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.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes but there are people who do want to play Unbound with a mishmash of figures or ApocEscalation with giant tanks and stuff. Just not everyone.

Apoc games are fairly common in my area and lists are already unbound in that scenario. I don't really understand the hate people are giving GW over those rules. It's pretty clear to me that they wanted to give people a rule-set that allowed them to play casually while using a diverse field of units to choose from.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key question is how pissed off are the "just not everyones" and if they desert the system what damage will that do in terms of lost sales and reduced recruitment by word of mouth?

Well.. i've heard about people deserting the system since around 1998 which was obviously a bit premature.

It seems to be consensus that people are abandoning GW because PP is cheaper, more balanced and GW eats babies etc.. Which is fine.. More power to them. But when I look at their models, they cost the same if not more than GW (before discounts). They don't have troop transports or fliers or anything that closely resembles modern warfare. Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that. When I see a 40k game, the entire board is used, drop pods are deepstriking, units are outflanking and coming in from reserve.. It's just more dynamic and has a more cinematic feel. I don't see that with any of the competition.

Derek, That is because they are different games. In different settings. Warmachine is still a skirmish game played on a 4x4 table (although with the move towards more and more 120mm bases its getting kinda crowded).

The models do cost about the same but you don't need as many. If you look at a box of Winter Guard. They are $65ish for 10 of them, but you only need that one box. not 5 like you would with SM. Same goes for any other unit. Warjacks are the same way you need maybe one of each type unless you are going to use a skew list.

The big reason that people are singing the praises of PP are a few fold.

1. They love and support tournament play.

2. Very tight rules, and fast errata when they get something wrong or the wording needs to be tightened up. They have repeated time and again that the FAQ is to no more than a few pages so you will see changes in Red
http://privateerpress.com/files/WM%20MKII%20Rules%20Errata%20May%202014.pdf

3. They actively engage the community. Through their forums, at conventions, Twitter, Pintrest (not really sure why but hey, maybe some lady who likes brownies will like Warjacks).

4. They support the heck out of FLGS with leagues, event support, Press Gangers etc.

5. While they do have faction books and new release books, you do not need them to play the game in its most current state. If you buy the books its for the fluff.

6. You will never hear the RAW vs RAI argument (my personal favorite).


Now is the game for everyone? Nope, Is any game for everyone?

The question is, what do you want out of a game? Most people just want to have fun with their Man-Dollies. How we have fun with them is what this all boils down to. Some people want massive battles with lots of stuff on the table and buckets of dice flying around. Others don't. Some folks want a game that can be played competitively with tight rules that leave very little if any ambiguity. Some folks want to sit around the table and drink a beer and have fun, they couldnt care less about how good a rules set is they are just having fun hanging out with their buddies.

My question is where do the customers come down on these things? Are the vast majority of games sitting around in the basement with friends? Are they out at the FLGS for Saturday tournaments?

Does brand perception mean more to gamers then other segments customers?

Are people mad that if they want to stay current on the rules they are dropping another $100+ just 2 years after dropping $100+?

We shall see.

People "desert" or drop out of games for all kinds of reasons including money, life style changes, or just wanting a change of pace.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes but there are people who do want to play Unbound with a mishmash of figures or ApocEscalation with giant tanks and stuff. Just not everyone.

Apoc games are fairly common in my area and lists are already unbound in that scenario. I don't really understand the hate people are giving GW over those rules. It's pretty clear to me that they wanted to give people a rule-set that allowed them to play casually while using a diverse field of units to choose from.

I think the hate is because the game is unbalanced (by intent) so there's basically two kinds of Unbound armies: A fluffy unbound army that can't be done with the FoC and the uber-broken TFG Unbound armies just because they can. There's a huge gap between say an all Assault Marine army representing a blitzkrieg strike force and some schmuck showing up with a bunch of Riptides, Coteaz & Friends and a Baneblade.

Well.. i've heard about people deserting the system since around 1998 which was obviously a bit premature.

It seems to be consensus that people are abandoning GW because PP is cheaper, more balanced and GW eats babies etc.. Which is fine.. More power to them. But when I look at their models, they cost the same if not more than GW (before discounts). They don't have troop transports or fliers or anything that closely resembles modern warfare. Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that. When I see a 40k game, the entire board is used, drop pods are deepstriking, units are outflanking and coming in from reserve.. It's just more dynamic and has a more cinematic feel. I don't see that with any of the competition.

The main cost argument comes from the fact you need a lot less to get started playing beginner games ($50 battle box) and generally you don't field more than one of each unit. So you end up spending the same amount over time as opposed to all at once, and outside of tournaments where you need 2-3 lists you get a normal-sized game for the price of a low-end game with GW. I did the math once and I could buy a 35-point warmachine army, which is the standard non-tournament size, for about $350 including the rulebook. 40k that $350 gets you basically the entry-level force if even that depending on what you buy.

Other than that there's the whole thing with PP supporting FLGS and the community while GW dictates from their ivory tower while hurling mud on non-GW stores.

Dropzone seems to be getting quite a lot of traction. 10mm scale, so you get a lot more units on the table.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Dropzone seems to be getting quite a lot of traction. 10mm scale, so you get a lot more units on the table.

That is a game I would love to get into. Just need to get 2 more jobs to support the whole hobby/family thing.

Because WarmaHordes is not modern warfare?

Right.. the background is bizarre and hard for a lot of people to connect with.

Again...subjective.

Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that.

That is subjective.

How exactly is that subjective? Are you going to argue that every single warmachine game isn't just bubble wrapping a caster?

By definition your opinion is subjective. YOU might not find it fun, but presumably lots of Warmachine players do.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Dropzone seems to be getting quite a lot of traction. 10mm scale, so you get a lot more units on the table.

I really like the DZC minis, I really like the the whole concept of the game (the fluff is a bit meh, but nothing to get down on) but I bought the rulebook and really couldn't get excited about it.

The solution, I'm sure, would be to play a couple of games, but, and this is pertinent I suspect to how 40K hangs on and keeps hanging on in the face of various totally justified criticisms of it and GW, I'm located in an isolated wargaming community, there's a reasonable number of players but none plays DZC right now.

So, in order to find out if I even like DZC, I'd have to buy a starter, organise terrain, table etc, find a willing victim and muddle through a game where neither of us really knew what we were doing, which in turn may result in mistakes that altered the gameplay and really coloured our view. My willing victim would also have to like it enough to buy in too, otherwise it really is irrelevant what I think of the game.

Now in the two years that my current regular gaming club has been going, it has seen a shift from pure GW to a noticeable number of other games systems played regularly, but the barrier to entry for a player into a game may be lower for basically everything else on the market ahead of 40K, but the barrier to entry for a game into a community? Thats a different beast altogether, and much harder to quantify, and is almost definitely what is keeping 40K and GW at the races nowadays.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
That argument is like comparing a skirmish game (WM) to a mass battle game (40K) and scoffing that they're both the same price per model.

I priced it out.. it's about $450-$500 for an army. Then, if I wanted to go to a major tournament, I'd need up to 2 more armies because they seem to allow you to switch factions so you don't get a bad matchup. So to really be competitive, you are talking $1000-1500.

Major tournaments are two list events, not three. Also I would like to know where you are getting your numbers for both that 450$ value for a 50 pt list and the 1000$ one for two (especially considering that the two lists will more often than not have quite a bit of overlap between them).

dereksatkinson wrote:

Because WarmaHordes is not modern warfare?

Right.. the background is bizarre and hard for a lot of people to connect with.

Steampunk is "bizarre"? For who?

dereksatkinson wrote:

Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that.

That is subjective.

How exactly is that subjective? Are you going to argue that every single warmachine game isn't just bubble wrapping a caster?

Yes, I am going to argue exactly that and I don't even need to use anything other than math to do it.

Even if your preposterous notion that "every single warmachine game is just bubble wrapping a caster" was true (which it isn't), a FOC 7 caster will have a 14" control area, meaning that the "bubble" that he generates has 29" across, not 16" like you claim...

dereksatkinson wrote:

When I see a 40k game, the entire board is used, drop pods are deepstriking, units are outflanking and coming in from reserve.. It's just more dynamic and has a more cinematic feel. I don't see that with any of the competition.

Again, that is subjective.

I can see you disagreeing that it's more cinematic but you can't say that Warmachine is a game where vast amounts of units operate independently. People use casters to boost their units and that is where the main strategy (outside of list building) is.

Again, you are completely wrong, WMH is allot more dependent on positioning and actual tactical game play than list building and you would just need to take a look at any top 8 in any major tournament to see this. What amount of net listing exists, it usually only happens in the bottom tables and you'll only very rarely see a list being successful, in top competition, outside the hands of its creator.

And in WMH you don't see vast amounts of units operating independently, simply because its a skirmish game, that by its very definition, doesn't use vast amounts of units...

When you are trying to argue something it would actually help if you knew anything about whatever it is you are arguing about, at least try to inform yourself about things before making posts like this...

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
By definition your opinion is subjective. YOU might not find it fun, but presumably lots of Warmachine players do.

I didn't say you couldn't have fun playing it. I pointed out that they are entirely different games and are not a direct substitute for what people who play 40k necessarily want.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
You have a habit of stating your opinion and pretending its indisputable fact. Please stop, its very annoying.

Now that is subjective

Stating that warmachine is played in a 16" bubble is pretty much fact. I've played the game and understand that you need casters in order for your army to operate. Those casters have a very limited range on their abilities. Or are you going to say that is subjective?

My point is.. I constantly people are saying that people are going to abandon GW and stop playing 40k. Frequently I hear that warmachine/hordes is going to be what they replace it with. I point out that the games are different.. I didn't say they weren't fun. so if people want a game like 40k, what are they going to play? I don't think a real option exists.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

Yes, I am going to argue exactly that and I don't even need to use anything other than math to do it.

Even if your preposterous notion that "every single warmachine game is just bubble wrapping a caster" was true (which it isn't), a FOC 7 caster will have a 14" control area, meaning that the "bubble" that he generates has 29" across, not 16" like you claim...

16" Radius..

PhantomViper wrote:
Again, you are completely wrong, WMH is allot more dependent on positioning and actual tactical game play than list building and you would just need to take a look at any top 8 in any major tournament to see this. What amount of net listing exists, it usually only happens in the bottom tables and you'll only very rarely see a list being successful, in top competition, outside the hands of its creator.

And in WMH you don't see vast amounts of units operating independently, simply because its a skirmish game, that by its very definition, doesn't use vast amounts of units...

When you are trying to argue something it would actually help if you knew anything about whatever it is you are arguing about, at least try to inform yourself about things before making posts like this...

So what exactly was I wrong about? lol

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Dropzone seems to be getting quite a lot of traction. 10mm scale, so you get a lot more units on the table.

I really like the DZC minis, I really like the the whole concept of the game (the fluff is a bit meh, but nothing to get down on) but I bought the rulebook and really couldn't get excited about it.

The solution, I'm sure, would be to play a couple of games, but, and this is pertinent I suspect to how 40K hangs on and keeps hanging on in the face of various totally justified criticisms of it and GW, I'm located in an isolated wargaming community, there's a reasonable number of players but none plays DZC right now.

So, in order to find out if I even like DZC, I'd have to buy a starter, organise terrain, table etc, find a willing victim and muddle through a game where neither of us really knew what we were doing, which in turn may result in mistakes that altered the gameplay and really coloured our view. My willing victim would also have to like it enough to buy in too, otherwise it really is irrelevant what I think of the game.

Now in the two years that my current regular gaming club has been going, it has seen a shift from pure GW to a noticeable number of other games systems played regularly, but the barrier to entry for a player into a game may be lower for basically everything else on the market ahead of 40K, but the barrier to entry for a game into a community? Thats a different beast altogether, and much harder to quantify, and is almost definitely what is keeping 40K and GW at the races nowadays.

Some good points. Personally my gaming history goes back to the early 80's. I remember struggling through D&D books as a perplexed 12 year-old trying to makes sense of things, and eventually me and my mates did so, enough to keep us happy any how. We also struggled through Warhammer 2nd edition (I skipped 1st ed as I couldn't afford the lead back then) using cut out card figures and a green tablecloth I pinched from my mum's linen drawer. When Rogue Trader came along, boy was that weird. But that's what the world was like back then. There were no "clubs" or stores where you could meet people to play with (at least not in Newcastle! ) until I went to university, and even then it was small.

But for me that was (and still is) part of the hobby. I love the struggling through a new book bit of the hobby. I love the building or assembling a new army or warband. I love chatting over the rulebook with my mates. And generally I get bored playing the same game too frequently.

There is a mindset though, which I am not decrying, it is just different, not "inferior", that enjoys familiarity, and can't be bothered with or fears change or evolution. I suspect this conservative mindset is perhaps the dominant one in wargaming and particularly in "the GW Hobby". Couple it with practical limitations like the "sunk cost fallacy" and I can understand how being a 40k gamer can feel addictied and abused at the same time.

I don't really have a point to this post other than to express the point of view that "trying out new stuff" is and always has been, for me at least, a fun part of wargaming.

 azreal13 wrote:
The solution, I'm sure, would be to play a couple of games, but, and this is pertinent I suspect to how 40K hangs on and keeps hanging on in the face of various totally justified criticisms of it and GW, I'm located in an isolated wargaming community, there's a reasonable number of players but none plays DZC right now.

This in a nutshell. I personally have a bunch of things I'd like to try: DZC, Kings of War, Deadzone, Infinity, FoW, Bolt Action, hell even good old DBA or Napoleonics. But nobody plays them. It's 40k at one store, WM/H at another. Nobody cares about anything outside their bubble, and hell the one time I tried to pitch KoW to the WHFB crowd I as politely told to stop "trolling" trying to get everyone to switch to the game I want. So many things but nobody cares. At least maybe something like DZC with a 2-player box I could buy it and try to set up a demo at the game shop, but from what I've seen when there was WM/H, X-wing and Battletech demos, you're lucky if anybody even bothers to ask what it is because they're too engrossed in setting up a 40k game. Here at least people don't want a gaming club that samples a variety of different gaming systems, they want a 40k club that plays 40k exclusively, and that makes me very sad :(

I think that's what GW hinges on - the fact that gaming groups will exclusively play 40k and be oblivious to everything else, and get angry or dismissive at anyone who suggests and alternative game, even if its not "GW is the devil give it up" but "There's more than just GW". It actually makes me physically depressed that there isn't a gaming club mentality where if I want to learn Bolt Action, there would be people interested in collecting a small force and having a game, or if I had the urge to try my hand at the Civil War I could find someone else who thought it'd be a cool idea, we can get a force and play and maybe encourage others to try. Instead it's "We play 40k here" and everyone else is lucky if they ever find an opponent.

If I asked about other games on the store's FB page I'd likely get zero responses or told to quit trolling

dereksatkinson wrote:
Stating that warmachine is played in a 16" bubble is pretty much fact. I've played the game and understand that you need casters in order for your army to operate. Those casters have a very limited range on their abilities. Or are you going to say that is subjective?

You've being disingenuous again.

You said that War Machine is not fun because its all about bubble wrapping a Caster. Which I contested on the grounds that many War Machine players must find it fun, otherwise why would they be playing it?

(And Note, I am not one of them. I have never played WM and never will. So stop assuming I'm some Privateer Press fanboy).

The argument was NOT about whether War Machine relies on 16" Caster bubbles (which btw, Phantom Viper contests), it was about whether or not some people can find the game fun, and you know it. So please stop changing the subject, and revising your past comments. Its rude and dishonest.

I didn't say they weren't fun.

They don't have troop transports or fliers or anything that closely resembles modern warfare. Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that.

You were saying?

so if people want a game like 40k, what are they going to play? I don't think a real option exists.

Bolt Action. DZC. Any of the variety of sci fi mass battle games on the market. New games will appear eventually too, so while there may not "be a real option" right now, there may well be in 5 years or so. And hell, who says they have to stop playing Warhammer 40K? They can still use their Warhammer models when playing other rules systems (e.g. Infinity, as one poster mentioned). I want to play the skirmish game SAGA (Gripping Beast/Studio Tomahawk) using my Lord of the Rings models.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Dropzone seems to be getting quite a lot of traction. 10mm scale, so you get a lot more units on the table.

I really like the DZC minis, I really like the the whole concept of the game (the fluff is a bit meh, but nothing to get down on) but I bought the rulebook and really couldn't get excited about it.

The solution, I'm sure, would be to play a couple of games, but, and this is pertinent I suspect to how 40K hangs on and keeps hanging on in the face of various totally justified criticisms of it and GW, I'm located in an isolated wargaming community, there's a reasonable number of players but none plays DZC right now.

So, in order to find out if I even like DZC, I'd have to buy a starter, organise terrain, table etc, find a willing victim and muddle through a game where neither of us really knew what we were doing, which in turn may result in mistakes that altered the gameplay and really coloured our view. My willing victim would also have to like it enough to buy in too, otherwise it really is irrelevant what I think of the game.

Now in the two years that my current regular gaming club has been going, it has seen a shift from pure GW to a noticeable number of other games systems played regularly, but the barrier to entry for a player into a game may be lower for basically everything else on the market ahead of 40K, but the barrier to entry for a game into a community? Thats a different beast altogether, and much harder to quantify, and is almost definitely what is keeping 40K and GW at the races nowadays.

Is there a boxed set? In my experience, where there's a wargaming group, there's somebody who will split a boxed set of anything to try a new game. I say find that person, pull the trigger, and give it a shot.

Speak of the Devil and his minions shall appear!

http://www.hawkwargames.com/collections/misc-rules



A boxed starter set with two armies and the rules for £60.

Awesome. Az, come on over to Rochester and I'll split that with ya :-p

And a Bargain of a set it is! The forces are legal and you even get a 4x4 tables worth of terrain included.

One of the best decisions I've made recently has been getting into DZC.

Thanks for the offer, but, and this is just a suspicion, it might be a bit of a false economy! (Especially as I'm not US based, despite whatever ideas my location flag has developed in the last few days!)

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
You said that War Machine is not fun because its all about bubble wrapping a Caster. Which I contested on the grounds that many War Machine players must find it fun, otherwise why would they be playing it?

Just because I don't find it fun doesn't mean that others can't. I never said that no one could have fun playing warmachine.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The argument was NOT about whether War Machine relies on 16" Caster bubbles (which btw, Phantom Viper contests), it was about whether or not some people can find the game fun, and you know it. So please stop changing the subject, and revising your past comments. Its rude and dishonest.

I'm actually doing my best to clarify my position in a respectful manner. I don't have an axe to grind with warmachine, I just explained why I don't like it. The example there was to show that IMO, it's not able to satisfy my personal gaming needs.

They don't have troop transports or fliers or anything that closely resembles modern warfare. Plus, there is way too much of the game where your entire army is in a 16" bubble and I don't see much fun in that.

You were saying?

There is a difference between whether or not I personally find a game fun and saying NO ONE IN THE WORLD CAN FIND THIS FUN. I don't play Magic and don't find it fun personally. That doesn't mean I don't think people should play magic. Unto each his own.

Bolt Action. DZC. Any of the variety of sci fi mass battle games on the market. New games will appear eventually too, so while there may not "be a real option" right now, there may well be in 5 years or so. And hell, who says they have to stop playing Warhammer 40K? They can still use their Warhammer models when playing other rules systems (e.g. Infinity, as one poster mentioned). I want to play the skirmish game SAGA (Gripping Beast/Studio Tomahawk) using my Lord of the Rings models.

Well.. that is the thing.. I'm not saying YOU specifically have been saying that everyone is going to stop buying GW models. The narrative being spun (and has been spun since I really 1st started getting hardcore into the game back in 1998) has been that there is going to be a mass exodus from people playing 40k and GW will go under. To which, I am saying that I don't see it happening at this point because there is no real competition to 40k. The odds of me going up to a random gaming store on a saturday and finding someone playing 40k is exponentially higher than finding someone playing the alternatives. I'm not saying they don't exist nor am I saying they aren't fun games. They fact you agree that it may well take 5 years or so for a real option to appear shows we are much closer to agreement than you might realize.

Honestly, I am kind of anxious to see what the next financials from GW are going to look like. The rushed release of 7th edition 40k was an obvious move to shore up what is probably a very disappointing period. Couple that with the obvious shenanigans going on through the remainder of the last six months and I will be very surprised if they manage to even pull a flat YoY period.

It seems sales of 40k 7th are not doing that well. LEs are still available weeks after release, many people seem to be saying few to none are buying it at their stores (while others may say it is selling well at theirs, bear in mind it used to sell well EVERYWHERE), and Dystopian Wars, of all things, is outselling 40k in some areas by a factor of 7 to 1.

It seems pretty certain there is most likely going to be another drop in YoY sales. The question is, how much that drop will be. If it is 10%-12%, not so bad - although it does wipe out six complete years of growth for GW - which is not so good. If it falls by 15% of more YoY, then it is very bad. It means the downturn is happening and you can expect it to accelerate even faster over the coming periods. A double-digit downturn, followed by an even worse double-digit downturn (especially in a market GROWING by double-digits), means the mass exodus of customers has begun and it only gets worse faster from there.

It is not uncommon to see things like a 10% drop one period, followed by a 15% drop, followed by a 30% drop, followed by a 65% drop. These things tend to accelerate, and accelerate very fast. This is why I have said, it usually isn't a slow decline - quite commonly these become outright collapses. Just as a small example, if GW followed this pattern you would see current year finishing at £117.5 million and 2015 finishing at £62.0 million. You don't want to know where the 2016 year will finish (which is usually out of business). While many will find this to read unlikely, it is best to do some homework on companies that have reached this turning point to see just how fast a mass customer exodus happens once a company crosses that threshold. You will then see this is an entirely believable scenario for GW in the very near future.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes but there are people who do want to play Unbound with a mishmash of figures or ApocEscalation with giant tanks and stuff. Just not everyone.

Apoc games are fairly common in my area and lists are already unbound in that scenario. I don't really understand the hate people are giving GW over those rules. It's pretty clear to me that they wanted to give people a rule-set that allowed them to play casually while using a diverse field of units to choose from.

You can't see how people may be upset that a game with already iffy balance has been made much worse? Yes it free's up options for casual play, but the casual players probably do that anyway. What it also does is makes it much harder for everyone else to get a game - particularly in a pick up sense, or to enjoy the same as there's now more chance of losing/winning at the deployment stage.

I really don't understand why a casual game has to be imbalanced?

Herzlos wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes but there are people who do want to play Unbound with a mishmash of figures or ApocEscalation with giant tanks and stuff. Just not everyone.

Apoc games are fairly common in my area and lists are already unbound in that scenario. I don't really understand the hate people are giving GW over those rules. It's pretty clear to me that they wanted to give people a rule-set that allowed them to play casually while using a diverse field of units to choose from.

You can't see how people may be upset that a game with already iffy balance has been made much worse? Yes it free's up options for casual play, but the casual players probably do that anyway. What it also does is makes it much harder for everyone else to get a game - particularly in a pick up sense, or to enjoy the same as there's now more chance of losing/winning at the deployment stage.

I really don't understand why a casual game has to be imbalanced?

It doesn't have to be, it's just extremely difficult to make it well balanced when the game wasn't designed that way to begin with. Rogue Trader was more like D&D than Warmachine. If they wanted to turn it into a competitive game, it would have to be completely redesigned from the ground up. That could upset a lot of people. It could also suck. Badly.

The solution is simple. We, as a community need to teach new players that the goal is for everyone to have fun, and to make sure your opponent has fun too. Devising an army list that will quickly decimate most armies is just not good form. This culture needs to be thick everywhere 40k is played. THAT is what will save the game we all love.

"It was always this way" is a redundant argument.

Rogue Trader bore barely a passing resemblance to 2nd Ed, and 3rd was a complete overhaul from that.

It WAS intended to be a competitive game when Alessio was prominent in the design team, and it WAS overhauled as a result. Your argument just doesn't hold up, sorry.

@ Wayshuba.

Enjoyed reading this thread so far and always enjoy reading your posts as they are very informative.

When do you think GW will release their end of year report?

I was expecting it to be out at the end of May.

The end of July is when GW traditionally publishes its results, its financial year ended on June 1st.

It seems to be the last Tuesday in July so this year should be the 29th.

 Wayshuba wrote:
Honestly, I am kind of anxious to see what the next financials from GW are going to look like. The rushed release of 7th edition 40k was an obvious move to shore up what is probably a very disappointing period. Couple that with the obvious shenanigans going on through the remainder of the last six months and I will be very surprised if they manage to even pull a flat YoY period.

All the mission cards are back ordered for 6 weeks. I don't know of a single store in my area that didn't sell out all their copies of 7th on Saturday.

 Wayshuba wrote:
t is not uncommon to see things like a 10% drop one period, followed by a 15% drop, followed by a 30% drop, followed by a 65% drop. These things tend to accelerate, and accelerate very fast. This is why I have said, it usually isn't a slow decline - quite commonly these become outright collapses. Just as a small example, if GW followed this pattern you would see current year finishing at £117.5 million and 2015 finishing at £62.0 million. You don't want to know where the 2016 year will finish (which is usually out of business). While many will find this to read unlikely, it is best to do some homework on companies that have reached this turning point to see just how fast a mass customer exodus happens once a company crosses that threshold. You will then see this is an entirely believable scenario for GW in the very near future.

Well.. if you are talking stock prices, I'm bearish but I don't see any reason to think it will lose 65% of it's value from here. Based on the backtesting i've run, There is only a 3% chance it will be below 360 by the end of 2016. I have a 67% probability that it will be between 460 and 360 sometime in the next 18 months.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
That argument is like comparing a skirmish game (WM) to a mass battle game (40K) and scoffing that they're both the same price per model.

I priced it out.. it's about $450-$500 for an army. Then, if I wanted to go to a major tournament, I'd need up to 2 more armies because they seem to allow you to switch factions so you don't get a bad matchup. So to really be competitive, you are talking $1000-1500.

That's your argument? You're out and out saying you can buy 2 or 3 competitive WMH armies for the cost of 1 GW one. Well feth me sideways! It's almost as if GW's models are vastly overpriced for the size of game they wish you to play.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:
Honestly, I am kind of anxious to see what the next financials from GW are going to look like. The rushed release of 7th edition 40k was an obvious move to shore up what is probably a very disappointing period. Couple that with the obvious shenanigans going on through the remainder of the last six months and I will be very surprised if they manage to even pull a flat YoY period.

All the mission cards are back ordered for 6 weeks.

No, that's disingenuous, again.

The cards are OOS until July, which may be a sign of their popularity, that's true, but it could also be a symptom of a hiccup in supply meaning there weren't sufficient numbers in the pipeline in the first place, or it could be that GW weren't expecting them to be as popular because their recent sales numbers have been so low, and under ordered.

But "back ordered" implies that all available stock is pre sold until July, which is so eating different and not the case.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Wayshuba wrote:
Honestly, I am kind of anxious to see what the next financials from GW are going to look like. The rushed release of 7th edition 40k was an obvious move to shore up what is probably a very disappointing period. Couple that with the obvious shenanigans going on through the remainder of the last six months and I will be very surprised if they manage to even pull a flat YoY period.

All the mission cards are back ordered for 6 weeks. I don't know of a single store in my area that didn't sell out all their copies of 7th on Saturday.

For what it's worth, as of yesterday, the FLGS in Marietta, GA had multiple copies of the rule book set and the card boxes on the shelf.

Derek Atkinson said: so if people want a game like 40k, what are they going to play? I don't think a real option exists.

Free;

StarGrunt
Beamstrike
In the Emperors Name
Wildfire
Fast and Dirty
ToyMallet 40C
Chain Reaction
The M42 Project



Not free;

Victory Decision - Future Warfare
The 5150 series


Lots of option for playing 40K "type" games

EDIT: Something all of these have in common is that they are generic and you stat out your forces yourself. The only exception at In the Emperor's Name and the M42 Project which at fan-based rules for making 40K a more competitive and playable ruleset

 Grimtuff wrote:
That's your argument? You're out and out saying you can buy 2 or 3 competitive WMH armies for the cost of 1 GW one. Well feth me sideways! It's almost as if GW's models are vastly overpriced for the size of game they wish you to play.

Not even that. Someone priced out the cost for a complete newbie to get started in 40k, including supplies and paints. It came to like $350 and the only units they had was a Battleforce for a particular army.

I then trumped that with a 35-point Khador army for about $365 that also included the rules, hobby supplies, brushes and paints. So a 35-point army that lets you play normal-sized games... or a Battleforce that's what, maybe 600 points if you're lucky and doesn't even give you a full legal army (no HQ outside of Tau) that's suitable only for the earliest levels of learning to play the game? And that's not taking into account discounts, and on top of that it was using the overpriced (IMO) official PP wreck markers (without the wreck markers it was actually *cheaper* than the GW kit).

Don't get me wrong, WM/H ends up costing the same over time (especially if you go to tournaments). It's just a much slower curve than GW.