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.

 azreal13 wrote:
"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.

Well I was out of the loop for 3rd so I honestly wouldn't know. The rules where that different? They seem to have gone back the way they came. I can't imagine it was a complete overhaul, since the core mechanics are still the same as they were 20 years ago. Anyways I'm over it. Never try to inject positivity into the internet. That's the lesson for the day. I guess this is a hobby best kept offline.

It invalidated all 2nd edition codexes overnight.

I don't think you can get more "overhauled" than that?

Assuming that GW's financial report will be as bad as I suspect it will and as GW have two months before it is published I wonder if we will start seeing signs of 'corrective' measures (store closures, an even more accelerated release schedule etc) over the next wee while.

 Palindrome wrote:
Assuming that GW's financial report will be as bad as I suspect it will and as GW have two months before it is published I wonder if we will start seeing signs of 'corrective' measures (store closures, an even more accelerated release schedule etc) over the next wee while.

Honestly, how would we notice?

 Kavish wrote:

Well I was out of the loop for 3rd so I honestly wouldn't know. The rules where that different? They seem to have gone back the way they came. I can't imagine it was a complete overhaul, since the core mechanics are still the same as they were 20 years ago. Anyways I'm over it. Never try to inject positivity into the internet. That's the lesson for the day. I guess this is a hobby best kept offline.

The only things that have stayed the same is the ranged to hit chart, the Strength/Toughness chart, the basic statline and the turn structure. 2nd and 3rd ed were significantly different games both in terms of rules but also in design. There are elements that have been introduced to the newer editions that are pale shadow of the 2nd ed rules (overwatch and the physic phase are two examples).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:

Honestly, how would we notice?

With difficulty

Well, the turn structure changed. - You had the addition of the 'Assault phase' for moving assaulting models, instead of charging, plus, of course, the removal of the Psychic phase.

Many stats changed too, for example, the removal of the Movement value on models. Vehicle stats changed entirely - in 2nd edition, each vehicle had its own personal damage sheet.

 Compel wrote:
Well, the turn structure changed. - You had the addition of the 'Assault phase' for moving assaulting models, instead of charging, plus, of course, the removal of the Psychic phase.

Phases changed, or were rearranged, but the basic IGOUGO structure is the same.

From my recollection, wasn't the main driver to overhaul from 2nd to 3rd the fact that they made the whole game based on D6s? Thus, all the stats, charts, damage, etc, had to be reworked?

 slowthar wrote:
From my recollection, wasn't the main driver to overhaul from 2nd to 3rd the fact that they made the whole game based on D6s? Thus, all the stats, charts, damage, etc, had to be reworked?

Nope, 2nd ed was a D6 game (I think that RT was as well but I never played it).

 Palindrome wrote:

 slowthar wrote:
From my recollection, wasn't the main driver to overhaul from 2nd to 3rd the fact that they made the whole game based on D6s? Thus, all the stats, charts, damage, etc, had to be reworked?

Nope, 2nd ed was a D6 game (I think that RT was as well but I never played it).

I think it was more in reference to things like sustained fire dice, which, whilst still being 6 sided dice were not strictly speaking D6's if you get what I mean. Also stuff like melta weapons which had something like D12 damage (or was it D8?) so all the individual weapon stats had to be reworked.

 Palindrome wrote:

 slowthar wrote:
From my recollection, wasn't the main driver to overhaul from 2nd to 3rd the fact that they made the whole game based on D6s? Thus, all the stats, charts, damage, etc, had to be reworked?

Nope, 2nd ed was a D6 game (I think that RT was as well but I never played it).

Sorry,no, while it was certainly a majority D6 game, vehicle penetration, and a few other mechanics, used other dice (the old formula was D6+ Dice linked to strength of weapon + random damage dice (if it did random damage) + strength of weapon IIRC) and D10s, D8s, perhaps even D4s and D12s were all used.

 slowthar wrote:
From my recollection, wasn't the main driver to overhaul from 2nd to 3rd the fact that they made the whole game based on D6s? Thus, all the stats, charts, damage, etc, had to be reworked?

Possibly, it was also largely thought that they were trying to streamline the game for younger gamers to pick up easily and thought that the added complexity of 2nd was too much for the average 12-year old to comprehend. However, it might also have been to try and balance the game for more competitive play as Alessio was part of the design team then and he was IIRC an ex-tournament player, which is also why all of his other games are balanced for competitive play.

Technically speaking the core rules of the game have only changed twice:

1) Rogue Trader to 2nd Edition
2) 2nd Edition to 3rd edition

Since 3rd edition the core rules have stayed the same and things have just been tweaked in various forms. And this also is part of the underlying issue as 3rd edition was still very much a company-level game, while ever since Apocalypse came out (5th?) the game has been pushed towards larger and larger forces while the core rules stayed suitable for a smaller-scale game.

On that subject what I honestly think they should do is split the rules into two types: Company-level and War. The Company-level would be roughly the size of a game during 2nd and early 3rd edition (or like how Bolt Action is configured for). The War version would have streamlined and more abstract rules; perhaps Order Dice (a la Bolt Action) instead of IGOUGO and not having model removal but basing things around the unit (with movement trays that have round holes in them to drop units in). This version would be meant for larger scale battles but without getting bogged down in minutiae for a smaller scale game. Basically a newer version of Epic but one that uses the same miniatures as 40k as opposed to a different scale, which would also placate the bean counters as the reason Epic was discontinued was largely rumored to be the fact that it was a different scale to 40k so people would buy Epic and not 40k.

The entire premise of this would be that you play the war version to fight out a key battle. The company version is meant to snapshot a specific portion of that battle. So for example, the simplified war rules would let you fight the Battle of Taro VI when a combined Imperial army fought off Waaagh Badskar's assault on Taro City, but the company-level game lets you fight out the lightning raid that the Brazen Bulls chapter performed on an Ork camp that let them seize the planet's missile silos and helped to turn the tide of battle. I don't know about you but that sounds like the start of a great narrative!

You're probably right, but they probably wouldn't do the company level because it's more profitable to get people to invest on the war scale.

It isn't if they don't!

 Grimtuff wrote:

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.

Not to mention his argument is flat out wrong. Iron Gauntlet is the format he's talking about and it's not popular among the playerbase and outside of the big tournaments, doesn't get much play. The standard tournament is one faction per tournament which will account for likely more that 99.9% of all tournament games. That format is extremely rare. Not to mention if you go to a major tournament, there are several other events running besides Iron Gauntlet at the same time. At those events, Iron Gauntlet always has the least number of players participating. @DA, nice try but please drive through. Better yet, leave conversations where you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Everything you've said about Warmachine in this thread is flat out wrong and by your own admission, your knowledge is limited.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

Which is one of the best damn starter sets out there on the market. Fantastic value.

It give you pause for thought, doesn't it.

The game rules cost 1/4 of the price of 40K's rulebooks.

 Necro wrote:
@ 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.

Year closed at end of May. I believe financials come out in mid to late July. Actual date is posted in Investor Relations on GW website.

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.

Because of stock issues, maybe?

My FLGS got in somewhere in the region of 100 7th Ed books, and about 10 packs of cards. At that ratio it's hardly surprising the cards will sell out quickly, especially since a lot of people might have wanted to get them for using with 6th Ed.

Selling out means nothing without having numbers. What is telling is that there are still 7th Ed collectors editions still on sale, and that was a limited run of 2000.

dereksatkinson wrote:
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.

Two things:

First, I mentioned how this used to be typical at almost all stores. Not isolated cases. Yes in some areas, such as yours, they sold out. In areas such as mine, and other mentioned in this thread, they didn't sell any. This is a big change from how it used to be.

Second, taking the 7th edition LE as an example, GW ran 40% of the volume that they did for the 6th edition LE. Part of the reason many are sold out could simply be (and this is pure speculation on my part) that they ran a lot less initial copies of the product. Also, I have no idea how many copies stores in your area ordered to begin with, so that doesn't leave a lot to deduce from that information.

dereksatkinson wrote:
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.

I wasn't talking stock prices at all (as I could care less as they are rarely a measure of the true performance of a company). The numbers I gave as examples were strictly revenue. Stock pricing does little to hurt a company once it is floated in the market except for making capital raises more expensive and potentially opening up the company for hostile takeover. However, running out of revenue is very bad, no matter what company it is. I am talking about companies experiencing a mass exodus of customers and how fast the percentage of sales can drop.

I do like how we have what's presumably a stock broker or financial analyst type (Derek) saying one thing and a CEO/business owner/other executive type (Wayshuba) saying something different, which is also corroborated on other sites by other CEO/executive types (Reinholt on Warseer, the ex-CIO of Aldi who wrote the multi-part blog post).

Interesting perspectives.

 Palindrome wrote:
Assuming that GW's financial report will be as bad as I suspect it will and as GW have two months before it is published I wonder if we will start seeing signs of 'corrective' measures (store closures, an even more accelerated release schedule etc) over the next wee while.

I think we are already seeing it. Look at the sheer number of "store manager" openings for new areas on the GW website - especially in the US. It appears Phase II of the grand master plan to save themselves is to open stores and hammer miniatures down unsuspecting college students throats. Of course, the are going to be in for a big surprise when they find out just how little money college students have in the US because of the high cost of education and what little is left, keeping up with the required weekly beer supply.

jamesk1973 wrote:

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.

Spoiler:

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

Kind of missing the point.. Those games aren't nearly as popular and finding a stranger to play a game with would be pretty hard. I don't think i've even heard a single one of those and I haven't seen them played in my area. I have no idea about the quality of those products nor whether or not tournaments for them even exist. So which one is going to be replacing 40k?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

12thRonin wrote:
Not to mention his argument is flat out wrong. Iron Gauntlet is the format he's talking about and it's not popular among the playerbase and outside of the big tournaments, doesn't get much play. The standard tournament is one faction per tournament which will account for likely more that 99.9% of all tournament games. That format is extremely rare. Not to mention if you go to a major tournament, there are several other events running besides Iron Gauntlet at the same time. At those events, Iron Gauntlet always has the least number of players participating.

Well.. The reasoning I was told that they did this format was because as the game was becoming more diverse, there were situations where specific builds would completely nullify others. So this was a way to avoid the rock/paper/scissors aspect. I've only ever seen tournaments run this way. I'd also like to point out that by your own admission the big tournaments use that format. Why does warmachine run that format at their major tournaments if it is "not popular among the playerbase".

12thRonin wrote:
@DA, nice try but please drive through. Better yet, leave conversations where you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Everything you've said about Warmachine in this thread is flat out wrong and by your own admission, your knowledge is limited.

You are breaking the #1 rule on this forum. I'm willing to engage people in a discussion but you are being adversarial to say the least.

dereksatkinson wrote:


Well.. The reasoning I was told that they did this format was because as the game was becoming more diverse, there were situations where specific builds would completely nullify others. So this was a way to avoid the rock/paper/scissors aspect. I've only ever seen tournaments run this way. I'd also like to point out that by your own admission the big tournaments use that format. Why does warmachine run that format at their major tournaments if it is "not popular among the playerbase".

This is the first year they've done it and you were told wrong. The finals for the first Iron Gauntlet season are at Lock and Load this year and in every major event, Iron Gauntlet pulled less participants than the other formats did. Get out of the idea of the 40k tournament format with Warmachine. They are absolutely nothing alike. Multiple events run at the same time at every major event (multiple Steamroller formats, Masters, Hardcore, and IG), not 5 or 7 games over 2 days. As a matter of fact, this format reinforces the rock/paper/scissors moreso than staying a single faction, but if you had any clue about Warmachine, you would already know that and you've pretty much never seen a tournament run then.

dereksatkinson wrote:

You are breaking the #1 rule on this forum. I'm willing to engage people in a discussion but you are being adversarial to say the least.

No, that's good advice to keep you from looking like you have no idea what you're talking about. Keep at it though. It is apparently amusing to some people.

That thread on Warseer, and the comments by Reinholdt, are well worth reading.

 Pacific wrote:
That thread on Warseer, and the comments by Reinholdt, are well worth reading.

Which thread?

 Kavish wrote:
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.

Utter nonsense. It's been 20+ years since the RT days, and the game's nothing like that pseudo-RPG that it was back in the day. The idea that because of that start they haven't been able to make a balanced (or more balanced) game with a tight and concise ruleset is just crazy talk. The game has been redesigned from the ground up. Twice in fact. Once at 2nd Ed, and once for 3rd Ed. 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th have all just been (bad, convoluted) patches to 3rd Ed.

 loki old fart wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
That thread on Warseer, and the comments by Reinholdt, are well worth reading.

Which thread?

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?394884-Games-Workshop-Stock-Prices-The-Future-and-Cats-Without-Sufficient-Coffee

I guess that he is another CEO/businessperson type (like Wayshuba) and says roughly the same thing, that GW is nuts and will likely be out of business in a few more years if they continue this trend.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
That thread on Warseer, and the comments by Reinholdt, are well worth reading.

Which thread?

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?394884-Games-Workshop-Stock-Prices-The-Future-and-Cats-Without-Sufficient-Coffee

I guess that he is another CEO/businessperson type (like Wayshuba) and says roughly the same thing, that GW is nuts and will likely be out of business in a few more years if they continue this trend.

Thanks mate

I don't actually believe 40k's rules need to be as supportive of competitive play as say, Warmachine. I just think they need to not produce wildly different levels of power at the same point value. The people who really need balance in a product are not the competitive players. The competitive players will figure out the meta and bring a sub-set of available options to a given event. The casual players on the other hand, might pick what sounds cool to them and then have the game fall apart either for them or their opponent.

Unbound isn't going to make this better. Look at the ideas in the WD about possible army ideas under unbound. Spamming multiple strong units. That's not going to go well in a casual game against someone who didn't latch onto a spam idea and abuse it.

GW has abandoned competitive play, but in doing so, they've actually made their product less appealing to their casual customers. This isn't a good thing for keeping those casual players buying their products.