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.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
That being said, some people actually do enjoy 40k for what it is, because they are casual players who care more about the models and background than the rules.

Well, not really. Some generalisation there. Most of my games are played on the competitive - tournament level and I enjoy 40k. Models and background and gaming are all equally important to me.

You're right. I could have chosen my words more carefully. I'd revise it to say "...people who care enough about the models and background to forgive the shortcomings in the rules."

 Nate668 wrote:
"...people who care enough about the models and background to forgive the shortcomings in the rules."

Yeah, either that or they actually like the rules and their oddities. I guess I´m that kind of player. I don´t mind you can Stomp a landspeeder on the other side of a terrainpiece, or that Blasts that land OOS can´t kill anything RAW. To me they are just rules, and they´re the same for everyone. It means everyone benefits and suffers from them all the same. I don´t try to think about the game as "realism" and therefore find some rules dumb. My mindset with all games is "It´s a game, these are the rules, the end." There´s no "I want this to be different or I won´t enjoy myself" -impulse whatsoever. I don´t go into a videogame being all disappointed about the restrictions, aka rules, placed upon me. I take them as they are and that´s it, just like most do. When it comes to wargames it´s completely different to some, for some reason.

To me adjusting to the rules, restrictions and possibilities granted by the rules, good and bad, is quite fun.

Breng77 wrote:
The issue is that their sales are still down, I personally haven't bought any GW products in come time. Also they do have incentive....they could sell more. They just choose not to put in the effort to do so.

We know they would sell more. But for a business, it isn't about selling more at any cost, it is about maximizing profits. GW obviously believes that they have a better chance at maximizing profits by releasing lots of new books and kits in quick succession rather than spending time and money on play testing. They may or may not be correct, but that's what they're doing. Maybe if their sales keep dropping we'll see them adjust their strategy and actually start doing that play testing, but who knows.

Except that if like many companies they did public beta testing the output of money and time internally is very small, for what they could get in return.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
"...people who care enough about the models and background to forgive the shortcomings in the rules."

Yeah, either that or they actually like the rules and their oddities. I guess I´m that kind of player. I don´t mind you can Stomp a landspeeder on the other side of a terrainpiece, or that Blasts that land OOS can´t kill anything RAW. To me they are just rules, and they´re the same for everyone. It means everyone benefits and suffers from them all the same. I don´t try to think about the game as "realism" and therefore find some rules dumb. My mindset with all games is "It´s a game, these are the rules, the end." There´s no "I want this to be different or I won´t enjoy myself" -impulse whatsoever. I don´t go into a videogame being all disappointed about the restrictions, aka rules, placed upon me. I take them as they are and that´s it, just like most do. When it comes to wargames it´s completely different to some, for some reason.

To me adjusting to the rules, restrictions and possibilities granted by the rules, good and bad, is quite fun.

I would argue that if you enjoy adjusting the rules, you do not care about the rules as written, because you feel free to change them. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I'm just saying that I believe you still at least partially fit into my generalizations.

@Nate668.
GW plc has suffered falling sale volumes now for 10 years .
The rate of sales volume fall is increasing, and the cost cutting and price hikes has been increasing to compensate.

Despite releasing the most popular sellers at a faster rate than ever before, GW plc is still loosing profit.

Anyone with a grasp on reality knows that raising prices to over-come falling sales volume, is a short term measure to keep the lights on while you address the underlying issues.
GW plc seem to have forgot to address the underlying issues for the last decade, and I am not confident they have any idea what the core issues are.Let alone how to address them.

Especially if you read what Mr Kirby writes in his Chairman preamble to share holders...

@Lanrak and Breng:

You two are arguing against an argument that I am not making. I'm not saying they shouldn't do extensive play testing. I'm saying that they don't for some reason unbeknownst to us outsiders, and if you don't like it, you shouldn't buy their products.

 Nate668 wrote:

I would argue that if you enjoy adjusting the rules, you do not care about the rules as written, because you feel free to change them. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I'm just saying that I believe you still at least partially fit into my generalizations.

 RunicFIN wrote:

To me adjusting to the rules, restrictions and possibilities granted by the rules, good and bad, is quite fun.

Underlined the key part.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:

I would argue that if you enjoy adjusting the rules, you do not care about the rules as written, because you feel free to change them. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I'm just saying that I believe you still at least partially fit into my generalizations.

 RunicFIN wrote:

To me adjusting to the rules, restrictions and possibilities granted by the rules, good and bad, is quite fun.

Underlined the key part.

Ah, my mistake then. In any case, I think that if you like 40k, you should keep playing and buying to your heart's content. I myself play 40k and am working on a couple new armies. For the rest of you, if you find that you do not enjoy 40k for what it currently is and you have not already done so, you should stop buying 40k products. That is all.

 RunicFIN wrote:
I think that if you like 40k, you should keep playing and buying to your heart's content. I myself play 40k and am working on a couple new armies. For the rest of you, if you find that you do not enjoy 40k for what it currently is and you have not already done so, you should stop buying 40k products. That is all.

I try to avoid buying anything for either WM/H and WH40K at the moment, to avoid the classic "pile of shame" -that you get when you overwhelm yourself with projects. Just painting my Iron Warriors and Khador for now, both sized for the most common points in each game.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I think that if you like 40k, you should keep playing and buying to your heart's content. I myself play 40k and am working on a couple new armies. For the rest of you, if you find that you do not enjoy 40k for what it currently is and you have not already done so, you should stop buying 40k products. That is all.

I try to avoid buying anything for either WM/H and WH40K at the moment, to avoid the classic "pile of shame" -that you get when you overwhelm yourself with projects. Just painting my Iron Warriors and Khador for now, both sized for the most common points in each game.

As someone who has never completed an army but has owned at least 10 by now, I know that shame all too well. Haha.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I think that if you like 40k, you should keep playing and buying to your heart's content. I myself play 40k and am working on a couple new armies. For the rest of you, if you find that you do not enjoy 40k for what it currently is and you have not already done so, you should stop buying 40k products. That is all.

I try to avoid buying anything for either WM/H and WH40K at the moment, to avoid the classic "pile of shame" -that you get when you overwhelm yourself with projects. Just painting my Iron Warriors and Khador for now, both sized for the most common points in each game.

I look at it a different way -- if I don't buy the model now, next year it will cost more (from either PP or GW), and I'll kick myself for not getting it earlier. Or it will get discontinued, and I'll be even more pissed. Plus, I work hard to earn money, and I can't take it with me, so why not buy and own something that makes me happy

I love looking at sprues and imagining how I'm going to put them all together, even if I don't get around to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lanrak wrote:
@Nate668.
GW plc has suffered falling sale volumes now for 10 years .
The rate of sales volume fall is increasing, and the cost cutting and price hikes has been increasing to compensate.

Despite releasing the most popular sellers at a faster rate than ever before, GW plc is still loosing profit.

Anyone with a grasp on reality knows that raising prices to over-come falling sales volume, is a short term measure to keep the lights on while you address the underlying issues.
GW plc seem to have forgot to address the underlying issues for the last decade, and I am not confident they have any idea what the core issues are.Let alone how to address them.

Especially if you read what Mr Kirby writes in his Chairman preamble to share holders...

This isn't exactly true or fair.

20 years ago, GW owned pretty much the entire pie. Ral Partha and other companies had vastly inferior products, and there were few other gaming systems that were even playable in the 40k/WHFB genre.

As time went by, the market grew. But now, there are a LOT more alternatives in the scifi/fantasy genre, plus TCGs -- all products that vie for dollars from the same playerbase. The competition means that even with the bigger pie, GW will own a smaller piece of it. Introduction of competition is a natural thing in a profitable industry, and healthy for the industry and for customers.

Every company, including Games Workshop, looks to optimize its profit. That means, if you plot price on one axis and sales on the other axis, as price increases, sales decrease. At some point on that curve, there will be a sweet spot, where you get the highest amount of money for the least amount of work. Figuring out that point of efficiency is as much experimentation as science, because you don't know how your customers will react, until you try it. In other words, it doesn't matter if your customers complain about a price increase, as long as they keep buying the product.

At the end of the day, is 10 items at $100 better, or 100 items at $10? Obviously, the first is much more profitable (since you have to do and make less), but you'll also sell less physical product, and perhaps own less marketshare.

The right answer is elusive, though, of course, customers would simply prefer the lower prices.

At the end of the day, is 10 items at $100 better, or 100 items at $10? Obviously, the first is much more profitable (since you have to do and make less), but you'll also sell less physical product, and perhaps own less marketshare.

What would be all fine and could, if the rules and the game size made people actualy have to buy 60+items at 100$. It is super hard to get new players in to w40k when they hear that books alone will cost them 200$+ and the army 4-5 times as much and it can be nerfed or removed in to oblivion in 2 years time.

Op, thread title: Competitive play is what's ruining 40k.

No, actually it is considerable lack of competitive play that is ruining it.

Look at it this way: a balanced and efficient, well written ruleset with clear meanings will go a long way to ease the issues of competitive play.

The rules artificially favoring one list, model, or style of play is actually anti-competitive in that it will limit what players bring to the table.

Also GW hasn't sponsored a decent tournament since 2008/09 so they aren't actually interested in supporting competitive play in an environment which will cause the buzz and hype that will drive sales and invite players to strive for the next level of play.

I have always enjoyed tournament play the few times I have tried, however with the cumbersome and overly byzantine rules of 6th/7th edition combined with outrageous prices for supplements as well as minis I cannot see the point in any further support of GW until they get it together and become a company worth supporting again, if ever.

So really GW is ruining 40k, not competitive play, for all play is competitive or else it wouldn't be the game that it is. Wargames by their very nature are meant to be competitive affairs, even casual and friendly games in one's own home. Wherever you have two opposing armies or two opposing players with similar or opposite goals, you will by nature have competition to one degree or another.

40k's rules are not well suited for true competitive play.

They aren't well suited for casual pickup games or narrative gaming either.