maybe im wrong and it really is super hard to get the resin into that shape, or maybe it takes a whole machine per each when the other machine can print like tons of infantry squads, but 40 dollars for a character with no weapon/war gear options..
This is why I very rarely if ever buy characters outside of start collecting sets or if they have some other reduction. Just too pricey for me! You can normally fancy up a basic trooper to use as a leader easily enough.
GW charges a premium for everything.
Do people seriously believe they're getting a fair price?
Although part of the reason is because the molds are expensive to make. The cost of the mold needs to be recuperated in model sales.
If they're selling an infantry squad that most people are likely to buy, and many will buy 2-3 of, the kit can be cheaper as the cost of the mold is more spread out.
If they're selling a character that only some people will buy, and hardly anyone will buy more than one, they need to be more expensive because the cost of the mould is concentrated across fewer sales.
The price of the Rae material is negligible in the models btw. You're paying for the design work, profit, mould production, distribution, and profit.
kirotheavenger wrote: ...Do people seriously believe they're getting a fair price?...
Sometimes? Yeah. Look at commander figures from other games. Warmachine's got older/skinnier ones for $10-ish, but most of the newer fancier ones are in the $18-25 price range for a single pose metal or metal and resin mini on a 30mm or 40mm base. Infinity's charging anywhere from $13-18 for a single-pose metal mini on a 25mm base, the sculpts are beautiful but they're still single-pose metal with no options. Star Wars Legion? $13-15 for single-pose plastic commanders (with two versions if you're lucky) on 25mm bases and a whole load of cardboard. Compared to the competition $20 a model for three multi-pose commanders absolutely drowning in build options and spare parts in the Exalted Sorcerers kit (complete with a Disc) looks incredible, and $40 for a single mono-pose named character and no options looks silly.
Biggest fish combined with making it for their own game. I know people tout that molds are expensive but jeez, too many companies proving that not only can they make plastics cheap but also in relatively good quality and sculpt.
Hell going away from characters, troops themselves are by far over costed price wise.
bat702 wrote: The real question to aks is how much does GW make on the video games it produces, and god willing, the movie that probably will never come out
It has been my belief for a few years now that the death spiral for GW starts when they start selling movie rights.
bat702 wrote: The real question to aks is how much does GW make on the video games it produces, and god willing, the movie that probably will never come out
bat702 wrote: The real question to aks is how much does GW make on the video games it produces, and god willing, the movie that probably will never come out
bat702 wrote: The real question to aks is how much does GW make on the video games it produces, and god willing, the movie that probably will never come out
Zero. Be doesn't -produce- any video games. They license their properties to publishers/developers.
I'm not sure why a movie would be a bad thing. It probably wouldn't be a good movie, but I don't see any particular reason to be against an official one happening,
The ever raising GW mini prices are why I'm looking into 3D resin printing. I reckon I'll get a printer in a year or two, after which I'm cutting down on my mini buying.
I don't mind paying "start collecting" bundle tier prices, 65€ for gorgeus looking squad of ten is tolerable, but 40€ for a single HQ is getting ridiculous.
I keep seeing video games get touted a lot, but how many games will be pulling in that much money these days? There's Total War and... maybe Vermintide 2? The rest of them are either ancient, or have a player base in the double/single digits.
tauist wrote: The ever raising GW mini prices are why I'm looking into 3D resin printing. I reckon I'll get a printer in a year or two, after which I'm cutting down on my mini buying.
I don't mind paying "start collecting" bundle tier prices, 65€ for gorgeus looking squad of ten is tolerable, but 40€ for a single HQ is getting ridiculous.
Until you hit models like guardsmen which are 20+ years old nearly and almost that same price of of $40usd and they look more dated than the metal sculpts that came before.
bat702 wrote: I understand GW charges a premium, they are basically a monopoly on tabletop wargaming, but 40 dollars for a one character sculpt is eye gouging
Monopoly... That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
bat702 wrote: The real question to aks is how much does GW make on the video games it produces, and god willing, the movie that probably will never come out
Zero. Be doesn't -produce- any video games. They license their properties to publishers/developers.
I'm not sure why a movie would be a bad thing. It probably wouldn't be a good movie, but I don't see any particular reason to be against an official one happening,
this gak sounds too confusing for me, hurting my head, Im just saying unless GW has idiots working for it, it has to have made a killing off of its video game licenses
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: They're not remotely a monopoly. They're just the biggest fish in a small pond.
You’re in the uk, you have to be wilfully blind to not see GW has a de facto monopoly over here.
Yeah, no. I can walk into any gaming store and find GW as well as multiple different selections of minis and rule sets. GW is dominant, but in no way a monopoly.
bat702 wrote: maybe im wrong and it really is super hard to get the resin into that shape, or maybe it takes a whole machine per each when the other machine can print like tons of infantry squads, but 40 dollars for a character with no weapon/war gear options..
It’s 2021. They’ve been doing this routine for over 40 years. Is anything on your post news to anyone?
bat702 wrote: maybe im wrong and it really is super hard to get the resin into that shape, or maybe it takes a whole machine per each when the other machine can print like tons of infantry squads, but 40 dollars for a character with no weapon/war gear options..
It’s 2021. They’ve been doing this routine for over 40 years. Is anything on your post news to anyone?
not trying to be rude or anything, but they seriously hire internet trolls in russia, id know cuz iv survived over 10,000 e-brawls in league of legends
bat702 wrote: maybe im wrong and it really is super hard to get the resin into that shape, or maybe it takes a whole machine per each when the other machine can print like tons of infantry squads, but 40 dollars for a character with no weapon/war gear options..
It’s 2021. They’ve been doing this routine for over 40 years. Is anything on your post news to anyone?
not trying to be rude or anything, but they seriously hire internet trolls in russia, id know cuz iv survived over 10,000 e-brawls in league of legends
GW may not have a total monopoly, but there aren't many other fish in the pond and they're pretty small in comparison.
GW also has one of the most loyal fan bases I have ever seen. People seem to get personally offended if you say other games or companies are better.
kirotheavenger wrote: GW may not have a total monopoly, but there aren't many other fish in the pond and they're pretty small in comparison.
GW also has one of the most loyal fan bases I have ever seen. People seem to get personally offended if you say other games or companies are better.
iv looked into many other wargames and they seem plenty solid, its just the playerbase would be so small
Yep, that is pretty much the best advantage GW have, the network effect. Your stuff holds more perceived value because you feel you will always have a better chance of using it, because you have a better chance of getting games in the most commonly played system.
See I always say I am going to stop going to GW and start using counts-as from a 3rd party for my models, until I learn that I can't put my army on a table at a GW store/event ever again. So it's their house, their rules. I'm a married man with a family, and I still find the ability to save up 10-15 dollars a week and at the end of the month buy myself a new pack/model/book.
Mantic is climbing the ladder more and more, but as their quality increases, so does their price.
Their cheaper stuff tends to be old and it reflects heavily in the sculpts.
Mierce, infinity, warmahordes etc are all around the same (usually higher for mierce) in price.
Sometimes you take a big hit in quality just for cheap miniatures.
On the flip side, you have companies like shieldwolf that are beginning to pick up really well while keeping prices down.
On character prices specifically - yes, they are expensive and always have had a sort of premium on them to reflect lower sales.
You’d notice this with more elite units too like the old empire greatswords.
FW is a different beast entirely.
You can see the dramatic price hikes just by scrolling through their character series.
Is it a justified and reasonable price? Hardly.
Is it something people will buy? Of course.
kirotheavenger wrote: GW may not have a total monopoly, but there aren't many other fish in the pond and they're pretty small in comparison.
GW also has one of the most loyal fan bases I have ever seen. People seem to get personally offended if you say other games or companies are better.
I.e see above in the reply to my post. People are in the proverbial Egyptian river if they don’t think GW has a stranglehold on the uk market and other companies might as well not exist. They can give all the snark they want, doesn’t change the fact that GW=wargaming to the public at large.
The issue is what's the alternative. If plastic character kits are uneconomical to make for a lower price point, and the market stopped paying the current rate, what would happen? GW would make less of them, or they'd stay in resin. Personally I'd rather pay the premium and hopefully live to see the wide range of plastic characters some factions get - Marines, Death Guard, Necrons, GSC - expanded to others like IG and Eldar.
I think GW models are worth the money, and understand about characters costing more, it's just that I don't always have the money, or I would rather get more for it, so I have been buying mostly other minis to 'count as'.
I get that I won't be able to take them to a Warhammer World tournament which is a shame - and i am looking at how to do an official army cheaply sometime - but will I be okay at other tournaments in the uk, assuming my stuff clear enough and wysiwyg? Guess every tourney is different, just looking for a general idea.
Off-topic, sorry: what's the tourney scene in the UK like these days? can't seem to find out much, probs due to whats goin on in the world. Guess it will take a while to get going again, plenty of time to paint
kirotheavenger wrote: GW may not have a total monopoly, but there aren't many other fish in the pond and they're pretty small in comparison.
GW also has one of the most loyal fan bases I have ever seen. People seem to get personally offended if you say other games or companies are better.
I.e see above in the reply to my post. People are in the proverbial Egyptian river if they don’t think GW has a stranglehold on the uk market and other companies might as well not exist. They can give all the snark they want, doesn’t change the fact that GW=wargaming to the public at large.
If you're going to reference me in a post, at least have the decency to quote. I said dominant, but in no way a stranglehold. If that was the case, why can i walk into a store and find numrous other games and models from other developers? Doesn't sound much like a monopoly to me. Yes, GW will be at the forefront, like Apple for phones etc, etc. And them being "the face" of wargaming comes more from actually putting money into making it so. Partworks with tv ads, magazine and social media ads, the stores yadda yadda. That's just using years of experience to push themselves to the front.
There's 4 gaming groups in my city, each with at least a dozen 40k players, some of them several dozen.
I'm lucky if I can find 4 people willing to play something that isn't 40k or AoS.
The disparity in numbers is immense.
The "networking effect" is very real. If I felt I had the choice, I'd have walked away from 40k years ago and played other games. But all too often the choice is 40k or nothing. And 40k is still better than nothing.
I usually do my characters just by making a special guy from a regular infantry kit, because char models are just way too expensive.
I know why, intuitively, since they have to cover the mold cost and while someone might buy like 4 boxes of intercessors will only ever buy 1 captain, but like its still too much for a single infantry model.
kirotheavenger wrote: GW may not have a total monopoly, but there aren't many other fish in the pond and they're pretty small in comparison.
GW also has one of the most loyal fan bases I have ever seen. People seem to get personally offended if you say other games or companies are better.
I.e see above in the reply to my post. People are in the proverbial Egyptian river if they don’t think GW has a stranglehold on the uk market and other companies might as well not exist. They can give all the snark they want, doesn’t change the fact that GW=wargaming to the public at large.
At least in America, unless you're in a small town, I dont think that's true. At the very least, apart from the 1 GW branded store, my local games stores almost always have some other stuff going on, even on "40k Night". I usually see Infinity being played concurrently with 40k, and they have about as much shelf space dedicated to Flames of War and Bolt Action as they have dedicated to 40k.
Unless you are being ironic, it’s the opposite from what you think. De facto means “in reality.” It contrasts with de jure. De jure could be taken as “officially, but not really.”
There's always been a premium, but it used to be much lower. Back in the 90s, a character was generally twice the price of a normal model from the same range, not the 5x-10x the price they now run.
A significant premium is fine for a kit with a lot of options - the CSM terminator lord/sorceror, for example - but it's downright exploitative on the monopose, mono-loadout junk that makes up a lot of their recent releases.
At least in America, unless you're in a small town, I dont think that's true. At the very least, apart from the 1 GW branded store, my local games stores almost always have some other stuff going on, even on "40k Night". I usually see Infinity being played concurrently with 40k, and they have about as much shelf space dedicated to Flames of War and Bolt Action as they have dedicated to 40k.
I went into my FLGS yesterday and they had wall to wall Bolt Action. Neat looking stuff but their GW stuff was down to a couple of Primaris/Centurion/Scout boxes, a stack of Bloodbowl stuff and one box of legit WHFB High Elves cavalry.
I don't mind paying the prices of some kits, like the Chimera is the same price as a 1:32 scale Stryker, a Russ the same as a KV-2 etc but the prices they want for characters? Newp.
Obviously GW charge a premium, they are a business, but like all businesses if you price yourself out of the market the market will go elsewhere. Maybe they don't care that a couple lf sales are beimg missed but hopefully if enough people vote with their wallets then even the GW models or no play" wont be able to save them.
Yeah the prices are insane, GW is the enemy of free people everywhere. Obviously that is a joke.
All we can do is vote with the wallet, if enough people say enough, they will have to look at their prices.
If they stubbornly cling to rise rise rise then go out of business I'm sure we'll be told how it was all our fault because we didn't just buy buy buy.
I want the hobby to stay strong but it can only go so far before they price out new entrants, the current base moves away from it and even the whales have no one to crush tossing money at it.
I hope they will eventually reach that ceiling and dial it down, so far, hasn't happened yet.
And thanks to capitalism, that cost/sale ratio outcome is passed on to us, the consumer.
It's not thanks to capitalism the price is so high, it's thanks to the monopoly GW holds on their products (AoS and 40k for example) to set the price with no alternatives and has been supported by the community that allows them to set the price so high. The difference being that a capitalist system creates the environment for businesses to be created and products distrubuted by private (not state) entities. Monopolies are companies that hold such a stranglehold over a certain product or services that there is no other alternative (Microsoft in the 1990's).You want lower prices? Stop buying the models for a while. Vote with your wallet. It's worth note that monopolies are illegal in at least the US and EU. GW maintains their monopoly by forcing you to use their models in their sanctioned tournaments by requiring your army models to be a certain percentage (75?) of the official model for the unit. The Chapterhouse lawsuit was a big win for the wargaming community, it just didn't go far enough. Giving a company the ability to make compatible parts for GW kits does you no good if GW then says you can't use them in sanctioned play.
Capitalism
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
Mirriam-Webster Dictionary.
Monopoly
"1) exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action"
"3) a commodity controlled by one party "
Mirriam-Webster Dictionary
There comes a time when a company becomes that well known that their products are no longer just seen as gaming pieces.
Most of GW's character models are now seen as collectables in their own right.
Once out of production some pieces can sell for a wealthy premium over what they sold for as new.
Then again many pieces on the seconds market have suffered from play or been abused, so if you want a piece badly enough you would somehow find a way of obtaining one from new.
My personal collecting tastes have taken me far away from the modern GW world into vintage pieces and smaller company's products. Things that really fire the imagination. Not things that everybody else plays with because they are the only miniatures sold in town.
crazysaneman wrote: It's not thanks to capitalism the price is so high, it's thanks to the monopoly GW holds on their products (AoS and 40k for example) to set the price with no alternatives and has been supported by the community that allows them to set the price so high. The difference being that a capitalist system creates the environment for businesses to be created and products distrubuted by private (not state) entities. Monopolies are companies that hold such a stranglehold over a certain product or services that there is no other alternative (Microsoft in the 1990's).You want lower prices? Stop buying the models for a while. Vote with your wallet. It's worth note that monopolies are illegal in at least the US and EU. GW maintains their monopoly by forcing you to use their models in their sanctioned tournaments by requiring your army models to be a certain percentage (75?) of the official model for the unit. The Chapterhouse lawsuit was a big win for the wargaming community, it just didn't go far enough. Giving a company the ability to make compatible parts for GW kits does you no good if GW then says you can't use them in sanctioned play.
"If I want to play 40k in a GW store I have to buy 40k models from GW" isn't a monopoly.
40k is a game. You don't have to play it.
GW don't have a monopoly on games.
GW don't have a monopoly on plastic models.
They just have a product where demand exceeds supply, so they can push the price up until the market ceases to clear.
kirotheavenger wrote: GW may not have a total monopoly, but there aren't many other fish in the pond and they're pretty small in comparison.
GW also has one of the most loyal fan bases I have ever seen. People seem to get personally offended if you say other games or companies are better.
thats because in my experiance people tend to push agaisnt GW when the people don't wanna hear it. often because they feel they HAVE to convince others that "40k sux!" to get them to play their game. thus you tend to have an enviroment where someone comes into a 40k community and immediatly starts telling them the game they wanna play sucks and they should play something else (something that BTW they likely already looked at and took a pass on)
in comparison you simply don't see people visit I dunno... Battletech forums and say how bad they think Battletech is and how people should play heavy gear instead, just for example.
in short people aren't OFFENDED, they just don't wanna hear it, have heard it all before, and really don't CARE if you think another game is better
The justification offered is that characters simply sell fewer units, but don’t cost that much less to sculpt, tool and produce.
But they can do better than their current mono-pose offerings.
Imma quote myself to get the rest of my point across:
H.B.M.C. wrote: We know they can do better. We've seen them do better. We saw them do an entire range of Warhammer HQ models that came 2 to a box and had various options for different weapons, BSB, mounts, etc. We saw them do a Space Marine Captain kit with a whole bunch of options. By today's standards these kits are primitive, meaning that they could do seriously multi-part, multi-pose, multi-option HQ kits if they wanted to, but they don't.
Consider that in the space of one edition we went from kits like this, to kits like this. Just look at the damned sprues and see the devolution.
I've seen people praising this mini:
Spoiler:
... when it just as 2D as the basic single-piece metal sculpts of the old days. GW can do better than this.
And thanks to capitalism, that cost/sale ratio outcome is passed on to us, the consumer.
It's not thanks to capitalism the price is so high, it's thanks to the monopoly GW holds on their products (AoS and 40k for example) to set the price with no alternatives and has been supported by the community that allows them to set the price so high. The difference being that a capitalist system creates the environment for businesses to be created and products distrubuted by private (not state) entities. Monopolies are companies that hold such a stranglehold over a certain product or services that there is no other alternative (Microsoft in the 1990's).You want lower prices? Stop buying the models for a while. Vote with your wallet. It's worth note that monopolies are illegal in at least the US and EU.
Audi has a "monopoly" on Audi cars.
GW has a "monopoly" on GW miniatures.
There are other cars and other miniatures. Therefore, these aren't monopolies.
e.g. Wizards of the Coast doesn't hold a monopoly over CCGs, it's just the biggest CCG out there.
GW maintains their monopoly by forcing you to use their models in their sanctioned tournaments by requiring your army models to be a certain percentage (75?) of the official model for the unit. The Chapterhouse lawsuit was a big win for the wargaming community, it just didn't go far enough. Giving a company the ability to make compatible parts for GW kits does you no good if GW then says you can't use them in sanctioned play.
You can't use them in official GW events. There are other events, and there's play outside of tournaments. A lot of that.
You also can't use Pokemon cards in any MtG event (including non-sanctioned). I know that would be ridiculous, as the game wouldn't work - but if some company decided to create MtG compatible cards they wouldn't be allowed either - the only place you could use those would be kitchen table Magic, and events hosted by that company.
Just for clarification: GW is overpriced. I am not defending them. But that's not the same as having a monopoly.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Yeah the prices are insane, GW is the enemy of free people everywhere. Obviously that is a joke.
All we can do is vote with the wallet, if enough people say enough, they will have to look at their prices.
If they stubbornly cling to rise rise rise then go out of business I'm sure we'll be told how it was all our fault because we didn't just buy buy buy.
I want the hobby to stay strong but it can only go so far before they price out new entrants, the current base moves away from it and even the whales have no one to crush tossing money at it.
I hope they will eventually reach that ceiling and dial it down, so far, hasn't happened yet.
They are surely aware of the issue.
9th edition is seeing quite a decrease in the access barrier for this game.
Mostly through a push toward troops (which are cheaper) and by increasing the point costs.
It is interesting that the SM dex (+supplements), the necron dex and now the DG dex have in general increased the point cost of the army, while it was customary during 8th edition that the codici usually decreased costs of models.
A 9th edition codex army is now quite cheaper than a 7th edition one for an equivalent number of points.
And thanks to capitalism, that cost/sale ratio outcome is passed on to us, the consumer.
It's not thanks to capitalism the price is so high, it's thanks to the monopoly GW holds on their products (AoS and 40k for example) to set the price with no alternatives and has been supported by the community that allows them to set the price so high. The difference being that a capitalist system creates the environment for businesses to be created and products distrubuted by private (not state) entities. Monopolies are companies that hold such a stranglehold over a certain product or services that there is no other alternative (Microsoft in the 1990's).You want lower prices? Stop buying the models for a while. Vote with your wallet. It's worth note that monopolies are illegal in at least the US and EU. GW maintains their monopoly by forcing you to use their models in their sanctioned tournaments by requiring your army models to be a certain percentage (75?) of the official model for the unit. The Chapterhouse lawsuit was a big win for the wargaming community, it just didn't go far enough. Giving a company the ability to make compatible parts for GW kits does you no good if GW then says you can't use them in sanctioned play.
Capitalism
"an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
Mirriam-Webster Dictionary.
Monopoly
"1) exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action"
"3) a commodity controlled by one party "
Mirriam-Webster Dictionary
*Edited for clarity*
GW has no monopoly.
When the quality of the game lowered under an acceptable treshold (7th edition), we saw most of the players migrating toward other games. The alternatives are always out there, ready to strike when the big beast is wounded. This means that there is no monopoly.
Much to the dismay of GW decractors, the fact that today GW is again the big fish in the pond is because the company was able to redeem herself in the eyes of those that were driven away during 7th. It's not thriving because it is living on the inertia of having been on the market for many years, it is succesful because when it was on the verge of death, it was capable of doing a 180 and considerably step up its product.
I had left this game for good, and had no intention to come back. Yet, here I am with 3 40K armies and an AoS army. When I left I had barely 2k points of nids.
Spoletta 795402 11031274 wrote: When the quality of the game lowered under an acceptable treshold (7th edition), we saw most of the players migrating toward other games. The alternatives are always out there, ready to strike when the big beast is wounded. This means that there is no monopoly.
No they didn't. GW was still making a profit, it was just one that was getting smaller every year. The reason the Horus Heresy expanded so much was because it picked up disgruntled 40k players, who still wanted to remain within the GW eco-system (and I suspect that's why so many of them now clamour for 8th edition rules, so they can use their Legion armies vs their friend's 40k). There was definitely an exodus to other games - which overall was the healthiest period in wargaming's history for quite some time - but it definitely wasn't 'most' players.
Much to the dismay of GW decractors, the fact that today GW is again the big fish in the pond is because the company was able to redeem herself in the eyes of those that were driven away during 7th. It's not thriving because it is living on the inertia of having been on the market for many years, it is succesful because when it was on the verge of death, it was capable of doing a 180 and considerably step up its product.
I had left this game for good, and had no intention to come back. Yet, here I am with 3 40K armies and an AoS army. When I left I had barely 2k points of nids.
All GW had to do was have a basic "WE ARE YOUR FRIENDS! " social media presence and people were eating out of their hands in droves. Nothing really stepped up - the rules are still bad (except for that five minutes in 8th where everything was so bare bone it actually worked), the prices are still eye watering, the fluff got even worse, the difference now is they 'engage' with the community (IE less soulless marketing) and... uhhhh, well the release schedule intensified dramatically and impulse control seems to be at a minimum among hobbyists these days, so there's that.
GW bounced back because there was a new edition of 40k and everybody saw their friends playing it, so they wanted in. Once they were back, those other games had dried up because everybody wanted to be where everybody else was (playing 40k and 'maybe' AoS). It's not a literal monopoly insofar as GW are literally the only wargaming company out there, but in many cases scaling Mt. Everest is easier than convincing people to try something that's not a GW game... or hell, even 40k/AoS in some cases.
GW's fan base is kind of like politics: people rabidly support them because they've always supported them and therefore anything outside the box can't possibly be good because it's not GW, no matter what it might do better it's always flawed because it's not GW.
Their "turnaround" is one of the biggest scams in gaming history and shows how devoted their fans are. A few smoke and mirrors "see we've changed!" abd doing social media like everyone else vwss enough to con everyone into thinking things are different (they are better but just barely) and make them more profitable than ever before for basically doing nothing.
It's exactly like the guy above said. Gw barely changed but conned everyone into thinking they did so tons of people came back, and gamers want to play what everyone else is playing so there's a large pool of opponents.
Which incidentally is also why it's so hard to get traction with other non-GW games. People are already playing Warhammer so they don't want to get invested in something that is untested, so those games stay untested and niche because everybody else is playing Warhammer and nobody wants to take the first steps to say this is a better game we should move to it. I have actually seen and even been verbally attacked for suggesting another game people should play simply because it wasn't Warhammer and nobody wanted to give anything else a consideration and this was years ago during the bad times
Spoletta 795402 11031274 wrote: When the quality of the game lowered under an acceptable treshold (7th edition), we saw most of the players migrating toward other games. The alternatives are always out there, ready to strike when the big beast is wounded. This means that there is no monopoly.
No they didn't. GW was still making a profit, it was just one that was getting smaller every year. The reason the Horus Heresy expanded so much was because it picked up disgruntled 40k players, who still wanted to remain within the GW eco-system (and I suspect that's why so many of them now clamour for 8th edition rules, so they can use their Legion armies vs their friend's 40k). There was definitely an exodus to other games - which overall was the healthiest people in wargaming's history for quite some time - but it definitely wasn't 'most' players.
Much to the dismay of GW decractors, the fact that today GW is again the big fish in the pond is because the company was able to redeem herself in the eyes of those that were driven away during 7th. It's not thriving because it is living on the inertia of having been on the market for many years, it is succesful because when it was on the verge of death, it was capable of doing a 180 and considerably step up its product.
I had left this game for good, and had no intention to come back. Yet, here I am with 3 40K armies and an AoS army. When I left I had barely 2k points of nids.
All GW had to do was have a basic "WE ARE YOUR FRIENDS! " social media presence and people were eating out of their hands in droves. Nothing really stepped up - the rules are still bad (except for that five minutes in 8th where everything was so bare bone it actually worked), the prices are still eye watering, the fluff got even worse, the difference now is they 'engage' with the community (IE less soulless marketing) and... uhhhh, well the release schedule intensified dramatically and impulse control seems to be at a minimum among hobbyists these days, so there's that.
GW bounced back because there was a new edition of 40k and everybody saw their friends playing it, so they wanted in. Once they were back, those other games had dried up because everybody wanted to be where everybody else was (playing 40k and 'maybe' AoS). It's not a literal monopoly insofar as GW are literally the only wargaming company out there, but in many cases scaling Mt. Everest is easier than convincing people to try something that's not a GW game... or hell, even 40k/AoS in some cases.
You are entitled to having an opinion on GW's doings, but don't try to make it sound like an absolute truth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wayniac wrote: GW's fan base is kind of like politics: people rabidly support them because they've always supported them and therefore anything outside the box can't possibly be good because it's not GW, no matter what it might do better it's always flawed because it's not GW.
Their "turnaround" is one of the biggest scams in gaming history and shows how devoted their fans are. A few smoke and mirrors "see we've changed!" abd doing social media like everyone else vwss enough to con everyone into thinking things are different (they are better but just barely) and make them more profitable than ever before for basically doing nothing.
It's exactly like the guy above said. Gw barely changed but conned everyone into thinking they did so tons of people came back, and gamers want to play what everyone else is playing so there's a large pool of opponents.
Which incidentally is also why it's so hard to get traction with other non-GW games. People are already playing Warhammer so they don't want to get invested in something that is untested, so those games stay untested and niche because everybody else is playing Warhammer and nobody wants to take the first steps to say this is a better game we should move to it. I have actually seen and even been verbally attacked for suggesting another game people should play simply because it wasn't Warhammer and nobody wanted to give anything else a consideration and this was years ago during the bad times
Again, this is just an opinion.
I have a totally different one.
I wasn't enjoying the game during 7th. I'm enjoying it now. Quite a lot. What they pulled was clearly not just a bit of smoke.
Between the time that passed from 7th to 8th, I invested in a quite big collection of everblight models. I've played extensively that game, which is why I can tell that (to me) Warmachine was a better game than 7th, but was a worse game than 8th. That everblight collection has been taking dust for quite a while now, I have no motivation to play Warmachine. With all its defects, 40K is a game that doesn't leave me wishing for something else, even now that I'm forced to play on TTS and could technically find players of any game.
Wayniac wrote: GW's fan base is kind of like politics: people rabidly support them because they've always supported them and therefore anything outside the box can't possibly be good because it's not GW, no matter what it might do better it's always flawed because it's not GW.
That's just a toxic opinion, nothing more. "You like GWs games, that means you have no idea what's out there and you're stupid for sticking to GW". I like them, and I still play other games (eg BattleTech, Dropfleet Commander). It's the "the other guys are wrong for liking something I dont like!" that really annoys me most in the tabletop space, to be honest. We managed to get rid of that mostly in our local community, but online ... well.
I'd be fine with characters costing above average for their plastic amount if they had options. It sucks that the Farseer doesn't come with optional hands for different weapons or a head or two extra for variety.
Wayniac wrote: GW's fan base is kind of like politics: people rabidly support them because they've always supported them and therefore anything outside the box can't possibly be good because it's not GW, no matter what it might do better it's always flawed because it's not GW.
Their "turnaround" is one of the biggest scams in gaming history and shows how devoted their fans are. A few smoke and mirrors "see we've changed!" abd doing social media like everyone else vwss enough to con everyone into thinking things are different (they are better but just barely) and make them more profitable than ever before for basically doing nothing.
It's exactly like the guy above said. Gw barely changed but conned everyone into thinking they did so tons of people came back, and gamers want to play what everyone else is playing so there's a large pool of opponents.
Which incidentally is also why it's so hard to get traction with other non-GW games. People are already playing Warhammer so they don't want to get invested in something that is untested, so those games stay untested and niche because everybody else is playing Warhammer and nobody wants to take the first steps to say this is a better game we should move to it. I have actually seen and even been verbally attacked for suggesting another game people should play simply because it wasn't Warhammer and nobody wanted to give anything else a consideration and this was years ago during the bad times
That's not true. Like many wargamers, I've been through a lot of alternatives over the years, from more well-known competitors like X-Wing, Infinity or Malifaux to outright obscure stuff like Bushido or Saga.
A fair number of companies employ far more predatory, unsavoury and unconscientious marketing methods than GW does (FFG and Corvus Belli being prime examples). Others simply offer inferior products, where the slight discount you might get over GW product in no way or form justifies the horrid quality issues you buy into in both miniatures and rules (e.g. Privateer).
GW offers a good product. They are not perfect and shouldn't be confused with a charitable organisation. But they aren't relying on cult-like brainwashing to sell 80s quality garbage like Corvus Belli or Privateer, nor do they quite stoop to ponzi-scheme deceptions and price-gauges like FFG and others. Overall, compared to a lot what's out there, GW has some reasonable stuff.
If forcing specific software on an hardware is an illicit monopoly, the same goes for minis and rules.
And, truth to be told, none is forcing you to do anything or using GW miniatures for GW rules or viceversa. WYSIWYG is a behaviour that applies regardless
I simply avoid any venues (GW or otherwise) that pretend to tell me how should I play with my toys, or what my toys should be. Simply do not support them... And they'll disappear.
Except GW won’t just “disappear”
If it’s in their shops and events, that’s fine.
It’s as much a showcase of their products as it is anything else.
You couldn’t pick up food in one restaurant and sit in another one to eat it.
If it’s not GW run/owned there’s no issue with what is used.
That’s simply down to the people that run it/play in it.
Jackal90 wrote: Except GW won’t just “disappear”
If it’s in their shops and events, that’s fine.
It’s as much a showcase of their products as it is anything else.
You couldn’t pick up food in one restaurant and sit in another one to eat it.
If it’s not GW run/owned there’s no issue with what is used.
That’s simply down to the people that run it/play in it.
Game stores that refuse to allow games other than GW might, though. Not talking about GW's own shops but independent shops. A lot of those are narrow-minded and actively are hostile to games they don't stock, even if they can special order it or have a community asking about it.
Sunny Side Up wrote: But they aren't relying on cult-like brainwashing to sell 80s quality garbage like Corvus Belli or Privateer, nor do they quite stoop to ponzi-scheme deceptions and price-gauges like FFG and others. Overall, compared to a lot what's out there, GW has some reasonable stuff.
This must be sarcasm.
Cult-like brainwashing? Have you seen the average 40k Facebook group?
Sunny Side Up wrote: But they aren't relying on cult-like brainwashing to sell 80s quality garbage like Corvus Belli or Privateer, nor do they quite stoop to ponzi-scheme deceptions and price-gauges like FFG and others. Overall, compared to a lot what's out there, GW has some reasonable stuff.
This must be sarcasm.
Cult-like brainwashing? Have you seen the average 40k Facebook group?
Kek. It's always the sad truth that GW (the company) and the GW fans are very much like the in-game Imperium.
Sunny Side Up wrote: But they aren't relying on cult-like brainwashing to sell 80s quality garbage like Corvus Belli or Privateer, nor do they quite stoop to ponzi-scheme deceptions and price-gauges like FFG and others. Overall, compared to a lot what's out there, GW has some reasonable stuff.
This must be sarcasm.
Cult-like brainwashing? Have you seen the average 40k Facebook group?
The average 40K Facebook group is pretty much like any other Facebook group. Not sure what difference there would be to the Infinity Facebook group. Or the Goldfish-breeder Facebook group. Or whatever. It's Facebook.
Sunny Side Up wrote: But they aren't relying on cult-like brainwashing to sell 80s quality garbage like Corvus Belli or Privateer, nor do they quite stoop to ponzi-scheme deceptions and price-gauges like FFG and others. Overall, compared to a lot what's out there, GW has some reasonable stuff.
This must be sarcasm.
Cult-like brainwashing? Have you seen the average 40k Facebook group?
The average 40K Facebook group is pretty much like any other Facebook group. Not sure what difference there would be to the Infinity Facebook group. Or the Goldfish-breeder Facebook group. Or whatever. It's Facebook.
IDK, I've seen a lot more groups that are more open to "yeah this is bad, but this other stuff is good" than 40k where its mostly "GW is great, we all love GW here if you don't GTFO"
Arbitrator wrote: Cult-like brainwashing? Have you seen the average 40k Facebook group?
Kek. It's always the sad truth that GW (the company) and the GW fans are very much like the in-game Imperium.
Is it a sad truth, or just a perception?
Wayniac wrote:IDK, I've seen a lot more groups that are more open to "yeah this is bad, but this other stuff is good" than 40k where its mostly "GW is great, we all love GW here if you don't GTFO"
And the contrast here, where if you like GW, you're called a brainwashed cultist or white knight?
Also, have *you* seen 40kFB groups? The GW skepticism is strong there too. They're just focused on talking about GW, because, you know, it's a GW facebook group. What else would they talk about if not 40k? Do you go into things like Marvel groups and wonder why they're not talking about DC?
GW don't have a monopoly on tabletop games. If you believe that, you're why they have the perceived monopoly.
Want to play other games? You have to put the legwork in. Form your own groups. If those other games are good, then you shouldn't have too much of an effort convincing people to play them. Same as my experiences with D&D (which arguably has an even stronger "monopoly") - offer to play other games, facilitate other people's entry, and built a community yourself. This is happening in my circles with Star Wars Legion - some of us started, others liked what we were doing, and it becomes more and more popular. But there's no GW monopoly aside from over 40k, which is GW's own property. It'd be like saying "FFG have a monopoly over SW:Legion!"
It's always the sad truth that GW (the company) and the GW fans are very much like the in-game Imperium.
What? Besieged by all sides by bitter monsters who only wish to see it cast down and brought to ruin, its inhabitants slaughtered?
Yeah, sounds about right. (obviously joke is obvious, by the way...)
Here's the bitter truth wayniac. Some gw fans are apologists and enablers and defend and celebrate every dodgy decision they make. I very much doubt they are anything other than a tiny minority. They're a boogeyman, and lots of ordinary folks that like things, or even like some things,(or simply don't hate things), make things work or simply get on with things are lumped in with them for no other reason than we are not apoplectic with rageand venting said rage for every action gw makes, never mind our actual likes and dislikes.
But if we talk about them, can we also talk about the bitter ones, the hyper-criticals the haters and 'black knights' for whom nothing is ever good enough, who criticise every little thing gw does, who refuse to acknowledge any positivity, who never have a nice thing to say, who are always ready to tear down, never to build, who have a thousand negative and nasty criticisms, and never any compliments (or if there are, are so wrapped up in grudge and bile that it might as well be a criticism) and try and turn absolutely everything into an attack on gw, and who remain quiet when anyone else in the industry starts being a cheeky bugger too? It seems there's a line of thought that your opinion only matters when it's to lash out at gw.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: They're not remotely a monopoly. They're just the biggest fish in a small pond.
Of the global market as a whole, sure. But GW definitely have a monopoly on certain areas. Where I’m currently living there’s no “just play Warmachine instead”. It’s just “play Warhammer or don’t tabletop”. So they definitely have a meeting maybe monopoly as far as here is concerned
From my experience RPG players are *way* more open to other systems than 40k players.
Hell, experimenting with different systems seems part of the RPG culture.
Quite the opposite amongst 40k players.
The DnD/5e comparison with GW is... only sort of true, insofar as there's definitely groups and stores out there who will act like you've just killed their firstborn at the idea of playing something other than DnD (Adventures in Middle-Earth outsold The One Ring by stupid numbers despite literally the only difference being the core mechanics), but those tend to be the extremes and whilst most people do return to DnD, are at least open minded to the idea of playing others. Hell, there's a sizeable number of people who're just happy to BE a player in any game.
It's much easier to get people to try other RPGs because typically only one person is really 'needed' to buy into it and the eco-bubble is only really that group of friends. Sure if they all love it they might grab rulebooks for themselves, but rarely is that needed and even then, a £20-£40 RPG book gathering dust on a shelf is far easier to swallow than £100-£300 worth of unused plastic/metal/resin and accompanying books. This is probably also why historical wargames tend to have a lot of people talking and trying about alternative systems, because the only real factor there is scale - a 15mm Sherman tank is a 15mm Sherman tank whether you buy it from Battlefront, Plastic Soldier Company or whoever - meaning it's far more common to see those groups trying out different games.
RPGs are also different in that you 'want' a consistent group. You don't want to be dealing with different players every week, you want consistent and familiar faces in order to make the group work - it's a cooperative game with at least some focus on the group dynamic, whether that be purely mechanical or you being heavily invested in the characters. Whilst wargaming groups can and do absolutely work with just a small handful of people, the competitive nature - I mean rules wise, not in the sense of WAAC tournament vs casual - means that having a bigger population will usually make the community feel more alive, the game itself less at risk of dropping off and dying.
Also, have *you* seen 40kFB groups? The GW skepticism is strong there too. They're just focused on talking about GW, because, you know, it's a GW facebook group. What else would they talk about if not 40k? Do you go into things like Marvel groups and wonder why they're not talking about DC?
Scepticism/criticism of GW tends to get put down very quickly on a lot of Facebook groups, not all, but I'd say most. It's rarely 'outright banned' but topics are usually locked very quickly, or all discussion is lost amidst a sea of white knights running to it's defence, typically pointing to "well if GW aren't the bestist company ever why are their sales so high huh?" That's not to say other game's groups are devoid of it - Marvel Crisis Protocol supposedly has a very No Negativity Allowed group - but by enlarge the communities tend to not outright shut down any perceived negativity as GW ones do.
Want to play other games? You have to put the legwork in. Form your own groups. If those other games are good, then you shouldn't have too much of an effort convincing people to play them. Same as my experiences with D&D (which arguably has an even stronger "monopoly") - offer to play other games, facilitate other people's entry, and built a community yourself. This is happening in my circles with Star Wars Legion - some of us started, others liked what we were doing, and it becomes more and more popular. But there's no GW monopoly aside from over 40k, which is GW's own property. It'd be like saying "FFG have a monopoly over SW:Legion!"
Sometimes the legwork just isn't enough. Sometimes it just doesn't matter how good a game is. Whilst it's often not an outright impossible task, it's definitely an effort to get anymore than maybe 1-2 people into something in most cases. Also, even if you do put in the legwork, foster a community, get games going on the reg, often times the death knell of those same communities is 40k Malibu Stacy getting a new hat rolled out, which makes everybody run back to it exclusively for months and leave previous games in the dust.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: They're not remotely a monopoly. They're just the biggest fish in a small pond.
Of the global market as a whole, sure. But GW definitely have a monopoly on certain areas. Where I’m currently living there’s no “just play Warmachine instead”. It’s just “play Warhammer or don’t tabletop”. So they definitely have a meeting maybe monopoly as far as here is concerned
That's up to you to sort out. You want your group to play something else? Get that something else, introduce them too it and show them a fun time with it. I had too with a few different games. Can take time, but it depends entirely how much effort you're willing to put in.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: They're not remotely a monopoly. They're just the biggest fish in a small pond.
Of the global market as a whole, sure. But GW definitely have a monopoly on certain areas. Where I’m currently living there’s no “just play Warmachine instead”. It’s just “play Warhammer or don’t tabletop”. So they definitely have a meeting maybe monopoly as far as here is concerned
That's up to you to sort out. You want your group to play something else? Get that something else, introduce them too it and show them a fun time with it. I had too with a few different games. Can take time, but it depends entirely how much effort you're willing to put in.
It's really not that easy.
Even for game systems where I have 100% of the bits to play, all they need to do is leave their 40k army at home one week to try it out. But no one is interested.
Like anything else on the internet, the fanbois and haters for GW are far louder than most people who fall somewhere in the middle. They just seem to be all over the place because they shout a lot louder.
The fanboi thing confuses me personally, it's just not how my personality is built, but I don't think you have to look far in the rest of society to see that rabidly following and supporting something no matter what fulfills a deep need in some people, and I really don't think those people are any more prevalent in 40k than in the world generally. You could say the same for the haters, though I personally understand the impulse to be overly critical more than the impulse to defend the indefensible.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: They're not remotely a monopoly. They're just the biggest fish in a small pond.
Of the global market as a whole, sure. But GW definitely have a monopoly on certain areas. Where I’m currently living there’s no “just play Warmachine instead”. It’s just “play Warhammer or don’t tabletop”. So they definitely have a meeting maybe monopoly as far as here is concerned
That's up to you to sort out. You want your group to play something else? Get that something else, introduce them too it and show them a fun time with it. I had too with a few different games. Can take time, but it depends entirely how much effort you're willing to put in.
It's really not that easy.
Even for game systems where I have 100% of the bits to play, all they need to do is leave their 40k army at home one week to try it out. But no one is interested.
So there is literally no barrier to these people playing the other game, they just don't want to? How is that the result of GW having a monopoly?
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: They're not remotely a monopoly. They're just the biggest fish in a small pond.
Of the global market as a whole, sure. But GW definitely have a monopoly on certain areas. Where I’m currently living there’s no “just play Warmachine instead”. It’s just “play Warhammer or don’t tabletop”. So they definitely have a meeting maybe monopoly as far as here is concerned
That's up to you to sort out. You want your group to play something else? Get that something else, introduce them too it and show them a fun time with it. I had too with a few different games. Can take time, but it depends entirely how much effort you're willing to put in.
It's really not that easy.
Even for game systems where I have 100% of the bits to play, all they need to do is leave their 40k army at home one week to try it out. But no one is interested.
So there is literally no barrier to these people playing the other game, they just don't want to? How is that the result of GW having a monopoly?
You've not tried to get many people to try other game have you? Been there, done that and it's like pissing into the wind...
It's a self perpetuating cycle. People don't want to play those games as they think they cannot get opponents, but none of those opponents will come along unless you get more players. Despite all it's faults, GW fulfils both of those criteria, creating a de facto monopoly. No, not in a literal sense- nobody is saying that, but there are two (3 if you count the comic shop) FLGSs in this city and seeing a non GW game to be played in any of them is rarer than rocking horse gak.
It's a self perpetuating cycle. People don't want to play those games as they think they cannot get opponents, but none of those opponents will come along unless you get more players. Despite all it's faults, GW fulfils both of those criteria, creating a de facto monopoly. No, not in a literal sense- nobody is saying that, but there are two (3 if you count the comic shop) FLGSs in this city and seeing a non GW game to be played in any of them is rarer than rocking horse gak.
This is exactly it. 40k is in a self-sustaining cycle.
The ability to easily find opponents is a *huge* attraction in a wargame, and the only games that really provide this are 40k and AoS.
So when everyone is playing 40k because it has all the players, everyone avoids other wargames because they don't have the players.
Sunny Side Up wrote: A fair number of companies employ far more predatory, unsavoury and unconscientious marketing methods than GW does (FFG and Corvus Belli being prime examples). Others simply offer inferior products, where the slight discount you might get over GW product in no way or form justifies the horrid quality issues you buy into in both miniatures and rules (e.g. Privateer).
Yes, Bostria is a deceiver. So unsavory, so unconscientious.
It's a self perpetuating cycle. People don't want to play those games as they think they cannot get opponents, but none of those opponents will come along unless you get more players. Despite all it's faults, GW fulfils both of those criteria, creating a de facto monopoly. No, not in a literal sense- nobody is saying that, but there are two (3 if you count the comic shop) FLGSs in this city and seeing a non GW game to be played in any of them is rarer than rocking horse gak.
This is exactly it. 40k is in a self-sustaining cycle.
The ability to easily find opponents is a *huge* attraction in a wargame, and the only games that really provide this are 40k and AoS.
So when everyone is playing 40k because it has all the players, everyone avoids other wargames because they don't have the players.
Once upon a time, we had a small WMH group going at one of these FLGSs (and before then the local club). The sheer amount of people who didn't want to get into the game, despite playing it several times with my own and other people's minis was staggering. I tried everything, even suggesting with Christmas coming up they ask for a starter box (it was only £25 after all. Not large in terms of Christmas presents for a lot of people), just like I had with a Malifaux box. Nope. Nothing. Still no biters. All the excuses under the sun like them having "no money" (no Callum, I see you getting a Domino's almost daily...) etc. so I just gave up. Like I said, pissing into the wind.
We had a guy doing the same but with KoW. He disappeared too. Cannot think why...
Once upon a time, we had a small WMH group going at one of these FLGSs (and before then the local club). The sheer amount of people who didn't want to get into the game, despite playing it several times with my own and other people's minis was staggering. I tried everything, even suggesting with Christmas coming up they ask for a starter box (it was only £25 after all. Not large in terms of Christmas presents for a lot of people), just like I had with a Malifaux box. Nope. Nothing. Still no biters. All the excuses under the sun like them having "no money" (no Callum, I see you getting a Domino's almost daily...) etc. so I just gave up. Like I said, pissing into the wind.
We had a guy doing the same but with KoW. He disappeared too. Cannot think why...
Here in the SF Bay Area we had store owners telling people that nobody played Warmahordes while there was a 12-person tournament going on in their store. And then PP used the guy's testimonial as part of their MK 3 rollout.
God they were dumb. Matt Wilson deserves what he gets.
It's not a monopoly, just difficult for new miniature games to get started. It's not easy to reach people and convince them to make the investment when they're worried it won't take off. There's also only so much time in the day. At least that's my reasoning for not buying a lot of other games.
What are these other game companies offering that GW doesn't? Some confluence of unique IP(star wars), lower cost, and the belief that they offer competitive play.
It's a self perpetuating cycle. People don't want to play those games as they think they cannot get opponents, but none of those opponents will come along unless you get more players. Despite all it's faults, GW fulfils both of those criteria, creating a de facto monopoly. No, not in a literal sense- nobody is saying that, but there are two (3 if you count the comic shop) FLGSs in this city and seeing a non GW game to be played in any of them is rarer than rocking horse gak.
This is exactly it. 40k is in a self-sustaining cycle.
The ability to easily find opponents is a *huge* attraction in a wargame, and the only games that really provide this are 40k and AoS.
So when everyone is playing 40k because it has all the players, everyone avoids other wargames because they don't have the players.
There’s also comparatively easy access to GW’s products, especially in the U.K.
FFG in particular are known for supply issues, and long waits for new releases. PP? I don’t know anyone in my local area who plays, making interest tricky to garner, as the system has no voice.
And whether people like it or not, GW are the benchmark in all things. Rules, models, paints, availability, accessibility, price. Even gaming circles. For example, there are a handful of peeps who play Infinity. Unfortunately, I really don’t get on with one of them. Whilst that’s far from an indictment of the game, nor even a back handed attempt to paint its players in a poor light, it is a barrier to me getting involved. With GW? There’s two or three different groups to choose from, which all intersect in some way. So if there was someone I similarly just didn’t get on with, I needn’t engage with them at all.
And it’s that benchmark other manufacturers have to work around. Your price point, variety of models and quality of rules and miniatures needs to offer something GW doesn’t.
Let’s consider FFG’s short lived ranked fantasy game. It came, it went. It received a fair amount of hype, yet for what is likely a variety of reasons, it didn’t stick around. Any game is prone to that, but as a manufacturer, FFG have a reputation for just dropping games. Imperial Assault is one example. Came, sold a bunch, was dropped once Legion came along. And because they used different scales, one can’t easily port Imperial Assault collections over to Legions.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but that axe hovering all their game systems makes me reticent to invest in anything they offer. Because I don’t get to play very often, and I don’t want to drop a bunch of cash only to find out it’s just become a dead game.
To take my city as an example, we have a GW store but also at least 3 FLGSs that sell a mixture of GW and non-GW stuff, and run GW and non-GW game nights (not right now though obviously). That is not a monopoly. It may be that if you went into the GW you would struggle to get interest in, I dunno, Infinity. But if you went into the other places you could probably find a game.
So they disliked the games? Explains why they didn’t want to buy into them.
Just because they have had several games does not mean they liked it, it may have been out of courtesy and politeness.
I wouldn’t be willing to buy into a game I didn’t like either.
Games like BFG/Xwing aren’t for me, so despite trying them out, I wouldn’t buy it.
Surprisingly, you can have an opinion on something but you cannot force it on others and expect them to agree.
Everyone has their own tastes.
For me, I mainly play GW games for a few reasons.
1: that’s what I started out playing.
2: I love the models. While they are on the higher side of price, the sculpts really are better than the vast majority of other companies.
3: the convenience of finding a game. It’s a huge fan base, so finding games is easy.
On the flip side, I’ve more recently started playing things like FoW, which I’m growing to love pretty quickly.
I think more than the defacto monopoly the attitude of "official models only" is the culprit with regard to overpriced HQs in particular.
Like, it is easy to convert a lot of the pricey HQs from basic troop models with a bit of creativity.
Just looking at Blades of Khorne as an example, the various Deathbringers and Skullgrinders and Slaughterpriests would be easy to kitbash out of the Blood Warriors kits. I've kitbashed the Astrolith Bearer out of a spare saurus and some other bits, it was easy.
But you see an attitude that is against this, because people somehow feel it devalues their own minis or something. That was clever of GW and that is the attitude they are trying to fix in peoples minds - that it should be limited only to products you buy, not stuff you create yourself.
Jackal90 wrote: So they disliked the games? Explains why they didn’t want to buy into them.
Just because they have had several games does not mean they liked it, it may have been out of courtesy and politeness.
I never said that...
I'll paraphrase the owner of said FLGS. "Gamers are the flakiest bunch of people I've ever met.". These same people signed up for tournaments of WMH, some bought models, the FLGS itself bought in a bunch of models because they said they were interested. Then they balked.
Jackal90 wrote: So they disliked the games? Explains why they didn’t want to buy into them.
Just because they have had several games does not mean they liked it, it may have been out of courtesy and politeness.
I never said that...
I'll paraphrase the owner of said FLGS. "Gamers are the flakiest bunch of people I've ever met.". These same people signed up for tournaments of WMH, some bought models, the FLGS itself bought in a bunch of models because they said they were interested. Then they balked.
Well there had to be some reason for that.
Play group? Check
Place to play? Check
Models/access to models? Check
Played some? Check
Conclusion: they decided they didn't like it enough to continue.
My experience thtough is in many cases it's "It's not Warhammer" as the only reason. Like Grimtuff said wargamers are incredibly flaky. I've seen people talk about how great a game is, and then a week or two later forget all about it. I've seen a community start up around a game and within a month or two everyone just went back to 40k after playing the game and enjoying it, with no reasoning.
I would not be surprised if a big factor is "People play 40k, they don't play <insert other game>" or well only 5 people play that game, and despite that being more than enough to play and have a budding community, people want tot have the luxury of turning up to the game store and finding a game.
And that right there is the problem. THere are lots of really good games out there that ingrained 40k groups literally say they don't even want to know about because it's not 40k/not GW.
soviet13 wrote: So there is literally no barrier to these people playing the other game, they just don't want to? How is that the result of GW having a monopoly?
You've not tried to get many people to try other game have you? Been there, done that and it's like pissing into the wind...
I dunno. If the game's good enough and has a convincing enough selling point, it's totally possible. Titanicus doesn't use GW models - it's an entirely different system and scale, and does quite well over here. Things like SW: Legion, similarly, are popular on a collecting standpoint. And if/when the Modiphius Fallout stuff starts doing west coast appropriate models, we'll be grabbing some of that too.
Don't blame GW for other people's lack of interest. Blame their lack of interest and motivation to start something else.
I appreciate my point is coming from personal experience, but then, so is yours.
If I'm satisfied with the current product, I don't look for another one.
Exactly. If people are happy with what they have, why bother looking elsewhere? If you can demonstrate how *insert other game* will make them more satisfied, there's no reason they shouldn't play it, but if they're not satisfied with the other game, clearly that game just isn't good enough to appeal.
Da Boss wrote: I think more than the defacto monopoly the attitude of "official models only" is the culprit with regard to overpriced HQs in particular.
Like, it is easy to convert a lot of the pricey HQs from basic troop models with a bit of creativity.
Just looking at Blades of Khorne as an example, the various Deathbringers and Skullgrinders and Slaughterpriests would be easy to kitbash out of the Blood Warriors kits. I've kitbashed the Astrolith Bearer out of a spare saurus and some other bits, it was easy.
But you see an attitude that is against this, because people somehow feel it devalues their own minis or something. That was clever of GW and that is the attitude they are trying to fix in peoples minds - that it should be limited only to products you buy, not stuff you create yourself.
The only times I’ve really seen a negative attitude towards this tends to be when someone use an insanely cheap alternative (that shows)
I’ve never had issues with conversions and I love converting.
For the most part, most of my hero’s/HQs are converted.
The only time I usually buy one is if I really like the model or if I can’t think of a conversion for it.
GW also seem to endorse it quite a bit as you always see conversions on the community page, store and promoted all over social media.
Things like golden daemon just push this even more.
As I said at the start, the issues I’ve seen tend to stem from things like coke can drop pods or “this 5 plasma marines are meltas, those 5 have missiles” etc.
Wayniac wrote: A lot is the difference between being a "wargamer" and a "Warhammer player". Wargamers usually want to broaden their perspectives in other games.
Absolutely, I'm not ashamed saying that I'm a 40k player, since 20 years and not a wargamer.
I've never had time or money to invest in multiple miniature games but I do have other hobbies so if I get tired of playing an edition of 40k I can easily quit and do something else in my spare time. I already did it 3 times so far, due to lack of interest or having other priorities in life. I'm mostly in the hobby for the miniatures so selling models to get funds for a different game if 40k doesn't satisfy me anymore is also not an option, I love my minis!!
Yeah, I'm well aware of the rest of the wargaming hobby, I'm simply not interested. GW and particularly 40k is what I like. (I don't play, I just make the models, although I do play RPGs and MtG)
Wayniac wrote: A lot is the difference between being a "wargamer" and a "Warhammer player". Wargamers usually want to broaden their perspectives in other games.
Absolutely, I'm not ashamed saying that I'm a 40k player, since 20 years and not a wargamer.
I've never had time or money to invest in multiple miniature games but I do have other hobbies so if I get tired of playing an edition of 40k I can easily quit and do something else in my spare time. I already did it 3 times so far, due to lack of interest or having other priorities in life. I'm mostly in the hobby for the miniatures so selling models to get funds for a different game if 40k doesn't satisfy me anymore is also not an option, I love my minis!!
This pretty much sums up how I view 40k. I play 40k & am not a wargamer. I also play Titanicus & Aeronautica so I'm not sure if that counts as "not" 40k.
It is the least expensive hobby I have and the one that actually doesn't require spending $ to play a game of it.
If I want to go to the track I need; tires, fuel, fluids, gas to tow the car there.
Shooting, need ammo & pay for range time.
If I want to play 40k all I need to do I clear off the dining room table or drive the 10min to FLGS(when available).
As for characters being significantly more expensive than a comparable infantry model, it is a bit excessive. I try to stay away from them unless I like the posing.
Wayniac wrote: GW's fan base is kind of like politics: people rabidly support them because they've always supported them and therefore anything outside the box can't possibly be good because it's not GW, no matter what it might do better it's always flawed because it's not GW.
Their "turnaround" is one of the biggest scams in gaming history and shows how devoted their fans are. A few smoke and mirrors "see we've changed!" abd doing social media like everyone else vwss enough to con everyone into thinking things are different (they are better but just barely) and make them more profitable than ever before for basically doing nothing.
It's exactly like the guy above said. Gw barely changed but conned everyone into thinking they did so tons of people came back, and gamers want to play what everyone else is playing so there's a large pool of opponents.
Which incidentally is also why it's so hard to get traction with other non-GW games. People are already playing Warhammer so they don't want to get invested in something that is untested, so those games stay untested and niche because everybody else is playing Warhammer and nobody wants to take the first steps to say this is a better game we should move to it. I have actually seen and even been verbally attacked for suggesting another game people should play simply because it wasn't Warhammer and nobody wanted to give anything else a consideration and this was years ago during the bad times
That's not true. Like many wargamers, I've been through a lot of alternatives over the years, from more well-known competitors like X-Wing, Infinity or Malifaux to outright obscure stuff like Bushido or Saga.
A fair number of companies employ far more predatory, unsavoury and unconscientious marketing methods than GW does (FFG and Corvus Belli being prime examples). Others simply offer inferior products, where the slight discount you might get over GW product in no way or form justifies the horrid quality issues you buy into in both miniatures and rules (e.g. Privateer).
GW offers a good product. They are not perfect and shouldn't be confused with a charitable organisation. But they aren't relying on cult-like brainwashing to sell 80s quality garbage like Corvus Belli or Privateer, nor do they quite stoop to ponzi-scheme deceptions and price-gauges like FFG and others. Overall, compared to a lot what's out there, GW has some reasonable stuff.
You are on another planet if you think Corvus Belli is 80s quality
TangoTwoBravo wrote: If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.
I agree, I think the point being made is that those wargamers who ONLY like 40k aren't necessarily ignorant of other games, or trapped by a monopoly - they've just got a particular preference.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.
40k is a board game, not a wargame. It used to be but now almost nothing about 40k depicts war.
It’s absolutely a wargame. A wargame does not have to be a simulation. It is not a historical wargame, but it is certainly depicting warfare in a fictional setting.
You can argue that it is a bad wargame. I would not agree with you, but you could make a valid argument.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: They're not remotely a monopoly. They're just the biggest fish in a small pond.
Of the global market as a whole, sure. But GW definitely have a monopoly on certain areas. Where I’m currently living there’s no “just play Warmachine instead”. It’s just “play Warhammer or don’t tabletop”. So they definitely have a meeting maybe monopoly as far as here is concerned
That's up to you to sort out. You want your group to play something else? Get that something else, introduce them too it and show them a fun time with it. I had too with a few different games. Can take time, but it depends entirely how much effort you're willing to put in.
It's really not that easy.
Even for game systems where I have 100% of the bits to play, all they need to do is leave their 40k army at home one week to try it out. But no one is interested.
So there is literally no barrier to these people playing the other game, they just don't want to? How is that the result of GW having a monopoly?
It doesn’t matter if there’s no barrier to playing it, if literally everyone else in the world wants to play basketball then you’re kinda gak outta luck if you’re looking for a cricket match. My preference has no impact on other people, if I was to have complaints that doesn’t mean anyone else shares them. I can’t just decide to play Legions or whatever, I need other players, and there isn’t any. Thus, GW have a monopoly here.
Regardless, who said there was no barriers? GW is stocked in a physical store here, and also (relatively) easily shipped, and found second hand online. Where I live in Australia, the same cannot be said for many other games. There’s actually a ton of barriers.
Not that I’m particularly concerned anyway, all I really want to play these days is GW anyway. But I’m just saying it’s not as straight forward as you say, quite often GW is the only option. Suits me just fine, but I feel for others.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.
40k is a board game, not a wargame. It used to be but now almost nothing about 40k depicts war.
It’s absolutely a wargame. A wargame does not have to be a simulation. It is not a historical wargame, but it is certainly depicting warfare in a fictional setting.
You can argue that it is a bad wargame. I would not agree with you, but you could make a valid argument.
What is the difference between the two then? The war part is just cosmetic, they have removed all of the mechanics that depict stuff like armor values, facings, moral, etc. There aren't even tactics, everything is just synergy on a stick bubbles and strats. It's a deck building board game.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.
40k is a board game, not a wargame. It used to be but now almost nothing about 40k depicts war.
It’s absolutely a wargame. A wargame does not have to be a simulation. It is not a historical wargame, but it is certainly depicting warfare in a fictional setting.
You can argue that it is a bad wargame. I would not agree with you, but you could make a valid argument.
What is the difference between the two then? The war part is just cosmetic, they have removed all of the mechanics that depict stuff like armor values, facings, moral, etc. There aren't even tactics, everything is just synergy on a stick bubbles and strats. It's a deck building board game.
If it is a wargame, it's only technically one.
A deck-building board game with no deck? And dice? And models? The board game is certainly walking and quacking like a war game.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: If you are playing 40K you are a wargamer, even if it’s the only wargame that you play.
40k is a board game, not a wargame. It used to be but now almost nothing about 40k depicts war.
It’s absolutely a wargame. A wargame does not have to be a simulation. It is not a historical wargame, but it is certainly depicting warfare in a fictional setting.
You can argue that it is a bad wargame. I would not agree with you, but you could make a valid argument.
What is the difference between the two then? The war part is just cosmetic, they have removed all of the mechanics that depict stuff like armor values, facings, moral, etc. There aren't even tactics, everything is just synergy on a stick bubbles and strats. It's a deck building board game.
If it is a wargame, it's only technically one.
Oh and apparently one army will move, shoot, cast psychic powers, and charge into melee while the other army sits there twiddling their thumbs. That's appropriate for a wargame compared to a board game!
Strats & CP are the most deckbuilding aspects of 40k. If GW wasn't so heavily invested in injection moulding machines I'm sure that's the direction they would want to go.
It's not a matter of its 40k a wargame, its that typically a "wargamer", for example historical, want to dabble in various games (and periods). But Warhammer players seem to only want to play/care about Warhammer and everything else might as well not exist. It's very insular compared to every other game.
Wayniac wrote: It's not a matter of its 40k a wargame, its that typically a "wargamer", for example historical, want to dabble in various games (and periods). But Warhammer players seem to only want to play/care about Warhammer and everything else might as well not exist. It's very insular compared to every other game.
But that's their choice to prefer Warhammer. Perhaps they're only interested in the IP. Perhaps other IPs don't grab them, or the model quality/aesthetic doesn't do it for them.
If someone sticks to Warhammer, in spite of all the other games out there, that doesn't mean they're brainwashed, or that they're shallow-minded, or that GW have a monopoly. It just means those players aren't interested in those other games.
Their choice of hobby isn't inferior to someone who has a broad range of wargaming preferences.
I'm sure you weren't implying that, but there do seem to be other comments ITT that imply that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Irkjoe wrote:What is the difference between the two then? The war part is just cosmetic, they have removed all of the mechanics that depict stuff like armor values, facings, moral, etc.
Why are those aspects that *need* to be in a wargame? Is Kill Team not a wargame because it has no facings? Are armies that were functionally Fearless in previous editions (ie, Daemons or Necrons) not part of being a wargame?
I'm not entirely sure on my own definitions of a wargame, but I'd feel confident pointing at 40k and calling it a wargame, as I'm sure most people would be.
Racerguy180 wrote:Strats & CP are the most deckbuilding aspects of 40k. If GW wasn't so heavily invested in injection moulding machines I'm sure that's the direction they would want to go.
The parts of 40k that are most commonly ignored for beginners and more casual experiences? Given how un-critical they are to the function of the game, I'd argue that this is proof 40k isn't a deckbuilder.
Racerguy180 wrote:Strats & CP are the most deckbuilding aspects of 40k. If GW wasn't so heavily invested in injection moulding machines I'm sure that's the direction they would want to go.
The parts of 40k that are most commonly ignored for beginners and more casual experiences? Given how un-critical they are to the function of the game, I'd argue that this is proof 40k isn't a deckbuilder.
As of right now, no its not. But just a couple of years ago we didn't have strats or CP and they are one of the worst things to happen to 40k.
The thing is, they ARE critical to the unit rules that are designed around them. At this point I'm sure that if they could get away with Canticles/Summoning etc becoming strats, they would. I hope that strats that used to be abilities are re-incorporated , but unfortunately the ship named Damnationbeen done sailed.
I'm pretty sure I play about as casual as possible and would love to not use them(and I generally forget to/dont use them).
Racerguy180 wrote:Strats & CP are the most deckbuilding aspects of 40k. If GW wasn't so heavily invested in injection moulding machines I'm sure that's the direction they would want to go.
The parts of 40k that are most commonly ignored for beginners and more casual experiences? Given how un-critical they are to the function of the game, I'd argue that this is proof 40k isn't a deckbuilder.
As of right now, no its not. But just a couple of years ago we didn't have strats or CP and they are one of the worst things to happen to 40k.
The thing is, they ARE critical to the unit rules that are designed around them. At this point I'm sure that if they could get away with Canticles/Summoning etc becoming strats, they would. I hope that strats that used to be abilities are re-incorporated , but unfortunately the ship named Damnationbeen done sailed.
I'm pretty sure I play about as casual as possible and would love to not use them(and I generally forget to/dont use them).
If I can play the game without them, they're not critical. I can play the game just fine without strats and CP using just the core datasheets. Is it a shallower experience? Possibly. Might it not be as fine-tuned? Possibly. But is it a functional game without them? Absolutely.
Ergo, they're not critical to the game as core mechanics like movement and shooting are.
Racerguy180 wrote:Strats & CP are the most deckbuilding aspects of 40k. If GW wasn't so heavily invested in injection moulding machines I'm sure that's the direction they would want to go.
The parts of 40k that are most commonly ignored for beginners and more casual experiences? Given how un-critical they are to the function of the game, I'd argue that this is proof 40k isn't a deckbuilder.
As of right now, no its not. But just a couple of years ago we didn't have strats or CP and they are one of the worst things to happen to 40k.
The thing is, they ARE critical to the unit rules that are designed around them. At this point I'm sure that if they could get away with Canticles/Summoning etc becoming strats, they would. I hope that strats that used to be abilities are re-incorporated , but unfortunately the ship named Damnationbeen done sailed.
I'm pretty sure I play about as casual as possible and would love to not use them(and I generally forget to/dont use them).
Nah, Strats aren't the worst thing to happen. It's mostly the strict defensive or offensive ones that are a problem as they require zero thought to use. Also the fact they're wildly inconsistent. Like, why did just one Primaris squad remember they can ignore more damage? Why did one Chaos Marine squad remember they were better at wounding stuff just out of nowhere? It's...so stupid.
Wayniac wrote: But Warhammer players seem to only want to play/care about Warhammer and everything else might as well not exist.
So what? Why is this important? And how is it even on topic?
Because some of them delude themselves into believing that 1) GW is a monopoly, 2) 40k/GW stuff is the only option play-wise.
And then they think if the repeat this mantra loud/often enough that the rest of us will believe them.
Irkjoe wrote:What is the difference between the two then? The war part is just cosmetic, they have removed all of the mechanics that depict stuff like armor values, facings, moral, etc.
Why are those aspects that *need* to be in a wargame? Is Kill Team not a wargame because it has no facings? Are armies that were functionally Fearless in previous editions (ie, Daemons or Necrons) not part of being a wargame?
I'm not entirely sure on my own definitions of a wargame, but I'd feel confident pointing at 40k and calling it a wargame, as I'm sure most people would be.
They are just examples from 40k, blast templates are another good one. Any mechanics that depict actual fighting are what separates a wargame from a game. Otherwise any game with miniatures on a table would be a wargame right? The idea that your soldiers won't always do what you want or that vehicles have limitations with how they move and shoot. The "war" part of wargame.
And demons being fearless is a representation of their character and has nothing to do with the core mechanics having a moral system.
I think this thread gets the award for most odd thread derailments, ever. Now we are discussing what is or is NOT a wargame? Ok,since this is entirely subjective and not in the least bit important or relevant to the thread, I would say 40k is DND for Scifi nerds. It's rolling stupid ammount of dice while playing with models and someone with glasses checks a book for an iterpretation of a rule. Wargamming is a military drill designed to test the effectiveness of a strategy., Cobra Gold is one that the US does every year in Asia. There is one with Austraila that I was part of, a giant combined arms exercise. That is not 40k.
Wayniac wrote: But Warhammer players seem to only want to play/care about Warhammer and everything else might as well not exist.
So what? Why is this important? And how is it even on topic?
Because when there's close to no competition it means GW can do as they please and there's no incentive to actually offer a better product. Even if it was otherwise largely smoke and mirrors, the failings of 7th gave them a kick up the backside needed to at least 'try' and write an improved ruleset, whilst the failure of AoS 1.0 had them produce the GHB, produce a half-way playable game and reduce Sigmarine spank.
Competition is healthy and god knows GW needs some now they're falling back into old habits.
Irkjoe wrote: They are just examples from 40k, blast templates are another good one. Any mechanics that depict actual fighting are what separates a wargame from a game. Otherwise any game with miniatures on a table would be a wargame right? The idea that your soldiers won't always do what you want or that vehicles have limitations with how they move and shoot. The "war" part of wargame.
And demons being fearless is a representation of their character and has nothing to do with the core mechanics having a moral system.
Congratulations, you are this week's winner of the Texas Sharpshooter competition.
You are aware there were wars without explosives right? You know the kind that wouldn't need blast templates because there weren't blasts. But I suppose we should inform those historical miniatures war gamers they ain't wargamers and are board gamers because the war they are simulating didn't make use of explosions.
Not every game containing miniatures is a war game either. Dungeon Crawlers often have miniatures (both board game and PnP RPGS). I wouldn't really consider them war games. Additionally, there are various crime/mystery/horror style games that could make use of miniatures to track the locations of the criminals/investigators/horror-victims.
Quite simply a war game is a game about war. A miniatures war game would be a game about war that uses miniatures. That's pretty much it. Certainly, there are games that come into question if should be called a war game or not as war might be more of a backdrop or setting for the game while game itself isn't about the war. However, Warhammer 40,000 mostly certain is far away from the war game category box walls.
More to the point, there are some very fine hex and counter wargames that ARE board games. They often to an excellent job of allowing players to simulate war at a strategic and logistic level. There is also nothing stopping a board game about war from having morale or command issues. I believe Memoir '44 actually does have something like (I haven't actually played it) that and is very much a board game. It certainly has limitations on vehicle movement, and I believe it even has facings for anti-tank guns and such.
But don't let me stop you from taking the elements from previous editions of 40k you liked and draw targets around them to say that's what makes a war game.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think this thread gets the award for most odd thread derailments, ever. Now we are discussing what is or is NOT a wargame? Ok,since this is entirely subjective and not in the least bit important or relevant to the thread, I would say 40k is DND for Scifi nerds. It's rolling stupid ammount of dice while playing with models and someone with glasses checks a book for an iterpretation of a rule. Wargamming is a military drill designed to test the effectiveness of a strategy., Cobra Gold is one that the US does every year in Asia. There is one with Austraila that I was part of, a giant combined arms exercise. That is not 40k.
I’ve been on my share of wargames over a 30 year career. Even within the military there is a broad range of what are called wargames. Tomorrow I will be in an abstracted COA wargame as part of a Brigade planning cycle within a Divisional exercise. That COA wargame will have turns. 40K is a wargame. It has two sides that are fighting out a battle over terrain.
Anyhoo - character sculpts are expensive these days.
Irkjoe wrote: They are just examples from 40k, blast templates are another good one. Any mechanics that depict actual fighting are what separates a wargame from a game. Otherwise any game with miniatures on a table would be a wargame right? The idea that your soldiers won't always do what you want or that vehicles have limitations with how they move and shoot. The "war" part of wargame.
And demons being fearless is a representation of their character and has nothing to do with the core mechanics having a moral system.
Congratulations, you are this week's winner of the Texas Sharpshooter competition.
You are aware there were wars without explosives right? You know the kind that wouldn't need blast templates because there weren't blasts. But I suppose we should inform those historical miniatures war gamers they ain't wargamers and are board gamers because the war they are simulating didn't make use of explosions.
Not every game containing miniatures is a war game either. Dungeon Crawlers often have miniatures (both board game and PnP RPGS). I wouldn't really consider them war games. Additionally, there are various crime/mystery/horror style games that could make use of miniatures to track the locations of the criminals/investigators/horror-victims.
Quite simply a war game is a game about war. A miniatures war game would be a game about war that uses miniatures. That's pretty much it. Certainly, there are games that come into question if should be called a war game or not as war might be more of a backdrop or setting for the game while game itself isn't about the war. However, Warhammer 40,000 mostly certain is far away from the war game category box walls.
But don't let me stop you from taking the elements from previous editions of 40k you liked and draw targets around them to say that's what makes a war game.
They are just some examples from 40k that I chose because they are rules that attempt to depict an element of what fighting in 40k would be like as a mechanic instead of a board game with war simply as a setting. Feel free to substitute any rules from any game, the point remains. The way you defined wargame is extremely broad and contradictory; is it simply about war or not? And you are grouping things together that are nothing alike based only on the fact that they are about war. I think there needs to be a simulation aspect to it.
And my point about the miniatures was that if the simulated warfare doesn't make a wargame then it has to be miniatures, a table, and I should also have listed terrain. The best definition of a wargame is simulated warfare with miniatures, terrain, and a table(surface or floor whatever). That's the minimum imo.
Irkjoe wrote:They are just examples from 40k, blast templates are another good one. Any mechanics that depict actual fighting are what separates a wargame from a game.
Good thing that 40k has shooting and melee mechanics then, doesn't it?
Sorry, but you can strip facings, templates, and morale from the game, and it's still a wargame.
The idea that your soldiers won't always do what you want or that vehicles have limitations with how they move and shoot. The "war" part of wargame.
Well hang on here, that's not what you just said a second ago. Is it the unreliable action, or is it the fighting that's important? Because those aren't the same thing.
I certainly don't think it's the unreliable troops part, but we're getting into subjective territory here.
Arbitrator wrote:Competition is healthy and god knows GW needs some now they're falling back into old habits.
So, uh, support the competition instead of GW then? When the competition is good enough to challenge GW, then it will have worked, but I don't see how competition simply not being up to standard yet is anything but their own issue?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Quite simply a war game is a game about war. A miniatures war game would be a game about war that uses miniatures. That's pretty much it.
This is the only true definition of a wargame. It's in the name. A war game. A game about war. Everything else is a development from that core concept.
Irkjoe wrote:I think there needs to be a simulation aspect to it.
Like 95%+ of GW products, characters are massive, indefensible rip-offs. When I started, I bought my metal Company Master for $14-$15. The primaris dude (who can't wear his fething helmet) is $40.
The problem with GW, is the loyal player base that will buy whatever they make, at whatever they charge.
A perfect example is a few posts back, where someone (this is not meant as an attack, mind you) acknowledged the high prices, and admitted they'll buy the character anyway if they like how it looks. They are free to do so, of course, but this choice also contributes to the problem.
GW sculpts aren't always that nice, either. Their technology has improved, mostly- but the designs are poor as often as they are good. Many scream "CAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDD!!!!!" and are soulless GW's present team of sculptors are not especially talented, for the most part.
Quick shoutout to the poxwalkers kit, which isn't even a character, but has been released out here for $47 (before tax) despite them being too lazy to have re-tooled the sprue to remove the useless bit of plague marine and the front half of one of his arms. But I guess the premium price reflects the premium quality or something. I guess the GW Kool Aid really is that tasty.
I'm a big converter who digs a chance to assemble a character out of other parts as much as I like getting access to the unique parts on character sculpts. At the end of the day it matters comparatively little to me personally because if a character is unreasonably priced I am happy not buying it, whereas if a character is reasonably priced I am happy to buy it. Conversions are probably happening either way.
It is still irksome to witness levels of pricing so high that I rarely/never see a given hero on the table not because its rules are bad or unfun but simply because players do not want to pay for it (and/or because they don't want to be forced into ordering it direct).
Blastaar wrote: The problem with GW, is the loyal player base that will buy whatever they make, at whatever they charge.
A perfect example is a few posts back, where someone (this is not meant as an attack, mind you) acknowledged the high prices, and admitted they'll buy the character anyway if they like how it looks. They are free to do so, of course, but this choice also contributes to the problem.
Hyperbole and failure to understand subjective appeal also contributes to the problem, since it causes feedback to be a cascade of madness instead of a series of well-reasoned points.
Arbitrator wrote: I keep seeing video games get touted a lot, but how many games will be pulling in that much money these days? There's Total War and... maybe Vermintide 2? The rest of them are either ancient, or have a player base in the double/single digits.
Not to mention Dawn of War 3 pretty much gutting it's own player base.
Vermintide 2 has seen a massive influx of players though. So that's pretty hard to gauge, all things considered.
Guardsmen kits is 30-40 usd depending where you are, giving you only 10 bodies with sparse options. For the same price I can get WGA Grognard kit with their newer offerings giving you 24 bodies, a bunch of different head options and more weapon options. For the same price of a GW Hvy Weapons Box for Guard, you can get there box that includes 12 bodies instead of 6 and get all the stuff from the command box for no extra, all in plastic.
Everyday I try to justify buying a near 20 year old box set to add to my army but it is becoming harder. Worse now that pewters are gone and Catachans are all pretty much in the online store .
Arbitrator wrote: I keep seeing video games get touted a lot, but how many games will be pulling in that much money these days? There's Total War and... maybe Vermintide 2? The rest of them are either ancient, or have a player base in the double/single digits.
Not to mention Dawn of War 3 pretty much gutting it's own player base.
Vermintide 2 has seen a massive influx of players though. So that's pretty hard to gauge, all things considered.
Total War and Vermintide are the big royalty makers for GW games atm, of which part of their success most likely was the cause of the Fantasy coming back.
BlackoCatto wrote: Guardsmen kits is 30-40 usd depending where you are, giving you only 10 bodies with sparse options. For the same price I can get WGA Grognard kit with their newer offerings giving you 24 bodies, a bunch of different head options and more weapon options. For the same price of a GW Hvy Weapons Box for Guard, you can get there box that includes 12 bodies instead of 6 and get all the stuff from the command box for no extra, all in plastic.
Everyday I try to justify buying a near 20 year old box set to add to my army but it is becoming harder. Worse now that pewters are gone and Catachans are all pretty much in the online store .
Yea, double goes for SoB players from a little while back. Because they've just gotten some new life into their models.
I just wish that GW would offer more kits to upgrade more of their base models. Because it's only a few armies with dedicated upgrades for each of their specialist units. I'd easily pay about 25$ for a box of special weapons. Hell, the spare bits alone would be well worth the expense.
And my point about the miniatures was that if the simulated warfare doesn't make a wargame then it has to be miniatures, a table, and I should also have listed terrain. The best definition of a wargame is simulated warfare with miniatures, terrain, and a table(surface or floor whatever). That's the minimum imo.
So 40K by your definition is a wargame (even if you don't agree in the way the war is simulated).
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm a big converter who digs a chance to assemble a character out of other parts as much as I like getting access to the unique parts on character sculpts.
Sadly this is becoming less and less of an option, as GW squeezes everything into a sets of wargear that cannot be mixed'n'matched like they used to.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm a big converter who digs a chance to assemble a character out of other parts as much as I like getting access to the unique parts on character sculpts.
Sadly this is becoming less and less of an option, as GW squeezes everything into a sets of wargear that cannot be mixed'n'matched like they used to.
Which pretty much increases everyone's need for 3rd party options.
Especially when it comes to some of the more obscure options, like combi weapons, or even shields in most cases.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm a big converter who digs a chance to assemble a character out of other parts as much as I like getting access to the unique parts on character sculpts. At the end of the day it matters comparatively little to me personally because if a character is unreasonably priced I am happy not buying it, whereas if a character is reasonably priced I am happy to buy it. Conversions are probably happening either way.
It is still irksome to witness levels of pricing so high that I rarely/never see a given hero on the table not because its rules are bad or unfun but simply because players do not want to pay for it (and/or because they don't want to be forced into ordering it direct).
Blastaar wrote: The problem with GW, is the loyal player base that will buy whatever they make, at whatever they charge.
A perfect example is a few posts back, where someone (this is not meant as an attack, mind you) acknowledged the high prices, and admitted they'll buy the character anyway if they like how it looks. They are free to do so, of course, but this choice also contributes to the problem.
Hyperbole and failure to understand subjective appeal also contributes to the problem, since it causes feedback to be a cascade of madness instead of a series of well-reasoned points.
No hyperbole. Despite shoddy rules and high prices, GW's profit continues to grow. We all know this. Subjective appeal is one thing- knowingly overpaying for a product is another.
A while back there were pre-orders for a "life size" Cookie Monster on Hasbro Pulse. I thought it was awesome. But the price tag.................. I did not place an order.
Sure, many people probably are happy enough playing 40k. It remains a poorly designed game, priced to fleece players. Both can be true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: DoW3 was a third-party game with Warhammer 40k labels stuck on. It is a Warhammer game like tomatoes are a fruit.
I engage in the 40K hobby entirely for the fluff/setting. I paint the minis, play the wargame and the RPGs, read the BL books, and I used to collect the old boardgames. If 40K somehow went away, I would not be seeking to replace it with other wargames because I am not invested in their lore, and don't have the time or inclination to become so. For me, playing the wargame is just a byproduct of my interest in the setting.
When WFB was discontinued, I didn't care for the AoS 'setting', and I haven't replaced that hobby time with another wargame.
The fluff and setting of 40k does not have to be inseparably linked to the tabletop rules.
There are rulesets designed specifically to work with 40k models and factions, and others which can be quickly adapted with a little homebrewing.
Something I find very perplexing is "I don't want to play X because I like 40k models" when X is designed to use 40k models.
Although I never understand brand loyalty in general.
kirotheavenger wrote: The fluff and setting of 40k does not have to be inseparably linked to the tabletop rules.
There are rulesets designed specifically to work with 40k models and factions, and others which can be quickly adapted with a little homebrewing.
Something I find very perplexing is "I don't want to play X because I like 40k models" when X is designed to use 40k models.
Although I never understand brand loyalty in general.
Ease of access I guess.
In 40k, an Intercessor, Ork Boy, Necron Warrior etc are known quantities, just based off their visual qualities (though Intercessors may need a reminder as to what flavour of Bolt Rifle they’re carrying, at least for me!).
Transplant into another game? Not so much.
There’s also the possibly asinine question of why would I use 40k models for another game, when I can just play 40k?
kirotheavenger wrote: The fluff and setting of 40k does not have to be inseparably linked to the tabletop rules.
There are rulesets designed specifically to work with 40k models and factions, and others which can be quickly adapted with a little homebrewing.
Something I find very perplexing is "I don't want to play X because I like 40k models" when X is designed to use 40k models.
Although I never understand brand loyalty in general.
There’s also the possibly asinine question of why would I use 40k models for another game, when I can just play 40k?
Because the other game has better rules for a starter. And the rules are about 1% of the price for a second.
GW's models are great, I don't deny that at all. So instead of buying the same book again, buy more models!
For some games the only obstacle is translating 40k names from their alternative, copyright-free names.
They should have stuck to metal for the character models. Moulds for those are way cheaper to make than for plastic And the more expensive material is not such an issue for small batches characters are needed in.
Plastic would still be essential for big guys like mortarion but I am not a fan of big characters anyway.
Oh and with metal they cant sculpt all of those stupid jumping poses wich would be another advantage.
TBH I wish they had stuck to resin.
Resin is in no way a bad material, they just botched Finecast. Which is a massive shame, as the poor reputation is what got them to move to plastic everything, which just results in silly prices for characters.
I don't like metal much because it's difficult to work with, especially from a modelling perspective.
The thing is, much smaller companies do manage to sell plastic minis made on sprues, and if I'm not mistaken the cost is a few tens of thousands, 50k or so. For a large company like GW, that practically is nothing and so, the molds really aren't that expensive. Their biggest expense wouldn't be on the production side, but rather on the very expensive shops they keep around in many places. And really, GW probably sells more of many of their character sculpts than smaller companies sell of their units. Unless it's a really obscure character, but even then.
That's true.
But I think GW *expects* the return on investment from a mould to by much higher than a smaller company might. GW's minimum baseline is much wider margins.
The existence of their hobby stores shouldn't explain why plastic characters are pretty much the same price as a unit, whereas metal/finecast were more like half the price of a unit.
The stores indeed don't explain why they ask so much for the plastics. The answers is much simpler. Plenty of people are perfectly willing to pay it.
It's the same with arguments about a number of sprues making kits more expensive. In the end, the whole production side of things doesn't cost all that much. It's mostly that there is no real reason to offer more sprues with upgrades and the like when people will already buy the boxes anyways.
I don't think the design process is anything like that expensive.
In fact, I've heard from a representative at Warlord games that a sizeable part of their pricing is the commissioning of box art. Yet they see far lower sales volumes than GW.
GW definitely has many costs. Claims that 2000% mark-up are definitely false.
But I don't think GW is running very thin margins at all.
In fact, even GW's own games suggest the cost isn't that high.
Necromunda doesn't see anything like the sales volume of 40k. Plus all the unit designs are very unique, unlike 40k where armies reuse themes and model designs a lot.
And in spite of that, Necromunda boxes are generally cheaper than comparable 40k kits.
The answer is almost exclusively that people pay the money for 40k, so they're happy to let people.
Dolnikan wrote: Designing also isn't that insanely expensive, and this 50k was basically sending greens to a company and getting the molds in return.
This.
People seem to forget that GW have their own tooling facilities on site. Do you really think they would be producing limited, one off and anniversary minis in plastic were it prohibitively expensive for them?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, uh, support the competition instead of GW then? When the competition is good enough to challenge GW, then it will have worked, but I don't see how competition simply not being up to standard yet is anything but their own issue?
Yes, I do support the competition and as has been said by multiple people in this thread that no matter how 'good' the competition is that unless people are simply willing to try those other products, it doesn't matter if you've got the best wargame on the planet with the best sculpts ever - people need to actually buy into it and put down their 40k/AoS for five minutes and not go running back when the new edition lands for no other reason than "It's 40k."
BlackoCatto wrote: Guardsmen kits is 30-40 usd depending where you are, giving you only 10 bodies with sparse options. For the same price I can get WGA Grognard kit with their newer offerings giving you 24 bodies, a bunch of different head options and more weapon options. For the same price of a GW Hvy Weapons Box for Guard, you can get there box that includes 12 bodies instead of 6 and get all the stuff from the command box for no extra, all in plastic.
Everyday I try to justify buying a near 20 year old box set to add to my army but it is becoming harder. Worse now that pewters are gone and Catachans are all pretty much in the online store .
I remember when those same 20 Cadians were £15 for a box. That they're now 10 for £22.50 I'm sure will still be defended as, "b-b-b-but inflation...".
Dolnikan wrote: Designing also isn't that insanely expensive, and this 50k was basically sending greens to a company and getting the molds in return.
This.
People seem to forget that GW have their own tooling facilities on site. Do you really think they would be producing limited, one off and anniversary minis in plastic were it prohibitively expensive for them?
I was considering only internal work obviously. Honestly I would be surprised if between workhours and tooling, a model of that quality doesn't cost at least 100k from the moment where it is a scribble on a whiteboard, until you have it in your hands.
£100k all up is not that much for a company the size of GW.
Plus, I think the figure is doubtful. They can do things like store anniversary models which don't see high volumes of sales at all.
kirotheavenger wrote: £100k all up is not that much for a company the size of GW.
Plus, I think the figure is doubtful. They can do things like store anniversary models which don't see high volumes of sales at all.
Those have a different sales appeal.
Your standard Cryptek? Necron players might need a couple, especially as we’ve now four flavours to choose from.
Anniversary Cryptek? He’s limited edition. Some like their limited editions, because they’re limited editions. This is why I have both flavours of Termie Chaplain, both Catachans, The Noise Marine, Red Gobbo etc. In short, by slapping limited edition on it, you widen its appeal well beyond those that might find a use for it game to game.
They’re also a cost sink in certain ways. Bait to get us into the stores on their big day. Buy a bit more than usual. Get folks revisiting with new events and stuff etc.
Dolnikan wrote: Designing also isn't that insanely expensive, and this 50k was basically sending greens to a company and getting the molds in return.
This.
People seem to forget that GW have their own tooling facilities on site. Do you really think they would be producing limited, one off and anniversary minis in plastic were it prohibitively expensive for them?
I was considering only internal work obviously. Honestly I would be surprised if between workhours and tooling, a model of that quality doesn't cost at least 100k from the moment where it is a scribble on a whiteboard, until you have it in your hands.
I imagine it's 'expensive' to literally any other company, but when you're GW and you know that every single box of that SUPER LIMITED ONE-TIME ONLY!!! Primaris is going to be sold, it doesn't really matter. Plus people ordering them probably buy more stuff from the webstore to get free shipping, or are convinced by a staffer in-store to buy something in addition to it.
The real point is that the characters are expensive because people have shown they will pay it. Charging less than you think the market will bear would be leaving money on the table.
It is kind of a hard to make an army without them, when GW writes the rules in a such a way that the whole army rule set revolves around characters, their auras and buffs.
Plus there is always that problem of people who already are in the hobby and already did pay their 35$ or more per one, not being so open that people that come after them just get their characters for less, unless they are recasts, but then the accepted cost just drop to what ever the avarge of a recast cost is.
Karol wrote: It is kind of a hard to make an army without them, when GW writes the rules in a such a way that the whole army rule set revolves around characters, their auras and buffs.
Plus there is always that problem of people who already are in the hobby and already did pay their 35$ or more per one, not being so open that people that come after them just get their characters for less, unless they are recasts, but then the accepted cost just drop to what ever the avarge of a recast cost is.
Actually there is one army, that has a relatively well working option to be built out of 1 singular box.
Plus there is always that problem of people who already are in the hobby and already did pay their 35$ or more per one, not being so open that people that come after them just get their characters for less, unless they are recasts, but then the accepted cost just drop to what ever the avarge of a recast cost is.
This attitude (From those people, not from you) is always sad to see. I am always happy to let people, particularly younger players, do whatever they need to do in terms of proxying or kitbashing to represent their faction on the table. It would be sad not to encourage them by saying they had to pay the full whack.
Plus there is always that problem of people who already are in the hobby and already did pay their 35$ or more per one, not being so open that people that come after them just get their characters for less, unless they are recasts, but then the accepted cost just drop to what ever the avarge of a recast cost is.
This attitude (From those people, not from you) is always sad to see. I am always happy to let people, particularly younger players, do whatever they need to do in terms of proxying or kitbashing to represent their faction on the table. It would be sad not to encourage them by saying they had to pay the full whack.
It's really sad when you have people who behave like that, angry that anyone might have even something cheaper or better than they had.
i prefer if people bring kitbashed charachters, or modified 3rd party miniatures. Often some of the most creative stuff happens there. Also GW has a recent really unfortunate streak of DYNAMIC stand on hands upon stone higher position posing for their HQ recently... which just doesn't fit, unless it's a harlequin.
But then again i am propably not really a veteran anymore and more torwards grognard.....
Hah, I am definitely in the grognard category! Some of the plastic HQs are really nice. But sometimes I do feel like all the extra base stuff is just to make it look bigger to justify the higher price.
I'm never unhappy to get a plastic HQ in a start collecting box though.
Da Boss wrote: Hah, I am definitely in the grognard category! Some of the plastic HQs are really nice. But sometimes I do feel like all the extra base stuff is just to make it look bigger to justify the higher price.
I'm never unhappy to get a plastic HQ in a start collecting box though.
I agree, the SC box HQ's were doubly sweet, especially when you start kitbashing And abbadon most certainly tramples on the poor marine sod for excactly that reason... (tbf i kitbashed mine and i am guilty as charged but i feel the endproduct for once was worth the price.... still in hindsight i shouldn't have bought him..)
that said, since i now start a rather wierd GSC project i allready got plans for the flag bearer ....
However the fact remains, that Nids can run a full army with 4 boxes of nid warriors, which i personally find awesome and i am constantly tempted to get myself the 3-4 boxes i'd need to start a warrior army.
I play 7thed ,solo, and my armies are 100% painted and 99% complete. Im done with GW. The price structure is showing nothing but contempt for the buyer. The genstealer cult guardsmen box was the one that really did it for me. An ' upgrade' and heavy weapon sprue were added at no cost, but the AM box was the same price !. Goes to show how little in cost plastic means to GW.
To be fair the cost of plastic is absolutely negligible for the price of the kit.
However your example does show an almost total separation between content of the box and asking price. Cadians are priced that way because it's the standard infantry box. £22.50 is what people will pay for a basic infantry box. Simple as.
kirotheavenger wrote: £100k all up is not that much for a company the size of GW.
Plus, I think the figure is doubtful. They can do things like store anniversary models which don't see high volumes of sales at all.
It seems pretty ballpark to be honest.
Iirc the Land raider was something like £250k back fifteen or whatever years ago when it was rejigged. Now adjust for inflation and £100k is pretty damn good.
A lot of man hours and tech time goes into these that folks on the buying end don't see. Even if all you consider is man hours going into this (and a mighty £10-£20/hour) of the various people's and departments, and at just a guess (because I'm not in thr industry), I would assume this factors to artists time, writers time, quality control, quality assurance, manufacturing, supply chain shipping, further storage etc, and that's just the routine 'cost of doing business' before we even think.about getting it to a store.
In big business, £100k doesn't go far.
And fair enough, £100k isn't much, but they're running a lot of £100k projects and if they can't be bothered recouping their investment there's no point .
The marging for selling through a store should be around 25% of the final cost of the kit.
Out of 25 euros, 5 or more are VAT, which means that the actual price is 20. The store buys them at 55% of the cost, so GW sold it at 11. Storage, packaging and trasportation and you are easily down to 9, materials, machine operation costs/maintenance and involved personnel cost and you are down 8.
All this without including marketing costs.
Obviously when they sell directly from the web shop, margins are far higher.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, uh, support the competition instead of GW then? When the competition is good enough to challenge GW, then it will have worked, but I don't see how competition simply not being up to standard yet is anything but their own issue?
Yes, I do support the competition and as has been said by multiple people in this thread that no matter how 'good' the competition is that unless people are simply willing to try those other products, it doesn't matter if you've got the best wargame on the planet with the best sculpts ever - people need to actually buy into it and put down their 40k/AoS for five minutes and not go running back when the new edition lands for no other reason than "It's 40k."
Alternatively, have you considered that the reason people aren't playing the competition is that it *isn't* good enough?
Like, I know it's awfully convenient to say "the only reason people aren't playing those games is because they're unwilling to try them", but have you considered asking *why* people are unwilling to try them, and why that answer could very well be "it's just not enough to interest them"?
If you've got the "best" wargame with the "best" sculpts, people would absolutely play it - because in the sake of this argument, you've defined this as objectively the best game, with objectively the best models - this game being the best *is* a fact. In the context of your imaginary "objectively best" game, people would play it, because it's objectively the best. And there's your problem: no such objectively "best" game exists.
Am I saying GW is objectively the best or good? God no, far from it. Am I saying that some people find them the subjectively best compared to others? Absolutely. And if other games want to dethrone GW, they need to appeal to those people better than GW does.
Karol wrote: It is kind of a hard to make an army without them, when GW writes the rules in a such a way that the whole army rule set revolves around characters, their auras and buffs.
Plus there is always that problem of people who already are in the hobby and already did pay their 35$ or more per one, not being so open that people that come after them just get their characters for less, unless they are recasts, but then the accepted cost just drop to what ever the avarge of a recast cost is.
Actually there is one army, that has a relatively well working option to be built out of 1 singular box.
bat702 wrote: maybe im wrong and it really is super hard to get the resin into that shape, or maybe it takes a whole machine per each when the other machine can print like tons of infantry squads, but 40 dollars for a character with no weapon/war gear options..
It’s 2021. They’ve been doing this routine for over 40 years. Is anything on your post news to anyone?
not trying to be rude or anything, but they seriously hire internet trolls in russia, id know cuz iv survived over 10,000 e-brawls in league of legends
Right, you might want to read rule 1 of this forum. Just a thought. Because you were directly trying to be rude.
Am I saying GW is objectively the best or good? God no, far from it. Am I saying that some people find them the subjectively best compared to others? Absolutely. And if other games want to dethrone GW, they need to appeal to those people better than GW does.
It has nothing to do with good or bad, and everything with monopol or close to monopol on players. There can, and probably are, better games then w40k. And they are cheaper, and the quality of models can be good too. It doesn't matter, if there is no one to play the game with. It is like apple products and the US, or specific types of sport in different countries. Ski jumping is popular here, there club, trainers, sponsorships, schools that teach you etc if the same person would decide that they would rather enjoy a life career as a currling team members, then good luck to their parents or spouse supporting them all their life financialy.
There is no dethroning of GW, other then the hobby ending up dead.
I dunno why people are having an argument about whether they need to price them that high. Historically, characters were priced at about twice the price of a normal trooper. Now, they are priced at 5-10x the price. That's all the information you really need, unless you think that GW was selling their characters at a loss before (lol...).
bat702 wrote: maybe im wrong and it really is super hard to get the resin into that shape, or maybe it takes a whole machine per each when the other machine can print like tons of infantry squads, but 40 dollars for a character with no weapon/war gear options..
It’s 2021. They’ve been doing this routine for over 40 years. Is anything on your post news to anyone?
not trying to be rude or anything, but they seriously hire internet trolls in russia, id know cuz iv survived over 10,000 e-brawls in league of legends
Right, you might want to read rule 1 of this forum. Just a thought. Because you were directly trying to be rude.
I thought your original post was toeing that line myself.
Am I saying GW is objectively the best or good? God no, far from it. Am I saying that some people find them the subjectively best compared to others? Absolutely. And if other games want to dethrone GW, they need to appeal to those people better than GW does.
It has nothing to do with good or bad, and everything with monopol or close to monopol on players.
But that's the thing. The only reason this "monopoly" (which isn't a monopoly at all) exists is because that's what the players have chosen, because for whatever reason, 40k is the most appealing game to them.
It's got everything to do with what's good or bad *enough*. Clearly, 40k is good *enough* to keep people playing, and other games aren't good *enough* to dethrone that.
There can, and probably are, better games then w40k. And they are cheaper, and the quality of models can be good too. It doesn't matter, if there is no one to play the game with.
Why is no-one playing these games if these games are so good? Because they're not good *enough* for those people.
I imagine there is a graph one could plot of "quality of game" vs "interest in the game", where a game with high interest needs low quality to be "popular", and vice versa - so clearly, it's a case of those low interest games not being good *enough* to break that barrier.
I'm not saying that, for example, a low interest game is any better or worse than GW, but I am saying they clearly don't have what it takes to be good *enough* to be "popular".
It is like apple products and the US, or specific types of sport in different countries.
Neither of which are anywhere near a monopoly at all.
Me showing up to a football club, asking if people want to play cricket, and no-one wanting to isn't football having a monopoly.
There is no dethroning of GW, other then the hobby ending up dead.
There absolutely is. The question is how many people actually *want* to dethrone GW. As it stands, people seem to be happy with GW's stuff. If something else comes along that makes them happier, sure, that might change, but until something else does, GW have earnt their spot.
I've asked people why they're not interested in trying another game.
"I don't like the rules" is rarely the reason given.
It's normally "I like the theme/models of 40k". This includes when I'm asking about something like 40k which uses exactly the same models, but whatever.
Another common one is that not enough people play <insert game here> compared to 40k.
Or that they don't want to invest any money in the system. (But they won't play with my collection either).
So I think you're objectively wrong that quality of game and player base are directly correlated.
If I'm satisfied with the product on my hands, I don't have much interest in branching out toward other solutions.
During 7th there were a lot of players looking around for other games, because they were not satisfied with what they had.
The market right now is surely polarized toward GW games. But it is in no way a monopoly. If GW games lower in quality, they start bleeding players to the competitors. For GW to keep the players, she has to invest in quality and new products. She doesn't get to keep them just because she is the only one around.
I distinctly remember when GW started doing the single-frame plastic characters (original plastic Banshee, Chaos Sorcerer, Tzeentch Sorcerer, Necromancer, etc.).
I was a massive proponent of those releases, even though, at the time, I didn't play Warhammer Fanatsy and thus had no use for these models. I bought them anyway, because I wanted to support such a venture (and I found ways to slot them into other games, especially the 40KRPGs and Old Skool Warhammer Quest). I felt this change was a huge step forward for GW (especially after the absolute debacle that was FineCost), as we could get plastic characters to replace metal/resin ones, especially great for things that didn't really have options but would be better in plastic.
Best of all, they were damned cheap. Like sub AUD$20 for those initial releases.
If only we'd known where it would lead - mono-pose characters that have their options stripped away, now for prices reaching into the AUD$60's and higher.
It's like they have to take every good idea they have and corrupt it into something worse...
Best of all, they were damned cheap. Like sub AUD$20 for those initial releases.
If only we'd known where it would lead - mono-pose characters that have their options stripped away, now for prices reaching into the AUD$60's and higher.
The ridiculous aspect of this is those models are still around, and still cheap. The tzeentch sorcerer, necromancer, wraith and banshee are still for sale, and still $15, a far cry from the $30-35 (or even $40) per character standard these days.
Even in AUD$, the DE sorceress is just $22.
It makes the absurd prices even worse, because even now they can still keep the overcharge for characters down if they want to.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I distinctly remember when GW started doing the single-frame plastic characters (original plastic Banshee, Chaos Sorcerer, Tzeentch Sorcerer, Necromancer, etc.).
I was a massive proponent of those releases, even though, at the time, I didn't play Warhammer Fanatsy and thus had no use for these models. I bought them anyway, because I wanted to support such a venture (and I found ways to slot them into other games, especially the 40KRPGs and Old Skool Warhammer Quest). I felt this change was a huge step forward for GW (especially after the absolute debacle that was FineCost), as we could get plastic characters to replace metal/resin ones, especially great for things that didn't really have options but would be better in plastic.
Best of all, they were damned cheap. Like sub AUD$20 for those initial releases.
If only we'd known where it would lead - mono-pose characters that have their options stripped away, now for prices reaching into the AUD$60's and higher.
It's like they have to take every good idea they have and corrupt it into something worse...
It's rather sad that finecast can be considered both, their best and worst models to date.
You have more than a few options for them to be run, but they could pop out with some of the worst deformations imaginable.
Even now, it's rather difficult to get options for most characters, or even just standard units. Without looking through several boxes of bits and don't get me wrong. That makes some of the fun all it's own. Because who wouldn't want to dig through a metric ton of spare parts and find something like 19 chem dog heads.
But this issue with purchasing a model that already cost more than a standard 5 man squad and it doesn't even come with an optional helmet...(I'm looking at you Voldus). Hell, at least papa smurf got his own option for a helmet, but primarchs get more than enough love as it is anyway. At least when they finally get released that is.
kirotheavenger wrote:I've asked people why they're not interested in trying another game. "I don't like the rules" is rarely the reason given. It's normally "I like the theme/models of 40k". This includes when I'm asking about something like 40k which uses exactly the same models, but whatever.
And what does this tell us? It tells us that those people value the theme more than rules - therefore, the other games' rules aren't good *enough* to compare to to the theme and models associated with 40k.
Another common one is that not enough people play <insert game here> compared to 40k. Or that they don't want to invest any money in the system. (But they won't play with my collection either).
Because the other game system isn't *enough* to persuade them.
I think you're missing the point I'm making - if a game were sufficiently good, either in rules, price, quality or theme, people would try it even in spite of those other features. But if those features aren't simply good *enough*, then can you blame people for not wanting to try?
So I think you're objectively wrong that quality of game and player base are directly correlated.
Disagree, nor is that even what my point is.
It's objectively a case that if a game isn't being played, it's because it's not ticking the boxes of people. What you're getting hung up on is the idea that "this game isn't being played, so it's objectively bad", which isn't what I'm saying, and isn't true.
If someone doesn't want to play a game, that could be for countless reasons, but the crux of the matter is that that game simply isn't what they want to play - it's not good enough to convince them, for whatever reason. The game simply is not able to meet their requirements - and that's okay. Not everyone can be won over. It's just that some games might need to work harder to win over audiences who might already have their own preferences set.
I have zero interest in other games due to the fact that they;
A - don't pull me in. I tried battletech back in the day but the lore didn't do anything for me, so I can't get invested in my mechs, ergo the game has nothing to offer me. Even tho I thought the game was OK.
B - miniatures suck. Had someone demo a game of Malifeaux, the game was ok but models & lore didn't do anything for me.
C - rules. I don't care how "balanced" a game is, if A&B suck.
I like 40k for the Lore, Minis, etc. Absolutely no consideration is given to rules or what's good/bad. If I like a model, I'll buy it and use it. if I don't, no skin off my back.
If someone doesn't want to play a game, that could be for countless reasons, but the crux of the matter is that that game simply isn't what they want to play - it's not good enough to convince them, for whatever reason. The game simply is not able to meet their requirements - and that's okay. Not everyone can be won over. It's just that some games might need to work harder to win over audiences who might already have their own preferences set.
You have a point that these other games don't offer enough better than 40k to overcome people's loyalty.
But that doesn't mean that that loyalty isn't there. In fact the point that I and others are making is exactly that this loyalty exists.
Plus, the idea that a game needs to be good enough to overcome people's biases for 40k, rather than just being better than 40k, shows that there is not a precise relationship between quality of game and number of players. 40k got it's foot in the door and has by the far the most players - this gives it a massive leg up over competitors.
Throw in a large amount of sunk-cost and players are extremely reluctant to even entertain the idea that the grass they're standing on is anything but neon.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I distinctly remember when GW started doing the single-frame plastic characters (original plastic Banshee, Chaos Sorcerer, Tzeentch Sorcerer, Necromancer, etc.).
I was a massive proponent of those releases, even though, at the time, I didn't play Warhammer Fanatsy and thus had no use for these models. I bought them anyway, because I wanted to support such a venture (and I found ways to slot them into other games, especially the 40KRPGs and Old Skool Warhammer Quest). I felt this change was a huge step forward for GW (especially after the absolute debacle that was FineCost), as we could get plastic characters to replace metal/resin ones, especially great for things that didn't really have options but would be better in plastic.
Best of all, they were damned cheap. Like sub AUD$20 for those initial releases.
If only we'd known where it would lead - mono-pose characters that have their options stripped away, now for prices reaching into the AUD$60's and higher.
It's like they have to take every good idea they have and corrupt it into something worse...
I remember those days ! I was super thrilled. I played/play Vampire counts so those plastic characters were amazing ! For both cost and working with. I was actually excited to see them coming out and picked them up for VC, the Necromancer, and Wight King I picked up. Not sure if I did for Banshee but I had an old version of that still in metal.
Unrelated but the plastic black knights were ace and cheapish. Back when GW released things I was happy to see and didn't make me say " Oh ,my god they cost what now ?!?! "
GW games have an extra "inertia" factor that other games need to overcome in order to become more popular and I think at this point that inertia is so high it's unlikely anything will topple 40k in the foreseeable future. If all else was equal (quality of models, quality of rules, etc) that extra inertia would still mean GW games would come out on top.
The closest we've seen to 40k being unseated from its position at the top was a few years ago with X-Wing. In that case I think the reasonable price point of the models combined with a popular and recognisable IP was almost enough to overcome the inertia. Eventually the rising prices of X-Wing and GW actually bothering to do some social media marketing were enough to knock X-Wing way back down in popularity which just goes to show the power of GW's market position.
One interesting factor I've noticed among X-Wing players is there are a very large number who have never played another wargame and had no exposure to wargames prior to playing X-Wing. I think if anyone's going to compete with GW that might be the way to approach it. Trying to cannibalise 40k's players seems doomed to failure (see the fate of WM/H) but creating your own inertia from outside that established ecosystem would be one way to disrupt the current status quo.
X-Wing had a huge advantage compared to other games though: there are millions of Star Wars fans around the world, and they are among the most loyal fans. In fact everyone complaines about the recent movies being crap and yet they all go see them. Like 40k, most of those who criticize it are still around the game.
It's a priviledge that very few brands can get, especially about wargaming.
Karol wrote: It is kind of a hard to make an army without them, when GW writes the rules in a such a way that the whole army rule set revolves around characters, their auras and buffs.
Plus there is always that problem of people who already are in the hobby and already did pay their 35$ or more per one, not being so open that people that come after them just get their characters for less, unless they are recasts, but then the accepted cost just drop to what ever the avarge of a recast cost is.
Actually there is one army, that has a relatively well working option to be built out of 1 singular box.
2 boxs.
one box, as in one box type, as in tyranid warriors.
Spoletta has said it - but certainly for me X-Wing and Warmahordes (and Malifaux/Infinity) blew up in the 2012-2016ish era, where GW's main games all seemed to have massive problems and people wanted something new. GW's models were also seemingly not much better than the competition. The nadir was obviously the death of WHFB and AOS's launch.
But 8th's release massively reinvigorated 40k, AoS 2.0 made AoS a game worth playing, and GW's models are now very good.
Moreover games like X-Wing and Warmahordes struggled for similar reasons to 40k. If you are going to be a game system, rather than selling something like Monopoly (the game), you have to keep coming up with new things. Which means you run into codex creep and bloat. Star Wars is undoubtedly *massive* - but once you've run through the big names, you are sort of scraping the barrel for new things to keep people interested. Warmahodes went down a similar road and then the third edition alienated a lot of people.
According to their accounts GW are now selling about 2.5-3 times as much as they did in 2015. Some of that is explained by price rises - but but either they've managed to brainwash twice as many people over the last 5 years, or they've made games more people want to play.
one box, as in one box type, as in tyranid warriors.
Ah, I don't think there are many tyranid armies build without Tyrants or a Swarmy and the exosomethingsomething. GK on the other hand, GK master, capting ,librarian, ancient, apothecary even Voldus, easily made with the termintor box. Termintors and Paladins out of single box, and then strikes, interceptors, purifires and purgators, Crow etc out of the power armour box.
You have a point that these other games don't offer enough better than 40k to overcome people's loyalty.
But that doesn't mean that that loyalty isn't there. In fact the point that I and others are making is exactly that this loyalty exists.
Plus, the idea that a game needs to be good enough to overcome people's biases for 40k, rather than just being better than 40k, shows that there is not a precise relationship between quality of game and number of players. 40k got it's foot in the door and has by the far the most players - this gives it a massive leg up over competitors.
Throw in a large amount of sunk-cost and players are extremely reluctant to even entertain the idea that the grass they're standing on is anything but neon.
Could it be you are simply not seeing the other communities?
Back in uni, I played a lot of 4th Ed 40k. Our group was almost exclusively 40k and some fantasy. During one if those years I was introduced to warmachine (black and white rulebook era) and immediately fell in love with it. Problrm was no one played.i went for years without ever knowing a community bar one in Dublin.
And low and behold a few years pass (around the launch of mk2) and through a lovely girl I met who became a very dear friend, I came across some of her pals and acquaintances who were die hard warmachine players. Turns out they'd been playing for years, since the era of the black and white rulebook.
Simply put the two communities were oil and water and never mixed. But it taught me a valuable lesson. Other players who play other games and who got into the game through other avenues exist and there's more of them than you think. Staying in the microcosm of your own known community ends up making folks myopic, without them realising.
The players exist is the tl;dr. It might take legwork but they can be found.
The players exist is the tl;dr. It might take legwork but they can be found.
Not always, people mileage may vary.
Before covid I asked many 40k players I know if they were interested in Necromunda as I'd really like to play it. Despite access to free rules and accessories (I provide them all) and just one kit of 10 dudes to buy (cheaper than any of the recent infantry GW boxes), assemble and paint to be ready to play no one so far has been convinced to give the game a chance. The only way I managed to convince some of my friends to give the game is a try is that I buy all the miniatures, other than accessories, rules, board and terrain (which I already have) and they come to play at my place. That was a few months ago, then it became impossible to play aything.
I can't imagine pushing for a different game that requires a much more significant investment in terms of money and time (to learn the rules and get all the models/accessories).
harlokin wrote: I engage in the 40K hobby entirely for the fluff/setting. I paint the minis, play the wargame and the RPGs, read the BL books, and I used to collect the old boardgames. If 40K somehow went away, I would not be seeking to replace it with other wargames because I am not invested in their lore, and don't have the time or inclination to become so. For me, playing the wargame is just a byproduct of my interest in the setting.
When WFB was discontinued, I didn't care for the AoS 'setting', and I haven't replaced that hobby time with another wargame.
So why don't you play something like Grimdark Future with your 40k models?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: It has nothing to do with good or bad, and everything with monopol or close to monopol on players. There can, and probably are, better games then w40k. And they are cheaper, and the quality of models can be good too. It doesn't matter, if there is no one to play the game with. It is like apple products and the US, or specific types of sport in different countries. Ski jumping is popular here, there club, trainers, sponsorships, schools that teach you etc if the same person would decide that they would rather enjoy a life career as a currling team members, then good luck to their parents or spouse supporting them all their life financialy.
But it's possible to grow these communities yourself. You know, if you have friends who are willing to try a game with you, like most gamers do.
Karol wrote: There is no dethroning of GW, other then the hobby ending up dead.
This is blatantly false. GW is not the hobby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And what does this tell us? It tells us that those people value the theme more than rules - therefore, the other games' rules aren't good *enough* to compare to to the theme and models associated with 40k.
Mmmm, I think for a lot of people whose highest aspiration in life is to be passive consumers, 40k is going to be more attractive just because more people play it. On Facebook groups people just post a stack of boxes of GW product they've bought with a "look at my haul" or "look what I did," looking for that chemical rush of people approving of your consumption.
So it's not a matter of anything GW is doing - it's about how the community reacts to them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think you're missing the point I'm making - if a game were sufficiently good, either in rules, price, quality or theme, people would try it even in spite of those other features. But if those features aren't simply good *enough*, then can you blame people for not wanting to try?
I mean, yes, I can. Because it shows they're just passive consumers.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's objectively a case that if a game isn't being played, it's because it's not ticking the boxes of people. What you're getting hung up on is the idea that "this game isn't being played, so it's objectively bad", which isn't what I'm saying, and isn't true.
If someone doesn't want to play a game, that could be for countless reasons, but the crux of the matter is that that game simply isn't what they want to play - it's not good enough to convince them, for whatever reason. The game simply is not able to meet their requirements - and that's okay. Not everyone can be won over. It's just that some games might need to work harder to win over audiences who might already have their own preferences set.
You're still saying that, you're just expanding the idea of what "objectively bad" means to things beyond gameplay and model quality.
People are not rational actors when they consume products.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And what does this tell us? It tells us that those people value the theme more than rules - therefore, the other games' rules aren't good *enough* to compare to to the theme and models associated with 40k.
Mmmm, I think for a lot of people whose highest aspiration in life is to be passive consumers, 40k is going to be more attractive just because more people play it. On Facebook groups people just post a stack of boxes of GW product they've bought with a "look at my haul" or "look what I did," looking for that chemical rush of people approving of your consumption.
So it's not a matter of anything GW is doing - it's about how the community reacts to them.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think you're missing the point I'm making - if a game were sufficiently good, either in rules, price, quality or theme, people would try it even in spite of those other features. But if those features aren't simply good *enough*, then can you blame people for not wanting to try?
I mean, yes, I can. Because it shows they're just passive consumers.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: It's objectively a case that if a game isn't being played, it's because it's not ticking the boxes of people. What you're getting hung up on is the idea that "this game isn't being played, so it's objectively bad", which isn't what I'm saying, and isn't true.
If someone doesn't want to play a game, that could be for countless reasons, but the crux of the matter is that that game simply isn't what they want to play - it's not good enough to convince them, for whatever reason. The game simply is not able to meet their requirements - and that's okay. Not everyone can be won over. It's just that some games might need to work harder to win over audiences who might already have their own preferences set.
You're still saying that, you're just expanding the idea of what "objectively bad" means to things beyond gameplay and model quality.
People are not rational actors when they consume products.
Not sure I agree at all with "there's no way the game just isn't appealing, people are just mindless consumers" take.
harlokin wrote: I engage in the 40K hobby entirely for the fluff/setting. I paint the minis, play the wargame and the RPGs, read the BL books, and I used to collect the old boardgames. If 40K somehow went away, I would not be seeking to replace it with other wargames because I am not invested in their lore, and don't have the time or inclination to become so. For me, playing the wargame is just a byproduct of my interest in the setting.
When WFB was discontinued, I didn't care for the AoS 'setting', and I haven't replaced that hobby time with another wargame.
So why don't you play something like Grimdark Future with your 40k models?
I am currently reasonably satisfied with 40K, and if I weren't, I would stop playing altogether; I have no interest in homebrew.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not sure I agree at all with "there's no way the game just isn't appealing, people are just mindless consumers" take.
It'd make the money and support you've thrown GW's way a lot less of a source of happy brain chemicals, wouldn't it?
Hecaton,
Is it impossible that people enjoy playing 40K on its own merits for them? That they enjoy building and painting an army from lore that they find appealing and then find enjoyment from playing the game? That people can be critical thinkers and still actually enjoy playing 40K?
I can believe that people do not enjoy the game, but equally that many folks actually enjoy how they spend their hobby time. Probably because I enjoy playing the game, and that I stopped playing for a bit when it wasn’t fun (7th).
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not sure I agree at all with "there's no way the game just isn't appealing, people are just mindless consumers" take.
It'd make the money and support you've thrown GW's way a lot less of a source of happy brain chemicals, wouldn't it?
I'm in the lucky position to have a gaming club in my town with over 100 members and people are playing everything under the sun.
From Magic to Yu Gi Oh, AoS, 40k, Kill Team, Frostgrave, some skirmisher where a wizard leads a mercenary band, some historical Japanese skirmisher, X-Wing, Armada, Imperial Assault / Legion, Infinity, lots of different board, card and Pen&Paper games. I would say those people are very open to trying out new games. Most of them are aged 30-40+, so have enough disposable income to buy into stuff if they are interested.
Nobody is playing a sci-fi game with a similar scale / amount of units on the table as 40k, even those who are unhappy with 8th / 9th edition and don't participate currently. Legion is probably the one that comes the closest.
It feels like there is no game out there that tickles the same spot as 40k does. Just my local observation.
But it's possible to grow these communities yourself. You know, if you have friends who are willing to try a game with you, like most gamers do.
This is blatantly false. GW is not the hobby.
The assumption that everyone has and can have friends, and somehow make them play the games you want instead of playing the game where they can always have opponents, even if you stop being friends, is an interesting one. Maybe it works in places where people easily collect multiple armies, so technicaly can collect multiple games. Anywhere where you have to settle on one army and one game, you will pick the more popular one
As the GW not being the game. They litteraly write the rules and make the models. And again maybe this can be different in places where playing at home is a common thing, but eveywhere were playing at a store good luck at enforcing your own set of rules over the official ones. Has as much chance to happen as a 15y old convincing 20 plus guys in their late 20s early 30s playing one game for 10-20 years to play the game you want.
Karol wrote: The assumption that everyone has and can have friends, and somehow make them play the games you want instead of playing the game where they can always have opponents, even if you stop being friends, is an interesting one. Maybe it works in places where people easily collect multiple armies, so technicaly can collect multiple games. Anywhere where you have to settle on one army and one game, you will pick the more popular one
Except you can play different games with the same set of models...
If you don't have friends that's uniquely weird. This is a social hobby.
Karol wrote: As the GW not being the game. They litteraly write the rules and make the models. And again maybe this can be different in places where playing at home is a common thing, but eveywhere were playing at a store good luck at enforcing your own set of rules over the official ones. Has as much chance to happen as a 15y old convincing 20 plus guys in their late 20s early 30s playing one game for 10-20 years to play the game you want.
GW is not the *hobby*. There are other wargames, is my point. There's no rule that says that GW has to have the lion's share of the market like it does.
Is it impossible that people enjoy playing 40K on its own merits for them? That they enjoy building and painting an army from lore that they find appealing and then find enjoyment from playing the game? That people can be critical thinkers and still actually enjoy playing 40K?
I mean if they're poor critical thinkers, sure. Some of the minis are pretty cool, and even if there's some I don't personally like, other people can subjectively like them. But the rules are pretty objectively bad, and there's other rulesets to use *with the same models*.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I can believe that people do not enjoy the game, but equally that many folks actually enjoy how they spend their hobby time. Probably because I enjoy playing the game, and that I stopped playing for a bit when it wasn’t fun (7th).
The difference in the amount of fun I have playing something like Infinity or ASOIAF compared to 40k is immense, and there's a number of objective reasons why that's the case. If someone actively wants the game to be a matter of listbuilding rock/paper/scissors, then they might like 40k, but their opinion is pretty suspect.
It feels like there is no game out there that tickles the same spot as 40k does. Just my local observation.
40k tickles multiple spots. I mean the sheer variety of factions means that it is more likely to tickle a particular spot. Mine is Tyranids, if any other game wants to compete against 40k, it would need to have a Tyranid equivalent that tickles the same thematic spots.
And for other people that spot may be the Space Marines, or the Orks, or the Eldar, or the Necrons, or etc. But this isn't something that can be done overnight, it took decades for 40k to grow to this point.
To this you add the other advantages like having a large dedicated community, having the mass production capability, having the corporate experience. It is an insurmountable advantage.
GW is not the *hobby*. There are other wargames, is my point. There's no rule that says that GW has to have the lion's share of the market like it does.
No on is going to invest their own money in to a game 2-3 other people will play, because any problem with those people would mean you just invested money in to models you can't use anymore. With w40k this problems is a lot smaller, that is why people start w40k. It doesn't matter how good, cheaper or more fun other games are. I have no idea what *hobby* means. And there actualy are rules for spread of market share, smart people got nobels prizes in economic fields writing about it. So there will always be a GW.
But it's possible to grow these communities yourself. You know, if you have friends who are willing to try a game with you, like most gamers do.
This is blatantly false. GW is not the hobby.
The assumption that everyone has and can have friends, and somehow make them play the games you want instead of playing the game where they can always have opponents, even if you stop being friends, is an interesting one. Maybe it works in places where people easily collect multiple armies, so technicaly can collect multiple games. Anywhere where you have to settle on one army and one game, you will pick the more popular one
Concerning friends: You gotta try. And keep trying. Those you go to school with. At your local shop. Should you go off to University. Take jobs & move to new towns/cities. At different shops. And sometimes you just have to cut ties with one group & find new friends.
Concerning getting other games going: You don't make others play.
Karol wrote: As the GW not being the game. They litteraly write the rules and make the models.
Again, you misunderstand. The HOBBY Hecaton speaks of is miniature wargaming. GW, although very large, is just one company involved in making games in that hobby.
Karol wrote: And again maybe this can be different in places where playing at home is a common thing, but eveywhere were playing at a store good luck at enforcing your own set of rules over the official ones. Has as much chance to happen as a 15y old convincing 20 plus guys in their late 20s early 30s playing one game for 10-20 years to play the game you want.
House-rules generally come into play once you're playing with a consistent group. They're generally "enforced" by group consensus.
Sometimes if you organize a campaign or such & are the guy in charge you can also apply a house-rule.
If there's a game out there you want to play? Ask. You might well get told "No Thanks". But you might not.
I will not argue with you over what you enjoy more, but you have a very condescending attitude towards those who do enjoy 40k. It’s an odd attitude for someone on a 40k forum. Do you think you are above those who enjoy 40K? Do you think that enjoying Infinity somehow makes you a superior?
I’ve wargamed for almost 40 years, and I have found that our community does not benefit from those who try to be snobby towards others. We don’t have to like the same things, but we should respect each other’s opinion and choices.
Is it impossible that people enjoy playing 40K on its own merits for them? That they enjoy building and painting an army from lore that they find appealing and then find enjoyment from playing the game? That people can be critical thinkers and still actually enjoy playing 40K?
I can believe that people do not enjoy the game, but equally that many folks actually enjoy how they spend their hobby time. Probably because I enjoy playing the game, and that I stopped playing for a bit when it wasn’t fun (7th).
I know more than a few people who don't play the game and greatly enjoy the lore of the setting. Most of my friends either know about the setting, or they read it and only two out of a possible two-dozen people actually play. For them though, it's mostly the cost of actually getting an army going and all of the work that they have to put into it to get the models board ready. I've always enjoyed all of these aspects myself and I've even gotten into the PC games over the years. But the table top will always be my primary means of enjoying the game.
Let's just face it. So long as GW doesn't want to lower the bar for entry, it's available player base will always suffer for it.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I will not argue with you over what you enjoy more, but you have a very condescending attitude towards those who do enjoy 40k. It’s an odd attitude for someone on a 40k forum. Do you think you are above those who enjoy 40K? Do you think that enjoying Infinity somehow makes you a superior?
No, but I think being a passive vessel for consuming GW's products, and supporting their business/rule writing practices, is incredibly servile. If someone says "Sure, the rules aren't the best, but I enjoy it because I like the setting and the miniatures" that's fine, but why wouldn't someone just play a better game with the same miniatures? It's like being unable to leave an abusive spouse.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I’ve wargamed for almost 40 years, and I have found that our community does not benefit from those who try to be snobby towards others. We don’t have to like the same things, but we should respect each other’s opinion and choices.
Yeah, in my experience, I see a lot more toxicity/snobbiness from people who are pro-GW past the point of reason, to the point of store owners telling customers not to buy Warmachine while there was a tournament with 12 people going on in the store. There's this idea that GW is the superior product, and people compete to see how much plastic they can buy from GW, painting shoddily if at all, and exult in their unwillingness to consider new games or refine their skills. Instead, they treat the game as a contest about how much they can consume, and any valuation of painting skill, skill at the game, or anything else is discarded. I don't see this from everyone, but mainly the people who manage 3rd party stores that sell it or who are otherwise deeply invested in it.
The thing is, though, I've never had trouble getting groups together to play whatever game, there's just a group of people who seem to exult in getting people into playing 40k so they can show off how much more money they've spent on the hobby than anyone else.
The issue is, GW is too big to fail, currently. Everything dies and GW will be no different come the end of its run. For now however as others have said it sit unique on some fronts and it's carried forward with the weight of sunk cost, time and friends made playing it.
I'd say if another game was out, that let me use all my current stuff and I could get all my friends on board and it was a pandemic free time, I'd gladly leave the GW world behind. For now though, to value all of that time and money already spent I'm stuck circling around with the GW herd mostly.
I play other games but its size makes it the one everyone I know plays where the others only some play this or that.
TBH "too big to fail" doesn't exist. White Star Line was one of the biggest shipping corporations in the world. But a small string of disasters (notably the Titanic) torpedoed that.
But I do agree with the sentiment.
I live in hope that one day a straw will break the camel's back. That suddenly the community decides GW has gone one step too far. Then the world of wargaming can explode into a million better games.
But then I know that every time GW feths up, instead any minor fix is taken as proof of just how awesome they are. "I know their app had some teething problems, but they've fixed some of the bugs now, they're so great for listening to the community!".
I'm in a similar situation to Karol. I'm not really close enough with anyone in the local wargaming scene that my opinions have much, if any, sway over anyone.
Why would they play another game with this random guy that they've maybe met once vs one of the other fifty 40k players around?
Like AngryAngel, if I felt I had the option I'd gladly leave 40k behind (the rules, not the world). But I can't, not with any reasonable hope of continuing to play.
And that's the rub. Inertia and an established following means that GW has to do very little to redeem itself. 8th edition is a perfect example of that. Not much changed and they quickly ruined it again but even it came out even people that had given up GW for other games were conned into coming back and abandoning everything else. Like at one store here 8th killed every other game that was being played virtually overnight for some reason.
Definitely. GW's new social media strategy has worked absolutely perfectly for them.
Their business practices are as anti-consumer as ever (and in many ways more so) but the "New-GW" posts a generic "thanks for the comments, we'll pass it on!" on Facebook comments now so you know they care about us, deeply.
And I think that is why a lot of people are tend to be seemingly "GW fans are stupid" because they keep falling for that stuff. Like I remember there were a bunch of people including here that were all giddy that GW was on social media and acted like it was some major revelation when it was really them finally pulling their head out of their ass and coming into the modern era. And it was seen as some sort of proof that they were different when they were doing what everyone else had already been doing for years.
It's like if GW came out with a plastic box that was cheaper than the previous one and had more figures, like that would happen, people would praise it as being some sort of miracle when that's how every other God damn company does it so GW doing it doesn't make them special.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I will not argue with you over what you enjoy more, but you have a very condescending attitude towards those who do enjoy 40k. It’s an odd attitude for someone on a 40k forum. Do you think you are above those who enjoy 40K? Do you think that enjoying Infinity somehow makes you a superior?
No, but I think being a passive vessel for consuming GW's products, and supporting their business/rule writing practices, is incredibly servile. If someone says "Sure, the rules aren't the best, but I enjoy it because I like the setting and the miniatures" that's fine, but why wouldn't someone just play a better game with the same miniatures? It's like being unable to leave an abusive spouse.
If people enjoy the game, or like the models, for whatever reasons how is buying GW products "incredibly servile"? That's a bizarre characterisation that seems to be based purely around your own inability to understand other people's reasons for liking things. That strikes me as your problem, not anyone else's.
As to why they don't play another game, it's been shown over and over in this thread that actually getting games is often the main driver. There's a sliding scale of satisfaction vs effort when it comes to whether you try to get a new game off the ground. If I'm completely satisfied with 40k I have no reason to try any other game. If starting up the other game would require me to put in loads of effort for likely very little reward then I'd need to consider just how dissatisfied I was with 40k to put that effort in. For me, 40k is fine as a social activity between friends played at a semi-competitive level because everyone involved understands what sort of game each person wants to play. It probably also helps that we already have pretty big collections so we're not caught in a spiral of paying current-GW prices for entire armies. If I want to play a tournament-style competitive game there's no way I'd choose 40k. It works for me at the level I want to engage with it at.
I mean to be fair, it's not like other games were giving us a vastly superior consumer experience.
PP has monopose characters with no options too, in inferior materials, and most of their minis are also really overpriced. The quality of the design is highly variable as is the quality of the actual minis when they are produced.
Where PP was better was in allowing for balance, but that has also taken a beating with their new edition and the prevalence of theme lists.
Similar issues exist with other games.
Now, GW are moving toward being more PP-esque in a lot of ways. Monopose characters. Special characters over player made characters. Fewer options for customising your dudes in the rules and in the models. The sculpt quality remains high as do the production values, but the price is even higher than it used to be.
Rules wise, I find it hard to judge. So much of 9th is antithetical to what I want from a wargame that it is hard for me to judge quality as it is like judging the quality of a food I don't like. But I trust the general consensus that 8th/9th were good for the people who like that style of game, and that people are having a lot of fun with it.
I don't understand why people who characterise other gamers as incredibly servile and too stupid to know they're being conned find it difficult to convince those same gamers to play a different game with them. Truly baffling.
The only possible explanation is that GW has a monopoly!
soviet13 wrote: I don't understand why people who characterise other gamers as incredibly servile and too stupid to know they're being conned find it difficult to convince those same gamers to play a different game with them. Truly baffling.
The only possible explanation is that GW has a monopoly!
TBF: GW Has a sole monopoly on the warhammer universes.(copyright law and disney be praised)
TBF further, GW is the biggest fish in the pond aswell, they don't have the sole monopoly power overall, but they are big enough to dictate market conditions well enough.
however indeed with that attitude , it is indeed no wonder as to why no one is able to be convinced to change.
on the other side, there are indeed however these servile "elements" within the hobby that do "whiteknighting", just as much as there are the equivalent blackknights aswell found.
Lots of posts here come off as lowkey insulting to be honest. Instead of circle jerking around "If you enjoy Warhammer, you are stupid" you could consider that maybe some people are able to look at a product, evaluate pros and cons and make an informed decision on wether or not they want to spend their money on it.
I'm not a fan of GW as a company, I'm aware they are not my friend and everything they do should be seen as an incentive to get more money from me. When the cons outweighed in the past, I stopped playing and sold off most of my collection.
At the moment their product is good enough for me that I want to buy it. Strongly implying to be or being called stupid, servile, immature, simping, white knighting for enjoying Warhammer and not having a "took them long enough" attitude when something good is happening, is very irritating.
a_typical_hero wrote: Lots of posts here come off as lowkey insulting to be honest. Instead of circle jerking around "If you enjoy Warhammer, you are stupid" you could consider that maybe some people are able to look at a product, evaluate pros and cons and make an informed decision on wether or not they want to spend their money on it.
I'm not a fan of GW as a company, I'm aware they are not my friend and everything they do should be seen as an incentive to get more money from me. When the cons outweighed in the past, I stopped playing and sold off most of my collection.
At the moment their product is good enough for me that I want to buy it. Strongly implying to be or being called stupid, servile, immature, simping, white knighting for enjoying Warhammer and not having a "took them long enough" attitude when something good is happening, is very irritating.
Agreed. I've self published some RPG stuff and rule number one in that field is 'don't try to sell your game by criticising other games; instead talk about what makes YOUR game fun'.
'GW sucks, wake up sheeple!' is just never going to be a winning PR strategy.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Not sure I agree at all with "there's no way the game just isn't appealing, people are just mindless consumers" take.
It'd make the money and support you've thrown GW's way a lot less of a source of happy brain chemicals, wouldn't it?
"You've spent money on GW, so you're just a brainwashed puppet! r/iamverysmart"
You know, if you want to make a point, implying that everyone else is some kind of mindless slave and how you're the only true Enlightened One must be working excellently for you! Maybe that's why you're finding it so easy to convince people to play other games!
Oh, wait...
Hecaton wrote:There's no rule that says that GW has to have the lion's share of the market like it does.
Absolutely. And there's no rule that says that other companies can't do better to win more of that share.
I read that as more of a "Well, I've got the models...."
Except you could play other games with the same models (Grimdark future, etc).
And what if those rulesets don't have what the players with those models want? Sure, you could play practically ANY game with ANY models - but rules goes beyond simple mechanics and into more intangible qualities. Perhaps it's the accessibility of GW stuff. Perhaps it's the art. Perhaps it's the regular active attention. Regardless of whatever it is, the other game simply ain't got that, and that's something it has to deal with.
Is it impossible that people enjoy playing 40K on its own merits for them? That they enjoy building and painting an army from lore that they find appealing and then find enjoyment from playing the game? That people can be critical thinkers and still actually enjoy playing 40K?
I mean if they're poor critical thinkers, sure.
Ooh, another r/iamverysmart moment! If there's another one, do I get a cookie?
Some of the minis are pretty cool, and even if there's some I don't personally like, other people can subjectively like them. But the rules are pretty objectively bad, and there's other rulesets to use *with the same models*.
Are they *objectively* bad though? Like, can you objectively prove that to me that the core ruleset (because, you know, the other stuff is additions that even *I* ignore when my opponent and I find it convenient) is bad? Flawed? Yes, certainly. Subjectively bad? Of course. But *objectively* - you'll have to prove that one.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I can believe that people do not enjoy the game, but equally that many folks actually enjoy how they spend their hobby time. Probably because I enjoy playing the game, and that I stopped playing for a bit when it wasn’t fun (7th).
The difference in the amount of fun I have playing something like Infinity or ASOIAF compared to 40k is immense, and there's a number of objective reasons why that's the case.
I think you're confusing objective with subjective again. Am I demeaning your experiences and feelings? No, I'm sure you very much did have strong reasons for enjoying one over another. But I'm pretty sure they were mostly subjective.
If someone actively wants the game to be a matter of listbuilding rock/paper/scissors, then they might like 40k, but their opinion is pretty suspect.
Ah, the third comment dripping with contempt and sheer self-importance!
I, too, believe that anyone who finds enjoyment from something I don't like is intellectually stunted, because r/iamverysmart.
Can I have the cookie now?
TangoTwoBravo wrote:@Hecaton,
I will not argue with you over what you enjoy more, but you have a very condescending attitude towards those who do enjoy 40k. It’s an odd attitude for someone on a 40k forum. Do you think you are above those who enjoy 40K? Do you think that enjoying Infinity somehow makes you a superior?
I’ve wargamed for almost 40 years, and I have found that our community does not benefit from those who try to be snobby towards others. We don’t have to like the same things, but we should respect each other’s opinion and choices.
Well put - there's a hecaTON of condescension and sheer arrogance in their posts, so if that's how they conduct themselves IRL, I'm not surprised they seem to have an issue getting people to listen to them.
Hecaton wrote:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I will not argue with you over what you enjoy more, but you have a very condescending attitude towards those who do enjoy 40k. It’s an odd attitude for someone on a 40k forum. Do you think you are above those who enjoy 40K? Do you think that enjoying Infinity somehow makes you a superior?
No, but I think being a passive vessel for consuming GW's products, and supporting their business/rule writing practices, is incredibly servile. If someone says "Sure, the rules aren't the best, but I enjoy it because I like the setting and the miniatures" that's fine, but why wouldn't someone just play a better game with the same miniatures? It's like being unable to leave an abusive spouse.
Today I learned that enjoying certain plastic models and rules makes me like a victim of domestic abuse! That's not at all a trivialisation of abuse, not at all!
Clearly, if you find ANY enjoyment in something, you're just a brainwashed sheeple who obeys servile whims and are fine with being beaten within the walls of your own home. /s
Yeah, in my experience, I see a lot more toxicity/snobbiness from people who are pro-GW past the point of reason
Your experience clearly doesn't involve you looking in a mirror, I see.
painting shoddily if at all, and exult in their unwillingness to consider new games or refine their skills.
Oh wow, this goes deeper! Apparently if you don't paint your models, you're doing the hobby "wrong" and if you don't end up as a Golden Demon level painter and sculptor when you're done, you're doing it wrong because you're not "refining your skills".
Jeez, I know you can enjoy it how *you* like, but some folks are fine with getting stuff done to a standard they're content with - and that's fine, because this is hobby for PERSONAL ENJOYMENT, not masochism or competetion.
Instead, they treat the game as a contest
As opposed to a contest about actively rejecting enjoyment and comfort and how you should have improved by X% by the end of the year or you're a battered spouse?
I don't see this from everyone, but mainly the people who manage 3rd party stores that sell it or who are otherwise deeply invested in it.
You've never considered that this is a trait of those particular people, and, you know, not a unifying factor among GW hobbyists?
there's just a group of people who seem to exult in getting people into playing 40k so they can show off how much more money they've spent on the hobby than anyone else.
Again, just like with Karol, I'm fairly sure that's a You and Your Local Store problem.
soviet13 wrote:I don't understand why people who characterise other gamers as incredibly servile and too stupid to know they're being conned find it difficult to convince those same gamers to play a different game with them. Truly baffling.
The only possible explanation is that GW has a monopoly!
Well put.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote: I'm not a fan of GW as a company, I'm aware they are not my friend and everything they do should be seen as an incentive to get more money from me. When the cons outweighed in the past, I stopped playing and sold off most of my collection.
Aye, same here. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing 40k when I'm able, but if/when I stop enjoying it, I simply won't play it. And I've got my own fair share of gripes with the company's practices to boot.
You are crossing the line.
Cease that attitude now.
Your "better" games are in no way "objectively" better than anything else, and for sure you are not better than those 40k folks you talk about.
I read that as more of a "Well, I've got the models...."
Except you could play other games with the same models (Grimdark future, etc).
Yes you could. And maybe you & I would do so.
But the poster in question has indicated that the game itself is of trivial importance to their enjoyment of the models/lore/hobby crafting aspect. They don't care if the game even exists. They'll play it, but they've TOLD you that if there was no game they wouldn't bother playing another. So do you really think they care that GDF exists?
Wayniac wrote: And I think that is why a lot of people are tend to be seemingly "GW fans are stupid" because they keep falling for that stuff.
Honeatly Wayne, take a step back and maybe consider taking a break. This isn't you. 'Bitter and angry' isn't a colour that suits you.
'Falling for that stuff? Good christ, You're something else, you know that. This isn't a con. This is pure black Knight bitterness territory Wayne, twist every action gw do to be 'bad' and underhanded, project all the negativity and condescension onto the folks that may actually enjoy these things (without for a moment considering them in anything other than 'bitter' filters) and assume a sense of smug righteousness, because hey, it's cool to hate right? You're basically othering people for nothing more than liking different things to you.
Wayniac wrote: . Like I remember there were a bunch of people including here that were all giddy that GW was on social media and acted like it was some major revelation when it was really them finally pulling their head out of their ass and coming into the modern era. And it was seen as some sort of proof that they were different when they were doing what everyone else had already been doing for years.
Gw haters for years: 'gw are idiots, they never use social media'.
Gw changes approach and uses social media. Quite decently too and people like myself rejoice and enjoy it.
G haterswith all the shock and outrage ' how DARE they?! Why can't they just HATE honestly without thinking or questioning?! How DARE they be anything other than ANGRY like me?! It doesn't matter what gw does, gw are idiots... because gw are idiots'... the hate is what's important.
Haters are gonna hate... because it's cool to hate, right?
Ever think.people might have been giddy because gw were finally getting on board with the 21st century and doing what they'd wanted them to do for years? But hey, we can't be ascribing any positivity to the 'others sides actions now, can we?
why is it that people can't be allowed to be happy and to enjoy something? Why this bitter filter saying they've no right to do so, that it's all a con? Do you only accept someone's view when they are apoplectic with rage? Look at the underlying conceit to your statement - youre basically trying to delegitimise people's enjoyment. saying how dare folks be happy or how dare they enjoy something and that they're wrong to do so. Why be so bitter when their enjoyment has no bearing on you?
It's like if GW came out with a plastic box that was cheaper than the previous one and had more figures, like that would happen, people would praise it as being some sort of miracle when that's how every other God damn company does it so GW doing it doesn't make them special.
Are rhey? I mean, to be fair, I can't remember pp or cb dropping prices and increasing the model count in their boxes either. please, drop your hyperbole.
And it did happen. Reminds me of betrayal at calth. People rightly praised it, not because it was 'some miracle but because it was finally gw turning around and providing a great value box set. That box set kept gw in the black that year.
soviet13 wrote: I don't understand why people who characterise other gamers as incredibly servile and too stupid to know they're being conned find it difficult to convince those same gamers to play a different game with them. Truly baffling.
That's the thing is, I don't. I have a playgroup that regularly plays non-GW games. And I still do play Infinity with the pandemic on, because myself and some others got COVID way back in the beginning. We play GW games sometimes, but pretty rarely.
"You've spent money on GW, so you're just a brainwashed puppet! r/iamverysmart"
The sunk cost fallacy and senseless brand loyalty is a thing.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You know, if you want to make a point, implying that everyone else is some kind of mindless slave and how you're the only true Enlightened One must be working excellently for you! Maybe that's why you're finding it so easy to convince people to play other games!
Oh, wait...
Again, I actually do find it relatively easy. I've had multiple friends go "40k is kind of stupid, even if the models are cool. What's that other game you're playing?"
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Absolutely. And there's no rule that says that other companies can't do better to win more of that share.
Sure, but some people have a senseless investment in the brand to where they'll keep buying GW products even when they're worse.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And what if those rulesets don't have what the players with those models want? Sure, you could play practically ANY game with ANY models - but rules goes beyond simple mechanics and into more intangible qualities. Perhaps it's the accessibility of GW stuff. Perhaps it's the art. Perhaps it's the regular active attention. Regardless of whatever it is, the other game simply ain't got that, and that's something it has to deal with.
I dunno if GW stuff is really that accessible - it's widespread in the retail space, but the game is... not good, and tends to invalidate purchases pretty regularly.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Ooh, another r/iamverysmart moment! If there's another one, do I get a cookie?
No, because your bleating on the topic is meaningless.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Are they *objectively* bad though? Like, can you objectively prove that to me that the core ruleset (because, you know, the other stuff is additions that even *I* ignore when my opponent and I find it convenient) is bad? Flawed? Yes, certainly. Subjectively bad? Of course. But *objectively* - you'll have to prove that one.
When a game is decided more by faction choice and listbuilding than what happens on the table, it's objectively bad. It makes the actual gameplay unnecessary.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think you're confusing objective with subjective again. Am I demeaning your experiences and feelings? No, I'm sure you very much did have strong reasons for enjoying one over another. But I'm pretty sure they were mostly subjective.
There are actual things that make some games better than others, in an objective sense. There's psychology and math around games that deals with this.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Ah, the third comment dripping with contempt and sheer self-importance!
It's just accurate. You're basically saying any attempt at criticizing your viewpoint is contemptuous and self-important, which is not a good faith argument. Essentially you're supporting 40k in the fact of all reason, saying that rationale doesn't matter, that it's deontologically superior.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I, too, believe that anyone who finds enjoyment from something I don't like is intellectually stunted, because r/iamverysmart.
Inaccurate assessment of my point, especially as I pointed out that some people like the style/quality of GW minis more than me and that's fine. So you can't argue against what I'm saying without lying.
You are crossing the line.
Cease that attitude now.
Your "better" games are in no way "objectively" better than anything else, and for sure you are not better than those 40k folks you talk about.
That line deserves to be crossed, because it's made of lies and bootlicking.
I'm not overly annoyed about character pricing. Yes, they charge a premium, but that is to be expected from GW and they have always done it. What does grind my gears is when they charge an eye watering amount for a squad of 5 dudes, who may only be slightly different looking than another box that's much cheaper and in game are cheap in terms of points.
I expect that the new Flayed Ones, still yet to be released, will follow this pattern
Okay people, time to take a step back and calm down a bit. Please remember that rule 1 is be polite. You can have differences of opinion on the pricing of toy soldiers with out being rude about it.
soviet13 wrote: I don't understand why people who characterise other gamers as incredibly servile and too stupid to know they're being conned find it difficult to convince those same gamers to play a different game with them. Truly baffling.
That's the thing is, I don't.
Didn't you literally just make a big deal about how you couldn't get 40k players to play other games because they were so brainwashed?
It's the same thing with the games you're suggesting: you say you can't get anyone to play games, but then you say you haven't got an issue doing it. You say these games are great, but they're categorically unpopular with the "servile" 40k lot.
"You've spent money on GW, so you're just a brainwashed puppet! r/iamverysmart"
The sunk cost fallacy and senseless brand loyalty is a thing.
So are games simply not being appealing.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You know, if you want to make a point, implying that everyone else is some kind of mindless slave and how you're the only true Enlightened One must be working excellently for you! Maybe that's why you're finding it so easy to convince people to play other games! Oh, wait...
Again, I actually do find it relatively easy. I've had multiple friends go "40k is kind of stupid, even if the models are cool. What's that other game you're playing?"
But then you've also been talking about other 40k fans who apparently don't consider other games. Like I said above, which way around is it?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Absolutely. And there's no rule that says that other companies can't do better to win more of that share.
Sure, but some people have a senseless investment in the brand to where they'll keep buying GW products even when they're worse.
And some people hate on the brand to the point it becomes their only personality trait. But we don't judge everyone in the hobby by a minority, do we?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And what if those rulesets don't have what the players with those models want? Sure, you could play practically ANY game with ANY models - but rules goes beyond simple mechanics and into more intangible qualities. Perhaps it's the accessibility of GW stuff. Perhaps it's the art. Perhaps it's the regular active attention. Regardless of whatever it is, the other game simply ain't got that, and that's something it has to deal with.
I dunno if GW stuff is really that accessible - it's widespread in the retail space, but the game is... not good, and tends to invalidate purchases pretty regularly.
I'd say it's accessible. Strong pop culture awareness, strong branding, multiple smaller entry points (a la Kill Team or just playing smaller games with free rules and in-kit rules) and snap-fit kits to get started. I don't know, perhaps you only consider the game at the 2k level to be "The Game", but playing at 25PL or 50PL is a totally legitimate way of playing, and is a pretty accessible point of entry. When you're playing the core of the game and not actively trying to break it, it's perfectly adequate, and the only real purchase that gets updated are the Codexes, which can by bypassed by playing with in-built datasheets if you're that new to the hobby.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Are they *objectively* bad though? Like, can you objectively prove that to me that the core ruleset (because, you know, the other stuff is additions that even *I* ignore when my opponent and I find it convenient) is bad? Flawed? Yes, certainly. Subjectively bad? Of course. But *objectively* - you'll have to prove that one.
When a game is decided more by faction choice and listbuilding than what happens on the table, it's objectively bad. It makes the actual gameplay unnecessary.
Again, that's still not objective, and divorces the gameplay from the listbuilding. One could argue that listbuilding IS part of the gameplay - which calls into question what the "gameplay" truly means. As far as I'm concerned, stratagems, command points, even detachments are additions to the core gameplay system.
I think you're confusing objective with subjective again. Am I demeaning your experiences and feelings? No, I'm sure you very much did have strong reasons for enjoying one over another. But I'm pretty sure they were mostly subjective.
There are actual things that make some games better than others, in an objective sense. There's psychology and math around games that deals with this.
Please, enlighten me then. Give me these objective truths on why some games MUST be better. You make such a big deal of it, but I've yet to see anything.
You're basically saying any attempt at criticizing your viewpoint is contemptuous and self-important, which is not a good faith argument.
Sorry, are you claiming that being contemptuous and self-important is arguing in good faith? Are you claiming that trivialising domestic abuse is an argument in good faith?
I noticed you didn't address that. I wonder why.
Essentially you're supporting 40k in the fact of all reason, saying that rationale doesn't matter, that it's deontologically superior.
If you can show *actual* objectivity,, you might have a point. Instead, you're content to just call everyone around you weak-minded.
I, too, believe that anyone who finds enjoyment from something I don't like is intellectually stunted, because r/iamverysmart.
Inaccurate assessment of my point, especially as I pointed out that some people like the style/quality of GW minis more than me and that's fine. So you can't argue against what I'm saying without lying.
Oh wow, I'm allowed to like how things look now! How generous! I'm just not allowed to like the gameplay, is that it?
Can I have the cookie now?
You've already made yourself a liar and a fool, I don't need to do much more.
Actually, you do still need to mention that domestic abuse thing. I'd love to hear you elaborate on how you trivialised that topic.
Cynista wrote: I'm not overly annoyed about character pricing. Yes, they charge a premium, but that is to be expected from GW and they have always done it. What does grind my gears is when they charge an eye watering amount for a squad of 5 dudes, who may only be slightly different looking than another box that's much cheaper and in game are cheap in terms of points.
I expect that the new Flayed Ones, still yet to be released, will follow this pattern
No, characters have not aways been overpriced. As I said pages back, my metal Company Master was $15 when I bought him, as was my FailCast Librarian.
GW continues to sell a handful of characters at reasonable prices, too. Dark Elf Sorceress, Tzeentch Sorcerer (or "Magister"), Eldar Warlock.
As always, GW charges through the roof for their products, because people are willing to pay these prices for GW minis.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Didn't you literally just make a big deal about how you couldn't get 40k players to play other games because they were so brainwashed?
Note this part:
Me wrote:I don't see this from everyone, but mainly the people who manage 3rd party stores that sell it or who are otherwise deeply invested in it.
My playgroup does just fine. Again, you're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'd say go back and take a look at my posts.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You say these games are great, but they're categorically unpopular with the "servile" 40k lot.
And the popularity ratio of the two has very little to do with the quality of the game.
In this case, the "appeal" to the people I'm talking about has nothing to do with the quality of the game or the minis. Some people have crap taste, that's just a fact.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But then you've also been talking about other 40k fans who apparently don't consider other games. Like I said above, which way around is it?
As I literally stated in my post, it's only a fraction of the 40k fans (really cultists) that won't consider other games. It's not 100% one or the other. Go back and read it again if it's hard for you.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And some people hate on the brand to the point it becomes their only personality trait. But we don't judge everyone in the hobby by a minority, do we?
People will continue to hate on the brand with increasing intensity as long as senseless supporters keep denying that there's a problem.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'd say it's accessible. Strong pop culture awareness, strong branding, multiple smaller entry points (a la Kill Team or just playing smaller games with free rules and in-kit rules) and snap-fit kits to get started. I don't know, perhaps you only consider the game at the 2k level to be "The Game", but playing at 25PL or 50PL is a totally legitimate way of playing, and is a pretty accessible point of entry. When you're playing the core of the game and not actively trying to break it, it's perfectly adequate, and the only real purchase that gets updated are the Codexes, which can by bypassed by playing with in-built datasheets if you're that new to the hobby.
I'd disagree that "pop culture awareness" and branding are meaningful components of accessibility. That's just people being programmed to think of GW as the be-all end-all of miniature wargaming, buying into their corporate-speak that equates their company with the hobby itself.
Also worth noting that when you're playing the core game and not actively trying to break it, Primaris are insanely dominant. Which you might think as a plus, but to any sane gamer, it's a negative.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Again, that's still not objective, and divorces the gameplay from the listbuilding. One could argue that listbuilding IS part of the gameplay - which calls into question what the "gameplay" truly means. As far as I'm concerned, stratagems, command points, even detachments are additions to the core gameplay system.
And as far as reality is concerned, you'd be wrong. Listbuilding is functionally part of the gameplay, you're right - but making it more important than actions on the table is bad play, as it creates a bunch of unnecessary activity (the actual act of playing the game) which is just timewasting.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Please, enlighten me then. Give me these objective truths on why some games MUST be better. You make such a big deal of it, but I've yet to see anything.
One of the big things I just mentioned; that is, forcing players to make choices for which there is only one right answer and spend time on activities in which no meaningful decisions are made.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry, are you claiming that being contemptuous and self-important is arguing in good faith? Are you claiming that trivialising domestic abuse is an argument in good faith?
Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, and trying to make that association is peak woke corporate servility. I'm not being contemptuous or self-important, I'm just calling it like it is. If that rubs you the wrong way, because confronting the sunk cost fallacy of 40k makes you anxious, that's a personal problem.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Oh wow, I'm allowed to like how things look now! How generous! I'm just not allowed to like the gameplay, is that it?
You can like whatever you want, it just reflects on you. 40k's aesthetics are much better than its rules quality.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Actually, you do still need to mention that domestic abuse thing. I'd love to hear you elaborate on how you trivialised that topic.
You're the one who's faking caring about the topic in the hopes of winning an environment. Cynically exploiting that and attempting to go crying to the authorities, such as they are, is a much more grievous breach of common decency than anything I've done here.
Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, ...
It absolutely is. You're drawing a comparison between the countless numbers of women who suffer from domestic violence, and people wanting to play a game with toy soldiers. It's insensitive and completely lacking in any sort of logical perspective. That's not 'woke corporate servility'... it's the viewpoint of someone who grew up in an abusive household and finds it rather disgusting and disappointing that so many people seem incapable of comprehending just how damaging it is to peoples' lives, and are so quick to dismiss consideration for others as some sort of 'woke' agenda. There is no valid comparison between domestic violence and a company that makes toy soldiers doing so in a way that you don't approve of. Don't do this.
Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, ...
It absolutely is. You're drawing a comparison between the countless numbers of women who suffer from domestic violence, and people wanting to play a game with toy soldiers. It's insensitive and completely lacking in any sort of logical perspective. That's not 'woke corporate servility'... it's the viewpoint of someone who grew up in an abusive household and finds it rather disgusting and disappointing that so many people seem incapable of comprehending just how damaging it is to peoples' lives, and are so quick to dismiss consideration for others as some sort of 'woke' agenda. There is no valid comparison between domestic violence and a company that makes toy soldiers doing so in a way that you don't approve of. Don't do this.
Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, ...
It absolutely is. You're drawing a comparison between the countless numbers of women who suffer from domestic violence, and people wanting to play a game with toy soldiers. It's insensitive and completely lacking in any sort of logical perspective. That's not 'woke corporate servility'... it's the viewpoint of someone who grew up in an abusive household and finds it rather disgusting and disappointing that so many people seem incapable of comprehending just how damaging it is to peoples' lives, and are so quick to dismiss consideration for others as some sort of 'woke' agenda. There is no valid comparison between domestic violence and a company that makes toy soldiers doing so in a way that you don't approve of. Don't do this.
As an abuse victim myself, I find your opinion patronizing, insulting, and monstrous. I dismissed woke corporatism, which is the opposite of social justice, instead being the trappings of that performatively cannibalized for the sake of capitalism.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Didn't you literally just make a big deal about how you couldn't get 40k players to play other games because they were so brainwashed?
Note this part:
Me wrote:I don't see this from everyone, but mainly the people who manage 3rd party stores that sell it or who are otherwise deeply invested in it.
My playgroup does just fine. Again, you're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'd say go back and take a look at my posts.
I dunno, your posts very much read like "I try and convince all these 40k players to play but they're just dumb and servile", and you've not exactly shown that you don't hold those beliefs about 40k players.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: You say these games are great, but they're categorically unpopular with the "servile" 40k lot.
And the popularity ratio of the two has very little to do with the quality of the game.
I'd argue otherwise. It might not be a quality that appeals to you, but it must be a quality to them.
In this case, the "appeal" to the people I'm talking about has nothing to do with the quality of the game or the minis. Some people have crap taste, that's just a fact.
Who made you Taste Police?
Some people might have bad taste *according to you*. That doesn't make it a fact. Please understand this before you say the word "fact" or "objectively" again.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: But then you've also been talking about other 40k fans who apparently don't consider other games. Like I said above, which way around is it?
As I literally stated in my post, it's only a fraction of the 40k fans (really cultists) that won't consider other games. It's not 100% one or the other. Go back and read it again if it's hard for you.
If it's only a fraction, then how can GW be said to have a monopoly, which was the main gist of this?
Is it wrong that a fraction of people simply have a different taste to you? Is it enough to scream and shout about brainwashing, when it's far more likely that your tastes don't define those of other people?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: And some people hate on the brand to the point it becomes their only personality trait. But we don't judge everyone in the hobby by a minority, do we?
People will continue to hate on the brand with increasing intensity as long as senseless supporters keep denying that there's a problem.
If they don't see a problem, can they be blamed for it?
I'm not blind enough to say that GW is flawless, but many of these "objective problems", well, aren't objective.
I'd disagree that "pop culture awareness" and branding are meaningful components of accessibility. That's just people being programmed to think of GW as the be-all end-all of miniature wargaming, buying into their corporate-speak that equates their company with the hobby itself.
I disagree. Being able to create an IP and a brand that are recognisable is a pretty good feature of accessibility, as it elicits feelings of familiarity and of brand recognition and security. You call this brainwashing. I call it part of the design which all games, to some degree, engage in.
Some do it better than others.
Also worth noting that when you're playing the core game and not actively trying to break it, Primaris are insanely dominant. Which you might think as a plus, but to any sane gamer, it's a negative.
I've not found my Primaris to be that insanely dominant. But then, I build my lists in a very "GW-like" manner, which is very little repetition of units and a mixed range of models.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Again, that's still not objective, and divorces the gameplay from the listbuilding. One could argue that listbuilding IS part of the gameplay - which calls into question what the "gameplay" truly means. As far as I'm concerned, stratagems, command points, even detachments are additions to the core gameplay system.
And as far as reality is concerned, you'd be wrong. Listbuilding is functionally part of the gameplay, you're right - but making it more important than actions on the table is bad play, as it creates a bunch of unnecessary activity (the actual act of playing the game) which is just timewasting.
Sounds awfully subjective there - which is fine, you're entitled to those opinions! You can dislike the role list building has, but that still doesn't make it *objectively* bad.
I hate to harp on about it, but you're not using "objectively" right here.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Please, enlighten me then. Give me these objective truths on why some games MUST be better. You make such a big deal of it, but I've yet to see anything.
One of the big things I just mentioned; that is, forcing players to make choices for which there is only one right answer and spend time on activities in which no meaningful decisions are made.
But there isn't an "only one right answer" system, that's an exaggeration on your part. In fact, claiming that "no meaningful decisions are made" is simply untrue as well. You might not perceive it as that, but you also seem like someone who outright doesn't like listbuilding. Therefore, it's just not your tastes - which is fine.
But objective it ain't.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry, are you claiming that being contemptuous and self-important is arguing in good faith? Are you claiming that trivialising domestic abuse is an argument in good faith?
Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, and trying to make that association is peak woke corporate servility. I'm not being contemptuous or self-important, I'm just calling it like it is. If that rubs you the wrong way, because confronting the sunk cost fallacy of 40k makes you anxious, that's a personal problem.
Insaniak said all I had to say on this matter, suffice to say, that attitude right there is genuinely sickening.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Oh wow, I'm allowed to like how things look now! How generous! I'm just not allowed to like the gameplay, is that it?
You can like whatever you want, it just reflects on you. 40k's aesthetics are much better than its rules quality.
Again, back to subjectivity again.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Actually, you do still need to mention that domestic abuse thing. I'd love to hear you elaborate on how you trivialised that topic.
You're the one who's faking caring about the topic in the hopes of winning an environment. Cynically exploiting that and attempting to go crying to the authorities, such as they are, is a much more grievous breach of common decency than anything I've done here.
Whew boy, that's a doozy! "I'm so incapable of empathy that the only possible reason someone would call me out on a tasteless comparison to domestic abuse and violence is because they want internet points!"
Like, genuinely, yikes. I'd take a step back from the keyboard and have a good long look in the mirror, and really think about what you just said.
Making an analogy to an abuse victim is not trivializing domestic abuse, ...
It absolutely is. You're drawing a comparison between the countless numbers of women who suffer from domestic violence, and people wanting to play a game with toy soldiers. It's insensitive and completely lacking in any sort of logical perspective. That's not 'woke corporate servility'... it's the viewpoint of someone who grew up in an abusive household and finds it rather disgusting and disappointing that so many people seem incapable of comprehending just how damaging it is to peoples' lives, and are so quick to dismiss consideration for others as some sort of 'woke' agenda. There is no valid comparison between domestic violence and a company that makes toy soldiers doing so in a way that you don't approve of. Don't do this.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Whew boy, that's a doozy! "I'm so incapable of empathy that the only possible reason someone would call me out on a tasteless comparison to domestic abuse and violence is because they want internet points!"
Like, genuinely, yikes. I'd take a step back from the keyboard and have a good long look in the mirror, and really think about what you just said.
GW's metaphorical boots should be shiny enough at this point that you could do the same.
I never said GW was a monopoly, so, again, stop putting words in my mouth. All you've got is lies, misrepresentation, and bad-faith arguments.
Hecaton wrote:I dismissed woke corporatism, which is the opposite of social justice, instead being the trappings of that performatively cannibalized for the sake of capitalism.
And I suppose you also "objectively" know what's performative?
You chose to compare the relationship between GW and their customers to genuine full on domestic abuse, unapologetically. You didn't have to. You could have literally chosen any other analogy, but you chose to trivialise abuse. Don't you dare gaslight me into thinking that's my problem.
Hecaton wrote:GW's metaphorical boots should be shiny enough at this point that you could do the same.
Even if I look back in the mirror, I know I didn't trivialise domestic abuse. You, unfortunately, can't say the same.
I never said GW was a monopoly, so, again, stop putting words in my mouth.
I never said *you* did. I said that was the gist of the topic before this, not that you said it.
All you've got is lies, misrepresentation, and bad-faith arguments.
insaniak wrote: This isn't going anywhere productive, guys. How about you both just take a breather and see if the thread actually has any other life in it?
For everyone else - let's see if we can wander back to the actual topic, if there still is one, please.
Thanks insaniak, for both interventions.
Personally I'm happy to pay a premium for plastic characters, especially the more idiosyncratic ones like the Tallyman and the GSC ones, if the alternatives are a) we wouldn't get them, or not so many of them, or b) they'd come in metal or resin.
Actual topic - GW does charges a premium because, quite frankly, they can. That's not to say that people can't customise their own heroes, or that all hero sculpts are bad now (I see plenty of excellent conversions of the Primaris stuff) but yes, they're getting pricey. However, picking up extra HQ bodies doesn't seem to be super hard when you factor in things like the bundle packs, where the discount is usually enough to completely remove the cost the HQ model. The various Start Collecting boxes are great for this, as are things like the Indomitus stuff.
So, if you're buying individual HQs, maybe? But there's plenty of ways to get around the price, either by picking them up from discounted boxes, resales from said discounted boxes, or converting. Its definitely egregious on non-unique heroes, sure, but on something like Calgar which you only need one of, it's not unreasonable to me.
For better or worse GW is what it is and charges what it charges. EVERYONE knows their gak is premium priced.. Wether its worth it or not is purely subjective.. Is this really a debate?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Actual topic - GW does charges a premium because, quite frankly, they can. That's not to say that people can't customise their own heroes, or that all hero sculpts are bad now (I see plenty of excellent conversions of the Primaris stuff) but yes, they're getting pricey.
However, picking up extra HQ bodies doesn't seem to be super hard when you factor in things like the bundle packs, where the discount is usually enough to completely remove the cost the HQ model. The various Start Collecting boxes are great for this, as are things like the Indomitus stuff.
Only star collecting boxs for a lot of factions came with models no one wanted, and that is assuming a faction actualy has a start collecting box. Indomitus was a great box too, sadly GW forgot to split them in a more fair way, so some parts of the world have left over boxs at their stores, while other didn't get enough to cover even the base local needs, not to mention maxing out specific unit options.
But you are right people aren't taking it, and this way we get so many HQ options being in resin.
I won't lie, the detail of their premium sculpts look great in glass, as opposed to say, WizKids DND models, which look well, cheap and it really needs a good artist to make it look decent. GW models have defined features, and trinkets. Their premium models are even more so. Take Trajaan or any other Chapter Master-esque sculpt, now compare that to a basic trooper. They are worth the added cost.
And I'm not convinced there's a lot of a difference. Of course, Trajan is also only twice as expensive as a normal Allarus, so he's actually positively cheap by GW standards. Look at a Primaris Lieutenant vs a Primaris squad - you're paying 5x as much for the character as a normal.
They do charge more for characters, and it's smart of them to do so, because people who pay that much will be antagonistic towards people who convert said characters, even if it's a high-quality conversion. It fuels the fires of passive consumerism.
GW has a problem of its own making that costumers are left paying for. Having made a fuss of goin from metal to not so finecast, GW cannot go back to metal for cheaper molds on low volume products, likewise it cannot use resin due to finecast's tarnished reputation and the smaller fuss about its move to plastic.
Let me see what, say Artel "W" chargers for a character vs GW. If I consider their offerings comparable, then the price difference must be a tax for the privilege of owning an officially sanctioned model. That does not encourage me to by GW's miniature as the perceived value comes from the rules requiring official components, not the miniatures innate quality.
Everyone, we get no where fast attacking each other on GWs behalf. I don't think people who buy or play the game are wrong ( I do such when I can, which hasn't been much lately. )
That said, I think we all know why GW gets such a pass. Market placement as a Market leader. Saturation of product and size of foot print makes it hold lots of things that appeal to gamers. Aside from the hobby aspect.
We have all I am sure picked up other games just for those we got into it with to fall away, be very fickle or just poof away. We all have jumped into a game been like " this is nice " but maybe been the only one feeling that way.
Love it or hate it, GWs size place it at the forefront, steady availability of opponents to play with keep it rolling forward. It needs to do little more than keep churning out content and it will keep moving as the inertia keep it pressing forward, currently.
I, personally, don't think anyone is dumb for playing it, we all have friends and memories and drives that keep most of us in the game.
What we need to do less is attack each other on either side and/or fight to the death for a company that couldn't really care less about any of us.They aren't our friends, owe us nothing and really just view us as money on legs.
GW charges these huge prices and eventually it'll bite them, like it or not our generations are going to head to the sunset and most kids don't really care about stuff like this. They'll need to eventually find a path that isn't just milking the whales each new release. In the mean time it's each of our choices to buy in or not but at the least not hate each other over our stances on it. Honestly, while the friends I've made and memories I have while playing warhammer are priceless the company of GW isn't worth my respect I give to others or the respect I have for myself. So lets not fall into the trap and point fingers at each other. We are the reason this game ends up even for a moment good, despite GWs fleecing, ham fisted rules and asinine choices.If it thrives its because of us, as a game is nothing without a community.
Hecaton wrote: They do charge more for characters, and it's smart of them to do so, because people who pay that much will be antagonistic towards people who convert said characters, even if it's a high-quality conversion. It fuels the fires of passive consumerism.
I've NEVER heard of anyone doing that. I buy many of my HQs buy I don't get upset if I see someone with a conversion. I say "cool conversion man, how'd you do it" I've also converted stuff myself mind you (I once bought a pack of ETB intercessors specificly so I could then build 2 Leuitenants and a captain from bits in a multipart intercessor kit)
I'm quite convinced that for many HQs, it is an actual issue of cost vs expected sales.
I'm also quite convinced that on some kits this isn't true and they just use the customer's expected price of the HQ to rake in a huge margin on that specific model. SM Lts being the prime suspects in this.
They don't raise prices on non-character kits if they think they'll sell less, so I dunno why they would be doing it with characters only.
GW prices based on model count, role, and, to some degree, points cost. I haven't seen any evidence that expected sales come into it at all. They just don't make something in the first place if they'd have to price it even higher than their normal eye-watering levels to turn a profit.
BrianDavion wrote: I've NEVER heard of anyone doing that. I buy many of my HQs buy I don't get upset if I see someone with a conversion. I say "cool conversion man, how'd you do it" I've also converted stuff myself mind you (I once bought a pack of ETB intercessors specificly so I could then build 2 Leuitenants and a captain from bits in a multipart intercessor kit)
I've seen it. I wish I had pictures. My area blackshirt would get snippy with this 13 yo kid who would convert his Dark Angels characters out of other things - they looked good, but not all of them had cowls/robes/etc.
Hecaton wrote: They do charge more for characters, and it's smart of them to do so, because people who pay that much will be antagonistic towards people who convert said characters, even if it's a high-quality conversion. It fuels the fires of passive consumerism.
That antagonism? It's just jealousy & shame when they realize that they paid GW $35 for a single dude with a power sword & pistol & I matched it for a fraction.
Spoletta wrote: I'm quite convinced that for many HQs, it is an actual issue of cost vs expected sales.
I'm also quite convinced that on some kits this isn't true and they just use the customer's expected price of the HQ to rake in a huge margin on that specific model. SM Lts being the prime suspects in this.
Yeah, that was the same with CSM sorcerers a few years back. They went from being around 15$ to 20$, then they took another price hike up to 30$. But when it comes to characters, especially named ones. You get these weird instances where they will most definitely not add up to he price that they are marked for in some cases. Or GW will flood the market with special editions, like that GK Chaplin that got released a while back.
Which only serves to throw everyone off even more.
there is a reason why some Special Characters are released together with a box of old models
the issue with costs vs sales is solved by GW to use other molds for those frames that are expected be low sales
they made a big deal of that in the past to use Aluminium instead of Steel, which limits the number of models that can be made by a lot but also just cost a 10th of a steel mold to make
this is also a reason why some models are OOP after the initial run, as after the initial casting the mold is gone and it is not worth to make another one
other companies don't have this possibility and therfore use other materials that are better suited for smaller numbers (White Metal or Resin)
but you still pay the Premium price for this single models
you don't need to be afraid that the margin of single model frames is any different as for the normal boxes
BrianDavion wrote: I've NEVER heard of anyone doing that. I buy many of my HQs buy I don't get upset if I see someone with a conversion. I say "cool conversion man, how'd you do it" I've also converted stuff myself mind you (I once bought a pack of ETB intercessors specificly so I could then build 2 Leuitenants and a captain from bits in a multipart intercessor kit)
I've seen it. I wish I had pictures. My area blackshirt would get snippy with this 13 yo kid who would convert his Dark Angels characters out of other things - they looked good, but not all of them had cowls/robes/etc.
Those people you described are typical TFGs that should be avoided at all cost.
And by that logic should anyone who owns an expensive army like GSC, orks, tyranids, etc be hostile against SM, custodes, IK players because those guys saved hundreds to collect their armies?
Blackie, i found, that many of the more human like factions that are massed tend to search for 3rd parties themselves. The cadians simply suck at this stage and the prices GW demands for "basic humie with pseudo insignia" is ridiculous.
Also they often end up beeing cheaper then the formerly named elite factions that way.
Hecaton wrote: They do charge more for characters, and it's smart of them to do so, because people who pay that much will be antagonistic towards people who convert said characters, even if it's a high-quality conversion. It fuels the fires of passive consumerism.
I think this is quite accurate with some people, people feel foolish for having spent so much for a character.
I actually think this applies to 40k as a whole. There's a sense of "I spent £30, so you should have to too".
A sentiment I often see in places online is along the lines of "if you can't afford to spend this kind of money, you shouldn't play 40k", which is an attitude that disgusts me. Honestly, I wish 2d sprite miniatures were acceptable and not frowned upon.
In my community it is pretty normal to show up with converted miniatures and nobody making a fuss about it.
Especially a Marine kitbash where you can basically interchange the whole range with each other.
Sounds weird that somebody would criticize another player for it. The reason being that somebody got their conversion cheaper than the original is even weirder to me.
Getting some specific bits can get expensive really quick, actually.
I'm relatively certain that a person with that kind of attitude to other players would not be welcomed for long in our gaming club.
The thing with conversions that I often notice the price of the conversion is taken into account for how "good" it is.
If you bought a Veteran kit and kitbashed them with a few other odds and sods to build 5 Space Marine Characters those are considered lazy.
But if you bought two actual characters and kitbashed them into one, that's a great conversion.
Sure the latter will most likely look better, but I find the idea that conversions are always encouraged regardless of source to generally be false. The sentiment of "it's all about making your own characters" doesn't seem to apply in the real world.
I remember when I was younger I bought one Sanguinary Guard kit and used it to build a Chaplain, a Librarian, a Captain, a Sanguinary Priest, and a Sanguinary Guard Banner (Ancients weren't a bespoke thing). The Games workshop where I played wouldn't allow it.
But once I bought a Chaplain character and split the parts 50/50 between the above Chaplain and Librarian, both were now legit and awesome conversions.
kirotheavenger wrote: The thing with conversions that I often notice the price of the conversion is taken into account for how "good" it is.
If you bought a Veteran kit and kitbashed them with a few other odds and sods to build 5 Space Marine Characters those are considered lazy.
But if you bought two actual characters and kitbashed them into one, that's a great conversion.
Sure the latter will most likely look better, but I find the idea that conversions are always encouraged regardless of source to generally be false. The sentiment of "it's all about making your own characters" doesn't seem to apply in the real world.
I remember when I was younger I bought one Sanguinary Guard kit and used it to build a Chaplain, a Librarian, a Captain, a Sanguinary Priest, and a Sanguinary Guard Banner (Ancients weren't a bespoke thing). The Games workshop where I played wouldn't allow it.
But once I bought a Chaplain character and split the parts 50/50 between the above Chaplain and Librarian, both were now legit and awesome conversions.
Lol
what a typicall GW gakky attitude.
The cost means jack all. And a good or even great conversion can cost more or less as there should never be a reason to include cost in regards to the endproduct.
Shame really, considering how much GW did encourage Conversion work and that it was one of the reasons as to why 40k thrived early.
Hecaton wrote: They do charge more for characters, and it's smart of them to do so, because people who pay that much will be antagonistic towards people who convert said characters, even if it's a high-quality conversion. It fuels the fires of passive consumerism.
I think this is quite accurate with some people, people feel foolish for having spent so much for a character.
I actually think this applies to 40k as a whole. There's a sense of "I spent £30, so you should have to too".
A sentiment I often see in places online is along the lines of "if you can't afford to spend this kind of money, you shouldn't play 40k", which is an attitude that disgusts me. Honestly, I wish 2d sprite miniatures were acceptable and not frowned upon.
To be fair, there's a gradient here. And it's different for everyone. I doubt that xharicature is anything other than a tiny minority.
Theres a difference between clever conversions that show creativity and even save a few quid, and being cheap.
I put in time and effort into buying, building and painting my army. Some lazy gakker turns up with a barely build unpainted grey tide, coke cans for drop pods, both rhinos are predators and this gi joe is marneus calgar.
I don't feel 'foolish' for putting time effort and money into my hobby which I enjoy, and while I certainly won't preach as to the 'right' way to enjoy one's time, there is a point where I will think less of folks for their approach especially in a shared experience. There is a point where cutting corners becomes cheeky and even disrespectful to others and cuts down on the shared enjoyment.
Folks will always be welcome in my eyes, but sooner or later, that kids gotta buck up and put some effort in like the rest of us.
also regarding conversions, at least they're more encouraged in gw land. In warmachine there was indifference if not outright hostility towards anything other than the 'official' model...
kirotheavenger wrote: The thing with conversions that I often notice the price of the conversion is taken into account for how "good" it is.
If you bought a Veteran kit and kitbashed them with a few other odds and sods to build 5 Space Marine Characters those are considered lazy.
But if you bought two actual characters and kitbashed them into one, that's a great conversion.
Sure the latter will most likely look better, but I find the idea that conversions are always encouraged regardless of source to generally be false. The sentiment of "it's all about making your own characters" doesn't seem to apply in the real world.
Again, with that attitude in mind people should antagonize guys playing with armies that come mostly if not entirely from starter sets as they're extremely cheap compared to anything else. Should those players be considered lazy as well?
For better or worse GW is what it is and charges what it charges. EVERYONE knows their gak is premium priced.. Wether its worth it or not is purely subjective..
Is this really a debate?
This is the long and short of it. It's a premium product (whether you believe that or not), and it's priced accordingly. There is nothing else to it.
kirotheavenger wrote: The thing with conversions that I often notice the price of the conversion is taken into account for how "good" it is.
If you bought a Veteran kit and kitbashed them with a few other odds and sods to build 5 Space Marine Characters those are considered lazy.
But if you bought two actual characters and kitbashed them into one, that's a great conversion.
Sure the latter will most likely look better, but I find the idea that conversions are always encouraged regardless of source to generally be false. The sentiment of "it's all about making your own characters" doesn't seem to apply in the real world.
Again, with that attitude in mind people should antagonize guys playing with armies that come mostly if not entirely from starter sets as they're extremely cheap compared to anything else. Should those players be considered lazy as well?
No. I think playing with 2d sprite models should be 100% legit.
I'm just relaying what I've seen - non-official models taken partly or entirely as cheaper alternatives are sometimes looked down upon. And I don't think it's a niche attitude.
No. I think playing with 2d sprite models should be 100% legit.
I'm just relaying what I've seen - non-official models taken partly or entirely as cheaper alternatives are sometimes looked down upon. And I don't think it's a niche attitude.
Thankfully I never experienced that attitude, and ALL my armies are (or were, as I sold one) full of conversions. Like 25ish vehicles/artillery/walkers entirely made in plasticard plus bitz, 5-6 characters made from nobz, my flash gitz are all out of much cheaper (and way better looking) nobz, grotesques/talos/wracks converted from cheaper plastic bodies (still 100% GW though), green stuff and bitz, and all my SW characters except Njal are regular power armour dudes or TWC with additional bitz to enlighten them. All my conversions are WYSIWYG and with the appropriate dimensions though.
I may accept complaints about dimensions and loadouts, but about the cost of the model hell no. Eventually I'd ask those f***ing guys how much their entire collection is worth, and if it ends up cheaper than mine, which is actually easy as orks are expensive even with lots of scratch built stuff, I'd look down upon them as well.
You quite often see armies in White Dwarf or on the Community site that include 'counts as' style conversions and replacements
As long as it's not Coke can drop pods or the like people should experience no difficulties. This is a made-up problem.
i feel like if GW just lowered the prices and instead focused more on lowering cost of entry to below $100 in models at least for a 500pt starterbox and trying to sell each kit to 10x the number of people or convincing peopel to buy more of each kit, they would make a lot of money. Idk maybe people want multiple factions of the same army so they buy more models because they can now afford to express interest in a different faction. Maybe just me, but i feel like they are self-harming by raising cost of entry past $100 usd and not trying to market the kits to people who just simply wanna have kits to build and put on their shelf next to an tamiya m1a1 abrams, trumpeter yamato battleship, and revell 747 as a display piece, and not like a wargame model.
Cynista wrote: I'm not overly annoyed about character pricing. Yes, they charge a premium, but that is to be expected from GW and they have always done it. What does grind my gears is when they charge an eye watering amount for a squad of 5 dudes, who may only be slightly different looking than another box that's much cheaper and in game are cheap in terms of points.
I expect that the new Flayed Ones, still yet to be released, will follow this pattern
No, characters have not aways been overpriced. As I said pages back, my metal Company Master was $15 when I bought him, as was my FailCast Librarian.
And you don't think that is overpriced relative to non characters and adjusted for inflation? Because it is. It might be worse now, but this has always been a thing.
For better or worse GW is what it is and charges what it charges. EVERYONE knows their gak is premium priced.. Wether its worth it or not is purely subjective..
Is this really a debate?
This is the long and short of it. It's a premium product (whether you believe that or not), and it's priced accordingly. There is nothing else to it.
Some of it certainly is too expensive.
Some of it I can part my hard earned $$ for...
The idea that a kitbashed model is lesser than a regular one is a very foreign concept to me.
I get the reasoning behind WYSIWYG, and I would very much prefer a painted model and basically give a person a game or two with incomplete built models. But I wouldn't think anything of kitbashing one as lesser (well, maybe sprue crons) Especially character models. Those models can be expensive.
By and large, I get the character models despite the expense. I typically don't pay RRP looking for times and places to get a discount. However, I don't often kitbash them because I don't much care for building models in general and usually find converting/kitbashing a necessary evil to have more unique looking figures. I don't usually want to spend extra time and effort at the building phase when I want to get to the painting phase. So the 'premium' priced characters often work better for me. Not to mention, I generally like the look of how GW does the vanilla versions of their models. I won't deny that maybe I'm boring that way.
Still, I find it kinda hard to comprehend why anyone would care about how much their opponent did or didn't spend on their character models. Seems petty at best, and I don't want to mention what I think it means at worst.
Most of my characters are out of boxed sets (where the sheer mass of other stuff mitigates their 'on their own' cost) or they're _old_.
I've been going through my orks recently, and the characters that aren't Black Reach Warbosses are all metal. Mek with SAG, Mek with KFF, Weirdboy, Warboss w/ Big Choppa, an old Nob with Waaagh banner. All five metal characters might not have cost me $50 new.
For the newer stuff... if I can't find them in a boxed set, I just don't bother. Not going to pay $30-35 for one infantry model.
" social media presence and people were eating out of their hands in droves. Nothing really stepped up - the rules are still bad (except for that five minutes in 8th where everything was so bare bone it actually worked), the prices are still eye watering, the fluff got even worse, the difference now is they 'engage' with the community (IE less soulless marketing) and... uhhhh, well the release schedule intensified dramatically and impulse control seems to be at a minimum among hobbyists these days, so there's that.
