Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 01:42:05


Post by: Envihon


People complain constantly about the costs of GW and how they are so expensive but has anyone looked at how expensive X-Wing is? I was looking around at the hobby shop just checking out the things that people say are so much better than GW and I couldn't believe how expensive X-Wing is. Now I understand for the most part, it is just models and you don't have to buy Codices but dang man, the cost of them equals the models plus the codex to go along. I mean I also feel the same about Privateer Press, that people complain about GW prices but from where I stand, neither company offers a "cheaper" hobby. The only argument from that side that someone can argue is that you need less models than GW but isn't that the point of WH40k, to play anything from small skirmishes to giant battles. The other area is maybe customer service and player support but I haven't had a problem really. Things like this make it hard for me to understand why people rail against GW pricing. Maybe I am not seeing the big picture and someone can help illuminate me (In a respectful manner. I understand this is a touchy subject but could we please have civil discourse over the internet and not a flame war?)


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 01:46:02


Post by: Swastakowey


All the games I play have very cheap models in comparison.

I find X-Wing, privateer press etc all to be rip offs as well.

Historical games I find aren't nearly as much of a rip off. I somewhat found Firestorm Armada cheap to start but still somewhat expensive to grow.

I think what people mean when they say cheap though, is that its cheaper to START than GW games. Which is true for almost all the other games out there. All are cheap to start, which is a huge selling point. However some games are cheap the whole way and others are expensive to expands.

So yea I too find the games you listed expensive. But at the same time, how much cheaper are they to START compared to 40k if you got everything you needed not including terrain.

In NZ though the prices are among (if not the) highest GW charges in the world. So for me all these games are far cheaper a lot of the time simply because of how much GW charges. But in terms of US prices I think the above.





People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 01:47:58


Post by: Noir


Epic fail in understanding the problem.

Cost per model in not the issue with high prices. But, as there are so many thread were this has already been pointed out, I think some people don't really want to understand.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 02:01:47


Post by: Envihon


Noir wrote:
Epic fail in understanding the problem.

Cost per model in not the issue with high prices. But, as there are so many thread were this has already been pointed out, I think some people don't really want to understand.


As I said, illuminate me please.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 02:03:06


Post by: Vaktathi


As noted, while other games may have higher prices per model, they require *far* fewer models, and thus overall the cost of the game is far less. For what another 2000pt 40k army would cost me, I was able to buy the books for, and standard size play armies/fleets for, Firestorm Armada, Infinity, and Heavy Gear. The other issue is that for most of these other games, you're buying metal or resin mini's (and in X-Wing's case, pre-painted), which has a much higher perceived value than the plastic-on-sprue GW appears to be switching entirely to.

40k is also terrible as a skirmish game, nobody routinely plays it at that level and those that do use special non-standard rules to do so, and there's no events that support that level, it very definitely is not a skirmish game.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 02:11:41


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


The problem with 40k is it uses squad-game pricing for a game that is close to a company level game.

If you actually want to play company level games, you have things like this...

https://www.perry-miniatures.com/product_info.php?products_id=2924&osCsid=fmned70s3a36v8vsosttakpso0

http://www.wargamesfactory.com/webstore/myths-and-legends/wgf-ml002

http://www.wargamesfactory.com/webstore/world-war-2

Where you're looking at less than $1 per model.

GW models are priced as if you only need 15-30 of them, but you actually need 50+.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 02:16:16


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Envihon wrote:
... but isn't that the point of WH40k, to play anything from small skirmishes to giant battles.


Except 40K, ultimately, does either of those very poorly compared to other game systems that are dedicated to one or the other.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 02:24:42


Post by: TheKbob


Yes, paying $8.50 per metal dude in Privateer Press games isn't that much fun either, let me tell you what. But, Privateer Press knows this. They realize having a high buy-in on certain units will turn away all but the stalwart fans. Thus they are slowly revamping expensive models into plastic kits and knocking 25% off the price in the process (Bane Knights next, please?).

The singular minis are staying metal, as they should. Because metal makes some damn fine display minis and can achieve great detail that can't be done as easily or efficiently in plastic. I have switched factions to forgo a $400 purchase to get my Cryx to two playable 50pt lists... which instead got me that in Legion with some smart purchases. So I'm tournament ready for $400. This is nigh impossible in current 40k.

I can't speak to X-Wing, but if you only need 8~10 models at $15~25 a piece depending on game scale and size of the model, then that's pretty accurate. And they are painted, which no matter how poor, is a plus for some people.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 02:24:59


Post by: Accolade


It's not even like 40k was always this bloated-skirmish size game. People like to say "I play 40k because it's more the game feels bigger" to justify its purchase compared to other games (like X-Wing and WMH) that have pricey models but smaller model counts for games. The thing is, 4th and 5th editions got along fine with that whole "bigger game" thing without the model count going through the roof, and 6th and 7th just dumped the whole concept of game scale and threw in everything and the kitchen sink. Each new edition compressed army points more, so that that $30 box of Dark Eldar wyches is worth less and less in the game experience.

You basically have to look at any expensive kit and say "okay, I need 2-3 of those, so let me triple the price for this small portion of the army." Don't get me wrong, I like the models...I'd just rather them be something more than placeholders considering how expensive they are.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 02:41:53


Post by: Envihon


Hmmm...some good food for thought and valid points. So anything that keeps people around? I know the amount of people is more spread out now as people find these other ones but I do know a lot of people that for example play 40k but they also play X-Wing. I will have to say that X-Wing seems like an awesome buy and play right away kind of game. I have also talked to people who have played WarmaHordes but came back because they didn't like it. Could what we be seeing just a spreading out of the hobby instead of GW just dominating like it did in the past?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 02:51:48


Post by: Ailaros


Vaktathi wrote:As noted, while other games may have higher prices per model, they require *far* fewer models, and thus overall the cost of the game is far less. For what another 2000pt 40k army would cost me...

This is a common mistake that people make with 40k. They assume that you have to play the game with 500 minis at huge points levels. Of course if you're playing high-points games, it's going to cost more. Comparing an apocalypse game of 40k to a skirmish game of warmahordes doesn't produce any useful information.

You can play 40k with as few as 3 models, and when you compare, say, the 40k starter kit and the warmahordes starter kit, you find out that both games, with the same number of minis, wind up costing the same.

40k is only expensive if you make it expensive.

Meanwhile, as mentioned, there are two groups of non-GW mini wargame companies: those who fail in time, and those who copy GW's practices, including high prices.




People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 02:54:03


Post by: Tamwulf


Wait, X-Wing is just as expensive as 40K? What crack are you smoking, 'cuz I want some.

You obviously have never played the game, or even asked any questions about it. So, here we go.

X-wing: $15/model for everything EXCEPT the big ships like the Millennium Falcon, Slave-I, YT-2400, and Imperial Shuttle. If you want to get the Rebel Transport or Tantive IV, you can, but they can't be used in regular games of X-wing (It's like playing a 1500 point game where one side has nothing but Titans, and you have nothing but Space Marine Tactical Squads.

A game of X-wing is 100 points. The cheapest ship in the game is 12 points (a Z-95 Headhunter or Imperial Tie Fighter). Most ships are in the 20's range, but some ships like the Han Solo Millennium Falcon is 46 points. You are going to want to add extras, like Proton Torpedoes, or extra agility, or a host of other options. 95% of the time, you will be playing 4 (Rebel) vs. 5-6 (Imperial) game. So if you wanted to play just Rebels, that's $45 + $40 for the Starter Box (which includes 1 X-wing, 2 Tie Fighters, dice, templates, and rules- it's a bargain). If you wanted to play Imperials, that's 6 Tie Fighters, but you get 2 in the starter set, so $60 + $40. If you wanted to play both, that's $105 + $40 for just about infinite replay ability. Those are all at MSRP as well- but I've found X-Wing for as low as $9/ship.

FFG works INCREDIBLY HARD to balance the game, and it is VERY balanced. There are some gimmicky lists, and there are a lot of Rock/Paper/Scissors out there.

I own one of every ship, plus a couple extras, and it cost about as much as my 7th ed 2500 pt. Space Wolf army. Oh, and it all fits in a large bits organizer box, pre-painted, and no assembly beyond punching some counters out of card stock, and attaching pegs to ships/bases. A 100 point game will take about an hour. When I show up at the FLGS with X-wing, I could be playing in less then 15 minutes. 5 minutes if I have a ship list already. How long does it take with 40K? If you have a list already, you have to set up the table, select a mission, then unpack all the mini's, then play for the next 2-3 hours. Then, it's about a 30 minute clean up. Guess what? A FULL TOURNAMENT of X-wing takes as long as ONE GAME of 40K.

People get a different "kick" out of different games, it's no big deal. The value of any game is a unique and subjective idea. You should try it before you knock it. You should also do a little more research into a game before coming here and talking about costs vs. other games. 40K is the high end luxury miniatures market. You can't get any more expensive then 40K.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 02:56:47


Post by: Ailaros


Tamwulf wrote: So if you wanted to play just Rebels, that's $45 + $40 for the Starter Box (which includes 1 X-wing, 2 Tie Fighters, dice, templates, and rules- it's a bargain). If you wanted to play Imperials, that's 6 Tie Fighters, but you get 2 in the starter set, so $60 + $40. If you wanted to play both, that's $105 + $40

Dark Vengeance costs $130. And you get WAY more models with it.

I think the crack he's smoking is called reality.




People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 03:02:40


Post by: TheKbob


Warhammer 40k does not "work" at the sub-1000 point levels and there's a reason why the game is played in the 1500-2000pt range competitively. Otherwise, the points efficiency skew shifts much harder and faster making the game more of a mess.

Every other game has this idea; you can start at a lower points level but the real game is at "X" points. Trying to compare sub 1000 point 40k to 50pt Warmahordes, 50 points Malifaux, 300 points Infinity and whatever the similar for Bolt Action, X-Wing, etc. is not the appropriate relationship. If anything, you need to then compare 1000pt 40k, or less, with 25 points Warmahordes, 25 points Malifaux, 150 points Infinity... and most of those are $50~$75 worth of models (battle box + unit/solo/thing, ish).

No matter how you slice it, GW models are insane at the $/cost for mass produced plastics compared to similar (Wyrd is silly, too, but at least it's $12 for a clampack mini and not $30!!!), but the amount of models you need is asinine.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 03:09:42


Post by: Swastakowey


I think the price of the Rule Books also jump up the 40k Price hugely.

I love 40k at 500-1000 points. Its the only size I play when I can. But even then to get the books is a huge cost if you arent in a club.

To play small games of 40k is fine and not too bad in cost depending on the army, but if you add in books then gonna bump up the price a huge amount.

When books are to the point with good rules and at a fair price, I find myself buying way more books than I need and they are still cheaper than GW books.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 03:14:11


Post by: Jehan-reznor


 Ailaros wrote:


40k is only expensive if you make it expensive.



That is also true for every other miniature game, i can play warmachine with one warcaster and one warjack except i have never seen people play such small scale games.
You play the game as it is meant to be. so if you want to play competitive 40k is more expensive than privateer and x-wing


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 03:15:12


Post by: wufai


 Envihon wrote:
Noir wrote:
Epic fail in understanding the problem.

Cost per model in not the issue with high prices. But, as there are so many thread were this has already been pointed out, I think some people don't really want to understand.


As I said, illuminate me please.


Pretend you don't have any models for both 40K and X-wing and you are starting fresh. Now compare how much it costs to start building up a standard army list and factor in everything you will need to play the game.

With 40K you will need the following

Rulebook
Codex
Your typical 1500 pt army, just use Space Marine as example
Terran (lets also stick with GW products to keep things constant)
Paint and hobby supplies such as glue, cutters etc.

Now with X-wing, all you need is the starter set and models of your choice, a gaming mat and some 3D astriods. The overal cost are much lower than what you will need for a typical 40K game.



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 03:32:14


Post by: Envihon


wufai wrote:
 Envihon wrote:
Noir wrote:
Epic fail in understanding the problem.

Cost per model in not the issue with high prices. But, as there are so many thread were this has already been pointed out, I think some people don't really want to understand.


As I said, illuminate me please.


Pretend you don't have any models for both 40K and X-wing and you are starting fresh. Now compare how much it costs to start building up a standard army list and factor in everything you will need to play the game.

With 40K you will need the following

Rulebook
Codex
Your typical 1500 pt army, just use Space Marine as example
Terran (lets also stick with GW products to keep things constant)
Paint and hobby supplies such as glue, cutters etc.

Now with X-wing, all you need is the starter set and models of your choice, a gaming mat and some 3D astriods. The overal cost are much lower than what you will need for a typical 40K game.



This is why in one of my responses I said that X-wing is definitely buy and play right out of the box while 40k has the hobby end of it besides just the game aspect cost of it. I do like the hobby aspect of 40k, it makes me care more about the models I put on the table and helps to make it a bit more personal than having the automatically painted models of X-wing but at the same time, I understand the appeal to those who just want to play a mini-wargaming type of game without having to assemble and paint your models first before you can put them on the table.

I never knocked X-wing as a game which is why I tried not to get into anything besides the cost. I was simply pointing out that none of these games are cheap by any means and I can't see that as an argument for really selling the other games. People have pointed out in which ways the games differ in other things than cost but that comes down to preference about what kind of war gaming experience you would like. War gaming in general is just expensive, I think we all knew that when we got into this hobby. I will concede to the fact though, that the cost of rulebooks is what I think drives up the real cost of GW with the amount they have split codices and all the supplements and all that which makes it more expensive especially if you have a certain playstyle. That being said, I feel like GW offers more weight in their printed material and have the better fleshed out universe when it comes to just their game. X-wing does have Star Wars to pull from but relies on the fact that you are already familiar with the source material while each Codex from GW has a different aspect of their world building in it.

And if FFG did a great job in balancing the rule set for X-Wing, then I definitely want to see what they did with Warhammer 40k: Conquest and how good of a job they translated tabletop miniatures into cards.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 03:53:06


Post by: SHUPPET


 Envihon wrote:
Noir wrote:
Epic fail in understanding the problem.

Cost per model in not the issue with high prices. But, as there are so many thread were this has already been pointed out, I think some people don't really want to understand.


As I said, illuminate me please.


I don't know what he was getting at, but I'd say the real issue isn't the cost but the quality of purchase. If everything was balanced and treated for properly the cost would be much more acceptable. However, look at the recent DE. Instead of applying a balancing go touch to it'd icing useless units, nerfing OP ones, and leaving playable models as is, my army of Baron, duke, Khymerae, and Wyches in Venoms is basically completely unplayable and wasted money, not least of which the HQs that I bought GW models to convert as they recommended, just to have them completely removed from the game. The balance changes are done so that I have to rebut a bunch of new models from their ranges. This is the real issue with GWs prices.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 03:54:44


Post by: insaniak


 Ailaros wrote:
..., and when you compare, say, the 40k starter kit and the warmahordes starter kit, you find out that both games, with the same number of minis, wind up costing the same.

If you ignore the fact that the 40K starter set doesn't actually give you everything you need to play, sure.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 03:57:12


Post by: Accolade


I'm still curious how 40k is playable with 3 models.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 04:02:36


Post by: Swastakowey


 Accolade wrote:
I'm still curious how 40k is playable with 3 models.


Just get 3 models and play them against each other.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 04:03:50


Post by: Ailaros


Jehan-reznor wrote:so if you want to play competitive 40k is more expensive than privateer and x-wing

That's your choice what points level you want to play it at. It still doesn't justify a false price comparison.

insaniak wrote:If you ignore the fact that the 40K starter set doesn't actually give you everything you need to play, sure.

And warmahordes does?

And you can play several games of 40k with what DV gives.

Accolade wrote:I'm still curious how 40k is playable with 3 models.

Draigo and two units of one paladin.

To say nothing of unbound.




People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 04:25:30


Post by: SHUPPET


That's one army, to play 40k you need two. So seems like it's a minimum of 6 models, and you are playing dragon+2xpaladins vs draigo+2xpaladins. Enthralling. Priced well for the amount fun you can get out of it at this level? Face it, Warmachine is much more suited to battles of this scale or slightly higher. You need far more models to play 40k. Playable is a term expressing worthwhile gameplay. Big Rig racing is "playable" by your definition.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 04:28:50


Post by: insaniak


 Ailaros wrote:

insaniak wrote:If you ignore the fact that the 40K starter set doesn't actually give you everything you need to play, sure.

And warmahordes does?

Yes, it does.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 04:34:42


Post by: Ailaros


The warmahordes starter kit boasts:

-Complete Prime MKII rules in a travel-sized booklet (86 pages)
-introductory guide
-dice
-ruler
-17 plastic WARMACHINE models with corresponding stat cards.

Dark Vengeance comes with:

- 49 snap-fit plastic miniatures
- small-format paperback edition of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules,
- a complete assembly guide,
- a quick-play reference guide,
- dice,
- templates,
- a how-to-play booklet that includes six scenarios

Both claim to have everything you need to play a game, and they both do. Except DV comes with way more stuff.



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 04:48:37


Post by: insaniak


Sure. Except the Warmachine box gives you everything you need to play Warmachine.

The 40k box gives you everything you need to play Dark Vengeance. If you want to branch out from there, you have to go out and buy at least one hideously expensive hardcover codex in order to use any other miniatures. With Warmachine, you can just add whatever miniatures you want to buy to your starter force... The individual army books are completely optional, rather than required to play the game.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 04:54:48


Post by: Swastakowey


I think all the alternate games I played had starter sets and starter armies available except Games Workshop. Most of them have the bits for all armies too not just a starter set and nothing more.

Flames of war has the starter set and the company boxes.

Bolt action has a starter set and starter armies of various sizes for all nations

Firestorm Armada has patrol fleets and a starter set for all major factions and most minor

Planetfall is new but will have the same set up as Firestorm Armada

Plus all the games I have thought about getting into have the same set up.

Games Workshop has a starter set that appeals to a small part of the players, doesnt have a "standard army" and in many ways includes very little to expand upon. Its usually used for cheap quick add-on minis for the races involved more than a starter. Games Workshop does have battle forces (I think they do...) but they arent a complete army usually. Not without work anyway.

So the start up is not only more expensive with GW its also not as easy to start.



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 05:04:50


Post by: koooaei


 Vaktathi wrote:
As noted, while other games may have higher prices per model, they require *far* fewer models, and thus overall the cost of the game is far less.


Kill team?

I find Warhammer 40k to be relatively cheap compared to other hobbies around. It's quite time consuming though.

Mind you, we don't insist on having hardcover codexes in our flgs. A print is fine.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 05:52:55


Post by: CrownAxe


 Jehan-reznor wrote:
 Ailaros wrote:


40k is only expensive if you make it expensive.



That is also true for every other miniature game, i can play warmachine with one warcaster and one warjack except i have never seen people play such small scale games.
You play the game as it is meant to be. so if you want to play competitive 40k is more expensive than privateer and x-wing

You missed the point. 40k has a ton of room for conversions and scratch building which can make building 40k armies immensely cheaper. Warmahordes and X-wings have pretty much 0 room to do so.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 06:08:24


Post by: Vaktathi


 koooaei wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
As noted, while other games may have higher prices per model, they require *far* fewer models, and thus overall the cost of the game is far less.


Kill team?

I find Warhammer 40k to be relatively cheap compared to other hobbies around. It's quite time consuming though.

Mind you, we don't insist on having hardcover codexes in our flgs. A print is fine.
While true, Kill Team isn't covered in the basic rules, is an additional cost to purchase the rules, and honestly, still doesn't play spectacularly well.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 06:27:51


Post by: Deadnight


 CrownAxe wrote:

You missed the point. 40k has a ton of room for conversions and scratch building which can make building 40k armies immensely cheaper. Warmahordes and X-wings have pretty much 0 room to do so.


I wish people would stop repeating this lie. conversions are possible in WMH. Rules are stricter but conversions are both allowed and encouraged, even in pp's magazine with some awesome competitions. Typically conversions also range from kit swaps to rather epic jobs.

As to a few examples (steamroller tournament legal too).

HMS griffon gun carriage to airship conversion:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?192274-HMS-Griffon-Gun-Carraige-to-Airship-Conversion

Legion of Mechablight:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?198539-And-now-for-something-completely-different

General customised figures:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?144918-Show-me-your-most-heavily-customized-figures!

conversion policy is strict, but fair, and only applies for PP run steamrollers. even then, its not hard to work with. and ultimately the TO can OK things (and probably will, so long as its not silly - "this coke can is a juggernaut". like for like weapon swaps, using 50% of the original model, use PP bits... Nothing extraordinary really.

amongst your local friends, and local tourneys, if they're ok with looser stuff, then play it.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 06:42:22


Post by: CrownAxe


And how many of those actually saved money? None from the looks of it . My post about using conversions to save money, not that you can't do any conversions in WMH.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 07:08:16


Post by: Toofast


To play competitive, WMH is just as expensive as 40k. An 1850 eldar list I priced with rules and codex is about the same as 2 50 point menoth lists and rule book. The starter for WMH has good casters but the jacks and units are subpar at best. Nobody in tournaments uses repenter or crusader with kreoss1. Cinerators are hands down the worst menoth unit and one of the worst units in all of WM. The khador side isn't much better. The battle boxes are the same way. They typically include 1 good model and the rest are mediocre or nearly useless in competitive play. The model quality on everything but the metal models is atrocious. I had a missing head, missing jack piece and 5 banana swords in my starter box. The tops of all the staffs on my Choir were broken off and are nearly impossible to put back together. Their models need more pins and green stuff to hold up than anything I've ever seen. The game is fun but aesthetics and model quality are terrible (I know the first point is subjective). Sure, it's cheaper to start WMH than 40k. Over the long term, they're the same price. I've talked to plenty of people that play both competitively and they all say the same thing.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 07:09:26


Post by: ImAGeek


I doubt that many 40k conversions will save a tonne of money? You still have to buy all the parts or the kits to get the parts. It's also not fair to say '40k is cheaper because you can convert!' Because that's not a like for like comparison. It's apples and oranges. Not everyone has the skills to convert whole armies, and you shouldn't have to convert the whole army to be able to afford the game...


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 07:22:08


Post by: jonolikespie


I have bought a complete 2000 point Dystopian Wars fleet (average game being 1500) for less than the 40k rulebook + 1 codex.

I have bought a full, 300 point horde army (tourney size) for infinity for less than the 40k core rulebook.

I have bought enough X wing models to play both sides for, again, less than the 7th ed book.


Seeing the Australian prices, I find the idea that X wing, or even any other game, is more expensive than 40k hi-fething-larious.
Hell even comparing model to model an X-wing model is $20, a plastic GW character is anywhere from $22-38.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 07:31:31


Post by: CrownAxe


I've saved a ton of money with conversions for my daemon army

- Made a Burning Chariot out of the spare bits after building a Plague Hulk - $40 savings
- Built a cyber Daemon Princes out of bits I got for a single plastic Juggernaut - $30 savings
- Built a blue scribe model from a screamer and the blue horrors from a burning chariot kit - $30 savings
- Made 10 Seekers out of a box of demonettes and green stuff - $25 savings
- Made nine fiends of slaanesh and a slaanesh herald out of a demonette box and Orc&Gob spider riders - $150 savings
- Out of a plague drone box I converted 3 blight drones (made the propellers out of super sculpty and plasticard) and used the extra bits to also make 3 beast of nurgle - $200 savings

The thing that allows 40k to save money is bits. GW kits have so much customizing that there is always left over bits that can be used to save money on building other units. WMH don't have that. All of their kits are specific models with no inherent customizing so have 0 bitz. Even if you aren't good at converting you can sell those extra bitz to get some cash back on your purchase.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 07:35:28


Post by: ntw3001


 CrownAxe wrote:
 Jehan-reznor wrote:
 Ailaros wrote:


40k is only expensive if you make it expensive.



That is also true for every other miniature game, i can play warmachine with one warcaster and one warjack except i have never seen people play such small scale games.
You play the game as it is meant to be. so if you want to play competitive 40k is more expensive than privateer and x-wing

You missed the point. 40k has a ton of room for conversions and scratch building which can make building 40k armies immensely cheaper. Warmahordes and X-wings have pretty much 0 room to do so.


So 40k can be cheap because it's possible to build a Rhino from plasticard. I haven't tried scratch-building an X-Wing. Should I? Is it impossible?

I'd be interested to meet this legion of three-model 40k players. Not the ones who use three models, but the ones who own three models. The guys who buy three models and say 'well, that's my 40k army finished! What a steal!'. It's weird that they're apparently everywhere, but I don't know any. I guess there's a chance that '40k can be played with three models' might be empty, defensive pedantry, but I'd like to think not.

Anyway, I can go one better. If both players use Legion of the Damned, 40k can be played with no models at all! Don't you all see now that 40k is a cheap game? Well, no. The fact that one isn't obligated to purchase something doesn't make that thing cheap. Why would it?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 07:36:44


Post by: ImAGeek


GW charge you for those bits already. Dual kits are more expensive because there's more bits in them even though some/most people will only use half.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 07:39:39


Post by: CrownAxe


 ImAGeek wrote:
GW charge you for those bits already. Dual kits are more expensive because there's more bits in them even though some/most people will only use half.

Then sell the bitz to make up the difference or use those bits to build extra models. Both of those cover the supposed extra cost of having those bits.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 08:05:13


Post by: jonolikespie


 CrownAxe wrote:
 ImAGeek wrote:
GW charge you for those bits already. Dual kits are more expensive because there's more bits in them even though some/most people will only use half.

Then sell the bitz to make up the difference or use those bits to build extra models. Both of those cover the supposed extra cost of having those bits.

Or you could go the cheaper option and not buy GW?

Saves a lot of hassle.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 08:06:45


Post by: ImAGeek


It's not a 'supposed cost' it is a cost. And yeah you could do them but I shouldn't have to sell parts from a kit or convert my own stuff out of it to get the full value out of a kit.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 08:06:56


Post by: Vaktathi


selling bits is very difficult to do well, especially not on an industrial level scale.

It's not like you can buy a kit and instantly find buyers for all the extra bits (especially when many bits/weapons/extras will *never* see a table because of crappy rules), and turn around and buy bits you need at the same price.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 08:13:34


Post by: ImAGeek


Yeah and I don't see why I should have to go to that effort to get the value out of a kit because GW decided to add 5-10 quid to a kit because they put a few extra bits in there to make a crappy unit. Not only that but dual kits usually look pretty crap because you can see which kit they designed first and which was just 'how can we make another unit from this to charge more?'


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 08:53:58


Post by: SkyD


Here in NZ. Its;

$220 for a Battleforce.
$98 for the codex.
$165 for the rulebook.

If you have an army in mind you want to play.

$195 for Dark Vengeance if you want to go that way.

Either way what you get is limiting, easily beaten by anyone who has played longer than you and soon means you are going to have to drop an extra $500-1000 to buy the bits and pieces you need to become competitive. Not including what you need to pay for terrain, paint, dice, supplement books to get the extra rules, etc. (Paying $80+ for a book where you need only one rule from, but having it as something the game says is compulsory kinda sucks).

X-wing has a $65 buy in. The most expensive thing being the Tantive at $135.

No need to pay extra for terrain or paint. They give you bits and pieces in your core sets, large and above sized ships. The rules are free to download, buying a second core set or a blister of dice at $13 is about all you ever need to buy for the dice.
Every ship you buy can be used right away, its not going to be nerfed away by a Codex, or written out of the game suddenly.
If you ship has a new ability/rule to the game then a card is provided to bring you up to date.

Its pretty clear and cut. There's no need to refer to several books to field a force. You don't need to memorise BS/WS/Sv/Special Rules, etc. Any upgrades you buy are on cards so your opponent can read it and play goes on. 40k is terrible with how the game can be held up because on page X the rule is stated to be 'this' but 200 pages later a single sentence can mean that rule doesn't apply at all, then if you know it but your opponent doesn't you have to waste time looking for the one sentence. Or proving that your minis can do certain things.

FFG was smart in that if you really want all the nifty upgrades and abilities, you pretty much have to buy everything. But then thats not so bad, some people might like the ship while not needing the cards and outside of a tournament people don't seem to mind people bring copies of cards or running their lists from a tablet.

The 3rd edition Rulebook for 40k was quite neat. Rules, army lists, missions, etc. Virtually everything you need for your group to play was in one handy book. Now its spread between your codex, the rulebook, several supplements, books from Forgeworld, online only downloads, etc.

Plus X-Wing is quite well balanced, from the largest to the smallest ship, everything has a use, everything can be used, whatever game you play you have a chance of doing something. 40k for me has lost that. Codex books full of units which in the fluff are great but on the table are a joke. Any new version could utterly nerf thousands of dollars worth of army in one go. Not something you have to worry about with certain other games.

I know of a tournament coming up where the winners are already decided purely because some 40k armies have LOW's that vaporise virtually anything they get in their sights with very little that can counter them. At least with the X-Wing one there are assumed winners but no one can say its decided in concrete because any build could just happen to outmanoeuvre or roll better than a list that people assume will win.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 10:10:36


Post by: Daedleh


 Ailaros wrote:
Draigo and two units of one paladin.

To say nothing of unbound.




If you're going to attempt this:

X-Wing starter (£30) + Falcon (£25) gives you a 100 point rebel list including rulebook, unit rules, dice and templates. £55. You also get 2 Imperial Ties, which you could bring up to a 100 point list with another £35 worth of imperial ships. So two full tournament ready "armies" for £80.

So, your 40k list:
Core rulebook: £50
Codex Grey Knights: £30
Grey Knights Paladins: £28
Total: £108

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and "forget" the model for Draigo, saying that you could convert a "counts-as" from the Paladins box.

Your "cheap" 40k option is still twice as expensive as the X-Wing option. You can get two full size X-Wing tournament lists for 2/3s the price of your cheap option.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 10:18:15


Post by: BRB


It's also the high costs of maintaining and expanding 40k that's making it more expensive. Whenever there is a change in editions and rules, you're almost forced to invest in a) a new rulebook and b) eventually a new codex for the current edition, while running into the danger of your units being dropped out completely and becoming obsolete. (Penal Legion and Sly Marbo for example). Other systems either let you play with old lists, they update them via free errata, have rules or stats and lists for free download or at least a cheap softcover version sold as a single copy.

The move from 5E to 6E had me buy a new 65€ rulebook and a 39€ Imp codex for 40k to be able to play, for example, while it was just a 8€ softcover for Flames of War when they moved from V2 to V3 (free for owners of the previous edition).

Then there are the costs of expanding. While DV and BR before certainly are good deals, it ramps up from there if you want to expand those choices, especially if you want new formations for your existing armies and you'll have to move into forgeworld's realm (e.g. Elysians, Tank Coy, Armoured Fist for Imps).

As far as the bits are concerned, they do include a ton of bits, but quite often not those that matter. You want a meltagun or plasma launcher for your imp troops for example? You have to start scavenging, as there are only one of each in the command sprue and none in the standard platoon.

The good thing about 40k is, though, that there is a huge secondary market. If you're somewhat crafty, you have a huge selection of crappy and cheap used models on ebay that can be made usable with a bit of effort.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 10:24:53


Post by: Thud


 Daedleh wrote:
 Ailaros wrote:
Draigo and two units of one paladin.

To say nothing of unbound.




If you're going to attempt this:

X-Wing starter (£30) + Falcon (£25) gives you a 100 point rebel list including rulebook, unit rules, dice and templates. £55. You also get 2 Imperial Ties, which you could bring up to a 100 point list with another £35 worth of imperial ships. So two full tournament ready "armies" for £80.

So, your 40k list:
Core rulebook: £50
Codex Grey Knights: £30
Grey Knights Paladins: £28
Total: £108

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and "forget" the model for Draigo, saying that you could convert a "counts-as" from the Paladins box.

Your "cheap" 40k option is still twice as expensive as the X-Wing option. You can get two full size X-Wing tournament lists for 2/3s the price of your cheap option.


The GK cost will also increase after he buys the codex and finds out that Paladins can no longer be taken as single-model units, and that Draigo is not an HQ and does not make Paladins troops, so unless he wants to play his 400 point games unbound, he'd have to buy a few more kits. At least one more box of Terminators, unbound or not.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 10:35:25


Post by: MarsNZ


X-Wing, with it's pre-painted mini's and the finite universe in which it's set looks like it'll last a couple of years before people grow tired of it and move onto greener pastures. It started (like most star wars games across various media) strong, and has in a short amount of time seen a noticeable drop in popularity. 40K is still a juggernaught despite the vocal internet minority who take every opportunity to remind anyone who'll listen that they don't play it anymore and therefore neither should you. Wargaming isn't a cheap hobby, even if flash-in-the-pan games such as X-Wing make a quick cash-grab off tired unoriginal subject material for half the price that you're used to paying. Where do you think this game will go - provided it even lasts 5 years? I mean, I'm sure it'll get boring shooting down the same TIE fighter every weekend with your B-Wing, therefore new models, bigger models, higher prices, you'll be reaching for those fedoras and thick rimmed glasses in no time at all.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 10:41:45


Post by: Howard A Treesong


I think X-Wing is just a bit expensive per miniature, it's £8-10 for a little spaceship which I find rather a lot, I'm not sure what else you get in the packets. GW regularly seem to charge £15 for unpainted singles made from the dubious Finecast.

There are plenty of cheaper manufacturers though, look at the new Warzone range, you can get pack of 4-5 individually posed resin figures for £10-12. GW prices can't compete with that, and the quality is good too.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 11:01:34


Post by: Daedleh


MarsNZ wrote:X-Wing, with it's pre-painted mini's and the finite universe in which it's set looks like it'll last a couple of years before people grow tired of it and move onto greener pastures. It started (like most star wars games across various media) strong, and has in a short amount of time seen a noticeable drop in popularity. 40K is still a juggernaught despite the vocal internet minority who take every opportunity to remind anyone who'll listen that they don't play it anymore and therefore neither should you. Wargaming isn't a cheap hobby, even if flash-in-the-pan games such as X-Wing make a quick cash-grab off tired unoriginal subject material for half the price that you're used to paying. Where do you think this game will go - provided it even lasts 5 years? I mean, I'm sure it'll get boring shooting down the same TIE fighter every weekend with your B-Wing, therefore new models, bigger models, higher prices, you'll be reaching for those fedoras and thick rimmed glasses in no time at all.


Except every ship has 6-7 different pilots with unique special rules, and every ship has multiple upgrade slots with all of the options being well balanced. It's not the same TIE Fighter every week with the same B Wing. If that's what your argument is reduced to then 40k is just about the same Space Marine Tactical Squad shooting the same Ork Mob every week.

There's quite a few misconceptions in your post which show that you're not as clued up on X-Wing as you think. I don't think that X-Wing will retain its popularity forever, but to claim that it's going to vanish or doesn't have replay value is incredibly short sighted.

Also, 40k is still a juggernaught yes. But it's becoming a smaller and smaller one every year.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I think X-Wing is just a bit expensive per miniature, it's £8-10 for a little spaceship which I find rather a lot, I'm not sure what else you get in the packets. GW regularly seem to charge £15 for unpainted singles made from the dubious Finecast.

There are plenty of cheaper manufacturers though, look at the new Warzone range, you can get pack of 4-5 individually posed resin figures for £10-12. GW prices can't compete with that, and the quality is good too.


X-Wing is expensive per miniature, but so is every low model count game. You also get the full rules for the ship in every blister pack rather than *just* the mini. It does seem expensive until you start playing and realise just how few miniatures the game needs.

But yeah, when comparing GW prices people always like to compare them to skirmish games which only need a couple of dozen models per side in which case the overall cost is much, much cheaper. When you compare GW prices to those making miniatures for larger games, such as Mantic or Perry Miniatures then the cost per mini is a fraction of what GW charges.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 11:05:51


Post by: TedNugent


DV's models are deliberately underwhelming, so I don't really think that's a fair comparison.

All of the models in DV are deliberately designed only to be used in either a DA or CSM army. Unlike in Black Reach, which contained generic marines that could be suited for any chapter or any Codex, DA marines have insignias and art that only make them suitable in DA armies. The Terminators and bikers are also bogged with RW/DW insignias, which makes them technically not suitable as vanilla terminators or white scars. The DA Codex itself is $50 and is widely considered one of the worst codexes.

The CSM codex is not a very great tier, and what is included in the DV box is not the best pick of the codex. Cultists, Chosen, a HELBRUTE (bottom-rung).

As a model kit, Dark Vengeance is a superb value, but let me ask this: how many of you even use one single model from the DV kit? By contrast, how many of you own a DV kit? How many of you have DV models sitting in your closet, not ever touching the table?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 11:08:59


Post by: jonolikespie


MarsNZ wrote:
40K is still a juggernaught

Wait, seriously? There is someone in NZ who would consider 40k a juggernaut? I thought the situation over there was even worse than here. You guys pay $129 for a land raider for god's sake!

I'd have expected 40k to be even deader there than over here.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 11:23:03


Post by: insaniak


 CrownAxe wrote:
You missed the point. 40k has a ton of room for conversions and scratch building which can make building 40k armies immensely cheaper. Warmahordes and X-wings have pretty much 0 room to do so.

Any game is going to be cheaper if you use cheaper alternatives to the 'official' miniatures...


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 11:28:26


Post by: Paradigm


 TedNugent wrote:


As a model kit, Dark Vengeance is a superb value, but let me ask this: how many of you even use one single model from the DV kit? By contrast, how many of you own a DV kit? How many of you have DV models sitting in your closet, not ever touching the table?


I own DV.

I use the Librarian Deathwing squad, and Tactical Squad most times I play as DA, or if I need to up the numbers of Termies or Tacs in my multi-Chapter C:SM armies. The Ravenwing get used more often as just DA, but have seen play with C:SM as well.

The Chaos side doesn't get used simply as I don't play Chaos, but even then the awesome Lord, Chosen and Brute minis take pride of place on my shelf (and if I did play, would be used almost every time as they're too cool not to use). The Cultists saw play as Penal Legion before they were scrapped, and now get used in ITEN, occasionally Deadzone and if I need numbers for Conscripts or play the old IG Codex.

DV is great value for money, compared not only to GW but to Wargaming as a whole. I own starter sets for 3 games, and each has its own niche, but in terms of value, I'd say DV wins by a country mile.

DV: 48/9 minis (depending on whether you get the new version or not), dice, FULL Rulebook and quick-start book, Templates

Infinity: Operation Icestorm: 14 minis (although they are stunning), card terrain (very cool, but not 'worth' a ton), Dice, Quick Start rulebook (you can get the full one free online, no complaints there, but it's still not something in the box), some counters that aren't going to stand up to much unless you laminate them.

Deadzone: 23 Minis, A great set of terrain (the real value in the box, I think), full rules/cards, durable counters and lots of them, dice.

Overall, I think DV wins, as a) it's got more minis, which means you get more stuff, which in turn leads to more enjoyment painting them up if you like that, b) it has the FULL rules for the game, whereas Icestorm has a QS book that straddles two editions so can be confusing, and doesn't use anywhere near the full rules. Say what you like about 40k, DV has the best value for the cost purely in terms of 'stuff you get'


On a more general note, I do have to say I find the pricing laughable. OK, you might get cards and bits and bobs, but ultimately you're paying £10 for a single mini that is absolutely tiny, that comes already painted. Given the choice between 2 X-wings or one box of Space Wolves, I know whic is going to give me more to do in terms of modelling, gaming and painting enjoyment. If X-wing cost about £4-5 a figure, I might be tempted, but at the price it's at I see absolutely no value in it.

One valid point that has been raised is how 40k's entry cost outside of a starter set is higher, and that's true. When I gave up and refused to buy first the new IG codex and then the 7th Ed rules, I put the £80 into getting two Malifaux crews that both give me 60% or so of a full crew, and both of which can be played out of the box and enjoyed. You could say the money I didn't spend on the new SW and GK codexes bought me most of Icestorm as well.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 11:46:32


Post by: Wayniac


 Envihon wrote:
People complain constantly about the costs of GW and how they are so expensive but has anyone looked at how expensive X-Wing is? I was looking around at the hobby shop just checking out the things that people say are so much better than GW and I couldn't believe how expensive X-Wing is. Now I understand for the most part, it is just models and you don't have to buy Codices but dang man, the cost of them equals the models plus the codex to go along. I mean I also feel the same about Privateer Press, that people complain about GW prices but from where I stand, neither company offers a "cheaper" hobby. The only argument from that side that someone can argue is that you need less models than GW but isn't that the point of WH40k, to play anything from small skirmishes to giant battles. The other area is maybe customer service and player support but I haven't had a problem really. Things like this make it hard for me to understand why people rail against GW pricing. Maybe I am not seeing the big picture and someone can help illuminate me (In a respectful manner. I understand this is a touchy subject but could we please have civil discourse over the internet and not a flame war?)


It's not price per model that's the problem, it's value. I feel I get more value out of buying a $50 box from Privateer than I do a $40 box from GW because the box from PP gives me a big chunk of an army, the box from GW is a small piece that needs a lot more, or in the case of WHFB several boxes to make a single unit. It FEELS like you're being cheated, whether or not you actually are. Couple that with the high price of the rules alone and it's even worse.

I recently spent around $110 on a unit of Iron Fang Pikemen ($85 retail, got for about $65 online), the Officer+Standard ($19 retail, got for about $15) and the Black Dragons bits from PP direct ($20). I still feel I got more value from buying those than buying let's say a Tactical squad and a transport from GW (which would be roughly the same, or even a bit less). It feels like I got more for my money, and it feels like what I bought is a larger part of my force and not just a drop in the bucket that I need to buy several more times.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 11:56:47


Post by: jasper76


To start, I think GW prices need to come down at least25%. I won't hold my breath on that.

But since retail on these kits is so high, why in the fething world don't they come with at least one of all the options available for those models in the codex???

Hope you like Heavy Bolters, CSM!


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 11:58:28


Post by: jonolikespie


 Paradigm wrote:

DV is great value for money, compared not only to GW but to Wargaming as a whole. I own starter sets for 3 games, and each has its own niche, but in terms of value, I'd say DV wins by a country mile.

DV: 48/9 minis (depending on whether you get the new version or not), dice, FULL Rulebook and quick-start book, Templates

But not the full RULES. You need at minimum another codex to play the side you chose out of it, and a second if you want to play the other side.
As well those armies are pretty imbalanced against each other and form less than what, a third of an average game? (I think it was about 600, DA might be more but I could swear chaos was lower).

 Paradigm wrote:
Infinity: Operation Icestorm: 14 minis (although they are stunning), card terrain (very cool, but not 'worth' a ton), Dice, Quick Start rulebook (you can get the full one free online, no complaints there, but it's still not something in the box), some counters that aren't going to stand up to much unless you laminate them.

Those two armies are something like 200 points each, 2/3rds of a full size game. No codex costs on top, very well balanced against each other.
As well model material and quality really should count for something here. Those models are, if nothing else, inherently superior as they are metal and the DV ones are snap fit.

 Paradigm wrote:
Deadzone: 23 Minis, A great set of terrain (the real value in the box, I think), full rules/cards, durable counters and lots of them, dice.

Don't own it so I won 't comment.

Dystopian Wars however is again, 2/3rds of sized fleet (or thereabouts, I forget off the top of my head). About 30 models, 3 of which are vehicle sized.
Full rules. Again needs no codex needed. campaign booklet to introduce the game, dice, terrain (admittedly card but that's all you need for Dyst Wars with the scale.

 Paradigm wrote:
Overall, I think DV wins, as a) it's got more minis, which means you get more stuff, which in turn leads to more enjoyment painting them up if you like that, b) it has the FULL rules for the game, whereas Icestorm has a QS book that straddles two editions so can be confusing, and doesn't use anywhere near the full rules. Say what you like about 40k, DV has the best value for the cost purely in terms of 'stuff you get'


I think this is an absolutely invalid way of judging a starter set. If you're looking at it from the prospective of a hobbyist looking to bulk out a collection for cheap this has merit, but that's not what a starter set is for.
Looking at it from the point of view of someone entering the hobby DV is terrible.
It has the most additional costs from rules you NEED to buy.
It has the smallest percentage of a full force.
It is the most unbalanced in terms of units provided.


 Paradigm wrote:
On a more general note, I do have to say I find the pricing laughable. OK, you might get cards and bits and bobs, but ultimately you're paying £10 for a single mini that is absolutely tiny, that comes already painted. Given the choice between 2 X-wings or one box of Space Wolves, I know whic is going to give me more to do in terms of modelling, gaming and painting enjoyment. If X-wing cost about £4-5 a figure, I might be tempted, but at the price it's at I see absolutely no value in it.

£10 is a lot? Since when? GW are selling a librarian for £18, fincast characters for £15, £11 and, the cheapest I could find in in the marine line was £8.20 for a model that's probably almost as old as I am.
Again though, you're looking at models you get not models you need. An xwing fleet is 3-5 ships, so £30-50. A strikeforce is (in pounds, keep in mind in the rest of the world those conversions become absolutely hilarious) £140. That is a good saving off buying everything individually but still not a full army.

 Paradigm wrote:
One valid point that has been raised is how 40k's entry cost outside of a starter set is higher, and that's true. When I gave up and refused to buy first the new IG codex and then the 7th Ed rules, I put the £80 into getting two Malifaux crews that both give me 60% or so of a full crew, and both of which can be played out of the box and enjoyed. You could say the money I didn't spend on the new SW and GK codexes bought me most of Icestorm as well.

Exactly. That is a HUGE factor for some people. Buying is an important factor of cost.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 12:05:58


Post by: Da Boss


On a model by model basis, Privateer Press's stuff is roughly as overpriced as GWs. PP pull ahead in that their rules are cheaper and you do not need to buy supplements to play with your miniatures because the miniatures come with their own rules.
Other concerns are fairly subjective, but I'd put them like this:
Gameplay: PP games have better designed rules and a much greater game balance.
Release Philosophy: PP try to always release "something for everyone" for their main factions. Some sub factions may see less attention but they are very good at keeping all factions updated in general. This contrasts with GW's "Leave armies to rot for over a decade" approach. PP also generally release new things and do not rely on "reskinning" old content.
Army Size: PP games require fewer miniatures to play, so overall they are cheaper.

So in my opinion, PP comes out ahead. However, it is definitely true that their stuff is comparable in price to GW and I don't see any reason not to criticise or at least acknowledge that, even if you are a PP fan. From my perspective, their kits also are often made from inferior materials and have problems with internal scaling and assembly, which in the end put me off PP games despite their excellent gameplay.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 12:07:40


Post by: Daedleh


^^ I'll comment on Deadzone.

 Paradigm wrote:

Deadzone: 23 Minis, A great set of terrain (the real value in the box, I think), full rules/cards, durable counters and lots of them, dice.


Deadzone contains 120 points of Enforcers and 100 points of Plague, not including upgrades. You need 70 points for a full size game. You get more than 50% more models than you actually need (lots of variation) including terrain, while Dark Vengeance has, at best, 50% of what you need.

If you're looking at sheer model count then yes, Dark Vengeance wins versus Skirmish games. If you're looking at proportion of a full size force, or for how easy it is to expand into a full size force (including rules) then DV loses. Hard. That's not even taking into account the quality of the game.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 12:12:25


Post by: Wayniac


DV might not be a bad set for the money, but you still need to drop a ton of cash just to play games beyond it, to say nothing of $100 just to expand the armies that come in the box. That means it's terribly POOR value for anything because it's A) Not even enough to play basic games, and B) Requires a significant cash investment to do more.

The other starter sets seem to contain a lot more value to where you need to buy only a little bit more to have a typical (tournament?) sized army.

About the only game that comes close to 40k's barebones style is Bolt Action (couple of squads per side, I think the newest starter has one vehicle for the Germans) but a full sized army for BA is also like $125, which would buy you maybe two squads or one big thing for 40k.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 12:19:15


Post by: ausYenLoWang


BRB wrote:
It's also the high costs of maintaining and expanding 40k that's making it more expensive. Whenever there is a change in editions and rules, you're almost forced to invest in a) a new rulebook and b) eventually a new codex for the current edition, while running into the danger of your units being dropped out completely and becoming obsolete. (Penal Legion and Sly Marbo for example). Other systems either let you play with old lists, they update them via free errata, have rules or stats and lists for free download or at least a cheap softcover version sold as a single copy.

The move from 5E to 6E had me buy a new 65€ rulebook and a 39€ Imp codex for 40k to be able to play, for example, while it was just a 8€ softcover for Flames of War when they moved from V2 to V3 (free for owners of the previous edition).

Then there are the costs of expanding. While DV and BR before certainly are good deals, it ramps up from there if you want to expand those choices, especially if you want new formations for your existing armies and you'll have to move into forgeworld's realm (e.g. Elysians, Tank Coy, Armoured Fist for Imps).

As far as the bits are concerned, they do include a ton of bits, but quite often not those that matter. You want a meltagun or plasma launcher for your imp troops for example? You have to start scavenging, as there are only one of each in the command sprue and none in the standard platoon.

The good thing about 40k is, though, that there is a huge secondary market. If you're somewhat crafty, you have a huge selection of crappy and cheap used models on ebay that can be made usable with a bit of effort.


just on a quick galnce at this post.. saying the model you ahd for marbo became obsolete is a little disingenuos, most people added a box to a guardsmans hand, and i bet that model is still used as a counts as for something else.

on another note i want to say that a 1500 pt 40k game, on a decent table whilst more expensive than a 100 pt xwing game, looks a damn sight more awesome (i hate those carboard cutout asteroids)


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 12:20:13


Post by: Wulfmar


40K / Fantasy is a very expensive game if you buy from GameWorkshop stores and use only GamesWorkshop models/bitz.

Use stores such as Darksphere in the UK for 25% discount on the models and be patient on Ebay for good deals - you'll soon find the price drops considerably.

Case in point - I ended up with x50 Space Marines and x5 Drop pods (all BNIB) for £125. With other purchases and patience I reckon I spent a total of £270 est. on a 5000pts army.

The only pieces I paid full price for out of my four armies are x2 thousand sons upgrade packs, x3 deathwatch upgrade packs, a couple of named characters and a heldrake because I gave in to the GW staffs badgering on visit when ordering the Thousand Son parts.


Also, join a gaming club - you'll end up finding deals from other players for their stuff / ready market for your own bits


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 12:20:28


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Vaktathi wrote:
selling bits is very difficult to do well, especially not on an industrial level scale.

It's not like you can buy a kit and instantly find buyers for all the extra bits (especially when many bits/weapons/extras will *never* see a table because of crappy rules), and turn around and buy bits you need at the same price.
Yeah, with the dual kits you usually can't make anything much out of the extra parts and you can't sell them for much because there's a lot of people who bought the dual kits and want to get rid of the extras just like you, so the market tends to be flooded.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 12:22:17


Post by: ausYenLoWang


 TedNugent wrote:
DV's models are deliberately underwhelming, so I don't really think that's a fair comparison.

All of the models in DV are deliberately designed only to be used in either a DA or CSM army. Unlike in Black Reach, which contained generic marines that could be suited for any chapter or any Codex, DA marines have insignias and art that only make them suitable in DA armies. The Terminators and bikers are also bogged with RW/DW insignias, which makes them technically not suitable as vanilla terminators or white scars. The DA Codex itself is $50 and is widely considered one of the worst codexes.

The CSM codex is not a very great tier, and what is included in the DV box is not the best pick of the codex. Cultists, Chosen, a HELBRUTE (bottom-rung).

As a model kit, Dark Vengeance is a superb value, but let me ask this: how many of you even use one single model from the DV kit? By contrast, how many of you own a DV kit? How many of you have DV models sitting in your closet, not ever touching the table?


Hand up here, i use ahem 60 odd cultists. chosen on occasion, (hellbrute well i got mine from FW)


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 12:23:50


Post by: Paradigm


 jonolikespie wrote:



 Paradigm wrote:
On a more general note, I do have to say I find the pricing laughable. OK, you might get cards and bits and bobs, but ultimately you're paying £10 for a single mini that is absolutely tiny, that comes already painted. Given the choice between 2 X-wings or one box of Space Wolves, I know whic is going to give me more to do in terms of modelling, gaming and painting enjoyment. If X-wing cost about £4-5 a figure, I might be tempted, but at the price it's at I see absolutely no value in it.

£10 is a lot? Since when? GW are selling a librarian for £18, fincast characters for £15, £11 and, the cheapest I could find in in the marine line was £8.20 for a model that's probably almost as old as I am.

It's a lot for a single, excetionally small, prepainted mini. GW sells minis for that, I'll grant you, but to continue the SM example, there's no way you ever need to pay that much for them. Almost any SM HQ can be build from the bits in the Sternguard, Vanguard or Command Squad box and a bit of imagination. Personally, I'll never pay more than about £10 for a figure, and the only time I've done that in years was to get the Finecast IG Commissar before it went OOP.

I remember the first time I saw an X-wing model in the flesh, and my thoughts at the time were:
'it's how small?' followed by 'they want how much for it?' with an afterthought of 'no way, Jose!' Looking at them, I just don't see the value in the product, I think any other £10 I spend on minis would bring more enjoyment, and I say that as a huge Star Wars fan.

Even compared to Infinity, one of the more expensive games out there, it's leagues better than X-wing in terms of cost-vs-product. I can get this guy for £6, so 60% of an X-wing:
Spoiler:


A larger figure, more detailed, arguably a better material (not a fan of metal myself, but many are), provides 2-3 hours of painting time as well as gaming.


Again though, you're looking at models you get not models you need. An xwing fleet is 3-5 ships, so £30-50. A strikeforce is (in pounds, keep in mind in the rest of the world those conversions become absolutely hilarious) £140. That is a good saving off buying everything individually but still not a full army.

But if I don't see the value in a single ship, that doesn't get better the more I buy. If I'm at an X-wing table having spent £50 on 5 ships, and the guy next table along is playing with a converted Captain and two Tactical Squads, I'd be thinking I've wasted some money somewhere!

Assuming 2 hours to build and paint a Tactical Marine, a box of 10 for £25 works out at just over a pound an hour before they even hit a gaming table, and 20 hours of enjoyment. I don't know how long a game of X-wing takes to play, but how many would you have to use two new ships inbefore you matched that investment in terms of time?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Daedleh wrote:
^^ I'll comment on Deadzone.

 Paradigm wrote:

Deadzone: 23 Minis, A great set of terrain (the real value in the box, I think), full rules/cards, durable counters and lots of them, dice.


Deadzone contains 120 points of Enforcers and 100 points of Plague, not including upgrades. You need 70 points for a full size game. You get more than 50% more models than you actually need (lots of variation) including terrain, while Dark Vengeance has, at best, 50% of what you need.

If you're looking at sheer model count then yes, Dark Vengeance wins versus Skirmish games. If you're looking at proportion of a full size force, or for how easy it is to expand into a full size force (including rules) then DV loses. Hard. That's not even taking into account the quality of the game.

I have nothing against Deadzone at all, I think it's a great set and a great game. I was simply illustrating the point that, for the price, if I played neither 40k nor Deadzone, I'd probably buy Dark Vengeance every time.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 12:54:24


Post by: MWHistorian


For what's typically played at games stores, 1800 pts for 40k or 35 pts (or sometimes 50) for WMN or 300 for Infinity, 40k comes out way more expensive.
Yes, you can play smaller games of 40k, but then you could play smaller games of WMH and Infinity as well.

And as far as value goes, the Operation Ice Storm set is levels above everything else.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:00:32


Post by: ImAGeek


 Wulfmar wrote:
40K / Fantasy is a very expensive game if you buy from GameWorkshop stores and use only GamesWorkshop models/bitz.

Use stores such as Darksphere in the UK for 25% discount on the models and be patient on Ebay for good deals - you'll soon find the price drops considerably.

Case in point - I ended up with x50 Space Marines and x5 Drop pods (all BNIB) for £125. With other purchases and patience I reckon I spent a total of £270 est. on a 5000pts army.

The only pieces I paid full price for out of my four armies are x2 thousand sons upgrade packs, x3 deathwatch upgrade packs, a couple of named characters and a heldrake because I gave in to the GW staffs badgering on visit when ordering the Thousand Son parts.


Also, join a gaming club - you'll end up finding deals from other players for their stuff / ready market for your own bits


Thing is you can say that about any game, you can find most if not all games for similar discounts. And GW are making more and more stuff direct only.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:11:36


Post by: BoomWolf


Many people on this thread threw a "full size game" point value of several games and I gotta ask...

Where exactly is the proper "full sized game" been declared?

Who says 40k "proper" size is 1850? the big turnies? they only do so because people asked for larger games to begin with, it was 1500 not long ago, and I'm sure it was even lower.
And points per model were higher back than, so the game was even smaller.

The game size of 40k is decided by the players, it CAN be 1850, it can be alot less. yes, when you go as low as 500 yo gonna need some variant rules to prevent RPC games, but the basis for them already exists.

Killtem, combat patrol, ring a bell?
Or when you want to go big, apocalypse comes into play.


The people who called that infinity is a small skrimish and 40k must be played at company level are you players, not the companies.
The systems support mass-scale or tiny games alike, some manage the differences better than other, but the rules do not change when the point cap does.



As for the higher entry costs of 40k, yes. books cost alot and it sucks, and on books spesifically I think a drop is in order.
But the models? they are priced right.
Even if you don't use all the bits (say a multi-kit?) you got tons left over to use for basing, conversions, aftermarker or simple customization of your squad.

The fact you can have 60 tactical marines in your army and have not two look alike is HUGE in terms of appearances, and in wargaming appearances is part of the party.
The fact you can use or avoid spesific bits in the kits while still keeping completely legal and form a slightly different look is also big.
Biggest of all is the fact the kits cross over, meaning a leftover bit from unit X can be used to customize unit Y that might sometimes even be from another army.

Infinity and friends? don't have that. the models are fixed, the appearances are fixed, and when you run a large number of unit X, you get a clone factory.

Sadly I don't get to enjoy that aspect with my tau much (I'm playing "clean and markless") but I played with it with my kroot (who I don't run as I find super-squishy units not to my tastes) and its just so much fun to fiddle with them, give them each his own uniqe looks, style and having them so well defined I can recall a few of them by name (yes, I named every member of the squad.) even though its been months from the last time I even looked at them.

Bits are awesome.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:14:18


Post by: Wayniac


Who says? Most gamers. I don't know many people who would always want to play low points games unless it's an escalation league or somebody is new; the newbie is quickly expected to build up a decent sized force, and that gets very expensive even if you already have some stuff. My latest abandoned "Operation Restart 40k" involved some close to 1000 points of Tau I had from yet another aborted restart many years ago, and to get to the normal points value it'd still cost me a couple hundred bucks (although to be fair, part of that was because I wanted a Riptide and a FW Crisis Suit to use as a Commander, but even so just basic extra units were running very pricy). Instead, I shelved the idea and spent some of money buying some more things for my Khador army for Warmachine.

Besides the problem 40k has at virtually all points levels is that it's unbalanced, so low point games don't fix anything and add new issues (e.g. if someone brings 3x Riptides to a low point game, how do you deal with it)


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:15:20


Post by: jonolikespie


If you're buying all your 40k stuff at 25% off then its overpriced. Simple fact. If it wasn't you wouldn't need it at 25% off.

In fact the simple fact that there is a standard among gaming stores and websites to offer a discount proves as much as well.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:17:13


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


For me, it's the idea that GW prices just keep going up. While their rules just keep going down in quality.

oh, and their tactic of lowering the points to make you buy more and swapping out effectiveness of units between editions of codices. "Now that powerful unit you bought so much of isn't as good as that unit you thought you'd never buy!"


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:26:42


Post by: Daedleh


 BoomWolf wrote:
Many people on this thread threw a "full size game" point value of several games and I gotta ask...

Where exactly is the proper "full sized game" been declared?

Who says 40k "proper" size is 1850? the big turnies? they only do so because people asked for larger games to begin with, it was 1500 not long ago, and I'm sure it was even lower.
And points per model were higher back than, so the game was even smaller.
.


The "full size" game is whatever people play most often and if you were to play against a new opponent what standard size you'd expect. For Deadzone it's 70-100 points. For Warmachine it's 35-50 points. For Kings of War it's 1500-2000 points. For 40k it's 1500-2000.

Can you play smaller? Yep. You can, but good luck getting a pickup game at a smaller size. Even if you do count smaller games as a full size game then guess what - other games scale down too. If you're counting a 400 point game of 40k as a standard size game then the £30 X-wing starter set has two forces of that size. Show me two 400 point 40k forces including rules for £30.

cue anecdote from someone saying that they regularly play 400 points in 3... 2... 1...


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:47:09


Post by: Makumba


Can someone explain to me how is DV a better buy compering to the infinity or Xwing starter sets ? Because those give you full armies. DV doesn't give a full army even if someone glued up both forces and played unbound, after buying the 2 obligatory codex for each force of cours.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:49:59


Post by: Wayniac


Makumba wrote:
Can someone explain to me how is DV a better buy compering to the infinity or Xwing starter sets ? Because those give you full armies. DV doesn't give a full army even if someone glued up both forces and played unbound, after buying the 2 obligatory codex for each force of cours.


More figures for all those hobbyists that don't actually play


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:51:09


Post by: Accolade


While I like the DV set, I think people are underselling the Infinity set a little bit. Those models, in addition to being *significantly* more detailed than the DV models, are metal. And while some people may prefer plastic over metal, what is not arguable is the fact that metal models cost more to manufacture. Now, you'd never know that with GW since most switches from metal to plastic for them have resulted in higher prices, but that is the true nature of the beast.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:51:10


Post by: Wulfmar


 ImAGeek wrote:
 Wulfmar wrote:
40K / Fantasy is a very expensive game if you buy from GameWorkshop stores and use only GamesWorkshop models/bitz.

Use stores such as Darksphere in the UK for 25% discount on the models and be patient on Ebay for good deals - you'll soon find the price drops considerably.

Case in point - I ended up with x50 Space Marines and x5 Drop pods (all BNIB) for £125. With other purchases and patience I reckon I spent a total of £270 est. on a 5000pts army.

The only pieces I paid full price for out of my four armies are x2 thousand sons upgrade packs, x3 deathwatch upgrade packs, a couple of named characters and a heldrake because I gave in to the GW staffs badgering on visit when ordering the Thousand Son parts.


Also, join a gaming club - you'll end up finding deals from other players for their stuff / ready market for your own bits


Thing is you can say that about any game, you can find most if not all games for similar discounts. And GW are making more and more stuff direct only.


Indeed - but that's the point, any game can be made cheaper if you're smart about it. If you don't want to use the GW models that are direct only, then proxy them using suitable cheaper models (as long as they fit the style and rules). GW used to be all about building and proxying things before it turned into a cash-grab.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:52:05


Post by: Paradigm


Makumba wrote:
Can someone explain to me how is DV a better buy compering to the infinity or Xwing starter sets ? Because those give you full armies. DV doesn't give a full army even if someone glued up both forces and played unbound, after buying the 2 obligatory codex for each force of cours.


X-wing gives you 1 ship for the Rebels and 2 for the Imperials. Games are played with 3-5 ships, so you have between 20 and 30% of an army.
Infinity gives you 160-ish points when the standard is 300, so about half an army.

DV doesn't give you a full army, but neither do the others, and I see it as a better buy simply because you get more minis, which means more painting time, which is largely what I buy stuff for these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Accolade wrote:
While I like the DV set, I think people are underselling the Infinity set a little bit. Those models, in addition to being *significantly* more detailed than the DV models, are metal. And while some people may prefer plastic over metal, what is not arguable is the fact that metal models cost more to manufacture. Now, you'd never know that with GW since most switches from metal to plastic for them have resulted in higher prices, but that is the true nature of the beast.

To go back to what I said eariler, in terms of the quality, Icestorm wins hands down, the minis in there are some of the best I've ever had the pleasure to paint.

In terms of value, though, I still put DV ahead.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:55:13


Post by: Blacksails


That ignores the cost of all those things, which is kind of the point of the thread.

For the cost of DV, I'm getting 3 X-wing starter sets.

That's not including the inevitable one codex for one of the side of DV should the player ever want to expand.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 13:58:21


Post by: MWHistorian


If I wanted to play WMH on the cheapside, I can just get a faction starter box for $50, comes with quick start rules and all info for the units. Done.
With 40k you're looking at more than that just for the rulebook.
(Assuming all is store bought. Anything can be found cheaper on line somewhere. Heck, its even cheaper if ya just steal it, but that doesn't make for a productive conversation. So let's assume as a standard, that everything is bought from a store, brick or online.)


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 14:03:31


Post by: SlaveToDorkness


 Accolade wrote:
While I like the DV set, I think people are underselling the Infinity set a little bit. Those models, in addition to being *significantly* more detailed than the DV models, are metal. And while some people may prefer plastic over metal, what is not arguable is the fact that metal models cost more to manufacture. Now, you'd never know that with GW since most switches from metal to plastic for them have resulted in higher prices, but that is the true nature of the beast.


To be fair, this is incorrect. plastic material costs may be cheaper but they are significantly more expensive to manufacture. Which is why most small companies produce metal/resin minis instead of plastic injection moulded minis. A significant amount of GWs price increases in the late 90s went towards their plastic production line that enabled them to move towards the mostly plastic line they have today.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 14:06:01


Post by: Accolade


 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
 Accolade wrote:
While I like the DV set, I think people are underselling the Infinity set a little bit. Those models, in addition to being *significantly* more detailed than the DV models, are metal. And while some people may prefer plastic over metal, what is not arguable is the fact that metal models cost more to manufacture. Now, you'd never know that with GW since most switches from metal to plastic for them have resulted in higher prices, but that is the true nature of the beast.


To be fair, this is incorrect. plastic material costs may be cheaper but they are significantly more expensive to manufacture. Which is why most small companies produce metal/resin minis instead of plastic injection moulded minis. A significant amount of GWs price increases in the late 90s went towards their plastic production line that enabled them to move towards the mostly plastic line they have today.


Really? Hmm, I did not know that! Well then, I recant the point about cost.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 14:08:27


Post by: Wulfmar


 MWHistorian wrote:
If I wanted to play WMH on the cheapside, I can just get a faction starter box for $50, comes with quick start rules and all info for the units. Done.
With 40k you're looking at more than that just for the rulebook.
(Assuming all is store bought. Anything can be found cheaper on line somewhere. Heck, its even cheaper if ya just steal it, but that doesn't make for a productive conversation. So let's assume as a standard, that everything is bought from a store, brick or online.)


Well, if you lay those restrictions on the conversation without looking at the actual physical value of the products (material costs etc) then on the face of it, the majority of popular model companies are ripping off the customer. Taking into account materials used just solidifies this. The pricing is in line with what the companies think they can get away with charging for the product. There was a survey done on this website recently about the ages of most Dakka members. The majority being aged 18-35, young people who have the money who are already invested in the hobby. Suddenly all those fans from the past have the financial backing to buy more into the hobby.

Personally I think GW's prices are horrendous, but then look at the prices others are charging for their products and you'll be left with a similar feeling. Try out the independent kick-starters if you want to see more reasonable prices.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 14:09:46


Post by: MWHistorian


 Wulfmar wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
If I wanted to play WMH on the cheapside, I can just get a faction starter box for $50, comes with quick start rules and all info for the units. Done.
With 40k you're looking at more than that just for the rulebook.
(Assuming all is store bought. Anything can be found cheaper on line somewhere. Heck, its even cheaper if ya just steal it, but that doesn't make for a productive conversation. So let's assume as a standard, that everything is bought from a store, brick or online.)


Well, if you lay those restrictions on the conversation without looking at the actual physical value of the products (material costs etc) then on the face of it, the majority of popular model companies are ripping off the customer. Taking into account materials used just solidifies this. The pricing is in line with what the companies think they can get away with charging for the product. There was a survey done on this website recently about the ages of most Dakka members. The majority being aged 18-35, young people who have the money who are already invested in the hobby. Suddenly all those fans from the past have the financial backing to buy more into the hobby.

Personally I think GW's prices are horrendous, but then look at the prices others are charging for their products and you'll be left with a similar feeling. Try out the independent kick-starters if you want to see more reasonable prices.

I think you may have meant to quote someone else?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 14:11:57


Post by: Wulfmar


Nay, it was based on your comment about assuming all products are store bought from the main producers at their stated prices rather than independent retailers


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 14:13:46


Post by: MWHistorian


 Wulfmar wrote:
Nay, it was based on your comment about assuming all products are store bought from the main producers at their stated prices rather than independent retailers

I was trying to find a common ground to base arguments off of. If we bring buying armies from E-bay or scratch building your own, then the entire topic becomes meaningless.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 14:24:47


Post by: Wulfmar


 MWHistorian wrote:
 Wulfmar wrote:
Nay, it was based on your comment about assuming all products are store bought from the main producers at their stated prices rather than independent retailers

I was trying to find a common ground to base arguments off of. If we bring buying armies from E-bay or scratch building your own, then the entire topic becomes meaningless.


Such restriction wasn't introduced in the first place. You may find it meaningless but it affects the price in the long run.

GW may raise prices due to the second hand market?
GW may lower prices of new models to encourage people to move away from the second hand market?
New people may be more savvy and start with second hand and reduced price retailers?

Just because you think it's meaningless doesn't mean it is. It's just a more complex way of looking at the subject rather than reducing it to inaccurate basics.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 14:29:41


Post by: Daedleh


 Accolade wrote:
 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
 Accolade wrote:
While I like the DV set, I think people are underselling the Infinity set a little bit. Those models, in addition to being *significantly* more detailed than the DV models, are metal. And while some people may prefer plastic over metal, what is not arguable is the fact that metal models cost more to manufacture. Now, you'd never know that with GW since most switches from metal to plastic for them have resulted in higher prices, but that is the true nature of the beast.


To be fair, this is incorrect. plastic material costs may be cheaper but they are significantly more expensive to manufacture. Which is why most small companies produce metal/resin minis instead of plastic injection moulded minis. A significant amount of GWs price increases in the late 90s went towards their plastic production line that enabled them to move towards the mostly plastic line they have today.


Really? Hmm, I did not know that! Well then, I recant the point about cost.


It's true but not the full story. Molds for plastic minis are incredibly expensive, but the material itself is absolutely dirt cheap. Once you've paid off the mold, you may as well be printing money. The problem comes from paying off the mold - you need to sell significant numbers which is why GW in the past and current competitors use plastic only for core units that they'll sell in bulk. I don't really think the cost of the material should come into it. A company should use the right material for the right volume of units sold.

vv Agreed with MWHistorian.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 14:30:38


Post by: MWHistorian


 Wulfmar wrote:
 MWHistorian wrote:
 Wulfmar wrote:
Nay, it was based on your comment about assuming all products are store bought from the main producers at their stated prices rather than independent retailers

I was trying to find a common ground to base arguments off of. If we bring buying armies from E-bay or scratch building your own, then the entire topic becomes meaningless.


Such restriction wasn't introduced in the first place. You may find it meaningless but it affects the price in the long run.

GW may raise prices due to the second hand market?
GW may lower prices of new models to encourage people to move away from the second hand market?
New people may be more savvy and start with second hand and reduced price retailers?

Just because you think it's meaningless doesn't mean it is. It's just a more complex way of looking at the subject rather than reducing it to inaccurate basics.

We're comparing the prices of different games systems. The Op brought up the idea that other games are just as expensive as 40k if not more so. In order to compare, we need a common ground to compare them from. If someone says "40k is cheaper because I can scratch build," then that's a useless argument because you can scratch build anything from any system. Or "I bought my army second hand from E-bay and it was super cheap!" Well, the same can be said for other game systems as well, so once again, it doesn't progress the conversation.
In order to have a comparison, we need a common ground to compare them with. That stuff you brought up really doesn't have much at all to do with the OP's topic.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 15:45:44


Post by: EVIL INC


To the OP...
Most of the miniature games cost too much. lol
Have you looked at board games and seen their prices?

This is just a matter of how people justify their purchases to themselves and others.
"I spent $500 on a GW army but this other game "costs less" so I'll also buy an army for it too. Woo Hoo!, I saved 50 cents and now have 2 armies that I can play 2 different games with! Now, this third game saves me a quarter if I buy 4 extra starter sets....."

Many players like the "mythos" of the game they are playing. Many historical gamers just like history and different time periods so buy games that corrospond with them. Others just like the storyline and mythos of a game and play it because of that. Look at the x-wing game for example. Do you honestly think that the majority of x-wing players are not star wars fans?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 15:59:18


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 EVIL INC wrote:
To the OP...
Most of the miniature games cost too much. lol
Have you looked at board games and seen their prices?
Board games usually use low quality models or soft plastic that is often inappropriate for painting up nicely.

Wargames are somewhere between board games and finescale models.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 16:03:29


Post by: 13045273


I say play Kill Team


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 16:08:38


Post by: Makumba


DV doesn't give you a full army, but neither do the others, and I see it as a better buy simply because you get more minis, which means more painting time, which is largely what I buy stuff for these days.

but DA armies dont run tacticals or terminators , same for lords and sorc on foot. cultists are used, but I don't think I ever saw chosen used , specialy armed for melee the way DV ones are armed. The hellbrute is a rather weak unit too, without the formation book. The infnity and starwars starters cost less, even without buying the extra codex, and give you units that people will want to use.

For the cost of books alone one can buy armies for other systems. Army book 50$, ally book 50$, lets say we are lucky and don't have to use supplement and save on that. then the fortification book which is out of print and hard to get 33$. thats 130$ and we have to get a pdf of the main rules.


I say play Kill Team

Against yourself maybe. The normal game here is 1500pts, you almost never see bigger games ,unless people are testing for tournaments and definitly never less points.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 16:17:06


Post by: Paradigm


Makumba wrote:
DV doesn't give you a full army, but neither do the others, and I see it as a better buy simply because you get more minis, which means more painting time, which is largely what I buy stuff for these days.

but DA armies dont run tacticals or terminators , same for lords and sorc on foot. cultists are used, but I don't think I ever saw chosen used , specialy armed for melee the way DV ones are armed. The hellbrute is a rather weak unit too, without the formation book. The infnity and starwars starters cost less, even without buying the extra codex, and give you units that people will want to use.


You're dealing in absolutes again. I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of DA armies use Tactical or Deathwing. Chaos can almost always make use of the Lord or at least use him as a Sorcerer if it comes to it. The Chosen are difficult to place simply due to the mixed up weapons, but sprinkling them around as Aspiring Champions is a good way to use them. Thee Helbrute is decent enough.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Makumba wrote:

For the cost of books alone one can buy armies for other systems. Army book 50$, ally book 50$, lets say we are lucky and don't have to use supplement and save on that. then the fortification book which is out of print and hard to get 33$. thats 130$ and we have to get a pdf of the main rules.


You don't ever need allies or supplements, they are simply options that can be used.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 16:29:25


Post by: Makumba


You don't ever need allies or supplements, they are simply options that can be used.

Yeah right. I totaly can play DE without eldar ally or GK without marine or SW ally or nids without their supplement. Only then I would get a bad list.


Chaos can almost always make use of the Lord or at least use him as a Sorcerer if it comes to it. The Chosen are difficult to place simply due to the mixed up weapons, but sprinkling them around as Aspiring Champions is a good way to use them. Thee Helbrute is decent enough.

But never on foot, always on bikes, unless he is taken as ally to a demon army, but then we have to add a third codex to starting books.
The hellbrute is super bad, bad weapon , no drop pod option , with formation at least buffs the cultists.

And the sprinkling works on which units from the DV set? cultists cant take champions as leader. You would have to buy csm or plague marines which are not in the DV book. And even if you did, no one takes claws or ax or even worse fists on their asp champions.

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of DA armies use Tactical or Deathwing.

DW terminator armies are not viable in 7th ed and bikers are better troops for DA , specialy when they can combine them with White Scares marines and double dip on traits and units they don't normaly have.Why would anyone want to use tacs in their DA army? They have no traits, dakka banner works better on other units. They don't even work well as sm tacs in a DA list as obligatory tax ally troop, because scouts cost less and bikers have more synergy.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 16:31:27


Post by: vipoid


 Paradigm wrote:

You don't ever need allies or supplements, they are simply options that can be used.


Did GW need to make supplements at all? Instead of just, I don't know, putting those 4 pages of rules in the main codex.

But, I guess if they did that you might actually get what you pay for with the new books. Can't have that.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 16:35:54


Post by: Accolade


 vipoid wrote:
 Paradigm wrote:

You don't ever need allies or supplements, they are simply options that can be used.


Did GW need to make supplements at all? Instead of just, I don't know, putting those 4 pages of rules in the main codex.

But, I guess if they did that you might actually get what you pay for with the new books. Can't have that.


Why make an absurd $50 on one army's rules when you can make $100 or more?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 16:36:43


Post by: Paradigm


Makumba wrote:
You don't ever need allies or supplements, they are simply options that can be used.

Yeah right. I totaly can play DE without eldar ally or GK without marine or SW ally or nids without their supplement. Only then I would get a bad list.


Chaos can almost always make use of the Lord or at least use him as a Sorcerer if it comes to it. The Chosen are difficult to place simply due to the mixed up weapons, but sprinkling them around as Aspiring Champions is a good way to use them. Thee Helbrute is decent enough.

But never on foot, always on bikes, unless he is taken as ally to a demon army, but then we have to add a third codex to starting books.
The hellbrute is super bad, bad weapon , no drop pod option , with formation at least buffs the cultists.

And the sprinkling works on which units from the DV set? cultists cant take champions as leader. You would have to buy csm or plague marines which are not in the DV book. And even if you did, no one takes claws or ax or even worse fists on their asp champions.

I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of DA armies use Tactical or Deathwing.

DW terminator armies are not viable in 7th ed and bikers are better troops for DA , specialy when they can combine them with White Scares marines and double dip on traits and units they don't normaly have.Why would anyone want to use tacs in their DA army? They have no traits, dakka banner works better on other units. They don't even work well as sm tacs in a DA list as obligatory tax ally troop, because scouts cost less and bikers have more synergy.


I know by now there's no point arguing with these ideas you have that you must only ever build the best, most optimised list with no chance for innovation, background or free thought, so I'll just not bother. For the record, I do disagree with everything you said.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 16:40:07


Post by: Accolade


Paradigm, from what I understand Makumba comes from sort of Polish ultra-competitive scene, tis a harsh environment out there


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 17:13:04


Post by: Battlesong


 TedNugent wrote:
DV's models are deliberately underwhelming, so I don't really think that's a fair comparison.

All of the models in DV are deliberately designed only to be used in either a DA or CSM army. Unlike in Black Reach, which contained generic marines that could be suited for any chapter or any Codex, DA marines have insignias and art that only make them suitable in DA armies. The Terminators and bikers are also bogged with RW/DW insignias, which makes them technically not suitable as vanilla terminators or white scars. The DA Codex itself is $50 and is widely considered one of the worst codexes.

The CSM codex is not a very great tier, and what is included in the DV box is not the best pick of the codex. Cultists, Chosen, a HELBRUTE (bottom-rung).

As a model kit, Dark Vengeance is a superb value, but let me ask this: how many of you even use one single model from the DV kit? By contrast, how many of you own a DV kit? How many of you have DV models sitting in your closet, not ever touching the table?

To be fair, I do use all of the cultists, and have used some of the chosen to be my aspiring Champions in lists. Still doesn't come close to making up the cost of the box and the CSM codex doesn't add any favors


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 17:58:41


Post by: Desubot


Also to be fair those RW bikes make excellent Emp Children bikes



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 18:31:56


Post by: BoardroomHero


Wow, I hope none of you play any games on the computer or console. Did you know that games on Steam are functionally free, but for some reason they still charge for them? It's true! The bandwidth to distribute them costs almost nothing, but the average seems to be $10-$20! The markup is simply unreal!


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 18:59:26


Post by: Battlesong


So the major discussion, when you cut everything that's been posted here to the core, is in perceived value. The issue is it's nigh impossible to convince someone that what they perceive as value isn't. I've seen several posts here argue the fact that X-Wing minis are painted lowers the value; for me it's just the opposite - I view painting models as a chore I have to do to make them at least look decent to play with (and to be honest, I don't get that chore done as often as I should). I'm a gamer, I enjoy gaming, I enjoy wargames for the customization of your side rather than the static nature of board games. Given the choice, I will always choose painted models. Does this mean the person that perceives the X-Wing models to be less of a value is wrong? Absolutely not, I know several people that enjoy painting the figures at least as much, if not more than gaming with them. However, his argument also does not mean I am wrong in the value I get out of already painted models and being able to just get to the gaming.

I will say that I agree that 40k and WHFB do not scale down to skirmish level well at all. I love the games but they really need to be played over 1000 points or the imbalance already in the games is greatly magnified. This is why there needs to be special rules for Kill Team and Combat Patrol. Also, outside of special events, very few people ever want to play either GW game at skirmish level, so to maximize your investment to get the greatest number of games and opponents you really do need to be able to field a minimum of 1500 points, which is ridiculously expensive. To truly look at how expensive a game is, you really need to first determine the most popular approximate point value the game is played at (as that will get the best value for your investment by allowing the most games), determine how many of which models you need to field a relatively competitive force at that point value(because the majority of people playing games, while not WAAC, usually wants a chance to be competitive and not get board wiped asap), and then get the cost of that force. When you do this, I think you will find that GW games are easily the most expensive to play.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 19:06:07


Post by: jasper76


If you want great value in table-top gaming, historicals are where its at.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 19:27:02


Post by: Isengard


Long and short of it for me is not so much the cost as the overall experience. Arguably other people's models are as good as GW's, certainly true in many instances. However, the big seller for me and what draws me into spending money is the background, the depth, the detail, the colour. It is so developed now over so long. I think it helps to be British as it is very unmistakably British in style. That's it for me, I love the background I can really identify with my army. When I look at other games I see an attempt to knock off a similar background such as WMH. If 40K's background is an ocean, deep and overflowing with detail and interest WMH is a shallow pond which holds no interest to me. I cannot be wooed with the promise of cheaper games. I don't want to play skirmish or small unit games, I want large armies. You can't win me over by saying "this only costs £50 to buy into". I'm lucky I guess that I have spare cash but if you show me something which has cheaper smaller armies I just think "show me the background, is it compelling and deep?" and the answer is always "no". So I keep loyal to GW as long as they keep producing this immersive experience. I know so much about my armies, their background, history, etc. I really identify with them and they feel like proper fully fleshed out and detailed societies. I know GW is derivative but they've taken it and exploded it out into so much more. It was originally space elves, space orcs, etc but now it is so rich, so deep, so compelling. Also I accept that they have not built up the Tau and Necrons as much but all the other races have great backgrounds.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 19:35:25


Post by: MWHistorian


Librarian = $30

Tac squad + Rhino: $40 + $37 = $77
Tac squad + Rhino = $77

Storm Talon = $45
Biker squad = $40
Biker Squad = $40

Vindicator = $57
Vindicator = $57
Hunter/stalker = $65
That's roughly 1,000 points, a small game for 40k. $488.
Now add rulebook $90 and codex for $60 the total is $638

Now a Warmachine army of 35 points. (We'll use my Convergence army as an example.)
Caster = $25
Heavy vector = $35
Heavy vector = $35
heavy Vector = $35
Infantry = $50
Light Vector = $19
Solo = $12
Solo = $12
servitors = $12
Total = $235
With rule book(s) = $30
Grand total = $265.

My Infinity army was vastly less expensive.

It's quite possible that I did the maths wrong seeing as how I was a history and art major, but I think you get the general idea.

And Warmachine's fluff is not shallow at all. It's actually quite in depth and awesome.




People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 19:42:08


Post by: Azreal13


 Accolade wrote:
Paradigm, from what I understand Makumba comes from sort of Polish ultra-competitive scene, tis a harsh environment out there


There's a world of difference between operating in an ultra competitive environment and being utterly unable to compute that not all playing environments operate in this way.

Makumba seems totally unable to concede that his way is not the only way the game is played, despite many of us trying to explain so previously. It's one thing to disagree with something, it is another to apparently deny it exists at all.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 19:47:46


Post by: Swastakowey


A Warlord Games Bolt Action 1000 point army of your choosing.

$128.00

Usually contains around 45-70 infantry models with Tank or a Tank and a Vehicle and support weapons.

60 USD dollars for the Rule Book and the nation book of your choice.

Total to build a large, fully customizable army full of options beyond the recommended list and have the rules to play your nation and more comes to:

$188.00 USD

This US Army set is just one example: http://us-store.warlordgames.com/collections/bolt-action-army-deals/products/1000pts-us-army

Thats for 28mm multi-part nicely detailed and fully customizable models. Enough for a 1000 point game which is the normal sized game for this system.

You can take this further by simply buying a basic infantry kit and building all your extras out of it, such as observers, officers, medics and snipers and whatever else you want.

Considering that a Privateer army comes to 265 with fiddly models and few models at that, and GW is worse with its GWness I think historicals are the way to go for the easiest and cheapest way of getting into the hobby. Thats without looking at the alternatives such as 1:72 scale etc

Privateer press, X-wing and GW all have stupidly priced minis.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 20:00:05


Post by: Wayniac


I'm glad you brought up Bolt Action, because IMO that's how a 40k army should be priced. Even if they did't go the 1,000 point being the normal size route (because bigger = better I guess), even a 1,000 point starting army for $128USD would go a long way to help 40k being more affordable (and IMO the books should be closer to bolt action as well. A "codex" is $25, the hardcover book is $35 and both are good quality full color, that's quite reasonable). That means your buy-in to get started is under $200, which is great. Instead, a 1,000 point 40k army runs about double that or more.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 20:05:10


Post by: MWHistorian


WayneTheGame wrote:
I'm glad you brought up Bolt Action, because IMO that's how a 40k army should be priced. Even if they did't go the 1,000 point being the normal size route (because bigger = better I guess), even a 1,000 point starting army for $128USD would go a long way to help 40k being more affordable (and IMO the books should be closer to bolt action as well. A "codex" is $25, the hardcover book is $35 and both are good quality full color, that's quite reasonable). That means your buy-in to get started is under $200, which is great. Instead, a 1,000 point 40k army runs about double that or more.

More than three times more.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 20:05:56


Post by: Swastakowey


I agree. I purchased 2 armies and ALL the books in a set because it was so cheap and was able to do demo games and so on. Was great fun.

I felt the models had a lot more real options too, compared to GW models. So many poses, different gear and all the weapons I could find in the book were there too.

The book is great as well. In the army books it has page numbers for were to find the rule for a unit in the main rule book. Made it so easy to find relevant rules.

All in all, the easiest game to get into if you know nothing. In my opinion.

And thats just comparing them in US to US prices. If I took a 40k army in NZD dollars, converted it to US dollars the gap in price between them gets bigger.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 20:25:58


Post by: Azreal13


WayneTheGame wrote:
I'm glad you brought up Bolt Action, because IMO that's how a 40k army should be priced. Even if they did't go the 1,000 point being the normal size route (because bigger = better I guess), even a 1,000 point starting army for $128USD would go a long way to help 40k being more affordable (and IMO the books should be closer to bolt action as well. A "codex" is $25, the hardcover book is $35 and both are good quality full color, that's quite reasonable). That means your buy-in to get started is under $200, which is great. Instead, a 1,000 point 40k army runs about double that or more.


IMO there is a lot about Bolt Action that 40K should be. I'd be keen to start an army, but I've got a bunch of projects ahead of that in the queue.

One of which is Darklands, and that's an excellent illustration of how price =\= value. Many of the prices of Mierce stuff is well, sharp, to say the least, the big stuff compares well to similar size models from FW or any of the high end resin companies, but the infantry is probably amongst the most you can pay for a man-sized resin model outside of some character models etc.. Thing is, those of us who are into it don't really care. Obviously I'd love to be able to afford to buy all of the things, but I don't mind that I'm paying a premium because firstly, I think the minis are top notch from concept through sculpting to production, and secondly because I feel much more connected to the company and community than I do GW.

I've said it before, and nothing ever changes whenever this topic comes up, nobody actually has an issue with GW's prices, even if they think they do, it is because many people, and apparently in growing numbers, are finding it harder to find value in what GW are offering. I have no philosophical objection to paying a lot of money for a model or kit, as long as I feel the kit represents good value in terms of what it represents in game or if I find it aesthetically pleasing enough, I also find many of GW's plastic troop kits (Tac Squad, Firewarriors, Lesser Daemons etc) to be of at least reasonable value, but when you're charging quite a lot more for fewer models than these kits, I think the way forward is to find a different approach than "we expect to sell fewer of these, so we'll charge a lot more."


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 20:30:46


Post by: Makumba


 Accolade wrote:
Paradigm, from what I understand Makumba comes from sort of Polish ultra-competitive scene, tis a harsh environment out there

It has little to do with competitive gaming. I played in 2 tournaments in over 3 years of playing. But absolutly no one would buy a bad army or bad units around here, the gaming cost is too high for people to waste money on stuff that may not work .



Makumba seems totally unable to concede that his way is not the only way the game is played, despite many of us trying to explain so previously. It's one thing to disagree with something, it is another to apparently deny it exists at all.

There are only two options. Either people look how much the stuff costs, see that it costs a lot to them and in general buy the good stuff over the bad stuff. Or people buy stuff at random. But if people buy stuff at random, then I have two questions. Why are serpent spams, screamers stars still viewed as a problem , when the chance to build those armies, if people are picking them at random should be rather low.

And in what kind of a bizzaro world am I right now, if the second army picking way is the dominant one


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 20:33:42


Post by: Azreal13


There are not two options, you can tell there aren't two options because people have explained to you that there is a third fething option.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 20:52:31


Post by: Wayniac


 Azreal13 wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
I'm glad you brought up Bolt Action, because IMO that's how a 40k army should be priced. Even if they did't go the 1,000 point being the normal size route (because bigger = better I guess), even a 1,000 point starting army for $128USD would go a long way to help 40k being more affordable (and IMO the books should be closer to bolt action as well. A "codex" is $25, the hardcover book is $35 and both are good quality full color, that's quite reasonable). That means your buy-in to get started is under $200, which is great. Instead, a 1,000 point 40k army runs about double that or more.


IMO there is a lot about Bolt Action that 40K should be. I'd be keen to start an army, but I've got a bunch of projects ahead of that in the queue.


Same, and I agree. Bolt Action is basically everything 40k should be - fairly simple to learn, clear rules, encourage tactics, balanced armies, reasonable prices.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 20:54:56


Post by: Swastakowey


WayneTheGame wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
I'm glad you brought up Bolt Action, because IMO that's how a 40k army should be priced. Even if they did't go the 1,000 point being the normal size route (because bigger = better I guess), even a 1,000 point starting army for $128USD would go a long way to help 40k being more affordable (and IMO the books should be closer to bolt action as well. A "codex" is $25, the hardcover book is $35 and both are good quality full color, that's quite reasonable). That means your buy-in to get started is under $200, which is great. Instead, a 1,000 point 40k army runs about double that or more.


IMO there is a lot about Bolt Action that 40K should be. I'd be keen to start an army, but I've got a bunch of projects ahead of that in the queue.


Same, and I agree. Bolt Action is basically everything 40k should be - fairly simple to learn, clear rules, encourage tactics, balanced armies, reasonable prices.


I too agree. In the process of making a 40k expansion for bolt action as we speak. Its such a great rule set.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 21:01:08


Post by: Deadnight


Isengard wrote:
Long and short of it for me is not so much the cost as the overall experience. Arguably other people's models are as good as GW's, certainly true in many instances. However, the big seller for me and what draws me into spending money is the background, the depth, the detail, the colour.


I agree. I think the lore has an equal value to the crunch. I can't see any game selling itself as a collection of geometric vectors and calculations. You heed more.

Isengard wrote:
When I look at other games I see an attempt to knock off a similar background such as WMH. If 40K's background is an ocean, deep and overflowing with detail and interest WMH is a shallow pond which holds no interest to me.


To be fair, Pp's world is far from a 'knock off' of gw's. With respect, saying that demonstrates ignorance of their ip. Pp have done a rather excellent job of making a fantasy setting that is both strangely familiar, entirely unique, and quite different at the same time. A lot of their 'twists' on things are very clever and very well executed.

I think you'd be surprised at how deep and excellent privateer press' ip actually is. Far more than the 'shallow pond' you claim it to be. They've been developing their world for about fifteen years now. Have a go, and Read the iron kingdoms rpg material. It's excellent. Gritty, characterful, colourful, deep, immersive and very engrossing. It'll surprise you. And you have characters with actual character, and motivations beyond the rather one dimensional 40k staple of 'death to the....' And 'glory to the....'
And Compared to 40k? Hmm, more and more I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much 'Gw have written thirty years worth of lore', and more 'gw have lore written thirty years ago'. And it feels it's just been recycled and reprocessed since. Don't get me wrong - some of the second ed stuff is enjoyable, and the forgeworld imperial armour and Horus heresy books are fun reads (I love the recent three hh books), but there are as many misses as hits. Even in the 'glory days'.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 21:13:45


Post by: Wayniac


Deadnight wrote:
Isengard wrote:
Long and short of it for me is not so much the cost as the overall experience. Arguably other people's models are as good as GW's, certainly true in many instances. However, the big seller for me and what draws me into spending money is the background, the depth, the detail, the colour.


I agree. I think the lore has an equal value to the crunch. I can't see any game selling itself as a collection of geometric vectors and calculations. You heed more.

Isengard wrote:
When I look at other games I see an attempt to knock off a similar background such as WMH. If 40K's background is an ocean, deep and overflowing with detail and interest WMH is a shallow pond which holds no interest to me.


To be fair, Pp's world is far from a 'knock off' of gw's. With respect, saying that demonstrates ignorance of their ip. Pp have done a rather excellent job of making a fantasy setting that is both strangely familiar, entirely unique, and quite different at the same time. A lot of their 'twists' on things are very clever and very well executed.

I think you'd be surprised at how deep and excellent privateer press' ip actually is. Far more than the 'shallow pond' you claim it to be. They've been developing their world for about fifteen years now. Have a go, and Read the iron kingdoms rpg material. It's excellent. Gritty, characterful, colourful, deep, immersive and very engrossing. It'll surprise you. And you have characters with actual character, and motivations beyond the rather one dimensional 40k staple of 'death to the....' And 'glory to the....'
And Compared to 40k? Hmm, more and more I've come to the conclusion that it's not so much 'Gw have written thirty years worth of lore', and more 'gw have lore written thirty years ago'. And it feels it's just been recycled and reprocessed since. Don't get me wrong - some of the second ed stuff is enjoyable, and the forgeworld imperial armour and Horus heresy books are fun reads (I love the recent three hh books), but there are as many misses as hits. Even in the 'glory days'.


The other big difference is that PP's story constantly evolves, while GW just has stuff happen and then it's oh it' still the last days of the 41st millenium and nothing is going to advance forward. WMH's lore constantly gets changed and the storyline advances, basically imagine as though the entirety of the End Times stuff (although not as much "Destroy everything!" scale) happens in every single product release.

GW is the pool here, just a very deep pool. Warmachine/Hordes is the ocean, because the lore is not only vast but there's still more of it coming.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/21 21:14:03


Post by: Vaktathi


While I never got into PP's background much, 40k's lore has most definitely gotten increasingly stale, one-dimensional, and very definitely recycled, starting late 4th/early 5th edition, at least for main codex/rulebook type stuff.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/22 03:36:23


Post by: jreilly89


Isengard wrote:
Long and short of it for me is not so much the cost as the overall experience. Arguably other people's models are as good as GW's, certainly true in many instances. However, the big seller for me and what draws me into spending money is the background, the depth, the detail, the colour. It is so developed now over so long. I think it helps to be British as it is very unmistakably British in style. That's it for me, I love the background I can really identify with my army. When I look at other games I see an attempt to knock off a similar background such as WMH. If 40K's background is an ocean, deep and overflowing with detail and interest WMH is a shallow pond which holds no interest to me. I cannot be wooed with the promise of cheaper games. I don't want to play skirmish or small unit games, I want large armies. You can't win me over by saying "this only costs £50 to buy into". I'm lucky I guess that I have spare cash but if you show me something which has cheaper smaller armies I just think "show me the background, is it compelling and deep?" and the answer is always "no". So I keep loyal to GW as long as they keep producing this immersive experience. I know so much about my armies, their background, history, etc. I really identify with them and they feel like proper fully fleshed out and detailed societies. I know GW is derivative but they've taken it and exploded it out into so much more. It was originally space elves, space orcs, etc but now it is so rich, so deep, so compelling. Also I accept that they have not built up the Tau and Necrons as much but all the other races have great backgrounds.


This. 40k ain't perfect, but damn do I love it and damn is it fun


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/22 06:32:20


Post by: ntw3001


 Vaktathi wrote:
While I never got into PP's background much, 40k's lore has most definitely gotten increasingly stale, one-dimensional, and very definitely recycled, starting late 4th/early 5th edition, at least for main codex/rulebook type stuff.


Pretty much. I don't agree with the idea that the tineline needs to move forward though; I see that complaint as an unwelcome artifact of GW's tendency to tighten the focus on their little stable of special characters. When I last played (at the tail end of 3rd), SCs in-game were by permission only, for special, preplanned, epic battles. The background was broad, emphasising the scale of the setting and focusing on individuals in little one-off snippets of narrative. Not building heroes, just picking out, say, a random Leman Russ crew.

Now it seems that either every other story is a laundry list of 'rad stuff Marneus Calgar has done' and any character who gets a little bit of narrative focus becomes a SC. Less so since the Chapterhouse business, but did we ever need a named character for 'competent Ultramarine tank commander'? It used to be portrayed as a vast galaxy where any situation could be played out (and SGs reinforced this by expanding the background in minor, tightly-focused ways), but now it's just... I dunno. Game of Thrones minus a plot?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/22 06:57:50


Post by: jonolikespie


GW don't need to advance the 40k timeline, they need to wind the clock back. They have an entire thousand years to work with within the 41st millennium, let along the other 9 they have to toy with.

Instead though they focus on the last 50 odd years of the fluff.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/22 09:29:53


Post by: Envihon


 jreilly89 wrote:
Isengard wrote:
Long and short of it for me is not so much the cost as the overall experience. Arguably other people's models are as good as GW's, certainly true in many instances. However, the big seller for me and what draws me into spending money is the background, the depth, the detail, the colour. It is so developed now over so long. I think it helps to be British as it is very unmistakably British in style. That's it for me, I love the background I can really identify with my army. When I look at other games I see an attempt to knock off a similar background such as WMH. If 40K's background is an ocean, deep and overflowing with detail and interest WMH is a shallow pond which holds no interest to me. I cannot be wooed with the promise of cheaper games. I don't want to play skirmish or small unit games, I want large armies. You can't win me over by saying "this only costs £50 to buy into". I'm lucky I guess that I have spare cash but if you show me something which has cheaper smaller armies I just think "show me the background, is it compelling and deep?" and the answer is always "no". So I keep loyal to GW as long as they keep producing this immersive experience. I know so much about my armies, their background, history, etc. I really identify with them and they feel like proper fully fleshed out and detailed societies. I know GW is derivative but they've taken it and exploded it out into so much more. It was originally space elves, space orcs, etc but now it is so rich, so deep, so compelling. Also I accept that they have not built up the Tau and Necrons as much but all the other races have great backgrounds.


This. 40k ain't perfect, but damn do I love it and damn is it fun


After reading this, I would definitely agree with this and why it keeps me into 40k. The only other models and background that really interests me is maybe Infinity. WHM just doesn't do it for, I don't like the models or their background but this is a preference.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/22 10:54:56


Post by: BRB


 ausYenLoWang wrote:
BRB wrote:
It's also the high costs of maintaining and expanding 40k that's making it more expensive. Whenever there is a change in editions and rules, you're almost forced to invest in a) a new rulebook and b) eventually a new codex for the current edition, while running into the danger of your units being dropped out completely and becoming obsolete. (Penal Legion and Sly Marbo for example). Other systems either let you play with old lists, they update them via free errata, have rules or stats and lists for free download or at least a cheap softcover version sold as a single copy.

The move from 5E to 6E had me buy a new 65€ rulebook and a 39€ Imp codex for 40k to be able to play, for example, while it was just a 8€ softcover for Flames of War when they moved from V2 to V3 (free for owners of the previous edition).

Then there are the costs of expanding. While DV and BR before certainly are good deals, it ramps up from there if you want to expand those choices, especially if you want new formations for your existing armies and you'll have to move into forgeworld's realm (e.g. Elysians, Tank Coy, Armoured Fist for Imps).

As far as the bits are concerned, they do include a ton of bits, but quite often not those that matter. You want a meltagun or plasma launcher for your imp troops for example? You have to start scavenging, as there are only one of each in the command sprue and none in the standard platoon.

The good thing about 40k is, though, that there is a huge secondary market. If you're somewhat crafty, you have a huge selection of crappy and cheap used models on ebay that can be made usable with a bit of effort.


just on a quick galnce at this post.. saying the model you ahd for marbo became obsolete is a little disingenuos, most people added a box to a guardsmans hand, and i bet that model is still used as a counts as for something else.

on another note i want to say that a 1500 pt 40k game, on a decent table whilst more expensive than a 100 pt xwing game, looks a damn sight more awesome (i hate those carboard cutout asteroids)


It's not only Marbo, but there are tons of examples, where whole units have been phased out. I'm betting that everyone who has been playing for 2-3 codex editions has an example of their own. And even if it's only a single miniature like Marbo: there are probably tons of people who put work into those single character models, not just stuck a bomb onto a normal guardsman. One of the fellows at my LGS quit 40k because he was hugely disappointed when the old Soro Codex was cut down again and again. Not caring so much about the change in stats, rather than that certain units from his beautiful army no longer appeared in the new list. So instead of investing money yet again, to make is Soros playable again at 1850 and find a new army to fit those guards into, he put them on ebay and started FoW.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/22 11:17:25


Post by: AlexRae


The cost of GW stuff is unacceptable. The business strategy of upping profits and reducing overheads without actively trying to expand the market is unfair on the loyal customers.



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/22 14:18:33


Post by: TwilightSparkles


Nearly every other game is easier and cheaper to play than GW IF you have local players.

What I live about Warmahordes is that I can buy any unit for any of my forces, and the rules are all in a nice little card along with cost. No forced to buy another book or magazine.

Id love to try GW again but Id need to spend £80 just to get rules and a codex! I just bought , new, 50 points of WM mercenaries for £130 and they come with everything to play.

X Wing , but something I've ever heard anyone try to argue as cheap, but it's ready to play, minimal setup and terrain, and you get rules with the models.

Infinity, all the rules freely available.

Malifaux, cheap basic rulebook. , rules with models (m2e ones anyway).



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/22 18:09:45


Post by: Vaktathi


ntw3001 wrote:
 Vaktathi wrote:
While I never got into PP's background much, 40k's lore has most definitely gotten increasingly stale, one-dimensional, and very definitely recycled, starting late 4th/early 5th edition, at least for main codex/rulebook type stuff.


Pretty much. I don't agree with the idea that the tineline needs to move forward though; I see that complaint as an unwelcome artifact of GW's tendency to tighten the focus on their little stable of special characters. When I last played (at the tail end of 3rd), SCs in-game were by permission only, for special, preplanned, epic battles. The background was broad, emphasising the scale of the setting and focusing on individuals in little one-off snippets of narrative. Not building heroes, just picking out, say, a random Leman Russ crew.

Now it seems that either every other story is a laundry list of 'rad stuff Marneus Calgar has done' and any character who gets a little bit of narrative focus becomes a SC. Less so since the Chapterhouse business, but did we ever need a named character for 'competent Ultramarine tank commander'? It used to be portrayed as a vast galaxy where any situation could be played out (and SGs reinforced this by expanding the background in minor, tightly-focused ways), but now it's just... I dunno. Game of Thrones minus a plot?
I agree, the large number of often highly specific SC's does tend to constrict what was formerly a much more open universe, "where nobody will be missed". They often also are either incredibly gimmicky or so badly overcosted that they might as well not exist.

But yeah, in general the background (and imagery) has gotten a lot more "hero-ey" and has lost a lot of its flavor from earlier editions. I really miss the art from the 2E-mid4E era.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/22 18:16:36


Post by: vipoid


ntw3001 wrote:

Now it seems that either every other story is a laundry list of 'rad stuff Marneus Calgar has done' and any character who gets a little bit of narrative focus becomes a SC.


I think what's worse is when they make a new character and retcon them into existing battles that didn't need them.

Like when the Swarmlord was shoehorned into virtually every Tyranid victory.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/22 18:52:53


Post by: EVIL INC


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 EVIL INC wrote:
To the OP...
Most of the miniature games cost too much. lol
Have you looked at board games and seen their prices?
Board games usually use low quality models or soft plastic that is often inappropriate for painting up nicely.

Wargames are somewhere between board games and finescale models.

I meant with pricing. They are overcosted as well.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/23 23:32:43


Post by: Envihon


After reading these, I do feel that people generally do have valid points when it comes to dissatisfaction with the value of GW products and why people have left. This may or may not have to do with what the customers feel GW is selling as a product and what GW thinks it is selling it as a product. For me, they have the best looking models (non-historical models mind you) and the most captivating story and universe so I probably will continue being a customer for a good while.

I will say though, if I ever found a prominent amount of people locally that played Infinity, I would be more likely to get into it. Warhammer 40k still is the biggest miniwargame around here on the East Coast though.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/23 23:43:12


Post by: Accolade


I try to look at it like this- nothing GW does it inherently unique to GW.

Should you see Privateer Press coming up with Mk3 increasing the number of models for a standard 35pt game, upping costs of kits even as they switch from metal to plastic, axing press gangers and abandoning social media, persecuting people for supposed IP infringements (i.e. Spots the Space Marine), the exact same story will be repeated as customers increasingly turning against them.

I'm probably a bit like you Envihon. I don't necessarily dislike WMH, I just don't get that jazzed feeling about their models...it's probably the absurdly absurd shoulder pads and whatnot (it's like WoW on steroids). For a long time I wouldn't look into anything beyond GW, but then I found games like Dystopian Wars and All Quiet on the Martian Front and those games did get me jazzed up. Now I'm sitting on some small 40k army remnants and trying to decide if I can invest in a new ruleset to catch back up to the current meta. Time will tell if 40k continues to scratch an itch that others can't hit.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/23 23:50:46


Post by: Swastakowey


I think you are making a bit of a mistake. Its not a choice between 2 rip off game systems. There are heaps of rules and games out there. In my opinion PP models look hideous.

I find Spartan games makes some awesome stuff and getting more into their games etc. Just try games with other people before you buy, rather than look at the 2 (I think) biggest companies.

My advice is find people who play a game, any game, and give it a decent go before buying it. Then make decisions.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/23 23:57:20


Post by: Accolade


 Swastakowey wrote:
I think you are making a bit of a mistake. Its not a choice between 2 rip off game systems. There are heaps of rules and games out there. In my opinion PP models look hideous.

I find Spartan games makes some awesome stuff and getting more into their games etc. Just try games with other people before you buy, rather than look at the 2 (I think) biggest companies.

My advice is find people who play a game, any game, and give it a decent go before buying it. Then make decisions.


Wait, is that addressed to me? If so, I'm quite aware there are multiple game systems, that's why I own Dystopian Wars and AQMF models. I was using WMH just as an example that I feel people pose often against 40k for why they don't look into other systems.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 00:02:22


Post by: Swastakowey


 Accolade wrote:
 Swastakowey wrote:
I think you are making a bit of a mistake. Its not a choice between 2 rip off game systems. There are heaps of rules and games out there. In my opinion PP models look hideous.

I find Spartan games makes some awesome stuff and getting more into their games etc. Just try games with other people before you buy, rather than look at the 2 (I think) biggest companies.

My advice is find people who play a game, any game, and give it a decent go before buying it. Then make decisions.


Wait, is that addressed to me? If so, I'm quite aware there are multiple game systems, that's why I own Dystopian Wars and AQMF models. I was using WMH just as an example that I feel people pose often against 40k for why they don't look into other systems.


Sorry... I took ages to write so yours jumped ahead of mine. It was for the OP...



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 00:03:59


Post by: Accolade


Ahh, well then ignore my post Swastakowey. I was thinking to myself "I thought this guy and I were usually on the same page"


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 00:04:45


Post by: Swastakowey


 Accolade wrote:
Ahh, well then ignore my post Swastakowey. I was thinking to myself "I thought this guy and I were usually on the same page"


Dont worry, my fault for not using the quote button really.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 00:04:57


Post by: Envihon


One of the big things that I think we have to take into account as mini-wargamers is these aren't video games. You just can't log in from anywhere to play any one in the world like you can do with video games. You have to find other people within a reasonable distance in order to play which I think heavily influences decisions if a specific wargame is worth getting into. As it has pointed out, no matter what you choose, these are still a healthy investment in time in money.

Honestly, I enjoy the product that GW produces enough to continue giving them my business and there are players around to play with so it is worth the investment.

I would love to try Infinity. It looks like an awesome game and definitely has elements that get me hook, line and sinker but there is no one around where I live that plays it so I have no gateway to get into it.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 00:09:34


Post by: Swastakowey


 Envihon wrote:
One of the big things that I think we have to take into account as mini-wargamers is these aren't video games. You just can't log in from anywhere to play any one in the world like you can do with video games. You have to find other people within a reasonable distance in order to play which I think heavily influences decisions if a specific wargame is worth getting into. As it has pointed out, no matter what you choose, these are still a healthy investment in time in money.

Honestly, I enjoy the product that GW produces enough to continue giving them my business and there are players around to play with so it is worth the investment.

I would love to try Infinity. It looks like an awesome game and definitely has elements that get me hook, line and sinker but there is no one around where I live that plays it so I have no gateway to get into it.


You know, if everyone thought like that, nobody would be playing 40k either. If you want to start a game, and nobody else plays it, then it may never happen unless you become the starting player. Its as simple as buying the starter set (if you can) asking someone to learn it with you and going from there. You may very well be stuck with GW for life unless you make a move.

You can, if you succeed in getting another, sell half the starter to that person too.

Start small, grow a community, play multiple games.

But yea if you really want, stick with GW. But if you actually wanna try something different, you gotta go out there and brave it through making a community.

If it worries you, start slowly.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 00:24:17


Post by: Envihon


 Swastakowey wrote:
 Envihon wrote:
One of the big things that I think we have to take into account as mini-wargamers is these aren't video games. You just can't log in from anywhere to play any one in the world like you can do with video games. You have to find other people within a reasonable distance in order to play which I think heavily influences decisions if a specific wargame is worth getting into. As it has pointed out, no matter what you choose, these are still a healthy investment in time in money.

Honestly, I enjoy the product that GW produces enough to continue giving them my business and there are players around to play with so it is worth the investment.

I would love to try Infinity. It looks like an awesome game and definitely has elements that get me hook, line and sinker but there is no one around where I live that plays it so I have no gateway to get into it.


You know, if everyone thought like that, nobody would be playing 40k either. If you want to start a game, and nobody else plays it, then it may never happen unless you become the starting player. Its as simple as buying the starter set (if you can) asking someone to learn it with you and going from there. You may very well be stuck with GW for life unless you make a move.

You can, if you succeed in getting another, sell half the starter to that person too.

Start small, grow a community, play multiple games.

But yea if you really want, stick with GW. But if you actually wanna try something different, you gotta go out there and brave it through making a community.

If it worries you, start slowly.


It is something that I have been interested in but not enough to do something like that. My circumstances prevent me from having the stability and the time to actually do something like that. I am constantly going back and forth between my home and where I work so starting up another miniwargame would be difficult for me at the time without knowing that it would be a worthy investment which is knowing that I can find fellow people who are into that wargame. So until I get the stability and I am not traveling so much, I probably would do that.

It isn't like I am totally fed up with GW. I have my gripes but nothing that I will rage quit with. My interest in Infinity is that it would be cool to see a game and see how it is played to see if I would like it.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 00:27:18


Post by: Swastakowey


 Envihon wrote:
 Swastakowey wrote:
 Envihon wrote:
One of the big things that I think we have to take into account as mini-wargamers is these aren't video games. You just can't log in from anywhere to play any one in the world like you can do with video games. You have to find other people within a reasonable distance in order to play which I think heavily influences decisions if a specific wargame is worth getting into. As it has pointed out, no matter what you choose, these are still a healthy investment in time in money.

Honestly, I enjoy the product that GW produces enough to continue giving them my business and there are players around to play with so it is worth the investment.

I would love to try Infinity. It looks like an awesome game and definitely has elements that get me hook, line and sinker but there is no one around where I live that plays it so I have no gateway to get into it.


You know, if everyone thought like that, nobody would be playing 40k either. If you want to start a game, and nobody else plays it, then it may never happen unless you become the starting player. Its as simple as buying the starter set (if you can) asking someone to learn it with you and going from there. You may very well be stuck with GW for life unless you make a move.

You can, if you succeed in getting another, sell half the starter to that person too.

Start small, grow a community, play multiple games.

But yea if you really want, stick with GW. But if you actually wanna try something different, you gotta go out there and brave it through making a community.

If it worries you, start slowly.


It is something that I have been interested in but not enough to do something like that. My circumstances prevent me from having the stability and the time to actually do something like that. I am constantly going back and forth between my home and where I work so starting up another miniwargame would be difficult for me at the time without knowing that it would be a worthy investment which is knowing that I can find fellow people who are into that wargame. So until I get the stability and I am not traveling so much, I probably would do that.

It isn't like I am totally fed up with GW. I have my gripes but nothing that I will rage quit with. My interest in Infinity is that it would be cool to see a game and see how it is played to see if I would like it.


Which fine really. I mean as you said it is time and effort regardless of game system. As im starting to get older the more I realize this.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 01:54:10


Post by: Jlav


This whole thread resonates some with me, as it parrallels my decision to join this forum. Allow me to explain.

Since starting out with 40k a long time ago, I've played many games, and joined forums and communities to play them, but everytime I dropped the game I had to drop the community. I'm tired of that. Games that try to control the community by limiting who can sell them, where you can play them, or what can be on the table put a sour taste in my mouth. Dakka Dakka has lots of games, one community. It wasn't always that way.

For me, 40k is prohibitively expensive to get back into. If I want variety I would have to change armies, or factions, while in WMH I could buy one $10-$15 model that changes everything. That was a big selling point for our game group. We left the game because it started to effect the dynamic of the group, and the group was more important than the game.

Now that 40k is less dominant, I chose to join the forum, and with games like X-wing and Dreadball, that start small but can grow, it is easier for a new group member to join in on the fun. It is all dependant on your community, and I personally love the variety and strengths of many of the games.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 04:04:48


Post by: Toofast


I agree that PP models are kind of hideous. They also cost as much or more than GW models. However, the gameplay is far better IMO. When I lose a game, I look back at decisions I made and pinpoint what I could've done differently to win. When I win, I can look back and see what decisions I made that won the game for me. When I win or lose a 40k game, 90% of my thinking is about what I could've done differently with my list. The in game tactics are so shallow they're almost nonexistent. Target priority is really the only strategy, especially with so many things being done by random D6 tables. This has a huge impact on perceived value and my enjoyment of the game. I used to play 3-4 games of 40k a week. Since I picked up the WM starter box 2 months ago, I haven't played a single game of 40k. I'm about to sell everything but my 1850 tournament list and invest that money in WM. The only thing I buy from GW now is paint and brushes because I love their paint range and know how to achieve the results I want with it.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 05:40:42


Post by: Ruberu


WARNING!!! This is my opinion, and should be taken as an opinion!

Everyone has their own reasons for thinking one game is more expensive than another.

This is how I look at it for all the games I play. (this is also MSRP, I know it can be found for far cheaper online)

List of some simple things that will be needed

40k
Codex Space Marines $58
Tac squad $40
Centurions (Alittle unfair but lots of people use them) $78

Flames of war
Devil's Charge (random army book) $30
Panzergrenadier Company $45
Jagdpanzers $63

x-wing
starter box $40
Imperail Aces $30

Warmachine
First off you dont need the army book (I have it because fluff is cool)
Captain Haley $8
Sentinel $19
Gun Mages $35

But yeah, with this list (for me) just to get started collecting, GW is the most expensive. X-wing (despite my wierd list of models I like) is the third most expensive but I can play a standard game with those models.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 06:52:19


Post by: Jehan-reznor


Bolt action is great value for money, the rules are simple and easy to learn and most importantly is there is so much WW2 alternative suppliers of figures that you fill you fill your army with cheap alternatives


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 12:39:19


Post by: Dalymiddleboro


40k is worth it because it's simply the best wargame. Has the bet models, the coolest story and is the most fun to play.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 12:48:18


Post by: PhantomViper


 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
40k is worth it because it's simply the best wargame. Has the bet models, the coolest story and is the most fun to play.


1/10 for effort, but almost a 9/10 for comedic value!


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 13:12:58


Post by: MWHistorian


 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
40k is worth it because it's simply the best wargame. Has the bet models, the coolest story and is the most fun to play.

Great models, yes. Great story, used to be. Great rules, not at all.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 13:54:02


Post by: Wayniac


 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
40k is worth it because it's simply the best wargame. Has the bet models, the coolest story and is the most fun to play.


Nice try, but no. Best models.. I'll give you that one (in 95% of cases). Coolest story, I can give you that to a point although it's stagnant. Most fun to play? 0/10 no fething way GTFO

I actively refuse to play 40k because of the cost and the bad rules. Let me rephrase that, because of the cost relative to value. I would pay $165 for a 1,500 point army, even 1,000 points depending on circumstances, but I would not pay $165 for a squad or two and a vehicle. I would not pay $50 for a squad that gives me one specific heavy weapon when I can choose one of four, and the company line being that I should buy the other $50 kit that has the rest of them; if that kit was customizable, let's say if when ordering it I could say that I want 1x Meltagun and 1x Lascannon and I'd get those bits instead of the missile launcher or whatever comes by default, I might pay $35-40 for that. I would not pay $35 for a single figure with zero configuration or conversion possibilities, but I might pay $20 for a figure that has various components so I can make what I want.

In all cases it's not the cost of the models as much as the value you get. $50 for a squad that's a tiny bit of your force, and needs several additional $50 boxes just to become playable feels a lot worse than spending $50 or even more on a full unit that represents almost 1/5 of my entire force and will likely never require a duplicate.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 14:06:59


Post by: Elemental


Isengard wrote:
Long and short of it for me is not so much the cost as the overall experience. Arguably other people's models are as good as GW's, certainly true in many instances. However, the big seller for me and what draws me into spending money is the background, the depth, the detail, the colour. It is so developed now over so long. I think it helps to be British as it is very unmistakably British in style. That's it for me, I love the background I can really identify with my army. When I look at other games I see an attempt to knock off a similar background such as WMH. If 40K's background is an ocean, deep and overflowing with detail and interest WMH is a shallow pond which holds no interest to me.


I love it too, but to me, the RPG's are where the 40K background is at now, because they can actually detail parts of the setting beyond armies fighting other armies. Whereas the wargame in recent years, with the best will in the world....has given us Kaldor Draigo, and Murderfang.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 14:09:45


Post by: Makumba


I don't know much about star wars. But don't they have a super long story line too with more books then BL. I know they made comic books that are set in the past and future of when X-Wing. Doesn't that technicly mean X-wings lore is bigger then w40ks?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 20:09:16


Post by: Wayniac


Here's something else that's ridiculous. GW has a new SM boxed army for $230 USD. It has about 785 points in 20 miniatures (although it has a Razorback, Drop Pod, Dreadnought and Stormtalon).

A bare minimum army for $230, so assuming you needed the rules too that's over $300 for an entry-level force to play beginner games.

That's the issue. I would buy that without much of a second thought if it was half that price, where it would be a little on the expensive side but not completely unreasonable. At $230, I laugh and shake my head because I can buy a 35-point (i.e. normal game) Warmachine army for that amount and not have just a minimal army.

EDIT: $230 USD, not $280.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/24 23:56:56


Post by: SkyD


Makumba wrote:
I don't know much about star wars. But don't they have a super long story line too with more books then BL. I know they made comic books that are set in the past and future of when X-Wing. Doesn't that technicly mean X-wings lore is bigger then w40ks?


Kind of, since Disney took over I believe most of the expanded universe, beyond Return of the Jedi is now no longer considered cannon or exists because Episode 7 will be where it goes.

I think Star Wars is better fleshed out than 40k but it is rather limited to telling stories of similar nature on or around the same systems. They at least seem to stick to a rule for all their force and weapon abilities though. I think 40k's fleshing out is sticking to the Horus Heresy books, they can pretty much go wherever they like because it happened "back then" and now its legend or forgotten. Otherwise its got to be somewhere outside of the main storyline so it can't interrupt the main storyline of "its about to get really bad..." but never gets there. The stories they tell seem significant and draw us in, entertain us, but in the end, really are just insignificant. Nothing can happen that rocks the boat or inches it towards that 'oncoming storm'.

The miniature's game for X-wing I suppose only appeals to people who want to fly as a pilot. If they want to be a Jedi they need to play an RPG, if they want to play with things like ground forces and maybe recreate things like the Battle for Hoth, then they'd have to track down earlier games, or see where Imperial Assault may go. Then if they want to command the big capitol ships, they have Star Wars Armada.

I suppose Star Wars is a bit better equipped to deal with all its facets with different games as opposed to 40k which did have massive battles with Epic, Skirmish with 40k and ship to ship battles with Battlefleet Gothic. Then they kinda made Epic into Apocalypse and then Apocalypse into 40k, forgetting the smaller Skirmish side. Like Battle for Macragge had a story and missions that made a campaign. I don't think the same can really be said for Assault on Black Reach, onwards.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/25 00:47:49


Post by: Jlav


There is also starwars skirmish games, and a new one on the market that flesh out the ability to play as a jedi. And there are conversions made to play X-wing with ground based combat as well.

Something I am surprised hasn't been mentioned here is the subject matter. I don't know a lot of parents who are thrilled about having their kids playing with demon spawn with skulls everywhere. The content of 40k is decidedly adult in its brutal nature, and while there is a portion of the population that enjoy that, it certainly isn't as universally appealing as other more civil lores. I was first attracted to the 40k artwork and gothic future, but I feel it has gone too far for a lot of people's taste. - as an example, I openned up Dakka dakka just now and was greeted by a space marine brutally decapitating a struggling victim with a sword, while my children were behind me...


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/25 00:53:08


Post by: Swastakowey


Jlav wrote:
There is also starwars skirmish games, and a new one on the market that flesh out the ability to play as a jedi. And there are conversions made to play X-wing with ground based combat as well.

Something I am surprised hasn't been mentioned here is the subject matter. I don't know a lot of parents who are thrilled about having their kids playing with demon spawn with skulls everywhere. The content of 40k is decidedly adult in its brutal nature, and while there is a portion of the population that enjoy that, it certainly isn't as universally appealing as other more civil lores. I was first attracted to the 40k artwork and gothic future, but I feel it has gone too far for a lot of people's taste. - as an example, I openned up Dakka dakka just now and was greeted by a space marine brutally decapitating a struggling victim with a sword, while my children were behind me...


I agree, I just gave up on 99% of the backstory and just enjoy some of the ideas like imperial guard variety and so forth. Most of it is just way to over the top. Id worry about my future kid looking too far into the lore personally as well, or even playing the game thats simply mindless childish violence most of the time.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/25 13:31:56


Post by: wuestenfux


Here in our gaming group we all agree that WM/H is much cheaper to play at the tournament level than 40k and we have tournaments for both systems every two months.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/25 18:18:36


Post by: MWHistorian


 wuestenfux wrote:
Here in our gaming group we all agree that WM/H is much cheaper to play at the tournament level than 40k and we have tournaments for both systems every two months.

The number of leagues of 40k and WM/H is equal in my area.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/25 20:47:47


Post by: Wayniac


Really though while the price of Troops is slightly expensive (on average), it's everything else that's ridiculous, and part of that is because GW tends to price things based on the number of individual components, instead of logically. Take the Sternguard squad. It's $50 for FIVE models, and why? Because they're Elite? Because they have a ton of fancy crap that isn't really needed? A Tactical Squad is $40 for 10, so why on earth is Sternguard $10 more than that for half as many guys when they're virtually identical other than having a bit of robe/tabard on their armor? If I wanted to field a lot of Sternguard, I'd basically have to pay double for every squad for essentially no reason (and given that I was looking at a 1st Company/Sternguard army, I know this for a fact). Five regular sized models isn't worth $50 just because they include extra junk on the sprue instead of additional models but this is a common GW issue - they'll say how the sprue has 120 pieces, but who the hell cares how many pieces when you can only make five dudes? Do real model kits (e.g. gundams, tanks, etc.) make such a big deal about how many actual parts they come with, or is it the finished product which counts?

It's things like that which just help to reinforce the idea that you're being cheated.



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/25 20:57:20


Post by: Envihon


 wuestenfux wrote:
Here in our gaming group we all agree that WM/H is much cheaper to play at the tournament level than 40k and we have tournaments for both systems every two months.


The area I used to come from there was definitely a little more prevalence of PP but the area I just moved to which is the area of where my hometown is, 40k by far out weighs everything else followed by X-wing (And actually, there is a guy here that has a SM army that is themed with Star Wars. His Boba Fett marine is pretty awesome.) so for me to go into anything else, I would definitely find less players. And as I said before, I am still a relative happy GW customer.

Although, I did see someone who is a very happy GW customer post on here and then the community tore him apart for his opinion. If he is that satisfied with GW, why do have to go and tear it apart?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/25 21:00:32


Post by: Wayniac


 Envihon wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Here in our gaming group we all agree that WM/H is much cheaper to play at the tournament level than 40k and we have tournaments for both systems every two months.


The area I used to come from there was definitely a little more prevalence of PP but the area I just moved to which is the area of where my hometown is, 40k by far out weighs everything else followed by X-wing (And actually, there is a guy here that has a SM army that is themed with Star Wars. His Boba Fett marine is pretty awesome.) so for me to go into anything else, I would definitely find less players. And as I said before, I am still a relative happy GW customer.

Although, I did see someone who is a very happy GW customer post on here and then the community tore him apart for his opinion. If he is that satisfied with GW, why do have to go and tear it apart?


Link please? Generally the only people who get "torn apart" are the ones who are rude and call everyone else whiners who should just stop playing/quit complaining while ignoring every argument or the fact that just because they are happy doesn't mean everyone else is, and doesn't mean everything is sunshine and rainbows.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/25 21:38:38


Post by: wuestenfux


Well I've disproved myself in another thread here at Dakka discussions.
My Cyriss army has about the value as my Necron army and I play both armies in tournaments and Crons also in apoc games.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/25 22:47:14


Post by: timetowaste85


Every game/hobby costs what you put in to it. Entry cost is definitely high for WH, but it's also high for rebuilding a classic car. Or buying top notch musical equipment. Or medical bills from dirt bike racing. Some of us on here find GW prices too high. Others still don't mind the price. I won't buy their models for their games anymore, but I did just buy Karl Franz NOS for $39 on eBay-shipped. Damn good price for that model. I actually want an empire general on horse because I made a terrible decision and sold my converted Aldebrand Ludenhoff. I want to remake him now...


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/25 22:50:25


Post by: M0ff3l


I paid 300 euro for my 1500-2000 point CSM army and thats including the codex, psychic power cards, mini 7th rulebook, templates, dice and a tape measure.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 00:00:37


Post by: jonolikespie


 timetowaste85 wrote:
Every game/hobby costs what you put in to it. Entry cost is definitely high for WH, but it's also high for rebuilding a classic car. Or buying top notch musical equipment. Or medical bills from dirt bike racing. Some of us on here find GW prices too high. Others still don't mind the price. I won't buy their models for their games anymore, but I did just buy Karl Franz NOS for $39 on eBay-shipped. Damn good price for that model. I actually want an empire general on horse because I made a terrible decision and sold my converted Aldebrand Ludenhoff. I want to remake him now...

40k is not a hobby. It is part of the tabletop wargaming hobby.

Comparing 40k to other hobbies is utterly meaningless.
Comparing it to other games in the tabletop wargaming hobby shows it to be the worst value for money by a wide margin with an utterly insane start up cost.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 00:18:48


Post by: kb305


Isengard wrote:
Long and short of it for me is not so much the cost as the overall experience. Arguably other people's models are as good as GW's, certainly true in many instances. However, the big seller for me and what draws me into spending money is the background, the depth, the detail, the colour. It is so developed now over so long. I think it helps to be British as it is very unmistakably British in style. That's it for me, I love the background I can really identify with my army. When I look at other games I see an attempt to knock off a similar background such as WMH. If 40K's background is an ocean, deep and overflowing with detail and interest WMH is a shallow pond which holds no interest to me. I cannot be wooed with the promise of cheaper games. I don't want to play skirmish or small unit games, I want large armies. You can't win me over by saying "this only costs £50 to buy into". I'm lucky I guess that I have spare cash but if you show me something which has cheaper smaller armies I just think "show me the background, is it compelling and deep?" and the answer is always "no". So I keep loyal to GW as long as they keep producing this immersive experience. I know so much about my armies, their background, history, etc. I really identify with them and they feel like proper fully fleshed out and detailed societies. I know GW is derivative but they've taken it and exploded it out into so much more. It was originally space elves, space orcs, etc but now it is so rich, so deep, so compelling. Also I accept that they have not built up the Tau and Necrons as much but all the other races have great backgrounds.


Really because i find myself disliking the british style if all it has to offer is centurions, wolf chariots and other stupid crap.

I often wonder what 40k would look like if made in the USA by like dreamforge for instance - probably much better imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jlav wrote:
There is also starwars skirmish games, and a new one on the market that flesh out the ability to play as a jedi. And there are conversions made to play X-wing with ground based combat as well.

Something I am surprised hasn't been mentioned here is the subject matter. I don't know a lot of parents who are thrilled about having their kids playing with demon spawn with skulls everywhere. The content of 40k is decidedly adult in its brutal nature, and while there is a portion of the population that enjoy that, it certainly isn't as universally appealing as other more civil lores. I was first attracted to the 40k artwork and gothic future, but I feel it has gone too far for a lot of people's taste. - as an example, I openned up Dakka dakka just now and was greeted by a space marine brutally decapitating a struggling victim with a sword, while my children were behind me...


The subject matter is all a facade anyways. To little Timmy's mind it's brutal, dark and taboo but in reality he's still just a nerd playing with plastic toys. They set it up like that on purpose.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 05:34:33


Post by: wuestenfux


Well, I wonder if the re-sell value of 40k models say on eBay is higher than that of PP models.
Somebody with experience here?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 12:11:51


Post by: Wayniac


 jonolikespie wrote:
 timetowaste85 wrote:
Every game/hobby costs what you put in to it. Entry cost is definitely high for WH, but it's also high for rebuilding a classic car. Or buying top notch musical equipment. Or medical bills from dirt bike racing. Some of us on here find GW prices too high. Others still don't mind the price. I won't buy their models for their games anymore, but I did just buy Karl Franz NOS for $39 on eBay-shipped. Damn good price for that model. I actually want an empire general on horse because I made a terrible decision and sold my converted Aldebrand Ludenhoff. I want to remake him now...

40k is not a hobby. It is part of the tabletop wargaming hobby.

Comparing 40k to other hobbies is utterly meaningless.
Comparing it to other games in the tabletop wargaming hobby shows it to be the worst value for money by a wide margin with an utterly insane start up cost.


This.

People really need to stop these apples to oranges comparison by comparing 40k to restoring cars or golf or what have you. When you compare 40k/WHFB to other tabletop wargames (you know, their competitors), GW tends to be higher overall cost. The only time this isn't true tends to be when you're comparing things on a price-per-model basis which is also largely irrelevant since the price of individual figures isn't a valid comparison.

Like I said for me it's more about value than the price. For what you get game-wise in a box of GW figures, it doesn't feel like a lot of value because you generally need more to make it useful, sometimes even for the same unit because GW gives a ton of extra crap you don't need, and uses that to justify a high price, in place of stuff you do (I'd rather not have extra chest/shoulder/heads on my SM sprue and get additional heavy weapons, something that's actually useful, for example). I don't feel that way about things I buy for Warmachine because they are usually complete kits - buy one, field one, not buy multiples to field one or buy multiples to do anything meaningful. To bring up the point I made earlier paying $230 for a beginner-level army is way too much money (not even factoring in cost of rules). At half that price I'd definitely pay it; at $150 it would be on the expensive end but not unreasonable (again, disregarding the cost of rules which would still push it to unreasonable levels). At $230 it's a complete joke.

Even the humble Tactical Squad at $40 isn't that bad a price (but still higher than it should be, as I recall them being $25 for basically the same guys in 3rd edition which was reasonable and what they should still be today), but would be a lot better if you actually got all the heavy weapons parts so you didn't need to also buy a Devastator squad (or scour ebay/trading sites) if you wanted a heavy weapon other than a missile launcher. Little things like that just reinforce the idea that you're being cheated by GW because they think you're a dumbass who will just buy both and not see that you're paying $75 for a single squad because they can't be fethed to give you all the options in the actual squad box.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 12:20:41


Post by: AlexRae


Only company that has come close in terms of equalling the quality of GW models is Rackham. And they went bankrupt.

Someone made a very valid point earlier though about the disparity between the relative price of kits and clampacks of comparable size. Why are some single sprue clampacks over 15 pounds yet others only 10? Why are some 4 sprue boxes only 25 pounds when other 3 sprue boxes are 30? There's no visible logic behind pricing and it keeps going up and up. The fact that there are SO MANY releases these days (which admittedly may slow down in 2015 when everyone has a hardback book) also doesnt help the public perception of cash grab. That was EVERYONE'S reaction to 7th edition after 18 months as well.

Perception and customer goodwill as a whole seems to be dropping. Not dead. Not terrible. But noticeably dropping.

And as people who love the hobby and the GW universe, obviously we dont want to see that happen.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 12:57:09


Post by: jonolikespie


AlexRae wrote:
Only company that has come close in terms of equalling the quality of GW models is Rackham. And they went bankrupt.

Corvus Belli
Privateer Press (newer stuff at least)
Dreamforge games
Mierce minitures
Knight models
Anvil Industries
Spartan Games
Maxminis
Wyrd
Raging Heroes
Hasslefree
Zenit Minitures
Studio McVey
Victoria Minitures
Wild West Exodus
Cypher Studioes
Avatars of War
Scale 75
Red Box Games
Kromlech


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 13:24:14


Post by: Makumba


Doesn't Scibor count or are people doing models for w40k or fantasy games not counted?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 13:24:43


Post by: AlexRae


Nope. They do not come close to the level of detail of the current batch of GW sculpts.

I will give you Avatars of War, but they put out a handful of figures a year unfortunately.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 13:26:33


Post by: Blacksails


AlexRae wrote:
Nope. They do not come close to the level of detail of the current batch of GW sculpts.

I will give you Avatars of War, but they put out a handful of figures a year unfortunately.


Are you saying that to ALL of those companies Jono posted?

If so, I'm calling shenanigans. There is no sculpt in the IG range that even comes close to what Victoria Miniatures puts out.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 13:30:33


Post by: Wayniac


 Blacksails wrote:
AlexRae wrote:
Nope. They do not come close to the level of detail of the current batch of GW sculpts.

I will give you Avatars of War, but they put out a handful of figures a year unfortunately.


Are you saying that to ALL of those companies Jono posted?

If so, I'm calling shenanigans. There is no sculpt in the IG range that even comes close to what Victoria Miniatures puts out.


Yeah, I'm calling BS on that too. Those companies are BETTER quality than GW's garbage, and in more expensive materials to boot, and STILL charge less.

Scibor et al are real boutique miniatures, GW is a cheap commodity that's priced like a boutique miniature. GW is like a McDonalds that charges you $20 for a burger because that's what a gourmet burger costs, and they think they're selling gourmet burgers.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 13:47:08


Post by: AlexRae


I don't disagree that GW models are overpriced.

But the quality of the sculpts on Infinity, Victoria and any of the others are not superior. The facial detailing, the proportions and the overt manga styling isn't of a higher technical quality.

Painting them in NMM for display and making them look pretty doesn't make them better sculpts.

Oh and the Scions are superb sculpts. Which are pretty much the only minis sculpted in the last 10 years for the IG range.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 14:09:04


Post by: vipoid


In terms of GW quality:

When potatoes attack:


This flag will stop people from noticing that my face has been carved out of a potato:


We put a corpse in a commissar's uniform and no one seems to have noticed:


Potato having a stroke:


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 14:10:58


Post by: Wayniac


GW's faces have always been awful. Have you looked at the WHFB Empire troops? And people claim the Mantic Basileans are garbage; IMO they still look better than deformed ape-men that are State Troops.

Although RE: the Commissar isn't that Yarrick (he has a power klaw) and, if so isn't he like over 100 years old? He looks like a very old man because he IS a very old man


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 14:15:29


Post by: vipoid


WayneTheGame wrote:
GW's faces have always been awful. Have you looked at the WHFB Empire troops? And people claim the Mantic Basileans are garbage; IMO they still look better than deformed ape-men that are State Troops.


Heh, just looked at State Troops. At least that explains why the VC Zombie heads look so bizarre,

WayneTheGame wrote:

Although RE: the Commissar isn't that Yarrick (he has a power klaw) and, if so isn't he like over 100 years old? He looks like a very old man because he IS a very old man :p


There's a difference between looking like an old man and looking like a corpse. Yarrick is most certainly the latter.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 14:17:35


Post by: Wayniac


 vipoid wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
GW's faces have always been awful. Have you looked at the WHFB Empire troops? And people claim the Mantic Basileans are garbage; IMO they still look better than deformed ape-men that are State Troops.


Heh, just looked at State Troops. At least that explains why the VC Zombie heads look so bizarre,

WayneTheGame wrote:

Although RE: the Commissar isn't that Yarrick (he has a power klaw) and, if so isn't he like over 100 years old? He looks like a very old man because he IS a very old man :p


There's a difference between looking like an old man and looking like a corpse. Yarrick is most certainly the latter.


The Empire troops are going to be my retort now whenever someone says how Mantic's figures look terrible - the State Troops look worse and still cost twice as much for half as many, and at least Mantic acknowledged that there were quality issues, something you'll never see GW ever do. Also with yarrick again given how many times he's died/been presumed dead maybe he IS a corpse and is just sentient


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 14:29:58


Post by: ImAGeek


AlexRae wrote:
I don't disagree that GW models are overpriced.

But the quality of the sculpts on Infinity, Victoria and any of the others are not superior. The facial detailing, the proportions and the overt manga styling isn't of a higher technical quality.

Painting them in NMM for display and making them look pretty doesn't make them better sculpts.

Oh and the Scions are superb sculpts. Which are pretty much the only minis sculpted in the last 10 years for the IG range.


Infinity sculpts are vastly better than GW for the most part. Infinity faces especially blow me away (bar a couple that look off, but mainly they're older models anyway).


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 14:31:50


Post by: Azreal13


AlexRae wrote:
Nope. They do not come close to the level of detail of the current batch of GW sculpts.

I will give you Avatars of War, but they put out a handful of figures a year unfortunately.


What you're doing here, deliberately or not, is trying to make the discussion about your opinion, which is madness.

You are obviously entitled to think GW minis are the best, but for all I know your personal measure of quality is how many unnecessary skulls are incorporated into any given model.

There does seem to be a line of thinking that more detail = better model, which is simply not the case IMO, but even taking that sentiment at face value, the level of detail on a model doesn't really have a huge bearing on price, but speaks more to the talent (and restraint) of the designer/sculptor. Especially where GW are concerned, who have all their design staff on salary, any extra time spent on modelling extra details when diffused over the production run of a kit would be so small as to be incalculable.

Either way, arguing something as subjective as aesthetics has any relevance to something as tangible as price isn't really a valid way to go.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 15:32:36


Post by: madtankbloke


Wargaming isn't something i would ever describe as being a cheap hobby, at least not to start. The caveat being that whatever games system you chhose, the miniatures are the same scale across multiple games systems, and baring tragedy, the miniatures you buy today will still be useable in 20 or 30 years. i still have classic RT miniatures i use from time to time if the mood takes me.

Now GW miniatures are expensive, but they aren't that much more expensive than similar miniatures from different ranges, in some cases they are in fact cheaper. The difference between a game like say, Infinity, and 40k is that to play infinity i can Download the rules for free, and i only need 20 models per faction (roughly £100 at most) in order to have access to a diverse number of options, generally Infinity 'armies' have 10 guys per side.
You can of course buy the hardback rulebook, which is very good quality if you want. they also have a really nice boxed set which sets you up nicely with 2 factions.

Compared to GW, you need to buy the hardback rulebook, the army codex, and then you need to buy the relevant army boxed set to get a basic army with no options whatsoever. it wouldn't be so bad if, like 2nd ed you needed 20-30 models for an army, but with the push towards bigger games you need more models, and thats what the problem is. the models might be roughly the same price on a per model basis, but you need 2-3 times as many of them.

i quite like some of the GW sculpts, and i would probably buy them even if i didn't play the game. there are plenty of other manufaturers out there who do comparable work, and i have to admit, when i looked at some of the mantic miniatures i was very impressed with some of them, others, not so much. There are also plenty of other smaller scale sculptors out there who just blow my mind, and they produce quality work cheaper than GW does.

so, GW is competing against companies that give their rules out free, the systems need far fewer models, and the sculpts are as good as, in some cases better than GW produces. I suspect one of the only things keeping GW afloat is the large number of people who started playing when there was no competition, still have armies and can't afford/be bothered to change systems.



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 15:44:56


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Azreal13 wrote:
AlexRae wrote:
Nope. They do not come close to the level of detail of the current batch of GW sculpts.

I will give you Avatars of War, but they put out a handful of figures a year unfortunately.


What you're doing here, deliberately or not, is trying to make the discussion about your opinion, which is madness.

You are obviously entitled to think GW minis are the best, but for all I know your personal measure of quality is how many unnecessary skulls are incorporated into any given model.

There does seem to be a line of thinking that more detail = better model, which is simply not the case IMO, but even taking that sentiment at face value, the level of detail on a model doesn't really have a huge bearing on price, but speaks more to the talent (and restraint) of the designer/sculptor. Especially where GW are concerned, who have all their design staff on salary, any extra time spent on modelling extra details when diffused over the production run of a kit would be so small as to be incalculable.

Either way, arguing something as subjective as aesthetics has any relevance to something as tangible as price isn't really a valid way to go.


Exactly. Greeble is not true detail, it is there just to be there.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 16:02:33


Post by: agnosto


I can have this for $23.20 (assumes 20% discount) for 10, comes with a flamer and grenade launcher


or this for $31.50 (miniature market) for a 20-man unit with tons of extras but no flamer but grenade launchers.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 16:04:22


Post by: Accolade


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
AlexRae wrote:
Nope. They do not come close to the level of detail of the current batch of GW sculpts.

I will give you Avatars of War, but they put out a handful of figures a year unfortunately.


What you're doing here, deliberately or not, is trying to make the discussion about your opinion, which is madness.

You are obviously entitled to think GW minis are the best, but for all I know your personal measure of quality is how many unnecessary skulls are incorporated into any given model.

There does seem to be a line of thinking that more detail = better model, which is simply not the case IMO, but even taking that sentiment at face value, the level of detail on a model doesn't really have a huge bearing on price, but speaks more to the talent (and restraint) of the designer/sculptor. Especially where GW are concerned, who have all their design staff on salary, any extra time spent on modelling extra details when diffused over the production run of a kit would be so small as to be incalculable.

Either way, arguing something as subjective as aesthetics has any relevance to something as tangible as price isn't really a valid way to go.


Exactly. Greeble is not true detail, it is there just to be there.


I would say the centurions are a great example of models with more "stuff" than good sculpting:



"Hmm, how can we make the kids say 'Wow! So cool!'"

"Why not just slap on some more skulls, halos, and wings?"

"Well, we already put those on the model, so-"

"Then put MORE on man! Come on, the deadline for these sculpts is tomorrow, and we have 25 other projects due this month!"

"Alright, I just wanted to make sure...it...nevermind..."


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 16:21:55


Post by: vipoid


Honestly, I think Centurions are just awful sculpts to begin with.

They look like Duplo recreations of space marines.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 16:29:02


Post by: Lord Castellan


 vipoid wrote:
Honestly, I think Centurions are just awful sculpts to begin with.

They look like Duplo recreations of space marines.


Yo dawg, I heard you like Power Armour...


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 17:58:28


Post by: confoo22


The problem with these types of discussions is that people tend to get lost in the costs of individual units and sets and want to compare them against individual units and sets in other systems, but it's hard to quantify exactly how much bang you're getting for your buck, especially when perceived value of a particular unit can change tremendously depending on the army and style of play one person may have. I personally don't care for the starter set argument because starter sets are simply not meant to be the end of your purchases for the game, but rather the beginning. More often then not they also include less "optimal" units as agreed upon by the community at large. Also, they tend to be artificially cheap compared to what the overall cost of the game will be in the long run.

There is also fallacy in saying "Well, the average game only needs X amount of models" because, as a few people have noted, that can be subjective. Sure, GW tournaments usually have 1850 point matches, but if the majority of the games you play are against people who love Kill Team, then technically you only NEED the models and rules to play Kill Team, and you can easily accomplish the model side of what you need with just one box of tac marines if you kit them out expensively. It's also a bit of a false point because most people I know don't collect just the models they need and stop. They'll buy a new unit here, pick up a fluff book or a novel here, grab some paints and brushes there, get a single model from a different army just because they want the painting challenge or for conversions, and on and on. The fact is that a company that sells you miniatures wants you to buy new miniatures, they are not interested in a customer who only buys a single base army and then is satisfied, so they tend to push you in that direction through their business plan.

So, for me personally, I tend to look past the idea of starter sets and pricing individual units and all that because that's not how I spend my money. I have a budget, and each month I spend X amount on miniatures/the hobby, with that amount possibly fluctuating for occasional splash and large purchases. At the end of the month, the number of models and size of game that amount has been able to purchase me is the value that I place on the different systems, and in that regard most games are pretty much evenly priced. Yes, GW has one of the highest entry costs, but there are ways to mitigate that and once you get past the initial cost it really is comparable.

Let's say someone is spending $100 a month and that, for brevity's sake, that they are buying directly from the companies and not at a discount retailer or on ebay. So in one month you're able to buy two tac boxes and a single HQ for 40k, or 4 TIE fighters and a Slave 1 (with ten bucks left over) for X Wing, or the new 4 pack Knights of Santiago and a Mechanized Cuirassier for Infinity. I don't know WM/H pricing too well but I believe it's not unreasonable to say that you could get a single Warcaster, two light jacks, and a unit of 5 to 10 infantry depending on the size and how heavy they are for about $100.

So looking at those you can get enough to play Combat Patrol for 40k, a good sized X Wing game, a decent sized Infinity game, and a smallish to normal sized game of WM/H, which are really the big four in my area and would be the easiest for me to get a pick up match for. Those are all decent, fun games that can easily be played in a half hour to an hour time frame. You get more individual models with GW and PP, but you also get more army with the other two. Of course, this is not a perfect comparison and it also assumes that you're not worried about optimization, also, you can always switch out some of the options in order to get more or less models, but the point is that once you get past the initial buy in and start making your regular purchases, the cost tightens up to be rather similar.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 18:27:23


Post by: Azreal13


confoo22 wrote:
The problem with these types of discussions is that people tend to get lost in the costs of individual units and sets and want to compare them against individual units and sets in other systems, but it's hard to quantify exactly how much bang you're getting for your buck, especially when perceived value of a particular unit can change tremendously depending on the army and style of play one person may have.


Actually I think there is probably a reasonably easy way of expressing a unit value in terms of the percentage of a typical list size it represents over the cost to buy it.

I'm not a mathematician and I'm tired,so forgive me if my numbers are off, but taking the example of a basic TIE Fighter, which is 12 points of a 100 points list at typical values, so 12%. RRP of a TIE in the UK is £12, so it has a value of 1 Azreal (hey it's my idea!) But it can also be used to represent Howlrunner, at 18 points, which then gives it an improved value of 1.5 Azreals.

A basic, single Sternguard costs £6, and without upgrades costs 24 points. Assuming a basic list of 1500, it represents 0.016% of a list, giving a value of 0.003 Azreals. Upgraded with a Plasma Gun, which I think is the most expensive upgrade a single SG can be given, we get 39 points, which improves the value to 0.004 Azreals.

A whole unit of SG could be assumed to cost 150 points with some combi weapons etc, making the unit weigh in at 0.3 Azreals.

So, one can, with a few reasonable assumptions say that a TIE fighter for X Wing represents between 3 and 5 times the value than a Sternguard box does for 40K. This obviously makes no account of unit effectiveness, but that shouldn't be relevant as all units should be of a power commensurate with the amount of resources they use in your list, only 40K really suffers from inequalities in this.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 18:50:24


Post by: confoo22


 Azreal13 wrote:
confoo22 wrote:
The problem with these types of discussions is that people tend to get lost in the costs of individual units and sets and want to compare them against individual units and sets in other systems, but it's hard to quantify exactly how much bang you're getting for your buck, especially when perceived value of a particular unit can change tremendously depending on the army and style of play one person may have.


Actually I think there is probably a reasonably easy way of expressing a unit value in terms of the percentage of a typical list size it represents over the cost to buy it.

I'm not a mathematician and I'm tired,so forgive me if my numbers are off, but taking the example of a basic TIE Fighter, which is 12 points of a 100 points list at typical values, so 12%. RRP of a TIE in the UK is £12, so it has a value of 1 Azreal (hey it's my idea!) But it can also be used to represent Howlrunner, at 18 points, which then gives it an improved value of 1.5 Azreals.

A basic, single Sternguard costs £6, and without upgrades costs 24 points. Assuming a basic list of 1500, it represents 0.016% of a list, giving a value of 0.003 Azreals. Upgraded with a Plasma Gun, which I think is the most expensive upgrade a single SG can be given, we get 39 points, which improves the value to 0.004 Azreals.

A whole unit of SG could be assumed to cost 150 points with some combi weapons etc, making the unit weigh in at 0.3 Azreals.

So, one can, with a few reasonable assumptions say that a TIE fighter for X Wing represents between 3 and 5 times the value than a Sternguard box does for 40K. This obviously makes no account of unit effectiveness, but that shouldn't be relevant as all units should be of a power commensurate with the amount of resources they use in your list, only 40K really suffers from inequalities in this.


Except that you can't ignore the effectiveness of a unit when talking about "value." And that's the point that I was making: Value is subjective and difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. A 350 point unit of ten Sternguard in a drop pod with multiple combi-weapons may only add up to a little more than one fifth of a 1500 point list, but if you land that drop pod just right, pop out in your opponent's back field with a combat squaded unit and take out two of the enemy's most powerful units in your first turn before he has the chance to act (which I have effectively accomplished a couple of times), then the value of that unit is not represented by it's point cost since point cost does not always effectively reflect potential. And that sort of situation is not one that you can easily compare across multiple systems and situations, so coming up with a scientific method to rate units across multiple systems is going to be a little more difficult than you are making it sound here.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 18:57:59


Post by: Azreal13


You're not ignoring it, as the points cost, which is factored into the equation, should be a direct reflection of a units in game effectiveness.

It is only really 40K that suffers from any disparity in this (which I'm pretty sure I mentioned) and if the DP SG can reliably do more damage than their value, then the issue is with the game, not the formula.

Besides, it wasn't my intent to make some sort of universal assessment of unit effectiveness in all games, merely a way of expressing a units financial cost in terms of it's overall contribution to being able to field a normal size list, and one doesn't need to take effectiveness into account to determine that.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 19:06:10


Post by: Wayniac


 Azreal13 wrote:
You're not ignoring it, as the points cost, which is factored into the equation, should be a direct reflection of a units in game effectiveness.

It is only really 40K that suffers from any disparity in this (which I'm pretty sure I mentioned) and if the DP SG can reliably do more damage than their value, then the issue is with the game, not the formula.

Besides, it wasn't my intent to make some sort of universal assessment of unit effectiveness in all games, merely a way of expressing a units financial cost in terms of it's overall contribution to being able to field a normal size list, and one doesn't need to take effectiveness into account to determine that.


This is exactly right though. When I look at value for money, I look at how much of the army it costs, not some hypothetical effectiveness if the stars align and fortune is on my side. $50 for five Sternguard is ridiculous because A) A full unit is 10, not 5 and B) Even if it were $50 for ten guys, it's a small portion of a force. Privateer's Greylord Outriders are $59.99 for five (Metal + Plastic) miniatures, but five of them are 9 points out of 50 points in a typical list, a much bigger chunk AND five is the unit maximum, not the unit minimum, so I"m not automatically being "forced" to pay twice to get a maximum sized unit (and they don't even come with all the options IIRC they don't get all the heavy weapons available).

The price issue is a combination of how many points you actually get for the money (lower points = have to buy more) and more importantly for me the fact that in most cases you don't get a complete, out-of-the-box unit for "reasons". Again with the Sternguard example for $50 I'd expect to get a full unit of 10 with all the various options to equip them, not half of that so I actually have to spend $100 or more if I want to field a unit of 10. There's no excuse for that. 10 plastic figures, no matter how detailed they are, should not cost $100 for 28mm scale just to make one unit. TO put this into perspective, Victrix offers 54mm Napoleonic figures with much more detail and a much larger size for approximately $37USD for 16 multi-pose hard plastic figures. LESS than the cost of FIVE 28mm plastic models from GW.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 19:06:29


Post by: Paradigm


 Azreal13 wrote:
confoo22 wrote:
The problem with these types of discussions is that people tend to get lost in the costs of individual units and sets and want to compare them against individual units and sets in other systems, but it's hard to quantify exactly how much bang you're getting for your buck, especially when perceived value of a particular unit can change tremendously depending on the army and style of play one person may have.


Actually I think there is probably a reasonably easy way of expressing a unit value in terms of the percentage of a typical list size it represents over the cost to buy it.

I'm not a mathematician and I'm tired,so forgive me if my numbers are off, but taking the example of a basic TIE Fighter, which is 12 points of a 100 points list at typical values, so 12%. RRP of a TIE in the UK is £12, so it has a value of 1 Azreal (hey it's my idea!) But it can also be used to represent Howlrunner, at 18 points, which then gives it an improved value of 1.5 Azreals.

A basic, single Sternguard costs £6, and without upgrades costs 24 points. Assuming a basic list of 1500, it represents 0.016% of a list, giving a value of 0.003 Azreals. Upgraded with a Plasma Gun, which I think is the most expensive upgrade a single SG can be given, we get 39 points, which improves the value to 0.004 Azreals.

A whole unit of SG could be assumed to cost 150 points with some combi weapons etc, making the unit weigh in at 0.3 Azreals.

So, one can, with a few reasonable assumptions say that a TIE fighter for X Wing represents between 3 and 5 times the value than a Sternguard box does for 40K. This obviously makes no account of unit effectiveness, but that shouldn't be relevant as all units should be of a power commensurate with the amount of resources they use in your list, only 40K really suffers from inequalities in this.


Interesting idea, but in practice it falls down a bit, as there's more to it than just how much of an army the unit takes up.

Going back to your examples, of the Sternguard and TIE Fighter, there are several facets that add a tremendous amount of value to said Sternguard over the TIE:

- Bits! While they aren't directly to the benefit of the model, the Sternguard box comes with a ton of extras to sprinkle around your army, not just extra decoration for sergeants ect, but also the much-sought-after Combi-weapons, extra plasma/melta/boltguns, extra heads, and generally stuff that will likely get used elsewhere. From what I understand, the TIE has Upgrade cards that can change the rest of your force, but aesthetically there's still no way to customise them , unlike the Sternguard. Unless you repaint it, your TIE Fighter will be exactly the same as the guy on the next table over. To some people, that's worth a lot.

- Hobby time: I'll use the time I'd take simply as that's the best analouge I have. 5 models x( 0.5 hours building+1.5 hours painting) = 10 hours total for the squad, in reality that will vary a little. But assuming a game of X-wing lasts an hour, you'd have to play 10 games to match the time spent (and therefore overall enjoyment value from that time) on the Sternguard, and that's before the latter even hit the table.

While I accept the SG cost about 3x as much as the TIE, I see them as much more valuable per pound compared to the TIE. I've said it before in the thread, but I see the cost:value ratio of X-wing stuff as pretty hilarious. The minis are tiny and uncustomisable, and basically if you gave me the option of 3 of this:
Spoiler:



Or 1 of this:
Spoiler:



It's a bit of a no-brainer to me. As a hobbyist rather than strictly a gamer, I see basically no value in the TIE Fighter, even as a huge Star Wars fan.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 19:07:08


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Ailaros wrote:

This is a common mistake that people make with 40k. They assume that you have to play the game with 500 minis at huge points levels.


You've never heard of Imperial Guard or Tyranids in your life, have you?

And, yes, you can play, almost competitively at that, with 3 models. Three $140 dollar models. (Or worse, FW prices on Knights if you want some variety.)


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 19:16:31


Post by: Azreal13


 Paradigm wrote:
Spoiler:
 Azreal13 wrote:
confoo22 wrote:
The problem with these types of discussions is that people tend to get lost in the costs of individual units and sets and want to compare them against individual units and sets in other systems, but it's hard to quantify exactly how much bang you're getting for your buck, especially when perceived value of a particular unit can change tremendously depending on the army and style of play one person may have.


Actually I think there is probably a reasonably easy way of expressing a unit value in terms of the percentage of a typical list size it represents over the cost to buy it.

I'm not a mathematician and I'm tired,so forgive me if my numbers are off, but taking the example of a basic TIE Fighter, which is 12 points of a 100 points list at typical values, so 12%. RRP of a TIE in the UK is £12, so it has a value of 1 Azreal (hey it's my idea!) But it can also be used to represent Howlrunner, at 18 points, which then gives it an improved value of 1.5 Azreals.

A basic, single Sternguard costs £6, and without upgrades costs 24 points. Assuming a basic list of 1500, it represents 0.016% of a list, giving a value of 0.003 Azreals. Upgraded with a Plasma Gun, which I think is the most expensive upgrade a single SG can be given, we get 39 points, which improves the value to 0.004 Azreals.

A whole unit of SG could be assumed to cost 150 points with some combi weapons etc, making the unit weigh in at 0.3 Azreals.

So, one can, with a few reasonable assumptions say that a TIE fighter for X Wing represents between 3 and 5 times the value than a Sternguard box does for 40K. This obviously makes no account of unit effectiveness, but that shouldn't be relevant as all units should be of a power commensurate with the amount of resources they use in your list, only 40K really suffers from inequalities in this.


Interesting idea, but in practice it falls down a bit, as there's more to it than just how much of an army the unit takes up.

Going back to your examples, of the Sternguard and TIE Fighter, there are several facets that add a tremendous amount of value to said Sternguard over the TIE:

- Bits! While they aren't directly to the benefit of the model, the Sternguard box comes with a ton of extras to sprinkle around your army, not just extra decoration for sergeants ect, but also the much-sought-after Combi-weapons, extra plasma/melta/boltguns, extra heads, and generally stuff that will likely get used elsewhere. From what I understand, the TIE has Upgrade cards that can change the rest of your force, but aesthetically there's still no way to customise them , unlike the Sternguard. Unless you repaint it, your TIE Fighter will be exactly the same as the guy on the next table over. To some people, that's worth a lot.

- Hobby time: I'll use the time I'd take simply as that's the best analouge I have. 5 models x( 0.5 hours building+1.5 hours painting) = 10 hours total for the squad, in reality that will vary a little. But assuming a game of X-wing lasts an hour, you'd have to play 10 games to match the time spent (and therefore overall enjoyment value from that time) on the Sternguard, and that's before the latter even hit the table.

While I accept the SG cost about 3x as much as the TIE, I see them as much more valuable per pound compared to the TIE. I've said it before in the thread, but I see the cost:value ratio of X-wing stuff as pretty hilarious. The minis are tiny and uncustomisable, and basically if you gave me the option of 3 of this:


Or 1 of this:


It's a bit of a no-brainer to me. As a hobbyist rather than strictly a gamer, I see basically no value in the TIE Fighter, even as a huge Star Wars fan.


All fair enough points, but you're now bringing subjective ideas into an objective assessment. Value is not an absolute, cost (at least RRP) is. Effectiveness can vary depending on hundreds of variables, the points cost of any given unit with or without upgrades is a fixed value in any given iteration of the rules.

Once again, this doesn't allow us to definitively answer whether an Imperial Knight is better than an Everblight Archangel, but it does give some insight into the relative cost vs contribution to a full army each unit makes.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 19:17:15


Post by: Wayniac


 Ailaros wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:As noted, while other games may have higher prices per model, they require *far* fewer models, and thus overall the cost of the game is far less. For what another 2000pt 40k army would cost me...

This is a common mistake that people make with 40k. They assume that you have to play the game with 500 minis at huge points levels. Of course if you're playing high-points games, it's going to cost more. Comparing an apocalypse game of 40k to a skirmish game of warmahordes doesn't produce any useful information.

You can play 40k with as few as 3 models, and when you compare, say, the 40k starter kit and the warmahordes starter kit, you find out that both games, with the same number of minis, wind up costing the same.

40k is only expensive if you make it expensive.

Meanwhile, as mentioned, there are two groups of non-GW mini wargame companies: those who fail in time, and those who copy GW's practices, including high prices.




And as people have pointed out to you many times (convenient that you ignore it), you play what others play. Nobody is going to constantly play some newb with only a handful of units. You are quickly expected to build up a decent force for regular games, or you find that people don't want to constantly play 500 point games because that's what someone trying to play on the cheap always fields. People will pick other opponents who can field normal sized armies.

Also as has been pointed out, cost :value ratio favors everyone BUT GW, because GW prices their miniatures high and encourages you to have a lot as well. $50 for five plastic figures when a normal unit is 10 is taking the piss. $60 for five models (in metal + plastic no less) that make up a complete unit AND represent a decent portion of an army is not.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 19:24:46


Post by: confoo22


 Azreal13 wrote:
You're not ignoring it, as the points cost, which is factored into the equation, should be a direct reflection of a units in game effectiveness.

It is only really 40K that suffers from any disparity in this (which I'm pretty sure I mentioned) and if the DP SG can reliably do more damage than their value, then the issue is with the game, not the formula.

Besides, it wasn't my intent to make some sort of universal assessment of unit effectiveness in all games, merely a way of expressing a units financial cost in terms of it's overall contribution to being able to field a normal size list, and one doesn't need to take effectiveness into account to determine that.


Not really. Any system that has a unit that you consistently pass up in favor of another unit at the same price has that problem. You'll forgive me that I'm not familiar with every ship in X Wing, but I find it difficult to imagine that every ship that costs X amount of points is exactly as efficient in all situations as every other ship that costs that same amount of points. WM/H is the same way or else people wouldn't be saying that the starter sets have sub-optimal units, same with Infinity and same with X Wing. The ratio of value to cost is always going to depend on what you're going to want that unit to do in the overall strategy of the army and its efficiency at accomplishing that task. A unit that costs the same as another unit but is less effective at accomplishing the task is going to have less value because you're essentially paying more for less. It's also a little dishonest of you to make the blanket statement that ONLY 40k suffers from any such disparity since units are not created by computer algorithm and are therefore subject to human error and assumption when being calculated.

I guess I'm just confused by your statement because I specifically said that value is subjective based on effectiveness and can't be quantified by cost of individual models, especially when considering that game size is not static and can therefore change the value, and then you chimed in with this formula that's meant to demonstrate how you can quantify value, but only if you make assumptions on effectiveness and create static game sizes. And I can easily change the parameters of your formula in order to make your argument less effective. My group likes to play Combat Patrol for example, and at 400 points, a basic 150 point Sternguard unit becomes three times as valuable. I also know people who like to play the 300 point epic sized X Wing games, which makes your base TIE fighter plummet in value. Again, this is all subjective and based on personal preference, but it does show that "value" is a moving target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
WayneTheGame wrote:
$50 for five plastic figures when a normal unit is 10 is taking the piss. $60 for five models (in metal + plastic no less) that make up a complete unit AND represent a decent portion of an army is not.


You're working off the assumption that that $50 only buys you those five models, and it really doesn't. When SM was released I decided to shore up my BT army, so I bought one of the Sternguard boxes. With that box I was able to make the five base sternguard, then I used leftover bits from a tac squad to make five more sternguard, and then use more bits to make four or five sergeants for use in my army elsewhere, and then a couple of new Deathwatch models for a "just for fun" project I have going on, and I still have a couple of bits leftover though I probably won't be using those anytime soon. That box goes a LOT farther than just 5 models. Whereas you pay $60 for your Warmachine cavalry models and what you see on the cover of the box is all you get.

And even though I happened to have the extra bits lying around from previous boxes, let's not pretend that it would cost you more than ten to twenty bucks to get a bunch of basic SM legs, bodies and backpacks. Most bits sellers have those things coming out the wazoo.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 19:39:51


Post by: Azreal13


It doesn't make the basic TIE plummet in value, because, as I've already said, I've based my example on some reasonable assumptions, such as using a typical points value.

If you're going to use a base points value for X Wing which is three times the standard tournament size, then you need to triple the basic size of any 40K comparison to 4500 points too.

Once again, let me state this isn't an assessment of in game effectiveness, but a cross system assessment of a unit's contribution to a typical list over cost of purchase. That it incorporates points value into the calculation [i]should[\i] mean it also accounts for effectiveness, but largely thanks to some appalling outliers in 40K, couldn't be considered accurate.

To answer your question, yes there are more and less popular units in the other games, but these are seldom because they're so horribly far from centre as many of the worst offenders in 40K, and there certainly aren't as many examples of functionally useless or near useless units in other games I've played, simply some units that perhaps need a more focussed list over units which are better generally.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
confoo22 619886 7308607 wrote:
You're working off the assumption that that $50 only buys you those five models,
.


Yes, we are. As stated we are making some basic, but reasonable assumptions, but as long as those assumptions are applied equally and consistently, it still give some merit to the result.

That you had some spare bits to supplement the box means you got greater mileage out of the kit and therefore greater financial value - this is outside of the remit of what I've suggested and does not allow for a valid side by side comparison.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 20:07:13


Post by: insaniak


AlexRae wrote:
Only company that has come close in terms of equalling the quality of GW models is Rackham. And they went bankrupt..

...because they inexplicably chose to switch their range of miniatures (that sold pretty much exclusively to painters) to pre-painted rubbish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Makumba wrote:
Doesn't Scibor count or are people doing models for w40k or fantasy games not counted?

Scibor's models aren't on par with GW's. They're just covered in a lot of stuff.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 20:11:15


Post by: confoo22


 Azreal13 wrote:
It doesn't make the basic TIE plummet in value, because, as I've already said, I've based my example on some reasonable assumptions, such as using a typical points value.

If you're going to use a base points value for X Wing which is three times the standard tournament size, then you need to triple the basic size of any 40K comparison to 4500 points too.

Once again, let me state this isn't an assessment of in game effectiveness, but a cross system assessment of a unit's contribution to a typical list over cost of purchase. That it incorporates points value into the calculation [i]should[\i] mean it also accounts for effectiveness, but largely thanks to some appalling outliers in 40K, couldn't be considered accurate.

To answer your question, yes there are more and less popular units in the other games, but these are seldom because they're so horribly far from centre as many of the worst offenders in 40K, and there certainly aren't as many examples of functionally useless or near useless units in other games I've played, simply some units that perhaps need a more focussed list over units which are better generally.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
confoo22 619886 7308607 wrote:
You're working off the assumption that that $50 only buys you those five models,
.


Yes, we are. As stated we are making some basic, but reasonable assumptions, but as long as those assumptions are applied equally and consistently, it still give some merit to the result.

That you had some spare bits to supplement the box means you got greater mileage out of the kit and therefore greater financial value - this is outside of the remit of what I've suggested and does not allow for a valid side by side comparison.


Ok, so you're saying your whole argument is based off of assumption that, in your opinion, is reasonable. As such, you will only consider scenarios that fit into your assumptions, which just so happen to validate your opinion, and that all other scenarios are therefore invalidated.

So I guess Sternguard are less valuable than TIE fighters because the only games that matter when assessing value for cost are 1500pt 40k games and 100pt X Wing games. Also, people will never use the extra bits in a Sternguard box for anything beyond creating the five characters, therefore there is no value to cost ratio in the kit beyond the five characters. Anyone who does or says anything different is an outlier and not worthy of consideration.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 20:13:31


Post by: vipoid


 insaniak wrote:
Scibor's models aren't on par with GW's. They're just covered in a lot of stuff.


Sounds on par with GW models to me.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 20:17:59


Post by: Noir


As I posted on the first page.

Noir wrote:
Epic fail in understanding the problem.

Cost per model in not the issue with high prices. But, as there are so many thread were this has already been pointed out, I think some people don't really want to understand.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 20:23:32


Post by: Azreal13


confoo22 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Azreal13 wrote:
It doesn't make the basic TIE plummet in value, because, as I've already said, I've based my example on some reasonable assumptions, such as using a typical points value.

If you're going to use a base points value for X Wing which is three times the standard tournament size, then you need to triple the basic size of any 40K comparison to 4500 points too.

Once again, let me state this isn't an assessment of in game effectiveness, but a cross system assessment of a unit's contribution to a typical list over cost of purchase. That it incorporates points value into the calculation [i]should[\i] mean it also accounts for effectiveness, but largely thanks to some appalling outliers in 40K, couldn't be considered accurate.

To answer your question, yes there are more and less popular units in the other games, but these are seldom because they're so horribly far from centre as many of the worst offenders in 40K, and there certainly aren't as many examples of functionally useless or near useless units in other games I've played, simply some units that perhaps need a more focussed list over units which are better generally.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
confoo22 619886 7308607 wrote:
You're working off the assumption that that $50 only buys you those five models,
.


Yes, we are. As stated we are making some basic, but reasonable assumptions, but as long as those assumptions are applied equally and consistently, it still give some merit to the result.

That you had some spare bits to supplement the box means you got greater mileage out of the kit and therefore greater financial value - this is outside of the remit of what I've suggested and does not allow for a valid side by side comparison.


Ok, so you're saying your whole argument is based off of assumption that, in your opinion, is reasonable. As such, you will only consider scenarios that fit into your assumptions, which just so happen to validate your opinion, and that all other scenarios are therefore invalidated.

So I guess Sternguard are less valuable than TIE fighters because the only games that matter when assessing value for cost are 1500pt 40k games and 100pt X Wing games. Also, people will never use the extra bits in a Sternguard box for anything beyond creating the five characters, therefore there is no value to cost ratio in the kit beyond the five characters. Anyone who does or says anything different is an outlier and not worthy of consideration.


You have completely misunderstood the fundamentals of my original post, and now you appear to be trying to pick a fight?

Classy.

My basic assumption is on the size of game, everything else is objective and factual (rrp of the item in question and the points or whatever resource the game's fluff uses.)

By using these three pieces of information in the way I laid out it is possible to approximately assess the contribution each model/s make towards getting a player towards a full sized force for whichever game it applies to.

If you want to argue that 100 points isn't a typical X Wing game, fine, but you'll find many who disagree, if you want to argue that 1850 is a more typical points value for 40K than 1500, also fine, this won't do GW any favours, but fine.

The basic maths of x = y over a/c where x = basic contribution to a full force, y is the RRP of the unit, a is the points cost of the unit and c is the typical points value that game is played at the tournament level/most commonly played in PUGs still holds up. Yes, there are basic assumptions, but you appear to be the only one trying to claim they're not reasonable.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 20:25:13


Post by: Deadnight


confoo22 wrote:


You're working off the assumption that that $50 only buys you those five models, and it really doesn't. When SM was released I decided to shore up my BT army, so I bought one of the Sternguard boxes. With that box I was able to make the five base sternguard, then I used leftover bits from a tac squad to make five more sternguard, and then use more bits to make four or five sergeants for use in my army elsewhere, and then a couple of new Deathwatch models for a "just for fun" project I have going on, and I still have a couple of bits leftover though I probably won't be using those anytime soon. That box goes a LOT farther than just 5 models. Whereas you pay $60 for your Warmachine cavalry models and what you see on the cover of the box is all you get.

And even though I happened to have the extra bits lying around from previous boxes, let's not pretend that it would cost you more than ten to twenty bucks to get a bunch of basic SM legs, bodies and backpacks. Most bits sellers have those things coming out the wazoo.


To be fair, whilst you are correct that you can use the remaining bits to a large extent (and I'll do the same with any gw kit I buy), I will point out that you are saying that to get the best value out of a box of stern guard, you still need to have bought a few other tac squads to have them to hand to put all the bits on (as the stern guard kit only has 5 legs and 5 torsos). Spending an extra thirty odd quid to get value out another kit worth thirty odd quid doesn't strike me as being great value personally.

Each to their own though.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 21:11:42


Post by: confoo22


 Azreal13 wrote:
You have completely misunderstood the fundamentals of my original post, and now you appear to be trying to pick a fight?

Classy.

My basic assumption is on the size of game, everything else is objective and factual (rrp of the item in question and the points or whatever resource the game's fluff uses.)

By using these three pieces of information in the way I laid out it is possible to approximately assess the contribution each model/s make towards getting a player towards a full sized force for whichever game it applies to.

If you want to argue that 100 points isn't a typical X Wing game, fine, but you'll find many who disagree, if you want to argue that 1850 is a more typical points value for 40K than 1500, also fine, this won't do GW any favours, but fine.

The basic maths of x = y over a/c where x = basic contribution to a full force, y is the RRP of the unit, a is the points cost of the unit and c is the typical points value that game is played at the tournament level/most commonly played in PUGs still holds up. Yes, there are basic assumptions, but you appear to be the only one trying to claim they're not reasonable.


I'm not trying to pick a fight, nor did I say that your statement is unreasonable, but it does lack nuance and you are being willfully obstinate about an argument that revolves around an assumption while acting like that assumption proves you right somehow. The situation is as follows:

When presented with the question of whether or not GW is more expensive, I say that value is subjective and there are different ways to play 40k, not all of which require you to build a 1500 point army. Therefore, it's best to look at how many models you can buy with a certain amount of money and whether or not you will be able to play a match with those purchases.

You say that the only way to assess the value of a unit when comparing them is to declare a standard game size, decided by you based off of evidence that you do not present here other than saying that it's "reasonable to assume," and then look at how much of that size is taken up by that unit and then use a formula that determines the ratio, which gives you the inherent value of the unit.

I say that that is flawed because players are not locked into those numbers, which were arbitrarily decided in the first place.

You say that, though your numbers are assumptions, they are the only scenario you're willing to consider and all other scenarios are invalidated unless you they are scaled in such a way to essentially be the original argument.

So here's the crux of why I think your argument is wrong:

One of the better things about 40k, indeed most tabletop games, is that there are different ways to play, all of which add or subtract value to particular units. Sure, a lot of people like to talk about 1500 to 1850 points, but I have personally played and seen just as many games at 200 for Kill Team, 400 for Combat Patrol, and 1000 to 1200 just to play quicker games. There really is no "standard" 40k game and anyone who says there is is telling you their preferred game level. To sit there and say that the only type of game that counts when calculating value is a 1500 point game is to deny the idea that someone could have a perfectly enjoyable hour or so playing a Combat Patrol game, or that playing a 1000 point match means that you're not playing "standard" 40k. You're also denying that people who play with larger ships in a 300 point X Wing, which is a standard expansion and acceptable way to play, are also not playing standard games (again, as determined by you), and therefore, neither situation should be considered. Also, just for fun, you then chime in on a conversation I was having with someone else to say that the only value you can get out of a GW kit is the characters that are made with the kit and the bits beyond that are worthless, which, quite frankly, I do not find that statement to be reasonable considering the huge market of bits sellers out there right now.

So here's the deal, man: Making a reasonable assumption doesn't automatically validate your argument. I can make the reasonable assumption that you've done almost no research or gathered any evidence to back up your statement based on that fact that you have yet to present evidence that isn't opinion. You want to believe that your system accurately portrays value in that one single scenario, fine, but I don't find it reasonable that that's the only possible scenario that can be used to compare values. I also don't find it reasonable that the only situation that can determine value for a unit in any game is within context of army construction because the hobby itself is so much more than simply pushing plastic around a tabletop. I also don't find it reasonable that you constrict your argument down into the confines of this one particular scenario and then refuse to entertain the possibility of anything different that could possibly rebut that. Basically, I think you're wrong that you can only ever determine value in 40k based solely off how much of a 1500 point sized army is taken up with this one unit and I think you're ignoring all other scenarios and factors that don't fit into that in order to pretend like others are being unreasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote:


To be fair, whilst you are correct that you can use the remaining bits to a large extent (and I'll do the same with any gw kit I buy), I will point out that you are saying that to get the best value out of a box of stern guard, you still need to have bought a few other tac squads to have them to hand to put all the bits on (as the stern guard kit only has 5 legs and 5 torsos). Spending an extra thirty odd quid to get value out another kit worth thirty odd quid doesn't strike me as being great value personally.

Each to their own though.


I did note that I happened to have them lying around, but after doing a quick ebay search I'm seeing i can get ten legs, torsos, backpacks and 20 shoulder pads for about 12 bucks. And then you still have a lot of bits leftover to add to add to sergeants or other HQs in the army. I also know plenty of people in my area and couple probably scrounge up a bunch of extra marines bits from them for fairly cheap. Point is, it's not $100 for 10 sternguard if you want to stretch it, it's more like $65, and then you have more than enough bits to pass around to spruce up the rest of your army. Which makes the value of the kit higher than it's MSRP.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 21:41:23


Post by: Azreal13


confoo22 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Azreal13 wrote:
You have completely misunderstood the fundamentals of my original post, and now you appear to be trying to pick a fight?

Classy.

My basic assumption is on the size of game, everything else is objective and factual (rrp of the item in question and the points or whatever resource the game's fluff uses.)

By using these three pieces of information in the way I laid out it is possible to approximately assess the contribution each model/s make towards getting a player towards a full sized force for whichever game it applies to.

If you want to argue that 100 points isn't a typical X Wing game, fine, but you'll find many who disagree, if you want to argue that 1850 is a more typical points value for 40K than 1500, also fine, this won't do GW any favours, but fine.

The basic maths of x = y over a/c where x = basic contribution to a full force, y is the RRP of the unit, a is the points cost of the unit and c is the typical points value that game is played at the tournament level/most commonly played in PUGs still holds up. Yes, there are basic assumptions, but you appear to be the only one trying to claim they're not reasonable.


I'm not trying to pick a fight, nor did I say that your statement is unreasonable, but it does lack nuance and you are being willfully obstinate about an argument that revolves around an assumption while acting like that assumption proves you right somehow. The situation is as follows:

When presented with the question of whether or not GW is more expensive, I say that value is subjective and there are different ways to play 40k, not all of which require you to build a 1500 point army. Therefore, it's best to look at how many models you can buy with a certain amount of money and whether or not you will be able to play a match with those purchases.

You say that the only way to assess the value of a unit when comparing them is to declare a standard game size, decided by you based off of evidence that you do not present here other than saying that it's "reasonable to assume," and then look at how much of that size is taken up by that unit and then use a formula that determines the ratio, which gives you the inherent value of the unit.

I say that that is flawed because players are not locked into those numbers, which were arbitrarily decided in the first place.

You say that, though your numbers are assumptions, they are the only scenario you're willing to consider and all other scenarios are invalidated unless you they are scaled in such a way to essentially be the original argument.

So here's the crux of why I think your argument is wrong:

One of the better things about 40k, indeed most tabletop games, is that there are different ways to play, all of which add or subtract value to particular units. Sure, a lot of people like to talk about 1500 to 1850 points, but I have personally played and seen just as many games at 200 for Kill Team, 400 for Combat Patrol, and 1000 to 1200 just to play quicker games. There really is no "standard" 40k game and anyone who says there is is telling you their preferred game level. To sit there and say that the only type of game that counts when calculating value is a 1500 point game is to deny the idea that someone could have a perfectly enjoyable hour or so playing a Combat Patrol game, or that playing a 1000 point match means that you're not playing "standard" 40k. You're also denying that people who play with larger ships in a 300 point X Wing, which is a standard expansion and acceptable way to play, are also not playing standard games (again, as determined by you), and therefore, neither situation should be considered. Also, just for fun, you then chime in on a conversation I was having with someone else to say that the only value you can get out of a GW kit is the characters that are made with the kit and the bits beyond that are worthless, which, quite frankly, I do not find that statement to be reasonable considering the huge market of bits sellers out there right now.

So here's the deal, man: Making a reasonable assumption doesn't automatically validate your argument. I can make the reasonable assumption that you've done almost no research or gathered any evidence to back up your statement based on that fact that you have yet to present evidence that isn't opinion. You want to believe that your system accurately portrays value in that one single scenario, fine, but I don't find it reasonable that that's the only possible scenario that can be used to compare values. I also don't find it reasonable that the only situation that can determine value for a unit in any game is within context of army construction because the hobby itself is so much more than simply pushing plastic around a tabletop. I also don't find it reasonable that you constrict your argument down into the confines of this one particular scenario and then refuse to entertain the possibility of anything different that could possibly rebut that. Basically, I think you're wrong that you can only ever determine value in 40k based solely off how much of a 1500 point sized army is taken up with this one unit and I think you're ignoring all other scenarios and factors that don't fit into that in order to pretend like others are being unreasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote:


To be fair, whilst you are correct that you can use the remaining bits to a large extent (and I'll do the same with any gw kit I buy), I will point out that you are saying that to get the best value out of a box of stern guard, you still need to have bought a few other tac squads to have them to hand to put all the bits on (as the stern guard kit only has 5 legs and 5 torsos). Spending an extra thirty odd quid to get value out another kit worth thirty odd quid doesn't strike me as being great value personally.

Each to their own though.


I did note that I happened to have them lying around, but after doing a quick ebay search I'm seeing i can get ten legs, torsos, backpacks and 20 shoulder pads for about 12 bucks. And then you still have a lot of bits leftover to add to add to sergeants or other HQs in the army. I also know plenty of people in my area and couple probably scrounge up a bunch of extra marines bits from them for fairly cheap. Point is, it's not $100 for 10 sternguard if you want to stretch it, it's more like $65, and then you have more than enough bits to pass around to spruce up the rest of your army. Which makes the value of the kit higher than it's MSRP.


Except I haven't arbitrarily plucked those numbers from thin air, I have chosen those numbers as those used most frequently both in my experience and observation. One has to pick a fixed point across the systems otherwise there is absolutely no basis for comparison.

I say again, if you want to argue that 100 isn't a typical X Wing game, or 1500/1850 isn't a typical 40K game or 35-50 points isnt A standard Warmahordes game or 300 points isn't a typical Infinity game, go ahead, but I suspect you'll get far fewer people agreeing or disagreeing.

I don't need to do extensive research to produce these numbers, they are, to a large degree, self evident to most people with a reasonable working knowledge of the most popular wargames.

I'm making these assumptions, based on fairly reasonable knowledge and experience, in order to try and establish a point of reference across all systems. If you're trying to argue that I'm wrong because some people approach the game differently, when I'm only interested in going after what most people do, then I'm afraid you're going to have to put forward a stronger view than "you're wrong because 1 in 20 games are played to different parameters." You also need to convince me why one should be comparing a much larger game of X Wing relative to normal to a "normal" game of 40K. Saying "I know people who play 300 point X Wing games" is easily countered with "I know people who only play 15000 point Apoc games." I can't see many people using that to make a valid comparison to a normal Warmachine tournament list.



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 21:45:26


Post by: Carnage43


confoo22 wrote:

So here's the crux of why I think your argument is wrong:

One of the better things about 40k, indeed most tabletop games, is that there are different ways to play, all of which add or subtract value to particular units. Sure, a lot of people like to talk about 1500 to 1850 points, but I have personally played and seen just as many games at 200 for Kill Team, 400 for Combat Patrol, and 1000 to 1200 just to play quicker games. There really is no "standard" 40k game and anyone who says there is is telling you their preferred game level. To sit there and say that the only type of game that counts when calculating value is a 1500 point game is to deny the idea that someone could have a perfectly enjoyable hour or so playing a Combat Patrol game, or that playing a 1000 point match means that you're not playing "standard" 40k. You're also denying that people who play with larger ships in a 300 point X Wing, which is a standard expansion and acceptable way to play, are also not playing standard games (again, as determined by you), and therefore, neither situation should be considered. Also, just for fun, you then chime in on a conversation I was having with someone else to say that the only value you can get out of a GW kit is the characters that are made with the kit and the bits beyond that are worthless, which, quite frankly, I do not find that statement to be reasonable considering the huge market of bits sellers out there right now.

So here's the deal, man: Making a reasonable assumption doesn't automatically validate your argument. I can make the reasonable assumption that you've done almost no research or gathered any evidence to back up your statement based on that fact that you have yet to present evidence that isn't opinion. You want to believe that your system accurately portrays value in that one single scenario, fine, but I don't find it reasonable that that's the only possible scenario that can be used to compare values. I also don't find it reasonable that the only situation that can determine value for a unit in any game is within context of army construction because the hobby itself is so much more than simply pushing plastic around a tabletop. I also don't find it reasonable that you constrict your argument down into the confines of this one particular scenario and then refuse to entertain the possibility of anything different that could possibly rebut that. Basically, I think you're wrong that you can only ever determine value in 40k based solely off how much of a 1500 point sized army is taken up with this one unit and I think you're ignoring all other scenarios and factors that don't fit into that in order to pretend like others are being unreasonable.


There's some subjectivity to this whole discussion, especially in the whole painted vs unpainted point, but Azreal has a good argument. You have to come up with SOME sort of base line to compare across systems and using their own points system, the retail price and standard game size is probably the best way to do it.

Sure, you can get GW stuff second hand really cheap, which would give units a higher value in Azrael's formula. You could use as easily argue that you can download all the GW books and play with paper counters to represent the unit, making 40k free.
Or you can argue that 200 points is an actual game of 40k....but you could just as easily say that the starter box of X-wing/ Warmachine is enough for a game as well.

You have to make some allowances for standardization across different people and groups, or the whole discussion breaks down into "Well, my brother gave me 5000 points of marines for free, so GW doesn't costs anything!" or "We got a starter set off ebay for $50, and only play 300 points, so 40k costs $50. That's super cheap!". Then you get into the painted vs unpainted discussion, "Painting is a part of the hobby and having them unpainted increases their value!" vs "10 hours of time to paint/assemble a unit....I make $20/hr at work, I could use that time to pay for an entire X-wing fleet!".

It just goes around and around. The end result is that the games and hobbies cost as much as you are willing to spend, and how much bargain hunting you can do to decrease the costs. I think the discussion boils down to GW being semi-reasonably priced on a per model basis compared to other games, but the fact that a standard 40k games requires so many more models really drives the cost of the game up to a level or 2 beyond most other games.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 22:03:46


Post by: confoo22


See, you're missing my point. I'm not saying that those game sizes aren't common, just that game size is not a good basis for value because there are other game sizes you can play at, which changes the value. Even in the context of the scenario you present I wouldn't agree with what you're saying here because you get so much more return on a unit of sternguard than you do on another unit of similar cost. They're more versatile and have more of a potential for damage output than other units.

So yes, In the context of list creation, when looking solely at a 1500 point game versus a 100 point X Wing game, you are correct that it would cost more to fill up the list with five man Sternguard units than it would with TIE fighters, but that is pretty much all your formula tells me and it doesn't display the intrinsic value of the unit. All it does is compare the cost in points versus the monetary cost of the models in the context of those particular point levels. That is such a narrow and constricting view of the term value that I'm forced to reject it as inaccurate. You ignore so many various factors and nuances on a subject that is subjective that that statement simply doesn't work in other scenarios.

What I'm trying to say is this: The guy who plays Combat Patrol or Kill Team, or who runs Sternguard who are more heavily kitted or with a Dedicated transport, or who does any number of other things can squeeze more value out of it. Hell, the guy who spends 30 hours painting one figure to extremely high exacting standards and then places it on his shelf may get more value out of it than someone who buys a TIE fighter and plays two games with it before replacing it in his list. Alternatively, the guy who prefers larger X Wing games or maybe wants to get a quick 50 point match during his lunch break will get less or more value respectively out of that TIE fighter. Or the guy who paints kill markings or puts a wash and dry brush on it will get value out of the hobby side. It doesn't matter how often those scenarios happen, the fact is that they do happen and it is reasonable that an average player will play in those scenarios every once in a while unless they are just opposed to doing so.

Value is subjective and it's what you get out of the hobby that determines it. Though your singular scenario may accurately display how much it's costing you to fill that potion of your army, it is not accurately displaying the value of those units. You simply can't create a formula that demonstrates that.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 22:09:44


Post by: Wayniac


confoo22 wrote:
See, you're missing my point. I'm not saying that those game sizes aren't common, just that game size is not a good basis for value because there are other game sizes you can play at, which changes the value. Even in the context of the scenario you present I wouldn't agree with what you're saying here because you get so much more return on a unit of sternguard than you do on another unit of similar cost. They're more versatile and have more of a potential for damage output than other units.

So yes, In the context of list creation, when looking solely at a 1500 point game versus a 100 point X Wing game, you are correct that it would cost more to fill up the list with five man Sternguard units than it would with TIE fighters, but that is pretty much all your formula tells me and it doesn't display the intrinsic value of the unit. All it does is compare the cost in points versus the monetary cost of the models in the context of those particular point levels. That is such a narrow and constricting view of the term value that I'm forced to reject it as inaccurate. You ignore so many various factors and nuances on a subject that is subjective that that statement simply doesn't work in other scenarios.

What I'm trying to say is this: The guy who plays Combat Patrol or Kill Team, or who runs Sternguard who are more heavily kitted or with a Dedicated transport, or who does any number of other things can squeeze more value out of it. Hell, the guy who spends 30 hours painting one figure to extremely high exacting standards and then places it on his shelf may get more value out of it than someone who buys a TIE fighter and plays two games with it before replacing it in his list. Alternatively, the guy who prefers larger X Wing games or maybe wants to get a quick 50 point match during his lunch break will get less or more value respectively out of that TIE fighter. Or the guy who paints kill markings or puts a wash and dry brush on it will get value out of the hobby side. It doesn't matter how often those scenarios happen, the fact is that they do happen and it is reasonable that an average player will play in those scenarios every once in a while unless they are just opposed to doing so.

Value is subjective and it's what you get out of the hobby that determines it. Though your singular scenario may accurately display how much it's costing you to fill that potion of your army, it is not accurately displaying the value of those units. You simply can't create a formula that demonstrates that.


The value is being compared at a NORMAL game level, not the extremes. That's what you aren't understanding. Kill Team/Combat Patrol is not indicative of a standard 40k game and has no relevance, just like a Battlebox game for Warmachine has no relevance to the discussion. You can get a normal sized force for other games than it would take for an entry-level force for 40k, ergo 40k's price is way too high is what the entire argument is here, not that 500 points of 40k is such and such versus 300 points of Infinity.

In the context of a normal 40k army, $50 for five guys (e.g. Sternguard) is too much. Whether or not those five guys are amazing in a Kill Team game doesn't matter, because a Kill Team game is an outlier and not something that typically gets played outside of specific scenarios, leagues and/or tournaments. Kill Team isn't even referred to as a typical way to play the game, so it's not even a starting point of note for 40k.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 22:11:57


Post by: confoo22


 Carnage43 wrote:
There's some subjectivity to this whole discussion, especially in the whole painted vs unpainted point, but Azreal has a good argument. You have to come up with SOME sort of base line to compare across systems and using their own points system, the retail price and standard game size is probably the best way to do it.


And that's why my original post was based around what you can get and what size game you can play for $100 in each of the four major systems I'm seeing in my area. I determined off the top of my head can get medium to good sized armies to play for X Wing and Infinity, medium for Warmachine, and enough for a Combat Patrol game for 40k. But Azrael is basically saying that the Combat Patrol game doesn't count because it's not a 1500 point game. I'm sorry, but I simply disagree with that, because the moment you create a "standard" is the moment you shut out people who play any other style.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 22:20:09


Post by: Azreal13


Are you EVIL INC in disguise?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 22:27:51


Post by: confoo22


WayneTheGame wrote:
The value is being compared at a NORMAL game level, not the extremes. That's what you aren't understanding. Kill Team/Combat Patrol is not indicative of a standard 40k game and has no relevance, just like a Battlebox game for Warmachine has no relevance to the discussion. You can get a normal sized force for other games than it would take for an entry-level force for 40k, ergo 40k's price is way too high is what the entire argument is here, not that 500 points of 40k is such and such versus 300 points of Infinity.

In the context of a normal 40k army, $50 for five guys (e.g. Sternguard) is too much. Whether or not those five guys are amazing in a Kill Team game doesn't matter, because a Kill Team game is an outlier and not something that typically gets played outside of specific scenarios, leagues and/or tournaments. Kill Team isn't even referred to as a typical way to play the game, so it's not even a starting point of note for 40k.


I understand perfectly what he's saying. He's saying that you can accurately determine the value of a unit by determining how much of a standard sized list that particular unit fills up and then correlating that with their monetary cost to produce a number. The higher that number then the more value that unit has. I disagree, value is subjective and can't be quantified by comparing how much of a list a TIE fighter fills up in a 100 point Star Wars match versus how much a sternguard unit takes up in a 1500 point match. Both the numbers and units are arbitrary and do not address whether any situations or scenarios beyond numbers. Do the values change depending on your local meta? Are flyers more valuable if your opponent has no AA? Is a unit that consistently performs well in your local group more valuable than one that always dies every turn? What about suicide units? Alpha strike units? Sternguard models are expensive, but they almost always make their points back on the table, is there any though to that for value? And none of that is even touching the aesthetic or hobbying side of the game, which can also add value.

There's just no way to quantify value, all Azrael has done is determine a formula that lets you know how much money you're spending to create a 1500 point 40k army compared to how much you're spending to fill 100 point X Wing one. And though that is certainly accurate, it's not a standard for determining value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Are you EVIL INC in disguise?


No idea who that is.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 22:36:01


Post by: Azreal13


confoo22 wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:
The value is being compared at a NORMAL game level, not the extremes. That's what you aren't understanding. Kill Team/Combat Patrol is not indicative of a standard 40k game and has no relevance, just like a Battlebox game for Warmachine has no relevance to the discussion. You can get a normal sized force for other games than it would take for an entry-level force for 40k, ergo 40k's price is way too high is what the entire argument is here, not that 500 points of 40k is such and such versus 300 points of Infinity.

In the context of a normal 40k army, $50 for five guys (e.g. Sternguard) is too much. Whether or not those five guys are amazing in a Kill Team game doesn't matter, because a Kill Team game is an outlier and not something that typically gets played outside of specific scenarios, leagues and/or tournaments. Kill Team isn't even referred to as a typical way to play the game, so it's not even a starting point of note for 40k.


I understand perfectly what he's saying. He's saying that you can accurately determine the value of a unit by determining how much of a standard sized list that particular unit fills up and then correlating that with their monetary cost to produce a number. The higher that number then the more value that unit has. I disagree, value is subjective and can't be quantified by comparing how much of a list a TIE fighter fills up in a 100 point Star Wars match versus how much a sternguard unit takes up in a 1500 point match. Both the numbers and units are arbitrary and do not address whether any situations or scenarios beyond numbers. Do the values change depending on your local meta? Are flyers more valuable if your opponent has no AA? Is a unit that consistently performs well in your local group more valuable than one that always dies every turn? What about suicide units? Alpha strike units? Sternguard models are expensive, but they almost always make their points back on the table, is there any though to that for value? And none of that is even touching the aesthetic or hobbying side of the game, which can also add value.

There's just no way to quantify value, all Azrael has done is determine a formula that lets you know how much money you're spending to create a 1500 point 40k army compared to how much you're spending to fill 100 point X Wing one. And though that is certainly accurate, it's not a standard for determining value.



Good lord, I don't even know where to start with this.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. All sorts of wrong. Wrong as far as the I can see.

In fact, you've managed to include things here that I myself, in this thread have said in attempt to explain why you think I'm wrong!

I really don't have the motivation to refute each individual point you've got wrong, chiefly because I already have at least once already in most cases, suffice to say I felt you hadn't really grasped the concept of what I was trying to do and this post pretty much proves that.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 22:51:08


Post by: confoo22


 Azreal13 wrote:
Actually I think there is probably a reasonably easy way of expressing a unit value in terms of the percentage of a typical list size it represents over the cost to buy it.

I'm not a mathematician and I'm tired,so forgive me if my numbers are off, but taking the example of a basic TIE Fighter, which is 12 points of a 100 points list at typical values, so 12%. RRP of a TIE in the UK is £12, so it has a value of 1 Azreal (hey it's my idea!) But it can also be used to represent Howlrunner, at 18 points, which then gives it an improved value of 1.5 Azreals.

A basic, single Sternguard costs £6, and without upgrades costs 24 points. Assuming a basic list of 1500, it represents 0.016% of a list, giving a value of 0.003 Azreals. Upgraded with a Plasma Gun, which I think is the most expensive upgrade a single SG can be given, we get 39 points, which improves the value to 0.004 Azreals.

A whole unit of SG could be assumed to cost 150 points with some combi weapons etc, making the unit weigh in at 0.3 Azreals.

So, one can, with a few reasonable assumptions say that a TIE fighter for X Wing represents between 3 and 5 times the value than a Sternguard box does for 40K. This obviously makes no account of unit effectiveness, but that shouldn't be relevant as all units should be of a power commensurate with the amount of resources they use in your list, only 40K really suffers from inequalities in this.


Explain to me how I'm wrong. You put out that there that the monetary cost of the unit versus how much of the army it fills is an accurate way or portraying the value of the unit and then state that tabletop effectiveness isn't relevant to that number. Using this method you rank Sternguard as three times less valuable than a TIE fighter. If you're saying something different, then please enlighten me because this post does nothing to suggest that.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 23:05:47


Post by: Azreal13


Yeah, you've conflated a number of different concepts there, which I guess is where the misunderstanding is stemming from.

There are several different possible meaning to the word value, value for money, in game efficacy and a number with meaning.

In terms of how much of a normal sized army is taken up by a given unit, the TIE represents much better return in the money spent. This is using fixed, objective concepts like normal list size, points cost of unit and RRP.

One could argue the Sternguard represent better value for money, because they offer greater hobby time, building and painting etc.. as Pacific already did, and I agreed with him, but made the point this was a subjective point. One could also argue that if you factor in the cost of rules and materials needed to build and paint the Sternguard that it represents poorer value for money than the TIE. This is, again, subjective.

My original point was a basic means of comparing the amount of a typical list is filled by a given purchase per £ spent. It was never meant to address issues beyond that like how good the unit is in game or whether it was worth it's points or represented good value for money. How could it? Those are all subjective concepts.



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 23:39:29


Post by: confoo22


 Azreal13 wrote:
Yeah, you've conflated a number of different concepts there, which I guess is where the misunderstanding is stemming from.

There are several different possible meaning to the word value, value for money, in game efficacy and a number with meaning.

In terms of how much of a normal sized army is taken up by a given unit, the TIE represents much better return in the money spent. This is using fixed, objective concepts like normal list size, points cost of unit and RRP.

One could argue the Sternguard represent better value for money, because they offer greater hobby time, building and painting etc.. as Pacific already did, and I agreed with him, but made the point this was a subjective point. One could also argue that if you factor in the cost of rules and materials needed to build and paint the Sternguard that it represents poorer value for money than the TIE. This is, again, subjective.

My original point was a basic means of comparing the amount of a typical list is filled by a given purchase per £ spent. It was never meant to address issues beyond that like how good the unit is in game or whether it was worth it's points or represented good value for money. How could it? Those are all subjective concepts.



Well then we agree...

how awkward.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 23:46:30


Post by: Azreal13


No worries, happens to the best of us.

Well, not me, but I'm told it does...


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/26 23:59:27


Post by: Toofast


 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
40k is worth it because it's simply the best wargame. Has the bet models, the coolest story and is the most fun to play.


It has the best models. The story line hasn't evolved in 20 years and they have said it will not evolve in the future. The most fun to play? Since I started learning WMH I haven't played a single game of 40k. Everyone in my 40k group that has done a demo game of WMH has commented on how much better the rules are, how it feels like your tactical decisions actually have an effect on the outcome of the game and how much more fun it is to play. The only people who think 40k is the most fun to play are people who don't have any real experience playing other games. That's like saying the Honda Civic is the best car to drive when you've never driven anything else. Take an NSX for a spin and you'll feel differently. GWs rules and general gameplay is awful. If the models didn't look so good the game would have died a long time ago. Other games don't need 47 house rules, a 20 minute discussion before the game and 35 times of checking the rule book during the game to be played fairly.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 01:07:46


Post by: Moktor


Toofast wrote:
 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
40k is worth it because it's simply the best wargame. Has the bet models, the coolest story and is the most fun to play.


It has the best models. The story line hasn't evolved in 20 years and they have said it will not evolve in the future. The most fun to play? Since I started learning WMH I haven't played a single game of 40k. Everyone in my 40k group that has done a demo game of WMH has commented on how much better the rules are, how it feels like your tactical decisions actually have an effect on the outcome of the game and how much more fun it is to play. The only people who think 40k is the most fun to play are people who don't have any real experience playing other games. That's like saying the Honda Civic is the best car to drive when you've never driven anything else. Take an NSX for a spin and you'll feel differently. GWs rules and general gameplay is awful. If the models didn't look so good the game would have died a long time ago. Other games don't need 47 house rules, a 20 minute discussion before the game and 35 times of checking the rule book during the game to be played fairly.


Nailed it.

No one who has experienced more than 40K ever says 40K is the "best wargame." It is the "best known." Potentially has *some* of the "best models" (which is changing daily, as competitors are catching and passing 40K/Fantasy/GW quality), and is basically a name brand with nothing to back it outside of the name. The fluff has been butchered continually, and while you CAN have fun playing it, it requires work JUST to play it. If I drive 500 miles to play W/H, I will be playing the same game no matter the location. 40K is a different game for EVERY PLAYER. People who just want to push their marines across the table and play Yahtzee have their game, and that is not wrong at all. But if you want to compare rules, fairness, and now... even fluff and models, 40k is showing its colors.

I play these games because I do enjoy the aesthetic, I do enjoy the in-person interactions, and I do enjoy the competitive side as I like to use my brain in games. 40K can handle the first two just as well as anyone. The problem is that I can build a list and know if I won or lost during deployment. I want a game, not *just* a hobby of painting models. I want that game to be fair.

The cost of GW goes far beyond the price tag. I do know, however, that $35 for 5 plastic Dire Avengers (that are no better than $36 for 10 plastic guardians WITH a heavy weapon platform) is a way to bleed a stone. When GW moved from metal to plastic (or finecrap) prices went UP. PP moves from metal to plastic, prices go DOWN.

Cost should never be the question, anyway. It is about value. I value the game I am playing, others value the model itself. In that regard, it's a wash.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 01:24:13


Post by: Wayniac


The rules issue is another major thing, that cannot be quantified in a price. GW themselves basically say that the rules are for players to manipulate, but the fundamental issue with that is the majority of players don't play in a single group (at least outside the UK). So the way you play with Group A might not be the same way Group B plays, and that's the issue. I get the impression that GW thinks that all their customers (or at least the ones they seem to care about) play with a regular gaming club and can all agree on house rules and the like, when that doesn't often happen.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 01:31:24


Post by: Azreal13


Exactly like what happens in Lenton!


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 10:40:55


Post by: Freman Bloodglaive


If you want to outfit your Sternguard with multiple combi-weapons you'll be either hunting for bitz (and sellers know what they're worth) buying multiple boxes (doubtful) or buying extras from Forgeworld (nice but not cheap) because GW does not give you enough parts to give all your Sternguard combi-weapons, certainly not five of the same type.

There are third party manufacturers like BitzPudlo though.

There is a fun game at the heart of 40k, but it's a game trapped in a web of far too many rules. KISS (keep it simple stupid) is a mantra that all game designers should follow.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 11:39:26


Post by: Wayniac


Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
If you want to outfit your Sternguard with multiple combi-weapons you'll be either hunting for bitz (and sellers know what they're worth) buying multiple boxes (doubtful) or buying extras from Forgeworld (nice but not cheap) because GW does not give you enough parts to give all your Sternguard combi-weapons, certainly not five of the same type.


That IMHO is indicative of one of the major issues with the cost vs. value of GW products in general. They deliberately don't put all the options in a box because their company line is that you'll buy additional boxes (as ridiculous as that is). I suspect that was part of the reason they got rid of the Bitz service as well. It just adds fuel to the fire and reinforces the idea that they are out to cheat you as much as possible while still crowing that their miniatures are the best anywhere ever.

It also in a subtle way reinforces the fact they don't care about the game. A "collector" might actually assemble each guy with a different weapon for variety, whilst a gamer rarely if ever would because they want to use them effectively on the tabletop. That GW doesn't give enough bits to outfit the kit in a way that makes sense within the game really shows what camp they feel they cater to and which they don't care about.

$50 for five plastic figures, options be damned, is way too expensive. Doubly so when you can't even outfit them in a proper manner without losing effectiveness. Like I said earlier, the price for five figures is insane when you can get sixteen figures that are 54mm, with more details (due to larger size) for less than the cost of those five. There's no reason GW cannot competitively price their figures, they just see no reason to do so when they feel all their customers are drunk fanboys that will buy anything in a GW box at any price.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 11:40:10


Post by: Backfire


 Carnage43 wrote:

It just goes around and around. The end result is that the games and hobbies cost as much as you are willing to spend, and how much bargain hunting you can do to decrease the costs. I think the discussion boils down to GW being semi-reasonably priced on a per model basis compared to other games, but the fact that a standard 40k games requires so many more models really drives the cost of the game up to a level or 2 beyond most other games.


No disagreement that 40k is an expensive game in its class: on the other hand, you get what you pay for. I play 40k largely because of its visuals, I love the look of a large, painted army with infantry, tanks, walkers or monsters or whatnot. The unfortunate truth is that a skirmish game or even Warmachine cannot compete in this respect, which is why they don't interest me. Sadly, same applies to X-Wing: Star Wars visuals work well in the movies, but not so much on tabletop. Typically, Star Wars craft is grey or white, sometimes with few red stripes, or if they really go crazy, blue stripes. Combined with pre-painted minis, not much is left for creativity.

I do think X-wing minis are tad overpriced...a Revell Millenium Falcon is same size as FFG one but half the cost, though of course without the cards and counters. Also if you compare X-wing prices to Games Workshop's own BFG, which is much more...er...unavailable... :(


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 11:57:16


Post by: BaronIveagh


 insaniak wrote:

Scibor's models aren't on par with GW's. They're just covered in a lot of stuff.


Which, for pauldrons, puts them away above par for GW's Waiting for GW to sue them, claiming to own the concept of shoulders.


Actaully a lot of thier detail kits are pretty good.and compare favorably to FW.


And, how about that Victoria Lamb?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 12:30:16


Post by: agnosto


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 insaniak wrote:

Scibor's models aren't on par with GW's. They're just covered in a lot of stuff.


Which, for pauldrons, puts them away above par for GW's Waiting for GW to sue them, claiming to own the concept of shoulders.


They tried that with the CHS case and lost, even after GW's attorneys tried to manipulate evidence and patent filings. While the marks on the shoulder pads can be markable, the actual shape of a shoulder pad (at least currently in the US) cannot.

Back to Sternguard. I'm honestly surprised that GW hasn't limited the options of the unit to match the contents of the box since they seem so dead-set on killing the 3rd party market...


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 12:44:43


Post by: vipoid


 agnosto wrote:

They tried that with the CHS case and lost, even after GW's attorneys tried to manipulate evidence and patent filings. While the marks on the shoulder pads can be markable, the actual shape of a shoulder pad (at least currently in the US) cannot.


Is the bold part true, or just speculation?

If the former, I'd be interested to hear exactly what they were doing.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 12:53:44


Post by: jonolikespie


 vipoid wrote:
 agnosto wrote:

They tried that with the CHS case and lost, even after GW's attorneys tried to manipulate evidence and patent filings. While the marks on the shoulder pads can be markable, the actual shape of a shoulder pad (at least currently in the US) cannot.


Is the bold part true, or just speculation?

If the former, I'd be interested to hear exactly what they were doing.

There are emails between GW and the copyright office saying shoulder pads are too generic. GW then never presented those emails to the court and the judge made a call that the shoulder pads are protectable. GW's excuse when CH's private investigators discovered this years(?) later was they never got another email about it so they considered the matter closed.*

There was also the part where they claimed the Mantis Warriors icon then when asked for the contact information from the original artist they said they had none. Later CH's PIs found his contact info and he provided emails showing a discussion between him and GW's head of IP and legal departments before they where asked for his contact info.
The discussion involved them telling him they owned the artwork but lost the documents saying so and that he had to sign over the rights again. He then signed a testimony saying that was not true, he was not on staff at the time, they had the right to publish his artwork in the WD it was commissioned first then it reverted to back to him.

*Edit: just to be clear the timeline went GW hits CH with the lawsuit > GW goes to copyright office about making them protecable > they say no > judge asks for all relevant information, nothing provided > judge considered it protecable >>>>>> CH finds the emails.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 13:27:20


Post by: agnosto


 vipoid wrote:
 agnosto wrote:

They tried that with the CHS case and lost, even after GW's attorneys tried to manipulate evidence and patent filings. While the marks on the shoulder pads can be markable, the actual shape of a shoulder pad (at least currently in the US) cannot.


Is the bold part true, or just speculation?

If the former, I'd be interested to hear exactly what they were doing.


I can't recall the exact particulars and it's somewhere in the huge CHS thread but apparently one of the lead attorneys, Moskin, for the firm that GW hired has a reputation for doing things fast and loose and got caught during the CHS case lying about contact with the US Patent Office and was sanctioned by the court for withholding discoverable documents. (he pulled a similar trick during a case involving the Gallo winery and was caught then as well).


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 13:28:53


Post by: Wayniac


 agnosto wrote:
 BaronIveagh wrote:
 insaniak wrote:

Scibor's models aren't on par with GW's. They're just covered in a lot of stuff.


Which, for pauldrons, puts them away above par for GW's Waiting for GW to sue them, claiming to own the concept of shoulders.


They tried that with the CHS case and lost, even after GW's attorneys tried to manipulate evidence and patent filings. While the marks on the shoulder pads can be markable, the actual shape of a shoulder pad (at least currently in the US) cannot.

Back to Sternguard. I'm honestly surprised that GW hasn't limited the options of the unit to match the contents of the box since they seem so dead-set on killing the 3rd party market...


I don't get why they haven't done this, period, since they do it all the fething time with all of their boxes. Oh but wait they expect us to buy multiple boxes for all the options, because that's something normal people do.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 15:47:26


Post by: dusara217


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The problem with 40k is it uses squad-game pricing for a game that is close to a company level game.

If you actually want to play company level games, you have things like this...

https://www.perry-miniatures.com/product_info.php?products_id=2924&osCsid=fmned70s3a36v8vsosttakpso0

http://www.wargamesfactory.com/webstore/myths-and-legends/wgf-ml002

http://www.wargamesfactory.com/webstore/world-war-2

Where you're looking at less than $1 per model.

GW models are priced as if you only need 15-30 of them, but you actually need 50+.


You know, I wouldn't even have an issue with that, so long as armies that are meant to be one squad = 20 normal squads were the only ones like that. If I could buy a company of IG for the price of 2 squads of Space Marines and then change the game so that Space Marines on the tabletop match Space Marines in the fluff, then this wouldn't be that big of an issue. But that fact that GW has basically the same price lines for every faction and every type of army is just ridiculous. What they need to do is make units that are meant to be bigger and badder actually bigger and badder and then make blob armies like Orks or IG get like 30-90 units in a pack of the same cost, because in the fluff, each Space Marine is supposed to equal an army. So make the Eldar faster, give the Space Marine standard infantry an extra wound and make the models bigger, give the Mechanicum the option of 6 Praetorians in one pack or 50 lesser Skitarii for the same price, make a Dreadnought 9 times taller than an Ork, make a Wraithknight able to kill an Ork by bumbing into it, make the Orks get 80 Nobz in a package. Basically, they need to modify the pricings and selling points to match the Universe and the gameplay.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 16:24:12


Post by: Occhiolini


40k minis start at a pretty high base cost for what they're honestly worth, but this is the same for pretty much any game out there.

I think the big difference is that 40k does not have a spending cap ( You can pretty much always keep adding on to your collection ) and the base cost of getting a playable army on the field is pretty high, considering rulebooks and codex'es.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 17:53:44


Post by: Makumba


You can buy whole model lines for other games too. no says one can only play 2 or 3 casters or the same faction all the time.
The problem is that with GW starer sets are not starter sets, and actual armies cost two or three times as much as armies for other games.And that is not couting the multiple books you have to own to play them.

My friend played demon with csm ally. He had to buy 3 codexm, the rule book and the fortification book just to start playing. For the same money he could buy a whole real army for other games. For some games even more.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 17:59:45


Post by: Talys


 Moktor wrote:

No one who has experienced more than 40K ever says 40K is the "best wargame." It is the "best known." Potentially has *some* of the "best models" (which is changing daily, as competitors are catching and passing 40K/Fantasy/GW quality), and is basically a name brand with nothing to back it outside of the name. The fluff has been butchered continually, and while you CAN have fun playing it, it requires work JUST to play it. If I drive 500 miles to play W/H, I will be playing the same game no matter the location. 40K is a different game for EVERY PLAYER. People who just want to push their marines across the table and play Yahtzee have their game, and that is not wrong at all. But if you want to compare rules, fairness, and now... even fluff and models, 40k is showing its colors.



I have played many miniature wargames, and I consider 40k the "best wargame". FAR from the best balanced, most fair, best value, but clearly, for me, the best wargame. Here is why:

1. Best fluff. I could give a crap about Germans and French fighting in WW2, or the civil war. I would never paint a historical model, ever.
2. Best weapons. There are no companies, including PP, that have weapons that look as cool as those on Citadel models.
3. Best variety. There are more models in 40k than I could ever hope to paint or even own, and there is something for everyone. I love this.
4. Most new releases. There is new stuff coming out all the time, more so than any other company.

I don't CARE if the game is balanced or fair, or if the mechanics are botched. That's what house rules are for. Besides, there is a HUGE disparity in player skill and army build. It doesn't matter how fair or unfair the game is, when the matchup is often between a highly skilled competitive player, and someone playing just for fun. Personally, I *like* these games, and I usually have a troop advantage, so I'm happy to simply handicap when I play, or simply not play an optimized list.

I am an expert-level chess player, and there are no wargames that come remotely close to the skill, practice, and strategic thought process required to play chess. There is simply no way to create parity between two forces where the two forces are not perfectly symmetrical. I'm not saying it's not fun; just that it's inherently unfair. And that's ok. I also used to be a HUGE TCG fan, and army building in wargames is a joke when compared to building optimized decks in TCGs. And if you think 40k is expensive, try to keep up with every new card that comes out in MtG that you need to be tournament-competitive.

At the end of the day, to me, the models and the game universe isn't just important, it's EVERYTHING.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 18:04:32


Post by: Wayniac


Talys wrote:
 Moktor wrote:

No one who has experienced more than 40K ever says 40K is the "best wargame." It is the "best known." Potentially has *some* of the "best models" (which is changing daily, as competitors are catching and passing 40K/Fantasy/GW quality), and is basically a name brand with nothing to back it outside of the name. The fluff has been butchered continually, and while you CAN have fun playing it, it requires work JUST to play it. If I drive 500 miles to play W/H, I will be playing the same game no matter the location. 40K is a different game for EVERY PLAYER. People who just want to push their marines across the table and play Yahtzee have their game, and that is not wrong at all. But if you want to compare rules, fairness, and now... even fluff and models, 40k is showing its colors.



I have played many miniature wargames, and I consider 40k the "best wargame". FAR from the best balanced, most fair, best value, but clearly, for me, the best wargame. Here is why:

1. Best fluff. I could give a crap about Germans and French fighting in WW2, or the civil war. I would never paint a historical model, ever.
2. Best weapons. There are no companies, including PP, that have weapons that look as cool as those on Citadel models.
3. Best variety. There are more models in 40k than I could ever hope to paint or even own, and there is something for everyone. I love this.
4. Most new releases. There is new stuff coming out all the time, more so than any other company.

I don't CARE if the game is balanced or fair, or if the mechanics are botched. That's what house rules are for. Besides, there is a HUGE disparity in player skill and army build. It doesn't matter how fair or unfair the game is, when the matchup is often between a highly skilled competitive player, and someone playing just for fun. Personally, I *like* these games, and I usually have a troop advantage, so I'm happy to simply handicap when I play, or simply not play an optimized list.

At the end of the day, to me, the models and the game universe isn't just important, it's EVERYTHING.


Good for you, however there is a big difference between saying that for you personally 40k hits all your good points, and saying that because 40k hits all your criteria that there is no issue at all and everyone who disagrees is a whiner/troll. Not to say that you personally have done that, but that's the general fallacy that gets thrown around. For one person, 40k might be great but that doesn't mean there are no issues at all with it.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 18:08:16


Post by: Talys


WayneTheGame wrote:

Good for you, however there is a big difference between saying that for you personally 40k hits all your good points, and saying that because 40k hits all your criteria that there is no issue at all and everyone who disagrees is a whiner/troll. Not to say that you personally have done that, but that's the general fallacy that gets thrown around. For one person, 40k might be great but that doesn't mean there are no issues at all with it.


I completely agree.

I was simply replying to the initial assertion that "no one who has experienced more than 40k ever says that 40k is the best wargame". To me, it is still my favorite game universe for tabletop wargames, and I've experienced many, many wargames.

And, I also agree that the issues with 40k many, and they are epic.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 18:18:30


Post by: Wayniac


Talys wrote:
WayneTheGame wrote:

Good for you, however there is a big difference between saying that for you personally 40k hits all your good points, and saying that because 40k hits all your criteria that there is no issue at all and everyone who disagrees is a whiner/troll. Not to say that you personally have done that, but that's the general fallacy that gets thrown around. For one person, 40k might be great but that doesn't mean there are no issues at all with it.


I completely agree.

I was simply replying to the initial assertion that "no one who has experienced more than 40k ever says that 40k is the best wargame". To me, it is still my favorite game universe for tabletop wargames, and I've experienced many, many wargames.

And, I also agree that the issues with 40k many, and they are epic.


It would be my favorite if the cost was more reasonable. The fact every few days I flip through my old White Dwarfs is a testament to that...


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 18:21:10


Post by: Azreal13


You've actually, consciously or not, drawn a line there. You say it is your favourite game universe, not your favourite game.

As a game universe, for the time being unless GW decide to try and wring a few more pennies out of us by mixing it all up a la WHFB, it is likely the best, but it had a 20 odd year head start in many of it's rivals.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 18:24:28


Post by: vipoid


One other aspect regarding price is that GW's rulesets strongly push you to buying new models in order for your army to stay competitive. "Whoops, it's year 4 in our 8-year cycle, so now units A-P are crap for the next 4 years. Don't worry though, because we've buffed units Q-V. What's that? You don't own any of those units? Well you'd better buy some then. And, don't forget the £30 codex while you're at it."


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 20:40:00


Post by: Talys


 Azreal13 wrote:
You've actually, consciously or not, drawn a line there. You say it is your favourite game universe, not your favourite game.

As a game universe, for the time being unless GW decide to try and wring a few more pennies out of us by mixing it all up a la WHFB, it is likely the best, but it had a 20 odd year head start in many of it's rivals.


Sure you can say that, but to me, there is no distinction, as I view this game as entertainment, so game universe and play pieces are paramount. Otherwise, I would just play chess or starcraft

I have little loyalty to GW as a company, so when other universes are as rich, I am happy to jump ship.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 20:46:44


Post by: Wayniac


Talys wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
You've actually, consciously or not, drawn a line there. You say it is your favourite game universe, not your favourite game.

As a game universe, for the time being unless GW decide to try and wring a few more pennies out of us by mixing it all up a la WHFB, it is likely the best, but it had a 20 odd year head start in many of it's rivals.


Sure you can say that, but to me, there is no distinction, as I view this game as entertainment, so game universe and play pieces are paramount. Otherwise, I would just play chess or starcraft

I have little loyalty to GW as a company, so when other universes are as rich, I am happy to jump ship.


Well part of the overall issue, and this is not something that you personally have done, is the unwillingness to look beyond the very specific genre of 40k. For example, Warmachine has as rich if not richer universe than 40k, in the sense there are tons of lore and information, not to mention the story actually advances so characters grow. But the general complaint is that it's not sci-fi grimdark with xenos and power armor and Chaos and the Emperor, and so it sucks or doesn't compare to 40k because they are specifically looking for the same context and tropes found in 40k.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 20:58:07


Post by: Azreal13


Talys wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
You've actually, consciously or not, drawn a line there. You say it is your favourite game universe, not your favourite game.

As a game universe, for the time being unless GW decide to try and wring a few more pennies out of us by mixing it all up a la WHFB, it is likely the best, but it had a 20 odd year head start in many of it's rivals.


Sure you can say that, but to me, there is no distinction, as I view this game as entertainment, so game universe and play pieces are paramount. Otherwise, I would just play chess or starcraft

I have little loyalty to GW as a company, so when other universes are as rich, I am happy to jump ship.


FFG have a wide range of card games and RPGs officially licensed from GW set in the Warhammer worlds.

They're well thought of, haven't played them myself yet, but if it is a hit of fluff you need, they're probably better at it than the current tabletop game.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 21:10:02


Post by: Talys


 vipoid wrote:
One other aspect regarding price is that GW's rulesets strongly push you to buying new models in order for your army to stay competitive. "Whoops, it's year 4 in our 8-year cycle, so now units A-P are crap for the next 4 years. Don't worry though, because we've buffed units Q-V. What's that? You don't own any of those units? Well you'd better buy some then. And, don't forget the £30 codex while you're at it."


No argument to the unit lifecycles, but on the other hand, I wouldn't want an army to remain unchanged, tactics, aesthetics, and fluff-wise for 10 years, either. I do object to the very short life cycle of core rules and codex (like 6th), and I think they should sell an affordable electronic rules subscription.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 21:16:16


Post by: Psienesis


I wouldn't want an army to remain unchanged, tactics, aesthetics, and fluff-wise for 10 years, either.


But most armies in 40K are exactly this. They don't change. You could, of course, change the style of 40K army you play (Foot-Guard vs Armor-Guard... but it's still Imperial Guard)... but both these styles of Imperial Guard have been around for a lot longer than 10 years now, with very little change.

The Sisters only recently changed for the first time in 20 years... but their core playstyle hasn't really changed, for all the alterations visited on the faction. They are still a short/medium range army with lots of flamer-templates and melta. They always have been. The mechanics of the Faith system have changed, but the core concept behind it hasn't.

The only thing that really changes is the meta of games, so that what was top-shelf last edition might not be so in the current edition... but these are changes meant to drive model and book sales, not really address balance issues.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 23:12:56


Post by: vipoid


Talys wrote:
No argument to the unit lifecycles, but on the other hand, I wouldn't want an army to remain unchanged, tactics, aesthetics, and fluff-wise for 10 years, either.


But, why?

I can understand toning down a particularly broken build, but why should a perfectly balanced - or even underpowered - army get nerfed?

Surely if they want to to mix things up, they should offer new and interesting alternatives that entice people to try them, but without crapping all over the units/armies they like?

It seems like a very poor way to try and sell models.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/27 23:39:14


Post by: Talys


 vipoid wrote:
Talys wrote:
No argument to the unit lifecycles, but on the other hand, I wouldn't want an army to remain unchanged, tactics, aesthetics, and fluff-wise for 10 years, either.


But, why?

I can understand toning down a particularly broken build, but why should a perfectly balanced - or even underpowered - army get nerfed?

Surely if they want to to mix things up, they should offer new and interesting alternatives that entice people to try them, but without crapping all over the units/armies they like?

It seems like a very poor way to try and sell models.


When I play a video game that I like, I do want them to eventually update the video game with new stuff -- even if I LOVE the original game. Otherwise, I'd eventually get bored of it. I expect with time that the game has more depth and breadth, and it's really no different for tabletop wargames for me.

I'm not trying to re-enact a historical battle, where all the units are well-defined. This is a fantasy/scifi setting, and as time passes in the 41st millennium there should be new threats, and new technologies to counter those threats -- just like the Star Trek universe, which I adore, evolves from the original series, to TNG, to DS9, and through Voyager. The tech that Janeway has to defeat the Borg was very different from what Piccard had to deal with their first cube, and that's a good thing -- I call it evolution of the universe.

I'm happy that there are Tau, Tyranids and and Dark Eldar, and that those have forced the Adeptus Mechanicus to come up with snazzy new tech to deal with those threats.

From a purely game mechanics standpoint, the game now is far superior in depth to what it was in Rogue Trader, which was when I started. Regardless of what your favored army is, there are a lot more tools.

From a modelling standpoint, new releases keep things interesting. Plus, I have 100+ 2nd edition space marines (which, incidentally, cost next to nothing, back then, as the cheapo SM box was such great value)... and probably 50+ painted 28mm base terminators, but I sure don't want to be playing them LOL. Not that I play a whole lot anymore, but the new models are much better. Once in a great while, I'll field one of my really old models to play for fun, though




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Psienesis wrote:
I wouldn't want an army to remain unchanged, tactics, aesthetics, and fluff-wise for 10 years, either.


But most armies in 40K are exactly this. They don't change. You could, of course, change the style of 40K army you play (Foot-Guard vs Armor-Guard... but it's still Imperial Guard)... but both these styles of Imperial Guard have been around for a lot longer than 10 years now, with very little change.

The Sisters only recently changed for the first time in 20 years... but their core playstyle hasn't really changed, for all the alterations visited on the faction. They are still a short/medium range army with lots of flamer-templates and melta. They always have been. The mechanics of the Faith system have changed, but the core concept behind it hasn't.

The only thing that really changes is the meta of games, so that what was top-shelf last edition might not be so in the current edition... but these are changes meant to drive model and book sales, not really address balance issues.


I would dispute this. I have 3000 points each of imperial guard, Eldar, and Space Marines from 2nd edition, and current units/armies are unrecognizable, except that there are tactical squads with bolt guns. The Tyranids/Genestealers from release (back in original Space Hulk days) to what they are now are so different. Squats have vanished from the Imperium, there are Tau and Necron, and.. and...

I think new releases every couple of years for an army, adjustments every 3 years or so, and a total overhaul every 10-15 years or so is pretty healthy, but that's just me

I do think that people who wish to keep playing with their old units should be able to, possibly only needing to add a little bit of this or that to adjust for new "technologies" -- like, from 2nd to 7th, the ability to cross a 6' table changed dramatically.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/28 00:19:57


Post by: Backfire


 Azreal13 wrote:

FFG have a wide range of card games and RPGs officially licensed from GW set in the Warhammer worlds.

They're well thought of, haven't played them myself yet, but if it is a hit of fluff you need, they're probably better at it than the current tabletop game.


FFG's Warhammer RPG's mirror GW in that they contain good fluff and the books have high production values, but the rules vary from good to terrible. Sadly, the rule of the thumb seems to be that newer is worse.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/28 00:23:53


Post by: Azreal13


But RPGs are inherently easier to balance than a wargame, due to the presence of the GM and the fact they're often played with established groups over extended periods, making it much easier to house rule the stuff you don't like.

Of course, one should be able to reliably play anything you purchase for the purpose without having to modfiy it, but at least it isn't so much of an issue with RPGs.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/28 00:40:12


Post by: BaronIveagh


 Azreal13 wrote:
But RPGs are inherently easier to balance than a wargame, due to the presence of the GM and the fact they're often played with established groups over extended periods, making it much easier to house rule the stuff you don't like.

Of course, one should be able to reliably play anything you purchase for the purpose without having to modfiy it, but at least it isn't so much of an issue with RPGs.


As someone who's worked on a GW product myself, I might contest this [balancing BFG FAQ2010 took seven months of playtesting, and stuff STILL got through due to internal wrangling and varying interpretations of fluff.]. I know for a fact that HBMC would contest this as well, being he writes for FFG and playtests. DH 2.0 ver 1 was horrible. Unarmed combat and fire always resulted in mooks actually exploding with enough force to deal damage. It was bad to the point of being dubbed Dark Heresy: Fist of the North Star edition. And this goop made it as far as beta testing....

Though we both would agree about the rules should be working as written.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/28 00:49:55


Post by: Backfire


 Azreal13 wrote:
But RPGs are inherently easier to balance than a wargame, due to the presence of the GM and the fact they're often played with established groups over extended periods, making it much easier to house rule the stuff you don't like.

Of course, one should be able to reliably play anything you purchase for the purpose without having to modfiy it, but at least it isn't so much of an issue with RPGs.


Sure enough, but when you have a mess like Deathwatch where - even after Bible-sized errata - amount of houseruling required equals writing a wholly new system, you begin to ask some kind of responsibility from the designers...

I realize that I often sound like Dakka's regular GW haters, where 'GW' is just replaced by 'FFG', but seriously, FFG gets a free pass way too often here. Some of their games make GW look like paragon of clarity and balance in comparison.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/10/28 01:51:56


Post by: Azreal13


 BaronIveagh wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
But RPGs are inherently easier to balance than a wargame, due to the presence of the GM and the fact they're often played with established groups over extended periods, making it much easier to house rule the stuff you don't like.

Of course, one should be able to reliably play anything you purchase for the purpose without having to modfiy it, but at least it isn't so much of an issue with RPGs.


As someone who's worked on a GW product myself, I might contest this [balancing BFG FAQ2010 took seven months of playtesting, and stuff STILL got through due to internal wrangling and varying interpretations of fluff.]. I know for a fact that HBMC would contest this as well, being he writes for FFG and playtests. DH 2.0 ver 1 was horrible. Unarmed combat and fire always resulted in mooks actually exploding with enough force to deal damage. It was bad to the point of being dubbed Dark Heresy: Fist of the North Star edition. And this goop made it as far as beta testing....

Though we both would agree about the rules should be working as written.


A slight misunderstanding, I meant that they're easier to balance in that the player can adjust things that aren't to their liking or they find too effective/not effective enough more easily, whereas if I were to decide that the Serpent Shield should have a 6" range, and went into my local GW tomorrow, I may find that harder.

Fundamentally, RPGs are a co-operative experience, whereas wargames are adversarial - which is not to say you won't get the odd TFG in an RPG, but they can be smacked down by the GM, whereas TFG in wargame world just blows out his nostrils and tells everyone how it isn't his list, it's him.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 00:41:52


Post by: Plumbumbarum


Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd. So one game you need 2 minis to play, in 40k you need 200 so assuming the same price the former is 100x better value? No, you compare price of same number of miniatures and their quality and as far as plastics go, GW are best. Quality as in level of detail and sturdines not design as I've already seen those 2 mistaken here. That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.

Now, GW pieces are overpriced, but relatively are they? Dust Tactics are tad cheaper but I can break them with two fingers. Xwing is just as expensive for boring prepainted ships. Hell even clix gummy bears are more expensive. Warmachine I wouldn't touch with 10 foot pole because design so can't comment but from what I heard, it's just as expensive per mini only works at smaller scale and irrelevant arguments like 'you have more use for a mini in the game' or other bs.

Then, who bought some toys for kids lately? Unlicensed transformers from cheap mall with crap detail, I could make forgeworld nurgle termie for that. Or those german prepainted animals, size the same, sculpts worse and price comparable or worse.

Really GW is overpriced but the other games are not cheaper if only the miniatures are close in quality. That 40k is bigger scale, well you're aware of that so it's on you not them and stop expecting them to lower prices to match overall cost of skirmish games. That doesn't make sense.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 01:07:07


Post by: Azreal13


Plumbumbarum wrote:
Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd.


It really isn't.

What's more important, the cost of each individual piece or the amount needed to invest to get a good, playable faction with some tactical flexibility and a few choices?

I know what I'm more concerned with.

Plus, one doesn't have to compare across game scope, one could compare Bolt Action to 40K for instance, which, up until the arms race scale lunacy that was introduced a few years ago by GW, could be considered roughly similar in scope, but GW still frequently lose out in comparison.

The return on £ spent in terms of contribution towards a normal, playable force is worse with 40K in nearly any matchup to almost any other game and this barrier to entry is an increasing problem for people starting the game or for existing players wanting to add factions. The evidence is right there, less money is being spent with GW despite increasing prices, there may be other factors, but given the number of individuals that keep saying "this is a factor for me" it would be folly to discount it.

Look at the "start 40K for £100" thread here recently, discounting the cost of rules, it is still near impossible to put together a legal, playable force for that, whereas for any other games a similar thread would be hugely debated because there would be so many options. The cost of a 40K army starts where many others finish.

The only people who wouldn't be affected by this would be painters who aren't interested in collecting armies, and it appears GW have convinced themselves there's enough of those who won't go and buy some of the gorgeous minis being made by other companies to keep them afloat. I disagree.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 01:20:03


Post by: Peregrine


Plumbumbarum wrote:
Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd.


No, it's entirely relevant. If you want to play a game it doesn't matter how much each part of the game costs, it matters how much you have to pay to play the game. So even if other companies have a higher cost per-model the total cost of playing the game is lower. And that has a lot more practical value to the customer than some kind of abstract "worth" of a miniature.

That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.


Of course it takes those things away. As a customer I don't care what technology went into making a product, I care what the final product is.

Xwing is just as expensive for boring prepainted ships.


It's not just the ships, it's all of the rules and tokens needed to use them. Good luck getting that out of a GW kit. And yes, being pre-painted adds value because X-Wing's prepainted models are good prepainted models that look just fine on the table even without any additional painting work. But if you want to do your own painting you've effectively got pre-assembled and pre-primed models that are ready to paint right out of the box, unlike anything GW sells. So even if the per-model cost is higher than a GW model you're getting a lot more for your money.

That 40k is bigger scale, well you're aware of that so it's on you not them and stop expecting them to lower prices to match overall cost of skirmish games. That doesn't make sense.


Of course it makes sense, but you're just missing the reason why. GW's prices aren't bad because I as a GW customer don't want to pay that much, they're bad because they create a huge barrier to entry for new players. And GW depends on having a constant supply of new players to offset the customers they're constantly losing. But if it costs $1000+ to start playing 40k vs. $100 to start X-Wing with both factions, make a full-size Infinity army, etc, those new customers are going to go elsewhere.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 01:21:40


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Plumbumbarum wrote:
Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd. So one game you need 2 minis to play, in 40k you need 200 so assuming the same price the former is 100x better value? No, you compare price of same number of miniatures and their quality and as far as plastics go, GW are best. Quality as in level of detail and sturdines not design as I've already seen those 2 mistaken here. That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.

Now, GW pieces are overpriced, but relatively are they? Dust Tactics are tad cheaper but I can break them with two fingers. Xwing is just as expensive for boring prepainted ships. Hell even clix gummy bears are more expensive. Warmachine I wouldn't touch with 10 foot pole because design so can't comment but from what I heard, it's just as expensive per mini only works at smaller scale and irrelevant arguments like 'you have more use for a mini in the game' or other bs.

Then, who bought some toys for kids lately? Unlicensed transformers from cheap mall with crap detail, I could make forgeworld nurgle termie for that. Or those german prepainted animals, size the same, sculpts worse and price comparable or worse.

Really GW is overpriced but the other games are not cheaper if only the miniatures are close in quality. That 40k is bigger scale, well you're aware of that so it's on you not them and stop expecting them to lower prices to match overall cost of skirmish games. That doesn't make sense.
I don't disagree on the fact that GW do make good plastics. Even if you don't like their artistic direction, the actual technical quality it pretty good. Rarely do you get sink holes, the detail is sharp and for the most part the sprues are well designed. There are of course models that aren't great, though they are mostly the older models.

Buuuuuut, yes, the size of the game does relate to the value of the minis. If you're making a game that requires 100 models, you can simply afford (and should) sell them for less, because the cost of materials and manufacturing is pretty damned low. If your game only requires 10 models, the models have to cost more because the costs of sculpting, making the initial moulds, shipping and paying all the people along the way factors much higher in to the cost per model.

And while GW are good, it's getting harder to call them the "best" when you have models like these...



...which per model cost less than ONE FIFTH of GW's Cadians.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 01:39:05


Post by: AegisGrimm


As a player of X-Wing, and a 20-year player of 40K, I can tell you that X-wing definitely gives you more bang for your buck, and so so other game systems. I love, love, love 40K for the modelling standpoint, but you can easily get two very large fleets of ships for X-wing that give you tons of flexibility in army-building for the price of a small 40K army that will stay relatively static unless you keep making purchases.

In no way can anyone play 40K and not have price be a factor, not for at least the least ten years. It's why I have six 2,000+pt armies, but the most recent figures I bought are some bargain-priced 2nd edition Eldar from a bitz supplier at Gencon. I think the last retail unit I bought was a unit of Scourges two years ago. The price keeps me from buying any more figures other than on a rare basis, even though my interest is there.

Hell, I'd love to start an Ork army, but it's probably not happening, but on the other hand, I'm thinking of getting a Scum And Villainy force for X-wing when it comes out, because I can get a fully useable force for around the price of a battlewagon and some boyz.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 01:52:46


Post by: Pyeatt


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd. So one game you need 2 minis to play, in 40k you need 200 so assuming the same price the former is 100x better value? No, you compare price of same number of miniatures and their quality and as far as plastics go, GW are best. Quality as in level of detail and sturdines not design as I've already seen those 2 mistaken here. That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.

Now, GW pieces are overpriced, but relatively are they? Dust Tactics are tad cheaper but I can break them with two fingers. Xwing is just as expensive for boring prepainted ships. Hell even clix gummy bears are more expensive. Warmachine I wouldn't touch with 10 foot pole because design so can't comment but from what I heard, it's just as expensive per mini only works at smaller scale and irrelevant arguments like 'you have more use for a mini in the game' or other bs.

Then, who bought some toys for kids lately? Unlicensed transformers from cheap mall with crap detail, I could make forgeworld nurgle termie for that. Or those german prepainted animals, size the same, sculpts worse and price comparable or worse.

Really GW is overpriced but the other games are not cheaper if only the miniatures are close in quality. That 40k is bigger scale, well you're aware of that so it's on you not them and stop expecting them to lower prices to match overall cost of skirmish games. That doesn't make sense.
I don't disagree on the fact that GW do make good plastics. Even if you don't like their artistic direction, the actual technical quality it pretty good. Rarely do you get sink holes, the detail is sharp and for the most part the sprues are well designed. There are of course models that aren't great, though they are mostly the older models.

Buuuuuut, yes, the size of the game does relate to the value of the minis. If you're making a game that requires 100 models, you can simply afford (and should) sell them for less, because the cost of materials and manufacturing is pretty damned low. If your game only requires 10 models, the models have to cost more because the costs of sculpting, making the initial moulds, shipping and paying all the people along the way factors much higher in to the cost per model.

And while GW are good, it's getting harder to call them the "best" when you have models like these...



...which per model cost less than ONE FIFTH of GW's Cadians.


Argument invalid. They're wearing their garrison caps. Back to GW.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 01:55:00


Post by: Accolade


The thing that is killing me with posts defending the model count in 40k games is every new edition of 40k has inflated the game size by a significant amount. What constituted a 1500 pt army in 3rd edition felt short of that size in 4th, and it has continued this way every generation up to 7th, where the firepower of many units has been massively diluted against the big baddies (i.e. titans, bigger and badder HQs, etc.) that dominate the gameplay.

Is the experience of that extra 400-500 points that gets crammed into an army in 7th actually better than the experience of a game in 4th-5th edition 40k, or is it something that's just shrugged at for increased "narrative forging"?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 02:09:01


Post by: AegisGrimm


Well, there is the fact that Space Marines are 50% the points that they were in 2nd edition, while the points values of a "normal" game stayed at 1500-2000pts.

Also in every edition up to about 5th edition, using something akin to a Riptide in an everyday game would have been seen like using a Revenant today. It's where lots of the vitriol for using Forgeworld models came from, because they used to be primarily a producer of big boutique items like Eldar Superheavies that were way too powerful for normal games, but modern 40K is using bigger and bigger stuff.

Lots of the flyer rules from 4th edition's Vehicle Design rules are very similar to what we are seeing on everyday flyer units in standard lists now, and they were seen by many as overpowered back then.

Standard games coupled with standard prices are what is the problem. Other games may have GW's prices, but they are using armies that are the size of 2nd edition 40K, so the hit is not as bad for getting into the game.

Also, no matter what you may defend model prices like, what makes GW truly ludicrously expensive is the price of the rules material required to even get playing. You are in over 100 dollars for just the rules and a codex, before you ever buy a single figure.

In Warmachine, you can easily start gaming with a force after first getting the main rulebook, Warmachine: Prime MkII for less than 50 bucks.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 02:14:10


Post by: Accolade


 AegisGrimm wrote:
Well, there is the fact that Space Marines are 50% the points that they were in 2nd edition, while the points values of a "normal" game stayed at 1500-2000pts.


Right, that's what I'm saying. The game standard size hasn't changed, but the cost of units has been steadily dropping. Usually, a codex release is hailed with an "Awesome! I can field an extra Leman Russ/Battlewagon/etc!", and this has been happening with every single new codex release.

I just don't see how this has improved the gaming experience, i.e. what these bigger games actually have to offer that the previous editions didn't provide.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 02:20:07


Post by: insaniak


 Accolade wrote:

I just don't see how this has improved the gaming experience, i.e. what these bigger games actually have to offer that the previous editions didn't provide.

Other than being bigger games?

Frankly, the model count is one of the things that has kept me in 40K for so long. There simply aren't any other 28ish mm scifi games out there at the moment (that I'm aware of, other than the occasional home-brew ruleset) that deal battles the same size... Every other company seems determined to focus on small-count skirmish games.

While there's certainly a place for skirmish games (Necromunda is still one of my favourite games) I enjoy the spectacle of a larger game.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 02:22:53


Post by: AegisGrimm


Yeah, but used to be that a force of two 10-man space marine squads, a character or two, a bike squad and a landspeeder was not seen as a "small" force or a skirmish game. GW has just inflated everything that deals with model count slowly over the last 15 years, while raising prices.

Used to be that 40K: Epic was used for having the sheer spectacle of seeing huge armies.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 02:23:57


Post by: Accolade


The model count is fine, I'm not saying I don't like bigger-than-skirmish games. I'm just saying I think there's been a lot of unnecessary inflating of armies in the last couple of editions, which hasn't really added to the experience (other than to say "it's bigger!")

I don't seem to be communicating this correctly so I think I'm just going to let it go.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 02:52:11


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 insaniak wrote:
 Accolade wrote:

I just don't see how this has improved the gaming experience, i.e. what these bigger games actually have to offer that the previous editions didn't provide.

Other than being bigger games?

Frankly, the model count is one of the things that has kept me in 40K for so long. There simply aren't any other 28ish mm scifi games out there at the moment (that I'm aware of, other than the occasional home-brew ruleset) that deal battles the same size... Every other company seems determined to focus on small-count skirmish games.

While there's certainly a place for skirmish games (Necromunda is still one of my favourite games) I enjoy the spectacle of a larger game.
I don't have a problem with the large model count, I just have a problem with a large model count game with model prices akin to a small skirmish game.

There should be a reduction in price the more you have to buy. $2.90USD per Cadian is insane when you consider how many you need. They should be closer to $1 per model.

I also would like the rules to be more of a tiered system which actually suits small scale games and large scale games better instead of some middle ground which is too convoluted for big games but has some weird abstractions that don't really suit small games either.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 02:56:08


Post by: Wayniac


 AegisGrimm wrote:
Yeah, but used to be that a force of two 10-man space marine squads, a character or two, a bike squad and a landspeeder was not seen as a "small" force or a skirmish game. GW has just inflated everything that deals with model count slowly over the last 15 years, while raising prices.

Used to be that 40K: Epic was used for having the sheer spectacle of seeing huge armies.


I remember 2nd edition when 1 Tactical Squad, 1 Terminator squad, a bike Squad and a Captain, Chaplain and Librarian was 1,500 points. I remember 3rd edition when about 30ish guys was a 1,500 point army. That was acceptable. What they have now is ridiculous, because 40k was never meant to be huge battles but part of a larger battle. Besides the absurd cost of everything, the rules are a mess for precisely that reason - you have rules that were meant for a company-level game being used for an regiment-level game instead of having abstract rules to represent larger forces. It's like the difference between Bolt Action and Flames of War; Bolt Action is a platoon level game so has more detailed rules about individual guys, Flames of War is something closer to an army level game so has abstract rules because you don't need to care about the individual troops. 40k tries to do both and fails.

It fails even harder because not only has the prices on everything raised, but you also need more of it. What used to get you a starting army now barely gets you anything at all, at least anything significant to play after demo games for your first game or two. That's the problem. When less than 1,000 points(i.e. entry-level) of Space Marines (which were always on the expensive side as far as points go) costs me as much as a regular sized army for Warmachine, who knows how many for Infinity, or just short of two regular-sized Bolt Action armies, there is a major problem. For the cost of that basic SM army and the 40k rules (and Codex) I could get TWO armies for Bolt Action, plus the rules and have some money left over; I could grab a friend and let them try the game with zero investment of their own for the same price as it would cost them to just get started trying 40k.

There is a major issue there, and it's solely in the GW side of things. Starting 40k from scratch now is almost a fool's errand because it costs so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Accolade wrote:

I just don't see how this has improved the gaming experience, i.e. what these bigger games actually have to offer that the previous editions didn't provide.

Other than being bigger games?

Frankly, the model count is one of the things that has kept me in 40K for so long. There simply aren't any other 28ish mm scifi games out there at the moment (that I'm aware of, other than the occasional home-brew ruleset) that deal battles the same size... Every other company seems determined to focus on small-count skirmish games.

While there's certainly a place for skirmish games (Necromunda is still one of my favourite games) I enjoy the spectacle of a larger game.
I don't have a problem with the large model count, I just have a problem with a large model count game with model prices akin to a small skirmish game.

There should be a reduction in price the more you have to buy. $2.90USD per Cadian is insane when you consider how many you need. They should be closer to $1 per model.

I also would like the rules to be more of a tiered system which actually suits small scale games and large scale games better instead of some middle ground which is too convoluted for big games but has some weird abstractions that don't really suit small games either.


Also this. 28mm games that involve a lot of figures and regiment (or batallion, etc.) sized force are cheap and sell a lot of figures per box (see: Perry, Victrix). 40k alone charges a lot of money for a small amount of figures AND has a large-scale game to go along with it, so not only are you paying a lot for everything you buy, but you're also buying a lot of them. With Victrix or Perry or virtually every other manufacturer, I only need a couple of boxes and I can make a large army without spending hundreds of dollars outside of very exceptional circumstances (e.g. some huge table at a convention where you're doing a 28mm Waterloo or something crazy like that).


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 06:45:18


Post by: wuestenfux


Well, my Cyriss faction has been as expensive as my Necron army, 5000 pts, played in apoc games.
I presented details elsewhere here at Dakka.
The issue with GW for me is their policy not to talk to the customer.
PP is much more open minded.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 07:03:40


Post by: Pyeatt


PP... So open to the customer that we can't even directly order single units.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 07:30:40


Post by: Makumba


PP is so open to eastern EU markets, that it was impossible to buy their stuff here for months. And all the good stuff everyone wants never gets in to stores here.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 07:40:57


Post by: ImAGeek


 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, my Cyriss faction has been as expensive as my Necron army, 5000 pts, played in apoc games.
I presented details elsewhere here at Dakka.
The issue with GW for me is their policy not to talk to the customer.
PP is much more open minded.


How on earth did a Cyriss force cost the same as a 5000 pt Necron army? Either you have like one of everything and multiples of the Vectors and like 5 Prime Axioms or you got your Necron very cheap which is hardly a fair comparison... And saying 'elsewhere on Dakka' doesn't help, could be anywhere, could you link it?


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 08:19:04


Post by: FeindusMaximus


Then don't buy them. I have not bought a single GW sense 7th ed came out. Still trying to liquidate my collection.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 09:36:40


Post by: Deadnight


Pyeatt wrote:PP... So open to the customer that we can't even directly order single units.


To be fair, they'd rather other retailers do the selling, and outsource the manufacturing (Cerberus in the uk, etc). Regarding sales, they seem to be happy to just sell bits, and some exclusives.

Edit: the only things I've ever needed to directly order have been the black dragon upgrade sprue, extreme juggernaut and destroyer and bits for my female fenris conversion. Never had any issues though. everything else, I just get via my flgs.

Makumba wrote:PP is so open to eastern EU markets, that it was impossible to buy their stuff here for months. And all the good stuff everyone wants never gets in to stores here.


Online retailers don't post to Poland? Just curious here.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 10:03:08


Post by: Plumbumbarum


 Peregrine wrote:
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd.


No, it's entirely relevant. If you want to play a game it doesn't matter how much each part of the game costs, it matters how much you have to pay to play the game. So even if other companies have a higher cost per-model the total cost of playing the game is lower. And that has a lot more practical value to the customer than some kind of abstract "worth" of a miniature.


The value relative to game size you use is much more abstract than worth of a miniature. If Dust Tactics sell you a mech for comparable price but it's made of thin plastic, is full of mold lines etc and overall a worse gaming piece, then the fact that you need only 2 is irrelevant to the fact that you got less, not more for the money. Now, if you want to argue the entire cost of the game then yes, 40k is more expensive but that goes with the scale, pure logic. Show me company that upped the scale and dropped prices because of it, retaining the minis quality. The problem I see here is the cost of books but imo only because the rules inside are bad, the books you get are quite beautiful though with bit too much rehashed art.

Peregrine wrote:
That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.


Of course it takes those things away. As a customer I don't care what technology went into making a product, I care what the final product is.


Of course it doesn't. Dust tactics again, I'm absolutely in love with their mech designs but they are incapable of level of detail you have on taurox and I could probably throw the latter into the wall and count on it survivng, unlike the mech that would end shattered into pieces. That's quality when it comes to gaming miniatures, you could make a point about the design not meeting expectations of the customers but you don't have data for that. If majority likes it, its still quality.

Peregrine wrote:
Xwing is just as expensive for boring prepainted ships.


It's not just the ships, it's all of the rules and tokens needed to use them. Good luck getting that out of a GW kit. And yes, being pre-painted adds value because X-Wing's prepainted models are good prepainted models that look just fine on the table even without any additional painting work. But if you want to do your own painting you've effectively got pre-assembled and pre-primed models that are ready to paint right out of the box, unlike anything GW sells. So even if the per-model cost is higher than a GW model you're getting a lot more for your money.


Ok lets say we agree on a minimum playable force for 40k (which we can't do because its not n the rules, used to be hq and 2 troops but now unbound cinematic lololol draigo vs the entire warp) being 1500 points and that you can get it for $700 on average with book and everything. Now let's price th minimum playable force of few ships in xwing with the precious tokens at $400 , is it still better value? Because stretch your argument a bit and it becomes absurd, just as I said.

Peregrine wrote:
That 40k is bigger scale, well you're aware of that so it's on you not them and stop expecting them to lower prices to match overall cost of skirmish games. That doesn't make sense.


Of course it makes sense, but you're just missing the reason why. GW's prices aren't bad because I as a GW customer don't want to pay that much, they're bad because they create a huge barrier to entry for new players. And GW depends on having a constant supply of new players to offset the customers they're constantly losing. But if it costs $1000+ to start playing 40k vs. $100 to start X-Wing with both factions, make a full-size Infinity army, etc, those new customers are going to go elsewhere.


Obviously but it's something you agree on when you get into 40k. Big scale, big cost. It might be a problem from GW perspective but looking at a nature of the game, big scale battles with high quality detailed 28mm miniatures, the cost vs other games is almost ok. Other thing ofc is that they're all overpriced and should cost half the price but it's not that xwing or wmh is better value than 40k.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 10:04:09


Post by: wuestenfux


 ImAGeek wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, my Cyriss faction has been as expensive as my Necron army, 5000 pts, played in apoc games.
I presented details elsewhere here at Dakka.
The issue with GW for me is their policy not to talk to the customer.
PP is much more open minded.


How on earth did a Cyriss force cost the same as a 5000 pt Necron army? Either you have like one of everything and multiples of the Vectors and like 5 Prime Axioms or you got your Necron very cheap which is hardly a fair comparison... And saying 'elsewhere on Dakka' doesn't help, could be anywhere, could you link it?

I could link it later as I'm underway.
I have been surprised too.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 10:34:10


Post by: Peregrine


Plumbumbarum wrote:
If Dust Tactics sell you a mech for comparable price but it's made of thin plastic, is full of mold lines etc and overall a worse gaming piece, then the fact that you need only 2 is irrelevant to the fact that you got less, not more for the money.


But now you're missing the point here. I never said that total price to play the game is the only thing that matters and quality is irrelevant, I objected to your claim that per-model price is what matters, not total price to play the game. If you want to argue that GW kits are a superior product and worth what you pay for them that's entirely separate from the argument that GW's per-model prices are superior to non-GW games, regardless of the fact that the total cost to play the GW game is much higher.

Of course it doesn't. Dust tactics again, I'm absolutely in love with their mech designs but they are incapable of level of detail you have on taurox and I could probably throw the latter into the wall and count on it survivng, unlike the mech that would end shattered into pieces. That's quality when it comes to gaming miniatures, you could make a point about the design not meeting expectations of the customers but you don't have data for that. If majority likes it, its still quality.


Again, you're missing the point. The Dust model is a bad model (in your opinion) because of the flaws in the final product, not because of the technology it was manufactured with. Similarly, I think the Taurox is garbage no matter how well-manufactured it is. The fact that I can throw it against the wall and expect it to survive doesn't matter to me at all because there's no way I'm going to buy such an ugly and laughably overpriced model.

Ok lets say we agree on a minimum playable force for 40k (which we can't do because its not n the rules, used to be hq and 2 troops but now unbound cinematic lololol draigo vs the entire warp) being 1500 points and that you can get it for $700 on average with book and everything. Now let's price th minimum playable force of few ships in xwing with the precious tokens at $400 , is it still better value? Because stretch your argument a bit and it becomes absurd, just as I said.


Err, what? X-Wing ships cost $15 each (at full retail price), and you need 3-4 of them per player for a standard 100 point game. If you spend $400 you're getting 26 ships. Not only is that way more than a "minimum playable force", it's considerably more ships than the 16 that you'd need for a game between two swarm lists with the maximum possible number of ships on the table. And, despite your ridiculous exaggeration of the "minimum" price to play X-Wing, you're still paying $300 less than the minimum realistic 40k army.

Obviously but it's something you agree on when you get into 40k. Big scale, big cost. It might be a problem from GW perspective but looking at a nature of the game, big scale battles with high quality detailed 28mm miniatures, the cost vs other games is almost ok.


Yes, there's an inherent cost in playing a 28mm game with 200 models on the table, but GW adds to that inherent cost by charging a ton of money for the rules and removing any real option to play the game below ~1500 points. The total cost to play wouldn't be so bad if you could realistically expect to buy a 500 point army and have fun with it while you work on building up to larger games. But instead GW have created a game where you're expected to go straight to a full-size army at the cost of hundreds to thousands of dollars.

Other thing ofc is that they're all overpriced and should cost half the price but it's not that xwing or wmh is better value than 40k.


Of course they are better value, because, as I said, the important thing is total price to play the game, not price per 28mm infantry model. If I have a choice between spending $X on a single 40k army or spending $X to get full armies for X-Wing and Infinity with some money left over to start my Warmachine army then I'm getting a lot more gaming options for my money by choosing the non-GW games.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 12:24:20


Post by: vipoid


Plumbumbarum wrote:
That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.


Ok, so GW spend a lot of time and effort making a model that looks crap. You realise that's not a point in their favour, right?

Because, what we're actually saying is "GW have all this money and expensive tech - and yet they still make models that look absolutely horrible."

I don't care whether a company spent millions developing a particular model, or whether they spent £3.75. What I care about is the final product.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 12:28:16


Post by: Makumba


Deadnight wrote:


Online retailers don't post to Poland? Just curious here.

They do, but first you would have to be able to order stuff online and you have to pay full price with the crazy money exchange rate they have. Although not as bad as the GW ones, I give them that.


Obviously but it's something you agree on when you get into 40k. Big scale, big cos

that is maybe true for people that started in 6th or 7th edition. I started in 5th and it was possible to build good and cheap armies back then without the milions of models needed.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 12:38:48


Post by: Wayniac


Victrix is an example of a company that offers good value for money for a large-scale 28mm wargame. Their new Republican Roman set is £29.95 for 60 models that can be made into 36 infantry (e.g. Hastati, Principes and Triarii) and 18 light infantry (e.g. Velites) . Now my historical games knowledge is limited so I don't know what the typical number of figures at 28mm is, but I typically see around four units per base ("element"), and varying number of bases to an army depending on which rules you're using. So the sixty figures might be around half of a typical force perhaps, or even only 1/4 if certain rules use multiple bases to make up one unit. In any event, converting to USD that comes to just under $50 for superbly-detailed figures in hard plastic.

GW on the other hand sells 5 Sternguard for $50 that isn't even a complete unit but has a high cost because they have a ton of extra bits and bobs that tend to just go in a bits box. They are also superbly detailed (let's be honest here) and hard plastic.

That is an enormous disconnect and one that is way out of line. Even if you factor in the extra bits, there is no way that FIVE figures are worth $50 from GW when SIXTY figures cost less than that from Victrix. Even if five Sternguard was the maximum unit size and it came with everything allowed (e.g. the Privateer style where a box contains the complete unit), $50 would be outlandish. At being half a unit it becomes outright ridiculous.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 12:42:55


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 vipoid wrote:
Plumbumbarum wrote:
That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.


Ok, so GW spend a lot of time and effort making a model that looks crap. You realise that's not a point in their favour, right?

Because, what we're actually saying is "GW have all this money and expensive tech - and yet they still make models that look absolutely horrible."

I don't care whether a company spent millions developing a particular model, or whether they spent £3.75. What I care about is the final product.
What I care about is the final product as well... which is why the tech is important. Aesthetics are subjective, there are some crazy mofos who actually like the Taurox, so arguing aesthetics is mostly pointless IMO (the primary reason I haven't started Warmahordes is I find most the range entirely aesthetically uninspiring).

But the tech is important in how well sprues are laid out, whether or not there's sink holes, how hard it is to remove mould lines, how detailed the models might be. GW have always been near the front when it comes to these factors... and yes, they are important because they affect me the customer who has to assemble the models and it affects the final result of the painted model. I don't think GW are "the" best, but they are definitely up there with their plastics and I would hazard a guess and say that they are the best provider of a wide range of quality plastics.

Though I do disagree with Pb on the idea that how tough a model might be is important, as I value fine and realistically proportioned features over "wow, this is heavy, I could kill an Elephant with this". I haven't broken a model in years, as long as it's tough enough to get out of the sprue without breaking it I don't mind.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 13:26:03


Post by: Plumbumbarum


 Peregrine wrote:
Plumbumbarum wrote:
If Dust Tactics sell you a mech for comparable price but it's made of thin plastic, is full of mold lines etc and overall a worse gaming piece, then the fact that you need only 2 is irrelevant to the fact that you got less, not more for the money.


But now you're missing the point here. I never said that total price to play the game is the only thing that matters and quality is irrelevant, I objected to your claim that per-model price is what matters, not total price to play the game. If you want to argue that GW kits are a superior product and worth what you pay for them that's entirely separate from the argument that GW's per-model prices are superior to non-GW games, regardless of the fact that the total cost to play the GW game is much higher.


Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective. You want 10 games with 20 models , I want 1 game with 200 models.

Peregrine wrote:
Of course it doesn't. Dust tactics again, I'm absolutely in love with their mech designs but they are incapable of level of detail you have on taurox and I could probably throw the latter into the wall and count on it survivng, unlike the mech that would end shattered into pieces. That's quality when it comes to gaming miniatures, you could make a point about the design not meeting expectations of the customers but you don't have data for that. If majority likes it, its still quality.


Again, you're missing the point. The Dust model is a bad model (in your opinion) because of the flaws in the final product, not because of the technology it was manufactured with. Similarly, I think the Taurox is garbage no matter how well-manufactured it is. The fact that I can throw it against the wall and expect it to survive doesn't matter to me at all because there's no way I'm going to buy such an ugly and laughably overpriced model.


Or you don't know what quality means. I provided basis for objective comparision of models. Taurox is hands down better quality model because manufacturing process makes it a more detailed and sturdier. Your or mine disdain for its looks is irrelevant unless you have data that majority of target audience hates it too.

Peregrine wrote:
Ok lets say we agree on a minimum playable force for 40k (which we can't do because its not in the rules, used to be hq and 2 troops but now unbound cinematic lololol draigo vs the entire warp) being 1500 points and that you can get it for $700 on average with book and everything. Now let's price th minimum playable force of few ships in xwing with the precious tokens at $400 , is it still better value? Because stretch your argument a bit and it becomes absurd, just as I said.


Err, what? X-Wing ships cost $15 each (at full retail price), and you need 3-4 of them per player for a standard 100 point game. If you spend $400 you're getting 26 ships. Not only is that way more than a "minimum playable force", it's considerably more ships than the 16 that you'd need for a game between two swarm lists with the maximum possible number of ships on the table. And, despite your ridiculous exaggeration of the "minimum" price to play X-Wing, you're still paying $300 less than the minimum realistic 40k army.


I don't know what minimum playable xwing force is. That was hyperbole to ask how far overpriced can a model get for you as long as the game is cheaper in total. Im sorry if that was convulted, I happen to Engrish heh.

Peregrine wrote:
Obviously but it's something you agree on when you get into 40k. Big scale, big cost. It might be a problem from GW perspective but looking at a nature of the game, big scale battles with high quality detailed 28mm miniatures, the cost vs other games is almost ok.


Yes, there's an inherent cost in playing a 28mm game with 200 models on the table, but GW adds to that inherent cost by charging a ton of money for the rules and removing any real option to play the game below ~1500 points. The total cost to play wouldn't be so bad if you could realistically expect to buy a 500 point army and have fun with it while you work on building up to larger games. But instead GW have created a game where you're expected to go straight to a full-size army at the cost of hundreds to thousands of dollars.


Yes good skirmish rules would be great but theoreticaly, you can play with 500 points.

Peregrine wrote:
Other thing ofc is that they're all overpriced and should cost half the price but it's not that xwing or wmh is better value than 40k.


Of course they are better value, because, as I said, the important thing is total price to play the game, not price per 28mm infantry model. If I have a choice between spending $X on a single 40k army or spending $X to get full armies for X-Wing and Infinity with some money left over to start my Warmachine army then I'm getting a lot more gaming options for my money by choosing the non-GW games.


For you. As said, someone might preffer one big army in one game over10 skirmish games. The only way to compare value here that is close to objective is comparing cost and quality of miniatures and rules. And yes GW loses on the latter quite badly but to their defence, the books are beautiful things and they capitalise on it too.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 13:44:14


Post by: Makumba


Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective. You want 10 games with 20 models , I want 1 game with 200 models.

how is it subjective? if one game is less then 20 models, always and another one is more then 40 models 99% of the time , And those 20 models cost less then the 40 models from the other game. Then the game where you have to run 40 models or more has a higher cost. Your not going to tell me w40k or WFB is suddenly mass played at 1000 or 750pts.


Taurox is hands down better quality model because manufacturing process makes it a more detailed and sturdier

It could be made out of solid gold, but if people wouldn't want to play with the model for its ugliness, it would be have a low quality.


That was hyperbole to ask how far overpriced can a model get for you as long as the game is cheaper in total.

But the cost of a single model or even a group is less important, then the cost of an army.

Yes good skirmish rules would be great but theoreticaly, you can play with 500 points.

with seer star flying circles around you or suits jumping out shoting and going out of LoS and your army not being able to do much, because GW decided that it will be based around runing 700+pts of support units in form of vehicles.


For you. As said, someone might preffer one big army in one game over10 skirmish games. The only way to compare value here that is close to objective is comparing cost and quality of miniatures and rules.

at the level which the game is played. For w40k its 1500 or more, and it has to be compered to full armies from other systems too. If any costs less, then the system is cheaper. Even for playing mass combat w40k isn't, so good. Epic and simiular level games cost less and give the mass combat feel that people who like mass combat may want.



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 13:56:05


Post by: ImAGeek


Plumbumbarum wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
Other thing ofc is that they're all overpriced and should cost half the price but it's not that xwing or wmh is better value than 40k.


Of course they are better value, because, as I said, the important thing is total price to play the game, not price per 28mm infantry model. If I have a choice between spending $X on a single 40k army or spending $X to get full armies for X-Wing and Infinity with some money left over to start my Warmachine army then I'm getting a lot more gaming options for my money by choosing the non-GW games.


Plumbumbarum wrote:For you. As said, someone might preffer one big army in one game over10 skirmish games. The only way to compare value here that is close to objective is comparing cost and quality of miniatures and rules. And yes GW loses on the latter quite badly but to their defence, the books are beautiful things and they capitalise on it too.


But it's not just a choice of 'one big game or 10 little games'. Someone might only play one skirmish game, or even two or three, and that's still cheaper than 40k. Why are you assuming everyone plays 10 skirmish games and therefore are spending the same amount as you are on 40k on those 10 games? Even if they are they're getting better value, 10 games for the price of 1!

And in terms of books, GW books have gone downhill now they use photos instead of art, and a big part of the quality of a RULES book, is the RULES. Which in GW case, are awful. Also, clarity, proofreading etc. I'd expect all that for £30.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 14:17:11


Post by: Wayniac


For me the biggest problem is that I can buy MULTIPLE OTHER GAMES for the price of a typical 40k army. Including some large-scale games with lots of models, not just skirmish games.

Even disregarding that, the value from a 40k model is nowhere close to other models. I don't mind paying $60 for 10 figures for Warmachine, but $50 for 10 40k figures makes me cringe because the value obtained is about half of that (since I'll likely need to buy a duplicate box) because GW can get away with it. The size doesn't matter because other companies can do large scale games (with as many or more models than 40k) and THEY don't charge an arm and a leg.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 15:01:31


Post by: PhantomViper


Makumba wrote:
Deadnight wrote:


Online retailers don't post to Poland? Just curious here.

They do, but first you would have to be able to order stuff online and you have to pay full price with the crazy money exchange rate they have. Although not as bad as the GW ones, I give them that.


The WMH WTC was held in Poland this year, my country sent two teams to attend.

They and everyone else in the tournament, came back with arm loads of brand new miniatures that they bought for much less than what the retail value is over here (or in other countries in Europe)... I don't know where you've been looking, but unless there was a special "foreigners discount" in action, you guys actually pay less than everyone else for your PP miniatures.

Also, it has been explained to you several times already, PP doesn't deal with customers directly, they only deal with distributors, so if you really are paying above the recommended price that is on the PP site, just tell your retailer to change distributor, or you can always buy online and get discounts that way.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 15:07:53


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective.
Except the per model price isn't a good comparison either because it comes down to how much a company can get out of a single customer for a single army and how much it costs the company to make that model.

If you are selling 100 models to each customer, the company's per model costs are much lower than if they were selling 10 models to each customer.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 15:38:32


Post by: Wayniac


Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective.


And GW loses on this front too because Perry and Victrix sell three or more times the figures for half the price as GW, for comparable quality (albeit a different design aesthetic as you cannot really compare quality between a Space Marine and a French Grenadier as they are two totally different visuals). There is nothing about GW's quality that warrants the kind of prices that they charge, for anything because other companies that don't have their own facilities (i.e. it costs them more to produce) can offer 60 models for less than what GW asks for 5 models.

Quality is subjective, but when you compare two things made out of the same material (hard plastic in this case), when one company that has to pay someone else to cast the mold can offer eight times the amount of figures for less money? GW likes to always talk about how many components and bits that are in their kits, but 60 Victrix models have a lot of pieces too (although not extra bits for the bits box, they are IIRC all used to build actual figures), probably more in actual material than GW has in little purity seals or icons or additional shoulder pads, and they still offer you sixty for the same price as five.

What on earth justifies GW charging that price? It can't be actual quality (i.e. not subjective aesthetic "I like how Space Marines look" or "I don't like French Napoleonic uniforms" type of comments) since both are hard plastic with great details appropriate to the type of figure. It can't be that GW includes half a dozen extra shoulderpads or three kinds of power armor and a ton of purity seals, because you're getting 60 figures in multiple parts so you're getting more individual pieces, so the cost of those individual pieces can't be significant.

Look at this box from Victrix: http://www.victrixlimited.com/online_shop/product_info.php?cPath=61&products_id=382

Those sprues are essentially the same things you get from GW, except that rather than include an extra six kinds of helmets or shoulder pads with more skulls or writing or whatever crap, Victrix actually gives you additional complete figures so you get more value for your money.

Victrix and Perry put to rest the whole "GW has the best quality" nonsense. You can still think that 10 space marines for $40 is worth it because of the extras in the context of 40k, but you can't claim that the high price is anything but GW price gouging because they can when the same quality in a different aesthetic and more individual pieces costs less, and those manufacturers have to pay additional cost since they don't own the production facility like GW does.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 16:56:58


Post by: Azreal13


Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective.


Yeah, because quality isn't the least bit subjective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PhantomViper wrote:
Makumba wrote:
Deadnight wrote:


Online retailers don't post to Poland? Just curious here.

They do, but first you would have to be able to order stuff online and you have to pay full price with the crazy money exchange rate they have. Although not as bad as the GW ones, I give them that.


The WMH WTC was held in Poland this year, my country sent two teams to attend.

They and everyone else in the tournament, came back with arm loads of brand new miniatures that they bought for much less than what the retail value is over here (or in other countries in Europe)... I don't know where you've been looking, but unless there was a special "foreigners discount" in action, you guys actually pay less than everyone else for your PP miniatures.

Also, it has been explained to you several times already, PP doesn't deal with customers directly, they only deal with distributors, so if you really are paying above the recommended price that is on the PP site, just tell your retailer to change distributor, or you can always buy online and get discounts that way.


I was going to call shenanigans on this too, the Zloty is at a two year high against the GBP, as a member state of the EU Poland won't be subject to any sort of import duties, so the only thing that might be expensive is shipping, but based on my experience buying product from Poland, this doesn't appear to be as ludicrous as some other EU countries (or worse, the U.S. *shudder*)

I suspect Makumba may be making unsubstantiated claims to support his point, relying on other posters' ignorance to get away with it, or simply hasn't really tried that hard to find a reliable source of reasonably priced models.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 18:41:00


Post by: Deadnight


Makumba wrote:
Deadnight wrote:


Online retailers don't post to Poland? Just curious here.

They do, but first you would have to be able to order stuff online and you have to pay full price with the crazy money exchange rate they have. Although not as bad as the GW ones, I give them that.


It's not that hard to order stuff online. I doubt Poland is that far behind the rest of the world with using debit and credit cards.

As to having to pay full price? Yeah, I'm not believing that for a second.

Most online stores, like for example Wayland games do a 10 to 20 percent discount and provide worldwide shipping. And they go straight to your door. Worst case scenario and customs duty is high, then do a group order and get all your stuff sent to one address and split the customs charges.

It seems to me that some shopping around from the players, and seeking out new distributors for your games stores is in order.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 19:14:13


Post by: Plumbumbarum


So many people to prove wrong, cant do that on my crap old phone. Will get in front of PC in few days time, in the meantime just consider yourselves demolished and eaten in discussion in advance

 Azreal13 wrote:
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective.


Yeah, because quality isn't the least bit subjective.


Next time you decide to use boorish facepalming to be cool on the internet, at least make sure you know what are you talking about. Qualuty is subjective on personal scale but on large scale it's easy to define general requirements for a product. I work in quality control and write quality systems for companies btw, does not make me right by default but hey.

Taurox is a quality piece and even majority of dakka hating it does not prove that it's not, we might still be inside the 3% or sth of acceptable dissatisfied consumers on some quality control chart. If someone has accurate data about the consumer base, thats how you can prove it's not a quality piece from a design standpoint. Nemesis dreadknight was ridiculed to hell and back and still flew off the shelves.

@Makumba yes if you get 40 minis of comparable quality in price of 20 from 40k then ofc it's better value. It's not better value to get less simple spaceships because thats all you need to play.

@Wayne I can't even view the minis but just tell me if they have better detail than crimson slaughter or that the companies can do coven thrones, hive tyrants or things like that wood elves big guys lately. If so, Im happy that GW is beaten on their own turf.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 19:17:26


Post by: Grimtuff


You do know the difference between something that is subjective and objective, right?

Just asking.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 19:20:43


Post by: MWHistorian


Taurox quality? It may be well built, but it's a well built piece of poo.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 19:24:39


Post by: Bishop F Gantry


 Envihon wrote:
People complain constantly about the costs of GW and how they are so expensive but has anyone looked at how expensive X-Wing is? I was looking around at the hobby shop just checking out the things that people say are so much better than GW and I couldn't believe how expensive X-Wing is. Now I understand for the most part, it is just models and you don't have to buy Codices but dang man, the cost of them equals the models plus the codex to go along. I mean I also feel the same about Privateer Press, that people complain about GW prices but from where I stand, neither company offers a "cheaper" hobby. The only argument from that side that someone can argue is that you need less models than GW but isn't that the point of WH40k, to play anything from small skirmishes to giant battles. The other area is maybe customer service and player support but I haven't had a problem really. Things like this make it hard for me to understand why people rail against GW pricing. Maybe I am not seeing the big picture and someone can help illuminate me (In a respectful manner. I understand this is a touchy subject but could we please have civil discourse over the internet and not a flame war?)


Do you run 100 X-wing models on the table at the same time? GW has on occasion made entire armies illegal with a few codex changes, 100 models that are now useless or require extensive rework...


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 19:31:25


Post by: Azreal13


Plumbumbarum wrote:
So many people to prove wrong, cant do that on my crap old phone. Will get in front of PC in few days time, in the meantime just consider yourselves demolished and eaten in discussion in advance

 Azreal13 wrote:
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective.


Yeah, because quality isn't the least bit subjective.


Next time you decide to use boorish facepalming to be cool on the internet, at least make sure you know what are you talking about. Qualuty is subjective on personal scale but on large scale it's easy to define general requirements for a product. I work in quality control and write quality systems for companies btw, does not make me right by default but hey.

Taurox is a quality piece and even majority of dakka hating it does not prove that it's not, we might still be inside the 3% or sth of acceptable dissatisfied consumers on some quality control chart. If someone has accurate data about the consumer base, thats how you can prove it's not a quality piece from a design standpoint. Nemesis dreadknight was ridiculed to hell and back and still flew off the shelves.



You're correct, it is possible to objectively measure quality in terms of a percentage of units which fail to live up to a set of fixed criteria as they come off the production line etc etc. You can also try and argue a kit is "quality" because it sold well. Which is, of course, utter nonsense, because by that metric McDonalds make some of the best food in the world.

However, as a consumer, these definitions mean less than half a deep fried gak to me.

I do not care how efficient GW are at making plastic kits. My personal perception of a kit's quality is a complicated mess of variables including what it looks like, how it goes together, how much clean up and remedial work is needed, whether it paints well, and all of that is in turn compared to the price paid and what other companies are doing.

That's just me! I'm primarily a painter, so I'll buy models that look good, even if they're not necessarily the best in game, others whose motivation is more gaming focused will have their buying choices influenced by the rules, making any measurement of the quality of the kit utterly redundant in isolation.

So while you definitions of quality are valid, they're utterly irrelevant to the conversation.



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 19:37:17


Post by: Wayniac


They do have the same quality, just a different aesthetic since a Roman legionnaire isn't going to look anything like a Chaos Marine or Wood Elf or anything else. That's where subjective comes into play: You can't say that the Roman looks low quality because he's not in power armor with a bolter, because he's not supposed to be. The quality of the sculpt is just as good as GW as far as sculpting and casting goes, even if you dislike how the Roman looks and like how the Space Marine looks. That's the part that is subjective: how a specific model looks.

The figures are of the same quality because they are both highly detailed, hard plastic sculpts. Anything beyond that boils down to personal taste (e.g. "The Roman is bad quality because he doesn't look like a Space Marine" isn't valid at all, just like "The Space Marine is flat compared to the Roman" would be the same) which is not a valid reason for saying 1 is better quality over another. You can still say that you don't like how the Roman looks and like how the Space Marine looks, but you cannot use that statement as anything beyond an opinion of preference.

An actual comparison to "quality" of the individual figures could be made if GW made hard plastic Romans (or some equivalent like the old Dogs of War unit), but there isn't one.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 19:53:18


Post by: insaniak


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't have a problem with the large model count, I just have a problem with a large model count game with model prices akin to a small skirmish game.

I don't really see how the size of the game should have any impact on the cost of the models, to be honest.

Model prices shouldn't be anything to do with how many of them you need. They're (or should be) dictated by production costs and quality. So yes, a game where you need 200 miniatures is going to cost more than a game where you need 5. That's just the nature of the beast.

That's not saying GW's prices couldn't stand to come down a bit... I'd love to see cheaper GW minis as much as the next guy. But I'm happy to pay the same for a 40K mini as for an equivalent quality mini from a smaller game, because there is no logical reason for those two miniatures to be priced differently.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 20:02:48


Post by: vipoid


 insaniak wrote:

I don't really see how the size of the game should have any impact on the cost of the models, to be honest.

Model prices shouldn't be anything to do with how many of them you need. They're (or should be) dictated by production costs and quality. So yes, a game where you need 200 miniatures is going to cost more than a game where you need 5. That's just the nature of the beast.


I disagree.

To use your example, a game that requires hundreds of miniatures has no business charging the same per model as one which requires only 5.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 20:04:59


Post by: Wayniac


 vipoid wrote:
 insaniak wrote:

I don't really see how the size of the game should have any impact on the cost of the models, to be honest.

Model prices shouldn't be anything to do with how many of them you need. They're (or should be) dictated by production costs and quality. So yes, a game where you need 200 miniatures is going to cost more than a game where you need 5. That's just the nature of the beast.


I disagree.

To use your example, a game that requires hundreds of miniatures has no business charging the same per model as one which requires only 5.


I agree with this only because places like Victrix or Perry have games that require a lot and charge a lot less because of it, because they know that you need a lot so they aren't trying to charge a ton even though they could.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 20:06:29


Post by: insaniak


 vipoid wrote:
To use your example, a game that requires hundreds of miniatures has no business charging the same per model as one which requires only 5.

Why?



People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 20:11:20


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 insaniak wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't have a problem with the large model count, I just have a problem with a large model count game with model prices akin to a small skirmish game.

I don't really see how the size of the game should have any impact on the cost of the models, to be honest.

Model prices shouldn't be anything to do with how many of them you need. They're (or should be) dictated by production costs and quality. So yes, a game where you need 200 miniatures is going to cost more than a game where you need 5. That's just the nature of the beast.

That's not saying GW's prices couldn't stand to come down a bit... I'd love to see cheaper GW minis as much as the next guy. But I'm happy to pay the same for a 40K mini as for an equivalent quality mini from a smaller game, because there is no logical reason for those two miniatures to be priced differently.
I'm going to have to disagree, though I admit I don't know enough about it to say for sure.

My reasoning is two fold...

1. A large amount of the cost of producing a model (especially plastic) seems to be the start up cost, paying the creative team who came up with the idea, paying the sculptor to sculpt it, paying to get a mould made. The actual individual casting seems like a relatively small cost and all those other costs are diminishing the more models you sell. Thus if you intend to sell a lot of models, you should be able to afford to make them cheaper. The difference between including 4 identical sprues I would not expect to be significantly higher than including 2 identical sprues.

2. You aren't just selling individual models, you're selling armies. When I think of Revell, Tamiya, Dragon, they are companies selling individual models. They have to consider the costs and revenue of individual models. When you're selling armies, you need to consider the typical average costs of an entire army against the revenue per customer buying that army. It doesn't really matter if it costs you 10 cents to produce a single guardsman, because no one buys a single guardsman. It doesn't really even matter what the costs of entire box of guardsmen cost, because you can't make an army from 1 box of guardsmen.

It's not like this concept is unheard of... almost everything if you buy it in bulk you can get it cheaper But even within wargaming, you can often find examples of people selling large swaths of high quality models for low prices vs skirmish games of only a few models that sell much cheaper. GW are just trying to sell their models at skirmish level prices but you have to buy large swaths of them

I'm not saying a game that requires 200 models should cost the same as a game that requires 5 models... but the price per model should sure as hell be cheaper.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 21:03:44


Post by: Peregrine


Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective. You want 10 games with 20 models , I want 1 game with 200 models.


Call it "subjective" if you want, but it's still a very relevant factor. Very few people care about some abstract concept of "value" when they buy models for a game, they care about how much it costs to play the game.

Taurox is hands down better quality model because manufacturing process makes it a more detailed and sturdier. Your or mine disdain for its looks is irrelevant unless you have data that majority of target audience hates it too.


And both halves of your definition are badly flawed:

The detail argument is a joke with 40k models. Having more skulls and purity seals per square inch does not make a model better than the competition, it just means that the CAD artist copy/pasted a bunch of stuff onto every single surface. Sometimes making a quality model involves knowing when to stop adding extra clutter to it. In fact, this is often an argument against the quality of 40k models, they have way too much random clutter everywhere as a cheap substitute for real detail.

The sturdiness argument is rarely relevant unless you're talking about buying models for young children. Most adults are capable of playing with their toys without breaking anything, so having the ability to survive abuse a model is never going to receive is not really worth paying for. In fact, if you value detail so much, you could even argue that GW's decision to create "throw it at the wall and it won't get a scratch" models is bad for quality because it means sacrificing fine detail and making design decisions based around durability instead of appearance.

So, once again, you define "value" and "quality" based on factors that attempt to avoid subjective preferences, but in doing so you create a definition that has very little to do with how willing people are to spend money on something.

I don't know what minimum playable xwing force is. That was hyperbole to ask how far overpriced can a model get for you as long as the game is cheaper in total. Im sorry if that was convulted, I happen to Engrish heh.


If you don't know how much a minimum X-Wing force costs then why did you propose a number? Why did you need to make that claim at all, instead of just saying "I don't know how much X-Wing costs, I apologize for making claims about the value of its models"?

Yes good skirmish rules would be great but theoreticaly, you can play with 500 points.


In theory you can, but in practice you can't. 500 point games are little more than rock/paper/scissors matches where the best way to win is to bring a single powerful unit (LRBT, giant horde of boyz, etc) that your opponent can't even hope to beat and then drive around the table slaughtering everything while all your opponent can do is roll saves and remove models. The game doesn't start to become even close to balanced or fun until 1000-1500 points.

And then there's the fun issue. Remember how 40k is about big armies with all the awesome tanks/titans/etc, and that's what sets it apart from the competition? Well, people who like those things about 40k want to use them and aren't likely to be interested in playing a game with a couple tactical squads and a Rhino. They're going to want to play normal 1000-1500+ point games with all of their fancy toys, so if you want to play pickup games against all the other players you're going to have to invest the money to buy a full-size army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Taurox is a quality piece and even majority of dakka hating it does not prove that it's not, we might still be inside the 3% or sth of acceptable dissatisfied consumers on some quality control chart.


By what definition is it a "quality piece"? Because it was manufactured with few casting flaws? As a customer I care about the rate of defective products, but I also care about the appearance of a model. And by that standard the Taurox is garbage. It doesn't matter how few casting flaws it has, or how well the parts fit together, because it's an ugly piece of that I wouldn't put on the table even if it was free.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 22:40:11


Post by: Makumba


t's not that hard to order stuff online. I doubt Poland is that far behind the rest of the world with using debit and credit cards.

You need work to get one and an account at a bank. Even if your parents put more then enough money for a buy on your account, your still not going to get a card unless you bring an official paper from work that you earn a minimum wage , that or you have some sort of social or pension.


And as for people buying models cheaper here there are two options. There was one store in warsaw that had WM models and it was selling it stock, because it was closing. Or they bought models from people not stores. There is not even an official seller of PP stuff for Poland, that actualy sells models.
So yes you can order stuff online and pay for posting those heavy metal models from US. And if you get lucky customs will open the big heavy box and check what is inside and if they have a good day, they will class the stuff not as import toys and according with the law put the 23% vat on it.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 22:48:40


Post by: rigeld2


Makumba wrote:
t's not that hard to order stuff online. I doubt Poland is that far behind the rest of the world with using debit and credit cards.

You need work to get one and an account at a bank. Even if your parents put more then enough money for a buy on your account, your still not going to get a card unless you bring an official paper from work that you earn a minimum wage , that or you have some sort of social or pension.

Wait - people need to earn money to be able to spend it?
I wasn't aware.


People Complain About the Costs of GW but.... @ 2014/11/03 22:49:57


Post by: Azreal13


Or, you know, not order from the US with all the associated import duties and high priced USPS postage and just order from Troll Trader, or Firestorm, or Element, or Wayland or.. well, you get where I'm going, and suffer none of those issues because they're based in the EU.

It isn't unusual for adults to order goods on their cards for younger people either, IIRC you need to be at least 16 to get any card in he UK too, and 18 for the one that works anywhere, so that's not unique to Poland.

Also, Poland is a big place, I couldn't honestly say I'm familiar with every hobby store here in the UK and their inventory, so saying "nowhere in Poland" seems a bit generalised?

Honestly, you're just coming across as defeatist because you've perhaps encountered an obstacle and aren't motivated to work around it.