I what’s thought that GW were quite expensive, certainly the cost of a 2k point army and the codex seems painful when you first enter the hobby, I think.

It I’ve been looking at expanding my horizons and compared to some other minis and games I’ve seen GW start to look fairly priced, especially when you look at the combat patrol boxes and other box sets that deliver real value.

Marvel crisis protocol seems to be 30-40 pounds for one mini, and some fallout minis I’ve seen are the same price for a 5 model unit.

I don’t think there’s another game out there that can beat 40K for scale but it looks like GW can’t be beaten in price either. Or am I looking at the wrong things? I suppose marvel and fallout are big brands that are used to charging a lot for their paraphernalia.

No, you aren't missing anything. GW's prices per model are pretty average and the only companies that beat them by a significant margin are the ones selling low-quality ripoffs of GW at bargain prices, where their only selling point is being cheap. The reason GW has a cost issue is the total price of the game, not the per-model cost. A single MCP model may be expensive but you only ever need a handful of models. 40k, on the other hand, is pretty much unplayable below 1500-2000 points and you need a ton of models to get to that level. The only real option to play a 40k game for less than $500-1000 is Kill Team and that's still a different game with completely different rules even if it uses the same models.

Eh. Price is one thing. Value is another.

Whilst the cost of a new army, from scratch, can be eye watering? As you said you can find somewhat cheaper ways to build it up if you don’t mind your overall options being more restricted.

But that’s merely the cost.

If like me, you’re still buying but haven’t actually played in years due to outside pressures? It can be hard to say you’re getting the same value as someone who gets in regular games.

As an example of what I’m wibbling about? And do keep in mind the following numbers are freshly plucked from my backside and for illustrative purposes.

Let’s say your army costs you £400. That’s a fair old wedge of money in just about anyones book.

But, if you’re painting it to play it? That’s a good few hours of entertainment right there.

Even if you’re a Tinboy (someone who doesn’t paint their armies)? Let’s say you play once a week, and your game takes around 2 hours.

Over the space of a year, that’s 104 hours.

We then take the £400 benchmark, presented solely for illustrative purposes and should not be taken as a solid, informed figure, and divide that by the Tinboy’s 104 hours of gaming,

£3.84 “hourly cost”. That’s…less than a pint. Less than seeing a movie. Way less than even a meal out at McDonalds, if you can really count their muck as food.

Hell, it’s not far off a Tesco Meal Deal these days.

And the more you play, or the longer the games (I went with possibly understated timings) the cheaper that sort-of hourly rate becomes.

Now of course, if you feel the need, compulsion, requirement, necessity etc of keeping on top of the meta, you’re of course going to be spending more. Either buying new units to swap in and out (also valid just for adding variety to your games and lists) or entirely fresh armies. So that will effect it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Hell, it’s not far off a Tesco Meal Deal these days.

The real crime here.

Hmm plastic historicals certainly offer more bang for your buck on value and Stargrave and Wargames Atlantic both offer reasonable prize miniatures at decent quality for far less than GW.

mrFickle wrote:
I what’s thought that GW were quite expensive, certainly the cost of a 2k point army and the codex seems painful when you first enter the hobby, I think.

It I’ve been looking at expanding my horizons and compared to some other minis and games I’ve seen GW start to look fairly priced, especially when you look at the combat patrol boxes and other box sets that deliver real value.

Marvel crisis protocol seems to be 30-40 pounds for one mini, and some fallout minis I’ve seen are the same price for a 5 model unit.

I don’t think there’s another game out there that can beat 40K for scale but it looks like GW can’t be beaten in price either. Or am I looking at the wrong things? I suppose marvel and fallout are big brands that are used to charging a lot for their paraphernalia.

Honestly it depends. Gw can cost you as much as you want to put in. AndThere are ways of approaching the hobby that are less burdensome than others. That's the hobbyb in general though, inclusive of gw.

There is cost.

And there is value.

To me, price paid isn't a fair metric. You have e to look at it in thr following ways:

Initial buy-in.
Scale-up.
Upkeep and maintenance.
Ancillaries.

Where gw has made marked improvements since the kirby era is the initial buy-in. Since 'betrayal at calth' they've made some excellent 'starter' sets and bundles. Especially with their new focus on skirmish games (necromunda, kill.team, warcry etc) the initial buy in is affordable and doesn't necessarily need huge additional spending afterwards.

And it's never been easier to buy into the 40k stable of games. You often see '£100 buy-in' and it is fairly true if you consider games like kill-team and necromunda. Compared to other skirmishes it's not out of line.

The 'scale-up' is where it can get pricy. Getting to 2000pts will cost you a bit and when compared to the plethora of skirmish games out their (including gw's) its more pricey. That said bigger games cost more. When i played wmh properly Privateer presses (mk2 now...) format for tournaments was 50pts/ 2-lists. Now you could take the same units/Jacks and swap out a caster or two different builds. But then youre open to being hard-countered. Most golks took 2 lists that didnt nevessarily share a lit of conponents. I took vlad3's charge of the horselords theme list with cost me a few hundred alongside butcher3 and double black dragons (when they were metal). Yeah my lists cost a lot. And they're not unique though it must be noted that there were plenty 2-list builds that weren't as obnoxious to your wallet.

Upkeep and maintenance is where the 2000pt or gtfo approach falls down hard to the point where the 'scale-up' eventually gets dwarfed by upkeep. If youre chasing meta lists and buying new stuff every month to keep up, new codices/rulebooks etc even with selling old stuff it'll cost you a packet. Buying the frequent new codices and rulebooks itself is a not-insignificant price. While other games lists will change over time as well and force new purchases (very few people were playing the same lists at the start of wmh mk3 as they were at the end as well...) other companies like pp, corvus beli etc are a lot better at providing free rules, free updates or limiting the cost of rules. There is also the argument with 40k/mitigating approaches that you don't need to play at the highest churniest level that forces this nor do you need to keep abreast of the latest rules. play 4th ed if that's what makes you happy. We use 95cromunda. Or just play your 4th ed models in the current era.

Ancillary stuff can cost a bit too. But I'm not getting into paint and scalpels here.

It's not so much about cost as value. Your models might cost you pennies but leave your soul cold. £30 for ten plastic dudes sounds ridiculous but I spend a few hours painting each dude and I have my whole life to game with them. I've spent more on some video games that were done after a few hours and with zero replayability. And the models you like are the models you like. Since 2018 probably 80+% of the models I've painted and games played have been gw's (add some wmh and infinity models too). I just really enjoy them. And thereafter nothing wrong with that. So from my pov, yes thr cost is high but so is the value. Ymmv.

And other companies are certainly not better (though you can get great deals on historical kits like with victrix).

Looking at warmachine mk4 (kind of reboot/new edition) as an example, Privateer Press basically nuked their entire back catalogue in terms of legality (outside of a 'legacy' format the conpetitives are absolutely adamant won't get played ever). The starters for the 'new' factions are close to $200 for something like 2 dreads and 20-ish infantry. Factor in brexit and its about that in pounds. Its extraordinary. Absolutely eye watering. And it's not pp's first dalliance with ridiculous price points (looking at you everblight chosen) though in fairness the lousy exchange rate is a big part of it.

GW is good value, especially for troops. I commonly use GW models as alternative models for my Warmachine armies to save as much as 50% of the original (Privateer Press) price.

Characters are way too much, but I have rarely seen actual character models used for generic characters -it mostly has been kitbashed troopers.

mrFickle wrote:
Marvel crisis protocol seems to be 30-40 pounds for one mini, and some fallout minis I’ve seen are the same price for a 5 model unit.

Sci-fi/fantasy IPs tend to command similar prices to GW, it's true. The difference is that if you buy a pack of five models for Fallout, that's enough to field a small game or can be added to another box to have a complete force. In 40K, you buy a 30-40 pound box of troops and you're nowhere near being able to play the game. Meanwhile in historical-land some games also require large armies, but the models are generally cheap as chips.

So if you're just buying models to paint, yeah, GW gives you a decent value as far as minis go. Some things are not so great- GW's tanks and walkers can't hold a candle to historical tank kits or gunpla- but something like a Kill Team set is about the industry price for its level of quality.

It's the buy-in for a 'standard' 2K game that's pretty extreme, which GW seems to recognize, given the focus placed on smaller games and escalation systems (eg Crusade) in 8th and 9th.

 catbarf wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
Marvel crisis protocol seems to be 30-40 pounds for one mini, and some fallout minis I’ve seen are the same price for a 5 model unit.

Sci-fi/fantasy IPs tend to command similar prices to GW, it's true. The difference is that if you buy a pack of five models for Fallout, that's enough to field a small game or can be added to another box to have a complete force. In 40K, you buy a 30-40 pound box of troops and you're nowhere near being able to play the game. Meanwhile in historical-land some games also require large armies, but the models are generally cheap as chips.

So if you're just buying models to paint, yeah, GW gives you a decent value as far as minis go. Some things are not so great- GW's tanks and walkers can't hold a candle to historical tank kits or gunpla- but something like a Kill Team set is about the industry price for its level of quality.

It's the buy-in for a 'standard' 2K game that's pretty extreme, which GW seems to recognize, given the focus placed on smaller games and escalation systems (eg Crusade) in 8th and 9th.

Is that not comparing apples to oranges in terms of game scale though?

There’s no dispute that 40K is a sprawling great beastie these days, having long exceeded the small skirmish scale of Rogue Trader.

Yet, of recent years we’ve seen GW expand their offerings to include smaller scale stuff like Kill Team and even Necromunda. Even Combat Patrol, which admittedly is just slimline 40K rather than a game unto itself.

I do agree the price per army if you stick with the game starts to get pretty manageable. Its the buy in that prevents new players joining though. I like going to movies and when you look at cost between a ticket, a beer/cider and maybe a pretzel if in the mood its like $25-35. going to see black adam this week at some point. $16, octoberfest 1 pint $9, pretzels if getting $7 so $32 for ~2 hours entertainment.


Even before the usual 15-20% discount compared to my situation of $32 for a movie a start collecting (combat patrol is a horrible name) box at $150 call it 5 trips to the movie for a playable force of most armies. assuming the 15-20% discount at most FLGS I imagine for that price you can probably also say that covers cost of a few points to get the models to tabletop standard. depending on your feeling on if painting is work vs fun then the time spent painting those models alone is more entertainment hours per $ than 5 trips to the movies (to me, your perspective may vary)

On a separate note here if you factor in 3d printing if you have a friend or acquaintance willing to print stuff the cost gets comically small. I have a few 3d printers and will never print a 1:1 gw model but will do counts as models for people. you can literally print a whole imperial guard counts as army for under $50. so if people are low on funds and want to try an army the barrier of entry can be even lower.

 catbarf wrote:

Sci-fi/fantasy IPs tend to command similar prices to GW, it's true. The difference is that if you buy a pack of five models for Fallout, that's enough to field a small game or can be added to another box to have a complete force. In 40K, you buy a 30-40 pound box of troops and you're nowhere near being able to play the game.

To be fair, while there is 40k the mass battle game, this is just one game among many under their umbrella. Unlike fallout, 40k isn't just a game, it's a whole ecosystem.

That lack of troops might not be enough for the mass battle but it is perfectly sufficient for kill-team etc which is a perfectly valid game in its own right, and if/when you expand your force you can use it there as well.

 catbarf wrote:

Meanwhile in historical-land some games also require large armies, but the models are generally cheap as chips.

Aye but while 'chainmail guy with a sword' does his duty in almost any setting, not everyone wants, likes or values your standard British redcoat or generic 100 years war pikemen. And roman legionairres are more common than space marines.
in fairness, when it comes to quality/value, my Hat goes off to victrix for excellent historical models and great value, 'Good quality models' isn't something that can be easily said for a lot of the historicals' offering. We were big fans of warlords test of honour game a few years ago but the minis' quality was borderline atrocious and I've seen plenty other utterly godawful pewter sculpts. I would not want hundreds of them on the board.

GW prices for an adult hobby are actually very reasonable. If you really want to get in cheaper you can also buy proxies or just 3D print proxies (the only downside is not being able to play in GW stores).

Overall though I still believe board games like 40k are some of the most reasonably priced hobbies you can get into even with official models

Asmodios wrote:
GW prices for an adult hobby are actually very reasonable. If you really want to get in cheaper you can also buy proxies or just 3D print proxies (the only downside is not being able to play in GW stores).

Overall though I still believe board games like 40k are some of the most reasonably priced hobbies you can get into even with official models

So you don’t think it’s for kids?

In the us gw prices are almost comical. Look at the currency exchange then look at how much they overcharge.

Honestly areican should boycott untill the price is equivlant.

mrFickle wrote:
I what’s thought that GW were quite expensive, certainly the cost of a 2k point army and the codex seems painful when you first enter the hobby, I think.

It I’ve been looking at expanding my horizons and compared to some other minis and games I’ve seen GW start to look fairly priced, especially when you look at the combat patrol boxes and other box sets that deliver real value.

Marvel crisis protocol seems to be 30-40 pounds for one mini, and some fallout minis I’ve seen are the same price for a 5 model unit.

I don’t think there’s another game out there that can beat 40K for scale but it looks like GW can’t be beaten in price either. Or am I looking at the wrong things? I suppose marvel and fallout are big brands that are used to charging a lot for their paraphernalia.

You're looking at it from the wrong direction. Sure, a box of MCP can be 30+ bucks for one or two models, but you only need ten total models ever. You can buy JUST the core set and have a perfectly reasonable tournament army (Captain America, Captain Marvel, Black Widow, Baron Zemo, Ironman is STILL a very solid team)

Additionally, there's never a reason to buy doubles of the same box. So you can buy the core box, the card pack, and 2 kits and play at a very high level for...pretty much the life of the game so far for less than 200$ easily. One of the top placing lists at adepticon was basically 'core set + black panther' last year. Still a very good list a year later

Now look at 40k.

To build a standard 2000 point 'Bloody Rose goodstuff' list, you need 2-3 boxes of repentia, A box of Battle sisters, a box of novitiates, Morvenn Vahl, Celestine, a Canoness, A dogmata, FOUR boxes of retributors, 3-5 boxes of Zephyrim, most likely either Paragon Warsuits or Sacresants, your codex, chapter approved, and technically the bloody rose supplement book. That's roughly 950 dollars. It's ALSO only likely to be a valid setup until the next major balance patch, at which point you'll likely need to change out multiple units for multiple other units.

If you rate on a 'per model' basis, 40k IS actually much cheaper than many other miniatures games. The issue is that it only makes sense for painters and collectors. For people who actually play the game occasionally, 'per model' is completely irrelvant.

Let's do the MCP comparison again, this time let's look at it as Percent of total army size. Miles Morales and Spider Gwen are about 30 dollars on ebay. They're 6 'points' in MCP or about 35% of a standard 17 point list. A Sisters of Battle Dogmata is also about 30$ on ebay, or 3.25% of a 2000 point list. All MCP lists are 10 characters MAX, Miles and Spider Gwen represent 20% of that. A relatively small model count Sisters of battle list is about 60 models, even a novitiate box (which is twice as expensive as Miles and Gwen) is only 1/6th of that model count vs the other sides 1/5th.

TLDR: Dollars per model is a really bad way to judge value unless you're ONLY painting.

I will give my insight in to this as someone who went from being kid to teen durning 8th to 9th ed time. The pints, cinema etc examples are all good when you are an adult. When you are a kid your parents are paying for those or for equivalents. That is one thing. If they don't, then what matters is the end game price of an army. It doesn't matter that a cabalite per one model, maybe costs less then a infantry dude in other table top games, because those games often end, as far as costs goes, at the point where GW starts with its patrol boxs. Even if you are older and have some work on the side, I would rather invest my money in to a new PC or phone, then spend 250$ on AoS or especialy w40k stuff, that may get invalidated in 3-6 months, and that is if I am lucky.

A 1000$+ starting cost, just to get an army, without painting things and with chance that GW will just nerf your army in to the ground is not something a new player who isn't an adult with high income wants to hear. The extra stuff like books, painting etc which is suppose to give you extra fun , are all nice and good, if you have the money for them and you happen to like them. Painting 15 dudes for infinity, even if you hate painting is not fun, but doable. Spending time and money on painting 40+ infantry models, multiple vehicles or monsters is not the same thing. And GW made it so that things like painting isn't just an optional thing. It relates to the results of the game.

Then there is stuff like income difference, both different by class and country. a 200$ for a box is not the same in the US or Poland, although with the 17% inflation we are on our way to catch up to other countries price wise.
But yeah if someones other hobby is collecting yachts or cars, something like w40k is laughable in cost. It does rise the question though, how many non sheik or mob sons do people know who collect those at 13-14.
In the end it does, at least localy, show in who plays the games. AoS and w40k is mostly played by dudes in their end 20s to 30s+, while other systems have more "kids". Historicals, infinity, even warmahordes have a more healthier age distribution of players, at least in my opinion.

One thing that stands out to me is the prices of GW models compared to plastic model kits, either real or sci-fi subjects. The GW prices look pretty high compared to many of those. I recently bought a Terminator 2: Hunter Killer Tank kit ant it might have been 90 bucks. A comparably sized GW kit would have been twice the cost.

Oh yeah, and the prices for character kits are laughable.

I think, unfortunately, that many other gaming companie just look at GW prices and figure they can charge something similar in a lot of cases. Like the X-wing models seem stupidly priced for what you get, especially when you compare them to scale model kits.

These days it's not even the cost of GW war dollys that puts me off.

The constant rules churn (tin foil suspects that's by design) and the eternal paper chase of codex, supplement, mission books with the wilful bloodyminded refusal to embrace digital yes it can be pirated but you really only need to nudge the googletron for PFDs of scanned books to fall out

And yes the prices of say Xwing or MCP are on par but least there you get all the cards and wotnots in the box, doesn't quite excuse the prices but its a start

A couple of great posts here on the cost/value distinction, which largely meshes with my feelings about what I spend on the hobby.

I see we're also getting the usual tiresome nonsense from the usual suspects about 2K matched play being the only way anyone can play 40K.

After getting back into Airfix I've noticed their prices have seemed to shot up dramatically since I last had a look around 10 years ago. I had a 1/48 EE Lightning which at the time cost me around £20 (bargain as 1/48 Lightnings are so rare these days), a similar size kit would cost around £50 these days, which is a little confusing when they're all mass-produced in China. It doesn't excuse GW entirely but I can understand the prices a little when considering everything's made in Nottingham.

It doesn't sound like too much a price increase but other companies such as Eduard produce just as good (in some cases much better) at less than that, and are still able to put out much more numerous and varied kits each year, whereas Airfix just puts out the same Spitfires and Mustangs year after year after year.

GWs older plastic troop boxes are on par with others on the market. You get a good number of miniatures and a load of Bits for 2-3 € / Mini.

Historicals and Fantasy miniatures will be much cheaper at a comparable quality (Bolt Action, perry miniatures, Northstar, Wargames Atlantic and others), but their scale is more classical 28mm so they appear a bit smaller.
GW falls back if you look at some of their newer kits, where you pay 4-5 € / Mini and get hardly any Bits or options. (new Ork Boyz are a popular example for that).

GW's Failcast miniatures are also the worst quality on the market for a premium price, but most of them have been replaced fortunately.
Character models for up to 35€ are also pretty insane, even when they're plastic. If all of them were of a quality like the CSM Termilord it would be easier to swallow, but since most of these are monopose you'd really have to like them. Even GW knows that that's why you'll see most chars in a limited release Box at some point

There's several comments I agree with here. Rules being connected to models and refreshed or replaces or edited for other reasons beyond a misprint really hurts my enthusiasm to buy anything from Gw now. Or more so killed my enjoyment of the hobby. I don't play now and so I don't buy models anymore. I can't trust the company who makes both to provide a product I will enjoy or continue to enjoy. It's no longer worth the money as that end of the value has tanked for me. At best I would go full 3rd party for my future projects as I already have for my AM/IG army. I am a hobbyist first so if I value the project it is worth my energy. As I have no expectations of really putting my IG army on the table I can tinker with it as I see fit and it costs me significantly less than buying a GW army which I will regret having put energy into.
The new GW models do look nice but their is so much less I can do with them out side of building them exactly as GW intended. There's not as much creativity expected now outside of what color paint you plop onto these models. I find it very dull at best.
If that's all you care about then I'm sure they are worth the cost to you.

For me, what makes GW expensive is the way the game rewards homogeny. A unit isn't terribly expensive; honestly, an army isn't THAT expensive either; but the contents of an army aren't very diverse. A lot of the time its 400-600 points repeated 3-5 times and that means when the meta changes, the whole army tends to need to be swapped out.

In a lot of ways I was a lot happier with 8th edition's soup. Armies were made of more diverse elements and when I cool new release came out, you could purchase 500-1000 points of it and incorporate it into your army without having to essentially start over. It felt a lot more fun to purchase sub-optimal things that were fun and cool where 9th has been a steady cycle of regret as GW keeps releasing bulk demands that get burned a month or two later.

First off...

mrFickle wrote:
I don’t think there’s another game out there that can beat 40K for scale but it looks like GW can’t be beaten in price either. Or am I looking at the wrong things?

There are cheaper games, larger games, and games that are cheaper and larger. Kings of War for starters but that's just the tip of the iceberg...

mrFickle wrote:
I what’s thought that GW were quite expensive, certainly the cost of a 2k point army and the codex seems painful when you first enter the hobby, I think.

It I’ve been looking at expanding my horizons and compared to some other minis and games I’ve seen GW start to look fairly priced, especially when you look at the combat patrol boxes and other box sets that deliver real value.

Marvel crisis protocol seems to be 30-40 pounds for one mini, and some fallout minis I’ve seen are the same price for a 5 model unit.

If you're looking at GW games compared to other top-brand wargames, yes, there's ways to justify the idea that they're either cheaper (per-figure) or that all the games cost about the same to play, or that some are a better bargain than others...

It's all hogwash.

If you're making those calculations, you're probably doing so within the mental playing field that GW has already built using the ever-shifting goal-posts they set up. If you want to pay GW prices the only things you get from them that you can't get elsewhere is ubiquity, and an incredible volume of shiny printed material (which might actually be a negative in terms of rules bloat). Of those, ubiquity is the only one I'd ever even consider as a reason to come back. I can't deny that every GW product basically comes with a free coupon inside that allows the user to find a game quickly and easily across many cities and even countries.

So is it worth it? I don't think so, but its easy to say that having a group of gamers who are not tied to GW at all. If I lived somewhere where GW was the only game in town, I might play 40k. I'd swallow my pride and buy the books to run my armies but I certainly wouldn't be paying for many new GW models as there are just too many more affordable options.

I am not saying I'm entirely separate from the 40k universe. I love the setting and the aesthetic, the pulp sci-fantasy feel and I quite like the GW models I do have. It's just that I currently get my 40k fix with old books for fluff, mostly-old armies and Grimdark Future for rules. All the fun with none of the heartache and at a fraction of the cost.

I'll leave you with this. In 2014 I wrote a blog post (spurred on by a Dakka thread) praising what I thought the good points of 40k were even though I didn't play anymore.
https://www.chicagoskirmishwargames.com/blog/2014/06/in-praise-of-warhammer-40000-and-games/
8 years later, I still agree with nearly all of it.
And I still don't play official "40k".

I've argued on both sides of the fence on the matter of GW's prices, i have slightly muddled feelings over the issue.
i think their printed material is a waste of money considering how quick it becomes amended and then invalidated, absolutely will not buy any rule book or codex. I know you can stick with an older edition but then you struggle to get games.
The models themselves are expensive but once you have them they can always be used (pretty much) and from what I can see most other manufacturers are increasing their prices to close to GW levels or have inferior models

I don’t think any game here quite rivals GW rules for money investment.
It also depends a lot on specifics, are 20 zombies equal to a premium figure of large size?
How much of something is needed and quality.
It’s not uncommon for the model cost of GW to be reasonable but to use them to spike up a lot.
Character and single model packs are though the roof here. With the necromunda and warcry sets being cheaper boxes for what you get out of them.

 LunarSol wrote:
For me, what makes GW expensive is the way the game rewards homogeny. A unit isn't terribly expensive; honestly, an army isn't THAT expensive either; but the contents of an army aren't very diverse. A lot of the time its 400-600 points repeated 3-5 times and that means when the meta changes, the whole army tends to need to be swapped out.

I mean "I insist on playing the game in the most expensive way possible" sounds kinda like a you problem.

 Nazrak wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
For me, what makes GW expensive is the way the game rewards homogeny. A unit isn't terribly expensive; honestly, an army isn't THAT expensive either; but the contents of an army aren't very diverse. A lot of the time its 400-600 points repeated 3-5 times and that means when the meta changes, the whole army tends to need to be swapped out.

I mean "I insist on playing the game in the most expensive way possible" sounds kinda like a you problem.

I mean... I don't.... because I don't really play enough to justify it, but that is sort of a me problem.

That doesn't change the fact that there's little in the way the game is designed or played that rewards much diversity in what you take. It's very gear checky by nature, though Strategems have helped with that somewhat (until they went a bit overboard with them at least)

 Nazrak wrote:
I mean "I insist on playing the game in the most expensive way possible" sounds kinda like a you problem.

I mean, "I insist on playing the game in a way that gives me a chance to win against the people who also use the optimal strategy" sounds kinda like a game problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrFickle wrote:
So you don’t think it’s for kids?

It's not, and that's a good thing for the community. Adult players would rather play in a community with other adults, not be the lone adult in a room of obnoxious 14 year olds. So yes, if you're a 14 year old with $50 in birthday money as your entire budget for the year 40k is not really accessible. But if you're in the ideal target market for GW, adults with decent careers, 40k is dirt cheap compared to a lot of other hobbies people regularly engage in.

I got into 40K when I was about 13. Granted build no armies was slow but I managed a decent sized ork and tyranids over the years.

Just cos kids get into the game it doesn’t mean you have to play with them.

I expect most kids that get into it, these days, so so through a parent with a decent collection so cost wouldn’t be such an issue

I started wargaming when I was 12, and have taught kids younger than that how to paint models.

I have noticed what seems like a slight aging of the sci-fantasy side of the hobby, but I don't know if it's because there are less kids or simply more adults.

I reject the idea that it's a hobby not for kids though. Most of my gaming friends first got into gaming as early teens or pre teens and for many of us 40k was the gateway. I don't think there would be as many of us 40 year old gamers without the 12 year old gamers we once were.

I'm pretty harsh on GW prices and rules, but my preteen son is enjoying a steady diet of 40K material even if we are playing Grimdark Future. Doing my best to raise the next generation of gamers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have noticed what seems like a slight aging of the sci-fantasy side of the hobby, but I don't know if it's because there are less kids or simply more adults.

I reject the idea that it's a hobby not for kids though. Most of my gaming friends first got into gaming as early teens or pre teens and for many of us 40k was the gateway. I don't think there would be as many of us 40 year old gamers without the 12 year old gamers we once were.

I'm pretty harsh on GW prices and rules, but my preteen son is enjoying a steady diet of 40K material even if we are playing Grimdark Future. Doing my best to raise the next generation of gamers.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

mrFickle wrote:
So you don’t think it’s for kids?

It's not, and that's a good thing for the community. Adult players would rather play in a community with other adults, not be the lone adult in a room of obnoxious 14 year olds. So yes, if you're a 14 year old with $50 in birthday money as your entire budget for the year 40k is not really accessible. But if you're in the ideal target market for GW, adults with decent careers, 40k is dirt cheap compared to a lot of other hobbies people regularly engage in.

Not to be that old timer - but I remember back (early/mid 2000's) when us older folks got a bit pissed when GW quite clearly laid out that their core demographic was teens in the fiscal materials. The adverts all started depicting stores filled with teens as well. There was much wailing about GW seeking the "pump and dump" strategy vs catering to the older folks with jobs. Thing is, they did just fine with teens that had mum/dad/etc financing things. A 14 year old with only $50 may not be GW's target but the 14 year old given $100 every month in allowance/presents definitely is.

Unless I missed some big news, I'd wager GW's main target is still affluent teens that have not yet found other expensive social activities (dating/drinking/etc). Of course, they don't mind picking up the post university new career social doldrum returns either...

Geek culture for adults is so much more accepted today than it was in the 90's. I suspect GW -like most major fantasy/scifi/superhero IP holders- is trying to have it's cake and eat it too by maintaining the appeal to the teenage set (spending their parent's money) while also strongly chasing adults. A good strategy in a world where both children and adults are distracted by video games.

Yeah it’s hip to be square again

But let’s face it a. Implant like GW knows who’s spending money and have a good strategy for maintaining income streams.

If they are trying I appeal to youngsters it’s cos they are spending their money in the GW shops. Also get them hooked when they are young and they will be paying for the rest of their lives.

But I expect there is a big difference between how many under 18s buy direct from GW and how many adults do.

One of the reasons movies like robocop get rebooted with a rating for younger audiences is because it’s the under 18s that actuality go to the cinema, so the movie industry is appealing to their audience

My suspicion is that GW's recent revenue boom (so 2017 onwards) has been due to a rise of adult consumers rather than somehow becoming much better at extracting pocket money. Although I've got no evidence and I don't entirely know how I'd go about getting it from publicly available info.

As for the cost... as people said, it sort of depends. I can afford to throw £100 at GW every few months and not really notice. I'm unclear a 14 year old could - but maybe I underestimate the level of inflation in pocket money.

But that doesn't change the fact £35 for 5 plastic figures - or £20+ for 1 standard humanoid character, is sort of ludicrous. Buying anything without a 20%~ FLGS discount seems right out - and I'm sort of mystified anyone buys direct from GW the money they realise such exists.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
I mean "I insist on playing the game in the most expensive way possible" sounds kinda like a you problem.

I mean, "I insist on playing the game in a way that gives me a chance to win against the people who also use the optimal strategy" sounds kinda like a game problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrFickle wrote:
So you don’t think it’s for kids?

It's not, and that's a good thing for the community. Adult players would rather play in a community with other adults, not be the lone adult in a room of obnoxious 14 year olds. So yes, if you're a 14 year old with $50 in birthday money as your entire budget for the year 40k is not really accessible. But if you're in the ideal target market for GW, adults with decent careers, 40k is dirt cheap compared to a lot of other hobbies people regularly engage in.

Don't be absurd, of course it's for kids. A large majority started this hobby when we were kids. Personally I was around eleven and the larger section of players was around my age to the late teens and still is from what I've seen.

Tyel wrote:
My suspicion is that GW's recent revenue boom (so 2017 onwards) has been due to a rise of adult consumers rather than somehow becoming much better at extracting pocket money. Although I've got no evidence and I don't entirely know how I'd go about getting it from publicly available info.

As for the cost... as people said, it sort of depends. I can afford to throw £100 at GW every few months and not really notice. I'm unclear a 14 year old could - but maybe I underestimate the level of inflation in pocket money.

But that doesn't change the fact £35 for 5 plastic figures - or £20+ for 1 standard humanoid character, is sort of ludicrous. Buying anything without a 20%~ FLGS discount seems right out - and I'm sort of mystified anyone buys direct from GW the money they realise such exists.

Potentially a bit of both.

I’m from the 1989 Heroquest generation. And that generation are now parents. Parents with kids who are the right age to pick up the hobby. In theory, every kid that gets into it is also bringing a parent (most likely, but not necessarily their Dad) into it too.

What price parent/child bonding? The hobby itself is conducive to aiding education. Maths, reading, art and that all expressed to some level.

Sure, we might see it as £35 for a box of models. But for a parent/child project? That’s a fair few hours they get out of that investment.

Compare to say, an outing to the cinema. One parent and one child (for consistency!) is thick end of £29, going on Ashford (Kent) Vue to see Black Adam. Enjoyable it may be, but it’s still a one and done - and that price doesn’t include any drinks or snacks.

It’s also a hobby for all weather. Pishing it down outside? Wargaming doesn’t care. Nights drawing in? Get your painting station set up.

Time wise it’s also surprisingly flexible. Sure, a game requires at least a couple of hours booked out. But painting, building, reading, list building can be done…..pretty much any time. A sport still requires some level of arrangement, even if it’s just a kick about in the park.

And from my (now 12 year out of date) experience as a GW Till Monkey in a middle class town? Many of the parents doing the heavy lifting of the buying were happy to do it because, and I quote, “it’s not another bloody computer game”. As I said that’s my experience from 12 years ago so I can’t and won’t claim it’s accurate. But it’s still food for thought.

Add in that the hobby is often a haven for the socially awkward naturally nerdy kids, and it can be really good socialisation for them. Again as a former Till Monkey, some kids would be more than a handful when they first started coming regularly, but most would get sorted quite quickly. It was a great thing to see to be honest. Of course GW does less in-store gaming these days, so see “do keep in mind this was 12 years ago”.

Kids might only be able to throw a bit of pocket money at the hobby every now and then but if you get enough of them to do it you make millions. And then some will get bored and find other hobbies (but you’ve already got their money) and the rest will spend the rest of their life spending their money on the hobby

I agree theirs been a boom of adults getting into the hobby since 2000 but I’d wager that every time GW has expanded their market into new territories they have built their success on a fanbase of young geeks

They literally have 40k books for kids, it's a whole thing! Of course it's for kids! I've got a 9yr old who's fallen hard for Death Company and has been excited ever since we were able to get a Recruit box for him.

My 5 yr old has shown interest. Feels a little young, but then again he's aware of Star Wars and transformers through kids at school. Lots of "pew pew gun!" already, which I have mixed feeling about. I figure I can make a really simple game with the models and have him roll saves on 2d6 for the arithmetic.

 Insectum7 wrote:
One thing that stands out to me is the prices of GW models compared to plastic model kits, either real or sci-fi subjects. The GW prices look pretty high compared to many of those. I recently bought a Terminator 2: Hunter Killer Tank kit ant it might have been 90 bucks. A comparably sized GW kit would have been twice the cost.

Model kits have always been less expensive than gaming miniatures thanks to economy of scale. Model kits have a much wider audience, so don't have to build in as much of the cost per unit, allowing the retail price to be lower. They also quite often stay in production using the same moulds for 30+ years.

I think, unfortunately, that many other gaming companie just look at GW prices and figure they can charge something similar in a lot of cases. Like the X-wing models seem stupidly priced for what you get, especially when you compare them to scale model kits.

I mean, some of us are considerably cheaper... Bear in mind, though, that economy of scale goes both ways. Companies without the market saturation of GW have to recoup their costs from fewer sales, are often working with more expensive materials, and often don't have access to the same level of expertise and/or technology as GW, pushing costs up.

So far as X-wing goes... licensed games, and Star Wars in particular, have extra costs due to licensing and royalties. And that's not just for miniatures. That Hunter Killer kit you mentioned would also have cost more to make and had a higher RRP than a comparable historical vehicle kit. SciFi model kits in general tend to be considerably more expensive than historical kits from the same manufacturer.

^Right, but I'm saying that even that licensed T2 kit cost considerably less than a similarly scaled FW kit. As for the economy of scale on such a thing, I dunno. But I got the impression that the older Tac squad moulds were wearing out, and they might have sold much more than the T2 HK.

The tactical squad has supposedly financed a lot of other kits that GW has made over the years.

The thing is, GW is expensive because they can be. They deliberately place themselves as the luxury brand within the niche, playing off the customer perception that you pay for quality. Smaller miniature companies are cheaper when they can afford to be, because for most that's the only realistic way to compete with GW's market presence, and I would guess that most miniature producers offering comparable prices to GW are doing so because they have to in order to make money, rather than just because GW are doing it.

Stepping back from GW has really shone a light on what they're doing of late.

They sell the rulebooks so you'll want to buy more than one copy of a model (buy a squad of 5! Or 10!! Or make three squads of 10 each!!!). Then jack the price up yearly and reduce the number of models you get in each box.

They make the basic "infantry" cheap, then the special/elite more expensive for fewer models when they're all made from the same plastic.

Their rulebook turnover is ridiculous - we've got rules coming out now that are being nerfed/changed before they hit the shelf. With a supplement six months later, and a new campaign a month or two after that. Adding an annual points balance yearly. Then a whole new edition in two years.

Rulebooks are being chopped up and doled out into smaller tidbits. Look at the likes of Necromunda and Kill Team. They pull you in with the "base rules" and then release this rule subset or that (such as "Commanders") in piecemeal fashion.

Infinity is expensive on a model by model basis, until you compare an entire game of Infinity to 40k. An entire game of Infinity is 30 models, at most. For 40k, 30 models is three units of Guardsmen, or 6 of minimum sized Marine units. 2 Tactical Squads of 10 men each is $110. 20 models, sure, but not a full army. The Shasvastii starter set at my local store is $100, and is a full, 300 point, army.

 Stormonu wrote:
They make the basic "infantry" cheap, then the special/elite more expensive for fewer models when they're all made from the same plastic.

This has always been a thing, and comes down to economy of scale again... If you need three boxes of troops to fill out an army, but only one box of elites, the elite models need to be more expensive to recoup their development costs. Conversely, making troops cheaper makes it less painful to have to buy more of them.

Their rulebook turnover is ridiculous - we've got rules coming out now that are being nerfed/changed before they hit the shelf. With a supplement six months later, and a new campaign a month or two after that. Adding an annual points balance yearly. Then a whole new edition in two years.

Rulebooks are being chopped up and doled out into smaller tidbits. Look at the likes of Necromunda and Kill Team. They pull you in with the "base rules" and then release this rule subset or that (such as "Commanders") in piecemeal fashion.

I suspect that both of these are primarily the 'fault' of the ongoing policy of not printing rules ahead of models. Putting out smaller books more often allows them to keep the release schedule closely tied to the books the models are being made for. But the flip side of that is that the faster release schedule would mean less time spent on each making sure they get them right.

Not to suggest that pre-release errata shouldn't be irritating... I'm just not particularly surprised it's happening.

 insaniak wrote:

The thing is, GW is expensive because they can be.

Well, yes, that's kinda where we're at. Aka, GW is priced well beyond what's required, just because they can. Look no further tham $55 dollars for two Warlocks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
. . .Putting out smaller books more often allows them to keep the release schedule closely tied to the books the models are being made for. But the flip side of that is that the faster release schedule would mean less time spent on each making sure they get them right.

Right, and smaller releases is also fine . . . But with that "premium product" they insist on hardback and pump the price on those too.

Dabbled in Necromunda a bit through covid. The number of hardback supplements my friend had collected for that game was shocking.

On Necromunda.

Ultimately to play the game? You just need the rulebook, preferred House Of book and your models.

Of those, the only things you need to buy in terms of GW product are the rulebooks.

The other House Of and Book Of erm…books are largely optional. They contain expansion, optional rules.

Can you doolally and spend hundreds on the books and a wide selection of commercially available terrain? You most certainly can. But you don’t need to.

Indeed, this is how GW keeps it alive in the modern. Because the original take was “sell two boxed sets of rules and terrain, and some gang models”. And as we know, that didn’t allow much in terms of repeat sales.

Yes the current version has a plethora of books. Yes I own one of each. Yes that gets expensive. But….you still only need the two to get going.

^Yeah I get it, just like you don't need all the codexes to play 40k either. But Necromunda was surprising because it's a smaller game, both in models and "stature" (not a flagship product).

But damn they're milking it with all those hardbacks.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Infinity is expensive on a model by model basis, until you compare an entire game of Infinity to 40k. An entire game of Infinity is 30 models, at most. For 40k, 30 models is three units of Guardsmen, or 6 of minimum sized Marine units. 2 Tactical Squads of 10 men each is $110. 20 models, sure, but not a full army. The Shasvastii starter set at my local store is $100, and is a full, 300 point, army.

Youre not wrong. But you are comparing 'mass battle mode' to 'skirmish'. A fairer comparison imo is infinity versus 40k's kill-team.

However the price per model isn't the worst thing for infinity - the ancillary cost of infinity I'd argue is higher than the 'average' game of 40k with the high stacks of terrain you need.

Not that it matters mind- they're the best sci-fi minis in the industry and beauties to paint so it's worth it regardless.


On the point of Necromunda discussed by others - we use the 'free' pdf from the old 90s version of the game. Imo oldcromunda is a vastly better game. We have some imports from the current edition (I prefer the modern differences between auto/las) but really, gw can release a hundred 'new' rulebooks and we'll still be happy with ours.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Yeah I get it, just like you don't need all the codexes to play 40k either. But Necromunda was surprising because it's a smaller game, both in models and "stature" (not a flagship product).

But damn they're milking it with all those hardbacks.

Not intending to dismiss your criticism, as it’s not unfounded? One man’s milking it is another man’s ensuring it continues to pull its financial weight.

I do agree with Deadnight regarding the old rules being better - certainly for campaigns. But that’s part of Necromunda’s attraction for me. As it’s a game so rooted in A Community, it’s always been something tinkered and patched by the user.

As ever when expressing this opinion, that does not excuse sloppy rules writing in the first place.

By rooted in A Community, I mean a local circle of gamers. Whilst you can do One And Done type battles, it works best as a campaign, and for my money demands an interesting narrative. Sure GW sell oodles of Official Rules, but to me they’ll always be just a framework. A serving suggestion if you will.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Sure, we might see it as £35 for a box of models. But for a parent/child project? That’s a fair few hours they get out of that investment.

Well yeah. I don't disagree with you on the relative scale. I've made the cinema argument for about a decade. See also getting the train into London to meet some friends, have a few beers, have some food, come home again, oh look that's easily pushing £50.

I was more making the inherent sort of argument. Its molded plastic. Should a single human-sized mini have marched up from say £1-2 ten(ish) years ago, to £5-7 today?
But the answer would seem to be yes, otherwise you have to assume a competitor who could charge half the price would have swept in.

Can't really add much to the Necromunda conversation. But I'd agree it and similar games (and perhaps all GW games) are dependent on having a circle of players who approach it in the same way. The moment "I'm just looking to have fun" hits "I'm looking to optimise this to the nth degree" they tend to fall over. Or at least it was with us and both versions of Necromunda, Mordheim, Bloodbowl etc.

It is important to keep in mind value is subjective.

If a parent drops a couple of hundred, and their kid doesn’t keep at it, that is money up the wall. Yes the models do tend to keep value on the second hand market quite well, but you first need to know, and hope they’re not slathered in thick paint etc to get the most out of that.

But, where a kid fully buys into The Hobby? It is a decent investment.

I’d argue stuff like Cursed City is one of the best bets. Fully self contained gaming experiences with mechanisms to keep it fresh for replay value.

Tyel wrote:

I was more making the inherent sort of argument. Its molded plastic. Should a single human-sized mini have marched up from say £1-2 ten(ish) years ago, to £5-7 today?
But the answer would seem to be yes, otherwise you have to assume a competitor who could charge half the price would have swept in.

As mentioned earlier, there are other companies out there selling minis considerably cheaper than GW. The problem is that price isn't the sole criteria (or for many players, a criteria at all) when choosing a game.

Maybe it was true in the past but no one should buy the arguments about one plastic set subsidizing the others anymore. Plenty of wargame companies smaller than GW are succeeding in making plastic kits with lower distribution than anything GW makes at much lower prices. The design, tooling and manufacturing process is more streamlined and efficient than ever and GW surely has an advantage at all stages of that process, so don't give GW a pass on price based on plastic production costs.

Just embrace the warm fuzzies of knowing that every GW product you buy gives a nice dividend to the shareholders who rest peacefully knowing you will keep buying and buying and buying....

 insaniak wrote:
[. Conversely, making troops cheaper makes it less painful to have to buy more of them.

Except they aren't that cheap. Guardsmen just ticked up to $5 each, and may go higher when the new models are released. How is $5 each anywhere near cheap, in an army where they're taken in multiple squads of 10! When they first came out it was $30 for a box of 20, now it's $50 for a box of 10! Has there been 333 percent inflation in the past 2 decades?

In my own way, I'm an addict for the 40k setting as much as many folks are for the game and models. It's the genesis of my wargaming hobby and a nostalgia I just can't shake but it's hard to overstate how it almost feels deliberate the way GW has managed to alienate me as a potential customer of their products and player of their rulesets.

Necromunda is as discussed above is a prime example. I love oldcrowmunda. I was prepared to dive in and buy some new books and figures, even at new-GW prices. However, the scale change (even beyond current 40k scale) was a major turnoff and my old figures were barely playable in the new rules. Futher, it quickly became apparent that this was not a rulebook plus supplement game, they wanted to sell me a whole shelf of rulebooks to get my gangs back in play and the rules themselves were a mess. Thank heavens I managed to sell off my gang wars before they became irrelevant.

I would like to support the company that brought me into the hobby but they don't make it easy and with other purveyors offering rules and miniatures that fit the setting so well there's much less reason reason to do so anymore.

This might be good to post again

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/763215.page


It's a few years old but I doubt there's been any real change in regular users. It 100% shows that young people are critical for wargaming. 78% got into the hobby under the age of 17.

Now granted its Dakka users poll and other sites could show some variation depending on the user-age spread and such and accounting for the fact that, even as a geeky hobby, many in reality don't post online. However it very much shows that the young age bracket is really important. Even if you might not have a 2K army until you're into your 20s or whenever its those younger years where you get hooked

The historical end of the market and the fantasy/sci fi companies in that sphere tend to be cheaper. The brand tie ins tend to be pricier. For me as a wargamer GW is expensive, but it you are a magic or star wars player the prices look more reasonable.

I think the box games, and skirmish games are a huge draw for kids.
It gets them in, and can keep them even if they don’t buy often.
As well as provide opponents for bigger spenders, as well as community engagement.

If you look at a lot of the free to play and gacha games, often it’s just keeping players in the hobby and talking that translates to people spending and getting big spenders to supplement any low spenders.

Apple fox wrote:
I think the box games, and skirmish games are a huge draw for kids.
It gets them in, and can keep them even if they don’t buy often.
As well as provide opponents for bigger spenders, as well as community engagement.

A huge turning point I think was when GW stopped making things like Killteam be a backpage of the main rules and instead marketed it as its own product. With boxed sets and advertising and all. It made a format which has been around for donkey's years into something that was formal. That in turn got not just new people but also older people playing. Heck many people as they get older wind up with a big collection but less time to play so smaller shorter games can be a great draw for them.

As you say even if someone isn't big spending, if they are playing they are providing entertainment, content and value for those who are and that in turn means that the customer who has money to spend is more likely to hang around. When someone can't find people to engage with and play in a social hobby they wander off. Might be to another store, might be to another club or might be to another hobby.

It's only a problem if everyone is freeloading and no one is buying.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
The historical end of the market and the fantasy/sci fi companies in that sphere tend to be cheaper. The brand tie ins tend to be pricier. For me as a wargamer GW is expensive, but it you are a magic or star wars player the prices look more reasonable.

A lot of historical stuff in un-IP-able and thr market is saturated with roman legionairres and other 'popular' period armies but if you're into some fairly obscure faction/period you'd options will be very limited.

And I think you can add lego to the magic and star wars collectors - that stuff is like gold.

 Eilif wrote:
Just embrace the warm fuzzies of knowing that every GW product you buy gives a nice dividend to the shareholders who rest peacefully knowing you will keep buying and buying and buying....

Clearly the answer is to set aside that extra box of Space Marines and buy some GW shares. "You'll appreciate it when your older".

Then again, they've not had the best of it over the last 12 months.

Tyel wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Just embrace the warm fuzzies of knowing that every GW product you buy gives a nice dividend to the shareholders who rest peacefully knowing you will keep buying and buying and buying....

Clearly the answer is to set aside that extra box of Space Marines and buy some GW shares. "You'll appreciate it when your older".

Got a nice chuckle from this. Doesn't sound entirely different from the sort of thing I'd say to my kid while at the same time showering him with second hand 40k stuff....

A bundle of contradictions we are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
The historical end of the market and the fantasy/sci fi companies in that sphere tend to be cheaper. The brand tie ins tend to be pricier. For me as a wargamer GW is expensive, but it you are a magic or star wars player the prices look more reasonable.

A lot of historical stuff in un-IP-able and thr market is saturated with roman legionairres and other 'popular' period armies but if you're into some fairly obscure faction/period you'd options will be very limited.

That's true, but even the most obscure historical period is probably at least served by a nice line of metal figures or two that still cost considerably less-per-fig than GW kits.

Deadnight wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Infinity is expensive on a model by model basis, until you compare an entire game of Infinity to 40k. An entire game of Infinity is 30 models, at most. For 40k, 30 models is three units of Guardsmen, or 6 of minimum sized Marine units. 2 Tactical Squads of 10 men each is $110. 20 models, sure, but not a full army. The Shasvastii starter set at my local store is $100, and is a full, 300 point, army.

Youre not wrong. But you are comparing 'mass battle mode' to 'skirmish'. A fairer comparison imo is infinity versus 40k's kill-team.

However the price per model isn't the worst thing for infinity - the ancillary cost of infinity I'd argue is higher than the 'average' game of 40k with the high stacks of terrain you need.

Not that it matters mind- they're the best sci-fi minis in the industry and beauties to paint so it's worth it regardless.


On the point of Necromunda discussed by others - we use the 'free' pdf from the old 90s version of the game. Imo oldcromunda is a vastly better game. We have some imports from the current edition (I prefer the modern differences between auto/las) but really, gw can release a hundred 'new' rulebooks and we'll still be happy with ours.

If I were to compare Infinity to Kill Team, I'd probably use a Code One starter as comparison, as the Code One and Kill Team boxes provide a similar role, in providing a low model count skirmish game, so people try the bigger game. Kaldstrom seems to be $140, and the Kill Team starter is $100. Both provide terrain and the tools needed to play. I think an advantage Infinity has over modern Kill Team, unless they added points or scalability, is the fact that you can choose to play Infinity at lower point levels, so it's cheaper still. The recommended first game in the rule book was with 3 basic troops on either side. I do kind of want to try a game like that.

Honestly, though, I forgot new Kill Team existed, and in my head, was thinking you needed to buy multiple kits for Kill Team instead of just the one still. I do think Infinity models can be too expensive, and really want them to be cheaper. I tend to ebay hunt instead of buying off their website, or occasionally use Warsenal.

Open question on being able to play Infinity at lower points? Is such a scaled game still satisfying?

I mean, 40K can be played at 500 points. But it makes for a pretty flaccid and anaemic experience compared to “proper” points levels.

I ask because I genuinely don’t have a clue!

Infinity is already a skirmisher game so it like as not scales down very easily. I think the main point of their second mode is to have a slightly simpler/easier game to get into.

40K shifting down to 500points on its own doesn't work as well because at its core its a wargame rather than a skirmish game. So when you go that low things get a bit wonky. Same as how Old World never scaled down very well either (in fact even worse at the 500 point levels)

Another point worth mentioning about infinity is that one could spend as much on it as on a w40k army. One would probably end with 3-4 armies, assuming no over lap. And unlike with most armies in w40k, something like being so weak it is unfun to play with an army, is not a common thing in the game. In fact, from the few games I have seen people play around here, the bad for years thing, is a very GW games only thing.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Open question on being able to play Infinity at lower points? Is such a scaled game still satisfying?

Yes and no. There are multiple ways to scale down Infinity, that each have their own pros and cons.

1) Code One - This is still full sized, but with a limited model set that removes some of the more complicated features of the game
2) Direct Action - This is a set of scenarios that removes some of the more complicated objectives and is generally more combat focused. Generally still full sized, but can scale down as well.
3) Limited Insertion - Full sized points, but with a cap on the number of models you can take. Skews the game towards more elite and expensive pieces but tends to play a little quicker.
4) Actually playing smaller point games. This gets tricky. There's actually scaling in the scenarios for this, but due to the way orders work, you often don't play with that much less stuff but more play with a larger focus on cheap models rather than feeling like you didn't really gain anything over the standard.
5) Starter box games - This is kind of what I think most people have in mind when they want to start small. Mix of model types with VERY few models (6). The main issue I find is the board can often end up really empty and things tend to get decided in a couple kills. I've had better luck with this but using half the board space (2x4) but luckily CB has started pushing more fleshed out starter products where these games aren't quite as popular with new players.

 Eilif wrote:

Except they aren't that cheap. Guardsmen just ticked up to $5 each, and may go higher when the new models are released. How is $5 each anywhere near cheap, in an army where they're taken in multiple squads of 10! When they first came out it was $30 for a box of 20, now it's $50 for a box of 10! Has there been 333 percent inflation in the past 2 decades?

I didn't say they were cheap. I said that they were cheaper, comparatively, to smaller elite units.

 insaniak wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

Except they aren't that cheap. Guardsmen just ticked up to $5 each, and may go higher when the new models are released. How is $5 each anywhere near cheap, in an army where they're taken in multiple squads of 10! When they first came out it was $30 for a box of 20, now it's $50 for a box of 10! Has there been 333 percent inflation in the past 2 decades?

I didn't say they were cheap. I said that they were cheaper, comparatively, to smaller elite units.

Fair enough. My point was that with GW "cheaper" doesn't mean much when prices are going up as they are. To add to that, "cheaper" means even less when you may still be spending as much or more per point on that "cheaper" unit than the more elite units.

 Eilif wrote:
Fair enough. My point was that with GW "cheaper" doesn't mean much when prices are going up as they are. To add to that, "cheaper" means even less when you may still be spending as much or more per point on that "cheaper" unit than the more elite units.

You seem to be arguing against something that nobody actually said, though. My point about troops being comparatively cheaper was specifically in response to a comment about elite units being priced higher to squeeze more money out of players. It wasn't in any way an attempt to paint GW prices as being cheap.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

If I were to compare Infinity to Kill Team, I'd probably use a Code One starter as comparison, as the Code One and Kill Team boxes provide a similar role, in providing a low model count skirmish game, so people try the bigger game. Kaldstrom seems to be $140, and the Kill Team starter is $100. Both provide terrain and the tools needed to play. I think an advantage Infinity has over modern Kill Team, unless they added points or scalability, is the fact that you can choose to play Infinity at lower point levels, so it's cheaper still. The recommended first game in the rule book was with 3 basic troops on either side. I do kind of want to try a game like that.

Hmm, i dont fully agree but i think its academic anyway.

I'd argue kill-team is as much its own beast and a perfectly legitimate game in its own right, and a different way of using your dudes. Its role as an intro into the bigger game (buy loads of individual kill teams, hey you might as well buy a £££ hq and play 40k mass battle game as well) is secondary at best imo - we are not talking about a half dozen pages at the back of the rulebook after all. I'd argue its a good comparison for both infinity: the starter version and infinity: the main game. I think saying a fair comparison is only the infinity starter is being needlessly pernickety and I don't think it's seeing the bigger picture.

One thing gw have realised (and changed for thr better imo) is how they have genuinely diversified beyond 'the big two'. In the Kirby era the thinking was all the skirmish games took away from wfb and 40k, so the solution was to cut/not support them and force people into the main games. They've realised since that a lot of folks want a skirmish game and they're supporting that and not just as a means to an end.

Imo kill team would be my preference because while I love the infinity models, the game is a bit too... technically involved and overly complex for my tastes these days. I prefer a 'simpler' game these days. Let's be clear I'm not saying infinity is 'bad' on any level, just that my preferences are elsewhere. And id have no issues playing both skirmish games as well.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:


Honestly, though, I forgot new Kill Team existed, and in my head, was thinking you needed to buy multiple kits for Kill Team instead of just the one still. I do think Infinity models can be too expensive, and really want them to be cheaper. I tend to ebay hunt instead of buying off their website, or occasionally use Warsenal.

Perfectly fair! New kill team literally needs one box of dudes (marines dont really do mixed squads) or max two boxes if you want to go with a mixed kill.team (say, mixed fire warriors and pathfinders)

Infinity is pricey. Even second hand. I was able to sell a painted starter recently for £50 which was some nice pocket money. Despite the prive its worth it as the models are just gorgeous and a joy to paint. i don't mind the prices but then again I'm pretty disciplined on where I spend my £££ and have most of what I want. Noe when they make a box set of veteran kazaks that will change!

I don't think any other game, besides other GW games, can be called pricy. Even if infinity models were 20$ each, then a 15 model army would be less then 1/3 of a basic w40k army.

Karol wrote:
I don't think any other game, besides other GW games, can be called pricy. Even if infinity models were 20$ each, then a 15 model army would be less then 1/3 of a basic w40k army.

Infinity compared to any wargame is going to be cheaper, because its a skirmisher that only needs a small number of models to run.

Actually if you compare Infinity to GW's skirmish games the price difference isn't too far off. An "army" boxed set of Infinity isn't far off (might actually be a bit more?) than two boxes of Necromunda characters (eg core and expansion box). Sure if you want all the upgrade weapons and a really diverse team the prices go up, but to get started with the price difference isn't all that much.

Physical product is physical product and it should dictate the price. The things like game size or points costs are arbitrarily decided by the company that produces the game and I hate when people say they are legitimate ways of determining the price of the product in $$$. It's just a free pass for the company to introduce predatory pricing strategies. "Hey, designers, let's make this model cost more points so that we can ask more money for it!" etc.

Karol wrote:
I don't think any other game, besides other GW games, can be called pricy. Even if infinity models were 20$ each, then a 15 model army would be less then 1/3 of a basic w40k army.

Hmm, Warmachine/hordes as an example which for several years was the 'second' game in the industry could be ridiculously pricey.

A tournament grade infernals army back in mk3 is the best part of a thousand quid. I built a khadoran 'charge of the horselords' force at it was over £300 for twenty-some models (cavalry). Whilst some lists could be reasonable, lots of builds were veey expensive as well.

Individual squads (everblight chosen for example, or the colossals) are close to a hundred quid for 5 models.

Gw are pricey but it's an industry thing. Infinity is 'better' just because of its smaller scale.

Cyel wrote:
Physical product is physical product and it should dictate the price. The things like game size or points costs are arbitrarily decided by the company that produces the game and I hate when people say they are legitimate ways of determining the price of the product in $$$. It's just a free pass for the company to introduce predatory pricing strategies. "Hey, designers, let's make this model cost more points so that we can ask more money for it!" etc.

I disagree.

You may call it predatory and other buzzwords if you like, but the fact remains kits tend to have a pretty set production cost, from initial sketches all the way to appearing on shelves. The only particular variable there is how many sprues constitute a given set.

Stuff like character models sell in lower numbers more or less by default compare to Elites. And Elites will sell in lower numbers than Troops, because of how the game works.

Hence, if a kit isn’t expected to sell in high numbers, any company needs to ensure the expected sales volume is profitable in its own right. That’s where GW’s pricing stems from. You may not like it, but it’s not some underhanded conspiracy.

GW skirmish game cost double that of what other companies ask for. And often require multiple sesonal books to play the game, unlike those of other factions. And I am not talking about super optimised tournament lists, but just a regular good list that is worth being bought and played at a FLGS. Heck the cost of 4 patrol boxs, is 600$+ depending where someone lives.
And four of those are often not even legal to play.

Something like a collossal are comperable to the big knights in price or the SoB from AoS, and while I can not check the price of them on GW site, at my store a single mega gargant costs more then 100$, although only by one 1$. after convertion to PLN.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Stuff like character models sell in lower numbers more or less by default compare to Elites. And Elites will sell in lower numbers than Troops, because of how the game works.

.

I think that depends A LOT on the army. GW writes the rules, so they know or at least should know what is going to be played. And marine armies do not consists of 40+ intercessors/incursors/etc and then 10-15 elite models. What marine lists do consists of or consisted of was, minimal troops, and then spamed terminators, bikes, venguard veterans, sang guard etc depending on the army. Yet GW, knowing that, somehow doesn't make, the rarely used intercessor, not to mention almost never used scout or tactical squad, more expensive then 3 blade guard veterans or 5 venguard marines. SW spam the living hell out of TWC and run a lot more wulfen, then lets say intercessors.
Abbadon is in every chaos army in existance ranging from actual csm and ending with chaos knights, yet GW didn't decide to make him cheaper just because he is used often. Same with GK NDKs at a time.

Karol wrote:
I don't think any other game, besides other GW games, can be called pricy.

At about $50/unit box the various Flames of War (15mm WWII etc) games, if built only using Battlefront product, can add up.
Not as expensive as GW of course, but still pricey. Especially considering the size of the models for the $.

That depends.

Let’s consider Warmahordes when it first landed. Whilst the price of individual boxes was roughly equivalent in the U.K., the selling point was you needed fewer such boxes to get a decent sized army.

But, because the games were such small scale, and much like X-Wing, the money was made by people swapping out units for variety, so they weren’t playing the same list game after game.

Yes further spending would almost certainly vary - and isn’t necessarily linked to how often you play. But it still added up quite quickly overtime.

For me? X-Wing priced me out fairly quickly, especially once it’s 2nd Edition landed. Individual fighter scale went from around £10-£12 a pop, to £23.99 RRP (you can buy at a discount of course). That’s….much to much. Especially when part of putting together a decent list is “hunt that one specific card, which could well be packed with a ship you just don’t want to field”.

Does that excuse GW’s own pricing? No. No it doesn’t. But if folk are honest, others are dodgy.

Sticking with X-Wing? Vader’s TIE Advanced sucked in the first edition. But don’t worry, we’ll put out new cards to sort that. But….you’ll need to buy the Imperial Raider (RRP £100, but I think was cheaper on release?) to get those….

Karol wrote:GW skirmish game cost double that of what other companies ask for. And often require multiple sesonal books to play the game, unlike those of other factions. And I am not talking about super optimised tournament lists, but just a regular good list that is worth being bought and played at a FLGS. Heck the cost of 4 patrol boxs, is 600$+ depending where someone lives.

And four of those are often not even legal to play.

This is a hot garbage take Karol.

GW skirmish games are games like Kill Team and Necromunda.

Take kill team. You can buy any of 4 starter sets for between £80 and £120. You get the rulebook, dice, cards, ancilliaries, faction rosters, terrain and 2 kill teams (krieg veterans and ork commandos, sisters and tau, kasrkin and necrons and kroot farstriders and navy breachers). Its not just an intro to the game – it’s a buy-in to a very decent level. If you want an ever cheaper option, buy some intercessors. £30 That one kit is literally all you need. You can find the rules online if you don’t mind using a tablet or phone (and no, im not talking about getting the rules illegally either).

Take Necromunda. Buy a gang kit and the rulebook. And off you go. Maybe £60.

Very reasonable buy-ins. Very much in line with other companies' offerings. And no, you don’t need seasonal books to play the game. We’ve played necromunda since its relaunch with the original set of new rules (and recently went back in time to the free 90s rules which are amazing, by the way). The game doesn’t stop and the models don’t self destruct either.

You don’t need 4x patrol boxes to play a skirmish game.

Karol wrote:

Something like a collossal are comperable to the big knights in price or the SoB from AoS, and while I can not check the price of them on GW site, at my store a single mega gargant costs more then 100$, although only by one 1$. after convertion to PLN.

.

Indeed, but that’s irrelevant. Your point was no game could be called as pricey as GWs. You are incorrect in stating this. PP’s warmachine is just as expensive in a lot of ways. £100 for 5 vavalry models (everblight chosen) for example is insanity. I don’t consider GW heroes by any stretch of the imagination, but there are plenty of ways to play their games with a reasonable buy in, the grass isn’t necessarily greener in other companies’ fields.

Karol wrote:

I think that depends A LOT on the army. GW writes the rules, so they know or at least should know what is going to be played. And marine armies do not consists of 40+ intercessors/incursors/etc and then 10-15 elite models. What marine lists do consists of or consisted of was, minimal troops, and then spamed terminators, bikes, venguard veterans, sang guard etc depending on the army. Yet GW, knowing that, somehow doesn't make, the rarely used intercessor, not to mention almost never used scout or tactical squad, more expensive then 3 blade guard veterans or 5 venguard marines. SW spam the living hell out of TWC and run a lot more wulfen, then lets say intercessors.

Abbadon is in every chaos army in existance ranging from actual csm and

.

Not everyone plays tournament lists Karol. Remember that. I’ve probably bought about 50 intercessors myself (minotaurs, raptors, dark angels painting project etc) and probably the same in reivers.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:That depends.
Let’s consider Warmahordes when it first landed. Whilst the price of individual boxes was roughly equivalent in the U.K., the selling point was you needed fewer such boxes to get a decent sized army.

‘when it first landed’ being the operative word. We are talking about a situation 15 years ago which bears very little resemblance to now or has any relevance to the modern game.

By the time mk2 was mature, the standard game was steamroller 2 x 50pts, with very little overlap (sometimes even sideboards). Combine this with £40 jacks and casters an a need to keep up with the meta, it was pricey. By the time mk3 came around, the meta list was infernals, which would set you back for the standard 2 x 75pts lists and would set you back the best part of £1000.

Also of note is Brexit – 15 years ago if you paid $200 for something, its equivalent was about £120, now its £200. Thatts put a massive burden on top of the price. The mk4 starter sets are $200 dollars for 20 models...

Karol wrote:
GW skirmish game cost double that of what other companies ask for. .

Do they, though? I'd take the price point of Warcry or Kill Team or Bloodbowl starters or teams any day over what PP is asking for new Warmachine starters (skirmish -sized).

I was keeping to MK1 Warmachine because that’s the one I’m familiar with. Probably should’ve said

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I was keeping to MK1 Warmachine because that’s the one I’m familiar with. Probably should’ve said

Youre showing your age. Karol wasnt even born then. :p

That’s not my age. That’s my

Oh wait I can’t use those sort of words on Dakka.

Who new Duck would be so controversial?

Have people looked at Mantic as a comparison vs GW? If I was to buy from a company I would buy from them. I haven't seen the models in person, but the prices are much better, aswell as the bundles. Their rules I like and they have different scales of battle, with different rules for each size. I just have never seen anyone locally play it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Sticking with X-Wing? Vader’s TIE Advanced sucked in the first edition. But don’t worry, we’ll put out new cards to sort that. But….you’ll need to buy the Imperial Raider (RRP £100, but I think was cheaper on release?) to get those….

Yeah, people who complain about GW's supposed predatory pricing should really take a look at FFG. And to make it clear to people who didn't play X-Wing: the cards have literally zero effect on the game, they exist purely as a rules reference and if you use a squad builder like most people all of their rules text is on your printed list. The sole reason for requiring physical cards in events is to act as a proof of purchase and force you to pay enough money for the privilege of playing. It's not like buying new 40k models where you do kind of need to have a model on the table, the only thing buying that £100 model got you was the proof that you spent £100 and had permission to use the £100 upgrade.

i mean blood and plunder is releasing a starter box for $145, in that you get 2 plastic ships and guns, dimensions put each ship as larger than a baneblade. you get i believe it's 10 dudes per side, and everything you need play including rule book, gaming mat, dice, templates etc.

even their resin sloops are much cheaper than comparably sized models from FW.

GW has good deals on their box sets typically, but their individual models are stupidly expensive.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
i mean blood and plunder is releasing a starter box for $145, in that you get 2 plastic ships and guns, dimensions put each ship as larger than a baneblade. you get i believe it's 10 dudes per side, and everything you need play including rule book, gaming mat, dice, templates etc.

Oh nice, I'll have to give that a look.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
even their resin sloops are much cheaper than comparably sized models from FW.

To be fair those sloops also have nowhere near the detail or # of parts similar sized FW kits do. There's alot more that goes into producing & pricing resin kits than just x amount resin/x size model.

steelhead177th wrote:
Have people looked at Mantic as a comparison vs GW? If I was to buy from a company I would buy from them. I haven't seen the models in person, but the prices are much better, aswell as the bundles. Their rules I like and they have different scales of battle, with different rules for each size. I just have never seen anyone locally play it.

Mantic is an interesting case. 3 aspects to consider if you're looking at Kings of War, their flagship game.

First, the models are certainly cheaper than GW, but though they are definitely improving, they generally aren't as good and the prices are slowly ticking upwards. I like Mantic as a company and most of their miniatures are good but they just aren't on the same level. However being that they're intended for a mass battle ranked game each model being a work of art is less important.

Second, rules are tighter, and more affordable and there are FAR less of them. Generally you buy a rulebook and if you play one of the less core armies there's a single supplement that covers all of them that you would also purchase. Then, once a year a supplement is released that covers any armies and additional units released that year, rules clarifications and a campaign. Yet you don't have to buy any of those extras because you can do everything with a rulebook and a force builder which includes all special rules and Magic item descriptions.

This year, rather than a supplement, they are releasing a new rules compilation with no fluff, but all rules and lists, clarifications and additional rules for siege, skirmish and such. Sort of a one book to rule them all.

Thirdly, it's fairly open as far as miniatures. There are quite a few armies (mostly WHFB analogues) that they don't make miniatures for and the company, players and tournaments welcome alternate models. However, if you're a hardcore tournament player, you can only advance to their finals with an army of Mantic Miniatures.

So, it's cheaper and tighter and with none of the rules bloat but there are downsides in addition to the lower model quality. You're not going to be able to find a game as easily in most areas. Also, even though they put alot of work in and rebooted the setting I don't find it particularly compelling and being quite new there just isn't that much to jump into. I prefer to use the WHFB setting with KOW rules.

It's also a fairly large game that really only starts to hum at 1200 points or so. That means there are allot of models to paint. Supposedly they are rectifying this with a new small battle mode, but that remains to be seen. Lastly, while I don't find it a bad thing, people who prefer more complex rules that attempt to capture the finer differences between units may not like KoW's level of abstraction.

Sum up, KOW has affordability and a better game. GW has better models and games you can easily find opponents for.

Mantic is an interesting case. 3 aspects to consider if you're looking at Kings of War, their flagship game.
...

My perspective has pretty much always been that GW is the most expensive brand in a fairly cheap hobby. Certainly I'd love GW product to be cheaper, and if it was I'd probably spend more overall dollars on it, but price tag has never been a serious issue for me, and I'm not pulling in an above average working adult wage.

The majority of my purchasing restraint with GW product is the ability to actually motivate myself to paint it, not the cost in dollars.

steelhead177th wrote:

Mantic is an interesting case. 3 aspects to consider if you're looking at Kings of War, their flagship game.
...

What about the Sci-Fi? Warpath, Firefight and their skirmish sized (Vanguard)?

I don't know much about them honestly. If any of them have a following near you, I'd check them out.

Most of what was said about KOW probably applies to Warpath/Firefight. I've heard good things about the Vanguard and Deadzone, but I've never actually seen those 4 games being played and I'm in a major city.

I do think the sci Fi range of miniatures looks quite good. I've got a few Forgefathers and some Rebs. However, KOW is the only Mantic game I've heard of folks playing, the only one I could get my club interested in, and we're mostly treating it as a WHFB rules replacement for gaming in the Old World.

The biggest value gw provides for their high price (for gamers) is ease of finding opponents. Their edition and expansion churn are a subscription fee for people who either want to play their games OR have to play GW because their local players won’t lower themselves to play anything but.

They make nice, detailed models. And they charge Coca Cola prices because, as the king, they can.

Cyel wrote:
Physical product is physical product and it should dictate the price. The things like game size or points costs are arbitrarily decided by the company that produces the game and I hate when people say they are legitimate ways of determining the price of the product in $$$. It's just a free pass for the company to introduce predatory pricing strategies. "Hey, designers, let's make this model cost more points so that we can ask more money for it!" etc.

This I wholeheartedly agree with.

There is no good reason to charge $60 for 5 dudes or $35 for 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

steelhead177th wrote:
Have people looked at Mantic as a comparison vs GW? If I was to buy from a company I would buy from them. I haven't seen the models in person, but the prices are much better, aswell as the bundles. Their rules I like and they have different scales of battle, with different rules for each size. I just have never seen anyone locally play it.

Mantic minis are like marmite; people either like or loathe them. I like them. But there are other options, too, such as Wargames Atlantic, Frostgrave/Stargrave/Oathmark, and to a lesser extent, Medge and Gates of Antares. And Mantic themselves have had to raise prices, though not to crazy GW levels.

There are plenty of cheap or free mini-agnostic rule books out there for anyone who isn’t comfortable proxying cheap models into their big spender games. You can absolutely have a wonderful gaming experience for a fraction of the cost. The only thing you need are friends willing to play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 privateer4hire wrote:
The biggest value gw provides for their high price (for gamers) is ease of finding opponents. Their edition and expansion churn are a subscription fee for people who either want to play their games OR have to play GW because their local players won’t lower themselves to play anything but.

They make nice, detailed models. And they charge Coca Cola prices because, as the king, they can.

This is something I still don’t understand.

Why is it so important to find players already playing the game?

Perhaps it’s my age, the fact that I grew up in boardgame culture, or late entry into wargaming, but I’ve always found it preferable to have friends I’d want to take with and introduce them to the new game and say, “let’s try this one today”.

Perhaps because you have been lucky enough to have friends who would play what you suggested? I spent 20 plus years moving every 2-3 years and finding a pool of players was important to getting ANY gaming in. (And GW was the core everywhere I lived) And multiple years and multiple systems proved game evangelism to be a waste of time and money.

We retired to rural Oregon and for the first couple of years it was play 40k or don’t game. I lucked into finding one other guy who’d play off brand stuff. In nearly seven years that number has increased by two more for a stable of three other players.

So that’s why having a turnkey game community is valuable to me and to probably a few others who like playing.

Why is it so important to find players already playing the game?

Perhaps it’s my age, the fact that I grew up in boardgame culture, or late entry into wargaming, but I’ve always found it preferable to have friends I’d want to take with and introduce them to the new game and say, “let’s try this one today”.

Expense and time taken to learn it. Difficulty finding models. The smaller the group, the more akin to herding cats arranging games becomes.

Also remember a popular game like 40K also comes with folk able to teach others, making ongoing recruitment a lot easier than a bunch of people trying to figure a rules set out by themselves.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:



Mantic minis are like marmite; people either like or loathe them. I like them. But there are other options, too, such as Wargames Atlantic, Frostgrave/Stargrave/Oathmark, and to a lesser extent, Medge and Gates of Antares. And Mantic themselves have had to raise prices, though not to crazy GW levels.

There are plenty of cheap or free mini-agnostic rule books out there for anyone who isn’t comfortable proxying cheap models into their big spender games. You can absolutely have a wonderful gaming experience for a fraction of the cost. The only thing you need are friends willing to play.

.

I may have come across slightly harsh when I said Mantic minis are not as good as GW. They aren't, but that's not to say they're bad. They increasingly have a more unified style and that style will not appeal too all. There are also some oddball issues such as very tall hobbits that may turn some folks off.

If the used and lower-cost plastic minis market wasn't so robust, there are several Mantic factions I'd consider. However, it just happens that none of the given Mantic choices appeal to me as much as the minis I've been sourcing elsewhere.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

This is something I still don’t understand.

Why is it so important to find players already playing the game?

Perhaps it’s my age, the fact that I grew up in boardgame culture, or late entry into wargaming, but I’ve always found it preferable to have friends I’d want to take with and introduce them to the new game and say, “let’s try this one today”.

Having an established group of friends who game (regardless of the game chosen) would likely be the preference of most players. I've had that for over a decade now and they are a treasure. However, I remember the days of 4th and 5th edition when I was recently out-of-college and didn't have that group. Being able to go on a game shop or other website -or even just show up at a shop- and easily find someone who wanted to play 40k made gaming so much easier and more accessible. It was also easier to find groups of players to visit and game with. Being who I am, I was buying most of my 40k second hand, but I was happy to buy some new rulebooks and some kits at FLGS's because I knew they'd get used and I appreciated the service that the FLGS offered via game space.

I've left that behind, but I completely understand respect the value of ubiquity when it comes to deciding what game to choose. My feelings about GW are pretty well stated, but if I wind up in a small town where 40k is the only game in town, I'll likely be playing 40k until I can build a group to play something else.

I am not sure if it is better or worse to live in a small town?

In a small town you can build the gaming scene to what you want to play.

Or worse, because..... no one plays. Even 40K requires game evangelism!

That has been my experience, as most of my gaming life I have lived in rural towns in the US.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Perhaps because you have been lucky enough to have friends who would play what you suggested? I spent 20 plus years moving every 2-3 years and finding a pool of players was important to getting ANY gaming in. (And GW was the core everywhere I lived) And multiple years and multiple systems proved game evangelism to be a waste of time and money.

We retired to rural Oregon and for the first couple of years it was play 40k or don’t game. I lucked into finding one other guy who’d play off brand stuff. In nearly seven years that number has increased by two more for a stable of three other players.

So that’s why having a turnkey game community is valuable to me and to probably a few others who like playing.

I see. I hadn’t considered having to move into a new community. In hindsight, pretty foolish of me.

I will admit I spend most of my opponent's turn talking them into other games to the point where when I refer to 40k games as recruiting drives.

 LunarSol wrote:
I will admit I spend most of my opponent's turn talking them into other games to the point where when I refer to 40k games as recruiting drives.

That's pretty rude of you.

If we were playing & you did this?
The 1st turn this happened I would politely point out to you that while ____ might be a great game, I'd come to play 40k.
If you continued for a 2nd turn I'd be more blunt about it.
A 3rd turn & I'd just take the hint that you're not really interested in the game being played and begin packing up.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
Perhaps because you have been lucky enough to have friends who would play what you suggested? I spent 20 plus years moving every 2-3 years and finding a pool of players was important to getting ANY gaming in. (And GW was the core everywhere I lived) And multiple years and multiple systems proved game evangelism to be a waste of time and money.

We retired to rural Oregon and for the first couple of years it was play 40k or don’t game. I lucked into finding one other guy who’d play off brand stuff. In nearly seven years that number has increased by two more for a stable of three other players.

So that’s why having a turnkey game community is valuable to me and to probably a few others who like playing.

I see. I hadn’t considered having to move into a new community. In hindsight, pretty foolish of me.

Not foolish at all.

Even having lived in one place for nearly seven years, it’s taken all that time to find only three others in the area willing to play something other than 40k. Not just GW, but only 40k. Necrominda lasted about 90 days, as did original warcry and bb2020. The locals just won’t venture outside that bubble.

GW prices are more or less reasonable IMO. FW prices is where we start getting into questionable value. But still, many of my synths and music equipment cost so much more than any miniatures game playing "pieces", so I dont really consider wargaming to be an expensive hobby. A bloody time sink yes, but not too costly.

Anyone into modular synths will laugh at the petty outlay required for a 2000pt 40K army.. while the rest of the world laughs at them

Yes, compared to other hobbies, this one is pretty cheap. However, compared to other hobbies this one is pretty expensive.

That said, I get a lot of value for my wargaming dollar. I buy a box of minis, spend time assembling it, spend time painting it, spend time photographing them, and spend time actually using them on the table.

Once I own them, no one can take them away from me and I can use them as much as I want. I still have 1st Edition Rogue Trader minis that regularly hit my table in various wargames.

Historicals are an even better deal, as a Roman Republican soldier is a Roman Republican soldier. I can use it Wars of the Republic, Saga, L'Art de Guerre, Warhammer Ancient Battles, Broken Legions, Warhammer Fantasy Battle, Oathmark, etc.

Yep. If you think Warhammer is expensive, look at the cost of golf sometime. Or SCUBA diving. Or big game hunting. Or high-end photography. Or rebuilding cars.

Of course, there are cheaper hobbies, as well.

I agree GW prices, FOR A WHOLE ARMY, can get pretty pricey for the wargaming hobby. But you're also getting the ability to find a pick-up game in virtually every game store in the country, which is nice.

ccs wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I will admit I spend most of my opponent's turn talking them into other games to the point where when I refer to 40k games as recruiting drives.

That's pretty rude of you.

If we were playing & you did this?
The 1st turn this happened I would politely point out to you that while ____ might be a great game, I'd come to play 40k.
If you continued for a 2nd turn I'd be more blunt about it.
A 3rd turn & I'd just take the hint that you're not really interested in the game being played and begin packing up.

Do you not chat about other things during a game? Most of the time people are chatting about movies or shows or games or whatever. Other games I play is a pretty natural topic of conversation. And you don't continue conversations people aren't interested in. That's just like... basic social skills.

If you have to compare GW prices to some completely other hobby, and usually another out-of-reach-for-most hobby like scuba diving or flying lessons, then you are admitting GW are too damn expensive. Compare their prices to others in the same field or hobby, and they don’t look so hot.

If finding a thriving community of people to play against is important to you, you should want GW prices not to be a barrier to entry that makes them game almost-but-not-quite as inaccessible as scuba. Mini golf prices get you more players than real golf prices.

You can find data to support whatever narrative you want to about GW's price, cost, value, and worth. The reality is that GW prices their stuff in a pretty dynamic way, so that some GW stuff is some of the cheapest available, while some is eye bleedingly expensive. generally, GW's starter boxes are incredible value, their bundles are high value, their base boxes vary widely, and a handful of low point, high cost models are shockingly expensive. In other words, the cost to build an army can vary dramatically.

Pretty much all other wargames with strong IP (pretty much all licensed) cost roughly what GW stuff costs. Historical tend to be cheaper, and can look great, while increasingly fantasy models are also available pretty cheaply. The biggest difference is that other games tend to use far fewer figs.

The super important thing to remember when people talk about value with GW is that for many people, diminishing returns has long since kicked in. Once you own a couple of armies, how much more value are you going to get out of another one? It's easy for my to say I'd never buy an Admech army new, due to the cost, but I don't need an Admech army, and I have a half dozen more armies to play.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If you have to compare GW prices to some completely other hobby, and usually another out-of-reach-for-most hobby like scuba diving or flying lessons, then you are admitting GW are too damn expensive. Compare their prices to others in the same field or hobby, and they don’t look so hot.

That sounds fine in theory, but I dont play wargames from other manufacturers. In fact, they dont interest me, like, at all. So why would I compare prices of those games to something like 40K or Kill Team? It's just as pointless for me to compare prices of other wargames vs GWs as it for you to compare prices of other hobbies to wargaming in general.

What I mean is, perceived value of things is very subjective, and therefore night on impossible to reach any real consensus on.

Even when you strip away personal taste, it's not that hard to define GW's market so that they don't' have any effective competitors: large scale, fully plastic fantasy and sci-fi armies with broad and deep catalogs. Sure, you have some plastics from Warlord, Mantic, and whoever makes oathmarks, but GW has individual ranges that have more plastic kits, and it's games are played at such a large model count that nobody really comes close. If you allow historicals, the Bolt Action German range probably is one of the deepest ranges outside of GW.

Look at areas where there is direct competition. Kill Team In to the DArk is $210, which is more than Mantic's Deadzone at $140, but the no frills (and really no terrain) Kill Team starter is only $99. Into the Dark is half again as much as Deadzone, but is twice as big. You can argue the merits of both if you'd like (I own a lot of mantic stuff, but their models are simply not in GW's league), but in terms of literally how many sprues of plastic you get, they punch about the same.

Now, the flip side is that nobody but GW could get away with some of the absurd pricing. Ad Mech chicken walkers at $60 each? GTFO. But gW can get away with it, because nobody else has figured out how to get people to not only buy one of those for $60, but to buy a half dozen or more because they're good in the game.

But GW so outclasses nearly all other wargames miniatures manufacturers that even when you can go apples to apples, there's always a "yeah, but GW is so much better" argument to be made.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If you have to compare GW prices to some completely other hobby, and usually another out-of-reach-for-most hobby like scuba diving or flying lessons, then you are admitting GW are too damn expensive. Compare their prices to others in the same field or hobby, and they don’t look so hot.
.

Nah, not really.

I mean, dismissing comparisons is a bit dishonest if you ask me. They're not 'out of reach' comparisons either.

A good rig for computer gaming?

A next gen console?

A next gen console game? I mean game pass aside a new game can be £60.

Most gamers won't even blink.

Football season tickets will cost you £400 to £500 here in Scotland(never mind what folks pay down south), individual games might be £30 to £60 (plus food) for the day out. etc. And hundreds of thousands of people engage in this week in and week out. Millions do, worldwide. and at least when I'm playing wargames I'm (a) indoors, (b) dry and (c) warm. Big improvement on your average Scottish fitbaw.

How about joining a golf club like millions more do and getting some decent gear? This isn't the preserve of the world's billionaires either. The average person on the street does this.

The oft mentioned 'outing to the cinema' will cost you £30 for 2 hours and the movie might be rubbish.

How about ordinary every day things like car repayments (couple hundred quid a month) or fuel for said car (£30 a week for me at the moment). £300 for a bunch of gw war-things I can literally use until my final breath is awfully good value in comparison.

So, GW product has a very high utility, but in sort of the same way that all hobby stuff does, beacuse if you use something a lot it has more value. For people that play less, or don't see value in painting, than the utility drops.

Here's what I'll say: If you spent $50 a month on GW, that's $600 a year. Let's assume you spend $250 to start, so that's a starter box or a combat patrol, a few paints, a brush or two, and some primer, glue, and tools from a hardware store. With that initial investment and $50 a month, you'll have a playable army in a year, and be able to keep it up to date and add to your hobby bench. And then... you can play it every week! For essentially zero dollars.

So, I legit do not understand how anybody can start the hobby from a dead stop. It must be daunting. But when you break it down monthly and look at it over a year or two, it's just not that much compared to a lot of other leisure activities.

Look, it's never going to be as cheap as the cheap hobbies like trail hiking, charcoal sketcing, or streaming music/TV. But when compared to adult hobbies like golf, fishing, or collecting, it's cheaper.

I think that GW slots in with other "serious" gaming hobbies like video gaming or TCGs. Sure, you can play magic by buying a commander precon for $40, but nobody just does that. You can quibble around the margins, but they're pretty similar.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If you have to compare GW prices to some completely other hobby, and usually another out-of-reach-for-most hobby like scuba diving or flying lessons, then you are admitting GW are too damn expensive. Compare their prices to others in the same field or hobby, and they don’t look so hot.

Why? If a burger at one drive through costs $1 and a burger at the other one costs $1.25 they're both still cheap and no amount of "expensive for a burger" is going to influence my decision about which one to buy. And for a lot of people miniatures are in the same position. Whether or not GW is expensive relative to other companies just doesn't matter, it's still a cheap hobby relative to other adult hobbies. The people who are spending five figures a year on their boat/plane/track car/etc aren't even going to notice a $1000 40k army and there are a lot of people buying those things.

If finding a thriving community of people to play against is important to you, you should want GW prices not to be a barrier to entry that makes them game almost-but-not-quite as inaccessible as scuba. Mini golf prices get you more players than real golf prices.

Sure. Of course all customers want to have cheaper prices. Even if an entire 40k army cost $10 people would still want it to cost $5. But that doesn't mean 40k is an expensive hobby, or that GW's pricing strategy is unreasonable.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If you have to compare GW prices to some completely other hobby, and usually another out-of-reach-for-most hobby like scuba diving or flying lessons, then you are admitting GW are too damn expensive. Compare their prices to others in the same field or hobby, and they don’t look so hot.

If finding a thriving community of people to play against is important to you, you should want GW prices not to be a barrier to entry that makes them game almost-but-not-quite as inaccessible as scuba. Mini golf prices get you more players than real golf prices.

Mini-golf may get more players, but how many of them are out at the mini-golf course every weekend to play regularly?

And I'd hardly call golf or working on cars 'out of reach' for most. I worked at Wal-Mart some years back with a co-worker who golfed. Not a manager, mind you, a line employee. Granted, not with top-of-the-line equipment or at the high-end country clubs, but the point remains.

Yeah, you pay a premium for GW. For that premium you get a very good chance at finding a pick-up game pretty much anywhere you go. Is it the best value in the wargaming hobby? Probably not. It is still pretty darn widespread? Yes, yes it is.

And unless your FLGS is a GW store, you don't even need to buy GW minis to play GW games.

> That sounds fine in theory, but I dont play wargames from other manufacturers. In fact, they dont interest me, like, at all.

Has anyone brought up "lifestyle games"? Because someone who plays only one game line can certainly spend within budget as well as someone who plays a variety of games.

Magic the Gathering is another example of a lifestyle game. Someone can spend hundreds of dollars on the game every year or even few months, but if he's not spending money on other games, he may not be spending any more of his gaming budget than someone who spends less money per game system, but plays many game systems.

EDIT: And then there's golf! https://www.golflink.com/facts_6020_much-does-cost-play-golf.html

We joke that our group could easily play 40k as a lifestyles game IF we used the money we spend on $5 independent pdf’s in search of the grail game

 ced1106 wrote:
> That sounds fine in theory, but I dont play wargames from other manufacturers. In fact, they dont interest me, like, at all.

If you're not interested from the offerings of corvus beli, Privateer Press, warlord or whoever else, comparing a theoretical smaller price tag from them against what you pay is academic at best. Just be careful you don't get called a 'shill' or a 'mindless sheep'.

 ced1106 wrote:

Has anyone brought up "lifestyle games"? Because someone who plays only one game line can certainly spend within budget as well as someone who plays a variety of games.

I think any game from any manufacturer can be played with a big or a small budget. Some approaches are more appropriate for smaller budgets and at worst some expectations might need to be manages but to me that's as far as it goes.

"Cost" is an objective measure. A thing has a price, and that's easily quantifiable.

"Value" is subjective, though. Regardless of the cost of something, its value/worth/usefulness is going to be highly dependent upon the purchaser. Even a "great price" on something is of no value if it is something that will not be used by the purchaser.

So, spending the same amount of cash on, say, a single model for a game that you actually play and enjoy will have a higher value compared to spending on a box of models for a game you have no interest in.

 Polonius wrote:


Now, the flip side is that nobody but GW could get away with some of the absurd pricing. Ad Mech chicken walkers at $60 each? GTFO. But gW can get away with it, because nobody else has figured out how to get people to not only buy one of those for $60, but to buy a half dozen or more because they're good in the game.

But GW so outclasses nearly all other wargames miniatures manufacturers that even when you can go apples to apples, there's always a "yeah, but GW is so much better" argument to be made.

I asume you are talking about the Sydonian Dragoon? - https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Sydonian-Dragoon-2017

First of all, it is not 60$. Especially not at the local/online store. Second, the model is simply amazing. It is huge, it looks outstanding, and you get a ton of extra bits to customize it however you want, make it a Dragoon or a Balistarii, different type of weapons, etc. I do not feel at all robbed for what I payed, in fact I'm gonna buy another one because how good it looks.
And this is my experience with GW so far - I get enough content from their boxes that I feel their prices are fair (for the hobby, at least) - both in term of quantity and quality. Maybe fair is not the right word, but I never felt cheated when buying GW, even when I bought characters - like Tigurius for example - the amount of extra bits, extra options for anything, the quality of the mini, all makes it a worthy purchase for me.

Price depends where you are in the world.
New Zealand its $98
USA its $60
UK its £35

 emanuelb wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


Now, the flip side is that nobody but GW could get away with some of the absurd pricing. Ad Mech chicken walkers at $60 each? GTFO. But gW can get away with it, because nobody else has figured out how to get people to not only buy one of those for $60, but to buy a half dozen or more because they're good in the game.

But GW so outclasses nearly all other wargames miniatures manufacturers that even when you can go apples to apples, there's always a "yeah, but GW is so much better" argument to be made.

I asume you are talking about the Sydonian Dragoon? - https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Sydonian-Dragoon-2017

First of all, it is not 60$. Especially not at the local/online store.

I mean, it is $60. Yes, I can get 15% off, and yes, it's dramatically cheaper in Euros, and cheaper still in Sterling. But the MSRP on that bad boy is sixty bucks.

Second, the model is simply amazing. It is huge, it looks outstanding, and you get a ton of extra bits to customize it however you want, make it a Dragoon or a Balistarii, different type of weapons, etc. I do not feel at all robbed for what I payed, in fact I'm gonna buy another one because how good it looks.
And this is my experience with GW so far - I get enough content from their boxes that I feel their prices are fair (for the hobby, at least) - both in term of quantity and quality. Maybe fair is not the right word, but I never felt cheated when buying GW, even when I bought characters - like Tigurius for example - the amount of extra bits, extra options for anything, the quality of the mini, all makes it a worthy purchase for me.

I am not sure if you are disagreeing with me, or just making a follow up point. I was using this as an example of a model that's excessively priced, but is still bought, which is something that not a lot of manufacturers can do.

Granted, I live in Europe, so maybe the prices are cheaper here for warhammer, but I disagree with the model being excessively priced.

I play other games and I bought minis for Warmachine, Bushido, Armada, Conquest. My experience in general is that, at best, other manufacturer's models might be slightly cheaper - in the case of Sydonian Dragoon, maybe 10$ less.
But if you take into consideration other factors, like the size of the models (GWs are usually bigger), the details, extra options, then I think it totally makes up for the extra price.
And let's not forget the quality of life difference: GWs models are the only ones that comes with instructions how to build - maybe a small thing, but boy sometimes is annoying searching the net and watching videos so you can assemble your model. Just put a small flyer so I know how to assemble. Then comes the quality of the plastic, easy to clean and easy to glue with plastic glue.

My point is, coming into this hobby fairly recently, everybody was saying how Warhammer is soo expensive. And yes, it is, but once you compare with the competition, not anymore.
The prices are on average fairly similar, but the quality is notable better. I don't know, I feel GW gets a lot of unfair hate. I have my own issues with Warhammer, it is far from perfect, but price is not one of the problems.

The only significant price difference I've seen is for historicals. I can buy boxes of very cheap soldiers from Zvezda or Italeri, and they are indeed significantly cheaper than WArhammer. But scale aside, you are getting what you pay for.

The prices aren’t fairly similar outside of Europe/UK, though. That’s a significant issue.

 emanuelb wrote:
I don't know, I feel GW gets a lot of unfair hate

the hate comes not from a "per model" perspective but how much you nee to pay to play that game

this is also the difference between the "Warhammer Hobby" and the "Wargaming Hobby", as the former you look at single models that look cool, and you look at the price per model, for the later people look at the price per game
hence it does not matter of a single Space Marine is similar priced to other single models, if you pay 3-4 times the amount to play the game

same as the details and quality of a single model does not matter a lot if you need 100 of them

there is a reason why models for Rank&File games are different in price, quality and options, than those made for Skirmish games, because you simply don't need to have the perfect detailed model that cost 5€ if it is never seen in detail again because it will stand in the middle of a unit of 30 others

there is a difference if you just play with 24 models in total, than you want 24 different models, non being duplicated, everyone being detailed and good looking and the higher price of 5-10€ is ok
but if you play with "armies" with 10 units were each unit has 24 models it is not important that there are no duplicates, or they are highly detailed and have options (outside the command models in the front rank) and you definitely don't want to pay 5-10€ per models to get things you don't need

in the first case you pay 120-240€ for the "army" and get the quality appropriate for the game size, for the 2nd example you also pay 120-240€ for the army and get appropriate quality for the game size

And this is were the hate for GW comes from, because they sell the models for the first case and write their rules for the 2nd case and the combination of high per model price and needing a lots of them makes it expensive

of course, if you just collect models and don't play, this is different and GW also focus on this market, so you actually buy display models as gaming pieces and their marketing is that good that most people think you "need" display model quality to play

PS: just as an example, Perry Miniatures are considered the top brand for historical wargaming with many people use their models for humans in fantasy as well
their models are 0,5€ per model for Infantry and 2€ for Cavalry, yet comparing them model by model to GW, you would consider the quality and design abysmal or worse
yet because they make models for games were you have 24-36 models per unit, they are considered the best quality available for that type of game because the have the quality needed too look good on the table within a unit and it doesn't matter that the single model is not perfect

On prices across companies? Brace yourself for what might, at first, seem like a hot take. But I promise that if you stick with this post, and I explain myself well, this will at least provide food for thought.

Ready?

GW’s pricing model is beneficial for other companies, and may be the key to others being profitable

In short, my rationale is thus.

1. GW do have high prices.
2. GW are the market leader. The biggest fish in the pond by some margin.
3. A common, near universal approach for a new game is “just be cheaper per model or more affordable for a force than GW”.

If GW lowered their prices, and ran on a lesser profit margin (check their financials for accurate info. It’s not what some claim, but still healthy), then would-be competitors may not be able to get their feet under them. I say that as if prices were much of a muchness, a particular “why not give us a whirl” route is closed off.

And with GW’s recent successes, other companies can point to that info to try to persuade outside investors the industry does have significant money behind it. How significant? GW brings in more money than the entire British Fishing Industry.

Right. There you go. A claim, seemingly a wild and spicy meataball of a claim, which perhaps isn’t as spicy as labelled.

if you GW would lower their prices and start selling plastic bits (like the HH weapon boxes), the whole 3D printing market would die over night as the main justification is that you get the design for less

the only reason to buy a 3D printed copy of a Land Raider (or buy the files and a printer) is that you are cheaper than going with the original in plastic

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
On prices across companies? Brace yourself for what might, at first, seem like a hot take.

GW’s pricing model is beneficial for other companies, and may be the key to others being profitable

In short, my rationale is thus.

1. GW do have high prices.
2. GW are the market leader. The biggest fish in the pond by some margin.
3. A common, near universal approach for a new game is “just be cheaper per model or more affordable for a force than GW”.

If GW lowered their prices, and ran on a lesser profit margin (check their financials for accurate info. It’s not what some claim, but still healthy), then would-be competitors may not be able to get their feet under them. I say that as if prices were much of a muchness, a particular “why not give us a whirl” route is closed off.

And with GW’s recent successes, other companies can point to that info to try to persuade outside investors the industry does have significant money behind it. How significant? GW brings in more money than the entire British Fishing Industry.

Right. There you go. A claim, seemingly a wild and spicy meataball of a claim, which perhaps isn’t as spicy as labelled.

I don't know if that's a particularly hot take. Definitely well-reasoned though and I completely agree. Whether a company like WGA selling IG-proxies, or a company like Mantic that has been able to tick their prices slowly upward, the high-ceiling of GW pricing does leave an ample margin for companies operating below.

 kodos wrote:
if you GW would lower their prices and start selling plastic bits (like the HH weapon boxes), the whole 3D printing market would die over night as the main justification is that you get the design for less

the only reason to buy a 3D printed copy of a Land Raider (or buy the files and a printer) is that you are cheaper than going with the original in plastic

GW would have to lower thier prices by a fantastical amount for thier Land Raider (etc) to compete price wise with a 3d print copy.
It won't happen.
It can't happen.

Nor will the 3d print market die. Not overnight nor over time.

 emanuelb wrote:
Granted, I live in Europe, so maybe the prices are cheaper here for warhammer, but I disagree with the model being excessively priced.

Yeah, I use the Dragoon as a sort of shorthand for a point I should have made clearer. For starters, GW prices are bad for anybody not on the Pound, and generally the further away from the UK you get, the worse the exchange gets. Euros aren't too bad, USD is worse, and Aussies and Kiwis get abused pretty bad. The dragoon is current 35 pounds, and I'd buy them all day at $40USD.

Teh bigger point is that of course GW models are high quality, with lots of optional parts, great instructions, and good support with painting videos. What makes GW unique isn't being able to see one Dragoon for$60. After all, Gunpla sells for a lot, and people buy dumber stuff for more money.

What chaps my particular ass, and I don't think I'm alone, is that the Dragoon isn't something you buy one of. They're buyable in units of up to six, and at various times in 8th and 9th full bricks of six were very potent in the game. For me, it's not spending $60 on one really cool model that bothers me, it's looking at spending $360 for a unit of of them. And then realizing that you built them as Dragoons, but the Ballistarii are now much stronger.

But I was cherry picking arguably one of the worst examples of GW's pricing to really make the broader point, which is that if you avoid the incredibly pricy models/armies, GW is, IMO, a pretty decent value for the money compared to most "Adult" hobbies.

 kodos wrote:

 emanuelb wrote:
I don't know, I feel GW gets a lot of unfair hate

the hate comes not from a "per model" perspective but how much you nee to pay to play that game

this is also the difference between the "Warhammer Hobby" and the "Wargaming Hobby", as the former you look at single models that look cool, and you look at the price per model, for the later people look at the price per game
hence it does not matter of a single Space Marine is similar priced to other single models, if you pay 3-4 times the amount to play the game

same as the details and quality of a single model does not matter a lot if you need 100 of them

there is a reason why models for Rank&File games are different in price, quality and options, than those made for Skirmish games, because you simply don't need to have the perfect detailed model that cost 5€ if it is never seen in detail again because it will stand in the middle of a unit of 30 others

there is a difference if you just play with 24 models in total, than you want 24 different models, non being duplicated, everyone being detailed and good looking and the higher price of 5-10€ is ok
but if you play with "armies" with 10 units were each unit has 24 models it is not important that there are no duplicates, or they are highly detailed and have options (outside the command models in the front rank) and you definitely don't want to pay 5-10€ per models to get things you don't need

in the first case you pay 120-240€ for the "army" and get the quality appropriate for the game size, for the 2nd example you also pay 120-240€ for the army and get appropriate quality for the game size

And this is were the hate for GW comes from, because they sell the models for the first case and write their rules for the 2nd case and the combination of high per model price and needing a lots of them makes it expensive

of course, if you just collect models and don't play, this is different and GW also focus on this market, so you actually buy display models as gaming pieces and their marketing is that good that most people think you "need" display model quality to play

PS: just as an example, Perry Miniatures are considered the top brand for historical wargaming with many people use their models for humans in fantasy as well
their models are 0,5€ per model for Infantry and 2€ for Cavalry, yet comparing them model by model to GW, you would consider the quality and design abysmal or worse
yet because they make models for games were you have 24-36 models per unit, they are considered the best quality available for that type of game because the have the quality needed too look good on the table within a unit and it doesn't matter that the single model is not perfect

I have to say I haven't thought from this angle. I'm used to people complaining that you need a lot of models for 40k, which makes the game expensive, to which I reply - well, this is a wargame, you need lots of models for wargames. Same as any other mass battle game.

Still, I do have an issue with your reasoning. Why do people play Warhammer primarily? I don't think it's for the rules. While I believe the curent edition it is actually very solid, I don't think the rules are the strongest point for warhammer. So if I'm primarily interested in a game, why choose warhammer? There are games with better rules out there. I think most people are drawn to 40k because of the quality of the models (and the lore) - so if say, GW was to lower their prices and also lower the quality of the models, I wonder if anybody would still play the game.

 Polonius wrote:


What chaps my particular ass, and I don't think I'm alone, is that the Dragoon isn't something you buy one of. They're buyable in units of up to six, and at various times in 8th and 9th full bricks of six were very potent in the game. For me, it's not spending $60 on one really cool model that bothers me, it's looking at spending $360 for a unit of of them. And then realizing that you built them as Dragoons, but the Ballistarii are now much stronger.

True, if you play competitive, the price for the game goes way up, esp. since many of their discount boxes don't contain optimal units. I'm also a gamer and I play 40k, but I'm not very competitive, so I'm not affected that much - I like Sydonian Dragoon, I buy one and include it in my army. But at top level you do need full bricks of Balistarii for Addmech, and that add the price quite a lot, esp. since this unit is a bad deal in term of points per $ (I believe is around 70~ points).

 emanuelb wrote:
Still, I do have an issue with your reasoning. Why do people play Warhammer primarily? I don't think it's for the rules. While I believe the curent edition it is actually very solid, I don't think the rules are the strongest point for warhammer. So if I'm primarily interested in a game, why choose warhammer? There are games with better rules out there. I think most people are drawn to 40k because of the quality of the models (and the lore) - so if say, GW was to lower their prices and also lower the quality of the models, I wonder if anybody would still play the game.

Most people play 40k because most people play 40k
it is the game played and if you want to do certain things and not just play at home with 1-2 friends, it is 40k

playing the game just for the models, well you can play most of the games out there with GW models. 90% of the games on the market (including 40k) are model agnostic games (as the rules and models are independent from each other), no need to play a bad game because you like those models

the other point is, if people would play 40k for the models only, there would not be such a large 3rd party market to offer alternatives of lower price/quality
there are more people using non-GW models to play 40k, than going with GW models in other games, hence it must be the rules not the models

so the main reason 40k is the game played is because it has such a large player base and offers the best possibilities to get a game done
same reason why specific sports are played in areas not matter if people like it or not (for example Tennis is the sport the company I work for, they have it as social event and offer all the possibilities to do so, and there are a lot of people who would like to play something different, but than you have to organise and pay it all on your own and while you can always find someone to play Tennis in the companies sports hall, trying to get a 4 vs 4 soccer game at a regular basis is nearly impossible and people just play Tennis instead)

40K also has a wide mix of aesthetics.

Consider something with a strong but singular design ethos, such as Warmahordes.

Great if you like that, not great if you don’t like that. For what it’s worth I’m in the latter camp. Not a big fan of Steampunk at the best of times, and even less so it’s chosen exaggerations.

40K however? Everything has its own internal design language. So whether playing or just collecting, GW have cast their net wider than others in terms of visual appeal. And rules be damned. You want to be a successful wargame, visual appeal is a significant part of that, unless you’re Just Offering A Rule Set of course!

To mildly build on my previous post, GW is also setting benchmarks in terms of kits. We’re spoiled with plastics (easy to assemble, easy to convert, even if Bitz aren’t as easy to come by as they once were), and for the most part, pretty ready supply.

Compare the supply side in particular. I know I can get my grubby mitts on a given kit pretty quickly. And even where it’s sold out, its typically a couple of weeks rather than months to get it back in stock. X-Wing? Hahahaha no. Warmahordes basically no longer exists in the U.K.

In short, you can have the objectively best rules and objectively best models. But….if nothing is actually on sale, or worse, your market is flooded with Scalpers? You’re pretty much screwed.

 emanuelb wrote:
Why do people play Warhammer primarily?

It's probably because it's everywhere. Go to most FLGS and it's there. It's not just there, it's probably the biggest single section of the store barring comics and CCGs. This makes it really easy to find groups and pick-up games anywhere there's an FLGS.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Warmahordes basically no longer exists in the U.K.

Elementgames and waylandgames both have Warmachine.

But I agree that availability is very important for a game. I live in Romania, and if I want to buy some Warmachine, I have to import it from Germany (extra shipping) or even UK (extra vat tax). Same for Malifaux, Infinity. But Warhammer? There are multiple romanian stores that have the whole range, free shipping, easy to handle, POD, etc. Much easier to get into.

Firestorm Games also have generally good stocks. That said the old stuff (MK1-3) is almost all gone from a lot of places in the UK. The MKIV is appearing but its going to hit that issue of being very high priced.

In terms of models I am happy enough with GW though I do bargain hunt. I haven't bought a sealed kit that wasn't at least discounted the 15% you can get.

In terms of books however I have no real interest in picking up a codex or any supplement/chapter approved becaue there really isn't a lot of value that I have found so I source my 40k rules elsewhere. They got my book money in 8th and after a few too many books became obsolete a bit too soon for me I decided to source my rules from elsewhere for this edition. I have only 2 9th books, and I am fine with that as it seems 10th is on its way anyway.

Yes, that's one of my biggest issues with 40k. You need to buy the core book, then the codex (for each army), then, if you play marines, a supplement, then other supplements/campaigns/ other places where the rules for your army might be scattered. Then a new edition comes out, and we're doing it all over again. Every 3 years a new edition is overkill.

 kodos wrote:
if you GW would lower their prices and start selling plastic bits (like the HH weapon boxes), the whole 3D printing market would die over night as the main justification is that you get the design for less

the only reason to buy a 3D printed copy of a Land Raider (or buy the files and a printer) is that you are cheaper than going with the original in plastic

No it isn't. Its an important reason, but there are a lot of awesome variants out there, especially in the vehicle field, that can slot easily into 40k unit types. Aesthetics of the specific model, personalisation, wanting to field a different and impressive model for a bit of wow factor. All valid reasons to 3D print a model.

3D printing is like pre-kitbashing, when you can manufacture the precise and awesome looking bit, rather than having to assemble it from other parts, or scratch build it.

And paper printers will die out of GW lowers the cost of codexes

 Flinty wrote:

 kodos wrote:
if you GW would lower their prices and start selling plastic bits (like the HH weapon boxes), the whole 3D printing market would die over night as the main justification is that you get the design for less

the only reason to buy a 3D printed copy of a Land Raider (or buy the files and a printer) is that you are cheaper than going with the original in plastic

No it isn't. Its an important reason, but there are a lot of awesome variants out there, especially in the vehicle field, that can slot easily into 40k unit types. Aesthetics of the specific model, personalisation, wanting to field a different and impressive model for a bit of wow factor. All valid reasons to 3D print a model.

3D printing is like pre-kitbashing, when you can manufacture the precise and awesome looking bit, rather than having to assemble it from other parts, or scratch build it.

it is, yet the money is made with the 1:1 copies, specially on the vehicle side

*citation needed.

 emanuelb wrote:
Yes, that's one of my biggest issues with 40k. You need to buy the core book, then the codex (for each army), then, if you play marines, a supplement, then other supplements/campaigns/ other places where the rules for your army might be scattered. Then a new edition comes out, and we're doing it all over again. Every 3 years a new edition is overkill.

Yep. I would like to see edition churn be more in the 5-6 year range. I think that would be fine as they are already adding on a 6 month tournament tax with the chapter approveds. Not that they will listen tome, and I am sure they have smarter people than myself advising them on what they can get away with. Which is fine, but I will sources my rules elsewhere. Pick up the occasional codex? Sure. But this edition I only have the core book (due to indomitus) and the admech codex which I got specifically because it was fairly new (get a decent 2+ years out of it) and it was easier for the crusade my group was running.

I think GW will have to shift to 5-6 year. Horus Heresy, Old World, AoS, 40K, Necromunda, AT not to mention Warcry and Underworlds.

It's too many games getting too many updates too fast on the 3 year rotation. Esp if GW wants customers to remain within their ecosystem. Throw expansion books on top and GW is running a risk that their desire to maximise profits off established gamers through expansion books and fast new editions is going to backfire and people will end up drifting away

 kodos wrote:

Perry Miniatures are considered the top brand for historical wargaming with many people use their models for humans in fantasy as well
their models are 0,5€ per model for Infantry and 2€ for Cavalry, yet comparing them model by model to GW, you would consider the quality and design abysmal or worse
yet because they make models for games were you have 24-36 models per unit, they are considered the best quality available for that type of game because the have the quality needed too look good on the table within a unit and it doesn't matter that the single model is not perfect

Hold on.
In what universe are Perry miniatures "Abysmal or Worse" compared to GW?!?

Perry miniatures are excellent figures. Exaggerated features, a plethora of skulls and needless filigree do not a better miniature make.

Compare a Perry infantry or Cavalry to a GW LOTR infantry or Cavalry (the nearest equivalent) and you'll find a rather comparable product.

Some were even sculpted by the Perry's, IIRC.

The fact that no one else has challenged your assertion suggests that GW has done an excellent job of selling us a very specific and skewed idea of what a "good" miniature is.

 Eilif wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Perry Miniatures are considered the top brand for historical wargaming with many people use their models for humans in fantasy as well
their models are 0,5€ per model for Infantry and 2€ for Cavalry, yet comparing them model by model to GW, you would consider the quality and design abysmal or worse
yet because they make models for games were you have 24-36 models per unit, they are considered the best quality available for that type of game because the have the quality needed too look good on the table within a unit and it doesn't matter that the single model is not perfect

Hold on.
In what universe are Perry miniatures "Abysmal or Worse" compared to GW?!?

Perry miniatures are excellent figures. Exaggerated features, a plethora of skulls and needless filigree do not a better miniature make.

Compare a Perry infantry or Cavalry to a GW LOTR infantry or Cavalry (the nearest equivalent) and you'll find a rather comparable product.

Some were even sculpted by the Perry's, IIRC.

The fact that no one else has challenged your assertion suggests that GW has done an excellent job of selling us a very specific and skewed idea of what a "good" miniature is.

No, it's just not worth the effort to try & disabuse people of thier opinions on what a decent mini is/isn't.

Perry's Miniatures are great. I've also been looking at a bunch of viking minis, and came across plastic minis that were a bit over $1 per mini, and they looked good. Looking at the price of Space Marines makes me glad that I prefer Mechanicus. I wanted a Devastator Squad, but $26 a mini is a bit much, even if they look good.

Alternatively, I love Skaven, and I can easily get 20 minis for $40, so $2 a mini. Games Workshop can be really well priced, but then you get Flayed Ones who come in a box of 5 for $55.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
God, Skaven would be so much cheaper in England. It's like $10 cheaper per box.

 Eilif wrote:

 kodos wrote:

Perry Miniatures are considered the top brand for historical wargaming with many people use their models for humans in fantasy as well
their models are 0,5€ per model for Infantry and 2€ for Cavalry, yet comparing them model by model to GW, you would consider the quality and design abysmal or worse
yet because they make models for games were you have 24-36 models per unit, they are considered the best quality available for that type of game because the have the quality needed too look good on the table within a unit and it doesn't matter that the single model is not perfect

Hold on.
In what universe are Perry miniatures "Abysmal or Worse" compared to GW?!?

Perry miniatures are excellent figures. Exaggerated features, a plethora of skulls and needless filigree do not a better miniature make.

Compare a Perry infantry or Cavalry to a GW LOTR infantry or Cavalry (the nearest equivalent) and you'll find a rather comparable product.

Some were even sculpted by the Perry's, IIRC.

The fact that no one else has challenged your assertion suggests that GW has done an excellent job of selling us a very specific and skewed idea of what a "good" miniature is.

Comparing historical minis with fantasy/sf ones is always difficult. I have to say that I am quite impressed with perry's minis - if I was playing historicals.

Looking at their medieval cavalry, they are really nice: https://www.perry-miniatures.com/product/ao-70-agincourt-mounted-knights-1415/

But then, you have:

- https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Chaos-Knights-2016

- https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Start-Collecting-Slaves-To-Darkness-2019

- https://www.games-workshop.com/en-EU/Varanguard-Knights-of-Ruin

These are Victrix Vikings, they come 60 to a box and they're definitely better miniatures in any technical aspect than their nearest GW equivalent (LotR Rohan)

comparing new Victrix to 20 year old Perry is unfair for the Perry's as things were different when they made the LotR stuff

yet looking at Victrix Miniatures that are similar old, well "those were cheap" was only good thing you would have heard from them and people still avoid the Napoleonic French from them because of that (though they have re-done them in between)

 Eilif wrote:
Hold on.
In what universe are Perry miniatures "Abysmal or Worse" compared to GW?!?

I have both on the table, at the moment though it is Sigmarines and 1804-12 French Infantry, and you get all the negative points people you get for non-GW models

Mould lines across the face, soft details on the site, limited options, hard to clean lines over details, fixed bases, no instructions, no dynamic poses
those are still good Miniatures that look great in Mass Formation, but when people talk about why GW is the best on the market and why you must pay 5€ per model and why only the perfect models are worth gaming with (specially something that is ok in Mass Formation is not good enough)

read the argument why other manufacturers are not as good as GW and GW is still worth the price because you get the better quality, compared to the Perry Models those not even close on the individual model but what they do is they are great for the task and way cheaper than anything from GW

and you have similar with Victrix, a GW Fanboy will throw them in the pin, together with Perry and Mantic, simply because they are gaming pieces and not up to the display model standard GW Marketing tells them they need to play games

I don't think the Perry Minis are bad, they are just not as good as GW and never will (there is a reason the GW models are made like a scale model kit, and not like perry ones a solid piece, you just can't get the level of detail that way)
yet the problem is that GW is selling you unnecessary high detail/quality on individual models to justify the high price for gaming and therefore great models that are good for gaming will be rejected because they are not display models

that said, GW is not worth the price for gaming, it is worth the price for display/diorama but not for gaming not matter how good the quality is and how good marketing tells people that this must be the minimum

 Eilif wrote:

Compare a Perry infantry or Cavalry to a GW LOTR infantry or Cavalry (the nearest equivalent) and you'll find a rather comparable product.
Some were even sculpted by the Perry's, IIRC.

Most of them were made by the Perrys hence they were not allowed to make any Fantasy thing after they left GW
yet the difference between both is casting technology and the LotR models show their age, same as some of the very first perry kits

that the Perry models have a great reputation rather comes from the fact that there are no 1:1 comparisons and people in the GW bubble don't buy historical models

Eilif wrote:The fact that no one else has challenged your assertion suggests that GW has done an excellent job of selling us a very specific and skewed idea of what a "good" miniature is.

which is exactly my point, GWs marketing tells you what you "need" for gaming and anything less is not acceptable, and this also plays in the hand of some influencers that show the perfect models of instagram were a 100€ worth paintjob is "the minimum you need to play the game"
and nobody questions why you "need" special equipment to make pictures, only the most expensive paints are the minimum starting point and so on
just look at what the "average" gaming model from GW looks like on the web compared to the historical models, were the big difference is that the one is a model, the other one an army and for an army, not every single model needs to be perfect

and someone having an army done, should at least get the same respect as someone painting great single models (no matter if the individual in the army does not look good)

everything is going around the perfect model with the perfect paint job and therefore it is worth the high price, so you don't question if anything of it
and here Perry and Victrix are just lucky that they don't make anything that is a 1:1 replacement for GW, but make different models for a different market outside the "need to be perfect, price does not matter" GW bubble

TheBestBucketHead wrote:
Alternatively, I love Skaven, and I can easily get 20 minis for $40, so $2 a mini. Games Workshop can be really well priced,

given that those are the old core box miniatures, they are still overpriced for what you get (had them here and sold them off again and got the Mantic ones instead)

 kodos wrote:
which is exactly my point, GWs marketing tells you what you "need" for gaming and anything less is not acceptable, and this also plays in the hand of some influencers that show the perfect models of instagram were a 100€ worth paintjob is "the minimum you need to play the game"
and nobody questions why you "need" special equipment to make pictures, only the most expensive paints are the minimum starting point and so on
just look at what the "average" gaming model from GW looks like on the web compared to the historical models, were the big difference is that the one is a model, the other one an army and for an army, not every single model needs to be perfect

and someone having an army done, should at least get the same respect as someone painting great single models (no matter if the individual in the army does not look good)

everything is going around the perfect model with the perfect paint job and therefore it is worth the high price, so you don't question if anything of it
and here Perry and Victrix are just lucky that they don't make anything that is a 1:1 replacement for GW, but make different models for a different market outside the "need to be perfect, price does not matter" GW bubble

I mean that's just marketing. Every firm that's making their primary income and understands how to market themselves and has the budget/time to market does the exact same thing.

Heck you want perfect paint jobs - Infinity has had top grade paintwork on their models for years, really top grade. The average box art and display model for them is top tier paintwork on tiny models. GW looks insanely tame in comparison when you look at their box art. Plus don't forget GW has pushed the "battle ready three colour" system for decades. So yes alongside all their Evy-Metal stuff and alongside influencers and all that; you've got a very healthy element of "yeah slap some paint on and improve but you don't have to go nuts".

the 3 step battle ready from GW is really something funny

I just remember the 4 step guides in the books for the models were the first 3 steps are just that, 3 simple steps and the 4 one was "adding some detail" were at least 20 more steps were in between the basic model from step 3 and the finished evy metal one shown in step 4

but this is again display VS gaming
Perry or Victrix don't show off painted models on their boxes
Perry promo models come with a very basic paint job, but are mostly shown in mass formation outside if showing off the assembly options if they are shown off painted at all

which gives a very different point of view on promoting the models

and Infintiy is a Skirmish game with low model count, hence having every model looking perfect and being expensive is something different than doing the same for mass-battle game

 Overread wrote:


Heck you want perfect paint jobs - Infinity has had top grade paintwork on their models for years, really top grade. The average box art and display model for them is top tier paintwork on tiny models. GW looks insanely tame in comparison when you look at their box art. Plus don't forget GW has pushed the "battle ready three colour" system for decades. So yes alongside all their Evy-Metal stuff and alongside influencers and all that; you've got a very healthy element of "yeah slap some paint on and improve but you don't have to go nuts".

Actually I know quite a few people who don't even paint their 40k armies (or play with half painted armies). Last summer we had a Warhammer 40000 tourney in my country - with participants from other countries, too - that allowed grey armies with no penalty - everybody got 10VPs at the start of the game, regardless if the army was painted or not.

@kodos - a lot of people like cool looking miniatures. There's no reason to hate on us or GW for offering top tier minis. After all, this hobby is called Miniatures gaming - if I didn't care about the miniatures, I would play hex and counter wargames.

I'm always impressed by the amount of stuff I get for less money from everyone else compared to GW.

Battletech, Northstar, WGA, Infinity, Warlord, the list goes on and on. It doesn't matter whether you're looking for monopose statues or modularity/customisation, nearly everyone does it better.

GW is ridiculously overpriced and their models look like cheap happy meal toys standing next to Infinity, Asoiaf, Perry etc.

 lord_blackfang wrote:


These are Victrix Vikings, they come 60 to a box and they're definitely better miniatures in any technical aspect than their nearest GW equivalent (LotR Rohan)

The victrix kits are fantastic. They're amongst the best historical plastics I've seen. I'm seriously tempted to pick up a couple to use as generic dark age or even low fantasy warriors. I'm not a 'button counter' and 'guy with sword and chainmail' is a decent stand in for a lot of settings and era's.in fairness to the lotr minis they're 20 years old but I will say you can still get a hell of a lot of rohan warriors or galadhrim for a reasonable price.

That said, on historicals themselves I've seen a lot of ranges, both plastic and metal that have either been basic, poorly sculpted or just low quality and kind of boring. One of the world was warlords 'test of honor' plastics. Loved the game but the models were amongst the worst I've ever built and painted.

'Cheap' on its own doesn't make up for things if the models are awful. Imo.

Goose LeChance wrote:
I'm always impressed by the amount of stuff I get for less money from everyone else compared to GW.

*remembers when Guardsmen went from 20/box to 10/box and the price went up too.

Goose LeChance wrote:


Battletech, Northstar, WGA, Infinity, Warlord, the list goes on and on. Nearly everyone does it better. Pfft who cares about Marvel.
.

I mean, I dunno. Infinity is still £10 a model a lot of the time - phenomenol models at the end of the day so I don't mind too much. Warlord- see above. Also look at privateer press for some crazy prices. .

Goose LeChance wrote:


GW is ridiculously overpriced and their models look like cheap happy meal toys standing next to Infinity, Asoiaf, Perry etc.

Gw is pricey as hell but there are a lot of ways to mitigate the crazy. As to 'Cheap happy meal toys' ill politely disagree with you- i think thats unfair and a bit of a cheap shot. I've had more fun painting gw minis and playing gw games in the last 5 years that I've had with any other companies offerings. Each to their own though, eh?

I'd say GW miniatures are worth their price to me, but then again I don't buy a whole lot of them. I am based in Europe, but I'd probably not have an issue paying Aussie prices given the way I engage with 40k these days.

Spending the occasional 40-60 bucks on a display piece like Abaddon or Helbrecht is fine, as I look at them all the time walking into and out of my office.
I've chosen those designs specifically for their quality, so I consider them to be the equivalent of 3D paintings if you will. A mostly visual experience, but one that can be tactile if you want it to.

I even went out of my way to spend 60 bucks on the limited sister character just because I really enjoyed her design. Same goes for the WH+ Vindicare, which was the only reason for me to maintain that subscription for an entire year. I see these as collector's items, so their price really isn't that high compared to other items in that category. My Luke Skywalker from Sideshow was considerably more expensive, for example.

That being said, I have largely moved on from collecting 40k the "intended" way, building up one army after another, spending hundreds or thousands in the process. While I can still see the appeal in that, that particular value proposition is not good enough for me anymore. A few choice characters and units on my shelf will do the trick for me and require a lot less space, time and money for me to invest.

Now, I do play Infinity in the "intended" way, and while their miniatures are not cheaper than GW's, you need a lot fewer of those and the game allows for more customizable armies. Being able to pick whatever you really enjoy from a visual standpoint and turning it into a somewhat functional force is something that GW just doesn't offer to the same extent. I also happen to find the associated game to be a lot more competent and that's all without any concessions in terms of quality or design.

Then there is this game called Oathsworn, the kickstarter of which I just pledged 375$ to after a friend kept recommending it to me. While I don't have it in hand yet, it's essentially a re-run of an existing product so I've seen some of the contents and that thing is packed with details, voiced story segments, modular hero characters and a (seemingly) competent core game to boot. That's a good chunk of money but well worth it to me, if it indeed keeps all its promises.

I think it is funny the price here GW asks.
There are box of 5 space marines that compared for the same price are more expensive than 3 of the brand new HG gundam kits.
Which are all top quality.

I don't know.. Maybe i'm out of touch, or maybe it's just a different perspective - by starting out with canvas painting & not actually playing games - but i personally think the prices are.. fine? Yeah, let's stick with that.

When i started painting on Canvas, i had to buy eye watering expensive paints, an easel, specific brushes but, most importantly, stretched canvas'. And stretched canvas is not cheap either. Depending on the size & quality, you'd pay 30-40€ per Canvas - which is in the end just some Linen tacked onto a frame with some gesso applied over it. So, 4 pieces of wood, a piece of fabric & Gesso.

I still buy Gouache paints, and a 20ml tube costs 10-15€ while GW paints are a quarter of that for 12ml. And the paint is really good, quality wise (although the paint pots are.. weird).

I can't compare GW Miniatures to other companies, because i'm still quite new to the hobby. But pricing wise, it's a fair price. It's just a tiny, highly detailed canvas that can be repainted, reshaped, cut into pieces & other pieces added to it. So, yeah. my 2 cents.

This might be another across the pond thing. My wife and I have been painting on canvas for years and usually find great deals for both paint and canvas, like a quarter the price you’re describing.


Of course, we’re more amateurs goofing off rather than serious artists, so perhaps we’re just settling for inferior product without noticing.

 KhorneGirl wrote:
I can't compare GW Miniatures to other companies, because i'm still quite new to the hobby. But pricing wise, it's a fair price. It's just a tiny, highly detailed canvas that can be repainted, reshaped, cut into pieces & other pieces added to it. So, yeah. my 2 cents.

it is a good comparison, and for painters/collectors this is true

yet staying with that example, you won't buy 40€ canvas for kids to play around, yet the models for high skilled painting, are the same for gaming, and while the might be fair priced for the first, they are not really for the later

 kodos wrote:

 KhorneGirl wrote:
I can't compare GW Miniatures to other companies, because i'm still quite new to the hobby. But pricing wise, it's a fair price. It's just a tiny, highly detailed canvas that can be repainted, reshaped, cut into pieces & other pieces added to it. So, yeah. my 2 cents.

it is a good comparison, and for painters/collectors this is true

yet the models for high skilled painting, are the same for gaming, and while the might be fair priced for the first, they are not really for the later

Huh, that is a fair point. Haven't considered that aspect.

The canvas example may seem like a reasonable justification for the artist painting a few figures to an extremely high standards. There are some really impressive and unique creations coming out of Games workshop

However it falls flat for the person purchasing the miniatures for their intended use as Wargaming miniatures. How many canvases does it take to make an army?

Further, if one is approaching miniature painting solely as an art form there are far better sculpted and proportioned figures than GW for that purpose, and many are considerably less expensive.

For the uninitiated, start with a look over the Dark Sword Miniatures website for a quick tour through some of the industries best sculptors. When you see what can be achieved at 28mm, for $10 each, justifications for GW pricing and scale-creep-for-artistic-reasons melt away. And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to better "canvases" for less money.

 Eilif wrote:
The canvas example may seem like a reasonable justification for the artist painting a few figures to an extremely high standards. There are some really impressive and unique creations coming out of Games workshop

However it falls flat for the person purchasing the miniatures for their intended use as Wargaming miniatures. How many canvases does it take to make an army?

Further, if one is approaching miniature painting solely as an art form there are far better sculpted and proportioned figures than GW for that purpose, and many are considerably less expensive.

For the uninitiated, start with a look over the Dark Sword Miniatures website for a quick tour through some of the industries best sculptors. When you see what can be achieved at 28mm, for $10 each, justifications for GW pricing and scale-creep-for-artistic-reasons melt away. And that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to better "canvases" for less money.

Better is quite relative to what one wants to paint. DSM makes some fantastic stuff at good prices, but if that's not what you're looking for style wise....

ccs wrote:


Better is quite relative to what one wants to paint. DSM makes some fantastic stuff at good prices, but if that's not what you're looking for style wise....

Objectively as a sculptural object and judging sculpting skill it is possible to make judgements about "better" and I would argue that DSM certainly is that but I take your point about better being irrelevant if it's not appealing to the painter.

How specific are you being about preferred style though?

-If it's something different than DSM but with better sculpting than GW there are myriad choices.

-If it's GW-or nothing, you're pretty well tied to GW or maybe a 3d printed model copying that style.

-If by "style" you mean heroically-scaled, chunkily-proportioned and over-greebled (I won't dignify what GW does by calling it "detailing") then there are other options beyond 3d printing depending on what your parameters and subject matter interests are.

Which brings us to an important distinction.

There is GW, the miniature manufacturer. And GW, the (sort of) games rules publisher.

If one likes GW minis, there's only really one source for them.

If one is merely interested in playing GW games - and is not playing them in a GW store - then one can use any miniatures that one wants that at least roughly equates to the corresponding GW mini.

I'm primarily a GW player. So my options for minis are somewhat broader than the GW mini fan. Were it not for Mantic dwarves, I wouldn't have a dwarf army at all. If I were to start a Bretonnian army today I'd be using historical minis, probably Perry Brothers. Dark Elves....

Okay, you've got me there. I like the GW Dark Elf aesthetic. Thankfully E-bay has allowed me to indulge that particular quirk for less than ruinous cost.

 Vulcan wrote:
I like the GW Dark Elf aesthetic. Thankfully E-bay has allowed me to indulge that particular quirk for less than ruinous cost.

Most Dark/High/Wood elves are good they just gave lots of units gorilla hands

 Eilif wrote:

ccs wrote:


Better is quite relative to what one wants to paint. DSM makes some fantastic stuff at good prices, but if that's not what you're looking for style wise....

Objectively as a sculptural object and judging sculpting skill it is possible to make judgements about "better" and I would argue that DSM certainly is that but I take your point about better being irrelevant if it's not appealing to the painter.

How specific are you being about preferred style though?

-If it's something different than DSM but with better sculpting than GW there are myriad choices.

-If it's GW-or nothing, you're pretty well tied to GW or maybe a 3d printed model copying that style.

-If by "style" you mean heroically-scaled, chunkily-proportioned and over-greebled (I won't dignify what GW does by calling it "detailing") then there are other options beyond 3d printing depending on what your parameters and subject matter interests are.

You know damned well what I meant.

 Vulcan wrote:

I'm primarily a GW player. So my options for minis are somewhat broader than the GW mini fan. Were it not for Mantic dwarves, I wouldn't have a dwarf army at all. If I were to start a Bretonnian army today I'd be using historical minis, probably Perry Brothers. Dark Elves....

Okay, you've got me there. I like the GW Dark Elf aesthetic. Thankfully E-bay has allowed me to indulge that particular quirk for less than ruinous cost.

I'm curious, why aren't you playing Mantic games, if you are already buying their minis? Kings of War is highly regarded among wargamers, the ruleset is considered superior to GW, it is well supported, 3rd edition...


Anyway, I see that people draw a sharp divide between painters/gamers, and I believe this is somewhat misleading. Yes, there are folks who only care about painting the minis, and there are others who only care about playing the game, but I think the majority fall somewhere in the middle - appreciating both the quality of the mini for painting and the ability to game with it.

I looked at DSM miniatures - very unimpressive. Standard, generic fantasy of mostly average quality. Some cool looking STLs, but those are stls. I would like to see something that come close to a Lord Discordant on Hellskater. And then there is another issue. When you are buying a mini from GW, you are also buying the lore. Chief Librarian Tigurius is not just a nice miniature, he also comes with a story - he is the greatest psycher in the whole Imperium. On the other hand, those fine looking vikings posted above? They are a bunch of dudes in armor.

 emanuelb wrote:

I'm curious, why aren't you playing Mantic games, if you are already buying their minis? Kings of War is highly regarded among wargamers, the ruleset is considered superior to GW, it is well supported, 3rd edition...

I can't speak for Vulcan, -and I agree that KoW is great- but I can think of alot of situations where one might purchase KoW miniatures to play in a person's preferred ruleset (WHFB, Oathmark, OPR, etc) and setting. As Vulcan says, Mantic figures are priced such that an army that might be financially out-of-reach with GW minis might be achievable by purchasing figures from Mantic/WGA/etc. Recall also that Mantic originally was basically a way to get cheaper minis for WHFB. It was years before the rules advanced from an afterthought to an actual publication and it took the death of WHFB for it to really take off as a played ruleset.

 emanuelb wrote:


I looked at DSM miniatures - very unimpressive. Standard, generic fantasy of mostly average quality. Some cool looking STLs, but those are stls. I would like to see something that come close to a Lord Discordant on Hellskater. And then there is another issue. When you are buying a mini from GW, you are also buying the lore. Chief Librarian Tigurius is not just a nice miniature, he also comes with a story - he is the greatest psycher in the whole Imperium.

I disagree about DSM, but that's ok, I can see where those preferring a GW aesthetic would not find it to their liking. I do agree that GW minis bring built-in stories with them and often quite good ones in my opinion. My son and I use GW minis (usually old and used...) and get our fluff from our rather extensive libarary of previous edition codices, even as we're playing using Grimdark Future rules.

 emanuelb wrote:

On the other hand, those fine looking vikings posted above? They are a bunch of dudes in armor.

I think you may have missed a trick here. The lore behind vikings is deep, both the historical facts and characters, and their many appearances in literature (historical and fantasy) and media of all kinds. Just because the manufacturer of the mini doesn't provide the story, don't think that there aren't alot of other places to find that inspirational narrative. Discussions around this sort of minis-first or narrative-first gaming often happen frequently on non-GW-centric forums.

My personal philosophy has always been to find the miniatures, rules and story/fluff/narrative from whatever sources suits you best and mix to taste. Sometimes (rarely in my case) it means eating from one company's plate, sometimes it's more of a tapas situation.

Why are you narrowing your scope to a game?

building miniatures and painting is the hobby. A game is just a vehicle for the social interaction side of the hobby. it also sometimes constrains your creative aspect, because your models "must" fit a usable game profile.

Once you lift yourself from the confines of a game system, i've found the creative side of the hobby gets much more enjoyable.

And with discount retailers like myself offering boxed sets and packs of sprues for under $50 US, the entry point into this hobby is much less than the big names would have you believe.

Take a look at Wargames Atlantic. They just released 19 kits on my mini factory for (if you get in at the early bird level) $10.

You could take those files, and pick a print shop like me (I'm backlogged, so more of an example) or someone like warchest creations on etsy, and ask for a custom quote for an armies worth of figures.

And dollars to donuts, you would be spending less than you would if buying into a game system from GW or otherwise.

Entry point into the hobby is not the issue.

the hobby being pigeon-holed into "I play game system X" and only focusing on that limited window, is an issue.

 McDougall Designs wrote:
building miniatures and painting is the hobby.

For you maybe. For other people the game is the hobby, and building and painting miniatures is just a prerequisite for playing the game.

And with discount retailers like myself

NVM, I see, this is just self-promotion for your store.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 McDougall Designs wrote:
building miniatures and painting is the hobby.

For you maybe. For other people the game is the hobby, and building and painting miniatures is just a prerequisite for playing the game.

And with discount retailers like myself

NVM, I see, this is just self-promotion for your store.

No, it was not. I was attempting to use my experience as a retailer as an example to reinforce my point.

Obviously that did not land well.

I admit, some hobbyists may only think in terms of the game = the hobby.

I continue to espouse that is a narrow and shortsighted view that sadly downplays the wonderful things you can create in the artistic side.

 McDougall Designs wrote:

I admit, some hobbyists may only think in terms of the game = the hobby.

I continue to espouse that is a narrow and shortsighted view that sadly downplays the wonderful things you can create in the artistic side.

And some people would say that your narrow and shortsighted view downplays the wonderful things you can do in the gaming side. Please stop assuming your personal preferences are some kind of universal truth and everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or a victim of misinformation.

Sounds like you two have an honest disagreement not sure why we're getting negative or aggressive about it.

More to the point of this thread, can it be generalized that GW is more worth it to those who emphasize the gaming or hobby side of the hobby?

GW offers allot to the hobbyist for sure, but so do allot of other games and companies. As we've discussed earlier on this topic, even with arguably subpar rules, GW offers an unparalleled volume of opportunities for casual and competitive gaming.

 Eilif wrote:
Sounds like you two have an honest disagreement not sure why we're getting negative or aggressive about it.

Because McDougall Designs is being a condescending ass and insisting that his way of enjoying the hobby is the objectively superior one and anyone who has priorities he disagrees with is, at best, a misinformed victim who needs to be brought to enlightenment about the Real Way To Do The Hobby. That kind of arrogance and gatekeeping should not be tolerated.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Sounds like you two have an honest disagreement not sure why we're getting negative or aggressive about it.

Because McDougall Designs is being a condescending ass and insisting that his way of enjoying the hobby is the objectively superior one and anyone who has priorities he disagrees with is, at best, a misinformed victim who needs to be brought to enlightenment about the Real Way To Do The Hobby. That kind of arrogance and gatekeeping should not be tolerated.

Not going to say he is completely blameless, but you seem awfully steamed up by someone having a conflicting opinion. Maybe turn the temperature down a bit and know that there will be people here who strongly disagree with each other but we can choose not to resort to name calling even if we find their perspective disagreeable.


This is an odd day. Second time I've seen folks move from disagreement to coarseness unexpectedly.

Goose LeChance wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
I like the GW Dark Elf aesthetic. Thankfully E-bay has allowed me to indulge that particular quirk for less than ruinous cost.

Most Dark/High/Wood elves are good they just gave lots of units gorilla hands

True, although the 6E stuff was FAR worse for it than the 7/8E models.

mrFickle wrote:I what’s thought that GW were quite expensive, certainly the cost of a 2k point army and the codex seems painful when you first enter the hobby, I think.

It I’ve been looking at expanding my horizons and compared to some other minis and games I’ve seen GW start to look fairly priced, especially when you look at the combat patrol boxes and other box sets that deliver real value.

Marvel crisis protocol seems to be 30-40 pounds for one mini, and some fallout minis I’ve seen are the same price for a 5 model unit.

I don’t think there’s another game out there that can beat 40K for scale but it looks like GW can’t be beaten in price either. Or am I looking at the wrong things? I suppose marvel and fallout are big brands that are used to charging a lot for their paraphernalia.

Eilif wrote:Sounds like you two have an honest disagreement not sure why we're getting negative or aggressive about it.

More to the point of this thread, can it be generalized that GW is more worth it to those who emphasize the gaming or hobby side of the hobby?

GW offers allot to the hobbyist for sure, but so do allot of other games and companies. As we've discussed earlier on this topic, even with arguably subpar rules, GW offers an unparalleled volume of opportunities for casual and competitive gaming.

I believe that is exactly what happened. I believe gaming has always simply been the social and limiting side of the equation, and the artistic side should be held higher. especially when talking about "cost of entry". That's all i was saying. I was as taken aback as you to hear I was being abrasive.

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Sounds like you two have an honest disagreement not sure why we're getting negative or aggressive about it.

Because McDougall Designs is being a condescending ass and insisting that his way of enjoying the hobby is the objectively superior one and anyone who has priorities he disagrees with is, at best, a misinformed victim who needs to be brought to enlightenment about the Real Way To Do The Hobby. That kind of arrogance and gatekeeping should not be tolerated.

See above. If I impugned you in some way I apologize. I thought the thread was open for opinions to be shared. If it wasn't, perhaps i misread the first post.

 emanuelb wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

I'm primarily a GW player. So my options for minis are somewhat broader than the GW mini fan. Were it not for Mantic dwarves, I wouldn't have a dwarf army at all. If I were to start a Bretonnian army today I'd be using historical minis, probably Perry Brothers. Dark Elves....

Okay, you've got me there. I like the GW Dark Elf aesthetic. Thankfully E-bay has allowed me to indulge that particular quirk for less than ruinous cost.

I'm curious, why aren't you playing Mantic games, if you are already buying their minis? Kings of War is highly regarded among wargamers, the ruleset is considered superior to GW, it is well supported, 3rd edition...

At the moment I'm not playing anything, because there is no gaming community within an hour's drive or more.

But back in St. Louis, I played WFB because that's what everyone else was playing, not Mantic. If that's changed, I may reconsider when I return. But to be frank, the Mantic rules I've seen seem... overly-simple. Better balanced, I'll grant you, but it looked like it would be boring as heck in actual play.

The real challenge was the time limit on a turn. But that just makes things difficult, which is not the same thing as having a complex game.

 McDougall Designs wrote:

See above. If I impugned you in some way I apologize. I thought the thread was open for opinions to be shared. If it wasn't, perhaps i misread the first post.

This is what you said:

"I admit, some hobbyists may only think in terms of the game = the hobby.

I continue to espouse that is a narrow and shortsighted view that sadly downplays the wonderful things you can create in the artistic side. "

Saying "I prefer to focus on the modeling and painting side of the hobby" is fine, that's your preference.

Saying "it's narrow and short-sighted to focus on the game" is not fine, that's telling other people that they're having fun the wrong way.

See the difference?

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Saying "it's narrow and short-sighted to focus on the game" is not fine, that's telling other people that they're having fun the wrong way.

No it isn't. His comment was that in his opinion focusing on the game to the detriment of the artistic is not ideal. Having an opinion does not automatically equate to everybody with a different opinion being wrong. You're entirely allowed to disagree.

 insaniak wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Saying "it's narrow and short-sighted to focus on the game" is not fine, that's telling other people that they're having fun the wrong way.

No it isn't. His comment was that in his opinion focusing on the game to the detriment of the artistic is not ideal. Having an opinion does not automatically equate to everybody with a different opinion being wrong. You're entirely allowed to disagree.

This was indeed my point, Insaniak.

You could argue different people have different ideas/experience of what the hobby actually is, so its hard to know if the "GW hobby" is worth it.

Since we are only safe talking about our personal experience I can only talk about the sculpting side of things. For me it's worth it because I find that one plastic GW miniature alone can give me countless hours of converting modifying with greenstuff or kit bashing. Can I do that with other manufacturers? Yes but material is key and sharp plastic production is not common on competition. I dont buy FW or Finecast because here I find the material quality is not worth it.

I gave up on supporting GW gaming because codex and new editions got out of control and I find its not worth investing in rulesets that change so often, specially when during covid no one could actually meet and play for 2 years... We could say I found smaller rulesets that float my boat. I still get some dexes I like for fluff though.

Thats my 2 cents.
Just dip into GW like myself and cherry pick, don't stress about the GW way either. Nothing wrong if you like it all, and want all in. Sometimes playing games with friends is priceless.

From a painter sculptor perspective GW models are not the most expensive either so theres that too.

 Eilif wrote:
The canvas example may seem like a reasonable justification for the artist painting a few figures to an extremely high standards. There are some really impressive and unique creations coming out of Games workshop

However it falls flat for the person purchasing the miniatures for their intended use as Wargaming miniatures. How many canvases does it take to make an army?

.

I don't think it falls flat at all.

Firstly if I may, its a bit presumptive to declare as an absolute that their 'intended purpose' is as 'gaming pieces'. Apparently 80% of buyers don't game. It can be, absolutely. It might be your priority and thats totally fair as well. No judgement at all from me. But plenty folks see them as both gaming pieces and modelling pieces. And there's the 'x' factor too.

And I think you're looking at it the wrong way making a direct comparison between an army and a canvas. Firstly I've never met an artist that only made one painting and stopped. I'd you're out every week/several times a week, 'canvassing' on its own makes 40k look cheap. And in regards how many minis it takes to play- it can be as low as 5 (kill team marines and you can go to town on the painting quality) and plenty folks use armies they've built decades ago and havent bought since. I have xv15 stealthsuits, fire warriors and kroot from the mid noughties that see the table. I've pointed out earlier in this thread it is very possible to engage in 40k, and the gw stable of games to a very decent level even on a limited budget .

 Eilif wrote:


Further, if one is approaching miniature painting solely as an art form there are far better sculpted and proportioned figures than GW for that purpose, and many are considerably less expensive.
.

I mean, it Depends on what you paint and what you want. While I'm partial to the occasional boutique (hasslefree minis fyi - love the modern troopers and fantasy humans) purchase myself, so totally understand where you are coming from, a lot of those dark.sword minis left me cold. I'll even be cheeky and say its amazing what a good paint job can sell brcause that was my maulin take away. :p (though to be fair, solid rpg characters there!) and while I regard cb's infinity range as probably the best metals in the industry I've bought built and painted all I need and honestly they just leave me a bit cold these days. Until vet kazak squad boxes are a thing, im.done. Ironically I've simply had more fun and more joy painting gw minis these last few years (whether kill team, lotr or necromunda) than offerings from any other company, sculpts and proportions and price be damned. The 'x' factor. Whatever it is, I am just far more engaged with and drawn to gw's offerings. That is not a bad thing.

Deadnight wrote:
Apparently 80% of buyers don't game.

This is one of those "how to lie with statistics" things. I believe that GW honestly had data that gives the 80% number but they took it completely out of context to push the nonsensical claim that they're a miniatures company and nobody cares how broken the rules are. The problem with the 80% number is that it doesn't account for customer retention failures. Someone who buys a starter box but never really does anything with it and quits before ever playing a game counts towards the 80% even if they bought it primarily as a game rather than a painting project. And those numbers may even count things like a parent buying a gift for their kid in the "buyers who don't play" total. Once you look at only the people who are long-term participants in the hobby that 80% number goes down considerably.

(And then of course there's the question of how GW even got that data in the first place, given their pride in not doing market research. Garbage in, garbage out.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 McDougall Designs wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:
Saying "it's narrow and short-sighted to focus on the game" is not fine, that's telling other people that they're having fun the wrong way.

No it isn't. His comment was that in his opinion focusing on the game to the detriment of the artistic is not ideal. Having an opinion does not automatically equate to everybody with a different opinion being wrong. You're entirely allowed to disagree.

This was indeed my point, Insaniak.

Then I might suggest being a little more careful in your choice of words. Calling someone's preferences "narrow and short-sighted" gives a very clear impression even if you technically preceded it with "in my opinion".

Another aspect I thought about that might make 40k "worthy" of its price (and a reason for why is so popular) is the lack of competition. When it comes to fantasy wargaming, there are some real options besides AoS - you have ASoIaF, there's Conquest, and even Mythic Americas and Warmachine. So even if I really like AoS minis, I haven't gotten into that game (yet) since there are other options that gives me the same experience. But when it comes to SF wargames? What are the real options to 40k? I searched quite a bit and I came up with a list of 10 titles, but in all honesty, the only one that is a legitimate contender to 40k imo is Dropzone Commander.

So, 40k might be worthy of it's price also because there isn't much else that let's you put on the table giant mechs, aliens, huge armies with blasters and whatnot.

there is not a really long list for fantasy games either that are in the same style as AoS that let you put giant monsters, huge armies etc. on the table
I can't think of 10 games that are the same category as those that have the big monsters are not skirmish games, and skirmish games don't really have the big monsters (Conquest and SAGA AoM would be close, but the first is R&F and the second has Monsters that AoS would call larger infantry)

there is not more competition than there is to 40k, as either it is a different style of game, scale or does not combine all the elements

Gue'vesa Emissary wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Apparently 80% of buyers don't game.

This is one of those "how to lie with statistics" things. I believe that GW honestly had data that gives the 80% number but they took it completely out of context to push the nonsensical claim that they're a miniatures company and nobody cares how broken the rules are. The problem with the 80% number is that it doesn't account for customer retention failures. Someone who buys a starter box but never really does anything with it and quits before ever playing a game counts towards the 80% even if they bought it primarily as a game rather than a painting project. And those numbers may even count things like a parent buying a gift for their kid in the "buyers who don't play" total. Once you look at only the people who are long-term participants in the hobby that 80% number goes down considerably.

(And then of course there's the question of how GW even got that data in the first place, given their pride in not doing market research. Garbage in, garbage out.)

Yeah the 80% don't game came right out of the Kirby era when they openly admitted they didn't do market research or customer outreach or anything like that.
Personally I wager the number likely came from informal surveys by shop staff on how many new people they saw coming into buy stuff and how many people stuck around gaming at their store. Which would be easy data GW could gather without doing any formal surveys and such and could easily present a very false conclusion.

Because you're cutting out all the people who play at school/home/clubs/friends/garages etc...
You're also inflating the number of "buy and don't game" with all the people who buy or who are gifted (parents encouraging kids into new hobbies) a set and never go on to buy anything beyond that starter purchase. Plus you had the height of Lord of the Rings in that timeframe, so depending on when that survey was done by GW, you could easily have the Lord of the Rings models inflate the number of null starts with people walking in to buy models after seeing the film and then never continuing.


All of those could have easily inflated the numbers way into 80%.


I think it also overlooks another bracket which are people who buy with the intention of gaming, but never get the time/opportunity etc... to game. A bracket where if you take the game away they lose reason/focus/interest even if they aren't gaming.

We dont have the numbers, so anything goes I guess.

We have the tendency to split gaming/ painting in debates but for GW they are all clients and also many of us do both things, so that will mess with percentages.

Regarding Price per model value.

A golden deamon painter will spend 200 hours on it. A gamer that never paints will play with it for 200 hours so yeah though one.

 kodos wrote:
there is not a really long list for fantasy games either that are in the same style as AoS that let you put giant monsters, huge armies etc. on the table
I can't think of 10 games that are the same category as those that have the big monsters are not skirmish games, and skirmish games don't really have the big monsters (Conquest and SAGA AoM would be close, but the first is R&F and the second has Monsters that AoS would call larger infantry)

there is not more competition than there is to 40k, as either it is a different style of game, scale or does not combine all the elements

But is the difference big enough between Age of Sigmar and rank and flank games? I never played AoS, but I see it as a mass battle fantasy, same as the R&F ones, so in my mind it competes with Conquest, KoW, A song of Ice and fire, Oathmark, 9th Age: Fantasy Battles, Hordes of the things, Dragon Rampant. And then there are the large skirmishes - Warmachine/Hordes, LOTR, Warlords of Erehwon/Mythic Americas, the Other Side, even Warlord from Reaper.

On the Other hand, when it comes SF wargames, even including large skirmishes, the number is around half.

Personally I'd argue 40k is also a fantasy game, rather than science-fiction

Deadnight wrote:
Personally I'd argue 40k is also a fantasy game, rather than science-fiction

That's true to a point. 40k and Star Wars and similar settings are more Sci-Fantasy, Soft Sci Fi or Pulp Sci Fi as compared to Hard Sci Fi which they certainly are not.

However, I don't know that it's worth it to push against the accepted practice of anything with a spaceship and laser guns being categorized as some kind of Sci Fi.

Hard Sci-Fi is a fairly useful term. However the line between sci-fi and fantasy sci-fi is a bit blurry. Mostly because a LOT of sci-fi is basically very fantastical even down to pewpew lasers and such.

So you end up with extremes where it really is easy to see and then a whole slew of grey where you basically steadily end up adding almost everything that isn't hard sci-fi into the fantasy sci-fi. By which point its just easier to have sci-fi and hard sci-fi and such.

 Eilif wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Personally I'd argue 40k is also a fantasy game, rather than science-fiction

That's true to a point. 40k and Star Wars and similar settings are more Sci-Fantasy, Soft Sci Fi or Pulp Sci Fi as compared to Hard Sci Fi which they certainly are not.

However, I don't know that it's worth it to push against the accepted practice of anything with a spaceship and laser guns being categorized as some kind of Sci Fi.

Or in the case of Firefly, a 'western-in-space'. :p

Damn, I still miss that show and what could have been.

 emanuelb wrote:
But is the difference big enough between Age of Sigmar and rank and flank games? I never played AoS, but I see it as a mass battle fantasy, same as the R&F ones, so in my mind it competes with Conquest, KoW, A song of Ice and fire, Oathmark, 9th Age: Fantasy Battles, Hordes of the things, Dragon Rampant. And then there are the large skirmishes - Warmachine/Hordes, LOTR, Warlords of Erehwon/Mythic Americas, the Other Side, even Warlord from Reaper.

well, if you go by that, you can add 40k to that list too, as the difference between AoS and 40k is less than between AoS and KoW/HotT/DR
there the main competition to 40k would be AoS, WM/H, LoTR and SAGA as those are the similar games although with different gameplay

AoS is a mass-skirmish and therefore competes with other mass-skirmish games and not Rank & File games as those have a different focus on the gameplay (as the first plays with models, the other with units)

just because it is fantasy with lot of models does not mean it is the same or even similar, same as if someone likes SAGA Age of Vikings, as a Dark Age Skirmisher, does not mean they will ever look into Napoelonic R&F games just because this is also a historical game with many models

 Eilif wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
Personally I'd argue 40k is also a fantasy game, rather than science-fiction

That's true to a point. 40k and Star Wars and similar settings are more Sci-Fantasy, Soft Sci Fi or Pulp Sci Fi as compared to Hard Sci Fi which they certainly are not.

However, I don't know that it's worth it to push against the accepted practice of anything with a spaceship and laser guns being categorized as some kind of Sci Fi.

Somebody once said that "Sci fi is about how people react to technology, while fantasy is about how people react to magic." Still not super helpful, as 40k has plenty of both.

I would probably argue that 40k is a fantasy story (about gods and monsters and magic) in a dystopian sci-fi setting.

 emanuelb wrote:

 kodos wrote:
there is not a really long list for fantasy games either that are in the same style as AoS that let you put giant monsters, huge armies etc. on the table
I can't think of 10 games that are the same category as those that have the big monsters are not skirmish games, and skirmish games don't really have the big monsters (Conquest and SAGA AoM would be close, but the first is R&F and the second has Monsters that AoS would call larger infantry)

there is not more competition than there is to 40k, as either it is a different style of game, scale or does not combine all the elements

But is the difference big enough between Age of Sigmar and rank and flank games? I never played AoS, but I see it as a mass battle fantasy, same as the R&F ones, so in my mind it competes with Conquest, KoW, A song of Ice and fire, Oathmark, 9th Age: Fantasy Battles, Hordes of the things, Dragon Rampant. And then there are the large skirmishes - Warmachine/Hordes, LOTR, Warlords of Erehwon/Mythic Americas, the Other Side, even Warlord from Reaper.

On the Other hand, when it comes SF wargames, even including large skirmishes, the number is around half.

I think it very much depends on the player.

If regimented troops appeal to you and you're looking for a rank and flank game. Then AoS isn't in the conversation.

If you're just looking for a big fantasy game (perhaps coming from 40k?) Then KoW, SOIAF, and AoS might all be in the same bucket .

well, as I wrote if you are looking for certain things, than 40k is on the same list as others and not something else because SciFi

40k is as much Fantasy as is AoS depending on the faction and as much SciFi as Warmachine

if someone is looking for hard SciFi, 40k won't be that game either, but usually if people are looking for "armies" in Fantasy settings they think about units in formation rather than skirmishing hordes

These days, rank and file is almost exclusively historical-based.

That said, plenty 'skirmish' style historicals too eg saga

Deadnight wrote:
These days, rank and file is almost exclusively historical-based.

That said, plenty 'skirmish' style historicals too eg saga

I don't think that's quite true. Outside GW, look at large fantasy games and KOW, Oathmark and SOIAF are doing well.

these days GW is the only one not having an R&F game, a reason why Old World is coming back (it was the no-market research necessary management that thought no one plays those game outside history nerds)

the only thing that is "new" is that with SAGA we see mass-skirmish games being more popular outside the World Wars setting, as otherwise it was only small scale skirmish, or large battles and in-between was not very popular