And I´d still like to hear how you would rule flyers being hit, if not the current way.
Well, personally, I'd like so see them removed from the core game and put in Apocalypse or somesuch. But that's wishful thinking on my part.
Anyway, my suggestions for their rules would be twofold:
1) The snapshot mechanic is removed, but flyers have a permanent Jink save (that does not result in a loss of accuracy). You could perhaps make it a 3+ jink if they moved fast enough during their previous turn. Hovering flyers do not benefit from this, but can still jink like normal skimmers (suffering the penalties).
2) Not sure about this, but I was thinking of giving all fliers an effect like the old 'Night Shields' - where anyone firing at them counts as being 12" further away (unless the flier is hovering). This is intended to represent the flier's height off the battlefield (you talked before about it being strange that a bolt pistol could *hit* a flier, well I think it's a lot stranger that a short-ranged pistol could even *reach* a flier).
(Recost existing fliers where necessary)
Wait why is it your job to fix flyers/AA? Are you the professional in charge of developing the game?
It's Jervis and Co's JOBS to find solutions to problems the player base has with their product. Not yours. If a large enough portion of the customer base agrees with you then they need to fix this issue. If they cannot get feedback to identify and solve the issue then that is GW failing their paying customers.
I mean imagine if Dakka went down and we we're all told "FIX IT YOURSELF". That's not very reasonable is it? So why should fixing a potential issue with the game be the customers job?
I also imagine either by the time I've posted this or within the future Runic will have posted a response that picks apart your solution and uses choice words in an attempt to make you look foolish. Notice he's the one that asked you to fix it, you didn't state "I can fix it" before hand. Basically he's trying to assert control over the conversation by getting you to do unnecessary things for him.
It is important to remember that the inner financial workings of GW are one of the few things we have nearly unprecedented levels of information on, they're legally compelled to disclose it, they don't get to play secret squirrel like they do with nearly everything else.
With that level of information, it is possible with even a moderate amount of knowledge to make some fairly solid conclusions.
There are armchair economists here, but that doesn't automatically preclude them from having valid insight, and there are enough people with enough knowledge to expose anyone who is just blowing smoke fairly quickly.
I don't know if I'd call Smaug a cry of desperation. Misguided perhaps, even delusional, but I don't think they're desperate yet.
A new edition of 40k in less than two years would be desperation for me. Smaug is likely a final attempt to milk their license while the Hobbit/Lotr is still relevant.
Yeah, Smaug is THE icon for this story, he is (literally in some editions of the book) the cover model for the Hobbit.
I'd say it was a last ditch attempt to milk the cash from the gullible, which is a symptom of the same attitude that's propagated most of the discussion for the last few pages, that of trying to manipulate people out of their cash, rather than making something people are keen to buy.
Azreal13 wrote: What, exactly, do you do for a living, if I might ask? Because "short selling" isn't what I was discussing, it was liquidating an investment that was no longer providing a return in favour of investing the capital somewhere else.
As someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge in the area, I have to confess I've never encountered an attitude like you're describing.
No. You're short selling. Once that stock dove, there was ZERO chance they sell unless they cannot get the company to REPAIR the problem. And they DID get them to repair it. that repair was 7E and trust me, the stock price was an ENORMOUS motivator. That it also happens to be a really good new direction for the game, especially the codex's was a result of Stock holders going what the F is going on with my investment and seeing the online chatter, and asking around. Turns out, the companys customers are very angry and it tanked anyones willing ness to buy stock. And thats what happened.
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh. These things happen. But you dont go straight to the sell button when the company has had meteoric increases in value up to then. And it had. From 2010 until 6th Edition, BIG gains. 6th Tanked it. Investors raised the roof and they responded. The stock was purchased at an escalating price in that time frame.
investopedia wrote:DEFINITION of 'Short Selling' The sale of a security that is not owned by the seller, or that the seller has borrowed. Short selling is motivated by the belief that a security's price will decline, enabling it to be bought back at a lower price to make a profit.
This is my understanding of short selling, and it bears no resemblance to what I was discussing. Dumping stock that isn't making you money in favour of acquiring stock that you believe will isn't short selling, by my understanding.
Perhaps there's some industry alternative meaning you're used to I'm unaware of?
the gist is simple: stock price drove this. If you wanna get into a definitions contest, we can do that. But the bottom line reality here is that what I described to you is WHY 7E happened and happened quickly.
Investors gave them no choice and frankly, the majority stock holders are very likely to vote the board straight out if they dont go get their money back. No question about it. So they did. it isnt yet at full strength but it has made a serious recovery
Azreal13 wrote: What, exactly, do you do for a living, if I might ask? Because "short selling" isn't what I was discussing, it was liquidating an investment that was no longer providing a return in favour of investing the capital somewhere else.
As someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge in the area, I have to confess I've never encountered an attitude like you're describing.
No. You're short selling. Once that stock dove, there was ZERO chance they sell unless they cannot get the company to REPAIR the problem. And they DID get them to repair it. that repair was 7E and trust me, the stock price was an ENORMOUS motivator. That it also happens to be a really good new direction for the game, especially the codex's was a result of Stock holders going what the F is going on with my investment and seeing the online chatter, and asking around. Turns out, the companys customers are very angry and it tanked anyones willing ness to buy stock. And thats what happened.
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh. These things happen. But you dont go straight to the sell button when the company has had meteoric increases in value up to then. And it had. From 2010 until 6th Edition, BIG gains. 6th Tanked it. Investors raised the roof and they responded. The stock was purchased at an escalating price in that time frame.
investopedia wrote:DEFINITION of 'Short Selling' The sale of a security that is not owned by the seller, or that the seller has borrowed. Short selling is motivated by the belief that a security's price will decline, enabling it to be bought back at a lower price to make a profit.
This is my understanding of short selling, and it bears no resemblance to what I was discussing. Dumping stock that isn't making you money in favour of acquiring stock that you believe will isn't short selling, by my understanding.
Perhaps there's some industry alternative meaning you're used to I'm unaware of?
the gist is simple: stock price drove this. If you wanna get into a definitions contest, we can do that. But the bottom line reality here is that what I described to you is WHY 7E happened and happened quickly.
Investors gave them no choice and frankly, the majority stock holders are very likely to vote the board straight out if they dont go get their money back. No question about it. So they did. it isnt yet at full strength but it has made a serious recovery
This doesn't make sense on any level.
First off, the stock price took a tumble in late January, after a horrible half-year report. 7th came out in late May. You're seriously trying to sell that it takes four months from shareholders saying "bring out a new edition, ya slackers!" to it happening? For Christ's sake, even White Dwarf has a three month lead time.
Secondly, there are no majority shareholders. The largest shareholder has about 10%. All major shareholders combined (i.e., holds more than 3% of the shares) only barely get over 50%, and one of those is Kirby himself.
Are you seriously under the impression that there was some kind of skype session between large hedgefunds about booting Kirby if he doesn't get a move on and push out 7th within four months?
Actually thats likely exactly what happened. And no. Im not. This is business.
EDIT:
and by the way, majority stock holders can be soemone with 1%!!!
Funds cannot have more than 5% of any one company as their portfolio but they damn well care about every one of those 5% accounts. And Kirby IS gone. I dont imagine he had as much choice as you think.
Azreal13 wrote: What, exactly, do you do for a living, if I might ask? Because "short selling" isn't what I was discussing, it was liquidating an investment that was no longer providing a return in favour of investing the capital somewhere else.
As someone with a reasonable amount of knowledge in the area, I have to confess I've never encountered an attitude like you're describing.
No. You're short selling. Once that stock dove, there was ZERO chance they sell unless they cannot get the company to REPAIR the problem. And they DID get them to repair it. that repair was 7E and trust me, the stock price was an ENORMOUS motivator. That it also happens to be a really good new direction for the game, especially the codex's was a result of Stock holders going what the F is going on with my investment and seeing the online chatter, and asking around. Turns out, the companys customers are very angry and it tanked anyones willing ness to buy stock. And thats what happened.
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh. These things happen. But you dont go straight to the sell button when the company has had meteoric increases in value up to then. And it had. From 2010 until 6th Edition, BIG gains. 6th Tanked it. Investors raised the roof and they responded. The stock was purchased at an escalating price in that time frame.
investopedia wrote:DEFINITION of 'Short Selling' The sale of a security that is not owned by the seller, or that the seller has borrowed. Short selling is motivated by the belief that a security's price will decline, enabling it to be bought back at a lower price to make a profit.
This is my understanding of short selling, and it bears no resemblance to what I was discussing. Dumping stock that isn't making you money in favour of acquiring stock that you believe will isn't short selling, by my understanding.
Perhaps there's some industry alternative meaning you're used to I'm unaware of?
the gist is simple: stock price drove this. If you wanna get into a definitions contest, we can do that. But the bottom line reality here is that what I described to you is WHY 7E happened and happened quickly.
Investors gave them no choice and frankly, the majority stock holders are very likely to vote the board straight out if they dont go get their money back. No question about it. So they did. it isnt yet at full strength but it has made a serious recovery
This doesn't make sense on any level.
First off, the stock price took a tumble in late January, after a horrible half-year report. 7th came out in late May. You're seriously trying to sell that it takes four months from shareholders saying "bring out a new edition, ya slackers!" to it happening? For Christ's sake, even White Dwarf has a three month lead time.
Secondly, there are no majority shareholders. The largest shareholder has about 10%. All major shareholders combined (i.e., holds more than 3% of the shares) only barely get over 50%, and one of those is Kirby himself.
Are you seriously under the impression that there was some kind of skype session between large hedgefunds about booting Kirby if he doesn't get a move on and push out 7th within four months?
You're living in fantasy land, mate.
Exactly.
By all means, let's get in a "definitions contest" Jancoran. I've stated the definition as I understand it, and how it was taught to me (all those many years ago.)
By all means come up with a verifiable independent definition of how you're using it, or admit that you overstated your case on your qualifications a little, either is fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jancoran wrote: Actually thats likely exactly what happened. And no. Im not. This is business.
EDIT:
and by the way, majority stock holders can be soemone with 1%!!!
Funds cannot have more than 5% of any one company as their portfolio but they damn well care about every one of those 5% accounts. And Kirby IS gone. I dont imagine he had as much choice as you think.
Kirby is not gone.
That majority stockholder comment is technically correct but total irrelevant nonsense.
Reverse engineer this..
GW Investor Relations wrote:
The shareholders who hold over 3% of the total ordinary share capital of Games Workshop Group PLC, are as follows:
Shareholder Number of shares Percentage
Investec Asset Management Limited 3,087,765 9.7
Ruffer LLP 2,492,260 7.8
Tom Kirby 2,131,394 6.7
Phoenix Asset Management Partners Limited 1,865,218 5.9
FIL Limited 1,753,900 5.5
Legal and General Group plc 1,683,901 5.3
Schroders plc 1,677,861 5.3
Aberforth Partners LLP 1,636,300 5.1
Artemis Investment Management LLP 1,620,001 5.1
Information correct at 10 March 2014
How small must the investment firms be if these stakes represent 5% of their total portfolio?
GW is small potatoes that paid good dividends, once that stopped, the shares got dumped and the share price tanked.
By all means, let's get in a "definitions contest" Jancoran. I've stated the definition as I understand it, and how it was taught to me (all those many years ago.)
By all means come up with a verifiable independent definition of how you're using it, or admit that you overstated your case on your qualifications a little, either is fine.
But we're not going to, because I'm a professional and you are a guy on the internet who did a google search. Laughable. So I'm laughing. Watch: Lol.
Heres what I told you originally, verbatim:
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh.
So. What I said was absolutely positively true. You'rereading into this something that Im notgetting and no pro would.
You don't do it...because... the stock had a fix. That fix was 7E, which would drive the price UP and not down (which is the only time you'd short sell in this situation). Not only that but it had ALREADY lost half its value. How much lower could it go? You're going to bet on MORE de-escalation by short selling? No friggin way. This isn't 2008. I dont think so. There was no reason to sell at a loss, there was no reason to short sell. There was nothing they could DO intelligently except fix it. 7th Edition had to happen. If you DID short sell, look what a rube you'd look like now.
So I have no IDEA what you're on about. but I think you just don't know enough other than what Google just allowed you to cut and paste (yeah I checked). And that's fine. But dont challenge ME on this because you will lose.
How small must the investment firms be if these stakes represent 5% of their total portfolio?
GW is small potatoes that paid good dividends, once that stopped, the shares got dumped and the share price tanked.
Except they gave GREAT dividends even as the stock dropped, so thats just not correct. the dividends weent driving this, though they didnt help thats for sure.
Why should we believe you're any more qualified than Azrael?
Frankly, the arguments you're stringing together aren't really coherent or make a lot of sense. You just seem to be asserting how right you are because you say you're more qualified.
You haven't said anything compelling Jancoran. Maybe you should stop belittling people and actually put forth a well reasoned argument other than stating how much better you are than other people.
By all means, let's get in a "definitions contest" Jancoran. I've stated the definition as I understand it, and how it was taught to me (all those many years ago.)
By all means come up with a verifiable independent definition of how you're using it, or admit that you overstated your case on your qualifications a little, either is fine.
But we're not going to, because I'm a professional and you are a guy on the internet who did a google search. Laughable. So I'm laughing. Watch: Lol.
Heres what I told you originally, verbatim:
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh.
So. What I said was absolutely positively true. You'rereading into this something that Im notgetting and no pro would.
You don't do it...because... the stock had a fix. That fix was 7E, which would drive the price UP and not down (which is the only time you'd short sell in this situation). Not only that but it had ALREADY lost half its value. How much lower could it go? You're going to bet on MORE de-escalation by short selling? No friggin way. This isn't 2008. I dont think so. There was no reason to sell at a loss, there was no reason to short sell. There was nothing they could DO intelligently except fix it. 7th Edition had to happen. If you DID short sell, look what a rube you'd look like now.
So I have no IDEA what you're on about. but I think you just don't know enough other than what Google just allowed you to cut and paste (yeah I checked). And that's fine. But dont challenge ME on this because you will lose.
How small must the investment firms be if these stakes represent 5% of their total portfolio?
GW is small potatoes that paid good dividends, once that stopped, the shares got dumped and the share price tanked.
Except they gave GREAT dividends even as the stock dropped, so thats just not correct. the dividends weent driving this, though they didnt help thats for sure.
So, they declared that they wouldn't be paying a dividend, and THE VERY SAME DAY the stock took a nose dive from which it has never really recovered.
That's a coincidence?
Look, Josef, you're rather over doing things here, you're just not making any sense.
So far you've avoided answering me when I asked you to clarify what your profession is.
You've failed to provide any support for what I believe is an incorrect use of a financial term with a specific meaning.
You've accused me of not having any credentials? Well, fine, two can play that game.
RunicFIN wrote: Then again, you can just take sufficient anti-air inform of your own flyer or an actual AA-unit.
Dedicated AA units are a ridiculous waste of points unless you know for sure your opponent is going to be fielding flyers.
And even then, having to include a unit in your army specifically as a counter to a single unit in your opponent's list is more than a little ridiculous.
Flyers are hardly the only thing you need to gear up for, Imperial Knights are also quite metashifting.
The difference being that the units that are useful against knights are also useful against things that aren't knights.
Out of curiosity, how would you have ground units hit flyers?
For my money, Snap Shots would have been a modifier to BS, rather than a straight 6 to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Azreal13 wrote: Yeah, Smaug is THE icon for this story, he is (literally in some editions of the book) the cover model for the Hobbit.
I'd say it was a last ditch attempt to milk the cash from the gullible, which is a symptom of the same attitude that's propagated most of the discussion for the last few pages, that of trying to manipulate people out of their cash, rather than making something people are keen to buy.
Honestly, I find the 13 dwarves and a hobbit for just over $300 to be more ridiculous than the $500 limited edition dragon.
Jancoran wrote: Actually thats likely exactly what happened. And no. Im not. This is business.
EDIT:
and by the way, majority stock holders can be soemone with 1%!!!
Funds cannot have more than 5% of any one company as their portfolio but they damn well care about every one of those 5% accounts. And Kirby IS gone. I dont imagine he had as much choice as you think.
Yeah, I'm sure Investec totally has their top guy on a £20m investment, certainly not some City intern who's been given an equation and told to feed info into it and sell at certain points. They have a $116bn portfolio. GW isn't their main priority, and no one there knows what 40k is beyond what Kirby writes in his preambles. They see a company that has had a 25% growth in share price in the year leading up to Jan. 14, pays decent dividends, has had higher revenue in the past, but a good excuse for not being bigger now (luxury product in a global recession) which makes it a perfect investment for a hedgefund.
Kirby is no longer CEO because he was legally required to step down. He never had a choice, I never said he did, but it wasn't due to active investors. He is now Chairman, though. Not exactly gone.
As for majority shareholders, if you want to get into another definition contest, just let me know and I can start looking up sources (spoiler alert: I aldready did. And did you know there's something called investopedia? I wish I had that when I was at uni).
By all means, let's get in a "definitions contest" Jancoran. I've stated the definition as I understand it, and how it was taught to me (all those many years ago.)
By all means come up with a verifiable independent definition of how you're using it, or admit that you overstated your case on your qualifications a little, either is fine.
But we're not going to, because I'm a professional and you are a guy on the internet who did a google search. Laughable. So I'm laughing. Watch: Lol.
Heres what I told you originally, verbatim:
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh.
So. What I said was absolutely positively true. You'rereading into this something that Im notgetting and no pro would.
You don't do it...because... the stock had a fix. That fix was 7E, which would drive the price UP and not down (which is the only time you'd short sell in this situation). Not only that but it had ALREADY lost half its value. How much lower could it go? You're going to bet on MORE de-escalation by short selling? No friggin way. This isn't 2008. I dont think so. There was no reason to sell at a loss, there was no reason to short sell. There was nothing they could DO intelligently except fix it. 7th Edition had to happen. If you DID short sell, look what a rube you'd look like now.
So I have no IDEA what you're on about. but I think you just don't know enough other than what Google just allowed you to cut and paste (yeah I checked). And that's fine. But dont challenge ME on this because you will lose.
How small must the investment firms be if these stakes represent 5% of their total portfolio?
GW is small potatoes that paid good dividends, once that stopped, the shares got dumped and the share price tanked.
Except they gave GREAT dividends even as the stock dropped, so thats just not correct. the dividends weent driving this, though they didnt help thats for sure.
So, they declared that they wouldn't be paying a dividend, and THE VERY SAME DAY the stock took a nose dive from which it has never really recovered.
That's a coincidence.
Look, Josef, you're rather over doing things here, you're just not making any sense.
So far you've avoided answering me when I asked you to clarify what your profession is.
You've failed to provide any support for what I believe is an incorrect use of a financial term with a specific meaning.
You've accused me of not having any credentials? Well, fine, two can play that game.
J'accuse.
My profession is Insurance and financial services. I thought that was obvious.
and Ive clarified that you are misinterpreting what i was trying to say to you or reading it too narrowly. I JUST explained to you the full meaning of my short sale comment. Read it. Understand it. And then drop it if you still want some credibility.
I dont care what your credentials are when you go and google a definition to try and make THAT the point rather than THE point. The stock plummetted and it deosnt matter who holds the stock: they arent taking kindly to paying 2X and seeing the stock go to 1X. this is REALLY simple to understand and follow.
Jancoran wrote: Actually thats likely exactly what happened. And no. Im not. This is business.
EDIT:
and by the way, majority stock holders can be soemone with 1%!!!
Funds cannot have more than 5% of any one company as their portfolio but they damn well care about every one of those 5% accounts. And Kirby IS gone. I dont imagine he had as much choice as you think.
Yeah, I'm sure Investec totally has their top guy on a £20m investment, certainly not some City intern who's been given an equation and told to feed info into it and sell at certain points. They have a $116bn portfolio. GW isn't their main priority, and no one there knows what 40k is beyond what Kirby writes in his preambles. They see a company that has had a 25% growth in share price in the year leading up to Jan. 14, pays decent dividends, has had higher revenue in the past, but a good excuse for not being bigger now (luxury product in a global recession) which makes it a perfect investment for a hedgefund.
Kirby is no longer CEO because he was legally required to step down. He never had a choice, I never said he did, but it wasn't due to active investors. He is now Chairman, though. Not exactly gone.
As for majority shareholders, if you want to get into another definition contest, just let me know and I can start looking up sources (spoiler alert: I aldready did. And did you know there's something called investopedia? I wish I had that when I was at uni).
Doesnt matter WHO is watching it. It's being watched.
Thud wrote: Kirby is no longer CEO because he was legally required to step down. He never had a choice, I never said he did, but it wasn't due to active investors. He is now Chairman, though. Not exactly gone.
More specifically, he was already Chairman before he took the CEO reins back from Mark Wells. That was the problem... He could only hold both positions for a limited time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jancoran wrote: The stock plummetted and it deosnt matter who holds the stock: they arent taking kindly to paying 2X and seeing the stock go to 1X. this is REALLY simple to understand and follow.
Sure. But the stock plummeting wasn't the reason for 7th edition, as you originally claimed.
As for majority shareholders, if you want to get into another definition contest, just let me know and I can start looking up sources (spoiler alert: I aldready did. And did you know there's something called investopedia? I wish I had that when I was at uni).
I'll concede that majority investors are usually 50%+. But that distinction is irrelevant to the point being made. But sure. Ill concede that while maintaining my completely correct statement that the stock is what drove 7E.
Edit: just look at the stock value BEFORE 6E dropped. then look at it one year later. Nuf said.
By all means, let's get in a "definitions contest" Jancoran. I've stated the definition as I understand it, and how it was taught to me (all those many years ago.)
By all means come up with a verifiable independent definition of how you're using it, or admit that you overstated your case on your qualifications a little, either is fine.
But we're not going to, because I'm a professional and you are a guy on the internet who did a google search. Laughable. So I'm laughing. Watch: Lol.
Heres what I told you originally, verbatim:
Selling short is a BAD idea i there is a fix. if there is no fix, meh.
So. What I said was absolutely positively true. You'rereading into this something that Im notgetting and no pro would.
You don't do it...because... the stock had a fix. That fix was 7E, which would drive the price UP and not down (which is the only time you'd short sell in this situation). Not only that but it had ALREADY lost half its value. How much lower could it go? You're going to bet on MORE de-escalation by short selling? No friggin way. This isn't 2008. I dont think so. There was no reason to sell at a loss, there was no reason to short sell. There was nothing they could DO intelligently except fix it. 7th Edition had to happen. If you DID short sell, look what a rube you'd look like now.
So I have no IDEA what you're on about. but I think you just don't know enough other than what Google just allowed you to cut and paste (yeah I checked). And that's fine. But dont challenge ME on this because you will lose.
How small must the investment firms be if these stakes represent 5% of their total portfolio?
GW is small potatoes that paid good dividends, once that stopped, the shares got dumped and the share price tanked.
Except they gave GREAT dividends even as the stock dropped, so thats just not correct. the dividends weent driving this, though they didnt help thats for sure.
So, they declared that they wouldn't be paying a dividend, and THE VERY SAME DAY the stock took a nose dive from which it has never really recovered.
That's a coincidence.
Look, Josef, you're rather over doing things here, you're just not making any sense.
So far you've avoided answering me when I asked you to clarify what your profession is.
You've failed to provide any support for what I believe is an incorrect use of a financial term with a specific meaning.
You've accused me of not having any credentials? Well, fine, two can play that game.
J'accuse.
My profession is Insurance and financial services. I thought that was obvious.
and Ive clarified that you are misinterpreting what i was trying to say to you or reading it too narrowly. I JUST explained to you the full meaning of my short sale comment. Read it. Understand it. And then drop it if you still want some credibility.
I dont care what your credentials are when you go and google a definition to try and make THAT the point rather than THE point. The stock plummetted and it deosnt matter who holds the stock: they arent taking kindly to paying 2X and seeing the stock go to 1X. this is REALLY simple to understand and follow.
It really is simple, which it is why it's so surprising that an "insurance and financial services" professional is making such heavy going of it (we've only got your word for that, BTW )
I can only have misrepresented what you were saying if you suddenly started talking about short selling in the middle of your reply and had no intention of that being connected to everything else you were talking about, but if that's what happened, that's a little odd, but ok.
You don't seem to understand that stock doesn't plummet unless people sell the stock though, so who holds it and who buys it is of paramount importance.
Be honest, you're more insurance and less financial services aren't you?
You don't seem to understand that stock doesn't plummet unless people sell the stock though, so who holds it and who buys it is of paramount importance.
The stock changes prices when its sold or bought. Yes we know this. What does it have to do with anything? Who bought and sold it really isn't that important unless its some highly visible figure whose every move is scrutiinized (Buffet or a fund manager or what have you).
The point is no one would buy it for even close to its worth. It absolutely tanked. this is verifiable so I dont need to defend it. Its a matter of record.
As for majority shareholders, if you want to get into another definition contest, just let me know and I can start looking up sources (spoiler alert: I aldready did. And did you know there's something called investopedia? I wish I had that when I was at uni).
I'll concede that majority investors are usually 50%+. But that distinction is irrelevant to the point being made. But sure. Ill concede that while maintaining my completely correct statement that the stock is what drove 7E.
Edit: just look at the stock value BEFORE 6E dropped. then look at it one year later. Nuf said.
Right so the sequence of events, for your assertion to be true is..
- GW declare interim financials, and no dividend.
- the same day, many, many people decide to sell their shares, and the price plummets.
- shortly afterwards, a bunch of interns responsible for the management of the GW aspect of their company's portfolio (none of whom hold controlling stakes) either take it upon themselves or persuade their bosses to contact GW and threaten them to "sort things out or else."
- within 6 monthsGW decide that a new edition of 40K is the answer, develop it, get it to the printers (who GW don't own, so will be at their mercy as to when such a large run will be able to slot into the timetable) get it into warehouses and get it released.
- 7th fails to turn their year around and their full annual figures are just as bad as the interim report.
I'm sorry, economics knowledge or no, you only have to apply Occam's Razor to that to see how much of a stretch it is.
RE: Flyers I would remove them from the game and have them be similar to Bolt Action, with a once per game or once per turn bombing/strafing run type of mechanic that you purchase for your army.
But what about my pretty (and expensive!) models, you might ask? Well I would also I have a dogfighting type of game for flyer combat, with rules on integrating it into campaign/narrative games. It would be short and sweet but exciting.
What a novel idea, have multiple games that support your products!
Jancoran wrote: Edit: just look at the stock value BEFORE 6E dropped. then look at it one year later. Nuf said.
I did, as I mentioned.
When 6th edition dropped, the share price rose fairly sharply for about 3 months, sat fairly flat for 6 months or so before rising again. Towards the end of 2013 it lost a little ground, and then plummeted when the January financial report was released. That's 18 and a bit months after the release of 6th edition, and just under 5 months before 7th was released.
And, uhhh, I'm not seeing this big drop after 6th that would prompt 7th. It seems like GW experienced fairly steady stock increases following 6th until Jan 2014 when the financial report came out and they declared there would be no dividend.
Makes sense to me.
Seems like a crazy stretch to me to claim 7th was a response and creation of the financial report in 2014.
As for majority shareholders, if you want to get into another definition contest, just let me know and I can start looking up sources (spoiler alert: I aldready did. And did you know there's something called investopedia? I wish I had that when I was at uni).
I'll concede that majority investors are usually 50%+. But that distinction is irrelevant to the point being made. But sure. Ill concede that while maintaining my completely correct statement that the stock is what drove 7E.
Edit: just look at the stock value BEFORE 6E dropped. then look at it one year later. Nuf said.
Right so the sequence of events, for your assertion to be true is..
- GW declare interim financials, and no dividend.
- the same day, many, many people decide to sell their shares, and the price plummets.
- shortly afterwards, a bunch of interns responsible for the management of the GW aspect of their company's portfolio (none of whom hold controlling stakes) either take it upon themselves or persuade their bosses to contact GW and threaten them to "sort things out or else."
- within 6 monthsGW decide that a new edition of 40K is the answer, develop it, get it to the printers (who GW don't own, so will be at their mercy as to when such a large run will be able to slot into the timetable) get it into warehouses and get it released.
- 7th fails to turn their year around and their full annual figures are just as bad as the interim report.
I'm sorry, economics knowledge or no, you only have to apply Occam's Razor to that to see how much of a stretch it is.
No.
Thats off on a few points. First, price. Price is what you CAN purchase stock for. value aside, that is the fundamental truth about price: it is what you actually CAN bu it for because someone proved it by selling for that amount.
Lets say for arguments sake you have 100 shareholders. $1 shares. One of them panics. 99 do not. the one sells his share for $0.50
As there are no other sales or purchases, this is the new share price. That is because it is the only price that it can be purchased at and supply is set at exactly 1 share. As there are no competing shares, that's that.
Now if another guy defects and says No, this guy has it right but sells it for $0.75, then that changes the price again. Now there are two shares, and they sold for a combined $1.25. The value of the company may not have changed (McDonalds isnt selling less Hamburgers just because someone sold a share of stock and the guys eating the Hamburger arent even likely to know it happened) but the going PRICE has, hasn't it? and the exchanges track these changes and summarize them in what is ultimately what you see reported. At end of day the stock price is reset.
And so it goes.
So if people are holding on to their shares, then they are not influencing the price other than insofar as the confidence that shows to people who might buy it at a set price. That is intangible but has no bearing on the price right? So when someone is LOOKING at this stock, their estimation of its value will be influenced by earnings, or dividends 9not the same thing BTW) or it could be influenced by a change in ownership or management (part of why Kirby's strategic "move" from his day to day position may have been good for stock) and so on.
BUT
The really important thing to focus on, and why Im telling you all this is that your assumption above assumes a massive dump (and therefore purchases simultaneously). That actually ISNT necessary for the price to fluctuate.
Second. The interns arent working for GW. They're working for the investors. and yes. The investors say, on the record or off: "Look. i bought stock at $1. it's now worth $0.63 cents. i dont like it. Find out why". and the interns do. And they tell their boss to LOOK at Dakkadakka or whatever resources they found and just LOOK at the vitriol of the players and therefore customers. And the investor, not NEEDING to know anything about games, sees clearly that the customer base is abandoning ship and its a niche customer base. THATS when the boss says "Hey Kirby, lets play golf". and they do. and Kirby gets the message and says "look Board, it's nothing you dont already know. 6E is killing our investors interest here and without a dividend i cant hold the wolves off. plus almost EVERYONE in that board room is likely a stock holder, including Kirby, with a very REAL reason to want to see the fix happen. Stock options are becoming worthless at this stage as well.
So then they say "7E it is". There might be some other ideas bandied about like... better website, better distribution, cut out the store owners from selling certain things... you know... the usual. but ultimately they realize that the core of the planet has a detonator and its ticking and no amount of finagling is ging to change it.
And thats pretty much it. So the dividend may well have triggered further sell offs at a discounted price. But the impetus would have come as the price slid which is what the INVESTORS know earliest. They may not know that a dividend isnt coming for three months but they can se the sales being made on the sly to get rid of those shares. and they start getting nervous and worrying that they wont be ABLE to sell them at a profit if they wait too long and 6E continues to receive virtiol... So a few more sell at a discount... and a few more. they start maybe not abandoning ship but hedging bets at this point.
none of this is rocket science to understand. GW WAS a growth stock. It became a value stock there for a w while and investors who favored that invested. And then when it failed to do that i am reasonably sure that affected some of the sales as the prize slid further.
The buyers are there scooping up the shares at the same time. They are looking and saying "you know, this was at 2X... Its a long standing company... If i buy at 1.5X now, and if we can influence the board to put out a 7E or change direction... and thats what they are thinking while they buy.
So more people sell and more people sell and eventually it gets to 1X. It just cant go much further. 1.5X guys are mad. The 2X guys are REALLY mad. and yeah... so it goes.
And, uhhh, I'm not seeing this big drop after 6th that would prompt 7th. It seems like GW experienced fairly steady stock increases following 6th until Jan 2014 when the financial report came out and they declared there would be no dividend.
Makes sense to me.
Seems like a crazy stretch to me to claim 7th was a response and creation of the financial report in 2014.
and i didnt say it was the 2014 report. Someone else injected that.
Jancoran wrote:From 2010 until 6th Edition, BIG gains. 6th Tanked it.
Jancoran wrote:
and i didnt say it was the 2014 report. Someone else injected that.
I know you didn't say it was 2014 report. You said 6th was the thing that killed it. I'm telling you you're wrong and that it was the report that caused the stock drop.
There was no indication that GW was struggling until that interim report came out. The share price was healthy, they hadn't missed a dividend for quite a while.
It was a shock for many, although I'll admit to experiencing a small amount of glee too, and to try and say that 7th was as a result of investor backlash off some other report which was much more "everything's fine, here's some dividends" just doesn't make sense.
So go back to just a couple months before 6E. Then look at about one year AFTER 6E.
THAT, not a 2014 report, is what did it. Just go look. Its dramatic.
You mean one of their highest points in 5 years?
Spring 2013? Am I reading you right? Because that's one of their highs. The drop just so happened very shortly after the annual report and no dividend was announced.
Right, at close on 15 Jan 2014, GAW was valued at £7.23 per share.
On the 16th Jan 2014, GW published a report detailing a substantial drop in revenue and profit, and declared no dividend.
By close on the 16th Jan 2014 GAW was valued at £5.51 per share, and continued on a steady decline until March, And even now is only valued at £5.31 at time of writing.
By contrast, the EOY report 2012/13 was published on the 30 July, and was at a 3 year high by the 2 August, only 70p higher than it was when the day before the 13/14 interim report was released, and somewhere in the region of £2 per share higher than the time around 6th was released.
I repeat, your argument doesn't stack with the events as they happened Jancoran.
um... I know WHAt you're saying but you have to look at this on a much more macro scale man. im not telling you anything you cant google, but $470.20 is the 52 weeklow.
23rd of June 2012 was the release date for 6th. So the stock closed at 587.50 July 1. This was a HIGH number for them already. VOLUME of trading went WAY up during the following months. like 50% type of up which is big time.
Prices rose based on all the product releases and other goodies and the usual reasons when a product launches. they got ALL THE WAY TO $823 in September 2013. So that's a year and two months of sales esentially, maybe slightly less depending on when reporting happened.
You with me? Cause THATS HUGE. That means people PAID that much to get in on GW. PAID IT. Now with rare exception, if you look (and this again is nothing new you cant find out on your own, but I happened to have blogged on it back a while ago) this In June 2013 there was an enormous movement at $749. So I mean We are year in. Confidence slipped here.
But the other shoe had dropped. Players were FILLING this place and a hundred like it with venomous poisons and hate mail. Still are and my proof is saved in a thousand thousand threads here. and the interns were watching and paying attention. GW already knew it and they were ahead of it because its what they do.
And now? Lol. NOW the 52 week low of $470 ALMOST HALF OF ITS HIGH according to Yahoo finance (see their data for all this btw). but thats not all. The exact progression of thought I Told you happened is mapped out numerically. The slide was DRAMATIC. The very next month and EVERY month after for five months it tumbled. But this was again, something GW probably anticipated just based on the online traffic. Investors might not have dug deep enough at first but they started digging FAST.
Not until 7th Edition was announced was their significant movement in the positive after that. It was announced May 17th and wouldnt you know it... In June the stock recovered to $622 in June.
But that just encouraged further sell off and $531 is where it sits. Snake bitten. and now the company is almost ASSUREDLY under great scrutiny by its investors and I doubt any of them that have lost hundreds of thousands on paper are doing anything but their utmost to get the price to a sellable point.
or looking for a buy out that could make them a lot of their money back all at once.
You still haven't explained the importance of what happened a year after the release of 6th edition with regards to stock prices. Or anything. Just a lot of unprovable theories that investors were doing deep research into the community and anxiously alerted GW to sort themselves out.
Whoops, sorry, almost forgot to capitalize random words. IS this ANY better FOR you?
At any rate, I'm glad GW could see that 6th wasn't very popular and reward its fanbase with a new 7th edition rulebook selling for the cost of the collector's editions of 5th, in cycle less than 2 years before. So generous
I distinctly remember people speaking out against the rumors of 7th coming on the heels of 6th as hearsay and conjecture from the fan-emies of GW, stating how wrong the information was, and that we couldn't possibly know what they were up to. Of course, once it was made official we were now to supposed to be grateful that GW cared so much about the game!
You still haven't explained the importance of what happened a year after the release of 6th edition with regards to stock prices. Or anything. Just a lot of unprovable theories that investors were doing deep research into the community and anxiously alerted GW to sort themselves out.
Whoops, sorry, almost forgot to capitalize random words. IS this ANY better FOR you?
Did you not...read...anything... anyways. Hitting the eject button. If you cannot understand the basic time line here... which I laid out in detail for you... then what more is there to say?
6th...Edition...happened. peoples RESPONSE to it and the subsequent damage WAS...the problem.
On an unrelated note, is it possible for you to type without capitalizing random words or adding ellipses everywhere?
Seriously though, you have just about zero grounds for any of the claims you've made, and whenever someone has called you out, you've sidestepped it with long winded explanations that again, have no grounds in anything provable or observable.
You're putting way too much stock in that GW actually listened. Had they really well and truly listened and succumbed to the will of the player, we wouldn't have received 7th; we would have had an updated 6th at no or very little extra cost. That and I'm fairly certain the huge investor corporations that hold a lot of stock in GW don't care about what is really a very small company.
Blacksails wrote: Just a lot of unprovable theories that investors were doing deep research into the community and anxiously alerted GW to sort themselves out.
I think the best part of this theory is the idea that GW didn't listen to the community (where all of the complaints already existed) at all before some random point, and then suddenly decided to make major changes based on panic about what was happening on random forums.
Not to mention not actually doing anything much of the feedback was suggesting.
I don't seem to recall any vocal complaints about lacking a psychic phase, or that army construction rules were too tight and needed to be done away with.
Jancoran wrote: um... I know WHAt you're saying but you have to look at this on a much more macro scale man. im not telling you anything you cant google, but $470.20 is the 52 weeklow.
23rd of June 2012 was the release date for 6th. So the stock closed at 587.50 July 1. This was a HIGH number for them already. VOLUME of trading went WAY up during the following months. like 50% type of up which is big time.
Prices rose based on all the product releases and other goodies and the usual reasons when a product launches. they got ALL THE WAY TO $823 in September 2013. So that's a year and two months of sales esentially, maybe slightly less depending on when reporting happened.
You with me? Cause THATS HUGE. That means people PAID that much to get in on GW. PAID IT. Now with rare exception, if you look (and this again is nothing new you cant find out on your own, but I happened to have blogged on it back a while ago) this In June 2013 there was an enormous movement at $749. So I mean We are year in. Confidence slipped here.
But the other shoe had dropped. Players were FILLING this place and a hundred like it with venomous poisons and hate mail. Still are and my proof is saved in a thousand thousand threads here. and the interns were watching and paying attention. GW already knew it and they were ahead of it because its what they do.
And now? Lol. NOW the 52 week low of $470 ALMOST HALF OF ITS HIGH according to Yahoo finance (see their data for all this btw). but thats not all. The exact progression of thought I Told you happened is mapped out numerically. The slide was DRAMATIC. The very next month and EVERY month after for five months it tumbled. But this was again, something GW probably anticipated just based on the online traffic. Investors might not have dug deep enough at first but they started digging FAST.
Not until 7th Edition was announced was their significant movement in the positive after that. It was announced May 17th and wouldnt you know it... In June the stock recovered to $622 in June.
But that just encouraged further sell off and $531 is where it sits. Snake bitten. and now the company is almost ASSUREDLY under great scrutiny by its investors and I doubt any of them that have lost hundreds of thousands on paper are doing anything but their utmost to get the price to a sellable point.
or looking for a buy out that could make them a lot of their money back all at once.
July 1st 2012 was a Sunday. Not a lot of trading that day. On July 2nd, however, it closed at 568 pence. Not dollars. Pence.
June 2013 had growth throughout the month. Nothing dramatic happened.
May 17th to 24th had a slight increase in shareprice (~20p).
6th of June (a Friday) and the following Monday saw a much greater spike (going from 590p to 650p, approximately). Do you know what happened on June 6th? Of course you fething don't. The GW board declared a dividend.
Jancoran wrote: So go back to just a couple months before 6E. Then look at about one year AFTER 6E.
A year after 6th ed was released, the share price was hovering reasonably steady at nearly double the value it had before 6th ed was released.
The 'dramatic' drop in share price came in January 2014. So if you're not talking about that drop, I'm at a bit of a loss as to what you are talking about.
6th edition saw nothing but increase in share price right up until the rumours started in the months before the financial report that the report wasn't going to be great and that dividends might not be paid.
Actually in all the communities I've been it's an awful surprise for me that the GW games community is one that looks down upon people wanting to win. I find it really, really weird.
I think jancoran and Runic live in some sort of alternate reality where if they repeat the same nonsensical argument loud enough and long enough without providing any concrete evidence, people will magically just believe them. They have bright futures in politics.
I stand by my argument that investors are not flipping through a 40k rulebook or reading dakka to determine whether to buy or sell stock in a company. Just the thought of it is ridiculous. They care about numbers and hard data, not opinions of Internet fanboys that make up a small minority of the customer base of a company that makes up an even smaller % of their portfolio. To say that 7th was created in response to interns from investment firms playing golf with Tom Kirby and complaining about 6th edition rules is so laughable it should be a cartoon. 7th was a response to bad financial numbers which led to GW being unable to pay dividends which led to shareholders dumping stock. I know that because logic.
heartserenade wrote:Actually in all the communities I've been it's an awful surprise for me that the GW games community is one that looks down upon people wanting to win. I find it really, really weird.
It is weird. I've always found it even funnier the people who claim to play some sort of 'fluffy' list that is a random hodge podge of models they own (which is fine), but look down or begrudge those who play equally (if not more so) fluffy lists that are also much stronger.
Toofast wrote:I think jancoran and Runic live in some sort of alternate reality where if they repeat the same nonsensical argument loud enough and long enough without providing any concrete evidence, people will magically just believe them. They have bright futures in politics.
I stand by my argument that investors are not flipping through a 40k rulebook or reading dakka to determine whether to buy or sell stock in a company. Just the thought of it is ridiculous. They care about numbers and hard data, not opinions of Internet fanboys that make up a small minority of the customer base of a company that makes up an even smaller % of their portfolio. To say that 7th was created in response to interns from investment firms playing golf with Tom Kirby and complaining about 6th edition rules is so laughable it should be a cartoon. 7th was a response to bad financial numbers which led to GW being unable to pay dividends which led to shareholders dumping stock. I know that because logic.
Its a great image though. Just imagine a board room meeting at a large investment board, with high level management all discussing the pros and cons of the new edition, eagerly debating how Unbound is either the best thing ever or the worst.
There are too many levels of disconnect between what the share price is and how well GW is actually doing. The share price is speculative, how much people are willing to pay for the shares because of what they think the future value will be and how much dividend they will receive. It's driven by what GW are releasing, by law, in their reports (and how people are interpreting that as health) and what they are paying for dividends.
There's a huge disconnect between that and the health of the customer base. Not saying comparisons can't be made, but any comparison needs to be weighed against overall market actions, what GW have written in their reports and what's happening with the dividend... things which aren't always directly reflective of the current health of their customer base.
I have no idea why people are discussing stock prices in a thread about the Spirit of the Game. But anyhow.
Just because a company is making money hand over fist and recording record profits doesn't mean its stock price will go up, or won't go down.
Just because a company has poor sales or is losing money, doesn't mean that it's stock price will go down, or will go up.
Stock prices are influenced by four things:
1. What the market thinks will happen to the stock price in the future (which doesn't have to have ANYTHING to do with profitability).
2. What the market thinks dividends will be.
3. Non-sophisticated investors making emotional decisions.
4. How the market as a whole is doing
Example #1, for a good many years, Microsoft stock prices declined, even though they posted more billions of dollars of revenue every quarter.
Example #2, GE (General Electric) pays nearly 7% dividends. People will invest in GE because they figure it's a very stable place to give their money a home in, and the dividends are very high.
Example #3, Average folks bought Facebook and Tim Hortons stock out of the gate and raised the prices to ridiculous heights that had no basis in analysis or science. Why? Because they liked the companies and wanted to own a piece of it.
The fourth is pretty obvious. In times of recession, or when people generally become risk adverse (such as the last financial crisis in the USA), generally, all stock prices suffer, even though none of the fundamentals have changed. That's mostly people deciding they'd like less risk, and would prefer reasonably risk-free vehicles to ride out the storm. In contrast, in a very bullish market, all of the stock prices go crazy because investors get much more speculative. Plus, in a diversified portfolio, even if one of your shareholdings tanks, others may overperform.
In the real world, stock prices are highly influenced by the actions of fund managers, and large, institutional investors, average folks tend to watch what they do and follow -- which is a terrible idea, if you want to actually make money in the stock market, but that's another subject. To make money, you not only have to be right, but be right *and different from what everyone else thinks*.
I should also add the caveat that, if everyone hates a company and doesn't buy its products, well DUH... of course, it's share price will tank. Or, if it causes an environmental disaster. Or supports a terrorist organization. That kinda thing
Coming from M:tG it really is a bizarro world to me. In M:tG there are fluff-bunnies, sure. But they won't tell you'youre WAAC because your deck is made with tournament play in mind. In fact, I don't think the term WAAC is even used. They might accuse you of being uncreative (especially if you copied your decklist from the internet) but they won't fault you if you really want to win.
That mentality would be fine if it's a game where there are no winners or losers (a.k.a. a tabletop RPG). Even loose rules could be excused if 40k/WHFB ARE roleplaying games with DMs (since the DMs can make up and/or change the rules for the enjoyment of the players). But majortiy of GW games are played by two players with no DM/GMs.
Coming from M:tG it really is a bizarro world to me. In M:tG there are fluff-bunnies, sure. But they won't tell you'youre WAAC because your deck is made with tournament play in mind. In fact, I don't think the term WAAC is even used. They might accuse you of being uncreative (especially if you copied your decklist from the internet) but they won't fault you if you really want to win.
That mentality would be fine if it's a game where there are no winners or losers (a.k.a. a tabletop RPG). Even loose rules could be excused if 40k/WHFB ARE roleplaying games with DMs (since the DMs can make up and/or change the rules for the enjoyment of the players). But majortiy of GW games are played by two players with no DM/GMs.
I used to be a crazy MtG player (from about 1993-2000). I played a *lot* both with very competitive types, and then also with guys with their girlfriends and mothers. The latter group, you'd have some people with 500 card decks who could go 50 turns without drawing a land card because they wanted to put every pretty card they owned in a deck to play. But, we'd still accommodate them, and nobody would beat up on them because, well, they're still fun people to play with.
In MtG, the games are much, much shorter, though, so when you lose, it's not really a big deal. Just play another game, or play with someone else. Plus, assuming your deck isn't TOTALLY garbage, luck is a much bigger factor, so even a very skilled player with a good deck can occasionally lose to a poor player, just because of the world's crappiest hand (I mean, who hasn't had that happen).
In 40k, if you blow a game, that might be your only game for the night, and that can be very disappointing. I mean, I guess, I'm just saying I understand why people who start 40k, invest a whole bunch of money and time, just to find out that what they thought would be a pretty cool idea is not really so much -- they find someone to vilify, whether's GW or their opponent, or both. Plus, in 40k, if you have a weak army, the only thing you can really do is swap in other stuff.
When I was a kid, I actually played a lot with counters instead of models, because I couldn't afford 'em -- just to see what worked, and what didn't, if nothing else. Remember in the back of Rogue Trader, there were actual square, cut-out counters for space marines and orks? Don't see GW doing THAT these days, LOL. I wonder what someone would say if you tried to play one and said, "hey, this is an authentic GW game piece!!"
The reason you see such a divide between "competitive" and "fluffy/fun" players in 40k is because it's the most unbalanced game out there. Also, a lot of the ire comes from the time, money and effort required to build an army you like only to find out it sucks on the table. This causes you to look for someone to blame, and the guy across from you is a much easier target than the company you just paid $1,000 to for the privilege of getting roflstomped with their jewel like objects of magic and wonder because said company is completely incompetent at writing rules. You won't find this divide in Magic because it doesn't take effort to put a deck together and it doesn't cost that much. If your deck is awful, you're out the $30 it cost, 10 minutes to throw the cards in sleeves and 45 minutes for the games. If your 40k army is awful, you're often out $500-1,000, 6 months to build and paint it and 3 hours for a game plus the hassle of dragging all that stuff back and forth. If the game was balanced you wouldn't see such a divide because a fluffy army someone made because they like the models would still have half a chance against a GT winning netlist.
insaniak wrote: And even then, having to include a unit in your army specifically as a counter to a single unit in your opponent's list is more than a little ridiculous.
I find it quite logical and have no gripes with it whatsoever really.
Because I don't like being forced to use a specific unit to counter a type of unit.
I´m starting to have an impression that the majority of people who have "I quit" -level gripes with 40K are the casual gamers who play the odd 10 games a year if even that. It seems their main issues are:
-Not being able to field whatever they want, basically wishing they can put the models in a bucket, shake it up, blindly pick them out of there to make an armylist and expect it to fare against everything an opponent brings to the table. I´d find that the most pointless, useless game ever. You can´t pick whatever in WM/H either and expect to do well, not anymore. Not in years. Admittedly the effect of getting stomped because of poor choices is less harsh in said game.
-Not being really good in the game due to lack of skill or experience, losing a lot, getting mad and blaming the game ( which has rules that are the same for everyone... )
-Basically speculating what is breaking the game ( saying fliers break the game currently is a dead giveaway of not really having played much of 7th ed, everyone who has any idea knows this isn´t the case and hasn´t been for over a year now ) without much actual play experience.
This is so prevalent outside the internet too. I play in 3 different groups in 3 different cities. The people who are always complaining about this and that are the ones that play once in two months if even that, rest of their time is spent making these "statements" based on their massively lacking play experience. One player in my hometowns group is a prime example, playing the top tier codices of Eldar and Tau, and continously complaining about the game and how some units "just can´t be dealth with" while simultaneously players with much crappier codices ( CSM, Tyranids ( before the drop pod ), IG and such are doing just fine and not complaining. ) The only possible cause left is the players lack of skill and experience, as he now has under 10 games under his belt this year, and can´t make do with the best toys the game has to offer while the rest do better with their inferior ones.
The most active players don´t complain at all and have fun, as they have learned to play and how to easily deal with things such as fliers ( bring AA, avoid their arc of fire, table the opponents ground forces, ignore air completely among others. ) As a sidenote, I find wargamers who spend 20 hours a year playing and 200 hours talking about playing ( albeit acting like they´ve played 200 hours ) a bit odd and/or funny, if they talk like the hours were the other way around. This guy I mentioned is one of them, and it shows.
The most paradoxical part is that most of these "haters" are labeling Warhammer 40K as a casual game that can´t be played competitively and doesn´t require skill ( it can, and it does ) when they themselves are the epitome of casual.
RunicFIN wrote: The most paradoxical part is that most of these "haters" are labeling Warhammer 40K as a casual game that can´t be played competitively ...
I would say the exact opposite, personally. 40K right now sucks as a casual game, unless you're playing with the same core group all of the time. Too many holes in the rules to make pick up games an attractive option. At least in a tournament you can get a ruling on specific issues that will cover every game in that event, and potentially any other event run by the same TO.
Having said that, the lack of casual gaming has killed my enthusiasm for tournament play as well.
- You can be absolutely decimated if you lack the means/skill/experience to build a list that can take on most things out there.
- Requires the most ( or among most ) effort to get into and learn for someone who is just starting ( due to the rules alone, I certainly learned WM/H thrice as fast as WH40K. )
- Is among the most time and money consuming games out there.
... quite unlogical.
In a way WH40K is one of the most hardcore games out there. It doesn´t fit people who have the "I want to play whatever I want and deal comfortably with everything!" -complex. It doesn´t fit people who can´t handle the fact ridicilously powerful armies can be built. It doesn´t fit people who don´t have the time the game requires ( all aspects ) to do well in it.
These are actually also attributes of videogames that are labeled "hardcore" -aswell, games that are rarely well balanced.
If one wants a game with more balanced units ( in the end requiring less skill/means/experience to make a competitive list, this doesn´t affect actual gameplay skill requirements ), easier to learn, less time and money consuming, then isn´t one wishing for a more casual game from any angle perceivable in essence?
Certainly some if not most of these things are caused by the rules and unbalance, but it doesn´t make it any less true in the end. Personally I find list building, the complex rules and their occasionally massive quirks, the amount of effort required to do well in WH40K an absolute blast.
And again, I play both WH40K and WM/H, and I enjoy both for different things.
I used to play every week for years. Took a break and came back to see the situation had gotten even worse. They need to fix the rules or the prices for me to consider returning. The spirit of the game these days is: buy from us and be grateful. How about no bear says how about no.
RunicFIN wrote: Indeed. I find calling a game casual, inwhich:
- You can be absolutely decimated if you lack the means/skill/experience to build a list that can take on most things out there.
- Requires the most ( or among most ) effort to get into and learn for someone who is just starting ( due to the rules alone, I certainly learned WM/H thrice as fast as WH40K. )
- Is among the most time and money consuming games out there.
... quite unlogical.
In a way WH40K is one of the most hardcore games out there. It doesn´t fit people who have the "I want to play whatever I want and deal comfortably with everything!" -complex. It doesn´t fit people who can´t handle the fact ridicilously powerful armies can be built. It doesn´t fit people who don´t have the time the game requires ( all aspects ) to do well in it.
These are actually also attributes of videogames that are labeled "hardcore" -aswell, games that are rarely well balanced.
If one wants a game with more balanced units ( in the end requiring less skill/means/experience to make a competitive list, this doesn´t affect actual gameplay skill requirements ), easier to learn, less time and money consuming, then isn´t one wishing for a more casual game from any angle perceivable in essence?
Certainly some if not most of these things are caused by the rules and unbalance, but it doesn´t make it any less true in the end. Personally I find list building, the complex rules and their occasionally massive quirks, the amount of effort required to do well in WH40K an absolute blast.
And again, I play both WH40K and WM/H, and I enjoy both for different things.
Down with the filthy casuals! How dare they try to have fun in a real man's game like 40k! Let them go back to their munchkin and Settlers while we hardcore gamers go play our awesome possum game, right?
TheCustomLime wrote: Down with the filthy casuals! How dare they try to have fun in a real man's game like 40k! Let them go back to their munchkin and Settlers while we hardcore gamers go play our awesome possum game, right?
Thats the tragic irony of the rules. People blame the tournament and waac players for the 'problems' with the game, yet its ultimately the casuals who get affected the worse. To the point they have to shut themselves off from other players and say "if you want to be in my group, you have to play by my rules".
That is so true. A tournament player will have a tournament list from the start. Worse thing that can happen to him is that after 2 or 4 years he will have to buy a new one. What does a casual player suppose to do? One of our friends plays GK, he started before the new codex. He liked them to be old school so only used terminators, terminator HQs, no inquisition and NDKs. We didn't know what to do, because he couldn't play against us and playing against other people at the stores was even worse. Then new codex came and suddenly I am the one with 3 opponents that don't have to tailor to counter my army without me being able to do anything about it. If the game was 200-300$, it maybe wouldn't sting as much as it does now. Worse while am having 0 fun player , our friend doesn't have it either as everyone sees him as on OP army using schmuck.
Toofast wrote: The reason you see such a divide between "competitive" and "fluffy/fun" players in 40k is because it's the most unbalanced game out there. Also, a lot of the ire comes from the time, money and effort required to build an army you like only to find out it sucks on the table. This causes you to look for someone to blame, and the guy across from you is a much easier target than the company you just paid $1,000 to for the privilege of getting roflstomped with their jewel like objects of magic and wonder because said company is completely incompetent at writing rules. You won't find this divide in Magic because it doesn't take effort to put a deck together and it doesn't cost that much. If your deck is awful, you're out the $30 it cost, 10 minutes to throw the cards in sleeves and 45 minutes for the games. If your 40k army is awful, you're often out $500-1,000, 6 months to build and paint it and 3 hours for a game plus the hassle of dragging all that stuff back and forth. If the game was balanced you wouldn't see such a divide because a fluffy army someone made because they like the models would still have half a chance against a GT winning netlist.
From my experience is not neccsarily about the time and effort involved but rather about the degree of attachment people have to their lists. Many 'fluff bunnies' don't want a list that doesn't suck. They want THEIR list not to suck.
An example I'm very familiar with is Dungeons&Dragons 3.5. As a RPG it has no hard win/lose conditions, but most people seem to view contributing meaningfully as a 'soft' win condition. Once you have all you need to play, building a character that doesn't suck requires in the worst case a moderate investment (50-100$ if you need stuff ftom additional books and feel bad about just googling it) and little effort (few days tops).
And yet people would still rather rage at their fellow gamers than rebuild their character.
LordBlades wrote: Many 'fluff bunnies' don't want a list that doesn't suck. They want THEIR list not to suck.
A thousand times this. It´s an outrageously self-agonizing way of thinking asfar as I´m concerned. "I want X, the game shall adjust to my needs or else." I wonder if they play videogames and want their warrior -archetype to be the greatest mage in existence at the same time, and get mad if they can´t beat a ranger -archetype in ranged combat for example. It´s just so unlogical it´s unfathomable to me.
Down with the filthy casuals! How dare they try to have fun in a real man's game like 40k! Let them go back to their munchkin and Settlers while we hardcore gamers go play our awesome possum game, right?
Hmm no, was just talking about labeling the game as casual when a person himself is the epitome of casual, and the paradox of that.
Someone who plays the game once in two months, talks as if he plays three times a day while actually lacking even decent experience, basing his views on an amount of games you can count with one hand, gets thrashed by the more experienced players, refuses to accept his fluffy list is never going to dominate a tournament, gets frustrated, goes all "this game is too casual, I´m gonna go for a more competitive game like WM/H" -and then proceeds to play said game in a non-competitive enviroment once in two months while hating on the previous one over the internet and saying it´s casual when infact he was too casual for the game, and too casual to do well in it due to lack of gameplay experience. A walking joke, asfar as I´m concerned.
Someone who is "casual" and admits it, and talks in a way that reflects his gaming experience of 8 matches total of 7th edition instead of the talk you could expect from someone dominating the last ETC and knowing everything about the current meta, that´s fine.
I welcome all kinds of players and I play all kinds of players, with some we use "gentleman" builds if said player doesn´t wish to go all-out and I find those games fun aswell. At the same time I see some of these players banging their head against the wall, as if on some eternal hopeless quest to "wield pretty much anything and deal with pretty much anything" -and in a way I feel sorry for them, as they don´t realize it´s futile, for now. They have 4 options:
-Start accepting the fact you can´t do that, and the fact you must gear against certain unit types to be competitive and end your suffering, adjust your "No one will opress me, I want what I want or else!" -attitude, enjoy the game like the rest of us.
-Come to terms with not having competitive performance if you want to play your Berzerker infantry only list / similiar.
-Quit the game if you cannot come to terms with these things, pick up another game and be happy about it and let others enjoy this game.
-Continue banging your head against the wall, get frustrated, write about it on the forums continously with a consious/subconsious belief you are achieving god knows what agenda ( which does nothing really btw ) and make yourself even more miserable for not being able to enjoy the game.
Paradigm wrote: Good stuff, agree wholeheartedly with all of it. I think if they published something like this today, given that the game is still going t same direction and with the same intent, it would clear up a lot of debate before it even begins.
Yeah except GW published something like this a while ago, it was Jervis article where he wrote that building both themed and super efficient army lists are equaly valid ways to play the game, that there are problems when the playstyles clash but no more beardy cheese bs mentioned. The old article from op is irrelevant, gw itself created a competitive player base since then with tourneys and tourney oriented rulesets (yes they were tourney oriented as confirmed later by Rick Priestley himself and the game is not still going in the same direction, they just try 180 turn now seeing how they fail writing proper wargaming rules) and while I like mr Priestley, 40k is thankfuly established as a wargame now not quasi rpg with gm and noone paints space marines looking like sex pistols anymore. Also super efficient cheese optfg lists are automaticaly themed and fluffy in the world of only war. The whole social aspect, laid back casual bro gaming excuses are unique to 40k and create absurd situations like people asking on forum if it's ok to take unit from their codex because they don't want to be ostracised by some special snowflake haac players. Thats all thanks to '40k is casual therefore you should be nice and not win too much' bs, table footbal is played super casualy in pubs around the world but that doesnt change the fact that anyone better than you will crush you mercilessly to 0 in such match and noone cries , whines, writes articles and rants on forums. It's just natural state of things, just like optimising your list in a wargame. That it creates borked matchups is rules fault and no amount of excuses and blaming players can change that. Unbalanced casual beer and pretzels game is just as crap as unbalanced serious game.
Btw I field crap units all the time. Carnifexes in 5th, genestealers in 6th, I like challenge and trying to male underdogs work you would never call me 'power gamer' looking at my lists. But I find the idea of gaming vs power gaming, casual vs competitive completly ridiculous. Its a wargame ffs you play to destroy opponent's army, you can be friendly kiss and cuddle while doing it but please.
Because I don't like being forced to use a specific unit to counter a type of unit.
I´m starting to have an impression that the majority of people who have "I quit" -level gripes with 40K are the casual gamers who play the odd 10 games a year if even that. It seems their main issues are:
-Not being able to field whatever they want, basically wishing they can put the models in a bucket, shake it up, blindly pick them out of there to make an armylist and expect it to fare against everything an opponent brings to the table. I´d find that the most pointless, useless game ever. You can´t pick whatever in WM/H either and expect to do well, not anymore. Not in years. Admittedly the effect of getting stomped because of poor choices is less harsh in said game.
Ah, your first point is a massive strawman. Well we're off to a good start. So you're equating 'not wanting to take a flier' to 'picking random units out of a bag' nice.
Or, are you saying that any list not including fliers might as well have been randomly picked out of a bag? If so, that should tell you that there is something seriously wrong with fliers.
-Not being really good in the game due to lack of skill or experience, losing a lot, getting mad and blaming the game ( which has rules that are the same for everyone... )
Oh, and your second point is L2P. That's just delightful.
Anyway, how can I put this - you know *nothing* about me. I have said two things - flyers ignoring 84% of incoming shots is silly, and that the dedicated anti-air options are very constricted and sometimes non-existent. And yet, based on that alone, you're already rolling out the L2P "argument" (also known as the "I haven't got an argument" argument).
So, would including 3 Vendettas in every list make me a better player?
-Basically speculating what is breaking the game ( saying fliers break the game currently is a dead giveaway of not really having played much of 7th ed, everyone who has any idea knows this isn´t the case and hasn´t been for over a year now ) without much actual play experience.
You seem to have intimate knowledge of every single person who is speculating about the current problems with the game. So, come on then, how long have I been playing? How many games do I play a week (on average)? Obviously you must know the answer to these, because I'm sure you wouldn't be writing uninformed drivel now, would you?
The most active players don´t complain at all and have fun,
I take it you're not an active player then? Otherwise you'd obviously be out having fun, rather than complaining about anyone who dares bring up problems with the rules.
Spirit of the game used to be something along the lines of "play for fun and don't be a donkey cave." Now it's "Buy our models, peon."
Plus, I wouldn't bother arguing with RunicFIN, Vipoid. While you're completely right, he's a member of The Recessionist Operation Lamenting Leavers. You won't get a real discussion from him, unless you count more of the above as discussion.
Oh, and it is completely possible to powergame in an RPG. You'd think not, but it really is. Whole other can of worms there.
The article quoted in the first post is meaningless. if GW truly felt that armies should be made based off of the fluff then that armies force chart, unit capabilities and unit points would be inline with that. However, on the whole, they aren't.
The reality is that there are competing interests within GW itself. You have a game design group that apparently works towards creating a fun game then you have "marketing" which says "everyone bought wyches and no one bought scourges after the last codex. Make the wyches suck and scourges be incredible this time, we need to sell more of that stock."
Every single codex release has been like this. My point is: sure the game designers may have wanted us to build fluffy armies but management looks at the situation very differently and that hurts every one.
liquidjoshi wrote: Plus, I wouldn't bother arguing with RunicFIN, Vipoid. While you're completely right, he's a member of The Recessionist Operation Lamenting Leavers. You won't get a real discussion from him, unless you count more of the above as discussion..
Ah, your first point is a massive strawman. Well we're off to a good start. So you're equating 'not wanting to take a flier' to 'picking random units out of a bag' nice.
If something is a strawman, it´s what you´re saying. Obviously I was referring to what you said earlier about not wanting to be forced to make unit choices ( in general. ) Wasn´t talking about fliers only. If someone dislikes being forced to choose anything, then in essence what they want is to play pretty much anything and do well. And if anything would go, you could basically do just that, just pick things out at random without a worry in the world.
Oh, and your second point is L2P. That's just delightful.
You find something unlogical in the fact that people who are not necessarily skilled in a game, and lose often, are the ones more likely not to find it fun? I like how you try to sweep valid points under a carpet without even having any logical backup. I guess I can do that too;
Oh, you´re saying how good you are in something has nothing to do with said activitys enjoyability. That´s just delightful.
vipoid wrote: Anyway, how can I put this - you know *nothing* about me. I have said two things - flyers ignoring 84% of incoming shots is silly, and that the dedicated anti-air options are very constricted and sometimes non-existent. And yet, based on that alone, you're already rolling out the L2P "argument" (also known as the "I haven't got an argument" argument).
I was talking about a certain type of player/person in general. Next to that L2P is in some cases a completely valid argument whether you like or not.
In any case, I wasn´t talking about you. What I said had mostly to do with people that label 40K as a casual game while being casual incarnate themselves. Should someone not after this 3rd clarification still understand it, then tough gak I guess.
I take it you're not an active player then? Otherwise you'd obviously be out having fun, rather than complaining about anyone who dares bring up problems with the rules.
Not sure if I should make an equally childish comeback to that. But you can find my match count for this year few posts earlier. I guess active is a subjective term in the end though, so if you´re nearing 100 played matches of 40K in the 1750-2000 points range this year then I probably am not active compared to you.
There's a whole lot of assuming why players quit 40k out there. And for the most part it's pretty uneducated.
As I said earlier, flier rules are unfun. They don't fit the game and are just annoying instead of cool. (I had two stormtalons back in the day and I felt dirty playing them.)
I didn't quit because I didn't know how to play. I've been playing since RT days.
I don't need to pick random units, but every unit should have a purpose in the right list.
"I really like unit A."
"But unit A is only good in this kind of army."
"Ah, I see. Well, I'll create that kind of army then, cause I gotta have that model!"
or something like that.
To indulge you, FIN, I'll recount my wargaming history. While it's certainly not as long or well rounded as, say, MWHistorian's, it is sufficient enough to give me an informed opinion.
I've been playing for about six years now, started with 5th played through to 7th. In those years, I was always part of a club where I had a game at least once a week. That's about 312 games total over three editions.
Truth be told, I liked 5th. 6th was ok. 7th wa half the problem. I didn't like the direction 7th took the game. Now, I have enough units, bits and so on to make good armies for 7th; I'm sure my FSE suits list or my Armoured battlegroup would fare just fine in 7th. Unbound would make things difficult, but that's not something I can't overcome. Suffice to say, I know enough about the game and have been playing long enough to know my skill isn't a deciding factor - otherwise, I wouldn't be playing wargames at all.
I no longer play 40k because of several reasons:
- There are other games out there that do what 40K tries to do but better.
- GW is a horrible company and I refuse to support their business practices.
- I can't afford to "keep with the meta" by buying the latest power unit.
Those three are the big ones, and where most other people draw the line.
Edit: Really, the change in the spirit of the game should highlight just how and why the second reason is so relevant for so many people.
liquidjoshi wrote: To indulge you, FIN, I'll recount my wargaming history. While it's certainly not as long or well rounded as, say, MWHistorian's, it is sufficient enough to give me an informed opinion.
I've been playing for about six years now, started with 5th played through to 7th. In those years, I was always part of a club where I had a game at least once a week. That's about 312 games total over three editions.
And I have played Warhammer 40,000 for 12 years, and WM/H for 6-7 years ( can´t give the exact time as I have been on a break from it, but I have factually followed the competitive scene from 2007. ) I have quite the informed opinion aswell. In any case, just because I don´t share someones view or even have a polar opposite one doesn´t make it any less of a discussion.
Blacksails wrote: So what I'm getting is that 40k is neither a casual game, nor a tournament/competitive game?
For me it is a fun game as either, and for some as neither. I just see quite a lot of recurring traits among the players who fall into the "neither" category, and I listed some of those earlier. It´s subjective - so in the end no can state it being X or Y as an universal truth as it´s simply not possible.
liquidjoshi wrote: Plus, I wouldn't bother arguing with RunicFIN, Vipoid. While you're completely right, he's a member of The Recessionist Operation Lamenting Leavers. You won't get a real discussion from him, unless you count more of the above as discussion..
Ah, your first point is a massive strawman. Well we're off to a good start. So you're equating 'not wanting to take a flier' to 'picking random units out of a bag' nice.
If something is a strawman, it´s what you´re saying. Obviously I was referring to what you said earlier about not wanting to be forced to make unit choices ( in general. ) Wasn´t talking about fliers only. If someone dislikes being forced to choose anything, then in essence what they want is to play pretty much anything and do well. And if anything would go, you could basically do just that, just pick things out at random without a worry in the world.
Can you really not see the difference between someone not wanting to take some very specific units, which don't mesh with the rest of his army, and someone just picking units randomly from a bag?
Oh, and your second point is L2P. That's just delightful.
You find something unlogical in the fact that people who are not necessarily skilled in a game, and lose often, are the ones more likely not to find it fun? I like how you try to sweep valid points under a carpet without even having any logical backup. I guess I can do that too;
Oh, you´re saying how good you are in something has nothing to do with said activitys enjoyability. That´s just delightful.
Firstly, the word is "illogical". "Unlogical" is not a word. Second, you are making assumptions about my gaming experiences with no basis in fact. I have not complained about losing to fliers, yet you automatically assume that this must be the case.
I do agree with you that constantly losing can make the game less fun (or not fun at all). However, that wasn't what you said. What you actually said was that people suck at the game and blame the rules as a result. That is not even close to being the same thing. In fact, it's just argumentum ad hominem.
vipoid wrote: Anyway, how can I put this - you know *nothing* about me. I have said two things - flyers ignoring 84% of incoming shots is silly, and that the dedicated anti-air options are very constricted and sometimes non-existent. And yet, based on that alone, you're already rolling out the L2P "argument" (also known as the "I haven't got an argument" argument).
I was talking about a certain type of player/person in general. Next to that L2P is in some cases a completely valid argument whether you like or not.
And in the contex you used it, it was entirely inappropriate.
In any case, I wasn´t talking about you. What I said had mostly to do with people that label 40K as a casual game while being casual incarnate themselves. Should someone not after this 3rd clarification still understand it, then tough gak I guess.
If you weren't talking about me, why did you quote me above?
I take it you're not an active player then? Otherwise you'd obviously be out having fun, rather than complaining about anyone who dares bring up problems with the rules.
Not sure if I should make an equally childish comeback to that. But you can find my match count for this year few posts earlier. I guess active is a subjective term in the end though, so if you´re nearing 100 played matches of 40K in the 1750-2000 points range this year then I probably am not active compared to you.
Wait... do games of 40k below 1750pts not count as games?
Never said it couldn't be fun. As I mentioned, with a group of people you enjoy playing with, its fine.
Then again, doing anything with a group of people I like is fun.
Really, I think you're looking too hard for things to label people who leave the game. People don't dislike 40k because they're not skilled enough, or expect the game to pander to them, or any other slightly insulting reason you care to dream of.
People are growing tired of 40k because the company making it is charging a fortune for a game that is filled with issues, both in basic writing and gameplay including balance issues. Factor in other games that are cheaper, have cool models, and debatable better gameplay, and its easy to see why someone wouldn't stick with 40k as their primary wargame.
That's not to say people aren't holding on to an army or two to play with friends when other games aren't available.
I just think you're trying way to hard to label people who point out the flaws of 40k. No one wants the game to pander to them, or make it so that choices don't have consequences. Quite the opposite really. On the flip side, no one wants to be punished for fielding rough riders, despite being a favourite unit among many Guard players.
MWHistorian wrote: There's a whole lot of assuming why players quit 40k out there. And for the most part it's pretty uneducated.
As I said earlier, flier rules are unfun. They don't fit the game and are just annoying instead of cool. (I had two stormtalons back in the day and I felt dirty playing them.)
I didn't quit because I didn't know how to play. I've been playing since RT days.
I don't need to pick random units, but every unit should have a purpose in the right list.
"I really like unit A."
"But unit A is only good in this kind of army."
"Ah, I see. Well, I'll create that kind of army then, cause I gotta have that model!"
or something like that.
I can understand this, but you have this in WM/H aswell, it´s just not as harsh. Khador Destroyer for example is a unit that hasn´t seen the light of day in the competitive scene for god knows how long. It´s an awful Warjack. And I´d say it´s meaningful to talk about the competitive side, as you can wield a fluffy crap army in casual 40K games just the same as you could a Khador Destroyer in WM/H.
You mentioned you are new to WM/H, 6 months. I have a feeling you are still having the "epiphany" kind of process going on, where you find awesome things about the game and it´s new and exciting ( in another thread you gave an example of a battle you were about to lose turning into your favour, saying you love this game, for example. ) I´d say in a few years this will have faded and the bad sides of WM/H will have become clear to you, as will the annoying things PP also does to make money. They aren´t as outrageous as the stunts pulled off by GW, but they´re still there.
Maybe in 2018 we´ll have Epic Epic Epic Epic Ultra Kommander Sorscha, who comes on dual colossal bases as she rides on double Gun Carriages like this. You can then purchase the 16th expansion book in the game, in order to find out about her new incarnations lore which has continued through the previous 15 books. Nuff said.
Anyway listening to GW, they say the game is for narrative players. But what have they done for narrative players in the past few editions... they've removed things like doctrines and maybe this is just me, but it feels like they aren't promoting creating your own chapter/regiment/whatever as much as they did back in 3/4e. They added unbound, but I doubt a narrative player has ever said "oh no the FoC is in the way, guess I'll have to cancel my narrative event".
Looking at their actions. The rules are mess and work best in groups where one or more people can act as a ref, or the group can decide on how they want to play the game. The move to smaller one man stores is not a decision by the development team but is still something that effects the people who play the game.
My guess would be GW is aiming at people who play in self-sufficient clubs. Though honestly I've always found the game to be best for that type of group. So as things go further south you'll see this group grow and the "middle" group of pug players slow disappear (and no I'm not saying they'd all go to clubs).
The game is also good for those who play in a Tournament. Yes that's right, Tournaments. Sure the poor unit balance creates a crap meta, but the mess and poor structure of the rules makes tournaments attractive to some of the more "middle of the road" pug players into seeking some form of structure. Thus you'll also see local tournament rules become used for pugs because they give a focus to list building and improve the structure of the game.
Of course this is all just an observation based off my own experiences, and listening to others/reading posts on various forums.
tl:dr, GW says it's for narrative players. Their actions seem to indicate it's for club and tournament players.
If you weren't talking about me, why did you quote me above?
I replied to you, then proceeded to write my impressions about the type of personality/player as I described before. Maybe I should have added a comment to separate them better.
Wait... do games of 40k below 1750pts not count as games?
They do, but larger games take more time, effort, strategy and list building. I´d say if you played 100 games of 500 points that you were less active than someone playing 80 games of 1750 in a year. Although, 40K is quite clunky if you´re playing games of 1000 points. Haven´t played those in the last 3 editions.
Ah, the "dismiss him as a troll" -card. I must be putting so much effort into elaborating points and giving reasons to what I perceive because I´m trolling.
People are growing tired of 40k because the company making it is charging a fortune for a game that is filled with issues, both in basic writing and gameplay including balance issues. Factor in other games that are cheaper, have cool models, and debatable better gameplay, and its easy to see why someone wouldn't stick with 40k as their primary wargame.
Yet we can read about people quitting or disliking the game for the things I described earlier on a daily basis on these forums for example. Especially the bit of having to be prepared to meet units on the field you have to gear up against. God knows how many kneejerk threads there have been about fliers in general, superheavies, Heldrakes and the like. Certainly the reasons you list apply with some too, but what I described applies to some just the same.
In any case, 40K isn´t for people who wish to wield exactly what they want to, no matter how ineffective, and simultaneously expect to come out on top most of the time.
MWHistorian wrote: 40k isn't a game for people that rely on PUG's while playing lists that aren´t powerful enough to take on most things out there.
Fix´d, I can play in PUG´s fine personally. Sure you get the occasional one-trick-pony list you weren´t prepared for, but that doesn´t ruin the whole game for me, as I come prepared for 90% of the other possibilities.
I do understand what you´re saying perfectly though, and it´s an undeniable fact WM/H in general allows you to play random opponents with less of these nasty "surprises." However, in turn WM/H gives occasionally makes your life difficult by a really bad matchup when it comes to Warcasters and the armies they usually built around them. Like I mentioned in another thread, High Reclaimer can completely shut down gunlines for example.
MWHistorian wrote: 40k isn't a game for people that rely on PUG's while playing lists that aren´t powerful enough to take on most things out there.
Fix´d, I can play in PUG´s fine personally. Sure you get the occasional one-trick-pony list you weren´t prepared for, but that doesn´t ruin the whole game for me, as I come prepared for 90% of the other possibilities.
I do understand what you´re saying perfectly though, and it´s an undeniable fact WM/H in general allows you to play random opponents with less of these nasty "surprises." However, in turn WM/H gives occasionally makes your life difficult by a really bad matchup when it comes to Warcasters and the armies they usually built around them. Like I mentioned in another thread, High Reclaimer can completely shut down gunlines for example.
You fixed nothing and only showed your lack of understanding of my argument.
MWHistorian wrote: 40k isn't a game for people that rely on PUG's while playing lists that aren´t powerful enough to take on most things out there.
Fix´d, I can play in PUG´s fine personally. Sure you get the occasional one-trick-pony list you weren´t prepared for, but that doesn´t ruin the whole game for me, as I come prepared for 90% of the other possibilities.
I do understand what you´re saying perfectly though, and it´s an undeniable fact WM/H in general allows you to play random opponents with less of these nasty "surprises." However, in turn WM/H gives occasionally makes your life difficult by a really bad matchup when it comes to Warcasters and the armies they usually built around them. Like I mentioned in another thread, High Reclaimer can completely shut down gunlines for example.
You fixed nothing and only showed your lack of understanding of my argument.
And how exactly did I not understand your argument? Please elaborate this claim of yours.
Next to that, I fixed it just fine, how is it possible for some players to be fine in PUG´s if what you say would be correct? They play in less competitive PUG´s than you, who said you aren´t competitive, aren´t into tournaments, and enjoy "gentleman" games?
Also, since there seems to be some incorrect ideas about why people leave GW, I provide a great source of many people's stories about why they left. Now you won't have to make stuff up and you'll actually understand their real reasons instead of the strawmen that have been set up.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603134.page
MWHistorian wrote: Also, since there seems to be some incorrect ideas about why people leave GW, I provide a great source of many people's stories about why they left. Now you won't have to make stuff up and you'll actually understand their real reasons instead of the strawmen that have been set up.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/603134.page
I´ve already checked that thread, and I already mentioned to Blacksails that the reasons he mentioned ( also included in that thread ) also apply, next to the factually existing ones I described. You displayed complete lack of reading. But call reality a strawman all you like by all means.
Also, please answer the questions I posted above if you could ( without deliberate misinterpretation or putting words in anyones mouth if possible. )
Bonus question: You dislike both GW and WH40K, yet you are active on the 40K forums, why is this? Just out of curiosity.
If you want to have a discussion with someone, you also need to not be rude and condescending.
I´d say what he said two posts above fits both of those quite nicely. And what words did I put in his mouth by mentioning he missed what I said earlier, or asking him questions?
Blacksails wrote: Doesn't give you the right as well, not to mention the incredible hypocrisy of telling someone not to do exactly what you just did.
Honestly Runic, do you ever wonder why discussions with you always seem to run sour?
They only run sour with a few select GW critic individuals, who judging by their message history have a habit of having sour discussions. Next to that look around the forums; you´ll see quite many threads with similiar issues. Which leads me to wonder why only give me advice.
And I still don´t understand how I put words in his mouth by asking a few questions and telling him his linking of the thread is obsolete as you and I already discussed the reasons and I wrote I´m sure the ones described by you apply.
I see someone posted a new thread about the reasons people left 40k. Good. After this there should be no more imaginative strawman theories about why people left. It's much better when opinions are drawn from primary sources.
I think "the spirit of the game" affects why people come into the hobby, stay or leave and is helpful to the overall discussion here.
I asked what I asked sincerely, and without any bad intent await your explanation.
MWHistorian wrote: I see someone posted a new thread about the reasons people left 40k. Good. After this there should be no more imaginative strawman theories about why people left. It's much better when opinions are drawn from primary sources.
I think "the spirit of the game" affects why people come into the hobby, stay or leave and is helpful to the overall discussion here.
I take it you concess your earlier claim as it seems you are unable to deliver an answer.
Anyway listening to GW, they say the game is for narrative players. But what have they done for narrative players in the past few editions... they've removed things like doctrines and maybe this is just me, but it feels like they aren't promoting creating your own chapter/regiment/whatever as much as they did back in 3/4e. They added unbound, but I doubt a narrative player has ever said "oh no the FoC is in the way, guess I'll have to cancel my narrative event".
Agreed.
Though, one thing that really annoys me is how GW handles characters. They give you the tools to build your own characters, but then give their Special Characters rules and equipment that your characters can never have. Why? Why are none of my Lord Commissars allowed to have Iron Will, or issue Senior Officer Orders? Why can't I give my Haemonculus Clone Field or an Ichor Injector?
Yes, GW characters have fluff behind those rules, but surely any of us could also create fluff as to why our own characters also have those rules? Almost as if we were writing (or forging, if you will) our own narrative.
I can understand this, but you have this in WM/H aswell, it´s just not as harsh. Khador Destroyer for example is a unit that hasn´t seen the light of day in the competitive scene for god knows how long. It´s an awful Warjack. And I´d say it´s meaningful to talk about the competitive side, as you can wield a fluffy crap army in casual 40K games just the same as you could a Khador Destroyer in WM/H.
Kurt Hindman, one of the players that the USA took to the WTC in its "Stripes" team, used the Destroyer in his Sorscha list and he won every game that he made with that list.
Anyway listening to GW, they say the game is for narrative players. But what have they done for narrative players in the past few editions... they've removed things like doctrines and maybe this is just me, but it feels like they aren't promoting creating your own chapter/regiment/whatever as much as they did back in 3/4e. They added unbound, but I doubt a narrative player has ever said "oh no the FoC is in the way, guess I'll have to cancel my narrative event".
Agreed.
Though, one thing that really annoys me is how GW handles characters. They give you the tools to build your own characters, but then give their Special Characters rules and equipment that your characters can never have. Why? Why are none of my Lord Commissars allowed to have Iron Will, or issue Senior Officer Orders? Why can't I give my Haemonculus Clone Field or an Ichor Injector?
Yes, GW characters have fluff behind those rules, but surely any of us could also create fluff as to why our own characters also have those rules? Almost as if we were writing (or forging, if you will) our own narrative.
Agreed, "we give you a toolkit to build the army you want, but don't go abusing it now!"
But when it comes down to it, there's large portions of the game that, if played RAW, get in the way of building the army you want.
I'm currently doing a CSM Emperor's Children army, which is modelled as a late Heresy/Scouring force.
In order to echo the way they fight in the FW Heresy books, I'm focussing on Chosen to represent the veterans of the big fight and taking advantage of the WL trait that gives Infiltrate to reflect the special Legion formation they have.
Now, in order to achieve that, I can't just take an HQ choice and give them the Master Of Deception trait, I have to either rely on a 16% of rolling it, or take Ahriman (expensive and not fluffy) or Huron (not a great choice - but the one I've gone with)
Anyway listening to GW, they say the game is for narrative players. But what have they done for narrative players in the past few editions... they've removed things like doctrines and maybe this is just me, but it feels like they aren't promoting creating your own chapter/regiment/whatever as much as they did back in 3/4e. They added unbound, but I doubt a narrative player has ever said "oh no the FoC is in the way, guess I'll have to cancel my narrative event".
Agreed.
Though, one thing that really annoys me is how GW handles characters. They give you the tools to build your own characters, but then give their Special Characters rules and equipment that your characters can never have. Why? Why are none of my Lord Commissars allowed to have Iron Will, or issue Senior Officer Orders? Why can't I give my Haemonculus Clone Field or an Ichor Injector?
Yes, GW characters have fluff behind those rules, but surely any of us could also create fluff as to why our own characters also have those rules? Almost as if we were writing (or forging, if you will) our own narrative.
Agreed, "we give you a toolkit to build the army you want, but don't go abusing it now!"
But when it comes down to it, there's large portions of the game that, if played RAW, get in the way of building the army you want.
I'm currently doing a CSM Emperor's Children army, which is modelled as a late Heresy/Scouring force.
In order to echo the way they fight in the FW Heresy books, I'm focussing on Chosen to represent the veterans of the big fight and taking advantage of the WL trait that gives Infiltrate to reflect the special Legion formation they have.
Now, in order to achieve that, I can't just take an HQ choice and give them the Master Of Deception trait, I have to either rely on a 16% of rolling it, or take Ahriman (expensive and not fluffy) or Huron (not a great choice - but the one I've gone with)
And that's something that can't be fixed by unbound. You'd have to ask your opponent if they mind your HQ having MoD without rolling for it.
I can understand this, but you have this in WM/H aswell, it´s just not as harsh. Khador Destroyer for example is a unit that hasn´t seen the light of day in the competitive scene for god knows how long. It´s an awful Warjack. And I´d say it´s meaningful to talk about the competitive side, as you can wield a fluffy crap army in casual 40K games just the same as you could a Khador Destroyer in WM/H.
Kurt Hindman, one of the players that the USA took to the WTC in its "Stripes" team, used the Destroyer in his Sorscha list and he won every game that he made with that list.
However, 3 Winterguard Mortars would´ve done it´s job better for the same points cost, as Kurt´s list was all about ranged firepower used in conjunction with Sorschas feat ( unless he really needed the melee power, I just doubt it since he had Behemoth and Great Bears aswell. I´ll just say fair enough, it can be used in this configuration to decent effect. Other than that, it´s still a horrible warjack for its points, one of the worst in the entire game.
If it being usable in this one ( or maybe two ) configurations is enough to make it good or even decent ( not that you claimed this, just saying in general ) then by same logic any generally useless unit that can have it´s place in one or two army compositions in 40K should be considered good/decent aswell.
The ironic thing about unbound is that I've seen a lot of defenders say that it's great because it offers complete freedom.
And yet, I still end up feeling constrained.
e.g. Why can't I have a mad Haemonculus, leading a unit of augmented guardsmen?
Why can't I have a DE force, led by an insane Necron Overlord?
Would either of those be broken? I highly doubt it. So, why doesn't this massive freedom we apparently have stretch to that?
Now, you could (fairly) argue that letting every race be battle-brothers with all others would create some broken combos. But, isn't that exactly what Unbound is doing anyway? Is the honour system not working then?
You of course can't forge a narrative without a Citadel Sector Imperialis Board, a Citadel Imperial Sector terrain kit and the entire Citadel Wall of Matyrs collection! All available on GW's website for full price and not a penny less!
However, 3 Winterguard Mortars would´ve done it´s job better for the same points cost, as Kurt´s list was all about ranged firepower used in conjunction with Sorschas feat ( unless he really needed the melee power, I just doubt it since he had Behemoth and Great Bears aswell. I´ll just say fair enough, it can be used in this configuration to decent effect. Other than that, it´s still a horrible warjack for its points, one of the worst in the entire game.
Mortars are Field Allowance 2, you couldn't use 3 of them (and if you take into account Sorscha's warjack points the Destroyer only costs 4 points).
If it being usable in this one ( or maybe two ) configurations is enough to make it good or even decent ( not that you claimed this, just saying in general ) then by same logic any generally useless unit that can have it´s place in one or two army compositions in 40K should be considered good/decent aswell.
And I agree completely with that logic, any unit that fulfils a distinct role in a certain competitive list that would not be fulfilled by anything that is clearly superior or cheaper, should be considered a decent unit. Anything that doesn't fulfil that basic criteria is either under-powered (if every other choice for the same role is distinctly better / cheaper), or over-powered (if every other choice for the same role is distinctly worse / more expensive).
That should be true for every game out there, be it either 40k, WMH, Infinity, etc.
I can understand this, but you have this in WM/H aswell, it´s just not as harsh. Khador Destroyer for example is a unit that hasn´t seen the light of day in the competitive scene for god knows how long. It´s an awful Warjack. And I´d say it´s meaningful to talk about the competitive side, as you can wield a fluffy crap army in casual 40K games just the same as you could a Khador Destroyer in WM/H.
Kurt Hindman, one of the players that the USA took to the WTC in its "Stripes" team, used the Destroyer in his Sorscha list and he won every game that he made with that list.
However, 3 Winterguard Mortars would´ve done it´s job better for the same points cost, as Kurt´s list was all about ranged firepower used in conjunction with Sorschas feat ( unless he really needed the melee power, I just doubt it since he had Behemoth and Great Bears aswell. I´ll just say fair enough, it can be used in this configuration to decent effect. Other than that, it´s still a horrible warjack for its points, one of the worst in the entire game.
Love to know how you'd go about taking 3 Winter Guard Mortars in a list with either Sorscha as they're FA:2.
The only way she can get that is to take eSorscha's NQ theme force. So, you've restricted yourself on what you can take, taken a very specific list to deal with a narrow amount of threats where they're 100% useful. What was this you were saying about AA in 40k again?
Sure, WMH handles the whole skew list thing better with multiple lists in a tournament setting but to just ill-informedly say "just take 3 mortars" when there is no possible way to do this outside of a secondary theme force (not to mention having to drop the aforementioned GBOG and Big B).
However, 3 Winterguard Mortars would´ve done it´s job better for the same points cost, as Kurt´s list was all about ranged firepower used in conjunction with Sorschas feat ( unless he really needed the melee power, I just doubt it since he had Behemoth and Great Bears aswell. I´ll just say fair enough, it can be used in this configuration to decent effect. Other than that, it´s still a horrible warjack for its points, one of the worst in the entire game.
Mortars are Field Allowance 2, you couldn't use 3 of them (and if you take into account Sorscha's warjack points the Destroyer only costs 4 points).
TheCustomLime wrote:You of course can't forge a narrative without a Citadel Sector Imperialis Board, a Citadel Imperial Sector terrain kit and the entire Citadel Wall of Matyrs collection! All available on GW's website for full price and not a penny less!
If you go now, you can get it all using only 1 click of your mouse! Beat your local government clicking ration and save today!
liquidjoshi wrote:
Blacksails wrote: Ya'll just ain't forgin' hard enough. Forge that narrative harder! Spirit! Forging! Narrative! Money!
And that's what the Warhammer Experience is all about.
Plus your two birthdays and a Christmas.
Unfortunate really. Take Smaug. Definitely a good looking model, and its cool how big it is. But for that price? Yikes.
PhantomViper wrote: Mortars are Field Allowance 2, you couldn't use 3 of them (and if you take into account Sorscha's warjack points the Destroyer only costs 4 points).
I was talking about the Destroyers point efficiency, and making an example with a unit that does the same thing for less points, and better. Didn´t talk about fielding 3 in an actual game. The point was that 3 of them cost the same as a Destroyer but deliver more, making the Destroyer seem really weak for its points. Not sure how to elaborate it well in english. I´ll go with "I was comparing performance."
The Destroyer is to WM/H what a LR:Godhammer is to WH40K. It tries to be two things at once, it´s pricey, and it does neither very well.
PhantomViper wrote: Mortars are Field Allowance 2, you couldn't use 3 of them (and if you take into account Sorscha's warjack points the Destroyer only costs 4 points).
I was talking about the Destroyers point efficiency, and making an example with a unit that does the same thing for less points, and better. Didn´t talk about fielding 3 in an actual game. Not sure how to elaborate it well in english. I´ll go with "I was comparing performance. )
They don't do "the same thing" though. Not even close. The might both have AOE weapons but that is where the similarity ends. If you we're informed on the game you'd see how odd it is to compare light artillery pieces to a warjack.
PhantomViper wrote: Mortars are Field Allowance 2, you couldn't use 3 of them (and if you take into account Sorscha's warjack points the Destroyer only costs 4 points).
I was talking about the Destroyers point efficiency, and making an example with a unit that does the same thing for less points, and better. Didn´t talk about fielding 3 in an actual game. Not sure how to elaborate it well in english. I´ll go with "I was comparing performance. )
They don't do "the same thing" though. Not even close. The might both have AOE weapons but that is where the similarity ends. If you we're informed on the game you'd see how odd it is to compare light artillery pieces to a warjack.
In a Sorcha pop 'n' drop dakka list the Destroyers main role is ranged assassination. Kurts list included the Behemoth and the Great Bears for melee power already ( Behemoth doubledipping on both roles in this army setup equally asfar as I´m concerned ) the rest was mostly shooting and support. If you were well informed in the art of reading you´d know I´m fairly well informed on the game, and writing in a condescending manner won´t change that. If however you didn´t mean it like that, then ignore that last bit, just came out that way to me.
Being familiar with your back catalogue of posts is not a requirement of participation on Dakka.
Being familiar with every post in all 15 pages of this thread is not a requirement to post in it.
Play nice.
EDIT
Ok you edited your thread to mitigate your tone. FYI, it would be nice if when you edit your posts for anything other than spelling or grammar, you mark the edit, it stops the rest of us looking like tools when we respond to something you later delete or change. Thanks!
Grimtuff wrote: Nope, still not told me how a warjack is similar to light artillery.
You remind me of a guy at my local GW years ago. It became a running joke to repeat his infamous line of "The average High Elf archer is very similar to a Skeleton Spearman"
I´ll leave you to wonder how a ranged warjack with an inaccurate AOE might be similiar to light artillery with inaccurate AOE´s in a list that is completely built around on shooting at a Stationary army ( mainly the Warcaster/Warlock ) instead of talking Warmachine synergy and list building in a thread that is about 40K´s "spirit." You can PM me should you require more advice regarding the matter.
)
)
