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.

Backfire wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

No, the opposite is true. There is a reason why outsourcing is popular. Vertical integration brings other benefits, but it's not really cheap, which is why relatively few companies practice it nowadays.

Because I doubt you'd take my word for it..

Literally the first result on Google wrote:
Vertical integration also typically offers significantly ability to control costs throughout the distribution process. In the traditional distribution process, every step in product movement involves mark-ups so the reseller can earn profit. By selling directly to end buyers, manufacturers can "eliminate the middle man," removing one or more steps of mark-ups along the way. A single entity managing the distribution process also has more ability to optimize resource utilization and avoid wasted costs. Lower transportation costs are common.

Again, if it was true, then more companies would practice it. Note how in the past, big manufacturing companies had very deep level of vertical integration. For example, Ford used to own its own cotton fields so it could manufacture all necessary textiles for the cars it produced. By contrast, these days a company like Apple doesn't manufacture anything. They have never manufactured a single iPhone - it's all outsourced to dedicated manufacturing companies like Foxconn, who in turn have their own subcontractors etc.

If it was true....if...it...was...true.

Hookay. Well, this is going nowhere.

You're just getting hung up on various levels of vertical integration.

I suppose we can't call GW vertically integrated because they don't own the oil plants to extract the crude nor the refineries needed to turn it into plastic?

We aren't allow to call Apple vertically integrated despite the fact they maintain a worldwide chain of their own retail shops?

There are many, many examples, literally any brand of good whose parent company maintains a retail chain, of vertical integration, the level that GW employs may be higher than is common, but to say it isn't widely practiced is daft.

Apple charges what it does for its products because they can. Because they have literally no competition for iOS devices, as they have a monopoly on that specific line of products (and patents on most of the accessories for them, too). Of course, they compete with other cellphone manufacturers on iPhones, for the consumer not dedicated to an iOS device, and have some competition on personal music players like their iPod line, and similar competition in the tablet/netbook market with their iPad devices.

... all of which serve to keep costs to the consumer down.

GW has plenty of competition for miniatures. Why, then, are their prices not competitive?

 Psienesis wrote:
Apple charges what it does for its products because they can. Because they have literally no competition for iOS devices, as they have a monopoly on that specific line of products (and patents on most of the accessories for them, too). Of course, they compete with other cellphone manufacturers on iPhones, for the consumer not dedicated to an iOS device, and have some competition on personal music players like their iPod line, and similar competition in the tablet/netbook market with their iPad devices.

... all of which serve to keep costs to the consumer down.

GW has plenty of competition for miniatures. Why, then, are their prices not competitive?

I disagree. GW and Apple are not bad comparisons at all.

Personally, I think that iOS devices are grossly overrated and overpriced, and that Windows alternatives (like Dell Venue Pro 8 and Surface Pro 3) are far superior in every meaningful way, including price, functionality, aesthetic, and available software. I'm sure there are people who think exactly the same of GW, and (fill in the blank for competitor)

In the same way that some (many) buy Apple products just do so because they like the distinct products, I buy GW products because I happen to like them, and the price into out of my range. I do also buy a lot of stuff from other miniature companies, but I happen to like a lot of things about the GW models.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 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.

Here is the link:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/618447.page#7306300

 wuestenfux wrote:
Here is the link:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/618447.page#7306300

But those aren't really fair comparisons.

Your list comparison involves a single 40k list against two Warmachine lists. While there's some overlap in models between the two lists and therefore it isn't doubling the cost it's still a significant cost increase. And yes, I know that Warmachine tournaments use a dual-list format, but you don't have to start playing and go straight to tournaments. A single list will work just fine for pickup games at your local store, and that significantly reduces the barrier to entry for a new player.

Your whole collection comparison involves enough Warmachine models to play any list you want, but I can't see how your 5000 points of Necrons could do the same just because of how many 40k lists spam multiple copies of the same unit. Another ~3k points might be enough to get one copy of every unit, but can you make a spam list built around each concept? And I really don't understand how the remaining ~3k points in your collection can be cheaper than the ~2k points in your tournament list. Are you counting used models/scratchbuilds/etc in the rest of the collection?

 wuestenfux wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 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.

Here is the link:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/618447.page#7306300

Ah okay I see. Yeah if you have two 50pt Tournament lists for WMH it's not going to be cheap, but in terms of start up cost WMH is cheaper. I ordered a 35pt army including rules (which is like medium-large sized for WMH id say?) for £140 the other day, I doubt I'd be able to get an equivalent sized army including rules for 40k. I guess if I'd got an infantry heavy force It would be more but then the same applies to GW.

And also the points Peregrine mentioned above ^

Makumba wrote:

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.

its not the obstacle you claim it to be Makumba. age is generally a thing, but debit cards are pretty standard these days - they're just a convenient way of paying. i find it hard to believe you need an income stream to get one. credit cards are a different story, but debit cards are pretty safe - you can only spend whats in your account. In any case, why not go to your parents? When i was a kid, and if i needed to buy something via a card, i got my mom to buy it, and i paid her in cash.

Makumba wrote:

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.

two shops in all of poland that sell warmachine stuff? Yeah, i dont buy that for a second. regardless, you dont need an "official" seller. thats not how Privateer Press works. PP dont have a retail chain. they outsource most of their retail operations and rely on independent distributors and retailers. there doesnt need to be an "official" seller in order for you to get stuff. All you need is for your LGSs to be relatively competent and be able to source some of those distributors. business 101. Failing that, there is nothing stopping you going direct to the source and getting things yourself by ordering online from the various UK and EU based stores. they ship to Poland.

Makumba wrote:

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.

um, no.

some misconceptions here. You wont be paying for posting from the US. Privateer Press outsource a lot of their manufacturing. IIRC their european manufacturer is a company called Cerberus, and they're based in Liverpool in England. Any of the european retailers, distributors and stores will be getting their stuff sourced there ultimately. My old LGS owner used to deal directly with Cerberus for anything that he wanted to order in before Wayland picked up the contract. In any case, whats stopping you from buying from any of the UK based online stores (wayland etc) that also offer 10-20% discounts. Dont think for a second that its all coming from the US. add in your 23% vat as a worst case scenario, and you're paying recommended retail price. thats not that shocking. Ordering from within the EU with all our free trade etc should make it relatively easy on your end.

 Peregrine wrote:

But those aren't really fair comparisons.

Your list comparison involves a single 40k list against two Warmachine lists. While there's some overlap in models between the two lists and therefore it isn't doubling the cost it's still a significant cost increase. And yes, I know that Warmachine tournaments use a dual-list format, but you don't have to start playing and go straight to tournaments. A single list will work just fine for pickup games at your local store, and that significantly reduces the barrier to entry for a new player.

Your whole collection comparison involves enough Warmachine models to play any list you want, but I can't see how your 5000 points of Necrons could do the same just because of how many 40k lists spam multiple copies of the same unit. Another ~3k points might be enough to get one copy of every unit, but can you make a spam list built around each concept? And I really don't understand how the remaining ~3k points in your collection can be cheaper than the ~2k points in your tournament list. Are you counting used models/scratchbuilds/etc in the rest of the collection?

they're not unfair comparisons either. Warmachine/Hordes is balanced around steamroller and two, or three list formats. In 40k, there is a focus on "building a list", and thats you, and thats your army. thats not really the case in WMH. Its find to start off with 1 list, but the simple reality is that no one will *just* play that one list. everyone will expand quickly, at least with an extra caster or two, and a small sideboard of swap-in units/jacks/beasts.

I find that WMH tourney lists can vary in cost enormously. i took my three lists to the scottish masters recently. amongst what i'd taken were two squads of black dragon pikemen, butcher3, vlad 3, max uhlans, max greylord outriders and the behemoth. Individually - quite pricey, and i'm sure that if you priced my three lists it would cost loads. then again, on the other side, with my Hordes list, its a lot more reasonable. Kromac, Mohsar, Morvahna2, 2 stalkers, gorax and ghetorix. unit wise - bloodtrackers, wolf riders, shrimps,stones etc. Probably comes out at half of my khador stuff, as i'm able to use a lot of it across all three of my lists.

Warmachine is cheaper to get into. 40k's costs are all frontloaded. with WMH, the up-front costs are a lot less, and its generally the done thing that people expand gradually. Regardless, you can end up spending equal amounts on both games.

Yeah peregrine aircraft model can get there, except for the fact that they wouldn't last 2 games. I gave a Tomcat model to a kid and it was in pieces in 20 minutes. I also gave him an sm predator and it is still in the same shape, after a year. You cant compare them directly even if again you will claim that sturdiness is not important. GW uses much thickier parts and manufacture of gaming pieces is a different thing than of exposition pieces.

 Peregrine wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
But have to say that most of you have no idea what quality is in a proffesional sense. I'll start with definitions next time.

Yes, please start with definitions, and try to come up with some better ones. Because so far your definitions have been way too narrow. There's a lot more to quality than "skulls per square inch" and "low miscast rate", and you're completely ignoring all of those factors.

Wow you lost in my eyes, falacies and shallow reading left and right. It wasn't about the things you mention the way you portray it at all and I havnt yet mention miscasts a single time. Get down to forgeworld then yes we might talk that. The point about detail is that if you hate skulls but 97% of consumers love them then the skulls are adding to the quality of the pieces regardless of your opinion. Also capability to put so much skullls on a model is quality too, again assuming that vast majority of your consumers like the effect.

Peregrine wrote:

I absolutely hate Taurox design but it is, or rather might be top notch quality kit.

Only because you have a very narrow set of requirements for "quality" that have very little to do with "am I, as a potential customer, satisfied with this product".

As opposed to you who have it broad like it's ugly therefore everybody must find it ugly therefore low quality. And no it's not narrow, just unlike you I get beyond myself and mine reception and unlike you I assume that my personal distaste for a piece does not rule out that others like it. Quality of product is about numbers not Peregrine's taste so give me numbers if you want to claim taurox is not a quality piece based on its looks. GW plastics, especialy the new ones have practicaly zero flaws from the standpoint of what is required for a quality wargaming tabletop piece but you dissmis its quality based on personal taste. You just dont get it, again.

Peregrine wrote:

Also looks are only part of what makes it quality kit and are only relevant with target audience.

Yes, it's only part, but it's a very important part. If a kit is shamefully ugly it doesn't matter if it has a 0.0000001% miscast rate, it's still a bad product that I'm not going to buy.

Prove that its shamefuly ugly. I think so too but prove it, and prove that it's not what majority of IG players like as a new transport or whatever that is. Because thats how you quantify taste when it comes to assesing quality.

Peregrine wrote:

If sturdines is not important, try taking your dust tactics mechs to the shop for a game on weekly basis. Or play with non gaming models.

I play a FW DKOK army with plenty of fragile parts. And somehow I manage to take care of my models and have very rarely broken anything. An occasional arm has come unglued (requiring 30 seconds to fix), but other than that the only damage I've done to my models has come from knocking over aircraft on 12" rods. And even that damage was limited to a single cracked part that was easily fixed with no visible marks.

I think the conclusion here seems to be that you just need to take better care of your models.

 Accolade wrote:
It's not even like 40k was always this bloated-skirmish size game. People like to say "I play 40k because it's more the game feels bigger" to justify its purchase compared to other games (like X-Wing and WMH) that have pricey models but smaller model counts for games. The thing is, 4th and 5th editions got along fine with that whole "bigger game" thing without the model count going through the roof, and 6th and 7th just dumped the whole concept of game scale and threw in everything and the kitchen sink. Each new edition compressed army points more, so that that $30 box of Dark Eldar wyches is worth less and less in the game experience.

You basically have to look at any expensive kit and say "okay, I need 2-3 of those, so let me triple the price for this small portion of the army." Don't get me wrong, I like the models...I'd just rather them be something more than placeholders considering how expensive they are.

This so much.

Personally I also just find for both campaigns and general fun with friends and family to be better at less then two thousand points, or around Kill Team size but removing the no 2+ save rule.

I don't even know why people want to play apocolypse scale games in the first place, as infantry is useless and all those wonderful models you put so much effort into painting just get swept off the table, not to mention the shear amount of time spent rolling dice is insane.

Your whole collection comparison involves enough Warmachine models to play any list you want, but I can't see how your 5000 points of Necrons could do the same just because of how many 40k lists spam multiple copies of the same unit. Another ~3k points might be enough to get one copy of every unit, but can you make a spam list built around each concept? And I really don't understand how the remaining ~3k points in your collection can be cheaper than the ~2k points in your tournament list. Are you counting used models/scratchbuilds/etc in the rest of the collection?

Here I counted the superheavies, Ctan and Obelisk, who alone fill 1000 pts.
They are comparable with a Colossal in WH.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yeah peregrine aircraft model can get there, except for the fact that they wouldn't last 2 games. I gave a Tomcat model to a kid and it was in pieces in 20 minutes. I also gave him an sm predator and it is still in the same shape, after a year. You cant compare them directly even if again you will claim that sturdiness is not important. GW uses much thickier parts and manufacture of gaming pieces is a different thing than of exposition pieces.

Again, why do I care about what happens when you give a model to a young child and let them smash it? I take care of my models, and I could play as many games as I want with that F-104 model without breaking anything. The extra durability of GW's kits is only added value if you assume that you're not going to treat your models properly, which means that for many people it isn't added value at all.

It wasn't about the things you mention the way you portray it at all and I havnt yet mention miscasts a single time.

Yes you did:

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.

The point about detail is that if you hate skulls but 97% of consumers love them then the skulls are adding to the quality of the pieces regardless of your opinion.

Sure, some people like them. But you know what that is? A subjective preference. Your claim that you're only talking about objective standards is completely destroyed by what you just said, and now you no longer have any excuse for rejecting factors like "the Taurox is ugly".

As opposed to you who have it broad like it's ugly therefore everybody must find it ugly therefore low quality.

I never said that everyone finds it to be low quality, I said that I find it to be low quality.

GW plastics, especialy the new ones have practicaly zero flaws from the standpoint of what is required for a quality wargaming tabletop piece but you dissmis its quality based on personal taste.

Again, appearance is a flaw. If GW's kit is so ugly that I'd be embarrassed to have one in my army then it's not a high-quality product no matter how many skulls per square inch it has.

Prove that its shamefuly ugly. I think so too but prove it, and prove that it's not what majority of IG players like as a new transport or whatever that is. Because thats how you quantify taste when it comes to assesing quality.

You know just as well as I do that GW doesn't release sales numbers for specific kits, but the number of "wow this sucks" opinions and third-party conversion kits that attempt to salvage the Taurox would suggest that it wasn't a very popular design.

Or the conclusion is that not everyone has to be required to be so anal about their gaming pieces and if you actualy sit down and ask yourself what quality means in relation to gaming pieces, sturdiness will come as one of the first things beecause those are things meant to withstand various forms of abuse.

Again, why do they need to withstand abuse? My models are never abused, and in my experience the people who do abuse their models don't really care if random parts break off as a result. If GW is sacrificing appearance to make their models survive being smashed by an angry five year old then they're producing a low quality product from my point of view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
they're not unfair comparisons either. Warmachine/Hordes is balanced around steamroller and two, or three list formats. In 40k, there is a focus on "building a list", and thats you, and thats your army. thats not really the case in WMH. Its find to start off with 1 list, but the simple reality is that no one will *just* play that one list. everyone will expand quickly, at least with an extra caster or two, and a small sideboard of swap-in units/jacks/beasts.

Well yeah, people will expand their collections eventually. But where "total cost to play" matters most is when you're a new player and trying to get your first army on the table. And in that context the total cost to play 40k is much higher than the total cost to play WM/H. And of course once you do finish buying that initial force each new WM/H purchase gives you a much higher percentage of a new army than an equivalent-price 40k purchase so it's a lot cheaper to try new things.

From now on just put me down as 'what Peregrine said'.

 Peregrine wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadnight wrote:
they're not unfair comparisons either. Warmachine/Hordes is balanced around steamroller and two, or three list formats. In 40k, there is a focus on "building a list", and thats you, and thats your army. thats not really the case in WMH. Its find to start off with 1 list, but the simple reality is that no one will *just* play that one list. everyone will expand quickly, at least with an extra caster or two, and a small sideboard of swap-in units/jacks/beasts.

Well yeah, people will expand their collections eventually. But where "total cost to play" matters most is when you're a new player and trying to get your first army on the table. And in that context the total cost to play 40k is much higher than the total cost to play WM/H. And of course once you do finish buying that initial force each new WM/H purchase gives you a much higher percentage of a new army than an equivalent-price 40k purchase so it's a lot cheaper to try new things.

Agreed on the 'cost to play' point regarding getting your first army together. It's a lot easier to 'get into' WMH to begin with, and it's easier to expand with it, and as you say, get that 'new army' feel from each expansion, especially since how even swapping out a single piece can change the feel and style of a whole army. The fact it's not all front loaded is a bonus. In the long run though, it can be pricey. just don't baulk when you start purchasing cavalry. And when you price out your two or three lists with little overlap, you might be surprised as well. Depending on how you've built your armies of course.

The main thing I think is gonna cost me most in WMH is the fact that I like almost every bloody faction -.- the cheaper start up costs for a new army are almost dangerous in that sense. Same with if I get into Malifaux with all the dual faction stuff...

Makumba wrote:

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.

No, they were buying NIB products from local retailers that the organization had invited to be present at the event. The only things that they said had the same price as the rest of Europe were the Colossals / Gargantuans, everything else they said was significantly cheaper.

And PP doesn't work with "official sellers" in specific countries, the official distributor for PP products in Europe is Simple Miniatures, so get your local retailer to get in touch with them. (I'm getting deja vu, haven't we had this conversation already?!)

Makumba wrote:

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.

That is not how online orders work in the EU... Lots of places have no shipping costs when you reach a certain level with your purchase, for my preferred online retailer (Firestorm Games), any order above 30 € gets free shipping to anywhere in Europe and every product has a 20% discount already. And since Poland is a part of the EU, you don't pay any extra taxes for products that you've bought in another EU country. I have no idea how you could even think that PP models had to be imported from the US by every retailer / individual customer, that would be insane!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 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.

Here is the link:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/618447.page#7306300

I don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?!

 Azreal13 wrote:

If it was true....if...it...was...true.

Hookay. Well, this is going nowhere.

You're just getting hung up on various levels of vertical integration.

I suppose we can't call GW vertically integrated because they don't own the oil plants to extract the crude nor the refineries needed to turn it into plastic?

We aren't allow to call Apple vertically integrated despite the fact they maintain a worldwide chain of their own retail shops?

There are many, many examples, literally any brand of good whose parent company maintains a retail chain, of vertical integration, the level that GW employs may be higher than is common, but to say it isn't widely practiced is daft.

Well, if you insist on having an example closer to GW than Apple, then how about nearly all plastic model kit manufacturers? Almost no one - other than small garage companies - produce anything in the West (or Japan). I think Revell was one of the last, when they closed their German plant. All the production moved to 3rd world countries in the '90s, mostly China. And that industry is more competive than miniatures market, if those companies believed they could produce cheaper in-house like they did in days of yore, they certainly would.

Jesus Peregrine, the thing about giving Tomcat to my child was an example to show the difference in sturdiness between aircraft model and gw tank, it doesn't mean that they literaly have to be made to withstand kids playing with them. Just like with the xwing comparision before, I could have used other system as an example of how you can go into absurd with your argument, it had nothing to do with exact point cost or unit numbers. Some things fly over your head, might be my explaining but they do.

Just as my initial point about comparing cost and quality of miniatures. When you want to compare quality on global scale and take aesthetics into account then you quantify subjective preferences and with that data, it becomes objective at least in realation to your customers base (well as objective as you can get because total objectivity might be impossible). At that point your or mine dislike of taurox just doesn't matter anymore. You can say ofc that judgidng by dakka reactions it's objectively atrocious but it's not proof, we don't have means to research peoples reaction to it accurately and as said GW dont realease sales data. So, my point is, you can't use your dislike for their designs as an argument that their minis are worse quality than someone elses and therefore are relatively overpriced or sth. Amount of detail, sturdiness, how parts fit together and high tech involved that allows them do things other companies are in apable of with plastics (dont ask I read it somewhere) are more objective measures.

Not to mention you equaling detail to skulls is unfair, it is used for many great things on 40k plastics.

I didn't know mold line qualifies as miscast, my bad.

 Blacksails wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:


Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.

Well off the top of my head, this guy is a strong contender over the Knight. Better poseability are the biggest plus, combined with a better price for a large hard plastic kit with options and solid detail.

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the Knight is somehow completely superior.

Just re-posting this in case our friend Plumbum missed it.

don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?!

At the end of the day, the comparison is not unfair.
WM/H is not as cheap as some might think.

It is clear that the entry pt could be cheaper with 2 player boxes and building a single 35 pt faction is affordable.
But with all the shiny models and units around, like Mercenaries
and Minions, a WM/H army can become rather expensive.
Moreover, Cyriss is one of the cheapest factions since the
model range is rather limited (since its rather new) and there
are no Mercenaries around.

 wuestenfux wrote:

don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?!

At the end of the day, the comparison is not unfair.
WM/H is not as cheap as some might think.

It is clear that the entry pt could be cheaper with 2 player boxes and building a single 35 pt faction is affordable.
But with all the shiny models and units around, like Mercenaries
and Minions, a WM/H army can become rather expensive.
Moreover, Cyriss is one of the cheapest factions since the
model range is rather limited (since its rather new) and there
are no Mercenaries around.

Nobody has said it's "cheap", the argument is that it's A) Cheaper to get a regular army to play, since a 35-point WM/H army often costs the same as a 750 point 40k army, and B) You get more value for what you buy because duplicates are rare and you don't need 2 boxes to make one unit.

I don't feel like I'm being cheated or not getting my money's worth when I buy a $50 or even $60 box for a unit for WM/H, the same can't be said about buying a 10-man squad for 40k. Maybe that's because you typically need multiples of the same box for 40k (e.g. 3 Tactical Squads) and the units feel like they are less significant, while basically every WM/H unit adds some new dynamic to the list to where you typically don't need the same unit more than once except in some cases.

Holy crap, my entire Cyriss army was about $250.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?!

At the end of the day, the comparison is not unfair.
WM/H is not as cheap as some might think.

It is clear that the entry pt could be cheaper with 2 player boxes and building a single 35 pt faction is affordable.
But with all the shiny models and units around, like Mercenaries
and Minions, a WM/H army can become rather expensive.
Moreover, Cyriss is one of the cheapest factions since the
model range is rather limited (since its rather new) and there
are no Mercenaries around.

Nobody has said it's "cheap", the argument is that it's A) Cheaper to get a regular army to play, since a 35-point WM/H army often costs the same as a 750 point 40k army, and B) You get more value for what you buy because duplicates are rare and you don't need 2 boxes to make one unit.

I don't feel like I'm being cheated or not getting my money's worth when I buy a $50 or even $60 box for a unit for WM/H, the same can't be said about buying a 10-man squad for 40k. Maybe that's because you typically need multiples of the same box for 40k (e.g. 3 Tactical Squads) and the units feel like they are less significant, while basically every WM/H unit adds some new dynamic to the list to where you typically don't need the same unit more than once except in some cases.

Indeed, in WM/H you basically need one unit exactly once.
There are exceptions to this like Bane Thralls in Cryx who can be placed in a feat (Shade1).

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.

Are the GW knights really that good? Honestly, I find them pretty unimpressive.

- As far as detail goes, much of it appears to be either bling (oh good, more purity seals), or just painted on (which has nothing to do with the quality of the model itself).

- In terms of aesthetics, they look... strange. Their top 'shell' in particular looks like it was taken off an aircraft or something, giving the overall appearance of a model that was built from scraps - which is something I'd expect more of ork models.

- Finally, they don't even look functional. These things are supposed to be tough, right? So, why is it covered in exposed wires and pipes? Aren't they the sort of thing you'd want to protect? I really can't see this thing being hard to disable. Hell, just look at the back - there doesn't appear to be any armour at all. There's just a frame and what I can only presume to be some pretty important components that are completely exposed.

Backfire wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

If it was true....if...it...was...true.

Hookay. Well, this is going nowhere.

You're just getting hung up on various levels of vertical integration.

I suppose we can't call GW vertically integrated because they don't own the oil plants to extract the crude nor the refineries needed to turn it into plastic?

We aren't allow to call Apple vertically integrated despite the fact they maintain a worldwide chain of their own retail shops?

There are many, many examples, literally any brand of good whose parent company maintains a retail chain, of vertical integration, the level that GW employs may be higher than is common, but to say it isn't widely practiced is daft.

Well, if you insist on having an example closer to GW than Apple, then how about nearly all plastic model kit manufacturers? Almost no one - other than small garage companies - produce anything in the West (or Japan). I think Revell was one of the last, when they closed their German plant. All the production moved to 3rd world countries in the '90s, mostly China. And that industry is more competive than miniatures market, if those companies believed they could produce cheaper in-house like they did in days of yore, they certainly would.

No, I don't insist on an example closer to GW, I have no need of that to demonstrate that your original assertion which was along the lines of "vertical integration doesn't offer cost savings which is why it doesn't happen that often" to be outright wrong.

There is no need to make comparisons to other kit makers, there is no need to continue this line of discussion, you made a point based on a demonstrably flawed premise, which I provided a quote from an economics site and a number of real world examples where it does happen (and can offer more) please accept that, and if you're not big enough to at least admit it, at least move on.

 wuestenfux wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?!

At the end of the day, the comparison is not unfair.
WM/H is not as cheap as some might think.

It is clear that the entry pt could be cheaper with 2 player boxes and building a single 35 pt faction is affordable.
But with all the shiny models and units around, like Mercenaries
and Minions, a WM/H army can become rather expensive.
Moreover, Cyriss is one of the cheapest factions since the
model range is rather limited (since its rather new) and there
are no Mercenaries around.

Nobody has said it's "cheap", the argument is that it's A) Cheaper to get a regular army to play, since a 35-point WM/H army often costs the same as a 750 point 40k army, and B) You get more value for what you buy because duplicates are rare and you don't need 2 boxes to make one unit.

I don't feel like I'm being cheated or not getting my money's worth when I buy a $50 or even $60 box for a unit for WM/H, the same can't be said about buying a 10-man squad for 40k. Maybe that's because you typically need multiples of the same box for 40k (e.g. 3 Tactical Squads) and the units feel like they are less significant, while basically every WM/H unit adds some new dynamic to the list to where you typically don't need the same unit more than once except in some cases.

Indeed, in WM/H you basically need one unit exactly once.
There are exceptions to this like Bane Thralls in Cryx who can be placed in a feat (Shade1).

Iron Fang Pikemen with Butcher1 Claws of the Dragon...

Yet I still don't feel bad paying ~$120USD per unit for those. I cringed at the idea of around $100 for a full 10-man Sternguard squad though.

 wuestenfux wrote:

don't get your comparisons... By your own accounts, you can get the whole model range for an entire faction for less than your Necron army and this makes it just as expensive?! And your initial comparison between the 2 WM lists vs 1 40k list: the 2 WM lists are still cheaper than the single 40k army even when you jack up their price by including things that you don't need like the army book and this makes it as expensive as 40k?!

At the end of the day, the comparison is not unfair.
WM/H is not as cheap as some might think.

It is clear that the entry pt could be cheaper with 2 player boxes and building a single 35 pt faction is affordable.
But with all the shiny models and units around, like Mercenaries
and Minions, a WM/H army can become rather expensive.
Moreover, Cyriss is one of the cheapest factions since the
model range is rather limited (since its rather new) and there
are no Mercenaries around.

How is the comparison not unfair? You are taking every single model in a WM range and comparing them with a single 40k army of very limited size.

If you wan't to compare the cost to own every single model in a WM range then compare it to the cost of owning every single model in that 40k race, including the multiples that you'll need.

If you are comparing the need to buy every single merc that eventually works with your WM faction, then compare it with the cost of buying every single allied unit that works with your 40k race ( ).

If you wan't to make a fair comparison, then you have to compare similar things from both sides, you can't take everything from one side, compare it with just a very limited portion of the other and then claim that they cost the same!

 Blacksails wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:


Show me something close to necrosphinx, latest wood elf guys, or Imperial Knights or Hive Tyrant made from hard plastic.

Well off the top of my head, this guy is a strong contender over the Knight. Better poseability are the biggest plus, combined with a better price for a large hard plastic kit with options and solid detail.

I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the Knight is somehow completely superior.

Just re-posting this in case our friend Plumbum missed it.

I didn't miss it my friend Brasails. I never liked that model, lookwise it's toyish and horrible for me and probably wouldnt even prefer it over dreadknight if I had a choice, ane believe me that says a lot. I didnt comment because I cant even try "objective" evaluation of it being on the phone. Im also not keen to get into another lenghty discussion now because Id like to retain my eyesigth over -1.

But, with the disclaimer that I speak from memory and that I won't discuss it anymore, yes Id say that Imperial Knight is a vastly superior kit. And to answer the other guy, I dont even like the knight that much from design perspective. But as a kit it's impressive and as I said a 100 times, I try to keep this beyond me.

But why is the Knight a vastly superior kit?

Hell, why is it even just normally superior?

The Leviathan is more poseable. It has built in ability for hotswapping. They're roughly the same size. Both are hard plastic. Levels of detail on both are comparable. Both have options.

There's nothing about the Knight I can see that would make it an objectively vastly superior kit. If you wish to make that claim and continue to tell everyone GW is the bestest ever, I expect you to at least assemble some sort of details rebuttal, rather than a series of excuses or simple condescension.

If you don't have anything to contribute to your own discussion, don't bother contributing at all. Making entirely unfounded claims like you just did without an ounce of support or argumentation really isn't helping your point about GW.

Breaking news:

Live images of Plumbarum in this debate are now coming through...

 Azreal13 wrote:
Breaking news:

Live images of Plumbarum in this debate are now coming through...

Spoiler: