Messages

1

Stronghold News / 15 Days

« on: Aug 24, 2006, 01:43:54 PM »

I got Louise the Phantom of the Opera special ed. DVD for her birthday and with all this singing around the house, I think I deserve some gobbos

Sounds like an army theme, if you ask me...

2

Off Topic / The 40 Year-old Virgin

« on: Aug 23, 2006, 03:29:47 PM »

I once got the same reaction when I was watching "Ronin" with someone. Around the part where Reno brings the wounded DeNiro to a house owned by a heavyset bearded Frenchman who passes the time painting 15mm/25mm Samurai figs for a diorama.

In my defense, I am not French, nor do I have a beard, nor am I heavyset.

3

Off Topic / Review of GW's fiscal 2006 results & What Is To Be Done?

« on: Aug 23, 2006, 03:24:02 PM »

WHAT IS TO BE DONE

With regards to this question, the way I'd look at GW as a whole is actually something like a subscriber-based business (a la cable). That is, you have a pool of customers which subscribe to a service (miniatures) that allows them access to content (games and tournaments). The service provider, in turn, must spend some money acquiring new customers (in-store advertising, WD), while furnishing existing subscribers with sufficient content (new rules and tournaments) to keep them subscribed. It's not a one-to-one correlation to, say, cable, but I'm sure that's how GW management pictures the business model (especially as they hint at this in their Management Preambles).

From this perspective, we can identify several key issues and propose potential solutions, namely:

1. Their subscriber acquisition costs are disproportionately high, and a large portion of them seems to be fixed, as illustrated by the rapidly falling operating margins as well as by the ineffectiveness of their labor cost reduction program. The one potential source of such fixed costs (and a good deal of their labor costs) in their operation are the retail stores themselves. Clearly at least the U.S. retail stores have not been successful in turning a profit even during the good years (4.9% operating margin in fiscal 2003, -2.5% operating margin in fiscal 2004).

A radical approach would be to begin to move out of the "retail stores as means of subscriber acquisition" model. None of the other major competitors in the sector rely on this strategy, and GW's does not seem to have worked. I would take the U.S. region as a test-bed, and either scale down retail presence to the few big markets (e.g. New York), or else revert entirely to a mail-order based model (but keeping the manufacturing operations here to save on shipping costs). [You probably want _some_ presence on the ground, e.g. Battle Bunker type settings in major markets, but we're talking about a handful of locations relative to what it is now.]

This will drastically reduce the subscriber acquisition costs (both fixed store/distribution costs and labor costs) in the U.S. region; at the same time, existing subscribers won't necessarily have dramatic attrition rates as a result of the GW stores' disappearance (some, but not that much), and new customers can be enticed through an increased push via the Internet, White Dwarf and independent retailers. [The latter would also necessitate ending GW's U.S. policy vs. independent retailers...but the economics can probably work.] By increased push I mean not just more spruced-up advertising, but broader-based advertising; the White Dwarf, or something like it, for instance, should be distributed more broadly and geared towards attracting new entrants to the hobby (just like the early-1990s GW pamphlets were). Thus, you need not lose the younger portion of your subscriber base (though it would probably be reduced somewhat, certainly excluding those who drop in, drop $200, and after a while you never see them again - those aren't the subscribers you want, in any case, you want stable, recurring revenues).

At worst, you slash costs while retaining 50%-70% of your existing U.S. subscriber revenues (rough estimate, of course), which is pretty good for a market where you haven't done well even during the good years. At best, you transition to a new, better business model (both from a distribution and from a marketing standpoint) that better correlates your subscriber acquisition costs to your subscriber revenues. If the U.S. experiment works, one could extend it to other regions, cautiously but firmly.

2. On the revenue side, there are two things that need to be dealt with. First, business sustainability and subscriber retention, which is directly related to content quality relative to whatever else is available in the market. Not only are you compeating against video games, you now have Privateer, Battlefront, and who knows what else on the horizon. You need to make your content more appealing than your competition, and that means not only revamping the rules design process and raising the quality of the rules, but also adjusting release schedule to better spread your seasonal revenues (i.e. not too much or too little concentration of releases), providing adequate real-time (e.g. online) and periodic product support (e.g. FAQs), and running a vigorous tournament circuit (or possibly two - one for "elite" players, and one to get the kiddies in the door) across multiple regions.

Will that require investment? Of course it will. You need to hire talented staff, map out a schedule to revise the mistakes currently embedded in the rules, put together a group specifically dedicated to content support, invest a million or two Pound Sterling per year in running multiple tournament circuits. However, without such investment, sooner or later you will fall behind vis-a-vis those of your competitors who do make this level of financial and operational commitment.

Secondly, the issue of prices needs to be addressed. At some point in other subscriber-driven industries, the question was raised of why should one pay $X for content provider 1 when content provider 2 could deliver the same or similar enough service for 0.75*$X. The strategy of raising rates to cover unsustainable subscriber acquisition costs eventually translates into a death spiral; either the customers leave the sector altogether, or they switch to a competitor, and the revenue loss precipitates further price increases, etc. etc. etc. So - GW must re-evaluate its pricing strategy, and price more competitively vis-a-vis other products. The key should be subscriber volume, both in terms of raw numbers and in terms of the amount and frequency of miniature purchases. Initiatives like distributing free content (free Codices, for instance, since you don't make the bulk of your operating profit on them anyhow) should be evaluated, perhaps attempted in test markets.

3. The question of equity investors must be addressed. It is never healthy for a business to maintain an unsustainable dividend policy in the face of adverse revenue and profit trends, especially if said dividends are financed with debt. However loud the resulting shareholder howls may be, dividends and share buybacks must, at least, be reduced, if not wholly eliminated - perhaps limiting them to at most the positive free cash flow generated in a given year. I've said this about many other businesses, and I will not change my viewpoint with respect to GW.

4. GW would also do well to begin a broader diversification of its business - things like Warhammer Online and the new Dawn of War/Mark of Chaos type games; turning Black Library into a more mainstream (and more profitable) operations; etc. In other words, figure out some way to have profitable "side businesses" that supplement the cash flows from the main one.

Now, ordinarily you will hear me say - a company should focus on its core business and avoid needless excursions into risky side ventures (my personal favourite example of this is a Dallas-based electric power cooperative that decided to borrow close to $1 billion and go into the telecom, real estate development and home security business lines a few years back - with predictable results). However, one has to admit that GW has, over the years, established a franchise with quite a bit of potential. If some cautious - and well-executed - diversification into, say, the video-game business (licensing), the publishing business, etc., beyond current efforts (which are fairly subdued) can be carried out, not only will a separate source of revenues and profits be established, but those exposed to the books/games/etc. may, in turn, take an interest in the main line of business itself (i.e. free advertising).

So. All of the foregoing suggestions and initiatives are straightforward - in any ailing business, you have to fix the costs, stabilize the revenue base, repair your balance sheet and figure out if there are any incremental sales to be gained. Of course, I do not expect GW to willingly undertake even a portion of these, certainly not in the near future.

4

Off Topic / Review of GW's fiscal 2006 results & What Is To Be Done?

« on: Aug 22, 2006, 09:22:40 PM »

Note: all figures are cited in Pound Sterling (over the past 12 months, $1 has averaged 1.79 Pound Sterling) unless otherwise noted. All of the research and opinions expressed herein are mine own, and is based on public information believed to be reliable. I will be happy to answer any questions with respect to the following. I have also taken the initiative to stickie this thread for future reference.  

RESULTS SUMMARY

On July 25, 2006, Games Workshop Group plc ("GW" or the "Company") published its financial and operating results for fiscal 2006 (year ended May 28, 2006). The Company's operating revenues continued to decrease during the fiscal year, falling by 15.7% to 115.2 million compared with 136.6 million reported during fiscal 2005. Although the rate of revenue decline was noticeably higher than during fiscal 2005, when it had stood at 10.0%, we note that the first and second halves of fiscal 2006 accounted for 49.6% and 50.4% of total sales, respectively, suggesting less of a Christmas sales shock than that experienced during fiscal 2005, when the first and second half revenues had amounted to 52.0% and 48.0% of total sales, respectively; whereas fiscal 2003-2004 first and second half sales percentages were reported as 45.0%-47.4% and 55.0%-52.6%, respectively. As such, while the 14.2 million year-over-year decline in sales experienced in the second half of fiscal 2005 (Christmas 2005) as well as a portion of the 13.9 million year-over-year sales drop in the first half of fiscal 2006 (summer of 2005) could be traced to an expected decrease in revenues for the LOTR product associated with the conclusion of the LOTR film trilogy, the remainder, and any revenue declines going forward, are likely indicative of broader sales and distribution issues. Of particular note, these sales declines have come in a period of rising product prices; adjusting for unit price increases, the Company's fiscal 2006 revenues are likely to be significantly below reported fiscal 2002 levels (108.6 million), which had been buoyed by the maturation of 3rd Edition 40k and 6th Edition WFB product lines. Separately, we note that the release of 4th Edition 40k had merely slowed, and not reversed, fiscal 2005 and 2006 revenue declines.

On a regional basis, over fiscal 2006 GW's UK revenues fell by 18.1% to 30.0 million, versus a 13.0% decline to 36.7 million during fiscal 2005; Continental Europe sales decreased by 19.9% to 49.5 million, compared with a 7.4% drop to 61.7 million during fiscal 2005; North American revenues declined by 6.3% to 27.8 million, compared with an 11.0% decrease to 29.6 million during fiscal 2005; and Asia-Pacific sales fell by 8.3% to 7.9 million, versus an 11.1% drop to 8.6 million during fiscal 2005. The reported declines in the UK and Continental Europe regions are especially meaningful as these have historically provided virtually all of GW's operating income before corporate eliminations as well as the primary source of revenue growth, and carried by far the highest operating margins. Thus, whereas during fiscal 2005, the Company reported regional operating income of 6.9 million (18.8% margin) in the UK, 15.3 milllion (24.8% margin) in Continental Europe, 0.3 million (1.1% margin) in North America and 1.1 million (12.2% margin) in Asia-Pacific, the respective fiscal 2006 figures are 3.8 million (12.7% margin) for the UK, 8.2 million (16.5% margin) in Continental Europe, negative 0.5 million in North America, and 0.7 million (8.7% margin) in Asia-Pacific. The drop in UK and Continental Europe operating income is even more drastic when compared with GW's fiscal 2004 operating profit figures for these two regions of 11.4 million (27.0% margin) and 19.9 million (29.9% margin), respectively. This rate of decline in operating margins when compared against the Company's falling revenues suggests a high proportion of fixed costs in the business, primarily associated with owned and leased retail locations. Significantly, labor costs, the largest single component of operating expenses, have meaningfully increased as a percentage of revenues during fiscal 2006, rising to 46.7% (52.3 million) during the year from 44.4% (54.5 million) in fiscal 2005 despite an 11.6% (367 person) reduction in headcount over the respective periods. Whether this is a one-time phenomenon or serves a symptom of inability to further decrease labor costs except through meaningful store closures, a step management has resisted to this point, remains to be seen.  

Group-wide operating income, including corporate and design expenses, amounted to 3.2 million during fiscal 2006, down from 13.9 million in fiscal 2005 and 19.7 million in fiscal 2004 (22.8 million excluding the tail end of Warhammer Online development costs). These figures translated into operating cash flows of 15.8 million in fiscal 2006, 21.2 million in fiscal 2005 and 23.5 milllion in fiscal 2004. Significantly, we believe that GW's net working capital remained somewhat to significantly negative through fiscal 2005 and 2006, suggesting sizeable undisclosed non-cash expenses during those years to account for a substantively slower decline in operating cash flow than in operating income. Furthermore, free cash flow before equity dividends actually grew to 2.1 million during fiscal 2006 from 2.0 million in fiscal 2005 and 1.2 million in fiscal 2004, primarily as a result of meaningful declines in tax expense as well as significant capital expenditures on U.S. production facilities during fiscal 2004-2005. Subtracting shareholder dividends, the free cash flow figures for fiscal 2004, 2005 and 2006 amounted to negative 4.0 million, negative 3.8 million and nevative 3.8 million, respectively. At the same time, the Company's outstanding debt rose from 0.4 million at May 28, 2004 to 8.7 million at May 28, 2006, while cash declined from 8.7 million at year-end fiscal 2005 to 4.8 million at year-end fiscal 2006.

TAKE-AWAY POINTS

- Going forward, we expect continued revenue decline due to: sustained drop in LOTR product line sales; growing competition within the sector, potentially exacerbated should GW continue to raise unit prices; a likely overall reduction in available disposable income during the next macro-economic downturn, which, while more visible in the broader Consumer Retail and Leisure & Entertainment sectors, should at least partly affect the Company's niche market; and continued stagnation of North American revenues due to a weakening dollar. Of particular concern will be the rate of revenue decline in the UK and Continental Europe segments, which had apparently been harder hit by LOTR sales declines and competitive pressures than other regions. Notably, GW's overall rate of revenue decline may be slowed or temporarily reversed by the upcoming release of the 7th Edition Warhammer product, though we note that the fiscal 2005-2006 ex-LOTR revenue drops occurred during an aggressive release of the 4th Edition 40k product as well as of the Ogre Kingdoms miniature line, suggesting that absent large-scale new releases the Company's overall sales would have been considerably lower. In general, we would suggest, as revenue base case, a stabilization of total sales in the 80-100 million band over the next several fiscal years, with fiscal 2007 sales figures likely to fall within the 100-110 million band.

- Notably, a majority of GW's revenue decline occurred on the independent retailer level. Independent store revenues were down to 48.4 million during fiscal 2006 from 61.5 million in fiscal 2005 and 71.3 million in fiscal 2004, an overall rate of decline of 32.2%, while branded store sales decreased to 55.3 million in fiscal 2006 from 62.9 million in fiscal 2005 and 69.8 million in fiscal 2004 for an overall rate of decline of 20.8%. We believe this indicates a combination of loss of independent retail outlets, retailer unwillingness to stock certain or all of GW product lines, and successful competitor encroachment on the Company's market share. Given the likely U.S. and European macro-economic trends as well as rapidly growing competition within the sector, we believe that the erosion of independent retailer revenues will continue into the forseeable future.

- Given GW's falling operating revenues and the associated decline in operating margins as well as the demonstrable ineffectiveness to date of its labor cost reduction program, we believe that management will be forced to make the choice between sustaining positive or neutral operating income and foregoing store closures at some point within the next few years. As the Company has thus far seemed to focus on expanding rather than contracting its operations (though without disclosing the exact number of retail stores in operation in its most recent financials), we expect fiscal 2007 operating income and margins to experience further deterioration, either prompting a financial crisis or else a reduction in GW's retail footprint in some or all of its geographic regions.

- Although the Company's operating cash flow and free cash flow before shareholder dividends have held up surprisingly well over fiscal 2004-2006, we note that, at best, the likely revenue and operating income trends will at best allow for roughly breakeven cash flow before dividends. Thus, even in the best case scenario, management's insistence on sustaining equity dividends (at 5.2 million in fiscal 2004, 5.8 million in fiscal 2005 and 5.9 million in fiscal 2006) will likely necessitate a business contraction coupled with further unit price increases or else precipitate a liquidity crisis over the next 2-3 fiscal years. Notably, total availability under GW's bank and credit lines presently amounts to 11.4 million, with a further 4.8 million in cash & equivalents, compared with a cash balance of 8.6 million and credit line availability of 15.0 million a year ago. In all this, we stress that the Company's cash flow and income statements seem to contain a number of adjustments not made readily visible in its financial reports, and as such the exact rate of liquidity deterioration cannot be accurately estimated at this juncture.

- A further cash flow drain may be provided by a share buy-back program announced on July 26, whereby up to 14.9% (4.6 million) shares could be repurchased through December 12, 2007, subject to cash availability. We believe this is a program designed directly to placate shareholders, as GW's stock price has fallen by roughly 25%-30% over the past 12 months after falling by over 50% during fiscal 2005. At best, repurchases under this program would serve to substantively eliminate any positive pre-dividend free cash flow generated during fiscal 2007, assuming this cash flow proves positive to begin with.

- In summary, GW's near- and intermediate-term financial profile and likely management responses can be summed up as follows: continuing deterioration of the revenue base, partly offset with one-time large-scale product releases as well as further unit price increases; a deliberate policy of branded retail floorspace expansion in the face of at-best breakeven pre-dividend free cash flows; continued efforts to placate equity investors with debt-financed dividend payouts and share buy-backs, although at some point in the future the dividends will have to end. Given this, we recommend against investing in GW equity at this juncture unless the possibility of a private equity buyout is considered.

- Separately, while design expenditures excluding new product development (presumably electronic gaming products) have risen to 4.039 million in fiscal 2006 from 3.983 million in fiscal 2005 and 3.549 million in fiscal 2004, we note that design employee headcount has declined from 99 in fiscal 2005 to 92 in fiscal 2006. Moreover, future operating margin difficulties coupled with a lull in development of next-edition rulesets may precipitate a reduction in R&D expenditures and Studio headcount over fiscal 2007 and beyond.  

- For those interested, GW's Chairman and CEO, Tom Kirby, had been with the Company since 1986 and had led the management buyout in 1991. Mr. Kirby presently holds roughly 6% of GW's shares, and his salary and benefits/pensions over fiscal 2006 amounted to 350 thousand and 40 thousand, respectively. The Company's Chief Financial Officer, Michael Sherwin, had joined GW in 1999 and during fiscal 2006 drew a salary of 240 thousand with benefits and pensions of 31 thousand. Neither executive's salary nor benefits/pensions have changed over fiscal 2005-2006.

- Interested parties can find further information on GW's Investor Relations website, and specifically in the fiscal 2006 year-end document located at:

http://investor.games-workshop.com/investor_relations/financial_results/Results2006/full_year/documents/GW2006FullYearAccounts.pdf

The Chairman's Preamble within that document (as well as the fiscal 2002-2005 preambles re-posted at the end of the fiscal 2006 financials), at least, is worth reading in full.

5

Rules Questions and FAQs / Bull Rhinox Riders Balanced or Unbalanced ?

« on: Aug 16, 2006, 09:36:13 PM »

In my experience, they're hard to take down with rank and file (if used correctly) or even under-equipped characters, and present interesting tactical opportunities. Conversely, I've successfully led them around with Swarms/equivalents, and they're very vulnerable to shooting.

Generally speaking, I would say the points are ok-ish, and they are fine in the context of the overall army (which takes them in lieu of typical Rare slot combinations, e.g. 2 Gorgers). Would have been worse if they had been Specials instead.

The real issue is what this means for the Scraplauncha. If the Rhinoxen are priced more or less appropriately, stepping down in Ld and killing power - and survivability - and static CR (Rhinoxen get solo rank-breaking standards...) in return for a mortar does not necessarily mean the price should be kept roughly the same. Either one should go up, or the other should go down.

Meh. The most interesting thing about them at this point, I think, is that GW had decided to leave them out and so missed a colossal sales opportunity...

6

The Feeding Grounds / Ogre Kingdoms in 7th edition discussion

« on: Aug 16, 2006, 09:30:59 PM »

Interesting. I have not spoken to anyone about it, but I had assumed they were actually going to put some work into the thing. At the very least, chuck in multiple Knightly Orders (a la that WD article).

Agree that a single box for all soldier types is the way for them to go. With other races as well (specialization == some item codes under-sell, some over-sell...).

How exactly is a drop in points supposed to fix the army that, potentially, got hammered by 7ed the most...well, on the other hand, we'll know for certain that the Studio no longer cares. [The new 40k FAQs seem to suggest as much.]

End off-topic rant.

7

Rules Questions and FAQs / Kineater Bigname

« on: Aug 14, 2006, 02:09:48 PM »

He's asking - I think - whether Kineater will be useful under 7ed Panic rules.

I was under the impression that the 7ed GW staff email implied that "fleeing friends within..." will be replaced by "fleeing friends going through" as the Panic check source.

If that happens, Kineater becomes useful against...hmmm. Being shot at repeatedly?

On the other hand, if that doesn't happen, I would vote for offsetting "fleeing friends" liabilities with not using too many Ogre screens (use Gnobs, or don't use them at all).

8

The Feeding Grounds / Ogre Kingdoms in 7th edition discussion

« on: Aug 14, 2006, 02:02:40 PM »

I suspect they'll get something "special" in the upcoming Empire 'dex. Whenever that gets here.

Alternatively, GW will simply re-make Empire infantry as one box with inter-changeable weapons. Which is probably the best business decision for them.

No Panic from fleeing friends within 4" changes things quite a bit. Throw-away Bull and Belcher screens are back. [Just remember to angle them not to flee through your own units.]

9

The Feeding Grounds / Are SBs and Champions worth it?

« on: Aug 14, 2006, 01:52:48 PM »

Standards are a source of extra combat resolution, something the Ogres seriously lack. I would not put them on units intended as throw-aways, otherwise they are fairly useful throughout the army.

Champions are useful if you are trying to protect against character killers, or else want to free your character to face rank and file while a champion handles the challenges. Also handy for splitting attacks, on occasion. However, overall, at 20 points they are too expensive to feature regularly (unless mandated by fluff/conversions/whatever).

10

The Feeding Grounds / Daemon-Killer scars - worth it?

« on: Jun 28, 2006, 12:49:24 PM »

Yes, but if you're already using another Big Name...

11

The Feeding Grounds / Daemon-Killer scars - worth it?

« on: Jun 28, 2006, 11:16:31 AM »

Did they not change Terror to "Eternal Terror" in 7ed? Or was that a playtest rule that never made it into the final book?

In any case, if Eternal Terror made it in, then DK Scars become significantly more useful. Otherwise, I only would see them as insurance against enemy Terror-causers (i.e. a means of preventing your solo Tyrant from being auto-broken by a Dragon or some such).

12

The Feeding Grounds / Ogre on Dutch GT 2nd

« on: Jun 27, 2006, 08:36:05 PM »

Somebody gave me the following info on Tim's Ogre list:

Tenderizer Tyrant
2 Butchers
BSB

Some Bulls (not sure how many units, but they weren't big)
Ironguts
2 units of 20 Gnoblars
2 units of 2 leadbelchers
Gorger
Slavegiant
not sure what else

13

The Feeding Grounds / Ogre on Dutch GT 2nd

« on: Jun 27, 2006, 05:52:28 PM »

Haven't seen the Dutch GT list, but reportedly this thing had a heavy soft score component. The CoS guy (Andy) finished 25th on Battle Points but took a 20-spot leap because he "took the trouble to gather up every appearance and composition point he could", according to him.

Similarly, I would be curious to see how much of the Ogre army's placement was softs vs. battle.

14

Rules Questions and FAQs / Maneaters + Ranged Attacks ?

« on: Jun 27, 2006, 03:59:25 AM »

I would wait a month or two for the 7ed rules to come out before going out and converting 15 Maneaters with pistols. From what I recall, they've changed the pistol rules a bit.

In the meanwhile, I'd check GW's FAQ page to see if they had any clarifications on forcing people to fire pistols. I seem to recall they had, at least a while ago.

15

The Feeding Grounds / THATS SOOOO CHEAP!!

« on: Jun 26, 2006, 07:43:45 PM »

Again, I'd like to differentiate legitimate complaints about the way the system is designed from whining 12-year olds that seem to inhabit every GW store on this side of the pond. The whole reason why Indy GTs include often elaborate Comp schemes (and have caused many a debate on Comp in the online community) is because each tourney host wants to level the playing field somehow (i.e. offset at least some of the system's "bugs") such that the tournament wouldn't turn into a UKGT-style free-for-all where the top 10 spots are always shared between 3 or 4 power builds.

And so my answer to anyone saying that I'm playing a "cheesy" build or using a "cheap" tactic (not like I've gotten many of those...certainly not with Ogres) would typically be: "yes, and here's why this particular army/build/rule is broken," or "no, and here's why not, and if you still think otherwise it's your right but you better not play the guy with the Khorne DL two tables over," spiced up with a pre-game "and by the way, this is how I would rate _your_ army Comp, and here's why," if necessary. Frankly, if both players involved possess sufficiently high skill levels, the conversation boils down to a few grunts of recognition (ok, that build vs. that build - done).

Separately, I'm curious to see someone cram 30 PDs into a 3k Tzeentch list (a bit hard to imagine as I don't have my Chaos book on me). Can't do it with chariots alone, I don't think. Marked min-maxed CW units?

16

The Feeding Grounds / Tried 7th ed magic rules...

« on: Jun 26, 2006, 05:42:35 PM »

Like I said, I haven't looked at the new Lores.

That in itself may eliminate Skinks as backup - however, the points are enough to make the Slann a 2gen, which gives him extra PDs anyway.

17

The Feeding Grounds / Longstriding ...

« on: Jun 26, 2006, 03:47:10 PM »

I see what you are saying, but the tyrant's Ld 9 would seem to be the biggest aid against panic-induced attrition, and it already has a longer reach than kineater.

Call me paranoid. You still have a 1/6 probability of failing each test, which means a good/properly equipped opponent will cause at least one failure to happen - you don't want that failure to be on a critical unit, hence the insurance of Kineater.

I used to employ multiple Ogre screens (Gnoblars being too slow for what my 6ed tactics). In 7ed I would be tempted to use Gnobs much more heavily.

By the way, best games I've had with my Ogres were against unfriendly Tzeentch DL. One crazy swirling melee with the odd blasts of magic. Actually lost both, but only because the damn Lord of Change passed its Instability tests at -5 on the last turn of both games (how's that for a coincidence...).

Bloodthirster-led Khorne DL would be much less fun. Ditto for Skink Hordes, Chariot High Elves and Old School WEs. [You can beat'em, but it's a lot of work plus hoping for the other guy to make multiple mistakes.]

18

The Feeding Grounds / THATS SOOOO CHEAP!!

« on: Jun 26, 2006, 03:05:46 PM »

I really don’t know anyone who takes an army to loose do you..?

Anyone bringing Empire, Ogres or Dwarfs to a UKGT. EDIT - also, anyone bringing a Comp/Appearance driven army either specifically to get best Comp/Sports/Painting, or to a tournament with big soft score percentages (e.g. 75%) where even going 2:3 with a "friendly" and well-painted army will get you into the top 10-20.

Besides if I do recall correctly from the beginning of Warhammer to the 5th edition I don’t remember hearing…. Cheesy, Cheep, Not Fair, Power Gaming, Fluff Gamer…

That is partly correct. The system and the GW design team have substantially deteriorated over the past 5-6 years. Although there is a reason why 5th Edition was unofficially dubbed Hero-hammer.

19

The Feeding Grounds / changes to the OK army

« on: Jun 26, 2006, 02:24:19 PM »

Clearly you have never been in the presence of a disgruntled goat.

On topic - points costs are a big screw-up in the army. But overall the issue seems to be - should the army be brought up the power curve, or should the power curve be brought down to it. E.g. - Belchers are fine as they are (17 points per model for optionality...whatever, you can argue this either way but no-one can mathematically calculate the "right" answer), but seem bad/overpriced when compared with Sallies and RGs (never mind that the roles of those units are somewhat different). Do we boost Belchers or nerf Sallies?

Regardless, it is somewhat amusing to see this thread run on for at least 5 pages given that we have very precise knowledge as to what GW intends to do with Ogres over the course of the next few years. [Nothing at all.]

20

Off Topic / Considering starting 40k

« on: Jun 26, 2006, 02:10:48 PM »

1. Consider that an average 1850-point army will run you $450-$500 US, give or take. Just thought I'd warn you.

2. Eldar are coming out in some months, there are ample rumors around but anyone who tells you they know exactly how they'll play is a lying dog. I will say that it looks like the new Eldar will be the epitome of "hit hard but can't take a punch" type of army - lots of mobile troops kicking out a lot of firepower (and doing some creative things in HTH), but all of it T3 and most armour saves dropping to 4+ or worse (i.e. most weapons fire will decimate you).

Now, there will be significant variations in builds - more basic infantry and heavy weapons, or more specialist troops good at one thing and one thing only, or lots of bikes/vehicles and fast shooting/assault. Fragility, speed and punch serve as the common denominator.

3. 'Nids - that's an interesting one. I've seen about two viable builds - Big Guys (2-3 Carnifexes, 1-2 Hive Tyrants, assorted specialist riff-raff), and Small Guys (multiple wave attackes, frontline Gaunt mobs tie up enemies in assault and close up fire lanes, buying time for Stealers, Tyrants, Raveners or some other HTH specialists to close in).

Either way, you don't have much firepower (Fexes serve as the best gun platforms you've got - fairly useless in HTH, actually), your aim is to somehow get in assault ASAP and start piling on Rending attacks. How you do it - using small guys to buy time, infiltrating/deep striking, throwing a few tough targets at the enemy to draw fire - that's up to you.

Note - the army seems very customizable, but isn't really - some upgrades/weapons you never see, and most troop types cluster around 1-2 builds (e.g. you have the Venom Cannon/Barbed Strangler 'Fex, and you have the 2 Twin-linked Devourer Fex...and...and...well, yeah!).

4. Orks - they'll get better with the new 'Dex, which is supposed to come next year. For now, I've seen a grand total of one viable build - hordes of Orc infantry with as many power-claw-armed unit leaders and Rokkit Launchas as possible run forward and assault stuff. Works well, but again, might want to wait for the new 'dex before spending $500 on this.

5. Tau. Hmmmmm. They got better. Mechanized Tau are now fairly viable. You have to build them carefully, but a number of interesting builds are possible (and I haven't seen all of them actually be used/playtested yet - possibly because so many people prefer MEQs - Marine Equivalents, i.e. T4 3+ save troops). The one thing to remember is that Tau suck in assault. I mean they're unbelievably bad in assault. I once wiped out to the last model an entire 1850 point Tau army with 4 assault Marines, 3 Scouts and 1 Librarian, in assault. Your entire army relies on maneuver and shooting (static gunlines are bound to get overrun eventually). Fortunately, you have some decent shooting weapons and vehicles/battlesuits. Look-wise it's a Heavy Gear Meets Battletech type of thing, but is actually not bad and looks like an easy paint job. [I haven't tried myself yet because of costs...]

6. Guard. The red-haired stepchild of 4th Edition. Guard armies can be fun, but are not competitive. At least, not at this point. Throw in the fact that you have to buy/paint a lot of generic "trooper" models, and that disqualifies the army in my eyes. In terms of gameplay, you have shooting, more shooting, and even more shooting, with the odd cavalry charge. Tank-based builds are probably better performers but more boring to play. [Here are my 2 Russes and Basilisk. The game is, can you kill them before they splat you.]

Bottom line
- From a model perspective, I'd go with Eldar (always my favourites, ever since 1ed 40k - yes, I got into 40k back during its Rogue Trader days...). Tau are a close second, but I don't know what they'll do to the Ork range before the new 'Dex so this is provisional.
- Gameplay-wise - Eldar are hard-hitting but fragile, Orks run at you, 'Nids slither at you in a somewhat more tactically complex manner than Orks, Guard just dies, and Tau zip around shooting the Hell out of you.
- From a "tactical challenge" perspective, I would say pick Tau, closely followed by 'Nids. Tau have no uber-units, they really have to bring it as an integrated army that knows what it's doing to win. 'Nids work if you plan them out well and deploy them well - otherwise, they die pretty well, and, again, have no uber units. Eldar, I'm afraid, will have at least some uberage, so I wouldn't suggest them as tactically challenging per se (though they sure can be).
- Regardless of which army you select, be mindful of the Drop Pods. These are considered to be the most broken feature of 4ed to date, and mean that whatever army you choose will face either a) a normal enemy army that deploys just like you do or b) 40-50 Marines/Termies/whatever dropping anywhere they want to starting on Turn 2 and blocking fire lanes with their pods as they do so. Now, some players just focus on combating (a) or (b) exclusively, others try to build a force that can win against (a) and does ok-ish against (b), hoping that "good players don't use Skaven SAD type armies". Either or. Mobility and the ability to scatter/reposition your forces becomes something of a premium. Tau and Eldar can excel at that, 'Nids and Orks have a much harder time (though aren't as fragile).

There you have it. Bear in mind, I haven't actually played 40k in about a year, give or take, and when I did it was mostly my Deep Striking Termies/Assault Marines vs. Khorne Daemonbombs or Defiler-Chosen-Daemonbombing-Whatever. MEQs on MEQs, in other words.

21

The Feeding Grounds / Longstriding ...

« on: Jun 26, 2006, 01:44:48 PM »

Not quite a frontal assault, I'd say. I prefer to have a couple of swarms of units (plus flank guards/etc.) in the early turns (when I'm being shot at) before exploiting on multiple attack vectors. Well, that and I find that MSU is well and good, but against a good opponent you often need echeloned reserves. Either way, Kineater helps out.

I had run pure MSU "10 3-strong units hit you at 5 different places from 15 different sides". The issue is attrition - you can't sustain it, and with the new Panic rules you won't sustain it (assuming the opponent is running a build that can cause it). Which brings me again to a 1-2 strategy, at least with my 6ed builds.

Granted, once 7th comes out I will revisit my army and revise it considerably, at least on paper. At that point, Kineater may or may not matter (e.g. if I decide to go MBGU - Multiple Big Guy Units - 3 Scrappas and 2 Giants/Rhinoxen acting as the main hammers - the Big Name and character selection strategy becomes entirely different).

EDIT - 1-2 strategy - from boxing, the old 1-2 combination (feint with the lead, then cross - WFB-wise, draw/hold the opponent on one vector, then hit him with an echeloned multi-directional attack along another, aiming to achieve a penetration and roll up his units).

22

The Feeding Grounds / THATS SOOOO CHEAP!!

« on: Jun 26, 2006, 01:39:47 PM »

i got my start in this hobby through the gaming aspect, having been a longtime veteran of magic, and i can say this much: anyone making comments like that is playing the game for the wrong reason and is getting mad at their opponent for having or playing with armies/troops that don't suck.

In other words, everyone should play Skaven SAD.

Blah. The system is unbalanced, that much is obvious. I have no problem with anyone stating the obvious. [E.g. Seaguard w/Sealord is just blatant.]

Of course, this works both ways - a Skaven SAD player shouldn't boast of his "mad skillz" just because he roasted an Empire or an Ogre army in 3 turns. If he does, he's an idiot or a jerk (audience's choice).

Aside from that, the only time I'd have a problem is if someone stating the obvious would also expect the obvious to change - e.g. "you're running a SAD and I brought a fluffy and underpowered army, so I expect you to pull some punches". Right. Not going to happen.

Barring these two exceptions, calling something cheap "cheap" is perfectly fine in my book. That's the price you pay for playing WFB, especially in comp-free environments like UKGTs (besides the monetary costs, of course - a full-sized army typically runs for $400-$500 US these days, more than double or triple the costs of other systems).

23

The Feeding Grounds / Tried 7th ed magic rules...

« on: Jun 26, 2006, 01:28:57 PM »

Lizards are not affected (Slann is the primary caster with a level 1 Skink to provide the Diadem and the Heavens Reroll spell).

TK are not affected.

Single Level 4 armies are not affected.

Tzeench laughs. A lot.

Multiple level 2 armies or a level 2/level 4 setup become somewhat tricky (e.g. Cult of Slaanesh Annointed/Sorceress setup). VC are not as badly off as most due to good bounds and Raise the Dead being available to everyone. HEs are also ok due to good Bound setup. Other races dependent on lore/item tuning.

Orc level 4s have a hard time spamming Waaagh/Warpath like they used to (that said, a rerollable 5-dice Waaagh is still a rerollable 5-dice Waaagh).

Defensive mage armies (e.g. WE/HE scroll depots) don't care.

Overall, the biggest changes, if any, will come with the revised lores, which I personally haven't seen yet. Otherwise, I wouln't expect the magic meta-game to change a great deal. [No spamming of 2-3 4+ PD spells per turn 4-dice spells is nice, but only a few builds had relied on that anyway.]

24

The Feeding Grounds / Longstriding ...

« on: Jun 23, 2006, 10:09:03 PM »

Generally speaking, an Ogre army will feature 1-2 clusters of "hammer" units. Those are the ones that a) will be targeted with shooting/magic by many opponents and b) will hurt your cause if they have to spend ~3 turns running, rallying and getting back on track due to a poor Panic roll.

In addition to the hammers, there used to be the screens in front of the hammers.

So at the very least, a strategically positioned Kineater (solo or in a unit) will help keep a significant portion of your army together. Think of it this way - it's 6" to the sides or in front, and then another 3-4 Ogre bases. That's the true coverage radius (since you only need to be within 6" of one model).

Similar in principle to using a single Black Orc character or unit to manage Animosity. It's not about negating it for the entire army, rather you want a specific section of your army to be more reliable. [Other sections can protect against Panic in other ways - Gnob screens, solo units, Immune to Psych units, etc.]

This will become especially important since you will likely no longer be able to throw out multiple 2-3 strong units/screens on alternative attack vectors and not care about Panic tests due to relative unit size.

25

The Feeding Grounds / Longstriding ...

« on: Jun 23, 2006, 07:26:38 PM »

I have almost always run my BSB on his own. This way I can reposition him along the line to the combats that matter. Alternatively, since I usually gave him the Bullgut (and the Sword of Might), he can turn into an impromptu flanker.

4 attacks at S6 are almost identical to 4 attacks at S7, point of fact (and the Sword of Might can be linked to either Longstrider or Bullgut or whatever else), and the banner does help. [Offsets Outnumbering, for one.] Of course, I have also run Brets with stand-alone BSBs, hence my preference (though there you can get +2 or even +3 static CR with the right setup).