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.

Well, so in my quest to find new shores and new gaming challenges, I stumbled across Dust Tactics, and in particular the up coming Dust Warfare!

At this stage, my gripe may well be based on nothing, however, from the buzz on the "streets" DUST Warfare is likely to be a big army war game, not too dissimilar to WH40K in size......

This brings me to my point, the cost! Right now, you can buy a Unit box of 5 minis in the UK for £10.75, compare this to a Infantry box of Cadians which is 10 for £18, and you can see how the numbers start to stack up......same thing for DUST Walkers, check the costs.

I recently bought a box of Laser Storm Troopers, just to see how good the minis were. They arn't bad, they come assembled, and the producers have gone for a very soft and flexible plastic medium......sculpting quality is ok, and so are the detail levels.....however, if anyone has any experience with AT-43, you'll notice that the minis are practically the same, in terms of quality and material. In my opinion, this is far inferior to GW's plastics, and sculpting quality!

Whats that? I hear you scream.....DELEPHONT is actually placing GW in a higher position than a.n.other company.....well, credit where credit is due, the DUST miniatures just don't stack up, and when you look at the prices, I can't help but wonder about the value of getting into this game.

OK, so I admit, DUST isn't the first company to come out as more expensive than GW, Infinity, Malifaux, Studio McVey, et al all have higher priced minis than GW, their saving grace, you don't need as many to play their respective games, and the fact that in most cases I'm comparing high quality metal miniatures with GW's rank and file plastics model kits.....

However, DUST is also using plastics (although with a somewhat cheaper feel to them) and the final bell will ultimately depend on how many they expect you to purchase to be able to play their game. In this, only time will tell.

At the moment, my purchasing for DUST will remian with the one box of mins I bought, and I guess I'll sit back and wait to see how things pan out with the final wargame.

Not everyones main driver in this hobby is money...

Catyrpelius wrote:Not everyones main driver in this hobby is money...

It certainly seems to be the case with the incessant whining on this board about GW prices.

Of course, all the other companies get a pass on price, because they're not GW.

Catyrpelius wrote:Not everyones main driver in this hobby is money...

Quite true. However, I think even the most financially careless will want to consider price vs quality. Now I realise that "quality" may well be a personal judgement, my comments were based on the fact that, I think the quality of the DUST products to be lower than GW, and ultimately cost more.

I'm also one of GW's biggest critics when it comes to quality and cost. However, rather than bashing GW no matter what, I thought I'd share my discovery, which suggests that GW isn't the "worst" kid on the block when it comes to ££$$£££

It will be intersting if anyone can do an army vs army model count/cost comparison.

I assume that Tactics requires less minis to filed legal army. Don't know about warfare.

Edit.

Black Reach Starter on GW website - £61.50. Rulebook Assorted odds and sods 50 minis.
Dust Tactics Boxed game (amazon Uk) £61.05. Rulebook 30 minis.

What are the basic min requirements for a legal and competitive tactics list?

Delephont wrote:

Catyrpelius wrote:Not everyones main driver in this hobby is money...

Quite true. However, I think even the most financially careless will want to consider price vs quality. Now I realise that "quality" may well be a personal judgement, my comments were based on the fact that, I think the quality of the DUST products to be lower than GW, and ultimately cost more.

I'm also one of GW's biggest critics when it comes to quality and cost. However, rather than bashing GW no matter what, I thought I'd share my discovery, which suggests that GW isn't the "worst" kid on the block when it comes to ££$$£££

Having played considerably with Dust models, I can say that they are a much higher quality then GW. On dust models the Arms and Torsoes move... They also come primmed with decals already applied, plus they also each come with their own molded bases and stats.....

The price point of the Dust stuff is what's keeping me out of it. I really like the idea and the models, but I've been hurt in the past *sob,GW,sob* and I'm loathe to spend that kind of money again.

Having not read the DW rules at all, I can't say for sure but I really don't think model count is going to be remotely the same as 40k. Just based on Dust Tactics.. your box of laser grenadiers are ready to go right out of the box, they are already equipped how they're supposed to be and if you're not a painter you can slap them on your board and start killing stuff. There's 5 models in that unit. To my knowledge there aren't any units over 5 models in DT/W.

A box of cadians has 10 men in it, for $22. More models, yeah, but that's not all you need for your unit. Like, what if you want a meltagun in there? Oops, gotta go find the bitz.

I think, overall, 40K is gonna have a much higher model count than DW will. In fact I'm guessing the average game will be more like Warmachine, only not metal. You have your hero, a couple big robots and a couple units of troops. I think I read DW is meant to be played on a 4x4 board too or at least that will be the "standard" size, where 40K is 4x6.

If you want to get into Dust Tactics/Warfare, I would go out and buy the old Core set while it's still around. You get a really nice amount of models for the cost of a couple of walkers. Even if you never play the board game version, the value of the models in the core set is really tough to beat. The new revised core set will also come a nice amt of models, but less.. you'll get 1 walker per side, 1 less unit and one of the units is a 3 man squad I think.

Thanks for the feedback in this regard. I've been very interested in DUST for some time now and was concerned about the price/quality of the models, hoping they were at least as good as GW for the price.

Delephont, would it be too much to ask for comparison photos?

The thing with Black Reach is that's a starter box with a basic army and a fraction of the 2000 pt army you'll need for an average game. Then you need a codex for the army you want to play too.

the DT core set that's out now is $100 retail or around $70 online, and you get a nice sized army to start with, add in 1 or 2 extra things if you want and you're set. It's got everything you need in the box including the stat cards for each unit, no army books needed. If you buy a new walker or unit, they come with the stat card too.

The new revised core set will be $80 retail and have less models.

Again, I really don't think you can compare the 2 games based on model count.

DUST Warfare more expensive than WH40K?!?

Is it

Or at least we don't know until the rules are released and we get a sense of the amount of models needed. If you can get a good, field-able 'average' army for £100-150, then it's cheaper than the average army for 40k, on average

I recently bought a box of Laser Storm Troopers...

Snap! I really like them, sure the quality isn't as good, but I prefer the style and scale to the big-headed, short Cadians. Give me Germans with frigging-laser beams over Chaos's whipping boys anyday To be fair I think the £12 I paid, including delivery, is good value. The fact they are pre-assembled and pre-primed, the fact I know it's a whole squad (at least for Dust Tactics) and the fact the rules are included - it must be said on a very high quality shiny piece of card, makes them better value. As it is I think you're exaggerating and not looking at the whole picture - £20 for 10 isn't much different to £18 to be fair, is it? However when you consider a Sentinel is £18.50 and a Medium Panzer Walker is £18-20 - tell me which is bigger, looks more bad-ass and you can game with instantly? I honestly don't think it'll be MORE expensive than 40k - at worst it'll be AS expensive - I hope it's less but only time will tell

Overall I don't think Dust Warfare is/will be more expensive - so don't fret

Necros wrote:

A box of cadians has 10 men in it, for $22. More models, yeah, but that's not all you need for your unit. Like, what if you want a meltagun in there? Oops, gotta go find the bitz.

A box of Cadians (10 men) is what you need for a squad. I agree with your point about "upgrades".....how could I not

I was careful to state that D-Warfare may not be as bad as WH40K, dependant on required model count. However, if the game is going to be a large scale wargame, then it stands to reason that it may run to similar model count as WH40K......if so, the cost is going to be a close run thing between the two, and this may be a barrier to entry....well, for me at least.

Delephont wrote:This brings me to my point, the cost! Right now, you can buy a Unit box of 5 minis in the UK for £10.75, compare this to a Infantry box of Cadians which is 10 for £18, and you can see how the numbers start to stack up......same thing for DUST Walkers, check the costs.

And lots of the basic troops for other games cost more per model than GW. Look at warmachine, infinity, mercs, etc.

In all of these the basic troops cost more than GW's basic troops.

The price per mini for most (there are some glaring exceptions) GW mini's is pretty mid-range (£1.50-2.50 per model). Warmachine is about the same or a little more, Infinity is around £4 per model, mercs is £7-8.

40K is expensive because you need lots of minis.

Catyrpelius wrote:
Having played considerably with Dust models, I can say that they are a much higher quality then GW. On dust models the Arms and Torsoes move... They also come primmed with decals already applied, plus they also each come with their own molded bases and stats.....

But decals are meaningless if we want to paint the minis since we'll paint over the decals anyway. They're also not multipart plastics, correct? They look like great minis, but definitely not the same deal as 40k stuff. I'd be interested in playing it though; I've definitely thought about it.

Yes 40k is expensive because of the sheer amount of mini's you need. People are using the Cadian box set as an example, £18 for 10 mini's is quite expensive,but no more so than any other large squad based game. However, the fact that those 10 minis are what? 50-60pts?! That is what truly sucks about GW pricing.

Of course, all the other companies get a pass on price, because they're not GW.

Or it could be because in the long run, it's cheaper to get a full force for other company's games than it is to get a full force for 40K or WHFB.

Well I guess the pricing is what it is because the minis were created for DUST Tactics first and warfare second. Its like other "skirmishy/board games" by FFG such as Anima Tactics or Tannhäuser which have some pricey models for their numbers. Only difference is though that DUST is expanding to a much larger game. How large? We dont know exactly

Still I think they're pretty good deal. If you got the old starter set and the new starter set thats like $80 per side for 3 mechs and a bunch of infantry each and already primed and assembled so you wont have to worry about getting too unmotivated to put them together

Worth pointing out that DUST is cheaper due to the simple fact that squads are 5 man units, not 10... So yeah, while its slightly cheaper per mini to buy GW, you have to remember that you need a lot more minis to play 40k.

Besides that, IMO, the quality of the sculpts, level of detail, etc. is way way better on the DUST minis. Not only that, but they are simply more realistic, both in design and proportion (there is no mini in DUST that I have seen that is like the Leman Russ for example, where the weapon firing would kill the guy sitting in the turret). My guess is that you percieve the GW minis to be superior because your eye has become accustomed to the heroic scaled nonsense that they keep trying to push down our throats, I know I have found myself looking at a mini that was realistically proportioned and all and wondering why it looked so weedy, etc.

chaos0xomega wrote: My guess is that you percieve the GW minis to be superior because your eye has become accustomed to the heroic scaled nonsense that they keep trying to push down our throats, I know I have found myself looking at a mini that was realistically proportioned and all and wondering why it looked so weedy, etc.

Delephont is literally exactly the wrong person to accuse of this.

I really can't agree that the Dust minis are superior models. I can understand that the style and scale choices are going to appeal to some people more, but that's not a quality issue.
The infantry guns are just a little too blobby for me to be totally ok with. The models themselves are generally fine, I'd say they were equivalent to Warlord plastics...although obviously with better faces. Some glaring issues like the broken wristed Allies trooper that appears 2-3 times in the main box, and Bazooka Joe looking like an 80 year old, dropped my enthusiasm a little after the initial purchase. I still think they're great, and I'm hoping to give Tactics and then Warfare a try once my son goes to sleep in thirty years or so.

RatBot wrote:

Of course, all the other companies get a pass on price, because they're not GW.

Or it could be because in the long run, it's cheaper to get a full force for other company's games than it is to get a full force for 40K or WHFB.

And it could be that you're comparing apples to oranges. A 'battle' game like 40k is not the same as a 'skirmish' game like warmahordes. Of course force composition has an effect on how much the actual 'game' costs. And since no one knows how many models will be requiree for Dust Warfare, its a pointless comparison.

The only thing that remans is to compare units and models on a unit and model basis. No one batted an eye when PP released a cavalry unit that cost $100 (5 models). But when GW released the Blood Knights for $90, the world was ending. Sure, you might want more blood knights than PPs cavalry for the game, but it remains that similar units, of similar material, cost the same.

If Dust Warfare requires significantly less models than 40k, then its not a battle game, and price comparisons are fruitless. I saw someone guess at 4 or so units, and a couple walkers. That is nowhere near a 'battle' game. We'll just have to wait and see.

You are comparing two completly different games, here. Entirly different play systems, numbers needed, and rules sets.

Dust is cheaper in price, unit by unit. And... it is a board game on par with FF's style of games.


The new rules set for making it a tabletop game may be the one though, to push it over the edge, and into GW pricing. Dust has been a concept for a couple of years now,- so they are trying to cover a lot more ground, faster.

Have you seen thier 1/35 scale model range? That is some expensive stuff, there.

Cruentus wrote:

RatBot wrote:

Of course, all the other companies get a pass on price, because they're not GW.

Or it could be because in the long run, it's cheaper to get a full force for other company's games than it is to get a full force for 40K or WHFB.

And it could be that you're comparing apples to oranges. A 'battle' game like 40k is not the same as a 'skirmish' game like warmahordes. Of course force composition has an effect on how much the actual 'game' costs. And since no one knows how many models will be requiree for Dust Warfare, its a pointless comparison.

The only thing that remans is to compare units and models on a unit and model basis. No one batted an eye when PP released a cavalry unit that cost $100 (5 models). But when GW released the Blood Knights for $90, the world was ending. Sure, you might want more blood knights than PPs cavalry for the game, but it remains that similar units, of similar material, cost the same.

If Dust Warfare requires significantly less models than 40k, then its not a battle game, and price comparisons are fruitless. I saw someone guess at 4 or so units, and a couple walkers. That is nowhere near a 'battle' game. We'll just have to wait and see.

Actually, in many ways 40K is just an enormous, bloated skirmish game.

Comparing apples to oranges...

GW is selling you miniatures, as part of the 'wargaming hobby'. You assemble them how you want, and paint them according to your preferences. And play rough with them at your own peril.

FFG is, (and Rackham was), trying to push into the toy market. Hence the softer, tougher plastic, already painted, with a bit of action-figure poseability. They will stand up to rough play in the sandbox about as well as can be expected.

I think a lot of us wargamers forget the distinction. After all, DUST and AT-43 were marketed to us, and we have years of training in what to expect when we open a starter box. Training from GW.

I'm not going to get into the pricing issue other than to say that perhaps FFG and all the other manufacturers out there have watched us pay GW's prices, and simply decided to follow the market leader.

I do think that pricing is what sunk both AT-43, Confrontation, and Starship Troopers/Battlefield Evolution before them. Charge me $30 for a box of little models? Maybe, it depends on how much fun I think it will be to put them together. Charge me $30 for a box of little plastic ready-to-use game pieces? I think not- where's the fun in that? I know there are a lot of people who say they want the convenience of prepainted figures, but those people are not the majority of wargamers. There are not enough of them to support a market.

fellblade wrote:Comparing apples to oranges...

GW is selling you miniatures, as part of the 'wargaming hobby'. You assemble them how you want, and paint them according to your preferences. And play rough with them at your own peril.

FFG is, (and Rackham was), trying to push into the toy market. Hence the softer, tougher plastic, already painted, with a bit of action-figure poseability. They will stand up to rough play in the sandbox about as well as can be expected.

I don't agree with this at all. None of the marketing, packaging etc that I've seen suggests that they're aiming at a kids toy buying audience. Have you seen the Dust models? If anything they're less durable than well assembled GW equivalents.
They're trying to bridge the Boardgamer/TTGer gap certainly, but not toys.

Agreed with the above. The DUST minis feel more like FSM (Fine Scale Models) kits rather than actual gaming miniatures/toys. Some of the pieces are really weedy and fragile.

fellblade wrote:Comparing apples to oranges...

GW is selling you miniatures, as part of the 'wargaming hobby'. You assemble them how you want, and paint them according to your preferences. And play rough with them at your own peril.

FFG is, (and Rackham was), trying to push into the toy market. Hence the softer, tougher plastic, already painted, with a bit of action-figure poseability. They will stand up to rough play in the sandbox about as well as can be expected.

I think a lot of us wargamers forget the distinction. After all, DUST and AT-43 were marketed to us, and we have years of training in what to expect when we open a starter box. Training from GW.

I'm not going to get into the pricing issue other than to say that perhaps FFG and all the other manufacturers out there have watched us pay GW's prices, and simply decided to follow the market leader.

I do think that pricing is what sunk both AT-43, Confrontation, and Starship Troopers/Battlefield Evolution before them. Charge me $30 for a box of little models? Maybe, it depends on how much fun I think it will be to put them together. Charge me $30 for a box of little plastic ready-to-use game pieces? I think not- where's the fun in that? I know there are a lot of people who say they want the convenience of prepainted figures, but those people are not the majority of wargamers. There are not enough of them to support a market.

This is why I purchased a box of miniatures before making my "judgements". The miniatures certainly do not fall under the catagory of being toys, well, no more than any other miniature product out there anyway. I don't doubt these miniatures from DUST could stand up to a fair amount of "rough and tumble", but no more or less than a reasonably constructed GW miniature.

The DUST miniatures are NOT prepainted. FFG / DUST Studios produced a limited edition "studio" painted version of the boardgame for collectors. These LE sets have since sold out, if you buy any set of DUST products now, they are assembled, but not painted (excluding the undercoat colouring).

I agree with you points regarding pre-paints, but I disagree that wargamers who want prepainted miniatures are in a minority......you only need to look at the success of operations like Blue-Table-Painting and the other paint and assembly operations out there, to realise there is a big percentage of wargamers who either don't have the time or don't of the skill to do it themselves, and will therefore pay a premium to have some one else do it for them. Sure, the quality of the AT-43 pre-paints were questionable in certain cases, but for table top wargaming they were certainly acceptable, and if you so wished, you could always repaint them yourself.

Without knowing all the factors behind companies like Rackham, I think it's unwise to put their failure down to a single business decision (no matter how significant we might think that decision was). Personally, I think, if Rackham had been allowed to continue trading, their pre-paints might have developed like any product brought to market, and who knows, they might have become industry leaders with a product that made unpainted and unassembled kits seem like cheap alternatives.

Well the Dust Heavy Walkers have gone up on their site (not quite available yet) and the price is $39.95 so probably about £25-30 depending - still cheaper than most 40k heavy support tanks and more awesome looking - well the Axis ones anyway

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=123&esem=2&esum=170

Delephont wrote:

This brings me to my point, the cost! Right now, you can buy a Unit box of 5 minis in the UK for £10.75, compare this to a Infantry box of Cadians which is 10 for £18, and you can see how the numbers start to stack up...

You are choosing to focus on the number of minis vs cost, which is fine. I will point out that although the number of minis is different, each represents a standard squad. Going by that DT/DW comes in cheaper. Guess it all comes down to how you choose to see it...


Also dont forget too add the cost of paint, glue, and other hobby materials to the GW stuff. You can reference the many Dakka threads that trying to field an unpainted army is nearly punishable by death. DT/DW however can be played right out of the box, with no additional cost.

So what I have got from this thread is that that the average game for 40K is 2000 points on a 6' x 4' table, no wonder some people piss and moan about the game - it sounds very cramped!

If as is suggested Dust is a skirmish game then prehaps a better GW comparison would be Necromunda. You can get up and running with less than £40 of minis.

Fully assembled and pre-painted minis is what makes this an apples-oranges comparison.

You cannot get fully assembled and painted GW miniatures for anything near retail box price. You certainly can't get it on the 'spot' market; the cheapest way to do so would be to order from a Chinese mini painting company and wait the weeks of assembly and transport to receive your army at a cost of +dollars per model.