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.

 Just Tony wrote:
. How many of them are fieldable as legal units straight out of the box? .

About the same proportion as when GW sold blisters.

Those 3 for $15 packs compare very favorably to a 20-year-old $5 blister containing single SM Devastator

So that's a no then.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
. How many of them are fieldable as legal units straight out of the box? .

About the same proportion as when GW sold blisters.

Those 3 for $15 packs compare very favorably to a 20-year-old $5 blister containing single SM Devastator

I also refused to buy anything made of pewter unless there was no other option. It seemed daft to me to pay that much for something if there was a cheaper and easier to work with option. Still seems daft to me.

And for the record, I'm talking about expansion boxed sets. Had you compared it to those 8 man monopose WFB infantry sets of yore, or the paint set boxes that came with 3 or four models, maybe you'd have a valid point. As it stands, there were always plastic sets for $10 or less that were basically the smallest unit size of that model possible. These aren't it, unless 3 is the lowest model point of a Primaris or any of the AOS stuff that I quite frankly don't follow.

I think (though I could be mistaken) that the easy to build kits comes with the full rules for the unit.

So all of them can be played straight out of the box.

GW has an E2B Dreadnought that compares fairly with the Eldar Dreadnought & War Walker back when they were packed in blisters.

Where have you seen it for sale?

How many of them are fieldable as legal units straight out of the box?

All of them. The boxes come with a warscroll/datasheet for the contents of the box.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Where have you seen it for sale?

Never seen it. I'm just going off the information on the previous page.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I like that people who complain about GW pricing pay $20 a model for Star Wars and it's garbage game rules.

While YMMV with the rules I think there's a substantial difference in the value proposition between GW games and X-Wing. That $20 (around £12-15 in the UK) gets you a complete gaming experience, ready to hit the table top the moment you open the packaging. It also forms one of the 2-6 ships you need to play a full game. Checking the GW website for Necron models (an army I own that has a Codex coming out soon) I can get a couple of characters for that...and that's it. That still leaves me a long, long way to go before I can start to think about playing a game.

As both an X-Wing and 40k player, GW prices jumped the shark for me a long time ago and I think it's for two reasons. Firstly, I've been playing long enough to remember what prices used to be like and how affordable armies used to be. Secondly, other games and companies offer better value.

Slipspace wrote:
While YMMV with the rules I think there's a substantial difference in the value proposition between GW games and X-Wing. That $20 (around £12-15 in the UK) gets you a complete gaming experience, ready to hit the table top the moment you open the packaging. It also forms one of the 2-6 ships you need to play a full game. Checking the GW website for Necron models (an army I own that has a Codex coming out soon) I can get a couple of characters for that...and that's it. That still leaves me a long, long way to go before I can start to think about playing a game..

I think this is a very interesting distinction of value.

For me the X-wing model is low detail and dull compared to the equivalent GW model. It is therefore not very good value, especially as my OCD side would need to strip that paint off before I start, so that's more work. The fact that the X-wing model is worth more in game is meaningless to me; by that logic if the points value of all GW models were in increased by 500% they would all suddenly be quite reasonably costed (well, in some cases ), even though neither price nor model has changed.

I do understand your point and don't dismiss it; if I was purely buying based on the value as a gaming piece then X-wing seems in general a better deal. But I'm buying because I like the model. In-game use, fluff, and price are all factors too, but I don't think I would every buy a model which I didn't like even if it was cheap and really great as an in-game piece, whereas I know I have bought loads of models that kinda suck in-game because I just love how they look.

I spent years loving the Dark Eldar fluff and hating the models. As soon as the new range came out I bought and painted everything.
(Except the grotesque; didn't mind the model but as a unit they were too uniform)

Thats the difference between a hobbyist and a pure gamer though. Gamers often don't care about their pawns nearly as much as a hobbyist. Therefore they usually put more value in models : dollar/pound/whatever ratio.

 Denny wrote:
For me the X-wing model is low detail and dull compared to the equivalent GW moel.

I don't understand that at all. IMO the X-Wing model is at least as detailed as the GW model, if not better detailed. On things like detail sharpness, minimum feature size, etc, the X-Wing model just trashes the GW stuff. It's an excellent representation of the "real" ship, with few flaws that I can find. The only thing it's lacking is the GW-style skulls and purity seals copied over every possible surface, and that's much more clutter than detail.

 auticus wrote:
Thats the difference between a hobbyist and a pure gamer though. Gamers often don't care about their pawns nearly as much as a hobbyist. Therefore they usually put more value in models : dollar/pound/whatever ratio.

a decent point, I'm somewhere in the middle, I like my forces to look cool, I've even painted some X-Wing ships, but really struggle to stay motivated painting Bolter marine #4 out of #30, leading me to lower model count games where even if individual models are on par with GW prices a complete playable force comes in way cheaper than most 40k armys

and now thanks to Peregrine I have an urge to stick purity seals all over my dull and functional TIE fighters

 Denny wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
While YMMV with the rules I think there's a substantial difference in the value proposition between GW games and X-Wing. That $20 (around £12-15 in the UK) gets you a complete gaming experience, ready to hit the table top the moment you open the packaging. It also forms one of the 2-6 ships you need to play a full game. Checking the GW website for Necron models (an army I own that has a Codex coming out soon) I can get a couple of characters for that...and that's it. That still leaves me a long, long way to go before I can start to think about playing a game..

I think this is a very interesting distinction of value.

For me the X-wing model is low detail and dull compared to the equivalent GW moel. It is therefore not very good value, especially as my OCD side would need to strip that paint off before I start, so that's more work. The fact that the X-wing model is worth more in game is meaningless to me; by that logic if the points value of all GW models were in increased by 500% they would all suddenly be quite reasonably costed (well, in some cases ), even though neither price nor model has changed.

The number of models needed to play a game does affect how I view their value, yes. If I only needed 5 character models to play a game of 40k I'd possibly be more willing to pay £20 per model because my total outlay is only around £100. I wouldn't say the models would become brilliant value all of a sudden, but the cost would be more palatable. Being overcharged for 5 models is much better than being overcharged for 100! The models are primarily gaming pieces to me. I like them to look nice but I'd never buy a model for an army I don't play just because it looked good - there are plenty of nice models for armies I actually play that I don't own yet.

As for the detail on the X-Wing models, there's not much to say other than I disagree. A lot. The paintjob isn't spectacular but it works for the nature of the models, IMO. The detail is absolutely fine...maybe edging towards perfect. It's sharp, well-defined and true to the original. Compared to some of the frankly outrageous and overblown stuff GW is putting out I vastly prefer something more realistic and understated. Take the new Necron model they recently announced, for example. What's going on with that? Technically it's very well done, but aesthetically it just looks terrible, IMO.

Also:

 Denny wrote:
especially as my OCD side would need to strip that paint off before I start, so that's more work

You really don't. The paint on X-Wing models is thinner than the average primer coat, and fills the same role. You can paint directly over the stock paint without any problems. So essentially you have a GW model that, instead of being bare plastic while you're waiting to paint it, is tabletop ready until you get to doing a better paint job on it (and functional indefinitely if you don't care enough about that particular model to improve it). This is purely a win for FFG.

 auticus wrote:
Thats the difference between a hobbyist and a pure gamer though. Gamers often don't care about their pawns nearly as much as a hobbyist. Therefore they usually put more value in models : dollar/pound/whatever ratio.

That's not what just happened in this thread. The gamer put more value in points per dollar and the hobbyist valued minis per dollar. A painter may find more value in painting hours per dollar, but that is distinct from the conversation we just witnessed.

When I say models : dollar that goes hand in hand with points : dollar. It basically means the same thing to me.

that being how much it costs to field a force regardless of what it looks like or how the models appear.

I'm sure there are hobbyists that care about minis per dollar as well. The point of what I said though was a gamer tends to not care near what a hobbyist does in what models look like.

Nearly all the hobbyists I know pay GW prices because the models look better, while the gamers I know would gladly pay a dime for a wooden pog to represent a marine.

 Just Tony wrote:

Ghaz wrote:GW has eight Easy to Build kits (four for Warhammer 40,000 and four for Age of Sigmar) for $15 each.

So they have those few kits, I honestly didn't know those existed. How many of them are fieldable as legal units straight out of the box? When GW had the $10 Space Marine Combat Squad, that thing was a playable unit straight from the get go. A learner could snag a box a week, and at the end of the month have a tiny force all his/her own to learn with at the FLGS. These, while a breath of fresh air given how GW USUALLY handles entry level stuff, simply supplement what you already have. In the case of the Primaris thinigs, what is the minimum size unit for those models? If it is NOT the specific count of that box, then it's a bit of a loss. I'd also love to see a character option at that price. Sure, give him garbage wargear to encourage the young player to want the $80 multipart kit, but at least have a beginner option. This is a tiptoe in the right direction, but not quite a step.

I think that GW is concerned about the cost of entry. Its always been an issue. IIRC, when I started in the mid-90s it took about two months of collecting and building plus about $200 to get a 1,000 point force (including rules/codex/paints).

The current Easy to Build kits are a decent idea. The First Strike box is $50 (Canadian) which gets you a playing surface, the rules and two small armies to build and fight on your kitchen table. Not bad for a March Break project for a tween/teen. The Primaris units are understrength, so while technically playable you would want to add to them (which you can with the other EtB boxes). The Know No Fear box is $100 and you get a pretty good Primaris force and a fairly workable Deathguard (edit) force. The Primaris force is a legal, battle-forged Patrol with an HQ, a Troops, a Fast Attack and a Heavy Support. Its about 500 points so our aspirant player could rock up to a gaming night and find an opponent willing to play 500 points. I think that $100 is a good value for what you get if you are a starting player, especially a younger one with a dad/brother/friend willing to play. The force can then be built on as the new player's hobby skills increase. I think that's the theory!

The boxes with three Intercessors or three Reivers are a little odd, but they do allow our new player to add an understrength squad (which is legal) or get two boxes and add a real one. The EtB Redempter Dread is pretty good and is easily within the modeling capabilities of a new hobbyist.

All this to say I think that GW does care about entry costs being a barrier.

To be fair, 500 points today is like a full army in 2E, right?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
To be fair, 500 points today is like a full army in 2E, right?

Haha true that.

And certainly players themselves have part blame for standard army for 40k being so expensive seeing they fall for GW's money making stunts when they could easily have fought against it. GW increases model point costs across the line. Let's up the point cost! So far so good. Then GW(probably pre-planned) starts to CUT DOWN on costs of models. Players? Buy more models!

Players keep pushing game size up while GW keeps pushing point costs down. Then players complain they need to spend more and more on armies. GW doesn't even need to increase cost of models to ensure they get more money all the time. Players are doing that just fine themselves!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
To be fair, 500 points today is like a full army in 2E, right?

Lol - good point. We've had dollar inflation, price increases and the points values have increased! A 2E Tactical Squad was something like 300 points plus the upgrades: now its 150 points. My first 1000 point army was Azrael, a Librarian, a Deathwing Squad and a Tactical Squad. "Veterans' Night" in 2E was at 1000 points, which would be about 500+- today I think.

Getting to 1500 points (the Grand Tournament level in 1997 IIRC) for me was adding an Assault Squad and a Predator (plus subbing Devastators for the Tac Sqd and a Jump Captain for Azrael). Bear in mind that my 10 man Assault Squad cost me $100 in 1996.

The road to 2000 points in 2018 is pretty daunting to a new player.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The road to 2000 points in 2018 is pretty daunting to a new player.

Isn't this the reason many give for why WFB was canned?

If we look at today's $160 Dark Imperium starter set, that's less than $100 in 1996 dollars, yet contains easily 2,000 points of 2E miniatures.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

The road to 2000 points in 2018 is pretty daunting to a new player.

Isn't this the reason many give for why WFB was canned?

I am not sure. I walked away from 40K in 2015 (7th was not my cup of tea) and I only dabbled in WFB. I came back to 40K this past summer and I have been playing steadily.

While GW controls points costs we (the players) have some control over the points levels for games. I think that we tend to like 2000 point games because we can fit more of our models. One of my favourite tourney experiences was a 5E "Patrol Tournament" set at 400 points. I think that part of growing a community is arriving at games night at the FLGS ready to play 1000 points (or even lower) if that is what a newer player has. We own that part of the problem.

The cost of my models that I bought in 1996 seems pretty small now based on 22 years of gaming with them. Heck, even my newly Hellblasters ($140 CAD for two full squads) already have over a dozen games. Not bad!

1000 points is enough for a decent collection of units and interesting game play. I have no idea why tournaments are held at 2000 points when everyone complains you only get 2-3 turns in.

 John Prins wrote:
1000 points is enough for a decent collection of units and interesting game play. I have no idea why tournaments are held at 2000 points when everyone complains you only get 2-3 turns in.

It's not the only game with such problems. Malifaux has a few crews that take longer to play than normal. However, the way you score points in a game and tournament means you need to play full games to get the full amount of points most of the time, so playing such crews will purposely tank your score. Such crews generally aren't played.

 -Loki- wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
1000 points is enough for a decent collection of units and interesting game play. I have no idea why tournaments are held at 2000 points when everyone complains you only get 2-3 turns in.

It's not the only game with such problems. Malifaux has a few crews that take longer to play than normal. However, the way you score points in a game and tournament means you need to play full games to get the full amount of points most of the time, so playing such crews will purposely tank your score. Such crews generally aren't played.

Didn't seem to be stopping top players at LVO from tanking and playing only <standard game length.>

Isn't this the reason many give for why WFB was canned?

I think the difficulties for WFB lay in the game system which required big armies to deliver a fun game.
Otherwise you'd be shuffling two blocks around in which, say, 50 of your 60 models were only filler that you had to paint, but didn't really do anything and weren't particularly visible either, which made armies for that system a daunting perspective. In 40K or AoS you can play with a few squads and every model is visible, you get more out of your work.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Denny wrote:
For me the X-wing model is low detail and dull compared to the equivalent GW moel.

I don't understand that at all. IMO the X-Wing model is at least as detailed as the GW model, if not better detailed. On things like detail sharpness, minimum feature size, etc, the X-Wing model just trashes the GW stuff. It's an excellent representation of the "real" ship, with few flaws that I can find. The only thing it's lacking is the GW-style skulls and purity seals copied over every possible surface, and that's much more clutter than detail.

I agree it is an accurate representation of a Star Wars ship.

I think Star Wars ships are (in general) low on detail and kind of boring. Most spaceships are when you really look at them IMO. They are giant sealed environments floating/cruising in space. Details are not required.

Perhaps a better word would be . . plain?
Dull?
Overly Uniform?
Uninspiring?

I mean, you paint them white . . . and then plain the black bits . . . shade and highlight . . . that's it?
I suppose at that point you could weather them. But given the scale it would be pretty dang tiny weathering. Maybe a glowing engine would provide the option of using an actual primary colour?

There are no organic shapes, no meaningful variance of texture, no fur or skin or claws or even much metal (bar weathering and cabling).
No features to pick out. No eyes. No blood and guts, no basing options. No green slime or glowing warpstone, or mutated skin birthing into flailing tentecles. No question of 'What colour should I use for this daemons skin. Would a purpley-grey offset the yellow, or clash too heavily?' In fact no real decisions about colour theory because the colour schemes already set.

I think I would feel like I was painting a piece of plastic to look like a bigger piece of plastic. And I don't even get to pick the colour.

Please not that I'm not saying you can't do an amazing job on them; painting a ship to look like an actual full scale ship would be very challenging, far beyond my modest skills.
But I would far rather paint twenty Skaven than one spaceship. Whether it is Star Wars or not. And yes, that would count for Battlefield Gothic too.

Again, I'm not making a statement about what other people should do or should like. I find the in-game value assessment interesting and understandable.If you like them buy them and have fun.
But if someone gave me a bunch of spaceship models for free I would have no interest in painting them. And no amount of in-game content would offset that, because I never field anything that I haven't painted, and any enjoyment from the game would be offset by having to paint models that I personally find as artistically inspiring as grouting.

YMMV.

Huh, I hear you, but the same can be said for planes, tanks, support weapons, etc... in any game at any scale. I’ll just add that people absolutely do repaint x wing and Armada miniatures in interesting and fun ways. I saw a guy a few weeks ago who went to great lengths to put LED lights in his star destroyers along with an incredible airbrush repaint of them. Looked pretty dang cool.