PDA

View Full Version : State of the War



blackcherry
29-04-2016, 00:23
Interesting survey that was conducted this year asking Warhammer 40,000 fans what their habits are when playing the game.

http://www.totellstories.com/40k/

Points of interest (click the link for the stat breakdowns and percentages themselves)


The majority of players are casual players but that a large chunk describe themselves as competitive players too.
Few players have been playing for less than a year. The majority are vets.
These vets spend the most compared to new players with less than a years experience.
CSM players whine the most, followed by Tyranids (surprise, surprise) :p
Players think that GW should update FAQs and army rules regularly, preferably shipping it out to a third party.
Those players think they make amazing models, but that their rules aren't great. They would like this to be reversed.


So what do people think? Given it seems the sample seems skewed towards vets we can't read too much into this, but it's still a good litmus taste for how the community feels at the moment.

Vet.Sister
29-04-2016, 01:12
It was good to see Adepta Sororitas mentioned, the brutal truth stings a bit. :cries:

jbeil
29-04-2016, 08:19
So...what percentage was it that Kirby said were gamers? I realise pure hobbyists were unlikely to respond to this survey, but without a more scientific, 'official' piece of market research, we're likely never going to know what the precise figure is. Certainly it's not Kirby's mystical 20%!

Rogue Star
29-04-2016, 08:26
CSM players whine the most, followed by Tyranids (surprise, surprise) :p

This is an outrage! Where do I complain?! :p

totgeboren
29-04-2016, 09:05
"...and who is least powerful?"
SoB, CSM, Orks.

Well, I play CSM mainly and Orks as my secondary army.
Considering I have only seen an SoB army once in real life (during 3ed!), it's no wonder I often felt the struggle to be real. :p

I liked the "-Whiny player alert-", but it has to be said that if everyone had all relevant information and were entirely impartial to themselves, the weakest army would by definition also have the whiniest players (since then 100% of that player base would vote for their own army).

Really interesting poll, and sure, the people who bother to respond will skew the results a bit.
But over 1k participants gives you a rather solid base for saying something about the state of the game.

Chikout
29-04-2016, 10:00
Interesting poll, but how did they get their info. It would colour the data quite a bit. Presumably the painting only crowd would be the least likely to respond to a poll like this for example. Likewise new players would be less familiar with websites like this and therefore less likely to reply.

blackcherry
29-04-2016, 10:10
That's very true. It is likely to be skewed towards the vets and only those who know about the site/poll maker themselves - which they acknowledge. It's a niche of a niche. But then any poll is like that really. Truly representative doesn't exist unless you poll every wargamer :p

toonboy78
29-04-2016, 10:43
a pol of a 1000 is generally deemed useful for analysing.

there are always caveat of when, where who took the poll but you can't always have all the wargamers.

look at the pollsters in the UK election last year. they are the experts who get paid to poll and got it totally wrong!

some interesting facts and a good basis for looking at next years poll.

26% bought from GW (website and franchise)
35% binge purchases (i can definitely relate to that!) my opinion that his has reduced and will reduce with the weekly releases

even with all the complaints people are still spending lots of cash on GW. 40% of people spending on average over 30 a month on GW. a pretty steady income

Lord Damocles
29-04-2016, 10:48
Given the number and age(s) of the respondents, it's not surprising that relatively few have been playing for less than a year.


I like how more than everybody owns a Marine army :p

totgeboren
29-04-2016, 10:56
And if they had included CSM in the SM pot when calculating how many SM armies there are per player, the number would be even higher. :)
So there are more Marine armies out there than wargamers. Huh. People really like marines (I do at least. :p)

A.T.
29-04-2016, 12:37
I liked the "-Whiny player alert-", but it has to be said that if everyone had all relevant information and were entirely impartial to themselves, the weakest army would by definition also have the whiniest players (since then 100% of that player base would vote for their own army).It's a pity they didn't also post the results without the effects of players voting for their own faction(s).

Grubnar
29-04-2016, 13:18
And if they had included CSM in the SM pot when calculating how many SM armies there are per player, the number would be even higher. :)
So there are more Marine armies out there than wargamers. Huh. People really like marines (I do at least. :p)

Well ... when I start to think about it, I am a bit scared by just how much marine stuff I own.

1. For example, do the Dark Angels from the starter set count as an army? I have some more DA stuff ... enough to make at least 1.500 pts.
2. I have enough Ultramarines (and generic space marines from various eBay purchases) to make another 1.500 pts army.
3. I have a huge Space Wolves army, several thousand points there.
4. I have a Khorne Berserker army.
5. ... and enough various chaos space marines to make another, whole army.
6. I have about 100 beekee marines from the Rogue Trader era, and rhinoes and tanks, and land speeders, and (3 armourcast) titan support units.
7. And I am starting a Sons of Horus Heresy army.
8. And a Blood Angels army so they will have someone to fight!

... and Space Marines are not even my main army, or my favorite, that would be my Orkz!

totgeboren
29-04-2016, 13:27
It's a pity they didn't also post the results without the effects of players voting for their own faction(s).

Yeah, though I wonder how the poll questions were formulated?
If you can only select 'the worst' army, of course SoB should win. But they are (sadly for those players) not really relevant as a product line until they get a reboot. If you can rank the three worst then you would get a lot more interesting info. I mean, anyone who says CSM are in a worse place than SoB really haven't had a look at the SoB rules.
If you had that, then removed all who voted for their own army, you would have some really solid data.

duffybear1988
29-04-2016, 13:57
Interesting that they think 7th edition is best, whilst at the same time think allies are open to abuse and Eldar are currently supremely over powered. Not to mention that they also claim that the rules suck terribly and need emergency FAQs.

So from that it looks like maybe the coolness of the minis released in 6th and 7th edition is swaying opinion on the rules themselves. Personally 4th edition still holds the sweet spot for me in regards to rules, but there is no question that some of the more recent 40k releases like harlequins and ad mech are beautiful.

Also GW should take note that most people don't want super massive big games, so quit chucking larger and larger kits into games and start producing plastic sisters of battle! They also might need to take a long hard look at who's really spending the money. I'll give them a tip - it isn't the newbies.

A.T.
29-04-2016, 14:07
If you can only select 'the worst' army, of course SoB should win.As a SoB player i'd vote for the inquisition myself, though it is a stretch to call them an army these days.

toonboy78
29-04-2016, 16:55
7th is a great addition as it has added so many options

new formations in addition to the CAD
superheavies
maelstrom missions
warlord traits
great psychic phase
flyers
mysterious terrain

none of which you have to play but the option is there for you and your opponent

SuperHappyTime
29-04-2016, 19:32
I feel like there wasn't a survey done, it's just things we say all the time.

Comrade Penguin
29-04-2016, 21:37
7th is a great addition as it has added so many options

new formations in addition to the CAD
superheavies
maelstrom missions
warlord traits
great psychic phase
flyers
mysterious terrain

none of which you have to play but the option is there for you and your opponent

Man, I hate all of those things :cries: (except warlord traits, which are sometimes cool)

To each there own I suppose, I know you enjoy those toonboy78.

toonboy78
29-04-2016, 22:58
Man, I hate all of those things :cries: (except warlord traits, which are sometimes cool)

To each there own I suppose, I know you enjoy those toonboy78.

but this is what makes it so good. it is including more people

you don't have to play with any of these.

to be honest i don't play mysterious terrain/objectives and i have rarely if ever field a super heavy (faced a lot)

the 7th ed rules mainly still allow you to play 4th/5th (eternal war and CAD) all the things i mentioned can easily be classified as extra rules

deathrain-commander
29-04-2016, 23:19
Good stuff overall, but whoever thinks that Adepta Sororitas are weaker than Dark Eldar has not played against either. And I play both.

Daenerys Targaryen
30-04-2016, 01:55
Good stuff overall, but whoever thinks that Adepta Sororitas are weaker than Dark Eldar has not played against either. And I play both.
Sisters may have a gakky model line and be damn near impossible to get a hold of, but game-play wise, despite their limited options, they're solidly middle tier. Add in Blood Taxi Service allies, and they can climb up to upper-middle tier!

Vet.Sister
30-04-2016, 02:36
Anyone else find it ironic that 60% of respondents think someone OTHER than GamesWorkshop should handle the FAQs? And that most respondents want a better balanced meta game?

Voss
30-04-2016, 04:44
but this is what makes it so good. it is including more people

Disagree. Those things exclude more people, optional or not.

The Ivory Disaster
30-04-2016, 07:58
Disagree. Those things exclude more people, optional or not.

How do you figure?

A.T.
30-04-2016, 10:53
Anyone else find it ironic that 60% of respondents think someone OTHER than GamesWorkshop should handle the FAQs? And that most respondents want a better balanced meta game?The bit where 56% of respondents agree with the ITC FAQ may be somewhat indicative of the people answering the questions.
I think you'd have to be somewhat competitive/tournament minded (or have someone of that type in your group) to even know of the ITC rulings.



...despite their limited options, they're solidly middle tier.They are inefficient to fight. Too heavily armoured for anti-horde weapons but so individually feeble that elite units and high power weapons are wasted on them, they simply have no high value units to kill.

Drakkar du Chaos
30-04-2016, 13:00
Good stuff overall, but whoever thinks that Adepta Sororitas are weaker than Dark Eldar has not played against either. And I play both.

It's just your opinion.

Scribe of Khorne
30-04-2016, 17:32
The important take away here is that for this small sample of the educated (aka online) community, game play and balance matter.

Those 5 guys who just build and collect will never give GW as much money as the rest of us.

Spiney Norman
30-04-2016, 18:42
Sisters may have a gakky model line and be damn near impossible to get a hold of, but game-play wise, despite their limited options, they're solidly middle tier. Add in Blood Taxi Service allies, and they can climb up to upper-middle tier!

And add craftworld allies to dark eldar and they can be top tier, what of it? Arguing that an army can be powerful because you have bailed them out with an overpowered allied list says precisely nothing about that army. As someone who has played SoB for over a decade and DE for the last six years I can honestly say that neither army has been in a less competitive place since I started playing them.

Both SoB and DE have terribly limiting options, relatively few unit choices to begin with, of which a huge percentage are completely unplayable. Sisters barely have one viable choice in each slot (excepting elite whe they have no viable choices and fast attack where they potentially have two - dominions & seraphim).

Over all dark eldar probably have more tactical options, but don't do any of them as well as sisters only viable strategy (Immolator/rhino rush supported by exorcists).

Dosiere
03-05-2016, 03:51
Interesting stuff. I see in some ways there is a split between casual and tournament players, but they all agree on certain things as well. Apparently nobody wins when you have bad balance in the game. There are fewer non gamers as I would have thought, and more people play in stores of some sort than I am usually led to believe.

I do wonder at the high results concerning previous editions of the game. Obviously those who truly dislike 7th aren't playing or taking much part in polls like this, but I'm surprised at how many cited 5th or earlier versions as their favorite. I got in right at the tail end of 5th, and it kind of seemed like a mess.

A.T.
03-05-2016, 09:41
I got in right at the tail end of 5th, and it kind of seemed like a mess.At the start of 5th it was pretty decent in terms of any given army being able to play and win against any other, and as late as 2011 only the space wolves really stood out as a '+1' type of codex.

The game was trending towards parking lots though and some armies were pretty long in the tooth. Then came 5e Grey Knights and Crons who very dramatically upped the ante.


As it stands though if you were to play 5e rules with pre-5e books i'm not sure who i'd pick as favourite. The rules changes knocked some of the nastier 4e tricks over (invincible eldar skimmers) and a few of the other old offenders like 3.5 CSM and 3rd ed blood angels had been superseded. Transports were also too expensive at this point to build a parking lot as the big discounts started to come in with the first 5e books.
If I were to criticise the competitive state at this point it would just be to note that victory could often come down to a last turn land grab.

The_Real_Chris
04-05-2016, 17:51
2nd ed for the win :) (Well, with one of the variant CC rule sets that achieve the same result with far less rolling...)

TheBearminator
07-05-2016, 02:08
They didn't ask for the players' BMI, other hobbies, political standpoints or if they knew that wargaming funds terrorism?

Mandragola
07-05-2016, 14:55
This is interesting. In particular, I think the contradiction between what Kirby said about only 20% of customers actually playing the game is really significant.

It's fair to complain that the survey may not be all that representative - but it's very difficult to carry out a representative survey.

The thing that strikes me about this is that GW has made no attempt whatsoever to do anything similar, at least in recent years. Hopefully this is changing, and stuff like their new FB page and draft FAQ are definitely steps in the right direction.