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.

 -Loki- wrote:
Another area competitors would still compete is in game design. GW's games may have improved, but compared to their competition their games are still awfully designed. I doubt someone who plays Bolt Action or Infinity and has little interest at all in Games Workshops products is going to go and pick up 40k or Age of Sigmar just because the price dropped.

This is quite true. I have always been fond of the 40k universe going back to the original Rogue Trader. But the rules these days seem to be not what I'm interested in. For me something like Bolt Action has the IMO superior game and the historical draw to get away from tourney style gaming. Cool models is a plus, and I'm not stuck on one mfg for them. I like a game that is more focused on morale and the uncertainty of commanding men under fire who don't always want to charge to their deaths. Space Marines are the opposite of that no matter the cost. They do look cool though.

I like Mantic's Deadzone/Warpath line of stuff (I backed both KS), but the fact that I'm still waiting on the vehicles from Warpath has soured me on them quite a bit. Maybe my enthusiasm for their product will climb once I don't have huge holes in my forces.

I recommend their clip-together buildings, though, especially if you glue them together, though they don't provide enough clips, so be sure to buy spares.

 Azreal13 wrote:

He gets it.

No, neither of you get it, sadly.

What yore doing is proposing an alternate reality that includes a GW that act in an entirely different way to the GW we know, and then assuming all the competition would act the same way as they do now.

This wouldn't happen.

Margins are a real thing. And a larger company with in house production all paid for can squeeze out the margins of any competitor who has to pay the additional cost of out sourcing all the tech stuff like 3d design, tooling the moulds, injections runs, box printing and so forth.

Earlier in this thread people were speculating all about what it would have been like if GW had embraced distribution to independent stores as their main business model and didn't have the costs of their retail chain impacting their prices. That requires going back to the early 90s for the path not taken. It was a perfectly fruitful discussion.

Also, the competition thing isn't a what if. If GW were to decide in their assessment of the market to go after competitor's margins by lowering prices they still could do so in the future. You could argue that Start Collecting is exactly that. A direct response to the lower intitial purchase cost of warmachine starters and similar products. They're twice the price, but instead you get a lot more miniatures and they're GW plastics rather than privateer's PVC.

GW could expand this if Star Wars: Legion becomes an issue. WIth the additional costs of licensing FFG would be even more vulnerable to being forced to compete on price. If GW met the release of Legion with some very aggressive boxed sets with great value, that could be rough for FFG.

tneva82 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
At the end of the day, people who want to play tabletop miniatures games need opponents,

Or, they convert it to a boardgame by bringing a complete game with both sides. Totally feasible with things like Warmachine, Infinity, Guildball, etc.

Which isn't still going to quarantee opponents. And of course many skirmish games rely even more to lots of different opponents. Don't expect same 2 teams playing against each other in guildball is much more fun prospect than in blood bowl for example.

Better than nothing. If they want to get their own team later, that's fine, too. But having a roving demo kit is a good way to get the first game in at all.

Having two small forces for any game so you can play with anyone is a great idea. My friend did it with AoS at 500 points and got me to pull my models out of storage.

 Chamberlain wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

He gets it.

No, neither of you get it, sadly.

What yore doing is proposing an alternate reality that includes a GW that act in an entirely different way to the GW we know, and then assuming all the competition would act the same way as they do now.

This wouldn't happen.

Margins are a real thing. And a larger company with in house production all paid for can squeeze out the margins of any competitor who has to pay the additional cost of out sourcing all the tech stuff like 3d design, tooling the moulds, injections runs, box printing and so forth.

Earlier in this thread people were speculating all about what it would have been like if GW had embraced distribution to independent stores as their main business model and didn't have the costs of their retail chain impacting their prices. That requires going back to the early 90s for the path not taken. It was a perfectly fruitful discussion.

Also, the competition thing isn't a what if. If GW were to decide in their assessment of the market to go after competitor's margins by lowering prices they still could do so in the future. You could argue that Start Collecting is exactly that. A direct response to the lower intitial purchase cost of warmachine starters and similar products. They're twice the price, but instead you get a lot more miniatures and they're GW plastics rather than privateer's PVC.

GW could expand this if Star Wars: Legion becomes an issue. WIth the additional costs of licensing FFG would be even more vulnerable to being forced to compete on price. If GW met the release of Legion with some very aggressive boxed sets with great value, that could be rough for FFG.

Yes, but that's not the issue here. It isn't "what would happen to the competition if GW lowered their prices," it's "if GW had always charged lower prices then what would the competition have done." Which is very much a what if.

All those fancy in house machines that allow 2018 GW to leverage an economic advantage might not exist if GW hadn't charged the premium price they have done historically, and they might be stuck using outside contractors like their competitors. Or maybe they were able to invest in them sooner and upgrade them more frequently and they'd be further ahead? Again, too many variables to say.

GW lowering prices in future has implications for GW as well, they'd likely have to modify their own practices, which in turn would open up new opportunities for the competition, whether to a net benefit or detriment depending on how the customer base reacted to the changes. But this is a different discussion.

The discussion about alternate distribution was fruitful because it was open. Grotsnik is essentially proposing an alternate GW without making room for the alternate competition to be just as different, making the discussion largely moot. If allowance was made for Mantic (or whoever) to not be restricted to competing solely on price as they could be considered to now (a point I don't necessarily agree with, but will take as offered for the purposes of discussion) then there's scope for discussion, it as it stands "GW are now a company that has always competed on price, what happens to all the other companies who in this reality undercut GW, but they're not allowed to do anything but continue to compete on price" is a dead end.

Conversations can morph. Just look at the stuff you raised in your response. And that's with the barrier of you acting as a gatekeeper on the conversation.

All those fancy in house machines that allow 2018 GW to leverage an economic advantage might not exist if GW hadn't charged the premium price they have done historically, and they might be stuck using outside contractors like their competitors. Or maybe they were able to invest in them sooner and upgrade them more frequently and they'd be further ahead? Again, too many variables to say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus

It's okay in a conversation to have variables stay equal in order to discuss the possible implications of a single thing you care about. In the case of this thread, price.

I happen to think that GW would have stuck to outsourcing for longer had they not gone on their retail path or the path of pricing that might be the direct result of their retail approach. They eventually even took direct control of distribution. So I think it's all connected.

During the years that GW was doing 10%+ price adjustments across their whole range each and every June was when the explosion of alternative games started to happen. Had the prices not been raised to that degree I don't think as many competitors would have been able to gain as much market share.

Could GW have survived the years to come without that price hike? I don't know. They had strange leadership during that time. The Wells guy who just came in to cut costs and stop the company from losing money and then Kirby with his odd ideas about no marketing.

I'm not acting as any sort of gatekeeper, I'm responding to the issue as it was laid out by another poster.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My question isn’t about variety, just affordability.

If Person A is put off a GW model priced at £50, they may be tempted by a Mantic (again, purpose of example only) equivalent at say, £30.

Where left for Mantic if GW’s own was the £30? How low could their prices, and others, go and still prove sustainable?

That’s the question that I’m asking.

My response to that question is that it's essentially a meaningless exercise because it's taking two inextricably linked ideas and trying to force one to change while retaining the other as identical. The answer Grotsnik is chasing, whether he's going to admit it or not, is that Mantic et al would never have existed if GW were cheaper because there wouldn't be room for them in the market. Therefore making his preferred GW seem somehow positive for being expensive.

The reality is that if GW looked different, so would the competition, unless you place arbitrary restrictions on what the competition are allowed to do. That's my answer to that question, feel free to offer your own.

If you want to talk about something else, talk about something else, but don't pretend that it's the same topic and it's me who's trying to limit the conversation.

 Brotherjulian wrote:
I'm still dipping my toes in the water so to speak with 8th edition 40k. It seems promising but I have to wonder if I'm just throwing more money down the hole. I get enraged with them pulling the rug out from under me every few years and making me buy new stuff again. (Been in this game 23 years) So I'm into 8th ed now for the Dark Imperium set, as well as codexes for Space Marines, Blood Angels, Eldar, Chaos Marines, and Imperial Guard. Also a few boxes of Primaris guys, because they're good at getting my money.
What really got me though was the prices for individual plastic character models. I paid like $30 for a single BA jump pack chaplain. I work around the plastic industry and believe me, it isn't 30 cents worth of material.
I came home and was putting stuff away when I came across one of my EBay purchases from awhile back. A rogue trader/2nd edition metal techmarine, still in the blister pack. There's also an Imperial commisar in the same pack for some reason.
The 90s price tag for this model? $5.50
I'm not saying they should give em away but it's hard not to feel a little bit angry. I swear there are less expensive drug habits I could take up.

So, this being simply my perspective.

When I was playing Magic, I was spending an average of about 3100$ per year on the hobby. There were some years that figure doubled, and some where it was half as much.

Since I started playing 40K/30K I have spent less than 1100$ per year. To me, the price per item is higher, but the overall cost is much, much lower. This is thanks in part to GW/FW not up and deciding I can't play with last years cards...er models this year.

 Togusa wrote:

 Brotherjulian wrote:
I'm still dipping my toes in the water so to speak with 8th edition 40k. It seems promising but I have to wonder if I'm just throwing more money down the hole. I get enraged with them pulling the rug out from under me every few years and making me buy new stuff again. (Been in this game 23 years) So I'm into 8th ed now for the Dark Imperium set, as well as codexes for Space Marines, Blood Angels, Eldar, Chaos Marines, and Imperial Guard. Also a few boxes of Primaris guys, because they're good at getting my money.
What really got me though was the prices for individual plastic character models. I paid like $30 for a single BA jump pack chaplain. I work around the plastic industry and believe me, it isn't 30 cents worth of material.
I came home and was putting stuff away when I came across one of my EBay purchases from awhile back. A rogue trader/2nd edition metal techmarine, still in the blister pack. There's also an Imperial commisar in the same pack for some reason.
The 90s price tag for this model? $5.50
I'm not saying they should give em away but it's hard not to feel a little bit angry. I swear there are less expensive drug habits I could take up.

So, this being simply my perspective.

When I was playing Magic, I was spending an average of about 3100$ per year on the hobby. There were some years that figure doubled, and some where it was half as much.

Since I started playing 40K/30K I have spent less than 1100$ per year. To me, the price per item is higher, but the overall cost is much, much lower. This is thanks in part to GW/FW not up and deciding I can't play with last years cards...er models this year.

Yep sounds about right. though magic did have the secondary game of card economics that could subsidize and or even pay for your hobby it self. though no clue how it is now.

 Desubot wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Brotherjulian wrote:
I'm still dipping my toes in the water so to speak with 8th edition 40k. It seems promising but I have to wonder if I'm just throwing more money down the hole. I get enraged with them pulling the rug out from under me every few years and making me buy new stuff again. (Been in this game 23 years) So I'm into 8th ed now for the Dark Imperium set, as well as codexes for Space Marines, Blood Angels, Eldar, Chaos Marines, and Imperial Guard. Also a few boxes of Primaris guys, because they're good at getting my money.
What really got me though was the prices for individual plastic character models. I paid like $30 for a single BA jump pack chaplain. I work around the plastic industry and believe me, it isn't 30 cents worth of material.
I came home and was putting stuff away when I came across one of my EBay purchases from awhile back. A rogue trader/2nd edition metal techmarine, still in the blister pack. There's also an Imperial commisar in the same pack for some reason.
The 90s price tag for this model? $5.50
I'm not saying they should give em away but it's hard not to feel a little bit angry. I swear there are less expensive drug habits I could take up.

So, this being simply my perspective.

When I was playing Magic, I was spending an average of about 3100$ per year on the hobby. There were some years that figure doubled, and some where it was half as much.

Since I started playing 40K/30K I have spent less than 1100$ per year. To me, the price per item is higher, but the overall cost is much, much lower. This is thanks in part to GW/FW not up and deciding I can't play with last years cards...er models this year.

Yep sounds about right. though magic did have the secondary game of card economics that could subsidize and or even pay for your hobby it self. though no clue how it is now.

That never seemed to go well for me, I once had a rare land that sold for like 100$ but I was advised to hold onto it because it would most certainly go up. I did, and at one point I think it was valued at close to 350$ but by the time I got to where I could sell it the value had plummeted to like 50$.

I just personally feel as though wargaming is much, much less expensive. The models I own now, will never be dropped, at least not in my lifetime.

 Azreal13 wrote:

He gets it.

No, neither of you get it, sadly.

What yore doing is proposing an alternate reality that includes a GW that act in an entirely different way to the GW we know, and then assuming all the competition would act the same way as they do now.

This wouldn't happen.

Neither did GW spring into being as the market leader with all the advantages that brings, the GW you're proposing would have had to make decisions based on selling models for £30 that real GW actually sells for £50 as it grew, which would have radically altered how it looks vs the GW we have.

Like someone already said, there's too many variables to give an answer, all you're really doing by asking is showing a lack of understanding as to how complex an ecosystem a competitive market can be.

So what reaction YOU think alternative model makers would have if GW lowered their prices to say mantic level? Ironically GW is more suited for selling models at mantic levels than mantic are. You think mantic would be thrilled for GW models that are at same prices as they have? Mantic can't forever keep lowering their prices as eventually they will hit level where selling models actually costs them money. So what? Price more than GW for worse quality and models customers might not be able to use due to being non-GW? That sure is going to work!

tneva82 wrote:

So what reaction YOU think alternative model makers would have if GW lowered their prices to say mantic level? Ironically GW is more suited for selling models at mantic levels than mantic are. You think mantic would be thrilled for GW models that are at same prices as they have? Mantic can't forever keep lowering their prices as eventually they will hit level where selling models actually costs them money. So what? Price more than GW for worse quality and models customers might not be able to use due to being non-GW? That sure is going to work!

You are making the massive assumption that people buy Mantic to use in Warhammer. I buy Mantic because I like their models for their intended purposes - as do the vast majority of people. While I guess some folks use Mantic as a cheaper alternative to GW, I never see it local...if anything, it's the other way around (GW models being used for KoW).

If GW lowered their prices to the same point, it wouldn't really change my view of Mantic stuff, as I'm not trying to save money by buying them as some sort of psudo-Warhammer proxy. There are ranges that GW doesn't produce, or even ranges that I think Mantic does way better *Cough* Zombies *cough*. I'd love cheaper GW, as I'd probably end up buying them just for the sake of stuff to paint...but it won't alter my normal purchase routines much.

Again, your entire argument is based on the fact that Mantic's business model is a simply "Whatever GW sells, make a version at 40% less". They don't exist to be a Diet-GW, they exist to be Mantic.

tneva82 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

He gets it.

No, neither of you get it, sadly.

What yore doing is proposing an alternate reality that includes a GW that act in an entirely different way to the GW we know, and then assuming all the competition would act the same way as they do now.

This wouldn't happen.

Neither did GW spring into being as the market leader with all the advantages that brings, the GW you're proposing would have had to make decisions based on selling models for £30 that real GW actually sells for £50 as it grew, which would have radically altered how it looks vs the GW we have.

Like someone already said, there's too many variables to give an answer, all you're really doing by asking is showing a lack of understanding as to how complex an ecosystem a competitive market can be.

So what reaction YOU think alternative model makers would have if GW lowered their prices to say mantic level? Ironically GW is more suited for selling models at mantic levels than mantic are. You think mantic would be thrilled for GW models that are at same prices as they have? Mantic can't forever keep lowering their prices as eventually they will hit level where selling models actually costs them money. So what? Price more than GW for worse quality and models customers might not be able to use due to being non-GW? That sure is going to work!

Have you seen Mantic scifi races. Mantic have their own style, none of the miniatures fit 40k. OK, maybe Orcs. I've said it before there are people who don't want GW minis.

ncshooter426 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

So what reaction YOU think alternative model makers would have if GW lowered their prices to say mantic level? Ironically GW is more suited for selling models at mantic levels than mantic are. You think mantic would be thrilled for GW models that are at same prices as they have? Mantic can't forever keep lowering their prices as eventually they will hit level where selling models actually costs them money. So what? Price more than GW for worse quality and models customers might not be able to use due to being non-GW? That sure is going to work!

You are making the massive assumption that people buy Mantic to use in Warhammer. I buy Mantic because I like their models for their intended purposes - as do the vast majority of people. While I guess some folks use Mantic as a cheaper alternative to GW, I never see it local...if anything, it's the other way around (GW models being used for KoW).

If GW lowered their prices to the same point, it wouldn't really change my view of Mantic stuff, as I'm not trying to save money by buying them as some sort of psudo-Warhammer proxy. There are ranges that GW doesn't produce, or even ranges that I think Mantic does way better *Cough* Zombies *cough*. I'd love cheaper GW, as I'd probably end up buying them just for the sake of stuff to paint...but it won't alter my normal purchase routines much.

Again, your entire argument is based on the fact that Mantic's business model is a simply "Whatever GW sells, make a version at 40% less". They don't exist to be a Diet-GW, they exist to be Mantic.

Exactly.

tneva82 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

He gets it.

No, neither of you get it, sadly.

What yore doing is proposing an alternate reality that includes a GW that act in an entirely different way to the GW we know, and then assuming all the competition would act the same way as they do now.

This wouldn't happen.

Neither did GW spring into being as the market leader with all the advantages that brings, the GW you're proposing would have had to make decisions based on selling models for £30 that real GW actually sells for £50 as it grew, which would have radically altered how it looks vs the GW we have.

Like someone already said, there's too many variables to give an answer, all you're really doing by asking is showing a lack of understanding as to how complex an ecosystem a competitive market can be.

So what reaction YOU think alternative model makers would have if GW lowered their prices to say mantic level? Ironically GW is more suited for selling models at mantic levels than mantic are. You think mantic would be thrilled for GW models that are at same prices as they have? Mantic can't forever keep lowering their prices as eventually they will hit level where selling models actually costs them money. So what? Price more than GW for worse quality and models customers might not be able to use due to being non-GW? That sure is going to work!

So, to be clear, you're now asking about how the market might react if GW, the actual GW we have, not the hypothetical one we were discussing, were to decide to radically alter its approach to business going forward, not the theoretical GW which had always pursued a lower price/higher volume position? Because that's a wholly different question, which means we'd have to consider the effect of charging lower prices would have in GW alongside how the competition may react, if , indeed, they needed to.

What I find difficult to comprehend is the diametrically opposite views GW seem to hold at the same time.

GW seem to price the minatures in terms of how people will buy them to create armies to play games with.
(Eg models that would only have one per army are priced much higher than 'rank and file'.)

Yet, write the rules as if no one actually cares about game play, it is all about inspiring minature collectors to buy the latest thing.

If I buy Mantic minatures for use with Mantic rules.I get the added value of having fun games to play with the
Mantic minatues.

If I buy GW minatures I have awful GW rules that lead to frustrating and tactically shallow game play.(Comparatively.)

The 'art' of the minatures are subjective, you like them enough to buy or you dont.

However the rules are functional and so objective.And as such should be fit for purpose.

Good rules add value to the minatures used in the games.Poor rules devalue the minatures used with them.(If you are a gamer. )

There's nothing objective about whether someone enjoys a rule set or not dude.

Unless it is so badly written it is literally non functional, as opposed to the manner in which it is often used to mean unbalanced, it is perfectly reasonable to assume people are genuinely enjoying playing GW games.

Whether there's deeper reasons WRT lack of exposure etc is up for debate, but I'm sure there's people out there who have played other stuff and still decided they prefer GW. Difficult to believe if you don't feel the same way, but fun is still utterly subjective.

Well....I googled 'Mantic' and the entry that leads to their web site says: Mantic Games | Affordable Wargaming.

So right up there, in front, on google searches, they're touting 'affordable'. Being cheaper than GW is part of their branding. I don't think they exist JUST to undercut GW, and they've done a good job of branching out and creating their own unique armies that aren't covered by WHFB/40K.

Sort your quote tree mate, I'm not involved in that exchange, at least not how presented.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Sort your quote tree mate, I'm not involved in that exchange, at least not how presented.

Apologies, my quote tree was a mess.

Mate I didn't say that! Fix it again....

 John Prins wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Sort your quote tree mate, I'm not involved in that exchange, at least not how presented.

Apologies, my quote tree was a mess.

NP, it can sometimes seem petty, but attributing the wrong thing to the wrong poster can often be confusing, and occasionally explosive!

To add something to your point, I don't think "affordable" need necessarily directly translate as "cheaper than GW." While the market leader is undoubtedly going to inform their decisions, and in the specific case of Mantic being founded by ex-GW even more so, it doesn't necessarily follow that Mantic are simply looking to copy everything GW does but cheaper.

Even then, that's a tried and tested route to market. I'm immediately reminded of Kia when they launched their first cars in the U.K., they were significantly cheaper, yet quite similar to, their big brand equivalents, but fast forward to the present day and while they remain a budget option, the price gap has closed notably, but then the quality has also increased to compensate.

I see Mantic doing the same, some of their current stuff is good, not just good for the price, but stands on its own merit. In a few more years I wouldn't be surprised to see Mantic in a similar place to Kia, still cheaper than the big name, but offering a really tempting balance of quality and price.

 Modock wrote:
Mate I didn't say that! Fix it again....

Dammit! I just removed all the quotes. That'll each me to quote multiple quotes.

 John Prins wrote:

 Modock wrote:

Again, your entire argument is based on the fact that Mantic's business model is a simply "Whatever GW sells, make a version at 40% less". They don't exist to be a Diet-GW, they exist to be Mantic.

Well....I googled 'Mantic' and the entry that leads to their web site says: Mantic Games | Affordable Wargaming.

So right up there, in front, on google searches, they're touting 'affordable'. Being cheaper than GW is part of their branding.

That...is a heck of a leap bud They're affordable because, well, they're affordable in comparison to the *entire* hobby (and that tag line only seems to exist on the header of the HTML landing page) If you want to equate that to GW since they're the big player, that works - but again, you are confusing the competition area to the business model. If their tag line, plastered on every single item was "Mantic games: At least we aren't GW, ammiryte?" then I'd totally agree that they exist only to be a cheaper alternative. But that just isn't the case. The exist to be Mantic, they exist to be competition *in some areas* but have zero interest in being involved in others. Both organizations have strengths.

At any rate, I never really compare the two. I leverage both to get the items I want...as both have convinced me to spend hard earned money on little plastic soldiers

-

 ncshooter426 wrote:

That...is a heck of a leap bud They're affordable because, well, they're affordable in comparison to the *entire* hobby (and that tag line only seems to exist on the header of the HTML landing page) If you want to equate that to GW since they're the big player, that works - but again, you are confusing the competition area to the business model.

I said branding, not business model. I doubt Mantic is most people's first encounter with miniatures wargaming, so calling yourself 'affordable' is a pretty clear reference to the elephant in the game room. Comparing yourself to the dominant company in the market is pretty standard marketing.

Mantic's business model is to let the customers take the risks for the up front costs - via Kickstarter. So far, it's worked quite well for them - I backed Deadzone and Warpath Kickstarters - but if they seriously flub one, they'll have troubles in the future. Right now I'm still waiting on my Warpath GCPS and Asterian vehicles, so they have had stumbles, but nothing reputation killing, Given their aggressive release schedule, some kind of disaster almost seems inevitable if they juggle too many KS projects at once. They seem to have a handle on it for now, except for the bigger, more complex models, where they're still suffering from a learning curve.

 ncshooter426 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

So what reaction YOU think alternative model makers would have if GW lowered their prices to say mantic level? Ironically GW is more suited for selling models at mantic levels than mantic are. You think mantic would be thrilled for GW models that are at same prices as they have? Mantic can't forever keep lowering their prices as eventually they will hit level where selling models actually costs them money. So what? Price more than GW for worse quality and models customers might not be able to use due to being non-GW? That sure is going to work!

You are making the massive assumption that people buy Mantic to use in Warhammer. I buy Mantic because I like their models for their intended purposes - as do the vast majority of people. While I guess some folks use Mantic as a cheaper alternative to GW, I never see it local...if anything, it's the other way around (GW models being used for KoW).

If GW lowered their prices to the same point, it wouldn't really change my view of Mantic stuff, as I'm not trying to save money by buying them as some sort of psudo-Warhammer proxy. There are ranges that GW doesn't produce, or even ranges that I think Mantic does way better *Cough* Zombies *cough*. I'd love cheaper GW, as I'd probably end up buying them just for the sake of stuff to paint...but it won't alter my normal purchase routines much.

Again, your entire argument is based on the fact that Mantic's business model is a simply "Whatever GW sells, make a version at 40% less". They don't exist to be a Diet-GW, they exist to be Mantic.

Not all but I'm betting large amount. Even if it's just 30% who buy them for warhammer you really think mantic would be thrilled at that? If GW prices would be same then not only quality of models would generally be higher ALSO they are more usable in GW games than mantic due to many stores banning non-GW models in GW games there which would cut people buying mantic stuff as it's just not worth if if for same price(or even cheaper! GW could price things lower than mantic) you can get model that's 100% usable.

You don't have to take all sales from company to really hurt them bad.

tneva82 wrote:


Not all but I'm betting large amount. Even if it's just 30% who buy them for warhammer you really think mantic would be thrilled at that? If GW prices would be same then not only quality of models would generally be higher ALSO they are more usable in GW games than mantic due to many stores banning non-GW models in GW games there which would cut people buying mantic stuff as it's just not worth if if for same price(or even cheaper! GW could price things lower than mantic) you can get model that's 100% usable.

You don't have to take all sales from company to really hurt them bad.

No store, outside of a GW store, is going to say "you can't use non GW models in a GW game". There is ZERO incentive of stopping your customers in the store from doing whatever they want and enjoying the hobby. I can understand a GW store being strict about only using their IP - but a FLGS imposing restrictions? That's suicide.

GW's brand is predicated on it being a "Premium" one - something they have worked very hard to instill in people. Hence, they can *never* lower prices, as that diminishes the entire premium concept.

@Areal13.
I did not state that enjoyment of a game was objective. Just the functional aspects of a rule set for a game was.

Therefore if rule set 'A' achieves the same game play in 40 pages of well defined and intuitive rules.
As rule set 'B.' But rule set 'B' takes 400 pages to cover the same game play with poorly explained and counter intuitive rules.

Then rule set A is objectively better than rule set B.(As the function of a rule set is to define how the game is played in the most ''elegant and efficient'' way.)

So if you primary concern is elegant and efficient rules to get the biggest bang for you buck from game play.
Then the rules quality is more important to you.

I never said people do not enjoy playing 40k, or other GW games.

Its just those people who really care about game play, get more value from games written with game play as the primary focus.(And therefore get added value from the minatures they buy to play the game with.)

Compared to rules written to inspire collectors to buy more stuff. Which adds no value to the minatures for this particular group who care about the game play more.

I hope that makes my point a bit clearer?

It makes what you were trying to say clearer, but honestly I still don't see how it's relevant. Nobody is saying "I don't enjoy playing this game as much, but the rules are so much more elegant, so I play it over the one that I find more fun."

You're making a distinction which isn't really important to anybody.

A more elegant rule set is more likely to find an audience that enjoy it more, agreed, but the only real determinant of the games people will choose to play is ultimately how much they enjoy playing them, and that enjoyment isn't necessarily always wedded to how technically superior the rules are.