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.

So, with Escalation, Superheavies now anywhere and everywhere... and the likelihood we'll be seeing something in the near future that will allow any and all Warhammer Forge monsters into Fantasy, it's been made clear that GW will produce the expansions/supplements and so on and place the onus of responsibility to use or not use on the players themselves.

So, why haven't we seen the obvious purchase, something I'd run out and buy immediately? The expansion for tournament and pick-up games, the expansion, by mutual consent, that allows limits on models and weird terrain rules etc?

This can be an add-on, by consent, that would enable those of us who want to have a limited game, to have one. Perhaps limit allies or do away with them if they want, or keep, perhaps change out or remove some other rules to create a more fluid game. An expansion built on the notion of running an event rather than building the narrative which is the new flagstone.

It's something that could be a great money spinner and I think would pave the way for those of us who don't want 'everything' but want built in restrictions to force us to work towards strategy and gamesmanship.

Skirmish 40K (or how the game used to be before things started getting crazy)? Personally I'd like to see smaller scale battles with elite troops facing off against some larger enemies/hordes etc. A bit like kill team, but expanded.

It's hard to believe GW didn't caveat the use of Super Heavies to be only worth X percent of the total army point value or something.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So, with Escalation, Superheavies now anywhere and everywhere... and the likelihood we'll be seeing something in the near future that will allow any and all Warhammer Forge monsters into Fantasy, it's been made clear that GW will produce the expansions/supplements and so on and place the onus of responsibility to use or not use on the players themselves.

So, why haven't we seen the obvious purchase, something I'd run out and buy immediately? The expansion for tournament and pick-up games, the expansion, by mutual consent, that allows limits on models and weird terrain rules etc?

This can be an add-on, by consent, that would enable those of us who want to have a limited game, to have one. Perhaps limit allies or do away with them if they want, or keep, perhaps change out or remove some other rules to create a more fluid game. An expansion built on the notion of running an event rather than building the narrative which is the new flagstone.

It's something that could be a great money spinner and I think would pave the way for those of us who don't want 'everything' but want built in restrictions to force us to work towards strategy and gamesmanship.

The reason why GW doesn't do this (IMO at least) is that this would require far less little men and as such would mean that they would sell less (even though that is very dubious logic).

In an ideal world 40K would have 2 rulesets, something like it is now (but massively cleaned up) and a skirmish game, basically 2nd ed (but massively cleaned up). That way everyone would be happy and designing rules isn't exactly expensive.

GW operate on the basis that their principal market is groups of friends who play informally at home, and add or tailor the rules to suit themselves.

This seems counter to what I've seen online and what about 50% of my gaming has consisted of (and most certainly in the US, there is far more store gaming than in the UK), but they want this model to operate under.

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

The game is now fully inclusive (or nearly so) and so to have a tourney rule set, you need to sit down and work out multiple restrictions, these will vary from club to club, tourney or pickup game, case by case.

What I was suggesting was a book that would provide a comprehensive means to have restrictions we can apply worldwide, to facilitate fluidity, ease of understanding, universal clarity and something that will provide us all with a template we can use for our games when we want something formal, for those of us who want something formal.

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

40K is very much beyond what should be considered a gateway game.

A gateway game is something more akin to Space Hulk, with a ideological connection to 40K, that requires much less time and commitment to get to a play-ready state, doesn't necessarily share mechanics, but is an all-in-one, no extras required, self contained proposition.

Even being charitable and assuming you have two players who are willing to split a DV, you still have an awful long way to go before you're ready to play a proper game.

Space Crusade and Heroquest still probably rank alongside the best gateway games GW has ever had, I bet many, many gamers of a certain age can attribute their involvement in wargaming to one or both of those.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Skirmish 40K (or how the game used to be before things started getting crazy)? Personally I'd like to see smaller scale battles with elite troops facing off against some larger enemies/hordes etc. A bit like kill team, but expanded.

It's hard to believe GW didn't caveat the use of Super Heavies to be only worth X percent of the total army point value or something.

FW made this rule set. It's called Zone mortalis. I'm scratch building a spaceship board and FW puts out some of their own. But you don't that that to play. A Very Thickly populated 4x4 city fight style board can accomplish the same concept and make a area to play zone mortalis on. (Bassicly ALOT of impassible wall terrian, buildings, and bunkers.)

It's actually prety fun, but such a huge investment interrian no one plays it sadly.

I'm all for gamers moderating themselves - it's something I'm sure a lot of us do, and even on a local club level it should happen. I don't really play GW games any more, but I hear a lot of 'please don't bring this list' and 'comp-list' type discussions about WFB at my club. So, there is the propensity for players to govern themselves. Some of the new stuff coming into 40k recently seems horrendously unbalanced to the point that it can make playing the game a triviality - I would like to think that even two un-equated guys could come to some arrangement when they play.

So, from that perspective I can kind of understand GW's current approach of 'everything goes, LOL!' and from their own perspective, it's removing one more barrier to someone thinking of forking out the money for a super-heavy. There is also the issue where there aren't really any official tournaments run any more, and those that are fan run are likely to ban some of the recent rule additions.

But, on the other hand I think for anyone who has been a long-standing player of the game the latest changes show a dangerous development, and in many ways GW are less likely to create some kind of homogenised system of the type MGS describes. In the same way that it's not going to really hurt if that 24-stone guy packs away an extra cheeseburger and fries (he's already vastly overweight and his knee is gone), the game now seems so horrendously unbalanced that it's kind of reached the point of 'well, why not? Let's chuck that in anyway'. The boat has long since sailed in terms of official game balance, to the point where the only thing you can really do is have a laugh about it and 'forging a narrative', and really for some time its been within the hands of players themselves to determine what can be used and what not, and the way the game should be played.

 azreal13 wrote:

Space Crusade and Heroquest still probably rank alongside the best gateway games GW has ever had, I bet many, many gamers of a certain age can attribute their involvement in wargaming to one or both of those.

It would be interesting to see how many of us here of a certain age group started with one of those games. Might be worthwhile running a poll sometime perhaps?

I started with Space Crusade, was bitten by the 'bug' and moved on in to Epic and Rogue Trader from that point. These days I think some of the Final Flight games, Deadzone, Dreadball etc. are filling that void, but GW are definitely playing a dangerous game by not being involved in that market.

 Pacific wrote:
I'm all for gamers moderating themselves - it's something I'm sure a lot of us do, and even on a local club level it should happen. I don't really play GW games any more, but I hear a lot of 'please don't bring this list' and 'comp-list' type discussions about WFB at my club. So, there is the propensity for players to govern themselves. Some of the new stuff coming into 40k recently seems horrendously unbalanced to the point that it can make playing the game a triviality - I would like to think that even two un-equated guys could come to some arrangement when they play.

The problem there is, what happens when someone buys the Revenant or whatever because of how awesome the model is, and then finds they can't ever actually use it because everyone else in the local club agrees it's busted? I'd feel a bit cheated by that.

 Pacific wrote:
I'm all for gamers moderating themselves - it's something I'm sure a lot of us do, and even on a local club level it should happen. I don't really play GW games any more, but I hear a lot of 'please don't bring this list' and 'comp-list' type discussions about WFB at my club. So, there is the propensity for players to govern themselves. Some of the new stuff coming into 40k recently seems horrendously unbalanced to the point that it can make playing the game a triviality - I would like to think that even two un-equated guys could come to some arrangement when they play.

So, from that perspective I can kind of understand GW's current approach of 'everything goes, LOL!' and from their own perspective, it's removing one more barrier to someone thinking of forking out the money for a super-heavy. There is also the issue where there aren't really any official tournaments run any more, and those that are fan run are likely to ban some of the recent rule additions.

But, on the other hand I think for anyone who has been a long-standing player of the game the latest changes show a dangerous development, and in many ways GW are less likely to create some kind of homogenised system of the type MGS describes. In the same way that it's not going to really hurt if that 24-stone guy packs away an extra cheeseburger and fries (he's already vastly overweight and his knee is gone), the game now seems so horrendously unbalanced that it's kind of reached the point of 'well, why not? Let's chuck that in anyway'. The boat has long since sailed in terms of official game balance, to the point where the only thing you can really do is have a laugh about it and 'forging a narrative', and really for some time its been within the hands of players themselves to determine what can be used and what not, and the way the game should be played.

 azreal13 wrote:

Space Crusade and Heroquest still probably rank alongside the best gateway games GW has ever had, I bet many, many gamers of a certain age can attribute their involvement in wargaming to one or both of those.

It would be interesting to see how many of us here of a certain age group started with one of those games. Might be worthwhile running a poll sometime perhaps?

I started with Space Crusade, was bitten by the 'bug' and moved on in to Epic and Rogue Trader from that point. These days I think some of the Final Flight games, Deadzone, Dreadball etc. are filling that void, but GW are definitely playing a dangerous game by not being involved in that market.

To use your metaphor, I'd place many of the mini-dexes and random characters into the 'extra cheeseburger' category of late and I was almost getting used to/liking the idea that the codex powerbuilds were going to become a thing of the past as everyone became lost in a sea of options... But adding super-heavies, especially the D weapon equipped stuff, was the equivalent of building a pizzeria onto the side of the burger bar and telling the fat guy 'once you're done with all the burgers you can choose from, you're moving onto the 12" free pizzas!'.

5th ed was pretty good. Vehicles were too powerful, but using 6th ed's hull point system, and perhaps giving everything an additional hull point more than the game states, seems to balance that. GW's answer to my concerns is 'then play that with your mates and enjoy it!' which is great if you haven't just moved across the US to a new area and then have to stand there and explain to a new group of people, or a stranger in a shop you've somehow convinced to play, that you'd like to use a previous edition with several tweeks and adjustments and the following is allowed but the other following list isn't.

-Historical note, I started by collecting figures for a couple of years and then bought White Dwarf and bought Warhammer Fantasy when 3rd was released, shortly followed by Rogue Trader.

xruslanx wrote:
Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

No one needed a £30 supplement to tell them they could play with super heavies and titans, either. They didn't need to be part of the standard game, and never should have been, because anyone wanting to subject themselves to that crap was more than free if they had an opponent willing.

It's much easier to ask someone "Can I play with a baneblade?" than it is to be in MGS's scenario: having to convince someone to play an older edition with a laundry list of tweaks, fixes, etc. Especially when the opponent in question would likely also want a good explanation as to what exactly is wrong with 6th and why they can't just play that because it would be easier. If you want to play a game of 40k with any semblance of balance at this point you have a lot of work ahead of you, and some would argue more than what it's worth.

Any opponent of mine who wants to play a non Apocalypse game with a Super Heavy will be told in clear explicit terms where he can stick it.

So are you saying that GW should release something like a "Tournament 40k" expansion which is half-way balanced, without silly stuff like Escalation, for use in tournaments?

MeanGreenStompa wrote:GW operate on the basis that their principal market is groups of friends who play informally at home, and add or tailor the rules to suit themselves.

This seems counter to what I've seen online and what about 50% of my gaming has consisted of (and most certainly in the US, there is far more store gaming than in the UK), but they want this model to operate under.

Well, most of the people who play at their homes don't bother scouring forums for lists and tactics- they would rather make up their own at home. They're kind of a "silent majority". I have never played in a shop, and probably never will if you want to add me to some sort of tracker.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

The game is now fully inclusive (or nearly so) and so to have a tourney rule set, you need to sit down and work out multiple restrictions, these will vary from club to club, tourney or pickup game, case by case.

What I was suggesting was a book that would provide a comprehensive means to have restrictions we can apply worldwide, to facilitate fluidity, ease of understanding, universal clarity and something that will provide us all with a template we can use for our games when we want something formal, for those of us who want something formal.

I'm not sure why playing with a handful of marines and a couple orks is less of a game than a 3000pt slugfest? My friends and I have personally have had lots of fun playing small skirmishes like that, and still do. I'd love to field all my bugs some day, but they don't particularly want to have that large of a game. They like playing smaller games from 1000-1500pts.

azreal13 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

40K is very much beyond what should be considered a gateway game.

A gateway game is something more akin to Space Hulk, with a ideological connection to 40K, that requires much less time and commitment to get to a play-ready state, doesn't necessarily share mechanics, but is an all-in-one, no extras required, self contained proposition.

Even being charitable and assuming you have two players who are willing to split a DV, you still have an awful long way to go before you're ready to play a proper game.

Space Crusade and Heroquest still probably rank alongside the best gateway games GW has ever had, I bet many, many gamers of a certain age can attribute their involvement in wargaming to one or both of those.

I started with a Battalion box at the back end of the 4th edition codex if that helps. It's still cheaper than a new gaming system to get into(Such as a new PS3-4 or Xbox 360.One) unless you're looking to field 2000pt games starting out.

And to address the main point, they still have time to do it. It seems their main concern is pumping out Codexes and Armybooks atm, with a few supplements and expansions sprinkled about. I'm not saying they will, but they could eventually have something like that in the works. And like another poster said, there's always Zone Mortalis.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Spoiler:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:GW operate on the basis that their principal market is groups of friends who play informally at home, and add or tailor the rules to suit themselves.

This seems counter to what I've seen online and what about 50% of my gaming has consisted of (and most certainly in the US, there is far more store gaming than in the UK), but they want this model to operate under.

Well, most of the people who play at their homes don't bother scouring forums for lists and tactics- they would rather make up their own at home. They're kind of a "silent majority". I have never played in a shop, and probably never will if you want to add me to some sort of tracker.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

The game is now fully inclusive (or nearly so) and so to have a tourney rule set, you need to sit down and work out multiple restrictions, these will vary from club to club, tourney or pickup game, case by case.

What I was suggesting was a book that would provide a comprehensive means to have restrictions we can apply worldwide, to facilitate fluidity, ease of understanding, universal clarity and something that will provide us all with a template we can use for our games when we want something formal, for those of us who want something formal.

I'm not sure why playing with a handful of marines and a couple orks is less of a game than a 3000pt slugfest? My friends and I have personally have had lots of fun playing small skirmishes like that, and still do. I'd love to field all my bugs some day, but they don't particularly want to have that large of a game. They like playing smaller games from 1000-1500pts.

azreal13 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

40K is very much beyond what should be considered a gateway game.

A gateway game is something more akin to Space Hulk, with a ideological connection to 40K, that requires much less time and commitment to get to a play-ready state, doesn't necessarily share mechanics, but is an all-in-one, no extras required, self contained proposition.

Even being charitable and assuming you have two players who are willing to split a DV, you still have an awful long way to go before you're ready to play a proper game.

Space Crusade and Heroquest still probably rank alongside the best gateway games GW has ever had, I bet many, many gamers of a certain age can attribute their involvement in wargaming to one or both of those.

I started with a Battalion box at the back end of the 4th edition codex if that helps. It's still cheaper than a new gaming system to get into(Such as a new PS3-4 or Xbox 360.One) unless you're looking to field 2000pt games starting out.

And to address the main point, they still have time to do it. It seems their main concern is pumping out Codexes and Armybooks atm, with a few supplements and expansions sprinkled about. I'm not saying they will, but they could eventually have something like that in the works. And like another poster said, there's always Zone Mortalis.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Well, most of the people who play at their homes don't bother scouring forums for lists and tactics- they would rather make up their own at home. They're kind of a "silent majority".

Do you have any evidence to support this? I know Legoburner put out some numbers on just how many people actually looked at Dakka and the numbers were massive, suggesting that the oft quoted 'forum users are a tiny minority' was actually no longer the case. Most people have the internet now and know how to use it, I am on several forums, including one for my tropical fish keeping, a couple of gardening ones etc etc. The idea that 'the vast majority' of people collecting and playing with wargaming models and don't look for information about them online and don't find forums to share their experiences, or more likely just read about others and pick up information, seems very unlikely to me.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

I started with a Battalion box at the back end of the 4th edition codex if that helps. It's still cheaper than a new gaming system to get into(Such as a new PS3-4 or Xbox 360.One) unless you're looking to field 2000pt games starting out.

And to address the main point, they still have time to do it. It seems their main concern is pumping out Codexes and Armybooks atm, with a few supplements and expansions sprinkled about. I'm not saying they will, but they could eventually have something like that in the works. And like another poster said, there's always Zone Mortalis.

The also oft quoted 'well it's cheaper than golf or a games console (it's not cheaper than a games console, btw...) is a false equivalency and you should instead compare it with the buy-in for other miniatures games. There are plenty to hold it against and get an idea. Top Gear doesn't compare the prices of the new Audi vs a tumble dryer or a pet alligator. Look at the price of starting Warpath or Flames of War or PP games as a fair comparison.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Any opponent of mine who wants to play a non Apocalypse game with a Super Heavy will be told in clear explicit terms where he can stick it.

That's the general consensus in the real world. Its only those that play Goobhammer are excited by this.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Any opponent of mine who wants to play a non Apocalypse game with a Super Heavy will be told in clear explicit terms where he can stick it.

That's the general consensus in the real world. Its only those that play Goobhammer are excited by this.

Thing is, I have no ideological objection to the inclusion of a single Thunderhawk, light Titan or Superheavy tank in 40K. It's just the clumsy cut and paste job they've done as a means of doing so, alongside the frankly ludicrous list of hugely powerful things FW have just thrown into the mix.

Done well, it could have been great, as it stands, it is a clumsy and transparent attempt to facilitate forcing yet more money out of people's pockets.

We (at home) have been including superheavies in our battles for a long time. But usually we incorporate restrictions or a special scenario to give the side without/with less superheavies a better chance (more points, fortified terrain etc..).

Pretty much.

Back in 3rd ed when the first imperial armour books were popping up we tired using the baneblade and a few other others in games and they just weren't enjoyable. And from what I've seen so far the only ones enjoying it don't actually need dice or rules to play this game and can be just as entertained by jingling keys or a sand box.

I have a revenant titan on order and my goal is to just stomp mud holes in people until they learn the lesson of "Don't support stupid gak or all you'll get is more stupid gak".

azreal13 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:GW operate on the basis that their principal market is groups of friends who play informally at home, and add or tailor the rules to suit themselves.

This seems counter to what I've seen online and what about 50% of my gaming has consisted of (and most certainly in the US, there is far more store gaming than in the UK), but they want this model to operate under.

Well, most of the people who play at their homes don't bother scouring forums for lists and tactics- they would rather make up their own at home. They're kind of a "silent majority". I have never played in a shop, and probably never will if you want to add me to some sort of tracker.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

The game is now fully inclusive (or nearly so) and so to have a tourney rule set, you need to sit down and work out multiple restrictions, these will vary from club to club, tourney or pickup game, case by case.

What I was suggesting was a book that would provide a comprehensive means to have restrictions we can apply worldwide, to facilitate fluidity, ease of understanding, universal clarity and something that will provide us all with a template we can use for our games when we want something formal, for those of us who want something formal.

I'm not sure why playing with a handful of marines and a couple orks is less of a game than a 3000pt slugfest? My friends and I have personally have had lots of fun playing small skirmishes like that, and still do. I'd love to field all my bugs some day, but they don't particularly want to have that large of a game. They like playing smaller games from 1000-1500pts.

azreal13 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

40K is very much beyond what should be considered a gateway game.

A gateway game is something more akin to Space Hulk, with a ideological connection to 40K, that requires much less time and commitment to get to a play-ready state, doesn't necessarily share mechanics, but is an all-in-one, no extras required, self contained proposition.

Even being charitable and assuming you have two players who are willing to split a DV, you still have an awful long way to go before you're ready to play a proper game.

Space Crusade and Heroquest still probably rank alongside the best gateway games GW has ever had, I bet many, many gamers of a certain age can attribute their involvement in wargaming to one or both of those.

I started with a Battalion box at the back end of the 4th edition codex if that helps. It's still cheaper than a new gaming system to get into(Such as a new PS3-4 or Xbox 360.One) unless you're looking to field 2000pt games starting out.

And to address the main point, they still have time to do it. It seems their main concern is pumping out Codexes and Armybooks atm, with a few supplements and expansions sprinkled about. I'm not saying they will, but they could eventually have something like that in the works. And like another poster said, there's always Zone Mortalis.

Forgive me if this sounds facetious, but I stopped in early third and didn't start again til mid-fifth, so genuinely don't know, but did the battalion boxes include models for two players, rulebook, army books/codexes for those included models' factions, plus glue and tools to assemble them? Because if not, then to take your analogy, you've bought the system, but still need to buy a PSU, controller, all the connecting leads and a game disc.

While a collection of models at a discount is no doubt of assistance to a new player, it still isn't a bona fide gateway product unless it is of use without one single solitary extra purchase. Something GW has lacked since they stopped releasing specialist games on a regular basis.

These two player starter boxes are a convenience, not a necessity. Quite a few starter boxes I've bought(Arcane Legions for example) usually only include one rulebook that both players have to share. Makes things kind of difficult when you both want to learn at home. It should not be expected that every single company make a two player starter kit[which Games Workshop actually does(Dark Vengeance, but it does lack full codexes for both factions and other materials necessary for play)].

How many games DO have these mythical two player starter kits with enough components for both players? Rule books, paint, glue, hobby knife, tape measures, tokens, or whatever else is required? I'd imagine they are few and far between. Don't take this as me praising Games Workshop for it's awesome starter kits, or ease of teaching a new player. I had a friend who already played who told me what I needed minimum to play. Which I went out and purchased because it looked interesting.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:


Well, most of the people who play at their homes don't bother scouring forums for lists and tactics- they would rather make up their own at home. They're kind of a "silent majority".

Do you have any evidence to support this? I know Legoburner put out some numbers on just how many people actually looked at Dakka and the numbers were massive, suggesting that the oft quoted 'forum users are a tiny minority' was actually no longer the case. Most people have the internet now and know how to use it, I am on several forums, including one for my tropical fish keeping, a couple of gardening ones etc etc. The idea that 'the vast majority' of people collecting and playing with wargaming models and don't look for information about them online and don't find forums to share their experiences, or more likely just read about others and pick up information, seems very unlikely to me.

No, I have no physical evidence to support my claim, other than my own personal experiences with friends. Do you have any evidence to support that every single wargamer goes to check forums? I can provide my own accounts of friends that don't bother checking anything other than Games Workshop's site whenever they have enough money saved up for a purchase. Are there any numbers anywhere about the total number of Games Workshop's playerbase? That would seem to be the place to start. It's an answer that I would like to know as well.

Magic for example is also often quoted as having more players that never step foot into a shop than the ones who do. Which I find easily believable, especially in a rural area such as the one I'm in. Closest shops to play magic are an hour away; miniature games 2+ hours.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

I started with a Battalion box at the back end of the 4th edition codex if that helps. It's still cheaper than a new gaming system to get into(Such as a new PS3-4 or Xbox 360.One) unless you're looking to field 2000pt games starting out.

And to address the main point, they still have time to do it. It seems their main concern is pumping out Codexes and Armybooks atm, with a few supplements and expansions sprinkled about. I'm not saying they will, but they could eventually have something like that in the works. And like another poster said, there's always Zone Mortalis.

The also oft quoted 'well it's cheaper than golf or a games console (it's not cheaper than a games console, btw...) is a false equivalency and you should instead compare it with the buy-in for other miniatures games. There are plenty to hold it against and get an idea. Top Gear doesn't compare the prices of the new Audi vs a tumble dryer or a pet alligator. Look at the price of starting Warpath or Flames of War or PP games as a fair comparison.

I believe it's a fair comparison seeing as how they are both hobbies. You don't compare an Audi to an alligator, but you might compare it to a pick-up or hybrid when you're looking to purchase a car. Rulebook, Codex, plus a character model and a box of troops(oh, and paints + brushes)will run you about $190 plus tax. Or $270 plus tax if you use a battleforce. Far less than the $399 plus accessories, tax, and games of a typical new console.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

No, I have no physical evidence to support my claim, other than my own personal experiences with friends. Do you have any evidence to support that every single wargamer goes to check forums? I can provide my own accounts of friends that don't bother checking anything other than Games Workshop's site whenever they have enough money saved up for a purchase. Are there any numbers anywhere about the total number of Games Workshop's playerbase? That would seem to be the place to start. It's an answer that I would like to know as well.

Magic for example is also often quoted as having more players that never step foot into a shop than the ones who do. Which I find easily believable, especially in a rural area such as the one I'm in. Closest shops to play magic are an hour away; miniature games 2+ hours.

I never said 'everyone is here', I said most everyone has access to the internet, this is a fringe hobby with a tiny population and that this site alone has a sizable number of visitors, along with several other forums, facebook pages and countless blogs and club sites.

You're here, aren't you... I would have thought rural players would be keen to see what's going on, read or watch battle reports, see painting tutorials etc and get a sense of community from a site like this one. Legoburner's estimates come in at around 15-20% of GW's customer base visit this site alone, that's a significant impact on the player base. The people who game with GW stuff are, from that figure, far more likely to interact with other gamers via internet rather than not.

 Sinful Hero wrote:


I believe it's a fair comparison seeing as how they are both hobbies. You don't compare an Audi to an alligator, but you might compare it to a pick-up or hybrid when you're looking to purchase a car. Rulebook, Codex, plus a character model and a box of troops(oh, and paints + brushes)will run you about $190 plus tax. Or $270 plus tax if you use a battleforce. Far less than the $399 plus accessories, tax, and games of a typical new console.

It's not a fair comparison, or you could say collecting gravel from the road is a hobby, walking in the countryside is a hobby and swimming in the sea are hobbies, they are all free.

As to your price breakdown, you realize just one squad of troops is illegal? You need a minimum of two squads of troops and a HQ. 40k is usually played at 1500pts upwards, so do your price breakdown for a 1.5k army of minis, just for fun, make it a MEQ army, and tell me you can do it for less than the $399 you quoted me for a console...

 Sinful Hero wrote:

azreal13 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:GW operate on the basis that their principal market is groups of friends who play informally at home, and add or tailor the rules to suit themselves.

This seems counter to what I've seen online and what about 50% of my gaming has consisted of (and most certainly in the US, there is far more store gaming than in the UK), but they want this model to operate under.

Well, most of the people who play at their homes don't bother scouring forums for lists and tactics- they would rather make up their own at home. They're kind of a "silent majority". I have never played in a shop, and probably never will if you want to add me to some sort of tracker.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

The game is now fully inclusive (or nearly so) and so to have a tourney rule set, you need to sit down and work out multiple restrictions, these will vary from club to club, tourney or pickup game, case by case.

What I was suggesting was a book that would provide a comprehensive means to have restrictions we can apply worldwide, to facilitate fluidity, ease of understanding, universal clarity and something that will provide us all with a template we can use for our games when we want something formal, for those of us who want something formal.

I'm not sure why playing with a handful of marines and a couple orks is less of a game than a 3000pt slugfest? My friends and I have personally have had lots of fun playing small skirmishes like that, and still do. I'd love to field all my bugs some day, but they don't particularly want to have that large of a game. They like playing smaller games from 1000-1500pts.

azreal13 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

40K is very much beyond what should be considered a gateway game.

A gateway game is something more akin to Space Hulk, with a ideological connection to 40K, that requires much less time and commitment to get to a play-ready state, doesn't necessarily share mechanics, but is an all-in-one, no extras required, self contained proposition.

Even being charitable and assuming you have two players who are willing to split a DV, you still have an awful long way to go before you're ready to play a proper game.

Space Crusade and Heroquest still probably rank alongside the best gateway games GW has ever had, I bet many, many gamers of a certain age can attribute their involvement in wargaming to one or both of those.

I started with a Battalion box at the back end of the 4th edition codex if that helps. It's still cheaper than a new gaming system to get into(Such as a new PS3-4 or Xbox 360.One) unless you're looking to field 2000pt games starting out.

And to address the main point, they still have time to do it. It seems their main concern is pumping out Codexes and Armybooks atm, with a few supplements and expansions sprinkled about. I'm not saying they will, but they could eventually have something like that in the works. And like another poster said, there's always Zone Mortalis.

Forgive me if this sounds facetious, but I stopped in early third and didn't start again til mid-fifth, so genuinely don't know, but did the battalion boxes include models for two players, rulebook, army books/codexes for those included models' factions, plus glue and tools to assemble them? Because if not, then to take your analogy, you've bought the system, but still need to buy a PSU, controller, all the connecting leads and a game disc.

While a collection of models at a discount is no doubt of assistance to a new player, it still isn't a bona fide gateway product unless it is of use without one single solitary extra purchase. Something GW has lacked since they stopped releasing specialist games on a regular basis.

These two player starter boxes are a convenience, not a necessity. Quite a few starter boxes I've bought(Arcane Legions for example) usually only include one rulebook that both players have to share. Makes things kind of difficult when you both want to learn at home. It should not be expected that every single company make a two player starter kit[which Games Workshop actually does(Dark Vengeance, but it does lack full codexes for both factions and other materials necessary for play)].

How many games DO have these mythical two player starter kits with enough components for both players? Rule books, paint, glue, hobby knife, tape measures, tokens, or whatever else is required? I'd imagine they are few and far between. Don't take this as me praising Games Workshop for it's awesome starter kits, or ease of teaching a new player. I had a friend who already played who told me what I needed minimum to play. Which I went out and purchased because it looked interesting.

You seem to be doing some accidental strawmanning there dude. I'm not talking about two player starters, or any sort of starter for that matter, I was advocating a gateway game, which, as I previously mentioned, need have nothing more in common with a "core" game (of any company's denomination) than background and 'vibe' but serves to draw a player further and encourage them to explore further, with the ultimate aim of recruiting them into the wargaming hobby (and playing that manufacturers game, of course)

Space Hulk, Space Crusade, Heroquest, even the likes of Dawn Of War or Shadow Of The Horned Rat, could all be considered gateway products in this sense, Dark Vengeance and it's ilk are starters, but not really gateway products.

And, for the record, WH40K is more expensive than knitting.

Both are hobbies.

Therefor anytime I see somebody saying 'it's less expensive than golf!' I will reply with 'And more expensive than knitting, your point?'

Comparing apples to earmuffs really does not work, so it is inherently a flawed argument.

The Auld Grump, and, also for the record, depending on location, golf can cost less.... using the same tried and true method of buying used.... (I have a friend that paid $30 for his entire set of clubs - at a yard sale.)

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

No, I have no physical evidence to support my claim, other than my own personal experiences with friends. Do you have any evidence to support that every single wargamer goes to check forums? I can provide my own accounts of friends that don't bother checking anything other than Games Workshop's site whenever they have enough money saved up for a purchase. Are there any numbers anywhere about the total number of Games Workshop's playerbase? That would seem to be the place to start. It's an answer that I would like to know as well.

Magic for example is also often quoted as having more players that never step foot into a shop than the ones who do. Which I find easily believable, especially in a rural area such as the one I'm in. Closest shops to play magic are an hour away; miniature games 2+ hours.

I never said 'everyone is here', I said most everyone has access to the internet, this is a fringe hobby with a tiny population and that this site alone has a sizable number of visitors, along with several other forums, facebook pages and countless blogs and club sites.

You're here, aren't you... I would have thought rural players would be keen to see what's going on, read or watch battle reports, see painting tutorials etc and get a sense of community from a site like this one. Legoburner's estimates come in at around 15-20% of GW's customer base visit this site alone, that's a significant impact on the player base. The people who game with GW stuff are, from that figure, far more likely to interact with other gamers via internet rather than not.

 Sinful Hero wrote:


I believe it's a fair comparison seeing as how they are both hobbies. You don't compare an Audi to an alligator, but you might compare it to a pick-up or hybrid when you're looking to purchase a car. Rulebook, Codex, plus a character model and a box of troops(oh, and paints + brushes)will run you about $190 plus tax. Or $270 plus tax if you use a battleforce. Far less than the $399 plus accessories, tax, and games of a typical new console.

It's not a fair comparison, or you could say collecting gravel from the road is a hobby, walking in the countryside is a hobby and swimming in the sea are hobbies, they are all free.

As to your price breakdown, you realize just one squad of troops is illegal? You need a minimum of two squads of troops and a HQ. 40k is usually played at 1500pts upwards, so do your price breakdown for a 1.5k army of minis, just for fun, make it a MEQ army, and tell me you can do it for less than the $399 you quoted me for a console...

I was actually referring to the fact that you can split a 10-man troop box into 2 5-man squads. 40k is usually played in tournaments at 1500 or above, and sometimes at home/stores at that level. Some people play at less because of time, space, or lack of models. I don't actually own a MEQ army, or have access to any of their books, but I can do a 1500pt army of Dark Eldar or Tyranids. I assume Deldar would be closer to a MEQ army so I'll just use them-

That's a little over 1500pts, probably not highly optimized, but I didn't really feel like finangling with it all night. It's almost exactly what I run whenever I can get a 1500pt game. So $524plus tax(@10%=$576). Add dice(GW charges 8.25). So a little under $600 for a Deldar army. This is all bought straight from GW, so no discounters.

Compared to a shiny new PS4($399.99), plus Call of Duty 4(new for $49.99). That's about $450 plus tax(@10%=$495. Also not adding in that fact that you need to pay $10/month to play online, headphones for convenience, and a second controller for a friend, but none of that is required, so I'll leave it out.

So Warhammer 40k can be a little more expensive to video gaming pricewise(I will shamelessly point out that you have a 1500pt army, versus an extremely spartan console. Which is why I felt obliged to mention the accessories and online fee(which and extra controller and a good headset will put them on equal grounds[almost exactly if you buy from Gamestop]). Feel free to add-up for a Marine army if you want, I don't have any idea on point costs.

azreal13 wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

azreal13 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:GW operate on the basis that their principal market is groups of friends who play informally at home, and add or tailor the rules to suit themselves.

This seems counter to what I've seen online and what about 50% of my gaming has consisted of (and most certainly in the US, there is far more store gaming than in the UK), but they want this model to operate under.

Well, most of the people who play at their homes don't bother scouring forums for lists and tactics- they would rather make up their own at home. They're kind of a "silent majority". I have never played in a shop, and probably never will if you want to add me to some sort of tracker.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

The game is now fully inclusive (or nearly so) and so to have a tourney rule set, you need to sit down and work out multiple restrictions, these will vary from club to club, tourney or pickup game, case by case.

What I was suggesting was a book that would provide a comprehensive means to have restrictions we can apply worldwide, to facilitate fluidity, ease of understanding, universal clarity and something that will provide us all with a template we can use for our games when we want something formal, for those of us who want something formal.

I'm not sure why playing with a handful of marines and a couple orks is less of a game than a 3000pt slugfest? My friends and I have personally have had lots of fun playing small skirmishes like that, and still do. I'd love to field all my bugs some day, but they don't particularly want to have that large of a game. They like playing smaller games from 1000-1500pts.

azreal13 wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So, a supplement like this would be purely for the occasional pick up game and tournaments, something GW seems to regard as a secondary occurrence, but still something worth producing a supplement book for, considering it would likely outsell any individual codex by a margin (except perhaps the marine one).

GW doesn't care about anything that isn't a core game (they have after all abandoned everything else, including some very good skirimish games) and GW's core games have been steadily increasing in model count for years. I just can't see GW's current management doing anything as sensible as producing a 'gateway' game.

40k is its own gateway game. A couple of tactical squads with a captain vs some ork mobs with a warboss, or hell any of the starter sets.

Not entirely sure what the op wants. Do you need gw to tell you 'no super heavies or allies'? You could probably do that without giving gw £30 for the privilage.

40K is very much beyond what should be considered a gateway game.

A gateway game is something more akin to Space Hulk, with a ideological connection to 40K, that requires much less time and commitment to get to a play-ready state, doesn't necessarily share mechanics, but is an all-in-one, no extras required, self contained proposition.

Even being charitable and assuming you have two players who are willing to split a DV, you still have an awful long way to go before you're ready to play a proper game.

Space Crusade and Heroquest still probably rank alongside the best gateway games GW has ever had, I bet many, many gamers of a certain age can attribute their involvement in wargaming to one or both of those.

I started with a Battalion box at the back end of the 4th edition codex if that helps. It's still cheaper than a new gaming system to get into(Such as a new PS3-4 or Xbox 360.One) unless you're looking to field 2000pt games starting out.

And to address the main point, they still have time to do it. It seems their main concern is pumping out Codexes and Armybooks atm, with a few supplements and expansions sprinkled about. I'm not saying they will, but they could eventually have something like that in the works. And like another poster said, there's always Zone Mortalis.

Forgive me if this sounds facetious, but I stopped in early third and didn't start again til mid-fifth, so genuinely don't know, but did the battalion boxes include models for two players, rulebook, army books/codexes for those included models' factions, plus glue and tools to assemble them? Because if not, then to take your analogy, you've bought the system, but still need to buy a PSU, controller, all the connecting leads and a game disc.

While a collection of models at a discount is no doubt of assistance to a new player, it still isn't a bona fide gateway product unless it is of use without one single solitary extra purchase. Something GW has lacked since they stopped releasing specialist games on a regular basis.

These two player starter boxes are a convenience, not a necessity. Quite a few starter boxes I've bought(Arcane Legions for example) usually only include one rulebook that both players have to share. Makes things kind of difficult when you both want to learn at home. It should not be expected that every single company make a two player starter kit[which Games Workshop actually does(Dark Vengeance, but it does lack full codexes for both factions and other materials necessary for play)].

How many games DO have these mythical two player starter kits with enough components for both players? Rule books, paint, glue, hobby knife, tape measures, tokens, or whatever else is required? I'd imagine they are few and far between. Don't take this as me praising Games Workshop for it's awesome starter kits, or ease of teaching a new player. I had a friend who already played who told me what I needed minimum to play. Which I went out and purchased because it looked interesting.

You seem to be doing some accidental strawmanning there dude. I'm not talking about two player starters, or any sort of starter for that matter, I was advocating a gateway game, which, as I previously mentioned, need have nothing more in common with a "core" game (of any company's denomination) than background and 'vibe' but serves to draw a player further and encourage them to explore further, with the ultimate aim of recruiting them into the wargaming hobby (and playing that manufacturers game, of course)

Space Hulk, Space Crusade, Heroquest, even the likes of Dawn Of War or Shadow Of The Horned Rat, could all be considered gateway products in this sense, Dark Vengeance and it's ilk are starters, but not really gateway products.

I started to type something out, but I noticed that you brought up the same points as I was(Video games and Novels as gateway games). So I guess we agree? Sort of? I would still put Dark Vengeance as a gateway product, but at this point we're just arguing opinions.

Also, what was my strawman?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And, for the record, WH40K is more expensive than knitting.

Both are hobbies.

Therefor anytime I see somebody saying 'it's less expensive than golf!' I will reply with 'And more expensive than knitting, your point?'

Comparing apples to earmuffs really does not work, so it is inherently a flawed argument.

The Auld Grump, and, also for the record, depending on location, golf can cost less.... using the same tried and true method of buying used.... (I have a friend that paid $30 for his entire set of clubs - at a yard sale.)

And for the record, among young males video games and possibly even wargaming are far more popular than knitting(starter kits running about $20), making knitting a little less relevant to a comparison between hobbies.

You were focusing on Starters, which I was categorising as something entirely different to gateway products.

Sinful Hero, you forgot paint, brushes, spray paint, dice, templates and, most importantly, a rulebook and codex.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Sinful Hero, you forgot paint, brushes, spray paint, dice, templates and, most importantly, a rulebook and codex.

I include the starter kit(covering paint and brushes), and the rulebook and codex I included without noting. I'll go ahead and edit the post to itemize it then. Templates are covered in the rulebook(with scissors which I am not going to add in), and I'll handwave the dice to cover the extra $10 to make it an even $500(after tax).
I did forget the $83 for the codex and rulebook. My bad- adding it in now.
Added in.
Now that I think about it, that was a complete waste of my time.1500pts is an arbitrary number, why not 1000 or 2000? Why not plot out exactly how much paint will those models actually take(especially without primer). Why bother painting them at all if your friends don't care?
What kind of TV will you use with your system? To take advantage of it, you need something with 1080p. Not to mention the cost of your highspeed internet. And the monthly fee. I can also go into the minutae of how much it will add to your electricity bill per month. Let's not forget the table and terrain! Oh, and the high-tech headset and SCUF FPS controller!

I fell like the only thing I've proved is that they are extremely similar hobbies pricewise. It just depends on how deep you want to get into it.