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:

 Blacksails wrote:
I'm sure we'd all love for you to bless us with your superior intellect and explain to us drooling morons the reasons why GW is failing and how falling sales actually means rising sales.

Interesting, just said that reduced sales dont translate to people leaving a game, not what you describe.

I might have responded to this if you hadn't posted this...

RunicFIN wrote:Had to say I really appreciate and value you people who suggested being reasonable. Unfortunately you always have the neckbeard asperger type here and there, who are just unable to organize their 40K gaming into a functioning entirety, and for some reason just cant deal with pretty much anything.

Meanwhile the rest of us have fun games, have no match destroying issues with other players or the rules, be it in groups OR tournaments even if they are abroad with strangers.

Go figure.

I say let them work it out on their own, their reaction to any suggestions is no.jpeg - because ofcourse it is.

Which shows you clearly have zero motivation to have any sort of rational discussion. It shows you haven't read what people have written or chosen to deliberately misinterpret and insult instead. This seems to be par for the course for you though, so I'm not exactly surprised.

I am genuinely curious though if you do have any source for your claim 40k has the most players it ever has.

 Accolade wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Maybe I will design a perfectly balanced competitive game, where two male players race to see who can be the first to pound their nuts flat with a hammer. You can choose from one of three factions. The ruleset will be very clear and every faction has been painstakingly balanced in terms of mass, striking area and leverage so that your nut-pounding tool leaves no player at a disadvantage. May the best man win! I'm sure a few of you in this thread would probably love it.

So this is what we've gotten to, just being derogatory to other commenters in the thread. I'm thinking this topic needs to die.

The point is that there's a lot more to a fun experience than competitive balance

Some people eat competitively. I'll take a pass though.

 RunicFIN wrote:
...Most of the complaining happens in a competitive context ( you don't need a competitive list for casual games, they are casual games, and that's it. )...

....Either complain in a casual context where there is no need for competitiveness, or talk in the competitive context ....

Ok so I haven't read this thread and it's probably been beaten to death, but I just can't help myself but this is such a silly statement. This dichotomy is false, it doesn't exist, there isn't this split of casual plebs who don't need rules because they just go "pew pew pew" at each other vs competitive players who run out and throw money at GW to buy whatever is most powerful that week.

The reality is most people fall somewhere in the middle. They go in to the game with some competitive nature of wanting to win and do well, but they aren't so competitive that it's the only thing they care about.

THAT'S WHY PEOPLE COMPLAIN. They fall neither in to the group of people who are so casual they don't give a gak about balance nor the group of people who is so competitive they might as well be playing with counters instead of miniatures because they don't care about the fluffy aspects at all.

Yoyoyo wrote:

The point is that there's a lot more to a fun experience than competitive balance

Some people eat competitively. I'll take a pass though.

Right, but that was never a point people were contending. The general idea was that 40k could stand to be improved for all player types by even a small amount of balance in point cost shifting and tweaking of some abilities.

RunicFIN wrote:For all your supposed intellect, its amazing how poorly you recognize trolling.

RunicFIN wrote:Unfortunately you always have the neckbeard asperger type here and there, who are just unable to organize their 40K gaming into a functioning entirety, and for some reason just cant deal with pretty much anything.

So you at least admit to trolling and are reduced to ad hominem? We're on the same page, yes?

I'm tired of this, who wants to go play "Ball Breaker: Smash Nutz Edition"?

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Maybe I will design a perfectly balanced competitive game, where two male players race to see who can be the first to pound their nuts flat with a hammer. You can choose from one of three factions. The ruleset will be very clear and every faction has been painstakingly balanced in terms of mass, striking area and leverage so that your nut-pounding tool leaves no player at a disadvantage. May the best man win! I'm sure a few of you in this thread would probably love it.

So this is what we've gotten to, just being derogatory to other commenters in the thread. I'm thinking this topic needs to die.

The point is that there's a lot more to a fun experience than competitive balance .

That's really quite high on the list of necessary things in a game where the whole object is to test one's various mental faculties against an opponent in order to determine a winner though.

I think there would be quite the scandal if someone gave Novak Djokovic a smaller racket to play with, but not his opponent, or the FIA declared that Ferrari could run a bigger engine than all the other cars.

Any activity where parties compete to determine a winner ceases to be fun when one of those parties has an unfair and unwarranted advantage.

 Blacksails wrote:
Right, but that was never a point people were contending. The general idea was that 40k could stand to be improved for all player types by even a small amount of balance in point cost shifting and tweaking of some abilities.

That's exactly why players from me and my bro, to national GT organizers, apply house rules to improve their gaming experience. That's pretty much proof EVERYONE agrees with that.

You can certainly state that GW could do better. No problem,. I'm just surprised by all the people who seem to be offended by the idea of taking any responsibility for their gaming experience by applying an ounce of cooperation to smooth out balance and rules issues.

 Blacksails wrote:

Which shows you clearly have zero motivation to have any sort of rational discussion. It shows you haven't read what people have written or chosen to deliberately misinterpret

A note many people share and that is easily perceivable in the community and mentioning it how it basically is shows none of the above, next to that Ive read each and every post as evidenced by replies to some of them and discussing atleast 3 offtopic subjects included in this thread already. What do you wish to attempt next, or could I perhaps interst you in the topic of codices in a mono enviroment or the interesting disparity of some players winning tournament matches with say a unit someone else deems worthless even in their friendly/casual games?

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
I disagree about the focus being lost on gaming, as I don't draw conclusions from a single official statement made by someone who is heavily business oriented and most likely not very well in touch with the game design department of the big company that is Games Workshop.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/

Thier first sentance speaks volumes, nothing about thier games or game design as part of thier profit model.

They only mention they make the best, high quality models and miniatures. several times they point that out.

They mention 'thier games' twice. In one sentance they define the true function of thier hobby centers, which are for recruitment not sales. The other sentance states the games are a 'key part', but they never state they make or design them. Nor is thier any mention on quality of the games they make.

So, I agree with Tigramans and apparently GW themselves, the focus on gaming is lost, it is a part but alas that is it.

I said I don't believe their focus on gaming is lost completely due to official statements stating so as they are rarely the complete truth, and you present me an official statement to counter. Hmh.

Well, I still don't believe their focus on gaming is lost completely even if an official statement says so, as they are rarely the complete truth. The day they only make models and -nothing- else is the day their focus on gaming is lost.

Listen I still play but I find the rules too hard to manage too many holes. The only reason I still play is I hold out hope I can enjoy a game I invested a lot of time on.

A company that has the word game in it should develop a rules set with equal quality as the models they make. That sir is a fact. If they did make a better game than the current set I guarantee players will flock back to them in droves. Another fact.

Yoyoyo wrote:
That's exactly why players from me and my bro, to national GT organizers, apply house rules to improve their gaming experience. That's pretty much proof EVERYONE agrees with that.

You can certainly state that GW could do better. No problem,. I'm just surprised by all the people who seem to be offended by the idea of taking any responsibility for their gaming experience by applying an ounce of cooperation to smooth out balance and rules issues.

So, you're happy with investing $130+ in rules that require you to fix them further, when even the most expensive competitor offers the entirety of their games rules for $60 for the lifetime of the edition for every faction?

I mean, sure, go nuts. At least Ball Breakers™ rule are cheaper.

 TheKbob wrote:

RunicFIN wrote:For all your supposed intellect, its amazing how poorly you recognize trolling.

RunicFIN wrote:Unfortunately you always have the neckbeard asperger type here and there, who are just unable to organize their 40K gaming into a functioning entirety, and for some reason just cant deal with pretty much anything.

So you at least admit to trolling and are reduced to ad hominem? We're on the same page, yes?

That only had to do with me getting Blacksails to believe I can magically see into the future months ago so he would continually use my supposed precognitions failure as leverage while I giggle in my chair letting him have his fun with his "ace in the sleeve" that was never there.

 RunicFIN wrote:


That only had to do with me getting Blacksails to believe I can magically see into the future months ago so he would continually use my supposed precognitions failure as leverage while I giggle in my chair letting him have his fun with his "ace in the sleeve" that was never there.

So actively trolling, yes?

 Accolade wrote:
So this is what we've gotten to, just being derogatory to other commenters in the thread. I'm thinking this topic needs to die.

Only a few posters stayed on topic for more than one page anyway.

 TheKbob wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:


That only had to do with me getting Blacksails to believe I can magically see into the future months ago so he would continually use my supposed precognitions failure as leverage while I giggle in my chair letting him have his fun with his "ace in the sleeve" that was never there.

So actively trolling, yes?

Actually I haven't responded to that very subject after I introduced it, so no. And only that one subject at that.

If you're talking about how the clearly difficult personalities seem to coincidentally be the ones having the most issues with the rules and other players when gaming, I'll just go ahead and state that it's a recurring phenomenon that I and vaurious other users ( and people I know ) have noted, in this very thread also. Stating it bluntly like it is, nothing more. You can infact, play Warhammer 40,000 without issues on a practical level even with it's flaws. It's being done daily.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Fourth, you do see mono-faction armies work competitively. Eldar, Necrons, and Daemons certainly manage it quite well.

Fifth, even with allies, you don't see a lot of these armies placing well in tournaments.

Uhm, what.

I meant the armies that "need allies to do well".

Well, Space Marines aren't the most competitive thing mono, but allied we have seen them in the absolute top tables even in the most recent tournaments. Same goes for Grey Knights.

But "a lot of these armies" is a bit open. Yeah, I haven't seen Sisters in the top tables even allied ( has someone btw? )

 RunicFIN wrote:

Actually I haven't responded to that very subject after I introduced it, so no. And only that one subject at that.

If you're talking about how the clearly difficult personalities seem to coincidentally be the ones having the most issues with the rules and other players when gaming, I'll just go ahead and state that it's a recurring phenomenon that I and vaurious other users ( and people I know ) have noted, in this very thread also. Stating it bluntly like it is, nothing more.

Well, perhaps I can give a brief aid, likely where it's not wanted:

Try listening to those with the facts and reason behind them. Failing to do so creates the "reoccurring phenomenon" I imagine that you mention.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Talys wrote:


There was no GM in Rogue Trader, either, which was practically a recipe book for an RPG.

Page 6 of the Rogue Trader rulebook

"To fight a Warhammer 40,000 game you will need an extra person called the gamemaster, usually referred to simply as the GM. He will act as the umpire or referee, and it is his task to enforce the rules of the game; interpreting them where necessary. The GM should make sure that the players have sufficient dice, pencils, paper, and any other items needed during play"

Wow, you're right. I played RT for all the years it was out without a GM (was in college then). We had army lists printed on dot matrix printer that everyone had to pay $10 for hahahaha.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Any activity where parties compete to determine a winner ceases to be fun when one of those parties has an unfair and unwarranted advantage.

It depends on how outcome-oriented you are. I've played ping-pong near the beach in a gusting wind, it's hardly fair. But it was still fun.

40k doesn't have the pedigree, reach, base, resources, or impartial oversight of a sport like tennis or racing. The only thing that comes close in a board game is chess, and that has 1400+ years over 40k. WMH might have a better ruleset but again, that isn't the main draw of 40k for every player.

I think you need to have some perspective both on what GW will actually take on responsibility for, and how many of your expectations of will actually be fulfilled in a casual setting. GW is not an oversight body and shows no desire to become one. Meanwhile, Frontline Gaming has 20-ish pages of rules erratas but they're too small an organization to set up bush leagues for teenagers and referee at your local.

So in this environment, what can players do? Well, take on more responsibility for themselves. Participating in car racing or tennis at high levels costs a LOT more than 40k does. I don't see this happening so you have to look towards solutions that are pragmatic.

 TheKbob wrote:

Well, perhaps I can give a brief aid, likely where it's not wanted:

Try listening to those with the facts and reason behind them. Failing to do so creates the "reoccurring phenomenon" I imagine that you mention.

I'm not sure what you mean. It's as if you're saying that the clearly difficult personalities who have issues with other players and the game on a practical level, who can't make their Lictors win games, or people with complaints in general "have the facts."

But seeing as you appear a reasonable person, I expect you ment something else entirely.

If you're referring to the economics bit, I did just say one should use the search function or google to find out the facts. Of which one is that reduced sales doesn't translate into people leaving a game ( not in the sense that it's more than a fraction of a reason anyway, certainly some money has been lost to that, but not 13 million, sorry. ) In any case, the sales of anything dropping doesn't translate to people abandoning said product being the primary reason. In GW's case it's one of the smallest reasons along with used miniatures market increasing in size with every purchased miniature to name another.

So indeed, find out about the facts.

 TheKbob wrote:
So, you're happy with investing $130+ in rules that require you to fix them further, when even the most expensive competitor offers the entirety of their games rules for $60 for the lifetime of the edition for every faction?

Nah Kbob. I'm happy if I'm having fun. I am not that complicated. I try and squeeze the most value out of everything I do, rather than try and find reasons to make myself unhappy. I've heard it said in the context of dating, but today's expectations are usually tomorrow's resentments. I put having fun first -- balance, winning, rules, they are really all subservient in the goal of me enjoying my free time. So I don't stress the details.

Thanks for the good idea on naming my new game though

 RunicFIN wrote:
Except that "people leaving the game" isn't the reason for GWs net profits going downwards as there are now more players of 40k than there ever have been. The factual, impactful reasons have been analyzed and listed by people who actually have a clue ( instead of your armchair economics ) in vaurious articles, of which none are "people leaving the game." Talk about talking out of your arse huh?

I would list the reasons of which there are 4 major ones, none having nothing to do with players, but thats offtopic and someone would be eager to disagree with facts no doubt because hey, its fun being wrong.

Please give me just one example of hard data showing that 40k has more players now than ever before. As usual, you come into a thread and make wild claims that fly in the face of all objective data available on the subject. Then, when pressed for a source, you resort to straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, dance around the question, change the subject, and finally tell everyone to "go look it up". I'm sorry but when you make wild claims like this, it isn't our responsibility to go hunt down your data. Either post the source or admit you're wrong. BTW, what happened when you said GW would post a revenue and/or profit increase on their next financial report, you had it on "good authority" and you would PM someone the proof? Oh that's right, you did the same thing you're doing in this thread. The PM never came and when the financial report came out it directly contradicted your predictions.

So, RunicFin says "more people are playing 40k now than ever" without trying to back that up and admits to trolling.
That's not conducive to a rational argument.

Just because someone criticizes something, that doesn't make them bitter, zealous, irrational or even unpleasant. It means they think something is wrong.
For example: Someone says, GW might want to change their business strategy because they're losing sales as evidenced by past financial reports. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. RunicFin then says "That's not true" and proceeds to offer nothing but insults as a response.

Edit: that person RunicFin was supposed to message with his top secret info showing how GW is actually doing good, was to my twin brother...whom he never messaged anything.

 TheKbob wrote:
So, you're happy with investing $130+ in rules that require you to fix them further, when even the most expensive competitor offers the entirety of their games rules for $60 for the lifetime of the edition for every faction?

The only source I found claimed 500,000 active players worldwide and three times as many collectors. God knows where they got the stats though,

http://driftlessareareview.com/2013/03/13/are-the-costs-involved-with-warhammer-40k-an-integral-part-of-participating-within-the-game/

Yoyoyo wrote:
The only source I found claimed 500,000 active players worldwide and three times as many collectors. God knows where they got the stats though,

http://driftlessareareview.com/2013/03/13/are-the-costs-involved-with-warhammer-40k-an-integral-part-of-participating-within-the-game/

That article also said there was a rise in GW profits.
As a historian, rule #1, 'always check your sources.'

Yeah, well, reading the article helps too. It's from 2013 and she was perhaps referencing a 2012 figure.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Preliminary-announcement-2012-final.pdf

40% is surprising but the chairman does reference a 47% improvement on return on capital. Either way, jump in and help dig for information buddy, no need to stand on the sidelines!

Nevermind, got it myself

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-24025567-games-workshop-profits-surge-40-percent.do

Yoyoyo wrote:
Yeah, well, reading the article helps too.

Lel.

I didn't claim there were less players, YOU claimed there are more. Once again you have no evidence whatsoever, so you're twisting the conversation and responding to my direct line of questioning by putting words in my mouth, then questioning those words I never said. Are you a politician by chance? You sound like one of Obama's press secretaries giving a 3 paragraph response to a simple yes or no question. However, just to indulge you in your little quest to derail this and distract from your wild claims with zero supporting evidence...

Reduced revenue during a time of increased release pace, rising prices and an overall market showing an upward trend is a fairly good indicator that less people are buying GW product. I guess in your alternate reality, its more likely that there's more people buying now, they're just buying a couple pots of paint a year. It's not like this is all guesswork. GW's financial reports are public and organizations like ICV2 track how much of each product line is being sold by contacting retailers. No, we don't know exactly how many people bought GW product this year compared to last. What we do know is that GW sold far less product. At the end of the day, does it really matter whether you have more, less or the same amount of customers when your revenue is tanking? If 1 person bought £100mil of GW product or 100,000,000 people each bought £1 of GW product the end result is the same. If that amount isn't enough to cover your costs, your business is failing. As with most things in life, the first step to solving the problem is admitting you have one. GW refuses to do this, which is why their revenue will continue to fall (despite your predictions otherwise or your proclamations that "there are more players than ever"). I've said this before, I believe to you; repeating that snow is black, the sky is green, grass is blue and water freezes at 47F loud enough and long enough does not in any way make it fact, no matter how badly you wish it were.

The IP will outlive GW. Guaranteed.

Anyway, calm down kids. I think it's all getting a little sidetracked at this point.

Yoyoyo wrote:
The only source I found claimed 500,000 active players worldwide and three times as many collectors. God knows where they got the stats though,

http://driftlessareareview.com/2013/03/13/are-the-costs-involved-with-warhammer-40k-an-integral-part-of-participating-within-the-game/

You could take a guess at 500,000 players by guessing that your average player spends about $200 and they make around $100 million revenue.

My guess is they just invented the numbers as a ballpark figure based on rough estimates of what they think is typical.