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.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the author of the article to mean 2000pts army when they say “proper” army.

Although there are many different sizes of games possible, “full size” is often seen as the “proper” way to play things. 5-a-side football is popular and a lot of fun, but the “proper” game is 11-a-side.

I prefer Rugby 7s over 15-a-side, but I’m in no doubt that 15-a-side is what most would consider a “proper” game of rugby.

When I started the hobby many moons ago I collected units in dribs and drabs and played with what I had with my brothers and my friends, sometimes using proxies etc, but I aspired to having a “proper” full size army of whatever was the popular size back then (maybe 2000pts or 3000pts in 2nd edition, I can’t remember).

Equally the author is being perfectly reasonable to assert the cost of an army based on buying the GW products from GW at recommended retail prices rather than second hand online, at a discount from other retailers or by being savvy and buying bundles to maximise value. Even then it’s still not a particularly expensive hobby compared to many others.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Well for kids GW games were always hard. I started as an 11yo kid and couldn't finish a proper army (2000ish points) until 3-4 years. In the meantime I enjoyed painting the models and playing with tons of proxies along with people my age, also proxying a lot.

Kids in my opinion should look at the hobby for at least an edition before even thinking about playing. Playing properly I mean, because games with extremely limited collections can be too one sided with nothing players can do to get more balance. Enjoy the hobby, collect and paint enough miniatures and then eventually start looking at the game.

40k and all the other GW games are not high quality games, they're a combination of multiple hobbies, which includes wargaming. If a kid is interested in wargaming rather that the lore or the hobby of painting the miniatures, 40k (like any other GW game) is probably the wrong answer.

But that's not how kids approach games these days. Maybe when you/we/I were kids it was a more casual thing but the environment around gaming due to Twitch streams, esports etc has become much more competitive since then. It's the same reason as to why the tournament meta is such a focus of conversation when discussing balance despite it being a very small part of the community (among other factors). Kids emulate what they see their peers doing and I think basically all the games you see on YouTube are 2000pts. All the discussion revolves around 2000pts, everyone at FLGSs play 2000pts, so kids are going to want to get to 2000pts as soon as they can.

Competitive GW gaming is unreasonable for kids, it's too expensive in the short term and unlike other hobbies like videogaming it's impossible to be ready to play competitively immediately as learning how to play and getting an army finished require a lot of time, especially for newbies. I understand times are different, but when I was a kid playing with people in their 30s, 40s or 50s was considered a bit weird. This I don't think it's much different now. I played with other teens using cheap cardboard tokens, not real models as the latter were too expensive for us and we just used to buy them to enjoy the hobby part, not the game.

In the age of internet there's plenty of alternatives, including completely different hobbies, and in fact I haven't met a kid that was actually interested in attending GTs so far. Pretty much all the kids I see at the stores are more interested in the hobby part, then in those games that are quick and requires less models like Kill Team or Warcry. Learning and remembering all the rules is also pretty hard for kids. I don't think the two current biggest GW games attract that many kids, the hobby and maybe some skirmish might do though.

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
People playing garage armies don't give a gak. I know I didn't. I bought what was cool and what I could afford.

For those of us who demand high-quality games for high-end price points, we care. Like I get it that you'd be happy with your garage army that loses every game because it's so underpowered, or to have your ability to filed the models you like taken away because GW can't be bothered to make rules that allow you to, but reasonable people aren't.

Yep and GW has done better in that department than any point in history despite the constant moaning.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
People playing garage armies don't give a gak. I know I didn't. I bought what was cool and what I could afford.

For those of us who demand high-quality games for high-end price points, we care. Like I get it that you'd be happy with your garage army that loses every game because it's so underpowered, or to have your ability to filed the models you like taken away because GW can't be bothered to make rules that allow you to, but reasonable people aren't.

Yep and GW has done better in that department than any point in history despite the constant moaning.

I disagree. But even if I didn't, and you were exactly correct and GW was somehow better now than they've ever been, their resulting game is still fantastically expensive, frustratingly committed to burning down its own rules and starting over for no good reason on a regular basis, committed to adding bloat over fixing the things that already exist, and terribly balanced by comparison to everything else on the market. Including some other GW games written by different internal teams (Necromunda, AT). Warhammer isn't dominant because it's good, it's dominant because it has a boatload of money and doesn't have to give a crap what anyone else is doing. It's going to keep moving on under its own inertia until an outside force comes along to stop it, no matter how absolutely committed GW is to trying to kill themselves by designing the edition-churn business model that's perfectly calibrated to put barriers in place of continuing to play, on top of the barriers to starting to play.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's going to keep moving on under its own inertia until an outside force comes along to stop it

Funnily enough it seems like that force will be GW itself.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Yep and GW has done better in that department than any point in history despite the constant moaning.

No, because their edition/codex cycle is so fast it makes things worse.

And there's other companies doing it better.

Late to the party here but im fairly certain you can use the LR in the SC: Astra Militarum box as a tank commander for an HQ. if im wrong im wrong though.

Aash wrote:
Even then it’s still not a particularly expensive hobby compared to many others.

Brand new from GW:

Warboss: $35 90pts
3 units of 10 Boyz: $108 270pts (new kits will be about $30-50 more)
2 Trukkz: $88 140pts

500pt army, smallest game size that is really supported: total cost? $231
Add in Ork codex: Another $50 Add in the BRB another $65. So total of another $115
Buy a couple packs of dice and a tape measure, likely $30-40 more minimum. So cheap end you are looking at $376 to play the smallest game of 40k. You could switch out options and what not and probably make it slightly cheaper, likewise I could bring in way more expensive units and make it cost significantly more *Looking at you Mek gunz*.

I can go right now and buy a 2nd hand AR-15 for less then that Don't get me wrong, ammunition is expensive but the point being that I don't really think 40k is less expensive than most other hobbies. If I can buy a Rifle for the same cost as a bunch of plastic and paper...yes its an expensive hobby.

Yea I'm not sure what your other hobbies are that you consider 40k to be a cheap one. My other hobbies are fixing up classic cars, collecting modern firearms, and high end watches. 40k still isn't a "cheap" hobby to me...

 Toofast wrote:
Yea I'm not sure what your other hobbies are that you consider 40k to be a cheap one. My other hobbies are fixing up classic cars, collecting modern firearms, and high end watches. 40k still isn't a "cheap" hobby to me...

40k isn't 'cheap' by any stretch - agreed. Then again 'cost' and 'value' are subjective. And things are always relative. Imo it's Probably fairer to say that often hobbies in general cost a bit, regardless.

That said, my fuel bill is between £30 and £40 a week. A beer in a pub is a fiver. My xbox was a few hundred. My father in law collects records. When me and the Mrs had season tickets for the football it was about £500 each for the year. In comparison, individual kits or larger collections are also reasonable to my mind.

And honestly I'll take a 40k army over pish Scottish football any day of the week. especially since I'll do 3 or 4 hours per model and I have these dudes for the rest of my life and I will always be able to put them on the board.

It must also be noted there are ways of approaching the hobby, or not approaching certain aspects of the hobby which can help mitigate the big costs, especially long term.

SemperMortis wrote:
Brand new from GW:

Warboss: $35 90pts
3 units of 10 Boyz: $108 270pts (new kits will be about $30-50 more)
2 Trukkz: $88 140pts

500pt army, smallest game size that is really supported: total cost? $231

The Ork Combat Patrol is $140. Can't do the maths in my head quickly but its got to be +/- 500 points.

Whether this is a good set to start Orks can be debated - but still.

A Combat Patrol, a Paint Starter and some plastic glue is probably under $200.

I don't think the hobby is that cheap - but I also don't think its ruinously expensive unless you make it so.

Not digging out the book to do points because of the variances that the weapon loadouts on the Deff Dread and the two Boyz Mobs, but the Ork Combat Patrol is spot-on 25 Power out of the box.

 Toofast wrote:
Yea I'm not sure what your other hobbies are that you consider 40k to be a cheap one. My other hobbies are fixing up classic cars, collecting modern firearms, and high end watches. 40k still isn't a "cheap" hobby to me...

I never said 40K was a cheap hobby, but I don’t think it’s hugely expensive compared to many. Like most things it depends on how much you want to spend. There is no need to go and buy an army straight away. A starter paint set and a single squad is enough to get started and add to the collection as you go. Playing 40K the game is not necessarily the same as 40K the hobby.

As for other hobbies I’m thinking of, video games is a popular hobby. How much is a high resolution tv with a fast refresh rate, a new games console or a gaming PC and a selection of video games going to cost, on top of a high speed internet connection and whatever subscription may be required to play online? Compared to that 40K seems par for the course. And that’s without looking at tennis, golf, flying, gliding, scuba diving and many other popular hobbies that cost far more.

The thing is it has a quite high upfront cost and also a pretty high cost in the short period after the first investment. But in the long run (aka considering a few years) it's as expensive than the most common hobbies, if not even cheaper.

Watching sports on tv for 3 years costs a grand here, which is more than enough to enjoy the hobby properly cosidering the same amount of time.

As a kid, lunchtimes are an hour and 10 minutes, so if we want to play at warhammer club we tend to play small games. Everyone's army has been built up over time, with birthdays and christmases and such. Lots of people split dark imperium too
Stuff like club dice, tape measure and book brought down the cost, this was supported by Jack Petchy and also Warhammer Alliance.
Slowly building up an army is the standard practice, not meta chasing

I rock climb at a gym (at least up until the pandemic) and the climbing pass for a year is about $700. That's roughly $60 a month. And of course doesn't include the initial outlay of gear you need (shoe, harness, chalk, etc.), plus the replacement of gear as it wears out.

In Warhammer terms, dumping a few hundred get started (rules, codes, starter set for your faction, basic paints, etc) isn't terribly unreasonable. Spending $60 a month on top of that would give you ~12 units by the end of the year plus whatever you had in the starter set.

But to be frank, while you probably need to spend $300ish to get going, getting a decent size force with some choices and options over the course of year is going to be ~$1,000.

Aash wrote:


As for other hobbies I’m thinking of, video games is a popular hobby. How much is a high resolution tv with a fast refresh rate, a new games console or a gaming PC and a selection of video games going to cost, on top of a high speed internet connection and whatever subscription may be required to play online? Compared to that 40K seems par for the course. And that’s without looking at tennis, golf, flying, gliding, scuba diving and many other popular hobbies that cost far more.

Sure, my PC was $4k. It was also tax deductible, used for work for 2 years, and has mined $8k in bitcoin. As soon as 40k models are tax deductible, usable for work, and mine more money than they cost, I will have a different idea of how "expensive" they are.

 Toofast wrote:

Aash wrote:


As for other hobbies I’m thinking of, video games is a popular hobby. How much is a high resolution tv with a fast refresh rate, a new games console or a gaming PC and a selection of video games going to cost, on top of a high speed internet connection and whatever subscription may be required to play online? Compared to that 40K seems par for the course. And that’s without looking at tennis, golf, flying, gliding, scuba diving and many other popular hobbies that cost far more.

Sure, my PC was $4k. It was also tax deductible, used for work for 2 years, and has mined $8k in bitcoin. As soon as 40k models are tax deductible, usable for work, and mine more money than they cost, I will have a different idea of how "expensive" they are.

In fairness, the vast majority of hobbies, utilities and outlets don't really 'pay back' in terms of mining crypto and giving tax breaks. Honestly it's a poor and unfavourable metric to define 'expensive'.

 Toofast wrote:
As soon as 40k models are tax deductible, usable for work, and mine more money than they cost, I will have a different idea of how "expensive" they are.

Stream yourself painting and/or playing on Twitch and they ARE most of those things.

 Toofast wrote:

Aash wrote:


As for other hobbies I’m thinking of, video games is a popular hobby. How much is a high resolution tv with a fast refresh rate, a new games console or a gaming PC and a selection of video games going to cost, on top of a high speed internet connection and whatever subscription may be required to play online? Compared to that 40K seems par for the course. And that’s without looking at tennis, golf, flying, gliding, scuba diving and many other popular hobbies that cost far more.

Sure, my PC was $4k. It was also tax deductible, used for work for 2 years, and has mined $8k in bitcoin. As soon as 40k models are tax deductible, usable for work, and mine more money than they cost, I will have a different idea of how "expensive" they are.

40k is expensive for a hobby that targets kids.

Also, as someone stuck on a fixed, low income (in my case for disability) it's an expensive hobby. I can afford, maybe $50/yr if I'm lucky towards 40k. This doesn't make me a second class player.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Toofast wrote:

Aash wrote:


As for other hobbies I’m thinking of, video games is a popular hobby. How much is a high resolution tv with a fast refresh rate, a new games console or a gaming PC and a selection of video games going to cost, on top of a high speed internet connection and whatever subscription may be required to play online? Compared to that 40K seems par for the course. And that’s without looking at tennis, golf, flying, gliding, scuba diving and many other popular hobbies that cost far more.

Sure, my PC was $4k. It was also tax deductible, used for work for 2 years, and has mined $8k in bitcoin. As soon as 40k models are tax deductible, usable for work, and mine more money than they cost, I will have a different idea of how "expensive" they are.

40k is expensive for a hobby that targets kids.

Also, as someone stuck on a fixed, low income (in my case for disability) it's an expensive hobby. I can afford, maybe $50/yr if I'm lucky towards 40k. This doesn't make me a second class player.

This is unfortunately how some players view those who don't drop $1k a year on meta-bs.

GW has been trying to keep the entry level of the game "cheap". The standards imposed by the playerbase(note how I didn't say meta, for some it "meta" doesn't exist) of 2k or nothin' bleeding edge tourney lists in cutthroat environments are ridiculous and unhealthy for fostering new hobbyists. It leads to burnout and frustration that the list you've been building/painting is no longer gonna do anything for you tabletop-wise. Which is why whenever someone asks about how good an army is I tell them that "models are forever but rules change, what was once unstoppable is now easily stopped with the stroke of a pen".

Racerguy180 wrote:
GW has been trying to keep the entry level of the game "cheap". The standards imposed by the playerbase(note how I didn't say meta, for some it "meta" doesn't exist) of 2k or nothin' bleeding edge tourney lists in cutthroat environments are ridiculous and unhealthy for fostering new hobbyists. It leads to burnout and frustration that the list you've been building/painting is no longer gonna do anything for you tabletop-wise. Which is why whenever someone asks about how good an army is I tell them that "models are forever but rules change, what was once unstoppable is now easily stopped with the stroke of a pen".

Nah, GW bears a lot of responsibility for the constant churn and poor balance. The playerbase is reacting to the circumstances that GW imposes, to a large degree. The cutthroat behavior is the result of a game system that rewards purchases and nitpicking over tactics.

Oh I'm not excusing GW, they're a large part of why I didn't interact with the hobby since the squattening.

I was merely pointing out how they have made the "attempt".

As crappy as Italy be, it's more than they had in the past.

Honestly, the different tiers of starter set have been a huge help.

Thanks to them, I can get a Recruit edition set, ask for them for birthday/Yule gifts, and still build respectable low points lists, for 2 armies, for a way better deal than a box of Necron Warriors.

Is anyone actually saying that people who do not drop 1,000 USD on the new hotness are second-class players?

The top-tourney crowd do their thing within their circuit. They aren't breaking into your gaming club to tell you that you are second-class.

In my local scene we have a variety of types of players. Our tourneys vary from 1000 to 2000 points with one aimed at new players. If somebody asks for a low-point non-tourney style game they will get one. I will play whatever my prospective opponent wants (well, within limits I suppose).

Warhammer models are not cheap, but I offer that they retain their value if you keep playing. Heck, they can even retain their value if you take pleasure in having them in your display case! Some of my models that still see the table are twenty years old. You can slow-grow an impressive army on a fairly limited budget if you have discipline. I play with a couple of folks who "only" have one army. They have built it up over time and do not chase anything. The wheel comes around and they have a strong army for a while. Either way they are happy. If you don't chase the meta eventually it comes around to you!

Racerguy180 wrote:
...This is unfortunately how some players view those who don't drop $1k a year on meta-bs.

GW has been trying to keep the entry level of the game "cheap". The standards imposed by the playerbase(note how I didn't say meta, for some it "meta" doesn't exist) of 2k or nothin' bleeding edge tourney lists in cutthroat environments are ridiculous and unhealthy for fostering new hobbyists. It leads to burnout and frustration that the list you've been building/painting is no longer gonna do anything for you tabletop-wise. Which is why whenever someone asks about how good an army is I tell them that "models are forever but rules change, what was once unstoppable is now easily stopped with the stroke of a pen".

Eh. The height of the barrier to entry is entirely GW's fault. They could shut down the edition churn, start doing small incremental updates to a lot of things at once instead of doing massive under-tested updates to everything in an army all at once and then not touching them for the next three years (unless the tournament people complain or someone wins a game against the people in charge of the points updates, then they get points updates), fix the underlying problems with the stats and the core rules instead of stacking bloat on top of bloat to try and address them, and remember that they have a back catalogue and occasionally someone might want to play with minis that didn't come out in the last six months. But they don't. They want people buying new armies every six months.

I don't disagree that some people are too competitive, but I also think a big part of the problem here is that GW's trying to market itself as all things to all people. They're convinced that by writing an essay on how surely competitive people can play their game competitively and casual people can play their game casually they can make it true, without in any way adjusting their rules to account for the fact that they want different kinds of people playing their game, and then try and subject the casual people to the same kind of edition churn and "buy a new army, you don't want to play 9e with an 8e book, do you?" pressure they subject the competitive people to.

Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.

It's astonishing to me how far people will go to blame GW for the simple lack of awareness that players have with this stuff. We live in a frigging digital age. When the first exposure some people have is via people throwing up netlists or via MetaWatch(which I will 100% blame GW for: that stuff is a bloody cancer and needs to be excised)? It's a weight around the rest of the game's neck.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.

It's astonishing to me how far people will go to blame GW for the simple lack of awareness that players have with this stuff. We live in a frigging digital age. When the first exposure some people have is via people throwing up netlists or via MetaWatch(which I will 100% blame GW for: that stuff is a bloody cancer and needs to be excised)? It's a weight around the rest of the game's neck.

I'm not blaming GW for the fact that people are too competitive. I'm blaming GW/their apologists for not understanding that there's a difference between competitive people and casual people, constructing a business model around getting more money out of competitive people, paying occasional lip service to the fact that casual people exist while simultaneously trying to wring them for cash by treating them like competitive people, and then shrugging and saying "well, if you're not having fun it must be your fault, nothing we could possibly do to improve the game at all."

 AnomanderRake wrote:

I'm not blaming GW for the fact that people are too competitive. I'm blaming GW/their apologists for not understanding that there's a difference between competitive people and casual people, constructing a business model around getting more money out of competitive people, paying occasional lip service to the fact that casual people exist while simultaneously trying to wring them for cash by treating them like competitive people, and then shrugging and saying "well, if you're not having fun it must be your fault, nothing we could possibly do to improve the game at all."

Sorry, how are casual hobbyists being wrung for cash? I'm very casual and I've not felt pressured into buying since GW stores moved away from the insane sales targets they used to have. I've also never been told by a GW employee that if I don't like a game I'm having fun wrong.
Can you explain why you feel GW pressures you into purchasing models you don't want or how you feel you're being told you are the problem when it comes to not enjoying the game?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or people could stop pretending that every single bloody match is a GT event.

It's astonishing to me how far people will go to blame GW for the simple lack of awareness that players have with this stuff. We live in a frigging digital age. When the first exposure some people have is via people throwing up netlists or via MetaWatch(which I will 100% blame GW for: that stuff is a bloody cancer and needs to be excised)? It's a weight around the rest of the game's neck.

I'm not blaming GW for the fact that people are too competitive. I'm blaming GW/their apologists for not understanding that there's a difference between competitive people and casual people, constructing a business model around getting more money out of competitive people, paying occasional lip service to the fact that casual people exist while simultaneously trying to wring them for cash by treating them like competitive people, and then shrugging and saying "well, if you're not having fun it must be your fault, nothing we could possibly do to improve the game at all."

Actually, right now GW produces more resources aimed at narrative players than competitive ones. Competitive players get two mission packs per year; Crusaders get four. Campaign books, while they ostensibly offer content for both competitive and narrative play have far more to offer the narrative player than the competitive one.

And creating 3 ways to play, IMHO, was one of the best things that's been done for the game. I DO chase Crusade content, but I have zero interest in Meta, or points balances- I haven't purchased a single GT mission pack/ munitorum bundle this edition, nor will I need to. Having 4-6 Crusade armies at 25PL and friends to play them like Inquisitor 28 is awesome. Screw meta.