People Complain About the Costs of GW but....

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**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?

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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).

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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...

**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"

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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

**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.

**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!

**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.

**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.

**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.

**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?