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.

 Fafnir wrote:
I meant something along the lines of this:


Those proportions are right in line with GW's figures. Although they have the good taste of being less gaudy.

That awkward moment when you realize you're looking at a pic of kid's toys and thinking:

"I could make a decent Bret themed Ogre army out of these..."

Sorry, back on topic now!

Friend of mine brought some awesome things from the early learning centre inlcuding a pre painted hydra type thing that is in all ways better than the GW version but half the price...........

I've been in the 40K hobby for nearly 24 years now and this was the first time ever I had to really take stock in what I really was willing to pay to buy a new army. I'd wanted to build a new chaos army around Christmas time and had to get the following models:

60 IG
2 x Vendettas
3 x Helldrakes
1 x Manticore

After pricing it out, I was a bit dismayed. I then scoured the internet and many companies were holding 'black friday' type sales. Except ordering bits online, I've always held a strict personal policy of paying where you play. However, the local shop couldn't come close to matching the discount (IE: no discount) and I ended up ordering the whole lot online at 25% off during this time. I felt a little torn, but current GW pricing has gotten to the point where I really need to be judicious with what I spend.

For myself, GW pricing trends are disturbing. Here it is January and I'm pretty much already done buying GW product for the year (I prefer Vallejo paints and other company brushes, primers, glues etc...). The days of impulse purchases are long gone, replaced by meticulous list building and proxying to make sure each and every purchase will be exactly what I will use. Not sure how this is a good thing for GW or the hobby in general.

Interestingly, though. I played a 1500 point game against a buddy whom we traded out the Dark Vengeance models. He added two Razorbacks to his DA army and was pretty much good to go and we actually had quite an enjoyable game. That was quite a good value for reasonable starting army. If GW would come up with decent army builds (doesn't have to be uber power, but at least reasonable) and package them up and sell it at a discounted price, it would at least be a step in the right direction. Package deals from GW is nothing really new, but their packages typically include units that nobody wants or uses, so there is no real savings as that particular unit(s) sits in a closet if someone actually buys the boxset.

Have to agree with most posters on this site: I can afford to buy these models many times over, but I'm not going to let myself ripped off.

Golden words of advice: Flames of war, late war, max out on Panthers = very cheap army!

 RatBot wrote:

 Bloodfrenzy187 wrote:
And wasn't there supposed to be a price drop when they went to Finecast from metal?

No. Most people assumed there would be one since resin costs less than pewter and theoretically GW's production costs would decrease rather substantially (which I believe is the reason GW gave for the switch), but that kind of goes against everything GW has ever done in the past. Or at least the past decade and a half, can't really say how it was before that.

Yeah GW screwed up massively when they openly said the material is 1/10th the cost of pewter for them, then we saw the 15+% increase and were told its to "pay for the new machines".

EDIT: Has anyone been looking at these bundle packages on GWs site? They offer zero discount, I know its nothing new and they've been doing it since the "spear of sicarius" but why the hell even bother?

EDIT 2: Jesus tap dancing christ the slaughterbrute is $100....

 Fafnir wrote:
I meant something along the lines of this:


Those proportions are right in line with GW's figures. Although they have the good taste of being less gaudy.

Holy gak I remember these as a kid. I had this same set. You've really triggered a pleasant childhood memory on my part.

Riquende wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Put them next to Cadians and they just look poor. I don't know if it's because I'm just so used to Cadians but I just can't take these guys seriously.

I reckon you've nailed it there, to me that Cadian looks like a joke with crazy oversized hulk hands and a big wobbly head. Much prefer the Corporation. Of course that doesn't mean that the Corporation troopers are the best sci-fi infantry ever made, but if I was looking to start a force of one or the other and all I had to go on was a direct comparison of those minis I'd throw the Cadian away in a a heartbeat.

Quoted for truth. The reason I played Orks was because of their aesthetic I could proxy just about everything. Non-xenos models just look bloody ridiculous. Then again, GW is not my waifu so ymmv.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
Speaking of prices... how much was the Dreadfleet box?

I heard that there was a mass recall, but boxes are gathering dust at my FLGS for 124$ each.

For an unsupported game, it sounds very expensive, but maybe it was THAT good?

Dreadfleet seems to be going for $75 (US) locally and online. You can probably even find it on Amazon for less than $124.

As for the value, it really depends on how you feel about wacky ships. I love the models, love the background, and enjoyed what little of the definitely-wacky mechanics I got to enjoy before shelving it until next decade. If my son ever gets into pirates, the game will be worth it. If not... well, the models'll be fun to paint.

 Sidstyler wrote:
But now it's swung the other way, and the Guard player is left wondering why his army should have to cost almost twice as much as the Space Marine army his buddy started.

Ultimately people should price out how much they think they are going to spend on their army and decide - am I getting good value for my money?

I play 40k or Fantasy weekly, depending on which big tournament is coming up next. I go to about 3 major events a year, and I have a decent circle of friends (say 7-10) who play at the same level I do. I enjoy the fluff quite a bit, I'm reading Fear to Tread right now and I'm very happy with the story. So I enjoy building, painting, and gaming, and I do it quite regularly.

If I was convinced to do say a current Warriors of Chaos army (with the current book) and I was also convinced that painting 100 Marauders (two horde blocks of 50) was the way to go, I would do it, because I would get a lot of value out of it. Having those two blocks would look bad ass, and they would crush a lot of face in game as well. I may not do 100 straight Marauders, I'd probably have a unit filler here and there. If I bought them retail, that's about $250 right there for about 600pts of a 2200pts army. Extrapolating that means I'm probably going to be spending $750-$1000 on my army.

Some players would balk at such a price. I just weigh the value - is there something else I'd rather do with the same money? How much will I enjoy that army?

In contrast, if someone told me that I could buy an army for really cheap, like say a Draigo/Paladin army for 40k, I wouldn't be interested, since I don't think Paladinwing is actually that good. I don't care if it's cheap. Similarly, other table top games don't really interest me since nobody locally plays regularly, and the biggest events miniature wise are all GW games.

Another way to look at the Guard vs Marine situation is that yes, the Guard player has to spend more to play, but he will also literally own more models than the marine. It's like if two friends had different jobs but one job required business casual clothes. One guy has to spend more on his wardrobe, but he also owns a larger wardrobe at the end of it.

Zoned wrote:


Ultimately people should price out how much they think they are going to spend on their army and decide - am I getting good value for my money?

Short answer: You are never getting good value for your money.
Slightly Less-Short answer: You are never getting good value for your money, especially if you live in Australia, New Zealand and basically everywhere that isn't the US or UK.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Zoned wrote:


Ultimately people should price out how much they think they are going to spend on their army and decide - am I getting good value for my money?

Short answer: You are never getting good value for your money.
Slightly Less-Short answer: You are never getting good value for your money, especially if you live in Australia, New Zealand and basically everywhere that isn't the US or UK.

This. A thousand times this. Unless you really love the game and actively play a lot, you're going to be dropping hundreds (at least), but more like thousands on an army that will spend 99.9% of its life in a box.

That said, it still doesn't seem as expensive as some hobbies can be. Hunting (in Texas) at least will set you back at least $50 on specific permits, I don't know if the camping permit is required for everyone but that is another $140, low end rifle or shotgun will be at least $200, good ones are $800+, if you go camping you're going to spend a decent amount on a tent and supplies, and probably another $100 on gas.

Video gaming will set you back $500+ for a decent computer (more like $1000 imo), in addition to internet fees, and in addition to $50+ games. I don't know what consoles run, but a decent TV isn't cheap either.

Hobbies are expensive. However, GW is getting to the point that they are pricing out not necessarily old customers (I'll probably drop a couple grand next year or so on a 3k WHFB army + a paintjob, but I've been playing on an off for years), but they are definetely pricing out new customers. It's both a boon and a bane. A more expensive start up cost will hopefully cut back on annoying teenagers spending their parent's money, but it will also keep decent people with low incomes out of the hobby.

 Amaya wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

Zoned wrote:


Ultimately people should price out how much they think they are going to spend on their army and decide - am I getting good value for my money?

Short answer: You are never getting good value for your money.
Slightly Less-Short answer: You are never getting good value for your money, especially if you live in Australia, New Zealand and basically everywhere that isn't the US or UK.

This. A thousand times this. Unless you really love the game and actively play a lot, you're going to be dropping hundreds (at least), but more like thousands on an army that will spend 99.9% of its life in a box.

That said, it still doesn't seem as expensive as some hobbies can be. Hunting (in Texas) at least will set you back at least $50 on specific permits, I don't know if the camping permit is required for everyone but that is another $140, low end rifle or shotgun will be at least $200, good ones are $800+, if you go camping you're going to spend a decent amount on a tent and supplies, and probably another $100 on gas.

Video gaming will set you back $500+ for a decent computer (more like $1000 imo), in addition to internet fees, and in addition to $50+ games. I don't know what consoles run, but a decent TV isn't cheap either.

Hobbies are expensive.

Your first three sentences are contradictory to the next several. Many hobbies are expensive, and 40k is one of them, but is still cheaper than a lot of other things which adults enjoy, like hunting, skiing, going to concerts, going out to strip clubs or going drinking in nightclubs, etc.

I think Zoned was right on the money. Each person needs to decide what's worth the cost for them. For me, like Zoned, I get a lot of value out of my minis, because I play very regularly, and attend large events throughout the year which I enjoy a great deal.

That being said, the prices do seem to be getting a bit rich, so I've definitely cut back my buying a bit. Only one Heldrake so far, for example.

When I'm in the area. I look into Black Diamond Games up in Walnut Creek. He's one of the few that blogs about his store and the state of the gaming industry around his sphere of influence. Pretty cool but no nonsense type of guy. The employees are excellent and make you feel comfortable while looking around.

Here is his recent blog on the 1-25-2013 and it is how his sales were in 2012. It fits the data that I've been collecting on what is hot and what is not during 2012.

http://blackdiamondgames.blogspot.com/

Does anyone know how much the making of specific kits cost? Im assuming they could probably sell it for a lot less and still make a good profit.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Your first three sentences are contradictory to the next several. Many hobbies are expensive, and 40k is one of them, but is still cheaper than a lot of other things which adults enjoy, like hunting, skiing, going to concerts, going out to strip clubs or going drinking in nightclubs, etc.

Yeah :( I'm planning to go to Manowar concert, but the ticket costs nearly as much as Dark Eldar Battleforce. I don't even dare to think how much they're going to charge from t-shirts.

Zoned wrote:
Video gaming will set you back $500+ for a decent computer (more like $1000 imo), in addition to internet fees, and in addition to $50+ games. I don't know what consoles run, but a decent TV isn't cheap either...

Even that's a bad rationalization.
In the US you can buy a current gen console for around $60 used and rent games at the redbox for $2. Just about everyone already has a pc / laptop and tv in their home, so you're comparing irrelevant sunk costs. I can boot up DoW2 for a lot less than buying a single frickin codex and get a lot more out out it.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Does anyone know how much the making of specific kits cost? Im assuming they could probably sell it for a lot less and still make a good profit.

Their production costs are listed in each Financial report - and yes, just looking at how much they spend on design, tooling and manufacture - they could be sold for much, much less.

Product and Supply. This includes the design and manufacture of the products and incorporates production facilities in the UK, North America and until November 2010 in China.

Logistics and stock management. This represents the warehousing and distribution activities needed to supply product to the sales businesses and includes facilities in the UK, North America, Australia and until November 2010 in China.

Those are the two figures which actually deal with making products and getting them to market. The 2012 report shows that Product and supply had a total expense of £38,096,000 (that should include all aspects of the design and manufacturing process to include salaries, materials, tooling costs and the like). Logistics and stock showed £9,835,000 - so £47,931,000 to actually do productive work.

Their total expenses for last year were £111,900,000 - over £64 million being spent on crap that doesn't make miniatures. A large portion is spent on management (about £30 million). You also have somewhere around £30 million spent to maintain their stores.

If they would dump their own stores, they would be able to make some really good savings (much more so than they could be doing the One man store thing). You could probably cut management in half and not even notice the difference.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Does anyone know how much the making of specific kits cost? Im assuming they could probably sell it for a lot less and still make a good profit.

Their production costs are listed in each Financial report - and yes, just looking at how much they spend on design, tooling and manufacture - they could be sold for much, much less.

Product and Supply. This includes the design and manufacture of the products and incorporates production facilities in the UK, North America and until November 2010 in China.

Logistics and stock management. This represents the warehousing and distribution activities needed to supply product to the sales businesses and includes facilities in the UK, North America, Australia and until November 2010 in China.

Those are the two figures which actually deal with making products and getting them to market. The 2012 report shows that Product and supply had a total expense of £38,096,000 (that should include all aspects of the design and manufacturing process to include salaries, materials, tooling costs and the like). Logistics and stock showed £9,835,000 - so £47,931,000 to actually do productive work.

Their total expenses for last year were £111,900,000 - over £64 million being spent on crap that doesn't make miniatures. A large portion is spent on management (about £30 million). You also have somewhere around £30 million spent to maintain their stores.

If they would dump their own stores, they would be able to make some really good savings (much more so than they could be doing the One man store thing). You could probably cut management in half and not even notice the difference.

While I agree the company could be run better by aiming for long term growth, rather than short term profit at any cost to boost share prices for when the senior management retires.
People in the US have to realise that while ditching the retail chain seems to be a good idea it would most likely kill the company within a couple of years, this is due to the fact that thanks to GW's dubious practice of killing off independent stores in the past there are currently very few flgs in the UK.
Due to this sales would fall off a cliff in most areas that did not have a nearby independent store which in the UK is most places, also the intake of new children that is needed to make GW's current business plan of churn and burn work would not be there.

I really enjoy the social aspect of the game and the hobby that fills my spare time (when I have it lol), but I don't enjoy the hobby turning into something that is as expensive as golf (for example). I joined the hobby with a discounted second hand army... Probably should have did a little more research as to what I was getting myself into. But as a whole with most things, you pay for an experience. The fluff, the battles, the characters are all like paying to attend an expensive movie, play or a vacation (from this reality). Either way, people still play golf, go to bars and spend money for experiences. It is becoming more unfortanate though that a ticket to the year 40K is becoming more expensive...

SeanDrake wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Does anyone know how much the making of specific kits cost? Im assuming they could probably sell it for a lot less and still make a good profit.

Their production costs are listed in each Financial report - and yes, just looking at how much they spend on design, tooling and manufacture - they could be sold for much, much less.

Product and Supply. This includes the design and manufacture of the products and incorporates production facilities in the UK, North America and until November 2010 in China.

Logistics and stock management. This represents the warehousing and distribution activities needed to supply product to the sales businesses and includes facilities in the UK, North America, Australia and until November 2010 in China.

Those are the two figures which actually deal with making products and getting them to market. The 2012 report shows that Product and supply had a total expense of £38,096,000 (that should include all aspects of the design and manufacturing process to include salaries, materials, tooling costs and the like). Logistics and stock showed £9,835,000 - so £47,931,000 to actually do productive work.

Their total expenses for last year were £111,900,000 - over £64 million being spent on crap that doesn't make miniatures. A large portion is spent on management (about £30 million). You also have somewhere around £30 million spent to maintain their stores.

If they would dump their own stores, they would be able to make some really good savings (much more so than they could be doing the One man store thing). You could probably cut management in half and not even notice the difference.

While I agree the company could be run better by aiming for long term growth, rather than short term profit at any cost to boost share prices for when the senior management retires.
People in the US have to realise that while ditching the retail chain seems to be a good idea it would most likely kill the company within a couple of years, this is due to the fact that thanks to GW's dubious practice of killing off independent stores in the past there are currently very few flgs in the UK.
Due to this sales would fall off a cliff in most areas that did not have a nearby independent store which in the UK is most places, also the intake of new children that is needed to make GW's current business plan of churn and burn work would not be there.

I generally agree that you wouldn't want to cut all the stores at once - and how you do it will depend a lot on the conditions on the ground...but outside of Europe (especially the UK, as I seem to recall independent stores to be more prevalent on the continent as well) - they could lock the doors tomorrow and I don't think their sales would take a significant hit in terms of volume. Instead, they are actually looking to open more of those stores (the recent statement by wells stated 700-800 stores in North America as their goal).

For you guys over there - you would need to be weened off the GW store, or look at a program to either sell them off as independently owned franchise stores (removes the majority of costs off GW) or even just independent stores. It isn't all that uncommon of a task to do, and they should be able to find one or two people with a pulse in that £30 million management budget who is capable of figuring out the specific details.

I'm with Sean on this one. In the US, for the most part, people do not depend upon GW stores; there are in fact very VERY large swathes of the country that have never seen a GW store. I live in Oklahoma and we recently were graced with a GW store and I have no desire to visit it, not when my FLGS gives me a 10% discount just for walking in the door. I don't know how the 1 table at the GW here is going to compete with an established member of the community that stocks more than just GW products AND offers discounts as well as a good number of gaming tables, events, etc.

Edit (more thoughts).
I own GW stock and have actually written GW regarding my concerns (at least for here in the US) as I don't believe brick and mortar GW stores here are a winning strategy, there's just too much ground to cover in order to make themselves ubiquitous enough to go Wal Mart and start edging out local competition. I received a polite, nicely worded email that basically translated into "Thank you for your concern but since you don't own enough stock to make us do what you want, kindly take a long walk off of a short pier." :-)

 agnosto wrote:
I'm with Sean on this one. In the US, for the most part, people do not depend upon GW stores; there are in fact very VERY large swathes of the country that have never seen a GW store. I live in Oklahoma and we recently were graced with a GW store and I have no desire to visit it, not when my FLGS gives me a 10% discount just for walking in the door. I don't know how the 1 table at the GW here is going to compete with an established member of the community that stocks more than just GW products AND offers discounts as well as a good number of gaming tables, events, etc.

Basically this. Warhammer and Warhammer 40K were (and still are, I imagine, though I haven't been there in about two and a half years) thriving in my home town, with,for a while, the closest GW being just over 75 miles away, and I don't think the GW's been there for a few years now. The closest two, geographically, aren't even in the country (they're in Toronto, Canada). The closest one in the US is in New York City, I think, some 200 or 300 miles away. There are at least 3 FLGS within about five miles of each other, however, each one doing quite well. In the LA area there are something like 8 GW stores, but 25 independent FLGS within 50 miles of the middle of the city.

Most population centers, even small-medium ones, have a couple of viable independent stores, which are usually a better choice than a GW store. Sure, there are crappy FLGS, though I haven't seen one yet (though I've only been to five). There's really no point to opening GW stores in the US, it's a waste of time and money. They might as well shut them all down and save themselves some cash (and pass the savings on to the customers, but that's wishful thinking.)

The other big thing is that we have cars and are not afraid to use them...

It is quite common for a person to live over 30 miles from where they work in the US, and more than that isn't unheard of either (I did a stint on a contract job in the Bay area of San Francisco a few years ago and about half the people who worked their lived almost in Sacramento...).

Australia and Canada are comparable to us going off the people who I know there... The UK though, most people lived and worked in pretty close proximity and the idea of driving 45 minutes to an hour was a laborious road trip to them. I would guess that Europe is closer to the UK than here in the colonies considering their general spatial similarities.

I may jut be totally pulling this out of my ass, and this is an early childhood memory so give me some slack on it; i dont remember much of that time beyond pokeman and Nintendo 64. In regard to stores, didn't they used to carry lots of other stuff? Again, fuzzy as all hell childhood memory, but at one point my dad took me and my older sister to the mall in Grand Prairie, and the store we went to looked like a Games Workshop store. By that i mean the sign lettering looked like Game Workshops. We went there once, and when i did it was for something to do with pokemon, to the degree thats everything i remember of the store.My point being, if they did previously carry non GW products, they really lost a lot of point in having the stores when they quit. I do know why they quit doing so(if they ever did and my memory isn't a lying rat), the prices would seem insane next to any other product, when its just GW stuff, it seems pricey but you got nothin else in the store to go on.

I don't believe GW stores have ever carried non GW products. They did to stock specialist games like Warhammer Epic 40,000, Warmaster, Blood Bowl, Necromunda, etc once upon a time.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Their total expenses for last year were £111,900,000 - over £64 million being spent on crap that doesn't make miniatures. A large portion is spent on management (about £30 million). You also have somewhere around £30 million spent to maintain their stores.

If they would dump their own stores, they would be able to make some really good savings (much more so than they could be doing the One man store thing). You could probably cut management in half and not even notice the difference.

That all assumes they aren't making back and some with their stores. Stores are great advertising and definitely rack up sales on their own. I know I've bought kits and paints from GW stores just because I happened to be passing one or I went in to chat to someone or was feeling like painting something so just bought a kit and sat in the store painting it for a while, just for the sheer sake of convenience and the fact I was already there. I probably never would have started the hobby if it weren't for GW stores, as most the games I played in the first few years were either at a GW store or my mate's place because I didn't know any gaming clubs. I can only speak for Oz, but back when I started the hobby I would have called you insane if you said they should close their stores, they were a hive of activity and the counter was running pretty much constantly. These days the stores are a lot less lively, but I think GW sees value in them other wise they would close them and resort to online sales and FLGS. I think GW feel they are necessary to keep a large market share and draw in new customers.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
The other big thing is that we have cars and are not afraid to use them...

It is quite common for a person to live over 30 miles from where they work in the US, and more than that isn't unheard of either (I did a stint on a contract job in the Bay area of San Francisco a few years ago and about half the people who worked their lived almost in Sacramento...).

Australia and Canada are comparable to us going off the people who I know there... The UK though, most people lived and worked in pretty close proximity and the idea of driving 45 minutes to an hour was a laborious road trip to them. I would guess that Europe is closer to the UK than here in the colonies considering their general spatial similarities.

USA-ians drive the most. I used to drive 50-60 minutes to work and my sister is currently driving 80-90 minutes to work in Australia, but I think we were mostly the oddities.

If you look at road deaths per year on wikipedia, US is 115% higher per head of population than Australia and 34% worse than Canada, but per mile traveled it's only 46% and 4% respecitively. That suggests Americans drive 48% more than Australians and 29% more than Canadians per head of population. I definitely feel Melbourne is better laid out than most American cities I've been in. I've been living in the US for a little over a 6 months and am often struck by the amount of time I spend in the car to get to different things like specific shops and facilities when in Melbourne the same amount of time in my car and I would have passed 2 or 3 of those types of shops of facilities. I find the population is also more centralised in Oz and though you get people in the countryside areas, you transition from built up area to "country" pretty fast where as US (at least the north east where I am) it feels like suburbia peters out from the actual towns before you hit country, so more people are traveling further to get to the actual township areas.

GW used to stock a variety of products for which they held the UK distribution license. This is way, way back in the distant past, though. I don't trust my memory for specifics.

winterdyne wrote:
GW used to stock a variety of products for which they held the UK distribution license. This is way, way back in the distant past, though. I don't trust my memory for specifics.

I think they stocked D&D and other RPGs.

I really don't expect them do do it again though, and it's sensible - imagine Armani stocking Chanel, or a Lego store stocking Megabloks!

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

winterdyne wrote:
GW used to stock a variety of products for which they held the UK distribution license. This is way, way back in the distant past, though. I don't trust my memory for specifics.

I think they stocked D&D and other RPGs.

Oh yes - Runequest, Traveller (15mm), Call of Cthulhu, etc, etc......

 Amaya wrote:
A more expensive start up cost will hopefully cut back on annoying teenagers spending their parent's money, but it will also keep decent people with low incomes out of the hobby.

People forget we need children and teenagers to get into the games / hobbies to keep it alive, plus some adults can be much more annoying than children/teens. if we don't have new blood the decline in numbers playing our games will become even more noticable

GW has historically done an excellent job of getting people interested at a young age and fostering that interest - plus I get the impression it helps parents spend money on GW toys if they are occupying their children in store for periods of time for them. They may not being altruistic in providing this service but no one else really does it on any signifcant scale?

However, the recent price rises may just be too much for many?