GW Annual Report is Up -- Report discussion starts on pg 12

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.

**rigeld2**

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
forgotten ghosts wrote:
problem with that is what rules actually changed? the true revamp of the rules happened +/- 10 years ago, since then we have changed overwatch, put in snap firing, flyers and super heavies open topped gets hit by templates, subtract 2 instead dice drop highest, went back and forth on targeting specific floors of buildings, psychic phase hull points did i miss anything? the core rules have maybe been tweaked with in my age of gaming, but not many real changes since we started the 21st other than the whole apoc, and escalation merge into 40k

...
Adding an entire freaking phase isn't a real change? Just...

Nevermind.

They just put the phase back to consolidate the psychic rules that were scattered all over the other phases of the game? Hardly a major change.

When you have to edit literally every codex power in the game, theoretically taking into account balance changes therein, it is a major change.
As are things like the open topped getting hit by templates. And subtract 2 from a charge instead of 3d6drop the highest. Adding overwatch was massive.

Seriously, while the amount of work to make the change was small the ramifications of these changes are massive.

It's like saying changing the point value of a Riptide to 37 points wouldn't be a massive change. It's just reducing a single number, after all.

**Azreal13**

forgotten ghosts wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:

Really?

If I'm considering buying a video game, I generally go to one of the independent sources I trust, either in print or online and read a review that I can be fairly sure will give me as objective and critical view as is possible with a human in the equation. I might even read several.

Care to point to a source that is similar for wargames? Because I'm not aware of one.

With regard to a demo game, are you seriously suggesting that a pre-defined game, in a GW store, conducted by a GW staff member is going to give me the sort of information I need to make a critical assessment of the game as a whole? Because that will be the overwhelming majority of demo 40K games played around the world I suspect.

Do you credit a GW staffer (a salesman when all is said and done) with the honesty to explain how many of the purchases and decisions I may make, from army choice through to units through to which pieces I choose to glue onto my models could hugely influence how likely I am to be able to win, or even compete, in games? Is it possible, through playing a brief, small scale demo, to appreciate how I could equally make decisions based on models I simply liked to end up with a collection of models that is capable of eliciting negative reactions from other gamers, up to and including a refusal to play me?

All the other items you give as examples are relatively easy to assess, shoes fit or do not, a videogame will likely garner numerous reviews, as will a movie or many other entertainment products. A wargame however, needs an educated eye to assess it's strengths and weaknesses. That requires either investment of time and resources or the consultation of others with more experience. Now, unlike videogames or movies, wargaming isn't large enough to support a whole auxiliary industry of critics, if only there were some place where people with years, in many cases decades, of experience could all come together to share their experiences.....

Ah, that would never work, unless it was all relentlessly positive people would just dismiss it as hatred because they either didn't understand or agree with the arguments.

i haven't seen a gw store in about 10 years, i am talking about players doing there part to support what they love and not always needing some payed staff member to hold there hand

they only thing that will never work is the thing never tried

i got introduced to dakka in 98 by the guys that ran the shop in portsmouth nh, good group that bunch

Ok, so someone walks into a store, and your idea is that non-staff are on hand to provide demo games? Or do you happen to attend a club at a location where random, interested potential wargamers just wander in off the street?

There's plenty of players out there supporting what they love, it's just far fewer of them love 40K than apparently any time in recent history.

**puma713**

wuestenfux wrote:
Have a look at the 40k releases in the last two years.

Recent fiscal year:
- 7th Edition
- Space Marines
- Astra Militarum
- Tyranids
- Eldar
- Imperial Knights

Former fiscal year:
- 6th Edition
- Tau
- Chaos Space Marines
- Dark Angels
- Daemons

Orks released, and BA, DE, Necrons, GK, SoB(?) to be released.

The pace is astonishing but still gross revenue went down.

To be honest, I think the pace is one of the things that hurt them. I know that the community is probably 50/50 on this (if even that), but I think that the slower release schedule of 5th ed. gave the consumer time to buy a codex, study it, put together their army and have a good amount of testing done before the next army came out. Once the next army came out, they could afford to adjust their army list and buy what they needed. Or, if the player was a FoTM player, he could get rid of his army and afford to pick up a new army with the money that he sold his last army for (plus a little extra).

With the pace of the release schedule now, I would be hesitant to purchase an army or add to my army until I see the next few books. Again, this is my personal preference and I'm not saying anyone else is like this - but I like to have time to digest the books. Now*, instead of purchasing an army, I am spending a good amount of money on the codices and the rulebook to stay at the top of my game. With limited funds (and being burned by GW in the past), I don't want to spend money on an entire army that is going to be invalidated in a few months when either a new codex comes out or a new rulebook changes the way that my army works. I'm not saying this will happen, but when an army is so expensive, you want to put it together, ready to play. You don't want to blow $700+ on a new army to then have to turn around and spend another $200 updating it for the next set of codex creep that comes out.

With the old pace, I could've purchased an army, played a while and then, when the next power-hitter came out, I could afford to update my army. Now, what I was spending on updating my army, I'm spending on the next Codex so I can be familiar with the rules. Maybe the pace was just off-putting for me, but I'm sure I'm not alone.

*This is hypothetical, I haven't spent money on GW in over two years.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:

Personally I could see GW doing a "7.5" release and for every edition thereafter. 7th comes out, 7.5 comes out a year later making minor changes, but juuust enough to make people switch up their army comp again so they have to buy another $400 batch of models to update their army, then 8th comes out, etc.

Case in point.

**forgotten ghosts**

PhantomViper wrote:

Random charges, random warlord traits, random psychic powers, random terrain, random mission objectives, allies, flyers, LoWs, fortifications...

Most of those happened with the change from 5th to 6th, hence the steep decline in the player base that happened in 6th and the consequent scramble by GW to get them back with 7th. Only they didn't do anything to actually please the people that left because of those changes...

i guess me and few people i play with have had an issue with any of those, we haven't gotten into the unbound lists but aren't opposed to it as most of use bring a metric ton of crap and then build lists after we already know what we will be playing. lords of war have been fun usually get destroyed in the game and allow other units to become much more effective. we typically don't play with the random terrain and objective rules i was opposed to allies in 6th but that was honestly because i couldn't allie with myself which got fixed most of what i feel needs to get fixed is within the actual codex themselves where certain things don't seem to make sense to me, and since those are what they will be redoing for the foreseeable future i am looking forward to more games of 7th

**gorgon**

While you see 'the rules' come up as a common complaint, you'll also see a lot of disagreement about what the problem areas are and how the rulesets could be improved. They'll never make everyone happy, and 40K in particular probably enjoyed its largest growth period under its wonkiest and most patched rulesets (1st-3rd).

IMO, there are many canards that pop up in these discussions, and this is one of them.

The real and current problem with the rules IMO lies in the apparent disconnect between the studio and the rest of the business. Seventh edition 40K is -- even moreso than 6th -- a statement by the studio that 40K is a social game that requires its players to set parameters and generally be mature, agreeable people. You may feel that 40K *should* be this or that, but IMO the studio's stance is a pretty realistic take on what the game has been for most of its history (and again, during some real growth periods).

The problem IMO is that while the studio is busy telling us to forge the narrative, the rest of the business is busy pulling support for and promotion aimed at various communities -- through downsizing to small one-man stores, through less support and friendly policies toward FLGSs, through eliminated or missed opportunities for customer/community interaction, through a lack of tournament support for stores and smaller events, etc.

I like 7th edition a lot. Others feel differently, but my personal read is that a fair chunk of the complaining comes from people who haven't tried or have only barely tried it. IMO, if the 40K communities were healthier, you'd see more players working through the edition change like they've always done in the past. GW has always jerked the player base some around from edition to edition, and 7th is nothing new. What might be different now is that the communities that keep current players engaged and playing -- and introduce new players to the game -- aren't as strong as they used to be.

**Kilkrazy**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot of people have stopped buying the game, for various combinations of reasons to do with price and not liking aspects of the modern rules.

The fact that you like the modern rules does not convince other people they are good. To get those people back, GW are going to have to change the rules and reduce the prices.
attest stuff

Price alone is not enough to explain the drop in GW sales. I can afford to buy the latest stuff every month, and I'm willing to bet there are a few folk on this site who have well-paid jobs and can equally shell out as well, without breaking sweat, or noticing the effect on their bank balance. Similary, I feel for the students and the poorer folk on this site who have genuine grievances about price hikes, but it's more complicated than prices.

I don't think it's a rules problem either, because if there is one single issue that everybody on dakka agrees 100% with, it's that GW has never produced a good rules set. They've produced ok rules sets, but everybody has at least one quibble with something.

For me, personally, I gave up the GW games because of my age and switched to historicals, because for some strange reason, nobody laughs at tiny, plastic British soldiers, but everybody laughs at tiny, plastic, goblins. Historicals are more respectable.

It is a combination of factors which no doubt vary between individuals.

For myself, I refused to buy the full price 6th and waited for the soft back out of Dark Vengeance. Meanwhile codexes doubled in price and I just decided they were not worth it, so I didn't buy any Riptides or Flyrants, etc. either.

Once 7th came along, less than two years later, it was an easy decision not to pay £50 for a set of rules that was a bundle of tweaks on 6th containing a number of things I didn't like, that individually were relatively minor and could be ignored if necessary, but why should I reward GW a penny for essentially not making things any better and just not making them worse but a bit different?

Basically I never thought 40K was a fantastic game but it was playable and had its points. It isn't getting any better and the "rental" price to stay in it has increased to the point where it is no longer value for money.

So that is me out of 40K for the foreseeable future. I cannot be the only person in that kind of frame of mind. It at least offers a rational explanation for the revenue decline.

**jamesk1973**

rigeld2 wrote:
forgotten ghosts wrote:
problem with that is what rules actually changed? the true revamp of the rules happened +/- 10 years ago, since then we have changed overwatch, put in snap firing, flyers and super heavies open topped gets hit by templates, subtract 2 instead dice drop highest, went back and forth on targeting specific floors of buildings, psychic phase hull points did i miss anything? the core rules have maybe been tweaked with in my age of gaming, but not many real changes since we started the 21st other than the whole apoc, and escalation merge into 40k

...
Adding an entire freaking phase isn't a real change? Just...

Nevermind.

At least it got rid of the whole "when exactly does my power go off?" question.

Still a terrible set of rules though.

**PhantomViper**

forgotten ghosts wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

Random charges, random warlord traits, random psychic powers, random terrain, random mission objectives, allies, flyers, LoWs, fortifications...

Most of those happened with the change from 5th to 6th, hence the steep decline in the player base that happened in 6th and the consequent scramble by GW to get them back with 7th. Only they didn't do anything to actually please the people that left because of those changes...

i guess me and few people i play with have had an issue with any of those, we haven't gotten into the unbound lists but aren't opposed to it as most of use bring a metric ton of crap and then build lists after we already know what we will be playing. lords of war have been fun usually get destroyed in the game and allow other units to become much more effective. we typically don't play with the random terrain and objective rules i was opposed to allies in 6th but that was honestly because i couldn't allie with myself which got fixed most of what i feel needs to get fixed is within the actual codex themselves where certain things don't seem to make sense to me, and since those are what they will be redoing for the foreseeable future i am looking forward to more games of 7th

Like I said, good for you and your friends that you still like the game, but unfortunately for GW, you and your friends don't seem to be in the majority when it comes to liking the new edition(s).

**MWHistorian**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot of people have stopped buying the game, for various combinations of reasons to do with price and not liking aspects of the modern rules.

The fact that you like the modern rules does not convince other people they are good. To get those people back, GW are going to have to change the rules and reduce the prices.
attest stuff

Price alone is not enough to explain the drop in GW sales. I can afford to buy the latest stuff every month, and I'm willing to bet there are a few folk on this site who have well-paid jobs and can equally shell out as well, without breaking sweat, or noticing the effect on their bank balance. Similary, I feel for the students and the poorer folk on this site who have genuine grievances about price hikes, but it's more complicated than prices.

I don't think it's a rules problem either, because if there is one single issue that everybody on dakka agrees 100% with, it's that GW has never produced a good rules set. They've produced ok rules sets, but everybody has at least one quibble with something.

For me, personally, I gave up the GW games because of my age and switched to historicals, because for some strange reason, nobody laughs at tiny, plastic British soldiers, but everybody laughs at tiny, plastic, goblins. Historicals are more respectable.

It is a combination of factors which no doubt vary between individuals.

For myself, I refused to buy the full price 6th and waited for the soft back out of Dark Vengeance. Meanwhile codexes doubled in price and I just decided they were not worth it, so I didn't buy any Riptides or Flyrants, etc. either.

Once 7th came along, less than two years later, it was an easy decision not to pay £50 for a set of rules that was a bundle of tweaks on 6th containing a number of things I didn't like, that individually were relatively minor and could be ignored if necessary, but why should I reward GW a penny for essentially not making things any better and just not making them worse but a bit different?

Basically I never thought 40K was a fantastic game but it was playable and had its points. It isn't getting any better and the "rental" price to stay in it has increased to the point where it is no longer value for money.

So that is me out of 40K for the foreseeable future. I cannot be the only person in that kind of frame of mind. It at least offers a rational explanation for the revenue decline.

What he said, but I'll also add a little more. I also stopped (for all the reasons above) but also to protest what I considered horrible business practices by GW. And their contempt for their customers. But like he said, it's a multitude of factors that varies per individual.

**forgotten ghosts**

Azreal13 wrote:

Ok, so someone walks into a store, and your idea is that non-staff are on hand to provide demo games? Or do you happen to attend a club at a location where random, interested potential wargamers just wander in off the street?

There's plenty of players out there supporting what they love, it's just far fewer of them love 40K than apparently any time in recent history.

agian not seeing a gw store in years the staff where i play would run a demo with you on anything you were interested in i have seen a demo going on for 40k the last 2 times i was in there, yesterday i put together one of the mek guns because i was the 5th wheel and ryan was busy showing 2 guys how to play 40k so he couldn't get a game in at all, had the kid that made the 3rd wheel in warmahordes brought his 40k tho... was fine tho cause i got my game in and got the mek gun put together, but i have also helped with a few of the demos and never have a problem steppin in.

i am not saying to live your life at the store to provide demo games, but i know alot of people that are just hanging around there locals and do do that

Automatically Appended Next Post:
or i should say will do that if the situation arises

**Easy E**

Herzlos wrote:
Did you read their financial report? They gave no indication that they even know what's wrong, nevermind about them trying to fix it. It reads as if they are just going to keep doing the same and hoping it works out.

You mention the recession, but it's largely over, and pretty much every other gaming company is growing quite well, so the recession isn't to blame here.

To be fair, a lot of major retailers have the same problem right now. The retail landscape is changing in fundamental ways as the barriers for entry are incredibly low right now.

**PhantomViper**

gorgon wrote:
and 40K in particular probably enjoyed its largest growth period under its wonkiest and most patched rulesets (1st-3rd).

Source? Because both polls I've recently seen on the subject suggest that most people started playing during the 3rd-5th edition period and that 4th and 5th were the editions that most people thought were the best...

**puma713**

WayneTheGame wrote:
forgotten ghosts wrote:
and since i know this is coming next, what about the outrage people have about 7th

to which i respond have you played 7th i absolutely love it

Good for you, a lot of people don't play it and won't play it because they don't like the direction it was taking (same could be said of 6th). And, judging from the dropped sales, we are slowly getting to the point where more people are stopping playing.

This is something that truly baffled me (and maybe started or accelerated their decline): for years they had been streamlining the game. They had been tweaking parts here and there to seemingly make it easier and smoother to play. 5th was easy to play and easy to pickup. But then 6th came along with its bloated, mismanaged ruleset and all of that went out the door.

I mean, were they trying to scrape off any remnants of former authors from their brand? I just don't get it. It feels like they were throwing ideas up against the wall to see what might stick rather than doing any

market research

. Instead, they give Ward and Co. the keys to the rules pantry and they bake up a tough-to-swallow mess with all the rules they can find. Not to mention glaringly obvious that they were trying to shoehorn Apoc into normal 40K. I would wonder if they asked their fans if that is what they wanted, but I already know the answer.

**jamesk1973**

I personally cannot wait for GW to completely fail.

Then the IP will be snatched by someone who will truly attempt to maximize their success by leveraging the goodwill and fond memories associated with the IP of 40K.

GW cannot ever come back from where they are.

The only hope for the IP to survive is for it to be purchased by an entirely new entity.

**wuestenfux**

Blacksails wrote:

The parts that have changed for the worse are the merging of standard 40k and apoc with escalation and LoW. The game is still a skirmish rule set with many aspects of small level games, but shovels large company level gaming down your throat. The list building mechanics now are a bad joke at best, and a complete absence of rules at the worst.

Indeed, this is a big problem. A skirmish game mixed with rules usually played at a larger level (superheavies, multiple detachments, allies).
This makes list building difficult, particularly at the tournament level. Now its hardly predictable what to expect.

**puma713**

PhantomViper wrote:

Most of those happened with the change from 5th to 6th, hence the steep decline in the player base that happened in 6th and the consequent scramble by GW to get them back with 7th. Only they didn't do anything to actually please the people that left because of those changes...

Because they had no idea why those people left.

**PhantomViper**

puma713 wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

Most of those happened with the change from 5th to 6th, hence the steep decline in the player base that happened in 6th and the consequent scramble by GW to get them back with 7th. Only they didn't do anything to actually please the people that left because of those changes...

Because they had no idea why those people left.

A company that brags about not engaging in any market analysis doesn't know why its customers stopped buying their product... gasp, who would have thought!

That is why I don't have any faith in GWs management ability to pull itself out of this decline before its too late.

**puma713**

gorgon wrote:
While you see 'the rules' come up as a common complaint, you'll also see a lot of disagreement about what the problem areas are and how the rulesets could be improved. They'll never make everyone happy, and 40K in particular probably enjoyed its largest growth period under its wonkiest and most patched rulesets (1st-3rd).

IMO, there are many canards that pop up in these discussions, and this is one of them.

The real and current problem with the rules IMO lies in the apparent disconnect between the studio and the rest of the business. Seventh edition 40K is -- even moreso than 6th -- a statement by the studio that 40K is a social game that requires its players to set parameters and generally be mature, agreeable people. You may feel that 40K *should* be this or that, but IMO the studio's stance is a pretty realistic take on what the game has been for most of its history (and again, during some real growth periods).

The problem IMO is that while the studio is busy telling us to forge the narrative, the rest of the business is busy pulling support for and promotion aimed at various communities -- through downsizing to small one-man stores, through less support and friendly policies toward FLGSs, through eliminated or missed opportunities for customer/community interaction, through a lack of tournament support for stores and smaller events, etc.

I like 7th edition a lot. Others feel differently, but my personal read is that a fair chunk of the complaining comes from people who haven't tried or have only barely tried it. IMO, if the 40K communities were healthier, you'd see more players working through the edition change like they've always done in the past. GW has always jerked the player base some around from edition to edition, and 7th is nothing new. What might be different now is that the communities that keep current players engaged and playing -- and introduce new players to the game -- aren't as strong as they used to be.

It could also be that the people that they have put off with 7th edition are not as patient or willing to suffer through the changes of gameplay because of various other factors. If someone is upset about their army changing, or having to spend x amount of dollars on a new unit or what have you, when 7th hits and changes things up a bit again, that may just push them right over the line. They may throw their hands up and say, "Forget it." instead of committing to learning the new edition.

GW hasn't done itself any favors with regard to any community outreach at all. All they do is produce and expect their fans to buy.

**wuestenfux**

PhantomViper wrote:
puma713 wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

Most of those happened with the change from 5th to 6th, hence the steep decline in the player base that happened in 6th and the consequent scramble by GW to get them back with 7th. Only they didn't do anything to actually please the people that left because of those changes...

Because they had no idea why those people left.

A company that brags about not engaging in any market analysis doesn't know why its customers stopped buying their product... gasp, who would have thought!

That is why I don't have any faith in GWs management ability to pull itself out of this decline before its too late.

That's indeed very strange. It wouldn't be too difficult to make some market research.

**Wayniac**

puma713 wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

Most of those happened with the change from 5th to 6th, hence the steep decline in the player base that happened in 6th and the consequent scramble by GW to get them back with 7th. Only they didn't do anything to actually please the people that left because of those changes...

Because they had no idea why those people left.

This. If they don't do market research, focus groups or ask the market what it wants, they have zero clue why people are going elsewhere, and all they can do is throw gak at the wall and see what sticks, or keep doing the same thing and hope it works (which is the definition of insanity). Given the pump and dump type of mentality they have towards their customers, I wouldn't be surprised if they just assumed the people leaving are part of that. I did read somewhere that they figured someone would only play the game for a year before they got tired and went elsewhere, so with zero research who's to say if they aren't chalking it up to churn rather than a fundamental issue?

**heartserenade**

forgotten ghosts wrote:
heartserenade wrote:
TheAuldGrump wrote:
Play nice kids - he has found a game that he likes, and more power to him.

To be fair, telling people to play 7e before we judge it is basically telling someone to invest on a codex, a rulebook and an army just to judge something that they may or may not love. It's definitely not endearing to tell people they have to pay up first before they can make an opinion of the game.

people do it all the time with computer and video games, if you let gw take you for every penny before you played thats on you. i would go to a store and demo any game before investing in it, we try on shoes before we buy them right? i am forgetting this is an internet forum so who am i kidding

Just the price tag is enough to turn me off. Even if a videogame is the best videogame there is, I wouldnt buy it if it's priced $500. Honestly, how much would you have to spend in order to get a 40k army? I don't need a demo game to know, I'll just look at GW's website and look at the prices there and leave.

It's also not like I can't search for opinions of people who've played the game. So far there's still a huge imbalance of power from what I've heard, or have they fixed that with 7e? That alone is enough for me to judge it.

Fine, you love it. So what? Did you explain to my why you love it? If you love it, does that mean that I don't have to spend as much as other people just to play? Did it fix the issues I had with 40k (imbalance, poorly written rules, complexity for complexity's sake)?

I'm guessing all the answers are no.

It's annoying when people do that: tell other people that their opinions aren't valid because they've never tried it. To some degree that is true, but I don't need to eat poop before having a license of having an opinion about eating poop.

**puma713**

WayneTheGame wrote:
puma713 wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

Most of those happened with the change from 5th to 6th, hence the steep decline in the player base that happened in 6th and the consequent scramble by GW to get them back with 7th. Only they didn't do anything to actually please the people that left because of those changes...

Because they had no idea why those people left.

This. If they don't do market research, focus groups or ask the market what it wants, they have zero clue why people are going elsewhere, and all they can do is throw gak at the wall and see what sticks, or keep doing the same thing and hope it works (which is the definition of insanity). Given the pump and dump type of mentality they have towards their customers, I wouldn't be surprised if they just assumed the people leaving are part of that. I did read somewhere that they figured someone would only play the game for a year before they got tired and went elsewhere, so with zero research who's to say if they aren't chalking it up to churn rather than a fundamental issue?

Sadly, maybe you're right. And maybe that is why the release schedule is so accelerated, especially in regard to 7th edition. Maybe they're hoping that a faster release schedule in regard to core rules will translate to a faster churn and more quick revenue. I really don't know what they're thinking, to be honest.

**heartserenade**

forgotten ghosts wrote:
Azreal13 wrote:

Ok, so someone walks into a store, and your idea is that non-staff are on hand to provide demo games? Or do you happen to attend a club at a location where random, interested potential wargamers just wander in off the street?

There's plenty of players out there supporting what they love, it's just far fewer of them love 40K than apparently any time in recent history.

agian not seeing a gw store in years the staff where i play would run a demo with you on anything you were interested in i have seen a demo going on for 40k the last 2 times i was in there, yesterday i put together one of the mek guns because i was the 5th wheel and ryan was busy showing 2 guys how to play 40k so he couldn't get a game in at all, had the kid that made the 3rd wheel in warmahordes brought his 40k tho... was fine tho cause i got my game in and got the mek gun put together, but i have also helped with a few of the demos and never have a problem steppin in.

i am not saying to live your life at the store to provide demo games, but i know alot of people that are just hanging around there locals and do do that

Automatically Appended Next Post:

or i should say will do that if the situation arises

Yeah, people don't actually do that where I live. So what then? How can I try 7th Edition without investing money? Care to give another example?

**Noir**

boyd wrote:
Noir wrote:
boyd wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
boyd wrote:

Cash on hand doesn't mean you're successful. The fact they don't have any debt is huge is a better indication as to how well they operate. They grew slowly and not through debt. From what I can tell, they seem to be running leaner and have few production issues. Nothing like the PP issue back in 2010 when you couldn't order half of their model range unless it was a new release.

A problem which GW (indirectly) caused. Nothing like sending your customers in droves to one of your biggest competitors by dictating where they can buy their products from.

"Sorry guv, you're from Australia. Can't buy our products from Wayland..."

Ahh, I don't seem to have the same problem the Australians have. My issue with PP was I got out of GW for a year and stated playing Hordes. After getting into that game, PP had troubles with their supply chain and I couldn't order anything that wasn't a new release from my FLGS or directly from PP's website. As a result, I quit playing the game, cancelled my orders with PP and went back to GW. The only benefit was 10 months later I got my entire order from PP. One max sized beast handler unit. Can't play skorne well without them. With GW, hey seem to be able to back fill their product rather quickly. The most I've waited was an extra 3 days for something and they always sent me an "I'm sorry for the delay gift" that goes with my purchase.

No, you missed his point. He was point out you couldn't get PP product becouse Australians where buying them all at that time. Why becouse GW priced them out and a bunch went to PP games at the same time.

Oh, their forums said they were retooling and had machines breaking down. They didn't indicate anything about Australians buying all of their products for 10 months. Heck, the feedback I got from PP reiterated they were in the process of revamping their production which coincided with what their forums said. Then I'm sorry but PP is a much much smaller company than GW because if people from Australia can suck all of their product they make then hey really had no supply chain to begin with. If my order was on back order for 10 months because that's how long it took to cast every order in front of me, they must have very little equipment or it was in horrible shape and nobody was willing to work with them.

Smart companies don't point to the player base and say "It is their fault". But, you see the casue and effect, that would have on their supply chain built up to hold them over for the retooling, right?

**gorgon**

PhantomViper wrote:
gorgon wrote:
and 40K in particular probably enjoyed its largest growth period under its wonkiest and most patched rulesets (1st-3rd).

Source? Because both polls I've recently seen on the subject suggest that most people started playing during the 3rd-5th edition period and that 4th and 5th were the editions that most people thought were the best...

Source for yours? Not Dakka polls, I trust.

Also, note the underlined and consider my meaning.

**PhantomViper**

gorgon wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
gorgon wrote:
and 40K in particular probably enjoyed its largest growth period under its wonkiest and most patched rulesets (1st-3rd).

Source? Because both polls I've recently seen on the subject suggest that most people started playing during the 3rd-5th edition period and that 4th and 5th were the editions that most people thought were the best...

Source for yours? Not Dakka polls, I trust.

Also, note the underlined and consider my meaning.

Yes, Dakka polls, they are extremely flawed, I know so if you have a better source for yours, I'm all ears.

**Grimtuff**

MWHistorian wrote:
forgotten ghosts wrote:
to all of that, if you guys dropped the game because of the direction and haven't played the game than how is your opinion worth more than mine, like i said where i play ( 3 stores slightly overlapping groups) 40k 7th everyone loves it one guy refusing to play the new missions.
again when i comes to don't play it wont play... that is your choice and makes your view and opinion of the game slightly skewed as you already choose to not like it. and that is fine i do the same thing with other games, not because of the direction they are going or my predetermined opinion of them (i love star wars!!) but because i am not gonna learn another rule set paint more models, etc.
we all know what they say about opinions we all got one right! mine and some others that i play with truly dont know what the hell everyone is always complaining about. did anyone bother to mention that the entire world has been in a recession for some time now? proven by the billions given in bailouts all across europe and in the states, any one care to take that into account, and how bout the wars going on everywhere, i now a lot of players that are in active service, how often do they get to play paint?
yes there is a shift moving to other games, but again we are looking at a giant company that is noticing its losses. in my opinion gw will fix itself, and ONE of these other games that you guys have gone to will become the target and gw will stay the walmart, i think most of the banter is hoping the one you went to becomes it.

For me, 1. it's the core concept of 7th. It's too soon after 6th and feels like a cynical cash grab. Right there it puts me off. I don't have to buy it to not like that.
2. Unbound. The game is too unbalanced for an unbound type of game play without a lot of pre-negotiation. It's unworkable for pick up games. So, right there, I don't have to play it to know that I (someone who relies on PUG's) isn't going to have fun with that. Also, its another cynical cash grab witch further puts me off of 7th.
3. Pyschic phase/deamon summoning. I play for the fluff, so when I hear that an Ultramarine Librarian can summon deamons, I lose all respect for the game. Also, a whole phase of a billion dice being rolled slows up an already slow game. Also, for armies with no psykers (I used to play SOB) its a whole phase to just sit back and take it like a chump. None of those issues require playing it. Again, its the core concept I disagree with along with it being a cynical cash grab to get everyone to just buy deamon models.
4. Mealstrom. Again, the core concept. It destroys any notion of an over-all strategy and just makes it turn by turn tactics. I like the players to determine strategy, not random cards. This is a furthering of the randomness that many players already didn't like. More of something we don't like isn't going to be better. Again, not something I have to play test to know.

This. All of it.

Blacksails wrote:
The problem is both that the rules haven't changed, and the parts that have changed have done so for the worse.

Also this. GW makes changes for the sake of change. It moves the game sideways rather than forwards. If it ain't broke don't fix it!

**Kilkrazy**

PhantomViper wrote:
gorgon wrote:
and 40K in particular probably enjoyed its largest growth period under its wonkiest and most patched rulesets (1st-3rd).

Source? Because both polls I've recently seen on the subject suggest that most people started playing during the 3rd-5th edition period and that 4th and 5th were the editions that most people thought were the best...

40K experienced colossal growth under 1st edition because it hadn't existed before and grew from a base level of 0.

I suspect most people on DakkaDakka did start in 3rd-5th, which lasted from 1999 to 2012 -- let's remember 6th edition was only two years ago!! There hasn't been time for lots of people to during 6th/7th.

**gorgon**

puma713 wrote:
gorgon wrote:
While you see 'the rules' come up as a common complaint, you'll also see a lot of disagreement about what the problem areas are and how the rulesets could be improved. They'll never make everyone happy, and 40K in particular probably enjoyed its largest growth period under its wonkiest and most patched rulesets (1st-3rd).

IMO, there are many canards that pop up in these discussions, and this is one of them.

The real and current problem with the rules IMO lies in the apparent disconnect between the studio and the rest of the business. Seventh edition 40K is -- even moreso than 6th -- a statement by the studio that 40K is a social game that requires its players to set parameters and generally be mature, agreeable people. You may feel that 40K *should* be this or that, but IMO the studio's stance is a pretty realistic take on what the game has been for most of its history (and again, during some real growth periods).

The problem IMO is that while the studio is busy telling us to forge the narrative, the rest of the business is busy pulling support for and promotion aimed at various communities -- through downsizing to small one-man stores, through less support and friendly policies toward FLGSs, through eliminated or missed opportunities for customer/community interaction, through a lack of tournament support for stores and smaller events, etc.

I like 7th edition a lot. Others feel differently, but my personal read is that a fair chunk of the complaining comes from people who haven't tried or have only barely tried it. IMO, if the 40K communities were healthier, you'd see more players working through the edition change like they've always done in the past. GW has always jerked the player base some around from edition to edition, and 7th is nothing new. What might be different now is that the communities that keep current players engaged and playing -- and introduce new players to the game -- aren't as strong as they used to be.

It could also be that the people that they have put off with 7th edition are not as patient or willing to suffer through the changes of gameplay because of various other factors. If someone is upset about their army changing, or having to spend x amount of dollars on a new unit or what have you, when 7th hits and changes things up a bit again, that may just push them right over the line. They may throw their hands up and say, "Forget it." instead of committing to learning the new edition.

GW hasn't done itself any favors with regard to any community outreach at all. All they do is produce and expect their fans to buy.

The game changed far more dramatically from 2nd to 3rd and the player base still grew, however. Fourth edition made players junk their mech armies. Fifth made them junk their infantry. Cripes, I'm a Tyranid player -- you know how many dramatic swings I've been through between BOTH edition changes and codex changes? Undoubtedly there were players that quit with each change, but the game (and sales) seemed to largely stay healthy during most of that time, suggesting that many adjusted and stayed, while others got on board.

I'm not suggesting a magic bullet. Increased competition is also an important factor here, although I again I think GW's retraction helped create the space that other companies grew into and filled. A lot of the stuff that Privateer does now looks like the stuff that GW did a decade ago.

Personally, I think there's an "enthusiasm gap," and that it could be overcome by taking some best practices from yesteryear and combining them with truly modern thinking about how to engage their customer community.

Edit: I've played every edition of the game. The 7th edition ruleset isn't nearly the worst, IMO. And the minis -- considering overall quality and range -- are the best they've ever been. I don't think its about 7th or 6th being failed products. Sales have been declining for years.

**Grimtuff**

Kilkrazy wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:
gorgon wrote:
and 40K in particular probably enjoyed its largest growth period under its wonkiest and most patched rulesets (1st-3rd).

Source? Because both polls I've recently seen on the subject suggest that most people started playing during the 3rd-5th edition period and that 4th and 5th were the editions that most people thought were the best...

40K experienced colossal growth under 1st edition because it hadn't existed before and grew from a base level of 0.
.

Like so.

Substitute "religion" for "wargame" in the dialogue.