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.

And there is the other difference.
GWplc state they primarily sell minatures to collectors.
(less than 1/3 of GW customers actualy play the game according to official GWplc statments.)

Mr Kirby (Chairman,) and Mr Johnson,(lead game developer,) both have made official statments to this end.
'In the buisnes of selling toy soldiers to children'
'we are a minature company first and foremost'
'the games are just the icing on the cake,( for minature collectors)',
'the rules then , are not that important'.
'the GW hobby is mainly about the enjoyment of collecting ,building and painting citadel minatures'
etc etc.

Where as PP apears to be more focused on actual game play, with it being primarily games company.

Lanrak wrote:


Where as PP apears to be more focused on actual game play, with it being primarily games company.

I feel like PP also knows their appeal to collectors... they make amazing models and price them at the middle to high end of the model spectrum just like GW... partially because they know they make good sculpts for the most part and they know what the market can bear.

Other companies may way cheaper models, but they don't look hardly as good.

 ShumaGorath wrote:


Could someone deal with this for me? I don't have the money to paint it.

I'd love to help, but I'll need to consult my lawyer and it may take 5 or so years

 blood lance wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
It's a good comparison because 40k doesn't have a skirmish-scale game.

Yes it does. Kill Teams. They had a tournament for it either a week ago or a week from now (Cant quite recall when)

Even though its bad and horribly unbalanced *Ahem*

Kill team is utterly dysfunctional and survives off of enthusiasm alone (where it survives, most players have never even tried it). 40k doesn't work at that scale. Kill team doesn't make 40k a game that can be played at a skirmish scale, it'd have to actually function as a game to do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The only thing which is not variable is the comparison of cost per model at a per-model basis. Having a meta-game which doesn't require duplicates or requires smaller initial investment, may make the 'value' for you be better, but it doesn't universally change the value for consumers

You're now conflating a lack of universal attribution and a lack of importance. Don't do that. It's logically backwards.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

The only thing which is not variable is the comparison of cost per model at a per-model basis. Having a meta-game which doesn't require duplicates or requires smaller initial investment, may make the 'value' for you be better, but it doesn't universally change the value for consumers

You're now conflating a lack of universal attribution and a lack of importance. Don't do that. It's logically backwards.

How does someone else playing a 15 point game of Hordes 100 miles away make my 40$ turtleman model cheaper for me who lives in an area where the regular game of hordes is 50+ and I don't own 50points of hordes models? How does it make it more valuable to me either?

How do I get 'more game for my money' when the 40$ buys me a single model which is the exact same price of an equally sized model from both manufacturers?

It doesn't make your paint-can analogy valid and it doesn't make one 40$ model cheaper than another 40$ model. You may get more personal use out of one model over another, doesn't change the cost in the stores or how much money leaves my wallet or change the value of how I plan to use the model because you have the ability to play 15pt games of hordes all day long.

How does someone else playing a 15 point game of Hordes 100 miles away make my 40$ turtleman model cheaper for me who lives in an area where the regular game of hordes is 50+ and I don't own 50points of hordes models? How does it make it more valuable to me either?

How does your experience invalidate theirs? You are transitively implying that your experience outweighs that of the majority of players because it is more important to you. It does not. You are unique. Wargaming veterans with large collections and significant spending reserves are unique to the playerbase and are not at all the majority. They aren't even close to the majority of GW or Privateers purchasebase.

How do I get 'more game for my money' when the 40$ buys me a single model which is the exact same price of an equally sized model from both manufacturers?

You don't.

It doesn't make your paint-can analogy valid and it doesn't make one 40$ model cheaper than another 40$ model.

It wasn't my analogy and your argument doesn't really argue against it.

You may get more personal use out of one model over another, doesn't change the cost in the stores or how much money leaves my wallet or change the value of how I plan to use the model because you have the ability to play 15pt games of hordes all day long.

Not to sound rude, but in an argumentative, logical, or business sense, I don't think anyone cares about your particular spending habits. They are not the majority and in businesses margins are exactly that.

nkelsch wrote:
It doesn't make your paint-can analogy valid and it doesn't make one 40$ model cheaper than another 40$ model

The argument isn't over comparison of $40 models. If you want to play 90% of feasible lists in a WM/H faction, you'll spend about $1200 on the faction and that number will be pretty consistent for every faction. If you want to play 90% of feasible lists in a 40k faction, you're spending far, far more.

With WM/H, old models never really become invalidated, even as metas evolve. Further costs is pretty well limited to new releases, which is maybe $100/year, $200 at the upper end.

With 40k, not only do old models become invalidated, entire factions are retconned away and there's the well-known 'cycling' of metagame between books/editions (which is admittedly a 2-5 year turn) where your 'old' army becomes crap and you have to buy a 'new' army.

Did you have a 4th ed footslogging las/plas tactical spam Marine army? In 5th ed it became crap, buy rhinos. Then in 6th ed the rhino rush army became crap, buy flyers. Those are HUGE variable costs for anyone intending to be in the hobby for 4-5 years, and only the most blinkered, rose-colored glasses would let anyone deny that.

That does not mean one game or hobby is better than another. It does mean that a GW hobbyist's variable costs, especially a competitive one enduring edition switches, have the potential to be a lot higher.

 sourclams wrote:
With WM/H, old models never really become invalidated, even as metas evolve. Further costs is pretty well limited to new releases, which is maybe $100/year, $200 at the upper end.

Or... 330 at GenCon... but those gargantuan models really skew that figure... <_< .... >_>

Meh, play what you like. It's pretty much that simple. There is no "better game" in gaming when you take everything like setting, models, rules, opportunity to be an elitist jerk, etc. into account on a whole. There is only what you like and what you do not like.

You want cheap? Play Dust Warfare which pretty much stomps 90% of the other games into the ground on cost per mini and initial buy in.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

How does someone else playing a 15 point game of Hordes 100 miles away make my 40$ turtleman model cheaper for me who lives in an area where the regular game of hordes is 50+ and I don't own 50points of hordes models? How does it make it more valuable to me either?

How does your experience invalidate theirs? You are transitively implying that your experience outweighs that of the majority of players because it is more important to you. It does not. You are unique. Wargaming veterans with large collections and significant spending reserves are unique to the playerbase and are not at all the majority. They aren't even close to the majority of GW or Privateers purchasebase.

How do I get 'more game for my money' when the 40$ buys me a single model which is the exact same price of an equally sized model from both manufacturers?

You don't.

It doesn't make your paint-can analogy valid and it doesn't make one 40$ model cheaper than another 40$ model.

It wasn't my analogy and your argument doesn't really argue against it.

You may get more personal use out of one model over another, doesn't change the cost in the stores or how much money leaves my wallet or change the value of how I plan to use the model because you have the ability to play 15pt games of hordes all day long.

Not to sound rude, but in an argumentative, logical, or business sense, I don't think anyone cares about your particular spending habits. They are not the majority and in businesses margins are exactly that.

How are you claiming your experience or 'any' experience is the default majority with absolutely no evidence of such? And then apply the default majority experience as the only experience which matters for value of products.

And I showed you were your analogy was wrong... You don't need 3 cans of paint vs 1 can of paint because the paint is better or covers more, your default majority experience asserts that PP people on average have a smaller fence than GW players so they need paint the costs and operates exactly the same, they just have a smaller fence to paint so they need less of it.

And that only applies if people's personal experience matches your narrative of the default PP and GW ideal situations which for many people is not reality or applicable to their situation which means the 'PP is cheaper' is totally subjective based upon experience where 'Mantic is cheaper' is based upon quantifiable comparisons of being able to get 30 'orcs' for the cost of 8 GW orks and having physically more models at your disposal.

It doesn't change the value of the models... It is like saying GW daemons should cost twice as much as you can use the same models with both fantasy and 40k. If someone only plays fantasy the value doesn't exist even if the default majority buy it and play it in both systems.

PP models are not 'cheaper' they cost almost exactly the same and in some cases more than their GW counterpart, and both model lines are on the mid to high range of collectible models out there. Someone somewhere else getting more use out of their version of their model doesn't make my model cheaper or more expensive. It isn't going to make me want to pay 'extra' for needing less total models. If all that mattered was tiddly-winks for gameplay, I could go buy some cheap models and use any rule system I wanted.

nkelsch wrote:PERSONAL value based upon the games your friends play and the size of games your friends play in your area takes into account a lot of variables which are different for people.

No it doesn't, we are talking about economic values. If you and your friends play 37 point Warhammer matches on a 1x2 frond in your pool, that may add more personal value to you, but it's far from a universal format and it doesn't apply to the average user.

I think nearly everyone that plays regular 40K would agree that 1500-2000 is far and away the average Fantasy/40K size. Yes, it's possible to play tiny GW games and enormous Warmahordes games, but that is not the norm. I'm not going to reiterate my points on costs again, you can go back and read them if you'd like. But projecting your unusual experiences onto everyone doesn't change economic truths.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

nkelsch wrote:PERSONAL value based upon the games your friends play and the size of games your friends play in your area takes into account a lot of variables which are different for people.

No it doesn't, we are talking about economic values. If you and your friends play 37 point Warhammer matches on a 1x2 frond in your pool, that may add more personal value to you, but it's far from a universal format and it doesn't apply to the average user.

I think nearly everyone that plays regular 40K would agree that 1500-2000 is far and away the average Fantasy/40K size. Yes, it's possible to play tiny GW games and enormous Warmahordes games, but that is not the norm. I'm not going to reiterate my points on costs again, you can go back and read them if you'd like. But projecting your unusual experiences onto everyone doesn't change economic truths.

But you are claiming your personal experiences and your perception of how everyone plays the game are economic truths with zero evidence to support your POV as the default. And lots of people have disagreed with you that these 'unusual experiences' are not actually that unusual or uncommon showing there is a wide variety in the way people play these games and no default standard which is documented or quantifiable...

And unless your position matches this fictional narrative you assert is default, it doesn't apply to you so it boils down to the only thing consistent for everyone is the cost per model... how they plan to use the model and how that changes their perceived value of the model doesn't apply to anyone but them personally. A lot of people won't pay twice as much for a model because they need half of them, a 40$ turtleman is still a 40$ turtleman and it better be DAMN good for 40$ because that is expensive for a single model.

Lanrak wrote:


Where as PP apears to be more focused on actual game play, with it being primarily games company.

Uh, no. PP serves as a vehicle to get Matt Wilson into Hollywood. Each new game is a new IP Wilson tries to sell to Hollywood. You think that Level 7 short was meant to build up enthusiasm for a board game?

Two things that have kept me out of WMH are the models are not conversion friendly and I'm told by local organizers you have a strict WSIWYG for events. I can make an ogre army for WHFB from Hordes Gatormen and play in the local RT and most national tournament. But I can't make a Minion army from GW Ogres and use it outside local friendly games.

GW is cheaper because all miniature manufactures are available to me for their games. There is only one official GW tournament in the US, all others tournaments allow conversions and other manufactures.

Unless your Ogre army made from Hordes Gatormen are more than 50% GW materials, then they're not tournament legal just as much as the reverse is true, you cannot play your ogre minions in a PP tournament because they too are not a majority of PP material.

silent25 wrote:


Two things that have kept me out of WMH are the models are not conversion friendly and I'm told by local organizers you have a strict WSIWYG for events. I can make an ogre army for WHFB from Hordes Gatormen and play in the local RT and most national tournament. But I can't make a Minion army from GW Ogres and use it outside local friendly games.

A large number of PP events have direct PP support which usually means 'take the kings coin, do the kings bidding'. PP isn't going to promote events for people using 3rd party models. Neither is GW... But most GW events are independent and not beholden to a miniature company dictating model source.

PP usually doesn't require conversions as units and models have limited options which usually make the need for 'conversions' basically unnecessary. You don't need to chop up a PP model because either they only have the one option or they sell the option in its own box. This can be an added value for people who dislike converting or devalue for people who feel custom models is a core aspect of their hobby enjoyment. Some people enjoy making 40 little dudes so they can all be different opposed to needing 10 of the same stock model.

Which is why different models appeal to different people for different reasons and there is no default narrative of what makes a correct way to enjoy your models so it adjusts the value... Allowing me to mix in 3rd party models can reduce my investment to GW games as well as a vast secondhand market which is not nearly as robust for PP. If you like collecting models, or simply want cheap plastic tokens, that could change your perception of value as well.

I don't buy this notion there is a default correct way to value models based upon how 'someone else' intends to use them... but I do see there is a correct way to compare cost of model to cost of equivilant model or group of models and establish value as such.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

nkelsch wrote:PERSONAL value based upon the games your friends play and the size of games your friends play in your area takes into account a lot of variables which are different for people.

No it doesn't, we are talking about economic values. If you and your friends play 37 point Warhammer matches on a 1x2 frond in your pool, that may add more personal value to you, but it's far from a universal format and it doesn't apply to the average user.

I think nearly everyone that plays regular 40K would agree that 1500-2000 is far and away the average Fantasy/40K size. Yes, it's possible to play tiny GW games and enormous Warmahordes games, but that is not the norm. I'm not going to reiterate my points on costs again, you can go back and read them if you'd like. But projecting your unusual experiences onto everyone doesn't change economic truths.

I hate to bring this up but I have lived in 4 places and gamed in many more. In all but one of those places when the game still had points 750-1000 was all that people regularly played and with MKII the default game is 50 points with 35 sometimes comeing up but not often. People basically refuse to play battlebox even for demos which is why I don't really play anymore. I have 3 large armies but I just like the models and like the game at smaller points.

The one place that is different is where I live now and that is that no one plays at all.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/14.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/74.page

Please point out the significant numbers of sub 1500 40K and over 50 Warmahordes list nkelsch. Or is Dakka not representative of the average Wargamer?

Brother Gyoken wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/14.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/74.page

Please point out the significant numbers of sub 1500 40K and over 50 Warmahordes list nkelsch. Or is Dakka not representative of the average Wargamer?

Realistically the average wargamer doesn't post on a related forum. By GW and PPs own sales statistics and the general sales trend in most stores the average gamer has a limited budget, limited but practical knowledge of the rules, and plays their games at the low end of the rulebooks suggested average game size (IE, 1750 or 35). If we're talking about overall average of sales, there is a significant portion of the buying population that buys once or for a short period and then disinvests entirely from the hobby for many different reasons. Price and value/versatility of individual purchases is one of the largest differentiating factors between the buy once customer and the "new" gamer. PP walks all over GW for this particular metric, but doesn't even come close in some other important ones (like visibility or ubiquity).

nkelsch wrote:
I don't buy this notion there is a default correct way to value models based upon how 'someone else' intends to use them... but I do see there is a correct way to compare cost of model to cost of equivilant model or group of models and establish value as such.

Equivalent in this case can only possibly be "rough volume of plastic used" because by every other measure, GW is way more expensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/14.page

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/74.page

Please point out the significant numbers of sub 1500 40K and over 50 Warmahordes list nkelsch. Or is Dakka not representative of the average Wargamer?

Realistically the average wargamer doesn't post on a related forum.

Then there's no way to have this argument. I can claim that large swaths of wargamers use their models as doorstops and there's no "proof" you can ever possibly use to sway me otherwise because even a dakka poll where 0 percent of the respondents claim they do can ever be "representative"

Then there's no way to have this argument. I can claim that large swaths of wargamers use their models as doorstops and there's no "proof" you can ever possibly use to sway me otherwise because even a dakka poll where 0 percent of the respondents claim they do can ever be "representative"

Talk to store owners, read alliance or other distributor newsletters, work in marketing/design like I do, read PP and GW annual and semi annual reports, etc. There are a lot of ways to get a realistic and useful picture of the model gaming community userbase. Do one of them. Your friends aren't a representative majority.

You're arguing from a plainly uninformed perspective.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Then there's no way to have this argument. I can claim that large swaths of wargamers use their models as doorstops and there's no "proof" you can ever possibly use to sway me otherwise because even a dakka poll where 0 percent of the respondents claim they do can ever be "representative"

Talk to store owners, read alliance or other distributor newsletters, work in marketing like I do, read PP and GW annual and semi annual reports, etc. There are a lot of ways to get a realistic and picture of the model gaming community userbase. Do one of them. Your friends aren't a representative majority.

You're arguing from a plainly uninformed perspective.

Oh sorry. Is there a lot of polling at game stores and distributors about what size games people play? Can I see these newsletters, I'd be fascinated to see the references to average game sizes in them.

Also I'd LOVE an explanation how the sellers of a product are more in tune with the uses of a product than the actual users.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Then there's no way to have this argument. I can claim that large swaths of wargamers use their models as doorstops and there's no "proof" you can ever possibly use to sway me otherwise because even a dakka poll where 0 percent of the respondents claim they do can ever be "representative"

Talk to store owners, read alliance or other distributor newsletters, work in marketing like I do, read PP and GW annual and semi annual reports, etc. There are a lot of ways to get a realistic and picture of the model gaming community userbase. Do one of them. Your friends aren't a representative majority.

You're arguing from a plainly uninformed perspective.

Oh sorry. Is there a lot of polling at game stores and distributors about what size games people play? Can I see these newsletters, I'd be fascinated to see the references to average game sizes in them.

There is buyer information for amount of purchase, age of purchaser, length of their purchasing habits, gender and item preference etc from distributors, and store owners. There is information from tournament organizers, press gangers, store owners, and GW and PP themselves (much more PP than GW, GW is gak with metrics) for the sizes of games people play. You think these things are unknowable because you're being lazy and think that because there isn't a singular institution taking metrics for broad topics that that information is invalid when presented or shown by the community or elsewhere. That's bunk.

Also I'd LOVE an explanation how the sellers of a product are more in tune with the uses of a product than the actual users.

The sellers of a product are in direct contact with thousands to millions of the users of those products. The users themselves are usually only know themselves or their direct friends who use those products. The users themselves also tend to have a biased perspective of their purchasing trends (as evidenced here).

nkelsch wrote:
And that only applies if people's personal experience matches your narrative of the default PP and GW ideal situations which for many people is not reality or applicable to their situation which means the 'PP is cheaper' is totally subjective based upon experience where 'Mantic is cheaper' is based upon quantifiable comparisons of being able to get 30 'orcs' for the cost of 8 GW orks and having physically more models at your disposal.

I don't know why you're defending this point so rigorously. PP games require roughly 30 models at a similar per-model cost as GW. GW games require 75 models.

On that basis alone, GW games are more expensive.

"But I play 1/2 size Warhammer games"; okay, you cut your costs in half by playing 1/2 size Warhammer games. Play a 1/2 size PP game, nothing changes from a cost standpoint.

[quote=ShumaGorath 479793 4857136 0b7fe329e12d29a839b8bb7f3618c383.pngThere is buyer information for amount of purchase, age of purchaser, length of their purchasing habits, gender and item preference etc from distributors, and store owners. There is information from tournament organizers, press gangers, store owners, and GW and PP themselves (much more PP than GW, GW is gak with metrics) for the sizes of games people play. You think these things are unknowable because you're being lazy and think that because there isn't a singular institution taking metrics for broad topics that that information is invalid when presented or shown by the community or elsewhere. That's bunk.

Brother Gyoken wrote:
[quote=ShumaGorath 479793 4857136 0b7fe329e12d29a839b8bb7f3618c383.pngThere is buyer information for amount of purchase, age of purchaser, length of their purchasing habits, gender and item preference etc from distributors, and store owners. There is information from tournament organizers, press gangers, store owners, and GW and PP themselves (much more PP than GW, GW is gak with metrics) for the sizes of games people play. You think these things are unknowable because you're being lazy and think that because there isn't a singular institution taking metrics for broad topics that that information is invalid when presented or shown by the community or elsewhere. That's bunk.

Then please, by all means present these findings that you have access to. I am willing to be blown away by your marketing newsletter claiming that 134 point 40K games are the most common value. I wait with baited breath. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and say Dakka is the best representation we have currently!

Me - "You're being lazy and discounting what people say because there isn't a newsletter that just says it all for you in one easy to read big print format"
You - "Show the newsletter!"


What the feth are you even arguing? That your militant laziness is ok because there isn't an email newsletter for aggregate industry statistics..?

You don't understand! If you play quarter sized 40K games and full sized Warmahordes games, your armies will cost roughly the same! This comparison makes perfect sense because 1 model in each system is roughly the same cost and I don't ever want to concede a point no matter how stretched out it gets!

I think you and nkelsch are the same person devils advocating himself.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
[quote=ShumaGorath 479793 4857136 0b7fe329e12d29a839b8bb7f3618c383.pngThere is buyer information for amount of purchase, age of purchaser, length of their purchasing habits, gender and item preference etc from distributors, and store owners. There is information from tournament organizers, press gangers, store owners, and GW and PP themselves (much more PP than GW, GW is gak with metrics) for the sizes of games people play. You think these things are unknowable because you're being lazy and think that because there isn't a singular institution taking metrics for broad topics that that information is invalid when presented or shown by the community or elsewhere. That's bunk.

Then please, by all means present these findings that you have access to. I am willing to be blown away by your marketing newsletter claiming that 134 point 40K games are the most common value. I wait with baited breath. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and say Dakka is the best representation we have currently!

Me - "You're being lazy and discounting what people say because there isn't a newsletter that just says it all for you in one easy to read big print format"
You - "Show the newsletter!"


What the feth are you even arguing? That your militant laziness is ok because there isn't an email newsletter for aggregate industry statistics..?

You are arguing that dakka isn't a representation but that accurate statistics regarding game sizes (what we are talking about) exist thorough newsletters, distributors and clerks. I'm asking for even a shred of this proof.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
There is buyer information for amount of purchase, age of purchaser, length of their purchasing habits, gender and item preference etc from distributors, and store owners. There is information from tournament organizers, press gangers, store owners, and GW and PP themselves (much more PP than GW, GW is gak with metrics) for the sizes of games people play. You think these things are unknowable because you're being lazy and think that because there isn't a singular institution taking metrics for broad topics that that information is invalid when presented or shown by the community or elsewhere. That's bunk.

First, I'm not entirely sure you two are actually disagreeing about the actual facts.

Second, is there a publicly available resource that can be used to demonstrate this information? You, Sourclams and nkelsch seem to be in a protracted argument about the scale of what people play.

Personally, my presumption is that GW games are designed to be played with a far larger number of models (say, 1500-2500 points scale for 40k/WHFB), while PP games are designed more towards the low end (25-50 points for WM/Hordes), but I don't have an actual resource I can point to and say "See paragraph 6, sub-paragraph A".

It seems that a reliable, impartial resource would be of great value for reference, if only to end the circularity of this line of argument.

First, I'm not entirely sure you two are actually disagreeing about the actual facts.

As far as I can tell we're not, but he's being argumentative for it's own sake.

Second, is there a publicly available resource that can be used to demonstrate this information? You, Sourclams and nkelsch seem to be in a protracted argument about the scale of what people play.

Yeah, talk to a press ganger, ask if they'll let you look at the kit information they get. For the GW side you have to look at a more distributed info base like forums, store owners, and major tournaments. If you have access to it (you probably won't) you can also just look at peoples individual purchasing trends through the end marketers system.

Personally, my presumption is that GW games are designed to be played with a far larger number of models (say, 1500-2500 points scale for 40k/WHFB), while PP games are designed more towards the low end (25-50 points for WM/Hordes), but I don't have an actual resource I can point to and say "See paragraph 6, sub-paragraph A".

Both games have their numbers that they're best played at, for warmachine its 35-50. Below that the meta is too extreme and build diversity suffers and above that the focus/fury mechanics break down and the games take way too long. 40k is more flexible at it's top end, but 40k itself at sub 1000 is barely playable as a game at all. Most players tend to fall into the range that is most fun to play and generally those point values are the designed test/design level of the games themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Gyoken wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:
[quote=ShumaGorath 479793 4857136 0b7fe329e12d29a839b8bb7f3618c383.pngThere is buyer information for amount of purchase, age of purchaser, length of their purchasing habits, gender and item preference etc from distributors, and store owners. There is information from tournament organizers, press gangers, store owners, and GW and PP themselves (much more PP than GW, GW is gak with metrics) for the sizes of games people play. You think these things are unknowable because you're being lazy and think that because there isn't a singular institution taking metrics for broad topics that that information is invalid when presented or shown by the community or elsewhere. That's bunk.

Then please, by all means present these findings that you have access to. I am willing to be blown away by your marketing newsletter claiming that 134 point 40K games are the most common value. I wait with baited breath. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and say Dakka is the best representation we have currently!

Me - "You're being lazy and discounting what people say because there isn't a newsletter that just says it all for you in one easy to read big print format"
You - "Show the newsletter!"


What the feth are you even arguing? That your militant laziness is ok because there isn't an email newsletter for aggregate industry statistics..?

You are arguing that dakka isn't a representation but that accurate statistics regarding game sizes (what we are talking about) exist thorough newsletters, distributors and clerks. I'm asking for even a shred of this proof.

Actually I said annual reports for sales trends, and I was talking about model value to people and purchasing trends. You said newsletter. Twenty times. Stop it.

Holy crap we are talking about average game sizes. Why would you claim Dakka isn't a representation of that and further go on to claim that I am "militantly lazy" by not going on a campaign to poll hundreds of store owners, reading newsletters (am I allowed to say that? You said it first) and distributors to clarify a point that everyone in this damn thread knows I am right about, YOURSELF INCLUDED. Yes, if stating a basic truth about the games without spending hundreds/thousands of hours doing market research and polls makes me "militantly lazy" then call me Colonel Homer Simpson.

@Buzzsaw - You are correct. 40k/Fantasy are games designed for battles with large armies while Warmahordes is a skirmish game. The price per model is comparable between the two games however Warmahordes fans are correct to note that it costs less overall to buy a competative army from PP than it would to get a competative army from GW.

PP is running into an issue that GW has had to deal with for the past two decades. In order to continue as a company, they need to sell more figures. With the player base expanding slowly (for both) they need a way to get veteran players to buy more stuff. PP is now following the GW strategy of super large units and I suppose this will help a little, but it is not a permanent solution. Sooner or later PP will have to find a way to expand the player base dramatically or expand existing armies (50-75 points or greater) or risk premature market saturation. It's just the nature of the market they do business in.