit of doubt. What would increased sales mean for you?
Just asking to see if you´re one of those people who will make an excuse if that happens, still fueling the hate train of if you´re actually neutral instead of welded-shut-biased.
So you're asking me for my hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical situation?
Nah, we'll leave that for 6 weeks and then have a real discussion based on real facts.
My ego is not so big that if they were to show increased revenue and profit which do not have to be linked to increased or decreased sales, I wouldn't be willing to take that on board.
However, as I've never predicted the imminent doom of GW, I don't see how one could say I was categorically wrong. Most of my criticism of GW is couched in the fact that they do so much stuff in a sub-optimal way, which I consider loses them sales or undermines the quality of their product (and therefore my personal enjoyment of them.) I will continue to criticise anything I view to be like this, but GW don't have to be losing money to be less than they could be.
EDIT
A new edition of 40K and the update of their top selling line weren't enough to turn their last year around, a Tyranid Drop Pod, even one that breaks all records for a Tyranid kit is unlikely to turn this one around if needed.
MWHistorian wrote: Their new products have increased their sales on a global scale, and at the same time they have more stuff available for sale for the beforementioned reason.
You accused me of saying "GW has grown" before, and I said I talked about sales. Now you quote me for saying what I said I said, sales. Sales do not equal growth.
It´s you who is painfully ignorant. Can you stop trying already since you´re just making yourself look worse with every attempt you take to try and put words in my mouth/deliberately misinterpret me?
So, again, you're caught lying or you're painfully ignorant about what a sales report actually is.
The funny thing is, the bad sales reports were during the Space Marine Codex (their top sellers) Imperial Knights (a huge success) and a new edition. If you think SW and a tyranid giant testicle are going to top those,then you're mistaken.
Where did you get the data that GW have increased their sales, though? Don't tell me it's anecdotal, because it's very hypocritical of you to ask people of proof/source without providing your own.
However, as I've never predicted the imminent doom of GW, I don't see how one could say I was categorically wrong. Most of my criticism of GW is couched in the fact that they do so much stuff in a sub-optimal way, which I consider loses them sales or undermines the quality of their product (and therefore my personal enjoyment of them.) I will continue to criticise anything I view to be like this, but GW don't have to be losing money to be less than they could be.
I can appreaciate this bit, and I agree about GW doing things the suboptimal way, many of them.
heartserenade wrote: Where did you get the data that GW have increased their sales, though? Don't tell me it's anecdotal, because it's very hypocritical of you to ask people of proof/source without providing your own.
Send me a PM when the next report from GW comes out and after you have, with your own eyes, seen it. I´ll let you in on a not-so-big secret.
Here´s once again, just to make things clear and completely behead the disease that is MWHistorians word-bending:
RunicFIN wrote:In essence what I´m saying is:
-GW´s sales will have increased after the last financial reports due to the vast amount of new product, some of them ( especially the Tyranid drop pod ) having been reported selling really well. This is true.
-Warhammer 40,000 is still an enjoyable game, with the largest playerbase in it´s field. This matter is subjective, and can therefore be true and false.
-Games Workshop is the largest, most successfull wargaming company in existence. This is true.
If someone interprets any of these differently, they can only blame themselves.
TSR 'grew' right before it fell. They unleashed a ton of stuff. And then 'Boom.' They were gone.
I'm not saying that's what's going to happen to GW. But many releases does not equate to more success. As I said before, I think GW is falling, but I don't know where that fall may end. Imminent doom? Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is that if they continue as they are with no change for the better, then they will go under. It's like a plane in a descent. he may be really high up, but sooner or later he has to pull up or he's going to hit the ground.
MWHistorian wrote: TSR 'grew' right before it fell. They unleashed a ton of stuff. And then 'Boom.' They were gone.
I'm not saying that's what's going to happen to GW. But many releases does not equate to more success. As I said before, I think GW is falling, but I don't know where that fall may end. Imminent doom? Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is that if they continue as they are with no change for the better, then they will go under. It's like a plane in a descent. he may be really high up, but sooner or later he has to pull up or he's going to hit the ground.
Can I have the proof/source for when you stated that GW´s new products after their last report haven´t increased their sales?
MWHistorian wrote: TSR 'grew' right before it fell. They unleashed a ton of stuff. And then 'Boom.' They were gone.
I'm not saying that's what's going to happen to GW. But many releases does not equate to more success. As I said before, I think GW is falling, but I don't know where that fall may end. Imminent doom? Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is that if they continue as they are with no change for the better, then they will go under. It's like a plane in a descent. he may be really high up, but sooner or later he has to pull up or he's going to hit the ground.
Can I have the proof/source for when you stated that GW´s new products after their last report haven´t increased their sales?
Umm...what? The last sales report? During that time in the report, C:SM, IK, IG and 7th were all released. Those are historically their biggest money makers. Yet they showed a decline in sales. Instead of me "offering proof," just go read the report for yourself.
-GW´s sales will have increased after the last financial reports due to the vast amount of new product, some of them ( especially the Tyranid drop pod ) having been reported selling really well. This is true.
This is not true because we do not know this for a fact, as the numbers have not been published.
Can I have the proof/source for when you stated that GW´s new products after their last report haven´t increased their sales?
Umm...what? The last sales report? During that time in the report, C:SM, IK, IG and 7th were all released. Those are historically their biggest money makers. Yet they showed a decline in sales. Instead of me "offering proof," just go read the report for yourself.
Can I have the proof/source for when you stated that GW´s new products after their last report haven´t increased their sales?
You referred to the "tyranid testacle" -yourself, clear indication that you knew perfectly well what I´m talking about ( the products released after the last sales report, which the "tyranid testacle" itself is one of. )
MWHistorian wrote: TSR 'grew' right before it fell. They unleashed a ton of stuff. And then 'Boom.' They were gone.
I'm not saying that's what's going to happen to GW. But many releases does not equate to more success. As I said before, I think GW is falling, but I don't know where that fall may end. Imminent doom? Maybe, maybe not. All I'm saying is that if they continue as they are with no change for the better, then they will go under. It's like a plane in a descent. he may be really high up, but sooner or later he has to pull up or he's going to hit the ground.
Gods, I hope that GW has better accountants than TSR did - towards the end, one of the things that they were ignoring was that most of those box sets cost more than TSR was making from them. (There is, in the depths of the interweb, an account of the WotC takeover, and the shambles that Dancey found... Let me Google, a mo... Here.)
I think that GW is breaking new ground in its financial stupidity, not just repeating TSR's mistakes.... though it is doing that as well.
Musashi363 wrote: Soooo your "Proof" is six weeks away? So in other words, you have none. Yet demand proof beyond the financial reports put out by GW themselves? Wow!
I have some. I can PM you also ( but be prepared I will smear it in your face that I was correct. )
Further, why the mention of smearing? Do you take the success or failure of GW so personally you need to do that?
Because it´s a tolling task, being right, and not being able to show it well enough to satisfy everyone, and I´ll think of the smearing as equalization for some of the things that have been said here.
Further, why the mention of smearing? Do you take the success or failure of GW so personally you need to do that?
Because it´s a tolling task, being right, and not being able to show it well enough to satisfy everyone, and I´ll think of the smearing as equalization for some of the things that have been said here.
Further, why the mention of smearing? Do you take the success or failure of GW so personally you need to do that?
Tom Kirby will reward him one day for his absolute faith in the Plastic-Emperor of Mankind.
So there!
How can I reward myself?
You just said you have proof and will show one person, yet you won't show everyone 'cause it's too much work? Do you have access to the next report that hasn't been released yet?
If you don't produce said evidence, you'll be considered trolling.
Because it´s a tolling task, being right, and not being able to show it well enough to satisfy everyone, and I´ll think of the smearing as equalization for some of the things that have been said here.
If its so tolling, why bother posting at all? If you have data no one else has seen, but make arguments based on that data, it seems fairly obvious you'd show everyone the same data so we can all re-assess and re-evaluate and discuss things on the same level of knowledge.
And again, it feels like you're taking a discussion about a corporate entity far too seriously if you need to smear it in people's face if you happen to be correct. You're not faultless in this conversation.
If you have information, post it. If you choose not to, expect people to not believe you and dismiss what you have to say as being unsubstantiated. Being correct about it later will mean nothing if you've hidden information just for the sake of being right. Seems downright petty. Maybe you need to step outside and build a snowman or something. Put things in perspective.
If you don't produce said evidence, you'll be considered trolling.
Where is the proof of yours regarding the new products of GW not increasing their sales? I asked it for once already, did not receive it. As I mentioned before, you mentioned the "tyranid testacle" -which means you knew I was talking about products that came after the last report, yet you still pointed me to the old report.
If you don't produce said evidence, you'll be considered trolling.
Where is the proof of yours regarding the new products of GW not increasing their sales? I asked it for once already, did not receive it. As I mentioned before, you mentioned the "tyranid testacle" -which means you knew I was talking about products that came after the last report, yet you still pointed me to the old report.
So, yeah?
You really think one model for one army is going to do more sales than the C:SM, IG and IK put together?
Being correct about it later will mean nothing if you've hidden information just for the sake of being right. Seems downright petty.
Being correct about it is being correct about it, and the doomsayers being wrong. And maybe you should take into consideration it might not be a matter of being petty but something else entirely.
In fairness, there's also the End Times, which seems to have been met with mostly positive reviews.
Though it is Fantasy, which does sell less than 40k.
Being correct about it is being correct about it, and the doomsayers being wrong. And maybe you should take into consideration it might not be a matter of being petty but something else entirely.
Being right to spite people you label as doomsayers is the definition of being petty.
Its the equivalent of yelling 'I told you so!'. I have a hard time thinking of something more petty. You're withholding relevant information just to be right in a discussion online.
If you don't produce said evidence, you'll be considered trolling.
Where is the proof of yours regarding the new products of GW not increasing their sales? I asked it for once already, did not receive it. As I mentioned before, you mentioned the "tyranid testacle" -which means you knew I was talking about products that came after the last report, yet you still pointed me to the old report.
So, yeah?
It is the concept of past behaviour being a good indicator, 7th Edition,Space Marines and Knights didn't stop them shrinking, so why should anything released since?
There hasn't been a significant increase in volume either, the army books have accelerated, but the weekly releases does distort the perception of the volume of new releases somewhat.
If you don't produce said evidence, you'll be considered trolling.
Where is the proof of yours regarding the new products of GW not increasing their sales? I asked it for once already, did not receive it. As I mentioned before, you mentioned the "tyranid testacle" -which means you knew I was talking about products that came after the last report, yet you still pointed me to the old report.
So, yeah?
You really think one model for one army is going to do more sales than the C:SM, IG and IK put together?
And again you failed to read what I wrote. In my post I listed ( asfar as I can see ) everything that came after said sales report.
Again, proof that the products I mentioned haven´t increased GW´s sales. You´re always demanding proof, now is your turn. Stop dodging the question. ( That´s what, third time now? First you act like you don´t know I was talking about products after the sales report while clearly referencing one that came after, now you make it as if I only mentioned one product. )
I don´t even... Just provide the proof for the question you know I am asking, and the statement you made yourself less than 10 minutes ago, or take it back that I am mistaken and what you said is made up entirely of your own belief.
Let me get this straight... Runic calls someone out for 'acting like in middle school'.
Then proceeds to play the 'no, I have proof really but it's secret' game.
You know, there's a sad day in the career of every white knight when a critical mass of posters put them on their ignore list. At that point, their meaningless drivel falls on mostly deaf ears, their painful attempts at trolling going unreacted to. It's been seen many times, from many posters. Where are they now, those brave souls who defended GW by spanning their lies across countless threads, twisting their narrative to suit whichever petty argument they'd instigated this time?
Think things have strayed a little bit here between Runic heroically holding the GW banner aloft while being stabbed from all sides.
To the OP's original question ? It's deeply situational. The only circumstance under which I would advise a beginner (and by that, I assume it means a fresh entrant to wargaming) would be if the people within my gaming group only played GW games. I think if you were in that situation, and the person had the money to get into it, then it would indeed be a sensible choice.
I don't think playing 40k is as bad as having red-hot needles shoved into your eyes, as some people seem to suggest. Despite such a thing seemingly not have been a priority now for several editions, you can still have an awful lot of fun with it. I still play if the circumstances are very specific and I know my opponent is on the same page as me (pre-heresy, limited to infantry and tanks, none of this new giant Tomix-toys nonsense or having previously sworn enemies fighting alongside each other). I also wouldn't hesitate to introduce Blood Bowl, Necromunda, Mordheim or Epic, which are all fantastic games and can be easily accessed at a cheap price.
But, would I recommend WFB or 40k to someone when they had the whole smorgasbord of wargaming in front of them, and were open minded about where to start? Absolutely not; there are many better written games out there, with sharper mechanics and which give the player more opportunity to use the organ that sits in-between their ears.
Blacksails wrote: Runic, you made the original claim that those products have increased sales.
The burden is on you to provide the evidence to support that claim, not the other way around for us to disprove it.
MWHistorian has made a claim that the new products released after GW´s last report haven´t increased sales ( by saying I´m mistaken about it ) and he has just asmuch burden to reveal his source as I have mine.
You don´t get to make up any rules, sorry. He has asked me for proof on vaurious occasions, now it´s his turn and that´s all there is to it. Claim here:
MWHistorian wrote: If you think SW and a tyranid giant testicle are going to top those, then you're mistaken.
Here we have a bunch of anti-gw folk, demanding for proof for things opposite of their beliefs, and when they have to provide some for their own claims they just go "we don´t have to provide proof for what we say, only the other party does."
Blacksails wrote: Runic, you made the original claim that those products have increased sales.
The burden is on you to provide the evidence to support that claim, not the other way around for us to disprove it.
This.
I stated past top sellers in the last report (again) C:SM, IG and the highly successful IK. Not to mention 7th edition. All did very well and the codex's and new edition are historically their top sellers. Nothing released since then has historically done better than the previously mentioned releases. So, my evidence is past behavior.
And again, the burden of proof is on you. You claimed to have evidence yet you won't show anyone. That reeks of insincerity.
Blacksails wrote: Runic, you made the original claim that those products have increased sales.
The burden is on you to provide the evidence to support that claim, not the other way around for us to disprove it.
This.
I stated past top sellers in the last report (again) C:SM, IG and the highly successful IK. Not to mention 7th edition. All did very well and the codex's and new edition are historically their top sellers. Nothing released since then has historically done better than the previously mentioned releases. So, my evidence is past behavior.
And again, the burden of proof is on you. You claimed to have evidence yet you won't show anyone. That reeks of insincerity.
Hmm no, the burden of proof of your own statement is on you. So yeah, again, give us the proof GW´s new products after the last sales report haven´t increased their sales, which is what you claimed. You are always demanding proof of people, do the same.
Otherwise I guess I can also use the past as proof, or do you have special-needs-person priviledges regarding that also? GW has risen from a sales low before, that´s my proof of the past behaviour. - and it´s absolutely equal to yours.
Sorry MW, there´s no talking your way out of this. Provide proof for your claim, just like I have to provide for mine, or refrain from demanding proof forever ( you do it to vaurious people actively. ) Or your third option, continue to act paradoxical, which you factually are if you don´t back up your claim like you demand of everyone else.
Those are your 3 options, and there´s no squirming away from them, as one of them will be met automatically regardless of your actions.
In any case, keep believing guys. We´ll see in when the new report hits. The funny thing is even that really means nothing, as singular sales reports, be they positive or negative, have not much to do with a success of a company the size of GW. In a way this is all so irrelevant but you just can´t apparently see it, and I find this whole "omg bad sales report gw dying yo" so hilarious.
Sorry MW, there´s no talking your way out of this. Provide proof for your claim, just like I have to provide for mine, or refrain from demanding proof forever ( you do it to vaurious people actively. ) Or your third option, continue to act paradoxical, which you factually are if you don´t back up your claim like you demand of everyone else.
Those are your 3 options, and there´s no squirming away from them, as one of them will be met automatically regardless of your actions.
First, reported for needlessly insulting MWH.
Secondly, you clearly don't understand logic. We don't evaluate separate claims simultaneously, we evaluate each claim on its own merits according to relevant evidence. Your claim is that its true that the releases since the financial report have increased GW's global sales, yet you have no evidence for this, despite claiming to possess proof.
Post your evidence, or consider your claim conceded.
Sorry MW, there´s no talking your way out of this. Provide proof for your claim, just like I have to provide for mine, or refrain from demanding proof forever ( you do it to vaurious people actively. ) Or your third option, continue to act paradoxical, which you factually are if you don´t back up your claim like you demand of everyone else.
Those are your 3 options, and there´s no squirming away from them, as one of them will be met automatically regardless of your actions.
First, reported for needlessly insulting MWH.
Secondly, you clearly don't understand logic. We don't evaluate separate claims simultaneously, we evaluate each claim on its own merits according to relevant evidence. Your claim is that its true that the releases since the financial report have increased GW's global sales, yet you have no evidence for this, despite claiming to possess proof.
Post your evidence, or consider your claim conceded.
Don´t make me laugh. You say a person ( one that you for some reason bunch up with, perhaps you share his view regarding GW or something ) doesn´t need to provide proof for his claims while everyone who disagrees is continously asked for proof. There´s no logic whatsoever in that, just the epitome of you lot being paradoxical.
And MWHistorians claim is that the new releases since the last financial reports have not increased GW´s sales, yet he has no evidence for that. He can post his evidence, or consider his claim conceded.
Secondly, you don´t have to inform me about your report, I´m really not that interested. I report anyone being unpolite just the same.
Blacksails wrote: Runic, you made the original claim that those products have increased sales.
The burden is on you to provide the evidence to support that claim, not the other way around for us to disprove it.
This.
I stated past top sellers in the last report (again) C:SM, IG and the highly successful IK. Not to mention 7th edition. All did very well and the codex's and new edition are historically their top sellers. Nothing released since then has historically done better than the previously mentioned releases. So, my evidence is past behavior.
And again, the burden of proof is on you. You claimed to have evidence yet you won't show anyone. That reeks of insincerity.
It is reeking of several things beginning with the letter 'I'.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof is a truism for a reason. (Thank you David Hume....)
But, just because it amuses me - one of the greatest proponents of proof was Thomas Jefferson, who once noted that "I would rather believe two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones have fallen from the heavens."
I never said "They haven't increased sales." I don't know the future. What I'm saying is that they won't based off past performance of those releases. GW always gets a huge bump in sales when they release anything SM and a new edition. Go look that up yourself.
Don´t make me laugh. You say a person ( you for some reason bunch up with ) doesn´t need to provide proof for his claims while everyone who disagrees is continously asked for proof. There´s no logic whatsoever in that, just the epitome of you being paradoxical.
I doubt I could make you laugh, you clearly don't understand anything I say. I haven't referred to MWHistorian's claim at all. If he made that claim, he would have to provide proof. However, that's a separate claim which I'm not currently evaluating. His lack of evidence has no bearing on your claim, or you own lack of evidence. There's no paradox here. I'd stop throwing out big words if I were you. They only work when the logical construction of the rest of your post provides the framework to hang them on.
And MWHistorians claim is that the new releases since the last financial reports have not increased GW´s sales, yet he has no evidence for that. He can post his evidence, or consider his claim conceded.
Where did he claim that, by the way? I had a quick scan and can't see it, only you suddenly asserting he made that claim to start deflecting his own requests for evidence.
It seems to me that you're continually digging a deeper hole with your continuous lying, I have no idea where you expect this to go. You're being further and further exposed as a fraud and a troll, the deeper you go.
Riquende wrote: I doubt I could make you laugh, you clearly don't understand anything I say. I haven't referred to MWHistorian's claim at all. If he made that claim, he would have to provide proof.
Very well then, I take back what I said when it comes to you Riquende. That´s all I wanted to hear from you. I don´t have time to search for his post right now ( see below ) but use the search function, put MWHistorians username in as a requirement and search for the words "you´re mistaken" or "you are mistaken" - it should show up as the first result.
In any case, keep believing guys. I´m sure you´re correct regarding GW going down and a single sales report + a chairmans preamble being ultimate evidence of a large companys doom, with said company having a history of over 20 years and being the most successfull in their field. I´ll visit the discussion thread after the report to see what possible excuses you have come up with to try and sweep being incorrect under the rug to safe face. I´m guessing "this means nothing" ( which is what I am now saying, but you refuse to accept ) is one, someone will probably blame it on christmas and people buying presents.
Also, try to work on your skills regarding holding coherent protocol, demanding proof of others and "protecting one of your own" by just blatantly stating he doesn´t need to provide any proof for his equally big claims just sweeps any credibility whatsoever from under your feet.
I am now in a hurry to enjoy an enjoyable game or two of Warhammer 40,000, the most widespread miniaturegame on the planet, produced by the most successfful wargaming company in existence, so we´ll continue this discussion wherein you just come up with non-equal rules to others later. Ciao.
heartserenade wrote: Guys, unicorns are real. You want proof? I can prove it but only through PM, and i'm gonna smear your face, ass, whatever, with the unicorn truth!
And you don't have proof that they're not real! HAH~! Take that, logic!
Well, Pliny's unicorn exists, anyway.... He was describing a rhinoceros by using portions of animals that the reader was likely to be familiar with... so, the head of a deer, the body of a horse, the legs of an elephant, the tail of a lion, and a horn in the middle of its head.
Riquende wrote: I doubt I could make you laugh, you clearly don't understand anything I say. I haven't referred to MWHistorian's claim at all. If he made that claim, he would have to provide proof.
Very well then, I take back what I said when it comes to you Riquende. That´s all I wanted to hear from you. I don´t have time to search for his post right now ( see below ) but use the search function, put MWHistorians username in as a requirement and search for the words "you´re mistaken" or "you are mistaken" - it should show up as the first result.
In any case, keep believing guys. I´m sure you´re correct regarding GW going down and a single sales report + a chairmans preamble being ultimate evidence of a large companys doom, with said company having a history of over 20 years and being the most successfull in their field. I´ll visit the discussion thread after the report to see what possible excuses you have come up with to try and sweep being incorrect under the rug to safe face. I´m guessing "this means nothing" ( which is what I am now saying, but you refuse to accept ) is one, someone will probably blame it on christmas and people buying presents.
Also, try to work on your skills regarding holding coherent protocol, demanding proof of others and "protecting one of your own" by just blatantly stating he doesn´t need to provide any proof for his equally big claims just sweeps any credibility whatsoever from under your feet.
I am now in a hurry to enjoy an enjoyable game or two of Warhammer 40,000, the most widespread miniaturegame on the planet, produced by the most successfful wargaming company in existence, so we´ll continue this discussion wherein you just come up with non-equal rules to others later. Ciao.
You do get that the chairman's preamble is the introduction to the financial report right? And that there have been two consecutive reports wih falling profit and revenue? Both within the same year, admittedly, but it does demonstrate a much longer term trend than just the EOY report.
I mean, I'm fairly convinced you don't have a firm grasp of what you're arguing, but treating referring to these things as separate entities doesn't lend an air of authority to your posts.
Jog on then son.Have fun. Don't come back too quickly, I need to recover from handing out logic 101 lessons!
Thanks for your concession that you have no proof, nor even scant evidence that your claims are valid. Accepted.
Next time you want to get your kicks out of shameless lying and constant dishonesty, why not take a law class?
Edit:
Fun as it is to watch those with the gleaming armour twist themselves into knots with their childish lies, I do feel the forum is immeasurably improved by not having to wade through their drivel. RunicFIN, I dub you a vacuous liar, more concerned with stirring up trouble than discussing the hobby, and more concerned with insulting people than trying to understand them. You are ignored.
I'd urge others to do so as well (if only so that his quoted posts don't keep appearing in otherwise interesting topics). Irrelevant trolls disappear quickly when there's nobody responding to them. It's sad, but it is only done for attention and validation.
I thought this was about advising beginners on whether they should or should not start a GW game, not argue in a circle with Runic until a mod has to close the thread due to it being off topic (by not just clicking on the ignore button and allowing him to further drag the discussion off topic you're falling into his attempts to get the thread closed, Zweischneid did this ALLLLLL the time and yet no one seemed to figure it out).
Do not Reply.
Use Ignore button.
Let him die.
He is counting on you wanting to "win" the discussion to manipulate you into getting the thread closed, just ignore him.
Would I advise a beginner to start 40k? Not in good conscious.
1. Too expensive. For a full size army you're looking at $500+
2. Too unbalanced. Unless you know exactly what you're doing, chances are your army will be dreadfully underpowered and losing all the time may become frustrating and cause them to quit after an already hefty investement.
3. There are so many better games out there that I can't think of a reason to play 40k more than another game.
In that light... I will reiterate my actual, on topic , response to the OP....
I highly recommend Mordheim - and playing it with miniatures from other companies.
I recommend Necromunda - and playing it with miniatures from other companies.
I recommend getting the two player starter set for Warhammer Fantasy Battle - and using the High Elf miniatures for Kings of War. (The high elves make a decent start on an army, and the Kings of War rules are available for free - so no added costs for a better game.)
I do not recommend any of their current sets of rules, and believe that the miniatures are far too expensive for their quality.
And that on a great many of their recent plastics, that quality is falling.
If you don't produce said evidence, you'll be considered trolling.
Where is the proof of yours regarding the new products of GW not increasing their sales? I asked it for once already, did not receive it. As I mentioned before, you mentioned the "tyranid testacle" -which means you knew I was talking about products that came after the last report, yet you still pointed me to the old report.
So, yeah?
He said he can't for 6 more weeks one way or the other. Your the one that say you have proff NOW. So put up or shut up, as the saying goes.
Being correct about it later will mean nothing if you've hidden information just for the sake of being right. Seems downright petty.
Being correct about it is being correct about it, and the doomsayers being wrong. And maybe you should take into consideration it might not be a matter of being petty but something else entirely.
Yup, Not child like at all. LOL. Going to make more popcorn right now keep it up.
Riquende wrote: Thanks for your concession that you have no proof, nor even scant evidence that your claims are valid. Accepted.
"Concessed" to none of the things you say, as I am still infact right about the matter. You talk about logic yet you conclude things out of thin air. I take back taking back you making me laugh, as you completely lack any logic yourself.
Fun as it is to watch those with the gleaming armour twist themselves into knots with their childish lies, I do feel the forum is immeasurably improved by not having to wade through their drivel. RunicFIN, I dub you a vacuous liar, more concerned with stirring up trouble than discussing the hobby, and more concerned with insulting people than trying to understand them. You are ignored.
I'd urge others to do so as well (if only so that his quoted posts don't keep appearing in otherwise interesting topics). Irrelevant trolls disappear quickly when there's nobody responding to them. It's sad, but it is only done for attention and validation.
Haven´t lied, nor am I in a knot ( infact you are, with you lot acting as paradoxical as possible with not requiring proof from MWHistorian but requiring from anyone else, at any given time. ) So yeah, you just made yourself look even more unlogical and paradoxical. Next to this, regarding the topic of GW going down/whatever the tinfoils have made up for today - I am correct, you are not. Have fun accepting that.
Musashi363 wrote: I'm still waiting on that PM you promised Rubric....
Like I stated to Musashi, I will send it to you the very day the report hits. For reasons other than pettiness I cannot do it now.
Riquende wrote: Thanks for your concession that you have no proof, nor even scant evidence that your claims are valid. Accepted.
"Concessed" to none of the things you say, as I am still infact right about the matter. You talk about logic yet you conclude things out of thin air. I take back taking back you making me laugh, as you completely lack any logic yourself.
Fun as it is to watch those with the gleaming armour twist themselves into knots with their childish lies, I do feel the forum is immeasurably improved by not having to wade through their drivel. RunicFIN, I dub you a vacuous liar, more concerned with stirring up trouble than discussing the hobby, and more concerned with insulting people than trying to understand them. You are ignored.
I'd urge others to do so as well (if only so that his quoted posts don't keep appearing in otherwise interesting topics). Irrelevant trolls disappear quickly when there's nobody responding to them. It's sad, but it is only done for attention and validation.
Haven´t lied, nor am I in a knot ( infact you are, with you lot acting as paradoxical as possible with not requiring proof from MWHistorian but requiring from anyone else, at any given time. ) So yeah, you just made yourself look even more unlogical and paradoxical.
How many times do I have to give my evidence? (Not proof. Only children and Sith deal in absolutes.) Just because you didn't like my evidence doesn't mean I didn't give it. So, go ahead and give your evidence, or PM Musashi like you said you would. Do something besides lie and avoid answering to your own statements.
But perhaps it is time to get back on track before the MOD's shut this down. RunicFin, if you have evidence, let's continue this on PM.
Being correct about it is being correct about it, and the doomsayers being wrong. And maybe you should take into consideration it might not be a matter of being petty but something else entirely.
Yup, Not child like at all. LOL. Going to make more popcorn right now keep it up.
Treating being correct as being correct is childlike to you? I´ll prepare mine as I await your explanation on this.
How many times do I have to give my evidence? (Not proof. Only children and Sith deal in absolutes.) Just because you didn't like my evidence doesn't mean I didn't give it.
I said I´d give them the reason to why I know what will happen, not a document. I will PM the cause, not the result.
As to your evidence, which is "behaviour of the past" I´ll just roll with the same thing, I will then have given evidence whether you like it or not, just as MWHistorian does now:
My evidence is behaviour of the past- GW has risen from a sales low before, therefore it can and will happen again. Behaviour of the past.
Now you shall treat my evidence as equally satisfying as MWHistorians, for it is the absolutely same thing. If you do not, you are automatically oxymoronic, uncreditable, as it directly translates to giving different people different priviledges in this discussion blatantly based on your whim.
MWHistorian wrote: Do something besides lie and avoid answering to your own statements.
Really? You talk about lying and avoiding answering your own questions?You dodged my request for proof 3 times. You included deliberate/accidental misinterpretation in your posts previously, you also put words in my mouth and said I had said things I never did. You should look in the mirror before advising others about negative behaviour ( and I haven´t lied, so again you just made something up. ) Infact I think you might be the most malicious poster in this thread, as your sole purpose is to confuse the discussion and it´s participants by twisting peoples words and deliberately misinterpreting them, and dodging questions yourself, while blaming the same behaviour on others. Then demanding for proof/evidence and avoiding giving your own.
How many times do I have to give my evidence? (Not proof. Only children and Sith deal in absolutes.) Just because you didn't like my evidence doesn't mean I didn't give it.
I said I´d give them the reason to why I know what will happen, not a document. I will PM the cause, not the result.
As to your evidence, which is "behaviour of the past" I´ll just roll with the same thing, I will then have given evidence whether you like it or not, just as MWHistorian does now:
My evidence is behaviour of the past- GW has risen from a sales low before, therefore it can and will happen again. Behaviour of the past.
Now you shall treat my evidence as equally satisfying as MWHistorians, for it is the absolutely same thing. If you do not, you are automatically oxymoronic, uncreditable, as it directly translates to giving different people different priviledges in this discussion blatantly based on your whim.
MWHistorian wrote: Do something besides lie and avoid answering to your own statements.
Really? You talk about lying and avoiding answering your own questions? You dodged my request for proof 3 times. You included deliberate/accidental misinterpretation in your posts previously, you also put words in my mouth and said I had said things I never did. You should look in the mirror before advicing others about negative behaviour ( and I haven´t lied, so again you just made something up. )
Thank god, finally you won´t be there to twist comments so even other users get confused aswell, and I won´t constantly have to waste time clearing up what you can't comprehend/deliberately comprehend as something else.
Chute82 wrote: RunicFIN your high jacking another thread..
I don´t mean to, and despite how you put it I actually talked about the topic originally. It takes two to tango ( in this case I´d say about 7. ) Then again, this thread had run it´s course around 7 pages ago.
Blacksails wrote: Runic, I suggest you read your own posts before you accuse someone else of being malicious.
What would you describe deliberately misinterpreting other peoples posts, making paradoxical demands and unpolite remarks, putting words in someones mouth so that even other discussion participants ( 3rd party ) get confused and constantly being on the offensive? I can use whatever word you make up for said behaviour aslong as I find it fitting, if malicious doesn´t work. Not my first language this english.
Blacksails wrote: My point is that you are as guilty of being rude as you're claiming some other posters are.
That I will not deny. But I didn´t talk in a manner that I would be any better when it comes that. There´s a Finnish saying: "The forest answers the way you shout into it." Refers to echo, applies to this exactly.
If you're fine being insulted and having posters treat you poorly, then continue treating other posters poorly. You may not make many friends that way, but who am I to judge.
He's probably counting on the royalties from that new computer game that's been released to prop up the total number of the figures. If you remove outside revenue (like black library, games like dawn of war, space marine, basically anything not under the 'core' gw company) then games workshop has been having problems with their core business for longer than the last financial report. Having healthy 'additional' revenue is good, but not when it's needed to hide the problems with a rotting core business (which is stated in many places to revolve around the sale of toy soldiers).
I'd give my left nut for a tyranid testicle. Wait. No i wouldn't.
If you're fine being insulted and having posters treat you poorly, then continue treating other posters poorly. You may not make many friends that way, but who am I to judge.
I wasn´t the first one to result to such antics, I can therefore assume the other side isn´t looking for friends either. It doesn´t pay off too well, that´s all.
Riquende wrote: I doubt I could make you laugh, you clearly don't understand anything I say. I haven't referred to MWHistorian's claim at all. If he made that claim, he would have to provide proof.
Very well then, I take back what I said when it comes to you Riquende. That´s all I wanted to hear from you. I don´t have time to search for his post right now ( see below ) but use the search function, put MWHistorians username in as a requirement and search for the words "you´re mistaken" or "you are mistaken" - it should show up as the first result.
In any case, keep believing guys. I´m sure you´re correct regarding GW going down and a single sales report + a chairmans preamble being ultimate evidence of a large companys doom, with said company having a history of over 20 years and being the most successfull in their field. I´ll visit the discussion thread after the report to see what possible excuses you have come up with to try and sweep being incorrect under the rug to safe face. I´m guessing "this means nothing" ( which is what I am now saying, but you refuse to accept ) is one, someone will probably blame it on christmas and people buying presents.
Also, try to work on your skills regarding holding coherent protocol, demanding proof of others and "protecting one of your own" by just blatantly stating he doesn´t need to provide any proof for his equally big claims just sweeps any credibility whatsoever from under your feet.
I am now in a hurry to enjoy an enjoyable game or two of Warhammer 40,000, the most widespread miniaturegame on the planet, produced by the most successfful wargaming company in existence, so we´ll continue this discussion wherein you just come up with non-equal rules to others later. Ciao.
RunicFIN wrote:
Spoiler:
Riquende wrote: Thanks for your concession that you have no proof, nor even scant evidence that your claims are valid. Accepted.
"Concessed" to none of the things you say, as I am still infact right about the matter. You talk about logic yet you conclude things out of thin air. I take back taking back you making me laugh, as you completely lack any logic yourself.
Fun as it is to watch those with the gleaming armour twist themselves into knots with their childish lies, I do feel the forum is immeasurably improved by not having to wade through their drivel. RunicFIN, I dub you a vacuous liar, more concerned with stirring up trouble than discussing the hobby, and more concerned with insulting people than trying to understand them. You are ignored.
I'd urge others to do so as well (if only so that his quoted posts don't keep appearing in otherwise interesting topics). Irrelevant trolls disappear quickly when there's nobody responding to them. It's sad, but it is only done for attention and validation.
Haven´t lied, nor am I in a knot ( infact you are, with you lot acting as paradoxical as possible with not requiring proof from MWHistorian but requiring from anyone else, at any given time. ) So yeah, you just made yourself look even more unlogical and paradoxical. Next to this, regarding the topic of GW going down/whatever the tinfoils have made up for today - I am correct, you are not. Have fun accepting that.
Musashi363 wrote: I'm still waiting on that PM you promised Rubric....
Like I stated to Musashi, I will send it to you the very day the report hits. For reasons other than pettiness I cannot do it now.
39 minutes between posts.
Fastest game of 40Kever. Or you just making that up too?
This is basically a quintessential Burden of Proof fallacy. RunicFIN, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your statements, not on others to disprove them. You made the claim, ergo you need to show proof to support it. Others have shown the financial reports showing that GW sales are declining, if you feel contrary you need to show something backing it up.
Riquende wrote: I doubt I could make you laugh, you clearly don't understand anything I say. I haven't referred to MWHistorian's claim at all. If he made that claim, he would have to provide proof.
Very well then, I take back what I said when it comes to you Riquende. That´s all I wanted to hear from you. I don´t have time to search for his post right now ( see below ) but use the search function, put MWHistorians username in as a requirement and search for the words "you´re mistaken" or "you are mistaken" - it should show up as the first result.
In any case, keep believing guys. I´m sure you´re correct regarding GW going down and a single sales report + a chairmans preamble being ultimate evidence of a large companys doom, with said company having a history of over 20 years and being the most successfull in their field. I´ll visit the discussion thread after the report to see what possible excuses you have come up with to try and sweep being incorrect under the rug to safe face. I´m guessing "this means nothing" ( which is what I am now saying, but you refuse to accept ) is one, someone will probably blame it on christmas and people buying presents.
Also, try to work on your skills regarding holding coherent protocol, demanding proof of others and "protecting one of your own" by just blatantly stating he doesn´t need to provide any proof for his equally big claims just sweeps any credibility whatsoever from under your feet.
I am now in a hurry to enjoy an enjoyable game or two of Warhammer 40,000, the most widespread miniaturegame on the planet, produced by the most successfful wargaming company in existence, so we´ll continue this discussion wherein you just come up with non-equal rules to others later. Ciao.
RunicFIN wrote:
Spoiler:
Riquende wrote: Thanks for your concession that you have no proof, nor even scant evidence that your claims are valid. Accepted.
"Concessed" to none of the things you say, as I am still infact right about the matter. You talk about logic yet you conclude things out of thin air. I take back taking back you making me laugh, as you completely lack any logic yourself.
Fun as it is to watch those with the gleaming armour twist themselves into knots with their childish lies, I do feel the forum is immeasurably improved by not having to wade through their drivel. RunicFIN, I dub you a vacuous liar, more concerned with stirring up trouble than discussing the hobby, and more concerned with insulting people than trying to understand them. You are ignored.
I'd urge others to do so as well (if only so that his quoted posts don't keep appearing in otherwise interesting topics). Irrelevant trolls disappear quickly when there's nobody responding to them. It's sad, but it is only done for attention and validation.
Haven´t lied, nor am I in a knot ( infact you are, with you lot acting as paradoxical as possible with not requiring proof from MWHistorian but requiring from anyone else, at any given time. ) So yeah, you just made yourself look even more unlogical and paradoxical. Next to this, regarding the topic of GW going down/whatever the tinfoils have made up for today - I am correct, you are not. Have fun accepting that.
Musashi363 wrote: I'm still waiting on that PM you promised Rubric....
Like I stated to Musashi, I will send it to you the very day the report hits. For reasons other than pettiness I cannot do it now.
39 minutes between posts.
Fastest game of 40Kever. Or you just making that up too?
Why "too?" And now consider the possible devices that might allow for internet usage while not at home. Watching a game of maelstrom anyways, a game mode personally don´t play.
Anything else you wanna raise an argument about? Put them all out on the table at once, saves us all some time mate.
WayneTheGame wrote: This is basically a quintessential Burden of Proof fallacy. RunicFIN, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your statements, not on others to disprove them. You made the claim, ergo you need to show proof to support it. Others have shown the financial reports showing that GW sales are declining, if you feel contrary you need to show something backing it up.
He can't show something to back up his claims because he doesn't have anything. If he did, he would have shown it or PM'd Musashi like he said he would. (As of 3mins ago, he hasn't. I just texted Musashi.)
SilverDevilfish wrote: I thought this was about advising beginners on whether they should or should not start a GW game, not argue in a circle with Runic until a mod has to close the thread due to it being off topic (by not just clicking on the ignore button and allowing him to further drag the discussion off topic you're falling into his attempts to get the thread closed, Zweischneid did this ALLLLLL the time and yet no one seemed to figure it out).
Do not Reply.
Use Ignore button.
Let him die.
He is counting on you wanting to "win" the discussion to manipulate you into getting the thread closed, just ignore him.
Quoting for truth. The pattern of "bait until the thread gets locked" is completely clear by now, it's up to you all to stop falling for it.
WayneTheGame wrote: This is basically a quintessential Burden of Proof fallacy. RunicFIN, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your statements, not on others to disprove them. You made the claim, ergo you need to show proof to support it. Others have shown the financial reports showing that GW sales are declining, if you feel contrary you need to show something backing it up.
He can't show something to back up his claims because he doesn't have anything. If he did, he would have shown it or PM'd Musashi like he said he would. (As of 3mins ago, he hasn't. I just texted Musashi.)
And I said to Musashi that I will PM him the day the report is out. But I´m not surprised this also was deliberately/accidentally ignored.
Which brings me back to a question I asked earlier; do you currently have information about GW's sales numbers, or are your claims nothing but speculation?
)
)
Just provide the proof for the question you know I am asking, and the statement you made yourself less than 10 minutes ago, or take it back that I am mistaken and what you said is made up entirely of your own belief.
