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.

bigchris1313 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I believe that power gamers / tournament players make up a very substantial part of GW's commentary, but a largely insignificant portion of GW's actual sales. If you count the number of GW customers compared to the number who actually play RTTs, I would not be surprised if the numbers worked out like this:
- less than 5% of all GW customers have ever played in an GW-organized GT,
- less than 10% of all GW customers are tournament players
- less than 20% of all GW customers are powergamers

As I said, that's the kind of info that would invalidate the "We make good and bad units on purpose" theory. (Not that we've necessarily proven the theory to begin with). But do you have any data to support your assertion?

Please note that the above was stated as belief, rather than hard fact. I have plenty of anectdotal evidence in terms of gaming groups that I've played in, but that's not a very comprehensive nor statistically valid sample.

However, in terms of GTs, for the US, I'm pretty certain that the 5% cap holds. At the height of the GWUS GTs, they did 5 or 6 in one year. Each US GT only had some 100 to 150 slots for 40k players. That means GW only could have 500 to 1000 of their customers participate in their GTs. Assume 700 total GWUS GT slots and no duplicates, so 700 total attendees.

In the LA area alone, we have 4 GW retail stores. That's at least 8 people full-time. Assume GW needs to gross $100k USD per person to support the retail. That's $800k annually. If the average GW customer spends $400 annually, that's a minimum 2000 LA area players. LA is roughly 1/20 of the US population, so GW might have 40,000 US players. And that's not counting independent retailers, Internet, etc.

So I think the 5% number isn't unreasonable as a cap on super-hardcore GW GT players in the US.

Based on the latest 5th Ed rumors that have been posted on Warseer, I would say that it seems like the Games designers are really trying to iron out some of the major kinks that have developed in the game. That being said I'm sure that new kinks will arise as players put the new rules through the paces. I feel like we at Dakka play a big part in creating those kinks, as we find new ways to max out armies, win tournaments and generally strategize by going through the rulebooks with a fine tooth comb.

I felt like 4th Ed. was a huge improvement over 3rd, but GW then painted themselves into a corner with poor codex writing and balance issues. 5th ed. should address those issues, and be the first step in a coordinated plan for codex releases that encourages combined arms forces over spam armies. I like the looks of the rumors and hopefully by ultimately balancing infantry, vehicles, characters and monstrous creatures, they can make the game more fun to play and make things like army composition, min/maxing, and spam less prevalent.

That being said as soon as the rules hit the ground Dakka will immediately start running with it in directions GW never anticipated.

I think the quote was from Napoleon who said, "Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." but I'm not certain.

Of course even that is a bit harsh for GW. The truth is certainly somewhere in the middle. There is no doubt sales has an impact on some rules on occasion and that there is also some simple incompetence in rules writing/editing. But the larger issue is simply one of complexity. Over time as groups of folks, who are probably already over worked, try to accommodate issues ranging from the veteran tournament player to the green newbie things are going to go awry. Combine this with the fact that nothing ever gets done in one shot -- You always have a mix of new rules and old Codices or new Codices and old rules all thrown in with things like new armies and new 'special' projects like CoD. Then, just for fun, throw all of that into a large corporate environment.

We hear here all the time how stupid some rule is and it could be simply fixed by doing X. Maybe so but whenever I hear that I always wonder if that proposal would really pass muster if applied to all combinations of armies, codices, and variations in current play by both the hardcore and the casual gamer. I suspect the reality is that the problem is harder than it seems.

Then of course you have to add in the various goals of each project. If GW wants to streamline things you are simply going to get a different result than if they want to make a great set of veteran rules. I'm sure even these decisions are done in the environment of trying to please, or at least not completely alienate, a particular group of gamers and thus forcing less than perfect compromises. I'm sure GW watches the results of the various tournaments very closely, but how do you fix something that a bunch of hardcore folks, who are trying to squeeze every last point out, abuse without perhaps ruining what is working perfectly well for the casual player? I'd like to see two, or even three, sets of rules but would that then fragment the player pool, which of course is one of the biggest advantages to 40K over other rules?

While we grumble a lot about GW they do not have the easiest of tasks. Anyone who spends five minutes here can see that first hand. Someone will post something and in one thread you will get ten different opinions.

The one true point of consensus is that we all want 40K to be better. Now if only we could all agree on what 'better' actually is.

Toreador wrote:I also believe a lot of the rules slips are caused by the typical corporate communication issues along with just generally not realizing what something does.

I would imagine they catch a lot of things, but really when you get down to it, releasing something into the wild with thousands of users will tend to show up things you never even thought of in testing. It's a problem with both design and playtesting groups. They get hung up on certain things, or ways of thought, which ends up to be quite unlike how we play out here. A lot probably gets lost in the shuffle and rush to market. Great ideas get lost in the shuffle as it takes too much testing and discussion to get it working correctly, and even at times I wonder if they are even using some of the base rules we do. Do they fix and FAQ things around the office without realizing we don't play that way out here?

I have seen few games with perfect rules. Even Star Fleet Battles with it's great tomes of Lawyer like books had problems. The problem is that they aren't reactionary enough with FAQ's or fixes once issues and problems are found. If they could even do that a little, I think it would change a lot of how we feel. 2-4 years is way too long to wait for something to be fixed.

I think you're being too kind to them. I do agree that there is always room for error especially with complex game systems. But this isn't just a one time thing. You have to step back and look at the bigger picture.

Games Workshop has LOTS of experience. They have been doing this for over 20 years. They have produced many game systems. They've produced many editions and remakes of many codices and rule books. I have been playing 40k for about 13 years and it's always the same story. "Maybe next edition will have fewer rule’s conflicts".... It doesn't happen. If GW was concerned with rule's quality you would see noticeable improvement when a codex or rule book was updated. It’s not as if they have to reinvent everything. They just have to iron out some mistake and do a good evaluation of the wording. (Again, it never happens). Then having the right people to go through your written material and make sure the grammar and meaning of everything is clearly constructed in a concise manner. This might require hiring new people and looking to outside sources, especially for a global company. The same terminology might mean something different in the U.K. than in the U.S. For instance GW likes to use the word “may”... but its meaning is often incorrect. For example: read the wording on Command Squads in the Space Marine codex, there is no reason you can’t take the Command Squad as it’s own unit without an independent character. Yet you can’t. It’s simply worded very poorly.

GW is a big company and they realize that creating figurines is their core competency. As someone mentioned, in the U.K. there is a large demographic that just collects and paints the models. They also realize that their main sales come from new customers. So they need models that look nice. I would speculate that rules aren’t a big factor in sales. And if you want to play, then you have to use their rules. GW dominates the market and you have no other options for tabletop strategy games in many areas.

I don’t think anything will change unless they have a fundamental shift in their business strategy. They need to view the game system as an important part of the business. I don’t think it’s likely to happen until another company can compete with them on the same international scale.

While many people dont play the game and just paint models, the main core of sales has to come from people who do infact play the game.

The reason being is that you need a pretty good amount of models in order to play a typical game.

With that in mind, it behooves GW to write better rules to compete with other companies who are running circles around GW in the rule writing area. Companies who are pretty new to the scene, yet get it very close to right the first time they try.

I don't think they need to wait until another company can compete with them on an international scale to write better rules, because there are enough games that are eating away from their seeming monopoly, piece-meal. Its happening already.

But what you say about GW is historically true. People are tired of the excuses and are tired of waiting.

Indeed, you cannot attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, in GW's case.

You don't have to always put out perfect rules. Not many do. But one thing GW used to do, and most other companies do, is fix these things in a timely manner. GW has gotten into tis frame of mind that they only fix things with new books or editions. In doing this, all they do is hurt themselves and everyone that has to wait years for it to change. This causes people to get tired of waiting for fixes, and wander away. They sit and paint the models, but are loathe to actually field them and go through the pain of a game. It's like most of the Witch Hunter stuff. Some great minis, and awesome fluff, that just doesn't work at all in the game, but we have to wait for those units to make the grade (maybe) in some future codex. Kind of pointless really.

Going back about 10 years now, DemonBlade games put out SHOCKFORCE. A good tabletop skirmish game with excellent rules for creating your own forces and troops.

In the local scene, we probably had 10--20 players playing with SHOCKFORCE rules but fielding armies made up entirely of 40K models.

Demonblade had a free fan mag and the most popular submissions to the fan mag were 40K Army rules conversions.

adamsouza wrote:Going back about 10 years now, DemonBlade games put out SHOCKFORCE. A good tabletop skirmish game with excellent rules for creating your own forces and troops.

In the local scene, we probably had 10--20 players playing with SHOCKFORCE rules but fielding armies made up entirely of 40K models.

Demonblade had a free fan mag and the most popular submissions to the fan mag were 40K Army rules conversions.

Any chance for a link?

Is there any proof that powerful armies tend to be played that much more? I mean sure, on the Dakka boards it can look like it does, but considering a global viewpoint? I guess Dark Angels and Black Templars won't sell as good as Tyranids or Eldar, not because the have a weaker army list but because they have a very limited backround and gameplay options.

Imo, the Tyranid Codex could be better balanced (medium critters and melee troops for example) but the Space Marine, Tau and the Eldar codex give the players a lot of different possibilities to play the armies and the Ork codex seems to be a similar matter.

They are far away from perfect, but the there are army list besides the no brainer ones that are quasi competitive which is a godsend for the casual gamer like me.

Just a thought.

Greets
Schepp himself

Just from experience of the shops around here, and what I see people playing, in a somewhat competitive environment people will gravitate to the armies they see as performers. You will have the few here and there that will play other lists because they love the fluff or models, but generally anything seen as less competitive shows up a lot less.

Take orks for example. We had maybe one or two die hard guys show up with ork armies, but that was it. Almost everything else was Eldar, Marines, or the different good Chaos lists. No one played Tyranids until the Godzilla lists started showing up as good.

It would be interesting to see if sales data reflected that, or if it is just what people showed up to game with. (don't bring a knife to a gunfight etc..)

Any chance for a link?

DemonBlade Games went belly up after problems with distribution and a lengthy lawsuit with GW, over their Org line.

The Founder did start up another gaming company later on Dark Tortoise Productions
http://www.darktortoise.com/

They took the core rules of SHOCKFORCE and dubbed them WAR ENGINE and had plans to turn out fantasy and WWII settings for the game.

To be honest, if you owned the SHOCKFORCE rulebook it didn't really take any tweaks to use it other settings, so I don't think it really ever went anywhere.

They still sell some stuff on Ebay.

Great game if you can get your hands on it.

Core Rules for the current verision of War Engine are available here:
http://warengine.darktortoise.com/index.php?title=Core_Rules_v2.1

I believe that power gamers / tournament players make up a very substantial part of GW's commentary, but a largely insignificant portion of GW's actual sales.

I think you're conflating percentage of customer base and percentage of sales.

I'd agree that a very small percentage of players actually go to GTs. Possibly 5% is an accurate figure, but I think it's probably higher. Regardless, those players almost certainly have more than one army, probably more like three, four, etc. So, while maybe only 5% of GW's customers play at GTs, much more, maybe 20-30% of their sales, are going to such players.

Also, while "going to a GT" is certainly a good measure of how serious somebody is, how carefully they powergame their lists, it's also not the only way to find that. I take game balance very seriously, I want to play games to win, and play against people trying to win. I enjoy competition, and the fun of stuff like Armageddon is largely lost on me. I want tight, consistent, balanced rules, not just "fun" rules. I also have a kid, and a job, and can't/won't spend a weekend driving somewhere far away to play in a tournament.

I'm not sure what to think about the whole "they overpower on purpose" conspiracy theory. I don't think they really do this, just as a gut feeling. That said, there is a huge benefit to predictability in business. The best business you could have would be to sell one product, to know exactly how many units were needed, etc. etc. etc. The more different products you have to manage, the harder it is. The more your demand fluctuates, the harder it is.

GW can only benefit from having easy metrics to predict what will sell well and what won't. It's one thing when it's just a matter of taste. Then they have to guess if people will think an Ork on a bike is cooler, or an Ork with a big gun on his shoulder is cooler. But when it comes to rules, when one is clearly stronger, they know that's where people will spend the most.

There are certainly people out there that collect and paint GW models with no interest in the games, just as there are no doubt people out there that play GW games with little or no interest in painting or collecting… just buying the models that allow them to play. But miniature gaming is for most gamers a combination of the two things, painting up cool miniatures and sticking them on the board and letting them run riot. It requires good models and good rules.

The trick is that for the most part the rules work well enough. They’re not great by any means, there are plenty of confusing situations even when both players are being reasonable, there’s plenty of elements that are too one-dimensional and others full of unnecessary complication. But for the most part, for the casual gamer the rules work well enough in producing a fun game.

That falls down when the game is used in highly competitive tournament play. It appears that GW tests its rules mostly in the context of largely social, non-competitive games. This results in codices that generally* contain units that have reasonable points costs if players are content to build reasonably balanced armies. However, much of their customer base, especially the most vocal elements of the on-line community, is into much more competitive play, and find it reasonably simple to exploit the codices by focusing their armies on cerain units and unit combinations. For example, Carnifex are reasonably costed and taking one or two won’t increase your chance of winning considerably, but if you take five or six carnifex in addition to two hive tyrants you have a list that’s very, very hard to beat.

GW are interested in balancing their rules at the most competitive level, but don’t seem to have the procedures and methods in place to bring rules out that are reasonably balanced for that style of play. As a result GW seems to be forever playing catch up, noticing what's dominating tournaments and what's absent, and changing unit rules to correct those problems.

But this is a reactive method of fixing the rules, driving the car by looking through the rear view mirror, as it were. As a result there's problem with time lapse, over-reaction and unforeseen conseqeunces, resulting in a games system that isn’t ever going to work all that well as a competitive game. The only solutions seems to be to give up on competitive play, find a way to enjoy the current form of compeititive play or hold on, hoping the next rules release will make competitive play work with a range of armies and tactics (very, very unlikely).

I’ve personally opted for the first option, and only play against people who choose tactically interesting armies over all powerful ones, and enjoy most of the games I play. I know other people who’ve learned to enjoy the competitive scene despite its vagaries, so that strategy seems to work well enough. It’s the last option, hoping the next codex, next FAQ or rumoured 5th edition will make things balanced, that seems destined to disappoint.


*But there’s also units like the new Possessed, which are barely usable in the most social of games. There are certainly units and rules out there that are beyond ‘works alright in social game, doesn’t work at all in competitive games’, and are just plain bad rules.

Toreador wrote:You don't have to always put out perfect rules. Not many do. But one thing GW used to do, and most other companies do, is fix these things in a timely manner. GW has gotten into tis frame of mind that they only fix things with new books or editions.

I remember trying to keep up with monthly rules changes in White Dwarf - before I moved the rules updates to photocopies, I was bringing more rules than models. For the casual gamer, I imagine it was an utter nightmare, because none of the rules for Vehicles or Assault actually matched what was in the book.

Toreador wrote:It would be interesting to see if sales data reflected that, or if it is just what people showed up to game with.

It probably isn't. GW sales data will show that Space Marines are, far and away, their biggest-selling army.

Phryxis wrote:I think you're conflating percentage of customer base and percentage of sales.

And I think you're vastly overestimating the sales importance of tournament players.

I'd agree that a very small percentage of players actually go to GTs. Possibly 5% is an accurate figure, but I think it's probably higher.

Not even close.

Regardless, those players almost certainly have more than one army, probably more like three, four, etc. So, while maybe only 5% of GW's customers play at GTs, much more, maybe 20-30% of their sales, are going to such players.

Let's go back to my example. At the peak, GW had a total of 700 (say 800) GT slots for the entire US.

At that time, GW had 55 US stores, for a minimum staff level of 110 people. Going back to the minimum $100k revenue per employee, that's $11,000,000 annually. But really, those guys with multiple armies tend to be longer-term players, who've amassed their armies over multiple years. Pretending that each of those 800 people had 4 armies for an annual spend of $1000, that's only $800,000. That still leaves over $10M to be spent by casual gamers, at $400 each (note that I didn't reduce for the average). That brings the casual gamer pool to 25,000 people. Doubling for non-GW stores, takes the player base to at least 50,000 people spending an average of $400 per year on GW product.

So out of player base of at least 50,000 people less than 1000 went to a US GT. That means the upper bound on GT attendance is 2%, well short of 5%.

If you tweak the assumptions even more, to account for secondary markets and such, I think an accurate number is something more like 1%.

But when it comes to rules, when one is clearly stronger, they know that's where people will spend the most.

That is totally untrue. There are quite a number of casual players who care a lot more about how their armies look than how they play. You just don't ever see them at the tournaments, and they don't banter this kind of stuff on the boards.

I remember trying to keep up with monthly rules changes in White Dwarf - before I moved the rules updates to photocopies, I was bringing more rules than models.

No question that FAQs require a delicate balance. However, I think the voice of caution against too much FAQing, while valid, is by far drowned out by clamor for timely FAQing. The pendulum needs to swing back towards responsiveness.

Also, there's a difference between FAQing and errata and addendums. In theory, a FAQ is clearing up ambiguity, not actually changing any of the rules, or fixing "problems" in the rules. If you clear up ambiguity, you're going from a lack of clarity to clarity. That's never a problem. If you're changing things, then you have "versioning" issues, and that can be a problem.

Going back to the minimum $100k revenue per employee, that's $11,000,000 annually.

The problem with your speculation here is that the figures are already out there.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2007/full_year/finnotes_1.aspx

The actual US revenue in USD is about $49 million. For what it's worth.

Let's go back to my example. At the peak, GW had a total of 700 (say 800) GT slots for the entire US.

Just so we're clear, the $49 million figure above is for all GW sales, which is 40K, Fantasy and LotR. That means we have to factor in all the players who are going to GTs for those games. Cursory check shows that in 2007, 292 people played Baltimore, 208 Chicago, and 298 in Las Vegas. The total there is 798. Is 2007 the peak? It looks like a ton more people played in 2003, but there's no count in the results, so I won't bother to see how many, exactly. Suffice it to say that 1000 per year seems very reasonable, especially when you factor in the judges and other people involved who are not in the results, but are all "GT players" when it comes to interest in clean rules.

So out of player base of at least 50,000 people less than 1000 went to a US GT. That means the upper bound on GT attendance is 2%, well short of 5%.

One obvious criticism of your logic here is that you don't have to play a GT every year to be a "GT player." You just have to have gone to a GT at some point. If you assume about 1000 players are going to a GT every year, and 500 of them are new, then over the last 10 years, we've had about 5000 people attend GTs. If they're spending $1000 a year each, that's $5,000,000, or 10% of the $49,000,000 GW reports earning in the US in 2007.

Upon reviewing the financial figures, I have to admit I was being foolish to suggest that actual GT attendees can account for such a large percentage of GW's sales (20-30%), but if the 10% figure is accurate, then I am off by 2-3 times, while your 1% is off by 10 times. Again, for what it's worth.

The reason this all matters, is because of the reason "GT players" were originally brought up. That's players we know have interest in serious competition, and thus would care for rules suited to that play style. Whether a player attended a GT in 2003 or 2007, one has to assume they still value tournament worthy rules, still play local tournaments at the very least. I'm not trying to screw with you here, and figure out how to cook the books to show that "GT players" are a bigger factor then they are, I simply have thought from the start that "GT players" refers to all people who have ever played in GT events (or judged them, which we're not even factoring in), because that's what best answers the questions we're asking.

That is totally untrue. There are quite a number of casual players who care a lot more about how their armies look than how they play.

It is true, but you're missing my point. I'm not saying that nobody will ever choose based on looks or fluff. What I'm saying is that many will choose based on the rules, and the rules are much easier to quantify than people's asthetic perceptions. It's easier to predict what people will buy based on in game power than it is to predict what people will buy based on their subjective likes.

Phryxis wrote:Also, there's a difference between FAQing and errata and addendums. In theory, a FAQ is clearing up ambiguity, not actually changing any of the rules, or fixing "problems" in the rules. If you clear up ambiguity, you're going from a lack of clarity to clarity. That's never a problem. If you're changing things, then you have "versioning" issues, and that can be a problem.

GW doesn't do a good job of FAQs, so I'm happier that they don't create rules "by accident".

The actual US revenue in USD is about $49 million. For what it's worth.

Note that my number was a direct sales calculation, whereas GW's revenue was indirect. But what this shows is that GW has even more spend than my (deliberately) conservative estimate.

Just so we're clear, the $49 million figure above is for all GW sales, which is 40K, Fantasy and LotR.

Yes.

One obvious criticism of your logic here is that you don't have to play a GT every year to be a "GT player." You just have to have gone to a GT at some point. If you assume about 1000 players are going to a GT every year, and 500 of them are new, then over the last 10 years, we've had about 5000 people attend GTs. If they're spending $1000 a year each, that's $5,000,000, or 10% of the $49,000,000 GW reports earning in the US in 2007.

Of course, you're assuming that people never leave the game, either, nor that they adjust spending habits over time. If we presume 4 armies over 10 years, then that's less than 1 army every couple years. This means the annual spend might be closer to $150 to $250 instead of $1000.

The reason this all matters, is because of the reason "GT players" were originally brought up. That's players we know have interest in serious competition, and thus would care for rules suited to that play style.

Regardless of how they count out, even using your wildly optimistic numbers, you only had 10% of the players being hardcore. That means that 90% of the players don't care so much. So it is better GW realigns to cater to the huge number of non-tournament players.

What I'm saying is that many will choose based on the rules,

Right. And what I'm saying many, many more won't.

____

edit: formatting cleanup

So it is better GW realigns to cater to the huge number of non-tournament players.

I don't know if it is because you're not a tournament player or why, but you seem to have a huge misunderstanding about the needs of the so called GT players.

They want a balanced game system and balanced army books. What they want is a clear set of rules, and what they don't want is a situation where good players are measured by how many dirty tricks they know or how many poorly written rules they can abuse. They want to be able to choose from any of GW's armies and play a tournament with it, without getting the feeling that the dice are stacked against them from the get go and that they lost the tournament the moment they picked up a wrong boxed set of models from their local shop.

...and you say it's better that GW re-aligns to cater to the supposedly huge number of players who don't want any of the above. You're saying it wouldn't be beneficial for the hobby as a whole for the above to happen? Explain?

As an example of the opposite, I'd like you to explain to me then why unbelievably succesful computer game companies like Blizzard Entertainment go to incredible lengths to balance their games and make them as razor-edge competitive as possible? Afterall, their games are played by more than 50 million people around the world, and less than 0.5% of them ever take part in any kind of serious or half-serious online or LAN-based tournaments. The casuals aren't the ones complaining.

I recently read in WD a Standard Bearer article with JJ proclaiming something to the effect of 40k etc... being a craft hobby, that it's all about the painting and copnverting of the models, that the game is merely second-order. I guess that kinda HAS to be true for them, simply b/c that's where the profits are.

My point is, really, a semi-rhetorical question for y'all; strictly b/c I am interested in the different opinions. And if one is looking for opinions on 40k, one need look no furhter than dakkadakka.

How DID GW get to be the "world-leader" in table top miniatures gaming? With so much bad blood out their amongst their "fan base" (caused by Poor Planning or Evil Scheming or whatever you happen to think), how DID they come to dominate market share? Was it really by selling models to people who want to convert them and paint them, with everyone else being a second-order share of market?

There are some new 5th Ed Rumors courtesy of Warseer: http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2223572#post2223572

Originally Posted by Brimstone on Warseer:

5th Edition Rumour roundup

‘5th’ edition 40K is due for release in 2008 although we have conflicting reports about the release date, it’s going to be either summer or more probably autumn (GDUK 08).

There will be a new rulebook and new starter set which will be Orks vs marines, it will include both troops and vehicles (a marine dreadnought is likely and possibly others). The 3up grot seen at UKGD ’07 is also for the starter box.

Rumoured rules amendments

1. the addition of a ‘run’ option (similar to fleet but with a trade off to keep fleet special).
2. Improvements to the cover save rules.
3. Rending toned down (auto wound if you roll a 6 to wound & reduction in effectiveness against vehicles).
4. Template(Blast) weapons rules streamlined.
5. Sniper weapons rules amended (rending probable)
6. Close combat rules amended with a combat resolution phase similar to fantasy
7. Single vehicle damage table.
8. Vehicles without a WS always get hit in the rear armour.
9. Vehicles able to ram
10. Other vehicle amendments
11. Mission rules changed in a similar manner to Apocalypse (no more Alpha, Gamma or Omega).
12. Only non vehicle non swarm troop choices are scoring units.
13. Vehicles types are adjusted (the rumoured skimmer nerf)

Overall the ruleset hasn’t changed dramatically but areas have been clarified, streamlined and in some cases brought closer to 2nd edition.

I’ll add to the list as we hear more. Don’t forget these are rumours and should not be treated as the truth.

Numbers 12 and 13 are almost the biggest ones, and looks like it's going to change the game significantly. Those are potentially huge nerfs to Eldar and Nidzilla right there.

Meanwhile the Orks are absolutely loving these ideas.

Looks like vehicles will be seldom seen in competitive table-top play.

Having only Troops choices be scoring will be interesting, and only if they're not vehicles or swarms.

Looks like Swarm nids backed by Warriors will be the list to beat, as with the run ability, leaping warriors will actually be viable.

Ork swarms will be hard-as-nails also.

Troop-heavy drop pod marines will be the 3rd contender, and Dark Angels actually look like they'll be pretty competetive.

In other words, looks like the whiners who insist that playing troop-heavy armies are the only 'correct' way to play win out again. Blah.

I'm not sure how much better this makes Dark Angels.

They might have a touch more viability...might. Unfortunatly, most of the DA selections are so steeply priced if they are 'complete' that you still wont see that many scoring units.

A "Full" Ravenwing squad, assuming you bring the 200 pt Ravenwing commander, is around 400 pts if you add goodies like Melta's, Powerfist, or whatever. Even though you can combat squad it into 4 total units for the one selection, its still only 7 bikers and a Speeder (non-scoring if the rumour is correct despite being troops). Not that hard to kill off three scoring units if they only consist of 7 bikers...TOTAL.

Tacticals are likewise steep in price when complete. They wind up weighing in around 220-260 and up for a full squad of 10 with transport and full compement of goodies to make them effective.

Its not like we'll be seeing 12 scoring units in a trooper based DA army at 1750-1850 pts, or 12+ in a Ravenwing list. The points are too cost prohibitive.

When the list is built, nothing changes......

...it'll still be the Dark Angel Codex.

(not that I hate the DA's, I have been collecting them since the codex came out, its a tough codex to play. Full of character, yes, but very hard.)

If only Troops choices can score, DA has it alot better.

The combat squad rule means they can have a squad moving up while they have the lascannon in the back blasting away.

Or they can have termies sit on an objective and dare someone to move them.

The standard 6 man las/plas squad that everyone loves in the C:SM can kill things at a distance, but cannot claim objectives if it wants to kill something.

Had another thought on Nids -

If Escalation goes away and MC's get the Run ability, you might see more CC fexes too.

skyth wrote:If only Troops choices can score, DA has it alot better.

The combat squad rule means they can have a squad moving up while they have the lascannon in the back blasting away.

All the combat squad rule means is that a single Tac Squad can split into two five man teams....THATS ALL. I've got several armies that have squads that can advance while other squads lend fire to support an advance. Combat squadding doenst do anything to enhance that.

skyth wrote:
Or they can have termies sit on an objective and dare someone to move them.

I like terminators well enough, but plop them down on an objective all alone and an opponent will be all too happy to kill them for you. Its not that hard to do. Terminators work best on the attack when return fire or counterattacking is minimised.

skyth wrote:
The standard 6 man las/plas squad that everyone loves in the C:SM can kill things at a distance, but cannot claim objectives if it wants to kill something.

The standard 6 man las/plas doesnt cost over 200 pts either, the DA tactical squad frequently does.

Trust me, DA may benefit from the new ruleset a bit, but its not like all of a sudden they're going to be serious contenders for 'Top Teir' lists.

grizgrin wrote:I recently read in WD a Standard Bearer article with JJ proclaiming something to the effect of 40k etc... being a craft hobby, that it's all about the painting and copnverting of the models, that the game is merely second-order. I guess that kinda HAS to be true for them, simply b/c that's where the profits are.

My point is, really, a semi-rhetorical question for y'all; strictly b/c I am interested in the different opinions. And if one is looking for opinions on 40k, one need look no furhter than dakkadakka.

How DID GW get to be the "world-leader" in table top miniatures gaming? With so much bad blood out their amongst their "fan base" (caused by Poor Planning or Evil Scheming or whatever you happen to think), how DID they come to dominate market share? Was it really by selling models to people who want to convert them and paint them, with everyone else being a second-order share of market?

Part of the reason they are number one is because they slam so many upstarts with law suits. Games Workshop is HUGE on protecting its intellectual property. They have single-handedly shut down numerous companies that produce models or background even remotely similar to theirs. They even sued Blizzard Entertainment after they produced Starcraft (and GW won).

Games Workshop was one of the first in the market and they now have the financial and production resources efficiently mass-produce their product better than other companies (this is known as “economies-of-scale”). They also have good marketing in terms of White Dwarf, online presence, word-of-mouth, etc. They engage in business-to-business deals with independent retailers and offer them package deals. But they are very shrewd with the independent retailers and have been know to bully them around in their dealings (from the people I’ve spoken to).

In the end it’s a matter of them being in the right place at the right time. They are now a business that dominates their market and they react much like a public company does in that situation. It becomes a phenomenon where they perpetuate their dominance by pushing out other companies and bullying other rivals.

~Logic

skyth wrote:Looks like vehicles will be seldom seen in competitive table-top play.

One of the rumors that has yet to play itself out is whether or not vehicles will be able to shoot at different targets in the same shooting phase. If this rumor is indeed true, there still might be a place for a shooting platform based vehicle.

Whatever the case may be, I think it still very early to clearly rule out or in various unit types.

At the risk of enciting madness, I think, JHDD, that you underestimate how much "serious" players put into armies. There are probably GT or other competitive players who buy models, spray paint them black and brush on 2 more colors just for the weekend. I suspect though, that even if they only get an "army" every few years, they probably have a mess of minis they bought for bitz and conversions, random side projects, units that didn't work out, etc. I say that based on my own experience, where I have a Witch Hunters army, but lots of minis and units for it that never really see use, but I got for odd games, bigger or smaller engagements, etc. I would imagine that to be a competitive player one would have to buy more than just what is on a list they downloaded. I could well be wrong though.
Really, I think the best example to compare this to though, is Magic: The Gathering. That game has a multitude of casual players and a strong tournament scene that drives rules etc. Wizards really focuses on the tournament players in terms of rules clarity and power balance, but casual players benefit tremendously from the super competitive players in terms of rules clarity and the like. (Both get the fun types of cards and fluff they want.) No one likes to play with rules that get in the way of playing. Balance is one thing, and can be a hard target to hit. I can understand if they really didn't foresee carnifexes being over the top when you have 6. Basic rules, on the other hand, should be tight, and there really isn't a lot of reason why they can't be.

New Rules: I like the look of all of them. Except 12. I just don't like the logic of 6 marines being able to hold an objective or not based on what slot theycome from. Particularly since this would seem to really hurt armies that have rather sub-par troop choices, such as Tau. If a game against Tau can be won by merely making =<6 units of fire warriors or kroot run off the board, one can probably expect them to be absent from competitive play, or really any play where "winning" is more than a tertiary concern for those involved.

Except for Spiff's comment, I'm, not seeing anything that makes treaded vehicles more viable.

If those rumors pan out, Tau are going to take it in the face, hard.

The nerfs to Eldar and Nidzilla though, they make me laugh just thinking about it.

Sucks for those players though, since GW just went and said "Thanks for buying and building the effective models for your army, now please don't whine when we make them suck in a new edition".

Hopefully things will change for the better, but as an SM player, there is no reason to take vehicles except landspeeders as it is now anyway, at least competitively. With the new rules, now everyone will be doing infantry hordes, which will make the game get a bit silly.

The new Orks with a "run" move and the like will just become the dumbest army ever, as horde Sluggas become insanely powerful and will run themselves and dominate at the same time.

I curious if it is more non-vehicle, non-swarm infantry choices, or something like that.

As anyone knows, it takes legs on the ground to hold it.

Toreador wrote:I curious if it is more non-vehicle, non-swarm infantry choices, or something like that.

As anyone knows, it takes legs on the ground to hold it.

Making it so only "Infantry" can hold things just screws over Eldar and any other army that can take Bikes or Jump Infantry as Troops.

And it makes armies like Tau and Eldar even worse off in objective missions. Amazing how a such a rule could just completely turn things around 180 degrees from how they work now?

Therion wrote:you seem to have a huge misunderstanding about the needs of the so called GT players.

...and you say it's better that GW re-aligns to cater to the supposedly huge number of players who don't want any of the above.

Oh, I understand very clearly what the tournament players want. I'm just saying that this isn't a high priority to many casual players. If they don't play tournament style games, then they aren't locked into even points for VPs without objectives. They can play "narrative" games, in which the point is more about the story, than the resulting number of VPs.

There is no "supposedly", because it is abundantly clear that there are vastly more casual players than tournament players. They just don't bother with Dakka, so you don't see them - this stuff simply isn't important to them.

For the past few years, GW tried to make fancy armies and promote tournament gaming. This was a mistake, as they probably ended up alienating a number of casual players who are their real bread & butter. That is why their efforts are moving away from tournaments towards things like Apocalypse.

And even presuming that perfect army balance is attainable (which it likely isn't), I'm not sure that many tournament players would be happy with it, because it means that they would go from completely dominating opponents with a broken list down to losing half of their games with an average list.

Also, your Blizzard example is a little different from 40k. When I play Starcraft, I don't spend actual money on buying a fleet of Mutalisk models that I need to build and paint. I'm free to switch to whatever army or models give me the best results at the start of each game. It'd be as if, for 40k, you could wait until the start of the GT, but still have have whatever army, in whatever configuration you desired. And if you didn't like how it were going in Game 1, you could change the army while you are playing the game. Computer games are relatively easy to fix from a balance standpoint, as they can be changed with new balance with each patch. And having played a lot of Warcraft / Starcraft, I can tell you that the initial versions don't have perfect balance, either. Tabletop games are much harder to balance, as you're needing hardcopy rulesets, rather than letting the computer do all of the rules arbitration.

grizgrin wrote:How DID GW get to be the "world-leader" in table top miniatures gaming? With so much bad blood out their amongst their "fan base" (caused by Poor Planning or Evil Scheming or whatever you happen to think), how DID they come to dominate market share? Was it really by selling models to people who want to convert them and paint them, with everyone else being a second-order share of market?

Well, it sure wasn't by rules development, that's for sure. Historically, GW has had better background and clearly-superior minis sculpts (Jes), with truly mediocre rules (at best). The bad blood didn't build up until they started changing tactics to running the indies that grew things out of the business.

skyth wrote:Having only Troops choices be scoring will be interesting, and only if they're not vehicles or swarms.

It's the closest match to reality.

Wehrkind wrote:you underestimate how much "serious" players put into armies. I would imagine that to be a competitive player one would have to buy more than just what is on a list they downloaded. I could well be wrong though.

I would agree there's a spectrum. My note on the GT players is because GTs have a minimum army size (casuals play as little as 500 or 750 pts), along with minimum standards for construction & appearance (fully-built, 3 colors - casuals may be partially-built, unpainted), and NO proxies. In other words, if you're a casual gamer who never plays more than 1000 pts at a time, and has laxity in rules / proxies, how much do you really need to spend? Does 2500 pts per side begin to look like every model you and your buddies own? Probably.

Really, I think the best example to compare this to though, is Magic: The Gathering.

Oh no. Wizards is a professional organization whose mission is to produce rules first, then pretty pictures, then little blurbs of background. GW is a miniatures company that writes decent stories with marginal rules support. Note that even Wizards isn't perfect - recall Mirrodin?

I just don't like the logic of 6 marines being able to hold an objective or not based on what slot theycome from. Particularly since this would seem to really hurt armies that have rather sub-par troop choices, such as Tau. If a game against Tau can be won by merely making =<6 units of fire warriors or kroot run off the board, one can probably expect them to be absent from competitive play, or really any play where "winning" is more than a tertiary concern for those involved.

I'm actually OK with this, as it finally gives Troops a strategic purpose. Right now, Troops only exist to fill out the FOC minimum and add some meat shields. Otherwise, they're not needed. But when Troops are the only Scoring Units, that changes things dramatically, and the 10 men per Heavy with cheaper Transports makes a lot more sense.

I think Tau would be OK. Fire Warriors would be fine - they just wouldn't be sitting around in the open, on foot at the start of the game. And their agile Devilfish Transports would be great to get them to where they need to be as the game winds down.

Really, this makes the game much more dynamic. Now, if you even want a chance to compete in a table quarters game, you need 4+ Troops. If it's 3 objectives per side, that's 6 Troops. And finally, the rest of the army operates in support of the Troops. When you think about it, it's going to be a good change.