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.

I always took that playing for fun argument as meaning they pop open some beers and throw some dice without really bothering with the rules.

To be fair, that's largely how we had to play 40K; making half of the game up on the fly just to keep it flowing, and not paying too much attention to balance or fairness.
The added bonus is that we pay such little attention to the rules that there's no reason to keep up to date on them

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 notprop wrote:

I play games for fun so am not at all obsessed by the perfect system or wedded to one system so quite happily take it or leave it.

As a very casual player, I hate being stuck with "how does this work?" or "what happens now?" questions, that aren't easy to figure out. Whilst that wasn't unique to 40K (I had a few questions about X-wing that wasn't clear from the core rules), it certainly takes up the most time.

I've always been baffled why people say "the terrible rules don't bother me because I play for fun".

What do those people think the rest of us do, play to be miserable? Other than a few freaks I'm pretty sure everyone plays for fun.

Just because we care about the quality of the rules doesn't mean we aren't playing for fun, it's just getting bogged down in junky rules and playing biased games isn't our idea of "fun".

Not caring about the rules isn't synonymous for "fun", it just means your standards are lower

I doubt anyone has ever said "the terrible rules don't bother me because I play for fun", I suggest that you are adding the terrible yourself you strengthen your point. I also doubt that that only you care as to the perceived quality of the rules, it is clearly a consideration that we all have. Unless you have greater perception that most other people?

Flaws exist in all things, we can all see beyond the flaws in rules to enjoy the majority aspect. I would suggest that you appear to be hung up on the flaws that many many people are otherwise happy to go along with which strikes me as a bit fussy.

Having an enjoyable game is synonymous with fun, dismissing others because your opinion is somehow more valid isn't, perceived tight ruleset or otherwise. Still so long as your having fun.....

Herzlos wrote:
I always took that playing for fun argument as meaning they pop open some beers and throw some dice without really bothering with the rules.
To be fair, that's largely how we had to play 40K; making half of the game up on the fly just to keep it flowing, and not paying too much attention to balance or fairness.
The added bonus is that we pay such little attention to the rules that there's no reason to keep up to date on them

Madness!
My friends like games for competition so getting too loose with them gets us all upset.
As GW rules get more strange we keep having to write down house rules to keep things moving.
The discussions/arguments/debates sometimes reached epic proportions so getting it written down was to protect us from repeating the process again.
We are a bit stuck: we love the 40 models and stories but the rules.... not so much.
So we make it work with a few tweaks.
I just wish we get to tweak less and play more.

I tried making up cheat sheets and stat cards for mini's and then just, well, gave up.
I've got other games for serious gaming with clear rules and mental stretching*, and we still have fun pew-pewing with 40K, especially on WHW scenery, but we've long given up the pretense of playing "proper" 40K. Which is a shame, because a tournament/event would probably be quite fun.


*I've got FoW & Malifaux for when I want to think.

 notprop wrote:


I doubt anyone has ever said "the terrible rules don't bother me because I play for fun", I suggest that you are adding the terrible yourself you strengthen your point. I also doubt that that only you care as to the perceived quality of the rules, it is clearly a consideration that we all have. Unless you have greater perception that most other people?

I don't think "terrible" is used, but it's a pretty common theme in rules quality discussions that tight rules are for WAAC or "that guy", whilst GW's approach to the rules are narrative. I've never been able to narrow down what that means though.

Yeah, it's a recurring theme, regardless of the verbiage used.

The "this doesn't work" statement is often countered with "me and my buddies don't care, we just roll off for it (or whatever) and keep having fun."

Which completely ignores the fact that
a) for some of us, the fun is knowing we won or lost because we did/didn't make the best decisions, not because a dice roll arbitrarily decided the outcome of a crunch point, or that we conceded a rules interpretation we disagreed with, but was legitimate, in order to keep the peace and/or keep the game flowing.

b) there's been 30 years to nail it all down.

 Azreal13 wrote:
b) there's been 30 years to nail it all down.

They appear to subscribe to "change for change sake".
We still see certain models are written out of the rules only to appear again many years later.
Good models become not as competitive then good again.
There is this rather cyclical turning things on their head to get the people who just got into the game a year or two ago to get something else.
If you have been in this for a decade or so you know that your model will be seen again eventually.
My 28mm original Obliterators I pull out on occasion to blow minds.
My original metal Deathwatch upgrade bits and models I have that were waiting for this new Codex for instance.We are just facing an unprecedented "special rules bloat" of proportions not seen in 40k ever.
30 years to nail it down... unfortunately it has been "patches" applied not doing a lessons learned and re-write the rules to fix the problems and streamline things.
Plus with the Armageddon type rules for Allies, there is no freaking way you can balance armies as they stand now: too many combinations to deal with.
I keep looking at the Bolt Action rules and think that those rules are what 40k should be today.
Just the I-get-first-turn-I-win has had so many work arounds applied it is ridiculous (deep strike, night fighting, reserves, purchased/points cost terrain, shrouded/invis, target closest model and opponent ensures he is kitted as a tank, not allowing getting into melee first turn... etc.).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 notprop wrote:

I play games for fun so am not at all obsessed by the perfect system or wedded to one system so quite happily take it or leave it.

As a very casual player, I hate being stuck with "how does this work?" or "what happens now?" questions, that aren't easy to figure out. Whilst that wasn't unique to 40K (I had a few questions about X-wing that wasn't clear from the core rules), it certainly takes up the most time.

I've always been baffled why people say "the terrible rules don't bother me because I play for fun".

What do those people think the rest of us do, play to be miserable? Other than a few freaks I'm pretty sure everyone plays for fun.

Just because we care about the quality of the rules doesn't mean we aren't playing for fun, it's just getting bogged down in junky rules and playing biased games isn't our idea of "fun".

Not caring about the rules isn't synonymous for "fun", it just means your standards are lower

When Kings of War first came out, I was not all that impressed - four pages of rules? Pfffft! (First alpha.)

Then I was hired to run a class on wargaming for a bunch of over caffeinated adolescents....

Hello four pages of rules that I can download off of the internet and hand out to each of the players!

Twelve kids in their early to mid teens - and they could be dropped into the game on the first day.

It was awesome! The kids and I had a blast!

These kids were about as casual as you could find - on summer holiday, this was something that they wanted to try.

At least three of them are still in the hobby - and still casual.

Clear, concise rules do not prevent 'fun'.

Badly written and confusing rules do not make 'fun'.

The Auld Grump

 notprop wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

 notprop wrote:

I play games for fun so am not at all obsessed by the perfect system or wedded to one system so quite happily take it or leave it.

As a very casual player, I hate being stuck with "how does this work?" or "what happens now?" questions, that aren't easy to figure out. Whilst that wasn't unique to 40K (I had a few questions about X-wing that wasn't clear from the core rules), it certainly takes up the most time.

I've always been baffled why people say "the terrible rules don't bother me because I play for fun".

What do those people think the rest of us do, play to be miserable? Other than a few freaks I'm pretty sure everyone plays for fun.

Just because we care about the quality of the rules doesn't mean we aren't playing for fun, it's just getting bogged down in junky rules and playing biased games isn't our idea of "fun".

Not caring about the rules isn't synonymous for "fun", it just means your standards are lower

I doubt anyone has ever said "the terrible rules don't bother me because I play for fun", I suggest that you are adding the terrible yourself you strengthen your point. I also doubt that that only you care as to the perceived quality of the rules, it is clearly a consideration that we all have. Unless you have greater perception that most other people?

Obviously I was paraphrasing the common discussion that usually goes something like this...

Person 1: 40k has bad rules because of X, Y, Z and A,B and C.
Person 2: Well I just play for fun.

I would suggest that you appear to be hung up on the flaws that many many people are otherwise happy to go along with which strikes me as a bit fussy.

Either we are a bit fussy or you have low standards I guess.

FWIW, when I started playing 40k, I totally had low standards. The first couple of dozen or so games I was more than happy to "pew pew pew" my way through them.

For me it was the natural act of maturing as a gamer that I started to care more about the finer points. Never have I cared whether I win or lose, but I care about WHY I win or lose. And yes I still have fun playing wargames, it's a silly argument to assume other people don't play for fun just because they care about whether the rules are a train wreck.

I would definitely be less harsh on 40k if it weren't for the fact it hasn't matured over the decades, if it were a game in its 1st or 2nd edition, I could give it a pass (though frankly many of the flaws are things an editor should catch regardless of whether it's the 1st edition of the 100th edition).

Having an enjoyable game is synonymous with fun, dismissing others because your opinion is somehow more valid isn't, perceived tight ruleset or otherwise. Still so long as your having fun.....

The funny thing is, my point wasn't about dismissing others at all, my post was pointing out how people dismiss complaints with asinine arguments like "I play for fun" or "Flaws exist in all things".

The former is insinuating other people don't play for fun, the latter is like crashing someone's car and saying "well all cars get some damage eventually, that other car has a scratch on its door!".

xraytango wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

 notprop wrote:
And that's a card game that doesn't deal with 3 dimensions on top of faction rules...

Just because this is a bugbear of mine...

I don't have the numbers for Warmachine MK3, but in MK2 there were some 140 unique Feats, 150 or so unique spells and at last count over eight hundred and thirty special abilities- not including the basic icon abilities like Pathfinder or Weaponmaster (oh I forgot animi). You may not like Warmachine, but it demonstrates clearly that even with tabletop rules, factions and massive numbers of interactions a game can be more balanced than 40k.

A large part of that is because of solid game design and clear language. Each unit has its own card, as well as rules being based on keywords that act and mean the same across all factions. Fire is always Fire etcetera. Any variation or iteration has to satisfy the base rule first and then any additional effects take place, additional effects that are also beholden to keywords.

This is a strength of Warmachine / Hordes and is a good design that GW's designers could learn something from.

GW has. It's called Age of Sigmar and a lot of people in the 40K threads are having a kinipship over it and don't want 40K simplified or people having fun. They just want it their way and don't want nothing like Warmahordes or AoS. I would say AoS has like what the Xraytango said, about MKII having so many combinations, that AoS has that as well if not more.

Since we are on the topic of Games Workshop......


(Somewhat NSFW):

Davor wrote:
... a lot of people ... don't want ... people having fun.

You think that's the reason we don't want an AoS'ening of 40K?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:



Since we are on the topic of Games Workshop......


(Somewhat NSFW):

Spoiler:

I showed some guys at the GW store this the other day. Many laughs. Still funny. No comment on its commentary, but this video is still freaking hilarious. Wish they had more beyond this and Drago (and they did Space Hulk too, I think).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


You think that's the reason we don't want an AoS'ening of 40K?

Fantasy players didn't want a AoS ending either...

Back on topic... I just want Game Workshop would stop hiring people or consultants that know very little about their products..
This is how we get the break up of the magazine and then having to return.. And Fantasy Battles went off the rails with
eight edition making it almost impossible for new players to start the game.. so instead of learning from the past of what
works and don't and trying fix it ..they just destroyed everything (burned earth) and started again.. with AoS..

True they are trying to return to the past things, but they are not at the point to bring me back .. as with others, there is to much
game competition for GW to be doing trends that works for Coke or Taco bell.. just make a great game and miniatures that people want and repeat..

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Davor wrote:
... a lot of people ... don't want ... people having fun.

You think that's the reason we don't want an AoS'ening of 40K?

I read that sentence about 5 times because it makes absolutely no sense, is Davor seriously suggesting that people don't want AoS-fying because they don't want 40k simplified or people having fun?

Davor wrote:

xraytango wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

 notprop wrote:
And that's a card game that doesn't deal with 3 dimensions on top of faction rules...

Just because this is a bugbear of mine...

I don't have the numbers for Warmachine MK3, but in MK2 there were some 140 unique Feats, 150 or so unique spells and at last count over eight hundred and thirty special abilities- not including the basic icon abilities like Pathfinder or Weaponmaster (oh I forgot animi). You may not like Warmachine, but it demonstrates clearly that even with tabletop rules, factions and massive numbers of interactions a game can be more balanced than 40k.

A large part of that is because of solid game design and clear language. Each unit has its own card, as well as rules being based on keywords that act and mean the same across all factions. Fire is always Fire etcetera. Any variation or iteration has to satisfy the base rule first and then any additional effects take place, additional effects that are also beholden to keywords.

This is a strength of Warmachine / Hordes and is a good design that GW's designers could learn something from.

GW has. It's called Age of Sigmar and a lot of people in the 40K threads are having a kinipship over it and don't want 40K simplified or people having fun. They just want it their way and don't want nothing like Warmahordes or AoS. I would say AoS has like what the Xraytango said, about MKII having so many combinations, that AoS has that as well if not more.

Simplified rules is not why people disliked AoS. People didn't like AoS because it was a poorly executed and only partially complete ruleset alongside a a total reboot of the background material and the hamfisting of a "Space Marine" faction into the game in what many saw as a blatant cash-grab along with increasingly absurd naming conventions.

As always with GW, it's not that the fundamental idea was bad, it's that GW (like clockwork) seemingly goes out of its way to intentionally execute that idea in the least optimal manner possible.

*edit*

Something happened to the formatting. Argh.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Davor wrote:

xraytango wrote:

 Kojiro wrote:

 notprop wrote:
And that's a card game that doesn't deal with 3 dimensions on top of faction rules...

Just because this is a bugbear of mine...

I don't have the numbers for Warmachine MK3, but in MK2 there were some 140 unique Feats, 150 or so unique spells and at last count over eight hundred and thirty special abilities- not including the basic icon abilities like Pathfinder or Weaponmaster (oh I forgot animi). You may not like Warmachine, but it demonstrates clearly that even with tabletop rules, factions and massive numbers of interactions a game can be more balanced than 40k.

A large part of that is because of solid game design and clear language. Each unit has its own card, as well as rules being based on keywords that act and mean the same across all factions. Fire is always Fire etcetera. Any variation or iteration has to satisfy the base rule first and then any additional effects take place, additional effects that are also beholden to keywords.

This is a strength of Warmachine / Hordes and is a good design that GW's designers could learn something from.

GW has. It's called Age of Sigmar and a lot of people in the 40K threads are having a kinipship over it and don't want 40K simplified or people having fun. They just want it their way and don't want nothing like Warmahordes or AoS. I would say AoS has like what the Xraytango said, about MKII having so many combinations, that AoS has that as well if not more.

Simplified rules is not why people disliked AoS. People didn't like AoS because it was a poorly executed and only partially complete ruleset alongside a a total reboot of the background material and the hamfisting of a "Space Marine" faction into the game in what many saw as a blatant cash-grab along with increasingly absurd naming conventions.

As always with GW, it's not that the fundamental idea was bad, it's that GW (like clockwork) seemingly goes out of its way to intentionally execute that idea in the least optimal manner possible.

Seeing as people will buy it anyway, why not put as little resource and effort in as possible and reap the £££. GW needs the money.

Because at some point people stop buying it.

I'd welcome a simplifying of 40K, if they can avoid AoS'ing it.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Seeing as people will buy it anyway...

Except when they don't.

Yeah contemptible sheep....or not as the case may be.

Err, ok.

I was just alluding to the fact people don't always just "buy it anyway". It's that sort of thinking that has caused GW to stagnate as many fans quit and new fans become harder to get with rising prices.

Yeah, I had been looking forward to Deathwatch.
Spending $500 kinda creeps up in a hurry even with extra space marine bits lying around (Note: GW site USA site prices at this time, Canadian in brackets).
I was looking for a well "rounded" army but it will still need to be Allied with my IG/AM, BT or more strangely GK.

So, for a barely functional army of 44 models (specifically the DW models), I had the pleasure of spending over $500 US funds.
Yeah, these prices are not for the faint at heart.
Am I happy?
Yes, I have models I want.
Is my wallet happy?
It may speak to me later when it stops smoking and is resuscitated with a few paychecks.
My more competitive player self is all upset and screaming at me until I figure out which army to be allies with and he may quiet down.
Promising to myself to paint up an Imperial Knight in Deathwatch colours is calming things down marvelously.
Can I arm him with special ammo? PLEASE?

In summary though starting a new army or in this case another army is seriously expensive and is a HUGE barrier to anyone with a casual interest: there is nothing casual about the cost. Buying a few of those mini-game boxes is a good way to get to play and eventually lead to some army to play.

 Talizvar wrote:
Yeah, I had been looking forward to Deathwatch.
Spending $500 kinda creeps up in a hurry even with extra space marine bits lying around

This is the big thing that hurts Game Workshop.. to start a game you need to spend hundreds of dollars to get in.
There are cheaper ways like ebay, But with games like Xwing, battles are small units that cost you less, plus is already
pre painted.

I would be the first in line to bash Age of Sigmar for what they did to Warhammer, but one thing they did right was reduce the
size of the game and access to the rules of the game. In eight edition giant units was the best way to go.. and during the 8th edition releases
the new witch elves came out.. They where $90 US per 10 models.. a good solid unit was 30 models, that means just for one unit
in your army was costing a customer $270 not including paint and other things needed like rule books and such..

Then GW sit back and scratched their head wondering why there was no new players, They have improved in the last year but
the whole burned earth of AoS, was throwing the baby out with the bath water..

I just read this artilcle on ICV2
http://icv2.com/articles/columns/view/35434/rolling-initiative-a-glut-games

It shows the gluttony of games hitting the market place.. right now is not the time to be thinking they are safe. I see in the next few
years a collapse of the gaming industry just like the comics in the 90's.. Will GW survive???.. only time will tell

Could you imagine? How many on here were around during that? I collected every title in the Ultraverse imprint from Malibu Comics. Look up what happened to them. Also, if you look up the Black September event from the Ultraverse, you pretty much see how I view this whole AOS thing.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 VeteranNoob wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
You can believe what you want, but it was evident in the fact that they:
-----
Should I go on? I won't deny that there's a lot of hatred online, but believe me most of it is very well founded towards the GW of the past.

That is a beauty of Dakka discussions over some other forums
I do believe there is mucho hatred online and these posters believe it is well founded. But I also very much do believe that GW is in a much better place this past year than many years before it and continued to be impressed with the speed of change. I enjoy their games more than any other and it's been a huge part of my life for years so maybe I'm just coming from a different perspective. GW's return to social media and events, videos coming out regularly and of varied topics and allowing its staff to open up to interviews and other community engagement have been wonderful to see.

I agree, there are few who have been as vitriolic about GW in the past as I have and if you'd read my posts 4 or 5 years back, I was busy slamming their head in the car door on a daily basis, there's certainly plenty of room for further improvement as well, but for now, just the fact that it's not more bad news, that there are good things happening again, has really boosted my spirits and lowered my antagonism to the company.

I'm optimistic about GW for the first time in a long, long time.

We had a discussion a few years ago on what GW was going to do and I replied about them licensing their IP's.... Video games.... And I once again was right. That is exactly what they are doing and pretty much what has shored up their failing numbers on their core products.

With the years of knowledge of running several different types of businesses (commercial, private, and retail), I on the other hand am not so optimistic concerning Games Workshop because of all of its past and current antics.

Both in the board room and their current business model is nothing but a joke.

On the other hand they should be afraid of Fantasy Flight Games/ Asmodée', especially in the long term as that company is lining up to compete with GW in a more direct manner. There are only so many dollars in this sector of the gaming market and so many players within this sector of the hobby.

As stated before... Games Workshop is nothing more than a British Game Company with some global influence but not to long ago they were -The- Global Modelling/Game company with their head quarters in England. Big difference there.

Until Kirby is completely gone and is unable to use GW as his personal ATM machine, the corporation as a whole will continue to stagnate and decline.

What GW desperately needs, in my never-humble opinion, is for someone else to write a good, clear, and fun ruleset that their models plug right into. Basically, a sci-fi game that is to 40K what Kings of War is to WHFB. Because I think Games Workshops' attitude of 'our customers are collectors, the rules don't matter' isn't just wrong, its blatantly stupid. I think even among most of the actual 'collectors only' customers, most start with the intention of playing the game(s) the models are for, but just never get around to it because of either the rules' current state of being a threadbare sack of wet crap, or the enormous cost of entry.

($500US for 44 miniatures? WHAT? Granted, there's 5 bikes and a vehicle in there, but that's still an average of $11.37US PER MINI. Even if we are generous and count bikes as 2 models each and a vehicle as 10, that comes out to an average of $8.62US per mini, and many of them line troopers. I don't care how well-tooled or designed they are - the Perry Brothers are out proving that there's no reason high quality plastic miniatures need to be more than $2-$3US each.)

I'm not very optimistic that Mantic's Warpath will be that game, so I'm keeping my eyes on Osprey Wargames for something that might have that magic 'it', whatever 'it' is, for 40K. I hope it comes soon, because I'm on the cusp of ebaying off an Ulthwe Eldar army I collected and painted over 13 years - because I haven't taken the models out of the case in over 4 years now.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 VeteranNoob wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
You can believe what you want, but it was evident in the fact that they:
-----
Should I go on? I won't deny that there's a lot of hatred online, but believe me most of it is very well founded towards the GW of the past.

That is a beauty of Dakka discussions over some other forums
I do believe there is mucho hatred online and these posters believe it is well founded. But I also very much do believe that GW is in a much better place this past year than many years before it and continued to be impressed with the speed of change. I enjoy their games more than any other and it's been a huge part of my life for years so maybe I'm just coming from a different perspective. GW's return to social media and events, videos coming out regularly and of varied topics and allowing its staff to open up to interviews and other community engagement have been wonderful to see.

I agree, there are few who have been as vitriolic about GW in the past as I have and if you'd read my posts 4 or 5 years back, I was busy slamming their head in the car door on a daily basis, there's certainly plenty of room for further improvement as well, but for now, just the fact that it's not more bad news, that there are good things happening again, has really boosted my spirits and lowered my antagonism to the company.

I'm optimistic about GW for the first time in a long, long time.

We had a discussion a few years ago on what GW was going to do and I replied about them licensing their IP's.... Video games.... And I once again was right. That is exactly what they are doing and pretty much what has shored up their failing numbers on their core products.

With the years of knowledge of running several different types of businesses (commercial, private, and retail), I on the other hand am not so optimistic concerning Games Workshop because of all of its past and current antics.

Both in the board room and their current business model is nothing but a joke.

On the other hand they should be afraid of Fantasy Flight Games/ Asmodée', especially in the long term as that company is lining up to compete with GW in a more direct manner. There are only so many dollars in this sector of the gaming market and so many players within this sector of the hobby.

As stated before... Games Workshop is nothing more than a British Game Company with some global influence but not to long ago they were -The- Global Modelling/Game company with their head quarters in England. Big difference there.

Until Kirby is completely gone and is unable to use GW as his personal ATM machine, the corporation as a whole will continue to stagnate and decline.

Fine until the last line. Try again.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 VeteranNoob wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
You can believe what you want, but it was evident in the fact that they:
-----
Should I go on? I won't deny that there's a lot of hatred online, but believe me most of it is very well founded towards the GW of the past.

That is a beauty of Dakka discussions over some other forums
I do believe there is mucho hatred online and these posters believe it is well founded. But I also very much do believe that GW is in a much better place this past year than many years before it and continued to be impressed with the speed of change. I enjoy their games more than any other and it's been a huge part of my life for years so maybe I'm just coming from a different perspective. GW's return to social media and events, videos coming out regularly and of varied topics and allowing its staff to open up to interviews and other community engagement have been wonderful to see.

I agree, there are few who have been as vitriolic about GW in the past as I have and if you'd read my posts 4 or 5 years back, I was busy slamming their head in the car door on a daily basis, there's certainly plenty of room for further improvement as well, but for now, just the fact that it's not more bad news, that there are good things happening again, has really boosted my spirits and lowered my antagonism to the company.

I'm optimistic about GW for the first time in a long, long time.

We had a discussion a few years ago on what GW was going to do and I replied about them licensing their IP's.... Video games.... And I once again was right. That is exactly what they are doing and pretty much what has shored up their failing numbers on their core products.

With the years of knowledge of running several different types of businesses (commercial, private, and retail), I on the other hand am not so optimistic concerning Games Workshop because of all of its past and current antics.

Both in the board room and their current business model is nothing but a joke.

On the other hand they should be afraid of Fantasy Flight Games/ Asmodée', especially in the long term as that company is lining up to compete with GW in a more direct manner. There are only so many dollars in this sector of the gaming market and so many players within this sector of the hobby.

As stated before... Games Workshop is nothing more than a British Game Company with some global influence but not to long ago they were -The- Global Modelling/Game company with their head quarters in England. Big difference there.

Until Kirby is completely gone and is unable to use GW as his personal ATM machine, the corporation as a whole will continue to stagnate and decline.

Fine until the last line. Try again.

Given that the only thing that kept GW from losing more money this year was licensing fees... seems like 'stagnate and decline' is a pretty accurate term.

They are at least trying to turn the Titanic around, but there are still an awful lot of icebergs, and the captain is new to his job. (While the old one was Drunk While On Duty - and was known to turn Nelson's eye to the icebergs.)

The Auld Grump

Licensing fees are not enough to keep GW afloat though, and unless the new captain acts quickly to stem the haemorrhage of money spewing from HMS Games Workshops side it may soon be too late.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:


Fine until the last line. Try again.

Given that the only thing that kept GW from losing more money this year was licensing fees... seems like 'stagnate and decline' is a pretty accurate term.

They are at least trying to turn the Titanic around, but there are still an awful lot of icebergs, and the captain is new to his job. (While the old one was Drunk While On Duty - and was known to turn Nelson's eye to the icebergs.)

The Auld Grump