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.

When you buy a warhammer 40k kit, very often there are options that are in the rules that can't be achieved without purchasing of additional bits, or kits.
It seems to me that the player who is willing to drop the $ on the extra bits or kits is often going to be a -sometimes severe- advantage over the player who is not.

Compare this to a game like Warmachine which is not really much less expensive (not the point of this thread) but doesn't have the kind of menu of options that a 40k model has. Everyone who buys that kit has the same options. The same seeming to be true for Infinity.

It seems that 40k is fairly unique this incentivising of the purchase of additional bits beyond the purchase of the unit itself. I realize that there are many generic games (many of which I play where the options are even wider) but -among games that sell their own miniatures- are there other games that do the same or is this mostly a 40k thing?

Somewhat of a tangent.
There have always been some GW copycats, but It is somewhat ironic that as GW produces both the models and rules, it is really their own actions which have created the recent (last 10 years) market for the 3rd party bits producers which in many cases have expanded into ranges of GW-compatible complete models.

It's only an issue if the people you play with are really anal about WYSIWYG.

Diablo 3

BLah i was going to say d3.

but basically any pay to win mmo.

Well, it isn't a miniatures game, but Magic: the Gathering will eat up your money if you're wanting to stay competitive. It's even worse if you decide you want to get into the Modern or Legacy formats, or if you're the "flavor of the month" type player.

Here's an example of a hypothetical deck that would cost over $7,000 to build with average condition cards:

http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=732125

Saldiven wrote:
Well, it isn't a miniatures game, but Magic: the Gathering will eat up your money if you're wanting to stay competitive. It's even worse if you decide you want to get into the Modern or Legacy formats, or if you're the "flavor of the month" type player.

Here's an example of a hypothetical deck that would cost over $7,000 to build with average condition cards:

http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=732125

Oh yeah MTG, it's like warhammer 40k, only more expensive and a lot more addictive . Been clean for years now, but have fond memories of playing with friends around 15 years back

With 40k I suppose the reasoning is that in order to sell more kits they encourage the kitbashing option, or only have certain options as expensive kits eg: land raider.

I disagree with the underlying premise, as so many of the "premium" options simply don't exist.

I can't say there is incentive to buy IG camo cloaks or carapace armor, because you can't* buy them.

Maybe if you actually gave some specific examples.



* Barring monopose figures or metal models with extraneous options.

As others have said, it doesn't make any difference as long as other players don't insist on the official option for everything.

Computer games are different, of course.

It is all about what is important to you. My group is pretty relaxed and loves to play the game. But at the same, time we look down on players who have craptasticaly painted models or models that are poorly converted or not the official model. But we are not the WAAC players that bring power lists with the most cheese you can stuff into a list like you see with players that are "rewarded" from buying more bits or expensive models. We buy what looks cool put it together, paint it to a high standard and base it before it ever sees the battlefield. There are those in our group that have bigger collections than others however, there is never a problem with players changing to the newest codex or spamming units that are expensive to buy. The "reward" in 40k is the hobby not winning because you can spend the most money. If I was beaten by a player that just bought a boatload of deamons slapped them together and didn't bother to paint them I would not be at all sad about the fact that the reason that kid won was because he had more money than i do.

 daedalus wrote:
I disagree with the underlying premise, as so many of the "premium" options simply don't exist.

I can't say there is incentive to buy IG camo cloaks or carapace armor, because you can't* buy them.

Maybe if you actually gave some specific examples.



* Barring monopose figures or metal models with extraneous options.

Jetlock seer council.

EDIT: And we actually do pay a premium on good units, wraithlords are 2 small plastic sprues and a base but its $55.50 (up $10.50 from last year btw), a guardian box comes with 4 spures and its $43.50, the pricing is clearly not based on weight, but amount that you can buy.

Eilif wrote:
When you buy a warhammer 40k kit, very often there are options that are in the rules that can't be achieved without purchasing of additional bits, or kits.

I don't think this necessarily comes up a lot unless you believe in internet spam lists. And even then, it doesn't seem too big of a problem with some armies -- like Chaos Daemons, to be topical.

And we actually do pay a premium on good units, wraithlords are 2 small plastic sprues and a base but its $55.50 (up $10.50 from last year btw), a guardian box comes with 4 spures and its $43.50, the pricing is clearly not based on weight, but amount that you can buy.

This is just a part of the game. If you want your models to look good you buy the extra bits to build a destroyer lord instead of slapping together crap. Armies are priced to put together as a collection over years. Not to buy all at once, slap together and spray paint.

 nectarprime wrote:
It's only an issue if the people you play with are really anal about WYSIWYG.

Or if you want your army to look right...

Saldiven wrote:
Well, it isn't a miniatures game, but Magic: the Gathering will eat up your money if you're wanting to stay competitive. It's even worse if you decide you want to get into the Modern or Legacy formats, or if you're the "flavor of the month" type player.

Here's an example of a hypothetical deck that would cost over $7,000 to build with average condition cards:

http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=732125

+ OVER9000

In 40k a land raider will always be a tough tank, marines will always be better than imperial guard in melee... there are some certainties.

Also plastic kits are priced around how many they can expect an individual to buy.

Even if there is more plastic in a troop kit, they are not expectingas much volume of sales for elites when the initial investment is similar in price for a mold they must then charge more. The materials are cheap as chips.

Saldiven wrote:Well, it isn't a miniatures game, but Magic: the Gathering will eat up your money if you're wanting to stay competitive. It's even worse if you decide you want to get into the Modern or Legacy formats, or if you're the "flavor of the month" type player.

Here's an example of a hypothetical deck that would cost over $7,000 to build with average condition cards:

http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=732125

That's a very good point. I wasn't even thinking about card games, but big Tournament Competitive CCG's is certainly a money sink.

daedalus wrote:I disagree with the underlying premise, as so many of the "premium" options simply don't exist.

I can't say there is incentive to buy IG camo cloaks or carapace armor, because you can't* buy them.

Maybe if you actually gave some specific examples.

My only experience is with IG and Marines, but a few glaring examples I see would be:

-Getting a Heavy weapon other than missile launcher for your Marine Tactical squad
-Wanting your devastator squad to all have the same weapon. A pretty standard game choice, but one that the kit doesn't allow for, though it must be said the current options are much greater than the previous versions.
-A weapon other than flamer or grenade launcher for your IG squads. The box doesn't come with ANY plasma or melta guns.
-Wanting plasma or melta for your Vets.

The above are very common and effective squad compositions that are not possible with the standard boxed set.

Leth wrote:Also plastic kits are priced around how many they can expect an individual to buy.

Just to be clear, I don't want to start a thread about pricing, rather I'm interested in the necessity of buying beyond the box for a given unit.

nectarprime wrote:It's only an issue if the people you play with are really anal about WYSIWYG.

To a certain extent that's true, but I think there's alot of IG who would like their own guardsmen with plasma guns.... to have plasma guns.
And that's even before taking your opponents annoyance into consideration.

Back in the metal days it may have been an issue, but I doubt it. These days all the plastic kits come with tons of options, and if you're part of a local group, it's pretty easy to talk trade for bits. Even with that being said, what kind of douche wouldn't let someone run a proxy model or two in a friendly game. This comment is entirely based on power players and internet speculation. There's a lot more to 40k than just blowing up plastic men on a table.

Munga wrote:
These days all the plastic kits come with tons of options,

Except for the ones that don't. Just off the time of my head, Space Marine Dreadnoughts and Razorbacks are two that are still missing a large whack of options in their kits.

And heaven forbid you want to run Genestealers with any of the head biomorphs...

Saldiven wrote:
Well, it isn't a miniatures game, but Magic: the Gathering will eat up your money if you're wanting to stay competitive. It's even worse if you decide you want to get into the Modern or Legacy formats, or if you're the "flavor of the month" type player.

Here's an example of a hypothetical deck that would cost over $7,000 to build with average condition cards:

http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=732125

You act like that's an average price for a competitive deck. You don't need moxes and black lotuses for a deck.

Hell, you CAN'T play that in your average competitive format.

 Ravenous D wrote:
Diablo 3

my mind went immediately to Farmville..

 Laughing Man wrote:
Hell, you CAN'T play that in your average competitive format.

And you wouldn't want to. In the one format where the deck is legal it would have zero chance of winning. It's a random pile of cards thrown together to demonstrate how expensive you can make a random pile of cards, not a real deck.


Anyway, MTG can be expensive. However:

1) Vintage, the format where everything is legal, including the single cards with prices of $500 each or more, often has tournaments that allow a limited number of proxies. So dedicated collectors will spend obscene amounts of money on building a deck, while people who are just there to compete will write "black lotus" on a $0.01 basic land.

2) Only vintage and maybe legacy come anywhere near that price total. Standard, the most common format, has total deck costs in the $1-500 range. Sure, it's an ongoing investment and the annual price can be more than 40k once you have a complete 40k army, but a competitive 40k player is also going to be buying new armies. And since "used" MTG cards sell for a much higher percentage of full "retail" price than 40k models it's a lot easier to sell your decks and invest in the next one than it is to sell a 40k army and buy the next tournament winner.

My name is Jim and I'm a cardboard heroin addict. I started with Star Trek: the CCG, and went into Magic, then Highlander, Star Wars, and Babylon 5. I even dabbled in Hero Clix for a while. At the height of my addiction, I sold blood, robbed little old ladies, and performed sex acts with livestock for a paying audience, all to buy more cards. Today I'm clean and sober, and it's been six years since I fell off the wagon and bought any CCG packs. (Although I still have all my Highlander cards, because damn that game was fun.)

I can honestly say that when it comes to competitive games, I think that 40k has very little ongoing costs, as opposed to say the CCG, or MMO, or really any other competitive style game. I think the huge advantage of 40k is that once you buy the models, you can use them forever. (The same is not true of cards in a CCG, except in certain limited formats.)

The kits do not, of course, come with every conceivable option. (Most units have too many options for that to be feasible! ) I don't think of that as incentivizing bits sales or purchases to third party manufacturers. Rather, I think of that as incentivizing being part of a larger community, in order to swap and acquire bits. I also think it encourages creativity, since the game openly allows you to build your own equipment. Personally, I love my thunder hammer/storm shield terminators, and I paid a grand total of, like, a buck for the pieces. (Maybe three bucks once I factor in the lollipop sticks.)

While it's undeniable that you see a return on your investment for adding extra after-market stuff to your army, I think that you can do just as well with homemade or traded-for bits, and I also think that the return is very low compared to the return you see for your money in many online games with in-game bennies for real-world cash, or in almost any kind of customizable card game.

In any event, this is just my own subjective opinion. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go click the deck on my PC solitaire game and listen to the card-shuffling sounds until my shakes go away...

 Jimsolo wrote:
I think the huge advantage of 40k is that once you buy the models, you can use them forever.

As long as you don't care about winning. GW's constant power creep and new releases ensure that you will always have to buy new stuff or lose constantly to the people who do.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I think the huge advantage of 40k is that once you buy the models, you can use them forever.

As long as you don't care about winning. GW's constant power creep and new releases ensure that you will always have to buy new stuff or lose constantly to the people who do.

I think it's silly to claim that people who don't buy the latest models don't care about winning.

They may not make it a higher priority than, say, their college tuition. But they still care.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I think it's silly to claim that people who don't buy the latest models don't care about winning.

They may not make it a higher priority than, say, their college tuition. But they still care.

Ok, yes, that's based on the assumption that you have disposable income and CAN spend money on hobbies.

Anyway, my point is that the supposed advantage of "buy once play forever" of 40k doesn't exist. A player who buys a single 40k army and stops buying will be in the exact same position as a MTG player who buys a single deck and stops buying. Both players can still play the game with equally budget-limited opponents, neither player can expect to continue winning against opponents who regularly buy new stuff.

rigeld2 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
Well, it isn't a miniatures game, but Magic: the Gathering will eat up your money if you're wanting to stay competitive. It's even worse if you decide you want to get into the Modern or Legacy formats, or if you're the "flavor of the month" type player.

Here's an example of a hypothetical deck that would cost over $7,000 to build with average condition cards:

http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=732125

You act like that's an average price for a competitive deck. You don't need moxes and black lotuses for a deck.

While that's not a typical example, I would like to point out that there are people paying 300+ dollars for a deck.

http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/deck.asp?deck_id=1075704

Is it competitive? not entirely sure since I'm not in the competitive magic scene, and was just looking for a way to play Boros in a little, "league" some of my friends are running at our uni. That deck's average price is just shy of $350. That's a lot for 75 pieces of paper and cardboard with some fancy ink on them.

Though as I dig into more of that site using just "Boros deck" shows some that average 170 dollars, and some that average 400 dollars. But if I can buy an army for the price of a single magic deck... something is wrong lol

Eilif wrote:
It seems to me that the player who is willing to drop the $ on the extra bits or kits is often going to be a -sometimes severe- advantage over the player who is not... It seems that 40k is fairly unique this incentivising of the purchase of additional bits beyond the purchase of the unit itself.

It's definitely a "sound" (whether or not it alienates some customers, others end up buying more kits - evil, perhaps, but it makes sense) marketing strategy, but I don't think it ends up having that much effect on actual gameplay. With the available options - (3rd party) bits sellers, trading, scratchbuilding, counts-as, etc. - most players, at least, can run the options they want without breaking the bank... much more than they already are. If there was a universally adopted and rigidly enforced WYSIWYG/GW only policy (meaning there's no other way to get a particular option, more akin to premium/cash shop items in MMOs), it would certainly be more of an issue, but, as it stands, it's just one more annoyance due to a company trying to squeeze a bit more out of its customers.

 Alfndrate wrote:
But if I can buy an army for the price of a single magic deck... something is wrong lol

What army are you buying for only $3-400? You might be able to get a 500-750 point army for that much, but good luck getting to the 1500+ level that people usually play at.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
But if I can buy an army for the price of a single magic deck... something is wrong lol

What army are you buying for only $3-400? You might be able to get a 500-750 point army for that much, but good luck getting to the 1500+ level that people usually play at.

Second hand market good sir... My ultramarines, chaos, and Imperial guard were all purchased either here on the Swap Shop or at my FLGS for no more than 350 dollars per army, for several thousand points of each army... Also my Dante Wing BA army was about 350 or so for 2250 points, and that was only 2 years ago.

Also I wasn't clear, 40k isn't my main game, so for me an army might be 35 points of a Warmachine faction, 35 SS of a Malifaux crew, or 200+ resources for Brushfire, I'm sorry for that.