Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

azazel the cat wrote:What I'm saying is, here is a complete list of the vehicles that I was speaking about:

Rhino
Razorback

...I don't see any IG vehicles there. ...Do you?

Except, again, you're trying to justify your entire argument in a thread which has used a fallacious example(referring to Steelmage's post) of "weird 40k kits".

The Razorback is more likely to be rolled into the Predator kit than the Rhino kit at this point, or just dropped period as the Razorback sprue is available from GW as the "Land Raider Terminus Ultra Accessory kit".

So then you agree with my original point, that having two separate sets for the Rhino and the Razorback is redundant. ...Is this your way of realizing that you've been getting awfully worked up about this, and are now trying to convince yourself that you agreed with me all along, rather than being contrary just to be contrary?


EDIT: Who is Steelmage? I'm Azazel the Cat. You and I have been debating the Rhino/Razorback redundancy, nothing more.

I see you can't read.

The Razorback is more likely to be rolled into the Predator kit. Why?

Because they are, as you said for the Rhino/Razorback: "essentially the same kit".

Ok, before this gets locked, can we talk about something else besides rhinos and razorbacks?

Probably for the best. I can see that this is quickly degenerating into a dialogue on dementia.

The Rhino and the Razorback are the exact same kit, except one has an additional turret for the same price. Any army that can use a Rhino, can just buy a Razorback and not use the turret. Therefor, production costs will be cheaper if the two boxes are amalgamated into one. Perhaps even cheaper still if Predator boxes were also amalgamated in with them as well. Charge as the cost of a Predator, and give the option to make one of the three.

Another strange choice?

Necron Destroyers & Heavy Destroyers. The latter is just the former with two additional pieces, so the former should be discontinued.

Succubus, because they loaded her out weirdly. An agoniser... and a CCW? When you get a better result of a splinter pistol? Why?

azazel the cat wrote:Probably for the best. I can see that this is quickly degenerating into a dialogue on dementia.

The Rhino and the Razorback are the exact same kit, except one has an additional turret for the same price. Any army that can use a Rhino, can just buy a Razorback and not use the turret. Therefor, production costs will be cheaper if the two boxes are amalgamated into one. Perhaps even cheaper still if Predator boxes were also amalgamated in with them as well. Charge as the cost of a Predator, and give the option to make one of the three.

Except you don't know, at all, if it truly is cheaper for them to combine them. You also do not have the sales figures of the Rhino v. Razorback to go off of. Not everyone is interested in selling things on eBay, and not everyone realizes the difference when they're just starting out. Some people also prefer the Razorback kits that FW sell rather than the standard Razorback.

Forums always seem to forget that not everyone is going to do exactly what they do. I personally have no interest in selling Razorback pieces if I was fielding Rhinos for my Dark Angels. Selling things online can be hit and miss. While I'm sure there's plenty of people buying Razorback bits, there's also likely plenty of people selling.

Another strange choice?

Necron Destroyers & Heavy Destroyers. The latter is just the former with two additional pieces, so the former should be discontinued.

Supposedly the reason was because they did not have enough in the Necron range to start with.

Please can we move on? There are far better things to do than to listen to you two whine about rhinos and razorbacks!

Sorry, but I want to comment on the rhino/razorback thing. Please don't hit me. ^_^
Though I certainly can't claim that GW has ever done the research involved, but there is a lot of market research that goes into how you sell things. I certainly understand and agree that the rhino and razorback could very easily be a single box. I wouldn't be surprised if their manufacturing is the exact same machine but with one extra step for the gun, and a different print template for the box, which is "relatively" easy for an engineer to design not that I am one. But the simplicity of having that one box to cover both things doesn't factor in a consumers mentality.

There are people who will more readily purchase a $33 rhino simply because they feel as if they're saving money in comparison to the $35 razorback, since they don't need the gun. While if there was only the one box, they have no choice. customers LOVE choice. Even if it's over a few dollars between 2 plasma Tv's we crave having a choice in the matter. It's also proven somewhere that men are more likely to purchase something if they can select the "mose expensive but better" version and women prefer to buy the "less expensive but does the same job" version. Brand name vs. Store brand. It's not a drastic difference but enough that simply having two products available means the average customer is far likelier to select between your two choices, instead of choosing between your single product and another competitors, or simply not buy it at all.

It's kind of like having healthy competition in sales, but owning both products so you just plain win.

I think this is the same reason we have boxes for assault, devastator, and honor guard. These and similar boxes could be grouped together, with the same set of 5 guys, and supplied with all the possible weapons for each. It could be priced slightly more expensive than any of the three, and fit all those roles. But imagine if this was true, and you just wanted devastators. Now you HAVE to pay the extra 3-4 dollars for bits you don't really want. Some people will like having them, sure. But not everyone. But of course, they make tons of money by splitting them up, because it's one manufacturing machine, with tiny additions where it needs it, so 90% of their production is the same. But they can charge you $5 more just because they put in a $1 piece of plastic along with it. By comparison, Xeno models are often drasticly more different from each other than IoM ones. So they must cost GW more to produce. Space marine base, and Terminator base is all most chapter lists need. while Tyranid need a different model for almost EVERY unit. That's a few more hundred thousand dollars on machinery and engineers to build it.

Of course not every 40k player thinks quite as hard as we are about why things are priced and marketed as they are.

Again, I do not claim to know if GW ever did this kind of market research. If somehow the benefits of having 2 boxes for the customer outweigh the profitability of having a single simpler box. But that's why we have so many sizes of things we purchase. From something as simple as milk or laundry detergent, to things as expensive as cars and houses. The more choices we have, the more likely we will buy SOMETHING instead of nothing.

Of course, I don't have any choices for sisters of battle yet, so I'm can't buy ANYTHING! ::grumble grumble::

(Tinfoil hats on)

Maybe GW never made a Vendetta kit because of how good it is. Think how many more vendettas you would see if there was a plastic kit.
(Remove hats)

Also, the Basalisk kit is bad, but as I needed it for a Medusa conversion (Because, for some ungodly reason, there are no kits for ANY of the artillery besides the Basalisk), so I enjoyed all the extra bits for the sides of the tank.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:1) How overpowered is the Vendetta, its 30pts more than a Valkyrie

You're entirely missing the point of vendettas if you're comparing them to valkyries. Valkyries are fast transports that ignore terrain and come with outflanking and deepstrike rules. They show up out of nowhere and deliver their cargo exactly where they want to.

Now look at the vendetta. Are you going to waste turns of firepower by putting it into reserves? Are you going to waste turns of firepower by moving it to bring cargo somewhere? No. On the field, vendettas are an AV12 vehicle that is judged by its ability to put down firepower, which means that you need to compare it to other AV12 vehicles which are solely judged by firepower, instead of comparing it to AV12 vehicles whose job is to move other units around. You're comparing the vendetta to a chimera, when you should be comparing it to a manticore.

It is when you look at other HS choices does the vendetta make sense. If you're looking for long range fire, compare the vendetta to the manticore. Cheaper, and with more guaranteed three shots, but it's guns are also much worse, but it's faster, which is why it's a heavy support choice in the FA slot. In the end, it's a long-range support weapon that can't take orders, or cover saves, is still only AV12, is not a tank (no tank shock), and is armed with only lascannons while other support choices get ordnance, or in the case of HWSs, score.

If anything, what you're saying isn't that vendettas are too cheap, but that valkyries are too expensive, which I would also disagree with. The purpose of a transport is to get something somewhere safely, which a vendetta can do easily twice as well as a chimera.

Any way you slice it, vendettas are undercoated. It has comparable firepower and utility to a stormraven, for 70 points less. While true that the stormraven has an assault ramp and can carry a dread, the vendetta can outflank.

Kanluwen wrote:
The "new"(and far less attractive) Manticore does not share that option...so how do you propose that one works?

New Manticore kit? What?

I know we are trying to get away from Razorbacks, but |I bought one, left the hatch where the turret inserts unglued, along with the rhino top doors and use it as both. And the doors hold up by themselves. They can be seperate and not glued together.

Essentially, GW just gave me 2 kits for the price of one. Only problem is I can't use both at once, but I have another rhino so it's all good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hive Tyrants.

Why didn't they do an upgrade pack to make it a Flyrant or Swarmlord?

In a similar vain to the Rhino/Razorback affair. Why sell the Skyray and Hammerhead as seperate kits? The Skyray needs the Hammerhead kit to function, but its not so the other way (a fact that was made out by staff members at my local GW at the time of release). ¬¬

BlapBlapBlap wrote:The Voidraven. Almost Identical to a Razorwing, but with no convversion kit, parts in the box or FW parts.

Not. Happy.

Hate to break it to you but the Void Raven is a different bird, it's somewhat larger than the Razorwing. Gotta re-read your codex entry.
It uses the same swept wing design, but is a two pilot bomber not a fighter. It's why the best conversions I've seen use 2 razorwing kits and a reaver jetbike.

Personally I feel the Devilfish / Hammerhead / Skyray kits are stupid.
1: Tau Devilfish APC Kit - £20.50
2: Tau Hammerhead Gunship Kit ( Devilfish kit, no drones, single extra sprue with Railgun, Ion Cannon and SMS/Burst Cannon ) - £31.00
3: Tau Skyray Missile Defence ( Hammerhead Kit with a single extra sprue containing the Skyray turret, 6 seeker missiles and 2 markerlights ) - £31.00
4: Hammerhead Weapons ( the single extra sprue you get in the Hammerhead kit) - £8.20

This means to make a hammerhead it costs you... £28.70 if you buy a devilfish and a Hammerhead Weapons sprue, or £31 for a kit to make all 3 tanks with. Huh?

Kanluwen wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:Yeah, but most of us players who take rhinos have figured out to buy the razorback kit and sell the turret, if we aren't using it. GW should just package them together at razorback price-discontinue the rhino box.

So because players use the secondhand market to eat the expense(usually 2-3 dollars or the equivalent in their currency), GW should alter how they produce things?

The Rhino doesn't just sell to Space Marine players. Chaos Marine players buy it, Ork players used to(and I'm sure some still do) buy it, Inquisition players bought it(although now the Grey Knights book allows for Razorbacks as well, this was not always the case), Sisters players bought it(with the new plastic Immolator kit I don't know if any still do), and so on and so forth. Let's not forget that Forge World also sells a lot of Rhinos through their site at the same time they sell their doors for the Rhino.

Sorry Kan, I was at work all day and couldn't respond, hence why I'm answering after the request to end RvsR posts. I happen to agree with you on a lot of things you say, but I can't back you on this one. One poster mentioned they are the same price in the UK, despite the 2 dollar difference in the US. Free bitz is always preferred-being as GW is a UK company and knows they are doing this, you'd think they'd use one option and mass produce that one even more, and let the other drop. As one kit contains both vehicles, it makes sense to keep that one. And the razorback sprue does sell for $11 on the Warstore site-quite a commonly used bitz store, and Neal wouldn't charge that price if he wasn't selling it at that price-it's popular, and it goes for that amount. Sure, not everyone uses the secondary market, but that's why many of us have bitz boxes. Most gamers utilize one, or both, of these options-secondary market and bitz boxes. As such, the razorback kit is better quality to about 90% of the people utilizing rhinos and/or razorbacks. I am pulling this number out of my butt-I don't have hard evidence to back it up, merely common sense. And the Chaos Rhino vs regular Rhino vs Razorback is another argument entirely-the Chaos one gives you a full additional vehicle sprue, which, correct me if I'm wrong, sells for $15 on the GW site-that's $48 dollars worth of tank if you buy a rhino and a chaos vehicle sprue separately. The only power armor army that doesn't have access to Razorbacks is the SoB army-everyone else can access both. As such, the Razorback (using common sense) should be a wildly more useful/worthwhile kit.

As to the post of combining with a predator as well-this may not be a bad idea, as it would only be a $7 increase per kit-but some people would become very upset. I personally think the predator and whirlwind should be a combined kit-that would be appropriate to me, and make the Rhino/Razorback a combined kit. They could jack the predator/whirlwind price to $50, giving you both weapon options, and they'd make more money per kit and people would be able to have versatile tanks: everybody wins! GW gets more of our money per kit, we get more options.

They Chaos and regular vindicators should shate. They even have tje same manual.

Deadshot wrote:They Chaos and regular vindicators should share. They even have the same manual.

However, one-two sprues are different in each, hence the two boxes.

Chaos and Imperial should be different because of the accessory sprues that are included. However, I do like the idea of a combined rhino/razorback kit, as well as a predator/whirlwind kit (And I have always wanted the whirlwind turrent. )

The leman russ split is fair, as they are based on back armor being either 10 or 11. The Chimera and griffon should be the same kit(Also, there should be a griffon kit), as well as the valk/vendetta and the rest of the guard artillery pieces. The Hydra needs a kit. Bad. I think it should get it's own kit, as the only other thing that it would have been with was the manticore, and that is gone.

Ailaros wrote:

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:1) How overpowered is the Vendetta, its 30pts more than a Valkyrie

You're entirely missing the point of vendettas if you're comparing them to valkyries. Valkyries are fast transports that ignore terrain and come with outflanking and deepstrike rules. They show up out of nowhere and deliver their cargo exactly where they want to.

Now look at the vendetta. Are you going to waste turns of firepower by putting it into reserves? Are you going to waste turns of firepower by moving it to bring cargo somewhere? No. On the field, vendettas are an AV12 vehicle that is judged by its ability to put down firepower, which means that you need to compare it to other AV12 vehicles which are solely judged by firepower, instead of comparing it to AV12 vehicles whose job is to move other units around. You're comparing the vendetta to a chimera, when you should be comparing it to a manticore.

It is when you look at other HS choices does the vendetta make sense. If you're looking for long range fire, compare the vendetta to the manticore. Cheaper, and with more guaranteed three shots, but it's guns are also much worse, but it's faster, which is why it's a heavy support choice in the FA slot. In the end, it's a long-range support weapon that can't take orders, or cover saves, is still only AV12, is not a tank (no tank shock), and is armed with only lascannons while other support choices get ordnance, or in the case of HWSs, score.

If anything, what you're saying isn't that vendettas are too cheap, but that valkyries are too expensive, which I would also disagree with. The purpose of a transport is to get something somewhere safely, which a vendetta can do easily twice as well as a chimera.

Vendetta are also Fast, there is literally no rules differences between the two birds, the only difference is weapon loadout. So for 30pts more I can drop my troops exactly the same way as a Valkyrie, and then have a transport flying around with three twin linked Lascannons. If it goes down, same as a the Valkyrie would have, it matters not, its how the cookie crumbles, but if it doesn't go down, the firepower it can bring to bear for 30pts more compared to a Valkyrie flying around, is insane.

Oh and Manticores aren't going to be hitting rear armour very often either.

It seem like I have been misunderstood (in no small part due to my own fault).

I brought up the Manticore KIT because of GWs decision to make it a multi-vehicle kit.....with the Deathstrike model. We are talking about kits here, not armylists and what makes sense in that regard. There is another thread for that.
In regards to the kit, I firmly stand by my conviction that having made it a combo Manticore/Hydra kit would have made better business-sense.