Baragash wrote:I wish people wouldn't confuse accountants with management

Shudup money man! It's all your fault!

There are no bad games just bad gamers!

I know as I've got older I've got less time to organize a narrative for a game or a campaign. 40k is and was always better with that bit more effort put in (and I'm sure it's true for other systems). All that happens now is you rock up a with a list only knowing a points limit and set about playing with little other information. This is good for learning rules but it doesn't keep people interested in playing (especially if you are playing the same few people over and over).

Clubs should be where things like tournaments, campaigns, scenarios and cross system skirmishes (Necromunda, Space hulk, Inquisitor and Apoc and other expansions) should take place on more than just the rare occasion. I know they take a lot of effort and commitment from all involved that locally we just can't seem to achieve (I'm just as guilty). I think though that it's made much much harder by the amount of systems that get played now. Meaning that if a club that caters to a lot of games tries to organise a large or long running event you are always going to be leaving someone out.

For me it's almost the choice of games now that is spoiling the community and making them lazy. People get board and move on rather than getting creative.

Herne wrote:

Baragash wrote:I wish people wouldn't confuse accountants with management

Shudup money man! It's all your fault!

It's true Bara!

Make peace with your life. All management are washed up big-4 accountants anyway!

Ljundhammer wrote:

Herne wrote:

Baragash wrote:I wish people wouldn't confuse accountants with management

Shudup money man! It's all your fault!

It's true Bara!

Make peace with your life. All management are washed up big-4 accountants anyway!

That's my point, most management in retail aren't accountants of any description!

Darklighter has a point... but its really the same as what others are saying. Without having to go through all that effort, while being lazy gamers, we can now get our fix quicker and easier with these other games that don't need a lot of pre organising.

Also what is being said here is that a lot of money has been spent on 40k and that we can get our fix from 40k with a little effort without having to go buying into other systems with a little effort lol

So I see the industry like this: The state of 40k is, all the lazy twats with small 40k collections have fooked off, and the guys with the biggest collections are hanging on in there, trying to make the best of the mess the game has become to get the most from their money.

Tbh, the reason I have stayed with the system is becuas eof my large collection. People have said, "sell some of it then" when this topic has come up, but I don't like to because it will cost me twice as much to buy back when 40k is the best game again, maybes.... So I stick at it and hope for streamlining to occur.

What I am going to do now though it have a quick questionnaire for my opponents to fill in while arranging a game. Infact someone with some time could make that. Have a list of all the things that could be allowed in a list and then spaces for ticks. should help me get more enjoyable games in without trying to cater for everything as Ive done in the past.

KInG wrote:What I am going to do now though it have a quick questionnaire for my opponents to fill in while arranging a game.

Nerd!

Baragash wrote:That's my point, most management in retail aren't accountants of any description!

From here: http://investor.games-workshop.com/the- ... directors/

4 out of 5 ain't bad...


Executive directors

Tom Kirby (age 63), chairman and acting CEO. Tom Kirby joined Games Workshop in April 1986 as general manager and led the management buy-out in December 1991, becoming chief executive at that time. Between 1998 and 2000 he took on the role of non-executive chairman, returning to the role of chief executive in September 2000. He performed the role of chairman from December 2007 to January 2013 when he became chairman and acting CEO. Prior to joining Games Workshop, Tom worked for six years for a distributor of fantasy games in the UK and was previously an Inspector of Taxes.

Kevin Rountree (age 43), COO. Kevin Rountree joined Games Workshop in March 1998 as assistant group accountant. He then had various management roles within Games Workshop, including head of sales for the Other Activities division (including Black Library, licensing and Sabertooth Games). During the year ended 29 May 2011, he took on the responsibility of managing the Group’s service centres globally. To reflect this, his title was changed to chief operating officer from chief financial officer. He, however, still retains responsibility for all financial matters within Games Workshop. He qualified as a chartered management accountant in August 2001. Prior to joining Games Workshop, Kevin was the management accountant at J Barbour & Sons Limited and trained at Price Waterhouse.

Independent directors

Chris Myatt (age 69). Chris Myatt is the senior independent director, joining the board on 18 April 1996. He is a director of the Douglas Macmillan Hospice and was formerly a divisional managing director within Tarmac PLC.

Nick Donaldson (age 59). Nick Donaldson was appointed to the board on 18April 2002. A barrister by profession, Nick is a partner of London Bridge Capital Limited. Nick was, until 2003, head of corporate finance at Arbuthnot Securities Limited and previously held senior investment banking positions at Robert W Baird Limited and at Credit Lyonnais Securities. He is chairman of DP Poland PLC and a director of The Fulham Shore plc.

Elaine O’Donnell (age 43). Elaine O’Donnell was appointed to the board on 28 November 2013. A chartered accountant by profession, until recently Elaine was a corporate finance partner with EY.

Question 1: If I give you a questionnaire to answer will you arrange a game against someone else instead. A: Yes!

lol

I think if you just have a single codex choice only as the starting point, then that's fine. If you wanna add in anything else then prior Knowledge/permission needs to be sorted. So that should allow guys to make a list and pop along for a pick up game down the club.

So does that allow LH to finally get a game now with someone without being perplexed over all the other options and scale of the game.... sure. James, clean off them guardsmen.. let's get down and dirty with that new codex

Ok, I know I don't tend to get involved in these debates - mainly because I play 40K so little now as I got very disillusioned with 6th ed, and pretty much for the same reasons as Ljundhammer.

But one question that popped into my head whilst reading this: How can we know if those supplements are going to improve the game without buying them? We can read all we want in WD or on various fora (forums?), but without physically having the data-sheets / supplements etc in hand, it's near impossible to tell what is going to benefit your army, or how it is going to improve (or not) the game.

I know we could all crowd around one copy and point bits out to each other - but it often takes me a good few reads to see the benefits of certain rules within a codex - trying to marry up the codex to a supplement is like trying to get me to skip, read the financial times and chew gum! And to buy every supplement that comes out is an expense I don't want. Not because I don't want to enjoy the game, but because they are being churned out at such a rate it is just too prohibitive - I have other expenses that have to come first!

I've spent a lot of money on other games these last two years - mainly Dreadball, Deadzone and Flames of War - that I would usually have spent on GW products. I sold my Fantasy army and two 40K armies and pumped those funds into buying "complete" games. As it stands, there is nothing "new" I need to buy to make my teams / factions / armies more competitive or to add variety (I know my panzer IVs could use some AA support!). I know there will be supplements and updates, but I also know these are coming out at a rate my wallet can keep up with.

Just my two cents - feel free to slap me down as you see fit!

Oh, and it is not the accountants fault - Baragash has firmly put me in my place on this one

yes but berger, if you don't want to have that expense, you don't have to is the point others were making, you just limit your choices to what you have and can afford really.

again, you have sold up to buy into others. lets hope 40k doesn't become the top game again soon

I also think that getting into a game where you have everything already isn't my kind of game.. I see half of this thing as a hobby also. so I can now add to the lazy twat list, people who just want a game ready made from a box with limited range.

The collector and hobby type guys want the best models and to make up a collection.

Basically two different beats were identifying here.

GW is one of the oldest wargaming companies out there............. if they did not introduce new thing in all this time would we still be playing? if they did not tweak the rules would we still be playing, if they did not keep releasing really very nice miniatures would we still be playing?. change is good and keeps thing new and interesting though i know this might depend on your local players and such but like i said GW are keeping it fresh and giving me new challenges............ not to mention they got to make money and the best way to do that is to make stuff that people want to get and use.

@ King - Absolutely - but my point is without knowing what the supplements, etc contain - it's hard to make a decision as to whether they warrant the funds - and even if they do for you, you still need to find others to use them with - which seems to be getting harder to do! I only use the DA codex and - when playing certain opponents - a mortis contemptor from FW. But I play so little these days. I have another few bits still on sprues (landspeeder - no. 4, drop-pod and some characters) that I have considered selling, as I honestly don't think I will use them. By 7th or 8th I'll probably say I need x, y or z again!

As to having everything - I have everything to play, plus a few bits more, but not everything on offer. And there is more to come in the future - but it is in the distant-ish future I seem to prefer building to painting at the moment - and I'm going back into more RPG/TT crossovers than single games. I like to have a bit of character development and a story path to follow nowadays. 40K has great roleplaying, and a strong TT, but, in the things I have seen, little in the way of a crossover. (Hence my question about showdown earlier in the week)

@ BDA - I think the issue is more the rate of change and introduction of new things. There are new rules in 6th I love (Gunslinger!), if only for the fluff or the ability to make silly squads. there are some stunning new models - none of which fit my army . But it seems there are almost monthly changes now, due to all the new models, data-slates, supplements etc being released.
If they sell more stuff and make more money, that's great for them, but if they have to keep hiking prices, relocating stores and single manning them, just to keep the profit level the same each year, then I think they need to look a little further into why they are losing sales. They are the gateway into the hobby for many children, and it's these gamers that are most likely to suffer with the direction things are going. I want a strong GW, I love a lot of BL books, I love the background they have built - I just wish they would stop trying to force too many changes on use too quickly.

KInG wrote:yes but berger, if you don't want to have that expense, you don't have to is the point others were making, you just limit your choices to what you have and can afford really.

again, you have sold up to buy into others. lets hope 40k doesn't become the top game again soon

In what I understand of the current "meta", not spending leads to bad armies. Eldar, Tau and IG armies from their respective new codicies appear to be fundamentally different from what was good in the old codex. The only way to ensure that your army is is any good is to buy new units to fill the gaps. You should know this King, you had a thread on it!

The money required may, or may not be vast, but it's certainly a ball-ache! Like you I have a pretty vast IG army (not quite the size of yours, but I'm sure you hear that a lot in different references). Primarily I have a mech/ semi-mech infantry capability. That worked in 5th, and all of a sudden that army isn't very good in 6th, and all the points costs have gone up - so now it's even worse. The effect is that I either buy more stuff, or I don't play them any more.

Were I to have restricted myself to a single army then that would be very annoying (if I were still playing the game). Only having one army in a time where the rules are changed on a whim with little apparent playtesting is setting yourself up to "DA'd" or "Chaosed" with a lousy codex which will hopefully be patched with expensive dataslates - thanks GW, you know how to look after me!

KInG wrote:I also think that getting into a game where you have everything already isn't my kind of game.. I see half of this thing as a hobby also. so I can now add to the lazy twat list, people who just want a game ready made from a box with limited range.

The collector and hobby type guys want the best models and to make up a collection.

Basically two different beats were identifying here.

I think that there is a case to be made for a "40k lite" where the rules are streamlined, allies (including the table) & dataslates are restricted (perhaps there is a list of the dataslates that can and can't be used), and "broken" combos are fixed.

Unfortunately this is very hard to push through, as it will invalidate certain peoples builds (potentially fairly, potentially unfairly), and it's a pretty subjective thing to do. Not everyone will agree with "your" interpretation of what's good/bad/abusive. Which may simply fragment the playerbase you have more than it already is - in addition, those wishing to practice for tournaments will all be playing with slightly different rule-sets. Effectively what I'm saying is that this would need to come from GW to be accepted by players at large.


In terms of "lazy twat" gamers - what's wrong with that? X-wing, Star-trek, dreadball & blood bowl are all excellent games, with a great deal of variety, and tactical gameplay - all achieved with a limited pool of models. A game doesn't need a billion and one options to be tactical, in fact, I'd argue that it's a better game that can do that rather than have 10 or so functionally identical units in one codex to attempt to 'force' the matter.

KInG wrote:The collector and hobby type guys want the best models and to make up a collection.

They won't be buying much GW either then

EDIT1: the idea that GW "tweak" the game is both hilarious and patently untrue. If that was what they did it would probably be in a stronger position than it is and Fantasy wouldn't be on life support.

EDIT2: @Ljundhammer - I was generalising about retail, not talking about GW specific and didn't realise you were. That being said, the only actual accountant there also looks like a yes man employed above his weight*. I've dealt with a lot of corporate finance people, and those that don't have industry experience tend to only focus on investor parameters and don't really understand how the arena of retail actually travels through to those numbers....oh wait, sounds somewhat like GW's overall strategy

*I've never met the guy, maybe he's just a high achiever, his work history supports my position IMO.