The Biggest Loser in 7th ed.

[DrBored]

So, the articles are coming out all over the place. 7th edition, with it's two ways of building lists... You either go Battle-Forged and get bonuses, or you go Unbound and throw the FOC out the window.

But who is the biggest loser here? Is it the tournament player that is hoping for more structure? Is it the casual player that doesn't want to have to deal with peoples' shenanigans? Is it the budget player that only has so much to spend on an army, and loses to those who have more to spend?

Honestly, it's not a type of player, but a type of person that is going to lose out the most. It's 'That Guy'. We all know who that guy is. He's the guy that brings 3 Riptides in a list to teach the new guy with his fluffy Vostroyan list how to play the game. He's the first to pick up a 3rd Heldrake. He makes it seem like no big deal as he gloats when he wins, and then throws a fit about how unbalanced something is when he loses.

When 7th edition comes out, the 'That Guy'ness of players is going to come out. 'Those Guys' are going to be the first ones to come up with the craziest things, he most WAAC lists that you could come up with on whatever budget they currently have, and they are going to be the ones pushing for tournaments to allow it.

Tournaments are going to be fine, while I'm mentioning it. TO's will just throw out the rules for Unbound and the bonuses for Battle-Forged, and we'll be right where we were, until something else comes along that proves that Unbound isn't so bad, or something. Tournament players, even WAAC players, will still have a place, as hard as GW may try otherwise.

The casual players will be fine too. They will get to use aspects of their collection that they would never have been able to fit in a list before, and create fluffier lists that will be relatively easy to convince their opponents to play. After all, if it's a fluff list w/o bonuses versus a regular list with extra bonuses, that's not so hard a sell to set up a table right?

No, the biggest loser will be 'That Guy'. Nobody *really* wanted to play with him before, but now they will simply flat out refuse until he conforms to the desires of whatever club he's at. Only 'Those Guys' should really worry about 7th edition, because their 'That Guy'ness will be really tempted, and the bottom line is that nobody likes 'That Guy'. If you do, you're probably 'That Guy' yourself.

Who do you think will be the biggest loser in 7th edition? Who do you think will gain the most? I think mature, casual gamers will gain the most out of 7th edition, the people that don't have to worry about time constraints in a tournament setting, allowing them the leisure of setting up and testing out the new rules the way they were meant to be played. The Unbound lists will be kept in check by people's maturity and wallets. Casual gamers don't typically spend hundreds of dollars on the biggest kits just to roflstomp baby seals. I think those people will gain the most out of this edition, and I'm frankly looking forward to it.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.

Nobody loses. GW are just taking the 'we don't want to place artificial restrictions on you' mantra to a logical conclusion - removing them, but offering perks for having a more organised force.

Me? More choice, more options, more variety, more fun. And yes, more money, but then precious little comes for free in this world.

[daboarder]

while I still am not going to fork out that much cash for an edition that probably wont last 2 years you make good points.

But its far to early to tell one way or another whether these changes will be good or bad.

[Charon]

"That guy" is in the same position as he was before. You could always opt out if he throw 3 Riptides at you. Nothing changed here.
The biggest losers are gamers with smaller income. While 6th ed went a bit in the "pay to win" direction, 7th is going full retard on that. And im not even talking about the extreme monster lists but more of the one-sided fluff lists.
Wanna field a fluffy tank company? Better make sure your buddies spend enough money on high S weapons, or you will have a pretty one-sided game or even end up with no one wanting to play your list.
You dont need "that guy" as a boogieman because you will become "that guy" for other people, unless you restrict your army... which makes "unbound" not really unbound.. more of unbound-restricted

[Mr Mystery]

I think they're inherently neutral.

Organised events will remain organised, and bring their own tweaks to the table.

Pick up games will still be by consent. Whether or not I have to use the FoC renders me neither more or less likely to decline facing 5 Knight Titans, for instance.

Storm in a tea cup.

Or don't people talk to each other anymore?

[daboarder]

they talk, but when you have to travel up to an hour away for a game, you can only take so much, changing it when you get there is not easy therefore a community standard is required.

[Mr Mystery]

'TFG' is defined by paying to win, to a certain extent. I could quite easily afford 'unbeatable' armies. Every month if I gave up other social events.

But why would I? I enjoy winning a game sure, but I prefer to do so having felt something of a challenge.

Anyone who simply pays to win is by definition TFG.

- - - Updated - - -


they talk, but when you have to travel up to an hour away for a game, you can only take so much, changing it when you get there is not easy therefore a community standard is required.

Nonsense.

Digital age. E-mail exists. Telephones - We've had them for some time now.

Phone venue ahead. Let them know you're coming, and that you're looking for a game, and that you'd rather it was X than it was Y.

Issue?

[Charon]

Nonsense.

Digital age. E-mail exists. Telephones - We've had them for some time now.

Phone venue ahead. Let them know you're coming, and that you're looking for a game, and that you'd rather it was X than it was Y.

Issue?

No issue if you play the same guys over and over again. Larger game clubs still exist outside of your garage.
And even then. This completely defeats the "bring what you want" principle if it comes down to "bring what your opponent is personally ok with"
Consent is the keyword and with consent everything was possible before. Wanna field a terminator army? Sure thing if both agree why not. 100 % possible in all editions.
This "unbound" is just a tool you give "that guy" to legalize his monstrosity without consent. Sure you can opt out (as in every edition before) but now you also get issues with new players "sure you can take what you like but you should not..."

[Mr Mystery]

Every game requires consenting opponent though. Always has, always will.

Don't like the player? Don't play them. This hasn't changed that one iota.

Whether TFG is tied to the FoC or not, they'll aways gravitate towards whatever they feel gives them the best advantage.

But the vast, vast majority of gamers are not TFG, or anything like him.

Me? I want to create an unbound Chaos Cultist heavy list, featuring a great many Dark Apostles. I may add in the odd IG Tank 'liberated' from the PDF.

This could be as simple as my old idea of a Chaos army using IG and SM models, to represent the Alpha Legion arriving on a planet and just messing stuff up. After all, when an Astartes turns up and says that bloke over there is a heretic, you gonna investigate, or do as the nice 7' tall, Emperor's ultimate killing machine says?

If we held back from stuff because of what the mouthbreathing lowest common demoniators might do, we'd never get anything fun done ever.

[daboarder]

Nonsense.

Digital age. E-mail exists. Telephones - We've had them for some time now.

Phone venue ahead. Let them know you're coming, and that you're looking for a game, and that you'd rather it was X than it was Y.

Issue?

:rolleyes:

but when you have to travel up to an hour away for a game, you can only take so much, changing it when you get there is not easy therefore a community standard is required.

[Mr Mystery]

So you take pot luck. Same as me, despite only being 5 minutes walk from my local store.

If I can't find a game, I go without a game, or go with second best.

My point is that a little communication goes a long way.

You're point is 'WAAAH!!! Sky is falling! Everyone but me is a beardy git, because I said so and therefore that's all I'll ever get to play curses upon the games designers, I MUST LOOK UPON THE DOWNSIDE AT ALL TIMES'.

Lighten up dude. As previous post, majority of us nerds are perfectly personable, and won't be game abusing goons.

[daboarder]

So you take pot luck. Same as me, despite only being 5 minutes walk from my local store.

If I can't find a game, I go without a game, or go with second best.

My point is that a little communication goes a long way.

You're point is 'WAAAH!!! Sky is falling! Everyone but me is a beardy git, because I said so and therefore that's all I'll ever get to play curses upon the games designers, I MUST LOOK UPON THE DOWNSIDE AT ALL TIMES'.

Lighten up dude. As previous post, majority of us nerds are perfectly personable, and won't be game abusing goons.

:rolleyes:


But its far to early to tell one way or another whether these changes will be good or bad.

[Mr Mystery]

But you've clearly already decided they're bad.

You're throwing up barriers and what if scenarios, all to back up your already made up mind.

[Charon]

Me? I want to create an unbound Chaos Cultist heavy list, featuring a great many Dark Apostles. I may add in the odd IG Tank 'liberated' from the PDF.

This could be as simple as my old idea of a Chaos army using IG and SM models, to represent the Alpha Legion arriving on a planet and just messing stuff up. After all, when an Astartes turns up and says that bloke over there is a heretic, you gonna investigate, or do as the nice 7' tall, Emperor's ultimate killing machine says?

If we held back from stuff because of what the mouthbreathing lowest common demoniators might do, we'd never get anything fun done ever.

Perfectly possible within FOC.
"Counts as" was also never banned.
"A great many Dark Apostels" was (thankfully) not possible and would quite contradict the fluff (except this is the usually "special case" army which we see so often that it should already be "standard case")

[daboarder]

But you've clearly already decided they're bad.

You're throwing up barriers and what if scenarios, all to back up your already made up mind.

:rolleyes:

while I still am not going to fork out that much cash for an edition that probably wont last 2 years you make good points.

But its far to early to tell one way or another whether these changes will be good or bad


they talk, but when you have to travel up to an hour away for a game, you can only take so much, changing it when you get there is not easy therefore a community standard is required.


ok, so the only two pictures we have at the moment are the WD ones

So what do we KNOW.....

Percentages are bunk, the pictures specifically refer to the FOC so luckily that junk is gone.

The Psychic Phase is back, and warp charges are determined not just by a D6 but by a D6 + Combined mastery levels, so you list can still bank on the number of mastery levels it has. Whole thing seems very fantasy magic with them talking about the opponent using "warp charges for deny the witch"

Two Types of armies: Unbound and FOC.....

Ok so the unbound is stupid as far as we know (really does look it) But knowing the way GW writes rules and then refers to them in WD, and know the way the community opperates...I'm not worried. GASP! I know, me not getting upset.....

Look I fully expect "unbound" armies to be something like a short paragraph in the building a force section that states if you and your opponent agree then you can take "unbound" armies and modify the game like so.
Id also expect it to be largely ignored buy 90% of the community in favour of FOC. Much like 2 FOC at 2K is largely ignored, or escalation is ignored or Mysterious terrain, or anything else in the book that bogs down the game or makes it practically unplayable.

so what Im saying is we dont know enough about unbound armies yet to get upset, but be wary, very wary.

So thats what I've posted that is really relevant to the edition change so far.....

cant really see the negativity, hell all three posts caution that enough isnt known....odd

or do you mean this


As many detachments in a battleforged army as you want is apparently the word


So something like

Heralds + horrors
Heralds + horrors
Heralds + horrors
Heralds + horrors
Heralds + horrors
Heralds + horrors

with each as a separate detatchment is a battleforged list

that is a rumour, a statement of a beileved portion of the rules for the new edition and has no statement as to wheather or not I think it is a bad or good idea....

So I have to ask....how did you draw your conclusion from such a high horse?

[Mr Mystery]

But when you're wanting to field a Dark Apostle for each large sized mob of Cultists/PDF dupes, the FoC is limiting. Unbound, I can really go to town with getting the army to feel and look right to me.

And again, part of my point. Absolutely freedom does not equate to absolute abuse. Majority of gamers really do get that a game is a social occasion, and like all social occasions, it's genuinely best to not be an arse to others, lest you find yourself devoid of future social occasion participation.

- - - Updated - - -

Your demand for a community standard, based off the assumption that everyone is going to go full TFG, thus necessitating a community standard, despite such a thing easily done with a phone call aforehand.

Brightside and easy fix ignored, in favour of 'oh this is going to go wrong'.

[daboarder]

Your demand for a community standard, based off the assumption that everyone is going to go full TFG, thus necessitating a community standard, despite such a thing easily done with a phone call aforehand.

Brightside and easy fix ignored, in favour of 'oh this is going to go wrong'.

:rolleyes:

[Mr Mystery]

Again, no need whatsoever for a community standard.

Personal preference and a bit of communication - No problem for anyone over the age of 10.

[Charon]

But when you're wanting to field a Dark Apostle for each large sized mob of Cultists/PDF dupes, the FoC is limiting. Unbound, I can really go to town with getting the army to feel and look right to me.


You really should not field a Dark Apostle for each large sized mob of Cultists/PDF dupes. Dark Apostles are RARE. They are leaders of entire Armies or at LEAST counsel a Chaos Lord. If you feel that these mighty champions should lead a squad of lowly cultists (the lead the cultists of entire WORLDS) because it feels right then there is already an issue.


And again, part of my point. Absolutely freedom does not equate to absolute abuse. Majority of gamers really do get that a game is a social occasion, and like all social occasions, it's genuinely best to not be an arse to others, lest you find yourself devoid of future social occasion participation.

Which is a lovely but naive point of view. While I really appreciate that view it simply doesnt work. Not beeing an arse should come naturally. It doesnt. Thats why we have laws. 2 or 3 people in a group are enough to have an significant negative impact, no matter how many positive people you have around.

[DrBored]

Again, no need whatsoever for a community standard.

Personal preference and a bit of communication - No problem for anyone over the age of 10.

This is my belief right here. When it comes to my FLGS, we don't really go by any community standard at large, because for the most part, those standards don't apply to us.

Tournaments are going to remain unchanged and casual games are going to remain unchanged, but the biggest loser is going to be That Guy who will think he can do all of these janky things and still find a game.

[daboarder]

do your FLGs have a pts standard? as in can you walk up to your FLG with your 1850 list week in week and and be reasonablly assured of a game, or is it 1500 pts? 2k ?

these would all be a form of "community standard"

the very fact that you can probably rock down to the FLG in "wargaming night" and expect a game is a "community standard"

[Morgrim]

Here "community standard" is 1k points and under unless otherwise arranged, which seems to do a lot to limit the messed up combos. I'm not sure how you can really run casual games at 2k points when it takes so many hours to finish them. So I'm not particularly fussed either way.

[Pendragon38]

The only good thing is the fact you will see more themed armies like iron warriors or korne army's or ork speed freak

[Uberbeast]

It seems like before in previous editions, there was a limiter that all players had to use, unless they agreed to break it. Now there will be pretty much no limit and players need to agree how to limit themselves. It's a lot easier to agree on breaking a limit by a set amount than to have to find agreement on how to limit something completely unlimited.

[ElectricPaladin]

I think that the general feeling in the thread that this is not the end of the world is pretty accurate.

Since time immemorial, nothing has stopped you if what you wanted to do was alter the way the game works. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I've played Cities of Death, I've played Kill Team, and in the new campaign my FLGS is starting, I'm likely to play with Escalation and Spearpoint. I've read about, but haven't tried, Planetstrike and Zone Mortalis. I know of folks who have altered the FOC to reflect scout engagements, outriders accidentally meeting, or brawls between powerful HQ units and their bodyguards. And then there's apocalypse, which throws the FOC out the window.

So, the default condition as of 5th and 6th Edition was "here is this structure, but if you want to have fun by messing with it, go to town - and here are some particularly interesting ways to do that, which we will sell as products."

The only difference here is that GW is saying instead "no mandatory structure is the default condition of 7th Edition... but you can create a specific game experience by adding a structure, either by incentive or by game organizer fiat.

In other words, this really is "welcome to the new game, just like the old game." Nothing has really changed. The only difference is that the rules will be written from the neutral position of zero structure, with optional structures that you can impose, rather than being written from the neutral position of this structure, with the option to remove it or replace it with other structures.

Like I said in my comments on the article, I think that GW believes that their game will be better served by putting some of the onus of organization and conversation back on the players. They don't want a game that you can just sit down and play, because they don't think they can do that and still please everyone. Are they correct? Almost certainly not. I play many games with sufficiently tight rules and organizational systems such that I could probably play with someone with whom I have no common language except the game terms and the phrase "is this ok?" (ie. for a wobbly model being placed slightly outside its movement or an unclear measurement). And although I know that wargames can have sufficiently tight rules, the fact also is that I am perfectly capable of having this conversation and clarifying with my opponent that I want a "fun and fluffy and casual game" or "do your worst, this is my badass list" or "let's just bring a whole butt-ton of tanks today, ok?"

What's the big tragedy? When did we forget how to talk? Don't your FLGSs have Facebook groups or forums? Don't your buddies have phones and emails? And if they don't have these things why don't they? Wargaming is inherently superior when you can have these sorts of conversations - I've had more fun playing 40k in a campaign environment than I ever did in random pickup games.

[Defenestratus]

The only good thing is the fact you will see more themed armies like iron warriors or korne army's or ork speed freak

We had this same exact conversation as a community when 6th hit with the allies matrix.

"FINALLY! I'll be able to field my fluffy army XYZ!!"

Yes... you can... but unfortunately the jerkfaces that care more about winning and less about a mutually enjoyable game of plastic toy soldiers will take the same mechanic that allows you to have a fluffy army and twist it into his own perverse machinations. This effect will have a ripple along the entire community as people tire of being stomped and escalate the shenanigans until soon the majority of the players in the group are powergaming dweebs or, as in my group, the players get fed up with the rules and go to a game they feel isn't decided in the roster-creation phase.

[Mr Mystery]

You really should not field a Dark Apostle for each large sized mob of Cultists/PDF dupes. Dark Apostles are RARE. They are leaders of entire Armies or at LEAST counsel a Chaos Lord. If you feel that these mighty champions should lead a squad of lowly cultists (the lead the cultists of entire WORLDS) because it feels right then there is already an issue.


Which is a lovely but naive point of view. While I really appreciate that view it simply doesnt work. Not beeing an arse should come naturally. It doesnt. Thats why we have laws. 2 or 3 people in a group are enough to have an significant negative impact, no matter how many positive people you have around.

Yet they're already arses. Option of no FoC doesn't change that.

Just don't play them. Soon makes their powergaming goonery completely pointless.

As for the Dark Apostles - You have your definition, I'll have mine. It's a large part of the game :)

[daboarder]

edit: wrong thread

[Horncastle]

If all unbound means is no FOC it's not bad at all. My brother's and I have played like that since 3rd edition. We just pick points and take what we like.

[Wolfshade]

If all unbound means is no FOC it's not bad at all. My brother's and I have played like that since 3rd edition. We just pick points and take what we like.

This is a classic example of "what works for you". So why should all of your games up to the enw edition be invalid? You obviosuly get enjoyment from the way you game, otherwise you wouldn't have played through 3rd...

[Lord Asterion]

If people would just stop playing against dickheads, they wouldn't run in to these problems, I've never faced a Screamerstar or a Jetseer whatever because I have friends and I play with them. The tournament I went to last week even specifically called for "no dickheads, leave your death star ally nonsence at home" and it was a blast, 3 excellent games against cool lists ran by decent human beings. If you're the TO, you could always just tell dickheads they're not welcome and vet their lists, the Corehammer guys did. (also I won he tournament with Space Marines and I had 2 squads of scouts and 2 tactical squads, no centurions or any nonsense, no Tau or Eldar in the top 10 out of 32)

[Auticus]

I prefer sandbox mode where we get to set the limits. I don't need other people telling me how to play. I prefer finding a group of like minded people and coming up with our boundaries.

If I'm playing random pick up guy then he and I will discuss rules beforehand. The only time that's a problem is if one of us is neurotic and cannot handle a conversation with another person.

Tournaments will be fine. TOs will continue setting their own boundaries.

That's just it. They are letting us set our own boundaries. That's an optimal condition in my world.

The only thing I am not happy with are edition changes coming every two years.

[Charon]

Yet they're already arses. Option of no FoC doesn't change that.

Just don't play them. Soon makes their powergaming goonery completely pointless.

You could have done that in 2nd, 3rd 4th, 5th and 6th. And they are still around. "Unbound" wont change that, I hope that "unbound" is not going to reinforce that behavior (or as one of my friends did put it in 6th when he lost hard against another friend of us "cant do much here... he is playing the game with money"). Following that logic their goonery and powergaming should have been pointless since 2nd edition. Its still around. It wont change by allowing them to field what they want.


As for the Dark Apostles - You have your definition, I'll have mine. It's a large part of the game :)

I dont have "my" definition. I use the definition in the fluff (thats like attatching a Space Marine Chaplain to every Imperial guard squad)
The interesting point in this is I can see people calling you "that guy" for bringing a list of fearless tarpit blobs with tank support. Just depends on the point of view. I deem it unfluffy, you think its fun and the next guy calls it a WAAC list... the joy of unbound.

[DrBored]

If people would just stop playing against dickheads, they wouldn't run in to these problems, I've never faced a Screamerstar or a Jetseer whatever because I have friends and I play with them. The tournament I went to last week even specifically called for "no dickheads, leave your death star ally nonsence at home" and it was a blast, 3 excellent games against cool lists ran by decent human beings. If you're the TO, you could always just tell dickheads they're not welcome and vet their lists, the Corehammer guys did. (also I won he tournament with Space Marines and I had 2 squads of scouts and 2 tactical squads, no centurions or any nonsense, no Tau or Eldar in the top 10 out of 32)

If only more people were like this...

But then, if that was the case, then there wouldn't be BOLS or Warseer, or any other place for the WAAC orifici to replicate.

[Horncastle]

This is a classic example of "what works for you". So why should all of your games up to the enw edition be invalid? You obviosuly get enjoyment from the way you game, otherwise you wouldn't have played through 3rd...

Exactly; and even when we don't use the FOC the lists still tend to be balanced. We still need troops to score, and taking to much armour, etc, can really handicap you if you don't take units to support it.

[Lord Asterion]

If only more people were like this...

But then, if that was the case, then there wouldn't be BOLS or Warseer, or any other place for the WAAC orifici to replicate.

Its not hard, everyone just needs to look at their opponents and think, nope, they're a dickhead and tell them so. Tournament Organisers need to step up and say they don't want dickheads. Its for the good of the community, there were players there I've faced before and I know they're proper WAACers, list tailoring WAACers some of them, but they wanted to play so they adapted, they didn't win like they're used to but they still had fun. In the end thats what matters.

The more rules obsessed people tend to forget that the rules explicity state (page 8 BRB) that you should play in the spirit of friendly competition, ensuring your opponent has fun as well as yourself, to me, Spamming units and taking deathstars goes against that rule.

[Mr Mystery]

You could have done that in 2nd, 3rd 4th, 5th and 6th. And they are still around. "Unbound" wont change that, I hope that "unbound" is not going to reinforce that behavior (or as one of my friends did put it in 6th when he lost hard against another friend of us "cant do much here... he is playing the game with money"). Following that logic their goonery and powergaming should have been pointless since 2nd edition. Its still around. It wont change by allowing them to field what they want.



I dont have "my" definition. I use the definition in the fluff (thats like attatching a Space Marine Chaplain to every Imperial guard squad)
The interesting point in this is I can see people calling you "that guy" for bringing a list of fearless tarpit blobs with tank support. Just depends on the point of view. I deem it unfluffy, you think its fun and the next guy calls it a WAAC list... the joy of unbound.

Yet TFG is the player, not the list.

Could be someone with a really hard list who acts like some sort of tactical genius. Could be someone with a really naff list who constantly quibbles over every rule. Could be a painting snob who criticises his opponents skill with a brush. Could even be someone not even playing in he battle wanking lyrical about his combo, or another game entirely.

TFG takes a great many forms.

Litmus test? Are they generally fun to be around? Do they take the rough with the smooth? Do they boil down every loss to an issue with the game rather than some bold, high risk strategy that paid off for their opponen, or a glarin tactical error of their own?

My lists have never won me a game. However, my general understanding of the game has seen me to various victories.

In short, you're only as good as your last opponent's opinion of you as a hobbyist. And that leaves a lot of room for arsery aplenty.

You know, I'm going to start a thread to discuss TFG type behaviour, rather than bring down this thread :)

[Lord-Boofhead]

I prefer sandbox mode where we get to set the limits. I don't need other people telling me how to play. I prefer finding a group of like minded people and coming up with our boundaries.

PAYSF - Play As You See Fit


The only thing I am not happy with are edition changes coming every two years.

Wow, do you have an inside source because there is no proof at all that every two years is now a thing. And edition will come our when GW thinks an edition is required not because the earth has circled the sun the right number of times!

[DrBored]

Yet TFG is the player, not the list.

Could be someone with a really hard list who acts like some sort of tactical genius. Could be someone with a really naff list who constantly quibbles over every rule. Could be a painting snob who criticises his opponents skill with a brush. Could even be someone not even playing in he battle wanking lyrical about his combo, or another game entirely.

TFG takes a great many forms.

Litmus test? Are they generally fun to be around? Do they take the rough with the smooth? Do they boil down every loss to an issue with the game rather than some bold, high risk strategy that paid off for their opponen, or a glarin tactical error of their own?

My lists have never won me a game. However, my general understanding of the game has seen me to various victories.

In short, you're only as good as your last opponent's opinion of you as a hobbyist. And that leaves a lot of room for arsery aplenty.

You know, I'm going to start a thread to discuss TFG type behaviour, rather than bring down this thread :)

Actually, this kind of explanation of TFG is what I was hoping for :D

[pseudodelic]

I think unbound is the best thing ever to happen to 40k. I can now field any of the figures I have in any combination I want and really learn to understand how my army works. I can then come up with my own army lists that do what I want them to do. There will still be a points restriction but hey... I can field over 1000 gretchin for 2000 points or maybe a mega army with dreads and kans and meganobz... I can't wait... and then I get new miniatures and a new codex... boy 2014 is looking really good at the moment...

[Tannarak]

As I've posted this somewhere else, (I forget where), what will the differences be between fantasy and 40k? Movement and ?
If fantasy is declining, any ideas on what is causing it? Why make 40k closer to fantasy if that's the case? Is 40k heading in the same direction?

I guess I'll have to wait until the end of the month to find out.

[Mr Mystery]

Psychology, Movement, additional combat resolution, additional dice modifiers.

It's nowt that couldn't be introduced to 40k, or taken away from Warhammer though.

[deinol]

As I've posted this somewhere else, (I forget where), what will the differences be between fantasy and 40k? Movement and ?
If fantasy is declining, any ideas on what is causing it? Why make 40k closer to fantasy if that's the case? Is 40k heading in the same direction?

I guess I'll have to wait until the end of the month to find out.

The rules of fantasy aren't why fantasy is less popular. It's simply the theme. People like space soldiers and tanks more than cavalry and pikemen.

Edit: Although I must admit cost is also a major factor. You can field a 2k space marine army with less figures than one unit of skaven. Admittedly you can also field large blobs in 40k, but fewer armies expect that, and the average model count in a standard fantasy army is higher overall.

[Lord Asterion]

I'd say WFB declining is because of the rules, its because they removed unit size caps, this changed the game to be about bigger and bigger units, I love WFB but I pine for the days when I could play with 20 Orc units and 30 Goblin Archers was a lot in a unit. If one person takes massive units, then everyone else has to, and because each unit needs to be in a tray, its not like you can chop and change at the drop of a hat.

I love the game and when I play and we agree to be sensible with unit sizes, its great fun, but as soon as someone has a mob of 60 skaven, its unbeatable unless you follow suit.

Unit sizes would help the game but limit sales.

[DarkLink]

The rules of fantasy aren't why fantasy is less popular. It's simply the theme. People like space soldiers and tanks more than cavalry and pikemen.


In your opinion. I've thought about playing fantasy before, then decided I hated a lot of the rules, and I've got several friends who've done the same. A lot of the fantasy game mechanics they've ported over are my least favorite parts of 40k. Not that this is the case with everyone, I'm sure, but why are you so certain that rules aren't a factor?

[Gleipnir]

Alot of this gnashing of teeth over Unbound is sort of silly since we don't even know what the system looks like in the rules yet.

For example if only Battleforged armies recieve a Warlord and a Warlord trait and Unbound armies automatically surrender the victory points for Slay the Warlord to the opposing team, would we see this much angst. Lets wait and see what the two systems offer first.

[John Bower]

I'll admit, right off the bat as soon as I read the 'no FoC restrictions' my first reaction was... That's it then, 40k has had it, I'll stick with 6th for the foreseeable. But I've discussed it with folks (in person with friends and on FB) and you know, I think I can see some welcome options for at least 1 of my armies. My Dark Eldar always lose to my Necrons; always without fail. The problem being is they are quite a fluffy all female mostly wych list. That can be hard when my Crons have lots of vehicles and firepower (they are probably my only reasonably competitive army; built on the 'it needs to be good' basis) and tend to shoot the DE apart on turn 2 at most. Now a zero FoC for the DE just may help them out here, letting them take some serious firepower without worrying about troops so much.

The cards, objective cards that is - yeah, that idea I do find quite exciting; the idea of a fluid game of 40k where the objectives are constantly changing just like some real battles is good for the narrative people particularly, and may balance it a bit for the tourney players if used right.
The psychic phase - now this I'm not sold on I admit. I have a friend I play against who takes an inconsolately long time over his turns. Now if we have to start rolling dice at the start of the psychic phase, then again to see what wonderfully pricey model we have to replace our psyker with; then to do/take wounds.. That's going to take ages to do. I'd rather Perils had stayed just as it was, you screw up, you take a wound and move on. Not start rolling to see what money GW can get out of you now. :(

[deinol]

In your opinion. I've thought about playing fantasy before, then decided I hated a lot of the rules, and I've got several friends who've done the same. A lot of the fantasy game mechanics they've ported over are my least favorite parts of 40k. Not that this is the case with everyone, I'm sure, but why are you so certain that rules aren't a factor?

I guess its because I started playing when the rules were practically the same. Certainly they have diverged (and then remerged in some areas) since then.

It may be that the current Fantasy rules aren't as good as some other version. I really couldn't say. I can say that 40k has always seemed more popular to me. And the few sales figures I've seen (which admittedly are a small sample) seem to reinforce that. Everything I've heard is that for at least the last decade, 40k outsells Fantasy at least 3-1. There must be a reason for this, since it seems to be largely independent of the various editions of both games.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, not enough info to really tell what might happen

[Tepogue]

I guess its because I started playing when the rules were practically the same. Certainly they have diverged (and then remerged in some areas) since then.

It may be that the current Fantasy rules aren't as good as some other version. I really couldn't say. I can say that 40k has always seemed more popular to me. And the few sales figures I've seen (which admittedly are a small sample) seem to reinforce that. Everything I've heard is that for at least the last decade, 40k outsells Fantasy at least 3-1. There must be a reason for this, since it seems to be largely independent of the various editions of both games.

Unit size is the main reason. Most core infantry is 20-40 models. Ignore Ogres for the moment. My standard 40 clan rats is $70.00 USD. And at 5 points each is only 200 points. I think Orcas are 6 points each, but only 10 per $29.00 USD box. So 30 of them is $87.00 for a 180 point unit.

[Tepogue]

But to get back on topic, the casual gamer that only shows up once a month and gets stomped by the 6 riptide list, because his choice came down to plying "that guy" or waiting another month to play will be the loser.

[Stone Edwards]

Saw this linked on FB by BoLS and I clicked thinking it was another whine thread but have been pleasantly surprised! I am super excited about the changes as well and can't wait to see what the actual book looks like. I hope this thread is correct and TFG loses hard core. The example from the OP of the guy bringing 3 riptides to teach a new player how to play is just too sad and too common.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

I've known few "TFGs" in my life (and former line of work).
The reason that the "3 riptide" guy is stomping newbs is because no-one else will play them.
1 guy turned up to every Vets night for months but could NEVER get a game, because people knew he was a cheat and a rules lawyer.
These rules will have 0 effect on these guys because, unless you're being too nice to them of course, they should already be pariahs.

[Stone Edwards]

Wow is there a difference between the people posting replies here and the people posting comments on the front page. I know it's always like this but I don't understand why people stick to the game when they are all so freaking negative. If someone hates GW so much why don't they just move on?

[DarkLink]

Because they're invested, and they want 40k to be good.

[Mr Mystery]

Yet are pre-determined that every possible change ever made is bad. Especially when just going off rumours.

[DarkLink]

Some of the changes do sound pretty bad. And GW is not exactly known for being trustworthy in this regard.

[Mr Mystery]

I've always found certain elements of the community to be knee jerk in their reactions, and don't even try the stuff they slag off.

[Adam Huenecke]

Indeed.

Nobody loses. GW are just taking the 'we don't want to place artificial restrictions on you' mantra to a logical conclusion - removing them, but offering perks for having a more organised force.

Me? More choice, more options, more variety, more fun. And yes, more money, but then precious little comes for free in this world.

Incredibly well spoken- we have all been beholden to these force restrictions for too long. Want to field that awesome stuff you own? Well, you have to own a bunch of these troops first!

Everyone is lamenting the power that Unbound gives "that guy," but it has the potential to really open the hobby up to some creative stuff. Scoring units will still be scoring units, so fielding an army of elites won't always be great.

If somebody abuses it, DON'T PLAY WITH THEM. If GW designed this game to be jackass-proof, it wouldn't be any fun. It is up to you to ostracize players who behave like jackasses.

[DarkLink]

Ideas are worthless. Execution is everything. It's not a bad idea, it's similar to how Infinity lists work, but it could go very poorly if GW isn't careful, which they tend not to be.


I've always found certain elements of the community to be knee jerk in their reactions, and don't even try the stuff they slag off.

And I've found certain portions are always flowers and sunshine. Both sides are allowed to have their opinions, believe it or not.

[StingrayP226]

There will always be those who are negative about everything, and then there are those who will always say "Hooray they can do no wrong!"

Got a good mix of those here and this article definitely falls into the can do no wrong crowd (which IMHO is completely wrong).

This is a ploy to sell more models from the sounds of it. Its also GW basically screaming at the top of their lungs they refuse to make a balanced game. Is this good or bad? Depends on your perspective honestly. If you just want to have light hearted fun and play some funky armies this is GW's permission to do so (even though all you really needed was to ask the other player's permission before...). If this is your cup of tea of coarse your excited, but don't be an *** and assume anyone being negative around this is a tournament/WAAC. Some people enjoy a tactically challenging game, and are upset that it feels like GW is giving them the finger. If you can look at the army lists and decide who is going to win 99% of the time then tactics/strategy is solely dependent on what army you bring, and personally this sounds more like Magic the Gathering than a miniatures game.

Personally as an outsider what does perplex me is the attitude of some 40k Players that act like 40k is the only hobby out there they are allowed to play. If your unhappy with the rules *TRY* another game (try as in not judge it in 10 seconds and go "nope not 40k will not try"), and GASP you can keep your 40k stuff while playing another game (I know the horror right? Own two different game systems?!). If you want a better balanced game there are much better games out there for you to try: X-Wing, Warmachine, Infinity, Firestorm Armada, Dropzone Commander, and dozens of others to see if any of them satisfy what your looking for. Then when you feel like kicking back and just having a fun game in 40k break it out and try charging the dozen riptides with grots who cares that the grots stand no chance its light hearted fun. That is GW's intended target, people who like (and buy) their models and want to just play for fun. GW are not rules writers... they are a miniature and story company. That is where they are strong and that is where they decided to focus their efforts on. It seems to be working for them so they will continue and no amount of crying/praise will change them. What will change them is the profit margins... which has dropped in the past but I don't think it will get to the point GW will actually really try hard to balance their game for a more tournament focused crowd.

(I own a good sized Rebel Squadron for X-Wing, an Imperial Guard army in the works, plenty of Battletech, everything from the Zenian League side of the war in Firestorm Armada... I like the diversity each game brings as each one has its own unique flavor and style to it).

[DarkLink]

That's why I'm not too worried about 7th. I'll just play my infinity or warmachine if I don't like it. Not that I'd probably quit completely, they'd have to mess it up pretty badly, but whatever.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm just an optimistic person, especially when we're working with limited information.

For instance, GW have taken the brakes off army selection, but mention perks and bonuses to FoC chosen forces. That to me sounds cool.

To the serial naysayers, it clearly means the game is doomed because reasons.

Is my optimism misplaced? I don't feel so. But go cry doom and darkness as definite, with extremely limited info is misplaced.

[Caitsidhe]

I'm just an optimistic person, especially when we're working with limited information.

For instance, GW have taken the brakes off army selection, but mention perks and bonuses to FoC chosen forces. That to me sounds cool.

To the serial naysayers, it clearly means the game is doomed because reasons.

Is my optimism misplaced? I don't feel so. But go cry doom and darkness as definite, with extremely limited info is misplaced.


I'm holding my tongue until I read the rules. I'm a bit pessimistic based on past performance, but I'm going to keep an open mind. I will say that the "perks' for using Force Organization would have to be HUGE to offset playing against a list wherein anything goes. For the life of me I can't think of any minor perks that would adjust for that aside perhaps from getting to start with double the points of the opposing army, and even then it would be hard.

[DarkLink]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being optimistic. I'm saying that it's no more, or less, annoying than the chronically pessimistic posters.

[Caitsidhe]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being optimistic. I'm saying that it's no more, or less, annoying than the chronically pessimistic posters.

Bingo. Pretty much the eternally optimistic seem to think their S#&t don't stink. :D If anything I find it far more annoying than the doom and gloom. Neither is particularly helpful. My own critiques tend to be pragmatic and based on the quality of the rules set. They have, thus far, been unfavorable. I do however, base them on analysis and not gut feelings. The rumors as we have heard them are so over the top that I can't help but HOPE that there is some huge shoe that hasn't dropped yet which will help. I will refrain from too much speculation until then. But, as I said before, for an Unbound Army to fight one constrained by Force Organization, the balancing factor would have to be far more massive than I think they would be willing to admit or do.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm holding my tongue until I read the rules. I'm a bit pessimistic based on past performance, but I'm going to keep an open mind. I will say that the "perks' for using Force Organization would have to be HUGE to offset playing against a list wherein anything goes. For the life of me I can't think of any minor perks that would adjust for that aside perhaps from getting to start with double the points of the opposing army, and even then it would be hard.

See that's fine. It may not be great. It could be awesome. It might be distinctly middling. We just don't know.

All I know is that it's gonna take a hell of a lot for me not to enjoy the game any more.

[Tyrendian]

I'm holding my tongue until I read the rules. I'm a bit pessimistic based on past performance, but I'm going to keep an open mind. I will say that the "perks' for using Force Organization would have to be HUGE to offset playing against a list wherein anything goes. For the life of me I can't think of any minor perks that would adjust for that aside perhaps from getting to start with double the points of the opposing army, and even then it would be hard.

speaking of which - what do you think we could realistically see as perks? Bonus Points for your army is pretty much out of the question I think...
maybe easier access to Scoring? like choosing one FOC category in addition to Troops to be scoring as well? I can see that helping out a LOT...
bonus to going first/seizing due to better organized and thus easier to control and supply force?

[deinol]

That's why I'm not too worried about 7th. I'll just play my infinity or warmachine if I don't like it. Not that I'd probably quit completely, they'd have to mess it up pretty badly, but whatever.

Or if we really want, we can just continue to play 6th edition.

[DrBored]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being optimistic. I'm saying that it's no more, or less, annoying than the chronically pessimistic posters.

Yeah, but on the flip side, it's a lot more difficult to infer tone and mood from text... I like to think that I come across as pretty balanced, and in fact the original post I thought I left on a positive note about there not being any losers except for arseholes, which is a good thing, right?

But anyway, I'm kinda with ya. I'm finding myself liking X-Wing more and more, since the games go by faster, you can set them up faster, and it's generally a lot more balanced, and the models are already painted, and I love B-Wings. B-wings are, hands down, my all time favorite ship of any time era or franchise or genre ever. Everything can be improved by adding B-Wings.

Anyway....

[Caitsidhe]

speaking of which - what do you think we could realistically see as perks? Bonus Points for your army is pretty much out of the question I think...
maybe easier access to Scoring? like choosing one FOC category in addition to Troops to be scoring as well? I can see that helping out a LOT...
bonus to going first/seizing due to better organized and thus easier to control and supply force?

That's kind of my point. I don't see any realistic perks as making a difference. Easier scoring doesn't mean much when you are going to get tabled. :D

[Mr Mystery]

Could be stuff like being able to pick your Mission.

Consider this.... Unbound armies represent part of a much wider force. Perhaps an armoured column for an Imperial Guard offensive. The Battle Ready (or whatever it's called, name hasn't stuck in my head yet) represent a specific task force, sent out to blunt that spearhead.

It's far more likely the task force will be picking the battle ground etc, giving it a tactical and strategic edge.

[White Tiger88]

As i know it MIGHT be off topic the biggest loser is any Demon player.......If everyone else gets the chance to summon Bloodthirsters........That is kinda bs!

[Cutter]

As i know it MIGHT be off topic the biggest loser is any Demon player.......If everyone else gets the chance to summon Bloodthirsters........That is kinda bs!

Yeah but deamons get to summon inquisitors and grey knights.

[Mr Mystery]

As i know it MIGHT be off topic the biggest loser is any Demon player.......If everyone else gets the chance to summon Bloodthirsters........That is kinda bs!

Not aware of anything saying they can't?

Also, I'd be very tempted to use Blood Thirster rules, but convert up some kind of Imperial Angel type thing. Because there's such a thing as style :)

[Wolfshade]

Not aware of anything saying they can't?

Also, I'd be very tempted to use Blood Thirster rules, but convert up some kind of Imperial Angel type thing. Because there's such a thing as style :)

Of course you mean like an embodiment of the Emperor.

The rest of the space marines working out how great the Sanguiniator is...

[Tyrendian]

hm and what would Eldar use? because, you know... the Avatar of Khaine kinda already exists... :)

[Wolfshade]

hm and what would Eldar use? because, you know... the Avatar of Khaine kinda already exists... :)

Asuryan?

[Charon]

Asuryan?

Dead. We could try Cegorach.

[Tyrendian]

Dead. We could try Cegorach.

that should be a laugh...

[Mr Mystery]

hm and what would Eldar use? because, you know... the Avatar of Khaine kinda already exists... :)

Easy peasy.

Ynnead. The God is nascent, arguably. Skim the skeins of fate and draw a portion into the present.

Or just get a Loki figure from Marvel and go with The Laughing Git.....sorry, God.

[Wolfshade]

that should be a laugh...

I see what you did there.

Perhaps that is more a shadowseer then?

[Cutter]

Dead. We could try Cegorach.

Is dead an issue?

Cos y'know, the immaterium...

[Charon]

Dead in the immaterium means pretty much erased from existence. Apart from Khaine (shattered and banished from the warp), Cegorach (lurks in the webway) and Isha (which is rumored held in prison by nurgle) all eldar gods are dead... eaten by slaanesh. But as the eldar didnt forget how to create a DIY god from scratch, they try (at least ulthwe does) to create an new one to kick slaaneshs butt.

[Eldar_Atog]

Oh... I've had a wild hair lately to create an avatar of Isha after seeing the treeman kit for wood elves. Hmmm... how to do the laughing god?

[Harley]

"That Guy" and WAAC players are no worse off than they were before. In fact, by most people in this thread's logic, 3-6 Riptides has never been a problem since no one will play against it and we all have a great house rules system we've implepented at our FLGS right?....

Right...?

Or maybe that is just the most simple, logical response most people can give on an anonymous internet forum where the instant gratification of providing a quick and seemingly knowledgeable answer is always available.

If 3- Riptides weren't a problem, no one would bring it up.

So regardless of GW hating/apologizing hobbyists, 7th doesn't really look like it's solving any of the issues that exist in 6th edition. Issues like, assault being too weak, shooting being too strong, many armies STILL not having enough native anti-aircraft options, ap3 template spam, cheesy allies, twin-linked everything... but, maybe it will fix these problems, but for now all we can do is comment on what little knowledge we have.

[Mr Mystery]

That we know of. Because you know, limited info rumours are limited in information.

To say 'it's not rumoured, it's not happening' is just silly.

And I'd argue shooting is too deadly....I feel it's precisely as deadly as it should be, but Assault needs some help.

Also....most of your issues? Players, not rules.

[Charon]

Oh... I've had a wild hair lately to create an avatar of Isha after seeing the treeman kit for wood elves. Hmmm... how to do the laughing god?

The Trickster C'Tan should do a good job with a fair bit of greenstuffing.
I think I saw one on CMON a long time ago..


Also....most of your issues? Players, not rules.

Players did not change over the editions. Also you cant change your customers. But rules have changed over the editions. And changing rules is easier than changing people.

[Mr Mystery]

Create a system. And people will abuse it.

That doesn't mean the system is unfit for pupose, it just means there's buttmunches out there.

Unbound - For the most part, is pretty damned cool. Yeah there's bound to be the odd social inadequate intent on using it as surrogate self respect, but that's no reason to deny Unbound to everyone else now, is it?

[Eldar_Atog]

The Trickster C'Tan should do a good job with a fair bit of greenstuffing.
I think I saw one on CMON a long time ago..


Yeah, I remember seeing that somewhere. That would work... but I remember how much trouble my friend had assembling the C'tan models. They looked so fragile.

[Charon]

Yes people will abuse it.
But the tighter you knit your set, the harder it is to abuse. And if it is abused, it becomes so glaringly obvious that the offender probably comes to the conclusion that he had to bend and warp so hard that he cant hide behind "fluff", "cool" or "theme" anymore.
Most arses are very quick to change if they cant hide anymore. Give them the opportunity to hide behind whatever reason "Oh I always wanted to play this all fliers list because its my fluffy imperial navy army - not my fault your army has nearly no AA" and they will thrive.
Actually you can have the cake and eat it too. It is possible to have a thight ruleset (which is supported and updated if issues rise up) and all variety you want.
Unless you are a lazy company and always reaching for the low hanging fruit. Then you cant have this.
I dont really understand why people are so obsessed with sticking to the bare minimum and praise that as if I was the best thing ever.

[DarkLink]

Create a system. And people will abuse it.

That doesn't mean the system is unfit for pupose, it just means there's buttmunches out there.

Unbound - For the most part, is pretty damned cool. Yeah there's bound to be the odd social inadequate intent on using it as surrogate self respect, but that's no reason to deny Unbound to everyone else now, is it?

If an engineer designs a building, and it collapses, they don't say 'oh, well, sometime building will collapse because of crazy things'. They figure out what made the building collapse, fix the design code to prevent that from happening again, and if appropriate they revoke the engineer's licence.

[DrBored]

If an engineer designs a building, and it collapses, they don't say 'oh, well, sometime building will collapse because of crazy things'. They figure out what made the building collapse, fix the design code to prevent that from happening again, and if appropriate they revoke the engineer's licence.

Unfortunately GW doesn't build buildings, and in their game, players don't *actually* kill each other over bad rules (I would hope) so the stakes aren't really all that high to make a balanced or 'fixed' game.

I'm sure the game will be fine, once the bad rumors are sorted out and we see the full set of rules. We've got two more weeks to suffer through before that's going to happen though, so that means two more weeks of people complaining about game balance (which never existed) and the sky falling because.. reasons.

Honestly though, I've been thinking about a variety of kits that I would get if I was able to play them in a game without worrying about restrictions... I really like the Ravener and Warrior kits, but never wanted to build a whole Tyranid army, and I really enjoy the look of a lot of the Eldar stuff, especially the Swooping Hawks, but I really would rather not buy/build/paint a bunch of obligatory Guardians or Dire Avengers. I also really like the look of a lot of other kits... I wonder if it'd be possible to make an army out of all these kits that I really like the look of with the Unbound rules?

[Wolfshade]

If an engineer designs a building, and it collapses, they don't say 'oh, well, sometime building will collapse because of crazy things'. They figure out what made the building collapse, fix the design code to prevent that from happening again, and if appropriate they revoke the engineer's licence.

It still doesn't stop someone from starting a fire in the building. Because the code doesn't say you can't...

[Mr Mystery]

I think Wolfie just summed it up.

It's like complaining that your local pub doesn't have some kind of built in, automated defense against Axe Wielding Homicidal Maniacs. Such provisions aren't made on account one would hope the need for them is pretty much nil, and if an Axe Wielding Homicidal Maniac should attack, that's not exactly an issue with the pub, but the Axe Wielding Homicidal Maniac.

[BeardMonk]

From what we’ve seen so far, SOME elements of the new version MAY be open to abuse. However people will only abuse it if the community lets them get away with it. People have complained about the various un-killable/un-beatable/OP allies combos. But at the end of the day, the community has allowed those combinations to be used time and time again until they become the default options for anybody who wants to win a tournament. 40K players have allowed themselves to break the story, fluff and spirit of the game they play.

So this edition will only break if players let it. Police the system guys. Because GW wont.

[Mr Mystery]

Indeed.

And even if GW did do some kind of bizarre heavy handed policing, there'd still be weirdos who attempt to bend and break the rules, just to win a game where precious little is actually at stake.

[Charon]

Police the system is nice. It shows the issue with that. The police tries to uphold the law. If you police the system you enforce the RULES. If the rules are **** or unclear you have to take it to the court.
There is no "rule" to enforce if somebody fields 3 Riptides. He is perfectly moving in the rules. You cant "police that" as he did nothing wrong. Sure you can "take it to morality court" with you as the prosecutor, judge and executioner. But in the end he obeyed the rules and you are the one who doesnt like the rules and trie to force a change upon him.

The community allows these combination because they are within the rules. There is no rule which says "you cant do this". Thats why people want rules. Then you can "Police the system" and ban transgressors.
The rest is opten to individual judgement and therefore invalid for a bigger group of people.
Some people may consider 2 Serpents as "spam" others see 2 winged hive tyrants as total abuse. I for my part hate fighting pure imperial gunlines as they are the most boring thing that exist and make every game boring by skipping 2/3 of the gamephases.
So should I start to "police the system" and accuse IG players of breaking the system and building boring armies because I personally dont like it/cant handle it/have another POV ?

[Junior Commisar]

Why punish the sensible people who want to enjoy a fun game with their friends by policing it heavily to stop the minority of WAAC idiots who want to ruin it?

You can still buy an axe, and use it to chop wood because you enjoy a nice log fire, even though some people might want to use that axe to attack a pub full of people.

[Charon]

What does stop the sensible people from enjoying a fun game with their friends? As YOU are the police, there is no reason why you cant ignore rules. Want to field a terminator only army? Ask your friend and go ahead. Nobody is stopping you from doing that with friends.
Yes you can buy the axe. And while there is a very small minority of people who would use the axe to attack a pub full of people we have crated rules to outlaw this kind of action. The "just ignore him he will stop eventually" attitude is not gong to help.

[Mr Mystery]

Which is where most analogies naturally fall down.

Thing is, the rules set sets expectation. GW have always been very much 'here's what we think, but you do what pleases you'.

This time around, they've just set a different benchmark of 'anything goes'. The second part about pleasing ourselves still stands, and even more so.

[Junior Commisar]

What does stop the sensible people from enjoying a fun game with their friends? As YOU are the police, there is no reason why you cant ignore rules. Want to field a terminator only army? Ask your friend and go ahead. Nobody is stopping you from doing that with friends.
Yes you can buy the axe. And while there is a very small minority of people who would use the axe to attack a pub full of people we have crated rules to outlaw this kind of action. The "just ignore him he will stop eventually" attitude is not gong to help.

So, your view on the analogy is that, we should outlaw axes and then if you want one, you can make your own with the help of your friends, it might not be as good as a shop bought axe but because of homicidal axe wielding maniacs, we have to make do with a less attractive axe?

I think you're confused as to the ends of the Axe Wielding Maniac analogy.

We're saying WAAC players and tournament competitive players are axe wielding maniacs and we can't stop them doing their thing if they really want to, we can't ban axes because they're useful and fun, people will always want to ruin other peoples fun in the pub, we can punish them afterwards and try and stop them during thier rampage.

Setting rules stopping people doing what they want and expecting them to just break the rules if they want isn't an effective or fair method and its not condusive to the game GW want 40K to be, if you want MORE rules and MORE control, you have to enact that, ban axes from your own pub and police that, don't ban other peoples axes.

[John Bower]

At the end of the day any rule set can and will be abused within the rules. Even X-Wing I believe has a few units that are abused one way and another, and that's one of the most balanced sets out there.
You won't stop WAAC players abusing it, the way to stop them is to not play them. refuse to play TFG until he stops being a (insert appropriate expletive here).
Of course having a way to say I'll take it all can be abused (heck Apocalypse can be abused it's just there's counters to it there) but points can calm the lists down, friends playing can agree limits; a tournament has recourse to do the same. A campaign always has some kind of limitation if you use it right. And hopefully (I'm not optimistic here but still) GW will still have Troops as the scoring units, in which case that will also set a few limits.

We can only wait and see what hits us. I like 40k, Most of my armies balance each other out in some way; sometimes it does feel like "rock/paper/scissors" but still they do find their wins/losses mostly even. Tournament players will never be happy; if the game is balanced they'll likely moan the dice unbalance it. So sure, GW hasn't written the best rules set around; but it's the best by light years at what it does in 28mm scale; size of the armies you can bring. Every game has flaws; I don't like Warmahordes I'll be open on that, I couldn't get into it. Nor am I into historical battles changing history isn't my thing. Mantic had a chance to oppose 40k with a decent ruleset; they muffed it by changing it and lost players. Now they seem to have dropped those rules and are concentrating on their big seller; strangely exactly what GW seem to do.

[Caitsidhe]

I have to agree with DarkLink. It is a specious argument to try and suggest that fun games and balanced games are somehow mutually exclusive. A solid, balanced set of rules should be just as good for fluffy players as it would be for those who see it more of a competitive exercise. At the very least, balanced in no way helps or hinders fluffy players. In fact, a better balanced system would cut back deeply on the numbers of "that guy." This is because a properly balanced game makes it harder to cheese and tends to encourage people who are being "that guy" by accident toward the light. In other words, a balanced game sets actual guidelines and standards for people.

Poorly designed rules are only going to continue to reflect badly on Games Workshop. No amount of spin, apologists, or propaganda is going to convince the CONSUMER that it is them and not the game system that is defective. That is because the customer is always right. It seems silly (to me at least) for a company to choose to demonize and try to alienate a significant portion of its consumers when it costs the company nothing to cater to both kinds. I have my own opinions as to how and why Games Workshop does what it does, and I look forward to the next financial report (and the next few after that) with great interest.

I am not going to try and judge new rules I haven't read yet. My comments are on the rules as they stand. They are awful. It isn't just that Games Workshop doesn't have a rules set that is as balanced and tight as some of its competitors. It doesn't even have a rules set that is internally consistent within itself. That is a problem. If this hobby is about community, then there needs to be a viable, reliable set of community standards by which we interact. What we have, instead, is a spammy wave of slipshod rules coming out 2-3 pages at a time across a wide spectrum of books. It makes it inconvenient to play and do friendly pick up games. It makes it difficult to keep up. It makes it, dare I say, hardly worth the trouble. Anecdotal or not, I can track a steady decrease in the pick up games and regular play in my own area. I'm hearing very similar things from all over. We all take it with a grain of salt.

[DarkLink]

It doesn't matter if you're a competitive or casual gamer. If you play the game, higher quality rules will benefit you in a plethora of ways. Saying that it's still fun even with the lower quality rules does not negate this, and claiming "it's a beer and pretzels game" is tantamount to say "it's only fun if you're drunk". Not exactly high praise.

I've stopped playing 40k outside of tournaments because Infinity and Warmahordes are simply more fun. I still play in 40k events because they draw a larger crowd and the game is still fun, but the mechanics are so clunky, poorly balanced, and argument inducing that I've been playing less 40k as of late. If 7th edition improves the gameplay, great. If it doesn't, oh well, I've got other, better options in that case. Point is, for a lot of people, the quality of the rules matters. If you think less of us because that's the aspect of the hobby we enjoy the most, then take the elitist arrogance elsewhere. We're all in this together, remember.


On a side note, Infinity's newer individual sculpts completely blows anything GW's ever done out of the water. The new Sun Tze model is gorgeous. Why bother painting 50+ mediocre, nearly identical SM sculpts when I could have an army of ~10 unique and absolutely stunning minis painted to a much higher standard? GW's losing on that front, too. Their big kits are still the best, but the rest isn't nearly as impressive now.

[Harley]

That we know of. Because you know, limited info rumours are limited in information.

To say 'it's not rumoured, it's not happening' is just silly.

And I'd argue shooting is too deadly....I feel it's precisely as deadly as it should be, but Assault needs some help.

Also....most of your issues? Players, not rules.

I agree but you can't solve "players", you can only change rules.

---

It constantly is said in this thread that if you don't like the rules then change them. Really? We needed YOU to remind us of that? You mean to tell me if I don't like tomato on my cheeseburger I can just take it off!?
*Gasp* You've suddenly opened my eyes!

But seriously, that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about a game which functions as a social contract for structured play between friends, acquaintances and strangers. At least half my games are pick up against people I don't know or have only spoken with a handful of times. I shouldn't have to spend an 8th of the time I would be playing, negotiating the terms of the game. The terms should already exist and have been memorized from countless hours reading the BRB in my library (bathroom).

It's not that we can't solve the current broken portions of the game with house rules. It's that we shouldn't have to.

[Auticus]

Fun games and balanced games can go together.

You can also have fun with non balanced games - you just have to have the right people involved.

[Magos Bellum]

Back to the topic at hand, I feel like the biggest loser in 7th edition will be the person without a good gaming group. There are simply too many different ways to play now (which has its good points too) that it will be extremely difficult to get a pickup game with fairly even odds, especially for newer players without huge collections to draw on. Interestingly this is going to take getting in new people for the long term out of GW's hands, and much more into the hands of the player base. Feel free to speculate on the implications of that.

[Charon]

Back to the topic at hand, I feel like the biggest loser in 7th edition will be the person without a good gaming group.

Exactly my thought.

[Auticus]

I can agree with this. Your gaming group is essential. If you are playing primarily pick up random games and are at the mercy of whoever shows up - you may have a bad time. I know I myself am not into random pick up games for that very reason.

[Harley]

Yep, that is pretty much my problem. Most friends live far away so it's usually pick up games at the FLGS or tourneys for me. 7th ed doesn't look like it fixes any of the broken issues with 6th and actually adds quite a few more. As if it wasn't bad enough before constantly facing 5 FMCs with Heldrake support, now they don't even have to take troops. For players in my situation, if you pass up games offered by That Guy it means you probably don't get to play at all that day, or possibly even that week.

[Mr Mystery]

And that opinion formed and presented without actually having read the rulebook at all.

Excellent work there. Sherlock Holmes may finally hang up his Deerstalker.

TFG is always a hazard in the wargames hobby. Doesn't matter what game you're playing. Chess? 'Oh I'm sorry, if you touch a piece, you have to move it. But of course that doesn't apply to me. Only you.' Nothing to do with the rules. It's all to do with TFG being, you know, TFG.

Vast majority of GW games are 'friendlies'. Nothing to do with Tournaments or Comp or placement or the non-existent big cash prizes. Just two peeps having a knock about on the board. That's the sort of game GW has aimed for. It's arguably more inclusive than a game designed for Tournaments or winning prizes. TFG is surprisingly rare. Indeed, most shops will have just one TFG. And you're really going to let him ruin the hobby you've invested quite heavily in?

Form a local club if you have the time. Next time you're in store for a gaming night/session, challenge other players at a mutually convenient time.

Don't let TFG define your hobby, or anyone else's for that matter. GW, PP, Mantic, FF....they're powerless to stop TFG. The gaming community has that power, and the gaming community alone.

As with many things in life, it's down to the community to set what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. Work, home life, love life, social life, gaming life. There's no difference. Do I let some bunghole at work bring me down and ruin my otherwise quite enjoyable job? Nope. Unacceptable behaviour is noted and referred on to their Manager.

For GW games? They've set the table, and provided the various dishes. Nobody has to sample all the dishes. There's such a thing as choice. If you only want to play FoC games, then that's your choice, and to be respected. It could well mean that I wouldn't ever get a game with you, as I'm tempted to explore Unbound to create forces which I feel meet the background. Doesn't make either of us bad people, or TFG. Yet if we're the only two people down there, to get a game we'd have to compromise. If one of us won't back down, we're placing our hobby over all other interpretations of the hobby, and at that point you're entering TFG territory.

And here's something I find slightly odd. Generally speaking, TFG is understandably reviled by the wider community. So why does TFG have such a hold over us? It wouldn't take much effort for everyone to refuse to play him. So why don't we do just that? Avoid them. Shun them (wording might a bit strong). Ensure we have games lined up that don't involve him?

[Lord Asterion]

And that opinion formed and presented without actually having read the rulebook at all.

Excellent work there. Sherlock Holmes may finally hang up his Deerstalker.

TFG is always a hazard in the wargames hobby. Doesn't matter what game you're playing. Chess? 'Oh I'm sorry, if you touch a piece, you have to move it. But of course that doesn't apply to me. Only you.' Nothing to do with the rules. It's all to do with TFG being, you know, TFG.

Vast majority of GW games are 'friendlies'. Nothing to do with Tournaments or Comp or placement or the non-existent big cash prizes. Just two peeps having a knock about on the board. That's the sort of game GW has aimed for. It's arguably more inclusive than a game designed for Tournaments or winning prizes. TFG is surprisingly rare. Indeed, most shops will have just one TFG. And you're really going to let him ruin the hobby you've invested quite heavily in?

Form a local club if you have the time. Next time you're in store for a gaming night/session, challenge other players at a mutually convenient time.

Don't let TFG define your hobby, or anyone else's for that matter. GW, PP, Mantic, FF....they're powerless to stop TFG. The gaming community has that power, and the gaming community alone.

As with many things in life, it's down to the community to set what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. Work, home life, love life, social life, gaming life. There's no difference. Do I let some bunghole at work bring me down and ruin my otherwise quite enjoyable job? Nope. Unacceptable behaviour is noted and referred on to their Manager.

For GW games? They've set the table, and provided the various dishes. Nobody has to sample all the dishes. There's such a thing as choice. If you only want to play FoC games, then that's your choice, and to be respected. It could well mean that I wouldn't ever get a game with you, as I'm tempted to explore Unbound to create forces which I feel meet the background. Doesn't make either of us bad people, or TFG. Yet if we're the only two people down there, to get a game we'd have to compromise. If one of us won't back down, we're placing our hobby over all other interpretations of the hobby, and at that point you're entering TFG territory.

And here's something I find slightly odd. Generally speaking, TFG is understandably reviled by the wider community. So why does TFG have such a hold over us? It wouldn't take much effort for everyone to refuse to play him. So why don't we do just that? Avoid them. Shun them (wording might a bit strong). Ensure we have games lined up that don't involve him?


I think internet forums attract more TFGs than the gaming tables of your FLGS, they go online to get the latest tricks and tips and the latest netlists to copy, so I can only imagine the reason some people on here seem resistant to laying the problem on the door of TFG is because they know, deep down in their hearts, that they are TFG, they don't want to admit that they might be the problem, that they will take broken lists and then complain that GW forces them to by writing an "unbalanced" game.

[Harley]

And that opinion formed and presented without actually having read the rulebook at all.

Excellent work there. Sherlock Holmes may finally hang up his Deerstalker.

TFG is always a hazard in the wargames hobby. Doesn't matter what game you're playing. Chess? 'Oh I'm sorry, if you touch a piece, you have to move it. But of course that doesn't apply to me. Only you.' Nothing to do with the rules. It's all to do with TFG being, you know, TFG.

Vast majority of GW games are 'friendlies'. Nothing to do with Tournaments or Comp or placement or the non-existent big cash prizes. Just two peeps having a knock about on the board. That's the sort of game GW has aimed for. It's arguably more inclusive than a game designed for Tournaments or winning prizes. TFG is surprisingly rare. Indeed, most shops will have just one TFG. And you're really going to let him ruin the hobby you've invested quite heavily in?

Form a local club if you have the time. Next time you're in store for a gaming night/session, challenge other players at a mutually convenient time.

Don't let TFG define your hobby, or anyone else's for that matter. GW, PP, Mantic, FF....they're powerless to stop TFG. The gaming community has that power, and the gaming community alone.

As with many things in life, it's down to the community to set what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. Work, home life, love life, social life, gaming life. There's no difference. Do I let some bunghole at work bring me down and ruin my otherwise quite enjoyable job? Nope. Unacceptable behaviour is noted and referred on to their Manager.

For GW games? They've set the table, and provided the various dishes. Nobody has to sample all the dishes. There's such a thing as choice. If you only want to play FoC games, then that's your choice, and to be respected. It could well mean that I wouldn't ever get a game with you, as I'm tempted to explore Unbound to create forces which I feel meet the background. Doesn't make either of us bad people, or TFG. Yet if we're the only two people down there, to get a game we'd have to compromise. If one of us won't back down, we're placing our hobby over all other interpretations of the hobby, and at that point you're entering TFG territory.

And here's something I find slightly odd. Generally speaking, TFG is understandably reviled by the wider community. So why does TFG have such a hold over us? It wouldn't take much effort for everyone to refuse to play him. So why don't we do just that? Avoid them. Shun them (wording might a bit strong). Ensure we have games lined up that don't involve him?

In Soviet Russia, GamesWorkshop plays you!

I'm glad that WarHippy40k works in your mind and everyone can just sit down and get along to fix the game together and iron out all these balance issues. Unfortunately the community to very divided right now, especially in North America where many FLGSs won't even allow the use of Forgeworld in any organised play. You are suggesting that the majority of players can get together and resolve things in a nation that can't even agree on who can/can't get married and where babies come from. Just isn't that simple.

[Lord Asterion]

In Soviet Russia, GamesWorkshop plays you!

I'm glad that WarHippy40k works in your mind and everyone can just sit down and get along to fix the game together and iron out all these balance issues. Unfortunately the community to very divided right now, especially in North America where many FLGSs won't even allow the use of Forgeworld in any organised play. You are suggesting that the majority of players can get together and resolve things in a nation that can't even agree on who can/can't get married and where babies come from. Just isn't that simple.
Who really cares what happens in the Americas though?

[Mr Mystery]

In Soviet Russia, GamesWorkshop plays you!

I'm glad that WarHippy40k works in your mind and everyone can just sit down and get along to fix the game together and iron out all these balance issues. Unfortunately the community to very divided right now, especially in North America where many FLGSs won't even allow the use of Forgeworld in any organised play. You are suggesting that the majority of players can get together and resolve things in a nation that can't even agree on who can/can't get married and where babies come from. Just isn't that simple.

And that's an issue in the community. GW haven't caused that. They've encouraged an 'anything goes' game for us to play with and do as we will. FLGS 'banning' FW I do kind of get. Nothing to do with rules, but a business decision. Unless I'm mistaken, FLGS can't stock Forgeworld toys, so why would you want someone showing off their new purchase, which cost a pretty penny, when you can't get a slice of that cake?

[Caitsidhe]

Who really cares what happens in the Americas though?

<chuckles> Stockholders? If they didn't care what happens over here they wouldn't sell the product over here. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of profits and merchandise moved. If as so many Brits seem to suggest, it is we Yanks who are messing things up, wouldn't the best solution be to simply stop selling Games Workshop product to Yanks? :D

[Captain Bubonicus]

As a southerner, I'm totally fine with screwing over Yankees.

[DarkLink]

Who really cares what happens in the Americas though?

About 35% of GW's customers.

- - - Updated - - -


And that's an issue in the community. GW haven't caused that. They've encouraged an 'anything goes' game for us to play with and do as we will. FLGS 'banning' FW I do kind of get.

I bet you don't think that it's the tobacco company's fault so many people die from smoking each year. Though, probably not the best comparison, since if you smoke you're an idiot, and there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying 40k, but I digress.

[Mr Mystery]

My point still stands.

GW design 'anything goes' game. That's the product. That's what is on offer.

A given person not agreeing that anything should go - Nothing to do with GW.

[Wolfshade]

About 35% of GW's customers.

- - - Updated - - -



I bet you don't think that it's the tobacco company's fault so many people die from smoking each year. Though, probably not the best comparison, since if you smoke you're an idiot, and there's nothing inherently wrong with enjoying 40k, but I digress.

While I partially agree, the extension of this is that you should stop selling bedsheets as people get wrapped up in them and die each year.

[DarkLink]

I was being halfway sarcastic. But only halfway. GW can't take a 35% cut in profit, so as a company they have to realize that if a large portion of their customer base is being driven away by something in particular, they probably have to address it or it will hurt them. But we have to wait until 7th actually comes out to see if they start losing market share among their players to other games.

[Harley]

Other games like Warmahordes have stolen a big chunk of the player base here in the Midwest/Greatlakes region of the USA. Personally I don't see the appeal but more and more 40k players I know are switching. One big thing that helps is organized play in FLGS which are much more popular than GW stores in the States. We have a really strong trend of large sanctioned events at independent game centers such as those for Magic TGC and from Privateer so there is this entire market that GW is completely missing out on currently. The Magic events especially are insanely large, drawing hundreds of people regularly.

The biggest thing I see holding back new players is the initial investment and steep learning curve in 40k. I have literally seen players look at the size of the rulebook and get scared off so hopefully this new 3 book system is a good strategy.

Other than that I think GW needs to release a decent official army builder for ALL armies. Again, it's money they are missing out on that Battlescribe is making instead.

[Mr Mystery]

But is it something in particular?

There's a lot of assumption made online, and very few facts available to use.

Theories about dips in takings/profits etc often fail to take in more than the poster's opinion, completely ignoring other possibly contributing factors.

For instance. 2008, global economy goes belly up. GW did quite well during this period. No surprise, as hobbies in general are (I understand) fairly recession proof.

2013, things are looking up, particularly in the UK. And with any financial recovery people's spending habits and priorities change. When you feel your job is secure, you're more likely to make large purchases, whether a car, home improvements, nice holiday somewhere etc. This is the same leisure/lifestyle pot you use to pay for your hobbies, and would therefore have some kind of impact. The theories/claims of fact I've seen online haven't shown any consideration to such things.

Is it a factor? I dunno, I'm not an economist, I'm an adjudicator. But it is a point to be considered against myriad other factors.

[Caitsidhe]

But is it something in particular?

There's a lot of assumption made online, and very few facts available to use.

Theories about dips in takings/profits etc often fail to take in more than the poster's opinion, completely ignoring other possibly contributing factors.

For instance. 2008, global economy goes belly up. GW did quite well during this period. No surprise, as hobbies in general are (I understand) fairly recession proof.

2013, things are looking up, particularly in the UK. And with any financial recovery people's spending habits and priorities change. When you feel your job is secure, you're more likely to make large purchases, whether a car, home improvements, nice holiday somewhere etc. This is the same leisure/lifestyle pot you use to pay for your hobbies, and would therefore have some kind of impact. The theories/claims of fact I've seen online haven't shown any consideration to such things.

Is it a factor? I dunno, I'm not an economist, I'm an adjudicator. But it is a point to be considered against myriad other factors.


The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The most likely reason any company is losing sales is due to costumer discontent or competition. The very fact that Games Workshop didn't suffer any drops during an economic downturn indicates that their particular product is largely independent of those factors. It means a drop or rise in their sales is directly related to the simple issues.

[Sainhann]

So, the articles are coming out all over the place. 7th edition, with it's two ways of building lists... You either go Battle-Forged and get bonuses, or you go Unbound and throw the FOC out the window.

Honestly, it's not a type of player, but a type of person that is going to lose out the most. It's 'That Guy'. We all know who that guy is. He's the guy that brings 3 Riptides in a list to teach the new guy with his fluffy Vostroyan list how to play the game. He's the first to pick up a 3rd Heldrake. He makes it seem like no big deal as he gloats when he wins, and then throws a fit about how unbalanced something is when he loses.

Oh yes pure Unbound for me.

Since that will allow me to field the units that the FOC restrictions killed off over a decade ago.

Do you see many Ork players using Gretchens? Nope because if only a Max of 6 troops they would never make the cut.

Now they can and players like me who have 130 of them can now field them along with the 200+ Orks.

So "That Guy" brings 6 Riptides to a 2000 point battle is going to be spending around 1100-1300+ points on them, which means that he is not going to have a lot of points left over for the rest of his army.

Plus if the new Objectives and the way you score points for them just might mean he could find that his Opponent scoring points every turn while he doesn't.

Oh and against armies that I would field those 6 Riptides better learn how to dance because when you are fielding 200-300 models on the table for those same 2000 points he will find that even a 8 shot weapon he not going to kill enough to make me blink an eye.

Oh yes Unbound Armies will be nasty but for the things that a lot of individuals are talking about.

No what will make them nasty is that Players don't need to live by the only six troops limit and can now field 15 units of troops plus all of rest.

Players who would not have fielded certain units before because when having to pick between all of their Fast Attack choices and choose only 3 can now fielded a pure Fast Attack army.

Sainhann Eldar army come to mind, lots of Jet Bike Guardians, Vypers Squadrons, then throw in some War Walker Squadrons & Warp Spiders and Swooping Hawks and you got one nasty army that is fast and packs a punch.

[Wolfshade]

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The most likely reason any company is losing sales is due to costumer discontent or competition. The very fact that Games Workshop didn't suffer any drops during an economic downturn indicates that their particular product is largely independent of those factors. It means a drop or rise in their sales is directly related to the simple issues.

Let us add in some numbers here.

Comapring the latest figures we have, which are revenue figures not volumes of sales....

We see that across the board, in the latest 6 month period we see revenue has droped from 67.5m to 59.8m a drop of 11%, so that equates to ball park figure 1 in 10 GW gamers not buying, or the average GW gamer buying 1 less kit every 10 they purchase.

The GW costs opperating and cossts of sales are both down on the prevbious segment so it is less likely that it is external pressures on GW, i.e. cost of oil.

What we don't know is the effect of the weekly release schedule, the new website, the new WD/Visions et al.

In terms of competition, unfortunately no of the competion are publically listed companies so we can't really compare figures, for all we know PP could be making a lost each year as it tries to grow it's market share, or infinity could be generating revenue twice the size of its costs, we just don't know.

I am very exicted by 7th, and I hope it goes some way to point to a new direction but as they say you can't please all the people all of the time especially as so many people want different things from the hobby.

Look at all the house rules people have for a simple game like monopoly, then increase the complexity of that and it can be come crazy.

[Mr Mystery]

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. The most likely reason any company is losing sales is due to costumer discontent or competition. The very fact that Games Workshop didn't suffer any drops during an economic downturn indicates that their particular product is largely independent of those factors. It means a drop or rise in their sales is directly related to the simple issues.

Yet there is still the assumption there that people are moving into other companies. As Wolfie ably demonstrated, without the info from those companies, nobody knows what shape the wider market is in beyond personal anecdotes. PP etc only appear to be doing well, and without any kind of financial information on their wider company, anything beyond that is purely speculation.

[phreakachu]

That Fething Guy... lol. i have a friend, not a bad dude until the table appears between us... then he Mr. Hydes into That Guy.
amongst all the dudes in the group, hes the only one crying about percentages... but then again, he's That Guy.... 'I tabled you, therefor i have won' Gloating that he destroyed a Storm Raven, after 2 skyfiring Riptides and a Quad gun spend 3 Turns pulling Bolshevism out their collective backsides in an attempt to ground the bird.... worst of all, claiming that an 'Infantry heavy Marine List isnt BALANCED'...
That Fething Guy... i kinda look forward to that particular genus of player going extinct.

[DarkLink]

Yet there is still the assumption there that people are moving into other companies. As Wolfie ably demonstrated, without the info from those companies, nobody knows what shape the wider market is in beyond personal anecdotes. PP etc only appear to be doing well, and without any kind of financial information on their wider company, anything beyond that is purely speculation.

Simple observation. Across multiple gaming groups and communities on the west coast at least, a significant number of players are quitting and starting other games. Some are still playing, but dividing their attention between gw and others. Wildey said nothing that excludes this as a possibility. We don't know how much of the revenue loss is from their changing release strategy or from players quitting, but you don't seem willing to think that players quitting might be a possible reason.

[Caitsidhe]

Simple observation. Across multiple gaming groups and communities on the west coast at least, a significant number of players are quitting and starting other games. Some are still playing, but dividing their attention between gw and others. Wildey said nothing that excludes this as a possibility. We don't know how much of the revenue loss is from their changing release strategy or from players quitting, but you don't seem willing to think that players quitting might be a possible reason.

Yep. That is the anecdotal evidence in my area too. Some have quit 40K but most are splitting their time and finances between it and other games. Since these are not people of leisure who can afford to buy everything and every new game that comes along, it logically follows that every dollar spent on one of the other games is not spent on 40K. The doggedly stubborn attitude some demonstrate in regards to admitting that the competition is up and running is a very odd way of looking at things. I found the argument that since their transactions are not public, they could be in any horrible state very entertaining. The exact opposite is true. Private companies do not have the deep pockets to call upon that Corporations do, and thus when you see steady growth in such a company you can rest assured they took that money from increasing profits or their lenders took their increasing profits into consideration in loaning them expansion funds. *Remember that this is a niche industry and lenders in general aren't going to fork out cash to a company whose liquidation of assets isn't likely to recoup their losses. You can, thus, assume that private companies making a strong, growing showing are doing well enough.

The issue, for some here at least, is admitting that Games Workshop can make mistakes, or has ever made a mistake. When I hear people going to the ends of the Earth to try and find justifications or explanations for things I have to question their objectivity. It makes me think there is more at work than they merely being died in the wool fan-boys. I just take their posts with a grain of salt and a heavy helping of humor. There is very little I can say that will make them look more foolish than they do themselves. They tend to switch back and forth between a fawning Smeagol and a hissing Gollum providing a rather interesting show.

"Smeagol loves the Precious yes, Games Workshop was my birthday present... yessss... with the Precious all things are possible...."

"You DARESSSS insult the precious! We will makes it squeal!"

All humor aside, the days when Games Workshop could count on a monopoly are over. This is, in part, due to technology. The means to create and manufacture quality models is out there and spreading fast. That genie is already out of the bottle as far as industry is concerned, and it won't be too much longer before we get it as private citizens too. New companies don't have to play catch up and pay the dues Games Workshop did to get where they are today. Technology is saving them them those steps. Games Workshop has also proven there is a market for the product. This means more people will get into it, particularly as the costs for starting up and competing have gone down. The writing is on the wall and Games Workshop must (and will) eventually adapt to the new paradigm. It is odd that they clearly wish to be dragged into it kicking and screaming, but that has often been the case of such businesses over the last twenty years.

[DarkLink]

A business friend pointed out that gw's new release schedule is probably designed to flood the market in an attempt to smother out its competitors. Too little, too late, though.

[Sainhann]

True, and the biggest up and comer is Manatic Games.

Ran by quite a few individuals who were at GW before and have now left.

They have slowly been pushing out new product and games and have been using Kickstarter to fund a few of them.

Deadzone a game played on a very small area 24" x 24".

Plus they are putting out new stuff faster than GW at times, like their new Battlezone terrain pieces.

Oh and for less money as well.

So yes GW is feeling the crunch and they really do need to rethink what they have been doing.

Sure they got money from the ChapterHouse lawsuit ($25,000) but they took a big hit when they lost whole sections of that lawsuit.

Which is why they are calling the Imperial Guards by that new name and the same goes for Space Marines.

So they are revamping 40K because they have took notice that there sales are down and that many gamers just did not buy into them pushing large over priced models.

[DarkLink]

How do you know Mantic is the biggest? Especially since the numbers point to Warmahordes as being the top seller behind 40k, and X-Wing is right there ;).

Regardless, there's now a dozen solid competitors that are too entrenched to go away anytime soon. Instead of pricing other games out of the market, GW's new strategy might hurt itself more than it helps because of that. But we'll see.

[daboarder]

A business friend pointed out that gw's new release schedule is probably designed to flood the market in an attempt to smother out its competitors. Too little, too late, though.

also seems to not understand what the community feels the core issues are.

ie: rules (communication) and cost.

[Sainhann]

How do you know Mantic is the biggest? Especially since the numbers point to Warmahordes as being the top seller behind 40k, and X-Wing is right there ;).

Regardless, there's now a dozen solid competitors that are too entrenched to go away anytime soon. Instead of pricing other games out of the market, GW's new strategy might hurt itself more than it helps because of that. But we'll see.

Up and comer - I.E. new and busy putting out stuff.

Better rule designers as well.

GW has crap for rules designers now.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

How do you know Mantic is the biggest? Especially since the numbers point to Warmahordes as being the top seller behind 40k, and X-Wing is right there ;).

Regardless, there's now a dozen solid competitors that are too entrenched to go away anytime soon. Instead of pricing other games out of the market, GW's new strategy might hurt itself more than it helps because of that. But we'll see.

In a selected sample of indie traders, in America. Just saying.
Here in Aus the big competition is MTG (and other card games), they're the biggest thing in the nerd market by far.
Warmachine has a small dedicated following, about the same size as the spartan and "other" games.
Not seen any mantic at all!
GW is the big dog still, but the third parties stock less of their stuff these days (i'm told, i've only been here 6 months).
Chap I talked to who runs one of the rogue traders near me decided to be surprisingly honest (we bonded over shared experience of programming mainframes for financial institutions) and basically said that their profit margins and rate of purchases are so much higher on card games compared to anything else that they could stock he decided that he'd pour all his efforts into supporting that in store. Which is fair enough, dude has a business to run.

[Wolfshade]

I've still yet to see infinity, warhammahordes, etc played...

I think one of the big problems is a matter of time and space. 40k requires a big board 6x4 and a lot of time to play, so if you start at say 20:00 it is 22:00 before you are finishing, plus time to decamp. Yet it was a response from the community wanting to play bigger games that 2nd skirmish became 3rd larger scale.

I completely agree with what people say about the card games, they take very little shelf space, require a small amount of table top room to play.

As a company view point, they have already designed the card format, so all they need to do is come up with the rules and art work, and that is always going to be cheaper than even making a new SM box.

The thing is I don't see MTG as competition though as it isn't a table top wargame, not at least how I reckon.

With new compaines there is an enthusiam and (hopefully) rapid expansion, in a way that a mainstay can't achieve.

It would be nice to see this competion act as proper competion athat will hopefully drive the market in the right way, better plastic toys, better rules and better value for money. Now all of these are very subjective, after all, I might consider £15 for a box of unposable 5 plastic people fine, others might thing, for £15 they want multi-part plastic kits, others wouldn't care if they were posable or not, just that there should be more than 5 miniatures in the box.

I would hazard a guess that the reason why the margins are tight on GW stuff is that they themselves want to be the manufacturer and retailer. Which works fairly well when you have fairly high density populations, like in northern europe, but not so great in vast places like Canada and Australia whereby the amount of stores needed to get the same coverage is uneconomical.

[BeardMonk]

On an aside, but linking into Wolfshades post, I also wonder if the change in GW marketing strategy and the increasing popularity of other games is also down to another factor. Peoples shortening attention spans.

I got into the hobby via WHF and still love that particular game. But it’s can be a long game. But as a person who runs and plays Pathfinder rpg, I have no issue starting up a game at mid day and still being at it at 8 in the evening. However, I think it’s rare to find that kind of patients and attention span in the newer generation of wargames and tabletop players (14-19). However the younger age groups and new players are more likely to be evangelical about whichever game system they get into.

The newer and/or younger players want big bangs, bright lights, big impressive models and all in under two hours, thank you very much. WamaHordes, for example, delivers a faster pace of play with cool models, mega bold feats/magic from your warcasters and I don’t think iv ever played a game longer than 90 minutes. It also has easy to pick up rules, stat cards included and it has full online player support. But I wouldn’t like to say it a “better game” than 40K/WHF, its just different. But its shorter, bolder outlook could explain why lots of people, including myself are playing it more and more, often at the expense of GW games. You can build a toy car quicker with Duplo than you can with Mechano

I think its notable the GW withdrew all support for the specialist games like BFG, Inq etc despite there still being a dedicated following for a number of those games. Games that required a little more thinking on behalf of the players. I would imagine that a large percentage of revenue comes from newer players who are establishing their armies than from older players who already have a lot of models.

The new ruleset and strategy from GW could be GW trying to market to this new generation of less attentive players. Big models, take what you want, looser rules so games are played faster.

Or maybe im completely wrong :-)

[Wolfshade]

You might be on to something. I know with my gaming group we will quite happioly sit down and play different board games for 6/7 hours an evening, though the times when we play big long games, are quite rare now-a-days.

I think Kill Team is a great game and makes a smaller, more skirmish game. It has the huge advantage in time and space and cost to get into.

[lohnpondai]

Just came back from my local game store after reading the book with the owner of the store for several hours. Though we didnt read 100% of it, i cant say im impressed.

The books look great and i have to applaud GW for this new format but the content meh.

Ive been disconnected from w40k for sometime since as a player i favor close combat armies that got the shaft in the actual edition. Not much has changed @ that. This "edition" does not solve why hth units are so overpriced and does not fix a lot of the issues i have with hth like being unable to engage on consolidating phase (it was rumored you could), the initiative nerf to furious charge is stil there, etc.

Besides that i didnt really like the new pyker rules and in general i did not see enough changes that would justify a new edition of the rules (perhaps a faq or errata?). But i understand GW has had some sales problems and perhaps they are trying to milk their best cow. I think Ill pass for the time being. Not buying the book. Ill wait a bit to see how things develop. Dont foresee a balanced/healthy meta, and i want to see what do they do with upcoming codexes.

[Harley]

This "edition" does not solve why hth units are so overpriced and does not fix a lot of the issues i have with hth like being unable to engage on consolidating phase (it was rumored you could), the initiative nerf to furious charge is stil there, etc.

Besides that i didnt really like the new pyker rules and in general i did not see enough changes that would justify a new edition of the rules (perhaps a faq or errata?). But i understand GW has had some sales problems and perhaps they are trying to milk their best cow. I think Ill pass for the time being. Not buying the book. Ill wait a bit to see how things develop. Dont foresee a balanced/healthy meta, and i want to see what do they do with upcoming codexes.

This new edition really hasn't fixed much of anything that was wrong with the game before, added a bunch more optional fluffy content, tweaked allies and Daemons got a big overhaul... that's about it. I agree, pretty disappointing.

[daboarder]

adds far more "unfluff" than it does fluff.

CSM and grey knights marching along in the same list

GG GW

/40k

[Harley]

Yes, I should have said "Fluffy".

CSM and CK are still "come the apocalypse" however.

[daboarder]

Yes, I should have said "Fluffy".

CSM and CK are still "come the apocalypse" however.

Can still be in the same army Battleforged too

[Caitsidhe]

<laughs> Games Workshop clearly threw this thing together slipshod and at the last minute. Very little of substance changed, and most of what did change was in the Psychic Phase. Everything else is minor Faq like crap. They literally decided that instead of Faqs and Errata that they would just bend us over the table and ask us to buy the BRB all over again. To justify it they changed the Psychic Phase since that was the easiest mechanic to diddle with (and had the benefit of selling the cards all over again).

They failed to address the key complaints about 6th Edition, demonstrated an astounding lack of knowledge about their OWN rules (hence their belief that vehicle fragility that they created with Hull Points will be offset by nerfing AT weapons), and actually reinforced and strengthened several problems. I have to say my expectations were not high, but Games Workshop still managed to fall below them. :)

[Harley]

Yes, well the allie table should probably have had Xed out matches that said, "NOPE!"

[daboarder]

Yes, well the allie table should probably have had Xed out matches that said, "NOPE!"

it shouldnt have lumpe the imperials all into one faction either.

that being said the allied table is still somewhat an improvement, if barely

[Dave Mcturk]

seems as if its going to remind me of a punk son g from the 70's - "what a waste"
mite be a case of try before you buy!

[The Herald of Corrosion]

I can agree with this. Your gaming group is essential. If you are playing primarily pick up random games and are at the mercy of whoever shows up - you may have a bad time. I know I myself am not into random pick up games for that very reason.

Pretty much. It's why I usually play pick-up games with folks from my local store. There's competition there, but there's a degree of cheese which no one there will ever field outside of a tournament setting.