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.

xruslanx wrote:

Unless you.re sugesting that GW lie to investers, ClockworkZion is actually spot on.

I remember a while ago arguing with someone, who insisted that the only cost in a good was its physical ingredients. The plastic in 40k kits costs pennies, therefore box sets cost pennies to make and GW are shafting us. I tried explaining to him that there were also line workers, material distrobuters, goods in operatives, despatch operatives, payroll, HR, lorry drivers, warehouse pickers...and that's just to get it to leave the factory.

I ended up ignoring him. Some people are just happy to be the sheep in Animal Farm, bleeting "gw bhaaad", rather than accepting that GW only make a couple of pound profit on each box - even though this does not mean that you can't relentlessly and baseless bash GW for everything else.

Would that be a guy who claimed to know what he was talking about because he worked in business and that is how you account for stuff (Because he was misapplying accounting principles and making facile arguments to do with the separation of costing?).

Unfortunately some people will insist that GW lie to investors, and that there auditors lie. Unfortunately the only facts we have are the ones presented. People are very fast to draw conclusions from it, often contrary and bizarre conclusions, like insisting GW is in trouble because it has modest growth and every year arguing that it is "Just down to X and won't last next year".

Well, i dont play 40K much.
But i do like the sounds of this "you can use super heavys in regular games now". I may finally have a use for my Super Heavy SPG, X18 Vanguards might.....

Given the popularity of 40k combined with the long running rubbish ruleset, I am surprised more people haven't attempted to write a superior ruleset. Then again, it is a lot of work. It would be an interesting project though.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Unfortunately some people will insist that GW lie to investors, and that there auditors lie.

Nobody is suggesting that GW lies to investors. What we're suggesting is that GW, like every company, presents the truth in a way that emphasizes the best parts and minimizes the worst parts.

like insisting GW is in trouble because it has modest growth and every year arguing that it is "Just down to X and won't last next year".

But that's not really the argument. Obviously GW is not going to die next year, we're talking about long-term success. And what we see is that GW doesn't really have a long-term plan for growth. All they're doing is "growing" by using a combination of cost cutting and price increases to get more profit out of their existing customer base. And those aren't sustainable approaches. Once you've cut all of your stores down to one employee in a random strip mall closet five days a week for limited hours you can't really improve profits by cutting retail expenses. Once you cut your rulebook expenses (playtesting, art design, etc) to a certain point you can't really cut anything else without sacrificing quality. And arguably we've reached that point with new minimal-content releases like C:I and Escalation or the new microtransaction "books". So it's entirely reasonable to ask how long GW can continue to make a profit with their current strategy and remain the industry leader.

And yes, a company can grow (especially at the barely-above-inflation rates GW is "growing") while still being in serious trouble. Consider, for example, a company that sells all of their manufacturing equipment and fires all of their employees (except a few warehouse and mail employees to handle the last remaining inventory) at the end of the year. Their profit numbers are going to be pretty good, but that's obviously a one-time thing and the company is dead as soon as the last inventory is gone. So you can't just look at how much profit changes each year, you have to look at WHY those numbers change.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanixis wrote:
Given the popularity of 40k combined with the long running rubbish ruleset, I am surprised more people haven't attempted to write a superior ruleset. Then again, it is a lot of work. It would be an interesting project though.

The problem is getting anyone to agree on the new rules. 40k's biggest strength is that it's the game everyone plays, and you can always show up at a random store on 40k night and expect to play a game. A hypothetical new game isn't going to have that advantage, so people tend to decide that finding interested players is just not worth the effort and go back to playing the game they can find opponents for.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
@jonolikespie - I think you missed the point. Please elaborate on how chess specifically got brought into this and how it is "boring from a non-competitive view". Or more to the point, skip that and elaborate on the release schedule comment.

Chess is as close to perfectly balanced as a game is ever likely to get, but ever game is the same number of pawns, rooks, knights,etc versus the exact same number of pawns, rooks, knights, etc. They are always deployed in the same way and there is no variation whatsoever between games other than how the players act and react.

The very nature of tabletop wargaming removes a lot of this as all of a sudden you have multiple factions with hundreds or even thousands of list variations. GWs codex release system goes even further here by introducing an update for a single army every couple of months or so. That alone is enough to push the meta along in a similar fashion to how imperfect balance would in a video game that's only reviving minor patches.



My point was that imperfect balance, as the Penny Arcade video explains, is a concept that exists to keep games from becoming stale. It introduces a Meta to what would otherwise be a system that is stagnant and become stale after a while. It is a concept that exists at the top end of the spectrum, to keep perfectly balanced games from becoming the same game over and over again. 40k is so far away from obtaining that that defending it in it's current ruleset by throwing around the words 'perfect imbalance' is laughable.

 Purifier wrote:
The part I had a problem with was:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So based on a comparative break down of what things are sold for vs the percentages of where it goes, GW really isn't running us through the ringer as much as people claim.

Which it doesn't prove at all. It actually doesn't prove anything at all.
In fact, I disagree that "this gives us a better picture of how the money from a product gets divided up."

It's like saying "I eat 25% meat and 75% veggies, so that should give you a better picture of what kind of food I eat."
Well, I can tell you're not vegetarian, and that's about as far as that give me anything at all. I can hardly make the same food as you given that recipe.

Actually it's more like making something, selling it then breaking down how much I paid into what based on the revenue I got. Your example doesn't even fit what I was saying.

And just because you don't agree with how it's broken down (those categories being limited to what I could pull off an investor's page between classes) doesn't make it wrong. If you want to disprove me why not do more research, try and find a better breakdown and prove me wrong instead of getting up in arms because you don't agree with me and instead provide evidence why I'm wrong? I'm more than willing to be proven wrong with evidence but saying "I don't like the breakdown because it's not detailed enough" is a pants argument. You're not attacking the facts, you're trying to discredit what was posted based on your feelings about it instead, which is easier, but also a fallacy.

 Purifier wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
But with what information we've got I've given the best conclusion I could draw from it.

I agree, which really is no conclusion at all.

Actually it's a better one than what we usually get, especially when it comes to how much things cost GW to make on average (some kits obviously cost more or less, but without the exact breakdown per kit on what it costs them to make we can't really get that detailed, so instead we must suffer with the average, which is still more fair to both sides of the fence than the "plastic costs pennies so it should be cheaper" argument that pops up now and then, typically in pricing threads.)

 Steve steveson wrote:
Would that be a guy who claimed to know what he was talking about because he worked in business and that is how you account for stuff (Because he was misapplying accounting principles and making facile arguments to do with the separation of costing?).

I don't know if you're talking about me (I assume you aren't as I did HR and am only now starting to round myself out in other business releated areas and am not an expert of pretty much anything), but I'm going to guess that you aren't because the facts don't fit. As for my brief breakdown way back on page 2 and how it's far less than the best thing ever (which I admit, I just think that if someone wants to tell me it's bad or wrong they should honestly prove that it's bad or wrong instead of claiming it is so because of anything short of actual facts) I was trying to make it easier to see how the money breaks down much like how we get these nice diagrams that break down things like taxes into smaller amounts people can comprehend. Kind of like this:



Both what I posted, and that, are simplified models as budgets really don't breakdown that way (as I'm sure most people are likely aware the money isn't separated by the dollar like that image, or my simplistic breakdown gives, but works in allocations and other fun (okay, not really that fun to deal with) sorts of things) but it serves a purpose of making it clearer how is actually labeled as a "profit" and how much gets parted off to different things. It was a tool that was created in the period between classes, not a full analysis of GW's portfolio and a professional analysis of how they're doing.

Why not a real, serious and in-depth analysis? For one, I don't have the know how to do such a thing and if I were to try I'd spend more than 30-45 minutes on pulling some info up, crunching some basic numbers and then applying those percentages to a model kit to make it easier to see. And two, if I was doing such a thing I'd probably use pictures, and charge people money for it. And lastly, there are plenty of similar things you can find analyzing GW in a much higher capacity than I could at this point in time and you can find them with an easy Google search. Like this one: http://www.iii.co.uk/news-opinion/richard-beddard/games-workshop-and-risk-within

I honestly don't get paid for this and am just a voice in the internet who just looks at some of what they're doing and goes "huh, that's interesting" and honestly, some of it makes a lot more sense than the internet claims once you start getting into things like inelastic demand combined with elastic demand curves as well as "menu price" and even looking at their financials. Am I qualified to give more than my opinion about such things though? Nope! And I never intend to either.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Unfortunately some people will insist that GW lie to investors, and that there auditors lie. Unfortunately the only facts we have are the ones presented. People are very fast to draw conclusions from it, often contrary and bizarre conclusions, like insisting GW is in trouble because it has modest growth and every year arguing that it is "Just down to X and won't last next year".

I agree, much like how people insist the US Government is capable of covering up aliens for 70+ years. Having been in a branch of the Government it's amazing they can keep anything under wraps, especially with things like Facebook around anymore (seriously, have you seen the news on the people who get busted of the illegal things they've done and then posted about online? It's a bit silly).

The only conclusion I've had with GW is that they're not screwing us as much as the internet claims, and I'm betting that profit margin they're maintaining (or "Retained Earnings" to make my Accounting 201 class pay for itself a little. Maybe I should amortize it everytime I actually use something from it?) is to keep a buffer so if they have a dry month, or the economy tanks again, or they suffer another bubble burst they don't end up needing to run to the bank for a loan or generally end up shooting themselves in the foot. But that's just my guess (as if I don't label it as such someone might try to claim I'm saying that it's a fact).

EDIT: If any of the above isn't that clear I apologize. Just ask and I'll clarify when it's not 0130 and right after I've finished reviewing a semester's worth of math.

@jono: I think I'm starting to understand what your angle is now. So we're clear, I by no means want to claim the WH40k core rules or supplements are 'perfectly imbalanced' or that its even 'balanced'. In all honesty it's the must worthless pile of rules rubbish and game piece(stat entry, not models) that I have come across. All being tabletop gamers I'm sure you can imagine how many we've been through too. Indeed to say that calling it laughable is untrue as its so bad you cant even laugh at it. XD

I wouldn't say that the codex release schedule is the greatest at accomplishing meta change either, indeed I don't think I would call what 40k has a 'meta' in the strictest sense at all. It just doesn't have that feel. Feels kinda fake, its difficult to describe really.

Lastly, I would like to say Go is about as close to a balanced game as your ever going to get. Maybe Mancalla.

It's funny. I was just at a friendly tournament the other weekend, and I was running my wolves against a flying circus with the grimoire of course. I ended up losing because the match ended early but he said that I would have won if the game had even gone 1 more turn. The only thing that helped me even get that match close to a win was my rune priests runic weapon. It's one of two things left in the game that can stop blessings, both of which seem to be heading towards nerfville. My opponent said he would be happy when shadow in the warp and tunic weapons go as runes of warding did, but I disagreed for one reason. My army isn't top-tier anymore, but it's one of the few remedies of balance left in this wacky game these days. Honestly, to me, it looks as if, at the end of 6th edition when all of the codecices are released, that there will be and obvious rock-paper-scissors arrangement of power; it's just too early to see it, so we end up with bad balance.

 namiel wrote:
Its just truly become a game of pay to win. They want their sales numbers to show nothing but green until they sell it. Then after that you can get space marines at Walmart.

It was always a pay to win game, just now you can pay to win with just about any army instead of just 1 or 2.

Welp. I think I'll probably stick to the old Spearhead expansion in my game group. You get to take a SH, but it takes an automatic pen. And your opponent can get a group of vehicles buffed with Tank Hunter to help him win.

I've thought the game was lame for a while. I'm working on converting the "Bolt Action" WW2 rules to use for 40K. I'll call them "Bolter Action."

 Paradigm wrote:
To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that any 'breaking' of the game is intended or encouraged by GW, and nor is it their fault. It is simply a case of how people approach the game.

Every gamer I know plays very casually, using units because they like the look/fluff of them rather than sheer optimisation. And in all the time I've played (started early 5th) we have never really encountered an issue with balance at all. The game does not get broken because none of us try to break it. We have players that win a lot, but that's mostly down to player skill rather than any attempt at power-list-building or utilising cheese combos.

Looking at the wider meta, there seems to be a very interesting and slightly odd paradox. You have people complaining that Riptides/fliers/screamerstars are OP and are ruining the game, and then whenever anyone asks for advice for an army, you are almost certain to find 'you should go and buy -insert OP unit here- as it's the best' within the first few replies. I do wonder how people expect the game to change to a more balanced meta when everyone is being recommended the powerlist combos. I have nothing at all against anyone who enjoys playing competitively, but when you have people that simultaneously demand balance, mock the poor implementation of fliers/MCs/gunlines ect and then exploit these balance issues to the max, something doesn't add up. If every new player is told to but Screamerstars/Dettaspam/Triptides then of course the meta is going to be skewed towards them.

It seems obvious to me that causal games are the games GW really intend to be played. Their official batreps usually include custom scenarios and house rules, their rulebooks positively encourage you to change the rules however you want to make the game more cool/cinematic/watever you want to call it. They've stopped running tournaments for a reason, and it seems that that reasons is the fact that they aren't really bothered with catering to the competitive crowd.

Complaining about balance in a GW game that seems designed for casual games (where balances is notably less of an issue) is like buying a Formula One car and then complaining about its lack of off-road capabilities. If you're looking for a balanced and tourney-centric game, there are plenty out there, but it appears GW games are not what you're after. Rather than rewriting a game that clearly isn't meant to tournaments, you're better off going for a different game.

You have summed it up perfectly.

Actually pretty darn hard to make a game like 40k totally balanced AND interesting. So many evolving races and units. If it was totally balanced and static it would be boring. FoW seems pretty balanced with more generic units, frankly I found it dull.

I guess the real issue is that sadly there are fair number of Eldar players out there with 1500 point unpainted armies who are WAAC. Instead of complaining, we need not play them, problem solved. Furthermore, these type of players tend to get annoyed whilst playing if things don't go their way. Personally I play to have a bit of a laugh, try some new strats, throw some dice, winning is nice too!

" Instead of complaining, we need not play them, problem solved. "

Why should we punish the player for what GW wrote? If I were an Eldar player, I'd do the same thing. People wanting to field the best list they can is *not* a bad thing.

The whole mess is GW's fault.

 scommy wrote:
Instead of complaining, we need not play them, problem solved.

Yeah, why expect the game to have good rules when you can just shun people for not playing the "right" army. Let's make sure the community is as divided as possible, until we're all sitting at our own tables refusing to play all of the other TFGs in the store.

Personally I play to have a bit of a laugh, try some new strats, throw some dice, winning is nice too!

So why even bother playing at all then? Why not just line up your toy soldiers and make gun noises for a while, then put them away?

EDIT- Removed