I wonder if the diehard competitive guys will finally realize that 40k no longer functions as a competitive game? Let me be clear, I used to play 40k competitively. I quit near the end of 5th edition and picked up warmachine because I was sick of every game being vs grey knights and the incredibly bad rules set. I'm sure people have felt the same way about eldar and tau for the past couple years. 40k as a competitive game seems to have been dying a slow, drawn out death since then. Now the new eldar codex seems to have put the final nail in the coffin. Why do people subject themselves to this? I've heard the excuse of not wanting to look elsewhere because of how much you've already invested in 40k. I don't get that. It doesn't matter how much you've invested in 40k. Its not like it all disappears if you start playing another game. You can still play 40k with hat you have, all I'm saying is don't buy any more 40k stuff if you're not enjoying it. Why continue giving GW your money if you're being constantly disappointed? Spend your money on other games instead and eventually, (maybe) GW will start noticing drops in sales.
None of this is to say I hate 40k in general. I still think 40k is awesome. I still have tons of 40k models I need to paint, and they may end up seeing the table in friendly, casual games. But every time I hear someone talk about the "tactical depth" of 40k or ask for advice on building a competitive list, I cringe a little on the inside. Not because I think those people are stupid, but because I feel sorry for them. Yes you can talk about these things in 40k, but its like going to an amusement park and just riding the kiddie rides. You're missing out on so many other great things. If you're a gamer who likes to play competitively, you're REALLY missing out on a lot by sticking to 40k.
Here's some other great games:
Malifaux:
This one is becoming really hard for me to resit picking up. I've heard amazing things about their new rules set. It looks great when set up on a nice table, and its extremely low cost compared to 40k
Infinity:
I tried this one back in its 2nd edition. I can say I didn't enjoy it as much and I thought I would. That said, they're in their 3rd edition now and I've played a game or two with the new rules. Its much better, and this is probably the best looking minis game I've ever seen with a properly set up table.
Warmachine:
Shameless plug for my favorite. Very very steep learning curve, but incredibly rewarding once you get the hang of it. I cannot recommend any other game more than this one. I understand many players dislike the looks of the minis, but the gameplay is worth it, I promise. There's a reason you hear a lot about this game from people who've left 40k.
X Wing:
I've heard nothing but good things about this game. I've only had a demo game, but it was very fun. It is very different from most other games out there, but it's become quite popular.
Dropzone Commander:
Much like X-Wing, I've heard really good things about this one. I've seen 3 or 4 games played, but I've not yet had a demo. Seems like a ton of fun, and if you've ever had an urge to play epic 40k, this game reminds me a lot of that.
Some of you might be thinking I'm just some troll trying to get people to leave 40k because I want to see it die. Not true. The truth is I really miss playing 40k. I miss being able to have fun game that felt reasonably balanced. But GW has made it abundantly clear they don't give a gak about balance or the game being enjoyable, even at a casual level, if it means they sell a few more kits. The only thing they understand these days is their bottom line. We don't have the power to make them change, but we do have the power to vote with our wallets. I wish we would use it more.
Amen. I constantly think of playing 40k again and then have to ask myself why bother when it's such a terrible game with terrible design. And then I buy more for Warmachine instead. I want to play 40k but find zero reason why it would be worth it since the type of lists I like would get crushed by Knights or Eldarbor other spam OP unit forces. Why spend that kind of money to just constantly lose?
They know. They hate it. They stay loud and bitter hoping things will change next edition. (Spoiler warning: they won't. GW already tried to save the game by making it a competitive game. It didn't work.) And they've heard of all these games.
Barthus wrote: GW has made it abundantly clear they don't give a gak about balance or the game being enjoyable, even at a casual level, if it means they sell a few more kits. The only thing they understand these days is their bottom line.
While the second statement there is true, the first statement is false. GW understands where the money is in the new post-ebay economy - it's in turning 40k into Dungeons & Dragons for people who don't like roleplaying. They don't want stores full of the unwashed playing their games anymore - they want people playing in their garages. Models have gotten bigger, terrain has become narrative and part of list building, and their new focus is on box set starter kits for two players. They want to sell you a $125 box set with enough starter minis for two players, so someone will invite a buddy over to kick around their garage and then pump money into building a table with terrain, bigger armies and more books. Everything now is about "Holy Crikey, dude! My Imperial Knight just blew up your Baneblade!" "Yeah, well it can suck on a vortex missile!"
The tourney scene is bad for business. It's loaded with bandwagoning list spammers who buy a bunch of models, play the list for 3-6 months, then dump them on ebay at a discount to recoup part of their money to spend on the next new hotness when the meta changes. GW doesn't care about them any more. They want teenagers and beer swilling 30-somethings with disposable income playing at home. That's the game now.
As a beer-swilling 30-something with disposable income, I'm having a hell of a time in my garage.
At this point I think the only way to get GW to change is for all of its designers and executives to die in a plane accident or suddenly get fired in rapid succession. I'm convinced they'll keep on being morons right up until they collapse and if they all did drop dead, I can't think of it doing anything but improving the game with fresh blood.
Barthus wrote: Here's some other great games:
Malifaux:
This one is becoming really hard for me to resit picking up. I've heard amazing things about their new rules set. It looks great when set up on a nice table, and its extremely low cost compared to 40k
Seriously, just do it. Take the plunge.
The balancing is off the hook. They have managed to make a huge amount of wildly different crews with wildly different skills and playstyles, and yet keep every crew balanced in the meta. I for one am incredibly impressed with that alone.
Crews are seriously so different from each other that picking up a new crew can be like starting a whole new type of board game.
The worst part is that I really do want to play 40k again. I just can't fathom how it's worth paying that kind of money for such shoddy rules. Like I've thought several times in the past year alone of starting armies (latest is Khorne Daemonkin) and every time I look at what they come out with, look at what people field, and then hit myself for ever thinking it's a good idea to spend hundreds when I want to play the game the style they claim it's meant to be played in, but the stuff they come out with is the exact opposite. There's too much imbalance in everything where a fluffy Daemonkin army would get stomped for no good reason, or a fluffy anything else army for example. It's beyond ridiculous, and what's perhaps more ridiculous is the people who still devour everything that comes out without caring the rules are garbage.
I have not been playing 40k for all that long, to be honesty. I started a few years ago mainly because friends were playing. Some competitively and some more casual, friendly games.
The more casual players modify the game by the use of gentlemen's agreements of not bringing too harsh lists.
The more competitive players modify the game by the use of comp systems.
I do not have any experience of 40k in a time where the game was not considered to be broken, but generally modifying it by any of the two models described above tends to work. Even if both ways of modifying it means that you will not be allowed to bring the best possible list you can with your codex.
Of the listed alternatives, at my FLGS, only X Wing is still going strong. Warmachine/Hordes was popular for a time, but I haven't seen anyone playing it in months.
In order to support a tournament, you need players in your locale.
My buddy brought in some fire storm armada stuff and I've really fallen into that. I never realized special rules could be more streamlined. And then there were the costs, much cheaper
Massawyrm wrote: They know. They hate it. They stay loud and bitter hoping things will change next edition. (Spoiler warning: they won't. GW already tried to save the game by making it a competitive game. It didn't work.) And they've heard of all these games.
How did it not work? I remember 3-5th edition being quite popular locally compared to what it is now. The financial reports looked better for the company as well.
Barthus wrote: GW has made it abundantly clear they don't give a gak about balance or the game being enjoyable, even at a casual level, if it means they sell a few more kits. The only thing they understand these days is their bottom line.
While the second statement there is true, the first statement is false. GW understands where the money is in the new post-ebay economy - it's in turning 40k into Dungeons & Dragons for people who don't like roleplaying. They don't want stores full of the unwashed playing their games anymore - they want people playing in their garages. Models have gotten bigger, terrain has become narrative and part of list building, and their new focus is on box set starter kits for two players. They want to sell you a $125 box set with enough starter minis for two players, so someone will invite a buddy over to kick around their garage and then pump money into building a table with terrain, bigger armies and more books. Everything now is about "Holy Crikey, dude! My Imperial Knight just blew up your Baneblade!" "Yeah, well it can suck on a vortex missile!"
GW most certainly doesn't care about balance. I'm not sure how you can claim this to be false. A quick look at the 7th edition codexes shows a huge variance in power, both in OP builds like the centstar that some dexes can pull off, and with the average power level of the entries (compare necrons or eldar to Orks, for example).
The armies have gotten bigger, true. This has happened in every edition. Every time a Chaos or Eldar dex comes out, my collection gets a bit smaller points wise.
I wouldn't say their focus is on the 2 box starter sets. They are really bad, with unbalanced forces in both. If I played the Chaos DA one, my Chaos would get crushed every time like it was nothing, and I would be discouraged from playing. Being excited that an imperial knight blew up a baneblade or whatever isn't narrative. It's no different from pulling off a combo in a fighting game, throwing a model at a warcaster in warmachine, or any other nice play in a game.
The tourney scene is bad for business. It's loaded with bandwagoning list spammers who buy a bunch of models, play the list for 3-6 months, then dump them on ebay at a discount to recoup part of their money to spend on the next new hotness when the meta changes. GW doesn't care about them any more. They want teenagers and beer swilling 30-somethings with disposable income playing at home. That's the game now.
As a beer-swilling 30-something with disposable income, I'm having a hell of a time in my garage.
A lot of this is wrong. The tourney scene, it can be argued, was great for GW. Their financials were quite strong in 3-5th edition, where the game was competitive, compared to 6th and 7th. This is even worse when you look at the release schedule. With the slower release schedule, you would think 3-5th would have been worse for the company, but the opposite is true.
I, and many of my friends, were tournament players. Some of the locals went to the larger tournaments though I never did. We all now play WMH, and they still travel. But we still own all of our models. Nobody sold anything on ebay since the pendulum swings heavily in 40k, everything weak will eventually become overpowered again. Many tournaments required painting well to place, so they were kept for that reason as well. A friend's Emperor's children army and Ultramarines are on display in our local store, and he is a very competitive player.
Even if they did sell on ebay, 3-6 months is a small window. Editions lasted for quite a while, and OP builds tended to stay at the top, or close to it, for years. Nowadays, sure, editions last a few years at best. The eldar codex had a short shelf life.
Teenagers are not likely to play this game. We have 3 locally, and it is because their fathers play. A game with an entry of 200 for rules alone, then models and paint, doesn't attract most kids, especially with the rise of e-sports (my college has an actual e-sport team ). The game is simply too expensive for someone to play if they make 7-10 an hour.
I tried Warmahordes. On one hand, I liked the way you could mess with movement mechanics and out-of-activation powers. felt the game was even more gimmicky than 40k, and it did give us the word Skornergy. I played as Menoth and anytime I dealt with others saying "Menoth is about Synergy", I felt like I was in a corporate boardroom meet where the CEO was an Eldar player. I usually countered with
"Oh, I just take Exemplar Errants because they remind me of Tactical Marines."
I know people that play X-wing. Otherwise...ehhhhhhhh.
I feel that 40k has the "best" mix of minis and gaming even if the game has been shot up with wonky rules; just like the more questionable kits can be fixed up with some conversion work (Like Dave Taylor's take on Centurions), 40k becomes playable with some patching. If I'm looking for a pure game, I figure I'll fall back on Shogi or Arimaa.
I do wish GW would pull its head out its own rear end about being a game company as well as a minis company. Or acknowledge tournament gamers too.
Akiasura wrote: The tourney scene, it can be argued, was great for GW. Their financials were quite strong in 3-5th edition, where the game was competitive, compared to 6th and 7th. This is even worse when you look at the release schedule. With the slower release schedule, you would think 3-5th would have been worse for the company, but the opposite is true.
The problem with the crux of your argument is that it references editions that operated under a completely different financial model. Until late in 5th ed, GW operated on a 5 year plan - because the *average* 40k player played for 5 years before moving on. People would buy models, paint them, play for five years then box them up, put them on a shelf or in the attic, thinking they might one day pick it up again. GW built their entire release strategy around this idea. Ebay changed everything. Once it became established as THE safe online place to sell your own goods, someone whose interest had waned in the game found that they could get 50-60% of their money back just dumping the armies online. It is now possible for a new 40k player to live out their entire 40k lifecycle without spending a dime that goes to GW.
As the tourney scene/ebay situation evolved at the end of 5th, they changed up their strategy - disastrously. They began introducing sexy new large models with low model runs and absurd price increases, meaning fewer models would show up at a discount on ebay. The latter part of the strategy worked, but the price hike chased away too many fans. So they changed direction and created a new model. The new model is about "fun" play, not balanced play. They want you to have a giant tank or a walker, a fortification, and a bunch of cool units to support them. They have started releasing lots of small armies with no previous models to buy off ebay, that can be fielded in small numbers as an allied formation (see: Harlequins, MT, IK, Skitari, Ad Mech.) Both of the newer 2 player box sets includes a formation that can run all of the boxes models allied with whatever other army you are interested in. They've created box sets designed to supplement the core 2 player kit.
The new GW model is about having you consistently picking up the new hotness and running it as allies to the models you already have...along with the aforementioned giant robots, tanks and buildings with a BFG on top. They do want you to play narratively, but what I was talking about is they are focusing on "COOL!" And as long as GW keeps releasing small new armies and updated kits for old units, they stem the ebay erosion that they've been wrestling with. The old 5-year-plan tourney model is a product of a bygone era. It can't come back because it won't work.
To address the insidious nature of the new model, the real problem with the new codexes is that they heavily favor newer models over those you can buy off ebay. If there's one thing they got right with the Eldar codex, it is that for the first time in several codexes, our old as hell models became playable again - but are eeeeeeeveeeennnnn beeettttteeeerrr if you run them in this sweet new large formation, meaning you should probably buy more so you can run them.
Sadly, balance is the bane of the new model. If everything is balanced, there's no reason for you to buy the new hotness. (Meh, I already have 6 jetbikes, why buy the new OMGTHEYCANALLHAVESCATTERLASERS!) With their focus on garage play, balance becomes an issue handled by the players (Bill,don't bring 20 scatterbikes to my house ever again) rather than by their game designers. But to say you need balance for fun is ludicrous. The game CAN still be played for fun, and it is still fun. Just not if you're a hardcore tournament player. Those guys got boned.
It's a casual game now. that's what they want. That's how they're turning their dreadful financials around.
Competitive 40k is like pounding the square peg in the round hole it just doesn't work. Sure you can get a bigger hammer and keep pounding away trying to make that square peg fit but at the end of the day it's still a mess.
Chute82 wrote: Competitive 40k is like pounding the square peg in the round hole it just doesn't work. Sure you can get a bigger hammer and keep pounding away trying to make that square peg fit but at the end of the day it's still a mess.
Chute82 wrote: Competitive 40k is like pounding the square peg in the round hole it just doesn't work. Sure you can get a bigger hammer and keep pounding away trying to make that square peg fit but at the end of the day it's still a mess.
Chute82 wrote: Competitive 40k is like pounding the square peg in the round hole it just doesn't work. Sure you can get a bigger hammer and keep pounding away trying to make that square peg fit but at the end of the day it's still a mess.
Casual 40k can be just as bad.
IMHO casual 40k is worse, because there's such a disparity between armies. A fluffy army will get wiped out by other fluffy armies (e.g. Saim-Hann) or OP armies or anything in between.
Like I said, I want to like 40k again. I remember the lore, I oggle the pretty figures from time to time. But the game is god-awful and completely turns me off from wanting to put any money towards it because I want to play it in a casual, narrative style and the last thing I want is to spend a few hundred dollars, show up to the game shop and get steamrolled by someone fielding some fluff-breaking nonsense that tables me turn 3.
There are a lot of misconceptions about competitive play going on here.
As a "competitive 40k player" I can't speak for anyone else, but from my experience most other tournament-goers see the game similarly to how I do.
The thing is, I'm not a competitive 40k player. I'm a 40k hobbyist who enjoys the competitiveness of gaming. I don't play 40k because I want my competitive needs satisfied, I play 40k because I love 40k. But when I do play, the only way of playing I'm interested in is competitively.
I hate narrative games, it's just not for me. There's nothing about it that I enjoy. Even though I am completely in love with the 40k universe. I've read pretty much every BL novel that's ever come out, but I have no interest in telling a story with my miniatures.
Playing 40k for me is about trying to win. Trying being the operative word here. I honestly don't care if I win or lose, but without trying to win I don't enjoy the game.
As for tournaments, well, GW's incompetent rules writing isn't doing them any favours, but at the end of the day, TOs need attendees, so if GW won't fix the game, they will. So people come, play games, test their armies and abilities, meet up with old friends, make new ones, and have fun. If people were only able to have fun at a tournament through winning the whole thing, tournaments would have died out a long time ago, no matter how balanced the rules would have been. The vast majority of attendees aren't there to win the event, they're there to have fun with their hobby in the way they enjoy it.
Pick-up games, though, are a different story. Have you tried doing one of those with someone who has a different opinion of what constitutes "cheesy" lately? Yeah... At a tournament, the TO sets the limit. Anything below that is fine, and you know exactly where the line goes when you sign up, and due to the niche nature of the tournament scene, you get to be a part of deciding that line. But with pick-up games, it's a different ball game. For instance, I genuinely think three Riptides at 1500 points is perfectly fair and would have no problems going up against that with my silly Harlequin army. But I'm pretty confident in my assumption that there are quite a few people who disagree (and some quite strongly) with that.
But it's not just pick-up games that are suffering from the poor balance in 40k. Since 40k isn't exactly huge in Norway, I have fluffy armies so I can have enjoyable games against the casual/fluffy/non-competitive crowd at my club too. That used to be my Eldar Wraith army. It was piss-poor, but against other piss-poor lists it ensured enjoyable games for both players. With the new codex, well... Not so much. What if I were a purely casual/fluffy player and this were my only army? Or, what if I just happened to think a Tau army consisting of nothing but Riptides and a Commander with some Crisis Suits would be the coolest thing ever (I actually do)? Or how would my opponent and I resolve any of the plethora of rules issues that come up during a game? D6 it every time? Write our own FAQ? Not care at all, and just hope we'll magically agree on everything, ever?
If you play casual/narrative games and enjoy it; great! I hope GW doesn't screw it up for you. If the best part of writing an army list for you is finding the ever-elusive "balanced power level" then I guess you're in luck. I just hope your favourite unit doesn't suddenly become OP.
At a tournament there's an FAQ (usually a very extensive one), refs and TOs to settle disputes. You don't have to worry about being right, wrong, or relying on chance. Someone will tell you the rule. And you don't have to worry about your army being too good. You either buy in to the arms race, or you challenge yourself with a subpar army (like how the Harlequins have brought out the masochist in me).
If tournaments aren't for you, that's perfectly fine. I truly hope you enjoy this hobby as much as you possibly can. But I cannot understand why non-tournament players have such strong opinions on other people enjoying the game differently to them. We don't need to be saved from our desire to play cheesy lists against strangers over the weekend.
Chute82 wrote: Competitive 40k is like pounding the square peg in the round hole it just doesn't work. Sure you can get a bigger hammer and keep pounding away trying to make that square peg fit but at the end of the day it's still a mess.
Casual 40k can be just as bad.
IMHO casual 40k is worse, because there's such a disparity between armies. A fluffy army will get wiped out by other fluffy armies (e.g. Saim-Hann) or OP armies or anything in between.
Like I said, I want to like 40k again. I remember the lore, I oggle the pretty figures from time to time. But the game is god-awful and completely turns me off from wanting to put any money towards it because I want to play it in a casual, narrative style and the last thing I want is to spend a few hundred dollars, show up to the game shop and get steamrolled by someone fielding some fluff-breaking nonsense that tables me turn 3.
I agree casual 40k is worse, but I didn't want everyone to be like 'oh just talk to your opponent first' as if that solves everything, so I was being diplomatic to avoid that haha. But yeah, casual play is definitely worse because you get punished or rewarded randomly based on what list you like/theme you enjoy/models you like etc.
Chute82 wrote: Competitive 40k is like pounding the square peg in the round hole it just doesn't work. Sure you can get a bigger hammer and keep pounding away trying to make that square peg fit but at the end of the day it's still a mess.
Casual 40k can be just as bad.
IMHO casual 40k is worse, because there's such a disparity between armies. A fluffy army will get wiped out by other fluffy armies (e.g. Saim-Hann) or OP armies or anything in between.
Like I said, I want to like 40k again. I remember the lore, I oggle the pretty figures from time to time. But the game is god-awful and completely turns me off from wanting to put any money towards it because I want to play it in a casual, narrative style and the last thing I want is to spend a few hundred dollars, show up to the game shop and get steamrolled by someone fielding some fluff-breaking nonsense that tables me turn 3.
I agree casual 40k is worse, but I didn't want everyone to be like 'oh just talk to your opponent first' as if that solves everything, so I was being diplomatic to avoid that haha. But yeah, casual play is definitely worse because you get punished or rewarded randomly based on what list you like/theme you enjoy/models you like etc.
Yes, and that's the worst part because it's what keeps stopping me from wanting to play. Who wants to spend money and get trounced because what they like is weak and what their opponent likes is strong?
Chute82 wrote: Competitive 40k is like pounding the square peg in the round hole it just doesn't work. Sure you can get a bigger hammer and keep pounding away trying to make that square peg fit but at the end of the day it's still a mess.
Casual 40k can be just as bad.
IMHO casual 40k is worse, because there's such a disparity between armies. A fluffy army will get wiped out by other fluffy armies (e.g. Saim-Hann) or OP armies or anything in between.
Like I said, I want to like 40k again. I remember the lore, I oggle the pretty figures from time to time. But the game is god-awful and completely turns me off from wanting to put any money towards it because I want to play it in a casual, narrative style and the last thing I want is to spend a few hundred dollars, show up to the game shop and get steamrolled by someone fielding some fluff-breaking nonsense that tables me turn 3.
I agree casual 40k is worse, but I didn't want everyone to be like 'oh just talk to your opponent first' as if that solves everything, so I was being diplomatic to avoid that haha. But yeah, casual play is definitely worse because you get punished or rewarded randomly based on what list you like/theme you enjoy/models you like etc.
Yes, and that's the worst part because it's what keeps stopping me from wanting to play. Who wants to spend money and get trounced because what they like is weak and what their opponent likes is strong?
Yeah, especially at the price your paying. I don't want to spend tonnes of money on models I don't like to do well, or tonnes of money on models I do like and never enjoy playing them.
Akiasura wrote: The tourney scene, it can be argued, was great for GW. Their financials were quite strong in 3-5th edition, where the game was competitive, compared to 6th and 7th. This is even worse when you look at the release schedule. With the slower release schedule, you would think 3-5th would have been worse for the company, but the opposite is true.
The problem with the crux of your argument is that it references editions that operated under a completely different financial model. Until late in 5th ed, GW operated on a 5 year plan - because the *average* 40k player played for 5 years before moving on. People would buy models, paint them, play for five years then box them up, put them on a shelf or in the attic, thinking they might one day pick it up again. GW built their entire release strategy around this idea. Ebay changed everything. Once it became established as THE safe online place to sell your own goods, someone whose interest had waned in the game found that they could get 50-60% of their money back just dumping the armies online. It is now possible for a new 40k player to live out their entire 40k lifecycle without spending a dime that goes to GW.
Do you have any proof of this? I don't know many people who operated on a 5-year plan, most people have been playing for over 20 years who still play that I know. Until this year, most of us still played. 7th and all of its craziness has seen most of us switch to the specialist games or WMH.
People could do this since the release of the internet. A lot of people buy from people who cast knock offs that look about the same, since its so much cheaper.
Remember, GW does no market research. I think you're going to have a hard time proving that this was their strategy, and that players operated under a 5-year plan.
As the tourney scene/ebay situation evolved at the end of 5th, they changed up their strategy - disastrously. They began introducing sexy new large models with low model runs and absurd price increases, meaning fewer models would show up at a discount on ebay. The latter part of the strategy worked, but the price hike chased away too many fans. So they changed direction and created a new model. The new model is about "fun" play, not balanced play. They want you to have a giant tank or a walker, a fortification, and a bunch of cool units to support them. They have started releasing lots of small armies with no previous models to buy off ebay, that can be fielded in small numbers as an allied formation (see: Harlequins, MT, IK, Skitari, Ad Mech.) Both of the newer 2 player box sets includes a formation that can run all of the boxes models allied with whatever other army you are interested in. They've created box sets designed to supplement the core 2 player kit.
I don't recall large models making an appearance until 6th, when they had already decided to change up their strategy.
I would argue that the latter strategy did not work, but I don't purchase 40k on ebay much. Can you prove that it did?
The new GW model is about having you consistently picking up the new hotness and running it as allies to the models you already have...along with the aforementioned giant robots, tanks and buildings with a BFG on top. They do want you to play narratively, but what I was talking about is they are focusing on "COOL!" And as long as GW keeps releasing small new armies and updated kits for old units, they stem the ebay erosion that they've been wrestling with. The old 5-year-plan tourney model is a product of a bygone era. It can't come back because it won't work.
You keep referencing this 5 year tournament plan, but I've never seen that before.
To address the insidious nature of the new model, the real problem with the new codexes is that they heavily favor newer models over those you can buy off ebay. If there's one thing they got right with the Eldar codex, it is that for the first time in several codexes, our old as hell models became playable again - but are eeeeeeeveeeennnnn beeettttteeeerrr if you run them in this sweet new large formation, meaning you should probably buy more so you can run them.
This isn't always true. A lot of the codexes had the new models being terrible. Look at the chaos marine codex. Plague marines are good, again, like they have been for a while. Warp talons and mutilators are crap. Even the old losers, possessed, are still garbage.
For Eldar, yes the wraithknight is really good, but guard have been good for a decent amount of time, so have bikes. Aspects got stronger, and the most popular old army for eldar was Biel-tan.
Honestly, the problem with your argument is that you make claims that have no basis in fact. GW cares about Ebay? They don't do market research, how would they know the % of players that buy their army this way. How do the new codexes battle this problem? A lot of the newer models aren't great if you look over several codexes. How did they know tournament players only operate on a 5-year plan? Again, no market research was done.
Their current financial status is terrible. I would argue this is because they alienated the tournament players, who bought a lot more then the fluffy, narrative players. I don't have evidence of this, I'm looking at a correlation and assuming its causation, but I can't prove anything since no market research is done.
Sadly, balance is the bane of the new model. If everything is balanced, there's no reason for you to buy the new hotness. (Meh, I already have 6 jetbikes, why buy the new OMGTHEYCANALLHAVESCATTERLASERS!) With their focus on garage play, balance becomes an issue handled by the players (Bill,don't bring 20 scatterbikes to my house ever again) rather than by their game designers. But to say you need balance for fun is ludicrous. The game CAN still be played for fun, and it is still fun. Just not if you're a hardcore tournament player. Those guys got boned.
It's a casual game now. that's what they want. That's how they're turning their dreadful financials around.
Bu it's NOT a casual game. It's just a bad game. There's nothing casual about 40k, and the poor rules and complete lack of balance hurts casual players more than anyone else because your "hardcore" tournament players will just buy into the flavor of the month army anyways. Your casual laid back gamer isn't going to buy everything new.
Your average Joe who buys Blood Angels because he likes how they look and likes the pseudo-vampire fluff isn't going to be that happy when he gets trainwrecked by Necrons or Eldar constantly because for whatever reason those codexes are worlds better than his Blood Angels. Your competitive dude is going to see Eldar are the new OPness and if he wants to win drop cash on scatterbikes and Wraithlords and other OP units without giving a gak about the fluff or background.
Who gets hurt more? It's not the competitive person, because they'll just switch to the new hotness. The casual/fluffy/narrative (call it what you will) gamer is the one who suffers because they want to play what they like and get shafted for it.
I honestly play 40k only casually and when my buddies at the local store do.
I really bought the miniatures more for collecting and playing scenarios and Necromunda. But since those are being shunned by GW, I really have no other reason to buy their stuff other than collecting, which is pissing me off because their price to quality ratio is getting worse by the day.
I love the fluff, but now that I am more comfortable with my own modelling skills, I am now buying 3rd party stuff, and building my own guys and playing homebrew games with buddies.
And with all these new games popping up with better support, rules, and just better service, I feel like 40k is almost doomed for sure to a path of being solely reliant on its fluff/IP and miniatures sold to rich collectors.
I have plenty of disposable income, but I am a human being, and like most human beings, do not want to start feeling like we are being duped.
WayneTheGame wrote: Bu it's NOT a casual game. It's just a bad game. There's nothing casual about 40k, and the poor rules and complete lack of balance hurts casual players more than anyone else because your "hardcore" tournament players will just buy into the flavor of the month army anyways. Your casual laid back gamer isn't going to buy everything new.
Your average Joe who buys Blood Angels because he likes how they look and likes the pseudo-vampire fluff isn't going to be that happy when he gets trainwrecked by Necrons or Eldar constantly because for whatever reason those codexes are worlds better than his Blood Angels. Your competitive dude is going to see Eldar are the new OPness and if he wants to win drop cash on scatterbikes and Wraithlords and other OP units without giving a gak about the fluff or background.
Who gets hurt more? It's not the competitive person, because they'll just switch to the new hotness. The casual/fluffy/narrative (call it what you will) gamer is the one who suffers because they want to play what they like and get shafted for it.
Yes the casual players suffer more. Just because I like Orks means I at a serious handicap playing against most armies so much so it's taken the fun out of the game for me. I remember seeing statistics some where on Dakka where before the dice even rolled I had a 78% chance before anything happened to lose the game against certain armies. Those percentages even go higher when you don't take the most competitive builds from the ork codex against certain armies. Now does that sound like fun? My answer is No
A quick biography to back all this up. In the 00's I was a prominent film critic for AIN'T IT COOL NEWS, which was, at the time, the largest movie/geek website in the world. After I wrote the world's first review of D&D 4E and it garnered *insane* traffic, Harry decided to let me write about whatever game stuff I wanted to. The 4E piece ended up getting me interviewed about D&D on NPR and I even ended up giving an answer on WAIT, WAIT, DON'T TELL ME. Needless to say, all this put me on the radar of a lot of game insiders. Companies and their employees used to leak me stuff or send me games so I would talk about it on the site. Several of those folks were GW employees. For a while they were even secretly sending me the old "Black boxes" that used to go to affiliate stores. At the same time I fell in with the BoLS crew, who played at the same local store. We used to swap info all the time.
All this to say that a lot of what I shared is old insider info that I know no one can be fired now for sharing.
GW used to run on a 5 year plan. They *DO* in fact do market research and have for years - that's how they knew the average lifespan of their players. But that's not info they share with the public. As to ebay, up until late last year, used versions of the new large models (Wraithknights, Riptides and the like) were selling for only $10-$20 cheaper than new, plus shipping. Smart gamers knew they could get new models from online retailers for roughly the same cost from discount online dealers, so GW was still making their money. Run a search for them now and you can find a terribly painted WK for $65, with the next closest shot at one running you $85. You can pay $85 for a used WK, or $92 for a new one from the Warstore. GW employees, by the way, did publicly talk about their new low count, higher cost sales at the start of 6th, but quickly shut up about it after the backlash. The stuff I'm saying about 7th is all conjecture based upon my previous years of experience dealing with game companies. EVERYONE was and is worried about ebay. The secondary market is what helped kill D&D 4e, allowing folks to keep finding a wealth of old 3.5 books (though pathfinder had more to do with it - but the Hasbro mess is another insider boondoggle I can go on and on and on about.)
As to the tournament stuff - again, that's insider stuff. There's a reason GW started pulling their instore support of tournaments and events. They weren't generating sales or interest with storefront gaming anymore. They ended up taking a bath on their year of support for model and terrain building contests (which were AWESOME...but few people showed up to, even in major markets.) They finally ousted their CEO who famously said "The internet is a fad," when arguing why GW wouldn't support online materials and frequent FAQ updates for 5th. And then they tried to be an industry leader with an experimental strategy that gave us the shortest edition turnaround in history.
So before you discount this because I can't link to a GW document, google my biographical information (I wrote under the name Massawyrm and still lurk online with it), and when it checks out, ask yourself: why would a dude who isn't involved in the industry anymore spend a chunk of his morning spinning a yarn to defend a company he owes nothing to? I'm either wasting my time on an elaborate troll in a minor thread on Dakka, or I just happen to love talking about this stuff and know a bit more behind the scenes than some ordinary internet dude. So take that as you will.
Even if true (and sure why not I'll believe you), it just reinforces that they don't have a clue about what people want. 40k could be so much better if they didn't just care about having impulse buys for the new hotness and pretending to be a designer, luxury brand for hip, trendy wargamers.
Barthus wrote: The only thing they understand these days is their bottom line. We don't have the power to make them change, but we do have the power to vote with our wallets. I wish we would use it more.
The thing is, for a niche market within a niche market (super-tech, tabletop-gaming), with the level of disapproval the internet seems to suggest is going on with the player-base, any game that came out with the combo of good models, good rules, and good fluff should sell itself as an alternative to the hated, imbalanced 40k.
The fact that 40k has no clear #2 at its heels to me suggests that the disapproval of the current game may be more of an internet phenomonon than a wider player-based phenomenon, or that the competition just isn't really that great. I couldn't say first hand, as, while the group I play with does play several other TT games, we don't play other sci-fi TT games.
Barthus wrote: The only thing they understand these days is their bottom line. We don't have the power to make them change, but we do have the power to vote with our wallets. I wish we would use it more.
The thing is, for a niche market within a niche market (super-tech, tabletop-gaming), with the level of disapproval the internet seems to suggest is going on with the player-base, any game that came out with the combo of good models, good rules, and good fluff should sell itself as an alternative to the hated, imbalanced 40k.
The fact that 40k has no clear #2 at its heels to me suggests that the disapproval of the current game may be more of an internet phenomonon than a wider player-based phenomenon, or that the competition just isn't really that great. I couldn't say first hand, as, while the group I play with does play several other TT games, we don't play other sci-fi TT games.
I think that's more down to momentum than anything else. They grew big in a time where they had very little competition, so it's going to take time for other companies to come anywhere close. But I think other companies are definitely catching up these days, every other game seems to be growing rapidly.
Barthus wrote: The only thing they understand these days is their bottom line. We don't have the power to make them change, but we do have the power to vote with our wallets. I wish we would use it more.
The thing is, for a niche market within a niche market (super-tech, tabletop-gaming), with the level of disapproval the internet seems to suggest is going on with the player-base, any game that came out with the combo of good models, good rules, and good fluff should sell itself as an alternative to the hated, imbalanced 40k.
The fact that 40k has no clear #2 at its heels to me suggests that the disapproval of the current game may be more of an internet phenomonon than a wider player-based phenomenon, or that the competition just isn't really that great. I couldn't say first hand, as, while the group I play with does play several other TT games, we don't play other sci-fi TT games.
There shouldn't be a clear #2, the issue is there are a lots of companies now chomping at 40k's market, which it stays #1 at only because of its longevity and volume but is slowly decreasing.
ImAGeek wrote: I think that's more down to momentum than anything else. They grew big in a time where they had very little competition, so it's going to take time for other companies to come anywhere close. But I think other companies are definitely catching up these days, every other game seems to be growing rapidly.
Assigning this to momentum could very well be valid.
I'll tell you the reasons for my personal reluctance to invest time and money into other sci-fi games:
(a) First and foremost, my regular gaming compadres don't play them, and are still having plenty of fun with 40k. It makes more sense for me to invest my $ and hobby time in a game where I actually have opponents (chalk this up to momentum).
(b) I enjoy the hobby part (sprues, clippers, superglue, and paint) even more than the playing part, and while they charge too much, GWIMO is producing boxes that come stuffed with extra bits and bobs, compared to the competition as far as I'm aware. I get the most enjoyment out of the hobby out of making conversions and bashing things together. Not that I'm great at it, but its a load of fun. Competitors could do alot for themselves by adding more options to the kits they sell.
(c) With the exception of some Reaper miniatures, there has not been a sci-fi competitor yet that I've gone into my FLGS, seen a box, and thought to myself, I must have that.
(d) As cheesy as it is, I think the 40k fluff on the whole is fun and memorable. I've been told the premise behind the fluff of many TT sci-fi competitors, and I can't remember almost any of it...and that says something.
I was a casual and GW's crappy rules pushed me out. I like fair games when both players have a good chance of winning. I cant get that from 40k. Every other game ive tried has been far superior.
A quick biography to back all this up. In the 00's I was a prominent film critic for AIN'T IT COOL NEWS, which was, at the time, the largest movie/geek website in the world. After I wrote the world's first review of D&D 4E and it garnered *insane* traffic, Harry decided to let me write about whatever game stuff I wanted to. The 4E piece ended up getting me interviewed about D&D on NPR and I even ended up giving an answer on WAIT, WAIT, DON'T TELL ME. Needless to say, all this put me on the radar of a lot of game insiders. Companies and their employees used to leak me stuff or send me games so I would talk about it on the site. Several of those folks were GW employees. For a while they were even secretly sending me the old "Black boxes" that used to go to affiliate stores. At the same time I fell in with the BoLS crew, who played at the same local store. We used to swap info all the time.
All this to say that a lot of what I shared is old insider info that I know no one can be fired now for sharing.
GW used to run on a 5 year plan. They *DO* in fact do market research and have for years - that's how they knew the average lifespan of their players. But that's not info they share with the public. As to ebay, up until late last year, used versions of the new large models (Wraithknights, Riptides and the like) were selling for only $10-$20 cheaper than new, plus shipping. Smart gamers knew they could get new models from online retailers for roughly the same cost from discount online dealers, so GW was still making their money. Run a search for them now and you can find a terribly painted WK for $65, with the next closest shot at one running you $85. You can pay $85 for a used WK, or $92 for a new one from the Warstore. GW employees, by the way, did publicly talk about their new low count, higher cost sales at the start of 6th, but quickly shut up about it after the backlash. The stuff I'm saying about 7th is all conjecture based upon my previous years of experience dealing with game companies. EVERYONE was and is worried about ebay. The secondary market is what helped kill D&D 4e, allowing folks to keep finding a wealth of old 3.5 books (though pathfinder had more to do with it - but the Hasbro mess is another insider boondoggle I can go on and on and on about.)
As to the tournament stuff - again, that's insider stuff. There's a reason GW started pulling their instore support of tournaments and events. They weren't generating sales or interest with storefront gaming anymore. They ended up taking a bath on their year of support for model and terrain building contests (which were AWESOME...but few people showed up to, even in major markets.) They finally ousted their CEO who famously said "The internet is a fad," when arguing why GW wouldn't support online materials and frequent FAQ updates for 5th. And then they tried to be an industry leader with an experimental strategy that gave us the shortest edition turnaround in history.
So before you discount this because I can't link to a GW document, google my biographical information (I wrote under the name Massawyrm and still lurk online with it), and when it checks out, ask yourself: why would a dude who isn't involved in the industry anymore spend a chunk of his morning spinning a yarn to defend a company he owes nothing to? I'm either wasting my time on an elaborate troll in a minor thread on Dakka, or I just happen to love talking about this stuff and know a bit more behind the scenes than some ordinary internet dude. So take that as you will.
A quick biography to back all this up. In the 00's I was a prominent film critic for AIN'T IT COOL NEWS, which was, at the time, the largest movie/geek website in the world. After I wrote the world's first review of D&D 4E and it garnered *insane* traffic, Harry decided to let me write about whatever game stuff I wanted to. The 4E piece ended up getting me interviewed about D&D on NPR and I even ended up giving an answer on WAIT, WAIT, DON'T TELL ME. Needless to say, all this put me on the radar of a lot of game insiders. Companies and their employees used to leak me stuff or send me games so I would talk about it on the site. Several of those folks were GW employees. For a while they were even secretly sending me the old "Black boxes" that used to go to affiliate stores. At the same time I fell in with the BoLS crew, who played at the same local store. We used to swap info all the time.
All this to say that a lot of what I shared is old insider info that I know no one can be fired now for sharing.
GW used to run on a 5 year plan. They *DO* in fact do market research and have for years - that's how they knew the average lifespan of their players. But that's not info they share with the public. As to ebay, up until late last year, used versions of the new large models (Wraithknights, Riptides and the like) were selling for only $10-$20 cheaper than new, plus shipping. Smart gamers knew they could get new models from online retailers for roughly the same cost from discount online dealers, so GW was still making their money. Run a search for them now and you can find a terribly painted WK for $65, with the next closest shot at one running you $85. You can pay $85 for a used WK, or $92 for a new one from the Warstore. GW employees, by the way, did publicly talk about their new low count, higher cost sales at the start of 6th, but quickly shut up about it after the backlash. The stuff I'm saying about 7th is all conjecture based upon my previous years of experience dealing with game companies. EVERYONE was and is worried about ebay. The secondary market is what helped kill D&D 4e, allowing folks to keep finding a wealth of old 3.5 books (though pathfinder had more to do with it - but the Hasbro mess is another insider boondoggle I can go on and on and on about.)
I have a hard time believing that GW does any market research. They admit as much in several public documents, and it's an absurd thing to claim if it's not true. It's like being a 25 year old male and claiming to be a virgin; I'm likely to believe it, because good lord, why would anyone lie about it? What is there to gain?
I don't remember GW publicly talk about their new sales plan, or any kind of backlash. What kind of backlash was it? GW isn't exactly a big deal, globally speaking. Was it from the share holders, or forums, or some facebook page?
This is also the first I've heard about secondary markets killing 4e. I don't see how players finding 3.5e books cheap (everyone I knew downloaded them when 4e released) has a lot to do with 4e. If 4e was a superior product, it would have sold enough on its own rather then losing to an older edition.
Most players largely disliked 4e because they felt it wasn't D&D. The power set up, the samey feel of the classes, the lack of out-of-combat options, and the MMO feeling were widely complained about. It didn't do well because it was a bad system that wasn't well received by players, not because an older edition somehow cheapened it.
As to the tournament stuff - again, that's insider stuff. There's a reason GW started pulling their instore support of tournaments and events. They weren't generating sales or interest with storefront gaming anymore. They ended up taking a bath on their year of support for model and terrain building contests (which were AWESOME...but few people showed up to, even in major markets.) They finally ousted their CEO who famously said "The internet is a fad," when arguing why GW wouldn't support online materials and frequent FAQ updates for 5th. And then they tried to be an industry leader with an experimental strategy that gave us the shortest edition turnaround in history.
So before you discount this because I can't link to a GW document, google my biographical information (I wrote under the name Massawyrm and still lurk online with it), and when it checks out, ask yourself: why would a dude who isn't involved in the industry anymore spend a chunk of his morning spinning a yarn to defend a company he owes nothing to? I'm either wasting my time on an elaborate troll in a minor thread on Dakka, or I just happen to love talking about this stuff and know a bit more behind the scenes than some ordinary internet dude. So take that as you will.
I don't personally care who you are. I'm looking at what you're saying and taking it at face value, judging the truth of the statements based on what information is available.
I used to work in a secondary market, in medicine. Sometimes people were shocked at several of the things I told them about how the market works, but I could point at a few things and make logical connections that backed up the claims. If you can do the same, it'll certainly completely turn around everything everyone knows about GW, and what GW says about itself.
From another thread, these are examples of what GW considers fluffy armies that are in tune with the spirit of the game, whatever that means. These are all from the Crusade of Fire campaign supplement:
Chaos Space Marines (World Eaters): Daemon Prince, Berserkers in Rhino, 2 big units of Terminators, Berserkers (footslogging), Bloodletters, Helbrute/Dreadnought, Bloodthirster, 2x Predators
* Purposely did not take daemon engines as he felt Red Corsairs were recent converts and would operate closer to a Marine chapter.
Space Wolves: Wolf Lord on Thunderwolf, Wolf Pack (?), 2x Grey Hunter packs (1x Drop Pod), Dreadnought, 2x (?) Wolf Scouts, Predator
Chaos Space Marines (Word Bearers): Dark Apostle, Possessed w/Rhino (?), 2x CSM Squads, Maulerfiend
Chaos Space Marines (Alpha Legion): Dark Apostle, Chaos Lord, CSM Squads, Cultists, Forgefiend, Heldrake, Helbrute
How well do you think any of these would fare on the table today? That's part of the problem. Someone who builds an army like this (arguably the "proper" way inasmuch as that can be said about anything in a game) is going to get steamrolled, because reasons.
That's a problem. That hurts casual gamers much more than competitive gamers because casual gamers are more likely to take lists that look like the above than nonsense like spamming Scatterbikes or Riptides.
I have a hard time believing that GW does any market research. They admit as much in several public documents, and it's an absurd thing to claim if it's not true. It's like being a 25 year old male and claiming to be a virgin; I'm likely to believe it, because good lord, why would anyone lie about it? What is there to gain?
I have a harder time believing that a publicly traded company does NO market research whatsoever. Here is the quote from the 2014 annual report that I'm assuming is being referenced:
"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning
teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things
are otiose in a niche."
So saying they do not do any market research is not entirely accurate. Demographics is just a part of what is considered market research. He is basically saying they already know who their target audience is, why waste time and money researching it further, and he's right. I don't really believe that the target demographic has ever changed for GW since they started focusing primarily on tabletop games and miniatures.
That same report does indicate that they do some geographical market research but doesn't really go into much detail.
"The third element is the global nature of our business. Niche market customers are pretty thin on the ground and they need to be
searched out all over the world. The main growth in our business will be as a result of this geographic spread."
So again, they obviously do some form of market research, even if it is just to determine where they can sell their products more.
Based on alot of the changes we've seen in 40K over the last year or so, I think its disengenuious to claim GW never listens to its customer base. They clearly do as so many of the changes have coincided with repeated online community demands (we wanted wave serpents fixed, they fixed them, we wanted many Necron units and rules cleaned up and/or nerfed, they did just that, we wanted mono-chaos books, we got them, we wanted AdMech in the main game, ta-daaaa, we got it). The problem is, they also have to consider the botttom line for their investors, so those nerfs we so desparetly demanded are often accompanied by less requested changes that can spur sales.
I'm gonna call anyone claiming insider information that has no proof behind an anonymous screen tag a non starter. No facts or evidence means we can't confirm nor deny the statement thus it's a zero sum situation.
As for GW, they obviously aren't listening. The most popular edition from the word on the streets, from friends, club pages, Facebook groups, and many forums including Dakkadakka, was 5E, their "failure" tournament ruleset. Barring a few necessary fixes, they were on track to having a solid ruleset that was affordable, manageable, and sound. Armies were armies, everything wasn't nickel and dimed to death, and the community thrived.
We now have measurable evidence that 6E and 7E are failures. The highest volume of releases in the company's history, one with massive cutbacks and "leaning out", still returns declining sales and profits. Desperate attempts at ligitigation versus innovation also are marks of a failing small company; when you're claiming you own big shoulder pads, halberds and Greek/Roman heraldry as IP, stuff is rotten.
Warhammer has never been a great game. It's now a markedly worse product as it does not work as it's intended goal. Their business strategy is an outdated relic that shifts a massive burden of cost to the player base. It was mentioned they fixed wave serpents, so they listen, right? Well, that could have been a FAQ six months after significant real world testing. Instead it's in a $60 errata that, oops, makes everything els broken.
If GW performs actual market research, they'd not be looking at demographics alone. They'd be looking at what is their competitors doing. In models, GW is flat out losing or lost ground entirely unless you need heroic scale dude marines. Outside of the iconic factions, other companies are doing it either cheaper, better or both. As for rules? No one uses the codex format. It's archaic, inefficient, and absolutely game breaking. You're not able to fully test a new codex every two months when other companies test the same amount of models over six to twelve months. Add on the ludicrous cost, and it's no reason to purchase them.
If you're a casual gamer, there are cheaper fixes. If you're a casual modeler, again, much cheaper or better fixes. All GW has is inertia and Spess Mehrinzzz. And while 40k is a killer setting, it to is entirely lifted and is primarily a derivative work of a juvenile level of story telling; it's like candy, fun, flavorful, but not fulfilling. Every other game world is offering a living, breathing, and changing setting versus the stale 5 minutes to midnight, nothing ever happens setting of 40k.
Even their online strategy is flawed, to say the least. They still have their "Internet, Pokemon, and profits are fads" CEO as chairman of the board, so that's not going to change.
There's pretty much little positive in anything GW is doing right now. They're gonna keep mashing that spam codex/model button until they finally bottom out in this downward spiral they are on. Hopefully we get another cool 40k video game or something out of it before that time.
I have a hard time believing that GW does any market research. They admit as much in several public documents, and it's an absurd thing to claim if it's not true. It's like being a 25 year old male and claiming to be a virgin; I'm likely to believe it, because good lord, why would anyone lie about it? What is there to gain?
I have a harder time believing that a publicly traded company does NO market research whatsoever. Here is the quote from the 2014 annual report that I'm assuming is being referenced:
"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning
teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things
are otiose in a niche."
So saying they do not do any market research is not entirely accurate. Demographics is just a part of what is considered market research. He is basically saying they already know who their target audience is, why waste time and money researching it further, and he's right. I don't really believe that the target demographic has ever changed for GW since they started focusing primarily on tabletop games and miniatures.
Nothing about this says they do any market research. No focus groups? No demographic research? I've seen people claim that GW focuses on teenagers, but can this really be true? The game is too expensive for most teens I am aware of. I have played in several countries and up and down the east cost. Never have I seen the teens outnumber the adults in a 40k group.
This basically reads as "we already know what the people want; they want to buy our miniatures".
That same report does indicate that they do some geographical market research but doesn't really go into much detail.
"The third element is the global nature of our business. Niche market customers are pretty thin on the ground and they need to be
searched out all over the world. The main growth in our business will be as a result of this geographic spread."
So again, they obviously do some form of market research, even if it is just to determine where they can sell their products more.
Realizing you want to sell your product globally isn't market research, its common sense. More customers is more money.
And look at how the game went over in China and with the Aussies. Poorly, to say the least.
Again, nothing here contradicts my claim that they do no market research. Most of what you quoted seems to support it.
Based on alot of the changes we've seen in 40K over the last year or so, I think its disengenuious to claim GW never listens to its customer base. They clearly do as so many of the changes have coincided with repeated online community demands (we wanted wave serpents fixed, they fixed them, we wanted many Necron units and rules cleaned up and/or nerfed, they did just that, we wanted mono-chaos books, we got them, we wanted AdMech in the main game, ta-daaaa, we got it). The problem is, they also have to consider the botttom line for their investors, so those nerfs we so desparetly demanded are often accompanied by less requested changes that can spur sales.
Really? They are listening to us?
Where are the happy chaos players? Where are my chaos legion rules I have wanted since they were taken away from me? I am not alone in this, the forums at one point were FILLED with posts about this. It only got worse after the SM codex.
Waveserpents were nerfed, and everything else boosted to absurd levels of power. Look at the forums, do they look happy to you in regards to eldar?
DA are still marines -1 for yet another edition. BA are as well.
Necrons nerfed? I must have missed the nerf to wraiths, who were already a strong unit.
We got A mono chaos book, and it did not feature the world eaters. When people mention the mono books, its usually in reference to the legion that follows them. Not because the daemons needed anything like that.
Cruddance allowed to do Nids. Why!?
What happened to the AM and DE was a tragedy. They were robbed of a lot of flavor, despite whatever else you may say about them.
Akiasura wrote: How did it not work? I remember 3-5th edition being quite popular locally compared to what it is now. The financial reports looked better for the company as well.
This is demonstrably false. GW's best years were 2012 & 2013, with 2013 (when 6th was in full swing) being the company's best year in its history. 2014 saw a big drop, which while a worse year than 2010, was still a better year than 2005 - 2009, and 2011. For reference here is the 2011 AR, the 2013 AR, and the 2014 AR.
As with the rest of your claims, they are entirely anecdotal or a repetition of unfounded speculation that's been bouncing around the echo chamber of the forums for years. GW is always failing, always on the verge of bankruptcy, doesn't do any market research, and if they would just make it a better game, it would thrive. Yeah. Yeah. That's exactly what the financials say. (SPOILER WARNING: it's not what the financials say.)
You don't have to agree with my 7th ed analysis here, but the extraordinary claim isn't that GW knows its business and does market research; it is that a publicly traded, multinational company *doesn't* do a lick of research. A claim you actually can't back up no matter how many times you invoke the burden of proof fallacy.
The long and the short of it is that for 30 years, GW was a company built primarily on the premise of storefront sales and it is suffering the growing pains of having to adapt to an online marketplace. The decisions they're making, both good and bad, are attempts to find where they belong in an increasingly online world. Come July we'll find out how 7th is treating them and we'll be able to get a better idea of whether or not their new allied army, small steady release strategy is working.
You don't have to agree with my 7th ed analysis here, but the extraordinary claim isn't that GW knows its business and does market research; it is that a publicly traded, multinational company *doesn't* do a lick of research. A claim you actually can't back up no matter how many times you invoke the burden of proof fallacy.
You wouldn't expect the chairman of said multinational PLC to appoint a director without at least giving their CV the once over, but there you go...
I'm just thinking out loud here but aren't there player made rule sets out there which achieve better balance and level the playing field that people can use instead of official rules? When it comes to casual play all you have to do is agree on a rule set and stick to it. If said rule set is more balanced it makes the game more engaging for both parties. I know the tournament scene only uses official rules, but for causal play (which is what I play) I see no reason why your friends or mates at your FLGS can't do this.
The reason I honestly love GW is because they make the best models in the world. Nothing else comes close, in terms of quality, the variety of units, art style, and their fluff isn't half bad either. (Most iconic gaming IP other than D&D)
To me it's always been about the models first, then the game-play second. Sure, army specific rules influence my army choice, but even the best alternative game system feels like they are 10 years behind GW technologically in the modelling department.
As someone who enjoys winning, has built two 2000pt armies and is working on a third, and is excited about the amount of beautiful models GW has been making over the last decade, I will find a way to enjoy the hobby, and if all that it takes is printing a few pieces of paper with modified rules from the internet and using it to augment my games then I say it's a good deal.
Akiasura wrote: How did it not work? I remember 3-5th edition being quite popular locally compared to what it is now. The financial reports looked better for the company as well.
This is demonstrably false. GW's best years were 2012 & 2013, with 2013 (when 6th was in full swing) being the company's best year in its history. 2014 saw a big drop, which while a worse year than 2010, was still a better year than 2005 - 2009, and 2011. For reference here is the 2011 AR, the 2013 AR, and the 2014 AR.
Your links don't refute the claim that 2005-2009 were better years, since the links are after that. We'd need to adjust for inflation, but I wouldn't mind seeing them. For the record, this was the burden of proof fallacy. I'm making a claim, and asking you to back up the negative.
As with the rest of your claims, they are entirely anecdotal or a repetition of unfounded speculation that's been bouncing around the echo chamber of the forums for years. GW is always failing, always on the verge of bankruptcy, doesn't do any market research, and if they would just make it a better game, it would thrive. Yeah. Yeah. That's exactly what the financials say. (SPOILER WARNING: it's not what the financials say.)
Let's be clear, you started the conversation with an appeal to authority (yours) without a shred of proof being offered.
I never portrayed my opinions as anything other than anecdotal. GW has been losing money for the first time in a long time. The financials do suggest such a thing.
As for the rest, you are strawmanning pretty hard here. I'm not claiming GW is going bankrupt, or that a better game would make them thrive (I think that genie left the bottle already, for the record). I have claimed that they don't do market research, which so far, has yet to be refuted by anyone here.
You don't have to agree with my 7th ed analysis here, but the extraordinary claim isn't that GW knows its business and does market research; it is that a publicly traded, multinational company *doesn't* do a lick of research. A claim you actually can't back up no matter how many times you invoke the burden of proof fallacy.
Many companies don't do much market research. I have done work in the past with fortune 500 companies that do not do market research at all. Again, my experience, but publicly traded multinational companies do not HAVE to do research, depending on the product they carry. GW seems to believe their minis are so good they do not have to.
Again, I am not making the claim. GW has made that claim, see the link above provided by someone else. Normally proving a negative is quite difficult if not impossible.
You are asserting that they do market research. I am asking for proof of such a claim. This is not the burden of proof fallacy.
The long and the short of it is that for 30 years, GW was a company built primarily on the premise of storefront sales and it is suffering the growing pains of having to adapt to an online marketplace. The decisions they're making, both good and bad, are attempts to find where they belong in an increasingly online world. Come July we'll find out how 7th is treating them and we'll be able to get a better idea of whether or not their new allied army, small steady release strategy is working.
True, though I do not have much hope for the financial report. Many companies have had to deal with the digital age, some better than others. GW seems to be remarkably poorly, all things considered. Even the making of their website seems to have been handled...poorly.
The reason I honestly love GW is because they make the best models in the world.
If you honestly believe this, I heartily suggest you spend more time looking at other manufacturers (and not just the obvious big ones.)
GW score the odd hit, but, while it is admittedly a subjective and non-quantifiable topic, I think you'll find there's a lot of stuff out that would pretty much universally be considered to kick GW's butt the majority of the time.
The reason I honestly love GW is because they make the best models in the world.
If you honestly believe this, I heartily suggest you spend more time looking at other manufacturers (and not just the obvious big ones.)
GW score the odd hit, but, while it is admittedly a subjective and non-quantifiable topic, I think you'll find there's a lot of stuff out that would pretty much universally be considered to kick GW's butt the majority of the time.
I've looked around and own a lot of 3rd party products, especially from companies that make sculpts GW doesn't produce. (Ie female heads)
But I am honestly open to looking at other models as well, I will be happy to look at anything if you could point me in the right direction.
Barthus wrote: I wonder if the diehard competitive guys will finally realize that 40k no longer functions as a competitive game?
a. Of course the entirety of 40k doesn't function competitively. But that is not a problem. TOs have hobbled and limited 40k years past, and will continue to do so. They did so to the last eldar book, like they hobbled Apoc, ForgeWorld, 2+ re-rollables (and that was out of the eldar and daemon books) and more.
b. And the competitive scene thrives. LVO was FrontLineGames's biggest event so far, 250+ for 40k. My local store, Game Empire Pasadena is having larger and bigger events. Given the Invites and traffic on Facebook, more and more events are available to attend here in Calif. Two or three RTTs a month this year, from San Diego through the Bay Area and Sacramento. Competitive play is still out there and growing, and the book that you think is wrecking it is only two weeks old, so its real impact has only been on the Internet Hypotheticals.
Why not wait until a few RTTs or GTs have been won by chumps (like me) wielding the new eldar?
One eldar list in the top ten. No, the new eldar book was not used, but that is not my point. The tourney was not won by orks, but by that PajamaPants guy, playing an ork army. Two ork lists were in the top 10. The Dark Angels player, placing 9th, uses IG as allies. He beat me at LVO. I recognize most of the names on that list, and know who is who. It's not their armies. It's their skills. How is that for blowing the expected meta?
LVO 2015 was won by 'Nids, well not 'Nids, but by a guy who is usually in the top 10 at GTs (forgot his name). Nick or Alex something ... or was that both top 2 players?
What makes for competition is smart players. Good generals. Not lists.
If you see my name in the top ten at BAO, playing eldar, then yes, the book has killed competitive 40k. Otherwise, if RTTs and GTs stop happening, and people stop attending these events, It is not the book. Mat Ward. Phil Kelly or 5e Grey Knights (I learned to beat them!).
I'm gonna point my finger at threads like this.
PS:
I whole-heartedly believe in the First Amendment of the US constitution. Speak/Express/Post on my brothers!
I own a few Victoria miniature and find their human faces to be quite disappointing. To be clear, I'm not here to defend GW, but it's just unrivaled at the moment when it comes to sculpt quality. I would also throw in a plug for Statuesque miniatures, which in my mind are absolutely brilliant. That's where I get all my female heads for 28mm. http://www.statuesqueminiatures.co.uk/p/8774376/sma012-heroic-scale-female-heads.html
Alas they are metal, so harder to work with especially when it comes to converting, and mixing and matching.
But, anyways I've taken this wayyy of topic. Sorry about that.
I have seen this list before, it's a huge summary of alternative figures.
What I'm wondering is what you consider to be superior to GW sculpts specifically.
That's not really a question I can answer, as it is very much a case by case basis.
For instance, I find the Hi Tech minis counts-as Mutilators and Obliterators far superior (and with more options) to the GW ones, but I wouldn't say the whole Hi Tech range is better than comparable GW's sculpts. I think Mierce make some of the best models on sale, and as a daemons player they've been a good source of alternates, but they're very much fantasy orientated so wouldn't offer much if you collect any other 40K faction. Evil Craft, Spell Crow and The Dark Works make excellent CSM bits (and whole CSMs in the case of Evil Craft) Kromlech make great Orks and some decent Daemons as well. I really love the Dream Forge Games Eisnekern range, and I'd certainly look to them if I ever start a Guard army.
But the fact is, nobody makes all the best sculpts, especially not GW, and to make such a blanket claim is just flat out wrong IMO.
I have seen this list before, it's a huge summary of alternative figures.
What I'm wondering is what you consider to be superior to GW sculpts specifically.
That's not really a question I can answer, as it is very much a case by case basis.
For instance, I find the Hi Tech minis counts-as Mutilators and Obliterators far superior (and with more options) to the GW ones, but I wouldn't say the whole Hi Tech range is better than comparable GW's sculpts. I think Mierce make some of the best models on sale, and as a daemons player they've been a good source of alternates, but they're very much fantasy orientated so wouldn't offer much if you collect any other 40K faction. Evil Craft, Spell Crow and The Dark Works make excellent CSM bits (and whole CSMs in the case of Evil Craft) Kromlech make great Orks and some decent Daemons as well. I really love the Dream Forge Games Eisnekern range, and I'd certainly look to them if I ever start a Guard army.
But the fact is, nobody makes all the best sculpts, especially not GW, and to make such a blanket claim is just flat out wrong IMO.
I agree that making blanket statements is in poor taste, especially when it comes to subjective things like aestetic appeal. What one person finds excellent, others may decry as rubbish so yes indeed I shouldn't say that.
Massawyrm wrote:s
While the second statement there is true, the first statement is false. GW understands where the money is in the new post-ebay economy - it's in turning 40k into Dungeons & Dragons for people who don't like roleplaying. They don't want stores full of the unwashed playing their games anymore - they want people playing in their garages. Models have gotten bigger, terrain has become narrative and part of list building, and their new focus is on box set starter kits for two players. They want to sell you a $125 box set with enough starter minis for two players, so someone will invite a buddy over to kick around their garage and then pump money into building a table with terrain, bigger armies and more books. Everything now is about "Holy Crikey, dude! My Imperial Knight just blew up your Baneblade!" "Yeah, well it can suck on a vortex missile!"
The tourney scene is bad for business. It's loaded with bandwagoning list spammers who buy a bunch of models, play the list for 3-6 months, then dump them on ebay at a discount to recoup part of their money to spend on the next new hotness when the meta changes. GW doesn't care about them any more. They want teenagers and beer swilling 30-somethings with disposable income playing at home. That's the game now.
As a beer-swilling 30-something with disposable income, I'm having a hell of a time in my garage.
LOL... replace "Garage" with "Basement", and I'd pretty much agree. There is a very avid and often vocal cadre of tourney players, but I think they are a tiny proportion of the people who play either at home or at a local friendly league. I, like you, cannot imagine transporting all of the pieces required to make the game fun somewhere else, unless that somewhere else at least has really nice terrain. Which, almost invariably, means someone's home.
For me the whole "I'm a better wargamer than you" thing ended in the 90s, mostly because it was so much easier to compete (and on an equal footing) on computer games. In our meta, having and playing cool models and awesome armies pretty much trumps everything. For our group, rules be damned -- the game isn't about the models, it's almost *all* about the models.
Las wrote:Most of the outrage comes from the fact that the game played very well during 7th up until the release of this book.
Reading the Dakka forums in 2014 and early 2015, you would have never known this
Talys wrote: For me the whole "I'm a better wargamer than you" thing ended in the 90s, mostly because it was so much easier to compete (and on an equal footing) on computer games. In our meta, having and playing cool models and awesome armies pretty much trumps everything. For our group, rules be damned -- the game isn't about the models, it's almost *all* about the models.
Nail: head.
The chief problem with competitive gaming is that online games can solve balance issues with a quick patch, something tabletop games can't. Too much tinkering and the FAQs become longer than the codexes they are trying to repair. Esports have a serious edge when it comes to competitive gaming. There's no getting away from that.
These would be among the top I think. But there are a lot more. Hard to chose the best really. Depends what you are after...
The problem is that these:
Spoiler:
Simply cannot compete with this:
Spoiler:
I'm not saying one is better than the other; just that they aren't comparable -- because the thing is, if you like an army that's a mix of stuff as small as a grot or as large as a titan, there really isn't any other setting out there. If Scions, Wyverns, Reavers, Death Jesters, Assassins, Imperial Knights, Wraithknights, Plasma Obliterators, Flyrants, Doom Scythes, and Tesseract Vaults are not your thing... 40k won't make you happy. And if you don't want to spend hundreds (or thousands) of dollars and hundreds of hours working on an miniature army, 40k probably won't make you happy either.
The biggest draw for GW is the quality of their minis, and their aesthetic, which seems to appeal to the widest range of people. This is huge given that people who paint their armies spend 70% of their time painting. This is what prevents me from moving on to warmahordes.
Infinity has nice minis, but somehow the aesthetic doesn't appeal to as wide of an audience as 40k. Also, the rules are funny, and all armylists turn out to be more or less similar. 10 dudes with abilities to attack and counter the exact same abilities your opponent has to counter yours.
Mallifaux has the most niche aesthetic, which is why I haven't looked at it.
Ultimately, even 40k forces you to take 20 tactical marines/50 gaunts/50 boyz as a standard, which makes it boring. I've just gone on to paint stuff which are bad on the table, but I find cool, like terminators, nid warriors, fexes, walkrants, dreads.
Stopped playing anything and paint only. I've switched to playing boardgames, which is gaining far more traction, and is actually more fun (IMO)
Talys wrote: For me the whole "I'm a better wargamer than you" thing ended in the 90s, mostly because it was so much easier to compete (and on an equal footing) on computer games. In our meta, having and playing cool models and awesome armies pretty much trumps everything. For our group, rules be damned -- the game isn't about the models, it's almost *all* about the models.
Nail: head.
The chief problem with competitive gaming is that online games can solve balance issues with a quick patch, something tabletop games can't. Too much tinkering and the FAQs become longer than the codexes they are trying to repair. Esports have a serious edge when it comes to competitive gaming. There's no getting away from that.
Yes, exactly! I have so much more fun playing competitive computer games because the setup time is zero, the good ones (like StarCraft) are rapidly rebalanced, and you can actually meet people (strangers) with similar skill levels. With a tabletop miniature game, for the amount of time it takes to get together with friends and set up and play, I want to have fun -- which is definitely not just looking for a strategy to get a 5 game winning streak against my buddies.
Yes, exactly! I have so much more fun playing competitive computer games because the setup time is zero, the good ones (like StarCraft) are rapidly rebalanced, and you can actually meet people (strangers) with similar skill levels. With a tabletop miniature game, for the amount of time it takes to get together with friends and set up and play, I want to have fun -- which is definitely not just looking for a strategy to get a 5 game winning streak against my buddies.
What I don't get is the amount if eldar players running around saying it is/was an army that requires skill to use, git gud if you lose, when there are games like starcraft (one), which they have been patching for 15+ years, and is still not balanced.
Actually, at this point, I'm not even sure about the whole point of wargaming. Maybe GW is right sinking everything into model aesthetic, and nothing into rules, because eventually, everyone would rather play computer games, which are quicker to set up, far more balanced, and can earn you sponsors and money if you actually get good.
For socialisation, boardgames do far better with mates. They don't need to read 300+ page rulebooks, and you can play it with anyone, which is why its booming.
Warmachine has taken up a niche with rules, by making spells/abilities/feats long winded, and require some thought, so its slow and long enough that it doesn't translate well into a computer game.
The other games are sort of balanced, but offer nothing VS computer games.
kburn wrote: For socialisation, boardgames do far better with mates. They don't need to read 300+ page rulebooks, and you can play it with anyone, which is why its booming.
Yeah, but the chief advantage of tabletop gaming is that it is a hobby you can also practice alone - assembling & painting models, composing lists, arguing on the internet (*looks around*), and reading those lengthy tomes. Board games don't afford you that kind of hobby time. Wargaming's one chief advantage is what GW keeps claiming to be leaning on.
@Massawyrm - some kind of misquote there, I didn't say that
But anyways, boardgames, skirmish games, larger scale war games and computer games all serve a different niche of nerd. There are so many factors -- the modeling, painting and hobby is just as important to me as getting together with friends.
Talys wrote: @Massawyrm - some kind of misquote there, I didn't say that
But anyways, boardgames, skirmish games, larger scale war games and computer games all serve a different niche of nerd. There are so many factors -- the modeling, painting and hobby is just as important to me as getting together with friends.
Warmachine fulfills my need for a good game with fair matches that I can just go to my FLGS and find someone to play with. It does something for me that no computer game or even board game can do.
I think Infinity has the highest quality metals and Malifaux has the highest quality plastics.
Akiasura wrote: How did it not work? I remember 3-5th edition being quite popular locally compared to what it is now. The financial reports looked better for the company as well.
This is demonstrably false. GW's best years were 2012 & 2013, with 2013 (when 6th was in full swing) being the company's best year in its history. 2014 saw a big drop, which while a worse year than 2010, was still a better year than 2005 - 2009, and 2011. For reference here is the 2011 AR, the 2013 AR, and the 2014 AR.
Are you kidding me?
FY2012 and FY2013 are not even close to GW's best years.
You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of inflation before you start linking to financial reports.
MWHistorian wrote: Warmachine fulfills my need for a good game with fair matches that I can just go to my FLGS and find someone to play with. It does something for me that no computer game or even board game can do.
I think Infinity has the highest quality metals and Malifaux has the highest quality plastics.
Pretty much totally agree with this. WMH is my favourite game overall, Infinity models are my favourite metals overall (although PP lately has been doing a fantastic job too) and Malifaux are my favourite plastics. Some of the big GW plastic kits are awesome, like the Knight (do wish the legs were poseable though) but overall their model quality isn't that amazing these days. It's pretty inconsistent. Certainly not 'best models in the world' anymore.
Thud wrote: You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of inflation before you start linking to financial reports.
Yep. That was a dunderheaded mistake. I accidentally a word.
It was supposed to say it's *Modern* history. As the discussion was about post-ebay GW, it isn't really worth comparing numbers to anything earlier than 5th ed.
Akiasura wrote: How did it not work? I remember 3-5th edition being quite popular locally compared to what it is now. The financial reports looked better for the company as well.
This is demonstrably false. GW's best years were 2012 & 2013, with 2013 (when 6th was in full swing) being the company's best year in its history. 2014 saw a big drop, which while a worse year than 2010, was still a better year than 2005 - 2009, and 2011. For reference here is the 2011 AR, the 2013 AR, and the 2014 AR.
And yet, that wasn't at all what you said, nor was it what we discussed.
We'd have to define when Ebay was considered large enough to be a threat. I'd like to say 1997, since that year showed a dramatic growth in transactions compared to the previous year.
But fair enough.
Thud wrote: You might want to familiarize yourself with the concept of inflation before you start linking to financial reports.
Yep. That was a dunderheaded mistake. I accidentally a word.
It was supposed to say it's *Modern* history. As the discussion was about post-ebay GW, it isn't really worth comparing numbers to anything earlier than 5th ed.
So... After 2002 when it bought Paypal, or after 2008 (post-worldwide expansion of eBay), or after 2011?
Because if you only count after 2011, then yes, 2012 and 2013 were GW's best years since 2014 was pretty damn bad and FY2015 isn't over yet (hint: it's not gonna be good).
After 2008? Nope. 2009, for example. Revenues of over £150m (inflation-corrected) compared to 2012's and 2013's ~£140m (also corrected for inflation). Operating profits were better, but that's hardly surprising as 12-13 was a period of massive cuts in their retail structure (especially in Europe), and to no one's surprise operating profits were thus down again to normal levels (although still below, for example, 2009 and 2010) in the following year.
Or after 2002? Not even close. 2005 was when they peaked. Of course, GW being GW, they pissed away millions on who-knows-what and when the LOTR bubble burst they had three pretty lean years before they picked up again and had a very good year in 2009 with tremendous growth. Which, incidentally, was the first year of 5th edition. But, hey, coincidences, right?
FY12 was an OK year, and FY13 was a bad year for GW. Not catastrophic, but disappointing. The growing margins after tidying up the LOTR mess were over, and revenue was stagnant. So, that'd be the first year of 6th; zero growth, strong margins. Second year of 6th + release of 7th; large decline, halved margins. Is that Fantasy dying, or across the board (read: also 40k) poor performance? I don't know. I keep seeing rumours of all sorts of ridiculous sales numbers for Fantasy, and if it really is the case that Fantasy has lost two thirds of its sales in a very short period of time, then yeah, 6th/7th hasn't been that bad for 40k. We'll see.
Regardless of the Fantasy situation, though, if GW had maintained zero real growth since 2005 they'd have a revenue of around £200m today. They're pretty far from that (£123.5m in FY14, with further losses reported in the first half of the current FY). This is not the golden age, this is the decline.
Akiasura wrote: We'd have to define when Ebay was considered large enough to be a threat. I'd like to say 1997, since that year showed a dramatic growth in transactions compared to the previous year.
In terms of the gaming industry, ebay didn't become a real threat until mid to late 00's. Until that time, storefront sell through was still considered part of the hobby. You went to the game store, looked around, bought the new book or models. GW built their whole model on that - they wanted people playing the game in stores. It was their best method of advertising. Hence all the prize support for tournies. Once Ebay altered its rating structure away from reviewing buyers, and made it easier for the average person to unload the goods from their garage, there was a massive uptick in the amount of gaming stuff online. Once home based "game stores" started appearing on ebay (Guys who got business licenses and bought direct from game wholesalers only to sell on ebay) it became a place that you could find just about anything you were looking for. And it started to erode the sell through market. Now we live in an era where buying from an FLGS is considered more of a giving back aspect of the community rather than the core. GW moved away from their in store marketing model and tried to find other ways to build the business.
Nowadays though, if someone learns about 40k, one of their first stops is to ebay. As I said before, one can now live out their entire lifecycle of playing 40k without giving a red cent to GW. And they're trying to find ways to work around that.
Akiasura wrote: We'd have to define when Ebay was considered large enough to be a threat. I'd like to say 1997, since that year showed a dramatic growth in transactions compared to the previous year.
In terms of the gaming industry, ebay didn't become a real threat until mid to late 00's. Until that time, storefront sell through was still considered part of the hobby. You went to the game store, looked around, bought the new book or models. GW built their whole model on that - they wanted people playing the game in stores. It was their best method of advertising. Hence all the prize support for tournies. Once Ebay altered its rating structure away from reviewing buyers, and made it easier for the average person to unload the goods from their garage, there was a massive uptick in the amount of gaming stuff online. Once home based "game stores" started appearing on ebay (Guys who got business licenses and bought direct from game wholesalers only to sell on ebay) it became a place that you could find just about anything you were looking for. And it started to erode the sell through market. Now we live in an era where buying from an FLGS is considered more of a giving back aspect of the community rather than the core. GW moved away from their in store marketing model and tried to find other ways to build the business.
Nowadays though, if someone learns about 40k, one of their first stops is to ebay. As I said before, one can now live out their entire lifecycle of playing 40k without giving a red cent to GW. And they're trying to find ways to work around that.
Why don't you try addressing Thud's posts? Or my earlier ones? Because so far you've said contradictory statements, or changed the goal posts. Granted, this may have been a typo where you missed a word, but considering the part I quoted (and bolded) in my last post, I doubt that.
Your later comment is very anecdotal I do agree with you about the FLGS being giving back from the community. Frankly, I think my local store is run terribly and should change the model from selling me products I'd rather buy online (which includes comics and graphic novels) to becoming more of a hangout spot. Think the comic book store from Kick-ass. But that is wildly off topic.
I appreciate your change in tone to a more civil one.
Here's some other great games:
Malifaux:
This one is becoming really hard for me to resit picking up. I've heard amazing things about their new rules set. It looks great when set up on a nice table, and its extremely low cost compared to 40k
Infinity:
I tried this one back in its 2nd edition. I can say I didn't enjoy it as much and I thought I would. That said, they're in their 3rd edition now and I've played a game or two with the new rules. Its much better, and this is probably the best looking minis game I've ever seen with a properly set up table.
Warmachine:
Shameless plug for my favorite. Very very steep learning curve, but incredibly rewarding once you get the hang of it. I cannot recommend any other game more than this one. I understand many players dislike the looks of the minis, but the gameplay is worth it, I promise. There's a reason you hear a lot about this game from people who've left 40k.
X Wing:
I've heard nothing but good things about this game. I've only had a demo game, but it was very fun. It is very different from most other games out there, but it's become quite popular.
Dropzone Commander:
Much like X-Wing, I've heard really good things about this one. I've seen 3 or 4 games played, but I've not yet had a demo. Seems like a ton of fun, and if you've ever had an urge to play epic 40k, this game reminds me a lot of that.
With the exception of X-Wing, no one around here, in any of the local clubs, plays these games. People used to play Warmachine, but like most non-GW mini games, it was a passing fad. Between Pirates, Warmachine, DUST, Starship Troopers, Battletech, Dreamblade, and Confrontation, I've seen too many games come and go to buy into any new ones without some kind of reassurance that I'm not pissing my money away on minis for a game nobody in the area's going to play in a year.
Unlike RPG's, where I can drop $30-90 for everything I need to run/play indefinitely, 40k is a monumental time and money investment, as is every other mini game. If I'm going to make an investment like that ever again, I want to know its a reliable one.
WMH has been around for over a decade and are still growing. Its not a fad.
Anecdotal evidence: last night my wife, not knowing anything about tt gaming said "your Warmachine game looks way more popular than that Warhammer one."
MWHistorian wrote: WMH has been around for over a decade and are still growing. Its not a fad.
Anecdotal evidence: last night my wife, not knowing anything about tt gaming said "your Warmachine game looks way more popular than that Warhammer one."
Our last journeyman league at the shop had over 24 players. The 40k escalation league had 3 players sign up and was canceled.
MWHistorian wrote: WMH has been around for over a decade and are still growing. Its not a fad.
Anecdotal evidence: last night my wife, not knowing anything about tt gaming said "your Warmachine game looks way more popular than that Warhammer one."
Our last journeyman league at the shop had over 24 players. The 40k escalation league had 3 players sign up and was canceled.
However, as Kan said, in individual metas/groups it might be a fad. But in general it's not and is definitely growing.
The scene were I live, for WMH, seemed to implode due to (A) a player everyone wanted to avoid, but would always insist on a game, and (B) several key players switched to Star Wars (although A may have caused B).
Which is too bad. 40k is better for me than WMH, but WMH is better for some other players. I wish both would do well.
Massawyrm wrote: They know. They hate it. They stay loud and bitter hoping things will change next edition. (Spoiler warning: they won't. GW already tried to save the game by making it a competitive game. It didn't work.)
About the time the game was really popular, the edition that most people still cite as the closest GW got to a solid, balanced rule set, the one that would have likely needed only a handful of minor tweaks and revisions to have been viable for competitive play.
So I got paid today and I am really really really considering looking at a Khorne Daemonkin Warband box. But then I remember how unbalanced the game is and how I'm probably spending $230 on stuff that's barely playable trash without spending a few hundred more (nevermind most of the local players only like to play 1850 points and pretend it's competitive), and on top of that I'd want a nice fluffy army that would likely get steamrolled against other players who don't play all that fluffy armies or play the right kind of fluffy armies, and I have to ask myself why on earth I'd really consider playing 40k again? I already play Warmachine.
Not snark, I've actually been trying to figure out good reasons why I should even take another look at 40k.
I've been really interested in trying to start up a few other game systems in my area, but after demoing a few it didnt go so well.
I tried Infinity, and the first few games were cool, but then each army really played the same as the other, and no matter what I tried it felt like each game was TAG vs TAG with other guys on the sideline.
I tried MERCS as well, but it didnt feel balanced. The guy I was playing with to teach me the rules lost to me 6 times, he was playing USSR and I was playing some sneaky fast guys. It felt like the fast guys always had the advantage no matter what.
Dreadball I actually really like, there are 2 other players in my area but they don't play often, as they work a lot and we have time setting up days to play.
Malifaux looks pretty cool, but I can't stand the model range. I heard the rules are fun but if I don't like the models I just can't do it.
Then I tried both X wing and Firestorm Armada. X wing was fun, and I might consider getting it, the only problem is the lack of model range. Firestorm Armada on the other hand was great fun, but no one in the area is interested in playing it, so If i bought the models they would just be nice display pieces.
Sadly Warhammer is the one that stays because everyone in my area plays it. I haven't tried Warmahordes, but i think i might try it out next. The models look nice, just need to find someone to teach me to play.
luky7dayz wrote: I've been really interested in trying to start up a few other game systems in my area, but after demoing a few it didnt go so well.
I tried Infinity, and the first few games were cool, but then each army really played the same as the other, and no matter what I tried it felt like each game was TAG vs TAG with other guys on the sideline.
I tried MERCS as well, but it didnt feel balanced. The guy I was playing with to teach me the rules lost to me 6 times, he was playing USSR and I was playing some sneaky fast guys. It felt like the fast guys always had the advantage no matter what.
Dreadball I actually really like, there are 2 other players in my area but they don't play often, as they work a lot and we have time setting up days to play.
Malifaux looks pretty cool, but I can't stand the model range. I heard the rules are fun but if I don't like the models I just can't do it.
Then I tried both X wing and Firestorm Armada. X wing was fun, and I might consider getting it, the only problem is the lack of model range. Firestorm Armada on the other hand was great fun, but no one in the area is interested in playing it, so If i bought the models they would just be nice display pieces.
Sadly Warhammer is the one that stays because everyone in my area plays it. I haven't tried Warmahordes, but i think i might try it out next. The models look nice, just need to find someone to teach me to play.
I'd really suggest keeping with Infinity. There are so many answers to TAG's that I'm kind of puzzled to how your group is doing TAG battles. Playing with objectives helps a great deal with that as well.
I play Uberfall Kommandos and they're a unique CC unit with a ton of special rules and don't play like anything else. The more you learn, the more options there are.
Just my $.02
luky7dayz wrote: I've been really interested in trying to start up a few other game systems in my area, but after demoing a few it didnt go so well.
I tried Infinity, and the first few games were cool, but then each army really played the same as the other, and no matter what I tried it felt like each game was TAG vs TAG with other guys on the sideline.
I tried MERCS as well, but it didnt feel balanced. The guy I was playing with to teach me the rules lost to me 6 times, he was playing USSR and I was playing some sneaky fast guys. It felt like the fast guys always had the advantage no matter what.
Dreadball I actually really like, there are 2 other players in my area but they don't play often, as they work a lot and we have time setting up days to play.
Malifaux looks pretty cool, but I can't stand the model range. I heard the rules are fun but if I don't like the models I just can't do it.
Then I tried both X wing and Firestorm Armada. X wing was fun, and I might consider getting it, the only problem is the lack of model range. Firestorm Armada on the other hand was great fun, but no one in the area is interested in playing it, so If i bought the models they would just be nice display pieces.
Sadly Warhammer is the one that stays because everyone in my area plays it. I haven't tried Warmahordes, but i think i might try it out next. The models look nice, just need to find someone to teach me to play.
I'd really suggest keeping with Infinity. There are so many answers to TAG's that I'm kind of puzzled to how your group is doing TAG battles. Playing with objectives helps a great deal with that as well.
I play Uberfall Kommandos and they're a unique CC unit with a ton of special rules and don't play like anything else. The more you learn, the more options there are.
Just my $.02
I played multiple games with TAG vs TAG. Sometimes I would hack their Tag, or they would do the same to mine. It always felt the easiest way would be to go TAG vs TAG. But that wasn't the part that turned me off, it was the fact that playing PanOceana, Yujing, and Aleph they all felt the exact same to me. The only faction that seemed truly different from the rest was Tohaa.
Idk if is just my group but something that 40k always has is this kind of camaraderie and brotherhood to it. Any time I go my my flgs, it is always this warm and jolly good feeling from all the 40k chaps. It goes beyond just being a game, it's a setting to talk about, rules and models to talk about, and the ever fun mocking of Gw's inadequacy. Whenever I played warmachine for a bit I never got that camaraderie, it was just a game, and that feeling of brotherhood was lacking.
Idk maybe im just being stupid, but 40k isn't just a game, it's a group of people enjoying their hobby together.
Clockwork Iron wrote: Idk if is just my group but something that 40k always has is this kind of camaraderie and brotherhood to it. Any time I go my my flgs, it is always this warm and jolly good feeling from all the 40k chaps. It goes beyond just being a game, it's a setting to talk about, rules and models to talk about, and the ever fun mocking of Gw's inadequacy. Whenever I played warmachine for a bit I never got that camaraderie, it was just a game, and that feeling of brotherhood was lacking.
Idk maybe im just being stupid, but 40k isn't just a game, it's a group of people enjoying their hobby together.
I have the exact opposite experience.
Every time I went for a pick up game for 40k, it was kind of tense almost. Like they looked at me like "I don't know this guy. What kind of army? Tournament practice guy? My fluffy army deserves a chance or eight Imperial Knights?" If felt more like UN negotiation where none of the countries trusted each other.
With WMH it's "What do you play? Khador? Awesome! 50 points? Right on." And we commence setting up. We have time to talk about fluff, armies, fun stuff because we're not negotiating are armies to approach some semblance of balance.
But that's for PUG's. YMMV.
Bharring wrote: The scene were I live, for WMH, seemed to implode due to (A) a player everyone wanted to avoid, but would always insist on a game, and (B) several key players switched to Star Wars (although A may have caused B).
Which is too bad. 40k is better for me than WMH, but WMH is better for some other players. I wish both would do well.
X Wing has taken over my store...well, I should say among the youngish TT wargamimg crowd, because the most popular game there by far is MtG. I'm also seeing lots of RPG-looking board games being played lately. Really, I only see 40k being played by lots of people on 40k Night, which there are 2 nights per week. But as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I havent seen WMH played there in months.
As odd as his may sound, if I had to guess what TT Wargame was most consistently played at my FLGS, I'd have to say historicals using the Warlord Games series of rulebooks. Literally every time I go in, there is at least one if not 3 or 4 historical games being played...of course the owner loves historicals so he really puts in effort to get people interested, and I'm sure that had something to do with it.
MWHistorian wrote: WMH has been around for over a decade and are still growing. Its not a fad.
Anecdotal evidence: last night my wife, not knowing anything about tt gaming said "your Warmachine game looks way more popular than that Warhammer one."
Exactly. I was pretty specific for a reason. Warmahordes, and a few others besides may still be growing nationwide, but around here (and by around here I mean my tip of Southern Illinois and across the borders to the clubs I know in the accessible parts of Kentucky, Missouri, and Indiana) I don't know any club with an active presence in those games (at least any that are open to the public). I belong to three different clubs, none of which actively play Warmahordes. Only the new shiny games like STAW, but even that's dying out.
My wallet and hobby time schedule can only support one miniature wargame. Until something supplants 40k as the dominant game, I'm going to stick with the game that has already taken so much of my time and money.
That being said, when RH (if RH) ever publishes rules for their game, I may give it a shot, but that's only because I'll already own a bunch of minis that I'm using as IG.
Clockwork Iron wrote: Idk maybe im just being stupid, but 40k isn't just a game, it's a group of people enjoying their hobby together.
In my experience and observation, a passion for hobby is something that the vast majority of the players of the other tabletop wargames, with the exception of historicals, do not share. I'm not saying there aren't any hobbyists that are really into WMH. However, the vast majority of people coming to play PUG at FLGS with their WMH, Malifaux -- and obviously XWing -- have little or no interest in the hobby aspect of it. They usually have barely-painted miniatures, play on shockingly bare tables, and that's just not what I'm into. Occasionally, there are some people with great models, but almost never do I see a table that looks great (two nicely painted armies plus decent terrain). In my local scene, in most places, it is considered perfectly acceptable to play WMH or Malifaux with unpainted miniatures.
Now, not EVERY 40k player is into the hobby, but the ratio is much, much higher -- and almost certainly all the people with 5,000 - 20,000+ points worth of models. I attribute this in part to the cuture of the 40k crowd, but a lot of it has to do with the number and the nature of the models. If you're going to invest in thousands of points worth of models, at least some of those models will require intermediate skill to put together, and if you don't enjoy the hobby aspect of it, you're probably going to stop before your collection blossoms. Many 40k players take great pride in their painted toy soldiers. Even the most annoying WAAC players often had cool-looking wave serpents.
In contrast, a lot of WMH players see painting the miniatures as a hassle, and prefer the simpler, monopose, essentially snapfit nature of WMH models. Many players like that if you buy a Menoth Judicator, it will look exactly like what's on the box. They don't think about whether they want to put an Stormspear or an Icarus, a Gatling Avenger or a Chainfist. The last thing they want to do is magnetize parts so that they can swap in, or God forbid, buy 3 versions of a hundred-dollar-plus model. They are annoyed by the attitude that if they're playing an Imperial Knight a couple of days after you bought it, people think they've committed heresy by wrecking a $150 model with a crap paint job. And this is okay: different strokes, right?
If you want to, as you say, enjoy a hobby together, it's just a lot easier to find in the 40k realm. On the other hand, if you want a successful, quick pickup game, it can be lot harder to find in the 40k realm. Certainly, the setup an logistics of the game is against you, and unbalanced rules as written don't help.
For me, I very much enjoy social and the gaming aspect of 40k. However, I spend much more time on the hobby end of it, partly just because it doesn't require other people and I can squeeze it in whenever I'm able. I would not want to sacrifice one for the other, and I like gaming with people who share a passion for the hobby. It's a kind of nerd nirvana when you are playing with a roomful of guys who will ooo and ahhh at a really cool power sword on a dreadknight that took 12 hours to do just right.
Clockwork Iron wrote: Idk maybe im just being stupid, but 40k isn't just a game, it's a group of people enjoying their hobby together.
In my experience and observation, a passion for hobby is something that the vast majority of the players of the other tabletop wargames, with the exception of historicals, do not share. I'm not saying there aren't any hobbyists that are really into WMH. However, the vast majority of people coming to play PUG at FLGS with their WMH, Malifaux -- and obviously XWing -- have little or no interest in the hobby aspect of it. They usually have barely-painted miniatures, play on shockingly bare tables, and that's just not what I'm into. Occasionally, there are some people with great models, but almost never do I see a table that looks great (two nicely painted armies plus decent terrain). In my local scene, in most places, it is considered perfectly acceptable to play WMH or Malifaux with unpainted miniatures.
Now, not EVERY 40k player is into the hobby, but the ratio is much, much higher -- and almost certainly all the people with 5,000 - 20,000+ points worth of models. I attribute this in part to the cuture of the 40k crowd, but a lot of it has to do with the number and the nature of the models. If you're going to invest in thousands of points worth of models, at least some of those models will require intermediate skill to put together, and if you don't enjoy the hobby aspect of it, you're probably going to stop before your collection blossoms. Many 40k players take great pride in their painted toy soldiers. Even the most annoying WAAC players often had cool-looking wave serpents.
In contrast, a lot of WMH players see painting the miniatures as a hassle, and prefer the simpler, monopose, essentially snapfit nature of WMH models. Many players like that if you buy a Menoth Judicator, it will look exactly like what's on the box. They don't think about whether they want to put an Stormspear or an Icarus, a Gatling Avenger or a Chainfist. The last thing they want to do is magnetize parts so that they can swap in, or God forbid, buy 3 versions of a hundred-dollar-plus model. They are annoyed by the attitude that if they're playing an Imperial Knight a couple of days after you bought it, people think they've committed heresy by wrecking a $150 model with a crap paint job. And this is okay: different strokes, right?
If you want to, as you say, enjoy a hobby together, it's just a lot easier to find in the 40k realm. On the other hand, if you want a successful, quick pickup game, it can be lot harder to find in the 40k realm. Certainly, the setup an logistics of the game is against you, and unbalanced rules as written don't help.
For me, I very much enjoy social and the gaming aspect of 40k. However, I spend much more time on the hobby end of it, partly just because it doesn't require other people and I can squeeze it in whenever I'm able. I would not want to sacrifice one for the other, and I like gaming with people who share a passion for the hobby. It's a kind of nerd nirvana when you are playing with a roomful of guys who will ooo and ahhh at a really cool power sword on a dreadknight that took 12 hours to do just right.
Bolded part...um....what? Snapfit? No. Try putting together a Father Lucant figure.
Also, WMH has a thriving modeling community.
Go look at NQ Magazine. It's full of conversion and scenery making articles. It's basically what White Dwarf used to be. I've fought as many "Gray Legion" armies as I have unpainted WMH ones, though I have no statistics about that.
And neither do you. (which is the point I'm trying to make) You make a lot of bold, blanket statements that can't be backed up or proven/disproven.
But seriously, go look through NQ magazine and you'll see what mean. In the last issue (I think) they had an article on how to convert a Cygnar jack into a charcater jack from one of the novels. I convert WMH's as well. The author of "Into the Storm" (a WMH novel) has his Halbrediers with Conquistador helmets on. (Because his ancestors were) He beat me with them pretty bad.
I will grant you that conversions are easier due to readily available spare parts in 40k. That is a big bonus for modelers.
Clockwork Iron wrote: Idk if is just my group but something that 40k always has is this kind of camaraderie and brotherhood to it. Any time I go my my flgs, it is always this warm and jolly good feeling from all the 40k chaps. It goes beyond just being a game, it's a setting to talk about, rules and models to talk about, and the ever fun mocking of Gw's inadequacy. Whenever I played warmachine for a bit I never got that camaraderie, it was just a game, and that feeling of brotherhood was lacking.
Idk maybe im just being stupid, but 40k isn't just a game, it's a group of people enjoying their hobby together.
I have the exact opposite experience.
Every time I went for a pick up game for 40k, it was kind of tense almost. Like they looked at me like "I don't know this guy. What kind of army? Tournament practice guy? My fluffy army deserves a chance or eight Imperial Knights?" If felt more like UN negotiation where none of the countries trusted each other.
With WMH it's "What do you play? Khador? Awesome! 50 points? Right on." And we commence setting up. We have time to talk about fluff, armies, fun stuff because we're not negotiating are armies to approach some semblance of balance.
But that's for PUG's. YMMV.
Eh maybe it's just my group idk. But when I started to play warmachine I never felt welcome, people just kind of played a game with me then went off to do whatever, there wasnt any of the post battle nonsense I love about 40k. For example, I took a year and a half break from 40k and got back into it a couple months ago. When I jus showed up at a tourney I got nothing but welcoming from everyone there, and people I hadnt seen in a year were talking to me like we just saw eachother last week. Who knows lol, maybe its just the fact that I'm not a huge fan of warmachine that's causing me to see things this way.
Bolded part...um....what? Snapfit? No. Try putting together a Father Lucant figure. Also, WMH has a thriving modeling community. Go look at NQ Magazine. It's full of conversion and scenery making articles. It's basically what White Dwarf used to be. I've fought as many "Gray Legion" armies as I have unpainted WMH ones, though I have no statistics about that. And neither do you. (which is the point I'm trying to make) You make a lot of bold, blanket statements that can't be backed up or proven/disproven. But seriously, go look through NQ magazine and you'll see what mean. In the last issue (I think) they had an article on how to convert a Cygnar jack into a charcater jack from one of the novels. I convert WMH's as well. The author of "Into the Storm" (a WMH novel) has his Halbrediers with Conquistador helmets on. (Because his ancestors were) He beat me with them pretty bad. I will grant you that conversions are easier due to readily available spare parts in 40k. That is a big bonus for modelers.
Regarding the "essentially snapfit nature" -- every WMH model is meant to be assembled one way. You can't do otherwise without sculpting and heavy modifications. Every troop is composed of just a few pieces, that go together exactly one way. Every premium model just has more pieces, but is also designed to be built exactly 1 way. Yes, some models are more complex, and a small number give you a tiny amount of freedom. In comparison, almost every model which you would have many of that comes in a plastic kit from GW is meant to be customized. Tell me which WMH model can be customized in the same way a basic tactical space marine can be customized. Tell me which WMH model has articulating parts like pistons and joints that rotate and move like an Imperial Knight. Tell me which WMH model is intended to have its weapons magnetized so that they can be swapped from a close combat to a ranged weapon like a wraithknight. Tell me how many WMH models offers a range of different heads with different expressions or helmets to choose from.
Yes, if I look at a magazine, there are plenty of cool WMH things. But, when I go into any local stores, there are showcases of cool 40k things. And on 40k nights, there are actual human beings with cool works of art. On WMH nights, there are tables of... not much. I've never seen a converted Cyngar jack at a game table. EVER. In fact, I pretty much never see a converted anything, or even a very well painted anything.
There is no local community of hobby people interested in WMH in my neck of the woods. I'm not saying there isn't *anywhere*. But, it is a fact that most WMH players who play at FLGS in my area are more interested in gaming than modelling. I suspect that this is not something unique to my area, but of course I don't know that as a fact. So why don't I put it to you? What does the average WMH table look like in your local scene? How much time do the average WMH regulars spend on hobby?
Note that conversions, reposing, and alterations for WMH are not easy to do and require relatively advanced modelling skills (some level of sculpting). Also, the cost of models for WMH is quite high, especially if you're cutting them up for modelling. I don't know a single person that does that.
However: please recognize, I didn't JUST limit it to WMH. I'm talking about Malifaux, XWing, Infinity and any number of miniature-based board games. Why do people say that they like these games -- and conversely, dislike 40k?
1. Tight rules. Sometimes, low learning curve. 2. Low barrier to entry: you don't need a lot of models 3. For Xwing, no modelling at all; just play it. This is a draw for some people, a total turn off for others. 4. Doesn't need a lot of time commitment 5. More likely to have a successful PUG with a stranger
Some of the people (just some!) who love 40k really enjoy the hobby aspect of it, and spending 3 months to 3 years modelling an army before ever fielding it is no big deal. I don't know anyone who plays WMH who spends that kind of time on their army ** before even playing it **. Naturally, people who do this tend to talk a lot about the hobby. When I get into a conversation at a store, I can easily blow 2 hours talking about Liquitex mediums or W&N paintbrushes -- just as much as I can talk about the latest Eldar Codex or the AdMech, or far-flung rumors.
If you have a strong WMH, Malifaux or Infinity modelling community, you're lucky. I would love to meet more WMH hobbyists (as opposed to people who just mostly game).
1. Tight rules. Sometimes, low learning curve.
5. More likely to have a successful PUG with a stranger
I don't think these are necessarily true. At best, they're subjective. I've heard numerous people complain about how WMH left them feeling like their opponent made "one roll on a special ability in the last turn and said 'I Win!'"
And at least with the strangers I've met looking for games, PUGs for WHM or X-wing looked like horrendous, frightening prospects.
I think the community and the game system aren't always necessarily related.
1. Tight rules. Sometimes, low learning curve. 5. More likely to have a successful PUG with a stranger
I don't think these are necessarily true. At best, they're subjective. I've heard numerous people complain about how WMH left them feeling like their opponent made "one roll on a special ability in the last turn and said 'I Win!'"
And at least with the strangers I've met looking for games, PUGs for WHM or X-wing looked like horrendous, frightening prospects.
I think the community and the game system aren't always necessarily related.
I don't think they're necessarily true either. I'm just repeating what I hear WMH and the board game players say
Although, for sure, many board games certainly have a much lower learning curve than 40k (and WMH).
Take the bullets in the context of why I believe WMH (and other boardgame/skirmish game) players say they choose that game -- and in the context of them NOT generally saying, "I want to model build an awesome army and an awesome game board". Though, of course, there are exceptions.
I dunno, it seems weird to pick on Warmachine/Hordes for not having "customizable" models when GW appears to be getting away from that themselves with a lot of their newer plastics. Not every kit, obviously, but GW are putting out a lot of models that only go together one way, despite being offered in plastic which most people just associate with freedom and posability. Even the most expensive models, like the new Knights, don't offer a builder much in the way of customization other than what bits you can glue onto it. The legs are in a fixed pose, can't build a Knight stomping on a guy unless you're willing to take the knife to a $160 kit, and your range of movement on the other joints isn't much to work with either, resulting in every Knight looking almost exactly the same but with different paint.
I wish Warmachine models were "better", too, but I wouldn't say that GW is necessarily getting it right anymore, either. And we all know GW have the resources to make a fully posable Knight, or plastic clampack characters with more options than just a head or weapon swap, but they just don't. PP is just now getting into HIPS, so we could very well see more posable models in the future from them when they have the capacity to start producing them. What's GW's excuse? "The plebs will buy what we make?"
Sidstyler wrote: I dunno, it seems weird to pick on Warmachine/Hordes for not having "customizable" models when GW appears to be getting away from that themselves with a lot of their newer plastics. Not every kit, obviously, but GW are putting out a lot of models that only go together one way, despite being offered in plastic which most people just associate with freedom and posability. Even the most expensive models, like the new Knights, don't offer a builder much in the way of customization other than what bits you can glue onto it. The legs are in a fixed pose, can't build a Knight stomping on a guy unless you're willing to take the knife to a $160 kit, and your range of movement on the other joints isn't much to work with either, resulting in every Knight looking almost exactly the same but with different paint.
I wish Warmachine models were "better", too, but I wouldn't say that GW is necessarily getting it right anymore, either. And we all know GW have the resources to make a fully posable Knight, or plastic clampack characters with more options than just a head or weapon swap, but they just don't. PP is just now getting into HIPS, so we could very well see more posable models in the future from them when they have the capacity to start producing them. What's GW's excuse? "The plebs will buy what we make?"
GW hero mdoels (broadly speaking, HQs and named LoWs) are single pose, while others are configurable, because except for Rogue Trader (where you rolled for stuff), heroes have set items. Plus, it's less important, because you're only going to have 1 Dante or 1 Vulkan, so it's not like you'll have a bunch that look identical On the other hand, pretty much any model that you'd take multiples of (sold as MPP) are posable/configurable. They've actually been very consistent with this.
Although I'd love to see a knight with a posable lower torso, even as is, it's far more configurable and posable than any PP model.
HIPS isn't really a good reason to not have configurable models -- they've had resin for a long time, and lots of other companies do resin models with swappable parts. I genuinely think that it's part of the game and the culture of WMH. I mean, it's not like you can choose loadouts on your models, so why would you have configurability? It's not like you're going to have a horde of the same model, so repetitiveness is not an issue.
And really, I'm not just making this up. Go look on the P&M forum, and scroll 5 pages deep. Count the number of 40k projects versus WMH projects that people are talking about. It's no different at my local store; when I go hang out, almost all the guys talking about hobby are either historical or scale model folks or 40k -- and that was kind of my point.
I reiterate that this is not a bad thing. A lot of people just aren't interested in spending hundreds of hours on modelling projects, or they just don't have the time. My original point was to agree with a fellow who made the point that 40k is as much about people who share a common hobby as people who face off with each other as opponents.
Regarding the "essentially snapfit nature" -- every WMH model is meant to be assembled one way. You can't do otherwise without sculpting and heavy modifications. Every troop is composed of just a few pieces, that go together exactly one way. Every premium model just has more pieces, but is also designed to be built exactly 1 way. Yes, some models are more complex, and a small number give you a tiny amount of freedom. In comparison, almost every model which you would have many of that comes in a plastic kit from GW is meant to be customized. Tell me which WMH model can be customized in the same way a basic tactical space marine can be customized. Tell me which WMH model has articulating parts like pistons and joints that rotate and move like an Imperial Knight. Tell me which WMH model is intended to have its weapons magnetized so that they can be swapped from a close combat to a ranged weapon like a wraithknight. Tell me how many WMH models offers a range of different heads with different expressions or helmets to choose from.
Extreme juggernaut comes to mind. Plastic warpwolf and other beasties is very poseable. Off the top of my head.
And fyi, regarding the magnetising models for different weapons loadouts that apparently doesn't happen, you are talking out of your arse mate - do realise the very first piece of advice a lot of players get is 'magnetise your jacks', especislly with the 3 in 1 kits pp produce, it makes a lot if sense to be able to use your jack as a juggernaut, destroyer or marauder for example. All mine are magnetised, as are those of most people I know. So to answer that, pretty much the majority of plastic jacks, a lot of beasts and possibly a lot of the multi-role infantry kits that's are coming out.
A range of different heads? Hmm, tricky, but to be four, modt units have three or four, maybe more various 'heads'. Cutthroats and Nyss immedately come to mind,steelhead halberdiers too, to an extent. Thing is, different helmets isn't a thing I get, not in a world where standard issue mass manufactured gear is a thing. Might be boring for you, but it doesn't make sense to me for everything to be s unique snowflake. I've got 140romans to paint - they all look pretty similar to me!
Yes, if I look at a magazine, there are plenty of cool WMH things. But, when I go into any local stores, there are showcases of cool 40k things. And on 40k nights, there are actual human beings with cool works of art. On WMH nights, there are tables of... not much. I've never seen a converted Cyngar jack at a game table. EVER. In fact, I pretty much never see a converted anything, or even a very well painted anything.
Your store. Yo should come to ours. A huge section of my army is converted, and there is soe really epic scenery at our store in edinburgh.
The rules of WMH are great, very tight, little room for rules lawyers, and the factions are pretty well balanced both internally and externally. I'm just not into the aesthetics of them, at all. It feels much more "gamey" than 40k too. Most likely due to the huge amount of tokens and ring markers everywhere. That's another thing I don't like about it. In 40k the most I'll have is a 16mm dice on the base of a multi wound model to show how many wounds it has. I would say for the most part the 40k community is far more into the hobby side of things. The last WMH tournament I went to had over 20 players and there wasn't a single fully painted army in the building. For the most part, they're seen as game pieces. The terrain is typically green felt, blue felt, a hill and maybe 1 actual terrain piece. Rather than a nicely painted RoB table like the local GW has (4 of them), we played on wooden tables painted green. As tight as the ruleset is, the aesthetics, tokens everywhere and bland looking armies/tables make it really difficult to get into for me. I bought almost the entire cryx faction and ended up selling off most of it 6 months later because I just couldn't get into it like I'm into 40k (despite the lack of balance and overall poorly written ruleset).
how is w40k not full of tokens? objectives, psychic power dice, cards for psychic powers, dice for MC wounds, dice for vehicles, dice and markers for what ever stuff is buffed with invisibility.
Psychic power dice? You roll those, wouldn't call them tokens. The power cards don't need to sit on the table and interfere with the game. I don't consider a 16mm dice on the giant base of my wraithknight as much of an annoyance as the tokens for my cryx. I have focus, soul tokens, corpse tokens, poison tokens, ring markers and I'm sure I'm leaving quite a few out. Those are basically always on the table all over the place. A 16mm dice sits nicely anywhere on the base or vehicle it's being used to mark.
@Deadknight - like I said, there are exceptions. It doesn't change that the vast plurality of WMH models are one model, one pose, one loadout. A couple of multiconfiguration kits does not a hobby make.
In 40k, a simple tactical marine may have a dozen potential weapons, any imaginable body position, and HUGELY interchangeable parts between kits. Without considering actual pose (direction of torso, arms, weapon, and head) or minor bits (magazines, genades, purity seals, etc), I'll bet there are more than one hundred million combinations of possible space marines, just by multiplying available upper torsos, lower torsos, left arm, right arm, 2h weapons, left handed weapons, right handed weapons, posed hands, backpacks, jump packs, wings, heads, shoulders, banners, tabards and capes. There are dozens of kits with hundreds of parts each that are all interchangeable, so that as a hobbyist, I can create a space marine that is doing exactly what I want, using out of the box parts.
40k modelling is a hobby because all of these pieces provide an outlet to express creativity, without being a professional sculptor.
As an example, I'm currently building a storm raven, and adding marines standing on open door platforms shooting at Genestealers crawling across the gunship. All with stock bits. Such a task would be a monumental undertaking, in PP equivalents, requiring a ridiculous amount of canibalization and sculpting; it's a weekend project in 40k.
Like I said, just pop into the P&M forum, and you will see that the plurality of threads that involve models are GW models, conversions, or 40k related/themed.
Hats because this board is predominantly a 40k board and there's not much of a WMH community here. The P&M boards on the PP forum are full of awesome conversions and paint jobs.
WMH models are less customisable almost as a necessity. You need to be able to tell what the opponents model is quickly and easily.
Saying 'WMH modelling isn't a hobby' is ridiculous. Just like 40k, it's as much or as little as you want it to be. The same goes for Malifaux, Infinity, etc. Yes it's a little more prominent in 40k, but it's definitely a big part of the other games, and can be as big a part as it is in 40k if you so wish. Stop using your anecdotal evidence as is its representative of the whole.
Talys wrote: @Deadknight - like I said, there are exceptions. It doesn't change that the vast plurality of WMH models are one model, one pose, one loadout. A couple of multiconfiguration kits does not a hobby make.
You also said 'name one fully poseable model' in WMH. I did.
You asked which models in WMH are intended to be magnetised. I told you. They also count as more than 'a couple' of multi confit kits - thry probably represent the majority of the warjack/warbeast line at this point.
You asked which kits offered different heads. Plenty do.
And please, spell my name right. If I had a pound for every time someone puts a k in it...
In 40k, a simple tactical marine may have a dozen potential weapons, any imaginable body position, and HUGELY interchangeable parts between kits. Without considering actual pose (direction of torso, arms, weapon, and head) or minor bits (magazines, genades, purity seals, etc), I'll bet there are more than one hundred million combinations of possible space marines, just by multiplying available upper torsos, lower torsos, left arm, right arm, 2h weapons, left handed weapons, right handed weapons, posed hands, backpacks, jump packs, wings, heads, shoulders, banners, tabards and capes. There are dozens of kits with hundreds of parts each that are all interchangeable, so that as a hobbyist, I can create a space marine that is doing exactly what I want, using out of the box parts.
40k modelling is a hobby because all of these pieces provide an outlet to express creativity, without being a professional sculptor.
As an example, I'm currently building a storm raven, and adding marines standing on open door platforms shooting at Genestealers crawling across the gunship. All with stock bits. Such a task would be a monumental undertaking, in PP equivalents, requiring a ridiculous amount of canibalization and sculpting; it's a weekend project in 40k.
Like I said, just pop into the P&M forum, and you will see that the plurality of threads that involve models are GW models, conversions, or 40k related/themed.
You'll only get out what you put in. As I say, conversions in WMH are like bring a warcaster - if you're gonna do thrm, go epic.
http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/2010/dscn1456.jpg I'm certainly not arguing about the hobby side of 40k. You can do a lot with it. But it's just as worthwhile doing it with WMH. Because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there, and you frequently state your own anecdotal experience as a general fact, which is rather infuriating.
By the way, 20,000 painting threads and 2,000 terrain and board threads on the pp boards. It's less if a thing than on dakka, but nowhere near as rare as you seem to think it is.
Talys wrote: @Deadknight - like I said, there are exceptions. It doesn't change that the vast plurality of WMH models are one model, one pose, one loadout. A couple of multiconfiguration kits does not a hobby make.
In 40k, a simple tactical marine may have a dozen potential weapons, any imaginable body position, and HUGELY interchangeable parts between kits. Without considering actual pose (direction of torso, arms, weapon, and head) or minor bits (magazines, genades, purity seals, etc), I'll bet there are more than one hundred million combinations of possible space marines, just by multiplying available upper torsos, lower torsos, left arm, right arm, 2h weapons, left handed weapons, right handed weapons, posed hands, backpacks, jump packs, wings, heads, shoulders, banners, tabards and capes. There are dozens of kits with hundreds of parts each that are all interchangeable, so that as a hobbyist, I can create a space marine that is doing exactly what I want, using out of the box parts.
40k modelling is a hobby because all of these pieces provide an outlet to express creativity, without being a professional sculptor.
As an example, I'm currently building a storm raven, and adding marines standing on open door platforms shooting at Genestealers crawling across the gunship. All with stock bits. Such a task would be a monumental undertaking, in PP equivalents, requiring a ridiculous amount of canibalization and sculpting; it's a weekend project in 40k.
Like I said, just pop into the P&M forum, and you will see that the plurality of threads that involve models are GW models, conversions, or 40k related/themed.
Sure, but some people like converting models not just glue and place. When I make a costom model in WM I'll done real converting to get the model the way I want it. With GW I pick a one of the many arms and glue it on, really don't need much skill for that. Don't get my wrong there are some great GW conversion but they take as much work to convert as a WM model.
You also said 'name one fully poseable model' in WMH. I did.
I guess I was speaking for effect. You're right. There is a very small number of models by PP that allow some motion articulation. The proportion is staggeringly small.
My point is not diluted, however: Games Workshop makes model kits that have interchangeable parts which makes for interesting modelling; PP makes models which are not meant to be interchangeable.
Deadnight wrote: I'm certainly not arguing about the hobby side of 40k. You can do a lot with it. But it's just as worthwhile doing it with WMH. Because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there, and you frequently state your own anecdotal experience as a general fact, which is rather infuriating.
By the way, 20,000 painting threads and 2,000 terrain and board threads on the pp boards. It's less if a thing than on dakka, but nowhere near as rare as you seem to think it is.
Once again, I'm not disputing that there are WMH hobbyists and modellers. I'm asserting two things:
1. They aren't the typical WMH player 2. They are relatively hard to come by
If you disagree with #1, say so. My observation is that the vast majority of WMH players are NOT as much into hobby as they are into game. It's not just what I've seen in 1 store. I've travelled a pretty reasonable amount in the course of work, and try to pop by local hobby shops in other cities when I can (at least 100, probably a lot more). The proportion of stores with filled with players with interesting WMH stuff compared to interesting 40k stuff is really, really, really small. It happens, but rarely. How many websites are there on the Internet about 40k modelling, compared to WMH modelling? Just try a Google search. Ask painters who do commissions whether they make more money off of 40k models or WMH models.
I'm not saying that WMH modelling isn't rewarding, or worthwhile. I'm saying such people -- real people that I just bump into and can ALSO play a game with -- are harder to find.
My anecdotal experience may infuriate you, but it is my experience, and I've been around the tabletop wargaming block since about 1988. I happen to be very passionate about the hobby -- more so than the gaming, because to me the 40k game is simply a way for people with a common hobby to socialize, and to me, a tabletop wargame -- any tabletop wargame -- is a terrible format in which to compete when compared to computer games where there is zero setup and opponent skill matching. You may choose to simply ignore my posts, if you wish. I'm free to express them
Sure, but some people like converting models not just glue and place. When I make a costom model in WM I'll done real converting to get the model the way I want it. With GW I pick a one of the many arms and glue it on, really don't need much skill for that. Don't get my wrong there are some great GW conversion but they take as much work to convert as a WM model.
For sure WMH models can be exciting. I never said otherwise. The point I was trying to make was:
1. WMH models take a lot more work to convert than GW models, because out of the box, they're not intended for that. If you want conversions, generally you need to sculpt or cannibalize models other expensive models. 2. Because it's harder and more expensive, and not intended out of the box, there are fewer people who get into it, and as a result, a smaller community of such people, especially if you take the Internet out of the equation (ie I want to game with them).
I'm not diminishing the great WMH conversions that have been done.
Again, your experience doesn't really mean anything compared to the whole. And clearly enough people think tabletop Wargaming is a worthwhile format for competing, otherwise there wouldn't be tournaments and what have you. It's not your anecdotal evidence that infuriated him, it's the way you posit it as if it's representative of the whole.
And I do disagree with #1. How are you defining hobbyists? Most WMH players build and paint their models, so the majority of WMH players are hobbyists.
Sure, but some people like converting models not just glue and place. When I make a costom model in WM I'll done real converting to get the model the way I want it. With GW I pick a one of the many arms and glue it on, really don't need much skill for that. Don't get my wrong there are some great GW conversion but they take as much work to convert as a WM model.
For sure WMH models can be exciting. I never said otherwise. The point I was trying to make was:
1. WMH models take a lot more work to convert than GW models, because out of the box, they're not intended for that. If you want conversions, generally you need to sculpt or cannibalize models other expensive models.
2. Because it's harder and more expensive, and not intended out of the box, there are fewer people who get into it, and as a result, a smaller community of such people, especially if you take the Internet out of the equation (ie I want to game with them).
I'm not diminishing the great WMH conversions that have been done.
And my point is if all it takes is removing the model form the base and glue it in place, your not converting your just sticking models togather. It doesn't matter if your arm is placed in a more upward pose or the waist is more to the right. Being able to pose a model, how it is designed for is not converting.
Heavy conversions also aren't allowed in WMH (in events anyways) by design, because it's a game first and a collecting hobby second. For instance, you have to use most of the parts from the real model in a conversion. You can't convert something that isn't actually released yet and expect to use it in a tournament.
It's to ensure a fair and balanced playing field. While 40k encourages more creativity.
My point is not diluted, however: Games Workshop makes model kits that have interchangeable parts which makes for interesting modelling; PP makes models which are not meant to be interchangeable.
.
I won't disagree with you here - gw offer great bitz. With regard to my WMH modelling, I tend to use gw stuff as conversion material. I'm actually tempted to do a troll/kroot army as even though I love the troll fluff and gameplay, the model line is a bit too hit and miss for me (big hands, frog faces).
Once again, I'm not disputing that there are WMH hobbyists and modellers. I'm asserting two things:
1. They aren't the typical WMH player
2. They are relatively hard to come by
If you disagree with #1, say so. My observation is that the vast majority of WMH players are NOT as much into hobby as they are into game. It's not just what I've seen in 1 store. I've travelled a pretty reasonable amount in the course of work, and try to pop by local hobby shops in other cities when I can (at least 100, probably a lot more). The proportion of stores with filled with players with interesting WMH stuff compared to interesting 40k stuff is really, really, really small. It happens, but rarely. How many websites are there on the Internet about 40k modelling, compared to WMH modelling? Just try a Google search. Ask painters who do commissions whether they make more money off of 40k models or WMH models.
.
Regarding commissions, at least over here, a lot of them seem to make their money's via historicals, rather than sci-fi/fantasy.
Regarding points 1 and 2, I dont necessarily disagree - I disagree with the 'vast majority' comment. That's what's infuriating. Playing in stores is Aldo not necessarily the done thing. My mate runs a WMH hroup back him in Ireland with home made scenarios etc, and he plays out if his bedroom, rather than a store. Folks that are into the non-official side of things (aka steamroller) won't really be done in the places where officialdom is the de facto scenario. In other words, it's entirely possible you are simply not being exposed to the more creative side of the community, and I hope you keep that in mind. Like I said - 20,000 painting threads, and 2,000 board and terrain threads on the pp boards alone. It's not insignificant.I also think you overestimate the 'interesting' line regarding 40k. I know what kind of games you play, I know what kind of game boards you play on (and am very much likeminded in my appreciation, and approval). But 'interesting' 40k stuff? Yeah, no offense, but over here I see plenty planet Bowling ball boards, plenty grey legions and plenty 'stock' armies. To e honest, I'd say the vast majority of 40k players seem to have more interest in the game than the hobby as well. It's been a long time since I saw a physical 40k army that truly made me go 'wow' - it was a guy who'd converted an ad-mech army using tyranid rules, and there were seriously badass servitor(gaunts), assault servitor(hormagaunts), and biomechanical monstrosities (tmc's).
My anecdotal experience may infuriate you, but it is my experience, and I've been around the tabletop wargaming block since about 1988. I happen to be very passionate about the hobby -- more so than the gaming, because to me the 40k game is simply a way for people with a common hobby to socialize, and to me, a tabletop wargame -- any tabletop wargame -- is a terrible format in which to compete when compared to computer games where there is zero setup and opponent skill matching. You may choose to simply ignore my posts, if you wish. I'm free to express them .
I was 2 when you got into gaming. Age is a number, not a badge of honour here. You are passionate about your hobby, and you do some really interesting things, from what I read in your posts. But I, and many others are equally passionate about things.
Your anecdotal evidence infuriates me not because it's what you see, but because of the conclusions you draw from it, and how you use it to colour in the whole community, that's all. I certainly won't be ignoring your posts - you tend to have a lot of interesting things to say, and I still maintain that I'd like to meet you and have a game against you. And banter. And beer. But I'm irish so thst goes without saying. plus you're canadian, and we have friends and family out that way! They speak funny though.
@Deadnight -- By the way, sorry I got your name wrong I knew what it is, by my fingers just inserted the "k" on its own, LOL.
We are really not that far apart in our thinking
1988 was actually when I got into Games Workshop stuff (before that, White Dwarf, to me, was an AD&D supplement). I painted Ral Partha miniatures before 40k existed Of course, we are all coloured by our experiences, right? I'm quite certain that If there were a large WMH modelling crowd out here on the West Coast of Canada -- you know, the kind you just bump into in stores -- I would be more into that.
And you're absolutely right: the majority of people who play 40k that I see don't have beautiful models or play on beautiful tables. What I was trying to get at is that I often strike up conversation with people in stores (in many cities that I visit, not just my local one) about hobbying, and I love looking at finished models. I run into a lot of 40k and historical folks, and at the hobby shops that sell them, a decent number of scale model folks. I'm just as happy chatting with someone interested in painting American Civil War models or jet fighters or Warjacks as I am in someone who likes kitbashing Orks (though I won't be gaming with the former ).
I'd totally look forward to gaming with you! And banter, and beer, and all that Pizza is a staple here. Like beer, it is a food group. Although, actually, I must confess that I'm not crazy about beer, sorry :( Must be the lack of Irish blood in me. But there is plenty in my gaming fridge!
). The game is simply too expensive for someone to play if they make 7-10 an hour.
Of course, we are all coloured by our experiences, right? I'm quite certain that If there were a large WMH modelling crowd out here on the West Coast of Canada -- you know, the kind you just bump into in stores -- I would be more into that.