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.

 Blacksails wrote:

morgoth wrote:


half as complete as 40K

?

What do you mean by 'complete'? Every other game being published is complete.

What I mean by complete is that I enjoy having guardians, jetbikes, Vypers, Falcons, Wave Serpents, Fire Prisms, Wraith Knights, War Walkers, Titans and Flyers and more in my army, with the opportunity to one day face a Tau Manta or Fire Cadre, epic fights against my friend's Reaver and Warhound and Super Heavy Tanks and so much more.

A game that is as diverse within each army and as diverse across armies, with radically different capabilities, looks and that works from 250 points to 250 000 points.

morgoth wrote:
wrote one long "whining" post about whining and how it annoys him - ironic much [.

Great, which has always been a positive of 40k (to an extent, though admittedly makes the game confused in how the core rules work to simulate that range), but not having that in a game is not a negative.

In fact, most other companies would rather have three or four different rulesets to represent those various scales; your massed battle with titans and flyers would be at the 6 or 15mm scale with rules to go with it, and your small strike force attacking an outpost would be done with 28mm figures similar to the rules we have now.

Here's the thing though, you may personally like that 40k has such a range and ability to field titans in rather small armies. There are probably equal number of people, and I'd argue in fact more, who dislike the game has that and have left because of it. Escalation was not universally praised, and 7th edition did not sell particularly well. There are obviously a myriad of reasons why, but I'm sure many people were and are still turned off by the sheer range the game can operate at and how that affects the rules.

That said, other games still diversity equal to 40k in meaningful tactical decisions and choices and gameplay style. Where 40k still fails critically is in areas including balance, offering game complexity/depth, and straightforward rules that both keep the game well paced and mesh better with the fluff (and forge the narrative harder too!).

Clearly you enjoy 40k for a number of reasons, but again, 40k is shrinking and other games are growing. It doesn't take a PhD to figure out the differences between 40k and most of the others on the market and determine why that is.

The simple pros of 40k include the wide range of points ranges, the aesthetics, and the fluff. The fluff isn't getting any better, the models are still good (for the most part), and the sacrifices the ruleset makes to accomodate 250pts to 25000pts is often deemed not worth it.

Enjoy what you enjoy, but make no mistake that 40k is not in a good state. There's room in the market for a 28mm company level battle game, but not the way GW is running it.

morgoth wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

morgoth wrote:


half as complete as 40K

?

What do you mean by 'complete'? Every other game being published is complete.

What I mean by complete is that I enjoy having guardians, jetbikes, Vypers, Falcons, Wave Serpents, Fire Prisms, Wraith Knights, War Walkers, Titans and Flyers and more in my army, with the opportunity to one day face a Tau Manta or Fire Cadre, epic fights against my friend's Reaver and Warhound and Super Heavy Tanks and so much more.

A game that is as diverse within each army and as diverse across armies, with radically different capabilities, looks and that works from 250 points to 250 000 points.

So when you say "complete", what you really mean is "horribly, unbelievably bloated and broken". Because I think the game would probably work a lot better if they worked more on balance and scaling, and less on cramming in more and more junk, and inventing new units that didn't need to exist, all in the name of chasing dwindling sales. Also 40k scales to 250,000 points (or even 25,000 points) the same way you can scale chess by sticking 16 chess boards together. The rules may technically function, but it's not actually a fun game.

And incidentally, there IS a very well balanced and streamlined game that lets you use all the units you just mentioned. It's called Epic: Armageddon. GW dropped it because the profit margin wasn't high enough.

morgoth wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

morgoth wrote:


half as complete as 40K

?

What do you mean by 'complete'? Every other game being published is complete.

What I mean by complete is that I enjoy having guardians, jetbikes, Vypers, Falcons, Wave Serpents, Fire Prisms, Wraith Knights, War Walkers, Titans and Flyers and more in my army, with the opportunity to one day face a Tau Manta or Fire Cadre, epic fights against my friend's Reaver and Warhound and Super Heavy Tanks and so much more.

A game that is as diverse within each army and as diverse across armies, with radically different capabilities, looks and that works from 250 points to 250 000 points.

But for the most part, those units you mentioned all work in the same fundamental way, with the exception of fliers and Titans and I find those rules to not be fun at all.
Despite all of that, the game is still shallow. It has little depth with too much complexity.
(Other games have more in-depth gaming while still having a wide variation of units with rules that actually set them apart far more than a bike vs foot soldier in 40k)
40k has the spectacle down. Granted. And you enjoy that. But other people want a good game as well.
As a fluffy player, I found that the rules did not complement the fluff and often it didn't feel like the army I wanted to play. Also, I disliked the gradual irrelevancy of infantry. To me that's where the story is and to find my heroic space marines as over priced cannon fodder never sat right with me.
It has been proposed that the fluffy players need to adapt their lists in order to win. So, in other words, they should learn to power game and toss out their narrative army list in favor of a generic/unfluffy list that is tailored to face specific enemies. That's what fluff players complain about, the fact that fluff players are punished for taking armies that fit the narrative GW is constantly talking about.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

morgoth wrote:


half as complete as 40K

?

What do you mean by 'complete'? Every other game being published is complete.

What I mean by complete is that I enjoy having guardians, jetbikes, Vypers, Falcons, Wave Serpents, Fire Prisms, Wraith Knights, War Walkers, Titans and Flyers and more in my army, with the opportunity to one day face a Tau Manta or Fire Cadre, epic fights against my friend's Reaver and Warhound and Super Heavy Tanks and so much more.

A game that is as diverse within each army and as diverse across armies, with radically different capabilities, looks and that works from 250 points to 250 000 points.

So when you say "complete", what you really mean is "horribly, unbelievably bloated and broken". Because I think the game would probably work a lot better if they worked more on balance and scaling, and less on cramming in more and more junk, and inventing new units that didn't need to exist, all in the name of chasing dwindling sales. Also 40k scales to 250,000 points (or even 25,000 points) the same way you can scale chess by sticking 16 chess boards together. The rules may technically function, but it's not actually a fun game.

And incidentally, there IS a very well balanced and streamlined game that lets you use all the units you just mentioned. It's called Epic: Armageddon. GW dropped it because the profit margin wasn't high enough.

So when you say "horribly unbelievably bloated and broken", what you really mean is "complete".

Because I think that your opinion is an opinion and if you don't like 40K you can just go play something else instead of arguing that 40K should be made into another game that you already enjoy.

Why would you want that ? Because it has the best miniatures ? yes. That's exactly why I would never play Epic 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

But for the most part, those units you mentioned all work in the same fundamental way, with the exception of fliers and Titans and I find those rules to not be fun at all.

We all know you don't enjoy 40K.

What we don't know is why you bother posting anyway.

morgoth wrote:

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

morgoth wrote:


half as complete as 40K

?

What do you mean by 'complete'? Every other game being published is complete.

What I mean by complete is that I enjoy having guardians, jetbikes, Vypers, Falcons, Wave Serpents, Fire Prisms, Wraith Knights, War Walkers, Titans and Flyers and more in my army, with the opportunity to one day face a Tau Manta or Fire Cadre, epic fights against my friend's Reaver and Warhound and Super Heavy Tanks and so much more.

A game that is as diverse within each army and as diverse across armies, with radically different capabilities, looks and that works from 250 points to 250 000 points.

So when you say "complete", what you really mean is "horribly, unbelievably bloated and broken". Because I think the game would probably work a lot better if they worked more on balance and scaling, and less on cramming in more and more junk, and inventing new units that didn't need to exist, all in the name of chasing dwindling sales. Also 40k scales to 250,000 points (or even 25,000 points) the same way you can scale chess by sticking 16 chess boards together. The rules may technically function, but it's not actually a fun game.

And incidentally, there IS a very well balanced and streamlined game that lets you use all the units you just mentioned. It's called Epic: Armageddon. GW dropped it because the profit margin wasn't high enough.

So when you say "horribly unbelievably bloated and broken", what you really mean is "complete".

Because I think that your opinion is an opinion and if you don't like 40K you can just go play something else instead of arguing that 40K should be made into another game that you already enjoy.

Why would you want that ? Because it has the best miniatures ? yes. That's exactly why I would never play Epic 40K.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

But for the most part, those units you mentioned all work in the same fundamental way, with the exception of fliers and Titans and I find those rules to not be fun at all.

We all know you don't enjoy 40K.

What we don't know is why you bother posting anyway.

Because as someone who loved the game for over twenty years and was pushed out by GW, I think my opinion is just as valid as yours, perhaps more so because I'm not blinded by fanboi-ism.
Now how about stop questioning my motives and actually address my arguments. Or is it that you don't have an answer so resort to personal issues?

 MWHistorian wrote:

Because as someone who loved the game for over twenty years and was pushed out by GW, I think my opinion is just as valid as yours, perhaps more so because I'm not blinded by fanboi-ism.
Now how about stop questioning my motives and actually address my arguments. Or is it that you don't have an answer so resort to personal issues?

Your arguments are pointless, that's why I tend to just leave them out.

Here's the conclusion of your arguments: 40K is horrible, whatever other game you play is better, and both are total crap compared to Starcraft II in terms of tactical depth and game quality.

But the reason we even play those toy soldiers is that we like toy soldiers.

Apparently, you like a compromise that's got worse toy soldiers and simpler rules. Good for you.


See how pointless it is when we just take one step outside of that tiny little bubble where GW's rules are horrible crap ?

morgoth wrote:

See how pointless it is when we just take one step outside of that tiny little bubble where GW's rules are horrible crap ?

GW's rules are horrible crap outside 'that tiny little bubble' too. 40k has some qualities, but 'balance' and 'good rules' are definitely not among them.

morgoth wrote:
Here's the conclusion of your arguments: 40K is horrible, whatever other game you play is better, and both are total crap compared to Starcraft II in terms of tactical depth and game quality.

This kinda made me chuckle.

I was baffled how the Horsemen hadn´t entered the thread in the first hours it was created, glad to see that has been fixed now.

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Because as someone who loved the game for over twenty years and was pushed out by GW, I think my opinion is just as valid as yours, perhaps more so because I'm not blinded by fanboi-ism.
Now how about stop questioning my motives and actually address my arguments. Or is it that you don't have an answer so resort to personal issues?

Your arguments are pointless, that's why I tend to just leave them out.

Here's the conclusion of your arguments: 40K is horrible, whatever other game you play is better, and both are total crap compared to Starcraft II in terms of tactical depth and game quality.

But the reason we even play those toy soldiers is that we like toy soldiers.

Apparently, you like a compromise that's got worse toy soldiers and simpler rules. Good for you.


See how pointless it is when we just take one step outside of that tiny little bubble where GW's rules are horrible crap ?

I have never once mentioned StarCraft II. Ever. I've never even played the game. Maybe instead of assuming what I say, you should actually read.

 MWHistorian wrote:

I have never once mentioned StarCraft II. Ever. I've never even played the game. Maybe instead of assuming what I say, you should actually read.

Coming from you this is paradoxical as hell, MW. You do this yourself on an almost daily basis.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I have never once mentioned StarCraft II. Ever. I've never even played the game. Maybe instead of assuming what I say, you should actually read.

Coming from you this is paradoxical as hell, MW. You do this yourself on an almost daily basis.

Oh joy, another personal attack because you can't come up with an actual argument.
And if I have mentioned Star Craft, ever, please quote it because I'd love to see it.
But please, stop with attacking me and go to attacking my arguments. That will at least be on topic.

morgoth wrote:

Your arguments are pointless, that's why I tend to just leave them out.

Here's the conclusion of your arguments: 40K is great, whatever other game you play are worse, and both are totally great compared to Starcraft II in terms of tactical depth and game quality.

But the reason we even play those toy soldiers is that we like toy soldiers.

Apparently, you like a compromise that's got objectively worse toy soldiers and lots of rules. Good for you.


See how pointless it is when we just take one step outside of that tiny little bubble where GW's rules are wondrous ?

Am I doing this blanket statement argument of assumptions, right?

 RunicFIN wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Here's the conclusion of your arguments: 40K is horrible, whatever other game you play is better, and both are total crap compared to Starcraft II in terms of tactical depth and game quality.

This kinda made me chuckle.

I was baffled how the Horsemen hadn´t entered the thread in the first hours it was created, glad to see that has been fixed now.

I was surprised how Morgoth was the only person in the thread disagreeing with people on principal without any sort of substance to back up his claims then....

Etc, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Casual gamers are just as worried about balance as any other gamer. Nobody wants to invest hundreds of hours into buying, building, and painting an army built around a great background concept in adherence with the background just for it to get curbstomped every time it sees play. That's not really fun for anyone.

Particularly when fluffy really should equate to some sort of effectiveness, as these fluff forces operate in those specified manners precisely because of their effective functionality.

Don't forget the reverse can also apply.

I'm collecting Knights because I genuinely love the models, and prefer building and paining larger stuff in general. It really is a genuine enthusiasm for the kits that prompted me to get them (FW variants included) but I would one day like to play them, at least once in a while.

Trouble is, I have the choice of just turning up one week at my club, and ambushing someone with them, which would be a dick move and unless they just happen to have brought a very anti-tank heavy list by coincidence, is likely to be very one sided and no fun for either party, or pre-arranging a game, and who, realistically, isn't going to let the fact they're facing Knights influence their choices while list building?

I don't think it's possible to have a "fair" game with Knights outside of a competitive situation.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Oh joy, another personal attack because you can't come up with an actual argument.

Wasn't even discussing anything with you asfar as I'm aware, perhaps you should read more carefully which is what you just told Morgoth to do.

There is nothing to discuss with you when it comes to 40k. You were just giving people advice regarding something you're guilty of yourself. Just the truth, nothing more.

 Azreal13 wrote:
on principal without any sort of substance to back up his claims then....

I'm surprised after your epic failure regarding a countrys competitive scene and the blatantly idiotic generalization you made while being completely clueless of the facts you would say something like this. You had no substance to back up your claim then, just ignorant and arrogant presumptions and it made you look like a fool to a quite big crowd. Also, do provide your source for someone disagreeing with people without any sort of substance to back up his claims.

You make claims without any substance all the time. Check your message history, and try to read it in an objective way, if you´re even capable of such a thing.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I don't think it's possible to have a "fair" game with Grey Knights outside of a competitive situation.

I completely agree with you.

And now the thread dies.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I have never once mentioned StarCraft II. Ever. I've never even played the game. Maybe instead of assuming what I say, you should actually read.

Coming from you this is paradoxical as hell, MW. You do this yourself on an almost daily basis.

You were most certainly addressing me, it even has my initials.
Back on topic. I think GW pulled out all their big guns and revenue still declined. They're probably going to focus on the Fantasy reboot for a while and put out supplements and such. The next year or so will depend on how well the fantasy reboot is received.

I'd counter the point that 40k is dying due to GWs financials with the exact opposite.
With LotR effectively being dead for the last while and now discontinued, WHFB being in a poor state both game and sales wise, White Dwarf and Visions being damn poor releases and GWs shift to earning revenue from licensing, it could very well be argued 40k is the product line keeping GWs financials going.
Whether you agree with their model of codex releases, suppliments, unbound, digital content or not, until someone posts a breakdown of GWs sales per product line 40k might well be keeping the flag flying for GW.
Completely opposite to the point that its a dying game.
Sure players have shifted to other games but I'd wager theres enough of us left who purchase significantly to keep it going. And whilst you may not agree with its rules, changes or general unweildyness, at its core its still a fun game. Imo anyways.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Spoiler:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Oh joy, another personal attack because you can't come up with an actual argument.

Wasn't even discussing anything with you asfar as I'm aware, perhaps you should read more carefully which is what you just told Morgoth to do.

There is nothing to discuss with you when it comes to 40k. You were just giving people advice regarding something you're guilty of yourself. Just the truth, nothing more.

 Azreal13 wrote:
on principal without any sort of substance to back up his claims then....

I'm surprised after your epic failure regarding a countrys competitive scene and the blatantly idiotic generalization you made while being completely clueless of the facts you would say something like this. You had no substance to back up your claim then, just ignorant and arrogant presumptions and it made you look like a fool to a quite big crowd. Also, do provide your source for someone disagreeing with people without any sort of substance to back up his claims.

You make claims without any substance all the time. Check your message history, and try to read it in an objective way, if you´re even capable of such a thing

.

I postulated a theory that a country with a small population would therefore present a small sample size and wouldn't necessarily offer a representative experience of the whole world.

It was a theory not any sort of statement of fact. If you feel you can fault my logic, feel free to tell me, rather than just acting outraged because you happen to live in the country I used as the basis of that theory.

 Ratius wrote:
I'd counter the point that 40k is dying due to GWs financials with the exact opposite.
With LotR effectively being dead for the last while and now discontinued, WHFB being in a poor state both game and sales wise, White Dwarf and Visions being damn poor releases and GWs shift to earning revenue from licensing, it could very well be argued 40k is the product line keeping GWs financials going.
Whether you agree with their model of codex releases, suppliments, unbound, digital content or not, until someone posts a breakdown of GWs sales per product line 40k might well be keeping the flag flying for GW.
Completely opposite to the point that its a dying game.
Sure players have shifted to other games but I'd wager theres enough of us left who purchase significantly to keep it going. And whilst you may not agree with its rules, changes or general unweildyness, at its core its still a fun game. Imo anyways.

This would be an excellent point, except for the fact that has been true for many, many years now. 40k has made up most of the GW's sales for over a decade now. Marines, at one point, where most of the sales though I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's 40k in general and not just marines.
The downward trend in financials is a lot more recent. If fantasy suffered in sales, it wouldn't change much for GW. 40k doing worse has a large impact however, because it is the majority of their sales.

Azreal13,
I like Runic, he is a good player and has some ideas about 40k that I don't always agree with, but at least he has a good head for strategy.
He just takes everything personally and tends to make angry personal attacks about people who disagree with him. I was told I hated marines at one point, despite owning three armies of them, simply because I think tacticals are sub par.
Try not to take it so personally.
For what it's worth, I agree with your opinion. In WMH, most of the smaller metas freely admit their metas are smaller then the one experienced in the US. Usually, all of Europe is compared to all of the US, even though all of Europe is a slightly larger meta for that game.
No one mentions the aussies

This would be an excellent point, except for the fact that has been true for many, many years now.

Ok, so how is 40k dying then as per peoples statements in this thread and a myriad of others?

 Ratius wrote:

This would be an excellent point, except for the fact that has been true for many, many years now.

Ok, so how is 40k dying then as per peoples statements in this thread and a myriad of others?

Because GW has had their revenue falling for several reports now, despite releasing new editions and a bunch of DLC. Usually when a new edition released, they do very well. Most people still playing have had to update their codex in the last year, which is a great way to make money, yet they are still showing a decline in revenue from previous years.

Since 40k is most of the profits they make, this suggests that 40k isn't doing as well as it used to be. In a sector that is growing, for the most part (although the sector has a very wide definition), a decline is especially bad to see.

It'd be like if Blizzard posted a loss of revenue compared to previous years. They make other games, sure, but you would assume it's because something happened with World of Warcraft, because that's where the majority of their money comes from.
Now that could be because WoW became a worse game due to an expansion, or it could be because another MMO came out that is doing very well and attracting new players.
Most likely it's a combination of the two, compared to how serious the loss is, and that is what people are thinking it is here.

Since GW does zero market research, it's hard to say what the true reason is.

 MWHistorian wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Because as someone who loved the game for over twenty years and was pushed out by GW, I think my opinion is just as valid as yours, perhaps more so because I'm not blinded by fanboi-ism.
Now how about stop questioning my motives and actually address my arguments. Or is it that you don't have an answer so resort to personal issues?

Your arguments are pointless, that's why I tend to just leave them out.

Here's the conclusion of your arguments: 40K is horrible, whatever other game you play is better, and both are total crap compared to Starcraft II in terms of tactical depth and game quality.

But the reason we even play those toy soldiers is that we like toy soldiers.

Apparently, you like a compromise that's got worse toy soldiers and simpler rules. Good for you.


See how pointless it is when we just take one step outside of that tiny little bubble where GW's rules are horrible crap ?

I have never once mentioned StarCraft II. Ever. I've never even played the game. Maybe instead of assuming what I say, you should actually read.

That's exactly my point. You are saying that 40K is horrible compared to your tabletop game of reference from a rules and game standpoint

And I tell you both are horrible compared to Starcraft II from the exact same standpoint.

In other words, your choice is part of a continuum that has 40K at one end and SCII at the other one and you can't just go around shouting that your compromise is the best and expect people to listen to you.

Akiasura wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
I'd counter the point that 40k is dying due to GWs financials with the exact opposite.
With LotR effectively being dead for the last while and now discontinued, WHFB being in a poor state both game and sales wise, White Dwarf and Visions being damn poor releases and GWs shift to earning revenue from licensing, it could very well be argued 40k is the product line keeping GWs financials going.
Whether you agree with their model of codex releases, suppliments, unbound, digital content or not, until someone posts a breakdown of GWs sales per product line 40k might well be keeping the flag flying for GW.
Completely opposite to the point that its a dying game.
Sure players have shifted to other games but I'd wager theres enough of us left who purchase significantly to keep it going. And whilst you may not agree with its rules, changes or general unweildyness, at its core its still a fun game. Imo anyways.

This would be an excellent point, except for the fact that has been true for many, many years now. 40k has made up most of the GW's sales for over a decade now. Marines, at one point, where most of the sales though I wouldn't be surprised to learn it's 40k in general and not just marines.
The downward trend in financials is a lot more recent. If fantasy suffered in sales, it wouldn't change much for GW. 40k doing worse has a large impact however, because it is the majority of their sales.

Azreal13,
I like Runic, he is a good player and has some ideas about 40k that I don't always agree with, but at least he has a good head for strategy.
He just takes everything personally and tends to make angry personal attacks about people who disagree with him. I was told I hated marines at one point, despite owning three armies of them, simply because I think tacticals are sub par.
Try not to take it so personally.
For what it's worth, I agree with your opinion. In WMH, most of the smaller metas freely admit their metas are smaller then the one experienced in the US. Usually, all of Europe is compared to all of the US, even though all of Europe is a slightly larger meta for that game.
No one mentions the aussies

Categorically, I'm not taking anything personally, I seldom do, Runic is a different kettle of aquatic animas I'm afraid. However, I won't ever stand to be attacked or misrepresented, I've already explained myself with regard to the matter he brought up (which, incidentally is from months ago, I'd forgotten all about it, clearly he hadn't) but because it is from so long ago, it is unlikely many others would remember and would take what he said at face value if it weren't challenged.

Because GW has had their revenue falling for several reports now, despite releasing new editions and a bunch of DLC. Usually when a new edition released, they do very well. Most people still playing have had to update their codex in the last year, which is a great way to make money, yet they are still showing a decline in revenue from previous years.

Since 40k is most of the profits they make, this suggests that 40k isn't doing as well as it used to be. In a sector that is growing, for the most part (although the sector has a very wide definition), a decline is especially bad to see.

It'd be like if Blizzard posted a loss of revenue compared to previous years. They make other games, sure, but you would assume it's because something happened with World of Warcraft, because that's where the majority of their money comes from.
Now that could be because WoW became a worse game due to an expansion, or it could be because another MMO came out that is doing very well and attracting new players.
Most likely it's a combination of the two, compared to how serious the loss is, and that is what people are thinking it is here.

Since GW does zero market research, it's hard to say what the true reason is.

Ok, thats valid enough logic.

I still feel though until we see a detailed breakdown, broad brush stroking 40k as "a dying" game is a bit OTT. Declining perhaps but not dying. And dying is a bit of a relative term anyways. Does anyone have any figures on PP, Bolt Action or other rival games VS GW? Surely they are still the biggest player in the market, whether you agree/like them or not?

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Because as someone who loved the game for over twenty years and was pushed out by GW, I think my opinion is just as valid as yours, perhaps more so because I'm not blinded by fanboi-ism.
Now how about stop questioning my motives and actually address my arguments. Or is it that you don't have an answer so resort to personal issues?

Your arguments are pointless, that's why I tend to just leave them out.

Here's the conclusion of your arguments: 40K is horrible, whatever other game you play is better, and both are total crap compared to Starcraft II in terms of tactical depth and game quality.

But the reason we even play those toy soldiers is that we like toy soldiers.

Apparently, you like a compromise that's got worse toy soldiers and simpler rules. Good for you.


See how pointless it is when we just take one step outside of that tiny little bubble where GW's rules are horrible crap ?

I have never once mentioned StarCraft II. Ever. I've never even played the game. Maybe instead of assuming what I say, you should actually read.

That's exactly my point. You are saying that 40K is horrible compared to your tabletop game of reference from a rules and game standpoint

And I tell you both are horrible compared to Starcraft II from the exact same standpoint.

In other words, your choice is part of a continuum that has 40K at one end and SCII at the other one and you can't just go around shouting that your compromise is the best and expect people to listen to you.

So...comparing table top games to table top games is bad?

 Ratius wrote:

Spoiler:

Because GW has had their revenue falling for several reports now, despite releasing new editions and a bunch of DLC. Usually when a new edition released, they do very well. Most people still playing have had to update their codex in the last year, which is a great way to make money, yet they are still showing a decline in revenue from previous years.

Since 40k is most of the profits they make, this suggests that 40k isn't doing as well as it used to be. In a sector that is growing, for the most part (although the sector has a very wide definition), a decline is especially bad to see.

It'd be like if Blizzard posted a loss of revenue compared to previous years. They make other games, sure, but you would assume it's because something happened with World of Warcraft, because that's where the majority of their money comes from.
Now that could be because WoW became a worse game due to an expansion, or it could be because another MMO came out that is doing very well and attracting new players.
Most likely it's a combination of the two, compared to how serious the loss is, and that is what people are thinking it is here.

Since GW does zero market research, it's hard to say what the true reason is

.

Ok, thats valid enough logic.

I still feel though until we see a detailed breakdown, broad brush stroking 40k as "a dying" game is a bit OTT. Declining perhaps but not dying. And dying is a bit of a relative term anyways. Does anyone have any figures on PP, Bolt Action or other rival games VS GW? Surely they are still the biggest player in the market, whether you agree/like them or not?

I'd suggest that in the context of a tabletop game, declining vs dying is just semantics?

 Azreal13 wrote:


I'd suggest that in the context of a tabletop game, declining vs dying is just semantics?

Declining means they can bounce back, dying means they're not.