Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I stopped buying GWS stuff quite a while ago at this point, as a rule; but it wasn't really about the price. There were a confluence of events that occurred in rapid succession that made me stop buying.

Finecast - for me, this was a big one that stands out in my memory. I don't feel like starting the inevitable "I got 2,000 finecast characters and each was flawless\ruined" crusade this discussion always leads to, but right around when the Necron release happened, I bought a ton of characters for that release and had major issues with very nearly every one of them. My wife got me 2 characters for my birthday, and both had to be replaced; and she was unhappy "she got me a broken present". What should have been awesome was the complete opposite. I had always considered GW to be expensive and well-produced but now it seemed more of the former and a lot less of the latter.

Increasingly unattractive sculpts - The Necron releases also were the last releases I really liked the look of. I was very excited about Chaos, but wound up buying not a single model from that release because I didn't like the aesthetics. Obviously YMMV.

Competition from less complex games - Ultimately I only actively played 40k from 2009 until early 2012. When the 6th edition rulebook came out, I did not order it and I followed the threads discussing it. It seems the ruleset has become even more convoluted, even less intuitive, and it took me so long to get the intricacies of 5th edition down I simply had no appetite for learning it all over again. I'd rather play Space Hulk or Last Night on Earth or Arkham Horror or something that doesn't literally require 40 minutes of setup, 3 hours of playtime, and another 30 minutes of putting it all away again.

The Unpainted Pile - I bought things a lot faster than I painted them. This wouldn't be a problem if I were willing to play with unpainted stuff, but I refuse to play with anything that I haven't painted to the highest standard I was capable of at the time of painting. Eventually when I eyed new shiny stuff, I'd think of the, like, 4 year backlog I have built upstairs.

Games Workshop seems to be kind of a jerky company - This is probably the most minor of my complaints, but as time went on I was increasingly uneasy with subsidizing Games Workshop PLC when they seemed to be taking more and more ridiculous moves, legal and otherwise. No point in rehashing that here but if I'm going to give money to a tabletop game company, I can find plenty that will play a lot nicer with the community at large.


So. None of my concerns were related to the actual cost of the games. Even now, I think some stuff is really dubiously priced, like Land Raiders, in comparison with kits from other companies of similar complexity, but ultimately I don't want to buy more Games Workshop stuff regardless of the price - if they halved prices I still probably wouldn't get into playing regularly, though I'll still play now and then and haven't, like decided never to buy their stuff again, just that anything they make has to be nice enough to jump over all those hurdles above. As long as they keep releasing laughable garbage like the Khornemower that doesn't seem imminent.

Well said, Ouze.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
IMO GW takes the same 5$ sweatshop T-shirt made in GWstan stick a GW label on it and says it is costs 50$.

If you wanted to have a dig at GW, their novelty clothes wasn't the way to go. GW do the same thing most other clothing companies do.

That's why i don't buy branded goods, either.
(but i meant it more in general fashion, GW kits aren't the pinnacle of model kit design, lot's of other company, have just as detailed kits for the same price or cheaper).

Real men pay any price for the minis they want.
#YOLO #LeaveGWAlone #ThisIsGreatNews

 cincydooley wrote:


Oh yay! Glad to have the cries of OP enter the fray.

Good to have you!

Not sure if sarcasm or not...it's a fact that GW does that. Do you disagree?

 Ouze wrote:

Competition from less complex games - Ultimately I only actively played 40k from 2009 until early 2012. When the 6th edition rulebook came out, I did not order it and I followed the threads discussing it. It seems the ruleset has become even more convoluted, even less intuitive, and it took me so long to get the intricacies of 5th edition down I simply had no appetite for learning it all over again. I'd rather play Space Hulk or Last Night on Earth or Arkham Horror or something that doesn't literally require 40 minutes of setup, 3 hours of playtime, and another 30 minutes of putting it all away again.

You must be playing a much better version of Arkham Horror than I am. Setup for that game is a bitch.

cincydooley wrote:

fishy bob wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
I love mini,s gaming but right now i feel like I cant really afford things.

If you love miniature gaming there are far cheaper, far better options for you.

And of course "better options" is completely subjective.

Uhh... Not if the person's concern is price. Then it's 100% objective. As objective as any greater-than/less-than comparison of two numbers in mathematics.

It's an objective fact that if someone is looking to spend less on a gaming experience that there are options that meet that goal in a way that is better than GW's products.

It doesn't matter if you don't value the same things as sennacherib or fishy bob. If getting into miniature gaming while spending less money is the goal, then there are real, objective means of getting there. Even if it means you end up introducing factors that you personally might see as deal breakers.

A cheap gaming package:

$5 pack of 54mm army men
$7 of craft paint from the dollar store or Michaels or walmart something. A grey, an olive green, a black, a flesh tone, a brown.
$4 craft store paint on varnish
$8 flat flannel sheet in the right colour for the ground as a drop cloth
$5 pack of cheap arts and crafts brushes
$1 dollar store dice
$1 dollar store tape measure or ruler
$1 dollar store dish soap
$1 dollar store craft sand
$1 dollar store poker chips
$1 dollar store super glue
$10 of various containers, felt sheets and other terrain materials
FREE - Chain Reaction 3.0 or FUBAR miniature gaming rules

Step 1: Take the plastic toy soldiers and wash them with a very, very heavy amount of the dish soap. Then rinse them off and dry them.
Step 2: Superglue them to poker chips
Step 3: Using craft paint as glue, affix the sand to the bases
Step 4: Paint on a primer coat of the craft acrylics.
Step 5: Paint half of the soldiers with one colour uniforms and the other half another.
Step 6: Paint all the other areas as normal
Step 7: Paint & drybrush bases and allow to dry
Step 8: Brush on craft store matte varnish
Step 10: Paint and drybrush the various containers and whatnot as terrain
Step 11: Download rules and get playing

Total cost: $45 with terrain, figures, paint and rules, dice, etc.,. If you're willing to spend another $25, you can get two separate boxes of 1/32 scale figures and have historical opposing forces rather than just dividing up some toy soldiers. You could also cut $10 of terrain materials out if you are willing to use scavenged goods like food containers and cereal box card.

Whether or not it accomplishes your goals for miniature wargaming is indeed subjective. Whether or not it accomplishes the goal of costing less than GW is objective. And if this is the worst option, then fishy bob was 100% right with his statement. In the objective sense. Goals and preferences are subjective, but when it comes down to comparing numbers, we've moved into the objective.

There simply is no reason why price should keep people out of the hobby of miniature wargaming, even if it does keep them out of "The Games Workshop Hobby (TM)."

 frozenwastes wrote:

cincydooley wrote:

fishy bob wrote:

 sennacherib wrote:
I love mini,s gaming but right now i feel like I cant really afford things.

If you love miniature gaming there are far cheaper, far better options for you.

And of course "better options" is completely subjective.

Uhh... Not if the person's concern is price. Then it's 100% objective. As objective as any greater-than/less-than comparison of two numbers in mathematics.

It's an objective fact that if someone is looking to spend less on a gaming experience that there are options that meet that goal in a way that is better than GW's products.

The construction of the sentence, "If you love miniature gaming there are far cheaper, far better options for you" leads the average reader to read cheaper and better to be two separate qualifiers. You have options and these options are far cheaper and far better. Cheaper is not a quality of better in this case, and better is not a quality of cheaper, both are equal and apt descriptors of options. So while I agree if price is your only concern, a cheaper game is a better game, but if you're looking for a game better than GW games that is also cheaper, then you have to find a game that costs less (objective) and is better suited for you and what you want out of mini games (subjective).

People also refuse to acknowledge the fact that what games you can actually get in locally has a ton of bearing on the "worth" of said game.

If I really loved Infinity, but had to drive over an hour to get to the store where I could actually play the game (so two hours driving total) would it still be "worth it" for me? Would that savings on the model cost and army size still be "worth the squeeze," as it were?

Of course there are CHEAPER options, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're better for you, unless your only standard of value is cost.

 Alfndrate wrote:

The construction of the sentence, "If you love miniature gaming there are far cheaper, far better options for you" leads the average reader to read cheaper and better to be two separate qualifiers. You have options and these options are far cheaper and far better.

Sure. I read "better for you" as the second factor though and if that's the only one Cincy is talking about then pointing out that "better for you" is subjective is pretty much a tautology and a statement of the obvious that has no rhetorical weight except to muddy the waters.

This just in... personal opinions are subjective. Therefore discussions about price are subjective.

Um.. no. You can actually compare numbers. I really hope this wasn't what Cincy was trying to imply.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

If I really loved Infinity, but had to drive over an hour to get to the store where I could actually play the game (so two hours driving total) would it still be "worth it" for me? Would that savings on the model cost and army size still be "worth the squeeze," as it were?

Of course there are CHEAPER options, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're better for you, unless your only standard of value is cost.

Absolutely. Thank you for clarifying exactly what you were objecting too. The obvious statement that "better for you" is subjective. But why did you feel the need to point out it was all subjective? Surely it's obvious that "better for you" is subjective? If you start introducing things like driving time to get a game and other entirely idiosyncratic factors, you've made having a meaningful discussion impossible.

Infinity is a worse game than Warhammer 40k because I have to drive two hours to play it.

VS.

Infinity is a better game than Warhammer 40k because I get to have an enjoyable two hour drive when I go play it.

See how it adds nothing and makes the point of comparison idiosyncratic?

People also refuse to acknowledge the fact that what games you can actually get in locally has a ton of bearing on the "worth" of said game.

40k and WFB are dead here. Like nearly completely replaced by Flames of War, Warmachine/Hordes, Dystopian Wars and board games and card games. And while there is a one-person GW store, you can't actually play there except in the 500 point bring and battle events.

People are not "refusing to acknowledge" these sorts of situations. They are simply recognizing that they are idiosyncratic and have no bearing on any sort of discussion that goes beyond the specific situation of an individual. And it's certainly not clear cut that it is always easier to get a game of 40k than something else.

-

I thought it was strange that I could not find a concrete means of identifying why GW product has "lost value" to me.
Reading carefully some of the longer term gamers of GW product I think I have it figured out.

Like with any product, a name brand has a worth or value they stamp on their product which starting value could be $5 and becomes $50 when branded.
A company with their brand brings more visibility (more people to potentially game with), supporting diversity of product (books, video games, apps), conventions / tournaments / trade shows, and supporting stores = a feeling of community.
I now see GW's brand value as less than Privateer Press or Wizards of the Coast or (shudder) Palladium.

As very well said by other posters: their legal IP attacks, shenanigans with FLGS, reducing or removing store and tournament participation all contribute to creating a less friendly, less marketable brand when compared with others. Rather than compare direct prices of models, compare relative worth between companies of what they offer to you that you appreciate.

There were too many things to count in the past that I REALLY appreciated about GW and so many of those things are gone now. Only the remaining large volume of their customers for me to play games with and a lingering feeling of loyalty (?!?!) seem to be all that remains (some models are really great but very hit or miss).

I had tied my gaming horse to the GW brand and the perceived "hate" is more like a friendly shake followed up with "you have done better than this, what is wrong?".
The "Brand" is no longer worth the price. Plain and simple. Their price changes are not in step with their brand value.

Thanks all for making that a little more clear to me.

I think the idosyncratic factors are important, though.

I think reasonable people can agree that the rules for Infinity and Warmachine are cleaner and better written than for 40k. And I love 40k.

I think that despite that, Infinity can be gakky because there's a lot to keep track of and Warmachine can be gakky because you really have to be cognizant of combos, etc, or you're going to lose.

Basically, I hate the statment "if you're a fan of wargames there are better options for you" than 40k. Because, as I said, it's completely subjective, and thats what I was driving it.

My biggest issue is that, on these forums, we get a lof of "my game is better than yours" when it's entirely unncessary. Want to say it's cheaper? Sure. Fire away. But to definitively say "better" bothers me.

It's probably a petty concern, but whatevs.

 cincydooley wrote:
I think reasonable people can agree that the rules for Infinity and Warmachine are cleaner and better written than for 40k. And I love 40k.

I'm currently arguing a few points of unclear game rules in the DCM infinity thread atm, so I find issue with the bolded statement, or I find issue with me being unreasonable

 cincydooley wrote:
I think the idosyncratic factors are important, though.

I think reasonable people can agree that the rules for Infinity and Warmachine are cleaner and better written than for 40k. And I love 40k.

I think that despite that, Infinity can be gakky because there's a lot to keep track of and Warmachine can be gakky because you really have to be cognizant of combos, etc, or you're going to lose.

Basically, I hate the statment "if you're a fan of wargames there are better options for you" than 40k. Because, as I said, it's completely subjective, and thats what I was driving it.

My biggest issue is that, on these forums, we get a lof of "my game is better than yours" when it's entirely unncessary. Want to say it's cheaper? Sure. Fire away. But to definitively say "better" bothers me.

It's probably a petty concern, but whatevs.

And 40k can be gakky because of all the special rules?

And why do you hate that statement? because it's true? It is not just subjective, if you like skirmish games more, necromunda, more rpg like? Inquisitor More Apocalypse like? Epic, more tactical? first edition warzone, more realistic? tons of historical wargames. so don't be but-hurt that your nr#1 game is not top of the heap anymore.

Clearer and better written does not mean without flaws, or need of improvement.

For me 40k rules are quite badly written so cleaner and better is nothing to brag about.

In any case, what is worth and what isn't worth for each one personally in a moot point one hour drive is long, wow, the nearest gamestore to me is 2 hours drive and most are further away, do I feel carrying the luggage necessary to play 40k worthwhile, no, not really, but this is a really "per person"thing.

Likewise the great GW stores and community some of you are lamenting on loosing is something I, coming from a country that never had or possibly will never have a GW store, see as a "tax" in GW prices the countries that do not have one pay to keep their stores open.

For me as a gamer living in a country outside of GWs interest, most of their brand boons were never valid, no stores, no tournament support, no gamesday or equivalent, what they did have more than a decade ago was some of the best miniatures around, now I feel they have become too much toy-like, they have thrown out the old "fluff" I liked they have brought in a new lesser fluff in my eyes again I feel it appeals to younger audience, they have discarded their metal range, they have obliterated their bits sales, they have cut the ropes with local store, move more of their line to direct only and all that for a higher price.

I have moved forward almost a decade ago, GW is not really for me anymore, there are better things out there more suited to my taste, but I cannot stop and look back to the company that was and the company that has become, count the things gained and the things lost and feel sad for the passing of the (really) old GW.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:

And why do you hate that statement? because it's true? It is not just subjective, if you like skirmish games more, necromunda, more rpg like? Inquisitor More Apocalypse like? Epic, more tactical? first edition warzone, more realistic? tons of historical wargames. so don't be but-hurt that your nr#1 game is not top of the heap anymore.

There isn't a shred of truth to it because better is a value-based term.

I already intimated why I think 40k is better to me before, so I won't rehash it.

I think Warmachine has better rules. Doesn't mean I think it's a better game.

I don't know what NR#1 means, so I can't really respond to that.

And, quite frankly, you're foolish if you somehow think 40k isn't still at the top of the wargaming heap. Really foolish. Or blind. So which are you?

If you don't feel that you're getting a good "return" on your investment with GW miniatures, then I encourage you to stop. Like any hobby, 40k takes time to build and paint your army and terrain, time to find a game and play with friends or strangers, and money to buy the paint and miniatures and terrain and so on.

If you rarely play, and you don't enjoy painting, and you have sticker shock over some/most/all of the models, then it's probably not the hobby for you.

Find something else. There are plenty of hobbies in the sea. Fishing, surfing, wearing dark sunglasses while you walk along clothing optional beaches, etc...

 kronk wrote:
If you don't feel that you're getting a good "return" on your investment with GW miniatures, then I encourage you to stop. Like any hobby, 40k takes time to build and paint your army and terrain, time to find a game and play with friends or strangers, and money to buy the paint and miniatures and terrain and so on.

If you rarely play, and you don't enjoy painting, and you have sticker shock over some/most/all of the models, then it's probably not the hobby for you.

Find something else. There are plenty of hobbies in the sea. Fishing, surfing, wearing dark sunglasses while you walk along clothing optional beaches, etc...

Exalted, need more cowbell

 kronk wrote:
If you don't feel that you're getting a good "return" on your investment with GW miniatures, then I encourage you to stop. Like any hobby, 40k takes time to build and paint your army and terrain, time to find a game and play with friends or strangers, and money to buy the paint and miniatures and terrain and so on.

If you rarely play, and you don't enjoy painting, and you have sticker shock over some/most/all of the models, then it's probably not the hobby for you.

Find something else. There are plenty of hobbies in the sea. Fishing, surfing, wearing dark sunglasses while you walk along clothing optional beaches, etc...

You mean that the entire wargames genre is not for somebody if they feel GW is not worth it?

 cincydooley wrote:
And, quite frankly, you're foolish if you somehow think 40k isn't still at the top of the wargaming heap. Really foolish. Or blind. So which are you?

Okayyy... there is sufficient "confusion" on what is "top of the heap" so let us stuff our ego back into our pants hmmm?
I present to you a list for Board Game Geek which I keep finding myself at when I am looking at the next emerging game system.
Some evidence here, do you wish to supply a counter proof?

I played almost all the titles they list <<edit>>(up to where 40k is listed) and I agree that for "best" games the listing is correct (to me) for revenue it may be a different matter.
http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/24318/tabletop-miniatures-games-by-rank

Now calling someone foolish is applying a label, not an avenue for a sound argument.
Open your eyes to new ideas, you might be surprised.

I fail also to see how someone who is blind would be unable to find out what would be a top war-game.
You make it easy to pull-out the "picking on the visibility challenged" card.

You failed to offer a third option from foolish or blind: they see something you do not, not their problem, it is yours.

Top of the heap implies to me the biggest, most successful.

Which 40k Is.

By Far.

@ Kronk.
There are lots of other table top war games too.
Just because 40k might not float your boat anymore, does NOT mean you ditch the GREAT TTMG HOBBY!

All the creativity and social interaction can be had playing other game systems and using other companies products.

Just to try to clarify what is subjective and what is not.

Price comparisons are objective.(I object to GW pricing ,lol.)
And rule set can be objectively compared .
They are written instructions on how to play the game. Therefore have a set function.

So the level of complexity of the game play AND the level of complication in the written rules can be compared.
.
In terms of CLARITY , BREVITY ,not to mention elegance, the 40k rule set does not compare well to others .

Lanrak wrote:
.
In terms of CLARITY , BREVITY ,not to mention elegance, the 40k rule set does not compare well to others .

Completely agree.

And success is measured in?

Game balance?
Satisfied, retained, customers?
Great miniatures?
Expansion of market share?
Seer bulk?
self owned stores?
Achievements relevant to size?
Post tax money relevant to company size?

40k is definitely the biggest most played game out there, that does not mean it is the best out there, or that its success is based on it been the best out there.

For example its bulk having been build uncontested for almost 15 years means players choose it because finding opponents is easy, that has nothing to do with quality of the product just availability, in a similar vein, when the local game stores decide to not take risks in such a problematic economic situation and cope with GW's demands in order to have a "safe" product thus limiting themselves to only GW, with emphasis to 40k, the demand is self build, people will want to play wargames, if there is only this available, they will play it.

What "Top of the heap" is and what this really means differs to what you define as heap and how you measure it.

Lanrak wrote:
@ Kronk.
There are lots of other table top war games too.

Show me where I said otherwise.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

You mean that the entire wargames genre is not for somebody if they feel GW is not worth it?

Show me where I said to quit the hobby completely.

My response is directed completely at someone that doesn't feel GW meets their needs for the price, since that was the original poster's complaint or observation.

Applying that to all table top gaming is your mistake, not mine.

Okay. I'm done arguing semantics and how we define best. Cheers.

 kronk wrote:
If you don't feel that you're getting a good "return" on your investment with GW miniatures, then I encourage you to stop. Like any hobby, 40k takes time to build and paint your army and terrain, time to find a game and play with friends or strangers, and money to buy the paint and miniatures and terrain and so on.

If you rarely play, and you don't enjoy painting, and you have sticker shock over some/most/all of the models, then it's probably not the hobby for you.

Find something else. There are plenty of hobbies in the sea. Fishing, surfing, wearing dark sunglasses while you walk along clothing optional beaches, etc...

Hmm never tried surfing. Fishing I do, and females was my main hobby before wargaming.

 cincydooley wrote:
Top of the heap implies to me the biggest, most successful.
Which 40k Is.
By Far.

Biggest: Define. GW is quoted to have 400 stores world wide. X-wing is being sold in Target, with 1500 stores in the US alone not including any hobby centers. I have one near me in Canada so they are getting around. My local hobby shop will no longer carry GW (due to their supply practices) but has a ton of X-wing. So your off the cuff statement is "bunk". Turns out "Fantasy Flight Games" is who GW goes to make their board games and role playing games so these guys are big.

Successful: Define: Profitable? Volume? Market Value? Public Awareness? Take a poll on who knows what Star Wars is vs. Warhammer 40k? Games workshop last year had an earnings of 6% of gross but only from infrastructure reduction. Fantasy Flight is a privately owned company so that gives it some advantages since it does not need to cave into investors (but cannot get any financials out of them). They have a license to almost every hot IP out there. Go look:
http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_catalogo.asp

Anyway, this is just feeding the Troll, you cannot change a closed mind.
<<edit>> Where did all those extra line feeds come from?....

kronk wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

You mean that the entire wargames genre is not for somebody if they feel GW is not worth it?

Show me where I said to quit the hobby completely.

My response is directed completely at someone that doesn't feel GW meets their needs for the price, since that was the original poster's complaint or observation.

Applying that to all table top gaming is your mistake, not mine.

kronk wrote:If you don't feel that you're getting a good "return" on your investment with GW miniatures, then I encourage you to stop. Like any hobby, 40k takes time to build and paint your army and terrain, time to find a game and play with friends or strangers, and money to buy the paint and miniatures and terrain and so on.

If you rarely play, and you don't enjoy painting, and you have sticker shock over some/most/all of the models, then it's probably not the hobby for you.

Find something else. There are plenty of hobbies in the sea. Fishing, surfing, wearing dark sunglasses while you walk along clothing optional beaches, etc...

I am quite positive the hobby is miniature wargames and not GW or WH40k, suggesting somebody to stop and leave the hobby, then referring to other non miniature related activities, you are directly suggesting the reader to quite the miniatures wargame hobby and start something else.

You could phrase it otherwise, suggesting other miniature wargame related companies, but no, you chose to have quit the hobby and suggest non miniature related activities.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:
Okay. I'm done arguing semantics and how we define best. Cheers.

its not semantics, its a point of view, if you do not like it, fine.

Nope. Again, you're misreading and misunderstanding. I have no intention of getting involved with your trolling any further, though.

The subject is the GW hobby, whether it's 40k or fantasy, and that's what I commented on.

Enjoy your weekend. Try to not look for insult everywhere.