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.

 frozenwastes wrote:
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.

That's the gist of it. I mean I've played Warmachine. It's a good game but it has a very mechanical/metagamey feel to it. It feels like a game. 40k, for whtaever reason, always felt like something more than a game. The best I can explain it is like this:

Imagine you play D&D with two different groups. The first group approaches things from a pure metagame standpoint. There's minimal roleplaying and it tends to be in third person and the game is very hack-and-slash, with most discussion during combat being dice results e.g. "I attack with my +1 Longsword. I roll an 18, does that hit? Rolling for damage... 12 points.". The second group has a lot more roleplaying, people talk with accents or bring props, and discussion in combat is more immersive e.g. "I lunge forward, deftly dodging the orc's axe, and slash downward with my magic sword, its blue-silver blade flashing. 18 to hit. 12 points of damage as my blade slices into the Orc's shoulder, causing a spray of blood!"

The first is Warmachine. The second is 40k, for all its flaws. That's how it feels to me, at any rate. Something, and i've never been able to pinpoint it, about 40k just feels more immersive than Warmachine. Maybe it's the vastness of the background material, I don't know. I find in Warmachine that I barely care about the backstory of my Warcaster, or what his units are - any choices are entirely metagame based on little more than how they play. In 40k though I like to name my commander, name my squads, invent backstories for them and the like, and I'm much more likely to pick cool/fluffy units over powerful ones if it fits the theme of my army.

Just a quick note, Marmachine's fluff isn't "Bizarre." Most of it is actually grounded in real events from history. The major factions are all based off real countries, with mirrors of real wars and real people. They just add magic steampunk stuff in it for fun.

If you find history, bizarre, then sure. Warmachine's fluff is bizarre.

As a historian I love their fluff!

 frozenwastes wrote:
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.

Agreed!

40k didn't start to suck for me when I played in tournaments, it started to suck when my buddy finally got an updated Tau codex and while my other buddy was playing BA. Games started to feel like a complete waste of time where we just felt bad for the guy playing BA, and no one was having any fun.

 slowthar wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
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.

Agreed!

40k didn't start to suck for me when I played in tournaments, it started to suck when my buddy finally got an updated Tau codex and while my other buddy was playing BA. Games started to feel like a complete waste of time where we just felt bad for the guy playing BA, and no one was having any fun.

Very much agreed. I'm a casual player and this lack of balance I find too punishing. I have an army that's fluffy and how I want it, and it has zero chance of beating an Waveserpant spam or riptide spam list. That's an extreme example but my armies were always fighting uphill battles and too often I found that I had no chance of actually winning and though I'm not a competitive player, I want at least the illusion that I can win.

 frozenwastes wrote:
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.

I don't think the distinction even needs to be made. A clear, concise and tight set of rules will support competitive play simply as a by-product of existing. Get the rules right, and the rest takes care of itself. A good set of rules benefits everyone. I know you're not arguing against that, and I agree with what you've saiud above about different power levels at the same points values, but I don't think that the game needs to "support" any sort of play-style. I think play-styles evolve organically from the game, and the better the rule-set the better it will support those differing play-styles.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Just a quick note, Marmachine's fluff isn't "Bizarre." Most of it is actually grounded in real events from history. The major factions are all based off real countries, with mirrors of real wars and real people. They just add magic steampunk stuff in it for fun.

If you find history, bizarre, then sure. Warmachine's fluff is bizarre.

As a historian I love their fluff!

But it uses steam how bizarre!

RT era 40k was a true skirmish game with D&D elements, lot of the army list was random (it was inquisitor 54mm game played with 28mm miniatures).

I remember 2nd edition being very character heavy, psychic powers being very powerful, Khorne berzerkers being able to charge across the board (12 inch with LR and then charge 12").
And CC was very different (which i liked, it was not complicated!).

I am looking forward to the new GW report, i'll bet there be a lot of "good news".

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
And CC was very different (which i liked, it was not complicated!).

We must be remembering different second editions. I remember complex assaults chewing up the most time in 2nd edition.

 frozenwastes wrote:
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.

GW's current approach only really works if both players have access to huge collections and it's discussed in advance; A: "I fancy fielding 6 Riptides today, up for it?" B: "Sure, I'll unpack my Wave Serpent fleet."

It fails miserably when people are restricted by what they have and who they play against; if my opponent wanted 6 Riptides I'd either need to lose badly or just decline.

 -Loki- wrote:
I remember complex assaults chewing up the most time in 2nd edition.

They required basic maths and there were quite a few variables but they really weren't complex. Difference between dice result (modifed for fumbles and criticals)+ weapon skill+any bonuses Vs dice result (modifed for fumbles and criticals)+ weapon skill+any bonuses = number of hits, that probably took 5-10 seconds per combat (including dice rolls). I prefer the 2nd ed system to the flat results that came in with 3rd, it could have done with some streamlining but the system was basically sound.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
And CC was very different (which i liked, it was not complicated!).

We must be remembering different second editions. I remember complex assaults chewing up the most time in 2nd edition.

I remember it as not complex but very time consuming. :/

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

I don't think the distinction even needs to be made. A clear, concise and tight set of rules will support competitive play simply as a by-product of existing. Get the rules right, and the rest takes care of itself.

Indeed.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
And CC was very different (which i liked, it was not complicated!).

We must be remembering different second editions. I remember complex assaults chewing up the most time in 2nd edition.

I remember it as not complex but very time consuming. :/

I didn't mean the mechanics were complex, I mean complex assaults. As in a couple of squads plus characters all in the same dogpile.

Yeah. 2nd Ed was 1-on-1, and the rules could handle Lots-on-1. But when it became 2-on-2 or more, the rules kinda fell apart.

20p dividend announced.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2014/06/06/dividend-4/

Anyway, returning to the future of GW, I don't believe one single game such as Warmachine will replace say 40K but there are several games that are gaining popularity including Warmachine, Infinity and X Wing.

If these and other titles (Dropzone) continue to chip away at 40K, GW may find itself in the position where sales having dropped 10% or more they become loss-making.

At that point things could fall apart quickly as GW's ability to change strategy will be limited while their cost base will still be huge (mainly the retail chain) and difficult to reduce without reducing sales further.

 Baragash wrote:
20p dividend announced.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2014/06/06/dividend-4/

So their half-year report said what it said and they are still paying dividends?!

PhantomViper wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
20p dividend announced.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2014/06/06/dividend-4/

So their half-year report said what it said and they are still paying dividends?!

They've borrowed money in the past to pay dividends. Sometimes when you know you've got a stinker coming a company will pay a dividend to try and take the sting out of the news up front.

Or they could have had a record-breaking 2nd half.

 Baragash wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
20p dividend announced.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/2014/06/06/dividend-4/

So their half-year report said what it said and they are still paying dividends?!

They've borrowed money in the past to pay dividends. Sometimes when you know you've got a stinker coming a company will pay a dividend to try and take the sting out of the news up front.

Or they could have had a record-breaking 2nd half.

The stock dropped 25% when GW didn't pay its normal mid term dividend. GW has to pay a dividend right now, even if the company has to borrow.

From having played 3 games now with the new tactical objective cards, I think (and my small circle of mates agree) that this does take away the idea of my army has to beat\kill their army,.

If someone takes the 6 Riptide army etc, they may not auto win because if you are getting objectives and they aren't, no matter if they table you, you are still massively up on VP's, it adds a lot more flexibility to winning\losing, its not just kick him till he cant get up any more and people are going to have to learn top play differently. The old eternal war missions were bad for objective holding, but these cards make it dynamic and flexible. games have come out differently when played back to back for example. I for one like the changes so far and hope it brings in more dynamic play and a narrative to games.

It'll be interesting to see how bad the drop is at the end of July.

I'm convinced that the stock price will drop, but it'll be enlightening to see how much of the big drop midterm was down to dividends not being paid and how much to poor performance overall.

So far the only thing GW has put out in the last year that I might consider buying is the Imperial Knight. And I spent that money on X-wing stuff instead. Lots of people in my gaming group in very similar boats.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Anyway, returning to the future of GW, I don't believe one single game such as Warmachine will replace say 40K but there are several games that are gaining popularity including Warmachine, Infinity and X Wing.

If these and other titles (Dropzone) continue to chip away at 40K, GW may find itself in the position where sales having dropped 10% or more they become loss-making.

At that point things could fall apart quickly as GW's ability to change strategy will be limited while their cost base will still be huge (mainly the retail chain) and difficult to reduce without reducing sales further.

Warmachine & Hordes, Infinity, Malfaux, Kings of War, Deadzone, X-Wing, Flames of War, Drop Zone Commander, Bolt Action. The future is certainly going to be more diverse than "40k or fantasy?", which used to be the options if you wanted a game.

WayneTheGame wrote:

That's the gist of it. I mean I've played Warmachine. It's a good game but it has a very mechanical/metagamey feel to it. It feels like a game. 40k, for whtaever reason, always felt like something more than a game. The best I can explain it is like this:

Imagine you play D&D with two different groups. The first group approaches things from a pure metagame standpoint. There's minimal roleplaying and it tends to be in third person and the game is very hack-and-slash, with most discussion during combat being dice results e.g. "I attack with my +1 Longsword. I roll an 18, does that hit? Rolling for damage... 12 points.". The second group has a lot more roleplaying, people talk with accents or bring props, and discussion in combat is more immersive e.g. "I lunge forward, deftly dodging the orc's axe, and slash downward with my magic sword, its blue-silver blade flashing. 18 to hit. 12 points of damage as my blade slices into the Orc's shoulder, causing a spray of blood!"

The first is Warmachine. The second is 40k, for all its flaws. That's how it feels to me, at any rate. Something, and i've never been able to pinpoint it, about 40k just feels more immersive than Warmachine. Maybe it's the vastness of the background material, I don't know. I find in Warmachine that I barely care about the backstory of my Warcaster, or what his units are - any choices are entirely metagame based on little more than how they play. In 40k though I like to name my commander, name my squads, invent backstories for them and the like, and I'm much more likely to pick cool/fluffy units over powerful ones if it fits the theme of my army.

Like the dominatrix said, different strokes for different folks. I find a lot of 40K to be immersion-breaking--the idea that armies might build fortifications that are in shooting range of each other, aircraft zooming around over a tiny section of the battlefield, Space Marine chapters routinely losing 5-10% of their total manpower during a small skirmish, Eldar summoning a (bleep)ing Keeper of Secrets, Inquisitors hanging out with Dark Eldar, etc. And the game coming to a screeching halt when the inevitable rules debate came up also broke any immersion quite a bit.

PhantomViper wrote:
So their half-year report said what it said and they are still paying dividends?!

It's not July yet so I don't see where you are getting that.

 Baragash wrote:

They've borrowed money in the past to pay dividends. Sometimes when you know you've got a stinker coming a company will pay a dividend to try and take the sting out of the news up front.

Or they could have had a record-breaking 2nd half.

I haven't seen or heard of a debt offering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Or you could just read his background (4th paragraph) that specifically says he sits on a trading desk for an investment bank. All he did was say was "GW is losing customers" and flowered it up. There is no actual analysis written in there because if there was, he'd be required to disclose his real name. Assuming of course that he is actually registered with FINRA and the SEC.

You can not give anonymous advise if you are registered with FINRA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
reading more through the thread.. Looks like he works on an institutional trading desk. He's actually been giving advice on that forum so for his sake, I hope he isn't registered with FINRA because those are most certainly violations.

dereksatkinson wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
So their half-year report said what it said and they are still paying dividends?!

It's not July yet so I don't see where you are getting that.

From GW - http://investor.games-workshop.com/2014/06/06/dividend-4/

 Baragash wrote:

They've borrowed money in the past to pay dividends. Sometimes when you know you've got a stinker coming a company will pay a dividend to try and take the sting out of the news up front.

Or they could have had a record-breaking 2nd half.

I haven't seen or heard of a debt offering.

They've done it before, and it seems likely they'd try to shore up the stock price with a dividend even if the report was bad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

Or you could just read his background (4th paragraph) that specifically says he sits on a trading desk for an investment bank. All he did was say was "GW is losing customers" and flowered it up. There is no actual analysis written in there because if there was, he'd be required to disclose his real name. Assuming of course that he is actually registered with FINRA and the SEC.

You can not give anonymous advise if you are registered with FINRA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
reading more through the thread.. Looks like he works on an institutional trading desk. He's actually been giving advice on that forum so for his sake, I hope he isn't registered with FINRA because those are most certainly violations.

He hasn't been giving any stock advice, he explicitly says as much. He's offering an opinion on what he thinks his happening whilst trying to be neutral.

He even says this:

I would caveat that all of this is my personal opinion, I am in no way representing any firm, and that none of this is intended as investment advice (I own no GW stock)

So you're either mis-reading it or being deliberately obtuse.

I didn't say GW are borrowing money, I was just observing that poor performance is not in itself a barrier to dividend payment.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Anyway, returning to the future of GW, I don't believe one single game such as Warmachine will replace say 40K but there are several games that are gaining popularity including Warmachine, Infinity and X Wing.

If these and other titles (Dropzone) continue to chip away at 40K, GW may find itself in the position where sales having dropped 10% or more they become loss-making.

At that point things could fall apart quickly as GW's ability to change strategy will be limited while their cost base will still be huge (mainly the retail chain) and difficult to reduce without reducing sales further.

Good points. I have always believed GW won't fall to another GW (in size) but rather a series of companies (say in the $20M-$40M range) that collectively will eat up GW and their market share.

Interesting point about their restrictions in channels. As they have alienated the FLGS base with continuing draconian restrictions and moved more than 1,100 products to direct only, they really are relying on their stores to pull the weight. As you pointed out, however, at that point in cutting costs, each one also will cut revenue further and further. A true death spiral in the making.

 Baragash wrote:
I didn't say GW are borrowing money, I was just observing that poor performance is not in itself a barrier to dividend payment.

Which is appropriate because my back of a cigarette packet calculations would show that a 7.7M half yearly profit (if you did it again in this 6 months) would be entirely consistent with a dividend of 20p on the volume of shares that GW have in circulation.

GW's profits halved, they didn't completely disapeer.

Herzlos wrote:

dereksatkinson wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
So their half-year report said what it said and they are still paying dividends?!

It's not July yet so I don't see where you are getting that.

From GW - http://investor.games-workshop.com/2014/06/06/dividend-4/

I didn't ask where you got the idea they announced a dividend. Specifically, I was asking what the problem was with their last report that would preclude them from paying a dividend following a strong period.

Herzlos wrote:
They've done it before, and it seems likely they'd try to shore up the stock price with a dividend even if the report was bad.

I think you have an axe to grind.. It's possible they are about to release a good report despite all the hate mongering of the interwebs.

dereksatkinson wrote:


I think you have an axe to grind.. It's possible they are about to release a good report despite all the hate mongering of the interwebs.

dereksatkinson wrote:
If he is registered with finra, he can't legally claim to be an analyst and provide analysis anonymously.

A.) It is his personal analysis based on management experience, not an investment analysis - which he clearly states as such. FINRA regulations apply to brokers giving investment advise. Of which he is NOT doing.

B.) He is NOT selling GW securities. FINRA regs apply when pushing securities or providing analysis of those securities. He is doing neither.

C.) GW is a UK-based company. FINRA is an American organization authorized by Congress.

But here, since you want to throw it out there:

Every investor in America relies on one thing: fair financial markets. That's why FINRA works every day to ensure that:
• every investor receives the basic protections they deserve;
• anyone who sells a securities product has been tested, qualified and licensed;
• every securities product advertisement used is truthful, and not misleading;
• any securities product sold to an investor is suitable for that investor's needs; and
• investors receive complete disclosure about the investment product before purchase