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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
I want to point out that those financials don't actually say anything beyond a vague hypothesis about the popularity of 10th edition 40k. They only say GW is making a lot of profit. I know GW has some breakdown to show what proportion is from licensing etc. but they don't give anything like the detail to suggest whether the game system itself is driving this increase in sales or whether the increased popularity is due to the current edition. It could be, but those numbers don't tell us that. I don't think GW even splits out 40k vs AoS. Even if we knew how many rule books were being sold vs, say, 7th edition, it still wouldn't control for various confounding factors that can relate to the success of a company in shifting products (factors both within and outside GW's control, like marketing or recessions or pandemics). But that level of detail could give us inferences about how many people were interested in the rules at least.

To be clear, I'm not saying tenth isn't popular, I'm just annoyed by those financials being used in an unrigorous manner that they don't support.

No, you're right - it is all encompassing and certainly GW's foray into more stuff has helps, however from the half year --

"Our June 2023 sales performance set a new benchmark for sales in one month driven by sales of our new Warhammer 40,000 core set"

In fairness, that gives a bit more credence to 10th specifically selling well than the topline figure. I doubt GW would give out more info than that publically unless they felt it would benefit them.

For what it is worth (which isn't much) I've bought every starter set from 4th edition to 9th and it has been primarily for the models

In practice, we can never know whether an older edition style released under current GW circumstances would perform as well as current 40k, so this will remain an unknown to me.

Remember they are a model company first now, not a game design company. as such people are buying....but almost nobody is playing. that was an issue with the lockdowns and why they did so well. granted there are people into all sorts of aspects of the hobby-building/painting, converting etc... not just playing. Keep in mind also the polls that were done even here on DAKKA most "active" players play once a month in a pickup game. to me that is bonkers. i would not be in the miniature gaming hobby if i played that little. even during pandemic lockdowns in 2020 i was getting more games than that in weekly private group games. in the last 20 years i average 3 or 4 games every weekend of various games not just 40K, but when 40K was my main game (3rd-5th) i was getting 3 games a week if not more.

i rarely see anybody play 10th at my FLGS. compared to past editions even 7th. what i do see is stuff about tournaments constantly. but that is what GW has been catering to for 2 editions now, so that's not a surprise.

 Haighus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


None of that means that 40K is now the premier system that satisfies all types and I don't think anyone should make that claim. It is certainly more tournament friendly. The OP was whether or not it's sanitized, which I disagree with. We're certainly still in index hammer and there isn't a lot of Crusade stuff yet. I can see where people who want a particular facet ( like Gorgon Nids ) or those with an index that doesn't yet match their desired play style can feel let down.

GW has some breakdown to show what proportion is from licensing etc. but they don't give anything like the detail to suggest whether the game system itself is driving this increase.

Our June 2023 sales performance set a new benchmark for sales in one month driven by sales of our new Warhammer 40,000 core set

What we know for certain is that close to zero percent of those sales are directly of people playing games. If players have to venmo 13.99 to GW for every game they play, and the models are either priced at cost or made by third parties, then maybe you can that GW's revenue shows how much people like playing tenth edition.

As it is, the numbers can't show that people think the gameplay is fun. At best it could show that people like the rule gizmos attached to the models, after you control for network effect, media exposure, etc.

pelicaniforce wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


None of that means that 40K is now the premier system that satisfies all types and I don't think anyone should make that claim. It is certainly more tournament friendly. The OP was whether or not it's sanitized, which I disagree with. We're certainly still in index hammer and there isn't a lot of Crusade stuff yet. I can see where people who want a particular facet ( like Gorgon Nids ) or those with an index that doesn't yet match their desired play style can feel let down.

GW has some breakdown to show what proportion is from licensing etc. but they don't give anything like the detail to suggest whether the game system itself is driving this increase.

Our June 2023 sales performance set a new benchmark for sales in one month driven by sales of our new Warhammer 40,000 core set

What we know for certain is that close to zero percent of those sales are directly of people playing games. If players have to venmo 13.99 to GW for every game they play, and the models are either priced at cost or made by third parties, then maybe you can that GW's revenue shows how much people like playing tenth edition.

As it is, the numbers can't show that people think the gameplay is fun. At best it could show that people like the rule gizmos attached to the models, after you control for network effect, media exposure, etc.

I agree. I think Codices are probably the product that might most suggest interest in playing and rules, but it's still a poor proxy overall.

^Related: I bought the box for 9th for the Necron models, swapped the Primaris for more Crons, played a total of three games of 9th, then switched over to One Page Rules and am looking to offload thpse Crons now.

So yeah, bought box, barely played, not keeping any of it. If GW wants to count that as a win, fine, but I wouldn't.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess it depends how you characterize editions, but I don't agree that 10th is it's own thing.

I would say that when GW introduces new major mechanics it's a bit of a shift. 6th stands out from 5th, because of flyers / d-weapons / psychic phase. 8th stands out from 7th, because of the shift on S/T, tanks with wounds, dropping initiative, strats, etc. 10th didn't change anything from 9th other than reorganizing it. Strats, tanks with wounds, and a broader S/T layout and so on -- it's all the same with minor updates.

9th to 10th is not very different from 3rd to 4th with an index and rules consolidation.

10th had a major shift on S/T. It added USRs. It changed nearly every data sheet to put a bespoke rule or more on almost every unit. It eliminated an entire phase of the turn/game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:


I think the reason it was irksome was that Marines, who already had a substantial arsenal at their disposal, were given this amazing weapon.

Meanwhile, other factions who were suffering just as much (if not moreso) at the hands of those monsters, were given naff-all. No Grav, no D-weapons, nothing else to help them against Riptides, Wraithknights etc.

Yeah, that is often another symptom of GW's Not Finished problem. Its one thing to say Executioner Chainaxes with a 4A S8, -2 D2 stat (just for context, not as a finished ready for produciton idea) are limited to the two major Marine factions as a throwback to the Horus Heresy flavor. But then I'd expect to see stuff that is proportionally (S3 armies might get it as S6, etc) similar (different kit bit, same template) in other armies. This goes doubly so for the Elements (Flame, grav, las, plas, melta) and double that again while the elements are the Rock-Paper-Anti theme. I don't object to some factions not having access to one of the elements (as long as its not overly oppressive to them) as a flavorful tweak i.e. Sisters don't get Las but do get more/better melta on more/better melta delivery platforms. Alternately the new XYZ Facton culturally appropriating Fuedal Japan doesn't get flamers because their society reveres and fears fire to the point that its terrifying and sacrilegious to use fire as a weapon but their Last Air Bender guns ignore cover. Most of the already existing factions have some of this already built in. Tau don't chop. Orks don't (generally) Melt. Sisters don't Las, and on and on. But there's at least five elements (I'm assuming I may have missed one) - so each faction should have access to at least four.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Well all that and they stripped out points-for-upgrades, killing a big part of listbuilding. And then they sent a whole bunch of firstborn/realmarine stuff to legends.

Nah I'd say those are the minors. We've already had a few discussions but I'd wager most people will agree the current points system is 3 Digit vs 2 Digit Power Level and that's been around a while. Nor would I count one faction in upheaval as a reboot of the entire system. That's usually covered by things that hit all the factions.

I think the major points of this being a reboot:

T12 Tanks.
No More Psychic Phase.
Almost every squad unit with at least one bespoke rule.

 aphyon wrote:
Remember they are a model company first now, not a game design company. as such people are buying....but almost nobody is playing. that was an issue with the lockdowns and why they did so well. granted there are people into all sorts of aspects of the hobby-building/painting, converting etc... not just playing. Keep in mind also the polls that were done even here on DAKKA most "active" players play once a month in a pickup game. to me that is bonkers. i would not be in the miniature gaming hobby if i played that little. even during pandemic lockdowns in 2020 i was getting more games than that in weekly private group games. in the last 20 years i average 3 or 4 games every weekend of various games not just 40K, but when 40K was my main game (3rd-5th) i was getting 3 games a week if not more.

i rarely see anybody play 10th at my FLGS. compared to past editions even 7th. what i do see is stuff about tournaments constantly. but that is what GW has been catering to for 2 editions now, so that's not a surprise.

Anecdotes != evidence

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
Remember they are a model company first now, not a game design company. as such people are buying....but almost nobody is playing. that was an issue with the lockdowns and why they did so well. granted there are people into all sorts of aspects of the hobby-building/painting, converting etc... not just playing. Keep in mind also the polls that were done even here on DAKKA most "active" players play once a month in a pickup game. to me that is bonkers. i would not be in the miniature gaming hobby if i played that little. even during pandemic lockdowns in 2020 i was getting more games than that in weekly private group games. in the last 20 years i average 3 or 4 games every weekend of various games not just 40K, but when 40K was my main game (3rd-5th) i was getting 3 games a week if not more.

i rarely see anybody play 10th at my FLGS. compared to past editions even 7th. what i do see is stuff about tournaments constantly. but that is what GW has been catering to for 2 editions now, so that's not a surprise.

Anecdotes != evidence

Tournaments were up 20% yoy for January. My shop has never has as many consistently attended tournaments.

The company telling you directly=evidence. they made it very clear "we are a model company that happens to have a game attached to our model line".

Then you go on and prove my point-9th and 10th are for tournaments not for general play. your tournaments are up 20% and you have good attendance at tournaments. exactly what i said. back between 3rd and 5th we had at least half a dozen players playing every saturday (thats 3 or 4 games going at once) and zero trounaments were happening anywhere.

I throw it back at you. you have loads of tournaments and tournament players=Anecdotes
at my FLGS we barely have anybody playing 10th and people have trouble finding people to play 10th because the players who were active in 9th+ are now focused on battle tech, MCP, infinity and a host of other games, or we are playing old hammer based on 5th ed when we want some 40K.

Look at the "post a pic of your last game" topic. i post about our store every week. not just my own games.

In the last month just on Saturdays-
11 battle tech games
2 dust 1947 games
8+ MCP games
7 house 5th ed 40K games
4 10th ed 40K games
2 B5 wars games
1 giant warmachine MKIII game

Had the day off today and came in for a short time for some WWII games had 2 of those by the time i left, and we already have at least 3 games scheduled for tomorrow....none of them are 10th ed 40K.

Hah

1) we are a model company is a Kirby line - "Our key consumer facing brand is ‘Warhammer’ - this unites all aspects of the Warhammer hobby - collecting, building,
painting, playing, reading, watching, gaming etc. in the worlds of Warhammer."

2) that's not from GW - I'll load the full dataset tonight

Shifting goal posts isn't going to help.

I was hoping someone else would have picked up on this:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Anecdotes != evidence

Tournaments were up 20% yoy for January. My shop has never has as many consistently attended tournaments.

 aphyon wrote:
I throw it back at you. you have loads of tournaments and tournament players=Anecdotes

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Anecdotes != evidence
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at Feb/16/2024 21:06:10.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

2) that's not from GW - I'll load the full dataset tonight

Shifting goal posts isn't going to help.

Which goalpost is being shifted and by whom here?

 aphyon wrote:

The company telling you directly=evidence.

Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. Pick your "Trust But Verify" example. Entities cooking their own books to massage the results isn't unheard of. It isn't even rare. A company telling you directly is evidence of what the company wants you to believe, not evidence of veracity or lack thereof. Ben Kenobi's "Certain Point Of View". Lets say 25% of HH players cite 40K as their introduction to HH. So GW gives 40K credit for 25% of HH sales in their accounting by moving 25% of profit from HH to 40K. From a Certain Point of View.

Breton wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:


The problem was that it was mostly what...Tau and Eldar 'monstrous creatures'

That started earlier I think, I forget exactly when but I can remember Dread vs Carnifex being laughably one-sided because of Monsters getting bonuses vs Vehicles.

I wouldn't be surprised by that as for awhile the Carnifex had some really nasty tools at its disposal though I have vague recollections of people bemoaning it getting nerfed from 4th into 5th and then 7th. One aspect of this though is that I remember Dreads at least in the 7th era were considered bad due to being walkers. I actually forget a lot of the details on specifics of the why on that though, but it is a small segway to something I actually like about the newer editions.

With all the Marines under one blanket book, you no longer have the issue of one chapter's dreadnoughts being outright worse than another's. If memory serves, Blood Angels Dreads in 7th had 2 attacks base, while when the standard Marine book came out Dreads there got 4 - it took a faq over a year later to make them equivalent. I preferred the fact that the non compliant chapters lost some standard armory units and in exchange got their own (as opposed to the current have everything + extras approach), but having some baseline units just be completely different in such a way was awkward.

*I actually looked it up and its probably because if the Carnifex charged, it specifically got a rule that let it get 1d3 attacks at initiative step 10 using its base strength. It had no ap, but with strength 9, it had a decent chance of stripping some hull points and vehicles did not have saving throws back then.

Breton wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


I think the reason it was irksome was that Marines, who already had a substantial arsenal at their disposal, were given this amazing weapon.

Meanwhile, other factions who were suffering just as much (if not moreso) at the hands of those monsters, were given naff-all. No Grav, no D-weapons, nothing else to help them against Riptides, Wraithknights etc.

Yeah, that is often another symptom of GW's Not Finished problem. Its one thing to say Executioner Chainaxes with a 4A S8, -2 D2 stat (just for context, not as a finished ready for produciton idea) are limited to the two major Marine factions as a throwback to the Horus Heresy flavor. But then I'd expect to see stuff that is proportionally (S3 armies might get it as S6, etc) similar (different kit bit, same template) in other armies. This goes doubly so for the Elements (Flame, grav, las, plas, melta) and double that again while the elements are the Rock-Paper-Anti theme. I don't object to some factions not having access to one of the elements (as long as its not overly oppressive to them) as a flavorful tweak i.e. Sisters don't get Las but do get more/better melta on more/better melta delivery platforms. Alternately the new XYZ Facton culturally appropriating Fuedal Japan doesn't get flamers because their society reveres and fears fire to the point that its terrifying and sacrilegious to use fire as a weapon but their Last Air Bender guns ignore cover. Most of the already existing factions have some of this already built in. Tau don't chop. Orks don't (generally) Melt. Sisters don't Las, and on and on. But there's at least five elements (I'm assuming I may have missed one) - so each faction should have access to at least four.

Oh yeah, I completely agree.

I don't expect every faction to have access to every weapon type or anything like that. The issue is more one of roles. For example, a faction like Sisters might have fewer blasts but more flamers. Point being, they've still got something to take out massed infantry.

As you say, it's the same story with anti-vehicle weapons. Giving them more meltas instead of lascannons helps to form their playstyle, without leaving them unable to reliably hurt vehicles.

The big issue was when stuff like gargantuan creatures, Imperial Knights etc. were added to the game. But while some factions got Grav and/or D-weapons to deal with them, other factions were given absolutely nothing to fill that role.

I'm reasonably convinced "GW sales" correlates to "happy GW players".

Yes, we know a very high percentage of models sold will never see dice rolled in anger. But I suspect the ratio of that is going to be around the same. If everyone genuinely hated 10th, the buzz online would be fundamentally different, and I feel sales would inevitably show a dramatic drop off.

I feel the number of genuine mantelpiece collectors - i.e. people buying who have no intention of ever playing - is relatively small.

I mean in my case, I have lots of models that have never seen a game. Usually because its a couple of squads or a start collecting I brought in a "new year, new army" phase over the past 10 years. But at the time at least I thought "this could be the one, I'll build up this army and then play with it". I wouldn't buy random stuff for games I never thought I'd play.

I got quite a lot of Necromunda stuff to play 5 Parsecs from home, but it does see some action as imperial guard proxies in 40k.
For all it's flaws, I prefer 10th over 9th. All the time I spend figuring out subfactions etc. just made me stop playing, now it's way less overhead for factions ...
Now if not every unit had its own abilities, that would be great.

Breton wrote:
I was hoping someone else would have picked up on this:

Which goalpost is being shifted and by whom here?

There's nothing to pick up on. He has a negative association and I have a positive one as in "hey I can do that, too". The reality is that lots of people here are plugging their ears and making up excuses. "Well it's probably just model sales!" "Even if it's popular it's just tournament stuff".

I've played all the editions from 2nd onward. I've thrown vortex grenades, shot pulsa rokkits, deepstruck 3 man chaos terminators with meltas behind tanks, and lost my characters to spawn in forced challenges ( always the bridesmaid never the bride ). I know what those systems were. Often there's attempts to define wargame to one-up newer editions, but everyone uses their own personal definition when no clear one exists ( debate that continues everywhere : https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/11516/what-wargame ). Really it just seems to mean "things I like about oldhammer" rather than a real introspective.

I also recall long ago that people would post the ICV2 results here as proof of GW's doom. ( sorry no winter data yet )



Here's the tournament data that finished loading so far.

Weeks 48 to 52 in 9th - 26,176 games. The same period in 10th - 32,656 - about 25%. And that could be an unfair shake putting a new edition up against one at it's end ( or maybe TOs were tired ), but given the other indicators I doubt it. I'm still loading as much history as possible ( because data is interesting ).



If you've tried it and you just don't like it - great. You're not required to like it. There are other games. I'm running a D&D campaign, playing Scythe ( a rather fantastic game ), HeroQuest with the kids, Helldivers 2, and 40K tournaments. I'm not monolithically tied to 40K.

If you've never tried it and you don't like it - I can't really value your opinion on 10th. If you want to go a step further and claim how it couldn't possibly be popular...I don't know what to say other than you're living in a bubble.

After all this it isn't to say that 10th doesn't have problems, but every edition did. And in that regard GW has never been more responsive as they are now.

They're responsive, but they're responsive to "this is making the rounds in the last few GTs let's fix that". I'd 100% take the old style to this chasing the competitive player's tails bullgak they are doing.

Well put Daedalus. I've played every edition and all had some type of issue. There are things I like from every edition as well as things I don't like in every edition.

And 40K is still growing. It amazes me now how big it has gotten compared to the late 80s - early 90s.

You can claim Avatar is a better movie than Dune because of how many people went to see it in the theater, but I think we can agree that there are limits to that metric.

 Insectum7 wrote:
You can claim Avatar is a better movie than Dune because of how many people went to see it in the theater, but I think we can agree that there are limits to that metric.

That depends on your definition of better. It's certainly more successful and I'd argue widely enjoyed if only because more people have seen it.

If we're moving the goalpost to "10h is selling more and played more, but it's not the best thing ever" I think it's kind of reaching for a reason to be negative for the sakes of it.

I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

 Gibblets wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

Because for some people that means the skill of the player is the deciding factor, for the vast majority of people: they don't, they play on all sorts of tables.

I would also say that for most people having opponent variety is more important than having mission or table variety.

Dudeface wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
You can claim Avatar is a better movie than Dune because of how many people went to see it in the theater, but I think we can agree that there are limits to that metric.

That depends on your definition of better. It's certainly more successful and I'd argue widely enjoyed if only because more people have seen it.

Spoken like a true "suit"

Blade Runner famously flopped in the theater too, but the incredibly long tail of its significance is undeniable. This points to the shallow nature of a rigid ticket-sale metric.

If we're moving the goalpost to "10h is selling more and played more, but it's not the best thing ever" I think it's kind of reaching for a reason to be negative for the sakes of it.

I'm still not even sure it's being played more. More people reporting data can still be different than more people playing. It could just be an indicator of changing player habits.

This isn't negative for the sake of negative, this is just being skeptical of the value of the data presented. Attempting to square the circle of anecdotes of seeing fewer people playing and more alternatives popping up, but apparently big sales numbers and tournament turnouts.

Dudeface wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

Because for some people that means the skill of the player is the deciding factor, for the vast majority of people: they don't, they play on all sorts of tables.

Don't you care at all about the spectacle? Having every table be the same layout with only L-shaped ruins is boring as feth, I don't know any other game that has such blandness. Even Warmahordes used to tell you specifically to NOT set up identical terrain, so choosing your deployment zone became a tactical decision, not an irrelevant one.

And my local gaming group is much bigger and active than ever. We do have our old veterans that refuse to play "new40k" and found other alternatives (both within and outside GW) but they are outnumbered.

Anecdotal data is just anecdotal.

Wayniac wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Gibblets wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

Because for some people that means the skill of the player is the deciding factor, for the vast majority of people: they don't, they play on all sorts of tables.

Don't you care at all about the spectacle? Having every table be the same layout with only L-shaped ruins is boring as feth, I don't know any other game that has such blandness. Even Warmahordes used to tell you specifically to NOT set up identical terrain, so choosing your deployment zone became a tactical decision, not an irrelevant one.

Personally I play on a mix of terrain and don't follow pre-drafted layouts because as you say, theyl spectacle is part of the appeal. On the flip side I've certainly been screwed over by too much/little terrain of the wrong kind at points, so can see the appeal to tournament terrain.

 Gibblets wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

Because it is the rules. That is how the tables are set up stores, mirroring how they are set up in events. No one has time to reset tables or build something that will end the game turn 1, w40k already has enough problems without people inventing additional ones. On top of that right now people have their armies build to fit specific terrain, those that only have a 2000pts army would be unable to adapt, if tables were changes all the time. Most people would just quit, if new set ups killed their armies. It did happen to a lot of biker army players, even before GW decided to kill that type of lists by making them mostly legends.

 Tyran wrote:
And my local gaming group is much bigger and active than ever. We do have our old veterans that refuse to play "new40k" and found other alternatives (both within and outside GW) but they are outnumbered.

Anecdotal data is just anecdotal.

And to the subject of the thread, that's another anecdotal point to the idea that 40k doesn't scratch the itch it used to.

Popular? Sure.
Sanitized? There's something to that label.

It probably differes from index to index. The eldar autarch has more weapon option then the entire GK codex, for example. So some armie got hit harder then others. Some lost rules, other lost gear options (some are just unexplainable, why can a power armour cpt have stormshield, but a terminator one can not?), and then there are those lucky to lose both rules and gear options.

And w40k right now is at a "too big to fail stage". It was first to go big, is more or less a monopolist in the market. Only technology or change in buyer market could make GW change, but by the time that happens, most of the dudes who run the company will be in pansion, safe and sound, what do they care if w40k or AoS are going to be a thing in 10year time. Which funny enough mirrors what some new people interested in table top are thinking too. Because good luck explaining to someone that the faction they are thinking about investing 500-600$ in, maybe potentialy fun/fixed in 2 to 6 years.

 Gibblets wrote:
I just don't understand why everyone is cool playing on the same table, with the same L shaped buildings in the same position every game. How is this still interesting for people?

As others have said, the majority of people don't.

It's always important to disinguish between what GW actually give us and the things that we get twisted into doing as a result of the communities and people with whom we pkay our games.

According to GW, Legends are legal anywhere but tournaments.
According to GW, games of 40k are anywhere from 1k-3k points, with smaller games restricted to Combat Patrol.
And according to GW, there are ZERO rules telling people to play exclusively with L shaped terrain.

If your community insists that you follow rules that are not written in any book, and you don't like that, you need to advocate for change within that community. Because they aren't taking their "orthodoxy" from any rulebook.