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.

 vipoid wrote:
One other aspect regarding price is that GW's rulesets strongly push you to buying new models in order for your army to stay competitive. "Whoops, it's year 4 in our 8-year cycle, so now units A-P are crap for the next 4 years. Don't worry though, because we've buffed units Q-V. What's that? You don't own any of those units? Well you'd better buy some then. And, don't forget the £30 codex while you're at it."

No argument to the unit lifecycles, but on the other hand, I wouldn't want an army to remain unchanged, tactics, aesthetics, and fluff-wise for 10 years, either. I do object to the very short life cycle of core rules and codex (like 6th), and I think they should sell an affordable electronic rules subscription.

I wouldn't want an army to remain unchanged, tactics, aesthetics, and fluff-wise for 10 years, either.

But most armies in 40K are exactly this. They don't change. You could, of course, change the style of 40K army you play (Foot-Guard vs Armor-Guard... but it's still Imperial Guard)... but both these styles of Imperial Guard have been around for a lot longer than 10 years now, with very little change.

The Sisters only recently changed for the first time in 20 years... but their core playstyle hasn't really changed, for all the alterations visited on the faction. They are still a short/medium range army with lots of flamer-templates and melta. They always have been. The mechanics of the Faith system have changed, but the core concept behind it hasn't.

The only thing that really changes is the meta of games, so that what was top-shelf last edition might not be so in the current edition... but these are changes meant to drive model and book sales, not really address balance issues.

Talys wrote:
No argument to the unit lifecycles, but on the other hand, I wouldn't want an army to remain unchanged, tactics, aesthetics, and fluff-wise for 10 years, either.

But, why?

I can understand toning down a particularly broken build, but why should a perfectly balanced - or even underpowered - army get nerfed?

Surely if they want to to mix things up, they should offer new and interesting alternatives that entice people to try them, but without crapping all over the units/armies they like?

It seems like a very poor way to try and sell models.

 vipoid wrote:

Talys wrote:
No argument to the unit lifecycles, but on the other hand, I wouldn't want an army to remain unchanged, tactics, aesthetics, and fluff-wise for 10 years, either.

But, why?

I can understand toning down a particularly broken build, but why should a perfectly balanced - or even underpowered - army get nerfed?

Surely if they want to to mix things up, they should offer new and interesting alternatives that entice people to try them, but without crapping all over the units/armies they like?

It seems like a very poor way to try and sell models.

When I play a video game that I like, I do want them to eventually update the video game with new stuff -- even if I LOVE the original game. Otherwise, I'd eventually get bored of it. I expect with time that the game has more depth and breadth, and it's really no different for tabletop wargames for me.

I'm not trying to re-enact a historical battle, where all the units are well-defined. This is a fantasy/scifi setting, and as time passes in the 41st millennium there should be new threats, and new technologies to counter those threats -- just like the Star Trek universe, which I adore, evolves from the original series, to TNG, to DS9, and through Voyager. The tech that Janeway has to defeat the Borg was very different from what Piccard had to deal with their first cube, and that's a good thing -- I call it evolution of the universe.

I'm happy that there are Tau, Tyranids and and Dark Eldar, and that those have forced the Adeptus Mechanicus to come up with snazzy new tech to deal with those threats.

From a purely game mechanics standpoint, the game now is far superior in depth to what it was in Rogue Trader, which was when I started. Regardless of what your favored army is, there are a lot more tools.

From a modelling standpoint, new releases keep things interesting. Plus, I have 100+ 2nd edition space marines (which, incidentally, cost next to nothing, back then, as the cheapo SM box was such great value)... and probably 50+ painted 28mm base terminators, but I sure don't want to be playing them LOL. Not that I play a whole lot anymore, but the new models are much better. Once in a great while, I'll field one of my really old models to play for fun, though




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:

I wouldn't want an army to remain unchanged, tactics, aesthetics, and fluff-wise for 10 years, either.

But most armies in 40K are exactly this. They don't change. You could, of course, change the style of 40K army you play (Foot-Guard vs Armor-Guard... but it's still Imperial Guard)... but both these styles of Imperial Guard have been around for a lot longer than 10 years now, with very little change.

The Sisters only recently changed for the first time in 20 years... but their core playstyle hasn't really changed, for all the alterations visited on the faction. They are still a short/medium range army with lots of flamer-templates and melta. They always have been. The mechanics of the Faith system have changed, but the core concept behind it hasn't.

The only thing that really changes is the meta of games, so that what was top-shelf last edition might not be so in the current edition... but these are changes meant to drive model and book sales, not really address balance issues.

I would dispute this. I have 3000 points each of imperial guard, Eldar, and Space Marines from 2nd edition, and current units/armies are unrecognizable, except that there are tactical squads with bolt guns. The Tyranids/Genestealers from release (back in original Space Hulk days) to what they are now are so different. Squats have vanished from the Imperium, there are Tau and Necron, and.. and...

I think new releases every couple of years for an army, adjustments every 3 years or so, and a total overhaul every 10-15 years or so is pretty healthy, but that's just me

I do think that people who wish to keep playing with their old units should be able to, possibly only needing to add a little bit of this or that to adjust for new "technologies" -- like, from 2nd to 7th, the ability to cross a 6' table changed dramatically.

 Azreal13 wrote:

FFG have a wide range of card games and RPGs officially licensed from GW set in the Warhammer worlds.

They're well thought of, haven't played them myself yet, but if it is a hit of fluff you need, they're probably better at it than the current tabletop game.

FFG's Warhammer RPG's mirror GW in that they contain good fluff and the books have high production values, but the rules vary from good to terrible. Sadly, the rule of the thumb seems to be that newer is worse.

But RPGs are inherently easier to balance than a wargame, due to the presence of the GM and the fact they're often played with established groups over extended periods, making it much easier to house rule the stuff you don't like.

Of course, one should be able to reliably play anything you purchase for the purpose without having to modfiy it, but at least it isn't so much of an issue with RPGs.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But RPGs are inherently easier to balance than a wargame, due to the presence of the GM and the fact they're often played with established groups over extended periods, making it much easier to house rule the stuff you don't like.

Of course, one should be able to reliably play anything you purchase for the purpose without having to modfiy it, but at least it isn't so much of an issue with RPGs.

As someone who's worked on a GW product myself, I might contest this [balancing BFG FAQ2010 took seven months of playtesting, and stuff STILL got through due to internal wrangling and varying interpretations of fluff.]. I know for a fact that HBMC would contest this as well, being he writes for FFG and playtests. DH 2.0 ver 1 was horrible. Unarmed combat and fire always resulted in mooks actually exploding with enough force to deal damage. It was bad to the point of being dubbed Dark Heresy: Fist of the North Star edition. And this goop made it as far as beta testing....

Though we both would agree about the rules should be working as written.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But RPGs are inherently easier to balance than a wargame, due to the presence of the GM and the fact they're often played with established groups over extended periods, making it much easier to house rule the stuff you don't like.

Of course, one should be able to reliably play anything you purchase for the purpose without having to modfiy it, but at least it isn't so much of an issue with RPGs.

Sure enough, but when you have a mess like Deathwatch where - even after Bible-sized errata - amount of houseruling required equals writing a wholly new system, you begin to ask some kind of responsibility from the designers...

I realize that I often sound like Dakka's regular GW haters, where 'GW' is just replaced by 'FFG', but seriously, FFG gets a free pass way too often here. Some of their games make GW look like paragon of clarity and balance in comparison.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But RPGs are inherently easier to balance than a wargame, due to the presence of the GM and the fact they're often played with established groups over extended periods, making it much easier to house rule the stuff you don't like.

Of course, one should be able to reliably play anything you purchase for the purpose without having to modfiy it, but at least it isn't so much of an issue with RPGs.

As someone who's worked on a GW product myself, I might contest this [balancing BFG FAQ2010 took seven months of playtesting, and stuff STILL got through due to internal wrangling and varying interpretations of fluff.]. I know for a fact that HBMC would contest this as well, being he writes for FFG and playtests. DH 2.0 ver 1 was horrible. Unarmed combat and fire always resulted in mooks actually exploding with enough force to deal damage. It was bad to the point of being dubbed Dark Heresy: Fist of the North Star edition. And this goop made it as far as beta testing....

Though we both would agree about the rules should be working as written.

A slight misunderstanding, I meant that they're easier to balance in that the player can adjust things that aren't to their liking or they find too effective/not effective enough more easily, whereas if I were to decide that the Serpent Shield should have a 6" range, and went into my local GW tomorrow, I may find that harder.

Fundamentally, RPGs are a co-operative experience, whereas wargames are adversarial - which is not to say you won't get the odd TFG in an RPG, but they can be smacked down by the GM, whereas TFG in wargame world just blows out his nostrils and tells everyone how it isn't his list, it's him.

Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd. So one game you need 2 minis to play, in 40k you need 200 so assuming the same price the former is 100x better value? No, you compare price of same number of miniatures and their quality and as far as plastics go, GW are best. Quality as in level of detail and sturdines not design as I've already seen those 2 mistaken here. That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.

Now, GW pieces are overpriced, but relatively are they? Dust Tactics are tad cheaper but I can break them with two fingers. Xwing is just as expensive for boring prepainted ships. Hell even clix gummy bears are more expensive. Warmachine I wouldn't touch with 10 foot pole because design so can't comment but from what I heard, it's just as expensive per mini only works at smaller scale and irrelevant arguments like 'you have more use for a mini in the game' or other bs.

Then, who bought some toys for kids lately? Unlicensed transformers from cheap mall with crap detail, I could make forgeworld nurgle termie for that. Or those german prepainted animals, size the same, sculpts worse and price comparable or worse.

Really GW is overpriced but the other games are not cheaper if only the miniatures are close in quality. That 40k is bigger scale, well you're aware of that so it's on you not them and stop expecting them to lower prices to match overall cost of skirmish games. That doesn't make sense.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd.

It really isn't.

What's more important, the cost of each individual piece or the amount needed to invest to get a good, playable faction with some tactical flexibility and a few choices?

I know what I'm more concerned with.

Plus, one doesn't have to compare across game scope, one could compare Bolt Action to 40K for instance, which, up until the arms race scale lunacy that was introduced a few years ago by GW, could be considered roughly similar in scope, but GW still frequently lose out in comparison.

The return on £ spent in terms of contribution towards a normal, playable force is worse with 40K in nearly any matchup to almost any other game and this barrier to entry is an increasing problem for people starting the game or for existing players wanting to add factions. The evidence is right there, less money is being spent with GW despite increasing prices, there may be other factors, but given the number of individuals that keep saying "this is a factor for me" it would be folly to discount it.

Look at the "start 40K for £100" thread here recently, discounting the cost of rules, it is still near impossible to put together a legal, playable force for that, whereas for any other games a similar thread would be hugely debated because there would be so many options. The cost of a 40K army starts where many others finish.

The only people who wouldn't be affected by this would be painters who aren't interested in collecting armies, and it appears GW have convinced themselves there's enough of those who won't go and buy some of the gorgeous minis being made by other companies to keep them afloat. I disagree.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd.

No, it's entirely relevant. If you want to play a game it doesn't matter how much each part of the game costs, it matters how much you have to pay to play the game. So even if other companies have a higher cost per-model the total cost of playing the game is lower. And that has a lot more practical value to the customer than some kind of abstract "worth" of a miniature.

That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.

Of course it takes those things away. As a customer I don't care what technology went into making a product, I care what the final product is.

Xwing is just as expensive for boring prepainted ships.

It's not just the ships, it's all of the rules and tokens needed to use them. Good luck getting that out of a GW kit. And yes, being pre-painted adds value because X-Wing's prepainted models are good prepainted models that look just fine on the table even without any additional painting work. But if you want to do your own painting you've effectively got pre-assembled and pre-primed models that are ready to paint right out of the box, unlike anything GW sells. So even if the per-model cost is higher than a GW model you're getting a lot more for your money.

That 40k is bigger scale, well you're aware of that so it's on you not them and stop expecting them to lower prices to match overall cost of skirmish games. That doesn't make sense.

Of course it makes sense, but you're just missing the reason why. GW's prices aren't bad because I as a GW customer don't want to pay that much, they're bad because they create a huge barrier to entry for new players. And GW depends on having a constant supply of new players to offset the customers they're constantly losing. But if it costs $1000+ to start playing 40k vs. $100 to start X-Wing with both factions, make a full-size Infinity army, etc, those new customers are going to go elsewhere.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd. So one game you need 2 minis to play, in 40k you need 200 so assuming the same price the former is 100x better value? No, you compare price of same number of miniatures and their quality and as far as plastics go, GW are best. Quality as in level of detail and sturdines not design as I've already seen those 2 mistaken here. That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.

Now, GW pieces are overpriced, but relatively are they? Dust Tactics are tad cheaper but I can break them with two fingers. Xwing is just as expensive for boring prepainted ships. Hell even clix gummy bears are more expensive. Warmachine I wouldn't touch with 10 foot pole because design so can't comment but from what I heard, it's just as expensive per mini only works at smaller scale and irrelevant arguments like 'you have more use for a mini in the game' or other bs.

Then, who bought some toys for kids lately? Unlicensed transformers from cheap mall with crap detail, I could make forgeworld nurgle termie for that. Or those german prepainted animals, size the same, sculpts worse and price comparable or worse.

Really GW is overpriced but the other games are not cheaper if only the miniatures are close in quality. That 40k is bigger scale, well you're aware of that so it's on you not them and stop expecting them to lower prices to match overall cost of skirmish games. That doesn't make sense.

I don't disagree on the fact that GW do make good plastics. Even if you don't like their artistic direction, the actual technical quality it pretty good. Rarely do you get sink holes, the detail is sharp and for the most part the sprues are well designed. There are of course models that aren't great, though they are mostly the older models.

Buuuuuut, yes, the size of the game does relate to the value of the minis. If you're making a game that requires 100 models, you can simply afford (and should) sell them for less, because the cost of materials and manufacturing is pretty damned low. If your game only requires 10 models, the models have to cost more because the costs of sculpting, making the initial moulds, shipping and paying all the people along the way factors much higher in to the cost per model.

And while GW are good, it's getting harder to call them the "best" when you have models like these...



...which per model cost less than ONE FIFTH of GW's Cadians.

As a player of X-Wing, and a 20-year player of 40K, I can tell you that X-wing definitely gives you more bang for your buck, and so so other game systems. I love, love, love 40K for the modelling standpoint, but you can easily get two very large fleets of ships for X-wing that give you tons of flexibility in army-building for the price of a small 40K army that will stay relatively static unless you keep making purchases.

In no way can anyone play 40K and not have price be a factor, not for at least the least ten years. It's why I have six 2,000+pt armies, but the most recent figures I bought are some bargain-priced 2nd edition Eldar from a bitz supplier at Gencon. I think the last retail unit I bought was a unit of Scourges two years ago. The price keeps me from buying any more figures other than on a rare basis, even though my interest is there.

Hell, I'd love to start an Ork army, but it's probably not happening, but on the other hand, I'm thinking of getting a Scum And Villainy force for X-wing when it comes out, because I can get a fully useable force for around the price of a battlewagon and some boyz.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd. So one game you need 2 minis to play, in 40k you need 200 so assuming the same price the former is 100x better value? No, you compare price of same number of miniatures and their quality and as far as plastics go, GW are best. Quality as in level of detail and sturdines not design as I've already seen those 2 mistaken here. That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.

Now, GW pieces are overpriced, but relatively are they? Dust Tactics are tad cheaper but I can break them with two fingers. Xwing is just as expensive for boring prepainted ships. Hell even clix gummy bears are more expensive. Warmachine I wouldn't touch with 10 foot pole because design so can't comment but from what I heard, it's just as expensive per mini only works at smaller scale and irrelevant arguments like 'you have more use for a mini in the game' or other bs.

Then, who bought some toys for kids lately? Unlicensed transformers from cheap mall with crap detail, I could make forgeworld nurgle termie for that. Or those german prepainted animals, size the same, sculpts worse and price comparable or worse.

Really GW is overpriced but the other games are not cheaper if only the miniatures are close in quality. That 40k is bigger scale, well you're aware of that so it's on you not them and stop expecting them to lower prices to match overall cost of skirmish games. That doesn't make sense.

I don't disagree on the fact that GW do make good plastics. Even if you don't like their artistic direction, the actual technical quality it pretty good. Rarely do you get sink holes, the detail is sharp and for the most part the sprues are well designed. There are of course models that aren't great, though they are mostly the older models.

Buuuuuut, yes, the size of the game does relate to the value of the minis. If you're making a game that requires 100 models, you can simply afford (and should) sell them for less, because the cost of materials and manufacturing is pretty damned low. If your game only requires 10 models, the models have to cost more because the costs of sculpting, making the initial moulds, shipping and paying all the people along the way factors much higher in to the cost per model.

And while GW are good, it's getting harder to call them the "best" when you have models like these...



...which per model cost less than ONE FIFTH of GW's Cadians.

Argument invalid. They're wearing their garrison caps. Back to GW.

The thing that is killing me with posts defending the model count in 40k games is every new edition of 40k has inflated the game size by a significant amount. What constituted a 1500 pt army in 3rd edition felt short of that size in 4th, and it has continued this way every generation up to 7th, where the firepower of many units has been massively diluted against the big baddies (i.e. titans, bigger and badder HQs, etc.) that dominate the gameplay.

Is the experience of that extra 400-500 points that gets crammed into an army in 7th actually better than the experience of a game in 4th-5th edition 40k, or is it something that's just shrugged at for increased "narrative forging"?

Well, there is the fact that Space Marines are 50% the points that they were in 2nd edition, while the points values of a "normal" game stayed at 1500-2000pts.

Also in every edition up to about 5th edition, using something akin to a Riptide in an everyday game would have been seen like using a Revenant today. It's where lots of the vitriol for using Forgeworld models came from, because they used to be primarily a producer of big boutique items like Eldar Superheavies that were way too powerful for normal games, but modern 40K is using bigger and bigger stuff.

Lots of the flyer rules from 4th edition's Vehicle Design rules are very similar to what we are seeing on everyday flyer units in standard lists now, and they were seen by many as overpowered back then.

Standard games coupled with standard prices are what is the problem. Other games may have GW's prices, but they are using armies that are the size of 2nd edition 40K, so the hit is not as bad for getting into the game.

Also, no matter what you may defend model prices like, what makes GW truly ludicrously expensive is the price of the rules material required to even get playing. You are in over 100 dollars for just the rules and a codex, before you ever buy a single figure.

In Warmachine, you can easily start gaming with a force after first getting the main rulebook, Warmachine: Prime MkII for less than 50 bucks.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Well, there is the fact that Space Marines are 50% the points that they were in 2nd edition, while the points values of a "normal" game stayed at 1500-2000pts.

Right, that's what I'm saying. The game standard size hasn't changed, but the cost of units has been steadily dropping. Usually, a codex release is hailed with an "Awesome! I can field an extra Leman Russ/Battlewagon/etc!", and this has been happening with every single new codex release.

I just don't see how this has improved the gaming experience, i.e. what these bigger games actually have to offer that the previous editions didn't provide.

 Accolade wrote:

I just don't see how this has improved the gaming experience, i.e. what these bigger games actually have to offer that the previous editions didn't provide.

Other than being bigger games?

Frankly, the model count is one of the things that has kept me in 40K for so long. There simply aren't any other 28ish mm scifi games out there at the moment (that I'm aware of, other than the occasional home-brew ruleset) that deal battles the same size... Every other company seems determined to focus on small-count skirmish games.

While there's certainly a place for skirmish games (Necromunda is still one of my favourite games) I enjoy the spectacle of a larger game.

Yeah, but used to be that a force of two 10-man space marine squads, a character or two, a bike squad and a landspeeder was not seen as a "small" force or a skirmish game. GW has just inflated everything that deals with model count slowly over the last 15 years, while raising prices.

Used to be that 40K: Epic was used for having the sheer spectacle of seeing huge armies.

The model count is fine, I'm not saying I don't like bigger-than-skirmish games. I'm just saying I think there's been a lot of unnecessary inflating of armies in the last couple of editions, which hasn't really added to the experience (other than to say "it's bigger!")

I don't seem to be communicating this correctly so I think I'm just going to let it go.

 insaniak wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

I just don't see how this has improved the gaming experience, i.e. what these bigger games actually have to offer that the previous editions didn't provide.

Other than being bigger games?

Frankly, the model count is one of the things that has kept me in 40K for so long. There simply aren't any other 28ish mm scifi games out there at the moment (that I'm aware of, other than the occasional home-brew ruleset) that deal battles the same size... Every other company seems determined to focus on small-count skirmish games.

While there's certainly a place for skirmish games (Necromunda is still one of my favourite games) I enjoy the spectacle of a larger game.

I don't have a problem with the large model count, I just have a problem with a large model count game with model prices akin to a small skirmish game.

There should be a reduction in price the more you have to buy. $2.90USD per Cadian is insane when you consider how many you need. They should be closer to $1 per model.

I also would like the rules to be more of a tiered system which actually suits small scale games and large scale games better instead of some middle ground which is too convoluted for big games but has some weird abstractions that don't really suit small games either.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Yeah, but used to be that a force of two 10-man space marine squads, a character or two, a bike squad and a landspeeder was not seen as a "small" force or a skirmish game. GW has just inflated everything that deals with model count slowly over the last 15 years, while raising prices.

Used to be that 40K: Epic was used for having the sheer spectacle of seeing huge armies.

I remember 2nd edition when 1 Tactical Squad, 1 Terminator squad, a bike Squad and a Captain, Chaplain and Librarian was 1,500 points. I remember 3rd edition when about 30ish guys was a 1,500 point army. That was acceptable. What they have now is ridiculous, because 40k was never meant to be huge battles but part of a larger battle. Besides the absurd cost of everything, the rules are a mess for precisely that reason - you have rules that were meant for a company-level game being used for an regiment-level game instead of having abstract rules to represent larger forces. It's like the difference between Bolt Action and Flames of War; Bolt Action is a platoon level game so has more detailed rules about individual guys, Flames of War is something closer to an army level game so has abstract rules because you don't need to care about the individual troops. 40k tries to do both and fails.

It fails even harder because not only has the prices on everything raised, but you also need more of it. What used to get you a starting army now barely gets you anything at all, at least anything significant to play after demo games for your first game or two. That's the problem. When less than 1,000 points(i.e. entry-level) of Space Marines (which were always on the expensive side as far as points go) costs me as much as a regular sized army for Warmachine, who knows how many for Infinity, or just short of two regular-sized Bolt Action armies, there is a major problem. For the cost of that basic SM army and the 40k rules (and Codex) I could get TWO armies for Bolt Action, plus the rules and have some money left over; I could grab a friend and let them try the game with zero investment of their own for the same price as it would cost them to just get started trying 40k.

There is a major issue there, and it's solely in the GW side of things. Starting 40k from scratch now is almost a fool's errand because it costs so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

I just don't see how this has improved the gaming experience, i.e. what these bigger games actually have to offer that the previous editions didn't provide.

Other than being bigger games?

Frankly, the model count is one of the things that has kept me in 40K for so long. There simply aren't any other 28ish mm scifi games out there at the moment (that I'm aware of, other than the occasional home-brew ruleset) that deal battles the same size... Every other company seems determined to focus on small-count skirmish games.

While there's certainly a place for skirmish games (Necromunda is still one of my favourite games) I enjoy the spectacle of a larger game.

I don't have a problem with the large model count, I just have a problem with a large model count game with model prices akin to a small skirmish game.

There should be a reduction in price the more you have to buy. $2.90USD per Cadian is insane when you consider how many you need. They should be closer to $1 per model.

I also would like the rules to be more of a tiered system which actually suits small scale games and large scale games better instead of some middle ground which is too convoluted for big games but has some weird abstractions that don't really suit small games either.

Also this. 28mm games that involve a lot of figures and regiment (or batallion, etc.) sized force are cheap and sell a lot of figures per box (see: Perry, Victrix). 40k alone charges a lot of money for a small amount of figures AND has a large-scale game to go along with it, so not only are you paying a lot for everything you buy, but you're also buying a lot of them. With Victrix or Perry or virtually every other manufacturer, I only need a couple of boxes and I can make a large army without spending hundreds of dollars outside of very exceptional circumstances (e.g. some huge table at a convention where you're doing a 28mm Waterloo or something crazy like that).

Well, my Cyriss faction has been as expensive as my Necron army, 5000 pts, played in apoc games.
I presented details elsewhere here at Dakka.
The issue with GW for me is their policy not to talk to the customer.
PP is much more open minded.

PP... So open to the customer that we can't even directly order single units.

PP is so open to eastern EU markets, that it was impossible to buy their stuff here for months. And all the good stuff everyone wants never gets in to stores here.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, my Cyriss faction has been as expensive as my Necron army, 5000 pts, played in apoc games.
I presented details elsewhere here at Dakka.
The issue with GW for me is their policy not to talk to the customer.
PP is much more open minded.

How on earth did a Cyriss force cost the same as a 5000 pt Necron army? Either you have like one of everything and multiples of the Vectors and like 5 Prime Axioms or you got your Necron very cheap which is hardly a fair comparison... And saying 'elsewhere on Dakka' doesn't help, could be anywhere, could you link it?

Then don't buy them. I have not bought a single GW sense 7th ed came out. Still trying to liquidate my collection.

Pyeatt wrote:PP... So open to the customer that we can't even directly order single units.

To be fair, they'd rather other retailers do the selling, and outsource the manufacturing (Cerberus in the uk, etc). Regarding sales, they seem to be happy to just sell bits, and some exclusives.

Edit: the only things I've ever needed to directly order have been the black dragon upgrade sprue, extreme juggernaut and destroyer and bits for my female fenris conversion. Never had any issues though. everything else, I just get via my flgs.

Makumba wrote:PP is so open to eastern EU markets, that it was impossible to buy their stuff here for months. And all the good stuff everyone wants never gets in to stores here.

Online retailers don't post to Poland? Just curious here.

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Defining value of minis as relative to game size is absurd.

No, it's entirely relevant. If you want to play a game it doesn't matter how much each part of the game costs, it matters how much you have to pay to play the game. So even if other companies have a higher cost per-model the total cost of playing the game is lower. And that has a lot more practical value to the customer than some kind of abstract "worth" of a miniature.

The value relative to game size you use is much more abstract than worth of a miniature. If Dust Tactics sell you a mech for comparable price but it's made of thin plastic, is full of mold lines etc and overall a worse gaming piece, then the fact that you need only 2 is irrelevant to the fact that you got less, not more for the money. Now, if you want to argue the entire cost of the game then yes, 40k is more expensive but that goes with the scale, pure logic. Show me company that upped the scale and dropped prices because of it, retaining the minis quality. The problem I see here is the cost of books but imo only because the rules inside are bad, the books you get are quite beautiful though with bit too much rehashed art.

Peregrine wrote:

That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.

Of course it takes those things away. As a customer I don't care what technology went into making a product, I care what the final product is.

Of course it doesn't. Dust tactics again, I'm absolutely in love with their mech designs but they are incapable of level of detail you have on taurox and I could probably throw the latter into the wall and count on it survivng, unlike the mech that would end shattered into pieces. That's quality when it comes to gaming miniatures, you could make a point about the design not meeting expectations of the customers but you don't have data for that. If majority likes it, its still quality.

Peregrine wrote:

Xwing is just as expensive for boring prepainted ships.

It's not just the ships, it's all of the rules and tokens needed to use them. Good luck getting that out of a GW kit. And yes, being pre-painted adds value because X-Wing's prepainted models are good prepainted models that look just fine on the table even without any additional painting work. But if you want to do your own painting you've effectively got pre-assembled and pre-primed models that are ready to paint right out of the box, unlike anything GW sells. So even if the per-model cost is higher than a GW model you're getting a lot more for your money.

Ok lets say we agree on a minimum playable force for 40k (which we can't do because its not n the rules, used to be hq and 2 troops but now unbound cinematic lololol draigo vs the entire warp) being 1500 points and that you can get it for $700 on average with book and everything. Now let's price th minimum playable force of few ships in xwing with the precious tokens at $400 , is it still better value? Because stretch your argument a bit and it becomes absurd, just as I said.

Peregrine wrote:

That 40k is bigger scale, well you're aware of that so it's on you not them and stop expecting them to lower prices to match overall cost of skirmish games. That doesn't make sense.

Of course it makes sense, but you're just missing the reason why. GW's prices aren't bad because I as a GW customer don't want to pay that much, they're bad because they create a huge barrier to entry for new players. And GW depends on having a constant supply of new players to offset the customers they're constantly losing. But if it costs $1000+ to start playing 40k vs. $100 to start X-Wing with both factions, make a full-size Infinity army, etc, those new customers are going to go elsewhere.

Obviously but it's something you agree on when you get into 40k. Big scale, big cost. It might be a problem from GW perspective but looking at a nature of the game, big scale battles with high quality detailed 28mm miniatures, the cost vs other games is almost ok. Other thing ofc is that they're all overpriced and should cost half the price but it's not that xwing or wmh is better value than 40k.