and that enjoyment isn't necessarily always wedded to how technically superior the rules are

Which is exactly how a game like 40k, which has horrible rules, has such a huge following. The rules are not the primary concern.

As GW do not appeal to people who care about game play.People are into 40k DESPITE the 'crappy' rules.

Therefore if the rules were written to appeal to people who care about game play, they would attraact more people to the product range.
As ''gamers'' would get the added value of good game play which they currently do not.

The current potential customers who are put of by 'crappy' rules and subsequently poor value for money to them.Are not catered to by GW.

More volume of sales and positive word of mouth about great game play.Would greatly benefit everyone concerned.

Higher volume of sales to lower costs through economies of scale.And fixing the biggest complaints about 40k and A.O.S. 'crappy' rules and 'cost of entry.'
Seems like a potential fix to the current insane GW prices.

Or do you think crappy rules are a good thing in general?

 auticus wrote:

and that enjoyment isn't necessarily always wedded to how technically superior the rules are

Which is exactly how a game like 40k, which has horrible rules, has such a huge following. The rules are not the primary concern.

Agreed! I love both Warhammer brands because I enjoy the backgrounds of both immensely. Mantic and other companies can't even come close to that for me.

 Coldhatred wrote:

 auticus wrote:

and that enjoyment isn't necessarily always wedded to how technically superior the rules are

Which is exactly how a game like 40k, which has horrible rules, has such a huge following. The rules are not the primary concern.

Agreed! I love both Warhammer brands because I enjoy the backgrounds of both immensely. Mantic and other companies can't even come close to that for me.

This is why I play their video games and read their novels. Enjoying the fiction without the absurd prices and terrible gameplay.

Lanrak wrote:
As GW do not appeal to people who care about game play.People are into 40k DESPITE the 'crappy' rules.

Therefore if the rules were written to appeal to people who care about game play, they would attraact more people to the product range.
As ''gamers'' would get the added value of good game play which they currently do not.

The current potential customers who are put of by 'crappy' rules and subsequently poor value for money to them.Are not catered to by GW.

More volume of sales and positive word of mouth about great game play.Would greatly benefit everyone concerned.

Higher volume of sales to lower costs through economies of scale.And fixing the biggest complaints about 40k and A.O.S. 'crappy' rules and 'cost of entry.'
Seems like a potential fix to the current insane GW prices.

Or do you think crappy rules are a good thing in general?

Oh come now, can't we do better than this?

Thinking 40K is "crappy" is the absolute definition of subjectivity. 40K 8th is a short rule set, if not a simple one from an administrative view, so it doesn't even qualify under your "taking 400 pages to do what others do in 40" criterium. If someone is playing and enjoying 40K, how likely are they to think it's crappy? How likely are they to feel that the rules weren't written to appeal to them? They've doubled their turnover while simply paying lip service to making 40K a competitive game.

But it doesn't matter, because, as much as it sticks in my throats to admit, Kirby was right. GW is a model company, not a games company. I know this from witnessing the financial improvements not linked with the release of AOS or the new edition of 40K, but most closely associated with the releases of big boxes of models loosely camouflaged as a game and the release of long awaited factions or models which has seen even the most hardcore GW critics devolve into squealing fanboys (and girls, of course) and completely forget everything they'd previously crucified GW for (if only temporarily) in exchange for the right sort of new shiny.

I love the 40K universe, I still want to be part of it, and I wish the game was something I was excited to play. But it isn't, and there's cold hard data that proves it doesn't need a good game to make an absolute fortune, and leaving the sort of gamers' you're talking about cash on the table, because it appears, as much as I wish it wasn't the case, there's just not enough of it to be worth the effort of chasing it.

But there's clearly a big renaissance in 40K, and if you're someone who enjoys 40K or someone who can be satisfied with collecting and painting models and other ancillary stuff like Black Library then it's probably about as good a time to be a GW fan as there's ever been. If, when we're this far into 8th, you're still railing against GW for not making the game you want and haven't just moved in to something you prefer, when clearly GW are unable or unwilling to make a tight, competitive game, then there comes a point when the finger shouldn't be pointing at Workshop. Go buy a jeep rather than complaining your coupe sucks at off roading.

Yep. I buy less of it every year because I don't play any of it, but
with Necromunda that might change.

(though honestly, I will probably buy and paint a bunch of Necromunda
and not play it)

Probably buy a lot more of their prices weren't so insane...

Lanrak wrote:
As GW do not appeal to people who care about game play.People are into 40k DESPITE the 'crappy' rules.

Therefore if the rules were written to appeal to people who care about game play, they would attract more people to the product range.
As ''gamers'' would get the added value of good game play which they currently do not.

Potentially wrong. If the rules were written like some people on dakka on forums want, more restrictive. They might lose costumers they have depending on what sacrifices they make to bring balance.

Better balance is better for the game but not everything that is good for the game, or more generally the hobby, is better for balance.

@Asreal13.
If you notice in my post I put referred to the rules as 'crappy' .As this is how several people have referred to the 40k rules in negative way.
'Crappy', 'terrible' ,'horrible', 'hot mess', etc.

My objective comparative assessment would call the 8th edition 40k rules ''needlessly complicated and tactically shallow''.

You should write rules to cover the intended game play.
GW have not defined the game play for 40k since 2nd ed.
Simply so they can just put what ever they like into the game with out worrying about the effect on game play.

The 8th ed rule set still failed to define the intended game play.
So has ended up yet another 'WHFB in space clone ' with all the associated issues from previous editions.
Lack of player interaction.
Massive imbalance between shooting and assault functionality.
Messy and ineffective morale system.
All leading to counter intuitive game play.

All of these require some for of additional rules to try to get the game to actually work. (EG over watch to correct the lack of player interaction.etc.)

I never said that GW HAVE to write better rules.

But pointing out ignoring ''gamers'' is reducing GW potential sales and positive word of mouth , and therefore effecting the retail price.


I am not asking GW to write a tight competitive game.Just proposing a rule set that follows a clearly defined game play would appeal to more potential customers.

There are lots of good rules sets from game companies I enjoy playing. I gave up on GW ever writing a rule set for 40k/WHFB/A.O.S, focused on game years ago.

I an not expecting GW to move from their business model of going for the 'easiest to please' of their potential customer base. But simply pointing out a factor that is limiting GWs potential customer base, and therefore effecting the retail price GW have to charge to remain in the black.

@Earth 127.
Have you ever seen rules written for a specific game play by a professional game developer that is allowed to focus on game play?

The sort where all units options are equally valuable in a tactically rich game play.And multiple play styles are valid .

If GW are not writing rules for random pick up and play games that is great.
Just do not put PV on anything and let the players arrange and narrate their games how they want.

Then no one would complain about balance issues , as they would just sort it out them selves.(Eg like Stargrunt II)

If rules are written focusing on commonality, the stats cover ALL units in the game effectively.
(EG how the units work in the game are covered in the same way.)

As opposed to the GW way where every slight difference has a special rule. Because the core rules only cover a fraction of the units in the game.
(Standard troops in the open.)

Lanrak wrote:
As GW do not appeal to people who care about game play.People are into 40k DESPITE the 'crappy' rules.

Therefore if the rules were written to appeal to people who care about game play, they would attraact more people to the product range.
As ''gamers'' would get the added value of good game play which they currently do not.

The current potential customers who are put of by 'crappy' rules and subsequently poor value for money to them.Are not catered to by GW.

More volume of sales and positive word of mouth about great game play.Would greatly benefit everyone concerned.

Higher volume of sales to lower costs through economies of scale.And fixing the biggest complaints about 40k and A.O.S. 'crappy' rules and 'cost of entry.'
Seems like a potential fix to the current insane GW prices.

Or do you think crappy rules are a good thing in general?

You have made this rather strange assertion before that "gamers" do not play 40K. People who play 40K are absolutely "gamers" and they care about game play.

The game play current 40k gives is exactly what my group is looking for. We don't want tactically deep play we want evocative play where we just have a laugh and roll some dice. We have other games for tactical depth.

I also figured out why GW's prices might not yet be too high. I think they are still low enough that anyone who has a monthly hobby budget can buy a kit perhaps every month or two. If you spend $50 or $100 a month on geeky stuff, be it through steam, mobile games, board games, card games, miniatures, RPGs or whatever, then you can easily fit a $50 kit in there every so often. Or even GW's expensive things like the new Greater Daemon every few months.

It's sadly true you can no longer grab a single booster to add to a unit with pocket money. The closest they have to that are the easy to build boxes and those are not available across many factions at all.

I kinda lost your train of thought there but I think I agree. A perfect game would be awesome but there are many factors that aren't as straightforward.

GW's pricing isn't that insane. It's very definetely not a race to the bottom but also not comparatively what the hell are you thinking? Mostly.
Tough I wonder if they couldn't at least offer some more better value bundles (BoP and BfC are dirt cheap compared to other sets).

GW's prices look fine until you take your head from the sand (sprue?) and have a good long look at the rest of the miniature wargaming market, and all of the competitors.
Then you either realise that you are being ripped off and frantically wade to the shore, or the tiny plastic marines succeed in their assault on your brain, take control of your cortex and you jam your head back down, proclaiming all else to be blasphemy to the great Gdubs.

Or GW kits might actually have qualities that differentiate them from other manufacturers and people make informed decisions and still buy their products.

 master of ordinance wrote:
GW's prices look fine until you take your head from the sand (sprue?) and have a good long look at the rest of the miniature wargaming market, and all of the competitors.
Then you either realise that you are being ripped off and frantically wade to the shore, or the tiny plastic marines succeed in their assault on your brain, take control of your cortex and you jam your head back down, proclaiming all else to be blasphemy to the great Gdubs.

the inexplicable brand loyalty baffles me too, I think the friction comes when people muddle negative GW sentiments as personal attack similar to stuff like Brexit, The Donald or Marmite in the wider world

Lanrak wrote:

Spoiler:

@Asreal13.
If you notice in my post I put referred to the rules as 'crappy' .As this is how several people have referred to the 40k rules in negative way.
'Crappy', 'terrible' ,'horrible', 'hot mess', etc.

My objective comparative assessment would call the 8th edition 40k rules ''needlessly complicated and tactically shallow''.

You should write rules to cover the intended game play.
GW have not defined the game play for 40k since 2nd ed.
Simply so they can just put what ever they like into the game with out worrying about the effect on game play.

The 8th ed rule set still failed to define the intended game play.
So has ended up yet another 'WHFB in space clone ' with all the associated issues from previous editions.
Lack of player interaction.
Massive imbalance between shooting and assault functionality.
Messy and ineffective morale system.
All leading to counter intuitive game play.

All of these require some for of additional rules to try to get the game to actually work. (EG over watch to correct the lack of player interaction.etc.)

I never said that GW HAVE to write better rules.

But pointing out ignoring ''gamers'' is reducing GW potential sales and positive word of mouth , and therefore effecting the retail price.


I am not asking GW to write a tight competitive game.Just proposing a rule set that follows a clearly defined game play would appeal to more potential customers.

There are lots of good rules sets from game companies I enjoy playing. I gave up on GW ever writing a rule set for 40k/WHFB/A.O.S, focused on game years ago.

I an not expecting GW to move from their business model of going for the 'easiest to please' of their potential customer base. But simply pointing out a factor that is limiting GWs potential customer base, and therefore effecting the retail price GW have to charge to remain in the black.

You're still using things that are your opinion as examples of objectivity, and ignoring counter points to other statements of your opinion backed by evidence just to restate those opinions. I can't see how this discussion progresses while that's happening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chamberlain wrote:
Or GW kits might actually have qualities that differentiate them from other manufacturers and people make informed decisions and still buy their products.

Well, obviously I'm going to ask for suggestions as to what those qualities might be, except ubiquity, we'll take that as read.

Also, I disagree it's an informed choice, at least in the sense that the buyer weighs up all the options and chooses the best one. I'd assert that for any buyer with an idea there's a wargaming hobby outside of GW it's an emotional choice either through sunk cost fallacy or an attachment to the broader ideas the models represent i.e. "I know they're expensive, but I like Space Marines" or "OMG they've done Genestealer Cults, I've fantasies about having them as an army since I was 12."

 Azreal13 wrote:

Well, obviously I'm going to ask for suggestions as to what those qualities might be, except ubiquity, we'll take that as read.

What qualities do miniatures have? Material? Sculpting? Size? Art style? Build experience? Resistance to accidental damage?

If Reaper bones are $3 a miniature for something like a basic grunt and GW are $5, I think it's an informed decision to simply like hard styrene more than flexible PVC. Anyone who pays extra for that is not "having their head in the sand."

I've painted some Infinity miniatures for people and while they are technically excellent, I didn't enjoy it and found they took more time to get to my usual standard. The details are fine, but they are also shallow. GW on the other hand has deep and exaggerated detail. I'm not making a decision out of ignorance because I prefer GW for this reason.

I'm a big fan of anime and build gunpla kits. A friend wrote some rules for them, but we quickly found that there's a reason the gunpla community talks about being careful with plastic cement because it can make the plastic brittle. We had breaks through simple handling and the occasional accident. The kits are excellent and objectively superior model kits to GW, but they are for minor posing and display. We still occasionally play our gundam battles, but we have kits we simply don't use. GW kits on the other hand, can handle a beating. I'm not shutting off my brain for choosing GW for this reason.

For my historical gaming I like 15mm. I have some Plastic Soldier Company tanks and infantry that are all very realistic. The proportions on the figures are very much like those of scale model figures. GW on the other hand has a cartoon style. I find I prefer it for my sci-fantasy over more realistic sci-fi miniatures out there. GW's proportions can be described as objectively wrong if you compare them to a real person. I'm not uninformed because I want a comic book aesthetic in my sci-fantasy games.

Also, I disagree it's an informed choice, at least in the sense that the buyer weighs up all the options and chooses the best one. I'd assert that for any buyer with an idea there's a wargaming hobby outside of GW it's an emotional choice either through sunk cost fallacy or an attachment to the broader ideas the models represent i.e. "I know they're expensive, but I like Space Marines" or "OMG they've done Genestealer Cults, I've fantasies about having them as an army since I was 12."

You can read informed as "as informed as any hobby purchasing decision can be" if you like. Also, GW customers are a population and we honestly don't know how many know about what competitors and have tried working with which materials, which miniatures and so on. What I am objecting too is this notion that what causes people to buy GW is ignorance. I'm certain GW benefits from customer ignorance, but I think this caricature of GW customers as having ignorance as the cause of their purchasing needs to stop.

That sentiment is just a masturbatory display of ego. "It can't possibly be that people actually find GW's product to be... good? Nah. It must be ignorance, right? They can't possibly be making an informed decision like I do or they would make the choices I make!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I am no longer convinced that sunk cost fallacy is a reasonable thing to point out in the case of people with existing GW miniature collections. It's not just past money put into a collection of miniatures that is "lost" (it's not really, but that's the point of it being a sunk cost fallacy) but future utility.

Shifting away from something you already have means that you are not employing your existing property in the most effective way possible into the future. If miniatures I already own are sitting on a shelf rather than being used then I am not employing my assets efficiently. Like if I own tools but never build anything with them.

This is still loss aversion but it is not logically fallacious.

I'm certain GW benefits from customer ignorance, but I think this caricature of GW customers as having ignorance as the cause of their purchasing needs to stop.

It'll stop when people stop referring to GW and their games as "the hobby," coming on places like Dakka having spent an absolute fortune on Citadel PVA glue (for example) asking for advice because they've no idea it's simple white wood glue, or posting 40K and Sigmar related questions in general discussion because they don't understand Dakka is about wargaming and not GW.


It isn't a caricature, it's an existing subset of GW consumers.

Also, doesn't the subject matter... matter? "I like space marines" "OMG Genestealer Cults!" are what? Expressions of fondness for something. I am very interested in the history of the late 19th century. I think choosing to get some miniatures for the Franco-Prussian war as part of my interest is a totally rational thing to do. I think it makes sense to act out of "an attachment to the broader ideas the models represent" as hobbies are about enjoyment.

If someone were to come along and go "but if you got these WW2 miniatures it'd be better for reasons X, Y and Z" and I respond "that's nice, but that's the 20th century and I'm actually interested in the 19th," then in no way am I being irrational.

Similarly if someone does like the subject matter of a given fantasy or sci-fi miniature line, they're also acting in a rational manner when they buy them for that reason.

But they're acting based on an emotional imperative. They're buying something because they like it, if that thing isn't the best/cheapest option and bought out of preference, or even if it is the best or cheapest option and bought for other reasons, it isn't the rational choice.

You can't justify a preference for Eldar over Tyranids, or WWI over black powder era in logical terms. You can express why you hold a preference in highly articulate terms, but it will never be a logical choice, only ever an emotional one.

But you're talking as if rational and emotional are mutually exclusive, when it is of course entirely possible to act rationally based on emotionally driven motivations.

 Azreal13 wrote:
But they're acting based on an emotional imperative. They're buying something because they like it, if that thing isn't the best/cheapest option and bought out of preference, or even if it is the best or cheapest option and bought for other reasons, it isn't the rational choice.

Divorcing emotion from the equation when talking about enjoying a hobby seems kind of ridiculous to me. Sort of like asking someone who likes romantic comedies to go see a horror movie instead because the movie in question is a technically superior piece of film making.

It's far more irrational to act against your own preferences for the sake of rationality than to act in accordance with them for emotional ones.

You can't justify a preference for Eldar over Tyranids, or WWI over black powder era in logical terms. You can express why you hold a preference in highly articulate terms, but it will never be a logical choice, only ever an emotional one.

It is logical to choose the option you like over the one you don't when the goal is enjoying a hobby.

But you're talking as if rational and emotional are mutually exclusive, when it is of course entirely possible to act rationally based on emotionally driven motivations.

Actually I agree with the second phrase there. What I'm objecting to is the idea that people buying something because they like the subject matter is somehow an invalid way of making a decision. That it somehow doesn't count as a real informed decision because they buy what they like. That horror movie might be a technical masterpiece and demonstrate a true genius of filmmaking,-- oh and the tickets are free!-- but if someone doesn't like horror movies, skipping the movie in favour of a rom-com would be a valid decision. Similarly someone liking space marines is making a valid decision when buying them.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I'm certain GW benefits from customer ignorance, but I think this caricature of GW customers as having ignorance as the cause of their purchasing needs to stop.

It'll stop when people stop referring to GW and their games as "the hobby," coming on places like Dakka having spent an absolute fortune on Citadel PVA glue (for example) asking for advice because they've no idea it's simple white wood glue, or posting 40K and Sigmar related questions in general discussion because they don't understand Dakka is about wargaming and not GW.


It isn't a caricature, it's an existing subset of GW consumers.

So you’ll stop when NooBs stop being NooBs and instead enter a new endeavour with an encyclopaedic knowledge of it?

I'm not judging them for it, merely stating they exist. Everybody is ignorant until they actually learn gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chamberlain wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
But they're acting based on an emotional imperative. They're buying something because they like it, if that thing isn't the best/cheapest option and bought out of preference, or even if it is the best or cheapest option and bought for other reasons, it isn't the rational choice.

Divorcing emotion from the equation when talking about enjoying a hobby seems kind of ridiculous to me. Sort of like asking someone who likes romantic comedies to go see a horror movie instead because the movie in question is a technically superior piece of film making.

It's far more irrational to act against your own preferences for the sake of rationality than to act in accordance with them for emotional ones.

Ok? Perhaps you can show me where I've said something that led you to believe I thought otherwise? Because all I'm seeing is you making self evident statements without apparently going anywhere with them a thread this point.

You can't justify a preference for Eldar over Tyranids, or WWI over black powder era in logical terms. You can express why you hold a preference in highly articulate terms, but it will never be a logical choice, only ever an emotional one.

It is logical to choose the option you like over the one you don't when the goal is enjoying a hobby.

Yes, the logical action based on an emotional reaction is to buy the thing you like. The preference remains wholly emotional.

But you're talking as if rational and emotional are mutually exclusive, when it is of course entirely possible to act rationally based on emotionally driven motivations.

Actually I'm saying exactly that same thing as that last sentence. The dismissal of preferences on emotional grounds as not being logical is nonsense vulcan talk divorced from the human experience.

I'm not dismissing them? Just stating that the decision to buy a product that is fundamentally similar but more expensive is founded more in emotion than it is in logic. The decision to buy 10 Imperial Guard when you can buy 40 WW2 troops for a similar price because you like the Guardsmen isn't based on any real logic, it's based on a preference, which is a wholly emotionally driven thing. To like Guardsmen but buy WW2 guys because they offered better value and "would do" as Guardsmen would be a decision more based in logic, to like Guardsmen and buy Tyranids would be an illogical decision.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I'm not dismissing them?

Then stop talking dismissively about the decision making of your fellow hobbyists.

Stop assuming I'm being dismissive?

This entire exchange stems from your rejection of my statement that GW customers are making informed decisions. It doesn't get much more dismissive than that.

"I disagree it's an informed choice"

"sunk cost fallacy"

"wholly emotional"

"emotional imperative"

Holy feth.

It's really a shame those poor GW customers can't see how they're acting out of a fallacy and start making the decisions you would make. Those poor souls.

No, it stems from your assumption that I believed emotional buying decisions were somehow "bad."

Which I simply don't, I'm just as guilty as anyone of making purchasing decisions based on emotional reactions. GW do not make either the cheapest models, objectively, nor in many cases, albeit subjectively, the best ones. Therefore, a customer buying GW on the basis of it being an "informed choice" which I qualified as weighing up all the options and choosing the best, must to some extent be using non-objective, i.e. subjective i.e. emotional reasoning in order to buy them.

What you've then done is assume I'm condemning them for doing so, reading back apparently because despite my qualification we've different ideas of what "informed choice" means.


Edit.
Let me give a real world example. I recently upgrade my TV. In order to choose the new model, I read reviews, compared specs, shopped around for best prices etc. I then made a buying decision based on the best reviewed model in my price range that had the features I wanted. I ultimately ended up buying a Sony. This is what I consider making an informed buying decision. What I feel GW customers, or some at least as we should never speak in absolutes, do is follow a similar process, but they end up choosing a Samsung because they prefer them to Sony for entirely subjective reasons.

I do not condemn them for it, while I may disagree with it in some circumstances, but I can't consider it a fully informed decision if some of the information is disregarded.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, it stems from your assumption that I believed emotional buying decisions were somehow "bad."

Which I simply don't, I'm just as guilty as anyone of making purchasing decisions based on emotional reactions. GW do not make either the cheapest models, objectively, nor in many cases, albeit subjectively, the best ones. Therefore, a customer buying GW on the basis of it being an "informed choice" which I qualified as weighing up all the options and choosing the best, must to some extent be using non-objective, i.e. subjective i.e. emotional reasoning in order to buy them.

What you've then done is assume I'm condemning them for doing so, reading back apparently because despite my qualification we've different ideas of what "informed choice" means.


Edit.
Let me give a real world example. I recently upgrade my TV. In order to choose the new model, I read reviews, compared specs, shopped around for best prices etc. I then made a buying decision based on the best reviewed model in my price range that had the features I wanted. I ultimately ended up buying a Sony. This is what I consider making an informed buying decision. What I feel GW customers, or some at least as we should never speak in absolutes, do is follow a similar process, but they end up choosing a Samsung because they prefer them to Sony for entirely subjective reasons.

I do not condemn them for it, while I may disagree with it in some circumstances, but I can't consider it a fully informed decision if some of the information is disregarded.

First, is it logical to buy a TV? It's just going to waste your time. You could use that money for food, or to retire earlier.

All right, so let's assume it is logical to buy a TV. You could go for a model cheap enough to buy 2 TVs instead of 1. How is it logical to choose just 1 TV when you could have 2, if there's no logical reason to buy 10 guardsmen instead of 40 WWII troops. Is it logical to want more of something instead of less of something when you don't need more?

Where did your feature list come from? Is there a logical resolution? A logical contrast ratio? A logical screen size? How is fulfilling the list of criteria for a TV more informed than fulfilling criteria like this:

I want a sci-fi model...
of an ork...
with a big energy gun...
that I can use for Warhammer 40K...
in official tournaments.

Practically every purchasing decision could be framed as emotional. You're jealous of your neighbor's TV so you get a new one. You're afraid of thieves so you try to buy a house in a safe-looking neighborhood. You're afraid of starving so you eat. You enjoy playing 40K so you buy miniatures for that game. You enjoy bragging about bargains online so you get the highest model count bundle you can find. That doesn't make any of those decisions uninformed.

There's nothing else out there like GW to buy. If you want sci-fi or fantasy, and if you like that type of rules, and you like those big cartoony models, you're pretty much stuck with them. Sure, there's probably 200 skirmish games out there right now, and there's historicals, and there's Mantic. What other choice is there to put hundreds of models on a 6' x 4' table, where each model's position and equipment matters, and then have the armies blow each other off the board over the course of a few IGOUGO turns and call it a game - without too many deep tactical decisions to make. And you want the models to be hard plastic. And you want to be able to buy tools and paint and glue all from the same company. And you want books filled with stories about what these models represent and pictures of what they and the table should look like.

Many people think that's a crappy game or a crappy hobby, but you can still make informed decisions within those restrictions.

For analogy, choosing to buy more historical miniatures instead of fewer guardsmen isn't any more logical than going to the supermarket and just buying whatever gives you the most calories, vitamins, and so on, for your money. At least food has objective reasons to buy them like calories and vitamins. Miniatures don't. The only reason to buy them is for entertainment. Leaving out the entertainment difference between playing a game I like vs. games I don't like would be completely illogical and uninformed.

As you appear to be trying to argue against me while stating many things I agree with, and have said I agre with in this thread, and haven't really made any sort of conclusion or appeared to have stated any clear position I can respond to, I'm at a loss as to what to do with that post?

To be fair, the quality of many GW/FW models is fantastic compared to others. Infinity models are certainly high-quality, but they are far from being as modular and customizable as GW/FW models.

It's hard to compare price points when there's not much out there like it.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
To be fair, the quality of many GW/FW models is fantastic compared to others.


Infinity models are certainly high-quality, but they are far from being as modular and customizable as GW/FW models.

Have a crack at nailing down an objective definition for wargaming miniatures, or plastic kits if you prefer, of what quality consists of. IME most of the time people try, what's actually objectively quantifiable doesn't mark GW out as all that special. This goes double for FW who aren't necessarily the market leader when it comes to QC.

Given the nature of Infinity models, they're essentially equivalent to GW characters, who also lack modularity and customization, they're just metal rather than single sprue plastics. Compare something like a Perry or Frostgrave or Warlord or WGF kit to a GW unit kit and the gap isn't al, that noticeable, outside of subjective elements.

It's hard to compare price points when there's not much out there like it.

There's any number of modular HIPs kits out there these days for different games and manufacturers, not to mention stuff from static modeling etc which can also be considered analogous, it's easy to draw comparisons, but it's apparently pretty tricky to avoid subjectivity.

Warlord Games.
Modular, varied, extra equipment, well detailed and far, far, far cheaper.
Boom.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Warlord Games.
Modular, varied, extra equipment, well detailed and far, far, far cheaper.
Boom.

I wasn't particularly a fan of the models, though I did get a good chuckle at the Kelly's Heroes models.

With modularity for customisation, that's only a boon if:
a. the game is designed with such customisation in mind
b. you don't mind paying extra for the bits you won't use
c. both of the above

With my Tyranids, I've got enough extra Gaunt arms to fill multiple craft bead organisers. When I played, I tried hunting around at various bits sellers to get the Gaunts without the arms to use the up and it was never cheaper, because the Gaunt bodies are what people wanted. Same with Carnifex parts.

I'd have been happier paying $5 less and getting no extra parts, but unfortunately GW designed their game around having lots of options, and the sprues around having those options. Then the added issue of poses being rather unnatural or static to accommodate those extra parts and after the 30th Gaunt - because the game is designed around buying half a dozen of the same kit - it all starts to get rather boring.

With Infinity and Malifaux, the models are single pose with no options (worth noting CB are starting to do options now with alternate arms). But the poses are much more characterful. Same with Malifaux, which has the added benefit of being HIPS plastic, just like GW. They also designed their game so you don't need to buy a kit more than once outside of some fringe cases. So not only do you get characterfully posed models, you don't get bored painting the same pose twice.

The 'benefits' of how GW design their kits don't translate to other games because they don't design their games the same way as GW.

What kind of bits do you have?

 -Loki- wrote:

With my Tyranids, I've got enough extra Gaunt arms to fill multiple craft bead organisers. When I played, I tried hunting around at various bits sellers to get the Gaunts without the arms to use the up and it was never cheaper, because the Gaunt bodies are what people wanted. Same with Carnifex parts.

Heh, back when I was converting Death Guard (claws! bio-weapons!) I had a lot of left-over gaunt bodies - though some of them got cannibalized for short claws and hooves. But I guess I'm a rare exception.

 master of ordinance wrote:
What kind of bits do you have?

Devourers, Spinefists, all Carnifex arms from 2 Carnifex minus the Scything Talons and Devourers. Basically the stuff not worth using in 6th edition.

Get selling to BFG players, thats an entire fleet you have there.

Eh, not bothered sorting through it all. Just saying, I'd rather not have had to buy it in the first place.

Pink Horror wrote:
First, is it logical to buy a TV? It's just going to waste your time. You could use that money for food, or to retire earlier.

That's very quickly edging towards a "There are starving children in Africa!" argument. Don't do that. Relative privation is a fallacy for a reason.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
To be fair, the quality of many GW/FW models is fantastic compared to others. Infinity models are certainly high-quality, but they are far from being as modular and customizable as GW/FW models.

It's hard to compare price points when there's not much out there like it.

If many people's touting of GW's advantage is the models customisability, then this is really a statement that's laid in the past. Far too many of their recent kits (looking at you DG releases!) can only be built in one way and lack the separate arms and shoulder pads etc. kits in the past had.

All of the SM/CSM, Ork/Orc kits were once upon a time all compatible with one another with zero conversion work. This is not the case today.

This lack of customisability has bled its way into the rules. Want a true Nurgle Chaos Lord? Sorry mate, we don't actually make one so there's no real rules for him. Want a bike for your Chaplain? Nope sorry.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
To be fair, the quality of many GW/FW models is fantastic compared to others. Infinity models are certainly high-quality, but they are far from being as modular and customizable as GW/FW models.

It's hard to compare price points when there's not much out there like it.

This is THE main reason I fell in love with GW models ages ago. When I was collecting Empire for WHFB, I could use any of the kits for easy conversions and customization. When they released their multi part plastic character kits I was in heaven. The only real snag I ran into was that GW couldn't decide what scale to make everything in, so sometimes you had bits from different kits that were in a totally different scale and didn't always go together well. This is also a primary driver for collecting (old)Space Marines; you can take all the kits and just convert away for ages.

That said, this is not very true today. A few of their new kits are like the old ones, but really most of the new stuff is not made like this. A good portion of their AoS releases are very much mono pose, and to my knowledge their characters these days might have a weapon option or two but they aren't always compatible with each other or with other kits without a bit more work.

GW has obviously made a deliberate decision to go for more dynamic poses and such at the expense of easy customization these days.

The only company I know of that has a large and expanding range of multi part plastic kits is Warlord Games. They still release many things in metal, but the number of plastic kits available for Bolt Action and (slowly) Gates of Antares is impressive. Their newest stuff (like the Waffen-SS kit just released) is excellent and markedly improved over their earlier ones as well. It's difficult to directly compare them as the scale is so different, but I'd put the overall quality up there with the GW kits that actually allow for the kind of customization and posing the Warlord kits allow.

 -Loki- wrote:


I'd have been happier paying $5 less and getting no extra parts, but unfortunately GW designed their game around having lots of options, and the sprues around having those options. Then the added issue of poses being rather unnatural or static to accommodate those extra parts and after the 30th Gaunt - because the game is designed around buying half a dozen of the same kit - it all starts to get rather boring.

Of course often enough those extra bits don't warrant new sprue as they can be fit to existing sprues so you wouldn't get 5$ off from the box anyway. Good if 2$ and then you would be out of extra bits that can be made to other models saving plenty of cash.

tneva82 wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:


I'd have been happier paying $5 less and getting no extra parts, but unfortunately GW designed their game around having lots of options, and the sprues around having those options. Then the added issue of poses being rather unnatural or static to accommodate those extra parts and after the 30th Gaunt - because the game is designed around buying half a dozen of the same kit - it all starts to get rather boring.

Of course often enough those extra bits don't warrant new sprue as they can be fit to existing sprues so you wouldn't get 5$ off from the box anyway. Good if 2$ and then you would be out of extra bits that can be made to other models saving plenty of cash.

But the whole point of Loki's post is that to make those bits workable into full models, you have to spend almost as much as an entire new kit off the 2nd hand market, because everyone wants to use bodies to spread the kit as far as possible but no one wants the extra arms. There are certainly a few cases where you pay for a ridiculous amount of extra parts on the sprue (Space Marine Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans for example), which while it's nice to have those options, and makes for a great kit, more than half is wasted space in the box. If someone wanted a Vanguard box to spread some power weapons through their other Marine units, they'd have to spend as much as a whole new unit in order to do so. Compare this to the bits packs GW used to do (and still do for things like shoulder pads, showing it's viable financially) where you could buy 10 of a certain weapon for $20Aus or so, and you would be easily halving a 2 sprue kit, reducing the production costs of that as well

What GW has going for it is a flavor and a style.

If you do not like the style, or are even neutral about it, then GW is nowhere near reasonably priced.

If you look at their prices as toy soldiers, made of mass produced plastic, they are not worth it.

If you are a member of their style cult tribe, then they are worth it, I guess?

Rules wise... GW has never made great rules - even for the games that I really, really like. (I like Mordheim better than any other tabletop game, even if the rules are kinda clunky, and the balance is poor at best.)

I really like Kings of War - which is a much better balanced game.

But given the choice of playing KoW and Mordheim, Mordheim will win almost always.

I think the only time I can remember thinking 'Wow! those are reasonably priced!' for GW miniatures was back when they started releasing nice big boxes of poseable plastic Empire Halberdiers and swordsmen - which were nice figures, and inexpensive even when compared to miniatures by other companies. *EDIT* That's a lie - there have been boxed starter sets for Warhammer Fantasy that I thought were excellent value for money.

And I bought a lot of those old multipose plastics.


The Auld Grump

I am still ok more or less with GW's prices for LOTR/Hobbit line (being a Tolkien fan helps) but the other games the models are just not good IMO. I am partial to my overlords, but I hate their ships,. so just stick to ground pounding.

 thekingofkings wrote:
I am still ok more or less with GW's prices for LOTR/Hobbit line (being a Tolkien fan helps) but the other games the models are just not good IMO. I am partial to my overlords, but I hate their ships,. so just stick to ground pounding.

You are aware that GW both reduced the model count and increased the prices of virtually the entire LOTR line. You are literally paying more for less these days.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
I am still ok more or less with GW's prices for LOTR/Hobbit line (being a Tolkien fan helps) but the other games the models are just not good IMO. I am partial to my overlords, but I hate their ships,. so just stick to ground pounding.

You are aware that GW both reduced the model count and increased the prices of virtually the entire LOTR line. You are literally paying more for less these days.

they literally did the "flashgitz" skit of double the price for half the models BUT I am still paying only about $2 per model instead of $1 per, so I am not too hurt by it, it still makes my 12 pack of orcs on par with buying bones and deep cuts. Cavalry and finecast/metal are still about the same price they were before, really I only got hit on plastic infantry, but they also made the standard "warband" only 12 instead of making it the 24 from before. and I am still paying less than say for an AoS unit. The hobbit line is closer to $3 per but still in line with what I am paying for bones or deep cuts as well.

So you're ok with a 100% price increase?

Well good for you I suppose. However a lot of people don't like paying more for less.

 Rygnan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:


I'd have been happier paying $5 less and getting no extra parts, but unfortunately GW designed their game around having lots of options, and the sprues around having those options. Then the added issue of poses being rather unnatural or static to accommodate those extra parts and after the 30th Gaunt - because the game is designed around buying half a dozen of the same kit - it all starts to get rather boring.

Of course often enough those extra bits don't warrant new sprue as they can be fit to existing sprues so you wouldn't get 5$ off from the box anyway. Good if 2$ and then you would be out of extra bits that can be made to other models saving plenty of cash.

But the whole point of Loki's post is that to make those bits workable into full models, you have to spend almost as much as an entire new kit off the 2nd hand market, because everyone wants to use bodies to spread the kit as far as possible but no one wants the extra arms. There are certainly a few cases where you pay for a ridiculous amount of extra parts on the sprue (Space Marine Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans for example), which while it's nice to have those options, and makes for a great kit, more than half is wasted space in the box. If someone wanted a Vanguard box to spread some power weapons through their other Marine units, they'd have to spend as much as a whole new unit in order to do so. Compare this to the bits packs GW used to do (and still do for things like shoulder pads, showing it's viable financially) where you could buy 10 of a certain weapon for $20Aus or so, and you would be easily halving a 2 sprue kit, reducing the production costs of that as well

It's more financially viable to do these "combo" boxes. Being able to get hold of spare Gaunt bodies to make more models isn't the point, so they've not failed at that. If Termagants and Hormagaunts, or Lion Chariots and Elven Chariots, or whatever you want to talk about, were separate boxes, then stores would need to stock twice as many boxes, or be twice as likely to not have what you want in stock. That drives up the amount of manufacturing capacity required, additional transportation, warehousing, packaging, etc. I very much doubt making them separate kits would decrease the retail cost of either one at all. Just throw out the leftover bits on the sprues when you've built them.

I understand why they do it, but it sucks having to pay more for a kit because it "makes three kits" when it actually doesn't, and you end up not using most of the parts.

And that concept only falls apart when you consider they make limited option kits (Tartaros, Cataphractii & Blight Lord Terminators) that only build one kit, the latter in quite a mono-pose way, and they cost more than, say, the Deathwing kit that makes (1 of) 3 different units.

Comparing them across the industry isn't the right thing to do with GW prices. Rather, compare GW prices against Themselves, and they fall apart.

Obviously, we have the prices raising over time- and as was shown in the first post, they've gone up faster than inflation. But even that isn't the big issue.

The big issue, in my mind, is what happens when you play the $40 game. What can you get for about forty bucks from GW?

A starter set- they come with terrain, dice, some rules and +/-15 minis.

A Necromunda gang (10 minis)

A Blood Bowl Team (12 minis)

A Tactical Squad (10 minis)

Four sets of easy to build regular marines (12 mionopose minis all together).


Ok- so far, things have been pretty consistent. The starter set is cheap, but $40 is landing you about 10-12 human sized minis the rest of the time? Monopose minis seem to be 3.33, while kits with more options are $4 per mini.


Alternatively, you could get

A 5 marine 'specialist' squad (Assault Marines, Veterans, Devestators, Primaris Marines) (5 minis) Some of these are larger than tac marines, and some are resin, but some are not, but we're quite suddenly at $8 per mini.

Two resin characters (they average $20 each) Single pose

1 plastic character (1 minis, $30-35). Single Pose

We've actually reached an order of magnitude more expensive (from $3-4 for one mini to $30-40).


It is clear that with GW, you aren't paying for the extra options, since their most expensive kits are

In fact, the most expensive per-plastic kits are monopose characters, not the variable kits you can do loads of different things with.


Now, we all expect some price decrease for buying in bulk- but should Ten Marines with option cost the same as one or two marines without options?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I understand why they do it, but it sucks having to pay more for a kit because it "makes three kits" when it actually doesn't, and you end up not using most of the parts.

And that concept only falls apart when you consider they make limited option kits (Tartaros, Cataphractii & Blight Lord Terminators) that only build one kit, the latter in quite a mono-pose way, and they cost more than, say, the Deathwing kit that makes (1 of) 3 different units.

Yes. Now, in a business sense, the extra options actually make things cheaper for GW.

The big expense in plastic kits is the mold, not the plastic. They have to make up for the large up front costs with volume of sales. So, if they can get a customer to buy a kit two or three times to make three different models, that helps them make up for the expense.

It helps them that so many of their customers see the added options as added value.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So you're ok with a 100% price increase?

Well good for you I suppose. However a lot of people don't like paying more for less.

I imagine it comes down to being happy to have something available or not.

Like anything in this topic it’s a subjective value judgement.

I tried getting into Warhammer in the 90s with the starter box. I had the High Elves and the goblins. I couldn't find anyone else to buy in so I sold it a few years later when I was in to other things. $60 was on par with a new SNES game at the time.

Years later a group of my friends and I decided to do 40K. I once again bought a $60 starter box. It came with Blood Angel Marines and Orks. I had a part time job at a fast food chain to fund my hobbies and illicit teenage activities. Trouble is, none of my deadbeat friends could hold down a job, so none of them ever bought armies. I still have the starter kit. Some of the minis were lost when I left home and my parents promptly converted my room.

Fast forward to me being a Sergeant in the Marines, and a few of us decide to buy some 40K. I get some Chaos Marines and paint them up. The other guys buy their respective boxes of minis. Then I decide not to re-enlist and move back across the country.

Seven years later I get done with law school and finally have disposable income again. I buy a box of paints with 5 marines and enjoy myself. I decide I enjoy the painting aspect more than anything, and virtually give up on ever actually playing. I eventually get Space Hulk, and enjoy it with the wife. I purchase a variety of GW minis, some over the internet at a discount, and commence to painting. Age of Sigmar comes out, people lose their minds, and I get some still in the shrink wrap boxes of minis for cheap. I buy a few more products for things to paint, like the Isle of Blood and Dark Crusade. I buy Silver Tower from a seller on Amazon at a steep discount.

I guess I'm kind of amazed that anyone new is willing to dive into this hobby at all. The only reason I paint GW is because I was able to get them far cheaper than normal or in the starter boxes which are a good value, at least compared to their other offerings. The only games I buy to play are the specialist self contained games since they have a lower barrier to entry. If other minis had been marketed to me earlier when I decided to primarily just enjoy painting I would have went with them. GW was something I've known since childhood, so that's what I got. If I was a kid again I'd probably gravitate to something cheaper to get into, like X-Wing or Infinity. I'm wondering how long the old playerbase will still be around to shell out the big bucks for the next rule change.

Guys like me aren't keeping GW afloat. I know some parents spend anything on their kids, but I can't see most being willing to shell out over $100 to start their kid into what looks like an expensive board game hobby. Eventually the chickens will come home to roost, and GW will have to compete with the lower cost of entry alternatives, or in the case of those that prefer painting, superior sculpts at cheaper prices. It seems that the sunk cost has managed to keep some people in the GW fold, or at least come back after a course correction. I can't imagine being a teen or young adult trying to get my peers into this hobby.

 notprop wrote:
I imagine it comes down to being happy to have something available or not.

Like anything in this topic it’s a subjective value judgement.

When GW halved the Cadian or Dire Avenger boxes but kept the prices (relatively) the same for half the miniatures, I doubt the alternative was losing Cadian/Avenger models.

To some extent I'm slightly convinced that GW is pushing the cost of writing rules onto us by having the models be much more expensive than they should be. I can buy a Gundam Kit for about 10 bucks that has as much plastic and detail as a 40 dollar box of minis from GW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So you're ok with a 100% price increase?

Well good for you I suppose. However a lot of people don't like paying more for less.

Its a matter of proportion, yes it is a 100% price increase but it is significantly different talking about going from $1-$2 per model (which is still reasonable) for a lotr box you may only need or want 1 of to comparing my overlords arkanaughts going to something like $45-$90 for 10 models, I am still spending the same for my LOTR and getting half the models, but I am still getting them much cheaper than I could get equivalents from elsewhere

Grr, need to correct my above post - I wrote 'style cult' when what I meant was 'style tribe' - not exactly the same thing or connotation.

The Auld Grump

Nah, I'd say "style cult" really is a good description for some.

Yeah, it does aptly describe many GW diehards.

A worthy note is the phenomenon of price on the human psychology; if something costs more it MUST be better!

It is difficult to shake the idea that idea that this new kit that has fewer models and a higher price tag is going to be that much better than the old kit, yes it may be, but detail and flexibility are very hard to quantify.

Essentially we’re buying art, 3D plastic art which most of us wouldn’t be able to create ourselves. And as we all know, there’s no upper limit on what people are prepared to pay for that stuff!

I’ve drifted away from GW’s styling in AOS, but it’s what is drawing in new fans. If anyone needs me I’ll be sat in the corner painting my Avatars of War figures, but I’ve got a lot to get through as they’re so much cheaper (Bwahaha!)

I wouldn’t necessarily say more expensive=better in most people’s minds, but cheaper=inferior does seem to come up a lot.

I don’t know about others, but (noticably) more expensive does not equate dirrectly to better - I generally actually associate it with gouging - if there’s fairly equivilant items at different price points, I often find myself avoiding the most expensive (gouging) and least expensive (inferior quality) for something in the middle. I don’t know if other people act the same way, but I doubt I’m alone.

People tend to regard inexpensive things as cheap, because we recognize that people don't part with valuable stuff for next to nothing. Unless, of course, they're running a scam.

The top end of any market takes advantage of this, naturally, so you're always paying 50% more for that tiny increase in quality. For a serious example of this, look at the home audio equipment market. Huge sums of money for the tiniest increase in sound quality.

 Stormonu wrote:
I wouldn’t necessarily say more expensive=better in most people’s minds, but cheaper=inferior does seem to come up a lot.

I don’t know about others, but (noticably) more expensive does not equate dirrectly to better - I generally actually associate it with gouging - if there’s fairly equivilant items at different price points, I often find myself avoiding the most expensive (gouging) and least expensive (inferior quality) for something in the middle. I don’t know if other people act the same way, but I doubt I’m alone.

I'm half with you. I absolutely will buy one of the cheapest items just to gauge the quality, though. But then, I bought at least one of every WGF plastic kit when they came out and plenty of historicals (many of which I regret), but only one Wrath of Kings mini at full discounted-retail price (that is, 10 to 15% off). I've been buying Mantic products since their very first plastic kit, but only ever scoop up PP minis at clearance blowout Taco Bell aftermath prices. Good median plastic products, like Malifaux, Gates of Antares, MEdge, AoW Berserkers and Frostgrave I will support for weird reasons, like "I like the cut of their jib" or "I need those _______", but typically leave on the shelf until then. For GW, the prices are so high that I only tend to buy minis that blow my mind for months (rather than only when they are the new hotness) or at sub-eBay prices. I would definitely buy more GW if their prices were more in line with Malifaux, et al..

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I understand why they do it, but it sucks having to pay more for a kit because it "makes three kits" when it actually doesn't, and you end up not using most of the parts.

I'm not sure that's the case. Adding bits to a kit is going to be less expensive than making entirely new kits. So a kit that makes 3 kits is more economical to produce, and it sells more units, so the per-unit cost to the company is lower - move enough units, and it could be lower than the cost to make a single use kit. Here's a scenario:

Cost to design single use kit: $10000 (you do this 3 times, and it's $30000 for 3 kits)
Cost to design triple use kit: $15000 (sharing components saves time and money in production)
Sales of each single use kit: 5000 units (cost to design: 2 per unit), selling 15000 overall
Sales of triple use kit: 15000 units (cost to design: 1 per unit)

Now, if the increased materials cost is less than 1 per unit for the triple use kit, they've saved money making a triple use kit, and can actually charge less for the triple use kit - or the same - than for a single use kit.

And that's why GW will keep making multi use kits when they can.

 Red Comet wrote:
To some extent I'm slightly convinced that GW is pushing the cost of writing rules onto us by having the models be much more expensive than they should be. I can buy a Gundam Kit for about 10 bucks that has as much plastic and detail as a 40 dollar box of minis from GW.

Well its pretty much what a lot of companies do nowadays.

its the same concept as early access. its cheaper to get unpaid fans to do a bit of QA, it makes the fans feel like they are part of something, GW saves some cash or doesnt have to sit there and wait on the rules team to release stuff that are already done.

 John Prins wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I understand why they do it, but it sucks having to pay more for a kit because it "makes three kits" when it actually doesn't, and you end up not using most of the parts.

I'm not sure that's the case. Adding bits to a kit is going to be less expensive than making entirely new kits. So a kit that makes 3 kits is more economical to produce, and it sells more units, so the per-unit cost to the company is lower - move enough units, and it could be lower than the cost to make a single use kit. Here's a scenario:

Cost to design single use kit: $10000 (you do this 3 times, and it's $30000 for 3 kits)
Cost to design triple use kit: $15000 (sharing components saves time and money in production)
Sales of each single use kit: 5000 units (cost to design: 2 per unit), selling 15000 overall
Sales of triple use kit: 15000 units (cost to design: 1 per unit)

Now, if the increased materials cost is less than 1 per unit for the triple use kit, they've saved money making a triple use kit, and can actually charge less for the triple use kit - or the same - than for a single use kit.

And that's why GW will keep making multi use kits when they can.

It's a mistake to think about costs exclusively in terms of money with GW. Their staff are on salary and they own the equipment, so there isn't a massive gap between making and designing models and having people sat doing nothing and idle machinery in raw pounds and pence (some nominal utility and material costs.)

The chief costs are time and opportunity, which are much harder to quantify.

In my case its just a lot easier to get GW's LOTR models than to get mithril miniatures versions. :(

 Azreal13 wrote:

It's a mistake to think about costs exclusively in terms of money with GW. Their staff are on salary and they own the equipment, so there isn't a massive gap between making and designing models and having people sat doing nothing and idle machinery in raw pounds and pence (some nominal utility and material costs.)

The chief costs are time and opportunity, which are much harder to quantify.

Agreed, but it's useful to consider. It's more cost effective - even with time/opportunity, to make multi-use kits than separate individual kits. And GW is designing parts of their armies around the concept.

My view has changed a little this week.

Caught up with the rest of the world and started playing X wing. Starter set - great value. Expansions... seriously???

In my head, makes GW look like a bargain. (Yes, I know, previous invested value....)

Also building some Zvesta 15mm tanks. £2.99 for a 28 piece Katyushka rocket truck.... can't complain about that either.

GW spend has dried up, partly because I still have tons to build, but partly because my "value" threshold has been passed. X wing starter pack was good value, but I can't see it growing unless a bargain pops up on ebay.

WW2 will grow quietly, because it's cheap easy and fun too.

My view has changed a little this week.

Caught up with the rest of the world and started playing X wing. Starter set - great value. Expansions... seriously???

In my head, makes GW look like a bargain. (Yes, I know, previous invested value....)

Also building some Zvesta 15mm tanks. £2.99 for a 28 piece Katyushka rocket truck.... can't complain about that either.

GW spend has dried up, partly because I still have tons to build, but partly because my "value" threshold has been passed. X wing starter pack was good value, but I can't see it growing unless a bargain pops up on ebay.

Really? I'm kind of surprised since I thought FFG hit the sweet spot with X-wing - $15-20 is about what I'd be willing to drop on an impulse by at my LGS. Which I think is definitely a viable miniatures marketing strategy. I'm going to put down a $20 for a cool looking ship, whereas I'm not crazy enough to impulse buy 70-90 bucks for a GW box.

Some of the most recent X-wing releases are getting pricier though. I'm probably going to end up skipping some of them.

This might be down to perspective, but... played some x wing. Thought - what about 6 - 20 fighters duking it out in a dogfight?

Suddenly I'm looking at a minimum of £70....

But then, you're playing so far over the normal then, the analogy would be playing 1500-2000 of 40K and thinking "what about playing a massive game with titans and gak."

While I wouldn't argue the intrinsic value of what you get for your money is probably lower even than GW (it is mostly card after all) the relative value of a fighter size ship in relation to a competitive force is orders of magnitude higher.

It's starting to swing though, price wise. The weakening of Stirling, a price rise and (I suspect) a little inflationary creep have started to take their toll on my perceived value of X Wing (no doubt informed by a degree of burnout as well.) When I started it was a simple matter to find fighters for £10, now they're more like £15, there's been an extra price band at ~£20 for chunkier small ships like the ARC introduced, large base boxed ships have crept from £25 to £30+ and, most underhandedly IMO, there's a trend for offering small base ships in large base sized boxes for a premium for no other reason than because. The Resistance Bomber from the last movie has also landed with an RRP of almost that of the Ghost (the biggest model in the game and most expensive outside of Epic stuff) for no reason that I can see.

It's a shame as when I started X Wing at around Wave 2 it was a total antidote to everything I had a problem with GW and 40K about, fast, tight, affordable, balanced and fun. It's starting to drift away from a lot of that, and FFG need to be proactive about that if they want it to stay at the same phenomenal level and not become another also ran.

Whilst X-Wing prices have been sliding up I think its worth considering a ship blister/box is playable as is, no BRB, no Codex, no assembly or paint needed, which is most likely baked into the price point, not white knighting for FFG the Kylo TIE shenanigans means its unlikely any X-Wing purchases this side of a 2nd edition

And like Az13 said the rules are sinking into a quagmire of gimmick and complexity, and if GW plays well Shadespire could rip chunks out of the playerbase

And like Az13 said the rules are sinking into a quagmire of gimmick and complexity, and if GW plays well Shadespire could rip chunks out of the playerbase

That implies GW actually supporting a game that's not 40k or AoS and I'm really skeptical about that. We may see more Shadespire teams for a time, but I think that's going to dry up way faster than FFG running out of Star Wars ships or driving away the base with rules issues.

Anyway, this is getting a little off topic, my thought on X-wing is part of the appeal is the price point. I'm not the type of gamer that makes a big army purchase all in one go, so if a blister/booster/pack of whatever game is cheap enough I can just pick one up each LGS visit I'm quite likely to do that. Where as if the price is too high I'll either pass up the game or go for online discounts.

As it stand we're pretty much in barrel scaping territory for X-Wing ships, and the rules are creaking under the strain

its a fair point about Shadespires longevity but its cheap and easy to get into, something that's sadly no longer true of X-Wing

I like that people who complain about GW pricing pay $20 a model for Star Wars and it's garbage game rules.

I like that people who complain about GW pricing pay $20 a model for Star Wars

And what can I get for $20 from GW? Not any of the characters produced in the last what 5 years or so. Not a box set, heck not even half the price of a box.

So for $20 I can get... a paint handle thing? Some other useless accessory?

and it's garbage game rules.

The base rules are fine, and honestly I like that the rulebook is short and to the point. The recent waves have brought a lot of additional condition effects that have their own rules and that's getting out of hand, but that's a different issue and already been discussed.

yep but as daft as FFG currently are they are still a long way from The Harbingers Collection levels of butt - millinery

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I like that people who complain about GW pricing pay $20 a model for Star Wars and it's garbage game rules.

I'm pretty sure that most people, at least ITT, has said they've done the exact opposite? I.E. they've decided they're not liking the rules so much and have stopped or curtailed buying.

But as has already been touched on, the X Wing engine is probably one of the strongest rule sets out there, it's simply a case off FFG playing some sort of rules Buckaroo with it that's causing issues, something that they have in their power to fix if they've the will, and I'm happy to return to the game if they do.

Where GW seem to win is they have engendered a weird mindset in a percentage of their customer base where they can release gak, and the response isn't "I'm not buying that, it's gak" but "that's gak, but if I buy a load of other stuff to modify it, it'll be ok, so I'll spend extra to correct a substandard product." This not only contributed to sustaining them through the final years of Kirby, but forms an excellent platform for Rountree to build on.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Where GW seem to win is they have engendered a weird mindset in a percentage of their customer base where they can release gak, and the response isn't "I'm not buying that, it's gak" but "that's gak, but if I buy a load of other stuff to modify it, it'll be ok, so I'll spend extra to correct a substandard product." This not only contributed to sustaining them through the final years of Kirby, but forms an excellent platform for Rountree to build on.

So often seen on this forum regarding a new GW release...
"I don't like it, so I'm only going to buy one rather than 3".

I just never understand that. Seriously, if you don't like it, don't buy it at all.

Maybe the thread title of "A perspective on insane GW prices" should be "A perspective on insane GW customers".

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I like that people who complain about GW pricing pay $20 a model for Star Wars and it's garbage game rules.

And the roughly 10 pages of GW rules for 8th edition are ..... good?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I like that people who complain about GW pricing pay $20 a model for Star Wars and it's garbage game rules.

#notallwhiners

I certainly don't find FFG's prices attractive. They seriously expect us to pay $15 for the Quadjumper, a ship we've only ever seen sitting on the ground for five seconds before getting blow'd up? I don't find the inclusion of cardboard rules to be a good justification. Refusing to sell rules cards and minis separately feels as gimmicky and distasteful, like blind buy boxes.

 ScarletRose wrote:

I like that people who complain about GW pricing pay $20 a model for Star Wars

And what can I get for $20 from GW? Not any of the characters produced in the last what 5 years or so. Not a box set, heck not even half the price of a box.

So for $20 I can get... a paint handle thing? Some other useless accessory?

and it's garbage game rules.

The base rules are fine, and honestly I like that the rulebook is short and to the point. The recent waves have brought a lot of additional condition effects that have their own rules and that's getting out of hand, but that's a different issue and already been discussed.

I think that's the rub right there. It wasn't so long ago that $20 got your a regiment/squad/vehicle/character/whatever. You'd think they could even throw in a box of squad/regiment/whatever fillers for $20. Right now, you can't even get a 5 man bog standard armed anything for $20. THAT is the true insanity. THAT is what needs to be addressed, there is no "slow burn" build up pricing for the younger demographic which is pretty much the lifeblood of any game system.

I can remember being a kid and a blister of 2 Chaos Warriors was like, six bucks. Maybe ten if it was something special, a Lord was like... fifteen bucks? I think I paid ten dollars for a couple of Champions. (I didn't play 40k until ~1998).

It's kind of sad I can get a better, more detailed Infinity single for about fifteen to twenty bucks, but a finecast character for 40k is like $40.00.

GW has eight Easy to Build kits (four for Warhammer 40,000 and four for Age of Sigmar) for $15 each.

 Ghaz wrote:
GW has eight Easy to Build kits (four for Warhammer 40,000 and four for Age of Sigmar) for $15 each.

Those are great and all, and to be honest? As big as 40k and Sigmar are? It would be nice to have more 'Easy to Built' kits. I use them religiously.

 Ghaz wrote:
GW has eight Easy to Build kits (four for Warhammer 40,000 and four for Age of Sigmar) for $15 each.

I'd be happy paying those prices if I could play a satisfying, interesting game with 3 similar packs and a character that cost similar. Unfortunately that would get me a small start to spending even more.

I'm not gonna lie, I'd much rather have an Easy-To-Build Predator, Rhino, or Land Raider.

I really, really hate building those models.

Ghaz wrote:GW has eight Easy to Build kits (four for Warhammer 40,000 and four for Age of Sigmar) for $15 each.

So they have those few kits, I honestly didn't know those existed. How many of them are fieldable as legal units straight out of the box? When GW had the $10 Space Marine Combat Squad, that thing was a playable unit straight from the get go. A learner could snag a box a week, and at the end of the month have a tiny force all his/her own to learn with at the FLGS. These, while a breath of fresh air given how GW USUALLY handles entry level stuff, simply supplement what you already have. In the case of the Primaris thinigs, what is the minimum size unit for those models? If it is NOT the specific count of that box, then it's a bit of a loss. I'd also love to see a character option at that price. Sure, give him garbage wargear to encourage the young player to want the $80 multipart kit, but at least have a beginner option. This is a tiptoe in the right direction, but not quite a step.

 Just Tony wrote:
. How many of them are fieldable as legal units straight out of the box? .

About the same proportion as when GW sold blisters.

Those 3 for $15 packs compare very favorably to a 20-year-old $5 blister containing single SM Devastator

So that's a no then.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
. How many of them are fieldable as legal units straight out of the box? .

About the same proportion as when GW sold blisters.

Those 3 for $15 packs compare very favorably to a 20-year-old $5 blister containing single SM Devastator

I also refused to buy anything made of pewter unless there was no other option. It seemed daft to me to pay that much for something if there was a cheaper and easier to work with option. Still seems daft to me.

And for the record, I'm talking about expansion boxed sets. Had you compared it to those 8 man monopose WFB infantry sets of yore, or the paint set boxes that came with 3 or four models, maybe you'd have a valid point. As it stands, there were always plastic sets for $10 or less that were basically the smallest unit size of that model possible. These aren't it, unless 3 is the lowest model point of a Primaris or any of the AOS stuff that I quite frankly don't follow.

I think (though I could be mistaken) that the easy to build kits comes with the full rules for the unit.

So all of them can be played straight out of the box.

GW has an E2B Dreadnought that compares fairly with the Eldar Dreadnought & War Walker back when they were packed in blisters.

Where have you seen it for sale?

How many of them are fieldable as legal units straight out of the box?

All of them. The boxes come with a warscroll/datasheet for the contents of the box.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Where have you seen it for sale?

Never seen it. I'm just going off the information on the previous page.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I like that people who complain about GW pricing pay $20 a model for Star Wars and it's garbage game rules.

While YMMV with the rules I think there's a substantial difference in the value proposition between GW games and X-Wing. That $20 (around £12-15 in the UK) gets you a complete gaming experience, ready to hit the table top the moment you open the packaging. It also forms one of the 2-6 ships you need to play a full game. Checking the GW website for Necron models (an army I own that has a Codex coming out soon) I can get a couple of characters for that...and that's it. That still leaves me a long, long way to go before I can start to think about playing a game.

As both an X-Wing and 40k player, GW prices jumped the shark for me a long time ago and I think it's for two reasons. Firstly, I've been playing long enough to remember what prices used to be like and how affordable armies used to be. Secondly, other games and companies offer better value.

Slipspace wrote:
While YMMV with the rules I think there's a substantial difference in the value proposition between GW games and X-Wing. That $20 (around £12-15 in the UK) gets you a complete gaming experience, ready to hit the table top the moment you open the packaging. It also forms one of the 2-6 ships you need to play a full game. Checking the GW website for Necron models (an army I own that has a Codex coming out soon) I can get a couple of characters for that...and that's it. That still leaves me a long, long way to go before I can start to think about playing a game..

I think this is a very interesting distinction of value.

For me the X-wing model is low detail and dull compared to the equivalent GW model. It is therefore not very good value, especially as my OCD side would need to strip that paint off before I start, so that's more work. The fact that the X-wing model is worth more in game is meaningless to me; by that logic if the points value of all GW models were in increased by 500% they would all suddenly be quite reasonably costed (well, in some cases ), even though neither price nor model has changed.

I do understand your point and don't dismiss it; if I was purely buying based on the value as a gaming piece then X-wing seems in general a better deal. But I'm buying because I like the model. In-game use, fluff, and price are all factors too, but I don't think I would every buy a model which I didn't like even if it was cheap and really great as an in-game piece, whereas I know I have bought loads of models that kinda suck in-game because I just love how they look.

I spent years loving the Dark Eldar fluff and hating the models. As soon as the new range came out I bought and painted everything.
(Except the grotesque; didn't mind the model but as a unit they were too uniform)

Thats the difference between a hobbyist and a pure gamer though. Gamers often don't care about their pawns nearly as much as a hobbyist. Therefore they usually put more value in models : dollar/pound/whatever ratio.

 Denny wrote:
For me the X-wing model is low detail and dull compared to the equivalent GW moel.

I don't understand that at all. IMO the X-Wing model is at least as detailed as the GW model, if not better detailed. On things like detail sharpness, minimum feature size, etc, the X-Wing model just trashes the GW stuff. It's an excellent representation of the "real" ship, with few flaws that I can find. The only thing it's lacking is the GW-style skulls and purity seals copied over every possible surface, and that's much more clutter than detail.

 auticus wrote:
Thats the difference between a hobbyist and a pure gamer though. Gamers often don't care about their pawns nearly as much as a hobbyist. Therefore they usually put more value in models : dollar/pound/whatever ratio.

a decent point, I'm somewhere in the middle, I like my forces to look cool, I've even painted some X-Wing ships, but really struggle to stay motivated painting Bolter marine #4 out of #30, leading me to lower model count games where even if individual models are on par with GW prices a complete playable force comes in way cheaper than most 40k armys

and now thanks to Peregrine I have an urge to stick purity seals all over my dull and functional TIE fighters

 Denny wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
While YMMV with the rules I think there's a substantial difference in the value proposition between GW games and X-Wing. That $20 (around £12-15 in the UK) gets you a complete gaming experience, ready to hit the table top the moment you open the packaging. It also forms one of the 2-6 ships you need to play a full game. Checking the GW website for Necron models (an army I own that has a Codex coming out soon) I can get a couple of characters for that...and that's it. That still leaves me a long, long way to go before I can start to think about playing a game..

I think this is a very interesting distinction of value.

For me the X-wing model is low detail and dull compared to the equivalent GW moel. It is therefore not very good value, especially as my OCD side would need to strip that paint off before I start, so that's more work. The fact that the X-wing model is worth more in game is meaningless to me; by that logic if the points value of all GW models were in increased by 500% they would all suddenly be quite reasonably costed (well, in some cases ), even though neither price nor model has changed.

The number of models needed to play a game does affect how I view their value, yes. If I only needed 5 character models to play a game of 40k I'd possibly be more willing to pay £20 per model because my total outlay is only around £100. I wouldn't say the models would become brilliant value all of a sudden, but the cost would be more palatable. Being overcharged for 5 models is much better than being overcharged for 100! The models are primarily gaming pieces to me. I like them to look nice but I'd never buy a model for an army I don't play just because it looked good - there are plenty of nice models for armies I actually play that I don't own yet.

As for the detail on the X-Wing models, there's not much to say other than I disagree. A lot. The paintjob isn't spectacular but it works for the nature of the models, IMO. The detail is absolutely fine...maybe edging towards perfect. It's sharp, well-defined and true to the original. Compared to some of the frankly outrageous and overblown stuff GW is putting out I vastly prefer something more realistic and understated. Take the new Necron model they recently announced, for example. What's going on with that? Technically it's very well done, but aesthetically it just looks terrible, IMO.

Also:

 Denny wrote:
especially as my OCD side would need to strip that paint off before I start, so that's more work

You really don't. The paint on X-Wing models is thinner than the average primer coat, and fills the same role. You can paint directly over the stock paint without any problems. So essentially you have a GW model that, instead of being bare plastic while you're waiting to paint it, is tabletop ready until you get to doing a better paint job on it (and functional indefinitely if you don't care enough about that particular model to improve it). This is purely a win for FFG.

 auticus wrote:
Thats the difference between a hobbyist and a pure gamer though. Gamers often don't care about their pawns nearly as much as a hobbyist. Therefore they usually put more value in models : dollar/pound/whatever ratio.

That's not what just happened in this thread. The gamer put more value in points per dollar and the hobbyist valued minis per dollar. A painter may find more value in painting hours per dollar, but that is distinct from the conversation we just witnessed.

When I say models : dollar that goes hand in hand with points : dollar. It basically means the same thing to me.

that being how much it costs to field a force regardless of what it looks like or how the models appear.

I'm sure there are hobbyists that care about minis per dollar as well. The point of what I said though was a gamer tends to not care near what a hobbyist does in what models look like.

Nearly all the hobbyists I know pay GW prices because the models look better, while the gamers I know would gladly pay a dime for a wooden pog to represent a marine.

 Just Tony wrote:

Ghaz wrote:GW has eight Easy to Build kits (four for Warhammer 40,000 and four for Age of Sigmar) for $15 each.

So they have those few kits, I honestly didn't know those existed. How many of them are fieldable as legal units straight out of the box? When GW had the $10 Space Marine Combat Squad, that thing was a playable unit straight from the get go. A learner could snag a box a week, and at the end of the month have a tiny force all his/her own to learn with at the FLGS. These, while a breath of fresh air given how GW USUALLY handles entry level stuff, simply supplement what you already have. In the case of the Primaris thinigs, what is the minimum size unit for those models? If it is NOT the specific count of that box, then it's a bit of a loss. I'd also love to see a character option at that price. Sure, give him garbage wargear to encourage the young player to want the $80 multipart kit, but at least have a beginner option. This is a tiptoe in the right direction, but not quite a step.

I think that GW is concerned about the cost of entry. Its always been an issue. IIRC, when I started in the mid-90s it took about two months of collecting and building plus about $200 to get a 1,000 point force (including rules/codex/paints).

The current Easy to Build kits are a decent idea. The First Strike box is $50 (Canadian) which gets you a playing surface, the rules and two small armies to build and fight on your kitchen table. Not bad for a March Break project for a tween/teen. The Primaris units are understrength, so while technically playable you would want to add to them (which you can with the other EtB boxes). The Know No Fear box is $100 and you get a pretty good Primaris force and a fairly workable Deathguard (edit) force. The Primaris force is a legal, battle-forged Patrol with an HQ, a Troops, a Fast Attack and a Heavy Support. Its about 500 points so our aspirant player could rock up to a gaming night and find an opponent willing to play 500 points. I think that $100 is a good value for what you get if you are a starting player, especially a younger one with a dad/brother/friend willing to play. The force can then be built on as the new player's hobby skills increase. I think that's the theory!

The boxes with three Intercessors or three Reivers are a little odd, but they do allow our new player to add an understrength squad (which is legal) or get two boxes and add a real one. The EtB Redempter Dread is pretty good and is easily within the modeling capabilities of a new hobbyist.

All this to say I think that GW does care about entry costs being a barrier.

To be fair, 500 points today is like a full army in 2E, right?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
To be fair, 500 points today is like a full army in 2E, right?

Haha true that.

And certainly players themselves have part blame for standard army for 40k being so expensive seeing they fall for GW's money making stunts when they could easily have fought against it. GW increases model point costs across the line. Let's up the point cost! So far so good. Then GW(probably pre-planned) starts to CUT DOWN on costs of models. Players? Buy more models!

Players keep pushing game size up while GW keeps pushing point costs down. Then players complain they need to spend more and more on armies. GW doesn't even need to increase cost of models to ensure they get more money all the time. Players are doing that just fine themselves!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
To be fair, 500 points today is like a full army in 2E, right?

Lol - good point. We've had dollar inflation, price increases and the points values have increased! A 2E Tactical Squad was something like 300 points plus the upgrades: now its 150 points. My first 1000 point army was Azrael, a Librarian, a Deathwing Squad and a Tactical Squad. "Veterans' Night" in 2E was at 1000 points, which would be about 500+- today I think.

Getting to 1500 points (the Grand Tournament level in 1997 IIRC) for me was adding an Assault Squad and a Predator (plus subbing Devastators for the Tac Sqd and a Jump Captain for Azrael). Bear in mind that my 10 man Assault Squad cost me $100 in 1996.

The road to 2000 points in 2018 is pretty daunting to a new player.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The road to 2000 points in 2018 is pretty daunting to a new player.

Isn't this the reason many give for why WFB was canned?

If we look at today's $160 Dark Imperium starter set, that's less than $100 in 1996 dollars, yet contains easily 2,000 points of 2E miniatures.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The road to 2000 points in 2018 is pretty daunting to a new player.

Isn't this the reason many give for why WFB was canned?

I am not sure. I walked away from 40K in 2015 (7th was not my cup of tea) and I only dabbled in WFB. I came back to 40K this past summer and I have been playing steadily.

While GW controls points costs we (the players) have some control over the points levels for games. I think that we tend to like 2000 point games because we can fit more of our models. One of my favourite tourney experiences was a 5E "Patrol Tournament" set at 400 points. I think that part of growing a community is arriving at games night at the FLGS ready to play 1000 points (or even lower) if that is what a newer player has. We own that part of the problem.

The cost of my models that I bought in 1996 seems pretty small now based on 22 years of gaming with them. Heck, even my newly Hellblasters ($140 CAD for two full squads) already have over a dozen games. Not bad!

1000 points is enough for a decent collection of units and interesting game play. I have no idea why tournaments are held at 2000 points when everyone complains you only get 2-3 turns in.

 John Prins wrote:
1000 points is enough for a decent collection of units and interesting game play. I have no idea why tournaments are held at 2000 points when everyone complains you only get 2-3 turns in.

It's not the only game with such problems. Malifaux has a few crews that take longer to play than normal. However, the way you score points in a game and tournament means you need to play full games to get the full amount of points most of the time, so playing such crews will purposely tank your score. Such crews generally aren't played.

 -Loki- wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
1000 points is enough for a decent collection of units and interesting game play. I have no idea why tournaments are held at 2000 points when everyone complains you only get 2-3 turns in.

It's not the only game with such problems. Malifaux has a few crews that take longer to play than normal. However, the way you score points in a game and tournament means you need to play full games to get the full amount of points most of the time, so playing such crews will purposely tank your score. Such crews generally aren't played.

Didn't seem to be stopping top players at LVO from tanking and playing only <standard game length.>

Isn't this the reason many give for why WFB was canned?

I think the difficulties for WFB lay in the game system which required big armies to deliver a fun game.
Otherwise you'd be shuffling two blocks around in which, say, 50 of your 60 models were only filler that you had to paint, but didn't really do anything and weren't particularly visible either, which made armies for that system a daunting perspective. In 40K or AoS you can play with a few squads and every model is visible, you get more out of your work.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Denny wrote:
For me the X-wing model is low detail and dull compared to the equivalent GW moel.

I don't understand that at all. IMO the X-Wing model is at least as detailed as the GW model, if not better detailed. On things like detail sharpness, minimum feature size, etc, the X-Wing model just trashes the GW stuff. It's an excellent representation of the "real" ship, with few flaws that I can find. The only thing it's lacking is the GW-style skulls and purity seals copied over every possible surface, and that's much more clutter than detail.

I agree it is an accurate representation of a Star Wars ship.

I think Star Wars ships are (in general) low on detail and kind of boring. Most spaceships are when you really look at them IMO. They are giant sealed environments floating/cruising in space. Details are not required.

Perhaps a better word would be . . plain?
Dull?
Overly Uniform?
Uninspiring?

I mean, you paint them white . . . and then plain the black bits . . . shade and highlight . . . that's it?
I suppose at that point you could weather them. But given the scale it would be pretty dang tiny weathering. Maybe a glowing engine would provide the option of using an actual primary colour?

There are no organic shapes, no meaningful variance of texture, no fur or skin or claws or even much metal (bar weathering and cabling).
No features to pick out. No eyes. No blood and guts, no basing options. No green slime or glowing warpstone, or mutated skin birthing into flailing tentecles. No question of 'What colour should I use for this daemons skin. Would a purpley-grey offset the yellow, or clash too heavily?' In fact no real decisions about colour theory because the colour schemes already set.

I think I would feel like I was painting a piece of plastic to look like a bigger piece of plastic. And I don't even get to pick the colour.

Please not that I'm not saying you can't do an amazing job on them; painting a ship to look like an actual full scale ship would be very challenging, far beyond my modest skills.
But I would far rather paint twenty Skaven than one spaceship. Whether it is Star Wars or not. And yes, that would count for Battlefield Gothic too.

Again, I'm not making a statement about what other people should do or should like. I find the in-game value assessment interesting and understandable.If you like them buy them and have fun.
But if someone gave me a bunch of spaceship models for free I would have no interest in painting them. And no amount of in-game content would offset that, because I never field anything that I haven't painted, and any enjoyment from the game would be offset by having to paint models that I personally find as artistically inspiring as grouting.

YMMV.

Huh, I hear you, but the same can be said for planes, tanks, support weapons, etc... in any game at any scale. I’ll just add that people absolutely do repaint x wing and Armada miniatures in interesting and fun ways. I saw a guy a few weeks ago who went to great lengths to put LED lights in his star destroyers along with an incredible airbrush repaint of them. Looked pretty dang cool.

 Denny wrote:
I think Star Wars ships are (in general) low on detail and kind of boring. Most spaceships are when you really look at them IMO. They are giant sealed environments floating/cruising in space. Details are not required.

That's a rather unimaginative way of looking at things. I mean, we're talking about the Star Wars ships that were a pretty substantial revolution in starship design, especially in a film context, for their elaborate detail work. If the only thing you can think of for painting them is just painting the whole ship white then that seems like much more of a problem with you than with the ship.

 Denny wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Denny wrote:
For me the X-wing model is low detail and dull compared to the equivalent GW moel.

I don't understand that at all. IMO the X-Wing model is at least as detailed as the GW model, if not better detailed. On things like detail sharpness, minimum feature size, etc, the X-Wing model just trashes the GW stuff. It's an excellent representation of the "real" ship, with few flaws that I can find. The only thing it's lacking is the GW-style skulls and purity seals copied over every possible surface, and that's much more clutter than detail.

I agree it is an accurate representation of a Star Wars ship.

I think Star Wars ships are (in general) low on detail and kind of boring. Most spaceships are when you really look at them IMO. They are giant sealed environments floating/cruising in space. Details are not required.

Perhaps a better word would be . . plain?
Dull?
Overly Uniform?
Uninspiring?

I mean, you paint them white . . . and then plain the black bits . . . shade and highlight . . . that's it?
I suppose at that point you could weather them. But given the scale it would be pretty dang tiny weathering. Maybe a glowing engine would provide the option of using an actual primary colour?

There are no organic shapes, no meaningful variance of texture, no fur or skin or claws or even much metal (bar weathering and cabling).
No features to pick out. No eyes. No blood and guts, no basing options. No green slime or glowing warpstone, or mutated skin birthing into flailing tentecles. No question of 'What colour should I use for this daemons skin. Would a purpley-grey offset the yellow, or clash too heavily?' In fact no real decisions about colour theory because the colour schemes already set.

I think I would feel like I was painting a piece of plastic to look like a bigger piece of plastic. And I don't even get to pick the colour.

Please not that I'm not saying you can't do an amazing job on them; painting a ship to look like an actual full scale ship would be very challenging, far beyond my modest skills.
But I would far rather paint twenty Skaven than one spaceship. Whether it is Star Wars or not. And yes, that would count for Battlefield Gothic too.

Again, I'm not making a statement about what other people should do or should like. I find the in-game value assessment interesting and understandable.If you like them buy them and have fun.
But if someone gave me a bunch of spaceship models for free I would have no interest in painting them. And no amount of in-game content would offset that, because I never field anything that I haven't painted, and any enjoyment from the game would be offset by having to paint models that I personally find as artistically inspiring as grouting.

YMMV.

So you're saying that military vessels look like military vessels? That's the whole point of them.. to be uniform and functional. Sounds like you enjoy organic models which is fine but why would you expect a military vessel to anything you mentioned? Tons of people paint "boring" or "uninspired" tanks in Flames of War because they look realistic.

I'm sorry, but in a spaceship context, vessels comes out as Chekov saying "wessels"...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sorry, but in a spaceship context, vessels comes out as Chekov saying "wessels"...

and by strange coincidence most of Denny's points are bang on for the Star Trek wessels, the newer ones are better but still nowhere near X-Wing

 Peregrine wrote:

 Denny wrote:
I think Star Wars ships are (in general) low on detail and kind of boring. Most spaceships are when you really look at them IMO. They are giant sealed environments floating/cruising in space. Details are not required.

That's a rather unimaginative way of looking at things. I mean, we're talking about the Star Wars ships that were a pretty substantial revolution in starship design, especially in a film context, for their elaborate detail work. If the only thing you can think of for painting them is just painting the whole ship white then that seems like much more of a problem with you than with the ship.

They were revolutionary in 1977. Like flared trousers. Or the walkman.

And when its an established canon I don't think painting a ship the colour the ship is is unimaginative. Its just the colour it is. The Millennium Falcon is off-white. The Tie Fighter is off-white. The X-wing is off-white. The Star Destroyer is off-white.
I could paint them a different colour, just like I could paint Superman green and purple, or paint British Grenadier's blue, or paint viking raiders with metal skin and glowing blue weapons.

But if I was going to paint those things I'd prefer to try and make them look 'real' for want of a better word.

Again, I'm only explain why *I* see no value in buying Star Wars kits. If you like them great. Likewise someone else might find chaos cultists a terrible chore as a) you need to convert if you want variety b) you needs loads of them which means loads of money spent/boxes to make and paint and c) they have a very low in game value in terms of points if not utility. and those points all make perfect sense to me.

but personally I love painting them. Its awesome. I can do any colours I want, or hack apart limbs and add heads. I ca use anything from my bits box and can make each one a project, and even if some don't turn out great on mass they look awesome. I'd rather paint them than almost anything else. YMMV.

 Denny wrote:
And when its an established canon I don't think painting a ship the colour the ship is is unimaginative. Its just the colour it is. The Millennium Falcon is off-white. The Tie Fighter is off-white. The X-wing is off-white. The Star Destroyer is off-white.
I could paint them a different colour, just like I could paint Superman green and purple, or paint British Grenadier's blue, or paint viking raiders with metal skin and glowing blue weapons.

But then you can't talk about having choices with 40k models. You have established canon color schemes, and all you can do is execute them according to the GW process. There are more colors involved, sure, but you aren't getting any more creativity. Except, of course, that you seem to be willing to break away from canon when painting 40k models, arbitrarily giving yourself more options. Don't you think this is kind of a double standard?

Also, your original statement was that the Star Wars model was "low detail", not that you don't enjoy painting that particular subject. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is relevant in a discussion of objective value for a model.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Denny wrote:
And when its an established canon I don't think painting a ship the colour the ship is is unimaginative. Its just the colour it is. The Millennium Falcon is off-white. The Tie Fighter is off-white. The X-wing is off-white. The Star Destroyer is off-white.
I could paint them a different colour, just like I could paint Superman green and purple, or paint British Grenadier's blue, or paint viking raiders with metal skin and glowing blue weapons.

But then you can't talk about having choices with 40k models. You have established canon color schemes, and all you can do is execute them according to the GW process. There are more colors involved, sure, but you aren't getting any more creativity. Except, of course, that you seem to be willing to break away from canon when painting 40k models, arbitrarily giving yourself more options. Don't you think this is kind of a double standard?

Also, your original statement was that the Star Wars model was "low detail", not that you don't enjoy painting that particular subject. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is relevant in a discussion of objective value for a model.

Umm...What? 40k canon specifically supports various colour schemes. Nothing in star wars canon has supported that. There's not single mention that there even might be red star destroyers or golden x-wings or whatever. 40k canon meanwhile has been set up so that it has all the freedom you need to create your own colour schemes.

Seriously have you ever played 40k or read any of the books there? From your post seems nope, never.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Where have you seen it for sale?

There are a bunch of the easy-to-build products at my FLGS. I almost picked up the Contemptor before I reminded myself that I'm a boxnaught guy.

The X-Wing type models look a little soggy to me too.

tneva82 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Denny wrote:
And when its an established canon I don't think painting a ship the colour the ship is is unimaginative. Its just the colour it is. The Millennium Falcon is off-white. The Tie Fighter is off-white. The X-wing is off-white. The Star Destroyer is off-white.
I could paint them a different colour, just like I could paint Superman green and purple, or paint British Grenadier's blue, or paint viking raiders with metal skin and glowing blue weapons.

But then you can't talk about having choices with 40k models. You have established canon color schemes, and all you can do is execute them according to the GW process. There are more colors involved, sure, but you aren't getting any more creativity. Except, of course, that you seem to be willing to break away from canon when painting 40k models, arbitrarily giving yourself more options. Don't you think this is kind of a double standard?

Also, your original statement was that the Star Wars model was "low detail", not that you don't enjoy painting that particular subject. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is relevant in a discussion of objective value for a model.

Umm...What? 40k canon specifically supports various colour schemes. Nothing in star wars canon has supported that. There's not single mention that there even might be red star destroyers or golden x-wings or whatever. 40k canon meanwhile has been set up so that it has all the freedom you need to create your own colour schemes.

Seriously have you ever played 40k or read any of the books there? From your post seems nope, never.

Have you never seen/read anything Star Wars outside of the movies? Because there sure are alternate colour schemes of ships, quite a few in fact. When this

is a thing, pretty much any alternate colour scheme of a basic ship can pass pretty easily. On the Star Destroyer front, there aren't that many full recolours, although there are examples of custom jobs like Thrawn's . It's not out of the question at all that a certain ace pilot, or high ranking admiral, would ask for specific paint jobs on their ships to mark themselves out, which is just as much 'canon supporting various colour schemes' as 40k.

tneva82 wrote:
There's not single mention that there even might be red star destroyers or golden x-wings or whatever.

Uh, actually there is. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Errant_Venture

Also, there are quite a few different colour schemes in the background. Wedge repainted his X-Wing, for example, and there's no reason why you can't come up with your own squadron colours for your ships. I've seen a lot of this sort of thing at tournaments and it always looks pretty cool seeing a bunch of ships all painted in matching colours.

Slipspace wrote:
Also, there are quite a few different colour schemes in the background. Wedge repainted his X-Wing, for example, and there's no reason why you can't come up with your own squadron colours for your ships. I've seen a lot of this sort of thing at tournaments and it always looks pretty cool seeing a bunch of ships all painted in matching colours.

This. Not to mention, in the two most recent films we have seen Poe's X-Wing, which is black and orange, unlike any other X-Wing seen thus far in the films.

It's almost like pilots enjoy personalising their aircraft, such as those who kept kill tallies on their kites, or painted teeth and eyes on the noses of their A-10s etc.

 Peregrine wrote:


But then you can't talk about having choices with 40k models. You have established canon color schemes, and all you can do is execute them according to the GW process. There are more colors involved, sure, but you aren't getting any more creativity. Except, of course, that you seem to be willing to break away from canon when painting 40k models, arbitrarily giving yourself more options. Don't you think this is kind of a double standard?

I've only ever created my own Craftworld/Renagade Chapter/Kabal/Blood Bowl Team. So no, there is no establish colour scheme. And I don't execute them to GW processes and I don't have to break canon, because the background is deliberately written to give me virtually complete freedom to do what I want. My renagade chapter is made of a bunch of cast offs from other chapters. I've done this so I can have the freedom to build them from whatever bits I want. Painting a GW specified faction (say, Ultramarines second company) holds very little appeal for me. For the same reason I never got on with the Hobbit game, because I don't want to spend time trying to match the green of the elven cloaks.

So no, I don't think this is a double standard. I just think you are making assumptions.

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, your original statement was that the Star Wars model was "low detail", not that you don't enjoy painting that particular subject. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is relevant in a discussion of objective value for a model.

By low detail I mean . . . there are no details.
I understand that some people read this as 'badly made' or 'lack of crisp lines' but I literally just mean there is very little detail to paint on the ship. A perfect sphere could be flawlessly cast to be seamless and utterly perfect in every way . . . and it would still have no detail, regardless of 'crispness'.

So I stand by my assessment that the ships are low on detail and dull (IMO) to paint.

Unless you fancy some canon breaking freehand. But I can't picture Vader flying around with tribal tattoos symbols on his Tie Bomber.

 Rygnan wrote:
Have you never seen/read anything Star Wars outside of the movies?

I thought the extended universe was reconed out of existence?
(Genuine question; heard this from a long suffering Star Wars fan but he might have been overplaying it. He just keeps going on about how all his books never happened anymore)

The books did never happen anymore.
Incidentally, there is a red star destroyer in the books.


And this is hugely off topic now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Also, there are quite a few different colour schemes in the background. Wedge repainted his X-Wing, for example, and there's no reason why you can't come up with your own squadron colours for your ships. I've seen a lot of this sort of thing at tournaments and it always looks pretty cool seeing a bunch of ships all painted in matching colours.

This. Not to mention, in the two most recent films we have seen Poe's X-Wing, which is black and orange, unlike any other X-Wing seen thus far in the films.

It's almost like pilots enjoy personalising their aircraft, such as those who kept kill tallies on their kites, or painted teeth and eyes on the noses of their A-10s etc.

It's a different, more modern model than the rest of the Resistance though? Resistance typically fly T-70, but Poe's one is a T-85.

Anyways. ......

Probably been said before but I was browsing GW prices yesterday, and by God, what I saw shocked me.

£90, yes £90 for a 20 man Horus Heresy space marine squad at Forgeworld.

£50 for a 10 women sisters of battle squad, the same models that have probably been around for nearly 2 decades!!!

Kamikaze prices.

Why, it's almost as if you're looking at the very highest!

20 man Heresy era squad? Can do that for £60. Two boxes of MkIII or MkIV plastics. Bonus, they come with additional weapons the FW one's don't. Or if you shell out a little extra, get Calth or Prospero and score a solid start to a Heresy army.

Sisters? Literally the only army with no plastic alternative.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why, it's almost as if you're looking at the very highest!

20 man Heresy era squad? Can do that for £60. Two boxes of MkIII or MkIV plastics. Bonus, they come with additional weapons the FW one's don't. Or if you shell out a little extra, get Calth or Prospero and score a solid start to a Heresy army.

Sisters? Literally the only army with no plastic alternative.

£60 is still pretty steep. For that price, I'd be expecting a free shoulder massage to be included

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why, it's almost as if you're looking at the very highest!

20 man Heresy era squad? Can do that for £60. Two boxes of MkIII or MkIV plastics. Bonus, they come with additional weapons the FW one's don't. Or if you shell out a little extra, get Calth or Prospero and score a solid start to a Heresy army.

Sisters? Literally the only army with no plastic alternative.

But why spend money on the reasonable value of those boxed games when I can splurge more or less the same money for 4 character models that require me to pre-own 3/4 AoS army's...

Whilst I still think GW product is overpriced, the wild fluctuations is what baffles me most, with BB teams and Shadespire edging close to reasonable, then they pull my favoured punchbag of the Harbingers, obviously theres some variables but 5-10 models for £20 or 1 seems a redonkulus variable

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kamikaze prices.

Except the company seems to be making money . . .

I agree they look like Kamikaze prices, but the bottom line suggests otherwise.

Either than or possibly these niche models are pretty much inconsequential to the bottom line, and you might as well charge a bucket load for them because you sell so few of them anyway, and the collectors who buy them probably don't care about the price.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
£50 for a 10 women sisters of battle squad, the same models that have probably been around for nearly 2 decades!!!

Fair price per point compared to Guardsmen (10 Tallarn are 25+ GBP). No valid complaint exists here.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

Whilst I still think GW product is overpriced, the wild fluctuations is what baffles me most, with BB teams and Shadespire edging close to reasonable, then they pull my favoured punchbag of the Harbingers, obviously theres some variables but 5-10 models for £20 or 1 seems a redonkulus variable

Reminds me of something their CEO wrote in the last yearly report (the june one not januari. he stated they were looking into "diversifying the price range" or something like that.

 Earth127 wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

Whilst I still think GW product is overpriced, the wild fluctuations is what baffles me most, with BB teams and Shadespire edging close to reasonable, then they pull my favoured punchbag of the Harbingers, obviously theres some variables but 5-10 models for £20 or 1 seems a redonkulus variable

Reminds me of something their CEO wrote in the last yearly report (the june one not januari. he stated they were looking into "diversifying the price range" or something like that.

I think part of that was with their range of cheaper snap fits and getting into other types of store with their rebranded assault on black reach stuff.

tneva82 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Denny wrote:
And when its an established canon I don't think painting a ship the colour the ship is is unimaginative. Its just the colour it is. The Millennium Falcon is off-white. The Tie Fighter is off-white. The X-wing is off-white. The Star Destroyer is off-white.
I could paint them a different colour, just like I could paint Superman green and purple, or paint British Grenadier's blue, or paint viking raiders with metal skin and glowing blue weapons.

But then you can't talk about having choices with 40k models. You have established canon color schemes, and all you can do is execute them according to the GW process. There are more colors involved, sure, but you aren't getting any more creativity. Except, of course, that you seem to be willing to break away from canon when painting 40k models, arbitrarily giving yourself more options. Don't you think this is kind of a double standard?

Also, your original statement was that the Star Wars model was "low detail", not that you don't enjoy painting that particular subject. Those are two very different things, and only one of them is relevant in a discussion of objective value for a model.

Umm...What? 40k canon specifically supports various colour schemes. Nothing in star wars canon has supported that. There's not single mention that there even might be red star destroyers or golden x-wings or whatever. 40k canon meanwhile has been set up so that it has all the freedom you need to create your own colour schemes.

Seriously have you ever played 40k or read any of the books there? From your post seems nope, never.

40K supports alternate colour schemes, yes. But so does Star Wars. Saying "I can't paint my X Wings a different color" isn't true. What you're essentially saying is "I can't paint my Red Squadron X Wings a different color and still have them be Red Squadron X Wings." Even if there's no official canon support for that in SW (any more,) there equally isn't anything for your Space Fairies and their rainbow colored armour in 40K, doesn't stop you doing it.

What this is no different from is "I can't paint my Blood Angels purple and still be canon Blood Angels." Which is true, but the same concept. In such vast universes as we're dealing with, there's no reason for either to limit alternate schemes, but both limit "historical" paintjobs in the same way.

 Denny wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Kamikaze prices.

Except the company seems to be making money . . .

I agree they look like Kamikaze prices, but the bottom line suggests otherwise.

Either than or possibly these niche models are pretty much inconsequential to the bottom line, and you might as well charge a bucket load for them because you sell so few of them anyway, and the collectors who buy them probably don't care about the price.

Well, they ain't making money from me. Not anymore.

I say this every time a thread like this pops up, but by the beard of Zeus, who's buying this stuff? At those prices?

Vallejo paints and Tamiya paints are cheaper and better IMO.

I get 500ml of PVA glue for £1 from poundland. The same stuff is £7 or £8 from GW.

Sand I get free from my local beach, but even people without a beach can save a packet and get it from a DIY store for peanuts. Feth me, GW sell a tiny little tub for £7

Army Painter tufts and grass is cheaper and better, Revell poly cement is cheaper and better, Gorilla superglue is cheaper and better, and so on and so on.

It amazes me that GW haven't collapsed long ago.

I appreciate the fact that some people love GW minis, I did too at one time, and I won't deny that, but feth me, the competition out there offers a lot of good stuff. Cheaper.

People should shop around IMO.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
£50 for a 10 women sisters of battle squad, the same models that have probably been around for nearly 2 decades!!!

Fair price per point compared to Guardsmen (10 Tallarn are 25+ GBP). No valid complaint exists here.

Surely 20 guardsmen for £50 should compare favourably to the Sisters?

 Denny wrote:
I've only ever created my own Craftworld/Renagade Chapter/Kabal/Blood Bowl Team. So no, there is no establish colour scheme. And I don't execute them to GW processes and I don't have to break canon, because the background is deliberately written to give me virtually complete freedom to do what I want. My renagade chapter is made of a bunch of cast offs from other chapters. I've done this so I can have the freedom to build them from whatever bits I want. Painting a GW specified faction (say, Ultramarines second company) holds very little appeal for me. For the same reason I never got on with the Hobbit game, because I don't want to spend time trying to match the green of the elven cloaks.

So no, I don't think this is a double standard. I just think you are making assumptions.

But if you're willing to make up your own color scheme for GW games why can't you do the same for Star Wars games? It's a double standard because you're fine with making up your own stuff so it's interesting to paint when you're defending the game/models you like, but when it comes to the models you aren't buying you're restricted to only using the canon schemes and complaining about your lack of options.

By low detail I mean . . . there are no details.
I understand that some people read this as 'badly made' or 'lack of crisp lines' but I literally just mean there is very little detail to paint on the ship. A perfect sphere could be flawlessly cast to be seamless and utterly perfect in every way . . . and it would still have no detail, regardless of 'crispness'.

But X-Wing ships have plenty of detail. They just don't have lots of skulls and purity seals copy-pasted over every possible surface like GW models often do. Again, we're talking about the universe that revolutionized scifi design by having all the detail bits on the outside. An Armada or X-Wing model has tons of mechanical bits, panel lines, windows, etc to paint.

Unless you fancy some canon breaking freehand. But I can't picture Vader flying around with tribal tattoos symbols on his Tie Bomber.

Nope, we could definitely never have anything like that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
£50 for a 10 women sisters of battle squad, the same models that have probably been around for nearly 2 decades!!!

Fair price per point compared to Guardsmen (10 Tallarn are 25+ GBP). No valid complaint exists here.

Surely 20 guardsmen for £50 should compare favourably to the Sisters?

Both are fairly priced.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Surely 20 guardsmen for £50 should compare favourably to the Sisters?

Both are fairly priced.

I... I am going to pretend I never saw this. £25 for 10 basic Infantry? Warlords will give me 30 for that price, with plenty of extra bits thrown in.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
£50 for a 10 women sisters of battle squad, the same models that have probably been around for nearly 2 decades!!!

Fair price per point compared to Guardsmen (10 Tallarn are 25+ GBP). No valid complaint exists here.

No. Really really no. A fair price for the Sisters and metal Guardsmen would be £15 for a box of ten, which incidentally is what Warlords sell their metal units at. £25 for 10 is extortion and £50 is outright delusional.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
£60 is still pretty steep. For that price, I'd be expecting a free shoulder massage to be included

£60 nets me mt of an Infinity army, the core and extras of a Bolt Action army, the better part of a Antares army..... The list goes on. For £60 I would expect about 70 - 80 infantry. Or 60 infantry plus armour and supporting elements.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I say this every time a thread like this pops up, but by the beard of Zeus, who's buying this stuff? At those prices?

AFAIK, mostly parents who don't know better or have enough money to not care. Most people using their own money pretty quickly figure out most of the tools can be acquired more cheaply elsewhere.

Vallejo paints and Tamiya paints are cheaper and better IMO.

One thing GW paints have going for them is easy availability. Your GW store probably has the paint you need when you run out. Ordering online is less reliable, and my local Vajello dealer doesn't always have the paint I want. Finding Reaper anywhere nearby is next to impossible (I order from the USA), so I don't mind GW paints when I need a paint for bulk painting Salamanders or Tau. Detail paints almost never run out, after all.

I get 500ml of PVA glue for £1 from poundland. The same stuff is £7 or £8 from GW.

Yeah, it's nuts.

Sand I get free from my local beach,

Definitely NOT worth sorting organic crap out of beach sand. If you live in a winter country, check the sand you spread on your walkway ice, but it's often pretty fine and even the time spent sifting out the coarser stuff isn't worth it IMO, just get model railroad grit - 100% clean and consistent.

GW knows it can sell overpriced peripherals to first time buyers - starting the hobby? Here's XYZ you'll need, one stop shopping. For most of this stuff it's a one time sale and they know it. Great for busy moms and dads shopping for little Timmy's first foray into a hobby that isn't an XBOX.

I'm sure others have seen this maybe in this thread but death company are 55aud while assault marines are 75aud for less bits, like how is that possible it is blatant profiteering

Mothboi666 wrote:
like how is that possible it is blatant profiteering

Not by any conventional definition of "profiteering".

Surely profiteering would be me somehow managing to secure all possible first market supplies of the Assault Marines, and then selling them on at a mark up?

Let's move past the semantics here, as he was probably just meaning that the prices were ridiculously high compared to other kits with more in them, yeah?

So after our 40k day yesterday people were excitedly talking about what they might want to add to their armies next. Some were looking up rules and talking about how cool things are. Others were showing images of sprues on the net and asking everyone's opinions about painting ideas.

No one was really talkng prices at all beyond whether it was worth it to buy something like a Triarch Stalker separate or get a Start Collecting Necrons. And going by GW's financial results, that's probably pretty true beyond our one little group.

Actually now that I think about it, it was the opposite issue. People were talking about not wanting to buy miniatures until the miniatures they already bought were painted.

So we have a situation where the prices are such that the customers can afford to collect not just what actually sees the table but enough to build a backlog of unpainted miniatures.

That would have been true of me as well before I started playing other games. Further of course it’s true of current customers. I’ll just say that group could be larger if the prices weren’t high and always and forever increasing with every release.

I have enough bare plastic to make probably 10k of 40k/WFB miniatures. Some of the new prices coupled with the price of just continually buying new books though finally was enough to put me off buying GW stuff for the foreseeable future.

Saying “these guys here don’t care about the price” doesn’t mean they’re not significantly higher than they ought to be.

 Chamberlain wrote:

So we have a situation where the prices are such that the customers can afford to collect not just what actually sees the table but enough to build a backlog of unpainted miniatures.

That's generally my take on the issue. GW minis are expensive relative to the miniatures wargaming market, but it's still a relatively inexpensive hobby. I work with people who drop thousands of dollars on a snowmobile/quad bike/jet ski, another who restored a Mustang spending just shy of 20 grand over several years, and we're all making lower middle class incomes. A 40K army that costs even $1000 CAD (note you can do a lot cheaper) to build is relative chump change.

Affordability =\= value.

If someone wanted £10 for a cup of coffee, I could afford it, I just wouldn't see value in it.

Just like one squad of 40K models is affordable to me, I just see much reduced value when I can afford a whole playable faction for another game. (Or even an entire game in some cases.)

It's well established that value is a moving target, but let's not conflate it with affordability.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Affordability =\= value.

I don't think anybody's making that argument. GW is still cheap enough that lots people don't care that other games offer 'better value', because GW has the more popular IP, and it's way easier to find opponents.

 John Prins wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Affordability =\= value.

I don't think anybody's making that argument. GW is still cheap enough that lots people don't care that other games offer 'better value', because GW has the more popular IP, and it's way easier to find opponents.

Those people should swap their location over to Australia or New Zealand once in a while.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It's well established that value is a moving target, but let's not conflate it with affordability.

Seems like value is such a moving target that it's basically irrelevant. You may object to a perceived conflation of affordability and value, but that's not really what anyone is saying.

There's no interpretation or argumentation about what's a better value or whatever. It's just part of the real world that the prices are such that people still build up back logs. No need to bring value in at all.

People talk and talk about how prices are what kept GW in their state of decline year in, year out, but now they've reversed their decline without changing their prices (except in a couple of areas: boxed games with lots of miniatures in them and start collecting boxes) I think it's safe to say that GW's pricing wasn't the main problem.

Their pricing was never insane. And still isn't.

"If only the ignorant fools knew what amazing value was available from other companies!!" and similar sentiments were just the projection of my own preferences onto others. The confusion of my own subjective sense of value with what other people should think was just an exercise in patting myself on the back for being one of the few who "really gets it."

Been there, done that, got over myself.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 John Prins wrote:
I don't think anybody's making that argument. GW is still cheap enough that lots people don't care that other games offer 'better value', because GW has the more popular IP, and it's way easier to find opponents.

GW's kits also actually offer something. The material. The excellent sculpting. A particular size. A specific art style. A build experience. And resistance to accidental damage.

These are real qualities that GW kits have and people are willing enough to pay for them in quantities that build up back logs. It may be true that some alternatives will have some of these qualities, but as soon as we go down that road we start getting into subjective value assessments. How much is it worth to someone that something is in GW cartoon style rather than a photo realistic one? A positive amount for some, a negative for others.

 Chamberlain wrote:
22So we have a situation where the prices are such that the customers can afford to collect not just what actually sees the table but enough to build a backlog of unpainted miniatures.1

This is not a new thing for 40k or hobbies in general.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Chamberlain wrote:
22So we have a situation where the prices are such that the customers can afford to collect not just what actually sees the table but enough to build a backlog of unpainted miniatures.1

This is not a new thing for 40k or hobbies in general.

Either it IS in that poster's neck of the woods, OR a yes man's gotta yes...

It's been true for as long as GW has operated. It has nothing to do with being a yes man or a new situation. It's just a fact that prices are such that GW's customers can afford not only the miniatures they paint and play with, but their back log as well.

Are they expensive? Absolutely. Are there some that give people sticker shock? For sure. Are they insane or too high or anything like that? Doesn't look like it.

When I saw the $45 Primaris characters, my reaction was "too high, no thanks!" but that doesn't mean my individual reaction says anything about what GW's prices should or should not be or whether or not they could, in any objective sense, be called insane.

Fortunately I can step out of my own shoes a bit and look at the real world and see what people other than me are up to.

 Chamberlain wrote:
I

When I saw the $45 Primaris characters, my reaction was "too high, no thanks!" but that doesn't mean my individual reaction says anything about what GW's prices should or should not be or whether or not they could, in any objective sense, be called insane.

But considering you can pick up a 5 man command squad for the same money, a unit that I'd imagine is like the Captain is a 1 maybe 2 of in a army kind of suggests GW does try it on a bit from time to time knowing, as others have pointed out, people will pay it

I'm curious to see what happens once the Codex cycle is complete if the warm 'n' fuzzys 8th has engendered in the faithful starts to wane

The only price I'm disappointed in at the moment would be the Witch Elf/Sisters of Slaughter box for AoS.

It was pricey when it came out - £35 for 10.

We then move a few years to the present day. An era where we've seen deliberate re-packs of some AoS units, where the content was doubled for a comparatively modest increase in price (Liberators spring to mind. Went from 5 to 10 in the box).

I was hoping something similar would happen with Witch Elf/Sisters of Slaughter.

But no. £35 they remain.

I'm not surprised at all about the witch elves not coming down in price. In the AOS thread I said I felt strongly they'd stay the same price as well.

It's just they've tweaked other sets in the AoS range - so seemed quite possible these lasses would follow suit. In terms of GW's pricing, they really do stand out as a 'surely they mean £25?'

These days I find it preferable to have a large backlog of Mantic, Dropfleet or Medge. GW is pricing me out of backlogging, by which I mean I have been selling off my old minis at rock bottom prices so I don't feel the urge to finish out projects by buying new minis.

@Bob - it's OKto sell GW at market prices - I've done pretty well this way, although it's taken a while.

 John Prins wrote:

That's generally my take on the issue. GW minis are expensive relative to the miniatures wargaming market, but it's still a relatively inexpensive hobby. I work with people who drop thousands of dollars on a snowmobile/quad bike/jet ski, another who restored a Mustang spending just shy of 20 grand over several years, and we're all making lower middle class incomes. A 40K army that costs even $1000 CAD (note you can do a lot cheaper) to build is relative chump change.

I've spent more money on cycling, firearms, and fitness related expenses than wargaming. Hobbies are expensive. I'm in lower middle class income in my 20s. This is with a 1000 spent on terrain, a forgeworld 30k army, and ten thousand points of various 40k armies.

It's extremely expensive for the younger audiences and the poor college student with a meal plan. Career without kids? Not too expensive to drop 100/mo on models. Going shooting, going to the mechanic to true your wheels before a century ride, monthly gym membership and supplements, all of these cost well over $100 if I do them once a month.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
These days I find it preferable to have a large backlog of Mantic, Dropfleet or Medge. GW is pricing me out of backlogging, by which I mean I have been selling off my old minis at rock bottom prices so I don't feel the urge to finish out projects by buying new minis.

Good man. I no longer play Kings of War, but the prices were solid. Dropfleet is priced nicely as well coming from a huge fan of DZC.

 Azreal13 wrote:
If someone wanted £10 for a cup of coffee, I could afford it, I just wouldn't see value in it.

Sure, but if you had a choice between £1 for a cup of coffee or £1.50 for a cup of coffee you probably wouldn't care about the price. You'd just buy whichever one was closer, or you liked the taste of better, etc. That £0.50 difference wouldn't be enough to motivate you to change your behavior, or even pay attention to it. And for many of us GW is in the same position. The cost for miniatures of any kind is so low that differences in price don't really matter.

 Stevefamine wrote:

 John Prins wrote:

That's generally my take on the issue. GW minis are expensive relative to the miniatures wargaming market, but it's still a relatively inexpensive hobby. I work with people who drop thousands of dollars on a snowmobile/quad bike/jet ski, another who restored a Mustang spending just shy of 20 grand over several years, and we're all making lower middle class incomes. A 40K army that costs even $1000 CAD (note you can do a lot cheaper) to build is relative chump change.

I've spent more money on cycling, firearms, and fitness related expenses than wargaming. Hobbies are expensive. I'm in lower middle class income in my 20s. This is with a 1000 spent on terrain, a forgeworld 30k army, and ten thousand points of various 40k armies.

It's extremely expensive for the younger audiences and the poor college student with a meal plan. Career without kids? Not too expensive to drop 100/mo on models. Going shooting, going to the mechanic to true your wheels before a century ride, monthly gym membership and supplements, all of these cost well over $100 if I do them once a month.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
These days I find it preferable to have a large backlog of Mantic, Dropfleet or Medge. GW is pricing me out of backlogging, by which I mean I have been selling off my old minis at rock bottom prices so I don't feel the urge to finish out projects by buying new minis.

Good man. I no longer play Kings of War, but the prices were solid. Dropfleet is priced nicely as well coming from a huge fan of DZC.

One thing I've noticed as I've gotten older is how much "value" (admittedly a subjective term) I get out of my miniatures. While the prices are expensive relative to the wargaming market, I've found that I get more time and enjoyment out of every dollar I spent on 40k. For example, I own several fire arms, which given the costs of them, addons, and ammunition, they've likely cost me more than 10 years of 40k. AND for the costs, I find myself spending more time with my models. Weekends spent playing games, evenings painting, hours throughout the day obsessing over what my next project is.

TLDR: I just seem to get more mileage out of 40k I guess.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
If someone wanted £10 for a cup of coffee, I could afford it, I just wouldn't see value in it.

Sure, but if you had a choice between £1 for a cup of coffee or £1.50 for a cup of coffee you probably wouldn't care about the price. You'd just buy whichever one was closer, or you liked the taste of better, etc. That £0.50 difference wouldn't be enough to motivate you to change your behavior, or even pay attention to it. And for many of us GW is in the same position. The cost for miniatures of any kind is so low that differences in price don't really matter.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Primaris-Space-Marines-Captain

Except nearly £40 isn't £1 vs £1.50 is it?

It's "shall I buy a takeaway coffee or buy a fething bean to cup machine!"

Besides, what you're saying is you'd be prepared to spend a small amount extra if you saw the value (better taste, convenient location) which is not the point I was making. The point I was making is just because somebody can afford to pay for something, it doesn't mean they'll do so if they don't see the value. Feel free to mentally substitute the prices and commodity in the example to something that allows you to better follow that.

 Azreal13 wrote:
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Primaris-Space-Marines-Captain

Except nearly £40 isn't £1 vs £1.50 is it?

It's "shall I buy a takeaway coffee or buy a fething bean to cup machine!"

Shrug. It's $35. I just paid $850 for airplane rentals this past weekend. Whether that captain is $35 or $25 or even $5 makes no real difference in my budget choices. I suppose in some abstract sense it has a high price per model, but a $35 purchase that will cover my painting for the next week or two is just too small a number to bother caring about. Whether I buy the $35 space marine or the $15 X-Wing ship is going to be decided by whether I'd prefer to paint a starship or an infantry model, price isn't going to come into that decision at all.

(Now, I'm not actually going to buy the model because I have zero interest in space marines, but if there's a single 28mm infantry model that I want that costs $35 I'm clicking "buy" without worrying about the price. Hell, I've probably paid more than $35 for single OOP FW infantry models without thinking about it because, again, $35 is below the point where it's worth caring about the price.)

Once more...

The numbers aren't important.

It is irrelevant how much you paid for your plane, or how trivial that amount of money is to you in your privileged little bubble.

Whether something has value to someone has no connection to whether the person paying can afford it.

Literally every time I do a grocery shop I reject items that cost more because the premium doesn't justify itself to me or my needs, it has nothing to do with spending £3 on shampoo over £1.50 (or whatever.)

Affordability =\= value.

 Azreal13 wrote:
It is irrelevant how much you paid for your plane, or how trivial that amount of money is to you in your privileged little bubble.

It absolutely is relevant, because how much other things in your life cost defines how much you care about certain prices. My budget planning, at least in terms of optional expenses, is defined by how much my flying hobby costs. Whether or not the weather clears up for the upcoming weekend has a much bigger effect on my financial situation than any plausible miniatures purchase I can make this weekend. GW could double their prices and this would still be true. So, when the miniatures purchase is a negligible component of my overall spending, why should I care about differences in price there?

And, as I've said before, flying is just my personal budget limiter. Other people have other hobbies that exceed miniatures spending by safe margins and have mentioned them here.

Whether something has value to someone has no connection to whether the person paying can afford it.

Of course it does. Affordability is a huge component of value, because affordability determines how much attention you have to pay to price. If you're poor and struggling to cover the necessary expenses price is a huge factor, if you're a billionaire you don't even look at the price tag when you tell your assistant to go fetch whatever it is that you want. For the billionaire value is determined by other factors: aesthetics, time investment, etc. In my case the dollar cost of miniatures is almost irrelevant, and value is defined by time. The space marine has zero value to me because I don't want to invest my time into it. No matter what the price tag is, $5 or $50, I can afford to buy primaris captains faster than I can paint or use them. But I can't magically create more painting time.

Literally every time I do a grocery shop I reject items that cost more because the premium doesn't justify itself to me or my needs, it has nothing to do with spending £3 on shampoo over £1.50 (or whatever.)

You must pay a lot more attention to such things than most people.

Speaking to @Nosferatu71 without quoting a wall of text: tl;dr Getting older and more appreciation/enjoyment from models

A Space Marine Predator Tank kit at age 14 was worth the world to me. I could finally play a solid game with my Battle of Macragge Ultramarines. $40 was a big deal. I glued it together as fast as possible and sprayed painted it blue! After hanging out with a few girls, that tank gained dust for 2 years until I got back into Warhammer 40,000. That same Space Marine Predator Tank kit at age 17? It's the first model I spent hours and hours painting.

At age 26, this Forgeworld Hierodule has been 15 hours of fun and I'm still not finished. My 30k Black legion/Luna Wolves army? Easily 100 hours of painting/building and dozens of games ahead... which makes it affordable. New Age of Sigmar Army? I know for a fact I'll get hours and hours out of it before it hits the painting stage. A $1500 bicycle. I ride around 3k miles a year. Well worth it.

One point I want to make is - don't accumulate a backlog. You're not having fun with that unpainted XYZ army and thats why you dont have money for a roof repair on your house. Picking up a box or two and some paints is perfectly fine.

 Peregrine wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:
It is irrelevant how much you paid for your plane, or how trivial that amount of money is to you in your privileged little bubble.

It absolutely is relevant, because how much other things in your life cost defines how much you care about certain prices. My budget planning, at least in terms of optional expenses, is defined by how much my flying hobby costs. Whether or not the weather clears up for the upcoming weekend has a much bigger effect on my financial situation than any plausible miniatures purchase I can make this weekend. GW could double their prices and this would still be true. So, when the miniatures purchase is a negligible component of my overall spending, why should I care about differences in price there?

And, as I've said before, flying is just my personal budget limiter. Other people have other hobbies that exceed miniatures spending by safe margins and have mentioned them here.

Whether something has value to someone has no connection to whether the person paying can afford it.

Of course it does. Affordability is a huge component of value, because affordability determines how much attention you have to pay to price. If you're poor and struggling to cover the necessary expenses price is a huge factor, if you're a billionaire you don't even look at the price tag when you tell your assistant to go fetch whatever it is that you want. For the billionaire value is determined by other factors: aesthetics, time investment, etc. In my case the dollar cost of miniatures is almost irrelevant, and value is defined by time. The space marine has zero value to me because I don't want to invest my time into it. No matter what the price tag is, $5 or $50, I can afford to buy primaris captains faster than I can paint or use them. But I can't magically create more painting time.

Literally every time I do a grocery shop I reject items that cost more because the premium doesn't justify itself to me or my needs, it has nothing to do with spending £3 on shampoo over £1.50 (or whatever.)

You must pay a lot more attention to such things than most people.

You're not this stupid, so I'm beginning to suspect I've wandered into a "Peregrine is bored and wants to make it all about him" situation, so I'm out.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

But considering you can pick up a 5 man command squad for the same money, a unit that I'd imagine is like the Captain is a 1 maybe 2 of in a army kind of suggests GW does try it on a bit from time to time knowing, as others have pointed out, people will pay it

I'm curious to see what happens once the Codex cycle is complete if the warm 'n' fuzzys 8th has engendered in the faithful starts to wane

Both great points.

I do really wonder what happens when the new edition launch boost goes away.

Maybe then without the additional demand from that, price will show a greater impact and I will be wrong about it not having a negative effect on GW.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Spoiler:

 Azreal13 wrote:
It is irrelevant how much you paid for your plane, or how trivial that amount of money is to you in your privileged little bubble.

It absolutely is relevant, because how much other things in your life cost defines how much you care about certain prices. My budget planning, at least in terms of optional expenses, is defined by how much my flying hobby costs. Whether or not the weather clears up for the upcoming weekend has a much bigger effect on my financial situation than any plausible miniatures purchase I can make this weekend. GW could double their prices and this would still be true. So, when the miniatures purchase is a negligible component of my overall spending, why should I care about differences in price there?

And, as I've said before, flying is just my personal budget limiter. Other people have other hobbies that exceed miniatures spending by safe margins and have mentioned them here.

Whether something has value to someone has no connection to whether the person paying can afford it.

Of course it does. Affordability is a huge component of value, because affordability determines how much attention you have to pay to price. If you're poor and struggling to cover the necessary expenses price is a huge factor, if you're a billionaire you don't even look at the price tag when you tell your assistant to go fetch whatever it is that you want. For the billionaire value is determined by other factors: aesthetics, time investment, etc. In my case the dollar cost of miniatures is almost irrelevant, and value is defined by time. The space marine has zero value to me because I don't want to invest my time into it. No matter what the price tag is, $5 or $50, I can afford to buy primaris captains faster than I can paint or use them. But I can't magically create more painting time.

Literally every time I do a grocery shop I reject items that cost more because the premium doesn't justify itself to me or my needs, it has nothing to do with spending £3 on shampoo over £1.50 (or whatever.)

You must pay a lot more attention to such things than most people.

You're not this stupid, so I'm beginning to suspect I've wandered into a "Peregrine is bored and wants to make it all about him" situation, so I'm out.

I was feeling the urge to also join in but just can't be bothered. It seems a while since the "I'm rich and GW stuff is cheap to me so screw you all" attitude appeared on dakka.
I find it hard to believe some people are still like that with a game mainly aimed at young teens. I know there's a lot of us older folk that still like our toy soldiers, but when that young generation are priced out, and the whales move on... what then?

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
I find it hard to believe some people are still like that with a game mainly aimed at young teens.

It's hardly aimed at young teens. At least, if it is, it's doing a very poor job of marketing to them. High prices, massive time sinks, emphasis on in-store gaming that requires a car to get to, etc. IMO GW is happy to milk the cash cow of kids whining to their parents until they get a starter box of space marines, but that's hardly playing the game. IMO the target market for GW's games is older players with disposable income, the skill and patience to make good use of the models, and the ability to go play a game whenever they want. And this is supported by the fact that every time I'm in a game store and see people playing it's all college students and older, with maybe an occasional token younger player at most.

I know there's a lot of us older folk that still like our toy soldiers, but when that young generation are priced out, and the whales move on... what then?

Then the current younger generation will have real jobs and no longer be priced out.

Have you read a newspaper lately?

Priced out is the motto of a generation.

GW’s core demographic is 12 - 18 yr old boys. GW purchaser is often the customer themselves, funded by a Saturday/holiday job, or pocket money. To support their purchasing requirements GW requires the acceptance of multiple payment methods

https://trade.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GW08V5-European-Trade-Terms-2.pdf

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Have you read a newspaper lately?

Priced out is the motto of a generation.

Priced out of major things like owning a house in a vastly over-inflated housing market. Not priced out of minor entertainment expenses, where the only reason they are priced out currently is that we're talking about young kids with no income besides an occasional birthday/christmas gift. It doesn't take a lot of income for time to be the limiting factor on miniatures instead of money.

Azrael, refrain from the personal attacks please.

 Azreal13 wrote:

GW’s core demographic is 12 - 18 yr old boys. GW purchaser is often the customer themselves, funded by a Saturday/holiday job, or pocket money. To support their purchasing requirements GW requires the acceptance of multiple payment methods

https://trade.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GW08V5-European-Trade-Terms-2.pdf

Since when did we start believing GW's claims when they conflict with reality? GW may claim to target that demographic, but they sure don't market to them very effectively. And that demographic sure doesn't make up any significant part of the in-store gaming community at any store I've ever been to.

Or mine really. I'd say their core demographic is practically 17-30. A lot of people my age (23-ish ) stil live with their parents/ co-housing in order to have money for hobbies/video games etc.

Also telling GW to lower their prices right now is hard. They're making massively increased profit while running at near capacity. I don't remember the exact number but if you decrease a price by say 5% you need to increase sales by 20% (actual numbers vary from company to company and are dependent on a lot of stuff).

I can't picture myself (or anyone really) walk into GW's board and deliver that pitch and sound reasonable.



Automatically Appended Next Post:


Note age is not mentioned.

Ive not read the whole thread, but i say buy what you like and can afford.

What i dont like is when companys use leverage to influence what you buy.

I have invested lots of time into this hobby.
I would hate to think that gameworkshop would force me to buy models in order for my army to work.
Thankfully they seem to be providing me with plenty of ways to play and rules support.

Shouldnt the question be more along the lines of is gamesworkshop an ethical company,

Because as the above post said there looking like a very healthy company so prices must be about right

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

GW’s core demographic is 12 - 18 yr old boys. GW purchaser is often the customer themselves, funded by a Saturday/holiday job, or pocket money. To support their purchasing requirements GW requires the acceptance of multiple payment methods

https://trade.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GW08V5-European-Trade-Terms-2.pdf

Since when did we start believing GW's claims when they conflict with reality? GW may claim to target that demographic, but they sure don't market to them very effectively. And that demographic sure doesn't make up any significant part of the in-store gaming community at any store I've ever been to.

"Their official line doesn't support my argument do Dakka as a whole has always ignored it"?

 -Loki- wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

GW’s core demographic is 12 - 18 yr old boys. GW purchaser is often the customer themselves, funded by a Saturday/holiday job, or pocket money. To support their purchasing requirements GW requires the acceptance of multiple payment methods

https://trade.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GW08V5-European-Trade-Terms-2.pdf

Since when did we start believing GW's claims when they conflict with reality? GW may claim to target that demographic, but they sure don't market to them very effectively. And that demographic sure doesn't make up any significant part of the in-store gaming community at any store I've ever been to.

"Their official line doesn't support my argument do Dakka as a whole has always ignored it"?

More like "GW has a historty of corporate documents that range from 'this is probably putting a spin on it to appease the shareholders' to 'delusional ramblings of someone who shouldn't be anywhere near control of a business' therefore we should view their business claims with skepticism when they contradict what we see happening."

Could someone explain to me the implications of the trade PDF in that link?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, I think I found it. They have sections that talk about their core demographic being 12-18 year old boys but other sections talking about their core demographic being diverse and how that impacts open hours. I'm not sure which is the true statement or how big their core is as a proportion. In either a portion of dollars spent or a portion of customers.

When I see the supposed age group they are seemingly aiming at I question how true that is? Over the past few years they have released a lot of kits some of which are way over the £100 mark; I ask you this;how many 12-18 year olds have this kind of pocket money? More likely they are aiming at people who are working and it has been the case for some time now.The problem is that those in work are and have been for some time,balking at the prices(the post is a great example) .

What happens when the 8th Edition bubble bursts? Do they renege and bring out 9th edition,hoping that people will be too excited on the shiny new stuff to notice how much the price has gone up again? Exactly how many codexes do you think you need?

Maybe we should be worried that the likes of Australia and New Zealand are complaining about being price gouged, and as GW continue to raise prices I forsee many other countries finding that they are being asked to fork out massive amounts just to continue in the hobby. Will they wish to do so?

It won't be long before the law of diminishing returns will come into play. That will be an interesting time...

Slipstream wrote:
When I see the supposed age group they are seemingly aiming at I question how true that is? Over the past few years they have released a lot of kits some of which are way over the £100 mark; I ask you this;how many 12-18 year olds have this kind of pocket money? More likely they are aiming at people who are working and it has been the case for some time now.The problem is that those in work are and have been for some time,balking at the prices(the post is a great example) .

What happens when the 8th Edition bubble bursts? Do they renege and bring out 9th edition,hoping that people will be too excited on the shiny new stuff to notice how much the price has gone up again? Exactly how many codexes do you think you need?

Maybe we should be worried that the likes of Australia and New Zealand are complaining about being price gouged, and as GW continue to raise prices I forsee many other countries finding that they are being asked to fork out massive amounts just to continue in the hobby. Will they wish to do so?

It won't be long before the law of diminishing returns will come into play. That will be an interesting time...

Not really. If we're discounting forge world, only a handful of big character pieces push the £100 mark. And only Archaon I believe actually hits a straight £100 with the others bouncing around between 60-80. And i'll tell you something, as an uncle to early and mid-teens, they're pushing that kind of pocket money. The eldest (who is 15) is regularly getting £50 a week for general stuff and that's not including odd job money he does. So yeah, they have access to those sort of funds.

Wha...?!?

You've got a 15 year old kid with $70 A WEEK to blow?

Yikes!

Well, I guess GW really is on to something then...

Pssh, that would hardly buy the kid any cockpit time per week. Unless the money is in addition to flight time, which it almost certainly is.

Not my kid, nephew. And from what I've observed that's quite the standard these days. I play the chauffeur from time to time and all of these kids have smartphones, tablets of some kind etc. And these aren't even from rich families, these are from thoroughly middle class houses.

If the 'average' British kid has close to $300 a month to spend as they see fit, I can see why GW is targeting them...

 Alpharius wrote:
If the 'average' British kid has close to $300 a month to spend as they see fit, I can see why GW is targeting them...

That's like 10x my hobby budget!

And I don't even come close to hitting it lately

I don't know, I was a middle class kid in the 90s, got 75 German Mark a week when I was 16 and did not get the most pocket money in my clique. Today that would translate to 220 Euros a month*. I could see kids getting that now, but no one in my circle of friends has kids that old yet.

*I spent a lot of that on fuel, to be honest. We lived in a sparsely settled region where buses were no good and there were no train tracks, so everybody had a 80-125ccm motorbike to get anywhere, it was a pretty common gift for the 16th birthday when kids wanted to have fun and parents got fed up from playing taxi. The rest went into beer and miniatures

"no one" in Germany in the 90s got 300 Marks per month!
Like seriously, you were one of the 1%.

I was a kid in the 90s in Germany and I had like 50 Marks per month and that was quite a lot compared to my friends. And we lived in one of the wealthier towns in the country with ather wealthy parents.

Yay, One-percenter!
Seriously, though, it wasn't that much compared to other guys (and girls). Maybe it was because we lived in the country so the parents thought they'd need to keep us mobile (I had to ride 40km one way to school...and the bus was very expensive and didn't get us back home after 13:00, so moped it was) and happy while in the city everything is close and the student ticket costs basically nothing. Our parents were craftspeople and farmers, not a single Abitur to be seen. We were the first generation that got more than 9 years of education.

Pocket money is subjective tough. Depends on parents and how much they want kids to buy with it. A girl I know had more than anyone else but she was expected to buy a lot more (clothes and stuff) with it.

Slipstream wrote:
When I see the supposed age group they are seemingly aiming at I question how true that is? Over the past few years they have released a lot of kits some of which are way over the £100 mark; I ask you this;how many 12-18 year olds have this kind of pocket money? More likely they are aiming at people who are working and it has been the case for some time now.The problem is that those in work are and have been for some time,balking at the prices(the post is a great example) .

Bad arqument. Hobbies tend to be often outside pocket money range of kids anyway. My niece for sure couldn't afford her riding and dance hobbies with her pocket money. And how many teenagers can afford couple thousands a year for their hobby either? Yet I know plenty who do it.

With kids source of money isn't really kid but the parent. They aren't looking "oh kids don't have job. They can't afford it.". They look "kids have parents who work. We need to sell this as hobby parents are happy to fund"

Anyway for time being they really even CANNOT drop prices. If you cut down prices by say 10% you need to increase your sale volume by lot more than 10% and they are already maxed out capacity. They would automatically get less profit by reducing price. Not much more sales due to production issues, less money per kit. No company does that. Actually demand/supply says they are underpricing...

£50 a week pocket money as any sort of 'standard' in the UK is utter nonsense. The average varies quite a bit depending on which survey you believe, but £6-£10 per week is more realistic.

Also, 12-18 year old boys are definitely still GW's core demographic, at least in the UK. You have to remember that those kids are not playing most of their games in GW stores or the independent gaming clubs you might belong to, but in school clubs on lunchtimes and after school.

tneva82 wrote:

Slipstream wrote:
When I see the supposed age group they are seemingly aiming at I question how true that is? Over the past few years they have released a lot of kits some of which are way over the £100 mark; I ask you this;how many 12-18 year olds have this kind of pocket money? More likely they are aiming at people who are working and it has been the case for some time now.The problem is that those in work are and have been for some time,balking at the prices(the post is a great example) .

Bad arqument. Hobbies tend to be often outside pocket money range of kids anyway. My niece for sure couldn't afford her riding and dance hobbies with her pocket money. And how many teenagers can afford couple thousands a year for their hobby either? Yet I know plenty who do it.

With kids source of money isn't really kid but the parent. They aren't looking "oh kids don't have job. They can't afford it.". They look "kids have parents who work. We need to sell this as hobby parents are happy to fund"

Anyway for time being they really even CANNOT drop prices. If you cut down prices by say 10% you need to increase your sale volume by lot more than 10% and they are already maxed out capacity. They would automatically get less profit by reducing price. Not much more sales due to production issues, less money per kit. No company does that. Actually demand/supply says they are underpricing...

The problem with relying on parents for money is that sticker shock is probably more of an issue. A gamer/hobbyist can look at £20-30 for a single model and justify it by saying they only need 1 or 2 per army but a clueless parent might just see 1 little plastic mode and baulk at the price. I can certainly see that being true of the bigger kits like Land Raiders. Clearly GW are doing something right since their profits are going up but I'm struggling to see who's buying at full retail from a GW, You're right about the capacity issue, unfortunately. I'm guessing they don't expect it to continue since there didn't seem to be any mention of investing profits in expanding production capacity, which would be a wise move if they thought demand would either remain as it is or increase. Maybe they expect a drop-off once all the 8th edition Codices are out?

tneva82 wrote:Anyway for time being they really even CANNOT drop prices. If you cut down prices by say 10% you need to increase your sale volume by lot more than 10% and they are already maxed out capacity. They would automatically get less profit by reducing price. Not much more sales due to production issues, less money per kit. No company does that. Actually demand/supply says they are underpricing...

Oh, they could. They'd have to invest in growing the market through advertising and getting past that whole "boutique" mentality, but it's entirely possible to expand into the general populace. If Heroscape could do it, GW could do it in a heartbeat. Increase volume of sales in conjunction with lowing the prices and you exponentially grow your customer base. But such things are otiose in a niche, which is why they need to push it out of niche and make it mainstream.

 Just Tony wrote:

tneva82 wrote:Anyway for time being they really even CANNOT drop prices. If you cut down prices by say 10% you need to increase your sale volume by lot more than 10% and they are already maxed out capacity. They would automatically get less profit by reducing price. Not much more sales due to production issues, less money per kit. No company does that. Actually demand/supply says they are underpricing...

Oh, they could. They'd have to invest in growing the market through advertising and getting past that whole "boutique" mentality, but it's entirely possible to expand into the general populace. If Heroscape could do it, GW could do it in a heartbeat. Increase volume of sales in conjunction with lowing the prices and you exponentially grow your customer base. But such things are otiose in a niche, which is why they need to push it out of niche and make it mainstream.

As it is they cannot produce enough stuff to meet up with demand. So they lower prices, in theory people rush in to buy...oh wait stores are empty. "Waiting for stock".

In case you haven't heard GW is suffering serious case of not being able to produce stuff to keep up stock AS IT IS NOW. Until that sorts out any decrease of price isn't going to lead to more sales in significant amount. You can't really sell what you haven't produced now can you?

Also kind of suggests that a price reduction just ain’t gonna happen, because despite the naysaying, all is rosey.

Seriously. If you’re operating at capacity and still can’t keep up with demand, does that suggest that your pricing is wrong?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also kind of suggests that a price reduction just ain’t gonna happen, because despite the naysaying, all is rosey.

Seriously. If you’re operating at capacity and still can’t keep up with demand, does that suggest that your pricing is wrong?

Rather depends on your definition of wrong I'd guess;

For a company with shareholders to keep happy then making the moneys is good

For a keen GW supporter it appears they don't think the prices are wrong as purchase in this case can be assumed as consent

For the not so keen, the sticker shock becomes a bit of a coin flip

For naysayers like me, I think a lot of GW is overpriced with some spectacularly strange variation, but as (paint aside) I don't buy it so makes no odds to me really bar the chance to grumble on Dakka
(although part of my reluctance is the rules not being my cup of tea as arguably Guildball and WMH prices are nearly on par with GW)

. Increase volume of sales in conjunction with lowing the prices and you exponentially grow your customer base.

That would only make sense if there was more stuff to sell, which currently isn't. There's a reason why they recently bought the place next to the factory.

 Duskweaver wrote:
Also, 12-18 year old boys are definitely still GW's core demographic, at least in the UK. You have to remember that those kids are not playing most of their games in GW stores or the independent gaming clubs you might belong to, but in school clubs on lunchtimes and after school.

Maybe that's true in the UK, but it sure doesn't seem to be anywhere else. I've never heard of this school club thing in the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Seriously. If you’re operating at capacity and still can’t keep up with demand, does that suggest that your pricing is wrong?

Depends on what your production capacity is. If you're running "at capacity" because your capacity is one tactical squad per month then the fact that you can't meet demand is pretty meaningless from a pricing point of view. It's the same problem we have with trying to evaluate the success of GW's limited edition stuff: did it sell out because everyone wants to buy limited-edition releases at high prices, or did it sell out because GW made a very small number of them?

There’s non-limited, non-new stuff that they struggle to keep in stock.

£38,000,000 in profit for six months would suggest that it’s most definitely not a case of false scarcity, but a genuinely popular product at a price plenty are willing to pay.

They do of course need to lick their production issues. No point resting on your laurels. For every hobbyist willing to wait, there’ll be at least one that never comes back for that product. And if you can’t fulfil demand, one can’t imagine your shareholders will be terribly happy. Sure, they’re in the money at the moment anyway. Shame that’s not how capitalism works - they want more, and you’re obliged to provide that for them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Have a think (everyone, not Peregrine specifically) about why companies typically offer sales, and cut prices.

The most obvious is to sell through your stock - either in preparation for the next season (fashion, generals clothing, home furnishings) or because there’s something new coming out (DVDs, Blu-ray, Console and Computer Games).

To attract customers away from your competition. GW themselves don’t do this - but their retailers often do. There’s no difference between Dark Sphere offering a solid discount and Tesco selling me Diet Coke at 4 litres for £2.50 over Sainsbury’s 1.75l for £1.70. When I go there for that, chances are I’ll pick up the other things on my list.

Then there’s stuff like the X-Box One. When that came out, it was noticeably more expensive than its direct competitor, the PS4. Yes, it came with a Motion Thingy, but that was broadly considered a gimmick. Bloody clever tech like, but a gimmick all the same (note how they eventually removed it as a compulsory bundle). When they started being trounced in sales, they lowered their price to better compete. Whilst all consoles are themselves loss leaders, not getting them into people’s homes typically means fewer software developers expressing an interest. Fewer devs, fewer games, fewer exclusives, dead product.

So given the stuff we know to be fact (maxed production capacity, seriously profitable) - why would you be looking at lowering your price right now?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also kind of suggests that a price reduction just ain’t gonna happen, because despite the naysaying, all is rosey.

Seriously. If you’re operating at capacity and still can’t keep up with demand, does that suggest that your pricing is wrong?

Except there has been a price cut, and it underpins all that has been financially positive about GW for the last 18-24 months.

A tactical squad might not cost £15 now, but you now get free Dwarfs with your Magmadroth, many equivalent rule books have seen double digit percentage reductions in price as they've been updated, the cadence of big boxes with massively discounted contents has increased.

Without any knowledge of where the capacity is being used, and whether the uptick has been driven by the product lines which do offer something that looks like good value, and the 3x Terminator-ish sized model boxes for £50 are shifting like pouring molasses in winter, one can't actually make any suppositions about whether the pricing structure is working completely efficiently.

It might be that charging £50 for 3 models is the only way they can be viable, or equally it might be a self fulfilling prophecy where they're not selling because they're too expensive, so the assumption by GW is to charge high because they sell in small numbers.

So yes, it is possible for GW to be going great guns and still have elements of their pricing structure incorrect.

One can start an army that way. One can’t build an army from those sets alone. Unless you’re Undead, in which case you more or less can.

If you were right though, we’d expect to see sales up, but not necessarily profits, no?

Not without detailed knowledge of what the cost price of the items in question are, no.

We know a mean average of what they spend vs their turnover, but we don't know a break down per SKU. So one can assume the manufacture and design cost of a product is about 25% of RRP before taxes, but with the massive swings in regional RRP, the likely significant differences between things bought like tools and paint and things manufactured, either in house or under contract, it would be very difficult to make such a broad assumption and back it up with the information we have at hand.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
£38,000,000 in profit for six months would suggest that it’s most definitely not a case of false scarcity, but a genuinely popular product at a price plenty are willing to pay.

Not necessarily, because we don't have any context for those numbers. It's possible that GW could be making 50% more profit by improving their production capacity, and their "sold out" status is the result of false scarcity. Or it's possible that £38,000,000 profit is the maximum that can reasonably be extracted from the market, and selling out at their current capacity is a sign that GW is doing things right. We can't know unless we look at a parallel world where GW has different prices and see how their profit compares.

Have a think (everyone, not Peregrine specifically) about why companies typically offer sales, and cut prices.

You've covered the reasons for sales (IOW, temporary price cuts), but sales are not the only kind of price cut. There's a third reason for permanent price cuts: you're on the wrong point on the supply vs. demand curves and you need to adjust your pricing. Even if GW was the only company in the market they could still potentially benefit from price cuts.

So given the stuff we know to be fact (maxed production capacity, seriously profitable) - why would you be looking at lowering your price right now?

Right now? No reason. A price cut is a pure loss if you can't make it up in volume. But it's possible that GW should be massively investing in additional production capacity, and then making price cuts to maximize it.

tneva82 wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

tneva82 wrote:Anyway for time being they really even CANNOT drop prices. If you cut down prices by say 10% you need to increase your sale volume by lot more than 10% and they are already maxed out capacity. They would automatically get less profit by reducing price. Not much more sales due to production issues, less money per kit. No company does that. Actually demand/supply says they are underpricing...

Oh, they could. They'd have to invest in growing the market through advertising and getting past that whole "boutique" mentality, but it's entirely possible to expand into the general populace. If Heroscape could do it, GW could do it in a heartbeat. Increase volume of sales in conjunction with lowing the prices and you exponentially grow your customer base. But such things are otiose in a niche, which is why they need to push it out of niche and make it mainstream.

As it is they cannot produce enough stuff to meet up with demand. So they lower prices, in theory people rush in to buy...oh wait stores are empty. "Waiting for stock".

In case you haven't heard GW is suffering serious case of not being able to produce stuff to keep up stock AS IT IS NOW. Until that sorts out any decrease of price isn't going to lead to more sales in significant amount. You can't really sell what you haven't produced now can you?

So you have inside information about production volumes and staffing? Cool. Is their inability to cover demand tied to not enough machine resources, not enough manpower resources, or a distribution/shipping issue? I mean, you have the inside knowledge, that would dictate whether they COULD increase production as well. If they need a few more boxers and sprue cleaners, then they hire them. I know what volume these machines produce at, and I can't see them NOT able to meet high demand unless they are TRYING to not meet demand.

Also, what they NEED to do is stop constantly tooling up new molds and models for kits that are perfectly fine. Every mold that is die cut is a massive expenditure in design and machining. It's just as easy to create a new copy of a master mold and run that into oblivion. Other companies do it all the time, especially with parts that they know are high volume parts. GW either knows this and chooses to not use that method, or they are thoroughly incompetent when it comes to the manufacturing side of things.

Inside? Annual Report covers it I believe.

As for the root cause? Well, we’re not 100% on that, but allegedly it’s due to their power grid not being able to support more machines.

Is that the local power grid in Lenton? We don’t know.

Is it a matter of getting an additIona circuit in place in the foundry? We don’t know.

Is the answer a second foundry being opened up somewhere? We don’t know.

Do they have casting machines sitting idle for want of power to run them? We don’t know.

But production capacity having been hit is fact.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I can remember being a kid and a blister of 2 Chaos Warriors was like, six bucks. Maybe ten if it was something special, a Lord was like... fifteen bucks? I think I paid ten dollars for a couple of Champions. (I didn't play 40k until ~1998).

It's kind of sad I can get a better, more detailed Infinity single for about fifteen to twenty bucks, but a finecast character for 40k is like $40.00.

When I was fourteen, a box set of Space Marines was ... £10 - £15, I think. That was one month's income for me. Boxed games were only available as birthday or Christmas presents. Now, I can buy a boxed game with an afternoon's income.

Lots of stuff was cheaper when we were kids. But a mixture of tax rises (VAT went up 2.5% for instance), cost of living (Consumer Price Index is near useless for working out actual inflation. Just look at house prices and rent prices...), introduction of the minimum wage and subsequent increases thereon, all effect how much money needs to be taken to turn a profit.

GW have of course taken advantage of rapid prototyping - but has die cutting gotten markedly cheaper? I genuinely don’t know, so that’s not a rhetorical question. When it comes to actually pumping out the sprues once the design and die are in place, have there been any improvements there, or are they still having to use the same machines they used to show off at Games Day? Again, I have a clue, and that’s not a rhetorical question.

There’s way more to a price structure changing over time than ‘item X hasn’t gone up that much, why has Item Y’

I think that it will always be a thing for people to compare one item to another and as long as there are sci fi and fantasy models that are cheaper than GW, people are going to complain about the prices and gripe that GW is gouging them.

 auticus wrote:
I think that it will always be a thing for people to compare one item to another and as long as there are sci fi and fantasy models that are cheaper than GW, people are going to complain about the prices and gripe that GW is gouging them.

I think its more that these other companies are not offering cheap knockoff miniatures but very good products in their own right, I am not a GW hater, but I dont believe for a second that they make the best models or games on the market by a long shot.

When GW sold lead minis for 50p each of £2.50 for 5 I couldn’t afford them without saving up. 3 rhinos for £9.99 was a distant dream.

30 years later at whatever price they are I can get what I want, I don’t even have to budget as the sums are pretty trivial against proper expenses like mortgages, kids or the Mrs.

Don’t get me wrong I don’t buy allot but personal perspective varies that this topic never comes close to consensus.

When a box of minis costs the same as a take away meal they aren’t to expensive... most people probably have to many miniatures already anyway lol

 thekingofkings wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I think that it will always be a thing for people to compare one item to another and as long as there are sci fi and fantasy models that are cheaper than GW, people are going to complain about the prices and gripe that GW is gouging them.

I think its more that these other companies are not offering cheap knockoff miniatures but very good products in their own right, I am not a GW hater, but I dont believe for a second that they make the best models or games on the market by a long shot.

I’d argue they’re the most accessible though.

When I cast my dusty mind back to my gaming origins, large kits were metal. And a total pain in the arse to build.

In the modern day, even GW’s biggest kits (not including FW) don’t require many tools to assemble them properly. Once upon a time, Dragon Wings involved fannying about with tinfoil to create the membranes. Unit Standards needed a cut out and hand painted (colour printing was either expensive or crap. Sometimes both) paper, or tinfoil.

So whilst I’m sure there are companies out there making more impressive kits, or larger kits etc, GW are the Standard for modern table top wargame miniatures. Easy to get our hands on, not massively daunting to build, a level of sculpted detail to suit all levels of painting - but crucially, for the most part, up to the rigours of regular transportation and table top play.

Why ‘for the most part’? Fiddly bits are fiddly. Just today I decide to plonk Arkhan back on his Dread Abyssal. Good lord those reins look fragile!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I think that it will always be a thing for people to compare one item to another and as long as there are sci fi and fantasy models that are cheaper than GW, people are going to complain about the prices and gripe that GW is gouging them.

I think its more that these other companies are not offering cheap knockoff miniatures but very good products in their own right, I am not a GW hater, but I dont believe for a second that they make the best models or games on the market by a long shot.

I’d argue they’re the most accessible though.

When I cast my dusty mind back to my gaming origins, large kits were metal. And a total pain in the arse to build.

In the modern day, even GW’s biggest kits (not including FW) don’t require many tools to assemble them properly. Once upon a time, Dragon Wings involved fannying about with tinfoil to create the membranes. Unit Standards needed a cut out and hand painted (colour printing was either expensive or crap. Sometimes both) paper, or tinfoil.

So whilst I’m sure there are companies out there making more impressive kits, or larger kits etc, GW are the Standard for modern table top wargame miniatures. Easy to get our hands on, not massively daunting to build, a level of sculpted detail to suit all levels of painting - but crucially, for the most part, up to the rigours of regular transportation and table top play.

Why ‘for the most part’? Fiddly bits are fiddly. Just today I decide to plonk Arkhan back on his Dread Abyssal. Good lord those reins look fragile!

I can agree most accessable in England, and to be honest when living in Huntingdon, there was GW in the most bizarre places (the sporting goods store for example) but where I live now, GW is at the GW store, most of the FLGS either dont bother with it or carry very very little of it.