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.

 silent25 wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

I could convince a lot more people to play a game if I told them $175 gets them an entire army to play versus a shopping list that comes out to $500 or more.

Actually playing KoW is way cheaper than that. That 40 man hoard unit can just be done with a few guys scattered across the 200mm x 160mm base. Since there aren't any casualties removed till the entire unit is gone, why get all 40 models? Seeing this being gripped about on other forums where some players are literally using only a single fig per unit.

There is a generally accepted thing with KoW unit basing that the footprint has to have at least half of the intended model count, otherwise it can look a bit silly.

It is still a viable method of making an army very, very cheaply though.

Nothing GW does comes close to Mantic's Undead Battalion set, at 110 minis for £50.

http://www.manticgames.com/mantic-shop/kings-of-war/getting-started/product/undead-army-set-110-figures.html

And they're good sculpts, too. I think almost everyone who is aware of the company and has an undead army these days has at least looked at or considered some of the Mantic line.

The best bundle deal GW offers is 36 for 75 minis:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat720002a&prodId=prod2290019a

Costs 50% more and has one-third of the minis. Even counting cavalry as 2 models, the GW set costs quadruple the Mantic one.

What. Of course you base your price on the market leader. That's what competitive pricing is all about. So I don't get what your argument here is, really.

 heartserenade wrote:
What. Of course you base your price on the market leader. That's what competitive pricing is all about. So I don't get what your argument here is, really.

Games Workshop is not the market leader in toys & games. They are only the leader in a highly exclusive sub-niche of highly expensive games, and Mantic is slightly cheaper in that sub-niche. But the niche as a whole, GW & Mantic and all the rest, are still not "cheap". Both cater to a rather select customer base that will spend significant amounts of money on "gaming" compared to the average population.

It's like saying a Porsche is a "cheap car" because it is cheaper than a Ferrari. It's not. It might be a relatively cheaper in the sub-niche of premium sports cars. But ultimately, neither is a "cheap car".

I really didn't want to join in the mantic discussion, but... I don't think its right to treat the main mantic army boxes as loss leaders.

I'd argue that mantic don't expect people to go out and buy, say, 1 box of corporation marines. If they were basing their sales on that concept, they'd long be bankrupt.

People go to mantic and buy whole army bundles and deals and then only may buy a single unit of something else to round out their forces. For example, I have a force of corporation models made out of 2 1 player battle sets and a corporation army set.

Whereas with GW, I think they're concept WAS, buy 1 battle force to get you into the army, then its individual kits for everything else. However, to drag back to being on topic again, maybe GW is changing track on that now? As they've supposed got rid of battle forces and replaced them with the strike forces, which are very much like the aforementioned mantic army sets.

Plus, you gave things like the tyranid swarm set just released (probably as a direct reaction to those account figures), that genuinely do offer a real saving and, amazingly wouldn't hurt for someone to buy 2.

Of course, being GW, the new tyranid codex is supposedly pants and so the set probably won't be sold in great numbers.

Em sorry, no, we are in a wargames forum and speak about wargames, the fact that you can get a piece of paper a pen and play tic tac toe for free or for a really small price (how much is a piece of paper and a pen?) does not mean we should compare this to a wargame and find the wargame an horrendously expensive thing.

Things must be compared in their own category, in your example I can really say X car is cheap in the luxury cars category, the fact that cheaper cars exist in the mainstream category or more expensive in the military category is irrelevant.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:


Plus, you gave things like the tyranid swarm set just released (probably as a direct reaction to those account figures), that genuinely do offer a real saving and, amazingly wouldn't hurt for someone to buy 2.

Of course, being GW, the new tyranid codex is supposedly pants and so the set probably won't be sold in great numbers.

A good question is what percentage of an army this deal gives, another interesting comparison is the fact that the marines deal they did along with it saves you nothing.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Em sorry, no, we are in a wargames forum and speak about wargames,

Actually, it's a miniatures game forum, so we talk miniatures, and miniature vs. miniature is still the way I personally would compare things.

I am merely responding with my thoughts on the "miniature vs. miniature is pointless" responses I got, as it is an interesting point, but one that will never be resolved, as people will always arbitrarily "draw the line" in ways that support their personal bias of what is "cheap" and what is "expensive".

There are no objective benchmarks to be found there.

There is because trying to compare something in a way its not intended to be compared is plainly wrong, when a manufacturer makes wargames instead of figures, his business model and pricing is centered on the complete package not the individual parts of it.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
There is because trying to compare something in a way its not intended to be compared is plainly wrong, when a manufacturer makes wargames instead of figures, his business model and pricing is centered on the complete package not the individual parts of it.

Correct. That's why a company explicitly branding itself as making "the best *cough* miniatures in the world" needs to be compared with competitors on a miniature vs. miniature footing (price, quality, options, etc..) at the end of the day.

The advertising they have to shift more miniatures (e.g. the games) aren't part of the package in GW's business model. They are just the commercial (for good or ill).

And companies making "games" (such as Mantic's DreadBall, which is a board game at the end of the day). needs to be compared in price, quality, etc.. with other games of its kind.

Well, Dreadball kickoff is priced competitively with modern boardgames, like Settlers of Catan or Battlestar Galactica. Same for things like Project Pandora, or dwarf kings hold. Mantic even have deals on all 3 right now.

Maybe this is worth having its own discussion thread though?

 Compel wrote:
Well, Dreadball kickoff is priced competitively with modern boardgames, like Settlers of Catan or Battlestar Galactica. Same for things like Project Pandora, or dwarf kings hold. Mantic even have deals on all 3 right now.

Agreed. They sit fairly in the middle with other comparable products. But certainly not at the "cheap" end of things.

Yeah, I think he's arguing a point that he himself said there's no answer to. Just move on topic.

When will be the next financial report?

Mantic's undead are decent, zombies are actually better than (very old) GW zombie kit. However, that is an exception, most of their models are utterly horrid. It really doesn't matter what they cost, if the quality is such that I wouldn't take them for free. I know some people who play Kings of War, but all of them use GW models to do it, as no one wants to touch the misshapen lumps of restic Mantic sells as models.

As for price comparison, I think that if you want to compare whether product is 'fairly priced' you should compare model to model. However, from marketing perspective the price of an entire game still matters a lot, and GW is foolish for not having a low-model-count entry level product.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

I know some people would be aghast at this but I dont care. My bank account looks good and I still enjoy my hobby!

You enjoy it so who cares. Why buy models you dislike then spent a huge time investment in painting them if you don't have to.

I buy miniatures for modelling and painting now as well as I can't really go out to play games in stores atm. I still buy build and paint with the idea that I will use them for games at some point though.

From an individuals perspective you are correct, who cares, the point is this is not the individuals perspective, but the companies perspective, If GW was a miniatures manufacturer their sales would be directed to individuals buying miniatures to paint and the use of their miniatures in other systems, clearly GW cannot be sustained by sales to the first group and the latter idea is an anathema to them, they manufacture miniatures to be played by their wargames, their rules are made constantly with an initiative to push for purchases of more models, not necessarily the ones the player would like, whatever GW might claim, they are a wargame manufacturer and the "we are first and foremost a miniatures company" in my eyes was always a bad excuse for the sore state their wargame rules were.

My who cares comment was only in regards to him saying that some people would be aghast at the way he plays. Nothing else.

I agree with you that their excuse that they are a miniatures company not a wargames/rules company is utter bs but that wasn't what I was replying too. When you charge £50 ish for a rule book then another £20 for a codex you are a rules company as well as a minitures one no matter what you say.

The conversation about mantic is going no where and is now so far off topic its worthless. The goalposts have been moved so much how about we move them to a different thread where they will be relevant?

 carlos13th wrote:
The goalposts have been moved so much how about we move them to a different thread where they will be relevant?

The thing is, you need to move the "goalpost" in some way to have a viable comparsion.

The simplistic GW vs. Mantic comparison IS the fallacy Mantic is exploiting to sell you overpriced plastic at the illusion of "cheap". That was the point.

You keep refusing to move to any kind of objective non-GW benchmark. Fine, just proves my point (and vindicates Mantic's business model).

 Crimson wrote:
Mantic's undead are decent, zombies are actually better than (very old) GW zombie kit. However, that is an exception, most of their models are utterly horrid. It really doesn't matter what they cost, if the quality is such that I wouldn't take them for free. I know some people who play Kings of War, but all of them use GW models to do it, as no one wants to touch the misshapen lumps of restic Mantic sells as models.

As for price comparison, I think that if you want to compare whether product is 'fairly priced' you should compare model to model. However, from marketing perspective the price of an entire game still matters a lot, and GW is foolish for not having a low-model-count entry level product.

I'm not a huge fan of the Mantic undead aesthetic to be honest. The Skellies and Zombies might technically be "better", but the aesthetic doesn't appeal to me and so for the most part they hold no value to me, even though I have a (WIP) vampire counts army.

Actually, very little in Mantic's line up appeals to me aesthetically. A few models here and there that I like, overall not a lot though.

Ok sure, whatever makes you happy.

Can we get back on topic now please.

So basically, we have an arbitrary level of 'cheap' which Zwei is largely keeping to himself for now, then, if 'cheap' comes under too much pressure, we have the even more vague 'keen' which is equally hush hush.

Then, if the comparison is favourable, we are operating in the wargame market, unless that doesn't serve the purpose, in which case we're taking anything from all toys and games right up to noughts and crosses and rock, paper, scissors.

All in an effort to somehow prove a company that offers a demonstrably lower buy-in, and significantly lower cost-per-miniature across the majority of it's range when compared in a rational, like-for-like basis is somehow almost as expensive as GW?



Seriously people, if you don't stop feeding him, he will keep bothering you!

 azreal13 wrote:
So basically, we have an arbitrary level of 'cheap' which Zwei is largely keeping to himself for now, then, if 'cheap' comes under too much pressure, we have the even more vague 'keen' which is equally hush hush.

Then, if the comparison is favourable, we are operating in the wargame market, unless that doesn't serve the purpose, in which case we're taking anything from all toys and games right up to noughts and crosses and rock, paper, scissors.

All in an effort to somehow prove a company that offers a demonstrably lower buy-in, and significantly lower cost-per-miniature across the majority of it's range when compared in a rational, like-for-like basis is somehow almost as expensive as GW?

Seriously people, if you don't stop feeding him, he will keep bothering you!

I didn't come up with the concept of keen. I agree, it is ridiculous.

I didn't come up with the concept of game vs. game comparisons. I agree, it is ridiculous.

I didn't come up with the concept of a wargame market, I agree, it is ridiculous.

I have never contested that Mantic is cheaper than GW, quite the opposite. I said it is the foundation of Mantic's business model.

I am not sure what your beef is? Are you actually complaining that I responded to people bringing flawed concepts to this discussion?

All I said is that if X is relatively cheaper than Y, that doesn't preclude the possibility that X is still expensive (just less expensive than Y).

It's a popular business concept to exploit the "price-blindness" of customers accustomed expensive products to seem "relatively cheaper", even if they are still expensive in absolute terms. Plenty of Starbucks competitors sell coffee "cheaper than Starbucks", while still charging an arm and a leg for a cup of coffee.

 heartserenade wrote:
Yeah, I think he's arguing a point that he himself said there's no answer to. Just move on topic.

When will be the next financial report?

Six months time, and I believe that one will be far more detailed being the annual report while this one was a mid year report (despite it coming out at the beginning of the year).

 Zweischneid wrote:

I didn't come up with the concept of game vs. game comparisons. I agree, it is ridiculous.

I didn't come up with the concept of a wargame market, I agree, it is ridiculous.

I have never contested that Mantic is cheaper than GW, quite the opposite. I said it is the foundation of Mantic's business model.

Explain to me why these are ridiculous?

Generally speaking the smaller game players don't want to end up sniping at each other, I imagine. As all that's doing is hurting the games they enjoy playing as opposed to helping them all grow to take on GW.

For example, at the recent Mantic Open Day, Hawk Wargames, creators of Dropzone Commander were invited along. As I was picking up my Deadzone box, which was a lot of Mantic stuff, the only things I ended up actually buying at the day was Dropzone models. Warlord Games, with Bolt Action was also there.
As was the sellers of the Judge Dredd miniatures game, which, one would argue, would be a direct competitor to Deadzone.

However, if someone really wants to make some comparisons.

Deadzone starters come in at £16.99 on Wayland Games. These give you 12 minis, plus the faction deck, which is the equivalent of a codex / army book.

As far as I can see, Infinity's equivalent, such as the Yu-Jing Starter Pack comes in at £27 for 6 models. Although their rules can be downloaded for free.... I think?

GW's latest troop mini's for their skirmish game come in at a stonking £5 per model in the Lake Town Swordsmen. And it looks like Wayland aren't even allowed to discount those.

Deadzone is currently priced £8 cheaper than Sedition Wars. and is on a par with the Dropzone Commander starter set. They both match the 50k and fantasy starter sets... But more on that...

Deadzone, generally speaking, has around 130% of the 'points' you'd need for a typical game, more if you're playing as Enforcers.

Dropzone Commander matches more with Dark Vengeance and Island of Blood, in that you get around 30% of the models you need for a typical / standard game. It's worth noting, that you'd probably going to use nearly all the DZC models (not the extra APC, and probably maybe use 1 less dropship) in the starter set in your army.

The GW games... Maybe 2 units? Although, the Skaven do have an edge in usability there. Your Griffin, Ellyrion Reavers, either the terminators or the bikers, Helbrute and any Chosen you're not using as sergeants aren't going to be used. And that's making the assumption that you want lots of cultists in your army.

Of course most other sci-fi / fantasy mini companies are going to try to run cheaper than GW.

 Zweischneid wrote:

I didn't come up with the concept of keen. I agree, it is ridiculous.

I think you did... we said 'lean' you said 'keen' and stuck to it. (I dont really know what you mean by keen pricing tbh)


As for a 'fair' comparison lets see; Across the board Mantics kits are pretty much cheaper. They are using metal, which GW axed recently, stopped producing because of a high raw material expense. So right off the bat any Mantic kits being produced with metal components are not comparable to any GW kits. We could compare a plastic only kit, or resin only, or plastic/resin mixes where they match up across the brands. This is ofcourse if you want to compare miniature vs miniature, like you advocate.

Then you have game vs game (or system vs system) comparison where you can now compare a mismatched material kit of arbitrary units brand to brand; e.g mantic goblin spearmen with metal arms to GW all plastics. You can compare like this because your buying the game piece, not the miniature.

Unfortunately Zwei you are inconsistent with your approach tot he argument, hence you come across the same way the WAAC players do, and are being rejected by others here (just my 2cents)

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

I didn't come up with the concept of game vs. game comparisons. I agree, it is ridiculous.

I didn't come up with the concept of a wargame market, I agree, it is ridiculous.

I have never contested that Mantic is cheaper than GW, quite the opposite. I said it is the foundation of Mantic's business model.

Explain to me why these are ridiculous?

Well, game vs. game isn't ridiculous by default, it only becomes so if arbitrarily exclude games that don't fit your argument. The only way I see it working "unbiased" is to use all games, but that seems significantly less informative than miniature vs. miniature.

The "wargaming market" is pointless, because neither Mantic nor GW are in it. Mantic is doing mostly board games these days. The one wargame they have is their smallest money-maker (judging from KS). GW is explicitly selling miniatures, not games. The "wargaming market" comparison can only be construed by "assuming" what either company says about themselves is BS and defining the market by the personal, biased approach of how a single customer/hobbyist (i.e. the poster) approaches their hobby.

It also excludes other shopping behaviours (random example, a mother looking to buy a box for her 2 sons, Island of Blood vs. 2 Mantic starter boxes). In other words, the "wargaming market" is again rife with personal bias that skew comparisons to favour the argument people want to make.

 Zweischneid wrote:


The "wargaming market" is pointless, because neither Mantic nor GW are in it.

What utter BS! Both companies are actively selling a wargame on the market right now, in direct competition with each other. You sir are just trolling I'm off for my sunday dinner, hope to see some real on topic debate later

HairySticks wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:


The "wargaming market" is pointless, because neither Mantic nor GW are in it.

What utter BS! Both companies are actively selling a wargame on the market right now, in direct competition with each other. You sir are just trolling I'm off for my sunday dinner, hope to see some real on topic debate later

Both are also selling miniatures, yet people keep saying that a comparison of miniatures vs. miniatures is misleading?

Okay, Zweischneid, just for you as you seem to have all mods on ignore:

azreal13 wrote:Ok, so now we've established what practically everyone knew already (you get more Mantic minis per £ spent than the equivalent ranges from GW, by and large) is it time to steer this thread back towards the distant, exotic lands of the original topic?

Alpharius wrote:That's probably a really good idea - onward and upward everyone!

All I know is that even if it's not actually cheaper, Mantic certainly is priced where I can afford to buy an army without spending a few hundred dollars plus $120 just for the rules, and that's HUGE. I've wanted to get back into 40k for about two months now and just given up on it entirely when I look at pricing out even a modest 1,000 or so point force because it's getting into the $400-500 dollar range, and I can't justify that kind of spending on a game, and I'm not going to buy it piecemeal and continually put off actually playing because nobody wants to play silly little demo games, they want to play real games.

GW needs to offer a starting army that's actually viable (i.e. not their garbage battleforces) for about $150. It doesn't have to be the best army ever, but it needs to have 1 HQ, 2 Troops and a few extras (or WHFB equivalent) and be a solid starting point. The rules are still an issue, but that's the first problem that springs to my mind whenever I look at 40K - "Wow it's going to cost me $300 just to get the basic units". The Space Marine Strikeforce/Tyranid Swarm are steps in the right direction but IMO not enough.

And now I will drop that part as it's not really relevant to the topic and is a heated discussion.

--------------------

RE: GW Financials. The current rumors seem to be that they want to lower the number of figures used, but as I said earlier I don't see how that's going to help anything other than giving an illusion. It won't help 40K at all where for the most part outside of specialty units boxes still contain 10 guys, and except for cavalry Fantasy has never looked right with less than 15-20 guys in a regiment.

What they need to do first of all, before anything else, is make the rules so that you aren't screwed over by wanting to play something fun/characterful in a world where most players seem to just pick the uber units. I'm sorry but when I look at advice for building let's say a CSM army and I'm told that CSM squads suck and shouldn't be taken, take a special character (who should be opponent's permission anyways) and a horde of cheap zombies, and then three of an OP flyer if I want to win, no thanks that's rubbish I want to play Chaos Space Marines, not horde of zombies with three hellturkeys. GW has done nothing to actually make it so balanced armies are the norm and outlier armies are the exception, up to and including this nonsense where you can actually purchase fortifications/terrain for your army (that Aegis gunline thing that everyone seems to take), in fact they actively discourage it with the OPness of some units and their fingers-in-ears garbage about how they aren't concerned about balance.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure if anything can save them now. Outside of HUGE price cuts, which really is unrealistic, people like me are never going to bother with them again because they've shown they just don't care. As long as you buy their stuff, they could care less about anything else. I actually asked my brother, who used to play 12 years ago with me, if he'd ever get back into GW if they lowered prices (which is the major reason he quit as well, having a low-paying job). His answer was a flat out no way in heck would he ever go back because he doesn't want to put money towards an army that is actually balanced and fits the background, and then get steamrolled every game simply for not having the OP army or the OP units.

I know a best selling author who wanted to get into wargaming but was put off by GW's business and legal decisions and started Warmachine. He posted on their forums and because Warmachine actually talks to their fans said, "Hey, isn't this New York Times best selling author? And he likes our games?" So they asked Mr. Correia if he would write something for them and Correia said "Heck yes! I love your games" So, PP got themselves a best selling author just from not being douche bags.

GW's, I love ya bro, but you gotta get in touch with the real world, yo. There's this thing called "PR," you may have heard of it. The basic premise is; you kind of have to be liked or at least tolerated to be successful...or put out a product so freaking awesome people don't care. One or the other, bro.

 MWHistorian wrote:
GW's, I love ya bro, but you gotta get in touch with the real world, yo. There's this thing called "PR," you may have heard of it. The basic premise is; you kind of have to be liked or at least tolerated to be successful...or put out a product so freaking awesome people don't care. One or the other, bro.

Well according to a rumor posted by someone who spoke to a GW rep, they don't have a PR department at all, so it's not surprising they don't know this

 Zweischneid wrote:

The "wargaming market" is pointless, because neither Mantic nor GW are in it.

You really should learn to recognise an untenable situation. Making stuff up doesn't help your argument.