My Meagre thoughts on Competitive 40k

[Brother Claudio]

I grow weary whenever I see an article or forum topic with this heading. Because in my eyes, and this is only my opinion, this tells me players just want to win. And secondly that they want to moan about losing.

Competition seeks to find the best overall player. Certain dex's have a higher proportion of better units but it doesnt mean these players will win. Yes its a dice game but thats just part of the game. Tactics, i feel, play a much bigger role. Look at the last 8 of the LVO. From what I remember Space Marines, Blood Angels, Nids, Eldar, Space Wolves, Chaos Marines, Daemons, Knights, Guard, Inquisiton and Grey Knights were all represented. Not one army looked the same. So how is one Dex really that much better than the other? How is the game not competitive? Messi is arguably the best footballer in the world. This doesn't mean Barcelona/Argentina will win every game; he is only one player just like a mantle of the laughing god autarch on a jet bike with his 2+ re rollable cover wouldn't win the game on his own. Sports teams vary so much in terms of player depth and ability I think this serves as a good analogy for 40k dex's. They vary but sports teams and fans don't moan about the state of the game. The teams practice and buy/trade players to adapt to the game.

Maybe people don't understand what competition is, maybe this should actually be the talking point. If you want a balanced game where it is literally the wits and tactics of the person in charge that wins, then play chess. But I bet you don't want to play chess because well 40k is cooler and funner, in my opinion.

Also the rock, paper scissors argument seriously? I mean come on. If you understand your meta then that's just doing your research. Sports teams do it all the time so why can't 40k gamers? Thing is if you want to play the units and lists that aren't very well represented in the meta, this shouldn't stop you. But do not play the whole "I'm holier than thou because I play a fluffy list", that's just annoying. Take a look at football (soccer). Spain's system of tika taka got them nowhere for years. The game was all about speed, strength and skill...not short passing. The Spanish team didn't turn around to FIFA and go "the game is broken and unbalanced because we can't play the football we like to play". They kept their system, they perfected it, made it work against the current meta and then won a European championship, the world cup and then retained the euro again...Just saying. I've played a few armies. I currently use my dark eldar who I think don't have as much punch or survivability than most other armies but I haven't moaned and I don't think that makes them less competitive. I still win games with the dark eldar and I lose them too. I feel like the 40k community is all about just winning at the moment. Look for a death star list and not actually buying the models you like and playing with them and working out tactics on how best to employ them in your army. When the new dark eldar codex came out I thought the mandrakes got better. When I played with a unit in my next game I realised that they weren't what I thought they were. I even cursed and said never again shall they see the field. But after that heated moment I played with them again and again and have worked out how I can best use them. And I feel like they act as an important part of my tactics.

In England we have the League cup which all teams go into. From the premier league, championship, league 1 and league 2. And guess what. Yes it's unlikely a league 2 team will win the tourney/cup. But there's every chance. Players build good lists and what's the problem with that? Manchester City have the most money in England so they buy the best players. But do other teams moan that they've got one of the best teams/lists...no. They get on with it. They play and see what happens. Again Man City will probably win no trophies this year. Having the most money, buying the best units/using the "best" lists doesn't mean you will win. Whenever I see "40k isn't competitive" i read i lose a lot and when I win it's because I use a broken list. You for me are the problem.

I agree that terrain should vary in a tournament. For me the way around that is to have a home and away roll. The players pick a table each. The player who wins can pick the table they play on. If you play away though you get more points, like away goals in the champions league . Ye it's more difficult cuz most people would pick a table that suits their army but so what. That's the essence of competition. Little advantages and big ones here and there.

Competition feeds people looking to win. That's the point! You want to win. But if you lose. Take away positives and look at why you lost. But do not blame the game, yes it has its pitfalls, but it's still perfectly fine.

The biggest problem for me is people want 40k to be something it isn't. So in that sense either play with people of like mindedness or stop moaning.

Just my 2 cents. Have at me trolls

[Charon]

The biggest problem I see is that people who do not want to play competitive just ***** and moan about player who just want to play competitive.
Just look around and try to find a single thread or post on how it is wrong to be a fluff player or how a narrative campain cant be fun and people should stop playing it.

On the other hand you will find a lot of posts trying to tell you how you are wrong when playing competitive, how you can't have any fun playing competitive and how people should stop asking for balanced rules.

[Brother Claudio]

Completely agree. Is it this hobby that forces people to hate on each other I wonder?
There is more than enough room in this hobby for competitive and fluffy play and to be honest I like to think I mix them both in. There isn't a single game I've played where I haven't narrated a story in my head About my soldiers. Why does it have to be comp against fluff or that balance is everything. If I'm playing grey knights I want the challenge of ten brothers against a swarm of daemons. **** the balance Haha.
Just feels like everyone wants to get on the last persons back about something that really shouldn't be that big of an issue.

[Houghten]

Completely agree. Is it this hobby that forces people to hate on each other I wonder?

Nah, I'm just a natural born git.

[StingrayP226]

I think its because competitive players are the ones concerned with balance the most and they are the ones quick to expose how unbalanced the game can be. By either talking about it on forums/in person, or curb stomping everyone who didn't build a competitive list to bring against their competitive list.

Many people are very defensive of their hobby and do not like others poking holes in it and exploiting its issues that everyone knows will not get fixed (because the company will not fix them). Thus instead of blaming the game designers many people blame the competitive players because these players are the ones showing how bad these issues are. If everyone played for fun... you could blissfully ignore how broken some units are (both broken good and broken unusable).

Competitive players are the scape goat so others can ignore where the real problem lies. Also I bet several players here have had bad experiences with the terrible competitors who just tear the fun right out of the game... and in human fashion they take that experience and the stereotype and throw everyone with the competitive "title" into the group of horrible people to play against and who ruin the game.

Its all their fault the game has issues because they are not playing as GW intended...

Well that is one point of view on the subject.

[Brother Claudio]

interesting points StingrayP226.
I think this strive for balance is one of the biggest problems. Competitive players aren't poking holes in the game in my eyes they are using the game to their advantage. As I said in the OP if you want balance play chess. I won't defend GW because I have my own opinion on wave serpents being OP and dreadnoughts being weak as hell considering they should be a walking tank but these are just the nuances of the game. I DO think that GW has made progress with every edition and update and that is the reason I won't really moan about the rules.
I can see what you mean about comp players being the scapegoat and everyone needs to get off their high horse about the way the game needs to be played.
It has rules. As long you play with in those rules. I have no issues with you as a player. It's those that think they know the right way that annoy me. It's a hobby for everyone to enjoy and furthermore If you play with a **** then don't play with him again and certainly don't label all comp players that way.

[Popsical]

Quite a bit of the anti comp hate probably comes from people trapped in small groups where 1 or 2 players are ultra comp and win all the time.
My group is like this, but rather than hate on the compo i just give the game a break for a while and come back when im fresh of mind.
You can play too many games too regularly imo, which can make you seek reasons for your jaded interest.
Variety is the spice of life. No one style of gamer is right or wrong, after all, you buy the models and paint them use them as you wish.

[Mr Mystery]

The bugbear for me is that just by reading the books GW put out, you see that the Narrative is their prime concern - do the battles feel cool to play?

Examples? Daemon Randomness - this is a Narrative tool and fits the capricious Chaos Gods. Chaos Champions being compelled to challenge, even when it's a bad idea (OI! Skarbrand! YER MAM SMELLS LIKE TZEENTCH!). Skaven being typically more lethal to themselves, Orcs and Goblins being fractitious and difficult to exercise complete control over.

And then the competitive players come whining about such things, as if 40k was meant to be written for them, and the designers just got it wrong.

No, the game isn't perfectly balanced. But then it's not really written and developed with those whose sole aim is to win every game by as large a margin as possible in mind. The relative lack of balance is only really noticable when someone sets out to purposefully break the game - and that will happen in any rules set where there is choice of what you can field.

It can be played that way if you so wish - but that just makes it the Family Car of Wargaming. Sure it doesn't necessarily excel in anyone facet - but it's flexible enough to cater to the majority of gaming taste and pecadillos.

[Brother Claudio]

Good shout you are probably right

[Mr Mystery]

Good example of their 'one size fits all' type approach? Warhammer The Game of Fantasy Battles.

It hasn't stuck to one particular fantasy trope. If you wanted, you could recreate a Napoleonic battle using Empire v Empire. Medieval historical using Bretonnia. Steampunk your thing? Dwarfs, Empire and Skaven might tickle your fancy.

And the rules work. If you wanted pure history, there's a reason the age of Chivalry gave away to the age of Blackpowder. That reason was Blackpowder. Yet Warhammer has it's way of making Bretonnia effective even against an Empire gunline, if you know what you're doing.

[silashand]

The biggest problem I see is that people who do not want to play competitive just ***** and moan about player who just want to play competitive.
Just look around and try to find a single thread or post on how it is wrong to be a fluff player or how a narrative campain cant be fun and people should stop playing it.

On the other hand you will find a lot of posts trying to tell you how you are wrong when playing competitive, how you can't have any fun playing competitive and how people should stop asking for balanced rules.

IMO this is what happened to WFB. GW listened to those people and subsequently lost players for that game, players they have yet to recover even 5 years later. Yes, I know there will be people who say WFB is thriving where they are at, but I have to guess they are in the minority based on most of the locations I have seen. If GW decides to go that route with 40K then I have to wonder if the outcome would not be similar. JMO though...

[Brother Claudio]

Yep. Fantasy players I know generally have a tight knit group they are happy to stick with and I feel 40k players could take a lot from that. But yes fantasy has suffered hugely. The end times seems to have at least bought a buzz to the game even if it Dies out after its over. I hope 40k doesn't suffer the "balance" people seem to want. The unbalanced aspect is part of why I love it and more representative of different armies.

[gory_v]

All of the prop in the world for using the Man City analogy. All the money in the world won't buy the Sheik any success outside if a single league title, League Cup, or FA Cup; though we'll see how the UCL shakes out.

I feel like a lot of people look at competitive 40k more from a director of football or managerial perspective rather than that of the player. As a manager/director, you put the most efficient players and pieces together within your system and try to beat the other manager's team. In my approach to 40k, I like to take the perspective of a player who has to improve by drilling and putting in my due diligence with what I have available to me. I may not be able to ever beat someone to a header who is a full foot taller than me, but I'll more than likely have advantages in other apspects of my game. Coming from a background in hockey and golf, it's strange to see a community where there's this common fallacy that you can buy wins by purchasing the best toys.

[miteyheroes]

Just look around and try to find a single thread or post on how it is wrong to be a fluff player or how a narrative campain cant be fun and people should stop playing it.

There are hundreds of posts about how 40k needs to be more balanced, more competitive, less random. Posts by people *****ing about the randomness of the Daemon Warp Storm chart. Or the randomly allocated rules, like Psychic powers/C'tan/Possessed/Daemon Rewards. Or random charge distances.
If 40k was more balanced and less random, and got rid of those silly things, it would be less fun to me as a narrative player.

[Charon]

There are hundreds of posts about how 40k needs to be more balanced, more competitive, less random. Posts by people *****ing about the randomness of the Daemon Warp Storm chart. Or the randomly allocated rules, like Psychic powers/C'tan/Possessed/Daemon Rewards. Or random charge distances.
If 40k was more balanced and less random, and got rid of those silly things, it would be less fun to me as a narrative player.

And how is that bashing narrative players?
You make up your own rules anyways. I have played A LOT of narrative campains with LESS random (as in fixed WL traits, because your named WL does not change from game to game) with reserves arriving in a fixed number of turns and so on.
Doesn't hurt narrative gaming a bit.
Losing your WL on the first turn on the other hand without your enemy doing anything is a big game destroyer.
Fun part of this is: the narrative gamer will most likely ignore the result as it is extremely anti-climatic while the competitive player has to deal with it.

So please... don't act like both is mutally exclusive or narrative gamers are bound by rules.

[miteyheroes]

Without the randomness, the stories would be incredibly boring and predictable. Whereas the tale of how your army reacted after loosing its Warlord to Khorne's wrath in the 1st turn? That's out of the ordinary. That's unpredictable. That's interesting. That's what I'm looking for!

The battles which we still talk about, years after they happened, are the ones where something amazing and unpredictable happened. Sometimes that's something written into a scenario, especially when you have a gamesmaster. And sometimes it's because of amazing or terrible luck. On my first game with Chaos Daemons, after spending months working on my beautiful force, I won the game without managing to fire a single shot or charging a single enemy unit - because Khorne decided to kill my enemy's army, whilst my daemons just watched, gobsmacked. What an amazing blessing from the gods, and a beautiful baptism! Or the time that a squad of grots had the most amazing shooting round ever, and wiped out the full squad of terminators about to charge them. Or the time that my army of Possessed all rolled wonderfully, and completely tabled the opponent who had said how **** Possessed were as I got my army out. Or the time that the Virus Outbreak Strategy Card removed my ork army from the table before we even started Turn 1. Or the time that Astragoth, High Priest of Hashut, went into overdrive and managed to punch a whole enemy unit of knights to death. Or so on.

[Charon]

Without the randomness, the stories would be incredibly boring and predictable.

I agree. Thats why basic randomness is not a bad thing. Nobody is arguing about getting rid of hit/wound/penetration,... rolls at all. And they are all "random".


On my first game with Chaos Daemons, after spending months working on my beautiful force, I won the game without managing to fire a single shot or charging a single enemy unit - because Khorne decided to kill my enemy's army, whilst my daemons just watched, gobsmacked.

And here we disagree. Becuase this, no matter if won or lost, is incredible BORING. When I bring my army to a table, I want to PLAY. And not just watch how my enemy gets obliterated without ANYTHING he could do to stop it.
If you consider this super fun, please go on. For me its equal fun to kick a 5y old that is already on the ground or cheer my "luck" that my friend broke his ankle in a freindly basketball game... because its... epic.


Or the time that the Virus Outbreak Strategy Card removed my ork army from the table before we even started Turn 1.

Yeah... I bet this was a super climatic and epic game of deploying minis, rolling dice and pack the minis back into their transport boxes again. Other people would call this "waste of time".

And nowhere in your examples was a single reason why a balanced game is bad for you. Because a balanced game would make your "rememberable" peak results even more exiting.

[miteyheroes]

In both those cases we then fought the battle again. And had some good close games. But do I remember the following games as clearly? Nope. Whereas every one of my orks exploding in a mist of virus spores, infecting their neighbours, because they weren't wearing enclosed helmets? That was 20 years ago, and I still remember it and giggle.

Anyway. I've got nothing against people who want well-balanced less random games. Just I wish they wouldn't keep complaining about how 40k isn't that. Because for me that's always been part of 40k's charm. My ork army exploding to a virus outbreak was one of my very first 40k battles, one of the games that got me hooked on this silly hobby.

Actually, Forgeworld making 30k is great because of this. If you want a better balanced game, there's 30k. If you want a more madcap game, there's 40k. Perfect!

[Charon]

In both those cases we then fought the battle again.

And there we are. EXACTLY what I was saying.
You can just do it again or ignore the result.


But do I remember the following games as clearly? Nope.

to be fair, you do not remember the GAME itself. You remember that outlier of dice rolls.


If you want a better balanced game, there's 30k.

Would you please point me to the ruleworks covering Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orcs, Necrons, Daemons, Battle Sisters or Tyranids in that "well balanced" 30k? Would much appreciate it.


Because for me that's always been part of 40k's charm. My ork army exploding to a virus outbreak was one of my very first 40k battles, one of the games that got me hooked on this silly hobby.

And interestingly, that same virus card is even for most fluff bunnies and beer and bretzel gamers the most stupid and worst thing 2nd edition had to offer... that and the vortex grenade.

[miteyheroes]

Would you please point me to the ruleworks covering Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orcs, Necrons, Daemons, Battle Sisters or Tyranids in that "well balanced" 30k? Would much appreciate it.

Removing all of them was how they balanced the game, wasn't it? Although rumours do say we might see Daemons entering the 30k game soon. Will be very interested to see how Forgeworld approach Daemons.

Ah, vortex grenades. The hard counter to herohammer...

[Brother Claudio]

All of the prop in the world for using the Man City analogy. All the money in the world won't buy the Sheik any success outside if a single league title, League Cup, or FA Cup; though we'll see how the UCL shakes out.

I feel like a lot of people look at competitive 40k more from a director of football or managerial perspective rather than that of the player. As a manager/director, you put the most efficient players and pieces together within your system and try to beat the other manager's team. In my approach to 40k, I like to take the perspective of a player who has to improve by drilling and putting in my due diligence with what I have available to me. I may not be able to ever beat someone to a header who is a full foot taller than me, but I'll more than likely have advantages in other apspects of my game. Coming from a background in hockey and golf, it's strange to see a community where there's this common fallacy that you can buy wins by purchasing the best toys.

+1 this! People should learn their army and stop looking for the auto win button.

[daboarder]

yeah so no, because the problem with 40k is that the community perceives the game that way because in most cases that is the way the game plays. there are clear balance issues in the game and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to make those issues go away or somehow make the community wrong.

[StingrayP226]

Ok some of these replies are a little... sad to be honest. I play several miniature games and I am building an Eldar army (because of fluff... not because they are super powerful).

First off balanced game =/= everyone is the same. True having several factions each with their own unique play style makes balance tough, and you might not ever achieve perfect balance. However MOST other companies try and many get pretty close. You can have several factions with very different play styles and have them balanced (amazing I know!). You can have two armies show up and both of them have a chance at winning other than hoping the dice gods favor them to an extreme... even if one is considered the strongest army while the other the weakest.

Also inter faction balance can be achieved as well... true you cannot make every unit as "generally" useful but you can have some specialists that can preform a specific role in the army. Negating the whole X or Y is a really weak choice (IE Howling Banshees).

On the whole manager vs player view point... You're controlling an army... effectively your a general (or in the sports sense a coach/manager). Managers get the players (you buying/building a list), and the Coach directs them (controlling the models). Trying to act as the "player" is IMHO wrong... unless you are playing a RPG or a game like Battletech where you have vast detailed control over each troop.

Yes, you build with what you have and you control your army to play to their strengths. However the best managers recruit the best teams while the best coach knows how to use those players in the correct plays/positions to get the most out of them. We don't have to build the best lists or broken combos, but if your goal is to win... you should be.

If your goal is to have fun then... being a strict manager/coach isn't required and you can build a sub-par team.

Well those are my two thoughts on it...

[Brother Claudio]

I think gory_v point about the player perspective can be taken in a wrong sense. His point was IMHO exactly what youve just said, his approach is more of a coach/player ie to improve to know your unit and look at how to handle them. But people seem to think a great list is all they need to win and forget they have to play the game. Yes you are more likely to win using the best units but this doesnot mean you will win. Which is why in list building you should take the approach of a director/manager and when playing take the approach of the coach/player. IMHO. but again.

I hate model bashing eg the community moaning about a unit to the point they are not used because several people had bad experiences with those models. I know a friend who loves mandrakes and wyches but won't buy them because everyone advises him against It. In fact it was part of the reason I got some and started playing with them. I think we should move away from oh don't go near that unit approach that's all. Learn to play with the models you love.

Also i disagree with having to have the best list to win. I don't think you need the best lists or broken combos. Ive played some shady blood angel lists that should never win games or not very many games anyway., foot slogging assault marines against a good fire output opponent is an uphill battle but tactics and knowing how to use my units allowed me to win these games. In fact in one game i was nearly on the edge of being wiped out turn 3 but using my models effectively and some good rolls i won. this was the point of the Man City analogy. Yes certain lists will win more often than not. But I don't believe enough players actually play to play and win through learning and experience. And as I mentioned in the OP look at the LVO final 8. There is enough of a mix to prove the balance is actually quite good and secondly Everyone's idea of competition is IMHO the opposite of competition.

- - - Updated - - -


yeah so no, because the problem with 40k is that the community perceives the game that way because in most cases that is the way the game plays. there are clear balance issues in the game and sticking your head in the sand isn't going to make those issues go away or somehow make the community wrong.

Balance issues make it sound bad. Did the Spartans moan about balance at thermopylae? It's a war game. Opponents tend to have advantages and disadvantages in war. That's the way it goes. Yes it is a game but a war game and I think the unbalance gives it the likeness to war that makes it fun.
football (ssoccer) teams have different sized fields to take advantage of their own play style. All pitches are within the legal limit tho. But I know a lot of people that when looking at it from a warhammer perspective would say its unbalanced and not fair.

[daboarder]

Balance issues make it sound bad. Did the Spartans moan about balance at thermopylae? It's a war game. Opponents tend to have advantages and disadvantages in war. That's the way it goes. Yes it is a game but a war game and I think the unbalance gives it the likeness to war that makes it fun.
football (ssoccer) teams have different sized fields to take advantage of their own play style. All pitches are within the legal limit tho. But I know a lot of people that when looking at it from a warhammer perspective would say its unbalanced and not fair.
see that second part....thats the important part, or do you really think stabbing your opponent mid game is appropriate....

[Brother Claudio]

see that second part....thats the important part, or do you really think stabbing your opponent mid game is appropriate....

Context please. sorry I just don't get what you're trying to say?

[daboarder]

wargame =/= warfare, therefore arguing that the games inherent balance issues can be readily dismissed as a "feature" is ridiculous

[Brother Claudio]

wargame =/= warfare, therefore arguing that the games inherent balance issues can be readily dismissed as a "feature" is ridiculous

Come on meet me half way. I bet i can give you a better reason than its just not a balanced game for any issues you have. my points are this: there are obviosuly divided camps In this whole issue. the game isnt perfect but its still pretty good and a hell of a lot of people play it. I know a lot of what I am saying people will completely disagree with. And that's fine. Im not saying I'm right. I just don't get your approach of saying that inbalance is a "ridiculous feature". I can't understand why people think that. In fact part of the reason I started this post was to understand your side. But I'm no closer to it. No one has offered me reason why they think this. I just feel hostility and annoyance from you A and others And a constant "yeah but no".
I've given you my reasons for the way I think with a likeNess to a sport I love and understand. Balance the word itself is IMHO a silly word to use because i think the rules are balanced enough to make any army have a chance of winning. But the vibe i get is that people want chess style balance I may be wrong. but that's the way it comes across to me.

[daboarder]

the argument about the importance of balance has been done to death (In this and in 5 of the top 10 threads on this board) if you cannot see why it is not only important, but integral to the health and growth of the game and community then there really is no meeting of the minds to be had

[Brother Claudio]

You can have several factions with very different play styles and have them balanced (amazing I know!). You can have two armies show up and both of them have a chance at winning other than hoping the dice gods favor them to an extreme... even if one is considered the strongest army while the other the weakest.

I think this is the case with 40k to be honest.

- - - Updated - - -


the argument about the importance of balance has been done to death, if you cannot see why it is not only important, but integral to the health and growth of the game and community then there really is no meeting of the minds to be had

I'm trying to meet with you. But you won't meet with me. I too believe it important. I believe it is balanced enough and that with every edition I have played GW get closer to achieving that. In fact everyone I have played with in 7th has agreed the game is more streamlined. More competitivley fun. All you've offered in this forum topic is a negative attitude. I feel like I've offered my opinion and am happy to be proven wrong but all youVe done is just moan.

[Path Walker]

Balance hasn't been the least bit important to the health and growth of 40k in the last 25 years which has seen it grown into the biggest tabletop miniatures wargame in the world.

The only people who care about it enough to want change are a tiny minority of terrible customers.

[Renegade]

Play 30k, it is far more balanced and so should be more likeable for competitive types.

[Brother Claudio]

Balance hasn't been the least bit important to the health and growth of 40k in the last 25 years which has seen it grown into the biggest tabletop miniatures wargame in the world.

The only people who care about it enough to want change are a tiny minority of terrible customers.

Exactly!

[Path Walker]

Exactly!

If balance was actually that important to the growth of the game and its sales, the most balanced version of the game (3rd) wouldn't have been a disaster.

[40kGamer]

Balance hasn't been the least bit important to the health and growth of 40k in the last 25 years which has seen it grown into the biggest tabletop miniatures wargame in the world.

The only people who care about it enough to want change are a tiny minority of terrible customers.

Niche's create a weird environment. GW has yet to face a challenge from a single competitor so it is impractical to associate their growth with anything other than the fact that 'tabletop miniature games in general have grown over the last 25 years'. It's like saying my political candidate won the race by a landslide! Of course they were running unopposed so...

And some of us who are put off by their rules issues are actually their best customers. Just because we enjoy their universe and product doesn't mean we blindly eat whatever slop they sling.

[Path Walker]

GW has seen off many, many competitors, and it does so by appealing to children and getting them hooked young with a cool universe and easy to grasp rules. the competitors that you've written off have never managed what GW have in appealing to that demographic in a mainstream way.

Generalisations are what a business uses to make judgements, in general, people who care about balance and the rules tend to spend very little money, no one seems to beleieve they exist online, but GW has a lot of customers that never play and buy a lot of models. My local store has a customer that comes in every month and buys 2 of everything, one to assemble and paint, the other gets stored. He's worth more than most entire tournaments to GW. Unless you drop more than £200 a month, you're not classed amongst GWs best customers, sorry.

[40kGamer]

GW has seen off many, many competitors, and it does so by appealing to children and getting them hooked young with a cool universe and easy to grasp rules. the competitors that you've written off have never managed what GW have in appealing to that demographic in a mainstream way.

Generalisations are what a business uses to make judgements, in general, people who care about balance and the rules tend to spend very little money, no one seems to beleieve they exist online, but GW has a lot of customers that never play and buy a lot of models. My local store has a customer that comes in every month and buys 2 of everything, one to assemble and paint, the other gets stored. He's worth more than most entire tournaments to GW. Unless you drop more than £200 a month, you're not classed amongst GWs best customers, sorry.

I don't remember any significant competitors ever. No one I remember ever built up their level of capital or infrastructure. The biggest reason is that tabletop games represent too small of a demographic to attract real money.

I do agree that many big buyers don't play much as there isn't enough time to do everything. I haven't blown the dust off WFB since 1999 even though I've kept up with the game models. I punted on the rules though, as they change so often it isn't worthwhile to buy them when you know you're not going to play before they're updated. And £200 a month is too light as that isn't enough to keep pace with all releases, a person has to hit £300+ to make a real effort.

[Path Walker]

My point was, unless you're spending several grand a year with GW, you're not really up there is the biggest customers, and that will rule out most of the competitive crowd.

There have been many, many games that went at it on the tabletop, none last compared with GW, X Wing looks like giving them a run for their money, but its possible there will be a bubble burst at some point.

[40kGamer]

My point was, unless you're spending several grand a year with GW, you're not really up there is the biggest customers, and that will rule out most of the competitive crowd.

There have been many, many games that went at it on the tabletop, none last compared with GW, X Wing looks like giving them a run for their money, but its possible there will be a bubble burst at some point.

True, Most GW customers are smaller army/game specific and spend minimal amounts. There are definitely not too many fanatics that try to keep up with everything GW has going on... funny enough I've never really gotten any indication that they care much about what any customer demographic thinks.

FFG is poised to offer some now real competition given their new found access to capital and distribution. We'll see how Armada fares when it hits the mainstream. Given the broad appeal of Star Wars and the fact that Disney is putting 100's of millions if not billions into the film universe it's as close to a sure thing as I can imagine.

[daboarder]

If balance was actually that important to the growth of the game and its sales, the most balanced version of the game (3rd) wouldn't have been a disaster.

What do you smoke bro?

Theres a reason 5th was so widely played.and it wasnt because it was full of fun options (it wasnt)

[Eldar_Atog]

What do you smoke bro?


My theory is that he really supports competitive gaming and he's just trying to goad the competitive gamers to reach their true potential. Kinda like tough love :)

[Cap'nSmurfs]

the most balanced version of the game (3rd) wouldn't have been a disaster.

Uhhhh... 3rd ed had one of the longest lifespans of any edition and was the edition which, IIRC, took us through the period of the greatest expansion in the size of the company and the playerbase (1998-2004). That wasn't all down to that particular set of rules (cough Lord of the Rings cough), but it clearly wasn't a "disaster". It's also fundamentally the game we're still playing (2nd to 3rd was a much bigger jump than anything else).

[Path Walker]

What do you smoke bro?

Theres a reason 5th was so widely played.and it wasnt because it was full of fun options (it wasnt)

People complained that 5th was unbalanced just as much as they do now. Either balance isn't important or none of you idiots know what balance actually is.

[daboarder]

People complained that 5th was unbalanced just as much as they do now. Either balance isn't important or none of you idiots know what balance actually is.

not really, people complained that 5th was full of codexes with no options, boring mechanics and a game dominated far to much by armour. people did complain about balance sure, but what an intelligent person would realise that just because 5th was better balanced than 7th, doesn't mean it was perfectly balanced (or even very well balanced).

See its a relative thing, people played 5th but wanted MORE balance, instead they got significantly less....and its largely killing the game. But you'll praise GW till the day it dies, or they go full idiot and rip the setting apart al la fantasy.

- - - Updated - - -


My theory is that he really supports competitive gaming and he's just trying to goad the competitive gamers to reach their true potential. Kinda like tough love :)

my theory is he's just a troll, Im pretty sure that if we posted that GW was doing something right, he'd pick a fight over it just to fight.

[StingrayP226]

Ok 40K has dominated the gaming industry for a long time, but its starting a slow downward trend. Years ago the miniature gaming market was small... many competitors (what few there were) made complex, detailed games that were hard to grasp. 40k offered a fun fast alternative that was easier to grasp and play. During this time GW shot to the top as a gaming giant. They didn't have much competition in the department of easy to understand game, with a rich background, and good miniatures...

No one could really compare to GW or even pull away players. However in the last few years the gaming industry has changed... smaller competitors have been increasing in popularity and slowly rising. Corpus Belle, Privateer Press, Wyrd, Hawk Games, Spartan Games, and FFG's X-Wing have seen a boon in sales... meanwhile GW is reporting losses. Granted GW is by far still the top but these other companies are nibbling away at GW.

True 40K has a lot of lore but the story is stagnate. Their miniatures are very well made, but many competitors have caught up or are catching up. GW has pulled away from customers, other companies interact with their players and reach out to them. GW's rules are no longer the most stream lined "quick and fun", and are some of the worse balanced rules sets out there. Meanwhile competitors are pulling together very solid rules that are simple enough to be quick and fun, but actually are much more tactical than 40k. Beer and Pretzels is fine... but I've watched some Batreps that really make me wonder why bother building an army because OMG the battles looked boring as hell because of how dominate some combo was... it was honestly painful to watch a deathstar getting a whole army unload on it and it survive with maybe a scratch. Sorry but that didn't look fun.

40K like WoW has the advantage of being the big kid on the block that is able to attract lots of attention and has a solid fan base, but relying on that alone will not help GW. GW needs to open its ears and start listening to its customers, or more will be pulled away after having enough of their crap.

Honestly the only reason I decided to play some 40k is because I have the money and its rather popular around here so easier to get a pick up game in. Also nice miniatures are a bonus (but they are not my favorites... I HATE space marines with a passion... I just HATE their models...)

[Path Walker]

The WoW comparion is valid, both took an established idea and then polished it up to sold to the most people as possible and established an unassialable lead.

Both are now roundly percieved as hated by the fanbase that throws money at them.

Both have seen off competitors that many said would kill them because they were better games.

You know WoW is back to over 10 million subscribers? More than pretty much every other subscription MMO put together.

40k is like WoW, its stood the test of time and continues to be popular, but if you go on the forums, all you'll here are the minority of freaks complaining about balance. Neither listen to the whiners because they know that they represent a tiny minority of the customer base and the game wouldn't be any worse if those customers ****ed off like they keep threatening to.

[Mr Mystery]

The more customers you have, the more views and opinions there will be. This is unavoidable.

Best tack? Take a central position. Go for Jack of all Trades.

When you're trying to please millions of customers, it's the only way to proceed. Cater to the majority.

Whiners gonna whine, fanboi is gonna fan regardless - so ignore both. It's the core market you need for sustainability.

[daboarder]

Fair point, cant please everyone.

But the trick is to distinguish the signal from the noise, thats where market analysis is SUPPOSED to come in, but GW under Kirby didn't ascribe to that for some odd reason. The new CEO might (I say might because Kirby is still director) but we wont know for a little while.

Funnily enough I LIKE the way GW is taking the game, bringing back the micro codexes etc etc, I just wish they'd put more thought into the rules, maleceptor being a case in point.

[Charon]

Funnily enough I LIKE the way GW is taking the game, bringing back the micro codexes etc etc, I just wish they'd put more thought into the rules, maleceptor being a case in point.

At the moment I would be more than happy if they update their rules to 7th edition.
All DE Valedor formations still use non existent rules.

[daboarder]

At the moment I would be more than happy if they update their rules to 7th edition.
All DE Valedor formations still use non existent rules.

Yeah valedor was a BS **** up. The nid rules in that are really out of date too


Thats what happens when you release a product like a week before a new edition but are super obsessed with secrecy