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.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.

I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.

That would surely be the case if you took that sentence seriously. And while I understand that you could, given that when previewing the post I noticed a little vagueness in how the 2 sentences might be understood when taken together and left them like that on purpose, still the number of words you had to bold should be an indication that it's a parody rather than a serious insult.

Basicaly I tried to be funny, maybe I failed but for sure it was not meant as an insult to anyone here. And if it was then although I am neither fat nor have a neckbeard, I still am a whiny wargamer and would qualify for plebs too. That was also a loose reference to that GW former manager and his opinion about gw customers that he voiced on, was it facebook?

So attempt at humour and maybe a little trolling there but not the slightest attack or insult to anyone. And given that I practicaly lost the debate (I could pull Peregrine's previous point that it's the final product not technology that matters but my opinion is, that if you're limited in what you can provide to customers - in this case, sisters - it hurts quality. And you are not best in the world when others can just do better) then you can give me a pass on a subtle troll attempt.

I understood that you were being rude and condescending.

Towards whom?

Jes Goodwin, guy behind so many great sculpts? Ignorance 11
Mod who offered nothing but polite explanation? Extremly boorish
Opposing disputants ie Azrael13 to whom I apologise almost in the same post? Bipolar
Wargaming community? Schisophrenia

Im nothing of the above. But please actualy tell me towards whom you thought I was condescending and rude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Ill look up the plane, I ignored it tbh. It's still not direct comparision imo.

I'll post it again for you: http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal11/10301-10400/gal10326-F-104-Oslizlo/00.shtm

And here's a picture in case you can't view the page on your phone:



Note the ridiculous level of fine detail even though the plane itself is as sleek and simple as the real one. All of the rivets and panel lines are included (and at the proper scale, not GW's giant rivets and gaping holes between armor plates), wires/hydraulic lines/etc are all included* and at the proper scale, etc. And this is a kit that costs $20-30, not the $40-50+ of an average GW vehicle, despite being roughly the size of a GW Valkyrie kit ($66!). Look at other real-world model kits and you'll see similar levels of detail and prices.

The ONLY objective advantage (IOW, not subjective aesthetic preferences) GW's kits have over that F-104 is that they can be used in the tabletop game while the F-104 is just going to sit on your display shelf and look pretty. So essentially you're paying about double the cost and sacrificing detail in exchange for the 40k IP and some truly awful game rules.


*Some of this seems to be scatchbuilt or third-party upgrade sets, but if you look at the on-sprue pictures elsewhere the standard kit has the same kind of detail, the upgrade kits just add more of it and make sure everything is perfectly accurate for a specific version of the plane.

Well that looks good. Not sure the phone is jab or not but unnecessary, obviously I can view pages just reading through walls of text like for example million similar threads on tmp tg or somewhere else where I could have read about gw vs others does not sound like a great experience. I see things like on haloperidol taking my eyes up just after reading or writing posts and my head hurts like sinuses inflamation.I tried a few quick searches ofc but failed. I already have dry eyes syndrome or however they call it I guess and try to limit time spend reading super tiny letters to minimum.

What you get with GW vehicle is multiplied thickness of the material therefore sturdiness. Im not saying in any way that it justifies even a tiny fraction of price difference but it is objectively an advantage for dedicated gaming piece.

Also in case you missed it, I already admitted being wrong as I can't even undermine the source when it's Jes Goodwin heh. Still GW is doing incredible job with plastic having many top notch quality kits and Im not ashamed to admit that when I open a kit I drink koolaid for a moment and even forgive them random tables and forge the narrative for a while. Anyway Im still going to try finding that link I mentioned multiple times here.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
What you get with GW vehicle is multiplied thickness of the material therefore sturdiness. Im not saying in any way that it justifies even a tiny fraction of price difference but it is objectively an advantage for dedicated gaming piece.

And now we're back to the durability argument I already addressed. Both of those historical models would be durable enough for gaming use, as long as you treat your models properly. So by sacrificing detail and realism to thicken all of their parts to survive abuse from careless children GW is reducing the quality of their product for older customers like me.

Also, GW's thick detail issues aren't just in places where the thickness is necessary for durability. For example, compare the width of the panel lines on a GW Valkyrie to the F-104. These aren't structural elements and making the lines thinner wouldn't in any way reduce durability, but GW's panel lines are still much wider and completely out of scale. Granted, this does make the model easier to paint if you have limited painting talent (and don't own an airbrush), but it's still a case of reducing the level of detail. And you'll see the same things repeated on other GW kits: lots of skulls per square inch, but the minimum feature size is huge and realism is limited.

Still GW is doing incredible job with plastic having many top notch quality kits

But as I've pointed out GW's kits aren't top-notch. They're decent gaming pieces and fun to build and paint if you enjoy the 40k IP but they're nowhere near pushing the limits of quality for injection-molded plastic kits and GW's prices are just ridiculous for what you get. If a LRBT cost the same $20 as a mid-tier historical kit and not the $50 of a high-end display piece there wouldn't be nearly as many complaints. But as it is now GW is charging high-end prices for models that are best described as "good enough for the job but nothing special".

Plumbumbarum wrote:
What you get with GW vehicle is multiplied thickness of the material therefore sturdiness. Im not saying in any way that it justifies even a tiny fraction of price difference ...

It doesn't. Kirby has said in his financial reports in the past that materials account for around 2% of the cost of production.

So making everything chunkier than it needs to be doesn't really have a direct impact on price.

...but it is objectively an advantage for dedicated gaming piece.

Only if it's actually necessary.

So making everything chunkier than it needs to be doesn't really have a direct impact on price.

It does. Your paying for the fact that they make them thicker, not for the material cost of actualy doing it. It is like taxs you pay them not because they will help goverment do better, but because a goverments trait is that it can gather taxs.

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, GW's thick detail issues aren't just in places where the thickness is necessary for durability. For example, compare the width of the panel lines on a GW Valkyrie to the F-104. These aren't structural elements and making the lines thinner wouldn't in any way reduce durability, but GW's panel lines are still much wider and completely out of scale. Granted, this does make the model easier to paint if you have limited painting talent (and don't own an airbrush), but it's still a case of reducing the level of detail.

That's all subjective though as I've always considered the larger details to be an aesthetic design choice rather than a lack of ability to do it. It's GW's aesthetic choice to go with big heads and over accentuated details.

And you'll see the same things repeated on other GW kits: lots of skulls per square inch, but the minimum feature size is huge and realism is limited.

I've always considered GW's minimum feature size to be pretty good. Edges are sharp and details are crisp. A lot of the fine scale models you buy (model planes and such) often have smaller details which are actually quite soft. You get people using panel line scribers to make them better defined. It also should be noted that fine scale models are a designed with a completely different goal in mind, your average wargamer wants to get a tank together in an afternoon, a fine scale modeller will build a tank over several days if not weeks. For a fine scale modeller, hundreds of parts is a boon, for a wargamer it's a nightmare.

 Red_Starrise wrote:

Flame me if you want but I don't like this game or this company any longer because compared to FFG or Mantic, or Corvus Belli they don't hold up when it comes to value per $1 spent for gameplay fun. When it comes to model quality gw is looking very dated in a lot of areas. Compare a plastic cadian to a resin CDF trooper by Mad Robot Miniatures. Both are meant to capture the same aesthetic but plastic cadians are a failure in terms of kit design. Compare danamians to plastic catachans. The catachans have very little of redeeming value to them & tbh gw should give those away they're so poor. Plus I can get a squad of either of the above for $39.99 with a choice of sw, an additional "heavy weapon" that's meant to go with the unit & a fair amount of customizability (choice of head, gun, torso, & arm sets within the unit).

40k is NOT a cheap game to get into. I love the 40k universe, the 40k models, and even the 40k game, with all of its flaws. However, I would never recommend it to someone looking for an "affordable" wargaming experience, or who would like to play casual games against a wide spectrum of strangers and have a chance of winning.

40k is a massively complex game with many of units and factions -- more than any other tabletop miniature game -- and an infinite number of ways of building a gimped army, with few ways to fix it other than to spend money (on units) and time (building and painting). Even the modelling aspect is daunting as all but the starter box are far more work to assemble than, for instance Warmahordes models. The simplest infantry units have 8+ pieces to assemble and pose, and vehicles pretty much all have more than a hundred pieces. Plus, you have many equipment -- you can easily lock yourself into a poor choice by selecting the cool looking weapon that ends up being inferior. The fix? Buy another box, build that one unit with a blaster instead of a shredder, if that's what you want. Want Druthu, or a Nephalim configuration and you didn't build it that way? Buy another model.

Plus, for someone who doesn't really enjoy army building, there are TONS of rules. And, let's be honest: if you want to be competitive, you have to buy all the codices, or at least the codices of your principle opponents, because you really do need to know what's possible for each army to develop strategies (or at least, understand their weaknesses, and appreciate your strengths).

On the other hand, 40k is the perfect game for someone who loves modelling (because of the massive configurability), and for people who really enjoy building armies, and LIKE that building an optimal army will yield a significant (perhaps unsurmountable) advantage. It is also a game for people who want to buy, build, and field LOTS of units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

But as I've pointed out GW's kits aren't top-notch. They're decent gaming pieces and fun to build and paint if you enjoy the 40k IP but they're nowhere near pushing the limits of quality for injection-molded plastic kits and GW's prices are just ridiculous for what you get. If a LRBT cost the same $20 as a mid-tier historical kit and not the $50 of a high-end display piece there wouldn't be nearly as many complaints. But as it is now GW is charging high-end prices for models that are best described as "good enough for the job but nothing special".

I think you should accept that "top notch" is a subjective, qualitative decision that people individually make. I happen to think that most of GW plastic kits are better than other plastic kits. I have not seen any models that come close to the cool factor of Nagash, the Mortgasts, or Treeman Ancient for instance. Now, I didn't say that nobody else has more intricate plastic. Frankly, I don't care if something is really intricate, if I don't find it appealing to model. And, I doubt I'm alone in being one who is unlikely to ever assemble and paint a historical model... if it doesn't have a mythical creature, a futuristic weapon, or something that triggers my imagination of another world, it's won't appeal to me.

Other people don't agree with me? That's quite ok with me. I respect their opinion, appreciate their aesthetic, and I am certainly happy to buy cool models from other companies.

In the same vein, someone could make the absolute best role playing game, but if it's set in a real period in history (remember Boot Hill?) I will have no interest in playing it. Add on dragons, halflings, and demons, and what the heck, I'll play suffer the crapiest, most arcane rules spread out in twenty volumes, as long as the storytelling is superior.

GW can charge what it does for models, because there are people who say, "wow, Aether sails, MUST HAVE".

Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
This?



That's probably a pretty good comparison, it is of a similar level of detail, similar price, and similar size (but slightly larger) than this..



But, subjectively, I don't like The Battle Engine, I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the spore either as I generally don't like the Nid aesthetic, but I'd be more likely to buy one some day.

So, objectively very similar, but subjectively, I don't much care for the PP model.

There will, of course, be people who feel the exact opposite way - that's the nature of subjectivity. However, nobody will be able to argue that the RRP of both is similar, because that's a matter of fact.

Which returns me to the original point I was making about a week ago, which, when you take subjectivity out of the equation and just factor in how much of a contribution the PP makes to the total of an average sized list in comparison to the Nidpod, that in gameplay terms, while having a similar Cost the Battle Engine poses much better Value.

This is actually a perfect example. While PP has many nice models, especially in the 28mm scale, many of their larger models are just not as exciting to me, objectively, as the larger GW models. There are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking, I like the GW sculpts more. Part of it is the weapons; I like GW weapons much, much more. Also, generally, PP models are nowhere near as customizable, which is a big feature of GW models for me.

@Peregrine -- I think it's perfectly fair to compare historical models to scifi/fantasy models for quality and sculpting detail. However, I don't think comparing price makes any sense, as one is based on real-life objects, while the other is sculpted from imagination. The intellectual property of the latter adds value, but more importantly, they're not really comparable in the same way that you could compare two Abrams tanks.

On the other hand, you could create the most stunning, perfectly detailed WW2 tanks, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, or JSF airplanes, and I would never, ever consider buying even one. On the other hand, I seem to be happy to collect, every year, thousands of dollars of dragons, giant robots, wizards, and Aether-sailing wyches. I would never paint a soldier in a gas mask with an M-16, but swap in a multi-melta or plasma pistol, and I can't wait.

Yeah that's fair enough if you prefer the aesthetics of a 40k kit but in terms of detail, material, and price it's pretty much a spot on match for 40k kits. If they continue like this then any arguments about detail, material etc will be pretty null between PP and 40k. The only thing it comes down to really are aesthetics. And maybe customisability, but we haven't seen new 'jack kits in it yet, they will make more than one option, and I'm hoping they're more posable. Even price, they're similar prices but the battle engine is like 1/4-1/6 of a normal sized WMH army. And it's actually cheaper than the other battle engines, rather than using it as an excuse for a price hike like GW.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.

I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.

That would surely be the case if you took that sentence seriously. And while I understand that you could, given that when previewing the post I noticed a little vagueness in how the 2 sentences might be understood when taken together and left them like that on purpose, still the number of words you had to bold should be an indication that it's a parody rather than a serious insult.

Basicaly I tried to be funny, maybe I failed but for sure it was not meant as an insult to anyone here. And if it was then although I am neither fat nor have a neckbeard, I still am a whiny wargamer and would qualify for plebs too. That was also a loose reference to that GW former manager and his opinion about gw customers that he voiced on, was it facebook?

So attempt at humour and maybe a little trolling there but not the slightest attack or insult to anyone. And given that I practicaly lost the debate (I could pull Peregrine's previous point that it's the final product not technology that matters but my opinion is, that if you're limited in what you can provide to customers - in this case, sisters - it hurts quality. And you are not best in the world when others can just do better) then you can give me a pass on a subtle troll attempt.

I didn't truly take the statement seriously, I know you were making a joke and being lighthearted, slightly trollish and all that.

I just think this view often incorporates into those who staunchly defend GW. People make negative statements about the company or its product and there is this tendency to characterize those making the complaints as fat neckbeards, thereby ignoring their arguments and trivializing the complainers themselves. I think you understand the complaints people are making, but you seem loathe to agree with them. It's this idea that GW can do no wrong, they have this cult-of-personality where you disagree with their practices and you become a prime target for personal insults, as if you've attacked something holy.

Again, I know you understand what people are talking about in this thread, and I've seen a number of people who staunchly defend GW with the belief that the complaints are all mindless. After a while in the threads people voice all the reasons for *why* the complaints are occurring, and we all end up on the same page. But why is this always the cycle? Why are people who are big proponents of GW so absolutely refusing to listen to the issues people have? And why is it always necessary to attack people for having problems with the company?

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
What you get with GW vehicle is multiplied thickness of the material therefore sturdiness. Im not saying in any way that it justifies even a tiny fraction of price difference but it is objectively an advantage for dedicated gaming piece.

And now we're back to the durability argument I already addressed. Both of those historical models would be durable enough for gaming use, as long as you treat your models properly. So by sacrificing detail and realism to thicken all of their parts to survive abuse from careless children GW is reducing the quality of their product for older customers like me.

Also, GW's thick detail issues aren't just in places where the thickness is necessary for durability. For example, compare the width of the panel lines on a GW Valkyrie to the F-104. These aren't structural elements and making the lines thinner wouldn't in any way reduce durability, but GW's panel lines are still much wider and completely out of scale. Granted, this does make the model easier to paint if you have limited painting talent (and don't own an airbrush), but it's still a case of reducing the level of detail. And you'll see the same things repeated on other GW kits: lots of skulls per square inch, but the minimum feature size is huge and realism is limited.

You adressed it but I disagree. I'd say that for a game played in the shops and on tourneys, where you transport big amount of models and yes is played by kids too that you can end up playing against, accidents in general are inevitable and durability is inherent requirement. Your attitude does not change it by a slightest bit. If you only used you car driving through absolutely plain fields on an ideal road that is always empty and never went more than 40km/h, it still wouldnt change the fact that safety is currently considered an inherent requirement for a car. You can sarifice it for other things but still the more of it, the better.

Fun fact is also, going by your claim of GW sacrificing detail and realism to make thickier parts, if that is a general rule we can only conclude that the kits can't be compared outside ther categories. F104 has better detail only if it can keep it being as thick as a GW plane and the same time we can't say GW is incapable of it unless we see their realistic showpiece F104 model, unless ofc you have technical data about both companies processes that prove it. Thanks for proving one of my earlier point for me.

Peregrine wrote:

Still GW is doing incredible job with plastic having many top notch quality kits

But as I've pointed out GW's kits aren't top-notch. They're decent gaming pieces and fun to build and paint if you enjoy the 40k IP but they're nowhere near pushing the limits of quality for injection-molded plastic kits

Yes but you pointing out doesn't make it so. I was proven wrong about pushing the boundaries and can no longer claim they are "best plastics in the world" but going back to their niche, "top notch quality gaming pieces made of plastic" is practicaly obvious given that they make lots of various sizes, detailed, durable, well made and rarely outmatched kits. You can revisit that argument when PP has multiple ranges in plastic, for majority of GW plastics there are better or similar quality plastic replacements from other companies (ie for chaos daemons dreadnoughts, dark eldar flyers etc, Tau arguably already have ones for example) and you can show me that other gaming companies push the boundaries of plasic injection molding more. Because a few equal or theoreticaly slightly slightly better gaming plastic kits from other companies do not suddenly make GW ones "good enough for the job but nothing special".

Peregrine wrote:and GW's prices are just ridiculous for what you get. If a LRBT cost the same $20 as a mid-tier historical kit and not the $50 of a high-end display piece there wouldn't be nearly as many complaints. But as it is now GW is charging high-end prices for models that are best described as "good enough for the job but nothing special".

Yes but price is not quality. You can say that you can get the same quality for much less somewhere else but that doesn't remove quality from GW piece, only makes the other thing better value.

But value is the whole point of this thread...

 ImAGeek wrote:
But value is the whole point of this thread...

That's what I understood as well, but perhaps different people are on different pages? (metaphorically)
There are some other companies with equal to higher prices than GW, but the argument is that you get a lot more for the same money with the other companies than you do with GW.
And I'll just leave this here...

As opposed to

 Accolade wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
[...] damn Jes Goodwin being frank and explaining himself to neckbeard fat whiny wargamer plebs. I can still wear you all down maybe heh.

I think this is the crux of the issue right here why you're not getting anywhere.

That would surely be the case if you took that sentence seriously. And while I understand that you could, given that when previewing the post I noticed a little vagueness in how the 2 sentences might be understood when taken together and left them like that on purpose, still the number of words you had to bold should be an indication that it's a parody rather than a serious insult.

Basicaly I tried to be funny, maybe I failed but for sure it was not meant as an insult to here. And if it was then although I am neither fat nor have a neckbeard, I still am a whiny wargamer and would qualify for plebs too. That was also a loose reference to that GW former manager and his opinion about gw customers that he voiced on, was it facebook?

So attempt at humour and maybe a little trolling there but not the slightest attack or insult to anyone. And given that I practicaly lost the debate (I could pull Peregrine's previous point that it's the final product not technology that matters but my opinion is, that if you're limited in what you can provide to customers - in this case, sisters - it hurts quality. And you are not best in the world when others can just do better) then you can give me a pass on a subtle troll attempt.

I didn't truly take the statement seriously, I know you were making a joke and being lighthearted, slightly trollish and all that. [/qoute]

Thats a relief. I wasnt sure for the moment if I didnt come across as complete idiot that cant take being proven wrong in internet debate.

Accolade wrote:I just think this view often incorporates into those who staunchly defend GW. People make negative statements about the company or its product and there is this tendency to characterize those making the complaints as fat neckbeards, thereby ignoring their arguments and trivializing the complainers themselves. I think you understand the complaints people are making, but you seem loathe to agree with them. It's this idea that GW can do no wrong, they have this cult-of-personality where you disagree with their practices and you become a prime target for personal insults, as if you've attacked something holy.

On the other hand, you like GW you are a called kid, you dismiss the notion of balance because you forge the narrative as per their rulebook, you are sent to go do pew pew and mindlessly push models off the table (my personal favourite, I threw it at people countless time.)

Also I am vicious towards gw, to the point I regret some things I said. I bash their painters and say the ruin half the codieces to me art wise, ridicule models nd rules etc. And sure I dont post enough to be known enough but please do notice how entering this thread to defend gw I was automaticaly assumed fine fanboy etc. In short, it goes both ways.

Accolade wrote:Again, I know you understand what people are talking about in this thread, and I've seen a number of people who staunchly defend GW with the belief that the complaints are all mindless. After a while in the threads people voice all the reasons for *why* the complaints are occurring, and we all end up on the same page. But why is this always the cycle? Why are people who are big proponents of GW so absolutely refusing to listen to the issues people have? And why is it always necessary to attack people for having problems with the company?

It's an old and bloody war and hatred has rooted deep into people's heart. Too much was lost on both sides.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:
But value is the whole point of this thread...

If you want to compare value of models, which makes much more sense than comparing value of entire, different scale games btw, you need to try to establish methods to compare their quality. And gw is overpriced yes but not because in other game you need 2 models only that cost the same but because the models are much too expensive. The rest of the industry seems to follow though.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Yeah that's fair enough if you prefer the aesthetics of a 40k kit but in terms of detail, material, and price it's pretty much a spot on match for 40k kits. If they continue like this then any arguments about detail, material etc will be pretty null between PP and 40k. The only thing it comes down to really are aesthetics. And maybe customisability, but we haven't seen new 'jack kits in it yet, they will make more than one option, and I'm hoping they're more posable. Even price, they're similar prices but the battle engine is like 1/4-1/6 of a normal sized WMH army. And it's actually cheaper than the other battle engines, rather than using it as an excuse for a price hike like GW.

Frankly, I think *new* Privateer Press models are just as good as, or superior to, Citadel models in terms of detail and material. They are a long shot away in customizability, but this isn't always a minus, as there are times when I want to paint without having to think too hard about what configuration I want to build something.

However, new PP releases are also no cheaper than new Citadel releases. The list price of Borka is $60, Mountain King is $125. The list price for a Morghast is $59, and Nagash or Glottkin are both just under $110.

I think "value" in terms of the model, they're close enough. Value in terms of game usefulness, PP has the upper hand, because typical Warmahordes games and armies require less variety and models; by that metric, X-wing models give even more "game value", because you don't have to buy as many game pieces. I'm just not sure that's a good way to measure value of a piece, because what if you prefer a miniature wargame where you field 100 game pieces, or fight a battle of 100 cheaper pieces versus 50 more expensive ones?

Isn't the Mountain King resin and metal though?

If that's the case, the production costs are higher, and don't have the same rule of increasing returns that a plastic kit does (resin and metal moulds wear and need replacing, HIP moulds not so much.)

Given it is becoming increasingly apparent that new HIP moulds are not as expensive to produce now as they were historically, the overhead on a Nagash/Glotkin kit is going to be much lower, and will reduce with each one sold, whereas the costs on the Mountain King won't necessarily be as high initially, but will be higher per unit and won't reduce.

The mountain king, and Borka are both metal and resin yeah. And the MK is significantly bulkier than Nagash, probably not as tall but in terms of volume it's much more I think (I haven't seen them next to each other). But I meant that the PLASTIC release (there's only been one so far) is cheaper than the equivalent in their own line, where as GW probably would've bumped the price up, and cheaper or comparable to GW products, AND is better value in terms of percentage of a force.

Oh yes, I'm well aware that PP have a track record of lowering prices when migrating a kit to a cheaper material, whereas GW have apparently done the exact opposite on two occasions (old metal to "white metal" and metal to finecast.)

It's just important not to compare prices across materials, because initial and ongoing costs are very different and don't compare well.

I might be the only one but I find the lack of customization to be a good thing, since it means you don't need extra crap on the sprues (yes I know PP things are sprueless) like GW likes to toss on. Do you really need four different types of shoulder pads or three helmet variants, especially when that and small bits (grenades, purity seals, etc.) take up valuable sprue space that could be used for additional models?

WayneTheGame wrote:
I might be the only one but I find the lack of customization to be a good thing, since it means you don't need extra crap on the sprues (yes I know PP things are sprueless) like GW likes to toss on. Do you really need four different types of shoulder pads or three helmet variants, especially when that and small bits (grenades, purity seals, etc.) take up valuable sprue space that could be used for additional models?

Or fitting in every weapon option you could use as opposed to one of each...

 ImAGeek wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I might be the only one but I find the lack of customization to be a good thing, since it means you don't need extra crap on the sprues (yes I know PP things are sprueless) like GW likes to toss on. Do you really need four different types of shoulder pads or three helmet variants, especially when that and small bits (grenades, purity seals, etc.) take up valuable sprue space that could be used for additional models?

Or fitting in every weapon option you could use as opposed to one of each...

Exactly. That in particular is a pet peeve because it showcases the notion that they think people who buy their figures buy it to collect and not to game, because a collector would appreciate having different weapons for different looking models, while a gamer would want to specialize for a particular role.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
I might be the only one but I find the lack of customization to be a good thing, since it means you don't need extra crap on the sprues (yes I know PP things are sprueless) like GW likes to toss on. Do you really need four different types of shoulder pads or three helmet variants, especially when that and small bits (grenades, purity seals, etc.) take up valuable sprue space that could be used for additional models?

Or fitting in every weapon option you could use as opposed to one of each...

Exactly. That in particular is a pet peeve because it showcases the notion that they think people who buy their figures buy it to collect and not to game, because a collector would appreciate having different weapons for different looking models, while a gamer would want to specialize for a particular role.

That is not fair. Most 40k groups require wysiwyg, so of a model has a bolter, you know it has a bolter, and not plasma rifle. If it has a heavy plasma, you know it isn't a missile launcher.

Since force design is absolutely critical in 40k, the customization is also critical.

From a modeling perspective, I understand it both ways, and sometimes I prefer PP because I can just paint, while other times, I like that my squads can be significantly differentiated - one squad with helmets looking down gun sights, another relaxed with helmets off. Or, one squad of male dark eldar, another of female.

well, i am one of those collectors, and i love the variety in the Space Marine kits...
i don't see purity seals, grenades, and pouches as taking up valuable sprue space at all...
in a five man kit, taking away those three things would net you maybe one more model...
i have enough spare torsos and legs to get that one model anyway, and i can use the spare cool bits to make another cool model...
so, personally, i love the extras in kits like the Sternguard and Vanguard kits...

as for value, that is completely personal...
like Talys, i have zero interest in historical kits, so they have zero value to me, even if they are cheaper than Space Marine kits...

i love Infinity minis, but they don't inspire me to paint like a Space Marine does, nor do they bring me the same income for painting (they bring me 3/4 less money on average), so the value is not equal to GW, for me...
it's a shame, as the setting and sculpts are incredible...
i do own a big selection of their minis, though, and would be very happy if they brought in the same money that a painted Marine does...

Warmahordes is in exactly the same boat as Infinity value-wise...
love the art, fluff, and minis, but can't get the same return out of my investment...
i own a ton of their metal minis, but rarely get a chance to paint them...

Mantic is not even on the radar, as i think most their sculpts are horrible...
the fact that their PVC minis are poorly cast takes them even further out of the equation, for me, but then i am not a fan of Finecast or any other PVC casts either...
i am willing to give the proper plastic Enforcers a chance, when they hit retail, but i don't know what the market will be like for painted versions...
we'll see...

Wild West Exodus is also not even on the radar...
Romeo will never see a cent of my money...
plus, the western theme is not really my thing compared to Sci-Fi...

pretty much every other company is in the same boat versus GW...
the value is just not there, for me...
while my collection includes some incredible minis from Ilyad, Rackham, Studio McVey, Freebooter, PP, CMON, CB, and many others, it is painting GW minis that pays the bills...

i know i am only one guy, but i am just trying to make the point that there is nothing any other company produces that matches the value of GW minis, for me...
Space Marines are not only my favorite models to paint, but they also pay the bills....
until another line of minis can match that, i am more than happy to carry on painting Marines, and getting a great return on my investment of money and time, plus getting immense enjoyment, and inspiration, out of the art and fluff of GW's settings...

cheers
jah

 Azreal13 wrote:
Isn't the Mountain King resin and metal though?

If that's the case, the production costs are higher, and don't have the same rule of increasing returns that a plastic kit does (resin and metal moulds wear and need replacing, HIP moulds not so much.)

Given it is becoming increasingly apparent that new HIP moulds are not as expensive to produce now as they were historically, the overhead on a Nagash/Glotkin kit is going to be much lower, and will reduce with each one sold, whereas the costs on the Mountain King won't necessarily be as high initially, but will be higher per unit and won't reduce.

Mountain King and Borka are both resin + metal (I own both).

On small 25-40mm base minis, metal feels really nice, and there are many advantages; the only disadvantage, for some people who enjoy modelling, is that there is no such thing as 25mm multipart metal So, no posablility or weapon swaps without a hacksaw and a lot of work. Still, I happily buy metal 25-40mm base miniatures. Plus they're easy to strip (though I so rarely do this that I'm not sure it matters to me). Incidentally, I hate PP 28mm plastic miniatures like stormblade infantry & gunners. That's a 9 miniature, $45 box that's pitiful in value compared to 10-miniature MPP boxes of about the same price from Games Workshop like Kabalites, Wyches, or Space Wolves.

On 60-120mm base minis, metal is a pain in the ass. Models MUST be pinned, or they won't even survive being carried from one room to another, or even being picked up the wrong way. I can't imagine putting together of something like a Wraithknight made entirely out of metal. There are models like Nagash and Treeman Ancient that would be impossible (or at least highly impractical) with metal -- basically, any large model with tons of hollowed-out gaps that allow you to see from one layer of the model to the layer below, and of course, there is no chance of a large vehicle like a Predator or Voidraven being made out of metal. There are no companies that do that.

Does it make sense for some of a large model to be made out of metal? I don't know. For MK or a Colossal, I wouldn't mind the whole thing made out of resin or plastic. I don't think it would devalue the model, anyhow.

Now, if the conversation is, "Resin or Plastic" -- I say Plastic almost every time. Yes, some of the really nice resin models have a little sharper detail (crisper small details), but resin is way, way more difficult to work with, not to mention less consistent, and more difficult to remediate.

I believe I read that the material cost for GW is 2%; metal isn't THAT expensive, but even if it were 5%, you'd be talking about $2-$5 out of a $100 model. Even if you knocked off TEN dollars from either model, they'd still both be very expensive, which was kind of my original point

I don't think anyone is arguing extra bits on the sprue is a bad thing, what people are saying is that if one piece of armour has tiny rivets and gaps in armour plates it is a technically superior model to one with oversized rivets and huge gaps that just happens to have a skull on it.

The skull is a purely aesthetic choice, but the finer detail work requires more advanced machining tools to create.

jah-joshua wrote:Warmahordes is in exactly the same boat as Infinity value-wise...
love the art, fluff, and minis, but can't get the same return out of my investment...
i own a ton of their metal minis, but rarely get a chance to paint them...

Mantic is not even on the radar, as i think most their sculpts are horrible...
the fact that their PVC minis are poorly cast takes them even further out of the equation, for me, but then i am not a fan of Finecast or any other PVC casts either...

So true, and I am not really sure why. I have boatloads of Warmahoardes miniatures that are brand new in blister/box, that I don't get around to painting. I don't really have a great explanation.

I am not a fan of PVC minis. Reaper Bones falls into the same category, and to me, the only reason to buy Finecast is so that you can play with a specific, very good model (like Eldar Fire Dragons). I can't wait til Finecast dies.

jonolikespie wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing extra bits on the sprue is a bad thing, what people are saying is that if one piece of armour has tiny rivets and gaps in armour plates it is a technically superior model to one with oversized rivets and huge gaps that just happens to have a skull on it.

The skull is a purely aesthetic choice, but the finer detail work requires more advanced machining tools to create.

A bunch of people were arguing exactly that. There are two camps: some feel the extra bits pose a build dilemma -- they don't want to spend the time to pick, or be stuck with the wrong build, because they just want a gaming piece; the other thing I saw was that some people would rather see an extra model on the sprue than parts that they won't use.

I guess, in response to that, the game maker is selling what they figure is the optimal number of models for a squad, so if you took out all the extra bits, instead of 10 multipart space marines, you'd have 10 snapfit marines, not 15 snapfit marines. Not wanting to be stuck with the wrong weapon is a very legitimate issue, because what looks good on paper may be a poor choice in play. But army-building and WYSIWYG is a core part of 40k, love it or hate it.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I don't think anyone is arguing extra bits on the sprue is a bad thing, what people are saying is that if one piece of armour has tiny rivets and gaps in armour plates it is a technically superior model to one with oversized rivets and huge gaps that just happens to have a skull on it.

The skull is a purely aesthetic choice, but the finer detail work requires more advanced machining tools to create.

Except the oversized rivets and huge gaps are more than likely aesthetic choices too. They COULD be because of technical limitations, but given how sharp the details are I think it's an aesthetic choice (the gaps are huge, but they are sharp edged and deep, which to me suggests it's not a technical limitation, if they wanted to make shallow scribe lines like scale models instead of deep crevices I think they could).

GW have been all about the comical scale for years. The mid 90's Bretonnians actually had smaller and more realistic features than the current ones (early 00's I think?). A lot of the plastics in the LOTR range have small and realistically proportioned features.

I don't think GW plastics are "the best" by any measure, but people keep comparing subjective and/or aesthetic choices as if they're objective measures of quality.

Talys wrote:

A bunch of people were arguing exactly that. There are two camps: some feel the extra bits pose a build dilemma -- they don't want to spend the time to pick, or be stuck with the wrong build, because they just want a gaming piece; the other thing I saw was that some people would rather see an extra model on the sprue than parts that they won't use.

I guess, in response to that, the game maker is selling what they figure is the optimal number of models for a squad, so if you took out all the extra bits, instead of 10 multipart space marines, you'd have 10 snapfit marines, not 15 snapfit marines. Not wanting to be stuck with the wrong weapon is a very legitimate issue, because what looks good on paper may be a poor choice in play. But army-building and WYSIWYG is a core part of 40k, love it or hate it.

I don't think the bits for the weapon & equipment options are so much the issue, as is the useless gubbins like extra scopes and ammo pouches, half a torsos for the 'alternate model' kits, miniature pipeholder for the model to hold, etc etc. When they start adding up to the size/space of entire models, thats when you get two camps. A lot of the 'get more use of out them' fallacy comes from the assumption you will spend more on other kits or have already done so. As a self-contained box set, anything that gives me double the legs to torsos because one set is an alternative - thats not a great deal of value.

I've got nothing against the bling, but maybe make it an upgrade sprue or something. Not that i think that would work from a financial perspective (i don't think enough people would buy them).

i use the grenades, purity seals, scopes, and pouches on my minis, so for me it does have value...
i have plenty of spare legs...
i enjoy alternate helmets, heads, shoulder pads, and torsos...
so, obviously, some modelers do get more use out of them...
i would be sad to see kits get more sparse when it comes to alternate bits...

as i said earlier, i consider boxes like the Vanguard, Sternguard, Space Wolves, Grey Knight PA, and Death company to be a treasure trove of bits that i can use to spruce up all of the regular Marines with...
conversion and kit bashing is part of the appeal of GW models, to me...
i don't get the same feeling from any other company's models when it comes to wanting to create characters from the stories or art...
the depth is just not there yet versus over 25 years of 40K characters in the background...

like i've said in other topics like this, even if GW died tomorrow, and there was nothing new, i could spend the rest of my life creating the Space Marine characters that i daydream about doing, just from the collection i have now...
of course, it helps that i'm a slow builder and painter...

cheers
jah

 Azreal13 wrote:
As opposed to

Spoiler:

$40

Those are the Mantic equivalent of Black Knights, Mantic's Soul Reaver vampire knights are more expensive, though not in the same country as the infamous Blood Knights (and also AWOL from the Mantic webstore, but IIRC £24.99/€34.99/US$44.99 compared to £61.50/€80.00/US$99.00)

 Torga_DW wrote:

I don't think the bits for the weapon & equipment options are so much the issue, as is the useless gubbins like extra scopes and ammo pouches, half a torsos for the 'alternate model' kits, miniature pipeholder for the model to hold, etc etc. When they start adding up to the size/space of entire models, thats when you get two camps. A lot of the 'get more use of out them' fallacy comes from the assumption you will spend more on other kits or have already done so. As a self-contained box set, anything that gives me double the legs to torsos because one set is an alternative - thats not a great deal of value.

I've got nothing against the bling, but maybe make it an upgrade sprue or something. Not that i think that would work from a financial perspective (i don't think enough people would buy them).

The half torsos are great, especially when you get a male/female option (like Kabalites). The "bling" like knives, weapon attachments, beltpacks are awesome -- not to mention extra heavy weapons. You can use them for things like banners and bases, and as Jah said, certain kits are a treasure trove of bits for kitbashing.

As I mentioned before, GW is selling you a squad -- 5 man scouts, 10 man troops, 3 elites (like centurion), 1 vehicle or independent character... whatever is the standard, playable unit size. There is zero chance they'll give you a 12 man tactical unit, and even less of a chance they'd reduce the price of the kit by 20%, instead of extra bits, so you might as well take the extra bits

I think it's actually the other way around: they design the sprue with all the selectable variations, then fill the extra space with do-dads. The selectable variations is a huge moneymaker, because for instance, you can build a Deathwing OR a Command Squad, so if you want both, buy two boxes. But for GW, they only have to make 1 SKU. Or, if you find your dark lance sucks and you want a splinter cannon, congratulations, you get to buy 10 more units for $25 just to replace 1 heavy weapons guy.