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.

Hello Dakka,

Last time I played 40k properly was early 6th ed, late 5th. I've been thinking of coming back into the game, and was wondering what has changed since 5th (I played 6th only a bit, and have forgotten pretty much all of it)?

I collect BT and have a small IG army (a platoon and Leman Russ), and was thinking of maybe building my IG towards a tank heavy list with allied BT to provide some decent infantry, but I'm not sure how that would work out with the current rules and play styles of other armies, so advice would be appreciated.

I think you need to ask yourself one very important question. Do you want to play in tourniments. If yes, then you have a ton of catching up to do because things have vastly changed and the landscape of potential armies is ludicrously vast.

However, if your just looking for a few local games for fluff and fun, I'd strongly recommend finding a group of people that are willing to play older editions. Stick with what you know and fondly remember. There are many players who are total turned off with the current rule set and over abundance of power creep, but still want to play. These "old timer" leagues and groups do exist and are quite fun.

I think in general finding the right group and being on the same page makes all the difference in the game. It’s still a blast to play, but as always, is casually easy to break the game. If you want to play tournament level lists, go for it. Casual games? Still fun. But if you mix the two, nobody is happy.

So would it be impossible to play pick up games in my local GW with the current rules? My armies at the moment are heavily foot based (all my BT are CCW foot). I don't have any local gaming stores about is all, and the local GW only allows current rules.

No not at all. your list would work and most GW's don't have the store space to play larger games any ways. Just don't expect it to stand tooth to tooth to a tournament list, but who in their right mind would ever bringing a hyper competitive list to a local gw .
To sum it up you should be fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You can even play both armies at the same time if you wantd to since IG can ally perfectly with marines (black templar are just marines for allies in this edition). You could even put IG in land raiders and crusader squads in chimera's. It all goes nowadays.

Perhaps someone should ask why you left 40k in the first place?

If life got in the way or anything like that then that's no problem. If you thought late 5th ed was getting too unbalanced or found early 6th bloated...

I left mainly because when my brother got out of it I had no one to play with. I used to play during 4th in my local GW but I stopped for a bit and going back it had all changed. Then 6th came along and I realised to make a feasible army in the face of flyers and Knights I would need to lay down a significant amount which I didn't and don't have. A tank list would be manageable through second hand buys, but I'd have to look into current builds which people use to see other options.

 Banzaimash wrote:
Hello Dakka,

Last time I played 40k properly was early 6th ed, late 5th. I've been thinking of coming back into the game, and was wondering what has changed since 5th (I played 6th only a bit, and have forgotten pretty much all of it)?

I collect BT and have a small IG army (a platoon and Leman Russ), and was thinking of maybe building my IG towards a tank heavy list with allied BT to provide some decent infantry, but I'm not sure how that would work out with the current rules and play styles of other armies, so advice would be appreciated.

This should do it:
http://40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2014/06/7th-edition-warhammer-40000-basics.html

I'd hold off till July just in case rumours of 40k going like AoS are true.

Would be a shame to buy and paint an army only for the game to change into a hot mess.

If age of empire has the same effect as AoS it'll fracture the community and GW will die fast as sales plummet.

Caveat emptor.

that's not happening. Lol. Age of Sigmar happened because 8E was epic fail. Reboot time. 40K suffers from none of that.

 Jancoran wrote:
that's not happening. Lol. Age of Sigmar happened because 8E was epic fail. Reboot time. 40K suffers from none of that.

I don't think it's likely to happen any time soon, so I wouldn't tell anyone not to return for that reason, but 40k is currently suffering form a loss of players and revenue...

I'd hold off till July just in case rumours of 40k going like AoS are true.

I guess this will not happen anytime soon.
I suggest to get back asap.

40k sales are dropping year on year and GW couldn't pay out the same dividends it did last year if they don't turn things around shareholders will get worried and sell.

Warhammer May of sold less than 40k but it sold more than AoS is sources indicate there was a spike at release but now AoS is selling worse than fantasy was.

They destroyed wfb thinking it would turn things around if you think they won't do the same to 40k your deluding yourselves.

They don't do any market research they don't care what consumers want if they think AoS style remake will boost sales that's what they'll do.

Dividends indicate profit. Hard to do when you're taking on a lot of new production. So that they gave dividends is a good sign. Rest easy. We're fine.

Sorry profits are down more each year, model sales have dropped 15% over two years and a large part of their income comes from selling their IP to terrible mobile games.

Even a cursory inspection of GW financials shows things are very far from fine.

hobojebus wrote:
Sorry profits are down more each year, model sales have dropped 15% over two years and a large part of their income comes from selling their IP to terrible mobile games.

Even a cursory inspection of GW financials shows things are very far from fine.

yup. But I also see a tono f expense going out at the moment and i see a dividend. so those two things make me confident in its future. However... Distribution and price points better get addressed or it will become the wrong kind of trend line... the Fantasy kind. we're years away from that so anyone getting in is more than fine.

They had to borrow money last year to pay it, this year they couldn't get the credit to do the same so played less.

Also big papers like the telegraph are reporting on their troubles quite openly further exposing the evident truth that the company's in a bad state.

Even If GW went under, the IP would still be worth something. I wouldn't be surprised if someone bought them out at some point

This is all wildly off topic.

Op, I would strongly encourage you to find a group of local players before buying into 40k. If your group is competitive or semi competitive (lots of tau, sm, necrons, tau and daemons with all the tricks) your armies will not do well, especially your IG. Looking at tournament lists and battle reports against competitive armies will bear this out, and 40k is expensive and time consuming to get into.

If your local group is more casual than you will be fine, as in casual play both armies will do well (anyone but the best armies do fine...the best armies will have people getting irate with you).

 Jancoran wrote:
Dividends indicate profit. Hard to do when you're taking on a lot of new production. So that they gave dividends is a good sign. Rest easy. We're fine.

They paid out more in dividends than they made in profit. They did the same thing on the last report. This is not sustainable. Just because a company pays dividends doesn't mean it's "fine".

Toofast... Dividends come out of the profit. The Board has to approve it. there is no reason to approve a dividend with money you DIDNT make. This is really simple economics man.

Stop trying to scare people with ECONOMICs not t play the hobby. Its just a dumb argument.

The original poster needs to shut out the noise and just play. Sheesh.

 Jancoran wrote:
Toofast... Dividends come out of the profit. The Board has to approve it. there is no reason to approve a dividend with money you DIDNT make. This is really simple economics man.

The head of their board makes thousands and thousands of dollars every time they pay out a dividend and is around retirement age, the has EVERY reason to pay out a dividend on money they did not make.

I'm sorry but you are arguing from a point of what a competent business would do, not from the actual facts that their financial reports state.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Toofast... Dividends come out of the profit. The Board has to approve it. there is no reason to approve a dividend with money you DIDNT make. This is really simple economics man.

The head of their board makes thousands and thousands of dollars every time they pay out a dividend and is around retirement age, the has EVERY reason to pay out a dividend on money they did not make.

I'm sorry but you are arguing from a point of what a competent business would do, not from the actual facts that their financial reports state.

Eh...Presidents dont give dividends and Corporations have a responsibility to share holders to make a profit, and this is not a growth stock, its a value stock. Trust me. HIS interest in the matter hardly matters.

 Jancoran wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Toofast... Dividends come out of the profit. The Board has to approve it. there is no reason to approve a dividend with money you DIDNT make. This is really simple economics man.

The head of their board makes thousands and thousands of dollars every time they pay out a dividend and is around retirement age, the has EVERY reason to pay out a dividend on money they did not make.

I'm sorry but you are arguing from a point of what a competent business would do, not from the actual facts that their financial reports state.

Eh...Presidents dont give dividends and Corporations have a responsibility to share holders to make a profit, and this is not a growth stock, its a value stock. Trust me. HIS interest in the matter hardly matters.

GW doesn't have a president.
Kirby is the head of the board, and controls the 3rd largest share of GW at 6.7%. That is 2,134,186 total shares and the largest individual owner of GW.
For a long time he was acting CEO as well, until Roundtree was brought in as of the 1st of this year.

Now, we can look at GWs reports from their investor relations page for the financial year of 2014-2015.
Earnings per share 38.3p
Pre-exceptional earnings per share 38.2p
Dividends per share declared in the year 52p

So Kirby made what, £1,109,776.72 from this payout?

I think Kirby's interest in the matter is very, very important, and I think he has been doing what is best for him for years now despite his responsibility to long term sustainability.


Just for reference, the 2013-2014 year didn't pay a dividend, and their stock tanked as people dumped it because of that.
2012-2013 earned 51.5p per share and payed out 58p.
2011-2012 earned 46.8p and paid 63p.

I think Im pretty well versed and Kirby doesn't get to decide on his own. The board does. You can say otherwise until you're blue in the face, but hes one vote and board members represent share holders. Shareholders can tank their stock if they start dumping it. Since its a value stock, the owners of that stock are not relying on its increasing value but instead on its profitability (which may or may not happen of course) . They do know (and Kirby Certainly does as does anyone smart enough to be on their board of directors) that the dividend causes the value of the stock to drop. Which is why you don't chase dividends. If he wanted to make his stock more valuable he doesn't go giving dividends away for no reason.

I do this stuff for a living man. You can google it all you want but the fundamental truth of the matter is that the company cannot give what it does not make and no one is going to take a loan out to pay a dividend. BELEIVE THAT. If that ever happened they'd ALL be fired and put in the grey bar hotel. What you're suggesting without really understanding that you are is basically that the company lost money and... took money from its investors to pay its investors; or worse took a loan to do it. BOTH would be false or would be cause for severe sanction. all heads would roll. the only place that money could legally come from is reserves and in a year you lost your owners money, you don't DRAIN his reserves to pay him! Its a ludicrous thing to say.

I know of what I speak. So chill with the Googling and lets get back to Warhammer.

 Jancoran wrote:
I do this stuff for a living man. You can google it all you want but the fundamental truth of the matter is that the company cannot give what it does not make and no one is going to take a loan out to pay a dividend. BELEIVE THAT. If that ever happened they'd ALL be fired and put in the grey bar hotel. What you're suggesting without really understanding that you are is basically that the company lost money and... took money from its investors to pay its investors; or worse took a loan to do it. BOTH would be false or would be cause for severe sanction. all heads would roll. the only place that money could legally come from is reserves and in a year you lost your owners money, you don't DRAIN his reserves to pay him! Its a ludicrous thing to say.

Well, for one GW HAVE borrowed money to pay dividends before (unless your point was that you are claiming that never happened).
I'm not at all suggesting that GW took money from it's investors, but from their cash on hand.

Are you somehow debating the numbers on GWs own financial reports, or am I missing something here? Your argument still seems to be that GW don't do this because a reasonable company wouldn't, but their reports clearly state they payed out more in dividends than they made in profit.

Just ignore the naysayers.

The only thing you need to have smooth pick-up games currently is to discuss the power level of your armies beforehand. A tournament list will squish anything that isn't a tournament list.

Next to that you should get yourself up to speed a bit to the current meta.

Also, if you want to get excited about the game I'd honestly advise you to avoid this forum and check out, for example, Bolter & Chainsword instead. The 40K side here is pretty bloated with people who don't even play the game and are mostly about the negative. If you however can deal with that without it affecting how you like the game, you should be fine.

This is not the place or time to discuss the financial situation of GW.

If your answer does not answer the actual question then it's better you don't post in this thread.

 Banzaimash wrote:
Last time I played 40k properly was early 6th ed, late 5th. I've been thinking of coming back into the game, and was wondering what has changed since 5th (I played 6th only a bit, and have forgotten pretty much all of it)?

Quite a bit, and not much at all.

You still have the the tier'ed armies. You still have the concepts of WS, BS, ATSKNF, AP, Armor Values, etc. All those are mostly static, so you will pick it up again quickly.

In other ways, it's extremely different. You can ally in different units. Formations are commonly used to build armies. The psychic phase is vastly different.
IG are hurting right now. Allying in BT can help shore up some of the weaknesses, but they still have some standard problems, like overpriced tanks and a general lack of mobility.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
Last time I played 40k properly was early 6th ed, late 5th. I've been thinking of coming back into the game, and was wondering what has changed since 5th (I played 6th only a bit, and have forgotten pretty much all of it)?

Quite a bit, and not much at all.

You still have the the tier'ed armies. You still have the concepts of WS, BS, ATSKNF, AP, Armor Values, etc. All those are mostly static, so you will pick it up again quickly.

In other ways, it's extremely different. You can ally in different units. Formations are commonly used to build armies. The psychic phase is vastly different.
IG are hurting right now. Allying in BT can help shore up some of the weaknesses, but they still have some standard problems, like overpriced tanks and a general lack of mobility.

Agree with Labmouse, and this is why you should check out your local meta.

If your local players use Orks, IG, Landraiders, Chaos Marines, Horde Nids, and other stuff, your BT and IG are most likely fine.

If your local players use allies, Daemons, Decurion, Windriders, Centstars, and other combos, you have a lot of learning/purchasing to do if you want to play and not auto-lose.