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.

 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 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.

 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..."

Honestly, I think Centurions are just awful sculpts to begin with.

They look like Duplo recreations of space marines.

 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...

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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.)

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

Are you EVIL INC in disguise?

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.