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.

 vipoid wrote:
40k peaked in 5th and has only been declining since then.

/thread.

20% of your customers buy 80% of your product, and 20% of your produce provides 80% of your revenue. Or there about.

Where GW rides off on the crazy train is their assumption that their clientele is 80% collector, 20% gamer. The models are good, but they aren't that good. 4 out of 5 being gamers with that 5th one just collecting is closer to reality.

SJ

Yes - in terms of the massve cock up re points /Stupid OPness of the various Mecha units - also that most of them end up being creatures for absolutely no reason except to make them more OP

I like the Wraith Knight and Imperial Knight models so bought them - I can't stand the Riptide or Stormsurge models so won't be buying them - the stealth suit is a maybe but I can get better models from other manufacturers.........

Just ask for a AoS style rule set. Then you get to balance it yourself and there's no issue. Or hand the rule writing over to a company that knows what they're doing like FFG, and actually have an awesome game.

AoS is pretty popular, though.
I've never heard of FFG, but I'm a big fan of Heroscape, and would like to see 40K go in that direction.

I also want more board games like space hulk and Assassinorum execution force.

 Mantorok wrote:
AoS is pretty popular, though.

Is it?

I've heard the opposite.

The jury is out on AoS's popularity. Certainly the DakkaDakka forums have as many people frantically dissing the game as frantically bigging it up, but that is a minority of the whole membership, which itself is a minority of the wargaming public. Maybe GW are selling skip loads to people who never comment on forums.

The only way we will know how well AoS is doing is if there is another massive fall in GW's sales reported in January. That would indicate that AoS had totally failed to replace WHFB.

However this is getting off the thread topic.

if GW decided to AoSify 40K, I would be pleased. I would rather play a free 3/4-assed ruleset than not play an expensive double-assed one, which is what we've got at the moment.

I'd probably stop playing. Especially since my only remaining army wouldn't 'be ported over-- because, let's face it, GW has basically forgotten about Sisters except as trivia to include in novels occasionally.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The jury is out on AoS's popularity. Certainly the DakkaDakka forums have as many people frantically dissing the game as frantically bigging it up, but that is a minority of the whole membership, which itself is a minority of the wargaming public. Maybe GW are selling skip loads to people who never comment on forums.

The only way we will know how well AoS is doing is if there is another massive fall in GW's sales reported in January. That would indicate that AoS had totally failed to replace WHFB.

However this is getting off the thread topic.

if GW decided to AoSify 40K, I would be pleased. I would rather play a free 3/4-assed ruleset than not play an expensive double-assed one, which is what we've got at the moment.

I quite like the AoS war scroll thing and I think it would work with 40K. All your information to use that unit being on 1 sheet. Having to scroll through several hundred pages of rules to find one is a pain. The battleshock would need some tweaking though.

 Melissia wrote:
I'd probably stop playing.

Same. Especially if they carry on the 'no point values' nonsense.

 Melissia wrote:
I'd probably stop playing. Especially since my only remaining army wouldn't 'be ported over-- because, let's face it, GW has basically forgotten about Sisters except as trivia to include in novels occasionally.

If they did go AoS the sisters would more than likely get ported over, Bretonnia did so if they still sell the models then there would be a port.

oz of the north wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'd probably stop playing. Especially since my only remaining army wouldn't 'be ported over-- because, let's face it, GW has basically forgotten about Sisters except as trivia to include in novels occasionally.

If they did go AoS the sisters would more than likely get ported over,

That would require them to make new models, and they're decidedly against doing that for Sisters.

 Melissia wrote:

oz of the north wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'd probably stop playing. Especially since my only remaining army wouldn't 'be ported over-- because, let's face it, GW has basically forgotten about Sisters except as trivia to include in novels occasionally.

If they did go AoS the sisters would more than likely get ported over,

That would require them to make new models, and they're decidedly against doing that for Sisters.

They are still selling them though and if still selling will make rules for them

I don't see why GW would not make a War Scroll for Sisters. It's easy enough, after all, comparing their 40K stats with SMs and IG. There are a few special weapons and abilities (faith points) that would need a bit more thought.

However if Sisters got dropped, and if I had a Sisters army, I would just use it as a Femarine army.

Here's a thought- ask Sad Panda if there's any Sisters in the pipeline. A pretty trustworthy source..

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Here's a thought- ask Sad Panda if there's any Sisters in the pipeline.

There are.

Unfortunately, the pipeline in question happens to belong to a sewer.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The jury is out on AoS's popularity. Certainly the DakkaDakka forums have as many people frantically dissing the game as frantically bigging it up, but that is a minority of the whole membership, which itself is a minority of the wargaming public. Maybe GW are selling skip loads to people who never comment on forums.

The only way we will know how well AoS is doing is if there is another massive fall in GW's sales reported in January. That would indicate that AoS had totally failed to replace WHFB.

What we know for sure is that success begets more new releases, and failure begets the executioner's axe... eventually. So, NEXT Christmas, if there are a lot of AoS new releases (and I'm not talking reboxes), we'll know that AoS has been a success for GW. Similarly, to keep it on topic, the giant stompy robots are working for GW in terms of sales, so GW produces more giant stompy robots and ever-larger weapons platforms.

The reason the game isn't about infantry and tanks anymore is because people aren't buying Cadians and Lehman Russes -- or Scions and Tauroxes, to modernize it. The most popular model last year (WD reader's choice) was Imperial Knight, with most of the runners-up also giant stompys, and I'm sure that this year, the Reader's Choice will also be some big splashy model. It's not going to be the Harlequin Avatar, one of the assassins, the Librarian, or the cool Chaplain Interogator; people are going to vote for stuff like Skarbrand, Stormsurge, Ghostkeel, Knight Venator, Celestant Prime, etc.

Now, going back to the January financials, we actually won't learn much at all about AoS versus WHFB if the numbers are weak, because in the several last half-years, there hasn't been a giant focus on Fantasy compared to this one. GW spent a whole freakin' 3 months AoS, a game setting that accounted for single digit percentage of sales for many years; if they had put a similar effort in WHFB 9e, one would have expected the numbers to be weak compared to the previous half-year, because WHFB just has a much smaller fanbase. On the other hand, Space marines, Tau, HH Box, some big FW releases, and a window of "cheap" FW shipping all landed this half year, which may compensate for some of that lost sales.

I think if the revenue numbers for this half year are even close to the last half-year, GW will be thrilled -- and likely, they'd have big splashy $150 models like Skarbrand, Stormsurge and Tidewall to thank for it.

I was thinking it would be neat for army building to include something like auxiliary forces.

The idea would be for the match you make a force that is 25% larger (so say 2000 point force for a 1500 point game)

This would allow for tactically deploying your force for what you might face - hordes, supers, or whatever.

Then in deployment you can actually only deploy or reserve 75% of your army.

This could clear up a lot of issues where people aren't prepared to face a certain army - or even reduce the effectiveness of their own army if they know they will curb stomp their opponent and actually want a closer game.

 Talys wrote:

The reason the game isn't about infantry and tanks anymore is because people aren't buying Cadians and Lehman Russes -- or Scions and Tauroxes, to modernize it. The most popular model last year (WD reader's choice) was Imperial Knight, with most of the runners-up also giant stompys, and I'm sure that this year, the Reader's Choice will also be some big splashy model. It's not going to be the Harlequin Avatar, one of the assassins, the Librarian, or the cool Chaplain Interogator; people are going to vote for stuff like Skarbrand, Stormsurge, Ghostkeel, Knight Venator, Celestant Prime, etc.

GW customers spoke with their wallets and bought up tons of the giant stompy creatures. I see no reason fort them to stop making the next Big Bad Mech.

The community here represents a minority of the hobby itself. I would say 90% of the people I wargame with never go on Dakka or any forums, but are very involved with the game. These people enjoy playing with Wraith Knights, Imperial Knights, etc.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The tax you pay to play something like Skyhammer or a Battle Company is in the form of units you might not ever field in a CAD, yet the the rule you unlock are far superior to any grouping of models to fill an Unbound list.

I don't think Skyhammer even qualifies as having a tax. The formation requires 2 Assault squads and 2 Devastator squads. Granted, not everyone takes two dev squads but it's hardly a tax to do so given the special rules that come with it. If you really see it as a tax, they can be taken without weapons and be standard Space Marines. My CSM Havocs don't even cost any more than standard CSMs so I'd lose zero points doing so.

Picture it... ordinary Space Marines with Turn 1 Deep Strike for free...

 Arkaine wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
The tax you pay to play something like Skyhammer or a Battle Company is in the form of units you might not ever field in a CAD, yet the the rule you unlock are far superior to any grouping of models to fill an Unbound list.

I don't think Skyhammer even qualifies as having a tax. The formation requires 2 Assault squads and 2 Devastator squads. Granted, not everyone takes two dev squads but it's hardly a tax to do so given the special rules that come with it. If you really see it as a tax, they can be taken without weapons and be standard Space Marines. My CSM Havocs don't even cost any more than standard CSMs so I'd lose zero points doing so.

Picture it... ordinary Space Marines with Turn 1 Deep Strike for free...

Well, I wouldn't call it a "tax" either, because after all, you're having to use crappy unit A as a prerequisite of fielding good unit B. However, absent the formation bonuses, most people wouldn't field 2 assault and 2 devastator squads in their army

I do like that these formations make it reasonable to field stuff like infantry and tanks that were pretty much useless in the age of big stompy robots. For instance, 3 land raider formation is pretty cool, as is Skyhammer, Gladius, and so on, which bring the game a bit back to its roots, if that's the way you want to roll your dice.

If only it WAS Mechwarrior, stupid Tau have Monstrous Creatures instead of god damn Walkers, which as stated above, is only because GW wanted to move product and doesnt give a gak about balance nor logic, they'll make money by screwing over the vast majority of the other races, allowing Tau and Eldar to have "Massive Robots" that use Monstrous Creature rules simply because Walkers are terrible, easily destroyed and Monstrous Creatures are infinitely better.

Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.

And Necrons, and Space Marine Drop Pods.

Monsterous Creatures die pretty easily, it's Gargantuan Creatures that are harder to deal with but even then, is there an army that struggles to field anything that can take them down?

 Mantorok wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.

And Necrons, and Space Marine Drop Pods.

Making a pod that drops people from outer space isn't hard.

Getting the contents to survive the journey is hard. Space Marines cheat by using Power Armor.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.

That's a legitimate possibility, but it still doesn't make sense - If they are given rules that are better than others, and that was the goal all the way through, how could they then miss making them more espensive point-wise? I mean, if the point was to make them better, they should've known that that'd be unbalanced, unless they changed up to prices to reflect it.

In the end, I don't think that's the gist of it, really - Even with the Wraitknight costing 800 pt, it would still feel wrong, simply because how little thought it takes to play it - It soars through the table, shoots all those powerful guns with few to no difficulties... A Baneblade can get D weapons, sure, but it's low to the ground, moves slowly and isn't actually all that strong defensive-wise. It can be exploded, shaken and can get weapons removed, and has no saves. Gargantuans have a native FNP, and then come their save, and the fact that they can't be exploded or shaken... Even the damn Monstrous Creatures get Invul. Saves!

I think it's just bs, really.

Also, why always Invul.? What if the Riptide Shield reduced all S of enemy guns shooting at it by -1 or something like that? That'd be much more interesting!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe GW intended Tau and Eldar robots to be better than everyone else's because Tau and Eldar technology is more advanced.

And maybe GW made them so op just to sell more stuff.

I've enjoyed the large models tremendously. They add an epic-ness to the game that wasn't previously present except in drawings.

You can't shake a baneblade.

I love big stompy robots, they let me and my friends get 1850-2000 point games done in less than two hours. I get one day a month to throw models on the table, I want to get as many games as possible in when that day comes around.

That said, I have a pretty significant amount of houserules that we have enacted to facilitate more balanced games. (Including point tweaks and adjustments to various core rules)