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.

of course all companies want to sell stuff and models make the most money as everyone needs some (while 1 rulebook is enough for a whole group)

and games like Frostgraves sell expansions to do it

but over time there is a big difference in quality between a system designed to be a game first and a system with low afford rules to sell models

 kodos wrote:
of course all companies want to sell stuff and models make the most money as everyone needs some (while 1 rulebook is enough for a whole group)

and games like Frostgraves sell expansions to do it

but over time there is a big difference in quality between a system designed to be a game first and a system with low afford rules to sell models

I think you're being optimistic and over generous here to the folks behind frostgrave, kodos. Everything you said could have applied to mid to late naughties privateer press as well.

It's not a 'morals' thing. It's not about evil capitalists and plucky underdogs trying to make an honest living. Size and age plays the biggest part.

I really don't think "miniatures company" vs. "games company" is a useful distinction. At least, not if you think it's a binary distinction.

With a game setting to back up the design, there's usually no reason to sculpt up an interesting set of models. And if you're working on a game setting, eventually you hit a point where you have designs that no one else is making.

There's a reason most of the game-only games are fairly generic, so they can accommodate most gamers' collections. Like Zone Raiders, a great game with no models at all attached.

The downside of this approach is that you, the gamer, has to do a lot of legwork when adapting models to game.

Deadnight wrote:

It's not a 'morals' thing. It's not about evil capitalists and plucky underdogs trying to make an honest living. Size and age plays the biggest part.

who said it is a moral thing?

main difference is that there are companies that make games and supply those with miniatures and companies who make miniatures and suppy them with rules
and this gives different result for the game system

another example would be Black Powder from Warlord Games they make models for the game, but the game is not designed around the models they make

 solkan wrote:
I really don't think "miniatures company" vs. "games company" is a useful distinction. At least, not if you think it's a binary distinction.

but there are, as there are those who only make miniatures and some that only make rules, the minority of companies make both

Precinct knows the way of things.....

 kodos wrote:

who said it is a moral thing?

Hmm apologies, I should clarify. It wasn't something you said kodos, but I think you touched on something without realising. I've seen this train of thought before, Heck I was thr one saying it before - you know thid kind of thing- 'this company are the good guys! they genuinely care about their game! They're not corporate gougers! They don't invalidate models and they don't put power creep into their game!'

Truth is, watching pp's trajectory for fifteen years opened my eyes a great deal. Any company gets to a certain size and a certain age, they will be obligated to change their approach.

 kodos wrote:


main difference is that there are companies that make games and supply those with miniatures and companies who make miniatures and suppy them with rules
and this gives different result for the game system

I think this is more semantics than anything. It's more circular than one feeding the other. If a company has games an minis for sale, if you sell a game, you want to sell models alongside it, if you sell models, a game helps sell them.

 kodos wrote:

another example would be Black Powder from Warlord Games they make models for the game, but the game is not designed around the models they make

I'll.take your point on frostgrave earlier but I disagree on BP or even the likes of hail caesar.for these I'd argue it's less to do with company ethos to prioritise the game over minis and more cold pragmatism and acknowledgement of the reality on the ground, since historicals are a very crowded, non copywriteable field and there's already hundreds of ranges in every scale for every historical epoch, and frankly, you'll be laughed out of it if you insist your English civil war rules can only be used with your English civil war models. That said, if they could copywrite an era, you'd see them.walkimg down gw's Road pretty quickly.

 kodos wrote:

but there are, as there are those who only make miniatures and some that only make rules, the minority of companies make both

Outside of the handful of big players, ours is a hobby based out of one or two man bands,
small operations and often garage or cottage industries, and often verging on charity (most playtester groups are unpaid 'volunteers' after all). Folks involved generally only have the resources for one or the other. As you say, it's a minority than can ffo both.

companies that care about the models and those that care about their rules are not good vs evil
the Perrys being the evil models guys while Osprey or Sam Mustafa are the good rules guys

but I have seen people writing that Mantic Games is the same evil company as GW because they make rules and models
yet I would say Mantic makes the Game first and the models later with the high quality product being the rules and they don't care as much about the models (as those are just tokens to play the game) but still want to make money
and GW are the ones that make the models first, want them to be the best out there, and think about the rules later, not really thinking about how well those rules will work as long as the models look good

both are not good or evil but just have a different focus on what is their main product

Deadnight wrote:
I'll.take your point on frostgrave earlier but I disagree on BP or even the likes of hail caesar.for these I'd argue it's less to do with company ethos to prioritise the game over minis and more cold pragmatism and acknowledgement of the reality on the ground, since historicals are a very crowded, non copywriteable field and there's already hundreds of ranges in every scale for every historical epoch, and frankly, you'll be laughed out of it if you insist your English civil war rules can only be used with your English civil war models. That said, if they could copywrite an era, you'd see them.walkimg down gw's Road pretty quickly.

you don't need to copyright the theme or anything but having rules for the models you make coming with those models, like Battlefront is doing (or X-Wing and SW Legion)
or using a scale no one else is using with the rules written for it (Warlord doing with their 13mm ACW stuff, or the 18mm Napoleonic game)

Black Powder is a nice example as they clearly got torwards 28mm models with 2nd Edition in the rules while the 1st Edi was open to everything and I guess the change is because Warlord expanded their 28mm Napoleonic line
also Warlord Games does offer other brands on their store but only if they don't make similar models (to fill up what their range is missing)

You can always use other models for you game, having the most unique setting does not change that as long as the rules are not fixed on those specific models
which would also make conversions and different poses impossible, a problem Star Wars legion faced at the beginning, and also 40k tried to do several times but it failed because the community did not accept it
Even a game as specific as Star Wars Legion with the rules coming with the model boxes did not prevent people form using different models

but you stick with the models the shop/brand offers with the rules, people buying Black Powder from Warlord looking what they have to offer and might not start searching for something else unless there is a unit they want to field but Warlord does not offer
(and yes there are people who start Napoleonics and ask if there are other companies than Warlord making models to play Black Powder and if it is ok to use them)

SAGA did something similar, people starting the game are not going to buy the 60-80 model boxes of Vikings from other brands but the Gripping Beast 6 point Starter Sets coming with the exact amount you need fielding a playable army
of course as soon as those people learn they might look around what else is there and if they got to a good shop that might stock others as well they will see those right from the start, but just because you cannot copyright the theme does not mean you cannot build around it (as people will use 3rd party models anyway no matter how hard you try to prevent it)

 Pacific wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

There was definitely a period where there were almost no gateway type games, or nothing like the amount that exist now in any case.

Back in one of the "golden ages", for one. I got into GW games in 1990. When I, as a callow 11-year-old, asked where to start, I was directed to 3rd edition WFB, in all its complicated glory. Instead, I went with 1st edition Space Marine, as at least you got everything you needed in the box, and you didn't need to buy two books before you even knew what models to get.

That was ... twenty quid, I think, plus a tenner or so for a paint set. Now for 40k, it looks like sixty quid is enough to get going - the 40k Recruit edition and the paints & tools set. Enough there to dip your toe into and see if you can be bothered, and then you can just add whatever else you want after that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:

 kodos wrote:
not boxed game VS wave approach

[Other stuff]

Fair points all, and thank you for the clarification. but I'm pretty sure the guys behind frostgrave also still have models to sell

No, they don't. Osprey publish books - mostly historical reference books, but a selection of rulesets over the last few years. North Star Military Figures would absolutely like to sell you some miniatures for Frostgrave, but they're not actually the writers or publishers. They've just got a good cross-promotion going on.

It’s...going to vary, and vary wildly.

As OP set out, different systems have different “minimum” buy-ins, depending on what scale of combat they’re looking to recreate.

But the minimums can be misleading, as the ongoing cost depends largely upon the player.

Now, 40K and AoS are by no means cheap. And their actual value is a separate consideration I won’t go into. Very broadly speaking, you’re looking in the ball park of £300-£400 for an army, if you play at the common points value of around 2,000. Being common, I think it’s fair to use that as a benchmark.

Now, once you’ve got that functional army? That’s it. That’s all you need to spend.

From there? Some players will expand their force slowly, mostly to refresh their experience and try something different. A unit a month is relatively low cost as such things are measured in 40K.

Others might embark on an entirely new army, preferring lots of different forces to one enormous collection. How often they do that will of course impact the spend.

Both of those I suspect will be true for other game systems as well.

Both are largely controlled costs.

But one can lose control of the cost. One example is Meta Chasing and Net Listing. People who indulge in those are more likely to be on the hook for frequent spending, as “what is best” constantly shifts, especially in 40K. A unit is only ever an FAQ tweak away from becoming Not As Good (not to be confused with actively rubbish) or Suddenly Good. And entire “top tier” armies can lose that position once a new Codex comes out, which provides a popular and solid counter to them in that meta.

If that’s your bag (and there’s no judgement here, your hobby isn’t my hobby, neither of us is more right than the other, dear reader), then you need to do so understanding it’s inherently gonna cost you more.

Having been back in for little over a year now, I've seen both swings of the pendulum.

I have 2000ish points of Sisters that will have cost around the £350 mark.
Probably about £180 worth of paint, brushes and tools.
Having, I hope, got a bit smarter at this I've managed to get around 2000 points worth of Newcrons at £0.

Dunno if it was discussed earlier but looking at it in terms of cost/hr engaged does help bring it down a tad.
Haven't even had much opportunity to play for 12 months for obvious reasons. However there was one chap there who changes army's every year or so. Just sells what he has and buys a new one. So his investment was only ever that initial purchase.

Cost per hour is more about subjective value than cost.

Song of Blades and Heroes
An $8 ruleset you can use with any fantasy miniatures you already have. If you want to buy figures for the game, grab 5-7 of the most interesting bargain bin figures you can find and you're a go for $30!

An force for many of the Osprey Wargames (Of Gods and Mortals, Fistful of Kung Fu, In Her Majesty's Name, Dragon Rampant etc) can be assembled for less than $50, especially if you use older and more affordable miniatures.


On the wider topic...

Even used GW will end up eating up your wallet if you are building a full 40k army.

However, perhaps more importantly than material costs IMHO is the value of a playerbase. If you want a built-in community -whether for 40k, Infinity, Legion, etc- you're going to pay for it. The big name and big budget games are the generally the ones with big audiences and I don't mean that as a negative.

It might feel like a kick in the teeth to have to pay $10-20 a figure as you build your army. But when you're buying, consider the value of knowing -in non Covid times- that you are near-guaranteed to be able to find a game,- in many places multiple games- every week.

Thankfully I only went down that rabbit hole once or twice, but if I someday find myself in a less densely populated place where wargaming is limited, I'd break out my old armies tune them up and get back on the 40k train, just because of it's ubiquity.

Luckily, after a foray into 40k I got into generic wargames with a group of like-minded individuals. I collected affordable -often used- figures in the Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Post-Apoc genres that saw action with dozens of rulesets over a decade. The same set of fantasy figures served in Song of Blades and Heroes, Dragon Rampant, Kings of War, Frostgrave and a couple others. In several other cases I was able to source figures and rules for a game for well under $50.

All this to say, wargaming is as expensive as you want to make it, just know that if you want to do it on a budget you've got to put more effort into cultivating a group of players.

It’s probably it’s own thread, but I don’t get this weird focus on finding other players, on picking a game you hate and is expensive because you can find other players. That makes sense for tournament players I guess, but for the average Warhammer? Perhaps it’s because I came to gaming late or from a boardgames background, but to me it seems more natural to choose a game your current friends would want to play, or a game you can convince them to play. Rather than picking a game you hope to find games with, make friends you can play games with?

An example from our latest move about five years ago. Trying to make friends at the most local game store I found out that if it wasn’t 40k, no matter how nice you or they were, it wasn’t going to be played. Period.

And that echoed my experience during a full military career, moving every two to three years. Independent games often were a waste of time buying and build/painting two forces only to generate minimum if any interest.

Since our last move I eventually made friends with three other people who play non 40k stuff. And only two of them will do it consistently. It’s just a hard nut to crack especially if you are in a smaller location.

It's hard to convince people jonesing for 40k that they want to play something that may not scratch that 40k itch.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It’s probably it’s own thread, but I don’t get this weird focus on finding other players, on picking a game you hate and is expensive because you can find other players. That makes sense for tournament players I guess, but for the average Warhammer? Perhaps it’s because I came to gaming late or from a boardgames background, but to me it seems more natural to choose a game your current friends would want to play, or a game you can convince them to play. Rather than picking a game you hope to find games with, make friends you can play games with?

“I know it's crooked, but it's the only game in town.”

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It’s probably it’s own thread, but I don’t get this weird focus on finding other players, on picking a game you hate and is expensive because you can find other players. That makes sense for tournament players I guess, but for the average Warhammer? Perhaps it’s because I came to gaming late or from a boardgames background, but to me it seems more natural to choose a game your current friends would want to play, or a game you can convince them to play. Rather than picking a game you hope to find games with, make friends you can play games with?

I don't know that it's particularly weird. It's not much different from any other situation where you get involved in a hobby through -or influenced by- a local club or organization.

Wargaming is a social endeavor. If you've got wargaming-interested friends and you choose to play a game together then you're good to go. However, if you're new to the hobby or have moved, or are re-entering the hobby and you would like to be able to find pickup games, a competitive scene or just a community of people to play and hobby with it makes sense to go with a game that has a following.

Sure you can save a bunch of money playing a different game (and that would be my preference) but a bargain alternative isn't really a "game" unless you can find opponents.

Alright. Seems I’ve not been privy to the full gaming experience. My perspective seems to be fairly outside the norm, then.

Another cost analysis

X-Wing (2.0)

$40 for base game (it does come with 2 TIES, 1 X-Wing)
$20 per additional model

For a max-sized TIE list (10 TIES, most you could field in single game, no upgrades) - $200; average list (3-5 ships) - $80 (Base set + 4 ships).

No need for paints, glue or other hobby supplies (unless you WANT to customize the ships)

 Stormonu wrote:
Another cost analysis

X-Wing (2.0)

$40 for base game (it does come with 2 TIES, 1 X-Wing)
$20 per additional model

For a max-sized TIE list (10 TIES, most you could field in single game, no upgrades) - $200; average list (3-5 ships) - $80 (Base set + 4 ships).

No need for paints, glue or other hobby supplies (unless you WANT to customize the ships)

Genuinely, what’s the card chasing element like these days?

It was pretty dodgy in its first edition, as to get some cards, you had to buy a ship not in your chosen faction. I think they somewhat addressed that in 2nd Ed?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
Another cost analysis

X-Wing (2.0)

$40 for base game (it does come with 2 TIES, 1 X-Wing)
$20 per additional model

For a max-sized TIE list (10 TIES, most you could field in single game, no upgrades) - $200; average list (3-5 ships) - $80 (Base set + 4 ships).

No need for paints, glue or other hobby supplies (unless you WANT to customize the ships)

Genuinely, what’s the card chasing element like these days?

It was pretty dodgy in its first edition, as to get some cards, you had to buy a ship not in your chosen faction. I think they somewhat addressed that in 2nd Ed?

It's quite a bit better now. There's a general approach from FFG/AMG that you don't have to buy out of your faction to get any upgrade card available to you. Note, that doesn't mean you get it straight away as sometimes a new card is released in only one or two ships in a wave so you might have to wait until the next wave for it to be available in your faction's expansions. This is often mitigated by the fact that most people collect at least 2 factions as the costs are fairly cheap to do so. They've also done card-only packs of upgrades for bombs/missiles etc and pilots as well as introducing pseudo-starter kits for factions in the form of squadron packs (like the old aces boxes with 3 ships but with a bunch of useful generic cards for those without the starter box). It's not perfect but it's better than it was - no more Autothruster card masquerading as a Starviper miniature, for example.

One other factor to bear in mind, that also applies to many other games, is the pace of releases. X-Wing, Legion etc have much slower release schedules, averaging about 3-4 waves a year, which usually means fewer than 20 new "units". That means people don't feel overwhelmed with a massive release all at once and probably helps smooth out the financial commitment required if you're trying to "keep up". Contrast that with GW's approach where you'll sometimes get loads of new kits dumped at once, all at quite high prices, alongside having to pay for the new Codex. Even if there aren't lots of new kits the rules churn from GW often means a lot of the stuff you used to use is now not very good and the stuff you didn't use is now very good. Just take a look at the ups and downs of the Thunderfire Cannon and Aggressors for some good examples.

Also, slight correction to the costs above - 8 is the most ships you can have in an X-Wing list so that squadron is even cheaper than listed.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It’s probably it’s own thread, but I don’t get this weird focus on finding other players, on picking a game you hate and is expensive because you can find other players. That makes sense for tournament players I guess, but for the average Warhammer? Perhaps it’s because I came to gaming late or from a boardgames background, but to me it seems more natural to choose a game your current friends would want to play, or a game you can convince them to play. Rather than picking a game you hope to find games with, make friends you can play games with?

Population.

Youre not wrong in what you aay, but if I'm.not mistaken, you're coming at this from the pov of someone who has a core group of like minded players already, and for you, it makes no sense to choose a 'bad' game over one that everyone will enjoy. My current group is like this as well. Bjt it took me years to find them.

For a lot of people they approach gaming as a way to make friends within that hobby, they don't necessarily come with gaming friends already, either into the hobby or potentially interested. Take me, for example. I was (a) the only person I knew into 'that kind of thing and (b) moved country ten years back. I had my blankets and clothes snd warhammer/warmachine stuff in the back of my car, I couldn't bring my friends in a suitcase, haha! And I'm far from a unique example.

You'll tend to find people will get into gaming via a store or a club and over time and luck, will hopefully find those like minded friends with where they can then 'choose a game your current friends would like to play', if said friends are into that. For the same reason that some people watch rugby and can't stand football, and vice versa, some people only want to be involved with gw games. And that's OK too! Sometimes life just places you in a 'football' town, and aa much as you might want to play cricket or rugby, if you don't have a local club, you're out of luck!

And we also have a very niche hobby. The active gaming population of some towns and cities is counted in the dozens, at best, very low hundreds. Sometimes the community of the other games is you. It's a hard sell pushing a game not everyone is interested in. sometimes the safer and easier option to make friends/acquaintances is to follow the team/sport everyone else is following amd hopefully branch out from there.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Alright. Seems I’ve not been privy to the full gaming experience. My perspective seems to be fairly outside the norm, then.

Outside the norm, yes. However, as Deadnight says, by no means a wrong way to approach wargaming.

Your method certainly worked for me. We formed around a group of 3 people who wanted to play "Song of Blades and Heroes" and grew from there playing predominantly indie games for almost a decade. As it happens, after a couple years mostly on hiatus we're now planning to get together again to play Kings of War and Dragon Rampant.