|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:There are a lot of reasons that reading the stock trends isn't very informative, but in general the most useful thing to do is to track market reaction to their quarterly statements. Even the reaction to that is almost entirely speculative but at least it's based on information about the company's actual health, rather than fluctuations that could be happening for any number of reasons that are largely outside the purview of this thread. Their last dividend payout was at 16 pence per share which is down from 20 pence per share provided at the close of their fiscal year back in May. After their disastrous freefall at the start of the year the stock rallied up until shortly after their end of financial year. Since then it's been on a downward trend with small bumps corresponding to general meetings and other news. Their dividend payout in late November was met with a 6.8% drop from then til now which is not the best response. I think the market is taking a bit of a wait and see approach. For what it's worth analysts are still giving a buy recommendation so it appears an upturn is suspected possibly based on the new CEO. We'll see what happens. The USD/Pound exchange rate has rallied substantially so they'll be forced to stop using that excuse shortly and their half yearly report is due out on Jan 14 2015. If it's more of the same expect trouble.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
Look at sergeant Jorgen von Vampire here! The new tac box seems to be lousy with bits, but, then again, when will you be using BA stuff to convert anything else? I wonder if one could make a business out of selling Space Marine torso backs... nah, that's probably stupid. And sorry for posting BOLS like. It just seemed that if people on BOLS are getting a little worried (even if their supporting facts are wonky), stuff might really be going south 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
I want to point out that the last time I was probated from the 40k thread it was over a joke about greenish black being a product of oxidation. Of iron or copper. In terms of thread/sa chat, I don't even understand how I'm supposed to be part of the same species.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:I want to point out that the last time I was probated from the 40k thread it was over a joke about greenish black being a product of oxidation. Of iron or copper. You earned my love forever with that Chaos Marine post you did a few years back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
I mean more that if there was something that was straight-up worthless in a codex, the Next Edition codex would usually have made it much more appealing. The loyal servant learns to love the
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Unbound 40K thread should come back for good. But how will I justify my purchases
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:But how will I justify my purchases through tear filled vision
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
I've been a fan of 40k since 2nd Edition back in the day but I'm honestly completely baffled by the state of the game today - The dataslates and formations they keep piling on really do seem to exist solely for the sake of squeezing more money out of existing customers and making it confusing as poo poo for newcomers. It really does seem like the FOC structure was established much like the 'free-to-play' model you get with mobile games (albeit one you have to pay $140 NZD for) after which they give you a 'pay-to-win' option allowing you to break the same FOC restrictions by buying the dataslates and corresponding kickass units at great expense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
The 40K thread was just one big long  for me, as people staunchly defended their right, nay privilege, to pay a ton of money for GW products, and haughtily derided those who took umbrage at having to buy a bunch of new units to make their previously-viable Blood Angels usable again in anything outside of "playing at home"-type situations. It's gone from simple brand loyalty to full-blown Stockholm syndrome at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Is that what that argument was about? I just skipped over it after finding out the 200 new posts weren't something exciting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Is that what that argument was about? I just skipped over it after finding out the 200 new posts weren't something exciting. Yeah, basically it can be summed up as people being (somewhat justifiably, IMO) outraged that the new Blood Angels codex rendered their Assault Marine/jump-pack troops-heavy armies invalid, taking away both a previously-valid (over the preceding two codices) army build choice and the "flavor" that made BA different from standard SM armies. The response from GW's defenders was basically  , along with several long-winded posts about how people shouldn't whine about having to give GW even more money since they did put some nice BA bitz in the BA-specific tac squad boxes (which nobody was asking for or even really needed, to be frank).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
petrol blue posted:So what's the deal with blood angels specifically? Why are they costing £300 more than others? No, what's happening is a new BA release. Before, when armies got new releases, they'd get a new book for $30. Now, when armies get new releases, they get a gutted version of the old book for $70-$100 alongside a second Day 1 DLC book that contains the Good Stuff (but needs the former book to function) and also possibly some further DLC PDFs or campaign books that contain the rest of the army, in addition to the cost of the new models required to keep your army legal in the new edition. Rapey Joe Stalin posted:Just to be clear, Hollismason's argument is that we should all be fine with paying out ~£152 ($239 US) on rules so that we can use an army which cost £25 for the rules last time round. Because dataslates and formations are that great. He also thinks we should then be okay spending another £97 ($152) on new model kits to make up for the 'or whatever' gaps those rules still leave. edit: Basically, GW recently introduced "Formations" which are specific army builds which grant special rules (so if you buy 3 specific tanks with specific gear + 40 specific dudes with specific gear then they all get a specific buff on top of their regular rules). Every army's new release is now split into multiple books, 1 book for the basic units, 1 book for special characters and special items, and 1 book for Formations that largely allow you to do the stuff you used to be allowed to do in just 1 book. Broken Loose fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
It's pretty ridiculous when they're willing to forgive them for making their existing models pretty much useless, because they're now giving them the opportunity to buy new pretty models. Models that they wouldn't have even needed had they not changed the rules on them in the first place...
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:No, what's happening is a new BA release. Before, when armies got new releases, they'd get a new book for $30. Now, when armies get new releases, they get a gutted version of the old book for $70-$100 alongside a second Day 1 DLC book that contains the Good Stuff (but needs the former book to function) and also possibly some further DLC PDFs or campaign books that contain the rest of the army, in addition to the cost of the new models required to keep your army legal in the new edition. Did they price hike those again, because I thought the new codices were only $50 unless you wanted the limited edition. Granted the one and only 6E+ codex I've bought is CSM, so over 2 years ago now. All of the rest of what you said is spot on though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Glad I'm avoiding that thread. Normal table top doesn't matter anyway, and I got enough headaches from facebook fan groups, because those seem to go up in flames once in while, which would end in group admins claiming that this group is for fans only. As if Warmahorde/Infinity/historical players go to GW groups to start poo poo. Hell hath no fury like a fan scorned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
The thread has basically collapsed into a cesspool of apologists or those afflicted with stockholm syndrome (with a few folks there for the rules/news or macabre humor). All the cool normal posters that made that thread great left around the time of 7th edition. Its getting emptier and the poor new guys get to deal with meltdowns and bitter posting from pessimistic assholes like myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Did they price hike those again, because I thought the new codices were only $50 unless you wanted the limited edition. Granted the one and only 6E+ codex I've bought is CSM, so over 2 years ago now. In Australian Dollars every physical Codex and supplement is $83 with the exception of Space Marines, $90, and Imperial Knights, $65 - so C:SM and Sentinels of Terra is $173, or Eldar + Iyanden is $166, f.ex The interactive digital Shield of Baal is $89.99. Interactive Codexes are $60, supplements $50. eBook Codex is $45, supplement $40
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:In Australian Dollars every physical Codex and supplement is $83 with the exception of Space Marines, $90, and Imperial Knights, $65 - so C:SM and Sentinels of Terra is $173, or Eldar + Iyanden is $166, f.ex Well, yes, but I assumed he was talking about USD because that would correspond with the figure of $30 for the old codices. The codexes did get a noticeable improvement in terms of presentation when they went from $30 to $50; it wasn't a baldfaced price hike to the extent GW has done elsewhere. The newer ones are hardcover, a bit thicker, have more color, etc. They still aren't worth $50 in a sane universe but the paperback 5E codices weren't worth $30 by that metric either. BULBASAUR posted:The thread has basically collapsed into a cesspool of apologists or those afflicted with stockholm syndrome (with a few folks there for the rules/news or macabre humor). All the cool normal posters that made that thread great left around the time of 7th edition. Its getting emptier and the poor new guys get to deal with meltdowns and bitter posting from pessimistic assholes like myself. If it helps, you're one of my favorite warhams on SA. You still love the game and are a big fan of some of the cooler poo poo that can be done with it like 30K armies, but you don't drink the kool-aid like serious gaylord, Ghost Hand, et al. do (guys who would be similarly cool and awesome if it were all about the models and battles and money/rules were no object). JerryLee fucked around with this message at 09:11 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
I haven't looked at very many 7th codices but I noticed with my Ork one that there's no longer any sort of tactica or painting/modelling sections, which seems weird to me. It's just fluff, photos, army list, and appendices. Do any of the 7th books have a 'How to paint this army' section anymore?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Well, yes, but I assumed he was talking about USD because that would correspond with the figure of $30 for the old codices. Quick check shows $50 for a Codex or supplement, $58 for the C:SM codex and $41 for Imperial Knights in Yankee Funbucks
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
BlackIronHeart posted:I would definitely agree with this. That recast chat went on for pages and no one was even probated shows that it's certainly trending up. Or maybe the mods simply abandoned the 40K thread, not that anyone would blame them... I guess it's time to reveal the secret: I did not probate people for recast chat because I am actually a recast of Winson from Guangzhou.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Ettin posted:I guess it's time to reveal the secret: I did not probate people for recast chat because I am actually a recast of Winson from Guangzhou. I loving knew it, you're totally the wrong colour gray
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
We should've known because the body bag was plain, without the Forge World label.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:We should've known because the body bag was plain, without the Forge World label. Dudes, you can totally buy legit mods from eBay, even if they're shipped from China. Promise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
Sometimes I wondered how the hell the 40k thread could amass more new posts faster than the magic thread. Now I know, or had I always known but never wanted to acknowledge it? It is a cursed, terrible knowledge. I'm gonna stick to slam sector 40k. All we need is a space jam/Barkley SUAJ Gaiden remix
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
A long time ago I stopped reading the 40k thread, instead I just scroll through it looking for cool pictures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 10:01
|
|
|
Am I correct that the Forces book contains WMH-style Theme Forces? (Ie: The ones that come in their magazine or free if you bought the app.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
of course this is after you remove all the posting chaff
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:i've never been so tempted to describe a situation as "drinking the kool-aid" as what's happening in the 40k thread right now. BlackIronHeart posted:Apparently, the main way BA armies were built was to have jump-pack assault marines as your main troop choice. That was their gimmick, their draw. This was possible under the past two codices. You can't do that now unless you use specific formations from White Dwarf/Shield of Baal book (which cost money) that also require other models players may not have (which cost even more money). GW basically monetized the character of the army even further than they have before. JerryLee posted:Yeah, I don't think anyone would ever argue that 'add new units that you'd like to have' is bad. PP, often held up as the anti-GW, does this and everyone thinks it's fine. Sydney Bottocks posted:The response from GW's defenders was basically "Wowee, that's a neato new Tactical squad for the Blood Angels!" *rocking back and forth on his heels with hands in his pocket, while chewing gumbo* "Geez, that really helps make up for how BA players can't field their DC and ASM anymore!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
I feel really sorry for this guy who had his commission finished at the beginning of this month:
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 12:18
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:I feel really sorry for this guy who had his commission finished at the beginning of this month: Lmbo
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:I feel really sorry for this guy who had his commission finished at the beginning of this month: It's ok, he can just play unbound or commission some tac squads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
BlackIronHeart posted:Do any of the 7th books have a 'How to paint this army' section anymore? That's the dataslate they flog you for £1.99* a pop  *there or thereabouts
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
I should have guessed that. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
The Sons of Sanguinius Painting Guide is £20 for softback, or £19.99 for the interactive ebook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
I dont mind £20 for a decent painting book. However that is not a decent painting book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Renfield posted:The Sons of Sanguinius Painting Guide is £20 for softback, or £19.99 for the interactive ebook. I think, of all the things I hate about GW's sudden dropping of all pretenses and just overtly jerking off in their fans' faces, the fact that their touted 'we're making codexes digital too!' cost near the exact same as their overpriced physical ones is one of the most inexcusable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
HiveCommander posted:I was honestly shocked by this. One particular poster really felt the need to take every opportunity to do it, too. I kept reading it as: It's particularly dumb because, unlike say the Black Templars or Dark Angels, a Blood Angels tac squad in appearance...is just a tac squad. By which I mean the BT have their tabards and stuff, while the DA have their robes. The Blood Angels, on the other hand, have good ol' regular SM armor, with no extra frills or other accessories (like tabards or robes). Nope, it's just the standard-issue SM armor, just painted red and with different iconography. There was basically no need for a BA-specific tac squad box. New BA players would be just fine with painting their space mans red and calling it a day, and die-hard BA players likely had a ton of bits left over from all those Death Company and Sanguinary Guard they put together when they first came out. Creating a BA-specific tac squad kit is basically solving a problem that didn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
If I can sperg for a moment, the Blood Angels were always described as having extraordinarily intricate and detailed armor. They would take time to sculpt and paint beautiful stuff onto their armor. They were artists as well as warriors, presumably to put the focus that requires in contrast with their latent bloodlust. I actually really like the new BA tactical kit, but changing the FoC to accommodate is just the worst kind of bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
Renfield posted:The Sons of Sanguinius Painting Guide is £20 for softback, or £19.99 for the interactive ebook. The one penny difference is hilarious
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:33
|
|