SolarCross wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Except for the past 30 years 40k hasn't been trying to fit superheavies in to your average game, that's a more recent phenomenon.

Personally I think with the size of games 40k tries to play (with tank squadrons, large monsters, walkers, etc), 15mm scale would be perfect. 6mm the models just become counters, which some people like but I don't think has wide appeal. 15mm the models are still clear enough to put some effort in to making individuals look nice, but also if you want to paint stuff quickly a basecoat and a wash goes a long way on 15mm models.

Of course for painting display models, 28mm (and larger) is great, but part of the problem with 40k is not knowing what it wants to be and that's driven a lot of people away in recent years.

I agree, even a drop to 15mm would make big games much more practical and affordable.
A 15mm mini is half the height, quarter the footprint and an eighth the volume. Which loosely implies minis being an 1/8th cost. Leman Russ for a £5? yes please!

Dropzone Commander is on a 10mm scale and even the infantry looks nice enough.

Not sure the point of this is. Professionally done. One of the reasons why I quit Dropzone Commander is because I suck at painting 40K. It's even worse with Dropzone Commander. Easy to show pics when a professional does it, but if I showed you my infantry it would look horrible. There is a reason why infantry is mostly one colour maybe two from normal painters. They are just way too hard to do.

As for price. WWWHHHHAAAAAAAA. HHHAAAAA HA! $80 for a bar of soap? That is what a hover craft looks like before being painted. DzC is not cheap. It's almost as expensive as 40K. Again only reason it seems cheaper is because you need less minis. But seeing some of the prices, yeah they are quite expensive. Another reason why I quit. I just didn't want to pay $80 for a bar of soap. So I went back to 40K. At least I am paying more, and I don't have to squint when I paint so much.

Great set of rules though, I will give you that, but to paint that small and be happy with it, and the prices. Yeah, no thank you.

 SolarCross wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
That's faulty logic.

Dropping scale may mean a drop in material costs, but they're a tiny part of the cost, really really tiny.

There may be a small drop in production costs due to less time to actually sculpt a smaller model with less detail and less complex sprue design, but the reality is the drop won't be anything near enough to realise prices like you're suggesting.

Given the costs of packaging, logistics and the overhead of the retail chain would be almost completely unaffected, I'd be surprised if GW would/could sell a 15mm Russ for less than £25.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, probably closer £15-20, I'd got the Russ at £40 currently in my head, and they're £31.

No your logic is wrong. Design costs (which you incorrectly call production costs) would be the same as for a 28mm russ, but those costs are tiny, tiny, tiny on large production runs. Large production runs are hardly a thing in wargaming but if there was any company that gets close to that it would be GW. All other costs are fairly proportional because a 28mm leman russ package would hold 8 15mm russes not 1 (Derp).

For a point of reference Dropzone Commander sells 10mm main battle tanks (in resin) in packs of 3 for £11.

Spoiler:

Just found this 15mm APC (in resin).. £6 each.

[/img]

You're right, I was referring to design costs, but GW don't distinguish between the two in their reporting so I've got in the habit of doing likewise when discussing their practices.

Either way, I stand by my point. The costs aren't proportional, they don't suddenly cut in half because what you're making is smaller, or do you think the landlords will all accept a lower rent in the shops or the staff will take a wage cut?

Your examples are not equivalent, neither company is subject to the cost obligations that GW are, and while I've long held that GW has painted itself into a corner cost wise, it is a fact and other companies do not have that burden to carry and that at least partially reflects in the final selling price.

Also, both your examples are resin, a production method which disperses much of its cost over the life of the production run, meaning, correctly priced, the model makes profit from sale 1, GW would almost certainly use plastic which carries a much heavier up front investment, GW have shown themselves to be deeply risk averse, so they're not going to risk not shifting the volume at a lower price over the lifetime of the product, they know that the vast percentage of their money is made in a short time after release and in order to be profitable they need that investment back.

There's also the issue that if we're doing 40K at half scale, why are people going to suddenly buy more stuff? If they buy twice as much and play games twice the size, then it hasn't solved anything gameplay wise, it's just changed the shape of the problem. Or, if we're talking £5 Russes vs £30 Russes people need to be buying six times the volume of models to preserve their revenue. So if people carry on buying armies that still look like 40K armies, but with models half the size, GW's revenue goes down the toilet.

Perhaps the demand would be there to increase the player base and the spend per head to make a success of the whole thing, but as CEO of GW, I know I wouldn't be willing to risk hundreds/thousands of people's livelihoods on that gamble.

I'm not saying GW couldn't make a 15mm version of a Leman Russ and sell it for the figures that you're proposing, I'm saying they wouldn't because it would kill the company.

hobojebus wrote:
GW don't set high prices because it costs them alot, they set them because their sales are abysmal and they have to keep profits up any means necessary.

The fact that GW's prices have always been at the upper end of the market, even when their sales were fantastic, suggests otherwise.

Past history suggests that GW sets their prices high for no reason other than because they can. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Epic would be any more affordable now than it was last time it was available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:

Dropzone Commander is on a 10mm scale and even the infantry looks nice enough.

They really don't. And they look worse with an average paintjob.


For my money, anything smaller than 25mm is really only suitable for games that focus predominantly on vehicles or giant creatures, because human-sized models at those scales are featureless blobs. If you want to play infantry engagements like that, you're better off not spending all that money on miniatures and going for a game that uses tokens for units instead.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I'm not saying GW couldn't make a 15mm version of a Leman Russ and sell it for the figures that you're proposing, I'm saying they wouldn't because it would kill the company.

Well I wouldn't put it past GW to price a 15mm Russ way over what another company would charge, because brand recognition is something to be exploited. I doubt it would kill them though to price it nearer to what another company would charge (around £5), because it would be a product that would appeal to different kind of gamer who is at present not being offered anything by GW. I'd say there are gamers for whom hobbying is a necessary/unnecessary evil and then there are hobbyists for whom gaming is a nice optional extra. GW basically caters only to the latter group at present. X-Wing is very much eating up the former group. I guess FoW also.

The hobbyists might not be into sensibly scaled game assets because they are too small for freckle painting but gamers would potentially eat up tank battalions that don't cost a second mortgage and actually fit on a standard gaming table.

Judging by the size of the computer game market vs the tabletop wargame market, it might even be that out there as yet untapped by GW there are actually more wallets amenable to manageable sized game assets than there are wallets predisposed towards big model kits.

 SolarCross wrote:
...because it would be a product that would appeal to different kind of gamer who is at present not being offered anything by GW.

Has there been anything about GW's behaviour in recent years that would lead you to believe that they have even the slightest interest in catering to 'different' gamers to their current audience?

The hobbyists might not be into sensibly scaled game assets because they are too small for freckle painting but gamers would potentially eat up tank battalions that don't cost a second mortgage and actually fit on a standard gaming table.

Seriously, dude, what is the obsession with freckles?


The appeal of 28mm minis isn't just for 'hobbyists' (by which I'm assuming from the context that you mean 'modelers', as opposed to 'gamers'). People like 28mm because it's nicer visually. A 28mm human has more detail than a 10mm human, which makes it easier to tell different units apart and allows for more variation.

We've been playing fairly successfully with 28mm miniatures without the need to hire out a football field for some time now. I'm a little puzzled as to why you would think that finding space to play is suddenly such a gigantic issue.

 insaniak wrote:

For my money, anything smaller than 25mm is really only suitable for games that focus predominantly on vehicles or giant creatures, because human-sized models at those scales are featureless blobs. If you want to play infantry engagements like that, you're better off not spending all that money on miniatures and going for a game that uses tokens for units instead.

At 6mm they are featureless blobs, at 15mm they are quite okay. Point of fact, 15mm is the standard scale for infantry predominant gaming outside of GW willy wonka land. Ancient & medieval historicals for example.





But you are a hobbyist, i guess. Everything is a trade off. 28mm tanks are stupid beyond belief on a 6' by 4' table, simply stupid, it should never happen, unless painting tanks is more important than gaming with them, then I guess the stupidity of putting a 28mm tank on a 6' x 4' is quite okay as long as it looks good.

I will use my Trump card: Get a better job.

Problem solved!

But honestly, if I can buy 90$CAD games every month I can't really complain to 50$+ CAD GW miniature or whatever. Heck I'm hard-pressed to find any miniature hobby that doesn't cost an arm and a leg for what you get.

 SolarCross wrote:
28mm tanks are stupid beyond belief on a 6' by 4' table, simply stupid, it should never happen, unless painting tanks is more important than gaming with them, then I guess the stupidity of putting a 28mm tank on a 6' x 4' is quite okay as long as it looks good.

If painting tanks is more important than gaming with them, then going for a smaller scale game so that you get more of them would surely be more of a thing... The smaller scale in that case is [i]better[i] for the modeler...


I'm not sure what's so stupid about the table size, though. Enemy units aren't always a mile apart... 40K represents close range firefights, either as a small skirmish or as a part of a larger overall battle.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:
Point of fact, 15mm is the standard scale for infantry predominant gaming outside of GW willy wonka land.

Indeed. And painted by the average gamer, they're featureless blobs. Particularly once you're looking at them from 3 feet away.

Showing studio paint jobs is great, but doesn't reflect what generally winds up on the table... unless you're looking at a game where both participants are 'hobbyists'.

 insaniak wrote:

If painting tanks is more important than gaming with them, then going for a smaller scale game so that you get more of them would surely be more of a thing... The smaller scale in that case is better for the modeler...

I'm not sure what's so stupid about the table size, though. Enemy units aren't always a mile apart... 40K represents close range firefights, either as a small skirmish or as a part of a larger overall battle.

lol, at 28mm scale a 6' by 4' table is equivalent to a football pitch... a football pitch. Even a squad vs squad is cramped at that scale (assuming they armed with something rangier than a football), throw in artillery pieces, main battle tanks and jump jets and things get super stupid fast. Do you realise that the Basilisk self-propelled artillery has a game range of 240" which is 12 feet? Scaled up that is only equivalent to the range of an English longbow! Bolters with a range of 24" scale up to a water-pistol range of 48m. 19th century breach loading rifles have a firing range of 400m, nearly 10x that of the space age bolter.



oversized models not fitting on the table? Problem solved!

The game's an abstraction, not a simulation.

If you start to question the realism and accuracy of the concepts in play, you're going to find the whole thing implodes in short order.

Now, the game isn't working right now, but that is neither inherently or exclusively to do with the scale, and if you halved or even quartered the scale of the models, there would still be wild inaccuracies between on table performance and fluff descriptions.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The game's an abstraction, not a simulation.

If you start to question the realism and accuracy of the concepts in play, you're going to find the whole thing implodes in short order.

Now, the game isn't working right now, but that is neither inherently or exclusively to do with the scale, and if you halved or even quartered the scale of the models, there would still be wild inaccuracies between on table performance and fluff descriptions.

A wargame is a bit of both, abstraction and simulation, a game like chess is pure abstraction. Nonetheless you are right that an element of abstraction is needed to make a wargame work on any scale, however the bigger the scale the sillier it gets. The battlefield gets far too crowded at 28mm scale, it looks daft and impedes manoeuvre, you can't play a sizable game without going broke paying £30 per tank and running out of space to place them.

I am totally fine with artistic types paying £30 for a oversized tank, putting it on a table and pretending that they are a wargamer, they can buy 28mm model kits and play 7th ed.

I would however prefer to pay £30 for squadron of 6 tanks and play a real wargame. GW did epic before they could do it again. At 6mm you could have even imperator titans on the table. At 15mm you can have nice looking infantry alongside the smaller titans and superheavies and it wouldn't be too silly or expensive. You don't have to buy or play on a rational scale you can still buy the oversized stuff. So what's the problem?

What do you consider a sizeable game?

 SolarCross wrote:
you can't play a sizable game without going broke paying £30 per tank and running out of space to place them.

And yet, people have been doing this successfully since the early '90s.

Which would seem to suggest that it's not the massive problem that you're trying to make it out to be.

pm713 wrote:
What do you consider a sizeable game?

The battle for Stalingrad.

3 million infantry
30,000 artillery
1500 tanks
1500 aircraft

 SolarCross wrote:

lol, at 28mm scale a 6' by 4' table is equivalent to a football pitch

It's possible that a part of the problem you're having is that you're trying to look at 40k as a scale representation of a battle.

It's not. It's a wargame using 28mm-ish miniatures as gaming tokens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:

pm713 wrote:
What do you consider a sizeable game?

The battle for Stalingrad.

3 million infantry
30,000 artillery
1500 tanks
1500 aircraft

Then yes, 40k is possibly not the game for you.

But then, for that sort of scale, neither is Epic. But at that point, you might as well complain that, say, Blloodbowl is just as bad for not accurately representing the story of game you want to play.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The game's an abstraction, not a simulation.

If you start to question the realism and accuracy of the concepts in play, you're going to find the whole thing implodes in short order.

Now, the game isn't working right now, but that is neither inherently or exclusively to do with the scale, and if you halved or even quartered the scale of the models, there would still be wild inaccuracies between on table performance and fluff descriptions.

There's abstraction, and then there's a game that looks stupid because a tank that is 9" long and a walker that is 9" tall are deploying 24" away from each other

I'm all for abstraction, my understanding is most WW2 tank battles occured at 700-1000 yards, that's just an impractical scale to reproduce in a game even at 6mm scale.

But 40k whizzes past abstraction and hits the wall of absurdity. One of the many things that put me off 40k was one day walking in to a store and seeing a game that looked less like a wargame and more like a couple of babies in slapping range of each other

 SolarCross wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
The game's an abstraction, not a simulation.

If you start to question the realism and accuracy of the concepts in play, you're going to find the whole thing implodes in short order.

Now, the game isn't working right now, but that is neither inherently or exclusively to do with the scale, and if you halved or even quartered the scale of the models, there would still be wild inaccuracies between on table performance and fluff descriptions.

A wargame is a bit of both, abstraction and simulation, a game like chess is pure abstraction. Nonetheless you are right that an element of abstraction is needed to make a wargame work on any scale, however the bigger the scale the sillier it gets. The battlefield gets far too crowded at 28mm scale, it looks daft and impedes manoeuvre, you can't play a sizable game without going broke paying £30 per tank and running out of space to place them.

I am totally fine with artistic types paying £30 for a oversized tank, putting it on a table and pretending that they are a wargamer, they can buy 28mm model kits and play 7th ed.

I would however prefer to pay £30 for squadron of 6 tanks and play a real wargame. GW did epic before they could do it again. At 6mm you could have even imperator titans on the table. At 15mm you can have nice looking infantry alongside the smaller titans and superheavies and it wouldn't be too silly or expensive. You don't have to buy or play on a rational scale you can still buy the oversized stuff. So what's the problem?

That's a pretty bad attitude you're showing towards people that you don't seem "real" wargamers.

Especially as you're posting under your company name and it appears 70+% of your listings are for the GW stuff that all those pretend wargamers are buying.

Isn't it intrinsically contradictory to advocate the use of a smaller scale in Epic to allow the use of Imperator Titans, with weapons that have a range probably only limited by the curvature of the planet, making the necessary abstraction to make them playable exactly the same as that you've criticized 30mm scale units for having, as well as claiming 15mm would allow for oversized stuff like Warhounds, which would probably still be IK sized at 15mm and still possess weaponry that in "reality" is still completely over the top for the scale of the engagement that a 40K game seeks to portray?

 SolarCross wrote:

lol, at 28mm scale a 6' by 4' table is equivalent to a football pitch... a football pitch. Even a squad vs squad is cramped at that scale (assuming they armed with something rangier than a football), throw in artillery pieces, main battle tanks and jump jets and things get super stupid fast. Do you realise that the Basilisk self-propelled artillery has a game range of 240" which is 12 feet? Scaled up that is only equivalent to the range of an English longbow! Bolters with a range of 24" scale up to a water-pistol range of 48m. 19th century breach loading rifles have a firing range of 400m, nearly 10x that of the space age bolter.

oversized models not fitting on the table? Problem solved!

I'm pretty sure ranges in 40k are meant to represent accurate range before environmental factors come into play, alongside possible factors of the weapon itself being a difficulty. The DV booklet says this too (can't quote verbatim as currently it's not with me) - it was something like "the Cultists fire at the Tactical Squad which is 18" away. The Cultist's Autoguns and Heavy Stubber can all hit, however the Champion's Shotgun cannot - we can assume that he curses as his shot falls short of its target"

Also from your previous post - when was 15mm scale the standard in wargaming? If it was/is, it hasn't exactly got much traction in many non-historical universes that I know.

We should also consider that games like Infinity and X Wing exist, where you can pay upwards of £10 (or more like 50 US cents given current inflation atm) for a single model. Such a game may only need a few models on both sides to play, but it still puts a dent in most people's wallets.

Personally I'm pretty happy to pay for the quality of some of these things, especially GW's models. Love GW or hate them, I have not found a single company out there that does better and more amazing casts than they do.

G.A

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
There's abstraction, and then there's a game that looks stupid because a tank that is 9" long and a walker that is 9" tall are deploying 24" away from each other

I'm all for abstraction, my understanding is most WW2 tank battles occured at 700-1000 yards, that's just an impractical scale to reproduce in a game even at 6mm scale.

But 40k whizzes past abstraction and hits the wall of absurdity. One of the many things that put me off 40k was one day walking in to a store and seeing a game that looked less like a wargame and more like a couple of babies in slapping range of each other

The thing is, a game that features both ranged and melee combat needs to either have everything close together, or allow for incredibly rapid movement.


Once you accept that 40K is essentially a fantasy game in a space opera setting, the short distances are less of an issue.

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, a game that features both ranged and melee combat needs to either have everything close together, or allow for incredibly rapid movement.

Once you accept that 40K is essentially a fantasy game in a space opera setting, the short distances are less of an issue.

In sci-fi you have plenty of tricks for getting in close: force fields, invisibility, teleportation, air drops, improbably protective armour, APC's including flying ones.. I don't see that as an issue for 15mm scale or less scale. You can still do plenty of handwavium to make melee relevant.

I'm not getting why you object to other people playing a version of 40k on a more rational scale?

I would just like to point out that Warlord Games, who make 28mm scale figures to a far higher standard that GW's OMG GRIBBLY CARTOON look can charge:

-£24 for a 25 to 30 man box set with all the optionial upgrades and extra ones included
-£28 for the above 30 men with many metal upgrade parts thrown in
-£6 to £8 for weapon teams that come in blisters of up to three different ones
-£13 to £20 for a full artillery piece, some which come with a tow thrown in as well
-£18 for a plastic tank kit that includes the parts to make up to five/six different variants
-£25 for a hand cast resin and white metal piece

Compared to GW's £18 to £22 for five to ten outdated plastic kits that needed replacing half a decade ago.
Just saying.

 SolarCross wrote:

I'm not getting why you object to other people playing a version of 40k on a more rational scale?

Because a "more rational" scale takes away the detail on the miniatures that lure many of us into the hobby in the first place

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:

Because a "more rational" scale takes away the detail on the miniatures that lure many of us into the hobby in the first place

G.A

So don't play it, keep buying 28mm scale. I am assuming GW could do epic alongside 28mm. Do you object to that?

 SolarCross wrote:
I'm not getting why you object to other people playing a version of 40k on a more rational scale?

I'm not getting why you insist on posting obvious straw man arguments. Nobody is objecting to other people playing a smaller-scale version of 40k, we're objecting to your attitude that the smaller-scale version would be indisputably superior and we all need to play Epic.

 Peregrine wrote:

I'm not getting why you insist on posting obvious straw man arguments. Nobody is objecting to other people playing a smaller-scale version of 40k, we're objecting to your attitude that the smaller-scale version would be indisputably superior and we all need to play Epic.

Ok well that is alright then.

 SolarCross wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

Because a "more rational" scale takes away the detail on the miniatures that lure many of us into the hobby in the first place

G.A

So don't play it, keep buying 28mm scale. I am assuming GW could do epic alongside 28mm. Do you object to that?

I don't play 40k anymore actually; I think the game is a broken mess that doesn't always reward both player's time investment.

GW have ditched a lot of their specialist games, including games on a smaller scale like BFG and Epic. Perhaps this is due to lack of sales/desirability. I for one would not mind collecting BFG, but I felt like the Epic models lacked any meaningful detail outside of the Titan models.

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

Because a "more rational" scale takes away the detail on the miniatures that lure many of us into the hobby in the first place

G.A

So don't play it, keep buying 28mm scale. I am assuming GW could do epic alongside 28mm. Do you object to that?

I don't play 40k anymore actually; I think the game is a broken mess that doesn't always reward both player's time investment.

GW have ditched a lot of their specialist games, including games on a smaller scale like BFG and Epic. Perhaps this is due to lack of sales/desirability. I for one would not mind collecting BFG, but I felt like the Epic models lacked any meaningful detail outside of the Titan models.

G.A

Aren't they bringing those back?

 SolarCross wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:

Because a "more rational" scale takes away the detail on the miniatures that lure many of us into the hobby in the first place

G.A

So don't play it, keep buying 28mm scale. I am assuming GW could do epic alongside 28mm. Do you object to that?

Hang on, are you advocating for Epic, or a smaller scaled 40K now?

Because I'm pretty sure you originally started advocating for 15mm 40K.

pm713 wrote:

Aren't they bringing those back?

If you believe the rumours, then yes. I don't like to assume until definitive proof is found, and preferably in the form of an official announcement instead of a leak.

Either way, they don't exist currently, suggesting that they were not desirable before; I didn't see many people up in arms when BFG and Necromunda vanished from their website.

Plus we have to consider GW's push in recent months on board games - seems like they have a board game craze right now

G.A

They're bringing them back, that's official.

We've already seen provisional sculpts for Blod Bowl, and we're getting Adeptus Titanicus first, with expansions for other unit types down the line.

That's all either photographically confirmed or directly from designers in the studio.

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're bringing them back, that's official.

We've already seen provisional sculpts for Blod Bowl, and we're getting Adeptus Titanicus first, with expansions for other unit types down the line.

That's all either photographically confirmed or directly from designers in the studio.

I wasn't aware of this; any chance you could direct me to this information?

Thanks a bunch

G.A

 SolarCross wrote:


I'm not getting why you object to other people playing a version of 40k on a more rational scale?

I don't. Not sure where you would have got the idea that I did.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
They're bringing them back, that's official.

We've already seen provisional sculpts for Blod Bowl, and we're getting Adeptus Titanicus first, with expansions for other unit types down the line.

That's all either photographically confirmed or directly from designers in the studio.

I wasn't aware of this; any chance you could direct me to this information?

Thanks a bunch

G.A

As for other stuff, it's a question of keeping an eye on the various open day events and checking any blogs/threads which is first hand reporting, it's fair to say that if two or three report the same thing it isn't made up. Have a dig around in N+R.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Hang on, are you advocating for Epic, or a smaller scaled 40K now?

Because I'm pretty sure you originally started advocating for 15mm 40K.

That was in the context of people griping about the cost of 40k for playing the "large" battles that these new formations suggest we could play at. I do think 28mm is just too big for gaming, not just from the substantial extra cost it imposes but the space it takes up on the board and in storage. As a craft hobby 28mm is ideal or indeed squad vs. squad games like Space Hulk, it is quite okay.

GW is to wargaming what Nike is to footwear, not necessarily better quality than no-name brand but charging extra because of brand recognition. They wouldn't be doing business right if they were not leveraging their brand for extra dough, so whatever scale game they produce and no matter what economies of scale they can pull to lower their costs, they will always be more expensive than Warlord Games or Hawkwind Games or whoever. So the GW premium isn't the real problem with the cost of 40k, or at least it is a problem that cannot be solved by us, except by refusing pay the brand premium. Switching to a sensible gaming scale is a feasible solution to the exorbitant cost of 40k gaming even with GW's brand premium slapped all over it. It also fixes a number of other practical considerations that I already mentioned.

 General Annoyance wrote:
I wasn't aware of this; any chance you could direct me to this information?

It's from one of GW's open days a while back. They showed off some models for the new games, banners advertising them, etc. We don't know much about the games beyond the fact that GW is working on them, but it's official that they are.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Spoiler:

As for other stuff, it's a question of keeping an eye on the various open day events and checking any blogs/threads which is first hand reporting, it's fair to say that if two or three report the same thing it isn't made up. Have a dig around in N+R.

Cheers for this, I'll be sure to dig around for some more stuff.

Regardless, would you or anyone else say it is fair to assume that GW discontinued these lines for a long time due to lack of popularity? Or is this more down to typical GW madness?

G.A

R.E. Thanks Peregrine, I will look into their open day information

 SolarCross wrote:
GW is to wargaming what Nike is to footwear, not necessarily better quality than no-name brand but charging extra because of brand recognition.

Going to have to disagree with this. GW often does have better quality than the competition. Many non-GW companies have models that aren't as nice and/or a very small range of high-quality models. And it's especially true when you look at the various third-party "not 40k" models, almost all of them are just low-quality copies of GW's ideas where the only appeal is the fact that they're cheap. So if you want the kind of stuff that GW is selling it's more of a comparison between a fast food hamburger and a burger from a nice restaurant. The nice burger is much more expensive, and arguably expensive out of proportion to the increase in price, but there's no question that it's better quality.

 SolarCross wrote:

GW is to wargaming what Nike is to footwear, not necessarily better quality than no-name brand but charging extra because of brand recognition. They wouldn't be doing business right if they were not leveraging their brand for extra dough

No, they're more expensive because they have the best quality miniatures on the market. I don't consider that debatable for anyone who has eyes honestly.

Does that give them the right to charge as much as they do? Different question entirely. I think they can cos any company can charge any price if people will still buy it; GW has no significant competitors in terms of model quality, which would drive down their prices potentially. Gaming wise? Yes. Model wise? No

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:
Regardless, would you or anyone else say it is fair to assume that GW discontinued these lines for a long time due to lack of popularity? Or is this more down to typical GW madness?

We don't know. There was almost certainly a lack of popularity (otherwise discontinuing them would be financial suicide), but why were they less popular? Was there less demand for that kind of game, or was it because of the lack of support GW was willing to give a product line that could let you play in the 40k IP without spending as much money as their core product line demands?

 General Annoyance wrote:

Regardless, would you or anyone else say it is fair to assume that GW discontinued these lines for a long time due to lack of popularity? Or is this more down to typical GW madness?

At the time of release I'd guess they sold well enough, but then after a time everyone that would have bought it already did and then sales begin to dry up, just as another new hot thing is ready to spill out the production pipeline.

 General Annoyance wrote:
No, they're more expensive because they have the best quality miniatures on the market. I don't consider that debatable for anyone who has eyes honestly.

It's entirely debatable. GW does have legitimate competition for the "best miniatures" title, and arguably that competition produces stuff that GW would envy. GW is in a good position quality-wise, but let's not get so far into GW apologism that anyone who favors another brand "doesn't have eyes".

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
There's abstraction, and then there's a game that looks stupid because a tank that is 9" long and a walker that is 9" tall are deploying 24" away from each other

I'm all for abstraction, my understanding is most WW2 tank battles occured at 700-1000 yards, that's just an impractical scale to reproduce in a game even at 6mm scale.

But 40k whizzes past abstraction and hits the wall of absurdity. One of the many things that put me off 40k was one day walking in to a store and seeing a game that looked less like a wargame and more like a couple of babies in slapping range of each other

The thing is, a game that features both ranged and melee combat needs to either have everything close together, or allow for incredibly rapid movement.


Once you accept that 40K is essentially a fantasy game in a space opera setting, the short distances are less of an issue.

I've never had a problem with the short range of 40k nor did I say I did. I had a problem when 40k went from being a game where short ranges were just an abstraction to when it went to being comical.

 Peregrine wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
No, they're more expensive because they have the best quality miniatures on the market. I don't consider that debatable for anyone who has eyes honestly.

It's entirely debatable. GW does have legitimate competition for the "best miniatures" title, and arguably that competition produces stuff that GW would envy. GW is in a good position quality-wise, but let's not get so far into GW apologism that anyone who favors another brand "doesn't have eyes".

Ok perhaps that was a little uncalled for, but genuinely I can't think of a company that can match their standards on the scale that they do. Only one that springs to mind is Victoria Miniatures, but Miss Lamb is just one person running a fairly small (but well known) business.

Trust me, I hate GW more than I love it - I just feel like it can't be denied that their level of quality is, for the most part, unmatched by any other company on the same scale. This is not to say that "GW is the best ergo all other miniatures are poor quality" - I for one think Infinity miniatures are of great design and quality (particularly when you consider they're metal sculpts too, no fancy resin)

Speaking of Resin, shouldn't we be saying that Forge World has some of the best model sculpts?

G.A

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Spoiler:

As for other stuff, it's a question of keeping an eye on the various open day events and checking any blogs/threads which is first hand reporting, it's fair to say that if two or three report the same thing it isn't made up. Have a dig around in N+R.

Cheers for this, I'll be sure to dig around for some more stuff.

Regardless, would you or anyone else say it is fair to assume that GW discontinued these lines for a long time due to lack of popularity? Or is this more down to typical GW madness?

Chicken and egg, does the game become poorly supported and ultimately discontinued because people lose interest, or do people lose interest because the game is poorly supported?

In the case of GW SG, I think it was management's failure to appreciate that stuff can have a value beyond the money it makes. Sure, if it's hurting the whole business then a discussion needs to be had, but the lack of SG opened up a bunch of niches that had been previously dominated the way 40K dominates 30mm Sci Fi, and fans of those styles of game then turned to the competition and started buying product from them. That opened a Pandora's Box GW would have been much better off keeping closed, especially as the accessibility for new manufacturers has been steadily falling in cost.

Kirby's lack of vison is a matter of record (who remembers Pokemon?!) and I think the original loss of SG was a symptom of that.

 Azreal13 wrote:


Chicken and egg, does the game become poorly supported and ultimately discontinued because people lose interest, or do people lose interest because the game is poorly supported?

In the case of GW SG, I think it was management's failure to appreciate that stuff can have a value beyond the money it makes. Sure, if it's hurting the whole business then a discussion needs to be had, but the lack of SG opened up a bunch of niches that had been previously dominated the way 40K dominates 30mm Sci Fi, and fans of those styles of game then turned to the competition and started buying product from them. That opened a Pandora's Box GW would have been much better off keeping closed, especially as the accessibility for new manufacturers has been steadily falling in cost.

Kirby's lack of vison is a matter of record (who remembers Pokemon?!) and I think the original loss of SG was a symptom of that.

Yes that seems like a dead end in terms of factual information; GW has made some more than odd decisions over the years, but it's difficult to attribute it to one particular factor of the company.

Going back to the point of this thread, I'd say that if financial difficulty is the underlying problem, there isn't much you can do about it. Sure a few stores online sell GW products at a discount, but ultimately it sounds like you're confined to whatever you can afford, and that something is probably a game that GW does not own.

It's funny how people who play videogames rant about how $60 is too much for a AAA title. They have nooo idea

G.A

 Azreal13 wrote:
Kirby's lack of vison is a matter of record (who remembers Pokemon?!)

Oh god, I'd almost forgotten about that one. Sure is a great time to laugh about it again!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Kirby's lack of vison is a matter of record (who remembers Pokemon?!)

Oh god, I'd almost forgotten about that one. Sure is a great time to laugh about it again!

What? We're referencing things I don't know but I'd like to.

In one of Kirby's rambles he referenced the longevity of the company vs stuff that "nobody had heard of in years" or words to that effect.

He used RPGs and Pokemon as examples...

pm713 wrote:
What? We're referencing things I don't know but I'd like to.

A while back GW's annual investor report had a bit from the CEO about how GW is built to last, unlike all those silly toy fads like Pokemon that nobody remembers. It was hilarious even back then because the report came out shortly after the latest Pokemon video game had out-sold GW's entire annual revenue in 48 hours. It really summed up GW management, staggering levels of idiocy presented as if it is the most reasonable thing ever, to an audience that is too ignorant of the gaming industry to realize how bad it is.

Wow. Kirby is a fabulous source of tips on how to look stupid it seems.

 Azreal13 wrote:
In one of Kirby's rambles he referenced the longevity of the company vs stuff that "nobody had heard of in years" or words to that effect.

He used RPGs and Pokemon as examples...

Looks like we found the culprit for GW's bad business practices

Hey has anyone heard of Pokemon GO?

G.A

 insaniak wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
GW don't set high prices because it costs them alot, they set them because their sales are abysmal and they have to keep profits up any means necessary.

The fact that GW's prices have always been at the upper end of the market, even when their sales were fantastic, suggests otherwise.

Past history suggests that GW sets their prices high for no reason other than because they can. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Epic would be any more affordable now than it was last time it was available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:

Dropzone Commander is on a 10mm scale and even the infantry looks nice enough.

They really don't. And they look worse with an average paintjob.


For my money, anything smaller than 25mm is really only suitable for games that focus predominantly on vehicles or giant creatures, because human-sized models at those scales are featureless blobs. If you want to play infantry engagements like that, you're better off not spending all that money on miniatures and going for a game that uses tokens for units instead.

I remember when £5 got you five plastic marines, £4 got you a terminator with special weapon £9 got you a metal special character, to say their prices have always been high is not strictly true there was a time pocket money would let you buy more than paint.

Even in the early 2000's you got 20 plastic Canadians for less than £20, it all went down hill 2004 when they cancelled specialist games and turned their backs on veterans, the Kirby years are what drove prices up he inherited a booming company and set about ruining it in spectacular fashion.

hobojebus wrote:

Even in the early 2000's you got 20 plastic Canadians for less than £20,

Wait! When did GW ever sell plastic Canadians?!

 SolarCross wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Even in the early 2000's you got 20 plastic Canadians for less than £20,

Wait! When did GW ever sell plastic Canadians?!

Gotta love me my Canadians

In all seriousness, that joke has been around for ages

G.A

£9 in 1995 is equal to £16 today, adjusted for inflation.

Ragnar Blackmane, who must be amongst the oldest sculpts still available, is £12.

The cost relative to income per item isn't horrific, it's that the ceiling has crept up and up with ever bigger kits and the scope of the game has gradually encompassed more and more models.

So the price relative to inflation isn't that bad, the cost relative to the % of your army it represents is where the real damage has been done.

hobojebus wrote:

I remember when £5 got you five plastic marines, £4 got you a terminator with special weapon £9 got you a metal special character, to say their prices have always been high is not strictly true there was a time pocket money would let you buy more than paint.

What I said was that their prices have always been at the upper end of the market.

I've been playing 40k since 1995. For all of that time, GW minis have been more expensive than most of their competitors, and have been commonly regarded as more expensive than they should be.

It's become more pronounced in recent years, but was always there.

 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:

How is this any different from buying a plastic toy G.I. Joe tank at ToysRUs for $30? Or any sized action figure for $15 compared to a $90 Wraithlord? Companies like Matel and Hasbro sell toys around those price ranges and they seem to be holding pretty well.

The difference there is volume. Matel and Hasbro sell so many more units that's it's ridiculous.

Mattel, since you mentioned them, have a sales revenue of ~ $2 billion - 16x GW.

How many wraithlords do you think sell? How many of those action figures? When you're selling way more you can spread your upfront costs (moulds, development, etc.) much more thinly. Likewise, ToysRUs is much higher volume than game store and so can add far less margin to products.


GW's price per model isn't overly high compared to many competitors. Look at Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, Mercs, Malifaux, etc. - the average £/model in your army is almost certainly lower in a 40K army. 40K is expensive because it needs lots of models and the ruleset breaks down at low points values. If GW offered a ruleset modification for ~500points then 40K would be pretty comparable to those games I mentioned on overall cost.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Daemonhost Cherubael wrote:

How is this any different from buying a plastic toy G.I. Joe tank at ToysRUs for $30? Or any sized action figure for $15 compared to a $90 Wraithlord? Companies like Matel and Hasbro sell toys around those price ranges and they seem to be holding pretty well.

The difference there is volume. Matel and Hasbro sell so many more units that's it's ridiculous.

Mattel, since you mentioned them, have a sales revenue of ~ $2 billion - 16x GW.

How many wraithlords do you think sell? How many of those action figures? When you're selling way more you can spread your upfront costs (moulds, development, etc.) much more thinly. Likewise, ToysRUs is much higher volume than game store and so can add far less margin to products.

This is a good point, but you can make a similar argument in regards to GW and PP. I'm sure GW sells more than PP, certainly historically, but the prices remain pretty close, or heavily in GW's favor.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

GW's price per model isn't overly high compared to many competitors. Look at Warmachine, X-Wing, Infinity, Mercs, Malifaux, etc. - the average £/model in your army is almost certainly lower in a 40K army. 40K is expensive because it needs lots of models and the ruleset breaks down at low points values. If GW offered a ruleset modification for ~500points then 40K would be pretty comparable to those games I mentioned on overall cost.

I was curious about this, so I went to the websites for both companies to compare. Here is what I found;

Infantry; PP seems to average about 5-7 per model, while GW seems to be 4-10 per model (I didn't include outliers like sisters and some really old PP models). Comparing the basic troops, GW has a big advantage. Elite infantry, PP seems to have a big advantage.
I would say this is a wash. From a modeling POV, GW wins since they give more sprues. From a gaming POV, Basic troops are garbage in 40k for most armies, so you need to compare elites and that is where PP pulls ahead. A squad of troops in Warmachine also goes further and can be smaller than a squad of troops in 40k, while being roughly the same point cost if not greater (percent wise).

I would say this is a tie.
I specifically compared Tactical marines, Terminators (I put oblits as a...random, they are very expensive), assault marines, and some necron models. For WM/H, I looked at cygnar models.
I can see why basic troops are bad in 40k. They are the best deal by far.

Cavarly/Jetbikes. Roughly the same again, a unit of 3 seems to cost 40-50 for both. Again, modeling GW wins, game wise PP.
Compared necron stalkers and oblits with stormlances and steel heads.

Leaders. PP is in the 10-20 range for single leader models (Cygnar), while GW is in the 20-30 range for single leader models (Chaos.Marines). For units, PP is about 30 for a 3 man unit (H3) while GW is 50 for a 2 man unit (captain plus honor guard)
PP wins big here. You also need only 1 of these per list for PP, for GW you might want 2 or more.

Heavy Tanks/Jacks. This is where PP pulls way ahead.
Jacks are about 15-30, with lights being at the bottom and heavies at the top. Characters are slightly more expensive than average of course, but not so bad. I looked at Cygnar jacks.
Tanks and heavies from GW are crazy overpriced. Transports are 40 (so already more than a jack), Tanks are closer to 60-70. That's crazy from any perspective, gameplay or model wise. A rhino is boring compared to a jack, and 2 jacks get you a lot further than one vindicator when building an army.

LoW/Gargants. For PP, 130-135 is the average. For GW, 140-160 is the average. PP wins again.

So, basically Scott, you are wrong. PP is on average the same or much much cheaper than GW in nearly every way. Basic troops are the biggest exception, and for most armies, those are really bad. I imagine if I looked at the horde armies, the prices per model would be better (I stayed with marines mostly, being the most popular army and would most likely be the cheapest) but the dollars per point would be much worse.

This isn't including rules or deals, where PP is much better as well. WM/H seems cheaper to me in nearly every way.

 General Annoyance wrote:

Regardless, would you or anyone else say it is fair to assume that GW discontinued these lines for a long time due to lack of popularity? Or is this more down to typical GW madness?

I assume it comes down to volume of sales. Specialist Games by nature don't generate as much revenue.

In a game like Blood Bowl, a player could own more teams than they'll ever get around to playing and still spend significantly less than they would on an average 40K army, even though the cost of developing and producing miniatures for both games is going to be about the same.

 adamsouza wrote:
Repeating "7th edition is a lame duck" is 40K equivalent of "Obama is a muslim". There is no proof of either, and simply saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

How is there no proof? Sad Panda is the most accurate rumor monger we have, and those words came straight out of his mouth on this very forum. Considering this is the same guy who told us we weren't going to be getting any major codex updates after Tau, I don't understand how you can doubt him. We've had a breakneck release cycle for the last few years, and we've gone nine months without a major update for a 40K army and there's still none in sight. Clearly you're in the minority of people who love 7th edition, and that's cool, but you're refuting the community's most reliable source of information from inside the company.

 General Annoyance wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
No, they're more expensive because they have the best quality miniatures on the market. I don't consider that debatable for anyone who has eyes honestly.

It's entirely debatable. GW does have legitimate competition for the "best miniatures" title, and arguably that competition produces stuff that GW would envy. GW is in a good position quality-wise, but let's not get so far into GW apologism that anyone who favors another brand "doesn't have eyes".

Ok perhaps that was a little uncalled for, but genuinely I can't think of a company that can match their standards on the scale that they do. Only one that springs to mind is Victoria Miniatures, but Miss Lamb is just one person running a fairly small (but well known) business.

Trust me, I hate GW more than I love it - I just feel like it can't be denied that their level of quality is, for the most part, unmatched by any other company on the same scale. This is not to say that "GW is the best ergo all other miniatures are poor quality" - I for one think Infinity miniatures are of great design and quality (particularly when you consider they're metal sculpts too, no fancy resin)

Speaking of Resin, shouldn't we be saying that Forge World has some of the best model sculpts?

G.A

It's just a matter of taste, and many times, perspective.

I don't believe GW are unmatched when it comes to quality for 28/30/33mm models. Not at all.

I could spend a lot of time digging for examples, which I don't have, so I'll speak only from memory. In terms of space fantasy/sci-fi there are several companies out there than are more than a match to GW's quality. HiTech miniatures have some gorgeous models in catalogue, although it's certainly not a cheap company. Dreamforge has fantastic infantry kits too, and a vehicle kit that (although expensive) pretty much gakks all over all GW's imperium vehicles.

In regards to medieval fantasy, the market is simply crowded with alternatives that in many cases match GW's quality for a vastly inferior price. Check The Russian Alternative's metal models (they dropped prices a while ago, now it's like 10 infantry models for 23€ or so). Check MOM (resin). Check Avatars of War (specially the metal characters). Or just grab a box of the Perrys' and get 40 high quality plastic infantrymen for like 25€.

GW do have very good models in their vast catalogue, but at this stage they're very very far from being at the undisputed top.

 SolarCross wrote:
We need to face facts. 28mm is a scale nice for hobby model kits where you can happily spend hours painting each individual freckle on Captain Herodude's face but it is a terrible, terrible scale for gaming. It is okay only for squad vs squad level games like Necromunda or Space Hulk but utterly absurd for anything larger. ABSURD! GW knows this and they keep telling you, it's a hobby, it's a hobby, the game is not important. The game exists only so you can put your big pretty miniatures on display for someone else to admire. 40k is about collecting, crafting, storytelling, displaying and spending quality social time with fellow hobbyists.

This! So much this.

https://www.baccus6mm.com/includes/news/28mmmyth.inc.php

Just look at the pictures. Which sells better big battles? Which is easier to store and set up? Which doesn't require frigging football field to play big battles with appropriate space for manouvering and not just slam together and roll 'em up?

28mm is lousy scale for anything but small skirmishes(which are fun but 40k is NOT small skirmish)

28mm scale itself is historical relic that was chosen not because it was ideal for wargaming...But because it started with fitting scale more to the train modeler scale and then got scaled up steadily in scale creep. Which worked while miniatures were mostly used for RPG counters but then when they started to be used for wargames limitations of scale started to show...But by then mentality had struct. Then came in GW and with their good marketing strategy they got in pretty dominant share. Now it's running on it's own inertia.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Qlanth wrote:
I find that argument to be pretty shallow. The true test of any game is whether or not people play it. Whether it's a board game, a video game, or a miniwar game, whatever. If it's good, people will play it. If it's not, they won't. And 40k has nothing to prove. The last 30 years of 40k gaming demonstrate that people like the format and want that scale of play.

Nothing to prove? Yet it's shrinking in player base when lots of other games are increasing...

And so the same argument resurfaces again...

 adamsouza wrote:
Repeating "7th edition is a lame duck" is 40K equivalent of "Obama is a muslim". There is no proof of either, and simply saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

6th Edition was a lame duck. We know that since it was the shortest, speed bump, of an edition in 40K history.

Rumors of 8th edition being just around the corner have existed since before 7th edition was even released. It's a snarky joke that people who were butthurt about 6ths short life span started, and that critics of GW and 7th edition won't let drop.

As for EPIC scaled 40K, it requires that you love the game enough that you don't care what the miniatures really look like.
EPIC sized figures are too tiny to sculpt detail. Too tiny to paint detail. EPIC scale is 1 step away from playing with figure flats and cardboard chits. Some people eat that up, most don't.

EPIC has been through 2 incarnations, neither of them sold well enough for GW to want to keep making them long term.

8th ed is hinted by very reliable members.

And besides sale numbers don't lie. 40k sales are dropping in #'s. Only thing keeping profits up there is price hikes. That's not very sustainable scenario long term though.

And whether epic sells or not isn't really factor in whether GW keeps or not. Last one exceeded their expectations by _400%_ yet they canned it.

But hey keep repeating "all is fine all is fine all is fine" mantra while 40k sales keep dropping


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hobojebus wrote:
If fow can do plastic tanks at £5 GW could certainly do a smaller kit for cheaper.

The idea it'd be £15 is bewildering.

GW don't set high prices because it costs them alot, they set them because their sales are abysmal and they have to keep profits up any means necessary.

Especially with economics of scale.

Heck as it is GW could already in 28mm outprice their competition if they wanted(and had rules that would make people want to actually play and buy their models!). But that would countermand their "we sell collector kits for collectors" mentality.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Repeating "7th edition is a lame duck" is 40K equivalent of "Obama is a muslim". There is no proof of either, and simply saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

How is there no proof? Sad Panda is the most accurate rumor monger we have, and those words came straight out of his mouth on this very forum.

Unless you can quote me something more recent, the last thing I know Sad Panda said was that there will be no 8th edition in 2016.

That's not the same thing as 8th is coming "soon".

As for recent 40K releases we've gotten Battle for Vedros, Deathwatch Overkill, Betrayal At Calth individual Box sets, Munitorum Armored Containers, Death from the Skies, and Angels of Death, off the top of my head. That's hardly nothing.

As for 40k army updates, people spent all of last year complaining about how FAST codexes were updated. Now you're using a pause, that they are using to push AoS on us, to complain that they aren't doing enough 40K army updates ?

There are the 7th Ed 40K Army FAQs being released weekly.

You can throw bones and read the results any way you want, but you're relying on faith not facts.

tneva82 wrote:

 SolarCross wrote:
We need to face facts. 28mm is a scale nice for hobby model kits where you can happily spend hours painting each individual freckle on Captain Herodude's face but it is a terrible, terrible scale for gaming. It is okay only for squad vs squad level games like Necromunda or Space Hulk but utterly absurd for anything larger. ABSURD! GW knows this and they keep telling you, it's a hobby, it's a hobby, the game is not important. The game exists only so you can put your big pretty miniatures on display for someone else to admire. 40k is about collecting, crafting, storytelling, displaying and spending quality social time with fellow hobbyists.

This! So much this.

https://www.baccus6mm.com/includes/news/28mmmyth.inc.php

Just look at the pictures. Which sells better big battles? Which is easier to store and set up? Which doesn't require frigging football field to play big battles with appropriate space for manouvering and not just slam together and roll 'em up?

28mm is lousy scale for anything but small skirmishes(which are fun but 40k is NOT small skirmish)

28mm scale itself is historical relic that was chosen not because it was ideal for wargaming...But because it started with fitting scale more to the train modeler scale and then got scaled up steadily in scale creep. Which worked while miniatures were mostly used for RPG counters but then when they started to be used for wargames limitations of scale started to show...But by then mentality had struct. Then came in GW and with their good marketing strategy they got in pretty dominant share. Now it's running on it's own inertia.

Thanks for sharing that link, I enjoyed reading that. I guess 40k did start as a small skirmish game, way back when it was Rogue Trader, but it has creeped up in scope over the decades trying to become a full wargame until we are now in 7th where formations are floated that require hundreds of infantry and half a dozen tanks to form. The sad thing is despite the gargantuan cost in time and money it takes to field even a minimal Cadian Battle Group and the logistical absurdity of moving it, storing and even just trying to fit it on a table on deployment, a couple of hundred blokes and a few tanks is still not really much of an "army". Epic was really where 40k should have stayed to do big battles whilst remaining sane and sustainably saleable. 28mm should just have been for small skirmish, painting comps and dioramas.

 adamsouza wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Repeating "7th edition is a lame duck" is 40K equivalent of "Obama is a muslim". There is no proof of either, and simply saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

How is there no proof? Sad Panda is the most accurate rumor monger we have, and those words came straight out of his mouth on this very forum.

Unless you can quote me something more recent, the last thing I know Sad Panda said was that there will be no 8th edition in 2016.

That's not the same thing as 8th is coming "soon".

As for recent 40K releases we've gotten Battle for Vedros, Deathwatch Overkill, Betrayal At Calth individual Box sets, Munitorum Armored Containers, Death from the Skies, and Angels of Death, off the top of my head. That's hardly nothing.

As for 40k army updates, people spent all of last year complaining about how FAST codexes were updated. Now you're using a pause, that they are using to push AoS on us, to complain that they aren't doing enough 40K army updates ?

There are the 7th Ed 40K Army FAQs being released weekly.

You can throw bones and read the results any way you want, but you're relying on faith not facts.

Truly exceptional goal post moving. I said absolutely nothing about how soon 8th edition was going to be, you'll notice that I specifically singled out your refusal to accept that Games Workshop views 7th edition as a lame duck edition. As for a recent source of Sad Panda saying this, here you go.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/691067.page#8660768

Straight from the horse's mouth. As to the rest of your rebuttal, I never once said they're doing 40K updates too fast. I merely said that Sad Panda has told us we aren't going to be seeing any codex updates any time soon, and not a single thing you posted in your list of 40K releases is a codex update. Calth, Death from the Skies, Vedros - these are not major updates to anything, they're patchwork releases to throw fans a bone and keep them interested.

EDIT: edited to include the original link. Thanks, Azreal.

Here's the direct link to the original post too, rather than a requote...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/691067.page#8660768

 General Annoyance wrote:
I can't think of a company that can match their standards on the scale that they do.

Are you talking about only in plastics? Or maybe discounting any other company that isn't as big as them?

Because if you aren't discounting metal or resin I'd say Infinity blow GW out of the water:
From their recently announced two player box that's coming soon.
Compared to the most recent GW release of infantry sized models I know of:
Now don't get me wrong people have been saying they love those new tree guys, but personally I look at them individually and just see really flat, really static, plastic. I don't see much in the way of fine details and interesting textures, even the swirly magic glowy things look way too big and cartoony.


Now if you wanted to argue that doesn't count because it's not plastic and not a like for like comparison, I'd point to dreamforge games.
Might be a little controversial to say but I like them every bit as much as:


Something I can't imagine would be controversial to say is that I think the dreamforge leviathans, with their ridiculous amount of poseability and customization crap all over the Imperial Knight and it's entirely static legs.


Now if your problem was more with the fact that those companies are small little guys who don't have to produce things on the same scale as GW I'd probably argue Corvus Belli are a lot closer than you think, but let's forget that for now

How about Tamiya model kits? They have been around since 1946, and the detail on some of their stuff id astounding. Their tank kits include things like brass etc and metal barrels so you don't have to deal with horrible mould lines.
Honestly compared to that I think GW's tanks look like goofy toys with massivly oversized rivets and gaps were the armour plates meet. Hell, the tracks on a Tamiya kit will usually be rubber and in the higher end ones actual metal links.




And then there is Gundam kits.
Gundam kits are just cheating.
My roommate started building one the other day and off the sprue with him having done nothing other than clip it free, it had working pistons and joints. They have managed to build the mould in such a way that this kind of stuff is possible:

I don't know much about Gundam, but I believe that is a Bandai kit, which is every bit as popular in Japan as GW is in the UK, if not more, and god damn I'd love to see that kinda of modeling technology come over to the model wargaming side of things.




I don't honestly see anything GW does that others don't do better at this point, but GW is charging as if they are the undisputed best in the industry and they don't need to worry about pricing their products too high because the quality will speak for itself.
Being an Australian I can confidently say it doesn't cut it here anymore, and they have priced themselves far too high to make it easy to bring in new players.

I'm just jumping in to comment as someone who has no concern what so ever but wants to voice which looks "best" of all those linked.

The metal minis at the top blow away the newest GW release for AoS. In my opinion.

Then the next set of comparisons I think GW takes it by a mile in this regard. The plastic infantryman suffers from that old school bloated plastic look just a little more than the marine does. The best comparison I can make is look at old school XV8 and new school XV8 and you'll see the design is much more crisp looking. It is pretty close in terms of quality though and has an edge over a lot of older GW models for sure.

As for the tanks real life tanks are usually a bad comparison to sci fi because sci fi is designed to look visually appealing where as real tanks were designed to be real effective war machines while not costing a lot. So they have this minimalist military look.

I would give the edge to the landraider for being the more technically proficient model, but as I said its not a fair comparison to the team who made the tiger tank since that is how it actually looks in real life. If they made a line of more sci-fi tanks where they could let their creativity flow and make the model super detailed I would be willing to take a look at round two.

As to the gundam kits I don't know. Too indepth for me.

@ Jonospiel, wow great post there.

So what we need is Fantasy Flight to make the rules/fluff for the game and get Bandai to make the minis. Perfect 40K then.

 Gamgee wrote:
I would give the edge to the landraider for being the more technically proficient model, but as I said its not a fair comparison to the team who made the tiger tank since that is how it actually looks in real life. If they made a line of more sci-fi tanks where they could let their creativity flow and make the model super detailed I would be willing to take a look at round two.

Lolwat? Have you ever had one of those historical vehicle kits in your hands? Their level of detail and design on every little piece blows GW's vehicles out of the water. I have an Italeri M113 converted as a Chaos Rhino and it's simply a much more detailed and minimalistic kit than the actual GW Rhino.

GW vehicles are mostly designed to be thrown around a table and endure the hits without taking too much damage, in terms of tiny details they simply can't compete with 1:35 historical kits.

 Gamgee wrote:
As for the tanks real life tanks are usually a bad comparison to sci fi because sci fi is designed to look visually appealing where as real tanks were designed to be real effective war machines while not costing a lot. So they have this minimalist military look.

You can't really compare the aesthetic choices, but you can compare things like minimum feature size, how well the parts fit, etc. And GW's vehicle kits lose pretty badly here. The detail elements are large and blocky, parts often have a bit of a gap so that it will still go together if a kid fails to align everything perfectly, etc. They're designed to be easy to build and paint for low-skill users and to survive careless handling by people who don't really care about their models.

Now, this doesn't make them bad models, and they're still ahead of most of what the rest of the non-historical industry is producing, but compared to historical kits they're definitely lacking if what you want is the best looking model possible. And they cost a lot more.

I mean your judging quality of the miniatures solely on detail. GW is clearly going for a certain aesthetic. Is Overwatch worse than the new Doom just because its a less detailed, cartoonish game? I'm sure GW could make models like that if they wanted too.

I think as for aesthetics go GW really does have everyone beat. While I like other miniature games I can't go anywhere else for the same type of visuals. I think its great that other companies are offering variety, but its not the same thing.

I mean, you did some comparisons, but what about dynamic models such as Nagash, Archaon or Alarielle the Everqueen? Is a Gundam really even comparable because it has more intricate joints? I don't really think you can compare the two.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
I can't think of a company that can match their standards on the scale that they do.

Are you talking about only in plastics? Or maybe discounting any other company that isn't as big as them?

Because if you aren't discounting metal or resin I'd say Infinity blow GW out of the water:

Spoiler:

From their recently announced two player box that's coming soon.
Compared to the most recent GW release of infantry sized models I know of:

Spoiler:

Now don't get me wrong people have been saying they love those new tree guys, but personally I look at them individually and just see really flat, really static, plastic. I don't see much in the way of fine details and interesting textures, even the swirly magic glowy things look way too big and cartoony.


Now if you wanted to argue that doesn't count because it's not plastic and not a like for like comparison, I'd point to dreamforge games.

Spoiler:

Might be a little controversial to say but I like them every bit as much as:

Spoiler:

Something I can't imagine would be controversial to say is that I think the dreamforge leviathans, with their ridiculous amount of poseability and customization crap all over the Imperial Knight and it's entirely static legs.


Now if your problem was more with the fact that those companies are small little guys who don't have to produce things on the same scale as GW I'd probably argue Corvus Belli are a lot closer than you think, but let's forget that for now

How about Tamiya model kits? They have been around since 1946, and the detail on some of their stuff id astounding. Their tank kits include things like brass etc and metal barrels so you don't have to deal with horrible mould lines.

Spoiler:

Honestly compared to that I think GW's tanks look like goofy toys with massivly oversized rivets and gaps were the armour plates meet. Hell, the tracks on a Tamiya kit will usually be rubber and in the higher end ones actual metal links.

Spoiler:

And then there is Gundam kits.
Gundam kits are just cheating.
My roommate started building one the other day and off the sprue with him having done nothing other than clip it free, it had working pistons and joints. They have managed to build the mould in such a way that this kind of stuff is possible:

Spoiler:

I don't know much about Gundam, but I believe that is a Bandai kit, which is every bit as popular in Japan as GW is in the UK, if not more, and god damn I'd love to see that kinda of modeling technology come over to the model wargaming side of things.




I don't honestly see anything GW does that others don't do better at this point, but GW is charging as if they are the undisputed best in the industry and they don't need to worry about pricing their products too high because the quality will speak for itself.
Being an Australian I can confidently say it doesn't cut it here anymore, and they have priced themselves far too high to make it easy to bring in new players.

Gundam kits are playing off the success of their animated series, I have no idea why the series is popular or how it managed several stand alone series, most with at least three seasons (I found all of them kind of dull) but I have a mate who foams at the mouth whenever they release a new model, ironically enough a 40k player.

I've got an Infinity army. Putting metal models together is a nightmare, everything had to be filed down to fit reasonably snug (thank goodness I own a dremel kit) still, I'd be keen to expand that army when the models go plastic or resin.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


Gundam kits are playing off the success of their animated series, I have no idea why the series is popular or how it managed several stand alone series, most with at least three seasons (I found all of them kind of dull) but I have a mate who foams at the mouth whenever they release a new model, ironically enough a 40k player.

I don't really think it's ironic, it actually makes sense. 40k and Gundam have a lot in common.
40k is really banking on a lot of its past success (Rogue Trader, 3rd, 5th edition) and fluff rather than any quality of the model or game. I think Gundam, state side anyway, got popular with Gundam Wing. The other series weren't nearly as popular imo.

I don't really see how its relevant though. It's pretty clear that the gundam destroys 40k models while still coming from, what I imagine to be, a niche market (I can't imagine gundam models sales equal say...legos). Price wise, infinity and historicals are more than a match it seems. 40k has a unique background that keeps it going, and that's it. Perhaps some additional platforms that get people interested (Dawn of war and other games).

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

I've got an Infinity army. Putting metal models together is a nightmare, everything had to be filed down to fit reasonably snug (thank goodness I own a dremel kit) still, I'd be keen to expand that army when the models go plastic or resin.

I had similar ideas about my skaven army. Making and painting all those slaves was annoying, and the larger pieces like the doom wheel made me want to smash it to pieces. I've never been so annoyed with any model in my entire life, and that's saying something.

There are other companies out there. Buy their stuff. Some GW stuff is priced high. Others, like "start collecting" boxes and the BaC box set are inexpensive.

If you want alternate models that can still be used in GW games (although not in a GW store), give the Mantic ones a shot. While some ARE lacking in quality, their Enforcers are pretty epic.

If you want to try other games, super heroes are pretty popular right now; get into the Knight Model Marvel or Batman game. My friend has played both and said they are similar, although the Marvel one is easier to start. A starter set can be found on eBay for $40 or less. Individual characters can be bought a for $20 or less ($20 is retail). Give it a shot, it's a helluva lot of fun. Maybe at some point GW stuff will become something your friends feel comfortable with the purchase point later; but try something else for now. Also, X-Wing is another good thing to start, but that game starts cheap and gets expensive. Marvel is currently cheap; $100 CAN currently get you a full lineup for one team, OR be just shy of buying all 3 starter sets.

Akiasura wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


Gundam kits are playing off the success of their animated series, I have no idea why the series is popular or how it managed several stand alone series, most with at least three seasons (I found all of them kind of dull) but I have a mate who foams at the mouth whenever they release a new model, ironically enough a 40k player.

I don't really think it's ironic, it actually makes sense. 40k and Gundam have a lot in common.
40k is really banking on a lot of its past success (Rogue Trader, 3rd, 5th edition) and fluff rather than any quality of the model or game. I think Gundam, state side anyway, got popular with Gundam Wing. The other series weren't nearly as popular imo.



I don't really see how its relevant though. It's pretty clear that the gundam destroys 40k models while still coming from, what I imagine to be, a niche market (I can't imagine gundam models sales equal say...legos). Price wise, infinity and historicals are more than a match it seems. 40k has a unique background that keeps it going, and that's it. Perhaps some additional platforms that get people interested (Dawn of war and other games).

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

I've got an Infinity army. Putting metal models together is a nightmare, everything had to be filed down to fit reasonably snug (thank goodness I own a dremel kit) still, I'd be keen to expand that army when the models go plastic or resin.

I had similar ideas about my skaven army. Making and painting all those slaves was annoying, and the larger pieces like the doom wheel made me want to smash it to pieces. I've never been so annoyed with any model in my entire life, and that's saying something.

Skaven? They're the fantasy rats aren't they?

 Don Savik wrote:
I mean your judging quality of the miniatures solely on detail. GW is clearly going for a certain aesthetic. Is Overwatch worse than the new Doom just because its a less detailed, cartoonish game? I'm sure GW could make models like that if they wanted too.

I think as for aesthetics go GW really does have everyone beat. While I like other miniature games I can't go anywhere else for the same type of visuals. I think its great that other companies are offering variety, but its not the same thing.

I mean, you did some comparisons, but what about dynamic models such as Nagash, Archaon or Alarielle the Everqueen? Is a Gundam really even comparable because it has more intricate joints? I don't really think you can compare the two.

I very deliberately avoided making aesthetics comparisons as that is almost entirely subjective. I and not one bit impressed with Archaon or Alarielle because I find them just way too big and flashy with very little real... substance (for lack of a better word) to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I've got an Infinity army. Putting metal models together is a nightmare, everything had to be filed down to fit reasonably snug (thank goodness I own a dremel kit) still, I'd be keen to expand that army when the models go plastic or resin.

I'd suggest picking up a newer blister if you see something you like and it's cheap. Anything since the Operation Icestorm set I think you'll find a pleasant surprise to put together, they have barely any flash to clean up and the arms always line up perfectly on the newer models in my experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamgee wrote:
I would give the edge to the landraider for being the more technically proficient model

Sorry but that's just wrong. I'd say the land raider's only saving grace against a Tamiya tank is that it's easy to assemble for newer modelers. I mean have a look at the instructions for that Tiger:

Complex for sure, but far more technically proficient given that it is the kind of model that's treads work, has a ball join mounted gun, and has much smaller parts (like those handles that they use on the turrent hatch).

 SolarCross wrote:
Thanks for sharing that link, I enjoyed reading that. I guess 40k did start as a small skirmish game, way back when it was Rogue Trader, but it has creeped up in scope over the decades trying to become a full wargame until we are now in 7th where formations are floated that require hundreds of infantry and half a dozen tanks to form. The sad thing is despite the gargantuan cost in time and money it takes to field even a minimal Cadian Battle Group and the logistical absurdity of moving it, storing and even just trying to fit it on a table on deployment, a couple of hundred blokes and a few tanks is still not really much of an "army". Epic was really where 40k should have stayed to do big battles whilst remaining sane and sustainably saleable. 28mm should just have been for small skirmish, painting comps and dioramas.

That article is what first converted me to fan of 6mm(was bit of hard to refind it though. That site redesigned itself and article itself is years old so wasn't at least quickly found on new site. But what's put on internet STAYS in internet! It was just matter of figuring how to get it ).

Battles really look like battles with 6mm models and you can actually have room to manouver. Very important factor to prevent game from becoming simply close range slug fest.

And even long range weapons starts to feel more sensible. Basilisk in 28mm scale is just ridiculous. If enemy gets that close to basilisk something has gone seriously awry already!

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
I mean your judging quality of the miniatures solely on detail. GW is clearly going for a certain aesthetic. Is Overwatch worse than the new Doom just because its a less detailed, cartoonish game? I'm sure GW could make models like that if they wanted too.

I think as for aesthetics go GW really does have everyone beat. While I like other miniature games I can't go anywhere else for the same type of visuals. I think its great that other companies are offering variety, but its not the same thing.

I mean, you did some comparisons, but what about dynamic models such as Nagash, Archaon or Alarielle the Everqueen? Is a Gundam really even comparable because it has more intricate joints? I don't really think you can compare the two.

I very deliberately avoided making aesthetics comparisons as that is almost entirely subjective. I and not one bit impressed with Archaon or Alarielle because I find them just way too big and flashy with very little real... substance (for lack of a better word) to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I've got an Infinity army. Putting metal models together is a nightmare, everything had to be filed down to fit reasonably snug (thank goodness I own a dremel kit) still, I'd be keen to expand that army when the models go plastic or resin.

I'd suggest picking up a newer blister if you see something you like and it's cheap. Anything since the Operation Icestorm set I think you'll find a pleasant surprise to put together, they have barely any flash to clean up and the arms always line up perfectly on the newer models in my experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gamgee wrote:
I would give the edge to the landraider for being the more technically proficient model

Sorry but that's just wrong. I'd say the land raider's only saving grace against a Tamiya tank is that it's easy to assemble for newer modelers. I mean have a look at the instructions for that Tiger:

Spoiler:

Complex for sure, but far more technically proficient given that it is the kind of model that's treads work, has a ball join mounted gun, and has much smaller parts (like those handles that they use on the turrent hatch).

I don't see anything that makes it any harder to make than my Tau stuff. I'm probably one of the "newest" fans of modeling and 40k on these boards with not quite two years since I started this hobby. It's of comparable difficulty. My only experience is the Tau range. There is technicality more to its assembly, but when its done and visually presented the detail is lost.

I meant more from the point of view of how they produce the kits.

GW still can't do undercuts in their plastic as far as I know, while other companies are producing working joints and sockets on the sprue.

GW have, to their credit, innovated in the last few years. I have to imagine they made some big changes behind the scenes to be able to make plastic characters feasible, but they haven't done enough to stay ahead of their competitors in the wargaming world, nor catch up to the scale model kit folks.

Tamiya kits blow GW clean away and torpedo their already sinking ship.
I have two Tamiya 1/35 Panzer II's that I use as Leman Russ Exterminators. They are the right size, they look a lot better and they are far superior in detailing and design.
And they cost £10 each
GW really cannot compete.

(Actually I need to get some more - they are an amazing kit)

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


Skaven? They're the fantasy rats aren't they?

Yes, to give you an idea of how large the force was, skaven slaves were roughly 2 points per model. A common strategy was to take 3-5 50 man blocks of slaves to tie the enemy up while you shot mortars, flame throwers, and warp guns into their lines while the doom wheel and larger monsters ran up the flank.
So, you had 150 models that cost about 300 points. You then usually took another 30 man block for your commander, and maybe some smaller blocks of plague monks and regular troops to take the weapon attachments. You could easy field 250-300 models, sometimes 500 if you were just infantry waves.
There are no slave kits so you had to use other models or clan rats. This meant your slaves, and just your slaves, could be $300-500 not including glue and paint. For a small part of your army that died in droves.

And the doom wheel was the hardest to make. The kit didn't fit together and the whole thing could fall apart at an instant. But it was incredibly strong, so many serious players wanted at least 1. Oh god was it horrible. Fantasy had a lot of centerpiece models like that...Tomb Kings had I believe the screaming skull, Ogres had the scrap launcher, Dark elves had their various beasts. All strong, all a pain to put together.

40k is rough to get people into, but fantasy was so much worse. And for a while, it was completely imbalanced. Makes 40k look like WM/H

Akiasura wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


Skaven? They're the fantasy rats aren't they?

Yes, to give you an idea of how large the force was, skaven slaves were roughly 2 points per model. A common strategy was to take 3-5 50 man blocks of slaves to tie the enemy up while you shot mortars, flame throwers, and warp guns into their lines while the doom wheel and larger monsters ran up the flank.
So, you had 150 models that cost about 300 points. You then usually took another 30 man block for your commander, and maybe some smaller blocks of plague monks and regular troops to take the weapon attachments. You could easy field 250-300 models, sometimes 500 if you were just infantry waves.
There are no slave kits so you had to use other models or clan rats. This meant your slaves, and just your slaves, could be $300-500 not including glue and paint. For a small part of your army that died in droves.

And the doom wheel was the hardest to make. The kit didn't fit together and the whole thing could fall apart at an instant. But it was incredibly strong, so many serious players wanted at least 1. Oh god was it horrible. Fantasy had a lot of centerpiece models like that...Tomb Kings had I believe the screaming skull, Ogres had the scrap launcher, Dark elves had their various beasts. All strong, all a pain to put together.

40k is rough to get people into, but fantasy was so much worse. And for a while, it was completely imbalanced. Makes 40k look like WM/H

And the worst part was that the Skaven army was not even that competitive in 8th. As the Gunline and Avoidance Cavalry meta took over the poor Skaven really started to suffer. I have a clear recollection of one game I played against Chaos Dwarves that saw my entire 400+ model army wiped out by turn four.
Painting and collecting Skaven was a real chore too - you had hundreds of figures to get through and in the end I stopped caring and just gave up. I still get a few out and paint them up here and there but the sheer numbers that I have still to do have driven me off.
It is a pity. I do love my Skaven.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:


Skaven? They're the fantasy rats aren't they?

Yes, to give you an idea of how large the force was, skaven slaves were roughly 2 points per model. A common strategy was to take 3-5 50 man blocks of slaves to tie the enemy up while you shot mortars, flame throwers, and warp guns into their lines while the doom wheel and larger monsters ran up the flank.
So, you had 150 models that cost about 300 points. You then usually took another 30 man block for your commander, and maybe some smaller blocks of plague monks and regular troops to take the weapon attachments. You could easy field 250-300 models, sometimes 500 if you were just infantry waves.
There are no slave kits so you had to use other models or clan rats. This meant your slaves, and just your slaves, could be $300-500 not including glue and paint. For a small part of your army that died in droves.

And the doom wheel was the hardest to make. The kit didn't fit together and the whole thing could fall apart at an instant. But it was incredibly strong, so many serious players wanted at least 1. Oh god was it horrible. Fantasy had a lot of centerpiece models like that...Tomb Kings had I believe the screaming skull, Ogres had the scrap launcher, Dark elves had their various beasts. All strong, all a pain to put together.

40k is rough to get people into, but fantasy was so much worse. And for a while, it was completely imbalanced. Makes 40k look like WM/H

And the worst part was that the Skaven army was not even that competitive in 8th. As the Gunline and Avoidance Cavalry meta took over the poor Skaven really started to suffer. I have a clear recollection of one game I played against Chaos Dwarves that saw my entire 400+ model army wiped out by turn four.
Painting and collecting Skaven was a real chore too - you had hundreds of figures to get through and in the end I stopped caring and just gave up. I still get a few out and paint them up here and there but the sheer numbers that I have still to do have driven me off.
It is a pity. I do love my Skaven.

Then things managed to get worse somehow...

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Gundam kits are playing off the success of their animated series,

Isn't 40K playing off the 40K fluff? What is the difference? Not sure what your point is with this statement. One is playing off the animated series the other is playing off the fluff. If I didn't like the fluff so much I would have dropped 40K along time ago. I am sure not buying 40K minis because of the rules, that is for sure.

Davor wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Gundam kits are playing off the success of their animated series,

Isn't 40K playing off the 40K fluff? What is the difference? Not sure what your point is with this statement. One is playing off the animated series the other is playing off the fluff. If I didn't like the fluff so much I would have dropped 40K along time ago. I am sure not buying 40K minis because of the rules, that is for sure.

I imagine a difference is Gundam doesn't make some horrible writing to justify new kits. But then I wouldn't know.

GWs design philosophy has always been to sculpt a model then write it into the fluff, not the other way around.
That's hownwe get grap like the centurions.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Tamiya kits blow GW clean away and torpedo their already sinking ship.
I have two Tamiya 1/35 Panzer II's that I use as Leman Russ Exterminators. They are the right size, they look a lot better and they are far superior in detailing and design.
And they cost £10 each
GW really cannot compete.

They're not trying to.

Tamiya make scale models. GW make gaming miniatures.

 insaniak wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Tamiya kits blow GW clean away and torpedo their already sinking ship.
I have two Tamiya 1/35 Panzer II's that I use as Leman Russ Exterminators. They are the right size, they look a lot better and they are far superior in detailing and design.
And they cost £10 each
GW really cannot compete.

They're not trying to.

Tamiya make scale models. GW make gaming miniatures.

True, two clearly different markets, but they are producing a superior product and selling it at a cheaper price. That makes GW look like bad value if someone does make the comparison.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Tamiya kits blow GW clean away and torpedo their already sinking ship.
I have two Tamiya 1/35 Panzer II's that I use as Leman Russ Exterminators. They are the right size, they look a lot better and they are far superior in detailing and design.
And they cost £10 each
GW really cannot compete.

They're not trying to.

Tamiya make scale models. GW make gaming miniatures.

True, two clearly different markets, but they are producing a superior product and selling it at a cheaper price. That makes GW look like bad value if someone does make the comparison.

And, tbf, we already compared them to WM/H and they still came out looking worse. From a model PoV, from a deal/bundle PoV, and from a list building PoV.

GW is the most expensive mini game on the market. For...reasons that nobody is able to define outside of it's the most popular (which I think is no longer true), it's the oldest, it's the best looking (subjective)...and that's it. Model quality or it being secretly cheaper has been pretty debunked once you compare it to other games or minis.

 jonolikespie wrote:

True, two clearly different markets, but they are producing a superior product and selling it at a cheaper price. That makes GW look like bad value if someone does make the comparison.

Tamiya's product is only superior if you're comparing GW's product as the same thing.


Tamiya tanks are certainly better than GW's as scale models. As gaming miniatures, they're not as good - too fiddly (anf so time consuming) to build, and made from a harder and more brittle plastic with lots of little parts which makes them unsuitable for frequent handling and lugging about the countryside.

You can't really directly compare the two, because they're two very different products, in different genres, intended for different purposes. It's like trying to compare a sword and a cricket bat... They might look superficially similar, but which of them is better depends entirely on what you're trying to do with them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

GW is the most expensive mini game on the market. For...reasons that nobody is able to define outside of it's the most popular (which I think is no longer true), it's the oldest, it's the best looking (subjective)...and that's it. Model quality or it being secretly cheaper has been pretty debunked once you compare it to other games or minis.

I already gave the reason: GW set their prices high because they can.

 insaniak wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:

GW is the most expensive mini game on the market. For...reasons that nobody is able to define outside of it's the most popular (which I think is no longer true), it's the oldest, it's the best looking (subjective)...and that's it. Model quality or it being secretly cheaper has been pretty debunked once you compare it to other games or minis.

I already gave the reason: GW set their prices high because they can.

I think the point that is being made is that although we all know they can set the prices that high and people will pay them, it does price people out. And as a result it prevents new players from joining the game.

As a quick counterpoint to that, however, I know that at some point you can do the math on a product and determine how many customers will be priced out if you sell at X+1 vs. how much extra revenue you will bring in with increased prices. It's very possible that GW have set the prices at a point where they are still making more money without those customers who got priced out. The company I work for has done this with our product several times. Each time we lose customers because they can't afford the product. But the company is healthier overall because we bring in more revenue despite that. In the short term, anyway...

Akiasura wrote:

So, basically Scott, you are wrong. PP is on average the same or much much cheaper than GW in nearly every way. Basic troops are the biggest exception, and for most armies, those are really bad. I imagine if I looked at the horde armies, the prices per model would be better (I stayed with marines mostly, being the most popular army and would most likely be the cheapest) but the dollars per point would be much worse.

Try pricing up some actual armies and look at the $$/model.

Warmachine can be close depending on army composition but nearly always higher.

X-Wing, Mercs, Malifaux, Infinity are all way more per model. I've started Imperial Assault recently and the price per model is horrible for what are thoroughly mediocre miniatures.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

X-Wing, Mercs, Malifaux, Infinity are all way more per model.

In X-wing case instead of saying price per mini, it's price per box since a lot of times people don't buy the box or blister for the mini but for the cards.

I've started Imperial Assault recently and the price per model is horrible for what are thoroughly mediocre miniatures.

Now that comes to value, not price. You still see value in it, even though the price is high.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

So, basically Scott, you are wrong. PP is on average the same or much much cheaper than GW in nearly every way. Basic troops are the biggest exception, and for most armies, those are really bad. I imagine if I looked at the horde armies, the prices per model would be better (I stayed with marines mostly, being the most popular army and would most likely be the cheapest) but the dollars per point would be much worse.

Try pricing up some actual armies and look at the $$/model.

Warmachine can be close depending on army composition but nearly always higher.

X-Wing, Mercs, Malifaux, Infinity are all way more per model. I've started Imperial Assault recently and the price per model is horrible for what are thoroughly mediocre miniatures.

Did you miss the post where I did just that for WM/H? I compared cygnar to marines, looking at infantry, elite infantry, cavalry/bike models, leader models/characters, tanks and jacks, and larger models.

I'm not as familiar with the other games, so I can't comment, but the only place GW beat PP was on basic infantry on a per model basis. And basic troops in 40k are pretty awful. Everywhere else it was a tie or in PP's favor. Even the basic infantry is a relatively small difference.
Trust me, I own 3 WM/H armies and I own the majority of 40k armies. 40k is so much more expensive.

That isn't even taking into account how much bigger a 40k army is compared to anything else, cost wise, to play. I didn't even include the mandatory rulebooks and codex.


I didn't price up a list, but this shouldn't make any difference on a per model basis. Honestly, I think the list would make it worse for GW, I could probably get a deal in there for PP since they have a decent amount of bundles. And the rules are free. If you can use the starter box or all in one bundle, it shifts in PP's favor heavily. And MKIII saw a reduction in size of games.

The difference is X-wing does not need as many minatures, or as much time or effort to play the game as 40k.

And lots of other systems actually add to the value of their minatures because they have good rules that generate enjoyable game play and good enough balance for pick up games.

Oh god, I love the PP vs GW price argument. Or rather I love watching Americans and Brits having it while I sit here and compare a $15 metal character to a $50 plastic character because of GW's *Australian pricing*.

Lanrak wrote:
The difference is X-wing does not need as many minatures, or as much time or effort to play the game as 40k.

And lots of other systems actually add to the value of their minatures because they have good rules that generate enjoyable game play and good enough balance for pick up games.

This I find totally false X-wing can be played as big as you want, just like how 40K can be played as small as you like. So saying X-wing doesn't need as many miniatures is totally false. If anything you keep hearing a lot of times how "you are forced to buy minis just for the cards" so you are not even using the minis you are buying. So in fact you are buying more minis than you really want to. So this argument on needing less is really not true.

As for effort, yes X-wing is so much better than 40K to play. So much flipping through the rule book and multiple books to find out how a rule works. Lot less effort is needed for X-wing.

Davor wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
The difference is X-wing does not need as many minatures, or as much time or effort to play the game as 40k.

And lots of other systems actually add to the value of their minatures because they have good rules that generate enjoyable game play and good enough balance for pick up games.

This I find totally false X-wing can be played as big as you want, just like how 40K can be played as small as you like. So saying X-wing doesn't need as many miniatures is totally false. If anything you keep hearing a lot of times how "you are forced to buy minis just for the cards" so you are not even using the minis you are buying. So in fact you are buying more minis than you really want to. So this argument on needing less is really not true.

It really is.

Firstly, the imbalance in X Wing is very small, so with maybe two exceptions (which most anyone who plays regularly is expecting to get a fix release in the future) anything you buy has in game value. Sure, a player may have his or favourites, but anything they choose to buy will have value. People who make this complaint have typically been hard wired into the factionism that 40K (and others) operate under, so they decide they're going to be "an Imperial player" and resent buying other non faction ships to get upgrade cards. X Wing doesn't work like that, changing a list just requires changing cards and swapping out a few components, not hours of painting and modeling and hundreds of pounds of expense, and one can buy a whole wave of releases for the cost of one mid-price GW kit, give or take.

Secondly, the game's popularity is now high enough for there to be a pretty healthy market in singles, so while ~£15 for Emperor Palapatine (the most expensive single card usually) may seem a lot for a very small piece of card, it still represents a significant saving over buying the ship he comes with, and you'll only ever need one.

Also, while it is technically possible to play big games, nearly everyone plays 100 point dogfights most of the time, and because the expansions are generally so affordable, regular players can just field their collection if they want a big battle now and again.

Davor wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

X-Wing, Mercs, Malifaux, Infinity are all way more per model.

In X-wing case instead of saying price per mini, it's price per box since a lot of times people don't buy the box or blister for the mini but for the cards.

Indeed, this is actually something that needs to be considered when establishing the cost of a game. Even ignoring the first of the core rules (where 40k is significantly more expensive than most other miniature games) when working out how much your force is going to cost you need to add on the (rather ridiculous) cost of the codex and /or supplement books that contain the rules for actually using that force.

X-wing may be more expensive per miniature (I'm taking everyone's word for that, as I haven't bothered to check), but those miniatures come with their rules. Same thing for Warmachine... While there are faction books to buy of you want them, you don't actually need them as the miniatures come with their rules on cards.

In the context of value I think it's worth considering if the size of the games in 40k are really improving your experiences of playing the game itself. Looking at 7th versus earlier editions (let's say 3rd), the standard game size has swelled in models per army dramatically. Everyone was always excited when their army's models got a little bit cheaper, but that came at the cost of armies growing over many editions. And while beneficial to GW in the short term, this expansion of costs will slowly eat away at the player base.


The question is whether or not the extra chaff is improving the game experience, and I'd argue that it has not. It may not necessarily diminish the experience, but I sincerely doubt it improved it. And without improving it, then you're just paying more money for the same experience as before.

EDIT: I agree with what insaniak is saying. The only place where GW has been mitigating rules cost has been with AOS, something I don't seeing them doing with 40k.

 Accolade wrote:
In the context of value I think it's worth considering if the size of the games in 40k are really improving your experiences of playing the game itsel

As someone who was regularly playing 5000-10000point games back in 2nd edition, for me that would be a big 'yes'. The ability to play more than small skirmishes is a big part of the draw of 40k for me, and that's something that got much easier from 3rd ed onwards.

I love Necromunda, but beyond that I'm not much interested in skirmish games... And that, sadly, is all that anyone else seems to be interested in producing.

Well, other than Mantic, and so far they've not quite managed to get there.

 insaniak wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
In the context of value I think it's worth considering if the size of the games in 40k are really improving your experiences of playing the game itsel

As someone who was regularly playing 5000-10000point games back in 2nd edition, for me that would be a big 'yes'. The ability to play more than small skirmishes is a big part of the draw of 40k for me, and that's something that got much easier from 3rd ed onwards.

I love Necromunda, but beyond that I'm not much interested in skirmish games... And that, sadly, is all that anyone else seems to be interested in producing.

Well, other than Mantic, and so far they've not quite managed to get there.

I guess I should say that I'm not thinking about 2nd edition as much (like you said, it's much more a skirmish), but 3rd edition with the advent of small-medium size armies. From 3rd to 7th, an army might be able to tack on a couple of extra tanks and squads of troops and in this case, I'm wondering how much the experience is enhanced between those two editions.

I feel at least they went past the happy spot of army size...maybe that's a better way to put it. That, and army composition is a mess, such that the old standards of the game (ie troops) have become largely costly fodder to purchase, place, and remove.

Davor wrote:
This I find totally false X-wing can be played as big as you want, just like how 40K can be played as small as you like. So saying X-wing doesn't need as many miniatures is totally false.

Are you joking, or just trolling?

You can buy 3 ships and be done, ready to play X wing at the average size point levels quite comfortably, even able to swap around the upgrades on them to make multiple different lists with those 3 models.

That's it. 3 models. You're done, you have a fully playable force.

Being able to upend your entire collection on the table changes nothing, you can do that for any game in existence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
X-wing may be more expensive per miniature (I'm taking everyone's word for that, as I haven't bothered to check)

They are like $20 Aud a ship locally for X wing/TIE fighter sized stuff. So less expensive than a GW character down here and laughably cheaper than some of those newer $50-$60 plastic characters.

 insaniak wrote:

As someone who was regularly playing 5000-10000point games back in 2nd edition, for me that would be a big 'yes'. The ability to play more than small skirmishes is a big part of the draw of 40k for me, and that's something that got much easier from 3rd ed onwards.

I love Necromunda, but beyond that I'm not much interested in skirmish games... And that, sadly, is all that anyone else seems to be interested in producing.

Well, other than Mantic, and so far they've not quite managed to get there.

At 28mm scale small skirmish games are all that is practical. Anyone making a game suitable for large battles would be doing on a smaller scale: Flames of War, Dropzone Commander...

Oh, did you think you saw that particular equine still twitching, so figured an extra stroke wouldn't hurt?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Oh, did you think you saw that particular equine still twitching, so figured an extra stroke wouldn't hurt?

Better a dead donkey than living in denial.


wow what a huge army! 10 Apcs and 50 infantry! My what a big battle! Defo not a small skirmish! Now how can I move anything without falling off the table?

Ok.

So.... yes.

 SolarCross wrote:

At 28mm scale small skirmish games are all that is practical....

20 years or so of playing large point level games at 28mm says otherwise.

Seriously, you've made your point. You don't think 28mm is suitable for large games. You're welcome to that opinion, and welcome to play other games that you feel better scratch your particular itch. Some of us think that larger games work just fine art 28mm, and will carry on playing as we've been doing for decades now regardless of how many times you repeat the same points.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Ok.

So.... yes.

Oh yes!

 jonolikespie wrote:
Are you joking, or just trolling?

You can buy 3 ships and be done, ready to play X wing at the average size point levels quite comfortably, even able to swap around the upgrades on them to make multiple different lists with those 3 models.

That's it. 3 models. You're done, you have a fully playable force.

Being able to upend your entire collection on the table changes nothing, you can do that for any game in existence.

This is kind of a dishonest way of looking at it. Can you play a standard 100 point game of X-Wing with three ships? Yes, if you choose the right ships. Are you going to win? No. You aren't going to have the necessary upgrades to make your three ships work, and if you want to buy the ships that have the upgrades you need you're going to have to spend a lot more money. And you're never going to be able to change you list, while all the people you're playing with get to enjoy the fun of doing new stuff. Talking about three-ship X-Wing makes about as much sense as talking about playing 40k with a single 5-man tactical squad. It's possible to do it but it doesn't give an accurate representation of the real costs to play the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:
wow what a huge army! 10 Apcs and 50 infantry! My what a big battle! Defo not a small skirmish! Now how can I move anything without falling off the table?

Yeah, because an army on a tiny display board is definitely the same amount of movement space as a real game on a 6x4 table...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SolarCross wrote:
{pictures of huge armies}

Ok, and that's fine if you like games where individual models are just faceless dots in giant blocks of hundreds of soldiers and you could play the game with cardboard tokens without losing any detail. That isn't a universal preference, nor is it the game 40k is trying to be.

Just correcting an inaccuracy. It was punted that 40k was a big battle game and that no one else was doing anything of comparable scope. At 28mm 40k is a small skirmish game that is trying at enormous expense to be a medium skirmish game and failing, hard.

 SolarCross wrote:
Just correcting an inaccuracy. It was punted that 40k was a big battle game and that no one else was doing anything of comparable scope. .

And so far as 28mm games are concerned, that is correct.

Whether or not the 40k rules are perfect for that application doesn't actually change the fact that they scale up better than other 28mm game rules, and that nobody else is making games on a similar scale.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Are you joking, or just trolling?

You can buy 3 ships and be done, ready to play X wing at the average size point levels quite comfortably, even able to swap around the upgrades on them to make multiple different lists with those 3 models.

That's it. 3 models. You're done, you have a fully playable force.

Being able to upend your entire collection on the table changes nothing, you can do that for any game in existence.

This is kind of a dishonest way of looking at it. Can you play a standard 100 point game of X-Wing with three ships? Yes, if you choose the right ships. Are you going to win? No. You aren't going to have the necessary upgrades to make your three ships work, and if you want to buy the ships that have the upgrades you need you're going to have to spend a lot more money. And you're never going to be able to change you list, while all the people you're playing with get to enjoy the fun of doing new stuff. Talking about three-ship X-Wing makes about as much sense as talking about playing 40k with a single 5-man tactical squad. It's possible to do it but it doesn't give an accurate representation of the real costs to play the game.

Playing X wing with 3 ships is not like playing 40k with a 5 man tac squad, it is like owning a 1500 point 40k army and not a single other model in your collection. Your list will always be very similar, but it's a full sized game.

And if you're just playing casually there is no reason you can't use an online listbuilder, you probably don't *need* to physically own all the cards.

Ultimately this is a thread about GW pricing people out of the game isn't it? Even if you want to say you need 5 or, hell, 10 ships for a solid X wing collection, plus a starter set, that is a load easier to sell to a new player than a full sized 40k army, a rulebook, a codex, and teaching someone to build and paint models.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Playing X wing with 3 ships is not like playing 40k with a 5 man tac squad, it is like owning a 1500 point 40k army and not a single other model in your collection. Your list will always be very similar, but it's a full sized game.

But game size isn't really the point. A 1500 point collection is on the small side, but it's a significant percentage of an average collection. Some people do in fact have just 1500 points, and a lot of people have 2-3000 points. So that 1500 points is around 50-75% of a "full" collection. In X-Wing, on the other hand, a 3-ship collection is nowhere near average. An average player is going to have 30+ ships (the "buy one of each" approach that is common), and many players will have a lot more. So, being generous, that 3-ship collection is maybe 10-15% of a "full" collection. IOW, it's not even close to the full amount of money an average player is going to spend.

And if you're just playing casually there is no reason you can't use an online listbuilder, you probably don't *need* to physically own all the cards.

If you're going to say this about X-Wing then you need to be consistent and make the same argument about 40k. You can always use proxies, non-GW models, etc, as long as you're just playing "casually".

Ultimately this is a thread about GW pricing people out of the game isn't it? Even if you want to say you need 5 or, hell, 10 ships for a solid X wing collection, plus a starter set, that is a load easier to sell to a new player than a full sized 40k army, a rulebook, a codex, and teaching someone to build and paint models.

Yes, of course X-Wing is cheaper, primarily because it requires fewer models. But you're not helping anyone by presenting a really misleading version of the total cost to play. Someone who thinks "ooh, I can play this for only $50 or so" is going to be really disappointed when they find out that the true cost of playing is hundreds of dollars.

Just going to say, these photos of napoleonics, flames of war etc...

Don't do much for me. They don't inspire. They show me the same stand of 5 guys stood around on an abstract field.

While 40k may not create that scale for some of you...it certainly has a different aesthetic. I mean, you may really like that same stand of 5 guys standing around en masse and looking remarkably bored, even as you roll dice to imitate their FIERCE COMBAT with another stand of 5 guys who look equally as bored.

But the 40k aesthetic is more dynamic.

And there's the difference. Scale and dynamics. A 40k army, even Sisters of Battle if you really hate yourself, can be made to look like an army of individuals. You can play larger scale games with these models (hence the Apocalypse ruleset) or smaller scale games (Inquisimunda) and you can put as little or much effort in as you want.

End of the day we're arguing prices over a luxury.

Why don't all you Aussies, New Zealanders and Americans just let the pound burn so you can savour your tasty Forge World crack while those of us stuck over here weap in sorrow?

 insaniak wrote:
Tamiya's product is only superior if you're comparing GW's product as the same thing.


Tamiya tanks are certainly better than GW's as scale models. As gaming miniatures, they're not as good - too fiddly (anf so time consuming) to build, and made from a harder and more brittle plastic with lots of little parts which makes them unsuitable for frequent handling and lugging about the countryside.

You can't really directly compare the two, because they're two very different products, in different genres, intended for different purposes. It's like trying to compare a sword and a cricket bat... They might look superficially similar, but which of them is better depends entirely on what you're trying to do with them.

I disagree. You can compare them quite well as long as you take in to account the differences. It's not like comparing a sword and a cricket bat, it's like comparing a claymore vs a bastard sword, similar but different.

They are both mass produced injection moulded kits, the fact one is produced for wargaming and the other for display simply means the latter is more likely to have small fiddly parts, more likely to separate parts rather than integrating it in to a single piece and so on.

From a value perspective, you can definitely draw comparisons. An Imperial Knight is a similar price to a Tamiya Spitfire. The Spitfire comes with slightly more sprue-age, individually wrapped sprues, extra photo etch parts, a nice little colour booklet in addition to the instruction manual, magnets for removable panels, metal pins for movable control surfaces, metal screws for removable landing gear to pose it in either a ground or flying stance, extra plastic parts that aren't on sprues for thin parts like engine cowlings, rubber parts for wheels and whatnot, metallic name plates to put on a display board.

Obviously all those extras aren't necessarily things you want on a wargaming model (though some are, like the magnets and metal pins/screws), but it gives you a good reference for comparing value. Of course you also need to take in to account Tamiya doesn't release a huge number of kits of that quality, though over the past decade or so they've built up a bit of a stable of large high end kits with aircraft and tanks.

There are obviously some differences, like the Tamiya spit has almost 400 parts which is a boon for a scale modeller, not so much for a wargamer. The Spit is a kit that your average person is going to take several months to build, the Knight your average person is probably going to throw together much quicker.

Not the same, but definitely comparable in many aspects and it's comparisons like that which make people decide whether GW kits are or aren't worth what GW asks for them.

EDIT: Also I don't think Tamiya kits are necessarily more brittle. They seem to vary. Bending the sprues on my Tamiya Spit show they are just as flexible as GW plastic. My Tamiya Bf109 seems to be a bit more brittle, that's a mid 90's kit I believe. GW plastic has varied over the years as well, I was recently working on some Lizardmen that I bought several years ago and was surprised how brittle it was and how easy it was to snap spears/javelins.

While initially investing into 40k is, well, pretty bad, I think a lot of people are drawn to the size of the game. Doing a 3 ship vs 2 ship battle is fun, but I think some of my favorite experiences playing x-wing have been our 300 point epic games with multiple capital ships on both sides. And about the cards, its fething dastardly. Sometimes they put upgrades that are ideal on my rebel ships into empire ships that I don't give a grot's arse about just to make you drop another 15 bucks. Its like if a LCG was in miniature form.

I bought a box of Malifaux because hey, being able to start playing from a single box is great. But its a skirmish game that really doesn't lend itself to expansion. Same with Infinity, Frostgrave, Warmahordes, etc etc. If you wanted your force to look like a unified army instead of a bunch of cosplayers then you don't have that option.

There's not really many options for the scale 40k players want. I like x-wing a lot but its a different dynamic than owning my own horde of orks. Visually its more impressive too and I think a lot of players want that. What would you want in your display case, 3 warjacks or 3 wraithknights?

I don't think GW has good prices btw. I don't think their competition is offering any replacements though. Alternatives yes, but not replacements.

You can get a core and six expansions for under £100 and field a tournament level force for x-wing in the form of a tie swarm.

You could build alot of 100 point lists for less than £100, bbbbz is another example.

You can't build 1850 armies for £100, your looking at £500+, so while individual expansions Arnt cheap for x-wing your fleets cost significantly less.

 Don Savik wrote:
What would you want in your display case, 3 warjacks or 3 wraithknights?.

Both...?


There's nothing inherently more impressive about a model just because it's a little bigger.

 Don Savik wrote:


I bought a box of Malifaux because hey, being able to start playing from a single box is great. But its a skirmish game that really doesn't lend itself to expansion. Same with Infinity, Frostgrave, Warmahordes, etc etc. If you wanted your force to look like a unified army instead of a bunch of cosplayers then you don't have that option.

While WM/H is certainly smaller than most armies in 40k, I don't think it's a bunch of cosplayers, whatever that means. It's on a much larger scale than Mali or Infinity, which are more necromunda sized.
A typical army can be 30 infantry, some solos and attachments, and a few warjacks. A typical marine army for me at 2000 points is a couple transports and about 50-60 guys since I use centurions. My eldar army is about the same, except instead of transports I use Wraith Knights. It's certainly bigger, that's true, but I find my WM/H models manage to look like an army, and often a fluffy one. I would say that WM/H is about 2/3 to 1/2 of your typical 40k army if both are built for competitive reasons. For horde armies it might be a bit worse, but I haven't seen a horde army in a long time since they are...well...pretty bad.

For me, WM/H is the perfect size. It reminds me more of a 3rd edition game, which is when I started playing. I would imagine that, for most players that started in older editions, WM/H feels like the right size and 40k feels bloated.
Especially since, in 40k, there are a ton of chaff models. Bolter armed marines, scouts on objectives, drop pods after they land, that are very expensive cash wise but don't do a whole lot to influence the game. WM/H has few if any chaff models. Every gun mage feels important, and every trencher can do something and his positioning matters.

 Don Savik wrote:

There's not really many options for the scale 40k players want. I like x-wing a lot but its a different dynamic than owning my own horde of orks. Visually its more impressive too and I think a lot of players want that. What would you want in your display case, 3 warjacks or 3 wraithknights?

That's not really a fair comparison is it? 3 wraith knights is $350 and 3 warjacks is about 45-90, not including box sets. So I guess the better question is, what would you rather have 12-20 Warjacks or 3 Wraith Knights?
Or just 3 colossals.
But yes, when you tilt the advantage heavily in GW's favor it does help.

 Don Savik wrote:

I don't think GW has good prices btw. I don't think their competition is offering any replacements though. Alternatives yes, but not replacements.

If the way 40k looks is very critical to you, yeah there won't be a replacement. But WM/H has decently sized games, similar model sizes of comparable quality, and is much cheaper. It can be sold as a replacement, and locally, that's how we pitch it to new players. A better, cheaper 40k. MK 3 actually makes Warjacks really good with nearly every caster, which helps a lot.

jonolikespie wrote:

Davor wrote:
This I find totally false X-wing can be played as big as you want, just like how 40K can be played as small as you like. So saying X-wing doesn't need as many miniatures is totally false.

Are you joking, or just trolling?

You can buy 3 ships and be done, ready to play X wing at the average size point levels quite comfortably, even able to swap around the upgrades on them to make multiple different lists with those 3 models.

That's it. 3 models. You're done, you have a fully playable force.

Being able to upend your entire collection on the table changes nothing, you can do that for any game in existence.

Uhm Jono, what did I actually say? If someone wants to play X-wing at 200 points you can. So that means you buy more ships. If someone wants to play 40K at say 400 points, you can, that means you buy less. If someone only wants to spend $100 on 40K then they can do so. You can still play 40K perfectly at low point games.

What does this you only need 3 ships to play X-wing have anything to do with what I said? It seems you are the one who is trolling now.

Buy saying you can play X-wing with only 3 ships, means you want to play a small point game. Also you can play with 8 ships if not more if you so choose to do so. Even more if you want to play a bigger point game. Just like in 40K you can play with a lot less if you so choose to do so.

Totally not sure what your point was.

That a 100 point X Wing game is the typical game size, like a 15-1850 game is in 40K, and there are a lot of quite effective lists that only require 3 ships or so at that level.

Akiasura wrote:

Did you miss the post where I did just that for WM/H? I compared cygnar to marines, looking at infantry, elite infantry, cavalry/bike models, leader models/characters, tanks and jacks, and larger models.

I saw your post where you compared unit to unit. Try comparing actual playable armies.

Define "playable."

Do you mean legal and functional within the rules, or do you mean "tournament level competitive." Or something in between?

Not that it matters, as I can't see the comparison being any different.

Oh I play 40k because it is so distinct in terms of aesthetics. I find most other popular sci fi games look so generic. Like they had a mix of Halo/Crisis/Fallout ground down into this generic sci fi paste and it bothers me a lot.

Same with the fantasy games. Even Warhammer Fantasy was pretty boring after playing Total War Warhammer.

Dust is the only newer game around that interested me enough to buy the rules and consider starting an army due to how unique it looked visually. It helps we have a small community. I also wanted to start Kingdom Death but the insane entry price and inability to find its core means that's a big nope.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Did you miss the post where I did just that for WM/H? I compared cygnar to marines, looking at infantry, elite infantry, cavalry/bike models, leader models/characters, tanks and jacks, and larger models.

I saw your post where you compared unit to unit. Try comparing actual playable armies.

Don't really see how that'll change the price per model at all for 40k, but sure. It won't be perfect, but I'll list a low point list and work my way up for both armies.

I'll stick with marines and cygnar.

Low Point Games
GW
Starter marine box is 140 for a dread, Captain, and 10 man marine squad. This isn't enough to get started (It's not 500 points nor does it have 2 troops slots, and most low level games are two troops HQ and a thing.
So let's add another tactical squad for ~60, for 200. This is about the cheapest I can make it, if we buy them randomly, it's going to be 120 for troops, 30 for a leader, and 60 for a dreadnought. The box set basically gives you the formation rules and ~10 off, not much else.
Also, keep in mind, tacticals are bad as are dreadnoughts. At higher games we will need transports. The leader in the box set is a terminator armor captain, which is garbage tier.
Also, 140 for the rules and 90 for the codex.

So that's 200 for models, 230 for rules, 430 total for a ~500 point game This is roughly 25% of a total force, which is how I'll compare it to PP
For price per model, I get 22 models for 200, 1 character model and 1 large model. That's about ~10 per model. Obviously rules make this way worse.

PP
The starter box comes with two lights, a heavy, and a commander for $50.
This is 9+12+10 points, or 31, out of 100 (Usually 75+warjack points is the standard, so this is about 1/3 of that).
This includes the rulebook and dice, but we can include $10 for box card sets (cygnar and mercs) from War Room.

So that's 50 for models, 10 for rules . The models here are so so, the charger and defender are good but the lancer might get dropped depending on the caster. The commander is not one of the best but is still really strong. There aren't many weak commanders in cygnar...most factions have maybe 1 or 2 that aren't good.
I get 3 large models and 1 character model for 50, so it's about 12/model. This isn't great but it's not bad, infantry would of course lower it.

CONCLUSION, PP is about 14% of the total cost to play a low point game when compared to 40k with rules, without rules its 25%


High Point Strong army
GW
Dev Cents 95 *2 for Full squad, for 190

Thunder fire cannon 94

White Scars Commander 50

Tiggy, 30

Bikes ~ 100 per squad, most likely 2-3 squads

And I'll stop here because this is already so much more expensive than the warmachine army will be. Please note it shares nothing in common with the original army, so these are all new models. From the original army, I'd probably make a gladius but that would be crazy expensive.

So this is 300 for bikes, 80 for HQs, 94 for TFC, and ~200 for Devs. 674 total plus 230 for rules for a cold 900. Please keep in mind, this is NOT a full army, I think you'd still need a couple hundred points. We can call it an even 1000 if you want.
I got 18 bikes, 2 commanders, 1 TFC (I'll count as 2) and 6 Cents. That is 28 models for 674, or 24/model.

This is not even the most expensive army I could build. Drop builds or rhinos would make this number way higher, and this looks typical for a decent marine force that doesn't abuse formations.

PP
The following is a competitive list
Captain haley (10)
Squire (10)
Stormclad (35)
Stormclad (35)
Hunter (15)
Hunter (15)
Journeyman (7)
Charger (18)
Arlan Strangewayes (14)
Arcane Tempest Gun Mages (35)
Black13th (17)
For a total of ~190, plus 10 for rules. So let's call it 200.
You get 13 infantry models and 5 tanks, for 18 models. So that's about 11 per model.

PP wins again.

Scott, in what world is GW cheaper? I didn't even use the starter box, which would have saved me quite a bit. There is some cross over, although it's small (if you wanted to save, you could sub out the Storm clads for Iron clad for example, and it would be fine).

Akiasura wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:

I don't think GW has good prices btw. I don't think their competition is offering any replacements though. Alternatives yes, but not replacements.

If the way 40k looks is very critical to you, yeah there won't be a replacement. But WM/H has decently sized games, similar model sizes of comparable quality, and is much cheaper. It can be sold as a replacement, and locally, that's how we pitch it to new players. A better, cheaper 40k. MK 3 actually makes Warjacks really good with nearly every caster, which helps a lot.

But it's not.

It's like saying Heroclix is a better cheaper Warmachine.
Heroclix models are cheaper, you don't need to buy rulebooks, the models are similar sized, and you can play decently sized games.

Warmachine is steam punk, it's not even the same same genre as 40K, and the battles are skirmished sized, not army sized.

I'm not saying Warmachine isn't a good game, or Infinity isn't a good game, but they are not the same scale of 40K. Mantic is the only one producing something similar to 40K and honestly I don't expect them to get it at least close to right until it's second edition.

As for X-Wing, the same people that told me they got into it because you only need 2-3 ships are the same people that own at least 1 of every ship made. X-wing is a miniatures game but people who take it seriously collect it like CCG players, buying all the new expansions as they are released.

It's like arguing that you can play 40K with a $25 mini rulebook and a Getting Started Box. Sure, technically you can do that, but no one does it for long.

As for X-Wing, the same people that told me they got into it because you only need 2-3 ships are the same people that own at least 1 of every ship made. X-wing is a miniatures game but people who take it seriously collect it like CCG players, buying all the new expansions as they are released.

You get that there's a whole world of difference between need and want, right?


It's not like many 40K players put down every model they own for every game. Hell, it's not like many 40K players don't have as many models still in the box as they do ready to be played.

Someone who's enthusiastic about a game may well want to go above and beyond what is needed, it has absolutely zero impact on what is required to play the game.

What would it even cost to own every single ship? A quick glance shows that an average price would be ~$30, maybe a touch more (lots of ships at 15, then some outliers at 80+, and a bunch at 20-40...so...) with some ~50 odd ships is in the ballpark of 1500.

I mean, that's roughly 2500pts of 40k depending on army, without thinking about the mandatory ~$150 in rulebooks/codices you need (that X-wing doesn't).

Wrong thread. Please delete post.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Someone who's enthusiastic about a game may well want to go above and beyond what is needed, it has absolutely zero impact on what is required to play the game.

True, but we are discussing about how much it takes to be in the hobby. What people typically spend is more important than the bare minimum that someone could spend.

You can play Pokémon with a 2 player starter box.
You can play 40K with a 40K Starter Box.
You can play Warmachine with Starter Box.
You can play Infinity with a Starter Box.
Hell, Battle for Vedros has Marine and Ork forces with abridged rules for $50, but no one is going to argue that it only costs $50 to play 40K.

You edited out part of my post that was relevant

AdamSouza wrote:Sure, technically you can do that, but no one does it for long.

 adamsouza wrote:
As for X-Wing, the same people that told me they got into it because you only need 2-3 ships are the same people that own at least 1 of every ship made. X-wing is a miniatures game but people who take it seriously collect it like CCG players, buying all the new expansions as they are released.

That's a terrible argument. Obviously some people will buy 10,000pts of 40k, others might buy 500pts, neither are good indicators.

The question is what is a typical game size and how much variety do you realistically need to play varied games. Tournaments are often a good indicator of what a typical game size is, we had a poll recently that showed most people on Dakka prefer to play in the 1250-2000pt range (60%) with another 20% in the 750-1250pt range.

The question of how much variety of miniatures you need to play interesting and varied games, I don't really know for X-wing as I don't play it regularly. I'd say for 40k you probably want 25-50% more points than you actually intend to play at if you don't want the game to get stale, though I also haven't played much 40k recently so maybe my thoughts are a bit out of date. Basically I think you want a solid core and then enough points of the support troops to change your play style from one game to the next.

 adamsouza wrote:

You edited out part of my post that was relevant

AdamSouza wrote:Sure, technically you can do that, but no one does it for long.

Which is a universal truth for every single game pertinent to the argument, making it a largely redundant statement.

 adamsouza wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:

I don't think GW has good prices btw. I don't think their competition is offering any replacements though. Alternatives yes, but not replacements.

If the way 40k looks is very critical to you, yeah there won't be a replacement. But WM/H has decently sized games, similar model sizes of comparable quality, and is much cheaper. It can be sold as a replacement, and locally, that's how we pitch it to new players. A better, cheaper 40k. MK 3 actually makes Warjacks really good with nearly every caster, which helps a lot.

But it's not.

It kinda is. Neither games are what I call skirmish games (check out the summary I did, one has ~20 models, one had ~ 30 models, most skirmish games I see are more like 5-10). Neither games are full on massive scale wargames either (historicals, for example, can have a ton of models, and warhammer fantasy usually got close to a hundred. My skaven was closer to 300). They are both in the same size category, one just plays a lot better, has less imbalances, and as I've shown is significantly cheaper.

About 12 of us are long time 40k players claiming this. I own over 3k points in the majority of factions in 40k, and used to play 2-3 games a week from 3rd to the launch of 6th. I've played a bit, we all have. No one locally disagrees, and the only disagreement I hear on the internet is usually size (when competitive armies are small anyway in 40k for the most part) or appearance. If you don't like the appearance, that's fine, but both are mini war games on roughly the same scale. WM/H is just cheaper with significantly better rules. I've already mentioned if you hate the appearance that's certainly a viable reason, but its subjective and doesn't really belong in a price discussion.

 adamsouza wrote:

It's like saying Heroclix is a better cheaper Warmachine.
Heroclix models are cheaper, you don't need to buy rulebooks, the models are similar sized, and you can play decently sized games.

That argument is pretty...I don't even know what to call it. It's wrong though.
In WM/H and 40k, you have central heroes. In Heroclix, every man is a hero.
Stats in WM/H and 40k are roughly static outside of buffs. Heroclix has models change with wounds.
WM/H has units and leaders like 40k. Heroclix is an army of solos.
WM/H has free movement like 40k, HC uses a grid.
WM/H and 40k uses cards or unit entries, HC has stats on a dial with a card I believe (been a while, did they have cards?).
HC is narrative driven a lot, WM/H and 40k are not. 40k used to be more narrative driven, but the above army I wrote is not even remotely fluffy, and isn't an uncommon core for competitive armies.

WM/H is much closer to 40k than either are to Heroclix. I'd ask you to say why you feel its any other way, WM/H constantly gets compared to 40k for a number of reasons. They aren't as dissimilar as you think. I can build a more tank centric force for 40k that would be comparable in models as my WM/H force, and I can go troop heavy and get close to a marine force in 40k. Probably won't get close to a guard, nid, or ork force, but those armies are having massive issues right now if played as a horde. At least in WM/H, my Khador/Cryx infantry swarm does work and is viable if you like to see a lot of dudes.

 adamsouza wrote:

Warmachine is steam punk, it's not even the same same genre as 40K, and the battles are skirmished sized, not army sized.

It depends how you define skirmish. WM/H is certainly larger than infinity, necromunda, mordheim, and several other skirmish games. You can't look at WM/H and Guild ball and say "This seem similar in size" like you can with all the other games you and I mentioned.
I also wouldn't call 40k army size. Look at historicals, that's army size. Historicals, and maybe this is what I've seen, hardly ever have 28 models like a competitive 40k army can have. At no point in 40k is your force supposed to be an army. It's usually defined as a section of a battlefield playing out, or a small mission taking place for most editions I believe. It's not skirmish, but it's not army. We can call it battle sized, and WM/H is supposed to be similar.

So yeah, they are comparable. Genre-wise no, but I already said if that's what is critical to you only 40k will do. You can say the same about steampunk though, so its a bit of a wash.

 adamsouza wrote:

It's like arguing that you can play 40K with a $25 mini rulebook and a Getting Started Box. Sure, technically you can do that, but no one does it for long.

Well, remember we are discussing price. And I think I've shown rather well that 40k is rather expensive at both high and low point value games. I mean, I can almost get the entire model line for a faction in WM/H compared to one 2k force + rules in 40k. That's pretty out there.

Basically what I'm saying is that the Getting Started boxes for 40k are crap and still over priced. The marine one seems to save $10 and a formation sheet (I think those are 5?). So 15 out of 160 value, not great. Everything in 40k is like this, it's very over priced and it's apparent right away. If you don't know what's good you might waste hundreds of dollars easily (imagine buying assault cents, or a vanguard vet swarm).

At least in WM/H, the getting started boxes are mostly okay to great. One jack is usually free, so that's about a 20 dollar value out of 70 if you bought them on their own. That's way more value. Most of the units can end up in competitive lists, while none of the 40k models will unless gladius.

 adamsouza wrote:

Hell, Battle for Vedros has Marine and Ork forces with abridged rules for $50, but no one is going to argue that it only costs $50 to play 40K

Given that Vedros is a different game that just uses some 40k minis, the cost of the starter would have little relevance to the cost of starting 40k.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Which is a universal truth for every single game pertinent to the argument, making it a largely redundant statement.

It's an entirely relevant statement because people are comparing starter-box level purchases in X-Wing to full-army purchases in 40k. It doesn't matter if three ships can technically add up to the 100 points of standard game, virtually nobody who plays X-Wing treats a three-ship collection as anything more than the very basic first-day investment equivalent to buying a 40k starter set. Most people who play X-Wing beyond their first couple of newbie games end up buying at least one of every ship, so that's the level of purchases you need to compare to a 1500-2000 point 40k army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Given that Vedros is a different game that just uses some 40k minis, the cost of the starter would have little relevance to the cost of starting 40k.

Ok, so $50 plus the cost of a starter-set rulebook on ebay (or $50 plus zero if you pirate the rules like most people do).

 Peregrine wrote:

Ok, so $50 plus the cost of a starter-set rulebook on ebay... ).

Plus your codex.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Which is a universal truth for every single game pertinent to the argument, making it a largely redundant statement.

It's an entirely relevant statement because people are comparing starter-box level purchases in X-Wing to full-army purchases in 40k. It doesn't matter if three ships can technically add up to the 100 points of standard game, virtually nobody who plays X-Wing treats a three-ship collection as anything more than the very basic first-day investment equivalent to buying a 40k starter set. Most people who play X-Wing beyond their first couple of newbie games end up buying at least one of every ship, so that's the level of purchases you need to compare to a 1500-2000 point 40k army.

I hear what you're saying but I think your conclusion is wrong.
This could be my crowd but I don't know anyone who owns exactly 1500-2000. Most people I know own double that, and a few own more than one faction with less points but can still play. I don't know many like me, granted, but I would say that's typical.
So can we compare say, 3k worth of marines and 1750 of another force to X-wing?

Basically you are saying that the "standard" x-wing player owns every ship but the "standard" 40k player only owns exactly what is required to play? That just doesn't seem right, do you have something backing that up?

Otherwise I think "standard game" is the best way to go. I'm not aware of what this is for X-Wing, but I think Scots comment about putting down a standard list you'd see that's competitive (so no gimmicks to prove a point) is a good way to do it. I mean, with my example, you could double the army (tournaments require 2 lists) and still be much cheaper than 40k. Even though, in reality, some characters and units would most likely transfer over (Menoth always takes Choir, Cygnar the Squire, Khador WGRC, etc etc).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Which is a universal truth for every single game pertinent to the argument, making it a largely redundant statement.

It's an entirely relevant statement because people are comparing starter-box level purchases in X-Wing to full-army purchases in 40k. It doesn't matter if three ships can technically add up to the 100 points of standard game, virtually nobody who plays X-Wing treats a three-ship collection as anything more than the very basic first-day investment equivalent to buying a 40k starter set. Most people who play X-Wing beyond their first couple of newbie games end up buying at least one of every ship, so that's the level of purchases you need to compare to a 1500-2000 point 40k army.
.

Im not, I'm comparing the cost to get enough stuff to field a standard sized list. As most 40K players purchase units beyond what they can field in a typical sized game, or even whole extra factions. As people do in WMH, Infinity, Malifaux etc etc. it's facile to rebut "you can start playing this game at the standard size for X amount" with "yeah, but you'll spend more on the game than just what it costs to get a standard size list." That happens with pretty much every game for pretty much every player that continues on past the very early stages.

You can field a standard sized list in X Wing for the cost of half a unit of some 40K models. For a standard sized 40K list you can probably purchase most of the entirety of X Wing releases to date.

That's not a favorable comparison.

Akiasura wrote:
This could be my crowd but I don't know anyone who owns exactly 1500-2000.

Sounds like this is just your crowd. In my experience most 40k players seem to have a single "core" army and a few extra things they can swap in and out. The people with multiple armies are the ones who have gone way beyond "getting started" and decided to make 40k a major hobby investment. That's fine if you want to make that investment, but it's not at all necessary to enjoy the game.

Basically you are saying that the "standard" x-wing player owns every ship but the "standard" 40k player only owns exactly what is required to play? That just doesn't seem right, do you have something backing them up?

There are two pretty major differences between the two, besides the price:

1) X-Wing's system of upgrade cards being spread across a bunch of different ships forces you to buy a lot more than the minimum for a 100 point game. Even if you only intend to play with a small subset of the total ships you end up having to buy almost everything anyway or you don't get to use vital upgrades. So the three-ship X-Wing player is almost guaranteed to lose every game they play, while the 40k player with exactly 1500 points of models can have a perfectly competitive army and win most of their games.

2) X-Wing's lower "unit" count makes taking a single 100-point list over and over again really boring for most people. With 40k a "standard" army has at least 5-10 units and it's easy to change configurations without much additional cost (swapping magnetized weapon upgrades, etc). So even a player with just enough to play a single 1500-2000 point list still has a decent diversity of options to experience. But the three-ship X-Wing player has only a tiny part of what the whole game has to offer. While the 40k player is doing all the cool stuff their faction has the X-Wing player is re-playing the same starter-box experience over and over again.

And of course, anecdotally, I can't think of a single person who stopped buying X-Wing stuff at three ships. Even the guy on a really strict budget bought a lot more than three, and most people very quickly went to a substantial fraction of the "one of everything" level. If you look at the subset of dedicated players like me most of us tend to have at least 2-3 copies of every ship, so if anything I'm understating the average cost a bit.

Akiasura wrote:

This could be my crowd but I don't know anyone who owns exactly 1500-2000. Most people I know own double that, and a few own more than one faction with less points but can still play.

The vast majority of 40k players I've met over the last 20-ish years have owned a single army of between 1500-2000 points, usually in some level of incomplete assembly.

Those with larger or multiple forces tend to be just the more fanatical players.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Im not, I'm comparing the cost to get enough stuff to field a standard sized list. As most 40K players purchase units beyond what they can field in a typical sized game, or even whole extra factions. As people do in WMH, Infinity, Malifaux etc etc. it's facile to rebut "you can start playing this game at the standard size for X amount" with "yeah, but you'll spend more on the game than just what it costs to get a standard size list." That happens with pretty much every game for pretty much every player that continues on past the very early stages.

And the point I keep making is that a three-ship collection in X-Wing is not playing a standard list. It's the equivalent of bringing a single 5-man tactical squad from the starter box to a 2000 point game. It's technically legal to do it but you will lose every game you play (except maybe against a fellow hopeless newbie), and you will not enjoy the game at all. You're comparing buying the minimum viable collection in X-Wing to finishing a viable collection in other games and then starting to expand into fun extra stuff.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The question of how much variety of miniatures you need to play interesting and varied games, I don't really know for X-wing as I don't play it regularly.

X-Wing has a limited number of models, and periodically adds more. The new models come with cards that are usable with things other than what comes in the package. It's more like a CCG in that sense than a Tabletop Wargame. The setup encourages you to buy the new expansions to play interesting and varied games, as well as keep up with other players.

My point is that It is not buy a starter and your favorite ship and be done with it. If you play regularly you will find yourself picking up more and more regularly to get the variety of ships and cards to keep things interesting.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Im not, I'm comparing the cost to get enough stuff to field a standard sized list. As most 40K players purchase units beyond what they can field in a typical sized game, or even whole extra factions. As people do in WMH, Infinity, Malifaux etc etc. it's facile to rebut "you can start playing this game at the standard size for X amount" with "yeah, but you'll spend more on the game than just what it costs to get a standard size list." That happens with pretty much every game for pretty much every player that continues on past the very early stages.

And the point I keep making is that a three-ship collection in X-Wing is not playing a standard list. It's the equivalent of bringing a single 5-man tactical squad from the starter box to a 2000 point game. It's technically legal to do it but you will lose every game you play (except maybe against a fellow hopeless newbie), and you will not enjoy the game at all. You're comparing buying the minimum viable collection in X-Wing to finishing a viable collection in other games and then starting to expand into fun extra stuff.

I am not, I'm comparing the standard game size of both games.

By trying to argue the quality of the lists you're introducing a whole extra level of vagueness to the equation which can't be moderated to form a valid comparison. It's like making price comparisons using anything other than RRP, you have to take the base line otherwise somebody just says 40K is cheapest because my local GW left their back door open and I stole my army.

The quality of the list is utterly irrelevant, it's about the cost to get to a standard game size. Just because someone's spent a complete fething fortune on a 1500 40K list won't make it any good either.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The quality of the list is utterly irrelevant, it's about the cost to get to a standard game size.

No, the quality of the list is entirely relevant. It doesn't matter if you're technically playing the standard game size if you're doing it with a terrible list that is almost guaranteed to lose every game. Your experience is going to be so miserable that you're not going to play that standard size game anymore until you've invested a lot more money.

Which isn't the point of the discussion.

 insaniak wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:

Hell, Battle for Vedros has Marine and Ork forces with abridged rules for $50, but no one is going to argue that it only costs $50 to play 40K

Given that Vedros is a different game that just uses some 40k minis, the cost of the starter would have little relevance to the cost of starting 40k.

I was listing examples of starter sets that no one uses beyond their first few intro games, Vedros is 40K lite, but it suits that purpose.

 Peregrine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
This could be my crowd but I don't know anyone who owns exactly 1500-2000.

Sounds like this is just your crowd. In my experience most 40k players seem to have a single "core" army and a few extra things they can swap in and out. The people with multiple armies are the ones who have gone way beyond "getting started" and decided to make 40k a major hobby investment. That's fine if you want to make that investment, but it's not at all necessary to enjoy the game.

Couldn't I make the same exact argument about what you're saying in regards to X-wing? That its just your crowd? Or that people that own every ship have decided to make it a major investment?

What makes your anecdotal evidence superior to mine?

 Peregrine wrote:

Basically you are saying that the "standard" x-wing player owns every ship but the "standard" 40k player only owns exactly what is required to play? That just doesn't seem right, do you have something backing them up?

There are two pretty major differences between the two, besides the price:

1) X-Wing's system of upgrade cards being spread across a bunch of different ships forces you to buy a lot more than the minimum for a 100 point game. Even if you only intend to play with a small subset of the total ships you end up having to buy almost everything anyway or you don't get to use vital upgrades. So the three-ship X-Wing player is almost guaranteed to lose every game they play, while the 40k player with exactly 1500 points of models can have a perfectly competitive army and win most of their games.

Until the edition changes
But what's stopping an X-wing player from doing the same? I'm not really into the game, but couldn't an X-wing player build a competitive force by buying whatever they need, including the cards?
I just don't see why you look at X-wing and go "These guys own everything and that's what we should look at for price" and for 40k go "these guys own only 1 list, so that's what we should look at". That's just seems remarkably imbalanced and you've haven't provided any reasoning on this that isn't anecdotal.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) X-Wing's lower "unit" count makes taking a single 100-point list over and over again really boring for most people. With 40k a "standard" army has at least 5-10 units and it's easy to change configurations without much additional cost (swapping magnetized weapon upgrades, etc). So even a player with just enough to play a single 1500-2000 point list still has a decent diversity of options to experience. But the three-ship X-Wing player has only a tiny part of what the whole game has to offer. While the 40k player is doing all the cool stuff their faction has the X-Wing player is re-playing the same starter-box experience over and over again.

Come on man, that's not even remotely true. For most units, there is 1 correct weapon choice, and everything else is hot garbage. Some have two options, but that's not common. Las Plas has been a staple of marines since 3rd, and grav spam has been the FOTM since grav became a thing. Look at the list I made, what weapons would you swap there? 40k is full of false choices, but in a competitive environment, you tend to see the same few choices over and over again because GW has awful balance, and one is clearly better than all the others.
Heck, even in a codex full of choices, it tends to be "Spam these 3-5 units, win". A Eldar list made of Knights, scat bikes, spiders, hawks, with psyker support is incredibly strong, but doesn't have any options that are viable. Maybe on the knights, but thats it.

And percentage wise, the player with only 1500-2000 has a very small portion of what 40k has to offer. They have allies and formations which often require multiple buys of the same kit after all. Someone with only a core 1500 list isn't doing all the cool stuff their faction has to offer. You can't run Iyanden, Biel-tann, or Saim-hann with only one list. You can't use marines, or field an allied imperial force, or use formations with just one list.

Most xenos armies don't get to switch very often. My Warp spiders don't have many options, and Ork Boyz tend to be built the same. The biggest option most units get is TRANSPORT [Y/N]? and that's certainly not free. That's easily 40-60, more if its a flyer.

Oddly enough, this is the case in WM/H since different loadouts with the same Chassis can have entirely different rules and playstyles. In 40k? I haven't had to swap weapons in a very long time on anything but my wraith guard.

Akisura, your making apples(X-Wing) and oranges(40K) comparisons, while telling us you don't eat apples, but like lemonade (Warmachine). They are all comparable in your eyes, except Oranges are overpriced and everyone you know who eats oranges eats tons of them, making Apples more affordable since people only need to eat 3 to say they eat apples.

Akiasura wrote:
What makes your anecdotal evidence superior to mine?

Because:

1) It's not just anecdotal evidence, I've explained the reasons why X-Wing makes buying more than the bare minimum 100 points mandatory.

2) It's experience from a large group of people spread across multiple stores, with zero exceptions. Nobody bought the example three-ship collection.

But what's stopping an X-wing player from doing the same? I'm not really into the game, but couldn't an X-wing player build a competitive force by buying whatever they need, including the cards?

What's stopping them is that buying individual cards usually costs almost as much as buying the whole ship. Most people don't end up with extra copies of stuff that they're sure they're never going to use, so the only cards you ever see at cheap prices are the low-demand ones that the hypothetical new player isn't going to have much interest in. And in any case you're still going to be spending more than the cost of three ships, even if some of your money is spent on individual cards instead of complete expansions.

For a 40k example imagine that the only source for grav guns was a $50 tactical squad box with one gun per box (and third-party grav guns are banned). The vast majority of people who buy a tactical squad box are going to keep their grav guns, so supply of them is going to be considerably less than demand. And if each grav gun costs $40 because there are 100 buyers for each seller you might as well just buy the whole box and get a tactical squad for $10.

I just don't see why you look at X-wing and go "These guys own everything and that's what we should look at for price" and for 40k go "these guys own only 1 list, so that's what we should look at". That's just seems remarkably imbalanced and you've haven't provided any reasoning on this that isn't anecdotal.

Err, lol? I haven't provided any reasoning? You just quoted the reasoning I provided. X-Wing makes it mandatory to buy significantly more than the hypothetical three-ship expansion if you want to win, while 40k doesn't have any equivalent factor forcing you to buy more than 1850 points (as long as the first 1850 points are chosen well). X-Wing requires significantly more than 100 points of stuff to experience anywhere near the full diversity of the game, while a 2000-point 40k collection can contain most, if not all, of the complete experience a faction has to offer.

And percentage wise, the player with only 1500-2000 has a very small portion of what 40k has to offer. They have allies and formations which often require multiple buys of the same kit after all. Someone with only a core 1500 list isn't doing all the cool stuff their faction has to offer. You can't run Iyanden, Biel-tann, or Saim-hann with only one list. You can't use marines, or field an allied imperial force, or use formations with just one list.

1) You just said none of this matters because 95% of the game isn't competitive. Who cares if you can't run all those different things when none of them are worth taking? You can't have it both ways and complain that 40k is both cookie-cutter spam and a ton of different builds for each faction.

2) You're confusing list diversity with unit diversity. Your 2000 point collection can't produce a separate spam build for each power unit in the faction, but it can, if you wish, include a wide variety of unit choices. You can have some shooting infantry, some melee infantry, a tank or two, a flyer, a couple of different HQ options, etc. The three-ship X-Wing collection is like having a 2000 point 40k army that consists of nothing but LRBTs. You have a legal army but you're going to get bored very quickly.

 adamsouza wrote:
Akisura, your making apples(X-Wing) and oranges(40K) comparisons, while telling us you don't eat apples, but like lemonade (Warmachine). They are all comparable in your eyes, except Oranges are overpriced and everyone you know who eats oranges eats tons of them, making Apples more affordable since people only need to eat 3 to say they eat apples.

That's even less valid than your "but you'll spend more on it eventually" point.

There's no question that the games in the discussion are all vying for the same time and money, unless people are lucky enough to have the time and money to pursue all the ones they enjoy, so while they're come prong for the same resources from the same customer, it's an apples to apples discussion.

 adamsouza wrote:
Akisura, your making apples(X-Wing) and oranges(40K) comparisons, while telling us you don't eat apples, but like lemonade (Warmachine). They are all comparable in your eyes, except Oranges are overpriced and everyone you know who eats oranges eats tons of them, making Apples more affordable since people only need to eat 3 to say they eat apples.

...What?
All I'm suggesting is that we compare "standard games" between games if we are going to make comparisons at all. This moving the goal post thing isn't getting anyone anywhere.
Personally I wouldn't put X-wing up against 40k. X-wing, from what i've seen, is more of a skirmish game. I haven't seen many games go over 10 models, but I don't play it. If you want to compare X-wing to say...Infinity I could see that.

To use your...whatever that was...it'd be like if you needed 6 oranges or 3 cups of lemonade a day to be healthy. But oranges are 10 per orange, and lemonade is about 2 per cup. I'm saying unless you really need an orange and nothing else will do, you're better off drinking lemonade. Because they are cheaper per item and you need less of them, but both will keep you healthy.

 Peregrine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
What makes your anecdotal evidence superior to mine?

Because:

1) It's not just anecdotal evidence, I've explained the reasons why X-Wing makes buying more than the bare minimum 100 points mandatory.

Your reason was cards and serious collectors. I asked why we couldn't cost up the cards and the models to make a comparison. Serious collectors exist in various markets, including 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) It's experience from a large group of people spread across multiple stores, with zero exceptions. Nobody bought the example three-ship collection.

I'm not arguing against the 3 ship, I'm arguing against the only 1500 list 40k player. I travel for work and have been playing for 30 years, I don't think I've seen anyone own exactly one list unless they are just getting into the game.
So, again, why is your anecdotal evidence superior? Why not compare standard game to standard game, and serious collector to serious collector?

If you can price out the cards, what else do you have outside of anecdotal evidence? Use the price of the models, I don't mind. If someone does, you'll have a point.

 Peregrine wrote:

But what's stopping an X-wing player from doing the same? I'm not really into the game, but couldn't an X-wing player build a competitive force by buying whatever they need, including the cards?

What's stopping them is that buying individual cards usually costs almost as much as buying the whole ship. Most people don't end up with extra copies of stuff that they're sure they're never going to use, so the only cards you ever see at cheap prices are the low-demand ones that the hypothetical new player isn't going to have much interest in. And in any case you're still going to be spending more than the cost of three ships, even if some of your money is spent on individual cards instead of complete expansions.

So the answer is...nothing at all?
Make a list including the cards and price it up. If it's more expensive than a standard game of 40k, fine. If it's not, it's not. There doesn't seem to be a reason why you can't include whatever model they have to buy to get a card in the price for a list.

 Peregrine wrote:

For a 40k example imagine that the only source for grav guns was a $50 tactical squad box with one gun per box (and third-party grav guns are banned). The vast majority of people who buy a tactical squad box are going to keep their grav guns, so supply of them is going to be considerably less than demand. And if each grav gun costs $40 because there are 100 buyers for each seller you might as well just buy the whole box and get a tactical squad for $10.

So it's essentially like being a chaos marine player?
I have no idea what that is like
Besides, most 40k players I know keep a huge bitz box, because they own a ton of models across several factions. I'm not saying this is normal, but I don't think I've ever met a serious player who doesn't have a large collection of bitz somewhere. Often hidden from the wife.

 Peregrine wrote:

I just don't see why you look at X-wing and go "These guys own everything and that's what we should look at for price" and for 40k go "these guys own only 1 list, so that's what we should look at". That's just seems remarkably imbalanced and you've haven't provided any reasoning on this that isn't anecdotal.

Err, lol? I haven't provided any reasoning? You just quoted the reasoning I provided. X-Wing makes it mandatory to buy significantly more than the hypothetical three-ship expansion if you want to win, while 40k doesn't have any equivalent factor forcing you to buy more than 1850 points (as long as the first 1850 points are chosen well).

I already asked why you can't price up the cards and models for X-wing, and you haven't given a single reason.
Instead, you insist that in X-wing they own every model, while in 40k they own only a single list. This isn't remotely equivalent. You can even check the quote, the word "everything" is literally in there.
And 40k has edition changes and codexes dropping. Are you saying from 5th to 7th, a Marine force hasn't changed? Not in unit variety, but in list variety?

 Peregrine wrote:

X-Wing requires significantly more than 100 points of stuff to experience anywhere near the full diversity of the game, while a 2000-point 40k collection can contain most, if not all, of the complete experience a faction has to offer.

And percentage wise, the player with only 1500-2000 has a very small portion of what 40k has to offer. They have allies and formations which often require multiple buys of the same kit after all. Someone with only a core 1500 list isn't doing all the cool stuff their faction has to offer. You can't run Iyanden, Biel-tann, or Saim-hann with only one list. You can't use marines, or field an allied imperial force, or use formations with just one list.

1) You just said none of this matters because 95% of the game isn't competitive. Who cares if you can't run all those different things when none of them are worth taking? You can't have it both ways and complain that 40k is both cookie-cutter spam and a ton of different builds for each faction.

I never said codex is 95% non competitive. I said the majority of choices for a unit aren't good, because you mentioned magnetizing weapons as a way to swap armies.
Factions do have several builds, though it's only a few choices within the codex and often, for a single unit, only one choice is right. THAT is what I said. The internal balance is bad, and you can spam the same units if you want, but this means you need to own multiples of the same kit.

Let's look at eldar.
You can take scat bikes.
You can take Wraith Knights
You can take Fire dragons
You can take Hawks
You can take Serpents (not as crazy as they were, but very good).
You can take Wraith Guard. You can take guard with WWP (in which case you need DE) or a WS or on foot. They play differently, and if you want them in a WS you need a more...heavy style list.
You can use Aspect Shrine Host formation as well.
You can take Spiders.
You can take Psykers, usually on bikes.
No one list for 1500-2000 will use all of this. The only unit with real options are the wraith guard or dragons, and that is in transports. Which require money.
And look, out of that, you can run Biel-Tann (aspect host), Saim-Hann (Bikes and WS with some troops) and Iyanden (WK and WG). You can even play a harlie force of both eldar and DE if you wan the portal. In 6th, this was common with the baron. All of those will be competitive lists that can play, but they won't have unit diversity.

And this is eldar, they don't need allies or formations. For marines the list becomes much bigger.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) You're confusing list diversity with unit diversity. Your 2000 point collection can't produce a separate spam build for each power unit in the faction, but it can, if you wish, include a wide variety of unit choices. You can have some shooting infantry, some melee infantry, a tank or two, a flyer, a couple of different HQ options, etc. The three-ship X-Wing collection is like having a 2000 point 40k army that consists of nothing but LRBTs. You have a legal army but you're going to get bored very quickly.

Let's move away from the 3 ship X-wing force. I never supported it, and it has nothing to do with my original point so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

I don't think I'm confusing anything to be honest. You're the one who said some magnetized weapons makes an entirely different force. It doesn't. Most units have very little diversity outside of transport options, you haven't shone otherwise.
List diversity is real. Gladius plays very different from the list I created earlier, but both are very competitive. An all biker force is also different, but does very well with a core melee deathstar. You can also abuse allies as well, or play a more shooty marine force if you want. They have list diversity, but not unit diversity.
It just so happens you see similar units spammed to make these diverse lists. A Gladius requires how many transports? And how many of these transports will have the same load-out (Las/Plas)? Where else will you use these?
Meanwhile, if I want a White Scars force, better leave the cents at home. My army will still be competitive, but its a different playstyle. A single 1.5k list can't hope to include the diverse builds available from the better factions.

Also, to be fair, a balanced force like you're suggesting is usually pretty awful unless it centers around a deathstar. You usually tilt heavily towards tanks or infantry to make some weapons not work well (usually infantry). Gladius is an exception because it has so many transports. Same with flyers. Same with melee units (unless deathstar). 40k is mostly a game of skews and spamming good choices. But the game has so many choices, that even only half to 25% (for the weaker codexes) being good still means you have quite a few options in list building. Just not for unit building.

That being said, a lot of choices IN THE STARTER BOX are crap, which is what I claimed. Dreads aren't good, a captain in termie armor isn't good, tactical marines without a transport aren't good. Compared to WM/H, where the starter box models are mostly okay, this is awful. You certainly can't magnetize weapons in the starter box and have a competitive game.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) X-Wing's system of upgrade cards being spread across a bunch of different ships forces you to buy a lot more than the minimum for a 100 point game. Even if you only intend to play with a small subset of the total ships you end up having to buy almost everything anyway or you don't get to use vital upgrades. So the three-ship X-Wing player is almost guaranteed to lose every game they play, while the 40k player with exactly 1500 points of models can have a perfectly competitive army and win most of their games.

Are we playing the same 40k? 40k is a terrible game for building only exactly X number of points and expecting to be competitive at that points level.

2) X-Wing's lower "unit" count makes taking a single 100-point list over and over again really boring for most people. With 40k a "standard" army has at least 5-10 units and it's easy to change configurations without much additional cost (swapping magnetized weapon upgrades, etc). So even a player with just enough to play a single 1500-2000 point list still has a decent diversity of options to experience. But the three-ship X-Wing player has only a tiny part of what the whole game has to offer. While the 40k player is doing all the cool stuff their faction has the X-Wing player is re-playing the same starter-box experience over and over again.

I disagree, 40k gets very boring as well if you just bring the same army every game. One difference is expanding an X-Wing force takes 5 seconds, you buy a new model and you have expanded. 40k you want to expand it means you buy another box and then spend the next month or two painting it.

And of course, anecdotally, I can't think of a single person who stopped buying X-Wing stuff at three ships.

The difference is people keep buying more because they're enjoying the game and want to keep expanding. The same thing happens in 40k, people are enjoying the game so keep expanding. Most of the time when people stop building a 40k army it's because they're sick of it, not because their exactly 1500pt army allows them to such varied games they don't feel like expanding.

I know quite a few 40k players who built armies in the 750-1500pt range then just stopped..... but they also stopped PLAYING so I don't really count that as being a good thing

Akiasura wrote:
Make a list including the cards and price it up. If it's more expensive than a standard game of 40k, fine. If it's not, it's not.

I see now, you're arguing against a straw man version of my argument. I never said that X-Wing is more expensive than 40k, I simply pointed out that the hypothetical three-ship collection is an incredibly misleading example of X-Wing's costs. If you want to argue that X-Wing is cheaper than 40k that's fine, because it is. But at least use the real cost of X-Wing, which is going to be at least $2-500 for an average player.

Let's move away from the 3 ship X-wing force. I never supported it, and it has nothing to do with my original point so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

I'm bringing it up because it's the original post about X-Wing that I replied to and started this discussion with. If you want to start your own separate discussion with different example purchases that's fine, but you should be clear that you're changing the subject and not continuing on from the original claim.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Are we playing the same 40k? 40k is a terrible game for building only exactly X number of points and expecting to be competitive at that points level.

Why? What is preventing someone from doing their research and buying an optimized 1500 point list? They might not stay top-tier forever, but if I buy exactly X points for an X-point tournament this weekend I can be pretty confident that I'm not going to lose because I took a bad list.

I disagree, 40k gets very boring as well if you just bring the same army every game.

Sure, but imagine how boring X-Wing must be with the same 3-ship collection over and over again where you don't have any of the ships or upgrades required to do anything fun. It's not the equivalent to playing your same 1500 point list every game, it's the equivalent to playing nothing but that first stripped-down demo game from the local GW store over and over again. Same-list 40k might be boring, but 3-ship X-Wing is going to be so much worse.

The only difference is expanding an X-Wing force takes 5 seconds, you buy a new model and you have expanded. 40k you want to expand it means you buy another box and then spend the next month or two painting it.

But this is an entirely unrelated question. Obviously it takes a lot of time to build and paint 40k units (if you care about painting, which makes you part of the minority) but the question here is the financial cost of a typical collection.

The difference is people keep buying more because they're enjoying the game and want to keep expanding.

No, I'm not talking about people who get into the game, enjoy it for a while, and keep expanding. I'm talking about people who buy more than three ships with their very first purchase. People who play a game or two and then immediately spend $1-200 on new ships. Etc. That's their initial investment in the game, not ongoing satisfaction.

 Peregrine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Make a list including the cards and price it up. If it's more expensive than a standard game of 40k, fine. If it's not, it's not.

I see now, you're arguing against a straw man version of my argument. I never said that X-Wing is more expensive than 40k, I simply pointed out that the hypothetical three-ship collection is an incredibly misleading example of X-Wing's costs. If you want to argue that X-Wing is cheaper than 40k that's fine, because it is. But at least use the real cost of X-Wing, which is going to be at least $2-500 for an average player.

Good lord, you are really reaching here.
My whole point, the entire time, was that you don't have to include every model in X-wing versus only a 1500-2k list from 40k. It's silly to do so. You were claiming this is the correct way to compare the two systems, which I was showing was wildly incorrect for a variety of reasons. You were even attempting to equate the two using things like list variety, magentizing weapons, etc etc to show why it's okay for 40k but not okay for X-wing. You even throw in your own anecdotal evidence and tried to justify it, while dismissing others' experiences.

It certainly was not a straw man. Just admit that there is no reason you can't include the cards in the price by using the models for x-wing. You don't need to include every model in X-wing as was the original claim. It's absurd.
It's equally silly to suggest that we should only include the minimum for a standard game of 40k if you're going to compare to a serious collector for X-wing. Only new players buy up until the minimum, serious collectors of 40k own a ton of points, often across at least one other faction. Since 3rd, it was very common to hear "everyone's first faction is marines".

 Peregrine wrote:

Let's move away from the 3 ship X-wing force. I never supported it, and it has nothing to do with my original point so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

I'm bringing it up because it's the original post about X-Wing that I replied to and started this discussion with. If you want to start your own separate discussion with different example purchases that's fine, but you should be clear that you're changing the subject and not continuing on from the original claim.

Then price it up and compare it to 40k. I don't see why you can't include the cards in the cost, or why you feel the need to include the entire X-wing collection against only a minimum standard game of 40k.
If someone says 3 ship model with upgrades is cheaper, prove them wrong. Don't change it to "No, you must include all of X-wing!". Heck, I can see the 3 ship with a ton of upgrades being a good buy. If I buy another ship, have a ton of upgrades I can swap around between them all and make new combos and builds. But I'm not an expert on the game.

We can ignore the rest of the points I made if you want.

Akiasura wrote:
But I'm not an expert on the game.

And here is the problem: you keep talking about this version of X-Wing where you "just buy the upgrades", but that game does not exist. It is effectively impossible to buy separate upgrade cards in X-Wing (very few sellers, and it costs almost as much as buying the whole ship), and the way FFG distributes them across the whole product line forces you to buy pretty much every ship. For example, here's my regionals list from this year:

Corran Horn (e-wing expansion, ship model)
Push the limit (a-wing expansion)
R2-D2 (original core set)
Fire control system (b-wing expansion)
Engine upgrade (YT-1300 expansion)

Miranda Doni (k-wing expansion, ship model)
Twin laser turret (k-wing expansion)
Advanced SLAM (k-wing expansion)
Extra munitions (k-wing expansion)
Sabine Wren (Ghost expansion)
Conner net (k-wing expansion)
Conner net (k-wing expansion)
Extra conner net template (k-wing expansion)
Extra conner net template (k-wing expansion)

So that's a two-ship list that requires seven $15 ships, two $30-40 ships, and a $35 core set (which you have to buy in addition to the TFA core set since the old core set doesn't give you the updated damage deck). Or let's consider the Palp Aces list that is winning a lot lately, and would be a pretty good choice for a player who wants to get right into competitive play:

Soontir Fel (TIE interceptor expansion, ship model)
Push the limit (imperial aces)
Royal guard TIE (imperial aces)
Stealth device (Firespray)
Autothrusters (Starviper)

Inquisitor (TIE prototype, ship model)
Push the limit (imperial aces)
Title (TIE prototype)
Autothrusters (Starviper)

Omicron Pilot (Shuttle, ship model)
Palpatine (Raider)

So that's two $15 expansions, a $20 expansion, three $30 expansions, and an $80 expansion. And that's with FFG being rather generous and giving you two copies of PTL and autothrusters in their respective boxes, which isn't usually the case. Very often you could add another $50 to the cost of a similar list.

GW is expensive but most of that is because it's a big game. I play Guard, Nids and Orks as well as Vampire Counts. I've bought plenty of GW models. And that's fine. I understand the costs.

But I never understand why people look at Warmachine as an alternative. Warmachine is cheaper solely because it is a smaller game. On a per unity basis, I have to pay $50 dollars for 10 Menoth or Legion infantry (compared to $25-30 for the same from GW) and my Warmachine infantry are static poses, most of which are repeated throughout the kit and offer me no options.

Is Warmachine cheaper, yes? But that's because you need fewer models. On a per model basis, Privateer Press is much worse.

 Peregrine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
But I'm not an expert on the game.

And here is the problem: you keep talking about this version of X-Wing where you "just buy the upgrades", but that game does not exist.

Now who is strawmanning?
I never once said you could buy the upgrades all on their own. I suggested just pricing it out, whatever you need to buy to get the upgrades even if they are ships, and compare it to a standard 40k army.
This is no different from, when pricing 40k, including the rulebook and codex imo. You need to buy something to play the game, so price it out. If you have to buy the models to get cards, so be it. You can argue that its a flaw in the game and jacks up the price, I would agree, but it doesn't stop you from pricing out a standard game.

@ Time 2 Roll,
I did a pretty detailed breakdown of cost.
A 10 man infantry from PP is roughly 50, so 5/model.
A 10 man basic infantry from GW is roughly 40, so 4/model. For marines.
For guard its harder, because they are 3/model, but the heavy weapons teams and plasma guns are sold in a different pack and aren't included. This jacks up the cost.
The plasma gunners are 15 for two (7.5 per model) and the heavy weapons teams are 40 for 3 bases (13/model). If you want a transport instead, it's between 40-50 for one model. It's why I went with marines, they don't have wonky options.

This is literally the only area where GW is cheaper. In Tanks/Heavies, in Titans/Gargants, in Character Models, in Elite infantry, PP either ties or does better on a per model basis.

Check out the post, I used marines versus cygnar. PP is roughly the same or much cheaper than GW outside of very basic infantry, which are pretty awful in 40k anyway or require transports/additional purchases to be viable.
For example, you can argue from a gameplay perspective, a unit of 10 Guardsmen with 2 Plasma gunners is equivalent to a unit of errants. Both are about ~50 (GW has a slight advantage here at 45 and with extra models) and both are commonly used in practice.

Time 2 Roll wrote:
But I never understand why people look at Warmachine as an alternative. Warmachine is cheaper solely because it is a smaller game.

People look at it as an alternative because it's cheaper, on account of being a smaller game.


It's also considerably cheaper from a rules front, because all you need to buy is the rulebook. No army book required, as the models come with cards that have their rules on them.


And, of course, there are those who took it up because the rules are better written than 40K's, and they don't much care about the cost of the game.

Akiasura wrote:
I never once said you could buy the upgrades all on their own. I suggested just pricing it out, whatever you need to buy to get the upgrades even if they are ships, and compare it to a standard 40k army.

Ok then. It sounded like you were suggesting "price out the cards" as if you could just buy the necessary cards without the ships, and save money over the "buy one of everything" plan. And my point here is that once you start pricing out a list or two you quickly find yourself adding a copy of almost every expansion to your shopping list. Your first list adds 5-10 more ships you need to buy, and then once you have those ship models you might as well buy the extra stuff you need to make them useful instead of paying $15 each for small pieces of paper, and so on until you have one of everything. And this is especially reinforced by FFG's constant supply problems, ships can go out of stock for months at a time so you're strongly encouraged to buy everything you think you'll ever want so you aren't stuck wishing for it later. Perhaps all of this is foreign to a 40k player, but if you ever get into X-Wing beyond a couple of starter-box games you'll understand how easily "buy one of everything" becomes a minimum purchase and the serious collectors are buying 2-3 or more of everything.

And, again, I never claimed that X-Wing is more expensive than 40k. I just object to people spreading the myth that you can spend $50 on it and go play. Realistically you're looking at more like $200 for a starter purchase, quickly escalating to $500 or so as you get into the game. And that $500 number looks a lot different than $50 when you're comparing it to 40k armies.

Time 2 Roll wrote:
Is Warmachine cheaper, yes? But that's because you need fewer models. On a per model basis, Privateer Press is much worse.

The thing about injection moulded models, it doesn't cost a lot more to make 2 sprues and package them together as it does to make 1 sprue and package it singularly.

In that sense, price should scale somewhat depending on how many you will typically use to play a game. If you use twice as many models to play a game, then the models should be somewhat cheaper on a per model basis (not saying half, but definitely cheaper). If you use half as many models, the amount of effort that goes in to getting the models in to the sweaty hands of gamers doesn't change a whole heap, so it makes sense the models individually should be slightly more expensive.

I am the sort of person who has no issues spending $200 on a model. Not a problem. But to play a game that requires 100 models each which cost $10? Err, no thanks.

I think what people are missing is that you only need to buy ships for cards in x-wing if you're a tournament player.

If you're casual we just proxy the cards there are plenty of squad builders that have the rules included.

I use the pilot talent juke all the time but I've never bought the expansion it comes in.

hobojebus wrote:
I think what people are missing is that you only need to buy ships for cards in x-wing if you're a tournament player.

If you're casual we just proxy the cards there are plenty of squad builders that have the rules included.

I use the pilot talent juke all the time but I've never bought the expansion it comes in.

This is true, but if you're going to talk about proxying in one game then you need to be consistent and apply it to all games. For example, you can play 40k just fine with paper cutouts, pirated rulebooks, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I think what people are missing is that you only need to buy ships for cards in x-wing if you're a tournament player.

If you're casual we just proxy the cards there are plenty of squad builders that have the rules included.

I use the pilot talent juke all the time but I've never bought the expansion it comes in.

This is true, but if you're going to talk about proxying in one game then you need to be consistent and apply it to all games. For example, you can play 40k just fine with paper cutouts, pirated rulebooks, etc.

We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

hobojebus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I think what people are missing is that you only need to buy ships for cards in x-wing if you're a tournament player.

If you're casual we just proxy the cards there are plenty of squad builders that have the rules included.

I use the pilot talent juke all the time but I've never bought the expansion it comes in.

This is true, but if you're going to talk about proxying in one game then you need to be consistent and apply it to all games. For example, you can play 40k just fine with paper cutouts, pirated rulebooks, etc.

We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

BattleScribe contains every special rule, and points values. It's certainly "freely available information". If you must make comparisons, make fair comparisons.

hobojebus wrote:
We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So what? You can't consider proxying as a cost-reduction option for one game while rejecting proxying as a cost-reduction option for the game you want to "prove" is more expensive. If you're allowed to proxy upgrade cards for X-Wing instead of paying for them then you're allowed to proxy models for 40k instead of paying for them. That's the only fair way to compare the costs of the two games.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

Ok, fine, only proxy models then. That brings the cost of 40k down to the cost of the main rulebook and a codex. That's what, $100 or so to play 40k? Sure doesn't seem so expensive anymore!

 Peregrine wrote:
If you're allowed to proxy upgrade cards for X-Wing instead of paying for them then you're allowed to proxy models for 40k instead of paying for them. That's the only fair way to compare the costs of the two games

Yeah I don't think anyone would genuinely feel proxying cards in a miniature game is the same as proxying the actual miniatures in a miniature game. It's a grey area that doesn't really compare well between the games. It's probably more akin to sharing a rulebook in 40k rather than actually proxying the models themselves.

I could see proxying the cards to see if you like the game or want to go out and get the cards, but I don't think its right to do for a discussion.

For purposes of the discussion, store bought and including everything that you need to play seems the most fair. Otherwise we get very circular arguments where people buy from 3rd party chinese manufactures for one game, but not the other. Or suggest downloading the rulebook for one, but not the other to prove their point. Or 3D printing.

The last time we opened that door here, someone suggested a 40% discount for 40k due to a weird deal he had with his local shop, but didn't want to give PP a discount.

I think the assumption that "I'm entering my local tournament and I'd like to have a decent game" is a good condition to have this discussion. Keeps it even for everyone and no one gains an unfair advantage.

 insaniak wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

True, two clearly different markets, but they are producing a superior product and selling it at a cheaper price. That makes GW look like bad value if someone does make the comparison.

Tamiya's product is only superior if you're comparing GW's product as the same thing.


Tamiya tanks are certainly better than GW's as scale models. As gaming miniatures, they're not as good - too fiddly (anf so time consuming) to build, and made from a harder and more brittle plastic with lots of little parts which makes them unsuitable for frequent handling and lugging about the countryside.

You can't really directly compare the two, because they're two very different products, in different genres, intended for different purposes. It's like trying to compare a sword and a cricket bat... They might look superficially similar, but which of them is better depends entirely on what you're trying to do with them.

Well, actually those Panzer II's I mentioned are far superior to GW's kits both as scale models and as wargaming pieces.

they are cheap and easy to build, they have plenty of detail and extra parts and they are also very tough and robust so they can withstand the handling they receive on the table top. They are also really easy to convert. If I want a different variant I just have to swap out the main gun and convert on something else in its place. If I want to change the hull mount I have to make the most minimal of changes. The only challenges come from adding on sponsons and to be fair who adds on sponsons to Leman Russ these days?
They are also the same size as a Leman Russ, so there is no issue there and as a g=final nail in the coffin they have rotating wheels and rubber band tracks that are far easier to assemble and paint.

So, £10 for a fun, easy to build, good looking and superbly detailed tank kit or £40 for a clunky, over riveted and poorly designed kit?

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So what? You can't consider proxying as a cost-reduction option for one game while rejecting proxying as a cost-reduction option for the game you want to "prove" is more expensive. If you're allowed to proxy upgrade cards for X-Wing instead of paying for them then you're allowed to proxy models for 40k instead of paying for them. That's the only fair way to compare the costs of the two games.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

Ok, fine, only proxy models then. That brings the cost of 40k down to the cost of the main rulebook and a codex. That's what, $100 or so to play 40k? Sure doesn't seem so expensive anymore!

Except in 20 years I've never met anyone who'd let you proxy a coke can for a rhino or wooden blocks for marines that's always been a major nono.

Saying a powerfist is actually a thunder hammer, or that flamers actually a meltagun is more akin to proxying cards in x-wing.

 Verviedi wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
I think what people are missing is that you only need to buy ships for cards in x-wing if you're a tournament player.

If you're casual we just proxy the cards there are plenty of squad builders that have the rules included.

I use the pilot talent juke all the time but I've never bought the expansion it comes in.

This is true, but if you're going to talk about proxying in one game then you need to be consistent and apply it to all games. For example, you can play 40k just fine with paper cutouts, pirated rulebooks, etc.

We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

BattleScribe contains every special rule, and points values. It's certainly "freely available information". If you must make comparisons, make fair comparisons.

No, it doesn't. It contains MOST, but not all. There's a reason you need the codex too

hobojebus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
We Arnt talking about proxying ships though just the upgrade cards, which means you buy ships because you want them not for the cards.

So what? You can't consider proxying as a cost-reduction option for one game while rejecting proxying as a cost-reduction option for the game you want to "prove" is more expensive. If you're allowed to proxy upgrade cards for X-Wing instead of paying for them then you're allowed to proxy models for 40k instead of paying for them. That's the only fair way to compare the costs of the two games.

So yes you can pirate the rule books but that's theft, proxying cards is not as its freely available information.

Ok, fine, only proxy models then. That brings the cost of 40k down to the cost of the main rulebook and a codex. That's what, $100 or so to play 40k? Sure doesn't seem so expensive anymore!

Except in 20 years I've never met anyone who'd let you proxy a coke can for a rhino or wooden blocks for marines that's always been a major nono.

Saying a powerfist is actually a thunder hammer, or that flamers actually a meltagun is more akin to proxying cards in x-wing.

I've let someone proxy a 24oz bottle of coke zero for a riptide and in another situation proxy a flyrant for an unopened can of PBR.

We interrupt this silly game of toss the strawman to give Peregine a thumbs up for playing Sabine and Bombs

Time 2 Roll wrote:
GW is expensive but most of that is because it's a big game. I play Guard, Nids and Orks as well as Vampire Counts. I've bought plenty of GW models. And that's fine. I understand the costs.

But I never understand why people look at Warmachine as an alternative. Warmachine is cheaper solely because it is a smaller game. On a per unity basis, I have to pay $50 dollars for 10 Menoth or Legion infantry (compared to $25-30 for the same from GW) and my Warmachine infantry are static poses, most of which are repeated throughout the kit and offer me no options.

Is Warmachine cheaper, yes? But that's because you need fewer models. On a per model basis, Privateer Press is much worse.

Having bought quite a few WarMachine miniatures I agree with this. I played a few matches with my Cygnar pieces and I wish that GW would adopt some unit cards like WarMachine does because it makes quick reference of your units easy but it wouldn't be easy to do with the way 40K units can be customized while WarMachine units are pretty much static in their options. It's also true that the miniatures cannot be customized to the degree that 40K minis can. The sculpting of the WarMachine stuff is fantastic and they look great when painted but yes pretty much every basic squad of any given army is going to look like every other basic squad because they have no options, no customized poses, no weapons options and so on. With respect to the per miniature cost between WarMahine and 40K you are right, they are about the same. WarMachine draws players in by virtue of the fact that it takes less miniatures to get started in a fight but they know that gamers are not going to stop at 8, 10 or 15 miniatures. They are going to collect minis and they are going to expand their armies and in the long run you will spend as much on WarMachine as you do on 40K. The minis, the books, the terrain and so on. In the end it all comes out about the same in cost. There is no such thing as a cheap hobby if you are really interested in it.

I don't find their prices have the same global problems, so much as inconsistencies.

For $40 you can get a unit of ten space marines- $4 per mini. That price seems just fine to me. If you're buying units, they go up in price if you're getting the resin ones.

However, if you have basically the same minis, but call them "Sternguard" the box is suddenly more expensive for half as many minis.

Then the characters seem like they're all pricing at $30 these days- although older power armored marine character can be as cheap as $16 ea.


The books have long been the place where I think they're loony- a core book that costs $90, plus a $50 codex means that you have to invest $140 before buying any minis to play the game- compared against their competitors who mostly post full rulebooks for free, or charge about $30 for a core rulebook.

Recently, it seems like GW might be changing their policy with book pricing (the new AoS book with point values is only $25- and recent codecies are down in price- although a lot of current forces require two codecies to play).

Right, Gw pricing for basic troops isn't bad at all. It's why you see the people who think Gw is reasonably priced use them as an example.
The problem is it's the only thing that's reasonable. You start looking at elites, transports, and character models and Gw is back to being way overpriced. As my unit breakdown showed several pages back, war machine is much cheaper than Gw especially if we are talking competitive armies which rarely include basic infantry in any number.

Buying behaviors change based on the pricing.
40k 5th edition I bought all the codex's so I would know what I was fighting.
Legitimately getting all books for 6-7th is a bit of a fool's errand to achieve expense-wise.
I find I am not considering starting new armies I do not already have, so I do not see the "sticker-shock" new players see.

Oddly, I am one of those that bought all X-wing models and a few chosen duplicates. Not so much for the specific cards but I have noticed when running short on preferred upgrades. I am quite torn on saying you "must" own the physical card.

40k gives me the hobby build and paint fun, X-wing gives a fine ruleset and an immediate ability to play. They are a funny comparison since they seem to offer differing experiences.

The one common experience is both have extensive "fluff" so when a scenario is made for either game, people get all excited to give it a go.

Hi Everyone,

Just wanted to chip in and say Goblin Gaming actually gets the standard discount from GW just like any other store does.

That is actually less than the % being speculated on here. Some of the figures being quoted about margins etc are way out.

We manage to sell all of our goods at roughly 20% off RRP - Including malifaux, X-Wing and many more.

The thing is we are also a bricks and mortar FLGS. Our discounts currently apply the same in store too - even though the overhead is bigger.

We support local groups and clubs along with providing prize support to non local groups.

If you combine that with us sponsoring youtube channels and podcasts I think we are trying to do our bit to foster the hobby.

Finally, I just want to add that GW is pretty much the ONLY supplier we deal with that's very strict on the trade margin we get. There are no deals to be done for buying more product, unlike many other companies supplying goods in many other industries.

The GW margin is literally equal to or smaller than every other products margin that we sell. We just sell 10 times more GW products than anything else so we can afford to discount the items more.

If you guys ever have any questions, we are a very transparent company and will do everything we can to answer honestly.

Cheers

Just do what I do, buy second hand.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Just do what I do, buy second hand.

Yeah it's the way forward.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Just do what I do, buy second hand.

And borrow/torrent the books, lol.

Honestly, I used to buy everything from GW or some other FLGS straight, but starting my third army now, it's getting hard to justify. I generally support one of the FLGS's, but ebay is becoming rapidly the best way for me to get models...

And that is even with Roundtree trying to fix GW's image... and doing pretty well IMO...

Zombie thread