Every 40k army is now up-to-date. What do you think of the state of affairs of Warhammer 40k?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Blacksails**

Shadelkan wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:

I'd suggest that in the context of a tabletop game, declining vs dying is just semantics?

Declining means they can bounce back, dying means they're not.

So dying it is then, eh?

**Ratius**

I'd suggest that in the context of a tabletop game, declining vs dying is just semantics?

Perhaps. If 40k has seen sales drop off of like 80% in the last few years I'd say ouch, somethings looking bad. But if its 10-15% then thats a gentle decline.
I acknowledge 7th probably didnt take off as well as other editions and in places I agree its a mess but if, if GW take a hard look and start to turn things about well the decline turns into an upward trend and dying gets ruled out altogether.

Look Im playing optimist here but now that all the factions are 7th ready they may well look at FAQ's, tighter suppliments and tweaks to rules/units.

Or they might plough everything into WHFB

**Azreal13**

One can be dying but not ultimately end up dead...

**Akiasura**

Azreal13 wrote:
Akiasura wrote:
Ratius wrote:
I'd counter the point that 40k is dying due to GWs financials with the exact opposite.
With LotR effectively being dead for the last while and now discontinued, WHFB being in a poor state both game and sales wise, White Dwarf and Visions being damn poor releases and GWs shift to earning revenue from licensing, it could very well be argued 40k is the product line keeping GWs financials going.
Whether you agree with their model of codex releases, suppliments, unbound, digital content or not, until someone posts a breakdown of GWs sales per product line 40k might well be keeping the flag flying for GW.
Completely opposite to the point that its a dying game.
Sure players have shifted to other games but I'd wager theres enough of us left who purchase significantly to keep it going. And whilst you may not agree with its rules, changes or general unweildyness, at its core its still a fun game. Imo anyways.

This would be an excellent point, except for the fact that has been true for many, many years now. 40k has made up most of the GW's sales for over a decade now. Marines, at one point, where most of the sales though I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's 40k in general and not just marines.
The downward trend in financials is a lot more recent. If fantasy suffered in sales, it wouldn't change much for GW. 40k doing worse has a large impact however, because it is the majority of their sales.

Azreal13,
I like Runic, he is a good player and has some ideas about 40k that I don't always agree with, but at least he has a good head for strategy.
He just takes everything personally and tends to make angry personal attacks about people who disagree with him. I was told I hated marines at one point, despite owning three armies of them, simply because I think tacticals are sub par.
Try not to take it so personally.
For what it's worth, I agree with your opinion. In WMH, most of the smaller metas freely admit their metas are smaller then the one experienced in the US. Usually, all of Europe is compared to all of the US, even though all of Europe is a slightly larger meta for that game.
No one mentions the aussies

Categorically, I'm not taking anything personally, I seldom do, Runic is a different kettle of aquatic animas I'm afraid. However, I won't ever stand to be attacked or misrepresented, I've already explained myself with regard to the matter he brought up (which, incidentally is from months ago, I'd forgotten all about it, clearly he hadn't) but because it is from so long ago, it is unlikely many others would remember and would take what he said at face value if it weren't challenged.

Honestly, I remember it due to it getting very heated, locked, and involving a moderator speaking to myself and him as well.
And a slew of angry PM's that followed, but eventually the air cleared and we had a civil discussion near the end.

Anyway, back to the topic

Ratius, I agree that declining and not dying would be a better word choice. I think people take it too far, and anyone expecting GW to fold up in the next two years is going to be disappointed. They could still come out with a major win that results in them bouncing back in a big way, especially since their IP is so strong.
A lot of people, and this is my personal experience, are like me I feel. We have a big collection, still play, but don't want to invest anymore because we don't like the current direction of GW.
The only money I spend on GW is for specialty games nowadays, despite owning a decent sized collection of most armies.

I have been playing WMH almost exclusively since the new year, but that's due to the fact I got a new army for Christmas

**Lanrak**

The current 40k rules are objectively worse than the other top ten rule sets from other companies .In terms of clarity brevity and intuitive game play.

You may like YOUR version of the 40k rules you play with your player group.
But that in no way makes the rules GW plc sell for 40k a 'good rule set' in any sense of the definition.

A good rule set should be a clear and concise set of instructions of how to play the game.
The 7th ed 40k rules are far from this...

**Azreal13**

Ratius wrote:
I'd suggest that in the context of a tabletop game, declining vs dying is just semantics?

Perhaps. If 40k has seen sales drop off of like 80% in the last few years I'd say ouch, somethings looking bad. But if its 10-15% then thats a gentle decline.
I acknowledge 7th probably didnt take off as well as other editions and in places I agree its a mess but if, if GW take a hard look and start to turn things about well the decline turns into an upward trend and dying gets ruled out altogether.

Look Im playing optimist here but now that all the factions are 7th ready they may well look at FAQ's, tighter suppliments and tweaks to rules/units.

Or they might plough everything into WHFB

I actually agree. I think if one looks hard enough, there are signs that the loudest criticisms have been acknowledged and are being acted upon, I just have reservations that GW have the ability to execute good business ideas effectively or the talent to do what is necessary with the game.

**e.earnshaw**

I really want 40k to survive but the company needs to change shake things up and do somthinv new.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really want 40k to survive but the company needs to change shake things up and do somthing new.

**Wonderwolf**

Ratius wrote:
I'd suggest that in the context of a tabletop game, declining vs dying is just semantics?

Perhaps. If 40k has seen sales drop off of like 80% in the last few years I'd say ouch, somethings looking bad. But if its 10-15% then thats a gentle decline.

I don't think it is even 10% in a longer perspective (somebody would have to calculate inflation into the number below). It's more that 2012 & 2013 were exceptionally good years (despite the "rise of Kickstarter", etc..), actually by far the best "non-LoTR-years" GW had in its entire history as a company, and thus current, more "average" numbers look smaller (and trending negative) in comparison.

Revenue 2007 - GBP 109.5 Millions
Revenue 2008 - GBP 110.3 Millions
Revenue 2009 - GBP 125.7 Millions
Revenue 2010 - GBP 126.5 Millions
Revenue 2011 - GBP 123.1 Millions
Revenue 2012 - GBP 131.0 Millions
Revenue 2013 - GBP 134.6 Millions
Revenue 2014 - GBP 123.5 Millions

Yes, there is a negative trend and GW-management will need to do something. But people talking about a "long, slow decline" always seem to forget that 2012 & 2013 were among the best years the company had... ever.

**Ratius**

Interesting numbers WW.

**Azreal13**

To get a true picture, one would need to adjust those figures for inflation and, more importantly, some sort of metric to reflect all the price rises over that period.

That would be tough (at least for a non-numbers guy like me) as the rises aren't consistent across the range.

**morgoth**

Lanrak wrote:
The current 40k rules are objectively worse than the other top ten rule sets from other companies .In terms of clarity brevity and intuitive game play.

Oh yeah, objectively, from Lanrak's point of view

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:
Ratius wrote:
I'd suggest that in the context of a tabletop game, declining vs dying is just semantics?

Perhaps. If 40k has seen sales drop off of like 80% in the last few years I'd say ouch, somethings looking bad. But if its 10-15% then thats a gentle decline.

I don't think it is even 10% in a longer perspective (somebody would have to calculate inflation into the number below). It's more that 2012 & 2013 were exceptionally good years (despite the "rise of Kickstarter", etc..), actually by far the best "non-LoTR-years" GW had in its entire history as a company, and thus current, more "average" numbers look smaller (and trending negative) in comparison.

Revenue 2007 - GBP 109.5 Millions
Revenue 2008 - GBP 110.3 Millions
Revenue 2009 - GBP 125.7 Millions
Revenue 2010 - GBP 126.5 Millions
Revenue 2011 - GBP 123.1 Millions
Revenue 2012 - GBP 131.0 Millions
Revenue 2013 - GBP 134.6 Millions
Revenue 2014 - GBP 123.5 Millions

Yes, there is a negative trend and GW-management will need to do something. But people talking about a "long, slow decline" always seem to forget that 2012 & 2013 were among the best years the company had... ever.

Facts. You'll soon notice that they are immune to those. Thanks for trying though

**Azreal13**

Who are this "they" you refer to?

Frankly, you've got one of the most casual relationships with fact I've encountered on Dakka!

**Runic**

Akiasura wrote:

I like Runic, he is a good player and has some ideas about 40k that I don't always agree with, but at least he has a good head for strategy.
He just takes everything personally and tends to make angry personal attacks about people who disagree with him. I was told I hated marines at one point, despite owning three armies of them, simply because I think tacticals are sub par.

This is the case with only the few regulars here with huge post counts, who seemingly seem to exist for the sole purpose of disagreeing with facts, spreading negativity allround, or alternatively stating "I quit 40k because X" -in every thread on repeat on the 40k subforum, which adds no substance whatsoever when it has been said for 50 times before. Circling around with them is a waste of time, being direct cuts some corners.

For anyone else I give the benefit of doubt. I don´t recall saying you hate Space Marines though, atleast not in that simple context.

**Shadelkan**

I love this thread.

On topic, while I dislike it, as it would mean I would have to pay more, I would like to see the 6th ed armies each get a codex with consolidated rules and unique tactical objectives.

**Akiasura**

morgoth wrote:
Lanrak wrote:
The current 40k rules are objectively worse than the other top ten rule sets from other companies .In terms of clarity brevity and intuitive game play.

Oh yeah, objectively, from Lanrak's point of view

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:
Ratius wrote:
I'd suggest that in the context of a tabletop game, declining vs dying is just semantics?

Perhaps. If 40k has seen sales drop off of like 80% in the last few years I'd say ouch, somethings looking bad. But if its 10-15% then thats a gentle decline.

I don't think it is even 10% in a longer perspective (somebody would have to calculate inflation into the number below). It's more that 2012 & 2013 were exceptionally good years (despite the "rise of Kickstarter", etc..), actually by far the best "non-LoTR-years" GW had in its entire history as a company, and thus current, more "average" numbers look smaller (and trending negative) in comparison.

Revenue 2007 - GBP 109.5 Millions
Revenue 2008 - GBP 110.3 Millions
Revenue 2009 - GBP 125.7 Millions
Revenue 2010 - GBP 126.5 Millions
Revenue 2011 - GBP 123.1 Millions
Revenue 2012 - GBP 131.0 Millions
Revenue 2013 - GBP 134.6 Millions
Revenue 2014 - GBP 123.5 Millions

Yes, there is a negative trend and GW-management will need to do something. But people talking about a "long, slow decline" always seem to forget that 2012 & 2013 were among the best years the company had... ever.

Facts. You'll soon notice that they are immune to those. Thanks for trying though

I believe I said in the last year or so, which is accurate according to those numbers.

And you did just make an appeal to authority a post or so back, and have yet to back it up. Please refrain from snide comments insulting others.

**Runic**

I don´t know how unaware and ignorant one has to be to actually perceive one of the most ( if not most ) played wargames in existence as a dying game.

I know however that lifting the curtain of reality to folks who do does nothing, for they will insist on their delusion as it is what they want it to be.

Maybe they are just early to the party; some have been saying 40K and GW are dying for almost 20 years. Surely they will eventually be right. So why discuss it any longer?

Yeah, GW and 40K will die some day. Anything else?

**Azreal13**

RunicFIN wrote:
Akiasura wrote:

I like Runic, he is a good player and has some ideas about 40k that I don't always agree with, but at least he has a good head for strategy.
He just takes everything personally and tends to make angry personal attacks about people who disagree with him. I was told I hated marines at one point, despite owning three armies of them, simply because I think tacticals are sub par.

This is the case with only the few regulars here with huge post counts, who seemingly seem to exist for the sole purpose of disagreeing with facts, spreading negativity allround, or alternatively stating "I quit 40k because X" -in every thread on repeat on the 40k subforum, which adds no substance whatsoever when it has been said for 50 times before. Circling around with them is a waste of time, being direct cuts some corners.

For anyone else I give the benefit of doubt. I don´t recall saying you hate Space Marines though, atleast not in that simple context.

I don't fit any of those criteria (I don't even have that a high a post count in the grand scheme of things!) so why do I get the "benefit" of your attention?

**Runic**

Azreal13 wrote:
I don't fit any of those criteria (I don't even have that a high a post count in the grand scheme of things!) so why do I get the "benefit" of your attention?

There is no point in describing your general behaviour for you will automatically disagree with the description and counterargument it to death.

**Blacksails**

Oh, am I one of these posters!? I want to be special...

**Runic**

Blacksails wrote:
Oh, am I one of these posters!? I want to be special...

We already agreed the last time that you're one of the mounts, can't you remember?

**Azreal13**

RunicFIN wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
I don't fit any of those criteria (I don't even have that a high a post count in the grand scheme of things!) so why do I get the "benefit" of your attention?

There is no point in describing your general behaviour for you will automatically disagree with the description and counterargument it to death.

Well, I'm sure there's many posters who sleep a little more soundly at night knowing you're looking out for them against us big bad nasties like some slightly too sensitive, overinvested Batman.

**MWHistorian**

Decline doesn't mean eventual death. Do I think GW is in decline? Yes. Do I think it's going to die? I have no idea.

**Blacksails**

RunicFIN wrote:

We already agreed the last time that you're one of the mounts, can't you remember?

Damn, I thought I had stepped up my game.

Anyways, I'm off topic, so I'll drop it here.

**Vaktathi**

Wonderwolf wrote:
Ratius wrote:
I'd suggest that in the context of a tabletop game, declining vs dying is just semantics?

Perhaps. If 40k has seen sales drop off of like 80% in the last few years I'd say ouch, somethings looking bad. But if its 10-15% then thats a gentle decline.

I don't think it is even 10% in a longer perspective (somebody would have to calculate inflation into the number below). It's more that 2012 & 2013 were exceptionally good years (despite the "rise of Kickstarter", etc..), actually by far the best "non-LoTR-years" GW had in its entire history as a company, and thus current, more "average" numbers look smaller (and trending negative) in comparison.

Revenue 2007 - GBP 109.5 Millions
Revenue 2008 - GBP 110.3 Millions
Revenue 2009 - GBP 125.7 Millions
Revenue 2010 - GBP 126.5 Millions
Revenue 2011 - GBP 123.1 Millions
Revenue 2012 - GBP 131.0 Millions
Revenue 2013 - GBP 134.6 Millions
Revenue 2014 - GBP 123.5 Millions

Yes, there is a negative trend and GW-management will need to do something. But people talking about a "long, slow decline" always seem to forget that 2012 & 2013 were among the best years the company had... ever.

Adjust the numbers for inflation and track them back to 2004 and you get a different picture. Relative to 2004, inflation adjusted gross revenue is down 50%. Adjust that 2007 low number for 2014 inflation rates, and it's actually slightly higher than the 2014 revenue.

**Runic**

Azreal13 wrote:
Well, I'm sure there's many posters who sleep a little more soundly at night knowing you're looking out for them against us big bad nasties like some slightly too sensitive, overinvested Batman.

One of your habits, presenting things in a way that is in no way relevant or factual, occasionally also pulling things out of your rear end to further your cause/enforce yet another pseudointellectual comment you made. Funny you should talk about someone being overinvested anyways.

Now, anything else of substance you want to add?

**Deadnight**

RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t know how unaware and ignorant one has to be to actually perceive one of the most ( if not most ) played wargames in existence as a dying game.

I know however that lifting the curtain of reality to folks who do does nothing, for they will insist on their delusion as it is what they [u]want it to be.[/u]

Maybe they are just early to the party; some have been saying 40K and GW are dying for almost 20 years. Surely they will eventually be right. So why discuss it any longer?

Yeah, GW and 40K will die some day. Anything else?

Curtain of reality? Delusion? So 'nothing to see here, move along, everything is fine' eh?

Didn't you say you had super secret proof that the half year report would show gw's sakes increasing, or something along those lines?

Is that what you're referring to?

People with little knowledge have been talking and predicting the doom of gw since the eighties. People are more clued in now though, especially with the likes of warseers reinholt and wayshuba getting involved, who have been analysing the reports and the financials with a clinical eye for the last five, and Commenting on a far harsher picture, and so far, their analysis has been pretty dead on. Gw will die some day. True. But things have been shaky for a wee while. Death, despair, famine and war to come? Probably not. Slow decline. Seemingly so, unless the management changes things round.

**Wonderwolf**

Vaktathi wrote:

Adjust the numbers for inflation and track them back to 2004 and you get a different picture. Relative to 2004, inflation adjusted gross revenue is down 50%. Adjust that 2007 low number for 2014 inflation rates, and it's actually slightly higher than the 2014 revenue.

Well, 2004 was still a "LoTR-year". If revenue is "only" down 50% it'd be less than I thought. GW certainly is at best 1/4 the company it was back than staff-wise, etc..

So excluding those, seems like 2014 was a slightly-poorer-than-2007 year, while 2012 and 2013 were slightly-better-than-2008 year, I still see only cyclicality at best. Nothing that inherently says .. um ... 2016 and 2017 couldn't be again slightly better than 2007 at the current business model (not saying it wouldn't be nice if they did switch things up though)

**Azreal13**

RunicFIN wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:
Well, I'm sure there's many posters who sleep a little more soundly at night knowing you're looking out for them against us big bad nasties like some slightly too sensitive, overinvested Batman.

One of your habits, presenting things in a way that is in no way relevant or factual, occasionally also pulling things out of your rear end to further your cause/enforce yet another pseudointellectual comment you made. Funny you should talk about someone being overinvested anyways.

Now, anything else of substance you want to add?

In the grim darkness of the far Finland, there is no humour, there are no jokes, there is only srs bsns about toy soldiers?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
RunicFIN wrote:
I don´t know how unaware and ignorant one has to be to actually perceive one of the most ( if not most ) played wargames in existence as a dying game.

I know however that lifting the curtain of reality to folks who do does nothing, for they will insist on their delusion as it is what they [u]want it to be.[/u]

Maybe they are just early to the party; some have been saying 40K and GW are dying for almost 20 years. Surely they will eventually be right. So why discuss it any longer?

Yeah, GW and 40K will die some day. Anything else?

Curtain of reality? Delusion? So 'nothing to see here, move along, everything is fine' eh?

Didn't you say you had super secret proof that the half year report would show gw's sakes increasing, or something along those lines?

Is that what you're referring to?

Ooh! Yes!

It's the first time we've been active in the same thread since the interim report dropped, and I'd quite forgotten!

Come on, Runic, out with it or what credibility you, may have had is going right down the toilet.

**Runic**

There is no denying the decline. I'm merely talking about the ridicilous doomsaying.

**Blacksails**

For the record...

Here is the full comment in the thread, which (if the link doesn't work) is page 13 of the 'Would you advise a beginner to start any GW game' thread.

The specific quote is this:

In essence what I´m saying is:

-GW´s sales will have increased after the last financial reports due to the vast amount of new product, some of them ( especially the Tyranid drop pod ) having been reported selling really well. This is true.
-Warhammer 40,000 is still an enjoyable game, with the largest playerbase in it´s field. This matter is subjective, and can therefore be true and false.
-Games Workshop is the largest, most successfull wargaming company in existence. This is true.

Emphasis mine, to show the specific line in question.