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.

 ImAGeek wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, my Cyriss faction has been as expensive as my Necron army, 5000 pts, played in apoc games.
I presented details elsewhere here at Dakka.
The issue with GW for me is their policy not to talk to the customer.
PP is much more open minded.

How on earth did a Cyriss force cost the same as a 5000 pt Necron army? Either you have like one of everything and multiples of the Vectors and like 5 Prime Axioms or you got your Necron very cheap which is hardly a fair comparison... And saying 'elsewhere on Dakka' doesn't help, could be anywhere, could you link it?

I could link it later as I'm underway.
I have been surprised too.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If Dust Tactics sell you a mech for comparable price but it's made of thin plastic, is full of mold lines etc and overall a worse gaming piece, then the fact that you need only 2 is irrelevant to the fact that you got less, not more for the money.

But now you're missing the point here. I never said that total price to play the game is the only thing that matters and quality is irrelevant, I objected to your claim that per-model price is what matters, not total price to play the game. If you want to argue that GW kits are a superior product and worth what you pay for them that's entirely separate from the argument that GW's per-model prices are superior to non-GW games, regardless of the fact that the total cost to play the GW game is much higher.

Of course it doesn't. Dust tactics again, I'm absolutely in love with their mech designs but they are incapable of level of detail you have on taurox and I could probably throw the latter into the wall and count on it survivng, unlike the mech that would end shattered into pieces. That's quality when it comes to gaming miniatures, you could make a point about the design not meeting expectations of the customers but you don't have data for that. If majority likes it, its still quality.

Again, you're missing the point. The Dust model is a bad model (in your opinion) because of the flaws in the final product, not because of the technology it was manufactured with. Similarly, I think the Taurox is garbage no matter how well-manufactured it is. The fact that I can throw it against the wall and expect it to survive doesn't matter to me at all because there's no way I'm going to buy such an ugly and laughably overpriced model.

Ok lets say we agree on a minimum playable force for 40k (which we can't do because its not n the rules, used to be hq and 2 troops but now unbound cinematic lololol draigo vs the entire warp) being 1500 points and that you can get it for $700 on average with book and everything. Now let's price th minimum playable force of few ships in xwing with the precious tokens at $400 , is it still better value? Because stretch your argument a bit and it becomes absurd, just as I said.

Err, what? X-Wing ships cost $15 each (at full retail price), and you need 3-4 of them per player for a standard 100 point game. If you spend $400 you're getting 26 ships. Not only is that way more than a "minimum playable force", it's considerably more ships than the 16 that you'd need for a game between two swarm lists with the maximum possible number of ships on the table. And, despite your ridiculous exaggeration of the "minimum" price to play X-Wing, you're still paying $300 less than the minimum realistic 40k army.

Obviously but it's something you agree on when you get into 40k. Big scale, big cost. It might be a problem from GW perspective but looking at a nature of the game, big scale battles with high quality detailed 28mm miniatures, the cost vs other games is almost ok.

Yes, there's an inherent cost in playing a 28mm game with 200 models on the table, but GW adds to that inherent cost by charging a ton of money for the rules and removing any real option to play the game below ~1500 points. The total cost to play wouldn't be so bad if you could realistically expect to buy a 500 point army and have fun with it while you work on building up to larger games. But instead GW have created a game where you're expected to go straight to a full-size army at the cost of hundreds to thousands of dollars.

Other thing ofc is that they're all overpriced and should cost half the price but it's not that xwing or wmh is better value than 40k.

Of course they are better value, because, as I said, the important thing is total price to play the game, not price per 28mm infantry model. If I have a choice between spending $X on a single 40k army or spending $X to get full armies for X-Wing and Infinity with some money left over to start my Warmachine army then I'm getting a lot more gaming options for my money by choosing the non-GW games.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.

Ok, so GW spend a lot of time and effort making a model that looks crap. You realise that's not a point in their favour, right?

Because, what we're actually saying is "GW have all this money and expensive tech - and yet they still make models that look absolutely horrible."

I don't care whether a company spent millions developing a particular model, or whether they spent £3.75. What I care about is the final product.

Deadnight wrote:


Online retailers don't post to Poland? Just curious here.

They do, but first you would have to be able to order stuff online and you have to pay full price with the crazy money exchange rate they have. Although not as bad as the GW ones, I give them that.

Obviously but it's something you agree on when you get into 40k. Big scale, big cos

that is maybe true for people that started in 6th or 7th edition. I started in 5th and it was possible to build good and cheap armies back then without the milions of models needed.

Victrix is an example of a company that offers good value for money for a large-scale 28mm wargame. Their new Republican Roman set is £29.95 for 60 models that can be made into 36 infantry (e.g. Hastati, Principes and Triarii) and 18 light infantry (e.g. Velites) . Now my historical games knowledge is limited so I don't know what the typical number of figures at 28mm is, but I typically see around four units per base ("element"), and varying number of bases to an army depending on which rules you're using. So the sixty figures might be around half of a typical force perhaps, or even only 1/4 if certain rules use multiple bases to make up one unit. In any event, converting to USD that comes to just under $50 for superbly-detailed figures in hard plastic.

GW on the other hand sells 5 Sternguard for $50 that isn't even a complete unit but has a high cost because they have a ton of extra bits and bobs that tend to just go in a bits box. They are also superbly detailed (let's be honest here) and hard plastic.

That is an enormous disconnect and one that is way out of line. Even if you factor in the extra bits, there is no way that FIVE figures are worth $50 from GW when SIXTY figures cost less than that from Victrix. Even if five Sternguard was the maximum unit size and it came with everything allowed (e.g. the Privateer style where a box contains the complete unit), $50 would be outlandish. At being half a unit it becomes outright ridiculous.

 vipoid wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
That Taurox is absolute ugly crap does not take away the top notch tech that went to manufacture it, cost, detail, consumer service etc.

Ok, so GW spend a lot of time and effort making a model that looks crap. You realise that's not a point in their favour, right?

Because, what we're actually saying is "GW have all this money and expensive tech - and yet they still make models that look absolutely horrible."

I don't care whether a company spent millions developing a particular model, or whether they spent £3.75. What I care about is the final product.

What I care about is the final product as well... which is why the tech is important. Aesthetics are subjective, there are some crazy mofos who actually like the Taurox, so arguing aesthetics is mostly pointless IMO (the primary reason I haven't started Warmahordes is I find most the range entirely aesthetically uninspiring).

But the tech is important in how well sprues are laid out, whether or not there's sink holes, how hard it is to remove mould lines, how detailed the models might be. GW have always been near the front when it comes to these factors... and yes, they are important because they affect me the customer who has to assemble the models and it affects the final result of the painted model. I don't think GW are "the" best, but they are definitely up there with their plastics and I would hazard a guess and say that they are the best provider of a wide range of quality plastics.

Though I do disagree with Pb on the idea that how tough a model might be is important, as I value fine and realistically proportioned features over "wow, this is heavy, I could kill an Elephant with this". I haven't broken a model in years, as long as it's tough enough to get out of the sprue without breaking it I don't mind.

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If Dust Tactics sell you a mech for comparable price but it's made of thin plastic, is full of mold lines etc and overall a worse gaming piece, then the fact that you need only 2 is irrelevant to the fact that you got less, not more for the money.

But now you're missing the point here. I never said that total price to play the game is the only thing that matters and quality is irrelevant, I objected to your claim that per-model price is what matters, not total price to play the game. If you want to argue that GW kits are a superior product and worth what you pay for them that's entirely separate from the argument that GW's per-model prices are superior to non-GW games, regardless of the fact that the total cost to play the GW game is much higher.

Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective. You want 10 games with 20 models , I want 1 game with 200 models.

Peregrine wrote:

Of course it doesn't. Dust tactics again, I'm absolutely in love with their mech designs but they are incapable of level of detail you have on taurox and I could probably throw the latter into the wall and count on it survivng, unlike the mech that would end shattered into pieces. That's quality when it comes to gaming miniatures, you could make a point about the design not meeting expectations of the customers but you don't have data for that. If majority likes it, its still quality.

Again, you're missing the point. The Dust model is a bad model (in your opinion) because of the flaws in the final product, not because of the technology it was manufactured with. Similarly, I think the Taurox is garbage no matter how well-manufactured it is. The fact that I can throw it against the wall and expect it to survive doesn't matter to me at all because there's no way I'm going to buy such an ugly and laughably overpriced model.

Or you don't know what quality means. I provided basis for objective comparision of models. Taurox is hands down better quality model because manufacturing process makes it a more detailed and sturdier. Your or mine disdain for its looks is irrelevant unless you have data that majority of target audience hates it too.

Peregrine wrote:

Ok lets say we agree on a minimum playable force for 40k (which we can't do because its not in the rules, used to be hq and 2 troops but now unbound cinematic lololol draigo vs the entire warp) being 1500 points and that you can get it for $700 on average with book and everything. Now let's price th minimum playable force of few ships in xwing with the precious tokens at $400 , is it still better value? Because stretch your argument a bit and it becomes absurd, just as I said.

Err, what? X-Wing ships cost $15 each (at full retail price), and you need 3-4 of them per player for a standard 100 point game. If you spend $400 you're getting 26 ships. Not only is that way more than a "minimum playable force", it's considerably more ships than the 16 that you'd need for a game between two swarm lists with the maximum possible number of ships on the table. And, despite your ridiculous exaggeration of the "minimum" price to play X-Wing, you're still paying $300 less than the minimum realistic 40k army.

I don't know what minimum playable xwing force is. That was hyperbole to ask how far overpriced can a model get for you as long as the game is cheaper in total. Im sorry if that was convulted, I happen to Engrish heh.

Peregrine wrote:

Obviously but it's something you agree on when you get into 40k. Big scale, big cost. It might be a problem from GW perspective but looking at a nature of the game, big scale battles with high quality detailed 28mm miniatures, the cost vs other games is almost ok.

Yes, there's an inherent cost in playing a 28mm game with 200 models on the table, but GW adds to that inherent cost by charging a ton of money for the rules and removing any real option to play the game below ~1500 points. The total cost to play wouldn't be so bad if you could realistically expect to buy a 500 point army and have fun with it while you work on building up to larger games. But instead GW have created a game where you're expected to go straight to a full-size army at the cost of hundreds to thousands of dollars.

Yes good skirmish rules would be great but theoreticaly, you can play with 500 points.

Peregrine wrote:

Other thing ofc is that they're all overpriced and should cost half the price but it's not that xwing or wmh is better value than 40k.

Of course they are better value, because, as I said, the important thing is total price to play the game, not price per 28mm infantry model. If I have a choice between spending $X on a single 40k army or spending $X to get full armies for X-Wing and Infinity with some money left over to start my Warmachine army then I'm getting a lot more gaming options for my money by choosing the non-GW games.

Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective. You want 10 games with 20 models , I want 1 game with 200 models.

how is it subjective? if one game is less then 20 models, always and another one is more then 40 models 99% of the time , And those 20 models cost less then the 40 models from the other game. Then the game where you have to run 40 models or more has a higher cost. Your not going to tell me w40k or WFB is suddenly mass played at 1000 or 750pts.

Taurox is hands down better quality model because manufacturing process makes it a more detailed and sturdier

It could be made out of solid gold, but if people wouldn't want to play with the model for its ugliness, it would be have a low quality.

That was hyperbole to ask how far overpriced can a model get for you as long as the game is cheaper in total.

But the cost of a single model or even a group is less important, then the cost of an army.

Yes good skirmish rules would be great but theoreticaly, you can play with 500 points.

with seer star flying circles around you or suits jumping out shoting and going out of LoS and your army not being able to do much, because GW decided that it will be based around runing 700+pts of support units in form of vehicles.

For you. As said, someone might preffer one big army in one game over10 skirmish games. The only way to compare value here that is close to objective is comparing cost and quality of miniatures and rules.

at the level which the game is played. For w40k its 1500 or more, and it has to be compered to full armies from other systems too. If any costs less, then the system is cheaper. Even for playing mass combat w40k isn't, so good. Epic and simiular level games cost less and give the mass combat feel that people who like mass combat may want.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Peregrine wrote:

Other thing ofc is that they're all overpriced and should cost half the price but it's not that xwing or wmh is better value than 40k.

Of course they are better value, because, as I said, the important thing is total price to play the game, not price per 28mm infantry model. If I have a choice between spending $X on a single 40k army or spending $X to get full armies for X-Wing and Infinity with some money left over to start my Warmachine army then I'm getting a lot more gaming options for my money by choosing the non-GW games.

Plumbumbarum wrote:For you. As said, someone might preffer one big army in one game over10 skirmish games. The only way to compare value here that is close to objective is comparing cost and quality of miniatures and rules. And yes GW loses on the latter quite badly but to their defence, the books are beautiful things and they capitalise on it too.

But it's not just a choice of 'one big game or 10 little games'. Someone might only play one skirmish game, or even two or three, and that's still cheaper than 40k. Why are you assuming everyone plays 10 skirmish games and therefore are spending the same amount as you are on 40k on those 10 games? Even if they are they're getting better value, 10 games for the price of 1!

And in terms of books, GW books have gone downhill now they use photos instead of art, and a big part of the quality of a RULES book, is the RULES. Which in GW case, are awful. Also, clarity, proofreading etc. I'd expect all that for £30.

For me the biggest problem is that I can buy MULTIPLE OTHER GAMES for the price of a typical 40k army. Including some large-scale games with lots of models, not just skirmish games.

Even disregarding that, the value from a 40k model is nowhere close to other models. I don't mind paying $60 for 10 figures for Warmachine, but $50 for 10 40k figures makes me cringe because the value obtained is about half of that (since I'll likely need to buy a duplicate box) because GW can get away with it. The size doesn't matter because other companies can do large scale games (with as many or more models than 40k) and THEY don't charge an arm and a leg.

Makumba wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Online retailers don't post to Poland? Just curious here.

They do, but first you would have to be able to order stuff online and you have to pay full price with the crazy money exchange rate they have. Although not as bad as the GW ones, I give them that.

The WMH WTC was held in Poland this year, my country sent two teams to attend.

They and everyone else in the tournament, came back with arm loads of brand new miniatures that they bought for much less than what the retail value is over here (or in other countries in Europe)... I don't know where you've been looking, but unless there was a special "foreigners discount" in action, you guys actually pay less than everyone else for your PP miniatures.

Also, it has been explained to you several times already, PP doesn't deal with customers directly, they only deal with distributors, so if you really are paying above the recommended price that is on the PP site, just tell your retailer to change distributor, or you can always buy online and get discounts that way.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective.

Except the per model price isn't a good comparison either because it comes down to how much a company can get out of a single customer for a single army and how much it costs the company to make that model.

If you are selling 100 models to each customer, the company's per model costs are much lower than if they were selling 10 models to each customer.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective.

And GW loses on this front too because Perry and Victrix sell three or more times the figures for half the price as GW, for comparable quality (albeit a different design aesthetic as you cannot really compare quality between a Space Marine and a French Grenadier as they are two totally different visuals). There is nothing about GW's quality that warrants the kind of prices that they charge, for anything because other companies that don't have their own facilities (i.e. it costs them more to produce) can offer 60 models for less than what GW asks for 5 models.

Quality is subjective, but when you compare two things made out of the same material (hard plastic in this case), when one company that has to pay someone else to cast the mold can offer eight times the amount of figures for less money? GW likes to always talk about how many components and bits that are in their kits, but 60 Victrix models have a lot of pieces too (although not extra bits for the bits box, they are IIRC all used to build actual figures), probably more in actual material than GW has in little purity seals or icons or additional shoulder pads, and they still offer you sixty for the same price as five.

What on earth justifies GW charging that price? It can't be actual quality (i.e. not subjective aesthetic "I like how Space Marines look" or "I don't like French Napoleonic uniforms" type of comments) since both are hard plastic with great details appropriate to the type of figure. It can't be that GW includes half a dozen extra shoulderpads or three kinds of power armor and a ton of purity seals, because you're getting 60 figures in multiple parts so you're getting more individual pieces, so the cost of those individual pieces can't be significant.

Look at this box from Victrix: http://www.victrixlimited.com/online_shop/product_info.php?cPath=61&products_id=382

Those sprues are essentially the same things you get from GW, except that rather than include an extra six kinds of helmets or shoulder pads with more skulls or writing or whatever crap, Victrix actually gives you additional complete figures so you get more value for your money.

Victrix and Perry put to rest the whole "GW has the best quality" nonsense. You can still think that 10 space marines for $40 is worth it because of the extras in the context of 40k, but you can't claim that the high price is anything but GW price gouging because they can when the same quality in a different aesthetic and more individual pieces costs less, and those manufacturers have to pay additional cost since they don't own the production facility like GW does.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective.

Yeah, because quality isn't the least bit subjective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Online retailers don't post to Poland? Just curious here.

They do, but first you would have to be able to order stuff online and you have to pay full price with the crazy money exchange rate they have. Although not as bad as the GW ones, I give them that.

The WMH WTC was held in Poland this year, my country sent two teams to attend.

They and everyone else in the tournament, came back with arm loads of brand new miniatures that they bought for much less than what the retail value is over here (or in other countries in Europe)... I don't know where you've been looking, but unless there was a special "foreigners discount" in action, you guys actually pay less than everyone else for your PP miniatures.

Also, it has been explained to you several times already, PP doesn't deal with customers directly, they only deal with distributors, so if you really are paying above the recommended price that is on the PP site, just tell your retailer to change distributor, or you can always buy online and get discounts that way.

I was going to call shenanigans on this too, the Zloty is at a two year high against the GBP, as a member state of the EU Poland won't be subject to any sort of import duties, so the only thing that might be expensive is shipping, but based on my experience buying product from Poland, this doesn't appear to be as ludicrous as some other EU countries (or worse, the U.S. *shudder*)

I suspect Makumba may be making unsubstantiated claims to support his point, relying on other posters' ignorance to get away with it, or simply hasn't really tried that hard to find a reliable source of reasonably priced models.

Makumba wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


Online retailers don't post to Poland? Just curious here.

They do, but first you would have to be able to order stuff online and you have to pay full price with the crazy money exchange rate they have. Although not as bad as the GW ones, I give them that.

It's not that hard to order stuff online. I doubt Poland is that far behind the rest of the world with using debit and credit cards.

As to having to pay full price? Yeah, I'm not believing that for a second.

Most online stores, like for example Wayland games do a 10 to 20 percent discount and provide worldwide shipping. And they go straight to your door. Worst case scenario and customs duty is high, then do a group order and get all your stuff sent to one address and split the customs charges.

It seems to me that some shopping around from the players, and seeking out new distributors for your games stores is in order.

So many people to prove wrong, cant do that on my crap old phone. Will get in front of PC in few days time, in the meantime just consider yourselves demolished and eaten in discussion in advance

 Azreal13 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective.

Yeah, because quality isn't the least bit subjective.

Next time you decide to use boorish facepalming to be cool on the internet, at least make sure you know what are you talking about. Qualuty is subjective on personal scale but on large scale it's easy to define general requirements for a product. I work in quality control and write quality systems for companies btw, does not make me right by default but hey.

Taurox is a quality piece and even majority of dakka hating it does not prove that it's not, we might still be inside the 3% or sth of acceptable dissatisfied consumers on some quality control chart. If someone has accurate data about the consumer base, thats how you can prove it's not a quality piece from a design standpoint. Nemesis dreadknight was ridiculed to hell and back and still flew off the shelves.

@Makumba yes if you get 40 minis of comparable quality in price of 20 from 40k then ofc it's better value. It's not better value to get less simple spaceships because thats all you need to play.

@Wayne I can't even view the minis but just tell me if they have better detail than crimson slaughter or that the companies can do coven thrones, hive tyrants or things like that wood elves big guys lately. If so, Im happy that GW is beaten on their own turf.

You do know the difference between something that is subjective and objective, right?

Just asking.

Taurox quality? It may be well built, but it's a well built piece of poo.

 Envihon wrote:
People complain constantly about the costs of GW and how they are so expensive but has anyone looked at how expensive X-Wing is? I was looking around at the hobby shop just checking out the things that people say are so much better than GW and I couldn't believe how expensive X-Wing is. Now I understand for the most part, it is just models and you don't have to buy Codices but dang man, the cost of them equals the models plus the codex to go along. I mean I also feel the same about Privateer Press, that people complain about GW prices but from where I stand, neither company offers a "cheaper" hobby. The only argument from that side that someone can argue is that you need less models than GW but isn't that the point of WH40k, to play anything from small skirmishes to giant battles. The other area is maybe customer service and player support but I haven't had a problem really. Things like this make it hard for me to understand why people rail against GW pricing. Maybe I am not seeing the big picture and someone can help illuminate me (In a respectful manner. I understand this is a touchy subject but could we please have civil discourse over the internet and not a flame war?)

Do you run 100 X-wing models on the table at the same time? GW has on occasion made entire armies illegal with a few codex changes, 100 models that are now useless or require extensive rework...

Plumbumbarum wrote:
So many people to prove wrong, cant do that on my crap old phone. Will get in front of PC in few days time, in the meantime just consider yourselves demolished and eaten in discussion in advance

 Azreal13 wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective.

Yeah, because quality isn't the least bit subjective.

Next time you decide to use boorish facepalming to be cool on the internet, at least make sure you know what are you talking about. Qualuty is subjective on personal scale but on large scale it's easy to define general requirements for a product. I work in quality control and write quality systems for companies btw, does not make me right by default but hey.

Taurox is a quality piece and even majority of dakka hating it does not prove that it's not, we might still be inside the 3% or sth of acceptable dissatisfied consumers on some quality control chart. If someone has accurate data about the consumer base, thats how you can prove it's not a quality piece from a design standpoint. Nemesis dreadknight was ridiculed to hell and back and still flew off the shelves.

You're correct, it is possible to objectively measure quality in terms of a percentage of units which fail to live up to a set of fixed criteria as they come off the production line etc etc. You can also try and argue a kit is "quality" because it sold well. Which is, of course, utter nonsense, because by that metric McDonalds make some of the best food in the world.

However, as a consumer, these definitions mean less than half a deep fried gak to me.

I do not care how efficient GW are at making plastic kits. My personal perception of a kit's quality is a complicated mess of variables including what it looks like, how it goes together, how much clean up and remedial work is needed, whether it paints well, and all of that is in turn compared to the price paid and what other companies are doing.

That's just me! I'm primarily a painter, so I'll buy models that look good, even if they're not necessarily the best in game, others whose motivation is more gaming focused will have their buying choices influenced by the rules, making any measurement of the quality of the kit utterly redundant in isolation.

So while you definitions of quality are valid, they're utterly irrelevant to the conversation.

They do have the same quality, just a different aesthetic since a Roman legionnaire isn't going to look anything like a Chaos Marine or Wood Elf or anything else. That's where subjective comes into play: You can't say that the Roman looks low quality because he's not in power armor with a bolter, because he's not supposed to be. The quality of the sculpt is just as good as GW as far as sculpting and casting goes, even if you dislike how the Roman looks and like how the Space Marine looks. That's the part that is subjective: how a specific model looks.

The figures are of the same quality because they are both highly detailed, hard plastic sculpts. Anything beyond that boils down to personal taste (e.g. "The Roman is bad quality because he doesn't look like a Space Marine" isn't valid at all, just like "The Space Marine is flat compared to the Roman" would be the same) which is not a valid reason for saying 1 is better quality over another. You can still say that you don't like how the Roman looks and like how the Space Marine looks, but you cannot use that statement as anything beyond an opinion of preference.

An actual comparison to "quality" of the individual figures could be made if GW made hard plastic Romans (or some equivalent like the old Dogs of War unit), but there isn't one.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't have a problem with the large model count, I just have a problem with a large model count game with model prices akin to a small skirmish game.

I don't really see how the size of the game should have any impact on the cost of the models, to be honest.

Model prices shouldn't be anything to do with how many of them you need. They're (or should be) dictated by production costs and quality. So yes, a game where you need 200 miniatures is going to cost more than a game where you need 5. That's just the nature of the beast.

That's not saying GW's prices couldn't stand to come down a bit... I'd love to see cheaper GW minis as much as the next guy. But I'm happy to pay the same for a 40K mini as for an equivalent quality mini from a smaller game, because there is no logical reason for those two miniatures to be priced differently.

 insaniak wrote:

I don't really see how the size of the game should have any impact on the cost of the models, to be honest.

Model prices shouldn't be anything to do with how many of them you need. They're (or should be) dictated by production costs and quality. So yes, a game where you need 200 miniatures is going to cost more than a game where you need 5. That's just the nature of the beast.

I disagree.

To use your example, a game that requires hundreds of miniatures has no business charging the same per model as one which requires only 5.

 vipoid wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

I don't really see how the size of the game should have any impact on the cost of the models, to be honest.

Model prices shouldn't be anything to do with how many of them you need. They're (or should be) dictated by production costs and quality. So yes, a game where you need 200 miniatures is going to cost more than a game where you need 5. That's just the nature of the beast.

I disagree.

To use your example, a game that requires hundreds of miniatures has no business charging the same per model as one which requires only 5.

I agree with this only because places like Victrix or Perry have games that require a lot and charge a lot less because of it, because they know that you need a lot so they aren't trying to charge a ton even though they could.

 vipoid wrote:
To use your example, a game that requires hundreds of miniatures has no business charging the same per model as one which requires only 5.

Why?

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I don't have a problem with the large model count, I just have a problem with a large model count game with model prices akin to a small skirmish game.

I don't really see how the size of the game should have any impact on the cost of the models, to be honest.

Model prices shouldn't be anything to do with how many of them you need. They're (or should be) dictated by production costs and quality. So yes, a game where you need 200 miniatures is going to cost more than a game where you need 5. That's just the nature of the beast.

That's not saying GW's prices couldn't stand to come down a bit... I'd love to see cheaper GW minis as much as the next guy. But I'm happy to pay the same for a 40K mini as for an equivalent quality mini from a smaller game, because there is no logical reason for those two miniatures to be priced differently.

I'm going to have to disagree, though I admit I don't know enough about it to say for sure.

My reasoning is two fold...

1. A large amount of the cost of producing a model (especially plastic) seems to be the start up cost, paying the creative team who came up with the idea, paying the sculptor to sculpt it, paying to get a mould made. The actual individual casting seems like a relatively small cost and all those other costs are diminishing the more models you sell. Thus if you intend to sell a lot of models, you should be able to afford to make them cheaper. The difference between including 4 identical sprues I would not expect to be significantly higher than including 2 identical sprues.

2. You aren't just selling individual models, you're selling armies. When I think of Revell, Tamiya, Dragon, they are companies selling individual models. They have to consider the costs and revenue of individual models. When you're selling armies, you need to consider the typical average costs of an entire army against the revenue per customer buying that army. It doesn't really matter if it costs you 10 cents to produce a single guardsman, because no one buys a single guardsman. It doesn't really even matter what the costs of entire box of guardsmen cost, because you can't make an army from 1 box of guardsmen.

It's not like this concept is unheard of... almost everything if you buy it in bulk you can get it cheaper But even within wargaming, you can often find examples of people selling large swaths of high quality models for low prices vs skirmish games of only a few models that sell much cheaper. GW are just trying to sell their models at skirmish level prices but you have to buy large swaths of them

I'm not saying a game that requires 200 models should cost the same as a game that requires 5 models... but the price per model should sure as hell be cheaper.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Per model price, taking into account quality is the only basis for comparision of value, rest is too subjective. You want 10 games with 20 models , I want 1 game with 200 models.

Call it "subjective" if you want, but it's still a very relevant factor. Very few people care about some abstract concept of "value" when they buy models for a game, they care about how much it costs to play the game.

Taurox is hands down better quality model because manufacturing process makes it a more detailed and sturdier. Your or mine disdain for its looks is irrelevant unless you have data that majority of target audience hates it too.

And both halves of your definition are badly flawed:

The detail argument is a joke with 40k models. Having more skulls and purity seals per square inch does not make a model better than the competition, it just means that the CAD artist copy/pasted a bunch of stuff onto every single surface. Sometimes making a quality model involves knowing when to stop adding extra clutter to it. In fact, this is often an argument against the quality of 40k models, they have way too much random clutter everywhere as a cheap substitute for real detail.

The sturdiness argument is rarely relevant unless you're talking about buying models for young children. Most adults are capable of playing with their toys without breaking anything, so having the ability to survive abuse a model is never going to receive is not really worth paying for. In fact, if you value detail so much, you could even argue that GW's decision to create "throw it at the wall and it won't get a scratch" models is bad for quality because it means sacrificing fine detail and making design decisions based around durability instead of appearance.

So, once again, you define "value" and "quality" based on factors that attempt to avoid subjective preferences, but in doing so you create a definition that has very little to do with how willing people are to spend money on something.

I don't know what minimum playable xwing force is. That was hyperbole to ask how far overpriced can a model get for you as long as the game is cheaper in total. Im sorry if that was convulted, I happen to Engrish heh.

If you don't know how much a minimum X-Wing force costs then why did you propose a number? Why did you need to make that claim at all, instead of just saying "I don't know how much X-Wing costs, I apologize for making claims about the value of its models"?

Yes good skirmish rules would be great but theoreticaly, you can play with 500 points.

In theory you can, but in practice you can't. 500 point games are little more than rock/paper/scissors matches where the best way to win is to bring a single powerful unit (LRBT, giant horde of boyz, etc) that your opponent can't even hope to beat and then drive around the table slaughtering everything while all your opponent can do is roll saves and remove models. The game doesn't start to become even close to balanced or fun until 1000-1500 points.

And then there's the fun issue. Remember how 40k is about big armies with all the awesome tanks/titans/etc, and that's what sets it apart from the competition? Well, people who like those things about 40k want to use them and aren't likely to be interested in playing a game with a couple tactical squads and a Rhino. They're going to want to play normal 1000-1500+ point games with all of their fancy toys, so if you want to play pickup games against all the other players you're going to have to invest the money to buy a full-size army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Taurox is a quality piece and even majority of dakka hating it does not prove that it's not, we might still be inside the 3% or sth of acceptable dissatisfied consumers on some quality control chart.

By what definition is it a "quality piece"? Because it was manufactured with few casting flaws? As a customer I care about the rate of defective products, but I also care about the appearance of a model. And by that standard the Taurox is garbage. It doesn't matter how few casting flaws it has, or how well the parts fit together, because it's an ugly piece of that I wouldn't put on the table even if it was free.

t's not that hard to order stuff online. I doubt Poland is that far behind the rest of the world with using debit and credit cards.

You need work to get one and an account at a bank. Even if your parents put more then enough money for a buy on your account, your still not going to get a card unless you bring an official paper from work that you earn a minimum wage , that or you have some sort of social or pension.


And as for people buying models cheaper here there are two options. There was one store in warsaw that had WM models and it was selling it stock, because it was closing. Or they bought models from people not stores. There is not even an official seller of PP stuff for Poland, that actualy sells models.
So yes you can order stuff online and pay for posting those heavy metal models from US. And if you get lucky customs will open the big heavy box and check what is inside and if they have a good day, they will class the stuff not as import toys and according with the law put the 23% vat on it.

Makumba wrote:

t's not that hard to order stuff online. I doubt Poland is that far behind the rest of the world with using debit and credit cards.

You need work to get one and an account at a bank. Even if your parents put more then enough money for a buy on your account, your still not going to get a card unless you bring an official paper from work that you earn a minimum wage , that or you have some sort of social or pension.

Wait - people need to earn money to be able to spend it?
I wasn't aware.

Or, you know, not order from the US with all the associated import duties and high priced USPS postage and just order from Troll Trader, or Firestorm, or Element, or Wayland or.. well, you get where I'm going, and suffer none of those issues because they're based in the EU.

It isn't unusual for adults to order goods on their cards for younger people either, IIRC you need to be at least 16 to get any card in he UK too, and 18 for the one that works anywhere, so that's not unique to Poland.

Also, Poland is a big place, I couldn't honestly say I'm familiar with every hobby store here in the UK and their inventory, so saying "nowhere in Poland" seems a bit generalised?

Honestly, you're just coming across as defeatist because you've perhaps encountered an obstacle and aren't motivated to work around it.