Sidstyler wrote:The one problem with your system is that you're asking GW to spend time and/or effort, and they're not going to like that.

Yes promoting their hobby so they actually make a profit would be terrible.

Timmah wrote:
The problem with GW is they want us to paint and model our little dolls. Playing the game is just something extra that some people enjoy.

GW hasn't figured out yet that its the tournament crowd that really drives the hobby. Take a look at any other hobby. They succeed because of the tournament/competitive scene.

Hollismason wrote:I think Hasbro owns 80 percent of Hobby games / Board Games / RPG games; They own DND.

Hasbro buying GW is not far fetched AT ALL.

There was actually a huge bidding war between Hasbro and Microsoft when FAFSA went under to buy Mechwarrior etc..

Hasbro though understands GAMES. its a GAME company and toy manufacturer


They support Wizards of Coast pretty well too. I mean really DnD etc.. is doing excellent MTG is still incredibly Strong.
The reason though MTG is strong is it has HUGE support for its community; tournaments ; special events; special editons.

Oh here is a list of Hasbro subsidiaries

* Avalon Hill (an imprint of Wizards of the Coast, see below)


* Claster Television
* Coleco
* Galoob
* Kenner
* Maisto
* Milton Bradley
* Parker Brothers
* Playskool
* Selchow and Righter
* Tiger Electronics
* Tonka
* Wizards of the Coast
* Wrebbit



MTG is a fantastic example of a gaming company that did a ton of right things at the beginning and have really made the bucks over it.

Hollismason wrote:
Tournament play is a huge part of hobbies ; if GW supported tournaments they would ultimately make more money.

Redbeard wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
Tournament play is a huge part of hobbies ; if GW supported tournaments they would ultimately make more money.

Again, I like tournaments, but I see no evidence to support your claim.

Look at sales of MTG and compare it to when they did not have a tourney organization.

First of all, M:TG had a tourney organization from nearly day 1. I remember playing in sanctioned DCI tournaments as early as 1994.

Secondly, M:tG grew so fast that they couldn't stock their own product in the early days, and this had nothing to do with tournaments. I remember trying to get ahold of Legends packs and being unable to.

Thirdly, while the tournament scene really forced them to evaluate the rules and balance of the game, I don't think that it's the tournament alone that accounts for it, but rather, the fact that it's a good, balanced game (usually).

Making a 'tournament scene' for WH/40k won't fix the problems with the rules, and without fixing those, any sort of national metagame is simply based on what is powerful.

Finally, and again, they're different beasts. You can play eight different opponents, three games each, at a MtG tournament, in the time it takes to play three games of 40k. In terms of establishing who is a better player/who has a better army, you simply don't have the ability to get enough real data to overcome the effects of luck and matchups in a 40k tournament. Without the ability to play several games against people for an aggregate result (i.e. best 2-of-3, like in M:tG), I don't think that you can hang any prize support of the level of the WotC tournaments on the outcomes of games.

bigtmac68 wrote:You may not like D&D V4 but it is far more sucessful than 3.5, had recived near unanimous critical aclaim and has brought large numbers of people who were turned off by 3.5 back to the game. ( Yes me included)

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Timmah, you're above example is flawed. You are assuming that the price of the more powerful cards effectively doubled/quadrupled by demand alone. This is not necessarily true, and you have jumped to a conclusion. Those people who attempt to make a living selling single cards, would be able to spot the additional utility of the cards and anticipating demand, put the price up accordingly. Supply and Demand is a strange beast. Sometimes prices rise because of actual demand, other times they rise because of anticipated demand.

Timmah wrote:
@Ranthecid

Are you talking about the 100 page adepticon faq that breaks half of the basic 40k rules?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It depends as much upon you skill at building a deck, as it does the right cards coming out in the right combination. The only real limitation is the 4 cards, and having a banned list. Other than that, the game becomes very hard to meta your way to victory. So luck aside, it really does come down to who is the better player. And even including luck, the better player has a greater chance of winning, as they will be more adept at exploiting holes and gaps.

The games simply do not lend themselves as well to competitive tournament play as M:TG.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Would that Adepticon one be the same as the INAT? The single FAQ compiled from public consultation as to the rules correct interpretation, and offered freely to Tournaments so there is a single unified volume for anyone running a Tourny, saving them time before the event, and a lot of hassle during from knobends attempting to cheat with the cry of 'thats not how we play it'

Timmah wrote:No offense, but half the crap in the adepticon faq was a joke. I remember tons of people boycotting it because of that.

Timmah wrote:Model trains/planes ect do not have a competition inside of them. They are not a good refence for how a completely different hobby is driven.

Hollismason wrote:Tournaments are a social events as well; I think people miss this point. It builds a stronger community of gamers and helps people meet others.

I've met several people that I played against in tournaments and later became friends.

By sponsoring Tournaments GW also sponsors playing their game more the more people play the more interest in products.


It's just a big circle. Also with a system set up so that winning in tournaments even not placing awards you certain amounts of redeemable points towards merchandise etc.

This will naturally lead to people purchasing more or trying different armies etc..

Zomro wrote:

Timmah wrote:Model trains/planes ect do not have a competition inside of them. They are not a good refence for how a completely different hobby is driven.

But you had clearly stated:

Timmah wrote: GW hasn't figured out yet that its the tournament crowd that really drives the hobby. Take a look at any other hobby. They succeed because of the tournament/competitive scene.

Thus Redbeard's use of model trains / planes is a good reference. Just points a fallacy in your argument. Don't say "any other" hobby if you don't want people bringing up other hobbies.

And as far as tournament players driving the hobby. You're right, whenever there's a tournament scene a metagame will develop. But, what does this metagame apply to? Tournaments, or for a better term "competitive play". If tournament players are in the minority and a metagame only affects tournaments, how exactly does the formation of a metagame drive most of the hobby?